Brief Biography of Bertolt Brecht

Bertolt Brecht is known for his work in the theater, both as a playwright and director, as well as a
theoretician. He was also an accomplished poet. Like all Europeans coming of age in the early
twentieth century, the course of his life was drastically altered by World War I (which began
when Brecht was just 16 and ended four years later) and by World War II (which Germany
started in 1939). Brecht avoided being drafted into WWI by registering as a medical student at
Munich University, where he first began working in theater. In the two decades between the
wars, Brecht wrote multiple plays (including his most famous, The Threepenny Opera),
established a theater company, and became wildly influential. When Hitler came to power,
signaling the beginning of the second World War, Brecht (a socialist) fled the country, fearing
political persecution. He ultimately landed in America, where he had a short-lived career in
Hollywood, prior to being questioned by the House Un-American Activities Committee and
subsequently blackballed in movies. He moved to East Berlin shortly after the war, where he
worked on refining his theory of “epic theater.” Today these theories of Brecht’s are his strongest
influence. Most serious theater directors must, in some way, respond to them in their
productions, and his impact can even be seen in the works of movie directors such as Lars von
Trier and Michael Haneke.

Historical Context of The Life of Galileo

Life of Galileo can be said to take place at two times. The first is the time in which the play is set
(Galileo’s Italy in the 1600s), and the second is the time in which the play was written (Brecht’s
Europe in the 1930s). The two hold striking similarities. In Galileo’s time, new scientific ideas
were emerging that challenged centuries of religious understanding of the world. In Brecht’s
time, new political systems were coming to power in the form of fascism and communism. Like
the scientific knowledge of Galileo’s day, the political changes in Brecht’s day were met with
extreme resistance. Two facets of sixteenth-century Italy are important to understanding Life of
Galileo. The first is the omnipresence of the Inquisition, a kind of religious police force first
founded in medieval times to investigate charges of witchcraft and reestablished in Galileo’s day
to protect against the rise of Protestantism. The Inquisition had extensive power in the Church
and could bring people to trial (and punish them) at will. The second facet, not unrelated, is the
importance of Aristotle to scientific knowledge at the time. Aristotle believed in a universe
where the Sun and all other heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth. In turn, the Church
accepted and promoted this belief. Others, most importantly Copernicus, had promoted the
heliocentric model (of the Earth revolving around the Sun) with virtually no success, and
sometimes at the risk of their own lives. Challenging Aristotle became a type of heresy:
something the Inquisition would be very much involved in. Indeed, the trial of Galileo is likely
the most famous of the Inquisition’s undertakings. The rise of fascism alluded to above
specifically refers to the ascension of Hitler to the chancellorship of Germany just prior to World
War II as well as the coming to power of fascist leaders in Italy and Japan. With Hitler’s rise the
ability to speak out against the government became increasingly difficult, indeed illegal. At the
same time, it became clear that a Europe already badly wearied by the events of World War I
would soon be plunged into another global conflict. Some world leaders, such as Neville
Chamberlain, attempted to stave this off by appeasing Hitler, but to no avail. It was a time of
tumultuous change.

Other Books Related to The Life of Galileo

Using historical events to draw parallels with modern politics was a tool Brecht used in many of
his plays, such as Mother Courage and her Children and The Threepenny Opera, Brecht’s most
famous works. This has also been done by many other playwrights, including Arthur Miller
with The Crucible  and Jean Anouilh with Becket. Brecht’s ideas on “epic theater” (which can be
seen in an early stage of development within Life of Galileo) were a direct response to
Aristotle’s Poetics. They inspired multiple playwrights and stage directors, such as Dario Fo and
Augusto Boal, as well as film directors such as Jean-Luc Godard and Rainer Werner Fassbinder.
Key Facts about The Life of Galileo

 Full Title: Life of Galileo

 When Written: 1938
 Where Written: Denmark
 When Published: 1940
 Literary Period: Modernism
 Genre: Play, Agitprop (Political Propaganda), Epic Theater
 Setting: Venice, Florence, and Rome
 Climax: Galileo (who appears to have abandoned his commitment to science) manages
to secretly write a new scientific treatise and smuggle it out of Italy with the help of his
former student.
 Antagonist: The Roman Catholic Church
 Point of View: (Play)

