Biofiction and History: A Comparative Reading of the Lives of Captain Cook, Sultan Selim III, and Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha

Abstract

Biofiction is a hybrid literary genre that appropriates historical lives and molds them into the subject of fiction; it uses historical characters rather than representing them. This literary genre, which has stimulated a vast array of reactions over the past few decades, is not a branch of history or biography. Anna Enquist’s 2005 novel The Homecoming is a successful example of biofiction that revolves around the illustrious life of Thomas Cook but tells the story from the perspective of his wife Elizabeth Cook. Through the reconstructed voices of these historical figures, the reader is offered alternative perspectives into their lives as well as into the British Empire in the eighteenth century. Stanford Shaw’s critically acclaimed Between Old and New (1971), on the other hand, is a history book that aims to offer a factual representation of the eighteenth-century Ottoman Empire, particularly the reign of Sultan Selim III. This chapter aims to examine the interesting parallels and differences in the lives of these historical figures as depicted in a work of biofiction and a history book and show how differences in genre implicate the portrayal of historical figures.

1. Introduction

Although homecoming has traditionally been associated with happiness and contentment, this is not always the case. Anna Enquist’s internationally bestselling biofiction, The Homecoming (2005), examines the unhappy life of Elizabeth Cook, the wife of the famous eighteenth-century explorer Captain Cook. Elizabeth suffers the terrible losses of her six children and is forced to deal with life’s problems on her own, while she finally realizes that the sea represents “home” for her husband who can only find happiness and contentment away from land. In the case of Captain Cook, one can surmise that he experiences homesickness not when he is away from home, but when he is away from the sea, which represents the true home-environment he belongs to. In the Ottoman Empire, Captain Cook’s contemporary Sultan Selim III ordered his chief naval captain, Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha, to travel to faraway places and record the latest naval developments. Under the leadership of Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha, the Mediterranean was cleansed of pirates and alongside the English, a successful expedition was conducted against Napoleon that forced him to abandon Egypt. Similar to Captain Cook who aimed to establish an orderly and strong crew, the Ottoman Emperor Selim III aimed to establish a new army independent of the Janissaries who were causing a great deal of unrest and trouble.

Both Captain Cook and Selim III were killed by the people who opposed their beliefs and ideals. The Homecoming is a biofiction, whereas Stanford Shaw’s Between Old and New is a history book. This chapter aims to examine the interesting parallels in the lives of Captain Cook, Selim III, and Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha as depicted in The Homecoming and Between Old and New. Drawing on these two books, this chapter will examine how the fascinating lives of these two important figures of the eighteenth century are represented in two different genres: history and biofiction. As methodology, contemporary and previous literature will be examined. I will first explain the genre of biofiction and examine a number of representative examples. Then, I will present an examination of The Homecoming as an example of biofiction and of the depiction of Sultan Selim III and Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha in the history book Between Old and New. Finally, I will conclude with a comparison of these historical figures and discuss how the genre employed implicates the portrayal of these extraordinary men.

The subject of individual lives, especially the lives of historically significant figures, has always attracted the attention of readers. Carlyle, for instance, recommended the study of biography as a gateway to history, although he considered the life of every individual unfathomable ([1], p. 149). In his words: “History is the essence of innumerable biographies. But if one biography, nay, our own biography, study and recapitulate it as much as we may, remains in so many points unintelligible to us, how much more must these million, the very fact of which, to say nothing of the purport of them, we know not, and cannot know” (p. 149).

In its inception, “Biofiction was a response against and a counter to the determinism and even fatalism on which historical fiction is premised” ([1], p. 12). Oscar Wilde and Lytton Stratchey adopted this form because in his “The Portrait of MR. W. H,” Wilde fictionalized a real person in order to create a new way of thinking and being for his age (p. 12). In this sense, the main questions that come up with this genre are: How far can the writer stretch the fictionalization of a historical figure? How and to what extent can the writer stay true toward personality while moving through the different degrees of fictionalization? As Middekke further suggests, “Biofiction does not accurately represent either the biographical subject or the historical past. Rather the author of biofiction fictionalized a historical person’s life in order to project into existence his or her own vision of life and the world” (p. 13). Biofiction came into being as a reaction to the determinism of the historical novel. Agency is of crucial importance in this genre. In biofiction, the writer offers his own vision of life.

Scott believed that in her biographical novel about Schiele, that art is a medium that should inspire an active form of critical perception. Middeke observes: “Through its account of the life of others, it shows us how to live. The popularity of the biography exists in direct proportion to our need to feel that life, in a world of disharmony, dishonor and strife, must have value” ([2], pp. 134–136). As Linda Hutcheon suggests, “Contemporary biofictions deconstruct Romantic originality, a last trace of which cannot be set aside. These works question the past but they do not reject it entirely. There is no question that the past existed: the question is how to gain knowledge of the past and make it valuable for the present” ([3], p. 93).

A brief review of previous works of biofiction may provide more insights into what biofiction authors intend to accomplish:

Peter Ackroyd’s Chatterton (1988) is a book in which the writer problematizes life writing. Ackroyd uses a lot of intertextuality in his book. Nünning argues that “Ackroyd’s novel can be seen as a typical example of a new generic variant of the fictional biography that might be designated “fictional metabiography in that it is a novel concerned with the recording of history and the problems of biography” ([1], p. 29). Like many other fictional biographies, Chatterton is a multilayered and multiperspective novel that is set in three different centuries and narrated in different voices.

