SOMNOLENTIA, OR SLEEP DRUNKENNESS.

By somnolentia, or sleep drunkenness, is understood a condition in which some of the mental faculties and senses are fully aroused, others partially so, while others remain as they are in profound sleep. It is therefore an imperfect sleep, or rather a combination of wakefulness and sleep. The phenomena peculiar to it are frequently met with in children, in whom they may be excited through the influence of a dream, but which at other times have no such origin. The condition in question is only induced by the sudden waking of a person.

A very excellent account of sleep drunkenness, in its medico-legal relations, is given by Wharton and StillÉ,[148] who have quoted several interesting cases from German and other authors, which I do not hesitate to transfer to these pages.

“A sentry fell asleep during his watch, and, being suddenly aroused by the officer in command, attacked the latter with his sword, and would have killed him but for the interposition of the by-standers. The result of the medical examination was, that the act was involuntary and irresponsible, being the result of a violent confusion of mind consequent upon the sudden waking from a profound sleep.

“A day-laborer killed his wife with a wagon-tire, the blow being struck immediately on his starting up from a deep sleep from which he was forcibly awakened. In this case there was collateral evidence that the defendant was seized, on awaking, with a delusion that a ‘woman in white’ had snatched his wife from his side and was carrying her away, and that his agony of mind was so great that his whole body was bathed in perspiration.

“A young man, named A. F., about twenty years of age, was living with his parents in great apparent harmony, his father and himself being alike distinguished for their great fondness for hunting. In consequence of danger from nocturnal attacks, they were in the habit of taking their arms with them into their chambers when they went to bed. On the afternoon of September 1st, 1839, the father and son having just returned from hunting, their danger became the subject of particular conversation. The next day the hunting was repeated, and on their return, after taking supper with every evidence of good feeling, they retired for the night, the son to his own room, and his father and mother to theirs. Both father and son took their loaded arms with them. At one o’clock the father got up to go into the entry, and on his return jarred against the door, on which the son instantly sprang up, seized his gun, and discharged it at his father, giving him a fatal wound in the breast, at the same time exclaiming, ‘Dog, what do you want here?’ The father immediately fell to the ground; and the son, then recognizing him, sank on the floor, crying, ‘Oh, Jesus! it is my father!’

“The evidence was that the whole family were subject to great restlessness in their sleep, and that the defendant in particular was affected with a tendency to be easily distressed by dreams, which lasted for about five minutes, on waking, before their effect was entirely dissipated. His own version of the affair was: ‘I must have fired the gun in my sleep; it was moonshine, and we were accustomed to talk and walk in our sleep. I recollect hearing something jar; I jumped up, seized my gun, and fired when I heard the noise; I recollect seeing nothing, nor am I conscious of having spoken. The night was so bright that everything could have been seen. I must have been under the delusion that thieves had broken in.’ The opinion of the medical experts was, that the act was committed during the condition of sleep drunkenness, and that, accordingly, it was not that of a free and responsible agent.”

The same authors quote the following case of Dr. Meister, from Herke’s Zeitschrift:

“I was obliged,” says the doctor, “to take a journey of eight miles on a very hot summer’s day—my seat being with my back to the horses, and the sun directly in my face. On reaching the place of destination, and being very weary and with a slight headache, I laid myself down, with my clothes on, on a couch. I fell at once asleep, my head having slipped under the back of the settee. My sleep was deep, and, as far as I can recollect, without dreams. When it became dark, the lady of the house came with a light into the room. I suddenly awoke, but, for the first time in my life, without collecting myself. I was seized with a sudden agony of mind, and, picturing the object which was entering the house as a specter, I sprang up and seized a stool, which, in my terror, I would have thrown at the supposed shade. Fortunately I was recalled to consciousness by the firmness and tact of the lady herself, who, with the greatest presence of mind, succeeded in composing my attention until I was entirely awakened.”

Hoffbauer[149] relates the particulars of a case which has passed into the annals of medical jurisprudence as one of great importance.

