A Prisoner of the Past

A prisoner of the past

THISTbIESIS E\S looked at the way Charles Bean's Ojin'aI Hi.rtog helped create a certain image of Anzac, and forcibly linked that image to the idea of a blrrh of national consciousness at Gahpoli. It has also considered how, aside from Bean's careful mythography, G&poli was destined to become a mythc story of the nation, because of the circurnstailces surrc~undingboth the event and Australia's cultural and political situation at the the. In thrs final chapter I want to look at how Anzac operates today, particularly at the national political level. I will also examine some texts other than Bean \vbch comment on and shape the image and tradttion of Anzac, as well as noting how Bean nevertheless influences and circulates within these other texts. Lastly, I want to consider the question of what alternatives there might be to Anzac in terms of a myth of nationhood, or perhaps what changes might be brought to bear on what has become a fairly narrow and hegemonic narrative. * In an article analyzing Anzac Day celebrations in Adelaide in 1977, Lee Sackett makes the foliowing obsenration:

It is udkely that even Anzac Day's most ardent boosters would claim the occasion brings the cittens of the country together or leads to their holding unaninlous views with respect to touted ideals. ('Marching into the past', 18)

At the the, Sackett saw Anzac Day as being relevant only to a dwindling number of adherents, mostly fadeswith a beet link to one or other of The story ofthe stag q'i.2~;a:ac

Australia's international wars. His position is equivalent to what Seymour was working through in the early 1960s in The Otte Dqof the Yeur, and is still informed by memories of a discredzed Vietnam \Tar and protests about the rape of women in \vartime."j Sackett argues there were perhaps as many detractors as supporters for the rituals and themes of Anzac Day -- and more besides who didn't care one way or the other. Anzac is a hgof the past, that would kevitably dwindle into insipficance as the last returned servicemen died, and there were no more to march. Writing at about the same time, Bill Gamrnage came to sdarconcl- usions. Gamnx~geis a writer with enormous sympathy for the veterans of the Great Tli;ar, yet he describes Anzac as "a dividing rather than unifying experience" ('Anzsc', 63). By 1982 Gamrnagr saw Anzac as an ideal in decline: "'As memories of its origins wane and its form persists, Anzac seems bound to be questioned more and more as an adequate national traddon" (64). It was not a national day but a personal one; an aspect confirmed ill Tom Griffiths' account of the Day irl a smd Victorian country town in 1982 ('Anzac Dayy).Less than a generation later, we can see how fast the wheel of lzistory has turned. In the past few decades interest in Anzac hss waxed rather than waned. As the editorial leader in the Age on 25th Apr. 1998 declared, Anzac is "The day that came back to life." As it was in the immediate post-war period of the 1920s, Anmc is once apbecoming part of what Raymond KriUlams called the "structure of feeling" in a society.lo6The reasons for this renewed interest are complex and varied, and there ;S no consensus to explain thzs change. I shall offer my own hjrpothesis at the conclusion to this chapter, but I want to look first at how this phenomenon has operated in the national political arena.

'05 See for example, -4drian Howe's article 'Afizac mythology and the feminist challenge', about the anti-rape marches that so infuriated the RSL in the early 1080s.

q:,l!'illiams, The Long Re~olation;iMami~%rz ad Lrteraltlre. On Anzac Day 2000 john I-Ioward went to Galhpoli and gave an address at the Dawn Senice. I'he event made the front pages in the press throughout the country the following day, and Ho~vard's speech was reproduced in W by the ~u~fralia)~.Motvard was interviewed at Gallipoli on national television, where he stated, "there is a resurgence of feeling, a passion for the Ailzac legend and tradtion amongst young Austra- lian~."'~' Observing the response to the Prime Minister's Gallipoli visit, the journahst and politicd columnist Denms Shanahan noted that, "there is a clear public mood of sympathy and empathy wit41 our military history that has not been present for decades7' ('Statesmanshp forged on a fatal shore', 30). Shanahan was commenting how wher, Howard talks about 'the Anzac spirit', he manages to find a "common feelingy7with the elect- orate - where elsewhere he fids discord. Specifically, Shanallan notes that Howard's use of Anzac enables him to talk to otherwise hostile constituents "in a language they can understand and with sentiments and ideals with which thev can agree." (Ths is a phenomenon that crosses paq-political boundaries. Opposition Leader I& Beazley, a keen stud- ent of military history, is just as conscientious when it comes matters of patriotic pride.) In a radio intenriew on Anzac Day 1999, Howard raised the issue of Seymour's play, and the controversies that previously attended Anzac Day marches. "All that has now gone," he concluded, and there is a "rediscov- ered reverence" for Anzac ay.**^ Howard agreed with hs interviewer that Anzac was now "a day that brings Austrahans together 5ke no other." It echoed hs frequent message that Anzac is "a spirit ~vlichdraws Australians together in time of need" ('Speeches', 1I th Nov. 1997; 16th Dec. 1997; 23rd Jan. 1998).

l"' Intenlew with Ahke Alunro, A Cut~ttztAfair, C11amle.l Kine, 26th Apr. 2000. lU8Interview with Jolm Fake, 3L0, Melbourne. Howard's speeches, media releases and mnscripts are indexed on the Prime Aiinister's web site: www.pm.gov.au/mcdia. [ 236 ] The .stogl g-fhe$to9 c$-iI~f;dc

As Shanahan observes, Howard's engagement with Anzac has clear benefits in terms of domestic politics. Anzac offers a solid and stable platform on whch to stake hs belief in "a core set of A4ustralianvalues" (Speeches, 24th July, 1998). Ghassan Hage has analyzed many of Howard's speeches, concluding that:

'Values' for Howard constitute an 'essence' not only in the sense of a historically unchanging reality, but also, and as in all hndamentalist ideologies, in the sense of a causal force.. .Furthennore, these values are never imagined to be contradictory. The nation that expresses its values is always 'united' by them. ('Politics of Australian fundamentalism', 38-29)

Hage is looking specifically at Hosvard's speeches to trade and cultural organizations (e.g., the Chmese Chamber of Commerce; 50th Anniversary of the State of Israel; etc.). But it is in the discourse on Anzac that these ideas are most apparent. Howard's speeches about Anzac emphasize tradition, unity and the 'Australian way of life', as in the address given at the launch of the 'Gailipoli 2000' campaign:

Of all the traditions, and all of the things that we hold dear as Australians, none is held more dearly than the ilnzac tradition. For all that it represents in terms of brave sacrifice, of reckless inciifference to danger, of valour under terril~lehe, and a legacy ,rhat has been handed down to subsequent generations. (Speeches, l l th Apr. 2000)

All the important ideas are here: tradtion, sacrifice, generations. 'I%e second sentence paraphrases Bean's 'definition' of Anzac -"reckless valour in a good cause, et~:" (A~ZTUL-to fmje~u, 181) - which Howard had quoted at the funeral cf Ted Matthew. The other key word is "generation." In the same month that its relevance was being dsputed in regard to Aboriginal issues, John I-Ioward used the word deliberately in 3is speech at G~llipoli:"Dusk has all but fallen on that great-hearted generation of A4ustralianswho fought here" (Speeches, 25th Apr. 2000). There was a belated complaint about double standards in the press, but Howvard hew he was on safe gr~und."~For wvlde here is great disparity in public responses to Aboriginal issues, the I.inzac's image and reputation has become so revered that few dare even engage in debate about Anzac issues for fear of being burnt by its intense sanctity. In hs privileged position as Psime Minister, John Howard has the authority to speak about Anzac, and it is the one area where hs nostalgic vision of Ausuaha is appreciated and applauded, in contradistinctior~to hts many other social and cultural ideas which are criticized for their 1950s provenance. Howard's success in associating himself with the growing Anzac pauiotism is at odds with hls predecessor Paul I

In place of the Anzac legend I would like to see the following question sweep the country: '%Was the Australian nation born on the I

Even the consen~ativecolumnist Frank Devine, a self-declared hater of Iceating and supporter of Howard, has said that, "I

The contro\*ersy arose when the Afinister for -4boriginal Affairs Senator Herron, backed by the Piime bluuster, argued that in the case of Aboripal childreil removed from fades the word "generation" was inappropriate because the amount was probably only 10% of the popidation. By wvay of comparison, the proportion of the ,iustralian population that fought at Gallipoli in 1915 was barely 1%. One of few commentators to note the differing standard, George blegalogenis ('Reality check') suggested that, "Johil Howard should abadon Ius abacus, because it had also told him last mcnth that 10% of -iboriginal- children taken from their parents did not amount to a 'stolen generation'." Coincidentally, the very day newspapers around the country were reporting the itlatthews Funeral on their front pages, they were also cahg for a nationil Apology in their eltorials: e.g., 'Black Trauma Demands Full Apology', AtrstraLaan, 17th Dec. 1997, 12; 'But L%%y No ,ipology?', J-ydny ilfunzitg Herald, 17th Dec. 1997, 16. [ 238 j The stogi @the stop q-~ln~ac-

Australian territory7' ("Let the warriors7).But following his speeches and genuflexion Keating was widely attacked for his perceived attempt to politicize Anzac heritage. I-Ie was not helped either, by entrenched political opposition from the other voice of authority on Anzac, the RSL. Like Keating, I--Io\yard has appeared almost eager to make speeches and comments on Anzac and Australia's dtary exploits: "E-loward has even out-performed I

As we gather here to face the dawn, We honour those wl~ofaced the night. Not a night of rest, nor dreams, Not a night of shared laughter or the warmth of homefie. But a monstrous corruption of nature, An eclipse of humanity itself. And yet, when we look at the night sky, the wonder we feel is surely for the stars, not the black veil behind tlzem. So too, our wonder is for these men, whose sparks of courage shebright through the distance of

The language is hghly evocative, the rhetoric and imagery clichkd. Like Bran, there are few finite verbs, and no participles. The statements are

'l0 JO~Hovrard, '*inzac Day Dawn Service, Commemorative Address at Hellfire Pass, Thailand, 25th L4pr.1998'. This speech was written by Xkrk Baker, who also wrote the Anzac Day 2000 speech at Galkpoli. Punctuation and heation is reproduced from the Prinle hhster's website. The "sparks of courage" shining brightly recall Beat's metaphor of the A.I.F. as alternately a comet/meteor/shooting star (see Chapter Six). presented not as argument or debate, but as reified sentiment and emotion. By contrast, Keating's speeches are smooth, literary orations. Keating's speechwriter Don \7C7atson addresses his task as if conscious of writing history, or at least writing for posterity; Howard's speechwriter hIark Baker is simply enabllng his speaker to embody emotion and gener- ate empathy with hs audence. The impression is that Keating speaks from the head, whereas Howard speaks from the heart. At an ideological level Keating and Howard can be distinguished by an elemental observation: I

''l Based on a corpus of the published speeches of both Prime Shisters. The ideological separation is neatly framed by the fact that the Governor-G.eneral Sir IX'ilharn Deane, in hs funeral speech for Ted hlatthews, quotes both Clark and Bean. The sfoy oj-the stoy oj;"ln;(~~.

