19 th -Century Romanian Manuals of Rhetoric: Accepted Precariousness of Memory and Acceptable Political Volatility (original) (raw)

This essay is an exploratory research as, first and foremost, I am interested to find pertinent suggestions for answering two questions: 1. Did a deficient conceptual usage of the rhetorical concept " memoria " (such as the one employed by the Romanians during the 19th century) drive to effects in the fields of political practice? 2. Can we draw an articulation/a connection between accepted precariousness of (political) memory and acceptable political volatility? Thus, I sketched memoria's pattern of transmission, from Ancient works devoted to ars bene dicendi to the rich tradition of artes memoriae (analysed by Fraces A. Yates), and from the Western rhetoric tradition to 19 th century Romanian compilations of rhetoric theory. Introduction The aim of my paper is to investigate how several manuals of rhetoric, which circulated within the area of Romanian Principalities during the 19 th century, accommodate the concept of memoria and its intricate history. In order to do that, first I will introduce Frances A. Yates's definition of memoria as well as her theory on the transmission of artes memoriae through the tradition of Western rhetoric. Second, I will describe and compare the chapters devoted to memoria by 19 th-century Romanian rhetoricians such as Ion Piuariu Molnar, Dimitrie Gusti, Petru Bărgăoanu and Cristu S. Negoescu, who are inspired apparently by both Western (French) and Eastern (Greek) sources. Eventually, I am interested in the changes undergone by this concept when it shifts from theory to practice, chiefly to political talk. Third, I will sketch a triangle formed by the old Western tradition of artes memoriae, a " localized " and precarious reading of memoria during the 19 th century, and the effects of its misunderstanding on the Romanians' way of dealing with their own political memory. Eventually, I am interested to introduce two motions for/of debate: Did a deficient conceptual usage of memoria (such as the one employed by the Romanians during the 19 th century) drive to effects in the fields of political practice? Is there any articulation/connection between accepted precariousness of (political) memory and acceptable political volatility?