Extra Credit for The Life of Galileo

Constant Revision. Brecht wrote three separate editions of Life of Galileo, each of which he saw
onstage in his lifetime. The first (the Danish version) is the original text. The second, the
“American edition,” was produced during Brecht’s exile in the United States with the help of
actor Charles Laughton. During the Cold War, Brecht again revised the play: the “Berlin
version,” as it was called, incorporates elements of both the Danish and American texts.
True Story. Life of Galileo adheres closely to what is known about Galileo Galilei’s intellectual
conflict with the Roman Catholic Church.
 The Life of Galileo Summary

Life of Galileo opens on Galileo Galilei, a professor of mathematics at Padua University. He’s

talking to Andrea (his housekeeper’s young son), who has just brought him breakfast. They’re
discussing the solar system and how it works. Galileo shows Andrea a wooden model that
illustrates the current, generally accepted understanding of the planets. In it, the Earth is in the
middle of the universe and is surrounded by eight crystal spheres. These spheres represent the
moon, the sun, and all the planets. People have believed this model for two-thousand years,
Galileo says, but as mankind progresses in technology and knowledge, he suspects they won’t
believe it for much longer. He teaches the ideas of Nicolaus Copernicus to Andrea (who calls
Copernicus “Copper Knickers”). The new ideas place the Sun at the center of the solar system,
with the Earth and planets revolving around it. All the other stars in the night sky are at the
center of their own systems. Galileo uses the wooden model as well as a series of common-sense
demonstrations with an apple to show Andrea how Copernicus’ theory could be true. Andrea
believes him somewhat, but also questions Galileo whenever an argument seems weak. When
Andrea’s mother, Mrs. Sarti, arrives, she expresses serious concerns about what Galileo is
teaching Andrea, since it goes against the Church’s approved model and could therefore get
Andrea into trouble at school.
Throughout all of this, another concern repeatedly appears: money. Galileo doesn’t have any, but
he needs it—not just to continue his research and buy books—but also to do simple tasks like
pay the milkman. So when Ludovico arrives, hoping to hire Galileo on as a tutor, Mrs. Sarti
insists that Galileo accept the offer. He does, though not happily. Shortly afterwards, Galileo’s
supervisor at Padua University (the Procurator) arrives to tell Galileo that his recent request for a
raise has been denied. The Procurator suggests that, if the mathematician needs more money than
his teaching job provides, he should invent something useful. He reminds Galileo that, while
Padua (and more broadly, Venice) might not pay much, it at least offers freedom from
persecution by the Church, which he might experience in other, better funded places (like
Florence). Galileo responds that such freedom of thought may be nice, but it is meaningless if he
spends all of his free time working to make ends meet instead of thinking.
Ludovico, however, provides a possible solution to Galileo’s problem: a new invention by the
Dutch called the telescope. It’s still unheard of in Italy, but Ludovico has seen it put to wondrous
uses abroad. Galileo instantly understands the mechanics behind the device and quickly
replicates one, pawning it off as his own original invention. The Procurator, seeing the great
many uses that the telescope could be put to, guarantees Galileo his raise. Shortly thereafter,
however, a Dutch merchant arrives in Venice with a boatload of telescopes and Galileo’s
deception is revealed. It doesn’t matter, though. He’s already used the telescope to empirically
prove Copernicus’ theory (which he’d previously only been able to prove theoretically using
mathematics). He excitedly tries to show this proof to his friend Sagredo, but Sagredo only
reminds him that a man was burned at the stake for quoting Copernicus only a few months
before. Undeterred, Galileo remains confident that the Church will be unable to avoid the truth
when it’s right before their eyes. This confidence causes him to move to Florence where, despite
being under strict religious censure, he believes he will have the time and money to explore his
new findings.
With Galileo newly settled in, Cosimo Medici, the Grand Duke of Florence (who is still just a
child), is brought by his counsellors to see the telescope at work. Among Cosimo’s party are a
theologian, a mathematician, and a philosopher. All of them are wholly skeptical of Galileo’s
latest findings and, after some heated debate with him, they decide that he’s a waste of time at
