The Oral, Performative, and Visual Roots of Moʻolelo as Hawaiian Literature

By kuʻualoha hoʻomanawanui

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. 

     Until 1822, when the first printing press was established in Hawaiʻi, moʻolelo (history, story, orature, literature, narrative [1]) was transmitted across generations through oral performance modes, including storytelling, recitation, chant, song, and dance, and via other culturally-informed practices, such as tattoos, printed textiles, and intricate lashing patterns. In traditional times before western invasion (beginning in 1778) and the onslaught of settler colonialism (beginning in a deliberate manner in 1820), moʻolelo were recorded and transmitted in many ways prior to the introduction of western literacy and the printed word. All of these performative and visual methods of recording, remembering, and transmitting moʻolelo are still practiced, in traditional and modern ways. But the initial introduction of ka palapala, the printed word, incorporated a new and innovative way to record, compose, and transmit moʻolelo and other kinds of information, particularly important in a time of mass population collapse due to a plethora of introduced foreign diseases that accompanied exploration by and settlement of foreigners into Hawaiʻi, resulting in the catastrophic loss of knowledge committed solely to memory, the loss of the experts trained in the application and transmission of such important ʻike (knowledge), and the unrelenting pressure on the remaining native population to convert to Christianity and assimilate to haole (Amer-European [2]) culture, the true impact of which is unknowable. 
     Folklorists have grappled with what to call certain kinds of stories, particularly those without specific authors, prior to being written down. Terms such as oral traditions, orature, oral literature, and traditional literature have been suggested to describe these kinds of narratives. The Hawaiian word moʻolelo is a contraction of the term moʻo ʻōlelo, a “succession of words” that indicate a narrative of some kind, such as a story, that is told. Thus, the Hawaiian word for literature, or written stories is directly related to the orality of story telling. 
     Once western literacy (reading and writing) was introduced and taught beginning in the 1820s, the mode of storytelling expanded to include not just the moʻolelo being told mai ka waha—from the mouth, but also on the page; moʻolelo could now be read, not just heard, and distributed to much wider audiences transcending any single storytelling event. Moreover, the printed page became a new means of storing and archiving moʻolelo, an additional method of “remembering” and revisiting moʻolelo beyond the immediacy of the storyteller’s performance. Prior to modern means of recording and storing information, such as photography, video recorders, audio recording devices, computers and the internet, for example, the printed page was a marvelous means of passing on moʻolelo mai ka pō mai (from the ancient past) and mai nā kūpuna mai (from the ancestors), and ʻŌiwi (one of several Hawaiian-language descripters “Hawaiians” use to identify as “Hawaiians”) began writing prolifically. Currently, there is an estimated 1.5 million pages or more of written ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi, including moʻolelo, the majority of which is not indexed or catalogued. And while around 100 newspapers were published in the span of just over one century, only forty-eight are available as digitized text available online.[3] Collectively, the Hawaiian language archives is impressively the largest Indigenous language archive in writing across the Pacific and North America.
     Ironically, much of what is known about pre-nineteenth century oral traditions come from nineteenth to early twentieth century written moʻolelo published in Hawaiian-language newspapers. They contain an array of Hawaiian moʻolelo, as well as moʻolelo from myriad other cultures and nations. A handful of moʻolelo Hawaiʻi were published in English language newspapers. One example is “Hiiaka: A Hawaiian Legend by a Hawaiian Native,” by Kaili (Emma Kaʻilikapuolono Notley Nakuina) in the Pacific Commercial Daily Advertiser from August 5, 1883–October 13, 1883. At least one Hawaiian moʻolelo, “The Battle of the Shark Gods,” was published in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, September 10, 1904. [4]
     The vast majority of Hawaiian moʻolelo were published in newspapers classified as independent nationalist papers, meaning they were free of missionary, church, and government control, and encouraged aloha ʻāina—ʻŌiwi nationalism based on cultural traditions and practices, most notably relationship with ʻāina.[5] A few moʻolelo, however, were published in missionary- or government-run newspapers prior to 1861, although many were more summaries and much shorter than later versions. For example, a brief version of a Hiʻiakaikapoliopele narrative, “He Wahi Kaao a me Kekahi Mele Pu” by B. Kalaiohauola, was published in two installments in Ka Hae Hawaii on July 4, 1860 and August 15, 1860. At just over two thousand words, it is much shorter than the later epic-length moʻolelo that average close to two hundred thousand words.[6]
     Mele (chants, songs, poetry) are highly prevalent within many epic-length moʻolelo. The first epic-length Pele and Hiʻiaka moʻolelo published in Hawaiian, “He Moolelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele” by M. J. Kapihenui of Kailua, Oʻahu features three hundred mele, even though it is not the longest or most elaborate version of the moʻolelo at only sixty thousand words. The high volume of mele within the prose text of the moʻolelo point to the emphasis placed, even in writing, on the performative aspect of traditional moʻolelo. Many of the mele are specifically classified within the text by terms such as pule (prayer), kānaenae (a type of supplication or eulogy), or hulihia (a type of chant specifically associated with Pele that refers to a complete upheaval of the established order of things). Specific mele are also identified as hula, and are performed as such within the moʻolelo.[7]
     The idea that every minute detail of information, particularly with moʻokūʻauhau, mele, and moʻolelo, were memorized exactly and that errors might be punishable by death is widespread. However, at least in the written archive of moʻolelo available in both published newspapers, and handwritten manuscripts at the Bishop Museum Archives and elsewhere, show that myriad adaptations and variations within moʻokūʻauhau, mele, and moʻolelo exist. I’ve documented thirteen Pele and Hiʻiaka moʻolelo published between 1860 and 1928, by at least twelve different authors. Other than the figure of Pele and her home at Kīlauea, Halemaʻumaʻu, and Mauna Loa, no two of these moʻolelo agree completely on every other aspect of the moʻolelo, including other characters, place names, or even spelling of these names, or episodes that occur, or order of episodes. In addition, there are multiple variants of specific mele within and outside of the Pele and Hiʻiaka moʻolelo; for example, I’ve found seventeen variants of the mele beginning with the first line “Kūnihi ka mauna i ka laʻi ē” (steep stands the mountain [Waiʻaleʻale] in the calm), commonly used today as a mele kāhea (chant seeking permission to enter a space, such as a forest to gather foliage, a hālau, or a hula performance space, such as a competition stage), no two variants exactly alike. 
     How does such diversity of printed and written text inform our understanding of moʻolelo? For one thing, it reflects the well-known adage, ʻaʻole pau ka ʻike i ka hālau hoʻokahi—not all knowledge is contained in one school; in extension, by one individual. It also reflects diversity of thought, both intellectual, creative, and interpretive. It also invites us to delve deeper into comparative work. Rather than look inter-culturally or inter-linguistically solely within the realm of translation studies, comparing ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi to English translations, for example, or seeking a singular “authentic” version of the moʻolelo, the practice of makawalu, literally “eight eyes,” and metaphorically multiple perspectives, allow us to ask different kinds of questions that can elucidate more culturally relevant interpretation and understanding of ʻike kupuna (ancestral knowledge) contained within the moʻolelo. 
     The written moʻolelo also provide a foundation for new variants and adaptations. One excellent example is the stage production, book, and DVD Holo Mai Pele produced by Hālau o Kekuhi and the Edith Kanakaʻole Foundation. Another is Hālau Hanakeaka’s ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi stage play Lāʻieikawai (2015). Pacific Resources in Education and Learning (PREL) has also produced an animated film focused on Pele’s migration to Hawaiʻi called Pele Finds a Home. These are just a few examples of how written moʻolelo have inspired twenty-first century ʻŌiwi artists to continue the performative and visual roots of moʻolelo that reach back to the origins of moʻolelo mai ka pō mai, mai nā kūpuna mai, mai ka waha mai in new ways rooted in traditional practice for modern audiences. 
 
