Hope Australia
Unlike the poem entitled Terra Australia, which deals with Australia as a concept, as an
empty mould into which you can pour anything, this poem, judging by the title, will be
dealing with actual Australia, with the actual country and not only country. It begins like
this: A nation of trees nations usually consist of people, and not of trees, so why does the
poet begin like this? Why trees and not people? Are these the real trees? Of course not,
they are the very natives that constitute the whole nation. And what kind of trees are
these? Drab green and desolate grey ukasto mrko, zeleno; in the field uniform of modern
wars so this is the colour of these trees. So, what is the poet saying? How individual and
unique are Australians if they are a single nation of trees? There is some kind of uniformity,
you cannot differentiate among these trees. Apparently A.D.Hope believes that the
Australians all look alike and think alike, there is not much room left for individuality and for
originality. So, he is very critical of his country. Also, why does he involve modern wars?
Australia seems to be far from all the major tendencies and trends, far from the major
conflicts of Europe, of America, far from the wars, but is it really so? It appears to be
sheltered and protected by its very distance from European conflicts and wars, but is it
really so if there is a whole nation dressed in a uniform of modern wars? No, it appears that
it is sheltered and protected, but it is very much involved and it is not involved in the good
things but it is involved in conflicts and wars (it took part in both I and II World Wars).
Terra Australis the concept which European phylosophers and thinkers had had in mind
long before Australia was actually descovered, it refers to imaginary concept, ideological
construct dealing with post-colonial theory. The poem will deal less with Australia as a living
reality, and more with Australia as a concept in the European mind, and how this concept
actually clushes with the real Australia and how it affects the way Australia is seen and
interpreted (the idea that you interpret what you see accordnig to your own assumptions).
Already in the first line, the word fable suggests that it is not the actuall Australia the poet is
dealing with. Fable (v.) = priati, lagati, izmiljati. You will find that Southern Continent
within you. Quiros vision the Portuguese sailor P. F. Quiros who believed that hed
discovered Australia and in his interpretation this was La Australia del espiritu santo, which
was actually a religious concept and not an actual place. Hidalgo is a Spanish nobleman.
How did the earlies representations depict Australia? Marco Polo when he got back from his
travellings, even though the never went to Australia, he started a rumour that in Australia
people legs were where heads should be, and everything was upside-down. So, Australia
was a perfect empty space for Europe to pour all its imagination into it. So far, he is very
neutral; in the second part we will see how the actual, physical reality of Australia is
interpreted in accordance with ideas of utilitarian friendship and mateship and these are
very important qualities of Australian cultures today.
Is the atmosphere the same or has something changed? Here he says the angophora
preaches with the gestures of Moses, what is introduced with this? Moses, Bible,
Christianity mistakes and superstitions of younger countries; so, you are not really free,
even in Australia. We are still in the same landscape, but we are not still in the same
atmosphere. There is a hint of paranoya suggesting unease, and if there is unease, are you
really at home? So, the same country, the same landscape and physical reality but
interpreted in two radically different ways. Why is this so and how is this possible? The
vision of Australia as hell is closely connected with the introduction of Christianity in
Australia. The influence of religion, especially of Christianity, that is not very fond of
difference.
Is this final version of Australia hellish or not? Pyre = lomaa. It is, there are many references
to fire, the last image is the image of fire. What complicates the idea that this is hellish?
Unknown lovers; the pyres are not frightening, they are ecstatic, solitary pyres of unkown
lovers. What would make life in Australia bearable? What would transform hell into
something that is not so hellish? LOVE! The final thought: physical reality can be interpreted
as both heaven or hell depending on your cultural burden, depending on the assumptions
that you carry with you. According to this poem Australia is not that far away from Europe;
Europe is not only out there, but it is also people who come to Australia with certain
assumptions, traditions and with certain ways of seeing and interpreting what you see. With
the introduction of religion, we enter the hellish vision of Australia.
What does the title suggest? History in a nutshell, the history of a urban developement of
Australia and the decline of nature, the decline of the bush. Sydney stands for urban
civilisation, it stands for urban culture and this culture is fairly European.
When did this happen and was Sydney created at that time? It happened when the first
white settlers arrived and there was no Sydney as such, there was no Sydney as the city.
Sydney and the Bush = Europe and Australia; urban civilisation or civilisation and nature. An
open ground is not a metaphore, it represents an area without trees; nije bilo istine,
drugim reima, kakva je bila Australija? Ljudi, naroito belci. The bush dominated at the
beginning, nature dominated Australia. Why are chains introduced? Because they were
prisoners, they were convicts. Not all of the white settlers were prisoners, but the majority
was. So, some of them were, some of them were not, but they all made an urgent sound.
Why urgent sound? Because they were scared. Australia stimulated equality and working
together. American geography stimulated, encouraged high hopes whereas Australian
geography stimulated only one hope and that was the hope for survival.
So, the title refers to the relationship between urban civilisation and rural civilisation, but it
also refers to European white civilisation and the civilisation of Aboriginals. What was the
next stage? If people were breeding, that means that some ? are meant for people to
reproduce, and since this was an institution made on the basis of the European institution,
then it means that exploitation was acceptable, and in this case the people who were
exploited were convicts and the prison guards are the ones who lived on this metaphorical,
and maybe even literal, blood. What is happening with the bush? Nature and people who
belonged to nature were surpressed literary. Now there was an open ground, the open
ground being created by the hands of the convicts. Who are the men of Fire and who the
men of Earth and why are they differently labeled now? The men of Earth = the Aborigines.
So, in the early stages they were all afraid for their lives, but did this fear and this struggle
stimulate equality? They were the men of Fire and the men of Earth, they were equal
although different, but then they became White men and Black. Pay attention to this
interesting lack of the word man after Black. What does this signify? Even in this early stage
there is a hint of, well not of inequality, but a hint of different ways of seeing. White men
are men of fire fire arms. Now the white men are human beings, and these are just Black,
and their humanity is denied.
To skylark = to have fun in a loud and noisy way, the opposite of behaving in a fine, civilised,
European manner. Now, the bush stands for what in this stanza? Ovde bush istovremeno
stoji za untamed nature, it also stands for the Aborigines, but it also stands for rural
Australians and now they are being mocked by their own people living in the cities. There is
again a clear distinction between Sydney and the bush. Sydney is civilised and civilisation
and culture are represented here as something extravagant, as luxury.
How and why did the bushmen sink? Because of the industrialisation. Who are the warders
now? The actual warders and convicts are long gone, and these warders here are the British
who still influence Australia, especially Australian foreign politics. These warders are the
ones who decide, who have control. People who were endangered by industrialisation turn
to the Bush to survive, so the history of survival is constantly repeating itself.
There was no open ground, now there is anthipathy meaning at the first stage of history
there was some kind of relationship, right now there is no relationship whatsoever. Why is
there anthipathy between Sydney and the Bush? Why is the greater part of the stanza
devoted to Sydney and to urban civilisation? Because, they are apparently more important
and that causes anthipathy.
When Sydney rules without the Bush
She is a warders shop
With heavy dancing overhead,
The music will not stop.
They do not take into consideration that rural aspect, people who live in rural areas. If they
do not do that, does Sydney really rule? Kad to radi, Sydney je samo radionica za ove
zatvorske uvare, samo britanska radionica i ta oni rade u toj radionici? Igraju kako im se
svira and the music will not stop.
The drummers are the British, they set the rhythm. Australians are only made fun of. How?
Where? When? U svakom filmu, u svakom prikazu, Australijanci su dati kao neozbiljni, kao
neko ko slui za smejanje. What is common ground now? This is a significant change from an
open ground, to the common ground. So, you have one country and two aspects growing
increasingly apart until finally there is no common ground between them, and this is only
the influence of the British interfering in Australian politics and organisation.
This is the idea, this is the national identity, this is how the Australians would like to see
themselves and would like to be seen. First of all, who is the Australian? He is the product of
the dying earth, the last product, the last child. What is his relationship with other nations?
He is not the same as the other nations, he is distinct, unique because his orientation is
towards the future whereas all the other nations are obsessed with their past and precisely
because of that they do not have future, unlike the Australians. So, the Australian is the
future leader of the world itself. How do they regard him? The Australian is not unimportant
in the eyes of the other nations, he is very important, and they all observe his every move
because he is the future. This is a national fantasy. Why are they huddling? Children,
when they are scared, huddle. Children, scared, obsessed with their past, they know for fear
in their lives and he is, unlike them, proud, masculine, strong, he is striding a spacious
continent.
So this is about his eating and drinking habits. How does he eat? How does he drink? When
there is food, he eats fast, when there is drink, he drinks fast. Again, that is the direct
outcome of his way of life which is mainly the survival in nature. What about his emotions?
This kind of life also affects his emotions. He is not consistent in his emotions, he is very
impulsive which is not the same as very emotional.
This man is not refine, this man is not sophisticated, he doesnt have good table manners,
but this man is powerful because he is doing Gods work in wilderness he builds civilisation
in wilderness, he even challenges nature, he challenges even God; thats how powerful he
is, thats how unstoppable and fearless he is.
The speaker is a composite character, the Australian legend, the father of nation to be more
precise. Who is he addressing? He is addressing present days and modern Australians who
seem to be forgetting all about their brave and heroic past in the sense that these brave
men were sent to the desert to survive, he moves to the present, and then to the past
summerizing the history of Australian settlers. Little to say is actually precious according to
she. He says: I worked hard so that you may be above work.
The summery of the song is in the lines: I bore the heat, I blazed the track. To blaze the track
means to create a path where there is no any, both literary and metaphorically. The price
for this blazing the track was his health, his body. So, these settlers are creating the nation,
they are creating the living well in the desert, they are supposed to be creating something,
but they are actually destroying (I split the rock, and I felled the tree). As a result of all these
destructions, the nation was born.
What about the last stanza? Why is it separated from the rest of the poem? The speaker in
this part is the poetess, now she dares to use her own voice. Is she adding anything new or
is she merely reminding that the new generations have forgotten everything about their
glorious ancestors? These ancestors and warriors are glorious because they survived and
created the nation which took a lot of effort and thats why their hands are knotted and
they are set high. Unlike the modern Australian, she is mindful of her nations past.
The wild colonial boy
Whats going on in this poem? There is a horse missing, the owner offers a huge reward,
many skillful and powerful riders compete, but there is also one man from Snowy River, he
is weak, small, but he is also given a chance because the Australians are all equal.
There was movement at the station, for the word had passed around
That the colt from old Regret had got away,
And had joined the wild bush horses - he was worth a thousand pound,
So all the cracks had gathered to the fray.
All the tried and noted riders from the stations near and far
Had mustered at the homestead overnight,
For the bushmen love hard riding where the wild bush horses are,
And the stockhorse snuffs the battle with delight.
Colt = drebe. So, what is the speaker saying? Why were there so many riders? Were they all
greedy for the money or did they simply gathered for the sake of riding, in order to test their
skills? They gathered for the sake of riding.
There was Harrison, who made his pile when Pardon won the cup,
The old man with his hair as white as snow;
But few could ride beside him when his blood was fairly up -
He would go wherever horse and man could go.
And Clancy of the Overflow came down to lend a hand,
No better horseman ever held the reins;
For never horse could throw him while the saddle girths would stand,
He learnt to ride while droving on the plains.
And one was there, a stripling on a small and weedy beast,
He was something like a racehorse undersized,
With a touch of Timor pony - three parts thoroughbred at least -
And such as are by mountain horsemen prized.
He was hard and tough and wiry - just the sort that won't say die -
There was courage in his quick impatient tread;
And he bore the badge of gameness in his bright and fiery eye,
And the proud and lofty carriage of his head.
But still so slight and weedy, one would doubt his power to stay,
And the old man said, "That horse will never do
For a long a tiring gallop - lad, you'd better stop away,
Those hills are far too rough for such as you."
He was so small and weak, and they thought that he should be eleminated from the
competitions, but the Australians, being the Australians , decided to be fer and give him a
chance.
And he raced his stockhorse past them, and he made the ranges ring
With the stockwhip, as he met them face to face.
Then they halted for a moment, while he swung the dreaded lash,
But they saw their well-loved mountain full in view,
And they charged beneath the stockwhip with a sharp and sudden dash,
And off into the mountain scrub they flew.
Then fast the horsemen followed, where the gorges deep and black
Resounded to the thunder of their tread,
And the stockwhips woke the echoes, and they fiercely answered back
From cliffs and crags that beetled overhead.
And upward, ever upward, the wild horses held their way,
Where mountain ash and kurrajong grew wide;
And the old man muttered fiercely, "We may bid the mob good day,
No man can hold them down the other side."
When they reached the mountain's summit, even Clancy took a pull,
It well might make the boldest hold their breath,
The wild hop scrub grew thickly, and the hidden ground was full
Of wombat holes, and any slip was death.
But the man from Snowy River let the pony have his head,
And he swung his stockwhip round and gave a cheer,
And he raced him down the mountain like a torrent down its bed,
While the others stood and watched in very fear.
So, the man from the Snowy river is identify as the man who never gives up. The horse has
run away, and when they reach the mountain, he still continues, he never gives up, he
reaches the summit and then he has to come down and it is dangerous because there are
holes into which his horse can fall, and break his leg and of course the rider is in danger of
breaking his neck but this rider is so brave that he doesnt care. He allows his pony to take a
lead, he trusts his horse and he continues and ends up.. ? he raced him down the mountain
like a torrent down its bed, he still raced despite the danger, and this is supposed to be
courage.
He sent the flint stones flying, but the pony kept his feet,
He cleared the fallen timber in his stride,
And the man from Snowy River never shifted in his seat -
It was grand to see that mountain horseman ride.
Through the stringybarks and saplings, on the rough and broken ground,
Down the hillside at a racing pace he went;
And he never drew the bridle till he landed safe and sound,
At the bottom of that terrible descent.
He was right among the horses as they climbed the further hill,
And the watchers on the mountain standing mute,
Saw him ply the stockwhip fiercely, he was right among them still,
As he raced across the clearing in pursuit.
Then they lost him for a moment, where two mountain gullies met
In the ranges, but a final glimpse reveals
On a dim and distant hillside the wild horses racing yet,
With the man from Snowy River at their heels.
And he ran them single-handed till their sides were white with foam.
He followed like a bloodhound on their track,
Till they halted cowed and beaten, then he turned their heads for home,
And alone and unassisted brought them back.
But his hardy mountain pony he could scarcely raise a trot,
He was blood from hip to shoulder from the spur;
But his pluck was still undaunted, and his courage fiery hot,
For never yet was mountain horse a cur.
And down by Kosciusko, where the pine-clad ridges raise
Their torn and rugged battlements on high,
Where the air is clear as crystal, and the white stars fairly blaze
At midnight in the cold and frosty sky,
And where around The Overflow the reed beds sweep and sway
To the breezes, and the rolling plains are wide,
The man from Snowy River is a household word today,
And the stockmen tell the story of his ride.
Gullies = jaruga. Spur = mamuza. This is a poem about riders, actually about one particular
rider, his courage and his horse, the poem celebrating his courage. But is there anything
paradoxical? So, this is yet another Australian type, and the Australian type is all about
hatred towards the authority, love of freedom, and egalitarianism. Is there anything
paradoxical? What is the subject matter of this poem? The paradox is that they are trying to
capture the horse who also has the Australian characteristics such as love of freedom and
defiance. How does the poem end? This man becomes a legend and these values are retold
in this legend. But is there anything missing from this description of the man from Snowy
river? So, he is brave, a skillful rider, reckless, not very kind to animals, focused on his goal,
eager to prove himself and his masculinity to his peers and mates. So, what is missing from
this picture? Is there anything else that we learn about this man? No, we learn nothing
about his personal life, which proves that mateship is not...? because you constantly need to
prove yourself and prove yourself in very limited ways.
The speaker is the poet himself. What is he talking about? He is talking about the bush
rural Australia, the countryside, something that is separated from the city. Give us why
doesnt he speak in his own person? He is referring to collectivism, to collective identity of
Australians and he is trying to prove that Australia is a beautiful country and the country
that is separate from England and that it is the country that has the separate identity from
England and from the British. So, where is the joke? He, in trying to insert separate and
distinct Australian identity and separate and distinct Australian landscape, he is borowing
freely from English conventions of writing about nature. Without a title we would never be
able to guess about which country he talks. There are the references that he is talking about
Australia, but the form itself is definitely European. The landscape is seen and described
with love. So, this is an author who will not look back to England, he, as a representative of
the nation (thats why he insists on US), he is learning to love every aspect of the landscape
but the aspects of the landscape that he loves and mentions are not typically Australian, he
does not mention kangaroos, or anything typically Australian. How specific is he actually?
Not at all. Loveliness bold loneliest landscapes wear first of all how can a lonely landscape
be lovely, and they are lonely. Haunt is the place that is haunted. This seems to be a
European poem but there are a few words taken from Australia in order to celebrate
Australian landscape.
Henry Lawson A Song of the Republic
He is not European anymore, still he is not fully Australian; so how can you solve such a
problem? You can solve it by creating a national myth, or you create a national figure and
that is the figure of typical Australan and also by insisting on nationalism. This was written
and published in 1887 after he arrived in Sydney. Henry Lawson was a great nationalist, and
a great spokesman of the white Australian policy whereas the British was against it.
The story is about an Aboriginal man trying to find water, he finds just a few drops of water
and these drops represent the hope. In the exam, you can write his English name (Kath
Walker), and the second name is actually his real Aboriginal name.
What does the title tell us? We the Aborigine people. Where are they going? We are going
to fight back, we are going to start the war or we are deserted, we have to leave? We still do
not know cause we cannot judge from the title only. Interestingly enough, the title is We are
going, and you get the impression that he is talking about the Aborigines, but then the story
begins and the poet starts talking about They, he is talking from the third person
perspective. This we are going is actually reportive.