Upload
david-cubbin
View
221
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
1/49
Chapter One: Introduction
Leben des Galilei1 is arguably Brechts most popular single work, both on stage and in
print: it is both his only play to reach Broadway in a major production2, and it has
outsold all of his other works to date3. It is also by far the most heavily rewritten of all
his plays, for Brecht was never entirely comfortable with it, and he proceeded to make
alterations to it barely a few weeks after his completion of the first copy in late 1938
and continued to do so, translating it into English and making drastic changes to it in
the 1940s then translating it back into German later that decade and continuing to revise
it until his death in 1956.
The topic selected for this analysis is Brechts message, that is, what exactly the
dramatist was attempting to convey inLeben des Galilei, including both where Galileo
stands at the end of the play, and which moral lessons Brecht is attempting to impart to
his audience. This is by no means as facile a question as it at first appears. A brief
overview of the critical reception of the play illuminates this considerably. In his
commentary of the work, Dieter Whrle divides previous interpretations into three main
categories4. The first of these is the methodical principle of comparison, drawn between
1 Brecht, B., Leben des Galilei, Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin, 1963. See also Lyon, J.K.,Bertolt Brecht in America, Methuen, Great Britain, 1982, p. 174: Conquering Broadwaywas undoubtedly a dream of his. From late 1945 until 1947 American occupationalofficials and theatre directors in both Austria and Germany repeatedly requested
Brechts approval to stage his plays, but without exception he refused, wishing insteadto focus on getting Galileo on its legs in New York, which he expressed in a letter toRuth Berlau in August 1945. John Fuegi suggests that Brecht even went as far asattempting to prevent his play, Master Race, from going on stage at the last minute,literally trying to sabotage his own work by violently arguing with actors, in fear that itsfailure on stage could simultaneously make New York backers and the audience thereless interested inLeben des Galilei: In The Life and Lies of Bertolt Brecht, Flamingo,Great Britain, 1995, pp. 455-6.2 Willett, J.,Brecht in Context, Methuen, Great Britain, 1984, p. 34.3 2.4 million copies up to 1990: Suvin, D., Heavenly Food Denied:Life of Galileo inThomson, P. & Sacks, G. (eds.), A Cambridge Companion to Brecht, CambridgeUniversity Press, United Kingdom, 2000, p. 139.4 Whrle, D., Probleme und Perspektiven Interpretationen in Brecht, B., Leben des
1
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
2/49
the various editions of the play with respect to form and content5, as well as between the
historical and the dramatic figure upon which the play is centred6. The second group
considers the play in the context of the playwrights biography7and of his various other
works, particularly the development of his theory of the theatre, understanding it as the
endpoint of a continuous development. The third branch, dominating analyses today,
looks at various themes in the play, Brechts particular way of working and his political
aesthetics8.
The problem that arises from this mire of approaches, however, is that each one arrives
at a considerably different interpretation of what Brecht is trying to convey to us. A
comparison of the three versions, the Danish version written in 1938 and staged in
Zurich in 1943, the American version completed in 1947 and staged at the Coronet
Theatre in Hollywood and Maxine Elliott Theatre in New York later that year, and the
German version worked on until Brechts death in 1956 and staged in Cologne in 1955
and at the Berlin Ensemble in 1957, is particularly useful on account of the critics
ability to derive from the changes made to the text its intended meanings or purpose,
and changes thereof as the historical context in which Brecht writes the play changes.
Yet it is insufficient insofar as it fails to take into account other reasons why the play
Galilei, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1988, p. 156.5 For a thorough comparison of the three versions, see, for example, Willett, J. &Manheim R. (eds.),Bertolt Brecht: Plays, Poetry and Prose, The Collected Plays, Vol.5 Part 1, The Chaucer Press, Great Britain, 1980, pp. 162-200.6 See, for example, Cohen, M.A., History and Moral in Brechts The Life of Galileo,in Mews, S. (ed.), Critical Essays on Bertolt Brecht, Siegfried Mews, USA, pp. 115-128.7 See Hill, C.,Bertolt Brecht, Twayne Pubishers, USA, 1975, p. 32, and Stern, G., ThePlight of Exile: A Hidden Theme in Brechts Galileo Galilei, in Brecht Heute:
Jahrbuch der internationalen Brecht-Gesellschaft, Jahrgang I/1971, pp. 110-116. Bothlook at Brechts own exile and relate it to that of Galileo.8 See, for example, Weber, B. N., The Life of Galileo and the Theory of Revolution inPermanence in Weber, B. N. & Heinen, H. (eds.), Bertolt Brecht: Political Theory and
Literary Practice, Manchester University Press, pp. 60-81.
2
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
3/49
was changed, such as, for example, the need to appeal to particular and wildly differing
audiences.
Similarly, a comparison between the real Galileo and that of the play is useful in that
Brecht, who was potentially interested in Galileo as early as 19339, used history as part
of his dialectic, thus his departure from verisimilitude can be seen to be deliberate and
for the sake of generating a specific meaning for the audience10. Yet critics have gone
too far with this when elements of the play are construed negatively on account of the
very fact that they are not realistic for 17th Century Italy, and unless they look at the
changes made to history within the context of contemporising it to provide relevance to
its audience, as Eric Bentley does11, they too have not answered the question fully as to
what Brechts message is.
The other branches of interpretation are equally necessary but insufficient. Analyses of
Brechts biography, theory of the theatre and other works are illuminative as a means of
gaining insight into broader thematic or stylistic patterns that might emerge on the
playwrights part, but risk attempting to bludgeon the primary text into an external
structure whatever the cost. Brechts own words and the words of his closest friends
about his plays must also be taken with a hint caution, for in such uncertain and
oppressive times, marked by the Soviet purges, the rise of Nazism, not to mention
Brechts own inquisition by the House of Un-American Activities Committee in 1947,
even in exile people needed to keep their views to themselves and remain
9 Hill, C.,Bertolt Brecht, Twayne Pubishers, USA, 1975, p. 112.10 Zimmermann remarks that the purpose of an historical analysis of the work is to askob die erkennbaren nderungen, seien es nun Ergnzungen, Auslassungen oderUnwertungen der historischen Figure, ber die Intentionen des Autors Aufschlu gebenknnen: In Zimmermann, W., Bertolt Brecht: Leben des Galilei: Dramatik derWidersprche, Ferdinand Schningh, Germany, 1985, p. 11.11 Bentley, E.,Bentley on Brecht, Applause Books, New York, 1998, p. 187.
3
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
4/49
inconspicuous at all costs12. Conversely, those interpretations which look at particular
themes of the play are more textually based, but in the process of zeroing in on a single
element or theme, the conclusions at which they arrive about the plays meaning can
lack both the scope and context of broader analyses13.
Such an overview of the canon of reception and analysis of the play does not come
close to grappling with any real issues associated with the play itself. It merely serves
the purpose of showing that each method has its theoretical shortcomings, and it is in
light of this conclusion that it may be stated that this paper has an ambitious aim
indeed: to encompass the more pertinent areas of all of these critical concerns, for
without any one of them, an attempt to truly understand what Brecht wants his audience
to learn from the piece is futile.
Firstly, the theoretical background and the evolution of the play will be examined, with
attention paid to scenes, characters and speeches which feature exclusively or more
heavily in one version than the others. Secondly, since this paper ought to be rooted in
Germanic rather than theatre studies, a focussed analysis of the third, German, version
of the text will be conducted drawing on some of Brechts sources, inspirations, and his
other works and commentaries, the temporal context in which he wrote the piece, and
his use of history. The third section of the work will look at the staging ofGalileo and
12 Klaus Vlker makes the point that those in exile in Denmark were watched over veryclosely, and finds the comment made by Brecht in an interview in January 1939, thatthe play contained no topical allusions to Germany or Italy, to reflect this: Vlker, K.,
Brecht: A Biography, The Seabury Press, New York, 1978, p. 261.13 Webers political interpretation makes some interesting points with respect to the trialof Bukharin and the Soviet Union generally, but does not even cast a cursory glance atthe plays scientific implications, which must not be underestimated consideringBrechts formal education was in Science and Medicine at the Universities of Munichand Berlin: Weber, B. N., The Life of Galileo and the Theory of Revolution inPermanence in Weber, B. N. & Heinen, H. (eds.), Bertolt Brecht: Political Theory and
Literary Practice, Manchester University Press, pp. 60-81.
4
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
5/49
consider the question whether or not the play carries out on stage what the prior two
chapters of this paper find it purports to do in textual form.
Theoretical background
Though of course the philosophy of knowledge, epistemology, is a broad and old
subject indeed, its history within the context of Galileo dates back to Aristotle (384-
322BC), who established logic as a separate science and discovered, isolated and
analysed the fundamental form of inference, namely the syllogism14. His work
comprises of six treatises on logic collectively entitled Organum in Byzantine times.
Aristotles science was nonetheless one of God, relying heavily on Ptolemy and the
divine for his arguments, his epoch was one of feudalism, and he failed to systematise
rules for an inductive method that could firmly establish general principles.
Furthermore, his texts were at the time available exclusively in Greek or Latin, thereby
serving an esoteric and thus a controlling function, available only to the powers that be
and their ideologists.
