Literature and Scripture: Heliaki and Fakatātā as Literary and Scriptural Devices ^Featured

By Professor Hūfanga Dr `Ōkusitino Māhina
Professor of Art, Culture and Critical Anthropology &
Helu Dr Siosaia Langitoto Helu
Dean and Senior Lecturer in Mathematics & Statistics
Tonga International Academy [TIA]
Tongatapu, Kingdom of Tonga &
Vava’u Academy for Critical Inquiry and Applied Research [VACIAR]
Vava’u, Kingdom of Tonga

ABSTRACT/UHO‘IPEPA

The specific conflicting temporal-formal, spatial-substantial and functional relationships between Tongan concepts and practices heliaki and fakatātā as literary and scriptural devices involving the mediation of intersecting human meanings will be critically examined in the broader contradictory tā-vā [time-space], fuo-uho [form-content] and `aonga [functional] relationships between literature and scripture as investigative, transformative and communicative genres. An investigation of such literal and symbolic meanings of the word ta`anga as in ta`anga `akau [tree-cutting] in tufunga langafale [material art of house-building] and tufunga fo’uvaka [material art of boat-building] and ta`anga lea [word-beating] in faiva ta`anga/maau [performance art of poetry] and faiva lea [performance art of speaking] will be put in the general thematic context of the conference. As devices of literature and scripture, heliaki and fakatātā are commonly concerned with the qualitative and associative, epiphoric and metaphoric, exchange between distinct but closely related things, events or states of affairs, where intersecting human meanings are mediated, transforming them from a condition of felekeu [chaos] to a state of maau [order] through sustained tatau [symmetry] and potupotutatau [harmony] to create faka’ofo’ofa/mālie [beauty]. Some examples will be drawn from both the tohi ta’anga [secular literature] such as mate [death] for ‘ofa [love] and tohi tapu [sacred/holy scripture] such as fanau`ifo`ou [rebirth] for liuanga [behavioural changes] amongst other things.
 
[Following article 9, which critiqued ancient Tongan concepts and practices taumulivale, taumu’avale and vakahē or folauhē versus taumulitonu, taumu’atonu and vakahao or folauhao, Helu Dr Siosaia Langitoto Helu and I willl now, in article 10, briefly reflect on the conflicting time-space, form-content and functional relationships between literature and scripture. In doing so, we will examine heliaki and fakatātā as compatible, parallel literary and scriptural devices of some temporal, spatial-substantial and functional nature, based on our joint shorter paper, referred to in the authors’ note above.]

Our respectful fakatapu goes to you all, esteemed members of both the aristocracy and clergy, eminent scholars and theologians, ladies and gentlemen, and presenters and participants alike, and our heartfelt fakamālō is extended to the organising committee for accepting our expression of interest, giving us invaluable tā-vā [time-space] to present our joint case at this exciting gathering of eminent scholars and theologians.

Let us begin by theoretically examining our common specific subject matter of investigation in the broader context of the conflicting spatiotemporal, substantial-formal and functional relationships between literature and scripture as investigative, transformative and communicative genres. Herein, our joint topic of presentation will be contextualised in Tongan art and the tā-vā [time-space] theory of art, a derivative of the tā-vā [time-space] theory of reality, focusing on both theory and ethnography, where they are both brought to a common critical focus

Tongan art is generally divided into three specific genres, namely, faiva [performance], tufunga [material] and nimamea`a [fine] arts, which include, inter alia, the following: faiva ta`anga [poetry]; faiva hiva [music]; faiva haka [dance]; faiva lea [speech-giving]; faiva heulupe [pigeon-snaring]; faiva fānifo [surfing]; tufunga langafale [house-building]; tufunga fo`uvaka [boat-building]; tufunga fonua [social-designing]; tufunga nimatapu [dead-handling]; tufunga lea [speech-designing]; tufunga lalava [kafa-sennit-lashing]; nimamea`a koka`anga [bark-cloth-making]; nimamea`a lālanga [mat-weaving]; nimamea`a tuikakala [flower-designing]; nimamea`a tuimatala`i`akau [embroidering]; nimamea`a langaleisi [crocheting]; and nimamea`a langata`ovala [waist-mat-making].

As a matter of fact, faiva [performance arts] are tefito-he-sino [body-centred], while tufunga [material] and nimamea`a [fine] arts are tefito-he-tu`asino [non-body-centred]. Moreover, faiva [performance] and tufunga [material] arts are largely male-based, and nimamea`a [fine arts] predominantly female-led.  Both the quality and utility of art coexist across the three arts. The quality of art consists of tatau [symmetry], potupotutatau [harmony] and faka`ofo`ofa/mālie [beauty], all of which are internal to art – as opposed to its utility, which relates to its use, considered as external artistic/literary qualities. In ancient Tonga, most, if not all, forms of social activity are considered as forms of art. Not only were arts created to meet these qualitative specifications, they were also produced to satisfy these utilitarian prescriptions, that is, the more beautiful, symmetrical and harmonious, the more useful, functional and instrumental. In doing so, they stand the test of time and space.

