Pele's Appeal Mo'olelo, Kaona, and Hulihia in Pele and Hi'iaka Literature

PELE’S APPEAL: MO‘OLELO, KAONA, AND HULIHIA IN
“PELE AND HPIAKA” LITERATURE (1860-1928)
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF HAW AIT IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
ENGLISH
AUGUST 2007
By
Sherilyn Ku‘ualoha Ho‘omanawanui
Dissertation Committee:
Cristina Bacchilega, Chairperson

Paul Lyons
Candace Fujikane
Haunani-Kay Trask
Noenoe Silva
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
UMI Number: 3288107
Copyright 2008 by
Ho'omanawanui, Sherilyn Ku'ualoha
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3288107
Copyright 2008 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
He Pule no Hi‘iakaikapoliopele
E aloha a‘e ana au i ku‘u haku

E kalokalo a‘e ana au i ku‘u akua
E kala aku ana au i ku‘u hewa
E wehe mai ho‘i ‘oe i ka pa‘a i hemo
He aha la ka‘u hewa nui ia ‘oe e ku‘u Akua?
He hala ‘ai paha?
He hala i ‘a paha?
He hala kapa paha?
He hala malo paha?
He hala kanawai ho‘ohiki paha?
He ‘olelo a he hua paha na ka waha?
He aha ka hala?
Ina o ka hala ‘ia?
Wehe ‘ia i ke kua
Wehe ‘ia i ke alo
Wehe ‘ia i pau ka po‘ino me ka haumia
E ola ho‘i au kau pulapula
E Kaneiluna, e Kaneilalo
‘O Kaneloa, ‘o Kanepoko
‘O Kanekuikaueke
‘O Kanekuikekala
E kala i ka make ‘ana‘ana
E kala i na make a pau
E ola ho‘i au1
*Ho‘oulumahiehie, Ka N a ‘i Aupuni, December 9, 1905. Translation on last page of dissertation.
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
We certify that we have read this dissertation and that, in our opinion, it is
satisfactory in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy in English.
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairperson
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission
iv
KA WEHENA: OPENING EPIGRAPH
If Pele is not real to you, you cannot comprehend the quality of relationship that exists
between persons related to and through Pele, and of these persons to the land and
phenomena, not “created by” but which are, Pele and her clan. A rosy dawn is not merely
a lovely “natural phenomenon”: it is that beloved Person named “The-rosy-glow-of-
heavens,” who is “Hi‘iaka-in-the-bosom-of-Pele,” the youngest and most beloved sister
of that greater (and loved though awe-inspiring) Person, Pele-honua-mea . . . whose
passions expressed themselves in the upheavals of volcanism, whose “family” or “clan”
are the terrestrial and meteorological phenomena related to vulcanism and the land
created by vulcanism, as actively known in Ka‘u. The stories that we are about to review
are not archaic “legends” to a true native of Ka‘u: they are living, dynamic realities, parts
of an orderly and rational philosophy, now obscured and superceded by the new
dynamics and the chaotic values of the sugar plantation, with its mechanical and
industrial modernism and concomitant ethnic, social, economic, political, religious and
other “new ways.” These “new ways” are not a New Order for the country Hawaiian, and
never will be: for they have exterminated him. He was engulfed and drowned in the tidal
wave of Progress which inundated his land, his folks, his life and his spirit.
—Pukui and Handy 1958 (28)
“I can take you to my god. You can see her, feel her, touch her, smell her. I can feed you
the kinolau [bodyforms] of my god. That’s how real Pele is to us.”
—Palikapu Dedman, Pele’s Appeal
V
NA MAHALO
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Nothing in my life would have been possible without the love, support, and
existence of all of my kupuna. For my malihini ancestors who left their homelands of
China, Germany, Spain, England, France and the United States, and my Kanaka Maoli
ancestors from Kaua‘i to Hawai‘i islands—mahalo nui for your sense of adventure, your
courage, and for being kupa‘a ma ka ‘aina o Hawai‘i nei—for being steadfast on this
‘aina, ku‘u one hanau. I am grateful for the love, support, scolding, teasing, and
encouragement of my ‘ohana—here is it, at long last, so you may never have to ask
again, “when you gonna be pau?” It’s pau!
Nui ku‘u aloha ia ku‘u tutu wahine, Sarah Poni‘ala Kakelaka Meyer, with whom I
share a birth date, instilled a deep love, respect, and appreciation of our Hawaiian
heritage, history, and stories within me which I am forever grateful for, and to Mom and
Dad, who always let me pursue my passions regardless of the outcome, and usually ended
up paying for it one way or another!
There are many kumu I’ve had throughout my life who have influenced me as a
scholar. From Kapa‘a Elementary, Intermediate, and High School, mahalo nui to Jean
Sheldon, Roy Shimamoto, John Cox, Elaine Shinseki, Joey Sokei, and most especially
Muriel Nishi and Howard King, who fostered and indulged my passion for writing and
art, respectively. At Kaua‘i Community College, Andy Bushnell, William “Pila” Kikuchi,
and Jose Bulatao were instrumental in opening my mind to higher education. At the
University of Hawai’i at Manoa, two of the first professors I encountered in
undergraduate classes have supported me from the beginning are my dissertation chair,
Cristina Bacchilega, and Haunani-Kay Trask; mahalo nui for sharing your knowledge
with me, so that I may see the work I do in a more engaged and informed light.
Countless numbers have helped shape me as an indigenous intellectual and
practitioner. Some are living treasures who have committed themselves to upholding our
language and cultural traditions; others have passed on to the realm of the ancestors. This
dissertation could not have been accomplished without the aloha, support, and insistence
I finish—everyone mentioned here and more has contributed to this work. Kumu who
have been instrumental in my intellectual and cultural development are my committee
members, Noenoe Silva, Candace Fujikane, and Paul Lyons; others include Pualani
Hopkins, Ku Kahakalau, Puakea Nogelmeier, and John Chariot.
The librarians and archivists who assisted me in my research were invaluable,
especially Dore Minatodani and Joan Hori of the Hawai‘i-Pacific Collection, Hamilton
Library, University of Hawai‘i-Manoa, DeSoto Brown, Betty Lou Kam and the staff of
the Bishop Museum Archives, Laura Gerwitz of the Hawai‘i Medical Library and the
staff of the Mission House Museum Library. A special mahalo to Mahealani Dudoit,
Brandy Nalani McDougall, Leslie Keli‘ilauahi “Aunty Zoe” Stewart, Noelani Arista,
Ka'imipono Kaiwi Kahumoku, Mohala Aiu, Laiana Wong, and Walter Kahumoku III,
Kamaka Kanekoa; Malia “Alohilani” Kuala Rogers, Kerri-Ann Hewett, Lehua Yim,
Coralie Kanani Texeira, Alice TePunga Sommerville, Georganne Nordstrom, Lokahi
Antonio, Carlos Andrade, E. Kalani Flores, Lalepa Koga, and John Ka‘imikaua. E ku‘u
hiwa lani e—Ioane Ho‘omanawanui, you have been a help and inspiration beyond words.
v ii
The mea kakau who had the foresight to record our precious mo‘olelo on paper
left us a priceless cultural treasure, an intellectual and cultural legacy of unfathomable
depth and beauty to which we are greatly appreciative and indebted. Mahalo nui, in
particular, to na mea haku of the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo for their commitment to our
language and culture in a time of great adversity; we embark on a journey of rediscovery,
and seek to learn from and enjoy these mo‘olelo as you intended.
The best of what everyone has offered me is contained within these pages and
reflected within this work, but all errors and omissions are my own. I have spent over a
decade of my life researching, reading, writing, analyzing, thinking, reflecting and talking
about these m o‘olelo. I have dreamed them. I have visited the ‘aina from Pele’s home at
Kilauea, Hawai‘i, Lohi‘au’s hula pa at Ke‘e, Kaua‘i, and our ancestral homeland, Tahiti.
Much time, thought, and aloha has gone into these pages. In the words of esteemed
scholar Mary Kawena Pukui:
Pa‘i ana na pahu a ka hula le‘a;
‘O ka‘u hula no keia
Let more famous chanters beat their own drums
This hula is indeed mine.1
1Adapted from Handy and Pukui 1972: 206.
v iii
ABSTRACT
An important figure in Hawaiian mo‘olelo (hi/story) is Pele, goddess of the
volcano, whose many deeds are vividly described in the vast repository of chants, songs,
poetry, dance and narrative recorded in a myriad of oral and written traditions, the body
of which I identify as Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo. Collectively, it significantly
outnumbers m o‘olelo for all other Hawaiian gods. Yet despite the immense repository of
Hawaiian-language Pele literature it has been virtually ignored by scholars because it is
recorded, for the most part, in Hawaiian.
This dissertation is an examination of written Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo
published in the Hawaiian language newspapers from 1860-1928, and Nathaniel B.
Emerson’s Pele and HViaka (1915), focusing on what I identify as a genealogically-
linked “strand” of texts, namely Kapihenui (1861), Pa‘aluhi and Bush (1893), Emerson
(1915), and an undated Bishop Museum Archives manuscript (HI. L. 23). Through
selected examples, I identify and discuss four important points relevant to the
development of this literature: (1) the Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo can be organized
genealogically because of the existing relationships between the texts; (2) as the earliest
written text, Kapihenui’s relied more on (and is more reminiscent of) oral tradition
because it was closer in time and form to it as a transitional (oral to written) text; (3)
Hawaiians became more adept at understanding the nuances of written literature, their
literary productions flourished, embracing and adapting the western style; (4) politically,
in form and content the texts represent Native Hawaiian resistance to western colonialism
and an assertion of cultural identity, pride, and creativity, demonstrating a “hulihia
discourse,” a dynamic continuity of cultural thought and practice. As such, I argue the
poetics (kaona) and political meaning (hulihia) of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo have
been culturally encoded for a Hawaiian audiences, inspiring Hawaiian writers today to
continue to weave a lei of resistance to colonization through our literary and performing
arts, of which the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo is but one example.
x;
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables & Page

Figures
1A. Mo ‘oku ‘auhau of Pele and Hi ‘iaka mo ‘olelo texts.................................. 11

IB. Oli and Mele from Kapihenui (1861)—Chronological order in text 22
IC. Oli and Mele from Kapihenui (1861)—Alphabetical order by first line 23
5A. Similarities and Differences between Orature and Literature................. 197
5B. Transitional Hawaiian language Literature Texts as Illustrated by the 204
Pele and Hi‘iaka Mo‘o lelo ......................................................................
5C. Major Chant Sequences in Kapihenui’s Pele and Hi‘iaka Mo‘olelo 225
5D. Kunihi ka Mauna chant published in the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo
1861-1924.................................................................................................. 230
5E. Hulihia Chant Comparison Chart.............................................................. 234
5F. Comparison between Lines of Kapihenui Hulihia Chants and fHI.L.23 238
Manuscript..................................................................................
5G. Migration of the Pele ‘Ohana from Kahiki to Hawai‘i (chronological 251
order)...........................................................................................................
5H. Comparison of Hulihia chants between Kapihenui and Pa‘aluhi and 258
Bush (K) (chronological order)................................................................
6A. Poepoe’s Comparison of “Eia Ho‘iA u e L a k a ” Oli................................. 279
6B. Allusions and References to Western Literature in Emerson’s Pele 296
and HViaka................................................................................................
6C. Comparison of Kapihenui and Emerson texts: example 1....................... 298
6D. Comparison of Kapihenui and Emerson texts: example 2 ....................... 300
6E. Comparison of Kapihenui and Emerson texts: example 3....................... 300
6F. Comparison of Kapihenui and Emerson texts: example 4 ....................... 302
6G. Comparison of Chant Versions in Emerson’s texts: example 1.............. 318
6H. Comparison of Emerson text and HI.L.23 manuscript............................ 319
61. Comparison of Kapihenui and Emerson texts: example 6 ....................... 321
6J. Comparison of Chant Versions in Emerson’s texts: example 2.............. 323
6K. Comparison of Kapihenui and Emerson texts: example 7 ....................... 324
6L. Comparison of Kapihenui and Emerson texts: example 8....................... 326
6M. Comparison of Kapihenui and Emerson texts: example 9....................... 329
6N. Comparison of Kapihenui and Emerson texts: example 10..................... 331
60. Comparison of Kapihenui and Emerson texts: example 11..................... 334
7A. Hula Scenes in Kapihenui’s H i‘iaka Text................................................ 374
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
HA Hawaii Aloha
HOH Hoku o Hawaii
HRR Home Rula Repubalika
KHH Ka Hae Hawaii
KHP Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika
KHR Kuokoa Home Rula
KLK Ka Loea Kalaiaina
KLL Ka Leo o ka Lahui
KNA Ka Na ‘i Aupuni
KNK Ka Nupepa Kuokoa
PCA Pacific Commercial Advertiser
TMW The Maile Wreath
BPBM Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum

BPBMA Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Archives
HEN Hawai‘i Ethnological Notes collection
UHM University of Hawai‘i at Manoa
JPS Journal o f the Polynesian Society

PED Pukui and Elbert’s Hawaiian Dictionary
Xlf
‘OLELO HO‘AKAKA (PREFACE)

KUNIHI KA MAUNA: STEEP STANDS THE MOUNTAIN
Kunihi ka mauna i ka la‘i e, Steep stands the mountain in the calm

‘O Wai‘ale‘ale la i Wailua, Wai‘ale‘ale there at Wailua
Huki [a‘ela] i luna ka popo ua Snatched up above is the rain bundles o f
o Kawaikini, Kawaikini
Alai ‘ia a‘ela e Nounou, Hidden up there by Nounou
Nalo wale Kaipuha‘a, Kaipuha ‘a disappears
Ka laula ma uka o Kapa‘a e, The great expanse in the mountains above
Kapa ‘a
Ha‘a i ka laula, Low in the expanse
Ha‘a ka ipu, ha‘a ma kai o Kapa‘a e Low is the ipu gourd, low seaside o f Kapa'a
Ha‘a ka ipu, ha‘a ma uka o Kapa‘a e Low is the ipu gourd, low upland o f Kapa'a
Mai pa‘a i ka leo, he ‘ole kahea mai, D on’t withhold the voice, no reply comes
E hea mai ka leo—e. Let the voice call forth.
(Kapihenui, February 2, 1862)
One of the most well-known and oft-performed oli (chants) in the hula world is
known by its first line, kunihi ka mauna i ka la ‘i e, “steep stands the mountain
[Wai‘ale‘ale] in the calm.” This oli comes from the mo‘olelo (story) of Hi‘iaka, younger
sister of the goddess Pele. “Kunihi” is primarily practiced in contemporary halau hula
(dance troupe) performances as an oli kahea—a “calling chant” requesting permission to
enter the stage area just prior to a performance. In Hawaiian culture, proper cultural
protocol is to seek permission to enter a space that is not yours, that you do not control, or
that you do not belong to; an oli such as “Kunihi” is an appropriate offering of such a
request.
There are many versions of this chant, published and unpublished, written and
committed to memory. They occur at different times, places, and contexts within
Hawaiian m o‘olelo, and are chanted by different actors in different situations and for
X 'U i
different reasons, even in the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo which it is most closely
associated with.
While the individual contexts of each of these versions vary, they share a sense of
traditional Hawaiian protocol, of not “barging in” where one may not have kuleana
(authority), of showing a sense of respect for the people, place, and culture where one can
be considered a malihini, an outsider. While much can be debated about the variety of
contexts into which this oli is placed, the versions which place Hi‘iaka at or near Wailua
when she performs this chant are intriguing on several levels. One may ask, as I often
have, “why does Hi‘iaka ma (and company) land at Wailua, when their destination is on
the other side of the island?” Kaua‘i native, avid seaman, and Hawaiian Studies professor
Carlos Andrade has offered one clue: target projection. As a crewmember of the
Polynesian double-hulled voyaging canoe Hokule ‘a, Dr. Andrade has extensive sailing
experience on Hawaiian wa‘a (canoes). He explained to me that in sailing from Ka‘ena,
the northwestern-most point of 0 ‘ahu to Kaua‘i, the goal of any good sailor would be to
shoot for the center of the target island. That way if the prevailing tides, currents, and
winds blow one off course in either direction, one has a much better chance of reaching
the island than trying to aim for the actual destination which may be at the outer edge of
the target (personal communication, 1995). From Ka‘ena, 0 ‘ahu, Wailua would be the
center of Kaua‘i, and the most logical place to aim for.
Fellow Kaua‘i native and cultural practitioner E. Kalani Flores offered me another
equally relevant answer to the question, “Why land at Wailua?” Flores points out that
Wailua is the most sacred region of Kaua‘i, where the highest ranking ali‘i (chiefs) were
xW
bom at Holoholoku heiau, and where the highest ranking ali‘i lived, all the way through
the time of the last reigning ali‘i, Kaumuali‘i. As a malihini to the island, Hi‘iaka was
compelled to follow proper cultural protocol by landing at Wailua first to pay her respects
and ask for permission to enter before moving on (personal communication, 2001).
Centuries after Hi‘iaka first chanted “Kunihi,” this oli is still treasured by
Hawaiians as a mele kahea, even though the context has changed. Today it is regularly
chanted by halau hula seeking permission to ascend the stage for a hula practice,
performance, or competition; its refrain still echoes across the land by haumana
(students) and other cultural practitioners seeking permission to enter the classroom, the
forests, or to access heiau, and it is being incorporated here in the opening pages of this
dissertation for all, including myself, seeking permission to enter into this space. It is my
desire that this dissertation be a contribution to the revival of a Hawaiian scholarly and
literary community first bom from our kupuna mai ka pd mai—in the mists of the ancient
past, and carried forth in the nineteenth-century Hawaiian-language newspapers by our
kupuna of that time. As such, it is an experience deserving of such an important
traditional practice. While opening a written document with a mele kahea may seem
strange at first, it parallels the transition of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo itself from an
oral to a written form. This shift from one form to another demonstrates the strength and
adaptability of our ancient traditions into the modem world; it is a bridge between the
oral and the written, linking Hawaiians of the twenty-first century to our cultural roots.
Looking forward, it takes Hawaiian protocol, culture, and practice into a new era.
XV
Esteemed Hawaiian scholar Mary Kawena Puku‘i once wrote that while there
were many mele kahea, “this Kauai one was well liked and commonly used,” even by
those from other islands (BPBMA HI. M. 72, 6). I was raised in the uplands of Wailua,
and all of the places named in this mele are well-known and dear to me. But I am
incorporating this particular mele kahea for other reasons.
In the context of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, “Kunihi” isn’t just about H i‘iaka
paying respect to an island, its gods, or its people. It is also about confronting the
obstacles and challenges which obstruct her path to fulfill her kuleana, her obligation to
her sister Pele, and by extension, to her people. The Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo and this
mele kahea in particular have inspired me as I have encountered many challenges
throughout the extensive research and writing of this dissertation. It is my hope that as a
lahui, we continue to persevere and battle our own “mo‘o” with as much courage and
dignity as Hi‘iaka did in her time.
Perhaps more importantly, “Kunihi” is an oli requesting knowledge. When
H i‘iaka first departs her home at Kllauea on Hawai‘i island, she does not know what she
will encounter. She is empowered with two important things: ‘ike (intelligence) and leo
(voice). As she travels and confronts different obstacles, through her diligent and pono
(just) actions, she gains the knowledge and power she needs to confront her greatest
challenges which lie ahead, namely, the revival of her sister’s lover, Lohi'au, and her
confrontation with her powerful sister herself.
In 2002, “Kunihi” was chosen by the editors of ‘Oiwi: A Native Hawaiian Journal
as the oli kahea to its second issue, named for the oli. Because of my dissertation
xvi
research, I knew it would be challenging to choose a single version of the chant for
publication. In discussing this with Luna Ho’oponopono (Chief Editor), D. Mahealani
Dudoit, I asked, “Which version do you want to publish?” She responded, “What do you
mean which version? How many are there?” Numerous versions of the oli exist; most are
closely attached to the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. In examining the texts, differences
between them are primarily minor changes in wording or phrasing. But how to decide on
an “authoritative” one?
When I explained to Mahealani what I had discovered about the oli in researching
my dissertation, she responded, “How about publishing all of them?” As a literary-based
journal, we decided to include the published versions of the oli contained within the
broader Pele and H i’iaka mo‘olelo from 1861 to 1928. Two versions published by
Nathaniel B. Emerson (discussed later in this dissertation) are the most well-known, but
not necessarily because they are superior to the others; it is more likely because his
versions were available in English (the others are in Hawaiian), and published in book
form (the others were mostly serialized in newspapers). Emerson’s two books have been
widely available since they were first published, while the other texts have been more
inaccessible because they exist only in the Hawaiian language, and/or on unindexed
microfilm at local libraries and archives.
While a growing number of Hawaiian literature scholars are now questioning and
challenging Emerson’s work, including his translation skills, we chose to include all of
the known published sources of “Kunihi” in ‘Oiwi so as not to continue the misleading
practice of privileging Emerson’s texts. The incorporation of so many versions may
seem extreme, unnecessary, or chaotic. However, to evoke a well-known and oft-quoted
‘olelo no‘eau (proverb), V ole pau ka ‘ike i ka halau ho‘okahi—“not all knowledge is
contained within one school.” The inclusion of all the published versions of this
important and beloved oli, we hoped, would spark good conversations amongst all
interested in Hawaiian literary traditions.
Today, when this oli is used by halau hula at the beginning of a hula performance,
proper protocol instructs that a pane, or answer, is expected in the form of a mele komo, a
chant that grants entry. A standard pane which often accompanies this mele kahea
follows, inviting all of us, including myself, to enter this space. As a scholar it is my
kuleana (responsibility) to seek permission to undertake this project. As readers,
permission must also be granted to partake of the mea waiwai, the riches contained
between the covers. Perhaps it is appropriate here to invoke another ‘olelo no‘eau
associated with Kaua‘i to describe this wealth, Ua nani ‘o Puna mai ‘o a ‘o— “Only
beauty is found in the Puna (Kawaihau) district from one end to the other.” It might be
useful to note that Wai‘ale‘ale is the ma uka (inland) border of the Puna district, and all
the places named in the oli, Wailua, Kawaikini, Nounou, Kaipuha‘a, and Kapa‘a are wahi
pana (famous places) within this notable district, ku‘u ‘aina hanai, the land where I was
raised.11 spent many days of my youth hiking the foothills of these mauna, wandering
through the lush mountainous trails on horseback, and swimming in the myriad ponds
1 While most of the names mentioned in the oli, Wai‘ale‘ale, Kawaikini, Nounou and Kapa'a are
commonly known and still used, the one place name that might not be familiar to most people is Kaipuha'a
(The-low-gourd). I believe it is the traditional name for this area as evidenced in this oli. In Place Names
ofHawai'i, the entry for Nounou (Sleeping Giant) mountain notes that in a hula chant by Hi‘iaka she states,
Alai ‘ia a ‘ela e Nounou, nalo Ka-ipu-haa i ka laula mauka o Ka-pa ‘a, “Nounou is screened, The-low -
calabash is lost in the wide expanse inland of K a-pa‘a” (167).
XVII
and streams descending ma kai from Wai‘ale‘ale’s lofty heights, caressed by the
W ai‘opua wind and endless rains. At this point in my life, I have returned to Kaua‘i to
make my home on the east side of the island in the ahupua‘a of Anahola, just beyond the
boundaries of my beloved ‘aina hanai of Puna. But still, Wai‘ale‘ale beckons in the
distance. So here enter, and enjoy ka nani o keia wahi mai ‘o a ‘o, the beauty of this
place from beginning to end.
E hea i ke kanaka Call the person
E komo ma loko to come in,
E hanai ai a hewa ka waha; And eat till the mouth can take no more;
Eia no ka uku la ‘o kou leo This is the reward, the voice,
A he leo wale no e! Simply the voice!
1
M OKUNA1
KE HA‘A LA PUNA I KA MAKANI (PUNA DANCES IN THE WIND):
INTRODUCTION
Ke ha‘a la Puna i ka makani Puna is dancing in the breeze

Ha‘a ka ulu hala i Kea‘au The hala groves at Kea ‘au dance
Ha‘a Ha‘ena me Hopoe H a‘ena and Hopoe dance
Ha‘a ka wahine The woman dances
‘Ami i kai o Nanahuki (She) dances at the sea o f Nanahuki
Hula le‘a wale Dancing is delightfully pleasing
I kai o Nanahuki At the sea o f Nanahuki
‘O Puna kai kuwa i ka hala The voice o f Puna resounds
Pae i ka leo o ke kai The voice o f the sea is carried
Ke lu la i na pua lehua While the lehua blossoms are being
scattered
Nana i kai o Hopoe Look towards the sea o f Hopoe
Ka wahine ‘ami i kai o Nanahuki The dancing woman is below,
towards Nanahuki
Hula le‘a wale Dancing is delightfully pleasing
I kai o Nanahuki At the sea o f Nanahuki.1
(Kanahele and Wise, 65)
Over the course of Hawaiian history mai ka po mai, no figure has captivated the
imagination more than Pele, goddess of the volcano. Bom in the primordial past, she has
been kept alive for countless generations through the continued activity of the Hawai‘i
island volcanoes. Moreover, her many deeds and adventures are vividly described in the
vast repository of oli, mele (songs), hula (dances), and m o‘olelo recorded in various oral
and written traditions. This extensive body of texts directly related to Pele is identified
by Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians) and others as constituting distinct genres of
Hawaiian literature, namely “hula Pele” and “Pele literature”; these texts significantly
outnumber m o‘olelo for all other Hawaiian gods, including male deities.
'“Ke Ha‘a La Puna” is “the first recorded hula in the Pele and Hi‘iaka saga” (Kanahele and Wise, 65-66).
A survey of the Bishop Museum Archives Mele Index lists nearly 500 mele
dedicated to Pele and H i‘iaka. Others, how many we cannot know, exist in private
collections, especially those of kumu hula (hula teachers) and halau (schools), with new
compositions of oli and mele appearing all the time. Thus, Pele-related Hawaiian-
language chants number in the hundreds. Aside from these chants, at least thirteen
separate and extensive Hawaiian-language m o‘olelo from the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century have been rediscovered in the later part of the twentieth century
(Chariot 1998). The majority of these mo‘olelo were serialized and published in various
Hawaiian-language nupepa (newspapers) from 1861 through 1928. These serialized
m o‘olelo typically ran in weekly installments, in some cases for a few months, in others
for a few years. The actual pages vary from a handful to a few hundred, and a word
count of 5,000 for single episodes (like Ka‘awaloa 1865) to nearly 300,000
(Ho‘oulumahiehie 1905-1906). These m o‘olelo contained varying numbers of chants,
from three (Hauola 1860) to over 300 (Kapihenui 1861, Ho‘oulumahiehie 1906).2
Yet despite the immense repository of Hawaiian-language Pele literature, Pele
and Hi‘iaka “are sisters . . . that we do not know much about” (Kanahele and Wise, i).
One reason is that the vast repository of information about Pele and Hi‘iaka is recorded
ma ka ‘olelo Hawai‘i (in the Hawaiian language), a language few Kanaka Maoli speak or
comprehend today, the result of an 1896 ban on Hawaiian-language as a medium of
instruction in the public schools by American colonizers. This move, combined with
2 While font sizes, column widths, and other physical aspects of the printing of these m o‘olelo varied, I
have calculated page count averages through systematically creating computerized texts as part of my
research methodology. Some of this information is summarized in Appendix IA.
immense pressure to acculturate Kanaka Maoli to American standards and suppress all
things Hawaiian, effectively cut-off future generations of Kanaka Maoli from the
language of our ancestors, with the result that relatively few people can access these texts
today.
At the same time, when haole were not forbidding Hawaiian cultural practice
(such as the dancing of hula), they were appropriating Kanaka traditions. Many
narratives and descriptions that today inform us about who Pele is and what she
represents were authored by western explorers, missionaries, and settlers, and recorded in
English. Thus, Kanaka voices and perspectives were silenced while the Pele mo‘olelo
m o‘olelo were made accessible to a western English-speaking audience, “translated” not
just linguistically, but reframed to fit a western cultural paradigm. In studying colonial
translations of indigenous literatures, Eric Cheyfitz (1991) and others have argued that
haole (white) writers simultaneously “translated” native inhabitants into “savages” in
need of “civilizing” by the western discourse of conquest and empire. Ultimately, the
refraining of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo by haole writers such as Nathaniel Emerson
served the colonial project, a markedly different one from that of the Kanaka Maoli
writers. In “Prefaced Space: Tales of the Colonial British Collectors of Indian Folklore,”
Sadhana Naithani discusses this aspect of folklore collection in India. She writes:
. . . the last two decades of the nineteenth century saw the publication of many
collections of Indian folklore by British missionaries, civil and military officers,
and their family members[;] . . . none were professional folklorists.. . . [They]
claimed to be presenting another India, ‘the real India;’ . . . . [These] collections
. . . almost always featured a long preface to the volume, written whether by the
collector or by another colleague-friend who was considered to be more
knowledgeable—though not necessarily about Indian folklore. These prefaces . . .
sought to introduce to the intended European readers not only the tales in the
collection but also India, her folk, folklore, culture, and history. (Naithani, 64)
In extension, such collections influenced the “imaginings” of the readership at home,
influencing the military, government, or missionaries in real world decisions and as part
of the expansion of empire, as this discourse:
would produce images which could affect the deliberations of the government and
the people back [home], especially those preparing to leave for India . . . this
discourse . . . generated in India with her own resources was not meant for her.
Thus the British folklore collector was free of the real India, since the
representation had to communicate not with the represented but with those
ignorant of the real. The real could be (and needed to be) fantasized, both for the
pleasure of the intended readers and because of the limitations of the collectors’
own knowledge. (Naithani, 65)
My study seeks to counter a similarly violent translation or use of Hawaiian
cultural and literary resources. English-language sources of what H. Arlo Nimmo calls
the “Pele literature” are prolific; his annotated bibliography, The Pele Literature (1992),
documents over 800 English-language texts published in a span of about 200 years.
5
While no further study of Pele literature in English has been published since, it is certain
that number has grown. While there are possibly an even greater number of references to
Pele and Hi‘iakaikapoliopele (hereafter referred to as Hi‘iaka) in Hawaiian-language
literature, no systematic collection of such references has yet been published.
Nimmo’s exclusion of Hi‘iaka from being referenced in his classification of the
literature is but one example of how haole have reframed the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo
to fit their purposes. As a balancing force to Pele’s aggressive and unpredictable nature,
Hi‘iaka is ever present and clearly acknowledged within Hawaiian cultural practices and
in Hawaiian literature. Thus, I will refer to these cultural treasures in my work as the
Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo. In an article on the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo series in the
Hawaiian-language nupepa, John Chariot (1998) notes that “single stories along with
chants can be gathered into complexes,” and that two main complexes, often told
together, are Ka Mo ‘olelo o Pele “The Story of Pele” and Ka Mo ‘olelo o Hi ‘iaka, “The
Story of Hi‘iaka” (59). In her work on J. N. Kapihenui’s Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo
(2004a), Noenoe Silva writes about this connection as well; “In the story of
Hiiakaikapoliopele, Pele the volcano goddess migrates to Hawai‘i with her family, of
whom she is the ali‘i nui (highest ranking, above all the men). Later, in Hawai‘i nei, the
focus is on H i‘iakaika-poliopele, a young woman who comes of age through traveling the
island chain, fighting m o‘o, sharks, and rapacious men, with two other young women as
companions” (25). This structuring of the mo‘olelo complexes lends itself to a combined
identity of the larger framework as “Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo.”
Mo‘olelo is a term I will use throughout this dissertation. For Kanaka, m o‘olelo
is a much more culturally appropriate term to use to interpret and analyze literature as it
incorporates both history and literature, intertwining these disciplines in ways that are
impossible to unravel and make referring to either history or literature separately quite
inadequate. M o‘olelo is increasingly used in indigenous scholarship because its meaning
is multiply layered as “story, history, literature, or any kind of narrative” (Silva 2004a,
101).
This dissertation expands on some of the ideas I put forth in my thesis on Moses
Manu’s 1899 Pele text. It is an examination of Pele literature written and available to the
general public. I am fully aware that there are many traditions passed down within
individual ‘ohana and hula halau which may conflict or contradict the information I
present in this dissertation. It is not my kuleana to say any of these traditions are right or
wrong. Nor is it my intention to try and prove the traditions I am writing about have a
particular hierarchical place in context with any other Pele traditions.
Mokuna (Chapter) 1 introduces the dissertation, discussing the overall scope of
the project. Mokuna 2 is a critique of literature discussing scholarly sources that have
included and examined the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. Mokuna 3 discusses the
transformation of oral tradition to written literature, focusing on the Pele and Hi‘iaka
mo‘olelo. In order to provide a larger historical and political context for the Pele and
Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, Mokuna 4 presents a background of na nupepa (the newspapers) the
Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo were published in, the mea kakau (writers) and luna
ho‘oponopono (editors) who published the mo‘olelo, and selected texts published during
7
the same time period, in English, by Kanaka and haole writers. Mokuna 5 focuses on two
of the Hawaiian-language texts which comprise what I identify as the first strand of Pele
and Hi‘iaka mo'olelo in the textual “mo‘oku‘auhau” (genealogy) of Pele and Hi‘iaka,
Kapihenui’s, “He M o‘olelo no Hi‘iakaikapoliopele” (A Story of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele)
(1861), Pa‘aluhi and Bush’s “He M o‘olelo no Hi‘iakaikapoliopele” (1893). These will be
compared and contrasted with the undated and untitled BPBM Archives manuscript from
the Henriques-Peabody Collection (ms. fHI.L.23). These texts will be presented in
relation to Emerson’s Pele and HViaka (1915), which is the focus of Mokuna 6. Mokuna
7 discusses the cultural and political appeal of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo’olelo to a Kanaka
Maoli audience, focusing on selected cultural themes. The final chapter, Mokuna 8,
explores the appeal of Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo for a Kanaka Maoli audience, and how
this literature continues to inspire Kanaka and our literary and performative arts today.
For textual analysis, I begin with Kapihenui for two reasons—because it is the
hiapo (first bom) text, the first comprehensive publication of a Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo
that is more than just a synopsis, summary, or fragment, and because it is the hiapo in one
strand of Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo I identify. Mokuna 5 traces the development of this
genealogical strand and explores specific literary elements and devices contained within
its texts, including m o‘oku‘auhau, oli, mele and hula. Through selected examples, I
identify and discuss four important points relevant to the development of this literature, a
dynamic outlined more generally in Mokuna 2:
1. First, the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo’olelo can be organized in a way that
demonstrates what I am identifying as mo‘oku‘auhau, a culturally-framed poetics of
8
relationships between the texts that also embody a concept of makawalu (multiply
perspectives) as they are multiply-layered and multi-directional. There are two main
strands of this textual m o‘oku‘auhau—the first one begins with Kapihenui, and includes
Pa‘aluhi and Bush and Emerson; the second begins with Kaili and includes
Ho‘oulumahiehie, Poepoe, and Desha. In addition to these two main strands, there are
other strands which are not as closely related to the first two, such as Rice’s two texts
(1908, 1923), which put forth a uniquely Kaua‘i perspective. Where only single texts
exist and do not appear to create a separate strand I list them as such as they constitute a
storyline distinct from the previously mentioned strands; it is also possible that other yet
undiscovered texts relate to these single ones.
2. Second, as the earliest written text, Kapihenui’s relied more on (and is more
reminiscent of) oral tradition because it was closer in time and form to it as a transitional
(oral to written) text;
3. Third, as Hawaiians became more ma‘a (adept) at understanding the nuances
of written literature, their literary productions flourished, embracing and adapting the
western style. Formal changes resulted, as texts moved toward prose narrative, less
reliant on chant to carry the story without further explanation, and literary aids to assist
readers, such as the numbering of chants and lines of the chants. Despite being more
“westernized” in some ways, as with other elements of Hawaiian culture of that time
(style of government and religion, for example), Kanaka Maoli adapted, incorporated,
and merged oral and written elements, infusing their western-influenced literary
9
traditions with Hawaiian poetic devices bom in the oral traditions, but considered
important markers of poetic (and cultural) expression;
4. Finally, a political interpretation of the texts is that in form and content they
represent not only Kanaka Maoli resistance to western colonialism, but an assertion of
Hawaiian cultural identity, pride, and expression of Hawaiian creativity, demonstrating
another way in which to take the best of old and new, oral and written, native and
western, turning it into something dynamic which also continued cultural thought, belief,
and practice. On one end of the spectrum, the writing of this literature by Kanaka Maoli
in the later part of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries was meant, in
part, to resist further colonization. On the other end of the spectrum are Kanaka Maoli
today continue to actively engaging in decolonization, in part through continued
production of Kanaka Maoli literature. I suggest that the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo was
perhaps the best vehicle to do this, as it was an older, oral, and native tradition that was
adaptable to western parameters, and enables what Walter Ong (1988) calls a “secondary
literacy,” or performance which relies on text.
The experience of and relationship to Pele that Kanaka Maoli have today has been
disrupted, complicated, and mediated by colonialism, particularly through the institutions
of religion and education. By and large, Christianity has replaced traditional Hawaiian
religion, and English-medium education and western poetics have replaced Hawaiian
language and indigenous poetics. The colonial experience has devastated Kanaka Maoli
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries it is a powerful force we still struggle with
today. Yet, in the words of our nineteenth-century kupuna (ancestors), he oia mau no
10
kakou, “we go on” (Dudoit et. al. 1998, 100). To go on, we continue looking to our
kupuna, storytellers, and writers for inspiration, knowledge, and encouragement.
I will also suggest that the numerous retellings of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo'olelo in
the Hawaiian-language nupepa demonstrate a kaona-laden or coded political message; the
Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo has a canonized vocabulary, including the term hulihia,
“overturned,” suggesting a message for Kanaka Maoli to resist western influences and
colonization, as publication of a Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo was published coincided with
a significant political event.
That said, there are difficulties in examining this literature either as distinct,
separate texts with single authors. While each text stands on its own (for the most part)
as an independent text, there is a complex pilina (relationship) among some of them,
which I describe as genealogical, meaning there is a deliberate affiliation and closer
relationship between some texts than others.
One of the foundational tenets of Hawaiian culture is mo‘oku‘auhau, or
genealogy. Mo‘oku‘auhau literally means “genealogical succession” (PED 254). The
root word, mo‘o, is a “succession, series, especially a genealogical line, lineage” (PED
253). Several terms, such as mo‘o ali‘i and mo‘o kahuna concern not just the
genealogical succession of chiefs or cultural experts, but their history as well (PED 254).
M o‘o is also connected to literature; mo‘olelo (or m o‘o ‘olelo) are narratives, hi/stories of
all kind, both oral and written; mo‘o akua are legends which concerning the gods (PED
254). While mo‘oku‘auhau is most familiar in the study of human lineage, Hawaiian
mo‘olelo (Pele and H i‘iaka included) can also be studied in this cultural framework.
Examining the Pele and Hi'iaka mo‘olelo from a genealogical perspective allows, in part,
for an understanding of the texts in relationship with each other, as outlined below in
figure 1A.
FIGURE 1A: M O‘OKU‘AUHAU OF PELE AND H I‘IAKA M O‘OLELO TEXTS
HAUOLA (1860)
KAPIHENUI (1861)
[ 0 ‘ahu] KA‘AWALOA (1865)
KAILI [Emma Nakuina] (1883)
PA‘ALUHI & BUSH (A) (1893)

PA‘ALUHI & BUSH (K) (1893)
MAILE WREATH (n.d)

MANU (1899)
[Maui]
[EMMA NAKUINA (1904)]
HO‘OULUMAHIEHIE I (1905)
HO‘OULUMAHIEHIE II (1906)
POEPOE (1908) RICE (1908)

[Maui &Hawai‘i] [Kaua‘i]
EMERSON (1915)
WESTERVELT (1916)
BPBM fHI.L. 23 (n.d.) RICE (1923)

DESHA (1928)
HOLO MAI PELE (2002)
NOGELMEIER (2007)
12
At first glance, it appears that the mo‘olelo are multiple re-tellings of the same story, each
mo‘olelo standing on its own as an individual text, with little in common with the other
texts besides (re)telling the same story. However, when looked at more closely, a
relationship between the texts in both content and context is revealed.
As with other Polynesian cultures, relationships, especially family relationships,
are of utmost importance in Hawaiian culture. Historian Lilikala Kame‘eleihiwa (1992)
writes that “when recounting a history in Hawaiian terms, it i s . . . important to examine
the beginnings of and the relatedness of the players. These genealogical relationships
form the parameters of cultural patterns inherently reproduced in Hawaiian history. They
reveal the Hawaiian orientation to the world about us, in particular, to Land and control
of the Land” (3). The control of land is a central theme in Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo and
Pele and her ‘ohana alternately create and destroy it, assert their authority over it and over
competing genealogies. M o‘oku‘auhau is such a central cultural concept, for the entire
universe is thought to be the result of a cosmogonic genealogical relationship, the most
well-known version of which is the Kumulipo. The Kumulipo recounts hundreds of
generations of human relationships which extend back in time to the very creation of the
universe in the “deep darkness” of po, the beginning of time.
Drawing from this important cultural concept, I extend the metaphorical used of
m o‘oku‘auhau to include a Kanaka poetics of articulation based on multidimensional
relationships within, between, and surrounding the individual texts. It is a kaona-driven,
multiply-layered idea which can be viewed in several specific ways:
13
• Traditional m o‘olelo come from the ‘aina (land). They are about the relationships
between ‘aina, kanaka, and akua, and also about how the ‘aina has come into its
present form (such as when the bodies of slain mo‘o become specific geographic
features). They include the naming wahi pana—geographic features or places
made famous through stories, and the naming and character of winds, rains,
conditions of the environment, etc., which demonstrate Hawaiian intelligence of,
familiarity with, and relationship to the ‘aina.
• Kanaka are genealogically related to each other, to Pele, and the ‘aina. Therefore,
for Kanaka Maoli, these mo‘olelo are family stories. They are also stories about
the web of relationships between kanaka, ‘aina, and akua.
• The variations of the stories are thus all related to each other. They are also about
affirming the relationship of people to each other and the ‘aina. Different islands
produced different versions of the mo‘olelo to highlight or downplay certain
perspectives or mana‘o related to place. Over time, people on those islands
perhaps began to tell or know the mo'olelo in that particularly way, which can be
viewed as “regionalized family resemblances.”
• The writers and editors consciously chose to develop these m o‘olelo into what
becomes literary genealogical lines—a “mo‘o mo‘olelo” so to speak—strands of
which vary, although ultimately they are related to each other.3
3 Mahalo nui to Paul Lyons for assisting me in articulating these points more clearly.
14
Ultimately, the strong theme of aloha ‘aina (literally “love for the land;” the Hawaiian
expression of patriotism) which resonates throughout the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo is
because of this m o‘oku‘auhau within and between the mo‘olelo. Silva (2004b) presents a
similar explanation when describing aloha ‘aina;
Aloha ‘aina is an old Kanaka concept based on the family relationship of the
people to the land, and on the idea that people actually were bom of the material
of the land. According to traditional Hawaiian cosmologies, all things on the
earth are alive and are the kinolau—the many physical bodies—of gods, who are
themselves physically related to people in genealogies . . . The islands, the taro,
and the people are thus conceived of as members of the same family who love and
sustain each other. In the struggle against annexation, Joseph Nawahi, John
Ailuene Bush, and others developed “aloha ‘aina” as a discourse of resistance,
and simultaneously as a particularly Kanaka style of defensive nationalism. (18)
In a culture which mediates human genealogy through the mating of Papahanaumoku
(Earth Mother; earth) and Wakea (Sky Father; sky), the extension of a genealogical
concept to Hawaiian texts makes sense in a specific way. As Silva points out, aloha ‘aina
is a discourse of resistance (and nationalism), one informed by a discourse of genealogy,
as Kanaka pride in heritage is rooted on the ‘aina. These concepts are particularly
relevant in the study of this mo‘olelo about akua who are physical manifestations of ‘aina
and elements of nature. After all, what better way to present and enact literary aloha
‘aina than through the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, ancestors who embody the ‘aina itself?
There are multiple ways to organize, analyze and discuss texts; classification by
date, author, or related themes are probably the most common, all of which I use within
my scholarship. Yet as Kumulipo also demonstrates, other avenues of systematic and
culturally appropriate classification methods are also valid and useful.4 Thus in the
examination of the larger body of these Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, some texts are more
directly and closely linked or “related” to each other than others; these relationships are
closely examined in Mokuna 5. Moreover, just as family genealogies are linked to
particular islands or specific locations, such an ‘aina-rooted pattern also emerges within
the different genealogical strands of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. Writing from Kailua,
Ko‘olaupoko, Kapihenui appears to present an 0 ‘ahu version of the mo‘olelo. Poepoe
makes specific mention of having “Maui island” and “Hawai‘i island” versions which is
even reflected in the sub-title of his mo‘olelo, “I hooponopono hou ia elike me na maawe
Moolelo Hiiaka a ko Hawaii ame Maui” (Newly edited in accordance with the Hawai‘i
and Maui island versions of the Hi‘iaka story) (January 10, 1908).
A closer analysis reveals, however, that certain texts are more closely related to
and influenced by specific other texts: Pa‘aluhi and Bush with Kapihenui, or Desha with
Poepoe, for example. It is important to note these varying traditions, as they speak to the
richness and diversity of Hawaiian verbal and literary arts, and to the depth and breadth
of the Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo in particular. The multiple perspectives offered in the
4 One example in Kumulipo is the ordering of the birth of fish in the second wa (time period; chapter).
While one western method of classification is by size, i.e., smallest (simplest) to largest (most complex),
the birth order of fish species is by building on root words, sounds, mnemonic tools, and a kind of linked
assonance, or morphological phonology: i.e., “i ‘a” (fish) and “nai‘a” (dolphin) (see Ho‘omanawanui 2005,
37).
16
differing versions demonstrate makawalu, multiple perspectives or insights into the
m o‘olelo. This complexity is demonstrated in the corpus of Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo in
other ways, as authors, texts, publications, versions of mo‘olelo, editors and even
language relate to one another in intricately interwoven ways. For example, there is one
Hawaiian-language text written by a haole (Rice 1908), and one English text written by a
Kanaka Maoli (Kaili 1883). Two publications, Hawai ‘i Aloha and Ka Na ‘i Aupuni are
actually printing the same story (as is, in part, Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika and Ka Leo o ka
Lahui). Stephen L. Desha’s text is basically a reprint of Ho‘oulumahiehie, further
combining the pilina of the H aw aii Aloha and Ka N a‘i Aupuni texts, and most texts
make reference to each other. These relationships are addressed in Mokuna 4.
One question: if later writers knew about Kapihenui, why keep writing? Chariot
argues that the writers are functioning as redactors, choosing to edit out, add in, or change
details and episodes as they saw fit (see Chariot 1998; 1977). I believe there was more
agency on behalf of Kanaka Maoli writers, and that their reasons for publishing multiple
versions by multiple writers speak to a much more sophisticated cultural action. On one
hand, creativity must be considered. However, the multiple retellings of the m o’olelo
are a part of a nuanced m o‘oku‘auhau extending beyond blood relations to relationships
with schools of thought, practice, politics, and ‘aina.
The contrast between the Kanaka Maoli texts and Emerson’s text reveals how the
former, reflect and uphold Hawaiian cultural values, language, and identity. By doing so,
they demonstrate the depth of knowledge, civility, and intelligence contained within these
traditions. Written in Hawaiian, these texts were penned for a Hawaiian audience to
17
instruct and encourage the retention and valuing of Kanaka Maoli cultural knowledge and
practices. This occurred even after—or especially after—the loss of Hawaiian
sovereignty and governmental control. Emerson’s Pele and Hi‘iaka text, in contrast, is
reframed to fit a western perspective and molded to fit western literary aesthetics.
)
Instead of upholding Hawaiian cultural values in a way meant to exhibit cultural artistic
achievement, Emerson’s text justifies the ongoing colonial project in Hawai’i. Penned
for an English-speaking, primarily American audience, it provides insight into the
indigenous culture of the newly acquired U.S. possession, the Hawaiian islands.
In investigating the power of Pele’s appeal, I will argue that the mo‘olelo
(hi/stories), kaona (poetics), and hulihia (political meaning) of Pele and H i‘iaka have
been culturally encoded for a Hawaiian audience. The literature itself is evidence for
differentiating between Pele literature created by and for Kanaka Maoli for our own
purposes, and haole-created narratives which centered around a colonial discourse of
empire building and oppression, as haole first misunderstood, later mis-translated, and
subsequently appropriated Pele for their own agenda, as Silva 1999 and Wood 1999
discuss in their work. Most importantly, the differences in representation and
understanding for both audiences were, and still are, mediated through colonialism. This
understanding is further complicated because as Kanaka Maoli have been cut off from
our ‘olelo makuahine (mother tongue) and more and more influenced by global popular
culture, many Kanaka Maoli today have lost sight of our genealogical and cultural
connections to Pele, m o‘olelo, and Hawaiian culture.
18
Differences in interpreting the texts were, and still are, very much a product of
colonial power dynamics. Colonialism resulted in an uneven struggle for power between
sovereign Kanaka Maoli and haole settlers who thirsted for complete conquest over
Kanaka Maoli, our culture, government, and ‘aina. Colonialism disrupted and blurred
clearly marked lines between two distinct cultures which had espoused radically different
worldviews, which is evident in the literary production of Pele. Furthermore, converted
Hawaiian Christians such as Queen Kapi‘olani passionately defied Pele, while others
today, such as kumu hula Pualani Kanaka‘ole Kanahele, a devout Mormon, fervently
defend her.
Yet, haole writers such as Emerson were key players in the colonization of
Hawaii, “trampling on the grand old Hawaiians while upholding the grand old Hawaiian
traditions” (Silva, personal communication). By analyzing the literary production of
Pele, I will show that while Emerson was fluent enough in the language to understand
basic usage, he did not have sufficient grasp of the language to decode the complexities
of kaona (the multiple and complex layering of meaning) which conveyed political and
social meaning to Kanaka Maoli. In the meantime, while haole translations and
interpretations of Pele literature emerged as the dominant narratives, ‘olelo Hawai‘i
(Hawaiian language), Hawaiian-language literature, and Kanaka Maoli themselves were
marginalized. Thus, while from 1861 on, Hawaiian-language Pele literature functioned
as a national resistance literature, or a coded way for Kanaka Maoli to converse in an
environment relatively free from the oppressive surveillance of haole colonialism. By the
twentieth century, this act of resistance was compromised by the haole-led erosion of
19
public funds for Hawaiian-language medium schools and their eventual ban on schools
taught in the Hawaiian language in 1896. These events resulted in the need for later
Kanaka Maoli writers to explain kaona-laden images to a Kanaka Maoli audience
forcibly separated from ‘olelo Hawai‘i and older poetic images. More recently, Kanaka
Maoli writers have continued to employ Pele metaphorically in resistance literature
written in English, weaving a new strand of linguistic expression into a generations-old
“lei mo‘olelo no Pele” (a lei of narratives for Pele).
Haunani Kay-Trask has accurately described the writing process for Kanaka
Maoli as “writing in captivity” (Trask 1999a, 17). As both Kanaka Maoli writers and
texts have been held captive because of colonialism, both cry out for decolonizing, which
Trask addresses in her essay “Decolonizing Hawaiian Literature,” and within her
Hawaiian Studies courses at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa (Trask 1999b, 167).
Yet, since Hawaiian Literature is a relatively new discipline of study, many significant
texts have not yet been the subject of serious academic inquiry. Because the study of
literature is linked to disciplines closely associated with colonialism, such as English,
Anthropology, and Folklore Studies, even fewer Hawaiian texts have been critiqued
utilizing indigenous perspectives, methodologies, or theories. In Decolonizing
Methodologies, Research and Indigenous People, Linda Tuhiwai Smith recognizes that:
research is a significant site of struggle between the interests and ways of
knowing of the West and the interests and ways of resisting of the Other . . . it is
surely difficult to discuss research methodology and indigenous peoples together,
in the same breath, without having an analysis of imperialism, without
20
understanding the complex ways in which the pursuit of knowledge is deeply
embedded in the multiple layers of imperial and colonial practices” (2)
Tuhiwai Smith encourages the practice of indigenous scholars to challenge ourselves to
reach back to our kupuna in conducting our academic work in various disciplines.
Similarly, Manu Meyer’s H o ‘oulu, Our Time o f Becoming (2003) promotes Native
Hawaiian epistemology as an important foundation of Kanaka Maoli cultural practice,
including (or especially in) our scholarly pursuits.
Inspired primarily by the work of Kanaka Maoli scholars Trask (1993, 1999),
Silva (1999, 2004), and others, this dissertation is one of the first to begin such a valuable
undertaking. Approaching a topic in Hawaiian Literature from an indigenous Pacific
perspective in a dissertation project under the jurisdiction of an English Department is an
equally unprecedented step. It is, however, an important one for the larger Kanaka Maoli
community as we begin to recover our literary traditions lost to us through aggressive
colonial practices which banned our native language and suppressed our indigenous
narratives. By providing an indigenized counter-analysis to colonial scholarship which
has typically romanticized, infantilized, or vilified Maoli and our cultural productions
(such as Pele literature), I seek to kahuli (overturn) these problematic interpolations and
to encourage Kanaka Maoli in a continuing rediscovery and reevaluation of these texts in
culturally relevant and pono (appropriate) ways. Thus, through the research I’ve been
engaged in and the resulting dissertation, I hope to benefit the larger Hawaiian
21
community by assisting in the on-going process Kanahele aptly describes as “unveil[ing]
for ourselves the knowledge of our ancestors” (Kanahele and Wise, iii).
The Hawaiian-language Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo form the cornerstone of this
literature, and are fundamental resources that are not readily available. The first task in
researching this dissertation has been to collect all of the Hawaiian-language Pele texts
published in the Hawaiian-language nupepa. Accessing the texts has been a painstaking
process, as these extensive narratives exist unindexed on faded microfilm reels or fragile
newspaper print, most over a century old, carefully kept in climate-controlled museums
and library archives.
Thirteen separate narratives have been uncovered and collected from microfilm
reels, handwritten manuscripts, and newspaper archives. Aside from collecting these
narratives, I have been conducting a comparative analysis of the texts. For each
narrative, I have followed John Chariot’s practice of numbering installments based on
dates of publication (1998). In addition, I have numbered chants within each narrative for
comparative purposes. At the same time, I have created a computerized translation grid,
and have entered each separate narrative into this grid. The grid is composed of three
columns: original text (left column), “modernized” Hawaiian orthography (center
column) and English translation (right column), a format inspired by the Loeb Classical
Library project at Harvard University. This format has also been adopted by the Alu Like
Hawaiian Language Legacy project, which is seeking to translate all Hawaiian-language
nupepa in a similar way. To assist with cross-referencing and comparative analyses of
the texts, I number each paragraph and chant, and including extensive footnotes
22
documenting discrepancies in words (use and spelling), grammar, punctuation, and
meaning. I am also establishing authoritative text through two separate proofreading
methods to aid in textual accuracy.
In addition, I have created two chant indexes: the first is organized
chronologically, the second alphabetically. This format is inspired by the Bishop
Museum Mele Index project, which is a computerized database of their extensive chant
collection, indexed by the first two lines of each chant. The chant index also includes the
genre of chant (pule, kau, mele kilu, hula Pele, kanikau, hulihia, etc.), and identifies the
composer/performer and the performance context. The following tables are examples of
the first ten oli (chronological, then alphabetical) charted this way from Kapihenui
(1861). Because of computer software search limitations I am working with, no
diacritical marks are used in the data base to aid in textual searches.
Table IB. Oli and Mele from Kapihenui (1861)—Chronological order in text
order: oli by first two lines: type: #lines na wai: issue:
1. 1 Ke haa la Puna i ka makani /Haa ka uluhala i oli 6 Hi'iaka 12/26/61

Keaau
2. 2 0 Puna kau'kua i ka hala / Pae ka leo o ke ai oli 9 Hi'iaka 12/26/61
3. 3 Luuluu Hanalei i ka ua nui / Kaumaha i ke noe o oli 12 Pele 12/26/61
Alakai
4. 4 Kaloku Hilo i ka ua nui / Kapu kane kai oli 11 Pele 12/26/61
5. 5 A ka lae ohia i Papalauahi / 1 ka iimu lei lehua o oli 6 Pa‘uo- 1/2/62
Kuaokala pala'e
6. 6 No ka lua paha ia makani o Puulena / Ke halihali oli 11 Hi'iaka 1/2/62
i ke ala laau
7. 7 O hooko ia aku oe / O ka hana ana a ke ‘kua oli 7 Hi‘iaka 1/2/62
8. 8 E ala, e ala, e ala e / E ala e Hikapokuakini oli 7 Hi'iaka 1/2/62
9. 9 He ua kui lehua ka Panaewa / He ua ma kai kui oli 5 Hi'iaka 1/2/62
hala o Puna e
10. 10 A Waiakea i ka Hilohanakahi / Ala i ka po iki oli 6 Hi‘iaka 1/2/62
23
Table 1C. Oli and Mele from Kapihenui (1861)—Alphabetical order by first line
order: oli by first two lines: type: #lines na wai: issue:
1. 56 A Hana au i ka palena o ka aina /H e kua Kona mele 8 Hi'iaka after 1/23/62;

see HI.L.23
2. 54 A Honomaele au i Honokalani /Ike au ik a u a o oli 7 Hi'iaka after 1/23/62;
see HI.L.23
kou aina
3. 143 A Honopu au i Waialoha / O kuu wai lele mele 8 Hi'iaka 3/20/62
hunahuna
4. 5 A ka lae ohia i Papalauahi / 1 ka iimu lei lehua o oli 6 Pa'u- 1/2/62
Kuaokala opala‘e
5. 27 A ka luna o Puuonioni / Noho ke anaina a ke mele 10 Hi'iaka 1/9/62
‘kua
6. 146 A ka makani kaiaulu lalo o Waianae / Ke wehe mele 8 Hi'iaka 3/20/62
aku la i ka poli o ke hoa
7. 82 A Kailua i ka Malanai / Moe e ka lau o ka ukiuki mele 5 Hi'iaka 2/13/62
8. 187 A Kalalau a Honopu / A Kee a Nakoaola i ka pali mele 3 Lohi'au 4/10/62
la kilu
9. 117 A Kalalau a Kee / A ka pali au i Haena oli 8 Hi'iaka 2/20/62
10. 219 A Kalihi au i ka hala o Hanalei / Lei au i ka hala mele 4 Lohi'au 4/17/62
o Pooku e, eia oe kilu
The first column on the left is a running tally of the total number of oli. The
second column is the order of the oli as it appears in the text. The third column gives the
first two lines of the oli, while the fourth column lists the genre of oli (or mele) as it is
described by the mea kakau in the original text. The next column lists the number of
lines each oli/mele contains, useful in comparing different versions of an oli, as
differences between numbers of lines are not uncommon (I discuss this later in the
dissertation with selected oli). The next column gives the name of the person who
performs the oli/mele as named in the mo‘olelo. This is also comparatively useful, as
there are differences across the mo‘olelo. Finally, the date the oli/mele appeared in the
nupepa series is listed for easier reference to the original texts. In Table 1C, the first two
24
oli are italicized to denote their inclusion in the BPBMA manuscript version (HI. L.23);
the issues of the nupepa they were published in are missing from microfilm.
Personal name and wahi pana indexes are also being constructed for the purpose
of textual comparisons. This research is the backbone of my dissertation, and some of it,
like a chart comparing the basic information on all the mo‘olelo (i.e. date of publication,
author, number of chants contained, etc.) is included in the appendices (see Appendix
IA). An alphabetized mele index cross-referencing all the mele contained in the 1861
through 1928 publications is also included (see Appendix IB), as is an index referencing
all of the episodes found in the mo‘olelo (see Appendix 1C). In addition to the
interpretive work this dissertation seeks to accomplish, at the end of this project I will
have produced research and reference tools for other Kanaka Maoli and scholars to utilize
more generally.
Locating and identifying these Pele materials has proven arduous due to their
being rendered nearly obsolete because of colonialism and translation; approaching these
texts interpretively is a further challenge. Previously, haole folklorists such as Martha
Warren Beckwith (1940) and Katharine Luomala (1956) have looked at Pele
comparatively across other Pacific cultures; anthropologist H. Arlo Nimmo (1992) has
categorized the Pele literature based on his extensive analysis of English-language
sources; Religion professor John Chariot has analyzed the mo‘olelo by comparing printed
versions of the text and examining the role of the redactor or narrator (1998); English
professor Houston Wood has written about the western production of Pele narratives in
English as a particular type of colonial rhetoric which “dis-placed” Native Hawaiians
25
(1999). This dissertation seeks to ho‘i i ka mole—return to the source, i.e., to the first
publicly available Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo recorded in writing, and to analyze them
from a Kanaka Maoli perspective.
While English is the primary medium of this dissertation, I incorporate as much of
the Hawaiian texts as possible for comparative purposes. There are differing schools of
thought in regards to the use of diacritical marks. Because the mea kakau of these
m o‘olelo may have been intentionally ambiguous, when I quote from the Hawaiian
source texts, I do not use modem orthography; in my own writing, I do. Unless
otherwise noted, all translations of Hawaiian text into English is my own.
In the introduction to the new edition of Polynesian Family Systems o f K a‘u,
Hawai‘i, Terence Barrow discusses how authors E. S. Craighill Handy and Elizabeth
Green Handy had an easier time accessing the Ka‘u community because they were made
hanai (adopted into the family) by their colleague Mary Kawena Pukui’s mother,
Pa‘ahana Wiggin, a full-blooded Hawaiian with deep roots in the community. Barrow
states, “When word of this act passed along the Hawaiian grapevine, the expedition’s
path was made easy where it would otherwise have been difficult” (xii). In the foreword
to the book, Pukui’s full Hawaiian name, Kawena‘ulaokalaniahi‘iakaikapoliopelenalei-
lehuaapele (The Rosy Glow of the Heavens of Hi’iaka in the bosom of Pele wearing the
crimson lehua wreaths of the volcano goddess) is given for the purpose of demonstrating
her genealogical link to the goddess (xvii). The authors then state:
Her lineage is from the a li‘i . .. and kahuna . . . of Ka-‘u and its neighboring
district of Puna. As the names given reveal, hers is the heritage of the mytho-
26
poetic nature gods of Hawai‘i known as the Pele clan or family, which include
Lono-makua (the embodiment of cloud, rain and thunder), Kane-hekili
(lightning), Wahine-‘oma‘o (the “woman clad in green,” i.e., the verdure of the
forests), Laka . . . . the tutelary god of the hula ritual, Hi‘iaka (of the rainbow and
healing waters), and other minor figures, (xvii)
By including this information upfront, the authors establish (for both Kanaka and non-
Kanaka Maoli audiences) their kuleana to take up this groundbreaking study. Barrow
remarks on the importance of this work when he writes:
The authors of this book helped to initiate the new era in Hawaiian research in
which living twentieth-century Hawaiians were given a central role as participants
in the studies made. Dr. Handy and Kawena Pukui were among the first who
made enquiries in the field among Hawaiians resident on their traditional lands.
This approach to gathering knowledge may seem normal enough today, but in the
first decades of this century [when this study was conducted in 1935] there was a
prevailing opinion that all knowledge the Hawaiians might have had was lost
forever, (xi)
In Hawaiian cultural thought, the connection, and more specifically, the familial
relationship between ‘aina and kanaka, is irrefutable. Hawaiian tradition describes
Haloa-naka, the first kalo (taro) plant and child of the gods Wakea and his daughter
Ho‘ohokukalani (To Generate Stars in the Heavens) as the progenitor of the lahui
27
Hawai‘i (Native Hawaiians), which solidifies the familial relationship between kanaka
and ‘aina (Kame‘eleihiwa 1992, 25). The Hawaiian term for Native is kama ‘aina,
literally, “land child” {PED 124). Even more relevant to this study, Pukui and Handy
write specifically about the relationship between kanaka and ‘aina as mediated through
the relationship with Pele and her ‘ohana:
To comprehend the psyche of our old Hawaiians it is necessary to enlarge the
implications of the word “relationship” beyond the limitations of the
“interpersonal” or social. The subjective relationships that dominate the
Polynesian psyche are with all nature, in its totality, and all its parts separately
apprehended and sensed as personal. . . Pele is volcanism in all its forms, while
her sisters are rainbows seen at sea, rosy glow of dawn on clouds and mountains
(Hi‘iaka), the green cloak of jungle of the upland forest (Wahine‘oma‘o). (118)
More importantly, kanaka were and still are given these godly names that “confer status”
to the carrier, as “these names, given and spoken with a sense of potency and prestige,
even today perpetuate the sense of the reality and sanctity of these Persons, when borne
by living descendants of these lines. Lono and Ku, Pele and Hi‘iaka and many other
‘aumakua . . . have their namesakes amongst living descendants of their lineage” (Pukui
and Handy, 35).
Therefore, following this cultural practice, it is important for me to state my
connection to this project. In addition to my academic credentials, I have a genealogical
link to both the Puna and Ka‘u districts of H aw aii island, where the majority of my
28
Kanaka Maoli ancestors were bom and raised. My father’s paternal great-grandmother,
Melekukilakaikapuokanaloa, was from Ka‘u, Hawai‘i. My father’s maternal grandmother
Louise Akeao Apo Kakelaka was from Kapa’ahu, Puna, Hawai’i. Her ancestry traces
back to Mahele chiefs who received and maintained their lands in Puna, which are still
held within the ‘ohana today. Aside from her Chinese ah goong (grandfather), all of Tutu
Akeao’s ancestors were Kanaka Maoli, kama‘aina to the areas of Puna, Hawai‘i called
Kapa’ahu, Kaimu, Poupou, Kalapana, and ‘Opihikao. Through my paternal kupuna I
have a genealogical connection to Pele.
Tuhiwai Smith points out academic research as being a site of contestation and
struggle between the West and indigenous people. This is absolutely true when the West
is looking at the indigenous. But what about when the indigenous is looking at the
indigenous? There are certainly cultural protocols which serve as guidelines, particular
the value of kuleana. Kuleana is both right and responsibility; in academic inquiry, it is
applicable to the concept of one’s right to information or to share information, as well as
one’s responsibilities in this knowledge and sharing. Indigenous scholars must be
cognizant of what and how we have a right to know and share; as kahu (caretakers) of
knowledge, we are responsible to our advisors, disciplines, and institutions we work in,
but we have equal responsibility to our ancestors, lahui (nation), and ‘aina.
When I am asked how I came to choose this topic, my answer is always the same:
I did not choose it, it chose me. There are many fortuitous events which have occurred far
too often over the years of studying this topic for them to be mere accidents. Rather, I
strongly believe I am guided by my kupuna on this path of discovery and scholarship. I
29
also have a strong sense of what this kuleana means to me, my ‘ohana, and the greater
Hawaiian nation.
Pele Literature and the H aku L ei
There are three primary metaphors I use throughout the dissertation to frame this
discussion in Hawaiian cultural parameters. The first is mo‘oku‘auhau, the genealogical
relationships not only between the texts, but their contexts of production and reception.
This concept of mo‘oku‘auhau suggests a level of kuleana inherent in Hawaiian practice
(see Pukui and Handy 1972). The next is wa‘a, or canoe. Pele and her ‘ohana travel to
Hawai‘i from Kahiki (ancient homeland) in a wa‘a. Hi‘iaka and her companions too must
travel between islands in wa‘a; for centuries, the wa‘a was the most important vehicle of
transportation of kanaka from island to island across the vast expanse of te tai moana nui
(oceania). On another level, the m o‘olelo itself is a wa‘a, a vehicle transporting our
ancestors and ancestral knowledge across space and time to us today, to continue to
enlighten and inspire us, reminding us who they were, and by extension, who we are as a
lahui today. More importantly, each m o‘olelo is a wa‘a in its own right, carrying the
mana‘o (thoughts) and intentions of each writer; it also serves as a metaphoric vehicle for
each of their m o‘oku‘auhau pili koko (personal genealogies) as well. The final metaphor
is that of the haku (braided) lei; it has been used in other contexts (such as to describe
‘olelo Hawai‘i; see Pualani Hopkins 1992), but it is one which is particularly appropriate
to describe the Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo.
30
The power of Pele and the Pele and Hi'iaka mo‘olelo is inextricably linked with
mo'oku'auhau, mana wahine (female power), and religion (which implies a political
undertone). For some Kanaka Maoli, Pele was and is revered as a god and ancestor
whose spiritual presence is still felt and whose physical power cannot be denied. As with
the taro-child Haloanaka, who is acknowledged as our elder sibling, Kanaka Maoli are
genealogically connected with Pele. In some of her incarnations as Pelehonuamea, she is
seen as a form of Papahanaumoku, the Hawaiian earth mother, or as a being very closely
linked to her because she is (as lava) the creator of new land. That connection, however
it is made (recounted differently through variant mo'olelo or genealogies), is undeniable.
Pele is associated with the birth and growth of land in other ways, including through her
relationship with her sisters. Most important are her numerous Hi‘iaka sisters,
particularly the youngest, Hi‘iakaikapoliopele, with whom Pele is particularly close. Na
Hi‘iaka (the Hi‘iaka sisters) and Hi ‘iakaikapoliopele in particular metaphorically
represent the healing of the land through the regeneration of vegetation upon it after it
was devoured or created by their elder sister, Pele (Kanahele, Pele’s Appeal). Thus, Pele
and Hi'iaka work in tandem, as is appropriate along two lines of Hawaiian cultural
thought: the reciprocally supportive relationship between older and younger sibling, an
important Hawaiian value upon which traditional society was based; and the balance of
opposing principles as represented by the Hawaiian value of pono (Kame'eleihiwa 1992,
25-26).
Pele is an important symbol for some Kanaka Maoli in part because she is the
only female volcano deity in the Pacific. Thus, her mo‘olelo raise issues of gender,
31
sexuality, and desire, themes presented throughout the Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo. One
example is how Pele has the authority and ability to overpower males, both godly and
human. Another is the presentation of aikane (same-sex and bisexual) relationships
within the narratives, suggesting that these behaviors fall within the norm and are
acceptable for both genders. Desirability is linked to performance (hula and oli) where
the men perform for the women (rather than the other way around) to attract a lover.
Related to questions of gender and power politics are questions of religion. The
large body of Pele literature weaves together a significant correlation between seemingly
unrelated practices. One example is the link between hula and lua (fighting arts).
Another is demonstrated in ‘ana'ana. Often mis-translated into English as “witchcraft” or
“sorcery,” ‘ana'ana embodies the two sides of the healing arts: the power to give or
restore life through prayer and supplication (via Pele’s sister Hi'iakaikapoliopele), and
the power to take life through similar means (via Pele’s other sister, Kapo'ulaklna'u).
The ‘olelo no'eau, i ka ‘olelo ke ola, i ka ‘olelo ka make (in the word there is life, in the
word there is death) encapsulates the culturally important concept of word power, which
is demonstrated in several ways throughout the Pele narratives. We see this first in the
extensive “dueling” chant sequences between representatives of the Pele clan (most often
Hi'iakaikapoliopele) and their enemies; second, in the use of canonized vocabulary for
Pele which reveals her power; and third, through ‘olelo no'eau for Pele, some of which
also allude to resistance. For the second point, not only is Pele a goddess with her own
literature, but her own vocabulary. For instance, the concept of the word hulihia applies
not only to the flow of lava “overturning” the established order on the land, but, I will
32
argue, these concepts spoke metaphorically to Kanaka Maoli, from the 1860s to the
1930s, to kahuli or resist western colonization in what I am calling a “hulihia discourse.”
A traditional way to express this hulihia discourse is embedded in the epithet for
Pele, noho Pele i ka ‘ahiu (Pele stays in the wild). This ‘olelo no‘eau speaks not only to
Pele’s powerful female nature (definitely not “feminine” or demure by Western
standards), but to her stature as a goddess having the kuleana to kahuli order or
sovereignty over the land established by Kane and the other male gods, without the fear
o f retribution. Furthermore, while the worship of male gods centered on the practice of
‘aikapu (literally, “sacred eating,” where men and women ate separately and certain foods
were restricted to women), Pele worshippers were considered ‘aiku. Literally, ‘aiku
means to “to eat freely; to do as one wishes; to break taboos or transgress” (PED 10). It
also means “to eat in an improper manner” or “to take food that is set apart as temporarily
or permanently sacred or forbidden to use,” and “to act contrary to custom, prescribed
rule, or established precedent; to overlook, disregard, or take no notice of a tabu”
(Kame‘eleihiwa 1996, 145). In practice, this perhaps meant that Pele followers did not
have to follow the ‘aikapu mandated by the kahuna for the male gods. Kame‘eleihiwa
speculates that it “may have been that the Pele kapu were not the same as those practices
by the A li‘i Nui who lived under the ‘Aikapu,” particularly since “the political power of
the Aikapu depended most heavily upon the worship of Ku, or Kunuiakea, at the luakini”
(Kame‘eleihiwa 1996, 145). Arguably, the practice of ‘aiku demonstrates another
dimension to Pele’s godly stature, and reveals the strength of her female mana. It also
demonstrates the intertwining of mana wahine and political power. Thus, I will explore
33
how this concept of mana wahine metaphorically applies to the publishing of Pele
mo‘olelo throughout the politically tumultuous years from the 1860s to the 1930s, a time
when the aggressive colonial push to wrest control of Hawai‘i intensified.
Prior to colonization, the relationship between Kanaka Maoli and Pele was
internally varied in the context of traditional polytheistic religious practices, as Kanaka
Maoli worshipped na Akua (gods) most suitable to their ‘ohana, geographic regions, or
occupations (see Pukui and Handy 1972). With the coming of missionaries, who sought
to implant the “jealous God” of Christian monotheism upon the hearts and land of
Kanaka Maoli, the relationship between most Kanaka Maoli and our indigenous gods was
irrevocably altered—for many, it was completely severed. As one of the strands of its lei,
this dissertation will trace how the mo‘olelo, kaona, and meaning of Pele have changed
for Kanaka Maoli over time, and yet still represent an assertion of Kanaka Maoli cultural
resistance to colonialism.
How has Pele appealed to Euroamerican audiences? This question is best
approached historically as well: for early explorers, she marked a difference in culture as
a powerful female goddess who was part of the “less civilized” pantheon of gods, a
delicious curiosity who perhaps evoked a sexualized response in lusty seamen far from
home. This aspect of Pele’s appeal needs to be explored, especially in relation to the
crone/hag figures in western fairy tales and the “vengeful goddess” and “curse of Pele”
motifs in haole popular culture. To the ultra-conservative and God-fearing Calvinist
missionaries who came to Hawai‘i in 1819, Pele was the ultimate representation of
paganism and idolatry, lewdness and lasciviousness, which resulted in their banning of
34
the hula and Hawaiian healing arts. For the colonial missionary descendents who settled
Hawai‘i, Pele became a mythical figure representing the ancient past of a “dying” people.
Resurrected in the twentieth century as a born-again new-age deity, Pele has been falsely
interpreted and appropriated as a virginal, crystal-loving “Lemurian” goddess with the
power to cure the ills of the universe. Dis-located from the volcano, and sometimes from
Hawai‘i, she has been de-indigenized and re-interpreted in popular culture, specifically in
movies which feature the tropes of curses and sacrifice of a virgin in the volcano; in
urban legend with the vanishing hitchhiker motif; in children’s literature (a non-
traditional Hawaiian genre); in computer-mediated cultural practices such as websites and
new age tours of “sacred spaces”; and in business as a sales icon for haole-conceived
products such as “Pele’s Gold” honey (produced on Maui), and a ginseng-infused power
drink called “Rocket Juice” (with a Pele image on the label), manufactured in Santa Cruz,
California.
These dynamics of and intersections between Kanaka Maoli and haole cultural
practices are often viewed within a U.S.-centered multicultural context. The “melting
pot” metaphor is a popular and false myth used in the hegemonic discourse of the U.S. to
describe Hawai‘i as a “multicultural paradise.” One of the many reasons the “melting
pot” myth is both erroneous and dangerous is that it assumes a “blending” of ideology
and power between natives and settlers, one which has never occurred—and, arguably,
will never occur. Again, the haku lei may serve as an appropriate metaphor. The power
politics between Kanaka Maoli and immigrant-settlers are better described as woven
35
strands twisted together into one lei, with each of the strands retaining their
epistemological, ideological, historical and political distinction.
Thus, in tracing the history of Kanaka Maoli-produced Pele literature as a
literature of resistance to western colonization, it is important to acknowledge and
examine the politicized intertextuality of the various mo‘olelo. On one hand, the
narratives of Kanaka Maoli authors such as Kapihenui, Poepoe [Ho‘oulumahiehie], Kaili,
Nakuina and Kanaka‘ole are in competition with those of Emerson, Thrum, Westervelt,
Rice, and other haole. On the other hand, these two strands inform each other. This
interweaving is no mere coincidence for Kanaka Maoli writers, who have actively sought
to disrupt the colonial appropriation of our traditional m o‘olelo. Thus, rather than seeing
Kanaka Maoli-produced texts as acts of submission and domestication, I read them as
political strategies embodying resistance, especially as they involve cultural and
linguistic coding. Furthermore, this strategy of resistance worked because it was well
executed, playing to dismissive colonial attitudes that wrote off these narratives as
“pagan” myths and “harmless” folktales. Conversely, the haole misunderstanding of the
cultural and linguistic codes embodied in these mo‘olelo resulted in misappropriations of
the texts. More specifically, the presentation of Pele mo‘olelo as myths and legends by
armchair scholars such as William D. Westervelt, Nathaniel B. Emerson, and Thomas G.
Thrum and others enabled their transformation into non-traditional Hawaiian genres, such
as children’s literature. After surveying the haole-authored, English-language Pele
literature published from the nineteenth century until today, I argue that the retelling of
their Pele narratives closely follows the colonial strand of appropriated narratives, which
36
still serve their own ideologies, goals, and purposes. Readily accessible as published
texts, these narratives were dominant and thus “authoritative” for over a century.
Fortunately, Kanaka Maoli recounting of Pele m o‘olelo continued to disrupt these
colonial (mis)appropriations, culminating in the re-emergence of the Kanaka Maoli
strand today in multiple media as a consequence of the sovereignty movement.5
Thus, Kanaka Maoli continue to weave a lei of resistance to colonization through
our literary and performing arts, of which Pele literature is but one example. Likewise,
we will continue to assert our indigenous right to claim our traditions, practices, and
cultural knowledge, and to claim the ‘aina that is formed from the body of our ancestral
deity—Pele—upon which we are still sustained as a lahui. As we begin this exploration
of specific aspects of Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, the lines of “Ke Ha‘a La Puna i ka
Makani” (Puna is dancing in the breeze), the first hula performed in the Pele and Hi'iaka
mo'olelo, remind us that in Hawaiian thought, movement or action is evoked by the
‘olelo and the power of words.
5 Examples include Tau‘a 1977; Kanaka‘ole 1978; Cazimero 1979; Kane 1987; Na Maka o ka ‘Aina 1989;
Kanahele 1989, 1991, 2001; Ho‘omanawanui 1998; Halau o Kekuhi 1998; Trask 1999; Silva 2004;
McDougall 2007 (forthcoming).
37
MOKUNA 2
E K U A U E HELEE (I AM STANDING READY TO DEPART): LITERATURE
REVIEW
E ku au e hele e— I am ready to depart

Lau ka maka a ua nei ‘ino Many are the eyes who witness this wrong
Ka po‘e ‘ino o lakou nei e— The unsympathetic ones among them
He manaka paha ia‘u— Perhaps they are tired o f me
E hele au e— I am going
E hele no e— . I am really going.
A ka luna i Pu‘u ‘oni‘oni, Above at Pu'u'oni'oni [Trembling Hill]

Noho ke anaina a ka wahine, The assembly o f The Woman [Pele] dwells
Kllohi aku ku‘u maka ia lalo, My eyes gaze below
I kaulu o Wahinekapu, At the edge o f Wahinekapu [Sacred Woman]
He ‘oi‘oina Kilauea, Kilauea is jagged
Noho ana Papalauahi, Papalauahi dwells
Ke lauahi la ‘o Pele ia Puna, The widespread fires o f Pele cover Puna
Ua one a kai o Malama, The sea o f Malama is covered in cinder
Malama ia kaua hoa kanaka, Take care o f our human companion
[O] kipa hewa kou aloha i ka ‘Ilio, Or your love is wasted on a dog
He ‘Ilio ia, he ‘ike ma ka huelo, It is a dog, recognized by its tail
He kanaka ho‘i au, he pua laha ‘ole, I am a person, a never fading flower
E nana ia‘u i ke kanaka, Seen by the people
E hea aku, e o mai no e— Calling out to you—answer.
(Ho‘oulumahiehie 1905-1906)
These two oli, “E ku nei au e hele” (I am ready to depart) and “A ka luna o
Pu‘u ‘oni‘oni” (Above on Pu‘u ‘oni‘oni [Trembling] hill) are typically chanted
consecutively by Hi‘iaka when she departs Kilauea en route to Kaua‘i to fetch Pele’s
lover Lohi‘au. Na oli speak to Hi‘iaka’s reluctance to depart on this journey alone;
following the oli, Pele chastises her beloved little sister for not departing on her mission
straight away, and feeling sympathy for her, provides her with companionship in the form
of Pa‘uopala‘e, an ‘ukali (attendant) responsible for dressing Hi‘iaka in the beautiful
38
“lightning” skirt with which empowers her to defeat all foes she encounters along their
dangerous journey across the pae‘aina (archipelago).1
This literature review examines the known scholarly and analytical sources which
have been published and/or written about the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo. It is my
assertion that while each of the essays, articles, chapters or books critiqued below has
examined a piece, portion, theme, or some other specific aspect of the overall Pele and
Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo the topic has not been exhausted. There is still much room for the
analysis undertaken in this dissertation.
There are noticeable disparities between descriptions of Pele by western sources
and most indigenous scholarly sources. From early contact between Hawai‘i and the
outside world, foreign sources of information about Hawai‘i contained snippets of
descriptive narrative about the volcano goddess. The very first published summaries of
the Pele m o‘olelo are found in the journal of English missionary William Ellis, who came
to Hawai‘i in 1823 (Nimmo 1987,1). From explorer and missionary journals to modem
day travelers and others, nearly anyone who comes into contact with Hawai‘i has
1In different versions of the mo‘olelo, each ‘ukali whose name begins with Pa’u o (Skirt of) is the keeper
of that kind of garment. For example, in Kaili, Pa’uoma’o (Skirt of M a‘o, a Hawaiian cotton), dresses
H i’iaka first. Pele isn’t satisfied, and calls upon Pa’uopala’e (Kaili, August 25, 1883). In other versions,
Pa’uopala’a (Skirt of Pala’a fern) accompanies Hi’iaka (Poepoe, October 20, 1905). The word pala’e
without an ‘okina sounds like palai, another indigenous Hawaiian fern, and suggests that Pa’uopala’e is the
kahu of the garment made from palai fern. But Pukui and Elbert distinguish between the two, saying that
palai is “a native fern . . . [similar to] pala’a, b u t . . . somewhat hairy instead of smooth” (PED 307).
Pala’e, on the other hand, is “short for pa‘u-o-Pala‘e,” with an additional definition given as a “scar or
lump” (PED 307). Yet because palai fern is an important plant to the practice of hula, which Hi’iaka is
closely associated with, the similarities between the two names is difficult to ignore.
39
something to say about Pele, especially if they are fortunate enough to travel to the
volcano.2
Moreover, most non-Hawaiian scholars tend to overlook Hawaiian-language
source materials, relying instead on English-language translations from which they
formulate and argue their points. In his 2003 dissertation on Hawaiian-language primary
source materials, Puakea Nogelmeier calls this practice a “discourse of sufficiency,”
arguing, in part, that “modern scholarship has long accepted a fraction of the available
sources as being sufficient to represent the whole,” resulting in “over a century of
documentation by Hawaiian writers [being] dismissed through the existence of this
discourse” (1). There are many factors that have contributed to this discourse, including
an insufficient or non-existent proficiency in ‘olelo Hawai‘i, necessary to access to texts.
While Nogelmeier focuses on what he identifies as a Hawaiian canon of historical source
material (i.e., texts authored by Samuel M. Kamakau, David Malo, John Papa TT and Z.
Kepelino), the problem is certainly not limited only to historical sources; Hawaiian
literature is an area of Hawaiian writing which also suffers from an “insufficient
discourse.” One example of extensive work on Pele literature that has relied solely on
English-language sources is H. Arlo Nimmo’s articles and annotated bibliography.
2 One example is the children’s book The Goddess o f the Volcano (Chicago: Rigby, 1997), in which the co
authors Graciela Reyes and Leda Schiavo cite their visit to the volcano as the inspiration to delve into
traditional Hawaiian mythology and write this story, even though they had no prior knowledge or
experience of Hawai‘i or Hawaiian culture (back cover).
40
H. A rlo N immo
Nimmo’s The Pele Literature: An Annotated Bibliography o f the English-
Language Literature on Pele, Volcano Goddess o f Haw ai ‘i (Bishop Museum Press,
1992) contains an extensive and relatively complete compilation of English-language
printed sources of information written about Pele. In a 1987 article on Pele literature,
Nimmo says his focus is limited to English-language Pele literature because he is not
proficient in the Hawaiian language; “there are doubtless other accounts [of the Pele
literature] that have not been translated. Their translation and comparison to the present
investigation awaits a researcher fluent in the Hawaiian language” (3).
Prior to his Bibliography, Nimmo published a series of articles that are
foundational to that work. Thus, I would like to begin with Nimmo’s publications before
moving into some of the main scholarly sources of Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo he
discusses. I will then examine contemporary Kanaka Maoli research of Pele and Hi‘iaka
m o‘olelo, analyzing different contributions to the overall understanding of this
foundational mo‘olelo of Kanaka literature.
In 1986, Nimmo published “Pele, Ancient Goddess of Contemporary Myth”
(Pacific Studies), the first of three related articles which would form the foundation of his
Bibliography. This article examines sightings and human interactions with Pele from the
late nineteenth century to the 1980s. Relying on personal interviews and written accounts
in English, Nimmo documents human encounters with Pele, particularly in relation to the
“phantom hitchhiker” legends, the appearance of Pele just prior to volcanic eruptions, and
contemporary retellings of the benevolence or vengeance of the goddess when given or
41
denied personal requests.3 Nimmo asks the question, “Why is Pele (still) so popular?”
and offers several reasons. He excludes all references and details relating to the cycle of
Pele mythology, which is covered in more detail in his next essay.
In 1987, Nimmo published “Pele’s Journey to Hawai‘i: An Analysis of the
Myths” (Pacific Studies), and article which documents the “cycle of myths featuring the
volcano goddess Pele” (1). He summarizes Emerson’s Pele andHViaka, using it as a
base to compare other English-language versions of the Pele m o’olelo, namely Ellis,
Kamakau, Forbes, Ka‘awa, Beckwith, Pukui and Elbert, Nakuina, Manu, and Fomander.
In his comparison, he presents four aspects of the mo’olelo: “1) Pele’s homeland, 2) her
genealogy, 3) her itinerary to the Hawaiian islands, and 4) her quest for a suitable home
in the archipelago” (3). He argues that Pele’s migration to Hawaii “reveals a recurring
structure” despite not appearing in every version (31). These are identified as:
motif 1: Pele is bom of divine parents in a mythical homeland. The myths do not
always agree as to which gods are Pele’s parents, but virtually all are in
agreement that she has divine parentage.
motif 2: Upon reaching adulthood, a conflict develops between Pele and
someone else, often her oldest sister Na-maka-o-Kaha‘i.
motif 3: The conflict ultimately results in Pele leaving her birthplace,
usually with an entourage of brothers, sisters, and other relatives.
3 Katherine Luomala also did work on this contemporary urban legend aspect of the Pele mo'olelo. See
“Disintegration and regeneration, the Hawaiian phantom hitchhiker legend” in Fabula 1972, 20-59.1 am
not including it here as it does not concern the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo'olelo per se.
42
motif 4: After leaving her birthplace, Pele and her entourage voyage to
Hawai‘i sometimes stopping at mythical lands en route.
motif 5: Pele reaches the Hawaiian Islands and searches for a suitable
home, traveling in a northwest to southeast direction, from N i‘ihau to
Hawai‘i.
motif 6: As she digs in the islands seeking a home, Pele encounters the sea
and must look elsewhere. Frequently, it is her encounters with Na-maka-o-
Kaha‘i (sometimes described as a sea goddess) that necessitate her seeking
another home.
motif 7: Eventually, after trying many places throughout the Hawaiian
archipelago, Pele settles into Kl-lau-ea volcano on the island of Hawai’i,
which becomes her permanent home. (31)
When taking the Hawaiian-language Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo into account, I do
not agree with Nimmo’s motifs, as there is no “recurring structure” there. For example,
while Pele has a conflict with someone in some of the mo‘olelo (motif 2), that is not the
case across the board. In Manu’s text (1899), Pele desires to travel and meet up with her
sister Kapo‘ulakIna‘u and the entourage of ‘ohana who left Kahiki to travel to Hawai‘i
before Pele did (which Nimmo later notes; 20). In other cases, no reason is given for her
departure from Kahiki.4 When there is no conflict, motif 3 is irrelevant. Motif 6 is also
4 One example is found in Pa‘aluhi and Bush (A) which does not include a migration sequence (KLL,
January 2, 1893). See Mokuna 5 for a more in-depth analysis of this episode.
43
somewhat extraneous, as Pele does not always try to establish herself on other islands
first, and even when she visits there, she does not always dig and hit water. Rather, her
journey from northwest to south east demonstrates a cultural protocol of travel and the
importance of directions, one which comes into play when she (and later Hi’iaka) must
travel back up the island chain in pursuit of Lohi‘au.
Nimmo then uses these motifs to link the “Pele myth cycle” with the oral
traditions of the rest of Polynesia, citing features common to Polynesian oral literature,
drawing from Luomala and Beckwith to demonstrate his point (31-33). For example, he
uses Luomala’s classification of traditional literature of Polynesia as belonging to one of
three periods: “1) mythical period, 2) the exploratory or migratory period, and 3) the
settlement period,” and quotes her, stating “Traditions about the exploratory or migratory
period tell of the reasons for the departure from Hawaiki [the homeland]; the explorations
which culminate in the discovery of the new home . . . the conquest or relationship
worked out with previous settlers there, if any; and the initial colonization of the new
land” (33). He concludes by saying, “Clearly, the myth examined here belongs to this
category of Polynesian literature,” although he is not clear as to which category he is
referring (33).
Nimmo concludes by summarizing changes to the mo‘olelo over time,
identifying: 1. simplification, 2. places visited, 3. the physical description of Pele, and 4.
the personality changes in Pele (36). Nimmo notes that the move towards simplification
was due to several factors. First, the Native Hawaiian writers were trying to be more
thorough, as they were trying to document “the rapidly disappearing oral traditions of
44
Hawai‘i, and were concerned that the myths be recorded as completely as possible to
preserve them for posterity” (36). He goes on to state that “more recent writers have
published the myths for different reasons, namely to entertain a general reading public”
(36). He alludes to the role of the “redactor” who adapts the story to fit the occasion (a
role he more directly mentions elsewhere, although here it is probably a bit different from
Chariot 1977), citing the changes to “make the myths more palatable to contemporary
tastes” (36). I disagree with Nimmo’s simplification point because he is not looking at
Hawaiian-language source material, stating that, “later accounts tend to eliminate many
of the place names unfamiliar to contemporary readers or to replace them with more
familiar names” (36). This is not the case with the Hawaiian-language Pele and Hi'iaka
m o‘olelo, which contained hundreds of place names, which, along with the vast number
of chants, mea kakau were trying to promote and save through na mo‘olelo “to ensure the
preservation of whatever could be preserved” (Silva 2004a, 25).
Nimmo notes that “there is a tendency for modem writers to add place names, and
often these reflect the residence of the writer” (36). He cites Manu (1899) and Rice
(1923), relying respectively on Pukui’s English translation held in the Bishop Museum’s
HEN collection and Rice’s English-language summary published by the Museum, rather
than the much richer published Hawaiian-language accounts. He argues that because
Manu is from Maui, “many place names from that island appear in his version,” while
Rice “collected his account from Kaua‘i and, not surprisingly, more Kaua‘i place names
occur in his account than in others” (36). Nimmo’s argument isn’t applicable to the
Hawaiian-language m o‘olelo. For example, Poepoe published a Maui version of the Pele
45
and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo which is different from Manu’s, but the mo‘olelo is unfinished,
potentially making its Maui place names more extensive than Manu’s, even though
Poepoe was from Kohala, Hawai‘i, and lived for a time on 0 ‘ahu. What is ironic about
Nimmo’s claim is that when comparing place names in the English translations with their
Hawaiian-language versions, there is a significant difference in the Rice text: his
Hawaiian-language Pele and Hi’iaka m o’olelo “Pele a me Kona Kaikaina
Hi ‘iakaikapoliopele” (Pele and Her Younger Sister Hi’iakaikapoliopele) contains 182
place names, while his English language summary “The Goddess Pele” contains only 48
(see Appendix 1A). I do not agree that Manu or Rice added place names reflecting their
residences, nor did they do that as “modem writers.” Rather, the abundance of place
names contained in the Hawaiian-language versions of the Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo
reflects a traditional Hawaiian poetic sensibility that draws from the oral traditions and
was firmly kept in place throughout the development of Hawaiian literature; Manu and
Rice aren’t focusing on place names because they are modem writers: they are modem
writers following traditional cultural protocol expressing aloha ‘aina. I also argue in
Mokuna 5 that writers published versions of the mo’olelo that had mo‘oku‘auhau or
genealogical connections to specific islands.
Nimmo provides over 132 accounts of Pele’s travel, particularly when she travels
from Kahiki to Hawai‘i. Yet once she establishes herself on Hawai‘i island, she doesn’t
travel at all, except to go with her sisters to the sea of Puna (where she sleeps at
Pu’upahoehoe) and to travel to Kaua‘i, following the sound of the pahu drams being
played by Lohi’au, his companion Kahuaka’iapaoa, and their kumu hula Mapu. Nimmo
46
spends many pages discussing the differences in Pele’s extensive family genealogy
offered by different sources, presumably because these are usually the family members
who accompany Pele on her journey from Kahiki to Hawai‘i. He then lists all of the
place names mentioned in the different accounts of where Pele goes until her arrival at
Kilauea, 117 names in all (25-27).
Nimmo’s examination of the English-language Pele literature is a small step
towards the overall understanding of the rich and complex Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo,
although deeper understanding of the literature and more meaningful culturally-based
interpretation of the m o‘olelo, particularly in Hawaiian, are still wanting.
Nimmo’s 1990 article, “The Cult of Pele in Traditional Hawai‘i” is the final of
three related articles his Bibliography is based on. His is a descriptive attempt to
“reconstruct the cult of Pele as it existed in traditional Hawai‘i. It is primarily descriptive,
and offers minimal interpretation and analysis” (42). He then identifies seven areas of the
Pele tradition he is focusing on: “(1) Pele within the context of Hawaiian religion; (2) the
mythology of Pele; (3) traditional attitudes toward Pele; (4) ritual leaders or the
priesthood of Pele; (5) ceremonies for Pele; (6) offerings to Pele; and (7) the role of Pele
in sorcery” (42). He ends with a brief description of the conclusion, presenting “a
summary of the major features of the traditional cult and a brief discussion of the
continuing belief in Pele in contemporary H aw aii” (42).
Nimmo frames his discussion in western terms, describing Hawaiian religion as
“an Olympian-type religious system with shamanistic elements” (42). He offers a short
list of epithets related to Pele, culled from English-language sources, before moving on to
47
the mythology of Pele (43). He refers back to his previous articles, recounting once more
Pele’s various genealogies offered by different sources, and talks about her dualistic
nature as beautiful young woman and old crone (45).
In the preface to his Bibliography, Nimmo writes, “in the mid-1980s . . . I
continued to be surprised that no one had done much academic work on Pele. Beyond
her inclusion in a few general discussions of Hawaiian myth and religion, the only
extensive academic studies of Pele were those of Martha Warren Beckwith . . . and
Katharine Luomala” (vii). The Bibliography is an impressive collection of nearly 900
English-language sources of references to Pele from first western contact to 1990. The
introduction also offers some initial background as to how Nimmo became interested in
the topic and how he began collecting Pele-related material. To facilitate organization,
Nimmo includes a classification system of the literature, which he divides into the
following general categories: a. the traditional Pele religion; b. the traditional mythology
of Pele; c. chants about Pele; d. legends involving Pele and Hawaiian royalty; e.
etiological tales about Pele; f. children’s stories about Pele; g. contemporary references to
Pele (1).
While he focuses on English-language materials, he includes some early
information on Pele gleaned from English-language translations of Hawaiian-language
sources. One example is Samuel Manaiakalani Kamakau’s articles from Ka Nupepa
K u‘oko‘a and Ke Au ‘Oko‘a (October 2 0 ,1866-February 2,1871), “the most important of
48
[which] were translated into English by Mary Kawena Pukui and published by the Bishop
Museum” (2).5
While aspects of the first five of Nimmo’s categories (a-e) are central to this
dissertation and will be discussed more in depth in subsequent chapters, I would like to
briefly comment on each of these areas he outlines. Nimmo discusses three important
English-language sources on Pele religion: Ellis, Kamakau, and Pukui. On a walking
tour in 1823, Ellis, a London Missionary Society (LMS) missionary, was one of the first
foreigners to visit the area. His later published observations, Journal o f William Ellis
(Charles E. Tuttle, 1827), offered a glimpse into post-contact practice of traditional Pele
religion. The following passage is a short example of Ellis’ writing on Pele:
On descending to the bottom of it [Kaura], we reached a heiau, dedicated to Pele,
with several rude stone idols, wrapped up in white and yellow cloth, standing in
the midst of it. A number of wreaths of flowers, pieces of sugar cane, and other
presents, some of which were not yet faded, lay strewn around, and we were told,
that every passing traveler left a trifling present before them. Once in a year, we
were also informed, the inhabitants of Hamakua brought large gifts of hogs, dogs
and fruits, when for the priests and kahu [keepers of the images] of Pele
assembled to perform certain rights [sic] and enjoy the feast. This annual feast, we
were told, was designed to propitiate the volcanic goddess, and secure their
country from earthquakes and inundations of lava. (353-354)
5 Nimmo specifically cites Kamakau’s Ka P o‘e Kahiko: The People o f Old (Honolulu: Bishop Museum
Press, 1964), although he also lists Kamakau’s Ruling Chiefs o f Hawaii (Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools
Press, 1961).
49
While Nimmo calls Ellis’s “one of the best accounts of traditional Hawaiian culture
available,” despite being “laden with ethnocentrism and Christian religious fervor,” it is
written from an outsider’s perspective, ignorant of the cultural meanings of what he is
observing (34). Therefore, it might be labeled “one of the best accounts of traditional
Hawaiian culture available” only by those equally ignorant of Hawaiian language,
Hawaiian-language resources, and Hawaiian cultural practice.
Kanaka Maoli writers Kamakau and Pukui are important sources of information
on Pele, although their work is not problem-free—at least in the English translations.
Bom into, raised in, and influenced by a post-westem contact, heavily Christianized
world, Kamakau and Pukui, while living and writing in different centuries, both wrestled
with Christian values in their work, although not in the same way, or to the same degree.
Silva (2004b) points out how it is important to historicize Kamakau’s work, and look at it
in the original context whereby he first presented it to a Hawaiian (language-based)
audience. Citing Kamakau’s account of the arrival and death of British Captain James
Cook to the Hawaiian islands in 1778, Silva correctly points out that Kamakau’s history
of Cook’s demise is embedded in the larger history of the rise to power of Kamehameha
(16-23). In short, Cook’s story is not the legendary apotheosis western historians have
repeated ad nauseam over the past two centuries since Cook’s death. What Silva
painstakingly illustrates in this example of the importance of historicizing Kamakau’s
work is that his views changed over time and he should not be discounted simply because
he was under the influence of Christian thought earlier in his life. Most importantly, the
50
English translations most scholars rely upon are woefully inadequate because they are out
of context at best, incorrect at worst. In order to get an accurate Hawaiian perspective,
one must consult the original Hawaiian texts (16-23). As Kamakau’s work was translated
and published in this manner, Silva’s detailed example is certainly applicable to
Kamakau’s writing, including his information on Pele. Thus scholars looking at
Kamakau’s English translations must exercise caution, as their accuracy and faithfulness
to the original Hawaiian-language texts and Kamakau’s true mana‘o (thoughts) are highly
suspect not only because of the problems of translating from one language to another, but
because of the overriding colonial agenda (or at least, the influence of a western-based
education system, which privileges western thought and classification systems).
While Pukui’s first language was Hawaiian, most of what has been written and
published of her work is in English. As a translator for Bishop Museum, Pukui’s kuleana
was to translate “worthwhile” Hawaiian-language source material. Fitting the Museum’s
endeavors as a scientific and educational institution, much of what was translated was
sliced up and classified by topics (i.e., “farming,” “fishing,” “religion,” etc.) rather than
left whole and in context. Furthermore, Pukui edited her translations, omitting
“questionable,” “inappropriate,” or “unnecessary” words, sentences, or passages as she
saw fit. Thus, rather than resulting in complete, fully annotated translations, much of
Pukui’s work are translation meant to capture the gist of the original work.6 Rather than
be allowed to write herself, Pukui was often relegated to the role of “native informant”
6 One example is found in her translation of Manu’s “Pele and Waka” text (HEN II, 949-1008). Page 967
omits a chant contained in the Hawaiian text ( July 1, 1899).
51
and had limited authority over texts published by the ethnographers, linguists, and
anthropologists she worked with.
The second section of the Bibliography addresses “Traditional Mythology.” Here
Nimmo utilizes a Folklore Studies tool, identifying eight “tale types” he identifies as: a.
Pele’s journey to Hawai‘i, b. Pele, Hi‘iaka, and Lohi‘au, c. Pele and Kamapua‘a, d. Pele
and Kahawali, e. Pele and Waka, f. Two girls roasting breadfruit, g. The Stingy
Fisherman, and h. Poli'ahu, the Snow Goddess. Yet these plot-based categories do not
accurately describe the m o‘olelo. For example, a number of them overlap, such as the
“Pele and Waka,” and “Pele, Hi‘iaka and Lohi‘au” categories. Upon closer examination,
each of these presents the same love triangle, although with different characters. In the
Pele and Waka mo‘olelo, Waka replaces Hi‘iaka as Pele’s rival for the affection of a
man, and the kupua (shape shifter) demi-god Puna‘aikoa‘e replaces the mortal chief
Lohi‘au. “Pele’s journey to Hawai’i” is often incorporated into the larger “Pele-Hi‘iaka-
Lohi’au” epic, as is the “Stingy Fisherman” episode. While the inclusion, exclusion, or
adaptation of different episodes in the larger Pele-Hi‘iaka-Lohi‘au epic does depend in
many cases on a redactor or writer (Chariot 1977), for the most part, the other Pele tale
types listed above (“Poli’ahu the Snow Goddess,” “Pele and Kamapua‘a,” “Pele and
Kahawali” “Two girls roasting breadfruit”) are not a part of the larger complex. In
addition, Nimmo notes that the “Stingy Fisherman” episodes are “thematically similar to
the story of the two girls roasting breadfruit” (5). Yet in my examinations of the
Hawaiian-language newspaper texts, the “stingy fisherman” episodes, particularly those
involving the fisherman Pahulu, are quite different in nature and tenor. In the 1905-1906
52
Ho‘oulumahiehie m o‘olelo, for example, Pahulu the fisherman is reluctant to give
Hi‘iaka and her female companions fish unless Hi'iaka agrees to have sex with him.
Hi‘iaka is successful in obtaining the fish and tricking Pahulu into making love to a stone
which he thinks is the beautiful goddess, “providing a comic, rather than vengeful
scenario” (Silva, personal communication). In addition, because Nimmo cannot read the
lengthy Hawaiian-language versions of the traditional texts, he misses important episodes
in the Pele-Hi‘iaka-Lohi‘au epic, such as the episode relating to the lame fisherperson of
Maui, Manamanaiakaluea.7
Nimmo includes the English translation of P. W. Ka‘awa’s “History of Pele, Her
Doings, Her Miraculous Power and Her Sojourning” from the “Ka Ho’omana Kahiko”
series which was published in Ka Nupepa K u‘oko‘a in 1865. It is found in the BPBM
Archives HEN collection, but he doesn’t make reference to the original Hawaiian source
material. Likewise, references for his categories of “Pele’s Journey,” “Pele, H i’iaka, and
Lohiau,” “Pele and Kamapua’a,” “Pele and Kahawali,” “Pele and Waka,” “Two Girls
Roasting Breadfruit,” “The Stingy Fisherman,” and “Pele and Poliahu” cite only English-
language sources. For “Pele and Kahawali,” Nimmo misses Nakuina (1904), and for
“Pele and Waka,” he overlooks Barrere, Kelly, and Pukui (1980).
One of the most interesting omissions from Nimmo’s work is the section on
chants about Pele. As chants, by their nature, must be understood, read, and performed in
7 This episode of the mo‘olelo was even featured as a separate mo'olelo. published in Ka Hoku o ka
Pakipika, October 10, 1862, during the time period the larger epic was running. This mo'olelo is credited
to F. W. Ka'awaloa, of Haleohua, Makaha, 0 ‘ahu. While Ka‘awaloa did not sign this series with a place
name, a quick search through the Hawaiian language newspapers listed on the Ulukau electronic library
turned up three other times Ka'awaloa wrote in and signed his wahi noho (place of residence); one was for
Haleohua, Makaha, one for Makaha, Wai‘anae, and one for Haleohua, Maui.
53
the original Hawaiian language to fully appreciate their power, nuances, and beauty, it is
not surprising that Nimmo was not able to include them more fully in his bibliography.
Ironically, while chants for Pele are performance-based, composed in Hawaiian, and not
necessarily written, Nimmo says, “The largest number of chants about Pele are found in
the publications of Emerson, specifically his Pele and Hiiaka. . . and Unwritten
Literature o f Hawaii. Most of the English-language chants about Pele published in other
contexts come from these two sources. Most Pele chants are from the Pele-Hi‘iaka cycle
and accompany the hula” (5).
It is important to point out several errors in Nimmo’s statement. First, the largest
number of oli about Pele and Hi‘iaka is found in the Hawaiian-language nupepa. Oli
form a significant portion of the body of na mo‘olelo, particularly in the larger sources
such as Kapihenui, Pa‘aluhi and Bush, and Ho‘oulumahiehie. In fact, when conducting a
chant by chant comparison of all the texts (see Appendix IB), it is evident that Emerson
does not include sections of the mo‘olelo, including chants, which he freely admits (see
Mokuna 6 for a more in-depth discussion).
Another inaccuracy is Nimmo’s statement that there are “English-language
chants” about Pele. While there are a number of English-language translations of
Hawaiian-language chants, particularly in the BPBMA Mele Book and HEN collections,
from a Hawaiian cultural perspective, the term “English-language chant” is really an
oxymoron as chants are always written and performed ma ka ‘olelo Hawai‘i.8
8 Interesting exceptions are in experimental drama forms, such as Nola Nahulu’s Hawai'i Children’s Opera
Chorus production of “La‘ieikawai,” in which mele were sung in English, in an operatic style, to facilitate
54
The fourth type of Pele literature Nimmo classifies is “legends involving Pele and
Hawaiian royalty” (6). Nimmo states that “most of these” contemporary (i.e., in the post
contact period) encounters “involve Hawaiian royalty” (6). A glimpse of the Hawaiian-
language nupepa Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo reveals a different truth. Most of the
m o‘olelo, despite being set in the ancient past, contain flash forwards and asides that
speak to the writer’s knowledge of contemporary human encounters with the goddess.
One example is found in Manu. During the course of his mo‘olelo, he recounts an
incident which was reported in Ka Nupepa Ku'oko‘a and HawaVi Holomua in 1862
about a woman in Ka‘u thought to be Pele.9 While na mo‘olelo were being printed from
1861 through 1928, separate articles chronicling Pele sightings, or unusual phenomena or
events attributed to the goddess were regularly printed. One such example is a short
article by Ahu S. Ewaliko, “He Mea Kupaianaha” (A Strange Thing). Published in Ka
Nupepa Ku ‘oko ‘a, the article gives a brief description of a man who receives an unusual
burn because he failed to keep a promise to Pele (November 7, 1863. HEN I, 2716-2717;
Nimmo 1992, 36).
The next category Nimmo offers is “etiological tales about Pele,” where he
separates the etiological aspect of na mo‘olelo, “some of which concentrate exclusively
on the origin of geological features or natural phenomenon attributed to Pele” (7). In
the performance of the mostly haole cast, and appreciation by the audience, made up mostly of cast family
members (performance attended, Honolulu Hale, 1995)
9 Ma keia ano o ua poe la i kamahao ia na ua poe la i mua o na kamaaina; a o ia ka ka mea kakau e
hoomanao ae nei. Aole no paha i poina i ka poe e lawe ana i ka nupepa Kuokoa, a me ka Holomua o ka M.
H. 1892. O ia hoi, ka hoike ana o kekahi wahine me kona aahu keokeo, ma kona kipa ana aku ma ka hale o
kekahi wahine ma Kau, Hawaii; ua haawi mai o ia i ka umeke ai me ka hiu kamano, a o ka poi ka i aneane
e pau, a o kahi hiu kamano nae, o ia mau no, aole i ai ia. (July 15, 1899).
55
actuality, na m o‘olelo are so laden with etiological segments that it is virtually impossible
to separate them out as a category distinct from na m o‘olelo. He offers only a few
examples, only one of which is actually included in some of the Hawaiian-language Pele
epics. The examples Nimmo gives, however, such as the legend of the naupaka blossom,
appear to be popularized fragments of events attributed to Pele which have been isolated
(and romanticized) by haole redactors and have little or nothing to do with the classical
Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo (7).10
“Children’s stories about Pele” is also a modem, western-based genre, as
traditionally m o‘olelo, even those now deemed “racy” or “inappropriate” for children,
were not relegated to age-appropriate censorship. Much can be said about this category
of Pele literature, as Pele stories have been a large part of contemporary Hawai‘i-based
children’s literature. On one hand, mo‘olelo are teaching tools which foster learning
about a culture. On the other hand, turning respected Hawaiian gods and ancestors into
characters in children’s books demeans the status of these Akua. In these children’s
versions, the intent is to impart moralistic lessons based on the Christian binary of
“good” versus “evil.” As such, many characters are clearly delineated as one or the other,
with no room for complexity. Framed this way, Pele is often relegated to the role of the
“evil” or “witch-like” being who must be tricked, overcome, or destroyed. Early
10Nimmo writes, “Two varieties of naupaka grow in Hawai‘i, one at the beach and one in the mountains.
The plant is characterized by a blossom that appears to have been cut in half. In one versions of the story, a
young Hawaiian couple are very much in love (49). Pele sees the young man and desires him for herself;
but his love for the young woman is so great that he refuses to leave her for Pele. Pele is angered and
attempts to destroy the young man, but he is transformed into the mountain naupaka by his family gods.
His sweetheart is similarly protected from Pele by being transformed into the beach naupaka (7-8). There
is no reference to this m o‘olelo anywhere in any of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo'olelo.
56
examples Nimmo gives are Mary Kawena Pukui and Caroline Curtis’ Pikoi, and Other
Legends o f the Island o f Hawaii (Kamehameha Schools Press 1979), and Bernice Pi’ilani
Irwin’s “The Wrath of Pele” in In Menehune Land (Honolulu: The Printshop Company,
1936). More recent examples include Richard Young’s “The Spirit of Fire” in Favorite
Scary Stories o f American Children (August House 1996) and Dan Greenburg’s The
Volcano Goddess Will See You Now (Grossett & Dunlap 1997).
The final category is the broadly defined “contemporary references to Pele,”
which includes “retellings of traditional accounts, sightings of Pele, ceremonies for the
goddess, local personalities and their experience with Pele, photographs and paintings of
Pele, organizations formed for the goddess, and a variety of miscellaneous stories that
illustrate, among other things, Pele’s role in Hawaiian political and environmental issues”
(1). Most relevant to the scope of this dissertation are his comments in his “Retellings”
section. Nimmo states that the Hawaiian-language nupepa are the “most significant”
source of the myriad retellings of the Pele literature:
It is widely accepted that early Hawaiian-language newspapers played an
important role in Hawaiian history by publishing articles by Hawaiians (e.g.
Samuel Manaiakalani Kamakau and John Papa T I) which dealt with various
aspects of Hawaiian culture. Without them, present knowledge of traditional
Hawaiian culture and history would certainly be greatly diminished. Less
acknowledged, however, is the role of the modem press in perpetuating traditional
Hawaiian myths. (9)
57
Nimmo goes on to describe series of articles published in the Honolulu Advertiser and the
Honolulu Star-Bulletin (9). The vast Hawaiian-language nupepa sources are excluded, as
is the tremendously valuable breadth of information on Pele contained within their pages.
With the Hawaiian concept of makawalu in mind, I suggest a more cultural
framework to organize the Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo:
—oli/mele for Pele or Hi‘iaka incorporated into mo‘olelo
—oli/mele for Pele or Hi‘iaka not a part of the mo‘olelo canon
—Pele and Hi‘iaka epic-like mo‘olelo
—episodes or segments of the Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo that stand alone
—Pele m o‘olelo not related to the Hi‘iaka/Lohi‘au cycle.11
Chanters, hula practitioners, and scholars in particular may find the organization of oli
and mele as a distinct category more useful in their research, as there are hundreds of oli
and mele dedicated to Pele or Hi‘iaka. Within the Hawaiian m o‘olelo, individual texts
such as Kapihenui contain just over 300. Looking at the body of Pele and Hi‘iaka
m o‘olelo, there are over 800 oli/mele published in these mo‘olelo (see Appendix IB).
Yet a survey of the BPBM Archives reveals even more mele not found in any of the
nupepa versions of the Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo.12 A comparison between the two
categories would be a worthy undertaking.
11 Examples include the mo'olelo of Pele and Kamapua‘a, or encounters of historical figures such as Keoua
with Pele. See Kalakaua 1889, Kame‘eleihiwa 1996, and Kamakau 1992.
12For example, a foundational mele often danced is “Lapaku ka wahine a‘o Pele i Kahiki.” It is found in
the BPBMA Mader Collection (MS GRP 81) and other published sources, but is not in any of the Pele and
Hi'iaka m o‘olelo published in the Hawaiian-language nupepa, nor is it found in either Emerson’s Unwritten
Literature or Pele and Hi 'iaka.
58
Work by John Chariot (discussed later in this chapter) and this dissertation are
scholarly examinations of the third category. These extensive Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo
are rich in a variety of cultural information worthy of many kinds of study.
Acknowledging them as an important grouping of Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo rather than
simply dissecting the whole to better fit into pre-existing western categories will assist
future cultural practitioners and scholars with their own research and interest in the
m o‘olelo.
N.B. Emerson , W.D. W estervelt, M artha W arren B eckwith
In this section, I would like to examine the most important sources of Pele and
Pele-related English-language literature discussed by Nimmo. While Nimmo orders his
bibliography alphabetically by author’s last name, in order to historicize the source texts,
I present them here in chronological order, by date of first publication.
One of the first published English-language texts concerning Hawaiian hula and
chant is Nathaniel Bright Emerson’s Unwritten Literature, the sacred songs o f the hula
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1909). While Emerson’s collection of
hula chants, rituals and practices does not focus on the Pele literature per se, he offers
snippets of the story in some of his brief explanations of chants or ritual hula practices.
Emerson provides annotated, Hawaiian-language text along with English translations,
which are sometimes obscure. Unfortunately, the Pele chants that are included are
presented out of the context of the mo‘olelo, which does not help the reader to understand
the fuller complexity and kaona of the chants. Seven of the 184 mele included in
59
Emerson’s 1915 Pele and HViaka text are included in this 1909 collection of mele; two
of the seven, “Ke Lei Maila” and “No Luna ka Hale Kai e ka M a‘alewa” are listed with
two versions of each chant.13
Not only does Emerson present chants out of context, but he also gives chants set
in a different context from other versions, including his own. One example is “Kunihi ka
Mauna.” In Unwritten Literature, Emerson states that the “Kunihi” chant is a “fragment”
of an oli “that was sometimes used as a password” into the halau hula (40). When
Hi‘iaka arrives on the island of Kaua‘i to fetch Pele’s dream lover Lohi‘au, she lands
somewhere on the south side of the great Wailua river, and needs to cross the river to
continue north to Ke‘e, Ha’ena, home of Lohi’au. Here, according to Emerson,
They have come by a steep and narrow path to the brink of the Wai-lua river,
Kauai, at this point spanned by a single plank. But the bridge is gone, removed by
an ill-tempered naiad (witch) [mo‘o] said to have come from Kahiki, whose name,
Wai-lua, is the same as that of the stream. Hiiaka calls out, demanding that the
plank be restored to its place. Wai-lua does not recognize the deity in Hiiaka and,
sullen, makes no response. At this the goddess puts forth her strength, and Wai-
lua, stripped of her power and reduced to her true station, that of a mo 'o, a reptile,
seeks refuge in the caverns beneath the river. Hiiaka betters the condition of the
crossing by sowing it with stepping stones. The stones remain in evidence to this
d ay .(40)
13 Aside from “Kunihi ka Mauna,” which will be discussed in-depth here, the other mele are: ‘“ O Pele la
Ko‘u Akua,” “Mai Kahiki Mai ka Wahine ‘o Pele,” “Kua Loloa Kea‘au i ka Nahele,” and “Aloha na Hale o
Makou i Makamaka ‘ole.”
60
However, in Pele and HViaka, he presents the oli in context of the larger mo‘olelo. This
time, H i‘iaka stands outside the home of Malaeha‘akoa, the lame fisherman of Ha‘ena,
and “sings” the oli to Wailuanuiaho‘ano, Malaeha‘akoa’s wife, who purposefully ignores
H i‘iaka and thus refuses her hospitality, extremely behavior in Hawaiian culture. While
it is implied that Hi‘iaka is standing outside the door chanting “Kunihi” to seek
permission to enter the home, Emerson states that “the woman Wai-lua-nui-a-hoana
received in silence this sharp reproof o f her haughty and inhospitable conduct, couched,
though it was, in the veiled language of symbol” (my emphasis, 110). Because of
Wailuanuiaho‘ano’s refusal to offer hospitality, H i‘iaka and Wahine‘oma‘o depart.
Without further analysis or context, Emerson’s presentation of the oli seems incomplete.
In addition to presenting both chants in different contexts, each chant version has
differences within them, as evidenced when they are compared side by side. The 1909
and 1915 versions of “Kunihi” are presented below; word and phrasing differences
between the two are underlined:
1909 Unwritten Literature text: 1915 Pele and HViaka text:
Kunihi ka mauna i ka la‘i e, Kunihi ka mauna i ka la‘i e,
O Wai-ale-ale la i Wai-lua, O Wai-aleale, la, i Wai-lua;
Huki a ‘e la i ka lani Huki iluna ka popo ua o Ka-wai-kini;
Ka papa au-wai o ka Wai-kini:
Alai ia a‘e la e Nou-nou, Alai ia a‘e la e Nounou,
Nalo ka Ipu-ha‘a, Nalo ka Ipu-ha‘a,
61
Ka laula mauka o Kapa‘a, e! Ka laula ma uka o Ka-pa‘a e.
Mai pa‘a i ka leo! I pa‘a i ka leo, he ole e hea mai.
He ole ka hea mai, e!
E hea mai ka leo, e !
(40) (109)
There are many reasons Emerson’s versions of “Kunihi” differ, including the fact that a
number of versions of “Kunihi” exist in different contexts. In the opening essay to
Kunihi ka Mauna, volume 2 of ‘Oiwi: A Native Hawaiian Journal, I list the various
contexts in which the chant appears aside from the two differing scenarios presented by
Emerson. For example, Rice’s Kaua‘i version of the mo‘olelo gives Pele, not Hi‘iaka, as
the chanter of the mele; Pele chants “Kunihi” upon her arrival at Ha‘ena amid the hula
festivities in progress at the home of Kaua‘i ali‘i Lohi’au (iv-v). In other versions of the
Pele and Hi’iaka mo’olelo, Hi’iaka chants “Kunihi” while she is still sailing en route to
Kaua‘i, and when she lands at Kapa’a on her way to Naue; see Appendix 2B for a
complete listing of these source texts.
It is disappointing to note that despite so much work with Hawaiian (and Pele)
chants and literature since Emerson first published both books, no editor of these oft
reprinted texts has braved the task of updating, annotating, explaining or otherwise
correcting any of Emerson’s shortcomings. Reprints include a 1997 edition of Unwritten
Literature and 1993 and 1997 editions of Pele and HViaka by Native Hawaiian-owned
‘Ai Pohaku Press, and a recently released 2006 edition by the highly-esteemed Edith
Kanaka‘ole Foundation. The lack of a move to correct Emerson’s faulty Pele and
HViaka text by the Kanaka‘ole foundation is particularly interesting, given their
remarkable work with other Pele texts, such as Ka Honua Ola (The Living Earth) (1989)
and Holo Mai Pele (2001), which will be discussed later in this literature review.
Emerson’s most well-known publication is, without question, Pele and HViaka.
Nimmo (1987) calls it a text “considered by many a classic of Hawaiian literature” (3).
But despite being referred to by at least one person in the hula world as “the Bible of Pele
Literature,” Emerson’s Pele and HViaka text is only one version of the story which has
been kept in print nearly one hundred years since it was first published.14 Because it was
written in English when Hawaiians were still fluent and literate in ‘olelo Hawai’i,
Emerson’s target audience was probably haole. Given the limited insights he offers in
his preface and introduction as to his purposes for publishing this translated and edited
version of the Pele and Hi'iaka mo‘olelo, it is arguable that he is offering up tales from
Hawaiian antiquities for the entertainment and consumption of the new colonial power to
which Hawai’i (and Kanaka) belong. One way in which Emerson does this is by erasing
the identity of his Hawaiian sources, other than a vague reference to the “serial
contributions to the Hawaiian newspapers during the last few decades” which he “found.”
In addition, Emerson claims that this material was supplemented by interviews and
papers “solicited from intelligent Hawaiians” without naming who his sources are (v).
14This comment was made to my by a non-Hawaiian “Kumu Hula,” a haole woman who teaches hula in
Kailua, O'ahu, during a presentation on the Pele literature I did at the first Halauaola Hula Conference in
Hilo, Hawai'i, 1999. After nearly 2 hours of discussion and “show and tell” of the 13 full length epic
Hawaiian-language newspaper texts, this was her response. She was rightly scolded by a Hawaiian male
kupuna in the audience.
63
The Hawaiian-language nupepa mea kakau, however, often credited their sources,
particularly when using manuscripts. One example is Ho‘oulumahiehie (1905-1906), who
credits J. W. Naihe and D. K. Wai‘ale‘ale with providing manuscripts from which he is
working {HA, August 4, 1905).
Indeed, Emerson offers himself up as the “Homer” for the Native Hawaiians who,
in his opinion, were incapable of “voicing its greatest epic in one song” (v). Thus
Emerson sees himself as a “unifier” of the narrative, which also means that he is
selectively editing and standardizing the story. Problems and shortcomings of Emerson’s
text will be addressed later in Mokuna 6, as it provides a significant counterpoint to the
Kanaka tradition of ha‘i m o‘olelo (here in regards to Pele), making this tradition a
contested site of Kanaka resistance and insistence in the ongoing struggle with the
colonizers.
Shortly after Emerson published Pele and Hi ‘iaka, (former) missionary William
Drake Westervelt published Hawaiian Legends o f Volcanoes (Charles E. Tuttle, 1916).
All together, Westervelt published seventeen books, six of which were collections of
Hawaiian mo‘olelo and traditions (see Appendix 4F for a complete bibliography).
Westervelt’s collection of Hawaiian volcano m o‘olelo is framed by western scientific
explorations; the introduction to the collection of Pele tales is a scientific essay on
geological earthly origins by volcano scientist Thomas Jagger. Westervelt uses Jagger’s
scientific explanation as a segue into the Hawaiian legends of the volcano to “explain
these great phenomena of nature” (vii-xi). The collection moves somewhat
chronologically through time with the legend of ‘Aila‘au (Forest Eater), a male
64
predecessor to Pele, presented first. The various Pele tales are given, ending with the
historical encounter between Pele and Queen Kapi‘olani. Like the “entrance” into the
collection, the “exit” consists of geology or scientific essays on volcanology.
Interestingly enough, a Tennyson poem on Kapi‘olani’s defiance of Pele is included just
prior to the geological essays, perhaps to demonstrate Christian theology’s conquering of
the pagan goddess, to assert western literary aesthetics “trumping” Hawaiian ones, or
both? Why western science, theology, or literary works are presented to encapsulate
Hawaiian tradition is never explained.
The first scholarly work to tackle the Pele literature is Martha Warren Beckwith’s
Hawaiian Mythology (University of Hawai‘i Press, 1940). Since its publication, it has
been a foundational text of Hawaiian folklore and mythology studies, if only because no
other significant text has come along at this writing to replace it. Beckwith’s depth of
research, particularly in comparing Hawaiian traditions with those from the greater
Pacific and world mythology is impressive, although like most of the previously
mentioned work, it does not examine the Pele and Hi'iaka mo‘olelo from a literary
perspective, and it does not address the Pele and H i‘iaka narrative as a whole, treating it
instead as unrelated episodes. It is comparative and descriptive with very little analysis.
A folklorist and anthropologist by profession, Beckwith provides chapter-length
descriptions of the Pele and Hi'iaka “myth.” Like other non-Kanaka scholars, Beckwith
concentrates on haole and English-language sources which are mostly translations of
Hawaiian-language ones, focusing on a comparative analysis of three texts: Ellis’s,
65
Westervelt’s, and King David La‘amea Kalakaua’s “The Apotheosis of Pele” {The
Legends and Myths ofH aw ai‘i, 1888).
While references are scattered throughout Hawaiian Mythology in relation to
secondary stories (i.e., stories where Pele and or Hi‘iaka appear, but are not featured),
Beckwith includes three chapters which focus on Pele: “The Goddess Pele,” “Sisters of
Pele,” and “Pele Legends.” Of these three chapters, “The Goddess Pele” is further
subdivided into two sections, “Pele legends” and “Hi‘iaka.” The Pele legends are
categorized as such: a. migration, b. expulsion, c. flood, and d. unnatural birth (two
versions), categories that differ from Nimmo’s.
“Sisters of Pele” focuses on Hi’iaka as the “messenger” who is “represented as an
expert in sorcery and the hula” told primarily through the dance. Beckwith recounts
“dance incidents” that occur throughout the tales, naming them as: a. Hopoe’s dance at
Ha‘ena, b. maimed hula (i.e., Manamanaiakaluea, as she is not named by Beckwith), c.
hula on Kaua‘i (here it is Lilinoe who is the kumu, although this differs in other
versions), d. hula and kilu, as represented by Pele’ula. Beckwith then goes on to detail
the theme of kilu, comparing several versions of Pele and Hi‘iaka mo’olelo, as well as
other Polynesian myth cycles, to focus on the role of kilu in love dramas and upper class
social life. Another theme Beckwith discusses is the practice of ‘ana‘ana or “sorcery.”
This is followed by a commentary of the role of Lohi'au’s friend Paoa, whose role
Beckwith describes as “unclear.” Other sisters mentioned are Kapo, Laka, and Alalalahe.
Another sister, Ka‘ohelo, is discussed in detail as her mo‘olelo is given as the “Legend of
66
Ka’ohelo.” Other mo‘olelo mentioned are the “Myth of Pu'uhele,” and the “Myths of
Sacred Hills” (188-189).
“Pele Legends” focuses on Pele’s vengeful nature, as categorized in the following
tale types: a. Legend of the boaster, b. Legend of Pa‘ula, c. Legend of Kahawali, d. Story
of the Stingy Girl, e. Story of Puna‘aikoae, f. Story of the demon head, g. story of the
demon wife, and h. story of fishing with eyes. Some of these, such as the Puna‘aikoa‘e
tale, are compared to similar tales from other Polynesian cultures, such as Maori and
Tahitian.
While Beckwith’s text offers more depth than Emerson or Westervelt, she, too,
ignores Hawaiian sources, even though she worked side by side with Hawaiian cultural
specialist Mary Kawena Pukui at the Bishop Museum. Furthermore, while her text is
informative and highly descriptive, it is not analytical in scope or nature. Like others
before her, Beckwith is trying to frame Hawaiian mo‘olelo in a western context, offering
snippets of m o‘olelo which are compared to each other without much in-depth analysis.
The focus appears to be providing a non-Hawaiian audience with a cursory knowledge of
Hawaiian traditions at a time when Kanaka Maoli and Hawaiian language were dying.
This study focused on classification and plots and did little to provide an understanding
about what the m o‘olelo actually meant to Kanaka Maoli and Kanaka Maoli history and
culture.
Fifteen years later, Beckwith’s colleague Katharine Luomala published Voices on
the Wind: Polynesian Myths and Chants (Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press 1955). In this
text, Luomala descriptively presents bits and fragments of the Pele and Hi‘iaka story in
67
the context of her larger subject, Polynesian myth and chant. While she did know the
language, she did not use Hawaiian-language sources. Instead, she focused on English-
language translations of Hawaiian-language material such as those by Emerson and
Fomander, and English translations of Malo and Kamakau.
Dorothy Barrere, Mary Kawena Pukui, and Marion Kelly’s Hula Historical
Perspectives (Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press 1980) is also an important English-
language source of Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo. This collection is an exposition of the
hula as depicted from the period of first European contact to modem times, including the
hula in myths and legends, with particular attention to Hi‘iaka. Thus while the focus of
the text is on hula and hula is taken out of its literary narrative context in the Pele and
Hi‘iaka literature, Perspectives includes passages from the mo‘olelo as points of
illustration, most notably in the “Legend of Kapo‘ulakina‘u.”
Cumulatively these scholarly sources of information and analysis of the Pele and
H i‘iaka mo‘olelo are presented in English are rely mostly on English-language
translations. In addition, as scholars restricted their analyses to their respective
disciplines (i.e., anthropology, folklore studies), with limited interpretation of na
m o‘olelo. Furthermore, their focus on Kanaka Maoli as a “dying race” functions as a
suspect political trope and masks their appropriation of Hawaiian literature. Like
Emerson, who asserts himself as the unifying Homer, the savior of Kanaka Maoli literary
traditions, some of the initial work by the above named scholars comes across as saving
the language, legends and traditions of a dying, obsolete culture.
68
Concluding his Bibliography, Nimmo writes, “Pele has come to symbolize
aspects of the environmental concerns in contemporary Hawai‘i. Such concerns seem
destined to become even more critical in the years ahead, and consequently Pele may
become increasingly symbolic of the forces of nature that ultimately govern human
existence. Much will surely continue to be written about Pele” (11). In the fifteen years
since its publication, a steady flow of creative and scholarly publications about Pele and
H i‘iaka has indeed continued. The proliferation of Pele-related materials in multiple
media formats has continued unabated, and an update of Nimmo’s work would be a
challenging if not worthwhile project for some ambitious scholar. Here I would like to
briefly discuss scholarly work produced after Nimmo that is worthy of attention.
S cholarship in the 1990s-2000s: John Charlot . H ouston W ood . Puakea

