The Plague (1947), Albert Camus Translated from French by Stuart Gilbert

In The Plague Camus substitutes this problem for that of a strange

form of martyrdom, a kind of religious of happiness through
atheistic sanctity- Murchland, CCE, 62.

Albert Camus was born in a working-class family in Algeria on 7th November

1913 in Mondovi, a small village near the seaport city of Bone (present day
Annaba) in the northeast region of French Algeria. He was the second child
of Lucien Auguste Camus, a military Veteran and wine-shipping clerk, and of
Catherine Marie Cardona, a house-keeper and part-time factory worker. After
the death of his father in World War II, his mother and older brother moved
to Algiers where they lived with his maternal uncle and grandmother in a
cramped second-floor apartment in the working-class district of Belcourt.
Camus’ mother being illiterate, partially deaf, and afflicted with a speech
pathology, worked in an ammunition factory and cleaned homes to help
support her family.

Camus attended elementary school at the local Ecole Communale, and it was
there that he encountered the first in the series of teacher-mentors who
recognized and nurtured the young boy’s lively intelligence. These father
figures introduced him to a new world of history and imagination and to
literary landscapes far beyond the dusty streets of Belcourt and working-class
poverty. Though stigmatized as a pupille de la nation (that is, a war veteran’s
child dependent on public welfare) and hampered by recurrent health issues,
Camus distinguished himself as a student and was eventually awarded a
scholarship to attend high school at the Grand Lycee. It was during his school
years that he became an avid reader, learnt Latin and English, and developed
a lifelong interest in literature, art, theater, and films. He also loved playing
soccer. It was during this period that Camus suffered his first serious attack of

125
tuberculosis, a disease that was to afflict him, on and off, throughout his
career.

Camus was contributing articles in the Tosud, a monthly literary even before
he had completed his baccalaureate degree and was looking forward to a
career in journalism. The next four years he studied and worked at various
jobs-in the weather bureau, in an automobile-accessory firm, in a shipping
company, so that he could support his education. He married his first wife
Simone Hie, divorced her, briefly joined the Communist party and effectively
began his professional theatrical and writing career.

His provocative report on the unhappy state of the Muslims of the Kabylie
region stirred up the Algerian government to action and brought him public
notice. In 1933 Camus enrolled at the University of Algiers to pursue his
diploma d’etudes superieures, specializing in philosophy and gaining
certificates in sociology and psychology. From 1935 to 1938 he ran the
Theatre du Travail a theatrical company that produced plays by Malraux,
Gide, Synge, Dostoevski, and others.

In the coming years Camus further established himself as an emerging author,

journalist, and theatre professional. After his expulsion from the Communist
party, he reorganized his dramatic company and renamed it Theatre de
I’Equipe. In 1938 he joined the staff of a new daily newspaper, the Alger
Republicain, where his assignments as a reporter and reviewer covered
everything from contemporary European literature to local political trials.

The 1940’s witnessed Camus’ gradual ascendance to the rank of world class
literary intellectual. He started the decade as a locally acclaimed author and
playwright, but a figure virtually unknown outside the city of Algiers. He
ended it as an internationally recognized novelist, dramatist, journalist,
philosophical essayist, and champion of freedom. This period of his life
126
began inauspiciously – war in Europe, the occupation of France, official
censorship, and a widening crackdown on left-wing journals. Camus was still
without stable employment when he departed to Lyons, after marrying his
second wife, Francine Faure, in December of 1940. In Lyons he worked as a
journalist and returned to Algeria thereafter. To help make ends meet, he
taught part-time at a private school in Oran. His first novel The Stranger was
published in 1942 which propelled him into immediate literary renown.
Camus returned to France in 1942 and a year later began working for the
clandestine newspaper Combat, the journalistic arm and voice of the French
Resistance movement. During this period, while contending with recurrent
bouts of tuberculosis, he published Le Mythe de Sisyphe and joined Gallimard
Publishing as an editor, a position he held until his death.

After the Liberation, Camus continued as editor of Combat, oversaw the

production and publication of plays and assumed a leading role in Parisian
intellectual society in the company of Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir among
others. His growing reputation as a writer was enlarged by the publication of
The Plague, (Le Peste) an allegorical novel and fictional parable of the Nazi
occupation and the duty of revolt and by lecture tours to the United States and
South America. In 1951 he published L’Homme Revolt, a controversial work,
which led to his eventual falling out with Sartre. In 1956 he published The
Fall, confessional novel. At this time Algeria was facing a political turmoil
and he was still afflicted by tuberculosis. He still hoped that the native
Muslim population and the French pied noir minority would live together
peacefully in a new de-colonized and largely integrated, if not fully
independent, nation. Camus published Exile and the Kingdom in 1957, a
collection of short stories; he was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in the
same year.

127
Camus was always very active in the theater, and several of his plays have
been published and produced. His fiction including The Stranger, The Plague,
The Fall, and The First Man, A Happy Death; his philosophical essays, The
Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel; and his plays have assured his preeminent
position in modern French letters. His sudden death on 4th January 1960 cut
short the career of one of the most important literary figures of the western
world, when he was at the very summit of his powers.

From Sartre’s perceptive, Camus was a less of a novelist than a writer of

philosophical tales and parables. He himself believed that his fictional works
were not true novels but a combination of philosophical and psychological
insights. Perhaps Camus himself best defined his own particular status as a
philosophical writer when he wrote:

The great novelists are philosophical novelists”, that is, writers

eschew systematic explanation and create their discourse using
“images instead of arguments (The Myth of Sisyphus).

So it can be said that he is a philosophical novelist and a novelist of ideas. He

conceived his own distinctive and original world-view and sort to convey that
view mainly through images, fictional characters and events, and dramatic
presentations rather than through critical analysis and direct discourse.

The Plague written shortly after the World War II is essentially an allegory
for the situation in France and other parts of Europe during the time of the
German occupation. Camus uses the Algerian town of Oran as the setting for
this novel. He reduces this immense tragedy down to artistically manageable
proportions, isolating the town from the rest of the world when the gates are
closed after the discovery of an outbreak of bubonic plague. Through a
relatively small cast of characters, Camus expresses his idea of steadfastness
against violence and commitment to the plight of others with a level of moral

128
insight. It is unconceivable from this work of Camus that his characters and
their contribution to the work to a large extent is the real life experiences of
the author himself and the attempt to write such a novel is in the strong belief
that society as a whole will survive but conclusive conclusions cannot be
drawn to the behavior of humans as individuals.

The plague (La Peste 1947) is set in the coastal town of Oran and deals with
the outbreak of plague, traced from its subtle, insidious, unheeded beginnings
through its horrible, all encompassing, and seemingly inescapable dominion
to its eventual climax and decline. The story is told from the viewpoint of one
of the survivors. Camus has made no effort to conceal the fact that his novel
could be interpreted as an allegory of the rise of Nazism and the nightmare of
the occupation. The plague as a metaphor signifies absurd in general as well
as any calamity or disaster that tests the mettle of human beings, their
endurance, solidarity, sense of responsibility, and will. In the end the plague
finally retreats and the narrator reflects that a time of pestilence teaches “that
there is more to admire in men than to despise”. But he also knows “that the
plague bacillus never dies or disappears for good”, that “the day would come
when, for the bane and the enlightening of men, it would rouse up its rats
again” and sends them forth once more to spread death and contagion into a
happy and unsuspecting city.

The Plague is written in five parts. The first part introduces the character of
Dr. Rieux, as he and his fellow townspeople deal with the sudden infestation
of dead rats, which he soon realizes is due to an outbreak of plague. Part two
begins with the closing of the town of Oran, blocking parted friends from
each other and imprisoning those inside. One such victim is the journalist
Rambert, who is prevented from returning to his wife in France. The local
priest, Father Paneloux brings in religious interpretation that plague is an
instrument of divine justice. Jean Tarrou, a visitor to Oran, decides to start a

129
sanitation squad in an effort to help curb the spread of the disease. The third
part describes the height of the plague’s devastation, including the burial
rituals which slowly diminish in formality until bodies are heaped upon one
another in ditches. The longest and most dramatic section of the novel, part
four, begins with Rambert’s attempt to escape and return to his wife, but
repeatedly fails and ultimately decides to stay back and help. Father
Paneloux, after witnessing the death of a child infected by plague, delivers
another sermon, much more sympathetic than the previous. Tarrou explains
his aspiration “to become a saint without God” to Rieux. In the final part,
Tarrou is claimed as one of the plague’s last victims. When the infestation is
over, the rats return, the town is opened, Rambert is reunited with his wife,
and Rieux reveals that he is the narrator.

