Re-gendering of the Nietzschean Übermensch in Shakespeare’s "Macbeth" and Marlowe’s "Tamburlaine"— the Case of Lady Macbeth and Zenocrate

Abstract

In her famous speech to troops at Tilbury Elizabeth addressed her soldiers by saying: I know have body but of a weak and feeble woman, but have a heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too (102). Like other successful fruits of Elizabeth's rhetorical skills this famous statement of courage midst and heat of battle has been frequently analysed by both historians and literary scholars. As it seems, speech is a rhetorical pearl as through employment of implicit Renaissance misogyny Elizabeth takes full advantage of it. Her speech constitutes embrace and, at same time, denial of traditionally conceived femininity or female nature. By acknowledging her physical and physiological constitution she underscores her intellectual capacity, at same time making masculine a point of reference. In 19th century, at height of Wilhelmine patriarchy in Germany, Friedrich Nietzsche (105) writes in Ecce Homo: Oh, what dangerous, insidious, subterranean little beasts of prey they are! And so pleasant into bargain!...-Woman is incomparably more evil than man, cleverer too; goodness in woman is a form of degeneration [...]. As would like to argue, against those who see Nietzsche as a blatant misogynist, in his statement, which only seemingly looks like a sexist slur, Nietzsche is actually paying a compliment. Nietzsche's reasoning and its conclusions, including revaluation of values, are based on Ruckschlus, or conclusion a posteriori (Babich 27). Not only must one try to grasp whole context of his words, meaning entirety of his thought, but also never take his words at face value. Knowing that his philosophy opens up to absolute reversal of human valuations, placing value beyond good and evil, one should reconsider Nietzschean stance on feminine. Elizabeth's Tilbury speech, but not only this one, makes recourse to a similar reversal of roles and functions, which demands reversal of reading. It is what is weak and feeble in you that becomes heart of strength. would like to make this intellectual parallel that can be drawn between Renaissance Queen and 19th century philosopher a point of departure for a rereading of roles and functions of two dramatic Queens-Shakespeare's Lady Macbeth and Marlowe's Zenocrate-in context of both early modern conception of femininity and Nietzschean ideas on overhuman potential.As Carol Diethe (77) writes, notion of Uberweib in Nietzsche's writing is conspicuous by its absence. Nevertheless, as feminist readings of Nietzsche by Sarah Kofman, Kelly Olivier or Carol Diethe demonstrate, female question cannot be overlooked when speaking about Nietzsche's philosophy. Joan Kelly-Gadol (176) in her famous article entitled Did Women Have a Renaissance? answers her title question negatively by saying that: there was no renaissance for women-at least, not during Renaissance. By pointing out changes in sexuality and sex/gender roles she highlights gradual stifling and oppression of within patriarchal family and domestic roles. The under-developed Marlovian female characters as well as Shakespearean fatal can be partly inscribed within this pattern-what Kathleen McLuskie (89) posited long ago when she heralded Shakespeare as the patriarchal bard. However, both playwrights do grant their female characters limited space and field of activity with different focuses and quite different consequences. Nietzsche, in his period was known as a hater of women (Frauenhasser), despiser of women (Frauenverachter), enemy of women (Frauenfeind), and Antifeminist (Helm 64). With all his apparent female-hate and misogyny Nietzsche is, nevertheless, credited for reintroduction of body into mainstream of Western philosophy and as a consequence appraisal of female sexuality against backdrop of Wilhelmine legendary cult of Hausfrau (Helm 74-75; Diethe 73). …