best if not an outright lunatic. In the end, they won’t even look through the telescope to see the
simple, observable evidence that Galileo presents as proof, though they do agree (in a way that
seems less than sincere) to present Galileo’s information to the Church’s chief scientist, Clavius.
Shortly thereafter, a deadly plague rips through Florence. Galileo, his daughter Virginia, Mrs.
Sarti, and Andrea are given the chance to flee, but Galileo declines it, citing his need to work.
Mrs. Sarti decides to stay behind with him, but they send Virginia and Andrea away. Andrea,
however, opts to return despite the danger so that he can continue assisting Galileo.
All manage to avoid the plague and Galileo soon finds himself at the Vatican awaiting Clavius’
review of his work. The scene plays out in much the same way that the confrontation in Florence
did: the Church’s scholars are simply too dedicated to the Church’s existing understanding of the
universe to entertain alternatives. They all feel that Galileo’s telescope is a dangerous object and
that his questioning of age-old wisdom is even more dangerous. A kind of fever overtakes the
discussion and at one point an older cardinal faints while berating Galileo. Nevertheless, the
scene ends with Clavius confirming that Galileo is correct. His words are followed up by “deadly
silence.”
Though Galileo understandably feels that his work has been vindicated by Clavius, he soon
discovers that the Inquisition has other ideas. They’ve decided that Copernicus remains heretical
and cannot be taught. Paradoxically, though, they’ve accepted Galileo’s findings. What this
means is that the Church has decided to allow Galileo to continue his research but not to publish
it to the outside world. Galileo is upset by this, but also slightly overwhelmed—he is, after all, a
devout Catholic who doesn’t wish to go against his Church, and these orders come from the
highest levels of authority.
In the following scene, the Little Monk visits Galileo. He has looked through a telescope and
observed the same things Galileo has. The discovery has shaken his faith, and in order to recover
that faith, he has decided to abandon astronomy. He visits Galileo to explain why—perhaps in an
effort to convince Galileo to do the same. Their long conversation doesn’t go quite as planned,
however, and Galileo ends up converting the Little Monk into one of his students by offering
him his manuscripts. Galileo compares these to “an apple from the tree of knowledge,”
something he knows the Little Monk won’t be able to resist. Kept from publishing, Galileo has
instead spread his knowledge to his students, who now include the Little Monk, Andrea, and
Galileo’s telescope lens manufacturer, Federzoni.
Meanwhile, the Pope is dying and it seems likely that his successor will be Cardinal Barberini, a
mathematician with whom Galileo has had favorable interactions in the past. Assuming that
Barberini will be far more receptive to his work than the previous Pope, Galileo resumes
publication. His ideas spread far and wide, seemingly overnight: he even becomes the subject of
ballads sung at public fairs and carnivals. Naturally, this catches the eye of the Inquisition, who
summon Galileo to the Vatican. While Barberini does indeed agree with Galileo, the politics
behind supporting him are just too risky and complicated. Therefore, the new Pope has given the
Inquisition the right to imprison Galileo, and even to threaten him with torture, in order to force
him to renounce his work. Their plan succeeds, and Galileo recants his doctrine. His students can
hardly believe it, and they turn their backs on him. They feel that Galileo has abandoned their
hard and important work to save his own skin.
Nearly a decade passes. Galileo has been imprisoned in his home by the Inquisition and will
remain so for the rest of his life. He’s forced to write dissertations approving the Church’s
opinion on a number of banal matters, all of them below his abilities. These texts are carefully
checked by a monk for any heresies they might contain, and any other writing is forbidden.
Nevertheless, Galileo has, in secret, finished his magnum opus, The Discourses and
Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences. One day, Andrea comes to visit
(the first of his old pupils to do so). At first, Andrea is cold towards his old mentor. Galileo
reveals, however, that he did not recant his work in order to save his life. Rather, he recanted it
so that he could continue it in secret. With Andrea’s help, Galileo manages to sneak The
Discourse out of the country and into Holland, where it is published without censure.