Another representative example is Judith Chernaik’s rendering of Shelley’s circle in Mab’s Daughters: Shelley’s Wives and Lovers: Their Own Story. The novel deals with the historical, autobiographical, and feminist issues in Shelley’s time. The writer constructs and deconstructs the major events in Shelley’s life by reflecting the perspectives of the four women involved: Harriet, Mary, Mary’s stepsister Clare, and her half-sister Fanny. The stories of these four women are well documented in their letters and journals.

Chernaik’s novel likewise raised the expectation in readers to find out the truth behind the stories: How did these women respond to the problems of illegitimacy, betrayal, and suicide in the eighteenth century? How did they truly feel about these events? Were they jealous, depressed, or suicidal? The readers were interested in finding out about these issues from the women’s point of view. Neumeier states that “Chernaik is more interested in this novel in investigating how the intricate relations of life and death are linked within the Shelley circle to the gender relations” ([1], p. 109).

Annegret Maack has analyzed Byron’s and Polidori’s Memoirs. Paul West’s Lord Byron’s Daughter and Robert Nye’s The Memoirs of Lord Byron are examined as the leading figures of the Romantic movement. In Paul West’s biofiction, Polidori defines himself as Byron’s Doctor in his memoirs. He always tries to imitate Byron; the way he dresses, his sexual mores, and, after an accident, he even adopts Byron’s limp. Polidori refers to Byron as “the famous rake in England” ([1], p. 141). Maack uses a very different style in her biofiction by transcending both time and place. Polidori, like a ghost present in events he could not have known, brings a different tone to this biofiction. He even reports of Claire’s death saying: “I saw her long after we were all dust, an old lady with curls” ([1], p. 143).

These examples of biofiction illustrate how this fascinating genre can provide a very intellectually stimulating and emotionally engaged reading experience for the reader. As Russell Banks, the writer of the biographical novel titled Cloudsplitter, suggests: “I’m using history in order to tell a story.” Thus, what he as a novelist presents to readers “is different from the character invented by the biographer or historian.” Banks specifies that the “novelist is trying to present, in a sense I suppose, a higher truth, a truth of what it is to be a human being” ([4], p. 2). From this perspective, in offering a fictional retelling of historical events and figures, writers of biofiction do not claim to offer the factual truth but rather a series of insights into varieties of the human condition.

2. Homecoming and its discontents

In light of these preliminary observations, The Homecoming fuses biography with fiction to offer a retelling of the famous Captain James Cook’s life through the eyes of his wife. Similar to some of the examples of biofiction cited above, the novel places the perspective of the female character in the center and retells events through her reconstructed voice. Elizabeth Cook’s story is the story of a young wife with children who was forced to lead a solitary life because her husband was away most of the time traveling around the globe. In the absence of her adventure-seeking husband, Elizabeth was left to her own devices to cope with life’s hardships. Sometimes, a small amount of money would arrive from the Admiralty in her name. It wasn’t charity, or a tip, it was the money given to the wife of a man who was exploring the world.

Elizabeth thinks that when her husband returns in fall, it will be 12 years since they had been married and yet they had not spent an entire year under the same roof. Elizabeth reflects on his return and considers the things that had to be done: the clothes to be mended, things to be discarded, seeds to be planted in the garden, and preserves to be prepared. She reminiscences about the time when they met; she was working at her uncle’s shop that sold ship’s supplies. James Cook, 14 years her senior, had come to buy supplies from there. They immediately got on very well. Soon, his plans became their plans. Together, they had furnished their house like a ship; everything in its place. When he left, she was already pregnant. Children came one after another and along with children the deaths… Elizabeth was always alone in dealing with the disasters and life’s many other challenges. She did not want her husband to go on the difficult voyages but she could not stop him. She remained acutely aware of the fact that this was his calling.

Captain James Cook took his calling very seriously. He worked for long hours, making calculations, writing on the margins, sometimes cursing and closing the books, and other times slamming the books in triumph. Elizabeth always listened to the stories of his travels, the unexplored coasts, the riots on the ships, the hurricanes, and various other dangers he was faced with… The couple decide to visit James’s father after his first voyage around the world. The trip turns out to be a horrible experience for Elizabeth who is not welcome in the cold, stuffy house of James’s sister, Margaret. James’s father and sister continuously stare at her without talking. Elizabeth misses her children terribly and wants to return home. Meanwhile, James visits John Walker who had taught him how to build a ship and is very happy. He wants Elizabeth to go to Whitby with him to pay him a visit but Elizabeth refuses. Although Elizabeth usually accepts James’ wishes, she feels that this time it is too much for her. She is adamant and James observes: “Not everyone can endure Yorkshire” ([5], p. 17).

By the time James leaves for his second voyage around the world, Elizabeth is pregnant again. She takes the boys to watch their father’s ship sail. James had suggested she “keep a home logbook.” This way when he returned, he would know in detail what had happened during his absence. Elizabeth writes a belated birthday message to her husband when he turns 44. It certainly is not a happy letter. Their newborn son Georgie had died of a sudden fever; all the bloodletting and oils did not help and he died on the first of October. Even after a month, Elizabeth could still not leave her home. She somehow felt that as long as James did not know about this death, it could not be true.

