仆人还是学徒？——对《亨利五世》中“男孩”角色的研究

代云芳

仆人还是学徒？
——对《亨利五世》中“男孩”角色的研究

代云芳

内容提要：中世纪儿童在另一个家庭学习礼仪和技能的时期被称为学徒期，学徒与仆人在许多方面有共同点，却又属于两种截然不同的体系。《亨利五世》中作者并未给予“男孩”角色任何的名字，他的真实身份一直笼罩在神秘之中，实际上他是《亨利四世》中弗斯塔夫的学徒。由于对学徒和仆人两个中世纪历史概念的混淆，前人一直以来将男孩当作仆人看待。然而通过细致的梳理，本文挖掘了男孩的家庭背景，通过他所展现出的机智和流利的法语来探讨了他的教育背景，得出这个男孩并非普通的仆人，而是一位立志于成为骑士的学徒，而他的老师正是弗斯塔夫。事实上，深入探讨男孩的真实身份有助于我们解密戏剧中男孩一些令人困惑、引发争议的行为，更能进一步解释后人如莎士比亚是如何重构中世纪学徒制度的图景的。

学徒期 中世纪儿童 莎士比亚 《亨利五世》 男孩

Ⅰ. Introduction

The boy without a name in Henry V is a mysterious character of children in Shakespeare's dramas. Kate chedgzoy comments on him: "Boy in Henry V， whose appearances constitute one of the more sustained and complex child in the Shakespeare canon." （19） The boy is actually the page of Falstaff in 2 Henry IV . Since the late twentieth century the character list of Henry V has added an interpretation of the boy as "the page of Falstaff" to help people identify him correctly. Moreover， in the list of roles in The Merry Wives of Windsor， Robin is described as Falstaff's page boy， who is called "page" or "boy" in 2 Henry IV ， while in Henry V he is consistently called "boy". This helps to uncover the connection among the three characters， who are actually the same person. Nevertheless， the boy's true identity has remained as a mystery for centuries. Previous critics，who have a misunderstanding of the historical terms of apprenticeship and servitude in medieval times，continually regard him as a servant. However， through my research I have concluded that the boy is not a normal servant， but rather an apprentice destined for knighthood， whose master and tutor is Sir John.

Two terms， "apprenticeship" and "servitude"，which seem similar， are easily confused with each other. As Barbara Hanawalt mentions in Growing Up in Medieval London， the experience of servants in many ways paralleled that of apprentices （174）， indeed， there are some overlaps between the two terms. However， a crucial difference between them lies in the purpose of their services. To clarify this， the apprenticeship in the Middle Ages was a period in which the child left his home and was sent to another house， where he had to learn the manners of the head of the family， and this was especially common among noble families in England（Aries 204-291）. In London， apprenticeship was not only the fi rst step toward becoming a master， but also a prerequisite to London citizenship. It was a privileged position because it offered the potential for upward nobility， wealth and security. In contrast， as Orme points out， "apprenticeship usually intended to be an institution for young people of some status and money what a servant did not aspire" （312）. Accordingly，apprenticeship was the combination of an elite training and service position. Moreover， the content of their service draws on a distinction between apprenticeship and servitude， which can be manifested in the content of the apprenticeship contract. In medieval times， a typical apprenticeship contract would specify that the apprentice not be required to do demanding work reserved for servants. In actuality， an apprentice would not be expected to do any labor service during his apprenticeship， such as carrying water like a common house servant. consequently， although the experience of an apprentice and a servant can be paralleled in some ways， and although they are often confused with each other in various contexts， they are two completely different conceptions in the medieval historical context.

