Chapter III

Mana

I n the last chapter we have seen what life is to the Maori as it wells out
in zest for life from within and extends into the surrounding world
as honour and repute, and furthermore how the relation to the sur-
rounding world reacts on life in human beings. We found that the word
tupu could give us a key to the understanding of this whole interplay.
Similarly we shall by a study of the meaning of the word mana1 throw
a significant and intimate light on the mutual relationship of the Mao-
ris in the kinship group and on their relation to the surrounding world.  
Mana has undoubtedly been debated so much that a
fresh contribution might seem superfluous to some peo-
ple. In this connexion we may call attention to two things.
In the first place, great parts of the previous investigations suffer from
vagueness as to the starting-point; for the mana concept has been discussed in
a number of peoples together. Even in Lehmann’s work, which is meritorious

1. This term is convenient, but perhaps may be misunderstood. If we think of the

the meaning of a word as isolated from any context, it can presumably hardly throw light
on any cultural trait; but this, indeed, implies a doubtful abstraction. More accurately,
it is the passages in the texts in which the word occurs that are informative, but only
because and when the meaning of the word is determined. This being the most difficult
task, it will mean in practice to the philologist that the meaning of the word gives a clue
to the understanding of the cultural traits it covers.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons | © J. Prytz-Johansen

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported.
HAU, Classics of Ethnographic Theory, vol. 1 | ISSN 2051-087X (Online)
76 J. Prytz-Johansen

on many points, mana is considered among the Melanesians and the

Polynesians together. But who will guarantee that it is actually one thing that is
being discussed? Can we be sure that there is not so great variations of the same
idea that the determination necessarily becomes inexact, or worse, becomes
false? What seems to me to be missing is the simple recognition of the view
that the core of the investigations must be philological, thus the use of the word
mana by a definite people.2 Only in this way may we be sure of speaking about
something real and not a compromise between a scientific technical term,
mana, and more or less corresponding notions of mana in various peoples.
Secondly, this lack of distinction in the investigations has been accompa-
nied by lack of criticism of the sources. From a philological point of view, we
must reject the idea that we should determine the meaning of mana from the
Europeans’ use of the word, even if they think that they use it in the same way
as the natives. As e.g. Lehmann does not proceed philologically, he does not,
either, hesitate to use to a great extent the stories of mana adduced by Gudgeon
and others. Evidently, it does not occur to him that if only by this procedure,
however correct Gudgeon may be in his usage, there will be a fundamental one-
sidedness in his interpretation which completely disturbs the point of the word.  
In the following investigations we shall therefore keep strictly to the
texts; but even this is not sufficient. The word mana has evidently to a spe-
cial extent changed character during the revolution which swept over the
old Maori culture with the coming of the Europeans. It proves necessary to
discard some texts as unreliable, particularly on this point. The Appendix
will make clear the principle of this criticism of the texts, and its justification.
Mana has a meaning which has not a little in common with tupu, but
on a significant point they are radically different. Both denote unfolding,
activity and life; but whereas tupu is an expression of the nature of things
and human beings as unfolded from within, mana expresses something par-
ticipated, an active fellowship which according to its nature is never inextri-
cably bound up with any single thing or any single human being. How this
“fellowship” is to be understood will appear as we trace it in detail through
a number of passages in which mana occurs, particularly looking on the
mana of human beings and from there making digressions to other manas.
Mana is a kind of fellowship. This is evident from the texts when these
are read quite straightforwardly. We may start with two reports on parallel
events which throw light on one another fairly well. In a war between Mango
and Whatihua, the latter advanced towards Mango’s fortress, but Mango’s