NOTES
1. There are many more definitions listed in the Pukui-Elbert dictionary; these are primary definitions relevant to the purpose of this blog. See wehewehe.org.
2. Native American scholar Jace Weaver draws from earlier work by John Joseph Matthews in distinguishing “Euro-American,” meaning “an American of European descent” from “Amer-European,” because the two terms better reflect “the difference in worldviews between the two peoples, Native and non-Native. Born of and shaped by a different continent, Amer-Europeans will never truly be of this continent, never truly belong here, no matter how many generations they may dwell here” (Weaver, That the People Might Live: Native American Literatures and Native American Community, Oxford U P, 1997, Kindle loc. 123-126). This definition extends appropriately to the Hawaiian term “haole.”      
3. See Papakilo Database, www.papakilodatabase.com.    
4. See nupepa-Hawaii blog, March 26, 2019. https://nupepa-hawaii.com/2019/03/26/mikololou-and-kaahupahau-reach-far-away-new-york-1905/.     5. See Helen G. Chapin, Shaping History, the Role of Newspapers in Hawaii (U of Hawaiʻi P, 1996); Noenoe Silva, chapter 2, “Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika, Emergence of the Native Voice in Print,” in Aloha Betrayed, Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism, Duke U P, 2004.     
6. Comparative notes for Pele and Hiʻiaka moʻolelo were part of my research methodology in completing my dissertation on these moʻolelo. See “Pele’s Appeal: Moʻolelo, Kaona, and Hulihia in ‘Pele and Hiʻiaka’ Literature, 1860-1928,” Proquest Dissertation Publishing, 2007.    
​7.  For example, see Silva, “Talking Back to Law and Empire, Hula in Hawaiian Language Literature in 1861,” in Law & Empire in the Pacific, Fiji and Hawaiʻi, eds. Sally Merry Engle and Donald Brenneis, Oxford U P, 2003, 101-121.

Suggested further reading:
 
Chapin, Helen Gerocimos. Shaping History, the Role of Newspapers in Hawaii. U of Hawaiʻi P, 1996.

hoʻomanawanui, kuʻualoha. “He Ahu Moʻolelo: E Hoʻokahua i ka Paepae Moʻolelo Palapala    Hawaiʻi (A Cairn of Stories: Establishing a Foundation of Hawaiian Literature). Palapala, a Journal for Hawaiian Language and Literature, 1.1 (2017): 51-100.            https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/43988/05_1hoomanawanui.pdf

​–––. Voices of Fire, Reweaving the Literary Lei of Pele and Hiʻiaka. U of Minnesota P, 2014. 

Mookini, Esther T. The Hawaiian Language Newspapers. Topgallant, 1974.

Silva, Noenoe K. Chapter 2, “Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika, Emergence of the Native Voice in Print,”  Aloha Betrayed, Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism. Duke UP, 2004.

Teaiwa, Teresia. "What Remains to be Seen: The Visual Roots of Pacific Literature." PMLA, 125 (3), May 2010, 730-736. http://jstor.org/stable/25704471