All I maintain is that on this earth there are pestilences and there are victims, and it’s up to us, so far as possible, not to join forces with the pestilences. (Tarrou)
… to state quite simply what we learn in a time of pestilence: that there are more things to admire in men than to despise. (Dr Rieux)
I love Albert Camus‘ The plague. I loved it when I first read it in my teens, and I’ve loved it every time I’ve read it since. Why is this? Well, firstly, I have always loved Tarrou’s quote above. As Tarrou goes on to say, “This may sound simple to the point of childishness; I can’t say if it’s simple, but I know it’s true”. Someone once said to me in our current more cynical century, “Oh, but that means accepting victimhood!”. I don’t see it that way though … and neither I think did Camus.
Tarrou’s, and Rieux’s, statements, then, are one reason I love this book. Another is that it can be read on multiple levels … but first a quick rundown of the plot for those who haven’t read it. It is set in the town of Oran, on the Algerian coast, in the late 1940s. The town is stricken by the plague, and so closes itself off for the duration of the disease. The novel then follows the progress of the disease and how the citizens cope with such a pestilence and its impact on their lives. We see the story through the actions and conversations of several characters including Dr Rieux, Tarrou (a “goodhumoured” but somewhat mysterious visitor to the town), Rambert (a visiting journalist), and more secondary characters including the Priest Paneloux, Grand (a minor government official), and Cottard (a criminal).
That’s the basis of the literal story … but there are other levels. It can be seen as an allegory of the French occupation in World War 2, but I prefer to see it more broadly as a metaphorical story about how to live in an “absurd” (that is, inherently irrational) world. It might have been inspired by the Nazi occupation and the French Resistance, but I think Camus’ concerns are more universal.
So, how to talk about this book? In the sixty plus years since its publication, it has been under almost constant analysis from every angle you can think of. What can I add? I’m not sure but I’ll give it a go – and talk about what I see as the three critical concepts explored in the novel:
- their impact;
- how we are to live in a world in which they occur.
Camus sees the world as “absurd”, that is, one in which the irrational can, and will, happen:
Everybody knows that pestilences have a way of recurring in the world; yet somehow we find it hard to believe in ones that crash down on our heads from a blue sky. There have been as many plagues as wars in history; yet always plagues and wars take people equally by surprise.
Camus’ point seems to be that it doesn’t matter where this “irrationality” comes from – man or nature – but that it does come, and it’s always a surprise. “Pestilences” is his word for the things that come and destablise us; they are the “impossible” things that make normal life not possible.
The impact of these pestilences is, in Camus’ view, very specific – loss of freedom, loss of individuality, loss of planning for the future, and apathy:
They fancied themselves free, and no-one will ever be free as long as there are pestilences.
They forced themselves never to think about the problematic day of escape, to cease looking to the future.
They maintained saving indifference.
So, how do we react to and live under pestilences? Camus explores three main reactions – rebel, escape and accept – and decides, not surprisingly, that the only real response is to rebel. Rebelling to him, though, doesn’t require a heroic taking to the hustings. It can simply mean not giving in. Here is Rieux:
What’s true of all the evils in the world is true of the plague as well. It helps men to rise above themselves. All the same, when you see the misery it brings, you’d be a mad man, or a coward, or stone-blind to give in tamely to the plague.
And so you do the decent thing, you do what you can to “fight” the plague and help your fellow humans. This is what Rieux, Tarrou and Grand do – and what Rambert eventually decides to do (saying that “this business is everybody’s business”) after spending much of the novel trying to escape. Rieux, Tarrou and Rambert spend a lot of time intellectualising the plague, while Grand gets on with it. Grand could be a laughable character – he devotes his spare time trying to find the right words for the first sentence of his book – but the narrator doesn’t laugh at him. Grand:
was the true embodiment of the quiet courage that inspired the sanitary groups. He had said ‘Yes’ without a moment’s hesitation and with a large-heartedness that was second nature to him.
When Rieux thanks him Grand says in surprise:
Why, that’s not difficult. Plague is here and we’ve got to make a stand, that’s obvious.
Meanwhile, Father Paneloux tries to understand the plague in terms of religion. His first reaction is that traditional one of God visiting his wrath upon a sinful people. But, as the plague sets in and he sees an innocent child die a painful death, he is forced to rethink his religion. He sees two options: to reject God or to totally accept whatever God presents. Since he is not willing to reject God, he decides that he must surrender totally to God’s will. Camus, it’s clear, doesn’t buy it!
Then there’s the criminal Cottard who flourishes under the plague. I won’t labour his story, but just say that one of the issues for him is that he’s safe from the police while the plague exists, and he relishes the fact that suddenly he’s not the only one who is miserable. In fact, as the townspeople become more miserable, the cheerier he becomes. He’s not prepared to join Rieux et al in their fight:
It’s not my job … What’s more, the plague suits me quite well and I see no reason why I should bother about trying to stop it.
The irony is that the person who most cares about Cottard is Grand!
Well, I have gone on about this novel, and could go on more. I’ve barely touched on its literary technique (its narrative style, structure, characterisation and language) but I think I’ve written enough. I will end with Rieux’s assessment of what it all means, because it means as much today as it did when it was written. That makes it a universal work.
