Peter Montgomery wrote:
> I know Eliot was open to improvement and refinement of
> his work, particularly by Pound, but the exceptional
> scale of this reworking with such weak resistence by
> Eliot is out of character. Perhaps his breakown was
> the factor.
Without strong evidence to the contrary I would assume that it was not a
question of "resistance," strong or weak, but of recognition of good
In other words, I still assume that if we are dealing with "intentions,"
then the text an author signs his/her name to carries those intentions.
Eliot from the beginning intended the poem as published. Pound helped
him see more clearly what he had intended all along.