A WORD FROM OUR SPONSORS:

The Owl Education Institute is an established and unique company. Based in West London, we have
been offering intensive tuition in the core subjects—English, mathematics and science—for over 25
years. The company shamelessly promotes academic, traditional teaching with an emphasis on
examination success. We offer high-level tutoring in small, focused groups. Each teacher is head-
hunted and selected for his or her individual expertise and brilliance. An excellent centre with an
exceptional reputation, we are now proud sponsors of Mr Bruff and look forward to working with
him in the year ahead.

For more information, please visit http://www.owleducation.co.uk/

DEDICATION:
This guide was written by Georgina Bottomley and Andrew Bruff.
Georgina Bottomley is an English teacher from Dorset with 13 years of teaching experience. She is a
happily married mother of two.
Georgina Bottomley would like to thank Andrew Bruff for his valuable time and expert advice when
proofreading the final draft of this book and Neil Bottomley for his ongoing support.

Andrew Bruff is a pioneer in online education. A sought-after school consultant and former Head of
English, his teaching videos on YouTube have been viewed over 40 million times around the world.

Andrew Bruff would like to thank the following, who gave permission for their work to be used in
this guide: Manfred Pfister, Maggie B. Gale, BBC Bitesize, Tom Briars-Delve. He would also like to
thank Sam Perkins, who designed the front cover of this eBook.

IMPORTANT NOTE:
This guide is not endorsed by, or affiliated with, any exam boards. The writers are simply two
experienced English teachers who are using their skills and expertise to help students.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Quotations from AN INSEPCTOR CALLS AND OTHER PLAYS by J. B. Priestley (these plays first
published by William Heineman 1948-50, first published by Penguin Books 1969, Penguin Classics
2000). ‘An Inspector Calls’ copyright 1947 by J. B. Priestley are reproduced by permission of Penguin
Books Ltd.

Gale, Maggie, J.B. Priestley (Routledge, 2008).

Hands, Thora, Drinking in Victorian and Edwardian Britain – Beyond the Spectre of the Drunkard
(2018) Licensed under Creative Commons.

Pfister, Manfred, The Theory and Analysis of Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) .

Priestley, J.B, Theatre Outlook (Nicholson & Watson, 1947).

1
Contents
J. B. PRIESTLEY ........................................................................................................................................... 3
SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT: IMPORTANT EVENTS IN PRIESTLEY’S LIFE .............................................. 4
THE SETTING – BRUMLEY............................................................................................................................ 6
ACT 1: ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
ACT 2: ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
ACT 3: ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
FORM ...................................................................................................................................................... 16
STRUCTURE.............................................................................................................................................. 20
EDNA ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
EVA SMITH .............................................................................................................................................. 24
MR BIRLING ............................................................................................................................................. 26
MRS BIRLING ........................................................................................................................................... 28
ERIC BIRLING............................................................................................................................................ 31
SHEILA BIRLING ........................................................................................................................................ 33
GERALD CROFT ........................................................................................................................................ 35
INSPECTOR GOOLE ................................................................................................................................... 37
MINOR CHARACTERS................................................................................................................................ 40
THE END OF THE PLAY: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.................................................................................... 42
THE OPENING STAGE DIRECTIONS: AN ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 45
THE INSPECTOR’S FINAL SPEECH: AN ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 47
AGE: WHO ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY AND WHY? ...................................................................................... 48
KEY THEMES ............................................................................................................................................ 50
STRETCH AND CHALLENGE: OTHER INTERPRETATIONS............................................................................... 56
WRITING ABOUT THE PLAY ....................................................................................................................... 61
EXAMPLE ESSAYS: HOW DOES PRIESTLEY DELIVER HIS MESSAGE OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN ‘AN
INSPECTOR CALLS’? .................................................................................................................................. 62
EXAMPLE ESSAYS: HOW DOES PRIESTLEY PRESENT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE OLDER AND YOUNGER
GENERATIONS OF THE BIRLING FAMILY IN ‘AN INSPECTOR CALLS’? ............................................................ 69
KEY QUOTATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 74

2
J. B. Priestley
J. B. Priestley (John Boynton Priestley) was born in Bradford, Yorkshire, in September 1894. His
parents were middle class, and his surroundings were probably not too dissimilar to the town of
Brumley where the Birling family from the play live.
At the age of sixteen, Priestley left school to work as a clerk in a wool office before joining the British
Army at the start of the First World War; he served on the Western Front and took part in the Battle
of Loos. He was wounded in 1916, and some of his work reflects on his war experiences.
In 1919, Priestley went to Cambridge University and then moved to London to be a writer. Despite
producing novels, essays and articles, Priestley is now primarily known as a playwright. Much of his
writing includes his strong political beliefs and his hatred of lies and hypocrisy. We see evidence of
this when he explores the inequalities in society in ‘An Inspector Calls’.
In 1942, Priestley helped to set up the Common Wealth Party, a new socialist political party that
believed in public ownership of land and a stronger emphasis on democracy. As a socialist, Priestley
believed that we are all part of the same society and should therefore share any wealth and
benefits. He thought it was essential that we all contribute to society rather than just take from it. In
1945, two thirds of the Common Wealth Party joined the Labour Party, and the Common Wealth
Party was dissolved in 1993.
During the Second World War, Priestley had a weekly slot on BBC Radio. Eventually, his broadcasts
were cancelled, probably due to his criticism of the government of the time. Winston Churchill’s
Conservative cabinet believed his messages to be too left wing. It is possible that his broadcasts
helped influence people to accept his ideas and, in turn, contributed to the Labour Party’s win in the
1945 General Election. The character of Inspector Goole in ‘An Inspector Calls’ is the socialist voice of
Priestley.
Having lived through two world wars, Priestley believed that war should be avoided. The only way
this could happen would be for countries to have a greater respect for one another. For this reason,
Priestley was involved in the early movement for a United Nations.
Priestley studied the concept of time, including Ouspensky’s theory, which suggests that when we
die, we restart our lives if we have failed to learn from any mistakes made in that lifetime. He also
studied Dunne’s theory, which again focuses on learning from mistakes. This theory proposes that
we have all been given the ability to look forward in time so that we can avoid errors before we
make them (as well as learning from mistakes in our past). The idea of learning from your mistakes is
certainly a key idea in ‘An Inspector Calls’.
J. B. Priestley continued writing until a few years before his death in 1984.

3
Social and Historical Context: Important Events in Priestley’s Life

Key Dates
1894
Priestley is born.
1895
‘The Time Machine’ is written by H.G. Wells, a socialist who supported the suffragettes and believed
(like Priestley) that hope for the future could come from education and learning through history.
1903
The Women’s Social and Political Union is founded by Emmeline Pankhurst, aiming to help women
gain the right to vote.
1904
There is a dramatic increase in the number of people who are receiving charitable aid.
3000 London cabbies go on strike.
1905
500 striking workers are shot by the Tsar’s troops in Russia.
1908
2000 cotton workers go on strike in England.
200,000 women take part in a suffragette demonstration in London.
1912
The ‘unsinkable’ Titanic sinks after hitting an iceberg. 1912 is the year in which ‘An Inspector Calls’ is
set.
1913
Emily Davison dies trying to stop the King’s horse in the Derby.
1914
Start of the First World War.
Priestley serves in France in the trenches.
Builders and miners go on strike.
1918
The First World War ends.
Women over the age of 30 with minimum property qualifications can vote for the first time in the
UK.
1926
The General Strike occurs: workers protest against unemployment and the treatment of miners.
1928
All women over the age of 21 are given the vote.
1939
The Second World War starts.
The Holocaust starts.

1942
The idea of the Welfare State is proposed.

4
1945
The Second World War ends.
Priestley writes ‘An Inspector Calls’.

Written in 1945 but set in 1912

In 1912 when the play is set, the ruling classes, keen to stay in power, saw no need for change. The
Birlings, a wealthy family, represent others of a similar status; they are heavily criticised by Priestley
in the play (via the inspector), as they initially take no responsibility for their actions and the effect
they have on others.
An audience at the time (from 1945 to the present day) would have been aware through Priestley’s
use of dramatic irony that a family such as the Birlings would soon hear about the sinking of the
Titanic. There would then be two world wars.

1912 1945

‘An Inspector Calls’ is set in 1912. ‘An Inspector Calls’ was written in 1945.

World War I is yet to start. Birling's view that ‘The World War II ended on the 8th May 1945. British
Germans don’t want war’ is known to be incorrect audiences were recovering from nearly six years
by all audience members, as the play was first of warfare, danger and uncertainty.
performed in 1945 (Moscow) and 1946 (London).

The Titanic was in production but had not begun Audiences knew that the Titanic sank in 1912.
its ill-fated maiden voyage.

There was a patriarchal society—men were seen As a result of the wars and the suffragette
as more powerful than women. Working-class movement, women were more valued in society.
women were regarded as cheap labour. Women
were expected to marry and have children. If men
could afford to support their wives, married
women were not expected to work. More affluent
women employed servants to do the housework
and to share the responsibility of looking after the
children.

The ruling classes saw no need to change their There was a great desire for social change and,
position. There was a strong divide between the primarily as a result of the wars, there were fewer
upper and lower classes. divisions between classes.

Having witnessed these wars, Priestley, questions what kind of society people were fighting to save.
The very idea of society suggests a group of people working together and looking out for one
another: in Priestley’s opinion, social responsibility is vital. By reminding his audience of pre-war
characters, Priestley wants his audiences to consider the nature of the post-war society they were
building.
The attitude of the Birlings and the way they are so quick to dismiss any involvement with the
unpleasantness of Eva’s suicide would, no doubt, resonate with an audience who had lived through
the consequences of such complacency and ignorance.

5
An audience in the mid-1940s would still have been deprived of many of the luxuries that the
Birlings enjoy at the beginning of the play. Rationing continued into the 1950s, so the wealthy
Birlings might be regarded as materialistic and superficial.
Priestley may well have set his play in 1912 because it started a time of great change. In the period
between 1912 and 1945, class and gender differences were becoming less pronounced. There was
hope for a better future if young people could be educated to take responsibility for their actions
and their treatment of others.
The Setting – Brumley
‘An Inspector Calls’ is set in the fictitious industrial city of Brumley. We learn through the course of
the play that it has a police force with its own constable and a lord mayor (a position which was once
held by Mr Birling). The city was visited two years ago by royalty, which signifies that it is a thriving
and important city. Priestley’s own home town of Bradford in Yorkshire is a similar industrial city,
which probably had many similar features to Brumley.
The existence of Brumley Women’s Charity Organisation suggests that there is an underclass of poor
and desperate women. Eva Smith represents these women.

6
Act 1:
A Summary

The play opens with Mr and Mrs Birling, Sheila Birling, Eric Birling and Gerald Croft finishing dinner
and celebrating the engagement of Sheila to Gerald. The port is passed around, and Mr Birling
makes a speech about how happy he is with the engagement of his daughter Sheila to Gerald Croft.
Surprisingly, he does not talk about love and happiness. Instead, he expresses the hope that Sheila’s
marriage to Gerald will create an opportunity to improve Mr Birling’s business prospects. Gerald is a
man whose parents own an even more successful company than Birling and Co., and Mr Birling
hopes that one day, they will work together. Mr Birling presents the engagement almost as a
business deal. He seems concerned that he does not have the same kind of family connections as
Gerald. Therefore, Mr Birling has to rely on money that he has made rather than an inheritance.
Mr Birling seems very proud of his standing in society and frequently reminds everyone of his
achievement of being a Lord Mayor and his hope of a knighthood. His mention of the knighthood is
significant, as this is an award given for services to the community. However, Priestley seems to be
criticising Mr Birling and his actions: we later learn that he does not support the notion of
community at all.
After the toast, Gerald gives Sheila an engagement ring, and it is only at this point that she says she
feels engaged; it is as if she needs the symbol of the ring to truly see herself as Gerald’s fiancée. This
makes Sheila seem rather superficial. Despite agreeing to the engagement, Sheila has some
suspicions about Gerald and his absences the previous summer. This builds tension and foreshadows
the conflict to come when we later learn exactly where Gerald was.
Mr Birling describes the Titanic as ‘unsinkable’ and asserts that the ‘Germans don’t want war.’ A
contemporary audience will be well aware that Mr Birling is very much mistaken. Those living in
Britain in 1912 (as the Birlings are) would soon be experiencing the sinking of the Titanic, two world
wars and a number of strikes and unrest. When Mr Birling follows these statements with comments
about ‘community and all that nonsense’, the audience is likely to think that he is again wrong. It is
at this point that Priestley begins to achieve his aim—to make the audience aware that community is
in fact far from ‘nonsense’. Priestley believed a sense of community was essential if society was to
become a caring place where people could live happily, no matter what their social status.
Mrs Birling plays little part in these early conversations, reinforcing her description as ‘cold’ from the
stage directions. The first part of the play is chiefly focused on Mr Birling, his lifestyle and opinions.
The stage directions announce the arrival of Inspector Goole with a ‘sharp ring’. It is almost as if the
doorbell has been personified and is angrily interrupting Mr Birling’s capitalist views. Edna, the
parlour maid, shows the inspector in with Mr Birling again emphasises his standing in society,
including having previously been Lord Mayor. The inspector is unimpressed by Mr Birling’s claims
about his position. He explains that he is there to investigate the death of a young lady who has
committed suicide by drinking disinfectant. He is direct with his words from the start, and the nature
of the young lady’s death is shocking. This would surely gain the sympathy of the audience, as well
as that of the characters on stage at the time.
As inspector Goole arrives, the stage directions at the start of Act 1 state that the lighting should
change from ‘pink and intimate’ to ‘brighter and harder’. It is as if he has arrived to remove the rose-
tinted spectacles from the Birling family, put them under a spotlight and shed light on their true
nature.
The inspector is completely focused on the task at hand and sets to work questioning Mr Birling,
whose involvement started the ‘chain of events’ that led to Eva Smith’s death. Mr Birling is told the

7
victim’s name and shown a photograph. The audience never gets to see the photograph, and the
inspector only ever shows it to one character at a time. For this reason, it is not clear whether or not
they are all being shown the same picture.
Mr Birling soon remembers that Eva was an employee at his factory and admits he sacked her due to
her involvement in strike action over wages. He says she was one of the ring-leaders, and he still
believes he was right to fire her, even though she was a hard-working employee who was about to
be promoted. We see a change in Mr Birling’s mood at this point. He is no longer the relaxed,
bragging character from the opening of the play. He is now forced to explain and defend the
decisions he made. It is clear that he is driven chiefly by money and status: he cares little for the lives
of those affected by his actions. Mr Birling is depicted as a caricature of a typical capitalist
businessman of the time: heartless and ruthless, concerned only with himself and his wealth. We,
the audience, are likely to find it hard to sympathise with his opinions.
The inspector soon directs his attention to Sheila Birling, who re-enters the dining room. Eric starts
to comment on the proceedings, recognising that his father’s actions may have begun the series of
events that resulted in Eva Smith’s suicide. Gerald, however, sides with Mr Birling, and he cannot see
how sacking Eva from the factory could result in the eventual tragic outcome.
Inspector Goole gradually reveals more about Eva’s life. After she was sacked from Birling and Co.,
she ended up unemployed for two months. She had no parents, relatives or friends to help her, and
soon became desperate. It was then that she secured a job at Milwards Department Store where she
was to meet Sheila.
Hearing what happened to Eva upsets Sheila far more than her father, but she still does not
recognise Eva’s name. The inspector shows her a photograph; the audience cannot be sure that it is
the same picture that was shown to Mr Birling earlier, or whether this is a different woman.
Nevertheless, Sheila is immediately upset. Mr Birling leaves the room to look for his wife. Gerald
tries to look at the picture, but the inspector, always controlling the situation, tells him he must wait.
We learn that Eva was happy in her job at Milwards until a valuable customer complained about her
and she was consequently sacked. That customer turns out to be Sheila Birling. Sheila had tried a
dress on that had not suited her and, whilst she was looking in the mirror, she saw Eva smiling at the
shop assistant, Miss Francis. This had infuriated Sheila. Earlier, when fetching the dress for Sheila,
Eva had held the dress up to herself. Sheila explains that it had suited Eva Smith. Sheila had become
jealous when she had tried on the dress, which did not look as good on her as it did held up against
Eva. Sheila believed the smile Eva had given the assistant was mocking her. Furious, Sheila had
complained to the manager. The store did not want to lose the business of the Birling family, so
sacked Eva.
Unlike her father, Sheila shows remorse for her actions. The stage directions explain that she looks
‘as if she’s been crying’. She later states ‘I behaved badly too.’ Priestley uses Sheila’s character to
demonstrate that young people can learn the lesson of social responsibility, and that there is hope
for the future and Priestley’s socialist ideas.
Next, the inspector explains how, after losing her job at Milwards, Eva Smith changed her name to
Daisy Renton. Gerald reacts immediately when he hears this name, and it is clear that he is next in
the firing line although the details of his involvement are not actually revealed until Act 2. There is
then a reminder from earlier in the play that the previous summer, Sheila had not seen much of
Gerald and had become suspicious about his whereabouts. He admits to Sheila that he had a
relationship with Eva/Daisy, but that it ended sixth months ago. Therefore, he thinks it had no
bearing on her suicide. The act ends with Gerald believing that he can keep his affair with Daisy a
secret from the inspector, but Sheila recognises that this is not possible.

8
 Quick Quiz: Act 1
1. What are the Birling family celebrating at the very start of the play?
2. Why is Mr Birling happy about his daughter’s situation?
3. Name two false predictions that Mr Birling makes about historical events.
4. Which word describes Mrs Birling early in the play?
5. How is the inspector’s arrival announced?
6. How does the inspector say Eva Smith committed suicide?
7. How did Mr Birling meet Eva Smith?
8. Where does Sheila meet Eva?
9. Which item of clothing looked better on Eva than on Sheila?
10. What does Eva change her name to after being sacked from Milwards, according to the
inspector?

Daisy Renton. 10.

A dress. 9.
At Milwards Department Store. Sheila was shopping, and Eva was an employee. 8.
She was an employee in his factory. 7.
By drinking disinfectant which ‘burnt her inside out’. 6.
With a ‘sharp ring’ of the doorbell. 5.
‘Cold’ 4.
just before World War 1, so this is also untrue.
voyage. He also says the ‘Germans don’t want war’, and the audience knows that the play is set
3. He said the Titanic was ‘unsinkable’. The audience would know that it did sink on its maiden
2. He thinks the match would be good for business!
1. Sheila Birling’s engagement to Gerald Croft.
Answers

9
Act 2:
A Summary
Act 2 begins in the same way that Act 1 ends, with the inspector repeating his question, ‘Well?’. The
question is aimed at Gerald.
Gerald tries to stop Sheila from hearing the details, claiming that she has suffered enough upset
already, but she insists on staying. At the time the play is set, women were thought of as delicate,
fragile creatures who should be protected. Sheila proves that they can withstand traumatic events
and can learn from their mistakes—a point on gender equality that Priestley was trying to raise
whilst writing the play. After all, Eva had not been spared any upset or pain in the years leading up to
her death. The inspector highlights the idea of shared responsibility: if Sheila is sent away, she will be
alone with her feelings of guilt. She is allowed to stay.
Mrs Birling notes how upset Sheila is by the revelations. When talking about learning from their
mistakes and accepting responsibility, the inspector comments on how ‘young ones’ are ‘more
impressionable’.
Before the full story of Gerald’s relationship with Eva is revealed, Mrs Birling’s relationship with Eric
is explored. She does not want to listen to the suggestions that Eric drinks too much; even Gerald
knows more about her son than she does. The distance in the mother-son relationship prepares us
for the end of the act when Mrs Birling inadvertently tells the inspector that the father of Eva’s child
is to blame for the young woman’s desperate situation. Mrs Birling does not realise at the time that
she is in fact blaming her own son.
Mr Birling then encourages the inspector to question Eric, so that his son can get it over with and go
to bed. The inspector refuses, again ensuring his complete control over the situation and the order
of events. Sheila clearly recognises the power of the inspector and how they really are at his mercy.
Mr and Mrs Birling are less keen to see this, and they try to regain control wherever they see the
opportunity.
The attention then returns to Gerald, who is forced to tell the story of his contribution to the tragic
‘chain of events’ that led to the demise of Eva. After a brief moment trying to deny his involvement
again, Gerald admits that he met her in the bar at the Palace Variety Theatre. This is a place known
to be the haunt of prostitutes, but he says that Daisy (as he knew her) looked different to those girls.
She had a youthful, innocent look which made her stand out. Eric later reveals that he also met Eva
in the same bar and also noticed how she stood out in comparison to the other women there.
Gerald explains that Daisy was being harassed by Alderman Meggarty, and he says he wanted to
help her. Gerald took Daisy to the County Hotel where they had a drink and talked. Gerald asked
Daisy lots of questions about her background and learned of her sacking from both Birling and Co.
and Milwards, although she was vague about the actual company names. He also saw that she was
struggling for money and had not eaten, so he arranged for some food to be brought to her.
Two nights later, Gerald arranged to meet Eva again. He found her somewhere to live and began a
relationship with her. He insists that he did not arrange the accommodation just to have an affair
with her.
When questioned about the closeness of their relationship, Gerald is not clear about whether or not
he was in love with Eva. He suggests that her feelings for him were stronger than his towards her. It
was only when he had to go away on business that Gerald broke up with her. He gave her some
money to ensure she could manage on her own for a while. He did not know exactly what her plans
were, but his belief that she left Brumley is confirmed by Inspector Goole—according to her diary,
Eva went to the seaside to think of Gerald and remember the positive aspects of the relationship.
10
At this point, Sheila returns Gerald’s engagement ring. Both Sheila and Gerald regret their actions
and, whilst she recognises that he was trying to help Daisy, Sheila does not feel their relationship is
in the same place as it was at the start of the evening. Gerald leaves the house and goes for a walk.
Gerald is never shown a photograph of Eva, but Mrs Birling is. She says she does not recognise the
girl in the picture. The inspector insists that she must know the girl, and Mr Birling interrupts to
demand an apology. When Mr Birling yet again tries to use his social standing to exert authority over
the inspector, he is sharply reminded that those with authority have responsibilities as well as
privileges. Inspector Goole voices Priestley’s key message of social responsibility at every
opportunity.
Sheila accepts the need for them all to admit their guilt. She recaps the ‘chain of events’ so far: Eva’s
sacking from Birling and Company, her sacking from Milwards and her relationship with Gerald,
which came to an end. She advises her mother to confess to her role. The inspector’s interrogation
of Mrs Birling begins.
Mrs Birling has a similar approach to the situation as her husband, failing to take any responsibility
for her actions. Now a desperate, pregnant, penniless woman, Eva went to the Brumley Women’s
Charity Organisation. In the early 1900s, it was not socially acceptable for unmarried women to have
children, so her pregnancy would certainly have been frowned upon. Eva, knowing this was the case,
pretended that she was married when she asked for help. Since the father of her baby was Eric, she
called herself Mrs Birling, having no idea that the woman from whom she was seeking help was
actually his mother.
The real Mrs Birling assumed that Eva was rudely copying her name. She took offence and refused
her help. Her reaction could be compared to that of Sheila. They both took offence to something
that Eva did; both Birlings overreacted, making Eva’s terrible situation even worse. Sheila, uncaring
at the time, left her jobless; Mrs Birling left her pregnant, alone, penniless and later suicidal.
During the inspector’s interrogation, Mrs Birling refuses to accept any responsibility for her actions.
In doing so, she unwittingly accuses her own son, telling Goole to ‘Go and look for the father of the
child. It’s his responsibility’.
The inspector emphasises how Mrs Birling’s refusal of help really did affect Eva badly. She had been
left alone, poor and only needing advice and some money, but Mrs Birling had not been willing to
offer her anything, despite having children of her own.
Even though she clearly understands the situation, Mrs Birling shows no remorse whatsoever.
Almost predictably by this stage, Mr Birling is more worried about the effect the revelations might
have on his reputation if the press finds out. He is, after all, expecting a knighthood, and he does not
want anything to harm his chances of receiving one. Both Mr and Mrs Birling appear to be very
selfish characters whose aim is only to protect themselves and their social status.
Mrs Birling attempts to deflect the attention from herself onto the other family members,
suggesting it was her husband and daughter who forced Eva into unemployment that may have
started the ‘chain of events’ that ended in such a sad and tragic way. Mrs Birling can be likened to
her husband in the play. Neither accepts any responsibility for their actions; neither learns the lesson
of social responsibility. By showing them both acting in this way, Priestley highlights the need to
focus on educating the younger generation because they are more ‘impressionable’ and able to
change.

