John F. Kennedy? Edmund Burke? R. Murray Hyslop? Charles F. Aked? John Stuart Mill?

Dear Quote Investigator: Here is a challenge for you. I have been reading the wonderful book “The Quote Verifier” by Ralph Keyes, and he discusses the mixed-up quotations that President John F. Kennedy sometimes declaimed in his speeches. Here is an example of a famous one with an incorrect attribution [QVE]:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Keyes says that the quote has not been successfully traced:

… which Kennedy attributed to British philosopher Edmund Burke and which recently was judged the most popular quotation of modern times in a poll conducted by editors of “The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations.” Even though it is clear by now that Burke is unlikely to have made this observation, no one has ever been able to determine who did.

Will you explore this question?

Quote Investigator: First, “The Quote Verifier” volume has my highest recommendation. The impressive research of Keyes is presented in a fascinating, entertaining, and fun manner. Second, yes, QI will try to trace this expression. Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill both produced apothegms that are loosely similar to the quotation under investigation but are unmistakably distinct.

The earliest known citation showing a strong similarity to the modern quote appeared in October of 1916. The researcher J. L. Bell found this important instance. The maxim appeared in a quotation from a speech by the Reverend Charles F. Aked who was calling for restrictions on the use of alcohol [SFCA]:

It has been said that for evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing.

QI believes that the full name of Aked was Charles Frederic Aked, and he was a prominent preacher and lecturer who moved from England to America. The same expression was attributed to Aked in another periodical in 1920. Details for this cite are given further below.

The earliest attribution of the modern saying to Edmund Burke was found by top researcher Barry Popik. In July of 1920 a man named Sir R. Murray Hyslop delivered an address at a Congregational church conference that included the following [MHEB]:

Burke once said: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

The search for the origin of this famous quotation has lead to controversy. One disagreement involved the important reference book Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations and the well-known word maven William Safire. Below are selected citations in chronological order and a brief discussion of this altercation.

In 1770 the Irish statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke wrote about the need for good men to associate to oppose the cabals of bad men. The second sentence in the excerpt below is listed in multiple quotation references and shares some points of similarity to the saying under investigation, bit it is clearly dissimilar [EBG]:

No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united Cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

In 1867 the British philosopher and political theorist John Stuart Mill delivered an inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews. The second sentence in the excerpt below expresses part of the idea of the quotation under investigation [JMG]:

Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.

In 1895 a medical bulletin printed a comment that was similar to  John Stuart Mill’s adage. The wording of the second half matched closely though no attribution was given [MBMB]:

He should not be lulled to repose by the delusion that he does no harm who takes no part in public affairs. He should know that bad men need no better opportunity than when good men look on and do nothing. He should stand to his principles even if leaders go wrong.

Burke’s quote continued in use in the early 1900s. In 1910 a pithy form of the saying appeared in the Chicago Daily Tribune [CTG]:

Burke said, ‘When bad men combine, good men must organize.’

In October 1916 the San Jose Mercury Herald reported on a speech by Charles F. Aked in favor of prohibition as mentioned at the beginning of this article. Aked used an expression similar to the quotation under investigation; however, he used the locution “it has been said” to signal that he was not claiming originality. Thus, the saying was probably in circulation before 1916. Here is a longer excerpt [SFCA]:

“The people in the liquor traffic,” said the speaker, “simply want us to do nothing. That’s all the devil wants of the son of God—to be let alone. That is all that the criminal wants of the law—to be let alone. The sin of doing nothing is the deadliest of all the seven sins. It has been said that for evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing.”

Note the second half of the adage is very close to the modern statement. The use of the word “evil” in the first half matches the modern version, but the phrase “evil men” harks back to the term “bad men” used by Burke and Mill.

In June 1920 a periodical called “100%: The Efficiency Magazine” published a maxim that was identical to the one above. The saying was again attributed to Rev. Charles F. Aked and it occurred twice: once in the subhead of the article and once in the body. The following passage referred to a “constructive publication”, but it was never identified in the article body [EMCA]:

The slogan of a recently established constructive publication is “For evil men to accomplish their purpose, it is only necessary that good men do nothing,” quoting the Rev. Charles F. Aked. While this is recognized as true of municipal politics, is it not also being evidenced as an actual condition in American industry?

In July 1920 a different version of the saying appeared anonymously in a magazine called the Railway Carmen’s Journal. This variant used the term “bad men” and occurred in isolation at the beginning of an editorial section [RCBA]:

For bad men to accomplish their purposes it is only necessary that good men do nothing.

On July 5, 1920 the temperance crusader Sir R. Murray Hyslop of Kent, England, delivered an address at a church conference, the Fourth International Congregational Council. The address was published in 1921, and it contained a version of the now famous statement which Hyslop attributed to Burke. This is the earliest example of this attribution that QI knows about and it was found by Barry Popik who presented it on his website [CCB]:

Burke once said: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” Leave the Drink Trade alone and it will throttle all that is good in a nation’s life. Let it alone, that is all that is required. Cowardice will suffice for its triumph. Courage will suffice for its overthrow.

On July 30, 1920 a business digest periodical that lists articles published in other magazines included an entry for the piece in 100% magazine. The subhead for the article was reproduced so the maxim appeared in this digest magazine and was further propagated [BDP]:

Are We Helping the Radicals? “For Evil Men to Accomplish Their Purpose, It Is only Necessary That Good Men Do Nothing.” Perhaps the “Do Nothing” Attitude Is Responsible for Much of the Industrial Unrest. By Charles H Norton, General Manager Collins Service. 100% June ’20 p. 64. 1000 words.

In 1950 the saying appeared in the Washington Post and was attributed to Burke as noted in the Yale Book of Quotations [WPG][YQG]:

It is high time that the law-abiding citizens of Washington, and particularly those in organized groups dedicated to civic betterment, became alert to this danger and demanded protection against organized gangdom.

This situation is best summed up in the words of the British statesman, Edmund Burke, who many years ago said: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

In 1961 President John F. Kennedy addressed the Canadian Parliament and used a version of the quotation that he credited to Edmund Burke [JKG]:

At the conference table and in the minds of men, the free world’s cause is strengthened because it is just. But it is strengthened even more by the dedicated efforts of free men and free nations. As the great parliamentarian Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

In 1968 the quotation appeared in the 14th edition of the seminal reference work Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. The words were attributed to Burke and a 1795 letter was specified as support [BFG]:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Letter to William Smith [January 9, 1795]

In 1980 the New York Times language columnist William Safire wrote about the quote and challenged the attribution to Burke given in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations (14th). He did so based on information from a persistent correspondent who stated that the letter cited by Bartlett’s did not contain the quote [WSG1]:

The trouble is that it may be a phony. When I used the “triumph of evil” quotation recently to condemn complacency, a man named Hamilton A. Long of Philadelphia wrote to ask where and when Burke had said it. …

Then the quotation sleuth sprung his trap. “It’s not in that letter,” Mr. Long replied triumphantly. “Nor any other source quoted in the quotations books I’ve found. They are false sources.”

