Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Hope Australia
Unlike the poem entitled Terra Australia, which deals with Australia as an 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 tendecies 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).
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.
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
the 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
destruction, 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.
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.
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 acrually 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.
'We are as strangers here now, but the white tribe are the strangers.
The statement that summarizes their history: we are as strangers here now but they used
to be natives of this landscape and it used to be familiar to them. Remember when we talk
about two aspects of Australia, one that is desolation, and the other that is hope, these two
aspects refer to the white settlers. For the Aborigines there is the third aspect and that is
that Australia is simply their home, there is nothing too strange nor too exotic, it is simply
the place where they live, the place to which they actually belong. They have this radical
idea that they cannot own the land, the land owns them. We are AS strangers the
implication is that they are not really strangers, they are turned into strangers by the white
people, but they still belong to the land.