Was ‘The Night Before Christmas’ a Plagiarism?

A Visit from St. Nicholas, often referred to as ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas, is easily one of the most famous, memorized and important poems in the English language.

It has been turned into Christmas specials, seen countless printings, it defined Santa Claus as we know him, it is a tradition in many homes and, most importantly, it was parodied by me.

However, the poem, which just passed its 200th year, is also the source of a never-ending controversy. Though the book covers feature the name Clement Clarke Moore, many people claim that another man, Henry Livingston Jr., authored the poem.

The debate about who actually wrote the iconic poem has raged for over a hundred and fifty years with no real end in sight.

So how did one of the most famous and iconic poems become the subject of an authorship dispute? It all started with the publication of the poem itself and its meteoric rise to popularity.

A Brief History of the Poem

The poem was first published on December 23, 1823, under the title Account of a Visit from St. Nicholas in the Troy Sentinel newspaper. However, this initial publication was anonymous. No name was attached to the poem and wouldn’t be for fourteen years.

That was when poet and friend of Moore, Charles Fenno Hoffman, “outed” him as the author. Hoffman was the editor of The New-York Book of Poetry and included the poem under Moore’s name. However, it would still be another seven years before Moore himself claimed the work. That was when, in 1844, he included in a book of his poems.

According to Moore, he had written the poem “not for publication, but to amuse my children,” and it’s unclear how the poem was published by the Sentinel. However, it’s broadly believed that a family friend showed the poem to the editor of the Sentinel without his direct permission.

Moore would give credence to this theory in 1862 when describing the initial publication.

However, some time after the 1844 publication, that Livingston’s family began to argue that he had read that poem to them, sometime around 1807. This caused many to question Moore’s authorship and begin to examine the poem more deeply.

The Argument Against Moore

To greatly oversimply the arguments, The case against Moore’s authorship comes down to two things.

First, the poem was not typical of Moore’s work. Moore was, by all accounts, a staunch academic and was not known for writing joyful works like A Visit from St. Nicholas. As per countless, examinations of the poem, it did not fit Moore’s style.

The second argument comes directly from Livingston’s family, who claim that he read the poem to them as early as 1807. However, there’s no explanation for how Livingston’s poem got to the Sentinel or why Hoffman outed the wrong person as the author.

That said, Livingston did have a history of publishing light verse anonymously and many linguists that have studied the work found it to be closer to Livingston’s in style and tone than Moore. This was highlighted most strongly by Don Foster in his book Author Unknown.

Foster rose to prominence for using linguistic analysis to identify Joe Klein as the anonymous author of Primary Colors. In this book, he examined several other cases of disputed authorship, including this one, and concluded that Livingston was, most likely, the author.

But many, including myself, don’t find those arguments compelling. This includes historic document expert Seth Keller, who penned a lengthy rebuttal to Foster’s work.

However, the biggest rebuttal is also the simplest: there’s just too much evidence that Moore wrote the poem.

My Thoughts

Setting aside the linguistic arguments for a second, the of arguments for Livingston’s authorship simply doesn’t make sense.

The first problem is simple, if Livingston had written the poem in 1807 (or 1808), why didn’t he publish it in the next 15 years? He had published a lot of work during that time and this poem, as others noted, would have fit in with his catalog.

Furthermore, why didn’t he take credit for it after it was published. Though he died in 1828, he still had five years to stake his own claim. During that time, there were no competing claims of authorship. Simply put, there’s no evidence that Livingston himself claimed authorship.

Much of the argument hinges on the linguistic analysis comparing the poem to Moore and Livingston’s work. But there’s a key issue. Moore never intended the poem to be published. He meant it for his kids and his kids alone.

Code switching is something humans do, often fully naturally. Moore isn’t going to write the same way when addressing children, in particular his own. I would expect this poem to be very different from his published work. Moore, according to all evidence, wanted to be remembered for his more academic works and probably considered this poem to be an unserious folly for his kids. The fact it’s easily his best-known work would probably grate him if he were alive.

But that’s the biggest problem I see. As someone who has dealt with hundreds of plagiarists, Moore’s story doesn’t read like that of someone deliberately stealing another person’s work. Moore didn’t take credit for the poem until 21 years after it was published. Even then, he only did it because his now-adult children pleaded with him to include it in his collection.

This isn’t the mark of someone trying to take credit, it’s the mark of someone trying to distance themselves from the work.

Moore, it seems, wouldn’t make full peace with the work until the 1850s. That is when he began drafting autograph copies that are now storied at various museums. Moore would pass away in 1863 at the age of 84.

Bottom Line

What is most interesting to me about this dispute is that I doubt either Moore or Livingston would want it. Regardless of whom you believe wrote it, neither seemed to be in a rush to claim credit for it. If Livingston wrote it, he never tried to take credit for it (and he regularly published anonymously) and Moore actively tried to distance himself from this work.

I think both men would have been just fine for the poem to remain anonymous until the end of time.

But that hasn’t stopped the debate and, most likely, nothing will. But, even if we agree that the linguistic arguments favor Livingston, there’s just not enough hard evidence to back those claims up. Ultimately, the Livingston theory hinges on the recollection of Livingston’s children and grandchildren decades after they were read the poem.

When compared to the paper evidence we have in the years before that, the claim starts on shaky ground. As impressive as the linguistics are, they are debated with academics on both sides of the debate.

But it doesn’t really matter. The linguistic arguments alone can’t trump the physical evidence. Moore may not have wanted to be known as the guy who wrote the silly poem about Santa Claus, but the evidence says he did.

I’m just glad that he was able to make at least some kind of peace with that.