The Algerine Captive

This Biot is related to SEMP Biot #220: “How John Adams Tamed the Barbary Coast Mussulmen: America’s First Foreign Policy Crisis” at: http://www.semp.us/biots/biot_220.html and SEMP Biot #221: “How Thomas Jefferson Tamed the Barbary Coast Mussulmen: America’s First Foreign Policy Crisis” at: http://www.semp.us/biots/biot_221.html.

 “The Algerine Captive” by Royall Tyler is about a Harvard-educated American schoolteacher turned doctor, who was captured by Barbary pirates in 1788 and sold into slavery in the City of Algiers. Through Dr. Updike Underhill's eye and series of experiences that eventually resulted in his own enslavement, author Tyler examines the phenomenon of human enslavement by fellow humans from several vantage points, including white Americans enslaving black Africans and Barbary Muslims enslaving Western Christians and releasing black Africans enslaved by Western Christians.

Royall Tyler published this historical fiction more than 200 years ago in 1797 when he was 40 years old, newly married, and on his way to procreating 11 children. “The Algerine Captive” was republished by the Modern Library, New York, in 2002 following the events of September 11, 2001. The book is an extremely early, by American historical measures, social commentary on slavery and the clash between Islam and Christianity.

Tyler’s name may not be known to some readers, but he is America’s first indigenous playwright, novelist, poet, and essayist. Born in 1757 in pre-Revolutionary Boston to Royall and Mary Steele Tyler as the youngest of four children, he was also a lawyer, a (failed) suitor of Abigail Adams (also known as Nabby, President John Adams’ daughter), a soldier who helped suppress Shay’s Rebellion, and an elected justice to the Vermont Supreme Court (12 years). Of those 12 years, he served as Chief Justice for seven.

His writing style is reminiscent of Mark Twain’s (or Mark Twain’s style is reminiscent of Royall Tyler’s!)--a droll and unflappable banter. The writing style contrasts vividly with the wildly fluctuating and unpredictable circumstances in which Dr. Underhill finds himself, as if unable to control his life. Some of Tyler’s opinions, expressed through Dr. Underhill, were bold for an eighteenth century patriot whose novel was published at the height of a war between the US and the Barbary States. “The Algerine Captive” reads fresh, not like a 200-year old book.

Tyler himself never traveled to the West coast of Africa or to the Barbary States along the Mediterranean coast of North Africa. However, he was a voracious reader even by the standards of his times, and undoubtedly had spoken directly to or read the memoirs and novels of Westerners such as the Irish-American James Leander Cathcart (born 1763 in Ireland and later American developer of the US Navy) and the Spaniard Miguel Cervantes (1547-1616), author of “Don Quixote”, who had fallen into the hands of Algerian corsairs and spent years as white Algerine slaves before ransoms were paid for their release. Tyler’s book is in two parts. The first part leads up to Dr. Underhill’s enslavement by Muslim Algerians, and the second part covers his enslavement and eventual release.

The story plot is this: Dr. Underhill takes a job as a ship’s surgeon to transport American tobacco and other goods to Europe, followed by a sail down along the western edge of Africa to pick up slave cargo to then be sold in the West Indies. When the slaves become violently ill while the ship is anchored in a harbor awaiting yet another slave shipment from the African interior, Dr. Underhill insists on creating a tent hospital ashore for the ill whom he tended with care, earning their deep gratitude. An Algerian corsair sails into the harbor, spooking the ship’s captain who flees with his ship, leaving Dr. Underhill and five slaves ashore. Four slaves flee into the brush at Dr. Underhill’s urging; one remains with him. Both men are then captured by the Algerines (Algerians) who set sail. The African is let free to roam the ship but Dr. Underhill is shackled below deck where his African friend secretly cares for him. Eventually, Dr. Underhill is deposited with a dozen other capturees from other pirated ships at the foot of the brocaded silk-draped and gold-studded Dey of the City of Algiers.

Dr. Underhill is sold to an Algerian citizen, for whom he toils in a garden and then a quarry with other slaves. An Englishman-convert to Islam, taking pity on the “christian slaves” in the quarry, approaches Dr. Underhill and in good English suggests he renounce Christianity and embrace the Mahometan faith, which would free him from his slavery. This the Englishman had done himself. “Come” he said, “let me send my friend, the Mollah to you. He will remove your scruples and, in a few days, you will be as free and happy as I am.” (p. 126)

Dr. Underhill is astonished and thinks he has never “viewed the character of an apostate as odious and detestable” and retorts, “My body is in slavery, but my mind is free. Your body is at liberty, but your soul is in the most abject slavery, in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity. You have sold your God for filthy lucre; and ‘what shall it profit you, if you gain the whole world and lose your own soul, or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul.’” Nevertheless, the next time the Englishman comes to the quarry, Dr. Underhill consents to meet the Mohametan priest.