As a result of the misconceptions of apprenticeship and servitude， there are arguments regarding some of the boy's behavior in Henry V. For instance there are dissenting opinions on a monologue， in which he says:

I am boy to them all three， but all they three，

though they would serve me， could not be man to me，

for indeed three such antics do not amount to a man. （Henry V 3.2 29-31）

Because of the ambiguous understanding of the boy's identity， there are different interpretations of these words. The first "boy" that he mentions， is explained in two ways: in the Arden third series，"boy" here means "servant"， however the new cambridge gives another explanation， the use of "boy" indicates that he is younger than the other three.①In a similar manner， chedgzoy addresses a point that "the term 'boy' in Shakespeare's England always used to describe a male youth age between ten and eighteen， and with a few possibly younger exceptions， most of the boys who appear in Shakespeare's plays fall into this age band" （185）. Another divergence appears in the explanations of the next sentence， when the boy says: "though they would serve me， could not be man to me." In the cambridge note， it has two proper meanings: one is that if they would be his servants， another is that they would like to engage in sexual intercourse with him. Therefore， the "man" in this sentence is endowed with two meanings: a servant or a sexual lover （def. 26）. In actuality， the complexity is greatly compounded by the misunderstanding of the boy's identity.

For this reason， my paper attempts to explore the mysteries of the boy. Having a deeper understanding of his identity sheds light on his confusing behavior，which has confused many scholars in the past， andfurther reveals how later generations of people， such as Shakespeare， reconstructed the image of Medieval Apprenticeship.

Ⅱ. "come hither, boy;/ Ask me this slave in French what is his name."

There is some truth in the suggestion that the boy's identity is not a servant， but an apprentice. It can fi rst be seen in one of the boy's most outstanding traits， his intelligence， which reveals his educational background. Actually， the educational background plays a substantial role in apprenticeship. When looking into the medieval history of apprenticeship，we fi nd that there was a progression in the demands of entering apprenticeship in the field of education. Hanawalt argues that during the course of the fi fteenth century， many of the elite London guilds， such as the Mercers， Goldsmiths and Ironmongers， began to require that their apprentice have an education before entering into their apprenticeship. Thus young people spent longer in grammar schools than had apprentices in the fourteenth century （113）. As a result， schooling became increasingly important， with many guilds requiring functional literacy before an apprentice could be enrolled. It was largely required to accept necessary literacy education before entering one's apprenticeship. Furthermore， whether or not one received an education was an important factor in distinguishing an apprentice from a servant. Draper argues that in The Merry Wives of Windsor， Robin，the boy in Henry V， achieves， not only the dignity of a name， but some importance in the plot as well， and the progress of his education has given him a more defi nite character （485）. There is some evidence that can be used to prove that the boy is well educated，which can confi rm his identity as an apprentice.

First， the boy's fluent French amazes many audiences of Henry V. When Pistol is arguing with the French soldier， he asks the boy to help translate for him. He says: "come hither， boy；/Ask me this slave in French what is his name." （H V 4.4 23-24）As soon as the boy opens his mouth to speak French，a contrast between his fl uent French and Pistol's bad French adds to the humor of the scene. However，Shakespeare's choice for the boy's fl uent French has been ignored and almost consciously misread by previous critics. Therefore， in many productions of Henry V， the boy's French is usually halting and mispronounced， even though there is no evidence of this in the text （H V 4.4 def. 25）. These baseless adaptations stem from their confusions of the boy's identity， which made it difficult for them to understand how the boy， a servant （from their perspective）， can speak French fl uently.

To investigate the answer， we should look back to the medieval history of children's education. In the second half of the thirteenth century， a textbook for the study of French was written at the request of an English noble woman. This book was not intended for study at grammar school where Latin was taught， but was aimed at the children of nobility with the goal of teaching them how to conduct a conversation in French （Shahar 215）. From then on，French became increasingly popular in England，as Hanawalt mentions "perhaps 40 percent of lay male Londoners could read Latin， and 50 percent or more probably read English and perhaps French"（82）. The implication is that French was the second major foreign language， learned in London besides Latin during that period. Hanawalt also provides an essential historical example: a manual for commercial French published around 1415 advertised that a twelve-year-old boy at William Kyngesmill's hostel had learned to read， write， cast accounts， and speak French in only three months and was ready for a London apprenticeship. （83）It can be further manifested in the fact that one of the demands to be an apprentice in London might have been speaking French. It then becomes easier to understand why theboy can speak French much more fl uently than Pistol who is even older than him. As an apprentice， the boy has been well educated before he is enrolled to enter his apprenticeship， contrary to Pistol， a servant， who does not need to achieve these requirements.