N ogf.lmf.tf.r
In 1998, University of Hawai‘i Religion professor John Chariot published a
journal article, “Pele and Hi‘iaka: The Hawaiian-Language Newspaper Series”
(Anthropos 93). Having set out to collect, read, study, and describe the Pele mo‘olelo
that were published in the Hawaiian-language newspapers, Chariot focuses on the “six
lengthy newspaper serials published from 1861 to 1911, of which five are studied” in his
article (55). Building on his earlier 1977 article, “Application of form and redaction
criticism to Hawaiian literature” (JPS), Chariot applies his approach specifically to the
Pele mo‘olelo. He writes,
69
the composition of these serials perpetuates techniques of the oral tradition, in
which memorized materials are arranged by a redactor into a complex. The result
is a combination of traditional materials and the individual tendency of the
redactor. A history of the literature can therefore be reconstructed from the
earliest, originally independent elements up to the time of the redactor. As a
result, the series provide not only a wealth of details on traditional Hawaiian
culture but a history of Hawaiian reflection on the past, the present, and
themselves. (55)
Chariot considers the publication history of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, who
Pele and Hi‘iaka are in a Hawaiian cultural context, tradition and variation in the
Hawaiian-language newspaper series, and major themes of the Pele literature in the
context of Hawaiian culture. The themes Chariot includes are: power dynamics between
the gods and sources (and tools) of power, the connection of power to beauty and
sexuality, and the relationship of Hawaiian religion (and Pele worship) with Christianity.
Chariot’s article is the most comprehensive scholarly work conducted to date on the Pele
and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, focusing on selected themes and areas relevant to na mo’olelo.
In Displacing Natives: the Rhetorical Production o f Hawai'i (Rowman and
Littlefield, 1999), Houston Wood devotes one chapter to Pele, “Displacing Pele:
H aw aii’s Volcano in a Contact Zone.” In this chapter, Wood focuses on early European
and American travel writing by missionaries and explorers, delving into the “systematic”
and scientific ordering of the world through the overlapping subjects of science, geology
70
and volcanology in the nineteenth century in particular. Wood argues that the western
system of scientific classification worked against the Native Hawaiian worldview of
mo‘oku‘auhau and the connection of the land and goddess to na kanaka. Contexts of
“hearing, taste, smell, and . . . touch” were “excluded from this recently invented
Euroamerican rhetoric” of the gaze (69). Here, Wood draws from Mary Louise Pratt’s
Imperial Eyes (1992) to point out how this practice allowed the volcanoes to be taken out
of their “organic/ecological relations with each other, [and] also from their places in other
peoples’ economies, histories, social and symbolic systems” (Pratt 1992, 31). For
scientists, data became more important than experience, as the whole was broken down
into measurable parts.
At the dawn of the twentieth century, the rhetoric of western science replaced the
Native Hawaiian Pele narrative. Wood argues that while the Pele narrative survived and
have resurged in popularity among native and non-native people, the non-native
“appropriation of a Pele rhetoric often seems more to reaffirm a continuing Euroamerican
hegemony than to support autonomous, alternative, Native views” (74). Examples
include new-age interpretations, and the “curse of Pele” myth made up by park rangers
and detailed in Linda Ching’s Powerstones (Honolulu: Linda Ching and Robin Stevens,
1994). Wood then contrasts Michele Jamal’s new age book Volcano Visions: Encounters
with Other Worlds (London: Arkana, 1991) and Pualani Kanaka‘ole Kanahele and Kalani
Wise’s Ka Honua Ola: The Living Earth, stating of the former that “such Euroamerican
appropriations increase the marginalization of traditional Native Hawaiian beliefs” (77).
Wood ends with thoughts on Pele in contemporary nature writing and art, and on Pele as
71
Hawaiian ancestor, concluding that “Euroamericans seem as determined today as was
Captain Cook to use their metropolitan rhetoric of possession to appropriate even the
most personal and sacred Native Hawaiian sites” (84). Like Nimmo, Wood does not
examine Hawaiian-language source material.
Combining an analysis of scholarly rhetoric and translation practices with
extensive knowledge of Hawaiian-language texts, UHM Hawaiian Language professor
Puakea Nogelmeier shows how a “discourse of sufficiency” has co-opted Hawaiian
knowledge. In his 2003 dissertation in Anthropology entitled “Mai Pa‘a i ka Leo:
Historical Voice in Hawaiian Primary Materials, Looking Forward and Listening Back,”
Nogelmeier examines the problem of scholars using English-language translations of
Hawaiian- language primary source materials as if the translations were themselves
primary source materials. While he focuses on specific historical texts, such as the key
Hawaiian history and culture texts by nineteenth century Kanaka Maoli scholars Samuel
M. Kamakau, David Malo, and John Papa TT, Nogelmeier’s argument is just as
applicable to Hawaiian literature such as the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo.
In the foreword of a forthcoming translation of Ho‘oulumahiehie’s 1905-1906
Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo (2007), Nogelmeier discusses some of the issues and
challenges in translating and publishing the text. Ambitious in scope, the project includes
two volumes: a Hawaiian-language text, with modem Hawaiian orthography added, and a
separate book containing a new and complete translation of the text (previously only a
partial translation of Desha’s text was available through the BPBM HEN collection).
Both volumes will contain illustrations by Kanaka Maoli artist Solomon Enos; prior to
72
this project, no Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo from na nupepa has contained artwork. While
the bulk of Nogelmeier’s edition of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo comes from the
Ho‘oulumahiehie mo‘olelo, he does also draw from the 1908 Poepoe and 1924-1928
Desha texts, compiling them into a more fluid and fuller version, since each nupepa series
has missing issues, pages, or—in the case of Poepoe’s 1908-1911 text—ceased
publication before the m o‘olelo was complete. Nogelmeier also looks at the background
of the literature and writers, and the relevant social and historical context in which the
m o‘olelo was published. Nogelmeier’s introduction is more descriptive than analytical,
and he focuses on the Ho‘oulumahiehie-Poepoe-Desha strand of texts as related to each
other. Since this work is not in print at this time, it cannot be fully discussed in this
dissertation.
R ecent Kanaka M aoli S cholarship
Over the past twenty years, Kanaka Maoli scholars have undertaken the analysis
and interpretation of Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo and related source materials, adding
much deeper insight into Hawaiian cultural practice, as well as perpetuating and
preserving it for future generations.
The first English-language text published by Kanaka scholars that offers a literary
analysis of aspects of the Pele mo‘olelo is Pualani Kanaka‘ole Kanahele and Duke Kalani
Wise’s Ka Honua Ola, the Living Earth (Honolulu: UHM Center for Hawaiian Studies,
1989). As noted in the “Preface,” a key impetus for the undertaking of this project was
the 1986 Ka ‘u Task Force Report, which found, in part, that “research by Hawaiian
73
scholars about various aspects of Hawaiian society was sorely lacking,” as “until that date
research about Hawai‘i had most often been done by non-Hawaiians and had reflected
their point of view, while Native scholars very often did not receive research funding,
thereby neglecting the Native academic point of view” (no page number).
Ka Honua Ola was “an effort to promote public understanding of the ancient
Hawaiian Goddess Pele—still one of the most powerful figures in Hawaiian culture” (no
page number). Focusing on selected oli and mele contained within the larger Pele and
Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, noted kumu hula and Hawaiian Studies Professor Pualani Kanaka‘ole
Kanahele presents the traditions, chants and interpretation of kaona that have been held in
the Kanaka‘ole family for successive generations, as well as information extracted from
other Hawaiian sources published in Hawaiian nupepa of the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, which she has translated, interpreted and arranged in their proper
context within the greater Pele epic. In this publication Kanahele does not distinguish
between source texts held privately within the ‘ohana or publicly available published
sources.
Kanahele also retranslates chants from Emerson’s Pele and HViaka, offering
readers a more culturally contextualized understanding of the metaphor and meaning of
na mele. Acknowledging the importance of the Pele mo‘olelo to Hawaiian cultural
traditions, practice, and identity, Kanahele writes that the Pele mo'olelo is “one of the
few Hawaiian literary pieces which people of today still relate to because of the
connection of the volcano to Pele and Hi‘iaka and the on-going volcanic activity” (ii). In
her analysis of the text, Kanahele focuses on the themes of ‘ohana, huaka‘i hele
74
(journey), mele komo (welcoming song), ‘awa (kava), ‘ana’ana, and hulihia. It is
unfortunate that Kanahele does not attempt further analysis of cultural-political meaning
of the text, but what she offers is much more useful and insightful than any work by non-
Kanaka scholars thus far.
The second half of Ka Honua Ola, written by Wise, is an annotated bibliography
of selected sources of Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo in Hawaiian and English, a useful but
incomplete bibliographic resource; the is no reference to Kaili (1883), Pa‘aluhi and Bush
(1893), Ho’oulumahihie (1905-1906), Poepoe (1908-1911) or Desha (1924-1928).
Written in English and published a few years prior to Nimmo’s Bibliography, Ka Honua
Ola is not included there.
In 1990, Kanahele published a brief article on the meaning of Pele and Hi’iaka in
Hawaiian culture, titled “Kilauea: Creation and Procreation,” which discusses the role of
Pele and Hi‘iaka as creative forces of the Hawaiian environment who represent “a
dualistic concept [of spirituality] practiced by native Hawaiians [, as] Hawaiians believed
in a dualistic universe (pono) where a theme of balance is necessary for a creative and
healthy natural existence” (61). Most importantly, Kanahele offers a Kanaka Maoli
perspective on how Pele and H i‘iaka are both representatives of and related to the natural
world, and have an important role in the contemporary Kanaka Maoli world today. For
example, Kanahele writes, “We usually speak of creation as a past experience. However,
creation in its most literal sense abounds along the southern section of Hawai‘i island,”
referring to the new land forming as a result of recent volcanic eruptions and Pele’s
active powers (61). Kanahele does not reference any of the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo;
75
this article, however, is an excellent reference for scholars and others who are interested
in understanding the role of Pele and Hi‘iaka in Hawaiian culture, which can help deepen
one’s understanding and appreciation of the depth and complexity of the overall Pele and
H i‘iaka tradition, literary or otherwise.
In 1995, Hilo-based Halau o Kekuhi premiered a ground-breaking hula drama
entitled Holo Mai Pele. Hula Pele related to the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo have been
performed by countless halau for centuries in contexts as formal as Kalakaua’s 1874
coronation or the Merrie Monarch hula competition and as informal as a backyard pa‘ina
(party). Yet the stage (and later filmed) version of Holo Mai Pele is the first instance in
contemporary hula performance where na hula have been arranged in order and
performed within the larger context of the m o’olelo. Holo Mai Pele has been described
as “the first hula opera,” as well as “a milestone in Hawaii’s forty-year-old cultural
renaissance.” As one reviewer put it, “Halau o Kekuhi broke ground by presenting
traditional hula in a newly expanded form, telling an ancient saga in a three-hour work.
Pualani Kanaka‘ole Kanahele and her sister Nalani Kanaka‘ole [Zane] are the kumu hula
[who have] . . . adapted a complex legend passed down from their ancestors in chant and
dance” (http://www.dancemagazine.com/dance_magazine/reviews).
This 1995 production staged in various locations around the Hawaiian islands, is
comprised of three acts, each act containing two scenes. Each scene was directed by
kumu hula Pualani Kanaka‘ole Kanahele, her daughter Kekuhi Kanahele-Fdas, or her
niece Huihui Kanahele-Mossman (Holo Mai Pele program). The exposition throughout
the performance and the program is minimal. Just prior to each scene, a narrator
76
presented a short synopsis of the upcoming scene, in Hawaiian and English, and not
included in the program. The program description simply states at the beginning, “The
epic poem of Pele and H i‘iaka recounts the travels of Pele and her family. From Kahiki,
the clan came with their religion and idols, in search of a new home. Settling in
Halema‘uma‘u on the island of Hawai‘i, the family visits Maui, 0 ‘ahu, and Kaua‘i,
paying their respects to the ‘ohana of that island” (Holo Mai Pele program). Rather, the
performance of oli, mele, and hula carry the bulk of the mo‘olelo. Titles of the oli, mele
and hula being performed are listed in order under the appropriate act/scene headings,
with brief descriptions of what each is about. For example, in Act I, scene 1, four
oli/mele/hula titles are listed, “Mai Kahiki ka Wahine a Pele,” “Ku Makou e Hele me
Ku‘u Mau Poki‘i,” “Aloha ‘o 0 ‘ahu, Aloha e,” and “Holo Mai Pele Mai ka Hikina”
(Holo Mai Pele program). The description after the title “Mai Kahiki ka Wahine a Pele”
reads, “From Bora Bora at Kahiki, Pele and her family travel to Hawai‘i. They traverse
the oceans on their canoe Honuaiakea, their navigator, Kamohoali‘i. Kanekalaihonua, the
deity who carved the canoe, accompanies the family” (Holo Mai Pele program).
In 2001, the Edith Kanaka‘ole Foundation (EKF) in partnership with Pacific
Islanders in Communication (PIC) produced a one-hour film version of the stage play,
which was first aired as part of PBS’s Great Performances (International Cultural
Programming, Thirteen/WNET New York and Pacific Islanders in Communications,
2001). This version of the epic has since been released on DVD (2004). While this
version of the production follows the 1995 stage play, some oli and hula have been cut to
accommodate the much shorter time frame. As a companion to the 2001 filmed version
of the m o‘olelo, EKF and PIC released a book also called Holo Mai Pele. This full-color
glossy text features still photos from the stage and video productions, as well as other
photographs of nature that illustrate the themes of the accompanying oli and mele texts.
This published version of the stage and video production is also slightly different from its
predecessors. For example, it contains much more exposition surrounding the chants and
photos, offering more detailed narrative than its performance-based predecessors. There
are also additions and deletions of chants from the previous versions; eleven individual
chants and the chant sequence between Hi‘iaka and Waihlnano listed in the 1995
program booklet are not included in the 2001 text. These cuts occur in all three acts,
although not evenly. Nine new oli and mele not listed in the 1995 program, however, are
added to the 2001 text; these all appear in the later part of the text in the concluding
scenes (42-67). Some oli appear to be in both texts, but with different titles or headings.
For example, the oli “Ku Makou e Hele me Ku‘u Mau P5ki‘i” (1995) is re-titled “Ke
Ka‘ao a Pele” (xix).
The Holo Mai Pele texts and performances focus on the Kanaka‘ole ‘ohana halau
traditions, and not on the published Hawaiian-language Pele texts, although they certainly
share some of the same elements, such as chant, story episodes, and characters. The
emphasis in the Kanaka‘ole text is on the familial relationships and responsibilities.
Thus, there is a strong focus on the mele and hula within the mo‘olelo. Critics of the
production, like scholar Noenoe Silva, have pointed out that the Kanaka‘ole rendition
downplays the aikane relationship between Hi‘iaka and Wahine‘oma‘o (and Lohi‘au and
Kahuaka‘iapaoa) clearly present in other versions of the published Hawaiian-language
78
m o‘olelo (personal communication, Noenoe Silva). While Holo Mai Pele was a beautiful
and dynamic artistic presentation on stage, on film and on paper the transitions between
episodes in the performances and between chapters sometimes appear to be a bit
“choppy” or incomplete. This is possibly due to the constraints placed upon the directors
and editors who had to take into account the western forms of stage, video, and book
production.
My 1997 M.A. thesis in Religion, “He M o‘olelo mai na Kupuna mai: ‘O ka
Wehewehe ‘ana o ka Mo‘olelo ‘Pelekeahi‘aloa a me Wakakeakaikawai’” (A story from
the ancestors: an interpretive analysis of the “Pele-of-the-etemal-fires and Waka-of-the-
shadowy-waters” myth cycle) was the first to examine some aspect of Pele and Hi‘iaka
mo‘olelo. It was a literary analysis of Manu’s “Pele and Waka” mo‘olelo (KLK, May 13
to December 30, 1899). It examined specific literary themes and devices utilized within
the mo‘olelo, in an attempt to “ascertain what role the written literature plays as
transitional texts which shape the nineteenth-century understanding of Pele” (10). By
looking at who the mea kakau was, the background of the nupepa the mo‘olelo was
published in, and specific literary aspects of the mo‘olelo itself, my M.A. thesis provides
one framework for examining the other Pele mo‘olelo. Manu’s text does not focus on
H i‘iaka, but I will apply some of the tools and ideas I initially developed for my M.A.
thesis to this larger and more complex dissertation topic, the Pele and Hi'iaka mo‘olelo.
In 2002, Larry Lindsey Kimura completed his groundbreaking M.A. thesis in
Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo. Kimura’s thesis, “Na Mele Kau o
ka Mahele Mua o ka Mo‘olelo ‘o Hi‘iakaikapoliopele na Joseph M. Poepoe: He
79
Kalailaina me ke Kalele ma luna o na Ku'unaiwi kaulua” (The Kau [Chants] in the first
half of the Story of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele written by Joseph M. Poepoe: An examination of
the poetic imagery) is the first contemporary scholarship written in the Hawaiian
language on any aspect of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. Here, Kimura draws on his
expertise as both Hawaiian-language kumu (teacher) and haku mele (composer), and
focuses on chant structure in the mo‘olelo, offering a system of analyzing and comparing
na kau (a type of chant associated with Hi‘iaka) in the first half of Poepoe’s “Ka
M o‘olelo Ka‘ao o H i‘iakaikapoliopele” (K u‘oko‘a Home Rula, January 1908 to January
1911).
Kimura creates new terminology for discussing the analysis of the kau, such as
the terms meiwi (the traditional elements of Hawaiian poetry, story telling, oratory, and
narration), kuinaiwi (correlating words or lines in a chant), and hapana (examination of a
part for a whole; a sampling method) (2). Thus, Kimura sets up a framework to better
understand the Hawaiian mele (3). He also examines the ways in which certain words are
transposed or fixed differently in mele for the sake of repetition (and meter), such as the
word “nonoke” for “noke” (4). He looks at linked assonance between lines and the use of
rhyme, citing Emerson, Lorrin Andrews, and Helen Roberts (4-5). He mentions that he
worked on Poepoe’s text because of his fondness for Poepoe’s writing, and because
Poepoe’s mele are similar to others he has previously researched (7-8). Kimura focuses
on “mele hapana” because it is grounded in Hawaiian metaphor (8). Different charts with
examples of mele from the Poepoe text illustrate how the mele are constructed, offering
an interpretive analysis on the meanings embedded within the chant text.
80
Kimura’s work is an excellent example of Kanaka Maoli scholarship in the study
of Hawaiian literature. It begins a much needed discussion on how to frame, understand,
and interpret mele and oli. As Kimura only worked on mele in part of the Poepoe text in
his M.A. thesis, there is still much room for such in-depth analysis of the rest of the Pele
and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo by Kimura and other scholars.
One of the most prolific Kanaka Maoli scholars thus far who has undertaken
political and cultural scholarly analysis of the Pele and H i‘iaka mo'olelo is UHM
Political Science and Hawaiian Language professor Noenoe K. Silva. Over the past
decade, Silva has authored a number of articles on different aspects of Pele and H i‘iaka
mo‘olelo, and has included chapters on both na Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo and selected
Hawaiian-language nupepa in her book, Aloha Betrayed: Native Hawaiian Resistance to
Colonialism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004). She is also one of the few
scholars who has undertaken comprehensive analytical work with Hawaiian mo‘olelo.
In 2004, Silva published an essay and her first book, both of which included
analyses of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. Her essay “Talking Back to Empire, Hula in
Hawaiian-Language Literature in 1861” (2004a) focuses on the political positioning of
the publication of the Pele and H i‘iaka stories as resistance to western colonization.
Concentrating on the 1861 Kapihenui version of the Pele and Hi’iaka mo‘olelo, Silva
argues this text “talked back to the oppressive colonial powers in indirect yet powerful
ways . . . binding [Native Hawaiians] together as a lahui. . . [and] reminded women that
their female ancestors were powerful and that there were alternatives to being
subordinated to men” (120). Silva contrasts the “experience” of hula by haole with the
81
“experience” of hula for Kanaka Maoli, arguing that they were different things. As
Kanahele calls to let Hawaiians define our culture and literature for ourselves, Silva
follows through, linking hula and literature as important in “the shared consciousness of
Kanaka Maoli today as we attempt to recover from the devastation of colonialism” (120).
Aloha Betrayed examines Kanaka Maoli resistance to colonialism from first
contact through annexation. Chapter 2 in particular explores the first independent
Hawaiian newspaper, Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika, which is also the first publication in which
“He Mo‘olelo no H i‘iakaikapoliopele” appears in print (1861). This is particularly
important to understand, as not all Hawaiian-language nupepa published mo‘olelo; prior
to the establishment of independent Hawaiian-language nupepa (Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika
is recognized as the first), Hawaiian mo‘olelo were not published, and references to the
Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo were quite rare in the government and missionary-controlled
nupepa published prior to this date.
In a forthcoming article, “Pele, Hi‘iaka, and Haumea: Women and Power in
Hawaiian-Language Literature” Silva identifies and employs indigenous Hawaiian
theory, which she recognizes in part as Hawaiian m o‘olelo. She illustrates her point with
a discussion of three important female deities: Pele, Hi‘iaka, and Haumea, arguing that
Hawaiian literature in the Hawaiian language is distinguished by “m o‘olelo of powerful
female deities.” She then discusses Kapihenui’s text and explores the different images of
Pele. The analysis concludes with the roles of H i‘iaka and Haumea and how they
“represent two different ways of religious life, though they share relatives (in some
versions, Haumea is Pele’s mother), and both pray to Kane and other akua” (forthcoming,
82
19). By comparing and contrasting specific female figures who are featured prominently
in Hawaiian m o‘olelo, Pele and Hi‘iaka included, Silva’s article contributes to
understanding who these female figures are in both Hawaiian culture and mo‘olelo
Hawai‘i. Yet there are many other characters and aspects of the Pele and H i‘iaka
m o‘olelo that remain to be explored.
As demonstrated in this review of the scholarly literature about the Pele and
Hi'iaka mo'olelo, each modem scholar has taken a piece and analyzing particular themes,
occurrences, and/or meanings of the text or contained within the mo‘olelo. Overall, there
has been very little written about Hawaiian-language literature that is analytical. Early
writers of Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo discussed in this dissertation, such as Poepoe, began
this important work in the publication of their m o‘olelo, but colonialism interrupted it;
the ban on Hawaiian-language instruction and the radical political shifts Kanaka Maoli
struggled to survive effectively disrupted Kanaka Maoli from continuing.
As a result, there is very little scholarship on Hawaiian-language literature that
doesn’t rely solely on secondary sources or translated works, and with few exceptions,
this work is written by haole. Hawaiian Studies as a large, interdisciplinary field is
steadily growing. Through its development, the excitement and challenge of analyzing
and defining Hawaiian literature, particularly from Kanaka Maoli perspectives, will
undoubtedly blossom.
While the scholarship on na Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo currently available has
made impressive strides in investigating important aspects of na mo‘olelo, much work
still remains to be done in order to gain a fuller appreciation and understanding of these
83
vibrant, culturally important mo‘olelo. This dissertation examines selected aspects of the
Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo published in the Hawaiian-language nupepa from 1861
through 1928 which are identified in Mokuna 1, and my literary analysis of these texts, I
hope, will contribute substantially to the developing body of research and scholarship in
this vital area of Hawaiian m o‘olelo.
84
MOKUNA 3
MAI KAHIKI MAI KA WAHINE ‘O PELE (FROM THE ANCIENT HOMELAND OF
KAHIKI COMES PELE): FROM PRIMARY ORALITY AND ORAL TRADITIONS
TO WRITTEN LITERATURE
Mai Kahiki [mai] ka wahine ‘o Pele The woman Pele came from Tahiti
Mai ka ‘aina i Polapola From the land ofBorabora
Mai ka punohu ‘ula a Kane From the red rainbow o f Kane
Mai ke ao lalapa i ka lani From the blazing clouds in the sky
Mai ka ‘opua lapa i Kahiki From the clouds o f Tahiti
Lapaku i Hawai‘i ka wahine ‘o Pele The woman Pele is most active in
Hawai ‘i
Kalai i ka wa‘a ‘o Honuaiakea The canoe Honuaiakea was carved
Ko wa‘a ‘o Kamohoali‘i Your canoe, Kamohoali ‘i
(Kanahele 2001, xvii)
Although Pele’s origins differ from mo‘olelo to mo‘olelo, by all accounts, she is a
malihini (foreign) god who travels from Kahiki to Hawai‘i. Kahiki means both Tahiti
and “any foreign country” (PED 112). Once Pele arrives “mai Kahiki mai” (from Kahiki
here), the myriad adventures and deeds of both Pele and her younger sister H i‘iaka
unfold. Hi‘iaka’s journey from the crater of Halema‘uma‘u on Hawai‘i island to Kaua‘i
to fetch Pele’s dream lover Lohi‘au is possibly the most important m o‘olelo associated
with her.
It is somewhat ironic that in order to discuss Pele’s presence in a pre-western
contact, pre-literate traditional Hawaiian society, one must invariably rely primarily on
written accounts. Walter Ong (1988) refers to the pre-literature period of a culture where
a system of writing has not yet developed as primary orality (11). Moreover, stories that
are created within this context are difficult to describe outside a literary context, with the
term oral literature being created in an attempt to describe these “oral verbalizations”
(10). Ong writes,
85
The scholarly focus on texts had ideological consequences. With . . . attention
directed to texts, scholars often went on to assume, often without reflection that
oral verbalization was essentially the same as the written verbalization they
normally dealt with, and that oral art forms were to all intents and purposes
simple texts, except for the fact that they were not written down.
The relentless dominance of textuality in the scholarly mind is shown by the
fact that to this day no concepts have yet been formed for effectively, let alone
gracefully, conceiving of oral art as such without reference, conscious or
unconscious, to writing. This is so even though the oral art forms which
developed during the tens of thousands of years before writing obviously had no
connection with writing at al l . . . ‘Literature’ . . . essentially means ‘writings’ . . .
to cover a given body of written materials . . . but no comparably satisfactory term
or concept to refer to a purely oral heritage, such as the traditional oral stories,
proverbs, prayers, formulaic expressions . . . or other oral productions. (10-11)
The interplay between “oral literature,” or more correctly, mo‘olelo, mele, oli, and
hula composed in the period of primary orality in Hawai‘i and m o‘olelo recorded on
paper beginning in the nineteenth century is important to understand because of the
inherent changes to mo‘olelo that writing invariably forces. Ong argues that, “writing,
commitment of the word to space, enlarges the potentiality of language almost beyond
measure, restructures thought, and in the process converts a certain few dialects into
‘grapholects’ . . . a transdialectal language formed by deep commitment to writing.
Writing gives a grapholect a power far exceeding that of any purely oral dialect” (7-8).
This is important because “texts have clamored for attention so peremptorily that oral
creations have tended to be regarded generally as variants of written productions, or, if
not this, as beneath serious scholarly attention” (8). This also occurs in part for a
“readily assignable reason: the relationship of study itself to writing. All thought,
including that in primary oral cultures, is to some degree analytic: it breaks its materials
into various components. But abstractly sequential, classificatory, explanatory
examination of phenomena or of stated truths is impossible without writing and reading”
(8). Thus, while “oral expression can exist and mostly has existed without any writing at
all, writing never without orality” although, apparently, study and scholarship cannot
exist without writing (8).
Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo survived for countless generations in an oral state
before being written down, which speaks to both their power and appeal. Ironically, they
are popularized today because their were written down, which extended their longevity to
a culture that is more depended upon writing an print than the one in which our kupuna
lived. A study of oral aspects of Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, particularly in relation to oli
and mele is certainly possible, although it seems unlikely to be sufficient to study purely
oral versions without having to reduce them to writing, at least in a scholarly context.
Thus, perhaps the best starting point in an analysis of Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo is with
the palapala—the written texts.
87
Ka Palapala i H aw a i ‘i (The E stablishment of W ritten L iterature in H aw a Ti)
Stories are a part of every culture in every time period, and Kanaka Maoli culture
is no exception. In Hawaiian, mo‘olelo is the general word used to describe all genres of
story, history included. For countless generations, m o‘olelo were recorded in memory
and passed down orally from orator to orator. They were also memorized in mele form,
expressed vocally by singers and chanters, or through the specific graceful choreography
of the cultural dance, hula. Through hula, stories were memorized in the body, not just in
the brain, and storytelling/history keeping was the occupation of the ‘olapa (dancer) as
well as the hah mo‘olelo (storyteller) and ipu mo‘oku‘auhau (chiefly genealogist).
The arrival of British Captain James Cook to the Hawaiian Islands in 1778
changed the course of Hawaiian history. By “discovering” Hawaih, Cook’s accidental
arrival in the Hawaiian Islands opened them up for further western exploration,
exploitation, and settlement. One of the first groups of haole to purposefully settle in the
Hawaiian islands were American Calvinist missionaries sent by the Boston-based
American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM). Arriving to
Hawaiian shores in 1819, a primary goal of theirs was the conversion of Kanaka Maoli to
Christianity. An important tool for such conversion was the implementation of western
literacy (reading and writing).
Once the ABCFM missionaries established an alphabet in the Hawaiian language,
they set out to translate the Bible and other texts i ka ‘ olelo Hawai‘i, and teach Kanaka
Maoli the “basic R ’s”: reading, (w)riting, and (a)rithmetic. Not long after initial
settlement, a printing press was established at Lahainaluna Seminary on Maui, and new
88
reading and teaching materials were published and distributed. Missionary-controlled
reading material was strictly monitored to promote Christian morality and western
practices and information on such topics as agriculture and farming. The first missionary-
printed nupepa, Ka Lama Hawai‘i, appeared in 1835 (Chapin 1996, 16).
By many accounts Kanaka Maoli took quickly to reading and writing, quickly
becoming one of the most literate populations on the planet (Kimura, 187, 189). It is
possible that during this historically documented time period of numerous deaths due to
foreign diseases, chaos, and despair, Kanaka Maoli viewed the recording of information
via the written word and the ability to read or decode these words, as a new technology
that could save their m o‘olelo—traditions, histories, genealogies and related mana‘o—
from extinction. It is important to underscore this aspect of Hawaiian interest in literacy,
as prior to its introduction the main method of recording such important information was
through careful memorization. While important “texts” like the Kumulipo were
successfully preserved for at least 150 years in the memories of the composers and those
who inherited these chants, it goes without saying that if Kalakaua had not had the
foresight to commission the recording of Kumulipo in writing in the 1870s, the chant
probably would not have survived, at least not intact, as it has until today. Thus the
recording of mo‘olelo through writing and the Hawaiian interest in western literacy as
ways to facilitate the preservation and transmission of information cannot be stressed
enough.
As the nineteenth century progressed, literacy developed and published material
flourished so much so that by the time the independent Hawaiian-language nupepa began
89
appearing in the 1861, several different sources of mo'olelo had been developed. One
was the recording of m o‘olelo by non-Kanaka Maoli such as Emerson, Fornander,
Westervelt and Thrum. These mo‘olelo were often recorded with the aid of native
“informants” and published under the name of the non-Kanaka “author.” Another was
personal books kept by individuals. Some of the more well-known books are the “Mele
Book” collections by ali‘i such as Kalani‘ana‘ole and Lili‘uokalani (see Mokuna 4).
Today these buke (books) are kept in private collections or held in archives and
museums, most notably the BPBM Archives in Honolulu, Hawai‘i, although some are
still held within individual families. The Hawaiian-language nupepa were an important
repository of Kanaka Maoli mo‘olelo in every sense of the word, as collectively they
form the largest and most accessible body of written material documenting Kanaka Maoli
thought, tradition, and society. Over 100,000 pages of writing in Hawaiian-language
nupepa exist (Nogelmeier 2003, 94). While these pages contain a wealth of social,
cultural, political and historical information recorded ma ka ‘olelo Hawai‘i, the
Hawaiian-language nupepa have been ignored by most historians until very recently,
mostly because many academic researchers writing on Hawai‘i do not read, write, or
understand the Hawaiian language. Thankfully, a new generation of mostly Kanaka
Maoli scholars have led the way in their research and use of Hawaiian-language source
materials such as the Hawaiian-language nupepa to literally rewrite modern history and
perceptions of Kanaka Maoli. Their ability to utilize these important repositories of
information allows us to gain a more accurate insight into Kanaka Maoli thought and
action during this crucial historical time period. It is my goal with this dissertation to
90
follow their example by returning to the original written source mo‘olelo on Pele, and by
showing how a more indigenous interpretation of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo is
possible when the sorely inadequate English-language source materials (such as
Emerson) are re-contextualized, re-historicized, and re-examined in relation to the wealth
of Hawaiian-language texts.
There are exceptions to every generalization. For example, as early as 1883,
Emma Nakuina published an English-language version of a Pele mo‘olelo in the Pacific
Commercial Advertiser under a pen name, Kaili. For the most part, however, significant
sources of Hawaiian m o‘olelo appear in Hawaiian-language nupepa, as English did not
become a dominant written language in Hawai‘i (and for the Kanaka Maoli population)
until the early part of the twentieth century.1
The Hawaiian-language nupepa published Hawaiian literature in every traditional
genre of m o‘olelo, including mele pana (place songs), mele inoa (name songs), kanikau
(laments/dirges), mele aloha ‘aina (patriotic songs). As time progressed and Kanaka
Maoli adapted western genres to/with Hawaiian language, new genres such as hlmeni
(hymns), sonnets, anagrams, and novel forms also appeared.
All in all, Hawaiian-language nupepa from the 1860s-1940s published three kinds
of mo'olelo: traditional Hawaiian m o‘olelo recorded in writing from oral traditions (i.e.,
HViakaikapoliopele, Kuapaka'a, Kamehameha, Kawelo), contemporary Hawaiian
m o‘olelo or Hawaiian mo‘olelo influenced by western genres or themes), such as
1 “Pidgin” or Hawai‘i Creole English (HCE) became the dominant language beginning in the 1920s;
English became the dominant language of education and business. See Kimura 1985: 198-203.
91
Laieikawai and the Kumuhonua Legends, and foreign mo‘olelo translated from other
languages (i.e., The Count o f Monte Cristo, Tarzan, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea) and
from other continents and cultures (Persia, Italy, Germany, etc.).2
Because m o‘oku‘auhau is an important concept in Polynesian culture, special
attention is paid and respect given to the first bom or eldest members in a family. This
cultural concept has also been applied to literature.3 Can this concept be applied to the
order of appearance—in print—of Hawaiian m o‘olelo as a whole? In other words, how
did Kanaka Maoli of the day choose which mo‘olelo to print in their nupepa? If the
m o‘oku‘auhau theory is applied, then the publication of the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo
early on is no accidental placement, as these mo‘olelo (mythical and historic) hold an
important place in Hawaiian culture. And at a time where other godly and human
characters have faded away, Pele and Hi‘iaka remain strong figures in the Hawaiian
imagination and landscape mai ka po mai until today.
There are probably as many reasons for the continued popularity of Pele and her
favorite younger sister H i‘iaka as there are mo‘olelo, oli, and hula composed in their
honor. One obvious cultural reason is that the two are prominently connected to a
foremost Kanaka Maoli cultural practice—hula. In many halau traditions, Hi‘iaka is
2 It is interesting to note that in a general survey of the Hawaiian-language newspapers as a whole, very few
American stories are found. It is possible that because America was a relatively new country with a
relatively “young” literature, it was overlooked. It is also possible that because of anti-American sentiment
due to American dislike and mishandling of Hawai‘i their literature was ignored. It is also possible that
because England was a dominant world power with a rich literary history— and Hawai ‘i respected this, that
Hawai‘i publishers followed their lead, snubbing American authors and writing.
3 One example is the Hawaiian creation chant Kumulipo. Scholars such as Martha Beckwith and John
Chariot have theorized that the appearance of fish and birds during the first two wa (time periods, chapters)
denote these species hold a place of rank within the ordering of species as the first to appear or be “born.”
This concept is as culturally rooted for Kanaka Maoli as Darwin’s theory of evolution is for western
scientists (see Ho‘omanawanui 2005 for more detailed analysis of this aspect of the Kumulipo).
92
credited with being an original hula dancer and patron of the dance under Pele’s
encouragement. Near the beginning of the first written Pele and Hi‘iaka mo’olelo,
Hi’iaka dances for Pele, much to her delight (December 26,1861). Even in m o‘olelo
which credit other goddesses as the original kumu hula, such as the Laka traditions or the
Moloka‘i traditions of Kapo‘ulakIna‘u, these goddesses are closely related to the Pele
‘ohana.4 It is not difficult to trace hula-related oli and mele dedicated to Pele or H i‘iaka
back generations, while hula for most other Hawaiian akua appear more contemporary in
origin.
While significant, the close association of Pele and Hi‘iaka to the vital cultural
practice of hula is not the only reason that demonstrates the hold Pele has had on the
Kanaka Maoli imagination and cultural practice. To understand why Pele has maintained
such a powerful presence in the Hawaiian consciousness from ancient times to the
present, one need only look to the center and foundation of Kanaka Maoli culture, ka
‘aina. According to Pukui and Handy, the word ‘aina means “that which feeds,” a core
concept in Kanaka Maoli culture, which was dependent upon sustenance from the land
and sea (18,45). The word pele means “lava, volcano, eruption,” all terms synonymous
with (the formation of) land (PED 323).5 Yet Hawaiian traditions differ as to how land
was actually formed. Aside from volcanic origins, Davida Malo gives differing versions
4 The Laka tradition is discussed in Emerson 1909; Kapo‘ulakIna‘u is found in Barerre, Pukui and Kelly
1980; Handy 1976 references both (334).
5 Handy writes, “Pele’s name may mean ‘to swell or to increase.’ Pele, with a short e, is the goddess. Pele,
with a long e, means ‘swelled out,” “enlarged.” The volcanic domes and cones are earth swellings; and
Pele’s activity visibly enlarges the land, hence perhaps the goddess’ most sacred name Pele-honua-mea,
(Sacred-person [or name]-enlarging-the-earth) (Handy 1976, 334).
93
and genealogies of the formation of land (“no ka ‘Aina ‘ana”) (2-4). Malo cites three
mo‘oku‘auhau by which the islands were begotten (hanau maoli mai): Puanue,
Kumuhonua, and Papa and Wakea. Malo also mentions Kumulipo, a cosmogonic
genealogy detailing how “the land grew on its own accord,” and comments on the
western idea of volcanic origin of the islands ( 3). Here, Malo does not mention Pele by
name, nor does he link her in any way to the formation of the islands. This is somewhat
irrelevant, as Pele’s association with land goes far beyond her volcanic abilities. Rather,
she is both associated with the formation of specific geographic features across the
pae'aina, such as Nomilu crater on Kaua‘i and Aliapa‘akai (Salt Lake) on 0 ‘ahu
(Wichman 1998, 36; Sterling and Summers 1978, 331). She is also associated with
maintaining dominant control over the Puna-Ka‘u regions of Hawai‘i island, particularly
over her home area of Halema‘uma‘u and Kilauea. The power of the land on the Kanaka
Maoli imagination and lifestyle is so significant that Pukui and Handy introduce
Polynesian Family Systems with the power of Pele and the primacy of ‘aina:
The island of Hawai‘i dominated the culture of the northernmost of the
Polynesian groups, even before the High Chief Kamehameha conquered the other
islands and formed a united kingdom in the first decade of the nineteenth century.
. . . Its active volcanism certainly had a dynamic effect on the culture of this
island, and may be presumed to have affected directly the organisms that were the
folk who lived intimately with and within and upon the stupendous earth-drama of
lava eruptions accompanied by seismic and meteorological disturbance, and the
explosive seething of forest and ocean when the molten rivers of pahoehoe.. .and
94
steaming smoking a‘a . . . poured or crept seaward from pits and vast fissures on
the slopes of Mauna Loa . . . .
Ka‘u is the most rugged, the most forbidding, of all the areas of habitation in
these islands, with its lava strewn coasts, vast windswept plains that are almost
treeless, beyond which rise the majestic slopes of Mauna Loa, deeply forested just
above the plains, but snow-covered towards the summit in winter months. The
toughness of the Ka‘u folk was the result of their rugged homeland and hardy life
in wresting a living from land and sea. (xv-xvi)
Several years later, Handy continues his description of Pele in Native Planters (1976),
adding,
Pele’s domain, being mostly southerly or leeward, is the dry portion of each
island, where those dependent upon uala for subsistence developed rainmaking
rituals. Pele’s uncle was Lonomakua who was both the keeper of the fires of Earth
and rain maker. The hula is the ritual of the Pele cycle, and of the ali‘i nui who
personified and embodied Lonomakua. At Kilauea, Pele dwelt in Halema‘uma‘u
(House of ferns, so called because of lava which cooled in fern-like forms), the pit
of the volcano. Here the priests of Pele performed their rituals in propitiation of
the goddess and made offerings when bodies of the dead were thrown into the pit.
(335)
95
Contemporary scholars, however, are not merely describing cultural practices and beliefs
of an ancient, intangible past. Pukui and Handy note that, as of their writing, “[Pele’s]
earth-rumblings are still a gigantic force in the land; the fascination of her fiery displays
and the threat of fresh desolation are never remote from the minds of Ka‘u dwellers—
exerting their potency today as of old upon the character and temper of the children of her
soil, whatever their race” (252). Of course, they were writing a few decades prior to the
nearly constant and nearly thirty-year-long streak of continuous volcanic activity on
Hawai‘i island, which has reclaimed and reformed thousands of acres of land in the Puna
and Ka‘u districts. Until today, Pele is a vibrant, visible, and active force demanding our
attention and respect.
The exploits and achievements of Pele as she traveled from her home in Kahiki to
Hawai‘i are celebrated and well-documented in the different mo‘olelo written for her
beginning with Kapihenui’s “He Mo‘olelo no H i‘iakaikapoliopele” published in 1861.
Yet how does the m o‘olelo of a goddess localized to a particular geographic region
become so popular? Scholars theorize that the cult of Pele began at the volcano and
spread outward from there. Chariot (1998) writes that “Like the Kamapua‘a religion,
[Pele’s] starts in the backcountry among the commoners and laha ‘spreads’ to other areas
and levels of society, which add their own interests, themes, and motifs to her growing
literature. This spreading is typical of movements in classical Hawai'i and demonstrates
the mutual influence of all parts of society” (57). Details of the mo‘olelo surrounding
Pele vary, sometimes greatly. Nimmo (1992) recognizes a handful of basic m o‘olelo
episodes and organizes them into what he calls “the traditional mythology of Pele” (2).
96
Included among these recognized mo‘olelo, two, “Pele’s Journey to Hawai‘i” and the
“Pele, Hi‘iaka and Lohi‘au mo‘olelo” are typically merged in the early published Pele
literature. While each m o‘olelo contains differing characters, places visited, and episodes,
there is a basic storyline which can be generally summarized.
S ynopsis of the Pele and HTiaka m o ‘olelo
This dissertation is not a translation of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. Nor is it a
retelling. However, a basic synopsis of the mo‘olelo—in English—is necessary to
understand the analysis of different elements of the m o‘olelo, as well as the comparative
and contrasting aspects between the multiple versions. As I will discuss in subsequent
chapters, not all of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo contain all segments, such as the
migration of Pele’s family to Hawai‘i. Nor do they tell the mo‘olelo in the same way—
there is no agreement across the mo‘olelo about when every character, place name, or
action appears. Some are closer and have more in common than others. But the one
referent they all share is the inclusion of Pele as a character, with the volcano as her place
of residence.
Pele, goddess of the volcano and creator of new land, departs from her homeland
of Kahiki with an entourage comprised of different ‘ohana members. They arrive in the
Hawaiian archipelago in the northwest Hawaiian islands, and make their way down the
chain in search of a suitable home. Members of the entourage are left at stops along the
way, populating the islands with Pele’s people. Landing at Nihoa, Ka‘ula, N i‘ihau,
Lehua, Kaua‘i, 0 ‘ahu, Moloka‘i, Lana‘i, Kaho‘olawe, Maui, and finally Hawai‘i island,
97
Pele is associated with creating specific geographic formations along the way as she digs
with her digging stick Paoa searching for a home. They finally settle at Halema‘uma‘u
on Kflauea in the area bordering the districts of Ka‘u and Puna on Hawai‘i island.
One day, Pele desires to go down to the beach in Puna, and her sisters go with her.
There, Pele witnesses Hopoe and Ha‘ena dancing at the sea of Nanahuki. She is so taken
with their dance, that she asks all her younger sisters if they know how to hula, and they
say no. But the youngest and favorite little sister, Hi‘iakaikapoliopele, knows and dances
a hula for Pele, much to her delight. In some island traditions, this is the origin of hula.
As the sisters gather seafood, surf, and enjoy their time at the beach, Pele falls asleep at a
place called Kapa‘ahu. Her spirit hears the sound of hula drumming, and decides to
follow it. Ending up at Ha‘ena on the island of Kaua‘i, Pele’s spirit meets the handsome
ali‘i of Kaua‘i, Lohi‘au. The handsome and athletic chief is in the midst of participating
in his favorite activity, hula. Bedecked in the fragrant flora of Puna, Pele presents a
young and beautiful version of herself. The two are immediately attracted to each other.
They stay together for several days, forgetting all other activity. Yet Pele knows
she must return to the crater soon, and cannot stay with Lohi‘au in her spirit form. She
tells him she must leave, but promises him she will send someone to fetch him. Lohi‘au
is so distraught by the sudden departure of his new love that he kills himself. In the
meantime, Pele returns to the crater, where she asks each Hi‘i aka sister in turn whether
they will undertake the long and arduous journey to Kaua‘i to fetch her new love. One by
one they refuse, familiar with the fickle nature and violent temperament of their older
sister. Hi‘iakaikapoliopele is the only one who will attempt it, and only if Pele promises
98
to care for her beloved lehua groves of Puna and her dear friend, Hopoe. Pele agrees.
Arming Hi‘iaka with the powers of Kllauea, a smiting hand, ‘Awihikalani, a critical eye,
and a “magical” pa‘u lightning skirt, Pele orders Pa‘uopala‘e (in some versions,
Pa‘uopala‘a) to accompany Hi‘iaka on the dangerous journey.
Along the way, they meet Wahine‘oma‘o, a young woman from the Hamakua
area of Hawai‘i. She is enroute to the volcano to offer a black pig to Pele. After Hi‘iaka
assists Wahine‘oma‘o in her task, she joins the traveling party. The three encounter many
dangerous obstacles as they make their way to Kaua‘i, including mo‘o, sharks, and
kanaka. H i‘iaka is also presented with opportunities to heal sick or deceased kanaka and
to defend hapless ones, all the while sharpening the skills she will need to revive the
deceased Lohi‘au once she reaches Kaua‘i. Along the way she also has opportunities to
reunite with ‘ohana members, rekindling their familial ties, and receiving their assistance
when needed.
Once on Kaua‘i, they are offered hospitality by the lame fisherman,
Malaeha‘akoa, a devotee of Pele. In exchange for his kind hospitality, Hi‘iaka heals him.
Once they realize Lohi‘au is dead, Hi‘iaka must rescue his body from the clutches of two
m o‘o women, Kilioeikapua and Kalamainu‘u and revive him. Once restored to life, the
entourage head home to the crater.
On their return trip, they once again encounter different kanaka who are in need
of Hi‘iaka’s assistance, provide resistance and are in need of retribution, or who offer
hospitality. One such encounter is along the leeward coast of O lahu. Another is at the
court of an 0 ‘ahu chiefess, Pele‘ula, who invites them to partake in a kilu match. Along
99
the way, Hopoe’s death and the destruction of the lehua groves of Puna are revealed to
Hi‘iaka, who must decide how she will confront her sister for breaking her promise.
When they arrive at the rim of the crater, Hi‘iaka defies her elder sister and kisses
Lohi‘au before Pele. Outraged at the blatant betrayal, Pele orders Lohi‘au destroyed by
lava. Hurt and angry, H i‘iaka threatens to destroy the volcano by digging deep into the
different strata of earth, threatening to flood the caldera with water and quenching the
volcanic fires. Kahuaka‘iapaoa, Lohi‘au’s close friend, learns of his death and vows to
destroy Pele. He travels to the volcano to confront her, chanting a series of hulihia chants
on Lohi‘au’s behalf. True to her beautiful and temperamental nature, Pele charms him.
Soon she discovers that Hi‘iaka had been faithful to her promise all along, and the reason
it took them so long to return is that they encountered so many trials and tribulations
along the way, including the need to revive Lohi‘au from death. Pele’s jealousy and rage
subside, and she seeks Hi‘iaka’s return and forgiveness. Pele retains her position as the
haku or leader of the ‘ohana, but she has gained new respect for her powerful little sister,
and they coexist peacefully after that.
D ifferent S trands of the L ei M o ‘olelo no P ele
It is Pele and Hi‘iaka’s association with hula around which the vast bulk of oral
traditions—including mo‘oku‘auhau, oli, mele, hula, and mo‘olelo dedicated to them—is
organized. Invariably, different strands of the lei mo‘olelo no Pele have been passed
down mai ka po mai to the present through several distinct, yet (sometimes) overlapping
means: via ‘ohana, halau hula, and palapala (printed literature). Deftly woven into these
100
main strands are other aspects of cultural kuleana they represent: aside from the personal
(‘ohana) and professional (halau) mo‘oku‘auhau, each strand of tradition also represents
different moku (islands) and ahupua‘a (districts6). It is conceivable that each also
represents different social classes (i.e., ali‘i, kahuna, maka‘ainana), genders (kane,
wahine), and possibly specific social groups (Pele worshippers). Sometimes specific
episodes of Pele m o‘olelo, such as Pele’s holua sled race with the ali‘i Kahawali and her
involvement with ‘ana‘ana are woven into the larger complex of Pele mo‘olelo, and
sometimes they are presented separately (Chariot 1977).7
This overlapping works on many levels. The lengthy mo‘olelo published in the
post-western contact era once printing presses were established are a Kanaka Maoli effort
to preserve and perpetuate these traditions which had been painstakingly passed down
from ancient times. The m o‘olelo are important for many reasons, such as allowing a
glimpse into ancient traditions, customs, beliefs and practices, but also continuing to
inspire creativity and pride in new generations.
Perhaps one of the reasons Pele, a formidable goddess worshipped during
traditional times, still commands attention today in a Christianized Hawaiian culture
where other Hawaiian gods have not is that volcanic activity on Hawai‘i island, where
she resides, has continued mai ka po mai over the centuries to the present, thus making
her presence known, and more “real.” Hawaiian political nationalist and Hawai‘i-island
6 Technically, a district is also referred to as a moku (FED 252). An ahupua‘a is a specific land division
within a moku, which is typically defined by natural geographic boundaries, such as mountain ridges, and
extend from the highest ridge point to the sea, containing all the basic elements necessary for daily living,
such as access to the ocean, fresh water, and other natural resources (PED 9).
7 One example is the story of Pele’s holua sled race with the chief Kahawali found in E. Nakuina, 1904.
101
native Palikapu Dedman has said, “I can take you to my god. You can feel her, touch her,
taste her. I can feed you the bodyforms of my gods. That’s how real [she is to us]” (Pele’s
Appeal, 1989).
In Westervelt (1916), when Pele arrives on Hawai‘i island, she displaces a male
volcano god, ‘Aila’au, and gains his name as an epithet, Pele‘aila‘au, Pele- the-Forest-
Eater (3). An hulihia chant published in Pa‘aluhi and Bush also reference Pele by this
epithet (July 12, 1893). Once established at the volcano, Pele’s power grows. She is the
goddess who “stays wild” (noho Pele i ka ‘ahiu) because of the inability of anyone—
godly or human—to deter her from her path.
As an akua, Pele was worshipped by families and chiefs, including Kamehameha,
where she was but one of a multitude of female deities to whom he paid homage
(Kamakau 1992, 179). It is possible to argue that Pele was so important, ali‘i who had
become zealous converts to Christianity, such as Kapi‘olani, felt compelled to publicly
defy her. In 1823, Kapi’olani embarked on a trip to the volcano to confront Pele, despite
warnings by Pele’s priests not to. Kamakau (1992) writes, “Going to the crater was
something that was fraught with fear and dread, and all travelers who passed on the trail
near the crater did so with gifts, offerings, and prayer chants, without touching any of the
foliage and fruit near it lest the cold rains (‘awa) and storms (‘ino) come, and they perish.
It was feared and dreaded in ancient times” (179).
Kapi‘olani’s defiance of Pele helped to solidify Christianity’s foothold within
Kanaka Maoli society of the time, although in reality, the worship of Pele as Akua or
ancestor has never completely been eradicated. As informal as it may be, without
102
priesthood, temple, or other standard accoutrements of godly worship, Pele is still
acknowledged by individuals, families, and communities as a personal deity to whom a
genealogical connection can be established, although not all who worship Pele claim a
genealogical connection to her.
It is the different written accounts of Pele m o‘olelo that connect the existence of
Pele mo‘olelo, oli, mele, and hula with her immediate ‘ohana, and by extension, with
those who worship her, and who claim a genealogical connection to her. Manu’s “Pele
and Waka” for example, describes how hula is established and passed down by Pele’s
older sister Kapo‘ulakIna‘u on the island of Moloka‘i (August 12, 1899; Barrere et. al., 8-
11). This tradition continues today through the Moloka‘i ka Hula Piko event established
by kumu hula John Ka‘imikaua in 1991.
It is clear in this account that Pele’s sisters, Kapo‘ulakina‘u ma are responsible for
the creation and dissemination of hula to other ‘ohana members and worshippers. This is
an interesting distinction from the hula traditions established by their other sister, Hi‘iaka
and her companion Hopoe in the more “mainstream” mo‘olelo surrounding Pele and
H i‘iaka in which hula is established by the pair in Puna, Hawai‘i. Yet when Pele’s spirit
visits Kaua‘i early on in the m o‘olelo, Lohi'au is hosting a hula festival on Kaua‘i, with
the mo‘olelo describing how hula is his favorite activity. Thus, the question remains—if
hula is already established in Hawai‘i prior to Hi'iaka and Hopoe’s first hula in the Pele
103
and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, is hula already established, and does Manu’s explanation present a
plausible theory of origin?8
There are many aspects of the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo which invite further
inquiry. The next chapter examines some of the early written sources regarding the Pele
and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, the nupepa they were published in, and the writers (and editors)
associated with their publication.
8 Poepoe 1908 offers a different mo‘olelo explaining Laka’s role. In this mo‘olelo, Laka is the
kaikamahine of Pele and they use her hula ability along the way while they migrate to Hawai‘i. In that one,
they are trying to find Pele’s kane, Wahieloa, who has run off with her sister. Laka is able to gather all the
people on each island along the way by promising a hula performance, and then Pele can ask them if
Wahieloa has been there. When they say no, the island is destroyed by Kahinalali‘i.
104
MOKUNA 4
‘O PELE LA KO‘U AKUA (PELE IS MY GOD): THE PELE AND HPIAKA
MO‘OLELO IN PRINT, 1861-1928
‘O Pele la ko‘u akua Pele is my god

Miha ka lani, miha ka honua Silent the heavens, silent the earth
A wai kai, a wai lani Waters o f the ocean, waters o f the heavens
Kai hawana ka ‘awa nui a Hi‘iaka The whispering sea, the great ‘awa o f
HViaka
I ku ai ku‘u mauliola That restores my spirit
E, i mauli na‘u Yes, my spirit is restored to me
He hale mauliola—e A house o f life indeed
E kapu kai ko ‘awa Your ‘awa is sacred
E Pelehonuamea e kala 0 Pelehonuamea forgive
Eia mai ka mohai, ka ‘alana ia ‘oe Here is the sacrifice, the offering to you
‘O ‘oe e Haumeawahine You are Haumeawahine [The Red Woman]
‘O ka wahine i Kllauea The woman at Kilauea
Nana i ‘ai a hohonu ka lua You are the one to eat and deepen the pit
‘O ua mau wahine a Makali‘i The women o f Makalii, cluster o f stars
‘O ua mau wahine o ka lani The women o f the heavens
‘O Kupuna [Kukuena] wahine The woman Kukuena
‘O ka wahine [i ka] inu ‘awa hana The woman who drinks potent ‘awa
Kanaenae a he akua malihini [e] A supplication o f the foreign god
Hele ho‘i ke ala ma uka o Ka‘u Traveling the path upland o f Ka ‘u
Hele ho‘i ke ala ma kai o Puna Traveling the path seaward o f Puna
Ke ‘oneanea ‘ia i Kapualei Made desolate at Kapualei
E ola ka ‘awa i ‘Apua The ‘awa o f ‘Apua flourishes
Ka pi‘ina i Ku[ka]laula [At] the ascent to Kukalaula
Ho‘omaha [puka] aku[la] i Pu‘ulena Resting at Pu ‘ulena
‘Aina a ke akua i noho ai Land where the god dwells
Kanaenae a ke akua malihini [e] Supplication o f the visiting deity
Eia maila ka pua‘a Here is the pig
He pua‘a olomea An olomea pig
‘A ‘ole na‘e nei he malihini 1 am not a stranger
He kama‘aina. But a child o f the land
E ola au ia ‘oe e Pele, ku‘u akua I live because o f you Pele, my god
‘Amama. Uanoa. Lelewale!1 It is lifted, it is freed; fly!
1The Hawaiian text is my compilation of three versions of this chant from the Hawaiian-language nupepa:
Pa‘aluhi and Bush 1893, Rice 1908, and Poepoe 1908. The inclusion of different versions of the chant is
meant to reflect the intertwined relationship between oral and written traditions and the differences which
pertain to each. My translation.
105
‘“ O Pele la ko‘u akua” (Pele is my god) is one of the foundational oli included in
the majority of Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo published in the Hawaiian-language nupepa.2
It is sometimes chanted by Kauhi‘Imakaokalani, the great “stone dog” figure who resides
in the Ka‘a ‘awa area of 0 ‘ahu until this day, often mislabeled as “The Crouching Lion.”
In other versions of the m o‘olelo, it is chanted by Lohi‘au, or Lohi‘au’s close companion
Kahuaka‘iapaoa, or Kanahau, the kalo farmer of Kailua whom Hi‘iaka falls in love with,
or the lame fisherman of Ha‘ena, Malaeha‘akoa. The oli recognizes Pele as an akua to
whom prayer and offerings are given and reaffirms her as a deity worthy of such
exaltation and recognition. Kanahele describes it as a mele ‘awa or ‘awa chant. There
are ritual and symbolic functions of the chant, including the poet’s wish “to impress the
listener with Kauhi’s capacity for intelligence, his understanding the concept of balance,
his talent, his inspiration and his need to praise the God” (Kanahele and Wise, 53).
This chapter will examine the different written sources of Pele and Hi‘iaka
mo‘olelo as well as the writers associated with these publications. The purpose is to
demonstrate the lively and interactive status of the literature in the public sphere of the
time, an interaction which continues in different modes (particularly around performance)
today. While my dissertation is primarily focused on the Hawaiian-language nupepa
versions of these Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo and selected English-language texts, it is
important to see the chronology and relationship of these mo‘olelo within the larger
context of when and where they were published and with whom they were associated.
This will help to introduce one of my central arguments: these texts, publications, and
2 The only exceptions are Manu (1899) and Rice (1908).
106
even their writers are better understood in a mo‘oku‘auhau or genealogical relationship to
each other. This theory supports the larger argument that mo‘olelo were written by
individuals and published in different sources for different audiences and with different
purposes.
N A B uke M ele a me N A P alapala (S ong B ooks and M anuscripts )
In nineteenth-century Hawai‘i before photocopies, scanners, and computers,
Kanaka wrote and copied mo‘olelo the old-fashioned way—transcribing them by hand.
Because of this commonplace practice, it is difficult if not impossible today to know
which came first—the hand-written copies (which, for the purpose of this dissertation, I
am calling manuscripts3), such as those held in the BPBMA, or published mo‘olelo,
including those for Pele and Hi‘iaka. Manuscripts are important sources of information,
as they are part of “Hawaiian writings [which] were not always created for publication”
(Nogelmeier, 89).
There are different collections of mele at the BPBM Archives, including boxes or
cases of information. Many of these collections contain Buke Mele (Song Books),
unpublished, handwritten volumes of mele. Some collections, such as Roberts, include
typescript copies with English translations or notes by Pukui or Lahilahi Webb. While
the collections remain unpublished in their entirety, some have been consulted or utilized
3 manuscript: 1. a written, typewritten, or computer-produced text before being set in type. 2. writing as
distinguished from print. 3. written by hand or using a typewriter or word processor: manuscript documents
(Webster’s College Dictionary, 754).
107
for newer publications.4 Each collection is organized differently, most often by collector
(Kapi‘olani-Kalaniana‘ole), but sometimes by topic (“Hulas of Kaua‘i”). Hundreds of oli
and mele associated with Pele and Hi‘iaka, some with multiple versions, are contained
within the vast Archive collection.5 An in-depth study of the Buke Mele and mele
collection would be a valuable project, but is beyond the scope of this dissertation.
However, it is important to understand their place in the study of the Pele and Hi‘iaka
mo'olelo, as collectively these mele collections contain multiple versions of the majority
of oli and mele found throughout the different mo‘olelo. They also contain some mele
related to Pele and Hi‘iaka which are not found in the epic mo‘olelo.
It is unknown how many handwritten manuscripts are held within families or
private collections today, but manuscripts handed down within families still exist, and are
not available to the public.6 There are, however, three known handwritten Pele and
Hi‘iaka manuscripts held at the BPBM Archives which are available to the public: “Ka
Mo‘olelo o Hi‘iakaikapoliopele” found in “excerpts from The Maile Wreath; “He
4 One example is Na Mele Welo, Songs o f Our Heritage by Pat Namaka Bacon and Nathan Napoka
(Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1995). This publication is a collection of mele selected from the
Roberts Mele Collection that was translated into English by Pukui.
5 The oli “Kunihi ka Mauna” is an example. Fifteen variants of the chant are contained in several Bishop
Museum Archives Mele Book collections; these are in addition to the published sources found in the Pele
and Hi'iaka m o‘olelo (see Ho‘omanawanui in Dudoit et al. 2002, iv-v). The Bishop Museum Archive
Collection includes: Mader Collection MS GRP 81; Kuluwaimaka Collection, HI. M. 51 (book I; book II);
HEN V. 3 (77-78; 303-304); Henriques-Peabody Collection, fHI. L. 23, HI. M. 59, HI. M. 77; Helen
Roberts Collections Box 2.3, box 2.6, box 2.7, box 3.7, box 3.8; Pukui Collection, Hulas of Kaua‘i, HI. M.
72; The Maile Wreath Excerpts HI. H. 51,
6 One example is the Rice family of Kaua‘i. Different family members still have possession of William
Hyde Rice’s manuscripts that formed the basis of his Hawaiian Legends publication (Honolulu: Bishop
Museum Press, 1923). Rice’s grandson Frederick “Bruce” Wichman has used some of this material in his
collections of Kaua'i mo‘olelo, such as Kaua'i Tales (1986), Polihale and other Kaua'i Legends (1991),
and his later publications. Other materials are still held within the family and remain unpublished. Chariot
(1998) calls Rice’s 1908 publication of a Pele and Hi'iaka m o’olelo in Hoku o Hawai'i a text which
“represents . . . the only available example of a private manuscript on the subject. Many such manuscripts
existed and were edited in various ways for newspaper publication” (60).
108
Mo‘olelo no Hi‘iaka,” found in the Joseph Poepoe Collection; and “Hi‘iakaikapoliopele”
included in the extensive Henriques-Peabody Collection.
The M aile W reath (HI.H. 5 1).7 The Maile Wreath was a monthly missionary-
related publication, the voice of the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society (founded in
1852). Volume I number 1 of the publication appeared in June 1861. While it is
described as a publication on the HMCS website, I am including it in this section because
The Maile Wreath was actually a hand-written, rather than printed periodical
(www.missionhouses.org). It is not known if all issues of this periodical were
handwritten and distributed, or how many copies of each issue were produced.
Furthermore, when compared to the original texts held at the HMCS Archives, the BPBM
Archive copy appears to contain only selected essays copied from the originals. One
indication is that the majority of the mo’olelo in this volume are dated, with dates
spanning a period of several years. The dates also correspond to publication dates of The
Maile Wreath. The only m o‘olelo in this volume that is not dated is the Pele and Hi‘iaka
m o‘olelo. In addition, in a survey of the early issues of The Maile Wreath originals held
at the HMCS Archives, I have not found any of the mo‘olelo collected in the BPBM
Archives copy gathered in a similar manner in the HMCS originals; rather, they seem to
be extracted from the original volumes of The Maile Wreath.
7 Not listed in Chapin 1996 or 2000, or Mookini 1974.
109
An image of the Maile Wreath. HMCS Archives.
According to the BPBM Archives on-line catalog, The Maile Wreath “was a
collection of articles prepared by members of the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society”
published from 1861 to about 1875.8 The Hawaiian M ission Children’s Society
(HMCS) website describes it as “early essays, poems, treasurers’ reports,
editorials, death notices, [and] miscellaneous material authored by Society
members” (www.missionhouses.org).9 The BPBM Archives version contains “articles
prepared for or copied from the Maile Wreath” (BPBMA online catalog webpage). A
survey of the HMCS originals shows a relatively stable order of categories, such as
“poetry,” “births and deaths,” “correspondence,” “treasurer’s monthly report,” “items”
and “clippings.” According to the editors of the periodical, they were “elected by the
8 However, dates listed on the same catalog range from 1862-1907; the HMCS website lists dates from
1861-1896. The Maile Wreath is held at the HMCS Archives in bound leather books which are, at the time
of this writing, unindexed.
9 The Maile Wreath is also the name of the contemporary HMCS newsletter.
110
majority [of the Society] to serve this Society in this capacity as editors willing to do all
in our power to further its interests” (MW, August 1861, 8). The editors also expressly
connect the Society with 0 ‘ahu College (today known as Punahou School), noting that
“the formidable file of compositions from the thirty or forty young ladies and gentlemen
of Oahu College” would serve as potential articles for their publication (MW, August
1861, 7-8).
The BPBMA online catalog states that the publication was edited by William
DeWitt Alexander (1833-1913), but Alexander was actually the third elected Head Editor
or “Editor Chair.” According to the inaugural June 1861 issue, L. Chamberlain was the
original Chair. The publication was additionally staffed by Miss C. H. Armstrong,
William W. Hall, and Mrs. S. E. White (MW, June 1861, 1). In December of that year,
The Maile Wreath reported that O. H. Gulick had taken over as Chair, with additional
editorial staff listed as C. K. Clark, Miss M. A. Chamberlain, and Miss Emma Smith
(MW, December 1861, 1). The April 1862 issue listed the slate of editorial candidates
from the “upcoming election,” with W. D. Alexander the primary candidate on each of
the three groups running, assuring his election as Chair (MW, April 1862, 6-17).
Alexander was a second-generation missionary. His father, William Patterson
Alexander ran the Theological Seminary in Wailuku, Maui, a school at least one other
authors of the Pele and Hi'iaka m o‘olelo, Reverend Simeon Pa'aluhi, attended
(Missionary Album, 19). He married Abigail Baldwin, a missionary daughter (Missionary
Album, 19).
Ill
Like the HMCS originals, the BPBM Archives copy of The Maile Wreath is an
actual ledger-style volume. While the HMCS copies are letter size books (8 Vi x 11
inches), the BPBM copy is legal size ( 11x14 inches), approximately a half-inch thick.
The HMCS originals are smaller pamphlet-like copies with some lined and some unlined
pages, with a number of issues bound together and covered with a dark brown leather or
hardcover casing with a black spine and gold edging, approximately one inch thick.
Each cover page of a new issue is block printed, while the rest of the issue is
handwritten script in ink. The pages are also hand-numbered. The BPBM volume has a
dark brown cover with a black spine lined in gold. “LEGENDS” in gold stamped on
cover in gold-lined box, and the outer corners of the cover are black trimmed with gold.
The inside pages are lined. The book is similar to the volume containing the Pele and
H i‘iaka mo‘olelo in the Henriques-Peabody collection, which was manufactured by
Thomas G. Thrum in Honolulu (inside cover, Henriques-Peabody volume).10
There are nine Hawaiian m o‘olelo and one contemporary mo‘olelo included in the
BPBM volume.11 All are written in English, typically running from 1-3 pages in length.
Credited to missionary writers such as W. D. Alexander and J. S. Emerson, the dates on
these publications range from June 1862 (“Ka‘u Traditions—the Story of Kohaokalani,
etc.,” 1) to 1907 (“Extracts from W. A. Bryan’s Molokai Bird hunt,” 49). “Ka M o‘olelo
10 While Thrum is most well-known for his own collections of Hawaiian m o‘olelo, he was a paper
manufacturer and owned a stationary business which was established in 1870.
11 These m o‘olelo are: “K a‘u Traditions—the Story of Kohaokalani, etc.,” translation for the “Maile
Wreath” by W.D. Alexander, June 1862, 1; “History of Umi, his birth and his youth,” June 1864, 4-6;
“Traditions of the province of Puna,” 1864, 7-11; “The pali of Nuuanu (An incident in Hawaiian history),”
October 1864, 12-14; “The Legend of Ai Kanaka,” January 1865; “The Myth of Maui” by J.S. Emerson,
November 1882, 15-16; “The overthrow of the Tabu System” by W.D. Alexander, December 1881, 17-20;
“Ka M o‘olelo o Hi’iaka,” 21-48; and “Extracts from W. A. Bryan’s Molokai Bird hunt,” 1907, 49.
112
no Hi‘iakaikapoliopele” is the only mo‘olelo included in this volume which is written in
Hawaiian, not English, and does not have a publication date associated with it. It is one of
a few that does not have an author or translator’s name ascribed to it. At 37 pages in
length, it is also the most extensive mo‘olelo included in the collection, other mo‘olelo in
the collection average just a handful of pages each.
Because the dates listed for each mo‘olelo span over forty years, and because the
small, neat handwriting is consistent throughout, it appears that the mo’olelo were copied
from different issues of the Maile Wreath, possibly professionally transcribed. It also
appears to be an early twentieth-century manuscript, as the latest date given within the
book is 1907. The presence of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, which makes up the bulk of
the manuscript, is puzzling.
The mo‘olelo actually runs from page 21 to 46, at which point it ends with the
phrase, “Ka Hopena” (Conclusion). However, the next few pages contain an extensive
hulihia chant, a variant commonly found in other Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo (47-48). A
handwritten note in pencil in the margin, however, states, “do not copy” (H.HI 51, 47,
48). Upon initial examination, it appears to be a different version than others contained in
the published Hawaiian-language nupepa, but similar to another handwritten manuscript
contained in the Joseph Moku‘ohai Poepoe Collection.
T he Joseph M o ku ‘ohai P oepoe C ollection (HI.L.2.3). Joseph Moku’ohai
Poepoe was a prominent Kanaka Maoli who was closely associated with the editing and
publishing of several Hawaiian-language nupepa. He was also credited with several
published versions of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. The BPBM Archives contains one
113
handwritten manuscript copy of a Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo in their Poepoe Collection.
At 65 pages, this manuscript, entitled “He Mo‘olelo no Hi‘iaka” is much shorter (and
uses a different title) than his published versions of the mo‘olelo, which ran for several
years and several hundred pages. The BPBMA online catalog includes John E. Bush’s
name under Poepoe’s, and simply notes this m o‘olelo is “very different from Nathaniel
Emerson’s Pele and Hiiaka” (BPBMA online catalog). As with The Maile Wreath
manuscript, the Poepoe manuscript is not dated. In published versions of the m o’olelo,
however, Ho‘oulumahiehie/Poepoe (believed to be the same person), mentions that he
had “several manuscripts” in his possession that he was working with. Three published
texts, two signed by “Ho ‘oulumahiehie,’’ and one by Poepoe, mention specific
manuscripts being used; each time, the explanatory paragraph is exactly the same, with
no textual changes. He writes, “Herein are the values we have ascertained about
Hi‘iaka’s legend, which were copied from J.W. Naihe’s (of Kohala) collection (or text),
along with D.K. Wai‘ale‘ale’s collection, too. Notably, it’s an unknown account of
Hi‘iaka’s legend that has not been shared before” (translation by Ioane
Ho‘omanawanui).12 Two texts (one by Ho‘oulumahiehie, the other by Poepoe) are
identical with no textual changes. They discuss different versions of the m o‘olelo being
utilized to craft the new series:
. . . let us discuss the things about Hi’iaka bringing Lohi’au back to life. This is an
important section, and the writer regrets that he does not have some of the
12 O keia nae na mea i loaa ia makou ma keia moolelo Hiiaka, i kopeia mai e makou mai ka buke mai a J.
W. Naihe o Kohala, a mai ka buke mai hoi a D. K. Waialeale. A he mahele no hoi keia i ike ole ia ma na
moolelo Hiiaka i hoolahaia mamua aku nei {HA and KNA, August 4, 1905; KHR, April 17, 1908).
114
versions of the H i‘iaka story that are held by others who know the story by heart
or who hold handwritten manuscripts of this story from their . . . grandparents.. . .
What the writer has at this time is from three different versions of the Hi‘iaka
story that have been put down in writing. Two . . . offer only scant coverage of
this important section of the story, and one has the explanations and the chants
pertaining to this amazing deed carried out by Hi‘iaka.13 (translation by Puakea
Nogelmeier et al. forthcoming)
While highly abbreviated from any of Poepoe’s published versions, this manuscript copy
does appear to form a foundation for part of the published mo‘olelo. One example of how
it may be a working copy is that there are handwritten notes in pencil throughout with
crosses (x), check marks, and new paragraph symbols (IP) possibly indicating places to
add text. Lines, words, paragraphs and sections crossed or scribbled out, indicate the
crossed out section was to be deleted or ignored. Words, lines and phrases are also
regularly crossed out and replaced; for example, the phrase “E nana Helu 35 Buke mele
Hiiaka” (Look at number 35 in the Hi‘iaka Song Book) was changed: “E nana” was
crossed out and “Kau” written above, the helu number crossed out 35 changed to 61
(HI.L. 2.3, 8).
13 A no, e kamailio ana kaua e ka makamaka heluhelu i keia wa, no ka mea e pili ana i ka hoola hou ana o
Hiiaka ia Lohiau. He mahele ano nui keia, a ke minamina nei ka mea kakau i ka loaa ole ana iaia ona
mahelehele Hiiaka i loaa i kahi poe paanaau, a i ole, e paa nei paha he mau buke kakaulima o keia moolelo,
mai ko lakou mau kupuna a poe makua mai hoi. O ka mea i loaa i ka mea kakau i keia wa, mailoko mai no
ia o ekolu mau mahele moolelo Hiiaka i paa i ke kakauia. Elua oia mau mahele he uuku loa na mea i
hoikeia no keia wahi ano nui o ka moolelo, ahookahi mahele i loaa me na hoakaka me na Kau i pili i keia
hana kupaianaha i hanaia e Hiiaka (Ho‘oulumahiehie, KNA, March 1, 1906; Poepoe, KHR, January 7,
1910).
115
A sample page from Poepoe’s Pele and Hi‘iaka manuscript, BPBMA HI.L. 2.3.
116
The next mele on the same page replaces the same phrase with “Kau,” and the chant
number changed from 36 to 62; “Buke Mele Hi‘iaka” is crossed out and “Na Waihinano
keia” (This [chant] is Waihinano’s) written over it (HI. L.2.3, 8).
It is not possible to ascertain at this time if this manuscript was given to Poepoe,
or written in his own hand; the manuscript itself is written by at least three people with
three distinct handwriting styles.14 It is interesting to note that many of the handwritten
pages of the m o‘olelo were written on the back sides of pages printed in Hawaiian of
what appears to be kanawai (laws), indicating that “Poepoe took his law books apart” and
reused them in a new way (Noenoe Silva, personal communication, August 4, 2006).
Some of the pages written in another hand are written on what looks like yellow legal
paper; a scribbled note on the back of one of the pages gives the date 1902, indicating
that this may be an early twentieth-century copy. A handwritten note at the front of the
folder notes that this Hi‘iaka story “is complete,” but has “some chants missing.” In
addition, it is “very different from Emerson’s version.” The note also cites the Hawaiian-
language nupepa Ka ‘Oia‘i ‘o (May 1889-September 1896) as a possible source, but that
the nupepa “is not in Bishop Museum and Lahui Hawaii [sic.; Ka Leo o ka Lahui]. . .
is—but not the issues which contain this” (Poepoe Collection HI.L. 2.3).15
14 Samples of Poepoe’s handwriting exist, and at least part of this mo'olelo appears to be written in his hand
(Noenoe Silva, personal communication, August 4, 2006).
15 Because the two papers Bush edited, Ka ‘Oia'i'o and Ka Leo o ka Lahui ran about the same time, this is
probably a simple error mixing up the two nupepa. No Pele and Hi’iaka m o‘olelo has been discovered in
Ka ‘Oia‘i ‘o at this writing, and is not listed in bibliographies compiled by either Nimmo (1992) or Chariot
(1998). Noenoe Silva added a note to the file correcting the nupepa title, August 4, 2006.
117
An opening note at the beginning of the manuscript under the title states that this
mo‘olelo was, “Kopeia mailoko mai o ka Buke a Mr. S. Paa[luhi]16 o Niuhelewai,
Kapalama, Honolulu, Oa[hu]; o ka mo'olelo nohoi keia i hoopukaia ai e Mr. J. E. Bush
ma kana nupepa “Ka Oiaio” (Copied from within the Book of Mr. S. Paa[luhi?] of
Niuhelewai, Kapalama, Honolulu, 0 ‘a[hu]; this mo‘olelo was published by Mr. J. E.
Bush in his nupepa Ka ‘Oia‘i ‘o) (Poepoe Collection HI.K. 2.3, 1). A handwritten note in
pencil, presumably by BPBMA staff at a later date, states, “Ka Lahui Hawaii,” a
missionary paper edited by H. H. Paleka (Parker) and J. F. Pogue (Chapin 2000, 65). The
note possibly refers to Ka Leo o ka Lahui, a paper edited by John Bush (and Joseph
Nawahi, amongst others), which ran about the same time as Ka ‘Oia‘i ‘o, in which a Pele
and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo was published, credited to both S. Pa‘aluhi and J. E. Bush.
However, the Poepoe Collection manuscript and Ka Leo o ka Lahui’s mo‘olelo differ
substantially.17
H enriques -Peabody collection (fHI.L.23). The final and most comprehensive
Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo manuscript found in the BPBM Archives collections is found
in the Edgar and Lucy Kalanikumakiekie Henriques-Peabody Collection. Lucy
Kalanikumakiekie Peabody Henriques (1876-1932) was named for her aunt, Lucy
Kaopaulu Peabody (1840-1928), an attendant to Queen Emma (Betty Lou Kam, personal
16The page is torn; it is most likely Simeon Pa‘aluhi, as he is credited with the publication of another Pele
and Hi'iaka mo'olelo.
17 While I don’t typically question handwritten notes on BPBM Archive manuscripts, as they provide
valuable supplemental information, there is another handwritten note in the margin which demonstrates an
error. In pencil, a note states, ‘See Hawaiian Annual 1900, p. 144. Then, in different handwriting, an
additional note states, “no reason for this note.” When I checked the indicated Hawaiian Annual, there is no
reference to Pele and Hi‘iaka at all. According to Archives head Desoto Brown, the note appears to be
written by Margaret Titcomb, who was writing down information she was given by another unknown
source (personal communication, August 4, 2006).
118
communication, August 4, 2006). Edgar Henriques (1865-1931) preceded his wife in
death; after the younger Lucy’s death in 1932, the bulk of their estate, including the Pele
and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, was donated to the Bishop Museum in August 1932 (BPBMA
Acquisition Records per Archivist Betty Lou Kam, personal communication, August 4,
2006). It is possible that the manuscript was part of the family records passed down to
Lucy Henriques from her aunt, or it could have been passed down through her aunt’s
association with the royal court.18 There is evidence contained within the pages of the
manuscript which support both theories.
The volume containing the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo is similar to the one with
the Maile Wreath excerpts. It contains unlined pages and is slightly larger than legal size,
approximately one inch thick. It has a hard cover, and is a dark color, possibly black, with
a reddish-brown spine and outside comers, which are trimmed in gold. Unlike the Maile
Wreath manuscript copy, there is no writing on the cover. There is a BPBM staff note on
the inside cover indicating the contents, including a “Mele inoa no Aikanaka, Name
chants for John Young, etc.,” and “Genealogical chant for Kamehameha IV” (HI.L. 23).
There is a cut-and-pasted mele inoa for Aikanaka that appears to have been published in a
Hawaiian-language nupepa. A penciled note in the margin indicates Ka Nupepa Ku ‘oko ‘a
1862 (HI.L. 23). However, the book does not contain any of the additional mele
mentioned in the BPBM staff note.
18 While Queen Emma was a political rival of King Kalakaua, an inventory list of items included in the
Henriques-Peabody Collection are “closely associated with the monarchy of Kalakaua” (Archivist Betty
Lou Kam, personal communication, August 4, 2006). While Emma and Kalakaua were political enemies,
when Lili'uokalani ascended the throne, as a member of the Hui Aloha ‘Aina, Lucy Peabody was fiercely
loyal to the Queen (Noenoe Silva, personal communication, August 6, 2006).
119
There is no date within the book indicating its age. However, a placard pasted on
the inside cover states “Hawaiian Mechanic Benefit Union” (HMBU), which is also
handwritten in script on the first lined page of the book. According to Jason Achiu of the
Hawai‘i State Archives, the Union was “a society devoted to the mutual intercourse,
moral improvement and assistance of each other in time of sickness [which] was granted
a charter of incorporation under the name ‘The Hawaiian Mechanics Benefit Union’ on
Sept. 1, 1857 by the Minister of Interior. At the time of incorporation there were 20
members listed . . . the Union dissolved on May 15,1893” (e-mail communication via
Vicky Creed, March 31, 2005).19 One of the names listed as a founding member of the
Union is T. C. B. Rooke, or Dr. Thomas Charles Byde Rooke, who was the hanai
(adopted father) of Queen Emma.20 In 1830, Rooke married high chiefess Grace
Kamaikui Young, one of two daughters bom to Englishman John Young and
Kamehameha I’s niece, Kaoanaeha. When the couple was unable to have children of their
own, they became hanai parents to Grace’s niece Emma, bom to Grace’s sister Fanny
Kekelaokalani Young and ali‘i nui George Naea.21
Aside from Dr. Rooke’s association with the HMBU, a mele inoa for John Young,
Emma’s maternal grandfather, and an oli mo‘oku‘auhau for her husband Alexander
19The twenty names listed are “R. Gilliland, A. McDuff, C.H. Lewers, G.C. Mclean, W.B. Wright, R.W.
Holt, T.C.B. Rooke, Wm. Greig, W.H. Johnson, Jno. F. Tibbetts, Alex Smith, C. Wing, G.J. Emones,
Richard Neville, Joseph Deal, J.L. King, Wm. Morgan, J. Richardson, Alex Auld and G.W. Smith” (e-mail
communication, March 31, 2005). All but six were naturalized citizens of the Kingdom of Hawai'i—
Wright, Holt, Smith, Emones, Neville and Auld, with Auld being the only member born in Hawai‘i (Vicky
Creed, e-mail communication, December 6, 2006). See also http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/info-
registry/f.shtml.
20 A more comprehensive biography of Rooke can be accessed through the Hawai‘i Medical Library’s
Mamiya Medical Heritage Center on-line at http://hml.org/mmhc/mdindex/rooke.html.
21
It may also be Naea or N a‘ea (Noenoe Silva, personal communication, April 2007).
120
Liholiho (Kamehameha IV) would indicate, by their personal nature, that the manuscript
did belong to Emma’s household. However, the mele inoa for Aikanaka, King
Kalakaua’s grandfather, could also indicate the manuscript was part of the court of
Kalakaua.
The first two pages of the book contain a section titled “Remarks & Occurrences
[on?] board Brig Forrester of London from Norfolk sound Towards Okotschka [?]
[October?] 1815.”22 There are only three dates listed, Monday, July 31 to Wednesday,
August 2, with short log-type entries for each; it is unclear if the year is 1815.
The title of the m o‘olelo, “Hiiakaikapoliopele,” appears on page 4 in ink; a
subtitle “Pele & Hiiaka & the accompanying chants” is written in pencil. A note by
BPBM staff on the folder notes the “Kapihenui printed version 1862,” an indication that
they were aware the manuscript and printed version were similar and/or related to each
other. This is also noted on the file folder containing the manuscript.
All page numbers in the book are handwritten in ink; the book is numbered to the
last hulihia chant on page 164.23 A note in pencil on the following page states, “see after
blank pages for [pages] 165-166,” but the rest of the pages in the book after page 164 are
blank.
An end note, handwritten in ink on page 162 states, “Ma keia wahi pau kahi i paa
o ka mo'olelo i ka mea nana i hoopuka ae nei keia wahi o keia mo'olelo oia hoi o M. J.
Kapihenui no Kailua, Koolaupoko, Oahu, Iulai 3, 1862” (This concludes the mo'olelo
22 Bracketed words indicate handwriting difficult to read due to fading, or torn page.
23 The mo'olelo ends on 162, but a hulihia following the conclusion of the mo'olelo is given 163-164.
1 21
published by M. J. Kapihenui of Kailua, Ko‘olaupoko, 0 ‘ahu, July 3, 1862) (HI. L.23,
162), which indicates that this manuscript copy was written after Kapihenui’s mo‘olelo
was published and is not a manuscript copy used by Kapihenui for the publication of his
mo'olelo in Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika.
The person who transcribed the mo'olelo was familiar with other versions of it; a
penciled note on the chant “Ke hanai a'ela ka ua i ka lani” states “corrections in
Emerson” (HI. L. 23, 12). It appears the person was also very familiar with the mo'olelo,
and made copious notations on the chants where differences, inconsistencies, or
omissions occur. For example, seven additional lines to the chant published by
Kapihenui, “O ka manu mukimuki” are written in pencil in what appears to be an older
style of handwriting, but not the same handwriting as the original (HI. L. 23, 9). In a
letter to the editors of a rival paper, Ka Nupepa K u‘oko‘a shortly after his mo'olelo began
publication in Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika, Kapihenui complained that some of the chants
were being shortened and cut off. He asked the editors of Ku ‘oko ‘a, “e hoopuka hou ia ia
moolelo, no ka mea, ua hoopuka au i ka moolelo o Hiiakaikapoliopele ma ka Hoku o ka
Pakipika, aole i pololei ka hoopuka ana a ka Pakipika, ua molowa no” (republish these
stories, because the Pakipika is lazy in their publishing) (February 28, 1862: 1; see
Appendix 5D for Hawaiian text).
For example, in “Hulihia ke au ka papa honua o kona moku,” one of the last
hulihia chants published in the mo'olelo, the last 35 lines of the oli that are included in
the handwritten manuscript were edited out of the published text. The paragraph after the
chant in the published version states, “Aole i pau keia mele no ka loihi loa, nolaila, ua
122
lawa hapa ia. Pela loa na mele e hoonoho ia aku ai mamua aku, no ka mea, he loloa loa
na mele” (this chant is not complete because of its great length, therefore, part is
sufficient. Likewise, the chants arranged previously are also shortened, because they are
really, really long) (July 17, 1862).
While this manuscript closely follows Kapihenui’s 1861 published version of “He
M o‘olelo no H i‘iakaikapoliopele,” there are a few interesting differences between this
undated manuscript and Kapihenui’s published version that range from minor word
changes to blocks of texts, paragraphs, and sections of chants either being omitted or
changed. A sampling of these small textual changes between the two versions is
compared below from the December 26, 1861 issue of Kapihenui’s mo’olelo; a complete
side-by-side comparison is included in Appendix 4A. Differences between the two are
italicized.
Kapihenui 1861 Henriques-Peabody manuscript HI.L. 23
ke kani ana a ka pahu ke kani a ka pahu
hookahi wale no aia nei hana hookahi wale na hana aia nei
E nahu iho ana keia i ka hokua E nanahu iho ana keia i ka hokua
ua make ke kaikuaana ua make ke kaikunane
In addition to the changes above, some minor discrepancies in wording and
sentence structure occur, i.e. “o hele” (“go”) in the manuscript copy instead of the
published “e hele.” While both mean the same thing, the difference indicates the
123
assertion of authority over the text on the part of writer or nupepa editor (depending on
which is the source text).
At this time, there is no way to demonstrate if any of the handwritten, unpublished
manuscripts held in the BPBMA collections were used as a foundation for any of the
published versions of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, in part because there are no dates
listed in the volumes indicating their true age, or attached to the m o‘olelo, demonstrating
when they were actually written down. No names of writers are given for any of the
manuscripts. There is no direct link between any of the manuscripts and any of the known
writers who had their Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo published in na nupepa, with the
possible exception of the Poepoe manuscript. While it may be possible to match Poepoe’s
handwriting to the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, this is a difficult task with the other
manuscript copies. However, the handwritten manuscripts provide a different insight into
the published versions of the Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo. This is due in part because of
their unique position within the larger field of Hawaiian palapala. Nogelmeier (2003)
explains that:
Manuscripts do not allow for the peer review and reaction that is documented
with published writings, especially newspapers. As such, manuscript material
occupies a different position within the critical public dialogue of the writer’s
time. Although the writings may be seen as products of the discourse that framed
the writer’s position, and perhaps connected, to his or her public expression
elsewhere, these manuscripts don’t become a public aspect of the history of
thinking in the same way that circulated writings do. . . [still, the] manuscript
124
material is of great value, especially as a source for comparison to other published
or unpublished resources. (91-92)
As Nogelmeier notes, the unpublished manuscripts have an interesting relationship with
published resources, a different vehicle for carrying the mo'olelo forward, one which
needs to be studied and explored further, but that is beyond the scope of this dissertation.
N A N upepa (T he N ewspapers )
Chapin (1996) defines newspapers as “publications with titles and mastheads,
without covers, appearing serially and regularly on newsprint. The size and content vary,
but newspapers are recognizable by their format and topical subject matter” (1). She
recognizes four main categories of newspapers published in Hawai'i: establishment or
mainstream/ commercial press, opposition, official papers, and independent ones (2-4).
Most of na nupepa in which the Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo were published would fall
under what Chapin categorizes as opposition papers, or what she alternately calls the
“Hawaiian nationalist press,” which “challenged and resisted American political and
economic domination . . . [and which] articulated the arguments for autonomy and
sovereignty” (1996, 3). It is arguable that Hawaiian-language nupepa (such as Ku'oko'a
Home Rula) continued the purpose and mana'o of the Hawaiian nationalist press well
125
into the post-annexation (1898) period, with the continued publication of Hawaiian
m o‘olelo such as Pele and Hi'iaka.24
Esther T. Mookini (1974) supports the importance of the Hawaiian-language
nupepa, asserting that they “were not only reflections of politics and culture in its many
dimensions; but primary instruments of movements and individuals, and influences on
events, trends and attitudes. Hawaiian newspapers are, therefore, indispensable sources
for every aspect of our history” (xiv). Silva (2004b) explains how the nupepa were
important sites of discursive struggle, and the main battleground for competing
discourses:
For 40 years the mission controlled the power of the printed word in Hawai ' i . . .
not just to save souls but to assist in the progress o f . . . capitalism, to control
public education, to mold government into western forms and to control it, and to
domesticate Kanaka women. Then, in 1861, to the shock and outrage of the
missionary establishment, a group of Kanaka M aoli. . . transformed themselves
into speaking subjects proud of their Kanaka ways of life and traditions and
unafraid to rebel. Their medium was a Hawaiian-language newspaper called Ka
Hoku o ka Pakipika [which] . . . began a long tradition of nationalist, anti-colonial
resistance through the print media. (54-55)
24 Chapin’s categories are a good start, but insufficient to properly categorize Hawaiian nupepa
publications.
126
Part of what was so important in the establishment of these papers is that they provided a
vehicle for knowledge preservation. Because Kanaka were trained early on in newspaper
printing, beginning with the first papers established at Lahainaluna Seminary in the
1830s, “they quickly realized that their knowledge, which was disappearing with the
many people dying in the severe population collapse of the time, could be preserved for
future generations—in print. They began to write it all down” (Silva 2004a, 105). This
outpouring of traditional knowledge, including mo‘olelo, is part of what made the
newspaper such a site of struggle, as the missionaries “represented traditional mo‘olelo as
part of what was na‘aupo, or uncivilized and ignorant, and needed to be stopped” (Silva
2004a, 106). One early exception of nupepa publishing Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo was
Ka Hae Hawai'i (“The Hawaiian Flag”).
K a H a e H a w a T i (M a r c h 5.1856 - D e c e m b e r 25,1861)
As an “organ of the Department of Public Instruction” (the predecessor of the
Department of Education), Ka Hae Hawai'i can be classified as an official paper
representing the Hawaiian government.25 The primary purpose of the paper was “to
encourage reading among Native Hawaiians” (Chapin 2996, 31). Founded by former
ABCFM missionary Richard Armstrong (who resigned his missionary position to become
25 Chapin (1996) classifies Ka Hae Hawai'i as an establishment paper, possibly because of its missionary
association (29).
127
the first Minister of Public Instruction for the Hawaiian Kingdom), the paper, which ran
from 1856-1860, was edited by Armstrong and his son Samuel (Chapin 1996, 3 1).26
In 1860, Ka Hae Hawai'i published two summaries of the Pele and Hi‘iaka
mo'olelo. The first, “He wahi kaao a me kekahi mele pu” (“A little story and some songs,
too”), it is a condensed and highly abbreviated version of the mo'olelo that followed in
subsequent years. While fairly cohesive in organization, the first installment, published
July 4,1860, is a highly edited synopsis of the longer, richer, more detailed versions of
the epic to come. Here, Pele meets Lohi'au, sends Hi'iaka to fetch him, Hi'iaka must
revive him, and they are enroute back to Hawai'i island, all in one issue (it ends when
they arrive at the home of chief ‘Olepau on Maui, summarizing three-fourths of the entire
epic in one installment). Three short mele associated with these parts of the mo'olelo are
given.
The second installment (marked as “helu 2”) was printed on August 14, 1860. In
an unusual move not seen in later versions, the mo'olelo flashes back to when Pele sent
Hi'iaka on her mission, relating how she and Wahine'Oma'o met, traveled to Makapu'u
on O'ahu, and requested a canoe at Ka'ena to sail to Kaua'i. They revive Lohi'au, and
return to O'ahu where Hi'iaka ascends Pohakea and sees that Hopoe is dead. In this
issue, seven mele are given, including a lengthy version of “Kunihi Ka'ena” not found in
later published versions by other authors. The mo'olelo states “'a'ole i pau”(it isn’t
26 Ka Hae Hawai'i was the third nupepa Armstrong was associated with. Earlier papers he edited included
Ka Nonanona (“The Ant”), which ran from 1841-1845, and Ka ‘Elele Hawai'i (“The Hawaiian
Messenger”), which ran from 1845-1855.
128
finished). However, no subsequent installments of this mo‘olelo have been found in
examining all issues of the nupepa available on microfilm.
It was alternately signed by B. Kala‘iohauola and B. K. Hauola; B. Kala‘iohauola
signed his residence as Waila‘a, Kaua‘i. While there is no modem place on Kaua‘i called
Waila‘a, it is possible that this is a typographical error, and that Kala‘iohauola was from
Wailua, Kaua‘i.27 In a survey of Ka Hae Hawai'i and other nupepa of the time, neither
name for Hauola is found again. While it is not known why this mo'olelo did not
continue publication, its loss is regrettable, as it is the first known publication/printing of
a Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo, offering an early and somewhat different perspective than
later, more fully developed ones.
In the months prior to B. K. Hauola’s two installments of Pele and Hi'iaka
mo'olelo, Ka Hae Hawai'i published a handful of mele associated with the longer epic,
mele which were attributed to several different contributors. The first, “He Mele i
Kllauea” is one of the hulihia chants most closely associated with the Pele epic.
Published on March 21, 1860, “He Mele i Kllauea” is attributed to Lohi'au’s close
companion, Kaleiopaoa.28 An introduction to the mele, which is contained in a short
article titled “No Na Mele” (Pertaining to the Songs), explains that the editors desired to
publish these kinds of old mele because they had almost disappeared, which would be a
great disappointment because they allowed understanding of the lifestyle of earlier
27 Hauola is the name of a pu‘uhonua or place of refuge contained within the walls of Hikinaakala heiau,
located at the mouth of the Wailua river.
28 In other versions of the mo'olelo, his name is Kahuaka'iapaoa, often shortened to Paoa.
129
generations; this mele is attributed to Samuel M. Kamakau, who first published it in the
Hawaiian-language nupepa Nu Hou in 1854.29
At fifty-five lines in length, this is a significant hulihia mele. It is interesting to
note the reason the haole editors were interested in publishing the mele is that it
contained “kekahi mau inoa o na aina kahiki,” or “many names of the foreign lands.”
Were they perhaps unaware of the political and cultural significance of na mele hulihia?
A second hulihia chant also attributed to Kamakau was published the following
week. On March 28, 1860, a short article identifies the sixty-two line mele as “Ka lua o
ko Kaleiopaoa mau Mele” (the second of Kaleiopaoa’s songs). This hulihia chant begins,
“Hulihia kulia mai ka moku o Kahiki/I na no Kahiki i ka la kahi.” The original
publication date in Nu Hou, June 24, 1854, is also given.
In the original article, the editors asked people to send in “mele maika‘i”
(appropriate or “good” songs); “We desire to publish the ancient and new songs of that
nature, so we are asking the people who have songs and the people who compose songs
to send these to us so we can publish them.”30 Two more kanaka published Pele and
Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo-related mele in Ka Hae Hawai'i after Kamakau. On May 23, 1860, B.
R. Kalama contributed another hulihia mele titled “He Mele na Kauakahiapoiwa i
29 Ua aneane nalowale paha na mele o ka wa kahiko, kawalawala loa na manakai ike. He mea minamina ia,
no ka mea, ma ua mau mele la, ua maopopo ke ano o ka noho ana o kanaka i ka wa mamua loa aku nei, a o
ka mooolelo o ka aina kekahi. . . Ke pai la makou malalo i kekahi mele kahiko, i pai mua ia ma ka Nu Hou
i ka makahiki 1854, na Kaleiopaoa i haku, a na S. M. Kamakau i hooili i ka Nu Hou (March 21, 1860).
30 “Ke ake nei makou e pai i na mele kahiko a me na mele hou, o ke ano maikai nae, a ke nonoi aku nei
makou i ka poe mea mele, a me ka poe haku mele, e hoouna mai lakou a na makou e pai” (March 21,
1860 ).
Kilauea” (“Hulihia ke au nee ilalo ia Kea/Hulihia i ka mole o ka honua”).31 It is fifty-
seven lines long and not the same as the mele attributed to Kamakau. In each case, all
three of the hulihia chants published in Ka Hae Hawai'i are included, with variations, in
later and multiple published versions of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo'olelo (see Appendix
4A).
K a H oku o ka P akipika (S eptember 26.1861 - M ay 14.1863)
While Hawaiian-language nupepa were established as early as the 1830s, “in the
early years, control of Hawaiian-language publications rested with Protestant
missionaries, their descendants, or the Hawaiian government. None spoke directly for
Native Hawaiians” (Chapin 1996, 59). This is the environment into which Ka Hoku o ka
Pakipika (“The Star of the Pacific”) was bom. Mookini notes that “in its short life time,
1861-1863, it encouraged the continuance of the Hawaiian language, which was quickly
displaced by English” (vii). The “birth of a vernacular Hawaiian language press” as
described by Chapin (1996) “was a most significant event. . . a remarkable achievement
that within three short decades of acquiring literacy and a newspaper technology Native
Hawaiians set up and controlled their own press” (59). The establishment of an
independent press was particularly important for the preservation and distribution of
mo'olelo (and by extension, for the important traditional cultural knowledge they
contained).
31 Note the different spelling of Kahuaka‘iapaoa’s name here.
1 31
Chapin notes that while the viewpoints of the various Hawaiian nationalist nupepa
were diverse, “they were united in sharing several basic themes that were markedly
different from those of establishment papers,” such as “a conviction that Hawaiians knew
what was best for themselves;. . . an awareness that the decline of the native population
was a serious m atter;. . . an insistence that Hawai‘i remain an independent nation;. . . a
deep respect for the monarchy; and. . . a great love for their land” (61). Connected to
these points are the love, respect, and assertion of Hawaiian culture contained within the
pages of na nupepa, and especially via the publication of mo‘olelo.
With the nationalist or independent Hawaiian press came the establishment of na
mo‘olelo ho‘olaha—printed stories. This is because, unlike missionary or government
newspapers of the previous decades, the Hawaiian independent press purposely sought to
revive traditional Hawaiian mo'olelo and preserve them in print by not only including
them in the pages of the newspaper, but prominently featuring them, usually on the front
page. Thus, Hawaiian literature—as a written, published, and accessible expression of
Hawaiian culture and art—and the independent Hawaiian presses simultaneously
emerged.
While [future king] David La'amea Kalakaua was involved in the establishment
of the nupepa, it was primarily edited by J. W. H. Kauwahi and George Mila (Mills).32
T he inaugural issu e w as printed on Septem ber 2 6 , 1861, and the fin al issu e on M ay 14,
1863.33 From its inception, mo'olelo Hawai'i were featured in the newspaper; the very
32 Chapin says J. K. Kaunamano and G. W. Mila were the editors (59). See Silva 2004b for more on
Kalakaua’s involvement.
33 There was a free pilot issue on September 9, 1861. See Silva 2004b.
132
first traditional Hawaiian m o‘olelo to be published in a written form was “He Mo‘olelo
no Kawelo” (The story of Kawelo). Attributed to S. K. Kawaili‘ula, the Kawelo m o‘olelo
ran from September 26 to December 5, 1861. Other traditional Hawaiian mo‘olelo soon
followed.34 While m o‘olelo and ka‘ao are categories of Hawaiian literature not always
distinguishable from each other,35 na nupepa began publishing ka‘ao (often defined as
“fictional” stories), such as “He Wahi Ka‘ao no Melekule” (October 31, 1861) by S. D.
Keolanui. “Na Mo‘olelo/Ka‘ao o Na ‘Aina ‘e” or stories from lands outside of Hawai‘i
also made an appearance, translated into Hawaiian and published alongside na
m o‘olelo/ka‘ao Hawai‘i. Early examples include “He Mo‘o ‘olelo no Esetera” (November
21, 1861), translated by S. D. Keolanui and “He Ka‘ao no Hesini,” (November 28, 1861-
April 3, 1862), translated into Hawaiian from The Arabian Nights by S. K. Ka‘ai. J. N.
Kapihenui’s “He M o‘olelo no Hi'iakaikapoliopele” appeared in the paper on December
26, 1861 (see Appendix 4B for a complete list of mo‘olelo published in the nupepa).
Mo‘olelo were so prominently featured in Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika that only one issue of
the nupepa, May 22, 1862, contained no mo‘olelo whatsoever. Other important Hawaiian
mo‘olelo, such as S. N. Hale‘ole’s “Ka Mo‘olelo o La‘ieikawai” was first printed in Ka
Hoku o ka Pakipika.36
34 Examples include, but are not limited to: “Ka M o'o'olelo no Keanini‘ulaokalani (October 3, 1861) and
“Ka Mo'olelo o Kapakohano” (October 31, 1861 - November 7, 1861) by S. N. Hale‘ole, and “Ka
M o‘olelo o Ka'ililauokekoa” (October 31, 1861) by S. Hinau.
35 Mo'olelo is a general category of stories, ka‘ao typically specifies fictional or creative stories. These
distinctions were not always made in the titling of Hawaiian mo'olelo published in the nupepa of this time.
36 At least at the very beginning, as mo'olelo were used to entice readers and sell papers. Ka Nupepa
Ku'oko'a prominently featured an ad in its November 22, 1862 issue announcing it would begin publishing
the mo'olelo the following week in its December 6 issue, “Nolaila, e wiki oukou, e na mea lawe ole i keia
nupepa, e komo ae malalo o ke eheu o ke KUOKOA, i ike a i heluhelu i keia moolelo nani o Hawaii nei”
(Therefore, hurry up, all of you who have not yet received/subscribed to this newspaper, come under the
133
Little is known about Kapihenui, the mea kakau who contributed “Pele and
Hi'iaka” to the nupepa.37 It is presumed that Kapihenui was a man, but it is just as
possible that Kapihenui was a woman. The mo‘olelo and several letters were signed
from Kailua, Ko‘olaupoko, 0 ‘ahu. An Interior Department letter dated January 11, 1858,
a man named Kapihenui was responsible for the capture of stray cattle owned by John
Cummins of the neighboring moku of Waimanalo. The cattle were caught on the heiau
located between Kailua and Waimanalo called Kanahau.
As Kanahau is a pivotal character in the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, one who
resided in Kailua; it is possible that Kapihenui’s connection to the Pele and Hi‘iaka
m o‘olelo is that he or his family were kahu of the Kanahau heiau; as such, it is possible
he may have been of ali‘i or kahuna rank.38 Kanahau heiau is noted by Summers and
Sterling in Sites o f 0 ‘ahu (1993) as located on or near the Kailua-Waimanalo boundaries
(241). They quote Thrum, who describes the heiau as “a small-sized structure of the
hooulu ai, or husbandry class” (241). In his 1933 survey of heiau, McAllister describes
the heiau as being much larger, with parts of the heiau being destroyed by road
wing of the Ku'oko'a, so you can see and read this beautiful story of Hawai‘i” (KNK, November 22, 1862).
“La'ieikawai” was later revived in different forms. It was advertised as an opera in nineteenth-century
newspapers, and appeared as a separately published book about the same time. An advertisement in Home
Rula Repubalika, edited by Mrs. Robert W. Wilcox and Solomon Meheula, noted “’Laieikawai’ at Opera
House,” “This is a work of 214 pages and is an account of some of the interesting daughters of Hawaii,
whose story will induce Hawaiians to preserve a loving memory of their ancestors and of their native
land;.. .this play will take place at the Opera House on Saturday evening at 7:30 Mar. 15,1902. Tickets can
be had at Wall Nichols Co.” (HRR, March 15, 1902). A similar advertisement written in Hawaiian ran in
Hoku o Hawai ‘i.
37 Kapihenui signed his or her name J.N. at the beginning of the series, and M.J. at the end (Kapihenui,
KHP, December 26, 1861; July 17, 1862). A letter to the editor of Ka Nupepa K u‘oko‘a dated February 28,
1862 was signed J.M. Kapihenui. It is unclear which set of initials is correct, and where there may be
typographical errors. Later references to the mo'olelo exclude any first initials.
38 Mahalo to Hawaiian Language Legacy Project assistant Kiele Akana-Gooch and researcher Vicki Creed
for bringing this information to my attention (e-mail communication May 5, 2005).
134
construction (Qtd. in Summers and Sterling, 241).39 Its classification as an agricultural
heiau would make sense in the mo'olelo, as Kanahau provided an abundance of lu'au to
Hi‘iaka and her companions to eat; Summers and Sterling note that “it was here that
Hi‘iaka, stopping on her way to Kaua'i, was for once satiated with taro tops” (241). Place
Names ofHawaVi defines the word kanahau as “marvelous,” although it is not in the
Pukui-Elbert or Andrews Hawaiian Dictionary (Pukui, Elbert and Mookini, 83;
Landgraf, 140).
A large stone known as Pohaku [o] Hi‘i aka (Stone of Hi'iaka, or Hi'iaka’s Stone),
is located on the heiau. “The ten-foot-high stone called Pohaku Hi‘iaka was said to be
located on the northern side of the Kanahau heiau. However, no stone of this description
was found there. The stone in [the] photograph was found on the southern side of the
heiau and resembled the Pohaku Wahine (see page 144) found in Maunawili” (Landgraf,
142).40
While Kapihenui’s version of the Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo has been described
by Chariot as “less desirable” than other later versions because of its mechanical style, it
39 McAllister notes, “Only the facing of one terrace remains, for when the present road to Waimanalo was
being made, eight 5 ton trucks, making 10-15 loads a day, spent two weeks hauling rocks from this site.
The remaining terrace is 1000 ft. wide and was built out and paved for a distance of 50 feet. About half of
this facing has been removed. The huge stone on the north end of the terrace, which stands 10 feet high, is
undoubtedly Pohaku Hiiaka, mentioned by Solomon Mahoe (Summers and Sterling, 241). Landgraf
includes two photos, one of a pohaku associated with the destroyed heiau, another of the Pohaku H i‘iaka.
The fragment of mo'olelo given is not attributed to any mo'olelo source (140-144). Sterling and Summers
cite the 1924 Desha text (241-242). Landgraf also notes that Hi'iaka is “a rare variety of taro with a bronze-
leaf and stem” (142; PED 68).
40 Landgraf gives a fragment of a mo'olelo relating how the large pohaku came to be located on the heiau,
although no source of the mo'olelo is given: “Hi'iaka, Wahine'oma'o, and Pa'uopalapala'e stopped at
Kanahau’s house before traveling on to Kaua'i. The goddesses were provided with abundant lu'au by
Kanahau. Lu'au was the favorite food of Hi'iaka. She had traveled to many places, but this was the first
time she had her fill of lu'au. In appreciation to Kanahau, she transformed a large stone into a woman for
him. The woman became known as Pohaku Hi'iaka” (142).
135
is an important mo‘olelo because it is the first extensive Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo ever
set to print (Chariot 1998, 62). It could be argued that Ka Hae Hawai'i has this
distinction. But while it contains elements of the longer epic, ultimately only two
installments were published, both summarized and incomplete. The “mechanical” style
of Kapihenui’s mo‘olelo will be further discussed in the next chapter.
Twenty three installments of the mo'olelo are still available on microfilm;
unfortunately, six issues of the nupepa published during the run of the Pele and Hi'iaka
mo'olelo are missing from the microfilm archives.41 It is unclear if there are segments of
the Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo published in each of these missing nupepa, but it is clear
from some obvious gaps in the mo'olelo that at least some of the missing issues
contained installments of Kapihenui’s Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo.
While Kapihenui’s lengthy and detailed “Hi'iaka” mo'olelo was being published,
Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika printed an even more detailed segment of the Hi'iaka epic by
another author. “He Mo'olelo no Manamanaiakaluea” (A Story of Manamanaiakaluea)
was published on October 10,1862, and credited to F. W. Ka'awaloa. In the mo'olelo of
Pele and Hi'iaka, Manamanaiakaluea (alternately known in some mo'olelo as
Manamanaiakaluhea) was a maimed fisherwoman/spirit Hi'iaka encountered on Maui
enroute to Kaua'i on her journey to fetch Lohi'au.
Ka'awaloa alternately signed his mo'olelo and other letters from either Makaha or
Wai'anae, O'ahu. His is the only mo'olelo to offer rich details about the
Manamanaiakaluhea segment of the Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo. No known translation in
41 These dates are: January 30, February 27, March 27, May 22, June 17 and June 24, 1862.
136
English exists, and upon examination of Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo published at later
dates, this detached segment does not appear to have been incorporated into any of the
later published versions of the story. Yet it provides rich insight into the intricate nuances
of the characters and places represented, as well as a series of oli and mele not found in
other mo'olelo.
Pacific C ommercial A dvertiser (July 2 , 1856 - M ay 21,1888)
The first known English-language version of the Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo was
published in the [Daily] Pacific Commercial Advertiser (PCA) in 1883.42 Edited by
Henry Whitney (Wini), the PCA is the predecessor to the Honolulu Advertiser. Whitney,
the son of ABCFM missionaries, actually founded two important nupepa—PCA, the most
successful English-language nupepa in Hawai'i, and Ka Nupepa K u‘oko‘a, “the longest-
running and most successful Hawaiian language journal” (Chapin 1996, 54).
It is interesting that while Whitney successfully ran a Hawaiian-language nupepa
that catered to a mostly Kanaka Maoli, Hawaiian-speaking audience and regularly
published mo'olelo Hawai'i, Pele and Hi'iaka was not one of them.43 The PCA catered
mostly to an English-speaking, mostly American audience, and almost never ran
serialized mo'olelo of any kind, preferring to print poems and whimsical anecdotes
42 Originally titled the Daily Pacific Commercial Advertiser, the paper shortened its name in August 1883
about the time the Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo series began.
43 According to Puakea Nogelmeier, Ka Nupepa Ku'oko'a was rumored to have run a Pele and Hi'iaka
mo'olelo “about the same time” as Ho'oulumahiehie (1905-1906) although it has not been found, due to
missing nupepa installments (personal communication, July 2006).
137
instead.44 For a period of two months, the paper featured one Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo,
“Hi‘iaka: A Hawaiian Legend by a Hawaiian Native, A Legend of the Goddess Pele, Her
Lover Lohiau and her Sister Hi‘iakaikapoliopele.” This version of Pele and Hi‘iaka is a
highly condensed but fluid narrative that ran from August 25 to October 13, 1883. It was
signed “Kaili,” a pen named used by Emma Kaili Metcalf Beckley Nakuina, who is
discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
Ka L eo o ka LA h u i (A u g u s t 19,1889 - A p r il 13,18961
The next version of a Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo to appear in print was published
in Ka Leo o ka Lahui (The Voice of the Nation) in 1893. The mo'olelo commenced just
two weeks prior to the overthrow (January 17,1893), and concluded six months later
(July 12, 1893). The paper was published by John Edwin Bush, who also served as Editor
in Chief; other editors included J. W. Mikasobe, F. Meka, J. K. Kaunamano, S. P. Kanoe,
and Thomas Spencer (Chapin 2000, 54). The February 6, 1893 issue lists prominent
Hawaiian activist Joseph Nawahl as its editor/publisher (February 6, 1893 masthead).
Unlike most nupepa printed on a weekly basis, Ka Leo o ka Lahui was published three
times a week; its readers, therefore, were typically treated to three weekly installments of
the Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo instead of just one. The Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo was
credited to both Bush and Reverend Simeon Pa'aluhi. Kame'eleihiwa (1996) notes that
“Ka Leo o ka Lahui was formed by Native Hawaiians who sought to organize the
44 Based on a survey of issues available on microfilm for 1883. Because this is one of the longest running
nupepa, it would be impossible to review every issue of the nupepa over the course of its history.
138
Hawaiian race in support of the king and in opposition to the powerful haole business
community. Among the newspaper’s loyal supporters, that is, those who regularly
contributed cash toward its support, were Lili‘uokalani,. . . J. Nawahl and E. Lilikalani,
two Hawaiians prominent in political circles, the latter being Kalakaua’s genealogist”
(xvii).
Chapin (2000) quotes Mookini, who describes the nupepa as “Among the
foremost Hawaiian nationalist papers . . . ‘Devoted to the best interests of the Hawaiian
nation and maintenance of its autonomy. Bush, theoretician of Hawaiian sovereignty,
advocated a free press and a republican form of government’” (54). Not surprisingly,
missionary forces did not look favorably upon the independent Hawaiian nupepa, Ka Leo
o ka Lahui included, as “the license allowed the native press was great” (Mookini, x).
The missionary-allied paper The Friend said, “For the past year bitter and vehement
appeals have been made to the natives through their less reputable papers stirring them up
to insurrection and bloodshed in order to restore ‘Hawaii for the Hawaiians.’ We greatly
honor the Pae Aina and the Kuokoa which have wisely and steadily led the people in
ways of good counsels” (August 1889, 66).
The conflict between Kanaka Maoli trying to assert cultural and political
autonomy and haole trying to suppress Hawaiian culture, wrest control of the Hawaiian
government, and westernize Hawaiian society culminated in the time period just prior to
the overthrow of the Hawaiian government. Kame‘eleihiwa (1996) writes:
Ka Leo o ka Lahui. . . gained fame for its loyal editorials in support of Kalakaua
and the Hawaiian monarchy. The 1890s were a time of great conflict in
139
Honolulu. The haole business and sugar interests had pressed for political
changes, and with the 1887 Bayonet constitution, took power from the Hawaiian
king and gave it to a haole cabinet. The cabinet. . . was to be comprised of these
self-same missionary descendants and business executives who had also
demanded closer ties with America in the form of the Reciprocity Treaty or even
by annexation . . . Such foreigner settlers had very little concern for what they
considered a half-witted, backward, and primitive race . . . and Hawaiians clearly
saw the need to organize politically against foreigners who would usurp the
Hawaiian crown, (xvi)
Ka Leo o ka Lahui was originally bi-lingual, published in both English and
Hawaiian. But by 1892, “in protest against growing Caucasian oligarchic power,” the
paper switched to publishing only in the Hawaiian language (Chapin 2000, 54). It did, in
fact, have “a large Native Hawaiian-speaking audience” (Kame‘eleihiwa 1996, xvii). A
staunch supporter of Queen Lili‘uokalani, “after the overthrow of the Queen, it printed
her protest (Caucasian establishment papers did not) and kept her appeals to the U.S.
government before the public. When Bush and other editors complained in print of
injustices by the Provisional Government and Republic of Hawai‘i, such as curbing press
freedom, they were fined and jailed for ‘conspiracy’ and ‘seditious libel’” (Chapin 2000,
54). The Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo published in Ka Leo o ka Lahui was bom into this
era of Hawaiian nupepa that were steadfast in their defense and promotion of Kanaka
Maoli and Kanaka Maoli cultural practices and political rights. Mookini notes that “The
140
number of Hawaiian language newspapers began to increase during the latter part of the
1880s and by 1896 reached its peak of fourteen. In this troubled period, John Edwin Bush
and Robert William Wilcox, powerful orators in the Hawaiian language, followed
[Walter Murray] Gibson’s lead in founding and editing newspapers to advance their
political views” (x).
A “hapa-Hawaiian equally fluent in Hawaiian and in English,” Bush was an
active public and political figure who was well-known during his lifetime, although not
much is known about the more personal details of his life (Kame‘eleihiwa 1996, xviii).
Dubbed “the Napoleon of Printer’s Lane,” John Edwin Bush (1842-1906) was bom on
February 15, 1842 in Honolulu, 0 ‘ahu (KNA, July 7, 1906). Mookini says that “he
worked as a whaler seaman before becoming interested in newspapers,” where “his first
printing job was as a foreman for Gibson’s Hawaiian Gazette” (x). Kame‘eleihiwa
(1996) notes that “Bush led an interesting public life,” and chronicles “a number of
important positions;”
he was a member of the Privy Council from 1878 to 1891, commissioner of
Crown Lands and president of the Board of Health in 1880; a member of the
House of Nobles from 1880 to 1886; minister of finance and minister of the
interior in 1882; envoy extraordinary to Samoa during Kalakaua’s bid for a
Pacific empire in 1886; governor of Kaua'i in 1887; and elected representative
from 0 ‘ahu in 1890-1892. In 1888, he became president of Hui Kalai‘aina, an
organization also known as the Hawaiian Political Association. . . . He led many
public rallies in support of the king and in opposition to the foreign business-
141
missionary faction. A man dedicated to his nation, he exhorted Hawaiians to
guard against foreign manipulation, (xviii)
J o h n E . B ush
At the end of his service to the government, Bush worked as “he Unihi a he maheleolelo”
(translator and interpreter) for the 0 ‘ahu circuit court (KNA, July 7, 1906).45
Unafraid to follow his personal convictions, Bush changed political alliances not
once, but twice. He was quite active politically before joining the Home Rule party,
which was established in 1900. He was vice-president of the Hui Aloha ‘Aina for a time;
however, “in 1895 after being jailed he turned to the other side and supported the
Republic—he then stayed out of politics until his re-emergence in 1900 with the Home
Rule Party” (Silva, personal communication, May 2007). His obituary in Ka Na ‘i Aupuni
45 “O kana hana aupuni o keia mau la hope o kona ola ana a hala wale aku la, he Unuhi a he maheleolelo no
ka Aha Kaapuni o Oahu nei.”
142
praises him as “a very intelligent man. He was an expert politician. He began his political
career as a Home Ruler; later he became a Liberal; the very last of his political stances, a
Republican.”46
Bush’s checkered political career was accompanied by his work as a nupepa
editor. These are concurrent, and in fact, closely intertwined, since the papers were a
forum for his politics. Bush edited two nupepa, “Ka ‘Oia‘i ‘o (The Truth) from 1889 to
1896 and Ka Leo o ka Lahui in 1891 and in 1894” (Kame'eleihiwa 1996, xviii). Bush’s
first paper, Ka ‘Oia‘i ‘o, was founded on May 24, 1889 (Mookini, x).47 Mookini states
that “in this paper, as well as in Ka Leo o ka Lahui, in which Bush had an interest, he
argued passionately that the native Hawaiians were being used by the foreigners” (x).
Over the decades, Bush and Wilcox maintained political ties and were powerful Kanaka
Maoli voices in the nupepa industry. In the “particularly inflamed” 1890 legislative
campaign, both Daniel Lyons of Ka Nupepa Ku ‘oko ‘a and Bush “used their newspaper as
effective weapons of not overly scrupulous propaganda (Kuykendall 3, 449-450). While
Wilcox was elected, “Bush was defeated in his drive for a seat from the First District,”
although “he got into the Legislature by a special election” (Kuykendall 3 ,454f).
His obituary in Ka Na ‘i Aupuni noted that Bush was a strong Seventh Day
Adventist, so much so that, “ua kukulu oia he wahi luakini no ia aoao hoomana maloko o
kona pa-hale ma Kawaiahao, oiai oia e noho ana malaila kahi nohoi ana i hoopuka ai i
46 “He kanaka naauao o Mr. Bush i hala aku la. He kalaiaina noeau. I kinohi he Home Rula oia; a mahope
mai he Demokalaka; a o ka hope loa o kana aoao kalaiaina i ku ai, he Repubalika” (KNA, July 7, 1906)
47 Ka 'Oia'i'o was a bi-lingual (Hawaiian and English) weekly paper. It ran from May 24, 1889-September
1896, almost simultaneously with Ka Leo o ka Lahui. Chapin (2000) notes that Ka ‘Oia'i'o was “strongly
opposed to the American oligarchy;” a daily edition was titled Puka La ‘Oia'i'o (82).
143
kana mau nupepa” (he erected a temple for this kind of worship in his yard at
Kawaiaha‘o, while he lived there, and it is from this place that he published his
newspapers) (July 7, 1906).
Bush began his publishing career in 1889, just a few years prior to the overthrow
of the Hawaiian monarchy. Thus while Bush had an active political career in the
Hawaiian government under Kalakaua, his tenure in politics ended prior to the era of the
Provisional Government under Sanford B. Dole. Calling him “The theoretician of
Hawaiian sovereignty,” Chapin (2000) says that Bush “formulated political analysis on
land tenure and Native Hawaiian rights that are still applicable. He was jailed and fined
for conspiracy against the Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawai‘i” (82).
Both Bush and Wilcox had interesting careers and relationships with the
Hawaiian and Provisional Governments. While staunchly supporting Kanaka Maoli
rights, neither was appointed to a cabinet position during Kalakaua’s reign (Mookini, xi).
Unhappy with Lili’uokalani’s appointment to the throne after Kalakaua’s death, Bush and
Wilcox were instrumental in forming the Liberal Party, which Bush advocated for and
publicized in his nupepa (Mookini, xi). “Bush became increasingly critical of the Queen.
. . . The Queen reacted with extreme irritation, saying she considered sending household
troops to smash Bush’s printing materials’” (Kuykendall 3,485).
The loss by the Liberal Party to “government supports” in the 1892 election
prompted Bush to editorialize: “The practical defeat of the Liberal Party is the lost
opportunity of the Hawaiians to regain a political footing in their own country, and they
will now continue to be trampled upon as they have been since 1 8 8 7 .... It looks now as
144
though the only hope for equal rights in this country lies in—shall we say it—
annexation” (Kuykendall 3, 522).
In 1892, Wilcox began a bilingual nupepa, Ka Liberate (The Liberal), and he and
Bush, in his own nupepa, continued their attacks on the Queen, to which she wrote in her
Autobiography:
Mr. Bush and Mr. Wilcox published articles in their newspapers calculated to
prove injurious to my reputation. They both, at the very commencement of my
regency had openly asked for billets of office; a favor I had scarcely the power,
and certainly not the intention to grant, because all the offices were then filled by
men whom I thought were good, loyal, and true to the crown. Mr. Bush had
further published articles in his paper which did not meet with my approval, for
they were attacks upon my brother, the king. (228)
Bush initially suggested that annexation might be an answer, but later reversed that
decision, saying: “After the overthrow of the monarchy, the royalists began their
restoration campaign with editorials in Ka Leo [o ka Lahui] and Holomua, arguing that
the United States with all its vices was not fit to annex Hawaii” (Mookini, xi).
Bush continued to use his nupepa to advocate for Kanaka Maoli rights post
overthrow, so much so that on December 9, 1894, “the Provisional Government followed
one particular rumor of a native uprising to Bush,” charging him and fellow editor and
Kanaka Maoli supporter Joseph Kaho‘oluhi Nawahl with “conspiracy and levying war
against the Republic” (Mookini, xi). Of this action, The Friend said, “Doubtless there
145
will now be an end to Bush’s overflow of incendiary talk in Ka Leo [oka Lahui/ ” (Qtd.
in Mookini, xii). Bush was able to continue publishing his newspapers for another year
before they folded, although it is not clear if their demise was directly linked or not to his
arrest and imprisonment by the Provisional Government.
Bush died in Honolulu on July 5,1906, at the age of 65, leaving behind “he
wahine a me na keiki he lehulehu” (a wife and many children) (KNA, July 7, 1906).
Throughout his life he worked on behalf of the Hawaiian people and the nation of
Hawai‘i, his loyalty described as, “He kanaka oia i hoopihaia kona puuwai i ke aloha no
kona aina hanau a me na’lii o Hawaii, a pela me ka lahui oiwi o Hawaii” (He was a man
whose heart was filled with compassion for his birthplace and the chiefs of Hawai'i, and
the Hawaiian people) (KNA, July 7, 1906).
While Bush led a more high profile public life, a little more is known about
Reverend Simeon Pa'aluhi. Pa'aluhi was bom September 25, 1844 to Kauewa (w) and
Paaluhi (k) of Kamalo, Moloka'i (Kamau, KNK, May 16, 1913). Around 1867, Pa'aluhi
left Moloka'i to attend Reverend W. P. Alexander’s Seminary in Wailuku, Maui (KNK,
November 16, 1867; Kamau, KNK, May 16, 1913). An article published in Ka Nupepa
K u‘oko‘a on the Wailuku Seminary says that five new students, including “Paaluhi no
Molokai mai” (Pa'aluhi from Moloka'i) had just enrolled on November 5 (November 16,
1867).48 A letter to the editor of the same issue of the paper signed by Simon Pa'aluhi of
Puko'o, Moloka'i states that on October 29, 1867, the Kamalo church held a farewell
48 KULA KAHUNAPULE O WAILUKU—Ua palapala mai o S. N. Kaaiohelo o Wailuku i kekahi o

makou penei: “Ua hoomaka hou ke Kula Kahuna a Rev. W. P. Alekanedero i ka la 4 o Novemaba nei, a
iloko o keia hoomaka ana, ua komo mai elima mau haumana hou, oia o Daniela Kaaiokalani, Kekahuna,
Haalilio a me Paaluhi no Molokai mai lakou, a o kahi Ohaiula no hoi” (November 16, 1867).
146
party for four Moloka‘i boys who were departing to attend Seminary in Wailuku, S.
Pa‘aluhi (most likely his son and namesake) being one of them (November 16, 1867).49
On November 30 of the same year, a letter to the editor of Ka Nupepa Ku ‘oko ‘a
relating the death of fellow Seminary student Lodana Alapai, including lines of a
kanikau, was signed by “S. Paaluhi, Kula Kahuna, Wailuku [Maui]” (S. Pa‘aluhi,
Seminary School, Wailuku).50 Pa‘aluhi’s next letter posits the question, “He aha ke kumu
o ka hoolohe ole ana o na keiki i ka leo o na makua?” (What is the reason children are not
listening to the voice of their parents?) (KNK, May 16, 1868). Decidedly Christian in
tone, the letter quotes several Biblical passages in addressing it.51
In 1870, Pa‘aluhi became the kahu of the Kalihi to Moanalua region for the 0 ‘ahu
Evangelical Association (KNK, April 19,1879; Kamau, KNK, May 16, 1913). Pa‘aluhi
served as a Kakau ‘Olelo (Secretary) for the Ahahui, as well as on the committee to “Pa‘i
Mo‘olelo” (publish stories) (KNK, April 19, 1879). He was chosen to serve on a
49 see Appendix 4C for text of letter.

