The Strange Case of Dr. Freud, Mr. Holmes, and Dr. Watson

Although the comparison between two great Victorian masterminds, Sigmund Freud and Sherlock Holmes, and their respective methods, is in itself not new (see for example Ginzburg 1979, 1980; Brooks 1984; Marcus 1984; Shephard 1985; Spence 1987), it merits further investigation, as it raises important questions regarding the nature and structure of clinical evidence, clinical epistemology, and clinical narration. In this article, the author: refers both to the common cultural background of these two projects (including the disenchantment of the modern world and the complicated dialog between rationality and imagination) and their common epistemological situation; analyses their search for a plot and search for clues, and characterizes both Holmes and Freud as applied historians and applied semioticians. Their modi operandi are described as hermeneutical procedures, methodologically similar to Charles Sanders Peirce’s abduction. Moreover, the author argues that both can be viewed as manifestations of Aristotle’s phronesis. Finally, the author points out one important difference between Freud and Holmes, namely that in fact the Viennese Holmes is at the same time the Viennese Watson.