Moʻolelo and Kaʻao—Hawaiian Artistic-Intellectual Genres

By Marie Alohalani Brown

NOTE: Readers unfamiliar with Hawaiian language can access wehewehe.org, the online archive of Hawaiian dictionaries. It automatically loads in Hawaiian, but there is an “English text” button at the top right of the page to switch access to English. 

This blog post comprises excerpts from Marie Alohalani's book Ka Poʻe Moʻo Akua: Hawaiian Reptilian Water Deities (University of Hawaiʻi Press, January 2022).

MOʻOLELO

     Moʻolelo are important archives of ʻike kupuna. They are rich examples of ʻŌiwi aesthetics because they share certain elements and often include yet other genres, which suggests that their structure is informed by a cultural sense of what they should contain. The genre termed "moʻolelo" is predicated on ʻŌiwi ways of knowing and being. Mary Kawena Pukui’s definition of "moʻolelo" showcases the way that it is culturally-informed: "moʻo" and "ʻōlelo" combined denote “series of talks,” a union reflecting a long history of oral tradition as Pukui points out (Pukui and Elbert, Hawaiian Dictionary, s.v. “moʻolelo”). Although this genre is distinctly ʻŌiwi, it is capacious in that it encompasses, incorporates, and weaves together elements from what in English would be termed "story," "history," "myth," "epic", "legend," "origin story," "cautionary tale," "folk tale," and "life writing" (autobiography, biography, and memoir). "Moʻo" also denotes "moʻolelo." Indeed, "moʻo" has many meanings, including "lizard," "reptile," "moʻo akua" (Hawaiian reptilian water deity), and "moʻopuna" (grandchild or descendant). 

​KAʻAO

     Like moʻolelo, kaʻao are also important archives of ʻike kupuna. In some ways, kaʻao is a genre predicated on moʻolelo. An analysis of metadiscourse can help us to understand how our kūpuna understood the connection between kaʻao and moʻolelo [1]. On the one hand, kaʻao have been characterized as lacking the historicity of moʻolelo. On the other hand, they have also been explained as a narrative approach to relating history. In his dictionary, Lorrin Andrews (1865) explains kaʻao as “A legend; a tale of ancient times,” and “traditional story; a fable,” or a “history in the manner of a story.” Henry H. Parker revised Andrews’ dictionary (1922), and drastically edited his entry for kaʻao: “To recite, to narrate; applicable only to fictitious and traditionary tales: I ua po nei e kaao ana oia ia makou; on that night he was telling us a story.” Pukui (1986) defines kaʻao as “Legend, tale, novel, romance, usually fanciful; fiction.” As we see, several western genres are given as definitions for kaʻao, which suggests that they, like moʻolelo, are a capacious genre [2].
     Hawaiian-language newspapers contributors also offered their ideas about kaʻao. In 1882, in his critique of a foreign story published by a fellow Hawaiian, S. N. Haleʻole defined kaʻao as “he mea i hakuia” [something made up]. Elsewhere, he offers a more nuanced understanding of kaʻao, which can be gleaned from the metadata of his works. For his serialized account about the heroine Lāʻieikawai in the newspaper Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, Haleʻole used the genre designation moʻolelo, but when he republished it as a book, he changed the genre designation to kaʻao [3]. However, the book’s cover page notes, “Kakauia mailoko mai o na Moolelo Kahiko o Hawaii nei,” which means that this story is inspired by or taken from traditional accounts. The heroine Lāʻieikawai, in fact, appears in several traditions other than the one that bears her name [4].
     P. W. Kaʻawa, a Lahainaluna Seminary student who wrote about akua in his installments for the seminary’s series on Hoʻomana in 1865, offers his understanding of kaʻao: 

He mea pili i ka noho hoonanea ana o na ’Lii, he mea lealea maoli no. He mea hoopau molowa paha. Malaila ka olu o kekahi poe ma ka paa o na kaao [5].
 
It is a thing related to the leisure of Aliʻi, something very entertaining. Perhaps a thing to end inactivity. Some people find pleasure there in memorizing kaʻao. 
 
     That people enjoy memorizing kaʻao to retell them, underscores their status as traditional stories. Kamakau dismisses kaʻao outright: “Pela ke ano o na Moolelo Kaao, aole oiaio, i haku wale ia no” (That is the nature of moʻolelo kaʻao, they are not true, just made up) [6]. Here, he uses moʻolelo as narrative in a general sense and kaʻao as a type of narrative, in this case fiction. 
     What these different definitions and commentary that I have thus shared do not provide is a theory to explain how kaʻao come into being. John E. Bush and Simeon Paʻaluhi are notable in that they offer a literary theory about kaʻao in their version of the Hiʻiakaikapoliopele tradition, which they published in 1893. Here, before continuing, a summary of this tradition is helpful. Hiʻiakaikapoliopele is the youngest and most-favored younger sister of Pele, the volcano deity whose name means lava. After Pele meets Lohiʻau, the handsome ruler of Kauaʻi, in her spirit form as she is sleeping, Pele sends Hiʻiaka on a journey to retrieve him. As Hiʻiaka travels across the Hawaiian Islands searching for Lohiʻau whom two moʻo akua have abducted, she encounters and battles adversaries, including many moʻo akua. In their introduction to the first installment of their account, Bush and Paʻaluhi call attention to the relationship between moʻolelo and kaʻao:
 
E like me ke ano mau o na moolelo o ka wa kahiko, i haawi waha ia mai kahi hanauna mai a kekahi hanauna, ua lilo mau ke ano o ka moolelo, a ua hookikepakepa ia iho hoi i kela a me keia manawa o ka poe malama mookuauhau moolelo, a mai ia wa i kuakaao a ka moolelo io maoli o keia ohana a hiki i keia la, a lilo ai hoi na hana i hookuiia me ka huakai imi kane a Hiiaka i hele ai, he mau hana hookalakupua [7].
 
