What do you think?
Rate this book
丕氐胤賷丕丿 丕賱卮賲爻
This volume is part of a series of novels, plays and stories at GCSE/Key Stage 4 level, designed to meet the needs of the National Curriculum syllabus. Each text includes an introduction, pre-reading activities, notes and coursework activities. Also provided is a section on the process of writing, often compiled by the author.
145 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1964
9 people are currently reading
302 people want to read
About the author
Peter Shaffer
63听books177听followersSir Peter Levin Shaffer was an English dramatist, author of numerous award-winning plays, several of which have been filmed.
See also
See also
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
June 12, 2018
This play tells different stories, and it's up to the reader to choose which side she's meant to take.
First, we have the story about Francisco Pizarro, who has been working on behalf of the Spanish Crown since he ceased working as an illegitimate pig herder in his small town. He works for King Carlos V in name only because the only person Pizarro really cares about is himself. He goads men on to fight for "glory, gold, and God," but he knows that none of it matters. To him, life has no joy or hope because time is against us. No matter what we do, how we're born, how we live, when we die...it's all dictated by something else. And yet, Pizarro does care about something, the elusive answer to his ceaseless questions. He thinks he finds it in Atahuallpa, the Incan godking, a child to Pizarro, a man in his prime to the Incan people, son of the sun.
Then, we have the story of Atahuallpa, who knows he is the descendant of the sun, the rightful heir to the Incan throne despite his illegitimate birth and subsequent fratricide. Atahuallpa cares nothing for time--he can't die. If he does, his father the sun will resurrect him. He deigns to converse with and build a relationship with Pizarro, a man he inadvertently makes laugh and thus enthralls. Atahuallpa is ancient. He's the descendant of men who care nothing for names and labels, men who live in the moment, who don't fear death and time, for whom the clock turns into the sun, and the sun always comes back. He regulates his people like the sun regulates the seasons. He gives them all land and a spouse at a certain age and tells them to stop working at a certain age. The Spaniards despise this communism and claim the Incans have no individuality and thus no happiness, but they all seem content to Pizarro.
We also have "the people"--the other Indians and the other Spaniards (and a stray Venetian)--the people who worship the sun king and the people who worship God, the Church, and the State. These men have their worldviews set in place. They know who they are and where they fit, and they don't mind being cogs in the wheel because they don't even see the wheel. Pizarro is the one kept on the outside by his birth and position and can thus see from the outside in. He knows that the people who go along with society and accept what they're told to accept are just as bound as the Indians to Atahuallpa's carefully ordered life cycles.
The main story is, of course, the clashing of worlds, symbolized by Pizarro on one side and Atahuallpa on the other, both bastards, both stealing a life they weren't born to. One old, wounded, already dying, the other young, healthy, and immortal. In this scenario, who would you expect to come out on top? The Spaniard with his small army and motley crew of supporters, who don't really believe in what they stand for or the Incan god king with thousands of devout worshipers on his side? The answer should be obvious, but we know how this story goes.
What does Shaffer want us to take away from his play? Are we to side with Pizarro, to believe that the Church and the State are mere institutions, labels for groups that limit us and prevent us from seeing the truth of what we're destined for? Or are we to side with Atahuallpa, return to so-called primitive ideas of mankind and our true nature? Are we all gods, all immortal, all beyond the corrupting claws of time? Does Pizarro have to kill Atahuallpa? His second-in-command says no. Pizarro made a vow and needs to keep it. Changing his decision out of fear means he never had a choice to begin with. The other Spaniards say yes--"civilization" cannot live in tandem with "savagery." If the Incans' king is killed, the Incans must kill. There is no right answer, no way that avoids all bloodshed, that allows both Pizarro and Atahuallpa to survive. The only way to really make it is to accept defeat, give in to the system, and play the part given to you. The last character to speak is Old Martin, the adult version of Pizarro's steward, a Don Quixote of sorts with an idealistic view of chivalry who wants to fight alongside his hero and prove that he has honor and courage too. As an old man, a jaded man, Martin knows the truth. The only joy you can have is that which hasn't been extinguished yet.
In relation to Equus, this theme is a thread in Shaffer's work. Society corrupts people and brings us away from the true nature of man, and since there's no way back, there's no hope or joy possible. This makes sense in the increasingly institutional world we live in. Shaffer wrote this play in the early 1960s. There was a lot of "us" and "them" and too many labels. The grouping and separating have only become more prevalent. If Shaffer needed to use the destruction of the Incan empire in a "total theater" play to make his point in the 60s, I'm not sure what could possibly represent this increasingly volatile separation and ignorant (in the true sense of the word) adherence to a name rather than to its true substance in 2018.
Needless to say (but I'll say it), I appreciate Shaffer's work. As a Christian, I don't accept that there is no joy or hope possible, but I do accept that there can be no reconciliation between the Pizarros and the Atahuallpas and see the genuine struggle between joy and reality. I highly recommend this play. I bought it because a former colleague/mentor knew I liked Shaffer (I think I was reading Equus at the time, but I also loved Amadeus) and asked me if I'd read this. She saw a production in New York, I think, and was impressed. I found the book some time after that and knew I had to read it. Shaffer, like Jean Anouilh, is a favorite playwright for his ability to convey so much passion and such layered and textured thoughts and opinions into what is essentially a series of conversations.
*As a side note, this play also has one of my favorite types of relationships, which is an inexplicable and, especially, non-sexualized relationship between two members of the same sex who somehow find common ground and make a connection.