Another important scientific and philosophical figure, whose writings Brecht utilised to
a significant extent in Galileo15, is Francis Bacon (1561-1626), who in 1620 published
Novum Organum, an attack on Aristotles scientific method, proposing instead a new
method for the interpretation of nature, that of induction. His science was a science of
nature as opposed to one of God, and it relied a priori on the concepts of doubt and
rationality. At one stage in his work, Bacon aphoristically draws an analogy between
the new intellectual temper of his own age and the Christian revolution in thinking,
14 Frederick Coppleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy. I: Greece and Rome,Westminster, USA, 1948, p. 284.15 See Schumacher, E., Drama und Geschichte: Bertolt Brechts Leben des Galileiund andere Stcke, Henschel, Berlin, 1965, pp. 40-41.
5
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
6/49
which itself called for the eyes of childlike faith, albeit of a different kind: the entrance
into the kingdom of man, founded on the sciences, being not much other than the
entrance into the kingdom of heaven, whereinto none may enter except as a little
child16. In his analysis Francis Bacon, Galileo, and the Brechtian Theatre17, Ralph
Ley remarks that this quality of naivety is inextricably bound up with any age
characterised by fresh intellectual beginnings and a new way of scrutinising reality18,
and he places Bacon at the beginning of what he considers to be the first scientific
revolution, replacing transcendental realism with a kind of vulgar materialism, and as a
result of the fruits of scientific enquiry, feudalism with capitalism.
The third mind, to whom both the practical side of Brechts theatre and the content of
Galileo are indebted, is Karl Marx (1818-1883), who through a second scientific
revolution, that of Marxism, intended to transform society into a form which could
actualise the potentials unleashed by the first scientific revolution. His science was the
science of man, which replaced Bacons vulgar materialism with historical materialism,
and capitalism with socialism. Just as Bacon valued naivety, so Marx considered
gullibility to be the most excusable of human vices19. Einstein himself was endowed
with the inclination to doubt and wonder about the status quo, asking why is it any
more strange to assume that moving clocks slow down and moving rods contract, than
to assume that they dont?20 Marx and Engels depicted Copernicus, Bacon and
Descartes as liberators from the status quo in their development of a new, critical form
16 Bacon, F., in Burtt, E.A. (ed.) Novum Organum, The English Philosophers fromBacon to Mill, Random House, New York, 1939, Book I, p. 48 (aphorism lxviii).17 In Mews, S. & Knust, H. (eds.),Essays on Brecht: Theatre and Politics, Chapel Hill,University of North Carolina Press, 1974, pp. 174-189.18 Ibid, p. 175.19 Fromm, E.,Marxs Concept of Man, Frederick Ungar, New York, 1961, p. 257.20 Cited in Barnett, L., The Universe and Dr. Einstein, William Sloane Associates,1952, p. 257.
6
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
7/49
of thinking. But primary importance he placed in Bacon, the real founder of all
modern experimental science [which] consists in applying rational method to the data
provided by the senses21, and he gave him credit for anticipat[ing] an alteration in the
form of production, and the practical subjugation of Nature by Man, as a result of the
altered methods of thought22.
Karl Korsch, who taught courses on Marxism attended by Brecht at the Karl Marx
School and in small study groups in Berlin in the late 1920s and the 1930s, became
known to the playwright as my teacher of Marxism23. Korsch saw the Marxian
dialectic as the theoretical core of Marxism, characterized by the principles of historical
specification, involving comprehending all things social in terms of a definite
historical epoch24, critique, consisting of the contradictions and antagonisms that
make radical transformation possible25, and revolutionary practice, which would
emancipate the working class and construct socialism26.
Brechts Revolutionary Theatre
In the spirit of the Marxian dialectic, Brechts revolutionary practice was in the only
way he knew how: through his writing and more particularly, his dramaturgy.
Although his most important work on the theory of theatre, Kleines Organon fr das
Theater27, which complements this dialectic, was written in 1948, well after he wrote
21 Marx, K. & Engels, F., The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism, in Marx,K., and Engels, F., On Religion, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1957, pp. 63-64.22 Marx, K.,Das Capital, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1978, p. 426 (Vol. 1).23 Kellner, D., Brechts Marxist Aesthetic: The Korsch Connection, in Weber, B. N.,& Heinen, H. (eds.),Bertolt Brecht: Political Theory and Literary Practice, ManchesterUniversity Press, pp. 29-42: p. 30.24 Loc. cit.25 Loc. cit.26 Loc. cit.27 In Brecht, B., Schriften zum Theater, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1957.
7
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
8/49
the first version ofGalileo, it nonetheless serves as the most useful point of reference
concerning what Brecht saw as the purpose of his theatre and the ideas which he sought
to incorporate in it.
Brecht believed that things are not right in this world and that it is our responsibility to
change them by changing the attitudes of the peoples of the world:
Es ist eine Lust unseres Zeitalters, dass so viele und mannigfache
Vernderungen der Natur bewerkstelligt, alles so zu begreifen, dass wir
eingreifen knnen. Da ist viel im Menschen, sagen wir, da kann viel aus ihm
gemacht werden. Wie er ist, muss er nicht bleiben, nicht nur, wie er ist, darf er
betrachtet werden, sondern auch, wie er sein knnte28.
What Brecht thought was needed was a way of thinking that was on the one hand
historical and critical, and on the other advocated a revolution of the social order.
In order to achieve this, Brecht believed the entire style of theatre needed to be
changed. The theatre to date had been based on the Russian dramatist, Stanislavsky,
which Brecht criticized because it reinforced the status quo. Brecht pejoratively termed
this style culinary theatre29, because it provided the spectator with a pleasant
experience or moral easy for digestion. He proposed instead a new kind of theatre,
whose aim was to make people think; based on the German theatrical director and
producer, Erwin Piscator, this style became known as the epic theatre. Contrasting the
two styles, Brecht wrote:
Der Zuschauer des dramatischen Theaters sagt: Ja, das habe ich auch schon
28 Ibid, No. 46.29 Kellner, D., Brechts Marxist Aesthetic: The Korsch Connection, in Weber, B. N.,& Heinen, H. (eds.),Bertolt Brecht: Political Theory and Literary Practice, ManchesterUniversity Press, pp. 29-42, p. 32.
8
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
9/49
gefhlt. So bin ich. Das ist nur natrlich. Das wird immer so sein. Das Leid
dieses Menschen erschttert mich, weil es keinen Ausweg fr ihn gibt. Das ist
groe Kunst: das ist alles selbstverstndlich. Ich weine mit den Weinenden, ich
lache mit den Lachenden. Der Zuschauer des epischen Theaters sagt: Das htte
ich nicht gedacht. So darf man es nicht machen. Das ist hchst auffllig, fast
nicht zu glauben. Das muss aufhren. Das Leid dieses Menschen erschttert
mich, weil es doch einen Ausweg fr ihn gbe. Das ist groe Kunst: da ist nichts
selbstverstndlich. Ich lache ber den Weinenden, ich weine ber die
Lachenden30.
This epic theatre then comprised of a number of specific devices for eliciting such an
effect from the audience. In line with the previously mentioned Marxian dialectic of
history, Brecht sought to illuminate the historically specific features of an environment
in order to show how that environment influenced, shaped, and often battered and
destroyed the characters. He called this practice Historisierung and believed that a
critical attitude towards ones society could best be attained if the present social
arrangements and institutions were viewed as historical, transitory, and subject to
change31. Brecht wrote that in order to derive knowledge from the societal situation of
the present, ein bestimmtes Gesellschgaftssystem [wird] vom Standpunkt eines
anderen Gesellschaftssystems betrachtet32.
The most important device of epic theatre, however, was the Verfremdungseffekt
30 Brecht, B. ber eine nichtaristotelische Dramatik, in Brecht, B., Schriften zumTheater, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1957, p. 99.31 Kellner, D., Brechts Marxist Aesthetic: The Korsch Connection, in Weber, B. N.,& Heinen, H. (eds.),Bertolt Brecht: Political Theory and Literary Practice, ManchesterUniversity Press, pp. 29-42, p. 31.32 Brecht,B., Gesammelte Werke in 20 Bnden, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1967,Band 16, p. 653.
9
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
10/49
(abbreviated to V-Effekt). Brecht wrote in defining this term Einen Vorgang oder
einen Charakter verfremden heit zunchst einfach, dem Vorgang oder dem Charakter
das Selbstverstndliche, Bekannte, Einleuchtende zu nehmen und ber ihn Staunen und
Bewunderung zu erzeugen33. The spectator must, generally speaking, remain
emotionally uninvolved, for the reason dass man kalt besser denken kann, und wir
wollen hauptschlich, dass man denkt im Theater34. To achieve this end, songs may be
introduced to interrupt the action, placards describing the events of the following scene
might be utilised to remove the dramatic suspense customary in the traditional culinary
theatre, and the actors themselves must not be entirely at one with their characters35.
These techniques will of course be examined more closely in this paper.
So it is clear at this point that Brechts theory of theatre drew on the philosophies of
Aristotle, Bacon and Marx, which encompass both a scientific and a social need for a
critical-nave tabula rasa as a starting point, a new attitude taken towards old things. It
is with this born in mind that a study of Galileo, such a unique play in the sense that
stylistically it utilises Brechts theory of theatre, whilst simultaneously dramatising the
ideas in the content of the play itself, can begin.
Chapter One The Three Versions of Galileo
In this chapter, what are considered the three official versions ofGalileo are examined:
the Danish Version (1938-39), the American Version (1944-47), and the German
Version (1953-56). But before this can be carried out, an explanation of my treatment
of them must be explained somewhat. The purpose of the Chapter is primarily to reveal
33 Brecht, B., Neue Technik der Schauspielkunst, Schriften zum Theater, Band 3,Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1957, p. 101.34 Brecht, B., in Brookes, H.F., & Fraenkel, C.E. (eds.), Leben des Galilei, Heinemann,Great Britain, 1958, p. 5.35 Ibid, p. 6.
