Most of the time Brecht portrayed a clash between the ends means between the past rational way and the present Reality or we can say the conflict between the individual and the world. It energy through different ways as a conflict between the old order and the new world, as far as Brechtian style is concern he showed the collision between the two irreconcilable ideologies.In the plays he showed the stagnant traditional view of religion and also the pasteurization of the moral standards with an unaccommodating ideas of the established tradition but it is a human need to redefine all the rigid ad orthodox nations street’s Galileo is a historical personality but its prior concern is to change the whole rigid old structure of the society is based on the so-called religious beliefs.
Galileo character seemed the representative of new scientific view, which is apposed by the obsolescent elongation of the church. The whole depiction of the church in `life of Galileo’ is dictatorial one, which has a complete hold over the political matters and also on science. It seems that the domination on both classes as a opposition for the new world order or you can say free research.
‘Science is ruined and church is sitting on it with fat behind’
So we can say that Galileo’s new invitation is challenging because it shows the new idea about science and it became a threat to the social standards. The protagonist is of the opinion that in his day’s astronomy has reached the market place and has thus broken the monopoly of an exclusive coterie. In this play when the balled singer announced that the earth is hot the center of the sun, than whole order of the society turned upside down. The builder will keep his building for himself and the woodchopper will burn his own fuel whereas.
‘Princes will have to wax their own boots’
The emperor can bake his own bread for orders the soldiers want care two hoots
They’ll go for stroll instead’
The whole scenario of Galileo society was so much stagnant that if they start to thuck about the new idea that awards questions arises from them. The sees the topsy-turvy Copernican macrocosm as a working model for their own social microcosm. It seemed that old order felt a threat this dread is of an existential nature like that of a little mimic’s company peasants who without a divinely appointed order will begin to say;
‘There is no meaning in our misery hunger is simply not having eaten and not a Test of strength’
The language or linguistic change is refocused in scene 4 when the Aristotelian philosopher commences an arid disputed by Galileo that his lens-polisher will not be able to follow the argument.
Brecht’s Anti-villain hero Galileo breaks an age old age idea about the universe but also shatters the traditional concept of a hero because he accepts not virtue but martyrdom.
In the end we can say that Brecht does not simply dismiss religion as kind of pre-scientific superstition and also its necessity. In the clash between religion and. Marxism Brecht not only reconcile religion with dialectical materialism but also to develop human socially in which religion necessity is denied.
Q.7. Discuss the portrayal of the church in Life of Galileo?
For the theatre it is important to understand that this play must lose a great part of its effect for its performance is directed chiefly against the Roman Catholic Church.
Of the dramatis personae, many wear the church’s garb. Actors who, because of that, try to portray these characters as odious would be doing wrong. But neither, on the other hand, has the church the right to have the human weaknesses of its members glossed over. It has all too often encouraged these weaknesses and suppressed their exposure. But in this play there is also no question of the church being admonished: ‘Hands off science!’ Modern science is a legitimate daughter of the church, a daughter who has emancipated herself and turned against the mother.
In the present play the church functions, even when it opposes free investigation, simply as authority.
Since science was a branch of theology, the church is the intellectual authority, the ultimate scientific court of appeal. The play shows the temporary victory of authority, not the victory of the priesthood. It corresponds to the historical truth in that the Galileo of the play never turns directly against the church. There is not a sentence uttered by Galileo in that sense. If there had been, such a through commission of investigation as the Inquisition would undoubtedly have brought it to light. And it equally corresponds to the historical truth that the greatest astronomer of the
, Christopher Clavius, confirmed Galileo’s discoveries (scene 6). It is also true that clerics were among his pupils (scenes 8, 9 and 13). Papal Roman College
To take satirical aim at the worldly interests of high dignitaries seems to be cheap (it would be in scene 7). But the causal way in which these high officials treat the physicist is only meant to show that, by reason of their past experiences, they think they can count on ready complaisance from Galileo. They are not mistaken.
When one looks at our bourgeois politicians, one cannot but extol the spiritual (and scientific) interests of those politicians of old.
The play, therefore, ignores the falsifications made to the protocol of 1616 by the Inquisition of 1633, falsifications established by recent historical studies under the direction of the German scholar Emil Wohlwill. Doubtless the judgment and sentence of 1633 were thereby made juridically possible. Anybody who understands the point of view outlined above will appreciate that the author was not concerned with this legal side of the trial.
There is no doubt that Urban VIII was personally incensed at Galileo and, in the most detestable manner, played a personal part in the proceedings against him. The play passes this over.
Anyone who understands the standpoint of the author will realise that this attitude implies no reverence for the church of the seventeenth, let alone of the twentieth century.
Casting the church as the embodiment of authority in this theatrical trial of the persecutors of the champions of free research certainly does not help to get the church acquitted. But it would be highly dangerous, particularly nowadays, to treat a matter like Galileo’s fight for freedom of research as a religious one; for thereby attention would be most unhappily deflected from present-day reactionary authorities of a totally unecclesiastical kind.