Camus tells the story through Dr. Rieux. However, Rieux is not the first-
person narrator. Rather he disguises himself, referring to himself in the third
person and only at the end of the novel he reveals who he is. While reading
the novel one feels that the story is told by an unnamed narrator, who gathers
information from what he has personally seen and heard regarding the
epidemic, as well as the diary of another character, Tarrou, who makes
observations of the events he witnesses. The reason Rieux is not declared as
the narrator earlier because Camus wants to give an objective account of the
events in Oran. Rieux is deliberately made to adopt the tone of an impartial
observer. Rieux is like a witness who exercises restraint when called to testify
about a crime; he describes what the characters said and did, without
speculating about their thoughts and feelings, although he does offer
generalized assessment of the shifting moods of the town as a whole. Rieux
avoids subjectivity by sticking to the facts and sees himself as an historian
referring to the story as a chronicle. The style of The Plague gives the

130
impression of distance and detachment. Rarely does the reader get drawn
directly into the emotions of the characters or the drama of the scenes.

Camus’ writing style is concise and specific. He doesn’t use excessive

amounts of figurative language but, instead, bluntly expresses his characters
views. The brilliance of Camus’s writing is his ability to adapt his style to
reflect the unique personality of the narrator and the specific themes of the
novel, with a focus of showing his characters’ detachment.

In The Plague Camus uses greater complexity in thought and sentence

structure, though detached in another way. While the anonymous narrator
clearly expresses his impression and account of the disease, his commentary
is intricate and interesting. The events in the story do not fit a cause and effect
sequence; rather it shows them as they happened without attempting to frame
them with the concept of causality.

Rieux is of the opinion that in the given situation the extremes that one can go
to is either he can stand and fight or run away from the situation, or else one
has to be insane to be able to ignore and still be around.

Camus uses the novel as a platform, from which he can explore and explain
his philosophical viewpoints, in this case the absurd, humanism and
existentialism. Little portion of each of these philosophies are ingrained in
this novel: the existentialist concern over time and consciousness, the absurd
claim that the world is both irrational and indifferent, and the humanist belief
that man is more good than bad and worth fighting for - even against deadly
infections. The novel can be judged as a Novel of Ideas, as it clearly focuses
on ideas, not on plot, which exists only to support those very ideas? The
larger part of the novel is a thoughtful exposition or intense argumentative
dialogues.

131
The Plague can be interpreted, on at least one level, as an allegory in which
humanity must be preserved from the fatal pestilence of mass culture, which
converts formerly free, autonomous, independent minded, human beings into
a soulless new species.

Camus preferred The Plague to be perceived as a chronicle and not as a

traditional novel. It did not follow the form and style normally adapted by
conventional novels. Camus focuses the hopeless helplessness of the
contemporary society and its apparent development; the form is just a
medium to provoke their ideas. As far as the thoughts of this mundane,
decadent society are concerned Camus is very modernistic in nature.

Camus points out the Oranian’s attempts to change the prevailing situation by
tackling the awful intellectual sterility through an intense debate of issues that
they consider being of major importance than actually working towards
fighting the plague itself.

Camus here has used the narrative form which is not rigid, is flexible
enabling a change, modification, and allowing adjustments to be made
whenever needed. It can assume a point of difference of mood and intonation.
He has adopted this technique to fulfill the objectives of introducing a strong
social criticism and thereby putting an emphasis on the content or the idea he
has portrayed and thus promoting an enlightened but yet creative and literate
society which is able to integrate the asset of the three main cultural fields of
science, religion, and art.

Dr. Bernard Rieux is a medical doctor, who is described by the author, and
one of his good friends, Tarrou, as to not resemble a medical practitioner but
more like a Sicilian peasant, since his hands did not resemble that of a
surgeon but were broad, deeply tanned and hairy. Dr. Rieux is of moderate
height, broad shoulders, has dark steady eyes, a big well molded nose and

132
thick tight set lips. His black hair is clipped very close. In spite of these
features he sustains a knowledgeable look and has a respectable influence
amongst the citizens of Oran. As his profession stands for compassion and
humanism so does he. The actions of humanism represented by Camus
through Rieux are duty, love and death. Rieux is always ready to admit his
ignorance which is one of his major vices. He repeatedly suffers from an
inability to comprehend reality. As a person is an extreme hard worker,
compassionate, to all around him, he is not indifferent towards the happenings
around him like the others in Oran. He holds his ability to fight death and
disease for which he has been trained, as his first priority towards mankind.
He perceives these as the only two evils; death and man’s ignorance of it.

In this respect our townsfolk were like everybody else, wrapped up

in themselves, in other words they were humanists; they disbelieved
in pestilence. (pg. 37)

He is part of the small group, whom Tarrou calls ‘true healers’. Rieux
initially saw his profession as an idea and not as a concrete reality.

“I haven’t a notion, Tarrou; I assure you I haven’t a notion. When I

entered this profession, I did it ‘abstractedly’, so to speak; because I
had a desire for it, because it meant a career like another, one that
often young men aspire to”(pg. 127)

His dedication to the cause can be derived from the fact that professionally he
understood about the impact of the plague and the consequence of the
ignorance around him, and still he choose to remain in Oran and fight the
plague with all his talent. In one of the replies to Father Paneloux he mentions
that,

Salvation’s much too big a word for me. I don’t aim so high. I’m
concerned with man’s health; and for me his health comes first. (pg.
219)
133
Rieux condemns religious men, not for being religious men but for speaking
in abstractions from a lack of experience, but this does not prevent Rieux
from acknowledging the common cause that they both pursue. He is a
representative of silent and discrete suffering and makes an unconditional
commitment to fight the plague. Rieux chooses to serve the citizens of Oran
over the suffering of his wife, and thus chooses the abstract over the concrete.
Even though there was still time for him to leave and join his sick wife at the
sanatorium.

The calamity would remind us that we can neither count on time to be

reasonable nor control it in any way. Rieux, perhaps, fell victim to one or
both of these errors of thought. He realized near the end about the threat that
he was exposed to probable death due to infection, which others otherwise
took as a passing phase.

Camus has portrayed Dr. Rieux as the intellectual perception and the
limitations of the intellectual to influence the society during the plague -
suffering and death - the theme of the novel.

Oh, I know it’s an absurd situation, but we’re all involved in it, and
we’ve got to accept it as it is (pg. 86)

Dr. Rieux an atheist is of the opinion that if God is not around to help the
plague victims then someone has to take his place. Dr. Rieux believes in
fighting the crisis on hand without trying to escape the responsibility, self
imposed unlike some of the others in his own fraternity. The term Plague
plays an important role for Rieux , initially he thinks that things have to be
called by their name but then he is reluctant to use the word Plague. He
realizes that action matters not words, he believes that the terminology is
irrelevant as it is always subjective, still he spends crucial time discussing
134
with the authorities regarding the name of the disease. Rieux describes the
plague as an individual case of suffering that cannot be described by language
in a general format.

Rieux is confused whether he should use abstraction to fight the plague or is

abstraction itself the enemy. It seems abstraction is a tool for Rieux, he
detaches himself from the misery of the victim’s kin and does what needs to
be done as it gives him strength to do is work in extreme conditions, although
he does admit that his heart has been hardened to the suffering witnesses. On
the other hand abstractions distract the issues at hand; in the case, tears and
pleading of the kin mask the real problem – death. Interestingly it is the
determination of man in his struggle against death that hits home for Rieux.
He had learnt what others had not, towards others suffering.

Rieux does indeed change over the course of the novel; he becomes more
indifferent to the horrors of the plague. Yet this goads him onwards, rather
than rendering him passive or apathetic. During the plague’s later stages he
regrets not giving more physical and vocal affection to the victims. He
ponders the horrors of the plague which is beyond his comprehension. It
reminds him of the suffering of the others which can be written off but can be
realized only when it is upon oneself.

It is reveled near to the end of the novel that Dr. Rieux is the narrator, who
chronicles and specifies that he has only told what was experienced by all and
not made it into a highly personal and subjective confession. He chronicled it
all down for he believed that the conquest of the plague was not the end but to
help people again if it returned.

He knew that the tale he had to tell could not be one of final victory.
It could be only the record of what had to be done, and what
assuredly would have to be done again in the never ending fight
against terror and its relentless onslaughts…. (pg. 308)

135
Rieux describes suffering as a teacher since he credits it as the main imputes
for this narrative. His relationship with his mother and his wife were
perceived by him as his misgivings that got consumed by his devotion to his
profession and the apathy of his patients. Though he had high regards for his
mother, a very strong minded lady, he always felt he did not do enough for
her.

Yes, he’d make a fresh start, once the period of abstractions was
over… (pg 288)

With his wife he felt that he could not do justice to their relationship and
promised to start again afresh, once she returned from the sanatorium, where
he looked forward to visiting her. But she died before the plague could
subside and he could not visit her.
Dr. Rieux describes the town of Oran as ugly, maybe because of the
unhealthy way the town is built and situated against the sea, the compromise
with hygiene, habits, and gross ignorance of the crises that leads to the town’s
suffering from a clinical perspective.