In 1980 a new 15th edition of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations was released, and in 1981 Safire again discussed the quote [WSG2]. The editor of Bartlett’s noted that the quotation had not been located in Burke’s writings, and the reference work was updated to reflect that fact. In the 16^th edition the quote is listed under Burke and a footnote indicates that vigorous searches have failed to find the words in Burke’s oeuvre.

In conclusion, quotations from Burke and Mill are conceptually related to the quote under examination, but neither expression is close textually. In October of 1916 Charles F. Aked used a maxim in a speech that was similar but not identical to the modern quote.

In 1920 Murray Hyslop attributed the modern version of the quote to Burke. The record is too incomplete to make strong claims about who crafted the quote.

It is possible that Aked created an adage with conscious or unconscious inspiration from Burke or Mill. Perhaps Hyslop heard the phrase and assigned it to Burke because he believed it sounded similar to Burke. Kennedy kept a notebook of quotations that he found worth recording. He may have heard a version attributed to Burke and noted it down for future use. Sorry QI cannot provide a more definitive response, but these new cites represent some progress. Thanks for your question.

Update history: On May 9, 2012 the citation for Charles F Aked dated October 31, 1916 was added to the post. Also, the 1895 citation was added, and the conclusion was partially rewritten.

[SFCA] 1916 October 31, San Jose Mercury Herald, Dr. Charles F. Aked On Liquor Traffic, Page 1, Section 2, [Page 9], San Jose, California. (Archive of Americana) (Thanks to Ken Hirsch for pointing out this citation in a post by J. L. Bell at the website Boston 1775; Verified with newspaper scans from Archive of Americana; Thanks to Mike at Duke University for obtaining images from Archive of Americana) link

[EBG] 1770, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents by Edmund Burke, [Third edition], Page 106, Printed for J. Dodsley in Pall-Mall, London. (Google Books full view) link

[JMG] 1867 March 16, Littell’s Living Age, [Inaugural Address at University of St. Andrews: 1867 February 1], Page 664, Number 1189, Fourth Series, Littell and Gay, Boston. (Google Books full view) link

[MBMB] 1895 June, The Medical Bulletin, The Medical Profession and the State: Alumni Oration by Hon. Mariott Brosius of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Start Page 201, Quote Page 203, Column 1, The F. A. Davis Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Google Books full view) link

[CTG] 1910 August 28, Chicago Daily Tribune, Capen Pleads for Reforms, Page 4, Chicago, Illinois. (ProQuest)

[EMCA] 1920 June, “100%: The Efficiency Magazine”, “Are We Helping the Radicals?” by Charles H. Norton, Page 64, Efficiency Company, Chicago. (Google Books full view) link

[MHEB] 1921, Volume of Proceedings of the Fourth International Congregational Council, Held in Boston Massachusetts June 29 – July 6 1920, Address Delivered July 5, 1920 to the International Congregational Council, “Some Present Features of the Temperance Crusade” by Sir R. Murray Hyslop, J. P., Page 166, [The National Council of the Congregational Churches of the United States, New York], The Pilgrim Press, Boston. (Google Books full view) link [Barry Popik's web page link]

[RCBA] 1920 July, Railway Carmen’s Journal, Editorial Notes, Page 366, Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada, Kansas City, Missouri. (HathiTrust) link

[BDP] 1920 July 30, “Business Digest and Investment Weekly” editor Fremont Rider, Labor, Page 75, Arrow Publishing Corporation, New York. (Google full view) link

[WPG] 1950 January 22, Washington Post, “District Affairs: Indifference Fosters Gangsterism” by Harry N. Stull, Page B8, Washington, D.C. (ProQuest)

[JKG] 1962, Documents on Disarmament 1961, [May 17, 1961: Address by President Kennedy to the Canadian Parliament {Extracts}], United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Publication 5, Released August 1962, Washington, D.C. (HathiTrust full view) link

[BFG] 1968, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations 14th Edition Revised and Enlarged, edited by Emily Morison Beck [by John Bartlett], Page 454, Little, Brown and Company, Boston. (Verified with scans)

[YQG] 2006, The Yale Book of Quotations by Fred R. Shapiro, Page 116, Yale University Press, New Haven. (Verified on paper)

[WSG1] 1980 March 9, New York Times, “On Language: The Triumph of Evil” by William Safire, Section New York Times Magazine, Page SM2, New York. (ProQuest)

[WSG2] 1981 April 5, “On Language; Standing Corrected” by William Safire, Section New York Times Magazine, Page SM4, New York. (ProQuest)

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.? John B. Finch? John Stuart Mill? Abraham Lincoln? Zechariah Chafee, Jr.?

Dear Quote Investigator: I am writing a book on the theme of freedom and would like to include a classic quotation about the pragmatic limitations on liberty. My research has identified several versions of this popular saying:

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.

The right to swing my arms in any direction ends where your nose begins.

My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

Strangely, these three similar statements were credited to three very different people. The first quote was attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The second saying was credited to John Stuart Mill, and the third was ascribed to Abraham Lincoln. But I do not trust any of these attributions because no citations were provided. Could you investigate this adage and determine its origin?

Quote Investigator: The seminal reference work “The Yale Book of Quotations” presents an important citation for this saying that shows when the phrase entered the realm of scholarly legal discourse. The saying was not credited to any one of the three luminaries mentioned in the query. In June 1919 the Harvard Law Review published an article by legal philosopher Zechariah Chafee, Jr. titled “Freedom of Speech in War Time” and it contained a version of the expression spoken by an anonymous judge [ZCYQ] [ZCHL]:

Each side takes the position of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.”

Interestingly, the genesis of this adage can be traced back more than thirty-five additional years. Several variants of the expression were employed by a set of lecturers who were aligned with the temperance movement which favored restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol in the United States. The earliest instance located by QI appeared in a collection of speeches that were delivered by John B. Finch who was the Chairman of the Prohibition National Committee for several years in the 1880s and died in 1887.

The saying Finch used was somewhat longer and clumsier than later versions of the aphorism. But the central idea was the same, and Finch received credit from some of his colleagues. It is common for expressions to be shortened and polished as they pass from one speaker to another over a period of years. Here is the relevant excerpt from an oration Finch gave in Iowa City in 1882 [PVJF]:

This arm is my arm (and my wife’s), it is not yours. Up here I have a right to strike out with it as I please. I go over there with these gentlemen and swing my arm and exercise the natural right which you have granted; I hit one man on the nose, another under the ear, and as I go down the stairs on my head, I cry out:

“Is not this a free country?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Have not I a right to swing my arm?”

“Yes, but your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.”

Here civil government comes in to prevent bloodshed, adjust rights, and settle disputes.

For decades the saying was used at pro-Prohibition rallies and meetings. Also, at the turn of the century the saying was adopted by some educators who presented it as a moral rule that children should learn about. Here are additional selected citations in chronological order.

