Neophilologus (2016) 100:257274

DOI 10.1007/s11061-015-9466-0

Female Masculinity and Strategies of Resistance

in Daniel Caspar von Lohensteins Epicharis
and Cleopatra

Benjamin Davis1

Published online: 8 January 2016

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract This article sheds new light on the work of the seventeenth-century
playwright Daniel Caspar von Lohenstein by employing the theory of female
masculinity to examine strategies of resistance in Epicharis and Cleopatra. I argue
that a thread of discontent and resistance towards the Habsburg Empire permeates
these dramas. The strategies of resistance, however, take different forms, corre-
sponding to the socio-historical realities facing Breslau at the time of the works
publications. In Epicharis the resistance is overt and through the performance of
female masculinity Epicharis assumes a political position of power as the texts
embodiment of republican ideals. In Cleopatra resistance takes a more covert form
and through the performance of a hybrid gender, Cleopatra is able to pave a path of
resistance that relies on her identification with both masculinity and femininity.
Ultimately my interpretation suggests that changes to dominant norms are possible
and thinkable in the context of evolving political climates.

Keywords Lohenstein
Female masculinity
Epicharis
Cleopatra
Gender

studies
German studies

& Benjamin Davis

brdavis5@uncg.edu
1
Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures, University of North Carolina at
Greensboro, 2321 MHRA Building, PO Box 26170, Greensboro, NC 27402-6170, USA

123
258 B. Davis

Introduction

In the following I demonstrate how the performance of female masculinity

corresponds to a critique of political hegemony in Daniel Caspar von Lohensteins
Epicharis and Cleopatra.1 This critique is historically significant because it is
related to the complex political and confessional relationship between Silesia and
Vienna in the seventeenth century. The idea of female masculinity in Lohensteins
plays provides greater insight into their discontent with the Habsburg Empire. It also
signals an endorsement of Breslaus position vis-a`-vis the Empire. This endorsement
becomes evident when individuals opposed to the Roman rule are granted political
legitimacy in these plays. The title characters in Epicharis and Cleopatra model, at
times, masculine attributes that the school boys playing these women on stage must
embody. At the same time, the fact that the characters being portrayed are women
questions normative political and gender binaries. Women standing in for and
challenging male patriarchs are represented as strong leaders and dominant political
forces. Their presence opens new avenues for thinking about political rule and
models of resistance. Examining the fluidity of the social power related to
masculinity reveals that governance by a centralized, patriarchal leader is not the
only conceivable political arrangement, despite being the historical norm.
Despite the tumultuous political and confessional landscape surrounding the
production of these plays, it has been noted that Lohensteins texts resist rigid
definition and totalizing interpretations.2 In the following, I analyze the ways in
which one aspect of the construction of masculinity corresponds to acts of moral
resistance. Female masculinity questions existing cultural norms and dominant
ideologies, while working within a well-known framework of power relations. Thus,
its presence is not revolutionary. Nevertheless it suggests that the reconfiguration of
power relations is possible. Ultimately, Rome is cast as the victor in all of the plays
and the female protagonists die. While the deaths of the women may seem to
reaffirm the masculinist tendencies of the early-modern world, the fact that these
characters assume political power and disrupt a historical narrative that favors Rome
cannot be ignored. Their actions create ruptures in the texts that express discontent
and displeasure with the Roman Empire, and, by extension, the Habsburg Empire.
These ruptures of the normative political and social order are more a revealing of
the texts politics than the unveiling of the history.

Gender Trouble: Female Masculinity and Exposing Patriarchal Power

These ruptures depend on an idea of female masculinity found in Lohensteins texts.

While modern gender and masculinity theory stem from social dynamics not

1
Daniel Caspar von Lohenstein, Sophonisbe, Cleopatra (1680), Samtliche Werke: historisch- kritische
Ausgabe: Daniel Caspar von Lohenstein, Eds. Lothar Mundt, Wolfgang Neuber, and Thomas Rahn
(Berlin: DeGruyter, 2005a) and Epicharis, Samtliche Werke: historisch-kritische Ausgabe: Daniel Caspar
von Lohenstein, Eds. Lothar Mundt, Wolfgang Neuber, and Thomas Rahn (Berlin: DeGruyter, 2005b).
All citations are to these editions and will be made parenthetically within the text by act and line numbers.
2
Some 15 years ago Newman (2000) cautioned against the tendency to attempt to find some stable sense
of meaning in Lohensteins works and leads by example in her ground laying work.

123
Female Masculinity in Lohensteins Epicharis and Cleopatra 259

entirely akin to those more than 300 years prior, the presence of politically powerful
female characters invites a heuristic application of these theories in order to create
new knowledge about old texts. Modern theorizing of female masculinity relies on
and expands upon Judith Butlers performative theory of gender. In Gender Trouble
(1990) Butler argues that sex and gender are created through a social performance
and upheld by repetition and punishment for non-adherence. Gender, claims Butler,
is the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid
regulatory frame that congeals over time to produce the appearance of substance, of
a natural sort of being (1990, 33). In other words, gender is always a doing, but
there is no doer behind the deed. For Butler, the gendered body has no essence in
reality. Its reality is created only through regulatory discursive formations.
Butlers theory, however, does leave room for the subject to subsequently negotiate
and resist these formations.
Genders, according to Butler, are constructed through the mistaken understand-
ing of identity as a fixed, stable concept. Stable understandings of identity are
reinforced by social regulation and punishment. Social performances of gender
adhering to the regulatory framework are lauded and they become the norm. These
normative performances are then viewed as the natural relations between the
sexes. But if gender norms are constructed as natural through the power of
discourse, they can also be denaturalized by a performance. To illustrate this point,
Butler provides the example of drag. Butler states, In imitating gender, drag
implicitly reveals the imitative structure of gender itselfas well as its
contingency (1999, 187). Drag performances parody the notion that there is a
natural sex or gender. There is no natural, biological sex which leads to a socially
encoded gender. Sex and gender are revealed to be socially constructed, disrupting
the notion that heterosexual desire is more natural than its alternatives.
Building on Butlers earlier arguments, Judith Halberstams Female Masculinity
offers a critique of masculinity studies.3 During a period when the field of
masculinity studies was dominated by social scientists who focused primarily on
heterosexual, male masculinity, Halberstam asks us to consider masculinity in the
plural. This complicates a cultural norm that has long remained constant. Her theory
of female masculinity suggests that cultural signs and expressions of masculinity are
not naturally bound to the male body. Halberstam claims that alternative and
female masculinities are framed as the rejected scraps of dominant masculinity in
order that male masculinity may appear to be the real thing (1998, 1). Halberstam
further notes that masculinity is only visible as masculinity when it leaves the white,
male body (1998, 2). As a result, alternative masculinities are constructed as
secondary, or copies, of dominant masculinities. Excessive and insufficient
masculinities, i.e., those masculinities that become visible, are often associated

