the plague camus essay

Literary Theory and Criticism

Home › French Literature › Analysis of Albert Camus’s The Plague

Analysis of Albert Camus’s The Plague

By NASRULLAH MAMBROL on August 4, 2023

The Plague was written by Albert Camus (1913–60), one of the most gifted and influential writers and philosophers in the French language of the 20th century. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 1957. Camus was born in Mondovi, Algeria. The Plague, written during the German occupation of France in World War II, examines how an outbreak of the bubonic plague grips the Algerian city of Oran. The town on the seacoast of North Africa is mysteriously overrun by thousands of rats that bring a deadly pestilence to the citizenry. The story is Camus’s modernist version of Daniel Defoe’s 18th-century A Journal of the Plague Year. The Plague is also Camus’s allegorical treatment of the German forces invading Europe.

The central concern of the novel falls on the response by the public to the deadly disease rather than on the ravages of the plague. At first many of the town’s doctors and leaders deny the existence of the plague. They rely on the false hope that the human deaths might have a source other than bubonic plague. But as the number of dead begins to mount, the citizenry begins to realize that an epidemic has become their enemy. The disease creates hysteria and fear. People shun one another and become isolated within their homes. Soon the newspapers clamor for action. The ravages of the plague finally force the town’s bureaucrats to order a strict quarantine of Oran, leaving the citizenry imprisoned within the city’s gates and isolated from the rest of the world.

The Plague addresses a social response to the absurd condition of existence, rather than one individual’s response, as addressed in Camus’s earlier novel, The Stranger . Camus defines the absurd as life, devoid of God and constantly faced with evil forces, with no ultimate rational meaning. The denizens of Oran eventually find that they cannot fight against the plague or stem its deadly consequences, except for measures such as burning bodies and enforcing strict sanitation practices. Despite these minor human responses, the plague continues its devastating course. Dr. Rieux, the novel’s protagonist, fights against a disease for which there is no cure, as well as an apathetic society, and he quickly realizes that human intervention brings only a modicum of relief.

The townspeople of Oran are left in a state of anguish and alienation. But Camus’s story explores both the town’s collective response and that of the individual, evidenced through Dr. Rieux, to such daunting and irrational forces as a widespread plague. The only response possible, according to Camus’s philosophy of the absurd, comes through Dr. Rieux. Camus’s absurd hero achieves the ultimate rebellion against an indifferent universe by denying the illusion of a rational order while also resisting total despair. He turns away from religion and other social props and seeks a way, designed by the human will, to strengthen the community.

The town’s collective response becomes therapeutic, albeit only in an ennobling manner, as the unity of action does not curtail the physical manifestations of the plague. After the quarantine persists for several months, many of Oran’s denizens abandon their selfish obsession with personal suffering. The plague is seen as a collective enemy that concerns everyone. They recognize their social responsibility and take up efforts against the plague.

The ending of The Plague reaffirms Camus’s contention that the only response to an absurd existence, whether collective or individual, is a conscious rebellion against irrationalism. The individual may never defeat such overwhelming forces because a rational response is incongruent with irrational forces; even so, an individual’s rebellion creates in that moment of resistance a worthy human condition.

Dr. Rieux’s existential response also exemplifies in novel form Camus’s retelling of the Greek myth of Sisyphus in his highly anthologized essay “The Myth of Sisyphus.” The Greek gods have condemned Sisyphus for his transgressions to endlessly rolling a boulder up a mountainside. As the condemned man nears the summit, the rock tumbles back down the slope of its own weight, only to have Sisyphus again taking up his inexorable burden. But Camus thinks that Sisyphus must be considered happy because he has rebelled against the irrational forces in the universe. Camus imagines the absurd hero, despite his tragic fate, to be defiant in spirit and unbroken by the gods. From using the abstract forces of the Greek gods in “The Myth of Sisyphus,” Camus adopts the more specific, although allegorical, use of rats infested with the pestilence for the German forces occupying much of Europe in The Plague .

