On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, Ally Kerr wrote...
>
>Maybe I'm reading too superficially but I assumed
>Muldoon referred to stew and soup because of the
>common phrases involving both - the relationship,
>and the participants, are the ones in the stew, or
>soup?
I think that would be right, though if we assume that the relationship
was in some way illicit, and is now over, then the waiter becomes a sin-
eater, i.e. a vicarious Christ. (This is muddling theologies a bit, I
know.)
I still don't know why both stew and soup are needed - one would have
done to make this point.
It would be entertainingly ironic if it were Lamb stew, wouldn't it?
Regards,
--
Peter
http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|