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 in Leben 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 Broadway was undoubtedly a dream of his. From late 1945 until 1947 American occupational officials and theatre directors in both Austria and Germany repeatedly requested Brechts approval to stage his plays, but without exception he refused, wishing instead to focus on getting Galileo on its legs in New York, which he expressed in a letter to Ruth Berlau in August 1945. John Fuegi suggests that Brecht even went as far as attempting 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 its failure on stage could simultaneously make New York backers and the audience there less interested in Leben 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 in Thomson, P. & Sacks, G. (eds.), A Cambridge Companion to Brecht, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2000, p. 139. 4 Whrle, D., Probleme und Perspektiven Interpretationen in Brecht, B., Leben des 1

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 centred 6. The second group considers the play in the context of the playwrights biography7 and 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. 115128. 7 See Hill, C., Bertolt Brecht, Twayne Pubishers, USA, 1975, p. 32, and Stern, G., The Plight of Exile: A Hidden Theme in Brechts Galileo Galilei, in Brecht Heute: Jahrbuch der internationalen Brecht-Gesellschaft, Jahrgang I/1971, pp. 110-116. Both look 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 in Permanence in Weber, B. N. & Heinen, H. (eds.), Bertolt Brecht: Political Theory and Literary Practice, Manchester University Press, pp. 60-81. 2

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 1933 9, 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. Zimmermann remarks that the purpose of an historical analysis of the work is to ask ob die erkennbaren nderungen, seien es nun Ergnzungen, Auslassungen oder Unwertungen der historischen Figure, ber die Intentionen des Autors Aufschlu geben knnen: In Zimmermann, W., Bertolt Brecht: Leben des Galilei: Dramatik der Widersprche, Ferdinand Schningh, Germany, 1985, p. 11. 11 Bentley, E., Bentley on Brecht, Applause Books, New York, 1998, p. 187.
10

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 of Galileo and
12

Klaus Vlker makes the point that those in exile in Denmark were watched over very closely, and finds the comment made by Brecht in an interview in January 1939, that the 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 trial of Bukharin and the Soviet Union generally, but does not even cast a cursory glance at the plays scientific implications, which must not be underestimated considering Brechts formal education was in Science and Medicine at the Universities of Munich and Berlin: Weber, B. N., The Life of Galileo and the Theory of Revolution in Permanence in Weber, B. N. & Heinen, H. (eds.), Bertolt Brecht: Political Theory and Literary Practice, Manchester University Press, pp. 60-81. 4

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 (384322BC), 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 Galilei und andere Stcke, Henschel, Berlin, 1965, pp. 40-41. 5

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 reality 18, 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 from Bacon 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

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, Manchester University 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

the first version of Galileo, 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 29

Ibid, No. 46. Kellner, D., Brechts Marxist Aesthetic: The Korsch Connection, in Weber, B. N., & Heinen, H. (eds.), Bertolt Brecht: Political Theory and Literary Practice, Manchester University Press, pp. 29-42, p. 32. 8

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 zum Theater, 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, Manchester University Press, pp. 29-42, p. 31. 32 Brecht,B., Gesammelte Werke in 20 Bnden, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1967, Band 16, p. 653. 9

(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 of Galileo 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

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 of Galileo is made.

The Danish Version (1938-39)

The decade in which the first version of Galileo 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

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 of Galileo 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 in Perspective, 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 und andere 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, Rembrandt and The Private Life of Henry VIII, with Charles Laughton, who played Galileo in both Hollywood and New York in 1947, appearing in the latter two, leading Morley to suggest that the part may even have been written with the English actor in mind. 12

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 of Galileo 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 und andere 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

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 drei Wochen 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, The Collected 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 her essay Limits of Reason nears such limits when she calls Galileos submission to the Church a strategically calculated recantation: Moss, A., Limits of Reason: An Exploration of Brechts Concept of Vernunft and the Discourse of Science in Leben des Galilei, in Giles, S. & Livingstone, R. (eds.), Bertolt Brecht: Centenary Essays, Rodopi, Amsterdam, 1998, p. 138. 14

