The Last Man: A Critical Analysis of Plagues Creating Community” by Katie Lacayo

The Last Man: A Critical Analysis of Plagues Creating

Community

Katie Lacayo, Whitworth University

As the plague begins to form and spread in Mary Shelley’s The Last Man, the private sectors of life are

interrupted. The public sphere is the only area in which people are allowed to live, and the reliance upon man-

kind becomes far greater than individual interest. Because of disease, a physical, uncontrolled contamination of

the body, the community is forced to reconcile with internal affairs toward the entire community. Shelley sug-

gests through her passages that security, which is found in an unchanging community, is disrupted by conflict.

This conflict reveals the mistrust of those perceived as the other, as well as the self-protection that is natural

within internal or societal controversy. Through a shift in the paradigm—the emergence of the plague—Shel-

ley then changes the motivation of her characters by depicting the vulnerability that individuals must entrust to

others in order to survive and live well and wholly in the novel, despite the heightened conflict that the plague

brings. The Last Man ultimately demonstrates vulnerability within human community and how disease breaks

apart the social constructs of privacy, individuality, and strength to reveal a much more human view of the other.

Throughout the narrative, the reader is confronted with interpersonal conflicts that seem, at first glance,

to detract from the novel. The beginning of the novel especially focuses on multiple love triangles, squares, and

polygons, and the plague does not enter the lives of the characters until the second half of the book. While it

may at first appear that Shelley is obsessed with the relational problems of her characters, sparked by Roman-

ticism, the author makes a smart and careful choice to include these relationships and dwell in them. Through

these relationships, the reader is able to understand the private sphere of each individual’s life and the preexist-

ing desire for individuality and self-preservation.

early pages of the novel. Through this scene, Shelley exposes the tendency of Perdita and Raymond to devalue

human relationships and carry an over-appreciation for their individual selves in what could later be perceived

as a small, insignificant conflict. Raymond assists Evadne, a woman his wife would perceive as a threat, in her

misfortunes. Readers could analyze his actions as emotional adultery or just as human kindness, but Perdita dis-

covers his secret and immediately shifts into defensiveness. The subsequent drama separates the two into oppos-

ing sides, with Raymond simply concluding, “You have loved me; I adored you. But all human sentiments come

to an end. Let our affection expire” (Shelley 98). Raymond’s brash reaction reveals a high level of drama, to the

point where it reads as unrealistic. Yet Shelley purposefully places the relational crisis here to expose a reality:

Raymond considers interpersonal resolution as second to personal preservation.

To a reader, Raymond’s overreaction asks for a deeper explanation of the conflict, and Shelley intention-

ally focuses on his pitiful romanticism to reveal a greater issue. Theoretician Herbert Blau notes how if “all the

world [is] a stage,” then it follows that there must be an “essential distrust of appearances,” not just in drama, as

theorist Wagner-Lawlor argues, but also in the drama and politics of the individuals’ lives. Shelley utilizes dra-

ma to drive home the point that Raymond and Perdita cannot place themselves in the other’s point of view, and

this tendency to mistrust is essential to understanding the conflict within The Last Man. When even minor inter-

personal disagreements, including lies, secrets, and insecurities, arise, Shelley’s characters choose to distrust the

other and rely on only themselves. Perdita responds to Raymond by asking, “Are we not already parted? Does

not a stream, boundless as ocean, deep as vacuum, yawn between us?” (Shelley 98). Before the idea of a plague

has even drifted onto the pages, Shelley intentionally depicts the human tendency to separate, divide, and indi-

vidualize when faced with conflict.

Shelley continues to demonstrate this individuality through her characters’ dependence on self, weighing

personal preservation over the greater good. As the plague arrives in London, Ryland, the Lord-Protector, begins

to fear it with a “dastard fear expressed in every gesture” (Shelley 193). In a joking manner, Adrian tells Ryland

that to avoid the plague, he “must quit the world” (193), and it is later discovered that Ryland does indeed flee

from his responsibilities of protecting the greater good to preserve his own life and safety. Nadja Durbach, a

theorist on inoculation, describes this idea through the lens of vaccination history. Although pro-vaccinationists

argued that it should be “mandatory to protect not only each individual but the nation as a whole against this

deadly contagious disease,” many disagreed, claiming that their individual privacy required protection (Durbach

the self manifests within communities, relating how the “plague ravaged the social order as much as it did the

individual bodies” (Wald 11). Individuals do not take a group responsibility in the beginning of the disease, but

instead take personal responsibility to maintain self. In the initial coming of the plague in the novel, the self

remains a singularly prominent concern to the masses.

