The Tragic Ending of “Bonaparte of the Sea”
Nigel Foxells Emma Expects: a novel
Table of contents
1. Introduction
Nigel Foxell has written two novels, Loving Emma and Emma Expects: a novel. Both novels deal with Lord Nelson, but as the titles reveal, the author focuses on the person named Emma who is the lover of Lord Nelson.
Since the theme of this essay refer to the end of Lord Nelson -the climax of his naval career- I will refer more deeply to Emma Expects which is the second chapter of Foxell's “biography” about Nelson. The quotations, which I will give in this essay from Foxell's novels, are all taken from his second chapter.
Emma Expects continues describing Nelson's successful and prospering naval career, including
the Battle of Trafalgar and his heroic death. Besides, the process of his relationship with Emma, turning into a passionate love, is a further central topic.
Above I remarked that Foxell wrote a biography about Nelson but we should make a difference between a historical novel, a real historical figure and a biography. Foxell does not illustrate the whole life of Nelson but only the last period of his life. He omits the childhood or the first years in the navy because Foxell particularly wrote a biographical novel about Nelson's affair with Emma which took place during the most important years of Nelson.
Emma Expects deals with Lord Nelson's good relationship to the Hamiltons, his long stay in the Mediterranean and the deeper development of his relationship with Emma.
It contains the flight from Naples to Sicily, the death of Lord Hamilton, the birth of Horatia, the Battle of Copenhagen, the Battle, and Nelson's death at Trafalgar.
As the theme of this essay mentions Bonaparte, it will be necessary to take a look on Nelson's life but also on the life of Napoleon Bonaparte, in order to perceive the parallels.
After the brief looking at the biographies of the two heroes and dealing with Nelson's heroic
end, we should compare the historical novel by Foxell with historical reality.
Foxell's novels about Nelson are not simply historical novels but also experimental novels.
Historical novels can tell of a love between two lovers in a different time and place.
The love is often a forbidden one, refused by the society and moral outlook of the age.
Furthermore, a war, social or political complicationsor a crisis can take place in the background or vice versa.
Foxell's protagonist is truly Britain's greatest hero in naval history. He is not fictitious, and Foxell actually illustrates the merits of this man. But history also offers him a true romance on which he focuses attention. Nelson's love to Emma is the essential topic because it was a scandal, which still attracts the readers of our present.
While he tells the tragic end of Lord Nelson, Foxell displays the even more tragic relationship between these two lovers.
But historical novels are not bound to be experimental, if they just retell a historical event.
Foxell sometimes plays with words (puns, allegories), which can be considered, as a feature of the purpose of writing experimentally.
1.1. Definition
Before we turn to Foxell's historical novel, which is written in an experimental way, we need to look at the definition of “historical novel” and at this type of novels
to see what such novels basically consist of or what they generally mean.
a) Historical novels
A plot set in a historical period before the time of the writing marks a historical novel and depicts the customs and the mentality of this period. The central character is usually subject to divided loyalties within a larger historic conflict.
The novel illustrates historical events or the life and thinking of historical persons or persons who lived in a time before the reader's time. It usually contains details of the image of the époque. It can also describe the problem of historiography, and the balance of historical facts and fiction can vary from novel to novel.
While some novels concentrate on the historical events, Foxell's Emma takes them as the
background for his fictitious main plot (the love between Nelson and Emma). The protagonist can be fictitious or a real historical personage.
The function is to link the present of the reader with the past experience world.
Historical novels do not portray or re-present a particular section of the real history but create a fictitious independent world by a new configuration of elements.
“Historische Romane sind dadurch bestimmt, dass sie nicht ohne personale, zeitliche und räumliche Referenz auskommen, d.h. es werden historisch verbürgte Figuren, in Geschichte bzw. Geschichten verstrickt, im Rahmen eines ästhetisch strukturierten fiktionalen Textes präsentiert, der die Anforderung an räumliche und zeitliche historische Lokalisierung zumindest partiell erfüllt.“
b) Metafiction
“Texte, in denen der Prozess und die Bedingungen des Verfassers literarischer Texte thematisiert werden”.
Metafiction is a fiction about fiction. Its subject is the terms and procedure of writing texts.
The description of the manner of writing and about the difficulty is often conveyed by comments of the storyteller or author. They are called metafictional comments.
The task of the metafiction is to show the function of a text or a text form in literary communication. Furthermore, it should point out political and ideological implications.
The historiographical metafiction contains a metafictional character and its themes are- as already said- the fictionalisation of the past and the process of writing.
c) Mimesis
“Die Abbildung der Realität im literarischen Kunstwerk”
It means that historical novels are not only a representation of historical events, but to imitate reality they can include the imitation of linguistic art, too.
1.2. The problem of truth
The new consciousness for national identity and the growing interest in history, flourished the status of historical novels. Furthermore, people have thought that both historiography and historical novels can convey historical events truthfully, which is the main aim.
We should consider that many sources of facts, which are taken for a novel to make it truthful, could be wrong, too. Even historiography is not always truthful. Cases of forgery of history, distorting facts or wrong declarations in historical scripts and written sources do exist, and are caused by personal feelings and ends, thoughts and ideas by the historian, writer or witness of time, who describes an event. Sometimes sources offer different claims and descriptions about the same event. For example, Napoleon or other great historical persons (Catherine II. Of Russia) might have described their way to gain power differently in their biographies than their time witnesses did.
According to Collingwood's dispatch, which was printed in The Times shortly after the Battle of Trafalgar, he had witnessed thirty- three enemy ships (eighteen French and fifteen Spanish ships) , while you can read in the British historiography of Denis Richards about 21 French and 12 Spanish ships . In this case Denis Richards is not a witness of Nelson's time like Collingwood was, but it shows that he gained another number of ships from the historical sources he used for writing his book about British history.
1.3. First assumptions of Foxell's intentions expressed by the composition of this historical novel
History includes the present and the past. In literature, especially in historical novels, history means that the past is drawn into the present by an author who is not a witness of the time, which he describes. Being a member of a later generation, the author is endowed with knowledge, attitudes and values of his present. If the author writes historical novels, he is dependent from historical sources. Usually, the historical background is based on facts, which the writer reviews. On the other hand, the writer is able to add his own ideas to the historical facts.
As his present environment influences the author himself, this can influence the novel,
too. The historical novel is characterized by the author's personality, which originally derives from or is formed by the influence of the environment or society of the present.
The special point the historical novel offers is that its style can illustrate new options or imply new values and questions, which would not have been found or asked in the past or in the time described in the novel.
Furthermore, the writer can also imitate the writing style of the past. Under this condition, the author can construct a link between the past and the present, not concentrating only on the facts told in the story but also by the manner of telling them.
The past is linked with the present because the present depends from the past. If things had happened differently in the past, present would be different as well. Another course of history means another present. Nigel Foxell contributes with his novel to reviving history and showing the significance of the British hero Nelson.
“ The metafictional historical novel does not only revive the past but inquires into ideas of history, it is not only mimesis but poesis”.
By repeating the victories of Nelson, he tries to let the reader be aware of its meaning for today. The Battle of the Nile and at Trafalgar secured the naval ascendancy and the control of the sea routes. It constituted Britain's essential imperial and commercial power and communications.
