Together with Mother Courage, the Good Man of Sezuan and the Caucasian Circle, Brecht's Life of Galileo is considered one of his most important dramatic works. For those not familiar with it, I would like to begin with a brief summary of the play in its best known and last version of 1955.

    The opening scenes show a middle-aged Galileo in Padua in the Republic of Venice, where his teaching obligations earn him a meager income and largely restrict his time for research. He decides to move to the less liberal, but more luxurious court of Florence. Using the telescope for astronomical observations, he can experimentally confirm the Copernican theory of the solar system. This brings him into conflict with the official Church position, that endorses the aristotelian view and condemns the copernican system by placing it on the index in March 1616. Galileo wisely follows the Inquisition's advice to keep silent and to direct his research efforts to less dangerous endeavours. When he learns eight years later, in 1623, that the Pope is dying and that the mathematician Cardinal Barberini will succeed him, he believes that more enlightened times return, and he resumes his astronomical research. Ten years later in 1633, however, he is forced to recant his findings in support of a heliocentric solar system. The final scene depicts Galileo as an embittered, halfblind old man, who lives with his daughter Virginia under the close supervision of the Inquisition. His former disciple Andrea visits him, and Galileo gives him a secretly produced copy of his Discorsi. But when Andrea praises him enthusiastically for recanting in a well-calculated service to scientific progress, Galileo rejects the flattering interpretation and mercilessly condemns himself for having betrayed his profession, or rather, the role he could have played as a scientist. The drama ends on a more positive note, as Andrea crosses the border unharmed with the Discorsi.

    The central theme of the play is not the historical Galileo and his contributions to astronomy or mechanics, but the complex relationship between science, politics and society. Though on the whole Brecht adheres closely to the biographical facts and the general course of events covered in the years 1609 to 1637, he deliberately attributes some unhistorical motivations and beliefs to his main character and draws an anachronistic picture of the sociological situation of early 17th century Italy. These accents invite both a parabolic and timeless interpretation of the events described, and allow for a more or less transparent comparison with the contemporary conditions of Brecht's writing.

    Of particular importance are the changes that present Galileo as a determined advocate of the lower classes, as illustrated by the many explicit links between scientific and social progress. Thus, the Copernican solar system means not only an astronomical, but also a social revolution: whereas before the Pope was the fixed center of the social hierarchy, now everybody is of equal importance:"…"and the earth is rolling cheerfully around the sun, and the fishwives, merchants, princes, cardinals and even the Pope are rolling with it. The universe has lost its centre overnight, and woken up to find it has countless centres, so that each one can now be seen as the centre, or none at all." This has also metaphysical consequences, since the revaluation of the individual causes a devaluation of God's authority. In this context, Brecht's Galileo displays clearly atheistic views. When his friend Sagredo asks him where God's place might be in this new solar system, Galileo's answer is: "within ourselves and nowhere."

    Needless to say, the historical Galileo held no such views. Brecht seems to have chosen Galileo's contemporary Francis Bacon as a model, whose materialistic concept of nature and empirical scientific method are also reflected in the strong enlightenment metaphors used throughout the play. The two major ones are an expression of Reason: one has to do with "seeing" in the sense of understanding, in contrast to mindless "staring"; the other makes lavish use of the light/darkness dichotomy.

    Mindless seeing is illustrated by the scientists in the aristotelian tradition, who refuse to look through Galileo's telescope because they rather trust the traditional written doctrines than their own eyes. Parts of this dialogue in the 4th scene are taken almost word for word from Galileo's Discorsi. Such an attitude is representative of the old order and blind belief; and it stands in opposition to unbiased observation and fruitful doubt. Such vision and doubt are the roots of scientific discoveries and are also instrumental in bringing about social progress. To the wondering remarks of some traditional scientists where all this might be leading, Galileo retorts:"Jupiter's moons may not bring down the price of milk. But they have never beeen seen before, and yet all the same they exist. From this the man in the street concludes that a lot else might exist if only he opened his eyes..."