*Another side note: it's amazing to me that I didn't even get into the morality of what the Spaniards and other conquistadores did to native populations. In the 1500's, any "civilized" person would side unswervingly with the Spaniards. In our more "enlightened" times, we side with the natives. But part of Shaffer's brilliance is that we can't side with either of them, and it's not even about the destruction of a people but of people, of true humanity, and it died with the Incans as much as with the Spanish. As Old Martin says, "So fell Peru... So fell Spain, gorged with gold; distended; now dying." In this concept, there's a loss greater than human lives, and that's the loss of our capacity for more. Is this an indiscretion on Shaffer's part? To use this massacre as a metaphor rather than as the recognition of a true atrocity? That's another choice the reader has to make, but the choice is hers to make.
First, we have the story about Francisco Pizarro, who has been working on behalf of the Spanish Crown since he ceased working as an illegitimate pig herder in his small town. He works for King Carlos V in name only because the only person Pizarro really cares about is himself. He goads men on to fight for "glory, gold, and God," but he knows that none of it matters. To him, life has no joy or hope because time is against us. No matter what we do, how we're born, how we live, when we die...it's all dictated by something else. And yet, Pizarro does care about something, the elusive answer to his ceaseless questions. He thinks he finds it in Atahuallpa, the Incan godking, a child to Pizarro, a man in his prime to the Incan people, son of the sun.
Then, we have the story of Atahuallpa, who knows he is the descendant of the sun, the rightful heir to the Incan throne despite his illegitimate birth and subsequent fratricide. Atahuallpa cares nothing for time--he can't die. If he does, his father the sun will resurrect him. He deigns to converse with and build a relationship with Pizarro, a man he inadvertently makes laugh and thus enthralls. Atahuallpa is ancient. He's the descendant of men who care nothing for names and labels, men who live in the moment, who don't fear death and time, for whom the clock turns into the sun, and the sun always comes back. He regulates his people like the sun regulates the seasons. He gives them all land and a spouse at a certain age and tells them to stop working at a certain age. The Spaniards despise this communism and claim the Incans have no individuality and thus no happiness, but they all seem content to Pizarro.
We also have "the people"--the other Indians and the other Spaniards (and a stray Venetian)--the people who worship the sun king and the people who worship God, the Church, and the State. These men have their worldviews set in place. They know who they are and where they fit, and they don't mind being cogs in the wheel because they don't even see the wheel. Pizarro is the one kept on the outside by his birth and position and can thus see from the outside in. He knows that the people who go along with society and accept what they're told to accept are just as bound as the Indians to Atahuallpa's carefully ordered life cycles.
The main story is, of course, the clashing of worlds, symbolized by Pizarro on one side and Atahuallpa on the other, both bastards, both stealing a life they weren't born to. One old, wounded, already dying, the other young, healthy, and immortal. In this scenario, who would you expect to come out on top? The Spaniard with his small army and motley crew of supporters, who don't really believe in what they stand for or the Incan god king with thousands of devout worshipers on his side? The answer should be obvious, but we know how this story goes.
What does Shaffer want us to take away from his play? Are we to side with Pizarro, to believe that the Church and the State are mere institutions, labels for groups that limit us and prevent us from seeing the truth of what we're destined for? Or are we to side with Atahuallpa, return to so-called primitive ideas of mankind and our true nature? Are we all gods, all immortal, all beyond the corrupting claws of time? Does Pizarro have to kill Atahuallpa? His second-in-command says no. Pizarro made a vow and needs to keep it. Changing his decision out of fear means he never had a choice to begin with. The other Spaniards say yes--"civilization" cannot live in tandem with "savagery." If the Incans' king is killed, the Incans must kill. There is no right answer, no way that avoids all bloodshed, that allows both Pizarro and Atahuallpa to survive. The only way to really make it is to accept defeat, give in to the system, and play the part given to you. The last character to speak is Old Martin, the adult version of Pizarro's steward, a Don Quixote of sorts with an idealistic view of chivalry who wants to fight alongside his hero and prove that he has honor and courage too. As an old man, a jaded man, Martin knows the truth. The only joy you can have is that which hasn't been extinguished yet.
In relation to Equus, this theme is a thread in Shaffer's work. Society corrupts people and brings us away from the true nature of man, and since there's no way back, there's no hope or joy possible. This makes sense in the increasingly institutional world we live in. Shaffer wrote this play in the early 1960s. There was a lot of "us" and "them" and too many labels. The grouping and separating have only become more prevalent. If Shaffer needed to use the destruction of the Incan empire in a "total theater" play to make his point in the 60s, I'm not sure what could possibly represent this increasingly volatile separation and ignorant (in the true sense of the word) adherence to a name rather than to its true substance in 2018.
Needless to say (but I'll say it), I appreciate Shaffer's work. As a Christian, I don't accept that there is no joy or hope possible, but I do accept that there can be no reconciliation between the Pizarros and the Atahuallpas and see the genuine struggle between joy and reality. I highly recommend this play. I bought it because a former colleague/mentor knew I liked Shaffer (I think I was reading Equus at the time, but I also loved Amadeus) and asked me if I'd read this. She saw a production in New York, I think, and was impressed. I found the book some time after that and knew I had to read it. Shaffer, like Jean Anouilh, is a favorite playwright for his ability to convey so much passion and such layered and textured thoughts and opinions into what is essentially a series of conversations.
*As a side note, this play also has one of my favorite types of relationships, which is an inexplicable and, especially, non-sexualized relationship between two members of the same sex who somehow find common ground and make a connection.
*Another side note: it's amazing to me that I didn't even get into the morality of what the Spaniards and other conquistadores did to native populations. In the 1500's, any "civilized" person would side unswervingly with the Spaniards. In our more "enlightened" times, we side with the natives. But part of Shaffer's brilliance is that we can't side with either of them, and it's not even about the destruction of a people but of people, of true humanity, and it died with the Incans as much as with the Spanish. As Old Martin says, "So fell Peru... So fell Spain, gorged with gold; distended; now dying." In this concept, there's a loss greater than human lives, and that's the loss of our capacity for more. Is this an indiscretion on Shaffer's part? To use this massacre as a metaphor rather than as the recognition of a true atrocity? That's another choice the reader has to make, but the choice is hers to make.