If Nelson had not been successful in fighting the French navy, England probably would have been under Napoleon's rule. This possible fictitious course influenced the present situation of Britain.
On the other hand, Foxell displays that Britain's deliverer was not a saint. His adultery might not be considered as evil anymore today but it shows that Nelson was an ordinary human being with debilities, too. A man who was able to experience and feel true overwhelming love, leading to adultery and Nelson's disrepute in the respectable society.
According to Rohmann, the novels by Foxell are less experimental because he
“hardly bridges a faithfully rendered historical background with the reader's present by anachronisms”.
He boldly paints history by dialogue and ambiguities and re-writes history with a playfully intimate omniscience.
But the composition of fiction and faction is somehow experimental. Nonetheless, it is a historical metafiction because he adds his own ideas and fictions about the issue of Emma to the historical facts.
The reader is offered to consider and compare the ideas of the writer with the ideas of the past. For example, we could ask whether Nelson really thought and believed that he was not a great sinner as he asked Hardy on page 200.
Did he really say this? Or is it only Foxell's idea that he made Nelson say this, in order to present his idea. There is the option that Nelson said this in fact. There are two questions left: did he really believe so, or did he only soothe himself with this belief when he was confronted with death. Or was he maybe even in doubts?
Another option is that Foxell conveyed his idea or the idea of today's generation by this way, in order to say that Nelson was not a sinner, and that his deed is not sinful anymore. Or maybe that society has forgiven him. This implies a changed or new set of values today.
Although Nelson is not shown as a saint, Foxell tries to display Nelson's superiority to Napoleon in the way by presenting him as a pious man. Being a son of a parson, Nelson was an ideal opponent to Napoleon and the atheistic French Revolution.
Nelson is not only a deliverer of England, but he also fought at the side of religion and God. This makes him to a much adorable man and, his immortality is not limited on history alone but it is also blessingly implemented by a “touch of heaven”. Like the French Jeanne D `Arc fought with divine leadership for the deliverance of her country, Nelson attained an almost similar sense of eternity.
2. Foxell's Stylistic Experiments
Foxell illustrates Nelson's duel with Napoleon as a “holy mission” by intertextuality. He let Nelson's and England's situation compare with facts from the Holy Book. Foxell takes biblical figures or uses parts from the Lord's Prayer on pages 186 and 187.
“O Lord, let thy mercy lighten upon us; as our trust is in thee.”
“O Lord, in thee have I trusted; let me never be confounded.”
Later there is another auctorial comment in the way by asking god, when Hardy remained alone on deck, after Nelson got injured.
“Dear God, if only the wind would lift! Lift that smoke!”
I think that this sentence is not a real communication with God but only an emphasizing expression to describe a situation from the view of Hardy, wishing a smokeless sight.
To underline Nelson's holy mission Foxell uses another trick -next to the intertextuality- to show a link of religion, God, and heaven with Nelson's devotion.
Neither is it intertextuality nor does it refer to the past of the past (the biblical stories are before the time of Nelson) but the direct speech to god or the dialogue between god and Nelson draws the divine element into Nelson's presence. Here the relationship between Nelson and God is shown again by Nelson speaking to God, while before it was God speaking to Nelson when he was searching for the French fleet.
Emma plays an important role in introducing Nelson into his mission by letting him be aware of it, when they talked about Napoleon, and she compared him with Nelson on page 18.
“…Nelson may be the first name at the parish pump of Palermo; but across the stage of
the wide world it's Napoleon. He's written himself into history.”
Then Nelson remarks “As Pontius Pilate, madam, has written himself into the Creed”. This comparison of Napoleon with a biblical figure leads to a general comparison of the situation of Nelson and his time with the biblical situation and a holy task.
“Then deliver Israel,” she said. ”Nelson, Nelson, this is your holy task.”
Napoleon is nothing more than a Pontius who was the enemy of the Christian religion, and who got into history and into the bible by his act of wiping out Jesus Christ.
But at the end Nelson will become - like Napoleon- an equally unforgettable hero.
Foxell is using puns and nicknames for his ambiguities, like “Glorious Victor”, “Victor of the Nile”, “Gravel”, “Grovel”, “Too-long” and “Nelson's Touch”.
The nicknames are referred to his success at the Nile against Napoleon. But when waiting off Toulon for months without anything happening, it became very distressing for Nelson.
The watch for the French fleet's departure from the port and the possibility for Nelson to have a battle was prolonged. For Nelson the waiting was too long, until he nearly meant to get the permission to leave his command and to be relieved of his post.
The “Nelson Touch” is, on the one hand, his embrace for Emma and on the other hand, it will become known as his military tactics at Trafalgar. Its meaning can be referred to his privacy and his professional life. The ironical thing is that it is Emma who introduces this word in the novel on page 163 when they say good-bye and he touches and kisses her.
The title of the novel Emma Expects even derives from the famous signal that Nelson had sent to his fleet shortly before the Battle of Trafalgar . It should run “England confides that every man will do his duty”, but as the word “confides” was too long for the short time, it was replaced by “expects”, which only needed a single flag to hoist. Foxell on his part has replaced “England” by “Emma”.
Nelson, who is not on good terms with Greville, makes fun at him by giving him names in his mind, like Gravel and Grovel. These puns show that Nelson does not appreciate Greville because the words imply a humiliation because “gravel” and “grovel” refer to something at the ground. Gravel is a natural pavement on which you go and “to grovel” is creeping on the ground in a humble way before others. Nelson is of the opinion that Greville is a groveller, “grovelling” before the Admiralty and thus, acting in their interests.
Another pun is on page 215. As Nelson was buried at St. Paul's, the word “Saul” is also a wink by being a blending of “St. Paul”. Furthermore, Saul is here a synonym for the King and the Admiralty. They were successful but Nelson was more successful. David is the synonym for Nelson who accomplished his mission and the mission of England and the Admiralty far better by delivering “Israel” finally. Israel is either the synonym for England or Europe.
“Saul may have slain his thousands, but David his ten thousands: he had accomplished his fury on the foe. Therefore he was buried among the undying dead-in such splendour as he had rarely known his life. He was bewailed, and all Israel made great lamentation for him, great lamentation for him; and mourned, saying, How is the valiant man fallen, that delivered Israel, that delivered Israel.”
Furthermore, he had succeeded in, his mission which Emma told him on page 18 in the novel, where she advises him to “deliver Israel”. She introduces the author's intention of intertextuality with the Bible, pointing out the parallels. Another idea, to which Foxell can allude in this passage is the fact that Nelson attained undying fame after his death. He became a hero, and while he was discredited during his lifetime, and ignored, he was now bewailed and honoured.
Foxell is using anachronisms on pages 9, 36 and 132 in his writing style. Neither is it the language of the time of Nelson nor the one of the writer.
This poetic use of language which we know well from Shakespear's works go farther back to the Elizabethan times, an era characterized by the first successful conquests abroad by the Englishmen, for example the first colonists in America.
It underlines the British power at sea and in the world, having its roots in the first expeditions, confiscations and colonization in the 17th century. America or the British colonies in America had been lost when Nelson was confronted with Napoleon. A new success was needed to show British superiority.
