Büchner’s Woyzeck: the fear of female

sexuality and motivations for the death of

Marie

ARTS2127 – Great Plays

K J Gatenby
z5361357
So many of the “great plays” in the theatrical canon are fixated on the sexuality of women.

The allure of Cassandra in Agamemnon, the power of the female body in Lysistrata, the

chaos caused by potential sexual scandal in Much Ado About Nothing, the list seems as if it

never ends. From the start of our extant plays, there seems to be a focus on the mystery and

power of the female as a sexual being. But this focus is more than just intellectual, there

appears to be a fear or anxiety surrounding the concept. ‘Societies always produce theatre

that reflects their anxieties’1. So what is it about the sexuality of women that has society so

anxious? Why has humanity, throughout history, been so afraid of female desire? In this

essay, I will specifically focus on this historical anxiety in Büchner’s play Woyzeck. This play

presents a highly sexualised female character who causes much fear and anxiety because of

her sexual deviance. So much so that her actions appear to be the catalyst for her own

murder. In this exploration, I will investigate the historical fear of female infidelity and

sexuality and how the character of Marie is sexualised. Moreover, I will discuss Marie’s

murder in relation to Woyzeck’s circumstances through the nature versus nurture debate, his

motivations behind brutally murdering her and conclude whether his actions are justifiable

to any extent.

Throughout the history of both theatre and humanity, the fear and anxiety surrounding

female sexuality has been present, but the question remains why? Why were men at the

time that Büchner was writing so afraid of female infidelity? Nineteenth century thought

was still significantly influenced by Christian ideals and biblical truths, and from this,

sexuality was viewed as evil and perceived as a mortal sin. 2 Even worse for the character of

1
A. Kamaralli, ‘ARTS2127 2022 Lecture Week 1’ [lecture], 14 February 2022.
2
K. Dunne, ‘Woyzeck’s Marie “Ein schlect Mensch”? The Construction of Female Sexuality in Büchner’s
Woyzeck’, Seminar, vol.26, no.4, November 1990, pp.295, 302.
Marie, as an unmarried woman, with a child out of wedlock, having sexual relations with

another man, the social judgement upon her would have been significant. Her illegitimate

relationship and child mean that she bears the stigma of being branded a whore by society. 3

Moreover, with the emergence of a middle class in society, this group of women were

argued to be civilised and not driven by passion like men. 4 However, lower-class women

were viewed as more physical and many prostitutes came from this social class. 5 This further

judgement on Marie as a lower class woman meant that she was completing a self-fulfilling

class-based prophecy placed upon her. Furthermore, the societal view at the time that men

owned their wives and had jurisdiction over their bodies added to the anxiety. Because men

viewed their wives and women in their household as their property, the potential

embarrassment of not having control over their wives’ and daughters’ actions and bodies

caused much fear in them. Thus, the restrictive and judgemental societal views both caused

the male anxiety present in theatre, and was exacerbated by it.

But what was this societal view responding to? The views of sex and sexuality in nineteenth

century Europe were still restrictive but they began to shift and change in the medical and

private spheres. In an effort to increase the descending birth rate in France, doctors began

encouraging mutual sexual pleasure in marital sex. 6 This built a new conflicting image for

women, as Mesch outlines it, forcing women to debate whether they could be both

‘ménagére (housewife) [and] bonne épouse (good wife)’ in the private sphere.7 At a time

where women were told to suppress sexual expression, they were also being granted the
3
ibid, pp.301-302.
4
C. Dyhouse, ‘Why are we so afraid of female desire?’ in Literary Hub, viewed 18 April 2022,
https://lithub.com/why-are-we-so-afraid-of-female-desire/
5
ibid.
6
R. Mesch, ‘Housewive or Harlot?: Sex and the Married Woman in Nineteenth-Century France’, Journal of the
History of Sexuality, vol.18, no.1, January 2009, p.66.
7
ibid, p.66.
ability to seek their sexual desires and pleasure in their relationships. But this shift posed a

threat to men. In response the male counterparts as a collective responded with anxiety and

fear. Throughout history, sexualised women have been labelled as sluts, harlots and

wenches. This judgement and anxiety has become present in our theatre canon as common

views of the time. Eltis notes that the enduring popularity of various plays about sexual

women relates to their ‘function as a warning to potentially errant women’.8

In eighteenth century Western art, similar themes are present, revealing the anxiety of

husbands needing reassurance that their wives would not commit adultery. 9 However, the

irony here is starkly obvious. Whilst women were condemned for seeking sexual pleasure,

particularly outside their marriages, men were never. Nineteenth century writer Maizeroy’s

view on sexuality was that men needed extramarital sex and affair due to the horrors of

marriage, whilst women were socially condemned and forced to live with or pay for their

crimes.10 In nineteenth century art, there were many images of men catching their wives in

acts of adultery, but never the reverse. 11 Men could seek their sexual desires and pleasures

with little judgement, but women faced societal and spiritual condemnation for the same.

