Oral Tradition, 22/2 (2007): 143-156
Toward True Diversity in Frame of Reference
Joxerra Garzia
Introduction
On May 16th
and 17th
, 2003, the first symposium on Basque orally improvised poetry was
held in Reno, Nevada, organized by the University of Nevada’s Center for Basque Studies. At
the symposium, Andoni Egaña, Jon Sarasua, and I gave a presentation about our book, The Art of
Bertsolaritza: Improvised Basque Verse Singing (2001).
Following our presentation, I had a friendly and, at least for me, highly profitable private
conversation with Professor John Zemke, who, among other things, asked me “against whom”
the book was written. The question surprised me, but I must admit that the mere fact that it was
asked revealed John Zemke’s extraordinary insight in having been able to perceive in our book
something that the authors themselves had overlooked.
Professor Zemke is right: our book does have a certain air of protest, something perhaps
not so common in the academic world, and, needless to say, not something we purposefully set
out to achieve (so unconscious was it on our part that we had not even realized it was there until
he pointed it out). In fact, the tone of the book is determined both by the nature of the research
from which it arose, and by the context in which it was published.
Regarding the nature of our research, it is, to say the least, heterodox. First, and although
I work at the University of the Basque Country, our investigations were not carried out under the
auspices of any research organization, but rather in collaboration with the Association of Friends
of Bertsolaritza, the Bertsozale Elkartea.
Second, our research was mainly informal and was carried out “from within.” Indeed, for
approximately ten years now, I and my two fellow authors have been personally involved with
improvised bertsolaritza––Sarasua and Egaña as bertsolaris (bertso performers) and myself as a
theme-prompter at festivals and the head of the television program about bertsolaritza, Hitzetik
Hortzera.
It was never our intention to create a theory about bertsolaritza. Rather, it was our active
participation in all kinds of performances that raised the following questions (or, if you prefer,
working hypotheses): Why do certain details seem out of place in the traditional vision of
bertsolaritza? What are the advantages and disadvantages of bertsolaritza’s adaptation to the
media? What were the reasons behind the boom in bertsolaritza at the beginning of the ’90s?
What are the consequences of widening and renewing bertsolaritza’s audience? What role
should bertsolaritza play within the small yet complex Basque cultural scene?
144 JOXERRA GARZIA
In short, our research was based around these and many other questions, always asked on
the basis of our direct experience with the art of bertsolaritza. Many initial responses to this type
of question often arose during the long, passionate, informal gatherings held after performances,
or at the countless meetings of the Association of Friends of Bertsolaritza. Our method was as
follows: to share our questions and sketch out (always provisional) answers, taking what we
deemed most appropriate from each theory. Little by little, the pieces of puzzle began to fall into
place,1
and the book we presented in Reno reflects our position at the beginning of this decade.
Meanwhile, the “official” authorities continued to cling to the old way of seeing things,
and bertsolaritza continued to be considered as a sub-genre of Basque poetry. In regard to
orality, the most modern references were those of Marcel Jousse (1925) and Walter J. Ong
(1982). In this context, I believe that the somewhat protest-like tone of our book is, if not
excusable, at least understandable.
The enthusiasm with which our presentation was received by the participants of the Reno
Symposium was a source of great satisfaction, and an even greater relief; all our work had been
worth it, and our intuition had taken us to the same terrain in which figures as imposing as John
Miles Foley, James W. Fernández, Samuel G. Armistead, Joseba Zulaika, and even John Zemke
himself focused their research. Of course, this does not mean that we agree about everything, but
the mere confirmation that we speak the same language, use the same parameters, and share the
same vision of the phenomenon of oral poetry is, for us, reward enough.
Since that symposium in Reno, we have been lucky enough to have the opportunity to
continue discussing thoughts and questions with some of the more prominent figures present at
the meeting, in particular with Professor Foley.2
Among many other things, we have learned that many of the points of view that we
expressed in a critical or demanding tone in our book (the inability of written poetry to
understand bertsolaritza, the need to overcome the extreme perspective of the so-called oralformulaic
theory, and so on) were postulates accepted as completely normal by leading
researchers in the field of orality, including Professor Foley, whose work How To Read An Oral
Poem (2002) is obligatory reading for anyone interested in keeping abreast of the latest thinking
with regard to oral poetry.