Progress vs. Tradition

Theme Analysis

Both Brecht and Galileo lived in societies that were characterized by the desire to do things
differently than they’d been done in the past. In Galileo’s time, science introduced knowledge
and ideas that were at odds with centuries of religious teachings about the nature of the world. In
Brecht’s day, this desire for change was political. People were tired of wars and the political
systems that caused them: they wanted change and some believed that communism could
provide it. By staging a play about Galileo’s life in the era of communism’s ascendance, Brecht
suggests that history will view the struggle for communism in the same favorable light that
contemporary people see Galileo’s struggle for scientific knowledge against a repressive
religious hierarchy.
Brecht suggests that people tend to view favorably what aligns with reason. Therefore, he
believes that even ideas that are at odds with centuries of tradition and “common sense” will
ultimately be accepted if those ideas are more rational than the ones they strive to replace. For
Galileo, whom Brecht endows with the same belief, proof of this inclination toward rationality
can be seen in the ability of simple demonstrations, made with apples and wooden models, to
teach complex ideas. Andrea, who initially lacked the education necessary to understand the
mathematics behind Galileo’s ideas, was easily convinced by Galileo’s models that the
Aristotelean concept of the universe made less sense than Copernicus’ system. That basic
inclination toward reason, Galileo says, is found everywhere from “the horny-handed old woman
who gives her mule an extra bundle of hay on the eve of a journey” to “the sea captain who
allows for storms and doldrums when laying in stores,” and it is an irresistible power that will
eventually persuade even the most stubborn people of the truth.
Building on this, Life of Galileo suggests that technological advancement and an increasing trust
in empiricism means that human reason can be more easily directed. When Copernicus
confronted the ideas of Aristotle, he did so on purely mathematical grounds. If one couldn’t
understand the mathematics behind his proofs, then one simply had to take his arguments on
faith—precisely what had been done for centuries with Aristotle. Without observable proof,
Copernicus’ arguments remained just a theory. Thanks to the telescope, however, Galileo could
provide visible proof of phenomena that could otherwise only be described mathematically.
While his demonstrations and models were convincing to some, the incontrovertible evidence of
the eyes, in the end, was sufficient to persuade all. For Brecht, who sought to prove Marx’s
theories to his audience, observable proof of communism’s viability was found not in a
technological advancement, but rather through experiment. The Soviet Union had recently turned
the theories of Karl Marx into proof of the viability of communism, and countries throughout the
world sought to replicate their findings.
Brecht makes this parallel concrete when he has Galileo equate politics and science in an odd
speech to a former student. In it, he says that “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.” But the “new
art of doubting” that reason has created has caused people to train their telescopes not just on the
stars, but also on “their tormentors, the princes, landlords and priests.” And just as ordinary
people had used their reason to see the flaws of Aristotle’s time-honored models, so too would
they use reason to see the flaws in the systems of power which had long oppressed them. Those
systems, Brecht believed, would in turn be replaced by ones that made more sense for everyone,
just as Galileo’s system replaced Aristotle’s.
For Galileo, then, knowledge really was a power that anyone could wield in the pursuit of a
better world. In this way, Brecht uses Galileo as a stand-in for himself: both men present
themselves as iconoclasts, standing against centuries of inherited wisdom. Both men make that
stand in the name of the common man, whom they understand would benefit the most from this
emancipation of ideas. And, perhaps most importantly, both men speak directly towards that
audience of ordinary people. Brecht’s fictional Galileo writes all of his scientific tracts in Italian,
rather than in Latin, so that people from a variety of backgrounds can read them (the real Galileo
did this as well). Similarly, Brecht himself wrote in an easy-to-understand German and made
sure that English translations of his work were equally accessible. Even his theoretical works on
the theater, which tackle very complex topics, are easy to read.

