 |
 |
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. > > > >