LIFE OF GALILEO
Bertolt
Brecht - Biography and Works-
Bertolt
Brecht (1898-1956) was born in the city of Augsburg, Germany. Bercht's father
Bertolt Friedrich Brecht was a Catholic worker in a paper factory and his
mother, Wilhelmine Friederike Sophie Brezing, was a Protestant, ill with breast
cancer. Bertolt went to the University of Munich to study philosophy and
medicine. Later he became a medical orderly in a German military hospital
during the First World War. He strongly disliked war resulted in supporting the
failed Socialist revolution of 1919. After attending the First World War, he
returned to university because he became more interested in literature.
Bertolt Brecht is a
controversial dramatist. Brecht was profoundly dissatisfied with the
conventional theatre, theoretically often called an Aristotelian theatre.
Therefore, Brecht's early creative endeavor was directed towards introducing a
new theory of theatre in sub-situation of the exiting Aristotelian theatre,
which had been working with a telling effect since the time of Aristotle. He
propounded a new theory of theatre often called epic- theatre. By advancing
this theory of epic-theatre, Bertolt Brecht introduced a wave of controversy in
the time he was producing plays and theorizing about theatre. His new approach
made his audiences detach from the play so as to awaken the spectators' minds
and communicate his version of truth.
A fascinating fact
about Bertolt Brecht is that he is a Marxist. This Marxist inclination of his
has affected his notion of the function of art, typically drama. Brecht upheld
the view that drama should inform and awaken sensibilities. He hesitates to
agree with the traditionally existing notion that the function of drama is to
entertain or anesthetize and audience. Brecht stands in a sharp opposition to
the Aristotelian view that the function of art is to evoke pity and fear on the
part of the audience. His views regarding the function of drama are
antithetical to that of Aristotle, we have already believed that Brecht is a
Marxist playwright. So, it is customary to say that his plays are bound to
incorporate the political and philosophical issue. As a playwright with a
Marxist leaning, Bertolt Brecht represents how a genuine truth is distorted,
and how a sincere seeker of truth is denuded of his dignity in the capitalist
society.
Brecht's early plays
deal with the horrors and violence, warfare wreaks, upon human society. In his
early plays Brecht treated the theme of heroism and duty negatively when he was
writing plays about warfare and its consequences, he came in touch with the
Marxist concept of dialectical materialism. Influenced profoundly by Marx's
theory of dialectical materialism, Brecht happened to adopt a materialistic
attitude. From that moment onward Bertolt Brecht became a devout disciple of
Marxist politics. From that time onward he began to live in an eastern Germany,
a part of communist blocks. Most of his remarkable plays were written after he
returned to live in eastern Germany, consequent upon of the Second World War.
In almost all these prolific works of Brecht; a confident sympathy for
communism is transparent.
When Adolf Hitler
gained power in 1933 Brecht was forced to flee from Germany because his plays
reflected the Marxist interpretation of society. After leaving Germany, he
lived in Denmark, Sweden and the Soviet Union. While living in exile he wrote
anti-Nazi plays such as The Roundheads and the Peakheads and Fear and Misery of
the Third Reich. Later he wrote Life of Galileo (1939), Mother Courage and Her
Children (1939), The Good Woman of Szechuan (1941), The Resistible Rise of
Arturo Ui (1941) and The Caucasian Chalk Circle (1943). Brecht was awarded with
the National Prize in 1951. In 1954 he won the International Lenin Peace Prize.
Brecht died of a heart attack on August 14, 1956
Galileo
by Bertolt Brecht: Introduction
The experimental play
Galileo by Bertolt Brecht is about the real historical fact and figure. Galileo
Galilei (1564-1642) a great physicist and astronomer propounded a theory
stating that the earth is not the center of the universe but the sun is. His
new scientific findings challenged the then Church authority and their beliefs.
So, he had to face the Inquisition and in fear of corporal punishment, he
recanted.
The play has been set
in the Renaissance context of the conflict between reason and faith, religion
and science. It depicts the Martyrdom science had to endure when the orthodox
Christian dogma perpetrated a limitless injustice against the ray of reason. It
presents the conflict between: a faith and scientific skepticism, religion and
science, prejudice and free thought deduction and induction.
This play entitled
Galileo is an epic-account of Galileo's journey into the Bethlehem of science.
It lists a set of scientific truths he happened to invent in his pilgrimage to
the promised land of science. Furthermore, it with equal intensity, narrates
the conflict between Galileo's scientific truth and the dogmatic truth embrace
by the Inquisition. In other words, the conflict between the scientific
world-view and Christian - Aristotelian - Ptolemaic world view reigns sovereign
at the heart of Brecht's Galileo.
