The Second Sleep

Let’s talk about the historical phenomenon known as “segmented sleep” or “biphasic sleep.” It was quite common in Europe, especially before the Industrial Revolution. Let’s step back those 350 years and take a look at what was happening in the candlelit hush of a winter night.

---

First Sleep and Second Sleep: A Forgotten Rhythm

In the 17th and 18th centuries, especially during the long winters when nights stretched up to 14–16 hours in northern latitudes, people often practiced a two-part sleep pattern:

1. First Sleep – Typically began soon after nightfall, around 8 or 9 p.m., and lasted until midnight or 1 a.m.
2. Second Sleep – Followed a 1- to 3-hour period of wakefulness and then continued until dawn.

That waking interval in the middle was known simply as “the watch” or sometimes just “watching.” It was considered perfectly normal and even useful.

---

What Did People Do During ‘The Watch’?

This period wasn’t regarded as insomnia—it was productive, peaceful time. Some common activities included:

• Praying or reading religious texts – especially Psalms or devotionals
• Tending to the fire or household chores
• Talking quietly with family members
• Canoodling
• Going outside to check on animals or the stillroom (common in rural households)

It was a contemplative, almost sacred time in many households. The stillness of the world offered a kind of privacy and psychological space that we’ve mostly lost.

---

Why Did It Disappear?

The shift away from segmented sleep happened gradually, influenced by:

• Widespread artificial lighting (candles, gaslight, and eventually electric lights)
• Industrialization and factory schedules that demanded a more standardized daily rhythm
• Changing social norms, where uninterrupted sleep became seen as “normal” and “healthy”

By the late 19th century, the idea of two sleeps had mostly faded from public memory.

---

Due to the long nights, the economy of candles would be a factor. How much were candles during this time? Would candles be considered a luxury? Absolutely — candles were definitely a factor, and yes, they were often considered a luxury, especially in the 17th century. Let’s dive into the flickering economics of illumination:

---

Candlelight and Cost in the 17th Century

In pre-industrial Europe, lighting your home after sunset came at a real financial cost. Here’s how it broke down:

Cost Comparison

• A single tallow candle (made from animal fat) could cost about a penny in 17th-century England.
• The average daily wage for a laborer might be 8 to 12 pence, depending on location and time.
• So burning just one candle for a few hours could eat up 10–15% of a day’s income—imagine spending $15–$25 for a single night of modest light today.

---

Tallow

• Tallow candles were smoky, smelly, and prone to sputtering.
• The smell? Think “burning cow fat” with a dash of unwashed stable.
• It’s no wonder people often did without artificial light entirely and relied on:
  • Moonlight and starlight
  • Fireplaces
  • Glow from hearth embers
  • Very brief candle use for essentials (reading scripture, guiding one’s way to the chamber pot, etc.)

---

And So—Back to Segmented Sleep

The economy of candles is one big reason why segmented sleep made sense:

• You went to bed early because it was dark and expensive to stay up.
• You might rise during “the watch” to do a few necessary tasks—but always conserving candles, using as little flame as possible.

---

Let’s focus on the era of J. S. Bach. In his community, what percentage of the population lived on farms, compared to towns or cities?

If we narrow our focus to Germany in the early 18th century—specifically during the life of Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750)—we’re looking at a predominantly agrarian society, with some fascinating nuances in terms of population distribution.

---

Rural vs. Urban Population in Bach’s Era

Holy Roman Empire / German States (circa 1700–1750):

• Rural population (farmers, villagers, peasants):
  Estimated 80% to 90% of the population lived in rural areas.
• Urban population (towns and cities):
  Only about 10% to 20% lived in urban settings.

This means Bach’s Leipzig (which had a population of ~30,000 by the 1730s) was relatively large for its time—but still very much an outlier in a sea of villages and farmland.

---

What Was a “Town” vs. “City”?

• Towns could have as few as 1,000–5,000 people, often centered around a market, church, or castle.
• A city like Leipzig or Hamburg had trade, schools, and cultural institutions—but was still small by modern standards.
• Many people technically lived on estates or in hamlets under noble landowners’ control, not independent municipalities.

---

And What About Bach’s Life?

• Bach was born in Eisenach (pop. ~5,000 in his youth), lived in Weimar, and spent most of his later life in Leipzig.
• While he served in towns, many of the people he composed for were still rooted in rural rhythms—liturgical calendars, harvests, and pastoral concerns.
• His cantatas and oratorios were often performed before congregations who still walked from farms and villages to town churches.