3
This sentiment remains true despite some critical reviews of the work. The critiques suggested, for
example, that Halberstam focuses solely on lesbian female masculinity and does not discuss the notion of
female masculinity within the heterosexual context, claiming instead that it goes beyond the scope of her
project. Furthermore, Breger (2008) argues that Halberstams theory prioritizes the masculine and
masculinity and posits the term feminine masculinity in order to introduce a term that accounts for a
more fluid gender bricolage. Despite these criticisms the text remains germinal in the field and has opened
a (relatively) new and promising field of inquiry within gender and masculinity studies.

123
260 B. Davis

with racialized and female bodies, allowing for white, male masculinity to appear as
non-performative.4 Halberstam comments,
if masculinity adheres naturally and inevitably to men, then masculinity
cannot be impersonated [] if the nonperformance is a part of what defines
white male masculinity, then all performed masculinities stand out as suspect
and open to interrogation (1998, 235).
The supposedly non-performative character of normative masculinity implies that it
exists prior to the influence of discourse and language. This assumption, however, is
false; it is merely one of the discursive constructs that perpetuates patriarchy in
society.
Performances by drag kings, for example, exemplify the fallacy of this
construction. If we assume that normative masculinities are non-performative, then
a drag king performance becomes a performance of non-performativity. For if
female-bodied individuals can assume, imitate, and even mock this characteristic of
normative masculinity, then normative masculinity is itself revealed to have no
natural foundation. Thus, it loses its priority status and any claim to being the
original mode of masculinity. More importantly, particularly to this project, is the
effect that this unveiling has on gender-related power. Revealing the performative
characteristic of all masculinities, by extension, suggests that the male body has no
natural claim to the power culturally associated with masculinity. Consequently,
this social power becomes contestable and allows for the legitimization of other
forms of order independent of patriarchy.
This unveiling recalls Connells definition of hegemonic masculinity, namely the
modes of masculinity that ensure and legitimize patriarchal rule (1993). If
hegemonic masculinity has no claim to a naturalness on which it is founded, then
patriarchal rule is neither legitimate nor ensured. This revelation opens the
possibilities for alternative conceptions of systems of power and resistance. By
examining Lohensteins plays in terms of female masculinity, I investigate their
displeasure with patriarchal monarchies; with the Roman Empire on the textual
level and the Habsburg Empire on the analogical.

The Historical Circumstances Surrounding Epicharis and Cleopatra

The overt political discontent present in Lohensteins Epicharis demands a closer

look at the social and political environments in which it was created. The presence
of political, religious, and geographic tensions between Breslau and Vienna

4
Halberstams analysis focuses solely on the modern construction of masculinity, particularly evident in
the fact that she employs race as an analytical category when referring to the scraps and copies of white
male masculinity. Of course, her theory can be applied to pre-race societies by acknowledging that
white male masculinity is simply the dominant form of masculinity in a particular socio-cultural
moment. Furthermore, recognizing that masculinity can be performed by other, marginalized bodies, be
they racialized, or, in the case of Lohenstein, female, demonstrates that the social and political power
associated with masculinity is not naturally bound to the male, or, dominant bodies of a particular
culture and society.

123
Female Masculinity in Lohensteins Epicharis and Cleopatra 261

suggests the political commentary present in Lohensteins work is an act of moral

resistance against the Habsburg Empire (Behar 2004). Since Breslau was what Jane
Newman describes as a hybrid locale, a Protestant city embedded within the
Catholic Habsburg Empire, political and confessional struggle and protest were
commonplace (2000). Breslaus confessional freedom was guaranteed in a Letter of
Majesty issued on August 20th, 1609 by Emperor Rudolph II. These confessional
differences caused great strife throughout the century. Although Breslau was an
episcopal seat, political decisions of the town were made primarily by a city council,
which was dominated by Protestants, until Bishop Sebastian von Rostock was
appointed Oberlandeshauptmann in 1664.5
Following the Thirty Years War, the Peace of Westphalia continued to ensure
the confessional freedom of Breslau. However, when the Swedish military vacated
Silesia in 1650, this event provided the opportunity for Ferdinand II to flex his
imperial muscle. Ferdinands demonstration of power took the form of an
allgemeine Kirchenreduktion in 1653. The Emperors mission was to close all
Protestant churches and schools and place them under Catholic control. Despite
some resistance, imperial forces managed to appropriate around 656 Protestant
churches in the years 1653 and 1654. This attempt to wipe out Protestantism from
Silesia, a territory with a Protestant majority, led to a high level of discontent with
the empire and a desire to be free of the grasp of Vienna (Conrads 2009, 21). In
1656 when the Swedish king Karl-Gustav celebrated military defeats against
Poland, the Silesian population grew ever more hopeful. Still, a viable threat against
the Habsburg control of Silesia never materialized.
A second, new hope for the prince-electors and the Silesians alike, however false
it may have been, arose with Ferdinand IIIs death in 1657. Prior to his death, in
1653, Ferdinand angered the Protestant electors of Germany by secretly choosing
his son as successor designate to the throne before convening a Reichstag. After this
appointment, Ferdinand deferred election reform to a future Reichstag. This deferral
upset the Protestant princes who viewed Ferdinands actions as a blatant disregard
of the confessional parity in political matters guaranteed by the Peace of Westphalia
(Whaley 2012, 1819). However, Ferdinand died before his son reached the age of
maturity, and with no apparent adult heir to the throne, a new successor needed to be
chosen. The German princes attempted to seize the opportunity to free the Empire
from Habsburg rule, trying several times unsuccessfully to elect a ruler of their
choice. These efforts to contain Habsburg rule of the Empire were led by the elector
of Mainz, Archbishop Johann Phillip von Schonborn. With the support of France,
Sweden, and England, Schonborn attempted to elect Ferdinand Maria of Bavaria
and Phillip Wilhelm of PfalzNeuberg. Furthermore they tried to convince older
Habsburg archdukes to end the designated succession of emperors by assuming the
throne themselves (Whaley 2012, 24). The non-Habsburg contenders ultimately
lacked the resources necessary to ascend to the throne and the Habsburg archdukes
refused to challenge the hereditary line of ascension (Whaley 2012, 25).