Quick Quiz: Act 2

1. Which character does the inspector start questioning at the start of Act 2?
2. Where did Gerald first meet Eva?
11
3. Why did Eva end up leaving Brumley? Where did she go?
4. Where did Mrs Birling meet Eva?
5. What did Eva call herself when she first met Mrs Birling?
6. Mrs Birling thought she was just being rude but why did Eva give herself the name ‘Mrs
Birling’ when she went to the organisation for help?
7. Does Mrs Birling accept responsibility for her actions?
8. Who does Mrs Birling blame for the death of Eva Smith?
9. Which award does Mr Birling think he is due to receive? (He therefore does not want any
negative attention from the press.)
10. Why didn’t Eva take the money she had been offered by the father of her baby?

difficulty.)
She realised it had been stolen (showing her good morals, in even a time of extreme 10.
A knighthood. 9.
Eric, her own son (before realising he was the father of Eva’s child). 8.
No 7.
She pretended she was married to Eric Birling, who had got her pregnant. 6.
She called herself ‘Mrs Birling’. 5.
At the Brumley Women’s Charity Organisation. 4.
To the seaside, to get over the failed relationship with Gerald. 3.
The bar in the Palace Variety Theatre. 2.
Gerald. 1.
Answers

12
Act 3:
A Summary
Act 3 picks up exactly where Act 2 leaves off, with Eric having arrived home. He acknowledges that it
is pointless to try to keep any secrets, asking those present ‘You know, don’t you?’.
Sheila briefly tells Eric about Mrs Birling’s attempts to blame the father of Eva’s child, and we are
reminded of Eric’s drinking habit. Despite Sheila’s repeated attempts to reveal the truth, Mrs Birling
still attempts to defend her son, denying his drinking problem. Eric briefly turns against Sheila,
calling her a ‘sneak’, but this does not last long. He is soon asking for a drink before he begins the
account of his relationship with Eva Smith. His father tries to stop him from having a drink but again,
showing he is in control, the inspector allows it. Eric subsequently feels calm enough to tell his story.
He explains how he met Eva in the Palace Theatre bar (the same place Gerald had met Eva the
previous November). He was drunk or, as he describes it, ‘squiffy’. He bought drinks for Eva,
accompanied her home and, despite her telling him that she did not want him to enter her lodgings,
he insisted. He says he was ‘in that state when a chap easily turns nasty’. It is implied that he forced
his way in and had sex with Eva, ‘And that’s when it happened. And I don’t even remember—that’s
the hellish thing’. At this point, Mr Birling insists that his shocked wife and daughter leave the room.
This is a reminder that, at the time, many women were regarded as fragile and in need of protection
from emotional as well as physical harm. Obviously, the Birlings had been less keen to protect the
lower-class Eva in the same way.
Eric met Eva again a fortnight later. They slept together again and continued to have a sexual
relationship until Eva informed Eric that she was pregnant with his child. Again, her sense of morality
is highlighted when Eric explains that Eva did not want to marry him because she knew he did not
love her. She demonstrated maturity, recognising that Eric could not give her stability. He complains
that she treated him like a child.
At no stage does Eric mention Eva’s name, so the confusion about her identity and whether the
Birlings all met the same girl continues.
Eric gave Eva a sum of money, which he stole from his father’s office. His parents are both shocked
at this revelation; clearly they do not know their son nearly as well as they thought they did. Mr
Birling immediately worries about covering up the crime, no doubt thinking about the need to
uphold his reputation. Priestley is making the point that just because someone has money or has
had a privileged upbringing, this does not mean they are destined to become moral pillars of society.
Eric’s relationship with his father has not helped the situation, with Eric feeling Mr Birling is ‘not the
kind of father a chap could go to when he’s in trouble’.
Eva stopped accepting money from Eric when she realised it had been stolen. Again, she
demonstrates that she is willing to do the right thing even if it means she is worse off. Eric is
unaware until this moment that Eva had then visited Mrs Birling’s charity committee to ask for help
before being rejected. Eric laments that his mother is to blame for the deaths of the girl and his child
because she was the final person Eva met (chronologically) in the ‘chain of events’ that resulted in
her death: ‘you turned her away—yes, and you killed her.’
This accusation sparks off a row between the family members, but the inspector soon intervenes
and makes it clear that they all had a part to play in the death of Eva Smith. Goole reminds each of
them of their roles; effectively, this serves as a reminder to the audience that the ‘chain of events’ is
complete.
Next comes the inspector’s powerful final speech. Inspector Goole’s parting words are very
important as they sum up the main message of the play. There are three key sections to consider.
13
Firstly, ‘One Eva Smith has gone—but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and
John Smiths still left with us’. Here, Priestley highlights that Eva Smith is actually a symbol, a
representative of all other poor citizens in the community. The story has not finished with her death,
as there are other women and men (John Smiths) who need looking after. It is essential that we all
take responsibility for our actions towards others, including those less fortunate than ourselves.
This section is followed by possibly the most important lines in the entire play: ‘We are members of
one body. We are responsible for each other’. These words sum up Priestley’s message of social
responsibility. He threatens that if we do not learn this lesson, we will be taught it in ‘fire and blood
and anguish’. The audience will understand that he is predicting the horrors of two world wars. His
predictions, unlike those of Mr Birling, and correct. The audience is therefore cleverly led to believe
that Priestley’s socialist views are also correct.
After this, the inspector departs, leaving the Birlings to talk over the events of the evening. The way
the family talk to one another at this point in the play is in stark contrast to the way they spoke at
the start of the play when they were celebrating Sheila’s engagement to Gerald, unaware of how
badly they had all behaved towards Eva Smith.
Sheila is the first to wonder whether or not Inspector Goole is actually a real inspector. Mr Birling
chiefly blames Eric for what happened, but also insists that is certainly does matter if the inspector is
real. Sheila recognises that it does not change their previous behaviour: they all still treated a young
woman in the way they did.
Mrs Birling agrees with her husband that who Inspector Goole was makes a difference. Eric sides
with Sheila, highlighting the difference between the generations and how the younger characters
are willing to accept responsibility for their actions, unlike the older characters.
Upon Gerald’s return, both Mr and Mrs Birling try to stop Sheila from telling him what has taken
place since his departure, but it is clear that Gerald is preoccupied with something else, so the
tension rises again. He explains how he met another police officer whilst he was out. This officer told
him there was nobody on the force with the name Inspector Goole. Mr Birling is excited by this,
believing that they no longer need to accept any responsibility; they have not been caught by
anyone, so should not feel guilty. He rings the Chief Constable, who confirms what Gerald has said.
There is no Inspector Goole on their staff.
Sheila and Eric remain upset whereas Mr and Mrs Birling relax, believing themselves to be the
victims of a hoax. Eric understands that it does not matter whether the inspector is real.
It is Gerald who questions whether each of them has actually met the same woman. They all
admitted what they had done but, Gerald explains, they did not all see the same photograph at the
same time. More questions are raised about whether this matters. What if it was a different person?
Does that excuse their actions? For example, does Sheila having an innocent woman sacked from
Milwards not matter if that woman had not already been fired from another company some time
before?
Mr Birling and Gerald suggest that no-one has died at all. Gerald rings the infirmary and learns that
no-one has been brought in after drinking disinfectant; the infirmary has not seen a case of suicide
for months. At this, Mr and Mrs Birling return to the mood of celebration that started the play.
Sheila and Eric remain aware that each of them has treated a young woman badly, even if it might
not have been the same person and even if nobody had committed suicide. Sheila and Eric have
learnt to take responsibility for their actions towards others. Priestley’s message of social
responsibility has been learned by two of the younger ‘more impressionable’ generation.
Gerald tries to return to the situation that started the play by offering Sheila the engagement ring.
She shows her independence and growth as a character by refusing, saying ‘it’s too soon’.
14
Just as Act 1 was interrupted by the ‘sharp ring’ of the doorbell, signalling the arrival of the
inspector, it is at this point that the telephone ‘rings sharply’, interrupting their conversation. Mr
Birling answers the phone and reveals that it is the police on the line: a young woman has died after
swallowing disinfectant. An inspector is on his way to question them.

Quick Quiz: Act 3

1. Who is the final character to be questioned by the inspector?

2. What does Eric call his sister, Sheila, when she talks of his drinking habit?
3. Where did Eric meet Eva?
4. Eva had a relationship with Eric and became pregnant by him, but why did she not want to
marry him?
5. How much money did Eric give Eva? Where did it come from?
6. How does Eric describe the relationship with his father?
7. Who does Eric blame for Eva’s death?
8. Which two characters appear particularly distressed by their involvement in the ‘chain of
events’?
9. Who rings the Chief Constable to confirm Gerald’s suspicions that Inspector Goole is not a
real inspector?
10. What information is contained in the final phone call at the very end of the play?

way to question the Birlings.

That a young woman (‘girl’) has died after swallowing disinfectant, and an inspector is on his 10.
Mr Birling. 9.
Eric and Sheila. 8.
His mother, Mrs Birling. He says ‘you turned her away – yes, and you killed her’. 7.
He says Mr Birling was ‘not a kind of father a chap could go to when he’s in trouble’. 6.
About 50 pounds, from his father’s office. 5.
She knew he did not love her. 4.
In the Palace Theatre bar – the same place as Gerald. 3.
A ‘sneak’. 2.
Eric Birling. 1.
Form
Answers

15
Form
In essays, some students make the mistake of calling ‘An Inspector Calls’ a novel and they write
about reader response. Don’t let this be you!
First and foremost, ‘An Inspector Calls’ is a play. The people on stage are characters, and those
watching the play are the audience.
As you are aware, a play contains acts, which are sometimes subdivided into scenes. ‘An Inspector
Calls’ is a three-act play.
A play is different to a novel or a poem in a number of important ways. For example, reading a novel
is a solitary endeavor: you read it on your own, at your own pace. A play is experienced in a
collective manner, with an audience experiencing together the action as it unfolds onstage. As
Manfred Pfister points out in his fantastic book ‘The Theory and Analysis of Drama’:

‘One consequence of the collective reception of dramatic texts is that the individual receiver is
unable to vary the tempo of the reception process, nor can he usually interrupt it at will or have
sections repeated if he has failed to understand the text. The reader of a novel, on the other hand,
can determine his own reading speed, abandon or take up the text when he wishes, or even simply
leaf through it forwards or backwards as his whim takes him.’

Here, then, is our first significant point to be aware of with ‘An Inspector Calls’ and indeed all works
of drama: the audience is not in control. If they mishear a line of dialogue, they cannot revisit it. If
they wish to refer back to an earlier event to check something, they cannot do so. If they are
struggling to concentrate, they cannot put the text down and have a rest: they are a captive
audience. Whilst the characters on-stage do all at least once escape the intensity of the action (not
one character in ‘An Inspector Calls’ remains onstage throughout the play), the audience cannot.
We, as the audience, are not granted even a moment’s respite from the interrogation and its effects.
Why is that? Perhaps because Priestley wants to challenge the audience with the message of the
play, refusing to let up or give them respite from the intensity. This, then, means that drama is the
perfect form for ‘An Inspector Calls’. As Maggie B. Gale puts it in her book ‘J.B. Priestley’, ‘Priestley
maintained that theatre had the power to educate and to integrate and enliven a community, to
help it think through the social issues which affected it.’ Yes, it was in the setting of the theatre that
Priestley truly felt he could challenge his audience.

With JB Priestley perhaps more than many other writers, the form of the text is of greater
significance. Why? Because Priestley himself wrote successfully in many different forms. For
example, he published over 25 novels: in fact he published more novels than plays. With this in mind
we have to consider: why did Priestley choose to write ‘An Inspector Calls’ as a play? Would it have
worked as well as a novel? Fortunately, we have the words of Priestley himself to answer these
questions.

In 1947, shortly after writing ‘An Inspector Calls’, Priestley published a non-fiction work titled
‘Theatre Outlook’. In this book he explains that he ‘did not go to work in the Theatre and then
discover, because it helped me to earn a living, that the Theatre is important. I left other kinds of
writing, which offered me a safe living and far more piece of mind, to work in the Theatre because I
believed the Theatre to be important.’ The obvious question that springs to mind here is ‘how and
why is the Theatre important?’

Priestley goes on the explain that we must look at a play differently to other forms of literature. If
we analyse simply the writer’s use of language, for example, we offer no appreciation of the unique

16
aspects of drama. We could, as he puts it ‘enjoy all these, taking your own time, at home’. No, to
Priestley there was something unique about theatre, and it is essential in ‘An Inspector Calls’. He
explains how, ‘a genuine theatrical audience is not simply an assembly of individuals, all reacting as
they would in private. Everything is heightened and felt more because in such an audience there is a
collective response.’

He continues, ‘you on your side cannot fully enjoy what is happening unless you lose your sense of
separation from the people all round you, become part of the audience and indeed part of the whole
performance, sharing the collective response and experience.’

So there it is: to Priestley, the form of drama refuses to allow the audience to experience the text in
isolation and joins them together collectively. It is a form of literature which breaks down barriers
and individualism, and forces a collective response. This of course ties in nicely with the main theme
of the text: collective responsibility. The inspector’s words, ‘We are members of one body’
adequately describe the collective nature of a theatre audience. Therefore we can argue that the
form of the text actually helps to create a glimpse of the collective society Priestley is calling for.

Stage directions are extremely useful for analysing the playwright’s intentions. For example, the
detailed stage directions at the start of the play are for the director. The information about intended
staging, props and lighting introduce the key themes of the play.
Other stage directions instruct actors how to perform. In a novel, the narrator explains a character’s
thoughts and feelings. In a play, we must rely on dialogue and stage directions to gain our insights
and form our conclusions. How actors deliver lines can reveal a lot about the respective character.
For example, after Mr Birling tells Mrs Birling to compliment the cook, Gerald agrees ‘politely’. Like
Mrs Birling, Gerald is aware that Mr Birling should not compliment a lower-class servant who is only
doing her job. The stage direction ‘politely’ shows Gerald’s good manners. As an upper-class
gentleman, he is well bred, which is why he diplomatically agrees with his future father-in-law.
The play ‘An Inspector Calls’ contains a mixture of three genres. A genre is a category of literature
that shares common literary techniques. These might be similarities in tone, plot, themes, settings
and characters.

1. The Well Made Play

‘An Inspector Calls’ contains elements of a well made play, a concept coined by Eugene Scribe in the
19th century. Features of a well made play include:

Plot
There is one main story, and most of it happens before the play begins. In ‘An Inspector Calls’, the
characters’ interactions with Eva took place before the play begins.
Action and suspense increase through various devices, which might include:
Entrances and exits: The timings of these must develop tension and increase suspense. For
example, when Sheila sees the photograph of Eva, she leaves the stage in distress. Priestley
increases tension by making the audience wait for her next entrance and her revelations.
Revelations about identity: In the play, the ‘chain of events’ reveals that each character has
influenced the life of Eva Smith who, it later transpires, is also Daisy Renton. Did they all
meet the same young woman, however? The characters discuss this in Act 3, and Sheila and
Eric link this to Priestley’s message of social responsibility.

17
 Complications: we see clashes between the inspector and the characters, clashes between
the older and younger generations, and clashes in attitudes to class. These and other clashes
have an important purpose: Priestley uses them to focus the attention of the audience on
his socialist message, centred around the plot device of Eva Smith.

Exposition
At the beginning of the play, we are introduced to characters and relationships.

Climactic Curtain
This is where an act or scene ends on an incredibly tense and dramatic moment. For example, at the
end of Act 1, when Sheila has confronted Gerald about his affair with Eva, the inspector enters and
asks ‘Well?’. Then the curtain falls, leaving the audience in suspense—they question how he knows
about Gerald’s affair with Eva.

Obligatory Scene
This is a scene essential to the play—a secret is revealed, which adds drama and tension. Although
the acts are not subdivided into scenes, Inspector Goole’s description of Eva’s suicide with the
disinfectant that ‘burnt her inside out’ could be interpreted as an obligatory scene. Because of this
revelation, the inspector calls on the Birling household.

Dénouement
This scene at the end of the play ties up loose ends. We do not have this with ‘An Inspector Calls’.

2. Detective Story or Whodunnit

The play can be liked to a Whodunnit murder mystery. A traditional Whodunnit contains a detective
who questions suspects, analyses the facts, and narrows down from a list of numerous suspects to
just one, revealing the criminal. At the same time, the audience enjoys piecing together the ‘chain of
events’ and trying to work out who the culprit is.
‘An Inspector Calls’ begins with the death of Eva Smith, and the inspector forces the Birlings and
Gerald to look back over the events to piece together who is responsible. Priestley inverts (turns
upside down) this genre when Inspector Goole reveals that everyone is responsible for the death of
Eva Smith. By inverting the audience’s expectations of the genre, Priestley presents his key message
of social responsibility, and he encourages the audience to consider their own actions to others. This
is discussed in more detail in the character analysis of inspector Goole.

3. Morality Play
Popular in the Middle Ages, morality plays aimed to teach people lessons about how to behave.
Actors played personifications of the Seven Deadly Sins, amongst other characters. The Seven Deadly
Sins are pride, envy (jealousy), wrath (anger), sloth (laziness), avarice (greed), gluttony, lust.
The BBC Bitesize website points out that ‘Mr Birling is greedy because he wants more money, Sheila
is guilty of wrath and envy when she spitefully complains about Eva Smith and so on’. Let’s now
explore that idea in more detail.

In ‘An Inspector Calls’, the inspector encourages the characters to confess their sins and to repent.
As with a morality play, the audience is expected to learn a moral message from this. Certainly, the
inspector is full of moralistic sayings; for example, ‘We are members of one body. We are
responsible for each other’. The characters of the play might represent particular Deadly Sins:

18
 Character Deadly Comments
Sin
Mr Birling Avarice/ • Money: he is a capitalist, greedy for money and wanting more by
Greed exploiting others for ‘lower costs and higher prices’.
• Food and drink: elements of gluttony are on the table in the opening
Gluttony
stage directions.
Mrs Birling Pride • Her husband’s ‘social superior’, she is proud of her status and
instructs others on how to behave.
Wrath
• She is ‘prejudiced’ against Sheila because of her class, and she also
feels contempt towards working-class women (‘girls of that class’).
• She is angry with Eva when she learns that Eva has assumed the
name of Mrs Birling.
Eric Birling Lust • He feels entitled to force his attentions on Eva. He is also aware that
prostitutes haunt the Palace Theatre bar, suggesting that this is not
Gluttony
his first visit.
• His appetite for alcohol contributes towards his behaviour.

Sheila Envy • She is jealous that the dress suited Eva better than her.
Birling • She was furious when she saw Eva smile at the other shop assistant.
Wrath
Gerald Lust • Like Eric, Gerald has a sexual affair with Eva. Both men objectify
Croft Sheila by describing her appearance.
• Gerald turns his attentions to Sheila when he offers her the ring at
the end of the play.

When analysing the characters by using the Seven Deadly Sins, consider the extent to which they
learn a moral lesson and the impact this has on the audience. The idea of there being ‘seven deadly
sins’ is not a Biblical idea. It was a medieval creation suggesting that certain sins lead to death and
others did not. However, the Bible’s teaching on sin is that ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory
of God’ (Romans 3:23) and no sin is greater than another. With this in mind, the seven deadly sin
analysis, whilst interesting, cannot accurately be viewed as Biblical imagery like the ‘fire and blood
and anguish’ quote which certainly is Biblical (and is explored in the character analysis of Inspector
Goole). More accurately, we can explore the wide range of ‘sins’ demonstrated as evidence that the
play is aiming to challenge as many members of the audience as possible. The insinuation is that
each member of the audience will be challenged by at least one of the characters’ actions which
they can relate to. By judging the characters, Priestley hopes that audience members will also reflect
on their own behaviour.

19
Structure

Time as a Structural Feature

a. Chronology
When studying the play, we should consider the ways in which Priestley uses time. The play begins
with the Birlings celebrating the engagement of Sheila to Gerald. Here is a reminder of the events in
chronological order that took place before the arrival of the inspector:
Date ‘Chain of events’

September 1910 Mr Birling sacks Eva from Birling & Co.

December 1910 Eva begins work at Milwards.

Late January 1911 Sheila complains about Eva, who is then sacked.

March 1911 Eva changes her name to Daisy Renton and becomes Gerald’s mistress.

September 1911 Gerald breaks off his affair with Eva. Eva leaves Brumley for two months.

November 1911 Eric meets Eva.

December Eva finds out she is pregnant.
1911/January 1912

March 1912 Eva asks for help from the Brumley Women’s Charity Organisation but is
refused by Mrs Birling.

April 1912 Eva commits suicide.

The story of Eva Smith and each person’s role in her life is revealed gradually by the inspector,
providing time for the audience to consider each character’s role in relation to Priestley’s socialist
message.
b. Dramatic Irony
The fact that the play is set in 1912 but first performed in 1945 enables Priestley to use dramatic
irony. Dramatic irony is a technique used which allows the audience to know something which a
character does not. Priestley uses this when Mr Birling makes statements about the Titanic being
‘unsinkable’ and when he says the ‘Germans don’t want war’. Any audience, whether in 1945 when
the play was first performed, or today, would know that not only did the Germans play a key part in
World War II, but the Titanic also sank. Priestley’s effective use of dramatic irony instantly devalues
Birling’s opinions.
This means that when Birling follows his predictions with statements like ‘community and all that
nonsense’, the audience is encouraged by Priestley to believe that Birling is continuing to talk
rubbish. Priestley effectively gets the audience to agree with his own socialist views that community
is, in fact, far from ‘nonsense’.
Nearer the end of the play, the audience and Sheila have worked out that Eric is the father of Eva’s
child, but Mrs Birling is unaware of this when she says ‘Go and look for the father of the child. It’s his
responsibility’. Priestley’s use of dramatic irony helps to build tension and excitement, encouraging
the audience to pay more attention to Priestley’s message of social responsibility.

20
c. Foreshadowing
This device is an advance warning of what will happen later in the play. For example, at the start of
the play, Sheila voices suspicions about Gerald’s behaviour last summer when he was often absent.
This comment builds tension and foreshadows the conflict to come when we later learn that Gerald
was having an affair with Eva Smith.
d. The Future
Priestley does not dwell solely on the events of the past. The whole point of the play is to show that
people can make a positive contribution to society if they accept responsibility for their actions and
learn from their mistakes. It is about learning from the past to improve the future.
Interestingly, Priestley studied the concept of time, so it is not surprising that he experiments with it
in the play. He considered Ouspensky’s theory which suggests that, when we die, we re-start our
lives if we have failed to learn from our mistakes.
Priestley also studied Dunne’s theory, which again focuses on learning from mistakes. This theory
proposes that we have all been given the ability to look forward in time so that we can avoid errors
before we make them (as well as learn from mistakes in our past).
The idea of learning from mistakes is certainly a key idea in ‘An Inspector Calls’. It is as if Inspector
Goole is able to look into the future and know that another inspector is on his way. He encourages
the characters to reflect on their behaviour towards Eva, and he gives them the opportunity to learn
from their mistakes.
With the final telephone call at the end of the play, the Birlings and Gerald learn that a young lady
has died from drinking disinfectant. There is also the puzzling news that an inspector is on his way to
the Birling household to ask some questions. Perhaps Priestley is applying ideas from Ouspensky and
Dunne to suggest that everything is going to happen again so that, this time, the reluctant characters
of Mr Birling, Mrs Birling and Gerald Croft have the opportunity to learn the error of their ways.
By playing with time, Priestley might be suggesting that we cannot avoid taking responsibility for our
actions.