In light of this situation, I believe that to simply repeat that which was expressed in both
our previous book and at the Reno Symposium would not be an honest contribution on my part,
and I have therefore decided to write this article on the theory of oral poetry as a dialogue with
Professor Foley’s book. I will attempt to “rethink” John Foley’s work from the point of view of
its adaptation to improvised bertsolaritza.
Before I begin, I would like to make one last preliminary observation: nothing that is
written below should be taken as a criticism or disparagement of Professor Foley’s stimulating
1
Some earlier publications that we drew from in our own research include Egaña and Sarasua 1997, Garzia
and Sarasua 1998, and Garzia 2000.
2
Professor Foley was one of the speakers at the Intercultural Meeting, “Oral Improvisation in the World,”
organized by the Association of Friends of Bertsolaritza and held in San Sebastián in November 2003. The idea of
compiling this collection of articles on bertsolaritza for the journal Oral Tradition arose during the week of this
event, for which we are extremely grateful to its editor, John Foley.
TOWARD DIVERSITY IN FRAME OF REFERENCE 145
work. In fact, it is quite the opposite: my reflections arise from my immense gratitude to and
admiration for both the work and its author, and I hope no one will feel the need to ask me, as
did Professor Zemke in Reno, “against whom” this chapter is written.
The Common Substratum for Oral Poetry Genres
In my opinion, one of the most important contributions of the many made by How to
Read an Oral Poem is its proposal for a four-section taxonomy, a “system of media categories”
(Oral Performances, Voiced Texts, Voices from the Past, and Written Oral Poems), whose aim,
in the words of the author himself, is to offer “a reasonable middle ground: a set of models that
together offer a rough outline of various media possibilities, a flexible taxonomy that can boost
our understanding by organizing myriad individual cases under a few meaningful headings” (39).
The value of such a proposal is immediately evident. On the one hand, as Foley himself
says, interpreted with due rigor and the necessary flexibility, this taxonomy “can serve as a sort
of filing system for the diverse collection of oral poetries from around the world and from
ancient times to the present” (39).
In this sense, Foley’s proposal specifies and visualizes the overcoming of the Great
Divide. Where before there was a categorical divide between written and oral poetry, we now see
the advent of what we could call the Great Continuum: a progressive grading of phenomena and
manifestations of differing degrees of orality, in which there is much overlapping between genres
and a fair degree of fusion between orality and writing. This is, without a doubt, a much more
appropriate instrument with which to analyze the complex reality of oral tradition in modern-day,
developed societies, due to a large degree to the influx of new media channels.
Oral Poetry: From the Ecosystem to Genres
The identification of this substratum common to all genres does not free us from the need
to analyze in depth each individual genre. This need is expressed clearly and precisely in the last
of the ten *proverbs* in which Foley sums up his belief that “true diversity demands diversity in
frame of reference” (141-44).
I do not believe it is a coincidence that this proverb has been placed last. In fact, I am
convinced that by placing it at the end, Foley is suggesting that its contribution is merely a
starting point in itself, and that there is still much out there waiting to be discovered.
Indeed, in How to Read and Oral Poem, Foley provides us with the substratum common
to all genres of oral poetry. From here on, it is up to us to delve deeper into each one, always
bearing in mind that oral poetry genres do not tend to flourish in isolation; instead, they make up
what Foley calls “an ecology of oral poetry” in each situation and in each culture. Foley also
proposes an analytical method for carrying out future research. It is a method that brings together
the best contributions made by three great disciplines: Performance Theory, Ethnopoetics, and
Inmanent Art. Strictly applied, this method enables an adequate exploration of the diverse
ecosystems that make up oral poetry in different cultures.
146 JOXERRA GARZIA
In my case, after having barely sketched the main outlines of the ecology of Basque oral
poetry, I shall now attempt to explore in more detail the characteristics of improvised
bertsolaritza, the central theme in this issue of Oral Tradition.