2. To my knowledge, Firth is the only research-worker who sets the problem like
this (Firth 1940: 483 ff.). His account only further emphasizes the importance
of local investigations.
 The Maori and his religion 77

people made a sally and defeated Whatihua, many of whose men were killed.
He was himself taken prisoner and taken before Mango, who forced his head
down and made water upon it. As a consequence of this action, Whatihua’s
mana had been taken by Mango (ko te rironga tenei o te mana o Whatihua i
a Mango).3 
Something similar happened in a conflict between two men, Pahau and
Tamure, who belonged to the same tribe and lived in the same village, but
who presumably were chiefs each of his hapu. Tamure felt himself to have
been insulted by Pahua, got help from outside the hapu, and it came to a fight.
The slaughter was hardly very great, as the two hapus must have been closely
related, but Pahau succeeded in catching Tamure and making water upon
his head. We can hardly doubt that Pahau, like Mango in the corresponding
situation, by this action took Tamure’s mana. It does not say so, however, but
we learn that now the mana of the tribe was with Pahau and that he was its chief
(ko Pehau te mea i a ia te mana o te iwi, a i kiia ai ko Pahau te ariki o ratou).4
By comparing these two stories we are led to the conclusion that the mana
of the chief and the mana of the tribe must be almost identical. This conclu-
sion is corroborated by a passage in which a man looks with envy upon his two
cousins who are twins, because they belong to an older genealogical line; for he
thinks of the fact that when they grow up, “the mana of these twins will become
more extended than his, the mana of the whole of Poverty Bay will be taken
by these two, both the mana of the land and the mana of the whole tribe.”5
Mana thus is something which is found both in chief, tribe, and
land, in other words, something common to a group; but there is a
difference in their relation to this mana in that the chief owns the mana
of the others. It is this very thing that makes his mana so much greater
than that of the others, as it “extends” into the land and the people.
This fellowship, mana, has something impersonal about it, in the way
that it may be taken from the chief and taken over by another man. The
impersonal, however, is only one aspect of mana, the one due to the fact that
it contains the mana of the tribe as well as the land, and we may perhaps add,
that of the chief as well. On the other hand, there is something personal about
mana in relation to tribe, chief, or land, by the fact that they each have their share
in it. This becomes evident if we consider the relation to tupu in more detail.
A man’s tupu and his mana are intimately connected. We may say that his
tupu attaches his mana to it, or better that it extends into his mana so that they

3. White 1888a: 77.

4. White 1888a: 87.
5. Whareauahi 1905: 75.
78 J. Prytz-Johansen

are in part identical. They both join in comprising a man’s repute. The presents
which the kinship group give a man at his wedding, are at once distributed by him
among his wife’s relatives; “Kati ki a raua ko te mana, the mana is sufficient for the
two, i.e. the married couple;”6 or in other words, the repute of the gifts is theirs.  
Because of this fusion mana cannot either remain with a man if his
tupu vanishes. The same insult which makes Tamure’s tupu vanish, causes
Whatihua’s mana to be taken.7 In this connection we may also remind the
reader of Hotunui, who feared that the disdain of the tribe “would make
his tupu vanish and with it the mana of his speech (me te mana o tana ki).”8
Outward mana and tupu co-operate. Ponga belonged to a
younger line, “therefore his tupu was weakened by some of his
friends’ tupu and mana.”9 Tupu and mana supplement each other,
mana being the aspect of life which from the point of view of the in-
dividual turns outwards, “influence” we might say in this connection.
Just as the conjunction of tupu and mana shows that these two belong
together, but are not identical, so we may from a number of other conjunc-
tions with mana learn what accompanies mana without being identical with it:
It was Tane’s mana, strength and insight (te mana me te kaha me te
mohio) which fixed Heaven above.10

The mana and the strength of the divinity of the sacred place.11

These heads (viz. those of the enemy) which were prepared as trophies,
they were prepared in order to be a sign that the tribe had mana and the
gift of victory (te maia me te mana).12

His name (i.e. renown) and his mana were (both) very great.13

It is hard to flee before the enemy…it is a sign that the mana and name
(i.e. renown) of the tribe are destroyed by the blows of the weapons of
the victorious tribe.14

