Abstract:
The thesis aims to examine two related questions, firstly the general authenticity of oral tradition, and secondly, the application of principles of authenticity to the work of John White.
The first topic examines the recorders of tradition in several scholarly disciplines. These show diverse interpretations of what is meant by the term oral tradition. Definitions range from traditions transmitted by specially selected personnel, to hearsay and eyewitness accounts. Literary critics in the Ossianic controversy, and recent New Zealand ethnologists have specifically addressed the matter. However all disciplines accept certain principles involving the authenticity of recorded oral tradition. These include the cross checking and corroboration of material from other sources, the selection of informants based on access to authoritative tradition, the recording of information in the vernacular, and the printing of traditional texts in language as true to the original as possible.
The application of authenticity to John White's recording of Maori oral tradition divides into four subjects, based on the principles accepted by most recorders of traditions. The first, White's attitude to traditions shows marked similarities to.his contemporaries, for example in his acceptance of a single Maori history. However they also show certain advances such as publishing all of a tradition's variant forms. The second subject, that of biographical information, reveals several factors bearing on White's work as a recorder: the strong literary influences on his collecting and writing of Maori tradition; the financial and job insecurity that forced him to write for a living; the affects on his work of a Government unsympathetic to and uninterested in his major writing project, The Ancient History of the Maori. The third subject, namely working methods, includes traditions recorded from memory recall or in manuscript, the selection of both authoritative informants and Maoris with no particular claim to such knowledge, and a wideranging miscellany of traditional information. Organisation and publication of traditions too though revealing a concern for planning and attention to detail also show a degree of carelessness. White also fails to develop for his major project, a proper conceptualisation of what the work was to be like. The fourth subject, White's linguistic abilities show his understanding of Maori to have been very good. There is no suggestion that he did not properly understand the language which he recorded or translated.
Accusations levelled by later New Zealand ethnologists against White's work, suggesting it cannot be accepted as authentic, are probably too extreme. The thesis would suggest instead that the authenticity of White's recorded material should be accepted with certain qualifications.