Theatre throughout history, including Büchner’s Woyzeck, reflect men’s anxiety of women’s

sexuality and power because men feared losing power over women and in theatre

demonstrated the consequences of sexual sin to scare women into submission and

encourage social stigmas.12

8
S. Eltis, ‘Introduction’ in Acts of Desire: Women and Sex on Stage 1800-1930, Oxford Scholarship Online, 2013,
p.3.
9
P. Mainardi, Husbands, Wives, and Lovers: Marriage and Its Discontents in Nineteenth-Century France. Yale
University Press, New Haven and London, 2003, p.180.
10
Mesch, op. cit., p.76.
11
Mainardi, op. cit., p.97.
12
Eltis, op. cit., p.3.
By reflecting upon this anxiety, Büchner constructed the character of Marie to be overly

sexualised by both the playwright and the characters in the play. Marie exists in a man’s

world in which she is trapped by the male gaze and presented to the audience through

Woyzeck’s viewpoint. It is this male gaze which increases the sexualisation of Marie as she is

objectified and even blamed for her fate by some scholars. 13 Schafer outlines how Marie is

further trapped by this limiting male gaze as Marie appears in small, almost claustrophobic

spaces stuck behind windows representing her oppression under the men in the play. 14

However, her characterisation is also sexualised by Büchner himself. When she speaks of the

Drum Major, she never uses his name, but describes his physical appearance in quite

animalistic and intense ways. Moreover, many of her descriptions also have sexual

connotations, such as her comments about the Drum Major’s beard because at the time, the

cultural symbolism associated this with male virility and pubic hair. 15 This focus on simply the

Drum Major’s appearance and not his person or identity highlights her desire for sexual

pleasure and diminishes her respect in the society, as well as with audience members. But

she is also sexualised by the characters in the play. Her sexual attractiveness is described in

references to parts of her body such as her hair and eyes which also have sexual

connotations.16 Thus, the combination of the male gaze within the play, Büchner’s

sexualisation of her in her characterisation and the sexualisation from other characters all

limit Marie to be a particular, limited archetypal woman.

13
E. Schafer. ‘The Male Gaze in Woyzeck: re-presenting Marie and madness’. Themes in Drama. vol.15, 1993,
p.55.
14
ibid, p.58.
15
Dunne, op. cit., p.296.
16
ibid, p.296.
However, translators have also contributed to this sexualisation of Marie. Martin has

highlighted some fascinating translation choices which have further sexualised and isolated

the character of Marie.17 She illuminates how the word ‘Mensch’ when applied to Woyzeck

signifies his basic humanity, whereas is translated as ‘Bitch! Slut!’ when cried at Marie. The

phrase could have been translated as ‘man, oh man’ or ‘oh, my God!’, but instead Marie is

isolated by this sexualised and insulting translation. 18 This translation also dehumanises

Marie and causes her as a character to be more isolated by her community. It causes

directors and audience members to question whether Marie is more human, innocent, and

like Woyzeck, a victim of violence, or choose not to affirm her humanity and label her a

whore, an outcast and a sinner.19

From this arises one of the significant debates in the play – the nature versus nurture

argument. Were Woyzeck’s actions inevitable because of his character and madness, or were

the social factors and influence the cause? The dichotomy presented in this question poses

these binaries as polar opposites, with one as an extremely negative force and implying the

goodness of the other. However, as Martin highlights, the conundrum of this dichotomy is

that neither are good forces. 20 Woyzeck does follow the call of nature – urination,

procreation, and eventually murder. But as he simultaneously mentally and physically

disintegrates, the calls of nature become increasingly drastic and he can no longer

distinguish what calls he should listen to, eventually leading to the brutal murdering of his

partner. However, Woyzeck is also the ultimate victim of both circumstance and society. 21