Therefore the fear of his name, the greatness of his mana and his nobil-

6. Best 1903d: 48.

7. White 1888a: 87; 77.
8. White 1888a: 188.
9. White 1888a: 114.
10. White 1887a: 22.
11. White 1888b: 75.
12. White 1887a: 36.
13. Rangikaheke 1941: 116; cf. Graham 1943: 58.
14. White 1888b: 87.
 The Maori and his religion 79

ity were greater than those of any other ancestor (koia te wehi o tona
ingoa me te nui o tona mana, me tona rangatiratanga e nui ana i o etahi
atu tipuna).15

You possess the mana, you ought to say the words, i.e. you have the
authority (na koutou te mana ma koutou te kupu).16

Insight, the courage which bears victory in it (maia), strength, name (i.e. re-
nown), and the awe which the great name bears with it, authority, all this is
connected with mana as something intimately bound up with it. These things
are not mana, but they accompany mana, and we see how mana extends the
inner vitality of tupu into strength, its courage into victorious courage, its hon-
our into name (renown) and authority.
It is not only that tupu extends itself into mana; the reverse is also the
case: mana stretches into tupu and therefore obtains a character from the
nature of the various things.
There is a legend about Hape, who was one of the ancestors of the
Tuhoe tribe. It is told that he left the country of the Tuhoe, carrying the mana
of the kumara with him and leaving behind only “cold.”17 The meaning of this
is evident, “cold” means infertility, for when his descendants tried to grow
kumara, it did not thrive (tupu). Mana extends into the kumara as its power of
thriving and thus has a specific kumara character.
Sacral history must only be told in sacral houses, otherwise it has no
mana, and this is concentrated in a request to be careful “in order that the
understanding should not vanish and the stories be forgotten.”18 The mana of
a story thus includes that it is remembered and understood.
The special character of mana stands out more positively in the tale
about a man, Paihau, whose wife had run away to another man. Paihau only
discovered this when she had got the start of him, but still he nearly overtook
her. Nevertheless, he gave up his wife, but asked that their child, if a boy,
should be named after “te mananga o aku waewae,” i.e. the efficacy, i.e. the
speed manifested by his feet.19
Just as the mana of the feet shows itself in speed, so the mana of the
forest manifests itself by there being many birds, as the forest and its birds
constitute a whole which descends from Tane. We learn this from a Maori,

15. Whatahoro 1915: 235.

16. White 1888a: 146.
17. Tamarau and Tutakangahau 1899: 49 = Best 1925b: 949.
18. Whatahoro 1915: 93.
19. Tuwhawhakia 1896: 165.
80 J. Prytz-Johansen

who explains why the number of birds is much smaller now than previously:
“when boiled food has come into the wood, then it does not mana.”20
Mana is used as a verb here and may be interpreted as “to have (or get)
mana.” As the use as a verb generally involves that something happens not
only with but in mana, the active contents of the word stand out particularly,
so that we may often translate mana as: “have or get efficacy.”
As mana is a kind of extension of tupu towards realization, it cannot be
wondered at that these two words also as verbs express nearly the same idea.
We have seen that an insult “unfolds its nature” (tupu te mate) by being
revenged, but the same may be said by means of the word mana: “The hidden
(i.e. unrevenged) insults have no efficacy (ko nga mate ngaro e kore e mana).”21
“Te Rauparaha considered in what way Te Pehi’s death should obtain effi-
cacy (ka mana ai te mate o Te Pehi).”22 Mana is also closely related to tupu in
this sentence: “But the words which vanished like the drifting clouds can in no
way get mana from me, i.e. I cannot say them (engari e kore ano nga kupu i
aoreretia ka mana i a au).”23 Even these instances, however, which show how
closely related mana and tupu are also show the significant difference that
mana may be given from outside, whereas tupu comes from within. Add to
this that mana emphasizes the realization more than tupu. The last example
is in no way typical. When a speaker during the discussions of Puhihuia’s fate
said to somebody else, “Your words will not get mana from this girl,”24 the
meaning is—as is evident from the context—that she will not obey them, thus
will not give them a possibility of being effective. The fact that words get mana
generally points towards their realization, not only as sound, but so that their
contents are realized, i.e. they are obeyed.
Mana only refers to the urge towards realization; but this urge actu-
ally appears by the realization. “If Maui had not been killed by this god
(viz. Hinenuitepo), Maui’s wish would have got mana (kua mana te hiahia
a Maui) and man would live for ever;”25 the realization of Maui’s wish thus
would have followed as a consequence of its mana. Similarly, in the fol-
lowing passage: “Only now did they repeat a karakia (incantation) to
Rangi in order that the bung of the springs of the water should be taken
out and the water come forth. Then their wish really got mana (ka mana