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 of Galileo, 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 52

Hill, C., Bertolt Brecht, Twayne Pubishers, USA, 1975, p. 116. 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

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 different from 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 your rogue, though applying himself busily to this or that, is fundamentally passive: Bentley, B., in Bentley 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

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, The Collected Plays, Vol. 5 Part 1, The Chaucer Press, Great Britain, 1980, pp. 162-200. An abbreviated and tabulated comparison of the versions may be found at http://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

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 nichtindividuellen, distanzierten und eigenschaftslosen Figur, die lediglich als dialogischdialektischer 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

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, die Kunst, sie handhabbar zu machen als eine Waffe,
65

Brecht, B. in Sautermeister, G., Zweifelskunst, abgebrochene Dialektik, blinde Stellen: 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 und andere 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 und andere Stcke, Henschel, Berlin, 1965, pp. 72-81. 19

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 newspaper Berlingske 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 der Widersprche, Ferdinand Schningh, Germany, 1985, p. 26. 71 See Knust, H., Bertolt Brecht: Leben des Galilei, Diesterweg, Frankfurt am Main, 1982, p. 15. 20

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

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, in Weber, 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 und andere Stcke, Henschel, Berlin, 1965, p. 112. 22

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 und andere 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, in Weber, B. N. & Heinen, H. (eds.), Bertolt Brecht: Political Theory and Literary Practice, Manchester University Press, pp. 60-81: pp. 62-63. 23

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 Ferdinand Reyher, Hollwood screen writer, who first met Brecht in Berlin in 1927 and became one of his closest friends, in Bentley, E. Bentley on Brecht, Applause Books, New York, 1998, pp. 22-23. 24

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 86

Knopf, J., Literaturstudium: Brecht, Reclam, Stuttgart, 2000, p. 270. Brecht, B., in Zimmermann, W., Bertolt Brecht: Leben des Galilei: Dramatik der Widersprche, 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. A German 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

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 of Galileo 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 of Vernunft 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

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

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

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 fall Downward 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 the Discorsi 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 and Prose, 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, in a 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

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 geworden 92, 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, blinde Stellen: Leben des Galilei (3. Fassung, 1955), in Hinderer, W. (ed.), Brechts Dramen, Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 1984, pp. 125-161, p. 146. 30

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 UnAmerican 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 94

Loc. cit. 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

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 97

Loc. cit. 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 und andere Stcke, Henschel, Berlin, 1965, pp. 236-241. 32

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 selfcondemnation 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

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 of Galileo 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
99

Zimmermann, 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

puts Galileo on trial in the piece by condemning him through the scientists selfcondemnation 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 inductiveexperimental 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

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

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

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, The Collected Plays, Vol. 5 Part 1, The Chaucer Press, Great Britain, 1980, p. xix. 38

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 this Instauration of mine is a thing infinite and beyond the power of man, when it is in fact the true end and termination of infinite error.: Bacon, F. in Morley, M., Brecht: A Study, 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 first sentence 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 second sentence 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

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 physikalischmathematischen 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: Leben des Galilei (3. Fassung, 1955), in Hinderer, W. (ed.), Brechts Dramen, Philipp Reclam, Stuttgart, 1984, pp. 125-161: p. 129. 40