In this conflicting and
confrontational relationship between Galileo and the Inquisition, Galileo had
to submit to the threatening power of the Inquisition. To prevent the further
dissemination of scientific enlightenment, the Inquisition put Galileo in a
narrow cage of confinement. By doing so the rigorous Inquisition nipped the
scientific enlightenment in the bud. This predicament of Galileo reflects how
the dawn of science ended in humiliating fiasco. According to Brecht, had
Galileo not recanted, science might have triumphed over the orthodox dogma of
Christian Inquisition. But since Galileo recanted, his recantation delayed the
birth of scientific enlightenment. Had Galileo not recanted scientific
enlightenment might have made its appearance one hundred years earlier. Thus
Brecht attributes Galileo's cowardice nature as the sole cause of a
century-long delaying of the dawn of scientific enlightenment.
Although Galileo is
shown as a figure of science victimized by the institutionalized forces of
Christian dogma, he is shown preparing a way for the birth of reason in an
indirect Way. In his dimly lit room in confinement Galileo is seen working in
his scientific laboratory, however dim sighted he might be. At a nearly final
scene, he is seen giving his book about his recently invented truths to Andrea
Sarti so that Sarti could secretly take the book to the foreign land for
publication. This secret deal between Galileo and Andrea Sarti exemplifies that
an individual, no matter how degraded and defeated, can change the erstwhile
socio-political structure. In this regard, this play Galileo truly abides by
the basic convention and assumptions of epic theatre.
This play is an
experimental play not because it was written by an experimental playwright, but
because it is subversive in unfolding of the plot in the order of chronology.
Dramatic plotting in Galileo does not follow in the footsteps of chronology.
The pattern of plotting in Galileo is not chronological. On the contrary, it is
archeological, non-chronological and anti-chronological. This non-chronological
patterning of the plot has detached Galileo from Aristotelian convention.
Thus the play is
modernist both in its theatrical structure and in its thematic intention.
Thematically, Galileo demonstrates how a genuine truth embodied by Galileo is
brutally distorted in Fascism. Thought distortion goes on, the individual continues
to affirm the real nature of the viciously distorted truth. Theatrically also,
Galileo gives every impression of being an experimentally innovative and
innovatively experimental play
Summary
Galileo by Brecht is
based on the real life of the seventeenth century astronomer and physicist
Galileo Galilei. The play is in fourteen scenes which is a break from the
conventional pattern of dividing the play into acts and scenes.
The play begins in the
morning in the poorly furnished room of Galileo. The time is in 1609 in the
city of Padua. Before breakfast, Galileo teaches his disciple Andrea Satri
about his newly propounded theory of cosmology. This theory states that the sun
is in the center not the earth. It is revealed that he has stolen the design of
the telescope and sells it, saying that it is his own invention to the senate
of the Venetian republic in order to have money.
He needs more money for
his research so he moves to Florence to become the court mathematician. But in
the court he does not get any support for this theory, but in Rome his theory
is praised by the team of astronomers. Unfortunately, his theory is declared as
a heresy by the Holy Office. It is
suspected and feared that the theory of Galileo and his scientific mind may
raise question up on the established truth, social system and the religion.
Galileo is warned to stop his learning and research and he is sent to the
Inquisition.
Because of the
Inquisition Galileo has to abandon his research for eight years. He later
decides to resume his research, but his would be son in law rejects to marry
his daughter saying that he has to uphold his reputation and further clarifies
that Galileo’s theory may cause social harm to his reputation. Galileo is
called Bible Killer by the people for his new theory. When Galileo publishes
some of his findings in Italian, the Florentine court is no longer able to
protect him from the Inquisition. Not even Pope Urban VIII, a mathematician
himself, is able to prevent Galileo's interrogation. In 1633, under the threat
of physical torture, Galileo publicly renounces his new findings. All his
students, especially Sarti is upset on his renounce. His disciples see the dawn
of the age of reason, fading and criticize him saying coward. Satri said,
"Unhappy is the land that breeds no hero." Galileo's response
expresses the opposite: "Unhappy is the land that needs a hero."
Galileo is put into
home arrest as an intellectual prisoner of the Inquisition until his death nine
years later. In his silent life in the home arrest, he writes the Discorsi, the
sum of his scientific theories and discoveries, but the pages of the manuscript
are confiscated by the Church as they are written. Galileo is finally able to
hide a copy, which he later hands over to his student Andrea to smuggle out of
Italy. In the end, Galileo declares: "I have betrayed my profession. Any
man who does what I have done must not be tolerated in the ranks of
science."
Dramatic
Irony in Brecht's Galileo
Dramatic irony implies
to the speech and action of a character that is guided by partial or utter
misunderstanding of the reality. The character is not consciously using irony
to satirize someone. Irony is realized from conscious or unconscious speeches
or actions. It happens to take place in the play when there is difference
between appearance and reality.
