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.
Character Analysis
Niels Bohr
One of the most revered physicists of the 20th century (and perhaps all human history), Niels Bohr is the central pivot around which the play operates. It is Heisenberg’s visit to Bohr that incites the narrative, as the dead parties all reflect on why Bohr’s former pupil came to visit him in 1941 and what was said at the meeting that incensed Bohr to such a degree. As such, the text goes to great lengths to highlight how revered Bohr is in the scientific community. On numerous occasions, he is referred to as a Pope-like figure, and his numerous assistants (many of whom went on to become famous physicists in their own right) are presented as his cardinals. This introduces a playful irony between science and religion, in which Bohr functions as a high priest in a field in which sentimentality and doctrine take a back seat to mathematics and science. But this is only one of the many contradictions in the life of a man who was obsessed with the paradoxes and quandaries that haunted the most important scientific developments of the age.
At one stage in the play, Heisenberg accuses Bohr of being more interested in the moral conundrums that affect science than in the science itself. Bohr accuses Heisenberg of quite the opposite. Both men are correct, though they level their accusations as pejoratives rather than character insights. Bohr is obsessed with the wider moral implications of his work, which is why he becomes angry at the discussion of atomic energy research when Heisenberg visits Copenhagen. He knows his former assistant well enough to know that Heisenberg has not stopped to consider the implications of building a bomb for the Nazis, though he does not provide Heisenberg with any time to explain himself. Thus, it is left to the deceased spirits to find the true meaning behind the meeting. The irony is that Bohr, so obsessed with the wider questions affecting his science, became hyperfocused in that moment and consequently missed its true emotional tenor. As a result, he is given the rest of time to explore the deeper meaning of one of the most difficult paradoxes of all: the nature of his relationship with Heisenberg. In the end, Bohr gets what he wants—but he is so trapped in the moment that he cannot recognize it.
Werner Heisenberg
Heisenberg and Bohr are two sides of the same coin. Both are obsessed with physics, and both exhibit guilt and pain over the decisions they made in the past. While both are on the same path, their individual routes could not be more different. They explain this using the metaphor of skiing down a hill. While Bohr takes many turns and ensures he does everything correctly, Heisenberg is only focused on the finish line. He rushes to the end, his speed preventing him from paying heed to anything else along the way.
If Bohr worries about the paradoxes and quandaries, then Heisenberg cares only about the mathematics. Or, at least, that is what he is told. The truth is quite different. Heisenberg is perhaps the most complicated of the characters. While he is told that he only cared about the work, that he was willing to work with the Nazis because he cared only about answering certain questions about physics (and while he agrees with these diagnoses), there are many examples of Heisenberg working to the contrary. For example, he insists that his work on the project to develop an atom bomb was actually instrumental in slowing the project and ensuring that it never came to fruition. According to Heisenberg, there were other Nazi scientists who would have figured out how to develop the atomic bomb (and thus use it on England, France, or Denmark) and, by slowing down and scuttling the project, he saved countless lives.
But the matter is complicated by Heisenberg’s personality. He certainly felt indebted to his nation and did not want to see Germany ruined again. He was willing to work in morally compromising situations (i.e., with the Nazis) if he was allowed to continue his research. He enjoyed the respect and the opportunities that morally dubious work brought him and, up until the very end of the war, he was working on the issue of fission. But Heisenberg was never able to resolve a key part of the equation, one that—in Bohr’s estimate—he should have solved easily. Heisenberg, the man focused only on the mathematics of a situation, was let down by his failures in mathematics. Though it is never confirmed, the play suggests that Heisenberg (consciously or unconsciously) refused to solve this part of the equation, thus compromising his own ideals in the name of saving lives. Given that Heisenberg is so associated with the uncertainty principal, this uncertainty over motivations and character is, ultimately, the point. Heisenberg is a character defined by uncertainty and the need to constantly reexamine the facts of his life to find meaning.
Margrethe Bohr
Margrethe is the wife of Niels Bohr, but she is a strong enough character to avoid being defined only in relation to her husband. She is smart, insightful, and more socially adept than either her husband or Heisenberg. She can examine, diagnose, and explain the flaws in others that they cannot see themselves. Though the Bohr and Heisenberg frequently state that they should return to plain language so as not to ostracize Margrethe, she demonstrates that she is more than capable of keeping up with their scientific jargon and discourse. This is an apt depiction, as she spent many years typing and retyping her husband’s papers (though she received very little credit in comparison). Neither Bohr nor Heisenberg, however, can keep up with her critical insight when it comes to personality or character.
Due to the real-life closeness between Margrethe and her husband, it seems appropriate that he would turn to her when trying to solve the biggest problem he has ever faced. In death, they collaborate to uncover one of the biggest mysteries of their lives, to figure out why Heisenberg visited Copenhagen in 1941. In this respect, Margrethe plays a very important role. She functions as the narrative mediator; whenever the conversation becomes too technical or strays too far from the play’s central question, she brings the question back into focus. She asserts control over the narrative several times by bluntly asking why Heisenberg came to Copenhagen. Indeed, the play even begins with her asking that question, establishing early on that Margrethe is the guardian of the narrative’s most important conceit. Her objectivity is important: Because she knows both men well but was not present at the meeting, she can establish when one man is being indulgent or ridiculous and can accuse him of such. She lists errors that they make and digressions that they cannot seem to avoid. An example of this is her insistence (with evidence) that both men worked better alone when they are reveling in the work they accomplished together. Thus, Margrethe is the most important character in the play. She plays two roles, as a figure in both men’s lives and as a narrative mediator who guides the play forward. Though often patronized and occasionally ignored, she is more than capable of asserting herself in such revered company.