On the other hand, the anachronistic language is also the language used in biblical texts and is used by Foxell to link with the holy book and the holy mission again.
Peculiar is that Foxell puts comments in brackets at several times, even in direct speeches. You can find them on the pages 49, 88 and 141, for example.
This should serve as an emphasis.
When the Battle of Trafalgar is going on there is a visible repetition. On pages 182,
183,190,191 you can find descriptions of how Nelson always “paced up and down”. Later when he got wounded and Hardy was alone on deck, it is him who continues this action of pacing up and down.
The story is told by a narrator and from different points-of-view, dependent on the characters that appear in the chapters and in the course of the plot. The narrator
accompanies, due to the story, particularly Nelson (the protagonist), but since there are chapters where Nelson is missing (at the end when he had died or , e.g. in chapter 22 ), the narrator is giving the point-of-view of the other characters as well.
So there is a variable perspective and a changing point-of-view.
Furthermore, the points-of-view is omniscient, because the reader's knowledge is not limited on the feelings of Nelson only, but he knows of Emma's feelings and thoughts as well, for example.
When Nelson is dying, there is the first-person-observer in Hardy. Nelson's death is not described by himself.
The storyteller becomes pathetic when describing the preparations and the bustle on deck before Nelson's ship and Le Generaux start the fight. The description is a blending of imperatives and rhetorical questions and there is a change of the speaker. The scene is told by the narrator and Nelson.
Allegories are found on page 132 and are related with a myth from the bible. Nelson compares the war between England and France, or between him and Napoleon, with War in Heaven, the war between Michael and the dragon.
Michael is, according to the Old Testament, the angel of the people of Israel. In the New Testament he is the leader of the troops of Heaven fighting against the Evil One. Other figures taken from the (historiographic) bible is Saul the first king of Israel, who acquires a realm by his successful wars. But he commits suicide when he lost against the Philistines who expanded in the coastal area of Palestine and united the Israelite tribes to fight against them, like European nations united against Napoleon to defeat him.
With auctorial comments Foxell points out a dialogue between God and Nelson. Now it is Nelson who talks to God while at another time it was God who spoke to Nelson.
The funeral is commented by the narrator with a pathos when he describes the atmosphere and the meaning of the funeral and death of Nelson by a comparison to Israel, Saul and David. And again he uses the bible as a basic source for intertextuality.
I assume that Saul is the king and the Admiralty, and David is similar to Nelson, who beats “Saul” by implementing the mission of annihilating the enemy, and who is a little man defeating the giant. David is also an adultery committing king who seduces Bathseeba, the beautiful wife of one of his officers.
3. Nelson and his enemies
When Nelson started to accomplish his first successful missions for England's navy, he
had to confront with different opponents. During his lifetime, the Admiralty, the King and few other persons made him trouble in England, while abroad on the seas he was confronted with his famous enemy Bonaparte. With the respectable English society it was a fight about duties and reputation. With Bonaparte it was an indirect duel about power and deliverance.
Although it was a duel, both men never met personally. The only chance that Nelson could have met Napoleon was if Nelson had succeeded in capturing the French fleet when Napoleon sailed in the Mediterranean to Egypt and later back. But Nelson missed him.
3.1. Biography of Nelson
Nelson was the greatest admiral of his time and the idol of the British navy.
He was born in 1758 at Burnham Thorpe, Norfolk, the son of a country parson. The place was with a direct sight towards sea and at the age of 13 he went to sea with his naval officer uncle.
In 1767 Catherine Nelson, his mother, died. In 1771 he went as a midshipman for the West Indies. Six years later he passed the examination to become a lieutenant. In 1785 he met Frances Nisbet at Nevis in the West Indies, and married her in 1787. When in 1793 the war against revolutionary France began, he commanded the Agamemnon. In the same year he met the Hamiltons for the first time.
At the siege of Corsica as a rear- admiral in 1794 he lost his right eye, and became a captain in 1796. Spain allied with France against Britain and lost the Battle at Cape St.Vincent a year later. When attacking Tenerife, Nelson lost his right arm.
In 1798 Nelson was created Baron Nelson after the victory in the Battle of the Nile where Nelson commanded in the Vanguard. Nelson evacuated the Neapolitan Royal Family and the Hamiltons to Palermo/Sicily, when Naples was besieged by French sympathizers.
In 1799 he was created Duke of Bronte by the Neapolitan king, and was promoted vice-admiral in 1801 by the Admiralty. In the same year he was created Viscount after the Battle of Copenhagen.
Two years later Lord Hamilton died and the war against Napoleon started again. Nelson became Commander-in Chief in the Mediterranean. The Victory joined the British fleet there.
In 1804 the Spanish allied again with France, and a year later the French tried to pursue Nelson to the West Indies in order to invade Britain. In the Battle of Trafalgar Nelson lost his life when the British fleet fought against the French-Spanish allied fleet. In 1806 the state funeral was held in St.Paul's Cathedral.
3.2. The Biography of Napoleon
Napoleon was born in 1769 on Corsica as Napolione Buonaparte. He went to a military academy in Paris and became a distinguished young officer. He was intelligent and talented in solving strategic military problems and tasks.
In 1795 he helped the Convent in oppressing the rebellion by the Royalists and became the protégée of Barras.
Napoleon took his friendship with Barras as an opportunity to gain power and to improve his career.
Besides, he got acquainted with Josephine Beauharnais -his later wife- through Barras.
Thank to Barras, Napoleon supervised the Italian campaign as the Commander-in-Chief.
He was only 27 years old when he was made a general.
Instead of attacking the British Isles directly, he planned to conquer Egypt in order to beat the Englishmen indirectly by cutting the sea routes and the influence of British trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Napoleon's naval power was too weak to invade England.
But this expedition in 1798 was destroyed by the defeat of the French fleet at Aboukir, which meant Nelson's first big victory for Britain.
In 1799 Napoleon was responsible for the coup d' etat and became First Consul for 10 years. He ruled France all by himself and signed the Treaty of Amiens in 1802.
This truce with England finished the period of the Second Coalition War. In the same year he became First Consul for a lifetime and crowned himself emperor two years later.
His political and imperial plans and expansion dreams in Europe led to more wars. The Napoleonic Wars contain the invasion of Germany and the victory over Russia, the blockade against Britain in 1806 and the coalition of Russia and France (Treaty of Tilsit, 1807).
The Wars of Liberation started with the decline of the blockade against Britain when Russia rejected to support France. The second reason that weakened Napoleon's power was his worst defeat during his expedition to Russia.
A year later, in 1813 Napoleon lost the battle at Leipzig against Russia, Austria, England, Prussia and Sweden and was sent to Elba. But Napoleon returned from Elba in 1815 and resumed power for 100 days until the Battle of Waterloo cut Napoleon's second attempt ultimately.
Napoleon improved and made amendments in bureaucracy and law. The Code Civil is the most important amendment imposed by him, and was an influencing progress for the modernization in France.
3.3. Common Features shared by Napoleon and Nelson
In Foxell's fiction he let Emma compare Nelson with Napoleon by a riddle, which Nelson should guess.