Virginia utters an
ironic statement. Her Galileo father Galileo was an astronomer. She might tell
her father to cast her horoscope because the much awaited marriage of her with
Ludovico was going to be fixed. Instead of letting her father to cast her
horoscope she said "I need another astronomer other than my father Galileo
to cast my horoscope for my forthcoming marriage with Ludovico. This is one
example of dramatic irony.
Another brand of
dramatic irony can he observed in the behavior of Cardinal Barberini. Cardinal Barberini was himself a
mathematician. He was well aware of the correctness of Galileo's theories.
Because of this awareness he had scholarly respect and sympathy for Galileo.
Despite intimacy and sympathy for Galileo, Cardinal Barberini revealed his
dogmatic, superstitions and vindictive attitude to Galileo immediately after he
became pope VIII in the chamber of Veticon. The higher position of power
cardinal Barberini reached, the more unreasonable and illogical he appeared to
be. A reasonable man lost his reason and became brutal when he assumed the
higher level of political and theocratic power. A sympathetic man to Galileo
became an exceedingly brutal man when he reacted the position of power. When
Cardinal Barberini put on the robe of pope he began to reveal his corrupted and
intoxicated nature. Out of his intoxication he became reckless and extremely
regardless. To speak in a straightforward language, Cardinal Barberini, who has
now become pope VIII, victimized Galileo, though he himself became victimized
indirectly. In his endeavor to falsify Galileo he himself was falsified. In a
move to denude Galileo Cardinal Barberini, himself, was denuded. This is a
brilliant example of dramatic irony.
From the conversation
of the little monk with Galileo, we come across a funny example of another sort
of dramatic irony. The little monk appears to have been on the horn of the
dilemma. He knows about the limitations of faith-oriented knowledge and Ptolemaic-Aristotelian-Christian
world-view. He too asserts the superiority of reason-led scientific knowledge.
But he becomes terribly frightened by the religious implications of the
scientific theories. He tries to persuade Galileo to stop his scientific investigations.
He clearly points out that Galileo's scientific findings generate a host of
religious implications. In this way he makes Galileo precautions in his move to
explore scientific findings. A man with the horns of a dilemma, the little monk
makes an ironic move to put a free man like Galileo on the similar horns of a
dilemma. This is ironically funny.
In scene twelve there
is another kind of Irony. In the Garden of the Florentine Ambassador at Rome,
many well-wishers, friends, disciples and daughter of Galileo have been looking
forward to know how Galileo reacts to his being forcibly interrogated in the
Inquisition. Their much-expected waiting ended in a humiliating disappointment.
Andrea Sarti had expected that his master Galileo would never recant. But
having heard that his master recanted, he felt painfully humiliated and
disappointed. Andrea Sarti uttered the following statement, "Unhappy is
the land that has no heroes". To this utterance of Andrea Sarti, Galileo
responds "Unhappy is the land that needs a hero." This remark uttered
by Galileo is ironical. Any sincere utterance of by Galileo is ironical. A
quester of truth, free from the bondage of dogma and creed, must be given the
freedom to live an ordinary life, to think ordinarily, and to behave ordinarily.
Apart from these
instances of dramatic ironies there is one different kind of irony. Galileo
knew that due to his un-preparation to face martyrdom, science was defeated. He
also knew that his further effort in scientific research can't revive the
defeated spirit of science. But he does not stop doing scientific research even
in his old age. It sounds ironical.
Brecht's
Dramatic Technique in Galileo
Brecht's theory of
theatre known as 'Epic Theatre' is an anti-illusionist theatre that runs
counter to the Aristotelian 'Theatre of Illusion'. It is in the light of this
'Epic Theatre' that we need to understand his dramatic technique. By using long
pauses, harsh lightening, empty stages, episodic plot, placards announcing the
change of scenes, concept of anti-hero, alienation effect or estrangement,
narrative form and violation imposed by traditional dramatic form. Brecht's
dramatic technique is intended to create an effect of estrangement among the
audience by making the characters declare boldly that whatever the audience is
watching is only play-an illusion not reality. The audience is urged to remain
intellectually vigilant and not identify with the characters of the play. The
audience will have to maintain a critical stance. The long pauses in the play
obstruct the smooth flow of the plot. Use of harsh lighting won't allow
anything to be hidden so that the façade of illusion is dismantled. Empty stage
makes the audience stop and think curiously about what is to follow. Unity of
plot is not emphasized. The play cannot be seen as a whole where the parts
serve to create an organic whole. Parts can stand on their own self. Their
significance is judged in isolation and their existence doesn't depend on their
contribution to the whole. This idea of the episodic plot gives against the
Aristotelian idea of unity of plot. Use of placards to announce the change of
scene helps to remind the audience of the illusion of theatrical performance.