Elizabeth has a close friend, Francis, who is married and lives in America and who writes letters giving her courage. Hugh Palliser, another captain, arrives in their home and Elizabeth leans on his hairy arm with his sleeve drawn up, and he smooths her hair giving her comfort. She needs the warmth… She thinks that soon her son Jamie would be leaving for the Naval Academy. Hugh Palliser tells him of men who eat human beings. The child is upset. He asks why his father does not destroy them. Hugh Palliser answers that they are a different race and their customs and beliefs are different. James was simply trying to understand them, not change them.

Her husband was soon to come back home and Elizabeth was determined to be a tower of strength for his return. She thought about her husband. She had never been able to understand his love of the sea. She thought of the enormity of the vast oceans and also remembered that he did not know how to swim. She could not understand this. If one loved the water then, one should want to be free and familiar in it. But that was the way her husband felt. Meanwhile, she had given birth to a girl, Ellie, in her husband’s absence. She was always full of joy, had never been ill a day. Elizabeth blamed herself for her death. She was washing sheets with her friend Francis. Her mind was elsewhere and suddenly she hears the hooves of a horse and the shouting. Ellie was lying motionless on the pavement; her wooden horse was standing intact as if nothing had happened. Elizabeth had forgotten to lock the door opening into the garden. She recounts all of this to her husband and he cries silently. In turn, her husband tells her of their expedition to Batavia and how he had allowed his men to go ashore. It was a wrong decision. He had lost 30 men there. Getting stuck in the reef was his fault, he adds. He should have protected his men better.

“I’ve been summoned by the king” James tells his wife, “and you will accompany me.” She is excited for him. Elizabeth notices that her husband is relaxed and sure of himself when he meets the members of the high admiralty, and the King. Before, he used to be shy with strangers because of his lowly upbringing but not anymore. He now appears to be perfectly at ease in the company of these highborn individuals.

What has made him change so much?

When they are having dinner, Elizabeth wonders how she had gotten used to the loss of her two boys: They had simply vanished. But Ellie was still with her, beside her, growing. It was strange… very strange. That was how she felt. Elizabeth was also hoping that James would not sail again. He could become an advisor to the Admiralty. He could advise other men’s voyages of discovery. James is offered to be a commander officer at the Royal Hospital for Seamen in Greenwich. He asks her whether they should go and live in Greenwich and she wants to shout “yes, yes” but does not say anything.

However, James is not pleased with the developments. An idle job, away from the sea is not for him. The couple plan a Christmas dinner and Elizabeth is overjoyed to have her husband beside her that Christmas. The goose was in the oven sizzling. Their son asks Elizabeth whether he would still be called a “captain” if he did not have a ship under his command? James has a serious attack of indigestion after the Christmas dinner but says that there is nothing wrong with him. However, Elizabeth reads from his notebooks that he was seriously ill several times during his voyages.

Captain Clarke is chosen as the captain of the next expedition. James and Hugh Palliser consider the conditions of a ship that would sail along with Resolution. Their son Jamie is doing fine in the navy, but their son Nat is not much interested. He is rather more interested in music. James had enlisted the boys in the navy from an early age because this would be an advantage for them. Meanwhile, Captain Cook starts writing a book on his travels. One day, he happily announces: “I’ve been nominated, I am going to be a member of The Royal Society; twenty-five members! You only need 3 nominations but I have twenty-five” ([5], p. 100). “He suddenly looked ten years younger” she thought (p. 100). James then starts planning his speech; a scientific treatise. Nat asks him whether he would also talk about the cannibals. James answers that they were in New Zealand. He did not want to punish them because he did not understand them.

Elizabeth is pregnant again. Elizabeth knows that her son Nat is not pleased about it from the way he looks at her belly; perhaps because he had only witnessed the birth and burial of babies since he was born. Besides, when there was a new baby, his mother could not spend enough time with him. Hugh Palliser observes that the king is offering a reward to whoever discovers a northern passage. Upon hearing this, the boys are excited and they ask Palliser questions. He explains that the route to China and Indonesian islands took too much time because you had to pass around Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope. If one could reach the Northern Pacific through the North of Scotland and voyage over Sweden for the East, that would be marvelous and bring great opportunity for trade and transport ([5], p.113).

James silently thinks about the voyage. When his sons ask him whether he will win the prize, he answers that he is not going anywhere. However, things change very rapidly. One day, while walking, Elizabeth meets Hugh Palliser who seems to have an embarrassed air. He observes that there were talks at the Admiralty about who could lead such an expedition. Many members were in favor of Clarke but there were also many others who opposed this idea. In the end, James volunteered to lead the expedition. It was his own choice. Elizabeth feels sad when she hears this. She had hoped that her lonely days were over, but it looks as if they were beginning all over again.

While alone, James shares his feelings with her: “Prestige, Respect. On board of a ship, I’m in command. Wherever we go ashore, I am treated like a prince. That pleases me. That, and that’s a fact. I must go to sea because the world is there for me to pass that role to someone else” (p. 142). These words aptly convey how his persona as Captain is central to James Cook’s existence. It is very clear that his adventurous and successful career gives him a powerful ego boost that seems to have precedence over his duties as a father and as a husband.

