Vives' rhetorical ideas and the oratory of the Spanish political Transición: two proposals for political life Tomás Albaladejo (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) [Opening lecture delivered on 24th July 2001 at Warsaw University in the 13th Biennial Conference of the International Society for the History of Rhetoric held in Warsaw on 24th – 28th July 2001. Published in Jerzy Axer (ed.), Rhetoric of Transformation, Warsaw, Centre for Studies on the Classical Tradition in Poland and in East-Central Europe of Warsaw University, 2003, pages 29-39. ISBN: 83-7181-286-8] Professor Axer, President of the International Society for the History of Rhetoric, members of the Council, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. I am honoured to have been invited to deliver this opening lecture at the Thirteenth Biennial Conference of our Society. I want to thank publicly this appointment that allows me to address this very distinguished audience in Warsaw. The Spanish philosopher Juan Luis Vives was born in Valencia in 1492 and died in Bruges, Flanders, in 1540. He studied Latin, Greek, Rhetoric and Poetics at the University of Valencia and he continued his studies at La Sorbonne in Paris. The philosophy that was taught in Paris did not satisfy Vives and after three years in La Sorbonne he went to Bruges, where he met Erasmus of Rotterdam. Vives taught at the University of Louvain. Because of his friendship with Thomas More and protected by the English Queen, the Spanish Catherine of Aragon, he went to England in 1523 and taught at the University of Oxford. After the breakup of the marriage between Catherine and Henry VIII, Vives went back to Bruges, where he lived until his death. Vives' main works are De disciplinis (1531), De ratione dicendi (1532) and De anima et vita (1538). Other important works are De initiis, sectis, et laudibus philosophiae (1518), In pseudo-dialecticos (1519) and De Aristotelis operibus censura 1 (1538). An interesting example of his social concern is De subventione pauperum, sive de humanis necessitatibus (1525).1 Vives took part very actively in the reduction of rhetoric within a new arrangement of knowledge. With De disciplinis and De ratione dicendi, Vives preceded Petrus Ramus' Scholae in liberales artes (1569) in the reduction of rhetoric and its concentration on elocutio defended by this author. Language and style are for the Spanish philosopher the foundations of rhetoric and, hence, he deepened the research on them and its implications for man and for society. Therefore, Vives contributed decisively to the reduction of rhetoric and consequently to its connection to style and to the art of language.2 Vives faced up to the decadence of rhetoric, which came to be used without consciousness of its limits. He outlined its relationships with the other arts of the set of the artes liberales. In De causis corruptarum artium (a part of De disciplinis) he writes that grammar moves forward into the connection of words, dialectics into argumentation, and rhetoric into discourse, into «sermonem, et quod exactius est, orationem»3. The field of rhetoric is language and discourse, or the discursive form of language. 1 On Vives, vid. M. Menéndez Pelayo, Historia de las ideas estéticas en España, (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1974, 2 vols.) Vol. I, pp. 625-637; J. Ortega y Gasset, «Vives», in J. Ortega y Gasset, Obras completas (Madrid: Revista de Occidente, 1970, 7th. ed.) t. V, pp. 493-507; J. Ortega y Gasset, «Juan Vives y su mundo», in J. Ortega y Gasset, Obras completas (Madrid: Revista de Occidente, 1970, 7th. ed.) t. IX, pp. 507-543; C. Vasoli, La dialettica e la retorica dell'Umanesimo. "Invenzione" e "Metodo" nella cultura del XV e XVI secolo (Milano: Feltrinelli, 1968) pp. 214-246; J. Rico Verdú, La retórica española en los siglos XVI y XVII (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1973) pp. 220-243; E. Coseriu, «Acerca de la teoría del lenguaje de Juan Luis Vives», in E. Coseriu, Tradición y novedad en la ciencia del lenguaje (Madrid: Gredos, 1977) pp. 62-85; A. García Berrio, Formación de la Teoría Literaria moderna (2). Teoría poética del Siglo de Oro (Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, 1980); D. P. Abbott, «La Retórica y el Renacimiento: An Overview of Spanish Theory», in J. J. Murphy (ed.), Renaissance Eloquence, (Berkeley - Los Ángeles - London: University of California Press, 1983) pp. 95104; E. Grassi, La filosofía del Humanismo. Preeminencia de la palabra (Barcelona: Antrhopos, 1993) pp. 111-120; J. A. Hernández Guerrero, M. del C. García Tejera, Historia breve de la retórica (Madrid: Síntesis, 1994) pp. 102 ff.; E. Hidalgo-Serna, «La elocución y El arte retórica de Vives», introductory study to J. L. Vives, El arte retórica. De ratione dicendi, edition, Spanish translation and notes by A. I. Camacho, with Latin facsimile text from the edition by G. Mayans y Siscar (Barcelona: Antrhopos, 1998) pp. VII-XLIX. 2 Vid. T. Albaladejo, «Retórica y elocutio: Juan Luis Vives», Edad de Oro XIX (2000) pp. 9-28. 