January 17, 2013
This play was first performed at the National Theatre in Chichester on 7th June 1964, when I was a young man of 16. I've never seen a performance, but I wish I had. Bernard Levin described the work as 'The greatest play of our generation', and I can see why, having merely read the text.
This is a piece of fictionalised history with much taken from recorded sources. It reads as true. It reads as a commentary on the utter hypocrisy of the early Catholic Church, the greed of those who would make Empire their ambition, the incredible courage of some and the cowardice of many. In the characters we find historical personalities and other figures developed to illustrate the generality of those men who accompanied Pizarro on his epic journey to rape and plunder the civilisation of the ancient Incas in Peru.
The motivation of the majority was a desire to escape abject poverty coupled with a promise of untold wealth. In an age when the promise of an afterlife was taken as fact by many ignorant and ill-educated people, the value of real life was held to be low, of course. Others who ventured forth on this great adventure of corruption and theft were driven by political or evangelical ambition. The 'royal' representatives of Spain are drawn with savage honesty, corrupt, self-serving and totally driven by an ideal of royalty that has nothing to do with the older idea of noblesse oblige. Those representing the Catholic Church are drawn with brutal truth as purveyors of a falsehood they are determined to force on the innocent in the hope that conversion of such souls might bolster their own insecurities and bring them the selfish reward of everlasting life for their own souls, regardless of the cost for those they thus pollute.
But it is greed that most drives the characters of this play, as in the real journey. They desire gold, at any price and regardless of the cost in human life. There is no hiding from the facts here. Pizarro, although trying to present himself as a complex character with mixed motives, is, in reality, simply a bully and opportunist with a lust for gold that drowns out all reason. He slowly comes to realise what is defining his life and, to his credit, develops some scruples as events unfold and he discovers that the man he would slaughter as a savage is anything but.
My only slight cause for complaint rests in the depiction of Atahuallpa as an entirely noble sovereign. He is undoubtedly more versed in nobility than any of the western characters, but he is also the head of a state where sacrifice and strict rule exist, circumscribing the lives of his subjects to the extent that they are mere shadows of men. Individuality in this state is definitely not permitted and the word of Atahuallpa is law on pain of death. But I suspect the elevation of the Inca leader is simply a device to make him more admirable than the ruffians, cowards, hypocrites and thieves who invade his land in order to destroy a civilisation simply for monetary reward. The destruction of the art into simple blocks of gold, as a means of sharing, is unforgiveable and underlines the wholly material concerns of the men concerned in the looting.
This is a powerful, disturbing and moving piece of drama. It reads on the page with a presence of power and emotional thrust that performance must render into an amazing experience. If I ever get the opportunity to attend a performance of this play, I will definitely go. In the meantime, I recommend any reader with an interest in the frailty of man, the iniquity of empire, the place of brutality in history, to read the text. It is a worthy use of your time.
This is a piece of fictionalised history with much taken from recorded sources. It reads as true. It reads as a commentary on the utter hypocrisy of the early Catholic Church, the greed of those who would make Empire their ambition, the incredible courage of some and the cowardice of many. In the characters we find historical personalities and other figures developed to illustrate the generality of those men who accompanied Pizarro on his epic journey to rape and plunder the civilisation of the ancient Incas in Peru.
The motivation of the majority was a desire to escape abject poverty coupled with a promise of untold wealth. In an age when the promise of an afterlife was taken as fact by many ignorant and ill-educated people, the value of real life was held to be low, of course. Others who ventured forth on this great adventure of corruption and theft were driven by political or evangelical ambition. The 'royal' representatives of Spain are drawn with savage honesty, corrupt, self-serving and totally driven by an ideal of royalty that has nothing to do with the older idea of noblesse oblige. Those representing the Catholic Church are drawn with brutal truth as purveyors of a falsehood they are determined to force on the innocent in the hope that conversion of such souls might bolster their own insecurities and bring them the selfish reward of everlasting life for their own souls, regardless of the cost for those they thus pollute.
But it is greed that most drives the characters of this play, as in the real journey. They desire gold, at any price and regardless of the cost in human life. There is no hiding from the facts here. Pizarro, although trying to present himself as a complex character with mixed motives, is, in reality, simply a bully and opportunist with a lust for gold that drowns out all reason. He slowly comes to realise what is defining his life and, to his credit, develops some scruples as events unfold and he discovers that the man he would slaughter as a savage is anything but.
My only slight cause for complaint rests in the depiction of Atahuallpa as an entirely noble sovereign. He is undoubtedly more versed in nobility than any of the western characters, but he is also the head of a state where sacrifice and strict rule exist, circumscribing the lives of his subjects to the extent that they are mere shadows of men. Individuality in this state is definitely not permitted and the word of Atahuallpa is law on pain of death. But I suspect the elevation of the Inca leader is simply a device to make him more admirable than the ruffians, cowards, hypocrites and thieves who invade his land in order to destroy a civilisation simply for monetary reward. The destruction of the art into simple blocks of gold, as a means of sharing, is unforgiveable and underlines the wholly material concerns of the men concerned in the looting.
This is a powerful, disturbing and moving piece of drama. It reads on the page with a presence of power and emotional thrust that performance must render into an amazing experience. If I ever get the opportunity to attend a performance of this play, I will definitely go. In the meantime, I recommend any reader with an interest in the frailty of man, the iniquity of empire, the place of brutality in history, to read the text. It is a worthy use of your time.