He explains further: “I want to stretch a network of waterways around the globe so that there are no more unknown regions. I must go to sea because the world is there […]. That’s it, Elizabeth. I cannot explain it any better than that. It has nothing to do with you. You are wonderful, the best wife I could have chosen. It’s not that I want to run away from you. I’d much rather stay with stay with you always, beside you at the table, walking side by side. But the sea is there. I must. Not because it is honorable, not because the king asked, but because it is my destiny” (p. 145). So, Cook is motivated by a sense of destiny that he believes sets him apart from ordinary men. Yet, in his astonishingly explicit self-centeredness, he shows no concern for the feelings and needs of his wife.

Quite understandably, Elizabeth is far from feeling happy with the news of her glory-seeking husband’s impending departure. She was hoping that her husband would be by her side, but once more, he was ready to go. Her mother, who works in a tavern, tries to console her saying: “You cannot stop it. They’re men, aren’t they? They want out. That’s good. He’ll come back, he always has. Just wait, one day he will have.

had enough of traveling. You cannot talk him out of it. He’s stubborn as an old mule, you know that” (p. 154). In the first week of March 1776, James gives his first introductory lecture at the Royal Society. After his return, he walks in the garden with a young officer. He asks who will be joining the expedition. He suddenly gets very angry. James observes: “They can drop dead, those scholars! And a damned bunch of pretentious wretches. The rest of science along with them. They disturb the board on board that’s what they do” (p. 175). The young man stares petrified at his captain. Elizabeth wonders whether James would feel shame about his tantrum. She had never seen James lose control. She wonders whether James was cruel on board. “Would he impose harsh punishments during his outbursts? She had always regarded him as a model of calm and fairness” (p. 177).

Before going on the new expedition James tells Elizabeth that Clarke had gotten himself into trouble; his brother had gotten into debt and Clarke had agreed to guarantee his debts. Now, his brother had run off, leaving Clarke with the troubles. James tells Elizabeth of his plans: They will sail to Plymouth. Elizabeth sobs and thinks what they will say to their son Nat. James says nothing. Elizabeth thinks maybe James was suspecting Hugh Palliser, maybe he was even thinking that he could be the father of his child. He had named his child Hugh, maybe in a gesture of magnanimity. Maybe his going to sea had nothing to do with Hugh Palliser, but on the other hand, Hugh had done nothing to stop James…

In his will, James stated that his daughters would have a share of his property if they married with their mother’s permission. Elizabeth feels confused; they did not have any daughters. Then, she understands. He wanted to leave her pregnant, then they would have a daughter as they had wished for a long time. The Resolution’s departure had drawn a lot of attention. There was no mention of Clarke’s release. Perhaps, Elizabeth could write to Sandwich, to ensure of his early release. She receives a letter from James, telling of his travels. He comments that the ship leaks like a sieve. The view of the Table Mountain brings tears to his eyes, it is very impressive. Then, Clarke arrives. He is ill; his eyes shine, his face is red, he has a nasty cough and fever. James says he is sorry that he cannot keep his word to Elizabeth but he cannot come home. He has to lead the expedition…

During his absence, Hugh Palliser drops by from time to time. During one of his visits, he takes Elizabeth in his arms and kisses her. They spend some time enclosed in each other’s embrace. Elizabeth does not resist him. Then, one day Sandwich and Stephan arrive in formal attire. They tell Elizabeth to sit down. They relate the terrible news: James is killed in a riot that took place in Hawaii. He had died honorably. Elizabeth cannot understand the words “honorably”; what does it mean? Elizabeth only understands that he will not be home anymore…. She has to tell the boys. Jamie would understand. He was practical. How to explain it to Nat? That was the difficult task. “I am a widow; I am a widow.” She repeats to herself. She is collected, cool. She orders a black dress. Everyone expects her to fall apart but she stands erect, calm. The Admiralty decides on an annual compensation for her.

Sandwich later explains what had happened to James. They had found out that the ship’s launch had been stolen. James had rowed with a couple of sailors to shore. He was planning to take the chief hostage with his sons but then cries were heard from the other end of the island. One man attacked James and the others pinned him to the ground and killed him with stones and knives. James was given a sailor’s burial. His “mortal remains” were thrown to the sea. Jamie still did not know about his father’s death. Nat wrote that the school called the students to an assembly to announce captain Cook’s death. Nat said he would not be coming home and that he planned to visit home during summer vacations.

James Cook had invaded the privacy, lifestyle, and the settled culture of the natives of Hawaii. When he had taken the chief and his sons hostage, the natives could not accept this. Captain Cook had gone too far. Their land seemed alien to them, they could not accept this. This was a traumatic event for them. This event could be compared to the lives of the U’wa people who live in the heart of the jungle in Columbia. When they heard of the international firms’ plans of drilling their land for oil, the leaders of the community declared that 5000 people would willingly step off a 1400-foot cliff rather than accept such an interference in their land. Similarly, the Hawaiian natives were ready to kill Captain Cook, rather than accept the loss of their chief.

The Jungian analyst Donald Kalsched [6] uses the term “trauma” to mean any experience that causes “any unbearable pain or anxiety” (p. 1). For the Hawaiian natives, the trauma created by the violation of their sacred land, which they considered to be their mother, was “unbearable, threatening completely to dissolve the way of life, the values, the world-view-indeed the very tribe itself” (p. 1). On the other hand, Robert Stolorow [7] believes that “trauma shatters absolutism, leading to a catastrophic loss of innocence” (p. 16), which drastically alters one’s experience of being in the world.