3 Cfr. J. L. Vives, De disciplinis libri XX (t. I: De causis corruptarum artium; t. II: De tradendis disciplinis; t. III De artibus) (Antwerpen: Michael Hillenius, 1531) fol. 33 v. 2 A check of the different partes artis is achieved by Vives: memoria, inventio, dispositio and actio/pronuntiatio are put into perspective as to their connection to rhetoric, since they are not exclusive to rhetoric. Memory is a part of nature, and it is necessary for all knowledge. Invention is common to all arts and is a part of dialectics. Arrangement is detached from rhetoric and linked to dialectics because of its weak position in the parts of discourse. Delivery is not considered important for rhetoric since the orator also writes and is able to communicate without gesture.4 Vives' focus is set on elocutio as the foundation of the common language, the sermo communis.5 The Spanish philosopher is interested in communicative language, not in abstract language, following the Italian Lorenzo Valla's and the Spaniard Antonio de Nebrija's positions of defence of grammar of real language against speculative grammar.6 The centre of Vives' rhetorical thought is his idea of language as a tool for human communication. In De ratione dicendi, Vives writes that the faculty of language is intrinsic to man. This faculty derives from the human mind and it is necessary for man to communicate with the other men, since he must live in society. In De causis corruptarum artium, Vives tells that the orator founds the city («Rhetor condat civitatem»).7 This affirmation is connected to the importance that Vives gives to the foundations of society. For the Spanish humanist, all human societies mainly are bound and kept by two things: justice and language. Both are necessary for society, in such a way that, if one of them is lacking, the union between men becomes difficult.8 Cicero had explained in De oratore the importance of language as a privilege of men, unlike animals.9 The power of language made it possible for men to gather in society, and allowed them to obtain a very high degree of civilisation. The power of speaking founded societies and made possible the realm of laws, courts and right. For Cicero in De inventione, 4 Ibidem, fols. 50 r.-51 r. J. L. Vives, De ratione dicendi libri tres, in J. L. Vives, Opera omnia, edition by G. Mayans y Siscar (Valencia: Montfort, 1782-1785) vol. II, p. 94. Vid. E. Coseriu, «Acerca de la teoría del lenguaje de Juan Luis Vives», cit.; E. Hidalgo-Serna, «La elocución y El arte retórica de Vives», cit. 6 Vid. F. Rico, Nebrija frente a los bárbaros (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1978). 7 Cfr. J. L. Vives, De causis corruptarum artium, cit., fol. 33 v. 8 Ibidem, fol. 47 v. J. L. Vives, De ratione dicendi, cit., pp. 93-95. 9 Cicero, De oratore, bilingual edition Latin-English by E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham (London - Cambridge, Mass., Heinemann - Harvard University Press, 1976) I, 8, 33. 5 3 rhetoric is together with the birth of politically organised societies.10 Quintilian refers to Cicero, but saying that there is power of language even in nomadic peoples lacking cities and laws.11 It is evident that Vives takes into account Cicero's ideas as to the relationship between the power of language and the organisation of society, but I think that Vives took one step forward by connecting language and political freedom, as we can see below. Also in De ratione dicendi Vives declares that justice and language are link of the human society («humanae consociationis vinculum»).12 Nevertheless, he finds differences between these foundations of society: justice warns the force of reason and advice, language excites the movement of the soul. Language concerns all parts of human life and is present in everyday experience. Hence, rhetoric is «rhetoric in society»;13 it has no sense if it lacks projection on the social relationships of human beings. Juan Luis Vives offers a complete view of linguistic communication by means of discourse when he writes that the matter of the art of rhetoric is language (discourse) («Materia hujus artis est sermo»).14 His point of view is a pragmatic one, in a semiotic sense.15 For Vives, the goal of rhetoric is to speak efficiently. The orator and the hearer are involved in the rhetorical framework: the orator uses language for the goal of explanation, persuasion and influence on the hearer's soul («motum animi aliquem excitare, vel sedare»).16 Language as conceived by Vives has its projection on hearers as an intrinsic feature. The sense of rhetoric is connected to the social dimension of human beings. Persuasive 10 Cicero, De inventione, bilingual edition Latin-English by H. M. Hubbell (London - Cambridge, Mass.: Heinemann - Harvard University Press, 1976) I, 2-6. 