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 to the ordinary and the lower and middle classes that the authorities and the upper class are humans just like themselves: Dadurch ist eine Zugluft entstanden, welche sogar den Frsten und Prlaten die goldbestickten Rcke lftet, so da fette und drre Beine darunter sichtbar werden, Beine wie unsere Beine. Die Himmel, hat es sich herausgestellt, sind leer. Darber ist ein frhliches Gelchter entstanden (S1:pp.10-11). It will also make life easier for the people, because das Wasser der Erde treibt die neuen Spinnrocken, und auf den Schiffswerten, in den Seil- und Segelhusern regen sich fnfhundert Hnde zugleich in einer neuen Bewegung (S1: p.10). Engels connected the rise in the natural sciences with the ascendancy of the bourgeoisie, for merchants relied heavily on the knowledge that science could provide to improve the manufacture and distribution of their goods. That this relationship between science and economics is two-way, and that science relies on economics is evident in Engels words that science owes infinitely more to production than the other way round113. The curator echoes this sentiment in scene 1, in which he says to Galileo that the businessmen know the value of better quality linen in their competition with Florence, that people are generally interested in his research with regard to its practical applications, and exclaiming und wieviel verdankt die Physik dem Schrei nach besseren Websthlen (S1: p.19). In this way, science will generate profits for the middle class, and with their new money will come new power.

113

Marx, K. & Engels, F., Kliem, M. (ed.) ber Kunst und Literatur, Dietz, Berlin, 1968, Bd. I, p. 398. 41

The activist side of Galileos science is more expressly linked up with its critical aspect in scene 4, where the scientist, echoing Bacon, says: Die Wahrheit ist das Kind der Zeit, nicht der AutorittEs sind nicht die Bewegungen einiger entfernter Gestirne, die Italien aufhorchen machen, sondern die Kunde, da fr unerschtterlich angesehene Lehren ins Wanken gekommen sind, und jedermann wei, da es deren zu viele gibt (S4: p.49)114. The notion of truth as part of an historical process which will in the course of time reveal itself because it is synonymous with reason is very much tied to the role time plays in Marxs concept of the epochal nature of history. The first sentence is mere Baconianism, but as Ley says, the statement is placed by Brecht at the crucial juncture where activist implications of the scientific revolution made possible by the new way of thinking are introduced to complement the critical side of the analogy115. Indeed, there is a great deal of historical optimism in the play. Galileo himself says in conversation with his friend, Sagredo, in scene 3: Die alte, die am Abend vor der Reise dem Maulesel mit der harten Hand ein Extrabschel Heu vorlegt, der Schiffer, der beim Einkaufen der Vorrte des Sturmes und der Windstille gedenkt, das Kind, das die Mtze aufstlpt, wenn ihm bewiesen wurde, da es regnen kann, sie alle sind meine Hoffnung, sie alle lassen Grnde gelten. Ja, ich glaube an der sanften Gewalt der Vernunft ber die Menschen. Sie knnen ihr auf die Dauer nicht widerstehen (S3: pp.34-35)116. For Galileo knowledge is thus a formidable weapon for humanity to improve itself

114

Bacon wrote For rightly is truth called the daughter of time, not authority: Bacon, F. in Burtt, E.A. (ed.) Novum Organum, The English Philosophers from Bacon to Mill, Random House, New York, 1939, Book I, p. 56 (aphorism lxxxi). 115 Ley, R. in Mews, S. & Knust, H. (eds.), Essays on Brecht: Theatre and Politics, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1974, pp. 174-189: p. 182. 116 Galileo later repeats the phrase Ich glaube and der Vernunft twice in his discussion with Bellarmin and Barberini (S7: pp. 67-68). 42

with117.

Before, however, continuing with this examination of what Galileos science entails for the world around him, it is necessary to examine more closely his relationship to the Church and other figures of authority to appreciate more fully the new ages potential for a change of the hierarchical structure of society as well as the plays broader relevance to humanity in Brechts own time.

