S. M. MOFOKENG

Sophonia Machabe Mofokeng has been characterized in the following terms by Nhlanhla P. Maake: "In Southern Sotho the greatest essayist and dramatist, Mofokeng, and the poet and dramatist, Mocoancoeng, were published by the Witwatersrand University Press" ("C. M. Doke and the Development of Bantu Literature", African Studies, vol. 53 no. 1, 1993). Both of Mofokeng's most important books, Senkatana (1952), a play in Sotho, and Leetong (1954), a collection of essays and sketches also in Sotho, were published by C. M. Doke in his Bantu Treasury Series imprint, which enabled the publication of several books in the African languages by some leading New African intellectuals between 1935 and 1953. Not only did Clement Martyn Doke supervise S. M. Mofokeng in the writing of his 1954 doctoral dissertation "The Development of Leading Figures in Animal Tales in Africa", but they also collaborated together on the Textbook of Southern Sotho Grammar (1957). Doke knew Mofokeng quite well. In his obituary notice Doke had this to say of Mofokeng: "Sophonia Mofokeng was born in 1923 at Fouriesburg, O. F. S. [Orange Free State], and attended the local primary school run by the Dutch Reformed Church. He early realized the value of education, and proved himself an apt pupil. From there he went to Adams Mission High School in Natal, where he matriculated at the age of 16, obtaining a first class pass with two distinctions. He then became a student at Fort Hare College, where he graduated B. A. with a distinction in Southern Sotho in 1942, gaining also the Diploma in Education. At this time his special interest turned to History, and while on the staff of the Johannesburg Bantu High School, he followed part-time lectures at the Witwatersrand University, where he graduated B. A. Honours in History. This was in 1945. At this time the Department of Bantu Studies of the University was in need of assistance in the teaching of Sotho, and Mofokeng was used in a part-time capacity. . . . In his work in the Departnment he was thorough and most conscientious. He was highly respected by all the students in his classes, and loved by his colleagues. He began to interest himself in research, and to collaborate with me in the preparation of a Southern Sotho Grammar. Then a heavy bloe fell. I shall not forget the day when he came to my room to tell me that the doctors had found that he was suffering from T. B., and that he was going into Rietfontein Hospital. . . . Dr. Mofokeng was a man of high scholarship. But it is not for that I shall remember him. He was a man of high Christian character. A member of the Dutch Reformed Church, he was a devout follower of the Lord Jesus Christ; humble and kind-hearted, cheerful in suffering, respected for his transparent honesty, loved for his quaint humour and readiness to help. To me, he was not so much a member of my staff, as a real friend and colleague, and as a brother in Christ. Africa has lost a great son. May the early death of one so full of promise be a stimulus to many to emulate his example, for the uplift of their people and the honour of the Lord Jesus Christ" ("Dr. S. M. Mofokeng: A Personal Tribute", The South African Outlook, July 1st, 1957). The issue raised by Clement Martyn Doke about his friend Sophonia Machabe Mofokeng still needs to be theorized in its full implications, the relationship between Christianity and New African modernity, as well as the intertwining of African scholarship and European scholarship in matters of Africana Studies. Benedict Wallet Vilakazi and Sophonia Machabe Mofokeng in relation to Clement Martyn Doke are at the center of this historic dialectic. That Doke held the scholarship of Mofokeng in high regard is evident in another instance, written three years before this obituary notice. In the Introduction to his The Southern Bantu Languages (1954), Doke writes the following sentence: "In regard to this chapter also, I owe much to long research work carried out some years ago with Mr. S. M. Mofokeng, M.A., Sotho language assistant in the Department of Bantu Studies, University of Witwatersrand". There is much in this sentence that indicates the greatness of C. M. Doke. But that is a matter for another ocassion. Although Mofokeng died too young to indicate what his real contribution to South African intellectual culture would have been, yet in the few short critical critical pieces he did write convey the power of his critical imagination. In short review of B. Makalo Khaketla's Sebopeho sa Puo, Mofokeng makes some very perceptive remarks which show his fundamental grasp of the complexities of African linguistics: "The method of grammatical analysis which was first used by Prof. C. M. Doke in his Text-book of Zulu Grammar in 1927 is now widely accepted for Bantu languages and has been used in a number of monographs written in English. This is the first grammar written through the medium of a Bantu language that applies this method and, to my knowledge, it is also the first detailed grammar written through the medium of a Bantu language. Two urgent needs have been met by the publication of this book. . . . The author has acquitted himself well in the very difficult task of coining new words to render in Southern Sotho numerous phonetical and grammatical terms. Whatever its shortcomings, it is certainly a good start on which he can build in the future. There is a lot of new information found in this book, no doubt due to the fact that the author was following The Zulu Grammar closely, and looked for corresponding phenomena in Southern Sotho; he was thus saved the danger of missing points which others before him may have overlloked. Two good examples are his treatment of the Ideophone and of Compound Nouns. Unfortunately, this close following of the Zulu Text-book has led the author astray in some cases. Thus, apparently in his eagerness to find forms equivalent to the Zulu Quantitative Pronouns formed with the Adjectival numeral roots. . . . The current Southern Sotho orthography is disjunctive, and any grammatical treatise following the conjunctive word-division in Southern Sotho must either give the examples written conjuctively or indicate by means of hyphens where the parts of a world should be joined. . . . An introductory sectionj explaining the conjunctive word-division was called for, as it is the basis of this whole method of approach which, it must be borne in mind, is strange to Sotho speakers and, to many, suspect. The author should have followed Jacottet's example and marked the semi-vowels, not just the vowels. There are numerous errors throughout the book which cannot be listed here. It is to be hoped that these will be corrected when a second edition of this praiseworthy landmark is published" (African Studies, September 1953). Note the intellectual history displayed in these connections and allusions. Also noteworthy is the sense of balance achieved through criticism and appreciation. This is the quality of creativity and discourse, in this instance, between the then youngest members of the Sotho intelligentsia, that lead C. M. Doke in the 1930s to observe in a review of a text by Zakea D. Mangoaela that the Golden Age of Sotho Literature had emerged. S. M. Mofokeng was an eminent member of this tradition. In a review of B. Makalo Khaketla's novel Moekho ea Thabo, Mofokeng again displays an exemplary historical imagination: "This novel is bound to be popular with many Sotho readers. The scenes depicting Moeketsi's childhood, his college days, his days as a teacher, his quarrel with his uncle---these and many others cover such a wide field that they are bound to interest a wide range of readers, many of whom will no doubt find similar incidents out of their own lives; for Moekho ea Thabo is a novel of to-day, depicting these days just as Pitseng is a novel of yesterday. The book is written in good Sotho, and is full of amusing incidents, with a clever plot. And yet after reading through it ine feels that there is something lacking, something needed to make it an evergreen like Mofolo's Chaka. All emphasis has been on the plot, and at the end one feels one has been busy with episode after episode, but has failed to delve deep into the characters. It is depth that this nicely-bound novel lacks" (African Studies, September 1953). Mofokeng's critical assessments are informed by a historically mediated conceptual thinking. This is perhaps what made such a marked impression on Clement Martyn Doke, Benedict Vilakazi, A. C. Jordan and others. His death at the age of 34 years was an irreplaceable loss in the ranks of the New African Movement.