‘What better advertisement could Australia have?’ Encyclopaedias and nation-building

Abstract

In the early twentieth century, Australians committed to nation-building had to be inventive. With neither a foundation myth nor a unique defining history to resort to, other cultural products were created to succour Australia's postcolonial development. Whereas one such cultural product, the Sydney Bulletin, has been examined in Australian historiography, the role of encyclopaedias has been neglected. It is argued here that the Australian Encyclopaedia (1925–26) plumped the cheeks of the nation; and that encyclopaedias, despite their claims to objectivity, are surprisingly effective in the communication of political ideas.

Keywords:

• Australia
• nation
• encyclopaedia
• identity
• convict
• cultural history

Notes

1. These claims and characteristics may be implied in an encyclopaedia or made explicit by the producers.

2. Historians of Australia disagree on the extent ‘Australianness’ could have co-existed with ‘Britishness’. Neville Meaney's (2001, esp. pp. 78–9) argument that ‘Britishness’ left no space for a distinct Australian myth has been challenged by Jane Connors (2001) and John Rickard (2001). This article delivers evidence that, in the 1920s, ‘Britishness’ indeed was supplemented by ‘Australianness’.

3. According to the Official Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia of 1925, in 1921, 5,387,205 people living in Australia were of British origin (compared to the total of 5,435,735, excluding ‘full-blood Aboriginals’) (Wickens, 1925, pp. 894, 921).

4. The War Memorial at the National Archives of Australia holds two slightly different versions of a taxonomy over scientific topics, and a taxonomy dealing with ‘Social and Economic Science’. The correspondence on the production of the Australian Encyclopaedia suggests that the science editor Herbert James Carter was the author of these taxonomies, which were understood as a work in progress

5. In the other version of the taxonomy of scientific subjects, ‘Museums’ is missing (NAA: AWM 39, folder 3). However, the actual result in the AE confirms the taxonomy quoted above since the encyclopaedia does contain an article ‘Museum’.

6. For the categories of the Kingdom Animalia, see Solomon (2002, 11, Appendix C, A-8-9). Animals (Kingdom Animalia) are divided into categories, starting with the so-called ‘Phylum’. Phyla are then divided into Subphyla. From there the order is Class, Order, Family and Genus (with specific epithet).

7. For the Australian Lungfish and its place in the Australian imagination, see also Robin (2007, pp. 38–55).

8. In addition, Robertson sent complimentary copies to authors of the encyclopaedia.

9. The Federal Capital Commission was in charge of the construction of Canberra and of the administration of the Capital Territory.

10. See, e.g., A. (1946, 1948); Australian War Memorial (1946, p. 136); Baker (1945, pp. 47, 66); Bryant (1925) (Bryant wrote in the preface (no page number indicated) to his book that he was indebted to ‘Messrs Angus & Robertson for making available the material they have collected for their forthcoming Encyclopaedia of Australia, a monumental work of quite national importance’.); Dare (1939, p. 7); Dow (1938, p. 158); Fuller (1942, p. 5); Gerloff & Meisel (1928, p. 465); Gibbings (1937, p. 135); Grattan (1947, pp. 421, 424); H. (1935); Joyce (1942, p. 181); Knaplund (1941, p. 822); La Nauze (1949, p. 23); Latourette (1943, p. 132); Mackaness (1931, p. 364); Reed (1943, p. 301); Rose et al. (1933, pp. 608, 619, 621); Turnbull (1948, p. 235); Zierer (1940a; 1940b; 1951, p. 117).

11. This development confirms the thesis that the production and collection of knowledge blossoms in times of structural changes (Michel & Herren, 2007, pp. 20, 50).