    And there is a barely concealed threat of social upheaval present when he continues:"My work ... in Venice brought me into daily contact with draughtsmen, builders and instrument mechanics. Such people showed me a lot of new approaches. They don't read much, but rely on the evidence of their five senses, without much fear as to where such evidence is going to lead them." The lower classes therefore represent common sense and the promise of better times. Clearly, the lense-grinder Federzoni who doesn't speak Latin belongs to this positive group, which is depicted as far superior than the fossilized learned scientists ridiculed in that scene. Their categorical opposition to all change is motivated by their interest in maintaining the privileges of the ruling class. One way to maintain the status quo is to keep the lower classes in a state of dependency and ignorance. The speaker of the Inquisition, Cardinal Bellarmin in scene 7, and the feudal representative Ludovico in scene 9, both express their views of this practice with unconcealed cynicism. The old problem of theodicy is sarcastically mimicked by Galileo in the following terms: "Be fruitful and multiply, since your fields are not fruitful and you are being decimated by wars." And: "The poverty of the many is as old as the hills, and from pulpit and lecture platform we hear that it is as hard as the hills to get rid of."

    In Galileo's opinion, however, the evil is not teleological, but arbitrary and man-made. It could be easily eliminated if the social hierarchy were changed and the scientific inventions applied to the benefit of all rather than being exploited by a select few. The Church, as a paradigm of secular power, is quite aware of the explosive social implications. It successfully prevents the potential consequences of Copernicus' writings by first placing them on the index of forbidden books, then by forcing Galileo to recant his confirming scientific observations.

    That the new ideas cause indeed unrest if not yet widespread upheaval is documented in the tenth scene, where during a carnival procession the common people demonstrate that they have made the link between critical seeing, and are beginning to question the traditional authority of both astronomy and social order. In the famous 11th scene the Pope is being robed for office, and loses all individual traits under each additional piece of clothing, thus becoming a symbol for mindless instrument of power. The Inquisitor convinces him cleverly of Galileo's responsibility in the development of a budding social awareness, which was aided by Galileo's his use of the vernacular, and of the necessity that he publicly recant: "The people doubt everything...They start by wondering if the Sun stood still over Gideon, then extend their filthy scepticism to the offertory box...With machines they hope to work miracles...The abolition of top and bottom, for one. They are needed no longer. Aristotle, whom they otherwise regard as a dead dog, has said - and they quote this - that once the shuttle weaves by itself, masters would need no apprentice and lords no servants. And they think they are already there. This evil man knows what he is up to when he writes his astronomical works not in Latin but in the idiom of fishwives and wool merchants."

    Like the symbolism of critical seeing as the basis for constructive doubt, the light-metaphors demonstrating Galileo's unshakeable and sometimes naive trust in reason recall the enlightenment philosophy of the 18th century, a time called in French, "le siècle des lumières". Twice there is mentioning of a "clear night". When in the third scene Virginia asks her father in the morning after his discovery of Jupiter's moons how his night was, he answers "clear". This symbolizes the dawning of a new age where reason and understanding prevail over prejudice and ignorance. Similarly, Galileo's lyrical description of the landscape of the Earth's moon's in the same scene is meant to show that a new awareness is on the rise for all of mankind: "Huge mountains whose peaks are gilded by the rising sun while the surrounding slopes are still covered by night... The light is spreading down from the topmost peaks into the valleys."

    When Galileo recants, his act is seen as a victory of darkness that was illuminated for just one day, as the introductory song to scene 13 puts it. And Federzoni describes the mere possibility of a recantation "as if night fell again in the morning". In the end, however, after Galileo's final encounter with Andrea, Virginia can answer her father's question about the night just as positively as he had answered hers in an earlier scene: there is the prospect of light which allows hope for better times.

    Galileo's absolute faith in reason make him blind to the political realities that surround him. He believes for instance that the visible proof of Jupiter's moons will make a decisive difference in the situation that has led to Giordano Bruno's burning only ten years earlier. His friend Sagredo represents a more realistic position. It corresponds to that of the common-sense landlady Sarti and the the Inquisition's cardinals. Galileo's refusal to accept the ironfounder Vanni's offer to flee is due to this shortsightedness: he still believes that a scientifically-minded Pope will be open to undeniable facts.

    As unhistorical as the enlightenment traits of Brecht's Galileo may seem, there is some justification in counting him together with Bacon and Descartes among the precursors of that movement. Ernst von Aster, for instance, does just that in his history of philosophy. Definitely unhistorical, however, are the socio-political implications of the enlightenment's trust in reason and progress. Jan Knopf remarks that the description of the sociological situation in Galileo's Italian city states are Brecht's own and deliberate interpretation, and that it is contrary to his meticulous biographical and scientific research for the play. Ernst Schumacher shows convincingly that neither the economic nor the political circumstances of that time justified expectations for substantial changes in Italy's social structure. Unlike Holland or England, Italy was not at the beginning, but rather in decline of progressive developments. This is important to remember because of the role Brecht attributes to Galileo's recantating in the various versions of the play.

