Daniel Defoe's A Journal of the Plague Year gives the modern reader an insight into the tense atmosphere of urban London infested with diseases. However, the most important lessons we learn from HF's account are its observations about human behavior, which can be universally applied to those in the outbreak environment. In HF's journal, questions regarding the wrath of God as the ultimate cause of the plague, discussions of the means of transmission and treatment of the plague, the human desire for an explainable theory of the cause of the plague, as well as the class consciousness that becomes particularly blatant during the plague outbreak of 1665, help to express Defoe's aim of presenting this particular outbreak of plague in London as a multidimensional and complex circumstance. Therefore, the modern reader is less inclined to homogenize and simplify the experiences of the plague victims, leaving the narrative with a better understanding of the disease's enormous effects on humanity. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an original essay In examining A Journal of the Plague Year, it becomes important to determine the extent to which the plague is represented as a divine visitation, or vice versa , to what extent as a natural calamity. At the time of the plague outbreak of 1665, the wrath of God was the dominant theory to explain the initial cause of the plague. In fact, December 16, 1720 was declared a National Day of Repentance, in the hope that human penance would counteract the effects of the plague, thus illustrating the strong religious beliefs of English society throughout this period. Defoe's narrator, HF, may represent the religious man of this period. In fact, he carries the Bible with him at all times and opens it to read spontaneous passages whenever he feels the need for outside support and guidance. For example, when H.F. is deliberating whether to stay or flee London during the plague outbreak of 1665, he randomly opens the Bible to Psalm 91 and finds arguments for his decision to stay, because he ultimately believes However, we should not confuse Defoe's HF with a standard character who blindly accepts the reasons for the plague in purely religious terms. On the contrary, HF goes to great lengths to examine the multidimensional nature of the plague of 1665. For example, HF asserts that “nothing but the immediate Finger of God, nothing but Almighty Power could have done it”2. commonly attributed to the wrath of God In fact, the population of London was widely convinced at this time that "even buboes are the target of angry feeding"3 However, Defoe's HF does not accept this unquestioningly. explanation without examining other theories For example, he admits that one could also attempt to explain the plague through a scientific perspective. In other words, the plague can be attributed to natural scientific causes. Nevertheless, although HF acknowledges the potential scientific causes of the plague, he makes clear that even these "natural" scientific causes ultimately have God as their source4. HF's ambivalent views on the wrath of God as the authoritative theory of the cause of the plague can best be described as "orthodox rationalism" 5. In essence, although HF gives the dominant theory of the wrath of God as cause of the plague its just recognition. , he does not fail to at least acknowledge other sources, thus giving the readeran insight into his deliberative and rational personality, which makes him a distinct and credible narrator of the plague. In addition to investigating the causes of the plague outbreak in London, it also becomes important to examine the means of its transmission. Currently, the debate over how plague spreads is generally binary between miasmatic and contagion theories. Today, there is general consensus that the plague is spread by rodent-infected fleas; however, this information was not available until almost a century after the outbreak of the plague in London in 1665. The miasmatic view supports the idea that the plague spreads through the air, since it claims that the The putrid air of an infested city carries the disease. However, Defoe rejects this miasmatic view in favor of the contagion theory. Defoe's pro-contagion views are evident throughout HF's narrative. He essentially believes that the poison of the plague resides in humans and not in the atmosphere. Therefore, one can sympathize with HF's outrage at the reckless behavior of commoners during the plague outbreak of 1665, where many people simply paid little or no attention to who and where they kept company. In fact, HF observes that his opinion and that of the doctors coincided, namely that: The sick could only infect those who were within the reach of the sick... [the