As politicians, Keating and Howard are but two sides of the same coin, so often straining to say the opposite thing yet always inevitably yoked together with more in common then either wdl admit. In the same way, Clark and Bean combine to provide a fuller picture of Australian hstory and identity than either alone was capable. Indeed the parallels between the two are often so sdaras to be uncanny. Each wrote six volumes in hs magnum upm. Each wrote a biography of the nation in which the 'facts' alone were less important than the illust- ration of the Australian character. Each of the enterprises demonstrates an intensification of technique by the authors with succeeding volumes, and, it must be said, a deterioration of quality and loss of critical perspective. Each had a dstinctive prose style, and each was capable of dstorting the b-eputations of antipathetical characters in their narratives (e.g., Bean's Monash, Clark's hjenzies). Both writers had complicated relations with their editors. Robertson actively intervened in the O@n'd Histoy, but because the author outlived the edtor the story of their struggle did not surface untd long after. It is an intriguing story, but has none of the viciousness that accompanied the posthumous denunciation of Clark by his editor Peter ~yan."~Accusations of methodologcal slackness and pomposity in Clark's work were little news to anyone; but Ryan's ad borninem anecdotes ensured the editor was as badly stained as his target. The following table lists some related points of dfference and similarity:

'l2 Ryan published three articles on the subject of Clark and the History, each in Qtladrant (Sept. 1993, Oct. 1993, and Oct. 1994). They are collected in Ryan's fines of Fire, 177-234. An overview of the resulting hore was written by Peter Craven, 'The Ryan Affair', published in Bridge, ed. Manning Ckark: esqs on hisplhce in histoy, 165-1 87. Bean Clark

Realist, objective histoy 'New', subjective histoq Fastidious about details Careless about details Single voice with direct speech Polypllonic narrative GaIbpoLi as epiphany of ideals Gallipoli as betrayal of ideals Ignored by historians during lifetime Fkted by historians during lifetime Rehabilitated after death Attacked after death Empire politics Republican politics Championed by Howard Championed by Keating

%%ere the two hstorians dffer most dramatically is the interpretation of their subject, the nation, and the way the write about it. Clark sees hstory on a spiritual plane. He writes in the Tragic mode. His prose is highly mannered, abounding with literary and biblical allusions. Bean, as we saw earlier, writes in the Comic mode. His hstory is materiahst, and he carefully avoids literary language and quotations. Wrhere Bean keeps his focus singular, Clark favours a dalectic approach and multiple narrative voices. Bean indeed becomes one of Clark's narrators: "Dear, kind Charlie Bean7' (VI: 26), Clark calls him, with just a touch too much condescension. Clark's use of narrators gives h.un the mimetic capability of a Sybil, yet his voices remain separate and conflicting. I-Ie never reconciles hs ScUUlIl and his Menzies, hs Lawson and his Deakin. For him there is either the Old Dead Tree or the Young Tree Green - they cannot be combined. But Bean, as I suggested in Chapter Four, is in many ways a, combination of Lawson and Deakin - an Australian chauvinist who nevertheless believes in Empire. Yet he was by no means a believer in Imperial her- archy. He turned down the offer of a C.R.E. in 1920, and in 1940 declined a knighthood saying he believed thar, "in Australia the interest of the nation would best be served by the elmhation of social distinctions.. .the system encourages false values among our people" (hlccarthy 390).'13

'l3 Bean deched ttvo subsequent offers of a lullghthood. Contrast CIark who did accept a Companion of the Order of liustralta (not a11 Imperial honour), and who in RJ-an's view could be observed, "fi3wning on each successive Labor Prime Ahster" (lines ofFin, 202). The of'the stor (?I~iiltr;uc

Where Bean and Clark become irreconcilable is their interpretation of Galbpoli. For Bean, who witnessed the event itself and was indeed part of it, Gallipoli is the paramount expression of the Australian people as a Nation. Et was the "great test." It enabled the nation to "know itself." It engendered the "consciousness of Australian nationhood." For Clark though, the war was a disaster. He sees it as drawing Australia into the ways of Europe, seducing the nation into the old paradigms that form societies based on hierarchy and privilege. Gallipoii changed the direction of the country and made it forever subscribe to values that would ensure Australia would never be the new Jerusalem:

Australia's day of glory made her a prisoner of her past, rather than the architect of a new future for humanity. (A Hi~tapof/iustrzzlia, V: 426)

Clark's tr2gc vision is overstated, and is typical of hs passion whch has always polarized rezders. Many readers resile at Clrrk's mannered style and his habit of writing in the language of the prophets. Likewise many cannot accept that he writes as Jeremiah, the prophet of doom, fore- shadowing what later would be termed 'black arm-band' history. Manning Clark became a national figure in his lifetime, part of the literary/academic/cultural kite of the nation, and more prominent than any Australian historian before or since. Charles Bean moved in different circles, and attracted a lot less attention, be it negative or positive. The early volumes of the Oji~fnIWistoryreceived numerous reviews in Aust- ralian and British publications, and throughout the British Empire; the later volumes drew less attention. Serle notes that volume VI artracted warm reviews from the major newspapers, but was ignored by hnstorical journals. Serle also quotes a comment by Bean that he had never met an academic hstorian who had read any of hs

114 Serle, Xntroducdon to volume \'I, UQP reprint of the Ofi~iaLI3i~story,xk. Of the hmited critical response and honour he received in hs lifetime, Bean would have been especially pleased tvith the comment from respected historian Ltddell Hart in rhe London Daib T~i'egrapb(23rd July, 1930), calhg the hdvolume "one of the most absorbing and durninat- ing of all books." The same yeak the Royal United Services Institution awarded Bean the Chesney Gold ~edal,"~and in 1931 the University of Melbourne made him an Honorary Doctor of Letters, followed later by an Honorary Doctorate of Laws conferred by the Australian National University in 1059. Keith Hancock paid some ettention to Bean, as did Henry Green, Bean's erstwhile colleague at +he Syd~zeyMorning Herald, who was perhaps the first to identify the prototype of Bean's model Anzac in the character studies in On the IF'ool Track. Yet apart from some largely ephemeral press reviews, a paragraph comment here and there (as in [Vard's The cludraliaa Legeizd), and some pleasing honours, Bean's work attracted little critical attention. It was not und the fiftieth anniversary of Gallipoli in 1965 that the tidz began to m, with the publication of a truly seminal article by Ken Inglis titled simply 'The Anzac tra&tion7. Significantly, Inglis's article was rejected by the academically focussed Hz.stori~'aIStudies, but it found space in the literary/cultural magazine hleayi't~. Inglis begins by stating that Bean had "published more words and reached more readers than any other Austrahan historian," but that. nevertheless, "by and large his work has been not criticized, but ignored" (25, 33). Inglis elevates Bean out of the dusty confines of dtary history to a significant role in the construction of Australia's cultural identity. Inglis notes the celebration of the bush ethos in the Ofjid Nis~o?y,and the evidence of Bean's themes in hs pre-war writing. He also discusses Bean's rde in establishmg the Austrahan War Memorial and observes that Bean

'l5 This award was named in honour of Charles Cornwallis Chesney, professor of mnibtary strategy at the Royal Abhtary College, Sandhurst, in the 1850s and 60s. In 1933, nvo years after Bean, the AJedal was awarded to LVinston Churchill. was "one of the first to say that on the 25th April 1915, 'the consciousness of Austrahan nationhood was born'." W'hen Inglis came to write a short biographcal n~onographtr) commemorate Bean after hs death in 1968, he titled it C.E. W. Bean, Australiat~Historian. Coming from Inglis, that epithet was significant; not a 'war historian', certainly not simply a journalist or war correspondent, but a Historian in his own right. Inglis's work was immediately followed up by his colleague Geoffrey Serle, with an article in the next edition of Meagin titled 'The digger tradition and Austrahan nationalism'. Serle comphented Inglis for his "just and generous tribute" to Bean, and for having "opened up the first serious modem discussion of lZnzac and the digger legend" (149). Further important work soon followed with Uoyd Robson's work on the recruitment of the First A.I.F., and ks critique of Bea~l's(mis)representation of its character.' l6 As interest in historical studies of the Great CVar and its effects on Australia grew in tlie 1970s, so did Bean's influence and stature as a hstorian. 11s Gerster says, "Above all, it has been the renaissance of C.E.W. Bean as a force in Australian culture that most reflects the resurgence of interest is Aus tralran soldiery in the Great \War" (Big-rzoting, 254). The two most popular sruches of Great \Var veterans, Bill Garnmage's The Broken Yean. and Patsy Adam-Smith's The Anquc~,both go out of their way to acknowledge the importance of Bean and the O$cialHisfory to their own work. Bean's imprint is then seen in the screen works that these two authors helped make, Gall$oli and the television mini-series An~acs. Bean's rehabilitation was assured with the re-issuing of the O@~r'alHi.rtory by University of Queensland Press in 1981, and publication of selectio~is from his daries and correspondent's reports in the collections GaIhPoli Com~pondent(ed. Fewster, 1983) and 1Uaking the Lege~ld(ed. Winter, 1992).

Robson, TheFirstA.I.E:a~t~ajof it^ tsmitment 1914-1318; 'Origin and character of the First A.I.F.' In the 1980s another generaticn of historians began looking at Bean with a critical eye, and they tended to see a greater ideological thrust in Bean's work than had their older colleagues. Ahstair Thomson's research into oral hstories of Great !Var veterans detds how the variety of experience and beliefs of the soldiers themselves is subsumed into the monolithic hegemony of the O#n'aIHistoly, whch is intent on telling a single story, and portraying a single identity. Inevitably, the individual values and prejudices of the author inform the writing of histoq7: "In both hs public and private writing Bean struggled to show how the behaviour of the Australian soldier fitted hts ideal, and the creation of at1 account which fitted his own preconceptions was more important than any conscious effort to produce a publicly acceptable account" (T?lom- son, 'Steadfast und death', 46). We might quibble over whether "more important" should be "at least as important," but Thomson's remarks are persuasive. David Kent recogmzed this sa.me process in The Ailxu~,Book, the collection of poems, stories and artwork that Bean put together at Gallipoli in November and December 1915 (Kent, Xnxu~.Bookand Anzac legend'). The AHTUL,Book is probably the single most powerful piece of Anzac image-makmg produced during the War. It was conceived as a sort of trench journal, col- mrised of submissions by solders, to be published as the 'Anzac ~nnual'."' That title was rejected as "too suggestive" (that is, encouraging the idea that the war would go on for some time), and in any event, the withdrawal from Gahpoli ensured there would only be one issue. As Kent notes, the publicity surrounding The Altxu6. Book tended to suggest that aln~ostevery soldier at Gallipoli was a buddng poet. The

l'' Bean writes in his Diary of 16th Nor. 1915: 'T7esterday,Butler of Intelhgence, came up to me and told me that he and \Y700ds had been thinlung that we ought to get out an Anzac -%mud." Denis IVinter takes specific issue with this evidence, noting that Bean's Gallipoli &aries were in fact written up after the War from rough notes, with intent for publication. Writer also argues that The An~ucBook was proposed by British Intelhgence ajm the decision for evacuation had been taken - but his evidence on this matter is slight (%'inter, 'The Aqac Book: a re-appraisal', 58-61). [ 236 ] The stoy ofthe stop $Anp~.

reality was more sober; of the tens of thousands of troops who were invited to send in submissions, only 150 responded. Having studied all the submissions, conscientiously deposited by Bean with the AWhf after the war, Kent identified that many manuscripts that dld not fit the Anzac ideal as imagined by Bean had been rejected. In Kent's assessment, Bean is "an exceedmgly selective edtor who rejected anythng that right have modified hs vision or tarnished the name of 'Anzac' " (376). Such material typically portrayed pain and grief on an individual and personalized level - rather than the collectivized 'com- munitas' expressed in poems like 'Graves of Gallipoli', 'Lawrence', and in the use of Horace's phrase, "They died pro path." It is necessary of course to see The An~acBook not just from the perspective of the post- war critic, but as an important part of war-time propaganda and morale. 'LT'hatever Bean thought of the literary or emotional quality of the works he deched to include in the book, it is probable that the rmlitary censor was as much in his mind as the 'irnage of Anzac'. Negative images could not be published for fear of their effect on military and public morale, as well as the danger that the Enemy could use them for its own propaganda purposes. More interesting then becorne Bean's own contributions, whch act to gaps in the image that had not been prwided by the soldrer-poets. For example, Bean wrote the poem 'iibdul', which provides a public school spirit of respect and fair play in acknowledging a 'brave and gallant opponenty:

We will judge you, Mr Xbdul, By the test by which we can - That with all your breath, in life, in death, You've played the gentleman.