5
In the following I sketch out some of the key moments of political and confessional strife between the
end of the Thirty Years War and the publication of Epicharis. This historical sketch is based, in part, on
Behars book-historical study of the chronology of Lohensteins plays.

123
262 B. Davis

In the year of Ferdinands death (1657) Lohenstein returned from his

Bildungsreisen and settled in Breslau. The 15-month period between Ferdinands
death and the eventual election of Leopold I as emperor was a hopeful time for the
Silesians. According to Behar it served as a perfect political moment for
Lohenstein to write his Roman plays (2004, 275). However, with the election of
Leopold, an ultra-Catholic Habsburg, these plays could neither be published nor
performed. Rather, the political situation called for the Silesians to pay homage to
the new emperor, and, following Behars chronology, this state of affairs led
Lohenstein to draft Cleopatra (2004, 279). Epicharis, however, was only shelved
temporarily.
While the electors attempted to weaken the emperor, Leopold proved to be strong
in matters of domestic and foreign policies.6 With regard to Silesia, he continued
Ferdinands efforts to re-catholicize the territory. In 1659 Leopold gifted the
imperial castle in Breslau to the Jesuits, and by 1660 the Kirchenreduktion
eliminated all Lutheran churches in Upper Silesia (Behar 2004, 280). The imperial
threats led the Breslau city council to show loyalty to the Habsburg Empire in order
to maintain their relative political and religious autonomy. Cleopatra, as will be
seen below, achieves this same feat only on a superficial level. Closer examination
of the text reveals that the political discontent so openly present in Epicharis
remains in Cleopatra.
Silesia could not independently threaten Habsburg rule militarily. Given the
Ottoman advances in the seventeenth century, Protestant rule of Silesia without
military aid was not viable. Political maneuvering and moral resistance, however,
continued throughout the following years, and Lohensteins works remained a part
of this dynamic. Prior to Breslaus guaranteed confessional freedom in 1609, the
Oberlandeshauptmann, or the governor of Silesia, was often the Bishop of
Breslau. As a part of this confessional freedom, however, the bishop was not to
assume this important political role (Behar 2004, 283). The role was filled by
Protestant dukes until the death of Georg III von Brieg in 1664. Upon his death,
Leopold had to choose a new Oberlandeshauptmann and he appointed the bishop
of Breslau, Sebastian von Rostock. The Protestant Stadtrat protested his
appointment, to no avail. Leopold refused to recognize the provision prohibiting
the Bishop to assume the role of governor. As a symbolic sign of his power,
Rostock moved back into Breslau proper, and indeed into the castle that now
belonged to the Jesuits. The bishops dual role granted him veto power and a
majority voice over the Protestant city council. Needless to say this dynamic only
heightened the tension between the senate and Vienna. Owing to these socio-
political realities Epicharis can only be read in terms of resistance to the Empire.
In 1666 the city council refused to celebrate Leopolds wedding, and, in a further
act of passive resistance approved the performance of Lohensteins Roman plays

6
Whaley (2012, 25): The key objectives as far as the Elector of Mainz was concerned were, first, to
delay the election until Leopold was old enough to rule, and second, use that delay to ensure that
Leopolds options as a ruler would be strictly limitedIn the end, Leopold was obliged to agree that he
would desist from offering any assistance to Spain in either Burgandy or Italy, that he would withdraw his
troops from Italy, and rescind measures that he father had taken against Itailain fiefdoms such as Savoy,
whose duke was a French ally.

123
Female Masculinity in Lohensteins Epicharis and Cleopatra 263

on the Breslauer school stage. At the same time Vienna was celebrating the
emperors marriage, the school boys of Breslau were portraying a strong female
character who advocates for the assassination of the emperor and the creation of a
republican form of government.

Female Masculinity and Resistance to the Empire in Epicharis

Lohensteins play Epicharis demonstrates in exemplary fashion the fluidity of

masculinity and the possibilities for political change which this fluidity engenders.
Epicharis serves as the leader of an assassination plot against the morally and
sexually corrupt Nero. In the process, she embodies many masculine characteristics
and a plausible political alternative to the Roman Empire. Her virtue is praised up to
the time of her death. Neros resurgence as the political leader at the end of the play
is thus an obvious critique of imperial excess and tyranny. Epicharis stands for a
republican form of governance demonstrating that resisting the Empire and
promoting political change are noble causes.
Very early in the drama, Epicharis positions herself as the leader of an
assassination plot against Nero. She justifies the plot by pointing to Neros immoral
behavior, which she claims stems from an act of free will and is not fate-driven
(1.2832). After framing the plot as legitimate, Epicharis positions herself as the
leader chiding her male co-conspirators for not acting quickly enough. She accuses
them of lacking the masculine qualities needed to be the leaders of the political coup
claiming that she will assume this position:
Jch selbst wil greiffen an
Wo mehr kein Manner-Hertz in eurem Busem stecket.
Bin ich die andre nicht/ die durch solch Blutt beflecket
Das Weiber-Eisen hat/ wil ich die erste seyn (1.7881).
She emasculates her co-conspirators by accusing them of lacking the hearts of
men. While referring to the urgency of assassinating Nero she mentions her
female body and affirms her position as the leader of the attempted coup. When
she does so, the masculine characteristics of honor, leadership, and courage
become associated with this female-bodied figure. Consequently, the cultural
meaning of masculinity becomes blurred and unstable and the social and political
power associated with masculinity contestable. Epicharis emerges as the
embodiment of resistance and of the Roman body politic which become all the
more apparent when Epicharis advocates for a return to a republican form of
governance.
While discussing Romes political future following the assassination of Nero,
Epicharis appears as the voice of reason and an advocate for substantial political
change. Her fellow conspirators wish to replace Nero with a new emperor,
namely, Piso. While their wishes align with the narrative of history as presented
by Tacitus, Lohenstein fictionalizes the scenario by focusing on the centrality of
Epicharis role in the conspiracy. Her argument for a return to a Roman republic
led by Seneca ultimately wins out, although Seneca refuses to participate.

