ASIDE ON THE MAORI SORCERER'S APPRENTICE

But this understanding of the hau of things still risks criticism on its own grounds—of omission, of failure to consider the total context. Both passages, on gifts and on sacrifice, are parts of a yet larger whole, preceeded by still another disquisition on maurias taken by Best from the lips of Ranapiri (1909, pp. 440-441). True, there may be good reason for leaving this particular prelude aside. Highly obscure, eso­teric, concerned mainly with the nature and teaching of death-dealing spells, it seems to have no great bearing on exchange:

The mauri is a spell which is recited over a certain object, of stone, or of wood, or something else approved of by the tohunga [priest] as a "clinging place," a "holding-fast-place," a "dwelling-place" for the mauri. Such an object is subjected to the "cause-to-be-split" ritual, and left in a hidden part of the forest to lie there. The mauri is not topw-less. Also it is not the case that all of the forest is as tapu as the part where the mauri lies. Concerning the causing-to-be-split, it is a shattering. If a man is taught by a priest certain spells, say witchcraft spells, or spells for placing mauri, and the other Maori spells, and he learns them, then the priest says to that man, "Now, there, 'cause-to-be-split' your spells!" That is, be-spell the stone so that it is shattered, the man so that he dies, or whatever. If the stone is smashed, or the man dies, the spells of that pupil have become very mana. If the stone does not burst (shatter), or the man die, which has been "caused-to-be-split," his spells are not mana. They will return and kill him, the pupil. If the priest is very old and near to death, that priest will say, to his pupil to "cause-to-be-split" his spells against him, that is, the priest. The priest dies, so his spells are "split" (shattered) which he taught, and are mana. Then the pupil lives, and, in due time, he will want to place a mauri. Now, he is able to place (it) in the forest, or in the water, or on the post of the eel-weir which is called pou-reinga. It would not be good for the spells of that pupil to remain within him, to be not split, that is shattered forth, and, it is the shattering forth, which is the same as shatter the stone. If the stone shatters completely, that is good. That is the "caus-ing-to-split" (Bigg's translation).

No question that the previous examination of gift and ceremonial exchange leaves us merely unprepared to understand the profondeurs of this section. Yet the text again speaks of an exchange, which even superficial study will recognize as formally analogous to the trans­actions of taonga and "nourishing hau." The spell passed by priest to student returns to the former enhanced in value and by way of a third party. It may very well be that the three sections of the Ranapiri text are variations on the same theme, unified not only in content but by a triple replication of the same transactional structure.¹⁵

15. There is also, of course, a narrative bridge between the section on transmission.

The case is strengthened by a precious datum, again explicated by Firth (1959a, pp. 272-273), apparently from materials supplied by Best (1925a, pp. 1101-1104). Comparing Maori custom with com­mon Melanesian practice in regard to the transmission of magic, Firth was struck by the virtual absence among Maori of any obliga­tion to repay the teacher. In the Maori view, such recompense would degrade the spell, even defile and render it null—with a single excep­tion. The Maori teacher of the most tapu black magic was repaid—by a victim! The apprentice would have to kill a near relative, an act of sacrifice to the gods that empowered the spell even as it restored the gift (Best, 1925a, p. 1063). Or perhaps, as the tohunga grew old the death-dealing knowledge would be directed back upon him—prov­ing, incidentally, that scholarly cults are the same all over. Best's de­scription of these customs has exactly the transactional cadence of the passage on gifts, beginning on the same note of nonreturn:

The old men of Tuhoe and Awa explain it this way: The priest teacher was not paid for his services. If he were, then the arts of magic, etc., acquired by the pupil would not be effectual. He would not be able to slay a person by means of magical spells. But, if you are taught by me, then I will tell you what to do in order to reveal your powers. I will tell you the price that you must pay for your initiation, as—"The equivalent for your knowledge acquired, the disclosing of your powers, must be your own father," or your mother, or some other near relative. Then such powers will be effective. The teacher mentions the price the pupil must pay. He selects a near relative of the pupil as the greatest sacrifice he can pay for his acquire­ments. A near relative, possibly his own mother, is brought before him, that he may slay her by means of his magical powers. In some cases the teacher would direct his pupil to so slay him, the teacher. Ere long he would be dead. . . . "The payment made by the pupil was the loss of a near relative. As to a payment in goods—what would be the good of that. Hai aha!" (Best, 1925a, p. 1103).

This detail in hand, the morphological resemblance between all three parts of the Ranapiri text becomes unmistakable. In the trans­mission of tapu magic, as in the exchange of valuables or the sacrifice of birds, a direct return on the initial gift is excluded. In each instance, of magic and the ceremony, as the former ends with the placing of the mauri which is the key element of the latter.

Figure 43

Date: 2014-12-21; view: 831