Gerald Croft is Priestley’s tool to reveal the flaws 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 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 saying ‘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 Gerald’s smug self 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 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 Gerald as a character and, for a while, the audience believes that he 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
alright 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