To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence."argumentum e silentio noun phrase" The Oxford Essential Dictionary of Foreign Terms in English. Ed. Jennifer Speake. Berkley Books, 1999.John Lange, "The Argument from Silence", History and Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1966), pp. 288–301. In the field of classical 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. Thus, in historical 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. A variant of this is the assertion that silence demonstrates universal knowledge and acceptance in the author's time and society, so there was no need to speak. 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. This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather than what is available in the author's extant writings.Seven Pillories of Wisdom by David R. Hall 1991 pp. 55–56.Historical evidence and argument by David P. Henige (2005) p. 176.
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. Arguments from silence, based on a writer's failure to mention an event, are distinct from arguments 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.The Routledge Companion to Epistemology by Sven Bernecker and Duncan Pritchard (2010) Routledge pp. 64–65 "arguments from silence are, as a rule, quite weak; there are many examples where reasoning from silence would lead us astray."
Historical analysis
Structure of the argument
John Lange provided the basic structure for the analysis of arguments from silence based on three components:M. G. Duncan "The Curious Silence of the Dog and Paul of Tarsus; Revisiting The Argument from Silence" Informal Logic, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2012) p. 85
An extant document D in which no reference to an event E appears. It is known that the intention of the author of document D was to provide an exhaustive list of all the events in the class of events to which E belongs Event E is assumed to be a type of event which the author of D would not have overlooked, had the event taken place.
The applicability of these three conditions is decided on a case-by-case basis, and there are no general dialectical rules for them, except the historian's expertise in evaluating the situation. In Lange's analysis, an argument from silence is only suggestive and never logically conclusive.
Professors of history Martha 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.From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods by Martha C. Howell and Walter Prevenier (2001) Cornell University Press p. 74 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.From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods by Martha C. Howell and Walter Prevenier (2001) Cornell University Press pp. 73–74 "Another difficulty with argument from silence is that historians cannot assume that an observer of a particular fact would have automatically recorded that fact. Authors observe all kinds of events but only record those that seem important to them."
Professor of English Michael Duncan states that there are very few scholarly analyses of arguments from silence; but these typically view it as fallacious.M. G. Duncan "The Curious Silence of the Dog and Paul of Tarsus; Revisiting The Argument from Silence" Informal Logic, Vol 32, No 1 (2012) pages 83–84 "Scholarly examinations of the Arguments From Silence (AFS) are extremely rare; when existent it is typically treated as a fallacy." Duncan adds that arguments from silence are not mentioned in Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations or Hamblin's book Fallacies, but both of these texts discuss the somewhat similar case of argument from ignorance. Errietta Bissa, professor of Classics at University of Wales, flatly states that arguments from silence are not valid.Governmental intervention in foreign trade in archaïc and classical Greece by Errietta M. A. Bissa p. 21: "This is a fundamental methodological issue on the validity of arguments from silence, where I wish to make my position clear: arguments from silence are not valid." David Henige states that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.
Author's interest 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 lauded Magna 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.Research Methodology in History by Krishnaji Chitnis (2006) p. 56
Classicist Timothy Barnes notes that the low level of interest in and awareness of Christians within the Roman Empire at the turn of the first century resulted in the lack of any discernible mention of them by Roman authors such as Martial and Juvenal, although Christians had been present in Rome since the reign of Claudius (41 to 54 AD) and both authors referred to Judaism.Timothy Barnes "Pagan Perceptions of Christianity" in Early Christianity: Origins and Evolution to AD 600 edited by Ian Hazlett et al (May 1991) p. 232: "Most inhabitants of the Roman Empire in A.D. 100 were either unaware of or uninterested in the Christians in their midst. Even in Rome, where there had certainly been Christians since the reign of Claudius, the varied epigrams of Martial and the satires of Juvenal make no identifiable allusion to the new religion, though both authors deride Jews and Judaism."For the reign of Clausius see Aspects of Roman History by Mark Everson Davies 2010 p. 79 Theologian Peter 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.Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries by Peter Lampe (2006) pp. 141–42: "It was not desirable, at least for the first two centuries, for the average Christian to advertise his or her Christianity openly ... Seen in this manner, the silence of the evidence attests not only to the "plerique paupers." It also indicates how Christians wisely did not reveal their identity to every potential denunciator."
Examples
Convincing applications
An example of a convincing application is that while the editors of the Jerusalem and Babylonian talmuds mention the other community, most scholars believe these documents were written independently; and Louis 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.""Talmud". A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion. Louis Jacobs. Oxford University Press, (1999) p. 261
Sometimes the silence of multiple sources may have a probative value that sheds light on the historical circumstance, for instance Jacob Neusner states that an argument from silence regarding the absence of an Exilarch sheds light on the relationship between Jews and the Parthian administration in Babylonia.A History of the Jews in Babylonia: Vol. 1, The Parthian Period by Jacob Neusner (1984) pp. 53–54 "It is admittedly an argument from silence, but in this case the silence is practically probative, because we have a story which gives a vivid picture of Jewish relations with the Parthian administration in Babylonia."
An example of a convincing application is the silence of Cicero on works of oratory by Cato; the argument gaining its strength from the fact that Cato was such an important figure in Cicero's Brutus and he would have likely been cited if possible.The School of Rome: Latin Studies and the Origins of Liberal Education by W. Martin Bloomer (2011) p. 153 Although Cicero's silence on Cato is a convincing argument from silence, the same strength does not apply to Cicero's silence on the quaestorship of Caelius, Michael Alexander stating that a number of factors may have precluded Cicero from mentioning it.The Case for the Prosecution in the Ciceronian Era by Michael Charles Alexander University of Michigan Press p. 323 "The argument from silence is, as usual, treacherous. Cicero's failure to mention Caelius' questorship could have various explanations."
Failed applications
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. This is well illustrated by the case of Changlu 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 the Transmission of the Lamp, nor the Pure Land documents (which exalt him) refer to Zongze's collection of a monastic code. However a copy of the code in which the author identifies himself exists.The origins of Buddhist monastic codes in China by Yifa, Zongze (2002) p. 32.
Historian Pierre Briant points out that the recent discovery of a customs memorandum from Egypt which dates to the time of Xerxes and records the registration and taxation of ships overrides previous reasonings about the type of commercial prosperity associated with Sidon based on the relative silence in texts about roads and is a reminder of the dangers of any argument from silence.From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire by Pierre Briant (2006) Eisenbrauns p. 804: "Only rarely are we (fleetingly) informed about commercial prosperity of the sort achieved by Sidon around the middle of the fourth century ... The recent discovery of a customs memorandum from Egypt dating to the time of Xerxes reminds us of the dangers of any argument from silence." See p. 385 regarding the customs document.
Frances Wood based her controversial book Did Marco Polo go to China? on arguments from silence. Wood argued that Marco 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.