The Plague Symbol in "La Peste"
The Plague Symbol in "La Peste"
a) In assessing the plague's effectiveness as a symbol of the human predicament in general it must first be stated what exactly is meant by the human predicament. It can obviously be taken at many levels to mean many different things, such is the ambiguity of the phrase. In the context of La Peste however we must take it to mean the absurdity of existence. The fact that man has no control over his fate and the only thing he can be sure about is death. It is about the vulnerability of man, powerless against the forces of the universe, in which he is a stranger. There are many ways in which we can compare the plague to the human predicament.
In Le Mythe de Sisyphe Camus wrote about the eternal struggle of man. Sisyphe had to push a huge boulder up a hill and every time he got to the top the boulder would merely roll down and Sisyphe would be forced to start again. The problem he faced is like the problem man faces in life, one continual uphill struggle. The comparison in La Peste is Rieux. The plague is the boulder and Rieux is pushing it, constantly battling against the plague and yet seemingly getting nowhere.
In La Peste, as in many of his other works, Camus shows a strong preoccupation with death. Indeed his works have been described as "le monde du condamnes a mort". Death is prevalent throughout La Peste and can strike at anytime and completely at random. The plague is not selective, it kills men, women and children. The death of Dr. Richard is told in indifferent terms, he is simply "enleve par la peste", helping to point out that one day you can be alive and the next day you're gone, it's as simple as that. The metaphysical aspect of death is that it can't be changed, man doesn't have a say in the matter. As Rieux points out to Tarrou, "l'ordre du monde est regle par la mort".
John Cruickshank, who has written extensively on Camus, described La Peste as,
"...convey[ing] a general picture of man's position in the universe, faced by the problem of evil and the necessity of suffering."(1) This problem of evil is one which man faces throughout his life and one which he cannot escape, just as the inhabitants of Oran are faced with the plague. The idea is that suffering is a test to which man is subjected throughout his life, a sort of test to see what happens to you when you die. Man is put on the earth to suffer.
In La Peste we are told,
"des gens d'origines tres differentes se coudoyaient et fraternisaient". The battle against evil brings men together in their fight and puts everyone on level par. The fact that you are from a different background does not mean you are any less likely to be struck down by the plague.
To conclude this first part of the question therefore we can see that the plague symbolises well the human predicament. Indeed this was one of Camus' objectives in writing the novel. In his Carnets he declared,
"Je veux exprimer au moyen de la peste l'etouffement ou nous avons tous souffert et l'atmosphere de menace et d'exil ou nous avons vecu".(2) Camus suffered throughout his life in various ways and he wanted to express this by means of realism in La Peste. The novel shows human suffering, the inability of man to control his destiny and the idea ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
To conclude this first part of the question therefore we can see that the plague symbolises well the human predicament. Indeed this was one of Camus' objectives in writing the novel. In his Carnets he declared,
"Je veux exprimer au moyen de la peste l'etouffement ou nous avons tous souffert et l'atmosphere de menace et d'exil ou nous avons vecu".(2) Camus suffered throughout his life in various ways and he wanted to express this by means of realism in La Peste. The novel shows human suffering, the inability of man to control his destiny and the idea of the ever present nature of evil.
b) Before answering the second, more controversial, part of the question it is first necessary to set out exactly what the situation in occupied France was. Only then can comparisons or differences be shown.
Firstly many Frenchmen, especially those in high positions of authority talked with the Germans. The most notable of these was Petain, the chef d'etat, who, after being voted into office in the summer of 1940, met Hitler for talks at Montoire in October 1940. In a speech, on the 22nd June 1942, Laval, the then Prime Minister, expressed his desire for a German victory and received the backing of Petain. The French police co-operated in the rounding up of Jews. There were also French members of the Gestapo. All this occured largely because these people believed the Nazis would create a new Europe which they wanted France to be a part of.
Although out and out collaborators were somewhat of a rarity the French continued to offer the Germans both money and labour. However the resistance had begun through small groups such as students and priests who refused to accept Nazi rule. The Combat group, which Camus was a member of, often writing anonymous articles for its magazine, was strong on the Lyon area. The resistance, inspired by the rise of De Gaulle, grew in strength under Jean Moulin. That said however, in 1942 the resistance was still small and although it grew through 1943 it still only accounted for 2% of French adults. Most were simply content to wait and see what happened.
Following the allied invasion resistance leaders hunted down collaborators. Petain and Laval, among others, were tried and found guilty. However, although most collaborators were killed or imprisoned some not only survived but also carried on participating in the running of the country. Petain's lawyer Jacques Isorni was elected to parliament in 1951 and fourteen ex-vichyites sat in the Chamber of Deputies in 1958.(3)
Let us therefore look at the similarities with the above and the plague. In La Peste Camus is highly critical of the authorities, just as he was during the war. He depicts them as conducting events behind closed doors and trying to hide the true facts from the people. Just as the Vichy government tried to convince the French everything was all right whilst at the same time collaborating with the Germans, the authorities in La Peste refuse, for a long time, to recognise the existence of the plague and the gravity of the situation. It is a quite a while before the prefecture finally declares, "Fermez la ville".
Nor does the similarity end with the authorities. Taking the doctors apart, most people in the town of Oran refuse to recognise there is a problem. We are told,
"Personne n'avait encore accepte reellement la maladie". Those not yet affected by the plague carry on with their normal lives, even though the disease has at last been officially recognised and the town gates closed. This compares with the situation not just in France but in the rest of Europe at the start of the second world war. Although Nazism had been spreading and growing in popularity over the years the allies still weren't prepared for the impact it was to have. It wasn't until people were actually affected themselves that they stood up and took notice.