Galileo is an anti-hero because he acts like a coward fearing the instruments
of torture. He doesn't fulfill our expectations from a hero as we have
traditionally understood him. He doesn't have the courage and the power to
prove himself as a great figure. Rather, he acts like a person who runs away
from the threats and dangers. He, in short, is very anti-heroic. Aristotelian
theory of theatre laid a great emphasis on the adherence to the unities of
time, place and action. In Galileo, there is a violation of these unities. The
events of the plot cover decades and are shown to have taken place in places
that are far away from one another. The hero is not a person pursuing a single
action with commitment. The play talks about many actions that do not coalesce
into a single uniform action. Galileo uses narrative form in that it takes past
events as a material for dramatization. The play is a dramatization of past
events and thus carries a sense of historical facts being narrated. It is
opposed to the idea of imaginary present of drama which unfolds before us as if
it were happening in front of us for the first time. The play Galileo demands
the special relationship between the characters and the audience. The audience
is not demanded to show empathy towards the characters and be lost in
sentimentality. They are urged to maintain a distance between themselves and
what happens on the stage. A greater sense of detachment and critical response
is demanded of them
Significance
of Telescope in Brecht's Galileo
Galileo, the character
who has been given a central role in the play with the same name is a scientist
credited with the invention of the telescope and the instrument stands for the
spirit of science. The telescope is a tool used by astronomers to find out the
facts about the heavenly bodies and their movement
window through which
scientists can get the objective knowledge of the world. It is opposed to
religions orthodoxy which stands for superstition, blind faith and ignorance as
well as status quo. What Galileo does with the telescope is the key to
understand the conflict in the play. The tension is between science represented
by Galileo and the telescope and the orthodoxy of religion represented by the
church and the different people of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
The play refers to a
time in European history when the church was the caretaker of truth. Scientific
truth or the spirit of scientific inquiry was suppressed. The role of religion
was very great. The scientists had to fact danger to life and were kept under
observation. The church was the arbiter of truth, I all areas of knowledge.
However the fervor for scientific inquiry was gaining ground. If religion
doesn’t test established truths and holds fast to them science examines
established truth. The role of the telescope is very great, but it was seen
with suspicion by the popes and other churchmen. It had to be used secretly
because of the hostile religious environment. Telescope in the play Galileo
poses threat to religious faith and the authority by challenging earlier
scientific theories and the belief held by the church. In the conflict between
science and the religion, science has suffered. However, when ‘discourse’ is
smuggled out of Italy into Holland, it reaches the masses and they finally know
what truth. In a way it is the victory of the telescope. Thus, telescope occupies
a great place in the play Galileo.
Conflict
between Faith and Doubt in Galileo
Brecht's Galileo
dramatizes the warfare between faith and doubt (reason). It has been widely
assumed that faith is the foundation of religion. Religion comes into existence
only through the agency of faith. In contrast, science comes into being on the
strength of doubt and reason. Disciples of science are of the view that doubt
is the gateway of science, whereas faith is the matrix of religion
Since time immemorial
people have been persuaded that faith is the only way to truth. This view has
an absolute say in the community of religious people. In the community of the
seventeenth century Christian thinkers in the west this view had gained an
absolute hand. The 17th century Christian thinkers believed that the ultimate
way to truth is faith.
In the 17th century
Galileo Galilei found out a new way to truth. His new way is the way of reason,
the way of doubt, and the way of creative skepticism. Galileo gave birth to a
reasonable, an experimental, and an inductive method of making an inquiry.
Through this method Galileo began his investigations and observations. What he
found ultimately is the scientific truth. He invented telescope. This device
enabled him to declare that the universe is not as perfect and spotless as
Ptolemy, Aristotle and champions of the Bible had supposed. Galileo sought to
give an explanation for the limitations of Ptolemaic - Aristotelian - Christian
world view. Galileo pointed out certain faulty issues in the philosophy of
Aristotle. He found out the four moons of Jupiter. He proved the Ptolemaic
theory about the celestial motion incorrect. Most importantly, he stated that
the Copernican heliocentric theory is correct at all points. In this way
Galileo found out totally new truths. These new truths of Galileo were
radically different from the conventional truths established by the traditional
Christian astronomers. Galileo succeeded in finding out these iconoclastic
truths by doubting all those erstwhile truths. Had Galileo not been reasonable
enough to doubt the erstwhile truths, he might not have arrived at his new
scientific conclusion. Having acquired a bunch of scientifically and
experimentally proven findings, Galileo declared that reason and doubt rather
than faith can lead to better destinations of mankind. This claim of Galileo
happened to offend the Christian Inquisition. The Christian Inquisition felt
that Galileo's claim is a painful insult to the stronghold of Christian dogma.