In The Plague Camus argues that rebellion against suffering and death ultimately ends in futility. Even in ordinary life, death eventually wins out. The novel also underscores the position that human defiance of the absurd world sounds a noble note despite the inevitable defeat of this resistance. The Plague outlines Camus’s humanistic optimism in moments of deepest despair and meaninglessness. In existential terms, this fraternal solidarity alone defines the individual instead of innate or spiritual essences.

The Plague is part of a group of three literary works Camus termed The Absurds . The other two works are the companion pieces The Stranger, a short novel, and “The Myth of Sisyphus,” a philosophical essay. The Plague is the longest and most developed of the three works.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Akeroyd, Richard H. The Spiritual Quest of Albert Camus. Tuscaloosa, Ala.: Portals Press, 1976. Aronson, Ronald. Camus & Sartre. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Beauclair, Michelle. Albert Camus, Marguerite Duras, and the Legacy of Mourning. New York: Peter Lang, 1998. Bloom, Harold, ed. Albert Camus. New York: Chelsea House, 1989. Braun, Lev. Witness of Decline: Albert Camus. Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1974. Ellison, David R. Understanding Albert Camus. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1990. Falk, Eugene H. Types of Thematic Structure: The Nature and Function of Motifs in Gide, Camus, and Sartre. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. Freeman, E. The Theatre of Albert Camus: A Critical Study. London: Methuen, 1971. Grenier, Jean. Albert Camus: Souvenirs. Paris: Gallimard, 1968. Lazere, Donald. The Unique Creation of Albert Camus. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1973.

Share this:

Categories: French Literature , Literature , Novel Analysis

Tags: Albert Camus , Albert Camus's The Plague , Analysis of Albert Camus's The Plague , Appreciation of Albert Camus's The Plague , Criticism of Albert Camus's The Plague , Essays of Albert Camus's The Plague , Guide of Albert Camus's The Plague , Notes of Albert Camus's The Plague , Plot of Albert Camus's The Plague , Review of Albert Camus's The Plague , Story of Albert Camus's The Plague , Structure of Albert Camus's The Plague , The Plague

Related Articles

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement

Deep emotion, plain speech: camus’s the plague, on language.

The art and life of Mark di Suvero

Mur de la Peste, Lagnes. Photograph by Marianne Casamance, via Wikimedia Commons . Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 .

The Plague was not an easy book to write. Camus was ill when he began it, then trapped by the borders keeping him in Nazi-occupied France. Aside from these difficulties, there was the pressure of authentically speaking up about the violence of World War II without falling into the nationalist heroics he deplored. Like with most problems in art, the solution was to address it directly: in one of the most revelatory sections of the novel, the character Tarrou blurs the line between fancy rhetoric and violence. “I’ve heard so much reasoning that almost turned my head,” he says, “and which had turned enough other heads to make them consent to killing, and I understood that all human sorrow came from not keeping language clear.”

All human sorrow! The boldness of this claim hints at how much Camus believed in words. The Plague is full of people who struggle to clarify their language and strain to make it more precise: Grand, Rambert, Paneloux, and even Rieux all try—and often fail—to express their deepest feelings through words. But in writing, Camus manages to develop a style that encapsulates feeling within the sentence structures themselves—a kind of syntax that captures deep emotion in plain speech.

For example, the first time Rambert tries to get out of the city, the smugglers who might help him escape don’t show up, and he despairs at the thought of having to retrace his steps:

At that moment, in the night spanned by fugitive ambulances, he realized, as he would come to tell Doctor Rieux, that this whole time he had somehow forgotten his wife by putting all his energies into searching for a gap in the walls that separated him from her.

Camus raises the emotional register of the language slightly here, but the words are quite plain, and most of the work is done by the structure of the sentence itself. Though the opening of the sentence promises immediacy, it is full of delays and distractions—the ambulances, the presence of the doctor, all the intervening time. The three prepositional phrases that front-load the sentence create the syntactic equivalent of the delayed gratification Rambert is experiencing, and the end of the sentence enacts the separation itself, forming a word wall between him and his love, which in the French is even more difficult to surmount : les murs qui le séparaient d’elle. The sentence ends with him and her, and only séparaient , the word for ongoing separation, divides them. This stylistic strategy has provoked a bizarre paradox. Critics have called and continue to call Camus’s prose in The Plague “rigorously and studiously unbeautiful,” stoic, flat, or even blank. Yet readers react to the prose with emotion—they find it powerful and sometimes tender. 

