Peter Montgomery wrote:
> The res0nance between the lines is much more effective with that line
> removed. It doesn't relate to anything else around it.
I don't think that "Bin gar ..." does either but it's still in the poem.
But thanks for your opinion. The line makes such an image I just can't
see why it was thrown away.
> Still, the question is fascinating. I think the key word is IVORY?
> Why ivory? Very expensive.
AHY-vuh-ree makes good company with KUHM-puh-nee.
It also ties us back to the luxury described at the beginning of Part II.
Just as the confusing syntax would have done if the line had remained.