What do you think?
Rate this book
Slaves in Algiers; or, A Struggle for Freedom: A Play, Interspersed with Songs, in Three Acts, By Mrs. Rowson. As Performed at the New Theatres, in Philadelphia and Baltimore
A small booklet with basic historical information etc.
Paperback
First published October 1, 2000
3 people are currently reading
39 people want to read
About the author
Susanna Rowson
43 books12 followersSusanna Rowson, née Haswell, was a British-American novelist, poet, playwright, religious writer, stage actress, and educator. She was the author of the novel Charlotte Temple--the most popular bestseller in American literature until Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin was published in 1852.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
May 24, 2015
Update on 24th May 2015
I decided to give two stars instead of the initial one, since after some thought, the work did grow a bit in me.
The reason why I feel this play has some merit is not because it is merely pleasing to watch or read (it is not particularly so), nor because it deals with the topics it takes up in ways I find satisfying. I believe it is interesting because it tries to deal with some issues in a complicated manner, and considering the context and time in which it was written, this is a big thing.
Susanna Rowson was born in England and moved back and forth in England and America throughout her life. She was lucky to receive an education sufficient for her to become a governess and a teacher, and she started writing novels and plays. In fact, she is the author of Charlotte Temple, the American novel who sold the most copies before Uncle Tom's Cabin was published.
In Slaves in Algiers, Rowson makes an admirable attempt to deal with the sexist ideology of 18th century, post-revolutionary America, which considers women nothing more than nurturers and carers for men and children. In her play, women speak of freedom, they make decisions, they save men with their money or wits, and they push the plot forward. All of this is done with so much tact that it is hardly visible - the play looks much like a conventional melodrama.
On the other hand, it is difficult to overlook the imperialist and racist implications of Slaves in Algiers. Set in Algiers, which is constantly portrayed as a place of decadence, deprivation, and moral inferiority, the play makes use of the concept of white slaves in North Africa (which is a historical fact, Christians were abducted by pirates sold to the slave market until the early 19th century), to exalt American democracy and American exceptionalism. The fact that at the same time thousands of black people were conveniently enslaved back in the US is nowhere mentioned.
Even with these drawbacks, this is an interesting piece for people interested in early American literature and history.
I decided to give two stars instead of the initial one, since after some thought, the work did grow a bit in me.
The reason why I feel this play has some merit is not because it is merely pleasing to watch or read (it is not particularly so), nor because it deals with the topics it takes up in ways I find satisfying. I believe it is interesting because it tries to deal with some issues in a complicated manner, and considering the context and time in which it was written, this is a big thing.
Susanna Rowson was born in England and moved back and forth in England and America throughout her life. She was lucky to receive an education sufficient for her to become a governess and a teacher, and she started writing novels and plays. In fact, she is the author of Charlotte Temple, the American novel who sold the most copies before Uncle Tom's Cabin was published.
In Slaves in Algiers, Rowson makes an admirable attempt to deal with the sexist ideology of 18th century, post-revolutionary America, which considers women nothing more than nurturers and carers for men and children. In her play, women speak of freedom, they make decisions, they save men with their money or wits, and they push the plot forward. All of this is done with so much tact that it is hardly visible - the play looks much like a conventional melodrama.
On the other hand, it is difficult to overlook the imperialist and racist implications of Slaves in Algiers. Set in Algiers, which is constantly portrayed as a place of decadence, deprivation, and moral inferiority, the play makes use of the concept of white slaves in North Africa (which is a historical fact, Christians were abducted by pirates sold to the slave market until the early 19th century), to exalt American democracy and American exceptionalism. The fact that at the same time thousands of black people were conveniently enslaved back in the US is nowhere mentioned.
Even with these drawbacks, this is an interesting piece for people interested in early American literature and history.
November 19, 2019
Read for class.
May 15, 2018
Read this for a paper I'm writing on Early American women's drama. Rowson is a really interesting figure, esp. in terms of early feminism in America, and this is her best known dramatic work, but it's not really my cup of tea, and I can't imagine it's anyone's cup of tea since, like-- well, centuries. It's history is more interesting to me than the play itself--for instance, the play is interspersed with "Songs" for which the melodies have been lost. A lot of early American dramatic works are "lost" to history.
October 1, 2018
I’ll be honest, I didn’t care for this play. Yes, I like the complexities of the themes and the strong hints of early American feminism, but the positives stop there for me. The language was reminiscent of Shakespearean language without the grandiosity of his storylines. Yes, there is also gender bending in this play, but Shakespeare does it much better. Perhaps it’s unfair to compare the two, but, in my mind, I was forced to compare this play with the (in my opinion) much more enjoyable plays from the Elizabethan era.
December 6, 2019
A multitude of Christian slaves and those sympathetic to their cause seek freedom from their Algerian captors.
A good story with some funny moments to lighten a mood that could turn dark quickly. The ending was a bit unbelievable, but was done for the sake of a happy conclusion.
A good story with some funny moments to lighten a mood that could turn dark quickly. The ending was a bit unbelievable, but was done for the sake of a happy conclusion.
January 12, 2014
An old American play written by a woman about American captives on the Barbary coast. Some solid feminist ideas, but full of racism. Not a win.