None the less, he knew that the tale he had to tell could not be one of a final victory. It could be only the record of what had had to be done, and what assuredly would have to be done again in the never-ending fight against terror and its relentless onslaughts, despite their personal afflictions, by all who, while unable to be saints but refusing to bow down to pestilences, strive their utmost to be healers.
Camus’ worldview here is a moderate form of humanism, one that is realistically rather than idealistically based. It makes a lot of sense to me.
(Trans. by Stuart Gilbert)
Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1960 (orig. 1948)
24 thoughts on “Albert Camus, The plague (orig. La peste)”
‘One fine morning in May a slim young horsewoman might have been seen riding a handsome sorrel mare …’ I love that ever-evolving sentence best of all about the book
It’s wonderful isn’t it. I wanted to include it, but there’s so much I wanted to include. I think in the end he decides to remove all adjectives. I also love the MIGHT have been seen – but he never, as I recollect, discusses the “might” bit does he?
I haven’t read this since I was in my teens. Those in my year group who were studying French read it in the original and one of my friends urged me to get hold of the Penguin translation. I was blown away. And yet for some reason I have neither gone back to re-read it nor read anything else by him. I would say I vowed to correct that, but then I look at the tbr pile and know that at the moment it’s a vow I would break. Perhaps he wrote some essays?????
Yes, he did write essays – the Wikipedia article lists them. In terms of essays, I’ve only read Le mythe de Sisyphe (The myth of Sisyphus) which is a long essay (but that was a long time ago). I did L’etranger in the original at school but not this one (in the original). You could read another novel, like The fall (La chute) but if you are into re-reading at all I’d do this again. It’s probably the only book I’ve reread more than once (ie I’ve read it at least three times) outside of Jane Austen. Jane Austen, please let me introduce you to Camus! Sounds bizarre but that’s how it is!
Geraldine Brooks’s ‘Year of Wonders’ has much in common with ‘The Plague/, n’est-ce pas?
Yes, but superficially I think. It’s more about the different human responses, and more plot about the plague itself I think, than the philosophical underpinnings that Camus’ novel has.
I read this years ago and honestly don’t remember a great deal about it except that I enjoyed it. I like the bit about the opportunistic criminal flourishing while others flounder.
You’ve been reading too many crime novels methinks. Back to Jane Austen, you!
Anyhow, it sounds like it didn’t make the impact on you that it did me …
Lovely review! I have a general sense that people think Camus is hard and that he is gloomy but I have found him to be neither. I love the final quote. That just says it all. You have me wanting to reread this now!
Oh good … my review clearly worked. I’d love to have written about the literary side too … maybe I will, then again, maybe I’ll just move on. It’s such a beautiful book … I think Camus is a bit gloomier in The fall (La chute) as I recollect, but am thinking of reading it again, too (sometime).
Brilliant write-up! You’re integrated the quotes and your ideas/interpretations wonderfully, and have reminded me (again) of how much I enjoyed this novel, even more than The Outsider. I wish this one was taught more in schools!
Why thanks Hannah … and I agree, it’s a great one for schools.
A beautiful review WG. It came across as heartfelt, and when something has been written about as much as this what can one add but a personal reaction and interpretation?
Anyway, you’ve certainly encouraged me to read it. I loved The Outsider and should read more Camus. I may make this my next.
Why thankyou Max. I’m always a little anxious about being so heartfelt for fear I lead others astray, but you’re an independent reader aren’t you! I hope you do read it one day and look forward to your response.
(Oops, and yes, I loved The outsider too – it is what inspired me as a young reader to read more Camus, and I manage to wangle one of those choose-your-subject university essays to be on him, way back when!)
I think it’s up to the reader to decide which bloggers they trust and when their tastes may depart. If one’s honest in what one writes then that’s as much as one can do. Besides, the worst outcome is someone reads a book they dislike and then you get a debate about whether it’s any good or not. What blogger wouldn’t welcome that in their comments section?
You’re right of course, on all counts … thanks for that!
This is a fabulous review – I did The Plague for A level in the U.K. and it so formed my world view. I still have the book with all its underlinings.
« The only way to fight the plague is decency » (Rieux)
« What is decency » (Rambert)
« I don’t know what it is in general But in my case it consists of doing my job »
Thanks very much Christine. It formed and/or confirmed my world view too. I read it in my last year of school and then, when I had a free rein, I chose to do a Camus project in a French course at university.
I love that quote too.
This is one I haven’t read yet, but it sounds intriguing. I read a couple by Camus last year – I loved ‘L’étranger’, but ‘La Chute’ had a bit too much philosophising for me. Have you read either of those?
Hi Tony … yes I’ve read both of those. In fact, I think I’ve read all of Camus’ books but probably La peste and L’étranger are his most accessible in that they both have some degree of plot. I like both of these but I love La peste. Give it a go – when you find the time.
have adored Camus, since discovering him in my late teens.
Welcome Parrish … and yes, moi aussi! I discovered him then too, through French classes and went on to read all his work. I must reread some of the others one day.
Thanks for the synopsis, and for all your comments, which have helped me understand what I am getting into. This is new to me, (as is computing).. I’m an amateur actor who will start rehearsing tonight in the role of Cotard, in a world premier of “The Plague”,by Louise Wigglesworth, which opens May 11, in Ft. Myers, FL.
Glad to be of service. Cotard will be an interesting role to play. GOod luck. If I were in Florida I’d come see you!