ABSTRACT
F requently B rech t’s dealings w ith the au thorities and the signs of censorship and self-censorship this entailed are in terp re ted as evidence of, on the one side, repressive political dogm a, and on the o ther a lack of political courage, or a cunn ing instinct for self-preservation. W e probably cannot avoid m aking, or respond ing to judgem en ts of this kind, and no critic should p re tend to
disinterestedness, though m any do of course in the very act of p ronouncing a verdict. Judgem en ts for or against Brecht or the G D R , however, do not so m uch settle the question of their relation ship as reinforce the long-term ideological and political issues this involves. B recht’s elusiveness, what is m ore, though it is this which provokes the opinionated and reflex attitudes of critics, is the very th ing tha t needs to be understood, as a product of the relations betw een artist and state, ra th er than dispelled. In the end, it is the enigm a not the dogm a which is revealing; the com bination with its am biguous and contradictory effects, of w hat Brecht did and did not do, or say, or w rite, or publish or produce, ra ther than one or the o ther of these, which is full of m eaning.