The Place of Improvised Bertsolaritza in the Taxonomy of Oral Poetry Genres
There can be no doubt that, as other authors in this collection have also asserted,
improvised bertsolaritza is located within the category of Oral Performances. This category,
however, continues to be too heterogeneous for us to draw any specific conclusions regarding
each of the genres included within it.
Indeed, the Oral Performances category includes, on the one hand, Grags-pa seng-ge, a
Tibetan paper-singer whose image illustrates the cover of How to Read an Oral Poem, and on
the other hand, Andoni Egaña, the champion of the last four bertsolari championships (1993,
1997, 2001, and 2005), whose creative process is described by the poet himself later on in this
special issue.
Any comparison between these two genres reveals, in my opinion, more differences than
similarities. My aim, however, is not to question the validity of the taxonomy, which fully
complies with the objective for which it was established, but rather to move on from it towards
an individual understanding of the diverse genres it contains––in our case, improvised
bertsolaritza. In this sense, the aim is to identify both those traits that improvised bertsolaritza
shares with other oral performance genres and those that differentiate bertsolaritza from them.
It is clear that improvised bertsolaritza has many traits in common with the other genres
in its category: oral method of composition and performance; aural mode of reception; its own
clear and well-defined register; its own way of “creating meaning”; its subjection to the hereand-now,
the context in which the performance takes place, and so forth. Nevertheless, I believe
it would be more interesting in the context of this article to explore the traits that differentiate
improvised bertsolaritza from the other genres in its category, such as the Tibetan paper-singers
or the Cuban improvisers.
A Bertsolari’s Oral Mode of Production
If we compare a bertsolari’s mode of production with, say, that of a Tibetan paper-singer,
the first thing that stands out is the different degree of improvisation involved in each. Despite
not knowing how to read, Tibetan paper-singers need a piece of paper on which to fix their eyes
in order to be able to project in this format, rather like a film, as the story develops during the
performance. In some ways, we could say that their minds already contain a kind of pre-script,
which their memory projects onto the paper and their voice converts into a story.
Modern-day bertsolaris, on the other hand, despite often being university graduates, have
no need of any physical support during their performance. If we think about it, this is hardly
surprising because bertsolaris have nothing to project, largely because they do not even know
the theme around which they will have to construct their verses until the last minute.
TOWARD DIVERSITY IN FRAME OF REFERENCE 147
If I am not mistaken, this basic difference in the mode of production (improvisation vs.
projection) can be found at the heart of most of the aspects that make improvised bertsolaritza a
genre very different from all the others. In this sense, the difference between oral production and
written production needs, in my opinion, to be complemented by other additional criteria. The
following sections are an initial overview of those aspects that set improvised bertsolaritza apart
from the other genres in its category.
What is a “Word” in Contemporary Bertsolaritza?
Based on the declarations of various guslari, Foley warns that, unlike what occurs in the
writing-based mentality, “a word in oral poetry is a unit of utterance, an irreducible atom of
performance, a speech-act” (13). This “extensive” concept of the oral word recalls the so-called
formulae of oral-formulaic theory, although the meaning of both is clearly different. In any case,
neither the formulae nor this conception of a “word” seem to fit in with what the bertsolari
Andoni Egaña says in his article included in this collection.
If we take Egaña’s explanation seriously (and I see no reason to give more credibility to
the words of some witnesses than to others), then it becomes clear that the words used by
bertsolaris during their creative process are ordinary, common words, understood in the same
way as they are understood in the culture of writing. See, for example, the category-based
organization of different rhyme-words or the highly conscious way in which the poet attempts to
make an idea, and the rhyme-word associated with it, fit into a grammatical sentence that
complies with the metrical requirements of the corresponding stanza.
In short, bertsolaris improvise with the same mental categories as those who choose the
path of written production (perhaps this also explains the abundance and success of so many
bertsolaris as newspaper columnists). Of course, improvised bertsolaris use wider units than the
word in the strictest sense of the term, but they do not do so to any greater extent than we
ourselves do in our everyday language, or if they do it is with a specific, conscious, rhetoricalcommunicative
purpose. In any case, these supra-lexical units do not seem to be a basic element
in the bertsolari’s improvisation.