2.2: Church/authority etc It is clear from the beginning of the play that Galileos society is strongly hierarchical. The image of a draught lifting the die goldbestickten Rcken (S1: p.9) worn by the princes and prelates suggests just how much awe the ruling class inspires. Cardinal Bellarmin himself reflects on die Roheit derer, die ihre Bauern in der Campagne halbnackt ber ihre Gter peitschen lassen, und die Dummheit dieser Armen, die ihnen dafr die Fe kssen (S7: p.68) though he shifts the responsibility for this onto God, claiming that dies alles einem groen Plan zufolge geschieht (p.68). But more than merely passively allowing such injustices to occur, it is clear that the Ptolemaic system and active oppression on the part of the Church go hand in hand. This is evident from the outset of the play, where the archaic system is depicted in words which subtly oppose freedom: SchalenSphrenAuf den Schalen sind Kugeln angemacht
117

In his chapter The Legacy of German-speaking Playwrights, A. Waine draws a comparison between Leben des Galilei and Drrenmatts Die Physiker, which premiered 1961-62, revealing how different the two plays with such similar didactic messages are, claiming that the historical optimism which rings through in Brechts play, even allowing for Galileis self-castigations in Scene 14, is nowhere present in Drrenmatts drama. Mbius theories fall into the hands of a nefarious woman who will use them to effect her domination over the world, as Waine says, a veritable Hitlerian fantasy. The plays setting of a mental asylum is diametrically opposite to Galileos dogged belief in the power of reason: in Bartram, G. & Waine, A. (eds.), Brecht in Perspective, Longman Inc., USA, 1982, p. 200. 43

Bnder (S1: p.8). If this is not clear enough, Andrea refers to it expressly when he replies to Galileos description of the Ptolemaic model Das ist schn. Aber wir sind so eingekapselt (p. 8). Later, in scene 6, the weak and senile Old Cardinal uses the same image of globes and spheres in a desperate attempt to affirm his own value: Ich bin nicht irgendein Wesen auf irgendein GestirnchenIch gehe auf einer festen Erdeich bin im Mittelpunkt, und das Auge des Schpfers ruht auf mir und auf mir allein. Um mich kreisendie Fixsterne und die gewaltige Sonne, die geschaffen ist, meine Umgebung zu beleuchten. Und auch mich, damit Gott mich sieht. So kommt sichtabr und unwiderleglich alles an auf mich, den Menschen, die Anstrengung Gottes, das Geschpf in der Mitte, das Ebenbild Gottes, unvergnglich und Er sinkt zusammen. (S6: p. 62) The arrogant use of the first person here suggests, as Charles Lyons writes, that the Ptolemaic schematic is maintained to nourish and sustain the ego of authority118.

Having become increasingly aware that the new science threatens this established world order, the church is loathe to see it take hold, the philosopher stating in scene 4 that Das Weltbild des gttlichen Aristotelesist ein Gebude von solcher Ordnung und Schnheit, da wir wohl zgern sollten, diese Harmonie zu stren(S4: p.46). The Little Monk reflects on the need for this order in scene 8 (pp.74-79), where the two systems are brought down to earth and grounded in the daily lives of the popular mass. Having come from family of peasants in Campagna himself, he tells Galileo paternalistically that selbst in ihrem Unglck liegt eine gewisse Ordnung verborgen (p.75). He describes his fathers increasingly damaged back from bending over in the olive groves, and his mothers increasing sexlessness from successive childbirths, but says that faith
118

Lyons, C. R., Bertolt Brecht: The Despair and the Polemic, Southern Illinois University Press, USA, 1968, p. 117. 44

provides them with Stetigkeit und Notwendigkeit (p.75), which arises out of the assurance that Gods eye is on them and that das ganze Welttheater um sie aufgebaut ist, damit sie, die Agierenden, in ihren groen oder kleinen Rollensich bewhren knnen (p.76). The little monk then asks what they would say if they found out da sie sich auf einem kleinen Steinklumpen befinden, der sich unaufhrlich drehend im leeren Raum um ein anderes Gestirn bewegt, einer unter sehr vielen, ein ziemlich unbedeutender(p.76). Galileo rejects this system, replying that Tugenden sind nicht an Elend geknpft, applying his nave-critical approach to the poverty the little monk claims is necessary for the masses, asking why this is so, and answering that there is no reason why the virtues of den Schwei, die Geduld, den Hunger, die Unterwerfung (p.76) of which the little monk speaks could not be born out of der Wohlhabenden und des Glcks (p.77) instead of poverty, that in spite of strotzenden Weinbergen, am Rand der Weizenfelder (p.76), people are hungry only because they are paying for the wars the Church is waging in Spain and Germany in the name of Jesus, and that the old systems aim is merely Damit der Stuhl Petri im Mittelpunkt der Erde stehen kann, whereas the new system handelt sich nicht um die Planeten, sondern um die Campagnabauern (p.77). Rather than offering faith in order to survive

