Negative Nancies and other related musings

Sun Mar 21 08:41:26 UTC 2010

[Long post with references only from GB--will check periodicals later.]

Quinlan claims OED antedated John Doe to 1659. And here I thought I was
rediscovering the wheel! Blackstone certainly would not have used
generic terms that were not already widely in use (and Blackstone is an
extremely influential text, so it should remain cited where it is no
matter what else is found on the subject). So when I found this, I got
excited:

http://bit.ly/9gAbCL

...only to realize this was the 3rd edition of the book that the OED is
going to cite as its 1659 source. How can we beat that? Well, we can
find an 1825 (or, perhaps, 1832--the GB copy says 1830 [in pencil], but
there is not one other entry in WorldCat that matches that date) reprint
of a 1657 document. There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the
text--they got a title page and everything ;-)--but it's still not quite
the same as handling the original text. I suppose, it could be some
elaborate 19th century hoax. Nonetheless,
John Doe 1659-->1657

http://bit.ly/bzCDrk
The Practise of the Sheriffs Court. London. Containig The manner of
entring of Actions, making of Attachments and Sequestrations, with all
the Proceedings thereon, and their several Fees. 1657
p. 9
> /Note/ that if /D/ be the assignee of /C/, and /A/ takes rent of /D/,
> and accepts of /D/ as his tenant, /C/ then is out of fear to be sued
> either for non-payment of rent, or breach of covenants. Again, if the
> rent be 100/l/ /per annum/, and /D/ finds that the house will not
> yield 50/l/ /per annum/, /D/ may assigne his right and interest to
> /Iohn Doe/, and /A/ shall not after the assignment sue D for any more
> rent : the reason being, that he that admits of one assignee, admits
> of twenty.

There are a few unusual things about this document. The language seems a
bit modern, but it might just be the unwarranted editorial clean-up--and
my sense for dating texts is open to question. More interesting from my
perspective is the use of literal labels as placeholders for
names/people. The use of single literals as variables was pioneered in
math only 30-40 years earlier, although they've been used in geometry
for much longer.
http://bit.ly/bn1Ufj

But, if the reprinted text is authentic (I'll let OED people figure that
out), then Quinlon's argument that the names became standard by the time
Blackston used them may well apply equally to this document as
well--although it is unusual that after using A, B, C and D for unknown
people, the text suddenly switches to Iohn Doe.

GB only has one Jane Doe pre-1725. More specifically, it is the only one
GB finds.
http://bit.ly/d3TG3j

Another interesting bit suggests that a parish registry contained a name
of an actual John Doe and his daughter Joane Doe married to one Edward
Keate going back at least to 1565--or, at least, this can be surmised
from the 1624 gravestone. What's interesting here is that the text
actually says "Joane his wife, the eldest daughter of John Doe".
http://bit.ly/c62VhR

My point is that we should not be hung up on details of someone cited as
a generic person having a name identical to some real person (of course,
it is also possible that Joane, above, is real, but the name of her
father, John Doe, is simply unknown).

Here's one that uses "Thomas Rowe" as a foil to John Doe.
http://bit.ly/bIeGMq

and another
http://bit.ly/a7K8Rj

Both are missed in direct searches. So is the 1668 hit for Richard
Roe.Oddly enough, although GB finds a number of John Doe hits, it is
grossly unreliable for OCR of books before 1800--and, obviously, it's
not just the long-s problem. I also have never seen Thomas Rowe used as
a stand in.

Another of Quinlan's mentions--and one in the OED--is John Company. The
description in 1785 cite is certainly correct--I found several
references in Dutch texts to Jan Company [sic] from the mid-1600s. This
also suggests that it might be worth looking through Dutch legal sources
to see if something similar to Jan Doe appears before John Doe is picked
up in the English common law.

Another generic name with a more modern origin is Joe Bloe (with an
obvious Joe Blow variant). Several sources suggest WWII military jargon
as its origin, but that seems to be off the mark (or, as Quinlan writes
"wide of the mark"). There is an July 31, 1940 copyright entry for

> Rooney (Gerard Pat):
> Got any troubles? Want advice? Tell Joe Bloe.

This is followed by a series of Joe-Bloe stories in 1942--long before
the name becomes associated with the military.

But 1940 is just a stop on the way. Here's a cite from, apparently, 1936
(date verified on at least some issues):
http://bit.ly/cIabu5
> Joe Bloe of Polo bought a new mixer, took on XYZ brand of supplement
> and then prepared to take care of his customers by advertising that
> they needed--and he could now supply--"all /four/ important /proteins/
> in mixed feeds ...