10
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
11/49
a broad evolution of the play across the three versions against the background of the
changes in Brechts life and the course of history. Without a general appreciation of this
evolution, the play as it stands today cannot be understood in the same way that a
person cannot be known without examining his or her past. As Brechts most reworked
play (from 1938 to 1956), it is in no way hyperbole to suggest that Galileo simply must
be understood as a living organism with a complex history. The analysis of the Danish
Version attempts to look at some of the issues with which Brecht was concerned at the
time of writing, and therefore inserted into his play, in line with the more general
philosophical ideas and theories concerning the theatre addressed in the previous
Chapter. A brief glance at the American version and the context in which it was written
ensues, but since the version is in English, and the play essentially represents a halfway
point between the first and third versions, more than an overview reflecting this trend is
unnecessary. The changes made from the second to the third version, which returns to
the original German, will then be looked at, before in the Second Chapter a more
penetrating analysis of the final version ofGalileo is made.
The Danish Version (1938-39)
The decade in which the first version ofGalileo was written, the 1930s, could hardly
have made no impression at all on the works of the overtly political Brecht, who
experienced first-hand both the rise of Nazism and the Soviet purges, during which
many of his friends vanished without a trace. The day after the Reichstag fire in 1933,
used by Hitler as a pretext to suspend civil liberties and wage a quasi-legal and in some
cases blatantly unconstitutional terrorism against the left, Brecht and his Jewish wife
11
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
12/49
went into exile in Denmark36. Darko Suvin37, Werner Zimmermann38, and Ernst
Schumacher39 all see the Reichstag fire trial in Leipzig, about which Brecht gathered all
the information available to him, as an important stimulus for the play. During the trial
Georgi Dimitroff in his final plea compared the Nazis, who staged the trial, with the
Inquisitors, vainly trying to suppress Galileos truth:
Im 17. Jahrhundert stand der Begrnder der Physik, Galileo Galilei, vor dem
strengen Inquisitionsgericht und sollte als Ketzer zum Tode verurteilt werden.
Er hat mir tiefster berzeugung und Entschlossenheit ausgerufen: Trotzdem,
sie, die Erde dreht sich doch! Und diese wissenschaftliche These wurde
spter zum Gemeingut der ganzen Menschheit40.
Michael Morley, however, is somewhat more cautious about attributing all of Brechts
actions to his ideologies, suggesting instead the creation of the role was prompted by
commercial thoughts41.
Before Brecht wrote the first version ofGalileo in 1938, Ernst Schumacher claims his
first tentative draft seemed to have been planned as a play for workers under the title
36 Geary, R. Brechts Germany in Bartram, G. & Waine, A. (eds.), Brecht inPerspective, Longman House, Singapore, 1982, pp. 2-10, p. 7.37 Suvin, D. Heavenly Food Denied: Life of Galileo in Thomson, P. & Sacks, G.(eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Brecht, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,2004, pp.139-152, p. 140.38 Zimmermann, W., Bertolt Brecht: Leben des Galilei: Dramatik der Widersprche,Ferdinand Schningh, Germany, 1985, p. 25.39 Schumacher, E. Drama und Geschichte: Bertolt Brechts Leben des Galilei undandere Stcke, Henschel Verlag, Berlin, 1965, p. 74.40 Zimmermann, W., Bertolt Brecht: Leben des Galilei: Dramatik der Widersprche,Ferdinand Schningh, Germany, 1985, p. 25.41 See Morley, M., Brecht: A Study, Rowman and Littlefield, New Jersey, 1997, p. 49:The 1930s saw a whole spate of films presenting the lives of famous figures in history,known as biopics, the most famous being The Story of Louis Pasteur, The Life of
Emile Zola, Rembrandtand The Private Life of Henry VIII, with Charles Laughton,who played Galileo in both Hollywood and New York in 1947, appearing in the lattertwo, leading Morley to suggest that the part may even have been written with theEnglish actor in mind.
12
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
13/49
Und die Erde bewegt sich42. Frederic Ewen remarks that in these very early stages of
composition, Galileo was a revolutionary scientist and hero, whose recantation,
followed by the whispered (and legendary) Eppur si muove! [yet it moves] did not in
any way detract from the great sum of his achievement or his contribution to the
welfare of mankind43. In the drafts, Galileo is in close touch and sympathy with the life
of the people, such as mechanics, craftsmen and engineers, as well as the simple folk of
the streets and market places, quite content to stand at the wharves and shipyards
watching the implementation of some new kind of mechanism to reduce the burden for
the workers there44. But above all he is a scientist who is aware of the vicissitudes of
life, and is incensed by the injustice and oppression he sees around him. He sees in the
Church and papal authorities the vested interests of the ruling class, and consequently
becomes a warrior against feudalism, stating explicitly that never before has science
been entrusted with such a mission: to forge weapons of reason for an entire people
against their oppressors45. To achieve this, Galileo must spread the truth abroad,
entrusting his friend, a potter, with this mission, which unfortunately cannot be
fulfilled. The Galileo of Brechts preliminary notes and sketches is nothing short of a
socially conscious hero.
What is known as the first official version ofGalileo was written in about three weeks
in November 1938 in Denmark, which Margarete Steffin mentioned in a letter to Walter
42 Schumacher, E. Drama und Geschichte: Bertolt Brechts Leben des Galilei undandere Stcke, Henschel Verlag, Berlin, 1965, pp. 77-78.43 Ewen, F.,Bertolt Brecht: His Life, His Art and His Times, Calder & Boyars, London,1967, p. 335.44 Loc. cit.45 Loc. cit.
13
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
14/49
Benjamin46 and Brecht confirmed in his work diary on 23rd November47. He then had
the accuracy of the scientific elements of the play checked by an assistant of Niels
Bohr, Professor C. Mller, in Copenhagen, and apparently made a few changes to it in
December after the splitting of the atom by Bohr and Otto Hahn was announced in the
previous month48.
The general structure of the first version of the play is essentially the same as the final
version, which will be examined at length in the following chapter. In fact, some scenes
remained virtually untouched in the final version, such as the first half of scene 1, scene
3, the start of scene 4, scene 5, scene 6, much of scene 8, scene 11,and the final
smuggling scene. Even scene 10, the carnival scene, has the same place, gist and
purpose, though the ballad was later rewritten49.
In contrast to the draft version of Galileo, it is clear that the Galileo of the first official
version is less of a socially conscious hero than in his draft notes, for his connection
with the people has been materially reduced, and he condemns himself for his
recantation in the penultimate scene, which he explains was not a calculated act but was
done out of fear of death50. A possible reason for this, as cited by Claude Hill, was that
46 Brecht hat inzwischen ein Stck ber Galilei beendet. Er hat im ganzen dreiWochen gebraucht! Es ist sehr schn geworden: In Zimmermann, W.,Bertolt Brecht:
Leben des Galilei: Dramatik der Widersprche, Ferdinand Schningh, Germany, 1985,p. 10.47 Loc. cit.48 Hill, C.,Bertolt Brecht, Twayne Pubishers, USA, 1975, p. 112.49 Willett, J. & Manheim R. (eds.), Bertolt Brecht: Plays, Poetry and Prose, TheCollected Plays, Vol. 5 Part 1, The Chaucer Press, Great Britain, 1980, pp. 162-200.50 Ewen, F.,Bertolt Brecht: His Life, His Art and His Times, Calder & Boyars, London,1967, p. 337. This perspicuous comment is entirely at odds with Anne Moss, who in heressay Limits of Reason nears such limits when she calls Galileos submission to theChurch a strategically calculated recantation: Moss, A., Limits of Reason: AnExploration of Brechts Concept ofVernunftand the Discourse of Science inLeben desGalilei, in Giles, S. & Livingstone, R. (eds.), Bertolt Brecht: Centenary Essays,Rodopi, Amsterdam, 1998, p. 138.
14
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
15/49
Brecht believed the recantation represented to some extent a defeat which in years to
come would lead to a schism between science and society, inspired perhaps by the
announcement of the splitting of the atom51. In his essay ber experimentelles
Theater, written around the time of the first version ofGalileo, he wrote the following:
Die Kenntnis der Natur der Dinge, so sehr und so ingenis vertieft und
erweitert, ist ohne die Kenntnis der Natur des Menschen, der menschlichen
Gesellschaft in ihrer Gesamtheit, nicht imstande, die Beherrschung der Natur zu
einer Quelle des Glcks fr die Menschheit zu machen52.
Professor Mller recalled a difference in opinion between himself and Brecht
concerning judgement of Galileos recantation, since Mller believed it to be fully
justified since the Discourses would never have been composed if Galileo had not
many years before submitted to the Catholic Church53. As far back as 1938, Brecht
saw things somewhat differently.
Nonetheless, critics tend to agree that the emphasis in this version is on Galileos
cunning more than on his betrayal of society through his recantation. Ronald Gray, for
example, finds Galileo at the end of the play to be an old man who outwits the
Inquisition, refusing to become a martyr by submitting to torture, but secretly and
cunningly continuing the scientific work which the Church has condemned, and
smuggling his writings abroad under the noses of the authorities54. Gunter Rorhmoser
takes the condemnation into account, but claims that the cunning of reason triumphs
also in the ethic of the scientists political action, it is as far ahead of its century as his
51 Hill, C.,Bertolt Brecht, Twayne Pubishers, USA, 1975, p. 116.52 Brecht, B., Werke: Groe kommentierte Berliner und Frankfurter Aufgabe,Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main,1988, Band 22, p. 549.53 Ewen, F.,Bertolt Brecht: His Life, His Art and His Times, Calder & Boyars, London,1967, p. 332.54 Gray, R.Brecht, Oliver and Boyd, Great Britain, 1961, p. 82.
