Later in the play Birling calls the family’s attention in making a speech, full of advice and warning to his young charges. Priestly uses this speech to great effect to show both Birling’s ignorance and pomposity, and also to display use of dramatic irony, not only in the play, but also in the real world. Having performed many civic duties, as a former Lord Mayor and practising magistrate, Arthur believes himself to be right about everything but does not appear to realise that it is his self-assuredness that leads to most of his problems, he makes a series of predictions during this speech that the audience knows to be untrue. Birling says, “…just because the miners came out on strike, there’s a lot of talk about possible labour trouble…” yet in 1924, twelve years later, Britain was lead by a Labour government. HE goes on to talk about the Titanic an “absolutely unsinkable” ship that sank on its maiden voyage. Birling makes another prediction saying that “we’re in for a time of steadily increasing prosperity”, but in 1929 the American economy slumped into what is known as the ‘Wall Street Crash’ which in turn lead to the Great Depression that left millions unemployed and brought British trade to its knees. Perhaps the largest display of Birling’s egoism is shown in his prediction concerning a possible war with the Germans: “…some people say that war’s inevitable. And to that I say – fiddlesticks! The Germans don’t want war” a fact which we know to be untrue as Britain entered World War I only two years later. Priestley uses Birling’s attitude to expose weaknesses in his personality. Arthur Birling’s confidence also turns to an ignorance that is manifested in his unawareness of his son’s excessive drinking and of the actions of Alderman Meggarty who visits “women of the town” at the Palace Variety Theatre, women that Birling himself may have visited on occasions. Priestley portrays him as a typical man of his time and typical of the beliefs and values within this era of double standards which Eva Smith, and to a certain extent his own son Eric, are victims of.
Just before the Inspector arrives, Priestley uses foreshadowing numerous times, especially in Eric Birling. Just as Gerald confirms how careful he will be in spending more time with Sheila “Eric suddenly guffaws” for no apparent reason, it seems as though Eric is ridiculing the idea of Gerald’s promise and exposing its futility. Eric again makes a comment on Sheila, “she’s got a nasty temper sometimes”, a temper we see the results of later. This instance of foreshowing is coupled with another comment by Eric in which he says “women are potty about [clothes]”. Priestley used these examples of foreshadowing as subtle hints at later events but also as it is these instances that ‘convict’ them in the audience’s eyes.
As the Inspector arrives a side of Arthur Birling is exposed to the greatest extent, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, that shows all his shortcomings as a businessman, a father but most importantly as a person. Before the Inspector even begins questioning Mr Birling he outlines the purpose for his arrival giving a brief account of how Eva Smith came to her death. A story that would fill any person with heartfelt sorrow and compassion yields from Birling nothing more than an impatient retort of “yes, yes. Horrid business.” From this it would seem that Arthur is incapable of empathy and in fact only thinks of himself. Upon beginning his examination the Inspector sets the scene by invoking Birling’s memory to the person of Eva Smith, whom Birling is first unable to remember but later recalls after being shown a photograph of her. As the Inspector’s investigation begins, Gerald asks if it would be preferred if he were “out of this”, yet the Inspector tells him that he’d “prefer [him] to stay”. Priestley again uses dramatic irony, prevalent throughout the play, for reasons that are shown later. Birling shows his fear for association with any sort of scandal that may impair his chance of a knighthood; he seems eager to have the affair over and done with, absolving himself of any involvement in Eva Smith’s death – “I can’t accept any responsibility”, it is here that his selfishness is seen. Arthur Birling then goes on to explain how he dismisses Eva Smith because she has asked for a pay rise. Again Birling’s greed and selfishness is shown in the reason he gives for having refused Eva a pay rise, Birling is more concerned with his own monetary gain than he is with the survival and well-being of those less fortunate than himself saying “it’s my duty to keep labour costs down, and if I’d agreed…we’d have added twelve per cent to our labour costs”. In this way Birling shows just how incapable his is of any kind of empathetic feeling, thus verifying his belief that “a man has to mind his own business and look after himself”
Arthur’s wife, Sybil Birling, is quite an uninteresting, monotonous character who does not portray any traits of a likeable personality even before she is truly integrated into the play. Although Sybil’s entire attitude is unseen for most of the play, since she is absent, Priestley describes her as “a rather cold woman”, more unfeeling and unsympathetic. Her detached attitude is only hinted at, as she never really engages in the conversation amongst her family members except to reprimand and pointless comments to conversation. It is not until the Inspector arrives that Sybil’s mannerisms are more fully exposed.
Prior to Sybil’s questioning Arthur, Sheila and Gerald have already been “put through it”, these three have been questioned in chronological order as each of them knew Eva at successive moments of her life. Sybil Birling is an exception in this rule as Priestley decimates her attitudes and thoughts to the greatest extent.
Sybil does not share her husband’s obsession with social class, she takes her status for granted even to the point of believing herself to be utterly superior to everyone else, we see this when she introduces herself to the Inspector, saying “I’m Mrs Birling y’know”, instead of this being a polite introduction, it seems that Mrs Birling expects her name to carry weight, to command respect, as though everyone ought to recognise and have some sort of obligation to the Birling name, this is again shown in her belief that Eva Smith’s use of her family name was a “trifle impertinent”. Mrs Birling’s narcissistic attitude is seen as she exerts her influence over Sheila by replying for her when Gerald asks if she likes her engagement ring saying “of course she does”.