Dr. Rieux’s disagreement with the sermon of Father Paneloux, the Jesuit
priest, about the plague being an act of God, to punish the sinners, is because
of his understanding of the disease as a doctor and the human effort required
for fighting and defending from it. Camus avoids characterizing Rieux as a
doctor not knowing what he fears more the disease or the suffering of the
patients. He could not hold back his conscience to become a bystander, with
his experience of the extreme ignorance, makes him more compassionate and
human towards his patients and the suffering. He also treats the asthma
patient who also survives the plague but has not much relevance than of
survival and passage of time. When he reflects upon the various relationships
and interactions with other characters, his strength in being just reflects, when

136
he refuses to certify Rambert, declaring him uninflected of the bacteria. Dr.
Rieux’s relationship with Tarrou is of high regard for Tarrou’s achievements
and organizational skills, in putting together a group of volunteers to help
contain the plague. The swim in the sea with Tarrou gives them both the
experience of a bond to work against the ignorance of Oran. Rieux’s
appreciation of the efforts of Tarrou, pains him when Tarrou dies of plague.
Dr. Rieux appreciates Joseph Grand, the municipal clerk for being the real
hero as he acknowledges Grand’s support in the volunteer group and his
willingness to write a novel which does not go beyond its first sentence.
Grand also appreciates the fact that Dr. Rieux is willing to consider his
deprived status and is ready to treat him for free. He trusts the doctor so much
that he confides in him about his broken marriage and literary pursuit.

Dr. Rieux’s humanitarian perception of the behavior and activities of Cottard

prevents him from condemning Cottard. He tells the police to be considerate
while dealing with him. On the other hand he is very sympathetic towards
Raymond Rambert as he is separated from his wife and feeling lonely and
isolated. But his principles do not permit him to certify Rambert being not
inflicted with the disease and thus help him to flee from Oran and unite with
his wife.

Dr. Rieux is a man of uncompromising principles. If he cannot get to the truth

of a situation he will have nothing to do with it. His honesty and truthfulness
makes Rambert call him “saint just” after the extremist Jacobean of the
French Revolution. His integrity and uncompromising character lead others
also to trust him undoubtedly. People relate easily to the kind and generous
Rieux. Tarrou believes that a doctor is “more human” than most of the other
people and forms a deep friendship with Rieux. Even Father Paneloux does
not question Rieux’s good intention when he disagrees on the religious
intervention, and the plague being a punishment for the sinners. Rieux’s

137
optimistic attitude and toil inspires the citizens of Oran to have faith in him.
He is tireless in his efforts to convince the authorities of the town about the
seriousness of the plague. He is also unrelenting in trying to stop the plague
from spreading and helping those who are victims of the horror of the disease.
His most touching goodness is seen in his interest in Grand’s literary work
and the time he takes from his busy schedule to make Cottard feel important
and worthwhile. But at the same time he has difficulty in expressing his own
emotions. His confidence also breaks as the intensity of the plague increases
and the element of fear creeps in him. He like Cottard craves for human
warmth.

Rieux has enjoyed a close relationship with his mother, who inspires him to
care for others. Even though he loves his wife deeply he has inability in
communicating his emotions to her. It is only after that she has left for the
sanatorium that he could articulate the pain of his separation. Eventually she
passes away. Rieux even has trouble in expressing about what his friendship
with Tarrou means.

Camus has used Rieux as a means to convey the idea of mental isolation in
spite of the character’s direct involvement throughout the length of the novel.
Rieux prefers to use only those facts that he could confirm in the narration
and avoids using any form of imagination, with the intent of keeping the
narration as close to reality as possible.

By chronicling the events he believes that man can never conquer death and
the experience Oran has undergone should help others to be prepared to fight
against such odds in every possible manner. This shows a genuine humanist
concern. Camus has used Dr. Rieux’s character in multiple dimensions
throughout the length of the novel, as Rieux is closely associated with the
theme of the novel, an epidemic – death and suffering. Rieux is the most ideal
to chronicle the novel due to his profession that directly associates with the
138
theme. Camus represents Dr. Rieux as a busy, hard working, selfless, and
above all a humanist, serving the habitual victims against the ignorant social
system. The epidemic fatal in nature represents chaos and contrary to that
Rieux is calm and strong hearted, he is disturbed only with his thoughts on
why plague attacked this town. He symbolizes hope in an otherwise hopeless
helpless scenario. It is this characteristic of the doctor that Camus exploits to
represent the intellect amongst the ignorant. Rieux tried to smile.

Salvation’s much too big a word for me. I don’t aim so high. I’m
concerned with man’s health; and for me his health comes first (pg.
219)

His consistent hard work and compassion towards fellow human beings
suffering becomes a means of inspiration and reconciliation for some of the
other characters. Father Paneloux though delivering impassioned sermons,
changes his perspective about plague, when he sees the gross reality and joins
the volunteer group. Camus has thus placed service to mankind above service
to God and depicted humanism as a religion followed by Dr. Rieux. In the
end he does say that,

…what we learn in time of pestilence: that, there are more things to

admire in men than to despise. (Pg.308)

Jean Tarrou is the son of an eminent lawyer, believing and committed to very
strong ideas. Though his father is a dedicated and decent family man, Tarrou
used his father’s ‘imposition of the death penalties’ as a strong reason for
deserting him. His opposition to the death penalty in the penal system only
shows his strong concern for human life. This reflects when he voices his
opinion of having free men work as volunteers than prisoners as decided by
the authorities, he fails to understand that death is inevitable be it for a
criminal or otherwise.
139
Death in any form horrified Tarrou, to express the feeling he states the
example of how as firing squad executes a death sentence which is horrifying,
he argues that if we condemn men to death we should have the courage to
look in the eyes and watch the result of our bloody decisions, he sees no
nuanced shades of gray, but rather views the world in this stark picture of
black and white, victim and pestilence. Tarrou also observes that law itself is
subjective and prone to breaches, however effective or perfect it may appear
to be. He resents the magistrate’s blind faith in the judicial system and
ignorance of humanity of those men whom he would condemn.

Tarrou initially perceived the court of law as an abstract, just as Rieux’s

initial concept of the medical practice. It was later that when both experience
the reality that their perceptions change. Tarrou always sympathized with the
victim (the recipient of the sentence) as the collective target of the judicial
system and saw the judicial system as a mechanism of collective revenge,
social satisfaction without remorse, which does not necessarily ensure the
eradication of wrong doing. He also observes that the sentences handed out
can be subjective. His remark about blind faith in the law questions its
effectiveness, the moral right for one human being to condemn another to
death.

Tarrou’s biased stance compels him to look upon the persons connected with
the judicial system as criminals, while he sympathizes with the actual person
on trial. His dislike for M. Othon, the police magistrate is noticeable, but
despite the intensity of his emotions and high ethical values, he prefers to lie
when consoling M. Othon about his son’s suffering. Tarrou is able to look
beyond the role people play in society and sees them as real people with real
emotion which enables him to lie to the human being, behind the magistrate
which a magistrate is not capable of. But he is of the opinion that if a judge
raises his own level of consciousness he can give meaning to his actions.

140
When Cottard confides to Tarrou, he admits that he was more afraid of
getting caught by the authorities for an old crime than feeling guilty for the
same crime. Tarrou does not sympathize with Cottard even though he has
strong feelings for people facing criminal proceedings and his views on the
death penalty. Tarrou clearly has a strict moral rubric, but refuses to force it
upon others. But when Cottard refuses to help fight the plague Tarrou prefers
to perceive him as pestilence, in his world of people verses pestilence.

Tarrou’s description of the world as a battle between two roles; victims and
pestilence - to which he adds a third category - healers, is used to side with
the criminal. He believes that the criminal and he are two living men and to
kill another human would also make him pestilence.

Prior to arriving in Oran, he had devoted his life to fight against the death
penalty. Torrou is also a humanitarian but unlike Rieux his actions stand for
right to life of a human being. He considers his own ability to mobilize people
and to organize them to fight evil as his biggest advantage. It is this advantage
he utilizes to group together people to aid the medical community in their
fight against plague.

Tarrou to his virtue is good humored and friendly. He never looks down upon
a person and his approachability and openness with which he interacts
inspires people to confide in him. An activist and philosopher by nature and a
traveler Tarrou sets high standards for himself. Cottard also has no
reservations in discussing his unclean moral conscience with Tarrou; which
he otherwise finds difficult to do with Dr. Rieux. Dr. Rieux also trusts Tarrou
entirely and develops a close friendship with him, so much so that he is
devastated when Tarrou loses his life to plague.

Though a person with strong beliefs does not state a specific reason for his
callous behavior of leaving his parents house, but often visits his mother.

141
Camus portrayed Tarrou as the humanist who fights for the dignity of human
life, the inhuman act of imposing death penalty imposed legally or by social
justification. Camus uses Tarrou to symbolize an individual’s struggle in
civilized society to bring about change against strong political will. Torrru’s
strength lay in his strong belief and selfless regard for human life.