11 Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, edition by M. Winterbottom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970) III, 2, 2. 12 Cfr. J. L. Vives, De ratione dicendi, cit., p. 90. 13 On the notion «rhetoric in society», vid. T. Albaladejo, «Retórica en sociedad: entre la literatura y la acción política en el arte de lenguaje», in E. de Miguel, M. Fernández Lagunilla, F. Cartoni (eds.), Sobre el lenguaje: Miradas plurales y singulares (Madrid: Arrecife - Universidad Autónoma de Madrid - Istituto Italiano di Cultura, 2000) pp. 87-99. 14 Cfr. J. L. Vives, De ratione dicendi, cit., p. 94. 15 As to the pragmatic foundations of rhetoric, vid. D. Breuer, Einführung in die pragmatische Texttheorie (München: Fink, 1974) pp. 140-209; F. Chico Rico, Pragmática y construcción literaria. Discurso retórico y discurso narrativo (Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, 1987); J. A. Hernández Guerrero, «Hacia un planteamiento pragmático de los procedimientos retóricos», in T. Albaladejo, F. Chico Rico, E. del Río (eds.), Retórica hoy [Teoría/Crítica 5 (1998)] pp. 403-425; T. Albaladejo, «Algunos aspectos pragmáticos del sistema retórico», in M. Rodríguez Pequeño (comp.), Teoría de la Literatura. Investigaciones actuales (Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid, 1993) pp. 47-61; T. Albaladejo, «The Pragmatic Nature of Discourse-building Rhetorical Operations», Koiné III (1993) pp. 5-13. 4 discourse has for Vives a reach that includes the influence on thought, in such a way that it includes convincing. One of the social implications of persuasion is the difference between the possible communicative situations in which there is contraposition of discourses and those ones in which this contraposition does not exist.17 It is a dialectical foundation of society that we can find in deliberative and forensic oratory. However, there are communicative situations in which there is no contradiction since controversy does not exist: it is the case of thanksgiving and consoling discourses, as well as nuptial and funeral ones.18 By means of this difference, Juan Luis Vives is recognising Aristotle's principles of the genera of discourse — those corresponding to deliberative, forensic and epideictic oratory—. Nevertheless, he considers in De causis corruptarum artium that the Aristotelian genera do not cover the reality of rhetorical discourse, that is broader than these three kinds of oratory.19 The attraction of the hearer by the orator is decisive for communication in De ratione dicendi.20 The hearer is concerned with decision as to rhetorical communication consisting of contradiction discourses, but he is not concerned with decision with regard to discourses without controversy. Nevertheless, in both cases the orator needs to attract the hearer's attention as a condition for communication through language in discourse and as a first and essential step for rhetoric to carry out its role in society. Vives pays deep attention to the hearer and gives a great importance to the differences of hearers. The orator should take the characteristics of his hearers into account. Rhetoric in society is for Juan Luis Vives a tool of democracy. The Spanish philosopher distinguishes two kinds of societies in De causis corruptarum artium, in the book De corrupta rhetorica: On the one hand, there are societies in which only one person or a few rule. In these societies people are not allowed to decide or to hold meetings. Public discourse is prohibited and if, however, someone has the courage to speak to the people about the political organisation of society, people cannot act because of fear of power. On the other hand, there are other societies («aliae congregationes») that are called free («quae liberae nominantur»). These free societies have the supreme right to rule («penes quas supremum est 16 Cfr. J. L. Vives, De ratione dicendi, cit., p. 94. Ibidem, p. 160. 18 Ibidem. 19 J. L. Vives, De causis corruptarum artium, cit., fol. 49 v. 20 The title of the 15th. chapter of the second book of De ratione dicendi is «De tenendo auditore». 