The Mollah is gentle, which shocks Dr. Underhill who by now is thin, frail, and mentally exhausted and physically beaten down. Dr. Underhill confers with the Mollah and together they argue the principles of their two religions.

The Mollah states that each person inherits a religion from his forbears. He concludes, “A wise man adheres not to his religion, because it was that of his ancestors. He will examine the creeds of other nations, compare them with his own, and hold fast that, which right.” (p. 132) Dr. Underhill retorts that he is willing to rationally compare Christianity to Islam any day.

Which of the two religions has the greatest certainty that it came from God? Dr. Underhill answers that “our bible was written by men divinely inspired.” The Mollah responds “Our alcoran (Koran) was written by the finger of the Deity himself. But who told you, your bible was written by men divinely inspired?” To this, Dr. Underhill answers, “We received it from our ancestors, and we have as good evidence for the truths it contains, as we have in profane history for any historical fact.” Nonplussed, the Mollah responds the same is true for his Koran.

Taking the initiative, Dr. Underhill then asserts: “We know, the christian [sic] religion is true, from its small beginnings and wonderful increase. None but Deity himself could have enabled a few illiterate fishermen to spread a religion over the world, and perpetuate it to posterity.” The Mollah retorts that Mahomet was an illiterate camel driver! Furthermore, Islam has spread all over the world and, in fact, there are two Muslims for every Christian on earth. Dr. Underhill’s “blood boiled  to hear this infidel vaunt himself thus triumphantly against my faith; and, if had not been for a prudence, which in hours of zeal I have since had cause to lament, I should have taken vengeance of him upon the spot. I restrained my anger, and observed, our religion is supported by miracles.” The Mollah responds that Mohammed also worked miracles.” (p. 133)

The clincher comes when Dr. Underhill declares: “Our religion was disseminated in peace; yours was promulgated by the sword.” (p. 134) The Mollah responded: the “history of the christian [sic] church is a detail of bloody massacre.” The mussulmen [sic] “never yet forced a man to adopt their faith…It is true, they then and we now, when a slave pronounces the ineffable creed, immediately knock off his fetters and receive him as a brother.” He went on: “We leave to the christians [sic] of the West Indies and your southern plantations…to baptize the unfortunate African into your faith, and then use your brother christians [sic] as brutes of the desert.” (pp. 134-5)

Attempting to one-up the Mollah, Dr. Underhill rebukes Islam for holding “a sensual paradise,” that is, the deceased enjoying the immortal virgins, to which the Mollah excoriates Underhill about his religion’s [Christianity] stance on gaming and liquor, which are two principal sources of disquiet and misery. The Mollah suggests that Dr. Underhill does not need to renounce Jesus because Islam recognizes him as a great apostle of God. But, Mahomet “is the seal of the prophets. Turn them, my friend, from slavery to the delights of life. Throw off the shackles of education from your soul, and be welcome to the joys of the true believer. Lift your finger to the immensity of space, and confess that there is one God, and Mahomet is his apostle.” Dr. Underhill, “disgusted” with the Mollah’s “fables, abashed by his assurance, and almost confounded by his sophistry,” returns to his slavery in the quarry. (p. 136) The remainder of the story is for the reader to discover.

How does this story about the creeds of Christianity and Islam compare to the current 21st century situation between Wahhabist Muslim groups, such as al-Qaeda, and the Western countries? The eternal arguing continues, as if 200 years were a second of time.

For example, in February 2002 a group of 60 American academics, including Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who, taking issue with the September 11 hijackers who had declared they were engaged in holy war, affirmed in their paper entitled “What We’re Fighting For: A Letter from America” the following five truths:

1. All people are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

2. The basic subject of society is the human person and the legitimated role of government is to protect and help to foster the conditions for human flourishing.