There also appears to be a bull (ox?) entered under "Joe Bloe" in 1926,
but it's from a publication I've never heard of and can't verify.
http://bit.ly/bFPKcv

There is also a copyright entry suggested for 1928, but GB has no scan
of the document (which should be in the public domain). For a generic
name that might have its roots in the 1920s, the record is surprisingly
thin. It's twin, Joe Blow, has a much more visible history, including a
number of records in the 1920s. Did Joe Blow appear before Joe Bloe?
Well, it is the case in GB FWIW. It is also intriguing that both
stand-ins are used in industry/union publications, suggesting an origin
similar to John Doe (albeit much later). In fact, Joe Blow is the
original Joe Sixpak--but he couldn't be Joe Sixpak during Prohibition!

OK, here's one credited to Wallace Smith in Chicago American, 11 Feb.
1920. It includes two bonus characters--Bitter Bill and Alcoholic Alfred.

http://bit.ly/8Ykjp7
The Mixer & Server. Hotel and Restaurant Employes [sic] International
Alliance / Bartender International League of America. Vol. 29: 6.
Cincinnati, June 15, 1920.
Reformed "Alcoholic Alfreds" Give Joe a Dull Ache, p. 39/1
> "If they's anything gives me a rising temperature and a dull ache,"
> said Joe Blow the Bookmaker, "it's a lot of bourbon slaves singing
> about what a happy life it is on the prohibition plantation."
> "That crack sounds like a figure of speech," remarked Bitter Bill, "or
> a preposition or past participle, or something like we used to get
> learned in grammar."
> "It's only a polite way of talking about these booze blotters which're
> reformed by prohibition," said Joe Blow, "and which claim where being
> dry is the best thing could've happened to the country and should've
> came years ago. "
> ...
> "You don't know these parties which prohibition has reformed," said
> Joe Blow. "They got to this drum in three minutes flat."
> "How do you know?" asked Bitter Bill.
> --Wallace Smith, in Chicago American, February 11, 1920

There is a much earlier occurrence of Joe Blow, but it is not generic.
Or is it?
http://bit.ly/ad0U7T
The Young Rifleman. By Captain [Michael] Rafter. Vol. 1. 1855
p. 219-220
> "Don't be alarmed, Percy my boy," said the Colonel ; " 'tis all
> /morvogga/, as they say in Ireland--nothing but blank cartridge and
> sham-fight. Joe Blow, one of my company, who is about the ugliest
> fellow in the division, will make a capital Provost. I'll dress him up
> in a wig and cocked hat, and we'll have a regular trial of the
> delinquent--that is, if you have no objection."
...
p. 225-6
> "Is it me, your honour ?" cried the too conscious Conolly. "Divil
> resaive the cock did I ever steal in all my born days, your honour."
> "What is that peeping out from the breast of your great coat ?"
> demanded the judge.
> Every eye was directed to the spot indicated by the sharp-witted Joe
> Blow, where the head of a fine young cock was just visible, peering
> out between two of the wide-set buttons of Conolly's great coat. But,
> as if this was not enough, the moment chanticleer saw the light of the
> candle, he set up a lusty crow, that made the hall of justicering again.

The whole set up is a joke and the judge is fake, so the reference to
"Joe Blow of my company" appears to be to an otherwise unnamed soldier
playing the role of the judge. This predates the other appearances
significantly. The only other appearance is in a Danish-English
Dictionary (1897), where one translation (I can't read the original)
entry reads, "pectoral lozenge; /joe/ blow on the chest." So the use by
Rafter may indeed be generic, generic military or one-off. But, by 1920,
it is certain to be generic--in fact, there are two other 1920 hits with
Joe Blow, one a nickname, that only appear in snippet view in GB.

Now, to John Stiles. It is /not/ a real person even if there might have
been one by such name at one point.

It is trivial to find an example from some edition of Blackstone, say,
1800. As the original pages are marked up as well, this seems to track
back to the earlier editions. (And a number of these--although not the
first--appear on the GB list.)

Blackstone, vol. 2. 13th ed. 1800
p. 202 [203]
> Lineal consanguinity is that which subsists between persons, of whom
> one is descended in a direct line from the other, as between John
> Stiles (the /propositus/ in the table of consanguinity) and his
> father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and so upwards in the direct
> ascending line ; or between John Stiles and his son, grandson,
> great-grandson, and so downwards in the direct descending line. Every
> generation, in this lineal direct consanguinity, constitutes a
> different degree, reckoning either upwards or downwards : the father
> of John Stiles is related to him in the first degree, and so likewise
> is his son ; his grandf-re and grendson in the second ; his
> great-grandf-re and great-grandson in the third. This is the only
> natural way of reckoning the degrees in the direct line, and therefore
> universally obtains, as well in the civil, and canon, as in the common
> law.