20. Best 1904c: 221.

21. Grey 1855: 174.
22. Williams 1932: mana.
23. Paraone 1907: 110.
24. White 1888a: 149; cf. 97; I, 99.
25. White 1887b: 84.
 The Maori and his religion 81

hoki ta ratou tono), and the water rose.”26

The dynamic element in mana, the unfolding, is brought out strongly
when the word is used as a verb. The verbal character makes the aspect of
mana as a communion or fellowship recede into the background, which is
only justified if we do not forget that the dynamic element cannot be active
except against this background. So far this aspect is only to be suggested by an
example in order to be taken up for discussion below. We understand this
fellowship best when the reference is to chief and people; but it was a fellow-
ship of a similar kind which was utilized by those who forged Te Rauparaha’s
signature on a letter, “in order that it could mana.”27 Here the idea is probably
that it may be effective, but the presupposition is of course that those who
read the letter stand in some relationship to Te Pauparaha.
Before we try to explain in more detail how this is to be understood, it
will be expedient to amplify the description of the chief’s mana.
The mana common to the chief, the kinship group, and the land is
owned by the chief; this causes his special position. It also means that his tupu
extends over a wider field than that of other mortals. It may perhaps be trans-
lated into European languages by saying that his personality has a greater field
of activity. We may say that he gets his field of activity with his mana, but the
degree to which he can utilize it, will depend upon his personality. The chief
who has a strong mind, strength, and courage, in short, a great tupu, can also
be said to permeate the mana of the kinship group and the country with his
being, his mana. It was said about Kupe, who was a chief from Hawaiki that
“his mana penetrated into the population of the islands (i uru ai tona mana ki
rota i nga iwi).”28
This mana, which permeates the kinship group, is the basis of the chief’s
authority. It shows in practice by the fact that he can make others do what he
wants. In a farewell letter to Governor Grey, some Maoris wrote: “It was your
mana which put an end to the disturbances in this country.”29 The Maoris
of course considered Grey as a kind of great chief and felt his mana in the
authority by means of which he succeeded in making peace.
The same idea on a pure Maori basis is seen in the old proverb about
a great man: “This is Karewa’s mana,” which is explained as follows: “His
village did not feel alarmed; he could leave it unprotected.”30