Camus entrusts the chronicling of the events of Oran upon Tarrou to be

utilized later by Dr. Rieux as the narrator.

His notebooks comprise a sort of chronicle of those strange days we

all live through. But an unusual type of chronicle, since the writer
seems to make a point of understatement, and at first sight we might
almost imagine that. Tarrou had a habit of observing event and
people through the wrong end of the telescope. (pg. 24)

He was a keen observer and very objective in his writing, also gave his
personal and moral accounts of the events. Rather than a simple impartial
explanation he gave his opinions on matters, which shows his interest in
unusual and eccentric activities. The only time he got subjective was when he
expresses his feelings for the judge

Poor Monsieur Othon!” Tarrou murmured as the gate closed behind

them. “One would like to do something to help him. But how can
you help a judge? (pg. 242)

His observation of the absurdities, found in the Oranians can be seen in the
journal, where he documents the incident about the old man, who regularly
calls his cats and then spits on them and the musician who keeps on playing
his trombone even though he has lung disease. He criticizes the people being
creatures of habit and their concern for making money as sheer waste of time.

Tarrou’s preference of using the language is worth mentioning. He is of the

opinion that language has to be used in a plain clear cut manner. If it is

142
complicated it strays from the fact so he prefers to use pestilence and its
victims than the term Plague.

“Is he a saint?” Tarrou asked himself, and answered: “Yes, if

saintliness is the aggregation of habits.” (pg. 118)

Tarrou’s statement seems ridiculous, as it is his observation that any term

used can have various interpretations thus rendering the terms meaningless.
Tarrou’s understanding of sainthood is secular he is of the opinion that to be a
saint it is not necessary to follow religion but be moralistic.

Tarrou is the most complex character in the novel. Like Camus he is a chain
smoker and enjoys swimming in the sea, which is also a pleasure of Rieux.
He and Rieux do not essentially undergo any major change during the siege.
It was important for Camus not to portray these two characters as general
mass, as they were the carriers of the theme of the novel – fighting death and
suffering in extreme circumstances. Tarrou however dies with a strange
smiling courage and still like a strong ironic man.

“Out with it, Tarrou! What on earth prompted you to take a hand in
this ?”
“I don’t know. My code of morals, perhaps.”
“Your code of morals? What code?”
“Comprehension.” (pg. 130)

Tarrou lists comprehension of the situation as the motivation to his actions, as

he sought inner peace by becoming his own moral sentry, so as to not bring
harm to others, an innocence impossible to achieve. It may be also due to his
self imposed mission to fight against death, a cause which he took up for
himself to take a stand against the strong death penalty which his father
advocated.
143
 “And I, too, I’m no different. But what matter? Death means
nothing to men like me. It is the event that proves them right.”
(pg. 121)

For Tarrou death is meaningless. He feels that death can be confirmed only
by dying and a sence of victory cannot be felt by the person until and unless
he experiences death himself.

The character of Tarrou is utilized by Camus as a non contradictory extension

of the humanitarian services needed to contain and survive the epidemic.
Tarrou does not believe in waiting for the administration to provide assistance
in time to control the crises, as Dr. Rieux was also too preoccupied treating
patients and could not devote enough time to organize and undertake
activities executed by Tarrou’s volunteer group which helped achieve with an
indifferent civic body. Camus eventually had to maintain only one version of
the narration in ‘The Plague’ as a Novel of Ideas could not have similar
characters, who would be of the same mind and have no contradiction. Camus
portrayed Tarrou also as a humanist with concern for human lives, values and
a willingness to work towards achieving them. It is noticeable that Tarrou had
high regards for the doctor and their objectives were similar, but the only
difference was that Tarrou was not a medical practitioner but his skills were
of not less importance in the crises at hand. Camus used the character of
Tarrou parallel to Dr. Rieux’s humanist approach and selfless service to the
people of Oran, ensuring that both, Dr. Rieux and Tarrou shared a
relationship of mutual agreement, admiration and hope. Thereby avoiding
controversies and sustaining the relevance of other characters within the
novel.

Joseph Grand a municipal clerk, earning a meager salary and having an

insignificant content humble lifestyle. He wears clothes a size too large for

144
him. He is the most colorless character in the novel. In spite of all this he has
a dream of writing a literary masterpiece, on which he diligently works in his
spare time. In the novel each person speaks his own language and fails to
communicate with others to some degree. Grand’s problem in life is that he
can rarely find the correct words to express what he means.

‘And lastly---this was the real trouble---Joseph Grand couldn’t find

his words.
This peculiarity, as Rieux had noticed, was really the key to the
personality of our worthy fellow citizen. And this it was which
always prevented him from writing the mildly protesting letter he
had in mind, or taking the steps the situation called for.’ (pg. 45)

The narrator identifies Grand’s inability to communicate as the source of all

the troubles in life--- his poverty, his stagnant lifestyle, his wife having left
him and his general passivity. Jeanne his wife had left him as she was a
victim of isolation and dissatisfaction in a loveless relationship. Grand,
realizing the futility of the language he uses, tries to justify it with his
geographical origins.

Rieux had already noticed Grand’s trick of professing to quote

some turn of speech from “his part of the world” (he hailed from
Montelimar), and following up with some such hackneyed
expression as “lost in dreams,” or “pretty as a picture.” (pg. 42)

His struggle with language proves that while language is in fact inadequate it
is needed for functioning. But it is wrong to spend hours debating a
conjunction. His obsession for the right word ironically proves there is no
right word. An ironic statement made by him to Rieux is,

“You see, doctor, I’ve been told that a knowledge of Latin gives
one better understanding of the real meanings of French words.”
(pg.32)

145
He spends a lot of time in polishing the first sentence to create a perfect
sounding sentence. When he contracts the disease he tells Rieux to burn his
manuscript and so the masterpiece is destroyed before its completion, but
after he recovers he vows to start anew. He refuses to let life frustrate him and
is persistent in all that he does. His wife Jeanne left him because of the
insignificant life of poverty lead by him and his pursuit to create a literary
masterpiece left no time for her. He is not able to write a letter to her and
grieves for the loss. He has failed to make a respectable income and also to
hold together a marriage with a woman whom he is sure he loved deeply.
Very few people of Oran knew about his existence as he lived for himself, an
odd and eccentric life. So it is surprising that he goes to Cottard, his
neighbor’s aid and also tries to cover up his suicide attempt to save him from
the authorities. He was the first to join Tarrou’s troop of volunteers to fight
against the plague. He works as general secretary, recording all the statistics.
He sees duty the same way the other men do; not as something heroic or
grand, but simply as part of being a man in the world. He contracts the
diseases but recovers. Rieux had casually remarked about Grand that he is the
insignificant type that often escapes such disasters. But the novel does not
prove this as he survives the plague and not escapes it. During his period of
trial he gains insight into his writing project and into the reasons why his
marriage failed. The experiences he gains from plague helps him to grow
from the insignificant life that he led. The idea that Camus has portrayed
through Grand is that of indifference towards life, he exists in a temporary
world. His inability to see any sort of distance into the future paralyzes him
with inaction, so in the end when he recovers Rieux is completely baffled and
considers this “resurrection” as irrational.

Grand though indifferent towards life had the courage to love even when
others are afraid to express such feeling.

146
 ‘He was one of those rare people, rare in our town as elsewhere,
who have the courage of their good feelings. What little he told of
his personal life vouched for acts of kindness and a capacity for
affection that no one in our times dares to own to’. (pg. 46)

The idea for which Grand stands for---indifference towards life----supports

the main idea; plague which stands for oppressive political regimes which
curtail our freedom, illustrating range of human behavior under such
circumstances, from its kindest forms to its most callous. Grand is quite
different from Rieux and Tarrou who represent humanism with different
intensities, and look at life in a larger perspective, whereas he has a boxed
mind set about life which does not allow him to gather up sufficient views to
help him with his struggle and break free from this containment and live a
normal life. But after recovering from the diseases his attitude changes and
acquires a new, positive and normal perspective towards life.

