something i wrote for a friend in 2003…
—
I tried to search for websites that (I thought) would mention the influence of Nietzsche on Betti (based on my reading of “The Queen and the Rebels”). I didn’t find any (plus, this is my first encounter with Betti), so I’m thinking this might be a case of me over-reading or seeing what I want to see, or simply a case of similar minds (Nietzsche and Betti) working on the same issue.
Anyway, as you might know, it was in “Beyond Good and Evil” that Nietzsche mentioned the difference between the moralities of masters (the strong) and slaves (the weak). (Once, I read someone mentioning that Hegel had a discourse on masters and slaves. So, again, as I haven’t read Hegel yet, I’m thinking Nietzsche might be taking off from Hegel’s starting point.) But it is in “The Genealogy of Morals” that we find an extended discussion of the difference between these two kinds of morality. The morality of the “masters” proceeds from an affirmation of one’s goodness; the notion of “bad” appears as a contrast, and is secondary, to this valuation. The morality of “slaves,” on the other hand, proceeds from a reversal of this process: slaves see the master as “evil,” which therefore makes him (the slave – the antithesis of the master) “good.”
Nietzsche uses the French word “ressentiment” which is none other than the English “resentment,” to refer to the source of this valuation of the “slaves.” He discusses the human need for revenge. The masters, being masters, have no need for revenge. Or, if they suffer defeat at the hands of their enemies, the need for revenge is readily given expression and does not fester and poison one’s valuations. On the other hand, the slaves’ desire to take revenge against their enemies (the masters) is ineffectual since they fear the reprisal of their masters. Thus, this desire for revenge is suppressed, remains unexpressed, and poisons the very heart and blood of the slaves’ valuations.
Nowadays, we have the very popular words “proactive” and “reactive.” The masters, the strong, are simply put, proactive; the slaves, the weak, reactive. Their action is essentially a reaction, as Nietzsche says, born out of resentment.
So, the preliminaries being over, why did I say that Betti could have been influenced by Nietzsche?
Because “The Queen and the Rebels” presents this struggle between the masters and slaves. What does it mean to be “a queen,” to be nobility? (By the way, the notion of “noblesse oblige” – French for “nobility obliges” – expresses magnanimity or greatness of the soul, generosity of spirit, not being petty, etc.)
Betti’s story is about some revolutionary government out to find the former queen and exterminate her, to eliminate the possibility of the former regime regrouping and rallying their troops under her banner. In the story, we find out that the real queen, fearing for her life, has been reduced to behaving like a common peasant. Argia, a prostitute, discovering compassion for a fellow human-being who simply wants to be able to “sleep in peace,” decides to help her escape. In the process, she had to play the role of the queen, hoping to end the masquerade once the queen is in safety. Circumstances led to her owning up to “being the queen,” and discovering the meaning of nobility.
Thus, Betti argues that nobility is not a matter of blood. Nor is it a matter of privilege. It is character, born out of a realization that “one is alone,” the decision to face up to this aloneness, and own one’s dignity as a person. The privilege, if there is any at all, is secondary to the responsibility.
Anyone can be master (king, queen, what-have-you), but not anyone can face up to the responsibility that goes with it. Consider the very telling illustration of General Biante who, eaten up by hatred and resentment, dies of gangrene in his very pursuit to kill as many people as can be killed (all in the name of revolution). Act 4 of the play is the climax, the confrontation between these two principles: that of struggling for life and dignity (as represented by Argia) and that of accepting the basic unfairness and injustice of life (as represented by Commissar Amos).
The play, as I see it, is not an apologia for tyranny and the re-establishment of royalty, or the old ways of ruling. And, rather than seeing this simply as a struggle between two types of people, it makes more sense to see this more as a struggle taking place in the heart of every would-be leader/master. To what principle does what one ultimately hold allegiance: life or death?
It also goes to show how, as in our country the Philippines, we sorely lack truly great leaders, or for that matter, truly great human beings in positions of authority.
Best regards,
ian
Tags: Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, The Queen and the Rebels, Theater, Ugo Betti