123
264 B. Davis

Epicharis demonstrates that she is aware of the political stakes: Wolln wir mit
Blutte des Tirannen uns besprengen/ So mu man keinen mehr zum Abgott satzen
ein (1.40001). Through brutal imagery Epicharis attempts to rally her fellow
conspirators. With regard to the appointment of Piso, Epicharis knows that, even
though Piso may have the best intentions, when he assumes the role of emperor
and acquires the power and status associated with that role, he will be no different
from Nero (1.42730). While the male conspirators want to continue the
patriarchal legacy of such forms of government, Epicharis advocates for a
decentralization of political power, akin to her assumption of the social power
assumed to be so tightly bound to the male body.
As Epicharis continues her debate with the members of the conspiracy, her vision
of political alternative becomes clear:
Epicharis.
Was dringt Rom und der Welt
Ein Haupt zum Herren auf?
Subrius Flavius.
Dis/ da mans beer halt/
Wenn einer/ als wenn vil das Steuer-Ruder leiten.
Epicharis.
Viel Armen konnen mehr als eine Faust bestreiten.
Sulpitus Asper.
Des Reiches gantzen Leib beseelet nur ein Geist.
Epicharis.
Wie? Wenn ein Wutterich selbst Leib und Reich zerreit (1.45358)?
The ensuing debate serves as an example of the rhetorical device of stichomythia.
Lohenstein often employs this device during debates in order to emphasize
contrasting opinions. The debate is grounded in reason appealing to the historical
discourse of the kings two bodies.7 Sulpitus Asper contends that the body of the
empire is ensouled by one spirit, namely the emperor. Epicharis, however, questions
political theory by focusing on practical matters. How, she questions, can one
individual ensoul the empire, when that tyrant destroys the empire in the process?
The dramatic juxtaposition of these contrasting opinions favors Epicharis focus on
the practical, material realities facing the people of Rome, a body politic that she
represents.
Following this discussion, the focus of the play shifts back to the preparations for
Neros assassination. Epicharis continues to fulfill her leadership role demonstrating
that she is willing to undertake any action necessary to assassinate Nero. Her
masculinity is brought clearly into focus when she says,

7
Joan Landes summarizes this discourse, first treated in Kantorowicz (1957): According to the doctrine
of kingshipthe king possessed two bodies: a material body subject to corruption and decay, and a
spiritual body symbolic of the life of the community (2001, 57).

123
Female Masculinity in Lohensteins Epicharis and Cleopatra 265

Das Werck pruft Geist und Rath

Jedweder muhe sich dem andern vorzukommen.
Jch selber habe mir bestandig fur genommen
Vermummt als ein Soldat mich euch zu fugen bey/
Und hertzhaft darzu thun: Da ich sein Todfeind sey/
Ja da die Aegeln nicht so sehr nach Blutte dursten
Als nach des Blutthunds ich (1.73136).
She confirms her constancy and steadfastness, characteristics strongly associated
with the masculine in the early modern period.8 Not only does her behavior confirm
her masculinity, she also expresses a wish to don masculine dress disguised as a
soldier. She visually demonstrates the leadership role she assumed through her
rhetoric by leading the men in a blood oath (1.73946). By visually securing her role
as leader, Epicharis becomes the embodiment of resistance and republicanism,
which, in turn, are legitimized in the text as they align more and more with the
representation of masculinity.

Confronting the Tyrant: Reassigning Social and Political Power

It is Epicharis female body, along with the haste with which she wishes to carry out
the assassination, that turns out to be the downfall of the conspiracy. Epicharis
reveals her plan to Proculus who then makes advances on Epicharis. Epicharis
refuses to allow her female body to become the object of sexual desire, and, as a
result, Proculus betrays her plan to Nero. Sperberg-McQueen suggests that these
actions demonstrate that we are being shown how a woman, because she is a
woman, inevitably becomes entangled in a disastrous scenario over which she has
no control but for which she bears the responsibility entailed by inhabiting a female
body (2000, 12), effectively arguing that it is Epicharis femaleness which leads to
the failure of the conspiracy. However the insistence on femaleness further
demonstrates the disconnect between sex and gender that permeates the entire play.
It is in these moments of disconnect and rupture where the text articulates social and
political messages. The revelation of the assassination plot does not diffuse the
political tensions; rather it heightens them. It presents an opportunity for Epicharis
and Nero to meet, for the two variant embodiments of governance and gender to
interact, further legitimizing Epicharis political ideology despite the certainty of
failure.
When first questioned by Nero, Epicharis denies her responsibility for the plan
(2.33338). Nero decides to imprison her while he attempts to uncover the
complexity of the conspiracy. While Epicharis converses with fellow inmate and
conspirator, Sulpitius, her masculinity continues to be the focus of the political
jockeying for power:

8
Zemon-Davis (1975, 125): they [seventeenth-century physicians] still maintained that the females
mind was more prone to be disordered by her fragile and unsteady temperament. Long before Europeans
were asserting flatly that the inferiority of black Africans was innate, rather than the result, say, of
climate, they were attributing female inferiority to nature.

123
266 B. Davis

Wird kunfftig uns die Welt wol Glauben meen bey?