bermenschliche Plackerei, Galileos waterpumps will actually make their lives easier (p.77).

In asking then what role exactly the Church plays in terms of the message Brecht is attempting to convey in his work, there is certainly some degree of disagreement in the secondary literature. Cohen, for example, believes that Galileo does in fact directly attack the Church itself as an institution, thereby providing the spectator with a Marxist criticism of religion, evident in his comments in scene 8 about the Church essentially

45

stealing from the peasants to wage wars, and in his words to Sagredo in scene 3 that God is In uns oder nirgends! (S3: p.33) and that to trust Brechts assertion in his notes that der Galilei des Stckes sich niemals gegen die Kirche wendet. Es gibt keinen Satz Galileis in dieser Richtung119 would be very much the case of trusting the teller rather than the tale120. Similarly, Frank Borchardt interprets Virginias religious behaviour within this Marxist context. Galileos daughter, having been deprived of natural human relations with Ludovico, finds consolation in religion, which Engels and Marx identify along with property and industry as being alienating forces which take precedence over natural bonds and duties between individuals 121. At the conclusion of the play, she is the eye of the Inquisition, carefully watching Galileos every move, so alienated from humanity, that her relationship to Galileo is no longer that of daughter to father but of warden to prisoner122. In this way then, given Brechts own Marxist view of history and the influence of Marx and Engels on the play, religion might appear in some ways to be criticised directly by the playwright.

What is clear is that Brecht himself wanted to keep this to a minimum, which he states expressly and emphatically in his notes dieses Stck einen groen Teil seiner Wirkung verlieren mu, wenn seine Auffhrung hauptschlich gegen die Katholische Kirche gerichtet istIn dem vorliegenden Stck fungiert die Kirche, auch wo sie der freien Forschung entgegentritt, einfach als Obrigkeit123. Willy Haas, among other
119

Brecht, B., in Brookes, H.F., & Fraenkel, C.E. (eds.), Leben des Galilei, Heinemann, Great Britain, 1958, p. 143. 120 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: pp.119-120.
121

Borchardt, F.K., Marx, Engels and Brechts Galileo in Brecht Heute: Jahrbuch der internationalen Brecht-Gesellschaft, Jahrgang II/1972, pp. 149-163: p.157. 122 Loc. cit. 123 Brecht, B., in Brookes, H.F., & Fraenkel, C.E. (eds.), Leben des Galilei, Heinemann, Great Britain, 1958, p. 143. 46

critics, states that the playwright specifically forbids the Churchs part in the trial of Galileo to be caricatured on stage124. Cohen looks at the fact that Brechts portryal of the Church is in fact considerably more positive than it was in reality, for he largely ignored its corruption and the possible falsifications to the protocol of 1616 by the Inquisition125. Bentley also sees significant change from the historical Church figures to those in the play, for the historical Barberini seems to have made himself a personal enemy of Galileo, and the Inquisitor (Firenzuola) seems to have intrigued mercilessly against him126.

it is evident that apart from drawing a comparison between the two systems with regard to their practical implications for the masses, the little monk provides the spectator with an ethical, though unconvincing argument for the maintenance of the Ptolemaic system. Although

124 125

Haas, W., Bert Brecht, Colloqium Verlag, USA, 1971, p. 95. 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: p.118. 126 Bentley, E., Bentley on Brecht, Applause Books, New York, 1998, p. 185. 47

48

49