Another point， which can reveal the boy's educational background， is the profound allusions that he uses. When the prince asks him about his dream， "Instruct us， boy； what dream， boy？" He answers: "Marry， my lord， Althaea dreamt she was delivered/of a fi rebrand； and therefore I call him her dream." （2H IV 2.2 84-86）. Althaea is the wife of the king of calydon， she was told that her new-born son Meleager would live as long as brand placed by the Fates on the fore was unburnt. She saved the brand until， on Meleager's killing her brothers， she cast it on the fi re. （2 H IV 2.2 def. 83） Then when the prince asks about Falstaff， the boy picks out another allusion，this one to Ephesians， and says: "Ephesians， my lord，of the old church." （2 H IV 2.2 142） The Ephesians is the church whose conditions St Paul laid down， and which was the Puritan court of appeal for purity of life. In Humphrey's edition， he addresses a point that the page hardly seems to allude （unless ironically， and irony would be lost on the stage） to "the prime church of the Ephesians" （2 H IV 2.2 def. 142）. However，in my opinion， being an educated apprentice， it is defi nitely possible for him to refer to it.

In addition， the boy's intelligence is also revealed in his ability to see through others. Like Beatrice in Much Ado about Nothing， Portia in The Merchant of Venice， and the Fool in King Lear， Shakespeare always used powerless characters， women， or people from the lower class to reveal the truth concealed in the play. In Henry IV and Henry V， the boy is one of these characters. The boy has two monologues which hidden truths. In Henry V， the boy comments on the three servants of Falstaff: Pistol， Nym and Bardolph.

For Bardolph， he is white-livered and red-faced， by the means whereof 'a faces it out but fi ghts not. For Pistol， he hath a killing tongue and a quiet sword， by the means whereof 'a breaks words and keeps whole weapons. For Nym， he hath heard that men of few words are the best men， and therefore he scorns to say his prayers lest 'a should be thought a coward: but his few bad words are matched with as few good deeds，for 'a never broke any man's head but his own， and that was against a post when he was drunk. They will steal anything， and call it purchase. （H V 3.2 32-42）

The boy's analysis is accurate regarding these three characters and it is incredible how the boy can gauge their reactions and gain insight into their true character. The last sentence， "they will steal anything， and call it purchase"， not only indicates their fundamental nature， but also predicts their future actions in the play. Indeed， it is not long before they go to commit theft in a church.

In light of the boy's fl uent French， allusions used in his speech， and insight in seeing through others， it is without doubt that the boy is well educated before he is sent to Falstaff. It can be seen as a major piece of evidence in arguing for the boy's identity as an apprentice， and distinguishing him from Falstaff's other servants: Pistol， Nym and Bardolph.

Ⅲ. "The juvenal the Prince your master"

To uncover the answer to this question， we must look into another relevant question， which is who gives the boy to Falstaff. A dialogue between Falstaff and the page in 2 Henry IV draws special attention. Falstaff says: "If the prince put thee into my service for any other reason than to set me off，why then I have no judgment." （2 H IV 1.2 11-13）He then threatens the page to immediately send him back if the boy does not obey his demands， saying "send you back again to your master for a jewel- the juvenal the Prince your master， whose chin is not yet fl edge" （2 H IV 1.2 17-19）. Later， Prince Hal's words，"And the boy that I gave Falstaff a had him from me a christian" （IV 2.2 66）， convince Falstaff that it is the Prince who gives the page to Falstaff. This evidence revealing the boy's concealed relationship with Prince Hal necessitates the following discussion of the boy's family background.