17 5 imperandi ius»).21 The free societies are the place of «populare imperium», that is the people's government. Vives writes that in democratic government («in populari imperio»), the strength of speaking, the power of speaking («vis dicendi») has a great value for everything in society: «In populari imperio quoniam quicquid multitudini est visum, id protinus habetur ratum, plurimum valet ad omnia vis dicendi. In istis ergo quando homines proclivitate naturae ad honores feruntur, ad opes, ad fortunas, dignitatem, potentiam, permulti studuerunt, ut optime ad conciones civium dicerent. Quod qui faciebant, oratores nominati sunt, et eorum ars oratoria, graece rhetores, et rhetorica. Hoc quidem dicendi principium. Sed ornatus dicendi, et acutius inveniendi ex neccessitate fluxit.»22 Two different concepts, «democratic government» and «power of speaking», are connected by Vives in what we can consider a general conception of rhetoric as «rhetoric in society». Democracy and rhetoric go together in societies. The freedom of speaking that is held in a free society implies that democracy is a condition for rhetoric and that rhetoric is a condition for democracy. Juan Luis Vives, who knew very well the political conditions of Spain and Europe in the 16th Century, established an indissoluble link between democracy and rhetoric. Vives' own experience as to his homeland was a life stimulus to his intellectual search for the need of democracy for society and of rhetoric in society as a necessary civic tool. Vives' proposal is the proposal of a society in which the power of language, the power of speaking and, to sum up, the power of rhetoric is the means for life together to be the ground of democracy. The sermo communis, the natural language, is the matter of rhetoric and hence this is the art, the technique, to avail as much as possible the power of language for communication. A natural faculty like language finds that it became improved by means of rhetoric. For Vives, all parts of rhetoric are concerned in discourse communication and work for discourse in society, although many of these parts are not exclusive of it. Vives' ensemble of democracy and rhetoric concerns society of all times. The role of language, of discourse and of rhetoric in the relationships between human beings is the basis of the constitution of society. Social relationships of men and women are set in discursive communication and rhetoric is the strongest tool for life together. Vives defended communication as the most essential foundation of society. Rhetorical discourse is action and 21 22 Cfr. J. L. Vives, De causis corruptarum artium, cit., fol. 47 v. Ibidem. 6 interaction;23 it is the key for society since it is a pragmatic instrument by means of which to speak is to do. Manuel Azaña, who was president of the II Spanish Republic in the thirties of the 20th Century, said in a famous discourse delivered in 1932: «I do not know what is first, if word or action, but happily, in policy, word and action are the same thing. And because the Republic has established the legal political system where all opinions may be expressed, the first political action is concentrated on words in each of its manifestations, and word creates, directs, rules».24 Rhetoric is the best instrument to build political relationships between citizens. Its goals are persuasion and convincing through a peaceful fight whose only weapon is language. A tradition of looking for consensus by means of political oratory has a great value for everything in society. Vives' rhetorical ideas can be viewed as the cornerstone of this tradition that reaches one of its most interesting achievements in the Spanish transformation from dictatorship to democracy from Franco's death in 1975. General agreement is achieved by means of dialogue and discursive communication in society, especially in the political sphere. Political oratory consists mainly of deliberative discourses, but also of epideictic ones. Deliberative discourses are election discourses and parliamentary ones. One cannot forget that parliamentary discourses are not only deliberative but also epideictic ones. Rhetoric takes the dialogue of discourses as one of the main lines of its social dimension. This dialogue has a polyphonical structure in parliamentary discourses. Michail Bachtin's theory of the novel offers a theoretical framework that I consider suitable not only for narrative literary discourse but also for the explanation of political discourse. The constitution of the novel has for Bakhtin three components: the ideological component, which is the ensemble of ideas for the discourse; the ethical component, that is the settling of these ideas on persons, and the aesthetic component, the verbal expression of the previous components.25 23 Vid. A. López Eire, Actualidad de la retórica (Salamanca: Hespérides, 1995) p. 139; T. A. van Dijk, «The Study of Discourse», in: T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 1 (London: Sage Publications, 1997) pp. 1-34; T. A. van Dijk, «Discourse as Interaction in Society», in: T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2 (London: Sage Publications, 1997) pp. 1-37. 