The below is a detailed moment by moment analysis of An Inspector Calls written

to be both rigorous and accessible to students. 

It covers the entire play from start to finish.
Setting the Scene

 The play opens with a set of detailed and specific stage directions and
Priestley’s use of stagecraft, here, introduces the audience to some of the
play’s key themes.

 The play begins in the Birling’s dining room, which is described as

containing ‘good solid furniture’ (1) and of being ‘heavily comfortable,
but not cosy and homelike’ (1).
 The play begins in medias res with the family enjoying an ‘intimate’ (1)
family dinner. A parlour maid is described as clearing the table of
‘dessert plates and champagne glasses’ (1) whilst also providing a
‘decanter of port, cigar box and cigarettes’ (1).

 These items are all symbols of status and power: the Birling’s
ostentatious display of wealth would have immediately introduced them
to what would have certainly been a largely socialist audience as
unashamedly upper class.

 This would have been especially galling for an audience who has just
gone through rations and rejected the materialism that the Birling family
now revel in.  

 Thus, one might describe these items as symbols that embodies the
materialistic values of Edwardian society, which Priestley sought to
dismantle and challenge.

 There is immediately created an antagonistic distance between audience

and Birling family, which would make Priestley’s subsequent critique of
their attitudes all the more effective.
The Dinner Party: Meeting the Family
 On the surface the gathering between Mr Birling, Mrs Birling, Eric,
Sheila, and Eric seems convivial and intimate: they appear to be having a
pleasant evening and are clearly celebrating something.

 However, even in these early exchanges one begins to notice something

amiss.

 For instance, notice how the characters treat Edna. The very first line of
the play, spoken by Birling, is a request for Edna to refill his port. Then
once she has done this Mrs Birling dismisses her only to declare she will
soon be summoned again: ‘All right Edna. I’ll ring from the drawing-
room when we want coffee. Probably in about half an hour’ (2).

 Throughout the play and established at the very beginning Edna is

treated as just another prop, someone to be ordered around. Whilst these
dismissive attitude towards the working class (itself a foreshadowing of
later events of the play) would have been typical of the Edwardian age it
would not have been looked upon favourably by the now socialist post-
war audience.

 The disjunction between Edwardian values and post-war values is

continues to be played out in the next few lines when Mrs Birling says
this to her daughter: ‘When you’re married you’ll realize that men have
important work to do sometimes have to spend nearly all their time and
energy on their business. You’ll have to get used to that, just as I had’
(3).

 There are several interesting things to say about this comment:

o There is created a clear hierarchical distinction between men

and women where men ‘have important work to do’ and
women must make themselves busy with something of far less
importance. 
 o This is said by Mrs Birling: she has internalised the social
norms of the Edwardian period. It is not simply that men are
telling women what to do, but that Mrs Birling is complicit in
this also. The patriarchal ideology is so entrenched within
society that it is adopted and accepted by Mrs Birling.

o There is a sense of resignation: there is nothing that can be

done about this and as such Sheila will just have ‘to get used to
that’. This also speaks to the idea that this ideology has been
passed down through the generations: just as Mrs Birling
accepted the ideology so too, in time, will Sheila. However, it
is exactly this cycle that Priestly seeks to break through his
play. Notice, for instance, that Sheila’s response to this is: ‘I
don’t believe I will’ (half playful, half serious)’ (3). She may
only be half serious now, but by the end of the play she will be
entirely serious.

 The audience soon discovers that the reason for the dinner party is to
celebrate the engagement between Sheila and Gerald. However, Mr
Birling’s initial speech is quite telling: ‘Your father and I have been
friendly rivals in business for some time now – though Crofts Limited
are both older and bigger than Birling and Company – and now you’ve
brought us together, and perhaps we may look forward to the time when
Crofts and Birlings are no longer competing but are working together –
for lower costs and higher prices’ (4).

 It is clear that what most excites Birling about the engagement is the
prospect of merging his business with that of Gerald’s father and as such
the ability to reduce prices and increase prices.

 This latter comment would have been anathema (despised) to the

socialist audience: they were instead working towards a much more
egalitarian society predicated on welfare and civic responsibility.
The Dinner Party: Mr Birling’s Wisdom

 In one of the longest speeches of the opening section Mr Birling offers

Sheila and Gerald some advice: ‘There’s a good deal of silly talk about
these days – but – and I speak as a hard-headed businessman […] I say
ignore all this silly pessimistic talk […] there’s a lot of wild trouble
about possible labour trouble in the near future. Don’t worry. We’ve
passed the worst of it’ (6).