As mentioned earlier by the prince， the boy，before being sent to Falstaff， is a christian boy in the prince's court. This reveals that the boy must be a normal child from a noble family， or he would never have been sent to the Prince's court. The selection of an apprentice in medieval times was done with extreme care， as Hanawalt argues that "nobody could have an apprentice who had 'carried pails in the country' or was 'a villain's son'" （139）. Furthermore，if the boy were expected to be a knight， particularly in the prince's court， the standards would be even higher. Since the apprentice was a potential guild brother and a son-in-law of the master， he was in a sense "guaranteed" or "certified" by the family and friends of the master. This means that the boy's family background must be certified by the royalty. In a similar argument， Draper also addresses the point that "Robin had been page to the Prince of Wales implies the further fact that he must been the son， doubtless a younger son， of some great nobleman"， in his essay "Falstaff's Robin and Other Page" （483）②.

To explain why the boy is not raised in his own family， it is essential to trace the history of apprenticeship， a historical custom of medieval children， particularly in England. This custom of sending children to be educated away from home，was given the consideration that to be raised by and to serve someone of higher standing than his own parents （even if they were blood relatives） would help the child to establish the right connections in order to advance his career and guarantee his future （Shahar 217）.③When discussing the custom of apprenticeship in England， Philippe Aries states that the reason for explaining the tradition of apprenticeship given by the English "was probably the real one: 'In order that their children might learn better manners'" （365）. Generally， in Medieval Ages， it was common for the boy to serve as an apprentice and to leave his own family from an early age. Even in Shakespeare's time，this custom of apprenticeship had an unshakable position， as Ann Blake elaborates， " children were everywhere in 1600， including in Shakespeare's company where they worked as apprentices to adult actors" （293）. Among those， the large majority of noble sons destined for knighthood in the Middle Ages were younger sons， who would normally leave home to serve at a lord's court and move in the world of men for their education （Dover 258）. A normal boy from a noble family had to serve as an apprentice for seven to ten years， if he wanted to gain his citizenship or mastership in a city， especially in London.

Nevertheless， suspicion still remains why the boy is sent to Falstaff， who himself is a knight without actual property and only an empty title. The boy is meant to serve Prince Hal， the person of higher standing than his own parents， which means that the status of his family is not ordinary either. How could he be sent to Falstaff， who is， as Draper points out， "no proper guide philosopher and friend for a gently nurtured youth" （484）. First， there is a small detail， emerging from Falstaff's words quoted above， that is particularly interesting， but has largely been overlooked by previous critics. When Falstaff threatens to send the page back to Prince Hal， he emphasizes "send you back again"， which indicates that the boy， before being sent to Falstaff， was given to someone else but did not continue staying with them. Undoubtedly， the boy's experience of being sent back heavily affected his apprentice career，mainly resulting in the decline of his master's status. Then， another explanation given is that the boy is sent to receive an education of a male child destinedfor knighthood. This kind of education followed a pattern that was already well established in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Until the age of 7 or 10 he was entrusted to the care of women， whose task was to ensure that he survived and that his noble nature was nurtured gently so as not to be deformed，in keeping with his noble parentage. By the age of 7 or 10， when the second stage of childhood began，he would leave home to serve his apprenticeship as a page at the court of a lord， under the guidance of a tutor （usually a knight） whose task was to teach him knightly conduct. It ended between the age of 15 and 18， when he was considered ready for knighting（Dover 251-252）. In the case of the boy， "the lord" might be Prince Hal， and as previously mentioned，the boy is sent to him fi rst. And "the tutor （usually a knight） " might well be Falstaff， whose empty title is "knight" after all. Following this logic， the prince later needs someone to supervise Falstaff， so he sends the boy. This can be inferred from the dialogue between Falstaff and the boy， which is mentioned earlier. Falstaff is already aware of the Prince's true intention in sending the boy to him， saying "If the prince put thee into my service for any other reason than to set me off， why then I have no judgment"④.