Persecution

Theme Analysis
Modern readers are accustomed to the rigors of free scientific debate, which allows for a variety
of viewpoints, so long as data exist to reinforce one’s positions. Even in more esoteric worlds
like philosophy and politics, few arguments are taboo as long as they are presented both with
good intent and reason. Such freedoms, though, are a modern victory—sometimes a very modern
one. In Brecht’s day, citizens of the United States faced severe repercussions, including charges
of treason, if they espoused socialist or communist views. In Galileo’s time, questioning the
Church’s position on any topic could lead to a charge of heresy, a crime that carried with it a
wide array of harsh punishments. Of these, the worst was burning at the stake, and indeed
imagery of flames and burning can be found throughout Life of Galileo, invoking this very
threat. Yet, Brecht argues that, regardless of the time one lives in, true believers in their cause
will always to continue to challenge authority, no matter the consequences.
Galileo’s challenge to astrology (upon which the authority of the Church was partially based)
was significant, since his ideas undermined centuries-old understandings of the universe and
even suggested that fundamental aspects of Christian doctrine were entirely untrue. The Church
had taught for centuries that the Earth was the center of the universe, with all other elements (like
the Sun, Moon, and planets) captured in successive crystalline spheres. Galileo’s research
contradicted the Church’s model of the cosmos, and placed the Earth at the center of just one
solar system among countless others. In effect, Galileo’s ideas “got rid of Heaven.” The
dissemination of such iconoclastic beliefs was so great a threat to the power of the Church that
Galileo was tried before the Inquisition and threatened with torture if he didn’t renounce his
views—which he did. The Church’s brutal imprisonment of Galileo appeared to have broken
him. He lost the respect and friendship of his pupils, and, seemingly, he lost his enthusiasm for
his work. The Church wanted Galileo’s harsh life to be an example to others who might
challenge its authority.
However, the Church’s desire to make an example of Galileo clearly failed, as Brecht is using
Galileo’s life to illustrate the importance of challenging repressive institutions (the opposite of
the lesson that the Church hoped people would derive from Galileo’s story). Though Galileo
appeared to have caved to the Church’s demands, he was actually trying to avoid attracting
attention so that he could work on a secret manuscript that he disseminates by having a student
sneak it out of the country. This is a complicated moral position, since Galileo’s life appears,
outwardly, to validate the Church’s authority. However, Galileo is only using the appearance of
compliance to give himself the freedom to continue his work. By holding Galileo up as a model
of iconoclasm, Brecht seems to endorse a utilitarian attitude. Instead of judging Galileo for not
publicly maintaining his stance against the Church, he celebrates Galileo for creating, by any
means necessary, the conditions under which he could continue his important work. In other
words, Brecht seems to believe that Galileo’s integrity is defined less by his public position than
by his commitment to continuing to develop and disseminate subversive ideas.
Brecht also acknowledges the tremendous cost of living in defiance of authority. Galileo’s time
in prison and his life after prison take a physical toll on him. For example, writing his final
manuscript destroys his eyesight, because he must conduct his work at night, in secret. This was
also emotionally difficult for Galileo, as he was continuing his work under threat of execution.
Even more significant, his criticism of the Church was morally painful for him because it did not
spring from hatred of religion; though Galileo disagreed with the Church’s teachings on
astronomy and astrology, he was a devout Catholic, and being at odds with the Church was not a
natural or easy position for him. Despite being “a faithful son of the church,” Galileo was willing
to question his own deeply-held faith and he continued with his work because he saw himself as
helping the church in the process. Men, after all, could be wrong in their interpretation of God’s
universe. If he could set them right, it was his duty to do so.
Not coincidentally, these were all values that Brecht and Galileo shared, and it’s noteworthy that,
after writing Life of Galileo, Brecht faced similar persecution. Brecht emigrated to America in
1941, after nearly a decade of self-imposed exile from his home country of Germany (since, as a
socialist, he feared persecution by the Nazis). Yet, it was in America that his political beliefs
would cause the greatest scandal. Brecht was called before Congress to testify about his political
beliefs in 1947, during a period known as the “Red Scare” in which communists and socialists
were persecuted as a danger to society. Though he’d written Life of Galileo  almost a decade
before that interview, the incident only serves to underscore Brecht’s belief that those who go
against the grain (as both he and Galileo did) will always suffer for it. Yet enduring that
suffering, and continuing one’s work despite it, stands for Brecht as one of the greatest services
someone can offer mankind.