21
Characters
Edna
In ‘An Inspector Calls’, every character is in some way representative of a section of society–through
the character of Edna, Priestley demonstrates the mistreatment of the domestic working class.
Although Edna is a minor character in the play, there are a couple of key moments worthy of
analysis. Firstly, it is Edna who shows Inspector Goole into the dining room in Act 1, announcing ‘an
inspector’s called’. This line of dialogue is the closest line we have in the play to the title ‘An
Inspector Calls’. By putting the words in Edna’s mouth, Priestley clearly establishes this as a
significant moment. It symbolises that Priestley is giving a voice to the working classes, heralding
new ways of thinking with his socialist ideas. Edna, a working-class woman, ushers in the inspector,
who is about to challenge the values and beliefs held by the Birlings and Gerald.
Priestley also gives Edna the important task of changing the lighting in the room when the inspector
arrives and Mr Birling commands ‘Show him in here. Give us some more light’. The change of lighting
on the stage moves from ‘pink and intimate’ to ‘brighter and harder’. Here, Inspector Goole has a
physical impact on the room, and the ‘pink and intimate’ lighting is indicative of the overly optimistic
rose-tinted glasses through which the Birlings view their lives of middle-class privilege. Inspector
Goole brings with him a harder sort of light—a spotlight of interrogation which will illuminate the
truth. It is Edna who brings the inspector into the dining room and who changes the lighting:
Priestley could be suggesting that it will be the working classes who will deliver the truth to the
middle and upper classes. And this is what we see in the play—the life of working-class Eva Smith is
used to challenge the Birlings and Gerald, making them face the true consequences of their actions.
It is working-class Edna who brings in the inspector and changes the lighting that signifies that
challenge.
We do not only analyse characters through how the speak and act, but also through how others
speak to or about them. When Birling orders Edna to ‘Show him in here. Give us some more light’,
the language and structure of his dialogue is worthy of analysis. As Tom Briars Delve points out,
these two simple sentences are bluntly short and monosyllabic, suggesting no attempt at politeness
from Birling to Edna. Both also start with clear imperatives, ‘Show’ and ‘Give’, as if Birling expects his
orders to be followed instantly. Such off-hand comments may appear insignificant, but they subtly
add to the dramatic force of Eva’s narrative, highlighting the pressure on working-class women to
unhesitatingly obey their middle-class employers, even if working conditions are unfair.
In 1912, when the play was set, the use of maids and servants in the homes of middle- and upper-
class families was more common than by 1946 when the play was first performed in England. To the
1946 audience, Edna’s very presence on stage would feel old-fashioned, and Priestley’s deliberate
inclusion of a maid would serve as a reminder to the audience of the outdated practice of employing
working-class people for very little money to work long hours, completing jobs that could have easily
been done by the owners of the house. For example, Edna is ordered to pour port, serve food,
answer the door: none of the tasks she completes require any special skill, and they could all be
done by the Birling family themselves. In fact, when Mr Birling offers to answer the door himself late
into Act 3, Mrs Birling casually remarks ‘Edna’ll go. I asked her to wait up’. This intrusion into Edna’s
life demonstrates how the Birlings see Edna as merely an employee. They do not care that their
actions are impinging upon her wellbeing. Edna cannot sleep because the Birlings want her up to do
more tasks for them, even though we can assume that typically she would have finished work by this
time.
It is also worth noting that the Birlings’ successes are never shared with Edna; for example, she is not
invited to join in the toast for the engagement. Priestley seems to be condemning this mistreatment
of the working class—when the play was first performed in two theatres in Moscow in 1945, her
22
character would have confirmed communist beliefs about the lazy, wealthy elite living a life of
privilege at the expense of the poor. The 1946 London audience, however, would consider the
treatment of Edna as out of date and overly formal. This would further alienate the Birlings from the
audience, presenting them as people whose views and attitudes you would not wish to replicate or
repeat.
Although Edna speaks only a few lines on stage, she still has more of a voice than Eva. Both Edna and
Eva are two women from the working class, and both seem to suffer in some way at the hands of the
Birlings. Eva never appears on stage, and yet her voice is channeled through Inspector Goole. When
Goole tells the Birlings ‘There are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths’,
he is advocating the absent Eva, who is unable to speak up for herself; however, there is also no one
who speaks up for Edna. Edna’s silence could be interpreted as symbolic of the lack of power that
the working poor had. Women were not given the vote until 1918, six years after the play is set, and
only women over the age of 30 with minimum property qualifications could vote. This would have
excluded working-class women like Edna, who had to wait until 1928 before they were given the
vote. Edna’s silence therefore represents how working-class women had no voice in society and
could not vote, so had no political voice to influence how society was run.
Edna would not have had the same freedom of movement as those in the middle classes, but she
would have been even more restricted due to living with the Birlings. Her situation would have been
more awkward if she had ever wanted to leave and ask for references. In 1912, employees did not
have the same working rights as they did in 1946. The later strengthening of the unions meant a
contemporary audience would appreciate how precarious Edna’s position would have been had she
wished to leave.
To conclude, Priestley might not use Edna to say very much, but it is just as important to consider
what is not said when viewing her importance in the play. The working poor suffered in many ways,
and not all of them are obvious at first glance. Through his depiction of Edna, Priestley encourages
us to consider how, even when they are being paid, the poor are exploited.

23
Eva Smith
How exactly do you analyse a character who never appears on-stage and has no dialogue in a play?
Despite holding a central role in ‘An Inspector Calls’, the audience never meets Eva Smith. However,
Priestley uses Eva’s lack of voice and presence on stage to symbolise the lack of power held by
women and the working class in Edwardian England.
Priestley’s choice of names carries symbolic significance when it comes to the character of Eva Smith
and her alias Daisy Renton. Firstly, the name ‘Eva’ can be seen as an intertextual Biblical reference to
Eve the first woman, and the person from whom we are all descended. Combined with the common
surname ‘Smith’, Priestley seems to be suggesting that in Eva Smith, we see a woman who
symbolises all women. Inspector Goole suggests as much in his final speech when he explains ‘there
are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths’. The name choice makes it clear that Priestley
does not want his audience to feel sorry for one working class woman. Instead, he wants us to
consider Eva Smith as representing all working-class women. Her name is used to provide an
important lesson on how to treat those who suffer the effects of inequality in society.
The second name Eva Smith adopts is Daisy Renton, and this name is also interesting in terms of
Priestley’s use of symbolism. A daisy is a common flower, cheap and pretty, and in this way could be
seen as symbolic of Eva Smith: she is repeatedly described as pretty, but is obviously one of many
working-class women. As we have already explored, it is quite shocking just how often Eva Smith is
described in terms of her physical appearance. Therefore, the name Daisy, with its connotations of
prettiness, seems quite appropriate as a symbol of how this young woman was judged largely on her
physical appearance.
The surname ‘Renton’ could have different interpretations. On the one hand, the verb ‘rent’ means
to pay for using something for a period of time; as Daisy Renton, Eva rents her body when she enters
a life of prostitution. Alternatively, the noun ‘rent’ is also a large tear in a piece of fabric. This might
symbolise that, at this point in Eva’s life, her spirit has been broken. She has left respectable society,
and is now trying to exist in the underworld of crime. In both name choices, Priestley therefore uses
symbolism.
Priestley uses descriptions of her appearance by others to show how women were objectified in
Edwardian England. Firstly, Mr Birling describes Eva Smith as a ‘lively good-looking girl’. Sheila states
that Eva was ‘a very pretty girl too—with big dark eyes’. Gerald’s words echo those of Sheila, as he
describes Eva as being ‘very pretty—soft brown hair and big dark eyes’. Even Inspector Goole says
‘she had been pretty—very pretty’. These descriptions all focus on Eva’s physical appearance and
beauty, and they highlight the way in which women were objectified. They were regarded as sources
of pleasure for men, rather than as equals.
The character of Eva is also used to draw the attention of the audience to a clear double standard for
men and women at the time. It is worth, at this point, pausing to think about the ‘trouble’ Eva Smith
was in. She was pregnant outside of marriage and had no means of providing for herself financially.
Eva lied to the charity committee, saying she was married, because admitting to having had sex
outside of marriage would have made her unlikely to receive help from the charity. However, the
same high moral standards were not expected of men. At the start of Act 3, when it is revealed that
Eric slept with Eva, impregnated her and stole money from his father’s business, it is the stolen
money that features most heavily in the parental reprimand from Mr Birling. In fact, Eric excuses the
sexual relationship by telling his father ‘Well, I’m old enough to be married, aren’t I?’. Birling himself
earlier admits that he and his peers in their younger years also ‘broke out and had a bit of fun
sometimes’. Gerald, too, excuses his affair, explaining that ‘I suppose it was inevitable. She was
young and pretty’. As so often happens in this play, the inspector sums it up perfectly when he
explains how Eric treated Eva ‘as if she was an animal, a thing, not a person’. This quotation

24
summarises nicely the way in which women were objectified by men as sources of pleasure, not
equals.
Eva, on the other hand, is a hard worker, and has strong moral values which see her refuse to accept
stolen money. Yet Eva is the one who feels forced to commit suicide whereas the men of the play
seem to have (up until now) suffered no ill consequences for their actions. These double standards
can be seen as relating to gender or class, and the message is clear: women/the working class
cannot get away with the poor behaviour and actions that men/ the middle and upper class can.
As the play progresses, Priestley presents Eva as a character who has suffered from the imbalance of
power. Mr Birling’s power as employer led to her losing her first job at the factory. Sheila’s power as
a prized customer led to her losing her second job at Milwards. Eric’s physical power allowed him to
gain entry into Eva’s lodgings, and Gerald’s upper-class power enabled him to control her. Gerald
was only able to provide Eva with somewhere to stay and give her money because of his upper-class
privilege and connections. The result of this is that Eva became totally reliant on him: as Sheila
observed, Gerald was Eva’s ‘fairy prince’. It’s worth noting how the relationship between Eva and
Gerald contrasts with that of Gerald and Sheila. With Gerald and Sheila, the audience have seen
from Act 1 a playfulness between the two, with Sheila willing to tease Gerald and tell him that she
does not wish him to become a ‘purple-faced’ expert in port. The contrast between the two women,
and Gerald’s treatment of them, is interesting because Sheila observes that Gerald would have
‘adored it’, implying that there is something about Gerald’s character that craves a partner who is
subservient, and perhaps feeds his ego. Eva Smith’s compliance and naivety, even down to Gerald’s
patronising comment on her port and lemonade drink as ‘some such concoction’ reveals his sneering
attitude towards the working class, and his pleasure over the power he had over her.
Finally, Priestley uses the character of Eva to convey his message about social responsibility when, in
the inspector’s exit speech, he states ‘One Eva Smith has gone—but there are millions and millions
and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us’. Priestley’s use of repetition and the rule
of three with the word ‘millions’ develops rhythm and momentum, building up to his point about the
quantity of vulnerable poor still living. It is at this point that the inspector states that it is not just
women who are vulnerable but also working-class men (the name John is a very common name, like
the surname Smith). Women, however, are more open to exploitation by men like Eric and Gerald.
Priestley now positions the inspector to be the champion of all the poor, regardless of gender.

25
Mr Birling
Mr Birling represents all the negative aspects of capitalism. As a member of the older generation, he
is fixed in his ways—we see no change in his character throughout the play, and he remains
unsympathetic to the plight of Eva Smith.
In his 1957 nonfiction book ‘Theatre Outlook’, JB Priestley states that everything on stage in a play is
significant. With this in mind, we will analyse Mr Birling in relation to a prop in the opening line of
the play. In the play’s first line of dialogue, Mr Birling says: ‘Giving us the port, Edna? That’s right.
You ought to like this port, Gerald. As a matter of fact, Finchley told me it's exactly the same port
your father gets from him’. The drinking of port is significant due to its cost. It is something that was
associated with the wealthy in society: the price alone would have been prohibitive and therefore
out of reach for the working class. We should also remember that the characters have been drinking
another expensive drink, evidenced by the ‘champagne glasses’, before the play begins.
In her fascinating book ‘Drinking in Victorian and Edwardian Britain, Beyond the Spectre of the
Drunkard’, Thora Hands states: ‘The domestic context of alcohol consumption was governed by rules
of social etiquette, which both demonstrated and reinforced social class and gender values. Within
middle- and upper-class homes, purchasing, serving and consuming good quality wines and spirits
were key ways to demonstrate levels of cultural capital and good taste’. Instantly, the audience sees
Mr Birling as someone who wishes to show off to others, and Priestley uses the name dropping of
‘Finchley’ to illustrate how Birling is keen to impress his future son-in-law. It is important to note
that, in speaking to Gerald, the son of upper-class Lord and Lady Croft, Birling is actually speaking to
his social superior. This imbalance of power has reduced him to name-dropping in an attempt to
endear himself to a family whose social position is one to which he personally aspires. Birling himself
has moved from working class to middle class through the success of his business, which is why he
occasionally has to be told how to behave socially by Mrs Birling, described in the stage directions as
his ‘social superior’.
Early in Act 1, Priestley surprises the audience when Birling delivers a speech to his family during the
engagement meal that does not—as the audience might expect—focus on his love for his daughter
or his fondness of his future son-in-law. Instead, his speech centres on his opinions of the economic
future of the country and the failings of neighbouring nations. This speech is an excellent example of
Priestley presenting Mr Birling as a flawed, misled and pompous man. He refers to himself twice in
very similar ways, first as a ‘hard-headed business man’ and then moments later as a ‘hard-headed,
practical man of business’. This deliberate repetition on Priestley’s part emphasises how Mr Birling’s
self-perception is entirely built upon how he sees himself in terms of work and money. Mr Birling’s
priorities are not with people or family, but with how much wealth he can accumulate. As he himself
puts it, ‘a man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own’. It is significant that
he places himself first, and his family come second, almost as an afterthought. By ordering Mr
Birling’s priorities in this way, Priestley depicts Birling as a selfish man, who prioritises making money
and looking after himself over his family. It is therefore unsurprising when we learn of his lack of
empathy towards Eva Smith and his exploitative capitalist outlook.
Mr Birling can be seen to represent the ideology of capitalism—a system where business is privately
owned for the sole purpose of making profit. Of course, to make this profit, business owners must
‘keep labour costs down’ as Birling explains. As we later learn, Birling’s capitalist agenda is one of the
causes of Eva Smith’s death. Birling’s viewpoint will be directly contrasted by the message soon to be
delivered by Inspector Goole, whom Birling will later dismiss as ‘Probably a Socialist’.
Priestley uses an almost ridiculous amount of dramatic irony (where the audience knows something
that the character on stage does not) to ridicule the character of Mr Birling. Given that the play was
set in 1912 but first performed in 1945 in Moscow and 1946 in England, contemporary audiences

26
knew that Mr Birling’s predictions are wrong. His confidence that ‘The Germans don’t want war’, for
example, is doubly wrong, given that not one, but two world wars would in fact take place in the
coming years. Like many others in the early 1900s, Mr Birling claims the idea of war is ‘nonsense’
and ‘fiddlesticks’. His dismissive tone reveals how confident he is in his ideas. His error filled
predictions about war, economic growth, and the Titanic being ‘absolutely unsinkable’ make him
seem ill informed and ridiculous. This in turn encourages the audience to mistrust his capitalist views
about business and the treatment of his own employees. Priestley’s effective use of dramatic irony
means Mr Birling’s opinions are instantly devalued. Structurally, these examples of dramatic irony
occur so early on in the play—even before the arrival of the inspector—to make it very clear that Mr
Birling and everything he stands for is wrong.
Initial impressions of Mr Birling are not good, but that can be also said of other characters (for
example, see our analysis of Sheila). However, what is so noticeable about Mr Birling is how he ends
the play in the same manner in which he started. For example, near the end of the play, Birling
discovers that his son, Eric, is an alcoholic who has stolen money from the office and impregnated
Eva Smith. It might therefore be surprising to the audience that the majority of his dialogue with Eric
focuses solely on recovering his lost money. Eric’s slight against him and the impact upon his
business cause Mr Birling consternation—not the death of his grandchild or the alcoholism of his
son.
Priestley employs contrast between the older and younger generations to make a point about
capitalism and socialism. Unlike his children, Mr Birling fails to accept responsibility for the death of
Eva Smith, telling Eric ‘There’s every excuse for what both your mother and I did’. Birling fails to
learn the inspector’s (and Priestley’s) lesson of social responsibility, reinforcing the inspector’s
earlier comments about how it is the ‘young ones’ who are ‘more impressionable’. Priestley is
criticising the behaviour of the older generation, implying that they are fixed in their ways. In
contrast, the younger generation of the Birling family is open to new socialist ideas.

27
Mrs Birling
JB Priestley uses the character of Mrs Birling to criticise the inequalities of the class system and to
highlight the gender bias evident within Edwardian society. The topic of social class was an incredibly
important theme to Priestley. As Maggie B Gale puts it in her book ‘J.B. Priestley’, ‘Priestley’s belief
that the class system and easy manner in which power had essentially remained in the hands of the
few - despite the genuine upheaval of war - underpinned much of his writing and especially his
plays’. Priestley was frustrated with the ingrained class system, and he uses Mrs Birling to criticise
this system.
One of the ways he achieves this is through his negative depiction of Mrs Birling as bossy and
controlling. We read in the opening stage directions that Mrs Birling is ‘her husband’s social
superior’, and this is certainly the role she exhibits within her family. Much of the initial dialogue
afforded to her character is based on controlling and reprimanding the actions of others. Here are a
few examples, taken from just the opening five pages of Act 1:
‘(Reproachfully) Arthur, you’re not supposed to say such things—’
‘Now, Sheila, don’t tease him.’
(To Sheila and Eric) ‘Now stop it, you two.’
‘Arthur, what about this famous toast of yours?’
(To Arthur) ‘I don’t think you ought to talk business on an occasion like this.’
‘I think Sheila and I had better go into the drawing-room and leave you men.’
(To Arthur) ‘don’t keep Gerald in here too long.’
‘Eric—I want you a minute.’
By establishing Mrs Birling as a controlling and demanding character, Priestley positions her as a self-
important woman who is used to giving orders and being obeyed. Much of her dialogue reveals a
concern for actions that might give a bad impression (presumably to Gerald who is, at this point, the
only character on stage from outside the family). Although Mrs Birling is her husband’s ‘social
superior’, she is still of a lower status than Gerald. Her ease with giving orders and her expectation of
being obeyed might also foreshadow how she uses her position on the committee of the Brumley
Women’s Charity Organization to influence its members to deny help to Eva Smith/Daisy Renton.
Priestley establishes Mrs Birling as bossy and controlling at the start of the play in order to set up the
inevitable conflict with Inspector Goole when he arrives. In Act 2, Mrs Birling complains that
Inspector Goole’s comments are ‘a trifle impertinent’ and in Act 3 describes his questioning as
‘peculiar and offensive’. She is clearly used to having her own way and cannot understand why she
cannot order the police inspector around. Priestley uses Mrs Birling’s discomfort with a police
inspector refusing to obey her as an example of the wealthy middle and upper classes’ complacency
when it comes to the law. Both Birling and Mrs Birling namedrop people they know in the police,
expecting Inspector Goole to give them an easier time. When people use their connections to avoid
prosecution, we call this corruption. Mr and Mrs Birling clearly see themselves as above the law, and
they struggle when faced with someone who is moral and insisting that justice is served.
Priestley uses Mrs Birling as a dramatic device to develop tension. Of all the characters, it is Mrs
Birling who is the most resistant to confess her connection to Eva Smith. Mr Birling and Sheila
explain their link as soon as they realise they know her; Gerald attempts to lie to Inspector Goole,
but almost immediately thinks better of it and confesses. Mrs Birling, however, lies outright for two
pages (‘No. Why should I?’) before finally admitting that she recognises Eva. However, even once
28
Inspector Goole has prized this admission out of her, she defends herself and dodges questions until
the very end of Act 2. With every refusal to answer, Priestley raises tension—he makes the audience
wait for her confession. This is heightened by his superb use of dramatic irony when the audience
works out that Eric is the father of Eva Smith’s child, but Mrs Birling is completely oblivious.
Mrs Birling seems to embody everything that Priestley disliked about the behaviour of the middle-
and upper-class women of Edwardian society. In Priestley’s radio show, he spoke about women who
after the war were more concerned about their own lives than helping others. He described how he
received bitter letters ‘from ladies doing nothing in inland resorts, where their energy is all turned
inward instead of outward, turning into hostility instead of helpfulness and fun’. Mrs Birling shares
many characteristics with these women, and Priestley uses her as an example of how petty and self-
centred (or egocentric) some people can be when they themselves live easy and comfortable lives,
and others are struggling to eat.
The situation for women like Eva Smith was made worse by the lack of support from the
government. In 1912, there was no NHS, no benefit system, and no access to contraception or
abortions. Therefore, women were reliant upon charities to help them cope when they were
struggling. Priestley uses the charity committee who are swayed by Mrs Birling’s ‘prejudiced’ views
to demonstrate how fallible this system was. It is also worth thinking about why someone like Mrs
Birling helped out on a charity committee. Mrs Birling makes her opinions of the working classes
clear: they are liars, they accept stolen money, and they are to blame for their own situations. If Mrs
Birling has such a low opinion of the people she is meant to be helping, should she actually be
helping them? We can infer that her ulterior motive to work on the committee has more to do with
how it looks to chair such a committee and to wield power. She certainly does not strike the
audience as a person driven by the desire to help other people.
Priestley employs the prop of bells to present another sign of Mrs Birling’s privilege. Mrs Birling tells
Edna she will ‘ring’ from the drawing room when she needs her—this system of bells for maids later
fell out of common usage by 1946. Priestley famously claimed in 1927 that the practice of having
domestic servants, was ‘as obsolete as the horse’. The Birling family’s use of domestic staff highlights
the ‘old’ ways of doing things where working-class women were made to work in difficult conditions
for very little money. The increase of opportunities to work in other industries, the outbreak of war,
and the increased use of technology meant that housework was easier to perform. This meant that
by 1946, domestic staff had greatly diminished in middle-class homes. Priestley’s inclusion of Edna
and Mrs Birling’s ordering her about emphasise how out of date the Birlings are in the eyes of his
audience and, by default, how archaic their thinking about capitalism was. The notion of being
privileged runs through the play: characters who are apparently unaware of their privilege take
advantage of others who are less privileged than themselves. Priestley questions the morality of
Edwardian society through his depiction of a privileged family and their attitudes towards others
who are less fortunate than themselves.
Priestley uses the character of Mrs Birling to develop the theme of gender. (We see, for example,
how Eva Smith is objectified by Gerald and Eric. We also see how Sheila is infantilised by her
parents.) Even Mrs Birling suffers the inequality of gender treatment. Despite Mrs Birling’s ‘social’
superiority, she still behaves in a subservient manner to her husband. Indeed, she promotes the idea
of female submission to her own daughter, excusing Gerald’s neglect of his relationship with Sheila,
telling her ‘When you’re married, you’ll realise that men with important work to do sometimes have
to spend nearly all their time and energy on their business’. Mrs Birling accepts that women must
come second to their husbands’ work. We also see later in the play that Mrs Birling is unaware of the
fact that Eric has a drink problem. Women are seen to be delicate and in need of protection from the
real world, and it is not only men who force this expectation on women, but women who accept it.

