I'll remark on this one more time:
If you look at the text and then look at the guild record of
expenditure, it seems to me straight-forward:
We have as principal characters: A & E, God the Father, Serpent,
Angel, and Dolor and Misery. We are told in the 1565 acct that there are
2 garments (cotes and HOSE) for Eve, coat and HOSE for Adam and a coat
and HOSE and a tail for the serpent. The costumes for those figures,
therefore, are taken care of. When we come to the entry "an Angelles Cote
& over hoses of apis Skynns," consequently, we must assume those designate
the undergarments of the angel. There is a serpent in this play; there
are no devils: QED the "apis Skynns," whatever they may be materially, are
part of the Angel's costume. There is only one Angel in the extant text;
therefore, this expenditure is for his costume.
Larry
On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Alan Baragona wrote:
> Dear REED-ers
>
> I wrote David Bevington and asked him what he thought about "apis skinns,"
> since it was quoted in his textbook Here is his answer, and my reply to
> him, which tries to summarize where the question stands now.
>
> Alan B.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Baragona <[log in to unmask]>
> To: David Bevington <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: Alan Baragona <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Saturday, February 19, 2000 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: "Apis skinns"
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: David Bevington <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: Baragona, Alan <[log in to unmask]>
> >Date: Saturday, February 19, 2000 11:47 AM
> >Subject: Re: "Apis skinns"
> >
> >>Dear Alan Baragona, Nice to hear from you. I've always assumed that 'apis
> >>skinns' are ape skins, here serving as hose or leg coverings. The problem
> >>is that real ape skins would be probitively expensive and hard to get in
> >>early modern England, so that I have also assumed that they weren't real
> >>ape skins but animal skins giving the effect of ape skins. Why one would
> >>want that effect I am not sure. But I think they're just tights, of the
> >>sort that were presumably used for Eve and Adam. Do you think? It's
> clearly
> >>not an easy problem, and I'm relieved to hear that it is so for REED also.
> >>best, David B
> >
> >Dear Prof. Bevington:
> >
> >Thanks for your quick response to my question!
> >
> >My first instinct was to assume that these were "hairy" hose (either real
> >fur or some rough cloth, but likely not really ape pelts) worn by the
> devil,
> >paired in the inventory with the angel's robe. I consulted with Laura
> >Hodges, who has published extensively on 14th century dress, especially in
> >Chaucer. She thought it might be "friese," a cloth that looks hairy, and
> >would be costuming for either the devil or Adam and Eve. In conversation
> >with her and then in the exchanges with members of REED-L, we've found
> >several possibilites, all with their own logic.
> >
> >1. The "skins" may not be hairy, but may look leathery, like the actual
> skin
> >of apes, and therefore be the supple tawed leather costume used to suggest
> >nakedness for Adam and Eve. Problem: they're only hose, and "apes skins"
> >seems naturally to suggest furriness.
> >
> >2. The "skins" may look hairy and be a costume for the devil. Problem: it
> >seems odd to pair the devil's costume with the angel's in the inventory
> when
> >other pairings seem not to indicate any contrast.
> >
> >3. The "skins" may be furry hose for an angel's costume. Problem: there's
> >disagreement over whether hairy nether parts can possibly be part of angel
> >iconography; some REED members say maybe, others say definitely not.
> >
> >4. The "skins" may be costumes for Adam and Eve, symbolizing not nakedness
> >but bestiality (either before or after the Expulsion). Problem: the
> >inventory lists other costumes for A&E, so why would the "skins" be paired
> >with the angel's robe instead of their other costumes?
> >
> >5. The "skins" may be costumes for Adam and Eve, not symbols but the actual
> >clothing they would don after the expulsion, which would look like animal
> >pelts. Same problem as #4.
> >
> >Personally, I think numbers 2 and 5 are the likeliest, though I was the one
> >who suggested #1 in the first place. But no matter what they are, I find
> it
> >curious that "apis skinns" should be a kind of technical term and that it
> >doesn't show up anywhere else. This could be a hapax as frustrating as
> >"thyle."
> >
> >Thank you again for your thoughts on the matter. If anyone solves this,
> >I'll let you know.
> >
> >Alan B.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