The next instance dates to November 1887 and was located by Professor Jonathan Lighter of the University of Tennessee. The Atlanta Constitution newspaper published a story titled “Four Orators from Atlanta Make Stirring Speeches” about a group of speakers who were arguing in favor of prohibition laws to close barrooms and also requesting audience members to register to vote [ACDY]:

The only leading argument urged by the anti-prohibitionists in this campaign for keeping open the bar-rooms, is personal liberty. A great man has said, “your personal liberty to swing your arm ends where my nose begins”. A man’s personal liberty to drink whisky and support barrooms ends where the rights of the family and the community begin.

This compact phrase was credited to a “great man”, but the man was not identified by the lecturer. The speaker may have been referring to the temperance advocate John B. Finch (see above) or some other person working toward the enactment of Prohibition. Alternatively, the remark may have been a rhetorical flourish.

In December 1887 a West Virginia newspaper reported on “The Temperance Meeting. At the Fourth Street M. E. Church, Last Evening” at which a lecturer named Major Camp delivered the saying. He did not ascribe the words to anyone in particular [WVMC]:

“God made water; he never made liquor. If he had filled the Ohio with beer navigation would have stopped long ago.”

“I have no right to throw my arms out in a crowd, for I might hit somebody on the nose. My right stops where his nose begins. I have no right to drink if my drinking injures others.”

In 1894 a temperance campaigner named Rev. A. C. Dixon at the “Thirteenth International Christian Endeavor Convention” told a joke containing the aphorism. The phrase was embedded into the joke in a very natural way, and this usage arguably restated the 1882 instance and pre-figured the example legal case given fifteen years later in the Harvard Law Review [ADCE]:

A drunken man was going down the street in Baltimore flinging his hands right and left, when one of his arms came across the nose of a passer-by. The passer-by instinctively clenched his fist and sent the intruder sprawling to the ground. He got up, rubbing the place where he was hit, and said, “I would like to know if this is not a land of liberty.” “It is,” said the other fellow; “but I want you to understand that your liberty ends just where my nose begins.” [Laughter and Applause.]

In 1895 a biography of the temperance advocate Mary A. Woodbridge was published and it included the text of several of her speeches. One of her talks credited John B. Finch with using the aphorism though she did not say he created it [JFMW]:

Neither in law nor equity can there be personal liberty to any man which shall be bondage and ruin to his fellow-men. John B. Finch, the great constitutional amendment advocate, was wont to settle this point by a single illustration. He said, “I stand alone upon a platform. I am a tall man with long arms which I may use at my pleasure. I may even double my fist and gesticulate at my own sweet will. But if another shall step upon the platform, and in the exercise of my personal liberty I bring my fist against his face, I very soon find that my personal liberty ends where that man’s nose begins.”

Also in 1895 the adage appeared in a publication from the Universalist Church in a short article signed by “Secretary Baer” [UCSB]:

The man who votes yes because he desires “personal liberty” for himself and others needs to learn that his liberty ends where some other fellow’s nose begins, is a truth to be applied to this question of licensing the saloon. You have no more right to vote to establish a nuisance next door to my home than I have to vote to permit one to be located in your neighborhood.

In 1896 in Philadelphia the preacher Robert F. Y. Pierce used the phrase while discussing liberty [RPPI]:

He illustrated the idea of personal liberty by the man who thought he had liberty to strike another man in the nose. That other sent the offender to jail to teach him that “your liberty ends where my nose begins.”

In 1902 the adage was mentioned by the Walter B. Hill, Chancellor of the University of Georgia at a meeting of the National Educational Association. It was also published by Hill in a periodical aimed at educators of young children called Kindergarten Magazine [WHNE] [WHKM]:

Children learn at an early age the principle of the limitation of individual liberty. It can usually be fixed in the mind by the epigrammatic statement, “My right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins.”

By 1911 the expression was well-known enough within educational circles that it inspired a joke about a civics teacher [MTCT]:

A teacher having attended an institute where one of the workers gave a talk on “Personal Rights,” was quite pleased at one of the illustrations used. Standing before the teachers and swinging his fists around the speaker said: “Now, I have a perfect right to stand here and swing my fists, but if I start down the aisle this way,” suiting the action to the word, “my rights leave off just where your nose begins.”

Endeavoring to use the same illustration in his civics class later, he began, “Now, I can stand here and swing my fists, but if I come down among you swinging my nose –” and that was as far as he got.

In 1918 an article in the Journal of the National Education Association used the phrase while discussing guidelines for discipline in a kindergarten [AFKD]:

In discipline it is expression not repression. The children do as they please as long as they do not interfere with their neighbors. “The right to extend my hand stops where your nose begins.” Cooperative work stops quarreling.

In 1919 the article “Freedom of Speech in War Time” by Zechariah Chafee, Jr. was printed in the Harvard Law Review as noted at the beginning of this post [ZCHL]. In addition, the article so impressed a U. S. Senator that he ordered it to be reprinted by the Government Printing Office in Volume 15 of Senate Documents [SDLF].

In 1939 the prominent lawyer Arthur Garfield Hays included the saying in a book he published titled “Democracy Works”. Hays was the general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1920s. He did not attribute the phrase to anyone in particular [AHDW]:

In a society where interests conflict I realize there can be no absolutes. My freedom to swing my arm ends where the other fellow’s nose begins. But the other fellow’s nose doesn’t begin in my brain, or in my soul either, as the religionists would have it.

The aphorism is sometimes ascribed to the quotation magnet Oliver Wendell Holmes, but QIhas not yet found any evidence to support this assertion. For example, in 1970 a newspaper column by the humorist Bill Vaughan uncertainly credited a version of the adage to Holmes “or someone like him”. Vaughan did not specify Junior or Senior, but he probably intended the jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. [OHBV]:

“Don’t talk to me about a free country,” I told him. “As Oliver Wendell Holmes or someone like him once said, your freedom to act ends where my nose begins.”

The adage is also sometimes attached to Abraham Lincoln, but QI has not found any support for this connection. Here is an instance in 1980 in which Lincoln’s name is invoked in a letter to the editor of the Dallas Morning News [DNAL]:

After over 30 years of erroneous liberal interpretations of our Constitution, the old Abraham Lincoln concept that your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins, is no longer valid. For many people now think it is their right to do whatever they want regardless of anyone else.

In 1989 a politician used the expression when he argued in favor of a modern day prohibition: A city ordinance banning smoking instead of drinking alcohol. The politician credited Oliver Wendell Holmes for the remark [SBRC]:

City Councilor Richard Chapman likes to quote the late Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes as he fights a recall campaign that began when he successfully sponsored an anti-smoking ordinance.

“He said, ‘Your right to throw a punch stops where my nose begins,’” said Chapman. “I think that’s very apropos for the smoking issue.”

In 1992 Richard Posner, the influential legal theorist, used the saying in his book “Sex and Reason”, and he connected the words to the ideas of John Stuart Mill; however, he did not claim that Mill ever used the phrase himself [RPJM]:

Libertarianism–or, as it is sometimes called, classical liberalism–the philosophy of John Stuart Mill On Liberty, can be summed up in seven words: “Your rights end where his nose begins.” Government interference with adult consensual activities is unjustified unless it can be shown to be necessary for the protection of the liberty or property of other persons.

