Renaissance illustrations of the temptation of Adam and Eve frequently depict remarkably indistinguishable figures (see attached, especially Schmidt 322, 18, 323), or subjects with their gender obscured by strategically placed flora and poorly defined breasts. In the most problematic of these renderings, God casts Adam and Eve out of Eden without giving them proper attire (see Schmidt 322, 323, 18, 87, 225, and Berkowitz 80B), contradicting the report of Genesis 3.21, "Unto Adam also, and to his wife, did the LORD God make coates of Skinnes, and clothed them," which occurs shortly before "he droue out the man" (3.24). In these images, an anxiety of identity surrounds the naked body. With androgenized subjects, even the sexual marks God writes on the bodies of Adam and Eve do not provide for apposite visual differentiation between man and woman. More critically, now removed from the insular world of Eden and condemned to the fate of mortals, these illustrations leave Adam and Eve with nothing to mark their property and progeny through the generations. Thus, these scenes of expulsion demonstrate to the renaissance viewer the ultimate punishment for sin, the erasure of identity and de facto removal of rights to property and inheritance.

God does indeed, however, create a material order of signification for Adam and Eve in Genesis 3.21 that ensures the family of Adam their birthright. The theoretical underpinnings of this system are described by Althusser in "Ideology and the State," in which he identifies what he calls the "Material ritual practice(s) of ideological recognition in everyday life." (55). These rituals, Althusser argues, "Guarantee for us that we are indeed concrete, individual, distinguishable and (naturally) irreplaceable subjects" (55). Of course, Althusser sees such a subjectivity as entirely illusory. As my brief introduction has begun to demonstrate, clothing constitutes a central material ritual practice of ideological recognition. Clothing serves to mark our putative differences in gender and to identify class and, in some cases, familial affiliation. Adam and Eve’s nakedness in the images create a crisis of identity for the subjects by removing them from this ritual practice, and, consequently, admonishes the renaissance Christian of the dangers of sin. Thus, the myth of human origination in Genesis, as translated and interpreted in the 16th and 17th centuries, is also a narrative about clothing as a material of ideological recognition.

English translations of the Bible in the 16th century map an important shift in biblical clothing origin narratives. The 1537 Coverdale Bible, 1539 Taverner’s Bible, and Tyndale’s 1549 Bible all have God giving Adam and Eve "garmentes of skynnes." The Great Bible of 1540 changes this gloss slightly with "lethren garments." The fundamental shift, the key change for the purposes of this discussion, is in the Geneva Bible of 1560. It translates Genesis 3.21 as "Vnto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make [nt. Or gaue them knowledge to make them selues coates] coates of skinnes, and clothed them" (my emphasis). The 1611 Authorized King James version offers a nearly identical translation, with only minor typographical differences. The OED entry for coat demonstrates the importance of this change in translation from "garment" to "coat." In addition to the intuitive heraldic connections (i.e., coat of arms), an obsolete definition, "very common in the 17th century," shows the relation between coat and identity: "Garb as indicating profession (e.g. clerical); hence, profession, class, order, sort, party." By dressing Adam and Eve in a coat of skins, God makes them "of his coat," stating in Genesis 3.22, "Behold, the man is become as one us." This assertion becomes even more significant in light of an alternate meaning of skin as material for writing, such as parchment. God here writes Adam and Eve’s subjectivity and identity on their bodies with his clothing. Their identity is now inextricably linked to the tailor of their clothes. Illustrations that properly display their clothed condition contrast sharply with the images of nude subjects I discussed in the opening. Trevelyan’s sequence, in particular, portray the gender differences represented in Adam and Eve’s clothing as well as a division of labor set off by the couple’s respective garments (see attached).

Genesis commentary during the 17th century focuses on issues of identity and the clothing of Adam and Eve. Lancelot Andrewes writes in 1657, "They came hereby into Gods favour, by wearing his liverie they became his servants, and so of his household: They are of the Princes house, to whom he giveth bread and clothing" (333). For Andrewes, the coats of skins God makes for Adam and Eve puts them in God’s favor, offering not simply protection from the elements, but placing them in God’s livery, thereby able to receive the gifts of God to pass down to their offspring. Symon, Bishop of Ely, reports of a Jewish tradition that traces the actual coats of Adam and Eve through ensuing generations. He writes,

An inheritance of skins, clothing, is no small matter, symbolically as well as financially. To this day, the vestments of a church’s clergy are a valuable asset to the church. In this account, the skins themselves carry the lineage of the family, bestowing on members their identity and inheritance.

The story of Isaac and Jacob in Genesis chapter 27 problematizes the relationship of clothing to identity. Further, as Stallybrass and Jones note, "Against the patriarch and the rules of primogeniture, wife and younger son use the transmission of clothes to refigure inheritance" (6). Rebecca asks Jacob to affect the disposition of his brother so that he might receive his father’s blessing for them. Jacob notes the inherent tactile differences between him and his brother, due to the discrepancy in their ages, commenting, "Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man" (Gen. 27.11). Rebecca and Jacob overcome this problem by putting Jacob in Esau’s "raiment," also placing the "skinnes" of goats on his neck and hands to replicate Esau’s rough skin. Just as in the story of Adam and Eve, the "skinnes" Jacob wears give him the privilege of the family blessing and the right to his family’s inheritance. Isaac’s blessing comes not because of the action he requests of his son, but rather from the (false) identity conferred through the touch and smell of Jacob’s clothing (see attached image).

The ambiguity of identity in the story of Isaac and Jacob recalls the ambiguity of gender in illustrations of naked Adam and Eve . In both cases, clothing constitutes the critical articulation of ideological recognition. For Adam and Eve, the dead animal skins God makes into clothing for them constitute the memory of their fall and inevitable death, but also equip them for establishing a system of inheritance whereby they can find regeneration in their children and grandchildren, all of whom will be marked by coats of skins. Likewise, Jacob’s takes his brother’s identity and inheritance by manipulating the symbolic system of ideological recognition first established by God for Adam and Eve. Images of the book of Genesis, textual variants in early English translation, and commentary on clothing and nakedness combine to create a complicated discourse on identity and clothing.