Work vs. Passion

Theme Analysis
Brecht’s Galileo is a genius who wants nothing more than to keep his eyes firmly trained on the
night sky, looking for answers to large-scale questions about existence and thinking about the
way the universe works. He sees this labor as his true calling. Yet, as astronomy isn’t a well-paid
profession in Galileo’s time, he finds himself constantly torn between his passion and the banal
requirements of day-to-day life, like making money to pay for food. Such considerations tie
Galileo down, rob him of energy and time, and ultimately limit his potential. Throughout the
play, Brecht presents moments that seem to prompt the audience to ask themselves what would
have happened if Galileo had been left to his own devices and allowed to work as he pleased. In
turn, this becomes a strong indictment of the money’s importance in our lives. It’s obvious that
the Galileo of Brecht’s play did not achieve his full potential because he had to perform mindless
work and face equally mindless persecution. In that light, Brecht’s play becomes a polemic
against working for money (another facet in his subtle advocating for socialism) because such
work stifles progress for all of humanity.
To make ends meet, Galileo must hold three jobs: one as a lecturer at Padua University, one as a
private tutor, and the last as an inventor. Each robs him of time. The first job, as a lecturer, seems
the most likely to do service to humanity. After all, it allows Galileo to disseminate his ideas to
future generations, who can use them and build on them. It also absorbs the least amount of his
time: four hours each week in lecture, plus preparation. However, as the Procurator points out,
Galileo’s lectures do little to bring in new students, despite his fame, because mathematics will
not be a profitable career for them. And, what’s more, Galileo doesn’t actually get to disseminate
his own ideas to his students. He has to teach from approved doctrine, hammering in Aristotle,
despite that he knows Aristotle to be wrong. Thus, his teaching job is not contributing to the
progress of humanity.
While his work tutoring private students might offer an opportunity for him to undo this harm, it
comes with its own set of problems. Only particularly well-off students, like Ludovico, can
afford to be tutored by Galileo. Yet Ludovico has no real passion for the sciences. He’s only
dabbling in them to appease his mother until he can take over the family estate and concern
himself solely with his horses. Good students who could build on Galileo’s teachings in the
future (students like Andrea) instead get bumped from Galileo’s tutelage because they can’t
afford to pay. Furthermore, as Galileo tells the Procurator, the number of private students he has
to take on to make up for his poor university wages taxes his time incredibly. “I teach and I
teach,” Galileo pleads, “and when am I supposed to learn?”
His third job, as an inventor, is not quite as cut and dry. Galileo’s inventions do help humanity to
progress while making him money. He invents a proportional compass, for instance, that allows
even the mathematically disinclined to perform complex calculations with relative ease. It’s used
in banking for tasks like figuring compound interest, and in military endeavors for calculating
the weight and trajectory of cannon balls. He also invents a water pump and irrigation system for
Venice that help many people. This is not only useful work, but it’s also work that Galileo claims
to enjoy; however, it’s also “kids’ stuff” to him. It neither asks important questions nor helps to
solve them. Instead, such work takes up Galileo’s time when it could (at least in his mind) be
completed by someone of lesser genius. Thus, while inventing does advance humanity, it does so
to a far lesser degree than the work Galileo would do if he weren’t so busy. Brecht explains the
tragedy of this in the poetic opening of the thirteenth scene, remarking that the day Galileo
recanted his doctrine might have instead represented the dawning of a new age of reason had
Galileo been able to devote himself fully to his passion.

