The elegant use of (see the definition above) makes for several enjoyable readings: =That thing for which we'd value Paradise-- beyond wine (that is, in addition to wine), what is it? =That thing for which we'd value Paradise-- other than wine (that is, instead of wine), what is it? =The thing for which we'd value Paradise more than we value wine-- what is it? And all these questions, we notice, might or might not be rhetorical. A rakish or reading would of course take them as rhetorical, such that the answer to each of them would be a resounding 'No such thing exists!'. But a mystical reading might use such questions to introduce the transcendent and/or immanent presence of God, the power of self-lessness or , and so on. The wine is presented with lingering, sensuous enjoyment-- its rosy color, its musky aroma are dwelt upon. Meanwhile, the rest of Paradise passes by almost unnoticed; even the possibility of its being valued is presented in the subjunctive []. (But as a final complication, of course, the wine itself can always be taken as a metaphor for the 'intoxication' of the Divine presence.) This is one of the group of 'snide remarks about Paradise'; for discussion, see 35,9 . graphics/redwine.jpg