Restraint is a tricky concept, a tangle of literary and emotional implications. It has been weaponized by conservative critics to argue for a kind of “appropriateness,” to disavow the urgent necessity of radical self-expression. Restraint has also been mistaken for a kind of stiff-upper-lip style, a way of pushing feelings down out of patriotism so that horrific events like wars remain veiled from the public eye. Then there is restraint as a kind of humility before the unknown, the restraint of contemplating forces beyond a human scale. Late in life, Jacques Derrida, who also grew up in Algiers, linked restraint to the hush of faith: “ S cruple , hesitation, indecision, reticence (hence modesty < pudeur > , respect, restraint before that which should remain sacred, holy, or safe: unscathed, immune).” Camus’s character Tarrou, who wants to be a secular saint, isn’t so far from Derrida’s idea. For Tarrou, clarity in language prevents loss of life, and restraint is a kind of earthly religion, a path of “clear speech and action.”

As a secular person and as someone who felt compelled to bear witness, Camus had to develop an idea of restraint that was compatible with confronting harsh truths. But he was also troubled by the rarity of restraint in the aftermath of World War II—a lack of clemency, a quickness to defer to the binaries of good and evil, us and them. These forms of Manichean thought proved that simplicity in language could also lead to extremism. In 1948, the same year The Plague came out in an English translation, Camus published Letters to a German Friend , in which he explicitly addresses the problems with these binaries. “When expressed forcefully,” he writes, “truth wins out over falsehood … we are fighting for fine distinctions, but the kind of distinctions that are as important as man himself. We are fighting for the distinction between sacrifice and mysticism, between energy and violence, between strength and cruelty, for that even finer distinction between the true and the false.” Unlike falsehoods, truth, for Camus, requires a certain delicacy of expression, the fine distinction between clarity and simplicity. The syntax of this passage parodies the structure of binary thinking, but the words themselves counteract simple opposition. In fact, each pair is designed to provoke questions: where does sacrifice bleed into mysticism? How could there be a fine distinction between the true and the false? To get at some sense of reality, Camus uses syntax that is clear but not reductive. In Letters to a German Friend and in his lecture “The Human Crisis,” he hopes for a community of individuals who could disarm hatreds and stereotypes, but he knew that such a world could only be possible if humans acknowledged their capacity to carry the venom of extremist thinking and to turn people’s heads with its rhetoric.

Plenty of venom, conscious or unconscious, can emerge through the flourishes of style. As W. G. Sebald points out, writers who attempt to bear witness to horrific events can fall prey to their own technique. His book On the Natural History of Destruction explores the few texts that attempt to describe the firebombing of Germany during World War II and the civilian casualties that resulted. In one essay, Sebald quotes the writer Arno Schmidt for his excesses of metaphor, which lead Schmidt to describe the smoke after an air raid as a woman: “a fat-lady cloud stood up above the warehouse, puffed out her round belly and belched a pastry head high into the air.” The depiction of this woman-cloud is both sexist and not particularly moving; it’s possible for a reader to forget the loss of life this cloud signifies. Sebald writes: “The author certainly intended to conjure up a striking image of the eddying whirlpool of destruction with his exaggerated language, but I for one, reading a passage like the following, do not visualize the supposed subject: life at the terrible moment of its disintegration … I do not see what is being described; all I see is the author, eager and persistent, intent on his linguistic fretwork.” In Schmidt’s eagerness to convey the intensity of destruction, he robs it of all its power, and the style serves as a screen between author and reader so that the horror of what’s being represented is blunted into a kind of literary fancy.