March 31, 2020
唳囙Θ唳曕唳︵唳� 唳侧唳唳� 唳Π唳唳� 唳曕唳� 唳灌唳唳� 唳膏Ξ唰嵿Ν唳�, 唳嗋Ξ唳� 唳嗋Χ唳距Μ唳距Ζ唰€ 唳 唳灌唳唳距唰囙啷� 唳唳班唳む唳侧唳 唳︵ 唳侧唳� 唳曕唳膏唳膏唳� 唳忇唳栢唳ㄠ 唳呧Ω唳距Η唳距Π唳� 唳曕唳� 唳嗋唰�, 唳曕唳唳 唳多唳︵唳班 唳侧唳む唳� 唳嗋Ξ唰囙Π唳苦唳距Ο唳� 唳夃唳唳∴唳� 唳氞唳侧唳囙Δ唰囙唳苦Σ唰� 唳む 唳ㄠ唳唰囙イ 唳︵ 唳侧唳� 唳曕唳膏唳� 唳侧唳栢Δ唰囙Θ 唳膏唳� 唳唰嵿唳︵Χ 唳多Δ唳距Μ唰嵿Ζ唰€唳む唳囙イ 唳膏唳Θ 唳Σ唳苦Ν唳距Π唳曕 唳ㄠ唳唳� 唳唳班唳曕唳溹唳� 唳忇唳熰 唳多唰嵿Δ 唳夃Κ唳ㄠ唳唳� 唳嗋唰�, 唳唳侧Ν唰佮Σ唳距唳唳距Π 唳溹唳ㄠ唳班唳� 唳ㄠ唳唳班イ 唳忇 唳ㄠ唳熰 唳 唳曕唳ㄠ 唳唳氞唳班, 唳膏唳班唳� 唳愢唰佮Σ唳苦Π 唳膏唳ム 唳む唳侧Θ唳� 唳曕Π唳苦Ο唳监唳� 唳ㄠ, 唳忇唳熰 唳多Ω唰嵿Δ唳� 唳曕唳�, 唳唳囙唳� 唳唳侧唳∴唳班唳 唳灌唳膏唳 唳唳侧, 唳曕唳ㄠ唳む 唳嗋Ζ唳 唳呧Ζ唳班唳距Π唰€ 唳忇Μ唳� 唳曕唳炧唳氞唰� 唳椸唳｀唳∴ 唳唳班Ω唰嵿Κ唰囙唰嵿唳苦Ν 唳灌唳む 唳侧唳栢啷� 唳忇 唳椸唳｀唳∴ 唳︵唳粪唳熰唳唰嵿唳� 唳膏Μ唳氞唳唰� 唳唳侧 唳︵唳栢 唳唳 唳唳班唳熰唳多Ζ唰囙Π 唳Η唰嵿Ο唰�, 唳唳︵唳� 唳夃Ζ唰嵿Ζ唰囙Χ唰嵿Ο 唳ム唳曕 唳曕唳唳ムΣ唳苦 唳氞唳班唳氞唳� 唳樴唳∴唰� 唳唳Δ唰€唳 唳︵唳� 唳む唳侧唳唳� 唳︵唳撪Ο唳监 (唳囙唳班唳溹Ζ唰囙Π 唳曕唳唳ムΣ唳苦 唳氞唳班唳� 唳ㄠ唳唳� 唳唰囙唳苦Ν-唳ㄠ唳椸唳熰唳� 唳忇 唳唳唳膏唳ㄠ唳多Θ 唳呧Ω唰佮Ω唰嵿Ε唳む唳� 唳Π唰嵿Ο唳距Ο唳监 唳唳侧 唳唳, 唳椸唳班唳灌唳� 唳椸唳班唳� 唳灌唳�, 唳氞唳膏唳熰唳班唳� 唳灌唳�, 唳唳ㄠ唳熰唳� 唳灌唳�, 唳嗋Π 唳忇 唳嗋 唳嗋Θ唳距Π 唳ㄠ唳熰唳唳距Π 唳灌唳�), 唳嗋Π 唳椸Σ唰嵿Κ唰囙Π 唳忇 唳ㄠΞ唰嵿Μ唳� 唳多Ο唳监Δ唳距Θ 唳, 唳む唳曕 唳忇唳溹Θ 唳呧唳唳ㄠ唳熰 唳灌唳班 唳灌唳膏唳, 唳呧Σ唳唳粪唳� 唳灌唳班 唳灌唳膏唳 唳︵唳佮Α唳� 唳曕Π唳距Θ唰嬥イ 唳唳溹唳班唳曕 唳多Ο唳监Δ唳距Θ唰€ 唳曕Π唳む 唳︵唳唳距 唳む唳� 唳氞Π唳苦Δ唰嵿Π唳曕 唳樴唳熰 唳︵唳栢唳ㄠ 唳唳囙Δ唰�, 唳曕唳ㄠ唳む 唳唳溹唳班唳班 唳唳侧唳唳ㄠ唳� 唳曕Π唳む 唳椸唳唰� 唳膏唳囙唳距 唳灌唳侧 唳ㄠ啷�
唳唳熰唳� 唳多唳唳唳班唳� 唳囙唰佮Ο唳监唳� 唳Α唳监 唳む唳曕唳粪Γ唳距 唳唳粪Γ 唳唳班唰嵿Δ 唳灌唳侧唳� 唳唳涏Θ 唳唳班 唳Θ唰� 唳灌唳む唳涏 唳� 唳ㄠ唳熰唳熰 唳呧Μ唳苦Ω唰嵿Ξ唳班Γ唰€唳 唳曕唳膏唳唳班イ 唳む唳� 唳忇 唳膏唳班唳� 唳多唳曕唳班唳� 唳ㄠ唳熰 唳Α唳监Μ唳距Π 唳曕Ε唳� 唳唳侧唳唳� 唳唳囙Δ唰� 唳唳班Σ唰囙 唳嗋Ξ唳� 唳Π唳� 唳栢唳多 唳灌唳啷� 唳忇Π 唳Π唳苦Μ唳班唳む 唳唳ㄠΠ唰嵿Κ唳距 唳曕Π唳� 唳唳囙Δ唰� 唳唳班 唳唳班唳唳ㄠ唳︵唳� 唳唳む唳班唳� 唳膏唳班唳� 唳膏唳ㄠ唳� 唳︵唳多啷� 唳唳粪Ο唳� 唳� 唳囙Θ唳曕唳︵唳� 唳Δ唳ㄠ, 唳曕唳唳距Σ唳苦唳� 唳忇唰嵿Ω唳熰唳班唳イ
唳唳熰唳� 唳多唳唳唳班唳� 唳囙唰佮Ο唳监唳� 唳Α唳监 唳む唳曕唳粪Γ唳距 唳唳粪Γ 唳唳班唰嵿Δ 唳灌唳侧唳� 唳唳涏Θ 唳唳班 唳Θ唰� 唳灌唳む唳涏 唳� 唳ㄠ唳熰唳熰 唳呧Μ唳苦Ω唰嵿Ξ唳班Γ唰€唳 唳曕唳膏唳唳班イ 唳む唳� 唳忇 唳膏唳班唳� 唳多唳曕唳班唳� 唳ㄠ唳熰 唳Α唳监Μ唳距Π 唳曕Ε唳� 唳唳侧唳唳� 唳唳囙Δ唰� 唳唳班Σ唰囙 唳嗋Ξ唳� 唳Π唳� 唳栢唳多 唳灌唳啷� 唳忇Π 唳Π唳苦Μ唳班唳む 唳唳ㄠΠ唰嵿Κ唳距 唳曕Π唳� 唳唳囙Δ唰� 唳唳班 唳唳班唳唳ㄠ唳︵唳� 唳唳む唳班唳� 唳膏唳班唳� 唳膏唳ㄠ唳� 唳︵唳多啷� 唳唳粪Ο唳� 唳� 唳囙Θ唳曕唳︵唳� 唳Δ唳ㄠ, 唳曕唳唳距Σ唳苦唳� 唳忇唰嵿Ω唳熰唳班唳イ
November 4, 2020
Excellent play!
March 12, 2023
Pretty good story, though there are quite few characters to follow which isn鈥檛 easy when reading a play.
Plenty of visual and musical components within as well, definitely will go see it in theatre if showing.
Plenty of visual and musical components within as well, definitely will go see it in theatre if showing.
April 13, 2023
4.5 gold stars melted down.
Fantastic entertainment. Layered, deep, gently brutal. Pizzarro and about 150 Spanish Conquistadors set foot in the Incan Empire in search of gold. They received more than they bargained for by playing on the Incan beliefs associated with the white god.
This is all fairly well known, but what makes this different is in the storytelling. And what better way than performed on a stage. The story wasn鈥檛 merely about blood and greed, though both were plenty. It focuses on what happens when you start admiring your captive. Save him and possibly lose your army, or betray him and suffer the moral consequences.
There was tenderness and comaraderie despite the circumstances. The earring bit was my favourite. I guess this was not dissimilar from a Greek Tragedy.
I rarely read plays, as they are best enjoyed live, however I really enjoyed this one. It delivered history in a compelling and memorable way, unlike many historical books.