“Bernard Schidmaizig awoke suddenly at midnight. At the same moment he saw a frightful phantom (at least so his imagination depicted it) standing near him. That which appeared to his vision seemed to be a veritable specter; and fear and the darkness of the night prevented him recognizing anything with distinctness. With a feeble voice, he twice called out, ‘Who goes there?’ He received no answer, and imagined that the apparition was approaching him. Deprived for the instant of his reason, he jumped from his bed, seized a hatchet which he generally kept near him, and with this weapon attacked the imaginary specter. To see this apparition, to cry, ‘Who goes there?’ to seize the hatchet, were all done in a moment: he had not an instant for reflection. At the first blow the phantom was struck to the earth; Schidmaizig heard a deep groan. This sound, and the noise of the imaginary phantom falling to the ground, fully awakened him; and suddenly the thought struck him that he had assaulted his wife, who slept with him. He threw himself on his knees, raised the head of the wounded person, saw the injury he had inflicted, and the blood which flowed, and with a voice full of anguish cried, ‘Susannah! Susannah! come to yourself!’ He then called his eldest daughter, aged about eight years—ordered her to see if her mother was recovering, and to tell her grandmother what he had done. It was in reality his wife; and she died the next day from the effects of the blow.”

As Hoffbauer remarks, “This man did not enjoy the free use of his senses; he did not know what he saw; he believed that he was repulsing a sudden attack. He very soon recognized the place where he ordinarily slept; it was natural that he should seize his hatchet,—since he had taken the precaution to place it near him,—but the idea of his wife, and of the possibility of having killed her, were the last thoughts that entered his mind.”

Seafield[150] quotes from the Express (London) of January 5th, 1859, the following case of sleep drunkenness:

“Yesterday the Marylebone Police Court was crowded to excess, in consequence of a report which had been circulated, that a woman was in custody for killing her child by throwing it from a first-floor window into the street. The rumor in regard to the murder happily turned out to be untrue; but it will be seen from the subjoined evidence that it was a providential circumstance that the lives of three children were not sacrificed by their mother while acting under the influence of a dream.

“At two o’clock the prisoner, Esther Griggs, was placed at the bar before Mr. Broughton.

“Mr. Lewis, of Ely Place, appeared for her; and Mr. Tubbs, relieving officer of Marylebone, attended on behalf of the board of guardians of the parish, to watch the case.

“The prisoner, who evidently felt the serious situation in which she was placed, was seated during the proceedings.“The first witness called was Sergeant Simmons, 20 D, who said, ‘At half-past one o’clock this morning, while on duty in East Street, Manchester Square, I heard a female voice exclaim, “Oh, my children! Save my children!” I went to the house, No. 71, from whence the cries proceeded, and the landlord opened the door. I went up-stairs, accompanied by two other constables, and, while making our way to the first floor, I heard the smashing of glass. I knocked at the door, which I found was fastened, and said, “Open it; the police are here.” The prisoner, who was in her night-dress, kept on exclaiming, “Save my children!” and at length, after stumbling over something, let me and my brother officers in. When we entered, we found the room in total darkness; and it was only by the aid of our lanterns that we could distinguish anything in the room. On the bed there was a child five years old, and another, three years of age, by her side. Everything in the room was in confusion. She kept crying out, “Where’s my baby? Have they caught it? I must have thrown it out of the window.” The baby must have been thrown out as I was going up-stairs; for before getting into the room I heard something fall. I left a constable in charge of the prisoner; and I ascertained that the child which had been thrown from the window had been taken to the infirmary of Marylebone Workhouse. She told me she had been dreaming that her little boy had said that the house was on fire, and that what she had done was with the view of preventing her children from being burned to death. I have no doubt,’ added the witness, ‘that if I and the other constable had not gone to the room all three of the children would have been thrown into the street.’

“Mr. Broughton.—‘How long do you suppose the cry of “Oh, save my children!” continued?’

“Witness.—‘I should think about five minutes.’ (In continuation, he said he went to 38 Harley Street, where the husband lives, in the service of a gentleman, and gave him information of what had occurred. The injured infant was only eighteen months old.)

“By Mr. Lewis.—‘From the excited state in which the prisoner was, I did not at the time take her into custody. She went to the infirmary along with her husband, to see how the child was going on, and what hurt it had sustained. I had understood that the surgeon had said it was a species of nightmare which the prisoner was laboring under when the act was committed. The window had not been thrown up. The child was thrust through a pane of glass, the fragments of which fell into the street.’