 And there’s more: ‘Just because the Kaiser makes a speech or two, or a
few German officers have too much to drink and begin talking nonsense,
you’ll hear some people say that war’s inevitable. And to that I say –
fiddlesticks!’ (6).

 And still more: ‘Why a friend of mine went over this new liner last week
– the Titanic – she sails next week – and unsinkable, absolutely
unsinkable’ (7).

 And all of this to say: ‘There’ll be peace and prosperity and rapid
progress everywhere’ (7).

 Each of these examples is what is called dramatic irony: there is a

slippage between what the character says and what the audience knows
to be true. In other words, we know something they do not.
 For example, when Birling says that there would be no labour trouble a
1945 audience would be only too aware of the 1926 General Strike and
they would be only too aware of the war that did take place and which
most of them fought in. They would also know that the Titanic did sink
and that there certainly was not ‘peace and prosperity and rapid progress
everywhere’.

 What is especially interesting is the derision with which Birling speaks

of those who disagree with him. The lexical choice of ‘fiddlesticks’ in
relation to the war would have been especially infuriating for an
 audience who had just lived through a war and almost certainly known
people who had died in it. To speak of the war in such a flippant manner
would have, to say the least, aggravated the audience.

 Notice also the polysyndeton used in the sentence ‘There’ll be peace and
prosperity and rapid progress everywhere’: the abundance of
conjunctions would have only served to heighten the mounting anger as
the audience is forced to listen to Birling list things that did not happen.

 By utilising dramatic irony in this manner Priestley is able to open

Birling up to ridicule: the audience immediately assume he is not only an
idiot, but also a character to be reviled.

 Birling is created in such a way as to be a caricature of the typical

Edwardian capitalist.

 Priestly seeks to undermine these values by associating them with a

character such as Birling and as such disrupt the entrenched ideology that
he represents and propagates.

 This point is made even more explicit later in this same section and
immediately before the Inspector arrives when Birling declares: ‘But
what so many of you don’t seem to understand now, when things are so
much easier, is that a man has to make his own way – has to look after
himself – and his family too, of course, when he has one […] But the
way some of these cranks talk and write now, as if we were all mixed up
together like bees in a hive – community and all that nonsense […] a
man has to mind his own business and look after himself’ (10).

 This is exactly the mentality that Priestly seeks to critique: that a person
is willing not only to abdicate his own responsibility, but also chastise
those who have retained it is precisely the problem with society as
Priestly sees it.
  The moral lesson that the plays seeks to impart is the necessity of acting
as part of a wider ‘community’: it is not ‘nonsense’, but the only way to
ensure that history does not repeat itself and this is what Priestly sought
to enshrine through Attlee’s Labour Party.

 Notice also how Birling mentions his family almost as though they were
an afterthought: not only does he abdicate his civic responsibility, but
also his familial one.

 Birling is everything that is wrong with society: he is the apotheosis of

the Edwardian ideology that ultimately resulted in war. He is not only
hard headed, but also hard hearted and cares only for himself.
The Inspector Arrives

 What is especially interesting about the Inspector’s arrival is that it takes

place immediately after Birling’s speech in which he chastises the very
notion of ‘community and all that nonsense’ and instead declares that a
man has to ‘look after himself and his own’ (10)

 Interrupting this speech is the following stage direction: ‘We hear the
sharp ring of a front door bell. Birling stops to listen’ (10).

 The Inspector disrupts Birling’s speech and therefore represents, from

the very start of the play, the disruption of the ideology that Birling was
espousing. Notice also Priestley’s use of ‘sharp’: this is not going to be a
pleasant encounter, but rather has violent connotations as the Inspector’s
arrival pops Birling’s ideological bubble.

 The Inspector is described as creating ‘an impression of massiveness,

solidity and purposefulness’ (11) who speaks ‘carefully, weightily, and
has a disconcerting habit of looking hard at the person he addresses’
(11). He is also described elsewhere as ‘cutting in’ (31).

 What is interesting about this description is the lexical field of ‘solidity’:

the Inspector becomes the moral bedrock on which the play is founded
 and this is in contrast to Birling’s often fragmented speech, which is
often interrupted by hyphens.