Fantastic entertainment. Layered, deep, gently brutal. Pizzarro and about 150 Spanish Conquistadors set foot in the Incan Empire in search of gold. They received more than they bargained for by playing on the Incan beliefs associated with the white god.
This is all fairly well known, but what makes this different is in the storytelling. And what better way than performed on a stage. The story wasn鈥檛 merely about blood and greed, though both were plenty. It focuses on what happens when you start admiring your captive. Save him and possibly lose your army, or betray him and suffer the moral consequences.
There was tenderness and comaraderie despite the circumstances. The earring bit was my favourite. I guess this was not dissimilar from a Greek Tragedy.
I rarely read plays, as they are best enjoyed live, however I really enjoyed this one. It delivered history in a compelling and memorable way, unlike many historical books.
December 6, 2021
Ok, so ever since like my MA program I've had that little series of Shaffer plays by decade in my head: Royal Hunt of the Sun = 60s, Equus = 70s, Amadeus = 80s. This was the one I hadn't read so I finally picked it up. I think it is quite a good meditation on the terrible human calculus of early imperialism. If you're going to do that you have no choice but to spend time with really shitty characters (yknow, "conquistadors"). I can't think of anything that makes Eurocentrism and "Western" culture look stupider than the Spanish characters' posturing that inequality and misery is what makes life worth living so that "men" will "strive." So it has all that. It's not for production today (white guy writes Incans, no women characters at all!), but the thoughtfulness of what's actually there holds up. Oh, and actually I would say that the opaqueness and hard-to-understandness of the Incan characters--while this would be a point of strong condemnation today in production-- is actually potentially really important: cross-cultural communication actually DOES mean confusion, misunderstanding, opacity. Especially that early- there's a great moment in the play where the young Martin (our retrospective narrator as Old Martin) realizes that the translator is just lying for his own gain. But more I'm thinking of the strangeness of Atahuallpa and the Incans' worldviews that the Spaniards only begin to grapple with. That Incan culture is presented as occult, weird, and spectacular seems actually quite accurate to me for an English-speaking, definitely non-Incan audience (like... even Peruvians today are surely far removed from that culture). So while my students today would condemn this portrayal of Incan culture as "exoticized" or something, isn't it also true? When and how and where can we cultivate representations of Otherness for the 21st century that stop (or at least question) that insidious form of fascism that insists everything everywhere must be made understandable to "us"-- or it's wrong? I'm of course down to see more of those representations from people who aren't Peter Shaffer, but is that the only way forward?