Since a thousand years those religious fanatics had been drugged by the opium
of religion, they were blinded by faith. For them faith is and ought to be
sovereign in each and every moment. That is why the Inquisition became
intolerant of Galileo's genuine and sense based truths. Thus, arose a
controversy between science and religion, between rational doubt and religious
faith. It is this controversy in which the seventeenth century, Galileo was
enmeshed. Galileo had to become courageous and heroic in his single handed
battle against the superstitious Inquisition, against the organized
superstitions of Christianity. But Galileo did not have that much courage and
dauntlessness. He was somewhat timid. Due to this timidity he began to waver in
his own conviction. He was afraid of the physical punishment the Inquisition
was going to level against him. That is why Galileo decided to compromise. His
decision to compromise led to the recantation. The recantation of Galileo
marked the humiliating defeat of doubt and the unashamed triumph of the
Christian superstition. Galileo's recantation brought to an unprecedented halt
the march of progress made in the territory of science. The defeat of doubt
does not mean the end of the age of science. Doubt did not die, reason was not
eliminated. These two elements of doubt and reason of science were temporarily
defeated. But at the underlying level rational skepticism and creative doubt
have been working jointly to shatter the ego of faith in the future.
In thirteen chapter, we
find Galileo working on the project of his scientific investigations. At that
time his eyesight was almost damaged. With his dim eyes also Galileo did not
renounce his sustained interest in conducting scientific inquiry. Galileo, in
the final scene of course, felt humiliated for not being heroic at the moment
of defending his truth. But he was also of the conviction that science must not
be associated with the name of one scientist only. Science is the grand project
to which every disciple of science must make contributions. The failure of one
scientist does not mean the failure of science.
Since time immemorial
people have been persuaded that faith is the only way to truth. This view has
an absolute say in the community of religious people. In the community of the
seventeenth century Christian thinkers in the west this view had gained an
absolute hand. The 17th century Christian thinkers believed that the ultimate
way to truth is faith.
In the 17th century
Galileo Galilei found out a new way to truth. His new way is the way of reason,
the way of doubt, and the way of creative skepticism. Galileo gave birth to a
reasonable, an experimental, and an inductive method of making an inquiry.
Through this method Galileo began his investigations and observations. What he
found ultimately is the scientific truth. He invented telescope. This device
enabled him to declare that the universe is not as perfect and spotless as
Ptolemy, Aristotle and champions of the Bible had supposed. Galileo sought to
give an explanation for the limitations of Ptolemaic - Aristotelian - Christian
world view. Galileo pointed out certain faulty issues in the philosophy of
Aristotle. He found out the four moons of Jupiter. He proved the Ptolemaic
theory about the celestial motion incorrect. Most importantly, he stated that
the Copernican heliocentric theory is correct at all points. In this way
Galileo found out totally new truths. These new truths of Galileo were
radically different from the conventional truths established by the traditional
Christian astronomers. Galileo succeeded in finding out these iconoclastic
truths by doubting all those erstwhile truths. Had Galileo not been reasonable
enough to doubt the erstwhile truths, he might not have arrived at his new
scientific conclusion. Having acquired a bunch of scientifically and
experimentally proven findings, Galileo declared that reason and doubt rather
than faith can lead to better destinations of mankind. This claim of Galileo
happened to offend the Christian Inquisition. The Christian Inquisition felt
that Galileo's claim is a painful insult to the stronghold of Christian dogma.
Since a thousand years those religious fanatics had been drugged by the opium
of religion, they were blinded by faith. For them faith is and ought to be
sovereign in each and every moment. That is why the Inquisition became
intolerant of Galileo's genuine and sense based truths. Thus, arose a
controversy between science and religion, between rational doubt and religious
faith. It is this controversy in which the seventeenth century, Galileo was
enmeshed. Galileo had to become courageous and heroic in his single handed
battle against the superstitious Inquisition, against the organized
superstitions of Christianity. But Galileo did not have that much courage and
dauntlessness. He was somewhat timid. Due to this timidity he began to waver in
his own conviction. He was afraid of the physical punishment the Inquisition
was going to level against him. That is why Galileo decided to compromise. His
decision to compromise led to the recantation. The recantation of Galileo
marked the humiliating defeat of doubt and the unashamed triumph of the
Christian superstition. Galileo's recantation brought to an unprecedented halt
the march of progress made in the territory of science. The defeat of doubt
does not mean the end of the age of science. Doubt did not die, reason was not
eliminated. These two elements of doubt and reason of science were temporarily
defeated. But at the underlying level rational skepticism and creative doubt
have been working jointly to shatter the ego of faith in the future.