“Who was the greatest hero of the age? (…) `Does his name begin with “N”,' he finally ventured. `I `m not meant to help you but I shall. Yes, it begins with “N”. And it ends in “N”, too. He's a little man, and born to rustic obscurity, but neither tinker nor tailor- some local count.'…'And,' added confidentially, (…) `He's famous for disobedience, mistrusted in high circles, yes, most definitely so, but beloved of his men. He married, I' m told, a widow from the West Indies, who's no beauty perhaps, and a little older than himself; but she's well placed- if it's possible to be well in the West Indies.'”
Nelson thinks that the answer is his own name, Nelson. But Emma laughs at him, and explains that she means Napoleon.
Nelson's popularity was not shared by all. Like Napoleon, Nelson was adored by the people
(especially by the common people), but members of the high society despised him.
The outer appearance was in contrast to their mental superiority, less attractive. Napoleon and Nelson were both of little stature and not very handsome.
Especially after becoming crippled by physical defects, his appearance changed. Like Lady Spencer said, he looked like the “the most uncouth creature”. A painting in 1879 showed a man with dry frizzy hair which was almost white, his cheeks were sunk because of missing teeth, his right eye was dim, fixed and milky blue in colour. The empty right sleeve was pinned across his chest.
Although Lady Spencer described him as “looking so sickly it was painful to see him”, she was impressed by the way he spoke .
Duke Wellington was struck by Nelson's absurd and charlatan manner because he talked in a “style so vain and so silly as to surprise and almost disgust me.” Despite this, Wellington was finally impressed by the knowledge and ability of this navy officer to discuss international affairs with the wisdom of a true statesman.
Napoleon was described of sometimes incalculable nature, but in spite of that he was honoured and his way of talking about politics and warfare impressed as well.
Nelson's temperament was one which precipitated devastating, semi-suicidal battles, intimidating and overwhelming to the enemy.
Nelson and Napoleon were known for their determination, daring and humanity.
Nelson and Napoleon were affable towards their subjects, and they were admired by the soldiers. Among the soldiers Napoleon and Nelson figured something legendary.
Although not every soldier got to meet Nelson or Napoleon, they all worshipped the charismatic leader. They were able of developing the confidence and morale of their men
by flaming speeches and they treated their men with respect.
“His vice -perhaps at the Admiralty you never discuss such things- is to seduce men. They follow him from love, devotion, sheer protectiveness.”
Nelson and Napoleon were geniuses in affairs of conducting a battle. While Nelson enriched the naval force with a new strategy, Napoleon had been successful on land with his cunningly implemented tactics. Their methods led to victories and fame.
Napoleon and Nelson -though being an admiral and a general - did not wish to be treated specially but equally to their subjects. The wounded Nelson did not want to be treated first and out of turn by a doctor. And Morriss reports when the wounded “Nelson told Beatty to attend to the other wounded” and when in the bustle around him a seaman waiting for his amputation was hurt by someone passing by, Nelson turned to the passer-by and reprimanded him for his lack of humanity . This is actualising the chivalry of Sir Philip Sidney who passed a glass of water to a dying soldier.
A legend surrounding Napoleon was his voluntarily will to eat the same food as his soldiers (when he was Commander-in-Chief for Italy) or that he gave his sleigh for carrying injured soldiers when withdrawing from winterly Russia.
Nelson and Napoleon are examples of personalities coming from middle-class families without an Aristocratic background. But both felt destined for something great and both aspired to belong to the aristocratic elite class. Both achieved becoming members of nobility.
Despite their ordinary heritage, they reached the top thank to their merits, and they both were revolutionary in their own kind.
Napoleon was revolutionary in military, architecture, culture and social life and by imposing political novelties, when he seized power. He was revolutionary in invading European countries, deliberating them and introducing the French values abroad. He re-created the monarchy in France when crowning himself as an Emperor. As a young officer and still later, he was quite obstinate, independent and determined. These qualities promoted Napoleon's career and helped him to climb the ladder of power.
Nelson did not want this big amount of power, but all advantages, privileges and good things he received and tasted in life he accepted as a gift from heaven.
Nonetheless, as a consequence that Nelson and Napoleon were not of aristocratic heritage, they had an inclination to show off their status later. For example, Nelson liked to show his decorations almost at any time, which caused undoing. It discredited him before the King. Although the king had rewarded him with titles for his merits at Cape St. Vincent or Aboukir, the king's affection diminished, when Nelson associated with Lady Hamilton and with such appearances as the following one:
“And indeed at a royal levee the King virtually snubbed Nelson, the latter being tactless enough to attend wearing his Turkish and Neapolitan decorations as well as the Order of the Bath. “ Sir John Moore commented that Nelson looked more like a Prince of the Opera than the Conqueror of the Nile (…).”
This shows that the exaggeration of showing off his titles, status, stars and orders is a psychological compensation for lack of self-confidence of persons coming from an ordinary position, I think.
The disrepute of Nelson, which was also supported by the king, is in Foxell's novel shown in-directly by speaking about it via Lord Hamilton. He is criticizing the king and the Admiralty for discrediting Nelson who did not deserve it. Furthermore, there is the passage on page 68 describing a situation after a successful mission of Nelson. After he had returned to England, he was ignored by the king during a celebration or official reception held for Nelson.
“…At the levee in St.James's he awaited, not without dread, his sovereign's embrace. In the event , however, nor such gesture was even hinted at; indeed, scarcely a word bestowed: a mere enquiry after `Your Lordship's health'--whereupon His Majesty, without so much as waiting for a reply, let alone mentioning any victories, turned to some military gentleman, who detained him for a full half-hour. Talking about what? Scarcely his victories. (…) And all around was a dismal, universal hiss, the sound of public scorn.”
Nelson and Napoleon had many siblings and they were attached to their mother. Both were strongly influenced by their mothers. The early loss of his mother and the long separation could be the answer for Nelson's vulnerable emotion regarding women.
Nelson was married to a Creole lady. Unlike Napoleon, Nelson did not get divorced from his wife but he maintained only his adulterous relationship to Emma, which became one of the famous love affairs of British history.
Regarding the French hero, a “myth” has been conserved in history saying that he was ever attached to his first wife. Despite the numerous adulteries he committed as well, it was said that he only got divorced from Josephine because she had not been able to give birth to a child and successor.
Furthermore, his marriage to his second wife- the Austrian princess Marie Louise- was only based on political purposes. Napoleon wanted to save the relationship between France and Austria, and wished to be part of the Habsburgian dynasty.
The myth that he loved Josephine until he died has sustained, and still today Napoleon and Josephine form a historic “legendary” couple. So the constellation of true love to the wife, adultery and divorce differ here between the two opponents.
Josephine and Francis were both older than their husbands and had been widows before they got married to the heroes. They were said to be not very beautiful but somehow charming.
While Napoleon got along well with his stepchildren until the end, Nelson's good relationship to his stepson Josiah deteriorates in the course of the time. At least, this is what Foxell shows the reader. Nelson was fond of Josiah, when he was a little boy and historical documents prove that this is true.
In the novel, Josiah and Nelson become strangers and opponents in the navy, while it is known that Napoleon and his stepson Eugene kept together on the battlefield and in familiar and political affairs.