15
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
16/49
knowledge is, and causes light to dawn in the darkness of his age55. Bentley calls him a
winning rogue56.
So in light of this positive reception of the figure on the part of critics, the theme of the
struggle of the working class is not really particularly pertinent in this version. This is
nowhere more evident than in the characters of the play, for Mrs Sarti dies of the plague
in scene 5, Ludovico, representative of the wealthy land-owning aristocracy in latter
versions, appears as Sitti, who laments in scene 9 that he has no fortune of his own.
Federzoni, representing the working class, and Vanni, representing the manufacturers
who started the Industrial Revolution in later versions, are also absent. These
characters, who will be examined later in this paper, represent people upon whom
Galileo can rely, people relevant to a Marxian discourse on class differences. But they
are not present at all, or their roles are insignificant to episodic at most in this version,
suggesting that the deep social responsibility of the scientist which Brecht tries to
convey in later versions is not of great importance here. Alfred White, also looking at
roles of the tiler and Lucovico, sees this characterisation as reflective of the fact that
where Galileos fight against the regime is automatically a good thing for the masses,
only a rudimentary idea of class is required57.
As opposed to the vast majority of secondary literature, which makes little more than a
55 Rohrmoser, G. in Lyons, C. R., Bertolt Brecht: The Despair and the Polemic,Southern Illinois University Press, USA, 1968, p. 115.56 Bentley, E. in Lyon, J.K.,Berolt Brecht in America, Methuen, Great Britain, 1982, p.175. In distinguishing between rogues and knaves, Bentley states Rogues are differentfrom knaves at least in plays. Uriah is a knave. He is the Enemy, the Cruel World,Capitalism, etc. So, I think, is Peachum. They are nothing if not active, while yourrogue, though applying himself busily to this or that, is fundamentally passive:Bentley, B., inBentley on Brecht, Applause Books, New York, 1998, p. 86.57 White, A. D., Bertolt Brechts Great Plays, MacMillan Press, Hong Kong, 1978, p.74.
16
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
17/49
superficial analysis of this version of the play, John Willett and Ralph Manheim
provide the reader with a scene by scene commentary, citing the differences between
this version and the later ones58. The most important distinction is the presentation of
Galileos self-condemnation in the penultimate scene. Here, Galileo has conspired with
a stove-fitter to conceal and smuggle out his writings. His main speech is differently
conceived from later versions, containing only one or two phrases from them, omitting
all but the most general references to sciences social implications, with Galileo
accusing himself only of failing to speak up for reason. The mention of a universal cry
of horror, and the need for a Hippocratic oath for scientists, are both absent here.
Importantly, it is only after this that Virginia leaves the room and Galileo admits to
having written the Discorsi, so there are no dramatic reversals of feeling between the
handing over of the Discorsi and the end of the scene. The final action concerning
Galileos guilt is thus not his self-condemnation, which would leave the spectator with
a more negative impression of the scientist at the end of the scene, and if the final scene
were cut, as it often is, at the end of the play, rather, it is the positive act of writing the
Discorsi. This implies at least a partial acceptance of Galileos recantation as a means
to dupe the Inquisition and continue his work. As James Lyon remarks, the renewal of
Galileos friendship with Andrea further emphasises this endorsement59.
The element of cunning then, which the critics claim is the characterising feature of this
version, is supported by the suggestion that Brecht had thought about calling the play
Die Schlauheit des berlebens60 and is epitomised in the Keuner story Brecht inserts
58 Willett, J. & Manheim R. (eds.), Bertolt Brecht: Plays, Poetry and Prose, TheCollected Plays, Vol. 5 Part 1, The Chaucer Press, Great Britain, 1980, pp. 162-200. Anabbreviated and tabulated comparison of the versions may be found athttp://www.nmsu.edu/~honors/galileo/gchanges.html.59 Lyon, J. K.,Bertolt Brecht in America, Methuen, Great Britain, 1982, p. 175.60 Hayman, R.,Brecht: A Biography, George Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London, 1983,
p. 213.
17
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
18/49
into scene 8, in which Galileo answers the question of the old scholar as to whether or
not it were right to be silent in light of the fact that the teachings of Copernicus was
now on the index:
In die Wohnung des kretischen Philsophen Keunos, der wegen seiner
freiheitlichen Gesinnung bei den Kretern sehr beliebt war, kam eines Tages
whrend der Gewaltherrschaft ein gewisser Agent, der einen Schein vorzeigte,
der von denen ausgestellt war, welche die Stadt beherrschten61.
Jan Knopf analyses the Keunergeschichten in detail, which Brecht used from 1929
until 1956 almost as parables placed strategically into some of works. Knopf sees the
word Keuner as having two meanings, the first of which is a play on a former teacher
of Brecht, who in pronunciation regularly exchanged the eu with the ei sound. In
this regard, Keuner comes to mean Keiner or no-body im Sinne einer nicht-
individuellen, distanzierten und eigenschaftslosen Figur, die lediglich als dialogisch-
dialektischer Vermittler, als Denkender, auftritt62. The second meaning comes from
the word koinon, the political community in Hellenistic times, so that Keuner als
popularisierender Vermittler zu denken ist, der neue Verhaltensweisen der Menschen
untereinander lehren mchte63. In this Keuner story, featuring only this version of
Galileo, the philosopher serves the agent for seven years. The agent repeatedly asks
whether Keunos will work for him, to which the philosopher does not respond until the
agents death, when he says Nein64. The parable is thus concerned with survival. Who
will live longer? The violent and oppressive regime, or Keunos, who has recognised the
former as such and realises that fighting openly against it will achieve nothing. Brecht
61 Brecht, B., Werke: Groe kommentierte Berliner und Frankfurter Aufgabe,Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main,1988, Band 5, p. 73.62 Knopf, J.,Literaturstudium: Brecht, Reclam, Stuttgart, 2000, p. 267.63 Loc. cit.64 Brecht, B., Werke: Groe kommentierte Berliner und Frankfurter Aufgabe,Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main,1988, Band 5, p. 73.
18
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
19/49
himself, despite his insertion of Galileos self-condemnation in the penultimate scene,
equally cannot deny the great scientist of some praise. He writes:
In der ersten Fassung des Stcks war die letzte Szene anders. Galilei hatte in
groer Heimlichkeit die Discorsi geschrieben. Er veranlat anllich eines
Besuches seinen Lieblingsschler Andrea, das Buch ber die Grenze ins
Ausland zu schmuggeln. Sein Widerruf hatte ihm die Mglichkeit verschafft,
ein entscheidendes Werk zu schaffen. Er war weise gewesen65.
Given this, and the context in which Brecht wrote the play in 1938, it is not surprising
that critics have concluded then that the purpose of this version of Galileo is to provide
a positive model of behaviour for intellectuals and scientists in Nazi Germany66. Claude
Hill, for example, agrees with those who suggest that Galileo was at first conceived as
an antifascist play in an historical disguise67. Several analyses have interpreted the play
as the dramatic version or at very least a proponent of a famous essay which Brecht
wrote in 1934, entitled Fnf Schwierigkeiten beim Schreiben der Wahrheit, in which
the author grapples with the problem of spreading the truth under the conditions of a
totalitarian regime68. He wrote:
Er [the writer] mu den Mut haben, die Wahrheit zu schreiben, obwohl sie
allenthalben unterdrckt wird, die Klugheit, sie zu erkennen, obwohl sie
allenthalben verhllt wird, dieKunst, sie handhabbar zu machen als eine Waffe,
65 Brecht, B. in Sautermeister, G., Zweifelskunst, abgebrochene Dialektik, blindeStellen:Leben des Galilei (3. Fassung, 1955), in Hinderer, W. (ed.),Brechts Dramen,Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 1984, pp. 125-161, p. 146.66 Schumacher, E., Drama und Geschichte: Bertolt Brechts Leben des Galilei undandere Stcke, Henschel, Berlin, 1965, pp. 72-81.67 Hill, C.,Bertolt Brecht, Twayne Pubishers, USA, 1975, p. 115.68 See White, A. D.,Bertolt Brechts Great Plays, MacMillan Press, Hong Kong, 1978,
p. 61; Bentley, E., Bentley on Brecht, Applause Books, New York, 1998, p. 188;Schumacher, E., Drama und Geschichte: Bertolt Brechts Leben des Galilei undandere Stcke, Henschel, Berlin, 1965, pp. 72-81.
19
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
20/49
das Urteil, jene auszuwhlen, in deren Hnden sie wirksam wird, die List, sie
unter diesen zu verbreiten69.
The parallels between the underground activities of the seventeenth-century scientist
and those of twentieth-century left-wingers in Hitler Germany are obvious, made
particularly explicit by the fact that Galileo says to Andrea in the penultimate scene
after having handed over the Discorsi to him nimm dich in acht, wenn du durch
Deutschland fhrst und die Wahrheit unter dem Rock trgst.
