If we look closely at these lines:

Hawds fro tawn asher rare
Bite hods an' tusk  anbag vee foor doo wuh shchade.

(or depending on how your browser works, the accented  version)

Hawds fró tawn ásher rare
Bíte hóds an' túsk  anbág vee fóor dóo wuh shcháde.

We might draw the following conclusion:

These lines, from a purely formal view are virtually identical with

Gods float on azure air
Bright Gods and Tuscan before dew was shed.


(Only the phonemes have been changed to protect the innocent).

Judged purely by the sound, I doubt if one version is superior to the other.

What distinguishes them is that Pound's version contains meaning, and
without the meaning there is very little to be said in favor of the poetry.
BOTH the meaning and the aesthetic effect of the words are essential
aspects.  As regards Sidney's "The poet affirmeth nothing", Pound himself
would not have agreed.  He believed his poems had meaning (for instance, you
may recall he said in a letter to Mussolini that the China Cantos were a
"testament to his fascist faith . . ."  I say this not to go back to the
issue of Pound's politics; but to illustrate the fact that Pound himself
believed his poetry had meaning).

As regards the "play of ideas,"  of course poetry contains a play of ideas.
I do not doubt this.  But if poetry contains a play of ideas, then is it not
incumbent upon us to discover what these ideas are, and what they mean?


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com