Sybil is far too used to the perquisites that an upper class society brings, certainly more than her husband, as she is of higher social standing. Sybil looks down on the lower classes and blindly accepts the stereotypes attached to them including the idea that people of the lower classes were somehow subhuman, she derides the idea that “girls of that class” would refuse stolen money in reference to Eva Smith. It seems that, to Sybil, status and respectability is more important than anything else, including her children. It is this view that keeps Sybil even blinder than her husband. Priestley uses Sybil’s aloof manner to great effect in showing how Mrs Birling does not understand her own children. Like Arthur, Sybil is so unfeeling that she fails to see the troubles faced by her children and seems somewhat uninterested in their lives.
Priestley uses the Inspector to further expose these traits in Sybil and to show her unwillingness to change. Upon finding out that Eva Smith was pregnant when Sybil used her influence to refuse her financial aid, Sybil believes that the father of the child should be held responsible and should be publicly humiliated. However, her view changes when she realises that the father of the child is her own son, Eric. Sybil believes that members of higher classes who fail to keep scandals covered up, should be shamed to dishonour, but when the problem is within her own family she expects the same sympathy that she refuses to give to others.
Gerald Croft, though part of a social stratum above that of the Birlings is somewhat like his prospective father-in-law, both enjoy the benefits of upper class society. Yet Gerald seems more at ease with the airs and graces that are displayed by the Birlings, possibly because he does not feel the need to show off his status and takes it for granted having been born into an aristocratic family. Gerald is the personification of Arthur Birling’s dream for his daughter. A man of superior social standing with sufficient money to care after Sheila and the possibility of there being a double unity – not only between the Croft and Birling families but also between their businesses. This highlights Arthur Birling greed and his apparent inability to show compassion.
In the introduction, Priestley describes Gerald as “very much the easy well-bred man-about-town”, this shows Gerald’s blasé attitude towards himself and to life and shows him as being not even nearly as pompous and Arthur Birling, initially Gerald is depicted as a rather polite man who the audience warms to, his good manners are evident as he joins Arthur Birling in thanking the cook for dinner, though he knows this to be unbecoming of higher classes. Unlike Eric, Gerald can control his drinking habits and is treated as an equal by Birling rather than as a wayward child. However, one is left to question if Birling treats Gerald in this way because of the possible business merger between his own and Gerald’s father’s business. Unlike Arthur Birling, Priestley does not make Gerald a victim of callous dramatic irony, but rather of foreshadowing. Preceding the Inspector’s arrival, as Gerald promises Sheila that he will be careful “Eric suddenly guffaws” without reason, as though he were laughing at the futility of the promise made. This is further shown during Sheila’s ordeal with the Inspector where Sheila accuses him of having done some things he is ashamed of - “(surprised) Well I never said I hadn’t”
The Inspector begins his investigation into Gerald’s part in the young woman’s death by announcing that she underwent a change of name, to Daisy Renton, a name that Gerald instantly recognises, though he denies this at first. In Edwardian Britain it was completely unheard of for a courting couple from a middle or upper class marriage to even consider intercourse before marriage, yet is was perfectly acceptable for an unmarried man to visit prostitutes or keep mistresses (providing it was all done covertly). In those times marriage was primarily about the union between two people of a similar social standing than about love. Yet Priestley seems to save Gerald from this narrow view and lets him off lightly in comparison to the other characters as the Inspector says, “he at least made her happy for a time”
To understand just how Priestley exposes the traits of his characters in society, we must first understand the context in which the play was set. Priestley wanted his audience to understand that “there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us…intertwined with our lives”. The name Eva Smith in itself holds significance to this message. Eva is a derivative of the name Eve, who from a Biblical perspective was the first woman, and the name Smith, reported as being the most common British surname. Thus ‘Eva Smith’ could be just about any woman, yet she isn’t any woman, she is instead one who represents all people in her predicament and Priestley uses both the significance of her name coupled with her anonymity in the play (as we hear of Eva but never see her) to show that Eva Smith is representative of everyone, yet remains an identity or personality for the audience fulfil.
Priestley has used throughout this play the devices of dramatic irony and foreshadowing. He shows lies, deceit, wickedness, hypocrisy and much more within the characters. But what does he show us about society, both today and in the time the play was written? To portray the failings of society Priestley uses a combination of many different themes and idealisms, each represented by the attitudes of the different character. Arthur Birling represents power and responsibility, Gerald – selfishness, Sheila – jealousy and pride, Eric signifies lust and finally Sybil Birling who embodies hypocrisy and arrogance. Priestley uses the Inspector as a personified conscience of the characters and of the audience, though the Inspectors identity is never revealed and is left for the audience to figure out, he at once creates a domineering atmosphere with an air of almost godlike capabilities of omnipotence, omnipresence and perhaps most importantly – omniscience. Priestley uses time as his greatest dramatic ploy in the play in the play
Priestley uses Arthur and Sybil Birling to the greatest extent as the mouthpiece of the attitudes that he criticises in the play. Edwardian Britain was an era of double standards Arthur Birling represents the double standards between the less fortunate of society and the more privileged. Through the play, it would seem that Priestley appeals to the young (as Sheila and Gerald are the only ones to learn anything from their experience) to ensure a change from the ‘old order’ of things.