26. White 1887a: 68; cf. 1887c: 39.

27. White 1890: 43.
28. Whatahoro 1915: 41.
29. Davis 1855: 46.
30. Grey 1857: 104.
82 J. Prytz-Johansen

The same confidence in the great chief’s mana, which permeates the
whole country is brought out in another proverb: “Just let the treasures lie
about. This is Taiwhanake’s mana.”31
This mana which extends into country and people thus in the great chief
is permeated by his being. It is not a mysterious substance, but a fellowship on
which he may leave his mark and which he may dominate by his personality.
Therefore there is no paradox, either, in the statement that the greater the
chief’s mana is, the farther it extends itself, the more it is concentrated in his
person. It can become so essential a part of him that the Maori briefly says,
“The chief is mana.”32 “Farewell, thou, the mana of the country,” he will sing
in the dirge on the deceased chief.33
We have seen above that kinsfolk are to honour (manaaki) each other
because in this way they are attached to each other and realize the kinship
unity. Manaaki is a derivative of mana;34 but as the ending -aki is no more
productive in Maori, this information interests us only because the Maori
himself feels the connection: “By honouring (manaaki) people the mana
endures (ma te manaaki i te tangata e tu ai te mana).”35 Thus manaaki means
“to create mana, fellowship;” to manaaki is to give out of one’s own life.
Hence it is evident that the kinship group must honour (manaaki) its
chief in order that his mana may endure. “In him the chief-mana goes with
being honoured (ka tau te manaakitanga me te mana rangatira ki a ia),”36 it
simply says.
It is, however, inherent in the nature of fellowship that the chief must
also yield something from his own life, and we see in a new light why he must
understand how to honour his people. By this means, he creates mana and by
permeating the fellowship with his personality he attaches people to him. The
greatest means to do so is by giving gifts. “This is Rehua’s mana,”37 says the
Maori admiringly when seeing a chief being liberal, and as Rehua was of a
divine nature it is understood that the chief provides a great mana for himself
with his gifts.
From the intimate connection between manaaki and mana we also
understand why it was impossible to decide whether a person honoured oth-

31. Grey 1857: 95 = Colenso 1879: 145 no. 213.

32. Maramaru in Smith 1894a.
33. Firth 1929: 385; cf. Best 1905a: 171: “Welcome, manas!”
34. Williams 1928: 308 f.
35. Whatahoro 1915: 256.
36. A Te Ta-I-Hikoia in Graham 1948: 272.
37. Grey 1857: 87.
 The Maori and his religion 83

ers most for his own sake or for the sake of the others. It is impossible because
one honours for the sake of mana, the fellowship.
It is natural that the chief should put his stamp on the fellowship, but
it is another question whether he can; for if not he will de facto be more
dependent on the others, the more so, the less he himself contributes to
the mana. This is brought out clearly in a tale about a man who had been
defeated in a fight against his wife’s first husband, a chief named Mahanga.
Afterwards he asked his wife, “What mana has Mahanga since it made him so
strong?” His wife answered, “He has no mana himself; but in his heroes are
the reason for his success (toa).” Then she described these heroes, adding, “If
these men are killed, Mahanga does not know what to resort to.”38
Mana gives a plastic picture of the Maori’s community because it denotes
life in it. All free men have mana, i.e. they participate in the fellowship. There-
fore everybody has a say in the matter according to his mana, i.e. his share in
the fellowship.39 Therefore the chief is very far from being an absolute ruler,
but the mana he contributes himself will always give him a corresponding in-
fluence. Add to this that he has a position as chief, which is expressed by the
words that the mana of the kinship group is with him. This means that his
personality is given the best possibility of asserting itself. The kinship group as
a whole will not act without his being consulted.
Au, tupu, and mana are three different expressions for the same thing as
viewed from different angles. Tupu is man’s natural unfolding, which, as we
have seen, denotes strength, courage, and honour; but so, again, is life in the
kinship I, au. Tupu is, however, closely attached to the individual lives in the
kinship I. Mana, like tupu, is the contents of the kinship I, but is centred in
the fellowship itself and is the communal life itself. The important point that
mana is the communal life does not otherwise seem to have been realized; but
Best must at any rate have seen that it expresses life since he writes: “When
someone writes a treatise on the word mana, it will be seen that mana and ora
(life) are almost synonymous terms, as applied to the old-time Maori.”40
The secret of mana is that communal life, the “fellowship,” permeates all
the people to their innermost hearts; we may say that they live mana. A single
strong personality may colour the whole fellowship. This does not take place
by outward compulsion, but by the fact that the fellowship itself is stamped in
such a way that they all obtain their “being” or “nature” according to the
dominant element of mana. This is illustrated in an amusing way by a legend

