A Journal Of The Plague Year

The narrator criticizes the street-corner preachers of the apocalypse who tell the people that the plague is a judgment of God from their wickedness. He notes that the churches are packed during this time, and that each faction of the church continues to condemn the others. While he finds this behavior abhorrent, sowing more discord in a time of public crisis, he does at various times come close to agreeing with the street-corner preachers. He differs from them in that he finds fear unproductive.

The narrator believes that God will judge the oracles and astrologers who peddle prophecies; the swindlers who dispense bad medication; the clergy who flee the city; and the Londoners who are cruel to their neighbors during the public crisis.

He views two features of the plague as God’s grace: first, its gradual spread from west to east, giving people time to flee and prepare for the plague; and second, its abatement at the end of the year. Even as the plague ends, he believes that most people thank God, but forget the lessons he taught them, as they became incautious and cruel so soon again. His belief is strengthened by his own survival.

The plague divides mankind into two categories: the sick and the well. Infection crosses class-lines and moves between religious sects; in this sense, it erases the boundaries between the rich and the poor. At the height of the plague, this inspires a feeling of shared struggle: the rich give charity to the poor; people meet in the street and greet each other; etc.

While the sick must be kept away from the well to prevent the spread of infection, the narrator frowns on those who keep their countrymen out for fear of infection. For example, when the constable of Waltham refuses to let John the Biscuit Baker’s party pass through, John exaggerates their size to procure charity and cause fear. The narrator clearly sides with John’s action, blaming the townspeople for his lack of charity. The narrator laments that, after the cessation of the plague, the people of London remain as divided as ever. 

The narrator has significant ambivalence towards the watchmen instructed to guard shut-up houses, as well as the examiners who inspect houses. The watchmen are generally poor people given work by the city to keep them in wages. Their job is to keep families shut-in. The examiners, by contrast, are mostly people of means, and their task is to report to the government if their neighbors are sick. Both roles require the surveillance and policing of one’s neighbors.

The narrator on the whole disagrees with the practice of shutting up houses. He shows particularly little sympathy for the murdered, deceived, and bludgeoned watchmen, suggesting that it is only natural that people try and escape their captors. In these moments, he ignores the fact that these watchmen need the wages and have as little choice as the families they guard.

When he himself is appointed as an examiner, he tries to get out of the task by asserting that he is against the practice of shutting up houses in the first place. Both these attitudes are of course rooted in his belief that the “well” spread illness just as much as the sick. However, he also seems to chafe at the idea of neighbors surveilling one another on behalf of the government.