The AN~CBook is only a partial record of the way the Anzacs faced up to the challenge at Gallipoli. It tells the story wvithqut the suffering, grief, bitterness or any of the human weaknesses whck many of the soldiers wrote about. It was Bean's creation, the fust step in his memorializing of the A.I.F. (387)

Tohn Barrett has attempted to deflect the force of Kent's argument by arguing that the Anzac Book was rlo more influential than, say, CJ. Dennis's The h.loods oj'Ginger &lick, or even the (hzavily censored) letters home ('No straw man', 107-8). But given the extraordinary print nin - publisher Cassells gave figures of 10(?,000sales during 1916 alone - the paramount influence of Thc Arr~a~?Book is hard to deny. In invoking Dennis as a shaper of the Anzac legend Barrett acknovr- ledges the lead of Inglis, who also discusses the popularity of GitzgerMick. Yet Inglis sees Dennis more as a follo~verthan a leader in public opinion: "Dennis was trying not to express a private poetic vision but to succeed as a mass entertainer" ('Anzac tradition', 36). In other words, the plot and sentiments in Ginger Aili~ib:were created simply to appeal to opinions already held by the wider public. This is perhaps overstating Dennis's opp- ~rtunism;in any case, with his characters The Bloke and Ginger, Dennis provided an intensifjiing focus for the sentimental la&n hero, that gave the character a larger and stronger image in the public imagmation. \Xihat impresses Inglis most about The Moods ofGiptger Mick is hotv Ginger is "ennobled by warfare," and how he casts off his class consciousness for a new patriotic identity. Just in case we miss thts transition, Dennis spells it out, hstlv as Mick finds hlmself among foreigners in Egypt, then as the toff Keith breaks class barriers to help his new mate:

- Then Pride 0' Race lay 'olt on 'im, an' Mick shoves out 'is chest - A noo, glad pride that ain't the pride o' class - The stoy $the slog qf*~iln;a~,

This is simply another rendering oh Bean's notion of the A.I.F. as a truly "democratic" army, where social barriers were replaced by egaiitarianism and a common bond of mateshp:

in the A.I.F. Jack and his master were the same.. .The Digger's unspoken, unbreakable creed was the miner's ai~dthe bushman's, "Stand by your mate." (17: 1084)

Bean used this notion of egalitarianism specifically to distinguish the Australsan force from the British Army, and hs assessment has been widely accepted. Where he is on less firm ground is his practice of frarning a homology between the A.I.F. and the Australian nation proper, either before or after the war. Amanda Lohrey criticizes Bean for being reluctant to recognize that the socialszation of the men in the trenches was only a temporary effect; once back in the reality of post-war econom- ics the cockies filled the ranks of the New Guard, the working men jained in ever greater numbers the unions Bean so abhorred, and Capital and Labour stopped being 'digger mates' (Lohrey, 'G&poliY, 30). It is reveal- ing that Bean's exemplars of mateship are the individualistic miner and 'bushman', rather than the unionized shearer or urban labourer. Bean's naive and romanticized view of ,\ustralian political economy is more than inappropriate. The attempt to yoke the rl.1.F. to a fabricated national character is blatant m~thologizing. Dennis makes some of the same moves as Bean, but his work must be viewed chfferently to the Oji~iaIHistoy;for he was writing during the war, and he was writing a fiction. Even so, Dennis is more subtle and less grandiose in hs efforts than Bean, and indeed many writers and poets who came after. Robin Gerster has surv:yed the bulk af fictional responses to Australia's mihtary experience in Big-notivg: the heroic theme in A~straIiarz war wm'titg. As his subtitle suggests, Gerster sees the genre epitomizing "the insecurity of a culture which has felt a need to promote itself in the most primal terms possible" (257). Gersrer's large corpus is unquestionably representative of the phenomenon he analyzes, and his assessment penetrating. He concentrates his study mdyon the novel, however, whereas the poetry written in response to Australia's wars offers perhaps more eclectic statements. There is not space to conduct an exhaustive survey of the field; but I want here to look selectively at some works of he recent generation of poets.

Poets are by no means more critical than novelists in their approach to war. It is still disturbing to see with what indecent haste both Brenilan and Lawson dropped their republican postures to blow the bugle for Empire. More recently Andrew Taylor notes the irony in the fact that the editors of the anthologies Shadowsjiom IVire (Page) and Ci~bbitzgd'the Gln~$re (Wallace-Crabbe & Pierce) all attest the growing interest in Austr&aYswartime past, but curiously, none of them can account for it, and none appear to appreciate their own role in it. Taylor sees all these poems as part of the process of remaking the mythology of Anzac: "The new myth of the Great War is a myth of the present7' (Readiizg Az~straliat~ Poetly, 184). It is created anew by those who celebrate it, and those who denigrate it. Significantly, as Taylor recogruzes, nearly all these poems and collections and indeed most of the attendant criticism, is written by men. 'CVomen seem not so 'constrained' as men to wiite about war, says Taylor (1 85). IYhere women poets do write of war it is usually at an intimate level in terms of personal loss @g., Mary Mmore's 'The Measure'; Judith VCrright's 'A Document'); as opposed to the symbolic or collectivized level of nation whch attracts many male poets. Wright's poem 'The Company of Lovers' exemplifies ths dtstinction: the 'lost company' that she describes is an imagined community of mourners, linked only m lone- liness and grief. Interestingly two of rhe Austrahan poets who have written most extensively on the subject of war have also written novels dealing in the same themes: Geoff Page (Berrtoit 's Convi~2ion) and Roger McDonald [ 2501 The ~-:o.,tory oj-the stoy oj>qn~m.

(19 14. Much of Page's and AicDonald's poems shot. the poets wresthng with the emotive responses to what Anzac signifies. They have a horror of war, yet they respect the suffering of those who served, and wish to honour their sacrifice and suffering. lllus paradox is usually played at the level of family: a gnetkg wife or mother, or particularly in the formula of a son speaking to ail absent or etxotionally distant father. We can include Tom Shapcott's War' here as well, which shows a cud twylng to negotiate kus father's haunted memories. There is something of this topos of the young man addressing the old in Michael Dransfield's 'Pioneer Lane', whch considers "the veterans of Lone Pine and Villers-Bret.":

. . .they'll be free, these pioneers who made Australia and fought to keep it, time on bitter time, a place they could grow old in, never thinking they'd be despised for even that senescence.

It comes as a jolt that at the height of the Vietnam War and conscription, the writer of Dmg Poem and Memoirs ofa Velvet Urinal would write such a poem. But Dransfield's subject is not the national mythology of Anzac so much as mortality and reputation, issues that were as important to hun as they were to hs &gger in Ershnevllle. Les Murray is one of the few wtiters who can present the indrxidual and the nation in a satisfactory dialectic. His 'Lament f~rthe Country Soldiers' tells how pride, as much as duty, impelled men to enlist. Not the IGng of England, but the king of honour "ate the hearts of those who would not go." In 'The Trainee, 1914', Murray shows us a swaggy, pos- sibly Aboripal, seduced into recruitment. "Is war very big?" he asks, "As big as New South \Vales?' Here the itinerant individual is subsumed into a larger identity, swamped by the institutional machinery of war. In his longer poem 'Visiting Anzac in the year of Metrication', hlurray looks at death from the perspective of the individual soldier balanced against the grieving survivors. He makes the word 'rosemary' a recurring motif in the poem, juxtaposing the image of the herb growing on the slopes at Gallipoli with its role in mourning and the commemoration of the dead on Xnzac Day. Murray contributes a few of Bean's platitudes on Gahpoli - for example, the soldiers are all "squatters' and selectors' boys" - but he also grasps the inherent antinomies in Xnzac:

Our continent is uncrowded space, a subtler tling than history. The Day of our peace will need a native herb that out-savours rosemary.

Here blurray gets to the kernel of the Anzac myth: that the experience of Xnzac is located outside Australia, and that war has greater power than peace in collectively focussing the nation's attention. These are cruciai issues, that are razelp brought together with such concise apposition. Yet Mwray's great strength, hs 'voice', is also hs great weakness; for it is often impossible to read these poems without being infected by the many other agendas of 'Our Man in Bunyah', as Murray self-mockirlgly styles himself. In these poems especially we see the hypostasizing of the city/bush dtchotomy. The same applies to his polyphonic verse novel, Tbe Bg1.r who Stole the Fiillcrad whch tells rhe story of trvo young lads who take the body of ail old dgger, Clarrie Dunn, to be buried back in his family's country in the bush. Murray has the proverbial Anzac narrative ro a tee when Clarrie spouts the old line about how Australia won the war and ddn't get the credt:

Monash solved the trench stalemate with tanks, artillery and us. If he'd come from a proper couiltqr, he'd nearly have been famous. ($28)

But Clarrie's voice gets drowned in rivers of Murray-speak when he starts having visions 4 "the common dtsh" (the gad), and spouts theological rhetoric beyond the confines of hs character: "The Buddha saw the dish, and claimed there was nothmg in it, / but Jesus, he blessed it and devour- ed it whole - " ($91). Ths is just so much Christian proselytizing, which weighs too heavily on the corpse of an old digger. Another poem which operates through multiple voices is Chris Wallace-Crabbe's The Shripes ofGa/L$oli.Wallace-Crabbe begins hs poem with lines from the beginning of Pope's Ili~~d:"In sight of Troy lies Tenedos, an isle" - b:.t he interrupts Pope with the voice of a modern solder waiting to land ~t Gallipoli:

For Christ's sake when are we bloody well going to get moving? We didn't come here to look at the bloody sea. Anyone got a fag? In sight of Troy.

