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.
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 Eva’s 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 summarises 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.
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 in society, regardless
of gender.
Everything I go through in this video series can be found the second, updated edition of
Mr Bruff’s Guide to An Inspector Calls, and you can pick up a copy through following
the links in the description.
If you found this video useful please do give it a thumbs up and subscribe to the channel.