sick] breathed death in every place and in every place . Body that approached them; moreover, their very clothes retained the infection, their hands would infect the things they touched, especially if they were hot and sweaty. "6. Therefore, we can observe HF's strong adherence to the contagion theory. It becomes important to recognize the two main views on the means of plague transmission when examining HF's account, for it was his strong belief in the contagion view that lay behind his suggestions for the treatment and prevention of plague Ironically, even though HF adamantly believed that plague spreads from human to human. and not by the uncontrollable air, he nevertheless also believes that the force of the plague cannot be avoided. He offers the reader contradictory views on the two main methods of treating the plague advocated at that time, among them the. closing the houses and fleeing the city For example, although he himself decides to stay in the city because he believes that the plague is willed by God and that it is inevitable, he nevertheless advocates the impractical option. of a mass evacuation of the city to escape the plague. HF states: “although Providence seems to have ordained that my conduct should be different; However, I believe... that the best remedy against the plague is to flee it”7. Furthermore, although he believes that the plague is transmitted from person to person, he nevertheless considers it futile to close houses to prevent the spread of the plague. He states repeatedly throughout the text that house closures are ineffective and counterproductive because they cannot be enforced effectively. For example, he describes: "I am now speaking of people desperate, through fear of being locked up, and by their escape by stratagem or by force, either before or after being locked up, whose misery has not been alleviated . , when they were absent, but unfortunately increased"8. Thus, HF does not approve of the closing of houses as a preventive measure against the plague. In essence, Defoe's narrator, HF, expresses justified but opposing views on the means of plague transmission and prevention Perhaps HF's contradictory nature is symbolic of his pragmatic and deliberative nature, which does not allow him to accept a.concrete reasoning to perhaps better understand an incomprehensible epidemic. One of the most significant depictions of the plague that HF ​​gives to his audience is the thirst for meaning that is prevalent in his disease-ridden environment. HF's story shows us the need for man to visualize the force of the plague in hopes of extracting some sort of deeper meaning from the epidemic. For example, HF recounts how, even before the plague really began in 1665, he discovered: ...a crowd of people in the street were all looking up, to see what a woman was saying to them seemed clear to him , which was an angel dressed in white, with a flaming sword in his hand, waving or brandishing it above his head. She described every part of the figure to life; I showed them the motion and the form; and the poor people entered there with so much eagerness and with so much preparation; YES, I see all this clearly, says one. This is the Sword as simple as possible. Another saw the Angel. People saw his very face and exclaimed: What a glorious creature he was! We saw one thing, and each other9. It is important to examine this crucial passage in HF's account because it allows the reader to gain insight into the emergence of charlatanism and corruption during an already dark period. HF is evidence that many people are willing to take economic advantage of those who have become more vulnerable during the plague period. For example, literary critic Natasha Rosow describes: The messages were filled with fraudulent advertisements for “foolproof” preventative pills, “never-failing” preservatives, and “the Royalantidote.” Some doctors were also taken by greed: “I give my advice to the poor for nothing, but not my medicine. The inexplicable nature of the plague creates an enigmatic atmosphere, thereby sparking a thirst for meaning in those affected, as demonstrated by the congregation gathered in the street struggling to extract meaning from an imperceptible image. The issues of class discrimination raised in Defoe's account of the plague are undoubtedly significant. Although the precise reasons for the cause and spread of the plague have not been unanimously agreed upon in the context of the story, it is nevertheless "generally admitted by experience that it is dirty, stinking and and". Crowded environments were particularly attractive to infection, and the plague was most prevalent among the filthy poor. "11. Of course, the belief that the plague was more common in the less