The play also follows the pattern of Koros – Hubris – Ate. Koros is when a character has an excessive thought; they then commit Hubris, which is expression of that thought and this results in Ate, which is eventual self-destruction and destruction of others around them (if they have power). Power and responsibility are key themes in the play.
I think Mr Birling was partly responsible for Eva Smith’s downfall and subsequent suicide. He started off the ‘chain of events’ that led to Eva’s death. As a capitalist and a member of an older generation he chooses to absolve himself of all responsibility for her death: “I can’t accept any responsibility.” This is the easiest and most typical approach to take. On the other hand he could be trying to hide the fact that he feels slightly guilty. He does this by denial: ‘…obviously it has nothing whatever to do with this wretched girls suicide. Eh, Inspector?’ He uses a question ‘Eh, Inspector?’ as he is looking for collusion with the Inspector. He also uses the question to try and take control, which we find out does not work and the Inspector remains in control. He wants him to agree so he will not feel as guilty, or he may actually believe he is not responsible: ‘Well, don’t tell me that’s because I discharged her from my employment nearly two years ago.’ This backs up the idea that he doesn’t feel responsible. I believe this is the assumption Preistley wanted the audience to make.
From When the Inspector first enters, Mr. Birling seems to have no time for him and is very impatient. We know this from the stage directions: ‘(after a pause with a touch of impatience) Well, what is it then?’ This supports my idea that Mr Birling is impatient manipulating the audience into disliking Mr. Birling. I think Preistley has cleverly done this because he wants the audience to empathise with Eva Smith who represents the working class society. As well as absolving himself from all responsibility we know from the stage directions that he does not want to hear anything else or open his mind to new and different views on the situation: ‘(moving) No, leave this to me…(turns at the door, staring at the Inspector angrily.) We were having a nice little family celebration tonight. And a nasty mess you’ve made of it now, haven’t you?’ Doors are associated with new opportunities and learning. Mr. Birling walks towards the door showing to the audience that he no longer wants anything to do with the situation so he literally closes the door and metaphorically shuts the door to new ideas and ways of thinking. Throughout the play Mr. Birling doesn’t change his way of thinking. In fact the only thing he seems to have learnt are about the events that have happened: ‘(bitterly) I understand a lot of things now I didn’t understand before.’ This is an example of dramatic irony, as he hasn’t understood any of the moral issues at all. One thing that does change is his perception of his daughter: ‘…Going to bed, young woman?’ He has stopped calling her a child.
A critic has suggested that each member of the Birling family and Gerald represents one of the seven sins. I think this can be argued, as there are seven sins and five characters. I think this critic has taken a very simplistic approach. Mr. Birling could represent gluttony: ‘Giving us the port, Edna? That’s right… you ought to like this port, Gerald.’ He could also represent covetousness.
Sheila was also a contributor to the ‘chain of events’ that led to Eva’s suicide. At the beginning of the play Sheila is a very happy and content person: ‘(Sheila is a very pretty girl in her early twenties, very pleased with life…)’ At this stage she has self-satisfaction and is enjoying life. She shows no evidence of a conscience for any past events. She has Koros, which means she will commit Hubris at some point in the play this will inevitably end with Ate. Sheila is in her early twenties, a very impressionable age and like Eric susceptible to change.
Of the seven sins I think Sheila represents envy: ‘She was a very pretty girl too.’ Sheila noticed Eva’s appearance above all else and as she was prettier than her, automatically formed a negative opinion of her, as she was jealous. This makes the audience feel she was partly responsible. This changes through the play as Sheila learns a moral lesson.
Out of all the characters, throughout the play, Sheila is changed the most by the Inspector. By the end of the play the audience is starting to feel sympathy for Sheila: ‘…if all that’s come out tonight is true, then it doesn’t much matter who it was that made us confess…[t]hat’s what’s important – and not whether a man is a police inspector or not.’ This mitigates her behaviour. Sheila could represent a feminist, or with Eric could represent the younger generation. I believe Preistley wanted the audience to make the assumption that they represented the younger generation who were more impressionable and susceptible to change.
Gerald Croft is the next in this ‘Chain of Events’. When Gerald is first interrogated by the Inspector he seems to be genuinely shocked and feels quite bad: ‘She was very pretty – soft brown hair and big dark eyes –(breaks off.) My God!’ This mitigates his behaviour slightly as he seems to feel guilty; we know this because his disjointed language shows he is emotional, proving his distress. He could be pretending so that everyone else thinks he feels guilty but I don’t think this is the conclusion Preistley wanted the audience to make. It seems Gerald is in some state of recognition of what has happened but as the play transpires he reverts back to his original state of ignorance: ‘…I’d like to be alone for a while – I’d be glad if you’d let me go.’ Significantly he leaves the house, which symbolises his no longer wanting to hear about the truth. He then absolves himself from feelings of responsibility while outside the house. While outside the house he goes to a lot of trouble to establish that the Inspector isn’t real. Mr and Mrs. Birling are very pleased with him and Gerald literally joins them.