Additionally, the depiction of the plague brings characters to form greater subsets of individuality.

Verney notes how those in England “fancied that the little channel between our island and the rest of the earth

was to preserve us alive among the dead” (Shelley 198). In holding to this idea, Shelley’s characters show how

greatly their individualistic notions deceive them. When the plague is but an idea or a disease that affects the

other, it is easy to build communities apart from the contagion. Dr. Kari Nixon, a scholar in disease and Victori-

an literature, describes this dilemma and its results within the greater community. The tendency to preserve the

self is shown through an acceptance of community that can only exist through whole security—that is, a system

that only includes individuals who are deemed as safe by others inside the community. Nixon describes this as

“boundaries,” stressing that the “border between the national subject and the international other” is what plague

narratives uncover (Nixon). Even with the community of those living in England, the plague disrupts the per-

ceived safety, and Ryland’s reaction demonstrates that unceasing need for individuality.

The notion of disease continues to cause community members to push away from each other, especially

disowning individuals who are regarded as unsafe. Inoculation sparked a debate between private body and pub-

lic security that is reflected quite intensely in the folds of The Last Man, where disease extracts this reaction to

isolate the self in order to protect against others; self-preservation of the body, then, encourages wide exclusion

of those infected. The plague even reveals a distrust and desire to separate from others deemed “contagious.”

Verney notes how his “beloved friends were alarmed – nay, they expressed their alarm so anxiously, that I dared

not pronounce the word plague…lest they should construe my perturbed looks into a symptom” (Shelley 192).

In saying this, Verney notes how the safety and security of having beloved friends is, at first, offset by the anxi-

ety around the plague. If his actions are deemed plague-like, Verney suggests that he would be rejected from his

community.

Shelley negotiates this idea of the other in society throughout the novel. The plague is originally per-

ceived with suspicion, as a mark of death, uncleanliness, and distinction. Verney portrays this when he notices

the reactions of people who have seen him mingle with the diseased.

to the vulgar superstition, my dress, my person, the air I breathed, bore in it the mortal danger to myself

and others. Should I return to the Castle, to my wife and children, with this taint upon me? (Shelley 207)

The disease is considered a “taint,” something that carries a negative imprint on the individual. This perception

of disease gives a sense that Verney is not entirely in control of his personal self when it comes to disease. By

being around the plague, the people deem him as contaminated, even without the physical outward symptoms.

Durbach notes that “who controlled the body was a highly charged political issue” (6), and this is true not just

for governments but for governing bodies of communities as well. It is clear that the political view of the other

creates a common and communal sensitivity to danger, as well as a response to avoid such danger at all costs.

This sensitivity towards disease results in the exposure of the distrust humanity already has for the other.

Wald writes about this separation caused by mentally and socially dividing the independent self and the other by

explaining how “the routes traveled by communicable disease light up the social interactions—the spaces and

encounters” (Wald 9). When disease surrounds a community, suddenly people are hyper-aware of the relation-

ships affecting their individual selves. Again, the self-awareness involved is strange but consistent; the mark of

disease immediately reveals a sense of otherness. Shelley describes this in the scene where Verney apparent-

ly attains his immunity after an encounter with the first depicted “negro half-clad.” Despite Verney generally

helping the community grow together, this scene depicts his immediate reaction to shy from what is considered

other—whether it be a result of the plague or the half-clad’s race. Verney explains that “with mixed horror and

impatience I strove to disengage myself, and fell on the sufferer…his face was close to mine, and his breath,

death-laden, entered my vitals” (Shelley 268). Here, Shelley depicts a gross interaction between clean and

unclean, deathly and healthy. This scene describes the power and danger of contagion as Verney pulls away, but

the disease clings regardless.

