JM: Although he's no Nabokov scholar, Jeffrey
Moussaieff Masson has had "the privilege of knowing Brian Boyd" He writes
that in "reading his comments on Lolita[ ...]I was struck by his argument
[...]that Nabokov himself fully understood the damage that Humbert Humbert did
to his 12-year-old step-daughter. The book is in many ways profoundly moral
[...] Before that time, the most profound accounts of the damage that can occur
in child sexual abuse belong to two great psychologists, none other than Sigmund
Freud, and his favorite disciple, Sandor Ferenczi... Alas, for whatever reason,
Freud seems to have lost the courage of his early years [...]Ferenczi took up
where the master dared not go...Nabokov loathed Freud and psychoanalysis...The
question I think worth further investigation is to what extent Nabokov knew
Freud’s writings, and in particular, in writing Lolita, was anything of Freud’s
views on child abuse available to him[...]I find it impossible to believe that
he would have mocked Freud’s deep insights into the damage of incest, and it is
to both authors’ eternal credit that that they made it apparent to the rest of
the world for the foreseeable future, even if in the case of Freud he recoiled
from his own most profound views, and in the case of Nabokov, he was widely
misunderstood by his audience."
In J.Masson's blog we find a comment by Olaf Althoven
(excerpts):"Following the biographical researches by Marianne Krüll, Freud as a
child was “seduced” by his catholic nurse; Freud himself remembers that during
his selfanalysis. But he never seems to be able to realise the feelings of being
ashamed, helpless, weak: And if that’s the measure of real courage, it’s right
to say, he’d lost it. Psychoanalysis in this classical, orthodox form is at
least the “heroic” effort of a man, who was a victim himself, and a permanent
“self-analysis”, which finally buries (and denies) as much (Trauma) as it bares
(Ödipus). "[Lolita's] 'incestuous' impact is the impact of a spoiled little
girl. Here, “incest” means the inversion of the natural relation of power and
authority between the child and his parents, the weakness, seductiability and
irresponsibility of her stepfather: It´s less in the blood, it´s in the role,
that we take for each other. There is no compatibility between parenthood and
sexuality. To know that is the responsibility, function and reliability of being
parent. Not to know that is the natural right of unconsciousness of a child and
at the same time to depend on parental integrity..."
Wikipedia confirms part of that which I remembered
concerning Jeffrey Masson (i.e., how his 'search for truth' led him to
betray those who gave him full access to Freud's private
papers) Excerpts: Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson (born March 28, 1941
as Jeffrey Lloyd Masson in Chicago, Illinois) is an American author, residing in
New Zealand. Masson is best known for his conclusions about Sigmund Freud and
psychoanalysis. In his book The Assault on Truth, Masson argues that Freud may
have abandoned his seduction theory because he feared that granting the truth of
his female patients' claims that they had been sexually abused would hinder the
acceptance of his psychoanalytic methods.[...] In 1970, Masson began studying to
become a psychoanalyst at the Toronto Psychoanalytic Institute, completing a
full clinical training course in 1978. During this time, he befriended the
psychoanalyst Kurt Eissler and became acquainted with Sigmund Freud's daughter
Anna Freud. Eissler designated Masson to succeed him as Director of the Sigmund
Freud Archives after his and Anna Freud's death. Masson learned German and
studied the history of psychoanalysis. In 1980 Masson was appointed Projects
Director of the Freud Archives, with full access to Freud's correspondence and
other unpublished papers. While perusing this material, Masson concluded that
Freud might have rejected the seduction theory in order to advance the cause of
psychoanalysis and to maintain his own place within the psychoanalytic inner
circle [...] In 1981, Masson's controversial conclusions were discussed in a
series of New York Times articles by Ralph Blumenthal, to the dismay of the
psychoanalytic establishment. Masson was subsequently dismissed from his
position as project director of the Freud Archives. and stripped of his
membership in psychoanalytic professional
societies..."
I share in his interest to learn how familiar Vladimir Nabokov was
with the Freudian theory and writings but, up to the present, I got no
relevant clues about the extent of his readings. J. Masson's observation
that "Nabokov himself fully understood the damage that Humbert Humbert did
to his 12-year-old step-daughter. The book is in many ways profoundly
moral" surprises me for, even before Freud and Ferenczi wrote on a
"seduction theory," ordinary parents in the western world were
perfectly able to evaluate (even when they didn't control or supress
it) the damage an adult could inflict on a young child by
precociously stimulating him/her .sexually. The high frequency in
which nannies, governesses and close relatives mishandled their
charges is fully documented by Freud and, together with
parental omission, are part of a distressing situation that remains,
in great part, unaltered. Preventive measures and
parental enlightment are fundamental and, perhaps, this is what
J.Masson claims has been Nabokov's Lolita's "profoundly
moral" influence on society - I can only wonder about
that.
In his response, Olaf Alhoven brings forth an interesting information
about Freud's having been sexually molested as a child ( perhaps provoking dizzy
spells in him, just like those suffered by John Shade: "I
was corrupted, terrified, allured,/And though old doctor Colt pronounced me cured/Of what, he said, were mainly
growing pains,/The wonder lingers and the shame
remains.") and a wise comment in relation to Humbert-Lolita (there's
"no compatibility between parenthood and sexuality" - if, by sexuality, we
indicate a precocious genital arousal, which is something
quite distinct from Sandor Ferenczi's
vision about adult "language of
tenderness").
There's no
ready-made antidote to solve the problem of gossipy conjectures
or of wild psychoanalytic interpretations on the loose. Open discussions
with favorable or dissenting views may always be
of help...