I’ve always liked the English-language expression “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. See it as generally signifying: frantically and probably unsuccessfully, trying to make something work (likely, but not invariably, in the sphere of finances) by a succession of makeshift short-term fixes.
Trying to look into the origin of the phrase, would seem to deliver an answer of its coming basically from “Christendom” – the Apostles Peter, and Paul, being referenced – but beyond that, “who knows?” – there are assorted possible explanations. A couple at least, involve suggested long-ago church / finance situations in England (different ones pre-, and post-, Henry VIII), to do with various ecclesiastical foundations dedicated to Peter, and Paul.
Other folks opine that the expression has nothing to do with any particular historical situation / episode, but is just a homely saying thought up at a time when in England, Catholic Christianity was universal; arbitrarily picking on a well-known “duo” of names from the New Testament: in a later era, an expression meaning the same, might have been – say – “robbing Abbott to pay Costello; or Sheldon to pay Leonard”. It seems basically, that the expression might have come from anywhere.
Am wondering, is this a purely English-language expression? – or whether it exists in other languages of the Christian world, citing the names of Peter and Paul.
It doesn’t seem exactly common in Portuguese (and I don’t remember hearing it when I lived in Brazil for a couple of years), but I found a few examples online, among them this one
Translation:
The quotation marks and the fact that it is a story about Australia suggest that it was a direct translation from English, but at least it implies that their audience would understand the phrase. A few of the other examples I saw also implied they were translated from English, so if it is used at all by Portuguese speakers, it may have entered the language via English.
It exists in French, in the form “Undress Paul to dress Pierre” (“Deshabiller Paul pour habiller Pierre”)
“Jacques” or “Jean” can be used instead of “Pierre”. All three are the names of apostles (James, John and Peter respectively), but I’m not sure it proves anything, since they also were common first names.
Not so much in the specific case but in the general church / religious case.
The specific case from 1660 is a specialisation of the general English religous phrase.
From 1660:
*Peter Heylyn’s Ecclesia Restaurata:
The lands of Westminster so dilapidated by Bishop Thirlby, that there was almost nothing left to support the dignity; for which good service he had been preferred to the see of Norwich, in the year foregoing. Most of the lands invaded by the great men of the court, the rest laid out for reparation to the church of St Paul - pared almost to the very quick in those days of rapine. From hence first came that significant by-word (as is said by some) of robbing Peter to pay Paul.*
Except that quotation is well after the Reformation, so it’s not a case of diverting taxes from Rome to an English cathedral. The cathedral church of the diocese of Norwich, mentioned in the quotation, is the Cathedral Church of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, not dedicated to St Peter.
A more modern equivalent might be the Ponzi scheme, this may be in their knowledge…
also its really a form of cooking the books… aka creative accounting, fidling the books, double accounting, double books, or just a very short sighted view on liquidity/solvency… (Peter will have to be repayed sometime !)
In Spanish, desvestir un santo para vestir a otro: to undress a saint to dress another one.
Also a multitude of forms of quitarle a X para darle a Y; to take from X in order to give to Y. X and Y are common names, usually which have some relationship between them: it can be Pedro and Pablo (Peter and Paul), but it can also be Francisco and Paco (Francis and Frank), Javier and Loyola (in which case the person is likely to get a reply of “and phrases like that is why dem foreigners think we’ve got Jesuits everywhere!”), Lupe and Lupita… I remember a budgetting meeting where after some shuffling, someone cracked up “so we’re taking from Maintenance to give to Repairs?” “eeeeh, y- damn you!”
Thanks to all. I gather that there’s uncertainty as to whether the expression was coined by some writer (examples in jezzaOZ’s link) a fair number of centuries ago; or whether such writers were using an already-existing folk saying.
Interesting that the French and Spanish versions, re (putative) saints, are about undressing / dressing, rather than robbing / paying; and Nava’s information about Spanish “taking from X to give to Y”, with an equal-opportunity free-for-all on name pairs.
Your own citation says the part you quote is poor evidence for your suggested etymology!
Or did you mean specific case “My suggestion that it’s to do with St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s churches” and general case “It’s to do with the well known pairing of Peter and Paul, and my earlier contribution to the thread was plain wrong.”?
No. My contribution was pretty accurate regarding the past 400 odd years of British usage. The phrase itself was generally used for a further 400 odd years before that but there is no essential difference between the general meaning and a specific interpretation crystallised at a point in time that became the more common meaning.
That’s entirely different to a folk etymology. Everyone knew what they were talking about at the time- unlike some modern nitpickers.
Are you saying your interpretation of the available evidence is that from 1660 and onwards people using the expression did so thinking they were alluding to churches? Do you have any evidence of this?
Have you found any source, other than the wisdom of the internets, corroborating your claim “Originally it was neglecting the St Peter Tax to pay the St Paul Tax - rather than robbing, but same difference.”?
Yes, and what were these two taxes? Peter’s Pence was an annual tax of one penny, payable by householders, but it was ended by Henry VIII’s legislation breaking with Rome in the early 16th century.
And, what was the St Paul’s tax, which had to be operating concurrently with Peter’s Pence for this explanation to make sense?
And, even assuming two different taxes in operation at the same time, in what taxation system does the taxpayer get to choose not to pay one tax in favour of paying a different tax?
The one in which you only have the money for one, and enforcement was less than immediate. See “kiting checks” for a modern equivalent. Which, prior to electronic settlement, worked about as well: i.e. OKish in the short term but poorly in the long term.