3. Human beings naturally desire to seek the truth about life’s purpose and ultimate ends.

4. Freedom of conscience and religious freedom are inviolable rights of the human person.

5. Killing in the name of God is contrary to faith in God and is the greatest betrayal of the universality of religious faith. (1)

A group of 200 signatories (authors, doctors, professors, and judges from across the Kingdom) in Wahhabist Saudi Arabia responded with the following principles in their document titled “How We Can Coexist”:

1. Human beings are sacred and inviolable.

2. It is forbidden to kill a human unjustly.

3. It is forbidden to impose a religious faith on anyone.

4. Human relationships must be established on the highest moral standards.

5. All the resources of the Earth were created for humanity.

6. Responsibility for a crime rests solely upon the perpetrator.

7. Justice for all people is an unalienable right.

8. Dialogue and invitation must be done in the best possible manner. (2)

As author-journalists Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding discern, there are points of agreement and points of disagreement between the two sets of principles. For example, the Wahhabist Saudis note that “[t]he West must realise that by blocking the specific options and moderate aspirations of the Muslim world and by creating conflicts, they will bring about perspectives in the Muslim world that will be hard to overcome in the future and will create problems for generations to come all over the world.”  They do not come right out and justify the attacks of the hijackers but say, “it is necessary to recognize that some sort of causative relationship exists between American policy and what happened.”

The 60 American academics responded on October 23, 2002 with a document entitled “Can We Coexist?” In this document, the Americans note that the Saudis had come under criticism in their own country from some quarters for even taking part in a debate, and also remarked about the disagreements between the two lists of principles thus far documented to paper. The most important disagreement was, according to the American academics, that “nowhere in your letter do you [the Saudis] discuss or even acknowledge the role of your society in creating, protecting and spreading the jihadist violence that today threatens the world, including the Muslim world.” The academics go on to reject the Saudi’s assertion that American brought the attacks upon herself. (The three documents are available online at: http://www.americanvalues.org/index.html#september_11_challenge; accessed November 12, 2005).

THEN, Osama bin Laden entered the dialogue with his letter, which is available in Fosni and Fielding’s book (see sources below), pp. 190-196. In this letter, bin Laden says that the first reason that “we [al-Qaeda] are calling upon you [America] is to join Islam, a religion of unity and innocence, a religion of complete love to Almighty Allah to whom everything is surrendered. A religion that does not discriminate against anybody. To this religion we call upon you so that you can realize its objectives and understand that Allah’s word is above all and that every human being is looked upon in the same manner irrespective of his language or origin.”

Bin Laden’s concluding words in the 7-page letter are that “[his] nation [Islam] cares more about death more than you [Americans] care about life.” He then quotes the Koran: “Think not of those, who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead. Nay, they are living…They rejoice because of favour from Allah and kindness, and that Allah wasteth not the wage of the believers.” Bin Laden ends by threatening Americans with defeat at the hands of the mujahideen, with the permission of Allah, as did their predecessors, the Crusaders, if Americans don’t obey.

In October 2005, US President George W. Bush likened militant Islamists intent on destroying Western civilization (if it doesn’t join Islam?) to the totalitarianism of communism in the 20th century (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/; accessed November 12, 2005). His points are:

1. “Like communism, Islamic radicalism is led by an elitist self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his role is to tell Muslims “what is good for them and what is not.” What this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that this is the road to paradise - though he never offers to go along for the ride.
2. Islamic radicals purposely target innocent individuals for a political vision. This explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life seen in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, Margaret Hassan, and many others. These militants have shown themselves to be enemies of not only America and Iraq, but enemies of Islam and humanity. The world has witnessed this kind of cruelty before - the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags, the Cultural Revolution, and the killing fields.
3. Islamic radicals pursue totalitarian aims. Islamic Radical leaders have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves. While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing a future of oppression and misery - banning dissent and books, brutalizing women, and controlling every aspect of life.
4. Islamic radicalism is dismissive of free peoples. Zarqawi has said that Americans are “the most cowardly of God's creatures.” However, it is cowardice that kills children and the elderly with car bombs, cuts the throat of a bound captive, or targets worshipers leaving a mosque. It is courage that liberated 50 million people from tyranny, keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy, and will once again destroy the enemies of freedom.
5. And like communism, Islamic radicalism contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom, distrusting human creativity, punishing change, and limiting the contributions of half the population, this ideology declares war on the idea of progress itself. The only thing modern about the militants' vision is the weapons they seek to use. The outcome of this war is not in doubt - those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse. Because free people believe in the future, they will own the future.”

In summary, Royall Tyler’s novel about Muslim enslavement of Dr. Underhill in Algiers offers a perspective that still resonates today. Tyler’s title is “The Algerine Captive” and not “The Algerine Slave”. Dr. Underhill never abandoned his faith. He may have been captured, but he was never enslaved.

Sources:
1. Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding: “Masterminds of Terror.” Arcade Publishing, New York, 2003, p.188.
2. Ibid, p. 189.