Brecht denied such a direct connection between the play and the political situations in
Germany and Italy, saying in an interview for the Copenhagen newspaperBerlingske
Tidende Ich habe den heldenmtigen Kampf Galileis fr seine moderne
wissenschaftliche berzeugung, da die Erde sich bewege, schildern wollen70. Even if
one does not take this denial seriously, putting it down to Brechts cautionary stance
towards the Danish authorities71, the question ought to be asked whether Brecht in this
comment was speaking against singular, contemporary interpretations of his work.
Opening up to other interpretations of this version then, one ought not to ignore the
suggestion that Brecht was writing Galileo under the impact of the great Soviet trials of
1936-38. Isaac Deutscher, the biographer of Leon Trotsky, is the most famous
proponent of this thesis, writing:
He [Brecht] had been in sympathy with Trotskyism and was shaken by the
purges; but he could not bring himself to break with Stalinism. He surrendered
69 In Brecht, B., Gesammalte Werke: In 20 Bnden, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main,1967, Band 18, p. 222.70 Brecht, B. in Zimmermann, W., Bertolt Brecht: Leben des Galilei: Dramatik derWidersprche, Ferdinand Schningh, Germany, 1985, p. 26.71 See Knust, H., Bertolt Brecht: Leben des Galilei, Diesterweg, Frankfurt am Main,1982, p. 15.
20
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
21/49
to it with a load of doubt in his mind, as the capitulators in Russia had done; and
he expressed artistically his and their predicament in Galileo Galilei. It was
through the prism of the Bolshevik experience that he saw Galileo going down
on his knees before the Inquisition and doing this from an historic necessity,
because of the peoples spiritual and political immaturity. The Galileo of his
drama is Zinoviev, or Bukharin or Rakovsky dressed up in historical
costume72
There is certainly some external evidence to suggest such an inspiration for the work.
Firstly, Brecht obtained a German translation of a transcript of the trial, and made
several notes in them, underlining the names of Bukharin and Jagoda in the
judgement73. One of Brechts co-workers, Kthe Rlicke, confirmed that Brecht had
spoke to her about the connection between the two trials:
Nach Brechts Ansicht ist mit der Darstellung des Galilei gelst die Darstellung
der groen Sowjet-Prozesse. Es ist technisch gelst. Die Selbstanalyse
Bucharins, wo er im Augenblick der Analyse so hoch ber sich selbst steigt, wie
sonst keiner im Gerichtssaal74.
Apparently Brecht first acknowledged the connection to Margarete Steffin in 1938 as
the group in Svendborg realised that Bukharins trial was faked and based on evidence
extracted, as with Galileo, under threat of torture or torture itself75.
Within the text, there is also some evidence to suggest such this comparison. Weber
72 Deutscher, I., The Prophet Outcast: Trotsky, 1929-1940, Oxford University Press,London, 1963, p. 370.73 Fuegi, J. The Life and Lies of Bertolt Brecht, Flamingo, Great Britain, 1994, p. 368;Zimmermann, W., Bertolt Brecht: Leben des Galilei: Dramatik der Widersprche,Ferdinand Schningh, Germany, 1985, p. 27.74 Zimmermann, W., Bertolt Brecht: Leben des Galilei: Dramatik der Widersprche,Ferdinand Schningh, Germany, 1985, p. 27.75 Fuegi, J. The Life and Lies of Bertolt Brecht, Flamingo, Great Britain, 1994, p. 585,Footnote 41.
21
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
22/49
looks at the similarities between the two characters, seeing in them both a nave trust in
intellect and reason, a dogged commitment to science (for Galileo, the science of
nature; for Trotsky, the science of society), arrogance and intellectual vanity, the
capacity for unscrupulous treatment of associates or family when commitment or
science demanded, an appreciation of art and everyday living, a demagogic ability to
sway youth, masked cowardice, an ability to rebut and defeat in word, but failure to
conquer in deed, and the capacity to recognize and analyse the corrupting influence of
privilege and yet fall victim to it76. Weber also sees Brechts composition of the play as
interlacing moments of authentic seventeenth-century history with anachronisms and
invented history to create a consistent set of parallels between two epochs77. She then
goes to great lengths to compare scene by scene the specific actions and dates in the
lives of the dramatic and historical Galileos with the life of Trotsky, from 1610 to 1910,
when Trotsky provided the scientific arguments concerning the permanent revolution of
society in his Vienna Truth, Pravda, from scenes 4 - 8 to Trotskys struggle for
recognition for his theories, from the old popes death in 1624 to Lenins death in
192478.
Ernst Schumacher concedes that there are conspicuous similarities between the two
trials, particularly with respect to the overall means of argumentation in Bukharins
closing in the third Moscow trial, in the form of der unerwarteten, berraschenden
Selbstverurteilung des Helden, als eine mgliche Darstellung der Moskauer Prozesse,
vor allem des Verhaltens Bukharins79, but sees only a formal or structural analogy
76 Weber, B.N., The Life of Galileo and the Theory of Revolution in Permanence, inWeber, B. N. & Heinen, H. (eds.), Bertolt Brecht: Political Theory and Literary
Practice, Manchester University Press, pp. 60-81: p. 63.77 Loc. cit.78 Ibid, p. 64.79 Schumacher, E., Drama und Geschichte: Bertolt Brechts Leben des Galilei undandere Stcke, Henschel, Berlin, 1965, p. 112.
22
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
23/49
which does not encompass the content of the work. Schumachers main point of
contention with the argument that Galileo is representative of the Soviet trials is to be
found in the difference between the self-condemnations of the two figures, for whereas
Bukharin judges his involvement in a Palace revolution and gives up and wants to be
seen by everyone as having given up his position, constituting an unconditional
capitulation, Galileo judges his capitulation would like to see his original stand become
universal80. Bentley asks how Stalinism could possibly be represented by the Church,
which Galileo cheats and outwits at the plays end, when there is very little evidence to
suggest either that Brecht had sympathy with Trotskyism, or that he believed Stalins
achievements to be anything but significant and worthy of poetic tribute81. The general
plotline of Galileo also seems at odds with this interpretation, for as Bentley asks:
What Marxist historian could accept the notion that a Catholic scientist of the
seventeenth century, whose best friends were priests, who placed his daughters
in a convent as young girls, was halfway a Marxist, resented convents and
churchgoing, doubted the existence of God, and regarded his tenets in physics as
socially revolutionary?82
In light of the problems and ambiguities associated with this interpretation, Weber is
plainly wrong when she suggests that all other readings of this version of the play lose
force beside a juxtaposition of the fictitious character Galileo with the revolutionary
figure Trotsky83. Nonetheless, it would be ignorant to discard Deutschers extensive
analysis without admitting that Brecht was deeply interested in the Soviet trials and that
80 Schumacher, E., Drama und Geschichte: Bertolt Brechts Leben des Galilei undandere Stcke, Henschel, Berlin, 1965, p. 112.81 Bentley, E.,Bentley on Brecht, Applause Books, New York, 1998, p. 203.82 Ibid, p. 83; the role of the Church will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter Two.83 Weber, B.N., The Life of Galileo and the Theory of Revolution in Permanence, inWeber, B. N. & Heinen, H. (eds.), Bertolt Brecht: Political Theory and Literary
Practice, Manchester University Press, pp. 60-81: pp. 62-63.
23
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
24/49
he found analogies between the recantations of the accused in them and of the scientist
Galileo. Most likely, however, the play serves as an attack on authoritarian regimes, a
call for the liberty to teach all things, and a directive to, or at very least an analysis of,
scientists and intellectuals in oppressive regimes in general.
The American Version (1944-47)
With his little Danish idle becoming, in Brechts own words increasingly like a
mousetrap84, the playwright moved to Sweden in April 1939, then sailed for Finland
on April 17, 1940, shortly after Nazi troops occupied Denmark and Norway. By 1941,
Brecht had obtained a visa, traveled through Russia, and arrived in the United States,
where he would live for six years until this country too made him feel unwelcome in
1947 by way of putting him on trial for un-American activities, that is, his sympathies
with Communism, and he felt Germany was once again safe to return to.
Irrespective of Brechts intentions for the Danish version of Galileo, the critics
judgement of the scientist was overwhelmingly positive. But the world had changed
greatly since this version was written, and Brecht obviously felt the need to clarify his
message. The message of cunning and survival, which considerably reduces the
responsibility of the individual, who is inherently a passive object of socio-historical
forces, could no longer be upheld, when over 9 million people had died during the
Holocaust. Critics tend to ignore this point and consider instead contemporary stimuli
for the American version without examining the problems that arose from the first. In
contrast to these critics, Jan Knopf states Die Gewalt des Faschismus hatte dermaen
84 In a letter dated June 13, 1939, from Margarete Steffin (quoting Brecht) to FerdinandReyher, Hollwood screen writer, who first met Brecht in Berlin in 1927 and becameone of his closest friends, in Bentley, E. Bentley on Brecht, Applause Books, NewYork, 1998, pp. 22-23.
24
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
25/49
viele Opfer und Verwstungen mit sich gebracht, dass die Historie den Widerspruch
Widerstand durch Anpassung? gelst hatte85. Around the time Brecht started to begin
his revision of the play, in April,1944, he noted that one believed:
Ich htte es fr richtig gehalten, da er ffentlich widerrufen hat, um insgeheim
seine Arbeit fortsetzen zu knnen, das ist zu flach und zu billig. Galilei zerstrte
schlielich nicht nur sich als Person, sondern auch den wertvollsten Teil seiner
wissenschaftlichen Arbeit86.
So the first inspiration for the second version of Galileo was the untenable position
concerning the behaviour of German scientists and intellectuals, who Brecht found
were treated too lightly in the play.