We must then bring up the question of succession in how the boy's parents are willing to accept Falstaff as their son's tutor， whose dishonorable reputation is practically known by everyone. One reason may be their obedience to the prince， who would be the future king of their kingdom. The other possibility is that the boy might be a bastard son of the noble family. In Medieval Ages， some prosperous town-dwellers sent their bastard sons to foundlings' homes， others acknowledged them and undertook responsibility for raising and educating them （Shahar 227）. This is supported by evidence that every time the boy is cursed， he fights back in other ways. For example， when he quarrels with Bardolph:

Bard: Away， you whoreson upright rabbit， away！

Page: Away， you rascally Althaea's dream，away！（2 H IV 2.2 82-83）

Even Falstaff once says:"Thou whoreson mandrake， thou art fitter to be worn in my cap than to wait at my heels" （2 H IV 1.2 13-15）. However，the word "whoreson"， as Vienne-Guerrin defines in her dictionary， literally means "son of a whore"， or a bastard son. This word is rarely used as a noun，but is usually used as， particularly in Shakespeare's plays， a decorative adjective that means "wretched"，"detestable"， "abominable"， "vile". In this way，Falstaff really makes good use of it. Thus， the examples above cannot be used to validate the truth， but only serve to offer the possibility for the assumption of the boy's origin as a bastard son.

consequently， it makes sense that the boy，probably a bastard son of a noble family， is first sent to serve as an apprentice at the court of Prince Hal， then is given to Falstaff to be tutored for his knighthood.

Ⅳ. "I was never manned with an agate till now"

The relationship between an apprentice and a master is a fascinating aspect of medieval and early modern social life. Likewise， the relationship between the boy and his master， Falstaff， also should receive attention.

One reason for the development of this relationship is that the boy is Falstaff's first and the only apprentice， which gives him a signifi cant position. In the fi rst conversation between Falstaff and the boy，Falstaff says: " I was never manned with an agate till now， but I will inset you， neither in gold nor silver， but in vile apparel..." （2 H IV 1.2 15-17）. This indicates that the boy is Falstaff's first apprentice. Actually，according to his death plot in Henry V， he is the onlyapprentice that Falstaff has had in his life. From here on， what Falstaff says can provide an essential piece of evidence to reveal the truth that the boy is not a servant but an apprentice to him， since there is no possibility for him to never have any servants before. This detail is also noted by Draper， saying "Markham noted the fashion， contemporary with the Falstaff plays， that a gentleman be followed on the street， not with an armored retinue as of yore， but with only one Boy at his heels to do him service" （482）.

At the same time， the boy remains loyal to Falstaff， and uses his own methods to protect his master. In the quarrel between Falstaff and the hostess， the boy immediately stands up and fi ghts for his master: "Away， you scullion！ you rampllian！ you fustilarian！ I'll tickle your catastrophe" （2 H IV 2.1 58-59）. In Giorgio Melchiori's edition， he explains "F3， F4 and many editors transfer this speech to Falstaff， but it is more appropriate to the minuscule Page， who is trying to rescue his monumental master from the grip of the Hostess rather than from the officers" （def.45-46）. In a similar manner， when the prince， the one who sends him to supervise Falstaff in the fi rst place， accuses Falstaff of misconduct， the boy， in order to protect Falstaff， does not give the prince a satisfactory answer.

Prince: Where sups he？ Doth the old boar feed in the old frank？

Bard : At the old place， my lord， in Eastcheap.

Prince : What company？

Page: Ephesians， my lord， of the old church. （2 H IV 2.2 139-142）

In the note of Humpherys， he analyzes that the page hardly seems to allude （unless ironically，and the irony would be lost on the stage） to "the prime church of the Ephesians" whose conditions St Paul laid down， and which was the Puritan court of appeal for purity of life. The fact that the boy picks out the term "Ephesians"， is partly related to his educational background， and also influenced by his desire to protect Falstaff. In the dialogue， after hearing the boy's answer， the prince follows with the next question "what company"， however， the boy still dwells on the previous question， again pointing out that Falstaff stays in an old church， the appeal of purity of life， where crimes of adultery could not happen. His aim to protect his master is increasingly apparent. Following this question the prince continues asking:

Prince: Sup any women with him？

Page: None， my lord， but old Mistress Quickly，and Mistress Doll Tearsheet.

