Discuss the view that the theodicy issue as raised by Camus in The Plague makes the traditional notion of God unacceptable Camus’ work is the story of Oran, a town in French colonial Algeria that was struck by the plague. It is the story, centred on the atheist Dr. Rieux, of the town in exile from the outside world. Being written very soon after the Second World War, the influences of Camus’ wartime experiences are clear throughout the book. It is a tale of the lack of hope in terrible conditions. In situations such as these it is hard to see the presence of God if he is, indeed, a good God. Hope is lacking and its counterpart despair is prevalent. Camus’ tale is the story of people continuing in this town despite the impossible conditions. In this situation, it is difficult to see God as the benevolent saviour of all mankind. His goodness seems to be inactive. The people are punished for some sins of which they have no knowledge. Innocent children are struck down in horrible painful ways. Camus makes it hard to accept the traditional notion of mankind. The narrator is a doctor named Bernard Rieux. Dr. Rieux is an atheist who yet still attends mass, at least occasionally. He is not from an especially privileged background, yet he has worked his way up. At the start, his sickly wife leaves to stay in a sanatorium in the hope of recovery. This is before the forced imprisonment of all in Oran. It is an important matter when comparing his experience and efforts with the Parisian journalist Rambert who is also separated from the love of his life. Rieux dedicates his life to helping the sufferers and accepts his situation with grim determination. Rambert accused him of living in a world of abstraction. This wasn’t too far from the truth. How might one cope with such a despairing, monotonous situation with any hope for happiness when the end of the plague is nowhere near? Even with his apparent calmness, Rieux does feel the strain. After witnessing the death of the young Othon over an extended period of time, he snaps at Father Paneloux. It is here that he explains why he cannot accept that God could allow this to happen if he did exist in the traditional sense. Paneloux suggests that he should love what he cannot understand. Rieux retorts (p.208): ‘”I shall refuse to love a scheme of things in which children are put to torture.”’ This expresses a serious concern with the notion of God. He asks us to love, but love of something that allows small children to suffer terribly is next to impossible. Tragically for the chief protagonist, near the end of the story, Rieux discovers that his wife has passed away without him being able to see him. He cannot partake actively in the celebrations of the end of the plague. For one who played such an active part in helping the citizens of Oran this is a tragic shame that challenges the traditional notion of God deeply. Being a doctor, Rieux was involved in the decision by the medical departments to recognise the diseases as plague and as such order the closing of the gates. As the narrator says, the first thing that the plague brought to the citizens of this town was exile (Camus, The Plague, p.67): ‘It was undoubtedly the feeling of exile – that sensation of a void within which never left us, that irrational longing to hark back to the past or else to speed up the march of time, and those keen shafts of memory that stung like fire.’ This was just at the start of the period of plague. If it felt this bad merely in the earliest stages of the plague, the situation would get worse if it were to last longer. In this story, it was to last a long time and the situation was to deteriorate much further. The lack of hope is evident even in this early stage. An emptiness was present that couldn’t be filled by such concepts as God. The need for the concrete missing loved ones suffered by parted lovers such as Rambert and Rieux was the at centre of their mind, not extraneous factors like God and spiritual notions. The narrator suggests that this was to their advantage in the early days of the plague (p.72) ‘Their despair saved them from panic, thus their misfortune had a good side.’ Father Paneloux is a Jesuit priest who was more the scholar than the parish pastor. He had achieved some local fame on account of lectures on present-day individualism. He is the main representative in the book of the church. In the fourth week of the plague, the church has organised a week of prayer. The conclusion of this is a powerful sermon by Paneloux. This week of prayer received a large attendance rate despite the fact that the people of Oran were not particularly devout. The attendance was largely due to the exceptional state of affairs and the feeling that the course of events had some enormity and that something was up. The narrator puts it thus (p.89): ‘With regard to religion – as to many other problems – plague had induced in them (the people) a curious frame of mind, as remote from indifference as from fervour; the best name to give it, perhaps, might be “objectivity”.’ Paneloux’s sermon lays the blame for the plague firmly at the feet of the people. The people of Oran have sinned and so God turned away from them. The shock of the sermon was great for many and indeed Paneloux retreats from the sentiments expressed therein later in the tale. Paneloux joined Tarrou’s sanitary squads and provided a vital role in the care of the sick. It is important to draw the distinction in the novel between the church and the churchmen. The church is seen as ineffective, the week of prayer proving to be of little use, and the convents having to be cleared for hospital and quarantine use. The churchmen, of which Paneloux is the main representative in the book are portrayed as good men, working hard to help those who need help. Paneloux, though his faith proves of little practical help, is invaluable to Rieux and his colleagues as a helper in the care of the sick. He is perhaps one of the most affected by the witnessing of the death of young Jacques Othon. This was very painful for him and led him to severely question his faith. Indeed, proving that his earlier sermon about the plague striking because of sin was wrong, he himself succumbs to the plague. This is whilst he was staying with a pious old lady of whom the only records of his last days survive for the purpose of the story. He comes to voice the opinion that it is illogical for a priest to call a doctor. A priest should not call in a doctor, as he must suffer the same fate as the innocent, or he must lose his faith. This is how Camus describes Paneloux as feeling. He puts it in Tarrou’s mouth thus (p.219): ‘When an innocent youth can have his eyes destroyed, a Christian should either lose his faith or consent to having his eyes destroyed. Paneloux declines to lose his faith, and he will go through with it to the end.’ This shows Camus’ views of the difficulties of a Christian faith when presented with such factors as innocent children dying. The theodicy thus presented is that all believers in a Christian God should suffer as the most innocent suffer, or you can’t believe that God is good in the traditional sense. This is a strong challenge to the traditional view of God and is difficult for all those who have faith in God to accept. As mentioned earlier, the character of Rambert serves as an interesting counterpoint to Rieux. Both are men separated from their lovers through no fault of their own. Rieux continues with his life in the plague stricken town whereas Rambert is determined to escape from the town and return to his lover. He attempts this both via official channels and via underground mechanisms. Neither of these characters are men of God. Both profess to be atheists and so Camus doesn’t present the atheist or Christian as being more willing to resign oneself to ones fate and the service of others. Rambert initially is of the impression that those like Rieux don’t realise what it feels like to be in his position. His attitude noticeably changes when he learns from Tarrou about Rieux’s own separation. He then even refuses an opportunity to escape Oran and stays to help minister to the sick. He also proves to be an invaluable aid to the victims of the plague in Oran. The theodicy is clear, it does not matter whether you believe in God or not, you can still be a good man. The notion of only performing good in order to achieve salvation through the grace of God is challenged. When others who profess to having no such hope devote their lives and risk death to help others, what is the value of the traditional image of God as one who rewards the worthy and those willing to sacrifice. The character of Tarrou is seen as representing the closest to Camus’ own personal opinions. He is a traveller who agitates for the end of capital punishment. He fervently believes that no human being can put another to death in any moral code. The son of a barrister, he had the experience of seeing his father help condemn a man to death. This scarred him for life and he was heavily involved in attempting to change the attitudes of the justice systems. He feels that he has been the victim of plague ever since and until such things as executions are stopped he will continue to be a victim. Because of this, he sees the situation in Oran as no different to what he has already experienced. He wishes to help the needy because he feels that this stops him being a wilful murderer and he must do all he can. He doesn’t believe in God, yet he wishes to learn how to be a saint. This paradox is difficult to understand, but is in line with the theodicy of Camus as described elsewhere in the book. The general theme running throughout the book is that people are good people or bad people irrespective of religious beliefs. The notion of a God is irrelevant and so are the institutions ineffective. It is the actions of the individual that truly matter. It is perhaps one of the most disturbing events of the book when the man who was perhaps the most honourable man, who had done so much for strangers succumbed to the plague. He was one of the last victims of the plague when it had become clear that the plague was almost over. It is a tragic event that drives home the point that such things as plague and war do not pick on any groups of people equally, whether for money, upbringing or indeed actions later in life. If the traditional notion of God as a benevolent ruler, rewarding those who do good and punishing those who do wrong is right, why did the plague pick Tarrou right when he had the best chance of escaping? This is another example of Camus’ theodicy making the traditional notion of God unacceptable. In conclusion, the traditional notion of God is strongly challenged by the theodicy as presented in Albert Camus’ the Plague. The notion of a good and benevolent God as traditionally represented is impossible to conceive existing in a situation such as the plague-ridden city of Oran. A God such as this could not allow a disease to pick out the innocent and the good like Jacques Othon and Tarrou whilst sparing those not of this ilk like Cottard. The limitations of this theodicy issue as represented in this book lie in that this book only examines an individual situation. It is a situation that is extremely difficult to comprehend and does pose difficult questions. The traditional notion of God may not be entirely unacceptable but may need new interpretation. Bibliography Albert Camus The Plague (1947); Penguin Fiction.