By contrast, The Plague uses few instances of figurative language and, at the sentence level, rarely extends a metaphor. This aspect of the book has, at times, confused its readers, not to mention its translators. For the translator Stuart Gilbert, who lived through World War II and translated the book in the immediate postwar period, the novel’s plainer moments seem to provoke anxiety, and he meddles with them to make them closer to heroic postwar rhetoric. Where Camus writes “they must begin again” ( il fallait recommencer ), Gilbert adds a mythological flourish: “they must set their shoulders to the wheel again.” These inner workings of restraint are counterintuitive: often the less drastically the writer expresses an emotion, the more forcefully a reader can feel it. Naming a feeling or conjuring it through elaborate flourishes can be deflating and reductive. It’s Camus’s lack of stylistic padding that makes his work harrowing. In a moment of the novel that has been read by critics as Camus’s acknowledgment of the Nazi death camps, he writes, “And since a dead man carries no weight unless you’ve seen him dead, a hundred million corpses strewn across history are nothing but smoke in the imagination” ( une fumée dans l’imagination ). Robin Buss, who translated the novel in 2001, blinks here, using “a mist drifting through the imagination.” By turning smoke into drifting mists of memory, Buss represents the veil humans place between themselves and the dead, rather than what’s left of the bodies. Instead of obfuscating, Camus’s original metaphor tricks us into looking at what we don’t want to see.

Confronted with the horror of death and ruin, Sebald identifies “the moral imperative for at least one writer to describe what happened in Hamburg on that night in July.” When Sebald praises the writer Hans Erich Nossack, it’s for his directness: “The narrative tone here is that of the messenger in classical tragedy,” Sebald writes. As Alice Kaplan points out in her essay on the narrator of The Plague , Dr. Rieux has some of this directness. He is a messenger, the counterpoint to Camus’s narrator in The Stranger . Where Rieux is a “we,” Meursault is a hollow “I”; he lacks a sense of community. The endings of the two novels represent two forms of immersion in the world, or perhaps two ways in which the world absorbs human emotion. Where Meursault is a loner, someone who decides to open himself “to the tender indifference of the world,” Rieux is a community member whose task is “to write simply” what the indifference of the world has thrown at him.

Of course, Camus was also trying to create an allegory, and in that sense, Rieux’s task was always simpler than Camus’s. Yet in this pandemic year, The Plague has been tested as a direct chronicle of illness, and it has held its own. We have all, to some extent, become residents within its chapters. Many of the novel’s details feel more realistic than your average allegorical gesture—the mastic trees, the skies, the characters’ understandable hypochondria, the heartlessness of bureaucracy. In the midst of all this, as I translated the novel, I had to restrain myself from transferring my experience of plague onto the page.

It would’ve been so easy to use the words in the news; to choose vaccine instead of serum ; to put my own frustrations in Rambert’s mouth, or worse, Rieux’s; to make the prefect of Oran, who downplays the threat of the epidemic, sound a little too much like Trump. I felt this mirroring all year as I translated the novel in quarantine, as if the events of the world might become legible, rising through the ink shadow of the page. Perhaps The Plague holds up so well as a chronicle of real illness because, more than some of his contemporaries, Camus had an intense and highly specific relationship with the natural world. Though he was criticized by Roland Barthes and Jean-Paul Sartre for representing the Nazi occupation through a biological phenomenon, there is a certain humility to this choice—a certain refusal to put human intervention on a pedestal. “There are two sorts of efficacity,” Camus writes in The Rebel : “that of typhoons and that of sap.” As Sebald proves, there is a great deal of restraint in natural history, in trying to describe the world plainly and precisely but without oversimplification. This use of description presents another paradox of restraint: that the world itself is dramatic enough. If you look at it closely, its images can express intensity without much embellishment. Channeling emotion through observation can be another way to express a feeling without naming it.

I’m reminded of, in The Plague , the first rat Dr. Rieux observes on his landing, and the way it makes him think of his wife’s illness. By describing how the animal collapses and coughs up blood, he accesses both the pain of his wife’s symptoms and the fact that they are ever-present in his mind. In this way, what the doctor notices lets us understand the true danger of his wife’s condition without having to say it directly. Restraint is sometimes the act of watching what disturbs another’s eye.