The fundamental thing about the bertsolari is not the formulaic repertory, but the
capacity to continually create new formulae, such as the capacity to fit any cognitive content,
however new or complex, within the most common metrical structures (currently those of 5-5/8
syllables and 7/6). Part of this work may be carried out prior to the improvisation, but as has
been made clear elsewhere, a large part of this work of fitting together the bertso is carried out
by means of improvisation.
Understood in this way, the formulaic nature of bertsolaritza does not, in any way,
impede its capacity for analysis and in fact acts as an analytical tool. In reality, the task of the
improvising bertsolari is basically one of a double formulaic skill. On the one hand, the
bertsolari has to be able to improvise convincing and suitable formulae as he or she goes along.
Second, he or she has to astutely manage the rhetoric of the formulae that have been previously
mentally constructed.
148 JOXERRA GARZIA
The prior and conscious construction of formulae to be used seconds or minutes later in
the sung improvisation is, perhaps, one of the distinguishing aspects of present-day bertsolaritza
with respect to the art as practiced in the past. Another is the rhetorical use that the modern
bertsolari makes of these more or less pre-constructed formulae.
In this last aspect, as in so many others, the case of the bertsolari Xabier Amuriza is
paradigmatic. Far from using formulae as mere technique to help express platitudinous situations
or values, Amuriza charges them with a great sense of poetry and rhetoric, whereby the formulae
acquire great communicative importance in the bertsos when sung, and are used to reinforce
ideas and content that are in no way platitudinous or commonplace.
His solo performances are outstanding when the event is totally, as it were, under his
control. In the final of the 1980 championship, when he was lucky enough to have the theme
bihotzean min dut (“my heart aches”), Amuriza improvised three bertsos, two of which I have
included below.
We have seen how bertsolaris are accustomed to placing the key of their rhetorical
strategy. And it is precisely here that Amuriza places his formulae, full of expressive force. The
formula is frequently a direct appeal to the public:
Sentimentua sartu zitzaidan
bihotzeraino umetan,
geroztik hainbat gauza mingarri
ikusi mundu honetan.
Euskalerriaz batera nago
bihotz barneko penetan;
anaiak alkar hartu ezinik,
etsaiak su eta ketan,
esan dudana gezurra bada
urka nazazue bertan. (bis).
(Emotions entered / my heart as a lad, / since then, I’ve seen much suffering / in this
world. / My heart goes out to / that of the Basque Country; / we can’t be as brothers / as
the enemy beats us black and blue; / if what I say is a lie, / hang me here and now.)
At other times, it is an emotional reinforcement of something previously said:
Sentimentua nola dugun guk
haize hotzeko orbela,
mingainetikan bihotz barnera
doa herriko kordela;
esperantza dut zerbait hoberik
bearbada datorrela,
mundu hontara sortu zen bati
bizitzea ere zor dela;
bihur bekizkit hesteak harri
TOWARD DIVERSITY IN FRAME OF REFERENCE 149
hori ez bada horrela (bis).3
(Our emotions are like / leaves in the cold wind, / the thread of our people runs / from the
tongue to the bottom of the heart; / I like to think / better times are coming, / that which
has come into this world / deserves a life as well; / may my guts turn to stone / if this not
be true.)
It seems clear that the last two lines of the bertso could well have been prepared by
Amuriza before the start of the championship. In effect, they are applicable to any theme with
epic/tragedy in mind. Their function is not to develop the theme but to reinforce what has been
stated beforehand. This, far from being a demerit, is perhaps Amuriza’s greatest virtue. It
involves, among other things, the conscious use of rhetorical strategies. Amuriza does no more
than make maximum use of the most typically oral resources, adapting them to the new
expressive needs.
Another example of modern formulaic use, applied in this case to a much more playful
and less serious theme, is the following bertso by Andoni Egaña, improvised in one of those
new-style exercises or assignments. In this case, Egaña was asked to imagine what the infancy of
his fellow bertsolaris had been like. One of the other artists was Mañukorta, a bertsolari whose
public image is that of the eternal bachelor with a natural sense of humor that could not have
been taught in school:
Mañu eskolan ikusten det nik
sarri ezin erantzunda:
eme ta a, ma; eme ta i, mi;
letzen ikasi nahi zun-da.