If The Nazis suppression of freedom of thought and scientific enquiry form the basis of
the first version of the play, then of the same importance to the second version are the
atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, a year after Brecht
began rewriting Galeilo. He reflects on this in the Preamble to the American Verison,
in which he writes:
The atomic age made its debut at Hiroshima in the middle of our work.
Overnight the biography of the founder of the new system of physics read
differently. The infernal effect of the great bomb placed the conflict between
Galileo and the authorities of his day in a new, sharper light87.
The first version then, which was more about helping science find its way in the world,
85 Knopf, J.,Literaturstudium: Brecht, Reclam, Stuttgart, 2000, p. 270.86 Brecht, B., in Zimmermann, W., Bertolt Brecht: Leben des Galilei: Dramatik derWidersprche, Ferdinand Schningh, Germany, 1985, p. 30.87 Brecht, B. in Willett, J. & Manheim R. (eds.), Bertolt Brecht: Plays, Poetry and
Prose, The Collected Plays, Vol. 5 Part 1, The Chaucer Press, Great Britain, 1980, p.125. As Brecht was in America at this stage, his words were generally in English. AGerman version of this quote may, however, be found in Brookes, H.F., & Fraenkel,C.E. (eds.),Leben des Galilei, Heinemann, Great Britain, 1958, p. 139.
25
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
26/49
needed to be rewritten, for Vernunft had proven to be a double-edged sword, which in
the right hands, as addressed in the Introduction of this paper, could cause a social
revolution by questioning the dominant and the status quo, but which in the wrong
hands could lead to further new kinds of domination and widespread calamity.
In Brechts own society, physicists in Pentagon laboratories across the United States
suddenly became aware of the ramifications of the scientific investigations. Einstein
was among them, stating Es war schimpflich geworden, etwas zu entdecken88. But
enticed by the thrills of scientific investigation, fame and money, many returned to their
jobs, and the positions of those who did not were filled by other capable scientists.
Thus, in the context of post-World War Two America, where Brecht tasted the same
bitterness of injustice and oppression as in Europe, Galileo needed to take on new
meaning.
The rewritten text ofGalileo thus reflects the need for a less positive reception of the
scientist. The parable of Keunos advocating survival and embodying Brechts Fnf
Schwierigkeiten beim Schreiben der Wahrheit is absent, as is the overtly topical
reference to Germany towards the end of scene 14, whereas a few new characters are
added, or replace characters with sharpened and significantly different functions from
those in the previous version. The student Doppone, whose role was limited to bringing
news of the discovery of the telescope, has been removed and the role of messenger has
been incorporated into the character of Ludovico, who now makes his entrance in scene
1 rather than 7. Rather than the commoner he is in the first version, he appears as a
88 Einstein, A., in Moss, A., Limits of Reason: An Exploration of Brechts Concept ofVernunft and the Discourse of Science in Leben des Galilei, in Giles, S. &Livingstone, R. (eds.),Bertolt Brecht: Centenary Essays, Rodopi, Amsterdam, 1998, p.140.
26
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
27/49
member and indeed a dramatic representation of the wealthy, land-owning aristocracy.
(See first two lines of his in scene 1). This arrogance is also evident in scene 2, where
he responds to Galileos claim that he has improved the Amsterdam telescope with the
scornful comment that he could see this on account of the fact that Galileo had changed
the colour of it from green to red, stating I am beginning to understand Sciene.
Ludovico also serves the function of a social critique in the sense that whereas before
he could not marry Galileos daughter, Virginia, because of his impoverished state, now
he cancels the engagement because Galileos recommenced astronomical
investigations, which in themselves are both unintelligible and of no interest to
Ludovico whatsoever, but which could have sweeping social ramifications, evident in
Galileos own words to this effect Yes. I might unsettle his peasants. And his
housekeeper and his agent. Ludovico thus represents and through the repsentation
allows Brecht to criticise, the very class of society in whose best interests it was to
maintain the status quo, the need for which reveals itself in a backlash against those
responsible its destabilisation.
On the opposing side, Federzoni, the lens-grinder, is introduced as both a mechanic
and scholar, a representative of the lower class, which Galileos teachings are
supposed to inspire towards revolution, reflected in the fact that Galileo pays attention
to the class by demanding to conduct a dispute in the language of the people, not the
language of the powerful. The social-revolutionary aspect is also sharpened in the
carnival scene of the play, which Brecht completely rewrites, with a new ballad in
English, the gist of which remains much the same, but which finishes with the
enormous dummy-figure of Galileo, the Bible-buster.
27
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
28/49
To enhance this social social critique, Brecht attempts to make Galileos character less
appealing. To achieve this, he introduces an iron-founder, Matti, who pledges his full
support to Galileo in his fight for the freedom to teach all things, thereby representing
the progressive Italian bourgeoisie. Brecht thus reveals to the spectator that this
embryonic class is on the scientists side, thereby providing Galileo with the potential
power to overcome the oppressive authorities, and the spectator with more reason to be
disappointed and to judge the scientist when with so much potential he betrays Matti
and his class. Galileo denies such responsibility, claiming in a conversation with his
daughter I have written a book about the mechanics of the firmament, that is all. What
they do or dont do with it is not my concern. He even has the malevolence to write in
a letter to the Archbishop of Florence that the insurgent sailors in Venice would best be
appeased through charity rather than the alleviation of their debts. His relationship with
Virginia is also made more distant, with Galileo condescendingly rejecting her friendly
and inquisitive desire to look through the telescope.
The self-condemnation scene is also very different from that of the first version. Here,
Andrea is presented with the Discorsi before Galileo criticizes himself, Brechts
intention being that the self-condemnation would leave the spectator with a lasting
negative impression of the scientist. Andrea, rather than adopting a critical stance
towards Galileo, and ending up on good terms with him, shows in this scene that he
now embodies what Galileos cowardly actions lend themselves to: the philosophy,
that, as Andrea himself puts it Science has only one commandment: contribution. And
you have contributed more than any man for a hundred years. This makes the spectator
aware of the devastating impact of Galileos recantation on future generations of
scientists, who will pursue a pure science without any concern for its impact on
28
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
29/49
humanity.
There are also no longer scene titles in the published text of this version, which have
been replaced by English verses at the beginning of each scene, and at the end of the
play, which now concludes with the warning:
May you now guard science light,Kindle it and use it right,Lest it be a flame to fallDownward to consume us all.
This is very much within the practice of epic theatre, as discussed in the Introduction of
this paper, for Brecht is diverting the spectators attention away from the plot, and
towards how the plot itself is played out, how the ideas Brecht wishes to raise are
expressed in dramatic form. The particular verse above, attached to the final scene in
which theDiscorsi are smuggled across the border, alludes perhaps to the idea to which
Brechts friend, Walter Benjamin, refers: namely, that the hero of the play is the people,
who, oppressed by the powerful and betrayed by scientists, must determine their own
fate89.
Brechts friend, the illustrious stage director Erwin Piscator, had written to Brecht in
1939 stating he, Eisler, and Kortner had all read the play and agreed that it was great,
but unsuitable for Broadway90
. Brecht, who was desperate to succeed on Broadway,
thus revised his play not only to change its message, but to appeal to a very different,
and in his mind, considerably less cerebral audience than he would find in Berlin. In
this vain, not only were changes made, but much of the play was cut. Scenes 3 and 7 are
89 Benjamin, W. in Willett, J. & Manheim R. (eds.),Bertolt Brecht: Plays, Poetry andProse, The Collected Plays, Vol. 5 Part 1, The Chaucer Press, Great Britain, 1980, p.126. Brecht agrees to Benjamins comment, which he expressly refers to at one stage, ina sense, but finds this would somewhat oversimplified as a summary of the play: Loc.cit.90 Lyon, J.K.,Bertolt Brecht in America, Methuen, Great Britain, 1982, p. 99.
29
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
30/49
shortened, the first half of scene 4, scene 5, in which Galileo continues research during
the plague, the cardinal inquisitors appearance in scene 6, most of Galileos speech
about Priapus in scene 8, and significant portions of the inquistors speech in scene 12
are all cut. The fact that Galileo no longer works through the plague makes him perhaps
a little less heroic, and reflects Brechts need to change his character to remove his
more positive actions from the play, but the other cuts clearly do not. The American
version is very short, and lasted only two and a half hours, including an intermission,
when it was staged in Hollywood and New York. In Berlin, the performance of version
three, similar in length to version one, lasted over three hours. As Hans Bunge writes in
his memoirs of Ruth Berlau, This the Americans would never accept they would
simply walk out of the theater91. So Brecht had to make huge cuts, which cannot really
be taken as an indicator of a thematic development of the play at all, which is to be
found in other aspects of the revision.
He primary difference between the intended message of the Danish version and that of
the American version is that Galileo evolves from a hero in a world in which science
and Vernunft are powerful forces which will naturally bring about changes for the
betterment of humanity, into something less positive, some of his heroic qualities
having been removed, and replaced by somewhat more sinister traits. Brecht, who
wrote that the Galileo of the first version war weise geworden92, now has a different
view of the scientist:
In der kalifornischen Fassung [] bricht Galileo die Lobeshymne seines
Schlers ab und beweist ihm, da der Widerruf ein Verbrechen war und durch
91 Bunge, H. (ed.), Skelton, G. (transl.),Living for Brecht: The Memoirs of Ruth Berlau,Fromm International Publishing, USA, 1987, p. 138.92 Brecht, B. in Sautermeister, G., Zweifelskunst, abgebrochene Dialektik, blindeStellen:Leben des Galilei (3. Fassung, 1955), in Hinderer, W. (ed.),Brechts Dramen,Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 1984, pp. 125-161, p. 146.