29
Mrs Birling’s attitude to alcohol is another way in which she conforms to stereotypical gender roles.
In Edwardian England, middle- and upper-class women did not have the same freedom to drink as
men. Thora Hands points out in her book ‘Drinking in Victorian and Edwardian Britain, Beyond the
Spectre of the Drunkard’:
‘Dinner parties were some of the few social occasions where middle-and upper-class women could
drink for gratification and do so in a manner that was deemed respectable. The same degree of
moral scrutiny and control did not apply to the drinking habits of middle- and upper-class men, for
whom dinner parties in the home were only one potential site of alcohol consumption.’
Mrs Birling is reluctant to drink alcohol—when pushed by her husband, she agrees to drink ‘Just a
little’; this attitude to alcohol directly contrasts with that of her son, Eric, and potential future son-in-
law, Gerald, who both go out drinking in Brumley. Priestley is not suggesting, of course, that women
should get blind drunk like Eric: he is simply drawing attention to the double standard with which
they are treated.
In conclusion, Priestley’s message about gender is the same as his message about class: all inequality
is morally wrong, and everyone, no matter what class or gender, should be treated with equality.
Through Mrs Birling, Priestley gives a scathing critique of Edwardian England, a society where those
with privilege are blind to the struggles of those without. He warns against the consequences of
ignoring your privilege with the play’s brutal ending, where the characters who have not learned
their lessons will be punished for their arrogance.

30
Eric Birling
Priestley uses the character of Eric to represent young, impulsive, ignorant middle-class men, who
exploit working-class women like Eva Smith for their own sexual gratification. By the end of the play,
Eric has changed. He regrets what he has done and sympathises with the inspector’s views on social
responsibility. Priestley uses the change in Eric’s character to show the audience that every young
man can choose between exploiting the weak or adopting Priestley’s ideas about social
responsibility.
At the beginning of the play, Priestly uses stage directions to present Eric as not fully mature. He is
‘half shy, half assertive’. The adjective ‘shy’ connotes nervousness and a lack of confidence. This
contrasts with ‘assertive’, which implies confidence and dominance. Priestley’s use of contrasting
adjectives therefore creates a sense of confusion, implying that he is a secretive person. From the
beginning of the play, it is clear that Priestley wants the audience to view Eric negatively in order to
show that the capitalist patriarchal society is not trustworthy. This way, he encourages the audience
to reject the capitalist ideas that Eric appears to be representing. There is hope, however: Priestley
repeats the word ‘half’ to emphasise that Eric’s character is not yet fully formed—this indicates that
he might change.
From the start of the play, Priestley associates Eric with alcohol when his sister, Sheila, accuses him
of being ‘squiffy’. This contemporary slang, meaning slightly drunk, draws the attention of the
audience to Sheila’s use of informal language. It positions the Birling siblings as fashionable
members of the younger generation who adapt their language to the times. This foreshadows both
characters adapting their attitudes to social responsibility as the play unfolds and they become more
sympathetic to the inspector’s message.
In addition, Priestley deliberately aligns Eric with alcohol to foreshadow the later revelations about
his drunken behaviour on the night that he met Eva Smith. Eric’s free and easy use of alcohol is also
used to signify the double standard in society for men and women (seethe character analysis of Mrs
Birling, above).
When Eric is interrogated by the inspector, the audience learns that he insisted on entering Eva’s
lodgings. He admits that because of alcohol, he was ‘in that state when a chap easily turns nasty’.
Priestley’s use of the determiner ‘that’ is interesting because Eric appears to be appealing to a
commonly shared belief that his listeners have been drunk and understand exactly what ‘that state’
is. This shows his lack of responsibility for his actions and also suggests that he is using alcohol to
excuse for his later implied rape of Eva. The playwright develops this idea when Eric refers to himself
in the third person with the phrase ‘a chap’. The word ‘chap’, an informal word for a boy or a man,
has positive connotations of friendliness. Eric’s use of the third person also distances him from the
implied rape. By using these words, Eric is positioning himself as a friendly young man, who does not
take responsibility for his behaviour, which is solely due to the alcohol.
Priestley presents us with Eric’s perspective about Eva, so we do not know the exact details of
whether she was a prostitute. If Eva was not working as a prostitute, she seemed to be living a life
on the brink of prostitution. Prostitution, and the word prostitute would not be used in the play—at
that time, other plays had been censored for making references to prostitutes. In fact, one of
Priestley’s playwright friends, George Bernard Shaw (whom he references when Mr Birling is naming
people he does not agree with in Act 1) wrote a play called ‘Mrs Warren’s Profession’, which was
about a woman who was once a madam of a brothel. The play was banned by the theatre censors,
and its actors were even arrested during one performance.
From the clues provided by Eric in his confession, Priestley provides an insight into a male
perspective of sex workers. Eric is aware of the purpose of the Palace Theatre bar, and describes Eva
as ‘not the usual sort’, saying that there ‘was some woman who wanted her to go there’. This
31
woman, we can presume, would have been Eva’s madam, the woman who would have taken a cut
of the money Eva would have made from performing sexual acts. We are told that Eric ‘never quite
understood about that’. Eric’s ignorance could be construed as a wilful ignoring of the facts—a
cognitive dissonance, detaching himself from his actions and his beliefs. We know from the
beginning of the play that he has a sympathy for the working class—particularly when he argues
with his father that the factory workers ‘can’t go and work somewhere else’ if the pay does not suit
them. Is it possible that Eric has developed this sympathy as a consequence of his relationship with a
woman from the working class? Or because he is naturally sympathetic? Priestley is definitely
hinting that Eric has the potential (even before his confession to Inspector Goole) to be sympathetic
to the plight of the poor, which ties in with Inspector Goole’s assertion that ‘the young ones’ are
‘more impressionable’.
With Eric’s next words, the audience understands that he now takes responsibility and he admits his
guilt. Priestley uses short sentences and a hyphen to reveal Eric’s distress: 'And that’s when it
happened. And I don’t even remember—that’s the hellish thing’. His lack of detail about what
happened suggests that he can barely bring himself to admit what he has done. The sentence ‘And
that’s when it happened’, implying rape, allows us to form our own conclusions about what
happened that night. This makes his behaviour more shocking. By describing this moment, Priestley
heightens the contrast at the end of the play when we see exactly how much Eric’s character has
changed.
Priestley also presents Eric as an immature young man who does not have a close relationship with
his father. He tells Mr Birling that he is ‘not the kind of father a chap could go to when he’s in
trouble’. Again, by using the friendly word ‘chap’ to describe himself, he is making excuses for his
behaviour by positioning himself as a victim rather than accepting responsibility for his behaviour. At
this point in the play, we see Eric’s immaturity because he is providing short-term solutions (by
asking Eva to marry him and supporting her with stolen money), but he does not see the long-term
consequences of his criminal behaviour.
By the end of the play, Eric, like Sheila, has learned the lesson of collective social responsibility. The
discussion about whether the inspector is real does not matter to Eric, who insists ‘We did her in all
right’. He deliberately uses the plural personal pronoun ‘we’ to emphasise that it is not just his
mother who is responsible for Eva’s death, but all of them. This might symbolise Priestley’s socialist
view that we all have a collective responsibility for the welfare of Eva and other vulnerable members
of society. Eric also states: ‘It’s what happened to the girl and what we all did to her that matters’.
He has accepted his role in her downfall, and the inspector’s socialist message of collective
responsibility is more important than the identity of the inspector. Eric’s language therefore echoes
that of the inspector, the mouthpiece of Priestley.
Throughout the play, Priestley has presented Eric as an immature young man with a drinking
problem, an exploiter of Eva, and a thief. As Eric matures and accepts responsibility for his actions,
he becomes receptive to the inspector’s message that ‘We are members of one body. We are
responsible for each other’. Because Eric, a member of the younger generation, changes, he
represents hope that other young men in the audience will also take Priestley’s message to heart.
Eric, like Sheila, symbolises hope for the future.

32
Sheila Birling
Priestley presents Sheila as a spoilt, immature girl, who develops into an independent woman. As
the play progresses, she aligns herself with the inspector and challenges her parents’ capitalist
views. Her character symbolises the growing independence of free-thinking young women, perhaps
echoing the rise of the suffragette movement. By the end of the play, Sheila realises that she has
more options than the traditional route of marriage. Through Sheila, Priestley shows us that
socialism has the power to develop the spiritual and emotional growth of women.
In the opening moments of the play, Priestley presents Sheila as an immature, materialistic
character. Despite the stage directions telling us that she is ‘in her early twenties’, Sheila refers to
her parents as ‘Mummy’ and ‘Daddy’, an infantile, immature mode of address which is reciprocated
by Mr and Mrs Birling, who refer to Sheila as both a ‘child’ and ‘childish’. Sheila’s comment about
the engagement ring and how she will ‘never let it go out of my sight’ presents her as materialistic,
as does the comment from Eric that Sheila and Mrs Birling are ‘talking about clothes’ when they
retire to the drawing room in Act One.
We see numerous examples where Priestley presents other characters treating Sheila as inferior.
Early in Act One, Gerald enquires of Sheila, ‘I’ve been trying long enough, haven’t I?’, but it is Mrs
Birling who interrupts and replies in Sheila’s place, telling Gerald ‘Of course she does’. Later, Gerald
tries to have Sheila removed from the room during his interrogation, telling the inspector in the
opening of Act Two, ‘I think Miss Birling ought to be excused’. Yes, it is clear early on that Sheila is
not treated as an equal by anyone. And why is that? In Edwardian England women were treated as
inferior to men. I mean, just take a quick look at Eric—he is undoubtedly more immature than Sheila,
but he isn’t treated like a child in the way she is. Sheila’s treatment by others reflects how women
were considered as having an inferior role within a male-dominated society. This attitude to women
as inferior is, it can be argued, one of the causes of Eva Smith’s death. Like Eva, Sheila is treated as
inferior because of her gender. However, because she is middle class, she is more protected and less
vulnerable than Eva Smith.
After the inspector’s interrogation, Sheila begins to change as a character. Her words to Gerald of
‘you fool – he knows’ demonstrate a dramatic shift in her personality: the little girl who was cooing
over a ring has gone, and her passivity has been replaced with a fiery indignation. The sarcastic
‘you're forgetting I'm supposed to be engaged to the hero’ cuts through Gerald’s attempt to
romanticise the story of his interactions with Eva. Furthermore, the maturity behind her cool
returning of the ring, as opposed to her tantrum at the end of Gerald’s confession, implies to the
audience that this is a woman who is now not governed by her emotions – but by logic and reason.

Priestley seems to be suggesting that the audience should aspire to be like Sheila: they should own
the mistakes they’ve made and make others accountable for their own mistakes too.

Priestley presents Sheila as a character who quickly learns the inspector’s message of social
responsibility, unlike her parents who, when they think they’ve got away with it, laugh and
encourage their children to do the same, complaining, ‘they can't even take a joke’. The contrast
between Sheila and her parents can been interpreted as Priestley criticising the behaviour of the
older generation, who are fixed in their ways.

To signify this change in Sheila’s character, we see a shift in the terms of address she uses with her
parents. In Act Two, Sheila addresses Mrs Birling as ‘Mother’ and Mr Birling as ‘Father’– a symbol of
how she has matured from the childlike Act 1 address of ‘Mummy’ and ‘Daddy’.
Also in Act Two, Sheila interrupts and answers a question directed at Mrs Birling, telling the
inspector ‘Yes, she is. Why?’ when the inspector asks Mrs Birling if she is a member of the Brumley
33
Women’s Charity Organization. This is a dramatic turnaround from the start of the play where it was
Mrs Birling interrupting and answering for Sheila. The change in Sheila is dramatic and serves as an
example to the audience of how they too can dramatically change for the better.
With the inspector’s final exit in Act Three, Sheila can in some ways be seen to take on his role. We
saw a hint of this at the end of Act One, when it was Sheila who forced a confession out of Gerald
whilst the inspector went off stage with Eric. Following the inspector’s departure in the third act,
Sheila interrogates her family and Gerald, asking a series of questions. Through this use of
questioning, Priestley is showing how Sheila has taken on the interrogating role of the inspector.
Priestley also uses repetition as a technique, with Sheila mirroring the language used previously by
the inspector when she talks about ‘Fire and blood and anguish’ – the exact words previously spoken
by the Inspector Goole. This mirroring of language is Priestley’s way of showing us how Sheila has
not only learned the Inspector’s valuable lesson, but she has in some way taken on the role of the
inspector himself. Yes, she realises her own fault in the matter, but she also wants to ensure that
others do too.
Through his presentation of Sheila, Priestley encourages the audience to challenge conventional
thinking and to question the behaviour of others – holding those to account who have power over
us, even if that means rejecting those who are close to us and rethinking our own world views. If
Sheila can so dramatically transform from a selfish, shallow character to one who now challenges
others and cares about social responsibility, then everyone in the audience can also transform in the
same way.

34
Gerald Croft
Gerald Croft is Priestley’s tool to reveal the flaws of the upper classes. Priestley presents him as a
stereotypical member of the upper classes. He represents the aristocracy who in 1912 exploited the
working classes, especially working-class women like Eva Smith. For a moment in the play, he
appears to be sorry for his behaviour towards Eva, providing hope that the upper classes can change
and embrace Priestley’s message of social responsibility. At the end of the play, however, he once
again aligns himself with Mr Birling’s capitalist ideas, conveying Priestley’s view that the upper
classes will always be self-interested and will never change.
When we first meet Gerald Croft, Priestley describes him in the introductory stage direction as an
‘easy well-bred young man-about-town’. Priestley’s use of the rule of three with the adjectives ‘easy
well-bred young’ establish him as a member of a privileged, elite class, used to a life of leisure. It is
surprising that the word ‘young’ is used when he had been described as roughly thirty years old.
Perhaps Priestley is suggesting that his attitude towards life is immature and thoughtless; this
foreshadows what we later learn about his irresponsible behaviour towards Eva and Sheila. It also
raises false hope that, like the younger Birlings, Gerald will learn from his mistakes. The phrase ‘man-
about-town’ shows that he is a fashionable socialite and implies experience in the ways of the world.
It also implies vanity in that he prioritises himself (his appearance and his sexual needs) over helping
others. This could foreshadow the later revelation that he used Eva Smith to satisfy his needs before
discarding her when their relationship was no longer convenient. Bearing in mind the play was first
performed in Moscow in 1945, Gerald’s privileged appearance and demeanour would have
confirmed communist beliefs about the lazy, wealthy elite living a life of privilege at the expense of
the poor. The 1946 London audience, however, is likely to have contained men like Gerald. The stage
direction therefore sets Gerald up as a character with whom some members of the audience will
engage, sympathise with and finally condemn. Gerald is Priestley’s tool to reveal the flaws of the
upper classes.
First of all, Priestley reveals that Gerald’s parents, Lord and Lady Croft, are unable to attend his
engagement party; this confirms Gerald’s role as a member of the upper classes. The absence of his
parents suggests perhaps that they disapprove of the match. The audience might initially assume
that Gerald wants to marry Sheila because he is madly in love with her; however, there are
references throughout the play to his absences during the summer, which makes the audience
wonder about him. We discover that Sheila was right to be concerned when we learn about his affair
with Eva Smith. So, why is he marrying Sheila? We can only assume that, as the son of a successful
businessman and aristocrat, there are business opportunities for Crofts Limited and Birling & Co.,
which Mr Birling references in his engagement speech and with which Gerald agrees (‘Hear, hear!’).
We therefore suspect that Gerald has business focused reasons for marriage—he is deceitful to
Sheila, and he prioritises business over love.
Gerald very much allies himself with Mr Birling in business matters and, like Mr Birling, he initially
denies knowing Eva Smith. His attitude is dismissive when he says ‘I don’t come into this suicide
business’. The phrase ‘suicide business’ is cold-hearted and unexpected. Suicide is not a business in
the sense that Crofts Limited is a business; however, ‘business’ can also mean a difficult matter or a
scandalous event. By using the phrase ‘suicide business’, Priestley positions Gerald as superior
because he implies that others are responsible for Eva’s death. His reaction soon changes when he
hears Eva Smith referred to as Daisy Renton, however, so Priestley positions the audience, which has
seen his smug, aloof, self-assured confidence, to enjoy his discomfort in his pending interrogation.
Like Eric, Gerald considers the women who frequent the Palace Theatre bar only in terms of their
appearance, and criticises their ‘dough face[s]’ and ‘hard eye[s]’. This reveals how the
commodification of women is totally normal for him. His complimentary description of Eva Smith’s
‘big dark eyes’ reveals an attitude of objectification of her. He considers the women in the bar as if
35
he is choosing an item in a shop—rather than thinking of her as a person, he is thinking of her as
something for him to enjoy. He describes himself as saving Eva Smith from Joe Meggarty, but the
truth is he was not much better himself.
When the inspector uncovers Gerald’s affair with Eva, Priestley shows that Gerald is upset by her
death. He reports ending the affair, saying ‘She didn’t blame me at all. I wish to God she had now’.
Priestley here focuses the attention of the audience on what appears to be genuine remorse and
self-blame. This makes the audience feel some sympathy towards him as a character and, for a
while, the audience believes that Gerald will align himself with the inspector’s views of social
responsibility. This is particularly exciting, as he is a member of a class that holds power and has lots
of social contacts in the higher echelons of society.
However, the audience changes its opinion of Gerald when in Act 3, he does everything that he can
to prove that the inspector is a fake. Unlike Sheila and Eric, he has learnt nothing at all. Like Mr and
Mrs Birling, he wants to avoid a public scandal and to protect himself and his wealth. At this point in
the play, Priestley sets the audience up to condemn Gerald, particularly when he offers Sheila the
engagement ring, saying ‘Everything’s all right now’. The audience sees that he has learnt absolutely
nothing. Even if Eva does not exist, he refuses to reflect upon his treatment of Daisy Renton and to
become a better person.
To conclude, for a moment, Priestley encourages the audience to sympathise with Gerald, in the
hope that he (and the aristocracy he represents) will become a better person. When this fails to
happen, the disappointed audience condemns him and his attitude towards Eva and, by default,
towards vulnerable members of society. Through Gerald, Priestley presents the aristocracy as self-
interested people who, instead of sharing their wealth, are more likely to follow family tradition of
preserving it for the next generation.

36
Inspector Goole
In the 1938 edition of Theatre Arts Monthly, JB Priestley explains that the inspiration for one of his
plays should be ‘an idea that you could express very simply in five or ten words’. In ‘An Inspector
Calls’, Inspector Goole best sums up the message of the play in two sentences: ‘We are members of
one body. We are responsible for each other’. Priestley uses the inspector as a mouthpiece for his
socialist views: he is there to teach the Birling family, Gerald and the audience that we need to look
out for each other, rather than focus solely on our own selfish ambitions and desires. Priestley uses
many different techniques to present this simple message.
Maggie B Gale, in her book ‘J.B. Priestley’, states that Priestley ‘wanted a social and political shift
which took Britain forward to a society based on equality and community after the Second World
War’. Priestley encourages his audience to examine their views by inverting generic expectations.
‘An Inspector Calls’ is a work of detective fiction, and Inspector Goole is the intelligent detective who
will solve the case. A traditional detective story focuses on the narrowing down from a list of
numerous suspects to just one, but Inspector Goole does the opposite and shows that everyone is
responsible for the death of Eva Smith or, as he states shortly before his exit, ‘each of you helped to
kill her’. Priestley inverts the generic expectations of detective fiction to present the key message of
social responsibility.
As well as inverting the detective genre, Priestley promotes his message of collective responsibility
through sentence structure. Shortly after his arrival on stage in Act 1, Inspector Goole tells Mr
Birling:
‘Because what happened to her then may have determined what happened to her afterwards, and
what happened to her afterwards may have driven her to suicide. A chain of events.’
Here we see an example of anadiplosis (underlined), where the second clause in the sentence begins
by repeating the last words of the previous clause. As my good friend Tom Briars-Delve points out:
Soon after his entrance, the audience start to realise that the inspector’s investigation
focuses on the surprising links between different events and people. The inspector initiates
this idea of connections through anadiplosis; by repeating ‘what happened to her
afterwards’ at the end of one clause and the beginning of the next, the sentence structure
itself cleverly emphasises how the content of these statements is inextricably connected and
leads on from one another.
So, the inversion of the expected generic conventions of the detective genre, coupled with the use
of anadiplosis, hammer home the point that everyone’s actions are interconnected, and all are
responsible for the death of Eva Smith.
Briars-Delve continues:
Next, Priestley memorably summarises this concept with the metaphorical image of ‘A ‘chain
of events’. The concrete noun ‘chain’ refers to an object that embodies physical linking. Even
more so than that, however, it connotes heaviness and imprisonment, perhaps inferring that
the links between various ‘events’ involving the Birlings and Eva Smith could be what weighs
down the entire family.
Alternatively, chains can be broken, perhaps symbolising Priestley’s hope that members of
society can change their views about social responsibility and break the chains of a capitalist
mindset.
Priestley also uses stage directions to signify the importance of Inspector Goole and the message he
will bring. As Inspector Goole arrives, the stage directions at the start of Act 1 suggest the lighting

37
should change from ‘pink and intimate’ to ‘brighter and harder’. The ‘pink and intimate’ lighting
symbolises the overly optimistic way the characters view themselves and their lives. They view life
through rose tinted glasses, seeing things as better than they truly are. They are, as another of the
opening stage directions informs us ‘pleased with themselves’. With the arrival of the inspector
comes the change of lighting to ‘brighter and harder’. This shift signifies a number of changes. To
begin with, the lighting becomes harsh and intense, mirroring the lighting of an interrogation: each
character is placed under the spotlight. The lighting shift would also illuminate every part of the
stage—every nook and cranny, every corner is now illuminated, symbolising how Inspector Goole’s
presence will illuminate the dark parts of each character’s life.
And what about the inspector himself? Priestley deliberately portrays the inspector as a mysterious
character. For a playwright who goes into great detail in some stage directions (for example, the
opening page of the play is almost entirely made up of stage direction), Priestley tells us very little
about Inspector Goole. Even the inspector’s dialogue reveals what he is not, rather than what he is:
‘I don’t play golf’ and ‘I never take offence’. This vagueness of character is deliberate on the part of
Priestley, as it creates a sense of ambiguity and mystery. This is added to by the character’s name. It
is often noted that the inspector’s name, ‘Goole’ sounds like the word ‘ghoul’, meaning ghost or
spirit, and it is true that the inspector does haunt Gerald and the Birlings about their role in Eva’s
death. It is also true that the inspector at times seems to know too much about a girl who died two
hours ago, even though he has read her letter and ‘sort of diary’. This has led some to wonder if the
inspector is a supernatural being. There is no definitive answer either way about the inspector’s
identity: he might be an imposter or a supernatural being. But one thing is clear: descriptions are
deliberately vague and ambiguous. This helps the audience to focus less on the character himself
and more on the message he brings. And that message is loudly declared with no subtlety
whatsoever.
With most of Inspector Goole’s dialogue, Priestley uses questions: he interrogates the characters on
stage, which is exactly what we would expect from a detective investigating a crime. However, at
times, Goole delivers lines of dialogue that seem to come directly from the mouth of Priestley,
hammering home the message of social responsibility that he wants the audience to learn. Examples
include:
‘it would do us all a bit of good if sometimes we tried to put ourselves in the place of these young
women’
‘we have to share something. If there’s nothing else, we’ll have to share our guilt.’
‘We often do on the young ones. They’re more impressionable.’
‘Public men…have responsibilities as well as privileges.’
And of course, in the inspector’s long final speech, which some members of the audience might
consider melodramatic, believing that Priestley uses too much hyperbole (exaggeration). Priestley
uses the inspector to speak directly to the audience, and the playwright’s lack of subtlety led Sewell
Stoke, in his 1947 Theatre Arts article Panache and Port Wine to write: ‘Then the bell rings and in
comes Inspector Goole (Inspector Priestley, to be more exact)’. The character of Inspector Goole
does seem to be the embodiment of JB Priestley himself—a mouthpiece used to hammer home the
socialist message that he wants the audience to take home with them.
Priestley took this educational value of the theatre very seriously. In the January 1938 Theatre Arts
Monthly, Priestley is asked: ‘If there was a theme that affected you profoundly, one that you felt it
all-important to record before you died, what medium would you choose to express it?’ He answers:
‘If I wanted to make people feel deeply, I should use the drama. You can create a quality of emotion
in the theatre beyond any you can achieve in another medium.’ It is important to know that
38
Priestley was also a very successful novelist. Therefore, he deliberately chose to write plays to
present important messages. Here, we see that his important message is most clearly articulated
through the character of Inspector Goole.
Priestley enhances his message through his use of supernatural imagery in the inspector’s final
words about ‘fire and blood and anguish’. This is an allusion to the Biblical description of hell being a
‘blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Matthew 13:42). However,
Priestley’s point here cannot accurately be labelled as Biblical. His message seems to be that people
need to do good deeds to make their way into heaven, and those who do not, will end up in hell.
This is a moralistic concept that is not found in the Bible. The Bible says that faith in Jesus gets you to
heaven, and good works come as a result of that faith, rather than being the entry ticket into
heaven. Either way, the Biblical language adds to the supernatural, other-worldly aspect of Inspector
Goole, which helps us to so clearly remember his message. This imagery of ‘fire and blood and
anguish’ can also be interpreted as foreshadowing the pain and suffering of the two world wars
which would soon follow the historical setting of the play. The contemporary audience would be
fully aware of the ‘fire and blood and anguish’ of WW1 and WW2, and this adds to the sense of
mystery surrounding Goole: how exactly does he know so clearly what is to follow? Knowing that
Goole was right adds credibility to his ideas about socialism, just as knowing Birling was wrong about
the Titanic and Germans wanting war is used to undermine his capitalist agenda. Priestley also
employs syndetic listing in this quotation, (repeating the word ‘and’) to slow down the pace and
allow each word in the list to have greater impact on the audience.
Through Priestley’s presentation of the inspector, he calls upon the audience to change themselves
and also encourage others to change. The power Inspector Goole wields is not something that
comes from within himself or from his birthright (like the physical strength of Eric when he threatens
to make a row, or the money Birling has, or the social status that comes from being born with a
surname of the gentry). Instead, Inspector Goole’s power comes from the way he can make others
feel. It is because of this—his power is ordinary and could be obtained by anyone who is persistent
in doing the right thing—that we can all aspire to be like him.

