Balm that tames all anguish.
Wordsworth.

Mr. Edward Binns of London, as early as 1842, published a book called “The Anatomy of Sleep”—with the subtitle, “The Art of Procuring Sound and Refreshing Slumber at Will.” The subtitle makes one think of the three-volume novels of that time, but the book is fairly concise and worth careful review. Moreover, it is in advance of many works on sleep both before and after. (For ancient surmises see Appendix C.)

One of the favorite medical theories of sleep is that it is caused by fatigue, and is, therefore, purely passive in its nature. Binns did not accept this theory. He said, “Sleep is an active and positive faculty, not a negative and passive result of fatigue or weariness.” Some of the more modern writers, notably ManacÉÏne, agree with Dr. Binns that sleep is not the result of physical fatigue or weariness. Dr. Binns thinks that one proof that fatigue can in no sense be said to be the cause of sleep is that, if we prolong “the state of wakefulness after the usual period of retiring to rest, it is more difficult to induce sleep than if we went at the usual hour.” This is especially true of children, yet the patient may be much more fatigued at the later hour than at the usual bedtime.

Binns’ theory is that physiological sleep is in antagonism to intellectual activity, being the active process of nutrition, assimilation of food, or of the repair of the waste of the body; that it concerns the nerve centers: that is, “the ganglionic system.” It is a generally admitted theory that man’s activity, whether physical or mental, “uses up” tissue and nerve force, and that it is only when repair exceeds this waste that life is maintained at a high standard. If the activities of life be many and varied, much sleep according to this theory would be needed to repair the waste of force. Experience has shown that those who live purely physical lives, doing hard manual labor with little mental exercise, need the most sleep. Those whose activities are mostly mental generally sleep fewer hours, though the desire for sleep may be as intense when it comes as is that of the manual laborer. (See Appendix, Questionnaire.)

Regarding sleep as a necessity, in itself an “active and positive faculty,” Binns says of it that “it is the true ‘vis medicatrix naturÆ’ —the healing force of nature—to whose vigilance we are indebted for that condition of mind and body called ‘health.’” However, he is not an advocate of long hours of sleep for everybody. He thinks individuals differ widely in the amount of sleep needed. He makes the general statement that, “the lower the cerebral organs in the scale of organization, the greater the power of sleep.” On this point all the authorities agree, and even in our own experience we learn that. The animals nearest to man in point of development sleep more than man sleeps; and, among men, those who live the most sluggish mental and emotional lives sleep longer than those whose brains are more active.

There may, of course, be exceptions to this rule, and yet those exceptions would not disprove that there is a rule. Much depends, says the good doctor, upon the peculiarities “of the individual; the culture of his mind; his amusement, his food, his occupation, and the temper with which he wooes sleep. General Elliot never slept more than four hours out of twenty-four, and his food consisted wholly of bread, vegetables, and water.” This seems like one more link in the chain that binds up our habits of eating with our power to sleep. Just as heavy eating late at night may so disturb our slumber as to leave us practically sleepless, so general heavy eating may render us so incapable of mental activity that sleep may take possession of us. General Elliot’s slight need of sleep was probably due, in large measure, to his light diet, and Dr. Binns seems to be of that opinion. We notice that flesh-eating animals, especially serpents, gorge and then sleep long.

A modern medical authority, Sir Henry Thompson of London, in his book, “Diet in Relation to Age and Activity,” takes somewhat similar ground, although careful to state that he is not “a vegetarian.” He says: “I have been compelled by facts to accept the conclusion that as much mischief in the form of actual disease, impaired vigor and shortened life accrues to civilized man, so far as I have observed in our own country and throughout almost every part of Europe, from erroneous habits in eating as from the habitual use of alcoholic drink, considerable as I know the evil of that to be.”[9]