30
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
31/49
das Werk, so wichtig es sein mchte, nicht aufgewogen. Wenn es jemanden
interessieren sollte: Dies ist auch das Urteil des Stckschreibers93.
The Berlin Version (1953-56)
Work on the third and final version of Galileo began in 1953, when Brecht gave his
colleagues, Elisabeth Hauptmann, Benno Besson and Ruth Berlau the task of creating
out of the original Danish version, the American version, and the criticisms leveled at
the latter, a new text of the play in German94, which was finished and published with a
great deal of help from Brecht himself. The play was then staged as what is known as
the Klner Auffhrung in Cologne and Nuremberg in 1956, Stuttgart in 1957,
Bielefeld in 1958 and Dortmund, Munich, Manheim and Karlsruhe in 1959. Brecht,
however, had more direct involvement in the Berliner Ensemble version, which he
worked on until shortly before his death in 1956, and which was staged the following
year in Berlin and was toured around Eastern Europe.
In the meantime, more events had helped shape Brechts revision of the play. The first
of these is an inquisition of sorts, to which Brecht was subjected. On 30 October 1947,
Brecht was sent to Washington for questioning by the House Committee for Un-
American Activities (HUAC). The authorities, however, were no match for Brecht, who
mislead and confused the pitifully inept members of the committee without actually
lying. One of the observers remarked, it was as if a zoologist had been cross-examined
by apes95. Brecht, embarrassed by the trial, and ready to return to Europe, having made
virtually no effort whatsoever to get close to the cultural and spiritual life of the United
93 Loc. cit.94 Zimmermann, W.,Bertolt Brecht: Leben des Galilei: Dramatik der Widersprche,Ferdinand Schningh, Germany, 1985, p. 36.95 Hill, C.,Bertolt Brecht, Twayne Pubishers, USA, 1975, p. 33.
31
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
32/49
States while he was there96, left the country as soon as HUAC cleared him but
unfortunately for the playwright, before he was able to see Galileo performed on
Broadway. Brechts negative experiences of science and of the suppression of certain
civil liberties no doubt contributed to his desire to further sharpen the political aspects
of the play, but equally, as White claims, the fact that Brecht must have experienced
some degree of guilt for having gone into exile while millions of people were killed
under the Nazi regime, and for denying his communism in front of HUAC, then fleeing
the country to continue his struggle against the capitalist warmongers, must have
contributed significantly to his wish to condemn Galileo even more than he had done in
the American version97.
The building of the hydrogen bomb in the United States from 1949 to 1952, after the
countrys military had dropped atomic bombs in Japan with such devastating effect,
represented for Brecht a further perversion of science and an even greater schism
between it and humanity, as he had predicted some twenty years earlier. Schumacher
sees this latest scientific development, a part of the weapons programme which Brecht
watched closely and with great interest, as the Hauptansto for his decision to
recommence work on the play98. Whether or not it was the primary stimulus is
debatable, but what is certain is that this and Brechts own trial both played a very
significant role here.
Looking at the changes made to the play, it is clear that the version follows the general
structure of the American version, but it brings back important stretches of dialogue
96 Loc. cit.97 White, A.D.,Bertolt Brechts Great Plays, MacMillan Press, Hong Kong, 1978, pp.66-67.98 Schumacher, E.,Drama und Geschichte: Bertolt Brechts Leben des Galilei undandere Stcke, Henschel, Berlin, 1965, pp. 236-241.
32
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
33/49
from the Danish version. The plague scene is restored to scene 5, scene 4 is restored to
its full length, and scene 15 put back to its old form. The between-scene verses and the
ballad scene have been freely translated back into the German. The characters remain
the same, apart from the return of Mucius, who was cut from the American version, at
the beginning of scene 9,and the renaming of Vanni, who no longer figures in scene 2.
Casting a glance over the most material changes to the play, Galileos speech on the
new age has been expanded in scene 1, to increase the socio-political potential of the
scientist so that his fall is all the more significant. In scene 11, the episode with Vanni is
extended to emphasise Galileos sense of security and of his own comforts. In scene 12,
the inquisitors comments about papal politics is restored, and the exchange between
him and the new pope about condemning the doctrine but keeping its practical
applications is introduced for the first time. The most important change, as in the
previous version, takes place in scene 14, where Brecht sharpens Galileos self-
condemnation by, among other things, making a direct link between his recantation and
the dropping of the atomic bomb in his words about the joy of a new discovery being
greeted by a universal scream of horror (S14:p.126), and by suggesting that Galileo
ought to have proposed a Hippocratic oath for scientists (S14: p.126) to ensure that the
utilisation of the fruits of scientific enquiry would be for the betterment of humanity.
Galileos sensual side is also emphasised in such added lines as Das Denken gehrt zu
den grten Vergngungen der menschlichen Rasse (S3: p.35).
In summary of this chapter, the point here is not to prove a particular interpretation of
the versions, and certainly not to carry out a detailed textual analysis of them. If this
were the case, the chapter would be insufficient verging on the negligent. Rather, its
33
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
34/49
aim is to l ook at the first version of the text, and examine the broader changes Brecht
made in his creation of the American and Berlin versions over the years to gain an
insight into what this might reflect as far as his intended message for the play is
concerned. Had Brecht been entirely happy with Galileo, he would not have changed it
so extensively and for so long. Obviously, Brecht was not happy with the social critique
conveyed in the play, which led him to sharpen it considerably regarding the powers
that be as well as the scientist and the intellectual with so much potential to change the
world for the better. As one can tell from his consistent and focused revision of
Galileos self-condemnation scene, which he also rehearsed the most at the Berlin
Ensemble99, the spectators negative judgement of Galileo was clearly very important to
him, for he regarded the scientists recantation as die Erbsnde der modernen
Naturwissenschaften100. Having looked at the theoretical background and the
evolution of the work with regard to the changing context in which it was written,
Brechts changing ideas about the world around him, and the broad thematic and
structural alterations made to the play, it is now possible to make a more comprehensive
analysis ofGalileo in its final form, as it stands today.
Chapter Two
As stated in the introduction to this paper, Leben des Galilei relies heavily on a certain
theoretical background, which encompasses the scientific, the political, the economic
and the aesthetic. The first portion of this chapter ought therefore to consider how these
ideas find are expressed by Brecht in the work, for as will be shown in due course, it is
this theory of newness, of evolution, nay revolution, which Brecht builds up, and then
postpones though Galileos compromises and recantation. In a sense, Brecht himself
99Zimmermann, W.,Bertolt Brecht: Leben des Galilei: Dramatik der Widersprche,Ferdinand Schningh, Germany, 1985, p. 41.100 Brecht, B. in Brookes, H.F., & Fraenkel, C.E. (eds.),Leben des Galilei, Heinemann,Great Britain, 1958, p. 5.
34
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
35/49
puts Galileo on trial in the piece by condemning him through the scientists self-
condemnation in scene 14 (S: pp.115-127), but the spectator must certainly possess the
final decision whether or not to convict or excuse the defendant of the crimes with
which he has been charged. Before it can be seen whether or not or to what extent
Galileo can reasonably be found guilty, it is necessary to examine the potential for
change that exists before Galileos recantation, the reasons why Galileo asks us to
condemn him, and whether or not these are reasonable claims.
2.1 - O frher Morgen des Beginnens: The unbridled potential of a new age
The unbridled potential for revolution is evident from the outset of the play. Galileos
opening discourse (S.1: pp.8-10) in scene 1, to which Brecht devoted as much attention
as his all-important condemnation scene (S.14: pp.115-127) at the Berlin Ensemble101
and which he aptly described as an aria102, as Michael Morley states, bristles with
antithesis and parallelism, and with conventional, though marvelously poised rhetoric,
heightened by vivid and effective imagery103. Bentley calls it a scene of
Enchantment104. Ewen considers it one of his noblest utterances (and Brechts
too)105. Here, Galileo speaks about the confrontation between the time-honoured
method of formal logic systematized by Aristotle, which secured the unity of medieval
thought in theology, philosophy, and the natural sciences, and the new inductive-
experimental method formulated by Bacon and practiced by Galileo himself. He
remarks that Durch zweitausend Jahre glaubte die Menschheit, da die Sonne und alle
Gestirne des Himmels sich um sie drehten (S: p.8). For such a long time, everyone,
101 Zimmermann, W.,Bertolt Brecht: Leben des Galilei: Dramatik der Widersprche,Ferdinand Schningh, Germany, 1985, p. 41.102 In musical terms, an aria is an elaborate song for solo voice.103 Morley, M.,Brecht: A Study, Rowman and Littlefield, New Jersey, 1997, p. 50.104 Bentley, E.,Bentley on Brecht, Applause Books, New York, 1998, p. 201.105 Ewen, F.,Bertolt Brecht: His Life, His Art and His Times, Calder & Boyars, London,1967, p. 343.
35
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
36/49
from the pope, to the fishwives and schoolchildren believed they were sitting
unbeweglich (S: p.8) in the crystalline sphere of the Ptolemaic system. He thus links
the idea of stagnation with the old system of thought where the earth itself was thought
not to move. He says Die Stdte sind eng, und so sind die Kpfe. Aberglauben und
Pest (S: p. 8), and recalls seeing in Siena as a young man a group of builders and their
tausendjhrige Gepflogenheit, Granitblcke zu bewegen (S: p. 9).