Elizabeth asks her mother what she had done when her husband died. Her mother answers that it wasn’t the same thing. Elizabeth’s father was not an important person, but in the case of James, things were different. He belonged to the public. People will want to know how he looked, they would inquire about his letters, portraits, memories, his friendships, etc. So her mother advises Elizabeth not to believe the stories she will hear, otherwise she may lose contact with reality.

Hugh explains that maybe they were getting everything wrong. He observes that because the Europeans were civilized themselves, they believed that they were bringing civilization to the natives. When they crowded around the presents brought to them gleefully, like children, the English people believed that the natives were happy. But in reality, Hugh observed, the only thing that was stopping them were the bullets. In his words: “Just think of what we leave behind when we sail away. Broken marriages, depleted farmlands, dethroned rulers, mixed-race children. It never crosses our minds” ([5], p. 256).

Then a letter arrives telling of Nat’s death. He was assigned to a Royal Navy station in the West Indies. There was a hurricane and 13 ships had sunk. Nat had been drowned along with the others. He was just 15. Jane, a new friend of Elizabeth’s whose husband was working beside James, writes a letter to Elizabeth’s friend Francis, asking her to write an uplifting letter to Elizabeth, because she wasn’t eating or talking since the news of Nat’s death. She also blames Hugh for not being beside her at his godson’s burial.

Isaac, a relative who had been with Captain James in one of his expeditions, arrives. Isaac tries to hide away some knowledge about Captain James, Elizabeth thinks. “Was he cruel?” she asks, and Isaac bites his lips. Isaac observes that there were times when he was beside himself with rage. For example, when a native stole a goat, he ordered for the thief ‘s head to be shaved and his ears to be cut off. At another time, in a fit of anger, he had ordered the canoes of the natives to be destroyed. Isaac observes that it was such a pity, because the natives would spend years working on the canoes, drew splendid pictures on them. James Cook would also order the huts to be burned at times.

Elizabeth wants to know the truth about James’s death. Isaac tells her that it took nearly a week to get his remains and to bury him. She muses: Why “remains” and not his body or James? Hugh Palliser arrives and takes her in his arms. He tells her that although he loved no woman as much as he loved her, they cannot build a life together because he is old and impotent due to an injury he has suffered. On an April evening, a gentleman who sells hides visits Elizabeth. He wants to give a letter to Elizabeth from Captain Clarke. Elizabeth tells him that Clarke died more than 4 years ago. His letters had all arrived. The gentleman tells her that those were the official letters. This is the final one. In the letter, Captain Clarke relates the truth about James’s death. He writes that he believes Elizabeth had the right to know the truth. Then, she could do whatever she wanted with it; hide it or reveal it to the world.

Captain Clarke relates that like Isaac, he could not understand the severity of James’ punishments: He would have the natives flogged as if they were soldiers who had deserted the battle. Their first stay in Hawaii was pleasant, but when they had to return to the island because of bad weather conditions, the natives did not give them a hearty welcome. There were a lot of bullying and thefts. When their cutter was stolen, James got very angry. He planned to take the chief hostage. Captain Clarke was watching the events through a telescope. Then, James appeared with the chief and his two sons. The natives pushed James and the marines to the shore. James gave the marines the signal to shoot and they started shooting not with empty barrels but with live ammunition. There was a terrible massacre. Then, James turns his back on the mob and someone strikes James on the back and as he falls down, five men throw themselves on him. James had given the signal to Williamson on the boat to start firing also. The entire village was engulfed in flames with a lot of deaths and decapitations. Clarke wants the bodies of the deceased. James’ body was difficult to put together because the natives had cut up his body and distributed the parts among the chiefs of the territory. After some time, the natives delivered a packet that included James’ hind parts.

Then, another package was delivered containing James’ skull, bones from his arms and legs, and in a separate package his hands. The captain does not want to write about what he thinks happened to his flesh, eyes, and genitals. They later gave James a sea burial. Captain Clarke also relates an incident of disrespect. After James’ death, the officers had drunk a lot and rolled the dice for his shoes, shirts, watch, boots, cutlery, and wig. Clarke had learned about this incident weeks later from a lieutenant who wished to hide his name.

Time passes slowly and various other people Elizabeth loves die. First Benny, who hoped to be a clergyman, dies of a severe fever. Then, Elizabeth receives news that her son Jammie, commander of the Spitfire, had drowned in Portsmouth. Then on March 17, 1796, Hugh Palliser passes away. He was 73 years old. Before his death, he sends Elizabeth a package containing James’ last notes. It seems that he had kept his notes until the last day… The notes give Elizabeth a new understanding of her husband’s death. It seems as if he knew what was going to happen, he did not want to prevent the ending. Captain James seems to have thought and realized that if he wanted to inscribe his name, it must be with the ultimate sacrifice. The ultimate sacrifice? Sacrifice of himself… So James literally plans his end. When he gives the backward lieutenant to approach the shore, he knows he will misunderstand it and row further away. The time had come….