In thirteen chapter, we
find Galileo working on the project of his scientific investigations. At that
time his eyesight was almost damaged. With his dim eyes also Galileo did not
renounce his sustained interest in conducting scientific inquiry. Galileo, in
the final scene of course, felt humiliated for not being heroic at the moment
of defending his truth. But he was also of the conviction that science must not
be associated with the name of one scientist only. Science is the grand project
to which every disciple of science must make contributions. The failure of one
scientist does not mean the failure of science.
Watching the play
Galileo we begin to harbor anticipation and suspense, Brecht subverts their suspense
and anticipation. By doing so he renders an entire dramatic action loose and
thinly connected. Traditional drama allows readers to develop anticipation
regarding to what kind of forthcoming outcome occurs. Right from the beginning
of the play, readers are inclined to develop curiosity about how the play ends,
and what would be the nature of the climax, but in Galileo Brecht
simultaneously subverted the simultaneous emergence of the national curiosity
of the readers. Hence, the play Galileo is designed to break simultaneously the
emergence of the natural curiosity of the readers. In this regard the play
Galileo sounds somewhat experimental.
Unlike other
traditional plays Galileo is not divided into acts, it is a collection of a
dozen of scenes. These scenes are loosely connected. There is a thin thread of
unity which merely binds all these scenes. Like an epic, Galileo presents the
life of the seventeenth century scientist Galileo. The play is not limited in
presenting the life of the protagonist in a fixed period of time and space.
Rather, it presents the total lives of Galileo from the day of his engagement
in the scientific quest to the day of his difficult life in confinement. In
terms of its incorporating power the play assumes an epic dimension. That is
why it belongs to the school of epic-theatre. Aristotle's theory of three
unities is mockingly defied in Galileo. Similarly Brecht inverted the
Aristotelian principle of plot construction in the line of causality. The
action in Galileo can hardly be divided into exposition, rising action, climax,
denouement, falling action and resolution. The readers are previously
well-acquainted with the story before watching the play. While watching the
performance of Galileo, the spectator already knows that Galileo recants before
Galileo actually recants in the play. Thus, this play does not succeed in
evoking thrilling wonder and joy. It does not evoke thrilling wonder and joy
because it is structurally designed to meet that goal. In this context the play
appears to have carried an ingredient of modernism.
The play Galileo
employs the seventeenth century scientist name Galileo as its protagonist.
Hence the protagonist Galileo does not have the level of heroic stature and
elite nobility. The protagonist is not seen struggling to maintain his heroic
dignity like Antigone and Oedipus. Rather Galileo degenerates from the middle
level of moral heroism by recanting what he had claimed scientifically. Hence,
the protagonist Galileo is not larger than the life the way Oedipus and Othello
were. The modernist element of the play Galileo resides in its inclusion of a
protagonist who happens to keep an anti-heroic stature.
The spectators
observing the enactment of Galileo could not identify with Galileo because of
his recantation. When we find Galileo recanting because of the fear of
punishment, we look down at him. At that moment of recognition Galileo appears
to be a petty coward. We become alienated with him. Thus, the play produces an
alienation effect upon its reader. The modernist element of the play is
constituted by the situation of an alienation effect or in other words de-
familiarization effect.
The very introduction,
lighting, props, play cards, fitful costumes also collectively serve to reduce
the realistic effort. This aspect of theatrical innovation helps to produce an
element of modernism in Galileo.
The greatest modernist
break through attained by Galileo is the invention of the chronological
ordering of the events in the plot. In Galileo events are not arranged chronologically.
There is no causal connection between the preceding and the succeeding events
in the plot.
Song and dance are also
used to hint at the undeclared theme. To popularize and spread Galileo’s
recently found scientific truth, a couple dances in public. Their dance is
subversive of the hierarchy in the Ptolemaic – Aristotelian universe. Just
before the curtain falls the boys sing. Their song is a mockery of scientific
truth. They mocked an old woman, they called her a witch. Andrea told them to believe
in what they saw with their naked eyes. But they disbelieved. They continued to
reveal their superstitious inclination by calling an old woman a witch. Their
song, thus exemplified the harrowing success of an organized Christian dogma
and the humiliating abortion of scientific enlightenment.
Surveying from top to
bottom Galileo gives an every impression of becoming a modernist play, which
brushes aside the illusionist convention. It stands as a landmark victory in
the 20th century history of modernist plays.
Marxist
Standpoint of Brecht in Galileo
Doubtless, Brecht is a
Marxist playwright. In Galileo, Brecht infused Marxist leaning. In this play he
represented Galileo as a victim of an institutionalized power. The Inquisition
brutalized Galileo's sincere theories viciously and mercilessly. The
institutionalized and organized form of power, that is, the Inquisition, knew
that what Galileo declared was un-doubtly true.