If I were to agree with the critic that said each character represents one of the seven sins I would say Gerald represents lust: ‘(hesitantly) It’s hard to say. I didn’t feel about her as she felt about me.’ I found it hard to find any more evidence that mitigates Gerald’s behaviour.
Sybil Birling was possibly the most responsible for Eva’s death. She doesn’t seem to change at all throughout the play. She is very aware of her social status: ‘Arthur, you’re not supposed to say such things.’ At this early stage the audience get a sense of conflict between members of the family. This echoes what was going on at the time, the nineteen forty-five audience have just been through World War One.
Sybil absolves herself from all responsibility and blames it on other people: ‘…But I accept no blame for it at all.’ She has committed Hubris and is now inevitably heading for Ate: ‘(She stops, and exchanges frightened glances with her husband.)’ Ate has been reached as she has completely broken down, is very frightened and for the first time in the play speechless, yet she is still in a state of denial: ‘(agitated) I don’t believe it. I won’t believe it . . .’ This encapsulates her character. The auxiliary verb ‘won’t’ conveys her stubborn attitude.
Again, if I agree with the critic who says each character represents a sin I think Mrs. Birling represents pride: ‘(reproachfully) Arthur, you’re not supposed to say such things-’ Sybil is very supercilious, which reinforces the idea that she was more responsible than others.
Eric Birling was also a contributor to Eva’s death. He, like Sheila, feels a sense of moral responsibility by the end of the play: ‘And I say the girl’s dead and we all helped to kill her – and that’s what matters-’ This mitigates Eric’s behaviour as he seems to have learnt a moral lesson. Eric volunteers information: ‘…I stole some money, Gerald, you might as well know…[t]he money’s not the important thing. It’s what happened to the girl and what we all did to her that matters.’ This might decrease the audience’s sympathy for Eric as he refers to Eva, as ‘the girl’ so she still does not seem to be important to him. On the other hand it might increase your sympathy for Eric as he volunteers information showing he has developed a sense of responsibility. Sheila then goes on to say ‘…And it’s the best thing any one of us has said tonight and it makes me feel a bit less ashamed of us.’ Eric and Sheila have created a bond, which makes the audience feel sympathy towards them therefore mitigating their behaviour.
If Eric was to represent one of the seven sins I think it would be, like Gerald, lust: ‘I wasn’t in love with her or anything but I liked her – she was pretty and a good sport -’ I could also argue that Eric represented sloth: ‘I stole some money…’ He didn’t try and earn the money himself he stole it. This shows laziness.
Throughout the play we have seen the gradual revelation of Eva’s character. Eva and Edna represent the working class society. Eva seems to have lots of integrity: ‘…What she did let slip – though she didn’t mean to – was that she was desperately hard up and at that moment she was actually hungry…’ She might have said this deliberately to get sympathy from Gerald or more probably she let it slip and is actually quite proud and that was why she was so vague. This integrity increases the audience’s sympathy for her and decreases it for the Birlings: ‘She’d saved a little money during the summer – she’d lived very economically on what I’d allowed her – and didn’t want to take any more from me…’ This shows she had strong ethics also increasing the audience’s sympathy for her and what she represents.
The Inspector plays what I feel is the most important part in the play. He acts as a catalyst, the stimulus of the play. He treats all the characters in a different way. He has to be harder on Mrs. Birling than any of the others as she is the most aggressive. In his final speech he uses many things conventionally used by orators or in political speeches: ‘…[B]ut there are 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… ’ The Inspector repeats ‘millions’ so it will have more of an effect on the audience. He also uses a tripartite structure like all great orators, and goes on to say: ‘…We don’t live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other…’ The use of the pronoun ‘we’ involves the audience, as well as the family, to manipulate them in to saying they are responsible. This anaphora also has a lasting effect on the audience.
The visiting of a second inspector at the end of the play, reinforces the idea that the first one wasn’t real. We could then argue what the first Inspector represents. I think it could represent more than one thing, I think the most likely things it could represent are Preistley, the voice of justice, or a God. The second inspector is needed to help Mr and Mrs. Birling and Gerald reach a point of moral responsibility.
In conclusion I feel that who is most responsible for Eva Smith’s downfall and subsequent suicide is immaterial and more importantly only Sheila and Eric have reached a point of moral responsibility. Mr and Mrs. Birling and Gerald are still in their original state of ignorance. Perhaps the arrival of the second inspector will change their judgement of Eva and the working class. I think Preistley’s main purpose for writing the play was to raise the moral responsibility of the audience.