Da sie Epicharis ein Weib gewesen sey;
Die kluger als ein Mann/ behertzter ist als Helden!
Rom und die Nachwelt wird/ Epicharis/ dich melden;
Da deiner Tugend Muth der Blutt-Tyrannen Macht/
Da deine Klugheit hat Verlaumbder augelacht
Verrather uberstimmt (2.42126).
Sulpitius makes clear that future generations might not even believe that Epicharis
was a woman owing to the virtues and political intelligence that she demonstrates.
In the context of school drama, it must be remembered that Epicharis was played by
a boy. Thus, audience and actors had to imagine a boy is playing a woman who is
praised for being more masculine than any of the other male characters.9 This
reassignment of gender roles allows us to imagine the varieties of political systems
present in the text. Epicharis, as the embodiment of a republican form of
government, is strongly coded masculine in comparison to Nero, the embodiment of
authoritarian monarchies. In connecting the political systems to the performance of
gender, a political hierarchy emerges, but, not to be forgotten, this hierarchy is
embedded in a sex/gender system that refuses stability and rigid definitions.
This reassignment of gender roles continues throughout the play. Earlier
Epicharis swears that she would welcome torture and would refuse to name her co-
conspirators at all costs, thus preventing Nero from fulfilling his desire to kill all of
those involved in the assassination plot. Through her loyalty and her resoluteness in
the face of death, Epicharis puts to shame the other plotters who succumb to torture.
Her actions confirm her steadfastness and highlight her performance of masculinity:
Epicharis.
Den Blutthund martert Grim/ mir ist die Folter Lust.
Nero.
Fahrt fort! Die Zauberin mu endlich doch was fuhlen.
Epicharis.
Tyrannen suchen sich durch Blutt umbsonst zu kuhlen (3.55457).
It is clear that Epicharis not only welcomes torture; she finds pleasure in it. Torture
allows her to control Neros desires and leave those desires unfulfilled. The power-
obsessed Nero needs a confession from all members involved in the plot in order to
affirm his power and the political system he represents. Epicharis refusal to submit
combined with the pleasure she experiences in this act of defiance emphasizes her
power over Nero despite the fact that the assassination plan has failed. Epicharis
reverses the relationship between torturer and tortured, while the other conspirators
succumb (Scarry 1985).10 In doing so, she also redefines the relationship between

9
Newman (2000) addresses this question in much more detail in her chapter Sex in Strange Places:
Sexed Bodies and the Split Text of Lohensteins Epicharis.
10
Elaine Scarrys thesis regarding pain and torture contends that the tortured individuals reality is
reduced solely to the experience of pain. Thus, torture presents a good opportunity for the torturer to
gather information.

123
Female Masculinity in Lohensteins Epicharis and Cleopatra 267

pleasure and pain and is, in the words of Elaine Scarry, able to make worlds
where worlds should be unmade. The text continues to present her actions as
legitimate lauding new political possibilities where power is not confined to the
male-bodied, patriarchal monarch but rather where tortured, female bodies
assume a political voice that must be heard.
Even when tortured to near death, Epicharis maintains control over Nero:
Nero.
Wer nicht bekennen wil/ gehort auf scharffe Fragen.
Epicharis.
Jch wil bekennen.
Nero.
Wol! Lo!
Epicharis.
sags/ was ich sol sagen?
Nero.
Setzt der Verzweifelten entflammte Zangen an.
Epicharis.
Was sol die offenbarn/ die kaum mehr athmen kan (3.55962).
Epicharis reverses the power dynamic of the interrogation process. By seemingly
submitting to Neros will claiming that she will confess to her part in the conspiracy,
she manipulates the dynamic. She assumes the role of the interrogator, asking Nero
what she should confess, and refusing once again to give into Neros expectations. If
she were to confess after posing this question, the confession would not be of her
own will but rather of Neros will. By manipulating the roles in the interrogation
process, Epicharis demonstrates her rational superiority while remaining loyal to her
cause.
Epicharis is brought to the brink of death during this first round of torture, and,
after she faints, Neros men imprison her. Here she demonstrates that tortured
bodies can still advocate for political change. As she awakens in a daze, she asks,
Hat mein zergliedert Leib das Demant-feste Joch
Der strengen Tiranney noch nicht gantz abgeschmien?
[]
Mein augeadert Leib/ die abgefleischten Beine/
Mein halb-gebraten Fleisch erweicht die Kiesel-steine/
Euch Hencker aber nicht; Die gleich wohl Menschen sind/
Ja Romer (4.214)!
This passage makes evident the extent of the torture she suffered, her body
dismembered, her flesh burnt. Her words describing a broken body evoke a deep
sense of pain. This shattered body, however, remains politically active. In fact, it
appears that the pain endured by the physical body corresponds to the strengthening
of her spirit:

123
268 B. Davis

Der Freinde Gegenwart lat mich zu Kraften kommen;

Ich fuhle/ wie in mir ein neuer Geist sich regt.
Jedweder Schlag/ damit das Hertze sich bewegt/
Ist hertzhaft und bemuht den Blutthund zu erdrucken (4.4447).
Torture empowers Epicharis to continue on her world-making project. Her
experience is not reduced to the pain she feels, but rather she is able to convert this
pain into political action. In the fourth act of the drama she crafts letters attempting
to re-ignite the conspiracy from her prison cell. These attempts fail. Nevertheless,
the manner in which Epicharis is able to transform the experience of torture into
spirited resistance serves as a model for the people of Breslau. While they may not
have been experiencing physical torture, their body politic was being dismembered
by imperial edicts and coercion. Because Lohenstein connects such a display of
resistance with the performance of masculinity of the school boys, he demonstrates
a pathway to political change for performers and audience alike.
Epicharis final words confirm this sentiment. She is forced to return to the
torture chamber so that Nero can extract her confession. This time she dies though
not without confirming her female masculinity and her superiority over Nero:
So/ wenn Epicharis schon langst wird seyn gestorben/
Wird sich die Nachwelt ihr zu einem Tempel weihn
Und ihr Gedachtnus-Bild ein ewig Nahme seyn/
Und wenn man mich und dich wird auf den Schauplatz heben/
Wird Nero nur durch Schmach/ ich durch die Tugend leben (5.72832).
In the end, Epicharis virtue prevails. The logic of the play codes her virtue
masculine. A female-bodied individual performs masculine characteristics and
assumes the power associated with them. Thus, in this play, Lohenstein suggests
that readers, performers, and audience members imagine power as contestable by
legitimizing resistance against tyrants. The play envisions resistance and change by
connecting masculine virtues with political alternatives.