3.4. Nelson and the Admiralty
Nelson was not only an unfavourable protégée of the king but he also developed a less hearty relationship with the Admiralty. But there was a reason by the Admiralty to place him at a disadvantage.
a) Nelson and disobedience
On pages 24 to 26 Nelson disputes with Josiah. This is an important moment since Nelson is confronted with two things: the changed relationship with Josiah who dislikes his stepfather, and his reproach of Nelson's incapability and disobedience. It is a talk where Nelson's disobedience is openly discussed.
Only Lord Hamilton believes in Nelson's ingenuity. But when it comes to the traitor Ruffo he gets in disharmony with Nelson.
This is a scene where the disobedient Nelson acts accordingly and loyal to his country and the navy rules, while Hamilton tries to hinder the execution.
Another item in this scene is the discussion between the two men about Jacobinism and creed.
Greville is the second character that is not very fond of Nelson. On pages 70 to 73 he even scorns Nelson by reminding him that he actually had not completed the mission of Aboukir personally as Nelson had not accomplished to overpower the French ship Le Guillaume Tell .
Again the problem of Nelson's disobedience is talked about. This time with Greville who insinuates this topic by wondering under whom Nelson would serve happily. This is an allusion to the complicated relationship the Admiralty has with Nelson and his stubborn character.
It is Lord Hamilton who convinces his nephew to promote Nelson for the next important mission in the Mediterranean. On pages 90 to 94 they discuss Nelson's qualities. While Greville only considers disobedience and hesitates to give him the leadership, Hamilton believes in Nelson's qualities in battle, and declares him the greatest genius that ever fought at sea. He recommends him to make Nelson a Commander-in-Chief, so he had to obey no one. But Greville's opinion is:
“It's the rules, Uncle William, that he disobeys. He puts himself above the rules of warfare; and indeed above the rules of morality, if it comes to that: they must bow before his caprice.”
The Admiralty need men with dependability, not genius. This is what Greville tries to explain to his uncle on page 92 in the novel.
The following sequences describe the relationship between Nelson and the Admiralty:
“Obvious, but not the best. Was that it? When had Nelson ever exercised independent command? At Boulogne!” .
“…Nelson's the most unwanted man in England-till there's fighting to be done”, is a
cynical remark by Nelson himself about his popularity.
These are the first thoughts by Nelson (and an auctorial comment), when Greville gives Nelson
the command of a fleet. At first Nelson is suspicious of this offer and thinks of a misunderstanding.
“But what about the Lords of the Admiralty? What about them?”
Nelson is aware of his disadvantageous reputation in the Admiralty and that they are ignoring him
on purpose. To correct the misunderstanding, Nelson submits his desire, which has been unfulfilled for a long time, to Greville again who understands him well.
“`When I say serve…'-'…you mean lead. I realize that. At the head of a fleet.'”
Leading himself a fleet is Nelson's goal but the Admiralty has hindered him in his endeavour.
“The Admiralty! Nelson refused to fight the Admiralty” . Nelson was often unsuccessful in his missions in the Mediterranean because the Admiralty did not give him a sufficient number of frigates which he needed to chase and observe the enemy. On page 134 Nelson has also to cope the problem of damaged ships, which the Admiralty refused to replace.
b) Nelson and his task
The duel with Napoleon was an indirect duel because Nelson was never confronted personally with the Frenchman. Nonetheless, it was a duel between two greats. Though both never met personally and Nelson later beat Napoleon indirectly by beating Napoleon's admiral Villeneuve, Nelson's wrath and abhorrence was true.
Because of this, Nelson was eager to destroy Napoleon and his plans. He only saw the solution of annihilating Napoleon to deliver Europe since Nelson puts all negative virtues on Napoleon, who is a person bringing Europe into slavery.
“Why was Europe so servile, so supine, so utterly mean-spirited? There could be no remedy but one: the destruction of Bonaparte. Bonaparte! This spirit of evil, of everything vile, why was he thus? Why? Had he sucked some bitterness in his cradle?”
Nelson was also of the opinion that it was necessary to act accordingly against Napoleon, and not to excuse him.
“…But this was to reckon without Bonaparte, who had proved himself no man, but a monster, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. (…) This was no war, for wars are against enemies, against men with whom you finally shake hands, exchange courtesies. Bonaparte, however, was no enemy, but a criminal to be hunted-to be brought to trial, not to the negotiating table. Or if he was an enemy, he could be none other than The Enemy. And if this was a war indeed, it was the War in Heaven, between Michael and the dragon, to be waged without truce, without quarter.”
The auctorial comment on page 132 tells that “Nelson's battle with Napoleon is a mission without mercy, accordingly, no truce”. Nelson knows that Napoleon is a man with megalomania and that he would never stop to subjugate other peoples because Napoleon was obsessed with power. To give Napoleon compromises meant to give him a chance to repeat his vile actions to gratify his intentions and thirst for power.
He never would accept truce by himself and he never would keep his promises. He would break treaties, and he would mean doom. This is a further reason why Nelson considered this battle as important to win. In comparison with the biblical fight between Heaven and the Evil, the victory here meant the same. Nelson considers Napoleon neither as an enemy nor as a human being, but only as a criminal.
3.5. The Battle of Trafalgar
Before the great battle takes place, Nelson is full of doubts. He is sure of being left in the lurch by the Admiralty now as he had been all the time before. He even doubts his popularity among his men:
“Hardy, you now know why the Admiralty hate me.'-'And why your men love you'.Was that so? Really so?” .
Shortly afterwards on page 178 the answer for his popularity among his men is given. It shows the relationship between the Admiral and the fleet staff, and indicates his affability and humanity. “Did you observe our men?' he enquired. `I `am proud to be a man among them; they see the scar on my forehead, the empty sleeve, the blind eye; these are no marks of rank.”
Nelson does not feel any better or superior to his men. This is a reason why the men love Nelson. The men are on an equal foot with their admiral. But this equality refers to the captains as well.
“The captains `were a fraternity, free and equal' with their admiral. This is liberte, egalite, fraternite, Nelson's revolution at sea”.
As already mentioned, Nelson is full of doubts and uncertainty. He wants to win the battle, but is also frightened of failing again.
After his experience in missing the French fleet in 1798, Nelson is always afraid that this could happen again. It had been a shock to him from which he never really recovered . The constant internal tension let him even be deceived by a Spanish merchantman claiming the French had left the port. But finally, Nelson lost the French fleet indeed, when Villeneuve directed to the West Indies. Although Nelson was happy that the long watch was over, he had to admit that he had no idea where to search for the enemy. But Nelson was lucky that his thoughts helped him in looking through the French plan. It should be considered that it is corrected not only as thoughts, but that these thoughts are “as if God had spoken”. Like God had spoken to Jeanne D'Arc, God had spoken to Nelson and had given him a wink.
To get back to Nelson's doubts, Nelson is of the opinion that he cannot afford any failure.
But on the other hand, he doubts, whether he might win the victory, which he values as not a real victory.
