Simpson and the Donkey: A Conservative Hero for a Conservative Nation? World War I is remembered clearly in Australia because of the profound private and public grief it caused, the new sense of national consciousness that emerged, and most significantly, for the legend of Anzac it created. A major aspect of this legend is Simpson and the donkey, the 'most Anzac of Anzacs'. As with most heroes, there are a number of different histories, written by a number of historians about the legendary man. In this essay, I will attempt to analyse the histories of Simpson and the donkey, explaining the differences among historians. By examining the interpretations of C. E. W Bean, Sir Irving Benson, Patsy Adam-Smith and Peter Cochrane, a clear understanding of the different histories can be established. However, it remains that although there are different histories, the legend was, is and will be significant to the Australian people, for it is a legend of Australian identity itself. To analyse the histories of Simpson and the donkey, it is first necessary to understand from where the legend originates. After training in Egypt, the Anzacs were given the task of opening the Dardanelles straits to Allied shipping, by capturing the north shore of the Gallipoli Peninsula. On Sunday 25 April 1915, the Anzacs landed at what is now named Anzac Cove, one kilometer further north than intended. The Turkish enemy was ready. C. E. W. Bean, the official Australian war correspondent, and Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett, who represented the British press, watched the landing. Their subsequent reports of this and later months of the Gallipoli campaign sowed the seeds of the Anzac legend. The Australians...rose to the occasion. Not waiting for orders, or for the boats to reach the beach, they sprang into the sea, forming a sort of rough line, rushed at the enemy trenches...The courage displayed...will never be forgotten...I have never seen anything like these wounded Australians in war before...They were happy because they knew that they had been tried for the first time and had not been found wanting...There has been no finer feat in this war than this sudden landing in the dark and the storming of the heights.1 So began the Anzac legend. According to Bean, the Australians were brave, tough fighters; egalitarian bushmen, but also larrikins. The Australian Imperial Force (AIF) troops were notorious for refusal to salute, were undisciplined, and as Bean believed, conditioned by their social background. 'Bean constructed a version of the Australian's experience of war in terms of certain preconceptions about individual and national character'2, and by June of 1916, had established Private John Simpson Kirkpatrick as a powerful figure, an embodiment of the Anzac legend itself. Therefore, if one man is responsible for the legend of Simpson and the donkey, it is Bean. He made a special effort in his dispatches to convey the extremely dangerous nature of the stretcher-bearers' work, and thus of Simpson's. His dispatch of 12 June began with what would become a well-known story. Private Simpson...was seized with the idea that one of these [donkeys] might be useful for moving men wounded in the leg. On the night of April 25th, he annexed a donkey, and each day, and half of every night, he worked continuously between the head of Monash Valley and the Beach, his donkey carrying a brassard around its forehead and a wounded man on his back.3 Further lines invoked the part of the legend that claims on Simpson's death the word had spread far and wide, for 'everybody knew the "man with the donkeys"'4. Consequently, Simpson was the most popular component of the Anzac legend; he was a symbol for those in war who sacrificed themselves for others. His story was published in newspapers around the world, and immediately became a topic for school study. Simpson became a martyr of Anzac, with close association with biblical imagery of Jesus and the donkey on Palm Sunday. He became a hero who faced Turkish fire without a gun, and led a 'charmed life' through the dangerous Shrapnel Gully rescuing wounded soldiers, all the while whistling a merry tune; a true hero for an emerging nation. Sir Irving Benson's history of Simpson and the donkey is not all that different form Bean's; rather it is an extension of the original legend. Nevertheless, his history has been one of the most significant in perpetrating the dominant history of one man's devotion to his mother, family and empire. Using the letters Simpson's sister Annie gave him, Benson constructs a history where 'the Mother who shone for him like the evening star was an ingredient in the patriotic motive that moved him to enlist...5' and he was 'the glowing symbol of the courage and service of the stretcher-bearers.6' There is not a harsh word said of Simpson, but always he is the hero of everyone in Gallipoli, and although worthy of a Victoria Cross, never received one simply because the prerequisite for a VC was one exemplary act of courage, not many. 