Nancy Gish wrote:
> I do not happen to think Eliot ever took occult ideas seriously; I
> think his references to them are always mocking; but during the time
> of his early work they were very common among intellectuals as well as
> the general population and he knew them. Given that, I find this
> suspicion very strange.
Given Leon Surrette's redaction of Trexler, it seems Peter's
suspicion was well placed. So much of the "mass of information" coming
out turns out to be fancifully revisionist and axe-grinding in nature,
it seems only prudent to be suspicious of the next "find" that puts a
whole new light on Eliot & etc.
> A mass of information is coming out that we did not have before
> And it's in Edinburgh U Press. It's clearly a serious treatment
> whether one agrees or not (I haven't read it but think it very
> unlikely I would--but it's not "suspicious").
It appears that what may be most serious about it is its flaws, not
its contribution to Eliot studies.