Prince: What pegan may that be？

Page: A proper gentlewoman， sir， and a kinswoman of my master's. （2 H IV 2.2 143-148）

The boy constantly tries to prevent Falstaff from any possibility of impingement or punishment. When the prince attempts into divulging some of Falstaff's victims， the boy refuses to give him a satisfactory answer. He emphasizes the two women's honor and fame， in order to emphasize Falstaff's innocence and imply that he cannot do anything dishonorable with them. On the contrary， Bardolph， Falstaff's serving man， while answering the same question， shows no desire to protect Falstaff. Falstaff once says "I bought him in Paul's， and he'll buy me a horse in Smithfi eld" （2 H IV 1.2 52-53）. When Falstaff can no longer afford a servant， he leaves to become a tapster at the Garter Inn at Windsor. It is the boy who keeps Falstaff company until the last minute of his life. This reveals the huge distinction between a servant and an apprentice. The master-apprentice relationship is much more tougher and tighter than the relationship between a servant and his master， which can be easilyruined by fi nancial issues.

Another point of discussion is that， in actuality，Falstaff and the boy rely on each other. On one hand，the boy plays an essential role in Falstaff's life. In medieval times， usually the master who took only one or two apprentices during his life time places a higher premium on the apprenticeship than if the apprentice was one of a succession of foster youth in the household （Hanawalt 137）. In this case， Falstaff really believes in the boy， which can be proved by one detail in the text where he asks the boy to reserve his money， which he values as much as his life. We can see this through the dialogue:

Falstaff: Boy！

Page: Sir？

Falstaff: What money is in my purse？

Page: Seven groats and two pence. （2 H IV 1.2 233-236）

Moreover， Falstaff is familiar with the boy， and he once says:"For the boy， there is good angel about him， but the devil attends him too."（2 H IV 2.4 331-332）. These words can be seen as a prediction of the boy's short life. On the other hand， the boy depends on Falstaff as well. This can be seen through in how Falstaff's death affects him. The master-apprentice relationship was that of a powerful superior and a very dependent inferior. The death of a master sometimes brought about an uneasy transition in which the apprentice was abandoned entirely（Hanawalt 157）， as is the case with the boy. After Falstaff's death， the boy's life becomes precarious and lacks security. He says: "Would I were in an alehouse in London！ I would give all my fame for a pot of ale and safety." （H V 3.2 12-13）. As earlier mentioned，the boy might be a bastard son of a noble family. After Falstaff's death， the boy is cut off from any help and guidance from nobility. This might be a possible reason why he has to go with the three servants from then on and why his life takes a turn for the worst.

A final point relevant to the discussion is that Falstaff himself is a page in his early age. This information is revealed by one of Falstaff's friends， Justice Shallow， saying: " Then was Jack Falstaff， now Sir John， a boy， and page to Thomas Mowbray， Duke of Norfolk." （2 H IV 3.2 24-25） Duke of Norfolk is the one whose quarrel with Bolingbroke starts the whole play of Richard II. Falstaff's experience of being a page refl ects with the boy's own experience. This circle of apprenticeship， from an apprentice to a master，is manifested between them. That is the reason why Falstaff is once called "the later Robin". In addition，this also reminds us that Shakespeare himself may have been a prompters assistant or call boy when he began his career on the stage （Monaghan 353）， Draper even says that "Robin is one of Shakespeare's fulllength portraits- more than a portrait， he is a biography- in - little" （483）.