“And Englishmen at home would cry victory, oh yes! Oh yes, but without knowing what kind of victory it was: an utterly pointless one, because it had failed to reach the marrow bone of Bonaparte. Only numbers could annihilate. Nelson thanked God when a speck on the horizon grew into H.M.S. Agamemnon. His beloved Agamemnon. He needed her. She was a good omen. He needed a good omen.”
“This battle, this, this, this battle, he must, must fight; and win -or the Nile and Copenhagen were an accident.”
In this indirect interior speech Nelson needed a confirmation because he was somehow dissatisfied with his victory at the Nile, probably also influenced by Josiah's and Greville's words. On page 60 Nelson's feeling is revealed that the Battle of Aboukir is incomplete to him when the French ship Le Guillaume Tell escaped and was not captured.
As the Guillaume Tell was captured later, but not by himself, which gave Greville later the occasion to sneer at him, this is the reason for Nelson to believe that Aboukir was only an accident. That Calder intercepted Villeneuve on his way back to Europe did not console Nelson either.
“In the days before Aboukir and Copenhagen it would have counted as a victory.”
3.6. Nelson and the Death
Nelson was always ready to face death. He risked his life in battle because he placed his destiny and life in God's will. But this inclination to risk made Nelson dangerous for his enemies and Nelson knew that risk could turn out positively into success.
Nelson, according to Foxell, knew that he would die in this battle. He refuses to put away his stars although his captains warn him that this was dangerous as he could be the target of enemy snipers. But Nelson seems to provoke such danger by his recklessness and contempt of death.
While Foxell and Williams agree that it were his officers who warned him, we find in Morriss that it was William Beatty, the ship's surgeon, who warned the wearing of decorations because they made him conspicuous to the enemy,
“At midday the leading ships were a mile from the enemy line, which started to fire on them. Hardy, Nelson's secretary John Scott, and the surgeon William Beatty, became aware that Nelson was recognizable to snipers, having four chivalric decorations sewn on his Admiral's coat. However, Nelson considered it was too late to change.”
Here we have a different report to what we find in Foxell's novel concerning this issue.
And in Williams essay we find,
“Before the battle, Nelson refused to change into a less conspicuous coat, as suggested by officers concerned for his safety.”
There is evidence in the text that Nelson was prepared for death or maybe wished to die.
On page 181 Nelson when separating from Captain Blackwood adds “You will never see me again” , which is also reported by Williams,
“Immediately before the battle, he shocked one of his captains by saying, 'God bless you, Blackwood, I shall never speak to you again.'”
In case, Nelson was willing to die in this battle, there are three reasons why he might have preferred death. The first assumption is given by Williams, stating that
“…perhaps a premonition had told him that he was meant to die at the moment of his greatest victory.”
The second reason why he preferred death was that he did not feel anymore like a proper human being. Although he was happy by loving Emma and by being loved by her, he was aware of his physical decay. His eye got worse and worse and he suffered from different diseases. He possessed only one arm and a historical letter, which was written after he had lost his arm, showed his fear that “a left-handed admiral will never again be considered as useful”. He felt like only half a man. He got a lack of self-confidence after his injuries, and his health never recovered. But he wished secretly that he would be strong and healthy again, which is expressed on page 185 when he saw the H.M.S. Victory which had been refitted again. “Nelson wished he could be refitted.” This is a (speculative) auctorial comment, not necessarily Nelson's own opinion.
There is the irony of Nelson, being called the Glorious Victor (of the Nile) who cannot be refitted, while the ship Victory got refitted for its historical performance at Trafalgar and would be part of history as well. Another wink on Nelson's desire of wishing to get healthy again and his dissatisfaction with his crippled existence is given by Foxell on page 175 by the auctorial comment: “Oh, it was Apollo's car, rather, that Nelson wished to hail and halt.” Apollo is an allegory. In Greek mythology he is the God of Youth, Music and Therapeutics. He is considered as the most powerful God besides Zeus in classic Greek mythology. He is the incarnation of male beauty and of noble grandeur.
A third reason of his inclination to risk death is that Nelson noticed that in spite of his victories the Admiralty did not appreciate him. I assume that death was the solution to his “poor” existence as a high-ranked officer in his professional life and also as a human being. There is a certain stoicism in his heroism.
Death meant to him an ultimate improvement of his reputation. As long as he lived his victories would be acknowledged, but only the people celebrated him. Unlike the people, the Admiralty needed him but did not love him. Since his youth Nelson had an inclination to heroism, which is another reason that he did not fear death. Like Napoleon he believed in being destined to something great, and like Napoleon he wanted to write himself into history.
Nelson's comment on his own destiny was
“My character and good name was in my own keeping. Life with disgrace is dreadful. A glorious death is to be envied.”
This quotation displays the attitude of Nelson towards his aim and his strategy of becoming a hero or glorious officer, and his attitude towards life.
In the novel Nelson wished to be buried with Emma. A historical document quotes different last words of the dying Nelson:
“Don't throw me overboard, Hardy. I wish to be buried by the side of my father and mother, unless it should please the King to order otherwise.”
Identical with Foxell is the desire not to be buried at sea. Nelson's wish to be buried with Emma can be pure fancy by Foxell to add a romantic element to the love story. Certainly, it is possible that Nelson said this to Emma, but there are no proofs for that. The fictitious intimate last talk between Nelson and Emma allows the writer to write down his fictitious version. Just as the possibility is considerable that Hardy distorted Nelson `s words to keep up the appearances of the hero in public. But the idea of Nelson saying the contrary (that he would like to be buried with Emma) in reality, too, is only an assumption.
The second identical thing is Nelson's caress for Horatia and Lady Hamilton:
“Take care of my dear Lady Hamilton, Hardy: take care of poor Lady Hamilton. And never forget Horatia. Kiss me, Hardy.' Hardy knelt down and kissed his cheek.”
To compare it with Foxell's version, the scene with kissing Nelson existed indeed.
In the chapter about trueness where I asked, whether it was true that Nelson believed he was not a great sinner or whether it was only invented by Foxell, we can find in Morriss that Nelson said to the chaplain “Doctor, I have not been a great sinner.” We now can conclude that Nelson did really say this, but in contrast to Foxell who describes the moment, when this sentence fell, as if Nelson was telling this to Hardy, in reality he addressed these words to the chaplain. In the novel no chaplain or other man of the church can be found during the moment before Nelson dies.
His attitude of having accomplished a mission is proved in the historical sources that deal with the letters and dispatches by and about Nelson.
“Now I `m satisfied. Thank God I have done my duty.”
Like in Foxell's novel these were Nelson's very last words.
Whether his duty is related to his task for England and the English navy, or whether it was for the sake of the Christian religion and the sake of the peoples in general is not verified.
I think that he knew that his victory would not affect the well being of the oppressed European peoples at once but it was a personal victory against the enemy of God. He was aware of the meaning of a victory. Not only for his own benefit but also in the benefit of all pious people. He knew his victory would not destroy Napoleon at once but he hoped for and he knew that this battle was important. At last, the victory, which Nelson attained so much, meant the security of Britain's naval power.