James observes: “I almost slip on the algea-slick stones. Luckily, I am able to regain my balance. That’s crucial. It is not about my falling; that’s not how it has been preordained. I step into the sea, calm as can be. Just a few more seconds and the stone will hit me on the head; the knife will rip open my back just a little longer, and I will stumble, released into my future, truly to come home” ([5], p. 354). The last words indicate that this restless man, who could find peace only while at sea, could find his true homecoming in death. Elizabeth takes with her a huge pillowcase filled with memories; her strange love with Hugh Palliser, her children, James’ scandal, and nothing remains except a pile of ashes… You do not have to keep anything.

3. A historical perspective on sultan Selim III and Kuchuk Huseyin pasha

A history book only deals with facts as the writer sees them. It is not supposed to reflect the writer’s own vision of life. A history book describes (and explains) the history of a country, area, or subject. Historiography has changed significantly over time. History covers all aspects of human society: political, economic, scientific, cultural, intellectual, religious, and military.

It is widely, and mistakenly, assumed that biofiction is a subgenre of history. Both genres involve historical figures and both genres aim at giving an influential depiction of the characters they have chosen. However, there are some important differences between these genres and different criteria should be used while examining the two genres. As Michael Lackey [4] asserts, “Literature should not be about the way the moment (history) create the human, as we see in the historical novel, but the way the human shapes “reality” which is the central axiom on which the bio- graphical novel is premised” (p. 13). Although history books claim to give the reader only the facts, still, similar to biofiction, historians reflect their own interpretation. Carr [8] observes: “All historical facts come to us as a result of interpretive choices by historians influenced by the standards of their age.”

There are several interesting parallels between the lives of Captain Cook, the Ottoman Emperor Selim III, and Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha. Selim III had the desire to conquer strange lands and discover foreign places. He tried to realize these plans with the help of his naval captain Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha. Selim III was the Ottoman Sultan between 1789 and 1807. His father Mustafa III was an educated man who believed that reform was necessary in the army. He believed that his son Selim would become a world conqueror. Selim’s birth was celebrated throughout the vast Empire with cannon fire. Both his father and mother gave great care to his education. At the age of 5, he was considered mature enough to learn the Koran. Mustafa III had named his son as his successor, but his brother Abdulhamid ascended to the throne.

When Abdulhamid became the ruler, Selim was forced to live the life of a bird in a cage. But he did not spend his days in an idle manner. He continued his studies in arts and music, he was also aware of what was going on in the world. During Abdulhamid’s reign, Selim’s main contact with the outside world was through French ambassadors. He would meet the ambassadors in disguise and learn about foreign affairs. After Abdulhamid’s death, Selim succeeded to throne at the age of 27. He was a well-educated young man fully interested in the arts similar to Captain James’s son Nathaniel. He was also very fond of calligraphy and literature. He had formed good relations with foreigners and was convinced of the necessity of reform in the Empire.

Selim III admired the French and disliked Russians. He wrote several letters to Louis XVI, and in fact, he took the king to be a role model for himself. He believed that the king could help him in a future war with Russia. The letters are of great importance since they reflect the relations between the two empires. In these letters, Selim had reverted to the historical close friendship between the two countries and wanted the King’s help in his proposed plans for the war with Russia. But the French King had answered this letter mentioning that he had in the past sent representatives to Ottoman lands to help with the reforms in the land. But he says that war is a difficult event and cannot be entered without long preparations beforehand. He further adds that they can address this subject again in the future when Selim ascends to the throne. The advisory tone of the French King angered Selim and he answered the King in a harsher tone, reminding him that he was not a young man caged in Istanbul but a Prince consort. He also reminded the king that traditionally Ottomans had extensive knowledge and experience of wars and warfare.

Before Selim III ascended to the throne, he had a talk with Sultan Mustafa. The Sultan was worrying about state affairs. He told Selim that things could not be better, enemies could not be vanquished before a new army was established. Yet, how was a new army to be created? Selim had suggested that the guild of Janissaries should be reformed. But Sultan Mustafa replied that the guild of Janissaries could not be reformed. Years later, Selim would acknowledge the truth of his father’s words ([9], p. 316). Although Selim had 13 consorts, he never had children due to an infection in his urinary system. It is known that one of his “favorites” threw herself in front of Selim to prevent his assassination but was not successful.

It was believed that one of the chief reasons for the failure of the Ottoman army, especially during the wars with Russia and Austria, was the administration of fiefs. The soldiers, who were responsible for the collection of fiefs, would go to their homes during winter months. Due to this system, much of the territory gained from the enemy during summer months would be lost without a fight. Selim changed this system whereby the soldiers could not leave their posts during the winter season without a special permit. Efforts were made to choose especially honest and dependable men as feudal officers.

Sultan Selim also tried to solve the problems of the Janissary corps. He ordered new European-type rifles for the soldiers and planned them to be equipped with the new war ammunition and rifles by the end of 1794. “He also wanted to reduce the number of janissaries from 50,000 to half that number by individually inspecting the members” ([9], p. 4). The Sultan believed that the Sipahis (soldiers on horses) would mix well with the Janissaries so that a whole, well-formed, and harmonious army could be formed. With the order of the Sultan, the Janissary barracks in Istanbul were enlarged and rebuilt. However, all the efforts were futile and the Janissaries continued to be a problem.