“Humphreys, 180 D.—‘I heard the breaking of glass, and saw what I imagined to be a bundle come out of the window, and, on taking it up, I found it to be a female infant. There was blood running from its temples, and it was insensible. I took it to the infirmary.’“Pollard, 314 D.—‘I heard loud cries of “Oh, save my children!” and when I was in her room she said, “Has anybody caught my baby Lizzie?” One of the little boys, about three years old, and who was clinging to his mother, had blood upon his clothes. He had upon his breast some marks, which appeared to have been caused by cuts from glass. He left me to take care of the prisoner while he went for her husband. She told me she had no wish to hurt any of her children, and that it was all through a dream.’

“Mr. Henry Tyrwhitt Smith, surgeon of the Marylebone Infirmary, was next called, and said, ‘That when the infant was brought to him, soon after one in the morning, he found, upon examining it, that it was suffering from concussion of the brain. It was quite insensible, and decidedly in danger now. The parietal bone is broken, and death might ensue in the event of an effusion of blood on the brain.’

“By Mr. Lewis.—‘I cannot say that I have not heard of an instance where parties have committed acts to which a dream had impelled them.’

“Mr. Lewis submitted to the magistrate that there had been no attempt to murder the infant. The prisoner had always evinced a kindly feeling toward her children, and he (the learned gentleman) hoped that the magistrate would allow the husband to have her under his care during the temporary remand which would of course take place. The dream under which the act was committed showed that she had not, at the time, any consciousness of what she was doing.

“Mr. Tubbs said he did not attend in the capacity of a prosecutor, but he appeared on behalf of the board of guardians; and he put it to the magistrate whether there would be any objections, under the circumstances, to allow the prisoner to be bailed, her husband being security for her reappearance.

“Mr. Broughton considered that it would be a most dangerous doctrine to lay down, to say that because a person was dreaming while committing an offense, that they were not culpable for their acts. A woman, on these grounds, might get up in the middle of the night and cut her husband’s throat, and, when brought up for the offense, turn round and say that she had done the act while under the influence of a dream. He (the worthy magistrate) considered the case to be one of a serious nature; and in the event of death ensuing, an inquest would be held on the body. He could not think of taking bail in so serious a case, but would remand the prisoner till Tuesday next, and during her present excited state she would be taken care of in the infirmary.

“The prisoner was then removed to the cells by Ansted, the jailer, sobbing most bitterly.

“The recorder, at the subsequent sessions at the Central Criminal Court, in his address to the grand jury, took a somewhat more rational view of the case than that entertained by Mr. Broughton.“‘If the prisoner,’ said the recorder, ‘really did the act under the idea that it was the best mode of insuring the safety of the child, it appeared to him that, under such circumstances, it would be a question whether the grand jury would be justified in coming to the conclusion that the criminal was guilty of a criminal act.’

“The grand jury threw out the bill.”

Several cases of sleep drunkenness have come under my own notice.

A gentleman was roused one night by his wife, who heard the street-door bell ring. He got up, and, without paying attention to what she said, dragged the sheets off of the bed, tore them hurriedly into strips, and proceeded to tie the pieces together. She finally succeeded in bringing him to himself, when he said he thought the house was on fire, and he was providing means for their escape. He did not recollect having had any dream of the kind, but was under the impression that the idea had occurred to him at the instant of his awaking.

Another was suddenly aroused from a sound sleep by the slamming of a window shutter by the wind. He sprang instantly from his bed, and, seizing a chair that was near, hurled it with all his strength against the window. The noise of the breaking of glass fully awakened him. He explained that he imagined some one was trying to get into the house and had let his pistol fall on the floor, thereby producing the noise which had startled him.A lady informed me that upon one occasion she had gone to bed very tired, but was suddenly startled from her sleep by a voice calling her by name. Without stopping a moment, she arose, put on her shoes and stockings, lit a candle, took a loaded pistol from a shelf near her husband’s head, cocked it, and was leaving the room, the pistol in one hand and the candle in the other, when she was seized by her husband. She turned, recognized him at once, and would have fallen to the floor had he not caught her in his arms. Her husband, who slept in the same bed with her, had heard one of the children cry in an adjoining room, and had called her. She, hearing his voice, had partially awakened, but had conceived the idea that he had called to her from another part of the house, where some danger menaced him. She had acted upon this supposition, and was perfectly conscious of every movement she had made.

It does not appear that some persons are more liable to attacks of sleep drunkenness than others. Neither do I know of any means by which its occurrence could be prevented. It is a natural phenomenon, to which all are liable. It is more important in its medico-legal relations than any other.