For those of you who have been reading the blog from the beginning (ie. two posts ago). You’ve hopefully realised that my aim is to link what is currently happening in the world back to its historical antecedents. So for this post I’m tackling a pressing issue: Just what the heck is Boxing Day?

If you’re hoping for a definitive answer on this, I’m afraid you’re going to be disappointed. The origins of this holiday appear to be lost in the mists of time, and as you can probably tell by the quality of my references, the academic establishment really doesn’t seem to consider this a pressing mystery to solve.

The first explanation is the one that I was most familiar with (ie. the one my mother told me): On Christmas, lords and ladies and the well-to-do exchanged gifts, as you would expect. On the day after Christmas they would then give presents to their various servants. A lovely gesture, but these gifts were presented in unwrapped boxes (hence the name) because it wouldn’t do for servants to get any ideas.

This explanation gets the broad ideas correct, but misses out on some of the details. Firstly, actual boxes weren’t given to anyone. Instead, “Christmas boxes” were boxes generally made from earthenware, with a slot on the top or side to pop in money. The oldest recorded use of “Christmas box”, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, was in 1611 in a French-English Dictionary. According to that dictionary Christmas boxes were used in France “by begging Fryers, and here by Butlers, prentices, etc.” So from here we can see that Boxing day wasn’t actually about giving gifts, but blatantly giving money right from the start. So please point this out to anyone who complains that people don’t put any thought into gifts “these days”. Also, if they keep complaining, threaten to give them an Egg Master next year. What hasn’t changed is that even in 1668, people were whinging about how much getting presents cost.

The second key aspect my mother’s explanation hits on, is that the giving crossed social classes or in the blunt words of a nineteenth century writer: “Christmas boxes are given by superiors to inferiors” (p. 327) (Can you guess which the author considered himself?). However, the social norms around this are a little confusing. Money is given from higher to lower status individuals, but it’s not necessarily the servants of one’s house. Instead, it’s “to those who are supposed to have a vague claim upon the donor for services rendered… for which he has not directly paid them”. (“Christmas Box”, OED).

What the heck does that mean? The potential list of those to donate to are also quite confusing: “letter-carriers, policemen, lamp-lighters, scavengers, butchers’ and bakers’ boys, tradesmen’s carmen, etc.” (“Christmas Box”, OED). In essence, these are all people who may have done you (filthy-rich member of the upper-crust that you are) a service, but one which you haven’t necessarily paid them for.

So a lamp-lighter has kept London lit at night for you, a carman delivered your goods and a policeman kicked those dirty guttersnipes off your front doorstep—each one a crucial service for which you are thankful. It’s that wonderful old-school thinking of reciprocity that really warms the heart: You’ve slaved away all year on my manor house and I’ve given you some loose change. Equal.

The last thing I’d like to end with is not at all relevant to the main question, but something I found damn interesting. The original name of Boxing Day was the Feast of St Stephen. That means Good King Wenceslas is not actually a Christmas carol, but a Boxing Day carol. Which is fine by me, as that’s one more day to sing what is objectively the best carol ever. It also means, Good Ol’ Wendeslas was actually a bit of a tight arse and was basically giving that peasant leftovers. Then again, considering the level reciprocity shown on Boxing Day, maybe that’s just keeping with the tradition of things?

Academic(ish) Sources

“ˈChristmas-box, n.” OED Online. Oxford University Press, December 2015. Web. 27 December 2015

Cotgrave, R 1611, A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, A. Islip, London (?).

Parley, P (psued.) 1838, Tales About Christmas, Thomas Tegg and Son, Oxford (?).

Pepys, S 1893, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, ed. Henry Wheatley, located at The diary of Samuel Pepys: daily entries from the 17th century London diary, www.pepysdiary.com accessed 28 December 2015.