The French Revolution (1789) had a major impact on the Ottoman state. The whole ideal and intent of the revolution was not in line with the Ottoman system but there were still reasons why the revolution was to a degree supported by the Ottoman Empire. Although Selim was deeply touched by the execution of Louis XVI, whom he considered his friend, there were still contradictory feelings. In the past, many sultans had been executed in Ottoman lands.

Sultan Selim III formed a new group of soldiers called “Nizam-I Cedit” in 1797, with the hope that they could be used to stop the rebellions of Janissaries. He hoped to blend this new army with the Janissaries but was not successful. After ascending to the throne, Selim III realized the importance of foreign relations and established embassies in France, England, Prussia, and Austria. However, when the French forces entered Egypt, Selim declared war on France together with Russia and Britain. After peace with the French, trouble in the Balkans started. Selim had the desire to conquer faraway lands, but he did this through his captain Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha.

Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha was born in Georgia, probably in 1757. He became the naval captain in 1792 and retained this position until his death. His career as a naval captain can be examined under four headings: his fight with the pirates, the Vidin project, the successful renovations he accomplished in the naval army, and finally the expedition to Egypt… In the Aegean Sea, pirates were plundering Ottoman ships. Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha went to sea and he deactivated the two famous pirates of the age: Lambro and Karakaçan.

He was not very successful in his Vidin expedition, mainly due to the coldness of the region. But he successfully pacified one of the main revolvers and so camouflaged his deception in this area. He was more successful in his Egypt expedition but he could not prevent Napoleon’s flight to France. He ordered his general Husrev Agha to enter the land with 6000 soldiers and capture the cities of Reşid and Rahmaniye. In fact, in 1801, the religious leaders got together and sent the fortress’ keys to Selim. These conquests pleased Selim a lot.

Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha’s most valuable contribution is probably the reforms he introduced in the naval force. He initiated the education of carpenters, especially for the building and repairing of ships. In 1793, he invited Jacques Balthasard Le Brun who was a world-renowned architect of ships, with his two assistants—Jean Baptiste Benoit and Toussaint Petit—to give the workers training in mathematics, geometry, and ship design in addition to geography and mapping. He abolished the practice of sending the naval officers to their homes in winter and instead established the continuation of their naval education during winter months. The development of the transformation from galley to gallion was also established during his time. The very close relationship of Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha with Sultan Selim attracted the jealousy of other members of the court. Many would do everything in their power to damage this relationship.

Selim and Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha had a very close friendship, in fact there were even rumors that they were blood brothers. Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha had come to the palace at a very early age, drawing the attention of the palace court with his intelligence and hardworking nature. The close friendship between Selim III and Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha can be compared to the one between Captain Cook and Palliser.

Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha’s character has some similarities also with Captain Cook; they were both quick tempered. This characteristic caused both of them to be estranged from some of their friends. They both deeply loved the sea. Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha suffered a major difficulty in his life because of his and his wife Esma Sultan’s extravagance. His anxiety about his debts is evident even in the letters he wrote to Sultan Selim on his death bed, when he was dying from tuberculosis.

There was research done to find out the reasons behind the close friendship between Selim III and Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha. There were rumors that Selim III had initiated a revolt against his uncle Sultan Abdulhamid and was forced to pass several years in forced confinement. During those years, he formed a close friendship with Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha which strengthened with the passage of years.

Selim’s death resembles Captain Cook’s death because he was assassinated during a revolt. Captain Cook appears to have planned his own death but Selim did not. Selim had always greatly admired the Western way of life, culture, and technology. However, the reforms he initiated in the army, and his establishment of a new army, Nizam-ı Cedit, caused unrest among the Janissaries. The Janissaries eventually revolted against Selim and hoped to put Mustafa IV on the throne. Selim was later strangled with the order of Mustafa IV who had promised the Janissaries that he would not interfere or disrupt their order. In Homecoming, Captain Cook’s death involves a lot of interpretation by the author, a characteristic of biofiction, whereas the depiction of Selim’s death is just a straightforward record of facts. In the narration of this event, not much interpretation is used by the author since he is a historian. In The Homecoming, Enquist’s choice of events in the narration of Captain Cook’s death, her voicing of different characters’ interpretation of his death, demonstrates that the writer aimed to give her own interpretation of this event in her book.

It was the custom in Ottoman times for the husbands of the daughters of the Sultan to be chosen by the Sultan. Sultan Selim ordered lavish wedding preparations for his uncle’s daughter Esma Sultan’s wedding. Esma Sultan was only 14 when she married Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha who was 35 at the time. However, despite the age gap, the marriage proved to be a very happy one. They were married for only 12 years when Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha died from tuberculosis. Esma Sultan never remarried as was the custom during that period.

In contrast to Mrs. Cook, Esma Sultan was deeply involved with politics, in fact it is believed that together with her mother Sineperver Kadınefendi, she played a leading role in the Kabakçı rebellion and the deposing of Selim III. On the 17th of May 1807, her brother Mustafa IV became the Sultan as Esma Sultan had wished. But his reign lasted a short while. In 1808, Alemdar Mustafa Pasha—who was in Rusçuk at the time—came to the capital to depose Mustafa and put Selim III to the throne. However, because Selim had been assassinated, he helped Mahmut ascend to the throne. He further advised the Sultan to take some precautions involving Esma Sultan and her mother. When Selim was assassinated, the janissaries had considered putting Esma Sultan to the throne. This would have been an unprecedented act because up to that time, no woman had been considered as a candidate for the throne in the Ottoman Empire. This is an indication of Esma Sultan’s power as a leading figure in political life.