 Notice also how he is described as ‘looking hard at the person he

addresses’: he is to shine a spotlight on the actions of the Birling family
and this is reflected by the way in which the light changes, upon the
Inspector’s entrance, from ‘pink and intimate’ (1) to a ‘brighter and
harder’ (1) colour.

 This is further suggested in the National Theatre Production where the

Birling family live in a doll’s house, which then swings open upon the
Inspector’s arrival: the Inspector is to lay bare and unpick the moral
assumptions, which have determined the family’s actions.

 He is moral compass and Priestley’s mouthpiece: he is the textual

mechanism through which the play is able to impart its didactic message.
 The arrival of the Inspector is a consequence of the behaviour of the
Birling family and as such there exists a causal (cause and effect) link
between the two: the Inspector exists because the Birling family have
abdicated civic responsibility just as the play exists because of the action
of society at large.

 One might even consider Inspector Goole’s name, which is a homonym

for ‘ghoul’. A ghoul is a phantom that is said to feed on dead bodies and
can also describe a person who is morbidly obsessed with death. Given
the Inspector is there to investigate the death of Eva Smith this is an apt
description, but it might also suggest that the Inspector is to feed on the
Birling family.

 Mr Birling’s response to the Inspector’s arrival is to seek refuge in his

reputation: ‘I was an alderman for years – and Lord Mayor two years ago
– and I’m still on the Bench – so I know the Brumley police officers
pretty well’ (11).
  This again suggests something of his moral vacuity, since he has no
ability to defend himself through his own actions and substance, but
rather must rely on his connections to other people. It also suggests the
corrupt way in which those in power wield their influence to escape civic
responsibility, exactly what the Inspector seeks to correct and challenge.
The Inspector and Mr Birling

 It is quickly revealed by the Inspector that Eva Smith once worked in Mr

Birling’s factory and that he fired her.

 However, as this happened over two years before the evening of her
suicide Birling refuses to accept any responsibility: ‘I can’t accept any
responsibility. If we were all responsible for everything that happened to
everybody we’d had anything to do with, it would be very awkward,
wouldn’t it?’ (14).

 It is exactly this abdication of responsibility that Priestley seeks to

undermine and by articulating it through Birling, a character already
established as a figure of ridicule, he is, by extension, able to make the
critique all the more effective.

 Birling then concedes that the reason he fired Eva was because she asked
for a raise to which his justification is: it’s my duty to keep labour costs
down’ (15) and then also ‘If you don’t come down sharply on some of
these people, they’d soon be asking the earth’ (15).

 The lexical choice of ‘duty’ highlights the disparity between what

Birling thinks his responsibility is and what the Inspector thinks it ought
to be: for Birling his own concern is his pocket and not workers such as
Eva.

 Furthermore, to a post-war audience, ‘duty’ would have had connotations

of war (‘do your duty’) and as such Birling’s comments would have
 seemed even more trivial and as such further heightened the distance
between him and the audience. 

 It would have been particularly galling for an audience that may well
have lost loved ones, even fought in the war themselves, to hear the
concept of ‘duty’ being repurposed to include lining one’s own pockets.
If Birling starting the play as a figure to lampoon with his misguided
comments about the Titanic, he is quickly becoming a figure of loathing

 One might also consider the lexical choice of ‘these people’ when
referring to Eva: this dehumanises his workers by lumping them all
together and as such demonstrates the entrenched prejudice that upper
class had for lower class.

 Birling does not see his workers as individuals with emotions and
personal problems, but as tools that can do his bidding.

 The Inspector, indeed the play as a whole, seeks to provide a platform for
those workers otherwise denied representation.
The Inspector and Sheila

 At this point in the play Sheila re-emerges interrupting the Inspector’s

interrogation of Mr Birling.

 The exchange between Sheila and her father is significant: ‘What’s all
this about?’ // ‘Nothing to do with you, Sheila. Run along.’ (17).

 The belittling way in which Birling speaks to his daughter betrays the
patriarchal nature of Edwardian society. In the same way that Mrs
Birling spoke of leaving men to do man’s business so too does Mr
Birling seek to exclude his daughter from this conversation.

 Notice also the phrase ‘Run along’. Firstly, the fact that it is an
imperative and also the use of the short, snappy syntax reinforces that, as
far as Mr Birling is concerned, what he says is absolute. Secondly, it is
 something that would usually be said to a child thus highlighting
Birling’s view of Sheila.