---

Literacy in the time of Bach (early 18th-century central Europe) is a fascinating mirror reflecting class, gender, region, and religious influence. Let’s light the candle of history and peer into the stats:

---

Literacy in German-speaking Lands (c. 1700–1750)

While precise numbers vary depending on region, the general trends are fairly well established:

Overall Literacy Estimates:

• Men: ~30% to 40%
• Women: ~10% to 20%

In urban areas, the numbers were higher. In rural villages (where ~80–90% of people lived), literacy could drop significantly.

By Location and Class:

Region/Group	Male Literacy	Female Literacy
Urban middle class	60–80%	40–60%
Rural peasantry	10–20%	2–10%
Clergy and officials	~100%	N/A (mostly men)
Artisans & tradesmen	40–60%	20–40%

---

The Protestant Effect:

The Protestant Reformation (particularly Martin Luther’s emphasis on personal Bible reading) had a huge impact on literacy:

• Protestants were far more likely to be literate than their Catholic counterparts during this period.
• Many Lutheran communities encouraged elementary schooling for boys (and sometimes girls).
• Catechisms, hymnals, and primers were widespread tools for learning to read.

This is one reason why musicians like Bach, and congregants singing his chorales, were often more literate than the surrounding rural population.

---

Best-Faith Baroque Ballpark.

Elder G: You’re right: it’s hard to quantify, but let’s give it a best-faith Baroque ballpark.

In J. S. Bach’s World (c. 1700–1750): Who Could Read Music?

Estimated music literacy in central/northern Germany:

• General population: Less than 1–2%
• Urban middle class (especially Protestants): Maybe 5–10%
• Clergy, teachers, and professional musicians: Likely near 100%
• Choirboys and students at church schools: 50–75%
• Women of the educated class: Possibly 10–20%

---

Why Was This the Case?

The Lutheran Church’s Role

• Lutheranism placed huge emphasis on music, especially communal singing.
• Boys in church choirs and Latin schools were taught to read music as part of their education—Bach himself was educated this way.
• Girls from middle-class urban families sometimes received music training, especially for keyboard instruments at home, but it rarely involved reading multi-voice scores like a cantor would.

Rural Population

• The rural peasantry, who made up ~80–90% of the population, mostly could not read text, much less music.
• But they sang—folk tunes, hymns, work songs—passed down orally.

---

Think of it as the musical equivalent of Latin—important, impressive, and rare.

---

In Bach’s day, pipe organs were not powered by electricity, of course. Instead, they relied on manual bellows—leather-and-wood contraptions that had to be pumped steadily to keep air flowing through the pipes. Without air, the organ… just wheezed.

Who ran the bellows?

• Often young boys—local kids, students, even choirboys—were paid a small fee or given a bit of food.
• It was boring, repetitive work, especially during long services or practice sessions.
• The boys would pump while hidden behind the organ or in a separate room.

---

Here’s a very WLBOTT question for Elder G: how likely that a rural family in this time period, would have animals in the house? Chickens, goats, cows….

---

How Likely Was It That a Rural Family Kept Animals Indoors (1700s Central Europe)?

Answer:
Quite likely—but with nuances.

Household Layout in Rural 18th-Century Germany (and Central Europe)

Most rural families lived in multi-purpose, one-room or two-room homes, often with:

Now, when winter came howling down from the Alps or across the Polish plains, a family had two choices:

1. Freeze
2. Invite a few warm-bodied ruminants to the slumber party

---

By Species: A WLBOTT Census of In-House Animals (18th-Century Germany)

Animal	In-House Likelihood	Notes
🐔 Chickens	★★★★☆	Often allowed to roost indoors at night, especially in winter, or kept in a small attached entry space
🐐 Goats	★★★☆☆	Sometimes tethered or housed in a corner of the main room, particularly for milking
🐖 Pigs	★★☆☆☆	More likely in a barn, but sucklings could be brought inside temporarily
🐄 Cows	★☆☆☆☆	Rare in the main room, but often housed in an attached stall sharing a wall with the home—heat would transfer through
🐑 Sheep	★★☆☆☆	Occasionally sheltered indoors if barns were full or for lambing
🐴 Horse	☆☆☆☆☆	No. Just… no. (Although in dire emergencies or in a WLBOTT reenactment? Perhaps.)

---

Why Bother Bringing Them In?

1. Warmth: Animals = radiant heat. One cow = one low-effort space heater.
2. Protection from predators or thieves
3. Convenience: Milking, feeding, watching over pregnant animals
4. Status/necessity hybrid: If your animals die in winter, you starve.

There are folk tales and court records of animals breaking into houses or being accused in disputes—chickens laying eggs on the stove, goats eating hymnals, etc. This is basically WLBOTT’s entire brand.