Abstract

This article surveys the cultural, historical and ethical tensions between speech and silence, tracing the proverb “speech is silver, silence is golden” from Solomon and medieval Georgian writers to modern cases of national survival and stateless peoples. Through literary analysis, historical exemplars (Gregory of Handzta; Shota Rustaveli), comparative vignettes (Kurds, Tibetans, Jews, Palestinians) and reflections on political correctness and rhetorical restraint, the author investigates how silence can serve as prudence, protest or acquiescence. The piece also considers ascetic and fictional models of silence – the hermit tradition and the Diogenes Club – and explores the costs of the “spiral of silence” for conscience and collective memory. The study argues that context, power and timing determine whether speech or silence best serves the interests and fortunes of a people or ethnic group.