The sexual life of our time: Medical censorship in early-20th-century England.

This article challenges the widely held belief that early-20th-century England was one of the most sexually repressed countries in the Western world. Late Victorian physicians discussing sexual diseases and dysfunctions were granted immunity from prosecution if their publications were sold through a recognized medical publisher only to Members of the Medical, Legal and Clerical Professions. It was assumed that those same constraints applied to publications concerning the psychology of the sexual life (sexology). In 1908, Rebman Limited, a well-known medical publisher, advertised Eden Paul's (1908) translation of Iwan Bloch's The Sexual Life of Our Time (hereafter, "Sexual Life") without any restrictions. Although a magistrate ruled the book obscene, the U.K. Home Office allowed republication on condition that its sale was strictly limited. The Rebman case reveals how the U.K. Home Office tried to police the new science of sexology by limiting its circulation, not censoring its content. Despite these restrictions, Sexual Life circulated among lay readers, thereby inviting further research into how even "censored" material shaped debates on sexual, social, and political reform. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

When Ernest Jones First Arrived in Toronto; or, Reappraising the Bruce Letter.

In July 1962, Toronto-based surgeon, Herbert Bruce, wrote a private and confidential letter to social worker and historian Cyril Greenland with some memories and impressions of Sigmund Freud's lifelong friend and biographer, Ernest Jones, in Toronto (1908-1913). In the letter, Bruce described Jones as a "sexual pervert." Despite Bruce's condemnation of Jones, historians and biographers have largely ignored his controversial memories of Jones in Toronto. The article traces how scholars have handled the existence of the Bruce letter, and the consequences for how this history has been understood. In the latter half of the article, the author considers how the existence of this letter might offer insights into how the Toronto medical establishment regarded Ernest Jones.