CLOTHING "DAME HELISENNE": THE STAGING OF FEMALE AUTHORSHIP AND THE PRODUCTION OF THE 1538 ANGOYSSES DOULOUREUSES QUI PROCEDENT D'AMOURS

... je vestis une cotte de satin blanc, et une robe de satin cramoisy, j'aornay mon chef de belles brodures, et riches pierres precieuses: et quand je fuz accoustree, je commencay a me pourmener, en me mirant en mes sumptueulx habillemens, comme le paon en ses belles plumes, pensant plaire a aultres, comme a moy mesmes, et cependant mon mary se habilloit, lequel prenoit singulier plaisir en me voyant, et me dist qu'il estoit temps d'aller: et en ce disant, sortasmes de la chambre, en la compaignee de mes damoyselles, je cheminoie lentement, tenant gravite honneste, tout le monde jectoit son regard sur moy.... (123)

This is the first instance in the text in which Helisenne expresses her own pleasure at her appearance, as well as the pleasure she hopes to inspire in others. Her husband is indeed satisfied, but his emotions are a rather ironic reaction to Helisenne's attempts to provoke Guenelic's desire. Even more remarkably, this invitation to transgression is encouraged at the unwitting insistence of the husband, who initially misunderstands the consequence that the clothes will have on Guenelic's behavior and on both his and his wife's reputation. In the end, the clothes invite the very infraction on Helisenne's chastity that the husband was eager to prevent.

Although the symbolism of the "pure" white cloak concealing the enticing scarlet, satin dress is hard to miss, Guenelic takes Dame Helisenne's duplicity one step further when he "transgresses" the clothes themselves:

... il venoit passer si pres de moy, qu'il marchoit sur ma cotte de satin blanc. J'estois fort curieuse en habillemens, c'estoit la chose ou je prenoye singulier plaisir, mais nonobstant cela, il ne m'en desplaisoit, mais au contraire, voluntairement et de bon cueur j'eusse baise le lieu ou son pied avoit touche. (124)

In spite of Helisenne's almost humorous shock at Guenelic's indiscretion - she at first concentrates on the injustice done to the clothing rather than on the indecent intimacy of the act - her indignation gives way almost immediately to an illicit pleasure. Her husband, however, registers his anger at the interaction by calling special attention to Guenelic's clumsy dissimulation: "Je mesbahys de vostre amy, lequel n'a sceu dissimuler son amoureuse follye en ma presence, il luy procede de grande presumption de venir marcher sur vostre cotte, il semble par cela qu'il eust grand privaulte familiaritde avecq vous" (124-125). The husband construes the garment as a marker of Dame Helisenne's propriety, and its violation as a sign of her and Guenelic's audacity. Thus the cloak again serves as a figural locus around which the tension between the constant dissimulation and disclosure of the love affair continue to build. Too late, the husband realizes his mistake; the next day he prohibits Helisenne from dressing again in elegant clothes (125).

The white cloak does not act only as a cover for Helisenne's body. Rather, it both represents and misrepresents her: at the time it appears, Dame Helisenne's body is indeed still chaste, while its beauty inflames the longing of her would-be lover.9 This double valence of the cloak also exposes a problematic station of contemporary women who saw female clothing as an extension of the limited control they exercised over their bodies and the messages communicated by the appearance of those bodies. For, in the end, Dame Helisenne's clothes are used as a communicative tool not between the lovers, but between the husband and Guenelic. The husband attempts to make a statement to Guenelic through her luxurious clothes, and Guenelic likewise returns the message by making his own "mark" on the white silk of the cloak, a message the husband clearly grasps.