Galileo used The Assayer and The Dialogue to present the scientific way the world works. The two pieces describe the Copernican system model, which was in opposition to the Church’s beliefs. Many people have analyzed both works to determine which method addresses the issue better. Although they have a common goal, they have different settings since no characters talk in The Assayers, unlike in The Dialogue, where three individuals are conversing. The audience has responded differently to these pieces, using numerous factors to prove their choice. In this case, I can argue that The Dialogue is better and more effective than The Assayer due to various aspects.
One of the reasons why The Dialogue is better than The Assayer is that it helps the audience understand the argument and the message being conveyed with ease. Individuals in the discussion are also intelligent and present ideas that can help the readers acquire crucial information from the conversation. The characters are Sagredo, a layman, Salviati, and Simplicio, who are philosophers. The three characters debate about the two models of the universe, which helps the audience analyze the concepts using different characters’ ideas. For instance, The Dialogue has incorporated Aristotle’s evidence regarding the universe’s three dimensions to show its completeness (Galilei, 1978). However, this issue leads to a discussion, as Simplicio argues that the Pythagoreans favored three.
Salviati argues that one should state why three legs are better than two or four. Additionally, he claims that Aristotle’s definitions of the heavens as fixed are not valid since changes are observed in the skies (Galilei, 1978). Thus, these arguments can help a reader to think deeper about the message being conveyed by Galileo using the characters. The discussions are not present in The Assayer, limiting some people from understanding Galileo’s main idea.
Furthermore, Galileo used sarcastic techniques throughout The Assayer to address the issue of world systems. Hence, some people may experience challenges when analyzing the purpose of the essay. The characters have differing opinions in the discussion, which can help an individual analyze which party presents valid information. They converse about the evidence for and against the Copernican and the Ptolemaic views of the world, giving the audience a chance to study the discussion and learn more about the debated systems. For example, the argument about sunspots is presented in The Dialogue, whereby Simplicio claims that sunspots seem to be small materials passing in front of the Sun (Galilei, 1978). On the other hand, Salviati states that some appear and disappear, and those at the edge are flattened. Consequently, these arguments give the audience the ability to analyze the text, unlike in The Assayer, where discussions are not incorporated.
Another reason why one can argue that The Dialogue is more effective than The Assayer is that it is fascinating. The characters are humorous, which attracts the audience and guarantees that they read the whole conversation. The use of glee in narratives is an excellent technique that many authors have used as it enables them to convey their idea with ease. Moreover, the audience is motivated to read to the end and learn about the argument’s conclusion. In this case, Galileo has used the characters to ensure that the readers can enjoy the text and learn about the story’s moral lesson.
An example that shows that the discussion is interesting involves their experiment with a mirror to show that the moon’s surface must be opaque and not a perfect crystal sphere, as Simplicio claims. However, he denies the fact that the mountains on the moon cause the shadows. Simplicio also argues that change in the moon and the stars do not benefit any person, and changes in them would have no significant impact on humans (Galilei, 1978). Thus, these arguments are thought-provoking and can encourage people to read more in the text and learn about the significant issue being analyzed by the characters. On the other hand, The Assayers does not involve such discussions since the essay only focuses on individuals’ reasoning without any argument.
Humor is also essential in literature since it helps readers relate to different characters. In this case, the audiences are likely to identify characters who demonstrate a sense of humor in the text, helping them better understand the narrative. Moreover, readers can understand the message being conveyed by the author with ease by analyzing the interesting facts presented by a particular individual in the report. One can argue that many people are likely to be attracted by a specific person in The Dialogue they find humorous. Consequently, the individuals can ensure that they examine the facts presented by the character and learn about the message being conveyed by Galileo. For instance, Simplicio can be the most compelling character in the text based on his arguments. One of his views is that if the earth moves, it can no longer be the zodiac’s center, and Salviati has to concur with his argument to avoid escalating their disputes (Galilei, 1978). Such ideas are not presented in The Assayer, and the audience might not find the reading enjoyable, which can limit their understanding of the message being conveyed.
The third reason why The Dialogue is more effective than The Assayer is due to its structure. Typically, a dialogue helps the story move forward using the presented conversations and thoughts. Thus, many people find it easy to read The Dialogue, unlike The Assayer. Moreover, some people enjoy reading debates since they do not not involve long and overwhelming paragraphs. The tension between characters in dialogue is also essential since it captures the readers’ attention and ensures that they understand the message being conveyed. Character development is also exercised in a conversation, whereby the author can use different scenes to develop the character. For instance, the individuals in Galileo’s Dialogue discuss the topic for four days, introducing other arguments, which leads to character development. Therefore, one can argue that The Dialogue’s structure is easy for the audience to read and understand, unlike The Assayer, making it more effective.
To sum up, both The Dialogue and The Assayer enable readers to learn about the analyzed concepts. Galileo uses different techniques, such as humor, to ensure that readers understand the idea being conveyed. Although both works show how the world works, The Dialogue is more effective since it is easier for the audience to understand. Moreover, it is more interesting than The Assayers, which makes The Dialogue more attractive to readers. Thus, one can argue that The Dialogue is more effective due to its various aspects that have been analyzed in this report.
Reference
Galilei, G. (1978). Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems. University of California Press.