 |
 |
This is compelling except for the objection someone else raised earlier to costuming an angel in furry hose, as opposed to something feathery. What do you make of that? Also, I know that other costumes are designated specifically for Adam and Eve, but I was speculating that perhaps the apis skinns might be for a change of costume after the Expulsion. The problem, of course, as you say, is that the pairing seems worded to indicate that the hose are for the angel. So either the angel was dressed in hose that looked like an animal pelt, or "apis skinns" simply means something else. But what? -----Original Message----- From: Lawrence M. Clopper <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: Saturday, February 19, 2000 8:38 PM Subject: Re: "Apis skinns" yet again >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. >> > >> > >> > >> > >>