In this encounter, Shelley uncovers an initial lack of empathy for the other in Verney, which matures in

Ryland to inspire separation from society. The key here is to see that this division is sparked by an instant selfish

reaction when disease hits but is later mended through relationships solidified in the following pages. Durbach

describes the division in Bodily Matters, writing about how vaccination (or inoculation) “provoked fear and

suspicion throughout the world” (Durbach 4). Considered a form of disease, the idea of inoculation was greatly

rejected within British society because of its threat to the individual’s private body. In the same way, characters

pose predictable responses in The Last Man, such as Ryland’s seclusion from humanity or Verney’s repulsion

29 plague. Theorist Lauren Cameron explains how plagues draw out “the importance of…empathizing with the

suffering,” rather than asserting divisions that may be immediately desired (Cameron). If individuality gives the

illusion of safety, the resulting lack of empathy toward the other should create further separation for the better.

Yet when Verney interacts with the diseased, he attains immunity and is given a reward.

Despite the concrete security in individuality that Shelley forms within the novel, Ryland’s inability to

survive alone and Verney’s reward of immunity shows a lack of sustainability in self-reliance. Shelley begins

to create a paradox, implicating Ryland’s demise to the reader and explaining how he dies quickly and utterly

alone. His desire for self-preservation is somehow ineffective in the construct of the plague. Verney ponders “in

what uncontaminated seclusion could I save my beloved treasures,” which relates a genuine concern over this

difficulty of rejecting others and maintaining self (Shelley 194). As the plague conflict increases, the reaction of

humanity is to individualize, but the nature of the plague brings people into a peculiar need for community; the

private is forced to intersect into a public closeness. Although the entrance of the plague “threaten[s] to rob the

individual and national body of selfhood,” (Nixon) Ryland’s decision to cut himself completely out of the com-

munity results in the loss of what he holds most dear: his own life. Shelley begins to contradict the sustainability

of relying only on the self; Ryland’s inability to live, despite his self-preservation, reveals that individuality

within the plague cannot protect the self.

If the plague could be considered an increase in conflict, it follows that this tension would create further

separation and reliance on self. As suggested, conflict of any magnitude generates human selfishness within

Shelley’s novel. Should not the plague bring greater division between individuals within the community? While

small conflict does bring out this natural tendency, the apocalyptic environment forces a reprioritization within

the community. Shelley uses the plague to flip the expectation that readers have for the characters, showing how

this new vulnerability allows people like Adrian and Verney to see themselves as the other. Verney describes the

weight of the plague as the “destroyer of man,” explaining how “with one mighty sweep of its potent weapon,

all caution, all care, all prudence were leveled low” (Shelley 219). Through this description, Shelley begins

to show how the plague destroys not only civilization, but also what humanity holds to be true and important.

Through a loss of caution, care, and prudence, individuals are forced into a reality outside of their presupposi-

tions of individuality. Priorities shift because of the effect the plague has on humanity’s standards.

Wald discusses this shift in selflessness, which Shelley draws out in the relationship of Idris and Verney,

the relationship between the group and an anomalous individual” (Wald 11). Wald’s theory about human ne-

cessity—humans needing other humans—is developed through the idea of how plagues reveal this need. In-

stead of clinging to their private selves, individuals are forced to shift into a perspective that accepts the other.

In previous pages, Verney is on his deathbed, but he miraculously recovers and continues his travels with his

sickly wife, Idris. The following scene demonstrates how intense interpersonal conflict—a near death experi-

ence—now brings individuals together, instead of apart. Idris talks of how she “will never leave” the company

of her community. Instead, she addresses “the simple manners of our little tribe, and the patriarchal brotherhood

of love, which would survive the ruins of the populous nations which had lately existed” (Shelley 276). Though

hopeful, these comments depict how Idris is outwardly focused, not inwardly consumed in her own self-pres-

ervation from her illness. This admission of reliance on human connectivity is just one example of a mindset

change that Shelley’s characters begin to undergo. They are learning to cling to others, instead of protecting

their own private selves.

Through the plague narrative, Shelley continually uses characters to urge communities to form, not sepa-

rate. “The insistence on the primacy of human sympathy” comes out of the power of disease, and characters be-

gin to see that in conflict, humans must come together to survive and live fully (Wagner-Lawler). Adrian is the

prime example of this realization of human necessity, crying a plea for the community to “bind up the wounds

of the fallen – let not one die” (Shelley 241). While individuality may have been a priority before disease struck,

the fear of the plague ultimately fades and the result is a soft sympathy for humanity that is crucial to the themes

within The Last Man. Once the plague overcomes humanity’s natural desires for self-preservation, characters’

perceptions and judgments of humanity change significantly. Shelley’s characters are no longer aiming to pro-

tect just themselves; they are intent on considering those formerly perceived as the other. Not only this, but they

have become the other.