38. Whakatara 1911: 79.

39. Cf. Best 1924b: 353 f. This applies to peace, during war other conditions assert
themselves; see Maning 1906: 34.
40. Best 1904c: 222.
84 J. Prytz-Johansen

in which a tribe, Ngatiruanui, ate a dog that was rather out of the ordinary, for
since that time a canine a-u, a-u entered their speech, which was due to the
dog’s mana.41
The chief’s mana is not only the mana of the kinship group but that of
the country as well. “The great mana of this tract is in him alone,”42 it says
somewhere about Te Rauparaha. So the mana of the country is as a matter of
course part of that of the kinship group as well, and as the latter stands in a
similar determinative relationship to the country as the chief to the kinship
group, the Maori may, of course, with equal right say that the mana of the
country is with the kinship group without being guilty of any inconsistency.
The mana of the country was taken when they immigrated, and since
then it has been the endeavour of every tribe and chief to cling to it.43
According to the sense of mana this simply takes place by living with the
soil: “This was a custom which originated from our ancestors, namely that we
lived in some part of our country; later the tribe went to another part, lived
there and cultivated the soil there, in order that our country’s mana could be
maintained by us, in order that our fires could always be burning on the ex-
tensive surface of our country so that the country was not taken by other
tribes.”44
The Maori must of course also be able to maintain his right to the coun-
try with arms,45 but a passage like the one quoted shows that if possession of
land is in practice identical with possessing its mana, then this is due to the fact
that possession makes it possible to live with the country as one lives with the
soil, inhabits it, cultivates it, and generally utilizes it.46 The factor mentioned

41. White 1888a: 105.

42. White 1890: 33. It is incomprehensible to me what Best means when he writes
(Best 1900a: 193): “Now land is said to have no mana,” unless he is thinking of the fact
that its mana is owned by or is with a chief or kinship group.
43. White 1887c: 116.
44. White 1888b: 105.
45. White 1888b: 113: “our country’s mana was maintained by our fortune in war
(toa).”
46. There does not seem to be any certain evidence that one might posses the mana of a reg-
ion without living there. The most weighty piece of evidence occurs in a text which,
however, only exists in a translated form (Shortland 1882: 82 f.); but it is necessary to
be on one’s guard when investigating this question for mana very soon acquired a legal
sense, which not least asserted itself in the burning questions of possession of land.
The usage of the immigrant cannot of course, be taken into consideration, but this it
is that gives the reader of the literature about the Maoris the impression that mana can
be used about ownership without regard to dwelling.
 The Maori and his religion 85

last is not least in importance. The possession of the mana of the land must
manifest itself in a true fellowship with the country, i.e. that one understands
how to make the country yield. There is an instructive legend about two men,
Whata and Tongowhiti, who were both interested in a lake. Both of them set
eel-traps, but only Whata understood how to do it in the right way so that he
had a catch. This proved that he had a true fellowship with the lake; “there-
fore the lake was taken by Whata, the mana of the lake had been taken by
him for ever.”47
As is natural, the fellowship appeared in both directions. When the
Maori takes the mana of a country, it affects himself; his nature is stamped by
this fact, and in practice it manifests itself in the fact that it comes natural for
him to utilize the land. He becomes more of a fisherman in one tract, more
of a tiller of the soil in another, etc. But the country also becomes different by
changing its owner, or rather by its mana changing its owner; for the fellow-
ship with man reacts on the country. When the original and tasty rat of New
Zealand was exterminated, this was amongst other things due to the fact—so
we learn—“that the Maori mana disappeared.”48
It is acknowledged by the Maori that the fellowship reacts upon the land
and in such a way that he sometimes finds it profitable to give its mana to a
more inspiring owner. Having planted kumara in his field, he repeats some
karakias (incantations) in order to make the kumara thrive, and the last of
these incantations conveys the mana of the field to Rongomaraeroa
alone.49 Rongomaraeroa is a god of the cultivation of kumara; therefore
he can permeate the field with his mana of thriving; but he cannot do so until
he enters into fellowship with the field, i.e. gets its mana.
The effect of fellowship upon the land sometimes appears in a particularly
picturesque way. In Hauraki—as in many other places—there was a fabulous
being, a monster or dragon, which was friendly (not quite so common!). It was
a sign of the mana of the neighboring people,50 i.e. evidence of the fact that
the human contribution to the fellowship could assert itself even into the drag-
ons and monsters of the neighbourhood so that they became tame.
Having seen what it means to possess the mana of the country and having
acknowledged that fellowship is a condition for the Maori to enjoy it, we also
understand the Maori chief who during negotiations with the English about
the right to dig gold said: “Let England get the gold of the soil, but the mana