In conclusion, current evidence indicates that the saying under investigation began with Prohibitionist orators who expressed it using a variety of formulations during their speeches. John B. Finch communicated the earliest known instance in 1882. Ascriptions to other famous individuals such as Abraham Lincoln and Oliver Wendell Holmes (Junior or Senior) do not have any support at this time.

(Many thanks to Professor Charles Landesman whose email inspired the formulation of this query and motivated this exploration.)

[ZCYQ] 2006, The Yale Book of Quotations by Fred R. Shapiro, Section Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Page 141, Yale University Press, New Haven. (Verified on paper)

[ZCHL] 1919 June, Harvard Law Review, Freedom of Speech in War Time by Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Start Page 932, Quote Page 957, Harvard Law Review Association, Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Google Books full view) link

[PVJF] 1887, The People Versus The Liquor Traffic: Speeches of John B. Finch, Edited by Charles Arnold McCully, Speech VI: The Defence Reviewed, [An Address delivered at the Opera-House, Iowa City, Sunday evening, May 7, 1882], Start Page 109, Quote Pages 127-128, [Twenty-Fourth (Revised) Edition], Funk & Wagnalls, New York. (Google Books full view) link

[ACDY] 1887 November 9, The [Atlanta] Constitution, The Meeting of the Drys: Four Orators from Atlanta Make Stirring Speeches, Page 5, Column 3, Atlanta, Georgia. (NewspaperArchive)

[WVMC] 1887 December 10, Wheeling [Daily] Register, “The Temperance Meeting. At the Fourth Street M. E. Church, Last Evening”, Page 4, Column 4, Wheeling, West Virginia. (GenealogyBank)

[ADCE] 1894, Thirteenth International Christian Endeavor Convention, [Held in Saengerfest Hall and Tent, Cleveland, Ohio, July 11-15, 1894], Heroes of Faith: Address of Rev. A.C. Dixon, Start Page 91, Quote Page 95, Published by United Society of Christian Endeavor, Boston, Massachusetts. (Google Books full view) link

[JFMW] 1895, Life and labors of Mrs. Mary A. Woodbridge by Rev. Aaron Merritt Hills, Chapter: The Pennsylvania Campaign, Page 239, F. W. Woodbridge, Ravenna, Ohio. (Google Books full view) link

[UCSB] 1895 February 8, Onward: The Journal of the Universalist Young People, Page 4, Column 3, The Universalist Publishing House, Boston, Massachusetts. (Google Books full view) link

[RPPI] 1896 July 6, Philadelphia Inquirer, True Christian Patriots: Rev. Robert F. Y. Pierce’s Address at the Baptist Temple, Page 3, Column 3, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (GenealogyBank)

[WHNE] 1902, National Educational Association: Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Forty-First Annual Meeting [Held at Minneapolis, Minnesota, July 7-11, 1902], The Psychology of Ethics and Fun by Walter B. Hill, Chancellor, University of Georgia, Start Page 286, Quote Page 295, Published by National Educational Association, Printed at the University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. (Google Books full view) link

[WHKM] 1902 May, Kindergarten Magazine, The Psychology of Ethics and Fun by Walter B. Hill, Chancellor Georgia University, Start Page 521, Quote Page 525, Volume 14, Number 9, Kindergarten Magazine, Co., Chicago, Illinois. (Google Books full view) link

[MTCT] 1911 December 7, Moderator-Topics, “Quips, Quirks and Conundrums”, Page 287, Volume 32, Number 14, Henry R. Pattengill, Lansing, Michigan. (Google Books full view) link

[AFKD] 1918 February, Journal of the National Education Association, Section: Department of Kindergarten Education, Paper: The Kindergarten as an Organic Part of Every Elementary School by Anna Laura Force, Principal, Denver Colorado, Start Page 410, Quote Page 412, Published by National Education Association of the United States, Chicago, Illinois. (Google Books full view) link

[SDLF] 1919, Senate Documents, 66th Congress, 1st Session, [May 19 - November 19, 1919], Volume 15, Freedom of Speech in War Times by Zechariah Chafee, Jr., [Presented by Mr. La Follette, September 22, 1919, Ordered to be printed as a Senate Document], Quote Page 19, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (Google Books full view) link

[AHDW] 1939, Democracy Works by Arthur Garfield Hays, Page 28, Random House, New York. (Questia)

[OHBV] 1970 April 08, Omaha World Herald, Youngsters Usurping Worry Spot by Bill Vaughan, Page 42, Column 3, Omaha, Nebraska. (GenealogyBank)

[DNAL] 1980 May 26, Dallas Morning News, Section: Editorial, Letter to the Editor, GNB Page 58, Column 4, Dallas, Texas. (GenealogyBank)

[SBRC] 1989 June 23, Trenton Evening Times, No-smoking law cited in vote to recall councilor, [Associated Press], Page B10, Trenton, New Jersey. (GenealogyBank)

[RPJM] 1992, Sex and Reason by Richard A. Posner, Section: Introduction, Page 3, [Fourth printing, 1998], Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Questia)

John F. Kennedy? Edmund Burke? R. Murray Hyslop? Charles F. Aked? John Stuart Mill?

Dear Quote Investigator: Here is a challenge for you. I have been reading the wonderful book “The Quote Verifier” by Ralph Keyes, and he discusses the mixed-up quotations that President John F. Kennedy sometimes declaimed in his speeches. Here is an example of a famous one with an incorrect attribution:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Keyes says that the quote has not been successfully traced: ¹

. . . which Kennedy attributed to Edmund Burke and which recently was judged the most popular quotation of modern times (in a poll conducted by editors of The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations). Even though it is clear by now that Burke is unlikely to have made this observation, no one has ever been able to determine who did.

Will you explore this question?

Quote Investigator: First, “The Quote Verifier” volume has my highest recommendation. The impressive research of Keyes is presented in a fascinating, entertaining, and fun manner. Second, yes, QI will try to trace this expression. Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill both produced apothegms that are loosely similar to the quotation under investigation but are unmistakably distinct.

The earliest known citation showing a strong similarity to the modern quote appeared in October of 1916. The researcher J. L. Bell found this important instance. The maxim appeared in a quotation from a speech by the Reverend Charles F. Aked who was calling for restrictions on the use of alcohol: ²

It has been said that for evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing.

QI believes that the full name of Aked was Charles Frederic Aked, and he was a prominent preacher and lecturer who moved from England to America. The same expression was attributed to Aked in another periodical in 1920. Details for this cite are given further below.

The earliest attribution of the modern saying to Edmund Burke was found by top researcher Barry Popik. In July of 1920 a man named Sir R. Murray Hyslop delivered an address at a Congregational church conference that included the following: ³

Burke once said: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

The search for the origin of this famous quotation has lead to controversy. One disagreement involved the important reference book Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations and the well-known word maven William Safire.