50 see Appendix 4D for text of letter.
51 Yet Pa‘aluhi also demonstrates a firm understanding of Hawaiian poetical expression as well. He opens
his letter with a common address of all the people of Hawai'i “mai Hawaii o Keawe a Kauai o Mano.” He
addresses his subject, and makes references to students studying at other institutions using Hawaiian
metaphor in his opening statement, “Ke lana nei ko‘u manao e kamailio iki ae ma ke akea, i ike mai ai hoi
na makua iliulaula o kuu lahui aloha mai Hawaii o Keawe a Kauai o Mano,” (I have often wondered of the
depths of knowledge known by our ancestors of my beloved Hawaiian nation from Chief Keawe of
Hawai'i to Chief Mano of Kaua'i). When addressing his return to school, he uses poetical references; his
time at Wailuku Seminary is “Oiai hoi au e noho ana malalo ae o ka olu kohaihai o ka malu Hekuawa o
Wailuku,” (Thus I returned to dwell within the pleasant swaying of the shaded valley of Wailuku). He
addresses students of other places in a similar manner; the students at Lahainaluna Seminary are hailed,
“Auhea hoi oukou e o’u mau hoa imi naauao o ka puu panoa lepo ula o Lahainaluna” (Listen all of you, my
companions seeking knowledge at the parched hills of red dirt of Lahainaluna); the girls at the Waialua
school are “Pela no hoi oukou e na kaikamahine o ke Kula o ka Ehukai o Puaena i Waialua i ka lai” (And
likewise you young women of the School of the Seaspray of Pua'ena at Waialua in the calm); the girls at
the Makawao school are similarly addressed as “Pela no hoi oukou e na kaikamahine o ke Kula o ka ua
Ukiukiu o Makawao” (And all of you young women of the School of the ‘Ukiukiu rain of Makawao).
References to wind names, rain names, and other characteristics of a place (the sea spray of Pua'ena, the
calm of Waialua) are all traditional, well-known, poetical ways of addressing an audience demonstrating
cultural protocol and knowledge of place.
147
committee to “hoike no na hana a na ekalesia o Oahu nei, i ka Ahahui Euanelio o ka Pae
Aina Hawai[i], i ka mahina o Iune e hiki mai ana” (demonstrate the works of the
churches on 0 ‘ahu at the Evangelical Association Conference of the Hawaiian Islands for
the upcoming month of June [1879]) (KNK, April 19, 1879). As the kakau ‘olelo for the
organization, Pa‘aluhi signed his name to the article submitted. Some notes on the
BPBMA Poepoe Collection folder indicate that Pa‘aluhi lived for a time at Niuhelewai,
Kapalama, 0 ‘ahu, although this has not been corroborated with other sources (HI.L. 2.3).
In 1907, Pa‘aluhi relocated to Kaua‘i, where he was the kahu hope (associate
pastor) of the church at Ko‘olau, East Kaua‘i, serving with Kahu R. P. Puuki (Kamau,
KNK, May 16, 1913). He remained in this position until his death in 1913.
Pa‘aluhi died on May 2, 1913 of heart failure in Honolulu at the age of 68. A
notice of his death indicated that he had two sons who lived “i Amelika” (in America)
(KNK, May 9, 1913). While Pa‘aluhi was living on Kaua'i prior to his death, he may
have been on 0 ‘ahu at the time of his death because of the unfortunate passing of his
granddaughter Emily Pa'aluhi just days before her grandfather (KNK, May 9, 1913).
Kame‘eleihiwa (1996) suggests that both Bush and Pa'aluhi wrote another
lengthy traditional mo'olelo which was also published in Ka Leo o ka Lahui, “He
Mo'olelo Ka'ao o Kamapua‘a” (A Story of the [Pig-God] Kamapua‘a). While unsigned,
she notes the similarity between the opening remarks of that mo'olelo and the Pele and
Hi'iaka mo'olelo, which are “almost identical. . . and the writing styles [are] very
similar” (xviii). She also references that “John E. Bush and S. Pa'aluhi appended their
names” to the Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo, suggesting “clues” as both being “possible
148
authors” (xviii). Kame‘eleihiwa concludes that “whether it was Bush, Pa‘aluhi, or some
other Hawaiian who was the mysterious author. . . that person was possessed of a fine
literary capacity,” including knowledge of “many of the lengthy [traditional] chants,. . .
the intricate story line, and the appropriate usage of place names and wise sayings to
enhance the depth of the legend, as well as the traditional stratagems employed by the
Hawaiian raconteur” (xix). Pa'aluhi sat on the “Pa‘i Mo'olelo” committee for the
Ahahui, indicating knowledge of Hawaiian literary traditions, so it isn’t surprising he
would be associated with the publication of a Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo. What these
examples demonstrate is that Pa'aluhi was a fairly active writer, one who was versed in
Hawaiian literary expression, and who was actively involved in the collection and
publication of multiple genres of Hawaiian literature.
Pa'aluhi and Bush began publishing a Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo not previously
set to print. By the end of January 1893, only 17 installments into their mo'olelo, they
halted publication, citing knowledge of a previously printed version, Kapihenui’s. They
apologize to their readers for starting over, and begin the next issue with a near word-for-
word reprint of Kapihenui’s 1861 version of the Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo:
The Hi'iaka story, which was first published here lacked a proper conclusion. We
have received another version with a more complete ending. Therefore, forgive us
dear readers for beginning the mo'olelo anew. This one will run straight to the
149
conclusion for your enjoyment because this mo'olelo is full of good mele of the
past, something for the people now to carry on.52
Chariot (1998) notes it is an unfortunate loss of another independent tradition; this
is particularly true when there are elements in this version of the mo'olelo which resonate
with the earlier Kaili text (1883) and the later Ho'oulumahiehie (1905, 1906) and Poepoe
(1908) texts. This will be discussed in the next chapter.
K a L o e a KA l a i 'A in a (1897 - J a n u a r y 13.1900)
One of the most interesting variations in the Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo was
published by Manu in Ka Loea Kalai‘aina (The Political Expert) in 1899. “Pele and
Waka” did not focus on the Pele-Hi'iaka-Lohi'au love triangle, but on a love triangle
(and power struggle) between Pele and a rival cousin, the mo'o (lizard) goddess Waka
over a male lover, Puna'aikoa'e.
Because this mo'olelo was the topic of my 1997 M.A. thesis in Hawaiian religion,
and because it is not part of the Pele and Hi'iaka mo'olelo (as Lohi'au is not present, and
Hi'iakaikapoliopele plays a very minute role), it will not be a focus in this dissertation.
But I would like to briefly comment on this mo'olelo in relation to the Pele and Hi'iaka
tradition, it is important to note that while it isn’t a part of the Pele-Hi'iaka-Lohi'au
52 No ka pau pono ole ana o ka moolelo o Hiiaka, i hoolaha mua ia iho nei ua lawa mai makou i keia
moolelo oiai ma kekahi ano ho oi ka piha i ko ka mea mua. Nolaila, e kala mai na hoa heluhelu i ka hoi hou
o ka moolelo a ka mua. E hele pololei ana keia a ka hopena o kakou hoonanea o keia moolelo a i piha i na
mele maikai o ka wa kahiko, a he mea no hoi e mau aku ai i ka poe hou (January 17, 1893).
150
tradition, it does reference it, demonstrating Manu’s knowledge of the traditional
mo‘olelo and earlier versions of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo'olelo. For example, in the first
installment of his mo'olelo, he addresses the question of Hi'iakaikapoliopele, the heroine
and main character of most of the Pele stories, who is visibly absent in his text.
After Pele, Kapoulakinau was bom . . . after [her] came many daughters. From
among the younger sisters that followed her [Pele] and Kapo, she took one to rear
and made a great pet of her. She was always carrying her in her arms and always
held her close to her bosom. She called her Hiiakaikapoliopele. This was a very
extraordinary girl and her words had mana. She was an expert in composing
chants, and did it very quickly. Her hands were said to be full of mana, and her
legend was told by J. N. Kapihenui of Kaneohe, Oahu in the Hoku o ka Pakipika
of 1860-1862. She accomplished extraordinary deeds as a woman when she
overthrew some of the Akua of Hawaii and made them as nothing before her.
(Pukui HEN, 944-945)
He then cites a mele ho'ala (awakening chant) “composed for her by her sister Pele”
which names “Hiiaka’s highest titles referring to the lightning and fire and her full mana
in them” (Pukui HEN, 945). Manu makes clear early on that he is familiar with Hi'iaka,
but that she is not going to be a main figure here, as her story has already been told by
Kapihenui—this mo'olelo will be Pele’s.
The only other reference to Hi'iaka in the context of Manu’s text is that she
accompanies Pele on her journey from Kahiki to Hawai'i. “Pele took all of her younger
15 1
sisters, big to little, with her. Among these sisters were two favorites of hers,
Hiiakaikapoliopele and Pauopalai” (Pukui HEN, 979).
Manu is also familiar with the relationship between Pele and Lohi'au referring to
it in the course of his 1884 mo'olelo published in the nupepa K u‘oko‘a, “Keaomelemele”
(The Golden Cloud). Manu mentions Lohi'au and his companion Kahuaka'iapaoa in the
course of the “Pele and Waka” text, also indicating knowledge of the Pele and Hi'iaka
mo'olelo. When Pele is preparing to arrive on Nihoa, a small islet north-west of Ni'ihau,
Manu asks his readers,
Please permit me to mention this prayer with which Kanemilohai gave his
wonderful voice to Kauakahiapaoa when he came from Haena, Kauai, to seek his
beloved friend Lohiau, who was killed by Pele on Moeawakea at Kilauea, Hawaii.
He and Paoa were the men who swore that they would not be circumcised until it
was ‘done by the fringes of Pele.’ Were it not for the fact that Kanemilohai had
compassion on him while he was on Akanikolea at Kaauwea he would have been
destroyed by Pele. (Pukui HEN, 982)
Afterward, he offers a hulihia chant, “Hulihia kulia mai ka moku Tahiti / 1 na no Tahiti la
i ka la kahi,” which he explains is “from the legends of Hiiakaikapoliopele” (Pukui HEN,
982). While not as lengthy as other hulihia chants included in the various Pele and
Hi'iaka mo'olelo, like those lengthy hulihia chants, it is the longest chant in his mo'olelo.
152
In Manu’s text, as Pele travels down the Hawaiian island chain, she ends up in
Hanalei on the north side of Kaua‘i, an area close to where Lohi’au resides in Ha’ena.
Manu then addresses his readers, stating,
We have seen Pele in Hanalei, so aren’t you going to ask concerning Lohiau, the
majestic and handsome youth of Haena, for it is not far from Hanalei? As Pele
was about to leave Hanalei with her relatives . . . she made no such comment as
“Where does the best looking man of this place live?” Nor did she give Lohiau a
thought whatsoever. The fire of Pele was merely smoldering then, but one had to
be on the look out after arrival on Hawaii. It was then that she followed the
sounds of the kilu spinning of Lohiau, the son of Kauai. . . It was because of this
that the greatest legend of Hawaii, the legends of Hiiakaikapoliopele, developed
(Pukui HEN, 985).
While Manu appears to be creating his own tradition, it is interesting to note that
there didn’t appear to be an outcry of protest by readers of Ka Loea Kdlai ‘aina—or other
nupepa being published at the time— surrounding the publication of this “non-traditional”
mo’olelo. Wakakeakaikawai, a mo’o goddess, and Puna’aikoa’e, do appear in Pele’s
world, although not typically this way. For example, the mo’o are related to the Pele
family, and are a constant foe for Hi’iaka as she undertakes her mission. Puna’aikoa’e is
mentioned in at least one chant in the Pele and H i’iaka mo’olelo. In Kapihenui, when
Hi’iaka arrives at H a’ena on Kaua’i she is hosted by Malaeha’akoa, a lame fisherman,
and his wife Wailuanuiaho’ano. Malaeha’akoa presents a “hula Pele” to Hi’iaka ma
153
entitled ‘“ O kaua a Pele i haka i Kahiki.” The second line refers to a battle between her
and Puna‘aikoa‘e, stating, ‘“ O kaua a Pele i haka i Kahiki / 1 hakaka ai me Puna‘aikoa‘e”
(February 20, 1862).53
Despite its different storyline, the Manu mo‘olelo is an important contribution to
the overall understanding of the Pele literature. It places Pele in the context of her
broader family, including her powerful older sister Kapo‘ulakmau, who migrates to
Hawai‘i from Kahiki before Pele, and establishes her as a goddess of ‘ana‘ana. In the
Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, Kapo is a powerful goddess of ‘ana‘ana associated with the
islands of Moloka'i and Maui. While the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo are directly linked to
hula through Hi‘iaka and her companion Hopoe, in Manu, the origins of hula begin at
Ka‘ana on Moloka‘i with another sister, Kewelani. Hula is also directly linked with
‘ana‘ana, an intriguing association which has not yet been explored in a scholarly
context.54
H aw ai ‘i A loha 55 (July 15 -N ov. 2419051 and Ka N a T A upuni (N ovember 27.1905 -

A pril 24,1908)
In 1905, the short-lived periodical Hawai'i Aloha (Beloved Hawai‘i) began the
publication of what would become the longest and most elaborate of the Pele and Hi‘iaka
53 This mele is also found in Pa'aluhi and Bush (March 22, 1893), Poepoe (June 25, 1909), and Emerson
(112), with variations.
54 As a haumana in John Ka'imikaua’s halau hula during the 1990s, I learned some of this through our
halau hula traditions. Ka'imikaua traces his hula lineage to Moloka'i, where his family is from. In
addition, he states that there are 98 hula steps, and 98 lua (martial arts) steps which are identical, the only
difference being their use (personal communication).
55 Because it is not a nupepa per se (it is often classified as a periodical), it is not listed in Chapin 1996 or
2000, or Mookini 1974.
154
mo'olelo.56 “Ka Mo'olelo o Hi'iakaikapoliopele, ka wahine i ka hikina a ka la, a o ka U'i
palekoki ‘uila o Halema'uma'u” (The story of Hi'iakaikapoliopele, the woman from the
east, and the lightning-skirted-beauty of Halema'uma'u). Published weekly, it was edited
by Joseph Poepoe. The author of the 1905 Hawai'i Aloha version of Pele and Hi'iaka
was listed as Ho'oulumahiehie, who some scholars today believe may be a pseudonym
for Poepoe himself, or a close associate.
In a forthcoming, newly edited version of Ho'oulumahiehie’s Pele and Hi'iaka
mo'olelo, Nogelmeier argues that Ho'oulumahiehie is in all likelihood Poepoe:
Authorship of this story is credited to Ho'oulumahiehie, an historical enigma of a
name. In the journal Hawaii Aloha, where the opening of this version was
published, no author was named, but at the completion of the story in Ka Na ‘i
Aupuni, Ho'oulumahiehie was listed as the author. Meaning ‘to inspire delight,’
this name is sometimes listed as Ho'oulumahiehieika'onimalieapualflialanaika-
wai, ‘to inspire delight in the gentle movement of the water lilies.’ This person is
credited in several newspapers of the period as the author of major Hawaiian
stories, such as ‘Kawelo,’ and ‘Kamehameha I’; the translator of foreign stories,
such as ‘Hawila’ and ‘Alamira’; and the writer or translator of occasional short
articles as well. Though no personal history has been found for Ho'oulumahiehie,
there appears to be a strong link to J. M. Poepoe, the editor of Ka Na ‘i Aupuni.
(431-432)
56 Because all the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo'olelo have missing issues, this might not be the case, but since it is
corroborated by Ho'oulumahiehie 1906, Poepoe 1908-1911 and Desha 1924-1928, this statement is
probably valid.
155
To strengthen his suggestions, Nogelmeier adds, “It is only in newspapers edited by
Poepoe that works by Ho'oulumahiehie ever seem to appear” (431-432). Nogelmeier
acknowledges that the two could have been associates or just “close friends,” but points
to additional evidence that the two writers are the same:
It seems likely that Ho'oulumahiehie is a fiction, a pen name for Poepoe himself,
or one he used when collaborating with others, for Poepoe acknowledged that the
work was his own. In a 1905 response to charges that he had taken the Hi'iaka
story when he left Hawaii Aloha, Poepoe says, ‘The Hiiaka stories and all the
others that appeared in the Hawaii Aloha Journal were not sought out by the
Association, but were prepared in advance by me so that Mr. Kahalepuna could
work unimpeded. The Hiiaka story, I negotiated on my own with another, then
combined it with the original material I already had, along with what I obtained
through research, as well as through the assistance of Mr. Polikapa, President of
the ‘Hawaii Lani-Honua’ Hawaiian Historical Association, and G. M. Keone’
(431-432)
Nogelmeier references Poepoe’s signed mo'olelo published in K u‘oko‘a Home Rula three
years later, which he argues is “an edited form of this 1905 version . . . though archival
collections of newspapers from the period are incomplete, available data indicate that J.
M. Poepoe was directly connected to Ho'oulumahiehie, or they may have been one and
the same” (432).
156
In his recent dissertation (2006), Laiana Wong also points to the 1908 Ku'oko'a
Home Rula version of the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo signed by Poepoe. Wong compares
it to the 1909-1911 version of Kawelo, “Ka M o‘olelo Hiwahiwa o Kawelo,” published in
K u‘oko‘a Home Rula and signed by Ho‘oulumahiehieika‘onimalieapualIlialanaikawai.
Wong argues they are written in the same style, indicating that they may be by the same
author (221).
While Chariot (1998) recognizes the similarities between the two texts, noting
that Poepoe “shares many of Ho‘oulumahiehie’s late nineteenth-century characteristics as
a writer,” he stops short of linking the two, and does not support the theory that the two
are the same writer (64).
Despite the strong circumstantial evidence, scholars today are still trying to
conclusively settle the debate. In the end, perhaps Nogelmeier describes the situation
best when he states, “This puzzle of authorship only adds to the rich flavor and history of
this grand story, the epic tale of Hiiakaikapoliopele” (432).
Bom in Kohala, H aw aii in 1852, Poepoe was the son of Poepoe and Keawehiku
(Nogelmeier, 431). He was educated “at the Royal School and Ahuimanu [ 0 ‘ahu; i.e. St.
Louis College]” (Silva n.d., 1). Poepoe was well educated, and multilingual; “fluent in
English and well versed in French, Latin, and Hebrew” (PCA, April 11,1913, 9). He
worked as a teacher for a period of time before receiving his license to practice law
(Honolulu Advertiser, January 18, 1944, 14). Changing careers once again to become a
newspaperman and editor, he was “one of the most active Hawaiian editors,” and an
157
accomplished writer, who was associated with several prominent Hawaiian nupepa
(Mookini, xiii).
Poepoe was a highly respected and productive writer and editor, considered “one
of the best Hawaiian scholars, knowledgeable about rare words and deeper meanings. He
was an unequalled editor, fine story-teller, and unforgettable translator” (Mookini, xiii).57
Poepoe edited several nupepa, including: Ka Hdku o ke Kai (1883-1884), K eA laka‘i o
HawaVi (1888), Hawai‘i Holomua (1891), Nupepa Ku'oko'a (1895-1897), Ka ‘Elele
Evanelio (1896-1899), K u ‘oko‘a Home Rula (1901-1912), Ka N a‘i Aupuni (1905-1908),
and Ke Aloha ‘Aina (1911-1912) (Silva n.d., 1). He was also an editor of HawaVi Aloha,
although the dates he worked for this publication are not known. In his position as editor
for the Mormon Church’s Ka ‘Elele Evanelio (The Evangelical Messenger), Poepoe
“translated religious material into Hawaiian” (Hawaiian Gazette April 15, 1913, 4). This
activity suggests that Poepoe was Mormon.
When Poepoe edited HawaVi Holomua (Hawai'i Progress), it was one of only
two nupepa which printed the Queen’s protest after the overthrow and her subsequent
appeal to U.S. President Cleveland during a period when “editors and printers were
arrested, fined, and jailed for supporting the monarchy and attacking the Provisional
Government, Republic of Hawaii, and annexationists” (Chapin 2000, 31). With a
circulation of 5,000, HawaVi Holomua boasted the “largest readership of any Island
newspaper in its time” (Chapin 2000, 31). After the Kaua Kuloko (Rebellion) of 1895,
57Ma ke kulana lunahoponopono, a kakau nupepa, he haole kona akamai, o ka oi loa aku ma kahi o na
m o‘olelo hoonanea, a ko ke Kuokoa poe heluhelu e poina ole nei i kana mau mo‘olelo o ka unuhi ana, a
hoopuka ana aku, oiai oia e noho lunahooponopono ana no keia pepa, he mau makahiki loihi ae nei i hala.
(April 18, 1913,4)
158
Poepoe became the editor of Nupepa Ku ‘oko ‘a, switching his political affiliation to pro
annexation (Noenoe Silva, personal communication).
In its relatively short four-month run, HawaVi Aloha published at least thirteen
installments of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. There are eight issues missing from
microfilm, with at least three obvious gaps in the mo‘olelo during the month of
September.58 The periodical folded before the conclusion of the mo‘olelo. Fortunately,
the mo‘olelo was picked up soon thereafter by another publication, Ka N a ‘i Aupuni (To
Conquer the Nation).
A bound set of Ka N a ‘i Aupuni showing an issue of the Pele and Hi‘iaka

m o‘olelo. Courtesy of the UHM Hawai‘i/Pacific collection.
Ka Na ‘i Aupuni was a Hawaiian-language nupepa published daily in Honolulu
that was edited by Poepoe (Chapin 2000,75).59 Ka N a‘i Aupuni was obviously a pro-
Home Rule nupepa; Silva (2004b) writes, “Two papers, Kuokoa Home Rula and Ka Nai
Aupuni, were closely associated with the Home Rule Party, and both were also closely
58 The missing dates are: September 8, 15 and 22; October 2 and 12, and 27, and November 3, 1905.
59 Notley and Poepoe teamed up again in 1908 with Kuokoa Home Rula, which published another Pele and
Hi'iaka m o‘olelo discussed later in this chapter.
159
associated with Joseph Mokuohai Poepoe” (25). Even in this period after annexation,
Notley and Poepoe “continued to advocate self-determination for Native Hawaiians”
through their continued involvement in nupepa publishing, keeping m o’olelo Hawai‘i and
other issues of concern and importance for Kanaka Maoli at the forefront of public
discussion (Chapin 2000, 75).
Mookini notes that “From 1901 to 1908 the Home Rule movement gave rise to
Kuokoa Home Rula and Ka N a‘i Aupuni. Both were edited by . . . Poepoe and owned by .
.. Notley, president of the Home Rule Party in 1905 and for years its candidate for
delegate to Congress” (xiii). Silva (2004b) says that “In 1901, the Kuokoa Home Rula
[Home Rule Independent] was established apparently as the newspaper of the party” (25).
Poepoe’s political and professional careers seem intertwined with the history of these
nupepa. Mookini writes that, “With the establishment of the Home Rule Party he became
editor of the Kuokoa Home Rula, Ka Na 7 Aupuni, and Ke Aloha Aina. He was elected to
the legislature [as a member of the Home Rule Party] five months before his death” (xiii).
Poepoe was a strong political figure unafraid to speak his mind and support the
Hawaiian Kingdom. Mookini states:
[Poepoe] was an intimate friend of the royal family . . . and had opposed the
constitution of 1887 which limited the power of the monarchy. He described it as
‘very similar to the Constitution of the United States, where they had no nobility
and every man was as good as his neighbor. Now, in Hawaii, we have had chiefs
from time immemorial, and it is our duty to support them.’ He argued that ‘The
aim of the constitution was to make Hawaii a republic. The Americans have no
160
respect for royalty, for they have no K ing.. . . It will not be long before Hawaii
becomes an entire republic. We who cherish our King ought not to allow this to
be done.’ (xiii)
Poepoe is credited with writing and publishing a number of mo‘olelo which
appeared as serialized nupepa articles, or independently published books. Ka Mo ‘olelo o
ka M o‘I Kalakaua (The History of King Kalakaua) was published in 1891. It was
followed by: “Mo‘olelo o Kamehameha I” (KNA, 1905-1906); “M o‘olelo Hawai‘i
Kahiko” (KNA, 1906); and “Mo‘olelo Hiwahiwa o Kawelo” (KNA, 1909-1910). Poepoe
is associated with two Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, “Mo‘olelo o H i‘iakaikapoliopele”
(KNA, 1905-1906) and “Mo‘olelo Ka‘ao o H i‘iakaikapoliopele” (KHR, 1908-1911)
(Silva n.d., 1). Both “Kawelo” and the KNA version of “Hi'iaka” were signed by
“Ho‘oulumahiehie,” which, as mentioned, is perhaps a pseudonym for Poepoe. He also
published at least two translations, “Battle of the Owls, A Hawaiian Legend” (Thrum’s
Hawaiian Annual, 1891), and Ke Alakai o ke Kanaka Hawaii: He Buke no na Olelo
Hooholo o kaAha Kiekie (Hawaiian Gazette, 1891) (Silva n.d., I).60
Chariot (1998) notes that, “the series by Ho‘oulumahiehie was started in Hawaii
Aloha, July 15 - November 24,1905. The continuation of the series was announced on
November 30, 1905, in Ka Na ‘i Aupuni” (56). Aside from continuing the mo‘olelo from
60 A full citation from the University of Hawai'i Voyager website for this title states, “I kuhikuhiia ma ka
buke kanawai kivila hou, i hooponoponoia ai e ka Hon. L. McCully, a me kekahi mau olelo hooholo e ae he
nui; na rula Aha Hookolokolo o ko Hawaii Paeaina, i hooponopono hou ia; a me na hoakaka kanawai i
kakau mua ia e ka Hon. A. Francis Judd, Lunakanawai Kiekie a kaulike o ke Aupuni, a i hooponoponoia a
hoomahuahua hou ia hoi.”
1 61
where it left off in Hawai ‘i Aloha, Ka Na ‘i Aupuni editors, under pressure from their
readership, went back to the beginning of the mo‘olelo. 105 installments of the mo‘olelo
were published in Ka Na ‘i Aupuni, with “the earlier numbers that had appeared in Hawaii
A loha. . . reprinted concurrently,. . . [and] [t]he original preface reprinted at that time”
(Chariot 1998, 56).
H oku o H aw a i ‘1 (A pril 29.1906 - A ugust 11,1948)
Hilo-based Hoku o Hawai'i (The Star of Hawai‘i; 1906-1948), the longest-
running Hawaiian-language nupepa, was published by The Star of Hawai'i Publishing
Company established by Steven Langhem Desha Sr. (President), W. H. Beers (Vice
President), Stephen Langhem Desha Jr. (Secretary), H.K. Brown (Treasurer), and S. M.
Spencer (Auditor); G. L. Desha Sr. and E. K. Kaiwa served as Directors (HOH masthead,
November 13, 1924). For the majority of the paper’s run (1906-1932), Reverend Stephen
Desha Sr. served as the Luna Ho'oponopono and Lunanui (Chief Officer), although other
editors included Solomon Anakalea, Edwin M. Desha, and J. B. Dixon, who edited the
English-language portion of the nupepa (Chapin 2000,44). Chapin (2000) notes that this
nupepa was “loyal to the former Queen and royalist in sentiment [;] this was the last
Hawaiian language paper until the 1970s” (44). The paper printed “foreign, national,
domestic and Protestant church news” and contained “translations from English to
Hawaiian,” presumably of m o‘olelo and other kinds of writing (Chapin 2000, 44).
Hoku o HawaVi is the only nupepa to print two complete and different versions of
the Pele and Hi'iaka mo‘olelo “Pele a me Kona Kaikaina Hi ‘iakaikapoliopele” (“Pele and
162
her Younger Sister Hi‘iakaikapoliopele”) ran from May 21 to September 10, 1908. It is
unfortunate that only nine installments of the mo‘olelo still survive on microfilm; eight
issues between the start and end dates of the m o‘olelo are missing from microfilm. Thus
there are gaps in the published mo‘olelo available on microfilm, and it is conceivable that
up to eight installments, or nearly half of what is available, is missing. The mo‘olelo is a
Kaua‘i rendition credited to William Hyde Rice.
W illiam H yde R ice (1846-1924). William Hyde Rice and his descendants are
often described as one of the “handful of prominent and influential non-Hawaiian
families who have set their imprint upon Kauai over the years,” who had “the greatest
impact on the island of Kaua‘i” (http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/kauaihistory/k3.htm).
The middle of five children, William Hyde Rice was the son of William Harrison
and Mary Sophia Rice, the first ABCFM missionaries to permanently settle on the island
of Kaua‘i. Educated in New York, his parents arrived in Hawai‘i in 1841, where they
were first assigned to Hana, Maui (Nellist, 171). Rice was bom in Honolulu in 1846
during his parents’ tenure at Punahou School. In 1854, the senior Rice resigned his
position with the ABCFM. He moved his family to Kaua‘i, taking on the position of
manager for Lihu‘e sugar plantation. When he died in 1862 at the age of 49 from
tuberculosis, Paul Isenberg took over as manager of the plantation. Isenberg and William
Hyde Rice later went into politics together (http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/kauaihistory/
bk3.htm).
Rice married Mary Waterhouse, and together they had 8 children, 5 sons and 3
daughters. Rice raised cattle and horses on the Kipu lands. From 1867-1869 he managed
163
the ranch portion of Llhu‘e Plantation operations, before starting his own enterprise in
1872, when he purchased thousands of acres of land in the Kipu area from Princess Ruth,
establishing Kipu Ranch (Joesting, 201). Rice was also granted lands from Koloa to
Hanama’ulu through Kekuanaoa, the governor of 0 ‘ahu and husband of one of
Kamehameha I’s daughters (Joesting, 154-155).
Rice was actively involved in the politics of Hawai‘i, beginning in 1870, when
“he was sent to the House of Representatives under King Kamehameha V” (Nellist, 173).
He served in the House of Representatives from 1870-1890 under the monarchy and a
member of the senate from 1895-1898 under the Republic of Hawai‘i (Nellist, 173). In
1891 he was appointed governor of Kaua‘i by Queen Lili’uokalani, “an office he held
through the overthrow of the monarchy and during the period of the provisional
government” (Nellist, 173). Joesting notes this was important as, like Westervelt, he
“was not in the legislature or in Honolulu when the critical events of 1893 took place”
(257). Rice, however, is not as innocent as Joesting writes, as he was one of the
architects of the 1887 “Bayonet” constitution which reduced Kalakaua’s powers and
politically disenfranchised Kanaka Maoli (Nellist, 173).
Aside from the economic and social impact of his ranching business, and the
political impact of his involvement in Hawai‘i politics, Rice also had a cultural impact on
Hawaiian society through his collection and publication of mo‘olelo Hawaii. Like his
father, William Hyde Rice spoke fluent Hawaiian; unlike his father, Rice was raised in
H aw aii with Hawaiian caregivers, acquiring an added depth of understanding of the
language. Joesting notes that “William Hyde Rice had knowledge of the Hawaiian
164
language on its several levels, something very few Hawaiians possessed. He had
mastered the inner meaning of the language and said that he thought in Hawaiian, not
English. He felt most at ease speaking Hawaiian and preferred that language” (145).
While Rice positively contributed to the published corpus of Pele and Hi‘iaka
m o‘olelo, Joesting overstates his English-language contribution, saying, “Many believe
his book Hawaiian Legends is the closest written expression of the ancient legends”
(145). While Rice did have an excellent command of the Hawaiian language, Hawaiian
Legends, as with most writing in the area of Hawaiian culture and literature, ignored or
dismissed Hawaiian-language sources (including his own Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo),
reframing the English-language “translations” of the mo‘olelo to fit a western paradigm.
Equally dismissed are the “native informants” who provided the bulk of the information
in the first place.
Other sources Rice used were prominent, well-respected authorities over
Hawaiian m o‘olelo in their own right. One example is Paul Kanoa, a prominent Kanaka
Maoli who served as Governor of Kaua‘i from 1846, when he was appointed to the
position by Kamehameha III, until 1877. He was bom in South Kona, Hawai‘i, and
although his exact birth date is not known, he is believed to have been bom around 1802.
In his youth, he served as an assistant to two missionaries, Dr. Gerrit P. Judd and Rev.
Hiram Bingham. He later served as a clerk to Mataio Kekuanaoa, governor of O'ahu.
Later, he was elected to the Hawaiian legislature, and served “through numerous
legislative sessions” from 1845 until 1882, when he “was appointed minister of finance
165
by King Kalakaua” (Joesting, 155; see also Kuykendall, 292, 297-298; Osorio, 149, 228;
andLydecker, 124, 156).
Kanoa has been described as a “gentleman, honorable and dignified, and . . . an
eloquent speaker and Hawaiian scholar as well [who was] an authority on the oral
traditions of his people and the nuances of the Hawaiian language” (http://www.kauai-
historymakers.com/Joh-Kan_files/kanoaiweb.pdf). Joesting calls him a “close friend” of
Rice who “had an understanding of the history and legends of the Islands and over the
years the two had long talks, of assistance in Rice’s writing of Hawaiian Legends” (155).
If this is true, he is an uncredited source for Rice’s Legends.61
Another prominent politician of the era who was also a source of Hawaiian
mo‘olelo was Reverend Joseph A. Akina. Akina served as the House Speaker of the
Hawaiian Legislature in 1901 (www.hawaii.gov/lrb/hndbook/appe.html).62 He was also
the Hope Peresidena (Vice President) of the Hui Mo‘olelo Hawai‘i Lani Honua in 1905,
serving with T. C. Pokipala (President), A. S. Kaleiopu (Treasurer), and Joseph M.
Poepoe (Chairman) (HA, August 18,1905). He was the Luna Ho‘ohana (Manager) of
K u ‘u Hae HawaVi (My Hawaiian Flag), a short-lived Hawaiian-language nupepa (April
19 - July 4, 1913) (Chapin 2000, 64). Akina is credited with an unpublished manuscript
on “Menehune” traditions from Kaua’i (private collection). He also wrote a series of
61 Joesting says that Kanoa died in 1885, at about 82 years of age (154-155). He later states, however, that
Kanoa “was in the Legislature at the time of the Overthrow, as was Rev. Joseph A. Akina” (257). This
would be problematic if Kanoa died in 1885, and the Overthrow didn’t occur until 1893. Kanoa reportedly
died “tragically, in Honolulu in November of 1885 when, due to old age and poor vision, he fell from the
second story of his home” www.kauaihistorymakers.com/Joh-Kan_files/ kanoaiweb.pdf). Yet if Kanoa
lived on Kaua‘i, did he also have a home in Honolulu?
62 It is not known how long Akina served in the Legislature, although in 1913 as kahu he conducted the
opening prayer, with Rev. Akiko Akana conducting the closing prayer (KNK, May 2, 1913).
166
articles, “Na Wahi Pana o ka Mokupuni o Kauai” (Famous Places of the Island of
Kaua‘i), in HawaVi Aloha (August 25-October 20, 1905), as well as an account of three
fishermen on Kaua‘i, “Seeing Lulu-o-Moikeha on the plain of Kapaa once more,”
published in Ka Nupepa K u ‘oko‘a (May 2 and 9, 1913). A m o‘olelo for Papi‘ohuli
published July 4,1913 in Ka Hae HawaVi is uncredited, although it most likely was
contributed by Akina, as it is a more detailed version of the same mo‘olelo which
appeared as part of his “Na Wahi Pana o Kaua‘i” series in HawaVi Aloha (September 25,
1905). Because of Akina’s close association with Hawaiian mo‘olelo, it is possible that
he also collaborated with Rice, contributing mo‘olelo to his publications.
Because of their prominent place in H aw aii’s politics, economics, and particular
strand of society, Joesting (1984) elevates Rice and other “kama‘aina haole” elite to the
status of “new ali‘i.”
The men who ran the plantations and ranches were considered chiefs because of
their positions of authority. Not all of them had empathy for the Hawaiians or had
gained their respect, but over the years those who had were numbered among the
new chiefs of Kauai. Valdemar Knudsen, William Harrison Rice, Duncan
McBryde, Godfrey Wundenberg, and Paul Isenberg were among them. As did
most of the missionaries, they spoke and wrote Hawaiian.. . . Some of the sons of
these families, who had grown up with the Kauaians, had an even closer
attachment and understanding of the Kauaians than their parents. As children,
George and Albert Wilcox, William Hyde Rice, Francis Gay, and Aubrey
167
Robinson had gone to Sunday school with the Hawaiians, and worked with them
through their adult lives. (144-145)
This rhetoric of the “kama‘aina anti-conquest” as Houston Wood describes it, is
problematic as it places missionaries and their descendants as the intellectuals and
purveyors of cultural knowledge who understand Hawaiian mo‘olelo and other traditions
better than Kanaka Maoli. One way this casting of history becomes possible is by the
purposeful erasure of Kanaka Maoli contributors and the discounting of Hawaiian-
language source material. Silva (2004d) writes that one colonizing strategy employed in
Hawai‘i was supplanting the indigenous Hawaiian language with English (10). While
language has been “one of the most important sites o f . . . anti-colonial struggle,” Silva
also argues that “as in many other cases, the colonial state attempted from the beginning
to bring the colony into its national narrative” (10). One way this occurred is the
suppression of Kanaka Maoli perspectives as demonstrated in their own mo‘olelo,
replacing instead with reframed narratives in English by writers such as Rice, Emerson,
and Westervelt. She says:
The continued production of mo‘olelo in the native tongue by Kanaka Maoli after
the U.S. political takeover is central to understanding this period because the
literature written by the natives, invoking their own sense of history and time
separate from the new colonial state, disrupts the colonial state’s attempts to
create that smooth and unproblematic version of its existence.. . . The widespread
168
suppression of the native language assisted the production of a history
unproblematic to the colonial state. (10)
As both Nogelmeier and Silva have pointed out, most historians today, including those
who are most widely cited have ignored the abundance of Hawaiian-language source
materials (see Nogelmeier 2003, Silva 2004). Instead, they have relied upon either the
small percentage of Hawaiian language materials translated to English, or English-
language sources that “reflect primarily the perspectives of the colonizers” (Silva 2004d,
11). Perhaps most disappointing is that Rice’s Hawaiian-language Pele and Hi‘iaka
m o‘olelo is a rich, important tradition which elevates a particularly Kaua‘i-based
perspective of the m o‘olelo which is quite different from the other versions (Chariot
1998, 61). The reframing of the English “translation” of the m o‘olelo cuts out much of
the depth and beauty of the Hawaiian-language version. For example, the Hawaiian text
contains a detailed mo‘oku‘auhau for Pele’s ‘ohana, including a description of which part
of Haumea’s body each sibling is bom from (May 21, 1908). Throughout the series, 46
chants are included; many of them, reflecting the Kaua‘i perspective, are not found in any
other of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. While both m o‘oku‘auhau and oli are an integral
aspect of literary expression in Hawaiian literature, both are completely left out of Rice’s
English text (see Ho‘omanawanui 1997 for more detailed analysis of this text).
S tephen L anghern D esha S r . and Julia K eonaona . Nearly twenty years later,
under the same editor, Hoku o HawaVi published another Pele and Hi‘iaka epic, “Ka
mo‘olelo o Hi‘iakaikapoliopele, ka wahine i ka hikina a ka la, a o ka U ‘i palekoki ‘uila o
169
Halema‘uma‘u.” Credited to Julia Keonaona, it is an almost exact reprint of the 1905-
1906 Ho‘oulumahiehie texts which ran in HawaVi Aloha and Ka N a‘i Aupuni.63
Stephen Langhem Desha Sr. was bom on July 11, 1859 in Lahaina, Maui. His
parents were John Rollin Langhem Desha and “his Hawaiian wife” Eliza “Laika” Hoa
(Brewer) Desha (Desha, xvii). His haole father arrived in Hawai'i on November 5, 1847,
working “as a druggist, purveyor, and nurse at Queen’s Hospital” when it opened in 1860
(Desha, xvii). Educated on Maui in a Hawaiian-language-based public school, at age 11,
Desha was brought from Lahaina to Honolulu by his father to attend the Royal School,
where he was educated, for the first time, in English (Desha, xvii). After his father died
in December 1871, Desha was cared for by a local minister. Later, Desha attended the
North Pacific Missionary Institute in Honolulu, which was operated by the Hawaiian
Evangelical Association (Desha, xvii). He “apparently completed a three-year course of
study in one year” and was one of five students to graduate in June 1883 (Desha, xviii).
Desha spent two months in San Francisco before returning home to Hawai‘i where he
was first assigned the pastorate of Napo‘opo‘o Church, a position he held until 1889. In
1889, Desha and his family left South Kona for Hilo where he became the pastor of Haili
Church, where he served the congregation “for the next forty-five years, until his death
on July 22, 1934” (Desha, xviii).
Desha was also committed to public service outside his pastoral duties. In Kona,
he had chaired the South Kona Road Board; in Hilo, “he became a member of the Board
63 The texts were so similar that the 1924-1928 Desha/Keonaona text was used to reconstruct portions of
the 1905-1906 Ho‘oulumahiehie text for the forthcoming edition of this Pele and Hi'iaka m o‘olelo
(Nogelmeier, personal communication, July 2006).
170
of Voter Registration and also a Commissioner of Fences” (Desha, xix). In 1905, Desha
was elected to Hawai‘i County’s initial board of supervisors, a position to which he was
re-elected in 1909. “A staunch Republican, Desha entered the territorial senate in 1913,”
a position to which he would be “continually-re-elected” for the next twenty-one years
(Desha, xix). Desha was close to Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole, sharing his vision
of establishing the Hawaiian Homes Commission.64
Stephen L. Desha Jr.
Desha was married several times. While attending Divinity School in 1883, he
married Hattie Kamaka, who died from tuberculosis only a few months later. While
assigned to Napo‘opo‘o Church, Desha met and wed his second wife, Mary Kaakopua
K ekum ano. Mary D esh a p assed away in 1890 at the age of 26, just a few years into their
marriage, leaving behind her husband and their three children: Stephen L. Jr., John R.,
54 When Desha’s son John graduated from Harvard, he served for several years as Kuhio’s secretary. Later,
when Kuhio passed away, Desha, along with Reverend Akaiko Akana, conducted Kuhio’s service at
Kawaiaha‘o Church (Desha, xix).
171
and Elizabeth. In 1907, Desha married the widowed Rose Kapu, who passed away from
a heart ailment less than two years after the wedding. In 1915, Desha married one last
time, to Julia Keonaona, whom he credits in his Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, and with
whom he shared “the remaining years of his life” (Desha, xix).
Within the pages of his history of Kamehameha I, Desha relates a story about how
niuhi (tiger) sharks were caught by his wife Keonaona’s grandfather (Desha, 11-13).
Perhaps this is a way she contributed to his rendition of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, by
being one of his sources from which he composed the story?
Desha was also president and editor of Ka Hoku o HawaVi, which Mookini says
he founded (ix). He was noted for his eloquent speeches, and knowledge of Hawaiian
m o‘olelo. In a eulogy which appeared in the August 1934 Friend, Reverend Henry P.
Judd wrote:
[Desha] had a remarkable gift of oratory in his native tongue, in which he was a
master. He was saturated with the spirit of ancient mele, folklore, traditions, and
stories of the Hawaiian people. It was easy for him to make his point by
introducing some apt story or telling illustrations from Hawaiian history or
mythology. (Judd in Desha, xviii)
In the introduction to Desha’s Kekuhaupi'o, which was originally published, like his Pele
and Hi’iaka m o’olelo, during his tenure as editor of Ka Hoku o HawaVi, the editors
wrote:
172
In large part, the recording of the traditions told here was motivated by Desha’s
proud advocacy of the Hawaiian people. Desha, newspaper editor and territorial
senator from Hilo as well as pastor, saw this serial as a way to inform younger
generations of Hawaiians of their culture and their past. He wrote not only of the
exploits of two famous warriors but also of the traditions and values which guided
them and other Hawaiians in earlier times. Desha hoped, through sharing his
knowledge of his ancestors and their ways, to instill within his Hawaiian readers a
greater sense of pride in themselves. Today his message continues to inspire.
(Desha, xiii)
Desha’s work with Hawaiian m o‘olelo was acknowledged by others such as Martha
Beckwith (1919), who thanked him in her introduction to L a‘ieikawai (287). Desha was
the last Kanaka Maoli writer to publish a Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo and one of the last
writers and publishers of a Hawaiian-language nupepa; Hoku o Hawai 7 went out of
business in 1948, as “Hawaiian-language publications gradually decreased with the
passing of readers who could understand the language” (Kimura 1983, 197).
One hundred and fifty five installments of this lengthy series are available on
microfilm. Upon initial research into this text, thirty installments of the mo‘olelo were
missing from microfilm; since then, upon discovery of hard copies of the nupepa in Hilo
Public Library, twenty-five of the thirty missing installments have been added to the
173
microfilm collection.65 In the four years that the mo‘olelo was printed in the nupepa,
there are only twelve dates available on microfilm in which installments of the mo‘olelo
did not appear.66
K u ‘o k o ‘a H o m e R u l a (1901- D e c e m b e r 26,1912)
Published in Honolulu, Ku'oko'a Home Rula (Independent Home Rule) was a
weekly publication for the decade it was in print. It was owned by Charles Kahiliaulani
Notley (President of the Home Rule Party in 1905) and edited by Joseph M. Poepoe
(1903-1912) (Mookini, 23). The paper was printed mostly in Hawaiian, with some
English, although Chapin (2000) notes that “After annexation, [the paper was] pro-Home
Rule and Native Hawaiian rights” (64). Like other Hawaiian nupepa of the times,
Ku ‘oko ‘a Home Rula featured news from abroad, foreign stories in serial form, and
Hawaiian legends (Mookini, 23).
K u ‘oko‘a Home Rula published “Ka M o‘olelo Ka‘ao o Hi‘iakaikapoliopele,”
which ran from January 10, 1908 through January 20, 1911. As with earlier examples,
the author of the mo‘olelo, Poepoe, was also an editor of the paper.
65 Hilo Public Library never participated in the microfilm project. In 2000,1 went to Hilo to look at the
Library’s nupepa collection there, which is how I found these issues; these issues are included in the above
total number. This information was provided to me by Noenoe Silva; she acknowledges Barbara Dunn as
her source (personal communication).
66 These dates are: October 2, 1924, April 27, May 25, June 1, June 8, June 15, June 22, June 29, and July
6, 1926; March 13, June 5, and July 3,1928. Unfortunately, there are a number of periods where significant
portions of the nupepa are missing from microfilm [and no hard copies are available]. These include a nine-
month period from November 20, 1924—August 20, 1925. As a weekly publication, over a nine-month
period, there are possibly as many as forty issues—and as many installments of the m o‘olelo—missing
from microfilm and no longer accessible to us today. In the remaining time period in which the m o‘olelo
was printed, ten additional issues of the nupepa are not on microfilm and otherwise not available. These
dates include: July 20, 1926; April 26, July 5, July 26, August 30, September 6, and October 6,1927;
February 28, March 27, and April 10, 1928.
174
Since Poepoe was publishing what he referred to as a Maui [and Hawai‘i] island
version of the mo‘olelo, readers in 1908 had the rare opportunity to enjoy two completely
different versions of the Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo being published almost
simultaneously, as K u‘oko‘a Home Rula ran the beginning of Poepoe’s version at almost
the same time as Hoku o HawaVi ran Rice’s Kaua‘i version of the mo‘olelo. As with
other nupepa lost over time, it is unfortunate that not all issues of the nupepa containing
installments of the m o‘olelo are preserved on microfilm; thus, the m o‘olelo as available
to readers and scholars today is incomplete.67
N A P u k e P a ‘i ‘i a ( P u b l i s h e d B o o k s )
While Hawaiian-language nupepa provide the majority of the early published
sources of Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, several puke or books about or containing Pele and
Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo were published in the late nineteenth through early twentieth century.
Few books were published during this time period; the only Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo
that appeared in book form during the time period I am studying were published in
English. These are not a focus of this dissertation, as, unlike the Hawaiian-language
nupepa, they did not contain the epic Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo, just fragments or
summaries presented out of context from the larger mo‘olelo. In this next section,
however, I will briefly discuss four English texts as a point of comparison to illustrate the
67 No installments are available for sixteen issues from 1910: May 27, June 10, June 24, July 8, July 15,
August 12, August 26, September 2, September 9, September 16, October 7, October 21, October 27,
November 3 or November 10.
175
differences between the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo published in the Hawaiian-language
nupepa, and these sources.
K alakaua & D agget (1888)
The first published book which contained segments of the Pele and Hi‘iaka
m o‘olelo is The Legends and Myths o f Hawai'i, the Fables and Folk-Lore o f a Strange
People (New York: C. L. Webster and Co., 1888). Penned by M o‘1 David La‘amea
Kalakaua and R. M. Daggett, this book is a collection of Hawaiian m o‘olelo and includes
two mo‘olelo concerning Pele and Hi‘iaka, “The Apotheosis of Pele,” and “Lohi‘au, the
Lover of a Goddess.” The two stories are not presented next to each other; “The
Apotheosis of Pele” appears towards the beginning of the 520-page collection (137-154),
while the Lohi‘au m o‘olelo is set towards the end (481-497).
The Preface credits prominent Kanaka Maoli and others of the time, many of
whom were closely associated with writing and publishing various genres of mo‘olelo
(including mele), such as Lili‘uokalani, Emma Metcalf Beckley, and Abraham Fomander
(7). The Introduction, unsigned but credited to Daggett, is a lengthy anthropologically-
based history of the Hawaiian islands, Hawaiian culture, and Kanaka Maoli (11-65).
“The Apotheosis of Pele” is divided into three parts. The first provides a
background of Pele as “the queen of fire and goddess of volcanoes,” including a
genealogy and list of siblings (139). The second recounts the adventures of Kamapua‘a,
Pele’s pig-god lover and nemesis. Kamapua‘a’s background and m o‘oku‘auhau are given
(142-147). The third describes Kamapua‘a’s travels from Kahiki to Hawai'i, and several
176
shortened mo‘olelo about his various encounters with Pele are narrated (147-154).
Overall, while this chapter is entitled “The Apotheosis of Pele,” it really recounts the
establishment of Kamapua‘a as a kupua figure in Hawaiian mo‘olelo.
The second mo‘olelo, “Lohiau, the Lover of a Goddess,” offers a highly
abbreviated version of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. A scant fifteen pages long, it is also
divided into three parts. Part I gives a brief background of the Pele family, making
reference to important mele, but not offering any mele in whole or in part (483). It then
relates the opening of the m o‘olelo, where Pele’s spirit travels in her dreams and
encounters Lohi‘au on Kaua‘i. Part II relates most of the mo‘olelo up to the point where
H i‘iaka descends through the five levels of po looking for Lohi‘au’s spirit after Pele has
him killed. Part III concludes the mo‘olelo with the restoration of the lives of Lohi‘au
and Hopoe after Lohi‘au’s aikane Kahuaka‘iapaoa appeals to Pele (492-497).
Throughout, incorrect names are given for key characters; Hi ‘iakaikapo/iopele is
referred to as Hi‘iakaikapa//opele (poli is the heart, pali is a cliff); Wahine‘oma‘o, the
“green” ( ‘oma'o) woman,” is referred to as “ome‘o” (“itchy”). Likewise, the names of
the mo‘o goddesses of Ha‘ena who steal Lohi‘au’s body from its tomb, Kilioeikapua and
Kalamainu‘u are Kilioa and Kalamainu (neither are translatable into any kind of
Hawaiian that makes any sense) (489).
In her M.A. thesis on Kalakaua’s Legends (2003), Tiffany Ing discusses
motivations Kalakaua may have had for publishing his collection of mo‘olelo at such a
politically critical time in Hawaiian history. She writes:
177
As the most powerful Hawaiian, Kalakaua sought to re-introduce all that is
Hawaiian back into a society where the haole had tried to confine or stop
such things, or employ them for their own uses—the laina, the hula, the
prestigious image of the king, and so on . . . Kristin Zambucka says that
for foreign businessmen ‘to secure their hold on the people they had to
obliterate all that was Hawaiian.’ ‘How can you kill a culture and retain a
people?’ Zambucka goes on to ask—and so, essentially, did Kalakaua (1).
His reply was to labor unceasingly at restoring and strengthening his
people by resurrecting and celebrating their culture. (2-3)
Kalakaua was not the first or the only Hawaiian leader who wrestled with that
question, or who labored unceasingly at restoring and strengthening Kanaka Maoli
through the resurrection of culture. Nor were his actions in this arena without context or
precedence. Since the 1860s, Kalakaua had been involved with publishing; as an editor
associated with Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika, he was involved with the intentional publication
of Hawaiian mo‘olelo in the nupepa. As the contributors of the mo‘olelo, every mea
kakau from Kapihenui to Desha must have been keenly aware of the political as well as
social/cultural aspect publishing their mo‘olelo would have on the lahui. Every editor
from Kalakaua, Mila and Kauwahi (KHP) to Desha (HOH) had to be just as cognizant of
the political ramifications as well. Thus, the leadership roles each mea kakau associated
with the Pele and Hi'iaka mo‘olelo held in Hawaiian society, as well as the timing of the
publication dates of the m o‘olelo cannot be overlooked. Was it a mere coincidence that
178
as the highest political leader in the nation, Kalakaua would be so intimately associated
with the publication of Hawaiian m o‘olelo? From a Maoli perspective, no; in essence, as
the Ali‘i Nui, it was his kuleana to do so. Similarly, Bush, Kaili, Poepoe, Desha and Rice
were all involved in national politics; Bush, Poepoe, Desha and Rice held positions in
different Legislative Assemblies (see Lydecker 1918); Kaili was of ali‘i lineage, was
married for a time to a lawmaker (Beckley), and held government appointed positions
(see Bacchilega 2007). Others like Paul Kanoa, a source for Rice’s mo‘olelo, and
Charles Notley, the publisher of Ka N a ‘i Aupuni, were also Nobles in different
Legislative Assemblies. As ministers, Pa‘aluhi and Desha were community leaders. It is
unclear what kinds of relationships or positions Kapihenui might have held, other than his
association with caretaking the Kanahau heiau (which would have been a position of
status in traditional times).
Just as important is the timing of the publication dates of the mo‘olelo (historical
context). Kapihenui’s Pele and Hi’iaka mo‘olelo was printed in one of the first issues of
the first nupepa independent of government or church control. Kaili’s mo‘olelo was
highly summarized and published in English, presumably for a haole audience, but it was
published in 1883, the year Kalakaua was crowned. Was this perhaps a political message
to the haole of the Kingdom? Was Kalakaua thus indirectly responsible for at least
encouraging its publication? Pa‘aluhi and Bush’s mo‘olelo began publication weeks
prior to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and continued until the mo‘olelo
concluded months later. Manu’s 1899 publication of Pele and Waka occurred just after
Hawai’i was annexed to the United States. Within a short three-year time span of the
179
early territorial period, four m o‘olelo by three separate authors—Ho‘oulumahiehie,
Poepoe, and Rice were printed in three publications (HawaVi Aloha, Ka Nad Aupuni, and
Hoku o HawaVi). Emerson’s 1915 text appeared in the course of other publications
geared towards an American audience eager for information about the new territory.
Desha’s 1924-1928 publication, the final extensive Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo publication
in any Hawaiian-language nupepa, was a last attempt at asserting a traditional Hawaiian
political perspective in an era where the language and the last vestige of Hawaiian
political power was overcome.
E mma K aili M etcalf (N akuina ) (1904)
Emma Kaili Metcalf Beckley Nakuina was a prominent Hawaiian woman of ali‘i
status who wrote several mo‘olelo for English-language nupepa, as well as a published
collection of Hawaiian m o’olelo, HawaVi, its people, their legends (Honolulu: Hawai‘i
Promotion Committee, 1904). A short announcement in the nupepa Ka ‘Elele Po'akolu
on October 17, 1883, just after the “H i‘iaka” series concluded in PCA, confirms this,
stating that, “the story of Hi'iaka and the matters relating to her sweetheart Lohi‘au was
just published in English in the mercantile paper [PCA]\ it is greatly admired by the
foreigners. Mrs. Emma Kahapula Beckley is the one who wrote this story with great
knowledge and skill in English.”68 Like Kalakaua’s collection of mo‘olelo, Nakuina’s
Legends contains two selected summarized segments of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo
68 The Hawaiian text reads, “Ua pai ia iho nei ka Moolelo o “Hiiaka,” a me na mea e pili ana i kana ipo
Lohiau, ma ka olelo haole, maloko o ka Nupepa Kalepa; a ua nui ka makahehi ia e na haole. Na Mrs.
Emma Kahapula Beckley i kakau noelo iho nei me ka mikioi ma ia olelo namu” (Ka ‘Elele Pd'akolu,
October 17, 1883).
180
“Pele, the Goddess of the Volcano” and “Pele and Lohiau.” What is interesting is that
Nakuina published a comprehensive summary of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo in the
PCA (1883), although that m o‘olelo does not appear in her 1904 collection. Written in
English, both books are geared towards a non-Kanaka audience.
Nakuina was bom Emma Kaili Metcalf on March 5, 1847 at Kauaaia, Manoa,
0 ‘ahu; she died April 27,1929. The daughter of Theophilus Metcalf and
Kailikapuolono, a Hawaiian chiefess of “Hawai‘i and 0 ‘ahu lineage,” Nakuina was well-
educated, attending “Sacred Hearts Academy and Punahou School, where she was one of
the school’s first Hawaiian graduates; she also attended Mills Seminary in California.. . .
She is reported to have been fluent in English, Hawaiian, French and German”
(Bacchilega, 108, 110). She married twice, in 1867 to Frederick William Beckley (1846-
1881), and several years after his death to Moses Kuaea Nakuina (1867-1911), who
worked for Kalakaua’s government (Bacchilega, 110-111). Like Emma, Moses Nakuina
was also known for publishing Hawaiian mo‘olelo, including Moolelo Hawaii o Pakaa a
me Ku-a-Pakaa (translated by Nakoa and Mookini as The Windgourd o f L a ‘amaomao)
and the incomplete Moolelo Hawaii no Kalapana, Ke Keiki Hoopa-pa o Puna (The story
of Kalapana, the Riddling Child of Puna [Hawai’i]) (see Chariot 2005).
Nakuina was very well-connected in political and social circles. Bacchilega
writes:
In 1882, [she] was appointed by Kalakaua’s premier, Walter Murray Gibson, as
curator (“curatrix” as she signed herself) of the Hawaiian National Museum at
Ali'iolani Hale; during the following five years, she was also the government
1 81
librarian. When the Bayonet Constitution of 1887 forced Gibson to flee the
islands, she was dismissed.. . . In 1892, [she] became a commissioner, or judge,
of the water court, adjudicating water disputes on 0 ‘ahu for the next eighteen
years.. . . But she never lost interest in the museum and what it represented for
Hawaiians and Hawaiian knowledge preservation. Her Hawaiian National
Museum was soon incorporated into the Bishop Museum. (112)
Nakuina also served as a territorial judge, was one of the first women admitted to the
Hawaiian Historical Society (1894), and worked with W. D. Alexander on the translation
of Abraham Fomander’s Collection o f Hawaiian Antiquities and Folklore (1916-1920)
(Bacchilega, 113).
It is curious that while Nakuina was fluent in Hawaiian and held positions of
status and leadership in both Kanaka and western ways, she “was a prolific writer in
English” (Bacchilega, 114). Aside from publishing “Hi‘iaka,” she also published
Methods o f Fishing with an Account o f the Fishing Implements Used by the Natives o f the
Hawaiian Islands (Order of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 1883) and “Kahalaopuna: a
Legend of Manoa Valley”(Saturday Press, December 8, 1883); she is associated or
credited by others in the publishing of their own m o‘olelo (Bacchilega, 114-115).
N athaniel B right E merson (1915)
Pele and Hi'iaka, one of the best-known versions of the Pele and H i‘iaka
m o‘olelo, was collected, edited and published by missionary son Nathaniel Emerson.
182
Emerson’s parents were Reverend John S. and Ursula Sophia Newell Emerson, “who
came to Hawai‘i with the Fifth Company of Missionaries, May 17, 1832” (http://hml.org/
mmhc/mdindex/ emersonn.html69). The fourth son “in a family of seven sons and one
daughter,” Emerson was bom on July 1, 1839 in Waialua, 0 ‘ahu, where his father was
the pastor of a Hawaiian church (The Friend, August 1915,184-186).70
In his early years, Emerson attended 0 ‘ahu College (Punahou); later he enrolled
at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts, where he graduated with an A.M.
in 1865 (The Friend, August 1915,184-186). His college career, however, was
interrupted by the Civil War. Emerson left school to enlist in the First Regiment of the
Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry; he returned there at the end of the war to complete his
education. He studied medicine at Harvard and at the College of Physicians and Surgeons
in New York, and graduated from there as an M.D. in 1869 (The Friend, August 1915,
184-186). He returned to Hawai‘i in 1878 when S.G. Wilder, Minister of the Interior for
the Kingdom of Hawai‘i and president of the Board of Health, invited him to return to
Hawai’i “to become general inspector of ‘lepers and leper stations’” (http://hml.org/
mmhc/mdindex/emersonn.html). In this position, Emerson spent some time in
Kalaupapa, although the majority of his time was spent at the Kakaako Branch Hospital,
>
where he examined and treated leprosy patients.
69 Information on Emerson was gathered by the Hawai‘i Medical Association Women’s Auxiliary. Their
main sources were “newspapers, past and present.” The information in Dr. Emerson’s file “does cite a few
sources in addition to the newspapers (mainly the Advertiser, also the Friend). They used a Hawaiian
Directory as far back as 1880-81, 1892-93; Board of Health reports, 1881, 1882; Board of Health (?)
directory; Blue Book 1901-02; he was listed in Who’s Who in Hawai'i, although the year is not written
down. It's hard to say whether a number of paragraphs are from that book, or from the Advertiser” (Laura
Gerwitz, librarian, e-mail communication, December 1, 2004).
70 Mahalo to Ka‘imipono Kaiwi Kahumoku for bringing this to my attention.
183
On January 22, 1885, Emerson married Sarah E. Pierce, a fellow physician. They
had one son, Arthur W. Emerson. Emerson worked in various medically-related
positions based mostly in Honolulu, where he also retained a private practice (The
Friend, August 1915, 184-186). From September 1887-December 1889, Emerson was
president of the Board of Health, a position he again briefly held in 1896. But from April
1894 until his death, Emerson worked as a prison physician (http://hml.org/mmhc/
mdindex/emersonn.html).71 Emerson died on July 16, 1915 at the age of 76 on board a
steamer en route from Alaska to San Francisco. His cause of death was given as
“apoplexy; paralysis, occasioned by cerebral hemorrhage” (Westervelt 1916b, 16).
Emerson was involved in a number of civic and community organizations,
including “the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society (president 1891), the Hawaiian
Historical Society (president in 1898,1900, 1902-1904)... the Honolulu Library
Association (serving on the Board of Trustees for a number of years), was a charter
member of the Polynesian Society, [and] a trustee of 0 ‘ahu College for a number of years
. . . [and was] a member of Central Union Church” (http://hml.org/mmhc/mdindex/
emersonn.html).
In his later years, Emerson devoted much time studying Hawaiian history and
collecting Hawaiian mythology. In 1893, Emerson addressed the Hawaiian Historical
Society, presenting a paper on the “Long Voyages of the Ancient Hawaiians” (Kaiwi
n.d.). In 1898, Emerson completed his translation of David Malo’s Hawaiian Antiquities,
71 The Friend notes Emerson worked “as a police surgeon,” a position which “afforded him more time to
work on his Hawaiian studies and writing” (The Friend, August 1915, 184-186).
184
which was published in English in 1903. With this work, Emerson was viewed as “an
able historian and writer of Hawaiian mythology. One of his notable efforts was the
translation into English of David Malo's great work on Hawaiian lore and customs. There
were peculiar difficulties in the translation which made it necessary to first make a
clarification of the Hawaiian text” (http://hml.org/mmhc/ mdindex/emersonn.html). An
archive of Emerson’s papers is held at the Huntington library in California.72
Emerson’s manuscript for Unwritten Literature was completed in 1899 and
published by the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE) in 1909. The publication and
continued republication of this text has provided important information for hula scholars
and practitioners across the generations. Emerson’s primary purpose, however, was
perhaps predicated on the fact that prior to its publication, “by an act of Congress . . . the
scope of [the Bureau of American Ethnology] was extended to include the natives of the
Hawaiian islands” (Holmes in Emerson 1909, 3).
Emerson’s last and arguably most important work was the translation and
publication of Pele and Hi'iaka. Published the year Emerson died, “some seven years
were spent in researching and writing this latter book” (http://hml.org/mmhc/
mdindex/emersonn.html).
72
Information on this archive can be accessed at: http:/AVahineomao.huntington.org/LibraryDiv/
Manuscripts.html and http://www.0ac.cdlib.0rg/findaid/ark:/l3030/kt6tlnb227.
185
W illiam D rake W estervelt (19161
One of the more prolific missionary chroniclers of Hawaiian mythology was
Reverend William Drake Westervelt (1849-1939). A member of the ABCFM (1889-
1891), Westervelt served as pastor of Wailuku Union Church on Maui in the 1890s
(Lyman, 83).73 Bom in Oberlin, Ohio on December 26, 1849, William D. Westervelt was
the second son and youngest child of Reverend William Andrew Westervelt and Lydia
Hayes Drake Westervelt (Nellist, 860). On May 15, 1873, he married Louise Clara Clark
(Oberlin College Archive). Both Westervelt and his wife attended Oberlin College in
Ohio; she graduated in 1870, and he graduated with an A.B. in 1871. He briefly attended
Yale Divinity School (1872-1873), but graduated from Oberlin’s Graduate School of
Theology with his B.D. in 1874.74 He was ordained by the Congregational Council of
Oberlin on December 3, 1874, and served various pastorates on the American continent
from New York to Colorado, before coming to Hawai‘i.75 Westervelt was ordained to
serve in Hawai‘i in 1889, where he worked on behalf of the ABCFM for A.O. Forbes,
who was the Secretary of the Board of the HEA (Hawaiian Evangelical Association)
(1880-1888).76
Because of his wife’s poor health, Westervelt resigned his position in Hawai‘i,
relocating to Illinois, where he served in Chicago (1892-1899) and Morgan Park (1896-
73 Lyman’s book mentions this, however, Wailuku Union Church records do not list Westervelt in church
records, and there are gaps in ministers for the years 1885-1886, 1889-1893 and 1901-1904
(http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~jrd/h_wester.htm).
74 He later received an honorary doctorate of Divinity in 1926 from his alma mater.
75 Prior to coming to Hawai'i, Westervelt served the following pastorates: Munnsville, NY 1874-1876,
Morristown, NY 1876-1879, Maintou, CO 1880-1883, and Denver, CO 1884-1888 (Congregational Year-
Books 1879-1939).
76 However, records show Oliver P. Emerson was secretary from 1889-1903.
1899). He returned to Honolulu in 1900, well after the overthrow of the Hawaiian
kingdom (1893), where he continued his pastoral work and lived out the rest of his life.
Westervelt’s first wife died in 1903.77 On July 3, 1905, Westervelt married Caroline
Dickenson Castle of the Hawai‘i-based Castle family. Together, they had one son,
Andrew Castle Westervelt (Nellist, 860).78
Throughout his adult life, Westervelt was involved in many community and civic
activities. In Colorado, Westervelt was the President of the State Christian Endeavor
Society, President of the State Temperance Union, while serving as Chaplain to the
Colorado State Legislature (Oberlin College Archives). In Hawai‘i, Westervelt remained
very involved in community activities. During different periods, he served as the Sunday
School superintendent of the Portuguese Mission; he also served as a member and officer
of the Hawaiian Board of Missions, treasurer for the Near East Relief Society of Hawai‘i,
was a member of the Prudential Committee of the Korean Christian Institute of Honolulu
(where he also served as a Trustee), President of the Hawaiian Historical Society, trustee
for the Hilo Boys School, President of the Anti-Saloon League, and was a Director for
the Board of Library (Oberlin College Archives). Westervelt was one of the six founding
members of the YMCA of Honolulu, where he was Director for a time during the early
Territorial period (Allen, 157). He also served on many corporate boards, all this while
771 have thus far been unable to locate records which confirm Westervelt’s first wife stayed in Illinois, or
returned to H aw aii with him.
78 Oberlin College records indicate Westervelt also had a daughter, Alice Lorena Westervelt, who died in
infancy. The records do not indicate whether her mother was Louise Clara or Caroline Dickerson
Westervelt (Oberlin College Archives). Westervelt’s son Andrew was also an Oberlin alumnus, class of
1927 (Oberlin College Archives).
187
continuing a prolific writing career chronicling Hawaiian history and legends.79
Westervelt died in Honolulu, Hawai‘i on March 9, 1939 from heart failure. He was 89
years old. Like Rice and Emerson, Westervelt was noted for his extensive knowledge
and collection of Hawaiian mo‘olelo. Nellist writes:
For ten years he studied daily with a native Hawaiian and during this period
searched the records and papers of early missionaries, and of the Historical
Society and Hawaiian Board, rich storehouses of information on the old Hawaii.
The data thus gathered has furnished him with material for many books and has
won him widespread recognition as a foremost authority on Hawaiian history,
legends, ancient customs and beliefs. (858)
Of the handful of missionary-related chroniclers of Hawaiian mo‘olelo, some,
such as Rice and Emerson, were certainly as well-known as Westervelt, but no other was
as prolific in publishing Hawaiian mo‘olelo. From 1891 through 1937, a period of about
40 years, Westervelt published numerous articles, translated into English, of Hawaiian
m o‘olelo, for publications such as the Hawaiian Historical Society Annual Reports and
the magazine Paradise o f the Pacific. From 1910-1923 Westervelt published six
collections of mo‘olelo, all of which have been reprinted multiple times (see Appendix
4F).80 While the title of Westervelt’s Hawaiian Legends o f Volcanoes (1916) suggests
mo‘olelo associated with all Hawaiian volcanoes, in essence, it is a collection of mo‘olelo
79 See Nellist 1925 for a more comprehensive list of Westervelt’s civic appointments (860).
80 These include: Legends o f Maui, a demi-god o f Polynesia, and o f his mother Hina (1910), Around the
Poi Bowl (1913), Legends o f Ghosts and Ghost Gods (1915), Legends o f Old Honolulu (1915), Hawaiian
Legends o f Volcanoes (1916), and Hawaiian Historical Legends (1923).
188
centered on the exploits of Pele and her younger sister Hi‘iaka, Hawai‘i island volcanoes,
and geology.
Hawaiian Legends o f Ghosts and Ghost-gods (1915) contains a forward by J. W.
Gilmore, professor of Agronomy, UC Berkeley (xi), as well as an introduction by the
author (xii-xvii). He celebrates the beauty and diversity of Hawaiian myth, making
favorable comparisons to other world myths. In this collection he briefly describes some
of the major myths such as those pertaining to the kupua Maui. He concludes his
introduction by saying, “the legends of the Hawaiian Islands are valuable in themselves,
in that they reveal an understanding of the phenomena of nature and unveil their early
history with its mythological setting. They are also valuable for comparison with the
legends of the other Pacific islands, and they are exceedingly interesting when contrasted
with the folk-lore of other nations” (xvii).
Unlike Emerson, Westervelt doesn’t present the Pele and H i‘iaka epic as one
continuous m o‘olelo. Rather, his collection gives several summarized versions and
highlights selected episodes only; it is also different from Rice’s Legends (1923) which
offers a summarized and highly condensed version of his published Hawaiian-language
m o‘olelo, “Pele a me Kona Kaikaina Hi‘iakaikapoliopele.”
As with his other collections, Westervelt makes no mention of sources, and only
other haole who contribute to the collections are credited or named. The Foreword for
Volcanoes is written by T. A. Jaggar, Jr., Director of MIT, Hawaiian Volcano
Observatory (xi). The introduction does not state who wrote it; it is mostly geological in
explanation of origins. It ends with “The early Hawaiians incorporated in their legends
189
various theories to explain these great phenomena of nature, many of which are included
in this volume, especially those legends which cluster around Pele, the great goddess of
fire, and Hiiaka, her sister, goddess of lightning” (xix). Legends related to Haleakala are
excluded, with a short explanation that they “may be found in ‘Legends of Maui”’ (xix).
The book is then divided into two sections, “Legends” and “Geological facts.”
The “legends” section contains both myth (pre-historical) and legend (historical period).
A story of ‘Aila‘au, a predecessor of Pele, is first, followed by “How Pele came to
Hawai‘i,” and other adventures of Pele, including her battles with the snow goddess
Poli‘ahu, the pig kupua Kamapua‘a, and the holua sledding ali‘i Kahawali. A synopsis of
H i‘iaka’s journey to fetch Lohi‘au is given through several chapters. The legends section
transitions abruptly from “Lohi‘au” to “The Annihilation of Keoua’s Army” (139). This
section ends with two other famous historical accounts of Pele, “The Destruction of
Kamehameha’s Fish Ponds” (146) and “Kapi'olani and Pele” (152).
“How Pele Came to Hawai‘i” gives several variants of the Pele m o‘olelo,
including differing genealogies. Westervelt opens the chapter by stating, “The simplest,
most beautiful legend does not mention the land from which Pele started” (4). In the first
version, Pele’s parents are named as Moemoea (k) and Haumea (w) (4).81 The reason
given for Pele’s desire to leave her homeland is simple “wander-lust” (4). A scant ten-
paragraph summary, this synopsis concludes by summarizing long segments of the
Hawaiian-authored stories with two sentences: “There [on Hawai‘i island] she built a
81 the symbol (k) means father or male, “kane” or man; the (w) indicates mother or female, “wahine” or
woman. This is a common citation practice used in written Hawaiian mo‘olelo, including different Pele and
Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, such as Poepoe (January 10, 1908).
190
mighty enduring palace of fire, but her dream marriage was at an end. The little sister
Hiiaka, after many adventures, married Lohiau and lived on Kauai” (6). Though highly
condensed, this summary is very similar to the Kaua‘i version published in Hawaiian by
William Hyde Rice (1908).82 Westervelt then offers a second summarized version,
giving Kanehoalani (k) and Hina (w) as Pele’s parents. He says this is from “the oldest
and most authoritative legends” (7) although he does not name them. Poepoe’s is the first
Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo to say that Kanehoalani is Pele’s father. Westervelt also
names Wahieloa as Pele’s husband, who ran away with her sister Pelekumukalani; from
him she is said to have a son named Menehune and a daughter named Laka. He states
that Wahioloa (sic.) “was a chief, well known in the legends, of a famous family of New
Zealand and other South Sea islands” (7). He concludes this section by saying, “The
story of Pele’s search for a husband has been widely accepted by foreigners but not by
the early Hawaiian writers” (7). Kanaka Maoli writers who mention the Wahieloa
episode as part of their Pele m o‘olelo are Manu (1899) and Poepoe (1908).
The third version Westervelt mentions is Kapihenui’s mo‘olelo, calling it “the
most authoritative story of the coming of Pele to Hawaii” (7). But Kapihenui’s mo‘olelo
cannot be “the most authoritative” because it contains no migration sequence of Pele to
Hawai‘i; this version begins at the crater. Westervelt names Pele’s parents as Kuwahailo
(k) and Haumea (w), which he has gleaned from “the story of Aukele-nui-aiku, in 1861,
and in another Hawaiian paper, Ke Kuokoa, in 1864, and again in 1865” (7-8). Here
82 Rice published a summary of his Hawaiian text in English in 1923, several years after Westervelt’s
collection was published.
191
Westervelt conflates the three m o‘olelo, stating that Kuwahailo was a cannibal, although
this comes from the ‘Aukelenui’aiku mo‘olelo, and not Kapihenui’s H i‘iakaikapoliopele
m o‘olelo. At this point, Westervelt comments on Hawaiian traditions, stating that “the
Hawaiians as a nation, even in their traditions, have never been cannibals, although their
legends give many individual instances of cannibalism” (8).83 He generalizes, stating that
“the Pele stories say that ‘Ku-waha-ilo was a cannibal,’ and ‘Haumea was a pali
[precipice]” (8). He continues, “The Hawaiians, it is safe to say, had no idea of reading
nature-thoughts into these expressions, thus making them ‘nature myths.’ They probably
did not understand that Ku-waha-ilo might mean destructive earth forces, and Haumea
might mean the earth itself from whom Pele, the goddess of fire, and Na-maka-o-ka-hai,
the goddess of the sea, were bom. It is, however, interesting to note that this is the fact in
the legends, and that it was in a conflict between the two sisters that Na-maka-o-ka-hai
drove Pele to the Hawaiian islands” (8). Westervelt is not even representing Kapihenui
or the Hawaiian mo‘olelo correctly; how can he thus comment on these mo‘olelo in a
knowledgeable way? Pa‘aluhi and Bush (1893) is the only Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo
which names Kuwahailo as Pele’s father, although this mo‘olelo is not cited by
Westervelt. Kuwahailo (Ku of the maggot-dropping mouth) is identified by Beckwith as
“a god of sorcery” (Beckwith 1940, 15). Malo identifies the Ku sorcery god as Ku-waha-
ilo-o-ka-puni (Malo, 83). Kame'eleihiwa describes Kuwahailo as being “Ku of the
831 am unclear as to which mo'olelo Westervelt may be referring, as in my research I have not come across
“many instances” of this practice.
192
maggot-filled mouth, because of the human sacrifices he devoured” (Kame‘eleihiwa
1992,44).
The danger of English-language texts such as Emerson’s and Westervelt’s is that
they have been upheld as credible, scholarly resources which accurately represent
Hawaiian culture and traditional mo‘olelo such as the Pele and Hi’iaka mo‘olelo.
Nogelmeier’s discourse of sufficiency argument is as applicable to Hawaiian literature as
it is it Hawaiian historical texts, as these texts are then used and perpetuated by later
sources. One example is Beckwith’s Hawaiian Mythology, which is a key reference text
for Hawaiian m o’olelo. In the chapter on “The Pele Myth,” Ellis, Kalakaua, and
Westervelt are the three key and named sources Beckwith draws from, charting the
names of the fire clan given in each (167-168). In the section titled the “Hi‘iaka Myth,”
Emerson is an important source Beckwith draws from in her synopsis of the m o‘olelo,
with additional references including Rice, Fomander, Green, Kalakaua, and Westervelt
(173-179). Kalakaua is the only named Kanaka Maoli source, important to note, as the
Kalakaua mo‘olelo for Pele do not reflect any of the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo published
in the nupepa.
Like Emerson, Westervelt is both a colonial agent and recognized authority on
Hawaiian traditions by a western audience. While Westervelt does not self-identify as a
“unifying Homer” as Emerson does, his authoritative tone presenting his interpretation of
characters like Kuwahailo are as damaging as Emerson, because he, too, reframes the
m o‘olelo, skewing the meaning of the mo‘olelo within a cultural context. That
Westervelt claims Kanaka Maoli did not understand who Kuwahailo was or what he
193
represented is preposterous and paternalistic, another way colonial voices silenced
natives.
The discussion of the manuscripts, nupepa, and books the Pele and H i‘iaka
m o‘olelo appeared in, as well as the writers and/or editors associated with their
publication provides a larger historical context of literary production and politics the
m o‘olelo were bom into. Examining the larger cultural and political context reveals the
complex interweaving of relationships between the different publications, writers, editors,
and even language.
The next two chapters focus on the first strand of the genealogical lei mo‘olelo no
Pele a me Hi‘iaka (literary interweaving of Pele and Hi‘iaka texts). The analysis of this
strand serves as an example within the larger body of Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo that
demonstrates a hulihia discourse, or overturning of western authority on the topic; what is
perhaps particularly ironic is that as Emerson draws most heavily from Kapihenui, it
makes this text the most corrupted by this imposition of western authority.
194
MOKUNA 5
LELE ANA ‘O KA‘ENA (KA‘ENA FLIES): ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF NA
MO‘OLELO HAWAFI (THE HAWAIIAN TEXTS)
Lele ana o Ka‘ena, K a‘ena flies

Mehe manu la i ka malie, Like a bird in the calm
Me he kaha na ka ua‘u la, Like an ua ‘u bird soaring
Na pali o Nenele‘a, At the cliffs ofNenele ‘a
Me he ‘upa‘i na ke Koa‘e la, Like the flapping o f the koa ‘e bird
Ka ‘ale i waho o Ka‘ie‘ie, And the billowing waves o f K a‘ie‘ie channel
Me he kanaka ho‘onu‘u la i ka malie, Like men piled up on the clouds in the calm
Na papakea i ke alo o ka ‘ala, The coral flats in the face o f dense rock
Ua kui a e ke kai, Pounded by the sea
A uli, a nono, a ‘ula, Until the dark becomes pink then blush red
Ka maka o Ka‘ala, In the face ofKa'ala
E nonoho ana i ke kai o Kapeku, All sitting together at the sea o f Kapeku
Kapeku ka leo o ke kai, The sea makes a splashing sound
‘O Ho‘oilo ka malama, Ho ‘oilo is the season
Ke ku maila ka pouli i kai, The darkness at sea is intensifying
Ka ho‘ailona kai o ka ‘aina, An ocean sign for the land
A e kai o Kahulumanu, The rising sea o f Kahulumanu
Kai a moana ka ‘aina, In the sea that turns the land into ocean
Ahuwale ka pae ki‘i, The row o f gods is exposed
Ka pae newenewe, Plump, bulging forms
Ka pae manu‘u a Kanaloa, The many forms o f Kanaloa
A he hoa a oia, Companions all
Ho‘ohaehae ana Kalaeokala‘au, Kalaeokala ‘au instigates the movement
I Kihae ia e ke kai o Wawalu, To be pushed by the sea o f Wawalu
Na o waewae pali o Unulau, To the grooved cliffs o f Unulau
Inu i ka wai o Koheiki i ka pali, I drink the dripping water in the cliff o f
Koheiki
I ka pali ka wai, In the cliffed walls is the water
Kau pu me ka la‘au, Found also upon the trees
Ho‘ole ke kupa huna i ka wai, The native denies it and hides the water
‘Eha ka muliwai, wai o Ka‘ena, Ka'ena has four water sources
‘Ena ihola e ka la o ka Makali‘i, Abundant during the days o f MakalVi
‘Oi‘o mai ana ke ‘a me he kanaka koa la, Like an army o f warriors is this large
procession
M a‘alo ana i ku‘u maka, Marching right before my face
Me he huaka‘i la o ia kalana pali, Like a procession o f this cliffed land itself
Kuamo‘oloa, pali o Leihonua, Long is the cliffed ridge o f Leihonua
Hiki iho nei no ka hau‘oli, Happiness has just made itself known
I ka hiki ‘ana mai a nei makani, Upon the arrival o f this wind
195
He aha la ka‘u makana i ku‘u hilahila, What indeed is my gift in return in my shame
‘O ka‘u wai ihola no ia, This is all I have to offer
‘O ka leo e. My voice.
(Kanahele 2001, 27-29)
This chapter focuses on the first strand of the Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo
m o‘oku‘auhau outlined in Mokuna 1, namely, Kapihenui 1861, Pa‘aluhi and Bush 1893.
For comparative purposes, I include the undated BPBMA Henriques-Peabody manuscript
fHI.L.23, and make reference to later texts. I begin with Kapihenui, the hiapo text
because it is the first comprehensive Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo published. In this chapter
I trace the development of the genealogical strand, and explore specific literary elements
and devices within each text. I reiterate here the four important points I identify as
relevant to the development of this literature:
1. First, as the earliest text, Kapihenui’s relied more on oral tradition because it
was closer to it as a transitional (oral to written) text;
2. Second, as Hawaiians became more ma‘a at understanding the nuances of
written literature, their literary productions flourished, embracing and adapting the
western style;
3. Third, despite being more “westernized,” as were other elements of Hawaiian
culture of that time, Kanaka Maoli texts adapted, incorporated, and merged oral and
written elements; their authors infused western-influenced literary traditions with
Hawaiian poetic devices bom in the oral traditions and considered important markers of
good poetic expression;
196
4. Fourth, at the political level, this literature resisted western colonialism during
the time the m o‘olelo were being published, as well as asserted Hawaiian cultural
identity, pride, and expression of Hawaiian creativity. As such, this literature
demonstrated a deft interweaving of the old and new, the oral and written, the native and
western, and created a new, dynamic lei m o‘olelo that was the most appropriate vehicle
to carry Kanaka cultural thought, belief, and practice forward.
Here, let us “Lele ana mehe manu la i ka malie/Me he kana na ka ua‘u la,” or soar
like a bird in the calm, gliding like an ua‘u bird over the resolute sea cliffs of Ka‘ena
extending out into the sky-reflecting sea.
From U nauthored Folklore to A uthored L iterature : J. N. Kapihenui
In Memory in Oral Tradition (1995), psychologist David Rubin follows the
tradition of folklorists Milman Parry and Albert Lord, examining oral tradition as “human
behavior, not reified texts” (9). He writes,
Oral traditions depend on human memory for their preservation. If a tradition is to
survive, it must be stored in one person’s memory and be passed to another
person who is also capable of storing and retelling it. All this must occur over
many generations . . . the processes at work are not those of a single creative mind
trying to be novel, but of many minds trying to be conservative. (9-10)
The transformation of Hawaiian literature from oral traditions transcended a
single person or a single generation. This demonstrates how culture is never stagnant and
197
is continually shaped by outside influences. These influences are evident even in our
older oral traditions, as Kanaka Maoli adapted and incorporated new religious and social
practices over time, oli detailing Pele’s migration from Kahiki and establishment of an
akua over previous gods being just one example (see Ho’omanawanui 1997).1
Cultural adaptation is also applicable to the literary period of the nineteenth
century in Hawai’i, as the act of writing in itself was initially a foreign concept. Once
introduced, however, it was enthusiastically embraced by the native population, as
Kanaka Maoli viewed this practice as a new avenue of expression for their own purpose.
Shortly thereafter, Kanaka Maoli mastered the art of writing and began adapting it to
their own style, writing about topics of interest and adapting literary devices that reflect
those of their oral traditions. As part of my thesis work, I compiled a chart I continue to
find useful comparing the similarities and differences between oral and written sources:
T a b l e 5 a . S im il a r it ie s a n d d if f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n o r a t u r e a n d l i t e r a t u r e
Orature Literature
• Performance-based • Text-based
• Performance text recorded in the • Text recorded on paper, typically
collective memory of the people by an individual author
• Heavy use of songs, prayers, and • Songs, prayers, and chants printed,
chant (and in extension, music and but function is minimized (dance
dance) excluded)
• Direct interaction between audience • Limited or non-existent interaction
and performers between author and audience
• Text interpreted by the performer • Text interpreted by the reader
• Strong use of repetitive phrases and • Repetition and formulaic language
formulaic language discouraged; viewed as “boring” or
redundant
llAila‘au is a local volcano god who is displaced by Pele upon her arrival to Hawai‘i from Kahiki (Rice
1923, 10; Westervelt 1991, 1-3; Chariot 1998, 57).
198
• [Performative elements important • [Performative elements minimized

part of textual interpretation] or non-existent]
• ambiguity and word play • ambiguity, particularly when
emphasized in performance aspect diacritical marks are employed, is
of poetry lessened; emphasis on clarity
through single (rather than
multiple) meaning
Three of the elements listed above are also identified by Elbert and Mahoe (1970) as
important to the construction of Hawaiian mele, another form of literature (poetry) with
oral roots. These are: 1. an emphasis on repetition; 2. catalogues of images, place names
(wahi pana), and acts; 3. ambiguity, vagueness, and veiled or double meanings (kaona) as
being derived from the structure of ‘olelo Hawai‘i (10). Furthermore, while the mele, in
a western sense, lacked rhyme, it was replaced with a higher concentration of homonyms
and wordplay:
Sixty percent of 3,347 successive sounds are vowels, 26.5 percent are a and a, and
42 percent are a, i and k. Thus there is not only a small inventory, but also a
rather strong concentration in three of the eighteen possible sounds . . . a result of
such a small selection of sounds is an abundance of homonyms and near
homonyms, but instead of utilizing the latter for rhyme, they are enjoyed in puns
and word play. (11)
Not surprisingly, puns and wordplay are found within the pages of Pele and Hi‘iaka
m o‘olelo. A simple example is found in the opening pages of Kapihenui. When Pele lies
down to sleep, she “wraps her body in a cloak [‘ahu] made of kapa cloth, at the place
199
called Kapa'ahu, and slept at Pu‘upahoehoe [Hill of Smooth Lava].”2 The primary word
play is with the place name Kapa‘ahu, which appears to take its name, through
Kapihenui’s description, from the ‘ahu of kapa Pele wraps herself in to sleep.
Oral traditions were more dependent upon the performance aspect of the “text,”
which was, more often than not, memorized by the storyteller or singer, existing only in
the minds of the storytellers mind; in Hawaiian culture, it was not uncommon for oli,
particularly those related to mo‘oku‘auhau such as Kumulipo to be memorized by a hui
(collective) (Kamakau 1992, 241). Early Kanaka Maoli texts like Kapihenui’s are oral-
derived texts that demonstrate their transitional status in the space or time period between
orature (pre-nineteenth century) and literature (later nineteenth century) because they
were written in a style more reflective of performance-based orature than mo‘olelo
composed on the page. One mark of this transitional status continues, to some extent,
with the interaction between the performers and audience. This occurs because while the
texts were now recorded on paper by individual authors, these authors often wrote to the
newspapers to ask their readers (who represented the collective memory of the
population) to respond to their stories—to make comments, additions, or even refute their
presentations (see Chariot 1998; Nogelmeier 2003; Silva 2004b).
An early respondent who was critical of the shortening (and misrepresentation) of
Hawaiian mo‘olelo being published in na nupepa was 0 ‘ahu school teacher J. H.
Kanepu‘u. In an open letter to “Ka poe kakau moolelo, a kaao paha” (“The people
2 Owili o Pele i kona kino a paa i ka ahu kapa, ia Kapaahu, moe o Pele ma Puupahoehoe (December 26,
1861).
200
writing stories and perhaps [also] fiction”), Kanepu‘u laments the shortening of the
published Hawaiian mo‘olelo in na nupepa.
I have a small request of the people writing stories like “Lonoapaoa” and
“Kawelo,” “Keanini‘ula,” “Hi‘iakaikapoliopele,” “Keamalu,” “La‘ieikawai,” and
so forth, [as there are] other stories too that have not yet appeared in Ka Hoku [o
ka] Pakipika. It is my desire [that the stories be] written with all of [the writer’s]
knowledge and that nothing of his knowledge [or details of the story be] left out,
and that the editors of Ka Hoku [oka] Pakipika actually publish everything [of]
each [story] without interruption. I know that the story of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele has
been edited [broken, fragmented], her songs regarding the hula have been cut
short, and [because of this] how indeed will our generations come [na hanauna
hope o kakou] to know [nana] what remains [i.e., what has been left out of the
published version of the mo‘olelo]? They will want to know, [and] it won’t be
there, because we [kakou] are causing it to disappear. . . My paper was sent to M.
J. Kapihenui, for the completion or not of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele, [but] the mo‘olelo
is still incomplete, (see Appendix 5A for Hawaiian text)
Sometimes mea kakau wrote to the nupepa or rival papers themselves. In
February 1865, six months after the publication of his Pele and Hi'iaka m o‘olelo ceased,
Kapihenui wrote to rival nupepa Ka Nupepa Ku ‘oko ‘a to complain, in part, about several
important chants which were left out of his mo‘olelo. He wrote:
201
E Ka Nupepa K u‘oko‘a, greetings to you:
I am a bit perplexed regarding the [publication of the] Pele story. I am not
confused regarding episodes one through five. It is with the publishing of the sixth
installment that I am confused, because of the prayer for Pele. Here it is:
“A Prayer for Pele”
1. Hulihia Kukalani, 2. Hulihia Kllauea, 2. Hulihia ke au nee i lalo ia Kea.
Of these three chants, I strongly disagree that these are prayers for Pele. They are
chants for Kahuaka‘iapaoa, because of the second death of his beloved
companion, Lohi‘au, the sweet-voiced chanter of Kaua‘i. There are many of
these chants of Kahuaka‘iapaoa, eight in all. These chants do not refer to the Pele
story. These chants are related (belong) to the story of H i‘iaka; please, editor of
Kuokoa, republish these stories, because the Pakipika is lazy in their publishing.
Regarding the shortening of the very long chants, it isn’t the same as the copy
[i.e., manuscript provided to them]. That is the way one understands my story that
was left [there].3 (See Appendix 5D for Hawaiian text)
The mo‘oku‘auhau of the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, as presented in Mokuna 1
(figure 1A), shows that the Kapihenui version had the greatest impact on the subsequent
publications by Pa‘aluhi and Bush (1893) and Emerson (1915). Before examining the
relationship among these three texts, I would first like to explore Kapihenui because in
3 As far as we know today, Ka Nupepa K u'oko'a’s editors never did reprint the hulihia chants in their
entirety, or republish Kapihenui’s Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo. Chariot (1998) also discusses Kapihenui’s
dissatisfaction with the shortening of his chants (62).
202
analyzing his text, some key questions emerge: what does it mean to have the first Pele
m o‘olelo, passed down for generations in an oral form, “translated” to print? What does
it mean to take an oral tradition to writing? And in doing so, how does it weigh in as a
piece of literature?
As the hiapo text of this literary mo‘oku‘auhau, Kapihenui’s mo‘olelo is an
important and foundational piece of early Hawaiian literature. Adapted from oral
tradition and practice going back generations prior, Kapihenui’s version has been
criticized by Chariot (1998) as “less desirable” than later versions because of its
“mechanical” style. Chariot writes, “Kapihenui is exceptional among published Hawaiian
authors in being a poor writer. For instance, series were conventionally constructed of
similar parts, but Kapihenui does this so mechanically that the frameworks of those
individual parts are almost literally the same, resembling fill-in-the-blanks forms” (62).
However, what Chariot views as “mechanical” can be alternatively recognized as
formulaic repetition, a highly desirable quality in oral storytelling, a stylistic element
linking the mo‘olelo to its oral roots (see Ong 1981; Rubin 1995).
Early or transitional writers like Kapihenui accomplished a more performance-
based style ma ka palapala through the use of oral devices such as repetition and oli.
Here I’d like to examine the different ways in which linguistic repetition was employed
in the text; oli will be discussed in the next section of this chapter.
Kapihenui’s Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo relies upon and closely followed the
“rules” of orature by using oral devices that over time become more adept to print. They
are different from oral tradition because they are no longer oral; they are also different
203
from literature, because they did not follow all the “rules” of literature or participate more
fully in a system of literary production. In his work on traditional oral epics in Europe,
John Miles Foley (1995) identifies these transitional texts as “oral-derived texts” which
he defines as “the manuscript or tablet works of finally uncertain provenance that
nonetheless show oral traditional characteristics” (5). I am not satisfied with Foley’s
term as it references “uncertain” works; the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, on the other hand,
are not anonymous texts of uncertain origin, but I do see them as transitional literary
texts, too, because they are shepherded from the oral to the written by their
authors/editors with a specific purpose, the education (and entertainment) of the larger
lahui in print. Table 5B on the following page illustrates the move from oral traditions to
written literature as demonstrated by the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo.
An example of pronounced use of repetition in Kapihenui’s text is what folklorists
refer to as formulaic language. Formulaic language is “a group of words which is
regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea”
(Foley, 2). Thus, formulaic language was commonly used in oral tradition, and early epic
narratives, such as Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, and Beowulf. The transitional Hawaiian
texts utilized repetition in the text to a much higher degree than m o‘olelo created in the
literary tradition. For instance, Kapihenui relies on repetitive phrasing to introduce the oli
in his text. Utilizing a standard phrase, “ua oli ‘o ia penei” (she chanted thus), Kapihenui
provides a few variations, such as “ua oli mai ‘o ia penei” (she chanted forth this way) or
“ua oli hou ‘o ia penei” (she chanted anew this way).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T a b l e 5 b . T r a n s it io n a l H a w a iia n language L it e r a t u r e T e x t s as Il l u st r a t e d b y the P ele and H i ‘ia k a m o ‘o l e l o
Pre-contact period
-► Development of literature in 19 century- "►2001century written texts
forward
Spoken ‘51eloHawai‘i- -► written Hawaiian language ^ Hawaiian and English

Written & performed texts
Only oral traditions -► Written literature

No “author” Hawaiian language Pele and Hi'iaka mo‘olelo developed during this period, 1861-1928 Authored texts
i
Early transitional texts closer to oral traditions
I
Established literary texts
Repetition/formulaic language Employ more western devices
More performative/interactive More exposition, less repetition
Performance minimized
1861 1883 1893 1899 1905-1906 1908 1908 1915 1923 1924-1928
Kapihenui Kaili Pa'aluhi & Manu Ho'ouluma Poepoe Rice Emerson Rice Desha
Bush hiehie
to
O
-P -
205
Three standard lines with variations are used over 40 times throughout the text,
comprising introductory lines for nearly half the oli in the text.4 These formulaic lines
have a mnemonic function, which helps the teller recall the mo‘olelo; and the frequent
repetition helps the audience to remember and understand the m o‘olelo better. In
addition, as a point of artistry, what is boring in one culture is not boring in another; the
repetitive nature of expression creates its own rhythm and beat, and it is part of Hawaiian
verbal artistry, because as Elbert and Mahoe argue, the high concentration of vowel
sounds lend to a more melodic nature of the language in general.
Other standardized or formulaic phrases occur with less frequency, but are
utilized for specific purposes, or in specific action sequences such as in kilu.5 For
example, in the kilu scene, the phrase ‘“ A ‘ohe he pa, ua hala” or a variation occurs only
seven times. But it is used exclusively for the kilu scene (which makes sense, as “‘A ‘ohe
pa” means “there was no strike” [of the kilu]) (Kapihenui, KHP, April 3-10, 1862).
Similarly, the phrase “H o‘opuka mai ‘o [Hi‘iaka/Lohi‘au] i kana mele penei”
([Hi‘iaka/Lohi‘au] brought forth her/his song, like this) is also used only in the kilu
segment of the mo‘olelo. It occurs nine times, interactive and rotating with “‘A ‘ohe pa.”
Again, this makes sense as in the game of kilu, players take turns casting it, and if a strike
occurred, the round ended. Thus, the repetitive use of formulized speech assists in
4 Examples include the phrases “Oli no keia penei” (She chanted like this) (54 times); “Hapai ae o Hiiaka i
keia mele penei” (Hi‘iaka carried this song like this) (43 times); “Kani aku ke oli a ia nei penei” (Her chant
rang out like this) (41 times).
5kilu is a game in which the “player chanted as he tossed the kilu towards an object placed in front of one of
the opposite sex; if he hit the goal he claimed a kiss; to play this game” (PED 152).
206
building up to a climax on paper in a way which replicates the excitement of the actual
“performance” of the game.
Likewise, the phrases “Ho‘ole no laua nei ma ke mele penei” (“The two of them
disagreed [with H i‘iaka] in a song, like this”) and “‘Hiki hou aku ana no keia i ua m a‘i o
‘Olepau” (“she [Hi‘iaka] struck ‘Olepau again with an illness”) are used interchangeably,
as Hi‘iaka and Waihlnano, the wife of Maui chief ‘Olepau, battle over his life. “Ho‘ole”
appears eight times, and ‘“Iliki” four times, the other four introductory phrases being
Hi‘iaka’s chant sequence which is interspersed between the two phrases above.
In addition, while different characters offer different kinds of pule in different
scenes and for different occasions throughout the mo‘olelo, only Lohi‘au’s prayers to
Pele at the crater asking her to spare his life are introduced with variations of the repeated
phrase, “Pule no o Lohiau ma ke mele penei” (“Lohi‘au prayed in a song like this”); this
phrase appears five times (Kapihenui, KHP, May 15, 1862).
Finally, two formulaic phrases are used when Hi‘iaka and her companions are
traveling across the pae‘aina and where they are either calling out to people, or being
greeted by them. The first, “Kahea mai keia ma ke mele penei” (“This one [Hi‘iaka]
called out in a song, like this”) is used twelve times on occasions when Hi‘iaka is
greeting characters such as Mo‘olau, Kawelo, or Punaho‘olapa; Hauwahine also uses this
phrase to greet Hi‘iaka as she (Hi‘iaka) and her companions travel through Kawainui,
Kailua, 0 ‘ahu, where Hauwahine lives (Kapihenui, KHP, February 6, 1862). In some
occasions, when genuine hospitality or aloha is offered, the character is spared
207
(Hauwahine). Other times, when Hi‘iaka is challenged, the opponent is destroyed
(Mo‘olau).
In cases where there is deep fondness demonstrating a closer pilina between the
chanter—typically Hi‘iaka—and the recipient of the chant, the phrase used is ‘“Ue aku
keia ma ke mele penei” (“This one [Hi‘iaka] sobbed [with happiness or heart-felt
affection], demonstrating her affection in a song like this”). This phrase is used twelve
times throughout the text, such as when Hi‘iaka greets her relatives Makapu‘u and Malei
on 0 ‘ahu, and when she parts company with the hospitable taro farmer of Kailua,
Kanahau. It is also used by the spirit of Lohi‘au, who calls out to Hi‘iaka when she
arrives on Kaua‘i to retrieve him (Kapihenui, KHP, February 20, 1862). Similarly, the
action continues after each oli with the phrase “a pau keia oli ‘ana a ia nei” (and when
this chant of hers was finished), again, with only minor variation similar to the first
example.
Formulaic and repetitive language is important in oral traditions, as the audience
of the past did not have the luxury of re-reading unclear passages, or otherwise reviewing
text. Formulaic language introducing or concluding oli and mele in relation to hula
performances is still used today, such as when the ‘olapa are brought on stage for a
performance. Hula protocol requires a ka‘i, an entrance chant, which is often one of
several well-known oli reserved for such a purpose. The ka‘i is followed by the featured
hula or set of hula. The main performance itself may end with a standardized formulaic
phrase such as “He inoa no—” (In the name of [individual]). At this time a ho‘i or exit
chant is performed. As with early Greek drama, the audience is familiar with what to
208
expect because of—not in spite of—the repetition. While performance can differ from
‘olapa to ‘olapa, halau to halau or performance to performance, it isn’t because of
individual changes to the formula of the chants, but in subtle changes of voice inflection,
body movement, facial expression, or costuming.
There are hundreds of hula texts catalogued in the Bishop Museum Archives Mele
Index related to the Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo. Many end with the formulaic line, “He
inoa no H i‘iakaikapoliopele” ([Performed] in the name of [or dedicated to the goddess of
hula] H i’iakaikapoliopele). This tag line is not usually included in the Pele and Hi‘iaka
m o‘olelo published in na nupepa, indicating a transition of oli or mele from performance
to literary text.
Aside from individual phrases, repetition is also prevalent within the structure of
the paragraph. One example is in the passage relating the death of Lohi‘au:
After Lohi‘au died and a few days passed, his sister came and opened the door of
the house and entered inside and saw what had happened: her brother was dead.
His sister wailed. The people outside heard her wailing and they came to see for
themselves if Lohi‘au was truly dead. When they saw that he was dead they all
wailed over him because of their great love for him, the hula teacher [Mapuana],
the companion who loved him [Paoa], great indeed was their love for Lohi‘au.
The best friend in particular was the one who loved him the most and was most
affected by LohPau’s death. Paoa let go of any sense of shame and stripped
himself of his malo, and Paoa vowed not to put on a malo until he saw Pele face
209
to face and promised not to forsake his oath to eat the eyeball of Pele; that is what
he swore to do.6
This passage clearly illustrates the oral device of repetition, and I underlined the words
which demonstrate the four main points which are repeated throughout the paragraph.
The repetition emphasizes the points being made, namely: 1. Lohi‘au died. 2. Everyone
grieved his death. 3. They grieved because they loved him so much, especially his best
friend, Paoa. 4. Paoa swore revenge, and would not rest until he got it. While it seems
redundant to read the same idea over and over on paper, this is an important oral device
in performance art, as the ear of the audience is not as concentrated as the eye of the
reader because the audience is taking in the sight of the performance—the color of the
costumes, the movement of the dance—as well as the sound of the words and the music,
as well as the smell of the lei. Thus the phrasing, like the dance movements, are
repeatedly emphasized to make the points unnecessary in print, as the reader is not
distracted by color, sound, movement, texture (or the three dimensional aspect of
performance) thus enabling the reader to move through the action of the m o‘olelo more
quickly.
6 la make ana o Lohiau, a hala he mau la, hele maila ke kaikuahine o ia nei, i wehe mai ka hana i ka puka o
ka hale a komo akula. I nana aku ka hana, ua make ke kaikunane ue aela ke kaikuahine. Lohe aela na
makaainana i ka ue; hele maila lakou ua make io o Lohiau, ue nui loa ae a lakou no ka nui o ke aloha, ke
kumu hula, ke aikane aloha aia nei; nui loa ko lakou aloha ia Lohiau, o ke aikane nae ka mea oi loa o ke
aloha, i ko Lohiau make ana. Hookuu o Kahuakaiapaoa i kona wahi hilahila: aole malo. Me ka hoohiki iho
o Kahuakaiapaoa; “Aole au e hume i ka malo, a hia i ka maka o Pele, kuu wahi, hakina kalo auanei, a ai i
ka onohi o Pele;” pela ka hoohiki ana (July 10, 1862).
210
Another example of this kind of repetition is found at the end of Kapihenui’s
m o‘olelo, when Paoa arrives at the crater to grieve for Lohi'au. Here, a series of chants
and discussions reference Puna, referring both to the important chiefly district on the
eastern side of Kaua‘i where Lohi‘au and Paoa are from, and Puna, Hawai‘i, home of
Pele. In some cases, it may also imply Paoa’s close relationship with Lohi‘au as more
than just “friends,” as puna, meaning “spring (of water)” is a figurative expression for
spouse or lover.
Upon arrival at the crater, Paoa is shocked to see Lohi‘au’s physical body
entombed in lava. He stands at Lohi‘au’s head and weeps. He begins a series of eight
chants in which he grieves for his beloved friend. The first chant begins with the line,
“‘O Kohala makani ‘Apa‘apa‘a e pa nei” (July 17, 1862). This chant names various
places on Hawai‘i island starting with Kohala, naming the wind (‘Apa‘apa‘a), heiau
(Mo'okini), and the twin hills Pili and Kalahikiola. It then names the rain of Waimea
(Klpu‘upu‘u), the mountains belonging to Ka‘u, concluding with a reference to Puna,
‘“ Ike wale ‘oe e ka uahi lehua/‘0 Puna la, ‘ike wale ‘oe” (You are easily known by the
gray smoke / Puna there, you are easily known).
Pele chastises Paoa, telling him “that’s what Lohi‘au gets for not listening.”7
This time, Paoa chants, “Ma Puna kahuli mai ana ka ua makali‘i noe” (At Puna the fine
mist turns over). Pele calls to him again, repeating her warning. Again, Paoa does not
7 “Hanaloa, aole hoi e iho mai e hooko ia hoi ko olelo i hoohiki ai a noa iau. A o ko wahi kalo hoi a inai ae
i kuu onohi” (July 10, 1862).
211
listen. He begins chanting the first of six hulihia chants, “Hulihia ktike‘eilani, nei akula i
ka pili o Ho‘oilo.”
Pele repeats herself. Paoa chants “Hulihia ke au ka papa honua o kona moku.”
This chant, the author explains, reveals “the nature of this chant of his is known.”8 Here,
Paoa reveals that he wants to die with Lohi‘au. While Paoa is still grieving, Pele calls to
Nonomakua (also known as Lonomakua) to light the fires. Paoa chants “Hulihia Kllauea
po i ka uahi” (Kllauea is overturned, darkened by smoke), a chant detailing Pele’s arrival
from Kahiki. Within this chant there are five direct references to Puna, concluding with
the line, “A o ko Puna kuahiwi no ke ahi” (The fire belongs to Puna’s mountain). When
Paoa is pau chanting, he sees the fires of Pele and Nonomakua climbing up to bum him,
while the crater becomes dark with smoke. Because of this, Paoa chants “Hulihia ka
mauna wela i ke ahi” (The mountain is overturned, scorched by the fire). In this hulihia,
there are five references to Puna. This chant concludes with the lines, “Kahuli Kllauea me
he ama la / Kunia Puna, m o‘a Puna e / Mo‘a Puna” (Kllauea is overturned as if it were a
canoe outrigger / Puna is burned, Puna is indeed burned / Puna is cooked):
When this chant was finished, Paoa bent down and kissed (honi) Lohi‘au on his
nose, stood up, and cried. When this crying of his was finished, a chant rang out
which demonstrated the love for the land of his birth which had been abandoned
by his friend, in which he expressed his love for the Puna “fragrant in the walls of
8 “O ke ano o keia [mele] a ia nei, ua ike no keia” (July 10, 1862).
212
hala” of their homeland. For his friend he loved, love for everything of the land,
as if all the love was assembled into one place.9
At this point Paoa chants “Hulihia ke au pe‘e i lalo, nei nakolo i ka honua.” There
are several references to Puna in this chant as well, which concludes with the lines,
“Haohia ke ‘a i kai o Puna e / No Puna au, no ka ‘aina aloha” (The fire burns with great
force to the sea of Puna / 1 am from Puna, the beloved land).” I quote the passage:
When this chant of Kahuaka‘iapaoa was finished, he wept for his friend [Lohi‘au]
with words of love for him, “Puna is beloved indeed, the land of fragrance, the
land where sweet fragrance dwells, the two of us will stay in our Puna, we two
will see Hula‘ia [river], we two will see the troubled (lumaluma‘i) waters of our
land, we two will see our surf Kalehuawehe.” He turned his face and looked
inland, at the lehua blossoms of Kawaikini, the lehua blossoms of W ai‘ale‘ale, at
the hala nibbled at with the teeth, the hala eaten by the klna‘u eel. The cold is
calm in the uplands, crushed down is the hau blossoms, and the ko'olau blossoms,
crushed down by the water bubbling down to the sea at Wailua. Greetings to the
two swirling waters of our land there at Makaweli.” While Kahuaka‘iapaoa was
speaking like that, Pele replied, “You should give your love to Puna. You are in
Puna and know the fragrance, and know the scent of this Puna here; love to
Puna.” At these words of Pele, Hi‘iakaikapoliopele spoke. “Your land is indeed
9 A pau no ia mele a ia nei, kulou ihola no keia honi i ka ihu o ke aikane, ku no keia ue. A pau aela no ka
ue ana a ia nei kani no ke oli a ia nei, no ka hu ana mai o ke aloha i ka aina hanau i ka waiho ae o ke aikane,
aloha ae keia i ko laua nei Puna i ka paia a ala i ka hala. No ke aikane ke aloha, aloha mai na mea a pau o
ka aina. me he mea la i ulua mai a akoakoa ke aloha i kahi hookahi; oli no keia, penei. (July 10, 1862)
213
Puna, but it is not the Puna of their land, perhaps your Puna is stormy (‘ino)
because of you, their Puna is good/beautiful, Puna in the fragrant walls of hala,
perhaps it is of their Puna [on Kaua‘i] that these words are said, it is not said on
behalf of your stormy land [Puna, Hawai‘i].”10
At this point, Paoa chants the last hulihia chant concluding the mo‘olelo, “Hulihia ke au
ne‘e i lalo i Akea.” This example, which incorporates eight chants, six of which are
signature chants specifically associated with the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, is most
illustrative of how the repetition of words, phrases, images and sound (assonance)
emphasizes the emotional and performative aspect of the mo‘olelo.
Other ways Kapihenui’s text demonstrates its closeness to the oral tradition rather
than the literary form is that unlike Emerson or several of the later Hawaiian texts (like
Ho‘oulumahiehie and Poepoe), it does not use section titles, titles or captions for chants,
and does not number chant lines. Thus while these later versions appear to utilize
western methods of organizing the literature, Kapihenui’s only breaks in the mo‘olelo are
when it is necessary to end a segment with “V ole i pau” at the end of the allotted space
in each issue, with no additional breaks or subtitles.
10 A pau keia mele a Kahuakaiapaoa, ue no keia i ke aikane me ka olelo hooalohaloha iho i ke aikane, “He
aloha ka hoi paha Puna, ka aina a ke ala, ka aina a ke onaona i noho ai, e noho kaua i ko kaua Puna, nana ae
kaua o Hula ia, nana ae kaua o ka wai lumalumai o ko kaua aina. nana ae kaua o ka nalu o kaua o
Kalehuawehe.” Huli aku ke alo nana i uka, o na lehua o Kawaikini, o na lehua o Waialeale, o na hala aki i
ka niho, o na hala ai a ke Kinau. “Hoolulu ke hau i uka, a lulumi iho a ka pua hau, a ka pua koolau, lumia
iho e ka wai a puaina aku i kai o Wailua. Aloha no ka wai awiliwili lua o ko kaua aina la o Makaweli.” Ia
Kahuakaiapaoa e olelo ana pela, pane mai o Pele. “Pono no ke aloha ana ia Puna. Ua noho ka ia Puna, a
ike i ke ala, a ike i ke onaona o Puna nei; e aloha ai ia Puna.” Ma ia olelo a Pele, pane mai o
Hiiakaikapoliopele. “O kou aina wale nei no la hoi ka Puna, aole he Puna o ko lakou la aina, he Puna ino
paha kou, he Puna maikai ko lakou la, he Puna paia a ala i ka hala. no ko lakou la Puna no paha kaiala olelo
ana, aole paha no kou aina ino” (July 10, 1862).
214
P erformance and Oral T radition
In comparing the different versions of the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo,
Kapihenui’s version has been criticized as not being the “best” example of Hawaiian
literature. Later mo‘olelo such as Ho‘oulumahiehie’s are more fully developed as
literature, utilizing more western literary conventions as exposition, flashbacks and
author asides than Kapihenui (see Chariot 1998 and Nogelmeier 2007). Yet when
compared to later versions of the mo‘olelo, Kapihenui’s Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo is
important because it retains a close relationship to the oral telling of the m o‘olelo, and
thus simultaneously mimics and highlights the performance aspect/performative nature so
important within the m o‘olelo itself. As a part of the newly emerging literature,
Kapihenui’s Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo mimics—on paper—the devices and strategies
employed in oral storytelling traditions more closely than those used in palapala-based
literary ones.
Like the much later twentieth-century stage and film performances of Halau o
Kekuhi’s Holo Mai Pele, the performance of hula and chant hold a key role in the action
of Kapihenui’s plot, superseding other aspects of more developed written literature such
as character development and internal conflict/dialogue. One way this happens is that the
prose exposition between episodes of the mo‘olelo is minimal. Rather than provide the
reading audience with lengthy paragraphs of exposition between hula or chant
“performances,” the bulk of Kapihenui’s text is mele, either performed as hula, or
chanted as oli. An example is when Hi‘iaka, Wahine‘oma‘o, and Pa‘uopala‘e are trying
215
to cross the bridge at the Wailuku river in Hilo enroute to Kaua‘i. Kapihenui’s text is the
only one to provide an extensive scene here. The bridge is “guarded” by two mo‘o
relatives of Hi‘iaka, in this version, Piliamo‘o and Nohoamo‘o.n They demand
“payment” of all who want to use the bridge to cross the deep and dangerous river. In
this section of the m o‘olelo, H i‘iaka chants a series of Kahulihuli chants seeking
permission to cross the bridge without paying a toll. Each time, the m o‘o refuse, she
chants again, asking for something different.
The eyes of the people—the men, the women, and the children—watched
Hi‘iakaikapoliopele, a beautiful woman of whom there was no other beautiful
woman like her in all of Hawai‘i. They [Hi‘iaka ma] approached the crowd of
people assembled there. [At that time,] travelers on the road [there] were required
to pay a toll to continue on their way. Food, fish, kapa, malo, sugar cane, salt, and
this and that miscellaneous thing—that was the price of passage across the bridge.
Thereafter, they could go along on the path (i.e., on the rickety bridge of
Wailuku).
Hi‘iakaikapoliopele called out to the chiefs of the road [Piliamo‘o and
Nohoamo‘o], in a chant, like this:
Kahulihuli e! Unstable indeed
Ka papa o Wailuku, The bridge of Wailuku
Kahuli ‘o ‘Apua, ‘Apua is overturned
Ha‘a mai ‘o M a‘ukele, Ma‘ukele is humbled
11 In other texts, Nohoamo‘o is replaced by Kuaua (Poepoe, KHR, January 8, 1908).
216
He ‘ole Kekaha, Kekaha is lacking
Ku‘ai ‘ai e, Bargaining for food
Homai ka ‘ai, Give food
Homai ho‘i ka ‘ai e, Give food indeed
I ‘aina12 aku ho‘i e. So I may eat.
When she was finished chanting, the two mo‘o replied, “Hah! We won’t give you
anything, you are supposed to give us something! Therefore, if you travel on our
road, we will not help you.”
Therefore, H i‘iaka made another request, this time for fish, in a chant like this:
Kahulihuli e, Unstable indeed
Ku‘ai i ‘a e, The price is fish
Homai ka i ‘a a, Grant me fish
Homai ana ho‘i ka i ‘a, Grant me fish indeed
I ‘aina aku ho‘i e. So I may eat.
When this chant of hers was finished, the two of them again denied her request,
just as they had done before. She made another request in a song, like this:
12 'aina is “meal; rejected, as refuse, esp. sugar cane” while ‘a'ina is “crackling, snapping, an explosive
sound (as a bridge being overturned)” (PED 11).
217
Ku‘ai pa‘akai e, The price is sea salt
Homai ana ho‘i ka pa‘akai, Grant me sea salt
I ‘aina aku ho‘i e. So I may eat.
The two of them denied her request just as they had done above. Then, they said
wickedly, “The pathway will not be had by you! You are supposed to pay the two
of us! Then you can travel on our road.” Therefore, she made another request in a
chant, like this:
He ‘ole Kekaha ku‘ai ko, Kekaha is lacking, bartering for
sugar
Ku‘ai ko e, The price is sugar
Homai ke ko, Grant me sugar
I ‘aina a‘e ho‘i e. So I may eat.
Because the two of them once again denied her request, she asked again in a
chant, like this:
Ku‘ai kapa e, The price is kapa cloth
218
Homai ke kapa, Grant me kapa
I ‘a‘ahu ‘ia aku ho‘i e. So I may be clothed.
The two of them denied her request just as they did before. She again made a
request in a chant, like this:
Ku‘ai wai e, The price is fresh water
Homai ho‘i ka wai, Grant me fresh water
Homai ho‘i ka wai e, Grant me fresh water indeed
I inu ‘ia aku ho‘i e. So I may drink.
When this chant of hers was finished, Hi‘iakaikapoliopele said to the people there,
“Look at their price they charge the people traveling to and fro on the road.” One
of them replied, “Hah! If perhaps you ask them and they are human, they will
give it. But they will deny the request if they are akua, they will not heed you.”13
(see Appendix 5B for Hawaiian text)
The “mechanical” nature of the m o‘olelo Chariot refers to centers on the
formulaic nature of the prose paragraphs, which function as transitional links connecting
one oli to the next in a way similar to how a lei is constructed: the pua (blossoms) are
strung together by a string or cord, which binds them together in a sequential way.
3January 23, 1862.
219
Likewise, the prose paragraphs function as a string or cord which link the oli together
I’ve described in other work as a kind of “lei mele” (garland of song) (see
H o‘omanawanui 2005, 33). In this particular segment of oli, the oli are structured in a
formulaic, repetitive manner as well. Each oli opens with the same set lines: “Kahulihuli
e / Ka papa o Wailuku.” The final three lines vary slightly, with the same basic idea
expressed, “Homai [mea (noun)] / Homai [mea] e / 1 [verb] aku ho‘i e (Grant me [noun] /
Grant me [noun] / So I may [verb related to noun]).” The middle line of this end section
heightens the expectation, reinforcing, through repetition, the first “homai (grant me)”
request, often including an addition “ho‘i (indeed)” stressing the original request. The
formulaic structure is similar to the organization of the Kumulipo, a Hawaiian
cosmogonic genealogy, in which individual items in birth order are inserted into the
formula (see Ho‘omanawanui 2005, 36-40). As the series of oli progress, the addition of
“ho‘i” builds tension in the scene, and anticipation in the audience, who sees the
destruction of the insolent m o‘o as not only inevitable, but justified.14
This exchange also exemplifies word play so important in oral tradition and
valued in Hawaiian poetics as ho‘opapa (a contest of wit or strength) (PED 316). In this
example, there is a particular relation to the wahi pana, or places named in the mo‘olelo.
In the series of chants, four places are mentioned: Wailuku, ‘Apua, Maukele, and
14 The building of tension in this series of oli is similar to “The Three Little Pigs,” in which the wolf warns
the pigs each time to “let me in” before he “huffs and puffs and blows the house in.” “Little pig, little pig
let me in / Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin / Then I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I ’ll blow your house in”
(Jacobs, 68-72). The formulaic language of the story, combined with the mounting tension as the first, then
the second pig loses his home leads to the climactic showdown at the brick home of the third pig,
reinforcing the lesson of the story.
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
220
Kekaha. The first, Wailuku, is the river on the edge of Hilo where this scene is located.
The name literally means “water of destruction,” probably because frequent flash floods
make it the largest river in the Hilo area and quite treacherous (Pukui, Elbert, and
Mookini, 225). It is one of two main rivers which opens into Hilo bay (Clark, 379). The
kaona, however, is the pending destruction of the mo‘o who do not recognize Hi‘iaka’s
mana as a goddess, and who are rude to her, offering no hospitality or concessions. As
the climax of the scene builds and the mo ‘o are ultimately destroyed, their demise seems
justified, foreshadowed by the continually referenced image of the unstable path over
Wailuku, the highly destructive waters.
The next two place names, ‘Apua and Maukele, are typically paired. They appear
in other parts of Kapihenui and are used formulaically as a kind of ‘olelo no‘eau, as
“Kahuli ‘o ‘Apua, ha‘a mai ‘o Maukele,” (‘Apua was overturned, Maukele is humbled)
(Kapihenui, KHP, December 26, 1861, March 6, 1862, and July 10, 1862). ‘Apua
literally means “fish basket” (.PED 29). It is a “land division and point in Puna; a village
in Puna area destroyed by tsunami, in 1868” (Pukui, Elbert, and Mookini, 13). ‘Apua
Point is listed as the boundary between the districts of Puna and Ka‘u (Clark, 15). ‘Apua
is also referenced in mele contained in the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. There are seven
mele found in different versions of the mo‘olelo which include ‘Apua as a place named
within the chant, including two hulihia chants, “Hulihia ka mauna, wela i ke ahi” and
“Hulihia Kllauea Po i ka Uahi.”15 The third significant chant is “‘O Pele la ko‘u Akua.”16
15 “Hulihia ka mauna” is found in Kapihenui, Rice, and Emerson; “Hulihia Kllauea” is found in Kapihenui
and Emerson.
221
Each of these is found in multiple versions of the mo‘olelo. More importantly perhaps in
this context is the meaning of ‘apua, to be “disloyal, disobedient, rebellious; such a
person” (PED 29). As the m o‘o were being disobedient and rebellious towards Hi‘iaka,
she is certain to be making reference to their behavior in this series of chants, again
foreshadowing their destruction as they refuse to comply.
Both Maukele and ‘Apua are listed as land areas in Waipi‘o, Hawai‘i, Maukele
being a “wet mountain area” and ‘Apua being a “land division” (Pukui, Elbert and
Mookini, 148, 13). Maukele is also a “place name in Puna” alternately known as
M a‘ukele, a generic name for a rainforest (PED 242).17 The pairing of the names does
not seem to be a coincidence, as both appear in the same two areas of the same island,
albeit on opposite sides of the island. Waipi‘o is one of the farthest points on the
northernmost side of the island along the Hamakua coast, while Puna-Ka‘u is farther
south, closest to the center of Pele’s domain at the volcano. Perhaps this is referencing a
sense of pono (balance), from “one end to the other” of the island.
The final place name, Kekaha, is equally intriguing. It is listed in several sources
as a “land area in North Kona” (Pukui, Elbert and Mookini, 106). John Papa ‘IT (1959)
describes it specifically as the area of North Kona “from Keahuolu to Pu‘u Anahulu
characterized by recent lava flows and little precipitation sometimes called ‘Kaha lands’”
16 The other four chants which are not as well known or found in multiple texts are “Po Puna i ka uahi kui
maka lehua” (Kapihenui, April 3, 1862), ‘“ O Puna aina lehua ula i ka papa” (Kapihenui, May 15, 1862),
“E kuu aikane i ke kai hee o Hoeu maloko” (Poepoe, July 31, 1908), and “Kua loloa Keaau i ka nahele
hala” (Emerson, 34). The “Kua Loloa” chant is not found in any of the other Hawaiian nupepa sources,
however, it is included in Kanahele (2001) who describes it as “an account of H i‘iaka’s battle with the
dragon lizard, Pana'ewa” (15). Line 9 states “Momoku ahi Puna hala i ‘Apua,” (All of Puna is charred
wood as far as ‘Apua), indicating great devastation (15).
17 Kanahele identifies Maukele (not M a‘ukele) as “a common name for a lush rainforest” (19 fn.25).
222
(109). An ‘olelo no‘eau collected by Pukui refers to this area as “ka ‘aina kaha” (the
kaha lands) which she says “refers to Kekaha, Kona, Hawai‘i” (271). Kamakau (1961)
notes that Kamehameha had land here, although it was most known as “the land of
Kekaha was held by the kahuna class of Ka-uahi and Nahulu” (118, 231). The meaning
of Kekaha is literally “The Place” (Pukui, Elbert, and Mookini, 106). But Pukui and
Elbert also identify “kaha” as “in legends, a hot, dry shore” {PED 110). For this
definition they reference descriptions of barren land in Emerson’s Pele and H i‘iaka (74,
84). Alternate meanings are “to desolate, plunder; proud, haughty” {PED 110). As with
the words wailuku (“utter devastation”) and ‘apua (“disobedient”), Hi‘iaka again appears
to be telling the mo‘o that their behavior is inappropriate, and she is warning them of
their pending demise because of it. There is a sense of pono in the use of the four
Hawai‘i island place names: Kekaha (Kona) is on the opposite (west) end of the island
from Wailuku (Hilo, east side), while ‘Apua and Maukele reference both north (Waipi‘o)
and south (Puna/Ka‘u), as well as the wet rainforest (ma‘ukele, Waipi‘o area) and dry
regions (rocky Puna coast, Ka‘u desert) simultaneously. Thus paired, the references can
be interpreted as H i‘iaka boasting of her ability and right to assert her female, godly mana
from one end of the island to the other. So thoroughly forewarned, Hi‘iaka’s destruction
of the mo‘o who exhibit such blatant stupidity in their rebellious and insolent attitude
toward her is even that much more satisfying.
Kimura (1983) discusses how the “philosophy of the power of the word”
culminates in ho‘opapa where “poetic references, partial homonyms, and vocabulary
knowledge are used in chant form between two contestants to increase their individual
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
223
powers and decrease the powers of the opponent. The loser of such a contest can
theoretically submit his life to the winner” (176). Furthermore, he stresses that “this
Hawaiian use of the examination of words to strengthen a thought is often misinterpreted
by Westerners who think that the description of the word itself is the point rather than
how the word is used to make a point [or] give a feeling” (177).
From an oral tradition perspective, the reliance on chant is not unusual, it is a
given. In “How Legends were Taught,” Pukui stated that “Legends were partly told and
partly chanted” (HEN, 1602-1606). More specifically, “Dialogue in chants was called
paha and was found in many of the old hero tales,” such as Pele and H i‘iaka, although
“the chants of the Pele and Hiiaka legend were called kau” (HEN, 1602-1606). Pukui’s
insights into the telling of Hawaiian m o‘olelo support the performative aspect of early
Hawaiian literature such as Kapihenui’s Pele and H i‘iaka, as “No long legend was
complete without the recitation of chants” (HEN, 1602-1606). Kimura concurs when he
writes that “Hawaiian chants are very long and can contain hundreds of lines. There are
also sagas [i.e., Pele and H i‘iaka] with chanted dialogues . . . and of course many songs”
(180).
Oli, M ele, and H ula as T raditional V ehicles of H awaiian P oetic Thought
In Music o f Ancient Hawai'i, a Brief Survey (1962), Dorothy Kahananui
emphasizes the numerous examples of Kanaka being a highly skilled poetic people,
including within prose works which “contain many poetic passages attributed to heroes
and heroines in the stories and legends” (5). She writes:
224
In ancient Hawai‘i, poetry was destined for musical recitation. The native word
for poetry is “mele” and “mele” is said to be synonymous with song. However,
since the word ‘song’ was not known to preliterate natives, their use of the word
“mele” could not have had anything to do with “song” as we know it today. . . .
The Hawaiian “sang” because he had something to say for which there was no
other adequate means of expression. Always, however, the poem came first. (5)
Within the mo‘olelo then, much emphasis is placed on the oli since an indigenous way to
tell the story is through the chants. In other words, the tradition is chant, as this is the
performance mode which has best carried the tradition in a manner similar to other oral
cultures. Thus, an abundance of oli would be expected of an early text, even though the
written cannot apprehend the performative nature of the oral, of the chants.
There are 287 chants in Kapihenui’s mo‘olelo available on microfilm. When
referenced against the Henriques-Peabody fHI.L. 23 manuscript and the later nearly
duplicate version of the mo‘olelo published by Pa‘aluhi and Bush, the total number of oli
and mele included in the m o‘olelo is 302. I have identified ten extensive chant
sequences which compose nearly half of the overall Kapihenui mo‘olelo (60 out of 152
pages), and close to two-thirds of the total number of oli and mele (206 all together).
These chant sequences have minimal exposition between them, the action of the mo‘olelo
being conveyed through the performance of the oli, rather than through the prose
narrative. I have titled the chant sequences and have listed them below with chant
numbers and totals for each sequence included.
225
T a ble 5C . M a jo r C h a n t Seq u e n c e s in K a p i h e n u i ’s P e l e and H i Ta k a M o ‘o l e l o
I. Hi‘iaka Prepares to Depart from the Crater (“Ke ku nei au e hele” series of oli)
#12-28 (16 chants)
II. HTiaka Confronts the Mo‘o Piliamo‘o and Nohoamo‘o at the Wailuku River in
Hilo (“Kahulihuli” series of oli) #45-50 (5 chants)
III. Hi‘iaka meets up with Manamanaiakaluea on Maui.