conclusion

Looking back at the boy's life， especially focusing on his relationship with Falstaff， we can fi nd details that reveal indicating his status as being different from Falstaff's other three servants. The boy is given to Falstaff， as an apprentice， destined for knighthood， by Prince Hal. He is a normal christian boy from a noble family， as cumberland clark describes in his book Falstaff and his friends， "he was，it seems， a good-looking lad， prettily dressed， small in stature， and an amusing contrast to the enormous bulk of the knight" （56）. Moreover， he is Falstaff's fi rst apprentice and also the last one， and they depend on each other， so much so that the boy is the one who is with him until his death， while the other servants leave him because of fi nancial concerns. In actuality，the complex explanations of the boy's behavior are，to a large degree， due to the misunderstanding ofhis identity. Previous scholars have confused the term "apprentice" with "servant". So when they fi nd that the boy can speak French much more fluently than the adult Pistol， they cannot come to grips with the fact， and for this reason they attempt to change the relevant plots in some productions. Some Shakespeareans found that it was not easy to accept the boy's intelligence and extensive knowledge， so they chose to treat it as irony. However， when the truth of the boy's identity， Falstaff's apprentice， is revealed， all the contradictions are easily unrevealed. An apprentice should be educated for functional literacy before entering apprenticeship. The boy has the chance to learn French and other types of knowledge as well. The boy's educational background supports the position that the boy is not a servant， but an apprentice.

With this observation in mind， let us look back again to the boy's confusing monologue quoted at the beginning of this essay. In Henry V the boy says:

I am boy to them all three， but all they three，

though they would serve me， could not be man to me，

for indeed three such antics do not amount to a man. （ Henry V 3.2 29-31）

After confirming the boy's identity as an apprentice and not a servant， we can fully comprehend the meaning behind this conversation. The contextual background of this dialogue is that， as a result of Falstaff's death， the boy loses a sense of security and has to follow the three servants. The "boy" here acts as a title， regardless of age， and "I am boy to them all three" indicates the position， the boy has at that moment， which is equal with the other three servants. However， the most significant distinction between the boy and the other three lies in what kind of future they will have. In Medieval Ages， when an apprentice became an adult， he obtained a mastership in a guild or citizenship in the city. Accordingly， the boy， an apprentice， destined for knighthood after all， has been expected to gain his mastership. This is why he says: "though they would serve me". Nevertheless， because of his outstanding intelligence， the boy has seen the true nature of the three servants and determines to depart from them in the future. He knows that they would never be honest to anyone， and consequently，he says they "could not be man to me".

Uncovering the boy's true identity and identifying his status as an apprentice can help to more clearly understand his behavior. This will also prevent further misinterpretations of the boy and allows audiences to more accurately comprehend Shakespeare's intended role for him. In conclusion， this paper is dedicated to proving the boy's identity as an apprentice， which is completely different from a servant. Furthermore，it reveals how later generations of people， such as Shakespeare， reconstructed the image of Medieval Apprenticeship as a whole， which gives us insight into Shakespeare's imagination on the relationship between apprentices and masters in the middle ages and also illustrates Shakespeare's understanding of apprenticeship education in medieval times.

【Notes】

① It is edited by Andrew Gurr.

② Robin is Falstaff's page boy in Henry IV and Henry V.

③ In fact the reason why the parents sent their children away in medieval England is debatable. In Aries's book， he also mentions that the Italian， who took an account of England on the apprenticeship， thought "the English took in other people's children because they thought that in that way they would obtain better service than they would from their own offspring."（356）However， in my opinion， the tradition of the apprenticeship could partly due to the religious thought on the children in the medieval age， the children were considered as the evil creatures rather than the innocent angels. To avoid their parents being too fond of theiroffsprings， which would result in their children's falling into the hell， it was protective to send children away from their parents.

④ The complicated relationship between Falstaff and the boy will be analyzed in the next part.

【Works cited】

［1］ Aries， Philippe. centuries of childhood: A Social History of Family Life. Trans. Robert Baldick. New York: Random House，1962. Print.

［2］ Blake， Ann. "children and Suffering in Shakespeare's plays". The Yearbook of English Studies 23，1993， pp.293-304.