Cleopatra: Reading Resistance: Political Tension and Veiled Discontent

While Lohensteins discontent with the empire is overt in Epicharis, it takes a more
nuanced form in Cleopatra. Following Behar, this difference stems from the
political climate in which the plays were drafted. Lohensteins first Cleopatra was
to pay homage to the new emperor (Behar 2004, 280). My focus in this section will
deal with the revised version of the play which appeared in 1680, and was the
version authorized by Lohenstein for publication. In the years prior to the revision,
Lohenstein was personally active in the political maneuvering between Breslau and
Vienna. In fact, 5 years prior to the revision of Cleopatra, Lohenstein, serving as
Breslaus Obersyndikus, traveled to Vienna to assure the Empire of Breslaus
loyalty. The Empire threatened to station an imperial garrison in Breslau which
Lohenstein wanted to prevent in the interest of maintaining Breslaus political

123
Female Masculinity in Lohensteins Epicharis and Cleopatra 269

autonomy. But his personal appearance at the imperial court was not his only
political activity in 1675. After the death of the last Piast duke in late 1675,
Lohenstein assisted in drafting a religious and political petition to the Emperor in
which he asked for the maintenance of the political and religious status quo in the
former Piast duchies (Waterman 2006). Emperor Leopold agreed to uphold the
status quo in the region, however, shortly thereafter he went back on his word
(Waterman 2006, 170). As Waterman convincingly argues, the format of the
memorial required the appearance of trust towards the Empire (Waterman 2006,
181). The same can be said of some of Lohensteins literary works. They included
seemingly pro-Habsburg messages in order to demonstrate loyalty toward the
Empire, however, this appearance of loyalty was only present in order to ensure
political and religious freedoms. I would argue that this process can be understood
in terms of Jose Esteban Munoz theorization of disidentification (1999). Munoz
understands disidentification as a mode of dealing with dominant ideology, one
that neither opts to assimilate within such a structure nor strictly opposes it; rather,
disidentification is a strategy that works on and against dominant ideology (1999,
11). In this unstable socio-political moment, Lohenstein veiled his displeasures in an
apparent praise of Rome. In Cleopatra we are no longer concerned with the corrupt
Nero. Rome is represented instead by Augustus. Still, an examination of gender
dynamics in the play, namely those surrounding Cleopatra herself, demonstrates that
Lohenstein did not fully endorse Habsburg rule. Even as Lohensteins Cleopatra
conforms to the dominant historical narrativefate favors Romein this play,
Lohenstein attempts to reconfigure power relations revealing his displeasure with
the political arrangements between Vienna and Breslau.
Lohensteins Cleopatra presents the political struggle between Rome and Egypt
following the Battle of Actium. Historical analogy allows us to view Egypt as a non-
Habsburg power in the seventeenth-century context. Past scholarship supports
understanding the play as a historical narrative according to which fate trumps free
will and ultimately Rome is the victor.11 However, a close examination of key
passages demonstrates that instances of gender fluidity and Cleopatras embodiment
of resistance undermine the fate-driven representation of Rome as the ideal political
paradigm. These moments align more closely to what Breger (2008) calls feminine
masculinity.12 Throughout the play Cleopatra exhibits moments of masculine
attributes and refuses to submit to legitimate power in an attempt to save her
empire. Scholars have discussed whether her actions are honorable or a selfish
attempt to save herself. My reading supports the former. Cleopatras performance of
feminine masculinity renders her the sole embodiment of resistance in the text.
Cleopatra kills herself because she cannot escape Rome. Nevertheless her actions

11
Judith Aikin (1978) suggests that fate favors Rome in Cleopatra, Given the concept of the place of
Rome and Augustus in the Divine Plan for universal salvation discussed above, the resistance of
Cleopatra and Antonius must be seen as illicitA close reading of the text shows that the ideas of
political and personal freedom, although present in the drama, are repudiated by the Romans, and we
must therefore conclude that they were rejected by Lohenstein 16465.
12
Here the use of the notion of feminine masculinity is a way of theorizing gender bricolage, that is:
gender identifications or performances composed from elements commonly associated with masculinity
and from elements commonly associated with femininity 159.

123
270 B. Davis

demonstrate that resistance to the Empire will continue after her death. Cleopatras
rule and her resistance against Rome correspond to political dissent that is rooted in
an alternative system of power.13 In the end, the text lauds this political dissent. An
examination of this dissent demonstrates how Lohensteins text deploys techniques
that can be read in a seventeenth-century context as support of Breslaus political
autonomy.
At the beginning of the play, in the presence of Antonius, Cleopatra plays no
political role. In fact, she embodies the stereotypical female role of a fortune teller.
In the first act, Cleopatra and Antonius realize that fate is on the side of Rome
(1.498503). Cleopatra is at first characterized by passivity and a submission to fate.
When she decides to resist, her political, masculine side emerges and challenges the
exemplary representation of Rome.
But first her feminized body, that is the body desired by Antonius, must be
eradicated. Cleopatra devises a plan that could be seen as self-serving. She follows a
pattern of self-preservation even as her moments of selfless virtue are emphasized.
She plans a fake suicide designed to prompt Antonius to kill himself in despair,
leaving her the sole agent of resistance. While her plan is deceitful, Cleopatra
remains nobly loyal to her empire. These moments of self-preservation are also
moments of political agency as Cleopatra attempts to save herself and her empire
from being subjugated by Rome:
So auch/ da wir uns hier ein falsches Grabmal bauen/
Traun wir uns den Anton selbst-handig todt zu schauen/
So denn fallts uns nicht schwer durch unser Lilgen-Brust/
Durch den benelckten Mund zu zwingen den August (3.6164).
Her dramatic death presents Cleopatra in two bodies and reflects two attempts to
secure political power: one with and one without Antonius (Alt 2007). But this body
is markedly female and the attachment of political resistance to this body has
multiple consequences. In contrast to Epicharis, Cleopatra clearly states she will use
her erotic body to persuade Augustus. In this play the body is a dynamic sign that
demands fluidity of meaning. Still, Cleopatras spirited resistance ultimately occurs
independent of a male-bodied political agent, resulting in the performance of a
hybrid gender.
Following her transformation, Cleopatra demonstrates loyalty to her family and
empire. She plans to disguise her son as a Moor to help him escape and continue the
blood line after her demise.14 Her son first refuses, insisting that disguising himself
would be an act of cowardice. Cleopatra reassures him, pointing to historical events
in which men have used disguises to their political and military advantage:
Was ficht mein Sohn dich an?
Die gantze Welt geht itzt vermummt; und Tugend kan

13
Newman (2000, 14243) argues, employing the methods of race and gender, alongside her
philological approach, that additions and choice of source material positions Egypt as a collective and
organized oppositional front, led by Cleopatra.
14
Newman (2000) interprets this scene with regard to race and concludes that race is invest[ed] with a
political profile associated with a possible anti-Roman alliance with Candace 141.