    The first version was written in November 1938 in Danish exile, and the recanting was presented as a necessary evil. Galileo takes the only sensible course of action in an oppressive system where survival and subversive opposition are more important than a heroic death. Galileo has therefore affinities with resistence fighters such as illustrated in Brecht's "Five Difficulties in Writing the Truth", a text written in 1934 to encourage effective opposition to the Nazi Regime. It lists Confucius, Thomas More, Galileo, Voltaire and Lenin as successful models.

    A positive interpretation of the recantation is prepared in scene 9 by Galileo's story of the following parable: the Cretan philosopher Keunos is asked by the agent of tyranny if he will serve him; for seven years he serves him without uttering a single word. Only when the agent dies does he finally answer "no" to the dead tyrant's initial question. Bacon's motto that Nature can only be conquered by submission is put into Galileo's mouth in the same scene. It is the scientific equivalent of Keuno's socio-political attitude.

    After recanting, Galileo clandestinely continues his research and conspires with a stove-fitter to smuggle out his dialogue concerning the two chief world systems. No doubt is left that this is both a dangerous and effective underground strategy. When Virginia reads him aphorisms from Montaigne's library, all of which demonstrate a sceptical outlook, Galileo criticizes: "it all smacks of defeatism." This remark underlines that neither the recantation nor the time after are to be interpreted as capitulation.

    The first version is a play about science and political repression, progress and retardation. The overall tone is optimistic: Galileo's case is proof that progress cannot be upheld, that it can be only temporarily suppressed.

    Shortly after the completion of this version, however, came discovery that the atom could be split into yet tinier components. Otto Hahn kept it a secret from the Nazi government, and his assistant Lise Meitner publihised it during Christmas 1938 in Denmark. Of particular importance is an interview Brecht heard on the Danish radio in February 1939. Jan Knopf insists that this event only generated a positive addition in Galileo's final monologue, reinforcing the progress-optimism and stressing science's beneficial contributions to mankind. The relevant words to Andrea are: "I still believe that this is a new age. It may look like a bloodstained old harridan, but if so, that must be the way new ages look. When light breaks in it does so in the uttermost darkness. While a few places are the scene of the most immense discoveries, which must contribute immeasurably to humanity's resources for happiness, great areas of this world still lie entirely in the dark. In fact, the blackness has actually deepened there. Look out for yourself when you travel through Germany with the truth under your coat."

    There is reason to believe with Werner Mittenzwei that already in early 1939 the stage was set for changes that led to the second, more pessimistic version. Brecht reported how the Danish interviewer expressed relief when he heard that no practical application of the immense atomic enery sources were anticipated: "Thank God, I don't think that mankind is ready for the exploitation of such power." Brecht's comment on this remark: "It was obvious that he had thought immediately about war industry."

    Another indication for the emerging problem of technical progress versus policical ethics can be found in Brecht's passionate agreement with Einstein's reflection that dominance over nature is not necessarily of benefit to mankind, given the uncertainty of human nature.

    Put together in 1944/5, the second version is an English stage adaptation by Brecht and Charles Laughton - one knowing little English and the other hardly any German. Here is Brecht's account of what gave this version a different direction: "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 light. We had to make only a few alterations - not a single one to the structure of the play."

    All changes made endeavour to place the scientist's responsibility concerning his inventions and their application to the better or worse of mankind into the center. Now it is not so much the power struggle between progressive and reactionary forces, but the question of existence or annihilation of mankind that dominates the final great scene.

    In comparison to the first version, the social implications are strengthened by focusing on the class characteristics of the feudal representative, Ludovio, and on Federzoni, Mrs. Sarti, and partiularly the newly created iron-founder Vanni as spokesmen for the progressive lower classes. All those parts mentioned earlier that were meant to prepare for a positive interpretation of the recantation are eliminated, thus leaving as the only motivation Galileo's fear of pain and political blindness. Bacon's motto in particular becomes a biting remark in Brecht's preface, and emphasizes the ethical component of science: "Let us think back to the founding father of experimental science, Francis Bacon, whose phrase that one must obey Nature in order to command her was not written in vain. His contemporaries obeyed his nature by bribing him with money and so thoroughly commanded him when he was Lord Chief Justice that in the end Parliament had to lock him up. Macaulay, the Puritan, drew a distinction between Bacon the scientist, whom he admired, and Bacon the politician, of whom he disapproved. Should we not do the same thing with German Nazi doctors?"

