Eiliv Vinje - Universitetet i Bergen

190 KAP. 5.1
another, so is it fuller of change; The Heavens themselves continually turn, the Stars
move, the Moon changeth; Fire whirleth, Aire flyeth, Water ebbs and flowes, the face of
the Earth altereth her looks, time staies not; the Colour that is most light, will take most
dyes: so in Men, they that have the most reason are the most alterable in their
designes, and the darkest and most ignorant, do seldomest change; therefore Women
changing more than Men, have also more Reason. They cannot be immutable like
stocks, like stones, like the Earths dull Center; Gold that lyeth still, rusteth; Water,
corrupteth; Aire that moveth not, poysoneth; then why should that which is the
perfection of other things, be imputed to Women as greatest imperfection? Because
thereby they deceive Men. Are not your wits pleased with those jests, which cozen
your expectation? You can call it pleasure to be beguil'd in troubles, and in the most
excellent toy in the world, you call it Treachery: I would you had your Mistresses so
constant, that they would never change, no not so much as their smocks, then should
you see what sluttish vertue, Constancy were. Inconstancy is a most commendable and
cleanly quality, and Women in this quality are far more absolute than the Heavens,
than the Stars, Moon, or any thing beneath it; for long observation hath pickt certainty
out of their mutability. The Learned are so well acquainted with the Stars, Signes and
Planets, that they make them but Characters, to read the meaning of the Heaven in his
own forehead. Every simple fellow can bespeak the change of the Moon a great while
beforehand: but I would fain have the learnedst man so skilfull, as to tell when the
simplest Woman meaneth to vary. Learning affords no rules to know, much less
knowledge to rule the minde of a Woman: For as Philosophy teacheth us, that Light
things do always tend upwards, and heavy things decline downward; Experience teacheth
us otherwise, that the disp osition of a Light Woman, is to fall down, the nature of
women being contrary to all Art and Nature. (Donne 1994, 280-81.)
Den tesen som Malloch legg til grunn for lesinga, er at paradokset har ei kjerne av
tvetydighet ("a central pivot of equivocation") der to argument som logisk ikkje heng
saman, møtest (Malloch 1956, 194). Ei paradoks argumentasjonsform inneheld såleis
ein serie av slike tvetydige kjernepunkt.
Nå til teksten: Først hevdar paradoksisten - på grunnlag av den innleiande
tesen om at det som er omskifteleg, er betre enn det som er konstant - at det er dei
menneska (Men) som tenkjer mest, som også vil skifta mest i sine planar og utkast. På
grunnlag av dette sluttar han at kvinner, ettersom dei er meir omskiftelege enn
menn, også må vera meir fornuftge enn dei. Det tvetydige dreiepunktet er knytt til
orda "alterable" og "changing "; endring kan vera resultat av fornuftig tanke, men
kan også vera resultat av det ufornuftige og vilkårlege. Det er denne tvetydigheten
som gjer det mogleg å binda saman to forskjellige argument.
Eit stykke lenger nede i det siterte utdraget blir ordet "change" på ny brukt
tvetydig: "I would you had your Mistresses so constant, that they would never
change, no not so much as their smocks, then should you see what sluttish vertue,
Constancy were." I dette tilfellet dreiar tvetydigheten seg om verbets