Waliace-Crabbe is not just satirizing the impulse to garland Anzac with the coincidences of its hstorical poetics, for ths poem suggests that both responses we relevant. Rather, he is insisting that Gallipoli not be reduced bp poets, eulogists or historians to a single voice or identity. The Shqes of G~lL@ooliis in fact an extraordinad? polyphonic text, combining a number of fictive voices with quotations from various sources, such as diaries, Monask's letters, and Bean's O@d Histoy. Wallace-Crabbe depicts a number of characters, includmg that of hs own uncle, killed at Gallipoli. He gives them voices in different registers - educated, larrikin, rural - to sip+ the dversity among Anzacs. Ths sets his poem apart from so many that simply espouse one homogenous voice. Indeed the poem is more than polyphonic, it is a heteroglossia. The characters do not just speak in different voices, but in different idiolects. 'There is greater diversity here than in either Bean or Clark. iyallace-Crabbe also acknowledges how the image of Anzac is constr- ucted by others, and so he includes quotations from Masefield, Rupert Brooke, Yeats, Shakespeare and ~a~~ho."~He balances the verses from Pope ~tiththe last lines of FIomer7s Iliad, imagining the Anzacs on the sea-shore remembering "the funeral rites of Hector, tamer of horses." He includes the citation written by bis uncle Lieut. Crabbe, recommendng a Victoria Cross to the notorious Albert jaclta (of Jacka 's i\Iob fame), and he quotes from Bean, selecting passages from the O@~i.alHisfolydescribing the actions of the hst troops ashore on 25th April. The word "shapes" 111 the title of the poem encourages the itnage of multiple identity, but also that of characters that are not fully formed, or perhaps who are ghostly. The title has Merresonances, for in Old Eng- lish the word 'scop' meant a poet, one who shapes things (from s~ieppaiz, to make). Here then, are the poets of Galhpoli, far rnore varied in tone and voice than those in The Aiz;a~. Book. They combine to construct an image of many stories - not comphentary, nor contradctory, just voices and stories with different needs to meet and different tlings to say. Yet though it is a simple message, it is not simply made. Wallace- Crabbe's poem doesn't have the momentum of Murray, nor the everyday emotion of Page. The Shapes of-Gallipoliis ultimately too self-consciously literary to impact upon the popular imagination. That role falls to the contemporary genres of block-bus~irnovel, television and feature fkn, and song. The best known song about Gallipoli is Eric Bogle's 'And the Band played IF'alt~i~gMafiIdd, a folk ballad which tells the story of a young swagman in outback Austraiia in 1915, who answers hts country's call and goes to fight at Gallipoli. He loses a leg and is repatriated to Sydney, where he ponders his broken life and the emptiness of Anzac Day marches. Bogle is a Scottish immigrant to Australia, and hs song displays some conflation of British and Australian Galhpoli narratives. For example, his solder wears a tin hat (not a slouch hat), he participates in

E.g., Alasefield, "The physical perfection of those young swlchers"; Brooke, ",ind is there honey still for tea"; j-eats, "another Troy for us to burn?" Sl~akespeare,"let our crooked smokes climb to our nostds; Sappha, 'the Pleiades". The stuv uf the stag ojeArr~u~.

the burial of the dead on the 24th May Lhmisace(which means he left in 1914, not 1915), and he talks of the 'hell of Suvla Bay' - where there were no Australians, only Kitchener's Mew Army. Such minor inconsis- tencies are relatively unimportant in such a song, except that they get repeated. In 2000 the rock group Midnight Oil released a song 'The Last of the Diggers', presumably inspired by the meha coverage of Ted Matthews. This song too places a 'd.tggerYat Suvla Bay. It's the sort of mistake we might expect from Manning Clark, and it shows how by repet- ition, multiple stories are blended and condensed into single narratives repeating familiar scripts. The same process can be seen in the work of Bryce Courtenay, Australia's best-selling writer of adult fiction, whose novels sell in their hundreds of thousands. In Courtenay's Solomoiz's Song, the hnal volume of the 'Australia Tnlogy' that also includes The Potuto Factoty and Tommo e9 Hawk, the action moves from colonial Tasmania to Gallipoli in 1915. Through some durect speech, an omniscient narrator, and a crude epistol- ary narrative, we are given a condensed nin down of the entire campaign. Courtenay acknowledges the advice and assistance of the AWM i? preparing his research, and discloses that, 'My debt to C.E.W. Bean's Ojkial Histoly.. .is obvious" (Solomon's So9.g 657). It is no surprise then that much of hs narrative of the period of the war is little more than a paraphrase of Bean. For example, the description of the sinking of the Emden reproduces Bean's account almost word for word, even down to the "pink-streaked dawn" (374) that Bean borrowed from Homer. Later, Courtenay's description of the battle at The Nek is simply a direct trans- cription of Gammage:

The Brvken Yean- (75) Solomon k Song (55 2) Two hundred and tlirty-four dead 'Two hundred and forty Lght Horse- light horsemen lay in an area little men lap dead or dying in an area no larger than a tennis court.. . larger than a tennis court.. . the English troops at Suvla, plainly phj-visible from The Nek were he visible from The Nek, were making British troops at Suvla Bay making tea. their evering tea.

Gammage's poignant image of the tennis court is borrowed from Bean (Ga/ir$o/i A4isiiun, IO!J).'~' And so it goes on, page after page, for more than three hundred pages. The point is nor to accuse Courtenay of plagiarism, for he acknowledges his sources (though perhaps not as ful- somely as these passages suggest he should). Su/o~zoon'sJotg is simply fur- thes evidence of how Bean's Anzac stmy is reachlg new generations, and that the message is heard at its strongest and most uncritical at the level of popular entertainment. The makers of the nrmini-series Atz~~~.s(1985) used Dean extensively in researchng and planning the series. LYihole scenarios and dialogue were lifted straight from the Ofin'raL ist to^..'" \We Attp~~adrmts some repressed narratives into its scrip- - such as desertion, shell-shock and gnef - these are ultimately resolved in trans- cendent motifs of sacrifice and redemption. Instead of allowing the "si3ences and absences of the Anzac story" to speak for themselves in the series, writes James [Vieland, "all loose threads have been woven into a satiseing pattern" ('The romancing of Anzac', 12). Lohrey sees a similar process being played out in Weir and \'IUarn- son's Ga/I$oli, but on more political lines. She complains that the film dehisturicizes Anzac and Gahpoli -in just the way Barthes says myths depoliticize their subjects - and that it reinvents the concept mateshp withn a bourgeois, liberal paradigm, creating "some perverse lhd of whte-man's dreamtime" ('Gallipoli', 34). Lohrey also attacks the way the

""t is interesting to see how derivative narratives evolve ltke a game of Chinese \Whispers, for the battleground of ?'he Nek is apparently shrinktng: Bean's original wording "a strip the size of three tennis courts" becomes in Gammage "a11 area little larger than a tennis court," whlch gets even smaller in Courtenay's "area no larger than a temlis court."

120 Cf:John Cribben, The Makig of Xrz~ac~~~'AIZ~~L'J: the background'. Age Gmrz Guide, 24th Oct. 1985, 1. The stoy aft17e .rtoy of/lnquc

radical labour trachtions of the Australian legend are taken over by the "myth of rural virtue," with which Bean ovenvrites his iconic &%er. As we saw with LVdhamsonYssly manipulation of anti-British sentiment, the filnn appropriates :he fabula of Gallipoli to present contemporary values and interpretations. In order to do thts, the multiple and contrary signif- iers of hstcry are reduced to simplistic binaries. I described in the Introductory how Ga//$o/i takes its narrative premise horn Bean's description of Light Horseman LVilfred Harper "running forward like a schoolboy in a foot-race" (11: 618). There is nohgimplicitly wrong with takmg scenes from an Official History and making fictional narratives from them; and in this Ga/l$o/i is simply following in the tracks of Chauvel's 40,000 Hor.cenzen. But Bean's Histoy is already a narrowing of the dtversity of the original actors and events; as Inglis says, he has a "habit of finding a single, national response" ('Anzac tra&tionY,32). Gallipoh' condenses Bean's narrative further, and manipu- lates the narrernes into a mythologized text. Inglis also says that, whereas Bean's work is an epic, "Ga/h)o/i is a tragedy" (Samed PIGc~s,440). Not so; it is a romance, where the debutante nation is wedded to the ideal of heroic self-sacrifice.121 W these popular fictions act out a narrative hegemony whereby they concentrate ~ndsimplify the Anzac story until it becorr.es rigid and homogeneous. The many stories are dtstdled into one monolithic narrative. And as Thomson's oral history research shows, that narrative has become so culturally dxninant as to obliterate individual stories and memory. i\lthough some of the veterans he interviewed in the 1980s rejected the stereotyping of mass medta portrayals of rhemselves, Thom-

Robert Dixon discusses an earlier example of this trend in the 'The Romance of the CWte Guard', the second part of a political novel Tbekk~tta/5'anCrisis by C.H. Kirmess pubfished in 1909. Dixon concludes that, ''In mythologizing the birth of nationhood through heroic dtary sacrifice, the 'Romance of the \mte Guard' foreshadows the cultural significance of C.E.W. Bean's The Stot~of Anqa~;disclosing a continuity between the Anzac myth and the jingoistic plots of Edwardian adventure tales SO popular with male readers" (IVriting the C'olonial Advenfure, 146). son confesses that often he felt he was "listening to the script of the film GlaL@oU' (At~~u~-A4en10ries,8). * The reader urlll have noticed the title of this last chapter: "Conclu~ng." I use this verbal form to underscore that there are no final answers on Anzac and nationhood, rather, an ongoing process of reassessment. Ths is particularly relevant to the question of the 'revival' of Anzac, an issue which has been in the public domain since the early 1980s. There is no single motivation for this, but any number of complementary and conficting reasons. I want to look briefly at a range of these, in no particular order, and with the caveat that my perspective is necessarily broad and generalist. Firstl~l,it needs to he stressed that the changmg role and attitudes to Anzac are primarily symptoms of larger cultural and political changes to society over the past two generations. The great social and moral upheavals of the 1960s brought about paradigm shfts in society which are still generating reactions. T1is period is typified by a dsencharatment with authority, and with the edifices of authority such as political institutions and traditions. Anzac itself came under attack iu this period - paradox- ically preparing it for its later 'renaissance'. But when the social and political rebellion subsided, there was a vacuum of faith and authority, a yearning for tradition and heritage. Anzac offers all hs. Intertwined with this period the Vietnam War created a crisis in milit- aiisnl. The anger at the enforced conscription of the late 1960s and early 1970s inevitably impacted on Anzac and Anzac Day marches. Over the years, lloxvever, as the Trietnam veterans came to be seen more as victims than warmongers, and especially since the Welcome Home march in 1987, the Anzac Day march has acquired new relevance to many people. Despite the sectarian squabbles of the RSL and the TVA, the march has facihtated the reintegration of the Vietnam veterans (van Gennep's uggt@utioon), and helped overcome the stigmatization of that war. The scngl oj'the stov oj'At~;a~.