Raymond Rambert, a former football player, is a journalist working for the

Paris newspaper. He has been sent to Oran to report on the living and sanitary
conditions of the Arabs. Before he could finish his assignment the town is
quarantined due to plague. Rambert is a determined and quick-tempered
person and being young he is also restless. When he goes to Dr. Rieux to
gather information regarding the living conditions of the Arabs, Rieux tells
him that he will reveal the information only if Rambert promises to “publish
an unqualified condemnation of the present state of things” but Rambert
expresses his inability to do so. Then Rieux suggests that he work on a story
about the increasing number of dead rats in town. But being restless in this
situation the only thing he can think of is escape. He finds himself imprisoned
and separated from his wife. He refuses to accept this situation which has
befallen on him and is prepared to escape in any possible manner. “But
confound it,” Rambert exclaimed, “I don’t belong here!” (pg. 85)

147
Rambert tries to maintain his individuality in the face of the crises by
claiming that he is a stranger in the town. He does not realize that man is a
stranger where ever he is. He uses all his ingenuity and resourcefulness to
persuade the city bureaucracy to allow him to leave but he fails to convince
them. He resorts to illegal means and contacts smugglers, who agree to help
him to escape for a fee of ten thousand francs but there is a hitch in the
arrangements, and by the time any other plans could be made he changes his
idea of leaving Oran and decides to help the plague victims. The ironic
reversal and the acceptance of commitment occurs when he realizes that he is
needed in Oran and refuses his one chance of escape, he has grown up to
realize that every human being must pull his weight in a human calamity and
not seek solitary happiness for himself. He is rewarded by escaping the
plague and being reunited with his wife.

Rambert portrays the idea of escapism, insensitivity towards society and

wants to believe in concrete reality. He does not believe in God. He was too
self-centered to think about others.

“No,” Rambert said bitterly, “You can’t understand. You’re using

the language of reason, not of the heart; you live in a world of
abstractions.” (pg. 87)

He accuses Rieux of making cold realities into grand ideas, suggesting that it
is easier to deal with an abstract notion of “suffering” than it is to look at four
movie theaters worth of dead bodies, of the people whom you knew, piled up
on your doorstep. When you seek to protect “society” over the individual,
Rambert argues, you sacrifice the real for the ideal. Rambert wants to be with
his wife, a concrete and real goal. Abstractions or grand ideas for the society
are hindrances and sees them as his enemy. He feels that abstraction is the
penalty for losing love.

148
 Man is an idea, and a precious small idea, once he turns his back on
love. And that’s my point; we—mankind—have lost the capacity
for love. (….) Let’s wait to acquire the capacity (….). Personally, I
look no further. (pg. 162-163)

For him love is rooted in reality and is concrete without love everything is
abstract. He is not ready to entertain any idea given by Rieux to fight against
the plague. He even tries to convince Rieux that he was not brought into this
world to write news paper articles but to be with the woman he loved. But
when he finds out from Tarrou that Rieux’s wife is in a Sanatorium, a
hundred miles away he realizes his duty towards the society and joins the
fight against plague.

Rambert is quite subjective in his outlook, he is ignorant towards the truth,

which for him is idealistic but the idea of escapism, insensitivity towards the
society which he embodies changes in the end, when he accepts the reality of
life, to an objective, wider perspective. He is changed to such an extent that
he wants to remain in Oran even after the gates are opened. Rieux explains to
him that the conditions required to survive the plague are not the conditions
needed to function in the regular world. Ultimately he returns to unite with
his wife.

Camus has portrayed Father Paneloux as Christianity or for that matter

religion, faith and hope. He is a learned, well-respected Jesuit priest. He is
well known for having given a series of lectures in which he championed a
pure form of Christian doctrine and chastised his audience about their laxity.
During the initial stages of the plague outbreak, he preaches a sermon at the
cathedral. He is a great orator and is successful in convincing the
congregation that the plague is a scourge sent by God on those who have
sinned and hardened their hearts against Him. On the other hand he also tells

149
them that God is present to offer succor and hope in this calamity. “Calamity
has come to you, my brethren, and, my brethren, you deserve it.” (pg. 94).

He is reminding the congregation about the purpose of religion i.e. explaining

senseless tragedy. He uses the technique of “all is for the best”. He makes use
of only “you,” probably thinking him being not part of the calamity. His way
of sermonizes proves that he is adamant and confuses an already puzzled,
fearful populace. His blindness of faith is as absurd as the senselessness of a
plague. Paneloux’s attitude towards the plague contrasts sharply with Rieux’s.
Paneloux and Rieux are working towards the same goal; it’s just that
Paneloux gives it an abstract term while Rieux views it concretely. In his first
sermon, he preaches that plague is divine in origin and punitive in its purpose.
He attempts to put aside his desires for a rational explanation and simply
accepts God’s will. He tries to justify suffering----

It was wrong to say: “This I understand, but that I cannot

accept”. We must go straight to the heart of that which is
unacceptable, precisely because it is thus that we are constrained
to make our choice. The sufferings of children were our bread of
affliction, but without this bread our souls would die of spiritual
hunger. (pg. 226)

Whereas in the world of The Plague there is no rationale for any events. His
belief that there are no innocent victims is shaken as he watches a young boy,
Jacques Othon, die of plague. The death is described in a long, painful and
grotesque manner which forces Paneloux to rethink his ideas on religion.

when the spasms had passed, utterly exhausted, tensing his thin legs
and arms, on which, within forty-eight hours, the flesh had wasted
to the bones, the child lay flat, in a grotesque parody of crucifixion
(pg. 215).

150
Paneloux tells Rieux that although the death of an innocent child in a world
ruled by a loving God cannot be rationally explained, it should nonetheless be
accepted. Paneloux defends Christianity but fails to generate any kind of
hope. He joins the volunteers to fight against the plague where he comes in
direct contact of the suffering endured by the victims. Now death and plague
are no longer abstracts for him. Religion doesn’t really work that way in the
plague. Prayers and religion don’t help in the world of indifferent suffering.
Father Paneloux’s realization latter makes him declare that his church is an all
or nothing deal.

For who would dare to assert that eternal happiness can compensate
for a single moment of human suffering? (pg.224)

Father Paneloux isn’t going to get out of this one without struggling. He
refuses to write off the child’s death and prepares himself to address the
congregation once again. Defending religion without facing reality is blind
faith. During his second sermon, a change is seen in Father Paneloux, where
he preaches that death of the innocent child is a test of faith. Since God willed
his death we as Christians should accept it.

‘This had a lesson for us all; we must convince ourselves that there
is no island of escape in time of plague. No, there was no middle
course. We must accept the dilemma and choose either to hate God
or to love God. And who would dare to hate HIM?’ (pg. 228)

This gives the idea that religion was imposed or Father Paneloux had no way
out of his present situation. He now uses the pronoun “we” instead of “you”
and he has adopted a new policy in which he tells people to believe “all or
nothing.” He as a Christian is faced with a decision: either he accepts that
God is the ultimate ruler and brings goodness out of evil that afflicts men, or
he sides with Rieux and denied God. He is criticized by men of his religion

151
for what appears to be wavering faith in the face of the plague. A few days
after preaching his sermon, Paneloux is taken ill, refuses a doctor as it is
illogical for a priest to believe in a medical practitioner, trusting in God alone.
His death is recorded as a doubtful case as the symptoms of his illness did not
resemble those of the plague. Tarrou feels that Paneloux is indeed in a tough
position where he has chosen to back God and not to renounce his faith. At
least this is ostensibly Paneloux’s decision and from his death it has to be
decided whether he was committed to faith or not.

Paneloux showed a little more animation and a sort of warmth came

back to his eyes when he looked up at the doctor. Then, speaking
with such difficulty that it was impossible to tell if there was
sadness in his voice, he said: “Thanks. But priests can have no
friends. They have given their all to God.” (pg. 233)

When Dr. Rieux comes to treat him he is willing to accept Rieux. This sudden
change of heart reflects enlightenment, or simply fear of death and judgment.
His doubtful death raises a crucial question on the nature of his faith and the
religion.

Cottard is grand’s neighbor, jobless and has some private means for earning.
He describes himself as a traveling salesman in wines and spirits. He is an
eccentric figure, silent and secretive, who tries to hang himself in his room.
His suicide attempt is remarkably timed. While the town begins to struggle
against death with all its might, Cottard tries to walk straight into it. His
secret grief is certainly one form of suffering, which is so intense that he has
to attempt suicide. He lives in exile even before the plague. He cannot
integrate into society as he is guilty and wishes to be alone and he does not
like people taking interest in him. He is truly a man alone in this world,
lacking the intimacy of normal human interaction. He is saved by Grand but

152
is reluctant to be interviewed by the police as he is aware that he has
committed a crime and may get arrested for it.

He merely replied, without looking at the police officer, that “a

secret grief” described it well enough. The inspector then asked him
peremptorily if he intended to “have another go at it.” Showing
more animation, Cottard said certainly not, his one wish was to be
left in peace. (pg. 34)

As a citizen Cottard has failed in his duties and has become a criminal and is
exiled in the normal world but a free man during the plague. After the
outbreak of the plague there is a complete volte-face in his personality.
Initially he was aloof and mistrustful but now he has become compatible and
is trying hard to befriend others. He wants to break out of his isolation, but
the rest of the world is unresponsive to his attempts to integrate into society.
His separation from the society is clearly the source of his troubles. He is
isolated by his actions, but nonetheless he shows himself to be a man of
sympathy by trying to give others the friendship and affability he has been
denied. Camus has portrayed Cottard as an opportunist. He can take benefit of
any kind of adverse conditions.