August 2, 2022
Lots of strong elements, but I didn't find it as strongly affecting as Equus. It's less focused, being a historical epic in addition to a character study between the two leads. Those are the best parts, with Pizarro's nihilistic despair briefly overcome by Atahuallpa's unwarranted faith in his own divinity. The rest of the material with the soldiers and the priests isn't nearly as good. I don't think any but the most hardcore tradcath will have much sympathy for conquistadors, so the attempts to have some sort of dialogue between the ideals of Spaniard and Incan fall flat. The soldiers are motivated purely by plunder, and the priests offer up only a tired freewill based theodicy in defense of their actions. In the end, it reads just as plunder + hypocrisy. The Pizarro and Atahuallpa scenes are very good, with real drama, emotional connection, and brotherly love. I would've loved if they'd taken up more time. I definitely wouldn't mind seeing this produced, but I'd much sooner go to see Equus.
February 12, 2023
another interesting play that i have been introduced to during my tragedy module. and on a topic that i have absolutely no idea about.
the physicality and music that are written into the script are great, the lines of the incan's songs echoing through the final scene of the play. the connection that formed between the general of the spaniards and the incan king was so interesting.
it was quite exciting to delve into this era of history. and im excited to find out more in the lecture tomorrow!
the physicality and music that are written into the script are great, the lines of the incan's songs echoing through the final scene of the play. the connection that formed between the general of the spaniards and the incan king was so interesting.
it was quite exciting to delve into this era of history. and im excited to find out more in the lecture tomorrow!
August 14, 2022
I love this play. It is one of the great history plays. It tells a fascinating story of conquest and colonialism through the prism of faith and ideology. A riveting read.
October 30, 2009
I read this in the 7th grade,and it was pressed opon us by our teachers.I didn't have a choice reading it,but I didn't mind.It was a playbook,describing when men from Spain went to take gold from the Inca's.While the vocabulary is hard to break through,the action is plentifull enough to keep you hooked.It's like a fun history lesson that is performed.
January 27, 2016
I'd like to see this production, as envisioned by Shaffer. The stage directions are insanely specific.
November 30, 2023
This dramatic play is narrated by Martin (also a character in the play) about the meeting and relationship that developed between Francisco Pizarro, the Spanish conquistador/adventurer and Emperor Atahualpa, Emperor of the Incas in 1533 and the tragedy that followed. After having barely secured the sponsorship of Spain's King Carlos V, Pizarro and 167 men and two priests set sail for Peru in search of a rumored city of gold. Accompanying Pizarro are his friend, old Martin, Don Hernando DeSoto (a friend and second-in-command) and a Dominican Brother Vicente de Balvert (who seeks converts the Incas to the Catholic faith). The crown does not trust Pizarro and sends along men to watch his behavior. As the play progresses, Pizzaro and then Martin, his friend become disillusioned and lose their faith as they see greed take hold of the company and the empty acts of royalty over men like them The Spaniards arrive on the Peruvian shore and journey inward. Despite the taunts of Atahualpa encouraging them to come to him and his great army and a nagging lifelong leg injury, Pizarro carry on in confidence. The Spaniards arrive at the empty sacred city of Cajamarca to await the emperor. The initial meeting between Atahualpa (who thinks Pizarro is the Great White God coming to bless his throne) and Pizarro (who claims to be a deity, too) does not go well. Brother Balvert's attempt to convert Atahualpa fails and the angry priest orders Pizarro's approval to respond. In response, the Spanish company conducts the slaughter of the 3,000 Incan soldiers and guards ensues and the Atahualpa (Son of the Sun God) is captured by the Spanish soldiers and ransomed for a throne room full of gold (9,000 pound). The second part of the play is about the conversations and friendship that develops between the two men as the ransom is gathered and delivered. Each is a bastard, a social outcast, and not embraced by those around him other than for their title. Pizarro comes to like Atahualpa and consider him an ally and kindred soul. At this point, Pizarro questions his faith when he sees how content Atahualpa is in his beliefs. Pizarro comes to believe that Atahualpa is the Son of the Sun God (a deity). Unfortunately, political maneuvering leads to an act by Atahualpa to 'remove' his brother, the former emperor and main competitor for the throne. This act is condemned by the majority of the Spanish (whose appetite for gold has been sated) and the two clerics. At this point, the Spanish soldiers and clerics force Pizarro to act and a 'kangaroo court' condemns the emperor to be burned alive. Through some maneuvering, Pizarro convinces Atahualpa to convert to Catholicism so that his body can be whole for his Incan religious resurrection the next day. The eventual death by garroting of Atahualpa and his inability to resurrect shatters Pizarro. Pizarro is a shattered, disillusioned, and remorseful man at reviewing his recent acts and life. The play is an examination of one's faith, motivations, character, and acts.
September 19, 2024
If there is going to be any depiction of the Spanish Empire at its very worst鈥攃onquistadors insatiable for gold and clergy desperate to be recognised for their devotion by forcing their religious zeal upon others鈥攊t鈥檚 going to be bleak.
I watched the 1969 film adaptation with Robert Shaw as Pizarro and Christopher Plummer as Atahualpa and was so bewildered, baffled and moderately disturbed by the production (I wanted to like it but let鈥檚 be honest鈥�) It became engrained in my head not in a positive way by any chance so I thought the best way to cope is to read the original script and sort out what the hell went wrong.