The craft of observation, of image making, is closely related to poetry. The Plague combines Camus’s stylistic facility with fiction, philosophical essay, and the dialogue of a play, but there was another, less obvious genre that also influenced him: the lyric essay, which is the writing closest to a kind of poetry about the natural world. In Ellen Conroy Kennedy’s brilliant translation, Camus’s essay “Nuptials at Tipasa” opens like this:

In the spring, Tipasa is inhabited by gods and the gods speak in the sun and the scent of absinthe leaves, in the silver armor of the sea, in the raw blue sky, the flower-covered ruins, and the great bubbles of light among the heaps of stone. At certain hours of the day the countryside is black with sunlight. The eyes try in vain to perceive anything but drops of light and colors trembling on the lashes. The thick scent of aromatic plants tears at the throat and suffocates in the vast heat.

Today, this would be called a prose poem—it’s Camus’s early voice at its wildest. And yet, there is a kind of restraint here, too, in delaying the self to foreground the landscape. Here, the “I” is withheld until the end of the paragraph. He begins with the lyric voice as an eye rather than an “I,” a lens through which a reader is guided to observe the world. The intensity of this language serves to plunge us into the scene, to make us feel the granular detail of the sunlight, the rocks, and the smell of the foliage. By immersing himself in the world, by placing suffocation in the heat and the scent of absinthe rather than in his own lungs, Camus withholds his actual situation: his struggles with tuberculosis, which made him confront his own mortality. There is a sincere urgency in this beauty—you can only be so arrogant when you know you’re going to die, when your body is already fighting for survival. These essays prove that restraint isn’t the same thing as moderation—restraint can’t exist without deep feeling on the part of the writer, without intensity to harness. Camus’s early pieces read like the manifestos of someone trying to merge with a landscape as a way out of himself. This kind of “style incarnate” is, for Camus, what gives the written word power.

To return to The Rebel : “Through style, the creative effort reconstructs the world, and always with the same slight distortion that is the mark of both art and protest … Art is an impossible demand given expression and form.” Remember what I’ve seen. Feel something of what I feel. More than any other literary experience, translating Camus has taught me that restraint isn’t for the writer; it’s for the reader. By holding back the dazzle for a moment, a writer can let someone look directly through the page, at the part of the world that hurts.

Laura Marris is a writer and translator. Her recent translations include Albert Camus’s The Plague , Louis Guilloux’s Blood Dark , and Geraldine Schwarz’s Those Who Forget . Her first solo-authored book, The Age of Loneliness , will be published by Graywolf in 2024. She lives in Buffalo, New York.

This is an excerpt from States of Plague: Reading Albert Camus in a Pandemic by Alice Kaplan and Laura Marris, which will be published by the University of Chicago Press in October 2022.

Albert Camus

Ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions.

Welcome to the LitCharts study guide on Albert Camus's The Plague . Created by the original team behind SparkNotes, LitCharts are the world's best literature guides.

The Plague: Introduction

The plague: plot summary, the plague: detailed summary & analysis, the plague: themes, the plague: quotes, the plague: characters, the plague: symbols, the plague: theme wheel, brief biography of albert camus.

Historical Context of The Plague

Other books related to the plague.

• Full Title: The Plague (La Peste)
• Where Written: Paris, France
• When Published: 1947
• Literary Period: 20th century philosophy, Absurdism and Existentialism
• Genre: Philosophical novel, Absurdist fiction
• Setting: Oran, Algeria
• Climax: Tarrou struggles against the plague and dies
• Antagonist: The plague
• Point of View: First person limited, from an unknown narrator who is revealed to be Dr. Rieux in the last chapter

Extra Credit for The Plague

Nobel. Camus received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1957. He was the second-youngest recipient of the award, and the first winner to have been born in Africa.

Soccer. Camus was a great lover of soccer, and played as a goalkeeper for several years. He was once asked if he preferred literature or football (soccer), and he replied “Football, without hesitation.”