47. Tuhua 1906: 61.

48. Best 1942: 482.
49. Best 1925d: 159.
50. Graham 1946: 30.
86 J. Prytz-Johansen

of the soil (must remain) with us.”51

On the whole, mana is so necessary to the Maori because he cannot very
well affect his surroundings without involving it in a fellowship, i.e. without
possessing its mana, or—in other words—without permeating its mana with his
own being. He must possess the mana of the kumara in order that it may
thrive by his hand, and if its mana has been carried away, incorporated in a
mauri, he must fetch it back.52
Mana, fellowship, is so necessary that the Maori must have mana even
with an enemy whom he meets in open fight. In this connection, it should
also be mentioned that an enemy is called hoa-riri, or somewhat more
rarely, hoa-whawhai and hoa-ngangare, the three words all with the literal
sense of “fighting-comrade,” as hoa means “comrade, fellow,” whether
referring to one’s wife or to a travelling companion.53 Thus it is not nonsense
to talk about fellowship, although this, indeed, is of quite a different character
from that within the kinship group. The fellowship consists in the fact that the
Maoris cannot meet and fight in a merely outward sense; they must
necessarily stand in an inner relationship to their enemy. The outward mani-
festations of the fight are really only a question of who has the greatest mana,
i.e. who can conquer the other from within and thus bring the antagonist’s will
and power to fight to its knees so that the weapons may reap the victory.
What is characteristic of the “fellowship” of the fight in contrast to that of
peace, is the fact that in the fight each party will try to dominate the “fellow-
ship” completely, which may be expressed as taking the enemy’s mana or as
dominating it with one’s own mana. These are but two aspects of the same
matter. As viewed from this angle there is but a difference of degree, but a
very important difference, between the fellowship of peace and war.
The chief aspect of war thus is the fight of the mana. It is partly of a
ritual character. In a passage we hear how a fortress was stormed. Previously,
one of the enemies had been killed and a rite had been performed over his
entrails, which were then thrown into the fortress “in order that the mana of
the army by this means may attack the fortress so that the fortress may be
captured by them.”54
The opposite, that the mana is taken in the victory has been mentioned
above.55

51. Davis 1855: 154.

52. Tamarau and Tutakangahau 1899: 49
53. Williams 1932: hoa (i).
54. White 1890: 61.
55. White 1888a: 77.
 The Maori and his religion 87

