I have not been following this because of piled up work, but Terry is clearly right. There is nothing unusual in Eliot or any Modernist poet in having a series of phrases without full sentence syntax. This is a series of noun phrases, and "driven" is simply a past participle functioning as an adjective. "the Gulf claims" works perfectly clearly as a modifying phrase describing the feathers, which are themselves an appositive for the gull. There is no way to make standard syntactical sentences from this, nor is there any reason. If one connects it with the original opening of "Death by Water," for example, it is another sailing image of a voyage toward disaster.

, I don't find the Gulf claiming the old man -- he is driven by the Trades to a sleepy corner:

. . . "Gull against the wind, in the windy straits

Of Belle Isle, or running on the Horn,

White feathers in the snow, the Gulf claims,

And an old man driven by the Trades

To a sleepy corner."

I think that in the passage above "driven" is functioning as an adjective, not a verb, and so the part starting with "And" and ending with "corner" doesn't have a verb of its own. That lack of a verb is why I take the word "And" to be introducing the third item in a list rather than a new clause. The gulf claims a, b, AND c -- gull, feathers, AND an old man driven by the Trades to a sleepy corner.

The only way I see to read "And" as introducing a new clause is to interpolate a verb into the line -- "And an old man [is] driven..." -- which is what your paraphrase does: "he is driven..." Since interpolating is [sometimes? always?] a legitimate readerly maneuver, maybe Eliot did intend it as you read it.

Terry