Even the very
representative of the inquisition cardinal Barberini had known that Galileo's
theories are correct. He had extended the grain of sympathy to Galileo. But
their sympathy and intellectual regard for Galileo dwindled down when cardinal
Barberini became pope in the chamber of the Vatican. Cardinal Barberini's
sympathy for him disappeared soon after he assumed the power of the pope in the
chamber of the Vatican. The more powerful he became, the crueler he appeared to
be. The more Barberini enjoyed the organized and over institutionalized
theocratic power, the more brutally he distorted the truth advanced by Galileo.
The way the theocratic power embodied by pope Barberini functions suggests that
the institutionalized power works exactly like a bourgeois power, though it
does not know the truth. There is a politics of ignorance. The theocratic
institution abused its power by putting a painful curb on the progressive
science. The bourgeois institution which makes a sincere quester of knowledge
be fooled and ridiculed. Galileo had to come into relationship to the
aristocratic cosmos the Medici. Had Galileo been economically strong enough to
survive, sponsorship and patronage would have exerted no pressure on him. The
dire economic necessity of Galileo brought him into Florence. The theocratic
power-network took advantage of the economic dependence of the individual. In
an attempt to take advantage of Galileo's economic condition the theocratic
power-center viciously distorted and falsified that individual's quest, and his
theory. This is not only a simple case of atrocity. On the strength of its
organized power and institutionalized body of politics, the Inquisition
interrogated Galileo till he recanted his recently discovered scientific
theories and findings. The Inquisition in this regard seems to be fascist and
capitalistic. It knew that Galileo is sincerely true. But pretending that
Galileo is wrong, it imposed its own politically motivated truth. Furthermore,
it exploited and dominated an individual so as to spread the political aura of
its own truth.
The relationship
between Galileo and the Inquisition is not the relationship of truth and
falsehood; rather it is the relationship of power and domination. Theirs is the
relationship of power politics. The battle between Galileo and the Inquisition
is the battle between the political truth of the Intuition and the pure
scientific truth embraced by Galileo. Hence their relationship seems to be a
relationship of domination.
In this relationship of
domination the helpless individual is defeated. It is natural also. But this
alone is not and can't be the intention of the playwright. To show an
individual being victimized by socio-politico-economic circumstance is not the
ultimate purpose of Brecht the play writing. The ultimate goal of Brecht, the
Marxist playwright is to show that an individual is capable of altering the
deep-seated socio-political structure no matter how defeated and victimized
he/she may be. In Galileo we can see Galileo engaged in his hopeless revolt
against the dictatorship of the Inquisition. Brecht did not bother whether the
individual succeeds in this move against the impregnable tyranny of the
Inquisition, which increasingly resembles the fascist and the capitalist
structure. Brecht is committed to show that an individual, no matter how
defeated, struggles to pose an exceedingly challenging jolt to the foundation
of socio-politico economic circumstances.
Brecht's Marxist
leaning can be seen in the concept of his epic theatre. Brecht does not like
his theatre-goers to be easily deceived by the spectacular and the epic
theatre. Instead of being emotionally vulnerable Brecht demanded his audiences
to be rationally alert. Brecht disapproves emotional vulnerability on the part
of his readers, on the part of his theatre-goers. Brecht is of the opinion that
the theatre goers must be rational enough to cast aside illusionist
conventions. Audiences in epic-theatre, according to Brecht, must be rational
enough to penetrate the painful, alienating truth behind the appealing veil to
illusion. Brecht sounds Marxist in his strong defense of the emotional
vulnerability of audiences and in his strong support of a rational bent of
audiences mind
Spirit
of Science and Galileo in Brecht's Galileo
Brecht dramatizes the
conflict between Science and religion, Creative doubt and Christian faith, Free
thought and bigotry, and the induction and deduction. He not only dramatizes
the conflict, but also its hindering consequences. Brecht demonstrated how the
dogmatic Inquisition and the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian world view forced science
to move in the direction of extinction.
Galileo had discovered
that the earth is not the center of the universe. This discovery of Galileo
became a living proof of the fact that Ptolemy is wrong. Galileo found out that
the celestial bodies are not as perfect and spotless as Aristotle had supposed.
This second findings put a slap on the face of Aristotle. One after another
Galileo propounded scientific findings, all those findings were practically
proven. There was every reason to believe that Galileo's findings were,
doubtless, correct what was acquired as a mode of knowledge through the medium
of the telescope was testable and practically true. Galileo put forward a
beautiful bunch of radical and golden scientific ideas. But those scientific
truths were unpalatable to the Inquisition, the organized center of
superstition. Under the banner of the faith's sovereignty the Inquisition
invaded the autonomous territory of science. Under the impression that
Galileo's theories ruined the sacred temple of Christian faith, the Inquisition
forced Galileo to face either severe corporal punishment or to recant his
theories. Frightened of the physical punishment, Galileo recanted. When the
public heard that Galileo recanted, people suddenly grown belief in the miracle
of science dwindled down to nothing. The prospect of the emergence of the
scientific enlightenment was doomed to extinction owing to Galileo's
recantation.