Esma Sultan was a very extravagant woman, spending lavishly on jewelry, the decoration of her various palaces, and her clothes. In fact, due to her extravagance, his family’s debts were one of Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha’s main concerns on his death bed. Sultan Selim, being a close friend, assured him that his debts would be paid and he should get well soon.

The deaths of both Captain Cook and Selim III are similar, in that they were killed during a riot. In fact, up until that time all Ottoman Sultans had died natural deaths. It was only Sultan Selim who was assassinated. There are various other similarities in the lives of Selim III and Captain Cook: Both are hardworking, ambitious men who worked in favor of reform. Both believed in discipline and order. Captain Cook wanted discipline on his ship and to establish this, he sometimes acted cruelly toward the sailors. Selim III was not pleased with the unruly behavior of the Janissaries and his real intent was to abolish the system altogether. However, he decided to go slowly about it. He established the new army of Nizam-ı Cedit, hoping that some of the Janissaries would later become members of the new army. However, the janissaries did not want the Sultan to interfere with their established system and hence were angry with Selim. The reactionary group, with the revolt of Kabakçı Mustafa, and the order of Selim’s cousin Mustafa IV, assassinated Selim and helped Mustafa IV ascend to the throne.

Likewise, the strict measures Captain Cook took to establish order on his ship won him the animosity of many members of his crew. Even his close friends and relatives criticized his attitude. Captain Cook was at home at sea and on his ship. He did not want to return home. Even when he realized the dangers of sailing in a ship that was not in a very good condition, he still wanted to go. When Elizabeth Cook blamed Hugh Palliser for letting his friend go on a leaky ship, Hugh Palliser sent Elizabeth a letter explaining the facts: “When a person says to a friend, “I’ll see you later” or a parent says to a child at bedtime, “I’ll see you in the morning” these are statements, like delusions, whose validity is not open for discussion. Such absolutisms are the basis for a kind of naïve realism and optimism that allow one to function in the world, experienced s stable and predictable. It is in the essence of emotional trauma that it shatters these absolutisms, a catastrophic loss of innocence that permanently alters one’s sense of being in the world” ([5], p. 16).

It seems that both Captain Cook and Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha felt more at home while voyaging in the sea. Captain Cook’s life depended more on the success he achieved while discovering new ports. Since he did not consider the Hawaiian expedition a success, he seems to have orchestrated his death so that his name would be remembered. Faraway, Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha was not very happy to be on land either. His illness was advancing and home reminded him of his increasing debts because of his wife’s extravagance, death would be a deliverance for both of them for different reasons. Both did not want to taint their revered, well-known names. With death, all would be erased, forgotten… After Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha’s death, his wife’s extravagance and his debts would be obliterated and likewise Captain Cook’s new failed expedition would not matter anymore. They would have truly come home…

4. Conclusion

As Michel de Certeau [10] maintains: “First of all, historiography separates its present time from a past. But everywhere it repeats the initial act of division. Its chronology is composed of periods (for example, the Middle Ages, modern history, contemporary history) between which, in every instance, is traced the decision to become different or no longer to be to be such as one that had been up to that time (the Renaissance, the French revolution). In their respective turns, each new time provides the place for a discourse, considering whatever preceded to be “dead” but welcoming a “past” that had already been specified by ruptures” (p. 3). Thus, a historian is inevitably affected by his own situatedness, his place so to speak, as he narrates past events. The historical discourse about the past is therefore implicated by the sociohistorical and subjective dynamics of the present in which that discourse is created.

Another important factor that significantly influences the construction of historical discourse is power. “The making of history is buttressed by a political power which creates a space proper (a walled city, a nation, etc) where a will can and must write (construct) a system (a reason articulating practice) ([10], p. 6).” So, common with biofiction, fiction also goes into the writing of history. Certeau observes: “In the case of historiography, fiction can be found at the end of the process, in the product of manipulation and the analysis” [9]. All in all, “The situation of the historiographer makes study of the real appear in two quite different positions within the scientific process: the real so far as it is known (what the historian studies, understands. or “brings to life from past history”), and the insofar as it is entangled within the scientific operations (the present society, to which the historians’ problematics, their procedures, modes of comprehension, and finally a practice of meaning are referable)” (p. 35).

As I have shown in this chapter, there are very interesting similarities between the lives of Captain James Cook (as depicted in a biofiction), and Sultan Selim III and Kuchuk Huseyin Pasha (as depicted in a history book). The source I have used for James Cook’s life was the biofiction The Homecoming which does not claim to offer a factual representation of Captain Cook’s life as a history book would aim to do. Still, the novel presents an intriguing fictional rendering of his life through the reconstructed voices of people in Cook’s close circle from the perspective of his wife Elizabeth. Stanford Shaw’s famous Between Old and New [11], on the other hand, is a book of history that is grounded in historical fact and seeks to offer an objective representation of events. Be that as it may, this work of non-fiction offers a historical record that is filtered through the subjectivity of the historian. In brief, the ultimate reality of these historical figures can never be fully grasped; however, it is through biofiction and history that we are offered glimpses into their world.