What we can learn from history. . . .
“Persecution. . . gives rise to a peculiar technique of writing. . . in which truth about all crucial things is presented exclusively between the lines. . . .(Strauss 25).
At a time when French universities promoted a finite and geocentric world view of perfect celestial bodies, all in keeping with the Scriptures and Ancient authorities, censors controlled printed publications through privilege (copyright) and permit (content approval).
Title page (top) with privilege and permis (content approval) at bottom
With the advent of the telescope (1610), an increasing number of discoveries—the pitted lunar surface, the four of Jupiter’s moons, sunspots and the infinite number of stars in the Milky Way—disproved this traditional geocentric world view (Galileo, The Sidereal Messenger, 1610). But rather than risk censorship and condemnation, natural philosophers preferred to advance new views gradually, over time. Many described the Copernican system as hypothetical. Others justified scientific inquiries as a means of studying the Book of Nature to learn about its Creator or stressed practical applications such as dating of the movable feasts.
Galileo brought unwanted attention to a heliocentric system by claiming to have proof in his Dialogue, condemned in 1633. However, other natural philosophers knew better than to risk condemnation. They used strategies of evasion to share findings.
.jpg)
Peiresc's correspondence networks (Mandrou np)
Personal correspondence played a significant role in communicating modern science. Barring plague or civil unrest, letters traveled quickly throughout the Kingdom of France (to Paris in 7 days or less; to Rome in 9-14 days; the Levant in three weeks. Mail was not sent along the most direct route but through “gatekeepers” like Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc in correspondence networks, carried by scholars, diplomats or sea captains.
Sometimes, individuals used rhetorical strategies to disguise the true nature of their communication. Although Gazette founder Théphraste Renaudot enjoyed the protection of powerful Cardinal Richelieu, he still used caution. He issued a printed apology for holding a public conference on the Copernican system. He then printed a lengthy retraction of this discussion in his newspaper of 5 January 1634, in which he described the Copernican propositions as a "false doctrine . . . [which held the] sun was the center of the world and immovable, that the earth was not [the center] but had a diurnal movement. " Although the use of a retraction gave the appearance of an apology, he effectively outlined the propositions of this new world view.
Other rhetorical strategies included the use of a dialogue, which enabled the writer to develop arguments supporting and refuting propositions without taking a position. Well, the weak position became obvious to the reader. Different table of contents and chapters might appear in different editions. A dedication to a powerful patron might provide some protection. Another effective strategy was writing between the lines. Often what is not said is as powerful as what is said (Taton 218).
# # #
Works Cited
Galilei, Galileo. Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Trans. Stillman Drake. 2nd ed. University of California Press, 1967.
Galilei, Galileo. Sidereus nuncius . Intro, and trans. Albert Van Helden. University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Mandrou, Robert. From Humanism to Science 1480-1700. Trans. Brian Pearce. Penguin, 1978.
Mersenne, Marin. Les Préludes de l’harmonie universelle. . . .Henri Guenon, 1634. Gallica. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8620758q?rk=21459;2. Accessed Aug. 14, 2025.
Renaudot, Théophraste. Recueil general des questions traictees és conferences du Bureau d'adresse, sur toutes sortes de matieres. Tome 1. Conference X – Du Mouvement, ou du repos de la Terre (163-170). Gallica. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k87269336/f185.item.r=renaudot%20bureau%20d'adresse#. Accessed Aug. 14, 2025.