Thus, the play Galileo
dramatizes how the Christian superstition defeated the progressive march of
science. It also does not hesitate to display that as a result of the battle
between science and religion, science was defeated, but the scientists were
not. Even after the time of recantation Galileo continued to get involved in
scientific research. He had hoped that in future there may come another
courageous scientist who help science to flourish. With this hope in his heart,
Galileo gave continuity to his scientific research.
It is Galileo Galilee
who sowed the seed of science, though this seed failed to germinate and take
root because of his timidity. Had he not sown the seed of science, later
scientists might have to work hard to locate the space of science. The real
scientific spirit was embodied in Galileo. But this scientific spirit failed to
obtain the actual level of its concrete manifestation. Both the character of
Galileo and the spirit of science found their joint manifestation in the text
of Galileo. It is explicitly noticeable that at the heart of the play Galileo
lays the manifestation of the spirit of science and the character of Galileo.
Had the play intended
to manifest the character of Galileo, it should not have incorporated the event
of Galileo's violent interrogation in the Inquisition. The Intuition
interrogated Galileo formidably. The purpose of the Inquisition in
interrogating Galileo was not to modify the character of Galilea but to subdue
the spirit of science. The politics of interrogating Galileo in the Inquisition
are the politics of extinguishing the burning flame of science. Hence the
ultimate goal of the play Galileo is to project how the spirit of science was
dampened by the rigorous politics of the Christian Inquisition.
By the same token, the
play Galileo aims at representing the character of the seventeenth century
scientist Galileo. Brecht represented Galileo as a genius tainted with scars of
idiosyncrasies. When we see Galileo's limitless hunger for old wine and new
thought, we could not help thinking that there were certainly some signs of
abnormalities in his personality. When we find him doing scientific research
even in old age we could not help appreciating the mark of his scientific
prodigy. When we find him recanting for fear of physical punishment, we hate
him for his timidity.
Epic theatre of Brecht
Although Bertolt Brecht's first plays were written
in Germany during the 1920s, he was not widely known until much later.
Eventually his theories of stage presentation exerted more influence on the
course of mid-century theatre in the West than did those of any other
individual. This was largely because he proposed the major alternative to the
Stanislavsky-oriented realism that dominated acting and the "well-made
play" construction that dominated playwriting.
Brecht's earliest work was heavily influenced by
German Expressionism, but it was his preoccupation with Marxism and the idea
that man and society could be intellectually analyzed that led him to develop
his theory of "epic theatre." Brecht believed that theatre should
appeal not to the spectator's feelings but to his reason. While still providing
entertainment, it should be strongly didactic and capable of provoking social
change. In the Realistic theatre of illusion, he argued, the spectator tended
to identify with the characters on stage and become emotionally involved with
them rather than being stirred to think about his own life. To encourage the
audience to adopt a more critical attitude to what was happening on stage,
Brecht developed his Verfremdungs-effekt ("alienation effect")--i.e.,
the use of anti-illusive techniques to remind the spectators that they are in a
theatre watching an enactment of reality instead of reality itself. Such
techniques included flooding the stage with harsh white light, regardless of
where the action was taking place, and leaving the stage lamps in full view of
the audience; making use of minimal props and "indicative" scenery;
intentionally interrupting the action at key junctures with songs in order to
drive home an important point or message; and projecting explanatory captions
onto a screen or employing placards. From his actors Brecht demanded not
realism and identification with the role but an objective style of playing, to
become in a sense detached observers.
Brecht's most important plays, which included Leben
des Galilei (The Life of Galileo), Mutter Courage und ihre Kinder (Mother
Courage and Her Children), and Der gute Mensch von Sezuan (The Good Person of
Szechwan, or The Good Woman of Setzwan), were written between 1937 and 1945
when he was in exile from the Nazi regime, first in Scandinavia and then in the
United States. At the invitation of the newly formed East German government, he
returned to found the Berliner Ensemble in 1949 with his wife, Helene Weigel,
as leading actress. It was only at this point, through his own productions of
his plays, that Brecht earned his reputation as one of the most important
figures of 20th-century theatre.
Certainly Brecht's attack on the illusive theatre
influenced, directly or indirectly, the theatre of every Western country. In
Britain the effect became evident in the work of such playwrights as John Arden
and Edward Bond and in some of the bare-stage productions by the Royal
Shakespeare Company. Western theatre in the 20th century, however, has proved
to be a cross-fertilization of many styles (Brecht himself acknowledged a debt
to traditional Oriental theatre), and by the 1950s other approaches were
gaining influence.
