Ekirch A Roger
Virginia Tech, History, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Med Hist. 2024 Jul;68(3):254-262. doi: 10.1017/mdh.2024.20. Epub 2024 Sep 13.
The article, 'Have we lost sleep? A reconsideration of segmented sleep in early modern England', , 67, 2 (2023), 91-108, by Niall Boyce is devoted to criticising my historical research pertaining to 1) the predominance of segmented sleep in the pre-industrial Western world and 2) the nineteenth-century transition of sleep to today's pattern of continuous slumber that most people in modern societies seek to achieve, albeit not always successfully. This response addresses Boyce's reinterpretation of the evidence and indicates whether this is erroneous or selective. My analysis thereby reasserts the predominance of segmented sleep in pre-modern Western Europe. Boyce's assessment rests not on his original investigation of primary sources but on my first study relating to segmented sleep, published in 2001. Not least of the flaws of 'Have We Lost Sleep?' is its surprising inattention to my subsequent works that have expanded, modified, and bolstered this initial publication.
尼尔·博伊斯所著的《我们失眠了吗?对近代早期英国分段睡眠的重新审视》一文发表于《历史杂志》第67卷第2期(2023年),第91 - 108页,该文致力于批评我的历史研究,内容涉及:其一,前工业化西方世界中分段睡眠的主导地位;其二,19世纪睡眠模式向现代社会大多数人所追求的如今这种持续睡眠模式的转变,尽管并非总是能成功实现。本回应针对博伊斯对证据的重新解读,并指出其是否有误或存在选择性。由此,我的分析再次肯定了前现代西欧分段睡眠的主导地位。博伊斯的评估并非基于他对一手资料的原始调查,而是基于我2001年发表的关于分段睡眠的第一项研究。《我们失眠了吗?》最明显的缺陷之一在于,它令人惊讶地忽视了我后来那些对最初出版物进行扩展、修改和支持的作品。