Greatness

Theme Analysis
The “Great Man” theory of historical progress, which was developed in the nineteenth century,
argues that history is shaped not by the cumulative lives of everyday people, but by a handful of
individuals (who, despite the name, need not be men). According to this theory, such people are
possessed of greater thoughts and are capable of greater deeds than their peers, and they move
humanity forward in a way of which they alone are capable. Brecht certainly considers Galileo to
be one of these great men, and the play grapples with the nuance of the “Great Man” theory.
While Life of Galileo suggests that geniuses are essential to human progress, the conflict
between Galileo and the ideas of Aristotle (who lived centuries prior to Galileo) shows that the
hero worship of important historical figures can also obstruct progress, as the ideas of “Great
Men” can be difficult to contradict even when they are clearly wrong.
Brecht explicitly establishes that Galileo is one of the greats (though he allows Galileo to
maintain humility by never saying so himself). Galileo’s own boss, the Procurator, says as much
to his face: “Mr  Galilei, we realise that you are a great man. A great but dissatisfied man, if I
may say so.” The Inquisitor says so, too: “It's easy to get lost in the world of the stars, with its
immense distances, if one is a great man.” Galileo’s superior at the university in Florence adds:
“I always feel that every moment stolen from that great man is a moment stolen from Italy.” This
establishes that Brecht considers Galileo’s ideas to be uniquely important in their potential to
redirect the course of humanity and further scientific progress.
Yet, a primary obstacle to Galileo’s important ideas being accepted is the prestige of another
great man from centuries earlier, Aristotle. Aristotle’s ideas about the cosmos shaped centuries
of religious and scientific thought, and Galileo’s attempt to contradict aspects of Aristotelian
thought is met with resistance from all kinds of people, institutions, and disciplines, including the
Church, which holds Aristotle in high esteem. One philosopher who clashes with Galileo refers
to “Aristotelis divini universum,” Latin for “the universe of the divine Aristotle.” This implies
that Aristotle is more than a great man: he’s divine. As Federzoni points out, Aristotle’s doctrine
is so believed that no one even bothers to confirm it. Conversely, Galileo’s theories are subjected
to criticism from all angles, including philosophy and theology as well as math and hard science.
Thus, for Galileo’s greatness to truly be realized, he has to overcome the sway that Aristotle’s
theories hold on astronomy. Galileo believes that this can be done simply by showing men the
world through the telescope. However, overcoming the greatness of Aristotle isn’t that easy,
since the men can’t even be bothered to look. As Galileo says: “I offer my telescope so they can
see for themselves, and everyone quotes Aristotle.” The remainder of Galileo’s life is spent
building insurmountable proof of a truth that is right before mankind’s eyes. Therefore, while
Brecht clearly believes aspects of the “Great Man” theory of history, he also presents the
drawbacks of attributing so much significance to the ideas of one person from long ago.
Brecht also uses Galileo’s conflict with Aristotle to reflect his own life. Since Brecht’s Galileo is
a stand-in for Brecht himself, it’s unsurprising that, just as Aristotle was responsible for the
cosmological system that Galileo refuted, Aristotle was also the progenitor of the naturalist
theatrical style (in which the theater imitated real life) that Brecht sought to overthrow in the
twentieth century. Thus, Galileo’s conflict with Aristotle is a subtle polemic against prevailing
theatrical traditions, as well as a suggestion that Brecht’s ideas should be taken more seriously,
since he (like Galileo) is a misunderstood “Great Man” of his time. Aristotle’s constant presence
in Life of Galileo shows that Brecht not only firmly believed in the great man theory, but that he
also saw it as the responsibility of great men to use their greatness to challenge and even
overthrow the ideas of their predecessors.

……………………………….

Bertolt Brecht | Techniques and Facts

‘Brecht is the key figure of our time, and all theatre work today at some point starts or
returns to his statements and achievements.’
Peter Brooke, theatre director.
 Bertolt Brecht was born in Germany in 1898 and died
aged 58 in 1956. He was a poet, playwright and theatre director. His most famous plays include Life of
Galileo, Mother Courage and Her Children and The Caucasian Chalk Circle. Brecht’s groundbreaking
directing style has been hugely influential to many directors and designers over the decades. Playwright
David Edgar once said ‘Brecht is part of the air we breathe.’