24 Cfr. M. Azaña, address delivered on November 14, 1932 in Valladolid, in M. Azaña, Obras completas (Madrid: Giner, 1990) Vol. II, p. 459. Translations from Spanish into English of this and of the rest of the quotations of political discourses are mine. 25 M. Bachtin, Teoría y estética de la novela (Madrid: Taurus, 1989) pp. 30-47. 7 From the polyphony of the novel,26 I consider that the polyphony of political oratory takes place in the ensemble of discourses that are delivered in parliament in a session or in a set of sessions.27 I have transformed the components of the novel proposed by Bakhtin in order to use them for political oratory as follows: 1) The ideological component of an ensemble of discourse is the set consisting of all the political ideas of the parliamentary groups and of the members of parliament. This component is a representation of the political ideas of the people. 2) The ethical component is the result of identifying these ideas in persons delivering discourses, i. e. in the different orators. 3) The aesthetic component is the microstructure or surface linguistic structure of discourses, in which the voices of the orators constitute the verbal manifestations of their discourses containing their ideas. Different discourses being pronounced by different orators who have different ideological systems constitute the communicative configuration of polyphony in parliamentary oratory. Hearers are also speakers, hearers have voice.28 From their respective ideological positions, the orators maintain a dialogue between themselves by means of their respective discourses. This complex dialogue has an underlying structure of communicative interaction: when an orator is speaking to the political assembly he is being heard by the different hearers who are members of the parliamentary groups and, hence, of the parliament. I will use here the notion that I call polyacroasis (from poly and acroasis, hearing, interpretation)29. Polyacroasis is one of the grounds of the implication of hearers in discourse, 26 M. Bachtin, Dostoevskij. Poetica e stilistica (Torino: Einaudi, 1968), pp. 9-63. Vid. also M. Bachtin, Estética de la creación verbal (México: Siglo XXI, 1982) pp. 372-374; V. N. Vološinov (M. Bajtin), El marxismo y la filosofía del lenguaje (Madrid: Alianza, 1992); O. Ducrot, El decir y lo dicho. Polifonía de la enunciación (Barcelona: Paidós, 1986); H. Beristáin, Diccionario de Retórica y Poética (México: Porrúa, 1997, 8th. ed.) pp. 401-403. M. M. García Negroni, M. Tordesillas Colado, La enunciación en la lengua. De la deixis a la polifonía (Madrid: Gredos, 2001). 27 Vid. T. Albaladejo, «Polifonía y poliacroasis en la oratoria política. Propuestas para una retórica bajtiniana», in F. Cortés Gabaudan, G. Hinojo Andrés, A. López Eire (eds.), Retórica, Política e Ideología. Desde la Antigüedad hasta nuestros días, 3 vols. (Salamanca: Logo, 2000) Vol. III: pp. 11-21. 28 They are «oyentes con palabra», cfr. Á. Gabilondo, «Pliegues y despliegues de la retórica (Hacia una retórica de sí mismo)», in: T. Albaladejo, E. del Río, J. A. Caballero (eds.), Quintiliano: Historia y actualidad de la retórica (Logroño: Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, 1998) Vol. I, pp. 383-404, p. 399. 29 T. Albaladejo, «Polifonía y poliacroasis en la oratoria política. Propuestas para una retórica bajtiniana», cit.; T. Albaladejo, «Polyacroasis in Rhetorical Discourse», The 8 since the orator's consciousness of polyacroasis is a guarantee of his social and communicative respect, that is rhetorical respect, for hearers as different members of society. But polyacroasis also refers to the difference between the hearers who are within the political chamber as members of it, having consequently the right to decide on the discourses that they hear. The orators know that they are also speaking for the citizens that, since they are not members of the parliament, will not decide on the political proposals contained in parliamentary discourses. 30 In this way, the orator's goal is to persuade those hearers who are able to decide, and to convince those ones who do not decide. Hence, it is an important aim of political discourse to attract the public opinion. Polyacroasis is a phenomenon based on the differences existing inside the audience of rhetorical discourse. It is a consequence of difference as a social feature. Rhetoric in society has polyacroasis as one of its foundations: differences in society are taken into account in rhetorical discourse and in rhetorical practice and view of society. Vives' democratic and rhetorical proposal for society has a correspondence in present times in oratory as political communication carried out in the Spanish Transición.31 After Franco's death, hard