The idea of otherness and personal preservation becomes unhelpful as the plague progresses. As seen

in the novel, Verney eventually stands as the last man and longs for human contact, visiting the great works

and sights of humanity and searching for other living souls. He asks how he can continue living “without love,

without sympathy, without communion with any,” as if he finally realizes that this human connection is all that

matters. Wald describes how “stories of disease emergence in all their incarnations are so powerful because they

are as dynamic as the populations and communities that they affect” (Wald 28). It is important to see that Wald

31 the other. To agree upon this notion is to agree that human necessity is more than just the want for love or com-

munion but a greater string that ties us together. When just one person is killed by the plague, it creates a ripple

effect of hurt, rejection, and insecurity, culminating in the collapse of humanity. The human condition must

change because, while living in a world of individuality, the reality is that each individual makes up the whole.

Shelley uses the resulting paradox to show how the selfishness and desire for independent stability is a

pre-existing condition that must shift in the aftermath of the plague. As demonstrated by the prolonged charac-

ter development at the beginning of the novel, individuality is something that is established early and remains.

The thing that breaks down this possessiveness over self is the plague; Wald notes how the “disease emergence

dramatizes the dilemma that inspires the most basic human narratives: the necessity and danger of human con-

tact” (Wald 2). While it is clear that the danger of humanity elicits a deep, pre-existing fear of the other, the final

chapters depict a society trying to find and appreciate humanity. Through this collapse of basic human commu-

nity—setting apart the normalization of independence or selfishness—the characters in The Last Man begin to

see their need for human contact. Verney describes this remaining group as individuals “principally dear to us,”

and the loss of the many as not scary or fearful but a “gush of grief” and a “passionate but fruitless clinging to

the priceless few that remained” (Shelley 330). In this account, Shelley demonstrates how human necessity has

become the singular priority in the minds of her characters.

The breakdown of the self and the realization of the other give insight into how humans function with-

in and without a community. The vulnerability of ourselves to disease creates a unique understanding that we,

as humans, cannot help but trust others and live in community. Verney comments on this fact early on, as if

prophesying the coming need for the breakdown of boundaries. “Thus, losing our identity, that of which we

are chiefly conscious,” he claims, “we glory in the continuity of our species, and learn to regard death without

terror” (Shelley 184). While this view may discount the security of our individual selves, it reclaims humanity

as something only significant within community. Shelley invites readers to explore their own distrust in human-

ity not only by setting the characters in a realm of conflict, but through presenting the most difficult conflict

of all—mass death to humanity—Shelley presents readers with the fundamental understanding of what it is to

live. It is clear that the individual is vulnerable when alone but strong when trusting a greater community. To

share life through experiencing community is to live fully within the human experience. Although The Last Man

demonstrates the natural proclivity of humans to protect the self, especially when conflict challenges a selfish

32 standing and becoming the other, communities can accept their personal vulnerability through the discovery of

communal strength.

Works Cited

Cameron, Lauren. “Mary Shelley’s Malthusian Objections in The Last Man.” Nineteenth-

Century Literature, vol. 67, iss. 2, 2012.

Durbach, Nadja. Bodily Matters: The Anti-Vaccination Movement in England. Duke

University Press, 2005.

Nixon, Kari. “Keep Bleeding: Hemorrhagic Sores, Trade, and the Necessity of Leaky

Boundaries in Defoe’s Journal of the Plague Year.” Journal for Early Modern

Cultural Studies, vol. 14, iss. 2, 2014. ProQuest.

Shelley, Mary. The Last Man. Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2004.

Wagner-Lawlor, Jennifer A. “Performing history, performing humanity in Mary Shelley’s

The Last Man.” Studies in English Literature, vol. 42, iss. 4, 2002. ProQuest.

Wald, Priscilla. Contagious: Cultures, Carriers, and the Outbreak Narrative. Duke

University Press, pgs. 1-28, 2008.

“Untitled,” Qinlei Zhang, University of Wisconsin-Madison