Disentangling Eben-Ezer: William Okeley and His Barbary Captivity Narrative

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Well researched and relevant paper, which goes into detail with a text that -- as the essay observes as well -- is frequentely referred to as one of the most relevant Barbary captivity narratives, yet still lacks extensive coverage in research.

The author demonstrates detailed knowledge of secondary literature on the source text as well as other primary sources, meticulous historical research, and an innovative reading of the primary source. It presents a new perspective on Okeley's narrative that will make this essay a must-read in future Barbary captivity narrative research, especially with regard to the author's views on religion.

Only two minor suggestions for revisions:

1) Cite more secondary sources directly. The list of references does provide the key texts in the research on Okeley, but is nevertheless relatively short. On several occasions, the essay makes very general references to the 'criticism' on Okeley without making concrete references ("some critics", "much of the critical literature"...). This could be specified.

2) Proofread thoroughly once more. There are a number of slips of the pen and inaccuracies (e.g. to my knowledge G. A. Starr's first name is George, not Geoffrey).

Author Response

I have proof-read the article again and corrected the slip over George Starr’s name.

The reviewer also asked for more on fears of the rise of atheism in this period, and contemporary responses to it. I have revised this section of the text and added references.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

This report is very long but flawed and unacceptable as a basis for revision. It sets out in detail its author’s personal opinions on a range of topics but does not engage with the arguments or acknowledge the contributions of the article itself.

It is preoccupied, instead. with terminology. (The writer either overlooked or chose to ignore the paragraph that directly addressed that issue.) It rehearses at length the arid and now stale argument that ‘Mediterranean slavery’ does not ‘qualify’ as slavery because it was less extreme than the Black African slavery of the Americas and Caribbean. That fails to recognize that slavery had existed, in many diverse forms, throughout the ancient, mediaeval and early modern worlds. The brutality of the American form does not negate the reality of multiple earlier systems. The author claims that Mediterranean slavery also falls short because it lacked a foundation in a written code of law. That betrays a deep misunderstanding of the nature of justice in Barbary. The Reviewer prefers to see victims like Okeley as merely captives, prisoners of war. That too misrepresents the situation. The victims were not repatriated when the conflict ended. They remained enslaved unless and until families could ransom them, beyond the means of most families, or until the state or the Church raised the funds.  States were naturally unwilling to reward people they viewed as pirates, while Churches and religious orders had limited resources. Very many of those enslaved died still enslaved. Okeley thought that would be his own fate. He was also emphatic that his condition was that of a slave, not a captive, an important point the reviewer ignores. Okeley had a better understanding of what constituted slavery in the early modern period, and it is best to respect his judgement and his terminology. Reviewer 2 and those like him allow their preoccupation with Black African slavery in America to cloud their judgement. Reviewers 1 and 3 had no problem with my terminology and the Humanities editorial board has already approved a special issue devoted to ‘Mediterranean slavery’.

Reviewer 2’s other main concern is over the reliability of Okeley’s narrative, and that of all others within its genre. Here and elsewhere he dismisses captivity narratives as of negligible historical value, viewing them as largely fictional constructs serving merely to propagate a patriotic and anti-Muslim/Ottoman agenda. He has dismissed leading historians (e.g. Linda Colley, Robert Davis) who disagree. My article addressed the issue of genre and explored how far Okeley’s ‘facts’ can be verified by other sources. His narrative was certainly shaped by Protestant providentialism, but it was far from nationalistic, and he tried to balance the anti-Muslim stereotype with assessments based on his personal experience.

The demand for a close examination of Okeley’s religion is puzzling. My article already provided one far deeper than any existing account. The Reviewer notes that a ‘pious Muslim’ would have a very different view of providence, which is obviously true but banal. I was left wondering if that is what he meant by stressing ‘paradox and irony’. I have spelled out this point in the revised  text; it hardly merits more.

I have added more titles to the bibliography, as Reviewer 1 also suggested. I am not aware of other works on Okeley, though he is mentioned in a piece by Vitkus rehearsing his views on the unreliability of captivity narratives. I have engaged with this, and all his other points, in the revised text.  It will assuredly not be to the Reviewer’s liking. He will welcome the fact that I have tweaked the title to read ‘captivity narrative’, the form now in most common use. But the sweeping changes he demands would be hugely damaging to the article, and so unacceptable.

Reviewer 3 Report

 "Disentangling Ebeneezer" is an informative account of a Mediterranean slave narrative, providing what seems to me a comprehensive engagement with current scholarship and also a willingness to wrestle with the complicated history of publication. As the author notes, the narrative is something of a collaborative affair, with a number of writers adding elements and interpretations as the narrative went through various editions.

In the end, I'm not so sure that author's interpretation of the narrative reflects the reality of multiple authors and many possible meanings, but in my view, the article still provides a worthwhile reading. The author argues that Okeley and subsequent writers frame the experience of enslavement and escape in terms of God's providential plan. The purpose of the narrative, therefore, is to combat atheism. Any attitudes expressed toward the Muslim world or toward Catholicism are incidental.

My suggestions, then, are two-fold. Can the author provide some account of atheism in Early Modern England? There is room here for some background on rising atheism and attempts to combat it, since this would seem to be a key condition for the argument the author is making. Second, the author could do more to to relate the different focal points of discussion to the larger argument about providential design and combating atheism. As noted above, we learn about the multiple authors involved in the reproduction of the text, but that fact appears to have little bearing on the article's conclusion. Is it possible that Okeley himself might differ from some of the later writers? If not, might it not make more sense simply to emphasize Okeley's authorship, since this is the one that ends up mattering. Likewise, we hear quite a bit about the portrayal of Muslims and of Catholics, but in both cases, the main point is that the portraits are complicated, with generalizations and particular descriptions of individuals often at odds. But how does these portraits relate to the thesis about providential design and combating atheism? Is it fair to say that Okeley is able to feel fellowship for Catholics and Muslims as fellow believers? If so, how might the author contextualize this ability to humanize adherents of other faiths in terms of the larger theology?

Again, I commend the author for an informative article, full of interesting details about a complicated and mysterious narrative.

Author Response

The reviewer commented that the bibliography was rather brief. I have now expanded it. Th journal’s guidelines advise adding titles only if they are really necessary, I have therefore restricted the additions to titles that are directly related to Okeley, his text, and his world. The literature on Mediterranean slavery is vast and it did not feel appropriate to list titles that had no direct bearing on the article and its arguments.

The Reviewer also remarked on a seeming contradiction between the fierce anti-Catholicism in some parts of Eben-ezer, and the religious tolerance found in others. A key aim of the article is to demonstrate the work’s multi-authored character. Its three sections, composed in large part by different writers, reveal somewhat differing views and objectives. Some scholars have seen Okeley as little more than a mouthpiece for the authors of the Poem and/or Preface. I have made extensive changes to the article to bring out more clearly how the Narrative reveals Okeley’s personal priorities,  

This bears on another point made by the Reviewer, querying divine providence as the work’s central concern. I have refined my argument here, to clarify that while it was indeed Okeley’s own priority, the writers of the Preface and Poem (perhaps the poet Marvell and his publisher) had several other concerns, of at least equal importance for them,