The intluence of literature and fin cannot be overlooked, either. It is not simply serend.tpitous that the few years from 1978 to 1985 saw the publication of Adam-Smith's The Atzy~x,hlcDonald's 1915, the re-issuing of the Ofl~z'aIHistavand the publication of Bean's daries and war corres- pondence, together with the release of Gallipoli, the n7serialisation of 1915, and the mini-series Anqacx. M these works reflected a craving in sociery, but they fed it as well.'22 Newspaper can be very much part of this process of popular afhation. The national broadsheet the Az/sfra.Iian has in recent years run a very patriotic angle on Anzac, employing a 'hstoq~writer' Dr Jonathan King, specializing in Anzac matters. As well as writing obituaries for a dozen or so Gallipoli veterans who have died in the past five years,'" King contributes frequent eulogstic articles on heroic themes, and describes the Anzacs as "bronzed warriors.v124 The Australian War Memorial likewise makes and meets needs in society. It is the most popular tourist site in the nati~nalcapital, and its archives and databases process the great number of requests for senice records of relatives, litring and dead. A more oblique rationale for the attraction of Anzac is ghpsed in the use of Anzac to evoke the idea of national unity. As cfiscussed in Chapter Three, the Anzac myth emanates from a period of Australia's history when the nation was more 'British' in terms of overall population than at ally time before or since. The young pilgrims at the cemeteries of

122 It is relevant also to note that the fh Breaker nilorant was made in 1980, underpinning the anti-British reading of ,Anzac, with its chauvinist narrative of Australian soldiers being sacrificed for British expediency.

'23 King's obituaries are very fornulaic, sometimes recpchg whole paragraphs with only the name of the veteran changed. At other time he confuses the battles of Lone Pine and the Nek. See his obituaries in the Au~frakanfor Albea Tuu (27th Nov. 1998); \Yilfred Coles (10th Jan, 1999); and Len Hall (25th Feb. 1999).

124 See, for example his article on Monash: 'How this man (and 333,000 other Australians) won 7LVorM %'ar I' (SundqAge, 8th Nov. 1998). Gallipoli, France and Flanders are typically described as searching the headstones for the names of grandfathers or great uncles, or even just a namesake. But they are looking for iinderson, Jones, Smith and ITilson; not Antor~elli,Papadopoulos, Stankot-ic or Nguyen. Notwithstanding the social &visions with1 the nation in 1915, there was undeniably a greater hgutstic and cultural uniry in this period than ever before or since. The 'Anzac nation' therefore offers a vision that dtsplaces the pluralist, multi- cultural reality of post-1970s Australia. And the non-partisan politics of mourning and commemoration provide a platform for the in~agningof a far Inore contentious ideal - White Australia. At the same time, it must be ackno\vledged that in recent years the Anzac Day march itself has become multic~dmal,and a broader reflexion of contemporary society. At the rear of the parade march contingents of servicemen from Greece, Poland, Iialy, Russia, and even South Vietnam. Inglis sees examples exrevhere of immigrant Austrahans participating in, and tahg to heir own, the tradtions of Anzac: a Fihpino p1recites the Ode at the Dawn Service; a Lebanese businessman donates to the ALW; 'young Asians' participate in the rituaiized games of Two-Up; and so on (Saord I1/uc.es,474-479). Obsenhg the involvement of 'ethnic' commun- ities in the march, Thomson reflects that, "Anzac Day has come to embrace and espouse a broader dehnrtion of Austrahan racial and national identity" (An;ac ~%feemories,198). Yet Thornson also cautions that Anzac Day is a '"structured and institutionalized" event, and whatever its popular appeal, it remains "a martial affair with dtary music and ritual that un- critically endorses the role of the dtaqservices in Australian history and society" (20l).lZ5It is important also to remember that Anzac Day is only one part of the Anzac myth.

Thomson might be alarmed at the words ofJohn Howard's speech at the Centenary Parade for the -1ustralian Arq-, 10th Mar. 2001: "You [the ;irmy] are part of our identity, you are part of our language, you are part of our mheritance." [ 2601 The $toy oJ'thc sfog

Aside from issues of ethnicity and multiculturalism, perhaps a stranger motivation for the appeal of Anzac as a national identity can be found in a parallei social phenomecon that coincides with all these others, the demise of local, community identity. For many reasons (that need not be canvassed here), the Iate twentieth century has seen local and regonal affihations displaced into larger frameworl.:s, particular the nation. Anzac provides an attractive means to express this dsplaced nationalism. It is uniquely able to cross generational divides, and largely free of the rivalries accompanying other national formations, such as political groupings. It is here that the backpacker pilgnms add momentum, for the youth of the 1980s and 1990s were notoriously un-radicalized, and hence attracted to apolitical icons. Thds class of tourist pilgrimage is itself a growing phenomenon worldwide, fuelled by the related passion for genealogy and family trees. These travellers make use of two sets of guidebooks: a 'Lonely Planet' in one pocket, and perhaps a volume by the redoubtable John Laffin, who was written literally dozens of hooks on war and battlefield archeolcgy, such as Dzging up the Dzjgers' War and A Gzcide to Australian Battlhjields ofthe IP'estem Fmnt. Meanwhile many of the combatant nations of the Great War continue to commemorate the conf-lict, especially through annual rituals on Remembrance Day, the anniversary of the ,%rmisticeof 1l th Nov. 1918. Inglis quotes an article by Martin Icemble in the London Guardiatz of 16th Nov. 1996, where the writer shows surprise at the reinstatement in the workplace of the two minute silence at the 'eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month' (Sa~~redPI~LVJJ, 438-9). In Australia, a pro- clamation signed on 30th Oct. 1997 by the Governor-General called upon the people to renew the observance of silence at eleven o'clock on Rem- embrance Day -with the concession of halving of the time for reflexion to the more expedient period of one minute. At the same time there has been a growth in peripheral activities surrounding Anzac Day, indcating just ilow much Anzac has become part of the 'structure of feehg' in n~odernXuscralia. In tile area of sport there is an annual rugby league match between Australian and New Zealand held on 25th April, called the ',bzac Test' . A sdarappellation is applied to the Austrahan Rules football match played each year on 25rh April between Collinpvood and Essendon, the two largest LTictorian clubs. In the field of education, the Federal government introduced a 'Shpson Prize7in 1998 for an essay written by Year 9 school students, 'to encourage students to think and talk about what Anzac Day means to them and their country."126The eight winners, one from each State and Territory, were rewarded with a trip to Gallipoli. In 1999, Premier Bob Carr intervened in the NSW high school curriculum for History, to ensure "the compulsory study of the Anzacs, K70rld War I and its aftermath."127 And so it goes on. \Then these sorts of government sanct- ioned programs are practised in states like China or the former Soviet Union, it is called indoctrination and propaganda - at home, we call it protecting cultural heritage. 'I'o appreciate fully the changes in attitudes and practices of the past two decades .will probably take another generation. In any case, the image and functions of Anzac wdl surely only grow in the lead-up to the centenary of the Landng in 201 5. I shocild state that whatever criticisms or comments this thesis has made of Anzac and Anzac Day, I do not advocate its abolition. But I do argue that its pre-eminent position in the cultural identity of the nation needs to be reconsidered and attenuated, because of its narrow relevance to wide sectors of the population. It may be argued that pef and mown- ing are universal emotions, and that Anzac is inclusive of others' stories. But we need to hear more loudly the stories of Anzac that do not get told, and we need lfferent stories of Australian nationhood.

l'' D, David Kemp, Slrruster for Education. Media Release, 10th Kov. 1998.

12' Bob Carr, Premier of X.S.W. Media Release, 19th Feb. 1999. We need to remember that women are escluded from the Anzac tradtion. L'c'omen are absent from che narratives of Anzac, and they are displaced in the narratives of nationhood by a male signifier that appropriates all social, political and cultural roles unto itself. In lis speech at Hellfire Pass on Xnzac Day 1998, John Howard said:

On this day, we enrich ourselves for, it's been said, a nation reveals itself not only bp the men it produces but by the men it honours, the men. it remembers.

There is much truth in Ho~vard'swords: a nation does reveal itself by whom it remembers. In ths case, it's men only. Howard continues in the speech to rnourn "the potential unrealized, the generations unborn." Tlis sort of rhetoric invokes the topos of male virhty as an index of the strength of the nation, but elides the role of women in procreation. LK'e must remember also that Anzac excludes the indigenous population fzom any part of the consciousness of nationhood. Contemporary esdmates suggest there were a few hundred black soldiers in the First A I.F., but they do not figure in its legends or tra&tions.lz8 Anzac offers

l':? nation a chance to think of itself without the dstraction of the post- colonial headache. Thls is as true in 2001 as it was in 1915. One aspect of Anzac Day that is rarely considered is that Austraha and New Zealand are perhaps the only nations in the world that celebrate the beginning of contlict in the Great War. \Vhere France, England, Canada and even the United States commemorate the end of hosdtties in the Armistice of 1l th November, the Anzac nations mark the bloody baptism of the troops on 25th April. And Australia makes much more of its Anzac tradtions than New Zealand, who with the legacy of a recognized domestic war, has a lesser need to locate its national identity

128 nesame silence attends the contribution of ethnic Chmese volunteers - tl~ough as Inglis notes from hs extensive research, :it least their names stand aut more easily on war inemorials ($atred Phces, 188). in an overseas battle. Ths bloodlust, &S eagerness for battle is not a dung of tlle past, either. In speeches hono~ui;l~gsurviving vetera.1~of the Great LPar, Joh~Howari encourages young Austrahans of today to learn more about the lives of individual solders:

Let them be told of a brash young Ted Matthews who lied about his age and boasted about his skills at Morse code. ("Speeches', 1Gth Dec. 1997) Children should be told of Private Peter Casserly, who lied about hs age to enlist in the A.I.F.. . .Let clddren be told of.. .Private Hubert Waiton, the youngest of eleven cMdren who enlisted at the age of 17...Lance Corporal Leonard Hall, who left to fight to join the Light Horse when lze was 16. ('Speeches', 21st Apr., 1999)

It is right and proper to acknowledge the service and sacrifice of the country's solders, but what sort of nation celebrates the bepning of the Great War, and boasts about se~ldrngunder-age solders to that slaughter- house? When we recall that Aistralia's losses were significantly less than Britain's and New Zealand's (6Apperrdm B), but that Austrda makes the greatest public showing of its grief, both with its monuments and its marches, we must continue to question the nation's motives for mourning. We must, as Sokrates said, not bel2ve the myth, but use it to how ourselves as a nation. Finally, as Pad Keating only just began to acknowledge, Anzac operates as a prism whlch distracts the nation's gaze from events that ha\-? occurred u'ithn the continent, to instead focus on acts performed thousai~dsof miles away. For a quarter of a century, hi~toriansof all political inclinations have called for recognition of domestic conficts at the Australian War Memorial; nothng has happened. The RSL continue to caU on present Japanese leaders to apologze for the treatment of Australian PO\Ws sixty years ago, yet their leadership are among the vanguard in stopping an apolog to Aboriginal chddren removed from their fades. A mature nation should be able to acknowledge the dead at home, as well as abroad. The 'Anzac tradtion' proudly honours the heroism 2nd patriotism of those Turkish soldiers who &ed defending their country against invaders; it d not do the same for its own citizens.

In 1915 Australia was ready for a tnyth of nationl~ood,and Anzac occurred to fulfil that role. As I have argued in Part I of ths thesis, because of a peculiar set of circumstances, it did so with perfect synergy, and with a momentum that proved inexorable. And as I described in Part 11, it was nourished by a man of the moment, a myrhographer who could weave the dtary and nationhood stories together to help create a myth with the power to inspire a nation. But that nation has changed - the Anzac myth must change too. "CVhen we become aware of a sudden consistency between hcompat- ibles we can say we have crossed the threshold into myth" (Calasso, Marriage ofCadn~t/sand Hamzotzy, 22). The homogenization of the Anzac story is indicative of its mythical status. Although it can sustain variant narremes and dramatic contradictions, these are confined and contained wihn a master narrative that, especially recently., has built up an unassd- able authority. When the last survivor of the Anzac campaign Alec Campbell says that, "Gallipoli was a significant event in history, but not all that important personally "l2' - hs denunciation makes no impact. The myth insists it was the most important thghe ever did; for himself and for the nation. The appositional or peripheral narratives that Thom- son hears in lis informants, that Kent sees in the rejected manuscripts of The dnxac Book, or that Lohrey identifies as strikingly absent in GaLlzpoii, have been left behmd. In their place is a totalizing narrative of the nation, a narrative that pushes aside other stories of nationhood, that overwrites the history which led to Federation and whch has flowed from it. Homi Bhabha argues that nations need co-mter-narratives to evoke and erase totalizing boundaries, both actual and conceptual, and to

Campbell, quoted in 'They livtr: &rough a century'. AJ~,Gth Jan. 2001. "dsrurb those ideological manceuvres tI11.0ilgh \vhicli 'imagined coinmuni- ties' are given essentialist identities" ('L)issenniNation', 300). Anzac no longer admits these 'counter-narratives'. Its polyvalency has been supplanted by simplistic and gopdst scripts which play only lil the grooves of the myth. With the death of Ted Matthetvs and hs colleag~ies it has also losr the only ones with any authority to subvert the new hegemony of its authority. Lest we forget Matthews' parting plea: "For God's sake, do not glorify Gdhpoli.,,l30

Published on the front page of the Austraka'an, the day after hlatthews' death: "Our last ;ir,zacys fial plea: for God's sake do not glorify Gallipoli" (ll th Dec. 1997). Official History of Australia in the War 1914-18

vol. title author year

I The stoy $Anqac: thejirstphuse C.E.W. Bean 1921 I1 The stoy ofAn~a':fwm 4 rMq, 1915 to the euautation C.E.W. Bean 1924 I11 TheA.I.F.inFmn~v:l916 C.E.W. Bean 1929 IV The A.I.F. in France: 19 17 C.E.W. Bean 1934 V The A.I. F. in France: December 19 17-1Mq 19 7 8 C.E.W. Bean 1937 V1 The A.I.F. in France: A4q 191&the urmi~~it*t' C.E.W. Bean 1942 V11 Sinai and Paiestine H.S. Gullett 1923 V111 The -~It/~-tra&Fbing C0p.r F.M. Cudack 1923 IX The RyaL At/straLiun Nay A.W. Jose 1928 X The Ar4straiian.c at Ruba~i S.S. Mackenzie 1927 XI Az~.rtrahduring the war Ernest Scott 1936

XII Photog~zrphi~.n~vrd qafthe ;par Bean & Gullet (eds) 1923 The stot~ stuy oJ':.l~yti~.

Enlistments and casualty figures in the Great War

NB. These figures are taken from the OfikialHistoly (\'I: 1098-9; XI: 874). Population figures are from the nearest census estimates. Casualty figires from the Great War can only ever be approximations. Stemma of extant texts of 'Epilogue9(E) variants

ID Autograph Title Description Paper & watennark

a.0 "Clriginal draft" Typescript Foolscap (8% x 13'/z0') No date Emendations in lead pencil, blue hlascot Extra Strong pencil Pc ink

a.1 "First typing" Typescript Foolscap (8% X 13%") Dated 15/11/19 31 pages XIascot Extra Strong

a.2 "Second typing" Typescript & spirit copy sheets Foolscap (8'/4 x 13'/4") "Revised C.E.1W.B. (incomplete) Rockdale Writing Made 26/3/20. Copy N0.3." Shown to Robertson in USA

p.1 "Final draft7' XIanuscript of neiv text, 52 sheets Large crown quarto Rr No date Typescript of opening E section Legal; Exercize books; from a.2 appended as conclusion Rockdale foolscap

P.2 "a.Galleys 1-29" Galley of P 7 galley sheets (8"x 30") Exact printed copy of Beta. cut and pasted into 12 Numerous emendations in pen. pages

y.1 "Chapter I" 1st edition of \'olurne I, 1921 8%" x 5'/2" p material uyitlith significant cuts (demy octavo) y .2 "The Old Force. . ." E: Epilogue to ~'olumeV!, 1942. 8%" x 5Yz" Essentially the a.2 text from 1920, (demy octavo) revised for 1942 Works by C.E.W. Bean

C.\V. [C.E.W. Bean] 'Australia. I - First impressions'. Sydng Morning Heruld, l st June 1907, p.7. 'Australia. I1 - The ,+ustralian city'. Jydny Morning Heruld, 8th June 1907, p.6. 'Australia. I11 - The opportunities of Sydney'. $dny ~UorttingHerald, 115th June 1907, p.6. 'Australia. IV - The Australian'. Qdney Ilfotxing Heruld, 22nd June 1907, p.6. 'Austraiia. Y - The romance of itY.Sydney Morning HeruLd, 29thJune 1907, p.7. 'Australia. V1 - The country problem. 'The real Australian'. Gdny Monaing I-Jerald, 6th July 1907, p.7. 'Australia. VdI - Tne Australian idezl'. Jjdnv Morning Herald, 13th July 1997, p.5. '~\ustr&a. VIII -As a land to settle in'. Xydny Motxing Herald, 20th Jul~;1907, p.5.

Bean, C.E.CV. (Charles Edwin CVoodrow). With the Fhgship in the Sod. Sydney: Nrilliam Brooks, 1909. On the Wool Truck. London: Alston Rivers, 1910 (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1969). 146 Drecdno:ght afthe Darling. London: Alston Rivers, 1911 (London: Hodder & Stougliton, 1916). F/agsh;Ps Three. London: Alston Rivers, 1913. (ed) The Anqal-Book. London: Cassell, 1916. (ed) The Oji~iulHistoty $Austrulia in the War of 17 14- 19 18. Sydney: Angus & Robertson, twelve volumes, 1921-42. -- 'The writing of the Austrsczan Official History of the Great War - sources, methods and some conclusions'. RjuLi4t/straliun Histotkzrl So~ie~,Journdl and Pmzeed- ing (1938) 34 (2): 85-112. 'Our war history'. Bulletin, 27th May 1942, 2. An;as to Amien~.Canberra: Australian \Var Memorial, 1946. -- Gallipoli Mission. Canberra: Ausvalian War Memorial, 1948. 'Dialy'. Unpublished. Held at the Australian War Memorial, Canberra: AWM 38, 3DRL 606. Reviews of the OfficialHistory

Anon. 'Australia in the war'. /Itg~.r, 5 th Nov. 1921. Anon. 'Epic of the digger'. Qdng ~kfotningI-Ieruld, 28th Oct. 1921. Anon. 'The story of Anazac'. Times Literup Sripplemet~t,15th Afar. 1932. Anon. 'A\nzac'. A'ew States~an,29th Apr. 1922. Hamilton, Ian. 'A nation's eight birthdays'. ilfuiichester Gllurdian, 20th Feb. 1922. Liddell Har~,B.H. 'Australians on the Sornme'. Dui' Te/gr?ph(London) 23rd July 1930. Nevinson, H.\V. 'Anzac'. The Katiooa d* the Athena!tim, 8th Apr. 1922.

