#orgosolo

Right, first things first. Historical context and reality. In the late 1500s we have two relevant models in regards to Galilei.

the geocentric model by Ptolemeus which takes into account a lot of astronomical observations such as differences in planetary orbit etc, but places the earth in the center of it all. This results in very...let's call them interesting orbits the planets would have to follow in order for it all to work out

the heliocentric model by Copernicus that was first described in 1543, he still incorporated the 'godly harmony' that was a hit since Aristotle, which means everything moves in perfect circles, the sun is immaculate, such things. Later Kepler came up with ellipses as the most likely planetary movement (Kepler and Galilei were active in the same timeperiod, 1571-1630 and 1564-1641) In this model there should also be an outer sphere with the stationary stars that would be called into question by Galilei (amongst others) shortly before he completely lost his eyesight because there was an observable supernova out there...

There was also a third one by another contemporary, Tycho Brahe that was a mishmash of those two - earth around the sun but planets around the earth or no self rotation of the earth, I don't know...also, flat-earth-theory was widely accepted as disproven, even in the church.

So. What did Galilei do?

He was very taken by a new invention, the telescope and improved upon it. With this cool thing he now made discoveries like moons of Saturn, the surface of Venus, the fact that the sun was not a glowing ball of perfect, but that there were spots on its surface...a lot of stuff that was more or less accepted (even by high standing members of the church) BUT he was convinced of the heliocentric model and all of his discoveries were in alignment with that, and there was an already ongoing debate within the church about which worldview/-model to adapt. Copernicus' model was to be viewed as merely that - a mathematical model for simplicity that did not necessarily reflect reality (admittedly not THAT absurd of a notion once you have to sit through a few lectures on physics...). The famous denouncement Galilei was forced to make was funnily enough over a text he wrote with funding an encouragement from the pope. The POPE. Who asked him to compare and contrast the geocentric and the heliocentric models. Wikipedia tells me that he made the crucial mistake to ridicule a theory posed by said pope (all contradictions do not have to be solved because God can just intervene and make it not make sense...) and to explicitly state his favouritism of Copernicus' model (through the mouth of an Idiot character, but still, once you piss off the pope, that's not gonna fly...). He had also written this text, called 'Discorsi' (discourses) in the popular Italian instead of the scientific Latin, which would have made it accessible to all the literate people, not just those woth a higher education. (This is important for the play)

There's this popular myth that after Galilei denounced his text and was free to go, he muttered to himself while leaving "Eppur' si muove" (It f***ing moves. Freely translated...) which I would like to accept as historical fact simply for the badassery of the quote, thank you....

Now, what about Brecht's Galilei?

Throughout the text there are instances where it is made clear that members, if not the majority of the church are well aware that the heliocentric model of the universe makes a lot of sense, but they fear what a non-earth and thus non-human-centric worldview might imply for the tried and tested narrative of humans as God's favored creation. Subtextually and for us as viewers 200+ years in the future, it is clear that the clerics and the 'God appointed' nobility fear for their power.

However, there is a fascinating dialouge with Galilei and a cleric that contrasts viewpoints on scientific discovery.

Later Galilei will explain that there are two types of scientists: those who want to improve life and labour for humans and those who simply want to collect knowledge for knowledge's sake. This dialouge takes place before his denouncement and while the cleric is a stand-in for the church and Co., his character is also a mathematician and a physicist. He understands Galilei's points and even agrees with him from from scientific standpoint. But where their opinions differ is when it comes to the consequences that such a shift in worldview might do to the simple people.

It brings up the reality that people at the time had neither the time nor the resources to follow the astronomical debate and such a shift in worldview, if acknowledged by the church, might call everything they believe in into question. What would give the people strength to keep going in a life as miserable as theirs with no end goal in sight that they are working towards, once they see themselves as merely a few billion microscopic flecks on a small planet of many in a Universe that doesn't care about them or the earth... while Galilei is convinced that with this the people would finally have the means to outgrow/overthrow the 'god-given' status quo and get out of their oppression, the cleric predicts a deep depression.

Throughout the course of the play, it is never revealed who would have been right, because by denouncing his work, Galilei takes that opportunity away from the people. Once blind and at the very end of his life, he monolouges about what responsibility he had to stand up for what he knew or at least believed to be true. He hates himself for the betrayal of what he sees to be the only science worthwhile: science for the bettering of humanity. However, even though he is at some point presented with an opportunity to publish his work, he again decides against it, and with that reinforces his decision once again.