Thus there is a kind of enforced “fellowship,” in which one party is

dominated completely by the other. What happens is that the losers have a
mana forced upon them which desires their defeat, indeed their death. Their
own life is taken and instead they get a vital principle which subdues them
from within and perhaps makes them the prey of death. There is a legend
about an idol whose reputation was widespread because it and its tribe had
such a mana that all strangers who came near died from it.56 This uncanny
effect is a special and personal character of that very mana, since the effect is
upon strangers only. It is due to the fact that the mana of the idol dominates
completely, capturing everything foreign into its sphere, driving out its life and
killing it from within. The impersonal aspect of mana, the fact that it is a fel-
lowship is brought out by its character not being given once for all. The text
informs us of this, as it says that the surrounding tribes wanted to kill the
people of this idol “in order that the god could be taken from them to give
mana to their own land.” In other words, by taking this mana they may give
it another personality; they may permeate it with their own life so that it
becomes a blessing to them.
Against the background of these examples, which show how mana
conquers and is conquered, we understand how it could be said about a
tangata haere, a vagrant man, that he possesses mana.57 He could not like the
chief possess his people’s and his country’s mana, but obviously this means
that he was what we should term a powerful personality, who, wherever he
went, forced people and things under his will, doing this—be it noted—from
within by taking possession of their life, by creating a sphere which was his
mana, but still a fellowship, as the point is that he included the others in it.
The man in question actually became one of the great ancestors of one of the
Waikato tribes, so that one of the tribes, the Ngatimahuta, was named after
his son.58
Similarly the great chief is surrounded by a sphere of life inspired by
him. Although the investigations of mana should be restricted to what can be
derived from the texts, we shall in this connection refer to a peculiar belief
among the Maoris which seems to show how the chief’s sphere does not only
absorb human beings, but the tract as a whole; for it was a general conviction
that when a great chief approached a village, it became impossible to catch
birds, fish, etc. It is said that the mana of the guests drove them away.59

56. Grey 1855: 147.

57. White 1888a: 160.
58. White 1888a: 161.
59. Best 1899a: 113; does this imply that the chief wants human flesh?
88 J. Prytz-Johansen

When discussing the use of mana as a verb we dwelt upon the dynamic
aspect of the matter, but still mentioned that the basis of the word was a
fellowship. We have now advanced the investigations to the point where it is
possible to give an account of this also in cases in which it does not appear
evident.
Te Rauparaha had decided that only an ambush could provide revenge
for him for the murders which Ngaitahu had committed on his next of kin.
As he lived on an island, it was necessary to go by sea in order to attack the
enemy, but the difficulty consisted in approaching unseen. Then a European
ship came to the island and this provided the means to carry out his revenge,
as he could get down to Ngaitahu by hiding in the ship. At the moment when
the arrival of the ship was reported, tradition makes Te Rauparaha think:
“Today my purpose, which rankled in me (by not being carried out), has got
much mana (kua mana rawa ano aku whakaaro).”60 Here, too, mana has two
aspects. First, his purpose has already been formed (tupu). That it manaes
means that it extends itself, seizes and dominates the surrounding world. The
purpose gets mana by getting “fellowship” with all that gives it a possibility of
being realized. In light of what precedes, we must thus imagine that the cap-
tain of the ship already at this juncture (indeed without knowing it) is in the
sphere in which Te Rauparaha’s will can take effect. The plan, indeed, was
successful.
Furthermore, we have now obtained a basis for completely understand-
ing how mana is sometimes personal, sometimes impersonal. The personal
aspect is in the fact that he who has the greatest mana, i.e. he who lives most
intensely in the fellowship, by this also stamps the fellowship throughout by
his personality. The impersonal aspect is at the other pole: that mana is a
fellowship and therefore can be taken by somebody else if he is capable of
doing so. Therefore the fellowship gets the character of an impersonal power
which can be utilized by the person who understands how to do so.
We have seen how far mana extends and thus given a much needed
comment on its definition as “an active fellowship.” The comment is so nec-
essary because we cannot briefly express what “fellowship” is and how it is to
be understood. The difficulties are not only due to the fact that our language
lacks a word which can render the meaning of mana, for this is only a symp-
tom of the more deeply rooted and real obstacle to the rendering, viz. the fact
that we are without the experience which is expressed by mana. Still, we have
to a certain degree from our sphere of experience a possibility of intuitively
knowing what mana is when referring to fellowship of human beings. Through
the study of the kinship group we have furthermore sketched a background

60. White 1890: 31.

 The Maori and his religion 89

which makes the understanding easier. It is more difficult to attain to a real

understanding of the mana of things. Even if we have touched on this
subject on the preceding pages and thus seen that the mana of things is not
in principle different from the mana of human beings, it will be proper to
make it the object of a more detailed consideration, which, in order to make
it as concrete and vivid as possible, we shall connect with an investigation into
the Maori’s whole relationship to things.