The tā-vā [time-space] theory of art is derived from the tā-vā [time-space] theory of reality, which includes, inter alia, the following specific and general ontological and epistemological tenets: that tā [time] and vā [space] as ontological entities are the common medium in which all things are, in a single level of reality, spatiotemporality or four-sided dimensionality; that tā [time] and vā [space] as epistemological entities are socially constructed in different ways across human societies; that tā [time] and vā [space] as ontological and epistemological entities are inseparable in reality, as in nature, mind and society; that tā [time] and vā [space] are the abstract dimensions of the fuo [form] and uho [content], their concrete dimensions; that all things in reality, that is, nature, mind and society, stand in eternal relations of exchange, giving rise to conflict or order; that order and conflict are of the same logical status, in that order is itself a form of conflict; and that order is itself a form of noa [zero-point], the place where equal and opposite forces commonly intersect.

The inseparability of tā [time] and vā [space], on the abstract level, and fuo [form] and uho [content], on the concrete level, points to the fact that art, like all types of disciplinary practices and forms of social activity, is four-dimensional rather than three-dimensional, as largely problematised in the existing literature. In this tā-vā [time-space] theoretical context, art can therefore be defined as a tā-vā [time-space], fuo-uho [form-content] and `aonga [functional] transformation, where conflicts in the subject matters under the creative process are transformed from a condition of felekeu [chaos] to a state of maau [order] through sustained tatau [symmetry] and potupotutatau [harmony] to create mālie or faka`ofo`ofa [beauty].

A number of artistic and literary devices are used across the three genres for the production of tatau [symmetry], potupotutatau [harmony] and faka`ofo`ofa [beauty], notably mata [eye] or, its mirror image, ava [hole], as in mata`itoki [eye of the adze] or ava`itoki [hole of the adze] in tufunga langafale [material art of house-building] and mata`ihui [eye of the needle] or ava`ihui [hole of the needle] in nimamea`a tuimatala`i`akau [fine art of embroidering]. Their respective equivalents in faiva ta`anga [poetry], faiva hiva [music] and faiva haka [dance] are heliaki, tu`akautā and hola, kaiha`asi or haka-funga-haka – used as artistic and literary devices for the mediation of intersecting human meanings, intersecting musical notes and intersecting bodily-movements, where conflicts are resolved in the productive process by means of symmetry, harmony and beauty.

 As works of art in language of some general nature, scripture and literature deal with intersecting meanings, mediated by the respective artistic and literary devices fakatātā and heliaki, as it does specifically in the case of faiva ta`anga [poetry], faiva lea [oratory] and faiva talatupu`a [mythology]. [By virtue of this fundamental human aspect of huge interest and relevance, it can be remarked that culture and language [that is, fonua mo e tala/lea] are inseparable entities in reality, as in nature, mind and society, where culture is a receptacle for the historical composition or constitution of refined knowledge and skills, and language as a vehicle for their dialectical communication or transmission in time and space].

As symbolic yet literal pedagogical modes of telling stories, [talanoa] fakatātā and [talanoa] heliaki, that is, both conceptually and actually speaking in imagery, are commonly concerned with symbolically, metaphorically “saying” one thing but really, historically “meaning” another. By implication, symbols can be regarded merely as “pointers” to actual things, events or states of affairs out there in a one order of being or single level of reality, spatiotemporality or four-sided-dimensionally, [as in the case of [talanoa] fakatātā as an artistic and literary device of scripture].

There are two types of fakatātā and heliaki, which involves the exchange of two qualitatively, historically associated things, events or states of affairs, firstly, the qualitative, epiphoric, as in uaine [wine] for the toto [blood] of Christ and la`ātō [sunset] for the mate [death] of a monarch and, secondly, the associative, metaphoric, as in the `akaufakalava `i Kalevale [Cross of Christ at Galvary] for the saviour Jesus of Nazareth and kulukona `o Tavakefai`ana [sweet-scent kulukona trees of Tavakefai’ana] for the high chief and notable warrior `Ulukalala of the village of Tu`anuku in Great Vava’u.

The well-known but least understood biblical story of Nicodemus [John 3: 1-21] best illustrates [talanoa] fakatātā as a scriptural device, whose modus operandi parallels heliaki as a literary mode. As the story goes, Nicodemus was a man of great wealth, who one day approached Jesus, saying that he had everything there was to be had in this life, except how to have the possession of the Kingdom of God. In response, Jesus said that, upon freely giving away his wealth to the poor and needy, he must then be born again – to which Nicodemus responded by saying that, in practical ways, it was not physically possible to re-enter his mother’s womb in order to be born again. By replying, Jesus said that, correct as Nicodemus was, rebirth was practically impossible a task but what Jesus really meant was something else, which was that Nicodemus must instead be symbolically reborn through baptism in water and spirit.