Eme ta i, mi; eme ta o, mo;
arrotz zitzaion burrunda;
mu bakarrikan ikasi zuen
etxeko behiei entzunda.4
(I can see Mañu at school now / unable to answer the questions: / em and a, ma, em and i,
mi; / as Mañu wanted to learn. / Em and i, mi; em and o, mo; / it all sounded strange; / the
only one he learned was mu, / he had heard it at home from the cows.)
It would seem evident that, in order to improvise this bertso, Andoni Egaña would have had to
experiment with the names of the letters beforehand, trying to fit them into groups of five
syllables. This evidently reveals a capacity for analysis and a conception of a “word” much
closer to the written mentality than to the oral one.
3
See Txapelketa 1980.
4
Bapatean 97, Donostia, EHBE, 1998, 101.
150 JOXERRA GARZIA
The Role of Tradition in Contemporary Bertsolaritza
Tradition is something increasingly heterogeneous and diaphanous in modern-day
society, and improvised bertsolaritza is by no means immune to this effect. Indeed, I would say
that today the role played by tradition in the production of meaning during bertsolari
performances is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
As the bertsolari Jon Sarasua says, just a few decades ago bertsolaris sang for the people.
Today the perception of bertsolaris is that they no longer even sing for a single public, but rather
for diverse publics that make up the audience present at each performance. The one feature that
characterizes all these different publics is their different values and perspectives––in other
words, their different traditions. This situation forces the bertsolari to become more broad in
scope, to speak more generally in order to accomodate the great diversity of these audiences. It is
this “distancing” that is precisely the principal feature of today’s improvised bertsolaritza.
In the championship where Egaña was declared champion for the first time, he had to
play the part of a father who had lost his young son, his only child, through illness. In contrast to
the dead child’s mother (played by Jon Enbeita), who found some consolation in her religious
faith, the father (Egaña) is afflicted with all kinds of doubt:
Bizitzaren merkatua…
nago neka-nekatua;
ez zen handia, inola ere,
haurran pekatua.
Zein puta degun patua:
gure ume sagratua…
lotan al zeunden, ene Jaungoiko
madarikatua?5
(Life is but a marketplace . . . / I can’t go on; / so great / was the child’s sin? / Fate is a
damned joke: / our adorable child! / Were you sleeping when it happened, / damned
God?)
That was the bertso that started the improvised oral confrontation. And this is Egaña’s third and
last bertso:
Sinismentsu dago ama,
haurra lurpean etzana;
nola arraio kendu digute
hain haurtxo otsana?
Hossana eta hossana,
hainbat alditan esana!
5
Bertsolari Txapelketa 1993, 223.
TOWARD DIVERSITY IN FRAME OF REFERENCE 151
Damu bat daukat: garai batean
fededun izana!
(The mother persists in her faith, / the child lies buried below; / why the hell did you take
/ our innocent child? / “Hosanna, hosanna!” / so many times intoned! / I now regret /
having once been a believer!)
It might be thought that the distancing in religious themes is due to modern society’s more
relaxed attitude toward religion. But bertsolaritza is not free of thoughts that were unthinkable
(or unutterable) only a few decades ago. The following are two bertsos improvised by Sarasua
and Egaña at a dinner in Arantza (Navarre) in 1992. Egaña is defending the need to continue
singing until the listeners say stop. Sarasua is trying to finish the session as soon as possible.
Sarasua sings first:
Honek jarraitu egin nahi luke
ene, hau da martingala!
Aitortzen dizut azken-aurreko
nere bertsoa dedala.
Ta honek berriz eman nahi luke
oraindik joku zabala,
hau begiratuz gaur erizten dut
lehen beldur nintzen bezala,
bertsolaria ta prostituta
antzerakoak dirala.6
(This one wants to go on, / my, what a to-do here! / I’m telling you / this is my last bertso
but one. / And this one wants to carry on / dragging out the improvised oral
confrontation, / when I see him now I’m confirmed / in what I feared from the beginning,
/ that bertsolaris are / nothing more than prostitutes.)