wealthy classes most certainly led to class divisions and thus a further solidification of an existing class hierarchy. Therefore, HF enshrines a considerable part of his narrative to sympathize with the specific plight of poorer people during the plague epidemic of 1665. Margaret Healy explains in her article "Defoe's Journal and the English Writing Tradition" that while HF chastises the " useless mouths for their lack of foresight, their bad culture and their extravagance, he at the same time expresses his admiration for their courage and their dignity "12, HF includes the story of three men who escape the plague by fleeing to the countryside. . HF salutes their ingenuity and religious conviction by stating that their plan is "a very good model for every poor man to follow." they the most afflicted. by the effects of the plague. In fact, Defoe proposes in this story a mass evacuation of London in order to save the poor during the plague. Even if this impractical suggestion is not put into practice, one can still observe his concern for the plight of the poor. He gives us another example ofhow the poor suffered the most when he describes how the guards could be bribed. He declares: Just as several people, I say, left their houses by stratagem after being locked up, so others got out by bribing the guards... I must admit that I thought at the time that it was the most innocent corruption. , or corruption, of which any man could be guilty; and could therefore only pity the poor14. Furthermore, according to Healy, Defoe believes that "it was public charity, and not the credit of the city, which saved the poor and maintained order in London in 1665"15. Ultimately, Defoe emphasizes the salvation of the poor. for it is inevitably linked to the salvation of London as a whole from the plague. In conclusion, the questions of providence, causes, methods of treatment, desire for meaning, and class consciousness that arise when studying HF's interpretations of the plague have applications beyond just the major visitation from 1665 in London. Daniel Defoe's text instead examines the transfer of economic tensions between the aristocracy, the middle class and the poor into moral discourse. HF's views and observations of plague-infested London shine a light on our own modern afflictions with epidemics such as the spread of AIDS. Contemporary physician Laurence Segel asks, “Can we honestly say that we have never shunned, abandoned, or ostracized the afflicted? »16. Ultimately, the following statement from Albert Camus's The Plague rings true: “I know positively that each of us carries the plague within us; no one, no one on earth, is safe from it”17. Notes1 Daniel Defoe. Diary of the Plague Year. Edited with an introduction by Louis Landa. Oxford University Press: London, 1969.2 Daniel Defoe. Diary of the Plague Year. Edited with an introduction by Louis Landa. Oxford University Press: London, 1969. Pages 244-45.3 Margaret Healy. “Defoe’s Diary and the English Tradition of Plague Writing.” Literature and Medicine 22, No. 1 (Spring 2003) 25-44. Copyright of Johns Hopkins University Press. Page 28.4 Daniel Defoe. Diary of the Plague Year. Edited with an introduction by Louis Landa. Oxford University Press: London, 1969. Page xxiii (introduction).5 Daniel Defoe. Diary of the Plague Year. Edited with an introduction by Louis Landa. Oxford University Press: London, 1969. Page xxiii (introduction).6 Daniel Defoe. Diary of the Plague Year. Edited with an introduction by Louis Landa. Oxford University Press: London, 1969. Page xxviii (introduction).7 Daniel Defoe. Diary of the Plague Year. Edited with an introduction by Louis Landa. Oxford University Press: London, 1969. Page xviii (introduction).8 Daniel Defoe. Diary of the Plague Year. Edited with an introduction by Louis Landa. Oxford University Press: London, 1969. Page 55.9 Daniel Defoe. Diary of the Plague Year. Edited with an introduction by Louis Landa. Oxford University Press: London, 1969. Pages 22-23.10 Natasha Rosow. “Building authenticity.” Studies in the Novel, Volume 30, Number 2 (Summer 1998). Copyright 1998 by the University of North Texas. Page 2.11 Margaret Healy. “Defoe’s Diary and the English Tradition of Plague Writing.” Literature and Medicine 22, No. 1 (Spring 2003) 25-44. Copyright of Johns Hopkins University Press. Page 34.12 Margaret Healy. “Defoe’s Diary and the English Tradition of Plague Writing.” Literature and Medicine 22, No. 1 (Spring 2003) 25-44. Copyright of Johns Hopkins University Press. Page 37.13 Daniel Defoe. Diary of the Plague Year. Edited with an introduction by Louis Landa. Oxford University Press: London, 1969. Page 58.14 Daniel Defoe. Diary of the Plague Year. Edited with an introduction by Louis Landa.. 20, 2003.