#63-72 (9 chants)
IV. Hi‘iaka ma in Windward 0 ‘ahu (Makapu‘u-K a‘ena)

#75-115 (41 chants)
V. H i‘iaka Encounters Lohi‘au’s Spirit on Kaua‘i; Hi‘iaka revives Lohi‘au

#126-132 (6 chants)
VI. Hi‘iaka ma Play Kilu at Pele‘ula’s Court on 0 ‘ahu (kilu chants)

#176-226 (50 chants)
VII. Waihmano & Hi‘iaka Battle over ‘Olepau’s Life

#252-285 (33 chants)
VIII. Lohi‘au Pleads for His Life at the Crater

#252-285 (33 chants)
IX. Wahine‘oma‘o Woos H i‘iaka Back to the Crater

#287-295 (8 chants)
X. Kahuaka‘iapaoa’s Hulihia chants

#297-302 (5 chants)
While there is a disparity between the number of chants which I identify as comprising a
sequence (5 to 50), I took into account not just the number of chants in each sequence to
identify it as such, but also the relationship between each sequence of chants, and their
importance as an episode or transition in the text. There is also a difference in the total
number of lines; Kahuaka‘iapaoa’s 5 hulihia chants, for example, are some of the longest
226
oli in the m o‘olelo (number 300 is 60 lines long), while the 50 chants comprising the kilu
sequence average 2 to 6 lines in length.
The chant sequences take place on all major islands visited by Hi‘iaka, and
include several key characters; they begin on Hawai‘i island with Hi‘iaka, but end there
with separate sequences chanted by Wahine‘oma‘o, Lohi‘au, and Kahuaka‘iapaoa,
respectively. On Kaua‘i, Hi‘iaka and Lohi‘au share the chant sequence in Ha‘ena, as
they do playing kilu at Pele‘ula’s court on 0 ‘ahu. The two Maui chant sequences are
dominated by na wahine: in the first, H i‘iaka and the lame fisherwoman spirit,
Manamanaiakaluea share a chant sequence as Hi‘iaka is enroute to Kaua‘i, and upon her
return, she and the chiefess Waihlnano battle over chief ‘Olepau’s life through a duel of
chants. Two important chant sequences found in later versions of the Pele and Hi‘iaka
m o‘olelo include the extensive oli makani (wind chants) chanted by Pele upon her arrival
on Kaua‘i and the series of oli and nane (riddles) when H i‘iaka ma arrive on the
Wai‘anae coast of 0 ‘ahu (these will be discussed later in the chapter). Only 38 of the 302
chants are not found in any of the later Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo. It is easy to speculate
that multiple numbers of specific oli and mele indicate a canonized or core group of texts
essential to the Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo, making them more “important.” Yet the
individual chants not appearing in later texts can be just as important, indicating a unique
emphasis, plot points, or perspective not found in other (later) mo‘olelo.
Only 35 of the 302 chants are not found in the BPBMA Mele Index, indicating the
vast majority of the chants recorded in Kapihenui’s mo‘olelo were important and known
by other Kanaka Maoli, warranting their collection and recording (See Appendix 5C).
227
There is no correlation between the small number of chants not found in later texts and
the chants not included in the BPBMA mele collection.
Of the 264 chants contained in Kapihenui’s text that appear in later Pele and
H i‘iaka m o‘olelo, all contain at least minor word differences, and some contain more
significant alterations. Because of the performative nature of oli, it might be impossible
to ascertain which variant was “better” than the next. In my experience with studying
these oli, that is perhaps a strictly subjective assessment based on a number of factors.
Rather, I would like to point out that minor differences are possibly attributed to differing
family, halau, or island traditions, typographical or editorial errors, or other mundane
factors. Western rhetoric emphasizes that if something is not written down, it is too
easily changed and not reliable. So how are the subtle variations accounted for? While
core texts such as ko‘ihonua or genealogical chants for ali‘i were meticulously
memorized, such variation in written texts could be explained because it was a culturally
acceptable practice for chanters or storytellers to alter details and emphasize different
points of an oli or mo‘olelo for different occasions or audiences. In addition, Kanaka
take great pride in specific traditions linked to families, genealogies, chiefs, or islands,
one explanation of multiple and sometimes contradicting accounts (see Kimura 1983).
One example in the Pele and Hi'iaka mo‘olelo is Rice’s Kaua‘i version, which upholds
Lohi‘au in a much more positive depiction than mo‘olelo connected to other islands (see
Chariot 1998). It was (and still is) a culturally accepted practice to veil information by
228
purposely altering small details so as to not “give it all away,” so to speak,
indiscriminately.18 Thus, such minor discrepancies or variations are to be expected.
More importantly, I would argue that larger discrepancies in line lengths,
particularly when chants were literally cut short, or when chant sequences were
summarized, are the result of uneven attempts to incorporate western literary standards
into Hawaiian literary texts. I say uneven, because oli were constrained by the page in
different ways. As referenced earlier in this chapter, hulihia chants were literally cut
short in Kapihenui’s text, a practice he himself complained about in his 1865 letter to the
editors of Ka Nupepa K u‘oko‘a, a sentiment echoing J. H. Kanepu’u’s letter to the editors
of Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika three years earlier. In the case of Kapihenui’s “hulihia”
chants, they were severely edited mostly because of the physical constraints of the page;
only so much column space was allotted to each m o‘olelo, and the majority of
Kapihenui’s “hulihia” chants were deemed too long for the space, and so they were
arbitrarily cut at the point the column space ended. The only full deletion, an exception,
was a “particularly shameful [hilahila]” hulihia chant left out by editors due to its
“vulgar” nature (Kapihenui, May 8, 1962; Chariot 1998, 62).19
Another way in which oli were constrained by the page was the adoption of
western literary practices to focus more on action or plot-driven storylines, rather than on
Hawaiian practices emphasizing performance and detail, particularly in regards to
18 An ‘olelo no‘eau which speaks to this cultural concept is “mai kalai na iwi” (don’t expose the bones). It
refers primarily to warn against revealing too much about one’s genealogy indiscriminately, but is also
more widely applicable (see Pukui 1983).
19While the BPBM ms. fHI.L. 23 fills in most of the missing chant text edited out of Kapihenui’s published
Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, it too refers to the “ano hilahila” (vulgar nature) of the particular hulihia chant,
and does not include it in the manuscript copy of the mo‘olelo.
229
genealogy, wahi pana, and chants, both individual and as sequences. One example is the
“Kahulihuli” chant series. While the Kahulihuli chants are referenced in later Pele and
Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, they are heavily edited. For example, there are a total of six Kahulihuli
chants in Kapihenui, which range in length from a minimum of six to a maximum of nine
lines. Later, more “literary” Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo which de-emphasize the
performative nature of the texts contain fewer numbers of the Kahulihuli chants, at
shorter line lengths. In the “pre-Kapihenui” segment of Pa‘aluhi and Bush’s mo‘olelo,
there is only one Kahulihuli chant, and it is a mere three lines long (January 26,1893).
The Kahulihuli chant series in Pa‘aluhi and Bush’s reprint of Kapihenui is identical to
Kapihenui’s version of the chants, even when other elements of the reprint are changed
(this will be discussed in the section on Pa’aluhi and Bush’s text later in this chapter).
Four additional Hawaiian-language Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo that contain a
Kahulihuli chant are: Ho‘oulumahiehie (HA, 1905, KNA, 1906), Poepoe (1908), and Rice
(1908). Of these, Ho‘oulumahiehie’s is much longer than the others, containing seven
lines not found in any other version. Poepoe’s version is identical to the 1893 Pa'aluhi
and Bush text (January 1, 1909), and Rice’s text is almost identical to both, with one
minor phrasing difference.20 It is possible that Kahulihuli chants were included in
Desha’s 1924-1928 texts, but gaps in issues of the papers containing published segments
of the m o‘olelo are no longer available.21
20 The Pa'aluhi and Bush and Poepoe texts read: Kahulihuli ka papa o Waikuku e/He ole ke kaha kuai
ai/Homai ana hoi ha ua ai, while Rice reads: Kahulihuli ka papa o Wailuku/ He ole ke kaha kuai ai/ Homai
he ai. The difference in phrasing is more stylistic, and doesn’t significantly impact the meaning.
21 The Kahulihuli chants are not included in Hauola, Ka‘awaloa, Kaili, or Manu. This could be because
Hauola and Kaili are summarized, Ka’awaloa is specific to Maui, and Manu follows a different tradition.
230
Emerson’s is the only other text that contains more than one Kahulihuli chant,
although he only gives two chants, with two lines from a third, summarizing the narrative
to forward the plot. He begins, “On Hiiaka’s attempting to cross without paying toll, the
two sorcerers would, following their own practice, have disarranged the treacherous
plank and precipitated her and her party into the raging stream” (57). Emerson explains
that, “Hiiaka repeated her demands in varying forms with no other effect than to make the
toll-keepers more stubborn in their ridiculous demands” (58). He summarizes the
remainder of the scene, deleting the discussion between Hi‘iaka and the people, and
deleting the serious bet H i‘iaka makes with her life.
Even when chants are found in multiple versions, they often don’t appear in
exactly the same way, with differences between words, phrasing, line lengths, function
and meaning. One example is the chant “Kunihi ka Mauna.” The earliest known
published version of “Kunihi” appears in Kapihenui. At least five other versions of this
chant were published in later Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. It also exists in seventeen
unpublished forms in various collections in the Bishop Museum Archives, some of which
overlap with the above mentioned texts; see Appendix 2B.
T a b l e 5 d . K u n ih i k a M a u n a c h a n t p u b l i s h e d in t h e P e l e a n d H i ‘i a k a
mo ‘o l e l o 1 8 6 1 -1 9 2 4
Kapihenui Kaili Ho'oulumahiehie Poepoe Rice Emerson Desha
1861 1893 1906 1908 1908 1915 1924
Kunihi ka mauna i ka la‘i e/ X X X X X X X
‘O Wai‘ale‘ale la i Wailua
The above table lists all the published versions of the Kunihi chant in the Pele and
Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo; because I discuss the differences between the two versions found in
231
Emerson in Mokuna 2 ,1 will not discuss them in detail here. Rice’s Kaua‘i version of the
m o‘olelo describes Pele, not Hi‘iaka, as the one who chants this oli when she arrives at
Ha‘ena on Kaua‘i’s north shore and sees her beloved, Lohi‘au, for the first time (May 21,
1908). The hula pa (dance platform) at Ke‘e is surrounded by an enthusiastic crowd
enjoying the hula performances; Pele, having transformed herself into a beautiful young
woman, chants “Kunihi;” the crowd parts to allow her passage onto the hula pa.
In the remaining six published versions of the mo‘olelo, it is Hi‘iaka who chants
the oli when she is traveling to Ha‘ena to fetch Lohi‘au for Pele, who was forced to return
to Kllauea on Hawai‘i island to tend her volcanic fires. In three versions of the
m o‘olelo—including Kapihenui’s, and Emerson’s text—H i‘iaka chants this oli outside
the home of the fisherman Malaeha‘akoa and his wife Wailuanuiaho‘ano, seeking
permission to enter their hale (home). In another rendition of the story, H i‘iaka chants
this oli when her canoe lands at Kapa‘a near Wailua before continuing on to Naue
enroute to Ha‘ena. In yet another account of the famous tale, Hi‘iaka chants this oli upon
first spotting the island of Kaua‘i while still sitting in her canoe sailing in the
Ka‘ie‘iewaho channel enroute to Kaua‘i from 0 ‘ahu, as if both greeting the island, and
seeking permission to step onto Kaua‘i soil. Again, the variation is normal in oral
tradition as the storyteller or writer emphasized different traditions or versions with their
rendition of the m o‘olelo.
Other variables are quite common, such as each chant or chant sequence
occurring in different locations in each text, and being performed by different characters
in different contexts. One example is “Lu‘ulu‘u Hanalei i ka ua nui.” In the Kapihenui
232
text, this oli occurs early in the mo‘olelo, and is chanted by Pele’s spirit upon her arrival
at Lohi‘au’s court in Ha‘ena (December 26, 1861). In Rice’s text, Hi‘iaka chants this
mo‘olelo while she is in Hanalei enroute to Ha‘ena, after she battles and defeats the
“kupua kia‘i akua” (supernatural guardian of the akua) of Hanalei (July 9, 1908). In
Kapihenui, Pele chants this mele pana (place chant) to show familiarity with the region
(much in the same way she chants the extensive oli makani in later texts), while in Rice,
she chants the oli to celebrate her defeat of the kupua in the region. “Lu‘ulu‘u Hanalei”
is not contained in any other Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo except Emerson and Pa‘aluhi and
Bush, both of which follow Kapihenui’s version. Another important example of
variations of chant placement, meaning, and use is the hulihia chants.
V ariations in H ulihia C hants in na m o ’olelo o Pele a me H i Taka
It is possible that of all the oli contained in the Pele and H i‘iaka mo’olelo, none
are more important to the m o‘olelo as the hulihia chants. The word hulihia is a passive
form of huli, “overturned; a complete change, overthrow; turned upside down. Chants
about Pele with verses beginning with the word hulihia are referred to as hulihia” (PED
89). Kaili describes the hulihia chants as:
a series of songs by Lohi’au, Hi‘iaka and Paoa, which form some of the finest
specimens of poetical composition in the Hawaiian language. These are
magnificent word-paintings of the actions and effects of volcanic fires, some of
the grandest sights of the world; and also tender, loving descriptions of some of
the sweetest and most pleasing views of natural scenery. The writer regrets the
233
inability to render a poetical translation of these grand songs that would in any
way convey an adequate idea of their beauties. The first two or three lines only of
a song are given, literally translated, so as to indicate their proper order, should
some competent person hereafter wish to render them into English. (September
21, 1883)
Chariot (1998) also describes these chants as part of the canonized vocabulary for Pele,
being a “special” category of chant specifically created for the literature. He describes
the chants as “a type of chant beginning with that word and describing the manifestation
of Peie’s power in eruptions” (59). Kanahele (2001) explains that “in the Pele genealogy
of chants, verses beginning with word hulihia (overrun) indicate that the eruption is so
volatile that there will be extreme change in the landscape” (18). Two examples given
of word use include hulihia chants “Hulihia ka mauna, wela i ke ahi” and “Hulihia
Kilauea, po i ka uahi” (PED 89).
The number of hulihia chants included in the various mo‘olelo ranges from as few
as three to as many as eight (Kapihenui, KNK, February 28,1865; see Appendix 5D for
Hawaiian text). Manu confirms this, adding that “two of them are prayers for healing”
(August 26, 1899). In compiling hulihia chants from the mo‘olelo published in the
Hawaiian-language nupepa and Emerson, I have identified ten distinct hulihia chants in
all. The most published in a single source is six (Kapihenui and Ho‘oulumahiehie,
although they are not the same six hulihia chants). Pa‘aluhi and Bush appear to publish
all eight, but two of the chants, “Hulihia Kukuilani, nei aku la i ka pili o Hooilo” and
234
“Hulihia ke au pee ilalo” are duplicated in the text (January 20 and July 6, 1893; January
10 and July 11, 1893). While there is a close correlation among the Ho‘oulumahiehie,
Poepoe, and Desha texts, hulihia chants missing from one or all are possibly due to
missing issues of nupepa on microfilm.
Only one hulihia chant appearing in as many as seven texts, “Hulihia ke au ka
papa honua o kona moku,” although in Manu it begins with the (typically second) line,
“Hulihia kulia mai i ka moku o Kahiki.” (August 26, 1899). There are many variations
concerning these chants: placement in the text, variations in words and line lengths,
composer or chanter of each, and function of the oli in the context of the action. The
following chart, with texts listed by date across the top, organizes the hulihia chants by
title (first two lines of oli), word variations (in brackets), and by number of lines
(numbers listed in columns). Letters representing each chanter, when known, are also
given (see key below table); more than one number in a slot indicates the oli appears in
the m o‘olelo more than once, and that the number of lines between the two are different:
T a b l e 5 e . H u l ih ia c h a n t c o m p a r is o n c h a r t
Kapihe Pa'aluhi Manu Ho’oulu- Poepoe Rice Emerson Desha

nui & Bush mahiehie
1861 1893 1899 1906 1908 1908 1915 1924

Hulihia i Wahinekapu, ua wela i 29 28 L
ke ahi / Enaena ka papa, ka
nahele o Kaliu
Hulihia ka Mauna / Wela i ke 10P
ahi a ka Wahine
Hulihia ka mauna wela i ke ahi / 24 P 54 66 42 P 14 W
Wela [moa] nopu ka uka o 57 L
Kuihanalei [Kui a Hanalei]
[Hulihia ke au ka [ko] papa 26 P 26 x 19 27 27 P 60 P 26 P
honua [o] kona moku] / Hulihia 62 K 27 P
ku[l]ia mai [i] ka moku [o
Kahiki] / 1 na no Tahiti la
235
Kapihe Pa'aluhi Manu H o‘oulu- Poepoe Rice Emerson Desha

nui & Bush mahiehie
1861 1893 1899 1906 1908 1908 1915 1924

Hulihia ke au, ka papa honua o 33 H
ka moku / Hulihia, papio e ia
ilalo ke alo
Hulihia ke au nee [pee] ilalo ia 35 P 37 34 P 90 P
kea [Waiakea, i Akea] / Hulihia
[i] ka [moku ka] mole [o ka]
honua
Hulihia ke au pee olalo [ilalo], 36 P 38
nei[nei] nakolo[kolo] i ka honua 47 x
/ Nakeke ka lani, hoaka Kahiki
Hulihia ke one o Kahakuloa / Ua 20
nakaka ka pali, ua lewa ka honua
Hulihia Kilauea [po] i ka uahi 20 P 48 51 46 55 H 35 L
[ke ahi] / Nalowale i ke awa
[aka] [ka uka] o ka lua
Hulihia kukeeilani [Kukuilani / 13 P 18 H 16 12 P 16 L
Kukailani], nei aku la i ka pili 15 H
[o] Hooili [Hooilo/Hooipo] /
Lele [aku / a] Keawemahuilani
[/Keaomahuilani] [ka lele hewa i
ka houpo o Kane]
p=Kahuaka‘iapaoa h=Hi‘iakaikapoliopele k=Kanemilohai
x=no name given l=Lohi‘au w=gods of war (Kulilikaua ma)
Kapihenui’s Pele and Hi‘iaka is one of the only m o‘olelo that presents the hulihia chants
in context (and only in context), meaning, they are given only during the climactic scene
at the crater where Lohi‘au is being consumed by lava. Each subsequent version of the
m o‘olelo includes at least one hulihia elsewhere in the mo‘olelo, possibly indicating the
importance or seriousness of the chants.
Kapihenui was concerned with the hulihia chants being criticized and
misrepresented, as evidenced by his 1865 letter, in which he responds that three h ulih ia
chants, “Hulihia Kukalani,” “Hulihia Kllauea” and “Hulihia ke au nee i lalo ia Kea” were
not prayers for Pele but “chants for Kahuaka'iapaoa resulting from the second death [at
the crater by Pele’s lava] of his beloved companion Lohi‘au, the ‘sweet-voiced chanter of
236
K auaT” (KNK, February 28,1865). Kapihenui is careful to point out, more than once,
that “these chants do not refer to the Pele story. These chants belong to the story of
Hi‘iaka” (KNK, February 23, 1865). While the two may seem to be the same story to a
modem reader, Kapihenui distinctly separates the two. Is this perhaps evidence of
criticism against the publishing of the mo‘olelo in an increasingly Christianized Hawai‘i?
As Pele seemed to be viewed as direct competition, particularly in the rural communities
of Ka‘u and Puna, to the Christian god, perhaps Kapihenui was arguing a literary or
cultural interpretation, rather than a religious one, to quell a Christian backlash?
Who chants the hulihia sequence and what function these chants perform are
equally interesting variations. In Kapihenui, Kahuaka‘iapaoa chants the series of six
hulihia chants, upon which the m o‘olelo abruptly ends (July 17, 1862). In Rice, however,
Lohi‘au chants the last hulihia chant after he is revived (September 10, 1908). In
Pa'aluhi and Bush, two hulihia chants open the pre-Kapihenui version, and are presented
out of context. In both cases, no names of chanters are given (January 9 and January 10,
1893). H i‘iaka chants at least one, which is also presented out of context (January 20,
1893). Following Kapihenui, the remaining six conclude the mo‘olelo, and are all
chanted by Kahuaka‘iapaoa (July 6-7 and 9-12, 1893). In Manu’s text, the one hulihia
chant given is credited to Pele’s relative, Kanemilohai who “lent his voice” to
Kahuaka‘iapaoa, although it is not given in that context here (August 26, 1899).22
Of the six hulihia chants included in Ho‘oulumahiehie 1906, all are also
identified as kau, “a sacred chant, as H i‘iaka’s chants of affectionate greeting to
22 This quote is referenced in Mokuna 4.
237
persons, hills, and landmarks; a chant of sacrifice to a deity; to chant thus” (FED 134).
The two hulihia chants given in Poepoe 1908 are dated two years apart. One is chanted
by Hi‘iaka and identified as a “hulihia helu 1” (May 22,1908). The second is chanted
by Kahuaka‘iapaoa, and alternately identified as a kau (July 1,1910). It is possible there
are more hulihia chants, but the installments of the paper containing the conclusion of
the mo‘olelo are not on microfilm. The four hulihia chants given in Rice are chanted by
Kaleiapaoa (Kahuaka‘iapaoa). One is identified as a mele, one as an oli, and two are
not identified by genre (August 13 and August 27,1908).
Of the six hulihia chants presented in Emerson, one is given twice. The first time
“Hulihia ka mauna wela i ke ahi” is described as a “mele ka‘i kaua” or war song, which is
chanted by “the gods of war,” Kulilikaua and company (43-44). The second time it is
Lohi‘au who chants it as a plea to Pele to not engulf him in lava (205-206). He chants
this not long after Hi‘iaka chants the first hulihia in this series, “Hulihia Kilauea po i ka
uahi,” in which she pleads for Lohi‘au’s life (197-199). The final three hulihia are
chanted by Kahuaka‘iapaoa to plead for Lohi‘au’s life (219-223, 225-226, and 229-231).
In a close examination of the BPBMA manuscript HI.L. 23, Kapihenui’s
complains about the hulihia in his mo‘olelo being shortening appears to be the case. Four
hulihia chants had a significant number of lines handwritten into the text, in an attempt to
“correct” the shortened chants. Table 5F below lists the four hulihia chants with lines
edited out of Kapihenui’s published m o‘olelo. The number of lines published in
Kapihenui are listed in one column, while the number of lines excluded from the
238
published version, but handwritten into the manuscript version, are listed in the next
column:
T a b le 5 f. C om p arison b e tw e e n lin e s o f K apihenui h u lih ia c h a n t s an d HI.L.23 m a n u scr ip t
chant by first line: Kapihenui HI.L. 23

1861 (no date)
number of lines lines not published
Hulihia ka mauna wela i ke ahi / Wela nopu ka uka o Kuihanalei 24 +26
Hulihia ke au ka papa honua o kona moku / Hulihia kulia mai i ka 26 +35

moku o Kahiki
Hulihia ke au nee ilalo i Akea / Hulihia ka moku ka mole o ka 36 +5723

honua
Hulihia ke au pee ilalo, nei nakolo i ka honua / Nakeke ka lani, 38 +23

hoaka Kahiki
Three of the chants have the lines added on at the end. The third chant, however, has
fifty-seven lines added in the middle, after the original line fifteen, before concluding
with the final twenty-seven lines.
Certainly the hulihia chants are an important genre of Hawaiian poetry and
occupy a crucial space within the mo‘olelo. Clearly much more analysis of the hulihia
chants needs to be conducted to formulate a deeper appreciation of their multiple
functions in the m o‘olelo and possibly in Hawaiian culture, but that is beyond the scope
of this project. Here I will discuss their significance in the Kapihenui version.
23 These lines are added in the middle of the oli.
239
L it e r a r y E l e m e n t s and U n iq u e F e a t u r e s [E p is o d e s ]
Unlike later and more print-based Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, Kapihenui’s text
lacks several common literary devices, whether Hawaiian or western, namely, a detailed
introduction, a mo‘oku‘auhau for Pele, and a migration sequence. While later authors
provide lengthy introductions to their Pele and H i’iaka m o‘olelo, Kapihenui utilizes a
relatively simple introduction to his Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo. He begins:
To the people who know this story: here we all are, able to see what is accurate
and inaccurate in this tale. If it is incorrect, if it is faulty, we know the reason
why: none of her [Pele’s] people are here with us, they are there at Kilauea at this
time; they haven’t come here to tell us the real story. The truth is known to us,
those of us here who know the reason for her going to Kaua‘i, and her strength in
battle during her time.24
Kapihenui also does not provide a m o‘oku‘auhau for Pele or migration sequence
from Kahiki like later m o’olelo. Instead, the mo’olelo begins at the crater, “Pele lived in
the uplands at the crater[.] [One day she] said to her younger sisters, ‘Let us go down to
the ocean to pick ‘opihi and ha‘uke‘uke, fish for the young he‘e which cling to the cliffs,
and pick limu for all of us [to eat].”25
241 ka poe e ike mai ana i keia Mooolelo, maanei kakou e ike mai ai i ka pololei, a me ka pololei ole o keia
Mooolelo. Ina i pololei ole, ina i hewa, ua ike no kakou ia mea, aole kekahi o kona lahui me kakou, aia no
lakou ma Kilauea i keia wa; aole nae i hele mai maanei e olelo pono mai ai, e maopopo ai la ia kakou ka
pono, maanei nae kakou e ike ai i ke kumu o kona hele ana i Kauai, a me kona ikaika i ka hakaka ana, i
kona kau (December 26, 1861).
25 Noho o Pele i uka o Kalua, a i aku i na kaikaina, “E iho kakou i ke kui opihi i kai—haukeuke, lawaia
heepali, pahi limu—na kakou” (December 26, 1861).
240
Once the m o‘olelo begins, Kapihenui methodically moves through the sequence
of events. Like later Kanaka Maoli writers, Kapihenui’s mo’olelo is highly etiological
and establishes cultural protocol and explanations for practices, geographic formations,
and natural relationships. There are just over 200 characters Hi‘iaka is related to or
encounters along the way, and over 500 places named, established, or visited. The
abundance of wahi pana demonstrates the Kanaka fondness for such details in the
mo‘olelo and on the land, another expression of aloha ‘aina. This aspect of the Pele and
Hi‘iaka mo'olelo is discussed more fully in Mokuna 7. Now, I would like to turn to the
next Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo published in the Hawaiian-language nupepa, its
interesting publication history, and how it is closely intertwined with Kapihenui’s.
A lternate Traditions : P a ‘aluhi and B ush 1893
The next Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo published after Kapihenui’s appears thirty-
two years later. On January 5, 1893, just two weeks prior to the overthrow of the
Hawaiian kingdom, Ka Leo o ka Lahui began “Ka Mo‘olelo o Hi’iakaikapoliopele,”
credited to the paper’s editor John Edwin Bush and Reverend Simeona Pa‘aluhi. Pa’aluhi
and Bush began an independent Pele and Hi ‘iaka mo’olelo that was different from
Kapihenui’s, a m o’olelo which ran for only fifteen installments, from January 5 through
January 30, 1893, at which point they abandoned their tradition in favor of reprinting
Kapihenui. Thus, I will discuss the Pa‘aluhi and Bush text as two traditions, describing
the initial “pre-Kapihenui” text published in January 1893 as Pa‘aluhi and Bush (A), and
the subsequent reprint of Kapihenui as Pa’aluhi and Bush (K).
241
Pa‘aluhi and Bush (A)
While Pa‘aluhi and Bush published only the second Hawaiian-language Pele and
H i‘iaka m o‘olelo, it doesn’t occur until a generation or thirty years after the first one, and
a decade after the first English-language version (Kaili 1883). Hawai’i had been
undergoing major political and cultural upheaval, culminating with the overthrow of the
kingdom in January 1893, the month in which the mo’olelo commenced publication.
Nearing the end of the nineteenth century, Hawaiian literature in print was also
undergoing significant changes. Unlike Kapihenui, Pa‘aluhi and Bush offer a lengthy
introduction to their Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, discussing the value of publishing
m o’olelo, their concern over the erosion of Hawaiian language, the population collapse
and the loss of traditions. This introduction is so long, it takes up the entire first issue and
half a column of the second installment. They write in the final paragraph:
This is one of the wondrous stories in the thoughts of readers, and we are thus
bringing it before the friendly readers of the nation of this archipelago. This epic
was composed by our ancestors about the great “man-seeking” exploration of
Pele’s favored and esteemed younger sibling, Hi‘iakaikapoliopele . . . much like
other [Hawaiian] legends, it was an oral tradition passed from mouth to mouth
and from generation to generation, [but alas] the nature of this story was
transformed; this style of storytelling, always done in the oli kepakepa style by an
expert family curator is extinct, and from that time the legend’s authenticity was
held intact until today. Moreover, printing presses were non-existent during
Hi’iaka’s man-seeking exploration, and memorizing the story was an arduous
242
task. At that time too the nature of the stories told orally didn’t only occur in this
place, however, the majority of the oral traditions have been lost or forgotten, and
the majority of the Hawaiian language misinterpreted.26 (see Appendix 5E for
Hawaiian text; translation by Ioane Ho‘omanawanui and myself)
It is sobering to reflect on the immense cultural and political changes occurring at
the time this m o‘olelo was being published which would warrant such a lengthy and
passionate introduction. Just over a century later, Kanaka Maoli today are urgently
tackling issues of language loss and preservation of source materials, particularly when
the majority of kupuna whose first language is ‘olelo Hawai‘i have just about all passed
on, and we wistfully look back to this earlier time period as one in which culture,
language, and nationhood were more solidly intact. Yet it is also troubling to recognize
how much had changed in the relatively short thirty year span between the publication of
Kapihenui’s mo‘olelo and Pa‘aluhi and Bush’s. While Kapihenui demonstrated concern
about preservation of culture and language in this m o‘olelo he seems less alarmed about
cultural and linguistic erosion than Pa‘aluhi and Bush. Moreover, the Pa‘aluhi and Bush
Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo is being published at the culmination of political upheaval, the
overthrow of the Hawaiian nation, which would officially occur two weeks after their
passionate introduction to the mo‘olelo was published.
It is interesting that Pa‘aluhi and Bush also provide a lengthy descriptive
summary of the story. On one hand, they discuss how this is a story handed down from
26 January 5, 1893.
243
the ancients; yet on the other hand, the lengthy introduction and summary suggest they
are writing in a time period where the general Hawaiian population is no longer familiar
with the m o‘olelo or ancient traditions, so the writers need to provide a much fuller
context for their target audience to understand (and thus better appreciate) the m o‘olelo.
The installments from January 10 through January 30 generally follow the
plotline set out in Kapihenui. Here, the m o‘olelo begins at the crater (January 10); it is
abruptly cut short at the point in the story where Hi‘iaka ma have just concluded the
puhenehene game with Pu‘ueo and Pi‘ihonua in the Hilo-Hamakua area of Hawai‘i
island, where after Wahine‘oma‘o invites them to her parents’ home for a meal. When
some people in the home (whom H i‘iaka recognizes as mo‘o) grumble about not being
served food (after they disobey the directives given by the head of the household),
Hi'iaka turns them to stone (January 30,1893). In this issue of the nupepa, a brief
introduction transitions the mo‘olelo to the Kapihenui reprint, which begins anew back at
the crater.
While the general plot line is similar to Kapihenui’s, I’d like to focus on the
beginning of the original m o‘olelo Pa‘aluhi and Bush published from January 6 through
January 10, 1893, because it provides an interesting example of the diversity of the Pele
and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo traditions. For example, unlike Kapihenui, Pa‘aluhi and Bush (A)
includes a m o‘oku‘auhau for Pele, the first published in na mo‘olelo o Pele a me Hi'iaka.
In the chapter of Hawaiian Mythology called “The Pele Myth,” Beckwith states,
“A kahuna brother Moho (Ka-moho-ali‘i), two sisters, Pele and Hi‘iaka (Hi‘iaka-i-ka-
poli-o-pele), and a humpbacked brother named Kamakua (Ke-o-ahi-kamakaua) are said
244
to compose the original Pele family, all further additions being purely mythical” (167). It
is clear that Beckwith is utilizing the word “myth” in its popular form, meaning false,
invented, or untrue. Yet the concept of myth has religious roots, meaning “stories about
divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and
sacred; they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion” (Simpson
and Roud, 254).
Myth comes from the Greek word muthos, meaning to speak or say; speech; it
also implies story, including myth (Simpson and Roud, 254). Similarly, the root word of
m o‘olelo is ‘olelo, “to speak or say” (PED 284). M o‘o, “a succession, to follow after”
anchors the term in oral traditions (PED 254). During the transitional period of Hawaiian
literature in the nineteenth century, the word mo‘olelo incorporates all manner of stories,
oral and writing, and is a general descriptive term used to describe all kinds of writing.
Nogelmeier (2003) discusses nineteenth-century Hawaiian historian Samuel Kamakau’s
use of the term mo‘olelo as “a single concept in Hawaiian conveying multiple meanings,
encompassing what in English would be considered as history, ethnography, myth,
legend, account, description, tradition” (193). Pukui and Elbert define m o‘olelo as
including “story, tale, myth, history, tradition, literature, legend, journal, log, yam, fable,
essay, chronicle, record, article; minutes, as of a meeting (from m o‘o ‘olelo, succession of
talk; all stories were oral, not written)” (PED 254).
myth/mo ‘o [‘o ]lelo
muthos -------------- ‘olelo

to speak, say to speak, say
myth = oral traditions mo‘o ‘olelo = oral traditions
245
By their nature, myths serve as a fundamental worldview of a people, explaining aspects
of the world as well as the customs or ideals of that society. The popularized use of the
term myth as “false or untrue” stems from a western perspective elevating knowledge
based on science, technology, writing and empirical research, and devaluing knowledge
based on orality, traditions, and intuition (see Ong 1980; Tuhiwai Smith 1999; King
2003). Bacchilega writes,
From early on, Native Hawaiian narratives, or mo ‘olelo, were for the most part
identified by western travelers, scholars, and popularizers as ‘legends,’ or ‘myths’
and ‘folktales’ interchangeably, and thus seen as ‘folklore,’ a newly formed
category in European and American nineteenth-century thought. Because
‘folklore’ was and is often viewed in the science-centered West as an outmoded
or ‘false’ way of knowing, this classification has unfortunately also provided an
opening to view the mo'olelo as ‘untrue.’ As belief narratives, legends and myths
maintain a relationship with history for scholars, but more generally ‘legend’ is
interpreted as fanciful or undocumented history. This has resulted in erasing the
meaning of ‘history’ carried in the Hawaiian word and genre, with mo'olelo being
translated and understood only or primarily as ‘story.’ (9)
The incorporation of many variations of Pele’s mo‘oku‘auhau in the Hawaiian-
language Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo provides a counterpoint to Beckwith’s incomplete
and inaccurate statement as to who comprises the Pele ‘ohana. While Pele’s lineage
246
varies from tradition to tradition, Pa‘aluhi and Bush name her parents as Ku[w]ahailo (k)
and Haumea (w) (see Appendix 5F for the mo‘oku‘auhau of Pele’s ‘ohana).
Kuwahailo is identified by Beckwith and Kame‘eleihiwa (1992) as “Ku the
maggot mouth,” a “man-eating sorcery god” responsible for the introduction of the
practice of human sacrifice who lives in the heavens (29; 44). He appears in other
Hawaiian mo‘olelo traditions, such as ‘Aukele, ‘Anaelike, Hainakolo, ‘Umiallloa, and
Hawai’iloa (Beckwith, 29-30). Beckwith writes that “In the Hainakolo romance he is a
man-eater with terrible bodies such as a whirlwind, an earthquake, caterpillars, a stream
of blood, a m o‘o body with flashing eyes and thrusting tongue. All these manifestations
are among the bodies of the Pele family of gods, and Ku-waha-ilo’s name is one of those
given for the husband of Haumea and father of Pele (30).
Haumea is alternately identified in some traditions as Papahanaumoku, wife of
Wakea (Beckwith, 278; Kame‘eleihiwa, 34-35). She is also identified as Pele’s mother
(Beckwith, 278). Poepoe and Rice also name Haumea as Pele’s mother, although they
give different fathers than Pa’aluhi and Bush and list different siblings bom in different
birth orders (see Appendix 5F and 5G). Rice is the most explicit, listing the siblings by
birth order, gender, and what part of Haumea’s body they were bom from; Pele was bom
“mai kahi mau e hanau ia ai ke kanaka” (from the usual place where humans are bom),
although in Na Mele Kahiko (1983), June Gutmanis says that Pele was bom from
Haumea’s thighs (May 21, 1908; 10).
Pele is the haku makahiapo, the eldest sibling in the family, with ten H i‘iaka
sisters and Kapoula [Kapo’ulaklnau] named (Pa‘aluhi and Bush, January 6, 1893). Six
brothers are also named, including Lonomakua. Other versions say Lonomakua is an
uncle of Pele; in some, he is the fire-keeper she apprentices under to learn her skill. It is
important to note that all of the female siblings are listed first, followed by the brothers,
demonstrating a specific organization of siblings. In Polynesian genealogy, siblings are
typically listed from oldest to youngest. This system demonstrates not only birth order,
but related to that, rank and status within the ‘ohana. That all the female siblings are
listed first suggests a matriarchal family structure in which women have special status.
One of the clues that indicates this is not actual birth order is that all the Pele and H i‘iaka
m o‘olelo, including this one, specifically state that H i‘iakaikapoliopele is the youngest
(muliloa) and thus favored sibling (poki‘i). Pa‘aluhi and Bush list her as the youngest of
all the female siblings, but not the total number of siblings, indicating this genealogical
listing is not listed chronologically (January 6, 1893). Later texts specify that different
siblings are bom from different parts of Haumea’s body; here only Hi‘iakaikapoliopele’s
birth is specifically mentioned as being “hanau mai ma ka waha,” or “bom from the
mouth” (January 6, 1893). There are quite a number of H i‘iaka sisters given in different
versions of the mo‘olelo and beyond. Appendix 5G compares the names of na Hi‘iaka
sisters and lists which sisters appear in each version. Although Kapihenui does have a
m o‘oku‘auhau, I include him in the appendix for comparative purposes; he mentions a
total of four H i‘iaka in his text by name. Some Hi'iaka sisters appear in an 1891
m o‘olelo from Kamapua‘a, which was published in Ka Leo o ka Lahui (June 22, 1891 -
July 23, 1891). This mo‘olelo is also included for comparison. The Kamapua ‘a text lists
twelve H i‘iaka sisters in all; six are found in different versions of the Pele and H i‘iaka
248
mo‘olelo, while six are not found at all in any of the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo. Thus,
there is an added layer of richness in the Pa‘aluhi and Bush text which is visibly absent in
Kapihenui because of the inclusion of the family genealogy. For Kanaka, this
m o‘oku‘auhau evokes a deeper sense of the story, as each Hi‘iaka sister is associated
with different ho‘ailona (sign, symbol) which demonstrated her presence on the ‘aina.
Poepoe provides the most detailed description of the Hi‘iaka siblings and their ho‘ailona,
comparing two different texts, a Hawai‘i island and a Maui version, which also speaks to
differences in versions along island lines. He specifically mentions the connection
between the Hi‘iaka sisters’ names as geographic locations (wahi). He writes:
. . . let us discuss a bit the younger sisters of Peleihonuamea who traveled [from
Kahiki] with her. There are many diverse thoughts regarding the number of
younger [Hi‘iaka] siblings of this aforementioned woman of the crater who
traveled with her. Some people think that [there are only eight sisters and] these
are their names: H i‘iakaika‘aleT, Hi‘iakaika‘alemoe, Hi‘iakapaikauhale,
Hi‘iakaikapuaaneane, H i‘iakaikapualau‘I, Hi‘iakanoholae, Hi‘iakawahilani, and
Hi‘iakaikapoliopele. Some people who are knowledgeable about the Hi‘iaka
story believe there are a great number of H i‘iaka sisters, as many as forty or more.
In the Maui version, there are eight Hi‘iaka sisters, who are the same as the
ones shown above, and there are many different locations [wahi] in these names.
Here is the nature of some of their work: H i‘iakamakolewawahiwa‘a is the eldest,
and the lei-hala with the rainbow (anuenue) is her sign (ho‘ailona).
Hi‘iakawawahilani, or Hi‘iakawahilani as shown above, the kua ua (sudden
249
downpour) is her sign. H i‘iakanoholani, the ‘onohi ‘ula (rainbow fragment) and
the uakoko rainbow are her symbols. H i‘iakaka‘alawamaka, the ‘ohiki maka loa
(kind of crab) is her sign. Hi‘iakaikapoliopele, the pala‘a fern of the mountain
regions is her sign, and the eating of fish from head to tail is her kanawai.
Hi‘iakakapu‘ena‘ena, who is also known as Hi‘iakaikapuaaneane as shown above,
the wela nonono ‘ula (sunburn or flushing) of men and perhaps women . . . is her
sign. Hi‘iakalei‘ia, this is the Hi‘iaka for whom all leis belong outside of the lei
hala; the youngest one is Hi‘iaka‘opio. It is understood that Maui’s H i‘iaka
sisters are very different from the many Hi‘iaka sisters of Pele, such as
Hi‘iaka‘opio. In H aw aii’s version, it is known that Hi‘iakaikapoliopele is the
favorite and youngest sister of the woman of the fire-pit at Kilauea.
Just as what has been said above, H i‘iakaikapoliopele was just a tiny little girl
on this journey with the older sisters and brothers, and in her breast, in N u‘akea,
that is perhaps how the reader understands the beginning of this journey in the
story.27 (see Appendix 5G for Hawaiian text)
While Pa‘aluhi and Bush do not describe the epithets and attributes of the Hi‘iaka
sisters in as much detail as Poepoe, the inclusion of the mo‘olelo and acknowledgement
of siblings exhibits a value of ‘ohana and relationship to the ‘aina, fundamental in
27 January 24, 1908.
250
Hawaiian culture (see Pukui and Handy 1972). It is possible that Kapihenui did not give
a m o‘oku‘auhau for the Pele ‘ohana because it was a given that his audience might
already know it, or perhaps he wasn’t sure how to write the mo‘oku‘auhau (or questioned
whether it should be written and published). Perhaps Poepoe described the siblings,
variations in their names and their ho‘ailona at great length because Kanaka in the early
twentieth century reading the mo‘olelo were completely removed from such knowledge.
Pa‘aluhi and Bush (A) is also the first Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo to establish
Pele’s migration from Kahiki to Hawai‘i. Kahiki is alternately any foreign place outside
of the Hawaiian islands (a general descriptive term) and the Hawaiian referent for Tahiti
(and in extension, its related neighboring islands) (PED 112). Pa‘aluhi and Bush describe
Pele and her ‘ohana migrating from Kukulu o Kahiki or “the Pillars of Tahiti” (January 6,
1893). While there are differences in later versions as to where Pele ma are traveling
from and where they land in the Hawaiian islands as demonstrated in the table below,
Pa‘aluhi and Bush establish in print the basic pattern of migration Pele ma follow,
arriving first on the northwest Hawaiian islands and making their way down to the main
Hawaiian islands enroute to Hawai‘i island, where Pele settles. Manu provides two
alternate migration sequences, one for Kapo‘ulakIna‘u and one for Pelekeahi‘aloa. They
are similar to each other, except Kapo stays on Maui and doesn’t go to Kaua‘i, and Pele’s
journey to Nihoa is purposeful. The two migrations set up a pattern for Pele; as Kapo
migrates, different members of the entourage stay at different places; when Pele comes
through, the family members accompany her to Hawai‘i island where she takes up
251
residence at Halema‘uma‘u. Table 5G below is a chronology of the places Pele and her
‘ohana are said to have migrated to Hawai‘i from, as mentioned in the different m o‘olelo:
T able 5G. M igration of the P ele ‘ohana from K ahiki to H aw ai ‘i (C hronological order )
Wahi: Pa‘aluhi Manu H o‘oulu- H o‘oulu- Poepoe Rice Emerson Desha

& Bush mahiehie mahiehie
(A) KLL KLK HA KNA KHR HOH HOH
1893 1899 1905 1906 1908 1908 1915 1924
Kahiki X X X X X X
Kukulu o Kahiki X X X
Polapola X X X* X
Hapakuela X
“na mokupapapa ma X X
ke komohana”
Kuaihelani X X
Moku [Palpa X X
Moku Manamana X
Nihoa X X X
Kaula X X X X X
N iihau X X X X X X m X
Lehua X X
K auai X X X X X X [X ] X
0 ‘ahu X X X X X X X
M olokai X X X X X X X X
Lanai X X
Kaho‘olawe X X X X [xl X
Maui X X X X X X X X
H aw aii X X X X X X X X
(Hawaiinuiokeawe)
The two migration sequences in Ho‘oulumahiehie are identical to each other and
to Desha. Poepoe, on the other hand, provides two different versions of Pele’s migration
to Hawai‘i, distinguishing them by the islands they come from. He specifically notes that
her migration from Polapola is a Hawai‘i island tradition, while her migration from
Hapakuela is a Maui island tradition.
In contrast, Rice notes that the Pele ‘ohana migrates from somewhere else to
Polapola, the first place actually named. Similarly, Emerson states that “According to
Hawaiian myth” Pele was bom in Kuaihelani, a “free-floating island” also known as
252
Kahiki (Kukulu o Kahiki), “a name that connotes Java” (ix). Both these text hint at pre-
Pacific, pre-Polynesian origins which reflect current theories of migration originating in
South-East Asia.
On the chart above, N i‘ihau and Kaua‘i are bracketed in Emerson’s column
because he does not mention them, other than including a chant beginning with the lines
“Hui iho nei ka wa‘a a Kamohoali‘i / E kii ana i ko lakou pokii, ia Kaneaopua, i Nihoa”
in a section called “Pele’s Account to Kamohoalii of the Departure from Kahiki” (xi-xii).
It is the same with Kaho’olawe, which is only mentioned in the chant beginning “Aloha o
Maui aloha e / Aloha o Molokai aloha e” or “Pele’s Farewell to Maui” (xv).
In the mo‘olelo, different members of the entourage decide to stay at various
locations along the way, thus populating the Hawaiian archipelago with Pele’s relatives.
While not always mentioned in detail, typically Pele’s brother Kuhaimoana stays at
Ka‘ula; in this version, he remains “at the small islands in the west,” while brother
Kamohoali’i remains at Kaho’olawe; both brothers have mano (shark) forms28 Once they
reach Kilauea, Hawai‘i, the authors describe the establishment of ka pali kapu o
Kamohoali’i, “The sacred cliff of Kamohoali’i” on the side of the volcano, which denotes
Kamohoali‘i’s status in the ‘ohana.
At this point in the text, one of the writers, possibly Pa‘aluhi, interjects his
thoughts on the nature of volcanic activity at the crater, comparing and contrasting Native
Hawaiian and western religious philosophies, saying, “This nation [Kanaka Maoli]
28 la lakou nei i keehi mai ai i na papaku o keia Paemoku, a hiki i ke ka’i maloo ana ma na moku liilii ma ke
komohana mai, ua hoonoho iho la o Kuhaimoana kekahi kaikunane o ua aliiwahine la . . . Ua hele hou aia
la no lakou a hiki i Kahoolawe, noho hou ia kaikunane o Pele, oia o Kamohoalii (January 9, 1893).
253
believes that Pele is a god, and she lives in the crater at Kilauea or perhaps Mokuohai,
and that Pele is the one who lights the fires of Kilauea. However, that is the not the
thinking of enlightened people, they know there is fire (lava) beneath [the surface of] the
earth and it is God Almighty who prepares it.”29 This is the only point in m o‘olelo (A) in
which the author(s) interject a comment not directly related to the storyline, a common
practice in Kapihenui, and in later texts. It is possible that Pa‘aluhi, the kahu is the one
writing because of the direct comparison between the two religions; perhaps he felt
compelled to add his own comments, which favored the Christian perspective. Yet
immediately following this editorial comment, the first of three hulihia chants, “Hulihia
ke au ka papa honua kona moku” is presented. Twenty-seven lines long, this first hulihia
chant tells of Pele’s coming to Hawai’i, and the ho’ailona which accompanied her; “this
is the hulihia for Pele folks departing from Tahiti and coming here to Hawai‘i. While Pele
folks were traveling on the ocean on the path to Hawai‘i, there were many storms, rain,
thunder, lightning, rainbows, strong seas, a faint rainbow standing upland on the land
(punakea30), the heavens trembled (‘opa‘ipa‘i) and the earth shook (naueue).” 31 While
denouncing the Kanaka Maoli belief in Pele as a volcanic goddess, the inclusion of the
hulihia chant documenting Pele’s arrival to Hawai’i—immediately following and
commenting on the natural phenomena closely associated both with the Pele ‘ohana,
29 Ua manao keia lahui kanaka he akua no o Pele, a ke noho nei no i keia lua o Kilauea, aiole i Mokuohai. O
ka a ana ka o ke ahi o Kilauea i Hawaii na Pele no i ho-a. Aka, aole nae pela ka manao o ka poe naauao he
manao no lakou he ahi no malalo o ka honua a ke Akua Mana Loa i hoomakaukau ai (January 9, 1893).
30 punakea is “A barely visible rainbow;” puna kea is “white coral, as cast ashore by the sea,” presumably
during rough seas (PED 355). It appears that both thoughts are evoked in his passage.
31 O keia ka Hulihia no ko Pele ma haalele ana ia Kahiki, a hele mai no Hawaii nei. Ia Pele ma iwaena
moana no ke alanuihele no Hawaii nei, ua nui ka ino, ka ua, ka hekili, ka uwila, ka uakoko, ka punohu, ke
kaikoo, ka punakea ku i uka o ka aina, opaipai ka lani naueue ka honua” (January 9, 1893).
254
akua, and ali‘i—provides a particularly Kanaka Maoli counterpoint to the preceding
paragraph, as not only does the inclusion of the thought expressed in the chant
demonstrate a Kanaka Maoli perspective, but the use of the chant form itself does as well.
This is an example of Kanaka Maoli assertion of culture and transmission of culture, as it
evokes more traditional genres of cultural thought, which doesn’t happen in Kaili, who,
writing for an English-speaking haole audience, writes in a prose narrative where the
chants are excluded and minimally alluded to.
The next issue on January 10, 1893 begins with a second hulihia chant, which
appears to be presented out of context. “Hulihia ke au pe‘e i lalo” is introduced with a
brief phrase, “Nalowale na aina mai Kahiki mai a hala loa i Hawaii nei, no ka hele a Pele
a ka wahine hookalakupua” (The land from Tahiti disappears and [they] passed a great
distance to Hawai’i here in the travels of Pele the supernatural woman) (January 10,
1893). The use of the word ho‘okalakupua, “supernatural, magic” implies Pele’s status as
a god {PED 121).
From here, the mo‘olelo jumps to the crater, and Pele’s desire to travel to the
seashore (January 10, 1893). As in Kapihenui, Pele sees Hopoe dancing at the sea of
Nanahuki, and requests the younger Hi‘iaka sisters dance. They all decline except for
Hi’iakaikapoliopele. She dances “Ke ha‘a la Puna i ka makani” (Puna dances in the
breeze) (Kanahele and Wise, 66).32 Pele is delighted with her younger sister’s
performance, and asks for more. Hi‘iaka then performs, ‘“ O Puna kai ‘kua i ka hala”
32 This hula is described more fully in Mokuna 7.
255
(January 30, 1893).33 When she is pau, she joins her friend Hopoe in the ocean where
they spend time surfing and hanging out, enjoying each others’ company.
The mo‘olelo continues along the usual plot lines: Pele goes to sleep, her spirit
hears the beating of pahu drums, and follows the sound all the way to Kaua‘i, where the
ali‘i Lohi‘au and his companion Kahuaka‘iapaoa are drumming at a hula festival. Pele
reveals her beautiful self, Lohi‘au is entranced by her, and they spend some time
together. But Pele’s spirit must return to the crater, and she orders him to wait for her.
Upon waking, she asks the sisters to go to Kaua‘i to fetch Lohi’au, but all refuse except
H i‘iakaikapoliopele. She agrees to go and sets off towards Hilo.
While Kapihenui’s text gives a lengthy series of “E ku nei au e hele” chants,
Pa‘aluhi and Bush offer only two. Instead, the third hulihia of mo‘olelo (A) is presented,
somewhat out of context, as Hi‘iaka prepares to depart Pu‘u ‘oni‘oni. It is interesting to
speculate why na mea kakau would present this hulihia here, which is something that
Ho‘oulumahiehie, Poepoe, and Emerson do as well. Is it possible that all of these later
texts are referencing Pa‘aluhi and Bush, which is why they also include the chant out of
the context of their m o‘olelo? Does this mo‘olelo provide the basis for Kaili’s English
version? Is it perhaps important and more relevant because of the overthrow of the
Hawaiian government, happening within days of the publication of the m o‘olelo? Is
there a connection with the concept of aloha ‘aina discussed in the introduction to the
m o‘olelo, the hulihia, and the overthrow? Or is the reason for placing this hulihia only in
33 Kanahele and Wise combine “Ke H a‘a la Puna” with the next oli in the text, ‘“O Puna kai kuwa i ka
hala” (65-66). These are distinctly separate mele in both Kapihenui and Pa‘aluhi and Bush.
256
the text a combination of any of these possibilities? I can do no more than speculate at
this point.
Transition to Kapihenui’s mo‘olelo. The last segment of mo‘olelo (A) ends on January
29, 1893, when Hi‘iaka ma arrive at Wahine‘oma‘o’s parents’ home. It is a strange
coincidence that the m o‘olelo ends at the same point at which Ho‘oulumahiehie’s
m o‘olelo in Hawaii Aloha ends just over a decade later, when its publication is
transferred to Ka Na ‘i Aupuni and begun anew. The January 30 issue of Ka Leo o ka
Lahui begins with a brief introduction explaining how the authors/editors have just
recently become aware of another tradition. Although they don’t mention Kapihenui by
name, it is the same m o‘olelo he published in 1861, with very minor variations. The
m o‘olelo then immediately launches into the “new” storyline which follows Kapihenui;
the only variations in the opening paragraph are punctuation. While Kapihenui’s opening
paragraph is broken up into more separate sentences, in this version, they are run
together, creating much longer sentences, but providing the same scenario as the original.
Similarly, Pa‘aluhi and Bush’s mo‘olelo can be compared to the Bishop Museum
Archives manuscript HI.L. 23. See Appendix 51 for comparative texts.
While purported to be a reprint of Kapihenui, there are enough interesting and
unique features of the Pa‘aluhi and Bush text to warrant further discussion/investigation.
First, the Pa'aluhi and Bush text is the only one of all the Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo to be
signed by more than one writer. The Pa‘aluhi and Bush text presents two mo‘olelo
which appear to be representing two different traditions. While both are unattributed to
257
other sources, the first (A) appears to be a basic text upon which later writers, namely
Ho‘oulumahiehie, Poepoe, and Desha draw to establish their Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo.
While later writers such as Poepoe compare and contrast two different traditions in their
text (Poepoe identifies them as a Hawai‘i island tradition and a Maui island tradition),
Pa‘aluhi and Bush begin with one tradition, switch early on to a completely separate one,
and do not compare the two. In addition, the Pa‘aluhi and Bush text offers, for the first
time in print, a m o‘oku‘auhau for Pele and includes a migration sequence for the Pele
‘ohana arriving in Hawai‘i from Kahiki and establishing their presence across the
Hawaiian archipelago.
The second mo‘olelo (K) is nearly identical to Kapihenui, although there are some
important exceptions. One is the sequence of hulihia chants at the end of the mo‘olelo.
In analyzing Kapihenui’s m o‘olelo earlier in this chapter, I described the important chant
sequences contained in the mo‘olelo, identifying the last one as “X. Kahuaka‘iapaoa’s
Hulihia chants #297-302 (5 chants).” This chant sequence in Pa‘aluhi and Bush (K)
contains the same number of chants presented in the same order, the only obvious
exception being that Hi‘iaka chants the final hulihia in the Pa‘aluhi and Bush (K) version.
Not as immediately obvious are the differences in line lengths in the chants. While
Kapihenui complained about the nupepa editors truncating chants, Pa‘aluhi and Bush
didn’t appear to have that problem. Yet in comparing these hulihia chants, even when the
handwritten lines added to the Bishop Museum HI.L 23 manuscript are taken into
account, there are still discrepancies in line lengths, as demonstrated in the following
table:
258
T able 5 h . C om parison of H ulihia chants betw een Kapihenui and P a ‘aluhi and B ush (K)
(CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)
hulihia title Kapihenui Pa'aluhi Kapihenui HI.L 23 Pa'aluhi Kapihenui Pa'aluhi

& Bush & Bush & Bush
+lines
chant # chant # line #s line #s na wai: na wai:
Hulihia Kukuilani, nei 299 284 13 — 15 Paoa Paoa
aku la i ka pili o Hooilo
Hulihia ke au ka papa 300 285 25 +35 62 Paoa Paoa
honua o kona moku
Hulihia Kilauea po i ka 301 286 20 — 48 Paoa Paoa
uahi
Hulihia ka mauna wela 302 287 24 +26 54 Paoa Paoa
i ke ahi
Hulihia ke au pee ilalo 303 288 36 +23 38 Paoa Paoa
Hulihia ke au nee ilalo 304 289 35 +57 37 Paoa Hi’iaka
ia Kea
Because the first mo‘olelo is interrupted, it contains only 19 chants, although
three are hulihia chants presented out of their normal context at the end of the m o‘olelo
(see “Variations in Hulihia chants” earlier in this chapter). Version (K), on the other
hand, includes 270 chants.34
One of the most noticeable differences between Kapihenui and Pa‘aluhi and Bush
is the ending of the m o‘olelo. It is somewhat ironic that the mo‘olelo itself also abruptly
ended. There is no indication as to whose decision it was—whether Kapihenui’s version
actually ended there, if he was not able to provide more to the editors of the nupepa, or if
the nupepa editors decided to cease publication of the m o‘olelo. Pa‘aluhi and Bush
conclude their version of the m o‘olelo with two additional paragraphs after the final
hulihia chant is presented. These paragraphs summarize and refer to other more complete
accounts, which reunite Hi‘iaka and Lohi‘au.
34 As noted earlier in this chapter, while there is a discrepancy between this text and the number of chants
collected from Kapihenui, there isn’t necessarily as big of a difference as it seems, as both have missing
issues from microfilm.
259
We [the authors] are weary of Hi'iaka’s actions [for not keeping the pact with
P ele].. . . In the meantime, she is following the spirit of Lohi'au. There are a great
number of these stories about Lohi'au. In some versions it is said Lohi'au is
revived by a brother of Hi'iakaikapoliopele folks, and the two of them lived as
man and wife in the manner of our ancestors in the ancient times. Pele was
astonished at being forsaken as “a little bird trying to sip the nectar of the lehua
blossoms of Ka'ana.” We offer a fond farewell thereafter.35 (translation by Ioane
Ho'omanawanui and myself)
The reference to the “nectar-sipping bird at Ka'ana” is a wahi pana ‘olelo no'eau
(a proverb which references a place name). It metaphorically explains that Pele was
frustrated for “getting the short end of the stick in matters of the heart” (i.e., she felt
slighted in love) (Ioane Ho'omanawanui, e-mail communication, April 30, 2007). There
are multiple levels of expression contained within the sentiments of this phrase, both of
which surround the use of the lehua blossom as the central image, and the reference to
Ka'ana as the place where the lehua are blooming. Lehua is a common metaphor for an
attractive person or a lover; numerous ‘olelo no'eau reference it in such context.36 One
example which expresses this thought is the ‘olelo no'eau “E mana'o a'e ana e lei i ka
lehua o Mokaulele” (A wish to wear the lehua of Mokaulele in a lei) (Pukui, 43). Pukui
35 Ma keia wahi i pauaho mai ai o Hiiakaikapoliopele ia makou, oiai no nae oia e hoomau ana no i ke alualu
i ke aka kino wailua o Lohiau. He nui no na mahele o keia m o‘olelo e pili ana ia Lohiau, ke olelo nei ia
mahele ua ola hou o Lohiau i kekahi kaikunane o Hiiakaikapoliopele ma, a ua noho a kane a wahine maoli
laua, elike me ke ano mau o keia lahui i ka wa kahiko, a ua ka-ia loa ia hoi o Pele i ka nele loa, e kahi manu
iki inu wai pua lehua o Kaana. Ke haawi aku nei makou i ke aloha hope loa (July 12, 1893).
36 There are ten ‘olelo no‘eau included in Pukui (1983).
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
260
explains that this expresses a desire to win a lover, as “lei symbolizes sweetheart, and
lehua a pretty girl [or handsome man]” (43). Lehua is also the blossom and tree most
closely associated with the Pele ‘ohana, the H i‘iaka sisters (and Hiiakaikapoliopele) in
particular.
The reference to Ka’ana invokes another layer of kaona, that which refers to hula
traditions. While hula is thought to begin with Hopoe, Ha’ena and Hi‘iaka in Puna,
Hawaii, as evidenced through the Pele and H iiaka mo‘olelo in particular, Ka’ana,
M olokai is the site of the origin of hula through another Pele sister, Kapo‘ulakIna‘u, as
previously mentioned in Mokuna 4. In this context, Ka’ana is well represented in oli and
mele hula (see Emerson 1909).
Ka’ana, meaning “division,” is “famous for lehua” (Pukui, Elbert and Mookini,
60). A pule kuahu (altar prayer) for Kapo‘ulakIna‘u references Ka’ana, “Aia la na lehua
o Ka’ana,” (The lehua groves there at Ka’ana); Emerson describes Ka’ana as “a place on
Mauna-loa, Molokai, where the lehua greatly flourished” (Emerson 1909, 45). An ‘olelo
no‘eau collected by Pukui also references Ka’ana’s status in this context, referring to “Ka
lehua nene‘e o Ka’ana” (The low-growing lehua of Ka’ana) (Pukui, 156). Pukui explains
that this “refers to Ka’ana, Moloka’i. Often mentioned in chants of Moloka’i, the lehua of
Ka’ana were loved by the goddess Kapo. This lehua grove was destroyed by introduced
animals. The first or one of the first hula schools in the islands is said to have been
located at Ka’ana” (Pukui, 156). It is not surprising, however, that an additional layer of
meaning may be referenced in this phrase, as Ka’ana is also a place in the Puna district,
located between Kea’au and ‘Ola’a. An ‘olelo no’eau states, “Kauwa ke aloha i na lehua
o Ka'ana” (Love is a slave to the lehua blossoms of Ka'ana [Hawai'i]) (Pukui, 177).
Pukui says that this is a place “where travelers used to rest and make lei of lehua. It took
many blossoms and much patience to compete a lei. The lei was later given to a loved
one” (Pukui, 177). Perhaps this is also alluding to Hi'iaka’s action of weaving lei lehua
for Lohi'au at the rim of the crater and presenting it to him with a honi and embrace in
Pele’s sight, which instigated her wrath and destruction of Lohi'au. The sentiment
evoked by the references is that “it is a frustrating process for the little manu because
there is no succulent lehua for it to sip at Ka'ana,” meaning that Pele is frustrated at her
opportunity for making love to Lohi'au being taken from her. Perhaps the authors are
also playing with the audience a bit, as the m o‘olelo itself is a sweet lehua being plucked
from the pages of the nupepa, leaving the readers frustrated at the abrupt ending.
Pa'aluhi and Bush’s ending is not as abrupt as Kapihenui’s, although it appears
highly summarized when compared to later publications. They do mention Lohi'au’s
revival and reunion with Hi'iaka, but no further episodes are presented. It is also an
interesting contrast to the Henriques-Peabody manuscript HI. L. 23, which, similar to
Kapihenui, also ends at the conclusion of the final hulihia chant with no additional
exposition.
Aside from all the textual differences, a larger question remains: after beginning
an independent tradition, why do the writers/editors revert to a previously published
tradition? Chariot (1998) bemoans the loss of this independent tradition, which is indeed
disappointing (62). It is possible that with the political upheaval taking place around the
publication of the mo'olelo, it might simply have been easier to utilize an already
262
published version as the editors were preoccupied with real world politics. During the
course of the publication of the mo‘olelo just after the transition to the Kapihenui text,
Joseph Nawahl took over as editor of the paper from Bush. From February 6 to March
24,1893, Nawahfs name is listed on the masthead as head editor, replacing Bush. From
March 27,1893 to the conclusion of the m o‘olelo, Bush’s name again appears, replacing
Nawahi, on the masthead of the nupepa. Did Nawahfs takeover of the paper influence
the change in the m o‘olelo, or was that merely coincidental?
The common between the two traditions denominator is the value Kanaka Maoli
placed not only on their ancient oral traditions, but on their newly developed literary ones
as well. Pa‘aluhi and Bush don’t look back to the pre-contact culture of m o‘olelo handed
down “mai ka po mai.” Rather, they are citing a written text published a generation prior.
This speaks to a kind of intertextuality of written Hawaiian literature which continues in
the Hawaiian-language nupepa for another forty years, and continues today in Hawaiian
literature written now both in Hawaiian and English. The mo‘oku‘auhau of Pele texts set
forth in the beginning of this chapter (figure 1) demonstrates a framework for
understanding a Kanaka Maoli perspective on how these texts are related to, draw from,
and inform each other decades prior to Emerson’s Pele and H i‘iaka in which he is
credited with utilizing such an analytical and comparative approach. Rather, at least a
generation or two earlier, Kanaka Maoli were writing manuscripts, publishing, and
comparing different versions, demonstrating mastery of a cultural treasure.
Chariot argues that the differences in versions are the result of redaction, an editor
or redactor making personal choices to fit specific functions. I assert, however, that these
263
writers of Hawaiian m o‘olelo were doing more than that. They were comparing,
contrasting, and analyzing different island versions, publishing them for public comment
as a way of creating and adapting the interactive, performative nature of the oral
traditions through hula and chant on paper, performing in a way described by Noenoe
Silva as “dancing on the page.”
With such an abundance of Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo published from 1861-1911
that are much more detailed, comprehensive, and culturally anchored than the Emerson
text, which came to supplant them, the question is, how did Emerson’s Pele and Hiiaka
attain the popularity and longevity it has enjoyed in the near century it has been in print?
The next chapter examines Emerson’s text more closely, comparing and contrasting it
with Kapihenui, Pa’aluhi and Bush, and other Pele and Hi’iaka mo‘olelo published both
before and after his.
264
MOKUNA 6
‘AU MA KA HULA‘ANA: NATHANIEL B. EMERSON’S
PELE AND HP I AKA, A MYTH FROM HAWAI7
‘Au ma ka hula‘ana, Swimming at the narrow path along the cliff

Kaiko'o ka pali, The strong surf crashes on the cliff
Pihapiha ‘o ‘Ele'ele, ‘Ele'ele [Black] is filled out
Ke kai o Maka‘ukiu, The sea ofMaka ‘ukiu
A ‘u e hopo i ka loa, I am fearful at the distance
0 Honokaneiki, o f Honokaneiki
I kane la ‘olua, The two o f you are men
I wahine la au e I am indeed a woman
Ho‘okuku, Shaking
Ka ‘au hula‘ana, The narrow swimming path
0 ka pali, o f the cliff
Ke pu‘e ala e ke kai, The waves rise like hillocks
A nalo ka ‘aukl, and the ti stem vanishes
He i ‘a ko lalo. There is a shark below
He i ‘a ‘o Maka‘ukiu, It is the shark Maka ‘ukiu
‘O Maka‘ukiu ho'i e Maka ‘ukiu indeed
Mehe ‘uahi mahu kai la, The sea spray is like mist
Ko lalo ‘o Kaka'auki, Below Kdka ‘auki
I Maka'ukiu, At Maka ‘ukiu
He kiu he alele aloha, A spy, a messenger o f love
Eia i o ‘u nei e Here I am
(Kapihenui, January 16, 1862)
Merely as a story, this myth o f Pele and her kindred may be deemed to have no
compelling merit that should attract one to its reading. The cycle o f world-myth
already gathered. . . is quite vast enough. (Emerson 1915, v)
While a genealogical connection exists between the Kapihenui, Pa'aluhi and
Bush, and Emerson Pele and Hi‘iaka mo'olelo, is difficult to discuss Emerson’s text
utilizing the same parameters as the Kapihenui and Pa'aluhi and Bush m o‘olelo in the
previous chapter, as Emerson’s mo‘olelo is a separate project with markedly different
implications and outcomes. In this chapter, I will argue that Emerson’s mo‘olelo is a
265
different kind of wa‘a from Kapihenui and Pa‘aluhi and Bush—one which functions as a
vehicle of colonial practice.
Half a century after Kapihenui published the first Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo in
Hawaiian, Emerson published the first comprehensive Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo in
English. Pele and HViaka has since then been the most available text offering a glimpse
into this famous Hawaiian epic. In print for nearly a century, most of what is popularly
known (and taught) about Pele and Hi‘iaka today comes from this book, which is a great
tragedy considering the depth of Kanaka Maoli thought and literary expression it
supersedes. Emerson’s m o’olelo draws heavily from the Hawaiian-language nupepa
sources, which he mentions in the preface to Pele and HViaka. I am including it as part
of the genealogical strand of mo’olelo along with the Kapihenui text because when the
two are compared it is clear that Emerson drew the bulk of his text from Kapihenui
(whom he neither credits or names), something that has been noted by other scholars
(Kanahele and Wise, 188; Chariot 1998, 61). Additional source texts Emerson mentions
will be discussed throughout this chapter.
Remaining in print and widely available since it was first published, Pele and
HViaka is often viewed as an important source text of the Pele and Hi’iaka mo’olelo.1
This is probably due to several factors which derive from colonialism and the expanding
American empire. As Emerson was a western-educated missionary son and thus part of
1Aside from the original 1915 edition, five subsequent reprints or editions were published. There include
two reprints in 1978, one by AMS (New York), and the other by Charles E. Tuttle Co. (Rutland, VT),
which contained a new introduction by Terrence Barrow. ‘Aipohaku Press (Honolulu) published a revised
edition in 1993, with a reprint in 1997. Most recently, Edith Kanaka‘ole Foundation (Hilo) published
another revised edition with a new introduction by Taupouri Tangaro.
266
this empire, these factors include but are not limited to related issues of format, authority,
language and the re-framing of the mo‘olelo to fit a western paradigm that reinforced the
overall colonial project.
Navigating between these two worlds, Emerson is metaphorically “‘au ma ka
hula‘ana i ke kai o Maka‘ukiu,” (swimming along the narrow edge in the sea of
Maka‘ukiu). Pukui and Elbert define hula‘ana as a “place where it is necessary to swim
past a cliff that blocks passage along a beach or coast; sheer cliff where the sea beats”
(PED 88). Maka‘ukiu is a shark kupua who H i‘iaka encounters enroute to Kaua‘i. As
the women travel along the North Hilo-Hamakua coast of Hawai‘i island, they come to
an area where the road appears to end abruptly at “a precipice with the ocean dashing
wildly at its base” (Emerson, 47). The only alternative is to swim the short distance, or
take a long, circuitous route inland. Wahine‘oma‘o wants to swim, but H i‘iaka warns
there is danger; she is aware that Maka‘ukiu, a great shark kupua, is lurking below. The
women do not believe H i‘iaka at first, who throws a stalk of ti leaves (‘auki) into the
water to prove the presence of the shark. When Maka‘ukiu surfaces they battle. H i‘iaka
is victorious, making their journey safe, but also further demonstrating her wisdom and
leadership. Maka‘ukiu can be translated as “dangerous spy.”2
2 Maka‘u is “fearful, unsafe, dangerous,” while kiu is a ‘spy, scout; to spy, observe secretly” (PED 228,
155). I believe this rendering suggests the fierce nature of the mano, and his concealed position beneath
the water. Noenoe Silva suggests this name is better understood as related to Maka ‘Ukiu, a place name on
Moloka'i, and a wind name from Maui.
267
P u b l ic a t io n F o r m a t and L it e r a r y A u t h o r it y
While the format of Pele and HViaka may seem trivial in the overall study of the
m o‘olelo, its impact on the longevity of Emerson’s text cannot be underestimated. No
other Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo was published in a book format. This format makes it
much more conducive to dissemination, repeated reading, study, and storage, the physical
dimensions of the book being a handy 6 x 9 inches in size and 250 pages in length.3 The
original 1915 edition contained a photo portrait of Emerson as a frontispiece, and 5
illustrations by 5 separate artists: “The Crater of Kilauea” by Robert K. Bonine (1),
“Halemaumau—The Lake of Fire” by R. W. Perkins (97), “The Cliffs of Kalalau” by
Ray Jarome Baker (144), “The Descent from the Cliffs” by Juliette May Fraser (160) and
“The God is at Work in the Hills” by A. W. Emerson (176).4 The illustrations include
photos, drawings, and paintings, two of which are in color.
Aside from prefatory and introductory text and illustrations, all of the editions use
the exact same copy, most likely through a photo duplication process (Dore Minatodani,
e-mail communication, April 13, 2007). Furthermore, the illustrations that were included
in the 1915 edition were not paginated, so the rest of the text was reproducible without
the illustrations, which could explain why later editions did not contain them.
3 The physical dimensions of the book listed above are based on my own measurement of the actual text.
The UH Voyager catalog describes the 1915 edition as being 24 cm. in length, which is approximately 9.5
inches. Subsequent publications vary in size by 1-2 cm. as follows: 22 cm (1978 AMS Press edition, 2005
EKF edition), 23 cm (1997 ‘Aipohaku Press edition), 24 cm (1978 Charles E. Tuttle edition, 1993
‘Aipohaku Press edition). A digitally scanned electronic copy of the 1915 edition gives the physical
dimensions as 6.83 by 9.64 inches (http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04687612).
4 The photo of Emerson is included on the back cover of the 1993 and 1997 ‘Aipohaku Press editions, as
well as the 2005 Edith Kanaka'ole Foundation edition. None of the illustrations except the first one by R.
K. Bonine are included in the digitized copy of the 1915 edition.
268
While describing the establishment of newspapers in the Hawaiian Islands,
Chapin (1996) quotes communications expert Harold Innis, who recognizes the role of
print itself as “the great colonizer and empire builder” which “has enabled imperialism to
spread its power across continents and oceans. The imposition of print upon the
Hawaiian Islands coincided with the rise of America as an imperialist Pacific power.
American-style newspapers were a major contributor to this expansion” (6; 15). The
movement from newspapers to book publication solidified this hold. Chapin notes that,
“Print technology when introduced into oral cultures either overwhelms them or drives
them into pockets of resistance. In Hawai‘i, an oral, memory-based traditional culture, a
culture that had thrived in isolation and in balance with nature for more than a thousand
years, was rapidly displaced by codified laws, constitutions, and newspapers” (15). At
the dawn of the twentieth century, the publication of books by writers such as Emerson,
Westervelt, Rice, Thrum, and others which appeared alongside the newspapers continued
this trend.
The rise of academic disciplines such as anthropology, ethnology, and folklore
was also a factor in the publication of Emerson’s books. In From Savage to Negro,
Anthropology and the construction o f race, 1896-1954 (1998), Lee Baker details how
“the rise of academic anthropology” in the U.S. in the late 1880s “was concurrent with
the rise of American imperialism and the institutionalization of racial segregation and
disfranchisement” (26). In short, the profession of anthropology emerged at this time as a
way to “justify racism” and provide “the institutional foundations for the field” (27).
269
Emerson’s first book, Unwritten Literature was produced as Bulletin 28 by the
Bureau of American Ethnology (B AE) and published by the Government Printing Office
in Washington, D.C. in 1909. The BAE was established on March 3, 1879 by an act of
Congress, which was heavily influenced by the work of the BAE’s first director, John
Wesley Powell (Baker, 40). The Act “combined four independent government surveys to
create the United States Geological Survey and . . . transferred to the Smithsonian
Institution the results of diverse anthropological field work previous pursued by those
surveys under instructions from the Department of the Interior” (Judd, 3). A centennial
report prepared by the Smithsonian’s Department of Anthropology in 1997 states:
[The BAE was] a separate, purely research unit of the Smithsonian, independent
of the National Museum. The focus of the Bureau’s research was on North
American Indian cultures, including important works in ethnology, archaeology,
and linguistics. The B.A.E. effectively founded American anthropology
(especially ethnology and linguistics) at a time when there were no advanced
university degrees in the field and there were almost no full-time anthropologists
employed anywhere else. The 200 Bulletins and 48 Annual Reports of the B.A.E.
were the premier publications in anthropology in the country for most of the 86
years of the Bureau’s existence, (http://www.nmnh.si.edu/anthro/outreach/
depthist.html)
Baker describes Powell as “a dispassionate scientist. . . [who] developed into a
crusader to save public land and Native American societies” (40). However, Baker notes
270
that in his report to establish the BAE, “Powell made seemingly contradictory statements
for the justification of the BAE. Above all, he looked to science to remedy the Indian
problem” (40). He writes:
The theoretical position [Powell] took fits squarely within an anthropological
strand of Social Darwinism. . . Federal agents, he explained, must study
indigenous customs because they ‘must necessarily be overthrown before new
institutions, customs, philosophy, and religion can be introduced.’ Although
Powell may have been benevolent toward Native Americans, there was no doubt
about what race he viewed as superior. (40)
In The Bureau o f American Ethnology, a Partial History (1967), Neil Judd writes
that since its inception, the BAE concentrated “almost exclusively” on “Indian languages,
mythologies, and tribal government, for these were subjects in which the director was
himself most interested” (19). Powell’s interest in native mythology explains the
attention given to Hawaiian mo‘olelo, including Pele and Hi‘iaka. That, and the fact that
“the act under which the Bureau of American Ethnology operated all those years included
anthropological research in the Hawaiian Islands” (Judd, 77). How did Emerson become
involved with the BAE to begin with? Judd explains that under Powell’s direction,
questionnaires “soliciting information regarding different aspects of Indian life—
language, habitat, tribal numbers, social organization, houses, and burial practices” were
widely distributed:
271
Sent to army officers at distant military posts, to missionaries, merchants, and
others, these Smithsonian inquiries resulted in a heterogeneous collection of
Indian lore that could only be evaluated by properly qualified scholars, of whom
there were few such at the time. Many items of popular interest were made
available to the press; other information appeared in annual reports and elsewhere,
but all the original manuscripts, useful and useless, were carefully preserved for
future study. (7)
As part of American expansion in the Pacific, it is likely these questionnaires
were distributed to Hawai‘i as well. Judd reports that the response to the BAE’s
query was phenomenal, if a bit uneven:
The quantity and quality of information received by the Smithsonian Institution in
response to its circulars were amazing. Some correspondents wrote at length to
express personal opinions on subjects about which they were not fully informed;
others had more or less to say about Indians, living and dead, their languages and
tribal customs. Despite the fact that several hundred items of popular interest had
already been published, still more remained in the Institution’s files. (8)
However great the distribution of questionnaires, for whatever reason, response
from Haw aii was limited, resulting in, “only three individuals, all collaborators,
report[ing] observations there in Bureau publications” (Judd, 77). A “List of Publications
of the Bureau of American Ethnology” includes Emerson’s Unwritten Literature and
272
Beckwith’s translation of La'ieikawai, as the only works from Hawai'i published by the
BAE (http://www.sil.si.edu/DigitalCollections/BAE/Bulletin200/ 200title.htm).5
The BAE Director at the time Unwritten Literature was published was
archaeologist William Henry Holmes, who wrote the introduction to the book. Because of
the scope and nature of the institution, the association of Emerson’s work with the BAE
is quite noteworthy as it was the resource for the ethnological work he and Beckwith
were (independently) collecting. The breadth of the BAE project and its impact on
Hawaiian and Native American cultures cannot be overestimated. Baker notes that:
As director of the BAE Powell contracted and hired an array of scientists to
conduct research on Native Americans under the rubric of what he called
‘anthropologic knowledge.’ The projects and studies sponsored by the BAE were
compiled into large annual reports and distributed liberally throughout academic
institutions around the world. Under Powell’s direction the BAE published
nineteen annual reports full of multicolored lithographs and scientific papers,
forming the first comprehensive corpus of research for ethnology. (41)
Emerson was one such scientist whose work contributed to the American colonial
project. As Bacchilega notes in her work in Legendary Hawai'i, three men, Emerson, “a
man of medical science,” Thrum, “a man of commerce and publishing,” and Westervelt,
5 Originally published in Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika in 1863, S. N. Hale‘ole’s La'ieikawai was translated into
English by Anthropologist Martha Warren Beckwith and produced as an Annual Report for the BAE for
the years 1911-1912; it was published by the Government Printing Office in Washington, D.C. in 1919.
The third report Judd is referring to above is a series of five short articles penned by Gerard Fowke on
archaeological explorations in Hawai‘i (Bulletin 76, 1922) (see Judd, 77).
273
“a man of the church” were instrumental in “disseminat[ing] knowledge about Hawaiian
culture in distinctive ways, linked closely to their vocations” (72). Moreover, their
connections to “empirical science, capitalism, and religious proselytism have helped to
spread colonialism, but to narrow our focus to the production of knowledge most relevant
here, they have all played a part in the emergence of folklore as a scholarly discipline”
(72). Thus, while Emerson’s Pele and HViaka was not a part of the BAE project, it is
ultimately influenced by it. By publishing Unwritten Literature with the BAE, a text
related to Pele and Hi ‘iaka by nature of its focus on hula traditions (including oli and
mele dedicated to Pele and Hi‘iaka), Emerson is inserting Hawaiian culture into an
American paradigm. As a man of science, this association validates and solidifies his
status as an authority on Hawaiian m o‘olelo by the western world. This connection is
acknowledged in a 1910 review of Unwritten Literature in JPS (1910). The Smithsonian
was one of several dozen institutions worldwide with which the Polynesian Society
exchanged publications (xii). Upon reviewing Unwritten Literature, they write, “we wish
respectfully to congratulate the Smithsonian Institution upon the fact of their having
recognized Hawaii as part of their sphere of action by thus publishing important work
relating to this new acquisition of the United States” (141). They also praise Emerson’s
“great knowledge of the Hawaiian language,. . . tradition and customs,” acknowledging
his other publications, and suggesting he work on translating Na Mele 'Aimoku, the
Hawaiian National Songbook first published for Kalakaua in 1886.6 A review of Pele and
6 This text has been reissued with a new introduction and formatting by the Hawaiian Historical Society
(2001) as part of its Hawaiian-language reprint series. It is interesting that there is no publication
information on this book, which was published in conjunction with Kalakaua’s jubilee. Whoever it was
274
HViaka was subsequently published by JPS in 1915, where again they praise Emerson’s
work as “a great success in his rendering of the Native version into readable English”
(113).
Unlike Unwritten Literature, Pele and Hi ‘iaka was published locally by the
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, possibly because the BAE was no longer publishing materials
from Hawai‘i. It was originally founded in 1882 by J. W. Robertson and Company as the
Evening Bulletin before merging with the Hawaiian Star in 1912 to become the Honolulu
Star-Bulletin (Chapin 2000, 20). The Bulletin was edited by Wallace Rider Farrington
froml898; he became the president and publisher of the paper in 1912 (Nellist, 435). The
sixth Territorial Governor of Hawai‘i (1921-1929), Farrington was bom in Maine in
1871; a Republican, he was appointed to his position as Governor by United States
President Warren G. Harding in 1921, and reappointed again by President Calvin
Coolidge in 1925 (Nellist, 433). Farrington was the editor and publisher of the paper at
the time Pele and HViaka was published.
Emerson’s association with Farrington through the publication of Pele and
HViaka by the Star-Bulletin is an example of the intertwining of the “old” and “new”
colonial regimes. Emerson, a missionary son, was part of the old missionary-driven
colonial rule determined to suppress and strip Kanaka Maoli of elements of Hawaiian
culture which mark it as such, including hula, language, religion and related literary
traditions such as the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. Farrington, who had no direct
shied away from putting the name of the publisher on it, perhaps because of the arrest of Auld and Grieve
in 1883 for printing the hula program for the King’s coronation ceremonies (Silva, personal
communication).
275
association with the ABCFM missionaries, was part of the new colonial government
intent on keeping political control out of the hands of Kanaka Maoli and in American
hands.
Perhaps one aspect of Emerson’s authority that was linked to the publication
format was financial resources—whoever had the financial resources had the power not
just to tell the mo‘olelo, but to widely disseminate the text, which by sheer volume of
circulation, could become the default “authoritative” text.7 Yet the larger issue remains
one of colonialism. In Culture and Imperialism (1993), Edward Said discusses cultural
forms of narrative, such as the novel, and its relationship to and role in western
imperialism and expansion in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Said argues
that these forms of western narrative “were immensely important in the formation of
imperial attitudes, references, and experiences” (xii). Moreover, Said makes an explicit
connection between western narrative and imperialism, calling it uthe aesthetic object”
which allowed for this development, particularly when “the power to narrate, or to block
other narratives from forming and emerging” was “very important to culture and
imperialism . . . constitute[ing] one of the main connections between them” (xii, xiii).
While Said does not look at culture and imperialist expansion in the Pacific, what he
argues is certainly applicable to Hawai‘i; what happened in Hawai‘i during this time
period fits in with what Said describes as a “general world-wide pattern of imperial
culture” (xii). Pele and Hi'iaka is not a novel, but it is a western-produced narrative
7 A similar argument could probably be made in regards to the Hawaiian-language nupepa to a degree,
although the format of the paper provided a literary community where writers invited reader feedback and
criticism; see Nogelmeier 2003, 121-149. The weekly (or monthly) distribution of the paper allowed for
disagreement and ongoing discussion built in to this aspect of the nupepa format.
276
based on a traditional Hawaiian mo‘olelo which asserts and seeks to legitimate
Emerson’s authority as a scholar and furthers the colonial project in Hawai‘i by
recognizing this imposed authority while simultaneously distorting or silencing native
voices.
One way this works is Emerson’s presentation of himself as consummate editor, a
“unifying Homer” of this Hawaiian epic, asserting his authority quite successfully in spite
of the problems of his project and the drawbacks and gross cultural errors contained
within it. In the preface to Pele and HViaka, Emerson notes that his version is an
“elaboration” based on three different kinds of sources—the “serial contributions to the
Hawaiian newspapers during the last few decades,” interviews with “the men and women
of the older regime” and “papers solicited from intelligent Hawaiians” (v). He states that
“this book does not offer itself as a complete history of Pele; it does not even assume to
present all the oli, mele, and pule that deal with the great name of Pele” (vi). Yet while
Emerson acknowledges previous publications and other sources, and admits that this text
is not a complete presentation of the mo‘olelo, he offers himself as the sole unifier and
redeemer of the text:
Hawaii rejoiced in a Kamehameha, who, with a strong hand, welded its discordant
political elements into one body and made of it a nation. But it was denied a
Homer capable of voicing its greatest epic in one song. The myth of the volcanic
queen, like every other important Hawaiian myth, has been handled by many
poets and raconteurs, each from his own point of view, influenced, no doubt, by
local environment; but there never stood forth one singer with the supreme power
277
to symphonize the jarring notes and combine them into one concordant whole,
(v-vi)
Emerson’s comments are problematic for many reasons. First, his assertion of the
need of a single unifying voice denies a Hawaiian epistemological perspective of
“makawalu” or multiple perspectives being an acceptable construct of storytelling (Kaiwi
and Kahumoku, 184). Next, the “poets and raconteurs” influenced by their local
environment are also reflecting an important cultural value, in that Hawaiian arts—
orature and literature— are influenced by and rely upon the specificities of nature and a
localized environment (Chariot 1998, 58, 61; Osorio in Ho’omanawanui 2006, 354).
This would apply to the composition of na oli and mele (subject matter), choreography of
the hula (performance aspect), and even plot and characters.
Furthermore, Emerson argues that he has “drudged though many long years in
collecting and giving literary shape to the material herein presented” (vi). In doing so he
is ignoring the long years of collecting and giving literary shape to the material by his
Hawaiian predecessors working with the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. Rather, he seems to
be arguing for the presentation of the mo‘olelo in its reworked form appealing to a
western aesthetic and literary form. In shaping this self-aggrandizing narrative, Emerson
is also incorrect in some of his assumptions about his predecessors. He writes:
The Hawaiian to whose memory was committed the keeping of an old time mele
regarded it as a sacred trust, to be transmitted in its integrity; and he was inclined
to look upon every different and contradictory version of that mele as, in a sense,
278
an infringement of his preserve, a desecration of that sacred thing which had been
entrusted to him. It resulted from this that such a thing as a company of haku-mele
. . . conferring together for the purpose of settling upon one authoritative version
of a historic mele was an impossibility, (vi)
There is no evidence in the Hawaiian Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo that Kanaka Maoli
writers struggled with settling upon a single authoritative version of the m o‘olelo or of
oli, mele or even mo‘oku‘auhau within the m o‘olelo. In many cases, as previous chapters
suggest, these writers were also engaged in collecting different mo‘olelo and were doing
comparative work, offering different versions of oli and mele in their publications, and
referencing not only other Hawaiian m o‘olelo, but some western ones too.8 For instance,
both Poepoe and Ho‘oulumahiehie, like Emerson, refer to manuscripts provided by “J.
W. Naihe of Kohala and D. K. Waialeale.”9 Poepoe also provides a scholarly and
comparative interpretation of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo that is much more specific
and culturally framed than Emerson’s. For example, one installment of his Pele and
Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, Poepoe presents two different version of the oli “Eia ho‘i au e Laka, e
Haiwahine,” interpreting the differences between the two.
81 discuss this at length in my MA thesis.

9 O keia nae na mea i loaa ia makou ma keia moolelo Hiiaka, i kopeia mai e makou mai ka buke mai a J. W.
Naihe o Kohala, a mai ka buke mai hoi a D. K. Waialeale. A he mahele no hoi keia i ike ole ia ma na
moolelo Hiiaka i hoolahaia mamua aku nei (Ho'oulumahiehie, July 28,1905; Poepoe, April 17, 1908).
279
T a b l e 6 a . P o e p o e ’s c o m p a r is o n o f “ E ia h o t au e Laka” oli
Poepoe text translation
O ko lakou nei hele aku la no ia a hoea i While they were traveling they arrived at a
ke kilohana e nana iho ai ia lalo o Waipio, ia viewpoint and looked down into Waipi‘o valley.
wa i oli ae ai o Hiiaka i keia mele: At this time Hi‘iaka chanted this song:
Kau Helu 42. N a H iiaka Keia . Kau number 42 belonging to H i ‘iaka :
Eia hoi au e Laka, e Haiwahine, Here I am, o Laka, o Haiwahine,

Wahine kui pua o ka nahelehele, Flower-stringing woman of the forest,
Haki, hana maile aala o ka wao, Picking, fashioning the fragrant maile
of the forest,
Hoouluulu lei nou, e Laka, Gathering together lei for you, o Laka
Hele mai a ulu, a noho i ko hoa, Come and grow, and possess your
companion,
Eia au la, he hoa, he malihini. Here I am, a companion, a newcomer.
O keia kau a Hiiaka, ua hoololiloliia e ka This kau of H i‘iaka was changed by the hula
poe hula mahope mai, a penei ka kekahi poe, people after, and this is how these people chant
e oli ai keia mele: this song:
Eia hoi au, e Laka, e Haiwahine, Here I am, o Laka, o Haiwahine,