 Throughout these initial exchanges Sheila grows in confidence and

ultimately challenges the prejudices of her father: ‘But these girl’s aren’t
cheap labour – they’re people’ (19). Clearly, this isn’t a distinction that
Birling understands.

 Shelia’s denouncement of her father engages with one of the main

themes of the play: the young generation are the ones most susceptible to
change. This motif will be continued and developed as the play
progresses.

 Despite Sheila’s apparent integrity it quickly becomes apparent that she

also played a role in Eva’s downfall, and upon discovering this, so the
stage directions tell us, ‘she gives a high-stifled sob, and then runs out’
(21).

 Just like her father Sheila abdicates her responsibility: rather than facing
her accuser she instead runs away. However, significantly, she does
return, ultimately fully accepting responsibility for her actions and
pledging never to repeat them.

 Whilst she has gone there is a particularly illuminating exchange

between Birling and the Inspector. Birling comments: ‘We were having a
nice little family celebration tonight. And a nasty little mess you’ve
made of it now, haven’t you?’ (21). The Inspector then responds: ‘That’s
more or less what I was thinking earlier tonight, when I was in the
Infirmary looking at what was left of Eva Smith. A nice little promising
life there, I thought, and a nasty mess somebody’s made of it’ (21).

 The juxtaposition between these two comments and the repetition of key
phrases serves to highlight the disparity between Birling and the
Inspector and by extension they values they represent: what matters most
 to Birling is his celebration, but what matters most to the Inspector is the
life of Eva.

 Birling is brutally insular whilst the Inspector is compassionately

communal.

 Upon her return the audience discovers the role that Sheila played more
exactly.

 Whilst shopping at Milward’s she tried on a dress and caught Eva

smirking at her believing that she was mocking her and because Eva was
beautiful Sheila became jealous and requested that she be fired, which
she was.

 This perhaps tells us something about how the upper class control the
working class: both Mr Birling and his daughter are in a position to have
Eva fired and they wield this influence to disastrous effect.

 This further highlights just how dependent people are on their jobs and
as such the need for strict laws surrounding the work place, which
Attlee’s Labour government sought to implement.

 As the play continues, Sheila’s transformation and willingness to change

her behaviour comes to represent and symbolise exactly the kind of
change Priestley hopes his audience will make.

 Sheila, unlike Mr Birling, comes to represent the moral template which

the audience ought to emulate; a change provoked by the Inspector
within the world of the play and perhaps, one might imagine, by
Priestley himself out of it
The Inspector and Gerald

 At the end of Act One the Inspector reveals that Eva often went by a
different name (Daisy Renton) and upon hearing this Gerald shows
obvious recognition.
 In an effort to remove Sheila from earshot Gerald says: ‘I think Miss
Birling ought to be excused any more of this questioning. She’s nothing
more to tell you. She’s had a long, exciting and tiring day […] and now
she’s obviously had about as much as she can stand’ (27).

 In the same condescending tone that Mr Birling adopted earlier in the

play, Gerald seeks to assert his patriarchal influence by speaking on
Sheila’s behalf and as such suppressing her voice.

 As well as very obviously patronising, there is even an undertone here of

something more sinister: he seeks to control Sheila, not only what and
how she ought to think but even to exert a certain control over her body
by suggesting she should be removed and that she is tired. This apparent
willingness to exert control over Sheila foreshadows much of the
subsequent revelations about Gerald’s pernicious interactions with Eva

 Yet, Sheila does not accept this and assertively states that she is staying.
This represents a significant change in her tone and manner that will
continue throughout the play, but it also highlights Sheila’s ability to
reject Gerald’s attempted control in a way that Eva could not. Perhaps
Priestley is hinting already at the success of the Inspector’s
interrogations. 

 Before Gerald has a chance to relay his involvement Mrs Birling appears
and attempts to end the Inspector’s inquiry with this comment: ‘I don’t
suppose for a moment that we can understand why the girl committed
suicide. Girls of that class –‘ (30).

 This demonstrates the clear class prejudice that both Mr and Mrs Birling
share and Priestley’s choice of ‘that’ has the same dehumanising effect
that Mrs Birling’s earlier use of ‘these’ had. One can even imagine the
actress spitting out this word, exhibiting, as it does, a certain repulsion
that Mrs Birling has for ‘girls of that class’ 
 Furthermore, it also emphasises that for Mrs Birling all that matters is
Eva’s class: her worth and value as a human is inextricably linked to her
social class and, again, this is the view that in writing the play Priestley
sought to challenge and subvert.