“Look here, Monsieur Cottard, why don’t you join us?”

Picking up his derby hat, Cottard rose from his chair with an
offended expression.
“It’s not my job,” he said. Then, with an air of bravado, he added:
“What’s more, the plague suits me quite well and I see no reason
why I should bother about trying to stop it.” (pg. 157-158)

He is the only person in Oran who relishes the plague and takes advantage of
it by selling contraband cigarettes and inferior liquor. When the plague
subsides out of fear his moods fluctuate; sometimes he gets sociable, at other

153
times he shuts himself in the room and thus loses his mental balance and
shoots at randomly at the people on the street and gets arrested by the police.

“Allow me to point out, my man,” the police officer rejoined with

asperity, “That just now it’s you who’re troubling the peace of
others.” (pg. 34)

Cottard’s suffering is causing suffering to others. The ideas portrayed through

the minor character also help us to prove the novel by Camus as a novel of
ideas. Characters like the asthma patient who is visited by Dr. Rieux
regularly; he is a seventy-five year old Spaniard with a rugged face. He keeps
a track of events through the radio and newspaper. He passes his life by
counting out dried peas from one pan to another. This is meaningless and
trivial action but he enjoys doing this. He is unfazed by the pestilence.

Only the Spaniard whom Dr. Rieux was treating for asthma went on
rubbing his hands and chuckling: “They’re coming out, they’re
coming out,” with senile glee. (pg. 16-17)

The element of fear is not there in him. He is completely indifferent towards

the plague. He believes that religion has divided life into two parts, the first
part of a man’s life is an upgrade; the second goes downhill. And the
descending days cannot be claimed by him as they may be snatched away
from him any time. He does not want to die, he is not afraid of death; it is
only that he wants to die at an advanced age. And if death arrives earlier he
will fight against it. He tells Tarrou that God did not exist, since otherwise
there would be no need for priests. The Spaniard’s philosophy is derived from
the charities collected house-to-house in his part of the town. He uses the
religion to defend his lifestyle. In one of the conversations with Tarrou he
tells him that;

154
 “Ah, if only it had been a earthquake! A good bad shock, and there
you are! You count the dead and the living, and that’s an end of it.
But this here damned disease---even them who haven’t got it can’t
think of anything else. (pg. 114-115)

The mental defeat caused by plague is worse than the physical defeat. Dr.
Castel is one of Rieux’s medical colleagues, who is older to him and more
experienced. He is the one to realize that the disease that is spreading is
bubonic plague and its seriousness. He is the one who tries to put senses into
the authorities, who are trying to avoid the word plague.

“The question,” old Castel cut in almost rudely, “is to know

whether it’s plague or not.” (pg. 48)

Castel thinks that knowing the word would make the difference. He labors
hard to make an anti-plague serum, but as the plague continues, he shows
increasing sign of wear and tear.

M.Othon is the magistrate of Oran, tall and thin to look at. Tarrou in his
journal has mentioned him as “his small, beady eyes, narrow nose, and, hard,
straight mouth make him look like a well-brought-up owl.” He treats his wife
and children unkindly, but after his son dies he softens. After he finishes his
time at the isolation camp, where he is sent because his son is infected, he
wants to return there, because this would make him feel closer to his lost son.
But before he can do this, he contracts the plague and dies.

The Prefect initially thinks that the talk of plague is a false alarm. But he has
to consider the medical association’s instructions and authorize measures to
combat the disease, but the degree of seriousness is considerably less. While
Rieux and his colleagues struggle to do their duty, the Prefect and other
government authorities are lying down on the job. They are waiting for the

155
plague to wane off. When his measures fall short he tries to avoid
responsibilities for tightening up the regulations relating to the plague and
finally issues order to close the town.

Dr. Richard is the chairman of the Oran Medical Association. He is in the

authoritative position but dwindles in suggesting any action to combat the
plague as he does not want to arouse public alarm. He does not even want to
recognize the disease as plague. He terms it as a “special kind of fever.”

The old man is the neighbor of Tarrou, who mentions him in his journal. He
notes that this old man regularly calls his cats and then spits on them, and
would be delighted if it struck them. The old man finds meaning in life only
by performing a meaningless action. Tarrou is drawn to this old man because,
although his actions are insignificant, he consciously chooses to do them and
is therefore able to delight in what would otherwise be banal. If he did not
find the cats he spat in emptiness. Spitting on emptiness seems the ultimate
acceptance of the absurdity and triviality of life.

Mme. Rieux is Dr. Rieux’s mother, who comes to stay with him when his
sick wife goes to the sanatorium. She is a serene woman who, after taking
care of the housework, sits quietly in a chair. She believes that at her age
there is nothing much left to fear. She makes the point that love is greater
than suffering. Oran and its

“I’m so glad to be with you again, Bernard,” she added. “The rats
can’t change that, anyhow” (pg. 14)

The town of Oran and its residents are portrayed by Camus as hopeless
helpless. The narrator does not show any commitment to mince words about
Oran. He terms it “ugly” and says it has a “smug, placid air.” The town has
little evidence of nature, except for the sky above, as it is built with its back

156
against the sea that makes the town devoid of the natural sea breeze and
vulnerable to unhygienic living conditions; above all the seasons are
indistinguishable from one another. The irrationality of the weather
represented the indifference of the universe to human suffering. The
townsfolk are no more impressive, their work ethic is only driven by greed.
The citizens all have cultivating habits, habits which are repeated daily,
regardless of the surrounding environment or situation. The picture houses
repeating the same program over again and again did not dwindle in their
earnings showed how people wasted their lives in repetition. They all work
hard, but not for ethical or moral reasons – just desperate to make money.
They shun simple pleasures and often retire to card tables at night to bet with
their money. Their unawareness of life’s riches and pleasures demonstrate
their vulnerability to the plague. The town that refuses to let people die inside
its walls fall victim to a plague and has its gates shut. They disconcert
themselves with matters not involving money. Love is also not prevalent in
their society. Couples either consume in the act of love or settle down to a
mild habit of conjugality. Their working hours are so extensive, that little
time, if any, is left for love. Most love occurs without knowing much about it.
Their narrow views hurt their survival chances. The citizen’s self-
centeredness persists almost till the end of the novel, impairing their ability to
effectively fight the disease. When the rats die in the initial stages of the
plague no one has any explanation about these fatalities or any serious
concern regarding this incident. It is emotions and not reflections that spur the
citizens to action. The hotel concierge refuses to acknowledge the dead rats as
infestation and goes to the extent of arguing that it must be some children’s
prank. The citizens deceive themselves to cope with plague instead of
accepting it and fighting the pestilence they blind themselves with the false
assurance that this will pass quickly. Even as the death toll increases, people
do not admit to the reality of the unsanitary living conditions including the

157
health threat they pose and the possibility that the dead rats may be
symptomatic of a bigger problem. It is not until some time passes and human
deaths start occurring, that the doctors begin to realize the intensity of the
matter. The indifference that characterize Oranians is not limited to the
common man alone it extends to the doctors, authorities and even to those
who are not affected by plague. The people are not concerned about death at
all, even if they see persons who are acquainted but are unimportant to the
society, such as the concierge, M. Michel or the band trombonist - death is
addressed in a casual manner without any concern or interest. They are of the
belief that those who suffer are not that important and that any kind of malady
can strike them. Plague is dismissed by people as fictitious. Even Dr. Castel
admits that, most are hard-pressed to believe that the plague could not have
resurfaced as this illness has long since vanished or eradicated. They are
proved wrong when plague takes over their lives. The plague affects everyone
and not only the ones who are the victims. The fear of death is irrational as
are the common reactions to that fear. Even false hopes became loud as a café
puts up a sign saying that the best protection against infection is a bottle of
good wine.

The way the city official’s deal with the epidemic also shows the idea of
indifference running throughout the novel. The city official’s are slow to act
and hesitate to call the plague by its name. One reason they do not take more
immediate action is because they likely do not anticipate the consequences of
their cautious, wait and watch attitude. They do not take decisive action until
the plague becomes a large scale problem but even then nobody is ready to
assume responsibilities. To assume responsibility means to be responsible and
answerable and it is always safe to maintain a distance just like unresponsive
citizen.