There are many other similarities between the situation in occupied France and the plague. We see the separation of people from their families and loved ones, "le sentiment de [l']exil et de [la] separation." Some, such as Rieux and Rambert, are separated and cannot be reunited due to the situation. We are told of, "la souffrance des amants separes". Others are separated when they become infected with the plague and have to go to the camps, such as the one set up in the football stadium. This often results in them being forcibly removed. Again the comparisons to Nazism and the war are obvious. Many people were parted during the war and some were often forcibly removed by the Nazis. The description of the camp in the novel as having high walls to stop those inside escaping and others getting in conjures up the image of concentration camps.
Another striking similarity is the way people's outlook on life is changed once the plague has set in. They suddenly become very indifferent to death, such is its regularity. During Toussaint people no longer bother to go to the cemetery or lay flowers. We are told,
"cette annee-la, personne ne voulait plus penser aux morts. On y pensait deja trop". Death has become such an everyday occurrence that people have become hardened to it and are less affected than they used to be. Funerals become simple, quick events,
"Toutes les formalites avaient ete simplifiees".
Moreover it is not just the attitudes to death that change but the attitudes to life in general. People stop caring about things they used to and merely concentrate on fighting to survive. This is shown clearly with the line,
"...la peste avait enleve a tous le pouvoir de l'amour et meme de l'amitie." As during the war, people can no longer feel sentimental towards one another it is merely a case of survival of the fittest. Camus draws a direct comparison with the war years describing,
"cette indifference distraite qu'on imagine aux combattants des grandes guerres".
If we say that the plague is to be associated with Nazism then Rieux, Tarrou, Rambert and Grand obviously represent the resistance fighters with Cottard being portrayed as a collaborator who, like those in the war, gets his just deserts in the end. It is interesting to note how Rambert, although an outsider to begin with, finds himself united in fighting the cause and helps out in the fight against the plague declaring, "je suis d'ici, que je le veuille ou non". He even turns down the chance to leave the town preferring instead to stay. Paneloux with his views represents the attitude of the church during the war.
The final major similarity is the overhanging threat that the plague might return. Although the town seems to be clear of danger the reader gets the impression that it could return at any time. As I have already pointed out this happened after the war with the continuance in politics of ex-vichyites and collaborators. The threat is always there.
So we see the striking similarities between the plague and the situation in occupied France during the second world war. These are obvious to see and cannot be denied. That said however there are some major differences. The first is the feeling of togetherness we get from reading La Peste. We see the whole town, with the exception of Cottard, united in their struggle against the plague. Cottard does not support them but as E. Freeman pointed out,
"he does not on his own symbolise the not inconsiderable proportion of the French population who supported Vichy and the collaboration for both practical and ideological reasons."(4) The situation in occupied France was somewhat different to that in La Peste. Deep rifts among the French as to the stance that should be taken against Nazism are somewhat contrary to the image portrayed in the novel. It was not the case during the war of everyone, except a small percentage, being part of the actual resistance. However this is the image given in La Peste with only a small percentage NOT being part of the resistance. Additionally, those who joined the resistance during the war exposed themselves to a massive risk. If caught they faced certain death, without mentioning the torture to be endured beforehand, and the stress they went through in joining the resistance was huge. Rieux and his comrades do not really have a choice. They are stuck in the situation and the only real option for them is to fight the plague. The stress they are put under according to E. Freeman "is in no way comparable"(5) to those in the resistance. While I agree with this for the most part it must still be admitted that Rieux did risk his life doing what he did, as did the others. The fact still remains however that the resistance fighters during the war faced a far greater moral dilemma.
A final comment, made by many critics since the novel was written, is that whilst the plague occurred by chance, with an unknown origin, Nazism had clear roots. This is undoubtably true. Nobody voted for the plague, nobody gave it support, nobody wanted it to happen. We must remember that Hitler came to power not as a dictator but as an elected leader. The contrast here is stark.
To conclude this section of the essay then it must be said that the plague, without doubt, symbolises the situation in occupied France during the second world war. Indeed this was one of Camus' objectives in writing the novel, a sort of tribute to the resistance. How successful the novel is in symbolising the situation is a matter of opinion. Personally I feel that although there are flaws in the symbolism, and many critics have argued major flaws, the novel still goes some way to comparing the two situations. It is a clear warning against war and evil and expresses a personal view of Camus, describing what he actually suffered. Whilst I admit that it is by no means exact in symbolising the occupation we should remember that Camus' experiences were first hand and it would be wrong for me, or anybody else who did not live in Nazi occupied France, to say, fifty years after the war, that he got things wrong. La Peste is not a perfect transposition of the situation in occupied France during the second world war, nor does it pretend to be. Nonetheless Camus describes suffering, pain, separation, moral dilemmas and the fight against evil and the fact is all this existed during the war, as Camus knew from his own personal experiences.
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
(1): J. Cruickshank: Camus and the litterature of the revolt; page 166
(2): A. Camus: Carnets 2; page 72
(3): Facts on history of France drawn from,
James McMillan: Twentieth Century France, Politics and Society 1898-1991
Chapters 13-14.
and to a lesser extent, Alexander Werth: France 1940-1955; part 1
(4): E. Freeman: The theatre of Albert Camus; page 83
(5): E. Freeman: The theatre of Albert Camus; page 83