From the tavaist point of view of [talanoa] fakatātā as a scriptural tool, like [talanoa] heliaki as a literary apparatus, what Jesus actually took to mean was that Nicodemus as a man of great wealth must, in reality, undergo a complete change in behavior, orientating away from the self towards the others, giving up the exclusive and self-centred life of the old in place of the inclusive, peaceful and helpful life of caring and sharing of the new, symbolically reconciled by the transformative practice of baptism in both water and spirit. As an object, water functions as an agent for cleaning and a force of life-giving. On the other hand, the spirit manifests itself as a dove [Matthew 3: 16], signifying a state of harmony and beauty, that is, peace and love, symbolised by harmlessness [Matthew 10: 16]. Quite simply, what Jesus really said was for Nicodemus to be, in effect, no longer a bad man but now a good man, defining a source of cleanliness, life-giving force way of life, commonly informed by caring and sharing through peace and love.

We will now draw upon a selection of the works of ta`anga [poetry] by a couple of great poets Ula-mo-Leka and Queen Sālote, whose great artistic and literary achievements are characterised by a clever, effective and beautiful use of both the qualitative, epiphoric and associative, metaphoric heliaki. Here are some of the excerpts.

[1] “Folau ki Niua” [“Voyage to Niua”]

Composed by Ula-mo-Leka, Poet-Navigator

1 `Isa! Ko e vā `o `Uta mo Lalo
[Alas! The seascape between `Uta and Lalo]
2 Ka puna ha manu pea tō
[If a seabird flies it falls (short of the distance)]
3 Ka kuo na taha `i hoku sino
[Yet, they’ve been united one in my person]

[2] “Kalauni” [“Crown”]

Composed by Queen Sālote

1 Tapu mo e Kalauni `e Fonua
[Sacred be the Crown of the Land]
2 `Oku fakamalu `a Lalo mo `Uta
[Which shades Lalo and `Uta]
3 Laukau`anga `o Tonga ki tu`a
[Tonga`s pride to the outside world]

[3] “Kava Tonga” [“Tongan Kava”]

Composed by Queen Sālote

1 Ke tulou mo e Moto ē Fonua
[Let it be excused Motto of the Land]
2 `Oku kātoi mo lukufua
[Which embraces and totalises]
3 `A e kuohili mo e kaha`u na
[Both the past and future alike]

[4] “Hala kuo Papa” [“Well-Trodden Path”]

Composed by Queen Sālote

1 Ko e hala kuo papa talu ē kilukilua
[The well-trodden path since time immemorial]
2 Hake `i Vaha`akolo `i he Ahi mo e Vunga
[Ascending in Vaha`akolo at Ahi and Vunga]
3 Ka tau tuētuē `oku kei fusi `a e fuka
[Let’s be joyous for the flag is still hosting]
4 `Oku kapa-`i-vai `Olive `o e Hifofua
[The Olive of Hifofua flies over the waters]
5 Pea `ilo `e he poto pea mo e kāimu`a
[So that both the skilled and informed may know]
6 Kuila ē Lomipeau kuo taha ai `a e ua
[The flag of Lomipeau has united two as one]

A poet-navigator, Ula-mo-Leka was a descendant of Ula, Tu`i Kanokupolu navigator, and Leka, navigator of Tu`i Tonga. In excerpt [1], line 1, of the epic poem, Ula-mo-Leka alerts his audience to the sociospatial incompatibility of `Uta and Lalo, that is, Kauhala`uta and Kauhalalalo, symbols for Tu`i Tonga and Tu`i Kanokupolu [who is better known as Muifonua and Tu’i Ha’atakalaua, who resided at Fonuamotu or Fonuatanu, as proper Kauhalalalo], respectively characterised by the sacred-religious and secular-earthly attributes of `eiki and hau. This degree of sociospatial incompatibility, in excerpt [1], line 2, amounts to a form of physical impossibility by the seabird flying the space between `Uta and Lalo and falling short of the distance. Yet, by virtue of his inheritance through birth, Ula-mo-Leka takes great pride in his being able to unite them as one in his person, in excerpt [2], line 3.

Besides being a Tu`i Kanokupolu, Queen Sālote was a direct descendant of the Tu`i Tonga. Like Ula-mo-Leka, Queen Sālote also combined the Tu`i Tonga and Tu`i Kanokupolu in her person. The marriage of Tungī Mailefihi and Queen Sālote enabled their children to unite the Tu`i Tonga, Tu`i Kanokupolu and Tu`i Ha`atakalaua. By paying tribute [excerpts 2, line1, and 3, line 1], Queen Sālote celebrates these multiple dynastic linkages in two ta`anga lakalaka “Kalauni” and “Kava Tonga,” symbolised by the crown and motto. In the romantically-led ta`anga hiva kakala “Hala kuo Papa,” she continues to trace her socio-political genealogy [excerpt 4, line 1], beginning with her Tu`i Kanokupolu connections [excerpt 4, lines 2-4] back to the Tu`i Tonga [excerpt 4, line 6].

Ta u toki hoko atu.