As always with moʻolelo belonging to the distant past, transmitted orally from one generation to another generation, the moʻolelo continually evolves, altered each time [it is told] by the people who preserve the continuity of the moʻolelo, and from then on, the actual moʻolelo of that family transformed into a kaʻao, and the exploits of that man-seeking journey upon which Hiʻiaka embarked transformed into wondrous acts.
 
     From this perspective, kaʻao are based on moʻolelo, which through multiple retellings across generations, transform historical figures into heroes (or even antiheroes) and their actions into fantastical exploits. In this sense, kaʻao resemble legends, which are accounts believed to contain the seeds of truth even if they cannot be fully authenticated. 
     There is yet another possibility to explain how kaʻao come into being. Kaʻao based on traditional knowledge about gods, cultural heros, or notable humans, and that have abundant cultural references can also be the product of redaction. John Charlot, who uses form and redaction criticism to analyze the literatures of Hawaiʻi and Sāmoa, notes: “Just as historical subjects could be treated in story form, so such stories can be combined to form larger complexes. . . . A complex is constructed by combining redactionally a number of traditional pieces" [8]. Although Charlot does not reference kaʻao specifically, his observations can apply to them. A redactor might create kaʻao by combining episodes or motifs from different moʻolelo, editing them, composing new data to join them, and then add metadiscursive devices to this framework. In short, kaʻao can be “new” takes on “old” topics, but are rooted in tradition. Those kaʻao that lack traditional figures and cultural references are the ʻŌiwi equivalent of Western fiction genres such as fairy tales, romances, or adventure stories, which perhaps inspired them. These kinds of kaʻao began to appear in Hawaiian-language newspapers in the early 1880s. 
     An example of a kaʻao as a new composition based on traditional figures and themes is “Kaao Hooniua Puuwai no Ka-Miki” by John Wise and J. W. H. I. Kihe, which ran from 1914 to 1917 [9]. Kepa Maly and Onaona Maly offer their cogent assessment of this account:
 
The story of Ka-Miki is a long and complex account, that was recorded for the paper by Hawaiian historians JohnWise and J.W.H.I. Kihe—with contributions by local informants. While ‘Ka-Miki’ is not an ancient account, the authors used a mixture of local stories, tales, and family traditions in association with place names to tie together fragments of site specific history that had been handed down over the generations.

The complete narratives include historical accounts for approximately 800 place names (many personified, commemorating particular individuals) of the island of Hawaiʻi. While the personification of all the identified individuals and their associated place names may not be entirely ‘ancient,’ the site documentation within the ‘story of Ka-Miki’ is of significant cultural and historical value [10].
 
     As Maly and Maly’s extensive analysis of Ka-Miki shows, kaʻao composed by informed individuals are valuable. Kaʻao, like moʻolelo, should be collected and studied as significant examples of ʻŌiwi artistic-intellectual production and important archives of ʻike kupuna.
​     Moʻolelo and kaʻao reflect a distinctly ʻŌiwi approach to narration. Their unfolding is rarely straightforwardunlike the common Western preference for linear explication with little embellishment. For this reason, readers new to this narrative approach may find them difficult to read. Like spiderwebs, moʻolelo and kaʻao are intricate creations, andhow the spider creates its web can be read as an allegory for traditional ʻŌiwi narrative techniques. A spider weaves its web by releasing strands that it then carefully connects as it goes back and forth, up and down, and crosses here and there until it fills out its web. And just as its method for constructing its web is informed by the countless spiders that existed before it, likewise moʻolelo and kaʻao reflect the countless generations of ‘Ōiwi who have, collectively, contributed to the formation of a uniquely Hawaiian poetics, or literary aesthetic. 

[1] In its most basic sense, metadiscourse includes an author’s or contributor’s commentary, explanations, clarifications on whatever is being discussed.
[2] Pukui and Elbert, Hawaiian, s.v. “kaʻao”; Andrews, Dictionary, s.v. “kaʻao”; Andrews and Parker, Dictionary, s.v. “kaao.” 
[3] Haleole, “Laieikawai,” Nov. 19–Apr. 4, 1863; Haleole, Laieikawai, n.p.
[4] “He Moolelo Hawaii Nani no Kekalukaluokewa,” Apr. 16, 1910–Nov. 18, 1911. 
[5] Kaawa, “Hoomana Kahiko. Helu 31,” Dec. 23, 1865.
[6] Kamakau, “Moolelo o Hawaii Nei,” Sept. 9, 1865.
[7] Bush and Paaluhi, “Hiiakaikapoliopele.” Jan. 5, 1893.
[8] Charlot, “Aspects,” 37. See also Charlot, “Application of Form.”
[9] Wise and Kihe, “Ka-Miki,” Jan. 8, 1914–Dec. 6, 1917.”
[10] Maly and Maly, He Wahi Moʻolelo, 15–16. ​