But unlike my assumption, Nelson's prayer before Trafalgar shows the purposes of this battle
seen by Nelson,
“May the Great God whom I worship, grant to my country, and to the benefit of Europe in general, A great and glorious Victory! And may no misconduct in anyone tarnish it! And may humanity after victory be the predominant feature in the British fleet. For myself individually I commit my life to him who made me—and many his Blessing light upon my endeavours for serving my country faithfully. To him I resign myself and the just cause which is entrusted me to defend, Amen. Amen. Amen.”
3.7. The reaction of English society to Nelson's death
George III. simply said, that Nelson had died the death he had wished. His reaction was quite sober because he was one of the non-supporters of Nelson since he discredited himself before the king.
Lord Castlereagh commented Nelson's death, “Nelson has terminated his life in a manner worthy of himself”.
Robert Southey, the Romantic writer, noted,
“The death of Nelson was felt in England as something more than a public calamity; men started at the intelligence, and turned pale, as if they had heard of the loss of a dear friend. An object of our admiration and affection, of our pride and of our hopes, was suddenly taken from us; and it seemed as if we had never, till then, known how deeply we loved and reverenced him.”
Nelson's only legacy, which he asked for towards the king at the moment of going to fight England's battle, was not fulfilled. Concerning legacies, Williams remembers another one,
“And what of his legacy? Trafalgar gave the British Navy supremacy of the seas for nearly a century. His death brought about an outpouring of public grief hardly equalled to this day. Fascination with his life, both personal and public, had begun. In death, Nelson had finally achieved his greatest ambition—immortality”
Now that Nelson was dead, he was much more worth to the country because his reputation was a invincible heroic one which could not be touched anymore by disrepute with Emma or adultery that had been always a thorn in the Admiralty's and church's side.
With Nelson's death all this disdaining love affair finished as well. The only thing left was Nelson's heroism and good reputation. The bad actions were forgotten and forgiven. Nelson belonged to the “undying dead” and was honoured even by the highest circles now,
by being buried among other “VIP”s in St. Paul's Cathedral. All England mourned and lamented for him, and actually Nelson had achieved his goal. The lack of respect which he experienced during his life, was now compensated with the greatest honour when he was dead. His desire and thought of becoming a hero was fulfilled. He even became an “undying
Hero” and the greatest known British opponent of Napoleon. He wrote himself into history by his “tactics” to risk his life and rather even to die for his country than having victories with a disgraceful life. His naval tactics became historic, too.
4. Conclusion
In this case it was necessary that the author of the novel had to keep to particular historical facts to prevent forgery on history. As this is a historical novel, Foxell could not change the dates, course or results of the particular battles in which Nelson fought or other events, which really had happened in history. Another reason why he could not change the historical background was Foxell's intention of writing a homage to a hero. But Foxell dedicates the central theme to Nelson`s private life, in particular his love to Emma. This makes it possible for the writer to add fiction to faction. Here the writer is not bound to keep to facts, as he is concerning the wars. The fiction of the love relationship is based on sources like love letters and reports of time witnesses. The most fictitious sequences are moments of intimacy, where Nelson and Emma are alone. Such moments are not kept in letters or by witnesses. For example, the night walking of Nelson until he arrived at Lady Hamilton's house in the morning is documented. Afterwards he returned to Fanny for the last time. All this is true. But the time between Nelson's arrival at Emma's house and his leaving and return to Fanny is not documented and allows Foxell to write down what might have happened or have been talked and done by the two lovers. This is fictitious.
To summarize, I suppose that Foxell intends to show the reader that also Britain had her (revolutionary) hero who was pious and who was not inferior to Napoleon in success and originality.
NELSON was able to defeat the greatest man and outstanding general in Europe during this time.
While France under Napoleon influenced almost the whole of Europe, it was Nelson who brought England's rule of the seas: “Britannia rules the waves.”
Nelson was even superior to Napoleon. He had died for Britain's victory,
while Napoleon's star fell. Eventually, there was a triumph for Britain and a disaster for France when the latter one lost the Battle at Waterloo. While Nelson's wars brought England success, Napoleon's wars brought evil for his country.
Nelson disgusted the political changes in France, but (his disobedience in the navy insinuates an action which) Foxell states that Nelson shared the French slogan of equality, which Nelson practised in the navy.
One of the issues dealt with in the novel is, besides the problematic relationship between Emma and Nelson, the relationship between Nelson and the Admiralty.
Nelson did not want to be subordinated to another officer, but the Admiralty ignored his wishes. This led to Nelson's disobedience when at war (see Copenhagen and Minorca).
The Admiralty, Greville, Josiah and the King did not show much attention and honour to Nelson because of the disobedience that was to be interpreted as revolutionary.
Later Nelson lost his face before the king and others in English high society, by his affair with Emma.
Moreover, Nelson is a kind of Bonaparte. The difference is that Nelson is the “Bonaparte of the sea”.
He is even better than “Boney” because Nelson was the good one, defeating the “monster” who gulped Europe.
While Napoleon unsuccessfully meant to invade Britain, Nelson succeeded in capturing Corsica. This was a further hit against the Frenchman born on Corsica.
Nelson accomplished the “Holy Mission”, which Foxell insinuates by referring to the bible by analogies that can be found there.
Not a central topic, but also an important issue in this novel is the enemy ship between Nelson and Napoleon, who resembled each other and led an indirect duel.
Furthermore, Foxell has illustrated how Nelson struggled with the Admiralty all the time until he gained pure fame by his death.
Nelson achieved to retaliate upon the Admiralty. Those who ignored him, had to honour him as a hero. With his death, he gained the status he had craved for so long. This is the image, which we get in the novel. Nevertheless, we could consider that the Admiralty still showed him his dishonour by having Nelson not buried in Westminster Abbey but in St. Paul's Cathedral. This would mean that even with Nelson's heroic status and by the time when he was already dead, the Admiralty still had the “power” to take his “victory”. Even in death the Admiralty showed Nelson that they had a grudge against him because of his affair with Emma Hamilton.
To summarize, Foxell describes how Nelson achieved his goals of fighting successfully against Napoleon, how he finished his duty for his country and the people, and how he achieved to become a hero and a successful admiral, conducting a fleet and by winning a battle after battle.
Despite his belief of unity with Emma -proved by Horatia- neither his daughter nor Emma were accepted as his legacy to the country after his death.
He was a national hero. However, even his second wish was not realized either.
Although Nelson achieved so much for his country, for politics and for the navy, he did not achieve his greatest personal wish in Foxell's novel, that is, to be with Emma forever.
Neither had he been able to live with Emma in a normal and accepted way by the society, and in a marriage nor did he attain to be buried with Emma, so they did not achieve to be united.
The fact that he was a national hero now had the consequence they were kept separated.
Even his legacy on which he attached great importance to was not reached. The tragic thing in this novel is that neither Emma nor Horatia, the hero's daughter, was to receive recognition as the legacy Nelson left to his country. Nelson received “undying fame”, but Emma had lost her lover and at last was all alone by herself. There was no one anymore who supported her, and she was rather an outcast in society than a respectable woman then.
5. Bibliography
Primary Sources
Foxell, Nigel. Emma Expects: a novel. Brighton: Harvester, 1987.
Foxell, Nigel. Loving Emma. Brighton: Harvester Press Ltd., 1986.
Secondary Sources
Bauer, W./ Dümotz, I./ Golowin, S. Lexikon der Symbole. 3. Aufl. Wiesbaden: Fourier, 1987.