Sarasuaren aldetik dator
ez dakit zenbat atake,
errez salduko naizela eta
hor ari zaigu jo ta ke;
lantegi honek berekin dauka
hainbat izerdi ta neke,
bertsoalriek ta prostitutek
sufritzen dakite fuerte,
baina gustora dauden unean
gozatu egiten dute.
6
Bapatean 92, Donostia, EHBE, 1993, 216.
152 JOXERRA GARZIA
(You see that Sarasua / doesn’t stop attacking me, / maybe he thinks / I’m easily bribed; /
in this art of ours / there is sweat and tears, / both bertsolaris and prostitutes / know what
suffering is, / but they also have moments / of great satisfaction.)
In Aretxabaleta in 1994, Egaña improvised in the following bertso about the death (a presumed
suicide) of the cyclist, Luis Ocaña. This bertso is also a good example of the strategic complexity
of bertsos with more than five rhymes:
Geure buruen txontxongillo ta
sarri besteren titere,
ustez antuxun ginanak ere
bihurtzen gara titare;
Luis Ocaña hor joana zaigu
isilik bezin suabe:
pistola bat parez pare,
zigilurik jarri gabe,
ez lore ta ez aldare;
baina inortxo ez asaldatu,
egin zazute mesede,
askatasunak mugarik ez du
heriotz orduan ere.7
(At times we are but a replica of ourselves / at others, puppets pulled by the whims of
others, / Luis Ocaña has gone from us, / discreetly saying nothing: / a pistol to the temple,
/ the safety catch off, / not a flower, not an altar. / But let nobody be scandalized, / do me
this favor, / freedom has no limits / not even at the moment of death.)
It would not be particularly useful to give more examples. We can say, in conclusion, that the
“distancing” that oral theory regards as exclusive to written literature is the prime characteristic
of improvised bertsolaritza as practiced since the 1980s: a distancing with respect to
cultural/textual values, untouchable previously, but also in regard to other, more situational
elements.
Rhetoric and Oral Poetry
Whether we like it or not, it is clear that bertsolaris improvise with categories that do not
seem to fit into our preconceived notion of orality. The same can be said of Cuban improvisers.
In general, the more developed an oral art, the further it tends to be from what appear to be the
7
Bapatean 94, Donostia, EHBE, 1995, 216.
TOWARD DIVERSITY IN FRAME OF REFERENCE 153
universal postulates of oral poetry. And, inversely, this typically oral mode of production (based
on extended words and formulae) seems to mesh better with less developed manifestations.
To resolve this aporia, the easiest thing would be to deny the reality that seems to
contradict our theory. How much more productive it would be, however, to try to enrich the
theory in order to enable the observed phenomenon to fit comfortably inside it. In this sense, I
believe that rhetoric may prove a valuable tool when trying to adapt the general framework
provided by Professor Foley in How to Read an Oral Poem and attempting to follow the path
that leads from the general aspects of oral poetry to the specific aspects of each genre.
Elsewhere,8
we defined improvised bertsolaritza as “a rhetorical genre of an epideictic,
oral, sung and improvised nature.” As we know, classical rhetoric, more than a purely theoretical
construction, is a critical and meticulous description of the mechanisms and procedures of the
orators of the time. We are not trying to apply these instruments and procedures in a mechanistic
way to improvised bertsolaritza. It is more a case of constructing our own critical description
from the direct observation of the tasks undertaken by today’s bertsolaris. It is here that classical
rhetoric can offer us a methodology that has admirably proven itself to be both fruitful and
effective. Furthermore, “the study of rhetoric, most seem to agree, is essentially the study of
rhetoric’s five canons . . . . They provide a structure that allows rhetors and rhetoricians to
analyze and study separately the various parts of a complete rhetorical system” (Reynolds 1993).
In the case of oral poetry, it is best to analyze how these five canons of rhetoric are
developed in each genre. This would, among other things, enable us to perceive and systemize
the differences between the different genres, thus compiling a comparative study of the diverse
ecosystems of oral poetry. For example, an exploration of the first canon, inventio, would reveal
the different degree of improvisation in each genre; elocutio would clarify the degree of
formularity; and actio would, quite naturally, integrate the contributions of Ethnopoetics.