There are at least 19 other pages with references to John Stiles and his
genealogy. The meaning is clearly generic, meant to represent a generic
genealogy by means of a single middle representative (generation 0),
naming him John Stiles. On p. 220, there is also a Geoffrey Stiles, some
generations ancestor of John. On p. 212 [213] John has four generic
children--Matthew, Gilbert, Charlotte and Margaret. On p. 204, there is
a table of powers of 2, illustrating the number of lineal descendants,
given 2 sons in each generation. On p. 225, John has a brother Frances,
both descended from Geoffrey, this time John's father, and George, the
grandfather. The illustrative example gets more convoluted. Geoffrey is
married to Lucy Baker, John's mother, who upon becoming a widow, marries
Lewis Gay (the example illustrating that half-brothers cannot inherit
from each other).

There are many appearances of John Stiles, the generic genealogic
example for the purpose of illustrating laws of inheritance, including
one in EB, 1797. There are indeed a couple of hits for the real persons
by the same name, one in 1714 and one some relation of the Yale
President Ezra Stiles, and a sprinkle more toward the late 1790s, but
these are independent of Blackstone. But it also appears that the use of
John Stiles as a generic example for dying intestate precedes
Blackstone, just as John and Jane Doe do.

http://bit.ly/bXJImx
Parish Law : Or, a Guide to Justices of the Peace, Ministers,
Churchwardens, Overseers of the Poor, Constables, Surveyors of the
Highways, Vestry-Clerks, and all Others concern'd in Parish Business. 1753
Chapter 53:44. p. 266
> /John Stiles/ possessed of a Lease for Years, dies intestate ;
> /Query/, whether the next Kin shall be said in Law to be settled
> there. Held not ; he has only a Right which he mustpursue by taking
> out Letters of Administration ; but no Right is settled or vested in
> him till an actual taking out.

There is another indication that the use was pervasive and not
necessarily related to the theoretical expounding of the law.

http://bit.ly/axIzEq
Walker's Hibernian Magazine. Feb. 1786
Letters Addressed to the Lord Mayor of London. Letter XI. Civic. pp.
74/2-75/1
> Where a watch, or other trinket is advertised as stolen, and a
> description given so as that it may be stopt, the owner may recover
> his property, but the chance is against him--Pawnbrokers, likewise, I
> am told, ask the name and residence of the person who deposits any
> goods, but who does not know that Tom Nokes, or John Stiles are very
> good trave[??]ing names?

I found /no/ such appearances by "Richard Miles"--all the GB hits seem
to refer to real people by that name.

The earliest GB reference to a company Dewey, Cheatum & Howe is 1966
Park's The Strategy of Contracting for Profits. However, a law professor
who was a grad student at Harvard in the 1960 claims that the name was
used on law school exams since at least the early 1960s. There is some
argument whether it should be Cheatem, Cheatham or Cheatum, but that's a
minor quibble. The earliest citation in Wiki is from Charles T.
Horngren, Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis‎ (1967), p. 333.

VS-)

PS: I have an early 1600s Dutch text citation for Jan Doe but it appears
to have been an actual person.

On 3/20/2010 9:53 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:
> At 9:13 PM -0400 3/20/10, Joel S. Berson wrote:
>
>> I had not previously met these perhaps even more ancient gentlemen.
>>
>> But for John Stiles, the OED does not have a definition, and the 3
>> instances (the first from 1671, and the other two from Blackstone)
>> seem all to refer to real people!  And I do not meet Richard Miles in
>> the OED at all.
>>
>> Did these names become generic, and when?  Or, Laurence, are you
>> putting us on again?
>>
>> Joel
>>
> Me?  Putting you on?  Perish the thought!
>
> Here's Michael Quinion's take (found among various others by googling
> the anonymous couple below):
> http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-joh2.htm
>
> And if you don't trust Michael or me, you certainly will accept the
> authority of Yahoo! Answers:
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080619215405AAo1DYW
>
> LH
>
>
>> At 3/20/2010 08:31 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:
>>
>>> And the parties of the 3rd and 4th part, John Stiles and Richard Miles.
>>>
>>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org