17
L. Martin, ‘Schlechtes Mensch/Gutes Opfer: The Role of Marie in Georg Büchner;s Woyzeck’, German Life
and Letters, vol.50, no.4, October 1997, p.429.
18
ibid, p.429.
19
ibid, p.430.
20
ibid, p.442.
21
Dunne, op. cit. p.294.
Living in extreme poverty and abused by all around him, Woyzeck has no social support or

positive influences in his life. Whilst playing the role of Woyzeck, actor Pigott found himself

becoming isolated from his castmates as his character was constantly encountering abuse

from every person.22 This led him to losing trust in all those around him because of the

circumstances he was placed into as an actor, which highlights the significant abuse that the

character faces as a result of his circumstances. To add to the lack of support that Woyzeck

has no access to, there is also no objective outside force in the play, as the individuals who

should fulfil this role, like the doctor, are instead incredibly subjective and abusive, to the

point of conducting experiments on him.23 The audience themselves are also not a

comforting or supportive source to Woyzeck as the text encourages them to diagnose him as

mentally ill.24 This removes the objectivity of the audience further as they judge Woyzeck

and view him through a lens of subjectivity and concern, or even disgust. Thus, it is evident

that neither Woyzeck’s nature or his nurture influences are positive authorities on his life,

decisions and circumstances. Concluding whether it is nature or nurture which lead him to

his fateful actions is the incorrect approach, it is not an either / or dichotomy, but rather a

both / and situation.25 Through this lens, it is clear to see that Woyzeck’s destructive

circumstances made the murder of Marie and his choices truly inevitable.

By taking this into account, we inevitably ask: what was Woyzeck’s motivation in killing

Marie? She was his only joy in life, and yet he brutally murders her. This question is one of

the most highly contested discussions surrounding this play, of which there have been a

K. Mills, ‘Moon, Madness and Murder. The Motivation of Woyzeck’s Killing of Marie’, German Life and Letters,
vol.41, no.4, July 1988, p.430.
22
M. Pigott, (Year not specified) ‘Actor Michael Pigott on playing Woyzeck’. Accessed from
https://moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au/course/view.php?id=64529 p.1.
23
Schafer, op. cit., pp.56-57.
24
ibid, p.56.
25
Martin, op. cit., p.441.
variety of seemingly viable resolutions. However, as we have seen, the influence on

Woyzeck’s actions was not nature versus nurture, but rather nature and nurture combined,

his motivation for the murder of Marie is also in two parts. On the nature side, Woyzeck’s

insanity allows himself to justify the murder by believing he is saving her from damnation. In

his demented state of mind, he believes that he has purged Marie of her sins and states ‘…

your sins? They made you black, black! Now I’ve made you white.’ 26 In Pigott’s experience of

portraying this character, he found that because of Woyzeck’s mental disintegration, he is

able to construct a clear and logical collection of events which makes ending Marie’s life the

morally correct thing to do.27 The first half of the reason he murders her is because he thinks

he is being merciful and saving her soul. Martin goes as far to say that this is also influenced

by Marie’s infidelity, stating that her infidelity was what caused Woyzeck to enter into

insanity.28 It is evident that Woyzeck’s natural influences certainly deteriorate throughout the

play, and unquestionably decline more rapidly after the discovery of Marie’s infidelity, but

the social nurturing influences impact his motivation also. From this perspective, Woyzeck is

indoctrinated by his society to fell that he has to take some sort of action, but is limited by

his social standing. In their society, Woyzeck has ownership over Marie and thus she is his to

punish.29 It is the societal expectation that he will punish her. But she is also a sacrificial

scapegoat in place of various abusive perpetrators. 30 Because of Woyzeck’s extreme poverty

and social positioning, he cannot attack his societal superiors such as the doctor who abuse

him or the drum major who is equally at fault as Marie. Thus, Woyzeck murders Marie

26
G. Büchner, ‘Complete Works and Letters’. ed. W. Hinderer & H.J. Schmidt. trans. H. J. Schmidt The
Continuum Publishing Company, United States, 1986, p.221.
27
Pigott, op. cit., p.1.
28
Martin, op. cit. p.435.
29
Dunne, op. cit. pp.304-5.
30
Martin, op. cit. p.442.
because of the social conditioning he is experiencing and his own crazed justification of her

death.