Below are selected citations in chronological order and a brief discussion of this altercation.




In 1770 the Irish statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke wrote about the need for good men to associate to oppose the cabals of bad men. The second sentence in the excerpt below is listed in multiple quotation references and shares some points of similarity to the saying under investigation, bit it is clearly dissimilar: ⁴

No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united Cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

In 1867 the British philosopher and political theorist John Stuart Mill delivered an inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews. The second sentence in the excerpt below expresses part of the idea of the quotation under investigation: ⁵

Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.

In 1895 a medical bulletin printed a comment that was similar to  John Stuart Mill’s adage. The wording of the second half matched closely though no attribution was given: ⁶

He should not be lulled to repose by the delusion that he does no harm who takes no part in public affairs. He should know that bad men need no better opportunity than when good men look on and do nothing. He should stand to his principles even if leaders go wrong.

Burke’s quote continued in use in the early 1900s. In 1910 a pithy form of the saying appeared in the Chicago Daily Tribune: ⁷

Burke said, ‘When bad men combine, good men must organize.’

In October 1916 the San Jose Mercury Herald reported on a speech by Charles F. Aked in favor of prohibition as mentioned at the beginning of this article. Aked used an expression similar to the quotation under investigation; however, he used the locution “it has been said” to signal that he was not claiming originality. Thus, the saying was probably in circulation before 1916. Here is a longer excerpt: ⁸

“The people in the liquor traffic,” said the speaker, “simply want us to do nothing. That’s all the devil wants of the son of God—to be let alone. That is all that the criminal wants of the law—to be let alone. The sin of doing nothing is the deadliest of all the seven sins. It has been said that for evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing.”

Note the second half of the adage is very close to the modern statement. The use of the word “evil” in the first half matches the modern version, but the phrase “evil men” harks back to the term “bad men” used by Burke and Mill.

In June 1920 a periodical called “100%: The Efficiency Magazine” published a maxim that was identical to the one above. The saying was again attributed to Rev. Charles F. Aked and it occurred twice: once in the subhead of the article and once in the body. The following passage referred to a “constructive publication”, but it was never identified in the article body: ⁹

The slogan of a recently established constructive publication is “For evil men to accomplish their purpose, it is only necessary that good men do nothing,” quoting the Rev. Charles F. Aked. While this is recognized as true of municipal politics, is it not also being evidenced as an actual condition in American industry?

In July 1920 a different version of the saying appeared anonymously in a magazine called the Railway Carmen’s Journal. This variant used the term “bad men” and occurred in isolation at the beginning of an editorial section: ¹⁰

For bad men to accomplish their purposes it is only necessary that good men do nothing.

On July 5, 1920 the temperance crusader Sir R. Murray Hyslop of Kent, England, delivered an address at a church conference, the Fourth International Congregational Council. The address was published in 1921, and it contained a version of the now famous statement which Hyslop attributed to Burke. This is the earliest example of this attribution that QI knows about and it was found by Barry Popik who presented it on his website: ¹¹

Burke once said: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” Leave the Drink Trade alone and it will throttle all that is good in a nation’s life. Let it alone, that is all that is required. Cowardice will suffice for its triumph. Courage will suffice for its overthrow.

On July 30, 1920 a business digest periodical that lists articles published in other magazines included an entry for the piece in 100% magazine. The subhead for the article was reproduced so the maxim appeared in this digest magazine and was further propagated: ¹²

Are We Helping the Radicals? “For Evil Men to Accomplish Their Purpose, It Is only Necessary That Good Men Do Nothing.” Perhaps the “Do Nothing” Attitude Is Responsible for Much of the Industrial Unrest. By Charles H Norton, General Manager Collins Service. 100% June ’20 p. 64. 1000 words.

In 1924 the “Surrey Mirror” of Surrey, England reported on a meeting of an organization called the “World Brotherhood Federation”. A speaker named Robert A. Jameson employed an instance of the saying which he attributed to Burke: ¹³

As Edmund Burke had said, much more than 100 years ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil was that good men should do nothing.”

In 1950 the saying appeared in the Washington Post and was attributed to Burke as noted in the Yale Book of Quotations: ^{14 15}

It is high time that the law-abiding citizens of Washington, and particularly those in organized groups dedicated to civic betterment, became alert to this danger and demanded protection against organized gangdom.

This situation is best summed up in the words of the British statesman, Edmund Burke, who many years ago said: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

In 1955 a U.S. Congressman named O. C. Fisher wrote a short piece in “The Rotarian”, and he used an instance of the saying credited to Burke: ¹⁶

He is a good man but he does nothing. His inaction is often the handmaid of evil. As the great Edmund Burke once said, for evil to succeed, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.

In 1961 President John F. Kennedy addressed the Canadian Parliament and used a version of the quotation that he credited to Edmund Burke: ¹⁷

At the conference table and in the minds of men, the free world’s cause is strengthened because it is just. But it is strengthened even more by the dedicated efforts of free men and free nations. As the great parliamentarian Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

In 1968 the quotation appeared in the 14th edition of the seminal reference work Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. The words were attributed to Burke and a 1795 letter was specified as support: ¹⁸

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Letter to William Smith [January 9, 1795]

In 1980 the New York Times language columnist William Safire wrote about the quote and challenged the attribution to Burke given in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations (14th). He did so based on information from a persistent correspondent who stated that the letter cited by Bartlett’s did not contain the quote: ¹⁹

The trouble is that it may be a phony. When I used the “triumph of evil” quotation recently to condemn complacency, a man named Hamilton A. Long of Philadelphia wrote to ask where and when Burke had said it. …

Then the quotation sleuth sprung his trap. “It’s not in that letter,” Mr. Long replied triumphantly. “Nor any other source quoted in the quotations books I’ve found. They are false sources.”

In 1980 a new 15th edition of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations was released, and in 1981 Safire again discussed the quote. ²⁰ The editor of Bartlett’s noted that the quotation had not been located in Burke’s writings, and the reference work was updated to reflect that fact. In the 16^th edition the quote is listed under Burke and a footnote indicates that vigorous searches have failed to find the words in Burke’s oeuvre.

In conclusion, quotations from Burke and Mill are conceptually related to the quote under examination, but neither expression is close textually. In October of 1916 Charles F. Aked used a maxim in a speech that was similar but not identical to the modern quote.

In 1920 Murray Hyslop attributed the modern version of the quote to Burke. The record is too incomplete to make strong claims about who crafted the quote.

It is possible that Aked created an adage with conscious or unconscious inspiration from Burke or Mill. Perhaps Hyslop heard the phrase and assigned it to Burke because he believed it sounded similar to Burke. Kennedy kept a notebook of quotations that he found worth recording. He may have heard a version attributed to Burke and noted it down for future use. Sorry QI cannot provide a more definitive response, but these new cites represent some progress. Thanks for your question.