Well, we know what went wrong (I won鈥檛 talk about the number one thing that destroyed it here).* After reading the play, what it boils down to is that it IS undoubtedly a problematic and troublesome story due to the fact it deals with hypocrisy, greed, plunder and imperialist racism. What prevails however above the slog of the soldiers and the priests being horrible bullies is Pizarro and Atahualpa鈥檚 struggle and the detangling of their dysfunctional relationship of captor and captive. I鈥檓 not going to lie: their relationship is messed up. Pizarro is apparently 63, Atahualpa is 33; Pizarro had a recurring dream about Atahualpa; they are drawn to each other like moths to a flame but also really want to murder the other SOB (literally they are SOBs). Totally normal.
Exclamation marks and dubiously drawn eyes are annotated all over my copy in Act II when things start 鈥渉eating up.鈥� But it was also the most intriguing and interesting. I could have cared less for what else was going on but how they interacted. It was so weird, so bizarre, so not right but also oddly captivating please send help.**
The Royal Hunt of the Sun is a pretty insane play and while I was hoping to alter my perceptions, I鈥檓 not sure that has actually happened.
*The film could have totally utilised more stage direction from the play. I鈥檓 not just talking about the gifting of the earring or the hand holding stage exit in Act II Part V but also the fact no one is making freaking BIRD NOISES and Atahualpa had more robes on to avoid the unnecessary exotification that happened on screen.
**It also confirmed all my opinions that Shaw acted his little heart out as the ideal Pizarro (鈥渢he expression intense and energetic, capable of fury and cruelty, but also of sudden melancholy and sardonic humour鈥�) while I completely ignore the daddy comment/age issue.
If Plummer didn鈥檛 act like an absolutely unhinged banshee. The stage directions give us this description of Atahualpa: 鈥溾€e see his face, carved in a mould of serene arrogance. His whole bearing displays the most dignity and natural grace. When he moves or speaks, it is always with the consciousness of his divine origin, his sacred function and his absolute power.鈥� There was one scene of childish behaviour, occasional wrath and anger but no strange noises or inflections of sorts鈥� so why?
I watched the 1969 film adaptation with Robert Shaw as Pizarro and Christopher Plummer as Atahualpa and was so bewildered, baffled and moderately disturbed by the production (I wanted to like it but let鈥檚 be honest鈥�) It became engrained in my head not in a positive way by any chance so I thought the best way to cope is to read the original script and sort out what the hell went wrong.
Well, we know what went wrong (I won鈥檛 talk about the number one thing that destroyed it here).* After reading the play, what it boils down to is that it IS undoubtedly a problematic and troublesome story due to the fact it deals with hypocrisy, greed, plunder and imperialist racism. What prevails however above the slog of the soldiers and the priests being horrible bullies is Pizarro and Atahualpa鈥檚 struggle and the detangling of their dysfunctional relationship of captor and captive. I鈥檓 not going to lie: their relationship is messed up. Pizarro is apparently 63, Atahualpa is 33; Pizarro had a recurring dream about Atahualpa; they are drawn to each other like moths to a flame but also really want to murder the other SOB (literally they are SOBs). Totally normal.
Exclamation marks and dubiously drawn eyes are annotated all over my copy in Act II when things start 鈥渉eating up.鈥� But it was also the most intriguing and interesting. I could have cared less for what else was going on but how they interacted. It was so weird, so bizarre, so not right but also oddly captivating please send help.**
The Royal Hunt of the Sun is a pretty insane play and while I was hoping to alter my perceptions, I鈥檓 not sure that has actually happened.
*The film could have totally utilised more stage direction from the play. I鈥檓 not just talking about the gifting of the earring or the hand holding stage exit in Act II Part V but also the fact no one is making freaking BIRD NOISES and Atahualpa had more robes on to avoid the unnecessary exotification that happened on screen.
**It also confirmed all my opinions that Shaw acted his little heart out as the ideal Pizarro (鈥渢he expression intense and energetic, capable of fury and cruelty, but also of sudden melancholy and sardonic humour鈥�) while I completely ignore the daddy comment/age issue.
If Plummer didn鈥檛 act like an absolutely unhinged banshee. The stage directions give us this description of Atahualpa: 鈥溾€e see his face, carved in a mould of serene arrogance. His whole bearing displays the most dignity and natural grace. When he moves or speaks, it is always with the consciousness of his divine origin, his sacred function and his absolute power.鈥� There was one scene of childish behaviour, occasional wrath and anger but no strange noises or inflections of sorts鈥� so why?
February 24, 2018
Shaffer is an incredible playwright. His work maintains a pace that is at once breakneck, and just as fast as it needs be and the Royal Hunt is no different.
The conquest of Peru is captured here in poetic detail but the history is less the interest of the story. Really this play is a character piece of colliding cultures and religions. Two sides are obvious: Spanish Catholicism against Incan 鈥榩aganism鈥�. Yet in the middle of them stands the a Kurtzian figure in the form of the agnostic Pizarro. In fact, the play shares many of these themes with Conrad鈥檚 Heart of Darkness and I鈥檓 sure an interesting character study between Kurtz and Pizarro must exist. If nothing else, the play鈥檚 representations of the colonised peoples of Peru is far less problematic than Conrad鈥檚, which is a welcome surprise from a white author of the mid 20th century.
The most interesting aspect of the play however lies not in the debate of religion but in that of civilisation. The play was written, in 1967, in the immediate post-colonial world and while these themes are self evident, perhaps the less obvious (and more inflammatory at the time of writing) is the honest debate between capitalistic and socialistic worlds.
Aside from these fascinating debates, the play is beautifully written and perfectly concise. Never have I been more perfectly able to imagine a play being staged (especially in comparison to Amadeus鈥� light box). Each page is just so I鈥檓 surprised the play is one of Shaffer鈥檚 lesser known works.
Do yourself a favour and read this play. I have my fingers crossed for a revival.