In summary, my proposal would be to incorporate rhetoric into the group of instruments
that Professor Foley proposes in How to Read an Oral Poem, so that rhetoric would join
Performance Theory, Ethnopoetics, and Inmanent Art as a theoretical paradigm.
General Bibliographic Note
Although some progress has been made over recent years, any non-Basque-speaker
wanting to study bertsolaritza in depth is still faced with a severe lack of bibliographic material.
Despite the fact that, in our explanation, we say that bertsolaritza is currently living through a
golden age, we must also admit that the study of bertsolaritza is by far its least developed facet.
In an era in which orality is so fashionable, the scarce attention paid to bertsolaritza by the
academic field seems paradoxical.
It is the more technical aspects of bertsolaritza that have been studied in most depth. Patri
Urkizu, Patxi Altuna, Pello Esnal, and Juan Mari Lekuona, among others, have conducted and
published a series of interesting studies on the metrics and stanzas used by bertsolaris. This
8
See Garzia, Sarasua, and Egaña 2001.
154 JOXERRA GARZIA
technical part of bertsolaritza, however, falls outside the purposes and objectives of this present
work.
There are also a relatively large number of descriptive works focusing on the history of
bertsolaritza. The ones consulted most in the Basque language are those by Joanito Dorronsoro
(1981 and 1988) and Juan Mari Lekuona (1982). Xabier Amuriza has published a brief history of
bertsolaritza (1996), and the Elhuyar publishing house released a CD of bertsolaritza
performances (Bertsoen Mundua) containing information regarding the history of the
championships, biographies of key bertsolaris, a large anthology of bertsos, and an enjoyable
and educational application based on improvised pieces. Dorronsoro is also author of a catalogue
of around 3,000 bertso melodies (1997), complete with their corresponding sheet music and
comments––a monumental work of enormous value. The melodies can be accessed online at
http://www.bertsozale.com/.
In Spanish, the most popular works on the history of bertsolaritza are those by Zavala
(1964) and Aulestia (1990), both of which are descriptive in nature. The work by Father Zavala
fails, for obvious reasons, to encompass the more recent changes that have taken place in
bertsolaritza, and Aulestia, for his part, hardly pays the bertsolaris who came after Amuriza any
heed at all. Perhaps the most comprehensive history of the art form is that written by Patricio
Urquizo (2000).
Since 1988, an annual anthology in the form of a book has been published of all the
bertsos improvised each year. The collection is issued by the Association of Friends of
Bertsolaritza, and is entitled Bapatean.
The publications corresponding to the bertsolari championships, on the other hand, form
a heterogeneous series. The publication on the first championships and challenges is as
interesting as it is chaotic.9
The works focusing on the last two championships (2001 and 2005),
however, were published by the Association of Friends of Bertsolaritza and are much more
ambitious and consistent in nature, offering an excellent portrait of contemporary bertsolaritza.
Both the books in the Bapatean series and the works focusing on the most recent
championships are published with their corresponding CDs, where listeners can hear the
transcribed verses. The majority of these texts can also be viewed online in the catalogue of the
Xenpelar Documentation Center’s digital library, which is the property of the Association of
Friends of Bertsolaritza. Access to these digital texts of the different publications can be found
online at http://www.bertsozale.com/. This website also offers a wealth of information in four
languages (English, Basque, Spanish, and French) about everything related to bertsolaritza. The
journal Jakin has published three monographic issues on bertsolaritza (see Jakin in the
complementary bibliography). Another magazine, Bertsolari, offers a more journalistic vision of
bertsolaritza, although it also contains materials of enormous interest, such as, for example,
articles on genres similar to bertsolaritza in other parts of the world.
The greatest lack is in that area related to the more theoretical aspects of bertsolaritza. Up
until a few years ago, all of the most interesting studies were published in Basque. In fact, our
book, The Art of Bertsolaritza (2001), is nothing more than a rather blatant effort to address this
9
See Etxezarreta 1993.