Other Works

Azistrc~IiunArationuI Dictionary: ~4~c~~tru/iunword and their O~;;~XIJJ.Edited by W.S. Ramson. Melbourne: Oxfold University Press, 1988. Acton, J.E.E.D., Lord. Lecfzlre~.on Modem History. London: Macmillan, 1906 (edited by J.N. Figgis & R.V. 1,aurence). Xdams, Francis. The Az~stralinn~:London: Fisher Un\vin, 1893. Adm-Smith, Patsy. The ,4niu~'s. hlelbourne: Thornas Nelson, 1978 (K_lngwood: Peng- uin, 1991). Adorno, Theodor. 'Odjrsseus, or Mpthos and Enlightenment'. Tsans. Clement Good- son. In &Ias Horkheimer & Theodor Xdomo, Dialektik der,~irf/un:phiIos~pbi~~~he Frugmente. Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1947; 58-83. Alter, Robert. The AYZ'oJ_f'Bib/i~'aI Poety. Nexr~York: Basic Books, 1985. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined &bmmrdl:ities. London: Verso, 2nd edition, 1991. Andrews, Eric M. The Airqac. IIIusion: i4ng/o-14~strakiunrelations duting World War I. Oakleigh: Cambridge University Press. '25 April 1916: First Anzac Day in Australia and Britain'. Jourtial afthe ,4t~straliun IlGr MemoriaI (1 993) 13-20. Arnold, Matthew. Ctllt~mand ,4narc*. 1869. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.) Aslmead Bardett, Ellis. 'A~ustrahansat Dardanelles: Tiding Deeds of Heroism'. i/lqz~ 8th May, 1915. De~patcbesfiwnthe Dard?tzel/es. London: Newnes, 1915. The Uncensored Dardunekh London: Hutchinson, 1928. Aspinall-Oglander, Cecil. itlilita~ operation^^: GaIbpoli. Lundon: Heineman, two volumes, 1929 & 1932 (Part of the British O$il.irrl Histo91oj'the Great 1Var). Auerbach, Erich. iMime~.is:the rpmntrrtiotz of'reu/ip in W~J-ten1/P'teruftllrz. Trans. \Siillard R. Trask. Princeton: Princeton U~iversityPress, 1953 (iLIime~.is:Dutge~Yeilte iB7irk/hhkeit in der abendlandischen Ljterut//r.Berne: Francke, 1946). 'Epilegomena zu Mimesi~~'.Romanische l%r~~hlrttgen(1954) 65: 1-1 8. 7 Bakhtin, hlikhzil hlikliajlovich, 'Forms of time and of the chronotope in the novel'. Trails. hlichael Holquist & Caryl Emerson. In The Diu/ogi~~Ilinaginiufion, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981; 84-258. Rnbehis and h2 World. 'I'rans. HClkne Iswolksy. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Tecltnoiogy Press, 1968. Bal, Mieke. ilTamatology:intmdt/~'tion to the theoy $nun-ative. 2nd edition. Toronto, Buffalo & London: University of Toronto Press, 1995. Double E,upos~/res.New York & London: Routledge, 1996. Balakrishnan, Gopal. 'The national irnagnation'. New LRjt Review (1995) 21 1: 56-69. Barker, Anthony. 'Fighting words/Words at war'. WeekendAustrahan Magu~ine,20-21 Apr. 1996,4447. Barthes, Roland. Mi~-helet.Trans. Richard Hou~ard.New York: Farrar, St~aus& Giroux, 1987 (Mi~3heletparhi-idme. Paris: Seuil, 1954). 'Michekt, today'. In The bstIe of Langztuge. Trans. PAchard Howard. New York: Farrar, Straus 8i Giroux, 1986 (Le Bnti~semenfde h Lut'gtte. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1984). 'Myth today'. In Mythoologis. Trans. Annette Levers. London: Jonathon Cape, 1972 (New York: Noonday, 1988), ('Le mythe aujourd'hui'. M_ythologie,. Paris: Seuil, 1957). Bazley, X.W. "Writing the CtGcial History of World War I at Tuggeranong'. In P.A. Selth (ed), Canberrd Cb/lection. IGhore: Lowden, 1956; 233-48 (Reprinted from Stund-To, Feb.-Aug. 1959). Benjamin, Waiter. 'Theses on the pldosopliy of history'. Trans. Harry Zohn. In liIz/mina- fions. London: Fontana, 1992; 245-255 (S~-hnj?en.Frallkfurt-am-Main: Suhrkamp, 1955). Bhablia, Homi (ed). Nation and ~Nawation.London: Routledge, 1990. '3issemiNationy. In Nufion and Narration, 291-322. Blainey, Geoffrey. A Shorter HiJtoty ofAu~~fralia.Port Melbourne: LVilliam Heineman Australia, 1994. Bloom, Harold. The Ansiep of Influence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973. Bovi, Paul. Intelle~i~tahin Power a genealo~of ~riti~dhumanism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. Braudel, Fernand. La Miditerrane'e et le monde me'ditemnkn h i%)oque de Philippe II. Paris: Armand Colin, 1949, two volumes (Trans. Sian Reynolds, 2 vols, New York: Harper & Row, 1972,1974). Breman, 'ri~nothy. L'l'lle ilatiotlal longing for for111'. In Bhabha (ed), A~atiorzilndrYanzl- tioii, 44-70. Bridge, Carl, ed. A luilnitg Clirk: eJ:rays on iI~i~.pli~.ein hirtot): Carltozl: h"lelboua~eUniversity Tress, 1994. Calasso, Roberto. The A.lra7iuge afCt~d'ntu.saizd Hoti.zon_): Trans. Ti~nParks. New York: Krlopf, 1993 (Le No;;e a? Cadttio e ,~lm~oniu.Wan: +Adelpl.li,1988). Cantrell, Leon, (ed). IVtititg the 1890s: short stories, 0erJ.e ~~nd~JY~.I.. St I,~l.cia: University of Queensland Press, 1977. Carr, E.H. It7ht ir Histo?? London: Macmillan, 1961 (Wmnondsworth: T'enguul, 1987). Carrard, Phillippe. l'oeti~roj'tbe I'..'I'P' Hirtoy: Fntz~5biston2.u/ d~.~'oursefjm Brmdrl to Chartie?: Baltimore: Johns Iiopkins University Press, 1992. Carroll, John (ed). 1i:tntdem in the Btt.ieh:theAt~.r~ra/iat~ ywu,ijor identil;,. bfelbourne: Oxford University I'ress, 2nd edition, 1992. Cassirer, Ernst. Luttgtuge undl\@th. 'Trans. Susanile Langer. New York: Harper, 1946 (New York: Dover, 1953), (-!mhetind :\.fyt/7os. In fitdie11 der Bibhofhek FK~~rbzt/q,i'I). -AGth ofthe Stute. New I-Iavcil: Yale U~iversityI'ress, 1946. Certeau, Michel de. The i.Vni'i;/s cfi3ixtoy. 'fians. Tom Conley. New Yorl~:Coiumbia University Press, 1988 (L'i~~iti~rede ('l:/istoi?e. Paris: Gallirnard, 1975). Charlton, Peter. Ijo@?i~.~.:ANJ-truIiunj on the So~~me,1916. North Ryde: hlethuen Haynes, 1980. Churcldl, \Trinston. The It7or/d Ctisir, 19 11-18. London: Thornton & Butterworth, 1923, four volumes (Reprinted in nxro volun~es,London: Odhams, 1939). Cicero, Marcus Tullius. De nuturn deomm. (The nature of thegon'sj De /c:fZbzi~..(The Iu~PJ.) De inventione. (On I~wemtiotr) Clark, Manning. lfi~~for3;c?f'd4rd~.traii;l. Carlton: Melbourne University Press, six volumes, 1962-1987. Tbe .@e~-f jilr Grace. iXngvood: Penguin, 1990. - Spwking OM/ of'7'iirn. Carlton: Melbourne University Press, 1997. The ldcui ~/'-4iesisde Toq:gr/eville. (I-'osrhumously edited by Dymphna Clark, Darrid E-leadon &John \Villiams) Carlton: hfelbourne University Press, 2000 (1949). Clarke, Marcus. The Fz~tur-eAtlsirulzun J?m-e. Melboirrne: No publisher, 1877. Cochrane, Peter. Simpson and the Donkg. Carlton: hiielbourne Uilirrersity Press, 1992. Cole, Douglas. ' "'IIle crimson thread of kinsl.rip7':ethnic ideas in Australia, 1870-1914'. .Hi~-ton2.i/Sttldic~ (197 1) 14: 51 1-25. Collingwood, R.G. The Idea 0fHirt0~jOxford: Clarendoi~Press, 1936 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978). Coupe, Laurence. il,ljtI~.Lorldon: Routledge (New Critical Idiom series), 1997. Courtenay, 13ryce. Solomow 5 Soig. Ringwood: Viking (l'enguin), 1999. Crane, Gregory. The BLt;akd Eye: Thpdiaks and the new ul)itten word. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996. Cribben, John. The Making 4 fgn;acd Sydney: Fontana (Collins), 1985. Croce, Benedetto. Hisfog: its tbeoy andpractice. Trans. Douglas Ainslie. New York: Russell & Russel, 1960 (1920), (Teolja e storia del/a stonbgraja. Ban: Laterza, 1917). Damousi, Joy, & Marylin Lake (eds). Gender and IVav: Azisfrahn~.at war in the fwentietll centrl y. Oakleigh: Cambridge LT:liversity Press, 1995. Davidson, Frank Dalby. The WeIk ofBecrsheba. Sydney: lingus & Robertson, 1933. Davie, Michael. 'The beginning of doe: ts'. In -/lng.k+Atf~I~a/ian-4tthde.r. London: Secker & Warburg, 2000; 32-55. Davison, Graeme. 'Sydney and the Bush: an urban context for the Australian Legend'. In Carroll, lntmders in the Bmsh; 109-1 30. Deane, Sir \V&am. 'Address on the occasion of a tribute to Albert Edward ("Ted") Matthews. Sydney; Tuesday, 16th December 3 997'. Government Mouse, Canberra: Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General. Dening, Greg. Readings/ IF'riting~.. Carlton: Melbourne Ufiversity Press, 1998. Derrida, Jacques. 'Onto-theology of national-humanism'. 0,fop.d Litera9 Review (1993) 14: 3-24. The Gifi @Death. Trans. David Was. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995 ('Donner la mort'. In L'e'thiqzie ddr/ don, Jaqt/es Derrira et /a pense'e dlr don. Paris: Meta&k-Transition, 1992). Detienne, Marcel. The Cmtion of 2k4jthology. Trails. M. Cook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Devine, Frank. 'Let the warriors of the Icokda 'frack march again, on screen'. At~rt- raLun, l l th Aug. 1997, 11. Diuon, Robert. Writing the Colonial Adventare: mce, gender and nation in Anglo-Az4straIian pop~~/a~J;~fion,1875- 19 / 4. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Dronlce, Peter. Fab~ia.E-ydorations into the of myth in medietal Ratonism. Leiden & IGln: EJ. Brill, 1974. Eagleton, Terry. Literay Theoy: aun introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983. Eliade, Mircea. Mjth and Reali9. London: George Alien & Unwin, 1964. Ely, Richasd. The first Anzac Day: invented or discovered?' Jozmal of/3ttstralian StzidieJ. (1985) 17: 41-58. Encel, Sol. 'The study of militarism in Australia'. Ar~stralirJnand ilJew ZealandJotlrnal of Jo~ioIog;:(1967) 3: 2-18. Engdopadia Britannica. Ninth edition. Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1875-89 (reprinted 1898). Febvre, Lucien. Combatspour l'ffistoire. Paris: Armaild Colin, 1965. [ 276 1 The stay cfthe stay @>qn;a~.

Fewster, I

A,!e cf Extremes. The sbo& twentieth centup 1914-1989. London: hfichael Joseph, 1994. Howard, John. 'Speeches'. http://~~wv.pm.gov.au/media/pressrel/speech.~~tml. 'Tribute bp the Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard A/IP at the State Funeral for Mr Albert Edward red) Matthews. St Stephen's Uniting Church, Sydney; Tuesday, 16th December 1997'. Canberra: Press Office of the Prime Minister. Howard, hfichael. The Catlses oflll'ar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983. Houre, Adrian. 'i4nzac mythology and the feminist cl~allenge'. In Darn-ousi & Lake (eds), Gender and War, 302-310. (Originally published in Melbot/meJormal q-l'olitics (1 983-84) vol. 15.) Hutchinson, Garrie. AnAtlstraliatl O~J-sty:from Gi~ato Galhpoii. Sydney: Sceptre, 1997. Inglis, Ken. 'The Anzac tradition'. Aleayin (1965) 24: 2544. -- CE.It? B~an,Az4stralian Hi~'torian.St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1970. 'The iiustralians at Gailipoli - I & 11'. Histotrbzl Sttld'ies (1970) 14 219-30 8: 361-75.

