“It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.” A book I picked up today in the library reminded me of that saying. It’s The Reformation, a part of the “Turning Points in World History” series. The book consists of essays by different authors. One of them, “The History and Premises of Protestantism” by Hans J. Hillerbrand, includes a half-hearted apology for John Calvin. Other parts of the book are more straightforward about his career of persecuting heretics, but Hillerbrand’s careful phrasing struck me. I’m thinking of these two quotes, found in the same paragraph:

But sixteenth-century society in general was circumscribed by numerous rules; in Geneva, there was only slightly more regimentation and supervision than elsewhere.

Calvin can hardly have been a tyrant; he faced staunch opposition during his first decade in Geneva and he always depended upon the good will of the Genevan authorities to carry out his program.

You could rewrite those just slightly:

Sixteenth-century society in general was circumscribed by numerous rules, but in Geneva, there was more regimentation and supervision than anywhere else.

Was Calvin a tyrant? He faced staunch opposition during his first decade in Geneva, but he could always depend on the Genevan authorities to carry out his program.

The point here isn’t what you think of Calvin. It’s that by changing a few words and not changing any factual claims, you can make a statement either a positive or a negative evaluation. Good writers are experts at this art.