123
Female Masculinity in Lohensteins Epicharis and Cleopatra 271

Nicht ohne Larve gehn/ sol sie nicht Schifbruch leiden.

Mu sich nicht Hannibal wol tausendmal verkleiden?
Dein Vater Julius/ wil Syllen er entfliehn/
Mu eines Sklaven Rock/ und Schuh von Holtz anziehn (4.34448).
Referring to such historical evidence demonstrates Cleopatras control over the
situation and her vast knowledge of history and strategy. Additionally, the notion
that at times virtue must be hidden points to the importance of modesty and humility
in covert resistance.
Cleopatras performance of feminine masculinity is awarded political legitimacy
in the play because she resists Rome while remaining loyal to her empire and the
continuation of resistance. Cleopatra confirms this loyalty in her final words to her
son:
Du wirst/ wo wir ja falln/ umb Rache dich bemuhen.
Nim diesen Ku noch hin; sey auf dein Heil bedacht;
Sorg umb dein Vaterland (4.38183).
Her concern is clearly larger than the ambitions of one character. Rather it is the
continuation of a political system independent of the Roman Empire. Seventeenth-
century audiences would have recognized the historical analogy. Cleopatras
affirmation of Vaterland surely resonated with pupils and audiences engaged in a
political and confessional struggle with Vienna. Furthermore this scene is present in
the authorized 1680 version of the play, the version that appeared some 5 years after
Lohensteins attempts to appease the Habsburg Empire in return for political and
religious freedom.
Even if, up to this point, the political message remained unclear to contemporary
audiences, the interactions between Cleopatra and the Romans, including Augustus,
make the point more saliently. Cleopatra, revealing her intelligence, refuses to
succumb to the Roman promises of help:
Proculejus.
August schickt uns mit Trost und Hulf ihr zuzueilen.
Cleopatra.
Ach! unsre Wunden kan August und ihr nicht heilen.
Epaphroditus.
Was/ grosse Konigin/ verwundet sie so scharf?
Cleopatra.
Nennt iemand/ den das Gluck in solchen Abgrund warf.
Proculejus.
Sie stand/ und steht noch itzt/ und kan noch ferner stehen.
Cleopatra.
Nun Ehe/ Thron und Reich zu Grund und drummern gehen (4.40106)?
Cleopatra hints at the fact that the destruction of her Empire has caused damage to
herself. Facing offers of Roman assistance, her loyalty to her empire as well as her

123
272 B. Davis

intelligence prevent her from being swayed by Romes empty promises. Still,
Augustus surrogates continue their attempts to convince Cleopatra to surrender,
which she knows would mean becoming a war trophy. Despite her virtues and her
opposition to Rome, fate determines that Rome will prevail. While the facts with
which Lohenstein is working force him to follow the larger historical narrative, he
manipulates the historical scenario in order to legitimize Cleopatras resistance. She
does not conform to the stereotypical seductress role, but rather maintains her
masculine-coded political strength until she dies. Cleopatra recognizes that she no
longer has the possibility of securing her personal freedom, yet remains determined
to follow her path of resistance:
Mein Geist zwickt mich ins Ohr/ es saget mirs mein Hertze:
Die Freyheit sey verspielt. Hilf ab so herben Schmertze/
Cleopatra/ stirb/ stirb! als Furstin/ nicht als Magd (4.42123).
While she acknowledges that she will be defeated, she refuses to submit to Rome.
She will die as a free ruler in one final act of resistance. By making the choice to
stage her death on her terms, she asserts her freedom of choice vis-a`-vis the tyrant.
In choosing death over a life of servitude, she expresses agency against an
oppressive regime.
After the conversation with Proculus, Augustus speaks with Cleopatra. He
describes how she will be praised and freed if she returns to Rome with him.
Cunning Cleopatra convinces Augustus that she agrees with his plan, but that she
has one final request. She wants to bury Antonius in Egypt. Believing that he has
Cleopatra on his side, Augustus agrees to this request. She uses this opportunity not
only to bury Antonius but also to execute her final plot against Rome. At the burial
surrounded by her chambermaids she exclaims,
August hat Marck und Bein und Blutt uns ausgesogen/
Den vaterlichen Thron durch schlimmes Recht entzogen/
Des Ptolomus Schatz durch Schelm-Stuck an sich bracht/
Doch ruht sein Ehrgeitz nicht. Er ist nun auch bedacht/
Nach Rom ins Siegs-Geprang unds Schau-Spiel uns zu fuhren.
Dis ist es/ was wir nur noch haben zu verlihren.
Doch nein! die Angel fehlt die uberm Fische schwebt.
Ein Furst stirbt muttig/ der sein Reich nicht uberlebt (5.10310).
She knows that the promises of Rome are empty and that Augustus is not to be
trusted. Most telling is the final line of the speech which underscores yet again her
feminine masculinity. She will die courageously if she does not survive her empire.
With this single line Cleopatra erases any doubt that her actions are based on her
personal aspirations. Even in death she remains steadfast and honorable, determined
not to surrender to Rome.
Following the demonstration of her female masculinity and the declaration of her
loyalty to her homeland, Cleopatra commits suicide. She and several of her
chambermaids allow themselves to be bitten by a poisonous snake claiming that
Gift/ Mord und Schwerd sind uns erleidlicher/ als Ketten (5.375). They would
rather die than become servants and captives of Rome. Cleopatra chooses to be