But as Galileo says twice in his monologue, die alte Zeit ist herum, und es ist eine
neue Zeit (S: pp.8-9). The old system, presented as literally motionless as well as
intellectually unprogressive, is then contrasted with the Copernican system that the
earth is moving, the people on it are moving, and most importantly, the ideas of those
people are moving too. Galileo thus uses imagery of motion to illustrate his point,
exclaiming Aber jetzt fahren wir heraus, Andrea, in groer Fahrtjetzt heit es: da es
so ist, bleibst es nciht so. Denn alles bewegt sich, mein Freund (S: pp.8-9).
To support this idea of movement and discovery, Galileo states that the new age began
with ships, which Seit Menschengedanken waren nur an den Ksten entlang
gekrochen (S: p.9), but which ventured away from the shores and reached new
continents, with people coming to the conclusion that das groe gefrchtete Meer ist
ein kleines Wasser (S: p.9). He says that people now have the courage to let the stars
float in space without support, just like the ships ohne Halt und in groer Fahrt,
which fahren weit hinaus (S: p.9). This powerful nautical image metaphorically
represents the evolution of science, for it is not without courage and the willingness to
test the validity of ideas that humanity can progress. Not surprisingly, the engraved
title-page to Francis Bacons Novum Organum, published in 1620, and which, as
36
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
37/49
addressed in the introduction to this paper, forms an important part of Brechts own
understanding of history and science, and whose ideas are very much evident in
Galileos own words, depicts a ship sailing out beyond the gates of Hercules, which
marked the limits of the ancient world, with the words non plus ultra (no more
beyond) inscribed on these two giant pillars of stone106. Bacon chose plus ultra as his
motto, and wrote But that little vessels, like the celestial bodies, should sail round the
whole globe, is the happiness of our age. The times may justly useplus ultra, where
the ancients used non plus ultra107.
Galileos new age will occur for precisely the same reason that the new scientific age
occurs in Bacons Novum Organum. People will begin to question the status quo.
Galileo states:
Es ist eine groe Lust aufgekommen, die Ursachen aller Dinge zu erforschen:
warum der Stein fllt, den man loslt, und wie er steigt, wenn man ihn
hochwirftWas in den alten Bchern steht, das gengt ihr [die Menschehit]
nicht mehrDenn wo der Galube tausend Jahre gesessen hat, eben da sitzt jetzt
der Zweifel. Alle Welt sagt: ja, das steht in den Bchern, aber lat uns selbst
sehn. Den gefeiersten Wahrheiten wird auf die Schulter geklopft; was nie
bezweifelt wurde, das wird jetzt bezweifelt (S: p.9).
This theme of doubt is very much a central theme of the play, for Galileo believes that
progress comes from sceptically questioning the world around him, from looking at old
things in a new way. The theme recurs more than briefly in Brechts writings of the late
106 Bacon, F.,Novum Organum, Bonhaum Nortonium and Joannem Billium, London,1620. See Appendix I.107
37
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
38/49
1930s, including poems specifically about doubt108. Galileo himself acts out this doubt
he teaches by actively questioning the world around him, and putting ideas to the test.
Nowhere is this more evident than in his use of the telescope, through which he
encourages Andrea to look and see da die Sonne abends woanders hlt als morgens.
Da kann sie doch nicht stillstehn! (S1: p.11). In scene 4, the contrast between the old
and the new is made particularly clear by the difference between the academics and
Galilos stance towards the telescope. Rather than excitedly wanting to look through the
telescope to complement a discussion about the nature of the universe, the philosopher
says Herr Galilei, bevor wir Ihr berhmtes Rohr applizieren, mchten wir um das
Vergngen eines Disputs bitten. Thema: Knnen solche Planeten existieren (S4: p.45).
Galileo asks them Ich dachte mir, Sie schauen einfach durch das Fernrohr und
berzeugen sich? (p.45), and beseeches them Ihren Augen zu trauen (p.48). During
the discussion, both the philosopher and the mathematician assure him briskly with the
words Sicher, sicher that they will indeed look through it eventually, but they do not,
and with regard to trusting their eyes, the mathematician replies to Galileo that ich
pfelge mitunterden Aristoteles zu lesen und kann Ihnen versichern, da ich meinen
Augen traue (p.48). The proponents of the old system choose to unquestioningly trust
Aristotle, refusing to put his ideas to the test, whereas Galileos approach is based on
doubt and scepticism, generating thoughts and ideas from what remains after that which
is deemed impossible has been ruled out. Galileo says:
Unsere Unwissenheit ist unendlich, tragen wir einen Kubikmillimeter ab! Wozu
jetzt noch so klug sein wollen, wenn wir endlich ein klein wenig weniger dumm
sein knnenIch habe das unvorstellbare Glck gehabt, ein neues Instrument in
die Hand zu bekommen, mit dem man ein Zipfelchen des Universums etwas,
108 Willett, J. & Manheim R. (eds.),Bertolt Brecht: Plays, Poetry and Prose, TheCollected Plays, Vol. 5 Part 1, The Chaucer Press, Great Britain, 1980, p. xix.
38
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
39/49
nicht viel, nher besehen kann. Bentzen Sie es (p.49).
Later, in scene 8, Galileo echoes the remarks of Francis Bacon in stating that the aim of
science is not der unendlichen Weisheit eine Tr zu ffnen, sondern eine Grenze zu
setzen dem unendlichen Irrtum (S8: p.85)109, and that Meine Absicht ist nicht, zu
beweisen, da ich bisher recht gehabt habe, sondern herauszufinden: ob. Ich sage: lat
alle Hoffnung fahren, ihr, die ihr in die Beobachtung eintretet (S8: p.93)110.
Bentley criticises Brecht for his representation of Galileos school of thought, claiming
that whereas the protagonist puts forward the idea of learning through observation,
which covers his initial use of the telescope, no startling conclusions could be
reached, and above all nothing could be proved, without doing a great deal more. What
actually happened to physics in the seventeenth century is that it became mathematical.
That meant that it became, not more concrete, but just the opposite111. Bentley uses the
argument that our senses tell us that the sun revolves around the earth. This, however,
would be a gross simplification of what Brecht is attempting to convey through the
scientist. Galileo does not conclusively prove to Andrea that the earth revolves around
the sun. He merely shows him that rational thought combined with careful observation
can lead to a radically different conclusion from the status quo. As Galileo says
Glotzen ist nicht sehen (S1: p. 11). Thus the telescope supports the experimental
109 Bacon wrote in his Preface to the Great Instauration nor to imagine that thisInstauration of mine is a thing infinite and beyond the power of man, when it is in factthe true end and termination of infinite error.: Bacon, F. in Morley, M.,Brecht: AStudy, Rowman and Littlefield, New Jersey, 1997, p. 52.110 Similarly, Bacon wrote If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties: Loc. cit.;Brecht would apparently tell his students at the theatre that for the Marxist, this firstsentence was the most important line of the play: Willett, J., The Theatre of Bertolt
Brecht: A Study From Eight Aspects, Fletcher & Son, 1977, p. 201; The secondsentence is a parody of Dantes lasciate ogni speranza voi chentrate: see Morley, M.,
Brecht: A Study, Rowman and Littlefield, New Jersey, 1997, p. 52.111 Bentley, E.,Bentley on Brecht, Applause Books, New York, 1998, pp. 183-184.
39
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
40/49
process, but does not prove anything as such by itself. Galileos second pedagogic
dialogue, in scene 3, makes this clear, with Sagredo assuming the role of student. Here,
the telescope allows sharper sensual observation. It can bring the light relations on the
moon and the movement of a star before their eyes (S3: pp.27-28). In this way,
technically advanced observation is able to lead to the scientific proving of the theory
that the earth revolves around the sun. As Gert Sautermeister states So tritt an die
Stelle der schlichten sinnlichen die kompliziertere technisch-sinnliche Wahrnehmung,
die ihre Krnung erst durch die unsichtbare Beweiskraft der physikalisch-
mathematischen Formel findet112. In this way, the new age will arise out of the
combination of observing things in a new way as well as out of rational thought
processes.
But beyond this, Brecht shows that rather than a pure and isolated field, science is
related both to economics and to society in general. In the first scene there are hints of
this in Galileos monologue, in which since the earth is no longer the centre of the
universe, the power of the authorities on earth has been relativised. The earth revolves
around the sun, und die Fischweiber, kaufleute, Frsten und die Kardinle und sogar
der Papst rollen mit ihr (S1: p.10). The spirit of doubt will spread to the markets and
even the sons of fishwives even will go to school. The facts that Galileo teaches his
theory to Andrea, who is both a commoner and im Okotber erst elf (S1: p. 11), and
that he insists on conducting the debate in scene 4 in the vernacular rather than in Latin
so that Federzoni, whom Galileo describes to his company as Mein Kollegeein
Linsenschleifer und ein Gelehrter (S4: p.45), might understand, reflect symbolise this
spread of knowledge and ideas across all people from all socioeconomic backgrounds.
112 Sautermeister, G., Zweifelskunst, abgebrochene Dialektik, blinde Stellen:Lebendes Galilei (3. Fassung, 1955), in Hinderer, W. (ed.),Brechts Dramen, PhilippReclam, Stuttgart, 1984, pp. 125-161: p. 129.
40
8/2/2019 Brecht Long Essay
41/49
This knowledge will also bring considerable power to the people, threatening the
hierarchical nature of society by creating, as Galileo states, a draught which will reveal