 At this point we discover Gerald’s true involvement: he met Eva whilst

at an event and took her, as he would like us to think at least, under his
wing. He offered her a place to stay and gave her money and she soon
became his mistress.

 As Shelia summarises: ‘Gerald set her up as his mistress and then

dropped her when it suited him’ (41).

 To Gerald Eva is disposable: he is able to do what he wants with her

without any consideration of the consequences. She is simply a plaything
to him and as her name suggest she is, in his view, for ‘rent’.

 Indeed, the way in which Gerald speaks of Eva helps to capture this
rather insidious attitude: she looked, he says, ‘young and fresh’ and was
‘out of place’. Priestley makes it clear, here, that Gerald recognised
Eva’s vulnerability and took advantage of it for his own ends. 

 The use of ‘fresh’ is especially revealing and a rather odd way in which
to describe someone. ‘Fresh’ suggests vulnerability and youth, and as
such the promise of a future squandered, but also indicates Gerald’s
sexual attraction to Eva. It implies a rather sickening recognition and
awareness of her inexperience and the ability for this to be exploited and
leveraged. 

 Gerald knowingly and manipulatively ‘set her up’ and in doing so

manufactured a situation where Eva depended upon him for the
necessities of life (food and shelter) so that he could, at his own whims,
sexually exploit her, finally ‘dropping’ her when it no longer suited him. 
  The cruelty at the crux of the play is that different people held power
over and had control of Eva, and perhaps none so as manipulatively and
insidiously as Gerald.

 Whether it be as an employer, as a customer where she works, or as a

man she turns to for help, people had power over Eva and then abused
that power for their own ends.

 At its most fundamental the play is an attempt to provoke a

reconfiguration of society where no one person has a monopoly over the
life of another.
The Inspector and Mrs Birling

 It soon transpires that Mrs Birling chaired the Brumley Women’s Charity
and Eva sought help from her.

 At this point in the play it is revealed that Eva was pregnant when she
committed suicide and she asked for help from the charity in order that
she might better look after the child.

 One reason that Mrs Birling denied the request of help, aside from her
class prejudice, was that Eva used the name Birling, which Mrs Birling
describes as a ‘damned impudence’ (43).

 Mrs Birling also explains that she refused to help her because ‘she
wasn’t married’ (44), which would have been especially frowned upon in
Edwardian society.

 Thus, instead of helping her Mrs Birling casts her aside. There is an
interesting parallel here to Gerald who, unlike Mrs Birling, ‘sets her up’.
Yet, Priestley seems to suggest both act without care for Eva, seeing her
as disposable and someone able to be discarded

 What is especially interesting about Mrs Birling is the complete lack of

emotion she has for Eva: ‘I did nothing I’m ashamed for […] I used my
 influence to have it refused. And in spite of what happened to the girl
since, I consider I did my duty’ (44).

 Again, Priestley’s use of ‘duty’ in this context would have been

especially jarring for a post-war audience: the conception of duty that Mr
and Mrs Birling have is eternally different from the conception of duty
that Priestly seeks to cultivate.

 Furthermore, it comes to light that the reason Eva needed help in the first
place is because the person who had previously been helping her (the
father of the baby) had been stealing money and Eva did not want to be
involved in this.

 Yet, because her view is tainted by class prejudice Mrs Birling does not
believe her: ‘As if a girl of that sort would ever refuse money!’ (47).

 Even more perverse is that Mrs Birling, by her own admission, uses her
‘influence’ to turn the committee against Eva. It was not the case she was
passive in her refusal, but, one assumes, actively sought to persuade
others to reject Eva’s appeals. This is a cruel perversion of the kind of
communal society Priestley envisages where we are all ‘members of one
body’.

 Likewise, Priestley’s evocation of ‘influence’, similar to Sheila

leveraging her influence to have Eva fired, underlines the way in which
influence wielded by the wrong people can lead to a disastrous outcome.
Better, perhaps, Priestley is suggesting, not to have such power in the
hands of prejudiced individuals, but rather an accountable government.

 Mrs Birling, perhaps more so than the other characters, represents a

complete abdication of responsibility and a complete lack of remorse:
she utterly abused her position of power.