TOWARD DIVERSITY IN FRAME OF REFERENCE 155
lack. Some years earlier, the Cuban improviser Alexis Díaz Pimienta (1998) published a book
that represented a giant leap forward in the way in which we approach the study of improvised
oral genres. The minutes of the First Symposium on Basque orally improvised poetry, organized
by the University of Reno’s Center for Basque Studies, took us a little further down this path.
These minutes were published in 2005 under the title Voicing the Moment: Improvised Oral
Poetry and Basque Tradition, edited by Samuel G. Armistead and Joseba Zulaika. The
publication contains a wide-ranging and excellent bibliographical section.
References
Amuriza 1996 Xabier Amuriza. Bertsolaritzaren historia, Donostia: Orain-Euskal Gaiak.
Armistead and Zulaika 2005 Samuel G. Armistead and Joseba Zulaika, eds. Voicing the Moment: Improvised
Oral Poetry and Basque Tradition. Reno: University of Nevada Center for
Basque Studies.
Aulestia 1990 Gorka Aulestia. Bertsolarismo. Bilbo: Bizkaiko Foru Aldundia. English version:
Improvisational Poetry from the Basque Country. Trans. by Lisa Corcostegui
and Linda White. Reno: University of Nevada Press, 1995.
Bapatean 94, Donostia, EHBE, 1995, 216.
Bapatean 97, Donostia, EHBE, 1998, 101.
Bapatean 92, Donostia, EHBE, 1993, 216.
Bertsolari Txapelketa 1993, 223.
Díaz 1998 Alexis Díaz Pimienta. Teoría de la improvisación: Primeras páginas para el
estudio del repentismo. Oiartzun: Sendoa-Auspoa.
Dorronsoro 1981 Joanito Dorronsoro. Bertsotan I: 1789-1936. Donostia: Gipuzkoako Ikastolen
Elkartea.
Dorronsoro 1988 . Bertsotan II: 1936-1980. Donostia: Gipuzkoako Ikastolen Elkartea.
Dorronsoro 1997 . Bertso-doinutegia. Donostia: EHBE.
Egaña and Sarasua 1997 Andoni Egaña and Jon Sarasua. Zozoak beleari. Irun: Alberdania.
Etxezarreta 1993 J. M. Etxezarreta. Bertsolarien desafioak, guduak eta txapelketak. Oiartzun:
Auspoaren Sail Nagusia, Sendoa.
156 JOXERRA GARZIA
Foley 2002 John Miles Foley. How to Read an Oral Poem. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press. With eCompanion at http://oraltradition.org/hrop.
Garzia andSarasua 1998 Joxerra Garzia and Jon Sarasua. Bertso-ispiluan barrena. Irun: AlberdaniaZerberri.
(Interview)
Garzia2000 . “Gaur egungo bertsolarien baliabide poetiko-erretorikoak: Marko
teorikoa eta aplicazio didaktikoa.” Bilbao: UPV/EHU. Unpublished PhD
dissertation.
Garzia, Sarasua, and Egaña 2001 , Jon Sarasua, and Andoni Egaña. The Art of Bertsolaritza: Improvised
Basque Singing. Donostia: Bertsozale Elkartea. Available online at
http://www.bertsozale.com/.
Jousse 1925 Marcel Jousse. Le Style oral rhythmique et mnémotechnique chez les Verbomoteurs.
Paris: Beauchesne, Archives de Philosophie.
Lekuona 1982 Juan Mari Lekuona. Ahozko Euskal Literatura. Donostia: Erein.
Nagusia 1980 Txapelketa Nagusia. Bertsolari txapelketa nagusia. Donostia, 1980-1-6), Tolosa,
Auspoa, 141, 1980, 36.
Ong 1982 Walter J. Ong. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London:
Methuen.
Reynolds 1993 J. F. Reynolds. “Memory Issues in Composition Studies.” In his ed., Rhetorical
Memory and Delivery: Classical Concepts for Contemporary Composition and
Communication. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Urquizo 2000 Patricio Urquizo. Historia de la literatura vasca. Madrid: UNED ediciones.
Zavala 1964 Antonio Zavala. Bosquejo de historia del bertsolarismo. Zarauz: Auñamendi.