This chapter analyses modern Sesotho poetry. The analysis focusses on three pivotal precursor genres which relate to the intertextual nature of modern Sesotho poetry. These predecessors of MSP are: lithoko, cultural aspects (traditional and Christian) and Western poetry. Modern Sesotho poetry, therefore, is viewed as an intertext of lithoko, cultural aspects (from both traditional and Christian world) and Western poetry. Hence, the analysis is guided by the theory of intertextuality as proposed in chapter 2. This chapter identifies and analyses some lithoko intertexts in modern Sesotho poetry (MSP). The analysis considers the first of the three precursor genres, lithoko by looking at the oral-formulaic style, content and poetic devices as intertexts in modern Sesotho poetry. The subsequent sections, therefore, define the two concepts, and then explain how they are applied in this study.
3.1.1 Form in Modern Sesotho Poetry
Abrams (1999:101) takes cognisance not only of the word “form” as one of those with most frequent appearances in literary criticism but also as one with numerous meanings. It is these varied meanings that bring into play diverse perceptions on the concept of form in the literary arena. Firstly, in Abrams (1999:101) and Cuddon’s (1999:327) view, the term can denote a genre or literary type or the kind of work, examples of which are the short story, poetry, novel or drama. However, Cuddon regards this meaning of the word as secondary. Another meaning which these two critics attach to the word “form”, which is not far from the first, is one that relates to meter, lines, stanza and rhyme patterns within a poem. In other words, these poetic items can also be described as different forms within a poem. They are further described as the verse and stanza forms to which Kunene (1971:53) adds metre and points out that, they are not only acquainted with European poetry but also conventionalized. Notably, “…poets use the iambic pentameter or the anapaest or whatever other form, counting so many ‘feet’ per line, and sometimes even so many lines per verse”, (ibid). Thirdly, the word “form” is sometimes used to mean a central
68 | P a g e pivotal notion or idea as understood from the Latin “forma” synonymous to “idea” in Greek, (Lenake, 1984:119, Ebewo, 1997:49 and Abrams, 1999:101).
Fourthly, Lenake (1984:119) and Ebewo (1997:49) further define the term ‘form’ as a shape, appearance of a poem. In other words, the patterns; established or not established, is what the poet chooses to adopt in presenting his / her views on paper and is what constitutes form - the visible being and shape of the poem. In reference to this Abrams (1999:101–102) observes that central to these divergent perceptions on the word “form”, beginning with the forth one, is a critic’s own individual ideological and theoretical orientations. It is in this regard that Abrams (1999: 101) refers to this appearance or shape of a poem as mechanic form in the neoclassic critics’ ideological orientation where the form of a work is regarded “as the combination of component parts matched to each other according to the principle of decorum or mutual fittingness” as opposed to organic form. In essence, form, as the product of a particular arrangement of structures that has been recognised and accepted can be confirmed by rigorous analysis of the structure. And as a convention, form is based on the literary traditions and customs of a society (Lenake, 1984:119–120). Therefore, the poetic patterning and shaping, appearance and formations are perceived not as literary inventions of poets but established poetic conventions that poets fit in their poetic structures.
According to Abrams (1999:102) a number of critics, on the one hand, draw no line of demarcation between form and structure but use the two concepts interchangeably. This brings in another meaning for the term “form” which is structure. On the other hand, the concept of form was also revived and developed in Aristotle’s Poetics where the distinction between form and structure was drawn by R.D.S. Crane, a leader of the Chicago School of literary criticism. In this development the form of a literary work is described in Greek terms as “‘dynamics’, the particular ‘working’ or ‘emotional power’ that the composition is designed to effect and which functions as its ‘shaping principle’. In other words, the intended literary effect that all the literary components, both audible and inaudible but visible; all that make a literary work what it is, its shape and appearance, content, communicative
69 | P a g e devices and all that contributes into making whoever reads it experience what they experience emotionally and other forms of appeal.
3.1.2 Structure in Modern Sesotho Poetry
A literary work of art, in this case poetry, comprises different parts which are arranged or organised in a particular way, and this arrangement or pattern is what is usually referred to as structure. Unlike form, structure is perceived not as a convention but is dictated by the poet’s literary imagination and as such it is an outcome of such imagination. It is, therefore, understood as the manner in which the poet presents his / her thought and mood. Defining the concept “structure” Lenake (1984:119) describes it as “the internal organisation, the composition of the poem”.
This is sometimes defined as the audible shape of a work of art. That is, what the reader cannot perceive through the ordinary eye but can only be perceived mentally by engaging with a work of art.
From a structuralist point of view, structure denotes collective connectedness of parts of a literary work to one another forming a whole and constituting a meaningful communication. To this, Cuddon (1999:871) gives as examples “the structure of a word, a sentence, a paragraph, a chapter, a book […]”. In poetic terms, we would be talking about the structure of poetic features such as words, lines, stanzas, the whole poem as well as the patterns that emerge through the use of devices such as repetition, parallelism and rhyme schemes. On the other hand, tone, intention, mood and feeling, even rhyme, also constitute what is referred to as the audible structure of the poem or any literary work of art. The concept is further defined by structuralists as “signifying elements and their rules of combination” (Abrams, 1999:300). In other words, these are parts of a literary work, in this case poetry, which in their manner of arrangement and coming together following some conventional rules, communicate a certain meaning. Structure is also perceived as “the underlying system of literary conventions and rules of combination” and how they relate to one another within that system (Abrams, 1999: 301).