Wahine kui pua o ka nahelehele, Flower-stringing woman of the forest,
Haku, hana maile aala o ka wao, Braiding, fashioning the fragrant
maile of the forest,
Hoouluulu lei nou, e Laka, Gathering together lei for you, o Laka
Hele mai a ulu, a noho i ko kahu, Come and grow, and possess your
caretaker,
Eia ka ai la, he ai ola— Here is food, food fo r life
0 nei ai e pana oleloia nei ma ka lalani 6 This food that is referenced in line 6 of this
o keia mele ae la, oia no ka awa i ku iloko o mele refers to the ‘awa that is in an ‘awa cup. The
ka apu. O ke kumu maoli o ka Hiiaka, oia no real tradition, the original source of H i‘iaka’s is
ke mele mua i hoikeia ae la. He loli no nae the first mele shown. It has been changed in the
ma ka kekahi poe paa Hiiaka. works of some people who memorize Hi‘iaka
[traditions] (Hi‘iaka’s hula people).
1 lawa no a pau keia kau a Hiiaka o ke oli As soon as this kau of Hi‘iaka’s was finished
ana ae, o ka wa ia i kahiko mai ai o luna o being chanted, the height of Hi'ilawe was adorned
Hiilawe i kona kahiko nani, oia hoi ke with its beautiful adornment, the rainbow; the
anuenue; ku ka punohu ula ua koko ma ka punohu ‘ula uakoko (low-lying red-hued rainbow)
hikina o lakou nei; a halii mai la nohoi ka appeared to the east of them; and the mist which
noe i hele a panio me na wai hooluu o ke had become streaked with the colors of the
anuenue, haiamu iho la hoi i ka ululaau. rainbow spread over [the landscape], crowding
into the forest.
(March 12, 1909) (translation by Noenoe Silva and myself)
280
In line four of the chant, the word ho‘ouluulu means “to rouse or excite” (PED
370). It is also related to ho‘oulu, to grow, as well as to inspire (PED 368-369). Silva
notes that “ho‘ouluulu can be an appeal, so this can also be translated as ‘A lei appeal to
you, o Laka’” (Silva, e-mail communication, April 2007). It can be interpreted as an
appeal for Laka to possess the hula dancers and inspire them. There is also a possible
connection to the word ho‘o ‘ulu‘ulu, to gather or collect {PED 370). Written at a time
when diacritical marks were not uniformly employed to impose a singular meaning on a
word or text, this sense of poetic ambiguity would have been more fully available to
readers than to those of us today who are second-language learners taught under the new
system.
Poepoe explains that the changes in the second version of the chant came about
because of ka po‘e hula, the hula people, after the time of Hi‘iaka’s original purpose for
chanting the mele. In the second version of the chant, the word haki (break, broken,
fragile) is replaced by haku, “which can be the composer, or the weaver of the lei, or the
deity—and Laka here is being appealed to as all three” (Silva, e-mail communication,
April 2007). Haku is also the action of weaving, suggesting Hi‘iaka is in the forest
picking maile and fashioning a braided (haku) maile lei for Laka to acknowledge her as a
hula deity. The word hoa (companion) has been changed to kahu, caretaker, suggesting
again H i‘iaka’s deference to Laka as a deity of hula, one who is a kahu, a caretaker or
devotee of Laka. The replacement of the last line with a reference to ‘awa suggests the
changed version of this chant may have been used (or useful) as a ceremonial chant at the
kuahu or as part of an ‘awa ceremony.
281
Both versions contain lines which make up parts of other chants for Laka. For
example, a variant of the third line of the first version, “Haki, hana maile aala o ka wao’
is included as the second line in a chant Emerson describes as a “pule kuahu no Laka”
(altar prayer for Laka), which also references H i‘iaka:
Haki pu o ka nahelehele, This spoil and rape of the wildwood
Haki hana maile o ka wao, This plucking o f wilderness maile—
Hooulu lei ou, o Laka, e! Collect of garlands, Laka, for you.
O Hiiaka ke kaula nana e hooulu Hiiaka, the prophet, heals our diseases.
na ma 1 ,
A aeae a ulu a noho i kou kuahu, Enter, possess, inspire your altar;
Eia ka pule la, he pule oia, Head our prayer, ‘tis for life;
He noi oia nou, e-e! Our petition to you is for life.
Chorus:
E oia ia makou, aohe hala! Give us life, save from transgression!
(Emerson 1909,18-19).
Reference to Laka’s inspiration (ho‘ouluulu) is also found in a very common, oft
performed oli today, “Noho ana ke akua i ka nahelehele” (The god dwells in the forest):
Noho ana ke akua i ka nahelehele The god dwells in the woodlands
I alai ia e ke kiohuohu, e ka ua koko. Hidden away in the mist, in the low
hanging rainbow
O na kino malu i ka lani e, The sheltering bodies in the heavens
282
Malu e hoe. Clear our path of all hindrance
E ho ‘oulu mai ana o Laka i kona mau kahu Laka is inspiring your caretakers
O makou no, o makou no a—e. Us here, us indeed.
(Tatar, 128)
Yet despite incorporating some of Poepoe’s work into Pele and H i‘iaka and the inclusion
of the “Haki pu o ka nahelehele” in Unwritten Literature, Emerson does not link the
chants in these different texts in any way. In fact, he completely ignores both versions of
the chants given by Poepoe; both are excluded from Pele and Hi ‘iaka and Unwritten
Literature. Thus while Emerson conducts his own comparison, contrast, and explanation
of chants contained in his rendition of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, his is far from all
encompassing. Furthermore, his translation is one which reflects a western perspective
towards nature, rather than a Hawaiian one. Hi‘iaka and her ‘ohana are elements of
nature who have a relationship with other elements of the land, including the flowers and
foliage they are picking. In the film Kumu Hula, Keepers o f a Culture (1990), Pualani
Kanaka‘ole Kanahele discusses how Hi‘iaka ma ask permission before picking, and
respectfully returned the used lei to the forests to contribute to healthy nutrients in the
soil, a basic cultural practice of hula protocol continued today. Thus, Hi‘iaka ma picking
flowers or maile for lei is not spoiling or raping; their activity is one of respect and
cultural protocol. Emerson’s translation indicates a very different world view toward the
forest, one which is repeated throughout his interpretation of the m o‘olelo.
283
Later in the m o‘olelo, Poepoe provides several versions of similar chants when
H i‘iaka ma are on the W ai‘anae coast of 0 ‘ahu at different points. In the first episode,
the chant “Kahuli Kaena, lele ana i ka malie” (Ka‘ena turns, leaping in the calm) is
identified as “Kau 109” belonging to “Kamae” an unidentified character (or contributor
of the chant) (August 27, 1909). The chant is 30 lines long, which are numbered in the
nupepa. Between lines 23 and 24, Poepoe interjects, “Ua hoohapakuela keia huaolelo, e
ka mea kakau, a nau no ia e ka makamaka heluhelu e noonoo iho. E kala mai. Mea
Kakau” (This word is incorrect, [according to] the writer, and it is up to the readership to
think about it. Forgive me. The Author) (August 27,1909).
When Hi‘iaka ma are back in Wai‘anae, Poepoe identifies a similar chant
beginning “Kahuli o Kaena holo i ka malie—e” (Ka‘ena turns, traveling in the calm) as
“Kau 158” in the story of Hi‘iaka (January 11, 1911). Like the previous chant, this one is
also 30 lines long, although there are marked differences between the two, which are
obviously different chants (see Appendix 6A for the Hawaiian text). Following the
chant, Poepoe writes:
In this section of the story of H i‘iaka obtained by the writer is a small error in the
arrangement of the words shown above, in the chant (kau) shown in the next
section, it is the thought of the writer to collect (ho‘ili‘ili) and assemble
(ho‘ulu‘ulu) these songs and gather them, this is the appropriate place to reveal in
284
the m o‘olelo for the blessing and the pono of the people researching Hawaiian
stories from this time on.10
He then gives another version of the chant, saying that “in this part of the chant [kau]
shown above is a branch of the story of some people demonstrated here” (Kekahi mahele
o ke kau i hoike ia ae la ma ka mana moolelo a kekahi poe penei) (January 11, 1911).
After providing the chant, he includes an alternate rendering for the first ten lines of the
oli, stating that “here are new lines in this section regarding this chant [kau] above” (eia
hou ia mahele i loaa i ka mea kakau e pili ana i keia kau ae la) (January 11, 1911).
Another example of Kanaka Maoli scholarship and attention to different traditions
is Poepoe’s identification of working with two different versions of the Pele and Hi‘iaka
m o‘olelo, a Maui island version and a Hawai‘i island one, carefully delineating between
the two when appropriate. This is particularly apparent in the early stages of the
mo‘olelo, where Poepoe goes back and forth between the two, giving the differing
versions of Pele’s migration to Hawai‘i and the establishment of her ‘ohana here. He
begins with the Maui version of the story detailing the story of the flood of Kahinali‘i as
Pele’s motivation to travel, concluding with, “This is the devastating sea that is called the
sea of Kahinali‘i that flooded Hawai‘i nei” (O keia ke kai luku i oleloia o ke kai a
Kahinalii i alahula ai ia Hawaii nei) (January 17, 1908). He then gives the Hawai'i island
version of the mo‘olelo; “With H aw aii’s Hi‘iaka, it is shown that [she] traveled together
10 Ma kekahi mahehe [mahele] moolelo o Hiiaka i loaa i ka mea kakau, he paewa iki na hoonohonoho ana
o na olelo i hoike ia ae la, ma ia kau e hoike ana i na mahele hope ae nei, ua manao ka mea kakau e hoiliili
a houluulu i keia mau mele a hoakoakoa, o ka wa pono keia kahi i hoopuka ia ai o keia moolelo no ka
pomaikai a me ka pono o ka poe huli moolelo Hawaii o keia hope aku (January 11, 1911).
285
with the other Hi‘iaka sisters and their brothers with Pele upon her travels from Kahiki,
from the land of Polapola. And the truth of this telling of H aw aii’s Hi‘iaka is known that
Pele came from the land of Polapola here to Hawai‘i, in the prayer of Hi‘iaka that she
chanted within the lehua groves of Pana‘ewa.”n
A little later, Poepoe gives some of the names of Pele’s relatives, “There within
this prayer are the names of Ku, Lono, and N u’akea and Honuaiakea, Kalaihonuamea and
Kamohoali‘i, the names that Pele’s canoe was called; and the name of Nu‘akea, the
female ‘wet nurse.’”12 Immediately following this introduction to Pele’s ‘ohana, Poepoe
then gives the Hawai‘i island mo‘olelo of Pele (ko Hawaii mo‘olelo o Pele):
It is said that Haumea is Pele’s mother, and the mother of Namakaokaha‘i, and the
others who were numerous, like the H i‘iaka sisters, Kahuilaokalani folks,
Lonomakua folks, and the niuhi shark shapeshifters of the deep sea, like
Kuhaimoana, Kamohoali‘i, Ka‘ena and the others. Within this section [of the
story] it is shown that the reason for Pele’s arrival to Hawai‘i here is because of
her being kicked out by her older sister, by Namakaokaha‘i, because of Pele’s
affair with Namakaokaha‘i’s love, her man.13
11 O keia ke kai luku i oleloia o ke kai a Kahinalii i alahula ai ia Hawaii nei. Ma ko Hawaii Hiiaka hoi, ua
hoikeia, ua hele pu mai no o Hiiakaikapoliopele me na Hiiaka e ae ame na kaikunane o lakou ma keia hele
ana mai a Pele mai Kahiki mai, a mai ka aina mai hoi o Polapola. A e ikeia ana ka oiaio o keia olelo ana a
ko Hawaii Hiiaka, mai ka aina mai o Polapola i hele mai ai o Pele i Hawaii nei, ma ka pule a Hiiaka i kahea
ai maloko o ka ulu-lehua o Panaewa (January 17,1908).
12 Aia nohoi maloko o keia pule i hoikeia ai na inoa o Ku, o Lono ame Nu'akea ame Honuaiakea, Kalai-
honua-mea ame Kamohoalii, na inoa i heaia ai ka waa o Pele; ame ka inoa o Nu‘akea, ka wahine “poli
waiu.”
13
Ma ko Hawaii moolelo o Pele, ua oleloia; o Haumea, ko Pele makuahine, a pela hoi me ko
Namakaokahai, ame kekahi poe e ae he lehulehu loa; elike me na Hiiaka, Kahuilaokalani ma, Lonomakua
ma, ame na mano niuhu hookalakupua o ka moana, elike me Kuhaimoana, Kamohoalii, Kaena ame kekahi
poe e ae.
286
Another example from Poepoe is when Hi‘iaka is in ‘0 ‘okala on the Hamakua
coast of Hawai‘i island where she destroys the shark kupua Manaiakalani, who has killed
the girl Manamanaiakaluea. Once the shark is dead, Hi‘iaka creates the Milky Way with
its body. Poepoe writes:
At the conclusion of these words of [Hi‘iaka], she grabbed with her smiting arm
of their older sister [Pele], i.e., with Kllauea, the tail of the shark and threw the
corpse of this fish into the heavens. According to the words of Maui’s
astronomers, this is the white ribbon that is seen in the heavens every night, and it
is called Ka I ‘a, The Fish [The Milky Way]. This is the fish body of
Manaiakalani. Some people say that it isn’t H i‘iaka who threw the dead body of
the shark into the heavens, rather, she caused it to return again to the sea with an
order to go back to Nu‘umealani in Tahiti to the place of her brother, Pa‘ao. And
this is the reason that Pa‘ao called his famous fishhook Manaiakalani. And from
this Manaiakalani came the name of Kaweloleimakua’s birth mother, the one for
whom the story is being published now in the columns of “The Precious one of
the Nation” [Ku'oko‘a Home Rula\.14
Maloko nohoi o ia mahele i hoikeia ai, o ke kumu i hoea ai o Pele i Hawaii nei; mamuli ia o kona
kipakuia ana mai e ke kaikuaana, e Namakaokahai, no ko Pele apakau ana me ka Namakaokahai mea aloha,
he kane (January 24, 1908).
141 ka pau ana on o keia mau olelo a ua Wahinepoaimoku nei, o ka wa ia i lalau iho ai i ka lima ku‘i o laua
nei me ke kaikuaana, oia hoi o Kilauea, ma ka hiu o ua mano nei a kiola ae la keia i ka heana make o ua i ‘a
nei i ka lani. A ma ka olelo a ko Maui poe kilokilo hoku, oia ke kaei keokeo e ikeia nei ma ka lani i na po
apau, a i kapaia hoi he i ‘a. Oia ke kino i ‘a o Manaiakalani. Olelo hoi kekahi poe, aole o Hiiaka i kiola i ke
kino make o ua mano nei i ka lani, aka, ua hooholo hou no oia i ua kino nei iloko o ke kai, me ke kauoha
ana, e hoi loa oia i Tahiti o Nuumealani i kahi o ke kaikunane, oia o Paao. A oia ke kumu i hea ai o Paao i
kana makau lawaia kaulana o Manaiakalani. A no keia Manaiakalani mai ka inoa o ka luaui makuahine o
287
In the above examples, Poepoe is demonstrating his knowledge of different versions of
the mo‘olelo, as well as knowledge of other Hawaiian m o‘olelo. In this case, he is
referencing the legendary tradition of Pa‘ao, a voyaging chief from Tahiti, and the
Kawelo, which was published at the same time as Pele and Hi‘iaka.
In yet another kind of example, Poepoe references an ancient name for Kaua‘i,
Kamawaelualani, which originates in a “mele kahiko loa” (very old chant) by the same
name (January 31,1908). He explains, “Regarding this song, it is said to be a Ko‘ihonua
[genealogical chant] for King Kuali‘i of 0 ‘ahu nei. This is a very long chant. However, to
verify the truth of the writer’s telling of the above reference to the island of Kaua‘i as
‘Kamawaelualani,’ the writer will give these lines of the song here.”15 He beings with a
chant for Papa and Wakea detailing the birth of the Hawaiian islands, up to the ninth line,
which describes the birth of Kaua‘i, “Hanau Kamawaelualani, he moku” (Bom is
Kamawaelualani, and island) (January 31, 1908). Then, Poepoe offers further verification
of this fact by referencing an article published by Kamakau “in the newspaper Ke Au
Okoa, January 1869 . . . where he discusses ‘Kaua‘i and Kamaelualani’ (This is
Kamawaelualani as demonstrated above in the song).”16 What is important to note here is
Kaweloleimakua, ha mea nona ka m o‘olelo e hoopukaia nei ma na Kolamu o Ka Hiwahiwa nei a ka Lahui.
(February 26, 1909)
15 O keia mele, ua oleloia he mele Koihonua ia no ka Moi Kualii o Oahu nei. He mele loihi loa keia. Aka,
no ka hooiaio ana i ka ka mea kakau moolelo i hoike ae nei o ka mokupuni o Kauai, oia no o
“Kamawaelualani;” nolaila, ke hoike aku nei ka mea kakau moolelo i keia mau lalani o ua mele la penei
(January 31, 1908).
16 O kekahi mea hooiaio ma ke ano o Kamawaelualani, oia no ka mokupuni o Kauai, e nana ma ka Nupepa
Ke Au Okoa, Ianuari 1869, ma ka palapala a S. M. Kamakau i kakau ai ma Kahehuna, Ianuari 5, A. D.
1869, e loaa auanei kana olelo ana ia “Kauai a Kamaelualani” (Eia no o Kamawaelualani i hoikeia ae la ma
ke mele) (January 31, 1908).
288
that Poepoe is not only referencing other traditional sources to verify the information he
is providing, but historical and written sources as well. By including both traditional and
written source texts, Poepoe is demonstrating his knowledge of both kinds of sources,
giving him a kind of cultural and scholarly credibility earlier writers like Kapihenui could
not have demonstrated. This is not scholarship mai ka po mai, or as Emerson has phrased
it, information that has “drifted down” to the contemporary period. Rather, Kanaka
Maoli were actively engaging in comparative scholarship at the highest level, not
surprising in a population which had one of the highest literacy rates in the world, and
which was motivated by the real world danger of losing their literary and cultural
traditions altogether.
Elsewhere in the m o‘olelo, Poepoe makes specific comparisons between the Pele
and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo and the Bible; in one example, he discusses the slowing of the sun
“in the Maui version” of the story, and compares it with Isaiah 38:8 in the Christian Bible
(January 7, 1910).
This comparison is very similar to textual comparisons and analysis by other
Kanaka Maoli writers, including Ho‘oulumahiehie, perhaps another indication they are
the same person. Ho‘oulumahiehie provides a lengthy discussion of the etymology of the
names of Pele and Hi‘iaka, making comparisons with Biblical names and stories. He
writes under the heading of “Some Analyses”:
Hi‘iaka. A “bringer of light,” or a “carrier of light” is the nature of this name. This
name may be similar to the Hebrew name “Heylele,” which has the connotation of
a sparkling or bright thing. In Latin, “Lucifer” is the name of the one who brings
289
or bears light (light bearer). Luc (lucis), is light, an image; Ferro, to bring, to bear.
This name, Lucifer, was connected by the one who did the Latin Bible, or the
Vulegate [sic] Bible, to the Morning Star, the bright star of the morning, that
being Venus. And that is how they translated verse 12 of the 14th chapter of
Isaiah.. . .
Pele. The nature of this name in Hebrew is amazing or wondrous. The Hebrews as
well as the Jews were accustomed to praying in this name, like this: “Adorable,
mighty and holy God, Pele! With thee is advice, action and power, and only thou
canst work wonders. Turn away from me all that is evil, and protect me from the
persecution of evil men, for the sake of the great name Pele. Amen. Selah.”
The Hawaiian translation by this writer is: “E Pele e! Ke Akua hemolele,
mana, a ku i ka hoomana ia, aia no me oe ka olelo ao, ka hana, a me ka mana, a o
oe wale no ka mea hiki e hana i na mea kupaianaha. E hoohuli mai ou aku nei i na
mea ino a pau, a e malama mai hoi iau mai loko mai o na hoomaa ana mai a
kanaka hewa, a e oia au ma ka inoa nui o Pele. Amen. Sela.” . . . The Hebrew
word ‘hey-le’ just described, meaning the shining one, the radiant one, can be
pronounced thusly: ‘heleT or ‘hiilil.’ Isn’t that the Hawaiian pronunciation of
‘Hiiaka’? (see Appendix 6C for Hawaiian text; translation by Puakea Nogelmeier)
In an interesting irony demonstrating what Said describes as an “anti-imperialist and
imperialist” paradox (xxi), Emerson (1915) chastises those who might want to exploit
Hawaiian m o‘olelo, stating:
290
It is a misfortune when the myth-cycle of any people or country is invaded for
exploitation by that class of writers whose sole object is to pander, or cater—to
use a softer term—to the public taste for novelty and sensation, before that cycle
has been canvassed and reported upon by students who approach it in a truthful
yet sympathetic spirit. In other words: plain exposition should come before
sensational exploitation, (vi-vii)
Unfortunately, Emerson seems unable to recognize his role in this kind of literary
exploitation, or take his own advice. Many passages in Emerson are sensationalistic,
particularly when he is trying to recontextualize the mo‘olelo into a western frame. This
is demonstrated more fully later in this chapter. However, one particular example is
when H i‘iaka battles the m o‘o Pana‘ewa.
As the women travel from the crater to Hilo early in their journey, they arrive at
the edge of the great forest of Pana‘ewa, described by Wahine‘oma‘o as “the road to
death” (Kaili, September 1, 1883). In Kaili, Wahine‘oma‘o’s fidelity to Hi‘iaka is tested
when Hi‘iaka suggests they take the dangerous road, and Wahine‘oma‘o agrees. In
Emerson, Hi‘iaka asks Papulehu, a kama‘aina who has joined them, for her advice.
Emerson writes, “When Hiiaka announced her determination to take the short road, the
one of danger that struck through the heart of Pana-ewa, Pa-pulehu drew back in dismay .
.. she broke forth with lamentations, bewailing her coming fate and the desolation that
was about to visit her family” (30). Kapihenui simply describes the initial encounter with
Pana‘ewa as “they then disappeared and entered [the forest] of Pana‘ewa, where
291
Pana‘ewa was sleeping” (O ko laua nei nalo akula no ia, a komo laua nei i Panaewa, ua
hiamoe iho o Panaewa) (January 16,1862). Pa‘aluhi and Bush (A) have a similar
opening, “At the breaking of dawn the next day, they pushed on in their journey. They
arrived at that section of Hilo and met up with this male deity, Pana‘ewa was his name” (I
ka wehe ana mai o ke alaula o Kekahi la ae, ua lalelale ae la lakou no ka hele ana. Ua
hele aku la lakou ma keia huli o Hilo, a halawai me keia akua kane, Panaewa kona inoa)
(January 23, 1893).
H i‘iaka and Pana‘ewa then engage in a fierce battle, with Pana‘ewa “doing many
things to frighten H i‘iaka folks, [like] turning his body into many forms as they began to
battle” (Ua nui na hana hoomakaukau a Panaewa ia Hiiaka ma, a ua hoolilo ae la nohoi
oia [Panaewa] i kona kino ma ke ano [kinolau] a hoomaka iho la laua e hakaka) (January
23,1893). Hi‘iaka tires in their battle; Pa‘uopala‘e calls to Pele in a “solemn prayer”
(Kulia e Uli) (Emerson, 37). Emerson writes:
At this the gods of war sprang into array, as if unleashed by the words of Pele. At
their head marched Ku-lili-ai-kaua, a veteran who had followed Pele in her
voyage from Kahiki. With him, went Ke-ka-ko‘i, a guide . . . well acquainted with
the forest trails. In the van strode three weird figures (Ka-maiau, Ka-hinihini and
Mapu) bearing conches, to which they ever and anon applied their lips and sent
forth resounding blasts. But even more thrilling and inspiring than the horns of
Triton was the voice of these gods of war as they chanted their war song. (43)
292
At this point, Emerson inserts a hulihia chant, “Hulihia ka mauna, wela i ke ahi” with a
rather florid translation:
The Mount is convulsed, it belches flame;
Fire-scorched is upland Kui-hanalei—
A hail of stones shot out with sulphur-blasts.
The rousing peal of pearly conch
And thrilling notes of woodland shells
Stir every heart with tuneful cheer.
Heaven’s blue is turmoiled with ftre-clouds—
Boiling fountains of flame and cinder—
Such the form we give our message:
Will he heed it or turn a deaf ear?
Ah, you see, he scorns our entreaty.
Be valiant! now forward to battle!
(44).
None of the Hawaiian texts utilize this serious hulihia chant in such a way; here
Emerson is clearly using it as a rally-cry for war to rally the troops, even labeling it a
“mele ka‘i kaua” (battle song). He continues to describe the scene of Hi‘iaka’s relatives
coming to her aid:
Thus chanting their battle-mele . . . these gods of an old-time mythology marched,
or flew, with resolute purpose to their task of rescuing Hiiaka and her little band
293
and of ridding the land, at one and the same stroke, of their old intrenched foe,
Pana-ewa. Heaven and earth stirred at their onset. The visible signs of their array
were manifest in columns of advancing army. Arrived at striking distance, they let
loose their lightning-bolts and sounded their thunder-gongs, Earth and heaven at
once became turmoiled in one confused whirl of warring elements. (44-45)
The Hawaiian descriptions of this scene are much more understated. Kapihenui
writes, “Pele called to the male gods and the female gods, “Where are you? There is our
younger sister there, battling with Pana‘ewa. Go and help her, our younger sister.” They
agreed, their lips smacking in unison at Pana‘ewa, and his death, as he was devoured by
them.”17 Kaili describes the scene thus:
Hiiaka answered by chanting another kau. This time it was an invocation to Pele.
The latter called on her brothers Kauilanuimakehaikalani. . . and others to look
out and protect their young sister. Immediately the thunder crashed, lightning
flashed and rain fell in torrents, when demons blood and all were washed away
into the sea, and there devoured by the shark forms of these dread brothers of
Pele. (September 1, 1883)
The scene in Pa'aluhi and Bush (A) is similarly presented:
17 A laila, kahea aku o Pele i na hoaiku kane, a me na hoaiku wahine, “Auhea oukou? Aia ko kakou
kaikaina la, ke hakaka maila me Panaewa. E hele oukou e kokua i ko kakou kaikaina.” Hiki aku ana lakou
la, hookahi no ka muka ana ae a lakou nei ia Panaewa, o ka make no ia, pau i ka ai ia (January 16, 1862).
294
When the older brothers heard about the troubles their favorite little sister was
having, that was the time they did what they had to demonstrate their mana (to
assist her). The thunder roared, the lightning flashed, the earth shook, the rain fell
in torrents and swept through where Pana‘ewa was like a flume and everything,
including Pana‘ewa, was swept out to sea18
Pa‘aluhi and Bush’s description is probably the most dramatic of the Hawaiian versions,
and is also the most similar to Emerson’s sensationalized conclusion. What is a show of
mana, ‘ohana relationships, and a display of the mighty power of natural forces in the
Hawaiian texts is reframed in Emerson; Hi‘iaka is cast as the “damsel in distress” while
the male gods are portrayed as virile Arthurian-esqe heroes sent in to save her.
On one hand, Emerson is perhaps creating a “bridge” to “impress English
audiences with the sophistication of Hawaiian mo‘olelo” (Nogelmeier, personal
communication). Yet this bridge appears to be as unstable as the one guarded by the
m o‘o spanning the Wailuku river. He is, to some degree, doing exactly what he is
warning others against, and sensationalizing the m o‘olelo for a western audience,
packaging it in a western literary form and offering an outside analysis. In her work on
Emerson’s Pele and Hi'iaka text, Ka‘imipono Kaiwi discusses “clues of cultural bias,”
and concludes that “it is apparent that Emerson wrote for a Euroamerican audience.
181 ka lohe ana o na kaikunane i ka pilikia o ko lakou pokii kaikuahine, oia ko lakou manawa i hana aku ai
e like me ka mana i oaa ia lakou. Hakui iho la ka hekili olapa ae la ka uwila, ne-i ke olai, ua iho la ka ua a
kahe mai la ka wai ma kahi a Panaewa e noho ana, a pulumi ia aku la na mea a pau a o Panaewa pu kekahi.
(January 23, 1893).
295
Emerson’s heavy use of classical and western allusions as well as his attempt to
explain/express Hawaiian epistemology supports the claim made by Emerson’s
supporters that he was striving to become the ‘Homer’ of Hawaiian mythology to
America” (1). Emerson was assisted in his endeavors, in part, because he wrote in
English, a language which aided the perpetuation of the cultural biases already inherent in
his framing of the text.
LANGUAGE AND THE REFRAMING OF THE M O ‘OLELO
Emerson’s Pele and Hi ‘iaka was not the first Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo published
in English. However, its publication in a book form has not only influenced its
distribution capacity, but allowed it an endurance the nupepa (physically) did not have.
Combined with the linguicide occurring during the period, Emerson’s text has also
endured because it is written in English. In the years after official ban of ‘olelo Hawai‘i
in the schools, fewer Kanaka Maoli could speak or even understand ‘olelo Hawai‘i, the
waiwai (richness) of the Hawaiian-language texts being understood (or even known, as
Hawaiian-language nupepa died out) by few. Thus, as Silva (2004a) writes, the U.S.
government takeover of Hawai‘i “reinforced the sole use of English in schools. The shift
to English was part of a gradual process of colonialism that used law, in addition to
churches and schools, to change the culture of the Kanaka Maoli and establish American
hegemony in Hawai‘i” (104).
The politics of translation are numerous and beyond the scope of this
dissertation; however, I would like to focus on how the difference in language aided the
296
reframing of the m o‘olelo to fit a different cultural understanding of it for a western
English-speaking audience.
Prior to Emerson’s Pele and Hi'iaka, haole culture had, with rare exception,
viewed the formation of the volcano and the resulting Hawaiian islands as a geological
and scientific process. While a few early missionaries (like Ellis) made passing reference
to the Hawaiian belief in Pele as a volcano god, Emerson’s text is one of the few which
addresses the mythic aspect of the volcano through the Pele mo‘olelo. Yet despite
focusing on the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, unlike the previous versions of the m o‘olelo
published before his, Emerson reframes the mo‘olelo to follow western literary aesthetics
and tries to contain the m o‘olelo within the form of western epic tradition, which results
in a very different project than the Kanaka Maoli writers before him.
Kaiwi systematically examines Emerson’s work by breaking down his western
references into categories. The following table gives specific examples Emerson uses to
compare the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo to different time periods and genres of western
literature.
T a b l e 6b. A l l u s i o n s a n d R e f e r e n c e s t o w e s t e r n l i t e r a t u r e in
E m e r s o n ’s P e l e and H i ' j a k a 19
examples pages
(1993 edition)
Greek mythology Polyphemus 32

horns of Triton 43
Medusa 47
European mythology witches or 34, 55, 134,185
enchantresses
magic or “black arts” 187,236
19
Data compiled from Kaiwi n.d.
297
examples pages
(1993 edition)
demons, dragons, 12, 22, 52-53, 188,

monsters 200, 207
elfins, kobolds, 146
brownies
sea-monsters, mermen 109, 160, 162
mermaid queens
chivalry, sirs, knights 62, 83, 129, 193
Christian references heaven, prayers, sin, 45, 62, 68
Pentecost
western figurative language Bellona 35, 132, 174
Amazons 35, 132, 174
magnetic compass 35.132.174
wint’ry nights 35.132.174
Aside from relying upon classical and European allusions and references,
Emerson follows a more linear development of his narrative, cutting details and
summarizing dialogue. One way he does this is by cutting dialogue and sections of the
m o‘olelo to emphasize action rather than cultural details.20 This aspect of Hawaiian
language and culture is explained at great length by Kimura (1983) where argues that
“the importance of subtlety, personality, and detail” is one of three basic features which
makes Hawaiian language integral to Hawaiian cultural practice (175).
In analyzing the textual differences in the style of telling the m o‘olelo, Emerson
cuts out dialogue, summarizing the mo‘olelo more. One example is when H i‘iaka ma
seek passage from Moloka‘i to 0 ‘ahu. The table below compares the Kapihenui and
Emerson versions.
20 Kanaka Maoli writer Kaili used similar strategies in her publication of a Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo in
English (PCA 1883), as did Rice. Rice published a much longer Hawaiian version, which contained a
genealogy for the Pele ‘ohana, and a large number of chants; in the English text (1923) the genealogy and
chants were deleted, and more emphasis was placed on the action of the story.
298
T a b l e 6 c . C o m p a r is o n of K a p ih e n u i and E m er so n tex ts: exam ple 1
Original Kapihenui text translation o f Kapihenui Emerson text
Ko laua nei hele maila no The two of them continued Hiiaka’s adventurous tour of
ia a ma laila aku, e holo ana on their way, and traveled until Moloka’i ended at Kauna-ka-
he waa i Oahu nei. Ku ana they came to a place [where kai, from which place she
laua nei, ninau ana i na they saw a canoe that was] found no difficulty in obtaining
kanaka o ka waa, “E! He coming here to 0 ‘ahu. They the offer of transportation to
waa ko olua e holo ana i stood up and asked the people Oahu. The real embarrassment
hea?” of the canoe, “Eh! Where is lay in the super-gallantry of the
your canoe going?” two sailors who manned the
canoe.
I mai ua mau kanaka nei, The people replied, “It is
“E holo ana i Oahu.” going to 0 ‘ahu.”
I aku o Hiiakaikapolio- Hi‘iaka said, “Too bad, we
pele, “Aloha ino ka ike ana really wanted to see 0 ‘ahu.”
ia Oahu.”
I mau ua mau kanaka nei, The people replied, “This is a
“O ka waa ia.” fishing canoe.”
No ka ike o ua mau Because these men saw the When the two men looked
kanaka nei i ka ui o laua nei, beauty of these two, they upon Hiiaka and Wahine-
hoi ua mau kanaka nei a na returned to their women and oma’o, they were so taken with
wahine a laua olelo aku, “E said, “The two of you stay. admiration for their beauty and
noho olua. A holo hou aku, [We] are going, but the next attractiveness that they sneaked
a laila, holo kakou.” time we sail we can sail out of a previous engagement
together.” to take their own wives along
with them, trumping up some
shuffling excuse about the
canoe being over laden.
(February 6, 1862) (86)
The above comparison exemplifies Emerson’s mode of condensing or abridging the
detailed dialogue in the scene. The end result is that the narrative is more action-driven,
while in the Hawaiian, the use of dialogue promotes interpersonal relationships between
the conversants (a highly desirable cultural value) and supports a more oral (and
traditional) storytelling cultural framework from whence the m o‘olelo originates. In
addition, in the original Hawaiian, there are multiple levels of language used by the
narrator and the characters, in which the characters’ use of language is more colloquial.
299
Emerson’s language is a single level, high diction, with no distinction between the voice
of the narrator or the characters, which takes away from the character (and orality) of the
original mo‘olelo. Kimura (1983) notes that one of the aspects of Hawaiian language
which gives words power is the actual word and speaking of the word itself, as “the basis
of the Hawaiian concept is the belief that saying the word gives power to cause the
action” (176). Thus from a Hawaiian perspective, the cutting of dialogue in the text—
words spoken by the characters—literally diminishes the power of the language, and by
extension the power of the m o‘olelo itself.
When Emerson shifts Kapihenui’s dialogue to a summary, he also changes the
relationship between characters in the m o‘olelo and the way the story is told in Hawaiian.
By Emerson taking away speaking roles from characters and inserting his editorial voice,
he is, in effect, taking agency away from the characters (i.e., Kanaka Maoli) and asserting
his authoritative (i.e., colonial) voice, literally silencing the Natives and speaking on their
behalf. This occurs in multiple sections of the text, including the following scenes:
• “E ku nei au e hele” chants when H i‘iaka prepares to depart the crater (22-24)
• Hi‘iaka’s encounter with the shark akua Maka‘ukiu on the Hamakua coast (46-49)
• Hi‘iaka’s encounter with the lame fisherman Malaeha‘akoa (131-137)
• healing of Lohi‘au (152-153)
• the encounter with the shark kupuna Kua and Kaholeakane along the W ai‘anae
coast (160-161)
• the kilu scene at Pele‘ula’s court (170-185)
• Hi‘iaka’s search for Lohi‘au (214-216)
300
Two short examples which demonstrate the deletion of dialogue are found in the
following examples not listed earlier. In the first example, Pa‘uopala‘e’s voice is left out
of the conversation.
T a b l e 6 d . C o m p a r is o n of K a p ih e n u i and Em er so n tex ts: exam ple 2
Kapihenui original Kapihenui translation Emerson
Hoolale aku o Pele i na Pele urged her younger Pele, finding herself foiled on
kaikaina e hele i ka luau, a sisters to fetch taro leaves for this tack, as a diversion, said,
ka luau na kaikaina, a hoi them to eat and then return “Let us refresh ourselves and
mai hoa i ke ahi. Aa ke ahi, and start the fire. When the have some luau.” The sisters
apikipiki ka luau, wahi a fire was started, the taro stems immediately set to work, and,
paa, kau i luna o ke ahi. Ia were peeled, wrapped when they had made up the
manawa, kena hou o Pele ia securely into lu‘au bundles, bundles of delicate taro leaves
Pauopalae, “E kii hou ia and then placed on the fire. and were about to lay them upon
Hiiaka.” Kahea akula o Pele then commanded the fire, Pele called to Pau-o-
Pele, “E Pauopalae, e kii Pa‘uopala‘e again, “Go get pala‘e and bade her go
hou oe i kuu kaikaina i kai a H i‘iaka again.” Pele called, straightaway to Haena and fetch
hoi mai, a laila, moa ka “Eh Pa‘uopala‘e, go to the Hiiaka, “And you are to be back
luau.” beach and get my beloved here by the time the luau is
younger sister to come back; cooked.”
by then the lu‘au will be
cooked.”
Ae maila o Pauopalae, Pa‘uopala‘e replied, “Okay, *dialogue deleted
“Kii keia.” I’ll go get her.”
(January 2,1862) (13)
Similarly, all of the dialogue in Emerson’s text between Hi‘iaka ma and Pi‘ikeanui and
his son Pi‘ikeaiki enroute to Moloka‘i from Maui is also deleted.
T a b l e 6 e . C o m p a r is o n of K a p ih e n u i and E m er so n tex ts: exam ple 3
Ko laua nei hele maila no They continued on from Hiiaka was rejoiced to find a
ia a ma laila mai, e there, until they saw a canoe canoe on the point of sailing to
hoomakaukau ana he waa e preparing to travel to Moloka‘i and the sailors gladly
holo ana i Molokai. Moloka‘i. consented to give her a passage.
The people of Kapua were
greatly taken with the beauty and
charm of Hiiaka and proposed,
in all seriousness, that she
should remain and become one
301
of them. When they found that

she was insistent to continue her
journey at once, they one and all
warned her not to attempt the
windward side of Molokai,
declaring its coast to be
precipitous and impassable,
besides being infested by a band
of man-killing m o‘o.
Ninau ana laua nei, “He The two of them inquired,
waa ko oukou e holo ana i “Where is this canoe of yours
hea?” going?”
Hai maila lakou, “He waa They replied, “It is going to
e holo ana i Molokai.” Moloka'i.”
Pane akula laua, “Pehea la The two of them replied,
hoi o kakou ke holo?” “Perhaps we can all go
together?”
I mai no hoi lakou la, “He They answered, “The two
makemake olua e holo i of you want to go to
Molokai?” Moloka‘i?”
Ae aku laua nei, ko lakou The two of them said yes, Hiiaka had no sooner set food
hoouka akula no hoi ia ia so they helped the two of on Molokai’s beach than her ears
laua nei i luna o ka waa no them climb aboard the canoe were assailed with complaints
ka ike mai o na kanaka i ka when the men saw that these against those lawless beings, the
wahine maikai o laua nei. were beautiful women. They m o‘o. Two women, pallid and
Ko lakou nei holo pu akula traveled together and landed wasted with starvation, sat in the
no ia a pae i Molokai. Ku on Moloka'i. The two of them open field moaning and
aela no laua nei hele. Ko stood up to go. They went, bewailing their estate. At sight
laua nei hele akula no ia, a e and these women cried when of Hiiaka, as if recognizing their
ue ana keia mau wahine i ke they said good-bye to the man knight errant, they broke out into
aloha i ke kane no ka lilo i because one of the women loud lamentations. The m o‘o had
kekahi wahine e aku. was so taken [with him]. The robbed them of their husbands,
Hookii laua nei i ka ai; o two of them sent for food; and with them had gone their
Iloli ka inoa o kekahi, o Iloli was the name of one, and means of support and their very
Hoolehua ka inoa o kekahi. H o‘olehua was the name of desire for food.
Ua hele wale ua mau the other. The women just
wahine nei a leioa i ke aloha went, quivering with feeling
o ke kane. for the men.
(February 6, 1862) (83)
Some of the decisions Emerson makes to reframe the m o‘olelo result in a difference
between how the authors include scenes or emphasize wahi pana. One example occurs in
the Keawa‘ula section of 0 ‘ahu’s leeward coast. When Hi‘iaka is enroute to Kaua‘i,
Kapihenui mentions a specific place there called Kllauea. The inclusion of the specific
302
place in Kapihenui means it is important, and the attachment of a mo‘olelo makes it a
wahi pana, a “storied place.”
While Hi‘iaka’s arrival at Ka‘ena is included in Emerson, he adds more
exposition for his audience, leaving out some of Kapihenui’s explanation to his Kanaka
Maoli audience, as illustrated in the table comparing the two below.
T a b l e 6 f . C o m p a r is o n of K a p ih e n u i and E m er so n tex ts: exam ple 5
I hoolohe aku ka hana o ia When she listened the sound Then she flew to cape
nei, ma Koolau. Aolekeia was heard in the Ko'olau Maka-pu'u, on Oahu, and so
hoolohe ma ke kani ana a ka district. This one didn’t hear on, until, after crossing that
pahu ma Kona; ko ia nei hele the sounding of the pahu island, she reached cape
akula no ia ma Kona a hiki drum in the Kona area; she Kaena, whose finger-point
keia ma Keawaula. Auau keia i continued through Kona until reaches out towards Kaua‘i.
ke kai i Kilauea. Aia no ia she reached Keawa ‘ula. Pele
wahi ma Keawaula a hiki i keia swam in the ocean until she
wa. reached Kilauea. This
aforementioned place is at
Keawa ‘ula until today.
In that desolate spot dwelt
an aged creature of myth,
Pohaku-o-Kaua‘i by name,
the personal representative o f
that rock whose body-form
the hero Mawi [Maui] had
jerked from its ocean bed
ages before, in his futile
attempt to draw together the
two islands Kaua ‘i and Oahu
and unite them into one mass.
(December 26, 1861) (3-4)
In Kapihenui’s explanation, Pele follows the sound of the drum to the Ko‘olau
then Kona districts of 0 ‘ahu, arriving specifically at Keawa‘ula, the point of the
W ai‘anae coast that lies at the end of the road today, just before Ka‘ena point. The
Kilauea Kapihenui is referring to is located at Keawa‘ula. Emerson, however, mentions
303
that Pele arrives at a specific spot in the Ko‘olau district, Makapu‘u, before continuing on
to the leeward side, arriving at Ka‘ena. Here, there is no mention of Kilauea at all.
Instead, Emerson re-frames the scene in the context of another Hawaiian mo‘olelo, that
of the kupua Maui. He references his attempt to fish up the islands and join them
together. It is interesting to note that today, Kilauea and Keawa‘ula are not commonly
known place names to the general public, while Makapu‘u and Ka‘ena are more widely
known because of their promotion as tourist attractions. Kilauea and Keawa‘ula,
culturally important to Kanaka Maoli and central within the context of the Pele and
H i‘iaka m o‘olelo have been ignored.
Later versions of the m o‘olelo by Kanaka writers such as Ho‘oulumahiehie and
Poepoe include lengthy stories at Kilauea. When Hi‘iaka ma land at Ka‘ena on their way
back to Hawai‘i island, Hi‘iaka encounters an evil kupua named Pohakuloa (large rock)
at Kilauea who has caused the death of a young woman. Once H i‘iaka restores her and
destroys the kupua, she explains to the people of the area that “This inlet is called
Kilauea. There are three Kilauea which are all related, the other two being Kilauea on
Kaua‘i, and Kilauea on Hawai‘i, ‘The great dark back island in the bosom of Kane’” (O
ka ponaha kai keia o Kilauea. O ke kokoolua keia o ke Kilauea o Kauai, a o ke kolu o na
Kilauea, aia la i ka moku o Hawaii-nui-kuauli i ke houpo o Kane) (May 4, 1906).21 This
episode is left out of Emerson at a point where he notes in text that a “considerable
number of mele” have been omitted from the text (163). He is specifically referring to
21 This episode is also found in Poepoe (August 27, 1909).
304
Hi‘iaka’s ascent to Pohakea, the highest peak on the Wai‘anae coast. However, the
Wai‘anae coast sequences are absent, with the storyline picking up at Pu‘uloa in ‘Ewa.
Whether intentional or accidental, the ignoring, deleting, or changing of
traditional Hawaiian place names reinforces a colonial agenda of reinscribing the land, a
common colonial practice. In his 1995 dissertation “Kalai‘aina-Carving the Land:
Geography, Desire and Possession in the Hawaiian Islands,” R. Douglas K. Herman
describes the naming of places and the changing of traditional place names as an ongoing
part of colonization throughout the Pacific (2). More specifically, the “manipulation of
the old, Hawaiian place names nonetheless remains part of the cultural colonization”
through a re-ordering of indigenous place names and western geography (4).
In a Hawaiian cultural context, this link between the power to name and have
control or have authority over the land can possibly explain why Pele has power because
she (and in extension, her ‘ohana) has the power to create and thus name land. She also
has the power to overrun the pre-established geographic landscape and gamer epithets for
herself previously ascribed to the regime of older (and overpowered) gods (such as
‘Aila‘au being transformed to Pele-‘aila‘au). Herman suggests that indigenous groups
such as the Puget Sound Native American and Melanesian populations have names for
small areas (hills, ridges, valleys) and not larger ones (archipelagos, mountain ranges)
because they controlled smaller, rather than larger areas, and thus didn’t have the kuleana
to name the entire entity (6-7). Perhaps Pele, Hi‘iaka, and other ‘ohana members had the
authority to name or rename specific places they visited or asserted their authority, rather
than rename the entire archipelago, which they neither created nor controlled. Herman
305
argues that “Both in their content and in their treatment, place names in the Islands reveal
the re-ordering of place. In them we can also read the transformation from the Islands’
‘natural economy’ to capitalism” (7). Similarly, Pele’s establishment in Hawai‘i works
the same way, as her presence and control of the volcano, like Hi‘iaka’s visits to specific
places, speaks to a re-ordering of the land. The crucial difference is that it does not alter
the existing economic system as colonialism and capitalism does in later centuries. In
addition, the remembering and assertion of specific place names like Kilauea, 0 ‘ahu by
nineteenth-century writers like Kapihenui and Poepoe reconnects them and their Kanaka
Maoli readers to the traditional places of the past in the culturally important and relevant
way that Kimura (1983) describes. He concludes that:
The result of the difference between Western and Hawaiian treatment of names
has been generally one-sided, that is, negative toward the Hawaiian.. . . Place
names also fare poorly, since Westerners often want to change the original name
of a place to something with a more romantic translation (in the Western view),
instead of preserving the history of the place. Attempts are constantly made to
change place names, which causes suffering to those families who are rooted in
the locations of proposed name changes. Such families believe in the old
traditions and to eliminate the name damages the power of the word. For these
reasons, Hawaiians protest changes to place names, which far too often are for the
convenience of non-speakers of Hawaiian. (179)
306
One of the values of reading and analyzing the Hawaiian-language versions of the
Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo is that they contain a higher level of detailed information about
wahi pana. As Kimura so carefully points out, this is due in part to Hawaiian language as
a vehicle which supports their use. The reinscribing of the ‘aina with English (or foreign)
place names is more than just a convenience to non-speakers of Hawaiian. Said argues
that this is the direct result of imperialism and the battle over land, as with empire comes
settlement. In Hawai‘i, generations of Asian settlers descended from imported plantation
workers have contributed to the renaming and reinscribing of the ‘aina, claiming “local”
status, an identity separate from their ancestors bom abroad. This claiming (and
renaming) of ‘aina is a result of colonialism, a purposeful forgetting and erasure of
Kanaka Maoli relationship to the ‘aina. It is an attempt to reweave the discourse of
belonging, i.e. who has the right to belong and claim Hawai‘i as home (see Kawaharada
1999; Trask 2000; Fujikane 2000; Bacchilega 2007; Ho‘omanawanui forthcoming).
One example is the renaming of Mokoli‘i (Little Lizard) to Chinaman’s Hat.
Mokoli‘i is a small islet located off the coast of Hakipu‘u at the dividing point between
Ko‘olauloa and Ko‘uloaupoko, 0 ‘ahu. “Moko” is an older form of the word m o‘o,
lizard; li‘i means “small” (PED 253, 205). It is the name of a mo‘o of the area slain by
Hi‘iakaikapoliopele when she was enroute to Kaua‘i to fetch Lohi‘au. In the mo‘olelo,
after H i‘iaka kills the m o‘o, part of its body fell into the water; the islet Mokoli'i
represents the tip of the m o‘o’s tail, which is sticking up out of the water (Kapihenui,
307
February 13, 1862).22 The island is erroneously referred to today as “Chinaman’s Hat”
because of its shape, which approximates the referent item. A children’s book by Dean
Howell, The Story o f Chinaman’s Hat (Island Heritage, 1990) promotes this false
representation, with the cover depicting a Chinese man sitting in an upright position
under water, sound asleep, the island positioned on his head like a straw Chinese hat.
The description of the text on the back cover of Howell’s book describes the little
island as “frequently photographed because of its remarkable resemblance to a Chinese
straw hat.” There is, of course, a photograph of Mokoli’i, inviting the reader to view the
island anew, now that the “remarkable resemblance” of that island to a straw hat has been
explained. This “remarkable resemblance” is of course subject to cultural interpretation.
This western-based analysis of the mo’olelo for the island completely erases the Native
perspective of the ‘aina as m o‘o, a living entity which H i‘iaka—a female no less—
overpowers. Thus, it supports the hegemonic colonial narrative that inscribes an Asian
settler history onto Hawaiian ‘aina.
For Kanaka Maoli, Mokoli‘i doesn’t exist in isolation as “Chinaman’s Hat” does.
The small ahupua‘a of Hakipu‘u, which is the closest land area on the main island,
supports the Hi‘iaka mo’olelo, as it is rendered as haki (to break, broken) and pu‘u (hill,
back), or “Broken Back,” referring to the spine of the lizard. Metaphorically, the word
“pu‘u” refers to a problem or obstacle (PED 358). Because the m o‘o is an obstacle in
Hi ‘iaka’s journey, she overcomes the obstacle by the act of haki, breaking and thus
destroying it. Other aspects of wahi pana are discussed more fully in Mokuna 7.
22 See also Sterling and Summers, 181-182, and Landgraf, 10.
308
C u l t u r a l I n a c c u r a c ie s and L in g u is t ic M is t r a n s l a t io n s
Cultural and linguistic inaccuracies are also problematic throughout the Emerson
text. While issues of translation are also at stake, it is not my intention to point out errors
as just an exercise in interpretive linguistic differences. Rather, in this section I will
highlight some of the differences between cultural and linguistic interpretations because
of the ramifications these choices have.
Awkward translations of terms. While Hi‘iaka ma are traveling through the Hamakua
area, they reach an impassable cliff. In order to continue their journey, they must either
swim in the sea, or take a detour further inland. Wahine‘oma‘o and Pa‘uopala‘e desire to
swim, but Hi‘iaka cautions them to wait. The two women argue with her, and she
demonstrates her point by dropping an ‘aukl or ti leaf stalk in the water. In an
explanation of what an ‘aukl is, Emerson describes it as a “ti stalk without leave” (48).
While this might technically be accurate, the more common cultural practice is to drop
the leaf, not a bare stalk into the water. If the leaf floats, it is an indication of calm seas
and safe passage. If it sinks, it indicates a strong current or rip tide, generally unsafe
conditions. (In this m o‘olelo, it indicates the presence of the shark kupua Maka'ukiu,
whose presence alone could be what stirs the waters to be unsafe as he lurks in the depths
below).
When Hi‘iaka prepares to enter the Ko‘olauloa district of windward 0 ‘ahu, she
chants a greeting to Mokoli‘i (the lizard figure referenced in the previous section). In an
explanation of the chant beginning “Ki‘eki‘e Kanehoalani/‘Au Mokoli‘i i ke kai,”
309
Emerson translates Moko-li‘i as “little snake” (91). While a snake is a form of m o‘o,
snakes are not found in Hawai‘i. While perhaps utilizing a referent which would be more
familiar to a western audience, the snake reference connotes a much different image from
a lizard, which a western audience would surely be familiar with. Perhaps Emerson is
invoking a Christian reference to the snake tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden? If so,
this is still incorrect, as it is a translation detached from cultural practice.
A similar imposition of western cultural reference occurs just pages before. As
H i‘iaka ma are traveling through the forests of Pana’ewa in Hilo, Pa‘uopala‘e offers the
chant “Kulia e Uli ka pule kala ma ola” to the gods “with the double intent of summoning
to their aid the friendly gods and of waking Hiiaka” (37). In this chant, multiple
ancestors are called upon in their “dog-cloud” forms, including Tliouliokalani (Dark dog
of the heavens), Tlio’ehuokalani (Reddish or Misty dog of the heavens), and
iliomeaokalani (Red dog of the heavens) (37-38). In explaining this chant, Emerson
notes that “Ilio-uli literally [is] a dog of dark blue-black color. The primitive Aryans,
according to Max Muller, poetically applied the term ‘sheep’ to the fleecy white clouds
that float in the sky. The Hawaiian poet, in the lack o f a nobler animal, spoke of the
clouds as ilio, dogs. With this homely term, however, he coupled—by way of
distinction—some ennobling adjectives” (37 fn. 4; my emphasis). Emerson’s comment
on sheep being a “nobler animal” makes no sense in Hawaiian terms, because sheep were
not present in ancient Hawai‘i. It makes no sense in western terms, either, as it assumes
that all clouds are fleecy and white, floating innocently in the sky. It also ignores the
kaona-laden message that H i‘iaka is about to embark in genealogical warfare against
310
Pana‘ewa and his supporters, and is calling on the dog-cloud ancestor forms (dogs being
associated with ‘olohe, or the fiercest warriors). These cloud forms Hi‘iaka calls on are
the storm clouds of war. They are her relatives (such as Kanehekili) associated with
thunder, lightning, heavy rain, and storms. Third, it begs the question, how can sheep be
nobler animals than dogs, when dogs are used to herd sheep, in part because they are
smarter than sheep and because they are work animals for humans? It also suggests that
Hawai‘i is not a place of nobler being, human or otherwise, also reinforcing the idea that
while Hawai'i was a beautiful “paradise,” it was one which was also lacking a certain
level of civilization.
When H i‘iaka arrives at Ha‘ena, Kaua‘i she encounters the fisherman
Malaeha'akoa at the seashore, plying his trade. Upon seeing Hi‘iaka, Malaeha‘akoa
addresses her in an oli:
Ooe ia, e ka wahine ai laau o Puna Thou art she, O tree-eater of Puna,
E ka lala i ka ulu o Wahine-kapu, e; O branch of Wahine-kapu’s
breadfruit tree
He i ‘a, he i ‘a na ka lawaia Swarm, fish, to the fisherman’s h
hook—
Na na Akua wahine o Puna, e. Fish for the godlike woman of Puna.
(Ill)
In a note regarding the word ulu, Emerson explains that “Ulu o Wahine-Kapu [refers to]
the name given to the plateau over which Kanehoalii presided, a very tabu place. As to
the breadfruit tree, I have been able to learn nothing; this is the first mention of it I have
311
met with” (fn. a, 111). In my research, I have found no references to an ‘ulu (breadfruit)
tree associated with Wahinekapu or with the Pele ‘ohana. What it appears to be referring
to is Hi‘iaka’s genealogy, as a lala (branch) of Pele’s line; Wahine-kapu is both Pele
(Sacred-Woman) and a specific wahi pana located at the crater (Pukui, Elbert and
Mookini, 218). ‘Ulu is breadfruit; ulu, on the other hand, means “to grow, increase,
spread;” it also means “assemblage, collection, flock” (PED 369). Thus, he recognizes
Hi‘iaka, referred to poetically as the “Forest-eating woman of Puna,” a common epithet
for Pele, “one (branch) of the multitudes of Wahinekapu,” Wahinekapu implying both
Pele and the place the Pele ‘ohana resides.
In different parts of the text, he misidentifies a honi as a “flattening of noses”
rather than an intake of breath (192). Pukui defines honi as “a kiss; formerly, to touch
noses on the side in greeting” (PED 79). He also misidentifies Kanaloa as the island of
Lana‘i, rather than Kaho‘olawe (194 fn. c).
While translation of words, phrases and concepts from one language and culture
into another is often challenging, Emerson makes pointed translation choices of broad
Hawaiian words in very specific ways which change the meaning of the text. One
instance arises in his translation of the word akua in the chant “Pau Puna ua koele ka
papa,” an oli offered by Lohi‘au in the context of placating Pele to keep her from killing
him by burying him with molten lava:
When Hiiaka recognized the desperate strait of her friend and lover she urged
him to betake himself again to prayer. “Prayer may serve in time of health; it’s of
no avail in the day of death,” was his answer.
312
It was not a band of women with firebrands, but a phalanx of fire that closed in
upon Lohiau. The whole land seemed to him to be a-flame . . . Hiiaka called on
him for prayer and this was his response. (207-208)
In the concluding line of the chant, Lohi‘au refers to Pele as “He akua ke ho‘a e” (A
goddess who causes the fires to bum), although Emerson translates this line as “Lo and
behold, she’s a devil!” (209). A footnote states that, “Akua [is] literally, a god. This is a
generic term and includes beings that we would call heroes, as well as devils and
demons” (209 fn. j). In the broadest sense, akua is defined as “god, goddess, spirit, ghost,
devil, image, idol, corpse; divine, supernatural, godly” (PED 15). It can be complex to
translate because it includes a variety of other related meanings. For example, Pukui
writes, “Akua might mate with humans and give birth to normal humans, m o‘o, or kupua.
Children of Ka-mehameha by Ke-opu-o-lani were sometimes referred to as akua because
of their high rank. Kaua, or outcasts, were sometimes called akua because they were
despised as ghosts” (PED 15). Thus, Lohi‘au’s meaning in chanting the oli for Pele (and
the meaning of the oli itself) changes dramatically when he refers to her as a devil rather
than acknowledging her as a goddess. Perhaps Emerson means the word in reference to a
cruel or ill-tempered person. Yet its close association with Christian theology as the
antithesis of God (representing goodness and love) connotes a much more negative
meaning, as the devil in a Christian context represents a separation from God, the
ultimate concentration of evil. Thus, the mo‘olelo is reframed from a Kanaka context in
which Lohi‘au is perhaps acknowledging Pele’s power and status as a goddess in the
313
hopes of placating her temper and sparing his life, to a Christian binary of “innocent” or
good (Lohi‘au) versus “evil” (Pele).
Another example occurs during the kilu scene at Pele‘ula’s court in Kou
(Honolulu), Emerson incorrectly explains the location of Wailua and Kalehuawehe being
referred to in Lohi‘au’s kilu song as “a land in Honolulu; here meaning Pele-ula herself,”
and “a river on Kaua‘i” (175fn. a and b). While Kalehuawehe is “the name for an ancient
surfing area at Waikiki” (Pukui, Elbert and Mookini, 76), it is also an ancient surfing area
located in the Puna district of Kaua‘i, near the south end of the ahupua‘a of Wailua and
the Hauola healing heiau (Wichman 1998, 79). It is a surf site referenced in several
Hawaiian versions of the Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo, such as when Pele’s older sister
Kapb‘ulakina‘u is the one who names the surf break there Kalehuawehe (Manu, KLK,
July 8, 1899). Furthermore, Wailua is not simply a river on Kaua‘i; it is the most sacred
district on the island of Kaua‘i containing a prominent complex of heiau, a pohaku hanau
(birthing stone) so powerful maka‘ainana children bom there were considered chiefs, and
the greatest chiefly lineages on the island, as demonstrated in the a birth chant
referencing births at Holoholoku heiau:
Hanau ke ali‘i i loko o Holoholoku, The child of a chief bom at
he ali‘i nui Holoholoku23 is a high chief;
Hanau ke kanaka i loko o Holoholoku The child of a commoner bom at he
ali‘i no Holoholoku is a chief also;
23Holoholoku is the name of the region, as well as the heiau where the pohaku ho'ohanau ali‘i (royal birthing
stone) was located. Holoholoku is situated within the boundaries of the Wailua ahupua'a on the north-east side
of the Wailua river near the river mouth.
314
Hanau ke ali‘i ma waho a‘e o Holoholoku, The child of a high chief bom outside
‘a ‘ohe alii; he kanaka ia. Holoholoku is no chief, a
commoner he!24
(Pukui, 56) (Dickey, 15)
Emerson offers his own interpretation of the history of Hawaiian words. One
example is the word lu ‘au. He writes, “the most acceptable bonne bouche that could be
offered to Pele, or to Hiiaka, by way of refreshment, was the tender leaf of the taro plant.
We of this day and generation eat it when cooked under the name of lu-au. In the old old
times, when the gods walked on the earth, it was acceptable in the raw state under the
name of paha; but, when cooked, it was called pe ‘u. The word luau seems to be modem”
(74fn.b). As a word for party, lu‘au is modem, but there is no evidence that it is a
modem word used to describe taro leaves. Pukui notes that lu‘au is the “young taro tops,
especially as baked with coconut cream and chicken or octopus” (PED 214). Derived
from the Proto-Polynesian (PPN) root luu, this definition seems older than Emerson
indicates {PED 214). Moreover, Pukui carefully delineates and explains the concept of
lu‘au as a modern word for party, indicating it is a “Hawaiian feast, named for the taro
tops always served at one; this is not an ancient name, but goes back at least to 1856,
when so used by the Pacific Commercial Advertiser; formerly a feast was pa ‘ina or
,aha‘aina,, (PED 214).
24 This chant is attributed to the Kuali‘i text, but I have been unable to locate it there. The English
translation is from Dickey, which is also in Wichman(66), and differs slightly from Pukui’s translation.
315
Misunderstanding of cultural practice. Unfortunately, Emerson does not appear to
value the skill of memorization, and what it took for Kanaka Maoli to preserve and pass
on knowledge from older times. One example is when he describes the chant “Hulihia ke
au, ka papa honua o kona moku” as a pule that has merely “drifted down” from the wa po
(228). Chants were carefully learned and passed on, and did not simply “drift.” In light
of the discussion of the importance of the hulihia chants in Mokuna 5, Emerson’s
comments demonstrate his cultural bias. It also demonstrates his self-important attitude
of being the savior of the mo‘olelo as he has captured it on paper for the rest of the world,
ink solidly fused to paper, no longer able to drift or merely fade from the mind of some
nameless Kanaka. It is perhaps alluding to the different versions of the mo‘olelo and oli
he was well aware of, and formulated his opinion on the fragile nature of the chants thus,
not considering cultural perspectives of makawalu or differing versions based on
mo‘oku‘auhau or ‘aina association.
Misrepresentation of relationships. Throughout the text, Emerson misrepresents
different characters and the relationships between them. One example is H i‘iaka’s
relationship to the mo‘o guardians of the Wailuku river in Hilo, Piliamo‘o and
Nohoamo‘o. In the Kapihenui text, the mo‘o are referred to as “na kupunakane o
Hi'iaka” (the grandfathers or male ancestors of Hi'iaka) (January 23, 1862). Emerson
refers to them as “two sorcerers” who were “degenerate nondescripts” who “by virtue of
their necromantic powers, they had the presumption to claim spiritual kinship with
Hiiaka, a bond the woman could not absolutely repudiate” (56). Hi‘iaka chants six
316
“Kahulihuli” chants seeking permission to pass over the Wailuku river bridge (all but one
omitted in Emerson’s text) before she finally attacks the mo‘o and vanquishes them. At
this time, Piliamo‘o says to Nohoamo‘o, “E aho e kahea aku oe i ka moopuna a kaua. I
hewa no kaua ia oe i kau olelo ino no, e laa ka make o kaua la” (You better call out to
that granddaughter of ours. We were wrong because of you and your evil talk, and now
we are doomed to die” (January 23,1862). Again, Emerson ignores the relationship
between H i‘iaka and the mo‘o; “‘W e’ve committed a great blunder,’ said Pili-a-mo‘o to
his mate. ‘It looks as if she meant to kill us. Let us apologize for our mistake and
conciliate her with fair words’” (59). Throughout, Emerson employs very strong
language and negative words which are quite different in tone and meaning than
Kapihenui and other Kanaka Maoli writers.
Another example is Hi‘iaka’s relationship to Pohakuokaua‘i at Ka‘ena, 0 ‘ahu.
Kapihenui’s text acknowledges the familial relationship between Hi‘iaka and
Pohakuokaua‘i, who is also referred to as her kupunakane (February 20, 1862).
Emerson’s text ignores this familial relationship, generalizing it instead:
Hiiaka had large acquaintance with the natural features of every landscape, and if
those features were of volcanic origin she might claim them as kindred through
her own relationship with Pele. It was hers to find friendship, if not sermons, in
stones. This Pohaku-o-Kauai, to whom Hiiaka now addressed herself, though in
outward form an unshapen bowlder, as we see it today,—the very one that Mawi
drew from its ocean-bed with his magic hook Mana-ia-ka-lani—was in truth a
sentient being, alive to all the honor-claims of kinship. (105)
317
Here, not only is Hi'iaka’s familial relationship to Pohakuokaua‘i trivialized,
Emerson ties Pohakuokaua‘i to an unrelated m o‘olelo, that of the kupua Maui, referring
to his fishing up the Hawaiian islands. This is a vastly different mo‘olelo explaining
Hawaiian geological features and origins than the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo.
Similarly, Hi‘iaka’s relationship to the shark kupuna Kua and ‘Alaikapoiki
(alternately known in Emerson’s text as Kaholeakane) is equally misrepresented. Like
the above examples, Kua and ‘Alaikapoiki are two shark kupunakane Hi‘iaka ma
encounter in the sea off the Wai‘anae coast of 0 ‘ahu upon their departure from Kaua‘i;
H i‘iaka is also acknowledged by them as their mo‘opuna (grandchild) (Kapihenui, KHP,
March 20, 1862). Here, Emerson acknowledges their familial connection, as Hi‘iaka
recognizes them “as relatives on the side of her paternal grand-father, their names being
Kua and Kahole-a-Kane” (160). However, Emerson can’t seem to resist his negative
description of the characters Hi‘iaka encounters, referring to them as “sea-monsters”
whom Hi‘iaka also encountered on her way to Kaua‘i “which had threatened serious
results, if not disaster, to Hiiaka’s expedition” (160). Again, Emerson inserts another
mo‘olelo into this one, detailing an encounter with the sea-goddess Moananuikalehua to
assist Hi‘iaka’s “escape” from “being swamped by a mighty waterspout” engineered to
deter her journey by the two shark kupuna. This particular mischaracterization portrays
Hi‘iaka as more helpless and in need of aid than she actually is; in the Hawaiian text, she
calls upon family for assistance and severely—and justifiably—rebukes them when they
fail to assist her (or recognize her godly status), while in Emerson’s version, she is
318
portrayed as being more helpless, and as being cast out into the wilderness on her own
without family or friends to assist her.
V a r ia t io n s of T e x t u a l R e p r e s e n t a t io n and I n t e r p r e t a t io n
One of the most noticeable differences in textual representation and interpretation
between Emerson and earlier Kanaka Maoli texts is evidenced in the presentation of
different oli, mele, and hula. Like the Hawaiian writers before and after him, Emerson
also provides different versions of oli contained within the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo.
While the majority of his text follows Kapihenui, several examples of the different
versions of chants Emerson gives are not found in Kapihenui at all. The first example is
the chant, “Kukulu ka makia a ka huaka‘i hele moe ipo,” an oli chanted by Hi‘iaka when
she initially consents to go to Kaua‘i to fetch Lohi‘au (15).
T a b l e 6 g . C o m p a r is o n of C h a n t V e r s io n s in E m e r s o n ’s texts:
exam ple 1
Emerson version 1 Emerson version 2
Kukulu ka makia a ka huaka ‘i hele Ku kila ke kaunu moe ipo;
moe ipo:
Ku au, hele, noho oe. Ku au, hele, noho oe, a no-ho,
E noho ana na lehua lulu‘u, A noho ana i na lehua o Lu-lu‘u,
Ku ‘u moku lehua i uka o Ka-li‘u, e. O ka pae hala, moku lehua, i uka o
Ka-li‘u.
319
Li‘uli‘u wale ka hele ana Li‘uli‘u ho‘i, li‘uli‘u wale
O ka huaka‘i moe ipo. Ka hele ana o ka huaka‘i moe ipo.
Aloha mai ka ipo Aloha mai ka ipo,
O Lohiauipo, i Haena. O Lohiau ipo, e\
Emerson does not provide a source for either version, stating instead “I am impelled by
my admiration for this beautiful song to give another version of it” (16). However,
variants of the first chant are found in five additional sources.25
In another instance, Emerson gives a version of a chant found in HI. 1.23, which
he credits to Pelei[o]holani (67-68). The chant “He ahui hala ko Kapo-ula-kina‘u” is
chanted by Hi'iaka to her elder sister Kapo‘ulakIna‘u when Hi‘iaka ma arrive on Maui.
Three versions are listed in the table below:
T a b l e 6 h . C o m p a r is o n of E m er so n t e x t a n d f H I .L .2 3 m a n u s c r ip t
Emerson version 1 Emerson version 2 HI.L.23 manuscript

[Kapihenui]
He ahui hala ko Kapo-ula- He ahui hala na ka makani: He ahui hala ko ke Ko ‘olau
kina'u,
Ko ka pili kaumaha\ Hala ka ua, noho i na pale, e— Ko ka pili Kaunoa
I ka pili a hala, la, ha-la! I ka pali aku i Pua-lehei, e. I ka pili a hala la hala
L o li ih o la, pulu e lo i ka ua, e.
25 These are: Pa‘aluhi and Bush (January 1, 1893); Ho‘oulumahiehie (August 25, 1905 and July 9, 1906)
and BPBMA HEN 3. The second version of the chant is found in Poepoe (July 3, 1908).
320
Emerson version 1 Emerson version 2 HI.L.23 manuscript

[Kapihenui]
Hala olua, aohe makamaka o Aohe makamaka e kipa aku ai Hala olua aohe makamaka o
ka hale ka hale,
E kipa aku ai la ho‘i i ko hale, E kipa aku ai la ho‘i i ko
hale
I kou hale, e-e! I kou hale, e; I ko hale e.
E noho ana i ke kai o Kapeku;
E hoolono i ka uwalo, e!
(67) (68) (HI.L.23, 39)
Emerson notes that the second version of the chant is “furnished by Pelei-oholani
[Peleiholani]” as “the version previously given is confessedly imperfect, in part
conjectural, there having been several hiatuses in the text” (68). He goes on to identify
Peleiholani’s as “an authorized version, though very different” (68). He does not
elaborate on why or how Peleiholani’s version is more authorized than the first, or what
makes the first version partially conjectural, although it is interesting to note that in a
side-by-side comparison with the earlier version by Kapihenui, the two are nearly
identical.
The version found in Kapihenui is actually no longer available in its original form
as several issu es o f the nupepa, in clu d in g the on e containing this oli w ere never
microfilmed. However, it is contained in the handwritten Bishop Museum Archives
manuscript HI.L.23, which follows Kapihenui’s text very closely. It is unfortunate that in
some cases, it is possible to corroborate the manuscript version with the Pa‘aluhi and
321
Bush text when the missing issues of Kapihenui’s text are not available, but not in this
one, as this chant is not in the Pa‘aluhi and Bush text.
There are several points in the mo‘olelo when Emerson intentionally deletes parts
of the m o‘olelo. One such instance is when H i‘iaka ma are traveling along the W ai‘anae
coast of O lahu enroute back to Hawai‘i island. At the point where Hi‘iaka is standing
atop Pohakea, the summit of the Wai‘anae mountains, she sees the destruction of her
beloved forests of Puna and chants the oli, “Aluna au a Poha-kea” (I am standing above
at Pohakea). There are two interesting points to note here. First, while a chant with the
same first line appears in Kapihenui’s text at the same place and in the same context, this
is the only line shared between the two chants.
T a b l e 6 i . C o m p a r is o n of K a p ih e n u i and E m er so n tex ts: exam ple 6
Kapihenui Emerson
A luna au o Pohakea Aluna au a Poha-kea,
Ea ke poo o Kamaoha i luna Ku au, nana ia Puna:
He lalo o Luakini, ke kokolo aela Po Puna i ka ua awaawa;
Ma ka poli o Kanehoa Pohina Puna i ka ua noenoe;
Hoohoa i na keiki make anu, Hele ke a i kai o ka La-hiku o a’u
lehua,
O Kaiwieli e ua anu au e, O a’u lehua i aina ka manu;
Maikai Lihue, he kuaaina aloha e I lahui ai a kapu.
322
Kapihenui Emerson
Ala la, ke huki’a la i kai o Nana-huki—
Hula le’a wale i kai o Nana-huki, e!
(March 20, 1862) (163)
A similar version to Kapihenui’s version is found in later texts.26
A second chant beginning “A luna au o Pohakea/Kilohi aku kuu maka ia lalo” is
given by Kapihenui (March 20, 1862). Variants of this chant are also found in Pa‘aluhi
and Bush (April 26, 1893), Ho‘oulumahiehie (May 29, 1906), and the BPBM Archives
(MS SC Roberts 3.7).27 Emerson also provides a second chant beginning with the line
“Aluna au o Poha-kea/Wehe ka ilio i kona kapa.” This is very different from all the other
“A luna au o Pohakea” chants, and no variants are contained in the BPBMA Mele Index.
In Emerson, the oli “[O] Mau a‘alina oe mauka o Ka-la-ke-ahi,” chanted by
Lohi‘au’s friend Paoa upon his discovery of Lohi‘au’s lifeless body at Kllauea is given
twice. The second version, which differs in length from the first, is identified by
Emerson as “another version of the eloquent prayer of Paoa; furnished by Poepoe, who
obtained it from Rev. Pa‘aluhi” (218). The following table compares two versions of the
same chant found in Emerson, one of which he identifies as being from Poepoe:
26 See H o‘oulumahiehie (May 31, 1906) and Desha (February 8, 1927).

27 Two variants in Emerson are also found in MS SC Roberts 3.7.
323
T a b l e 6 j . C o m p a r is o n of C h a n t V e r s io n s in E m e r s o n ’s texts:
exam ple 2
Emerson first version Emerson second version from Poepoe
Mau a‘alina oe mauka o Ka-la-ke-ahi; O mau a‘alina oe,
0 mau kakala ke ahi.
Ma Puna ka huli mai ana; Ma Puna ka hiki’na mai
Ka ua a Makali'i, A ka ua makali‘i,
Ke ua la i Laau, Ka ua a‘ala ai laau,
I Kau, i Ka-hihi, i Ka-pe‘a, 1 ka hiki, i ka pa‘a,
I ke wao a ke akua. I ke ahu a ke Akua.
Eia ho‘i au la, o ka Maka-o-ke-ahi; Eia ho‘i au, la.
O ka maka o ke ahi;
Aole ho‘i na la o ka Lawa-kua, Aole ho‘i na la,
0 ka lawakua a ke Koolau.
Ke Koolau la, e, aloha! E, aloha o ‘u hoa,
Aloha ku‘u hoa i ka ua anu lipoa, 1 ka ua a ka lipoa,
Hu‘ihu‘i, ko‘eko‘e, kaou: Lihau anu, ko‘eko‘e, ka-o-u—
He ahi ke kapa o kaua e mehana ai, He ahi ke kapa e mehana ai,
E lala ai kaua i Oma‘o-lala; E lala ai kaua i Oma‘o-lala.
I pili wale, i ha‘alele la, e. I pili wale, i ha‘alele la, e.
Ha'alele i Wailua na hoa aloha— Ha‘alele i Puna na hoaloha, e,
324
O Puna, aina aloha, Ka aina i ka koupu a Kane
O Puna, i Kaua‘i. He aikane ka mea aloha, e
He-e!
(217) (218)
This chant is not found in Kapihenui. This chant is also not found in all available issues
of both the Pa‘aluhi and Bush and the Poepoe texts. Variants however are found in
Ho‘oulumahiehie (February 14, 1906) and Desha (December 27, 1927), and are also
contained in the BPBMA Mele Book and Roberts collections (HI. M. 47; MS SC Roberts
3.7). In addition, Emerson gives different reasons for chants being chanted than
Kapihenui does. One example is the oli “A ka luna i Pu‘u ‘oni‘oni” (Above at
Pu‘u ‘oni‘oni, or Trembling Hill). The two are compared in the following table:
T a b l e 6 k . C o m p a r is o n o f K a p ih e n u i a n d E m e r s o n t e x t s : e x a m p l e 7
Kapihenui Emerson
A ka luna i Puuonioni A ka luna, i Pu‘u-onioni,
Noho ke anaina a ke akua, Noho ke anaina a ke ‘Kua.
Kilohi a kuu maka i lalo, Kilohi a’ ku‘u maka ilalo,
I ka ulu o Wahinekapu, I ka ulu o Wahine-kapu:
He oioina Kilauea, He o’ioina Kilauea,
He noho ana o Papalauahi e, He noho-ana o Papa-lau-ahi, e.
Ke lauahi la,
325
Ke lauahi la Pele ia Puna, Ke lau-ahi mai la o Pele ia kai o Puna:
Ua one-a, oke-a
Ua one a kai o Malama,
E malama e.
(January 9, 1862) (20)
In Kapihenui, Hi‘iaka chants “A ka luna” as she prepares to depart the volcano on
the long and dangerous journey to Kaua‘i to fetch Lohi‘au. When she ascends
Pu‘u ‘oni‘oni, she looks back, love for her aikane Hopoe wells up within her. To her
dismay, she sees Pele is consuming Puna with lava, and fears Hopoe will be killed.
Kapihenui explains that she chants “A ka luna” because of her love for Hopoe, reminding
Pele to remember her promise to take care of Hopoe.28
In Emerson, Hi‘iaka chants “A ka luna” because “Pele had not bestowed upon
Hiiaka the mana, power and authority, to overcome and subdue all the foes that would
surely rise up to oppose and defeat her” so her “watchful sisters and relatives” gestured
her to return (19-20). Emerson explains that Hi‘iaka’s response to their request is the
chant “A ka luna” which is “pointed with blame, giv[ing] proof that her own intuitions
were not entirely at fault” (20).
28 Ko laua nei pii akula no ia a luna o Puuonioni, nana aku o Hiiakaikapoliopele i ke aikane ia Hopoe ma.
No laila, hu maila ko ianei aloha i ke aikane. No ko ianei nana ana iho i ke kaikuaana e iho ana i kai o
Puna, a e hele ana ke ahi a Pele, e ai ana ia Puna. Manao no o Hiiakaikapoliopele e pau ana no ke aikane i
ka ai ia e Pele, a pau io no i ka ai ia o Hopoe ma. Aole o Pele i malama i ka ke kaikaina kauoha. No laila,
ue ia i ke aikane ma ke mele, penei: (“A ka luna i Puuonioni”). Ma ia mele ana a ia nei i aku ai keia ia Pele
e malama i ke aikane, i ka ia nei mea nui o ke aikane. A me ka mokulehua a ia nei, e like me na olelo
kauoha a laua, aole nae o Pele i malama ia olelo ae like a laua; a pau ia, ko laua nei haele akula no ia
(January 9, 1862).
326
Another example of differences between the purpose of the chants being
presented in the two texts is the chant “‘Ino Ko‘olau” (Ko‘olau is Stormy).
T a b l e 6 l . C o m p a r is o n of K a p ih e n u i and E m er so n tex ts: exam ple 8
Kapihenui Emerson
Ino Koolau, e ino Koolau, Ino Koolau, e, ino Koolau!
Ai kena i ka ua o Koolau, Ai kena i ka ua o Koolau:
He ua maila la i Maelieli. Ke ua mai la i Ma-elieli
Ke hoowaawaa maila la i Heeia, Ke hoowa‘awa‘a mai la i Heeia,
Ke kupa la ka ua i ke kai, Ke kupa la ka ua i ke kai.
Haa hula lea ka ua, Ha‘a hula le‘a ka ua
I Ahuimanu, ka ua hoone, I Ahui-manu, ka ua hooni,
Hoonaue i ka Puukoa, Hoonaue i ka pu‘u ko‘a,
Ka ua poai hele o Kahaluu, Ka ua poai-hale o Kaha-lu‘u.
Luuluu e,
Luuluu iho nei au, Lu‘u-lu‘u e, lu‘u-lu‘u iho nei au
I ka puolo waimaka a ka onohi, I ka puolo waimaka o ka onohi—
Ke kulu iho nei e Ke kulu iho nei, e.
(February 13, 1862) (90)
In the Kapihenui text, H i‘iaka chants this oli because she is sad at leaving her new
love, the taro farmer Kanahau, behind in Kailua. After departing Kailua, they arrive at
He‘eia near Kane‘ohe. Hi‘iaka looks back and sees the mountain Olomana in the
327
distance, and love for Kanahau wells up within her. She chants “Olomana kuahiwi
ki‘eki‘e i ka lani,” which concludes with the lines, “Hiki mai nei ke aloha / Kono e ku‘u
waimaka e hanini / E ue au e” (Love arrives /Inviting my tears to fall / 1 am crying [with
affection remembering you]” (February 13, 1862). Wahine‘oma‘o responds, “Nui ihola
no ke aloha o ke kane. Huli aku kaua e ho‘i” (Great is the love within you for that man.
Let the two of us return [to him])” (February 13, 1862). Hi‘iaka doesn’t respond; instead
they continue past He‘eia to Kupopolo. She chants ‘“Ino Ko‘olau” as Kapihenui
explains, “O ka pau ‘ole o ko ia nei kaumaha i ka ‘olelo a Wahine‘oma‘o” (because of
her unending sadness at the words of Wahine‘oma‘o [in regards to Kanahau]) (February
13, 1862).
In Emerson, it is because she was in a bad mood encountering the stormy weather
of the Ko‘olau area of 0 ‘ahu. He writes, “Hiiaka found many things to try her patience
and ruffle her temper in Pali-Koolau: Squalls,. . . slatted against her and mired the path;
but worse than any freak of the weather were her encounters with that outlaw thing, the
mo‘o . . . It was in the mood and spirit begotten of such experiences that she sang” (90).
The chant “Ku‘u [ai]kane i ke awalau o Pu‘uloa” (My beloved friend in the lochs
of Pu'uloa) is also presented in two different contexts. While the chant appears in both
texts, it is surrounded by completely different sets of chants. In Kapihenui, Hi‘iaka is in
the midst of offering oli aloha (affectionate greetings) to the different places they are
encountering along the Wai‘anae and ‘Ewa coasts. She beings with “A luna au i
Pohakea” (I am standing at Pohakea), the highest peak along the Wai‘anae mountain
range. She continues with “Kahuli Ka‘ena holo i ka malie” (Ka‘ena turns in the calm),
328
which lists place names along the Wai‘anae coast from the point (Ka‘ena) through
Lualualei. Three additional chants, “A makani kehau lalo o Wai‘opua,” “Ku‘u kane i ka
la‘i o ‘Ewa la,” and “Noweo maka ea i ka la” make reference to the ‘Ewa plains; the
second ‘Ewa chant is also similarly constructed with the “Ku‘u kane i ke awalau o
Pu‘uloa” chant. The chant preceding “Ku‘u kane i ke awalau o Pu‘uloa” is “Ala wela
Llhu‘e nopu no i luna” which refers to the Llhu‘e plains above ‘Ewa. In each of these
chants, Hi‘iaka is greeting the ‘aina, sending her affection there, as each chant is
preceded by the command, “Mai poina ‘oe ia‘u e [name of ‘aina], ‘I maila ‘oe V ole au i
ue aku ia ‘oe’” (Don’t forget me [‘aina], just say, ‘I have not cried for you’) (March 20,
1862). When she chants “Ku‘u kane i ke awalau o Pu‘uloa,” it is because of her aloha for
Lohi‘au and Wahine‘oma‘o. Kapihenui explains:
When this chant of Hiiakaikapoliopele was complete, she looked out and saw the
friend traveling along the sea on the canoe with the man, the two of them coming.
Love for the friend and the man welled up within her [because of] the ‘weariness
of their swimming in the sea without friends’ [for such a long time]. There was
only one friend of the voice of the older sister, her thought that the man would be
killed when they arrived on Hawaii. Therefore, this one wailed to the man in a
song like this.29
29 A pau ia oli ana a Hiiakaikapoliopele, nana aku no keia o ka holo ae o ke aikane ma kai ma luna o ka waa
me ke kane a laua nei. Aloha ae keia i ke aikane a me ke kane, ka luhi o laua o ka au ana i ke kai
makamaka ole. Hookahi no makamaka o ka leo o ke kaikuaana, no ko ia nei manao no e make ana no ke
kane ke hiki aku i Hawaii. No laila, ue aku no keia i ke kane ma ke mele penei (March 20, 1862).
329
After she chants “Ku‘u kane,” she descends the mountain and rejoins Lohi‘au and
Wahine‘oma‘o at the shores of Pu‘uloa. Along the way, she continues to express her
affection to the ‘aina in the chant, “Aloha wale olua e Puukapolei ma” (Greetings to the
two of you Pu‘ukapolei folks).
Emerson’s version is similar in that it is set in the same place: Hi‘iaka is traveling
along the W ai‘anae coast and ‘Ewa plains on foot, and Lohi‘au and Wahine‘oma‘o are
traveling along the coast via canoe. Yet here, Lohi‘au is sexually attracted to
Wahine‘oma‘o and wants to pursue a physical relationship; Hi‘iaka’s use of the same
chant in this context is to reprimand him for his unbecoming actions. Emerson explains,
“Hiiaka again in command, the tiger in Lohiau’s nature slunk away into its kennel,
allowing his energies to spend themselves in useful work. Under his vigorous paddle the
little craft once more moved like a thing of life” (167).
T a b l e 6 m . C o m p a r is o n of K a p ih e n u i and E m er so n tex ts: exam ple 9
Kapihenui Emerson
Kuu kane i ke awalau o Puuloa, Ku‘u aikane i ke awa lau o Puuloa,
Mai ke kula o Peekaua ke noho e, Mai ke kula o Pe‘e-kaua, ke noho oe,
E noho kaua i ke kaha, E noho kaua e kui, e lei i ka pua o ke
kauno‘a,
I ka Ohai, i ka W iliwili, I ka pua o ke akuli-kuli, o ka wili-wili,
I ka pua o ka lau Noni,
O kai hona i Kanehili la, O ka iho’na o Kau-pe‘e i Kane-hili,
330
Ua hiki au e. Ua hili au; akahi no ka hili o ka la
pomaika‘i;
Aohe mo-ewa‘a o ka po, e moe la nei.
E Lohiau ipo, e Wahine-oma‘o,
Hoe ‘a mai ka wa‘a i a ‘e aku au.
(April 3, 1862) (167)
Variants of this mele which are most similar to Kapihenui’s version are also found in
later texts.30 One reason the explanations are different could account for their placement
in different parts of the two narratives. Yet in the final example above, the chants both
appear in the same place in the narrative.
Another example is how Hi‘iaka’s power and authority on her journey are gifted
by Pele and explained. Kapihenui does not specify anything at the outset, although
Hi‘iaka calls on her family for assistance in different parts of the narrative, such as when
she battles the fierce m o‘o Pana‘ewa.
Later texts beginning with Kaili name different gifts and strengths, such as
Kilauea, H i’iaka’s “lima ikaika” (strong arm), ‘Awihikalani (critical eye), and her deadly
pa‘u uila (lightning skirt). Emerson doesn’t specify Pele’s gifts to Hi’iaka. Rather, he
says that Pele authorizes her to have power “over the Sun, Moon & Stars” and to
“exercise the powers of these heavenly beings” (22). What Emerson doesn’t explicitly
30 See Pa'aluhi and Bush (April 28, 1893), Ho'oulumahiehie (June 4, 1906) and Desha (February 15, 1927).
331
mention is that the natural elements he lists are actually relatives of Hi‘iaka, and thus she
already has the privilege of calling upon these ancestors to aid her in her quest.
An important difference between the Emerson and Kapihenui texts is when
H i‘iaka discovers Hopoe is dead. It is important because Hopoe’s death is what spurs
H i‘iaka to take particular actions. Other details in the story, such as who Lohi‘au’s spirit
appears to on Kaua‘i after his death also influence specific actions taken in the mo‘olelo
at that point. The following table compares the two texts, listing selected plot points and
detailed examples from both, and how they differ when compared.
T a b le 6n . C o m p a r is o n o f K a p ih e n u i a n d E m e r s o n t e x t s : e x a m p l e 10
Kapihenui Emerson
—Hi‘iaka discovers Hopoe is dead —Hi'iaka discovers Hopoe is dead

while they are on the north shore of while they are on their way back from
0 ‘ahu (Kahuku area); Hi‘iaka chants Kaua‘i; she chants “A luna au o
“A Maluo Hilo.” Pohakea” (63).
—Wahine‘oma’o’s parents are named —Identity of Wahine‘oma’o’s parents
as Punahoa (k) and Kaipalaoa (w). switched; Punahoa is listed as her
mother (w), and Kaipalaoa as her father
(k) (55).
—The shark kupua H i‘iaka encounters —While the episode is the same as in
off of W ai‘anae are named Kua and Kapihenui, the sharks’ names are given
‘Alaikapoiki. as Kua and Kaholeakane (160).
—Kamanuwai is identified as —Kamanuwai is identified as
Pele‘ula’s father. Pele‘ula’s brother (170fn. a).
—Lohi‘au’s spirit appears in a vision —Lohi‘au’s spirit appears to Paoa
to his sister. He wants all of them to (215).
go to Hawai‘i to mourn for him.
—Kahuanui tells her husband —Paoa acts alone and doesn’t tell
Nakoaola about her vision of Lohi‘au; Kahuanui on purpose so she can’t
together they tell Kahuaka‘iapaoa and “interfere” with his plans, and he
they all travel together to Hawai‘i departs for Hawai’i island alone to
island. fetch Lohi’au (216).
332
M is s in g s e q u e n c e s / s e g m e n t s / e p is o d e s
Another difference in textual representation and interpretation between Emerson
and earlier Kanaka Maoli texts is sequences, segments, or episodes of the mo‘olelo which
are missing in one text or the other. This is important to note because it speaks to both
how the action and interpretation of the m o‘olelo differ, as well as the power of the
editor, author, and/or redactor to influence the mo‘olelo. While not as problematic in an
oral context where each telling of a mo‘olelo is expected (and perhaps encouraged) to be
different, once the m o‘olelo is fixed on the page, such deleted scenes can be forever lost
or disputed as the written text takes on a more “authoritative” role.
In the next example from Emerson, when Hi‘iaka ma depart Ha‘ena for 0 ‘ahu,
H i‘iaka chants “Kunihi Ka‘ena holo i ka malie” (Steep stands Ka‘ena traveling in the
calm), a lengthy chant extolling the beauty of the leeward 0 ‘ahu coast (157-158). At this
point, Emerson stops the narrative and provides another version of the departure from
Ha‘ena. He says, “According to another account,—less mythical—Hiiaka, on her
departure from Haena, packed off Wahine-oma‘o and Lohiau in the canoe, while she
herself started on afoot. Before proceeding on her way she turned herself about and, as
was her wont, made a farewell address to the precipitous cliffs of Kalalau and to the deity
therein enshrined” (158-159). At this point, Hi‘iaka chants “‘O Kalalau pali ‘a‘ala”
(Kalalau, the fragrant cliff) and then ‘“ O Mana, ‘aina a ke Akua” (Mana, land of the deity
[Pele]) (159-160). Here, Emerson follows Kapihenui’s narrative provides his version of
these chants. He then states, “According to this version of the narrative, which is the
preferable one, Hiiaka now took passage in the canoe and from Mana the reunited party
333
sailed away for Oahu. By this happy reunion the otherwise disserved narrative is brought
into harmony and conflicting versions no longer pull away from each other like two ill-
trained steers” (160). Yet Emerson doesn’t indicate which versions he’s drawing from,
which is somewhat confusing in the reading of his narrative.
Similarly, despite closely following Kapihenui for the bulk of his text, Emerson
edits out segments of the m o‘olelo included in Kapihenui. These segments include:
• no interaction with Apuakehau and Kanahau in Ko’olaupoko, 0 ‘ahu
• no battle with Pueo, an owl akua of Ka‘alaea, Ko‘olaupoko (90-91)
• no surf scene in Kahana with the chief Palani and his wife Iewale (Ko‘olauloa)
• no scene with Kalewa in Kahuku, or Pili‘a‘ama in Pupukea in Ko‘olauloa
• the entire North shore area of 0 ‘ahu (Waimea to Ka‘ena) deleted from the
m o‘olelo
• Wahine‘oma‘o winning H i‘iaka back from the underworld.
• Lohi‘au’s spirit on Maui with Manamanaiakaluea (Hi‘iaka sees them in a dream
when sleeping at the crater after breaking though the stratas of earth)
C o n d e n s a t io n or A l t e r a t io n of Scen es
In some sequences, even when the chronology of the m o‘olelo doesn’t line up, the
individual sequences do. Interestingly enough, when there are scenes which match
Kapihenui, sometimes Emerson includes them at different points of the mo‘olelo than
Kapihenui. These “out of sequence” episodes are often identical between the two texts.
334
Examples include:
• Pele orders her sisters to fetch Lohi‘au
• E ku nei au e hele—Hi‘iaka departs the crater and begins her journey to Kaua‘i
• Pele promises not to destroy HPiaka’s beloved lehua groves of Puna
• Emerson places the Waihlano/'Olepau segment of the m o‘olelo on Maui after the
encounter with Manamanaiakaluea enroute to Kaua‘i; Kapihenui places it on their
return trip to Hawai‘i island from Kaua‘i.
An excellent illustration of this is when Hi‘iaka and Pa‘uopala‘e first befriend the woman
Wahine‘oma‘o. In Emerson, this encounter takes place before Hi'iaka’s battle with the
mo‘o Pana‘ewa, while in Kapihenui it comes after. Yet when compared side by side,
they are basically the same narrative:
T a b le 60 . C o m p a r is o n o f K a p ih e n u i a n d E m e r s o n t e x t s : e x a m p l e 11
Original Kapihenui text Kapihenui translation Emerson text
Ko laua nei hele akula no ia The two of them continued on,

a waena o ke alanui, alala mai walking in the middle of the
ana keia puaa. O ia alala mai road, [when] they heard the
no a kokoke ia laua nei, oli squealing of a pig. This
aku ana o Hiiakaikapoliopele, squealing was close to them, [so]
penei: Hi'iaka chanted like this,
A loko au o Panaewa, I am within [the forest] of

Pana‘ewa
Halawai me ka puaa, Meeting with a pig
A ka w ahine, O f the w om an
Me kuu maka, With my eyes
Lehua i uka, The lehua of the uplands
Me ka malu koi With the shade
I ka nahele, Of the forest
E ue ana i ka laau, A squealing in the forest
Alala ka puaa a ka The squealing pig of the
wahine, woman
He puaa kanaenae, A sacrificial pig
335
He kanaenae mohai ola, A supplication to sacrifice

life
E ola ia Pele, Life to Pele
I ka wahine o ka lua e. The woman of the crater.
Ku ana o Wahineomao i ke Wahine‘oma‘o stood before

alo o laua nei. Kanaenae ana them. Wahine‘oma‘o sacrificed
o Wahineomao i ke alo o the pig before Hi‘iaka.
Hiiakaikapoliopele i ka puaa.
“Ea! O oe na e Pele. Eia ka “Hey! You are Pele. Here is a At this moment a young
puaa, he puaa no ka hoohiki pig, a pig I promised my parents woman of attractive person
ana a ka makua a ike ia oe e I would give to you Pele, when I appeared on the scene and,
Pele. Alaila, hoi aku moe i ke saw you. Now that it is done, I prostrating herself to the
kane.” can return to sleep with my earth, said, “O, Pele, behold
man.” my offering, which I bring
to thee in fulfillment of the
pledge made by my parents,
that I should first seek thee,
O Pele, before I come to my
marriage bed. Accept this
suckling which I offer to
thee, O Pele.”
Pane mai o Hiiakaikapoli Hi'iaka replied to Wahine- “I am not the one you are
opele ia Wahineomao, “Aole ‘oma‘o, “I am not Pele. Pele is seeking: I am not Pele,” said
au o Pele. Aia no o Pele i ka there at the crater.” Hiiaka. “Pele is over yonder
lua.” in the Pit.”
Koi mai ana no o Wahine Wahine‘oma‘o persisted,
omao, no kona manao no o because she believed this was
Pele no keia. Hoole paa loa Pele. That one denied it, saying
mai kela, me ka olelo mai, with these words, “I am not Pele.
“Aole au o Pele. Aia no o Pele is there at the crater—go
Pele i ka lua—o hele.” see for yourself.”
A laila, aoao akula o And then H i‘iaka advised
Hiiakaikapoliopele ia Wahine‘oma‘o as to her travel.
Wahineomao no kona hele
ana.
I aku o Hiiakaikapoliopele H i’iaka said to Wahine‘oma‘o, The woman was persistent
ia Wahineomao, “I hele “Go right away to the crater. Of and begged that Hiiaka
auanei oe a hiki i ka lua. O the many women possibly would not despise her
ka wahine nui auanei e noho lounging in the doorway of the offering. After undeceiving
ana ma ka puka o ka hale la, house there, none are Pele. You her, Hiiaka carefully
aole ia o Pele. Mai ike auanei won’t soon see the virtuous instructed her, lest she make
oe i na wahine maikai o loko women inside the house there. some fatal mistake in her
o ka hale la. M ai haaw i o e i D o n ’t g iv e your p ig to them , or approach to the jealo u s
ko puaa ia lakou o make oe. you will die. Look in the place goddess: “When you come
Nana no auanei oe i kahi ope where a bundle is left in the to the Pit you must pay no
ahu e waiho ana i kapuahi la. fireplace. That is Pele; Give attention to these. Look for
O Pele ia, ia ia ko puaa e your pig to her.” the figure of a wrinkled old
haawi ai.” woman lying bundled up on
the hearth: that is Pele:
make the offering to no one
else but to her.”
336
I mai o Wahineomao, “Ka! Wahine‘oma‘o replied, “Hah! “Alas for me,” said
E hala loa auanei paha olua, The two of you will be long Wahine-oma’o. “You will
aole e loaa mai iau.” gone by then, and I won’t be be gone a long way from
able to catch up with you.” this place by the time I shall
return to seek you. I shall
not be able to find you.”
I mai o Hiiakaikapoliopele, Hi‘iaka replied, “Yes, we’ll “You will find us here,”
“Ae, loaa wale mai no maua wait for you to catch up with replied Hiiaka assuringly.
ia oe ianei.” us.”
Ko Wahineomao hele akula Wahine‘oma‘o went, while Hiiaka used her power to
no ia, e hao aku ana no o Hi‘iaka missed her. Dwelling in bring the woman at once to
Hiiakaikapoliopele ia the crater [was Pele], so her destination. Following
Wahineomao. Noho ana i ka Wahine‘oma‘o gave the sacrifice the instructions given her,
lua, ko Wahineomao to her, just like she discussed Wahine-oma’o was quickly
kanaenae aku la no ia, e like with H i‘iaka. When her sacrifice transported into the
me ke kamailio ana a Hiiaka there was complete, this one presence of Pele and, having
ikapoliopele. A pau ke turned to go. A thought welled made her offering in due
kanaenae ana aia nei, huli mai up inside of her, and Wahine- form, was about to retire,
keia e hoi. Hu ae ana ka ‘oma‘o turned around again. when Pele called her back
manao i loko o ia nei, huli and said, “Did you not meet
hou aku o Wahineomao. some women going from
here as you came this way?”
I mai o Pele, “Aole mau Pele said, “Did you not meet
wahine i loaa mai nei ia oe— up with some women traveling
e hele aku ana la.” from here?”
I mai o Wahineomao, “He Wahine‘oma‘o replied, “I “I met some women,” she
mau wahine no.” came upon some women.” answered.
I mai o Pele ia Wahine Pele said to Wahine‘5ma‘o,
omao, “O hoi a loaa aku ua “Go and get those women, okay?
mau wahine la, ea! O kahi One of the girls, is she your
kaikamahine ihola, o kau aikane?
aikane ia?”
Ae aku o Wahineomao, Wahine ‘dma‘o answered, “Make haste and come up
“Ae.” “Yes.” with them,” said Pele. “The
younger woman is very dear
to me. Attach yourself to her
as a friend.”
Hoi mai hoi keia, e hoo- Wahine‘oma‘o returned, and “That I will do,” said
komo aku ana o Hiiaka Hi‘iaka entered the thoughts of Wahine-oma’o. Then,
ikapoliopele i ka manao ia Wahine‘oma‘o. Wahine‘oma‘o moved by an impulse that
Wahineomao. Huli hou aku o turned again and said to Pele, came to her (the work, it is
Wahineomao, a pane aku ia cursing her, “Hah! I thought you said, of Hiiaka), she said to
Pele, me ke kuamuamu aku ia were a virtuous woman, Pele, Pele, “I had imagined you to
P ele, “Ka! K ainoa [no] he and all the w om en o f the crater be a beautiful w om an , P ele.
wahine maikai oe e Pele, he were good, you indeed! [You But, lo, you are old and
maikai wale no na wahine o are] the most evil woman of this wrinkled; and your eyes are
ka lua nei a pau, o oe no ka! place; your eyes are red, red and watery.”
Ka wahine ino loa o keia inflamed, too. You are very evil
wahi, ulaula kou maka, indeed, Pele.”
makole pu no hoi. Ino loa no
oe e Pele.”
A pau ia olelo ana a When these words of Thus saying, Wahine-
337
Wahineomao, kona huli akula Wahine‘oma‘o were finished, oma’o took her departure
no ia hoi. E hao aku ana no o she turned around to depart. and almost immediately
Hiiakaikapoliopele ia Hi‘iaka forcefully quickened found herself again with
Wahineomao, “Loaa no laua Wahine‘oma‘o, and the two of Hiiaka.
nei ia Wahineomao.” I mai o them were found by Wahine-
Hiiakaikapoliopele ia ‘5ma‘o Hi‘iaka said to Wahine-
Wahineomao, “E! Mama hoi ‘oma‘o, “Hey, you are very
oe.” fast.”
Ae aku o Wahineomao, Wahine‘oma‘o agreed, “Yes, I
“Ae, mama au. Eia no ka am quick. Here the two of you
olua ke hele nei, kuhi au ua are going; I wrongly thought that
hala loa olua. No laila hoi, you were long gone. Therefore, I
wikiwiki mai nei au.” was quick.”
I mai o Hiiakaikapoliopele Hi‘iaka said to Wahine‘oma‘o, “You have made quick
ia Wahineomao, “Pehea oe i “How did it go?” time,” Hiiaka said. “How
hele aku nei? did you get on?”
I mai o Wahineomao, “Hele Wahine‘oma‘o replied, “I went “I followed your
aku nei no hoi au a hiki, e like until, like you told me, I saw a instructions and presented
no hoi me kau i olelo mai ai, package deposited in the my offering to the woman
ike no hoi au i ke ope aku e fireplace. I was burdened by this who was lying on the
waiho ana ma kapuahi. pig, and I wanted to give it to hearth. She asked me if I
Kaumaha no hoi au i kuu her. I turned to go back; she had met you, and when I
puaa, a haawi no hoi au ia ia. inquired about the two of you. I said yes, she told me to look
Huli mai au e hoi, ninau mai said, I met with the two of you. I after you as a friend.”
keia ia olua. I aku nei au, ua was told you would be my
loaa no au ia olua. Kauoha companion, and we would go to
mai nei iau i aikane oe nau kii Kaua'i together to fetch the
kakou i ke kane i Kauai, pela kane; that is what she said to
mai nei la iau.” me.
I mai o Hiiakaikapoliopele, Hi‘iaka replied, “Is that all she “Is that all?”
“O kana olelo wale ihola no said to you?”
ia?”
Pane mai o Wahineomao, Wahine ‘om a‘o answered, “No. “She also told me to watch
“Aole. I kauoha mai nei iau e I was ordered to watch the two you, to observe how you
nana au ia olua ke hiki i of you enroute to Kaua‘i to fetch behaved towards the man—
Kauai, a loaa ke kane. E nana the kane. I am to watch the two whether you kissed him or
au i ka honi o olua, i ka launa of you to make sure you don’t had any dalliance with
o olua, a laila, hoi mai au hai kiss while you are together. him.”
aku ia ia, pela mai nei iau.” Then, I am to return and report
back what has been seen by me.”
Ninau aku o Hiiakaikapoli H i‘iaka asked, “Didn’t you say “And did you say anything
opele, “Aole au olelo ia Pele? anything to Pele?” to Pele?”
“Ka! He olelo no kau ia Wahine‘5ma‘o replied, “Hah! I “U-m, I bantered her
P ele kuam uam u aku nei au ia cursed her. I said, ‘yo u are a about her looks; told her she
Pele. I aku nei au, ‘he wahine very evil woman indeed! Laters was a very ill-favored
ino loa no. Ka oe e Pele! Ui with you, Pele! All of the woman, while the women
no na wahine o ka lua nei a women of the crater are attending her were very
puni. O oe e Pele, ka wahine beautiful, but you. You are Pele, handsome.”
ino, makole kou maka, ulaula the evil woman, your eyes are
no hoi. Pela aku nei au i inflamed, and truly red.’ That is
olelo aku nei ia Pele.” what I said to Pele.”
Akaaka o Hiiakaikapoli- Hi‘iaka laughed, and when she Hiiaka laughed at this
338
opele, a pau ka akaaka ana a was done laughing, the three of naive account,
ia nei, o ko lakou hele akula them continued on.
no ia.
Night shut down upon
them at Kuolo, a place just
on the border of Pana-ewa.
Pau-o-pala’e proposed they
should seek a resting place
for the night with the people
of the hamlet. Hiiaka would
not hear to it: “Travelers
should sleep in the open, in
the road; in that way they
can rise and resume their
journey with no delay.” (O
ka po ’e hele he pono ia
lakou e moe i ke alanui, i
aia no a hele no.)
(January 9, 1862) (25-26)
However, while “out of sequence” episodes do align in certain places, as
illustrated above, in different areas of the mo‘olelo, other scenes seem to be severely
condensed or altered. Examples discussed below include Hi‘iaka’s encounters with
Maka‘ukiu, Malaeha‘akoa, the kilu game at Pele‘ula’s court, along the Wai‘anae coast,
and Wahine‘oma‘o’s retrieval of Hi‘iaka from the underworld of Milu.
Maka‘ukiu. While Emerson closely follows Kapihenui in some areas, in others he
doesn’t. Hi‘iaka’s encounter with the shark kupua Maka‘ukiu is one example. One of
the reasons it is problematic is because unlike the Kahulihuli chant section when Hi‘iaka
ma encounter the m o‘o Piliamo‘o and Nohoamo‘o at the Wailuku river in Hilo, he does
not say that he is condensing it, leaving the impression that this is the complete episode.
In Kapihenui, the extension of the scene plays on the oral nature of the m o‘olelo as it
339
builds to a climax with the destruction of the mo‘o/mano (kupua). Furthermore, the
cleverness displayed by Hi‘iaka in the ho‘opapa between Hi‘iaka and the other characters
and the demonstration of her wisdom and mana are lost in Emerson (48).
Malaeha‘akoa. The section of the mo‘olelo surrounding the lame fisherman
Malaeha‘akoa is also condensed. Interesting details about the preparation of food for the
meal Malaeha‘akoa and his wife Wailuanuiaho‘ano make for H i‘iaka ma is omitted from
Emerson; in Kapihenui’s text, they work hard and prepare everything on their own, while
in Emerson, Malaeha‘akoa calls upon the help of the people. Another difference in detail
is that when Malaeha‘akoa and Wailuanuiaho‘ano dance a hula Pele for H i‘iaka ma, they
begin with “‘O kaua Pele i Kahiki” (Pele’s battle in Kahiki). Kapihenui’s chant says she
battles with Puna‘aikoa‘e (I hakaka ai me Puna‘aikoa‘e), while Emerson’s chant says she
battles with her older sister, Namakaokaha‘i (I hakaka ai me Namakaokaha‘i) (February
20, 1862; 112). This is an important difference in detail, because they reference two
different traditions. Puna‘aikoa‘e is a koa‘e (tropic bird) kupua who shows up as a main
character in Manu’s 1899 Pele mo‘olelo (where Hi‘iaka’s role is minimized). Emerson’s
reference to Namakaokaha‘i, however, references the mo‘olelo of ‘Aukelenui‘aiku. In
this version, Pele is driven out of their homeland because of her romantic involvement
with NamakaokahaTs husband ‘Aukelenui'aiku, and thus Namaka, who is a goddess
associated with voyaging and the ocean, catches Pele at Haleakala on Maui. They battle
and Pele is killed; a place called Naiwiopele (Pele’s bones) marks the area of Haleakala
on the Hana side where this battle occurred, and from here, Pele’s spirit travels the rest of
340
the way to Hawai‘i island, and resides at Halema‘uma‘u (Beckwith, 170). This chant is
200 lines long in Kapihenui’s version of the m o‘olelo. While very similar in Emerson, he
considerably shortens it, omitting the final sixty-one lines. Sixty-four nearly identical
lines are then given as from “another version of the mele” furnished by Solomon
Peleioholani (123). This is important, because Kapihenui gives reasons for things
happening in this scene that Emerson ignores, deletes, or reframes, including the reason
for Lohi‘au’s suicide.
The kilu scene at Pele‘ula’s court. Most of the kilu scene at Pele‘ula’s court in Kou,
0 ‘ahu in Emerson follow Kapihenui quite closely. There are some notable exceptions
between the two in details or reasons given for participation or certain actions. An
important example is that Kapihenui explains why Hi‘iaka decides to accept Pele‘ula’s
invitation in the first place. Hi‘iaka knows Lohi‘au will be killed by Pele once they reach
the crater, and she has heard of Lohi‘au’s great passion for and skill in kilu and hula, and
desires to see for herself. It is also a last opportunity for him to play kilu, something
Hi‘iaka knows that Lohi‘au doesn’t, a gift she provides him without his knowledge of
why or what is to come. No explanation for their participation in the kilu match is given
in Emerson.
The contest begins with Lohi‘au; he is matched against Hi‘iaka, and they play ten
rounds. Kapihenui’s mo‘olelo includes the sequence of events and chants for both
players in all ten rounds, while Emerson’s text gives the first two and last two plays for
both Lohi‘au and Hi‘iaka. This results in thirty kilu chants found in Kapihenui being
341
deleted from Emerson’s text. While Emerson tries to offer a brief explanation of the
kaona contained in each of the chants provided, these explanations do not capture the
intimate relationship between the kilu chants, their performers, and their purposes for
choosing the kilu chants to begin with. For example, Kapihenui’s text explains that the
reason Lohi‘au chants “Mapu i Luanono ke ahi a Kalawakua” is because of his aloha for
his kumu hula Mapu (April 10, 1862). At his next turn, he chants “A Kalalau a Honopu”
because of his aloha for his brother-in-law, Nakoaola. These heart-felt connections are
missing in Emerson, particularly because the chants explaining them are excluded from
his text.
Along the Wai‘anae Coast. Likewise, Emerson condenses the section of the mo‘olelo
which takes place along the Wai‘anae coast on their return from Kaua‘i going home.
Emerson states, “We omit at this point a considerable number of mele which are ascribed
to Hiiaka and declared to have been sung by her while occupying this mountain perch at
Poha-kea. Application to them of the rule that requires conformity to a reasonable
standard of relevancy to the main purpose of the narrative results in their exclusion”
(163). I am hard pressed to understand how Emerson is qualified to determine what the
main purpose of the m o‘olelo is, and, in extension, what is relevant to it. Furthermore, is
he under the false impression that there is only one main purpose of the mo‘olelo? In
addition, the question arises: what is lost in the purposeful editing out of these chants?
Wahine‘oma‘o’s retrieval of Hi‘iaka from Milu. In Kapihenui’s text, Wahine‘oma‘o
is sent to fetch Hi‘iaka from the underworld of Milu. She finds Hi‘iaka, who refuses to
return to the crater. Wahine‘oma‘o entices her to return by chanting a long and detailed
series of “Ku‘u Aikane” (My Beloved Friend) chants, nine in all, fondly recalling their
many adventures together (July 3-July 10, 1862). Each chant begins, “Ku‘u aikane” and
then poetically recalls a place the two had visited together: “i ka wai li‘ula o Mana” (in
the twilight waters of Mana, Kaua‘i), “i ka wai ‘iliahi ‘ula o Makaweli,” (in the red
sandalwood waters of Makaweli, Kaua‘i), “i ka pali o Kalalau” (at the Kalalau cliffs), etc.
While each chant varies in length, from three to nine lines, they all begin with “Ku‘u
aikane i ka (mea)” and conclude with the line, “‘Auhea ‘oe—ho‘i mai kaua” (Listen to
me—let the two of us return [to the crater]) (July 3-July 10,1862). This is a beautiful
and moving scene, with the close bond between H i‘iaka and Wahine‘oma‘o clearly
evident through the poetry of the chant series. Emerson’s text does not include any of the
above referenced chants, and thus the intimate relationship between the two women is
also diminished. Instead, Emerson says that Wahine‘oma‘o was “under the inspiration of
the great god Kane” who took it upon himself to “interfere . . . by putting into the mouth
of her dearest friend on earth an appeal to which Hiiaka could not but listen and . . . heed”
(214). Under Kane’s control, Wahine‘oma‘o chants “A po Ka‘ena i ka ehu o ke kai”
(Ka‘ena is darkened in the mist of the sea), a chant found in Kapihenui which is the
culmination of the “Ku‘u aikane” chants sung by Wahine‘oma‘o (July 10, 1862).
Emerson’s deletion of the majority of this scene not only diminishes Hi‘iaka and
Wahine‘oma‘o’s relationship, it takes all agency away from Wahine‘oma‘o, making her,
343
as a mortal woman, a mere puppet for the powerful male deity Kane, which speaks to
differences in power relations between humans and deities, as well as between genders.
Emerson states several times throughout his text that he has “purposely weeded out from
the narrative, as popularly told, several incidents that have but little interest and no
seeming pertinence to the real purpose of the story” (97 fn. x; my emphasis). Again, the
question arises as to how he can determine the real purpose of the m o‘olelo, when it is
apparent that the different writers are including different aspects of the m o‘olelo to
emphasize different points. What the above example illustrates is that Kapihenui took
time to detail the “Ku‘u aikane” chants because he wanted to draw attention to Hi‘iaka
and Wahine‘oma‘o’s close relationship. The context also allows for the poetry of the
chant to shine through, something that would have been interesting and pertinent to a
Kanaka Maoli audience (see Kimura 1983). Even in Kaili’s mo‘olelo, which is highly
summarized and published in English, the relationship between H i‘iaka and
Wahine‘oma‘o is more preserved, and the gender dynamic different, as Wahine‘oma‘o is
“endowed with supernatural power” by Pele. Kaili writes,
Wahine‘oma‘o . . . went down the path opened by Hi‘iaka . . . through the first,
second and third planes, or worlds, till she came to the fourth, and while resting
sang a song descriptive of the journey she had taken in the company of her divine
friend. She had been endowed by Pele with the gift of song, knowing that would
be the surest way to appeal to the heart of Hi‘iaka.
344
She described the dangers of the way, the fatigues endured, the beautiful
scenery through which they had sometimes passed, and wound up with a loving
appeal for the return of the friend she devotedly loved. (October 12, 1883)
On the other hand, Emerson closely follows Kapihenui’s scene detailing the
healing and revival of Lohi‘au, even including a lengthy series of “Kulia e Uli” chants
not contained in the Kapihenui text (145-148). Thus for Emerson, perhaps the healing of
Lohi‘au seemed more important and pertinent, while in the Kapihenui text, that was just a
necessary function for Hi‘iaka to perform as part of the overall journey. In looking at
romantic encounters throughout the journey, clearly, the relationship between the women
in Kapihenui’s text is much more relevant than the relationship between the genders
(Kanahau, Lohi‘au, ‘Olepau, etc.)
What is perhaps most intriguing is that while Emerson follows Kapihenui for the
bulk of the m o‘olelo, the endings are very different from each other. Thus, the question
arises as to why? Why would Emerson draw so heavily from Kapihenui for the majority
of the text, only to veer so clearly away from it at the end? On one hand, Kapihenui’s
text appears to end quite abruptly with Lohi‘au’s death and a long series of Hulihia
chants at the crater (July 17,1862). After Kahuaka‘iapaoa chants the final Hulihia
(Hulihia ke au ne‘e i lalo i Akea), the editors conclude, “here we end this story by the one
who brought us this story, M. J. Kapihenui of Kailua, Ko‘olaupoko, [ 0 ‘ahu].”31
31
Ma keia wahi, pau kahi i paa o keia moolelo i ka mea nana i hoopuka ae nei keia wahi o keia moolelo, o
ia hoi o M.J. Kapihenui no Kailua, Koolaupoko (July 17, 1862).
345
Emerson’s text continues beyond this part of the mo‘olelo, and is reminiscent of
Kaili and Rice, even though his doesn’t reference either of them as sources, and most of
his mo‘olelo doesn’t follow theirs, which are also different from each other. After the
final Hulihia chant concludes in Emerson, Hi‘iaka decides to travel to Kaua‘i because it
is where Lohi‘au is from, and to get as far away from Pele as possible (235). Enroute
she stops at Pele‘ula’s court on 0 ‘ahu, and once again immerses herself in a game of kilu.
In the meantime, Kanemilohai, an elder brother of Pele, arrives from Kahiki;
encountering Lohi‘au’s spirit in the middle of Ka‘ie‘iewaho channel between 0 ‘ahu and
Kaua‘i, he captures it, returns it to Hawai‘i island, and restores Lohi‘au’s life (237).
Enroute to Kaua‘i, he too stops at Pele‘ula’s court and enters the kilu game, whereupon
he and H i‘iaka are reunited (239).
Similar to Emerson’s, Kaili’s text describes H i‘iaka’s journey to Kaua‘i, although
here she is accompanying Lohi‘au’s beloved friend, Kahuaka‘iapaoa. Like Emerson,
Kanemilohai arrives from Kahiki, encounters Lohi‘au’s spirit “halfway between Kaua‘i
and Hawai‘i” (October 13, 1883). He returns it to the volcano and restores Lohi‘au’s life
before directing him to 0 ‘ahu, where he meets up with Hi‘iaka at Pele‘ula’s court in Kou.
Hiding his identity at first, Lohi‘au enters the game of kilu with Hi‘iaka, and the two are
reunited. They return to Kaua‘i together, although Hi‘iaka does not stay. Kaili writes,
“Hi‘iaka, having found Lohi‘au restored to the living, now thought it was time to forgive
her sister, and having seen Lohi‘au and his friend safely back to Kaua‘i, returned with
346
Wahine‘oma‘o to the crater of Kllauea, where a reconciliation took place between the
sisters and all past injuries and differences forgiven and forgotten” (October 13,1883).
In Rice, Hi‘iaka and Lohi‘au are reunited at a kilu game which takes place at
Makaiwa on the east coast of Kaua‘i, not at Kou on 0 ‘ahu. Like Kaili’s version, Lohi‘au
gains the aid of two old men to trick Hi‘iaka. Hiding in the crowd, Lohi‘au tricks H i‘iaka
into thinking the old men are chanting songs that she and Lohi‘au composed together.
When she inquires where they learned the chants, they reply “from a friend who came
from Hawai‘i island” (September 10,1908).32 In an interesting twist, when Lohi‘au’s
identity is revealed, his friend Kahuaka‘iapaoa is so overcome, he swims out in the
waters past Makaiwa and kills himself. Lohi‘au and Hi‘iaka live at Ke‘e in Ha‘ena until
Lohi‘au’s death. At this time, Hi‘iaka gives the house to Lohi‘au’s sister Kilioe. She
“traveled around the island until she reached Nualolo where she built a heiau. When it
was done she returned home to her family and ‘to the land in the east where the sun rises
at Ha‘eha‘e, H aw aiT” (September 10, 1908).
Aside from a generic mentioning of Hawaiian sources, including na nupepa,
Emerson cites a handful of specific sources for his text. These include a manuscript by
Peleioholani, a reference to “Rev. Paaluhi,” and to both a J.M.P. and Poepoe’s text (68,
217, 228, 233). The reference to Peleioholani is probably Solomon Lehuanui
Kalaniomaiheuila Peleioholani (1844-1916), a “noted Hawaiian authority and
genealogist” who was a contemporary of Emerson and Poepoe (BPBMA online catalog).
32 Pane aku la kahi elemakule, “He wahi aikane na‘u mai Hawaii mai, a iaia au i lohe ai i keia wahi mele.”
347
In the Introduction to Kekuhaupi ‘o, Peleioholani is described as “a well-respected
genealogist and a direct descendant of Keawema‘uhili, the high chief of Hilo” (Desha,
xv-xvi). A manuscript he authored entitled “The ancient history of Hookumu-ka-lani
Hookumu-ka-honua” (Chant of the creation of heaven and earth), which was translated
by Poepoe, is contained in the BPBM Archives (HI. L. 1.3. 1). Peleioholani is also a
source used by Desha who consulted “a manuscript by Solomon L. Peleioholani” to
construct part of the Kamehameha narrative” (Desha, xv). Rev. Pa‘aluhi is probably
Reverend Simeon Pa‘aluhi.33 Because JMP can mean Joseph Moku‘ohai Poepoe and
because he was so closely associated with published mo‘olelo, I believe these could be
referring to the same person/text.
One of the interesting questions of possible sources comes when Emerson makes
reference to “several hiatuses in the text” (68). Perhaps it is just coincidental, but this
remark comes at a point in the mo‘olelo where Kapihenui’s publication in Ka Hoku o ka
Pakipika is absent on microfilm, indicating the original text was not available at the time
it was microfilmed in the 1960s. Were these issues of the nupepa unavailable to Emerson
as well? While the later Pa‘aluhi and Bush version from Ka Leo o ka Lahui can be used
to fill in the missing parts of Kapihenui’s mo‘olelo, perhaps it is coincidental that
Emerson does not refer to it. Did Emerson only have access to the Kapihenui m o‘olelo?
It may appear so, but he does mention Pa‘aluhi.34
33 While I have documented Rev. Simeon Pa'aluhi in a previous chapter, BPBM Archives notes a text by
Rev. Samuel Pa‘aluhi of Maui.
34 There are differences between the Ka Leo o ka Lahui and the HI.L.23 manuscript versions, just as there
are between the Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika and HI.L.23 manuscript versions of the m o‘olelo, indicating the
manuscript was written by someone else familiar with the m o‘olelo than Kapihenui, Pa‘aluhi, or Bush.
348
It is unfortunate that Emerson does not identify all of his source texts as he is
referring to them. One example is in a footnote regarding the chant “Puka mai ka Wahine
mai loko mai o ka Lua.” He states, “In the original text from which this is taken [Kini
maka o ka la] the form is Kini-maka” (fn. f, 195). This chant is not found in any of the
published Hawaiian Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, demonstrating that Emerson is using
other sources.
Additional sources Emerson references include work by other haole. He
specifically mentions in his footnotes both Abraham Fomander’s The Polynesian Race
(1880) and Edward Tregear’s Maori Comparative Dictionary (1891) (fn. h and i, 230).
He also makes reference to using a dictionary, although he is not specific; because it is in
regards to defining a Hawaiian word, he could be referring to Lorrin Andrew’s
Dictionary o f the Hawaiian Language (1865) or perhaps H. R. Hitchcock’s English-
Hawaiian Dictionary (1887), the only Hawaiian-language dictionaries which would have
been available at the time (fn. 219).35
Sum m ary
As mentioned in Mokuna 2, Pele and HViaka is referenced as “the Bible of Pele
literature” by some, a sentiment that ignores the enormously rich field of Pele and
Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. There is no compelling reason as to why that should be the case, other
than the assertion of American imperial expansion in Hawai‘i. Said (1993) argues that
35 He hoakakaolelo no na huaolelo Beritania, i mea kok.ua i na kanaka Hawaii e ao ana ia olelo was
compiled by J. S. Emerson and published by Lahainaluna Seminary in 1845, although this dictionary was
geared more towards providing translations and definitions of English “to assist the Hawaiians in learning
the English language.”
349
“by the end of the nineteenth century, the empire is no longer merely a shadowy
presence” (xvi). By the time Pele and H i‘iaka was published in 1915, the American
empire was firmly established in Hawai‘i. The American-influenced ban on Hawaiian-
language instruction in the public schools in 1896 effectively contributed to the silencing
of native voices, opening up space for colonial discourse and representation of
indigenous subjects by authoritative western writers like Emerson. As part of the BAE
ethnology project, Emerson’s Unwritten Literature establishes him as an authority on
Hawaiian mo‘olelo, at least to a western audience; Pele and HViaka is both an extension
and result of colonial expansion through western control of the indigenous narrative. His
authority, conveyed by his western peers, combined with the text being published in
English are contributing factors to its continued printing and distribution, resulting in it
being the most accessible Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo available today.
Because of language and format barriers, the Hawaiian-language nupepa versions
of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo are more difficult to access to the vast majority of the
population interested in reading, studying, or referencing the texts.36 Yet language
difference alone is not the sole issue. Nor are issues of race, ethnicity, or even social
positioning the primary cause; Emerson is not the first educated missionary son to
chronicle the m o‘olelo. Emerson is, however, the first, and so far only one to publish the
m o‘olelo in a book form. While Awaiaulu Press will soon be releasing the first
comprehensive re-formatted and republished Hawaiian-language version of the
36 Some of the texts are now available on-line through different sources, including Ulukau, the Hawaiian
electronic library project; see w w w .ulukau.org. While this has assisted in making the nupepa more
accessible through digital technology, there are still language and sometimes formatting difficulties, as the
nupepa are not translated into English, and because not all issues are available in digital format at this time.
350
Ho‘oulumahiehie/Poepoe/Desha strand of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, which will
include a comprehensive English-language translation, only time will tell if this mo‘olelo,
or another, will replace Emerson’s text as an authoritative one to most people unfamiliar
with the Hawaiian-language source material. One of the potential obstacles for the
Awaiaulu Press text is that at over 400 pages in length, a measure of portability of the
text will be lost; increased cost of the book, distribution and future republication of the
text in paperback editions may also affect how widely the text is disseminated and
utilized.
Most important to remember, however, may be that while Emerson heavily draws
from earlier Hawaiian texts, namely Kapihenui, making it a part of that genealogical
strand of the Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo, it is ultimately a different wa‘a, molded, shaped,
and navigated on a different sea for a different journey than the one Kanaka Maoli writers
set out upon. Kanaka Maoli writers tried to assert and resist colonization through their
own indigenous m o‘olelo, mostly in their own heritage language, while haole writers like
Emerson co-opted these cultural treasures, realigning them to fit western literary
paradigms and aesthetics to represent their colonial project and purpose. While Kanaka
wrote about our cultural traditions, viewing Pele and H i‘iaka as ancestors, weaving the
relationship between akua, ‘aina, and kanaka together in one narrative promoting an
indigenous concept of m o‘olelo—story and history, Emerson’s narrative reframes the
mo‘olelo into one of good versus evil, of Hi‘iaka as the damsel in distress in need of
masculine assistance, of conquest over land (metaphor of colonialism), as evidenced in
his introduction to the book:
351
It is a satisfaction to the author, after having accomplished this pioneer work of
opening up a new domain, to bid the public enter in and enjoy the delicious lehua
parks once claimed by the girl Hiiaka as her own; and he can assure them that
there yet remain many coverts that are full of charm which are to this day
unravaged by the fires of Pele. Thanks, many thanks, are due from the author—
and from us all—to the men and women of Hawaiian birth whose tenacious
memories have served as the custodians of the material herein set forth, but who
have ungrudgingly made us welcome to these remainder biscuits of mythological
song and story, which, but for them, would have been swallowed up in the grave,
unvoiced and unrecorded, (vii)
Emerson’s text has a scholarly format containing lengthy footnotes, additional
editorial comments and explanatory exposition. The inclusion of such detailed notes
suggests a meticulously detailed approach to studying and translating the text. His
obituary in The Friend notes, “The admirable care and patience which he exercised in the
preparations of this book was evidenced to a marked degree in this last collection of
Hawaiian stories. He gained many versions of the myth of Pele and Hi‘iaka, and after
accumulating a great mass of manuscript, set himself to the task of condensing the facts
in one volume” (August 1915, 185). Emerson’s work was admired by his peers. After his
death, Westervelt 1916b) wrote of him, “He is and was an excellent Hawaiian scholar and
translator. He interpreted the thoughts rather than the literal words, and he did this with
352
rare skill. . . In all his writings the explanations and references are of great value to
students” (16).
What these supporters of Emerson fail to address is that he is not the first or only
one working with Hawaiian m o‘olelo to exercise patience and care in his work, nor is he
the only one to accumulate manuscripts and conduct comparative literary work. In
studying all of the previously published and available Hawaiian nupepa Pele and H i‘iaka
mo‘olelo and manuscripts, the writers of each, to one degree or another, were not just
retelling the m o‘olelo. Rather, they were also offering different explanations for
vocabulary words, actions, place names, etc. Some, as demonstrated throughout this
dissertation, offered alternative or multiple versions for selected chants, and also offered
Christian and other referential comparisons. All of these indigenous voices have been
effectively silenced by the forced suppression of their voices. While Kanaka Maoli
continued to print m o‘olelo in Hawaiian well into the 1930s—Desha’s Pele and Hi‘iaka
mo‘olelo being one example, and the only one published in Hawaiian after Emerson—the
expansion of American colonialism and the related shift to English-language education
effectively cut off the readership to such tales. Moreover, the western curriculum in
public schools, combined with Christianity, both of which devalued the cultural lessons
inherent in such mo‘olelo, did not use or teach these mo‘olelo; Kanaka Maoli traditions
were soon abandoned by the larger population, who no longer had access to them.
The next chapter examines selected examples of cultural themes in the
Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, and what these differences of representation between
the texts mean, particularly in relationship to Kanaka Maoli today.
353
MOKUNA 7
HULIHIA KA MAUNA: CULTURAL VALUES IN THE PELE AND HITAKA
MO‘OLELO
Hulihia ka mauna wela i ka ahi The hot mountain is overrun with fire
Wela nopu ka uka o Ku‘ia i Hanalei The uplands o f Ku'ia at Hanalei are burning
hot
Ke ‘a pohaku pu‘u lau mai i uka The many splatter cones o f the uplands are
ablaze
Kekako‘iokala mai i ka lua From Kekako ‘iokala to the pit
‘O Kamaili kani pololei leo le‘a a Kamaili rings out with clear voice
‘O ka hinihini kani kua mauna e Heard indistinctly on the mountain ridges
Ke ‘a i kai o Kukala'ula When it burned below Kukald ‘ula
A luna au o Holonene I was upland at Holonene
Ku au nana e maliu mai I stand to watch attentively
‘O ku‘u ‘ike wale aku ia Maukele Seeing only Maukele
I ka papa kahuli la e ‘Apua I And the twisted lowlands by ‘Apua
La lili‘u he nopu he wela ka wawae o This is a scorching day, the feet are burning
hot
Wela ka papa ha‘a ka pahoehoe The plates o f pahoehoe are burning
Pau na niu o Kulo i ka po The coconut trees o f Kulo were destroyed in
the night
Hala ka uahi ma ‘o o Kuauli The smoke has passed beyond Kuauli
Pau ‘Oma‘olala i ke ahi ‘Oma ‘olala was destroyed by the fire
Hi‘a no ‘e ‘e ‘a i ke one u The fire plow alights upon the sand
Pulupulu i ka lau la‘au a Kindled by the scattered wood
Ku hi‘u ‘ia ka lani wili ka punohu ‘ula Thrown up to the heavens in a twisted red
cloud
Ke ‘a weo i ka lani Reddish glow lighting up the sky
Po‘ele kikaha ke kua o ka po The god o f night soars in the darkness
Li‘uli‘u wawa‘u ‘a ‘e ‘a‘e na pua mai Kahiki The travelers from Tahiti slowly wander
about
Hiki ‘o Pele ma i Keahiku e The Pele clan arrive at Keahiku
Kahuli Kllauea me he ama wa‘a la l Kilauea topples over like the outrigger o f a
canoe
Ha‘aha‘a Puna k i‘eki‘e Ka‘u o Puna is depressed, Ka ‘u is elevated
Ka ‘aina i ka ulu o ka makani u Ka'u, land o f increasing winds
He inoa no Hiiakaikapoliopele! A name chant for Hiiakaikapoliopele!
(Kanahele 2001, 18-21)
354
The Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo climaxes or concludes, depending on the version
of the mo‘olelo, with a series of hulihia chants performed by Paoa, Lohi‘au, and/or
H i‘iaka at the rim of the Halema‘uma‘u, Pele’s home. Mokuna 5 includes a definition of
hulihia as “overturned.” A second meaning of huli, the root word, is “to look for, search,
explore, seek, study; search, investigation, scholarship” (PED 89). I assert that both
definitions of huli/hia are applicable to this dissertation in relation to the Pele and H i‘iaka
m o‘olelo. The first overthrows, reverses, or at least turns the prevailing thought or
argument of previous Euroamerican-centric framing and understanding of the literature
within the context of the second, the study and scholarship on Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo
from a Kanaka Maoli perspective.
Tuhiwai Smith discusses this difference between native and western discourse.
She writes, “Indigenous peoples across the world have other stories to tell which not only
question the assumed nature of those [western] ideals and the practices that they generate,
but also serve to tell an alternative story” (2). The hulihia discourse embodied in the Pele
and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo tells an alternative hi/story of ‘aina that directly conflicts with the
western science of geology. Similarly, the cultural values contained within the m o‘olelo
are also different; selected examples will be discussed in this chapter.
Understanding Hawaiian kaona, “hulihia ka mauna” literally means “the mountain
is overturned.” Figuratively, it can refer to the overturning of the established order,
sovereignty, or genealogy of other godly or chiefly rule, such as those of Papahanaumoku
and Wakea (where the islands are bom in an order that differs from how Pele travels
across them), or Kane (an important male god who cannot dominate Pele). Within the
355
context of the story, the metaphor seems to imply that Pele herself has not just physically
overturned the mountain with forceful eruptions which destroy H i‘iaka’s beloved
companion Hopoe and lehua groves of Puna, but later her love Lohi‘au. Rather, that the
goddess herself has overturned her anger toward Hi‘iaka and Lohi‘au. Within the context
of this dissertation, I assert that the metaphoric “mountain” of western scholarship is also
being overturned. While not a comprehensive examination of every explorable facet of
na mo‘olelo related to Pele and Hi‘iaka, it continues the scholarly kuleana of privileged
interpretation of ancestral knowledge called upon by Hawaiian scholar Pualani Kanahele,
who writes,
We Hawaiians must begin to unveil for ourselves the knowledge of our ancestors.
We, of this Lahui, are gifted with the extra sensory perception of our na‘au which
connects us to our ancestors. When reading with the frame of mind of ancestral
connection we will be able to feel the involvement with our history whether
narrative or poetry. We will feel what others not of this Lahui could not possibly
feel because they are not spiritually and emotionally connected[;] therefore our
possible dimensions of understanding are greater than others who choose to write
about us. Let us interpret for ourselves, and everyone else must allow us this
privilege, about who our ancestors were, how they thought, and why they made
certain decisions. We will treat them with honor, dignity, love and respect
whether they be Gods, ali‘i or kanaka because they are ‘ohana. (Kanahele and
Wise, iii)
356
Thus, while further study and analysis of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo lies ahead, “ka
hohonu i hiki ‘ole ke ana ‘ia, aka, ua ‘ike ‘ia no kahi mau papa; the depth is
unfathomable, but several strata have indeed been seen” (Qtd. in Chariot 1983,119).
What are some of the strata of Hawaiian culture that are revealed in studying the
Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo? Certainly the cultural themes or values demonstrated in the
action of the characters throughout the lengthy mo‘olelo are important to discuss. First
because they offer insight into Kanaka Maoli culture and traditions of the past, and
second because they uncover what would have been interesting, important or appealing to
a Kanaka Maoli audience. Many cultural values are displayed through na m o‘olelo, with
variations in each. Here, I would like to focus on what I identify as the main themes or
values as exemplified by the representation of skills and practices that resonate
throughout the majority if not all of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, and discuss selected
examples primarily from the texts. These include:
• adeptness and skill (‘ike, ‘a‘apo, ‘eleu, akamai)
• surfing (recreation, competition, healing)
• hula and kilu (enjoyment, ritual, expression, skill)
• oli and mele
• ho‘okipa (hospitality) and mea ‘ai (food: preparation, kanawai, ritual,
abundance, type)
• U ‘i, nani, and mana wahine: the intertwining of beauty, intelligence, and
female power.
knowledge and skills: ‘ike, ‘a‘apo, ‘eleu, akamai. Knowledge and intelligence are
highly valued throughout the mo‘olelo through the representation of activities. Concepts
of ‘ike (knowledge), ‘a‘apo (to learn or grasp quickly), ‘eleu (alert, nimble, quick,
dexterous, agile, prompt) and akamai (clever, expert, skill, wit) are emphasized again and
again as valuable and attractive attributes. This is demonstrated in the appreciation for
someone’s skill, for instance when Pele and Hi‘iaka admire Lohi‘au’s expertise in hula,
or when the kanaka of Hamakua admire Punahoa’s dexterity at surfing.
The valuing of knowledge and intelligence is also demonstrated in the
appreciation for characters who exhibit such quick thinking without having to be told
what to do or how to act. An example from Kaili demonstrates both the reciprocal nature
of generosity, as well as Wahine‘oma‘o’s ‘eleu:
. . . They met a man returning from Hilo loaded with fish and Hi‘iaka asked if he
couldn’t spare them some, to which he quickly answered, “Why not, when I have
so much?” And he gave them four. All these were given to the old woman by the
goddess on the condition that she ate one whole fish there and then, throwing
away or leaving no edible portion. This she did, and was further cautioned to do
the same when she ate the remaining fish and was sent back rejoicing. This was
one of Hi‘iaka’s kanawai (laws) and all her devotees were supposed to always do
so . . . By this time Wahine‘oma‘o had become aware of the supernatural
character of her companions, but she was a model friend and asked no
embarrassing questions. (Kaili, PCA, August 25, 1883)
358
Later, H i‘iaka is quite appreciative for Wahine‘oma‘o’s observance of Hi‘iaka’s
kanawai to eat a fish “from head to tail.” What H i‘iaka admires is that she does not need
to explain the kanawai to Wahine‘oma‘o; rather, through observing Hi‘iaka’s behavior
and instruction to others, Wahine‘oma‘o is ‘eleu enough to understand the kanawai and
follow it without being told.
Hi‘iaka watched her when eating and saw that she ate the whole fish up, and she
was more pleased than ever with her friend, who, she was convinced, was entirely
devoted to her. Wahine‘oma‘o had observed Hi‘iaka’s commands to the old
woman to eat the fish all up, and without asking the reason had applied the
command to herself. (.PCA, September 1, 1883)
These episodes within the mo‘olelo dispel the colonial, post-missionary rhetoric
of Kanaka being stupid, lazy, and inept. [CF: stereotyped—be more specific to Emerson]
They also dispel ideas of Hawaiian society as completely non-competitive: competitions
(surfing, hula, games like kilu and puhenehene) abound in the Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo;
moreover, they often occur with serious consequences. The puhenehene and nane
episodes are literally a matter of life and death; if successful, Pi‘ihonua and Kaulanaokala
will live; if not, they will pay with their lives. Kapihenui’s mo‘olelo describes the debate
which occurs between the kanaka of Hilo and Hi‘iaka as she prepares to take on the m o‘o
guardians of the Wailuku river bridge, Piliamo‘o and Nohoamo‘o (episode 137; see
Appendix 1C). They bet whether or not H i‘iaka can defeat the m o‘o, and ask Hi‘iaka to
wager something. She replies, “Hookahi no paha kumu pili, o kamahele o na iwi.”
359
(There is only one thing to wager—a branch of the bones) (January 23, 1862). Word of
the wager spread quickly, as people were surprised at the severity of the bet. Upon
hearing the news, one of the chiefs urged the people to persuade Hi‘iaka against it,
saying, “Aole paha ia o ka mea e pili ai o ka waiwai o na iwi; he waiwai no. He waiwai;
a laila, pili he iwi no hoi he iwi pili” (Perhaps this one who wagered the bones doesn’t
realize the value of the bones; they are valuable indeed) (January 23, 1862). When
H i‘iaka wagers her bones, she is literally betting her life, and its seriousness is not lost on
the people. H i‘iaka is of course victorious, and thus her willingness to gamble with her
life increases her mana and level of respect and aloha the people have for her as a result.
He‘enalu (surfing) as pleasure, competition, and healing ritual. While hula is the
cultural activity most closely associated with the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo, other
cultural pursuits are highlighted in different texts, including he‘enalu, the Hawaiian
practice of “wave sliding” or surfing. Throughout the mo‘olelo, surfing is a form of
recreation and enjoyment, competition, and even healing. In Kapihenui, the mo‘olelo
begins with the Pele sisters departing the crater for the sea to surf, swim, and gather food
from the sea, an overall enjoyable time. When they return to the uplands, Hi'iaka stays at
the beach with Hopoe, where the two enjoy each other’s company (January 2, 1862).
Kaili is the first to describe surfing as part of their recreation in the ocean, including a
description of the wave they ride to shore. She writes, “They were out to sea during this
conversation waiting for a favorable wave on which to place their surf boards. As
Hi‘iaka ceased speaking, a round wave like a little hillock and known to surf riders as an
360
aleopu ‘u (budding wave), arose right behind, so they poised their surf boards and rode in
on it, or rather just before it” (August 25, 1883). Pa‘aluhi and Bush (A) reference the
same scene (January 17, 1893). So does Emerson, but he makes no reference to the type
of wave (a detail that would be interesting and educational to a Kanaka Maoli audience,
but perhaps not to a western, non-surfing one) (13).
There are several examples in different Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo in which
surfing competitions between different kanaka, or between kanaka and the Pele sisters are
described. In some instances, the competition is not one of surfing prowess, but of ‘ike
(recognition) and ‘eleu (adeptness) at recognizing Hi‘iaka as a goddess, with dire
consequences for those who fail to do so her and offer her hospitality, a hallmark of
Kanaka civility. Two examples are Hi‘iaka’s encounter with Punahoa, an ali‘iwahine
from the Hilo-Hamakua region of Hawai‘i island, and with Palani, an ali‘i of Kahana,
0 ‘ahu.
Kapihenui does not include the Punahoa episode in his mo‘olelo, but it is included
in Pa'aluhi and Bush (A). The first Kanaka author to include the episode, however, is
Kaili. In her version, Punahoa is the name of the ‘aina, as well as the daughter of a chief;
it is likely that this m o‘olelo is a wahi pana which explains the name of this ‘aina as
connected to the m o‘olelo of the young ali‘i wahine. When H i‘iaka ma arrive at
Punahoa, they notice a large crowd at the beach watching Punahoa, “a beauty and the
daughter of the chief of the place” surfing (September 1, 1883). Kaili writes,
They were admiring her as she was the best surf rider of the bay and the people
were loud in praise of her skill.
361
Hi‘iaka asked some of the people the reason of such a crowd and was told they
were admiring the feats of the young lady on the surf board. The mischievous
goddess said, Oh, she doesn’t understand surf riding; she will be drawn under.’
At that all those who could hear her indignantly protested, such a thing had never
happened to Punahoa and never could. But Hi‘iaka irritated them by looking
incredulous and saying, ‘wait and see.’ As Punahoa rode in on a wave at that
moment, they all cried, ‘you see.’ But just as she had got half way from the
starting place and the shore, she lost her balance, was drawn under, and turned
over in plain view of the crowd, to her great mortification. (September 1, 1883)
This episode appears in the pre-Kapihenui (A) version of Pa‘aluhi and Bush’s
m o‘olelo and is nearly identical to Kaili’s version above. One of the only noticeable
differences is that Kaili’s text summarizes the dialogue between the characters, and the
Pa‘aluhi and Bush text includes it. Extended versions of this scene are found in later Pele
and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo.'
The point of the scene appears to be the demonstration of Punahoa’s ‘eleu at
surfing and how the people admire her for her skills. Yet it is also about the
consequences Punahoa must face because the kanaka are not ‘a‘apo, and do not grasp
who Hi'iaka is; moreover, they exhibit maha'oi behavior towards Hi‘iaka with their
haughtiness. What is unclear is whether as a kaula (seer) Hi‘iaka has the foresight to
1 These include: Ho‘oulumahiehie, 1905-1906; Poepoe 1908. The issues of the nupepa Hoku o Hawai'i
which may contain this episode in Desha 1924-1928 are missing from the microfilm reels.
362
predict Punahoa’s wipeout, whether she causes Punahoa to lose her balance and fall, or
whether it is a combination of the two? As an ali‘i, Punahoa has kuleana for her people
(or the people living under the leadership of her father). In this context, she must take the
consequences of the wipeout because she is their ali‘i; kuleana is not only right to rule
over, but responsibility to protect and care for (PED 179).
In another episode, Hi‘iaka ma encounter Palani and his wife Iewale, the ali'i of
Kahana, 0 ‘ahu, while they are passing through the region enroute to Kaua‘i. In
Kapihenui’s version, the pair is surfing in Kahana bay. He writes:
Hi‘iaka and Wahine‘oma‘o saw Kahana. The wind of Kahana is called the ‘Ahiu
[Wild]. The chief of Kahana, Palani was his name, and his wife Iewale were
surfing there. They were surfing; they were quite fond of surfing the waves
brought by the ‘Ahiu wind, and that is the name of this wind until this time, and
the name of the surf as well.
Hi‘iakaikapoliopele saw the two of them surfing there. She chanted like this:
The ‘Ahui wind blows cold at Kahana,
Kakala i ka lauwili o Ko‘olau,
Hopuepue i ke anu Kaloike‘e,
The great forests above at Kalehualoa
Traveling the length of Hulihua
You are Palani, the surfing chief of Kahana,
Palani rudely responded to Hi‘iakaikapoliopele, saying, Yes, I am Palani,
the surfing chief of Kahana, this land here. Who indeed are you haughty women
363
coming here and calling to me? Perhaps you saw me surfing with my woman, you
are a woman who doesn’t know me, this is my passion; who indeed are you?’
At these impudent words of Palani, an angry thought entered within
Hi‘iakaikapoliopele. While he was surfing, Palani wiped out in the surf. There
was no place to land, and the waves rose once more. He tried again to come
ashore, but there was no foothold, and the waves rose up again. Palani tried
again, and he was pierced by the waves below and drowned in the surf. Palani
died, death was for the man. He died along with his wife Iewale, the two of them
died.2 (February 13,1862)
Both stories are interesting because they illustrate Hi’iaka’s power over the
elements of the ‘aina, as well as the consequences for rude behavior exhibited by kanaka
who do not recognize her as a deity. It is not coincidental that the two kanaka involved
are ali‘i, representatives of the highest level of Hawaiian society; if they are punished by
the goddess for their rude behavior, what consequence for similar impudence could be
meted out for kanaka of lesser status? It is also possible that while pono ali‘i were loved
and respected by the people, rude behavior was rude behavior. There is also an
entertainment factor for the audience or readers in ali‘i being punished for bad behavior,
2
Another version of this scene is found in Ho‘oulumahiehie, KNA 1905-1906, although it appears a little
later in the m o‘olelo than this one.
364
although that is probably not as significant as the point that ali‘i had more at stake than
maka'ainana in lacking ‘ike or offering proper ho‘okipa.
Manu presents perhaps the most interesting surfing scene, one which pits the Pele
sisters against some local male surfers of Wailua, Kaua‘i. This episode is etiological, in
that it both explains the origin of the “pae ki‘i o mahu” petroglyphs etched into the large
boulders along the south flank of the Wailua river mouth, and demonstrates mana
wahine, the physical, intellectual and spiritual (or intuitive) power of the women over
kanaka men:
After they left Hanama‘ulu they arrived at the beach called Alio . . . This was the
place that made Kapo‘ulakIna‘u and others linger to watch the men and women
ride the surf. . . The watchers on the shore shouted at those who were most
skilled in surfing. This was a sport that brought the youths of the land together as
well as the champions of other parts of Kaua‘i and the sweet voiced maidens in
those olden days at Wailua. . . Oh what fu n! . . .
Here Kapo‘ulakIna‘u did a very strange thing to some surfers of Wailua,
changing them into stone. . . . [The beautiful daughters of Haumea were invited to
surf, and Kap6‘ulaklna‘u accepted their offer without hesitation]. They quickly
picked up the boards and swam out where the surf began to roll in. As they and
some of the men mounted their boards to wait for a good wave, Kapo‘ulakina‘u
said to the men, ‘O friends, let us ride two to a surfboard. One of you come with
me, and he over there will ride with her. Thus shall we ride in pairs and after
365
surfing each will go to the other’s house, just as we have paired off here. What do
you think of this idea?’
[The men quickly agreed],. . . When they ceased talking, the surf rose behind
them and they rode in pairs. The riding to shore was like mere play to the
mischievous ones of Kahiki. . . The men just laughed but with the second surf the
women disappointed them. The men were left on the wave unable to figure what
to do. The third wave was the strongest and when the boards were turned
shoreward, Kapo‘ulakina‘u said, ‘This is not a wave but a mountain. Let each one
try his skill. Go ahead—ride to shore!’ No sooner had they started when the men
sank beneath the wave and were pummeled by the water. They were forced
downward by the water and drowned. They were changed into stone in the depths
at the mouth of the Wailua river and are known as the pae ki‘i or row of images.
They are there to this day.. . . After that Kapo‘ulakina‘u called the place where
they surfed in Wailua, Kalehuawehe [The opening up of the lehua blossom]. The
people on shore fled in terror of the huge wave that rolled in. Everyone wondered
about the women and the men for they were not seen on the wave. The mysterious
daughters of Haumea were ‘gone with the fish of Uko‘a that were blown away by
the wind,’ surfing on the break of Makalwa in Kapa‘a. The surfers there became
confused and landed everywhere and because of the surf that was called
Kekuanaluomakalwa, ‘The surf back of Makalwa.’ (July 1, 8, 1899; Pukui HEN,
963-966)
366
There are several reasons this scene is important. First, it demonstrates the power of the
godly women over the kanaka men, a theme which resonates throughout all the Pele and
Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. There is also an etiological function in this scene, as several surf
breaks (Makalwa, Kalehuawehe) are named, including the quality of one, “ke kuanalu o
Makalwa.” The kuanalu is the “surf just before it breaks, [a] wave crest” {PED 171). It
also explains the origins of the row of stone containing petroglyph carvings located at the
mouth of the Wailua river, called Paeki ‘imahuowailua (row of [homosexual] images at
Wailua).3 The scene also exhibits the le‘ale‘a of surfing as recreation enjoyed by men
and women alike.
Finally, surfing is an instrumental part of Lohi‘au’s healing after H i‘iaka restores
his life. Once Hi‘iaka completes this difficult task through rigorous healing ritual, part of
his prescribed activity necessary for complete healing is time in the ocean surfing.
Kapihenui describes it thus:
From night until day, from day until night, they went down to the shore of Ha‘ena
to swim in the ocean, to help Lohi‘au recuperate. In no time he returned to his
healthy self. . . when they arrived at the shore below, they went until they reached
their kapu [reserved] surf spot. Lohi‘au’s board was still in his surfboard storage
3 Wichman (1998) notes that this name is from Manu, but only describes them as a pae k i‘i. There is no
indication within the scene, excerpted above, that the men were mahu (72). Dickey (1916) mentions the
Paemahu, “or pae kii” (14). He includes an alternate tradition of the images associated with the mo'olelo
of the kupua figure Maui (15). Pukui, Elbert and Mookini identify the stones as Paemahu, “rocks at mouth
of Wai-lua River, Kaua'i, believed to have been men turned to stone by Kapo. lit. homosexual row” (173).
It is strange that the men would be identified as mahu, particularly in this mo'olelo, which is strongly
heterosexual, especially with the men inviting the women to surf on the same board with them, a highly
sexual and suggestive metaphor. Alternative translations include mahu, “steam, vapor, fumes; to steam;
same as ‘olapa, trees,” mahu, “weak, flat, as diluted kava or stale beer; insipid; quiet, peaceful,
undisturbed” {PED 220).
367
area. He grabbed his board and went surfing. He surfed until the middle of the
night when ‘The Fish’ [Milky Way] turned. Dawn was soon approaching;
Kahuanui awoke from sleep with a start; she went outside and came back in, and
went back outside and came back in again and tried to sleep, but she could not;
her thoughts kept lingering on her brother. (March 13, 1862)
While greatly summarized, Kaili also describes surfing as an important part of
Lohi'au’s restoration. Once his body is brought back to life, he is nursed and fed in his
sister’s home by day, and taken to a nearby fresh water cave at night where he is treated
by kakelekele, or being rubbed with oil, for a two week period, at which time “he was so
far recovered that he could be taken out surf bathing, which was the conclusion of
Hi‘iaka’s course of treatment” (September 21, 1883). After this, “He went surf bathing
every day for another fortnight, when he was as well as ever he had been, and was free to
enter his own house and associate with his friend”; once his relatives and friends see him
surfing, “there was great rejoicing at his coming to life again” (September 21, 1883).
In contrast, Emerson says Lohi‘au is bathed in salt water to revive him, which
“woke in Lohiau a longing he could not resist. He took his surf-board and, with face to
the incoming rollers, made for the open sea. The place was one where he had often
sported before, prescriptive custom having in fact set it apart for the exclusive use of the
chiefs” (152). No mention is made of surfing as prescribed by H i‘iaka and part of the
healing process.
368
Ho’oulumahiehie has the longest and most descriptive scene of Lohi‘au’s
restoration through surfing (March 30, 1906). Lohi‘au expresses a desire to go surfing;
however, this becomes a stage for H i‘iaka to reveal to the kanaka of Ha‘ena (and to
Lohi‘au) the full extent of her power. Perhaps his desire to surf the most boisterous
stormy conditions signaled that his health has been restored to the point where he could
complete the healing rituals, surfing being the culminating ritual. For they do not just
surf; H i‘iaka carefully instructs him what to wear and how to respond to the appearance
of the god Kane who assists in the restoration of his health. H i‘iaka’s power that is
revealed in this scene is not just in healing or even just in Lohi‘au’s compliment to her on
her expertise in surfing. Rather, she becomes the board on which he rides, accompanied
by sharks, dolphins, and even ‘iwa birds, all ho‘ailona of Lohi‘au’s (and Hi‘iaka’s) ali‘i
and akua status.
Thus the surfing scenes become an expression of Kanaka Maoli cultural practice,
not just as sport or competition, but also as healing, including the restoration of the spirit
through the cultural value of le‘ale‘a, enjoyment of life, and akamai, expertise at the
activity. These metaphorical allusions are lost in Emerson’s translation, and on his
English-speaking readers because of their absence or because they are reframed in a
different context. In Emerson, Lohi‘au has agency to make the decision because he is the
privileged male of chiefly status who seeks to reclaim what is his—his exclusive (kapu)
surf spot. By surfing the waves he is metaphorically taming them or asserting his
masculinity over nature, which is feminized according to a western paradigm. In the
Hawaiian m o‘olelo by comparison, it is the female goddess who prescribes the activity as
369
part of her holistic healing method, suggesting that optimal health is achieved through
pono both by ritual (her prayers) and with nature (plants used in the healing ritual,
physical activity in harmony with nature). This concept is taken furthest by
Ho‘oulumahiehie, as Hi‘iaka has the authority and ability to command nature through the
power of her leo—through an oli she causes a storm to appear with the large thunderous
waves Lohi‘au craves—and she restores health through the pono between herself as a
female deity and Kane, a male deity also associated with healing.
Rituals of hula and kilu. Another prominent cultural activity featured in the m o‘olelo
that is also connected to ‘ana‘ana and healing is the art of hula. Pele, Hi‘iaka, and their
sister Kapo‘ulakina‘u (who in some mo‘olelo is also the hula goddess Laka) are the
deities most closely associated with hula, and hula in literature “is mainly connected with
the mo‘olelo of Pele” (Silva 2004a, 101).4 Hula is so important that it is the first scene in
many versions of Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo; the only information which precedes the
opening hula scene, typically “Ke Ha‘a la Puna,” is an introduction to the mo‘olelo,
migration from Kahiki, and the family mo‘oku‘auhau (and not every mo‘olelo includes
any or all of these elements).
“Ke ha‘a la Puna i ka makani” (Puna dances in the breeze) is the first hula
presented in Kapihenui, Pa‘aluhi and Bush (A), Pa'aluhi and Bush (K), and Emerson.5 In
the mo‘olelo, Pele and her sisters travel from the crater down to the seashore in Puna,
4 For a more in-depth discussion and analysis of hula and the Pele mo'olelo, see Barrere, Pukui and Kelly
1980; Kanahele and Wise 1989; Chariot 1998; Silva 2004a and 2004c.
5 It is also in Poepoe, but does not open the mo'olelo.
370
where Pele sees Hopoe dancing at the sea of Nanahuki, and asks the younger Hi‘iaka
sisters to dance. They all say no because they don’t know how, all except
H i‘iakaikapoliopele, who agrees. She dances “Ke ha‘a la Puna i ka makani” (Puna
dances in the breeze), a foundational chant in Pele hula traditions thought to be the first
recorded hula (Kanahele and Wise, 66).
Ke ha‘a la Puna i ka makani Puna is dancing in the breeze
Ha‘a ka uluhala i Kea‘au The hala groves at Kea ‘au dance
Ha‘a Ha‘ena me Hopoe Ha ‘ena and Hopoe dance
Ha‘a ka wahine ‘ami i kai o Nanahuki la The woman dances in the sea o f
Nanahuki there
Hula le‘a wale It is a delightful dance
I kai o Nanahuki e. A t the sea o f Nanahuki
(Pa‘aluhi and Bush, January 10,1893; Kanahele and Wise, 65).
The synopsis of the hula in the stage production of Holo Mai Pele describes the
context of the mele as being “close to the sea at Puna is the place called Ha‘ena. It is here
that Hi‘iaka is taught a simple hula by her new-found friend Hopoe. The dance mimics
the waves as it washes up on the pebbled shore, and the wind as it blows through the
pandanus trees” (Holo Mai Pele program). Barrere, Pukui and Kelly note that “Hi‘iaka
learned the hula from her friend Hopoe . . . who was changed to a stone in the sea of
Nanahuki at Ha‘ena, Hawai‘i by Pele who was angry with Hi‘iaka” (Barrere, Pukui and
Kelly, 5-6). In Ancient Music o f Hawaii, Dorothy Kahanahui concurs, adding:
371
Hopoe was the pet name given by Hi‘iaka to this friend whose real name was
Nanahuki (when you look at me, my eyes draw you to me). Nanahuki is also a
beach in Puna. Pele was envious of their friendship, as they spent much time
together in Puna, a place beloved by H i‘iaka. In her wrath and jealously, Pele
turned Hopoe to stone in the sea at Kea‘au. This stone was moved by the tidal
wave of 1946. Some traditions say this is the hula Pele requested her sisters to
dance when she was aroused from her sleep, after her spirit returned from Kaua‘i.
All the sisters refused except Hi‘iaka, who lifted the kapu with this hula. (5)
Kanahele notes that “the motif of this mele focuses on ha‘a or hula therefore discussion
of this mele concentrates upon the subject of hula” itself (Kanahele and Wise, 66).
Kanahele provides a detailed line-by-line analysis of the chant, explaining the depth of
imagery contained within the chant (Kanahele and Wise, 67-70). The performance of
this hula within the m o‘olelo represents “a . . . celebration of the regenerative power of
the coupling of land and flora,” and demonstrates “Hi‘iaka’s godly power to regenerate
the land” (Silva 2004a, 112). It also functions as ho‘okipa (hospitality and welcome,
discussed more in depth later in this chapter). On this point, Silva (2004a) writes:
The hula . . . is not described in words or movement but is nevertheless
understood to be a welcoming for Pele and her sisters. This fits in with Polynesian
protocol. . . . The protocol establishes friendly relations between Pele and
company and the permanent residents of the area. They have received permission
and are now welcome to fish and camp there. The hula is performed by a woman
372
and a man for a company of women. Hi‘iaka’s song completes the protocol but
also serves to begin the romantic friendship with Hopoe. (112)
Like the “Kahulihuli” chant series, Hawai‘i island place names specific to the area
and important to the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo are utilized. These are Ha‘ena, Hopoe,
Kea‘au, Nanahuki and Puna which “are the land sections or land features mentioned in
this mele” (Kanahele and Wise, 66). Of particular note is the duplication of place names
central to the m o‘olelo found on Kaua‘i and Hawai‘i, namely Ha‘ena and Puna. Ha‘ena,
Hawai‘i is where Hi‘iaka learns to dance; Ha‘ena, Kaua‘i is the home of Lohi‘au, and
where great hula performances occur at the hula pa and related kuahu and heiau located
at Ke‘e in Ha‘ena.6 Puna is a moku on the east side of Kaua‘i and on the east side of
Hawai‘i; both are prominently featured in the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. In many
versions of the m o‘olelo, H i‘iaka lands somewhere in the district of Puna on Kaua‘i when
she arrives on the island to fetch Lohi‘au. Kanahele notes that Puna, Hawai‘i is “the land
section that inspires hula creation because of the natural movement of wave, wind and
trees”; Puna is also “the source of regenerative power” exhibited through “the rising of
the sun, volcanic creation of new land and the growth of new vegetation on this new
formed land” (Kanahele and Wise, 66). In this sense, the link between the ‘aina and the
akua is further nuanced through the performance of hula on the ‘aina, for the ‘aina, and
inspired by the ‘aina; thus, as Kanahele concludes, “the natural choreography allows us to
6 See Barrere, Pukui and Kelly, 95-121 for an extensive description, with diagrams, photographs, and maps
of the region.
373
appreciate the visual movements of nature and begin to develop imagery associated with
the aural interpretation of poetry” (Kanahele and Wise, 71).
Kapihenui describes “Ke ha‘a la Puna” simply as a mele, while Pa‘aluhi and Bush
describe it as an oli (December 26, 1861; January 30, 1893). This is particularly
interesting in that the Pa‘aluhi and Bush inclusion of the hula is part of their reprint of
Kapihenui. In recorded performances from the nineteenth century to the present, it is a
hula dedicated to H i‘iakaikapoliopele. It is also described in more technical hula
terminology. For example, “Ke Ha‘a La Puna” is one of the 264 hula listed in the
program for Kalakaua’s coronation as MoT of Hawai‘i on February 12, 1883.7 The
program describes it as a “hula ‘olepelepe” or hula performed specifically for Kalakaua’s
coronation {PED 88). The Hula Preservation Society website notes that “this chant is in
the general type or class of Hula Pele (dances for Pele and her family)”
(www.hulapreservation.org). Amy Stillman includes five hula classifications for this
mele, categorizing it as a hula noho (seated hula), hula ‘olapa (standing hula), hula kuolo
(sitting hula performed with an ipu), hula ipu (hula performed with an ipu drum) and a
hula ‘aiha‘a” (67). Kumu hula Nona Bearner classifies it as a hula ku i luna (standing
hula) and a hula pu‘ili (hula performed with pu‘ili or split bamboo sticks) (72-75).
Adrienne Kaeppler notes that “Pele and Hi‘iaka chants are most often accompanied by
hand clapping or ipu rather than pahu” (7-8; 15-16).
Hula animates the mo‘olelo beyond this first scene. Silva identifies five hula
scenes in Kapihenui 1861, which I have organized into a table below:
7A reproduction of the program is found in Barrere, Pukui and Kelly, 133-139.
374
T able 7A . H ula S cenes in K a p i h e n u i ’ s H i Ta k a T e x t
hula context
1 Ke Ha‘a La Puna Pele ma travel to the beach in Puna,