 Contrast, for instance, Mrs Birling’s cold reaction to Eva’s death with
Sheila’s now sickened reaction: ‘No! Oh – how horrible – horrible’ (45).
 The short syntax and fragmentary speech mimics her now disjointed
frame of mind and she comes to realise what has taken place.

 This section of the play also functions as a social commentary on the

efficacy of charitable bodies. In the Edwardian Period if a person needed
help they would typically go to a charity and rely on the ‘kindness of
strangers’. However, the Welfare State saw to put an end to this. Thus,
the play might be seen as an attempt to justify the introduction of the
Welfare State by denigrating the previous system of charity, teasing out
its many flaws.

 In a manner far more pernicious and cruel than ether Sheila or Mr

Birling, we see in Gerald and Mrs Birling a willing and unashamed
capacity to wield power over another person and to treat them as utterly
disposable. Eva suffered at the hands of both and neither, one feels, have
learnt their lesson.

 The challenge, indeed moral injunction, that the play presents to its
audience, whether now or 70 years ago, is to ensure we do not follow in
the footsteps of Gerald or Mrs Birling.
The Inspector and Eric

 After having left earlier in the play Eric now returns.

 It gradually comes to light that Eric was the father to Eva’s unborn child
and that he stole money (from his father) ostensibly to support her.

 What is especially telling is that upon his parents hearing of this their
first concern is that he stole money: ‘Eric! You stole money!’ (12).

 So obsessed are they with their wealth and status that what is most
horrible about the event is not that Eric abandoned Eva only for her to
kill herself shortly after, but that he stole money from the family
company.
 As the Inspector probes further, the manner of Eric’s initial meeting with
Eva is made apparent. He walked back with her to her lodgings,
explaining: ‘Yes, I insisted – it seems. I’m not very clear about it, but
afterwards she told me she didn’t want me to go in but that – well, I was
in that state when a chap easily turns nasty – and I threatened to make a
row’

 This is, whatever way one looks at it, an extremely chilling admission
and one worth us pausing over:

o Priestley’s use of ‘insisted’ immediately establishes the power

dynamic between Eric and Eva where she, as ever, is stripped
of autonomy and power. She has, it would seem, no recourse to
say no to Eric

o This is made even more clear in the next section of this

revelation that Eva ‘didn’t want me to go in’. It is not, it seems,
that she did not express a preference, but that clearly she did
and that Eric, nevertheless, ignored, or actively rejected, this
preference. Again, Eva is depicted as vulnerable and powerless
with Eric a predator whose drunken desires outweigh what Eva
wants. She does not, in this moment, have the ability to control
her own fate, as was ever the case

o Eric then explains why it was Eva could not reject Eric’s
unwanted advances as, apparently, he ‘was in that state when a
chap easily turns nasty’. Clearly, Eva felt threatened by what
Eric might do next, and one could only surmise there is the
threat of physical violence unless Eva does what he ‘insists’
upon

o Looking at the situation that is being depicted, the obvious

hierarchy that exists between Eva and Eric, and the threat of
 possible violence unless Eva capitulates, it would be difficult
not to describe their subsequent sexual encounter as rape

 This is an abhorrent moment that helps Priestley to cement the

overarching trajectory of Eva’s character: she is a powerless to stop the
predation of other people; an individual whose autonomy is monopolised
by the will of others 

 Whilst Eric does accept liability more than his parents he still does
attempt to relinquish his responsibility. Upon hearing of his mother’s
involvement he stammers: ‘Then — you killed her. She came to you to
protect me – and you turned her away – yes, and you killed her – and the
child she’d have had too […] damn you, damn you’. (55). Priestley’s
repetition of ‘you’ is telling here

 This flurried set of statements represents an attempt to shift the onus onto
someone else.
 However, the Inspector quickly reminds him that they all had a role to
play: ‘This girl killed herself – and died a horrible death. But each of you
helped to kill her. Remember that’ (55).

 During the Inspector’s interrogation of Eric, one perhaps cannot help but
make parallels to Gerald and consider, maybe, whose actions are worse. 

 Undoubtedly, both are morally repugnant, but whereas Eric does show
remorse for what he has done (‘I was in a hell of a state about it’, ‘My
God I’m not likely to forget’, ‘we all helped to kill her’) Gerald does not
(Everything’s all right now Sheila. What about that ring’)

 Like Sheila, although certainly not as dramatically, Eric has been

changed by the events of the night
The End of the Play: Picking up the Pieces
 Now that all the characters have been implicated and the Inspector has
forced them to confront their guilt he leaves but before doing so gives
them one final message.