work carried led the political organisation of the dictatorship to a parliamentary democracy.32 The process of political transformation in Spain that begins with Franco's contains decisive events: the approval of the law of political reformation in December 1976, the general elections of June 1977, and the referendum of approval of the Spanish Constitution of 1978. This process can be considered to last until the elections of 1982, when the Socialist Party won the elections and began to rule, being the first change of political party in government.33 The idea of transformation of society is one of the guidelines of an important discourse delivered by Adolfo Suárez, Prime Minister since July 1976 and a defender of the Canadian Journal of Rhetorical Studies / La Revue Canadienne d'Études Rhétoriques 9 (1998), pp. 155-167. 30 As to the proposal of reality in rhetorical discourses, vid. T. Albaladejo, «Retórica y propuesta de realidad (La ampliación retórica del mundo)», Tonos Digital 1 (2000), http://www.tonosdigital.com/ 31 Vid. R. del Águila, R. Montoro, El discurso político de la transición española (Madrid: Siglo XXI - Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 1984). 32 On the Spanish Transición, vid. J. R. Díaz Gijón, D. Fernández Navarrete, M. J. González González, P. Martínez Lillo, Á. Soto Carmona, Historia de la España actual 1939-2000. Autoritarismo y democracia (Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2001, 2ª ed.); Á. Soto Carmona, La transición a la democracia: España, 1975-1982 (Madrid: Alianza, 1998). 33 Ibidem, p. 85. 9 transformation of Spain into a parliamentary democracy. His discourse of September 10, 1976 was a radio and television discourse. By means of language, the Prime Minister expresses the need to give the people the use of language in political life: «to give the Spanish people the word»,34 «it is necessary to get the Spanish people to speak as soon as possible».35 The goal of the Prime Minister is to adapt the legal organisation of Spain to the reality of the country, «with the greatest consensus».36 Consensus or general agreement is another guideline of Adolfo Suárez's discourse. He should join the general will of democracy of the Spanish people with the ideas of the members of the dictatorship parliament, whose approval of the law of political reform was necessary. After the approval of the law, it would be voted in a referendum. The Prime Minister proposed to the Spaniards «a basic agreement»37: «while the construction of our new horizon lasts, to give priority to general and common interests over private interests».38 The only fear that the Prime Minister accepted for himself and for the citizens was «the fear to fear itself».39 The law was approved by the parliament in November 1976 and by the Spanish people in a referendum in December of the same year, and the political elections were set for June 1977, with the participation of all political parties. The Communist Party was legalised in the spring of 1977. Adolfo Suárez's party, the Union of Democratic Centre, won the constituent elections of 1977 and the new democratic parliament began to work on a democratic constitution. The parliamentary discussions achieved during the elaboration of the constitution are a clear illustration of the search for a consensus that could provide a tool for life together for the Spaniards. We cannot forget that Spain had been organised politically since 1939 until 1976 by the winners of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). The writing of the constitution was the chance —expected for a long time— to organise Spanish society from the perspective of all its citizens. In this sense, the Spanish Transición was not a turn of a political situation, but the finding of a basis for life together of the whole society. 6. 34 Cfr. A. Suárez, address of September 10, 1976, ABC (September 11, 1976) p. 35 Ibidem. Ibidem. Ibidem, p. 7. Ibidem. Ibidem, p. 8. 36 37 38 39 10 The «vis dicendi» played a very important role in the discussions of the writing of the Constitution of 1978. The analysis of the parliamentary discourses of the orators of the different political parties during the discussions in the plenary sessions of the Congress of Deputies and of the Senate are a proof of a general spirit of consensus that could be found in the majority of the members of the political chambers. The orators showed in their rhetorical discourses that their aim was mainly to convince the hearers to accept their proposals, but also to find common points with the others in their projects of political organisation. Polyphony and polyacroasis worked in the parliamentary discussions as the communicative frameworks in which discursive language grounded by rhetoric was the only weapon to serve to