and Hopoe and Ha‘ena dance for them.
The dance both praises the ‘aina and
functions as a welcoming.
2 Lu‘ulu‘u Hanalei i ka ua nui Pele’s arrival at a hula festival at
Ha‘ena, Kaua‘i: Pele transforms
herself into a beautiful young woman
adorned with the forest greenery of
Puna . . . she and Lohi‘au chant back
and forth. Lohi‘au dances for his
people, and for his own enjoyment.
a. Aloha wale ka i ‘a lamalama o Manamanaiakaluea dances for H i‘iaka
ku‘u ‘aina la ma off the shore of Maui.
b. Ua ‘ino Honokohau
c. Aloha wale ka pali o Pinana‘i
d. Ha‘a ka lau o ka i ‘a
a. ‘O kaua a Pele i haka i Kahiki, Malaeha‘akoa and his wife dance to
b. oe mauna i ka ohu ka pali entertain Hi‘iaka ma as part of the
(Holo mai Pele) hospitality they offer, as well as honor
their deity, Pele.
a. Ke lei maila Ka‘ula i ke kai e Lohiau dances for Hi‘iaka ma after he
b. Ku‘u hoa i ka ‘ili hau o Mana loses at kilu.
c. Ku‘u hoa i ke Kawelu oho o
Malailua
d. A Kalihi au i ka hala o Hanalei,
e. Aloha wale ka nikiniki,
f. Moe e no Waialua ke Ko‘olau,
g. ‘O Ha‘upu mauna Kilohana,
Variations of the five scenes in Kapihenui discussed by Silva are found in most of
the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. The function of hula in the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo is
described by Chariot 1998 and closely examined in Silva 2004a. The following summary
of the function of hula in the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo is compiled from Silva’s work:
375
• Lohi‘au performs hula because it is important to him; he shares it as
entertainment for the kama‘aina of his land (114);
• Hula with pahu drums were performed to 1. worship the gods in sacred
situations or 2. honor the gods as an element of formal entertainment; Lohi‘au’s
hula pahu appears consistent with the second description, and perhaps this is why
Pele’s spirit is called to Kaua‘i (114);
• The woman’s (Pele’s) sexual desire is aroused by the sights and sounds of a man
performing hula, which is common in Hawaiian literature (115);
• Manamanaiakaluea performs hula to befriend H i‘iaka ma; she is also a spirit
communicating with her deity (116).
• Malaeha’akoa performs hula for Hi‘iaka ma as part of ho‘okipa for the visitors.
The hula also honors Pele and recognizes her. H i‘iaka enjoys the performance
so much, she whispers to Wahine‘oma‘o to eat slowly so the performance will
last longer (117).
• The movement or instruments are not described; it is the words that are
important, especially when offered as a spoken prayer, which set them free;
affectionate relationship of Malaeha‘akoa for Pele demonstrated (117).
• Lohi‘au performs hula for the women when he loses at kilu; unlike stereotypical
haole ideas of hula, the men perform and the women are filled with desire (118).
• Hula is a part of daily life as protocol and as entertainment that creates bonds of
affection between visitors and hosts, among community members, and between
individuals and their gods (119).
376
• Hula can be performed as prayer or as part of a night’s games of seduction (119).
• indigenous tradition of hula was an important part of life in traditional times
(119).
• Hula is never a trade or performed in exchange for goods, and is set in a very
different world from the Euroamerican dance hall (119).
Silva argues that one of the political messages of the m o‘olelo is that for
“nineteenth-century Kanaka readers and to the generations before, hula was
profoundly spiritual but also entertaining, and, at times, sexy” (119). What is most
important in understanding the larger context of publishing mo‘olelo featuring a
culturally appropriate portrayal of hula, one which directly contradicted the
Euroamerican view, is that it depicted a world that was “possibly even more
dangerous to the ‘civilizing’ project” of American colonialism (120). Silva writes:
In the world of Pele and Hi‘iaka, women have power: They act on their desires,
they travel, they kill, and they heal. Viewing hula in this context enables us to see
that missionaries such as Emerson felt compelled to ban hula not only because it
celebrates a rival religion and created obstacles for the colonial capitalist
economy but also because a major missionary goal was to discipline female
sexuality and restrict female power in order to establish patriarchy.
The emergence of the mo‘olelo in print was clearly in response to both legal
and cultural imperialism being put into place by Puritanical and capitalist
missionaries. It was a refusal on the part of Kanaka Maoli to despise their ancient
377
culture, and was, instead, a way to celebrate the artistry of the oral traditions and
of the hula itself. It was a way to keep the traditions alive during times when the
public performance of hula and chant was not permitted. The mo‘olelo talked
back to the oppressive colonial powers in indirect yet powerful ways. As
important, the mo‘olelo was being read by thousands of people across the entire
archipelago, bringing them together as a lahui. It also, however, indirectly,
reminded women that their female ancestors were powerful and that there were
alternatives to being subordinated to men. (120)
Hula did not function in isolation in the text, but was connected to other activities,
such as kilu. Kilu is a game in which “the player chanted as he tossed the kilu (typically
a small gourd or coconut shell) towards an object placed in front of one of the opposite
sex; if he hit the goal, he claimed a kiss; to play this game” {PED 152). Malo notes that
“Kilu was a very favorite sport with the ancient Hawaiians” (216). Kilu was “a select
and aristocratic game to which none but alii were admitted . . . any chief of recognized
rank in the papa alii was admitted. Once admitted to the hall. . . all were peers and stood
on an equal footing” (Malo, 217fn. 1). Emerson (1909) writes that the game “was played
in an open matted space that lay between the two divisions of the audience—the women
being on one side and the men on the other . . . the players, five or more of each sex,
having been selected by the president, La anoano (“quiet day”), sat facing each other”
(Emerson 1909, 235). Each side took turns, with “a successful hit entitling the player to
378
claim a kiss from his [or her] opponent. . . success in winning ten points made one the
victor in the game” (235).
Kilu is one of the few activities included in every Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo; most
kilu matches in the m o‘olelo take place at the court of the ali‘iwahine Pele‘ula in Kou,
Honolulu, 0 ‘ahu, although there are also matches at Kealia, Kaua‘i and Makua, 0 ‘ahu.
Emerson (1909) describes the game of kilu as “a compliment, a supreme expression of
hospitality, to distinguished visitors of rank” (236). This is perhaps one explanation why
kilu is so prevalent in the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo: it was the ultimate mark of ali‘i-
class hospitality, a recognition of Hi‘iaka’s and Lohi‘au’s status as they traveled to
different districts.
Perhaps another reason kilu is so closely associated with the Pele and H i‘iaka
mo‘olelo is that hula accompanies the game. As the deities of hula, the Pele sisters would
certain presides over and be adept at hula kilu, as would their followers (here including
Lohi‘au). Pukui and Elbert classify hula kilu, as hula performed by Lohi‘au during the
kilu ritual (most notably when he loses at Pele‘ula’s court in Kou; see Ho‘oulumahiehie
1905-1906), as well as by Pele (although she does not participate in kilu scenes in the
Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo) possibly referencing Pele‘ula {PED 152). Hula kilu
associated with Lohi‘au and Pele, like other hula Pele, were performed at Kalakaua’s
coronation celebration in 1883 {PED 152). Emerson comments on the connection of ali‘i
and hula kilu, stating:
The fact that the hula kilu was performed by the alii class, who took great pains
and by assiduous practice made themselves proficient that they might be ready to
379
exhibit their accomplishment before the public, was a guarantee that this hula,
when performed by them, would be of more than usual grace and vivacity. When
performed in the halau as a tabu dance, according to some, the olapa alone took
part, and the number of dancers, never very large, was at times limited to one
performer. Authorities differ as to whether any musical instrument was used as an
accompaniment. (236)
While many of the kilu scenes in the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo involve Pele‘ula’s
court at Kou in Honolulu, kilu occurs elsewhere as well. In Rice, Hi‘iaka ma participate
in a kilu game with Koananai, an ali‘iwahine of Kealia, Kaua‘i (July 9, 1908).8
Ho‘oulumahiehie includes a kilu scene with na ali‘iwahine of the Makua, 0 ‘ahu area
along the W ai‘anae coast, which is repeated in Desha (January 4, 1927).
That night, the kilu party of the chiefess was assembled. Lohi‘au played
against the chiefess of Makua, along with some others. Lohi‘au and the beauty of
Makua did the toss, and to the chiefess went the chance to make the first play.
When she spun her kilu, it passed the mark, and it was the first time the people of
Makua had ever seen the chiefess’ kilu miss, for this was the game at which the
chiefess had gained great skill, but in this instance, her piece overshot on the first
strike.
8 They also participate in a kilu game at Pele‘ula’s court in Kou. See Rice, August 6, 1908. Koananai is
an ali'iwahine of Kealia who is noted for her Haumea-like supernatural and unusual births to her children.
See “He M o‘olelo no o ‘A ‘ahoaka, ke Koa a me Kona Hanau Kupaianaha ‘ana,” KNK, December 30, 1876-
March 3, 1877.
380
The play went to Lohi‘au. When he spun the kilu it moved straight along,
touching the wooden post and going on past. Hi‘iaka commented, “Ah! You are
evenly matched in your losses. Try again, perhaps.”
“Yes,” she said again. “This last time was a loss, but perhaps in this next play
you’ll be lucky, like casting nets that attract the dark snake mackerel, the
hauliuli.”
The first play went to the chiefess of Makua. Making the toss, her piece spun
and struck the wooden goal but then passed far to the left of the stake.
“Chiefess, your kilu missed again!” Hi‘iaka chided the Makua chiefess, and
then turning to Lohi‘au, said “That’s it! It’ll be up to you! Make some good use of
your kilu. The land to aim for is that fuzzy hill, Pu‘uohulu.”
Her remark made everyone laugh, and one of them asked teasingly of Hi‘iaka,
“Which Pu‘uohulu are you talking about as a home base for this son of Ha‘ena’s
cliffs? Do you mean that Pu‘uohulu over on the other side of Wai‘anae? Which
fuzzy hill are you implying?”
Hi‘iaka laughed as well, saying, “The Pu‘uohulu I made reference to is the one
that all of Wai‘anae knows!”
Lohi‘au tossed his game piece and it almost brushed the stake, but then shot
off in an arc, some distance away.
“Yours has overshot the mark, O son of Kaua‘i! You’re both a bit blind! Well,
maybe I should try against the Kaua‘i boy.”
381
“Wait, though. We have one try left. If it comes up a loss, then you give it a
go,” said the chiefess of Makua. She spun her kilu again, but it missed just like
her earlier attempts. The chiefess said, “This is such an unlucky night for me. This
has been my game from my childhood until now that I’m fully grown, and I’ve
never experienced losses like these. Take over our spot, H i‘iaka.”
Then Lohi‘au twirled his kilu. As the piece moved, it stayed straight on target
until touching the stake. Everyone roared about the son of Kaua‘i.
The chiefess of Makua gave up her spot to H i‘iaka, and she moved over and
sat where the chiefess had been, saying, “Ah! Your marker has been lucky, chief.
Now how will mine be?”
H i‘iaka took up the playing piece, but before she sent the kilu into action, she
chanted this chant,
The sea spray flies
Rising over the headlands
Beloved is Ka‘ena Point in the sea mist
The sea in the lee of Wai‘anae
Sliding over the sand dunes
Those beloved sands of Makua
Let not love develop, lest I be faulted
Your name it will be, O Pu‘uohulu
It is known
382
Hearing Hi‘iaka’s chant, all were delighted and filled with admiration for her
fine chanting.
As Hi‘iaka finished her chant, she tossed her kilu, which went directly to touch
the stake and stop right at its center, whereupon a roar went up from the people.
She and Lohi‘au played a second time, and again, both of their kilu hit the mark.
Then Hi‘iaka began this chant,
Beloved is the dew of Ka‘ala
The dew which carries the scent of nene grass
For the people of Pu‘uloa to inhale and enjoy
Long has been the search, my love
We must not get tangled in womanly wiles
You have been made sacred, my love
By the word of the privileged one
I have no privilege there
We may stray toward Kanehili
To satisfy desire and relinquish toil
My toil may then be in vain, my friend
Wait, lest you suffer!
383
This chant Hi‘iaka intoned was explaining to Lohi‘au that he should not think
of her as someone to desire, for she was bound by the edict of her elder sister,
Pele. Her only role was to guard Lohi‘au’s sanctity and keep him restricted for the
one who gave the command. Hi‘iaka and Lohi‘au completed eight rounds, and
each of them struck the stake with their kilu every time.
At that point, Hi‘iaka invited the chiefess of Makua to compete again with the
chief of Kaua‘i, to which she agreed. The chiefess seized the kilu and sent it
spinning, hopeful that it would touch the stake, but her hopes were dashed once
again. The chiefess tried every way she could to gain a single winning kilu, but to
no avail, so she gave up the game without satisfying her wishes. (Nogelmeier et.
al. forthcoming)
The kilu scenes speak to the high level of hospitality offered by the ali‘i they
encounter along their journey and the recognition of Hi‘iaka and Lohi‘au’s chiefly status.
It is an opportunity to demonstrate le‘ale‘a and to showcase oli, mele and hula which the
modem Kanaka audience may or may not have been familiar with by the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. Certainly if they had not had the opportunity at that point to
experience these practices as part of traditional kilu ritual, they could enjoy their
performance in a different context at Kalakaua’s coronation. At the very least, they could
collectively read, learn, discuss, enjoy, and appreciate them as part of this new national
and cultural literature being developed through the second half of the nineteenth century,
of which the Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo were a part.
384
Other games: puhenehene, ‘ulu maika, nane. To a lesser extent, games such as
puhenehene and ‘ulu maika, and riddling contests such as nane also appear in the Pele
and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. Like the other cultural activities, these games are opportunities to
exhibit skills of akamai and ‘eleu in the context of ho‘opapa. The most important scene
found in the majority of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo is the puhenehene game between
Pi‘ihonua and Pu‘ueo in the Hilo-Hamakua area of Hawai‘i island which H i‘iaka
becomes involved in. Puhenehene is a game of skill in which “a stone or piece of wood
called a no ‘a was hidden on the person of a player, and the other players tried to guess on
whom it was hidden . . . sometimes accompanied by gambling” (PED 349). Malo notes
that this game “was played at night” (218).
When H i‘iaka and her companions meet up with Pi‘ihonua, “a chief of the district
of that name,” he is saddened that he cannot offer them hospitality as is the Hawaiian
custom to travelers, since he has recently lost all his possessions in a game of puhenehene
with his nemesis, a rival chief named Pu‘ueo, a scene that appears first in print in Kaili:
[Pi‘ihonua] told them that the game was to be continued that day, his life being
the stake, when if he lost, he was to be cooked alive in an imu (underground
oven), but should he win, he was to get back all he had lost, as well as all the
property of his rival, who was then to lose his life.. .the fires were already lighted
in the imu by the orders of Pu‘ueo, so confident was he of winning.
Hi‘iaka had pity on Pi‘ihonua’s forlorn condition and possible fate, and
determined to accompany him on his next visit. She told him to cheer up and to
bravely play his last game, and asked him to let her be his assistant, to which he
385
gladly consented . . . Pi‘ihonua and his friends were greeted with scornful remarks
by the partisans of the heretofore victorious Pu‘ueo. The latter had the hiding of
the stone, and when the chant accompanying that had ceased, Hi‘iaka asked
Pi‘ihonua which division he intended to take, and on his pointing to one said, “No
wonder you have been so badly beaten, why you are ignorant of the very first
principles of the game. That choice proves that you have not been watching, the
muscles of your opponents arm or of his face. Now, you do as I direct.”
Whereupon she took the lead in the game, whispering her commands to him and
chanting the oli when it was his turn to hide the pebble.
Pu‘ueo was badly beaten and lost his life, being burned alive in the imu he had
himself ordered lighted. Pi‘ihonua recovered all his own property and received
that of his rival as well. (September 1 and 10, 1883)
Like the surfing scene with Punahoa, Pa‘aluhi and Bush (A) closely follows
Kaili’s text, suggesting either it is a source text used by Pa‘aluhi and Bush in their
publication, which they translated from English to Hawaiian, or they both utilized another
unnamed (and unknown) source text. This scene is also found in Ho‘oulumahiehie, and
Poepoe (December 18, 1908; January 10-15,1909).9 They are different in that the scene
is interrupted by the episode with Piliamo‘o and Kuaua at the Wailuku river bridge and is
9 The issues of Hoku o Hawai'i which may contain this episode in Desha 1924-1928 are missing from the
microfilm reels, so it is unknown if it includes this episode.
386
longer than Kaili or Pa‘aluhi and Bush (A), but otherwise quite similar to each other,
further demonstrating the intertwining of that strand of the mo'olelo.
Again, the puhenehene game is a chance for Hi‘iaka to demonstrate her godly
mana and to instruct the kanaka Pi‘ihonua on cultural values of ‘a‘apo and akamai; she
scolds him for not being keenly observant of his opponent’s movement, causing his
embarrassing losses. With Hi‘iaka teaching him how to gain expertise in the game, he is
able to defeat his opponent. Why does Hi‘iaka choose to assist Pi‘ihonua, a complete
stranger? Perhaps because she cannot resist the opportunity to teach the hapless kanaka
how to excel and thus succeed, and perhaps because it is another opportunity to punish
his opponent for his bad behavior, being overconfident, a trait highly frowned upon in
Hawaiian culture.
Barely noticeable in the mo‘olelo is maika or ‘ulu maikai, a game similar to
bowling, where a rounded stone is rolled across a field with the goal of rolling the stone
between two upright stakes pounded parallel to each other in the ground. High skill is
demonstrated when the stakes are moved closer together narrowing the target.10 At this
point in the m o‘olelo, Hi‘iaka ma are traveling through the Waimea region of Hawai‘i
island when Wahine‘oma‘o takes pity on two men crying on the side of the road. H i‘iaka
tells her they are spirits and beyond help, as their bones have been stripped from their
bodies, leaving them “alualu” (slack; i.e., without bone structure) but Wahine'oma'o asks
Hi‘iaka to intercede. H i‘iaka agrees, but enlists Wahine‘oma‘o’s assistance, asking her to
10 Emerson notes that few details of maika are known today; some suggest that the goal was to roll the ‘ulu
maika as far a distance across a field as possible (Malo, 221 fn. 1).
387
get a bundle of ‘auk! from a particular place a distance away. Wahine‘5ma‘o agrees and
fetches the required items. Hi‘iaka fashions “bones” for the kanaka alualu out of the ti
stalks. In Kaili, which contains the first published version of this scene, the men are hula
dancers who are so overjoyed at having their skeletal structure restored, they chant and
dance all the way back to Waimea, “where they met a large assemblage intent on the
game of maika (throwing stone discs)”;
The restored hula men kept right on dancing and chanting on to the maika ground.
The players called to them to get out of the way but they would not pay any
attention, possibly relying on Hi‘iaka to see them through all their difficulties. As
a consequence some of the players getting impatient threw their maikas which
hitting them in the legs, the ‘aukl, which was doing duty for their bones, was
broken to pieces. When the hula men found themselves lamed they appealed
again to Hi‘iaka to restore them, but she was so displeased with their arrogance,
that she would not help them. (September 11, 1883)
By this point in the mo‘olelo, Pa‘aluhi and Bush have already ceased publication
of their original story and have continued on with their reprint of Kapihenui, which does
not contain the scene. Because of the similarity between Kaili and Pa‘aluhi and Bush (A)
in the other examples above, it is likely that if they had continued publication of their
original mo‘olelo (A), this scene would have been included. Variations to this scene are
found in Ho‘oulumahiehie and Poepoe. Emerson, however, frames it quite differently. In
his version, Wahine‘oma‘o is silent and not the one who brings the plight of the men to
388
H i‘iaka’s attention. Rather, it is the men who have agency, and call out to H i‘iaka in a
chant for assistance. Emerson blames the Mahiki for the men’s brutal assault, and
describes their physical condition in gruesome terms:
Hiiaka’s march to encounter the Mahiki was interrupted for a short time by an
incident that only served to clinch her resolution. An agonizing cry of distress
assailed her ear. It came from a dismantled heap of human flesh, the remains of
two men who had been most brutally handled—by these same Mahiki, perhaps—
their leg and arm-bones plucked out and they left to welter in their misery. It was
seemingly the cruel infliction of the Mahiki. The cry of the two wretches could
not be disregarded . . . Hiiaka, with a skill that did credit to her surgery, splinted
the maimed limbs, inserting stems from her favorite ti plant to take the place of
the long bones that had been removed. She left them seated in comfort at the
roadside at Pololu. (51)
The purpose of the episode in the Kanaka texts is to provides an opportunity for
Hi‘iaka to exercise and practice her healing powers (which she will need to restore
Lohi’au’s life when she gets to Kaua‘i), and to punish those who break cultural etiquette.
In Kaili’s version, the men are allowed to die because they are maha’oi and kapulu
(careless). They do not respect the playing field or ‘ulu maika players and are careless
with their newly restored bodies, made possible through Hi'iaka’s skill. They are in
extension disrespectful to her as they don’t malama the gift she has given them and their
389
demise is therefore inevitable, and they deserve their punishment, a slow and painful
death.
By blaming the Mahiki, Emerson gives Hi‘iaka reason to go after and destroy
them. This is unnecessary in the Kanaka texts, as most already contain this episode
separately from the kanaka alualu incident. It is also a recontextualization of Hi‘iaka
herself because Emerson relies on a Christian dichotomy of good versus evil where Pele
is portrayed as mean-spirited, treating Hi‘iaka unfairly, while Hi‘iaka is the wholesome,
innocent “good” girl who can do no wrong; thus, when Hi‘iaka fights, it is justified self-
defense.
One of the interesting commentaries Kaili makes about this episode is etiological,
explaining Hawaiian mana‘o on the origins of glaucoma. She says that in order to
prevent Wahine‘oma‘o from seeing the extent of the injuries the kanaka alualu received
to their fragile iwi ‘auki, “and thus be moved to again intercede for them,” Hi‘iaka takes
away her vision, although her “eyes appeared as usual and seemed to be as well as usual
but were sightless” (September 11,1883). She then says that “this was the origin of the
disease glaucoma in Hawai‘i nei and is called by the natives makaala [maka‘ala]. Since
then the natives have always believed that such sudden cases of blindness are
providential interpositions of the deities to prevent the persons from beholding painful
sights over which they can have no control” (September 11, 1883). Maka‘ala is
“blindfness], but with eyes that look normal” (PED 224). The discussion of the term is
also etiological, explaining an unusual medical condition that in this explanation is not
medical at all. It also provides an interesting point of discussion, as “maka‘ala” means
390
“alert, vigilant, watchful” (PED 224). Published at a time when diacritical marks,
particularly kahako were not used there is an interesting word play with the unmarked
words.
While not a part of the Kapihenui strand of the Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo, there is
an episode when H i‘iaka ma are on the W ai‘anae coast of 0 ‘ahu on their return trip to
Hawai‘i island in which they encounter Kaulanaakala, an ali‘i of Moloka‘i who is
burdened by a riddle (nane), and Hi‘iaka cannot resist helping the troubled ali‘i. Nane is
a “riddle, puzzle, parable, allegory; to riddle or speak in parables” (.PED 261).
Ho‘oulumahiehie writes:
. . . everyone was startled by a wailing voice of someone coming along the road
from the direction of Wai‘anae. Hearing this pained voice, the people in the house
rushed outside to see whose wailing voice they heard. Then they saw that the cry
came from a man. His hands were crossed behind his back as he came this way,
sobbing. People came back and told Hi‘iaka . . . [who said,] ‘Go get that man and
welcome him to this house, so that we may ask about the distress over which he
grieves. What could cause such a clamor of lamentation?’
The people of Makua brought him in to the house . . . when [he] entered, he
crumpled to one side of the doorway; Hi‘iaka looked him over and said,
‘Defeated, are you?’
The man wiped the tears from his eyes, and with a quavering voice, answered,
‘Yes, defeat is why I mourn everywhere. Mine is a journey of distress, just so you
all know. If I go all around 0 ‘ahu and do not find what I seek, it will be the death
391
of me. Then salvation, real salvation, would be as unreachable as the top of
Ha‘upu mountain. And if I encircle Kaua‘i and do not find what I’m after, then I
must return to lie down like the ti leaf coverings upon the waiting fires of my
destruction. From Hawai‘i I have come. I went all around Hawai‘i Island, and
there was no great priest, prophet, seer, architect, or orator who could clear the
problem about which I go grieving. Then I went all around Maui, and was still left
wanting. I was at Moloka‘i, bereft indeed, and at Lana‘i, which was more of the
same. And all of 0 ‘ahu that I’ve gone through is exactly the same so far, there
being no one who can relieve my distress. Now I find you people. Do you have
something worthwhile, or not?’
H i‘iaka quickly replied, ‘A riddle is what makes you search. When you find
the answer to the riddle that was posed, then are you saved?’
‘Yes, actually, there is a riddle for which I must seek the answer. What
incredible insight you have, my friend, to know this secret that I hold inside. I
revealed to no one the reason I wander in lament, but you already know,’ replied
the man, his hopes rising, but still filled with uncertainty, ‘Could this be where
my distress will end?’
‘Have some food first, and once the empty stomach is taken care of, then
explain your riddle to us. I’ll warn you that all the people here are expert riddle
solvers. But my advice to you is to eat your meat and fish with gusto and
enthusiasm. My premonition tells me this is a day for salvation.’ (May 15-19,
1906; Nogelmeier et. al., forthcoming)
392
Hi‘iaka helps to solve the riddle, but she doesn’t just provide the answer for
Kaulanaakala. She does so exhibiting particular traits considered positive in Hawaiian
culture, etiquette, and learning. First, she uses her ‘ike papalua (insight) to discern
Kaulanaakala’s problem. Then she invites him to eat his fill. Next, she calls for trained
runners to fetch manini fish from a pond located in the cliffs of Ka‘ena called Manini:
The chiefess of Makua then sent two of her kukini, trained runners. The kukini
didn’t run along the shore to reach Ka‘ena, but took off on the shortest route
through Keawa’ula and up over Kuaokala, veering across the succession of steep
cliffs and gulches of Ka‘ena. They descended into the gully where the water
gathered into Manini Pond. When they got there and looked into the water, there
was a hole where manini gathered. They laid a net around the manini hole.
Selecting one fish, they dashed off, climbing up over the cliff.. . . Perhaps less
than a quarter of an hour was spent getting there and returning with the [manini].
Then they gave the fish to Hi‘iaka, who took it and said to Kaulanaokala: ‘Here
with this little fish lies the answer to your riddle. I ask you, what is the name of
this fish?’
To which Kaulanaokala replied, ‘A manini!’
‘And what is the offspring of the manini?’ asked Hi'iaka
‘An ‘ohua!’ was his intelligent response.
‘And where does the offspring form?’ Hi‘iaka asked again.
‘In the belly of the mother,’ answered Kaulanaokala.
393
‘Now you have it. A newborn child is the answer to your riddle, and the
manini is the analogy that the riddler has used. Now listen to the explanation of
your puzzle, ‘I stand, one;’ one month that the child is outside. ‘I stand, two;’ two
months of the child outside. “ I stand, four;’ four months of the child outside. ‘I
stand, five;’ it makes five months of the child being outside the mother. ‘In the
sixth month, these words are added to the riddle, ‘O sun from below. Shield my
eyes.’ The child’s hands begin to clap and to make fists. ‘Your puzzle goes on to
say, ‘Peering down below!’ The child is beginning to rise up. ‘The stormy days
are changed!’ The child can sit up well, and begins to crawl. “ Crawling about
below!’ The child is crawling and has crawled everywhere in the house. ‘Manini
au la, holo ana.’ The child has stood up, walked, and run as well. This is the
explanation of your riddle, just so you know. Now you can go back, I think, for
the burden is relinquished.’ (Ho‘oulumahiehie, May 15-19, 1906; Nogelmeier et.
al., forthcoming)
The representation of contests is an opportunity to demonstrate Hawaiian skill and
knowledge; it is also a metaphorical way to pass on these activities, practices and skills to
the modem Kanaka audiences the mea haku were writing to in a way that wouldn’t trip
the censorship radar of the missionary police (see Silva 2004b). What is most indicative
of mana wahine is that the women work collaboratively to solve the riddle. They are also
the source of the answer, which they give to the kane, who doesn’t know.
394
Oli and mele revisited. Another cultural practice in the mo‘olelo which was highly
valued is chant. In Mokuna 5 ,1 discussed how oli is closely connected to oral tradition,
even in written literature, because of the performative aspect of chant. Here, I will
discuss the basic function of chant within the mo‘olelo, with selected examples.
Oli is a vehicle for ho'opapa. But how are ho‘opapa and oli an integral part of the
Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo? Handy writes:
It is logical to suppose that the priests of Pele, who among the native scholars
were of course those most versed in the lore of their goddess and her domain,
were the ones who evolved the splendid cycle of Pele chants. In the conferences
and contests of experts in lore, the word masters (kaka‘olelo) vied with each other
in authority and creative zeal. We may picture those gathered from various
localities—from Ha‘eha‘e on southeastern Hawaii to Ha‘ena on northwestern
Kauai, the two points most sacred in the hula myth cycle, being, respectively,
where the sun rises and sets, out over the sea the southeastward and
northwestward extremes of the island chain. In these contests of wits we may
conjecture that over a period of some centuries the unity and completeness of the
whole cycle of chants was gradually wrought by a cumulative process of
acceptance and sharing between the islands of mele hula describing the events and
places on each island reputed to be sacred to Pele and Hi‘iaka. (335)
The prolific presence of oli, particularly as chanted by the central figure, H i‘iaka,
demonstrates skills such as ‘a‘apo and akamai in other ways too. For example, H i‘iaka’s
395
main source of defense is her knowledge (‘ike) and voice (leo); her mana is such that she
can kill or bring back to life with the sound of her voice and the mana of her words,
literally demonstrating i ka ‘olelo ke ola, i ka ‘olelo ka make, literal as well as figurative
power of life and death through spoken words. Examples of this power include her battle
with Waihlnano over ‘Olepau’s life, the revival of Lohi‘au and other characters along
their journey, and the destruction of enemies and obstacles that obstruct her path, such as
the mo‘o Pana‘ewa, Piliamo‘o and Nohoamo‘o, and the mano kupua Maka‘ukiu. The
power of words is important throughout the mo‘olelo, reflecting an important aspect of
Hawaiian culture (see Kimura 1983).
With her voice and through oli, Hi‘iaka can control and call upon the ‘ohana,
natural elements (which are also embodiments of akua/‘ohana), and the ‘aina itself.
Through oli, H i‘iaka demonstrates the power of Pele ‘ohana over other m o‘oku‘auhau,
such as that of Papahanaumoku and Wakea. On this point, Silva (2004a) explains that
the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo functions as a “counter-narrative to the discourse claiming
that the major gods of H aw aii are male[;] . . . [this] counter-narrative is one that
celebrates female power” (117). This happens in part because the Papa and Wakea
m o‘olelo, as analyzed by Kame‘eleihiwa (1992), establishes the three tenets of traditional
culture under the religious order established by the male gods, namely ‘aikapu (sacred or
separate eating), malama ‘aina (caring for the land), and m ‘aupi‘o (chiefly mating) (23).
The Papa and Wakea mo‘olelo also provides a m o‘oku‘auhau for the Hawaiian islands,
establishing their ranking from south (Hawaii) northward (Nilhau). The Pele migration,
however, establishes their power over the ‘aina in the exact opposite direction, from the
396
northwest Hawaiian islands down the pae‘aina to Hawai‘i, where she settles. This is
significant, because “when you hear origin stories, you know there is an attempt to
establish a hierarchy . . . origins establish a social order and are well-springs of authority”
(Megeo qtd. in Silva, 117). Silva writes that “by literally coming from the other direction
this narrative assert[s] an unruly female power” (117). What Silva is describing is how
the Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo function as a hulihia discourse.11 Other ways the hulihia
discourse is exhibited through chant include ho‘opapa, the battles of m o‘oku‘auhau
which occur primarily between competing ali‘i lineages; in the Pele and H i‘iaka
m o‘olelo, this also occurs between Hi‘iaka (a deity) and Waihlnano (an ali‘i). Waihlnano
worships other akua, and thus does not recognize Hi‘iaka as akua. Thus, Hi‘iaka’s
ultimate victory over Waihlnano (and her akua) demonstrate an overturning of the
authority of the other akua, who are rendered powerless to Hi‘iaka and the Pele ‘ohana
when she defeats Waihlnano and ‘Olepau pays with his life.
Oli is also an expression of deep emotion, the most appropriate vehicle to express
love, sadness, or joy [the purpose being to woo or influence other characters’ actions or
decisions. Examples include Hi‘iaka’s expression of affection of Hopoe, Wahine‘oma‘o
“Ku‘u Aikane” chants to bring Hi‘iaka back to the crater from Milu, Kahuaka‘iapaoa’s
“Hulihia” chants expressing his grief over Lohi‘au’s death (or in some versions,
L o h i‘au’s chanting to soften P ete’s heart and spare h is life).
11 The hulihia discourse is also demonstrated through chant in ho‘opapa, which play out as a battle of
m o‘oku‘auhau and control over the ‘aina; in extension, this also translates to assertion or control of religion
and over other gods.
Ho‘okipa and mea ‘ai: preparation, kanawai, ritual, and abundance. Another
important aspect of Hawaiian culture (and cultural values) expressed throughout the Pele
and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo is the concept of ho‘okipa, an observation that has not yet been
made by other scholars of Pele and H i‘iaka m o‘olelo. Centuries before this cultural
practice was appropriated by the tourist industry, Kanaka Maoli offered hospitality to
each other as a mark of civil conduct. Pukui and Handy note that “inhospitality was so
rare that a case would be discussed with horror for years. Nevertheless, there were some
who were stingy and avaricious.. . . Being so seldom met with, when a case of
inhospitality was found, it was noised abroad and discussed with derision” (191).
There are many mo‘olelo—Pele and Hi‘iaka just one strand—that include
episodes presenting hospitable behavior as a positive trait, and inhospitable behavior as
very unbecoming. There are many ways proper etiquette and gracious hospitality are
exhibited, complimented, and rewarded within the mo‘olelo, including the calling out of
a greeting—typically expressed in chant—to the malihini, such as Hi‘iaka ma as they are
traveling. Entertaining the guests is also part of proper etiquette, especially because of
Hi‘iaka’s (and Lohi‘au’s) ali‘i status, as with the kilu matches held in their honor at
various locations. One of the main aspects of ho‘okipa, however, revolves around food,
including the gathering, preparation, serving, type, and even abundance of food. In some
ca ses, there are kanaw ai o f eating (or con su m in g sp ecific things); in others there are
rituals involved, such as in the preparation of ‘awa. When Kapihenui’s mo‘olelo begins,
Pele suggests the sisters accompany her to the seashore at Puna to gather seafood
(December 26, 1862). The gathering of food is a fun and social activity; when H i‘iaka
398
ma are traveling, they often see groups of women picking limu, or heading to the sea to
fish. When they arrive in Makua, the people go to the sea together to gather seafood for
their guests, an impromptu social occasion where they: “went diving for wana (urchins),
while others went to gather ‘opihi (limpets), and ‘ina and ha‘uke‘uke (other varieties of
urchins). The ‘inamona (kukui nui relish) was set out in a bowl, and the people of Makua
had their welcoming feast prepared” (Desha, January 4, 1927; Maly, A-6).
An abundance of food is also a hallmark of proper ho‘okipa. In the
Ho‘oulumahiehie version of the mo‘olelo, Kanahau is indeed motivated by H i‘iaka’s
beauty and the desire he feels for her. His expression of that desire is through an
incredible amount of preparation of lu‘au (taro leaves), the only food item Hi‘iaka
consumes. Because the nature of taro requires thorough cooking, it is a laborious task to
prepare lu‘au to eat. Kanahau must get up in the middle of the night to prepare the fire
and lu‘au.
[Kanahau] worked until many bundles of lu‘au that he had prepared were
ready for the oven. He collected a lot of firewood, then went to pick lu‘au. He
picked in gardens from the ocean to the mountain, and from every taro patch. So
much lu‘au! Then he made the lu‘au into bundles until the bundles stood in a
pile. When the fire was ready, he gathered up the bundles. When the first bundle
w as done, he p laced the n ext on e [on the fire]. A n d so he continued until the sun
came up. The lu‘au was cooked, the pile grew, and he carried [it back to the
house].
399
When the food was ready, he moved the pile of lu‘au in front of Hi‘iaka,
saying, ‘Here is your favorite. Eat.’
Hi‘iaka began to eat the lu‘au, and while she was eating the first cooked batch,
Ka‘anahau was again broiling more lu‘au. This was a kind of race between
Hi‘iaka and Ka‘anahau. H i‘iaka continued to eat Ka‘anahau’s lu‘au which
continued to appear and never ran out. Then Hi‘iaka said to Ka'anahau, ‘I have
visited many places in our travels, from Hawai‘i . . . to here, and of course I have
eaten my favorite food in those places, but I did not eat delicious lu‘au and leave
any unfinished as I have eaten here with you.12 (translation by Noenoe Silva)
In Ho‘oulumahiehie and Poepoe, food plays an important role in Lohi‘au’s
restoration. When Lohi‘au awakes from death, he is hungry, and requests kalo and lu‘au.
Hi‘iaka dispatches Wahine‘oma‘o and Pa‘uopala‘a to fetch poi and lu‘au for him, which
she will cook herself. She tells him, “Truly, getting a bit of food in you is all that’s left to
do, and your difficulties will be over. It’s good, though, that you hunger for lu‘au, for that
12 O ko ia nei hana nohoi ia a kohu hana-imu ka nui o nei wahi pulehu luau ana i hoomakaukau ai. Hooili
ka wahie a nui; alaila, hele keia ako luau. O ko ia nei ako no hoi ia mai kai a uka o ka mala luau, mai kela
ka-ika nohoi a keia ka-ika. Aole i kana mai ua luau. Alaila, opeope ae la keia i ua luau nei a ku ka paila o
ua mea he ope luau. O ka hele nohoi ia a maikai ke ahi, o ko i anei hooili aku la no ia i na wahi luau i paa i
ka opeopeia. M o‘a ae ana ua opeope mua, kau aku ana ua opeope. Pela ka ia nei hana ana a puka wale ka
la. U a h ele ua m ea he luau m o ‘a, a ku ka paila, hana ka haaw e.
I ka makaukau ana o ka ai, ua hoonee aku la keia i ua paila wahi luau nei imua o Hiiaka, me ko ia nei
olelo pu aku hoi iaia: ‘Eia mai ko puni, o ka luau. Ai ia.’ O ka hoomaka mai la no ia o Hiiaka e ai i ua luau
nei, ke ai nei oia i na mea im o 'a mua, aia no o Kaanahau ke pulehu hou la i ka luau. He ano heihei Maoli
keia mau hana mawaena o Hiiaka ame Kaanahau. Oi noke ua Hiiaka nei i ka ai i ka luau a Kaanahau a koe
okoa ka luau, aohe pau. Alaila, olelo aku la o Hiiaka ia Kaanahau: ‘He nui nohoi na wahi a ‘u i kipa mai nei
ma ko makou alanui hele, mai Hawaii mai a hoea . . . iho la ia nei, a ua ai nohoi au i kuu puni, o ka luau nei
ma ia mau wahi, aole nae hoi kahi wahi i ai ai au i ka luau ono a haalele, elike iho la me keia a‘u i ai iho nei
ia oe (January 17, 1906).
400
is the staff of life from ancient times” (Nogelmeier et. al. forthcoming). When
Wahine‘oma‘o asks Lohi‘au’s sister Kahuanui for poi, she desires to send a runner with
two deep calabashes, worried they do not have enough to eat. Wahine‘oma‘o replies,
“Don’t do that, chiefess. A small bowl of poi is what I’m to get from you . . . that is the
order I was given; I am not to stray from the command. We have no lack of food, for
food from the heavens is what we are eating, and water from the heavens is our drink.
Later, we may indulge in the chief’s food” (Nogelmeier at. al., forthcoming). When the
women return, all is speedily prepared:
Just as [Wahine‘oma‘o returned], Pa‘uopala‘a was arriving with her bundles of
lu‘au. The small bowl of poi was prepared, and H i‘iaka held the wrapped lu‘au in
her hands. [She offered a prayer]. . . whereupon Lohi’au’s lu‘au was fully
cooked. When all was ready, H i‘iaka called her man to wake up and eat what he
hungered for. Lohi‘au arose and ate. He ate the small bowl of poi and the bundle
of lu‘au, and then he wanted water. Hi‘iaka ordered Pa‘uopala‘a to get one young
coconut, but it had to be niu hiwa, the dark coconut. Pa‘uopala‘a sped to her task
and in no time the young coconut was delivered. With her teeth she husked the
shell clean of its fiber and gave it to Hi‘iaka, who then said to Lohi’au, ‘Here is
the water you shall drink, water that hangs in the air, or what some call the water
o f h eaven. L o h i‘au drank every bit. (N o g elm eier et. al., forthcom ing)
Whether there is a directly spiritual or religious aspect of food preparation or not, speed
and perfection in food preparation is very important, as is the ‘ono (deliciousness) and
401
le‘ale‘a of it. When Hi‘iaka ma arrive on the Wai‘anae coast of 0 ‘ahu on their way back
to Hawai‘i island, they are offered hospitality by the people of Makua.
The people the[n] asked Hi‘iaka to call her companions to land on the shore and
partake in a meal before continuing on the long journey. It was agreed, and before
long, Wahine‘oma‘o drew the canoe near to the shore and the people of Makua
recognized the beauty of their guests, and the most beautiful among them w a s . . .
Hi‘iaka . . . The people of Makua were skilled and quickly had a pig ready for the
imu, along with chickens, broiled fish, and mixed bowls of poi ‘uwala (sweet
potato poi). (Desha, January 4, 1927; Maly, A-6)
Aside from the variety and abundance of the food prepared, the paragraph emphasizes the
skill and speed at which the food is prepared, as these are also hallmarks of good
ho‘okipa etiquette.
U‘i, nani, and mana wahine: the intertwining of beauty, intelligence, and female
power.
One aspect of the text that is stressed over and over again is the beauty of
individual characters, and how this elicits a positive and enthusiastic response, which is
often—but not always—sexual in nature. Nowhere is this more true than with the
goddess Hi‘iaka herself. Hi‘iaka’s beauty is one aspect of her mana wahine (female
power). Mana Wahine is a concept that is found in Hawai‘i and throughout the Pacific
(McDougall n.d., 1). Haunani-Kay Trask notes that, “Mana Wahine predates western
concepts of feminism, and is not the same. Western ideas of feminism react against,
402
resist or seek equality with patriarchy. Mana Wahine does neither. Rather, it asserts that
women have our own power that is unique to us that can’t be shared with (or appropriated
by) men” (personal communication, December 2003). McDougall writes that mana
wahine represents “a force that men must never ignore, for in a world where genealogical
ranking [means] everything, the first ancestor [Po, the female night who gives birth to
herself] is the most powerful” (McDougall n.d., 1). The concept of mana wahine is
multiply-layered and intertwined within the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. It is exhibited in
the power Pele and H i‘iaka both have over kane, both godly and human, over the ‘aina
and the (re)shaping of it, as well as the ability to call on elements of the ‘aina (thunder,
lightning, wind, rain, and various vegetation), which are also the kinolau (multiple body
forms) of members of their large ‘ohana. McDougall says:
The H i‘iakaikapoliopele m o‘olelo recognizes this power by celebrating
procreation, the power of women to bring forth new generations, as well as the
power women hold over their sexuality while simultaneously demonstrating a
complex view of womanhood as dwelling in the realms of both the sexual and the
political, as “sexual power and political power are very close in the Hawaiian
mind” (Kame‘eleihiwa 4). (1)
T he basis o f H i‘iak a’s p ow er is her relationship to P ele, w h ich m an ifests in
several ways: her poki‘i status is why she agrees to accept the difficult and dangerous
task of fetching Lohi‘au to Hawai‘i. Because of this relationship, Pele gifts Hi‘iaka with
several critical tools to aid her, namely, ‘Awihikalani, ka lima ikaika o Kllauea, and a
403
pa‘u uila (lightning skirt). The power of the pa‘u is important for several reasons. Silva
(2004a) writes that, “[Hi‘iaka’s] skirt is her greatest weapon—a symbol of specifically
female power. These supernatural women are related to (but not ruled by) the male gods,
Ku, Kane, Kanaloa, and Lono” (25). While Hi‘iaka’s pa‘u uila is featured only in some
of the m o‘olelo, it is unclear as to whether it is the same as the pa‘u she wears on a daily
basis as provided by her attendant, Pa‘uopala‘e (Pala‘e skirt) in some mo‘olelo,
Pa‘uopala‘a (Pala‘a-fem skirt) in others.
Pele and Hi‘iaka are not the only powerful women in the mo‘olelo. Manu’s
version in particular highlights the power of their older sister Kapo‘ulakIna‘u as a deity of
‘ana‘ana and hula (July 29, 1899). Hi‘iaka encounters powerful ali‘iwahine whom she
engages in life and death ho‘opapa battles with, such as the Maui ali‘i wahine Waihlnano
(Kapihenui, April 24-May 8, 1862). Moreover, she is accompanied on her journey by
women with their own power. Pa‘uopala‘e/Pa‘uopala‘a are the keepers of the sacred
pa‘u and assist Hi‘iaka in her healing and reviving of different characters, culminating
with bringing Lohi‘au back to life.
The power and significance of these female relationships of companionship,
camaraderie, and affection is exhibited in many ways. First and foremost is Pele’s
relationship with H i‘iakaikapoliopele. Next is Hi‘iaka’s relationship with Hopoe and
Wahine‘oma‘o. H i‘iaka’s relationship with both of them is described in all of the
Hawaiian-language texts as aikane. Aikane is genetically defined as “friend, friendly; to
become a friend” (PED 10). Pukui and Handy define aikane more specifically as
“devoted friends” or intimate friendships “between man and man, or women and women;
404
but not between man and woman. The genuine aikane relationship is never sexual” (73).
There are three primary and explicitly stated aikane relationships within the Pele and
Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo which exemplify the intimate female-female and male-male
relationships described above: Hi‘iaka and Hopoe, H i‘iaka and Wahine‘oma‘o, and
Lohi'au and Kahuaka‘iapaoa. The sexual nature of these relationships is often a topic of
discussion and debate amongst scholars and cultural practitioners today. One reason the
sexual nature of the relationships is difficult to define is because of the overt Christian
suppression of such practices; in light of severe Christian condemnation, Kanaka Maoli
quickly learned to suppress, deny, or reinterpret such practices. In addition, Chariot
(1998) says that “sexuality is difficult to define in the texts [because]. . . words like ipo
and aikane—were losing their necessarily sexual implication as they have done in
contemporary usage” (70). Chariot notes that there are several possible pronunciations
and origins of the word, which ultimately was a term “used for a man who participated in
an intense friendship with another man, a relationship that included sexual relations. The
word was applied to lesbian friends as well. The word does not necessarily designate an
exclusively homosexual person” (70 fn.38).
The English language texts such as Kaili and Emerson define aikane as a close
friend. Kaili uses the word aikane to describe Papanuioleka’s desire to become aikane
w ith H i‘iaka m a, d efin in g it as a “p rivileged friend” (Septem ber 1, 1883). K aili d oes not
use the term to define H i‘iaka and Wahine‘oma‘o ’s relationship, instead describing them
as “devoted friends” (September 1, 1883). In Emerson, after watching
Manamanaiakaluhea dance “Aloha wale ka i‘a lamalama o ku‘u ‘aina la,” Wahine‘oma‘o
405
is stirred by the sexual nature of the dance, and declares she would like
Manamanaiakaluhea as “an aikane, an intimate friend” (69). Emerson uses this term
three times to describe Wahine‘oma‘o’s intense desire for the maimed fisherwoman-
spirit, and it is because of her intense desire to be Manamanaiakaluhea’s aikane that
Hi‘iaka agrees to heal the girl.
While the episode in which Hi'iaka and Wahine‘oma‘o meet and befriend each
other are located in different parts of the narrative in Kapihenui and Emerson, when
compared side by side, they are almost identical (episode 95, 112; see Appendix 1C).
One difference is that in Kapihenui, Pele requests that Wahine‘oma‘o become Hi‘iaka’s
aikane (Wahine‘oma‘o tells Hiiaka, “Kauoha mai nei ia‘u i aikane ‘oe na‘u,” Pele
ordered me to be an aikane for you) (January 16, 1862). In Emerson, the two are simply
described as friends (26). Other versions of the m o‘olelo describe their befriending each
other differently. In Pa‘aluhi and Bush (A), Pele asks Hi‘iaka if she will travel to Kaua‘i
alone to fetch Lohi‘au, and Hi‘iaka replies no, she will go with her aikane Wahine‘oma‘o
(I aku la o Pele ia Hiiaka, o oe wale no anei ke kii ana i ke kane a kaua? Pane mai la o
Hiiaka, aole, owau a me kekahi aikane a’u, oia o Wahineomao, o maua ke kii ae i ke kane
a kakou) (January 18, 1893). In Ho‘oulumahiehie, it is Wahine‘oma‘o who desires to be
Hi‘iaka’s aikane. When they first meet, she tells H i‘iaka, “Tell me your name, because I
w ant you to be m y aikane” (E hai m ai o e ia ‘u i k ou inoa, no ka m ea, ua m akem ake au i
aikane oe na‘u) (September 1, 1905; July 10, 1906). The scene continues:
“Your actions have been fine, indeed,” said Hi‘iaka, “and now that the offering
is made, you shall tour throughout the islands. As to my name, I shall indeed tell
406
you, for we two have struck a bond of intimate friendship. I am Hi‘iaka, in the
bosom of Pele, and this one’s name is Pa‘uopala‘a.”
At this point, Wahine‘oma‘o leaped forth and grasped Hi‘iaka’s neck and
kissed her by adjoining noses and inhaling deeply, crying out, “Oh my, you have
spared me! I was almost in a state of terrible ruin, if my words had seemed
aggressive to you, my lady. Therefore, I ask of you to forgive me if anything I’ve
said before you is improper. And now, I ask of you to take me as your aikane.
Wherever you go, there, too, shall I.”
H i‘iaka assented to this request from Wahine‘oma‘o, saying, “What can I say,
but that I agree to your request, for it is a good one. But to secure our relation as
aikane, let us clap hands and lock fingers.”
Then their hands clapped together, and they hooked their fingertips into each
others, and thus was their oath set that they would be together as aikane, the
dearest of friends.13 (Nogelmeier et al., forthcoming)
13 “E hai mai oe ia‘u i kou inoa, no ka mea, ua makemake au i aikane oe na‘u.”

“Ua maikai aku la hoi ha ko hana,” wahi a Hiiaka. “A o ka alana no ia, puni na moku ia oe i ka hele
makaikai ia. No ko‘u inoa ea, e hai aku no hoi au ia oe, oiai ua hoaikane ae la kaua, o Hiiaka au i-ka-poli-
o-Pele; a o ko ia nei inoa, o Pa-uopalaa.”
I keia wa i lele aku ai o Wahineomao a paa i ka a-i o Hiiaka, a honi aku la hoi i ka ihu, me ka uwe
ana aku hoi: “Auwe no ka hoi kuu pakele ia oe e— ! Mai poino ma‘u wale maoli ka hoi au, ina i lele
kamoko aku nei ka‘u mau olelo ana imua ou e kuu haku. Nolaila, i nonoi aku au ia oe, e kala mai oe ia‘u
ina he mau olelo hewa kekahi a ‘u i hoopuka aku nei imua ou. Ano la, ke nonoi aku nei au ia oe, e lawe aku
oe ia‘u i aikane nau. O kou wahi e hele ai, o ko‘u wahi no ia e hele aku ai.”
Ua ae mai la no hoi o Hiiaka i keia noi a Wahineomao, me kona olelo ana mai: “Heaha la hoi, ua
ae au i kau noi, he maikai ke noi. I mea nae e paa ai ko kaua noho aikane ana ea, e p a‘i na lima o kaua, a e
kakiwi hoi na lau lima.” (September 1, 1905)
407
In Poepoe, the two become aikane after Wahine‘oma‘o hears H i‘iaka’s name. At this
point, she tells H i‘iaka that “it’s a good thing you agree to be my aikane” (e aho e ae mai
oe i aikane oe na‘u) (July 17, 1908). Rice does not explain how Hi‘iaka and
Wahine‘oma‘o become aikane. However, similar to Kapihenui, Wahine‘oma‘o chants a
series of “Ku‘u aikane” chants to Hi‘iaka to entice her to return from the underworld of
Milu (August 6, 1908).
There are no scenes in the m o‘olelo which describe sexual intercourse between
any of the principle characters with each other. The lack of explicit sexual intercourse
between the men or women aikane partnerships, however, does not exclude the
possibility. What does seem to be expressed within the context of the mo‘olelo is very
close, intimate relationships. Other words used to describe the closeness of the aikane
relationships include aloha or pilialoha (aikane pilialoha), and “ku‘u,” the intimate or
beloved possessive form of “my” (ku‘u aikane). What these imply is that the aikane were
such close friends that the two embody each other, becoming in a sense, one in the same,
inseparable companions.
Aside from Wahine‘oma‘o’s relationship with Hi‘iaka, her role in the mo‘olelo is
an interesting one. More than just an intimate friend, traveling partner, or helper for
H i‘iaka, Wahine‘oma‘o is also an “every woman”—as kanaka, we are her and she is us;
sh e b eco m es the v e h ic le for H i‘i aka and/or the narrators to instruct us as readers in
/ history, traditions, m o’olelo, protocol, chants, practices, vocabulary, etc. In Pa‘aluhi and
Bush, for example, the women are traveling through Hilo, Hawaii, when they encounter
a group of women traveling.
408
Hi‘iaka folks started up again until they reached Pa‘ie‘ie, and Wahine‘oma‘o saw
a traveling party of women directly ahead of them. Wahine‘oma‘o said to Hi‘iaka,
‘Eh Hi‘iaka, there is a traveling party of women ahead of us.’ H i‘iaka denied it,
saying, ‘that is not a party of kanaka women, rather that is a traveling party of
godly women (or spirits) from the uplands of Paliuli.’14
As an Everywoman, Wahine‘oma‘o has a somewhat comedic role at times, too.
This sense of comedy should not be overlooked, as it provides an entertainment factor in
the mo‘olelo, even when lessons need to be learned, and allows the reader to be drawn
into the joke and enjoy the fun. In Kaili, when Wahine‘oma‘o is asked to participate in
kilu; she is reluctant, as she cannot chant:
It was now Wahineomao’s turn to take the kilu, and she was twirling it
preparing to throw, when Peleula stopped her with the remark, ‘you must know
the invariable rule of this game, to chant a song before throwing. Why do you
omit it now?’
Wahineomao told her that she could never from childhood sing or chant a note.
But the hostess, possibly annoyed at her own failure, insisted on Wahineomao’s
complying with all regulations. It was in vain the latter protested her utter
inab ility to rem em ber or repeat ev en a fe w w ords o f cou p lets o f a song.
14 Hoomaka hou aku la o Hiiaka ma e hele a hiki lakou i Paieie, a ike aku nei o Wahineomao i ka huakai
wahine mamua o lakou nei. Olelo aku la o Wahineomao ia Hiiaka: E Hiiaka he huakai wahine keia mamua
o kakou. Hoole mai la o Hiiaka),| aole ia he huakai wahine maoli, aka he huakai akua kena no uka o Paliuli
(January 23, 1893).
409
Finally, in exasperation, she sang out, “Ku-o-ka-o-W ahineomao” (rough
and ready Wahineomao), and threw the kilu, which struck the wand so strong and
true that the ringing of the gourds was louder and longer than when Hi‘iaka threw
it. When the other side had the throw they again lost. And thus they continued
playing till the game ended, H i‘iaka and her companions winning.
“Ku-o-ka,” Wahineomao’s saying, has ever since been the answer of
unpoetical or unmusical people when importuned to chant, sing, or repeat a song.
(September 21, 1883)
In Kapihenui’s m o‘olelo it is Lohi‘au who teaches Wahine‘oma‘o the simple chant so she
can participate in the game (April 10, 1862). The scene in Waimea with the two kanaka
alualu ‘aukl (boneless kanaka who Hi‘iaka revives by substituting ti stalks for bones) is
also funny, as the men try to stand up and walk back to rejoin their families, swaying on
their ti-stalk bones as if they were plants blowing in the wind (Kaili, September 11,
1883). Chariot (1998) notes that examples of sexual humor abound, as “H i‘iaka and her
companions are expert teases and lure men into granting favors. The women regularly
elude the fools and enchant one [Pahulu-lawai‘a-nui-o-ke-kai] into having sex with a
boulder, thinking that it is the object of his desire” (69). Writing about sexual or kolohe
(m isch iev o u s) hum or in the K a m a p u a 'a m o ‘o le lo , K a m e‘eleih iw a (1 9 9 6 ) id en tifies
kolohe as an interwoven theme within the m o‘olelo, “one of the more valuable aspects of
ancient Hawaiian culture that has survived to modem times” (xvi). Pukui notes that this
“Hawaiian orientation makes the playful imagining as satisfying as actual lovemaking,
410
because it releases tension and produces laughter and joy” (Pukui, Haertig and Lee, 85).
Kame‘eleihiwa concludes then that “everyone then feels good, not just the couple
involved. Traditional Hawaiians considered it psychologically very healthy to treat the
act of sex as a funny, open, and human event. There should be no guilt or enforced
secrecy about sex from this point of view. There was no pretense that sex never
happened, as was the proffered ideal of Calvinist Christianity so dominant in Hawai‘i in
1891 [when the m o‘olelo was published]” (xvi).
The humor in the text is but one aspect of another cultural value expressed in the
literature, le‘ale‘a or enjoyment. Life could be serious, fraught with danger; m o‘o,
enemies, obstacles lurk everywhere. One must be prepared for sudden, unexpected, and
fierce competition. Yet the m o‘olelo also depicts the le‘ale‘a side of life, painting a full
picture of a vibrant population that is not left wanting. The kanaka Pele and H i‘iaka
encounter are not the lazy desperate kanaka stereotyped by the missionaries, who failed
to recognize kanaka industriousness. Everywhere H i‘iaka ma travel, they encounter
kanaka engaged in meaningful activities—farming, fishing, making kapa. They are
active and healthy, enjoying life—sharing an abundance of food, making love, and
engaged in fun activities such as hula and kilu, and sports of all kinds— surfing,
puhenehene, puheo, ‘ulu maika. Ho‘opapa is abundant from informal dialogue
exchanges between characters, including Hi‘iaka and other kupua figures or kanaka, to
more formalized verbal exchanges (Pele’s chanting of the winds of Kaua‘i, where she
derides the mo‘o wahine Kilioeikapua ma in the process), to ritual use and expression of
skill in activities such as kilu and puhenehene.
411
The depiction of a vibrant and healthy kanaka society alone is a political assertion
of identity. These are not helpless natives in need of paternalistic intervention to save
them from heathenism as the missionaries sought to characterize them. These were
people who worked hard, played hard, demonstrated pride in their heritage and ‘aina.
Place as C haracter: W ahi Pana in t h e M o ‘o l e l o
In fact, the heart of the Pele literature is—literally and figuratively—the ‘aina,
which is also why the m o‘olelo is political, not just entertaining, beautiful, or metaphoric.
An exhaustive analysis of wahi pana in the context of any one Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo,
let alone multiple texts is beyond the scope of this dissertation. However, I would like to
discuss the importance of the connection between the Pele ‘ohana and ‘aina, and offer a
few selected examples of how wahi pana function within the mo‘olelo.
First and foremost is the direct connection between the Pele ‘ohana and the ‘aina;
they do not just create land, they are the land, and the natural elements on it. Kimura’s
(1983) more general discussion of the importance of traditional wahi pana is relevant to
the discussion of Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo because of their place on the ‘aina:
The abundance of Hawaiian place names is only a hint at their actual number, for
there are literally many places where individual boulders are named. Place names
are used as displays of wit to express a great deal in a few words, and they are
extremely common in Hawaiian poetry and traditional sayings. Perhaps the reason
that place names have such evocative power in the Hawaiian language is the
emphasis on homeland of aloha ‘aina (love of the land, patriotism, pride of place)
412
in the culture . . . to traditional Hawaiians, place names are considered kupa
(natives) themselves. Place names are like esteemed grandparents linking people
to their home, personal past, and their history. (178)
As ancestors, Pele and H i‘iaka are one strand of our mo‘oku‘auhau that links
Kanaka Maoli to the ‘aina and our more immediate kupuna, particularly those of us with
roots to Puna and Ka‘u, Hawai‘i. While the “Volcano” today may be the common
landmark name for Pele’s home, Mauna Loa, Kllauea, Halema‘uma‘u, Pu‘u ‘0 ‘o, are
more descriptive and evocative of Pele-related m o‘olelo for Kanaka Maoli. Even more
specific and detailed names which come down to us through the m o‘olelo and
accompanying oli, mele and hula expand this richness of wahi pana, or storied places:
Pu‘u ‘oni‘oni is the hill from which Hi‘iaka departs on her journey to fetch Lohi‘au;
Akanikolea is the ridge Kamapua‘a first encounters Pele at the crater; Kapa‘ahu is the
place Pele wrapped herself in kapa and slept, and from where her spirit departed to
Kaua‘i, and today it has been reclaimed by Tutu Pele, recovered by a kapa of lava during
eruptions in the 1980s-1990s.
Hi‘iaka is a powerful and complementary force to Pele because “after Pele erupts,
destroying the landscape to create new land, Hi‘iaka creates plant life there. Other
relatives also ex ist sim u ltan eou sly as p eo p le and as features of the landscape, such as
Pele’s father, who is said to be the mountain peak Kanehoalani [ 0 ‘ahu]. An
unmistakable feeling emerges through the text that people, the gods and the landscape are
all members of the same family” (Silva 2004a, 111).
413
Connection to the ‘aina demonstrates kupa (native) status, as exhibited early in
the mo‘olelo by Pele’s chanting of the wind names of Kaua‘i when she arrives at Ha‘ena
(Ho‘oulumahiehie 1905). Pele chants the extensive and detailed wind names of Kaua‘i
and the surrounding small islands (Ni‘ihau, Ka‘ula, Lehua) to prove her native status to
that ‘aina. The ability to recall such an extensive list of wind names operates on multiple
levels within the m o‘olelo—it is a kind of ho‘opapa, challenging the audience of H a‘ena
and the nupepa to listen (or read) carefully, looking for error, and appreciating such skill
simultaneously. It is a performed oli of the most intricate detail, something Hawaiian
audiences find most delicious. Most importantly, it demonstrates Pele’s intimate
connection to that ‘aina. There are 174 winds for Kaua‘i which are named; 14 are for the
area of Anahola alone (Ho‘oulumahiehie, August 4, 1905). This list is much more
significant that the Kaua‘i wind names listed in the Kuapdka ‘a mo‘olelo.
The insight into Hawaiian culture contained within the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo
is vast and deep; surely generations of scholars to come will have much to discuss,
analyze and examine. One of the most valuable aspects of the mo‘olelo is as source
material for wahi pana and place names. There are numerous place names contained in
the mo‘olelo, many not found in other sources, including standard reference sources most
often utilized today (such as Place Names ofHawaVi or Hawai'i Place Names: Shores,
Beaches, and Surf Sites). Appendix 1A lists the number of wahi pana I have catalogued
contained in the m o‘olelo, with Kapihenui containing nearly 500 references, and
Ho‘oulumahiehie over 400. Selected examples have been discussed throughout different
Mokuna in this dissertation, such as the three Kllauea of Hawai‘i, 0 ‘ahu, and Kaua‘i, and
414
the two Puna of Hawai‘i and Kaua‘i. Other examples include place names which have an
etiological function, i.e., they explain why the name occurred (such as the naming of the
surf break Kalehuawehe [The-Blossoming-Lehua] at Wailua, Kaua‘i).
Aside from the abundance of place names, particularly those which are not found
in other source books are the interesting connection between specific places in the
m o‘olelo. The most notable and relevant examples include the already discussed
references to Ha‘ena, Puna, Waimea, Kekaha, and Kilauea. Maly (1998) also includes a
brief discussion between Hi‘iaka and the chiefesses of Makua about Kea‘au, Wai‘anae,
0 ‘ahu and Kea‘au, Puna, Hawai‘i (A6).
Places also function as characters, both ‘ohana and rival. For example, Makapu‘u
and KauhiTmakaokalani are both well-known places on 0 ‘ahu; Makapu‘u is the pu‘u
bordering the Ko‘olaupoko and Kona districts of 0 ‘ahu, while KauhiTmakaokalani is a
geographic feature on the hillside above Ka‘a‘awa, misnamed and better known today as
the “Crouching Lion.” These are also characters in the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo who
are relatives of the goddesses, and with whom H i‘iaka interacts on her visits to these
places through a series of chants. As she travels, the calls out to the ‘aina who are also
living characters in the m o‘olelo. On 0 ‘ahu in particular, she chants a series of ue helu to
the ‘aina. The ue helu is a particular kind of chant, “a wailing call of grief and love,
recounting deeds of a loved one and shared experiences; to weep and speak thus. Lit.,
enumerating weeping” (PED 363). Each ue helu begins with a kauoha (command) from
Hi‘iaka to the specific ‘aina/character stating, “Mai poina ‘oe ia‘u e [‘aina]” (Don’t forget
me, [‘aina]). ‘Aina she performs an ue helu to include Laniloa, Ka‘ala, Kamae, Kalalau,
415
and Leinono (Kapihenui, February 13, 1862). Hi‘iaka also battles characters for whom
places are named. These include the mo‘o Pana‘ewa and Mo‘olau, and the mano
Maka‘ukiu.
In the puhenehene episode with Pi‘ihonua and Pu‘ueo, Pi‘ihonua defeats Pu‘ueo
with Hi‘iaka’s assistance, and becomes the winning ali‘i; an area of Hilo on the south
side of the Wailuku river is known as Pi‘ihonua, possibly in commemoration of this ali‘i
(and possibly through his victory in this m o‘olelo). Pu‘ueo, on the other hand, is
described by Pukui, Elbert and Mookini as an “elevated place in Hilo . . . where Kalani-
‘opu‘u built the heiau of Kanoa” (196). “Eo” can be translated as both “to win, beat;
winning, victory” as well as “to lose, be defeated, beaten” (PED 42). Thus Pu‘ueo can be
described as “Hill of Victory” or “Hill of Defeat;” the clever double-meaning is a classic
example of Hawaiian kaona, as viewed in context of the puhenehene episode in the Pele
and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, it simultaneously implies both. Not only is one side (Pi‘ihonua)
victorious, Pu‘ueo, prior to Hi‘iaka’s intervention on behalf of Pi‘ihonua was also
victorious before he was defeated.
Of particular note is the connection of names between Pele’s home, Mauliola and
Lohi‘au’s Halauaola. Mauliola means “breath of life, power of healing” (PED 242).
Halau is both “long house” and “numerous” (PED 52). Thus, Halauaola can mean
“h ou se o f life ” or “m any liv e s ” ; it is p o ssib ly a p oetic reference to L o h i‘au’s return to
life. While both names connote a similar meaning, they also have associations with
whom Pele and Lohi‘au are, as well as what they represent. As a primal generative force,
Pele as the creator of ‘aina is life as a regenerative force. Similarly, Kanahele (1990)
416
describes “the literal interpretation of Kllauea as ‘spewing and branching’” to describe its
volcanic activities, which she says can be poetically translated as “the fountaining and
spreading of life” (61). Halauaola, the house of life, could refer to the ti leaf-framed hale
H i‘iaka instructs Kahuanui ma to build in some versions of the mo‘olelo, which is where
she will restore Lohi‘au’s life. The reference to a halau evokes an association with hula,
Lohi‘au’s favorite activity at which he excels, as a halau hula is a dance troupe, or hall
for dance. For the true ‘olapa, hula itself is life; Kalakaua is widely quoted as
proclaiming hula “the heartbeat of the Hawaiian people.”
As stated in Mokuna 5, the abundance of place names contained in the Hawaiian-
language versions of the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo’olelo reflects a traditional Hawaiian poetic
sensibility which draws from the oral traditions and was firmly kept in place throughout
the development of Hawaiian literature; the Kanaka writers focus on wahi pana because
they are following traditional cultural protocol expressing aloha ‘aina. This is why
writers published versions of the mo‘olelo that had m o‘oku‘auhau or genealogical
connections to specific islands, because they are highlighting the wahi pana of their ‘aina.
There are different reasons why some of the wahi pana contained within the Pele
and Hi‘iaka mo'olelo are not found elsewhere. In some cases, they have been left off
modem maps, as the specificity of places has been more generalized (see Kimura 1983,
1 7 7 -179). In other p laces, they have b een transform ed, not alw ays to E nglish; som etim es
they have been incorporated into other names in the area, or changed for different
reasons: i.e. Ka‘ohao in Kailua, 0 ‘ahu was renamed “Lani Kai” by developers in the
1920s; Puna, Kaua‘i was renamed “Kawaihau” (Ice Water) in honor of a Glee Club
417
started by Prince Leleiohoku in the late 1900s (Pukui, Elbert and Mookini, 129, 98).
There are a great many scholars who have written about the transformation of place
names as being part of the colonial discourse of power. Houston Wood writes that this
transformation changed from:
. . . reflecting Hawaiian geographic thought to place names as representing
Western control of territory. Simultaneously, the language/order of the native
peoples is displaced and subordinated to that of the Western powers—British,
French, and Russian at first, but ultimately and overwhelmingly American. This
process is part of the greater economic, political, cultural, and discursive
transformation of the Islands since Western contact. Place names provide a means
by which this colonization of the Islands can be read .. . . [as they ] speak of a
final twist to this colonization. (6-7)
The re-naming, appropriation and transformation of place is just one aspect of
politics contained within the literature. The politics of place are not just between Kanaka
and haole, but also between different mo‘oku‘auhau. As Pele asserts her power over the
‘aina through volcanic eruption or by aiding Hi‘iaka in her battles clearing the land, they
are simultaneously displacing other akua. Thus the m o‘olelo themselves are sites of
struggle and con tested sites w ith in the H aw aiian paradigm of mo‘oku‘auhau politics as
well as within the colonial discourse of power dynamics.
418
MOKUNA 8
ALOHA KlLAUEA, KA ‘AINA A KE ALOHA (CONCLUSION): PELE’S APPEAL-
KANAKA VALUES FOR KANAKA MAOLI
‘O Kalalau pali ‘a‘ala ho‘i e Kalalau is indeed a frag rant cliff

Ke ako ‘ia a‘ela e ka wahine Plucked by the woman [Hi'iaka]
‘A ‘ala ka pali i ka laua‘e The cliffs are fragrant in laua'e
‘O Honopu i Waialoha Honopu at Waialoha
Aloha ‘oe la e. Greetings to you.
(Kapihenui, March 13,1862)
‘O Puna lehua ‘ula i ka papa; Puna with red lehua on the plain
I ‘ula i ka papa ka lehua o Puna: The lehua o f Puna bloom blood-red
Ke kui ‘ia maila e na wahine o ka Lua: The women o f the crater string lei
Mai ka Lua a‘u i hele mai nei, mai Kllauea. From the crater Fve come, from
Kilauea
Aloha Kllauea, ka ‘aina a ke aloha. Greetings Kilauea, land o f love.
(Emerson, 239)
The previous chapters of this dissertation opened with an oli from within the Pele
and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo which reflected the main theme or argument of each chapter.
Mokuna 7 began with a hulihia, an oli demonstrating the overturning of the pre-
established order of things. Thus, it seems fitting to huli the title of this concluding
chapter, named not for the first line of an oli, but its concluding line. I do this for several
reasons. First, I am drawing on two oli instead of one to set the foundation of this
chapter. There are interesting similarities and differences between each: both are five
lines in length, the central imagery of each is the plucking and stringing or weaving of lei.
“‘O Kalalau pali ‘a‘ala” comes from near the Ha‘ena area of Kaua‘i, and “‘O Puna lehua
‘ula i ka papa” from Puna, Hawai‘i, the homes of Lohi‘au and Pele respectively, and the
two main settings in the Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo. The Kalalau chant comes from
Kapihenui, the first m o‘olelo in a strand of the textual m o‘oku‘auhau of the Pele and
419
Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo, and the Puna chant from Emerson. While both oli are set on different
islands, are used in different contexts, and contain different imagery, they both share a
strong sentiment of aloha ‘aina, love for the land. “Aloha Kllauea ka ‘aina a ke aloha”
can be translated as both greetings to and love expressed to Kllauea, the land where love
is found, or the land of the beloved (Pele and/or Hi‘iaka).
The construction of a m o‘olelo is similar to making a lei. In each process, the
crafter selects the best material, carefully placing it in a desired pattern or order for a
particular effect. Lei, like m o‘olelo, are sometimes kapu to or representative of specific
occasions, places, or kanaka. Examples of such symbolism include the use of hala,
maile, and other hula-related forest plants mentioned throughout the Pele and Hi‘iaka
mo‘olelo to represent the beauty of the women and, to some extent, their association with
hula, as well as to evoke the beauty and power of their ‘aina. While today Kaua‘i is
often associated with maile, the laua‘e of the areas surrounding Ha‘ena are famous in
story, chant, and song, a more specific and appropriate metaphor for Lohi‘au’s ‘aina,
while the lehua is a strong symbol of the Pele ‘ohana and their ‘aina of Puna, Hawai‘i.
Like lei makers, the mea kakau and luna ho‘oponopono who selected mo‘olelo to
write and published in the Hawaiian-language newspapers had many choice before them.
Thus, I utilize these two oli because paired together, they suggest the interweaving of the
art and politics of the Pele and Hi'iaka m o‘olelo.
African American writer and scholar Toni Morrison has said that “the best art is
political” (Gates and McKay, 2094). Moreover, “[one] ought to make it unquestionably
420
political and irrevocably beautiful at the same time” (Gates and McKay, 2094). Haunani-
Kay Trask concurs. Discussing her own work (1999a), she writes that,
resistance to the strangulation of our people and culture is interwoven with a
celebration of the magnificence of our nation: the lavish beauty of our delicate
islands; the intricate relationship between our emotional ties to one another and
our ties to the land; the centuries-old ways of caring for the ‘aina (land), the kai
(sea), and, of course, the mana (spiritual power) that is generated by human
beings in love with, and dependent on, the natural world . . . [it] is both
decolonization and recreation (19).
Trask’s words are quite appropriate to describe the work of nineteenth-century
Kanaka Maoli mea kakau and luna ho‘oponopono who promoted our traditional and
newly created literature with a similar purpose, with one “slight” difference: Maoli of the
time weren’t trying to decolonize our literature. Rather, they were using our literature to
assert a cultural and political identity to resist colonization in the first place, as through
the stories we know our history. Perhaps the best literary vehicle showcasing their efforts
is the multiple versions of the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o’olelo.
In her work on Kalakaua’s Legends and Myths o f Hawaii (1888), Tiffany Ing
d iscu sses K alakaua’s p ub lication o f this ex ten siv e co llectio n o f traditional H aw aiian
mo’olelo in the larger political context of the time. She notes that the collection was
published after Kalakaua was forced to sign the Bayonet Constitution of 1887, although
“its publication cannot be interpreted exclusively as a response to that event” (2). Rather,
421
it is part of a much longer, much more extensive, royal political strategy to preserve
Hawaiian culture, “part of the Hawaiian monarch’s efforts to maintain sovereignty by
preventing H aw aii’s haole politicians from turning the kingdom over to the United
States” (2). Kalakaua’s efforts were not in isolation; there were a great number of
Kanaka writers contributing to the strategy of strengthening Kanaka culture and politics
by publishing m o‘olelo. The mea kakau who published their Pele and Hi‘iaka mo’olelo
were just as political and determined in their efforts to uphold and promote Kanaka
sovereignty and cultural values. Thomas King writes that “the magic of Native literature .
.. is not in the themes of the stories—identity, isolation, loss, ceremony, community,
maturation, home—it is in the way meaning is refracted by cosmology, the way
understanding is shaped by cultural paradigms” (112).
Silva (2004a) also explains that the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo’olelo is “intertwined
with the political resistance of the lahui” (21). She writes, “Reading the historical and
political intertextually with literature allows us to see how some of these processes work
and gives us a fuller understanding and appreciation of who the Kanaka Maoli of the time
were. It should also add to our collective understanding of the immense variety of
possible modes of resistance to colonialism” (28).
The publishing of the Pele and Hi’iaka m o’olelo in 1861 alone was a political act.
In the ind ependent press b egin n in g in the 1860s, “K anaka M aoli authors recorded stories
from the oral tradition, along with chants and genealogies, as well as their political views.
This began a tradition of counter-hegemonic action through newspaper writing and
publication that lasted well into the twentieth century.. . . It was in and through these
422
newspapers that Kanaka Maoli articulated the concept of ‘aloha ‘aina’” (Silva 2004d,17-
18). Chariot (1998) discusses the political aspect of the publishing of the mo‘olelo,
stating that:
[Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika] was the first [nupepa] to be published entirely by
Hawaiians without foreign, church, or government support. This caused a public
controversy in which the nationalist, nativist tendency of the paper was made
explicit. David Kalakaua, later king of Hawai‘i, was one of the editors, and the
great writer S. N. Hale‘ole a contributor. The publication of the first Pele and
Hi‘iaka series can therefore be considered part of the newspaper’s politico-
cultural program. (61-62)
A closer examination of the text, however, reveals additional layers of political
messaging. The Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo live on, surviving in a literary era in part
because of the numerous oli, mele, and hula contained within the mo‘olelo. This link to a
performative aspect of culture allowed the knowledge to survive during a time when the
actual practice of hula (in a sacred or culturally meaningful context) was forced
underground due to western suppression (see Silva 2004a). Publishing the chants in the
context of a mo‘olelo achieved several outcomes: it kept the knowledge alive in a more
p ublic con text, thus asserting a cultural d iscourse o f identity; it did so in a w ay w h ich the
haole did not identify as political, veiling the message of a hulihia discourse—one which
sought to uphold Hawaiian culture and politics and resist western colonization.
423
Aside from demonstrating a hulihia discourse which promoted Kanaka values, the
multiple published versions of the Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo also embody a makawalu
discourse. The makawalu discourse of multiple versions or perspectives is important to
note, as the different strands of mo‘olelo which offer competing or alternative
interpretations do not appear to conflict or create any sense of anxiety in the Kanaka
mind. Rather, as Silva (2004a) notes, Pukui acknowledges that “several versions of the
story seem to coexist peacefully in the shared consciousness of the people” (110).
While there were differences in how the mo‘olelo was presented, most included
introductions which demonstrated a desire to preserve and perpetuate Kanaka Maoli
traditions represented, in part by and in the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo. Kapihenui is, in
fact, an anomaly when it comes to not expressing an overt political intent in the
publication of the mo‘olelo. Kaili’s mo‘olelo contains a separate paragraph at its
conclusion which seeks to explain the purpose for publishing it. It is unclear if Kaili
wrote the concluding comments, or the editor(s) of the nupepa; it states in part:
As a legend of ancient Hawaii ‘Hiiaka’ has a value which students of ancient
Hawaiian history will most highly appreciate, although as an interesting and well
written narrative it will be highly prized by the general reader. From another point
of view the story has also an attraction; it was written by a Hawaiian native, and
to som e exten t sh o w s the d egree o f culture that has g iv en the H aw aii o f today a
high rank as the civilized peoples of the earth. (October 13, 1883)
424
Pa‘aluhi and Bush publish a very similar introduction to their mo'olelo, which
Chariot (1998) describes as, “makfing] clear the politico-cultural importance of such
publications” (62). There are enough similarities between the Kaili text and the Pa‘aluhi
and Bush (A) to speculate that some of what Pa‘aluhi and Bush include in their
introduction came from Kaili. They write, in part:
The legends and epic tales of the ancient times of our ancestral land were
indeed very beautiful and truly enjoyable, something of Hawai‘i that needs to be
cherished like the delights of every nation in their stories, tales, and songs of their
lands. This loss and misinterpretation of our legends is an omen for us to look
deep within and address our concerns about the longevity of this nation built upon
the soil of our ancestors, because we must continue to publish the true stories of
the lands written about in our legends. The story’s authenticity written in this
legend will always be known. It won’t be long, however, that the existence of our
nation will be lost with disbelief and they’ll celebrate gleefully and with great
excitement in stories and music of all kinds, they’ll tell the youth the reason to
uphold our intimate and fond attachment to our revered land due to the evolution
of our stories and our chants about her birthplace, notable sites and prominent
heroic deeds of her ancestors.
W ith th ese bits o f exp lanations and its purpose, our heartfelt loyalty to the land
is exhibited through our in depth understanding of our ancestors’ intent, not the
kind that inspires sorrow and ill-feelings, but the kind that remains true to the
original oral tradition with its beautiful expression and specific word selection of
425
the epic and chants in which we articulate its longevity and sustainability.1 (see
Appendix 5E for Hawaiian text; translation by Ioane Ho‘omanawanui and myself)
In the time of primary orality, our Kanaka kupuna created mele, oli, hula, and
m o‘olelo as vehicles to carry their thoughts, values, histories, mo‘oku‘auhau, traditions
and culture to subsequent generations. Many of these m o‘olelo and related poetic and
performative genres celebrate our ‘aina, and kanaka attitudes and intimate relationships
with ‘aina, the foundation, as Pa‘aluhi and Bush so eloquently write, upon which our
lahui, our nation is built. The nineteenth century writers who look the time to record and
publish these beautiful and eloquent m o‘olelo ma ka palapala created a cultural treasure
which links Kanaka today to our kupuna of the past. Unfortunately, much of the
concerns expressed by the Kanaka writers over a century ago are still with us. They were
concerned about the loss and misinterpretation of Hawaiian mo‘olelo; this fear continues
today. With a more global culture and the advent of the internet, misinterpretation and
misappropriation of Hawaiian culture and mo‘olelo is even more rampant. Websites such
as sacred-texts.com, for example, promote texts such as Emerson and Westervelt as
“sacred” and thus authoritative interpretations of Hawaiian history, culture, thought and
practice.
One avenue these earlier mea kakau utilized to express aloha ‘aina—loyalty to the
land—was through writing and publishing the mo‘olelo, which they felt helped them
have a deeper understanding of Hawaiian traditions and the intent of our kupuna in
1The first part of the complete introduction is found in Mokuna 5. Pa‘aluhi and Bush, January 5, 1893.
426
composing the oral traditions from which these written mo‘olelo are derived. They
desired to capture the beauty and complexity of the original chants in order to articulate
longevity and sustainability, not just in the m o‘olelo, but of the lahui. This desire to
understand, preserve, and perpetuate traditional knowledge contained in the Pele and
H i‘iaka m o‘olelo, and build upon it to support and sustain the lahui today and into the
future is important to Kanaka Maoli scholars and cultural practitioners today as well.
The mea kakau of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries valued the lyrical beauty
of na m o‘olelo, and would probably be excited to see them come alive once more in
dynamic hula performances across and beyond the pae‘aina. They probably never had
the chance to hear a kumu hula or halau chant “Kunihi ka mauna” or “Ke lei maila” in the
forests collecting maile or palapalai for a performance as we so often do today. We, too,
are concerned about the longevity of the texts and their application for future generations.
While we must compete with video games and DVDs for the attention of our ‘opio, our
nineteenth century kupuna would marvel at the speed and ease of modem computer and
digital technology which makes the preservation of and accessibility to the m o‘olelo
much easier than anything they might have dreamed.
H a ‘in a ‘ia m ai ana ka P u a n a (C o n c l u s io n )
The examples given throughout this dissertation are but a small sampling to
illustrate the larger waiwai of cultural ‘ike contained within the Pele and H i‘iaka
mo‘olelo. Collectively, these examples illustrate some of the values, as represented by
All
practices, skills, and themes specific to Kanaka Maoli culture, and not just in the
traditional time period they are set in. Chariot (1998) notes that:
The vast Pele literature is clearly an important resource for the study of Hawaiian
culture, containing a wealth of details on such subjects as household customs,
hula, rituals, and the life of the separated soul. Moreover the history of Hawaiian
thinking can be followed on important subjects from classical times until those of
the composition of the series. Most important, the Pele literature attests to the
fundamentally religious and esthetic character of Hawaiian culture: Pele has
constantly inspired great works of music, dance, and literature. The quality of the
art attests to the power of the god. (73)
The multiple publication of these mo‘olelo in the nineteenth and early twentieth-
century Hawaiian-language nupepa, by multiple authors demonstrates their cultural,
literary, and political value to our more immediate Kanaka Maoli ancestors of that
historical period. Because mo‘olelo inherently implies both story and history, there is an
entertainment and educational value built into these mo‘olelo for a Kanaka audience. It
is through the mo‘olelo which they—and we—can learn about cultural practices and
values in a way which is also enjoyable, and this is why the writers and editors took the
time to present and explain different actions, elements, cultural practices, vocabulary
words, place names, etc. contained within the m o‘olelo, as well as why they presented
multiple scholarly and comparative versions of it. Said (1993) reminds us of the
importance of stories. He writes:
428
[Stories are] the method colonized people use to assert their own identity and the
existence of their own history. The main battle in imperialism is over land, of
course; but when it came to who owned the land, who had the right to settle and
work on it, who kept it going, who won it back, and who now plans its future—
these issues were reflected, contested, and even for a time, decided in narrative,
(xii-xiii)
From a Native American perspective, Thomas King states that “the truth about stories is
that that’s all we are” (2). He quotes Okanagan storyteller Jeannette Armstrong who
says, “Through my language I understand I am being spoken to, I’m not the one
speaking. The words are coming from many tongues and mouths of Okanagan people and
the land around them. I am a listener to the language’s stories, and when my words form I
am merely retelling the same stories in different patterns” (2). The multiple telling and
retelling of Pele and Hi‘iaka mo’olelo in many forms—through the performance of oli,
mele and hula, or through being recorded on the page—is analogous.
Ultimately the question arises—what is Pele’s appeal to Kanaka Maoli?
Moreover, are the values and practices exhibited in the mo‘olelo as important or
meaningful to a western audience as they are for a kanaka one? The answer varies from
individual to individual and across time. Certainly men like Emerson and Westervelt
were interested enough in Hawaiian antiquities—folklore and mythology in particular—
to collect, attempt to decipher, and explain them. Perhaps there are scholars, tourists, and
others in between who are interested to learn more about H aw aii’s indigenous people,
429
our culture, and practices. Yet that being acknowledged, I ultimately believe the answer
to that question is a resounding no, for differing reasons.
Despite Emerson’s efforts, he lacked knowledge of what some of these practices
described above meant. Even when presented in a positive light with the best intentions,
Hawaiian m o‘olelo and the practices described within them have been devalued by the
mere classification of them as folklore and myth belonging to an ancient past with no real
relevance on the “modern” colonial world in which western science, technology, religion,
and practice take precedence. There is a purposeful devaluation of mo‘olelo because they
do not embody western ideas, concepts, or practices. This is exhibited in the most basic
ways, such as the fact that most haole versions of the m o‘olelo are written in English,
viewed by Americans at last as a “superior” language to ‘olelo Hawai’i. This alone
demonstrates the lack of knowledge or sense of caring toward what Kanaka Maoli hold
valuable. That being said, it is almost inevitable that Emerson would reframe the
mo‘olelo to promote western concepts of (epic) literature, highlight episodes, characters,
or elements in the story which he would find interesting or appealing to an American or
European audience.
The disappearance of long, serialized epics after the last Hawaiian-language
nupepa folded speaks to the change in power dynamics. How did colonization affect the
production of Hawaiian literature? From 1861 through the 1920s, there was a great
flowering of Hawaiian literature which ended in part because of the ban on Hawaiian
language in the schools. With a sharp decline in readership, Hawaiian mana‘o—
expressed so eloquently and passionately for the century prior ma ka ‘olelo Hawai‘i in the
430
indigenous mother tongue—no longer flourished. Around the 1930s, Hawaiian literature
in any form literally vanished for approximately three decades. It wasn’t until the
Hawaiian Renaissance of the 1960s—inspired in part by the Civil Rights movement
across the United States and as part of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement—that
Hawaiian literature, in a new contemporary form, emerged. While the long serialized
Pele and Hi‘iaka epic seemed lost to antiquity, it still influenced contemporary poets and
writers, like Haunani Kay-Trask, whose creative and academic work draws on the images
of these illustrious ancestors, as well as from their ancestral strength. While most
Hawaiian writers today compose in English, Hawai‘i Creole English (HCE), and to a
more limited degree, Hawaiian, where the presence of Pele and Hi‘iaka is most felt is in a
return to the performative origins of hula. From backyard hula to the Merrie Monarch
stage to venues around the world the Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo lives through the
performance of selected oli, mele and hula choreographed, practiced, and presented by a
myriad of halau hula.
This happened, in part, because for Kanaka, Pele and Hi‘iaka are ancestors, a
connection to the ancient past and our deeply held cultural traditions still with us, evident
all around us today in our ‘aina, elements of nature, and cultural practice such as hula.
They are the epitome of hope. They inspire.
Chariot (1998) argues that Pele is not a role model for human behavior; “a
number of women activists have spoken of Pele as a model for their conduct, a decidedly
unclassical practice. Human beings are not permitted to act like gods” (58). Kanaka
Maoli women who are also leaders, scholars, and cultural practitioners, however, address
431
this issue in different ways. Some, like Mary Kawena Pukui and Pualani Kanaka‘ole
Kanahele claim genealogical lineage to Pele, as do I. Thus, Pele is indeed a role model
because she is a kupuna, an ancestor who sets a foundation for na pulapula (the
descendants); it is not a matter of “activist” status, or wanting to behave “like gods.”
Furthermore, as stories provide a guide to human behavior and social structure (as does
religion, and in extension, stories of gods in that religion), na mo‘olelo, particularly of
akua and ali‘i, do indeed provide inspiration for kanaka conduct. Silva (2004a) addresses
this aspect of the mo‘olelo as one reason the publishing of traditional mo‘olelo such as
the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo was important:
Both HViaka and Kawelo are stories filled with details of the ancient religion:
prayers to the ancient gods and details of appropriate ceremonies and sacrifices.
It is not an accident that these same two epics had also appeared in 1861 in Ka
Hoku o ka Pakipika .. . because they are both particularly inspiring hero epics.
Both 1861 and 1893-1913 were times when the Hawaiian culture and language
were under serious attack. Hi‘iaka is a hero: when mo‘o, sharks, or anything
threatens human beings, she dispatches them mercilessly; she also heals people of
illnesses and injuries . . . Both hero stories are inspiring for the people—one for
women, and the other for men. (26)
In an article on Mana Wahine Week celebrating the strengths and
accomplishments of Maori women, Glenis Philip-Barbara, of Ngati Rangi descent,
432
writes, “Is it any wonder that having come from such [strong] women that Tairawhiti2
women are leaders, creators and innovators well worth celebrating and acknowledging”
(Philip-Barbara 2005). Kanaka Maoli women, too, come from such strong women,
sometimes named by them, sometimes named in honor of their memories. Pukui
acknowledges that “even today” there are “living descendants” of such illustrious figures,
including “Pele and Hi‘iaka and many other ‘aumakua (ancestral Persons embodied in
Nature) [who] have their namesakes amongst living descendants of their lineage” (Pukui
and Handy, 35).
Pele and Hi‘iaka continue to inspire our contemporary scholars, leaders, thinkers
and writers who memorialize and remember them in our own academic and creative work
(see Trask 1994, 2002; Ho‘omanawanui 1998; ‘Oiwi vols. 1-3). Not just role models of
human behavior, their essence of mana wahine—their femininity, beauty, and power are
part of the “rope of resistance” of contemporary literature Trask (1994) has written so
eloquently about which allows us to be a wa‘a, a vehicle transporting the meanings of
these m o‘olelo to subsequent generations (55). One example is from poet Brandy Nalani
McDougall, entitled “Pele”:
I was bom in red, a fire call beneath
the water, lava shooting from the earth,
blood spilled over like a river calling
forth ku‘u pu‘u in the waiting sea.
2 Tairawhiti is a region of Aotearoa (New Zealand) located on the East Coast of the North Island; the main
town is Gisborne (www.healthpac.govt.nz/moh.nsf/UnidPrint/MH966).
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission of th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
I was bom beneath, before sound, restless
for the kupukupu in its quiet
breath, falling to the black basalt in sleep,
for the tide and its lei of salted steam.
I was bom in red, the incendiary bloom
of the waiting sun turning in my womb,
its ‘iewe spun in fire, blackened
in the heat of my throat’s vibration—
The first word is mine.
The last word is mine.
(McDougall, forthcoming)
McDougall’s poem speaks to Pele’s eternal nature; she is lava, creation from the
beginning. She is still creating, active at Kllauea, uninterrupted for over two decades; the
formation of Lo‘ihi, a new island off the south-east coast of Hawai‘i island will continue
long after we are gone. H i‘iaka will grace the ‘aina with her healing presence, causing
the stark lava landscape to once again flourish with vegetative life. The spiral of time
and interweaving of elements continues.
A central metaphor of Maori literature is the spiral, where the mo‘olelo spins and
circles in upon itself, the past, present and future intertwined in a very indigenous, non
linear manner where the end is the beginning, and the beginning is the end (Sullivan, 12-
13). I have introduced Kanaka metaphors of the haku lei and the wa‘a as appropriate to
434
discussing Hawaiian literature, with the Pele and Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo as a selected example.
The haku lei functions metaphorically in a way that is similar to the spiral image; once
the lei is complete, it is typically turned back on itself, forming a complete and unbroken
circle. The haku lei is also composed of different strands which are tightly woven in an
intricate pattern; any material may be used, because what gives the lei beauty, value, and
strength is the regular pattern and tight weave of the lei. It is appropriate to huli the lei
upon its completion to join its own origin, and so I end with a mele pule collected by
Pukui. This prayer for Pele speaks of Pele’s canoe which has weathered the storms of
Puna. It is also appropriate to end with the wa‘a metaphor. As Maori poet and scholar
Robert Sullivan has written, the wa‘a is a vehicle, an image he uses quite beautifully
throughout his collection of poems Star Waka (1999). W a‘a carry Pele as she travels to
Hawai‘i from Kahiki, and H i‘iaka as she travels from Hawai‘i to Kaua‘i. Similarly, the
m o‘olelo itself is a wa‘a, transporting cultural knowledge across the ocean of time and
space mai ka po mai, from the distant past originating in night with Kumulipo to ka lahui,
the nation today.
Ku‘u wa‘a e, holo ku‘u wa‘a My canoe—my canoe sails on,
Holo ku‘u wa‘a palolo i ka ‘ino o Puna e It sails and weathers the storms o f
Puna
‘O Puna ka ‘aina noho a ka wahine, Puna is the land where the Woman
dwells,
Wahine i ka ‘iu o na mauna. The Woman who dwells on the
summit o f the mountains.
435
Nona ka wa‘a i ‘ike ia, Her canoe is very well known,
I ho‘okele kapu ia e ke kaikunane, It was steered with kapu by her
brother.
Ua ‘ike a. This is so.3
(Pukui and Handy, 130-131)
E huahua‘i, e huahua‘i e!
He inoa no H i‘iakaikapoliopele
KA HOPENA
3 Pukui notes that her kumu Keahi Luahine from Kaua‘i told her this story about this mele, “One of her
tutu, a very large man, always used this mele pule. When her brother went out to catch turtles at Wanini, he
used to stand to one side of the door of the house and chant this until the boys returned. It was an old, old
mele for Pele” (Pukui and Handy, 131). Ua ‘ike a is explained by Pukui as “like the amama ua noa of the
pule; it is like the period at the end of a sentence, and a mele is not complete without it” (Pukui and Handy,
131).
APPENDIX IA
A COMPARISON CHART OF HAWAIIAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE PELE AND HPIAKA MO‘OLELO 1861 -1928
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
author: B. Kalaia- Kapihenui K a ‘awaloa Kaili P a ‘aluhi & P a‘aluhi & M anu
hauola Bush (A) Bush (K)
newspaper KHH KHP KHP PCA KLL KLL KLK
dates: 1860 1861-1862 1862 1883 1893 1893 1899
July4, August Dec. 26, 1861 - Oct. 10, 1862 Aug. 25 - Oct. Jan. 5 - Jan. Jan. 31 - July May 13 -
14, 1869 July 17,1862 13, 1883 30, 1893 12, 1893 Dec. 30, 1899
language Hawaiian Hawaiian Hawaiian English Hawaiian Hawaiian Hawaiian

pages /word count1 5 /2 ,0 0 0 112/61,000 10/6,000 19 /13,000 8/11,000 * 49 / 33,000
number of chants: 10 288 (302) 18 16 19 270 48
introduction: yes yes no no yes yes yes
kumu mamo no no yes yes yes no yes
migration sequence no no no no yes no yes
characters 6 202 7 43 187 18
wahi pana 55 473 8 82 412 235
editor/publisher R. & S. Kalakaua, G. Kalakaua, G. W.M. Gibson J.E. Bush J.E. Bush; J. D. W.
Armstrong, J. Mila Mila Nawahi Kalilikane
Fuller (Pula)
association Dept, of Public royal royal pro-annexation pro-Hawaiian pro-Hawaiian Hui
Instruction Kalai‘aina
place published Honolulu Honolulu Honolulu Honolulu Honolulu Honolulu Honolulu
KHH: Ka Hae HawaVi
KHP: Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika (He M o‘olelo no H i‘iakaikapoliopele [A Story of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele])
PCA: Pacific Commercial Advertiser (Hi‘iaka: A Hawaiian Legend of a Hawaiian Native; A Legend of the Goddess Pele, her lover Lohi‘au, and Her Sister,
Hi'iakaikapoliopele)
KLL: Ka Leo o ka Lahui (He M o‘olelo no Hi‘iakaikapoliopele [A Story of Hi1iakaikapoliopele])
KLK: Ka Loea KalaVaina (He M o‘olelo Ka‘ao o ke Kaua Nui Weliweli ma waena ‘o Pelekeahi‘aloa a me Wakakeakaikawai [A Legend of a Terrible War
between Pele of the Eternal Fires and Waka of the Shadowy Waters])
1Page and word count listed by typescript for all Hawaiian language nupepa except for Ho‘oulumahiehie 1905-1906, which is from the forthcoming
436
publication of this m o‘olelo by Awaiaulu Press (2007).
8 9 10 11 12 13
author: Ho ‘oulumahieie A Ho ‘oulumahieie B Ho ‘oulumahiehie C Rice A Poepoe Emerson
newspaper HA KNA KNA HOH KHR n/a
dates: 1905 1905-1906 1905-1906 1908 1908-1911 1915
July 15 - Nov. 24, Nov. 30,1905-D e c . Dec. 1, 1905 - Dec. May 21 - Sep. Jan. 10,1908
1905 30, 1906 30, 1906 10, 1908 -J a n . 20, 1911
language Hawaiian Hawaiian Hawaiian Hawaiian Hawaiian English

pages/word count 61 / 36,000 */ 273,2592 * 35/21,000 314/187,000 240/45,000
number of chants: 44 310 46 254 189
introduction: yes no no yes yes
kumu mamo yes n/a yes yes yes
migration sequence yes yes yes yes
characters 93 51 185 146
wahi pana 263 180 543 279
editor/publisher J. M. Poepoe J. M. Poepoe J. M. Poepoe S. Desha J. M. Poepoe Star-Bulletin
association ka Ahahui Hawaii pro-Hawaiian pro-Hawaiian pro-Hawaiian pro-Hawaiian pro-annexation
Lani Honua
place published Honolulu Honolulu Honolulu Hilo Honolulu Honolulu
HA: HawaVi Aloha (Ka Mo‘olelo o Hi'iakaikapoliopele [A Story of H i‘iakaikapoliopele])
KNA: Ka N a'i Aupuni (Ka M o‘olelo o Hi'iakaikapoliopele, ka Wahine i ka Hikina a ka La, a o ka U ‘i Palekoki ‘Uila o Halema‘uma‘u )
HOH: Hokii o HawaVi (He M o‘olelo no Pele a me Kona Kaikaina H i‘iakaikapoliopele [A Story of Pele and her Younger Sister, Hi‘iakaikapoliopele])
KHR: Ku'oko'a Home Rula (K aM o‘olelo Ka‘ao o H i‘iakaikapoliopele [A Story of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele])
KNK: Ka Nupepa Ku'oko'a (He Mo'olelo Ka‘ao o Hi'iakaikapoliopele)
Rice: “The Goddess Pele.” Hawaiian Legends. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1923.
Emerson: Pele and Hi'iaka, a Myth from HawaVi. Honolulu: Star-Bulletin, 1915
Kanahele: Holo Mai Pele. Honolulu: Edith Kanaka‘ole Foundation and Pacific Islanders in Communications, 2001.
437
2Mahalo to Puakea Nogelmeier and Kamaoli Kuwada for providing this information.
14 153 15 16 17 18 19
author: Rice B unknown Desha Pukui P ukui Pukui Kanahele
newspaper n/a KNK HOH KLK KNA KNK n/a
dates: 1923 1924 1925-1928 (1899) (1905-1908) (1924) 2001
n/a — Sep. 18,1925 - translation translation translation n/a
Jul 17, 1928 (m.s.) (m.s.) (m.s.)
language English Hawaiian Hawaiian English English English Hawaiian/
English
pages/word count 8 t.s. * * 39/* 611*
number of chants: 0 * 224 32
introduction: no * yes yes
kumu mamo no * yes yes
migration no * yes yes
sequence
characters 22 * * 18
wahi pana 48 * * 235
editor/publisher Bishop Whitney S. Desha Bishop Bishop Bishop EKF
Museum Museum Museum Museum
association * pro-annexation pro-Hawaiian HEN m.s. HEN m.s. HEN m.s. *
place published Honolulu Honolulu Hilo Honolulu Honolulu Honolulu Hilo
438
3 This text is rumored to exist, but has not yet been found. The dates allegedly containing this mo‘olelo are not available on microfilm reel or hardcopy.
APPENDIX IB
Mele Comparison Chart of all Mele listed in the Pele and H i‘iaka M o‘olelo
presented in alphabetical order
abbrev. Nupepa title author m o‘olelo title dates published
KHH Ka. Hae Hawai'i Hauola. B. 1860