39
Minor Characters
Charlie Brunswick
Charlie Brunswick is a character mentioned only once, by Gerald, as he begins his confession to
Inspector Goole about his involvement with Daisy Renton (Eva Smith).
Priestley uses Charlie Brunswick to portray Brumley as a town where the affluent seem to have
exclusive access to the very best that the town has to offer. Charlie Brunswick ‘had gone off to
Canada for six months’ and whether this was for business or pleasure, the casual use of ‘gone off’
implies that Gerald considers this sort of travel insignificant. This shows how worldly and privileged
Gerald and Charlie are in comparison to Eva Smith who, in contrast, has only moved from the
countryside to Brumley, and then got as far as the seaside before returning again. These
geographical spheres of movement are important because they reveal just how limited the working
class were in terms of their experience of the world. In both 1947 and 1912, any sort of international
travel for the working class would have been unheard of—thus adding to the disproportionate
power dynamic between Gerald and Eva, and generally between the upper classes and the working
poor. It was Gerald needing to go away on business that prompted him to finish the relationship
with Eva, presumably because it was no longer easy and convenient for him to continue the affair.
Charlie Brunswick also symbolises how the upper classes collectively benefit from a mass of wealth
through their networking opportunities. Just as Birling attempts to use his relationship with Chief
Constable Colonel Roberts as leverage at the beginning of Inspector Goole’s investigation, Gerald is
able to use Charlie Brunswick’s vacant city property to benefit his own private affair. Priestley uses
this presentation of privileged connections to juxtapose that of the working class: Eva Smith, whose
‘parents were dead’, had ‘no home to go back to’ and had ‘few friends’.
Joe Meggarty
Joe Meggarty, the drunken womaniser who is behaving lecherously towards Eva Smith when Gerald
first meets her, plays another important albeit minor role in the play. First of all, his character
reveals the hypocrisy of some gentleman in Brumley, whose behaviour in private is a mismatch to
their behaviour in public. For example, Mrs Birling is shocked to learn that he is a ‘notorious
womanizer’ and ‘one of the worst sots and rogues’. According to Sheila, ‘everybody knows’,
revealing to the audience that Mrs Birling’s ignorance is therefore chosen. If she does not look, she
does not have to know, and this deliberate ‘blindness’ to the truth allows such behaviour to
continue. When she questions the validity of the claim, Mrs Birling asks ‘surely you don’t mean
Alderman Meggarty?’. This use of the title ‘Alderman’ focuses the attention of the audience on his
status: as ‘Alderman’, he is in a position of authority and trust in the town, able to wield significant
power and influence in terms of what can be done. In contrast, Eva had her job taken away from her
for just asking for more money—something that Birling and Meggarty as businessmen would do all
the time.
Priestley also uses Meggarty to highlight how oblivious Gerald is to his own behaviour. Gerald’s
pronouncement of disgust at Meggarty’s behaviour demonstrates a total lack of insight into how
Gerald’s own behaviour might be perceived. Where Gerald sees a ‘womanizer’ in Meggarty, he fails
to see he is just the same, and this demonstrates an inability to consider the wider impact of his
behaviour. Even if Gerald did have genuine feelings for Eva, the fact is that he (and Eric) went to the
Palace Variety Theatre bar, knowing it was ‘a favourite haunt of women of the town’. Men like Eric
and Gerald went there to take advantage of the poverty and desperation of lower-class women.
Even the phrasing of ‘favourite haunt’ places the action upon the sex workers, as if it is them who
are picking favourites and doing their job out choice rather than necessity. This further
demonstrates a total disconnect between Gerald’s actions and the feelings of the women whom he
abuses.
40
The Leaders of Strike Action at Birling & Co. The women who headed up the strike at Birling’s
factory have a significant role in the play. Trade Union law now protects workers from being sacked
as Eva Smith was. From 1912 to 1945, trade union membership grew, and workers fought for more
power. Priestley uses Mr Birling’s unreasonable reaction to the strike action as an example of the
short-sightedness of capitalists who created difficult working conditions for the working classes.
Instead of working with his employees, Mr Birling instead dismisses the ringleaders and Eva Smith.
Although we learn of Eva Smith’s downfall into poverty, the audience does not forget that there are
the unknown stories of the other ringleaders, later alluded to when Inspector Goole declares that
there are ‘millions and millions’ of Eva Smiths and John Smiths. The ambiguity of the factory work is
also an important symbol in the play—Priestley is intimating that this story could happen anywhere,
to anyone. This is therefore not industry specific, and his speech is all about the power the rich have
over the poor.

41
The End of the Play: Unanswered Questions
There are unanswered questions and unresolved issues at the end of ‘An Inspector Calls’, as well as
different possible interpretations of the ending. Some audience members may be frustrated that it is
not entirely clear whether Inspector Goole was a real police inspector; whether Eva and Daisy are
the same person; and whether the Birling family did actually contribute to a young woman’s death.
It is therefore important to examine why Priestley might have chosen to leave some of these
questions unanswered.

Was Inspector Goole real?

Ultimately, it does not matter whether Inspector Goole was real or not. Priestley leaves this question
unanswered because he wants the audience to focus on the actions and words of the characters,
regardless of the outcome.
Does it matter if you commit a crime but do not get caught? Does it matter if you do not feel guilty?
Or take any responsibility? Priestley, using the inspector as his mouthpiece, believes it does matter.
The whole point is that Eva was unfairly sacked in the first place. Whether the inspector was real is
not relevant. Priestley, a socialist, is suggesting that the lesson to be learned is one of social
responsibility. We should take responsibility for our behaviour towards others because this is the
right thing to do.

What is the significance of the Photograph he carries?

Who is in the inspector’s photograph or photographs? Are Eva and Daisy the same person? The
photographs are a device to prompt the audience (and the characters) to consider whether Eva and
Daisy are the same person and whether each character has, in some way, mistreated the same
person. The characters sometimes try and see the photograph, but the inspector never allows it,
always controlling the situation and making them wait their turn. In between these turns, he puts
the picture or pictures in his pocket.
It is Gerald, near the end of the play, who questions whether or not the inspector is real and
whether or not they have all been being questioned about a different young woman. Eric and Sheila
remain distraught. It does not matter to them whether Goole is actually a real inspector and
whether they have all been talking about the same person. They both recognise their wrongdoings
and take responsibility for their actions. In contrast, Mr and Mrs Birling see the possibilities of a hoax
as a way of avoiding the situation and any guilt they may be feeling over their actions.
Eric never reveals the name of the girl he met, and Mrs Birling only knew the young woman by the
name she called herself, ‘Mrs Birling’. It is possible that they all met a different person, but
ultimately it makes no difference, as they still treated a young woman in the way they did.
Priestley’s point is that the Birlings and Gerald Croft behaved badly towards a young working-class
woman: it does not matter if it was the same woman.
It also does not matter if they were part of a ‘chain of events’ or not. Priestley believes that we all
need to take responsibility for our actions and look after one another. The inspector makes this
message clear in his final speech when he says ‘We are members of one body. We are responsible
for each other’.

What’s the Significance of the Telephone Call at the very End of the Play?
Towards the end of the play, the tension drops when the characters learn that there is no Inspector
Goole in the Brumley police force and no-one has been taken to the Infirmary, having committed
suicide by drinking disinfectant. Then the tension rapidly rises with the final telephone call, and the
audience is left on a cliff hanger.
42
This structure could be frustrating for some members of the audience, so it is essential to consider
why Priestley might have chosen to end his play in this way. In the inspector’s final speech, he
predicts ‘fire and blood and anguish’. Priestley suggests that people have the choice to learn the
inspector’s lesson of social responsibility. If they refuse to help others and remain very selfish in
their approach to life, they will not get away with it. The words ‘fire, and blood and anguish’ could
refer to war. If people refuse to accept responsibility for anyone other than themselves, this attitude
could end in the horror of war. Alternatively, it may mean they will have to pay the price in the
afterlife as ‘fire and blood and anguish’ are all words associated with Hell.
Even though Eric, Sheila and to some extent Gerald accept responsibility for their actions during the
course of the play, Mr and Mrs Birling do not. The final phone call—in which the Birlings learn that a
young woman has died after drinking disinfectant and a police inspector is on his way—supports the
ideas proposed by the inspector in his final speech.
We cannot escape his lesson of social responsibility.
Men and women will be forced to learn that lesson one way or another. Sure enough, the Birlings
are to be questioned again and will have to face the consequences of their actions.

Is the Play really about the Birlings?

It is important to remember that the play is socialist propaganda. Therefore, all the characters in the
play, as we have seen in the character analysis of this guide, are stereotypes, symbolising aspects of
Edwardian society.
The Birlings represent the wealthy in society; Priestley criticises them as selfish people, concerned
primarily with money and their reputations. Eric and Sheila show that young people are, as the
inspector says, more ‘impressionable’. They are capable of learning the lesson of social responsibility
and changing their ways. This offers hope to the post-war audience who were trying to rebuild their
future. If we educate young people, they are the ones who will create a better society.
Mr and Mrs Birling represent the older, wealthier citizens who are equally selfish and capable of
being cruel, but who are more entrenched in their ways. Due to this, Priestley may well be proposing
that we focus on the education of young people. If we make them realise the need to take
responsibility for their actions, this will be more effective than wasting time on people who are far
less likely to change.
Although he is not technically a member of the Birling family, we should also consider Gerald Croft.
For a short time, he appears to be sorry for the way he has treated Eva, providing hope that he will
side with the younger generation and adopt the inspector’s socialist views. By the end of the play, he
has aligned himself more to the views of the older Birlings. Like them, he has an interest in retaining
his wealth. As a member of the upper class, his wealth will be inherited. It is therefore in his interest
to keep it and pass it to the next generation.
Eva represents the working class, not only women but men too. As the Inspector says, ‘One Eva
Smith has gone—but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still
left with us’. Priestley wants to make us realise that there are many people alive and suffering in our
society. We should help them, rather than just focusing on our own lifestyle and gains in a selfish
way. (See the character of Eva Smith for further analysis of her role in the play.)
Rather than being a play about Eva, the Birlings and Gerald, the play can be seen as a vehicle for
Priestley to deliver his socialist views via the character of Inspector Goole. As we have already seen,
the inspector is the mouthpiece of Priestley, who makes us aware that ‘Public men…have
responsibilities as well as privileges’.

43
What is Priestley’s main Message in the Play? Is there anything I must include in an analytical
Essay?
It is hard to see how an essay could be written about ‘An Inspector Calls’ without including
Priestley’s message of social responsibility. This is explored further in the themes chapter of this
guide.

44
The Opening Stage Directions: An Analysis
The length of the opening stage directions in ‘An Inspector Calls’ reflects their importance. They not
only introduce the Birling family, but they also introduce key themes in the play.
Our first hint of tension in the family is with Priestley’s description of the dining-room as ‘heavily
comfortable but not cosy and homelike’. Priestley uses the oxymoron ‘heavily comfortable’ to hint at
unease. The adjective ‘heavily’ implies force, effort and weight. However, the adjective ‘comfortable’
has two interpretations. The first is that the furniture is pleasant, enjoyable and easy to relax in; the
second is that it is as large as it needs to be (think about a comfortable income). The jarring
oxymoron implies that the furniture is expensive and bought to impress others, but that it is not
easy to relax. This is reinforced with the words ‘not cosy and homelike’. The room is for show, a way
for the Birlings to display their rich lifestyle. This is one of the first hints of tension within the family:
all is not as it first appears. It also introduces the theme of wealth—and of course, this links to later
discussions about how money should be spent.
Priestley introduces the themes of capitalism and socialism through the lighting. Described as ‘pink
and intimate’, it mirrors the mood of the characters at the start of the play. These adjectives
connote romance and closeness, fitting for an engagement party. They also suggest, however, that
the characters are looking at life through rose-tinted spectacles. In other words, they are happy with
their lives, but they see things in a positive way, believing that life is better than it actually is.
Certainly, when we first hear the family discussing Sheila and Gerald’s engagement, it does seem as
if they are happy and contented, oblivious to any of their recent poor behaviour. The lighting could
therefore also symbolise the self-satisfaction of capitalism.
When the inspector arrives, the stage directions state that the lighting should change to ‘brighter
and harder’. It is as if the inspector has metaphorically come to shine a spotlight on the characters,
shedding light on the ‘chain of events’ which led to the death of Eva Smith. The harshness and
intensity of the lighting connotes an interrogation light, implying that the inspector will place each
character under the spotlight, challenging their capitalist sense of entitlement and selfishness.
Furthermore, the lighting shift will illuminate every part of the stage, symbolising how Inspector
Goole’s presence will illuminate the dark parts of each character’s life. The playwright in turn
encourages audience members to reflect on their own lives, after having been hopefully illuminated
by his socialist ideas.
The theme of class is introduced with the reference to the Birlings’ parlour maid, Edna. (A detailed
analysis of her character has already been provided in the relevant character chapter.) Note her
actions: she is clearing the table of ‘champagne glasses’ amongst other items, and replacing them
with items such as a ‘port’ decanter and ‘cigar box’—all expensive signifiers of wealth. These props,
together with the character of Edna, again position the Birlings as a rich family who are keen to show
off.
When studying the opening stage directions, it is important to consider how Priestley introduces
characters because we can gain an insight into how he wants the audience to see them. A detailed
analysis of each character is in the relevant character chapter, above. Let’s see how much you
remember! Here are the introductory key quotes for each character. Analyse them and then check
your answers in the relevant character chapter:
Character Quotation
Mr Birling ‘heavy-looking, rather portentous man in his middle fifties with fairly easy
manners but rather provincial in his speech.’
Mrs Birling ‘cold’ and Mr Birling’s ‘social superior’

45
 Eric Birling ‘half shy, half assertive’
Sheila Birling ‘pretty girl in her early twenties, very pleased with life and rather excited’
Gerald Croft ‘easy, well-bred young man-about-town’

It is interesting to note that Mr Birling seems to fit in with the room since he is ‘heavy-looking’ and
the furniture is ‘heavily comfortable’. Priestley implies that he, like his furniture, does not consider
the comfort or wellbeing of others. This of course foreshadows what we later learn of his capitalist
views, which prioritise himself and his family above all others.
Interestingly, the Birlings and Gerald Croft are all in evening dress, again showing the importance of
outward appearances; perhaps Priestley is hinting that appearances and social status matter more to
the family than their morals.
At the end of the stage directions, the characters are summed up as ‘pleased with themselves’. The
opening dialogue then reflects this mood: Sheila and Gerald are happy that they have become
engaged; Mr Birling is delighted about the match because it might prove good for his business, and
he talks about his hopes for a knighthood in the near future.
It is the subsequent arrival of Inspector Goole which interrupts the self-congratulatory mood of the
Birlings with a ‘sharp ring’ of the doorbell.

46
The Inspector’s Final Speech: An Analysis
Inspector Goole’s parting words are very important, as they sum up the main message of the play.
There are three key sections to consider.
Firstly, Priestley stresses that Eva Smith is actually a symbol, a representative of all poor and
disadvantaged members of society. The inspector states ‘One Eva Smith has gone—but there are
millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us’. By choosing the
name ‘Eva’, which might be a Biblical reference to Eve the first woman, and combining it with the
common surname ‘Smith’, Priestley emphasises that in Eva Smith symbolises all women. Therefore,
Priestley does not want his audience to feel sorry for one working-class woman, but all working-class
women. Furthermore, ‘John’ is a very common male name, so the inspector now repositions Eva as
also representing working-class men, who are also victims of social injustice.
The playwright’s use of syndetic listing (repeating the word ‘and’) slows down the pace and
emphasises the repetition of ’millions’ to reinforce the message that Eva’s story has not finished
with her death—there are other women and men who need support. It is essential that we all take
responsibility for our actions towards others, including those less fortunate than ourselves.
This section is followed by possibly the most important words in the entire play: ‘We don’t live
alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other’. Priestley’s use of the rule
of three with the simple sentences emphasises his socialist message. His repetition of ‘We’ at the
start of each sentence also stresses the importance of community and shared responsibility. It is
hard to imagine an exam answer which does not include these lines. They sum up Priestley’s
message of social responsibility completely. Whether writing about characters, themes, structure,
etc., you could include analysis of these lines, as the whole play revolves around the inspector (the
mouthpiece of Priestley) delivering a message of social responsibility both to the Birlings and the
audience.
The final part of the inspector’s speech contains a warning for those unwilling to accept this lesson
of social responsibility, and he predicts ‘fire and blood and anguish’. The words ‘fire and blood and
anguish’ have at least two possible interpretations. Firstly, they reference the Bible (see Inspector
Goole character analysis), so one suggestion is that Priestley (via the inspector) is saying if we are
unwilling to take responsibility for one another here on earth, then we will be sent to Hell to learn
the lesson there (‘fire’ and ‘anguish’ certainly suggest Hell). This interpretation fits with the pun on
the inspector’s last name—a ghoul from the afterlife might be a messenger from God, sent to warn
those on Earth of the consequences of their actions if they do not learn to take responsibility for
their behaviour. Priestley’s use of syndetic listing again slows the pace and allow each word in the
list to have greater impact on the audience.
Alternatively, the words ‘fire and blood and anguish’ have connotations of war. The inspector may
be telling the characters and the audience that, if men and women refuse to look after one another,
more wars will follow. The play was first performed in 1945 after two world wars to an audience
who had experienced one or both of them. The audience would therefore infer that the older
Birlings and Gerald, representing the 1912 rich and selfish, did not learn their lesson, and this
resulted in war. The situational irony of the inspector’s words is therefore highly relevant to the
audience. Knowing that Goole was right adds credibility to Priestley’s ideas about socialism, just as
knowing Birling was wrong about the Titanic and Germans wanting war undermines ideas about
capitalism.

47
Age: Who accepts Responsibility and why?
There is no doubt that ‘An Inspector Calls’ presents a division between the younger characters, in
particular Sheila and Eric, and the older characters of Mr and Mrs Birling. However, it would be an
oversimplification to simply state that all began with the same mindset but the young learned the
inspector’s lesson whilst the old did not. The truth is that divisions were evident even before the
arrival of the inspector.

Priestley uses slang and idiomatic language to symbolise the difference between young and old in
the opening act of the play. In the opening three of four pages, Sheila tells Eric he is ‘squiffy’
(meaning drunk). Mrs Birling’s reaction forces the audience to acknowledge the difference between
young and old, ‘What an expression, Sheila! Really, the things you girls pick up these days!’ Seconds
later, Sheila calls Eric a ‘chump’ (meaning idiot). Eric himself tells his father, shortly before the
entrance of the inspector, that Mr Birling has ‘piled it on a bit’. These examples of slang and
idiomatic language indicate, before the arrival of the inspector, that there is a division to be noted
between the young and old members of the Birling family. This division will ultimately lead to Eric
and Sheila learning the valuable lesson the inspector brings, with Mr and Mrs Birling rejecting it.

Sheila and Eric, the youngest characters, both accept that they had a part to play in Eva Smith’s
death, and they clearly regret their actions. Their words and the stage directions both ensure their
sorrow is clear. Sheila says ‘I behaved badly…I’m ashamed of it’, and the stage directions suggest she
looks ‘as if she’s been crying’. Eric accepts responsibility when he says ‘We did her in all right’. They
do not change their views in Act 3 when they discuss the identity of the inspector. They still feel
remorse, even when they first learn that no young woman has committed suicide and been
admitted to the infirmary. It is clear that they have accepted responsibility for their actions.
Gerald is slightly older than Sheila and Eric, and he does accept some responsibility for his actions,
particularly when he is being questioned by the inspector: ‘She didn’t blame me at all. I wish to God
she had now’. Despite this, as the end of the play nears, he is keen to believe ‘Everything’s alright
now’. He has not learnt anything from the evening’s events, and he aligns himself more closely with
the views of the older Birlings.
The greatest contrast in attitude can be seen between the siblings Sheila and Eric and their parents.
Mr and Mrs Birling refuse to accept that they are even partly to blame for the tragedy. Mr Birling
makes it clear: ‘I can’t accept any responsibility’. Near the end of the play, when the inspector’s
identity is brought into question, he insists (like Gerald) ‘But the whole thing’s different now’. Mrs
Birling similarly refuses to feel guilty about her involvement: ‘I told him quite plainly that I thought I
had done no more than my duty’. They are entrenched in their views.
It is now important to consider why Priestley presents the audience with this distinction between
the two generations. The inspector is the mouthpiece of Priestley, stating that ‘young ones’ are
‘more impressionable’. When the younger characters learn the lesson of social responsibility, this
suggests that there is some hope for the future. The younger generation can be taught to accept
responsibility for one another; it is possible for them to change and, if they do, society will be a
better place. This fits in neatly with Priestley’s socialist views, including the emphasis he put on
education as a way of changing society for the better. We must also not forget that, when the play
was first performed, the audience members had just experienced World War II, so they would
probably be keen to see a more compassionate society in which people take responsibility for their
actions.
In your exam, if you are asked to write about the differences between the older and younger
generations of the Birling family, remember that you will gain more marks by exploring your ideas

48
and writing a lot about a little. For this reason, I recommend focusing your discussion one member
of each generation, so that you give yourself enough time to pick apart quotes and ideas.

49
Key Themes
An overview of the main themes is below. When analysing themes, it is important to remember that
Priestley’s overarching message is one of social responsibility. In the words of the inspector, ‘We are
members of one body. We are responsible for each other’. An overview of the themes and how they
link to the characters is below. For more detail, you should review the character chapters.

