I'm not sure I said M wasn't much of a presence; I think there is an
illusion that he is, though the couplet occurs only twice, just ONE repeat.
Your background reading makes sense, but I don't think the specifics are
Carrol Cox wrote:
> I agree with Marcia, of course, that Michaelangelo is not all that great
> a presence in the poem, and so I'm not at all sure whether the repeats
> do more than mark off one section of the poem -- perhaps at most
> establishing as a background for the whole revery the ongoing chatter of
> a party which the speaker is on his way to (or has departed, or has
> decided to skip altogether).