123
Female Masculinity in Lohensteins Epicharis and Cleopatra 273

killed by a cobra, recalling the Fall. According to Colvin, Cleopatra redeems

herself in the context of the drama through the destruction of her own transgressive
corporeality (1999, 101). In my reading, however, Cleopatras death is not so
much about redeeming her transgressive corporeality as about valorizing the
transgressions and subversions set into motion by her actions with regard to gender,
morality, and politics. While fate may decree that Cleopatras transgressive
corporeality be destroyed, Cleopatras actions demonstrate that redemption is the
last thing on her mind.
Cleopatra is masculinized by practices of body and mind as her second hybrid
body drives the political action. Through historical analogy Cleopatras physical
resistance to Rome can be viewed as a suggestion of resistance to the Habsburg
Empire. Any doubt about Lohensteins sympathies disappears when we return to the
beginning of the play and the Latin inscription that reads Whether we are
conquered or surrender, we must die. All that matters is whether we do so
ignominiously or with courage.15

Conclusion

An examination of the moments of female masculinity in these plays is necessary to

understand a central aspect of their political message. Performances of female
masculinity demonstrate that the bond between normative masculinity, patriarchy,
and the political sphere is not natural. Moreover the interrogation of this bond
becomes all the more visible because we are dealing with performances of
masculinity by female-bodied figures played by males. According to Newman,
Lohenstein endowed these female characters with characteristics typically associ-
ated with masculinity, in part, to teach the school boys how to behave in the context
of their training in rhetoric in preparation for their administrative futures. However,
this demonstrates that these characteristics are even more readily transferable
between male and female bodies, allowing for a representation of power far from
normative.
Through connecting the performance of masculinity to politics, Epicharis and
Cleopatra demonstrate the interconnectedness of the social and political. By
introducing instability in the social realm, i.e. the construction of gender, the texts
demonstrate that political systems grounded in patriarchy and centralization are
themselves open to scrutiny. It is not possible to conclude that because Rome
prevails Lohenstein endorses Rome, and consequently Vienna. Close readings of
moments of rupture in the texts reject this conclusion. Operating within the
dominant narrative of history, Lohenstein is able to work against normative
frameworks of masculinity and power. The idea of female masculinity present in the
plays allows us to envision networks of power as constructed and thus contestable.
In the two plays power is contested in variant manners. In Epicharis a constant front
of female masculinity calls for a return to a republican form of government, and thus

15
Moriendum victis, moriendum deditis: id solum referre, novissimum Spiritum per Ludibrium &
Contumelias effundant, an per virtutem. Translation from: Best (1986).

123
274 B. Davis

a decentralization of both social and political power. Cleopatras hybrid gender, a

refusal for a complete identification with either masculinity or femininity, results in
a call for patriotic resistance in the face of tyranny. In the end, Lohensteins plays
suggest that changes in dominant norms are possible and thinkable in the context of
rapidly evolving political climates.

References

Aikin, J. P. (1978). Egyptian captivity and the theme of freedom in Lohensteins Cleopatra. Argenis:
Internationale Zeitschrift fur Mittlere Deutsche Literatur, 2, 159186.
Alt, P. (2007). Von der Schonheit zerbrechender Ordnungen: Korper, Politik und Geschlecht in der
Literatur des 17. Jahrhunderts. Gottingen: Wallstein.
Behar, P. (2004). Der Widerstand gegen die Habsburger im Werk Daniel Caspers von Lohenstein. In P.
Behar et al. (Eds.), Der Furst und sein Volk: Herrscherlob und Herrscherkritik in den
habsburgischen Landern der fruhen Neuzeit (pp. 269291). St. Ingbert: Rohrig Universitatsverlag.
Best, T. (1986). On Lohensteins concept of tragedy. Euphorion, 80, 278296.
Breger, C. (2008). Hegemony, marginalization, and feminine masculinity: Antje Ravic Strubels Unter
Schnee. Seminar: A Journal of Germanic Studies, 44(1), 154173.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Colvin, S. (1999). The rhetorical feminine: Gender and the Orient on the German stage, 16471742.
Oxford: Oxford UP.
Connell, R. W. (1993). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Conrads, N. (2009). Schlesien in der Fruhmoderne: Zur politischen und gesitigen Kultur eines
habsburgischen Landes. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Bohlau.
Halberstam, J. (1998). Female masculinity. Durham: Duke UP.
Kantorowicz, E. H. (1957). The kings two bodies: A study in mediaeval political theology. Princeton:
Princeton UP.
Landes, J. B. (2001). Visualizing the nation: Gender, representation, and revolution in eighteenth-century
France. London: Cornell UP.
Munoz, J. E. (1999). Disidentifications: Queers of color and the performance of politics. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Newman, J. O. (2000). The intervention of philology: Gender, learning, and power in Lohensteins
Roman plays. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Scarry, E. (1985). The body in pain: The making and unmaking of the world. New York: Oxford U Press.
Sperberg-McQueen, M. (2000). When worlds collide: Women, sources, and Lohensteins Epicahris.
Colloquia Germanica: Internationale Zeitschrift fur Germanistik, 33(1), 119.
von Lohenstein, D. C. (2005). Cleopatra (1680). In Mundt et al. (Eds.), Samtliche Werke: Historisch-
kritische Ausgabe: Daniel Caspar von Lohenstein. Berlin: DeGruyter.
von Lohenstein, D. C. (2005). Epicharis. In Mundt et al. (Eds.), Samtliche Werke: Historisch-kritische
Ausgabe: Daniel Caspar von Lohenstein. Berlin: DeGruyter.
Waterman, J. P. (2006). Daniel Casper von Lohensteins diplomatic memorial to Emperor Leopold I for
the estates of Legnica, Brzeg, and Wolow. Daphnis: Zeitschrift fur Mittlere Deutsche Literatur und
Kultur der Fruhen Neuzeit, 35(12), 163192.
Whaley, J. (2012). Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. New York: Oxford U Press.
Zemon-Davis, N. (1975). Society and culture in early modern France: Eight essays. Stanford, CA:
Stanford UP.

123