Aspects of Narration and Lineage in Aphra Behn's Oroonoko

I have always found the title page to Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko to be remarkably interesting. It reads, “Oroonoko: or the Royal Slave. A True History.”  Here, I would like to place emphasis on “true” which precedes “history.” This implies that historical documents are not necessarily always the truth. Historical documents tend to mask the presence of a narrator, or a subject telling the story, in order to appear less biased.  I think Behn acknowledges that the historian is still human and subjective, and that historical documents, like fiction, are embedded with emotions and sensations.  Her fiction therefore is a “true history” or a true account of what occurred.  Behn begins Oroonoko with the word “I.” Right from the beginning, readers are aware that the narrator is present and there is indeed a subject telling the story. Behn states, “I do not pretend, in giving you the History of this Royal Slave, to entertain my Reader with the Adventures of a feign’d Hero…” (8).  Behn makes herself visible to readers and acknowledges that she is not making this story up for her own pleasures, but instead will present an honest portrayal. She even admits to omitting certain details because they may “prove tedious and heavy” to readers (8). She is not pretending to be objective. 

            Behn is an honest narrator because she admits her own presence in the story; thus, as readers we are then more likely to trust her judgment.  Although Behn is present in the story, she does at times distance herself as well.  For example, at one point she says “Some have commended this Act, as brave, in the Captain; but I will spare my sense of it, and leave it to my Reader, to judge as he pleases” (31).  She acknowledges that she has an opinion, but is allowing readers to place their own judgment on the events.  She is also challenging previous notions by specifying that only “some” commend the act as brave, indicating that there is another side and so she separates herself and invites readers to judge.  Thus, her account is a “true history” because as a writer, she acknowledges that there is a reader with her/his opinions; as opposed to one-sided narrations in historical documents, her fiction is a more honest account.

Furthermore, “Royal Slave” is another interesting aspect of the title. In the 19^th century, race was determined based on someone’s physical appearance, or biology.  However, in the 18^th century, a character’s race was determined by her/his family name or lineage. The definition of race, as an identity category, changes. Oroonoko is a noble African who comes from a royal bloodline. I would, however, like to point that when Behn delivers her first account upon meeting Oronooko, she illustrates him as being more Western than African; I find this to be a sort of strange passage. For example, she was curious to meet him because he spoke “French and English,” and she describes his physical appearance as thus: “His Nose was rising and Roman, instead of African and flat” (13).  I am interested in how authors from the 18th century represent the "other" in terms of Western notions. As a whole though, it is important to identify the difference between Behn’s portrayals of a slave with a historical document’s portrayal. In historical documents, slaves have no names or lineage. A slave is simply a slave without a story. Behn, however, fully develops her story and humanizes the oppressed.