But who is wurs shod, than the shoemakers wyfe, With shops full of newe shapen shoes all hir lyfe? (1546) J. Heywood Dialogue of Proverbs i. xi. E1V

My Lords and Gentlemen,

The demands upon my time are such that the commencement of my Treatise has again been delayed. That my Treatise is to be published has already caused much grumbling amongst the disaffected adherents of the Cult of Wokery. So much so that a pamphlet is abroad in which an anonymous author asks what especial learning I have that qualifies me to write a treatise on the Theory of Sleeplessness at all.

This ill-bred jackanapes suggests that in order for me to understand Wokery I must be inducted into its inner mysteries; that to apply my critical faculties to its tenets I must myself be awake and not slumber. The author says that even to countenance stating that I might prefer a good night’s sleep to being awake is a sin. Accordingly, the author proclaims that Mr Tonson should not publish my Treatise and that all should foreswear the purchase of any books published by that good man until he agrees to drop me.

To that Mr Tonson has answered “pish”. Indeed, he has gone so far as to vouchsafe to me that if that answer does not suffice, he will add “pshaw”. For my part, I shall give a lengthier answer to this writer of woke pamphlets. A man may understand folly without himself being foolish, he may recognise a drunkard without being drunk and he may know a scoundrel without being a rogue. So, while Horace might indeed have advised that each gladly should practice the art that he knows¹This is the Somnambulist’s translation of “Quam scit uterque libens censebo exerceat artem” Horace, Ep, 1.14.44. For once it appears that the Somnambulist is accurate albeit still not elegant in his translation of the poet’s pithy line, he did not recommend that a cobbler should require the rest of us to mend shoes nor suggest that we should not be able to recognise cobblers when we see them.

Indeed, just as the cobbler’s family is oft ill-shod due to his inattention while he attends to his work, the proponents of Wokery themelves do not notice that those around them and who profess to be their intimates are the most egregious slumberers. 

Those of us who object to Wokery do not object to being awake when it is meet to be awake. We object to being prevented from slumbering when needs must we should sleep. The Proponents of Sleeplessness on the other hand counsel we must never sleep so it is no surprize that they are found dozing when all men of sound constitution should be awake and are found to be hypocrites.

But I am much heartened that the good sense of the multitude does on occasion prevail against the nonsense of Wokery. Recently the Proponents of Sleeplessness overheard a seamstress at the pump saying that women were indeed women and men were men, and men could not make themselves women by declaring it be so. They then complained in strong terms to her Master who was so discomfited by the clamour that he dismissed the poor woman from his service. There it could have ended with the poor wench left penniless. But I am glad to relate that when this injustice came to the attention of the Publick there was such a furore that her Master was shamed into reinstating the seamstress and permitting her to continue in her gainful employment. Indeed, the Master offered his sincere apologies to the woman.

So it is, that while those of us who oppose Wokery enjoy our slumbers at times meet for sleep, we remain vigilant to injustice. When roused, we raise a clamour every bit as loud as the fanaticks who try to keep us ever awake by their constant yahooing. The question of when it is fit for a man to be awake and when to be asleep is a matter which I will answer in my Treatise which I will surely commence tomorrow.

I remain your humble and obedient servant,

The Somnambulist.