Carrol Cox wrote:
> But at my back in a cold blast I hear . . . .
> Eliot intended a reader familiar with Marvell's poem. That is certain,
> and anyone who denies it is not worth arguing with. Argument can
> legitimately begin with considering the relationS of "cold blast" to
> time's winged chariot, but that argument is uninteresting unless we
> first assume the certainty of Marvell's relevance to the discussion.
I wonder what an "intention" means! One wants to get something off
one's chest. One doesn't know quite what it is that one wants to get
off the chest until one's got it off. But I couldn't apply the word
"intention" positively to any of my poems.
I think that this line works just fine without connecting it to
Marvell (though Marvell adds more to think about.