Brecht’s work was very popular in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but he is slightly less fashionable today.
However his influence is still present in much of theatre and many would argue that Brecht changed the
face of modern theatre.

Brecht was a Marxist and made his theatre highly political. He wanted his theatre to spark an interest in
his audiences’ perception of the world. He did not want his audiences to sit passively and get lost in a
show’s story, but to make them think and question the world they live in. He encouraged them to be
critical of society. His work was often mischievous, provocative and ironic.

Brecht wanted his audiences to remain objective and unemotional during his plays so that they could
make rational judgments about the political aspects of his work. To do this he invented a range of
theatrical devices known as epic theatre.

Epic theatre is a type of political theatre that addresses contemporary issues, although later in Brecht’s life
he preferred to call it dialectal theatre. Brecht believed classical approaches to theatre were escapist, and
he was more interested in facts and reality rather than escapism. Epic theatre doesn’t attempt to lay down
a tidy plot and story, but leaves issues unresolved, confronting the audience with sometimes
uncomfortable questions.
 Verfremdungseffekt, or the ‘estrangement effect,’ was used to distance the audience from the play and is
sometimes called the alienation effect. Brecht did not want the audience to have any emotional
attachment to his characters, so he did various things to break it. Here are some of the techniques he used.

 Breaking the fourth wall

This is where the wall between the audience and actors on stage is broken. Rather than allowing the
audience to sit passively and get lost in the show, the actors will sometimes directly address the audience
with a speech, comment or a question - breaking the fourth wall.

 Montage
Short movie clips are put together, often to show factual events. Sometimes clips are edited to juxtapose
each other, and/or sometimes the montages are used to highlight the issues Brecht is trying to
communicate.

 Use of song, music and dance

Some of Brecht’s work includes songs, music and dance. This helps to remind the audience that they are
not watching real life. Sometimes the songs are juxtaposed ironically, with cheery upbeat music but with
dark lyrics. One of the most famous song lyrics comes from Brecht’s ‘The Threepenny Opera’: ‘Who is
the bigger criminal: he who robs a bank or he who founds one?’

 Narration
Narration is used to remind the audience that they are watching a story. Sometimes the narrator will tell
the audience what is about to happen in the story, before it happens, because if the audience knows the
outcome then they may not get as emotionally involved.

 Minimal set, costumes, props and lighting

Brecht believes the stage should be brightly lit at all times. That sets should not be realistic, just
suggestive. And that actors should use minimal props, often only one per character. Also props can be
used in several different ways, for example a suitcase may become a desk.

 Coming out of character

Actors will sometimes come out character, often at heightened moments of drama, to remind the audience
that it is a piece of fiction that they are watching.

 Using placards
A placard, or projection screen can be used to give the audience some extra factual information, for
example it might say how many people have died in a particular war. Placards can also be used to
introduce characters in generic ways, e.g. ‘mum,’ or ‘dad.’ Placards are also used to introduce a new
scene, or to tell the audience when one has finished.

 Freeze frames/tableaux
The actors may go into a freeze frame, so as to break the action. Sometimes it’s done so that the audience
can stop and think critically for moment. And sometimes it’s done so that the narrator can speak, or so
that an actor can come out of character and perhaps break the fourth wall.
There are many other techniques he invented too, but these are some of his most famous.

Brecht has many admirers—and many critics. Some critics argue that to touch an audience deeply you
need to affect them emotionally, which Brecht was opposed to doing. Others criticise Brecht because he
was very opposed to corrupt post-war East Germany, but still accepted money from them to create his
company the Berlin Ensemble. Theatre critic Michael Billington (who seems to admire Brecht as well as
criticise him) wrote that Brecht, ‘was a shameless magpie who stole from everyone, often without
acknowledgement.’

Whether you love, hate or feel indifferent toward him, Brecht was a creative, influential, controversial
and often contradictory man who is still relevant to theatre today.