35 pages • 1 hour read
Michael FraynCopenhagen
Fiction | Play | Adult | Published in 1998A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Symbols & Motifs
Skiing
One of the recurring metaphors in the play is skiing. Bohr and Heisenberg recollect a vacation they took with fellow physicists; their skiing styles reflected their varying approaches to science. For Bohr, this meant taking a slow and steady approach. For Heisenberg, this meant racing toward the finish line with scant regard for his surroundings. Throughout the play, these metaphors change and evolve.
The first time the men talk about their skiing trip, the memory functions as evidence of the closeness of their relationship. The gentle mockery of each other’s style reflects a close bond in which they can recognize and laugh about their differences. It demonstrates that, at the time, they (and the rest of the scientific community) were faced with far lower stakes. At the time, one’s skiing style was a defining characteristic. During the war years, however, defining characteristics centered on questions or ethics or morality, such as whether one had chosen to work with the Nazis to invent an atomic bomb. The contrast between the two situations illustrates the rapidity with which circumstances changed for the physicists, as well as a sense of nostalgia that suggests both Bohr and Heisenberg longed for the days when the stakes of their work were significantly lower.
When the conversation moves on, skiing remains as a metaphor. Bohr, the slow and steady skier, is shown to become fixated on paradoxes and moral quandaries. Just as he slowly, methodically skied down a hill, he slowly and methodically wrote his research papers. Heisenberg, on the other hand, focused only on the mathematics. He was obsessed with balancing equations and rushing straight to the finish line, not caring for the distractions that took up so much of Bohr’s time. When the men discuss Heisenberg’s need to work on the atomic project to satisfy his intellectual curiosity, his skiing style becomes the appropriate metaphor: Heisenberg hurtles relentlessly toward his destination with little regard for the consequences for the world around him. Though this characterization is eventually called into dispute, the skiing metaphor endures, reflecting Heisenberg’s innate tendencies.
The Boating Accident
The death of Christian Bohr is a recurrent image in the play. It expresses the regret felt by characters desperate to change a situation but powerless to do so. Christian was killed in a boating accident in 1934; he had met Heisenberg when Heisenberg arrived in Copenhagen in 1924 to become Bohr’s assistant. From the moment he arrived, Heisenberg became almost like a family member, and Bohr and Margrethe regarded him as a son. After Christian’s death and the resulting emotional vacuum, their bond to Heisenberg naturally grew as he helped them deal with their grief. As such, the argument in 1941 becomes a reflection of Christian’s death: Bohr again experiences a complicated and impossible situation that costs him one of the most important figures in his life. When Heisenberg talks about the fallout from their meeting, Bohr’s mind fills with images of boats and he re-experiences the death of his son.
Christian’s importance as a motif is that he represents a situation in which—despite all his careful consideration and planning—Bohr could not prevent a tragedy from occurring. Harald, another of Bohr’s children, also died young, but he died of medical issues rather than in an accident. The importance of Christian’s death was that it was preventable and yet Bohr failed to prevent it from happening. Despite his great fame and renowned intellect, he was unable to save a person close to him, and he suffered greatly as a result.
This demonstrates Bohr’s need to interrogate the meeting with Heisenberg. He wants to know whether there was anything that he could have done to prevent the dissolution of their friendship. If he can solve the conundrum that informs the entire play—what was Heisenberg doing in Copenhagen in 1941?—then he might be able to devise a different course of action. He can draft and redraft events, eventually arriving at a conclusion as to what he could have done differently. He creates hypothetical situations where he does not react angrily or where he asks Heisenberg to continue talking, but these often end in even more tragedy. Just as Bohr regrets not being able to save Christian during the boating accident, he regrets not being able to save his relationship with Heisenberg.
Plain Language
One of the most common refrains uttered by the characters is the need to use plain language. In the context of the play, plain language is a loaded term that is ostensibly designed for Margrethe’s benefit but also aids the audience and allows the two scientists to return to their central question when they become sidetracked.
Whenever plain language is mentioned in the play, either Bohr or Heisenberg remarks that they must steer clear of academic jargon so they do not alienate Margrethe. But this is a fairly moot point. Margrethe repeatedly demonstrates that she comprehends such language and, as the person who typed and edited her husband’s papers, she played an important role in the development of physics in the 20th century. When the two male scientists say that they must return to plain language, they are being unwittingly patronizing and ignorant. This has the effect of demonstrating the slight arrogance in both the world-renowned scientists, an arrogance that partly caused the problems that they face. Bohr was too arrogant to speak bluntly to Heisenberg about his intentions; Heisenberg was too arrogant to refuse the position on the atomic project. As a metaphor plain language clarifies how their past actions were informed by their arrogance.
But plain language also ensures that the scientists remain on track. At numerous points in the play, Bohr and Heisenberg become distracted from the question at the heart of the play. They stop talking about why Heisenberg was in Copenhagen to discuss physics or memories. Finally, they realize that they must return to plain language, and this becomes a motif that refers to their need to return to the central question. Margrethe allows the two men to make this reference; she does not complain that she is fully capable of following their conversation because she understands the importance of answering the question. So she allows plain language to continue functioning as a motif, even though it patronizes her. In doing so, she makes clear that she is playing a dual role in the narrative as both character and mediator.
