|
INTRODUCTION
1.The dead-end analysis of oral art in terms of written poetics 2. Enchantment by .but lack of charm of the oralist theory 3. A new theoretical framework for improvised bertsolaritza 3.1. Improvised bertsolaritza as a rhetorical genre 3.2. Bertsolaritza and the five canons of rhetoric 3.3. Inventio in improvised bertsolaritza 3.4. Dispositio and improvised bertsolaritza 3.5. Elocutio: the poetic function in improvised bertsolaritza 3.6. Memory and improvised bertsolaritza a) Memory: its mnemotechnic nature and function |
3.6 Memory
and improvised bertsolaritza The final
resources on which we have deliberated place us on the border-line between
the style and the delivery of bertsolaritza. But, before dealing with
the latter, we have to look at the fourth canon of rhetoric, memory which,
together with the delivery, is the most relegated of the five canons:
The reason
for this negligence is undoubtedly the fact that the renovation of rhetoric
has been preferentially undertaken in genres whose expression is in written
form or, if in oral form, aided by the written. So the centre of attention
has almost always been the first three canons of rhetoric, of which many
very-detailed pages of analysis have been written. Memory and delivery,
on the other hand, are despatched with a couple of solemn statements about
their great importance, but they are not by any means treated with the
importance they deserve or, indeed, with which they are attributed. In classical
rhetoric, on the other hand, things associated with memory have a preferential
status, as can be seen from almost all of the works that have come to
us. There is nothing strange in this. To begin with, the classical orators
delivered their speeches with no paper or written notes. The discourse
were written down and then had to be memorised for their subsequent delivery
in public. In any case,
as Frances A. Yates has pointed out, the function of memory in classical
rhetoric was not limited to the mere memorisation and regurgitation of
written discourse(84). She outlined
many and very varied aspects of the art which are related to memory in
the art, amongst which are: • develop
the faculty of/for memory The authoress
also states that, in classical rhetoric, memory was considered a fundamental
aspect of invention, of arrangement, of style and of delivery. Firstly,
memory is the site for Aristotle’s topoi or common places,
i.e., the place where the argumental schema which make invention possible
is stored. But memory is much more still. For the author of The Rhetoric
for Herenium, it is the guardian of the remaining canons; for Quintiliano,
the source of the orator’s power and, finally, for Aristotle, memory
is the key to Invention. The importance
of memory has recently been rediscovered in many spheres, above all in
what is known as composition studies, i.e., the education of writers and
readers to which so much attention is paid in Anglo-Saxon culture. If memory
is so relevant in a speciality which is largely developed through writing,
then how much more so in bertsolaritza, given its oral and improvised
nature. Up to now, however, the importance given to memory in bertsolaritza
has been insignificant, both by the studies on the theme as by the bertsolaritza
workshops, themselves. |