get the objectives of the different political positions. Two words are very frequent in the discourses of the discussions of the constitution: «ruptura» versus «reforma», i. e. «break-up» versus «reform». Language is the main means that configures the new political situation in the Spanish transformation. Language offers the possibility of creating a social space for the Transición that represents the correspondence with the different ideas and political positions. The words «break-up» and «reform» are used in a way that means a confluence of two opposite ideas of political transformation and their connection in an original formula that is a combination of «break-up» and «reform». «Break-up» with the past is not a violent way for orators; Felipe González said: «When we speak of a Constitution of concord, a Constitution of reconciliation, it must be added that concord and reconciliation are based on a break-up and on an overcoming of the past. This break-up is not traumatic because nobody wants it to be traumatic».40 Reconciliation is a very important concept for the Spanish Transición, which was the first opportunity to build the common society that had not been built since the Spanish Civil War. One of the questions that were object of general agreement was the form of government. The republican parties accepted the monarchy and this acceptance was a rapprochement of the positions of break-up to the positions of reformation. The communist leader Santiago Carrillo, one of the defenders of eurocommunism, said: «I do not want to 40 Cfr. Diario de Sesiones del Congreso de los Diputados, (October 31, 1978) p. 5196 (quoted in R. del Águila, R. Montoro, El discurso político de la transición española, cit., p. 54). 11 finish this address without mentioning the consensus achieved about the problem of the form of Government. [...] For us, the decisive is democracy».41 Thus, consensus, concord and reconciliation are the goal of the parliamentary work for the Constitution. These concepts are establishing a field of language in parliamentary discourses in the Spanish democratic transformation. The set of consensus, concord and reconciliation is a very important field of confluence of the political discourses of the Transición. We can say that this set constitutes an inventive field for orators and is the basis for the confluence of break-up and reformation. Indeed, the semantic constitution of the words 'consensus', 'concord' and 'reconciliation' bears the semantic feature of 'confluence'. A common conceptual structure like this one consisting of these three concepts is an attracting thematic framework for discourses of orators of different parties. It does not mean that the different political groups give up their own ideas: a great effort is made by them in order to find their common ideas and interests and to search for the general agreement. As I have explained by applying Bakhtin's ideas on the novel to political oratory, rhetorical polyphony is a necessary component of the sets of discourses. Different ideas are expressed by different orators in different discourses that constitute a polyphonical framework representing the reality of a society that is characterised by ideological and social plurality. All the ideologies are represented in the parliament, and most of them have a confluence towards consensus, concord and reconciliation. However, each orator expresses in his discourse his own political ideas: the difference is manifested in this way, but confluence on the common aims is shown, too. The explanation of vote that the spokespersons of each parliamentary group gave after the approval of the project of constitution by the Congress of the Deputies of the Spanish Parliament is very interesting as to the role of agreement. The Catalan leader Jordi Pujol said: «We think that the fact of deciding for consensus ought not to be the object of criticism or sarcasm neither inside nor outside this parliament —I address the mass media—; because this is a country with a tradition of civil war, with a tradition of confrontation, it is a country where imposition, instead of agreement, has been usual in collective life; [...] Hence, we must not be ashamed because we have had an excess of consensus. Consensus must persist in several aspects: in the will to have solidarity in Spanish political life, solidarity in the social 41 Cfr. Diario de Sesiones del Congreso de los Diputados, (July 4, 1978) p. 3785 [F. Sainz Moreno, Constitución Española. Trabajos parlamentarios (Madrid: Publicaciones de las Cortes Generales, 1980) t. II, p. 1887]. 