［3］chedgzoy， Kate. Shakespeare and childhood. Ed. Susanne Greenhalgh and Robert Shaughnessy. New York: cambridge UP，2007. Print.

［4］chedgzoy， Kate. "Introduction: What， are they children？". Shakespeare and childhood. Ed. —， Susanne Greenhalgh and Robert Shaughnessy. New York: cambridge UP， 2007，pp.15-31. Print.

［5］ chedgzoy， Kate. "Shakespeare in the company of Boys". Shakespeare and childhood. Ed. —， Susanne Greenhalgh and Robert Shaughnessy. New York: cambridge UP， 2007， pp. 184-200. Print.

［6］clark， cumberland. Falstaff and His Friends. Shrewsbury: Wilding & Son， 1935. Print.

［7］classen， Albrecht. Ed. childhood in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: The Results of a Paradigm Shift in the History of Mentality. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter， 2005. Print.

［8］Dover， carol. "childhood and Family Relations in the Old French Prose Lancelot". childhood in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: The Results of a Paradigm Shift in the History of Mentality. Ed. Albrecht classen. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter，2005， pp. 247-263. Print.

［9］Draper， John W. "Falstaff's Robin and Other Page". Studies in Philology 36，1939（3）:pp. 476-490.

［10］Hanawalt， Barbara. A. Growing Up in Medieval London: The Experience of childhood in History. New York: Oxford University Press， 1993. Print.

［11］ Hanawalt， Barbara. "The child in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance". Beyond the century of the child: cultural History and Developmental Psychology. Ed. Koops and Zuckerman. Philadephia: Pennsylvania U.P.， 2003， pp. 26-39. Print.

［12］Koops， Willem， and Micheal Zuckerman. Ed. Beyond the century of the child: cultural History and Developmental Psychology. Philadephia:U of Pennsylvania P， 2003. Print.

［13］Monaghan， James. "Falstaff and His Forbears". Studies in Philology 18， 1921（3）， pp. 353-361.

［14］Orme， Nicholas. Medieval children. HongKong: Yale UP，2003. Print.

［15］Shahar， Shulamith. childhood in the Middle Ages. London: Rouledge， 1990. Print.

［16］Shakespeare， William. The Second Part of King Henry IV. Ed. A. R. Humphreys. Massachusetts: Methuen， 1966. Print. The Arden Shakespeare.

［17］Shakespeare， William. King Henry V. Ed. T.W. craik. Spain: Routledge， 1995. Print. The Arden Shakespeare.

［18］Vienne-Guerrin， Nathalie. Shakespeare's Insults: A Pragmatic Dictionary. London， New York: Bloomsbury Arden Shakespeare，2016. Print.

Apprenticeship in the middle ages was an important period for children to learn manners and skills in another family， with which the contrasting experience of servitude is paralleled in many ways. The boy without a name in Henry V is actually the page of Falstaff in Henry IV （Part Two）， his true identity has remained as a mystery for centuries. Previous critics， due to the blurred distinction between two historical terms apprenticeship and servitude in medieval times， constantly regard him as a servant. With toothcombing tenacity， the essay meticulously probes into the boy's familial background， his relationship with his master， and his educational background， which is revealed in his intelligence and fl uency in French. consequently， it concluded that the boy is not a normal servant，but rather an apprentice destined for knighthood， whose master and tutor is Sir John. In conclusion， having a deeper understanding of the boy's identity sheds light on the mystery of his confusing behavior， and further reveals how later generations of people， such as Shakespeare， reconstructed the image of Medieval Apprenticeship.

Apprenticeship Medieval children Shakespeare Henry V Boy

Dai Yunfang is a doctor of Taiwan Unversity， her research areas are Shakespeare and comparative Literature.

代云芳，台湾大学博士在读，研究方向为莎士比亚与比较文学。

Title：A Servant or an Apprentice？—An Analysis of the Boy in Henry V