For Wednesday: Defoe, A Journal of the Plague Year, p.165 to as close to the end as you care to go!
Answer TWO of
the following…
Q1: The Narrator
is very careful to remind his readers that the Plague ended seemingly
miraculously, “Nor was this by any new
Medicine found out, or new Method of Cure discovered, or by an Experience in
the Operation, which the Physicians or Surgeons had attain’d” (236). Though
he is very skeptical of superstitions and signs in general, why does he want to
make it clear that God alone seems to have ended the Plague—indeed, at the very
moment where even the Narrator was losing faith? How does this change how we
interpret the entire work in terms of 1722?
Q2: Related to
the above, the Narrator writes at one point that “I have heard, it was the opinion of others, that [the plague] might be
distinguish’d by the Party’s breathing upon a piece of Glass, where the Breath
condensing, there might living Creatures be seen by a Microscope of strange and
frightful Shapes…But this I very much question the Truth of, and we had no
Microscopes at that Time, as I remember, to make Experiment with” (195).
Why do you think the Narrator says relatively little about how doctors diagnosed
and treated the disease? Since the 18th century is the Age of the
Enlightenment which gave birth to many of the modern medical sciences, is Defoe
somewhat skeptical of doctors? Does he conflate Physicians with other Quacks
and Charlatans who peddle in false cures?
Q3: Defoe was a
Dissenter, which means someone who refused to abide by the Act of Uniformity
(1662), which standardized belief in the Anglican Church.
For this he—and many others—were persecuted in English society. From a
Dissenter’s point of view, why might the Plague be a mixed blessing for English
society? What “good” can come out of a major catastrophe like this? How might
this relate to many modern dystopian novels which show a benefit from society
collapsing and many people dying off?
Q4: Why is the Narrator so critical of the public’s response to the reduced numbers of plague victims dying off? What effect does this have on London society, and why might be another example of rumors and urban legends poisoning the minds of otherwise sensible people?
Q4: Why is the Narrator so critical of the public’s response to the reduced numbers of plague victims dying off? What effect does this have on London society, and why might be another example of rumors and urban legends poisoning the minds of otherwise sensible people?
Q2: I think he gives little mention to the diagnosis process because most of it was just common folklore. People also believed that if an infected person breathed on water, the water would become foul, or that an infected person's breath carried a specific smell. A modern reader, much less the narrator, would find all of these methods to be ridiculous. Although he gives some merit to doctors, especially those that served in pest houses, he generally is skeptical of them.
ReplyDeleteQ3: The church was not able to protect any of its members from the plague. In fact, some of the priests fled the city and left their congregation to die. The church's flight left the people to take care of themselves. This would have led the general population to question why they put so much faith in the church. Their questions would lead to bigger questions about society. It reminds me of the Hunger Games; after so many years of oppression, the districts begin to wonder why they trust the capitol. So, they rise together to overthrow it.
q3. Obviously, Defoe has a strong faith, so the presence of religion is repeated throughout A Journal of the Plague Year. I don't remember what page, somewhere mid-book, I remember him mentioning how the wealthier people had fled, but still sent money to the sick, and I remember something about that being encouraged by the church. So even though the church abandoned those who weren't wealthy, it's not like they entirely forgot about them. Churches can be weird--especially churches from the 1700s, so would it surprise me that they saw the plague as a blessing, or a cleansing, of the people? Not at all. I haven't read many dystopian novels, but in The Uglies, a group of people refuse to follow with the wealthy (and their idea of beauty rather than avoidance of sickness) and ultimately start a revolution.
ReplyDeleteq4. I think the people who had avoided the plague might have unintentionally assumed that they didn't get it because they were better than the people who did get it. Assumption is the first step to any rumor or legend. On page 172 (of my version at least) Defoe writes about the declining morals of the people, "hardened by the danger they had been in, like seamen after a storm is over, were more wicked and more stupid, more bold and hardened, in their vices and immoralities than they were before; but I will not carry it so far neither."
Q3. Religion comes into play during The Journal of the Plague Year very often. I believe it's accepting for the church members of this time to accept the plague as a blessing. In their minds, this plague is God's way of ridding their town and life of sin. It does not entirely mean that the people who are healthy look down upon the infected people, it just goes to show that they have a reason for everything happening to them. I've never read any other dystopian novels, but I do understand their point of view and where they are coming from even if I do not believe in it myself.
ReplyDeleteQ4. The answer to question three then leads to question for. Again, the religious people of this time believed that the plague only affected the ones full of sin. Therefore, the people who did not receive the infectious disease must have there for been sin free and not guilty of anything bad they have done in their lives. They consider the plague God's punishment to others.
Jessica Johnson
Q1
ReplyDeleteOften through doubt, any relief can be eagerly credited to God if you're looking for something to enliven the faith again. He may be defending the sovereignty of God in both the fate of the city and his own life.
The narrator probably wants to remind London to take up their morals and treat everyone equally, since death the plague didn't discriminate between poor and rich. God lifted the plague, and to him everyone should revere.
Q3
The Plague showed the fragility of life to the stalwart Londoner, and must have humbled those who once believed life was a common jest, and not a delicate, valuable gift. The survivors bond with one another, an appreciation of commonness and brotherhood, and many must have promised themselves to redeem the London culture to prevent class division and the wrong approach to dealing with crisis. (For a little bit anyway!)