Class
Priestley uses the theme of class to draw the attention of the audience to divisions in 1912 society.
As a socialist, Priestley wanted the audience to critically examine the pre-war class system and to
consider how socialism could create a fairer society in which ‘We are responsible for each other’.
Capitalism, on the other hand was, he believed, divisive and exploited the working classes. The
division in classes plays an important role in ‘An Inspector Calls’. The Birling family and Gerald
represent the wealthy middle and upper classes who exploit the working classes, represented by Eva
Smith and Edna.
Priestley first draws our attention to the theme of class in the opening stage directions of the play.
He hints that Mr Birling has worked his way up through the class system when we learn that he is
‘provincial in his speech’. This implies that he was not born to money, and that he is a self-made
man. The wealthy manufacturer appears to be highly conscious that socially, he is ‘inferior’. He has
made up for this with high profile public roles, which are a source of pride. He tells Gerald that he
was ‘Lord Mayor’ and later, he tries to use his status to exert power over the inspector: ‘I was an
alderman for years—and I’m still on the Bench’. Priestley challenges ideas about social status
through the inspector, who is quick to remind him that ‘Public men...have responsibilities as well as
privileges’.
Mr Birling’s apparent obsession with rising further in the class system creates the impression of
ruthless social climber. We suspect that he initially achieved some of his success by marrying Sybil,
his ‘social superior’. (He has also provided Eric with a public school and university education,
ensuring that his son has the advantages that he did not.) We are aware that Mr Birling is pleased
with Sheila’s engagement although his reasons link more to ambition and business opportunities
than his daughter’s welfare: he hopes that, one day, the Crofts and Birlings will be ‘working
together—for lower costs and higher prices’. We assume that Gerald will one day inherit the title of
Lord Croft, as there are no references to him having siblings. Sheila’s social status would therefore
rise too, as she would become Lady Sheila Croft. Priestley uses Mr Birling’s attitude to social status
to draw the attention of the audience to those in society who value their social standing above the
welfare of others.
We suspect that Gerald’s parents, Lord and Lady Croft, are not at their son’s engagement party
because they disapprove of him marrying Sheila, who is of a lower social status. However, Mr Birling
is quick to tell Gerald that there is ‘a very good chance of a knighthood’. Mr Birling’s desire to
become Lord Birling reveals his ambition to rise and his assumption that he would be accepted into
the upper echelons of society. Indeed, once the truth about his (and his family’s) involvement with
Eva is revealed, Mr Birling is more worried about a public scandal than his contribution to the death
of Eva.
Priestley uses Eric and Sheila to draw attention to the fact that the attitudes of young people
towards the working classes can change. This represents hope for his socialist ideas.
The playwright uses Gerald to represent the upper classes. For a moment, it appears that Gerald will
change his attitude to Eva when he is upset about her death. In Act 3, however, the audience, whose
hopes have been raised, roundly condemns him when they see that he has not changed at all. Being
a member of the upper classes, it is in his interest to keep his inherited wealth.

50
Finally, Priestley uses the characters of Eva Smith and Edna to draw attention to conditions for the
working classes in 1912. For a detailed analysis, please see their character chapters.

Love and Relationships

Priestley uses relationships to draw attention to his socialist message by criticising capitalism. At the
start of the play, he aligns Sheila’s engagement to Gerald to capitalism. The couple seem happy
enough at the start of the of the play, but the focus is on the match being beneficial for business
reasons. Mr Birling hopes that, one day, the Crofts and Birlings will be ‘working together—for lower
costs and higher prices’. Priestley depicts their engagement as a business transaction to draw
attention to Mr Birling’s misguided priorities: like Mrs Birling, the audience would regard his speech
as inappropriate. This in turn depicts Mr Birling with his capitalist values in a negative light,
influencing the audience to dislike him.
We also have a hint of the engagement as a transaction because there is little mention of love
between the Gerald and Sheila; in fact, she needs the engagement ring so she can really ‘feel
engaged’. It is almost as if she needs the security of a ritual. In 1912, middle-class women were
expected to marry and have children. Their husbands were expected to provide for them—they
were not expected or encouraged to have careers of their own (note that Mr Birling references a
public school and university for Eric, but he will not have invested the same money in Sheila’s
education). Sheila therefore follows expected conventions for middle-class young women.
She also follows traditional roles and expectations when she asks Gerald about the ring: ‘is it the one
you wanted me to have?’. Priestley’s use of the question shows that she is happy to accept a
passive, subordinate role. (This point is developed in more detail in Sheila’s character chapter.)
Priestley uses the engagement to hint at unease and tension between the couple when Sheila
comments on ‘last summer, when you never came near me, and I wondered what had happened to
you’. This foreshadows what we will later learn of Gerald’s affair with Eva, so their engagement is
used by Priestley as a device to prepare the audience for later revelations.
When Sheila refuses to accept Gerald’s engagement ring at the end of the play, this symbolises that
she has rejected traditional capitalist values. Now more independently minded, she has rejected the
traditional pathway of marriage (and by default, has rejected traditional ideas to do with capitalism)
in favour of socialist ideas. Sheila now realises that there are options for the future that she should
now consider (‘I must think’). Like her brother, she is prepared to challenge the status quo in order
to make society a better place.
Priestley uses the relationship between Mr and Mrs Birling to show the worst that capitalism can
offer. Despite being a married couple, again there seems little affection between Mr and Mrs Birling.
Mrs Birling is described as a ‘cold’ woman and her husband’s ‘social superior’ at the start of the play.
As discussed in the previous section, we suspect that Mr Birling married Sybil for the social
advantages that the match would bring. The interesting question, however, is why she might have
married him. Could she also have been motivated by money? Mr Birling, as we are aware, is wealthy.
Despite their relationship appearing rather cold, they do share the same views on social
responsibility. Neither character is prepared to take responsibility for the death of Eva Smith. The
couple therefore represents Priestley’s view that the older generation is selfish, fixed in its views and
will not embrace socialist ideas.
Priestley uses Eva’s relationship with Gerald and Eric to show the double standards of Edwardian
society. As we have already discussed, middle- and upper-class men would expect to marry a virgin,
but they thought nothing of exploiting young working-class women for their bodies. Both men met
Eva at Palace Variety Theatre and both men say that she stood out from the other women in the
bar—this implies that they had been there before to pick up women. Although there appears to

51
have been some affection between Gerald and Eva, he thinks nothing of ending the relationship
when it is no longer convenient. Priestley encourages the audience to pity Eva when we learn that
she went to the seaside at the end of the relationship to think of Gerald in order to think about him.
Likewise, Priestley positions Eva as a noble woman with a sense of morality when she refuses to
accept Eric’s money or offer of marriage. Through these relationships, Priestley show the audience
how capitalist self-interest can exploit vulnerable young women who, like Eva, have no other way to
survive in a society that lacks a welfare state. He also uses the relationships to challenge any
stereotypical attitudes that audience members might have (attitudes that are similar to Mrs
Birling’s) about working-class women.

Selfishness
Priestley uses ‘An Inspector Calls’ as a vehicle to criticise capitalism, so it is unsurprising that
selfishness is a key theme in the play. Mr Birling is depicted as selfish for focusing on his business
and the profits it makes, rather than on the welfare of his workers. Eva went on strike for higher
wages, but he sacked her without further thought. Similarly, Mr Birling is happy about Sheila’s
engagement to Gerald Croft because he can see how the connection could boost profits with the
Crofts and Birlings ‘working together—for lower costs and higher prices’. He is frequently concerned
with his reputation and how his involvement in Eva’s death might reflect on his chances of a
knighthood. He is certainly selfish in his attitude and behaviour.
Like Mr Birling, Mrs Birling does not change her selfish attitude; she feels no pity towards Eva Smith,
and Priestley uses Mrs Birling to highlight the need for a common welfare state. Through Mrs Birling,
we see that the charity committee’s decisions are made at the whim of influential people. Mrs
Birling admits that she was ‘prejudiced’ against Eva, because she adopted the name Mrs Birling
when she went to the committee to ask for help. Sybil Birling selfishly cares about her pride and
social standing: she lacks compassion and does not consider (or care about) the impact her refusal of
help will have on Eva. Sheila does show some compassion and regret for what happened, but Mrs
Birling maintains her selfish attitude throughout the play. This suggests that in Priestley’s view, the
older generations are selfish and wrong in their capitalist complacency, prioritising their own needs
above all others.
Priestley uses Sheila to show that people can change. Sheila can also be seen as selfish, as she was
concerned only with her own feelings of jealousy when she realised that Eva looked better in a dress
than she did during her trip to Milwards Department Store. She does, at least, realise the error of
her ways as the play progresses: ‘I behaved badly too. I know I did. I’m ashamed of it’. Her ability to
change and think about the impact that her behaviour has on Eva shows that, in Priestley’s opinion,
the younger generation can mature into responsible citizens who recognise the need to consider the
common good.
Similarly, Eric Birling changes. At the beginning of the play, he is also a selfish character. On the night
he met Eva in the Palace Theatre bar, he forced his way into Eva’s lodgings for sex. Again, he was
only concerned with his feelings at the time and did not think of the longer term implications. He
does, like Sheila, regret his actions and change his selfish views by the end of the play. By aligning
themselves with Priestley’s socialist ideas, the younger generation provides hope that society can
become a better place.
Priestley deliberately manipulates the audience with the character of Gerald Croft. Like Eric, he
selfishly used Eva for her body. Despite initially appearing to regret his actions, by the end of the
play, it is clear that Gerald has learnt nothing. At the suggestion that Goole might not be a real
inspector, he is quick to selfishly conclude ‘Everything’s alright now’. When the audience sees that
he has not learnt his lesson, this dashes any hopes that his apparent change was permanent, making
the audience criticise Gerald more harshly. In turn, the audience is more likely to judge the upper
classes in society who have the power and connections to change society but choose not to.
52
Social Responsibility
The theme of social responsibility is easy to over-simplify in ‘An Inspector Calls’. A basic approach
would simply be to state that everyone is responsible for the death of Eva Smith, and so everyone
needs to look out for others. However, the theme is presented in a number of complex ways, which
we shall now explore in this chapter.

WHO IS THE MAIN CHARACTER?

One of the most intriguing aspects about ‘An Inspector Calls’ is the way in which there is no one
main character in the play. Think about that for a second. Consider your Shakespeare play: who is
the main character in that? In many Shakespeare plays it is the title character/s (Macbeth, Romeo
and Juliet, Othello) who are the main characters, but would we say that Priestley’s main character is
the inspector? I doubt it. If nothing else, he enters late and leaves before the end of the play. This is
Priestley’s way of helping us to focus on the characters who start and end on-stage: Gerald and the
Birlings. Think about your 19th Century novel – who is the main character there? Scrooge? Sherlock
Holmes? Jekyll / Hyde? We take it for granted, but in ‘An Inspector Calls’ there really is no one key
character, and that is deliberate on the part of JB Priestley.
Priestley went to great lengths to ensure that the focus of the play did not fall on one single
character alone. If we could pin the entire tragedy on the stupidity of Mr Birling, for example, we as
an audience would be let off the hook from the message it is supposed to leave with all of us. The
message would apply simply to capitalist businessmen who make their money at the expense of
poor treatment of workers. But the play is not all about Mr Birling: it’s about everyone. How else did
Priestley make sure the focus of the play was not on one character alone? Well, he inverted the
generic expectations of detective fiction; directed perspective altering stage management, and used
sentence structure to show that the message of the play rests on all characters, and therefore all
audience members. We’ve explored some of this already in the character analyses, but let’s go over
the key points again.
GENERIC CONVENTIONS: DETECTIVE FICTION
It is possible to analyse ‘An Inspector Calls’ as a work of detective fiction. Those of you who study
‘The Sign of Four’ for your 19th Century novel will be aware of the generic conventions of detective
fiction, and can probably see how ‘An Inspector Calls’ fulfils some of them. For example, the
detective must be an intelligent character and an outsider to those involved in the case – so far so
good with Inspector Goole. However, ‘An Inspector Calls’ can be seen to challenge one of the most
common conventions of detective fiction.
Most detective stories begin with a number of suspects, and slowly narrow down that number to the
one guilty criminal. You can think of the game Cluedo as an example, where the challenge is to use a
process of elimination to work out the one actual criminal. However, ‘An Inspector Calls’ turns this
process on its head, and can be seen as a new take on the genre of detective fiction. Rather than
narrowing down suspects from a large group to one, Inspector Goole shows us how Gerald and each
member of the Birling family have contributed to Eva’s death. Why does Priestley do this? To make
his point that society as a whole is responsible for the mistreatment of others.
So the inversion of the detective thriller is a very clever, and often overlooked, device being used by
Priestley. However, Priestley also uses staging to get the message across that no one singular
character is the main hero or villain of the piece.
STAGING
It is impossible to read ‘An Inspector Calls’ without taking note of the large amount of stage
directions present in the text. By far the most detailed of these comes at the start of the play, where
the stage directions fill the entire first page of the text. Much has been said, including in this book,
53
about the more obvious stage directions such as the change of lighting from ‘pink and intimate’ to
‘brighter and harder’, but there are more subtle, nuanced points which are also worthy of analysis.
Although the entire play takes place in one room, the opening stage directions in the text suggest
two possible methods for staging. The first involves rearranging the props, furniture and characters
after each act. This meant that the audience would appear to see the same drawing room but from a
different angle for each act. The effect of this would be that a character who was facing the audience
in Act One, might not be in Act Two. A character who had their back to the audience in Act Two,
might be facing the audience in Act Three. In reality, this stage management – to rearrange the
furniture, props and characters between acts, to view the room from a different perspective, would
be very difficult to execute. Priestley knew this and so added a second option for a producer who
wished to avoid the ‘tricky business’ of staging in such a way.

The question then, is WHY did Priestley write such a complicated set of stage directions, knowing
how difficult they would be to execute? Well, the movement forcefully changes the audience’s
perspective of events. Just as we see how each different character has a different perspective of and
role in the death of Eva, the staging forces us to see things from different perspectives too. As a
result, again there is no one single character who remains front and centre for the entire play – the
staging refuses to allow us to pick out one character to focus on: it forces us to see how all of the
characters are responsible for the death of Eva.

Finally, Priestley uses sentence structure to get the message across that everyone is jointly
responsible for the death of Eva, as reflected in the playwright’s use of anadiplosis (thank you to
Tom Briars-Delve for this following analysis of anadiplosis).
Anadiplosis is a clever name for beginning a sentence / clause by repeating the last word/s of the
previous sentence/clause. We see an example when Inspector Goole says:
‘Because what happened to her then may have determined what happened to her afterwards, and
what happened to her afterwards may have driven her to suicide. A chain of events.’
Soon after his entrance, the audience start to realise that the inspector’s investigation focuses on
the surprising links between different events and people. The inspector initiates this idea of
connections through anadiplosis; by repeating ‘what happened to her afterwards’ at the end of one
clause and the beginning of the next, the sentence structure itself cleverly emphasises how the
content of these statements is inextricably connected and leads on from one another. Again, the
message is clear: no single person is responsible. No single person should be singled out. All are to
blame. Next, he memorably summarises this concept with the metaphorical image of ‘A chain of
events’. The concrete noun ‘chain’ refers to an object that embodies physical linking. Even more so
that that, however, it connotes heaviness and imprisonment, perhaps inferring that the links
between various ‘events’ involving the Birlings and Eva Smith could be what weighs down the entire
family.
So what we have is the inversion of the expected generic conventions of the detective thriller; the
use of anadiplosis and the staging of the play, all used to hammer home the point that everyone’s
actions are interconnected and all are responsible for the death of Eva: very clever!

Another thing to consider is the variety of causes for the death of Eva Smith. As we have explored in
the chapter on form, the various faults of the characters can be linked to the seven deadly sins.
The idea of there being ‘seven deadly sins’ is not a Biblical idea. It was a medieval creation
suggesting that certain sins lead to death and others did not. However, the Bible’s teaching on sin is
that ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:23) and no sin is greater than

54
another. With this in mind, the seven deadly sin analysis, whilst interesting, cannot accurately be
viewed as Biblical imagery like the ‘fire and blood and anguish’ quote which certainly is Biblical (and
is explored in the character analysis of Inspector Goole). More accurately, we can explore the wide
range of ‘sins’ demonstrated as evidence that the play is aiming to challenge as many members of
the audience as possible. The insinuation is that each member of the audience will be challenged by
at least one of the characters’ actions which they can relate to.

55
Stretch and Challenge: Other Interpretations

Important note: As was pointed out in the 2019 AQA report on the exam, critical theories should
only be used in an exam answer if they enhance your interpretation of a text. You should not merely
‘bolt on’ comments about Marxism, Freud, feminism etc.

1. The Unities
Another way of analysing the structure of ‘An Inspector Calls’ derives is to consider The Unities of
drama. The Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle said that a play must conform to the following three
unities:

Unity of Time
Action should take place within a single day. Ideally, the events in the play (stage time) happen in
real time. We see this in the play when Act 2 continues from Act 1, and Act 3 continues from Act 2.
This adds a sense of realism to the play, as the audience experiences events unfolding at the same
time as the characters. This helps to hammer home Priestley’s socialist message.

Unity of Place
There is just one setting. ‘An Inspector Calls’ is set in the Birlings’ dining-room. This helps to focus
the attention of the audience more fully.

Unity of Action
The plot has just one main storyline. Up until the inspector’s exit, the storyline is driven by the
inspector as he questions each character about their role in the death of Eva Smith. This makes the
play easier for the audience to follow, and they are more likely to reflect on the ideas within the
play.
When the audience sees events unfolding at the same time as the Birlings, Priestley encourages
them to think about the character of the inspector, who comes across as omniscient. This is
particularly the case when he says ‘We often do on the young ones. They’re more impressionable.’
The audience immediately wants to know who the ‘We’ is, and this adds to the mystery of his
character. Another example is at the end of Act 2 when the inspector mysteriously knows the exact
moment that Eric will return. We do not know if the mysterious inspector is a human or a
supernatural being. Ultimately, it does not matter. This is a conclusion that Sheila and Eric reach
when they discuss whether he was a real police inspector. By applying the three unities when it suits
him, Priestley creates a sense of mystery and focuses the attention of the audience more strongly on
the character of the inspector and his socialist message.

2. The Greek Chorus

A Greek Chorus in Classical Greek drama was a group of masked actors who described and
summarised events, commenting on events and characters in a play. In ‘An Inspector Calls’,
Inspector Goole takes the role of the Greek Chorus—we might even say that he is Priestley, wearing
the mask of the inspector. Priestley/the inspector summarises the ‘chain of events’ surrounding
Eva’s life, comments on the characters’ behaviour and, with his exit speech, explains what lesson
they need to learn.

3. Marxist Interpretation

Important note: As was pointed out in the 2019 AQA report on the exam, critical theories should
only be used in an exam answer if they enhance your interpretation of a text. You should not merely
‘bolt on’ comments about Marxism, Freud, feminism etc.
56
Marxism is a political ideology based on the ideas of the founding fathers of communism, German
political philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. In 1848, they published their thoughts in The
Communist Manifesto, a philosophical framework that aimed to create a classless society.
Marx and Engels argued that the aim of a capitalist society is to make a profit. It does not aim to help
the weak and vulnerable. From a Marxist perspective, Mr Birling with his focus on ‘lower costs and
higher prices’ symbolises the bourgeoisie: he is the capitalist exploiter of the working-classes, the
proletariat, who are valued only for their labour. Eva Smith represents the overworked, underpaid
proletariat, exploited by a capitalist master or, in the case of ‘An Inspector Calls’, all the characters
who were initially aligned to capitalist values.
In order to achieve social change, Marx and Engels proposed a new economic and social system in
which the state owns all property and resources on behalf of everyone. Marx believed that the only
way to achieve this is through a revolution: ‘The proletarians [common workers] have nothing to
lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, Unite!’. We can almost hear
the inspector’s rallying call in his exit speech when he predicts ‘fire and blood and anguish’ if the
characters do not heed his message of social responsibility.
Marxist theory argues that capitalism generates the conditions from which class warfare begin. We
see this in the play when Eva Smith helps to organise a strike at Birling & Co. We also see this
through Priestley’s use of dramatic irony when Mr Birling references the 1912 Miners’ Strike and
says they are past the worst of it. The audience would know that the General Strike, in which more
than one and a half million people went on strike, took place in 1926. There is more class conflict
with the character of the inspector, who openly challenges the Birlings and Gerald about their
treatment of Eva.
In ‘An Inspector Calls’, you will be referring to Priestley or the inspector’s socialist message. It is
worth taking a moment to understand the difference between socialism and communism because
these are often confused. According to Marxist theory, a socialist state is a state that is in transition:
it has overthrown capitalism but has not yet fully achieved communism. Communism applies to a
society in which property is owned by the community rather than individuals. Each person is equal,
contributing according to their ability and receiving according to their needs.
It is also important to consider contemporary British attitudes to the idea of socialism. After World
War II in 1945, the Labour Party was voted into power. This is because its leader, Clement Attlee,
had campaigned to make the country a better place by building affordable houses, providing full
employment, creating a welfare state and a national health service. These are all socialist ideas. In
1912, socialist ideology was popular amongst writers like George Bernard Shaw and HG Wells (who
Birling dismisses immediately after his speech laden with dramatic irony). In the eyes of the world,
the Soviet Union was a successful, thriving Communist state, which, in the years that followed World
War II, would begin its expansion into Eastern Europe (by 1949, it controlled all Eastern European
governments except Yugoslavia).
Priestley was well aware that a play that promoted Marx’s socialist ideology and attacked capitalism
would be very well received in communist Russia. This is why he sent his script of ‘An Inspector Calls’
to Moscow where the play was first performed in 1945. The Soviet audience would have been
amused by Priestley’s use of dramatic irony with Mr Birling’s prediction that Russia (i.e. the Russian
Empire as it was called in 1912) would be 'behindhand'.
What was less obvious to the world was the human cost of change, which was covered up by the
Soviet Union’s propaganda machine. For example, in 1928, Stalin initiated a series of Five-Year Plans
to modernise the Soviet Union, revitalising industry and agriculture. By centralising command of the
57
economy and industrialisation, Stalin transformed the Soviet Union into an industrial power;
however, the process of change caused huge suffering to the Russian people, disrupting food
production. This resulted in a famine between 1932-3 in which it is estimated that 20 million people
died.
As a result of the Five-Year Plans, by 1937 there were significant improvements in the production of
coal, oil, iron and electricity, but conditions for the workers were still very bad.
Stalin, the General Secretary of the Communist Party also instigated the Great Purges, also known as
the Great Terror, which took place in the late 1930s. Stalin removed anyone he considered disloyal
(including senior military and political figures) by putting them on trial, torturing them until they
made false admissions of guilt and then executing them. Other opponents were exiled internally to
Siberia or put to work in brutal prison camps. 1939 was the climax of the Great Terror, which by this
stage was targeting ordinary people. Having eliminated all internal opposition, Stalin became a
totalitarian dictator. While the west was aware of the trials of Soviet leaders, the experiences of
ordinary people were not reported or believed. In France, there were even attempts to discredit or
silence witnesses; other Western observers simply could not see through the false charges and
evidence.
The British public was therefore largely unaware that the reality of living under a communist regime
was very different to the ideology voiced by Priestley/the inspector. This is partly because of the
effectiveness of the Soviet propaganda machine in controlling information. It is also partly because
the British press did not criticise the Soviet Union, which was at the time a war ally. For this reason,
publishers initially refused to publish George Orwell’s Animal Farm, a novella that criticised the
hypocrisy of communism.
Nevertheless, in a communist country, workers have rights to which Eva did not have access because
the focus of the ideology is on people rather than profits. These rights include:

• A decent wage
• The right to join a union
• The right to sue an employer for unfair dismissal e.g. being sacked because a customer had
made a complaint based on anger and jealously
A Marxist interpretation of ‘An Inspector Calls’ is:

• Socialism makes people behave better. For example, Eva refuses to take stolen money and
refuses Eric’s offer of marriage.
• Socialism helps you to mature into a better person. For example, Sheila and Eric become
better people because they embrace the inspector’s socialist ideas.
• Capitalism makes people behave worse. Examples:
o Mr Birling says he would offer ‘thousands’ to buy his family’s way out of trouble and
make things right after he learns that Eric has stolen money; he prioritises his
reputation and avoiding a scandal. He did not consider giving ‘thousands’ Eva and his
employees to make their lives better.
o Mr and Mrs Birling do not change their views about capitalism. If we consider
Marxist theory of sharing wealth, we understand that these characters would want
to retain their wealth because they have the most to lose. (This would also apply to
Gerald, who represents the aristocratic elite.)
From a Marxist perspective, Mr Birling therefore represents a capitalist society in which those in
power are ignorant of the needs of the bourgeoisie and are unwilling to help them. Priestley
therefore uses the character of Eva Smith to show that we should invest more in people and think
less about profit: if we abolish the class system and share wealth, society will become a better place.
58
Freudian Interpretation

Important note: As was pointed out in the 2019 AQA report on the exam, critical theories should
only be used in an exam answer if they enhance your interpretation of a text. You should not merely
‘bolt on’ comments about Marxism, Freud, feminism etc.