12 aspects, in the share-out of power, of wealth, of culture [...]».42 For the communist leader Santiago Carrillo, the constitution is a constitution of all the Spanish people. He explains his moderation in the discussions, which was criticised by those who expected that the communists would be against some elements of the constitution like the monarchy: «I want to say that our moderation has been, above all, a sense of responsibility».43 Pérez Llorca, the spokesperson of the Union of the Democratic Centre, insisted on the idea of general agreement: «I want to insist here that this is a constitution of consensus, which means that it is a constitution of tolerance, concord and peace».44 As Vives said, «In populari imperio [...] plurimum valet ad omnia vis dicendi»: in democracy the force of oratory has a great value for everything. If language, discourse and rhetoric are the weapons for the transformation of a society from dictatorship to democracy, this transformation is stronger than that one achieved by non-discursive means. It is a question of coherence: the «vis dicendi» has its most important role in democracy and in the previous construction of democracy. Rhetoric in society adopted the form of rhetoric of consensus in the Spanish Transición.45 This rhetoric of consensus is characterised by the fact that in the political discourses delivered by different and even opposite orators there is a presence of a common thematic field consisting of lexemes like 'consensus', 'agreement', 'concord', 'harmony', etc. together with the own particular ideas of the different parties. Thus, the polyphony of political oratory shows the general agreement and the necessary concrete disagreements as a manifestation of the bakhtinian ideological component through the ethical and the verbal components. This discursive polyphony also shows the will of a society to give priority to agreement on common ideas over disagreements on particular ideas. The proposal for political life that the oratory of the Spanish Transición offers is the confluence of discourses in the thematic aspects. This confluence is the meeting point of the ideological components of rhetorical polyphony. The search for a common framework for life 42 Cfr. Diario de Sesiones del Congreso de los Diputados, (July 21, 1978) p. 4594 [F. Sainz Moreno, Constitución Española. Trabajos parlamentarios (Madrid: Publicaciones de las Cortes Generales, 1980) t. II, p. 2558]. 43 Cfr. Diario de Sesiones del Congreso de los Diputados, (July 21, 1978) p. 4601 [F. Sainz Moreno, Constitución Española. Trabajos parlamentarios (Madrid: Publicaciones de las Cortes Generales, 1980) t. II, p. 2565]. 44 Cfr. Diario de Sesiones del Congreso de los Diputados, (July 21, 1978) p. 4607 [F. Sainz Moreno, Constitución Española. Trabajos parlamentarios (Madrid: Publicaciones de las Cortes Generales, 1980) t. II, p. 2571]. 13 together is the aim of orators and they draw a field of consensus by means of their political discourses. Thus, rhetoric played a very important role in the political transformation of the Spanish society. Rhetoric began to work as an ethical instrument for communication with the first glimmers of freedom and it contributed greatly and decisively to improve and increase freedom. The scholars of political science think that the experience of the Spanish Transición is a very useful example for transformation of other societies from dictatorship to democracy. I also think that the rhetoric of the Transición offers interest for the transformation of societies. I am sure that the Polish transformation is also an example for the world. Spain and Poland have many characteristics in common, both countries have had transformation processes that are admired in many other countries. Calderón de la Barca, one of the most important Spanish dramatists, wrote in the 17th Century the play La vida es sueño (Life is a dream), that is set in the kingdom of Poland. This work is one of the traditional connections between the Spanish and Polish cultures, together with the correspondence of the ambassador of Poland in the Spain of Charles V, Joannes Dantiscus, that has been studied and published precisely by Jerzy Axer, «przyjaciel». A character of Life is a dream, Rosaura, says the following words that someone had told her before and that had brought her to Poland: «Quien me la dio, dijo: "Parte a Polonia, y solicita, con ingenio, estudio o arte, que te vean esa espada los nobles y principales, que yo sé que alguno dellos te favorezca y ampare"»46 That we can summarise as follows: Go to Poland with wit, study or art and someone of principal people will protect you. I beg your protection and your benevolence in your judgement of my lecture. Thank you very much for your attention. 45 Vid. R. del Águila, R. Montoro, El discurso político de la transición española, cit., pp. 105-173. 46 Cfr. P. Calderón de la Barca, La vida es sueño, edition by C. Morón (Madrid: Cátedra, 2000, 26th. ed.) p. 100. 14