Update history: On May 9, 2012 the citation for Charles F Aked dated October 31, 1916 was added to the post. Also, the 1895 citation was added, and the conclusion was partially rewritten. On January 25, 2016 the 1924 and 1955 citations were added. Also the style of the bibliographic notes was changed from alphabetic labels to numeric labels.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.? John B. Finch? John Stuart Mill? Abraham Lincoln? Zechariah Chafee, Jr.?

Dear Quote Investigator: I am writing a book on the theme of freedom and would like to include a classic quotation about the pragmatic limitations on liberty. My research has identified several versions of this popular saying:

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.

The right to swing my arms in any direction ends where your nose begins.

My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

Strangely, these three similar statements were credited to three very different people. The first quote was attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The second saying was credited to John Stuart Mill, and the third was ascribed to Abraham Lincoln. But I do not trust any of these attributions because no citations were provided. Could you investigate this adage and determine its origin?

Quote Investigator: The seminal reference work “The Yale Book of Quotations” presents an important citation for this saying that shows when the phrase entered the realm of scholarly legal discourse. The saying was not credited to any one of the three luminaries mentioned in the query. In June 1919 the Harvard Law Review published an article by legal philosopher Zechariah Chafee, Jr. titled “Freedom of Speech in War Time” and it contained a version of the expression spoken by an anonymous judge [ZCYQ] [ZCHL]:

Each side takes the position of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.”

Interestingly, the genesis of this adage can be traced back more than thirty-five additional years. Several variants of the expression were employed by a set of lecturers who were aligned with the temperance movement which favored restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol in the United States. The earliest instance located by QI appeared in a collection of speeches that were delivered by John B. Finch who was the Chairman of the Prohibition National Committee for several years in the 1880s and died in 1887.

The saying Finch used was somewhat longer and clumsier than later versions of the aphorism. But the central idea was the same, and Finch received credit from some of his colleagues. It is common for expressions to be shortened and polished as they pass from one speaker to another over a period of years. Here is the relevant excerpt from an oration Finch gave in Iowa City in 1882 [PVJF]:

This arm is my arm (and my wife’s), it is not yours. Up here I have a right to strike out with it as I please. I go over there with these gentlemen and swing my arm and exercise the natural right which you have granted; I hit one man on the nose, another under the ear, and as I go down the stairs on my head, I cry out:

“Is not this a free country?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Have not I a right to swing my arm?”

“Yes, but your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.”

Here civil government comes in to prevent bloodshed, adjust rights, and settle disputes.

For decades the saying was used at pro-Prohibition rallies and meetings. Also, at the turn of the century the saying was adopted by some educators who presented it as a moral rule that children should learn about. Here are additional selected citations in chronological order.

The next instance dates to November 1887 and was located by Professor Jonathan Lighter of the University of Tennessee. The Atlanta Constitution newspaper published a story titled “Four Orators from Atlanta Make Stirring Speeches” about a group of speakers who were arguing in favor of prohibition laws to close barrooms and also requesting audience members to register to vote [ACDY]:

The only leading argument urged by the anti-prohibitionists in this campaign for keeping open the bar-rooms, is personal liberty. A great man has said, “your personal liberty to swing your arm ends where my nose begins”. A man’s personal liberty to drink whisky and support barrooms ends where the rights of the family and the community begin.

This compact phrase was credited to a “great man”, but the man was not identified by the lecturer. The speaker may have been referring to the temperance advocate John B. Finch (see above) or some other person working toward the enactment of Prohibition. Alternatively, the remark may have been a rhetorical flourish.

In December 1887 a West Virginia newspaper reported on “The Temperance Meeting. At the Fourth Street M. E. Church, Last Evening” at which a lecturer named Major Camp delivered the saying. He did not ascribe the words to anyone in particular [WVMC]:

“God made water; he never made liquor. If he had filled the Ohio with beer navigation would have stopped long ago.”

“I have no right to throw my arms out in a crowd, for I might hit somebody on the nose. My right stops where his nose begins. I have no right to drink if my drinking injures others.”

In 1894 a temperance campaigner named Rev. A. C. Dixon at the “Thirteenth International Christian Endeavor Convention” told a joke containing the aphorism. The phrase was embedded into the joke in a very natural way, and this usage arguably restated the 1882 instance and pre-figured the example legal case given fifteen years later in the Harvard Law Review [ADCE]:

A drunken man was going down the street in Baltimore flinging his hands right and left, when one of his arms came across the nose of a passer-by. The passer-by instinctively clenched his fist and sent the intruder sprawling to the ground. He got up, rubbing the place where he was hit, and said, “I would like to know if this is not a land of liberty.” “It is,” said the other fellow; “but I want you to understand that your liberty ends just where my nose begins.” [Laughter and Applause.]

In 1895 a biography of the temperance advocate Mary A. Woodbridge was published and it included the text of several of her speeches. One of her talks credited John B. Finch with using the aphorism though she did not say he created it [JFMW]:

Neither in law nor equity can there be personal liberty to any man which shall be bondage and ruin to his fellow-men. John B. Finch, the great constitutional amendment advocate, was wont to settle this point by a single illustration. He said, “I stand alone upon a platform. I am a tall man with long arms which I may use at my pleasure. I may even double my fist and gesticulate at my own sweet will. But if another shall step upon the platform, and in the exercise of my personal liberty I bring my fist against his face, I very soon find that my personal liberty ends where that man’s nose begins.”

Also in 1895 the adage appeared in a publication from the Universalist Church in a short article signed by “Secretary Baer” [UCSB]:

The man who votes yes because he desires “personal liberty” for himself and others needs to learn that his liberty ends where some other fellow’s nose begins, is a truth to be applied to this question of licensing the saloon. You have no more right to vote to establish a nuisance next door to my home than I have to vote to permit one to be located in your neighborhood.

In 1896 in Philadelphia the preacher Robert F. Y. Pierce used the phrase while discussing liberty [RPPI]:

He illustrated the idea of personal liberty by the man who thought he had liberty to strike another man in the nose. That other sent the offender to jail to teach him that “your liberty ends where my nose begins.”

In 1902 the adage was mentioned by the Walter B. Hill, Chancellor of the University of Georgia at a meeting of the National Educational Association. It was also published by Hill in a periodical aimed at educators of young children called Kindergarten Magazine [WHNE] [WHKM]:

Children learn at an early age the principle of the limitation of individual liberty. It can usually be fixed in the mind by the epigrammatic statement, “My right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins.”

By 1911 the expression was well-known enough within educational circles that it inspired a joke about a civics teacher [MTCT]:

A teacher having attended an institute where one of the workers gave a talk on “Personal Rights,” was quite pleased at one of the illustrations used. Standing before the teachers and swinging his fists around the speaker said: “Now, I have a perfect right to stand here and swing my fists, but if I start down the aisle this way,” suiting the action to the word, “my rights leave off just where your nose begins.”

Endeavoring to use the same illustration in his civics class later, he began, “Now, I can stand here and swing my fists, but if I come down among you swinging my nose –” and that was as far as he got.