158
In the novel there are certain characters, who fight for a cause far greater than
that of their own sustenance. The people of Oran grow concerned as they
realize that the disease respects no boundaries, and it affects all groups of
people. People gained their humanity when they lost their individuality. After
maximum damage was inflicted by plague people came together. Even
outsiders who are not native residents of Oran put in efforts to fight plague.
Jean Tarrou, a vacationer habituated to writing a journal to maintain records
about his surrounding, actively participates to fight plague and also
encourages volunteers to join the sanitation squads. He does this even though
he is aware of the risk to himself. His action shows the value of unity,
morality and personal sacrifice and on the other hand how the indecisiveness
and formalities of officials inhibit progress. The problem of dehumanization
is also visible by the indifference of authorities, in not taking the decisions on
time. The increased death rate leads to space problems in the cemeteries and
the authorities are forced to dispose the bodies in the crematorium. The
people realize that nature is not indifferent to man and rats when it comes to
disease and suffering. Initially the people did raise their voice against the
deceased not given the due respect but later when the priorities shifted from
the ceremony of the dead to the survival of the living the attitudes changed.
The only satisfaction was that they had different pits to dump the dead bodies
of men and women separately. This is similar to the mass incineration of dead
rats. The humans dead, face the same fate as of the dead rats, even the most
basic memorial service is suppressed in the interest of time. After the plague
declines and Oran returns to normal activities, few people bother to remember
the dead or the ordeal that had afflicted them

The one exception, indifferent to the plague is Dr. Rieux, who is the unnamed
narrator. The story is chronicled by him to bear witness for the plague victims
and to commemorate the injustice done to them. His thoughts reflect the

159
many issues brought up throughout the course of the novel. Rieux considers
and has seen how the town was affected not only by the actual plague, but
also by the social ills that consequently come to light, especially the attitude
of denial and indifference, inadequate response of the authorities, and
dehumanization of society. Rieux believes that plague also had its benefits,
like people came together as a community, realized that such incidents are
everybody’s concern, not just the problem of a few. One thing that the plague
teaches them is that society should never forget those who endure injustice
and tragedy. For that matter Tarrou fought for others and lost his own life.
Rieux concludes that plague can remain dormant for ages and resurface again
later - it cannot be defeated permanently, symbolic also of the attitude of the
people of Oran who will soon forget all that has happened and will go back to
the ways of life that they always lived before the calamity.

The plague is also personified with the qualities of a human being when the
narrator repeatedly gives it the agency of action, as though it has the motives
and strategy of an individual. The plague is perceived to be capable of
changing plans that people make in their day today lives. And that this can
happen as long as pestilence exists, this is Rieux’s honest opinion, but could
also be Camus giving a warning that if man comes to his senses and lives
with responsibility then he can also live without fear of pestilence.

The word plague represented fear itself and seemed to behave in a particular
manner.

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 blue sky. There have been as many
plagues as wars in history; yet always plagues and wars take people
equally by surprise (pg. 37)

160
Camus has put in much effort in describing the activities of the characters
their past and their surroundings than detailed traditional description of the
characters themselves. Much effort is visible in establishing general
perspectives about the individual characters and has left it up to the reader to
ruminate. From the beginning of the novel itself Camus has shown both the
sides of the humanist, which is the major philosophy adopted by him in this
novel.

In this respect the townsfolk were like everybody else, wrapped up

in themselves; in other words they were humanists: they disbelieved
in pestilences….. But it doesn’t always pass away, and from one
bad dream to another, it is men who pass away, and the humanists
first of all, because they haven’t taken their precautions. (pg. 37)

These are interesting lines which contradict the humanist philosophy. Camus
has also associated characters from various diverse occupations like politics,
science, philosophy, art, literature, economics, culture and controversies with
the intention of provoking, in a manner so as to trigger the intellectual
interpretations of the reader. But at times a frail attempt is also visible to
contain or terminate the reader’s thoughts and perceptions. The characters are
pulled in from different backgrounds, locations, professions, experience,
passions, intellect and attitude, not excluding the abnormal.

The citizens of Oran are confused over father Paneloux’s sermon that they are
being punished for their sins, and fail to understand what wrong they had
done to deserve suffering the plague. The justification of suffering is debated.
So is Rieux when he wonders if he had ignored his wife’s illness over
sufferings of his patients by remaining more dedicated towards his patients.

Father Paneloux’s devotion to religion and its avocation is put to question

when he witness the death of the young boy, Camus here questions the
purpose of religion itself when towards the end the priest himself dies of an

161
unknown illness. Father Paneloux’s submission to fate gives margin to the
humanist in him due to which he could work alongside Rieux and the others.

The attitude of the authorities to ignore their responsibility by pursuing the

wrong priority like finding the right name for the pestilence is very far from
the actual suffering of the persons who are suffering from the infection. The
deliberate manner in which notices were put up in places where they would
be least noticed and the small reference in the news papers added more to the
indifference towards actually helping the citizens over the political agenda.
The ones who returned from the quarantine behaved extremely by burning
their homes in an attempt to eradicate the pestilence, was this irrational
behavior due to the fear of death?

Camus has to a large extent depicted individual characters symbolic of a

particular thought pattern and by bringing them together at various levels of
interaction, triggered thought processes which the reader could indulge in. to
ensure that no one perspective dominates the length of the novel Camus has
held back the identity of the narrator till the very end. The provision to draw a
parallel between any disorder like war, crime or a natural calamity in the age
of industrialization, greed and dehumanization, is left open even after the end
of the novel.

Camus drafts the change of heart in Rambert towards the end of the novel by
temporarily delaying his plans to leave Oran as a question that every human
could ask oneself, when he has to reflect upon leaving fellow humans in a
condition of suffering.

‘and he recalled that some thirty or so great plagues known to

history had accounted for nearly a hundred million deaths. But what
are a hundred million deaths? When one has served in a war, one
hardly knows what a dead man is, after a while. And since a dead
man has no substance unless one has actually seen him dead, a

162
 hundred million corpses broadcast throughout history are no more
than a puff of smoke in the imagination’. (pg. 38)

Perhaps Camus here draws a parallel between plagues and wars both resulting
in large number of deaths maybe due to the indifference of the humankind.

Communication through letters with the outside world was prevented as a

precaution to prevent the spread of infection, but the fact was that Oran even
before the plague was not much indulged in communication with the outside
world, so what difference did it make since the source of the plague itself was
not known.

The closing of the gates of Oran was done much before the official
announcement of it; it was not the confinement but the knowledge of it that
more disturbed its citizens, for whom it would have otherwise made no
difference.

The manner of language that Camus preferred is of an individual preference

and as the prominent characters of the novel were of varied background and
profession their communication with each other and otherwise were limited
by their approach and understanding, not keeping with the purpose of
communication itself, due to which language failed to convey a specific idea
and is eventually left to the reader to comprehend the thought.

Camus here points out that hope can be destructive as it prevents people from
actually taking things into their hands and acting upon a situation.

Camus has ensured that each character depicted within, has a distinct
profession, attitude, intelligence, philosophy and understanding of the human
social existence.

An animated conversation was in progress and the woman behind

the counter started airing her views about a murder case that had

163
 created some stir in Algiers. A young commercial employee had
killed an Algerian on a beach. (pg. 54)

Human life is most valued only by those effected otherwise it is considered

irrelevant, this is an essential humanist problem: how to care about man when
it is too easy to make him into an idea instead of a being, and even more
difficult to care about death when individual identity is not known. The town
of Oran is depicted as the stage where the drama of the plague is enacted. The
characters indulge to challenge various levels of intellectual interpretation of
established theories, understandings and the contemporary environment. Care
is also taken to contain the thought process by shifting priorities, and by
changing the intensity of the plague as it increases and eventually takes its toll
before phasing out. The plague did not consume the only human lives but also
disrupted the day to day activities and the commerce of the town.

When a war breaks out, people say: “It is too stupid; it can’t last
long.” But though a war may well be “too stupid,” that doesn’t
prevent its lasting. Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we
should see if we were not always so wrapped up in ourselves. (pg.
37)
People prefer to take casual approach to a serious situation than the rational
and logical understanding.

The people of Oran were skeptic of the actual purpose of a hospital they
feared that the sick would become subjects of experiments, than survive the
sickness, but Dr. Rieux’s thinks of it as a place where the suffering may
eventually end due to the reality of death.

Thus week by week the prisoners of plague put up with what fight
they could. Some, like Rambert, even contrived to fancy they were
still behaving as free men and had the power of choice. (pg. 167)

164
The attitude of man to behave strongly is may be due to the varying lack of
awareness of the risk he involved in.

In the early days, when they thought this epidemic was much like
other epidemics, religion held its ground. But once these people
realized their instant peril, they gave their thoughts to pleasure. (pg.
121)

The people of Oran were religious but the moment they realized the impact of
the plague, they chose to make the best of their time and behaved like
atheists. The characters changing their initial stance is the authors technique
to contain the overall length of the novel but not compromising on the
controversies and contradictions built both within the novel and outside in the
readers mind.