Beatty, William. The Death of Lord Nelson. The authentic narrative: with the circumstances preceding, attending and subsequent to that event, the professional report on His Lordship's Wounds. 4ed. London: The Athenaeum, 1985.
Beck, Rudolf/Kuester,Hildegard/Kuester, Martin. Forum Sprache. Terminologie der
Literaturwissenschaft . Ismaning: M.Hueber, 1998.
Bruce, Evangeline. Napoleon und Josephine. Das grandiose Bild einer Epoche. Bern: Scherz,
1998.
Blakely, Brian L./Collins, Jacquelin. Documents in British History: Vol.II:1688 to the
present. 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.
Cowie, Leonard W. Lord Nelson: 1758-1805.Westport, Conn.: Meckler, 1990.
Davies, David. Nelson's Navy. English Fighting Ships 1793-1815. Mechanicsburg:
Stackpole, 1996.
Haigh, Christopher. The Cambridge Historical Encyclopedia of Great Britain and Ireland.
Cambridge: University Press, 1985.
Harris Nicolas, Nicholas. The dispatches and letters of Vice Admiral Lord Viscount Nelson.
London: Colburn, 1845-1846.
Hibbert, Christopher. Nelson: A personal history. London: Penguin Books, 1995.
Hornby, A.S./Gatenby, E.V./Wakefield, H. The Adcanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. 2nd Edition. London: Oxford University Press, 1963.
Lindsay, Donald/ E.S.Washington. A Portrait of Britain 1688-1851. Oxford, 1980.
Lofts, Norah. Emma Hamilton. London, 1978.
McKay, Ken. D. A remarkable relationship: the story of Emma Hamilton and her impact on
the lives of Charles Francis Greville; Sir William Hamilton and Horatio Nelson
including details of the Pembrokeshire Connection. Milford Haven, 1992.
Messinger, Heinz. Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch Englisch. 6.Aufl. Berlin: Langenscheidt, 1994.
Morriss, Roger. The Life and Letters of a Hero. London: Collins & Brown, 1996.
Napoleon I. Mein Leben. Gesamtausgabe der Autobiographie.Bd.2. Meine ersten Siege II.
--: Mundus, 1999.
Napoleon I. Mein Leben. Gesamtausgabe der Autobiographie. Bd.4. Ich- Der Kaiser I.
--: Mundus, 1999.
Nünning, Ansgar. Von historischer Fiktion zu historiographischer Metafiktion. Bd.1
Theorie,Typologie und Poetik des historischen Romans. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher
Verlag, 1995.
Orde, Denis A. Nelson's Mediterranean Command concerning Pride, Preferment & Prize
Money. Durham: Pentland Press Ltd. , 1997.
Pocock, Tom. Horatio Nelson. London: Bodley Head, 1987.
Pocock, Tom. Nelson's Women. London: Andre Deutsch, 1999.
Poenicke, Klaus. Die schriftliche Arbeit. 2. Aufl. Mannheim: Duden, 1989.
Richards, Denis/J.W. Hunt. An Illustrated History of Modern Britain 1783-1964. XX, 1965.
Rohmann, Gerd. “Metafiction in Contemporary English Historical Novels”. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego. Prace Historycznoliterackie Z. 73. 1990.
Simpson, Colin. Emma. The Life of Lady Hamilton. London: Bodley Head. 1983.
Smith, Veronica/ Klein-Braley, Christine. Forum Sprache. In other words…Arbeitsbuch Übersetzung. 2. Aufl. Ismaning: M.Hueber, 1989.
Internet
Williams, David. “At the National Maritime Museum'sNelson Gallery, visitors catch a
glimpse of the personality of English greatest naval warrior”. In: “Nelson: the Personal
Side of a Public Hero. October/November 1998.
--- “England Expects” in: Eastern Counties Network (News Papers).
Of Ansgar Nünning. Von historischer Fiktion zu historiographischer Metafiktion. Bd 1. Theorie, Typologie und Poetik des historischen Romans. (Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 1995), p. 53.
Zitiert nach Geppert in Nünning , Von historischer Fiktion zu...., p.46.
Rudolf Beck/Hildegard Kuester/Martin Kuester, Terminologie der Literaturwissenschaft, Ein Handbuch für das Anglistikstudium, Forum Sprache (Ismaning:Hueber, 1998), p.45.
Vgl. Ansgar Nünning, Von historischer Fiktion zu historiographischer Metafiktion ...
Op. cit., p.46.
Op. cit., p 96.
Denis Richards/ J.W. Hunt, An Illustrated History of Modern Britain 1783-1964, 1965
Gerd Rohmann, “Metafiction in Contemporary English Historical Novels”,( Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego , Prace Historycznoliterackie Z. 73, 1990), p.151.
D.W. Sweet, “Warfare and International Relations: Britain, Europe and the “Pax Britannica”, The Cambbridge Historical Encyclopedia of Great Britain and Ireland. Ed. I.Haigh, Christopher. Cambridge: University Press, 1985.
Rohmann, p. 148.
Op. cit. , p .148.
Foxell, Emma Expects… ,p.195.
see Foxell, Emma Expects…, p.34.
Foxell, Emma Expects... ,p. 217
Op. cit., p.193.
see 215 and 217 in Foxell, Emma Expects…
Paul Barras was a revolutionary with aristocratic background and afterwards a member of the Directorium .
Nigel Foxell, Emma Expects: a novel, (Brighton: Harvester Group,1987), p.17.
Vgl. Roger Morris, The Life and Letters of a Hero, (London: Collins & Brown, 1996), p. 81.
Op. cit. , p. 81.
Op. cit. p. 6.
Lord Hamilton to Greville in Emma Expects… , p. 90.
Morriss, The Life and Letters …, p. 148
Op. cit. ,p.149.
Morriss, The Life and Letters… ,p. 106.
Foxell, Emma Expects..., p. 68.
Vgl. Nigel Foxell, Emma Expects…, p.45.
Op. cit. , p. 91.
Nigel Foxell, Emma Expects…., p.126.
Foxell, Emma Expects…. , p. 127.
Op. cit. , p. 127.
Op. cit. , p. 128.
Op. cit., p. 134.
Op. cit. , p. 139.
Op. cit. , p. 132.
Op. cit. ,p. 172.
Rohmann, “Metafiction in Contemporary ….”, pp. 149/150.
Vgl. Foxell, Emma Expects , p. 136.
Op. cit. , p. 146.
Op. cit. , p. 173.
Op. cit. , p. 178.
Op. cit. , p. 148.
See p. 12.
Morriss, The Life and Letters…. , p.146.
David Williams. “Nelson: the Personal Side of a Public Hero…”
ebd.
ebd.
Morriss; The Life and Letters of … , p. 78.
1996 Eastern Counties Newspapers Group Ltd.
Ebd.
Ebd.
Morriss, The Life and Letters…, p. 149.
Ebd.
Morriss, The Life and Letters…, p.146.
Morriss p.150
ebd.
Op.cit. p.12.
Williams, “Nelson: The Personal Side of a Hero…”
Foxell, Emma Expects…, p.68.
3