In 1918 an article in the Journal of the National Education Association used the phrase while discussing guidelines for discipline in a kindergarten [AFKD]:

In discipline it is expression not repression. The children do as they please as long as they do not interfere with their neighbors. “The right to extend my hand stops where your nose begins.” Cooperative work stops quarreling.

In 1919 the article “Freedom of Speech in War Time” by Zechariah Chafee, Jr. was printed in the Harvard Law Review as noted at the beginning of this post [ZCHL]. In addition, the article so impressed a U. S. Senator that he ordered it to be reprinted by the Government Printing Office in Volume 15 of Senate Documents [SDLF].

In 1939 the prominent lawyer Arthur Garfield Hays included the saying in a book he published titled “Democracy Works”. Hays was the general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1920s. He did not attribute the phrase to anyone in particular [AHDW]:

In a society where interests conflict I realize there can be no absolutes. My freedom to swing my arm ends where the other fellow’s nose begins. But the other fellow’s nose doesn’t begin in my brain, or in my soul either, as the religionists would have it.

The aphorism is sometimes ascribed to the quotation magnet Oliver Wendell Holmes, but QIhas not yet found any evidence to support this assertion. For example, in 1970 a newspaper column by the humorist Bill Vaughan uncertainly credited a version of the adage to Holmes “or someone like him”. Vaughan did not specify Junior or Senior, but he probably intended the jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. [OHBV]:

“Don’t talk to me about a free country,” I told him. “As Oliver Wendell Holmes or someone like him once said, your freedom to act ends where my nose begins.”

The adage is also sometimes attached to Abraham Lincoln, but QI has not found any support for this connection. Here is an instance in 1980 in which Lincoln’s name is invoked in a letter to the editor of the Dallas Morning News [DNAL]:

After over 30 years of erroneous liberal interpretations of our Constitution, the old Abraham Lincoln concept that your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins, is no longer valid. For many people now think it is their right to do whatever they want regardless of anyone else.

In 1989 a politician used the expression when he argued in favor of a modern day prohibition: A city ordinance banning smoking instead of drinking alcohol. The politician credited Oliver Wendell Holmes for the remark [SBRC]:

City Councilor Richard Chapman likes to quote the late Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes as he fights a recall campaign that began when he successfully sponsored an anti-smoking ordinance.

“He said, ‘Your right to throw a punch stops where my nose begins,'” said Chapman. “I think that’s very apropos for the smoking issue.”

In 1992 Richard Posner, the influential legal theorist, used the saying in his book “Sex and Reason”, and he connected the words to the ideas of John Stuart Mill; however, he did not claim that Mill ever used the phrase himself [RPJM]:

Libertarianism–or, as it is sometimes called, classical liberalism–the philosophy of John Stuart Mill On Liberty, can be summed up in seven words: “Your rights end where his nose begins.” Government interference with adult consensual activities is unjustified unless it can be shown to be necessary for the protection of the liberty or property of other persons.

In conclusion, current evidence indicates that the saying under investigation began with Prohibitionist orators who expressed it using a variety of formulations during their speeches. John B. Finch communicated the earliest known instance in 1882. Ascriptions to other famous individuals such as Abraham Lincoln and Oliver Wendell Holmes (Junior or Senior) do not have any support at this time.

(Many thanks to Professor Charles Landesman whose email inspired the formulation of this query and motivated this exploration.)

[ZCYQ] 2006, The Yale Book of Quotations by Fred R. Shapiro, Section Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Page 141, Yale University Press, New Haven. (Verified on paper)

[ZCHL] 1919 June, Harvard Law Review, Freedom of Speech in War Time by Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Start Page 932, Quote Page 957, Harvard Law Review Association, Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Google Books full view) link

[PVJF] 1887, The People Versus The Liquor Traffic: Speeches of John B. Finch, Edited by Charles Arnold McCully, Speech VI: The Defence Reviewed, [An Address delivered at the Opera-House, Iowa City, Sunday evening, May 7, 1882], Start Page 109, Quote Pages 127-128, [Twenty-Fourth (Revised) Edition], Funk & Wagnalls, New York. (Google Books full view) link

[ACDY] 1887 November 9, The [Atlanta] Constitution, The Meeting of the Drys: Four Orators from Atlanta Make Stirring Speeches, Page 5, Column 3, Atlanta, Georgia. (NewspaperArchive)

[WVMC] 1887 December 10, Wheeling [Daily] Register, “The Temperance Meeting. At the Fourth Street M. E. Church, Last Evening”, Page 4, Column 4, Wheeling, West Virginia. (GenealogyBank)

[ADCE] 1894, Thirteenth International Christian Endeavor Convention, [Held in Saengerfest Hall and Tent, Cleveland, Ohio, July 11-15, 1894], Heroes of Faith: Address of Rev. A.C. Dixon, Start Page 91, Quote Page 95, Published by United Society of Christian Endeavor, Boston, Massachusetts. (Google Books full view) link

[JFMW] 1895, Life and labors of Mrs. Mary A. Woodbridge by Rev. Aaron Merritt Hills, Chapter: The Pennsylvania Campaign, Page 239, F. W. Woodbridge, Ravenna, Ohio. (Google Books full view) link

[UCSB] 1895 February 8, Onward: The Journal of the Universalist Young People, Page 4, Column 3, The Universalist Publishing House, Boston, Massachusetts. (Google Books full view) link

[RPPI] 1896 July 6, Philadelphia Inquirer, True Christian Patriots: Rev. Robert F. Y. Pierce’s Address at the Baptist Temple, Page 3, Column 3, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (GenealogyBank)

[WHNE] 1902, National Educational Association: Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Forty-First Annual Meeting [Held at Minneapolis, Minnesota, July 7-11, 1902], The Psychology of Ethics and Fun by Walter B. Hill, Chancellor, University of Georgia, Start Page 286, Quote Page 295, Published by National Educational Association, Printed at the University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. (Google Books full view) link

[WHKM] 1902 May, Kindergarten Magazine, The Psychology of Ethics and Fun by Walter B. Hill, Chancellor Georgia University, Start Page 521, Quote Page 525, Volume 14, Number 9, Kindergarten Magazine, Co., Chicago, Illinois. (Google Books full view) link

[MTCT] 1911 December 7, Moderator-Topics, “Quips, Quirks and Conundrums”, Page 287, Volume 32, Number 14, Henry R. Pattengill, Lansing, Michigan. (Google Books full view) link

[AFKD] 1918 February, Journal of the National Education Association, Section: Department of Kindergarten Education, Paper: The Kindergarten as an Organic Part of Every Elementary School by Anna Laura Force, Principal, Denver Colorado, Start Page 410, Quote Page 412, Published by National Education Association of the United States, Chicago, Illinois. (Google Books full view) link

[SDLF] 1919, Senate Documents, 66th Congress, 1st Session, [May 19 – November 19, 1919], Volume 15, Freedom of Speech in War Times by Zechariah Chafee, Jr., [Presented by Mr. La Follette, September 22, 1919, Ordered to be printed as a Senate Document], Quote Page 19, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (Google Books full view) link

[AHDW] 1939, Democracy Works by Arthur Garfield Hays, Page 28, Random House, New York. (Questia)

[OHBV] 1970 April 08, Omaha World Herald, Youngsters Usurping Worry Spot by Bill Vaughan, Page 42, Column 3, Omaha, Nebraska. (GenealogyBank)

[DNAL] 1980 May 26, Dallas Morning News, Section: Editorial, Letter to the Editor, GNB Page 58, Column 4, Dallas, Texas. (GenealogyBank)

[SBRC] 1989 June 23, Trenton Evening Times, No-smoking law cited in vote to recall councilor, [Associated Press], Page B10, Trenton, New Jersey. (GenealogyBank)

[RPJM] 1992, Sex and Reason by Richard A. Posner, Section: Introduction, Page 3, [Fourth printing, 1998], Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Questia)

Groucho Marx? John Stuart Mill? Joseph Addison? Thomas Stafford? Boyle Roche? Adam Neale? Samuel Goldwyn? Bill Nye?

