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