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) is the founder of psychoanalysis, a method of treating patients through
dialogue.
Freud’s dreams theory is the idea that dreams reflect inner desires. These might be daydreams or
dreams when sleeping. If we view the play through the lens of Freud’s dreams theory, a
psychoanalytical interpretation might be that the inspector is a manifestation (the embodiment of
an abstract idea) of the characters’ inner guilt.
Freud believed that the human personality (psyche) has three parts:
Id—instincts. This is the subconscious part of the mind, linked to instinct, animalistic urges,
emotions and hidden memories.
Example: Eric’s desire to force himself upon Eva Smith.
Superego—reality. This part of your mind makes decisions and controls your conscience,
the difference between what is right and wrong. This operates on conscious and
subconscious levels.
Example: The ‘cold’ Mrs Birling’s superego dominates when she influences the charity
committee not to help the pregnant, desperate Eva Smith.
Ego—morality. Also operating on conscious and subconscious levels, the ego is organised
and realistic. It recognises that other people also have needs. It tries to meet the needs of
the id and the superego.
Example: Sheila’s id dominated when she became angry with Eva Smith at Milwards. Her
superego dominated when she rationalised her anger by urging the manager at Milwards to
fire Eva, or the Birlings would close their account. By the end of the play, her ego dominates
when she regrets her actions ‘I behaved badly too. I know I did. I’m ashamed of it’.

Feminist Interpretation

Important note: As was pointed out in the 2019 AQA report on the exam, critical theories should
only be used in an exam answer if they enhance your interpretation of a text. You should not merely
‘bolt on’ comments about Marxism, Freud, feminism etc.

In 1792, Mary Wollstonecraft (mother of Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein) published A

Vindication of the Rights of Woman: with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects. She challenged
the contemporary view that women were weak, too full of emotions and not capable of ‘rational’
thought. She argued that girls should have the same education as boys. Wollstonecraft could be
described as a proto-feminist, someone whose ideas were a forerunner of feminism—feminism as a
concept did not exist before the twentieth century.
In the 1850s, the subject of women’s rights became increasingly prominent as some women,
particularly those in the higher social classes, refused to obey their male counterparts. New laws
reveal the struggle of women to gain legal rights: in 1857, a divorced woman could sue an ex-
husband and in 1882, a married woman finally had the legal right to own property.

59
Suffrage—the right to vote in political elections—also became increasingly prominent from the
1850s onwards. The militant suffragette movement fought for the right to vote, attracting significant
news coverage until World War I. As we are aware (see character analysis of Edna), some women
were given the vote in 1918, six years after the play is set. It was only in 1928 that all women could
vote.
In 1949, journalist Simone de Beauvoir, published The Second Sex, which analysed how women were
oppressed in society and helped to lay the foundation for the modern feminist movement. Key ideas
are as follows:

• Women are ‘the second sex’ because they are regarded as less powerful and important than
men.
• Gender is a social construction: society expects men and women to behave in particular
ways.
• Society is patriarchal; in other words, it is dominated by men, who hold the power from
which women are largely excluded.
• Women are restricted by their gender. They are valued:
o For their looks.
o For their ability to fulfil roles as wives and mothers.
A feminist might argue that:

• The plight of Eva Smith shows the danger men of in a patriarchal society holding a
disproportionate amount of power.
• Both Gerald and Eric objectify women, commenting on Eva’s looks, for which she is valued.
They also comment on the appearances of the older prostitutes.
• When Gerald treats Eva as a commodity (a useful or valuable thing), he keeps her as his
mistress for six months and then ends the relationship when it is no longer convenient.
• Eric has a sense of male entitlement when he sexually assaults Eva.
• Sheila in the opening stage directions is defined by her attractiveness to the opposite sex:
she is a ‘pretty girl’. Her engagement conforms to contemporary expectations in which she
will become a wife and mother. Her evolving independence and confidence demonstrate
how important it is to empower women. When she refuses to accept Gerald’s ring at the
end of the play, she realises that there is more to think about than marriage to Gerald.
• Mr Birling patronises women, calling Eva and her work colleagues ‘girls’, which belittles
them.
• Mr and Mrs Birling both infantilise Sheila, calling her a ‘girl’ even though she is old enough to
become engaged and marry.
• Sheila is seen to be delicate and in need of protection: Gerald wants her to leave the room
before his confession. He does not, however, view Eva Smith in this way.
• Mrs Birling accepts her role in the patriarchal society by behaving in a subservient manner
toward her husband.
• Mrs Birling accepts that women must come second to their husbands’ work. She promotes
the idea of female submission to Sheila, excusing Gerald’s neglect: ‘When you’re married,
you’ll realise that men with important work to do sometimes have to spend nearly all their
time and energy on their business’.
• Edna’s silence symbolises the lack of power that women had in the 1912 patriarchy. Women
could not vote, so had no political voice to influence how society was run.

60
Writing about the Play
First, you need to know which exam board you are on—your teacher will be able to answer this
question. A summary of the boards and requirements for the response to ‘An Inspector Calls’ is
below:

AQA: You will have a choice of two questions. You are required to write one essay.
Mark schemes: one mark scheme for the essay, plus four additional marks are available for written
accuracy.
OCR: Two questions: (1) a response to an extract and (2) a response to a second question that links
the character(s) or theme from the extract to the rest of the play.
Mark schemes: two separate mark schemes.
Pearson (Edexcel): You will have a choice of two questions. You are required to write one essay.
Mark schemes: one mark scheme for the essay, plus eight additional marks are available for written
accuracy.
WJEC EDUQAS: Essay based on an extract from the play. In your essay, you are also expected to also
talk about other parts of the play.
Mark schemes: one mark scheme for the essay, plus five additional marks are available for written
accuracy.

In the Exam

The Question
Read the question carefully and underline the key words.

Thinking and Planning

1. Remember that you cannot write about everything that you have learnt. It is better to write
a lot about a little (e.g. a detailed analysis of 5-6 quotes) rather than a little about a lot.
2. If your exam board provides you with an extract, annotate it, but only annotate what is
relevant to the question. Then number which annotations you will write about, in order of
importance.
3. Always plan your essay! If you are asked about a character (for example, Sheila), remember
in your plan to show how her character changes throughout the play. Likewise, you have a
thematic question, consider how that theme is developed throughout the play.
4. Plan to include a response to context. This response should show how context helps to
inform your understanding. NB: You should know from earlier exam practice essays set by
your English teacher how many marks are allocated to writing about context. It might be
that you only need to write about it once.
5. Try and use short quotations if possible. Zoom in on words and phrases that Priestley has
used. Analyse what they make you think or feel and imagine, explaining your reasons.
6. Remember to put single quotation marks around quotations (unless you are American, and
you use what we call double speech marks).
7. Finally, prioritise your points: number them in the order that you are going to write about
them. If you run out of time, you can drop the least important points.

Writing
1. Remember to always use the best, most formal vocabulary you can.
2. Keep your eye on the clock! If you run out of time, don’t rush to cram in all your ideas. Focus
on the most important points and develop your analysis. It is better to write a lot about a
little than a little about a lot!
61
Checking
1. If marks are available for written accuracy, you should check your work carefully.
2. Check for other mistakes.
Example Essays
You are going to read two exam questions. Each question has three example essays (six essays in
total).
The exemplar essays apply to your exam board in the following way:

AQA and Pearson (Edexcel): You are required to write one essay, so all of the example essays below
are relevant.

OCR: Your response would be in two parts. Use the ideas in the essays that follow, but you would
have to adapt them to an appropriate extract, followed by a separate response to the second
question.

WJEC EDUQAS: You are required to write one essay, so all of the example essays below are relevant.
The only difference is that your essay would be in response to an extract from the play.

Task
Read the three example exam essays that answer the same question. As you read, consult your mark
scheme(s). Decide which mark(s) you would give each essay and why. The line spacing has been
increased to make it easier for you to annotate.
Please note that the essays are not prescriptive: other students might choose different examples
and gain the same mark…You can’t write about everything!

62
How does Priestley deliver his Message of Social Responsibility in ‘An Inspector Calls’?

Example Essay 1
‘An Inspector Calls’ is set in 1912, a time when there was a class divide in Britain and many were
expected to know their place in society and not attempt to disrupt that position. Priestley’s play was
first performed in England in 1946, just as two World Wars had ended. An audience at the time had
suffered the consequences of others refusing to take responsibility for their actions. It was also a
time when bosses were most concerned with the profit, rather than the welfare of their workers.
Through his play, it could be argued that Priestley delivers a message of social responsibility to an
audience in the hope that they may realise the need to educate young people and have them think
about the effect their actions may have on those they meet. As a socialist, Priestley believed that all
citizens should be cared for; the focus should not just be on the wealthy few.
Inspector Goole appears to be the voice of Priestley in the play. He is the one who speaks to
the Birling family about their alleged role in the death of Eva Smith. As he arrives on stage, the stage
directions suggest a lighting change from ‘pink and intimate’ to ‘brighter and harder’. Prior to the
inspector’s arrival, the ‘pink and intimate’ lighting suggests that the characters are looking at life
through rose-tinted glasses. In other words, happy with their lives, they are oblivious to any
wrongdoing. When the lighting changes to ‘brighter and harder’, it is as if the inspector has come to
metaphorically shine a spotlight on the Birlings. His presence will shed light on the ‘chain of events’
which led to the death of Eva Smith. He is there to reveal their guilt and try to teach them the lesson
of social responsibility.
Mr Birling is the first to be questioned by the inspector over his role in the death of Eva
Smith, a former employee of his company, Birling and Co. He seems keen to hold positions of power
(for example, his previous position of ‘Lord Mayor’), but he does not seem willing to accept the
responsibility which comes with such positions. The inspector is quick to remind him that ‘Public
men… have responsibilities as well as privileges’. This can also be seen as Priestley’s view. Mr Birling
is almost a caricature of a capitalist businessman. The playwright uses him to criticise others who
hold similar positions in society.
Mr Birling is seen as an ultimately selfish man who is only concerned with the profit of his
company. He voices opinions such as ‘a man has to mind his own business and look after himself’. He
even describes the idea of a more united society as ‘community and all that nonsense’, showing his
unwillingness to take any responsibility for others. The structure of the play, however, serves in
Priestley’s favour as prior to these comments he has Mr Birling make other rash claims such as ‘The
Germans don’t want war’ and the Titanic is ‘absolutely unsinkable’. An audience would know that
not only did the Germans play a key part in World War II but the Titanic also sank. Priestley’s
effective use of dramatic irony here means Birling’s opinions are instantly devalued. Priestley’s
clever structure means that when Birling follows these claims up with ‘community and all that
nonsense’, we, the audience, may believe that he is continuing to talk rubbish. Priestley effectively
gets the audience to agree with his own socialist views that community and taking responsibility for
others is, in fact, far from ‘nonsense’.
Society at the time failed to help or support Eva Smith and other girls like her. There was no
Department for Work and Pensions or other welfare support. Priestley believed that we should all
look after one another; his message is made clear in Inspector Goole’s final speech. Firstly, Goole (or
Priestley) makes it clear that Eva was not an isolated case. Eva Smith appears as a symbol for all
women and men who are disadvantaged in society: ‘One Eva Smith has gone – but there are millions
and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us’. The story has not finished
with her death. There are other women and men (John Smiths) who need looking after. It is essential
that we all take responsibility for our actions towards others, including those less fortunate than
ourselves. ‘Smith’ is one of the most popular surnames in Britain, so this choice of name again
highlights that there are many others out there, just like Eva, who need to be supported by their
employers and other citizens.
63
 This section of the inspector’s final speech is followed by possibly the most important lines
in the play: ‘We don’t live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other’.
These effectively sum up Priestley’s overall message.
The final part of the speech contains a warning for those unwilling to accept this lesson of
social responsibility: there will be ‘fire and blood and anguish’. The words ‘fire and blood and
anguish’ have at least two possible interpretations. They closely resemble Hell imagery in the Bible
and could suggest that if men and women are unwilling to take responsibility for one another here
on earth, then they will be sent to Hell to learn the lesson there (‘fire’ and ‘anguish’ certainly suggest
Hell). Alternatively, the phrase could refer to war since ‘fire and blood and anguish’ have
connotations of war. Priestley, via the inspector, warns both the Birlings and an audience that if men
and women refuse to look after one another, more wars may follow. The play was first performed
just after the two world wars, but it was set in 1912, just before World War I. The Birlings who are
from a society where many of the rich were selfish and only concerned with themselves and their
money, would be just about to go through that war. Priestley/the inspector’s words and warning are
therefore highly relevant to both the characters and an audience.
To conclude, the inspector delivers Priestley’s message about social responsibility.

64
Example Essay 2
The character of the inspector serves to deliver Priestley’s message of social responsibility in ‘An
Inspector Calls’. We are first introduced to this idea through the stage directions and his name.
When we meet Inspector Goole, he is described in the stage directions as creating an impression of
‘massiveness, solidity and purposefulness’. The rule of three with the nouns creates a sense of his
presence filling a room. He is therefore a catalyst who controls events through his questioning of
characters. The words ‘solidity and purposefulness’ suggest that he has a purpose for his visit and
that he cannot be persuaded to change his mind. Finally, his name is a homophone for ghoul,
suggesting that he is interested in the dead, and this relates to the purpose of his visit. Goole is also
a fishing village, which might imply that he is there to fish for information.
Throughout the play, Priestley uses Inspector Goole as his mouthpiece to deliver a message
of social responsibility (socialism) to the audience. This is reflected in the instructions for lighting in
the stage directions. As the inspector arrives, the stage directions propose a lighting change from
‘pink and intimate’ to ‘brighter and harder’. Prior to the inspector’s arrival, the ‘pink and intimate’
lighting symbolises that the characters are looking at life through rose-tinted spectacles. In other
words, they are oblivious to any wrongdoing, and they are happy with their lives. When the lighting
changes to ‘brighter and harder’, it is as if the inspector has come to metaphorically shine a spotlight
on the Birlings; this has connotations of a harsh interrogation light from which they cannot escape.
The inspector is there to reveal the characters’ guilt about the death of Eva Smith and to try to teach
them a lesson of social responsibility. It is implied therefore through the lighting that the characters
(and by default, the audience) cannot escape the message of socialism.
In addition, sound effects are used to convey Priestley’s message of socialism. For example,
when Mr Birling is expressing his capitalist views to his family (‘a man has to mind his own business’),
he is interrupted by the ‘sharp ring’ of the doorbell. This suggests that the inspector is there to
challenge Mr Birling’s views. The adjective ‘sharp’ also connotes pain, foreshadowing that the
Inspector will be harsh towards the family and Gerald Croft, and judgemental of their capitalist
views.
The inspector’s final speech sums up Priestley’s overall message about socialism: ‘We don’t
live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other’. The play is set in 1912,
and he makes predictions that the audience, who has lived through two world wars, will know are
true: there will be ‘fire and blood and anguish’. The words ‘fire and blood and anguish’ have at least
two possible interpretations. Firstly, ‘fire’ and ‘anguish’ suggest Hell. These words closely resemble
Biblical descriptions of Hell, and could suggest that if people are unwilling to take responsibility for
one another here on earth, then they will be sent to Hell to learn the lesson there. Secondly, the
words have connotations of war. Priestley, via the inspector, warns both the Birlings and the
audience that if people refuse to look after one another, more wars may follow. Priestley/the
inspector’s warning are therefore highly relevant to both the characters (who will live through wars)
and the audience.
Priestley contrasts the inspector’s predictions with those of Mr Birling to emphasise that
capitalism is wrong and socialism is right. For example, Mr Birling predicts that The Titanic is
‘unsinkable’, which is dramatic irony because the audience knows that the prediction—as well as his
other predictions—is wrong. Through dramatic irony, the audience is encouraged to mistrust
Birling’s opinion of capitalism and therefore agree with the inspector’s opinion of socialism, as the
latter’s predictions turn out to be correct.
The inspector is not meant to be a real person at all: in the play, we see that his ideas are
what are important, and the younger generation understands this. Sheila and Eric are still upset at
the end of the play, regardless of whether anyone actually died or if the inspector was actually real.
Priestley ensures that all audience members realise the impact of his message by adding the final
phone call at the very end of the play. The phone rings ‘sharply’ like the doorbell and the characters
learn that a girl has now died. This suggests that what Goole said in his final speech is true–that men

65
and women will be forced to learn the lesson of social responsibility one way or another. It is
inescapable.
To conclude, the message of the play could still be seen as relevant today, as the poor are
still with us, not just within the UK but in the world. Even though in the UK we now have social
benefits, a welfare state, charities and unions, some difficulties remain when members of society act
in selfish way or are unwilling to help one another. In many ways, Priestley’s message of social
responsibility in ‘An Inspector Calls’ could therefore be said to be as relevant today as when it was
first performed in England in 1945.

66
Example Essay 3
Priestley uses the character of Inspector Goole to deliver his anti-capitalist message of social
responsibility in ‘An Inspector Calls’.
The inspector is a mouthpiece for Priestley’s message, and he is not intended to represent a
real person. We first learn this through the stage directions in which the inspector creates ‘an
impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness’. The triadic list of nouns helps us to focus on
his personal qualities. The abstract noun ‘massiveness’ creates a sense that the inspector’s presence
metaphorically fills the room, almost as if he is a supernatural presence. The word ‘solidity’ can be
used to describe a strong or firm structure; it is also used to describe a reliable person. Both
interpretations have positive connotations and create the impression that the inspector has good,
solid, reliable views, upon which the audience (and by default, society) can depend. The last word in
the list, ‘purposefulness’ connotes determination: the inspector is there for a reason, and nothing
will stop him from spreading Priestley’s socialist message. The three nouns therefore combine to
depict the inspector as a strong character who will use the force of his personality to challenge the
capitalist views of the Birlings and Gerald Croft. Furthermore, Priestley writes that the inspector
creates ‘an impression of’ these qualities, suggesting an other-worldly element to his personality. If
we view the inspector through the lens of Freud’s dreams theory, a psychoanalytical interpretation
might be that the inspector is in fact a manifestation of the characters’ inner guilt. This implies that,
even before the play began, the characters felt some subconscious guilt about their treatment of Eva
Smith. I am not entirely sure that I agree with this interpretation because there is no evidence for
this in the play; but the announcement at the end of the play that another inspector is on his way
might lend Freud’s dreams theory more credibility as, by the end of the play, all the characters have
been given the opportunity to examine their consciences.
Priestley also uses elements of Aristotle’s Three Unities of drama to help the audience to
focus on the inspector’s socialist message: ‘We don’t live alone. We are members of one body. We
are responsible for each other’. Firstly, the play conforms to the Unity of Time, as all the events in
the play (stage time) happen in real time. The audience experiences events unfolding at the same
time as the characters. This helps to hammer home Priestley’s socialist message, enforced above
with the triad of simple sentences and the use of anaphora with ‘we’ to emphasise that we are part
of the collective body of the human race. Priestley adheres to the Unity of Place with the single
setting of the Birlings’ dining-room; without the distraction of other settings, the attention of the
audience is focused more fully on Priestley’s message. Finally, until the inspector’s exit, Priestley
adheres to the final unity, Unity of Action, in which there is just one main storyline, driven by the
inspector’s questions about their role in the death of Eva Smith. This makes the play easier for the
audience to follow, and they are more likely to reflect on the ideas within the play. In a sense, the
inspector also assumes the role of the Greek Chorus in Classical Greek drama. As Priestley’s
mouthpiece, he summarises the ‘chain of events’ surrounding Eva’s life, comments on the
characters’ behaviour and, with his exit speech, explains what lesson they need to learn.
After the inspector exits, the focus of the play changes to the debate about whether the
inspector is a real police inspector but Priestley, through Sheila and Eric, emphasises that this does
not matter, as his message of social responsibility is more important. Sheila, perhaps picking up the
mantle of the inspector’s role of Greek Chorus, repeats the inspector’s words of ‘Fire and blood and
anguish’ from his exit speech. Priestley employs syndetic listing to slow down the pace and allow
each word in the list to have a greater impact on the audience. The playwright might be alluding to
the Biblical description of Hell being a ‘blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of
teeth’ as a warning that if people do not embrace his socialist message, they are destined to go to
Hell. The Biblical language adds to the supernatural, other-worldly aspect of inspector Goole, which
helps us to remember his message. This imagery of ‘fire and blood and anguish’ can also be
interpreted as foreshadowing the pain and suffering of the two world wars which would soon follow
the historical setting of the play. The contemporary audience would be fully aware of the ‘fire and
blood and anguish’ of WW1 and WW2, so this adds to the sense of mystery surrounding Goole: how
67
exactly does he know so clearly what is to follow? Knowing that Goole is right adds credibility to his
ideas about socialism, just as knowing Birling is wrong about the ‘unsinkable’ Titanic and the
Germans not wanting war being used to undermine his capitalist agenda. Sheila repeating the
inspector’s words shows that she has learnt her lesson, and this also reinforces the inspector’s
message of social responsibility.
Priestley ensures that all audience members realise the impact of the inspector’s message
with the stage direction of the final phone call at the end of the play. The phone rings ‘sharply’,
echoing the ‘sharp ring’ of the doorbell that had first accompanied the arrival of the inspector. Both
sound effects interrupt Mr Birling expressing his views, almost personifying the doorbell and then
the phone, suggesting that they sharply disagree with his views. By ending a play on a moment of
high tension when we hear that a young woman has died and an inspector is on his way, Priestley
leaves the audience with the suggestion that what Goole said in his final speech is true: the Birlings
and Gerald cannot escape learning their lesson of social responsibility. Priestley himself studied the
concept of time and Dunne’s theory, which focuses on learning from mistakes. Dunne proposes that
we have all been given the ability to look forward in time so that we can avoid errors before we
make them (as well as learning from mistakes in our past). Perhaps the pending arrival of a real
inspector at the end of the play is therefore an opportunity for the older Birlings and Croft to
examine their consciences once more and learn from their mistakes of the past.
To conclude, Priestley deliberately surrounds the character of Inspector Goole with an air of
mystery in order to encourage the audience to concentrate on his words. His message of social
responsibility (‘We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other’) eclipses all other
ideas in the play. By ending the play with a twist, Priestley encourages the audience to discuss the
play, particularly the character of the inspector, and take his message of social responsibility home
with them.

68
How does Priestley present the Differences between the older and younger Generations of the
Birling Family in ‘An Inspector Calls’?

