Abstract

The degree of truth of Casanova’s History of My Life is a matter of heated debate. Doubt has been cast particularly on whether his stories of incest with his daughters represent fact or fiction. In this respect, Casanova’s incest narratives are similar to many incest cases that are taken to court nowadays. Because incest occurs in the bosom of the family, the testimony of the plaintiff and the suspect is often the only evidence offered, with all empirical proof lacking. What is a judge supposed to do when the stories of the two contending parties contradict each other at essential points? In this essay, the case of Casanova is referred to in order to expose the inadequacy of the claim of the narrativist theory of law, that all human knowledge consists of narrational constructs that cannot be verified by any independent reality. If the reality of law was as narrative as Casanova’s memoirs, a judge could never establish adequate proof. But, as Susan Haack’s ‘foundherentism’ shows, it is perfectly possible to base knowledge on experience, even in incest cases.