Due to the immeasurable impacts and influences on Woyzeck, the awful question must be

asked: can Woyzeck be justified to any extent? To what degree is he accountable for his

actions? Schafer poses an important question which changes the perception of the character

of Woyzeck: is he truly insane? 31 If Woyzeck is truly mad, it reveals the further oppression

that Marie was under, but if he is not, then he certainly cannot be justified as he murders

her in his right mind. Schafer also argues that any sympathy for Woyzeck breeds misogyny

and that he must be held entirely responsible.32 And whether this is a sound enough reason

to condemn Woyzeck does not matter as he simply cannot be justified for his actions. It was

not the pea-diet which exacerbated his mental deterioration which led him to murder Marie,

but his own lack of inhibition. 33 There can be space for sympathy for Woyzeck and his

circumstances, but not for removing any accountability from his actions. If the situation

were reversed, Marie would not be afforded the same sympathies. Instead, the

responsibility should be placed upon Woyzeck the individual, as well as the social influences

on him. Despite his insanity, he is still accountable for his partner’s death.

To conclude, the fear of female sexuality throughout history, and particularly in Büchner’s

time stems from the male fear of loss of power and often presents itself in theatre as a

warning to potentially sexually scandalous women. In Woyzeck, Marie escapes the social

norm, is sexually devious and is murdered as punishment because of the social expectations

31
Schafer, op. cit., p.58.
32
ibid, p.55.
33
Martin, op. cit. p.441.
and stigmas surrounding Woyzeck. His character is under both natural and social pressures

and influences which lead him to murder his partner, but is still accountable for her death.

Büchner’s Woyzeck is regarded in the theatrical canon as a great play because of its

incredibly modernity. Büchner is deemed as incredibly ahead of his time, writing in a style

like no one else during his lifetime. It truly is the first modern play, but is “great” for so much

more than that. The play has astonishing durability and adaptability resulting in its incredible

afterlife. Many of the themes are still incredibly relevant for a twenty-first century audience

including mental illness, abuse and poverty. For this play to remain relevant for so many

years is a testament to Büchner’s genius and the play’s afterlife. Moreover, the ability to

change and adapt for different audiences, contexts and cultures is an incredible quality that

makes a play “great”. It is not just “great” for one audience or context, but for many in the

years to come. Woyzeck is a fantastic example of this as the staging can developing new

meanings and messages with focuses such as on human experimentation, poverty, abuse,

female empowerment or female rights. The fear of female sexuality may still be evidently

present in the theatrical canon, but modern interpretations of Woyzeck and such plays

present opportunities to change that fear into celebration and discuss this issue of fear and

judgement in our present society.

Word Count: 2507

References

Büchner, G. ‘Complete Works and Letters’. ed. W. Hinderer & H.J. Schmidt. trans. H. J.

Schmidt The Continuum Publishing Company, United States, 1986.

Dunne, K. ‘Woyzeck’s Marie “Ein schlect Mensch”? The Construction of Female Sexuality in

Büchner’s Woyzeck’, Seminar, vol.26, no.4, November 1990, pp.294-308.

Dyhouse, C. ‘Why are we so afraid of female desire?’ in Literary Hub, viewed 18 April 2022,

https://lithub.com/why-are-we-so-afraid-of-female-desire/

Eltis, S. ‘Introduction’ in Acts of Desire: Women and Sex on Stage 1800-1930, Oxford

Scholarship Online, 2013, pp.1-12.

Kamaralli, A. ‘ARTS2127 2022 Lecture Week 1’ [lecture], 14 February 2022.

Mainardi, P. Husbands, Wives, and Lovers: Marriage and Its Discontents in Nineteenth-

Century France. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2003.

Martin, L. ‘Schlechtes Mensch/Gutes Opfer: The Role of Marie in Georg Büchner;s Woyzeck’,

German Life and Letters, vol.50, no.4, October 1997, pp.429-444.

Mesch, R. ‘Housewive or Harlot?: Sex and the Married Woman in Nineteenth-Century

France’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol.18, no.1, January 2009, pp.65-83.

Mills, K. ‘Moon, Madness and Murder. The Motivation of Woyzeck’s Killing of Marie’,

German Life and Letters, vol.41, no.4, July 1988, pp.430-436.

Pigott, M. (Year not specified) ‘Actor Michael Pigott on playing Woyzeck’. Accessed from

https://moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au/course/view.php?id=64529

Schafer, E. ‘The Male Gaze in Woyzeck: re-presenting Marie and madness’. Themes in

Drama. vol.15, 1993, pp.55-64.