'Fearless for himself, he was always considerate for his donkey'7, 'always cheerful and never tired'8, and 'how many lives he saved only the angels know - some say scores, some hundreds'9 are just a few examples of how Simpson is portrayed as an almost angelic, Christian saviour in dangerous Gallipoli. All the letters included in the book also substantiate this claim. Therefore, Benson's history of Simpson expands on Bean's ideals of the true Anzac, and so popular is his belief that it becomes deeply significant to the Australian people in terms of national identity. A more contemporary historian, Patsy Adam-Smith also cites Simpson's letters to his mother. Her book The Anzacs devotes a chapter to Simpson, and in it she states that he was 'a man as redolent as a gum tree, as Australian as a kangaroo, a real colonial spirit'10, in line with Bean and Benson's dominant legend. However, she also suggests that there is more to Simpson than as the martyr of Gallipoli. 'There had to be a hero. The people demanded one,'11 she writes, and ...the famous painting of John Simpson Kirkpatrick is that man, the traditional hero of the public mind. That 'Simpson' was all the things we believed made up a 'dinky-di' digger was ignored, and school children...were taught to revere him as a 'hero' in that fictional mould. That perhaps is one of the great tragedies of that was of tragedies, for 'Jack Simpson' was a real man...12 Adam-Smith's history, therefore, on one hand promotes the dominant legend of Simpson the hero and on the other hints that there is a 'tragedy' behind the dominant discourse. It is perhaps a pity that her book was published only a year before Peter Cochrane's most famous work, Simpson and the Donkey, a book that portrays a very different history of Simpson. Peter Cochrane's history of Simpson and the donkey is very different to Bean, Benson and Adam-Smith's. Although he does not dispute that Simpson's acts were indeed brave and heroic, he analyses the previous histories in terms of the legend's popular appeal and political significance. As such, I find his interpretation the best way of analysing the dominant histories of Simpson and the donkey. The two strongest arguments of Cochrane against the dominant discourse is that of censorship and political motive. Although Bean was a strong censor, so that his ideal of the Anzac was upheld, Cochrane suggests Benson's interpretation is the greater evil. Indeed, in the first paragraph of his article Writing for the Cold War, Cochrane states 'Benson was a ruthless censor with a preference for a moral tale of his own making, rather than a historical one.'13 Although the letters Simpson sent to his mother are primary evidence of the type of man he was, Benson cut out parts detailing Simpson's political advocation and hatred of English aristocracy. The uncut letters reveal a Simpson who was fiery and compassionate about political and industrial affairs, who was pained by the injustice of the class system he had left behind in England, and who wanted things to change.14 Furthermore, subsequent accounts of Simpson's diaries, such as Adam-Smith's, conformed to the conservative limits set by Benson, 'as though a hypnotic spell had been at work.'15 However, not only Simpson's diaries are used in historic work about him. The diaries of soldiers at Gallipoli are often used by historians to accredit the story of Simpson and the donkey. Adam-Smith's history is exemplary of this. Here and there, a snippet of information about Simpson is found in diaries of veterans, claiming a sighting or even being rescued by the legendary man. Cochrane criticises the use of these diaries, owing to their problematic nature. He argues that 'the diarist is under no obligation to place his entries in context, to say whether they are his observations or those of someone else, or to be true to the calendar.'16 A classic example of this is Ion Idriess' testimony. In his diary, the entry on 22 May states that 'the infantry are quite cut up - not over their terrible losses, but because of one man, Simpson Kirkpatrick I think his name is'.17 However, in the original, there is no mention of Simpson at all. Idriess is not the only example, and it was not perhaps intentional of him to mislead historians. Rather, the soldiers of Gallipoli lived through the legend of Simpson, known to them by the newspaper clippings sent from loved ones at home. 'A soldier's experience of Gallipoli could be largely the experience of his own unit and its localities'18 and so the ultimate conclusion is that he was a legend in his own time to a select few. Thus, the significance of Simpson lay not in him being a Gallipoli hero, but as a hero of civilian legend, and a product of censorship. A hero of civilian legend and product of censorship is sure to have consequences. Thus is the other major argument of Cochrane. Bean, Benson and Adam-Smith were not censors because they felt the need to 'uphold' a legend, but rather because of political motivation. The legend was launched in 1915 on the need for military manpower; in the 1930s it was mobilised against pacifists and an increasingly jaundiced memory of the war; in the cold war period it re-emerged as a model of single-minded commitment to the Christian (anti Communist) heritage...19 Bean's censorship served the purpose of the conscription debate for the 'yes' faction. Men like Simpson were needed, men who would defend the Empire to 'the last man, and the last shilling'. In the 1930s, the same symbolism was used, and again, most significantly, in the 1960's. Benson wrote his history just as conscription was introduced for the Vietnam War, a time when the Communist threat was very real for Australians. 