-. 'A sacred place: the making of the Australian War Memorial'. War c9 Sociep (1985) 3: 99-126. -- Sacred Pkzces: war nremodals in the i.lustralian landr~zpe. Carlton: hliegunyah Press (Melbourne University Press), 1998. James, Paul. Aiation Fornation. London: Sage, 1996. James, Robert Rhodes. Galhpoiz. Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1965. Jewett, RoLert (9 John Shelton Lawrence. The --lmem'zn iMonomjth. New York: Doubleday, 1977. Icearney, Richard. 'Myths and scapegoats: the case of RenC Girard'. Theop, Cz~ltz~reand S6~2'eiJ(1995) 12: 1-14. Iceating, Paul. Adnun~ingAzrstralia: the ~peechesofl'aul Keatin& l'rime Minister. Sydney: Big Picture Publications, 1995. Keegan, John. The Fimt World War. London: Hutchinson, 1998. Kent, D.A. 'The iA2n~a;pcBook and the Anzac legend: C.E.\V. Bean as editor and image- maker'. HistoticulStudies (1985) 21: 376-390. Merr, Grcg. Lost #4rr~ac~:the sto~qf'two brothers. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1997. IGnglake, Alexander William. The Ini/asion ofthe Chimed. Edmburgll & London: Black- wood, eight volumcs, 1863-1887. Kirk, G.S. The Nat~reof Greek Mjths. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974. IGtley, Philip. 'Anzac Day ritual'. Journal flustraiian Studies (1 979) 4: 58-69. Laffin, John. Dumn the Darhnelles. Sydney: Doubelday; London: Osprey, 1980. Lake, Marilyn. 'Mission impossible: how men gave birth to the Australian nation - nationalism, gender and other seminal acts'. Gender &Histay (1992) 4: 305-322. Lang, Andrew. M&h, Ritual and Reh@on. London: Senate (Studio Editions), 1995 (reprint of London: Longmans, 1913 (1 886)). Lawrence, D.H. IGr3amo. Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1992 (corrected edition) (1933). Le Coff, Jacques. Histoty andMemo9. Trans. Steven Rendall & Elisabeth Claman. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. 'L7app&titde l'histoire7. In Piere Nora (ed) Essais d'Eyo-hi~~toire.Paris: Gallunard, 1987; 173-239. Leach, Edmund. Ctrllltlre and Commt~nication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. -Political Sytern~~OfH&hhnd Bum. London: Athlone, 1954. Lkvi-Strauss. Claude. 'The structural study of myth'. In Thomas Sebeok, Myth: a vrnposium. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1955; 81-106 (Reprinted by Midland, 1965). The Savage ~WndTranslator not stated. London: \Veidenfeld & Nicolson, l966 (1974) (hpcnsiesuuvage. Paris: Plon, 1962). Liddle, Peter. Men ofGalhpoii. London: Allen Lane, 1976. Lohrey, Amanda. 'Gallipoli male innocence as a marketable commodity'. Island (1982) 9/10: 29-34. Mache, Nilary. Talking Trojan: ~peechand commanig in the 'Ihad'. Lanham: Row-man & Littlefield, 1996. Martin, Rchard. The Language fHemes: speech andpet$omance In the 'Iliad: Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989. Masefield, John. Galhpoli. London: Heinemann, 1916. McCalrnan, Janet. 'Howard's Australian story'. Age, 17th Mar. 200 1, 7. McCarthy, Dudley. Galh)oli to the Somme, the stoy ofCE.W. Bean. Sydney: John Ferguson, 1983. McDonald, Roger. 1915. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1979. McQueen, Humphrey. Guif@olito Petrov. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, 1984. Mead, Philip. 'Death and home-work: the origins of narrative in The Fortunes fRichclrd i%lahoyY. Rt~straliunLiteray Studies (1 995) 17: 115-1 34. Megalogenis, George. 'Reality Check'. Weekend Azistrulia~,29-30 Apr. 2000,30. Millbank, John. 'Stories of sacrifice: from Wellhausen to Girard'. Theoly, Calttle and Socr'e5 (1995) 12: 15-46. Mornigliano, Xmaldo. 'Herodotus in the history of historiography'. In Studies in Histori- ogrzzpby. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1966; 127-142. The Herodotean and Thuqdidran tradition7. In The Chssi~zfFounahtions ofModern Hirtoriogrtply. Berkeiey & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990; 29-53. Moorehead, Alan. Gallipoli. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1956. The sto~of tiie stoy oj>dn;~~.

Moredike, John. 'The story of Anzac: a new approach'. Joutrrd $the _.-iti~trulianWur Memoriui (1990) 16: 5-17. Muller, Friedrich Max. 'Comparative Mythology'. In O~girdEs.rq. London: John Parker, 1856; 1-87. 'The philosopl~yof ~nythology'. In Jntmd~~tionto fhe Ssiencz ofReI2ion. London, Routledge, 1873. Le~fures~n the Science foflpge. Second series. New York Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1875. Miiller, Gunther. 'Erzahlzeit und erzahlre Zeit'. In Fests~h@?$ir l'a14I Nuckhorn und Herman Schneider xu ihrem 60 Geburtstaggewindet. Tub; gen: Mohr, 1948. Munz. Peter. 'tiistory and myth'. I'hilosophicalQunlzter~(1 956) 6: 1-1 6. IFhen the Golden Bozrgh breaks. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973. Murray, Les. Subhuman Rednesk Poems. Sydney: Duffy & Snellgrove, 1996. Nairn, Tom. The Break-up $Britan. London: New Left Books, 1977. N2polPon Buonaparee. Lettres hi'dites de Napoli'on I-er. Paris: Lkon Leces tre, n. d. Neiso,:, Hank. 'Gallipoli, ICokoda, and the making of national identity'. In Nile, The Atistraiian Legend and its D~Jcontents, 200-2 17. Nestle, LWhelm. T70m i~fthos~um Logos. Stuttgart: Alfred Kraner, 1940. Nile, Richard (ed). The Australian Legend and its Uiscontents. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press/API Network, 2000. North, John. Gallipoli, the Fading b7ision. London: Faber, 1936. Obeyesekere, Gannath. The ,4potheosis ofcaptain Cook: Eumpean mythmaking in the l'a~$s: Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Padres, Ilana. The biography of ancient Israel: imaginmg the birth of a nation'. Co~p~r- ative Literatitre (1 997) 49: 24-41. Page, Geoff (ed). Shadowsfrom Wire, Canberra: Australian LVar Memorial, 1983. Parkes, Henry. 'The Federal Government of Australasia, speeches delivered on various occasions, November 1889-May 1890'. Sydney, 1890. Plato. Pb~dacs. Transiated by Warold North Fowler, Loeb Classical Libiq, No.36. London: Heinemann, 1966. Raglan, Lord (Fitzroy Richard Somerset, 4th Baron Raglan). The Hem: a stub in tradition, myth and drama. New York: Vintage, 1956 (Reprinted iil Segal, in Qaest oftbe Hero; 89-175). Ranciire, Jacques. The Names $Hi,ito?. Trans. Wassan Melehy. Minneapolis: University of hhnnesota Press, 1994 (IJ Noms de I'Hisoi~[Mots de 1'Histoi~V].Paris: Seuil, 1992). Ranke, Leopold von. Histoy of the htin and Teutoni~.R~LVJ: 'Trans. E. Armstrong. London: 1909. Raymond, Ernes t. Tell Enghnd. a ~-tzd4into ageneration. London & New York: Cassell, 1922. Renan, Ernest. 'Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?' Lecture delivered at the Sorbonne, l l th March 1882. Translated by Martin Tllom. '%%at is a nation?' Reprinted in Bhabha, &Tation axd ~Vurration;8-22. Ricaeur, Paul. See Greirnas & ficaur. Riffaterre, Michel. Test l'mdtc~fion. Trans. 'Terese Lyons. New York: Columbia Univer- sity Press, 1983 (Luprodztcrian dtr te-~te.Paris: Seuil, 1979). Robson, L.L. The First A.LE A stztds, of its re~ntitment.Carlton: Melbourne University Press, 1970. 'The oripand character of the First A.I.F., 1914-2918: some statistical evidence'. Histok'u/ Studie~(1 973) 15: 737-747. 'C.E.K7. Bean: a review article'. Journal ofthe Au.straIian War A4emonzll(l984) 4: 54-7. Roderick, Colin (ed). Hen7 honLetter$ 1890-1922. Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1970. Roe, Michael. 'Comments on the digger tradition'. Meat+, (1965) 24: 357-5. -- 'C.E.W. Bean: progressive and nationalist'. 1~ekta.r(1980) 3: 1-9. Rowlands, hfichael. 'Memory, sacrifice and the nation'. New Formations (1997) 30: 8-17. Rowse, A.L. The End @an Epoch: r$/e~'tios on co.ontemoray histoy. London: Macinillan, 1947. Kutherford, Jennifer. 'Beiog for the nation: masculine sacrifice in hl_y Bmtber Jadk'. MenZkn (1998) 17: 109-124. %an, Peter. 'Manning Clark and the writing of listory'. In line^. ofFtre: ~WanningClurk other writings. Binalong: Clarion Editions, 1997; 177-234. Sackett, Lee. 'Marching into the past: Anzac Day celebrations in Adelaide. Jotimal of Attstradan Stltdies (1985) 17: 18-30. Said, Edward. Orientakism. London: Routledge & Icegan Paul, 1978. CII/~ZIR/red Imperialism. New York: Ihopf, 1993. Sebeok, Thornas X. (ed) a qmposium. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1955. (ed) The and Ritz(u/ Theov: an anthology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1998. Segal, Robert A. (ed) In Qziest ofthe Hem. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Serle, Geoffrey. 'The digger tradition and Australian nationalism'. Meanjin (1965) 24: 149-- 158. John iVlonash: a 6iograpl.y. Carlton: Melbourne Vniversity Press, 1982. Seymour, Alan. The One Day of the Year. Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1962. Shanahail, Dennis. 'Statesmanship forged on a fatal shore'. lYfeekendAustraliun,29-30 April, 2000; 30. Sharkep, hfichael. 'The last laugh'. Review of Bryce Courtenajr, Tommo & Hawk. ,4it~-tralianBook Review (1 998) 198: 34-5. Sheridan, Susan. ,illong the Fu~~///itte~:.J.~-Y, rcl~r and nation 2r1_4z~.rtr~iliai11~0~71en ? iim/ilg 1880s- 1930~.,Sydney: Men & Unwii~,1995. Slessor, I

Wallace-Crabbe, Chris & Peter Pierce (eds). Clubbing ofthp GmJire. Carlton: Me'bI ourne University Press, 1954. Warner, CV. Lloyd. The Lving and thz Dead. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. CVeber, Mas. Economy and So~iezj:au outline $ink$dve so~iolog~~.Trans. Ephraim Fischoff et al. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1978 (Wir-t~~~fiafrtlnd Geselh~~h~f?::%indn>s der ver~~tzhendenSoyiologie. Tubingen: Mohr, 1956). Wieland, James. ''The romancing of Anzac'. Ovcr'lilnd (1986) 105: 11-12. \%Jte, Hayden. MetalliJor3;: the hi.ctori~.alimagination in nineteenth-et Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Llniversity Press, 1973. The Content ofthe Form. Baltimore: Jchns I-Iopkins University Press, 1987. White, Richard. Inventing_~3ustralia:images and identip 1688-1980. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, 1982. CVilliams, Gwyn. 'When was \Vales?' In The fVe/s/?and their Histoy. London 8: Canberra: 1983. CVilliarns, John F. The Qmrantined Ct~lttire:Attstralian re~i.tionsto modemism 1913- 1939. Oakleigh: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 14KeiCs, the Media a/td the Great War. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 1999. \Viliiiams, Raymond. The Lmg Revolution. London: Chatto & CVindus, 1961. The Co~ntlyand the Cio. Lc don: Chatto & Windus, W73 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975). Mumism and Litevat~re. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. Kgwordc. London: Fontana/Croom Heh, 1976. Krinter, Denis. 'The -4n;ac Book: a re-appraisal'. Jownal ?fthe tlzt.stralian War Memo&/ (1990) 16: 58-61. (ed). 2Wukin~the Lgend, the war writings 6 C.E. W< Bean. St Lueia: University of Queensland Press, 1992. 25,4pril 1915. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1994.