I am not sure it is just a "machine," but Jacek is not at all into
baloney.  It is a fact (from reading nearly every book on him) that,
unlike most writers, Eliot gets treated as a figure of moral or
spiritual or cultural authority largely on the basis of his own
assertion of morality, piety, and/or knowledge.  The knowledge is
unquestionable; the morality and spirituality are extremely
questionable, as witness the constant questions.  It is pointless to be
snide to Jacek or to me, given the strong reaction against Eliot's
claims in--especially--the 80s and 90s.  At this point (and Cassandra's
and my book is part of this) a rethinking is in process that seeks a
more complex understanding.  But it is not at all going back to  the
hagiography Jacek notes on the basis of a great deal of writing.  It's
just there.

>>> [log in to unmask] 09/22/05 10:37 AM >>>
At 07:06 PM 9/21/2005, you wrote:
>At least one can say in Bowra's favor that--together with John
>F.R. Leavis, and recently departed David Daiches--he refused to be
>in, and genuflect in front of, Eliot's PR machine,

   What baloney, Jacek. Now, I admit  I still haven't pushed myself
all of the Eliot bio's, but I don't remember one single recounting of
"genuflection era." Taken in? Maybe they just weren't bright enough to

understand what was in front of them.

  Ken A.