To make anargument from silence (Latin:argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.[2][3] In the field ofclassical studies, it often refers to the assertion that an author is ignorant of a subject, based on the lack of references to it in the author's available writings.[3] Thus, inhistorical analysis with an argument from silence, the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned.[4] While most historical approaches rely on what an author's works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain.[4] This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather than what is available in the author's extant writings.[4][5]
An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.[6][7] Arguments from silence, based on a writer's failure to mention an event, are distinct fromarguments from ignorance which rely on a total "absence of evidence" and are widely considered unreliable; however arguments from silence themselves are also generally viewed as rather weak in many cases; or considered as fallacies.[1][8]
.png)
John Lange provided the basic structure for the analysis of arguments from silence based on three components:[3][9]
The applicability of these three conditions is decided on a case-by-case basis, and there are no generaldialectical rules for them, except the historian's expertise in evaluating the situation.[3][9] In Lange's analysis, an argument from silence is only suggestive and never logically conclusive.[3][9]
Professors of historyMartha Howell and Walter Prevenier thus state that an argument from silence can act as presumptive evidence only if the person failing to mention the information was in a position to have the information, and was purporting to be giving a complete account of the story in question.[10] Howell and Prevenier state that arguments from silence face the difficulty that a historian can not just assume that an author would have recorded the fact in question; for if the fact did not seem important enough to an author it would have been excluded.[6]
Professor of English Michael Duncan states that there are very few scholarly analyses of arguments from silence; but these typically view it as fallacious.[8] Duncan adds that arguments from silence are not mentioned inAristotle'sSophistical Refutations orHamblin's bookFallacies, but both of these texts discuss the somewhat similar case ofargument from ignorance.[8] Errietta Bissa, professor of Classics atUniversity of Wales, flatly states that arguments from silence are not valid.[11]David Henige states that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.[5]
The importance of an event to a contemporary author plays a role in the decision to mention it, and historian Krishnaji Chitnis states that for an argument from silence to apply, it must be of interest and significance to the person expected to be recording it, else it may be ignored; e.g. while later historians have laudedMagna Carta as a great national document, contemporary authors did not even record a word about its greatness; to them it was a feudal document of low significance, among several other seemingly similar items.[7]
ClassicistTimothy Barnes notes that the low level of interest in and awareness ofChristians within theRoman Empire at the turn of the first century resulted in the lack of any discernible mention of them by Roman authors such asMartial andJuvenal, although Christians had been present in Rome since the reign ofClaudius (41 to 54 AD) and both authors referred toJudaism.[12][13] TheologianPeter Lampe states that during the first two centuries, the silence of Roman sources on Christians in Rome may be partly due to the fact that Christians often kept to themselves and did not reveal their identities.[14]
An example of a convincing application is that while the editors of theJerusalem andBabylonian talmuds mention the other community, most scholars believe these documents were written independently; andLouis Jacobs writes, "If the editors of either had had access to an actual text of the other, it is inconceivable that they would not have mentioned this. Here the argument from silence is very convincing."[15]
Sometimes the silence of multiple sources may have a probative value that sheds light on the historical circumstance, for instanceJacob Neusner states that an argument from silence regarding the absence of anExilarch sheds light on the relationship between Jews and theParthian administration inBabylonia.[16]
An example of a convincing application is the silence ofCicero on works of oratory byCato; the argument gaining its strength from the fact that Cato was such an important figure in Cicero'sBrutus and he would have likely been cited if possible.[17] Although Cicero's silence on Cato is a convincing argument from silence, the same strength does not apply to Cicero's silence on thequaestorship ofCaelius, Michael Alexander stating that a number of factors may have precluded Cicero from mentioning it.[18]
Yifa has pointed out the perils of arguments from silence, in that the lack of references to a compilation of a set of monastic codes by contemporaries or even by disciples does not mean that it never existed.[19] This is well illustrated by the case ofChanglu Zongze's "Rules of purity" which he wrote for the Chan monastery in 1103. One of his contemporaries wrote a preface to a collection of his writings neglecting to mention his code. And none of his biographies nor the documents of theTransmission of the Lamp, nor thePure Land documents (which exalt him) refer to Zongze's collection of a monastic code.[19] However a copy of the code in which the author identifies himselfexists.[19]
HistorianPierre Briant points out that the recent discovery of a customs memorandum from Egypt which dates to the time ofXerxes and records the registration and taxation of ships overrides previous reasonings about the type of commercial prosperity associated withSidon based on the relative silence in texts about roads and is a reminder of the dangers of any argument from silence.[20]
Frances Wood based her controversial bookDid Marco Polo go to China? on arguments from silence.[5] Wood argued thatMarco Polo never went to China and fabricated his accounts because he failed to mention elements from the visual landscape such as tea, did not record the Great Wall and neglected to record practices such as foot-binding. She argued that no outsider could spend 15 years in China and not observe and record these elements. Most historians disagree with Wood's reasoning.[5]
Professors of philosophy Sven Bernecker and Duncan Pritchard state that arguments from silence are generally weak and can go astray in many cases, and point to examples such as Marco Polo's neglect of the Wall of China, andPliny the Younger's silence on the destruction ofPompeii andHerculaneum when he discusses the 79 AD eruption ofVesuvius in detail in his letters.[1][21]
Some historians note the general dangers of arguing from silence, but use them in specific cases as indications of levels of professional activity withinmedieval communities, e.g. historian John E. Law states that while arguing from silence is always dangerous, one may use it as an indication of the low level of local military employment inCamerino for theDa Varano in theMiddle Ages.[22] Similarly, historian Patricia Skinner states that after accounting for the dangers of arguments from silence they may provide an indication of the scarcity of females within the medical profession in medieval southern Italy.[23] Historian James Amelang has pointed out that although the autobiographies of earlymedievalartisans are surprisingly silent on issues regarding their trade and craft, arguing from silence includes hazards in that historians may be assigning weight to past significance in view of modern emphasis.[24]
Barrie J. Cook, theBritish Museum European coincurator, notes the risks of arguing from silence, yet states that they may shed light on the medieval propensity of the usage of theFrench denier fromLe Mans versus theAngevine.[25]
Greg Walker, professor ofrhetoric and English, states that during the reign ofHenry VIII, the lack of references to named plays byNicholas Udall (e.g. theRespublica) do not necessarily support their not having been performed at court; given other evidence such aspayment warrants issued to Udall forperformance masks.[26]
Jed Rubenfeld, professor of Law atYale Law School, has shown an example of the difficulty in applying arguments from silence inconstitutional law, stating that although arguments from silence can be used to draw conclusions about the intent of theFramers of theUS Constitution, their application can lead to two different conclusions and hence they can not be used tosettle the issues.[27]
In the context ofMorocco's Truth Commission of 1999 regarding torture and secret detentions, Wu and Livescu state that the fact that someone remained silent is no proof of their ignorance about a specific piece of information. They point out that the absence of records about the torture of prisoners under the secret detention program is no proof that such detentions did not involve torture, or that some detentions did not take place.[28]