Example Essay 1
Mr Birling is first introduced in the play as a ‘heavy-looking, rather portentous man in his middle
fifties with fairly easy manners but rather provincial in his speech’. Our immediate impression of him
is as a person who is rather self-centred and confident, a man who is proud of his standing in society.
He frequently reminds everyone of his achievements of being a ‘Lord Mayor’ and his hope for a
‘knighthood’. Priestley presents us with little to like about Mr Birling from the start. The playwright
uses him as a symbol of the capitalist society which Priestley, being a socialist, was against.
Sheila is Mr Birling’s daughter who, at the start of the play, has just become engaged to
Gerald Croft. During the early 1900s when the play is set, women were seen chiefly as the
possession of their fathers or husbands. Sheila is a symbol of the younger generation of wealthy
members of society. Priestley uses her and her brother Eric to demonstrate that younger people can
be taught the lesson of social responsibility.
At the start of the play, just as her father is concerned with accolades and public recognition,
so Sheila seems concerned with her appearance and material goods. Despite getting engaged to
Gerald, it is only when he gives her the ring that she says she can really ‘feel engaged’. Our
impression is of a young, somewhat naïve girl who is rather superficial and certainly unaware of how
her treatment of others could have an effect on their lives. It is not until the inspector points out her
involvement with Eva Smith that Sheila has any recollection of her encounter with her at Milwards.
Similarly, Mr Birling needs reminding that Eva Smith worked for his company before he sacked her
for campaigning for better wages.
Mr Birling is happy about the engagement of Sheila to Gerald Croft, not because he believes
they love each other and will make each other happy, more because by marrying Gerald, Sheila will
increase her social status. Gerald is a man whose parents own an even more successful company
than Birling and Co. Mr Birling says hopes that one day the Crofts and Birlings will be ‘working
together—for lower costs and higher prices.’ Mr Birling presents the union almost as a business deal
and he makes it clear that ‘a man has to mind his own business and look after himself’. Mr Birling
seems concerned that he does not have the same kind of family connections that Gerald has; he has
to rely on money he has made rather than that which has been passed on to him. His mention of a
knighthood is significant, as this is an award given as recognition for services to the community. J.B.
Priestley again seems to be criticising Mr Birling and his actions as we later find that he does not
support the notion of community at all.
At the start of the play, Mr Birling makes claims such as ‘The Germans don’t want war’ and
that the Titanic is ‘absolutely unsinkable’. The audience knew that the Germans played a key part in
World War II, and the Titanic also sank. Priestley’s effective use of dramatic irony here means
Birling’s opinions are instantly devalued. Priestley’s clever structure means that when Birling follows
this up with ‘community and all that nonsense’, we, the audience, may believe that he is continuing
to talk rubbish. Priestley effectively uses this structure to encourage his audiences to agree with his
own socialist views that community is, in fact, far from ‘nonsense’.
Mr Birling sacked Eva Smith because she demanded a higher (and probably fairer) wage and
went on strike: ‘She’d had a lot to say—far too much—so she had to go’. The play is set at a time
when many workers were going on strike for better pay and conditions. Mr Birling’s lack of regret
over his actions means that it is hard to sympathise with him.
Following Mr Birling’s interrogation, Sheila said she was shopping at Milwards when she first
met Eva. Sheila believed a dress looked better against Eva. Her jealousy led to her using her
influence as a valued customer to have Eva sacked, saying she would ‘persuade mother to close our
account’. Sheila now realises the enormity of the situation she does become very distressed; the
stage directions say how she looks ‘as if she’s been crying’, which shows she regrets her actions (‘I
behaved badly too. I know I did. I’m ashamed of it’). Priestley uses her to demonstrate that young
69
people can learn the lesson of social responsibility. There is therefore hope for the future of society
if we can make them realise the need to look after others they come into contact with, even if those
other people are of a lower social status than themselves.
Mr Birling, however, does not show the same morals and capability to learn the lesson of
social responsibility. Priestley uses him to represent the older generation who are more inclined to
be set in their ways. Mr Birling does not admit that he was in any way to blame for the death of Eva
Smith and, even after other characters such as Sheila and Eric have broken down and clearly been
sorry for their actions, Mr Birling insists, ‘I can’t accept any responsibility’. He fails to learn the
inspector (and Priestley’s) lesson of social responsibility which supports the idea that it is the
younger members of society who need to be educated and encouraged to look out for one another
if society is to become a better place.
The audience are likely to leave with the view that, even if you try to ignore your
responsibilities, just as Mr Birling did, your actions will eventually be punished. Sheila (and her
brother Eric) accepting responsibility for their actions effectively shows the audience that there is
hope for the future; if we educate young people, then they can learn to take responsibility for each
other and make a better society for everyone to live in.

Example Essay 2
In this essay, I will discuss the characters of Mr Birling to represent the older generation and Sheila
Birling to represent the younger generation. Both characters are used by Priestley to convey his
views about capitalism and socialism.
Firstly, Priestley uses Mr Birling as a symbol of the capitalistic society which Priestley, being a
socialist, was against. Mr Birling is first introduced in the play as a ‘heavy-looking, rather portentous
man in his middle fifties’. The adjective ‘heavy’ suggests that he will not move easily from his point
of view. The second adjective ‘portentous’ implies that he is rather self-centred and confident; he
will not readily listen to the views of others. Furthermore, his age suggests that he is fixed in his
views. Priestley presents through the stage directions a character who is entrenched in his views and
is not very likeable. This will prejudice the audience them against him.
Priestley also employs dramatic irony to show that Mr. Birling’s capitalist views are wrong.
Mr Birling makes predictions such as ‘The Germans don’t want war’ and the Titanic is ‘unsinkable’.
The play is set in 1912 so, by making these comments, the 1945 Soviet audiences and 1946 British
audiences know that the Germans played a key part in World War II and that the Titanic sank on her
maiden voyage. Priestley’s use of dramatic irony means that Birling’s capitalist opinions that follow
are instantly worthless. The playwright’s clever structure means that when Birling talks about
‘community and all that nonsense’, the audience is encouraged to believe that his views are wrong.
Priestley therefore uses this structure to encourage the audience to agree with his own socialist
views that community is, in fact, far from ‘nonsense’.
Mr. Birling could be seen as a caricature of a typical capitalist businessman of the time,
heartless and ruthless, concerned only with himself and his wealth. The play is set at a time when
many workers were going on strike for better pay and conditions, as trade unions were in their
infancy. It is ironic that he sacked Eva for being a ringleader in the strike (‘She’d had a lot to say—far
too much—so she had to go’), as he had previously intended to promote her for showing the same
leadership skills. The short phrases separated by hyphens suggest a contemptuous, dismissive
attitude and that he sacked her with little thought despite her hard work. Mr. Birling’s lack of regret
over his actions (‘I can’t accept any responsibility’) means that it is hard for the audience to
sympathise with him.
In contrast, Priestley uses Sheila to demonstrate that younger people can be taught the
lesson of social responsibility. During the early 1900s when the play is set, women were seen chiefly
regarded as the possession of their fathers or husbands so, at the start of the play, we do not see
Sheila as responsible for anything. She does not seem to have a job, and she is dependent on her
family’s account when she goes shopping at Milwards. Sheila seems concerned with her appearance
70
and material goods. Despite getting engaged to Gerald, it is only when he gives her the ring that she
says she can really ‘feel engaged’. Our impression is of a young, somewhat naïve girl, who is rather
superficial and is unaware of how her treatment of others could have an effect on their lives. It is not
until the inspector points out her involvement with Eva Smith that Sheila remembers her encounter
with her at Milwards. (Similarly, Mr. Birling needs reminding that Eva Smith worked for his company
before he sacked her for campaigning for better wages.)
Unlike Mr Birling, Sheila realises the enormity of being responsible for the sacking of Eva
Smith, and Priestley uses stage directions to show her distress: she looks ‘as if she’s been crying’.
These stage directions are to encourage the audience to note how sorry she is for what she has done
and to conclude that she has changed. Sheila clearly regrets her actions: ‘I behaved badly too. I know
I did. I’m ashamed of it’. The rule of three with the simple sentences indicates that her regret is
genuine. Priestley uses the character of Sheila to demonstrate that young people can learn the
lesson of social responsibility. There is therefore hope for the future of society if we can make them
realise the need to look after others.
The theme of the younger generation being able to change is developed through the
character of Sheila, who is the product of her environment. Being brought up in a wealthy family in
Edwardian England means that she has probably had little responsibility for her actions until this
point, rather like a child. She seems to grow in confidence as the play progresses, however. At the
start of the play, she calls Mrs Birling ‘mummy’ and at the end she calls her ‘mother’; the change
from the childish to adult term of address symbolises that she has grown and matured. She also
refuses to take back the engagement ring when she finds out Gerald has cheated on her saying, ‘it’s
too soon’. This shows her increased strength and ability to make morally sound decisions on her
own, rather than being dominated by the men in her life. This might reflect the growing suffragette
movement of the time in which women of all classes, campaigning for the vote, were demanding the
right to have their say in how the country was run.
To conclude, the audience is likely to leave the theatre with the view that even if you try to
ignore your responsibilities, just as Mr Birling does, your actions will eventually be punished (the ‘fire
and blood and anguish’ of the inspector’s predications might link to the world wars but they might
also connote the pains of Hell). In contrast, Sheila accepting responsibility for her actions shows the
audience that there is hope for the future: if we educate young people, they can learn to take
responsibility for each other and create a better society for everyone to live in.

Example Essay 3
Priestley uses the older generation of the Birling family to illustrate that, in the playwright’s opinion,
the older generation are fixed in their capitalist ways and will not change. In contrast, he uses the
younger generation as a symbol of hope: they are open to new ideas and are more willing to
embrace Priestley’s socialist message: ‘We don’t live alone. We are members of one body. We are
responsible for each other’. This essay will explore key ideas to do with the older and younger
generation, focusing on the characters of Mr Birling and Sheila.
Priestley depicts Mr. Birling is a caricature of a capitalist businessman of the time, heartless
and ruthless, concerned only with himself and his wealth. From a Marxist perspective, Mr Birling
with his focus on ‘lower costs and higher prices’ symbolises the capitalist exploiter of the proletariat,
who are valued only for their labour. Before the arrival of the inspector, he declares ‘a man has to
mind his own business and look after himself and his own’. This statement aligns him with making
money (‘business’) which is then juxtaposed with his own needs (‘look after himself’). It is almost as
if he is so selfish that the reference to his family (‘and his own’) comes as an afterthought. This view
is challenged by Priestley with the ‘sharp ring’ of the door bell. The use of the adjective ‘sharp’
implies that Mr Birling has violated the laws of humanity to the extent that even inanimate objects
71
disagree with him. Priestley, being a socialist, shows no mercy towards Mr Birling; undoubtedly,
there were men like Mr Birling, but the playwright completely ignores the historical backdrop of rich
philanthropic Victorian industrialists who showed corporate social responsibility. For example, Sir
Titus Salt, Rowntree, the Cadbury brothers and the Lever Brothers, who built a model villages for
their workforces, with decent housing, gardens, parks and other amenities. Perhaps Priestley’s bias
is because the play contains elements of a morality play that aims to teach people lessons about
how to behave. Mr Birling’s character might be the personification of the Deadly Sin of Avarice.
Priestley expects the audience to learn a moral message from about social responsibility from the
play, and it is much easier to stand back and judge a two-dimensional stereotype than a more
realistic person with depth and complications.
Priestley also employs dramatic irony to show the audience that they cannot trust Mr
Birling’s opinions. For example, the 1912 Mr Birling makes a range of predictions, which the original
audiences (the 1945 Soviet audiences and 1946 British audiences) knew were wrong. One of these
predictions is that the Titanic is ‘absolutely unsinkable’. The adverb ‘absolutely’ emphasises Mr
Birling’s conviction that he is right—but the Titanic sank on its maiden voyage in 15th April, 1912, not
long after the play is set. Perhaps Priestley includes the Titanic example as a metaphor for Edwardian
society. The ship had First Class, Second Class and Third Class passengers, whose accommodation
was on allocated decks. This might represent the class structure of Edwardian society and Priestley’s
view that the rich First Class passengers chose to detach themselves completely from their poorer
counterparts. Interestingly, a Grand Staircase connected the ship’s seven decks. This might
symbolise the inspector’s words that ‘We are members of one body’, connected to each other,
whether we like it or not. Furthermore, the ship only had twenty lifeboats, which were not enough
for the 3,300 passengers and crew. This appalling planning might symbolise the complacency of
people like Mr Birling, who are overconfident in their views. Finally, the sinking of the Titanic might
represent the sinking of Edwardian society in which attitudes were being challenged by Priestley and
his writer friends such as George Bernard Shaw and HG Wells, and in which World War I would
change attitudes to class. Priestley’s use of this and other examples of dramatic irony encourages
the audience to mistrust Mr Birling’s views, particularly his views on capitalism and social
responsibility.
In contrast, Priestley uses Sheila to demonstrate that younger people, particularly young
women, can change and learn his lesson of social responsibility. A feminist literary critic might argue
that, when in the opening stage directions she is described as a ‘pretty girl’, Sheila is defined by her
attractiveness to the opposite sex. A Freudian interpretation might be that Sheila’s id dominated her
base instincts of jealousy and anger about Eva being more attractive than her when she held the
dress against herself. Sheila’s superego then dominated her id as she rationalised her anger and said
that she would ‘persuade mother to close our account’ if Milwards did not fire Eva. After the
inspector’s interrogation, Sheila has completely changed her views. Her ego now dominates when
she regrets her actions: ‘I behaved badly too. I know I did. I’m ashamed of it’. Priestley’s triad of
simple sentences forces the audience to follow her words closely and to appreciate that her regret is
genuine.
Feeling sorry for Eva Smith is one thing but having the power to change into a better person
is another, but Priestley suggests that this is possible. Feminist Simone de Beauvoir states in The
Second Sex that women are restricted by their gender. We have already seen how Sheila being
valued for her looks might affects her behaviour. Beauvoir also asserts that women are valued for
their ability to fulfil roles as wives and mothers. At the beginning of the play, Sheila’s engagement
conforms to contemporary expectations. She also accepts a subordinate role to Gerald, asking him
‘is it the one you wanted me to have?’. Priestley’s use of the interrogative shows that she is happy to
accept a passive role in which she has no say about a ring that she, at this point in the play, intends
to wear for the rest of her life. In 1912, women were regarded as inferior to men (Beauvoir’s ‘second
sex’). Priestley suggests that socialism improves women like Sheila when, at the end of the play, she
refuses to take back the engagement ring, saying ‘It’s too soon. I must think’. Her use of simple
72
declarative sentences emphasises a strength of character that was not present at the beginning of
the play. She is now a confident young woman, aware that she has more options in life than
marriage. Priestley’s use of the modal verb ‘must’ shows that it is imperative, an obligation, that she
consider her future. She will not be hurried into making decisions and needs time to consider her
options. She makes the decisions—not Gerald. In fact, in the Soviet Union, in 1918, Lenin later
stated: ‘The status of women up to now has been compared to that of a slave; women have been
tied to the home, and only socialism can save them from this’. Sheila’s evolving independence and
confidence therefore demonstrates how important socialism appears to be for the empowerment of
women.
To conclude, the audience is likely to view the younger generation of the Birling family in a
more positive way than the older generation. Sheila accepting responsibility for her actions shows
the audience that there is hope for Priestley’s socialist message: if we educate all young people,
including women, they will embrace the playwright’s socialist message and create a better society
for everyone. We must also not forget that, when the play was first performed, the audience
members had just experienced World War II, so they would probably be keen to see a more
compassionate society in which people take responsibility for their actions.

73
Key Quotations

Quote Character Theme/comment

‘pink and intimate’ Lighting At the start of the play, this stage direction
suggests the Birlings have an overly optimistic
Birling view of life.
family

‘brighter and harder’ Lighting This stage direction suggests the inspector has
arrived to shed light on the events. It connotes
Inspector (1) an interrogation light and (2) a spotlight.
‘heavily comfortable but not cosy and Stage Description of Birlings’ house and furniture.
homelike’ directions Oxymoron and language analysis opportunity.

‘port’ Stage Description of Birlings’ house and contents.

directions Introduction of ideas to do with social class,
‘cigar box’ wealth and self-indulgence.
‘champagne glasses’
‘pleased with themselves’ Birling How the Birling family are described at the
family start of the play.
Stage
directions

‘heavy-looking, rather portentous Mr Birling At the start of the play this description
man in his middle fifties with fairly suggests Mr Birling is self-important, fixed in
easy manners but rather provincial in his views and has worked his way up.
his speech.’

‘working together—for lower costs Mr Birling Mr Birling is pleased Sheila is engaged to

and higher prices’ Gerald but for business opportunities rather
than love.

‘a man has to mind his own business Mr Birling Mr Birling’s selfish, capitalist views at the start
and look after himself and his own’ of the play.
‘community and all that nonsense’ Mr Birling Mr Birling’s views on community at the start
of the play.

‘The Germans don’t want war’ Mr Birling Priestley uses dramatic irony to discredit Mr
Birling’s incorrect prediction.

‘absolutely unsinkable’ Mr Birling An incorrect prediction about the Titanic to

make the audience mistrust Birling’s opinions
on other issues such as capitalism and
socialism.

‘behindhand’ Mr Birling Dramatic irony: an incorrect prediction about

the Soviet Union (which he calls Russia).

‘Lord Mayor’ Mr Birling Shows he is concerned with his social status

when he brags to Gerald.
‘knighthood’

74
‘sound useful party man’ Mr Birling This is his reason for thinking he will get a
to Gerald knighthood: cash for honours, which today is
illegal.

‘I was an alderman for years—and I’m Mr Birling Mr Birling reminds us of his position to try and
still on the Bench’ exert authority over the Inspector.

‘She’d had a lot to say—far too Mr Birling Mr Birling explains that he sacked Eva for
much—so she had to go’ about Eva voicing her opinions and striking over wages.

‘I can’t accept any responsibility’ Mr Birling He refuses to accept any responsibility for his
actions.

‘Thousands’ Mr Birling Worried about a scandal, Mr Birling says he

will pay ‘thousands’ to put things right. He will
pay money to save is reputation but not to
give his employees a pay rise.

‘But the whole thing’s different now.’ Mr Birling He thinks that if the inspector is not real and a
girl didn’t die then his actions don’t matter.
‘crank’ Mr Birling After he has left, Mr Birling tries to dismiss the
about the inspector, aligning him with socialist
inspector sympathisers or cranks.

‘cold’ Mrs Birling Stage directions: the words introduce the

theme of class snobbery and lack of
‘social superior’ of Mr Birling compassion for those who need it.

‘prejudiced’ Mrs Birling She admits to being ‘prejudiced’ against Eva.

‘girls of that class’ Feels contempt towards the working class.

‘I told him quite plainly that I thought Mrs Birling Mrs Birling refuses to feel guilty for her
I had done no more than my duty.’ involvement.

‘Go and look for the father of the Mrs Birling Mrs Birling unknowingly blames her son Eric,
child. It’s his responsibility’ who had actually got Eva pregnant. Dramatic
irony and very exciting for the audience, as
she sets herself up.
‘I did nothing that I’m ashamed of’ Mrs Birling Refuses to accept any responsibility for her
actions.
‘pretty girl in her early twenties, very Sheila Stage directions: description of Sheila, a young
pleased with life and rather excited’ woman who is infantilised.

‘Is it the one you wanted me to have?’ Sheila to She accepts a subordinate role: he is the
Gerald decision maker about her engagement ring.

75
‘feel engaged’ Sheila Sheila needs the engagement ring before she
says she can really ‘feel engaged’. She appears
to be rather superficial.

‘last summer, when you never came Sheila Sheila first raises suspicion about Gerald’s
near me, and I wondered what had about actions near the start of the play. This hints at
happened to you’ Gerald underlying tension. NB: She does not
challenge him.

‘persuade mother to close our Sheila She threatened to ‘persuade mother to close
account’ our account’ at Milwards if the manager did
not sack Eva.

‘as if she’s been crying’ Sheila Sheila is visibly upset about her involvement
in the chain of events leading to Eva’s death.
Stage
direction
‘I behaved badly too. I know I did. I’m Sheila Sheila accepts responsibility for her actions.
ashamed of it’

‘he knows. Of course he knows’ Sheila to Sheila’s recognition that the inspector already
Gerald knows everything about their involvement
with the chain of events, so there is no point
lying or withholding any information.

‘wonderful fairy prince’ Sheila to Sarcasm as she asserts herself.

Gerald

‘It’s too soon. I must think.’ Sheila Sheila refuses to take back the engagement
ring from Gerald at the end of the play. She
has changed and realises that there are more
options for the future than traditional
marriage and children.
‘Half shy, half assertive’ Eric Birling Immature. ‘[S]hy’ implies secrets. Do we trust
him? ‘[A]ssertive’ foreshadows him forcing
himself on Eva. Unformed as a character, so
there is potential to change.
‘squiffy’ Eric The word used to describe Eric’s drunkenness.
‘sneak’ Eric to Eric briefly turns against Sheila as she reveals
Sheila details of his drinking.
‘you know’ Eric Eric realises that the inspector already knows
the truth about his involvement.

‘in that state when a chap easily turns Eric Eric describing his behaviour when he went to
nasty’ Eva’s lodgings and insisted that she let him in.
‘And that’s when it happened. And I Eric Eric vaguely describes how he forced himself
don’t even remember—that’s the on Eva.
hellish thing.’

76
‘not a kind of father a chap could go Eric to Mr Eric describes his distant relationship with his
to when he’s in trouble’ Birling father.
‘you turned her away—yes, and you Eric to Mrs Eric blames his mother for what happened.
killed her’ Birling

‘It’s what happened to the girl and Eric Eric realises that they must all accept
what we all did to her that matters’ responsibility.
‘We did her in all right.’ Eric Eric is frustrated at his parents’ refusal to
admit their wrongdoings.

‘We often do on the young ones. Inspector The inspector explains that young people can
They’re more impressionable.’ be taught to take responsibility for others.

‘easy, well-bred young man-about- Gerald Opening stage directions focus on his social
town’ status and worldly experience.

‘politely’ Gerald, Like Mrs Birling, Gerald is aware that Mr

agreeing Birling should not compliment a servant. The
with Mr stage direction ‘politely’ shows Gerald’s good
Birling manners and diplomacy.
‘Very pretty—soft brown hair and big Gerald She is vulnerable…and he judges her by her
dark eyes’ about Eva looks.
Smith
‘I don’t come into this suicide Gerald Gerald initially refuses to admit any
business.’ wrongdoing.

‘Well?’ Inspector Only the one word is needed from the

to Gerald inspector for Gerald to realise the need to tell
his story. Ends Act 1 on a moment of
suspense, as the tension rises.
‘She didn’t blame me at all. I wish to Gerald Gerald does take some responsibility for his
God she had now.’ actions.

‘Everything’s alright now.’ Gerald When he thinks the inspector might be fake,
Gerald thinks the issue has been resolved.

‘sharp ring’ Stage The doorbell announces the arrival of the

direction inspector, interrupting Mr Birling expressing
his capitalist opinions.
‘an impression of massiveness, Inspector The inspector is described as a powerful man.
solidity and purposefulness’

‘burnt her inside out’ Inspector Direct, shocking language used by the
inspector to describe Eva’s death.

‘Chain of events’ Inspector The inspector is a catalyst, questioning the

characters, one at a time. The audience sees
that they are all part of a chain of events,
collectively responsible for Eva’s death.

77
‘few friends, lonely, half-starved’ and Inspector Priestley’s deliberate use of emotive language
‘desperate’ about Eva to gain sympathy from the audience.
Smith

‘Public men…have responsibilities as Inspector The inspector (as the voice of Priestley)
well as privileges’ Goole to reminds Mr Birling of his need to use his
Mr Birling position in society to help others.

‘One Eva Smith has gone—but there Inspector In his final speech, the inspector reminds us
are millions and millions and millions (final this was not an isolated case. There are other
of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left speech) men and women in society who need help.
with us’

‘We don’t live alone. We are Inspector The main message of the play—we must take
members of one body. We are (final responsibility for one another.
responsible for each other.’ speech)

‘fire and blood and anguish’ Inspector Goole explains that the lesson of social
(final responsibility is unavoidable. If people do not
speech) choose to learn it, they will be made to on
earth (in war) or in the afterlife (Hell).
Sheila repeats these words at the end of the
Sheila play, suggesting that she has taken on the
inspector’s role.

‘rings sharply’ Stage The telephone ringing at the end of the play
direction mirrors the ringing of the doorbell at the
beginning. Both sound effects herald the
arrival of an inspector.

78