October 13, 2012
This is not something I will be likely to read ever again. It is a play staged as a captivity narrative. White women are held captive by a "Moorish" sultan...blah, blah, blah.
December 17, 2015
Ah! The emotions! :)
Read
September 8, 2016Our living history group put on the play at our "Women's History Weekend" in 2009.
October 25, 2019
It’s an utter mess and delightful
February 6, 2020
An illuminating play that showcases the racist orientalism pervasive in late 18th century America. Rowson’s call to end slavery and for equality between the sexes was surprising given the time.
November 7, 2021
So, you need to understand that this is a play written by a woman born in Britain, who lived in Britain for much of the American Revolution, and who then moved back to what was by then the US after the war. The play is very much patriotic--to the point of being ridiculous in some important ways. It's also a play from 1794, which means it's a melodrama. And that means it's pretty racist, both against North Africans/Muslims and it has a problematic Antisemitic element with the character Ben Hassan.
But really the hardest thing for me with this play--and yes, I'm willing to put down the racism, Islamophobia, and Antisemitism to the times; with the caveat that those attitudes being common in the US and Britain doesn't make this play okay--is how slavishly unrealistic the praise of the US is. Several characters either give speeches or have extensive dialogue about how everyone is free and equal in the US.
In 1794.
Yep.
Several characters assert that women and men are equals.
In the US.
In 1794.
Now bear in mind that in the US in 1794, women were still effectively and to a large extent legally the property of their fathers until they became the property of their husbands. If women could own property at all (I think they could in some states under rare circumstances), there were limits to what kind of property they could own, how they could acquire it, and if they married it automatically became their husband's property. Women could not vote. They could not hold public office. Women were largely excluded from the world of business, the trades, politics, etc.
Along with this, many of the characters claim that there are no slaves in the US.
In 1794.
That everyone was free and that Americans were born with an innate love of freedom and repugnance at the very idea of slavery.
In 1794.
Apparently, either Rowson knew virtually nothing about the US, despite having lived here for years, or she was willfully ignoring the obvious reality, or she was simply so blind to the US' massive reliance on enslaved Africans/African Americans that their enslavement simply didn't register, or she simply didn't consider African Americans actual human beings. Because I believe that apart from Brazil, the US was the largest importer of enslaved African people in the entire Western hemisphere. There were (and still are) places in the south where African Americans outnumber white people, because of slavery and the industrial scale importation of Africans.
The most charitable way I can possibly read these utterances about women's equality and the absence of slavery in the US is as a mission statement, meant to rouse the audience to support actual equality. I just don't see enough in this play to really buy that this is some kind of social manifesto.
https://youtu.be/uAGjRW8dlUg
But really the hardest thing for me with this play--and yes, I'm willing to put down the racism, Islamophobia, and Antisemitism to the times; with the caveat that those attitudes being common in the US and Britain doesn't make this play okay--is how slavishly unrealistic the praise of the US is. Several characters either give speeches or have extensive dialogue about how everyone is free and equal in the US.
In 1794.
Yep.
Several characters assert that women and men are equals.
In the US.
In 1794.
Now bear in mind that in the US in 1794, women were still effectively and to a large extent legally the property of their fathers until they became the property of their husbands. If women could own property at all (I think they could in some states under rare circumstances), there were limits to what kind of property they could own, how they could acquire it, and if they married it automatically became their husband's property. Women could not vote. They could not hold public office. Women were largely excluded from the world of business, the trades, politics, etc.
Along with this, many of the characters claim that there are no slaves in the US.
In 1794.
That everyone was free and that Americans were born with an innate love of freedom and repugnance at the very idea of slavery.
In 1794.
Apparently, either Rowson knew virtually nothing about the US, despite having lived here for years, or she was willfully ignoring the obvious reality, or she was simply so blind to the US' massive reliance on enslaved Africans/African Americans that their enslavement simply didn't register, or she simply didn't consider African Americans actual human beings. Because I believe that apart from Brazil, the US was the largest importer of enslaved African people in the entire Western hemisphere. There were (and still are) places in the south where African Americans outnumber white people, because of slavery and the industrial scale importation of Africans.
The most charitable way I can possibly read these utterances about women's equality and the absence of slavery in the US is as a mission statement, meant to rouse the audience to support actual equality. I just don't see enough in this play to really buy that this is some kind of social manifesto.
https://youtu.be/uAGjRW8dlUg
June 14, 2025
One star for the Shakespearean English—or attempt thereof — which I always appreciate in my readings. The rest is risible at best(not in the self-aggrandizing way the 'Comedy' intended), and tedious with its ceaseless parroting of American exceptionalism contrasted with Moorish/Muslim wickedness and benightedness. I can only chuckle in disdain at Rowson's unrelenting rhapsodies about liberty and the afflictions of white Christian captives in Algiers while her own country was actively pillared on the institution of black slavery, of which no mention was made...
August 28, 2023
Why did I have to read this for a class? I’ll never know. It was interesting though. Kind of like early English version of twilight. You just have to get through the “shalt”, “thou”, and all the other floofy language
August 28, 2023
Read this for class.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews