Fiction as Evidence:

Abstract

It is well known that Freud mined the literary field for representations of what he considered symbolically potent universal and timeless human conflicts. He also modeled some of his most important theoretical constructions on findings from literary texts—the Oedipus complex, narcissism, and his conception of the uncanny are the most obvious examples. What is less frequently discussed, however, is that he also drew significantly on sexological writings by his predecessors in the field, most importantly Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Alfred Binet, Havelock Ellis, and Iwan Bloch.1 Like Freud, these pioneers of the scientific study of sex also make extensive use of literary sources. There is thus an older and more pervasive tradition of resorting to products of the imagination when theorizing the sexual. The ways in which many sexologists use literary sources differ substantially from the then-common practice of spicing up scientific studies with erudite references to classical literature. Not only do the early sexologists adopt terms and concepts from fictional sources, such as sadism and masochism, but literary texts frequently serve as evidence in their works and fictional representations are treated as case studies that are deemed just as valid as empirical observations. Surprisingly, this striking blending of discourses has received little critical attention. Vernon A. Rosario and Heike Bauer are among the few historians of sexuality who have commented