 This is one of the most important speeches and goes to the heart of what
the play is about. This is the moral centre of the play and as such worth
quoting in full: ‘One Eva Smith has gone – but there are millions and
millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us,
with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of
happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and
do. We don’t live alone. We are members of one body. We are
responsible for each other. And I tell you that the time will soon come
when, if men will not learn that lesson, when they will be taught it in fire
and blood and anguish’ (56).

 There are several things that could be said about this striking image:

o The passage emphasises how Eva Smith is intended to

represent all women and all people in society. This is
reinforced by the name itself: in Biblical terms Eva is the first
woman and Smith is the most common British surname. We
are all Eva Smith and as such we need to help each other.

o This is also highlighted by the use of polysyndeton (multiple

conjunctions) in ‘millions and millions and millions’.

o The passage stresses the fact that all people in society should
share responsibility for one another: the metaphorical image of
us being ‘one body’ highlights this. If one part of your body is
ill or not function as it should then all the others parts suffer.
We do not live in a vacuum, but are part of a whole. The health
of the whole is dependent on the health of the part.
 o The final image of lessons being taught in ‘fire and blood and
anguish’ would be especially evocative for an audience who
has just fought through two world wars. This reinforces the
fact that the natural consequence of a society that does not care
for one another (in other words the mentality advocated by Mr
Birling) is war and conflict. Thus, the only way to ensure
further conflicts do not happen is to create a society where we
look after one another. The natural political manifestation of
this ideology, for Priestly, is socialism and this is what the play
promotes.

 After delivering this climatic speech the Inspector leaves and

immediately Mr Birling reverts to his old ways: ‘There’ll be a public
scandal!’ (57) and also ‘I was almost certain for a knighthood in the next
Honours List’ (57).

 The juxtaposition between the Inspector’s poignant speech telling of war

and death and then Birling’s immediate apprehension as to whether or
not his reputation will be hurt is a damning portrayal of the different
values the two hold. The one is antithetic to the other.

 This shows that Mr Birling and also Mrs Birling have not changed
during the play: they are selfish, cold, preoccupied with their public
image, impervious to the Inspector’s warnings. They are symbols of the
Edwardian values that Priestley has sought to dismantle.

 However, this is not true of Eric and Sheila. Upon hearing his father Eric
declares: ‘Oh – for God’s sake! What does it matter now whether or not
you get a knighthood or not?’ (57).

 Similarly, Sheila says: ‘I behaved badly too. I know I did. I’m ashamed
of it. But now you’re beginning all over again to pretend that nothing
much has happened’ (57) and then also ‘The point is, you don’t seem to
have learnt anything’ (58).
 Sheila and Eric start the play with a similar outlook to their parents but
soon diverge. They grow during the play, learning the value of
community and of caring for others.

 Notice also how Shelia begins the play by being subservient to her
parents only to then speak her mind and how her speeches begin in a
childlike manner only to then become more mature as the play
progresses.

 There is also the symbol of her engagement ring: she is at first

enamoured by it only to then reject it: she is rejecting the materialist
values that she initially lived by.

 They represent a more socially responsible future. As the Inspector says

earlier in the play: ‘We often do [make an impression] on the young
ones. They’re more impressionable’.

 Whilst the older generation will not change the young generation will
and it is change that is needed to rebuild society into a fairer and more
egalitarian place.

 Through Eric and Sheila Priestly is modelling and promoting the

behaviours that he would like to see in his audience: a rejection of
Edwardian values in favour of recognition that one must be responsible
for others.

 If the play is didactic and seeks to impart a moral lesson then Eric and
Sheila have learned this lesson whilst their parents have not.

 At this point Gerald returns and suggests that Eva was not a single
person, but multiple ones and the Inspector was not real.

 The older generation rejoice at this idea whilst the younger generation is
in dismay
 Just when the Birling family feel they have avoided their comeuppance
the phone rings and they are informed that an Inspector will be coming to
talk to them as a girl has just died.

 This relates to Dunne’s theory of time in which the past exists in the
present and the one continually shapes the other: history will repeat itself
until all of the Birling family have learned their lesson.

 Perhaps the ultimate aim of the play is that the audience leave the theatre
having learnt their lesson, never to repeat the mistakes of the Birlings,
and to walk out into the fresh air morally reinvigorated.