KHP Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika Kapihenui, J.N. “He M o‘olelo no Hi‘iakaikapoliopele” 1861 - 1862
KHP2 Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika Ka‘awaloa, F. W. “He M o‘olelo no Manamanaiakaluea” 1862
PCA Pacific Commercial Advertiser Kaili (Emma Nakuina) “A Hawaiian Legend by a Hawaiian Native” 1883
KLL Ka Leo o ka Ldhui Pa'aluhi, Rev. Simeon & “He M o‘olelo no H i‘iakaikapoliopele” 1893
John E. Bush
KLK Ka Loea Kdlai 'aina Manu, Moses “He M o ‘olelo no Pelekeahi‘aloa a me W akakeakaikawai” 1899
HA Hawai'i Aloha H o‘oulumahiehie “H iiakaikapoliopele ka Wahine i ka Hikina a ka La, a o 1905
ka U ‘i Palekoki ‘Uila o H alem a'um a‘u”
KNA Ka Na ‘i Aupuni H o‘oulumahiehie “H i‘iakaikapoliopele ka W ahine i ka Hikina a ka La, a o 1905-1906A
ka U ‘i Palekoki ‘Uila o Halem a‘um a‘u”
KNA Ka N a ‘i Aupuni H o‘oulumahiehie “H iiakaikapoliopele ka Wahine i ka Hikina a ka La, a o 1906B
ka U ‘i Palekoki ‘Uila o Halem a‘um a‘u”
KHR Kii ‘oka ‘a Home Rula Poepoe, Joseph M. “Hi ‘iakaikapoliopele” 1908
HOH Hoku o Hawai'i Rice, William Hyde “Pele a me Kana Kaikaina H i‘iakaikapoliopele” 1908
NBE Pele and Hi'iaka, a myth from Emerson, Nathaniel B “Pele and H i‘iaka a myth from H a w a ii” 1915
Hawai'i
HOH Hoku o Hawai'i Desha, Stephen, ed. “H i‘iakaikapoliopele ka Wahine i ka Hikina a ka La, a o 1928
ka U ‘i Palekoki ‘Uila o Halema‘uma‘u”
KEY:
MVL = episode moved to earlier in the text tha n in o ther \ ersions NO = not in text
MVL = episode m in ed to later in the text th an in other versions V = variation (significant)
light or auge color indicates move red color indicates I ’m not sure which text the episode belongs to
m = issues missing from microfilm or unavailable A = P a ’aluhi and Bush (A) (pre-Kapihenui text)
Color of text indicates which mo‘olelo it first appears in, i.e. black = Kapihenui, dark blue = Pa'aluhi and Bush, etc.
439
KHH KHP KHP2 PCA KLL KLK HA KNA KNA KHR HOH NBE HOH
! 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 11 i2 13
1. A Hana au i ka palena o ka aina / He X
‘kua Kona
2. A he waiwai no ko ka hale o kuu X
aloha / Nou no ka hewa, i ke kipaole
ana mai a
3. A hoea kaua i ka pili o ke ao / X
Hoolale ke aloha i ka pili o ke aoao
4. A holo e a holo la /A holo olua la X X X
5. A Honomaela au i Honokalani /Ik e X X
a u ik a u a o kouaina
6. A Honopu au i Waialoha / 0 kuu wai X X X X X
lele hunahuna
7. A ia la i ka naula ka makani o Niihau X
/ Ke kuehu mai la i ke one o Halalii
8. A ka imu lei lehua o Kuaokala / X x3
Lehua maka nou i ke ahi
9. A ka lae ohia i Papalauahi / [I] ka X X X X
ulu [lei] lehua o Kuaokala

10. A ka lai au i Makua / Iho e ka hau o x2
Kaiahi
11. A ka lima i Kilauea / A Wahine kapu i X x2 X
ka lua
12. A ka luna i Mokuaweoweo / Huai X
Pele i kona kino
13. A ka luna i Puuonioini/Noho ke X X X X X
anaina a ka wahine
14. A ka luna i Puuonioni /N o h o ke X X X
anaina a ke ‘kua
15. A ka makani kaiaulu lalo o Waianae / X
Ke wehe aku la i ka poli o ke hoa
440
16. A ka papa Kahulihuli au i X
Laupahoehoe / Hoehoe ana ka waa
lauahi o ka wahine
17. A ka ulu lehua au i Nunulu / X
Omakamaka ana ka lihilihi kuku oia
pua
18. A Kailua i ka M alam i/M oe e ka lau X X X
o ka ukiuki
19. A Kalaeokalaau / Pau ka pono a X X X
Ka hi kina
20. A Kalalau a Honopu / A Kee a X X
Nakoaola i ka pali la
21. A Kalalau a Kee /A k a pali au i X X
Haena
22. A Kalalau i Honoipu i Waialoha / A X
ka pali o Kee
23. A Kalihi au i ka hala o Hanalei /L e i X X X
au i ka hala o Pooka e, eia oe
24. A kanikaniaula ka leo o ka wahine / X
O Kaniaula. o Maheanu
25. A Kauiki i Puuokahi / 1 Kaihalulu X
26. A Kaunalewa i ke kaha a Limaloa / X X
Ako Mana i ka hale ohai
27. A kolou anei e uwe ana / E uwe no X
anei he keiki makua ole
28. A Kua/noo a Kane / A Ihiihilauakea X X
29. A Kukuilaumania au i Hilo / Nana X
aku au ia Waiakea la a hewa
30. A kulou anei e uwe ana / E uwe no X X
anei he keiki makuaole
-i^
31. A Limaloa i ke kaha / 0 Kaunalewa X X X
hoi e
32. A loko au o Mahiki / Halawai me ke X X
Akua okioki poo
33. A loko au o Panaewa / Halawai me X
ka puaa
34.
35. A loko au o Panaewa / Ike au i kini X
me ka mano o ke akua
36. A loko hoi o Panaewa / Halawai me X X
ka puaa
37. A luna au a Pohakea / Ku au nana ia X
Puna
38. A luna au i Waipio / Kilohi aku kuu X
maka ilalo
39. A luna au o Maunaloa / Ku au nana X
ia Makaukiu
40. A luna au o Pohakea/Ea ke poo o X X X
Kamaoha iluna
41. A luna au o Pohakea / Wehe ka ilio i X
kona kapa
42. A luna au o Pohakea / Kilohi aku kuu X X X
maka ia lalo
43. A luna au o Waipio / Kilohi aku kuu X X
maka ilalo
44. A luna i Wahinekapu / A Kilauea i ka X X X
lua, a lele e na hoalii
45. A makani Ahiu ana ai Kahana / X X X
Kakala i ka lauwili o Koolau
46. A makani Kaiaulu lalo o Waianae / E X X X X X X
wehe aku ana i ka poli o ka hoa
442
47. A makani kaiaulu lalo o Waianae / 0 X X
Kuaiwa i Pokai e
48. A makani kehau lalo ka Waiopua / X X X X X
Ko kekula naenae aala i ka kupukupu
49. A makani Kuamu lehua ko uka/K e X X X X X

hoowaawaa ae la
50. A makani pahele hala ko Mailehuna / X X X X X X
Ke wahi mai la ua malamalama [iki]
51. A makani pua ia lalo /M o e koa ka X X X X
huhu aia iloko hoi e

52. A maluna Hilo, ka huli ka amau / Ke X X
lumalumai na la e ka wai
53. A maulua i Laupahoehoe / Kani ka X
hoe a ka ua i ka laau
54. A Moolau i ka pua J O ka uhiuhi pala X x2 X
luhi ehu ihola
55. A Moolau / / ka pua o ka uhiuhi X X
helelei mai ana
56. A na hala o Naue i Haena [ke kai] / X X X
Hapapa hewa ka malihini ma

karnaka ole
57. A nana wale i kai o Puna e / 1 ka X
uluhala o Kookoolau e
58. A noho ana l a e / E X X
Kukamahunuiakea
59. A noho ana oe e Puukoae i kai e / 1 X
waa no maua
60. A noho ana / E na Hoaiku X X
61. A pa a nou ka makani o Kauai / X X X X
Puhia ka makani a Laa
443
62. A pa makani kaiauiu lalo o Waianae X X X
/ Wehe aku ana i ka lau o ka niu
63. A pala ka hala haalei o ke kaha / X X
Pauku i ka hala maka o Haiku e
64. A Panaewa moku lehua nui / 1 aina e X
ka makani a haoeoe / Kuoe mai ana
ke ala po iki
65. A pi a ka wai i ka onohi / Holoia i ka X X
lima
66. A p o Kilauea i ka ehu o ke kai / Kipu X
iho la i ka lau o ke ahi
67. A Pololikamanu ka wahine / Pahee X
ana i ka welowelo
68. A Puu'nue i na makani paio / Li'ii koi X X
ula ka lepo
69. A Puulena i Wahinekapu i pua e / A X X X
ilalo o Halemaumau e
70. A ua Apuakea kualau ma ka moana / X
Kiola ae la po na kuahiwi
71. A ua Liliiioe ehu wale i na pali / X X
Popo ke kapa a paa ma ka lima
72. A ua lilinoe i ka mauna / Ahu wale i X
na pali a he pali ke kai
73. A ua wai naulu ka uka o M an a /K e X X X
hahai la i ka li'ula o Kaunalewa
74. A uka au o Puna / Halawai me ke X X X X
akua
75. A waa lua na ale nalu hoouka uka / X
Popoi wiliau ka ale o ka moana

76. A wai konene i ke alanui / Ka puna i X
Komoaula
444
77. A Waiakea i Hilo Hanakahi / Ala i ka X X X X X
po iki, ka lei lehua o Hilo e
78. A Waianae a u / I k e i ka makani o X X
Kupehau
79. A Waikonene i ke alanui / Ka piina i X X X X
Komoaula
80. A ia aku ka pono ia oniula / X
Hooneenee mai e Kailiahi
81. Aia i loko hoi e / Hoi a ka lili i ka X
pua o ka wao
82. Aia i Mana ko lei nani / Ka ohai o X
Papiohuli &etc.
83. Aia i Punaluu ka‘u aloha / 1 ke kai X
k a ‘u liaa a ka malihini any how
84. Aia ka nani i Nuuanu / / ka ipu o X X
Lono, i ka holo a ke ahole

85. Aia ka waa i kai o Kalaau e / Ke X
paiia ae la e ka lawakua makani o ka
lae
86. Aia Kauai ke oni mai la i ka lae o X X
Kaena / Ke awala lua la na ale

hooukauka
87. Aia la i ka naulu ka makani o Niihau X X
/ Ke kuehu mai la i ke one o Halalii
88. Aia la leleiwi o Makahanaloa / Oni X
ana ka lae Ohia

89. Aia la na lehua i Alakai / 0 au lehua X
ula i k a‘na e ka manu
90. Aia la na wahine ke nonoho la i X X
Mahinui / Ke nana la i na wahine
noho wai o Kawainui
445
91. Aia la o Leleiwi, o Makahanaloa / X X
Oni ana ka lae ohia
92. Aia no ka makani / Ke hoa la iluna X
93. Aia no ke 4kua la i uka / Ke hoa la i X
ka papa a enaena
94. Aia no ke ahi a ka wahine i uka / ke X
ai maila ia Puuonioni
95. Aia no ke ahi la i ka maile / Ke a X
huila mai i luna o Makuaiki
96. Aia no ke kua la i uka / Ke hoa la i ka X

papa a enaena
97. Aia no ke ‘kua la i uka /K e ai la ia X X
Puuonioni
98. Aia no ke ‘kua la i uka/K e h o ‘a la i X X X
ka papa aenaena
99. Aia no la ke ahi i ka mauna / He ahi X
na ka noho kuahiwi
100. Aia o Honopuwailehua ke kau mai la X
/ Ke lele mai la iluna me he opua la
101. Aia o Naue i ke kai la e la / Haa lev/a X
na hala i ke kai la e la
102. Aia oe e Kaliuwaa i ka uka / Noho no X
a lipo i ke anu
103. Ako na nai maka i Wawaenohu e / X X X
Me he nanai hale la Kaula i ke kai
104. Ala wela Lihue nopu no iluna / O k a X X X X
pouu koa naewa mai ke oho
105. Alia oe e ka Bea. hukihulu—Banzai! / X X
E hooni mai ia lapcma uitkit—
Banzai!
446
106. Aloha [wale] na hale o makou i X X x2 X X X x2
makamaka ole / Ke aia hele mauka o
Hull wale la e
107. Aloha [wale] olua e Puukapolei ma / X X
E na Wahineokamao mao
108. Aloha au i ke kalukalu o kewa / Kela X X
mauu nolupe aala lipoa

109. Aloha au o Mahiki / Me he ku ana la X
na ke koi ula
110. Aloha ka hau o K a a la /O ia hau X X X
halihali aala mauu nene

111. Aloha ka ia lamalama o kuu aina / X
Mai Kahului no a Waihee e
112. Aloha ka i ‘a lamalama o ka aina / Ke X X
lama ia maila
113. Aloha ka leo o ka wai e hea mai nei / X X
E hoolaau mai ana i ka hana lalahu
a ke kino
114. Aloha kou hoa i ka ua puakukui / X X X
Kui lehua o Moeawakea
115. Aloha kou hoa i Puali / 1 ka wai o X
Pohakea, he luna o Kanehoa
116. Aloha kou h o a /Ik a lehua [ula o ] X X
Puna
117. Aloha kuu hoa i ka Puali la /A luna i X X
Pohakea, he luna o Kamaoha
118. Aloha na hala o makou i uka o Kaliu X X X X X
/ I k e alo iho o puu kahea la
119. Aloha o Maui, aloha e / Aloha o X
Molokai, aloha e
120. Aloha Oahu e! / E huli ana makou i X
ka aina mamua aku
447
121. Aloha oe e Leinono, e Kinimakalehua X X X
/ E Kealia i lalo, e aloha
122. Aloha olua e Kaena a me X X X
Pohakuokauai / E noho mai la i ka

lae kahakai ai ole
123. Aloha olua e na wahine o ke kula / X
Oia kula anea i ka La
124. Aloha olua / E o ‘u man kaikuaana i X X X
ke kai nei e
125. Aloha wale / E Kalani e X X
126. Aloha wale e K apahi/E ka uka o X X
Lalea ma e
127. Aloha wale hoi olua e na wahine e / X X X
E na wahine noho kuahiwi noho
kualono e
128. Aloha wale ka nikiniki / Ke kanaenae X X X X
pua o Mailehuna
129. Aloha wale ka pali o Koloa / Ke aia X
huli i Waihanau la
130. Aloha wale ka pali o Pinanai / Ka lae X X
iliili makai o Honomanu e
131. Aloha wale Puna, aina paia aia i ka X
hala1
132. Ana Apuakea, Kualau ma ka moana / X
Kiola ae la po na kuahiwi
133. Ani peahi mai la ka ehu a ka wai / X
Hoohauoli ana i ka manao e lealea
iho
134. Ani peahi na lima o Hualalai / Ke X
kahoaka i Mailehahei
1This is not the first line, it is the second line; first line unreadable due to poor copy.
448
135. Anu Ewa i ka ia hamau leo / E X
hamau hoi e
136. Aohe e make kuu alii ia oe / Ke hai X X x2
mai nei na akua wahine oia nei
137. Aohe e make kuu alii ia oe /K e hoole x3 x3
mai nei na akua kane [o ia nei]
138. Aohe e make kuu alii oa oe / Ke x2 x2 X
hoole mai nei na akua wahine
139. Aohe i wehewehea/Aohe waiho a X X
kona po
140. Aohe ia e kuu haku e X
Hiiakaikapoliopele / He Alaihi ka Ia
141. A ohe ike wale iho ia Waka / I ka X
lawe e iilo a uila
142. A ohe kala i make ai / Ua pua ia na X
iw i
143. A ohe make kuu alii ia oe / Ke hoole X
mai nei na akua kane o ia nei
144. Aohe make kuu alii ia o e /K e hoole X X
mai nei na akua
145. Aohe make kuu alii ia o e /K e hoole X X X
nei na akua wahine oia nei
146. Aole ae nei ke kane/H e hoa pili no X X X
ke ahiahi
147. A ole au e hele i ke kaha o Kaupea / 1 X
na ohai o Kanehili i kaupea
148. A ole au e hele i ke kaha o Kaupea / X
Kela kaha kupakoili a ka La i ke kula
149. Aole au e hele i na lae ino o Koolau X
/ I na lae makani o Moeau
150. Aole e make kuu alii ia oe / Ke hoole x2 X
mai nei na 'kua wahine o ia nei
449
151. Aole e make kuu alii ia o e /K e hoole x3 x3
mai nei na Akua kane oia nei
152. Aole wahi hemahema i koe o X
Hoohila / Ua ana kapuai lima ia ka
loa a me ka laula
153. Apuakeanui wahine maikai /1 X X X
hoohalikelike ia o kau maikai

154. Au ana Mokolii i ke kai / Ua hele a X
puaneiea ke kanaka
155. Au ma ka hula ana /Kaikoo ka pali X X X
156. Au mai hoi e / E au wale mai ana no X
kona mau maka aloha iau nei
157. Auhea oe e Keahiwela / Eia mai ho‘i X
keia wahi kaikamahine
158. Auhea oe e Manamanauakaluhea e / X
Eia ho‘i au ke huai aku nei ia oe
159. Auhea olua e na wahine malihini e / X
Kukuku mai, haele mai, auau mai
160. Auhea wale oe e ka kauwila / Laau X X
hooulu, hooni kino
161. Auhea wale oe e ka nehe la / E ka X
lole pii o Kaleponi la
162. Auhea wale oe e kapu kilipohe i ka X
hano / 0 ka ipu ia, o Huleilua a ka
eha koni
163. Auhea wale oe e Kahalia / E ke ano X
aloha i hiki maila
164. Auhea wale oe e ke aloha wela / Pio X
ole i ka wai e kahe nei
165. A uwe kou haule ana mai ka lani mai X X
/ E ka Hoku Loa, ke keiki a ke
Kakahiaka
450
166. Auwe kuu keiki e / Mai Puna ho‘i X
olua i hele mai nei
167. Auwe kuu keiki hoi e / Poaha kuu x2
keiki i ka lepo
168. Auwe no hoi kuu make e / E holo no X
au e make no ia olua
169. E aha ana olua e / E na wahine moe X X
wai e
170. E Aka e Kilioeikapua e /N a wahine X X X
kapa ole e nenee wale nei
171. E aia e aia e aia e / E aia e X X X
Hikapokuakini
172. E aia e aia e e aia e eala e M ahianu/ X X X X
E aia e Mahialani
173. E aia e aia e hooalalahia / E aia ae oe X
e moe loa nei
174. E aia e aia e ka ua / E ka la e ka ohu X
kolo i ke kai
175. E aia e aia e / E aia e Hikaalani X X x
176. E aia e Hiiakaikapoliopele / E aia e X
Hiiakaikaalei
177. E aia e ka Pele pi / E aia e ka Pele pa X
178. E aia no ka maile / Laulii o Koiahi X
179. E aia / E aia e ka ua X X
180. E aloha ae ana au i kuu haku / E X X
kalokalo ae ana au i kuu akua
181. E a l o h a ae a n a a u i k u u h a k u / E k a u x2
k o l o ae a n a a u i k u u a k u a
182. E aloha u auanei aloha wale / Ko X
uhane opua i ka lai
183. E ano wale mai ana no ka lua iau / 1 X
ka mahu haalele wale no
Ux
184. E Halulu e! / 0 ka manu kani halau X X
185. E Hapuu [laua me] Kalaihauola e / X X X
E na wahine nonoho Koolau
186. E hea i ke kanaka e komo maloko / X
E hanai ai a hewa ae ka waha
187. E Hiiakaikapoliopele e / E kii mai oe X
e hana hou i na wawae o maua
188. E Hiiakaikapoliopele e / E kii mai oe X X
ia maua
189. E Hiiakaikapoliopele e / E kii mai oe X x2 X
ia maua e
190. E Hiiakaikapoliopele e / E kipa eia X X
ka hale eia ka ai
191. E Hiiakauionamoku / E X
Hiiikapoliopele
192. E Hiikua e Hiia'io / E HU i ke aka o 100 X X
ke kakahiaka
193. E holo ana e ka noe / E ka awaawa X
194. E ka houpo o Kane / Eia ka mauli oia X X
195. E ka mauli o i a / E ka mauli oia o X X
Kane o Ku a me Lono
196. E ka pua o ka ilima e / Homai ana X X X
hoi he oia
197. E Kaleiehu e Paukukalo e /H e alapii X X X
na ka mai kane
198. E Kane e Kane / E Kani i ka wai oia X X
199. E Kapo wahine a Puanui / Aikane a X X
Waihinano
200. E Kauakahimahikulani ma e / A pala X
ka hala haalei ma ke kaha o Makaoku
201. E Kauilanuimakaehaikalani e / E X
Kamohoalii
452
202. E kii ka ohe i Homaikaohe / Eia ka x3
ohe laulii a Kane
203. E kini e hiki i Kauai i kou aina / O X X X
koa makaiwa o Halawa
204. E koa waa E koa waa / E ka waa o X X
kuu man kaikunane

205. E ku au e hele e / Haliu kuu maka i X
hope
206. E k u a u e hele e/L a u ka maka X X X X
auanei ino
207. E ku e ka e Wahineomao e / O ke X X
kane ia moe ia
208. E Ku i ke kala / E Lono i ka uweke X X
kala
209. E Kukuena wahine i ke okooko o ke X
ahi / Eia ka alana, ka mohai
210. Ekukulu i ka ohia a laa la / O ka ape X X
aumoa ka hiwa uli
211. E kukulu i na ohe ki wai a kaua i ka X
lani / Kikiopu ana i Kauakaopua
212. E kulou anei e uwe ane / E uwe no X X
anei he keiki inakua ole
213. E kuu aikane i ke kai hee o Hoeu X X
maloko / O Awili mawaho i kai
popolo o Kalaloa
214. E kuu kane e / He leo e wale hoi kou X X X
215. E lawe i kou mai / Ka maka hia a X
216. E lei ana ke kula o Keehumoa i ka X X
mao / Ohuohu wale na wahine kui lei
o kanahele
217. E Lohiau ipo e / 1 ke kaunu pali o X X X
Kee
4^
Ul
u>
218. E Lohiau ipo i ka pali o Kee / Eia hoi X X
au o Hii
219. E Lohiauipo e / Kuu hoa ipo i ka lihi X X X
pali o Haena
220. E Lono e Lono e Lonokulani / E Lono X X X
noho i ka wai
221. E Makapuu nui kua ke a u e / Nana X X X
maua moe o Malei e
222. E na Wahineokamao ma / E nonoho X
mai la i noho wale ai
223. E nihi ka hele i ka uka o Puna / Mai X
ako i ka pua
224. E noho ana na lehua o Luluu / Kuu X X
inoku lehua i uka o Kalua la e
225. E nu kei / E hamau ka leo X
226. E o e mauna i ka ohu ka pali /K aha X X
ka leo o ka ohia e
227. E o e O / E o h o i e / E kuu kane hoa X
pili o ka loa
228. E oia ka lani ka omeci lani / Ka la X X
uhu lani, ka la kau ehu
229. E Pahululawaianuiokai e / Ho mai X
ana hoi ua i ‘a
230. E Panaewa moku lehua nui / Mai alai X
i ke aia o ke kamahele
231. E Pele i Honuamea / Ka wahine i ka X
Houpo a Kane
232. E Piliamoo a ka apuapa e / Eia au o X X
Hiiakaikapoliopele e
233. E Pohakuokauai e / 1 waa no maua X
234. E Pohakuokauai hoi / Ho mai hoi ua X
waa no maua
454
235. EPohakuokauai i kai e / A p o Kaena X X X
i na pali
236. E pono ai oe /' Pono ai X
237. E P u h iu la e /A me Puhipakapaka hoi X X
238. E Punahoa i Kaipalaoa / Ina maka o X X X
Nanakila ma
239. E Puniu la / A me Puhikapakapaka X
hoi
240. E uwe mai ana iau e alaila mai ana ia X
oe / Kuu ipo ua lawakua
241. E W aihinano wahine a ka poipoi e I X
Ua make ke alii ka mea nona nei

moku
242. Ea he poe o Kamaoha iluna / He lalo X
o Luakini, ke kokolo ae la
243. Eia ana au e Laka, kane a Haiwahine X X x2
/Kaipua o ka nahelehele
244. Eia au i ka pali o Kalalau / Ke lalau X X
hewa nei au i ka pali makamaka ole
245. Eia an o Hiiakaikapoliopele / E X X
wawe aku ana i ka loa o ka aina
246. Eia au o Kauakahi / 0 Kauakahi pio X
keia i ka wao
247. Eia Hiiaka / Ka wahine mana loa / 1 X
ka leo wale no
248. Eia hoi au e Laka e Haiwahine / x2
Wahine kui pua o ka nahelehele
249. Eia hoi au la e ka lehua / Ke noho X X
aku nei no hoolono
250. Eia hoi ua wahine nei au i i mai ai / X
E hele no au a kahea iho o ae no
455
251. Eia ka ai e ke akua IE Kahitli e X X
Kahela
252. Eia ka ai e ke Akua ./ E Kamohoalii i X
Halemaumau
253. Eia ka mohai, ka alana ia oe, e ke X
Akua / Kuu akua i ke kai kona i ke
kai Koolau
254. Eia me au ko aloha ! 0 Puna aina X X
aloha e ke hoa
255. Eia ua leo pule kanaenae nei / 0 Pele X
ko‘u akua / Miha ka lani, miha ka
honua
256. Eia wau i ka pali o Kalalau / Ke lalau X
hewa nei wai i ka pali makamaka ole
257. Eo Mauna i ka ohu ka palai la / Kaha X
kaleooka ohia uwe e
258. Eo Pelehonuamea / Ke kumu o ke ahi X
o Hulinuu
259. Haa hula lea na auauki i Mahiki / X
Hoohikihiki wale ana i ke aloha o ka
wahine
260. Haa ka lau o ka ia /H aa ka limu i ke X X
poi
261. Haa ka lau o ka maici / Haa i ka X X
makani
262. Haa Puna i ka makani / Kapalili mai X
la ka uluhala o Keaau
263. Haku i ka uahi o ka lua po i ka lani / X
Haahaa Hawaii moku o Keawe
264. Haku i ka uahi o ke lua i ka lani / X
Haahaa Hawaii moku o Keawe
456
K.HH KHP KHP2 PCA KLL KLK HA KNA KNA KHR HOH NBE HOH
265. Hala ka ua, hala lealea / Hala ae la, X
mauka o Waioli la
266. Halahala kau ka lewa luna ka lewa X
lalo / E mimiku au mimiku me ke

aulawe
267. Hanau Haloa keiki a Haumea no ka X X X
wahine / He wahine ia no Iliponi
268. Hanau Hilo i ke ala paa o ka hinano X X
/ 1 ka nae mapu o ka ua i ka hala
269. Hanohano Kawaikini kaha i ka malie X
/ Kupukupu iluna na pae mauna o
Alakai
270. Haupu mauna kiekie / Huki aela paa X X
i: ACf
L„ iCua
271. He [m ajlam alam a Lnve puili ka X X X
makani lawe lepo / 0 ka lepo o kela
pali ao ka lepo o keia pall
272. He aha la hoi keia mea lalilali / 1 ka X
lau o kuu lima
273. He ahui hala ko Kapoulakinau / Ko X
ka pili kaumaha
274. He ahui hala ko ke Koolau / Ko ka X
pili Kahoa
275. He ahui hala na ka makani / Hala ka X
ua noho i na pali e
276. He cikua kapu o Am oku / Ke ku X X X
ke'hu wale la i ka lani
277. He ala no ka maile / Laulii o Koiahi X X
278. He aio W aipio he kua Hamakua / X
He kawa lele iho Mahiki na ka ino
279. He aloha o Nihoa i ke kai / 1 ke kapa X
ehukai a Kaula
457
KHH KHP KHP2 PCA KLL K.LK HA KNA KNA KHR HOH NBE HOH
280. He Ann ka makani oAnahola / He X X X
Kiuwailehua no aia ilaila
281. He auhau, he kiu, he alele aloha / X
Keia ia oe, auwe hoi e
282. He Honouli ka makani o Nihoa /H e X X X X
Waialoha ka makani noho ana o
Nihoa
283. He Hoopalu kewai ka makani o X
Wainiha / He Waianu ka makani o
Wainiha
284. He Kahilipili ka makani o Niumalu / X
He Waiohule ka makani o
Papalinahea
285. He kai kapi one o Kalamaula i X V X X
Pupukea / Ua pala i ke kai ke oho o
ka ilima
286. He Kalahale ka makani o Haena / He X X
Limahuli ka makani o Haena
287. He ku oe he kila na ia la i papa / 1 X
lahui ai e kapu
288. He lalo ka lua, he pali kaha ko / He X
poi makahehi no ka lehua
289. He Lupua ka makani o Naue / He X
Pahele hala lu hinano aia ilaila
290. He Makahuena ko Paa / He Puoku ka X
Mahulepu
291. He makani holo uha / Ko Kaelekei a X X X X X
Paukua
292. He make no Auaahea i kalua ia / 1 ka X
puaa aohe ihi ka lau Ahea2 _
2This is also a continuation of chant #141.
458
ivHH KHP KHP2 PCA KLL KLK HA KNA KNA KHR HOH NBE HOH
293. He Moae ka makani o Lehua (Na X X X X
Makani o Lehua a me K auai }
294. He Nihiaumoe ka makani o Kalaiea / X X X
He Aomuku ka makani o Aliomanu
295. He oopu poo nui ka i‘a a Piliaama / X
He i ‘a hoonaue i ka hee pue wai
296. He opua uahi keia no ka uka o ka lua X X
/K e hoopaio ae la me ka Puulena
297. He ua kui lehua ka Panaewa / He ua X X X
ma kai kui hala o Puna e
298. He ula he kani leo keia ia oe / Auwe X
hoi e
299. He wawalo ke kai o Ookaia / Kii X
pono i ka lau o ka hinanina
300. He wili Koolau ka makani o X X X X
Kaulakahi / Hei ka welau o na
makani (Ka makani o Kaula)
301. Hele ana ka wahine hele la / Hehi ana X
i ka moena pawehe o Mokuleia
302. Hele ana ua akua ai ole e / Ua hele X
ke kino a owi i ka pololi
303. Hele ke kini ke Kamaaina / Oia kaha X
o hee o Kaipuuila
304. Hele mai nei ke kai o kuu kahakai / X
A opuopu i luna a ua (na?) ia,
305. Hele mai nei ke kai o kuu kahakai / X
A popoi i luna a ua ia la
306. Hia o Naue i ke kai la e la / Haa lewa X
na hala i ke kai la e la
307. Hihi wa Wiliwili i ke kula o Kaiona / X
Ke hele ala i kai o Kapea
^
4
Ul
VO
308. Hiki mai hiki mai e ka la e / Aloha X
wale e ka la e kau nei
309. Ho mai hoi ka wai e / 1 inu ia aku hoi X
310. Hoeueu mai ana o Kane iau /A lo h a X X x2 X
oe, e Hiiaka, i ka wai huna a ka palai
311. Hoi koa waa / Hele koa kanaka x2 X
312. Hoi mai o Papa mai loko mai o X X X X
Kahikiku / Ku inaim lili i ka punalua

313. Hoi nele no la i ke kula o Kaneoneo X
314. Hole Waimea i ka ihe a ka makani / X
Hao mai na ale a ke Kipuupuu
315. Holo Kaena la /M e he waa kaukahi X X X
la i ka malie
316. Holo mai Pele mai Kahikina X X
317. Hone ana ke aloha iloko i kuu X
manawa / Kuko ana no au me ka lia
318. Hookahi mea hou o Kau / O ke ahi o X
Kilauea.
319. Hookuku /K a auhulaana X X X
320. H oonua Hilo i ka lehua la / X
W ehiwehi Puna i ka ulu hala la
321. Hui iho nei ka waa a Kamohoalii / E X
kii ana i ko lakou pokii, ia Kaneapua,
i Nihoa
322. Hui kai o laau o Kawelowelo / Hui X
ka lewa luna me ka lewa lalo i

Puuomoeawa
323. Huki ku na kaulakaohi o Haleauau X
324. Huli aku ke alo i ke Akua / Heiau X
mana a ke kupua
325. Huli haliu kuu alo ia Pahoehoe / X
Maalo ana ka hoaka hoe a ka lawaia
460
326. Huli ka makani Koolauwahine / Ke X
hapahapai mai la i na ale kualoloa
327. Huli ke au ka papa honua kona moku X x2 X X X X
/ Hulihia kulia mai ka moku o Kahiki
328. Hulihia i Wahinekapu ua wela i ke X X
ahi / Enaena ka papa kanahele o
Kaliu
329. Hulihia ka mauna wela i ke ahi / X X X X X x2
Wela moa nopu ka itka o Kuihanalei
330. Hulihia ka M auna / Wela i ke ahi a X
ka Wahine
331. Hulihia ke au ka papa honua kona X
moku / Hulihia kulia mai ka moku o
Kahiki
332. Hulihia ke au ka papa honua o ka X X
moku / Hulihia, papio e ia Halo ke
alo
333. Hulihia ke au nee Halo ia k e a / X X X X X
Hulihia ka mole o ka honua

334. Hulihia ke au nee ilalo o Wakea /
Hulihia i ka papa, i ka haoa, i ka
halelo ula / 1 ka halelo lani
335. Hulihia ke au pee olalo nei nakolo i X x2
ka honua / Nakeke ka lani hoaka
Kahiki
336. Hulihia ke one o Kahakuloa / Ua X
nakaka ka pali. ua lewa ka honua
337. Hulihia Kilauea po i ka uwahi /
Wela nopu ka uka o Kuiahanalei,
338. Hulihia Kilauea po i ka uahi / X X X X X X
Nalowale i ke aea ka uka o ka lua

KHH KHP KHP2 PC A KLL KLK HA KNA KNA KHR HOH NBE HOH
339. Hulihia Kukailani nei akula i ka pili X X X X X
o H ooipo/Ele Keawemahuilani
kalele hewa i ka houpo o Kane
340. Hulihia Kukailani / Nei aku la i ka
pili o Hooilo
341. Hulihia kulia mai ka moku o Kahiki / X X
I na no Kahiki i ka la kahi
342. I kau Pohakea i ke ao a ka makani / X
Makani halialia aloha ke ala o Puna
343. I Akanihia / 1 Akanikolea X X X
344. I honi i ke ala lauae e Makana / 1 X
M akana ka oopupeke o Hanakapiai
345. I i au e au ma kai o ka hula ana / X
Kaikoo ae la lalo o ka pali
346. I ka Ohai o Kaupea la / 1 ka la X
hooanoano e ua ike
347. I ka pali no ka hoa a hale / Kalakala X X X X
i ke kua ka opeope
348. I Kalalea kuahiwi kiekie i ka lani / O X X
Keolewa e lele mai la i ka malie
349. I kau o Pohakea i ke ao a ka makani / X X
Makaai halialia aloha ke ala o Puna
350. I komo i ka ulu hala / Ulu hinano o X
Poohalulu
351. I luna au o Pohakea / Kilohi aku kuu X
maka ilalo
352. I makua i makua i Hoolulu / 1 ka X
welelau o ka haka pulelo
353. I moe la hoi au a hewa ia oe / Uku la X
hoi au no ke la lilo
354. I nui ke aho o ua kane e / 0 Mauli X
keia o ka la pau
462
KHH KHP KHP2 PCA Kl.l. KLK HA KNA KNA KHR HOH .N EE HOH
355. I ola no au i kuu kino wailua / 1 aea X
mai e ke lii o Kahiki
356. I o'u man kini o keia wahi e / Ia olua X X
e Kalaeokaena me Pohakuokauai e
357. I uka au e i uka au / 1 uka hoi au me X
Laka
358. I uka ka ua i Moeawakea / 1 ka x2 X
nahele o Kaliu la
359. Ia hoouluulu ia mai a u /E X X X
Kanekapolei imua e
360. Ia K aum uleialii/I kapoaha mau i ka X X
ili o kawau
361. Ia ole paha ia Kalani / Ke ‘lii X X X X
Kauhinonohon.ua a Kama
362. Ike pono i ka nani o Hoohila / Pau X
pono na opi lua a ka makemake
363. Ino Koolau e Ino Koolau / Aikena X X x2 X X x2?
ana ik a u a o Koolau
364. Ino na mapuna wai o Honolii e / Ke X
imi mai nei i ka hoa paio owau e
365. Ioioa Puna kupele i ke koa / Kulepe X
lua na ale o Kumukahi
366. Ka auwaa lalua/1 ka moana la X X
367. Ka awa mukiki a lelehuna a ka manu X X
/ Ka awa ili lena i ka uka o Kaliu
368. Ka Ia kahiko pu no me ka wahine X
369. Ka ilio ha kupu ino ku iluna o ka x2
moku / Loaa na i i i ku Honua
370. Ka lehua i ulu i ka hapapa / 1 ulu no i X
Kaunaoa
371. Ka makua o ka lakou a me ka uhane X
Hemolele / 0 keia mau mea ekolu
463
372. Ko, onini pua hala i ke kai e /L a w e a X X X
ke kai i ka nui o ka ia
373. Ka onini pua hala i ke kai e / No x2
Puna i Keaau ka hah / Mai Kilauea,
mai Wainekapu
374. Ka Pueo, ka Ionuihoanoano [lani] / X
Nana e popoi ke aeva o ka
375. Ka ua okioki ko‘a o Heeia / Ke hehi X
la i ke kai o Luhi
376. Ka uka o Kahoaka / He ku au he kila X
na iala
377. Ka uli hewa o ka ili i ka ipo ahi / E X
mea iki ai la paha pono au e
378. Ka wai mukiki ale lehua a ka manu I X
Ka awa ili lena i ka aka o Kaliu

379. Kaalo Kapueokahi /M a waho o X
Keaniani
380. Kaanahau ka ipo moe / Mea a ko ‘u X X X
opu i anoi aku ai

381. Kahuli Kaena holo i ka malie / Ua X X X X
wela i ka la ke alo o na pali
382. Kahuli Kaena, lele ana i ka malie / X
Me he kaha ana la na ka uau na pali o
Nenelea
383. Kahulihuli e! Kahulihuli! / Ka X X X
hulihuli ka papa o Wailuku e
384. Kahulihuli e, ka papa o W ailuku/H e X X X
ole Kekaha, kuai i ‘a e

385. Kahulihuli e, ka papa o W ailuku/ He X X
ole Kekaha, kuai kapa e
386. Kahulihuli e, ka papa o Wailuku / He X X
ole Kekaha, kuai ko
464
KHH KHP KHP2 PCA KLL KLK HA KNA KN A KHR HOH NB E HOH
387. Kahulihuli e, ka papa o W ailuku/ He X X
ole Kekaha, kuai paakai e
388. Kahulihuli e, ka papa o Wailuku / He X X
ole Kekaha, kuai wai e
389. Kahulihuli e, ka papa o Wailuku / X X X
Kahuli o Apua
390. Kahulihuli ka papa o Wailuku / He X
ole ke kaha kuai ai
391. Kaikoo Puuomoeawa / Wawa ka laau X X X
392. Kailua i ke oho o ka M alanai / Moe e X X
ka lau o ke uki
393. Kalalau i Honopu i W aialoha/A ka X X
pali o Kee
394. Kaloku Hilo i ka ua nui/K apu kane X X
kai
395. Kani ka hoe a ka ua i ka laau / Hele X
hone i ke kula o Kaniaiku
396. Kanikanihia Hikapaloa e / O ka lai o x2 X x2
Wailua iki
397. Kau aloha mai ana Hamakua iau / X
Haliuliu aloha mai ana la i kuu maka
398. Kau ka halia ke ao opua aloha / X X
Aloha ae au o na ki kaunu o
Panaewa
399. Kau ke ano haili o ka lua ia‘u e / X
Owau o Malaeahaakoa e
400. Kauhikeimakaokalani / O ka pali X
keekee o Halawalawa
401. Kaulana kiu au la i ka L a / K a pilina x2 X x2x
mai kau e ke aloha
402. Kaumaha k a a i/O Hilo i ka lehua X X X
4^
o\
L/\
403. Kawewe kahawai o Hilo i ka ua / X
Huahuai ka opeope
404. Ke aa mai nei ua maka o ke Akua e / X
O ua akua muki, muka o ka lae laau e
405. Ke ahi maka pa i ka la e / O wela kai X X X X X
hoi o Puna
406. Ke aina mai la eka wai /K a maha X X X
uki o Ihukoko
407. Ke aina mai la e ke a h i/K e kula X X
lehua a ka manu
408. Ke akua okioki poo o Mahiki e / X
Aloha Mahiki e
409. Ke aloha mai nei Puna e /K e X X
kalukalu moe[moe] ipo
410. Ke alu mai nei ke ahi a ka wahine / X X
Ke kena mai la e pau kea
411. Ke amoa ae la ka waa makai e / 200 X X X X X
Wahio o Mahinui ma uka
412. Ke ano mai la ke kuahiwi pali o ka X
aina i ke ao / Ke haawe mai la i ka
ukana a ka opua
413. Ke au la Kaula i ke kai e / Ka X
malamalama o Niihau, ua malie
414. Ke au nei ka hula ana i ke kai e / 0 X
ke kai kui lau limu o Ookala
415. Ke haa la Puna i ka makani / Haa ka X x2 X
uluhala i Keaau
416. Ke haa mai la Puna i ka makani / Ke X
kapalili mai la ka uluhala o Keaau
417. Ke hanai ae la k a u a ik a lani / X X X
Makua a ‘u awa i ka uka o Kiloi
466
418. Ke hele ae la ka ua kalepa e /K a u a X X
okioki koa o Heeia
419. Ke hele la ka auhula ana o Kalalau / X X X X X X
Ke [po]poi la ke kai o Milolii
420. Ke hoa mai la ke ahi a ka wahine / X X
Hoa no a a i Puna
421. Ke hooniponipo la ka liula i M ana / X
Hookikiwi ka ohai o Kahe
422. Ke hooulu aku nei au ia oe e X X
K anekapolei/A i ia a ulu mai kini o
ke Akua
423. Ke hooulu nei au e Kanekapolei / X X X x2 X
Imua, i oulu kini o ke akua
424. Ke iho la ka iho kahakai e /Ih o pali i X X X X X
lalo o Hakalau
425. Ke iho la ka makani / Halihali pua o X X X X
Nuuanue
426. Ke iniki la ka pua iini i ka wai o X
Kaihuloko / Kapalili i kea keniau o
Kaihuwaa
427. Ke kaa aloha wale maila no o Puna X
ia‘u / 0 ka elele ia a ka makani e ka
Puulena
428. Ke kau aloha wale mai la na Kau / X X X
Ka mauna o Kahaliakua a
429. Ke kau aloha wale maila no Hama- x2
kua iau/Halialia aloha mai ana
430. Ke kau mai la i Haupu kele ka X X X X X
makani /K e waha mai la ma ke kua o
Keolewa
431. Ke ku nei au e hele / A lau ka maka X X
ua nei ino
467
432. Ke ku nei au e hele / A noho ana e na X X
wahine o Luluu
433. Ke ku nei au e hele / A noho e X
434. Ke ku nei au e hele / Hele au a ke ala X X X
435. Ke ku nei au e hele / Ke kono iho nei X X
436. Ke ku nei makou e imi kahi e noho ai X
/ A loaa ma Peleula
437. Ke lei ma la Kaula i ke kai e / Ka X X X X X
malamalama o Niihau i ka malie
438. Ke lele mai la Puna kiekie uluna / X
Lele no ka hinano lele pu no me ke
ahi
439. Ke liuliu nei au e hele / Ke hea mai la X
ka makani Koolauwahine
440. Ke pao ae la ke kai i na maku manu / X
Ku ka ehu a ke kai i ke kula o
Kaaawaa
441. Ke pii la ka huakai wahine / A pahu X X X X X
lei hala i uka o Ahuimanu
442. Ke poi la ke kai i na pali / Ke olo la i X
ka ala
443. Ke ua ia mai la e k a u a /K e kahe ia X X X
mai la e k a wai
444. Keia pae opua i ka lani e / Ke kai ae X
la mauka o Pohakau
445. Kena o Kahionuna, o Kahiolalo / O X X
Hikanewenewe ka opua i Kahiki
446. Ke‘u ana ua Pueo e / Ki ana ua Pueo X
e
447. Kiei o lalo e / hoomaka ana ke keiki X
e ala
ON
00
448. Kiekie i luna ke ku a Apiki / Holo X X
ana ke aka ilalo o Kawainui
449. Kiekie Kanehoalani/ Au Mokolii i ke X X X X
kai
450. Kiekie Kanehoalani / Hopuepue ana X
Mokolii i ke anu
451. Kiekie Kilauea me Mauna Loa / X
Huki i luna ka oiwi paii o Hualalai
452. Kimo ke ala i ke poho o Mahiki / He X X
hana lalahu ia na ke Kipuupuu
453. Kini hiki i Kauai kou aina / 1 ko ‘a X X
makaiwa o Halawa
454. Ko ke aloha poko i ka wa a ka manao X
/ Ua poina auwe hoi
455. Koho no i Hilo ka ua mahiai / Ka ua X
kupa waa lehua mauka
456. Komo i ka nahele ulu hinalo /Nahele X X
hala o Poohalulu
457. Komo i ka ulu hala hinano o X X X X X X
Pookaholu / Oia nahele hala makai o
Kahuku
458. Komohana i lumaina e ka lau awa. / X X
Nono ka puka ihu o Mokuhana
459. Ku ae Ahiki / Noho iho Pakui X X
460. Ku ae Pakui / Noho iho Ahiki X
461. Ku au akahi, hookahi malama ia o ke X
keiki i waho / Ku au elua, elua
malama ia o ke keiki i waho
462. Ku au akahi / Ku au elua X X
463. Ku au akahi / Ku au elua X X X
464. Ku au la akahi / Ku an la alua X X X
465. Ku hilinai ae la/K a opua ua i Kona X X
469
KHH KHP KHP2 PCA KLL KLK HA KNA KN A KHR HOH NBE HOH
466. Ku i Haena ka pou hala ka ipo / X
Hoolono ka uwalo ka wawa nui
467. Ku i Kahiki ke o n e / He one iau-enct X X
ke one
468. Ku ka nalu kai a ke Koolau / Puha ka X
nalu i kai maokioki
469. Ku kii a ka la i Mana e / 0 ka ulu X
ohia i Nanawale e
470. Ku kila ke kaunu moe ipo / Ku au X X
hele noho oe a noho

471. Ku kilakila aela / Ka ua o Hilo i ka X
lani
472. Ku lua na Opua i ka lewa / Hoawihi X X
kau ana na maka
473. Ku lua na opua i ka lewa / Ko maka X
kunou e
474. Ku mai ku mai ka nalu / Popoi kai X X
uli, kai koo
475. Ku maka haoa ke ahi i ka laau / X
Kaulu o wela no aa i Puna
476. Ku makou e hele me kuu mau pokii X
aloha /' Ka aina a makou i ike ole ai
malalo aku nei
477. Ku nei au la akahi o Nananana / 0 X X
Hoaea, o Nanahulihonuakapo
478. Ku pololei ae la/Kauahi o ka lua e X X
479. Ku popolei ae la / Ka uahi ilalo o ka X X X
lua e
480. Kua loioa Keaau i ka nahele hala / X
Kua huluhulu Panaewa i ka laau
481. Kui na apiki lei hele o Makana e / X
Hoomoe na kapa i kehua o Puna
470
KHH KHP KHP2 PCA KLL KLK HA KNA KNA KHR HOH NB E HOH
482. Kui na apiki lei hele/ O ka maloko e X X X
483. Kui na ohia hele o ke Kaha e / Lei X X
hele i ke kaha o Kapalailiohi
484. Kui na pua lei a Kamalama / Lei X
wale aku ana no i ke kaha o Paleiliahi
485. Kuina Apiki Ilima lei o Makaiwa / X
Hoomoe na kapa i ka hau o Puna
486. Kukii a ka la i Mana e / O k a ulu X X X
ohia i Nanawale
487. Kukulu ka mak[a]ia / Ka huakai moe X X X X
ipo
488. Kulia e Uli ka pule kala ma ola / X
Kulia imua i ke kahuna
489. Kulia e Uli ka pule kalanaola imua i X X X
ke Kahuna / Kulia i ke alohi lau e
490. Kulia e Uli ka pule kanaenae o la / X X X
Kulia i ke Alohilani
491. Kulia ke kahuna imua / la kui nei X X X X X
onopu iluna a ilalo
492. Kulu koa ma kai o Oneawa / Ke amo X
ia aela
493. Kumaka haoa ke ahi i ka laau / Kaalo X
owela no aa i luna
494. Kunihi ka mauna i ka lai e / 0 X X X X X X X
Waialaeale la i Wailua
495. Kunihi Kaena holo i ka malie / Ua x2 x2 X
wela i ka la ke alo a na pali
496. Kupololei ae la ka uwahi o ka lua e / X X
Ke a la i no kihi eha o Wahinekapu
497. Kupu maikai ae la /K a wahine o Ka X X X
lua
498. Kupu melemele a e la / Kauahi o X X
Kalua e
499. Kuu aikane hoi kuu aikane mai / Ka X
uhu kai o Makapuu
500. Kuu aikane hoi / O kuu wahine hoi X X
501. Kuu aikane i ka hale wai e / Hale hau X
anu o Lihue
502. Kuu aikane i ka la o lalo e / A po X X
kaena i keha a ke kai
503. Kuu aikane i ka pali o Kalalau / Mai X X
ka pali kuukuu kaula o Kaena
504. Kuu aikane i ka ua poaihala o X X
Kahaluu / Nihi Mololani a Puakea
505. Kuu aikane i ka uluhala o Puna e / X X
Kuu aikane i ka ua kanikoo o Hilo
506. Kuu aikane i ka waa koo o Molokai / X X
E koo aku ana i halana Laemakani
507. Kuu aikane i ka wai iliahi ula o X
Makaweli / Hinana ia wai o Luhi
508. Kuu aikane i ka wai liu o Mana / X
Pahaleolea i Maulua hoolae waa
509. Kuu aikane i ke awa lau o Puuloa / X
Mai ke kula o Peekaua ke noho oe
510. Kuu aikane i ke kaha o Hilia /M a i ka X X
b i luahine o oa Kamanu
511. Kuu aikane kuu aikane hoi / Kuu X
aikane mai ka la o lalo e

512. Kuu aikane mai ka la o lalo e / A po X
Kaena i ke ehu a ke kai

513. Kuu aikane mai ka pali o Kamae e / X
Kuu hoa hui lei lehua o Kaliu
472
514. Kuu aikane mai ka ua nui o Hilo / E X
hilo oe a paa i ke aho a ke aloha
515. Kuu aikane mai ka wai ku au hoe o X X
ka aina / Mai ka p a li kaili aloha la o
Kalalau e
516. Kuu aikane maila makani kaili kapa X
o Kalalau / Kuu hoa o ka pali o
Haena
517. Kuu aikane / Kuu aikane hoi X
518. Kuu akua i ka hale hau hale kanaka X X
ole / Okoa ka hoa kanaka e laa ai la
hoi
519. Kuu akua nmi ka hale hau e / Hale X X X
u .n ,,
iL ittiA . i a . h u c rvc n ta c i
520. Kuu hoa i ka ili hau o Mana / 1 X X X X

kulaina e ka wai o Hina
521. Kuu ipo mau no me he kane lae / He X
ipo n a ‘u ka lehua i luna, lehua i lalo
/ Pupu weuweu e Laka e
522. Kuu kane / kuu kane hoi kuu kane i X
ka lauahea
523. Kuu kane hoi / Aole nae hoi he kane X X X
524. Kuu kane hoi / Kuu kane o ka pauku X X X
a po wale
525. Kuu kane i ka hale wai e / Hale hau X
anu o Lihue
526. Kuu kane i ka lai o Ewa la /M a i ka X X x2? X
ia hamau leo i ka makani
527. Kuu kane i ka makani hau alia / O X X X
Makahuna i Huawa e
528. Kuu kane i ka makani he Malua / Na X X
ke koolau kaua i lawe mai
473
529. Kuu kane i ka makani kilihau, kiliopu X X X
/K u pue ke wai o ka mauna
530. Kuu kane i ka pali kauhuhu kahi / O X X X

Makapuu huki i ka lani
531. Kuu kane i ka pali o Haena / Mai na X X X
aina pali a pau loa
532. Kuu kane i ka ua noe / Noe halii i ka X X
Waahila
533. Kuu kane i ka uhu kai o Makapuu / X X
Auki i luna ka lae o Kalaau
534. Kuu kane i ka wai iliahi ula o X
535. Kuu kane i ka wai liu o Mana / Paha X
leolea i Maulua hoolale waa
536. Kuu kane i kaha o Puuloa / Mai ke X
kula o Peekaua ke noho
537. Kuu kane i ke ala pii o Mahinui / Mai X X X
ka ua kapuai kanaka o Paiawai
538. Kuu kane i ke Awalau o Puuloa / X X X
Mai ke kula o Kanehili ke noho e
539. Kuu kane i ke awalau o Puuloa / Mai x2 X X X X
ke kula o Peekaua ke noho e
540. Kuu kane mai ka ai lau ulu nui o uka X X
e / Mai ka makani pa lauwili o
Kekaha
541. Kuu kane mai ka ea a ka wiliwili / X
Mai ke kula la i Mahinauli
542. Kuu kane mai ka la o Kukii e / Lhve x2 x2
ana i ke aloha o ka wahine
543. Kuu kane mai ka la wela o Auahi e / X X
Momoe a kaua i ka ua nahunahu
474
544. Kuu kane [mai/i] ka lai o Ewa la / X X
M ai ka ia hamau leo i ka makani e
545. Kuu kane mai ke alahaka ulili o X
Nualolo / Mai ka pali kuiwaha iho o
Kalalau
546. K u u k a n e m a i ke kai h a k i n u a o X X X
K o o la u / M e h e kapa k e a a la ka a le i
ka m o a n a
547. Kuu kane o ka makani hau alia / 0 ka X
M ukahuna i Hawawa e
548. K u u kane, kuu k a n e h o i e / K u u ip o i X X X
k e k u p o lu a o H aen a
549. Kuu kane, kuu kane mai ke ala kai o X
Haena / M ai ke ala au umauma o
Kahoamano
550. K u u k a n e / 1 ka m aka n i h e M a lu a / X X X
N a ke K o o la u k a u a i la w e m a i
551. Kuu kane / Kuu kane hoi / Kuu kane X
i ka lauahea
552. Kuu keiki ka la o Ma.hin.ui/ Mai ka X X
ua kapuai kanaka o Palawai
553. Kuu wahine e / Hoohewahewa oe iau X X X
554. K u u w a h in e h o i / Ua h o o h e w a h e w a X X X
p a h a au ia o e la e
555. K u u w a h in e / K u u w ah in e h o i / E ia X X
a u i ka h ih ia a k a aha a h a
556. Ku ‘i no, kani naholo no / Holo iloko X X
o ka pa-hekili, oina
557. Lai pohu mai la /Lalo o Kalua e X X
558. L ailaie! Lailai / Lailai ka moana kai X
uli, kai hohonu
559. Lailai kai / O k a hilo paliku X X
475
560. Lea wale hoi ka wahione lima ole X X X
wawae ole / E haa nei i kana i ‘a
561. Lei kapa ehukai Kaena na ka malie / X X
Hohola aela i na uka o Poloea
562. Lei Kauaula kahiko i Halemano / X X X
Kahe ka wai a ke Kiowai
563. Lei Mahiki i ka ua me ka makani / X
Nanai na ale nai a ke kipuupuu
564. Lei Maunaloa kilohi i ka maikai / X X X X
Hanohano Kaiolohia i ka makani
565. Lei Nuuanu i ka hala Kamakahala / X X
Kahiko no ika alo o Malailua
566. Lele ana o Kaena/M ehe manu la i X X X
ka malie
567. Lele ka huna kai / Pi ae la i ka. X X X
makalae
568. Lele Kaena me he manu la / Me he x2 X X
kaha ana la na ka uau
569. Lele Kaena me ke makani la i ka X X
malie / Me he kaha ana la na ka
uau [la] [i na pali o Nenelea
570. Lele Laniloa ua malie / Kaikoo lalo X X X
571. Lele Laniloa ua m alie/K e hoe ae la X X X
e ka Moae
572. L e ‘a kulou a ka lawaia ua malie / X
Malie, malino ke kai, e Pahulu
573. Lihilihi pua ia o lalo / M oea ka wa, X X X
ka huhu iloko
574. Lilo i Puna e lilo i P una/L ilo i Puna X X X X
i ke au a ka hewahewa
575. Lilo i Puna e / Lilo i Puna X X
476
576. Liua ke kaha o Kaena wela i k a l a / 300 X X X X
Ai na iho la ka pohaku a moa wela
577. Liua kona i ka la loa o Makalii / X X X
Maewa ka wiliwili hele i ka lai
578. Liuliu aloha ia‘u ka maka o ka X
makua / 1 okia e ke kai kaawale na
aina
579. Liuliu aloha ia‘u ka uka o Kohalalele X
/ Ka nahele loa mauka o Kapapala
580. Liuliu aloha uka / 0 Koholalele X X X
kanahele
581. L iu liu w a le ka la o M ak a n o n i / K e X X
h ia a e m a w a h o o ke kau w e la
582. Luuluu Hanalei i kaua nui / X X X X
Kaumaha i ke noe oAlakai
583. M a kau pua hala / Ma kau pua hala X
584. Ma Puna kahuli mai ana kaua X X
makalii noe / Ke ua ala i laau ka hihi
ka paa
585. Maawe iki ae la ha uwahi o ka lua e / X X
Ke hoomoe ie ae la eke kehau
586. Mahina ke alo / Pali ke kua X
587. Mai hoi hou i hope e ka aku lei lehua X
/ O paoa auanei ka huakai a na
wahine
588. Mai hoolilo oe mauka o ka la ke ahi X
/ M a Puna ka huli ana mai o ka ua
makalii noe
589. Mai Kahiki ka wahine o Pele / Mai X X X
ka aina i Polapola
590. Mai kai aku, mauka mai / Maluna X
iho. malalo ae
A ll
591. Mai kuhi mai oe e Haupu / Aole au i X X X
ike ia oe
592. Mai Puna au e mai Puna / Ke haa la X X X X
ka lau o ka ilima e
593. Mai Puna au e / Mai Puna au X
594. Maikai ka luna o Kaala / Hanohano i X X
ke alo o na kuahiwi
595. Maikai Kauai, hemolele i ka malie / X
Kupu kelakela ke poo o Waialeale
596. Makai aku mauka mai / Maluna iho X X
malalo ae
597. Makalii lua ka la i a Kawaihoa / X
Anoano i ka luna o Hoakalei
598. Makemake au i ka inu wai o lalo / 1 X X
ka hoonani mai a ke Koapuaia
599. Malaehaakoa, lawaia nui o Wainiha X
nei / H om aikala
600. Malama ia kaua hoa kanaka / O kipa X X
hewa ke aloha i ka ilio
601. Malie Maui, ua ike ia / O Kaihuakala X
602. Mapu Loanono ke ahia Kalawakua / X
Ka momoku ipo ahi a Kapapala
603. Mau aalina oe mauka o Kalakeahi / X
M a Puna ka huli mai ana
604. Mau akua pee i ka laid e / O X X
Hamakua i Kuilei e
605. Mau waa Una oe mauka o Kalakeahi X X X
/ Ma Puna ka hiki ana mai
606. Mau waa lina oe mauka o X X
Keahialaka / Ma Puna ka huli ana
mai
478
KHH KHP KHP2 PCA KLL K LK HA KNA KNA KHR HOH NBE HOH
607. Mauka o Kapapala komo a komo / E X
komo aku au maloko
608. Mauna kiekie Kilauea na ke ahi / X
Hohonu kalana i moana i ka pohaku

609. Mauu enaena mai la / Lalo o Kalua e X X
610. Me he kapa kea la i hola ia l a / K e X X
one i kai o Mokapu
611. Me he opua hiki ahiahi ala ke aloha X
ke hiki mai / Ke ano halialia o ke

aloha o ka makua
612. Mehameha kanaka ole ka hoi / O X X X X X
Puuomaeawa e
613. Mehe uahi mahu kai la / Ko lalo o X X
Kakauauki
614. Moa Kilauea wehi mai ka lua / X X
Wehiwehi i ke akua uka o Puna
615. Moa unonoa Puna i ke [a]kua X X
wahine /M o a makali ka Ohia o
Moeawakea
616. Moe e no Waialua ke koolau /K a X X X X
hikina mai a Kalawakua
617. Moe malie ana oe i ke kai o ko haku / X X
Momomoe'a kaua ika ululehua
618. Moe pu Hilo me ke ala o ka pua / Me X X
ka hami o na pua a elm
619. Momini wale kuu ono / 1 ka uhu X
maalo i kuu maka
620. Momoea kaua i ka ni'o o ka pali / O X X
ia pali hainu uwahi o ka lua
621. Momoni wale kuu ono / I ka uhu X X X
maalo i kuu maka
479
622. Na ka makani halihali aala mai uka o X
ka lua / 1 aloha ia o Heeia i ka poe o
uka
623. Na lehua o Hilo ka‘u aloha X
624. N a lihilihi o ka lehua makanoe / Noe X
ka lehua makanoe wiwo i ke anu
625. N a m a h a -p u u o H a la i / H o a k a k a lae X X
o P a ik a k a
626. Na uala maka eaea, o K uokala/K a X X
maia lau haahaa o Koiahi
627. N a wahine i ka mauna i ke kualono / X
I ka hei i Kamanowai la e. e iho
628. Na wahine kiai makani i ka nuku o X
Nuuanu / O Kalaihauola laua o
Hapuu
629. N a n i k a h a n u o N uuanu i k a m a k a n i X X
/ I ka h o o h a n u h a n u a k a u a W a a h ila
630. Nani ku a ka Hilo paliku / O ka X
auhula ana o Kalalau
631. N a n i P a la ila i, h e an a in a k a p u n a ka X X
w a h in e / K e ku kulu nei a u i k a p a h u
k a p u a ka le o
632. Nawahinemakakai / A no lula Mana X
/ Pa hale o lea wale i kau walo
633. N e i n a k o lo P im a i ke a k u a w a h in e / x2 x2
N a k o lo k o lo ilu n a o K a h a u a le a a
634. Niniu Kauiki ke poo lanakila / X
Haliuliu i ka ua Elamalino e
635. No ka lua paha ia makani o Puulena X X X
/K e halihali i ke ala laau
636. No luna ka hala e / Onini pua ia i ke X
kai
480
637. No Puna ka uwahi kui maka lehua / X
Na wahine kiheahea pau
638. Noho aku au o ke kau o ka ino e / l a X X
noho pu aku maua me kuu akea
639. Noho ana ka wahine i ke kai / X X
Hoopuepue ana i ke aim o ka moana
640. Noho ana Kahoahoa e / A he ho-a hoi X
641. Noho ana Makapuu i ka lae / He X X X X X
wahine o Kekuapololi
642. Noho ana o Pohaku o Kauai i ka lai o X
Kaena / E lawaia ana i ia ai na ka
malihini
643. Noho ana ua Kanoanoa e / A he hoa X
644. Noho ke akua ai ia Puna/H olo ka X X
wela ka mahu a ka wahine
645. Noho no i Hilo ka ua mahiai / Ka ua X
kupa waa lehua ma uka
646. Noho no i Puna ka nani me ka maikai X X X X x2
/ He hale kipa i ana ke ala me ke
onaona
647. Nopu Nualolo ke ahi o Kamaile / He X
ahi pohiua ia na Kaawaawa
648. Noweo maka ea i ka la / H oa kui X X X X
lima laula o Ewa

649. 0 Apuakea nui wahine maikai / 1 X X
650. 0 a ‘u mau wai aloha elua la / O ka. X X X
wai ula la a me ka wai kea

651. 0 haehae ka ohe la. o K u'i ka piko / 1 X
ke aumoe o Wawa
652. 0 Hamakua aina pali loloa / Loloa ka X
pali o Kuihanalei pali
481
KHH KHP KHP2 PCA KT.T. KLK HA KNA K NA KHR HOH NB E HOH
653. 0 Hanau Him ka Lani / 0 hoonau X X
iluna nei
654. O Haupu mauna kiekie / Huki ae la X X X X
pa i ka lani
655. O Haupu mauna kilohana / 1 koea e X X X X
Hulaia a oki
656. 0 hele ana oe e ka noe e ka awa / E X
na ki a Wahinekapu
657. 0 Hiiaka ka wahine/Ke apo la i ka X X X X
pua
658. 0 Hiiaka ke akua e / Walea i ka X X
hiamoe e
659. O Hilo nahele paoa i k e ala / Paoa pu X
no me Piihonua
660. 0 Hilo nei / Kau ka Hoaka X X
661. O Hilo ua hawewe i ka lani / X
Hawewe kaua o Hilo ke ua mai
662. 0 Hilopaliku, kai ehu, kai ea, kai mu X
/ Kai kahalau, hakahaka Wailuku
663. O Homaila ke kane, o Honuakau ka X
wahine / 0 Kehaukea ke kane, o
Kualeikau ka wahine
664. O hooko ia aku oe / O k a hana ana a X X X
ke ‘kua
665. 0 ka eha a ke aloha ke lalawe nei / X X X X
Eia la iloko i kuu manawa
666. 0 ka hele a ka wahine Ui / Meha ka X X X
leo i ke kula
667. O ka la iki maka inoino / I h u meumeu X X X
o ka moana
668. 0 ka lae hala o Naue / Alai ia e ka X
noe
482
669. O ka tele a nei auna / 0 kakai a lalai X
670. O ka leo o ke kanaka hookahi X
mailuna mai / Mailoko mai o ka leo o
ka manu
671. O ka hia mai keia o M alania/A he X X X X
sekona ka ‘i like kona oni ana
672. O ka luahine m akaalualu/O ka X X
luahine nui ai kanaka
673. O ka manu mukimuki / A l e lehua a ka X X X
manu
674. 0 ka naulu la i Kaluakoi / Ke ua ae la x2
1 kai o Kalaau e
675. O ka pua nae ke ahu nei i ke ala / X
Alanui hele o Kaunukupukupu
676. 0 ka Pueonuihoanoano kela / 0 ka X
pueo po‘i kinana moa a ohana moa
677. O ka puhi! 0 ka puhi lau milo / Puhi X X
onio i ka waha o ka ala
678. 0 ka Ui paha ia / He lawena na ka X X X
lihilihi
679. O ka wai mikiki aala lehua o ka X
manu / 0 ka awa ili lena i ka uka o
Kaliu
680. O Kaala kuahiwi mauna kehau /K e X X X
opu mai la la i Kamaoha
681. 0 kahi maikai o Puna ua a / Ua kahi X
ka lepo, ua lele iluna
682. O Kalaku ka lani, ka m a k u a /H e X X
wahi lua i kahi o ke akua
683. O Kalalau pali aala hoi e / K e ako ia X X X X X X
ae la e k a wahine
483
684. 0 Kaialea, kuahiwi kiekie i ka lani / X X
0 Keolewa e lele mai la i ka malie
685. 0 Kamae aina a ke kehau /M e he kai X X X X
la ha Mokuleia
686. 0 Kamae, aina a kahau / Ke opu mai X
la i Kamaoha
687. 0 kanaka au o ke ‘kua / O ka leo au X X
e hea ana
688. 0 Kane / 0 Kukapao / Me Lono nui X X
noho i ka wai
689. 0 Kapokulani oe, o Moehauna iki e / X
E hea au e o oe
690. O kau hana wale ihola no ia / O ka X
hele i ka lawaia i kuu kahakai nei,
691. 0 kaua a Pele i hakaka i Kahiki / 1 X X X
hakaka ai me Punaaikoae
692. 0 Kauakahiapaoa keia / O na hala o X
Naue i ke kai / Mai ke kai mai la hoi
693. 0 Kauhiikeimakaokalani / O k a pali X X X X X
kekee o Halawalawa
694. 0 Kaula nui kai akaka / Ua po X X X
Kahalauaola o ka m e
695. 0 Kauwiki mauna kiekie / Huki a la a X X
pa i ka lani
696. 0 Kauwilanuioakaikalani / Anapa i X X X X
ka honua
697. 0 Kaweloikaiehuehu / Makani aku o X X
Kaipuula
698. 0 ke alii o ka lewanuu o ka lewa lani X
/ 0 ka haka i lewa ao Kahana a lewa
484
699. 0 ke ehu lia a ke akrn i ka maka / X X
Eia la ke oni nei, ka mahele lua a
loko
700. O ke hoa oe i manao aku ai e mea / 1 X
ole ia oe ka moe
701. O ke hoihoina o upena i ke alanui / X X
Ka naenae a u a k a mea hele
702. O ke kahuli mai a ke kalukalu! Moe X
ipo a Kewa / Pae ku ahiahi, ka nalu
o M akaiwa
703. O ke kani a ka o-u, oolo mao / O ke X
kani a ka elepaio i ka wao
704. O ke kau a ke ao i Maunalei / Lele X
mai na ulu o Lahaina
705. O ke kumu o kanaka haka / Ke X X
hookuku mai la e u a i Malio
706. O ke ola ana ka paha ia o ia nei / Ke X
o -o -o - ae nei me he moa la
707. 0 ke ‘lii o ka lewa nuu o ka lewa lani X
/ 0 ka haka i lewa, ao Kahano a lewa
708. 0 Kohala makani apaapaa e pa nei / X X
0 Mookini i ke alo wa o Kohala
709. O Kona ka i huli ia e ka makani / X
Huli ale ka lau o ka mamo
710. 0 k o ‘u huli hoi mai ia la / Lilo e i ke X
kolo a Pele la
711. O ku o ka keia / 0 ke ku no a X X
Wahine omao
712. 0 ku o ka o Wahineomao / Ke akua X
ai puaa o Pele
713. 0 ku o k a o Wahineomao / Wahine ia X X X X
Lohiauipo
4^
oo
Ln
KHH KHP KHP2 PCA KLL KLK HA KNA KN A KHR HOH NBE HOH
714. 0 kukulu ka pahu a ka leo hokiki X
kanawai / He kua a he kai okia he
ala muku
715. 0 kuu manawa nae kai hei i ka moe / X X X X X
0 oe nae ka‘u e lawe la lilo
716. 0 Laulia ke alii nana i hele mai ka X
lani / Nana i hele ke kahikihiki o ka
malama
717. O lele i. luna ke ahi a ka malie / He X X X
ahi maka auhau, maka papala
718. 0 Makahuna i Hauwawa e / Wa iho X
la, ke wa wale mai la no
719. 0 Makua aina o M ailelaulii/A ina X X X
aloha o Koiahi i ka uka

720. 0 Malaehaakoa i Haena e / Keiki oe X
a Wainiha
721. 0 Malaehaakoa lawaia o ka pali / X X X X
Keiki lawaia oe a Wainiha
722. 0 Mana aina a ke akua e /A in a o ke X X X X X X
akua i Kaliu
723. O mau aalina oe / 0 mau kakala ke X
ahi
724. 0 na lehua wale i Kaana / Ke kui ia X
aela ua lawa
725. 0 oe ia e / 0 oe ia e ka wahine o X
Puuepa e
726. 0 oe ia e ka wahine ai laau o Puna / X
E ka lala i ka ulu o Wahinekapu e
727. 0 oe ia e ka wahine ai laau o Puna / X X
E ka lala i ka ulu o Wahinekapu
728. 0 oe ia e ka Wahinehelela o Kaiona / X
Ka wahine aJualu waili'uia o ke kula
486
KHH KHP KHP2 PCA KLL KLK HA KNA KNA KHR HOH N'BE HOH
729. O oe ia e Kalahikiola / 0 ua wahine X
haaheo o Kohala e
730. 0 oe ia e Moolau wahine / X
Hookohukohu ana me he wahine io
la
731. 0 oe ia e Pahoa / Wahine noho ua X X
Makahuna o Palolo
732. 0 oe ia e Puukoae / Konohiki aina X
nui o keia wahi
733. 0 oe ia e Wahinepoaimoku / Wahine X X X
1 ka poli o Kinolauwahine
734. O oe ia e Wahinepoaimoku / Wahine X
mai ka hikina a ka la ma Haehae
735. O oe b e Wailuaiki / E K abuli pali a X X x2 X X
uli
736. 0 oe no la owau oki kaua / Auwe hoi X
e
737. 0 oukou ia e na wahine kupaoa i ke x X X
ala / Onaona ha la o Keaau me Maile
laulii
738. 0 Paliuli, aina h um a Kane / 0 ka X X
aina i kalana i Hauola
739. O Panaewa nui mokulehua / Ohia X X
kapu hao ‘eo ‘e i ka lani
740. O Panaewa ohia loloa / Ohia uliuli i X X X
ka ua
741. 0 Paukukalo, wahine a Kehu / O X
Makakole kane, o Makakolewahine
742. 0 Paunakua ka lani o Moenaimua / 0 X
ke alii nana i hele ke Kahiki
743. 0 Pele la ko'u akua / Miha ka lani, X X X X x3 x2 X
miha ka honua
00
<1
KHH KHP KHP2 PCA KLL KJLK HA KNA KNA KHR HOH NBE HOH
744. 0 pi a ka w ai/H oloia i ka lima X X
745. 0 Piliaama kanaka lawaia o ka pali / X X
Hee pue wai o Waimea
746. 0 Piliaama kanaka lawaia /K ane X X
hiialo oe a Kapuewai
747. 0 puaa, lehua ula i ka hapapa / 1 ula i X
ka papa, ka lehua o Puna
748. 0 Pueo ke ‘lii i alaila i ke kaua e / / X X X
aa no i kou la ikaika
749. 0 Puna aina lehua ula i ka p a p a / I X X
ula kaunoa iluna o ka laau
750. 0 Puna aina lehua ula i ka papa / X X
llihia i ka lipo o ka nahele
751. 0 Puna kai kuwa i ka haia / Pae ka X
leo i ke kai
752. O Puna kai nehe i ka uluhala / I k a X X
leo pa e leo hano
753. 0 Puna kau ‘kua i ka hala / P a e ka X x2
leo o ke ai
754. 0 Puna [aina] lehua ula i ka papa / I X
ula i ka papa ka lehua o Puna
755. O Puna lehua ula i ka papa / 1 ula X
kauno‘a iluna o ka laau
756. 0 Puna nahele ulu hala o Kalukalu / X X X X X
Wawalu ili a mohole naenae
757. 0 W aiakea ka aina / He lau ke akua e X
haa nei la e
758. 0 Waialua kai leo nui / Ua lono ka X X X X X X
uka o Lihue
759. 0 Waialua lai eha e / E h a ka malino X X X X X X
lalo o Waialua
760. 0 Waimea keia / 0 ka ua kipuupuu X X
488
761. Oia paha hana ia ana ka pule / E X
aloha ae ana wau i kuu haku
762. Oioi ku ka noho a Ulumawao / Ka X
wahine nana i ia Waiauia
763. Oioi ku ka pali o Ulainawao / Oia X X
pali amu kauwa a Kaholokuaiwa
764. Okioki poo / Okioki iho la i kona pao X
765. Ola i ka makani haiko i ka wai o X X X X
Kapona / Ola i ka oopu peke o

Hanakapiai
766. Olomana kuahiwi i kiekie i ka lani / X X
He pane poo ua no Ahiki
767. Onaona wale ka maile laulii o Koiahi X X X
//t i c uni
„u: a . c ui.uuu, riz ujju i ku j/uuKu
kino
768. Onini pua ia hala i ke kui e / No X
Panaewa ka hala
769. Owai ke hele i na lae ino o Koolau / X X
I na lae maka kai o Moeau

770. Owau e hele i ke kaha o Puuloa / I ka X X
ohai o Kaupea la
771. Owau e hele i ke kaha o Puuloa / Ma X X X
kai aku o Kapuna
772. Owau e hele i na lae ino o Koolau / X X X X
Ina lae maka'kai o Moeau

773. Owau e hele / 1 ke one kea X
774. Owau nei o Kauakahi / 0 Kauakahi X X
auaPaoa
775. 0 ‘u hoa ia i ke Koolau e / A pa X
Koolau hoolale kula hulu
776. Pa ke ahiu m akani/A nn ka uka o X X
Kahana
489
111. Pa ke Ahiu, aim ka uka o Kahana / X X
Kalakala ka i lauwili o Koolau
778. Pa mai ka makani, o ka lele waa e / X X X
Makani kai ehu lalo o ka
779. Paa wau la e, paa wau / Hooia mai X
hoi ka uhane i loko
780. Pali kau huhu ka uhu kai o Makapuu X X
/ Huki ka lani i ka lae o Kalaau
781. Pali mai nei ka maka i ka mea o ka X
hilahila / E kuu hilahila
782. Panaewa nui moku lehua / Ohia kupu X X
haoeoe i ka lani
783. Paoa i ke ahi uka o Kaauea / Ikiiki X X
hoi ka uahi o ka lua
784. Pau ke aho i ke kahawai lau o Hilo / 400 X X X x2 X X
He lau ka puu he mano ka ihona
785. Pau Kilauea i ke ahi / Owela no i ka X X
mauna
786. Pau Puna i ke ahi / 0 wela no i ka X X
mauna
787. Pau Puna koele ka paa / Ua noe ke X X X X X X
kuahiwi
788. Pii mai hoi ha i luna nei / Pii mai ana X
oe ka wahine
789. Pii mai hoi / Pii mai arm oe e ka X X
wahine noho uka, noho kai
790. Piliaama i ke alanui e / Ka ike ole X X X
mai e
791. Piliaama i ke alanui / Kanaka hee X X X
pue wai o Waimea
792. Po nui hoolakolako/ Ua hooniniau a X
eha ka pua o ke koaie
490
KHH KHP KHP2 PCA KLL KLK HA KNA K NA KHR HOH NBE HOH
793. Po Panaewa i ka ua awa / Ke hehi X
mai la i ka lau laau
794. Po Puna i ka ua awa / Kinai i ka lele X
a k a ua
795. Po Puna i ka uwahi kui maka lehua / X X X X
Na wahine ki ehiehi, pua heihei
796. Pohaku au waa lalea i kai nei / Hoe X X X
mai, hoe mai, ia pae i uka nei
797. Polenahu i ka ua Kinimakalehua / Ka X X X
waha i ka la luna o Leinono
798. Popo ke kapa o ka wahine / Au ko X X X
hana wai
799. Popoi haki kaikoo ka lua / H a ki ku X X X X X
kahi kakala ka ino
800. Popoi mai ana ke aloha i kuu maka / X X
Papalu i kuu lihilihi aloha hoi e
801. Pua iki ka uwahi o ka lua e / Alua X
mai la hoi, pono au
802. Pua ka lehua i ka anwai / 1 kahawai i X
Waiokila la
803. Pua kolii ka lehua pua i ka wai / X X
Hoomeamea i ke kai o Hanakahi
804. Puanaie ke kanaka/Ke hele i ka lua X X X
la
805. Pueo e. Pueo hoi / Hoanoano o ke X
ahiahi
806. Puhia Puna, po i ke awa / Oni X
Puuonioni, haa ka papa o Apua
807. Puka mai ka Wahine mai loko mai o X
ka Lua / Mai loko mai o Muliwai o

ka Lena
808. Punohunohu i ka lani / Ka uahi o ka X
lua
809. Ua hala ka Puulena aia i Hilo / Ua X X X X
imi aku la ia Papalauahi
810. Ua ino Honokohau he Uluau nui ka X X
m akani/K e haihai la i ka lau o ka
awa
811. Ua kuawala hooakaaka / Na ale o ka X X
moana
812. Ua k u 'ik u 'i wale ia. ua haena na ihu / X
Ua ka ka upe i ke kula loa o
Lualualei
813. Ua lili ka lani me ka ua / Ua ooki ka X
lani poele ka honua3
814. Ua lono au i ka leo e / 1 ka hala opu X
hoomau loa, auwe e
815. Ua make ia he aa ma ko Kahikinui / X X X X
He paiea ko Molokini
816. Ua make ia ke hai mai na akua X X
wahine / Omua noi, aahu kapa o
Maunaloa
817. Ua make ia ke hai mai nei / Na akua x2 x2
wahine o Hana nei
818. Ua make ia ke kua ia la kaula i ka X
ohia / Pua ka lehua i ka auwai
819. Ua make ia o Hahae k a o e l a o kui X X
kapi he/ Ike aumoeo Wawa
820. Ua make ia ua make Kamuleialii / 0 X X X
Kihanuilulumoku ke puhi nei na aina
3 This is also a continuation of chant #141.
492
821. Ua make ia / Ke hai mai nei na X
Wahine
822. Ua make ia / Ke hai mai nei no na ua X
makua
823. Ua make ia / Ke hai mai nei na akua X
824. Ua make i a / K e hai mai nei na akua X x2 X
wahine
825. Ua make ia / Ke hai mai nei na akua X X
wahine o Harm la
826. Ua make ia / Ke hai mai nei na akua X
wahine o mua nei
827. Ua make ia / Ku kai mai nei na akua X
wahine / 1 ke komohana la o Lehua
828. Ua make ke ‘Hi nona nei moku /H e x2 X
puaa ka uka o Molokai
829. Ua make / Kalawa ka mai la X X X
830. Ua paha i ke Pahele hala Lupua a / X
Nui ana ka hanu o Limahuli o na
Lehua o Luluupali
831. Ua puea e ke one ka lehua o uka / Ua X X X X
hoa iki Kaula i ka papa
832. Ua wahia ka lani / Kau Kahaea / Ea X
mai Pele
833. Ua wela Puulena i ke ahi / Ua wela X X X
ka mauna ou e Kahuna
834. Uhi polou i ke kapa a ka wahine / X X
Hoomoe i na kapa, lelel hau maka
akua
835. Uliuli tai fali o Tahitinui e / Totoro X
mai te ohu e he ino
493
836. Unuhi hemolele ke alelo a ka makani X
/ Hoopakika ana i ka polo o ka
hinano
837. Waihinano iki a ka poipoi e / Ia wai X x2 X X
o Maui
838. W alohia wale Haleakala / O Maui X
no e ka oi
839. Wehea iho nei loko e ka moe / X X
Malamalama no me he ahi lele la
840. Wela i ka la e wela i ka l a / Ua wela i X X X X X
ka la ke kua o Lualualei
841. Wela ka hoku ka malama / Ua wela X X X X
makalii
842. Wela ka lani wela ka hoku ka x2
malama i luna / wela Makalii Kaelo
i Kaulua
843. Wela ka mauna i ke ahi e / P a u na ki X X
akaunu
494
APPENDIX 1C
Episode Synopsis Comparison Chart of all Episodes contained in the Pele and H i‘iaka M o‘olelo
presented in chronological order
abbrev. Nupepa title author m o‘olelo title dates published
KHH Ka Hae Hawai'i Hauola. B, 1860

KHP Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika Kapihenui, J.N. “He M o‘olelo no Hi'iakaikapoliopele” 1861 - 1862
KHP2 Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika Ka'awaloa. F. W. “He Mo'olelo no Manamanaiakaluea” 1862
PCA Pacific Commercial Advertiser Kaili (Emma Nakuina) “A Hawaiian Legend by a Hawaiian Native” 1883
KLL Ka Leo o ka Lahui Pa‘aluhi, Rev. Simeon & “He M o‘olelo no Hi‘iakaikapoliopele” 1893
John E. Bush
KLK Ka Loea Kalai'aina Manu, Moses “He M o‘olelo no Pelekeahi'aloa a me Wakakeakaikawai” 1899
HA Hawai 'i Aloha Ho'oulumahiehie “Hi'iakaikapoliopele ka Wahine i ka Hikina a ka La, a o ka 1905
U‘i Palekoki 'Uila o Halema'uma'u”
KNA Ka N a'i Aupuni Ho'oulumahiehie “Hi'iakaikapoliopele ka Wahine i ka Hikina a ka La, a o ka 1905-1906A
U ‘i Palekoki ‘Uila o Halema‘uma‘u”
KNA Ka Na ‘i Aupuni Ho'oulumahiehie “Hkiakaikapoliopele ka W ahine i ka Hikina a ka La, a o ka 1906B
U ‘i Palekoki ‘Uila o H alem a'um a'u”
KHR Ku ‘oko ‘a Home Rula Poepoe, Joseph M. “Hi'iakaikapoliopele” 1908
HOH Hoku o Hawai'i Rice, William Hyde “Pele a me Kana Kaikaina Hkiakaikapoliopele” 1908
NBE Pele and Hi'iaka, a myth from Emerson, Nathaniel B “Pele and Hi'iaka a myth from Hawai'i” 1915
Hawai ‘i
HOH Hoku o Hawai'i Desha, Stephen, ed. “Hi'iakaikapoliopele ka Wahine i ka Hikina a ka La, a o ka 1928
U 'i Palekoki ‘Uila o Halema'um a'u”
KEY:
MVE = episode moved to earlier in the text than in other versions NO = not in text
MVL = episode moved to later in the text than in other versions V = variation (significant)
yellow highlight indicates discrepancy between placement of scenes red color indicates I’m not sure which text the episode belongs to
m = issues missing from microfilm or unavailable A = Pa‘aluhi and Bush (A)(pre-Kapihenui text)
Color of text indicates which m o‘olelo it first appears in, i.e. black = Kapihenui, dark blue = Pa‘aluhi and Bush, etc.
464
Episodes KHH KHP KHP PCA KLL KLK HA KNA KNA KHR HOH NBE HOH
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Preface NO NO A X? X? X? X X
2. Introduction X NO A X X X X X
3. Genealogy NO NO A X X? X? X? X x1
4. Pele’s family travels to Hawai‘i NO NO A X X X X X X
from Kahiki
5. K apo’s arrival in Hawaii NO NO X
6. Kapo ma arrive on Ni‘ihau NO NO X
7. Kapo ma arrive on K a u a i (at NO NO X
Mana).
8. N a wahinemakakai walks to NO NO X
W aimea and encounters
P apa‘ena‘ena
9. Story returns to Kapo and NO NO X
Kahuilaokalani
10. A uthor digresses; Boki’s travels to NO NO X
Guam
11. Kapo arrives at Wailua, K a u a i NO NO X
12. Kapo establishes the surf NO NO X
Kalehuawehe & Makaiwa; pae
k ii
13. Kapo continues on to Kalalea NO NO X
14. A uthor digresses; woman in K a‘u, NO NO X
1892
15. Kapo adm ires Hanalei; lives NO NO X
there
16. Kapo arrives on O ahu NO NO X
17. Kapo arrives at Maunaloa, NO NO X
M olokai, becomes god of hula
1 only sisters; brothers given later
465
KHH KHP KHP PCA KLL KLK HA KNA KNA KHR HOH NBE HOH
18. Author digresses; L aka- NO NO X
Wahieloa, a male figure not
associated with hula, to
distinguish between the two
19. Kapo and Kahuilaokalani NO NO X
establish themselves at M aunaloa
as sorcery gods.
20. Kapo seeks the pueo god on Maui NO NO X
21. Pele marries chief Wahieloa, and NO NO xV X
they have several children,
including Laka, the goddess of
hula
22. Pele desires to leave her NO X
homeland
23. Pele ma arrive at Hapakuela, NO X
looking for Wahieloa. When the
po‘e kama‘aina say no one has
visited recently, Pele ma reboard
the canoe; island destroyed by
sea.
24. Na H i‘iaka sisters established. NO X X X
Kinolau and Kanawai named
25. Pele ma arrive at the northwest NO A X
Hawaiian islands. Travel down
from Nihoa to Kaula, to N i‘ihau
26. Pele travels from Kahiki to A X X X
Hawai‘i.
27. Pele arrives on Nihoa X
28. *Author digresses; K a'ahum anu’s X
tr ip to Nihoa
29. Pele arrives at K a‘ula X X X X X
30. Pele arrives on Ni‘ihau A X X X X X
466
31. Pele departs NPihau and arrives X
on Lehua
32. Pele arrives on Kaua‘i NO A X X X X X X X
33. Kamawaeluani explained, chant X
of birth given
34. Pele associated with features on X X X X X
K aua‘i
35. Kilauea last place Pele digs
before leaving
36. Pele in Hanalei X
37. author digresses: addresses X
reader re. Lohi‘au
38. Pele arrives on 0 ‘ahu NO A X X X X X m X
39. Pele associated with features on X X X X
0 ‘ahu
40. Pele arrives on Moloka‘i NO 9 A X X X X X
41. Pele associated with features on
MolokaM
42. Pele arrives on Kaho‘olawe A X X X X
43. Kamohoali‘i left on Kaho‘olawe X X X X
[in mano form]
44. Pele arrives on Maui A X X X X X
45. Pele associated with features on X X X X?
Maui
46. Pele arrives on Hawai‘i island A X X X X X
47. Pele associated with features on X X X X
Hawai‘i island
48. Genealogy of Pele’s brothers X
given
49. Pele takes a lover, Puna‘aikoa‘e X
467
50. Pele and Puna‘aikoa‘e live X
together at Kllauea
51. Waka seduces Puna‘aikoa‘e X
52. Author digresses; describes X
Waka, na m o‘o
53. Waka tempts Puna‘aikoa‘e again X
54. author digresses; mentions 1884 X
Kihaapi‘ilani story (regarding
spiders and prophecies).
55. Pele seeks P una‘aikoa‘e X
56. Battle between Pele and W aka X
commences
57. author digresses; names places in X
Puna. Recalls tidal wave of 1869.
58. Pele defeats W aka and X
Puna‘aikoa‘e
59. At the crater [‘Pele in the bosom X A X X X X X X m
of her family”]
60. At the seashore in Puna. X A X X m
61. Pele delights in the hula of Hopoe X A X X m
and Ha‘ena. Hi‘iakaikapoliopele
dances for her.
62. Pele desires to sleep. Commands X A X X X X X m
her sisters to not disturb her.
63. Pele travels in her sleep and X A X X X X m
follows the sound of the pahu to
Kaua‘i
64. Kanikawi and Kanikawa A X X X m
responsible for sending the sound
of the drumming to Pele from
Kaua‘i (so she will be L ohP au’s
‘•wife” )
468
65. Pele arrives at Ha‘ena, Kaua‘i X A X X X X m
66. Pele Meets Lohi‘au X A X X X X m
67. Lohi‘au orders a feast prepared A X X X X
for Pele
68. Pele & Lohi‘au retire to his hale A X X X X
for 3 days & 3 nights
69. Lohi‘au is hungry, so he tries to A X X X X
convince Pele to accompany him
to eat; she refuses
70. When Lohi‘au leaves to eat, Pele A
departs
71. K alam ainu‘u and Kilioeikapua, X X X X
the two m o‘o women of H a‘ena,
ioint the fe'stiviH pc
72. Pele places the kanawai Kai X X X X
OkPa on LohPau, making him
kapu to her
73. Pele chants the winds of Nihoa, X X X X X
K a4ula, N iih au , and K a u a i (to
prove she is native to the islands
of K a u ai, N iihau, K a'ula &
Nihoa)
74. Pele’s calling of the winds creates X X X X
a great storm
75. Pele leaves LohPau and returns X A X X X X m
to H awaii
76. LohPau Kills Himself; Paoa vows X NO X m
revenge
77. Pele’s Sisters Argue About X NO X m
Waking her up
78. [Pa‘uopala‘e] goes to the seashore xV MVL xV xY m
at Puna to fetch H iiaka
ON
NO
79. H iiak a Awakens Pele X MVE X m
80. Pele’s spirit returns to the crater X X X X MYE X m
81. Pele orders H iiaka to fetch their A X X X m
siblings to return upland
82. H iiak a stays at the beach with X A X X X X m
Hopoe, but Pele says she must
return if someone comes to fetch
her
83. Pele asks na Hiiaka, one at a X? A X X X X? m
time, to go to K auai and fetch
Lohi‘au. One by one, they refuse.
84. Pele orders H iiaka’s return X A X X X X m
85. H iiak a foresees she will be asked X A X X X m
to go on a journey
86. [Lonoikaonoli‘i/Kauilanuimaka‘e X A X X X in
haikalani] is sent to fetch H iiaka
at the seashore of Puna
87. H iiak a prepares for her journey X A X X X m
without first consulting her sister
88. Pele commands H iiaka to fetch X A X X X X m
Lohi’au
89. Pele endows Hiiaka with power NO X A X X X X X m
90. H iiak a’s power includes the X ni
smiting hand (lima k u i) Kilauea

91. H iia k a ’s power includes the X m
critical eye ‘Awihikalani
92. H i'iak a’s power includes the X X X m
lightning skirt p a‘u uila
93. Pele has H iiaka appropriately X A X X X m
fitted for a pa‘u; designates
Pa‘uopala‘e as a companion
-j
o
94. P a‘uopala‘a is Hi‘iaka’s X X X m
companion
95. H iiaka delays her journey at A X X X m
Pu‘u‘oni‘oni [out of concern for
her beloved Hopoe]
96. H iiaka desires a companion X NO X m
97. Hi‘iaka knows Lohi‘au is dead X NO NO m
98. H iiaka divines Lohi‘au’s name X? X X m
99. H iiaka departs to fetch LohPau X A X X X X in
with Pa‘uopala‘e
100. H iiaka encounters MVL X X X X m
Wahine‘5ma‘o
101. Wahine‘5ma‘o makes her MVL X X X X m
sacrifice to Pele
102. Hi‘iaka ma encounter X X X m
M alamanui, a sick girl at
M ahirtaakaka who H iia k a heals
103. H iia k a cries for Hopoe X X X m
104. H iia k a recounts how she X X X m
befriended Hopoe for
Wahine^omam
105. H iia k a ma encounter two bird X X X m
men, Lehuakea ancl L ehua‘ula in
the forests of Puna2
106. H iiaka ma encounter X X m
Puna‘aikoa‘e in the forest of
01a ‘a
107. H iiaka ma encounter a group of MVL A MVL MVL MVL X m
women in the forest of 01a‘a
[Paliuli] going to Hilo for fish
2 The author here comments on Puna‘aikoa‘e being who they encounter in earlier versions. Gives genealogy of Wahine‘oma‘o.
471
108. Hi‘iaka m a encounter Papulehu. NO NO X m
a beauty of Puna
109. HPiaka ma encounter MVL A MVL MVL MVL m
Papalauinuioleka who desires to
go with them
110. HPiaka ma travel through MVL A MVL MVL MVL m
Waiolama [and encounter
Paikaka.]
111. Papanuioleka flees; H iiaka turns MVL A MVL MVL MVL m
her to stone
112. H iiaka encounters and escapes NO X MVL MVL V m
from Pahulu, the fisherman
113. H iiaka ma debate which road to X X X X m
take to get through Pana‘ewa
114. Na kiu o Pana‘ewa debate X X X X ni
H iiaka’s arrival
115. Pana‘ewa orders the two mo‘o to X X X X m
cut off the heads of the spirits of
Pana‘ewa and fill the path with
their blood to drown H iiaka ma
116. H iiaka battles and defeats X X A X X X X X m
Pana‘ewa with the help of Pele
ilia (she calls on them)
117. H iiaka encounters MVE X
Wahine‘5ma‘o
118. Wahine‘oma‘o makes her MVE X X X m
sacrifice to Pele
119. H iiak a spares Haiii, who tries to X X X m
warn P a i e i e ma that they are
battling the great H iiaka
472
120. H i‘iaka ma encounter a group of X A X X X MVE m
5 women at Puainako [from MVE
Paliuli] going to Hilo for fish
121. HPiaka grants a fish for the old A X X X m
woman, garnered from a
fisherman returning with his
catch
122. HPiaka ma arrive at the home of X X X m
a relative of Haili; heal a sick
male relative
123. HPiaka chants a list of illnesses as X X X m
a sand chant related to the
different islands
124. H iia k a ma encounter some X X X x ra
young girls at Kanokoi stringing
lei
125. W ahine‘om a‘o figures out X m
H iia k a ’s supernatural character
126. H iia k a encounters the chief NO X m
Punahoa
127. H iia k a encounters the surfing NO X A MVL M VL MVL X NO m
chiefess Punahoa3
128. H iia k a ma encounter the two NO X m
daughters of Ohele, the
fisherman
129. H iia k a saves the life o f the NO MVL M VL MVL X m
chiefess Punahoa and is
recognized by the people as an
akua
3 In Kapihenui, Punahoa is the name of W ahine‘om a‘o’s mother (Kaipalaoa is her father); Emerson switches them (Kapihenui, January 23, 1861)
473
130. H i‘iaka m a encounter NO X A X X X m
Papanuioleka [daughter of MVE
Ohele].
131. Ohele recognizes Hi‘iaka, NO X X X m
instructs his daughter to be
properly hospitable
132. H iia k a revives Ohele, the NO NO X m
fisherman
133. Papanuioleka desires to NO X A X X X m
accompany H iia k a ma MVE
134. H iia k a ma travel through NO X A X X X m
W aiolama [and encounter MVE
Paikaka]
135. Papanuioleka flees; H iia k a turns NO X A X X X m
her to stone MVE
136. Paikaka turned to stone NO X X X X m
137. H iia k a ma attacked by the NO A X X X m
spirits of Waiolama
138. The spirit of Papanuioleka NO X X X m
instructs Ohele how to revive her
body and bring her back to life
139. W ahine‘om a‘o shows concern for NO X X X m
Papanuioleka, H iia k a chants
m o‘oku‘auhau for her
140. H iia k a encounters the surfing NO X A X X X MVE m
chiefess Punahoa MVE
141. H iia k a saves the life o f the NO X X X MVE m
chiefess Punahoa and is
recognized by the people as an
akua
4^
KHH KHP KHP PCA KLL KLK HA KNA KNA KHR HOH N BE HOH
142. H iia k a encounters [Pu‘ueo and] NO X A X X X X m
P i‘ihonua, two puhenehene
players o f Hilo
143. H iia k a encounters Piliam o‘o and X X A X X X X m
Kuaua [Nohoamo‘o], the m o‘o
guardians o f the Wailuku river
144. H iia k a helps P iihonua defeat NO A x 4 X X m
P u‘ueo
145. W ahine‘om a‘o travels ahead [to X? A X X m
Kalalau] to prepare for H iia k a ’s
arrival
146. The wom en eat a meal prepared M VL A X X m
by W ahine‘dma‘o ’s family
147. W ahine‘5m a‘o teUs her parents X V
m
she is traveling on with H iia k a
ma
148. H iia k a detects two m o‘o women A X X m
am ongst the crowd, and has them pau
killed by lava destroying the half here
o f the house they are in
149. H iia k a m a spend the night in X X m
H o n o lii at the home of Kahuli;
there is an ‘awa drinking p a in a
150. H iia k a kills the mo‘o and saves X X m
the household from attack
151. H iia k a m a depart and arrive at X X m
H om aika‘ohe then M akahanaloa.
152. W ahine‘om a‘o escapes the X NO NO X m
watchful eyes o f her parents
4This is the last issue of Hawai'i Aloha.
475
KHH KHP KHP PCA KLL K LK HA KNA KNA KHR HOH NBE HOH
153. W ahine‘om a‘o spies surfers off o f NO X X X X m
Hakalau
154. Hi‘iaka ma encounter and escape NO X X m
from Pahulu, the fisherman
155. Hi‘iaka witnesses the destruction ? NO? MVL M VL X m
of H5poe
156. H iia k a encounters two demons NO X NO m
fishing at Hamakua
157. When they arrive in ‘0 ‘okala, NO X X m
H iia k a tells them the purpose of
their journey to K auai
158. H i‘iaka sees two female spirits in NO X X m
Hamakua
159. Mahiki challenges Hi‘iaka to a X X m
battle; H i‘iaka defeats the
throngs of M ahiki’s forces
160. Hiiaka ma encounter the man- NO NO X NO m
eating shark Manaiakalani
161. The three women encounter the X X X *> m
shark god M aka‘ukiu at the
mouth o f W aipi‘o
162. H iia k a kills the ghosts above X NO NO NO m
W aipi‘o
163. H iia k a battles Mo‘olau [in X NO MVL MVL X X m
Mahiki]
164. H iia k a encounters the boneless NO X X X X X X
kanaka [na kanaka ‘aukf|
165. H iia k a ma reach Pili and NO X X m
Kalahikiola (twin hills) in
Kohala; encounter the woman
Kalahikiola
<i
ON
166. H i‘iaka battles M o'olau [in NO NO X X MVE MVE m
Kohala]
167. H i‘iaka battles Mo‘okini NO X X m
168. H iia k a m a cross tbe Wailuku X M VE M VE MVE MVE X MVE
river; H iia k a defeats PUiamo‘o 9
and Nohoam o‘o
169. Pa‘uopala‘e stays behind NO NO X X m
[“Hiiaka meets Mother-Grundy”]
170. H iia k a encounters the akua X NO NO X m
wahine [A]hinahinakuikapali at
the mouth o f the H o n o lii river
171. The women eat a meal prepared NO NO NO X m
by the ghosts
172. The women eat a meal prepared X M VE A/f\7F
iri. ▼i2j M VE
by W ahine‘om a‘o ’s family
173. H iia k a and W ahine‘om a‘o get X X X X X
transport to M aui
174. The two m en [P iikeanui & X X X
P iikeaiki] try to accost H iia k a
ma in the canoe
175. H iia k a visits with her sister X X X NO X
Kapo in Hana, Maui
176. H iia k a asks Ku for fish, kills X NO NO
rude fish beggars on Maui
177. The kumu hula realizes who X X
H iia k a is; sacrifices and
offerings are given
178. H iia k a ma encounter three girls X X
stringing lei hala in Kahakuloa;

the girls give the women their leis
4^
-j
179. H i‘iaka encounters X M VL X X MVL X
Manamanaiakaluea, the m aimed
fisherperson, and heals her
180. Genealogy of NO X NO NO NO NO
Manamanaiakaluhea
181. Birth and upbringing o f NO X NO NO NO NO
Manamanaiakaluhea
182. Death of Keawe; NO X NO NO NO NO
Manamanaiakaluhea provides for
her mother
183. Manamanaiakaluhea dies NO X NO NO NO NO
184. Keahiwela grieves for her NO X NO NO NO NO
daughter; M anamanaiakaluhea’s
spirit reappears
185. Author tells o f H iia k a ’s purpose NO X NO NO NO NO
in her journey; Manamana
chants to H iiak a
186. H iia k a hides from X NO NO NO
Manamanaiakaluhea
187. Manamanaiakaluhea chants X NO NO NO
again
188. Manamanaiakaluhea continues NO X NO NO NO NO
her search for fish
189. H iia k a reveals X NO NO NO
Manamanaiakaluhea’s true
nature
190. H iia k a protects Wahine‘om a‘o NO X NO NO NO NO
191. Manamanaiakaluea resumes her NO X NO NO NO NO
Ashing
192. Manamanaiakaluhea recognizes X NO NO NO
this as a h o’ailona of H iia k a
478
193. Manamanaiakaluhea asks to be X NO NO NO
restored to life
194. Hi’iaka captures X NO NO NO
Manamanaiakaluhea’s spirit
195. Hi‘iaka requests permission from NO X NO NO NO NO
Keahiwela to restore
M anam ana’s life
196. W ahine‘5m a‘o defies H i‘iaka’s X NO NO NO
command to stay put; assists
Hi‘iaka in restoring
Manamanaiakaluhea to life
197. Keahiwela and NO X NO NO NO NO
Manamanaiakaluhea reunited
198. H i‘iaka gives Wahine‘5m a‘o a NO X NO NO NO NO
command
199. H i‘iaka searches for the reason NO X NO NO NO NO
Manamaiakaluhea died
200. H i‘iaka is awakened; they depart NO X NO
Kahakuloa
201. Hi’iaka heals a girl of W ailuku, NO NO NO X
Maui
202. H i‘iaka encounters ‘Oiepau’s MVL X X
spirit
203. H i‘iaka and Waihinano battle MVL X X X X
over ‘Olepau; ‘Olepau dies
204. H i‘iaka m a escape from MVL X
W aihinano ma
205. H i‘iaka encounters MVE X MVE M VE X
Manamanaiakaluea, the m aimed ?
fisherperson, and heals her
206. The women catch a canoe to X X X X
MolokaM [from Ka‘anapali]
479
KHP 1/1 Y f
KHH KHP PCA KLL IVX-j JV HA KNA KNA KHR HOH NBE HOH
207. H iia k a m a encounter Kapo on NO X
Molokai
208. H i ‘ ia k a d e f e a ts th e m o ‘o o f NO NO NO X
M o l o k a i , K ik ip u a
209. H iia k a heals a boy of M o lo k ai X X
210. H iia k a calls out to Kahoahoa, an X X
‘aumakua o f the sea off M o lo k a i,

who caused the boy to be ill
211. The women catch a canoe to X X X X X X X
0 ‘ahu and land [near
‘Awawamalu]; H iiak a
encounters her cousin, M akapu‘u
ma
212. H iia k a m a arrive at the court of MVL X MVL NO 9 9 7 MVL MVL 7
Pele‘ula, and play kilu 0
213. W ahine‘om a‘o chants “O Ku o MVL X M VL
Ka o W ahine‘om a‘o.”
214. H iia k a encounters M uliwaiolena X NO X X X NO
and ‘Apuakehau
215. H iia k a receives hospitality from X NO X X X NO
Kanahau
216. H iia k a and Kanahau desire each X X
other & make love
217. H iia k a encounters Hauwahine X NO X X X NO
[and Kahalakoa] [at Kawainui
marsh].
218. H iia k a revives the life of X NO NO NO
Mahinui and K ea‘alau’s child at
One‘awa
219. H iia k a chants to He‘eia X NO X X NO NO
Describes the “coral chopping
rain” which shapes the reef
480
220. H i‘iaka chants to Kanahau X NO •} 9
MVE NO
221. H i‘iaka heals a man at H e‘eia
Kea
222. H i‘iaka battles the owl god Pueo X NO NO
at K a‘alaea, Ko‘olaupoko, 0 ‘ahu
223. H iia k a explains the importance X X
of Waikane, Waiololl & Waiolola

224. H iia k a chants a greeting to X X
M o k o lii as they pass by

225. H iia k a defeats M okolii at X NO X
K o‘olaupoko, 0 ‘ahu [“H iia k a
experiences K o‘olau weather”]
226. H iia k a encounters Palani, the X NO MVL MVL NO NO
chief o f Kahana, and his wife,
Iewale in K o‘olauloa, 0 ‘ahu5
227. H iia k a greets X NO X X X X
Kauhiikeim akaokalani [at
Makaua] in K o‘olauloa, 0 ‘ahu
228. H iia k a encounters a kama‘aina NO NO X
of the area, heals his daughter
229. H iia k a greets Kaliuwa‘a and NO NO X X X?
W aia[ka]hilahila at Ko‘olauloa,
0 ‘ahu
230. H iia k a greets Laniloa at X NO X X X
K o‘olauloa, 0 ‘ahu [“Hiiaka
describes the scene before her”]
231. H iia k a encounters a woman NO NO X X X
[Lewa] in the hala forest near
Kahuku; Lewa offers hospitality
5In 1906, these two episodes are switched in order because Makaua comes before Kahana, so it makes more sense.
-l^
oo
232. H i‘iaka ma encounter some X X
women going down to K u ilim a to

fish
233. H i‘iaka encounters Punahe‘elapa X NO NO X
[Puna ho‘olapa] and

Pahipahialua at Kahipa (near
Kahuku), Ko‘olauloa, 0 ‘ahu
234. H iia k a encounters the fisherman X NO X X X NO
Pili‘a ‘ama in K o‘olauloa, 0 ‘ahu
235. H iia k a visits the W aialua district X X X X X
o f 0 ‘ahu
236. H iia k a reads the cloud hd ‘ailona X X ?
in Waialua and knows L ohi‘au is
dead
237. H iia k a chants to Ka‘ena and X
K a‘ala
238. H iia k a ma arrive at K a‘ena; NO NO X
encounters Kawaikumu‘ole, a
cousin
239. H iia k a ma arrive at K a‘ena, sees X X
her brothers K a‘ena and

Pohakuokauai, offers a chant
240. H iia k a encounters X X X X X X
Pohakuokauai, asks for a canoe

241. When no canoe is available, X X
H iia k a constructs her ow n with

pieces from a broken canoe on
the beach
242. H iia k a ma sail for K a u a i X X X X
243. While at sea, H iia k a sees that the X X X
destruction of Puna is com plete
00
to
244. While at sea in the middle of X X
K a ie ie , H iia k a knows L ohi‘au

is dead; they spot Wai‘ale‘ale and
chant “KQnihi ka mauna”
245. H iia k a lands on K a u a i X xV6 xV7 xV xV8 xV9
246. H iia k a sees the spirit o f Lohi‘au X X X X
above H a‘ena, Napali, K a u a i
247. MaIaeha‘akoa offers H iia k a ma X NO X X X
hospitality at H a‘ena, K a u a i
248. H iia k a calls upon Kaluanui and MVL X X X
K ahuakaiapaoa
249. H iia k a orders a kapu on travel, X X
and a hale ki constructed

250. H iia k a discovers Lohi‘au ’s grave X X
is empty and accuses K ahuanui of

lying; Paoa offers a hen as a m ihi
251. H iia k a and Lohi‘au’s spirit X X
chant back and forth to each

other
252. H iia k a m a ascend the cliffs of X X
Ha‘ena
253. H iia k a defeats the m o‘o Kilioe MVL X MVL MVL MVL MVL MVL
and Kalamainu‘u fwith
Pa‘uonala‘a ’s heh>l
254. H iia k a chants to Kapahi on X NO NO NO
K auai
6 They land at Ha‘ena (Kaili, September 21, 1893).

7 They land “at the beach of Kapa‘a.”
8 In the Haw aii island version Poepoe gives, they land “on K auai.” In the Maui version, they land at Kapa‘a (Poepoe, September 10, 1909).
9 They land on the beach (kahaone) of Wailua (Rice, July 9, 1908).
oo
u>
255. H i‘iaka encounters the m o‘o Aka X MVE X X X X X
[Kalanamainu‘u] and
Kilioeikapua
256. P a‘uopala‘e rejoins H iia k a ma in NO NO X
H a‘ena. kills Kilioeikanua and
Kalalhalm ainu'u with her la‘au
kinolau
257. H iia k a ma transport LohPau’s X X
body to their hale ki below
258. H iia k a makes an offering o f red X X
fish to Pele
259. Pele is still upset about H iia k a ’s X X
tryst with Kanahau, and
contemplates destroying Hopoe
260. H iia k a restores Lohi‘au’s life X X X X X X X
261. H iia k a gets the assistance of X MVE MVE MVE
Lohi‘au’s sister, Kahuanui
262. Lohi‘au is reunited with MVL MVL X X ?
Kahuanui [and K ahuakaiapaoa]
ma
263. LohPau’s life restored; he goes X X X X ? X
surfing
264. Lohi‘au is reunited with X X MVE MVE X
Kahuanui [and K ahuakaiapaoa]
ma
265. The kapu lifted, all of H a‘ena X X 9
comes out to celebrate Lohi‘au’s
revival
266. H iia k a recounts her trials and X X 9
tribulations in her quest to find
and revive LohPau
484
267. L ohi‘au appoints X X ?
K ahuakaiapaoa and Kahuanui
as ali‘i o f K a u a i
268. Nakoaola travels to N i‘ihau to X NO NO NO NO X
fetch K ahuakaiapaoa
269. H iia k a m a depart H a‘ena X X X X X
270. Travel up the Na Pali coast to NO X X X
M ana and around the west and
south side of K auai
271. H iia k a travels over land, the X
other two in the canoe
272. H iia k a chants to Kalalau, X X ?
W aialoha, and Mana
273. Spirits o f Mana attack H iia k a ; X X 9
she wards off a sand tornado with
her pa‘u
274. H iia k a boards the canoe at X X ?
Nohili
275. They sail down the west coast o f X X 9
K a u a i; H iia k a calls out

greetings to places and akua
along the way
276. H iia k a m a play kilu with X
Koananai ma in Kealia
277. H iia k a m a depart from K a u a i xV xV xV 10 xV xV
278. H iia k a chants to Kalalau and xV NO NO xV
M ana, K a u a i, before chanting to
K a‘ena and Pdhakuokauai
279. H iia k a m a encounter the shark NO NO MVL MVL MVL X
gods Kua and Kaholeakane
10 At Koloa when they see Ha‘upu they turn the canoe to steer for Ka‘ena.
4^
oo
Ln
280. H i‘iaka calls out a greeting to two X X 7
sea cousins, Moanonui‘aikalehua
and K um unui‘aikalehua
281. H i‘iaka m a land at X X o
Leinaka‘uhane in Waialua; she
directs L ohi‘au ma on in the
canoe, and travels overland
282. H i‘iaka defeats the i‘a kupua NO NO X X X
Pohakuloa
283. [W hat H iia k a saw from the NO NO MVL X
height o f Pohakea”]
284. H i‘iaka encounters NO X X X
M a ile la u liilii, Koiahi, and
Halakaipo, N a Wahine U ‘i o
Kea‘au, W ai‘anae
285. Koiahi m a offer hospitality to X X 7
H i‘iaka ma at Makua
286. H iia k a encounters NO NO X X X
Kaulanaakala, a Molok‘ai a l i i
who is troubled by a riddle
287. H iia k a m a stay the night in X X X
Makua and play kilu
288. H iia k a m a encounter the shark NO NO X X X MVE
gods Kua and ‘Alaikapoiki
289. H iia k a m a are received NO X X X
hospitably by P o k a i
290. H iia k a instructs Lohi‘au and X X 7
W ahine‘om a‘o to continue by
canoe, sends P a‘uopala‘a home
291. W hat H iia k a saw from the X X X MVE
heights o f Pohakea”
486
292. H iia k a spies some women of X X
‘Ewa going to fish and chants to
them
293. H iia k a admonishes Lohi‘au ma X X
for wasting time
294. H iia k a encounters some women X X
o f ‘Ewa stringing mayo lei & asks
for one in a chant; when they
oblige her, she gives her prayer as
protection
295. H iia k a chants to Leinono in X X
recognition
296. H iia k a spies two mo‘o women X X
who flee; place named Pe‘ekaua
297. H iia k a chants to Pu‘uokapolei X X
ma
298. H iia k a chants to Pu‘ukua & X X
Kanehoa ma
299. A t Kualakai H iiak a stops at a X X
spring and plucks lehua,
stringing lei;
300. Kapo arrives on 0 ‘ahu and X X
chants to her
301. H iia k a rendezvous with Lohi‘au xV xV X X xV xV
m a at Pu‘uloa
302. H iia k a m a play ldlu at the court X MVE X NO NO X X X X X
o f Pele‘ula in Kou (Honolulu),
0 ‘ahu
303. H iia k a m a continue down the X NO NO X
Kona coast o f 0 ‘ahu
00
<1
304. H i‘iaka m a encounter some X NO NO X
women fishing at Niu, 0 ‘ahu
305. H iia k a ma depart 0 ‘ahu xV xV xV xV xV
306. H iia k a ma continue on to Maui, X NO NO MVE
and encounter ‘Olepau, the m o‘o
Paukukalo
307. Death of ‘Olepau; continue to X MVE
H a w a ii from Maui
308. H iia k a ma arrive on H a w a ii xV xV NO xV xV
island
309. H iia k a stops at a lehua grove to X
adorn herself and Lohi‘au
310. Pa‘uopala‘e and W ahine‘om a‘o X X NO X
killed by Pele
311. H iia k a confronts Pele at the X X NO X X
crater
312. Pele resumes her powers X
313. Lohi‘au appeals to Pele X X
314. H iia k a tries to intervene X
315. Pele destroys Lohi‘au X X NO X X
316. H iia k a is overcome with grief X X NO X X
317. H iia k a searches the realm of X
Milu for Lohi‘au ’s soul
318. H iia k a stays in Milu awhile X
319. H iia k a returns to K a u a i NO NO X
320. W ahine‘om a‘o confronts Pele. X NO NO NO
Recounts trip for Pele
321. Lohi‘au’s spirit travels to K a u a i X NO NO X X
322. Kanemilohai captures L ohi'au’s MVL NO X
spirit on the ocean and revives
him
4^
oo
oo
323. N ews of Lohi‘au’s death reaches X
K aua‘i
324. Paoa travels from K au ai to X X NO X
H aw ai‘i
325. Paoa confronts Pele at the crater X X X
326. H er rage spent, Pele realizes she X
has been unjust to H iia k a
327. Na H iia k a sisters tell Pele they X
w on’t destroy another handsome,
innocent man
328. Pele restores life to Wahine- X
‘om a‘o, sends her to fetch H iia k a
329. W ahine‘5m a‘o chants to H iia k a X
to entice her return to the crater
(“ku‘u aikane” chants)
330. Paoa ma return to K a u a i NO NO X NO
331. Pele gives H iia k a to Paoa as his X
wife and they return to K a u a i
332. H iia k a accompanies Paoa to X
K a u a i with Wahine‘om a‘o
333. L ohi‘au is revived at the crater; X X
Pele tells him about the kilu game
a t Pele‘ula’s court in Kou
334. L ohi‘au m ust remain at Mauliola X
at the crater for ten days as part
o f his kapu (Kai ‘Okia)
335. L ohi‘au departs the crater and X
heads for Pele‘ula’s court on
0 ‘ahu
336. L ohi‘au travels through Ka‘u and X
Kona
337. LohPau takes a canoe to Maui X
489
338. Lohi‘au travels as a malihini X
339. Lohi'au arrives by canoe at X
Waikiki
340. Some kama‘aina offer him X
hospitality
341. Lohi‘au goes to the kilu festivities X
with them
342. Kanemilohae meets up with X
Lohi‘au at the kilu game; plants
first milo tree (first tree on
0 ‘ahu)
343. Kanemilohae instructs L ohi‘au X
on how to trick H iiaka at kilu
344. Kanemilohae chooses X
W ahine‘om a‘o as a companion
for Kauakahiapaoa
345. Kanemilohai captures L ohi‘au’s X MVE xV
spirit on the ocean and revives
him
346. Lohi‘au’s spirit returns to K aua‘i NO X NO X NO
347. H iia k a and Lohi‘au are reunited NO xV11 m xV xV xV
348. A t a kilu game with Pele‘ula at X X
Kou
349. At a kilu game at Kapa‘a m X NO
350. Kaulanaokala the Waipi‘o chief X
a r r iv e at Pele‘ula’s court
351. A great feast is prepared with an X
abundance o f food from all over
11 Through a kilu game at the court of Pele‘ula at Kou (Honolulu), 0 ‘ahu.
490
352. H i‘iaka ma return to K au ai; X
Kaulanaokala takes them on his
w a‘a
353. H iia k a returns to the crater m xV m m m ni xV xV
354. After some tim e, H iia k a returns X
to the crater; leaves Lohi‘au noa,
and without a kanawai kapu on
his kino
355. H iia k a forgives Pele and returns X
to the crater
356. After Lohi‘a u ’s death, H iia k a X
returns to the crater
'O
APPENDIX 2B
BPBMA BIBILOGRAPHY OF “KUNIHI KA MAUNA”
In the seventeen versions listed in the BPBMA Mele Index there are only two
major variations in the first two lines. The version listed in HEN v. 3 states, “Kunihi ka
mauna i Kahiki e.” Another version states in the second line, “ka luna [o] Waialeale e
ala” (MS SC Roberts 2.6). This version was collected from Jule Naukana, a hula
performer bom in 1842 (BPBM Index). Two of the BPBMA manuscripts list the chant as
an oli, three as a pule, one as a mele olioli (style of chant), one as a hula Pele, one as a
kau no Hi‘iaka (chant specific to Hi‘iaka), and three as a mele kahea. Other
contradictions include one version listing it as a pule no Kapb (prayer for the goddess
Kapo), while another lists is as a pule no Laka (prayer for the hula goddess Laka). Some
versions make no specifications as to the genre of the chant. There are at least eight
informants who are credited with the chant: Jule Naukana (b. 1842), Rose Ka‘imi
La‘anui (n.d.), Sam Ka‘aiali‘i (b. 1872), Kaoulionalani (b. 1869), Kuapahi (n.d.), Peter
Pakele Sr. (1 8 6 9 -1 9 5 2 ), Aiamanu Pauole (1 8 6 5 -1 9 4 5 ), and the renown chanter, James
Kapihenui Palea Kuluwaimaka (1 8 4 5 -1 9 3 7 ). About half of the BPBM versions are listed
as from or related to the m o‘olelo no Pele (Pele stories), while the other half either aren’t
specific, or relate it to hula. One version (HI.M. 59) lists the chant as the “25th of 38
parts” of the hula Pele; another version (HEN v.3) says it is “the 15th of 17 parts” to a
kau no Hi‘iaka.
493
1. MICRO 364.1. K a N a ‘i Aupuni, February 9, 1906. Oli from a mo‘olelo no Pele.
2. HI.M. 77. p. 60. “Pule Kahea Puka.” Pule, Henriques-Peabody collection
3. HI.M. 72. p. 6. Oli listed in “Hulas of Kaua‘i,” collected by Mary K. Pukui, Hawai‘i
Mele Book.
4. HI.M. 59. p. 26. Hula Pele in the Henriques-Peabody collection, Hawai‘i Mele
Book.
5. HEN v. 3. p. 303-304. Chant from H i‘iaka’s journey to Kaua‘i, HEN collection.
6. HEN v. 3. p. 77-78. “The 15th of 17 parts of na kau a Hi‘iaka.” HEN collection.
7. MS SC Roberts 3.8. p. 120-121; 133-134. “28th of 38 parts.” Kuapahi, informant.

Helen Roberts collection.
8. MS SC Roberts 3.7. p. 42-43; 79. Peter Pakele, Sr. (1869-1952), informant. Helen
Roberts collection.
9. MS SC Roberts 2.7 p. 156-157, 158. MeleOlioli. Aiamanu Pauole (1865-1945),

informant. Hele Roberts collection.
10. HI.M. 51.1. p. 95 James Kapihenui Palea Kuluwaimaka (1845-1937) collection.
11. MS SC Roberts 2.6 p. 49-50. Jule Naukana (b. 1842), informant. Helen Roberts
collection.
12. HI.M. 51.2 p. 78. Kuluwaimaka collection, Hawai‘i Mele Book.
13. MS GRP 81.8.28 p. 23. Mele Kahea. Rose Ka‘imi La‘anui, informant. Vivian
Mader collection.
14. MS Sc Roberts 2.3. p. 58-60. Mele Kahea, Pule no Laka. Sam Ka‘aiali‘i (b. 1872),
informant. Helen Roberts collection.
15. fHI.L.23 p. 65. Part o f the m o ‘olelo no H i‘iaka (M alaeha‘akoa section).