70 | P a g e The above discussion has revealed that in the literary analysis, the two concepts are interrelated in their meanings and functions. As a result, it is not easy and ideal to separate and restrict their functional meanings in this study. Therefore, having considered the multiple meanings attached to these two concepts, this study applies a neutral approach in the use of the concepts in the analysis of modern Sesotho poetry. This study is not restrictive in the use of the concepts “form” and “structure”
but as Abrams (1999:102) asserts, there is no line of demarcation drawn between form and structure. The two concepts are used interchangeably in accordance with the contexts that prevail. Where form is found most suitable, it is applied and so is structure where the situation at hand dictates so. The rationale behind this context- oriented approach is to allow contextual flexibility in the application of these concepts and so allow for open poetic vistas in the analysis.
The chapter is divided into two main sections covering the following sub-headings:
The Oral-formulaic concept in Lithoko forms and structures in modern Sesotho poetry
Lithoko content in modern Sesotho poetry, which comprises eulogues and Lithoko devices.
Section One - The Oral-formulaic Concept in Modern Sesotho Poetry
Lithoko are perceived as oral-formulaic texts which Abrams (1999:200) describes as
“poetry that is composed and transmitted by singers and reciters” whose origins are prehistoric. As Abrams (ibid) further points out, Lithoko still thrives even among communities which are largely illiterate as they cannot read and write. In the same vein, considering the usage and the development of the Oral-Formulaic Theory in the Poetic Edda, Ferioli (2010:1) cites the context of lacking the knowledge of reading and writing as the natural environment in which a special technique employed by the
‘so-called’ singers of tales could be observed and understood. We take cognisance of the fact that some lithoko have been reduced to writing after such knowledge (writing) was acquired by some Basotho. Nevertheless, we are of the view that lithoko, as Okpewho (1992: 350) argues about African oral narratives, have been transcribed “on the basis of the artist’s breath stops, that is, each line represents what the artist has chosen or been able to say in one breath. Thus, the lines of the text are said to have been divided on the basis of breath groups”; the principle which
71 | P a g e has long been in practice in the treatment of other African traditional poetic chants such as the Zulu izibongo and the Yoruba ijala.
On the other hand, in talking about the oral-formulaic style in lithoko, Damane et al (1974:52) describe lines in lithoko as units of meaning in the same way as paragraphs are. This means that contrary to what happens in poetry, the construction of lines in lithoko is in no way based on and related to the metrical system but as Damane et al (ibid) indicates, “the fact that each line is a unit of meaning is naturally reflected in the seroki’s chanting, for he pauses between one line and the next, or else he conveys the sense of division through his intonation or emphasis.” It is these pauses that constitute what Okpewho (1992: 350) has earlier on referred to as “the artist’s breath stops.” The variations in doing this is manifested in the varying line length lithoko always come out with when they are reduced to writing and the same formulaic pattern is realised in some modern Sesotho poetry.
An outstanding concept of the Oral-Formulaic Theory is the concept of formula which, according to Ferioli (2010:2), was introduced by Lord Albert and Parry Milman, which the latter defines as “a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea”. Formulas as Lord quoted by Ferioli (ibid) puts it are “the phrases and clauses and sentences” of the poet’s specialised poetic grammar which he has learnt by listening to other singers’ songs. Sesotho poetry as an intertext of lithoko, therefore, manifests some of these oral formulaic features through its lithoko-like formative structures as the sections below demonstrate.
After being introduced to literacy and then mastering the skills of reading and writing, not only Basotho, but most African literary artists, reverted to their own hoard of oral lore as source and literary support base in their production of literary works such as modern poetry. Basotho artists reverted to lithoko, among others, about which Kunene (1971: xiii) observes that “when they abandoned themselves to the true poetic genius that was native to them, they almost invariably produced good poetry.”
Though Mangoaela published a major collection of lithoko in 1921 (Ambrose
72 | P a g e 2008:1), this is just a drop in the ocean because numerous lithoko of the same kind Mangoaela published, and many other forms, are still with the ordinary people living simple lives in the Basotho rural villages. A Sesotho adage says “thebe e seheloa holim’a e ‘ngoe”, literally saying a shield is cut mapped onto another, which means that a photocopy is produced from the original. The ‘photocopy’, therefore, though unique, is neither the original nor an independent entity as it still bears features of the original plus its own as a new artefact. This analogy explains the case of modern Sesotho poetry, which is a photocopy in relation to lithoko, the original. The point that is being made here is that Basotho modern poets reverted to their lithoko and used that composition as the original from which they produced the modern Sesotho poetry. The new phenomenon, therefore, is seen to be having features associated with the original lithoko from which it was cut. Khaketla (1985: vii) sums up well the emergence of this phenomenon when he says that “Reneketso9 e thomehile ka lithoko.” ‘Poetry originates from lithoko’. It is this original-photocopy relationship and connectedness that this section investigates, as manifested in forms, structures, content and linguistic devices in modern Sesotho poetry.
Modern Sesotho poetry has drawn from lithoko not only forms and structures but also content. It is not only important but also imperative for this study to relate the concepts of form and structure to lithoko and poetry as this chapter probes into the forms and structures identifiable as intertexts from lithoko in modern Sesotho poetry - MSP.