    Most importantly, the final monologue undergoes drastic revisions, eliminating almost all the optimistic overtones of the earlier version: "I hold that science's sole aim must be to lighten the burden of human existence. If the scientists brought to heel by self-interested rulers limit themselves to piling up knowledge for knowledge's sake, then science can be crippled and your new machines will lead to nothing but new impositions. You may in due course discover all that there is to discover, and your progress will nonetheless be nothing but a progress away from mankind. The gap between you and it may one day become so wide that your cry of triumph at some new achievement will be echoed by a universal cry of horror."

    The third version of 1953 was spurred by the atomic escalation and Brecht's increasing concern of possible misuse. In 1949 the Soviet Union started the first test explosions, which in turn speeded up the development of the hydrogen bomb, so immensely more powerful than the atom-bomb. Wiht the Korean War, science became a nationalistic affair, and this development brought about such sad events as the Rosenberg and the Oppenheimer trials. Especially the latter case has parallels to the Galileo subject. In relation to the infamous House Committee on Unamerican Activities - interestingly enough, to future U.S. Presidents, Nixon and Reagan, were involved, one as a member, the other as a friendly witness - Einstein spoke of a modern-time Inquisition. Brecht himself was questioned before he left the United States in late 1947. Shortly before reworking his play, Brecht showed a remarkable lack of his usual belligerant optimism when he stated at the Congress for Peace in 1952: "Man's memory for experienced suffering is amazingly short. His capacity for anticipating future sufferings is even more negligeable."

    Basically, the third version is a German translation of the second. It reintroduces the pest scene, the Pope's-dressing scene, and the epilogue-like final smuggling scene, which had been cut for pragmatic reasons in the American adaptation.

    The theme of "responsible science" as opposed to "pure science" is further strengthened by the following important addition to Galileo's dialogue: "As a scientist I had a unique opportunity. In my day astronomy emerged into the market place. Given this unique situation, if one man had put up a fight, it might have had tremendous repercussions. Had I stood firm, the scientists could have developed something like the doctors' Hippocratic Oath, a vow to use their knowledge exclusively for mankind's benefit. As things are, the best that can be hoped for is a race of inventive dwarfs who can be hired for any purpose... I handed my knowledge to those in power for them to use, fail to use, misuse - whatever best suited their objectives."

    The recantation appears now in an entirely negative light, and stresses Galileo's betrayal of his social commitment. It is the beginning of separating science from its responsible applications. Brecht illustrates the danger of a scientific equivalent of the decadent l'art pour l'art movement in a draft for a preface to the play: "The bourgeois single out science from the scientist's consciousness, setting it up as an island of independence, so as to be able in practice to interweave it with their politics, their economics, their ideology. The research scientist's object is "pure" research; the product of that research is not so pure. The formula e = mc2 is conceived of as eternal, not tied down to anything. Hence other people can do the tying down, and suddenly the city of Hiroshima has become very short-lived. The scientists are claiming the irresponsibility of machines."

    In praise or condemnation of Galileo, Brecht ended up blaming Galileo of having committed "the original sin of modern sciences" by recanting. He states: "From the new astronomy, which deeply interested a new class - the bourgeoisie - since it gave an impetus to the revolutionary social current of the time, he made a sharply defined special science which - admittedly through its very purity, i.e., indifference to modes of production - was able to develop comparatively undisturbed. The atom bomb is, both as a technical and as a social phenomenon, the classical end-product of his contribution to science and his failure to contribute to society."

    Apart from the fact that the "bourgeoisie" of Galileo's times was not at all in a "revolutionary current", Brecht's accusation may seem somewhat exaggerated. It is likely that Brecht's eagerness to show by way of his example Galileo the perils of an alarming present. Together with his love for polemic overstatements, this leads to the somewhat unjust, harsh judgement. The timeliness of the problem of pure and applied science has proven not to be limited to the late forties and early fifties. Rather, it fits the present-day situation just as well.

Originally presented at the 1984 LCMND Conference, University ofManitoba, Winnipeg

---

How to cite this e-Version:
Divay, Gaby. "Brecht's "Life of Galileo": socio-political considerations."
e-Edition, ©February 2010
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~divay/ps/brechtGalileo84.html   Accessed ddmmmyyyy [ex: 14feb2010]. [browser preview: 7p.]