Henriques-Peabody collection.
16. HI.H.51 p. 32. Part of the mo‘olelo no Hi‘iaka.
17. MS SC Roberts 2.3. p. 60-62. Mele Kahea, Pule no Kapo. Kaoulionalani (b. 1869),
informant. Helen Roberts collection.
494
APPENDIX 4A
Comparison of differences between Kapihenui 1861 and
Henriques-Peabody manuscript fHI.L. 23
Differences between the texts are italicized. Dates listed reflect when these examples
were published in Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika.
date Kapihenui 1861 Henriques-Peabody manuscript HI.L.

published 23
12/26/61 ke kani ana a ka pahu ke kani a ka pahu

12/26/61 hookahi wale no aia nei hana hookahi wale na hana aia nei
12/26/61 E nahu iho ana keia i ka hokua E nanahu iho ana keia i ka hokua
12/26/61 ua make ke kaikuaana ua make ke kaikunane
1/2/62 A pau keia oli A pau ke oli
1/2/62 Eia ke kumu i ai ole ai na kaikaina Eia ka mea i ai ole ai o na kaikaina
1/2/62 Aole hoi e hiki ke hai aku Aohe hoi e hiki ke hai aku
1/9/62 Ke hoomoe aela Ke hoomea e la
1/9/62 A hoi mai au no a A hoi mai au noa
1/9/62 Aole ua loaa maila no ka inoa o ke Aole ua loaa maila no ka inoa o ke
kane ia oe, e hele, kane ia oe, o hele
1/9/62 He mea o ke aloha He mea e ke aloha
1/9/62 e hai hou mai no a hai hou mai no
1/9/62 I lei o Piihonua la I kai o Piihonua la
1/9/62 E ! Ka hele ana ia a ka wahine A! Ka hele ana ia a ka wahine maikai
maikai
1/16/62 i keia alanui no ka pali no keia alanui no ka pali
1/16/62 hookahi no ke poi mai o Makaukiu hookahi no ke poi mai a Makaukiu
1/16/62 hele ana aku a lakou nei hele ana aku o lakou nei
1/23/62 Na hale ohai i Kekaha Na hale ohai i ke kaha
1/23/62 Aole hoi auanei kakou Aole auanei hoi kakou
3/13/62 a hoi me kakou a hoi ae kakou
3/13/62 i keia olelo no keia olelo
3/13/62 aole hoi ana aohe hoi ana
3/13/62 nana aku keia ia Kalalau ninau aku keia ia Kalalau
4/17/62 hoi keia o ka lalau aku o Hiiaka hoi keia o ka lalau mai o
Hiiakaikapoliopele
4/24/62 E o akua nei la I o akua nei la
4/24/62 Ke lau ahi Ko lau ahi
4/24/62 ina e mau ko lakou manao ina i mau ko lakou manao
5/1/62 ua Waihinano ma laua o Kawelo ia Waihinano ma laua o Kawelo
5/1/62 E hoi i ka hope o ke kupapau O hoi i ka hope o ke kupapau
5/1/62 ua kanaka na kanaka
495
5/1/62 na akua ua akua

5/8/62 ka hooakaka pono i ke ano o kana ka hoomaopopo pono i ke ano o kana
hana hana
5/8/62 holo aku nei no ko holo aku nei no
5/8/62 Aohe mea kapu i koe a ko akua Aohe mea kapu i koe o ko akua
5/8/62 I ke kuhikuhi ana mai a Olepau I ke kuhikuhi ana mai o Olepau
5/8/62 Kuko maila ko lakou naau iaj'a nei Kuko maila ko lakou naau no ianei
5/8/62 kahuna o Kanoa ka huna o ka noa
5/8/62 lakou makou
5/8/62 o Hiiakaikapoliopele a Hiiakaikapoliopele
5/8/62 A honi nei E honi nei
5/29/62 ao/e hoi aohe
5/29/62 e kii mai ana iaia nei e kuni e kii mai ana e kuni iaia nei
7/3/62 aole i kana mai aohe i kana mai
7/3/62 ma keia wahi ma keia mooolelo
7/3/62 ke mele o ka maua hele ana ke mele o ko maua hele ana
7/10/62 Ma ka ‘u moolelo Ma keia moolelo
7/10/62 e moe ana e moe nei
7/10/62 e ue mai nei e ue mai no
7/10/62 Hoi mai nei Hoi no hoi
7/17/62 Hoi e iho mai a hooko ia Hoi e iho mai e hooko ia
7/17/62 keehi akula no kapuai e keehi akula na kapuai e
7/17/62 Noho i ka lau haa o ka moku Noho i ka lau haa a ka moku
7/17/62 kahea hou aku o Pele kahea hou akula o Pele
7/17/62 Nana akula keia i ka mauna Nana maila keia i ka mauna
7/17/62 Kui ka ua loku i luna Kui ka ua loku i uka
496
APPENDIX 4B
NA MO‘OLELO PUBLISHED IN KA HOKU O KA PAKIPIKA
SEPTEMBER 26, 1861 THROUGH MAY 14, 1863
J. KAUWAHI, G. MILA, AND D. KALAKAUA, EDS.
date of publication mo‘olelo title author
September 26, 1861 He M o‘olelo no Kawelo, helu 1 S. K. Kawailiula

October 3, 1861 He M o‘olelo no Kawelo, helu 2
October 3, 1861 M o‘o ‘olelo no Keaniniulaokalani, helu
21
October 10, 1861 He M o‘olelo no Kawelo, helu 3
October 10, 1861 M o‘o ‘olelo no Keaniniulaokalani, helu 3
October 17, 1861 He Ka‘ao
October 17, 1861 He M o‘olelo no Kalaehina S. N. Haleole
October 31,1861 Ka M o‘olelo o Kapakohano S. N. Haleole2
October 31, 1861 Ka M o‘olelo no Kaililauokekoa helu 23
October 31, 1861 He Wahi Ka‘ao no Melekule
November 7, 1861 Ka M o‘olelo no Kaililauokekoa helu 3
November 7,1861 Ka M o‘olelo no Kapakohano helu 2
November 7, 1861 He Wahi Ka‘ao no Melekule helu 2 S. D. Keolanui
November 14, 1861 He M o‘olelo no Kawelo, helu 4
November 14, 1861 He M o‘olelo no Kaililauokekoa, helu 4
November 14, 1861 Na Wahi Pana no Kaliuwa‘a [ 0 ‘ahu] M. K. Palikoolauloa
November 21, 1861 He M o‘o ‘olelo no Esetera S. D. Keolanui
December 5,1861 He Ka‘ao no Hesini (translated from the
Arabian Nights)
December 5, 1861 He Wahi Ka‘ao no Mokulehua, helu 24
December 5, 1861 He M o‘olelo no Kawelo, helu 5 S. K. Kawailiula
December 5, 1861 He M o‘olelo no Kaililauokekoa, helu 5 S. Hinau
December 12, 1861 He Ka‘ao no Hesini5
December 12, 1861 He M o‘olelo no Kaililauokekoa6
December 12, 1861 Ke Kaua ana o Kamehameha
December 12, 1861 He Wahi Ka‘ao no Mokulehua, helu 3
D ecem b er 12, 1861 He W ahi K a ‘ao no K auohihim anu L u cy Pulea
December 19, 1861 He M o‘olelo no Kaililauokekoa, helu 6
1 Says helu 2, but not in the September 26, 1861 issue.

2 signed on next installment.
3 No helu 1 listed.
4 No helu 1 listed.
5 It appears to be helu 3, but no number listed.
6 Not clear if this is the first installment of this m o‘olelo.
497
December 26, 1861 He Mo‘olelo no Kaililauokekoa, helu 7
December 26,1861 He Mo‘olelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele, J. N. Kapihenui
Ihelu 1]
December 26,1861 He Ka‘ao no Hesini, helu 4
January 2,1862 He Mo‘olelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele,
helu 27
January 2, 1862 He Ka‘ao no Hesini, helu 5
January 9, 1862 He Mo‘olelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele,
helu 3
January 9, 1862 He Mo‘olelo no Kaililauokekoa, helu 8
helu 4
January 16,1862 Mo‘olelo no Pamano, helu 1
helu 5
January 23, 1862 He M o‘olelo no Kaililauokekoa, helu 9
February 6, 1862 He Ka‘ao no Hesini, helu 7
February 6, 1862 He Mo‘olelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele,
helu 6
February 13, 1862 Mo‘o ‘olelo no Pamano, helu 2
helu 7
February 20, 1862 Mo‘o ‘5lelo no Pamano, helu 3 J. W. P. Keolanui
helu 8
March 6,1862 He Ka‘ao no Hesini, helu 8
March 6, 1862 He Mo‘olelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele,
helu 9
March 13, 1862 He Mo‘o‘olelo no Mokulehua, helu 4
March 13, 1862 He Mo‘olelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele,
helu 108
March 20, 1862 He M o‘olelo no Mokulehua, helu 5
March 20, 1862 He M o‘olelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele,
helu 11 (says 10)
March 27, 1862 He Ka‘ao no Hesini, helu 9
March 27, 1862 He M o‘olelo no Mokulehua, helu 6 B. K. H.9
March 27, 1862 Hiiaka?
March 27, 1862 Mo‘o ‘olelo no Pamano, helu 410
7 Nupepa says helu 1

8 Nupepa says helu 9
9 This is possibly B. K. Hauola, who was writing in Ka Hae Hawaii about the same time.
498
April 3, 1862 He Ka‘ao no Hesini, helu 10
April 3, 1862 He Wahi Ka‘ao no ka Manu ka Laauoli
(from the Arabian Nights)
April 3, 1862 He Mo‘olelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele,
helu 11 (12)
April 10, 1862 He Wahi Ka‘ao no ka Manu ka Laauoli,
helu 2
helu 12 (13)
April 17, 1862 He Wahi Ka‘ao no ka Manu ka Laauoli, S. K. Ka‘ai
helu 3
helu 13 (14)
April 24, 1862 Mo‘olelo no Samasela Naeha! 0 ka S. K. Ka‘ai
Mooolele keia o ka mea Nana i haku i
na Kaao o Alabia
(helu 1)
helu 14 (15)
May 1, 1862 He Mooolelo no Aladana a me ka S. K. Ka‘ai
Ipukukui Kupaianaha (from the Arabian
Nights)
He Wahi Ka‘ao no Kapua Hu
He Mo‘olelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele,
helu 15 (16)
May 8, 1862 He Mooolelo no Aladana a me ka
Ipukukui Kupaianaha (helu 2)
He M o‘olelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele,
helu 16 (17)
May 15, 1862 He Ka‘ao no ka Manu Elepaio S. W. K.
helu 16(18)
May 22, 1862 no m o‘olelo
May 29, 1862 M o‘olelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele, helu

17(19)
June 5, 1862 He Mooolelo no Aladana a me ka
10 This issue is marked as helu 4, but appears to be helu 3.
499
June 12,1862 He Mooolelo no Aladana a me ka
He Mo‘o ‘olelo no Keamalu, helu 1
June 19, 1862 He Mo‘o ‘olelo no Keamalu, helu 2
helu 18 (20)
June 26, 1862 He Mooolelo no Aladana a me ka
He M o‘o ‘olelo no Keamalu, helu 3
July 3, 1862 He M o‘olelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele,
helu 19 (21)
He Mo‘olelo no Keamalu, helu 4
July 10, 1862 He Mo‘olelo no Keamalu, helu 5
He Mo‘olelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele,
helu 20 (22)
July 17, 1862 He Mo‘olelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele,
helu 21 (23)
He Ka‘ao no Keoni Pailama, helu 1
(translated from a foreign language)
August 7, 1862 He M o‘olelo no Keamalu, helu 9
He Ka‘ao no Keoni Pailama, helu 2
September 4, 1862 Ka M o‘olelo o Laieikawai, (helu 1)
He M o‘olelo no Keamalu, helu 13
September 11, 1862 Ka Mo‘olelo o Laieikawai, helu 2
September 18, 1862 He Mo‘olelo no Keamalu, helu 15
October 10, 1862 He Mooolelo no Manamanaiakaluhea F. W. Ka'awaloa
(helu 1)
O ctober 16, 1862 H e M o o o le lo n o na K anaka K upaianaha
Ekolu, helu 1
He Moolelo no Keamalu, helu 16
He Moolelo no Laieikawai, helu 3
October 23, 1862 He Moolelo no Laieikawai, helu 4
He Mooolelo no na Kanaka Kupaianaha
Ekolu, helu 2
500
October 30, 1862 He Mooolelo no na Kanaka Kupaianaha S. K. Ka‘ain
Ekolu, helu 3
November 6,1862 He Mooolelo no Aukelenuiaiku, helu 1
November 13, 1862 He Mooolelo no Aukelenuiaiku, helu 2
He Mooolelo no na Kanaka Kupaianaha Simeona K. Kaai12

Ekolu, helu 4
November 20,1862 He Mooolelo no Aukelenuiaiku, helu 3
November 27, 1862 He Mooolelo no Aukelenuiaiku, helu 4
December 4,1862 He Mooolelo no Aukelenuiaiku, helu 5
He Ka‘ao no Iosepa Wilamata (helu 1)
December 11, 1862 He Ka‘ao no Iosepa Wilamata (helu 2)
He Mooolelo no Aukelenuiaiku, helu 6
December 18, 1862 He Ka‘ao no Iosepa Wilamata (helu 3)
He Mooolelo no Aukelenuiaiku, helu 7
He Ka‘ao no Losalia (helu 1)
December 25, 1862 He Mooolelo no Aukelenuiaiku, helu 8
He Ka‘ao no Losalia (helu 2)
January 15, 1863 He Moolelo no Keamalu
He Moolelo no Lukela, helu 3 (from the
Arabian Nights)
He Ka‘ao no Losalia (helu 3) ?
January 22, 1863 He Moolelo no Keamalu, helu 19
He Ka‘ao no Losalia (helu 4?)
January 29, 1863 He Moolelo no Keamalu, helu 19 (?)
February 5, 1863 He Mooolelo no Lukela, helu 5 (helu 4?)
February 12, 1863 He Mooolelo no Keamalu, helu 20
February 19, 1863 H e K a ‘ao no Iosep a W ilam ata (helu 8)
He Mooolelo no Lukela, helu 6
February 26,1863 He Ka‘ao no Losalia (helu 7?)
He Mooolelo no Keamalu, helu 21
March 5, 1863 He Mooolelo no Lukela, helu 7
11 May be Simeona K. Ka‘ai (see letter, Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika, October 30, 1862)
12 Signed from “Haleeehia, Kawa.” Is this on 0 ‘ahu? Place names not listed.
501
March 12, 1863 He Ka‘ao no Losalia (helu 8?) pau? W. P. Keolanui,
Kapalama, 0 ‘ahu
March 19, 1863 He Ka‘ao no Uilama (helu 1)
He M o‘olelo no Kuahailo, helu 1
March 26, 1863 He Ka‘ao no Uilama (helu 2)
He Mo‘olelo no Kuahailo, helu 2
April 2, 1863 He Mooolelo no Lukela, helu 8
April 9, 1863 He M o‘olelo no Kuahailo, helu 3
He Mooolelo no Lukela, helu 9
April 16, 1863 He Mooolelo no Keamalu, helu 24
April 23, 1863 He Mooolelo no Lukela, helu 11 (10?)
He Mo‘olelo no Kuahailo, helu 4
April 30, 1863 He Mooolelo no Lukela, helu 12
May 7, 1863 He Mooolelo no Lukela, helu 13
He Moolelo no Hinaaukele, helu 3 (?)
May 14, 186313 He Ka‘ao no Helene (helu 1) Ralph Ikapoda,
Halii, 0 ‘ahu
13There is another m o’olelo printed in this issue that isn’t readable due to poor print quality.
502
APPENDIX 4C
LETTER FROM SIMEONA PA‘ALUHI OF MOLOKAT
KA NUPEPA KUOKOA, NOVEMBER 16, 1867 (2)
Ma ka la 29 o Oct. i kunewa hope ae nei, ua hoomakaukau iho na ekalesia o Kamalo, oia
hoi ka apana o Kaluaaha, mokupuni o Molokai, he wahi paina aloha me ka lakou mau
keiki, i hoouna ia aku ma ke Kula Kahuna a Rev. W. P. Alekanedero, ma ka malu
hekuawa o Wailuku; oia hoi o S. Paaluhi, A. Haalilo, Kekahuna a me D. Kekiokalani; oia
hoi ko lakou hui aloha ana me na hoa, na makua, na kaikuahine a me na pokii aloha.
Ua hoomaka ko lakou paina ana mahope o ka ainaawakea, me ka hoomaikai mua
ia o ka inoa o ke Akua, ka mea nana i ae oluolu mai i keia hui aloha ana. Ua haiolelo na
keiki, aia ma Epeso 5:2. A pau ka lakou haiolelo ana, a ma ia hope iho, ua lulu aloha mai
ka lehulehu i akoakoa mai, e hoike ana i ko lakou aloha io i na keiki, ma ka manawalea
ana mai i na hapawalu. O ka hua ia a ka Uhane, oia hoi keia o ke "aloha," a pela aku.
Wehe i ka piko me ka makua, e like me ka olelo ma Hebera 6:1. hapa mua; a penei i
palapalaia: “Nolaila hoi, ke waiho nei kakou i na hua mua o na olelo a Kristo, e hele aku
kakou imua a hiki i ke oo loa ana.” Ke hooki nei ka maka o ka peni kila i ka ulele ana ma
ke aiai o ke kanana. Me ke aloha no. SIMON PAALUHI. Pukoo, Molokai.
503
APPENDIX 4D
KA NUPEPA KUOKOA, NOVEMBER 30, 1867 (3)
E KA NUPEPA KUOKOA E; Aloha oe:
Ua make iho nei he keiki i aloha ia e ka lehulehu ma ke kino, oia hoi o Lodana
Alapai, i ka la umikumamahiku o Novemaba nei. M.H. 1867. Ua lawe aku ke Akua i
kana o ka uhane, ua hala ka huina o na makahiki wahi a Ioba, ua hoi aku ia i ka poli
kawau o ka honua, a me ka hale makamaka ole. Ma ka hekuawa o Wailuku nei kona wahi
i make ai.
Ua hanau ia ia ma Makapala i Kohala Akau, Hawaii, i ka makahiki 1861, Mei 14,
na John Kipi a me Mrs. Mere, penei kana olelo i kona wa e oia ana, “E pule oukou no‘u,
e papa, e mama, a me na lehulehu o kuu kino, e hoomanao oukou i ka Makua Mana Loa
ma ka lani no‘u.” Kupanaha ka naauao lua ole o ke keiki i ke kauleo mai i ka papa e pule
nona, oiai hoi, eia no keia keiki i ke kulana naaupo, he eono no makahiki a oi aku, pela
auanei na pokii o ‘u, mamua o kona pilikia ana, e hoomanao aku ia i ke Akua, oia hoi kuu
lahui aloha o Hawaii nei. A make aku la ia, ulu kana mau hana pono, pela i olelo ia ma
Halelu 92:12. E ulu no ka poe pono e like me ka laau Pania, a pela aku, mamua o kona
hoolewa ana, ua kameo mua ia ae makou na keiki kula kahuna, a me kekahi mau keiki o
Lahainaluna, a me na keiki puhi ohe o ua malu Hekuawa nei, eia nae, ua ane kanalua iki
no kahi manao no ia mea, huli ae la a‘u a kilohi iho la i ka Ledina ike o ko‘u mau maka
ma ka Baibala, ike iho la eu ana Kekahuna 7:2. Ua oi aku ka maikai o ka hele ana i ka
hale o ke kanikau mamua o ka hele ana i ka hale ahaaina lealea.
504
Hoolewa ia kona kino kupapau ma ka Poalua, hora 3 ahiahi, a ua hoonono ia ka
huakai penei: Mau keiki hookani pahu, eha poe keiki puhi ohe, no Lahainaluna, na keiki
kula kahuna, na keonimana, na lede iho o ka aoao palupalu me na hupa e kaiue kolani
ana; ua kai aku a komo ma ka luakini laa o ke Akua ma Wailuku nei, ua haiolelo no o
Rev. Kakina a pau ka halawai, hookuu ia ke anaina holookoa me ka maluhia no, ia
makou nae e kai huakai ana, ua hoopulu ia iho na kuluwaimaka a ke aloha o ka lehulehu
holookoa. Hoomanao ae la au i kekahi lalani mele a ka poe kahiko penei no ia:
“Kulu ka waimaka uwe ka opua.
He waimaka pu-a ia ia na ke Koolau,
Eia ua aloha la ke aloha nei,
E aloha ae ana i kuu pua laha ole ua lilo.”
O ka uwe kanikau kumakena mai a na makua me ke aloha no, a aloha ia la hoi o
Kaunuohua he puu ia, he hua ka hoi keia mai loko aku S. Paaluhi. Kula Kahuna,
Wailuku.
APPENDIX 4E
KA NUPEPA KUOKOA, MAY 16, 1868 (4)
E KA NUPEPA KUOKOA E; ALOHA OE:
Ke lana nei ko‘u manao e kamailio iki ae ma ke akea, i ike mai ai hoi na makua
iliulaula o kuu lahui aloha mai Hawaii o Keawe a Kauai o Mano. Oiai hoi au e noho ana
malalo ae o ka olu kohaihai o ka malu Hekuawa o Wailuku, ike iho la au i kekahi o na
keiki, aohe maliu mai i ka leo o ua makua, nolaila, ke ninau nei au, Heaha ke kumu o ka
hoolohe ole ana o na keiki i ka leo o na makua?
Penei paha; nou no e ka makua, no kou maa i ka hookuu wale i kau keiki e noho
ma na hale hoopili wale, aka, he pono nae hoi ka noho ana me ka poe haipule, ka poe
makau i ka Haku, alaila pono ka noho ana, aka, ina he noho me ka poe e hoolalao ana,
aohe pono o ia, e ao ia mai auanei i ka mahiki, i ke anau, a i ka uleu, a i ka hana uko ole a
Satana. Nolaila, ke ike akaka mai la no oukou e na makua, he leo no keia ia oukou, e
malama i na keiki, a e no ia lakou i na mea kupono a me na mea ike o keia ao, a me ka
mole hoi o ka naauao oia ka makau aku ia Iehova.
Auhea hoi oukou e o ‘u mau hoa imi naauao o ka puu panoa lepo ula o
Lahainaluna, ina e hiki i ko oukou wa e lilo ai i poe makua, ua ike iho la no oukou i na
rula o o ke no ana i na keiki; he hale-ao ko oukou, o ka malama nae ka pono i keia leo.
Pela hoi oukou e na keiki o ke Kula Kahunapule o Wailuku nei, e malama oukou i keia
leo ao ke lilo oukou i poe makua, e kakau iho hoi ma ka papa o ko oukou mau naau. O ka
mea hoole i keia leo ao, he holoholona ia, pela ka olelo a Solomona e ao mai nei ia
506
kakou. Pela no hoi oukou e na kaikamahine o ke Kula o ka Ehukai o Puaena i Waialua i
ka lai, ina e lilo oukou i poe makuahine, e ao pono aku oukou i na keiki me ka malama
kupono loa, i noho ke keiki malalo o kou malu, e hoolohe pono ana i kou leo. Pela no hoi
oukou e na kaikamahine o ke Kula o ka ua Ukiukiu o Makawao, no na makua auanei ke
ao ana, o ka hoomaa iho ko oukou i keia leo.
Ke kau leo hope aku nei au i na keiki, mai hookuli, mai pakike aku i ko leo ao o
ka makua; ua ao ia mai kakou ma ka Buke Nui Hooweliweli a ke Akua Mana Loa, oia
hoi ka Baibala, i kakauia ai hoi ma Pukaana 20:12. Penei i palapalaia, “E hoomaikai oe i
kou makuakane a me kou makuahine, i loihi ai kou mau la maluna o ka aina a Iehova a
kou Akua i haawi mai ai ia oe.” Pela no hoi kekahi olelo ma Solomona 23:22; 3:1,2. “E
hoholohe i kou makuakane ka mea nana mai oe, mai hoowahawaha oe i ka luahine ana o
kou makuahine—E kuu keiki, mai haalele oe i ko‘u kanawai, e waiho hoi i ka‘u mau
kauoha ma kou naau; No ka mea, oia ka mea e nui ai na la a me na makahiki o kou oia
ana.” A penei hoi ka Paulo ma Kolosa 3:20—”E na keiki, e hoolohe oukou i ko oukou
mau makua i na mea a pau, no ka mea, he pono ia i ka Haku.” SIMONA PAALUHI.
Wailuku, Maui, Aper. 18, 1868.
507
APPENDIX 4F
SELECTED WESTERVELT ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1891. [Drummond, Henry]. O ke aloha ka makana kiekie : oia ka mea kiekie loa oi
aku mamua o na mea eae o ke ao nei [Love the Supreme Gift]. Mahele‘ia a Rev.
W.D. Westervelt. “O keia buke oia ka makana aloha no ka poe Hawaii mai ka mea
mahele ana, a me na misionari, Mrs. M.S. Rice, a me Mrs. M.E. Parker.” Chicago: F.H.
Revell Co.
1902. [Henry Northrup Castle]. Letters. Printed by Mary Castle for her children." "Of an
edition of fifty-one, this is number thirty-four and it is entrusted to Mr. and Mrs. W. D.
Westervelt by Henry’s mother, Mary Castle, Honolulu, H.T., March 6, 1903"- manuscript
note on fly-leaf. London, n.p., 1902.
1904a. Ke a‘o ana a na lunaolelo: ke a‘o ana o ka Haku i na lahui kanaka mamuli o
na lunaolelo he umikumamalua. Unuhi’ia e Rev. W.D. Westervelt, no ka pomaikai o
ka lahui Hawaii. Honolulu: Paiia ma ka Paredaiso o ka Pakipika.
1904b. The Japanese Consul. Honolulu, Paradise of the Pacific Print, 1904.
1910. Legends of Maui, a demi-god of Polynesia, and of his mother Hina. Honolulu :
The Hawaiian Gazette Co.
REPRINTED:
1913: Melbourne, Australia: G. Robertson & Co., Australasian edition.
1943: Honolulu: privately printed as a gift (Legend of the Ghosts of the Hilo
Hills)
1968: Hilo, HI: Petroglyph Press. (Ghosts of the Hilo Hills).
1979: New York, NY: AMS Press
2003: Honolulu, HI: University Press of the Pacific
2004: n.l.: Kessinger Publications
1912. “The first Hawaiian historical society.” Annual report of the Hawaiian
Historical Society. 21st report, 1912, p.8-11. Honolulu, HI: The Society, 1893-.
1913. Around the poi bowl and Legend of Paao. Honolulu : Paradise of the Pacific
print, 1913.
1914a. Kamehameha’s cession of the island of Hawaii to Great Britain in 1794.

Honolulu : Hawaiian Historical Society (19-24).
508
1914b. Hawaii’s most interesting historical document. Honolulu : Hawaiian Historical

Society, 1914. (pp. 8-16). Reprinted from Hawaiian Historical Society, 22nd annual
report, 1914.
1915a. Legends of gods and ghosts. Collected and translated from the Hawaiian by W.
D. Westervelt. Boston: Press of Geo. H. Ellis co.
REPRINTED:
1963: Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle
1991: Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle (Hawaiian Classic Reprints)
1998: Honolulu: Mutual Publishing (Forward by Glen Grant)
1915b. [Hawaiian] Legends of old Honolulu. Collected and translated from the
Hawaiian by W. D. Westervelt. Boston: Press of Geo. H. Ellis co.
REPRINTED:
When reprinted by Tuttle, “Hawaiian” added to title.
1963: Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle.
2003: Honolulu: Mutual Publishing (Forward by Glen Grant). Lists titles:
Foreword: H aw aii’s sacred narratives; Legend of the breadfruit tree; The gods
who found water; The water of life of Kane; Mamala the surf-rider; A shark
punished at Waikiki; The legendary origin of kapa; Creation of man; The chief
with the wonderful servants; The great dog Ku; The cannibal dog-man; The
canoe of the dragon; The wonderful shell; The ghost dance on Punchbowl; The
bird-man of Nu‘uanu Valley; The owls of Honolulu; The two fish from Tahiti;
Iwa, the notable thief of Oahu; Pikoi the rat-killer; Kawelo; Chief Man-eater;
Lepe-a-moa; Kamapua‘a legends.
1916. Hawaiian legends of volcanoes. Collected and translated from the Hawaiian by
W. D. Westervelt. Boston, MA: Ellis Press.
REPRINTED:
1963: Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle.
1918. Honoruru no densetsu. [Legends of old Honolulu, Japanese text]. Honyaku Misu
Giichi. Tokyo: Saneido Shoten, Taisho.
1923. Hawaiian historical legends. New York, Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Co.
509
REPRINTED:
1926: third edition
1977: Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle (Introduction by Terence Barrow)
1930. Arts, crafts and institutions of primitive Hawaii. Selections from the Hawaiian
Historical Society annual reports. Legendary places in Honolulu; Kamehameha’s method
of government. Bulletin / Division of Research, Dept, of Public Instruction ; no. 6, pt. 5
Bulletin (Hawaii. Dept, of Public Instruction. Division of Research) ; no. 6, pt. 5.
Honolulu: Division of Research, Dept, of Public Instruction.
1937a. The vision of angels (Ben Israel’s story) and other poems. Honolulu: Star-
Bulletin.
1937b. The journal of Elisha Loomis (May 17, 1824- January 27, 1826). Compiled by
Wm. D. Westervelt, assisted by Emil A. Bemdt and Lili P. Bemdt. Copied from the
original manuscript for the University of Hawaii Library, through the courtesy of Dr.
W.D. Westervelt. Honolulu: "Loomis Journal" Committee, University of Hawaii.
1943. Legend of the ghosts of the Hilo hills. From William Drake Westervelt’s
Legends o f Maui- a demi-god. Done into this little book as a Christmas remembrance for
its friends by the Commercial printing division, Advertiser publishing co., ltd.
Honolulu: Privately printed.
REPRINTED:
1968: Hilo, HI: Petroglyph Press.
1987. Myths and legends of Hawaii. Selected and edited by A. Grove Day. Honolulu,
Hawaii: Mutual Publishing Co.
REPRINTED:
2005: Honolulu: Mutual Publishing.
510
APPENDIX 5A
LETTER FROM J. N. KANEPITU
KA HOKU O KA PAKIPIKA, OCTOBER 30, 1862
He wahi kauoha ka‘u i ka poe kakau moolelo, e like me Lonoapaoa a me Kawelo,
Keaniniula, Hiiakaikapoliopele, Keamalu, Laieikawai, a pela aku na kaao i koe, i hoolaha
ole ia ma ka Hoku Pakipika. He manaolana ko‘u e kakau ia me kona ike a pau loa, me ke
koe ole o kekahi ike ona, a e pai no na Luna o ka Hoku Pakipika a pau loa me ka hakina
ole a kekahi. Ua ike au, ua hakina ka moolelo o Hiiakaikapoliopele, ua hakina kona mau
mele e pili ana i na hula, a pehea la anei e nana ai ua koena i na haunana hope o kakou?
Ke makemake lakou e nana, aole no e loaa, e hele ana kakou i ka nalowale. E makemake
ka hanauna Hawaii o na la A. D. 1870 a me A. D. 1880, a me A.D. 1890, a me A.D.
1990. No ka mea, eia iau ke kala olelo paa no na nupepa a pau i pai ia ma ka olelo
Hawaii, a i lawe ia iau mai loko mai o na aoao apau, e hiki no iau ke kumu Buke, a e
hooili ia no, no na hooilina. Aole au e haalele i keia nupepa, keia nupepa olelo Hawaii, a
hiki i ko‘u la e make ai, koe nae ka pepa liilii anei haawi wale, a pau i kekahi poe, a nele
iho la. A e hiki no iau ko hooili aku i keia mau nupepa i hamuhamu buke ia i na hooilina,
a nana paha ia e kuai aku me ka poe makemake mai o ka poe o na la a‘u i hai ae nei ma
luna. A he makemake no na kanaka o ia mau la e ike i ka Buke I o ka Hoku Pakipika,
pela aku. Ua hiki aku ka‘u palapala ia M. G. [M. J.] Kapihenui, no ka pau a pau ole o
Hiiakaikapoliopele, hoole mai keia, aole i pau. Oia kahi mea hoikeike aku. J. N.
Kanepuu, Maunalua, Oahu. October 15, 1862
511
APPENDIX 5B
“KAHULIHULI” CHANT SERIES FROM KAPIHENUrS MOOLELO
KA HOKU O KA PAKIPIKA, JANUARY 23, 1862
Nana akula na maka o na kanaka—na kane, na wahine me na kamalii—ia

Hiiakaikapoliopele, he mea e ke ku a ka wahine maikai, aohe wahine maikai e ae ma
Hawaii nei. Hele akula no lakou nei a kokoke i kahi o na kanaka e akoakoa ana. E uku
ana i ke alanui ka poe e hele ana ma o a ma anei.
He ai, he ia, he kapa, he malo, he ko, he paakai, a me ia mea aku, ia mea aku—o
ia ke kumu kuai. A laila, hele ma luna o ke alanui, (o ia hoi ka papa kahulihuli o
Wailuku).
Kahea akula o Hiiakaikapoliopele i ua mau alii nei nona ke alanui, o ia hoi na mea
nona na inoa i hai ia ma luna, ma ke mele, penei:
Kahulihuli e!
Ka papa o Wailuku,
Kahuli o Apua,
Haa mai o Maukele,
He ole [Ke]kaha,
Kuai ai e,
Homai ka ai,
Homai hoi ka ai e,
I aina aku hoi e.
A pau ia kahea ana a ia nei, i maila laua la penei; “Kahaha! Aole paha o ka maua ke
haawi aku nau, o kau ke haawi mai ia maua! A laila, hele ae oe ma luna o ko maua
alanui; aole paha e loaa wale aku ka maua ia oe.”
A laila, nonoi hou no keia ia laua i ka ia ma ke mele penei:
46 Kahulihuli e,
Ka papa o Wailuku,
He ole Kekaha,
Kuai ia e,
Homai ka ia a,
Homai ana hoi ka ia,
I aina aku hoi e.
A pau ia noi ana a ia nei, hoole hou no laua nei e like no me keia hoole ana ma mua.
Nonoi hou aku no keia ma ke mele, penei:
47 Kahulihuli e,
Ka papa o Wailuku,
He ole Kekaha,
512
Kuai paakai e,
Homai ana hoi ka paakai,
I aina aku hoi e.
O ka laua hana no ia o ka hoole e like me keia ma luna. A laila, hai mai no laua i ka olelo
ino, “Aole e loaa ia oe ke alanui! Aia no oe a haawi mai i ka uku ia maua! A laila, hele
oe ma luna o ke alanui o maua.” A laila, nonoi hou no keia ma ke mele penei:
48 Kahulihuli e,
Ka papa o Wailuku,
He ole Kekaha kuai ko,
He ole Kekaha,
Kuai ko e,
Homai ke ko,
I aina ae hoi e.
Ka laua no ia o ka hoole, ka ia nei no hoi ke noi ma ke mele, penei:
49 Kahulihuli e,
Ka papa o Wailuku,
He ole Kekaha,
Kuai kapa e,
Homai ke kapa,
I aahu ia aku hoi e.
Hoole hou no laua nei e like no me ka laua hana mau. Noi hou aku no keia ma ke mele
penei:
50 Kahulihuli e,
Ka papa o Wailuku,
He ole Kekaha,
Kuai wai e,
Homai hoi ka wai e,
Homai1hoi ka wa2 wai e,
I inu ia aku hoi e.
A pau ia mele ana aia nei, a laila, olelo aku o Hiiakaikapoliopele i kanaka e noho ana, “ E
nana ana i ke kuai a laua nei i ke alanui i ka poe e hele ana ma o, a ma anei.” I aku keia,
“Ka! Ina paha keia noi ana aku au ia laua la a he mau kanaka, haawi maila. Aole o ke
noi aku o na akua, aohe noho a maliu mai.”
1sic. Komai. Corrected from m.s.

2 misprint?
514
APPENDIX 5C
COMPARISON BETWEEN MELE IN KAPIHENUI1861 AND
BPBM ARCHIVES MELE INDEX WITH NOTES
order first two lines o f mele: BPBM reference notes:

in text
1. 126 A Honopu au i Waialoha / O kuu wai Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (86); KNA microfilm
lele hunahuna
2. 5 A ka lae ohia i Papalauahi / 1 ka inu Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (6); Roberts 3.8
lei lehua o Kuaokala ( 177b-179); GEN 21 (92).
3. 27 A ka luna o Puuonioni / Noho ke Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (12-16);
anaina a ke kua Roberts 3.7 (43-44, 79b-80a); 4.2 (106, 110); HEN
V.3 (74); HI.M 51.2 (69-70); HI.H 51 (23); KNA
microfilm
4. 129 A ka makani kaiaulu lalo o Waianae / HI.M 51.2 (81-82); HI.M 51.1. (130-131); KNA
Ke wehe aku la i ka poli o ke hoa microfilm; Hawaii Holomua 18941
5. 66 A Kailua i ka Malanai / Moe e ka lau Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (50); Roberts 3.9
o ka ukiuki (135a-136); HEN V.3 (290, 417, 6132); HI.M.74
(232); HI.M 59 (23).
6. 169 A Kalalau a Honopu / A Kee a HI.H 51 (33).
Nakoaola i ka pali la
7. 101 A Kalalau a Kee / A ka pali au i Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (64).
Haena
8. 201 A Kalihi au i ka hala o Hanalei / Lei Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (103).
au i ka hala o Pooku e, eia oe
9. 198 A kulou anei e ue ana / E ue no anei Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (103).
he keiki makua ole
10. 110 A Limaloa i Kekaha / O Kaunalewa Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (77).
hoi e
11. 39 A loko au o Mahiki / Halawai me ke Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (263).
kua
12. 134 A luna au o Pohakea / Ea ke poo o Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (89); KNA microfilm
Manaoha ae la
13. 138 A luna au o Pohakea / Kilohi aku kuu Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (91); Roberts 3.7
maka ia lalo (23, 63b-65a).
14. 37 A luna au o Waipio / Kilohi aku kuu Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (25-26).
maka i lalo
15. 122 A luna i Wahinekapu / A Kilauea i ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (80)
lua, a lele e na hoalii
16. 77 A makani Ahiu ana ai Kahana / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (54); HI.M 51.1
Kakala i ka lauwili o Koolau (121-1244).
17. 130 A makani kaiaulu lalo o Waianae / O Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (87).
Kuaiwa i Pokai e
18. 140 A makani kehau lalo o Waiopua / Ko Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (92); KNA microfilm
kikula naenae aala i ke kupukupu
1BMA states this is a mele poking fun at the PG.

2 BMA notes this is a mele asking the gods to come to the hula altar.
3 BMA var. “A loko au o Panaewa”
4 audio tape available (Kuluwaimaka collection)
515
order first two lines of mele: BPBM reference notes:

in text
19. 136 A makani Kuamu lehua ko uka / Ke Henriques-Peabody Collection, fHI.L.23 ( 90;
hoowaawaa aela KNA microfilm
20. 162 A makani pahele hala ko Mailehuna / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (101); HI.M 51.2 (1);
Ke wahi maila malamalama iki TR in HEN V.3 (989); KNA microfilm
21. 160 A makani pua ia lalo, moe ko a ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (101); KNA
huhu aia i loko hoe e / Hoi a ka lili microfilm
22. 84 A ma luna Hilo, ka huli ka amau / Ke Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (57)
lumalumai na la e ka wai
23. 28 A maulua i Laupahoehoe / Kani ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (16); HEN V.3
hoe a ka ua i ka laau (154).
24. 41 A Moolau i ka pua / O ka uhiuhi pala Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (26-27); Roberts 3.8
luhi ehu ihola (119, 130b-13 la).
25. 40 A Moolau / 1 ka pua o ka uhiuhi Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (26-27); Roberts 3.8
helelei mai ana (119, 130b-131a).
26. 22 A noho ana la e / E Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (13); HEN V.3
Kukamahunuiakea (153).
27. 234 A pala ka hala hala lei o Kekaha / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (122).
Pauku i ka hala maka o Haiku e
28. 54 A Puulena i Wahinekapu / 1 pua ea i Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (42); Roberts 3.7
lalo o Halemaumau e (20, 61b-62a).
29. 65 A ua Apuakea kualau ma ka moana / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (48).
Kiola aela po na kuahiwi
30. 267 A uka au o Puna / Halawai me ke Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (141); KNA
akua microfilm
31. 10 A Waiakea i ka Hilohanakahi / Ala i Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (9); HEN V.3 (151);
ka poo iki HI.H 51 (25); KNA microfilm
32. 131 A Waianae au / Ike i ka makani o Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (88).
Kupehau
33. 133 A Waikonene i ke alanui / Ka piina i Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (89).
Komoaula
34. 186 Aia no ka m akan i/K e hoa la i luna
35. 177 Aia no ke ahi la i ka maile / Ke a HI.M 51.1 (296).
huila mai i luna o Makuaiki5
36. 137 Aia no ke kua la i uka / Ke hoa la i ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (91).
papa a enaena
37. 248 Aia no ke kua la i uka / Ke ai la ia Roberts 3.7 (14, 57b-58a).
Puuonioni
38. 181 Aia no la ke ahi i ka mauna /H e ahi
na ka noho kuahiwi
39. 111 Ako na nani maka i Wawaenohu e / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (77).
Me he nanai hale la Kaula i ke kai
40. 142 Ala wela Lihue nopu no i luna / O ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (93); KNA microfilm
pouu koa naewa mai ke oho
41. 268 Aloha kou hoa i ka ua puakukui / Kui Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (142).
lehua o Moeawakea
5 See also “Kuu wahine i keahi o Kamaile / Ke welo la i ka pali o Makuaiki” (Queen Emma) fHI.M 50
(176).
6 Audio tape available (Kuluwaimaka collection).
516

in text
42. 135 Aloha kou hoa i Puali / 1 ka wai o Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (90); HI.K 47 (587).
Pohakea, he luna o Kanehoa
43. 249 Aloha kou hoa / 1 ka lehua o Puna Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (131).
44. 259 Aloha na hale o makou i makamaka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (29, 136); Roberts
ole / Ke aia hele ma uka o huli wale 3.7 (51, 85b-86); HI.M 17 (3-48); HI.M 51.1
la e (1379); HI.M 59 (21); KNA microfilm
45. 260 Aloha na hale o makou i uka o Kaliu Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (136); Roberts 4.3
/ Ke aia iho i Puukahea la e, kahea (124); Roberts 4.4 (99; TR).
46. 152 Aloha oe e Leinono, e Kinimaka- Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (98); KNA microfilm
lehua / E Kealia i lalo, e aloha
47. 103 Aloha Wale e Kapahi / E ka uka o Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (75).
Lalea ma e
48. 202 Aloha wale ka nikiniki / Ke kanaenae Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (104).
pua o Mailehuna
49. 145 Aloha wale olua e Puukapolei ma / E Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (94).
Nawahineokamao ma
50. 33 A loko au o Panaewa / Halawai me HEN V.3 (73).
ka puaa
51. 228 Aohe e make kuu alii ia oe / Ke Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (114, 115-116).
hoole mai nei na akua kane o ia nei
hoole mai nei na kua kane
hoole mai nei na kua wahine o ia nei
hoole mai nei, na akua kane o ia nei
55. 220 Aohe e make kuu alii ia oe / Ke Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (112, 113, 114).
hoole mai nei na kua wahine o ia nei
56. 246 Aohe i wehewehe / Aohe waiho a Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (129-130); Roberts
kona po 3.7 (24-25, 64b-66a).
57. 216 Aohe make kuu alii ia oe / Ke hoole KNA microfilm
mai nei na akua
58. 218 Aohe make kuu alii ia oe / Ke hoole KNA microfilm
nei na akua wahine o ia nei
59. 106 Aole ae nei ke kane / He hoa pili no Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (76).
ke ahiahi
60. 34 Au ma ka hulaana / Kaikoo ka oali Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (24).
61. 119 E Aka e Kilioe i ka pua e / Na Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (78).
wahine kapa ole e nenee wale nei
62. 209 E aia, e aia e, e aia e, e aia e Mahianu Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (107-108).
/ E aia e Mahialani
63. 32 E aia, e aia e / E aia e Hikaalani Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (21); HEN V.3
(156).
64. 8 E aia, e aia, e aia e / E aia e Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (8).
Hikapokuakini
7 BPBMA notes Samuel Kamakau as composer; published in Ka Nupepa Ku'oko'a, August 19, 1865.
8 BPBMA notes as “chant of inspiration” possibly for hula. Kaiulani Collection.
517

in text
65. 168 E ano wale mai ana no ka lua iau / 1
ka mahu haalele wale no
66. 153 E Hapuu e Kalaihauola e / Na wahine Henriques-Peabody Collection, fHI.L.23 (98);
nonoho Koolau KNA microfilm
67. 38 E Hiiakaikapoliopele e / E kii mai oe Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (2610); Roberts 3.8
ia maua (118-119, 130b-131a); KNA microfilm
68. 67 E Hiiakaikapoliopele e / E kipa, eia Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (50).
ka hale, eia ka ai
69. 231 E Kaiehu e Paukukalo e / He alapii Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (119).
na ka mai kane
70. 235 E Kapo wahine a Puanui / Aikane a Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (123).
Waihinano
71. 120 E kini, e hiki i Kauai i kou aina / O Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (78).
koa makaiwa o Halawa
72. 109 E kuu kane e / He leo e wale hoi kou Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (76).
73. 61 E Makapuu nui kua ke au e / Nana Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (46).
maua moe o Malei e
74. 118 E o e mauna i ka ohu ka pali / Kaha Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (69-74).
ka leo o ka ohia e11
75. 98 E Pohakuokauai i kai e / A po Kaena Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (63).
i na pali
76. 44 E Punahoa, i Kaipalaoa / 1 na maka o Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (29).
Nanakila ma
77. 190 E ue mai ana iau, e alaila mai ana ia
o e /K u u ipo ua lawakua
78. 124 Eia ana au e Laka, kane a Haiwahine Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (81).
/ Kaipua o ka nahelehele
79. 191 Hala ka ua, hala le a le a / Hala aela,
ma uka o Waioli la
80. 61 He ahui hala ko ke Koolau / Ko ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (39).
pili Kaunoa
81. 182 He auhau, he kiu, he alele aloha /
Keia ia oe, auwe hoi e
82. 85 He kai kapi i ke one, ko Kalamaula i Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (58); HEN V.3
Pupukea / Ua hele a pala i ke kai (291); KNA microfilm
83. 165 He ku oe he kila na ia la i papa / /
lahui ai e kapu
84. 179 He lalo ka lua, he pali kaha k o /H e
poi makahehi no ka lehua
85. 208 He makani holo uha / Ko kaelekei a Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (106); KNA
P aukua m ic ro film
86. 250 He opua uahi keia no ka uka o ka lua Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (131-132); Roberts
/ Ke hoopaio aela me ka Puulena 3.7 (22, 63b-64a).
87. 9 He ua kui lehua ka Panaewa / He ua Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23(8).
ma kai kui hala o Puna e
10BMA notes this is an appeal from men Hiiaka meets on her journey.
11 This is the “Holo mai Pele” chant.
518
order first two Lines of mele: BPBM reference notes:

in text
88. 180 He ula he kani leo keia ia o e/A u w e
hoi e
89. 99 Holo Kaena la / Me he waa kaukahi Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (63).
la i ka malie
90. 118* Holo mai Pele mai Kahikina See ref. #74 (chant #118)
91. 174 Hone ana ke aloha i loko i kuu

manawa / Kuko ana no au me ka lia
92. 35 Hookuku / Ka au hulaana Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (24-25); HEN V.3
(156-157).
93. 284 Hulihia ka mauna wela i ke ahi / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (157-158); Roberts
Wela nopu ka uka o Kuihanalei 2.3 (50b-58a); 4.6 (27b-29a); HI.M 45 (13a,17b);
HI.H 51 (38-39); HI.M 51.2 (39-4012, 84); HI.M
59 (12-13); KNA microfilm
94. 282 Hulihia ke au ka papa honua o kona Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (154-155); HI.H.51
moku / Hulihia kuia mai ka moku o (44); HI.M.20 (33-34); HI.M 51.2 (59-6313).
Kahiki
95. 286 Hulihia ke au nee i lalo ia kea / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (161-162); Roberts
Hulihia ka mole o ka honua 2.3 (42b-46a, 57-58a14); 4.3 (17-20); 4.4 (16-19)
(TR); HI.M 51.2 (52-5613); fHI.M.41 (110-113).
96. 285 Hulihia ke au pee o lalo, nei nakolo i Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (159-160); fHI.M.41
ka honua / Nakeke ka lani, hoaka (114-115).
Kahiki
97. 283 Hulihia Kilauea po i ka uahi / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (156-157); Roberts
Nalowale i ke aea ka uka o ka lua 2.3 (46b-50a, 57-58a16); 4.3 (22); 4.4, (20-21)
(TR); 4.6 (27b-28a); HI.M 51.2 (41-4317); HI.M 59
(13-15); HI.M 47 (6); HI.K.12 (44); HI.H 51 (37-
38); KNA microfilm
98. 281 Hulihia Kukailani, nei aku la i ka pili Roberts 2.3 (40b-42a, 38b-40a, 57-58a18); 3.7 (90,
o Hooili / Lele aku Keawemahuilani 93, 95a); 4.3 (41); 4.4 (36-37) (TR); 4. 6 (28b-
30a); HI.H.51 (40); HI.M 51.2 (50-51'9); HI.M.59
(15); HI.M.47 (26-27); HEN V.3 (832a-833);
HI.K.46 (13-1620); KNA microfilm
99. 25 I Akanihia / 1 Akanikolea Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (15); HEN V.3
(154).
too. 159 I ka poli no ke hoa a hele / Kalakala i Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (101).
ke kua ka opeope aloha
101. 173 I makua i makua i Hoolulu / I k a
welelau o ka haka pulelo

14 BPBMA notes “second of four chants by Paoa addressed to Pele.”
16 BPBMA notes “third of four chants by Paoa addressed to Pele.”
18 BPBMA notes “first of four chants by Paoa addressed to Pele.”
19 Audio tape available (Kuluwaimaka collection)
20 Ka Ho‘omana Kahiko files; notes “published in Ka Nupepa Ku'oko'a, February 9, 1865.”
519

in text
102. 178 I moe la hoi au a hewa ia oe / Uku la
hoi au no ke la lilo
103. 172 I uka ka ua i Moeawakea / I ka
nahele o Kaliu la
104. 193 I uka kaua i Moeawakea / / ka nahele
o Kaliu la
105. 123 Ia hoouluulu ia mai au / E Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (81).
Kanekapolei i mua e
106. 236 Ia Kaumuleialii / 1 ka poaha mau i ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (123).
ili o kawau
107. 214 Ia ole paha, ia Kalani / Ke lii Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (111).
Kauhinonohonua a Kama
108. 73 Ino Koolau, e ino Koolau / Aikena i Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (52); Roberts 3.7
ka ua o Koolau (47-48, 82b-83a); 3.8 (123, 136a); HI.H.51 (35);
HI.M.59 (23); HI.M 51.1 (131-13221); HEN V.3
(78); MS GRP 81 (622).
109. 71 Ke hele aela ka ua Kalepa e / Ka ua Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (51).
okioki koa o Heeia
110. 56 Ka auwaa lalua / 1 ka moana la Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (43).
111. 167 Ka uli hewa o ka ili i ka ipo ahi / E
mea iki ai la paha pono au e
112. 139 Kahuli Kaena holo i ka malie / Ua Roberts 3.8 (121, 134a-135a).
wela i ka la ke alo o na pali
113. 46 Kahulihuli e, ka papa o Wailuku / He Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (30-31).
ole Kekaha, kuai ia e
114. 49 Kahulihuli e, ka papa o Wailuku / He Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (32).
ole Kekaha, kuai kapa e
ole Kekaha, kuai ko
116. 47 Kahulihuli e, ka papa o Wailuku / He
ole Kekaha, kuai paakai e
ole Kekaha, kuai wai e
118. 45 Kahulihuli e, ka papa o Wailuku /
Kahuki o Apua
119. 42 Kaikoo Puuomoeawa / Wawaa ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (28).
laau
120. 4 Kaloku Hilo i ka ua nui / Kapu kane
kai
121. 51 Kaumaha ka ai / O Hilo i ka lehua Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (33).
122. 207 K e ahi m aka pa i ka la e / O w ela kai H enriques-P eabody fH I.L .23 (106).
hoi o Puna
123. 88 Ke aina maila e ka wai / Ka maha uki Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (59).
oIhukoko
124. 254 Ke aina maila e ke ahi / Ke kula Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (133).
lehua a ka manu

22BPBMA notes “chant to stop the rain.” Mader collection.
520

in text
125. 104 Ke aloha mai nei Puna e / Ke Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (75).
kalukalu moe ipo
126. 252 Ke alu mai nei ke ahi a ka wahine / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (132).
Ke kena maila e pau kea
127. 69 Ke amoa aela ka waa ma kai e / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (51).
Waiho o Mahinui ma uka
128. 1 Ke haa la Puna i ka makani / Haa ka Henriques-Peabody GEN. 21 (84).
uluhala i Keaau
129. 17 Ke hanai aela ka ua i ka lani / Makua Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (12); HEN V.3
au awa i ka uka o Kiloi (176).
130. 158 Ke hele [ae]la ka auhula ana o Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (100-101); Roberts
Kalalau / Ke poi la ke kai o Milolii 3.8 ( 120, 132b-133; HI.H 51, (32); HI.M. 47 (32).
131. 253 Ke hoa maila ke ahi a ka wahine / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (133).
Hoa no a a i Puna
132. 83 Ke ihola ka iho kahakai e / Iho pali i Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (57).
lalo o Hakalau
133. 154 Ke iho la ka makani / Halihali pua o KNA microfilm
Nuuanu e
134. 12 [Ke] kau aloha wale maila na Kau / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (10); HEN V. 3
Ka mauna o Kahaliakua a (175).
135. 171 [Ke] kau aloha wale maila no Roberts 3.7 (15, 37b-38a).
Hamakua iau / Halialia aloha mai ana
136. 192 Ke kau aloha wale maila no see Ref. above (#135, chant #192)
Hamakua iau / Halialia aloha mai ana
137. 261 Ke kau maila i Haupu kele ka makani KNA microfilm
/ Ke waha maila ma ke kua o
Keolewa
138. 16 Ke ku nei au e hele / A lau ka maka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (11); HEN V. 3
ua nei ino (175).
139. 24 Ke ku nei au e hele / A noho e Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (14).
140. 13 Ke ku nei au e hele / Hele au a ke aia Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (11).
HEN V.3 (175
141. 14 Ke ku nei au e hele / Ke kono iho nei Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (11); HEN V.3
(175).
142. 194 Ke lei maila Kaula i ke kai e / Ka MS GRP 81 (23).
malamalama o Niihau i ka malie
143. 74 Ke pii la ka huakai wahine / A pahu Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (53).
lei hala i uka o Ahuimanu
144. 26 Ke ua ia maila e ka ua / Ke kahe ia Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (15); HEN V. 3
m a ila e k a w ai (154).
145. 232 Kena o Kahionuna, o Kahiolalo / 0 Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (121).
Hikanewenewe, ka opua i Kahiki
146. 76 Kiekie Kanehoalani / Au Mokolii i Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (53); KNA microfilm
ke kai
147. 184 Ko ke aloha poko ik a w a a k a manao
/ Ua poina, aue hoi
148. 82 Komo ia ka nahele ulu hinalo /
Nahele hala o Pookahalulu '
521

in text
149. 21 Ku hilinai aela / Ka opua ua i Kona e Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (13); HEN V.3 (152-
153).
150. 262 Ku maka haoa ke ahi i ka laau / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (137-138).
Kaulu owela no aa i Puna
151. 233 Ku nei au la akahi, o Nananana / O Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (121).
Hoaea, o Nanahulihonuakapo
152. 19 Ku pololei aela / Kauahi o ka lua e Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (12); Roberts 3.7 (9,
84b-85a); 3.9 (135a-136).
153. 20 Ku popolei aela / Ka uahi i lalo o ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (13); HEN V. 3
lua e (152).
154. 238 Kui na apiki lei hele o Makana e / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (123); Roberts 2.7
Hoomoe na kapa i kehua o Puna (116-117).
155. 58 Kui na apiki lei hele / 0 ka maloko e Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (123); Roberts 2.7
(116-117).
156. 57 Kui na ohia hele o ke kaha e / Lei Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (44).
hele i ke kaha o Kapalailiohi
157. 258 Kulia e Uli ka pule kalanaola i mua i Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (135-136);
ke Kahuna / Kaulia i ke alohi lau e Kuluwaimaka Collection, HI.M.51.2 (20-22);
Roberts 4.4 (65-66; 4.3 (80); HEN V. 3 (295-296,
1172); HI.M.59 (27).
158. 121 Kulia ke kahuna i mua / Ia kui nei Roberts 4.4 (63); 4.3 (78); KNA microfilm
onopu i luna a i lalo
159. 113 Kunihi ka mauna i ka lai e / O Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23; HEN v. 3; MS SC
Waialeale la i Wailua Roberts 2.6; HI.M. 59
160. 52 Kupu maikai aela / Ka wahine o ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (33-34).

lua
161. 18 Kupu melemele aela / Ka uahi o ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (12); HEN V.3
lua e (176).
162. 272 Kuu aikane i ka hale wai e / Hale hau Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (146).
anu o Lihue
163. 277 Kuu aikane i ka la o lalo e / A po Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (147); Roberts 4.4,
Kaena i keha a ke kai (48), 4.3 (57), 3.7 (46, 82a); HI.M. 59 (29); HEN
V.3 (816-817; 991); HI.M.51.2 (423).
164. 271 Kuu aikane i ka pali o Kalalau / Mai Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (145).
ka pali kuukuu kaula o Kaena
165. 273 Kuu aikane i ka ua Poaihala o Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (146).
Kahaluu / Nihi Mololani a Puakea
166. 276 Kuu aikane i ka uluhala o Puna e / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (147).
Kuu aikane i ka ua Kanikoo o Hilo
167. 275 Kuu aikane i ka waa koo o Molokai / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (146).
E koo aku ana i hala ana Laemakani
168. 269 Kuu aikane i ka wai liu o Mana / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (145).
Pahaleolea i Maulua hoopae waa
169. 274 Kuu aikane i ke kaha o Hilia / Mai ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (146).
lai luahine o oa Kamanu
522

in text
170. 270 Kuu aikane i ka wai iliahi ula o Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (145).
171. 199 Kuu hoa i ka ili hau o Mana / 1 Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (103); KNA
kulaina e ka wai o Hina microfilm
172. 200 Kuu hoa i ke kawelu oho o Malailua / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (103); KNA
I hooholu ia, hoopui ia e ka microfilm
173. 141 Kuu kane i ka lai o Ewa la / Mai ka Roberts 3.7 (47, 82b-83a); KNA microfilm
ia hamau leo i ka makani
174. 206 Kuu kane i ka makani hau alia / O KNA microfilm
Makahuna i Huawa e
175. 128 Kuu kane i ka makani he Malua / Na Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (86); KNA microfilm
ke koolau kaua i lawe mai
176. 108 Kuu kane i ka makani Kilihau,
Kiliopu / Ku pue ke wai, o ka mauna
177. 105 Kuu kane i ka pali o Haena / Mai na Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (75).
aina pali a pau loa
178. 59 Kuu kane i ka pali, kauhuhu kahi / O Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (45).
Makapuu, huki i ka lani
179. 147 Kuu kane i ke awalau o Puuloa / Mai KNA microfilm
ke kula o Peekaua ke noho
180. 144 Kuu kane i ke awalau o Puuloa / Mai Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (94); KNA microfilm
ke kula o Peekaua ke noho e
181. 68 Kuu keiki ka la o Mahinui / Mai ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (51).
ua Kapuai kanaka o Palawai
182. 107 Kuu wahine e / Hoohewahewa oe iau Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (76).
la
183. 23 Lai pohu maila / Lalo o Kalua e HEN V.3 (153-154).
184. 29 Lailai kai / O ka Hilo paliku Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (18); HEN V.3 (154-
155).
185. 96 Lele [ana o] Kaena / Mehe manu la i HI.M.51.1 (136); 142-150; 51.2 (112-114).
ka malie
186. 81 Lele Laniloa ua malie / Ke hoe aela e Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (56-57).
ka Moae
187. 43 Lilo i Puna e, lilo i Puna / Lilo i Puna Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (28); HI.H. (51);
i ke au a ka hewahewa HI.M. 51.2 (72); KNA microfilm
188. 97 Lina ke kaha o Kaena wela i ka la / HEN V.3 (301-302).
Aina ihola ka pohaku a moa wela
189. 146 Lina kona i ka la loa o Makalii / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (95); KNA microfilm
Maewa ka wiliwili hele i ka lai
190. 210 Liuliu aloha uka / O Koholalele Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (108); Roberts 3.7
kanahele24 (50), 84b-86; HEN V. 3(833); HI.M. 51.2 (11525);
HI.M. 59, (26).
191. 3 Luuluu Hanalei i ka ua nui / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (3); HEN V.3 (304-
Kaumaha i ke noe o Alakai 305); GEN 21 (87).
24 BPBMA notes “password to enter halau hula (mele komo).”

523

in text
192. 280 Ma Puna kahuli mai ana ka ua Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (152-153).
makalii noe / Ke ua aia i laau ka hihi,
kapaa
193. 157 Mai Puna au e, mai Puna au / Mai Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (99); KNA microfilm
uka au o Wahinekapu
194. 156 Mai Puna au e, mai Puna / Ke haa la Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (99).
ka lau o ka ilima e
195. 166 Mapu Loanono ke ahia Kalawakua / HI.M.51.1 (133-134).
Ka momoku ipo ahi a Kapapala
196. 15 Mauu enaena maila / Lalo o Kalua e Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (11).
197. 70 Me he kapa kea la i hola ia la / Ke Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (51).
one i kai o Mokapu
198. 197 Mehameha kanaka ole ka hoi / O Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (102); KNA
Puuomaeawa e microfilm
199. 36 Mehe uahi mahu kai l a / Ko lalo o
Kakauauki
200. 257 Moa Kilauea wehi mai ka lua / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (135).
Wehiwehi i ke akua uka o Puna
201. 203 Moe e no Waalua ke koolau / Ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (104); KNA
hikina mai a Kalawakua microfilm
202. 95 Na uala maka eaea, o Kuaokala / Ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (60-61).
maia lau haahaa o Koiahi
203. 6 No ka lua paha ia makani o Puulena / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (6-7); HEN V.3
Ke halihali i ke aia laau (151); GEN 21 (92).
204. 92 Noho aku au o ke kau o ka ino e / Ia Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (60).
noho pu aku maua me kuu akea
205. 60 Noho ana Makapuu i ka lae / He Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (46); KNA microfilm
wahine o Kekuapololi
206. 256 Noho ke akua ai ia Puna / Holo ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (134).
wela ka mahu a ka wahine
207. 242 Noho no i Hilo ka ua mahiai / Ka ua Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (128); Roberts 3.7
kupa waa lehua ma uka (18, 59b-60a).
208. 143 Noweo maka ea i ka la / Hoa kui Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (93-94); KNA
lima laula o Ewa microfilm
209. 64 O apuakea nui wahine maikai / 1 Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (48).
210. 188 O Hamakua aina pali loloa / Loloa
ka pali o Kuihanalei pali
211. 100 0 Haupu mauna kiekie / Huki aela pa Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (64); HI.M. 74 (172,
1 ka lani 246); HEN V. 3 (402); fHI.M.41 (10-13).
212. 204 O Haupu m auna kilohana / I k oea e H enriques-P eabody fH I.L .23 (50); KNA m icrofilm
Hulaia a oki
213. 239 O Hiiaka ka wahine / Ke apo la i ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (12626).
pua
214. 278 O Hiiaka ke akua e / Walea i ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (148).
hiamoe e
26 Alternate entries for ako i ka pua: HEN V. 3 (299); Roberts 3.7 (7b-8a, 52-53a); KNA microfilm.
524

in text
215. 175 0 Hilo nahele paoa i ke aia /P a o a
pu no me Piihonua
216. 183 0 Hilopaliku, kai ehu, kai ea, kai mu
/ Kai kahalau, hakahaka Wailuku
217. 7 0 hooko ia aku oe / 0 ka hana ana a Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (7-8).
ke kua
218. 196 O ka eha a ke aloha ke lalawe nei / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (102).
Eia la i loko i kuu manawa
219. 55 0 ka la iki maka inoino / Ihu meumeu
o k a moana
220. 11 0 ka manu mukiki / Ale lehua a ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (9).
manu
221. 91 0 Kaala kuahiwi mauna kehau / Ke Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (59); HI.M. 51.1 (73-
opu maila la i Kamaoha 74).
222. 125 0 Kalalau pali aala hoi e / Ke ako ia Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (85); KNA microfilm
aela e ka wahine
223. 93 0 Kamae aina a ke kehau / Me he kai Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (60); KNA microfilm
la ha Mokuleia
224. 80 O kanaka au o ke kua / 0 ka leo au e Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (56).
hea ana
225. 117 O kaua a Pele i hakaka i Kahiki / 1 Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (68).
hakaka ai me Punaaikoae
226. 78 0 Kauhiikeimakaokalani / 0 ka pali Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (54-55); KNA
kekee o Halawalawa microfilm
227. 112 0 Kaula nui kai akaka / Ua po Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (77).
Kahalauaola o ka noe
228. 211 0 Kaweloikaiehuehu / Makani aku o Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (109).
Kaipuula
229. 245 0 ke ehu liu a ke akua i ka maka /
Eia la ke oni nei, ka mahele lua a
loko
230. 187 O ke hoa oe i manao aku ai e m e a /I
ole ia oe ka moe
231. 94 0 ke hoihoina o upena i ke alanui / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (50).
Kanaenae au a ka mea hele
232. 265 O ke kumu o ka ua ka haka / Ke Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (140).
hookuku maila e ua i Malio
233. 279 O Kohala makani Apaapaa e pa nei / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (152).
O Mookini i ke alo wa o Kohala
234. 185 O ku o ka o Wahineomao / Wahine ia Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (105).
Lohiauipo
235. 205 O ku o ka Wahineomao / Wahine ia Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (105).
Lohiauipo
236. 161 0 kuu manawa nae kai hei i ka moe / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (101); KNA
0 oe nae kau e lawe la lilo microfilm
237. 115 0 Malaehaakoa lawaia o ka pali / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (66).
Keiki lawaia oe a Wainiha
238. 127 O Mana aina a ke akua e / Aina o ke Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (86); KNA microfilm
akua i Kaliu
525

in text
239. 116 O oe ia e ka wahine ai laau o Puna / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (66).
E ka lala i ka ulu o Wahinekapu
240. 176 O oe no la, o au oki kaua / Aue hoi e
241. 31 O Panaewa ohia loloa / Ohia uliuli i Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (20); HEN V.3
ka ua (156).
242. 79 O Pele la kou akua / Miha ka lani, Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (55-56).
miha ka honua
243. 86 O Piliaama kana lawaia o ka pali / HEN V.3 (292).
Hee pue wai o Waimea
244. 87 O Piliaama kanaka law aia/K an e
hiialo oe a Kapuewai
245. 75 O Pueo ke lii i a laila i ke kaua e / 1 Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (53).
alaila no i kou la ikaika
246. 243 O Puna aina lehua ula i ka papa / 1 Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (128); Roberts 3.7
ula kaunoa i luna o ka laau (19, 60b-61a).
247. 244 O Puna aina lehua ula i ka papa / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (128).
Ilihia i ka lipo o ka nahele
248. 164 O Puna kai nehe i ka uluhala / 1 ka HI.H. 51 (35); HEN V.3 (77); HI.K. 18 (34);
leo pa e leo hano HI.M. 5 (129).
249. 2 O Puna kaukua i ka h a la /P a e ka leo
o ke ai
250. 195 O Puna nahele ulu hala o Kalukalu / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (102); KNA
Wawalu ili a mohole naenae microfilm
251. 89 O Waialua kai leo nui / Ua lono ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (59); HEN V. 3
uka o Lihue (292); KNA microfilm
252. 90 O Waialua lai eha e / Eha ka malino Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (59); HEN V. 3
lalo o Waialua (292); KNA microfilm
253. 148 O au e hele i ke kaha o Puuloa / 1 ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (95-96).
ohai o Kaupea la
254. 149 O au e hele i ke kaha o Puuloa / Ma Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (96).
kai aku o Kapuna
255. 62 O au e hele i na lae ino o Koolau / 1 Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (46).
na lae maka kai o Maeau
256. 72 Olomana kuahiwi i kiekie i ka lani / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (52).
He pane poo ua no Ahiki
257. 114 Pa mai ka makani, o ka lele waa e / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (65-66).
Makani kai ehu lalo o ka pali
258. 30 Pau ke aho i ke kahawai lau o Hilo / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (19-20); HEN V. 3
He lau ka puu (155-156); KNA microfilm
259. 170 Pali mai nei ka maka i ka mea o ka
hilahila / E kuu hilahila
260. 247 Paoa i ke ahi uka o Kaauea / Ikiiki no Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (130).
i ka uahi o ka lua
261. 255 Pau Kilauea i ke ahi / Owela no i ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (134).
mauna
262. 251 Pau Puna i ke ahi / Owela no i ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (132); Roberts 3.1
mauna (240a-240b, 246b-248); 3.8 (164-166).
526

in text
263. 266 Pau Puna koele ka paa / Ua noe ke Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (140-141); Roberts
kuahiwi 3.1 (230b-232a, 238); 3.8 (97-98, 105); HI.H 51
(41); KNA microfilm
264. 155 Po Puna i ka uahi kui maka lehua / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (99); Roberts 3.8
Na wahine ki ehiehi, pua heihei (15la -152); KNA microfilm
265. 150 Pohaku au waa lalea i kai nei / Hoe Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (97); KNA microfilm
mai, hoe mai, ia pae i uka nei
266. 151 Polenaehu i ka ua Kinimakalehua / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (97); KNA microfilm
Ka waha i ka la luna o Leinono
267. 53 Popo ke kapa o ka wahine / Au ko Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (34).
hana wai
268. 263 Popoi haki kai koo ka lua / Haki ku Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (138); Roberts 3.7
kahi kakala ka ino (87-89, 93-94); 3.8 (124, 137-138); 4.6 (27b-28a);
HI.H 51 (37); HI.M. 51.2 (82-84); KNA microfilm
269. 63 Puanaie ke kanaka / Ke hele i ka lua Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (47).
la
270. 189 Ua lono au i ka leo e / 1 ka hala opu
hoomau loa, auwe e
271. 223 Ua make ia, he aa ma ko Kahikinui / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (114).
He paiea ko Molokini
272. 225 Ua make ia, ke hai mai nei / Na akua Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (115, 116).
wahine o Hana nei
273. 229 Ua make ia, ke hai mai na akua Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (117).
wahine / Omua noi, aahu kapa o
Maunaloa
274. 227 Ua make ia, ke hai mai na akua / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (112).
Wahine o Hana nei
275. 237 Ua make ia, ke kua ia la kaula i ka Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (123).
ohia / Pua ka lehua i ka auwai
276. 221 Ua make ia, o Hahae ka oe la o kui Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (113).
kapihe / 1 ke aumoe, o Wawa
277. 219 Ua make ia, ua make Kamuleialii / O Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (113).
Kihanuilulumoku, ke puhi nei na aina
278. 215 Ua make ia / Ke hai mai nei na akua Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (111).
wahine
279. 217 Ua make ia / Ku kai mai nei na akua
wahine / 1 ke komohana la o Lehua
280. 213 Ua make ke lii nona nei moku / He Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (110); Roberts 3.7
puaa ka uka o Molokai (48, 83b-84a); HI.M. 51.1 (119-120).
281. 212 Ua make ke lii nona nei moku / He see ref. above
puaa ka uka o Molokai
282. 102 Ua puea e ke one ka lehua o uka / Ua Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (64); HI.M 51.2
hoa iki Kaula i ka papa (106).
283. 240 Ua wela Puulena i ke ahi / Ua wela Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (127); Roberts 3.7
ka mauna ou e Kahuna (20, 61b-62a).
284. 230 Uhi pulou i ke kapa a ka wahine / Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (117).
Hoomoe i na kapa, lele hau maka
akua
527

in text
285. 163 Wehea iho nei loko e ka moe /
Malamalama no me he ahi lele la
286. 132 Wela i ka la e wela i ka la / Ua wela i KNA microfilm
ka la ke kua o Lualualei
287. 264 Wela ka hoku, ka malama / Wela Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (139); HI.H. 51 (41-
Makalii kaeole ia Kaulua 42); KNA microfilm
288. 241 Wela ka mauna i ke ahi e / Pau na ki Henriques-Peabody fHI.L.23 (127).
a kaunu
528
APPENDIX 5D
LETTER FROM J. N. KAPIHENUI
KA NUPEPA K U ‘OKO‘A, FEBRUARY 28, 1865
“No ka Moolelo o Pele”
E KA NUPEPA KUOKOA E; ALOHA OE:
He wahi kanalua ko‘u no ka moolelo o Pele, aole nae au i kanalua no ka helu 1 a
hiki i ka helu 5, aia i ka helu 6 ka‘u wahi i kanalua ai, no ka pule o Pele, oia hoi keia.
HE PULE NO PELE.
1 Hulihia Kukalani, 2 Hulihia Kilauea, 3 Hulihia ke au nee ilalo ia Kea.
O keia mau mele ekolu, ke hoole aku nei au me ka wiwoole, aole ia he pule no
Pele, he mele ia no Kahuakaiapaoa, no ka make alua ana o kana mea‘loha he aikane, oia
hoi o Lohiau, Puukani o Kauai, o ka nui o keia mau mele a Kahuakaiapaoa, 8, lakou.
O ka moolelo o Pele, aole i pili keia mau mele ilaila. Pili keia mau mele i ka
moolelo o Hiiakaikapoliopele, ke oluolu ka Luna o ke Kuokoa, e hoopuka hou ia ia
moolelo, no ka mea, ua hoopuka au i ka moolelo o Hiiakaikapoliopele ma ka Hoku o ka
Pakipika, aole i pololei ka hoopuka ana a ka Pakipika, ua molowa no.
A o na mele loloa ua hoopokoleia, aole like me ke kope. Pela ka mea i maopopo ma ka‘u
moolelo e waiho nei, mau ia, ke hoi nei ko Kailua keiki, ua pa ka makani he malanai. Me
ke aloha. J. M. Kapihenui. Kailua, Koolaupoko, Feb. 28, 1865.
529
APPENDIX 5E
PA‘ALUHI AND BUSH HAWAIIAN TEXT
(INTRODUCTION TO SERIES)
KA LEO O KA LAHUI, JANUARY 5, 1893
O keia kekahi o na moolelo hoopahaohao [i] ka noonoo o ka mea heluhelu, a
makou e panee aku nei imua o na makamaka heluhelu o ka lahui o keia Paemoku. Ua
haku ia keia moolelo e ka poe kahiko e pili ana i ka huakai [nui] kane a kekahi a ko Pele
kaikaina punahele a aloha nui [nei?], oia hoi o Hiiakaikapoliopele . . . 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 keia a me keia
manawa e 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. Me ia iho la ke ano o na moolelo i hoopaa
waha ia, aole wale ma keia aina, aka, me ia nohoi e nalo a e haule aku nei kekahi hapa
nui o ka olelo Hawaii.
He nani nohoi a he nanea maoli no na moolelo a me na kaao o ka wa kahiko o ko
kakou aina, a he mea nohoi a ka Hawaii e hiipoi ai e like me ka hialaai o keia a me keia
lahui i na moolelo, na kaao, a me na mele o ko lakou aina hanau. O keia hauleule ana o
na moolelo, oia kekahi ouli a ke kilo e nana ai me ka naau i piha i na manao hopohopo no
ka mau ana o kona lahui maluna o ka aina o kona mau kupuna, no ka mea, e hoike mau
ana ka moolelo io maoli o na aina i kakau ia na moolelo. Aole he loihi o ka noho ana o
ka lahui a nalo aku mai ke ao ke hoomaloka a hoopaina lakou i ka hiipoi ana me na
ohohia nui i na moolelo a me na mele o na ano a pau, a kamailio mau imua o ka poe opio
530
i kumu e mau ai ua hooipo a me na li‘a ana o ka naau o ke kanaka i ke aloha aina ma muli
o ka hooni ana o na moolelo a me na mele e pili ana i kona one hanau na wahi pana a me
na hana kaulana a kona mau kupuna.
Me keia mau wahi wehewehe ana a me ka manaolana, e lawe ana ka puuwai aloha
aina i keia mau olelo hoakaka a hoomaopopo me ka naau kanaka makua, aole ma ke ano
he mea e hoala mai ai i na li’a a me na kuko hewa, aka, me ka wae ana ae a hoopaa a
hoomau aku i ka io o ka olelo a me ka nani o na puana a me na hooku‘iku‘i hua olelo o ke
kaao a me kona mau mele ke puana ae nei makou ua oia keia hoomanawanui a me keia
luhi ana.
531
APPENDIX 5F
HE MO ‘OKU ‘AUHAU NO PELE
1. PA‘ALUHI AND BUSH, JANUARY 5, 1893
M o ‘o k u ‘a u h a u of P e l e ; P a ‘a l u h i and B u s h (A ) v e r s io n
Ku[w]ahailo (k) = Haumea (w)

I
Pele (w)
H i‘iakaika‘ale‘I (w)
Hi‘iakaika‘alemoe (w)
Hi‘iakapaikauhale (w)
Hi‘iakaikapua‘ena‘ena (w)
H i‘iakaikape‘ealani (w)
Hi‘iakanoholae (w)
Hi‘iakawahilau‘I (w)
H i‘iakaika‘alepo‘i (w)
Hi‘iakaika‘aleuweke (w)
Kupoula [Kapo‘ulakIna‘u?] (w)
Hiiakaikapoliopele (w)
Kauilanuimakaehaikalani (k)
Kanewahilani (k)
Lonomakua (k)
Kanemilohai (k)
Kuhaimoana (k)
Kalaeoka‘ena (k)
Kamohoalil (k)
532
HE MO‘OKU‘AUHAU NO PELE
2. RICE, MAY 21, 1908
M o ‘o k u ‘a u h a u of P e l e ; R ic e v e r s io n 1
Moemoe‘a‘auli‘i (k) = Haumea (w)

I
Kamohoali‘i (k) ma ka manawa mai
Kanehekili (k) ma ka waha
Kauilanuimakaehaikalani (k) ma ka maka
Kuhaimoana (k) ma ka pepeiao
Kanemilohai (k) ma ka poholima ‘akau
Leho (k) ma ka ‘opu ‘upu ‘u lima
Kaneikokala (k) ma na manamanalima
Namakaokahal (w) ma ka ‘umauma
Pele (w) ma kahi mau e hanau ‘ia ai ke kanaka
Kapo‘ulakIna‘u (w) ma na kuli
Kapokohelele (w) ma ka ‘opu ‘upu ‘u wawae
Hilakakalukalu (w) ma na manamanawawae
Hi‘iakaku‘ulei (w) ma na kapua ‘i wawae
Hiiakaikapoliopele (w) ma na poholima, me ke ano he hua mo ala
1This m o‘oku‘auhau is also referenced in Holo Mai Pele. Kanahele states, “Many versions exist of the
genealogy of Hawaiian elemental gods . . . This version of the genealogy of the Pele clan was published in
the nineteenth-century Hawaiian-language newspaper Ka Hoku o Hawaii” (Kanahele 2001, ix).
APPENDIX 5G
NA HFIAKA SISTERS IN THE PELE AND HTIAKA MO‘OLELO
Na H i‘iaka translation of name Kapihenui unknown Pa'aluhi Manu Ho ‘oulu- Poepoe Rice Emerson Desha
& Bush mahiehie
KHP KLL KLL KLK HA, KNA KHR HOH HOH
1861 1891 1893 1899 1905-1906 1908 1908 1915 1924
1. Hi ‘iaka-i-ka- ‘ale- ‘I Hi‘iaka of the wild waves X x 1 X 1 X X X X X
2. Hi ‘iaka-i-ka- ‘ale-moe Hi‘iaka of the smooth waves X x 2 X X X X X

or in the low-lying billow
3. H i‘iaka-i-ka-pua- H i‘iaka of the red hot X x6 X X
[ha] ‘ena‘ena flower; in the burning red
flower
4. Hi ‘iaka-pa-i-kau-hale Hi'iaka the house thatcher x3 X X X X X
H i‘iaka-i-ka-pa-i-kau-hele
5. Hiiaka-i-ka-pua-aneane H i‘iaka of the intense X X X X

Hiiaka-kapu- ‘ena ‘ena sacredness
6. H i‘iaka-i-ka-pua- ‘ena‘ena H i‘iaka of the red hot flower
7. Hiiaka- i-ka-pua-lau-i H i‘iaka of the ti leaf flower X X X X
8. Hi ‘iaka-i-ka-pe ‘e-a-lani Hi‘iaka hidden by the x5 X

heavens
9. H i‘iaka-noho-lae Hi‘iaka sitting at the cape x 11 x 6 X X X X X
10. Hi ‘iaka-wahl-lau- ‘I Hi'iaka wrapped in ti leaf x7 X
11. Hi ‘iaka-i-ka- ‘ale-po ‘i Hi‘iaka in the breaking x 8 X

waves
12. Hi‘iaka-[wa]wahi-lani Hi‘iaka breaking up the sky x4 X X X X X
533
Na Hi‘iaka translation of name Kapihenui unknown Pa'aluhi Manu Ho'oulu- Poepoe Rice Emerson Desha
& Bush mahiehie
KHP KLL KLL KLK HA, KNA KHR HOH HOH
1861 1891 1893 1899 1905-1906 1908 1908 1915 1924
13. Hi'iaka-kalukalu H i‘iaka of the kalukalu fern X
14. Hi ‘iaka- [i-ka]-kui-lei H i‘iaka stringing lei X
15. H i‘iaka-i-ka-poli-o-pele H i‘iaka in the bosom of Pele X x 12 X X X X X X
16. Hiiaka-makole-wawahi-waa H i‘iaka the fiery-eyed canoe X X X X

breaker
17. Hiiaka-noho-lani H i‘iaka occupying the X X X X
heaven
IB. Hiiaka-ka- ‘alawa-maka H i‘iaka of the quick- X X X X
glancing eyes
19. Hiiaka-lei-‘ia Bedecked H i‘iaka X X X X
20. Hiiaka-'opio Young Hi‘iaka X X X X
21. Hi ‘iaka- ‘ai-mlana H i‘iaka who eats at or rules x 10

the urinal
22. H i‘iaka-i-ka-‘ale-kualono H i‘iaka in the overturning x3
wave
23. Hi ‘iaka-i-ka- ‘ale-uweke H i‘iaka in the open billows x9
24. Hi ‘iaka-i-ka-pua-ko ‘olau H i‘iaka in the ko'olau x7

flower
25. H i‘iaka-i-ka-pua-mamane H i‘iaka in the mamane x5
flower.
26. H i‘iaka-pa-pulehu H i‘iaka whose touch x9
scorches
27. Hi ‘iaka-pu ‘ule ‘ule Hi'iaka of the gourd x8
(Hi ‘iaka-pu ‘ull‘ull)
534
535
APPENDIX 5H
COMPARISON OF NA HFIAKA SISTERS
POEPOE, KUOKOA HOME RULA
JANUARY 24, 1908
A ma keia hele ana mai o ka moolelo, e kamakamakailio iki kakou no na kaikaina

0 Peleihonuamea i hele pu mai ai me ia. He like ole no na mana moolelo e pili ana i ka
uui [nui?] o na kaikaina a ua wahine nei o ka Lua i hele pu mai ai me ia. Ua manao
kekahi poe, eia na inoa o ua poe Hiiaka nei; o Hiiaka-i-ka-ale-i; Hiiaka-i-ka-ale-moe;
Hiiaka-pai-kau-hale; Hiiaka-i-ka-pua-aneane; Hiiaka-i-ka-pua-lau-i; Hiiaka-noho-lae;
Hiiaka-wahi-lani ame Hiiaka-i-ka-poli-o-Pele.
Ma ka manao hoi o kekahi poe moolelo Hiiaka, he lehulehu loa no nei poe Hiiaka ua
piha ko lakou kanaha a oi aku.
A ma ka mahele hoi a ko Maui poe Hiiaka, he ewalu no keia poe Hiiaka, elike no me
ia i hoike mua ia ae nei; a he mau wahi like ole nae ma kekahi mau inoa. A eia ko lakou
mau ano a mau hana hoi: Hiiaka-makole-wawahi-waa, ka mua; a o ka lei-hale me ke
anuenue kona mau hoailona. Hiiaka-wawahi-lani; me ke mea la, oia no o Hiiaka-wahi-
lani i hoike mau ia ae nei, a e ke ku-a-ua ko ia nei hoailona. Hiiaka-noho-lani; a o ka
onohi ula me ka ua koko kona mau hoailona. Hiiaka-ka-alawa-maka; o ka ohiki maka loa
kona hoailona. Hiiaka-i-ka-poli-o-Pele; o ka pala-a o ke kuahiwi, kona hoailona; a o ka ai
1 ka i‘a mai ke poo a ka h i‘u o ka i ‘a kona Kanawai. Hiiaka-kapu-enaena, a me he mea la
o Hiiaka-i-ka-pua-aneane no keia, elike me ka mea i hoike mua ia ae nei; a o kona
hoailona, he wela nonono ula ke kanaka a o ka wahine paha e pili a e nohoia ana e ia.
Hiiaka-lei-ia; o ka Hiiaka keia nona na iei [lei?] apau mawaho aku o ka lei hala, ka hope
loa, oia o Hiiaka-opio.
E ikeia ana, ma ko Maui Hiiaka, he okoa loa ka Hiiaka loa o Pele, oia o Hiiaka opio. A
ma ko Hawaii mahele hoi, e ikeia no o Hiiaka-i-ka-poli-o-Pele ka pokii muli loa o ua
wahine la o ka lua-ahi o Kilauea.
Elike hoi me ka mea i hai mua ia ae nei, he wahi kaikamahine uuku wale no o
Hiiaka-i-ka-poli-o-Pele i keia hele ana mai me na kaikuaana ame na kaikunane; a o kona
poli waiu, oia no o Nu‘akea; pela no e hoomaopopo iho ai ka mea heluhelu ma keia
hoomaka ana mai o nei hele ana mai la o ka moolelo.
536
APPENDIX 51
COMPARISON OF INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH TO THE M O‘OLELO
PA‘ALUHI AND BUSH (K) (1893) AND KAPIHENUI (1861)
Pa‘aluhi and Bush 1893 Kapihenui 1861 translation
Noho o Pele iuka o ka lua, a i Noho o Pele i uka o Kalua, a i Pele lived in the uplands at the
aku i na kaikaina, e iho kakou i aku i na kaikaina, “E iho kakou i crater [Kllauea], and said to her
ke kui opihi i kai, haukeuke, ke kui opihi i kai, haukeuke, younger sisters, “Lets all go to the
lawaia heepali, pahi limu na lawaia heepali, pahi limu—na ocean to pick ‘opihi [and]
kakou, ae mai na kaikaina a iho kakou.” Ae mai na kaikaina, ha‘uke‘uke, fish for the octopus
lakou nei i kai o Puna, ma “Ae.” that clings to the cliffs, and gather
Hawaii, iho lakou nei a Iho lakou nei i kai o Puna, ma limu—for all of us [to eat].” The
Puupahoehoe, aia ia wahi i kai o Hawaii, iho lakou nei a [hiki i] younger sisters agreed to this, and
Puna, mawaena mai ike o Pele ia Puupahoehoe. Aia ia wahi i kai o replied, “Yes, [let’s go].” They
Hopoe, me Haena e hula mai ana Puna ma waena mai. Ike o Pele walked down to the beach at Puna
iloko o ke kai o Puna, makemake ia Hopoe me Haena e hula mai on Hawai‘i [island], going down
keia i kahula mai o laua la i aku o ana i loko o ke kai o Puna. until they reached Pu‘upahoehoe.
Pele i na kaikaina, “Ea! Aole hoi Makemake keia i ka hula mai o This place is located near the sea
a oukou wahi hula e hula aku ai laua la. I aku o Pele i na in the middle of the Puna district.
ia Hopoe ma[?]” kaikaina, “Ea, aole hoi a oukou [There] Pele saw Hopoe and
wahi hula? E hula aku ai ia Ha‘ena dancing hula in the sea of
Hopoe ma.” Puna. Pele was very pleased with
their dancing. Pele asked the
younger sisters, “Hey, don’t you
all have a little hula? Dance for
Hopoe folks.”
[H]oole mai la lakou [“]aole a Hoole maila lakou, “Aole a They denied this, saying
makou hula, o Hiiakaikapoli makou hula; o Hiiakaikapoli “We have no hula; Hiiakaikapoli-
opele me na papahi lehua,[“] i opele, eia no ia ma hope i ka ako opele, [she is the one who can
aku nei o Pele ia lehua.” dance, but] she is back there [in
Hiiakaikapoliopele [“]E! ua kena A i ka hiki ana mai o the forest] picking lehua
aku nei au ia lakou nei e hula aku Hiiakaikapoliopele, me ka blossoms.”
ia Hopoe ma aole hoi o lakou nei papahi lehua, i aku o Pele ia When Hiiakaikapoliopele
hula aku, ole ae nei hoi ia lakou Hiiakaikapoliopele, “E! Ua kena arrived with her lehua
nei, ole loa aku hoi paha ia oe he aku nei au ia lakou nei e hula aku adornments, Pele said to her,
uuku, ninau aku o Pele ia ia Hopoe ma, (a) aole hoi o lakou “Hey, I told them to dance hula
Hiiakaikapoliopele, aole au wahi nei hula aku, ole ae nei lakou nei; for Hopoe folks, and they denied
mele [?”] ole loa aku hoi paha oe he uuku?” they can hula, they denied it
Ninau aku o Pele ia Hiiakaika indeed; you won’t refuse, will
poliopele, “Aole au wahi mele?” you, little one?” Pele asked
Hiiakaikapoliopele, “You have a
little son g, d o n ’t yo u ? ”
I mai o Hiiakaikapoliopele he I mai o Hiiakaikapoliopele, Hiiakaikapoliopele replied,
mele no. I aku o Pele oi ana, oli “He mele no ia aku o Pele,” oiana “I have a song for Pele,” and
aku ana keia penei[.] oli aku ana keia penei: commenced to chant like this:
(January 5, 1893) (December 26, 1861)
537
APPENDIX 6C
HO ‘OULUM AHIEHIE
H A W A II ALOHA, AUGUST 19, 1905 (161-170)
Ma keia wahi o ka kaua moolelo e kuumakamaka heluhelu, e kapae iki kaua i ka hookolo
ana aku ma ka meheu o ka kaua nanea, a e ae mai oe ia‘u e hoomaikeike aku i keia wahi manao
kuha‘o wale, oia hoi kekahi mau hoakaka waiwai nui e pili ana i na inoa Pele a me Hiiaka-i-ka-
poli-o-pele. Na ka mea kakau ponoi iho keia mau hoakaka ana, a nau hoi e ka makamaka
heluhelu, e wae nou iho.
HE MAU WEHEWEHE ANO
HIIAKA—He “lawe malamalama,” a i ole, he “halihali malamalama” ke ano o keia inoa.
Ua like paha keia inoa me ka inoa Hebera “Heylel,” nona hoi ke ano, “ka mea alohilohi,” “ka
mea malamalama.” Ma ka olelo Latina, o “Lucifer” ka inoa, oia hoi, he “mea lawe a halihali
malamalama,” (light bearing), Lux(lucis)—he malamalama, he a-ka.” Ferro—e lawe, e halihali.
Ua hoopiliia keia inoa Lucifer e ka poe na lakou i hana i ka Baibala Latina, ka Vulegate, ia Hoku
Loa, ka hoku malamalama e puka ana i ke kakahiaka, oia no hoi o Venusa. A ma ia ano i unuhi
ai lakou i ka Pauku 12 o ka Mokuna 14 o Isaia.
Auwe kou haule ana mai ka lani mai,
E ka Hoku Loa, ke keiki a ke Kakahiaka
Ua kuaia oe ilalo i ka Honua
Etc. Etc. Etc.
PELE—O ke ano o keia inoa ma ka olelo Hebera, he “kupaianaha,” a he “kamahao.” Ua
maa na Hebera a o ka poe Iudaio hoi, i ka pule ana ma keia inoa, penei:
538
“Adorable, mighty and holy God Pelel with thee is advice, action and power, and only
thou canst work wonders. Turn away from me all that is evil, and protect me from the
persecution of evil men, for the sake of the great name Pele. Amen—Selah.”
Penei ka unuhina Hawaii a ka mea kakau: E Pele e! ke Akua hemolelo, mana a ku i ka
hoomanaia, aia no me oe ka oleloa‘o, ka hana a me ka mana; a o oe wale no ka mea hiki e hana i
na mea kupaianaha. E hoohuli mai o ‘u aku nei i na mea ino a pau, a e malama mai hoi ia‘u mai
loko mai o na hoomaau ana mai a kanaka hewa, a e oia au ma ka inoa nui o Pele. Amene—
Sela.”
Ua oleloia maloko o ka bukei lawe mai ai ka mea kakau i keia pule ae la maluna, penei:
He pule pani keia mahope aku o ka uhau ana o ke kanaka i ka Halelu II, me kona hoomanao mau
ana hoi i ka inoa o Pele, me kona haawi ana ae hoi i kekahi wahi pule kupono i ke Akua; alaila, e
palekana ana oia mai ka poino a popilikia mai hoi.
Penei hou kekahi hoike maloko o keia buke kupaianaha e paa nei ma ka lima o ka mea
kakou moolelo: Ina manao oe e hele e ike i kekahi alii, a i ole, i kekahi kanaka kulana mana
kiekie iloko o ke aupuni, alaila, e uhau oe i ka Halelu 34, me ka hoopuna ana ae i ka inoa o Pele,
oia hoi o Kupaianaha, (kamahao) oiai oe e ku ana imua o ka mea au i hele aku ai e ike, e apoia
mai auanei oe a hookipaia aku hoi me ka oluolu loa. (E nana ma ka Buke 6 a me 7 a Moke—The
Sixth and Secenth Books of Moses—aoao 149 me 155).
E nana ma Isaia 9, Pauku 5: “A e kapaia kona inoa o Kupaianaha”— {Pele, ma ka olelo
Hebera).
O Lazaro i hoikeia maloko o ke Kauoha Hou, ka mea i noho maloko o ia mea he “poli”
(bosom), oia hoi, ka “poli” o Aberahama. Ma ka helu a Karisto, he kanaka Hebera (Iudaio), ua
539
noho o Lazaro ma ka poli o Aberahama. A ma ka moolelo hoi o Hiiaka a kaua e kuu makamaka
heluhelu e ike nei, ua noho o Hiiaka i ka poli o Pele, e like no me ka pana olelo no ko Lazaro
noho ana ma ka poli o Aberahama.
Nawai i a ‘o ia Hawaii kahiko, i keia mau kulana hoohalikelike kamahao ma ka mea e pili
ana i ka inoa o Pele a me Hiiaka i ka poli o Pele, e kulike ai me Pele, he inoa Akua ma ka Olelo
Hebera; a o ka noho ana hoi o HiiakaikapolioPele, he ano like no ia me ka olelo pili ia Lazaro ma
ka poli o Aberahama.
O ka huaolelo Hebera “hey-lel” i hoikeia ae nei, nona hoi ke ano “ka mea alohilohi,” “ka mea
malamalama,” ua hiki no ke puanaia penei: “he-lel,” a i ole, “hii-lil.” Aole anei keia i kokoke
aku i ka puana Hawaii “Hiiaka?”
540
SOURCES CITED
Akana-Gooch, Kiele. Personal communication.
Alexander, W. D., ed. The Maile Wreath, June 1861-April 1862. Honolulu: Hawaiian
Children’s Mission Society.
Allen, Gwenfried. The YMCA in Hawaii. Honolulu: Young Men’s Christian

Association, 1969.
American Heritage New Dictionary o f Cultural Literacy (www.dictionary.com).
Andrade, Carlos. Personal communication, 1995.
Andrews, Lorrin. Dictionary o f the Hawaiian Language. Honolulu: Island Heritage,

2003.
Bacchilega, Cristina. Legendary HawaVi and the Politics o f Place—Tradition,

Translation, and Tourism. Philadelphia: UP Press, 2007.
Bacon, Pat Namaka and Nathan Napoka, eds. Na Mele Welo: Songs o f Our Heritage,
Selections from the Roberts Collection in Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Translated
from the Hawaiian by Mary Kawena Pukui. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press,
1995.
Baker, Lee. From Savage to Negro, anthropology and the construction o f race, 1896-
1954. UC Berkeley, 1998.
Barrere, Dorothy B., Mary Kawena Pukui, and Marion Kelly. Hula Historical
Perspectives, Pacific Anthropological Records Number 30. Honolulu, Bishop
Museum Press, 1980.
Beamer, Nona. Na Mele Hula: A Collection o f Hawaiian Hula Chants, Volume I. La‘ie:
The Institute for Polynesian Studies, Brigham Young University Hawaii, 1987.
Beckwith, Martha. The Kumulipo. Honolulu: UH Press, 1981.
. Hawaiian Mythology. Honolulu: UH Press, 1971.
. The Hawaiian Romance o f Laieikawai. Washington: Government Printing

Office, 1919.
541
Bauman, Richard and Briggs, Charles L., eds. Voices o f Modernity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Bush, John E. and S. Pa‘aluhi. “Ka Moolelo o Hiiakaikapoliopele.” Ka Leo o ka Lahui,

January 5, 1893-July 12, 1893, vol. 2.
Chapin, Helen G. Shaping History: the Role o f Newspapers in Hawai 7. Honolulu, HI:
UH Press, 1996.
. 2000. Guide to Newspapers o f Hawai'i, 1834-2000. Honolulu: Hawaiian

Historical Society.
Chariot, John P. Classical Hawaiian Education, generations o f Hawaiian culture. CD

ROM. La‘ie, HI: Institute for Polynesian Studies, Brigham Young University
Hawai‘i, 2005.
. “Pele and Hi‘iaka: The Hawaiian-Language Newspaper Series.”

Anthropos 93, 1998.
. Chanting the Universe. Honolulu, HI: Emphasis International, 1983.
. “The Application of Form and Redaction Criticism to Hawaiian

Literature,” The Journal o f the Polynesian Society, vol. 86, no. 4, December,
1977: 479-501.
Cheyfitz, Eric. The Poetics o f Imperialism: Translation and Colonization From The
Tempest to Tarzan. Philadelphia: UP Press, 1997.
Clark, John R. K. Hawai‘i place names: shores, beaches, and surf sites. Honolulu: UH
Press, 2002.
Creed, Vicky. Personal communication.
Damon, Ethel. Koamalu. Honolulu: Star-Bulletin Press, 1931.
Desha, Stephen Langhern. Kamehameha and his Warrior KekuhaupVo. Frances Frazier,
translator. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools Press, 2000.
[Desha, Stephen]. “He Moolelo Kaao no Hiiakaikapoliopele, ka wahine i ka hikina ka la

a o ka ui palepoki uila o Halemaumau.” Hoku o HawaVi, November 17, 1925 -
January 26, 1926; April 19 - May 3, 1927; June 12, 1926; April 17, 1928.
542
Dickey, Lyle. “Stories of Wailua, Kaua‘i.” Hawaiian Historical Society Annual Report.
Honolulu: Hawaiian Historical Society, 1916.
Donnelly, Christine. “Rice: It’s About Protecting the Constitution, Not Racist.”
Honolulu Star Bulletin, February 23, 2000.
http://starbulletin.com/2000/02/23/news/story3.html
Dudoit, Mahealani. “Against Extinction: A Legacy of Native Hawaiian Resistance

Literature.” The Ethnic Studies Story: Politics and Social Movements in
HawaVi; Social Process in HawaVi, volume 39. Honolulu: Department of
Sociology, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, 1999.
Dudoit, Mahealani, et. al. ‘Oiwi: A Native Hawaiian Journal, volume 1, He Oia Mau no
Kakou. Honolulu: Kuleana ‘Oiwi Press, 1998.
Dundes, Alan. “The Devolutionary Premise in Folklore Theory.” Journal o f the Folklore
Institute 6, 1969 (5-19).
Elbert, Samuel H. and Noelani Mahoe. Na Mele o HawaVi Nei, 101 Hawaiian Songs.
Honolulu: UH Press, 1970.
Ellis, William. Journal o f William Ellis: Narrative o f a tour o f Hawaii, or Owhyhee, with
remarks on the history, traditions, manners, customs, and language o f the
inhabitants o f the Sandwich Islands. 1830. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle, 1979.
Emerson, Nathaniel B. Pele and Hiiaka, a myth from Hawaii. 1915. Honolulu: Honolulu
Star-Bulletin; ‘Ai Pohaku Press, 1998.
. 1909. Unwritten Literature, the sacred songs o f the hula. Washington,

D.C.: Government Printing Office; Honolulu: ‘Ai Pohaku Press, 1997.
Flores, E. Kalani. Personal communication, 2001. Halauaola Conference, Hilo, HI.
Foley, John Miles. Traditional Oral Epic, the Serbo-Croatian Return Song.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1995.
Foucault, Michael. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.” Language, Counter-Memory,

Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, ed. D. F. Bouchard. Ithaca: Cornell U
Press, 1977.
The Friend. August 1915. Honolulu: S. C. Damon.
. August 1889. Honolulu: S. C. Damon.
543
Gates, Henry Louis and Nellie McKay, eds. Norton Anthology o f African American
Literature. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1997.
Gerwitz, Laura. Personal communication.
Gutmanis, June. Na Pule Kahiko, Ancient Hawaiian Prayers. Honolulu: Editions Ltd.,
1983.
Haili, Ka‘iana. Personal communication. HIWA Writers Conference, Volcano, HI,

August 5, 2005.
Handy, E.S. Craighill, Elizabeth Green Handy, and Mary Kawena Pukui. Native Planters
in Old Hawai ‘i: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Honolulu: Bishop Museum
Press, 1976.
Hauola, B. K. “He wahi ka‘ao a me kekahi mele pu” Ka Hae HawaVi, July 4 and August
14, 1860. Honolulu, 1860.
Herman, R. Douglas K. “Kalai‘aina—Carving the Land: Geography, Desire and

Possession in the Hawaiian Islands.” PhD dissertation in Geography, University
of Hawai‘i-Manoa, 1995.
Hibbard, Don, Holly McEldowney and Nathan Napoka. “Introduction.” Kamehameha

and his Warrior Kekuhaupi'o by Stephen Langhem Desha Sr., Frances Frazier,
translator. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools Press, 2000.
Ho‘omanawanui, Ioane. Personal communication.
ho‘omanawanui, ku‘ualoha. “From Ocean to O-shen: Reggae, Rap and Hip Hop in
Hawai‘i.” Crossing Waters, Crossing Worlds: the African Diaspora in Indian
Country. Sharon Holland and Tiya Miles, eds. Durham, NC: Duke U Press,
2006.
. “He Lei Ho’oheno no na Kau a Kau—Language, Performance, and Form

in Contemporary Hawaiian Poetry.” The Contemporary Pacific, vol. 17, no. 1.
Spring 2005, ed. Vilsoni Hereniko. Honolulu: Center for Pacific Island Studies,
University of Hawai ‘i at Manoa.
544
. 2002. “Introduction, Kunihi ka Mauna.” ‘Oiwi: A Native Hawaiian

Journal, volume 2, eds. Mahealani Dudoit et al. Honolulu: Kuleana ‘Oiwi Press.
. 1996. “He mo‘olelo mai na kupuna mai: o ka wehewehe ‘ana o ka

mo‘olelo “O Pelekeahi'aloa a me Wakakeakaikawai” (A story from the ancestors:
an interpretive analysis of the “Pele-of-the-etemal-fires and Waka-of-the-
shadowy-waters” myth cycle. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Hawai ‘i at
Manoa Religion Department, 1997.
. 1994. Mo ‘olelo Hawai ‘i (Hawaiian Mythology). Articles compiled for

Hawaiian Studies 270 Hawaiian Mythology course reader, n.d. [1994],
[Ho‘oulumahiehie], “Ka Moolelo o Hiiaka-i-ka-poli-o-pele, ka wahine i ka Hikina a ka

La,” a o ka “Ui Palekoki Uwila o Halema‘uma‘u.” HawaVi Aloha: Ka Buke
Mo'olelo, vol. 1, no. 1-vol. 2, no. 6. 1905.
[Ho‘oulumahiehie]. “Ka Moolelo o Hiiaka-i-ka-poli-o-pele/Ka Moolelo o Hiiaka-i-ka-

poli-o-pele: Ka Wahine i ka Hikina a ka La, a o ka Ui Palekoki Uwila o
Halema‘uma‘u.” Ka N a‘i Aupuni, vol. 1, no. 4- vol. 2 no. 155. December 1,
1905 - January 14, 1906; January 13 - 29; June 25 -28, 1906.
[Ho‘oulumahiehie], “He Moolelo Kaao no Hiiaka-i-ka-poli-o-pele. Hoku o HawaVi.

September 18, 1924-July 17, 1928.
Ho‘oulumahiehie. “Hiiakaikapoliopele.” Trans. Mary Kawena Pukui. HEN II, 1161 —

1224 (December 1, 1905 - January 16,1906). n.d.
. “Hiiakaikapoliopele. Trans. Mary Kawena Pukui. (September 18, 1924-

July 17, 1928). Bishop Museum, HEN V.3 n.d.
Howell, Dean. The Story o f Chinaman’s Hat. Honolulu: Island Heritage, 1990.
Hula Preservation Society, www.hulapreservation.org
T I, John Papa. Fragments o f Hawaiian History. Ed. Dorothy Barrere. 1959. Honolulu:
Bishop Museum Press, 1983.
Ing, Tiffany. ‘To Be or Not to Be,’ That Was Not the Question: A Rhetorical Study of
Kalakaua’s Legends and Myths o f Hawaii: The Fables and Folk-Lore o f a Strange
People. MA thesis in English, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, 2003.
Interior Department letter, January 11, 1858 to John Cummins. Translated by E. H. Hart.
Hawai‘i State Archives.
545
Jacobs, Joseph. English Fairy Tales. London: David Nutt, 1898. http://www.pitt.edu/
-dash/ type0124.html
Joesting, Edward. Kaua'i, the Separate Kingdom. Honolulu: UH Press, 1984.
Johnson, Rubellite Kinney, ed. Kukini ‘A ha‘ilono [Carry On the News], over a century
o f Native Hawaiian life and thought from the Hawaiian language newspapers o f
1834-1948. Honolulu: Topgallant, 1976.
“Pele and Hiiaka, a myth from Hawaii.” Review, Journal o f the Polynesian Society,
1915.
“Unwritten Literature of Hawaii: the Sacred Song of the Hula.” Review, Journal o f the
Polynesian Society, 1910.
Judd, Neil. The Bureau o f American Ethnology, a Partial History. Norman, OK: U of
Oklahoma Press, 1967.
Kaeppler, Adrienne. Hula Drum Dances, the Hula Pahu. Honolulu: Bishop Museum
Press, 1993.
[Ka‘awa, P.W.] “Ka Moolelo no Pele, Kana Hana, Kona Mana, a me Kona Noho Ana.”
Ka Ho‘omana Kahiko, helu 5. Ka Nupepa K u‘oko‘a, February 2, 1865.
Ka‘awa, P.W. “Ka Moolelo no Pele, Kana Hana, Kona Mana, a me Kona Noho Ana.”
Ka Ho‘omana Kahiko, helu 6. Ka Nupepa K u‘oko‘a, February 9, 1865.
Kahananui, Dorothy. Music o f Ancient Hawaii. Honolulu: Dorothy Kahananui, 1962.
Kaili [Emma Nawahi]. “A Hawaiian Legend by a Hawaiian Native.” Pacific

Commercial Advertiser, August 25, 1883 - October 13, 1883.
Kaimikaua, John. Personal communication.
Kaiwi, Monica Ka‘imipono. I Ulu no na Lala i ke Kumu: An Epistemological

Examination of Native Hawaiian Literature. Auckland, NZ: unpublished M. A.
thesis in English, University of Auckland, 2001.
546
. “A Native Hawaiian epistemological examination of Emerson’s Pele and

HViaka.” Unpublished notes presented at the 2002 Halauola Hula Conference,
Hilo, HI.
. personal communication.
Kaiwi, Monica A. Ka‘imipono and Walter K. Kahumoku III. “Makawalu: Standards,

Curriculum and Assessment for Literature through an Indigenous Perspective.”
Hulili, multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well-Being, vol. 3, no. 1. Shawn
Kana‘iaupuni, ed. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools Press, 2006.
Kalakaua, David. The Legends and Myths o f HawaVi: the fables and folk-lore o f a
strange people. 1888. Ed. R. M. Daggett. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing, 1990.
Kam, Betty Lou. Personal communication. Bishop Museum Archives.
Kamakau, Samuel Manaiakalani. Ruling Chiefs o f HawaVi. Honolulu: Bishop Museum

Press, 1992.
. Tales and Traditions o f the People o f Old. Honolulu: Bishop Museum

Press, 1993.
Kamau, William. “Hoalohaloha no Rev. S. Paaluhi.” Ka Nupepa Ku'okoa, May 16,

1913.
Kame’eleihiwa. Native Lands and Foreign Desires: Pehea La e Pono ai? Honolulu:
. A Legendary Tradition o f Kamapua1a, the Hawaiian Pig-God. Honolulu:

. Na Wahine Kapu. Honolulu: ‘Ai Pohaku Press, 1999.
Kanahele, Pualani Kanaka‘ole. Holo Mai Pele. Honolulu: Pacific Islanders in

Communications and Edith Kanaka‘ole Foundation, 2001.
. “Kilauea: Creation and Procreation.” Pleiades. 1990: 60-64.
Kanahele, Pualani Kanaka‘ole and Kalani Wise. Ka Honua Ola, the Living Earth.
Honolulu: Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, 1989.
Kapihenui, M. J. “He Moolelo no Hiiakaikapoliopele.” Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika,

December 26, 1861 - July 17, 1862. Vol. 1, no. 1 4 - vol. 1, no. 43.
547
. December 26, 1861. “Hiiakaikapoliopele.” Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika.
. February 23, 1865. “No ka Moolelo o Pele.” Ka Nupepa K u‘oko‘a.
Keller, Lucinda. “Review of Holo Mai Pele.” Dance Magazine.

http://www.dancemagazine.comdance_magazine/reviews/show_review.php?f=oct
ober_2001/2001_10_holomaipele.php&PHPSESSID=e04c9862aaa019c491894el
4dfelcba0
Kepelino, Z. Kepelino’s Traditions o f Hawaii. Millwood, NY: Krauss Reprint, 1978.
Kimura, Larry Kauanoe. “Na Mele Kau o ka Mahele Mua o ka M o‘olelo ‘o

Hiiakaikapoliopele na Joseph M. Poepoe: He Kalailaina me ke Kalele ma luna o
na Ku‘unaiwi kaulua.” Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of H aw aii at Hilo,
2002 .
. 1985. Native Hawaiian Culture. Native Hawaiian Study Commission

Report. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
2003.
Kumu Hula, Keepers o f a Culture. New York: Rhapsody Films, 1990.
“Kupanaha.” Ka Nonanona, vol. 4, no. 9, August 20, 1844 (51).
Kuykendall, Ralph. The Hawaiian Kingdom. Honolulu: UH Press, 1938.
Landgraf, Anne Kapulani. Na Wahi Pana o Ko ‘olaupoko. Honolulu: Center for

Hawaiian Studies, University of H aw aii at Manoa, 1994.
Lili‘uokalani. HawaVi’s Story by Hawai'i’s Queen. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing, 1990.
Luomala, Katharine. Voices on the Wind, Polynesian Myths and Chants. Honolulu:
Lydecker, Robert. Roster Legislatures o f Hawaii, 1841-1918. Honolulu: Honolulu

Gazette Co., 1918.
Malo, David. Hawaiian Antiquities (Mo'olelo Hawai 1). Honolulu: Bishop Museum
Press, 1987.
548
Maly, Kepa. “He M o‘olelo Ka‘ao no Hi‘iaka-i-ka-poli-o-Pele—A Legendary Tale of

Hi‘iaka who is Held in the Bosom of Pele,” Appendix A, Final Oral History
Study: Mak.ua and Kahanakaiki Ahupua ‘a, Institute for Sustainable Development,
April 1998 (Al-13).
Mamiya Medical Heritage Center, Hawai‘i Medical Library, http://hml.org/mmhc/

mdindex/emersonn.html
Manu, Moke. “He Moolelo Kaao Hawaii no ke Kaua Nui Weliweli ma waena o Pele-
Keahialoa me Waka-Keakaikawai. He mau kupua Wahine Ka‘eae‘a.” Ka Loea
KalaVaina, vol. 3, no. 8-50, May 13, 1899- December 30, 1899.
Manu, Moses. “A Legend of a Terrible War between Pele-of-the-Etemal-Fires and

Waka-of-the-Shadowy-Waters.” Trans. Mary Kawena Pukui. May 13, 1899-
December 30, 1899. Bishop Museum Archives, HEN I I 942-1008, n.d.
McAllister, J. Gilbert. 1933. Archaeology ofO'ahu. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
McDougall, Brandy Nalani. “Laugh of the Goddess: Humor as Mana Wahine in the
Mo‘olelo of Hiiakaikapoliopele.” English 760, Fall 2006.
. “Pele.” Origins. Forthcoming, Kuleana ‘Oiwi Press, 2007.
McKinzie, Edith Kawelo Kapule. “An original narrative of Kamehameha the Great
written in Ka Nad aupuni (1905-1906) by Joseph M. Poepoe; Hawaiian text with
English translation and brief comparative reviews of earlier historical biographers
of Kamehameha I.” University of Hawai‘i College of Education M.Ed. Thesis,
1982.
Megeo, Jeanette. Cultural Memory. Honolulu: UH Press, 2001.
Meyer, Manu Aluli. H o‘oulu. Honolulu:‘Ai Pohaku Press, 2003.
Minetodani, Dore. UH Librarian. E-mail communication, April 13, 2007.
Mission Children’s Society. Missionary Album, portraits and biographical sketches o f

the American Protestant missionaries to the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu: Hawai‘i
Mission Children’s Society, 1969.
Mookini, Esther T. The Hawaiian Newspapers. Honolulu: Topgallant, 1974.
549
Naithani, Sadhana. “Prefaced Space: Tales of the Colonial British Collectors of Indian
Folklore.” Imagined States: Nationalism, Utopia, and Longing in Oral Culture,
Luisa Del Giudice and Gerald Porter, eds. Utah: Utah State University Press,
2001.
Nakuina, Emma. HawaVi, Its People, Their Legends. Honolulu: Hawai‘i Tourism
Authority, 1904.
Nakuina, Moses. The Wind Gourd o f La ‘amaomao. Dennis Kawaharada, ed., Sarah
Nakoa and Esther T. Mookini, trans. Honolulu: Kalamaku Press, 1992.
Nellist, George F., ed. The Story o f Hawaii and Its Builders. Honolulu: Honolulu Star
Bulletin, 1925.
Nimmo, H. Arlo. The Pele Literature: An Annotated Bibliography o f the English-

Language Literature on Pele, Volcano Goddess o f Hawai'i. Bishop Museum
Bulletin in Anthropology 4. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1992.
. “The Cult of Pele in Traditional Hawai‘i.” Bishop Museum Occasional

Papers, vol. 30, June 1990. pp. 41-87.
. “Pele’s Journey to Hawai‘i: An Analysis of the Myths.” Pacific Studies,

vol. 11, no. 1, 1987. pp. 1-42.
. “Pele, Ancient Goddess of Contemporary Hawaii.” Pacific Studies, vol.

9, no. 2, 1986.
Nogelmeier, M. Puakea. “Mai Pa‘a i ka Leo: Historical Voice in Hawaiian Primary

Materials, Looking Forward and Listening Back.” Dissertation in Anthropology,
University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, 2003.
. Personal communication, March 11, 2007.
Nogelmeier, M. Puakea, ed. The Epic Tale o f HViakaikapoliopele. Honolulu: Awaiaulu

Press, forthcoming 2007.
Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy, the technologizing o f the word. London: Routledge,
1982.
“Companion of a Prince.” Pacific Commercial Advertiser, January 22, 1902.
Osorio, Jonathan. Dismembering Lahui, a History o f the Hawaiian Nation to 1887.

Honolulu: 2002.
550
Pele Defense Fund. Pele’s Appeal. Honolulu: Na Maka o ka ‘Aina, 1989. [video]
Philip-Barbara, Glenis. “Mana Wahine Week a Winner.” Gisborne Herald, April 28,
2007. http://mal3ficent.livejoumal.com/171358.html
[Poepoe, Joseph], “Ka Moolelo Kaao o Hiiaka-i-ka-poli-o-pele.” Ku'oko‘a Home Rula,

January 10, 1903. vol. 6, no. 2-vol. 9, no. 3.
[Poepoe, Joseph.] “Ka Moolelo o Hiiakaikapoliopele.” Ka Na ‘i Aupuni, November 30,

1905. vol. 1, no. 4, p. 1.
Pratt, Mary Louise. Imperial Eyes, Travel Writing and Transculturation. New York:
Routledge, 1992.
Pukui, Mary Kawena. ‘Olelo No ‘eau: Hawaiian Proverbs and Poetical Sayings.
Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1983.
. “Hulas of Kaua‘i.” Unpublished Manuscript. Pukui Collection, HI.M.

72, Case 4. Bishop Museum Archives, p. 9-10. 1932.
. HEN “How Legends were Taught.”
Pukui, Mary Kawena and Samuel H. Elbert. Hawaiian Dictionary, revised edition.
Honolulu: UH Press, 1986.
Pukui, Mary Kawena, Samuel H. Elbert, and Esther T. Mookini. Place Names o f
HawaVi. Honolulu: UH Press, 1986.
Pukui, Mary Kawena and E. S. Craighill Handy. Polynesian Family Systems o fK a ’u,
Hawaii. Rutland, VT & Tokyo, Japan: Charles E. Tuttle, 1972.
Rice, William Hyde. “He Moolelo no Pele a me kona Kaikaina Hiiaka i ka Poli o Pele.”
Ka Hoku o Hawaii, vol. 3, no. 4 - Vol. 3, no. 20, May 21, 1908-September 10,
1908.
. Hawaiian Legends. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1923.
Roberts, Helen H. Ancient Hawaiian Music. Gloucester, MA.: Peter Smith. Reprint
from the 1967 Dover edition. Originally published in 1926 by Bishop Museum
Press as Museum Bulletin 29, 1977.
551
Rubin, David C. Memory in oral traditions: the cognitive psychology o f epic, ballads,
and counting-out rhymes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1993.
Silva, Noenoe. “Pele, H i‘iaka, and Haumea: Women and Power in Hawaiian Language
Literature.” Women Writing Oceania, a special issue of Pacific Studies. Eds. Caroline
Sinavaiana and Kehaulani Kauanui, forthcoming (2007).
. 2004a. “Talking Back to Law and Empire: Hula in Hawaiian-Language

Literature in 1861 Law and Empire in the Pacific: Fiji and HawaVi, Sally Engle
Merry and Donald Brenneis, eds. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press,
2004(101-121).
. 2004b. Aloha Betrayed, Native Hawaiian Resistance to American

Colonialism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
. 2004d. “I Ku Maumau: How Kanaka Maoli Tried to Sustain National

Identity Within the United States Political System.” American Studies, 45: 3 (Fall
2004): 9-31.
. Personal communication, March 13, 2007.
Simpson, Jacqueline and Steve Roud. A Dictionary o f English Folklore. Oxford,

England: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Simpson, MacKinnon. The Lymans o f HawaVi Island: a pioneering family. Hilo, HI:
Orlando H. Lyman Trust, 1993.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples.

Dunedin: University of Otago Press, 2001.
Smithsonian Museum. “Department of Anthropology A History of the Department,

1897-1997.” Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution, http://www.nmnh.si.edu/anthro/outreach/depthist.html
Smithsonian Museum. List of Publications of the Bureau of American Ethnology.

http://www.sil.si.edu/Digital Collections/BAE/Bulletin200/200title.htm
Sterling, Elspeth. Site o f Maui. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1998.
Soboleski, Hank. Kaua'i History Makers. www.kauaihistorymakers.com/Joh-Kan_files/

kanoaiweb.pdf
552
Stillman, Amy Ku‘uleialoha. Sacred Hula: The Historical Hula ‘Ala ‘apapa. Honolulu:
Sullivan, Robert. “The English Moko: Exploring a Spiral.” Figuring the Pacific:
Aotearoa New Zealand Cultural Studies. Canterbury University Press, 2005.
Summers, Catherine and Elspeth Sterling. Sites o f 0 ‘ahu. Honolulu: Bishop Museum
Press, 1993.
Tatar, Elizabeth. “Nineteenth Century Hawaiian Chant,” Pacific Anthropological

Records, no. 33. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1982.
Thrum, Thomas. “Necrology.” Thrum’s Hawaiian Annual. Honolulu: Thomas G.

Thrum, 1916.
Trask, Haunani Kay. “Writing in Captivity: Poetry in a Time of Decolonization.” Inside

Out: Literature, Cultural Politics, and Identity in the New Pacific. Vilsoni
Hereniko and Rob Wilson, eds. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers,
Inc., Pacific Formations series, 1999.
. “Decolonizing Hawaiian Literature.” Inside Out: Literature, Cultural

Politics, and Identity in the New Pacific. Vilsoni Hereniko and Rob Wilson, eds.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Pacific Formations series,
1999a.
. From a Native Daughter: colonialism and sovereignty in Hawai ‘i. 1993.

Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press; Honolulu: UH Press, 1999b.
Turia, Tariana. “Mana Wahine: Mana Whanau.” Scoop independent news. April 29,
2005. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0504/S00591 .htm
C. W. von Sydow, “Folktale Studies and Philology: Some Points of View,” rpt. in Alan
Dundes, ed., The Study o f Folklore. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1965.
Webster’s College Dictionary. New York: Random House, 2001.
Westervelt, William Drake. Hawaiian Legends o f Volcanoes, collected and translated

from the Hawaiian by W. D. Westervelt. 1916a. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle,
1991.
553
. 1916b. “Dr. N. B. Emerson.” Reports Hawaiian Historical Society: 24th

Annual Report o f the Hawaiian Historical Society for the year 1915. Honolulu:
Paradise of the Pacific Press.
. 1916c. “Ai-laau, the God of Kilauea before Pele.” Hawaiian Historical

Society. Honolulu: Hawaiian Historical Society (11-13).
Wichman, Frederick B. Kaua'i: Ancient Place Names and Their Stories. Honolulu: UH
Press, 1998.
Wong, Laiana. “Kuhi aku, Kuhi mai, Kuhi Hewa e: He Mau Loina Kuhikuhi ‘Akena no
ka ‘Olelo Hawai‘i.” Unpublished dissertation in Linguistics, University of
Hawai‘i at Manoa, 2006.
Wood, Houston. Displacing Natives: The Rhetorical Production o f Hawai'i. Landham,

MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.
554
Hi’iakaikapoliopele’s Prayer
I offer my affection to my guardian

I appeal to my deity
Forgive my wrongs
Open that which is held fast to release it
How have I wronged you, my deity?
A sin of food?
A sin of fish?
A sin of kapa cloth?
A sin of a law or an oath?
A wrong statement or word from the mouth?
What is the wrong?
If wrong it is
Open up the back of it
Open up the front of it
Open it up that misfortune and defilement be ended
Grant life to me, your descendant
O Kane above, o Kane below
O long Kane, o short Kane
O Kane of the opening up
O Kane of the forgiveness
Remove the sorcerer’s curse
Dismiss death of every kind
Grant life to me.1
1 This pule is identified as “Kau 25 of H i‘iaka” in the text, where Ho'oulumahiehie writes, “[Hi'iaka said,]
‘The ‘aumakua must be cared for, to secure housing, to make food and fish abundant, and to assist people
in times of crisis [need]. Misfortune and problems of humans are from offenses to the ‘aumakua and
others. Therefore, here is my command to all of you, that you memorize this little prayer, and when trouble
arises, cleanse the situation with this prayer, and you will be saved.’ At this point, Hi'iaka chanted the
prayer as an offering. Then Hi‘iaka said again, ‘This is a prayer already memorized by some, but there is
no wrong in memorizing it anew so that it is securely and profoundly set, to avoid misfortune’” (KNA,
December 9, 1905; Nogelmeier, forthcoming).

Pele's Appeal Mo'olelo, Kaona, and Hulihia in Pele and Hi'iaka Literature

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pele's Appeal Mo'olelo, Kaona, and Hulihia in Pele and Hi'iaka Literature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PELE’S APPEAL: MO‘OLELO, KAONA, AND HULIHIA IN

“PELE AND HPIAKA” LITERATURE (1860-1928)

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE

Cristina Bacchilega, Chairperson

All rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

E aloha a‘e ana au i ku‘u haku

*Ho‘oulumahiehie, Ka N a ‘i Aupuni, December 9, 1905. Translation on last page of dissertation.

KA WEHENA: OPENING EPIGRAPH

a lovely “natural phenomenon”: it is that beloved Person named “The-rosy-glow-of-

heavens,” who is “Hi‘iaka-in-the-bosom-of-Pele,” the youngest and most beloved sister

of that greater (and loved though awe-inspiring) Person, Pele-honua-mea . . . whose

passions expressed themselves in the upheavals of volcanism, whose “family” or “clan”

—Pukui and Handy 1958 (28)

the kinolau [bodyforms] of my god. That’s how real Pele is to us.”

—Palikapu Dedman, Pele’s Appeal

again, “when you gonna be pau?” It’s pau!

up paying for it one way or another!

University of Hawai’i at Manoa, two of the first professors I encountered in

Countless numbers have helped shape me as an indigenous intellectual and

have been instrumental in my intellectual and cultural development are my committee

Hopkins, Ku Kahakalau, Puakea Nogelmeier, and John Chariot.

The librarians and archivists who assisted me in my research were invaluable,

Coralie Kanani Texeira, Alice TePunga Sommerville, Georganne Nordstrom, Lokahi

left us a priceless cultural treasure, an intellectual and cultural legacy of unfathomable

language and culture in a time of great adversity; we embark on a journey of rediscovery,

scholar Mary Kawena Pukui:

Pa‘i ana na pahu a ka hula le‘a;

‘O ka‘u hula no keia

Let more famous chanters beat their own drums

This hula is indeed mine.1

1Adapted from Handy and Pukui 1972: 206.

An important figure in Hawaiian mo‘olelo (hi/story) is Pele, goddess of the

of which I identify as Pele and H i‘iaka mo‘olelo. Collectively, it significantly

Hawaiian-language Pele literature it has been virtually ignored by scholars because it is

recorded, for the most part, in Hawaiian.

This dissertation is an examination of written Pele and Hi‘iaka m o‘olelo

published in the Hawaiian language newspapers from 1860-1928, and Nathaniel B.

Emerson’s Pele and HViaka (1915), focusing on what I identify as a genealogically-

and an assertion of cultural identity, pride, and creativity, demonstrating a “hulihia

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables & Page

1A. Mo ‘oku ‘auhau of Pele and Hi ‘iaka mo ‘olelo texts.................................. 11

BPBM Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum

UHM University of Hawai‘i at Manoa

JPS Journal o f the Polynesian Society

‘OLELO HO‘AKAKA (PREFACE)

Kunihi ka mauna i ka la‘i e, Steep stands the mountain in the calm

(dance troupe) performances as an oli kahea—a “calling chant” requesting permission to

experience on Hawaiian wa‘a (canoes). He explained to me that in sailing from Ka‘ena,

center of Kaua‘i, and the most logical place to aim for.

past, and carried forth in the nineteenth-century Hawaiian-language newspapers by our

kupuna of that time. As such, it is an experience deserving of such an important

incorporating this particular mele kahea for other reasons.

mele kahea in particular have inspired me as I have encountered many challenges

dignity as Hi‘iaka did in her time.

Perhaps more importantly, “Kunihi” is an oli requesting knowledge. When

confrontation with her powerful sister herself.

publication. In discussing this with Luna Ho’oponopono (Chief Editor), D. Mahealani

my dissertation, she responded, “How about publishing all of them?” As a literary-based

microfilm at local libraries and archives.

practice of privileging Emerson’s texts. The incorporation of so many versions may

interested in Hawaiian literary traditions.