Camus association with literature, journalism and publishing industry has its
influence on the characters he has formed. Rambert the journalist, who arrives
in Oran to report about the sanitary conditions of the Arab, is insensitive to
the sufferings of the citizens in the earlier stages of plague, and also has his
reservations on reporting on the actual living and sanitation conditions of the
Arabs, is significant of the representation of partial truth in the journalist
approach. Quiet opposite is the social activist, Tarrou who chronicles the slice
of life in his journals which also contains his observations and opinions, with
skills to motivate and convince people and talented enough to organize in
chaotic situations, which is his passion. Camus during his experience with
journalism may have come across works due to which he has portrayed these
two characters with varying levels of passion and sincerity. Camus has placed
the municipal clerk, Grand with his dull, monotonous, way of life, making his
attempts to write his first novel which has to be perfect but does not go
beyond the first sentence, symbolic of many such works he may have come
across during his editorial experience by people who wish to reach perfection

165
at the first attempt but otherwise cannot make any significant contribution to
literature or society. Father Paneloux’s strong first sermon, which he delivers
to justify the calamity as an act of God, and later his soft second sermon, after
he has witnessed the reality of plague through the death of an innocent child,
is Camus’s perspective on how religion however strongly delivered is not
above humanity. Cottard the criminal takes advantage of the calamity and
uses his skills to gain even when there is death all around, by selling
counterfeit cigarettes and alcohol, and his desire that the plague should not
come to end, is significant to the selfish philosophy of crime.

Dr. Rieux the narrator is retained by Camus as the most objective till the very
end. A surgeon and a medical practitioner by profession but narrates on the
calamity in Oran, other characters and along with his own fears and concerns
is placed as the most obvious character for the length of the novel.

The Plague as a novel is woven with threads from almost all the relevant
occupations of human coexistence.

The scientific inputs from the medical approach, all the way from the
unhygienic living conditions, the various techniques used to contain the
spreading of the plague, the research undertaken to develop a serum, and
eventually the limitations of scientific community to have total control over
the containment, prevention and the eradication of a disease.

The political and administrative approach, by the lackadaisical attitude in

acknowledging the presence of the disease and its enormity, the inability to
not do enough to effect change and the presumption that nothing is going to
change.

The understanding of the culture of Oran deals with the ignorance of

traditional values, like respect for hygiene, concern for and living in harmony
with nature, the city was built with its back against the sea, people have given

166
into greed, and adapted to short term gains and ignored the long term losses –
sanitation and hygiene. The reporter’s detachment with the plague, the
criminal’s caesura of the opportunity to make some fast money, an activist’s
concern to bring about change, a priests pro religious sermon indifferent to
the stark reality of the plague where religion is nothing more than an
unsupportive philosophy. The diminishing concerns for fellow human beings
and the attitude of ignorance of the plague by the people of Oran.

Camus penned this novel in the post modern era, when science, technology
and innovations were playing major transformational and transitional roles in
the ways of life of the human civilization. The reference to which starts with
the occupations that the people of Oran, engaged in, trading and making
wealth, with total disregard to social, community and other civic obligations.
The total ignorance of collective responsibility towards civilization itself has
its consequences. It would not be all true to say that epidemics and
knowledge of it was unknown to the educated and the intelligent, as the
presence of the press as a means of mass communication is acknowledged.
Camus here has made a remarkable effort to highlight the new attitude of
ignorance and indifference of the post modern man in a civilized world which
results in hopeless helplessness. A deteriorating situation, even persons who
could contribute with their knowledge and skill to make a difference are
overshadowed by greed and selfishness. The disintegration of human values,
priorities and the materialistic attitude for accumulating more for personal
gain, ignorant of the ultimate fact death, is prime concern of the novel. Even
the statistical information of the number of deaths per day does not help
influence the people of Oran to comprehend the impact of the plague.

Camus has revealed the limitations of scientific developments in the medical

area by referring to the failure of the serum and the death of Dr. Rieux’s wife
in a medical sanatorium away from the plague and with better facilities. Dr.

167
Rieux is appreciative of the positive outcome of the plague that it did help
bring the community together, but also remarks in his capacity as a medical
practitioner that the plague will return, maybe because he experienced that no
matter how much suffering and death had occurred the people of Oran will
always go back to their unhealthy ways of life. Even Dr. Castle a person
qualified enough is of the opinion that all forms of pestilence are the same, as
their impact and the damage caused is common, they do not distinguish
between their victims across the population in terms of their social standing,
hierarchy, gender and other forms of distinguishing, he is philosophical in
commenting that humans are also not dissimilar to the pestilence in this
manner.

The novel is presumed to be written in post modernist era where science,

technology, religion and politics had a major influence on the western society
transforming their way of life, culture and philosophy. The manner in which
people adapted and rejected change in the society also became a subject for
evaluation and criticism. As scientific innovations and inventions happened
initially in the west, its impact on the traditional influence of religion, social
values, and respect to humanist traditions that sustained civilizations for
centuries was also prominent there. Human sustenance in harmony with
nature was compromised with greed and materialistic hunger, easier
mechanized solutions were sought to make life easy, the onus to bring about
change and resolve issues started shifting from self responsibility to other’s
responsibility, the dependency on innovation, inventions and solutions
increased resulting in the general class of people limiting their activity fully
occupied to the area of doing fixed tasks to earn their living. Subsequent drift
from traditional way of life to the new transformed way of human life,
attitudes and its short and long term consequences is specifically pictured in
The Plague. Camus has not been specifically critical of anything in particular

168
other then the hopeless helpless situation to which the people of Oran had
reduced themselves, it was too early to draw conclusions in that era about the
contemporary society, but he has not minced words in criticizing the way the
western culture had taken to the new transformation with selfishness, greed,
crime, ignorance and irresponsibility. The people of Oran took the plague
initially as to how it would affect others and their ways of life than to
consider how to take precaution to avoid getting infected a selfish indifferent
approach. Camus also seems to acknowledge that certain degree of crime is
now here to stay. The warning that if people did not take precaution then
calamities will return is made very clear, may it be plague, war or any other
threat. The Plague Chronicle is a reflection of the indifferent and insensitive
commercial attitude towards suffering by publishing a newspaper with
advertisements which otherwise was to keep the people up to date on the
situation of Plague.

The confinement of Oran took its toll on the state of mind of its citizens as
one was left to fend for himself and his needs, the frustration was obvious
from the fact that not much cooperation was available from the fellow human
being, creating a state of alienation, even among the civilized society.

Moreover, most people (…..) had replaced normal religious practice

by more or less extravagant superstitions. Thus they were readier to
wear prophylactic medals of St. Rock then go to Mass. (pg. 221)

A manner of behavior much similar to other forms of faith across the world;
where man fears the unknown than the known.

Conclusion

Camus was a philosopher and a journalist, won the Nobel Prize in 1957, was
influenced by the Andre Gide, was known as an existentialist writer but he

169
personally preferred to be known as a man and a thinker rather than as a
member of a school or ideology, he preferred persons over ideas.

The Plague is an undeniable part of life, it is omnipresent. Camus questions

the meaning of the moral concepts justifying humanity and human suffering
within a religious framework. He believes that no mortal being can escape
death. Plague is the facilitator of death; during plague people understand that
individual suffering is meaningless, they become optimistic in the midst of
hopelessness. The themes found in the novel are status of justice, politics,
human existence as a civilized being in the contemporary modern society,
man's relationship with God, the absurdity of social rituals.

Camus tells the story through Dr. Rieux. However, Rieux is not the first-
person narrator. Rather he disguises himself, referring to himself in the third
person and only at the end of the novel he reveals who he is. Maybe Camus
wanted this work to be identified as fiction and not to be mistaken as a real
life chronicle.

The narrative tone is quiet Kafkaesque where individual sentences have

multiple meanings, the reduction of an immense tragedy down to artistically
manageable proportions, isolating the town from the rest of the world when
the gates are closed after the discovery of an outbreak of bubonic plague.
Through a relatively small cast of characters, Camus expresses his idea of
steadfastness against violence and commitment to the plight of others with a
level of moral insight. It is unconceivable from this work of Camus that his
characters and their contribution to the work to a large extent is the real life
experiences of the author himself and the attempt to write such a novel is in
the strong belief that society as a whole will survive, but stopping short of
drawing conclusions on the behavior of humans as individuals.

170
Camus by this work does not intend to undermine the hope of the civilized
man regarding survival of calamities but ends the novel with a note of
warning that if man did not heed to making himself aware of the improper
ways of life and work towards correcting them then disasters will resurface.
The experience of confinement and the exile within quarantine leading to the
people reacting in the extreme by burning their houses is Camus’s warning of
the extent that man can go due to frustration in the modern age, where the
hygienic ways of living, thinking and understanding is being compromised
for the irresponsible and insensitive way of life. The reality of his warning
stands true even today, the fear that Camus reveals in his work that if man did
not take precaution then calamities will resurface from time to time.

The possibility to draw a parallel with ‘The Plague’ in the event of different
collective calamities makes this novel qualify to be termed as a novel of
ideas.

In chapter four of the thesis I will be analyzing the novel The First Circle by
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, awarded the Noble Prize for Literature in 1970.
Solzhenitsyn makes a desperate attempt in The First Circle to shed light on
one of the darkest era of Russian history.

171