'Benson believed Australia needed Christian heroes to inspire the fight against Communism.'20 The censorship, therefore, served a purpose. His history of Simpson was not one of a political left-wing radical, but a patriotic man fighting against the evils of non-democracy. Likewise, Adam-Smith wrote nothing of Simpson's politics although her primary sources were his letters, so full of radical political suggestions. Thus, Cochrane's history is very different to Bean, Benson and Adam-Smith's. He critically analyses the dominant legend of Simpson, and presents a history of a man with strong political convictions who demonstrated bravery in his work, and became representative of all those who died in Australia's 'baptism of fire' in 1915 to 1916. So then, why is the legend of Simpson and the donkey significant to the Australian people? Just recently, we witnessed the advent of Anzac day and although the first and second world wars, Vietnam and Cold War are long finished, we celebrate the tale of a man and his donkey. When non-history students are asked of the first thing that appears in their mind when the word 'Anzac Day' is mentioned, they provide a variety of answers. These include, 'that guy with the donkey,' 'Mel Gibson,' 'Anzac biscuits,' and 'World War I'. The Anzac memory is still strong in Australian society, and although it may not have the same connotations as in Bean or even Benson's time, its significance lay in the memories of culture. The Anzac legend is something we pride ourselves upon, and although the representation of Simpson as a true Anzac hero is problematic, he is still a figure of respect, admiration and a symbol of national identity. Therefore, the legend of Simpson and the donkey is the product of many different histories. They form a crucible of fact and myth, a rich narrative of deeds and trials. Bean initiated the legend in all its glory of heroism, Benson expanded it to an almost larger-than-life tale of patriotism and self-sacrifice, and Adam-Smith further substantiated the dominant legend, although with a touch of criticism. However, it was Peter Cochrane who provides the most analytical representation of Simpson and the donkey, a very different history to those that have gone before. Each history has its faults and merits, and each its own significance. However, Australians cannot change the reality of which the Anzacs went to battle, nor is it possible to disregard the veracity with which Australian society has held on to the Anzac legend. There in lies Simpson and the donkey's significance; it is a legend of Australian identity itself, and shall forevermore construct how we see ourselves, and the world. Different Histories S181 Penny Coutas 200579K Topic 8: Analyse the histories of Simpson and the donkey, explaining the differences among historians. FBibliography Adam-Smith, Patsy. The Anzacs. Melbourne: Penguin Books, 1991. Bean, C.E.W. Official History of Australia in the War of 1914-18, vol. 1. Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1921. Benson, Sir Irving. The Man with the Donkey: John Simpson Kirkpatrick, the Good Samaritan of Gallipoli. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965. Cochrane, Peter. Simpson and the Donkey: the making of a Legend. Carlton: Melbourne University Press, 1992. Cochrane, Peter. 'Writing for the Cold War; The Man with the Donkey, the Making of a Legend'. Overland, no. 128 (1992): 22-27. Kerr, Lynne and Ken Webb. Australia and the World in the Twentieth Century. Sydney: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1995. Thomson, Alistair. '"Steadfast Until Death"? C.E.W Bean and the Representation of Australian Military Manhood'. Australian Historical Studies, no. 23. (Oct 1989): 462-478. Tyquin, Michael. Gallipoli: The Medical War. The Australian Army Medical Services in the Dardanelles Campaign of 1915. Sydney: New South Wales University Press, 1993. Walsh, G.P. 'Kirkpatrick, John Simpson (189201995), soldier'. Australian Dictionary of Biography, vol. 9, 612-613. Carlton: Melbourne University Press, 1983. 1 Lynne Kerr and Ken Webb, Australia and the World in the Twentieth Century (Sydney: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1995), 5. 2 Alistair Thomson, '"Steadfast Until Death"? C.E.W Bean and the Representation of Australian Military Manhood', in Australian Historical Studies, 23 (93) (October 1989): 462. 3 C.E.W. Bean, Official History of Australia in the War of 1914-1918, vol.1. The Story of Anzac, Ch.XXIV 'Anzac Beach' (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1921), 554. 4 Peter Cochrane, Simpson and the Donkey: the Making of a Legend (Carlton: Melbourne University Press, 1992), 50. 5 Sir Irving Benson, The Man With the Donkey: John Simpson Kirkpatrick, the Good Samaritan of Gallipoli (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965), 16. 6 Benson, 40. 7 Benson, 40. 8 Benson, 42. 9 Benson, 47. 10 Patsy Adam-Smith, The Anzacs (Victoria: Penguin Books, 1991), 157. 11 Adam-Smith, 157. 12 Adam-Smith, 157-158. 13 Cochrane, Writing for the Cold War, 22. 14 Cochrane, Writing for the Cold War, 22-23. 15 Cochrane, Writing for the Cold War, 26. 16 Cochrane, Simpson and the Donkey: The Making of a Legend, 41. 17 Cochrane, Simpson and the Donkey: The Making of a Legend, 46. 18 Cochrane, Simpson and the Donkey: The Making of a Legend, 44. 19 Cochrane, Simpson and the Donkey: The Making of a Legend, 9. 20 Cochrane, Writing for the Cold War, 27. 9