Dear Quote Investigator: Making sacrifices now for the people and environment of the future is difficult. This challenge has been encapsulated with a humorous remark. Here are two versions:

• Why should I care about posterity? What’s posterity ever done for me?
• Why should I care about future generations? What have they ever done for me?

Groucho Marx often receives credit for this quip, but I have been unable to find a proper citation. Would you please explore the provenance of this statement?

Quote Investigator: Groucho Marx died in 1977, and an instance of this jest was ascribed to him near the end of his life in 1975, but the quip can be traced back to the 1700s.

A close variant appeared in “The Spectator” magazine in 1714. Joseph Addison and Richard Steele founded and operated the magazine, and both were significant literary and political figures. The passage below was reprinted in the works of Addison. Emphasis added to excerpts by QI: ¹

I know when a man talks of posterity in matters of this nature he is looked upon with an eye of ridicule by the cunning and selfish part of mankind. Most people are of the humour of an old fellow of a colledge, who when he was pressed by the society to come into something that might redound to the good of their successors, grew very peevish, We are always doing, says he, something for posterity, but I would fain see posterity do something for us.

Addison disclaimed credit for the joke which he attributed to an “old fellow of a colledge”. The most likely candidate is Oxford scholar Thomas Stafford.

The Oxford Historical Society has published material from the papers of Thomas Hearne, an English diarist and antiquarian. An entry dated February 27, 1722/3 stated that on that day a great bell was sounded at Magdalen College, Oxford to honor Thomas Stafford, Fellow of the College, who had died that morning. Hearne then presented an anecdote from Stafford’s past: ²

He was a Man that lov’d to get Money, but was, however, very kind to his poor Relations. There is this Story going of him, that some of the College talking once of doing something by way of Benevolence or Generosity, upon some publick Account, & he asking for what reason, it was answered, to do good to Posterity. Posterity, says the Dr., What good will Posterity do for us?

Below are additional selected citations in chronological order.

In 1818 doctor Adam Neale published “Travels Through Some Parts of Germany, Poland, Moldavia, and Turkey”. And he attributed the remark to an unnamed “Irish magnate”: ³

“What care I for posterity, what has posterity ever done for me?” was the epicurean saying of an Irish magnate. It is the sentiment of the illiterate Russian and ignorant Portuguese.

In 1827 an Irish judge published “Personal Sketches of His Own Times”, and he recounted a tale about Irish politician Sir Boyle Roche who employed the saying without humorous intent while speaking in the Irish House of Commons. Roche joined the House in 1775, and the House was abolished in 1800: ⁴

Sir Boyle, eager to defend the measures of government, immediately rose, and, in a few words, put forward the most unanswerable argument which human ingenuity could possibly devise. “What, Mr. Speaker!” said he, “and so we are to beggar ourselves for fear of vexing posterity! Now, I would ask the honourable gentleman, and this still more honourable House, why we should put ourselves out of our way to do anything for posterity:—for what has posterity done for us?”

Sir Boyle, hearing the roar of laughter which of course followed this sensible blunder, but not being conscious that he had said anything out of the way, was rather puzzled, and conceived that the House had misunderstood him. He therefore begged leave to explain, as he apprehended that gentlemen had entirely mistaken his words: he assured the House “that by posterity he did not at all mean our ancestors, but those who were to come immediately after them.” Upon hearing this explanation, it was impossible to do any serious business for half an hour.

In 1866 the famous and influential British philosopher John Stuart Mill was a Member of Parliament in London. He employed the quip during a speech and explained why it was fallacious: ⁵

There are many persons in the world, and there may possibly be some in this House, though I should be sorry to think so, who are not unwilling to ask themselves, in the words of the old jest, “Why should we sacrifice anything for posterity; what has posterity done for us?” They think that posterity has done nothing for them: but that is a great mistake. Whatever has been done for mankind by the idea of posterity; whatever has been done for mankind by philanthropic concern for posterity, by a conscientious sense of duty to posterity, even by the less pure but still noble ambition of being remembered and honoured by posterity; all this we owe to posterity, and all this it is our duty to the best of our limited ability to repay.

In 1886 the prominent American humorist Bill Nye (Edgar Wilson Nye) published a fictional version of “John Adams’ Diary”, and Nye included an instance of the joke: ⁶

I do not think that a joke impairs the usefulness of a diary, as some do. A diary with a joke in it is just as good to fork over to posterity as one that is not thus disfigured. In fact, what has posterity ever done for me that I should hesitate about socking a little humor into a diary? When has posterity ever gone out of its way to do me a favor? Never! I defy the historian to show a single instance where posterity has ever been the first to recognize and remunerate ability.

In 1975 journalist Peter Laurie writing in “New Scientist” ascribed the saying to Groucho Marx: ⁷

No doubt he would have had little time for Groucho Marx, but as that great thinker once enquired: “What has posterity ever done for me?” And this is a question which energy reformers might bear in mind.

In 1994 “The Sun-Herald” of Sydney, Australia attributed the variant remark with “future generations” to movie mogul to Samuel Goldwyn: ⁸

Why should we care about future generations? What have they ever done for us? — Sam Goldwyn

In 2010 a Columbus, Indiana newspaper printed a “Thought for the Day” credited to Groucho: ⁹

Thought for the Day
“What have future generations ever done for us?”
—Groucho Marx

In 2015 quotation expert Nigel Rees wrote about the quip in “The Quote Unquote Newsletter”. He mentioned the 1714 citation together with crucial information about Thomas Stafford and Boyle Roche. ¹⁰

In conclusion, Thomas Stafford is the most likely candidate for creator of this quip. A version was popularized by Joseph Addison who was also the responsible for the first known publication in 1714. There is substantive evidence that Boyle Roche employed the saying sometime between 1775 and 1800. John Stuart Mill and Bill Nye also used the expression.

Image Notes: Example of a family tree from the Ahnenblatt family; public domain image accessed via Wikimedia Commons.

(Great thanks to Martin Einfeldt whose inquiry led QI to formulate this question and perform this exploration. Special thanks to researcher Nigel Rees.)