The conquest of Peru is captured here in poetic detail but the history is less the interest of the story. Really this play is a character piece of colliding cultures and religions. Two sides are obvious: Spanish Catholicism against Incan 鈥榩aganism鈥�. Yet in the middle of them stands the a Kurtzian figure in the form of the agnostic Pizarro. In fact, the play shares many of these themes with Conrad鈥檚 Heart of Darkness and I鈥檓 sure an interesting character study between Kurtz and Pizarro must exist. If nothing else, the play鈥檚 representations of the colonised peoples of Peru is far less problematic than Conrad鈥檚, which is a welcome surprise from a white author of the mid 20th century.
The most interesting aspect of the play however lies not in the debate of religion but in that of civilisation. The play was written, in 1967, in the immediate post-colonial world and while these themes are self evident, perhaps the less obvious (and more inflammatory at the time of writing) is the honest debate between capitalistic and socialistic worlds.
Aside from these fascinating debates, the play is beautifully written and perfectly concise. Never have I been more perfectly able to imagine a play being staged (especially in comparison to Amadeus鈥� light box). Each page is just so I鈥檓 surprised the play is one of Shaffer鈥檚 lesser known works.
Do yourself a favour and read this play. I have my fingers crossed for a revival.
July 29, 2017
51. The Royal Hunt of the Sun by Peter Shaffer
Is this play a little bit of a whitewash of Pizzaro or an examination of the mixed feelings of some of the Spanish conquerors (murderers) of the Inca? The play is ornate, with a large cast of characters, from De Soto to Atahuallpa, the pagan king who thinks he is immortal. Parts are narrated by Old Martin, while Young Martin is Pizarro鈥檚 squire. The quest for gold and converts to Catholicism is greed driven. There are two massacres in the play, and the staging instructions are very detailed, including tapes of music. The soldiers themselves are a rough bunch, mostly failures in Spain, looking for gold and adventure. The staging and props are elaborate, but this is a better drama and far more engaging than his earlier works.
Is this play a little bit of a whitewash of Pizzaro or an examination of the mixed feelings of some of the Spanish conquerors (murderers) of the Inca? The play is ornate, with a large cast of characters, from De Soto to Atahuallpa, the pagan king who thinks he is immortal. Parts are narrated by Old Martin, while Young Martin is Pizarro鈥檚 squire. The quest for gold and converts to Catholicism is greed driven. There are two massacres in the play, and the staging instructions are very detailed, including tapes of music. The soldiers themselves are a rough bunch, mostly failures in Spain, looking for gold and adventure. The staging and props are elaborate, but this is a better drama and far more engaging than his earlier works.
February 21, 2018
Reading the play is probably not as good as actually seeing it. Especially when it is done with great actors like Christopher Plummer and Robert Shaw. I found the interactions and conversation between the characters not to my liking so I will have to reserve my opinion until I can do that. The chance of seeing this play live is probably very low since I have never heard of it being produced here, but there is a movie so I will see if I can watch that and compare to what I have read. Of course when Hollywood is involved there is always a bit of tinkering with the plot, characters etc.
February 6, 2020
While the presentation of Tawantinsuyu and my uncle are horribly out-dated and inaccurate (Don't get me started on the movie.), I still had some enjoyment with the British Spaniards and my juvenile, Tonto-speaking people.
By the way, I ship my uncle Atahualpa with Hernando De Soto, not with Pizarro (In fact he didn't stand him that much), so De Soto should have been the main protagonist instead of Pizarro.
By the way, I ship my uncle Atahualpa with Hernando De Soto, not with Pizarro (In fact he didn't stand him that much), so De Soto should have been the main protagonist instead of Pizarro.
December 22, 2021
"You believe in God. I believe in nothing."---Pizarro to Atahualpa in THE ROYAL HUNT OF THE SUN. Peter Shaffer's Pizarro is not a Catholic aiming to get rich and convert the Incas to Catholicism but a nihilist who has reached the end of his rope. Killing the Inca ruler Atahualpa represents the one ritual sacrifice el conquistador can make that will give his life some meaning. Call id existentialism on the half-shelf by the future author of EQUUS and AMADESUS.
September 12, 2017
This was my Hurricane Irma book, and I would have read it in one sitting had we not lost power.
It is a play about conquest, hypocrisy, and greed. There were a few lines that could easily have been spoken by modern day politicians (many of whom are motivated by greed and who are arrogantly hypocritical). I would like to see a stage version.
It is a play about conquest, hypocrisy, and greed. There were a few lines that could easily have been spoken by modern day politicians (many of whom are motivated by greed and who are arrogantly hypocritical). I would like to see a stage version.
October 25, 2019
Like Shaffer's other god-hunting plays, Equus and Amadeus, The Royal Hunt of the Sun is a truly magnificent work. An attempt to realise Shaffer's dream of "total" theatre, the complexity, richness and scope of this work is unlike his others. A work of distant, stark beauty, Pizarro's attempts to break out of the shackles of time are as riveting as they are futile.
May 20, 2022
Probably my favourite play of all time. A masterpiece of writing and setting based around the Spanish conquest of the Inca empire in Peru. Brilliantly written with fantastic dialogue and the sets were groundbreaking for the time. All this guys plays are good but this is my favourite. Tragically now out of print, but if you can find it it will reward the effort!
June 24, 2020
I've been meaning to read more of Shaffer's work for years and got around to it over the weekend. It's tough not to compare this to my favorite play, Equus. So instead I'll just say I enjoyed it and found many pieces of dialogue worthy of a read aloud.
March 9, 2025
There is so much wrong with this play. I first read it at school and it鈥檚 been in my head for a few years to reread. I鈥檇 forgotten a lot of it but the ending still makes my heart ache. The five stars are for how much this makes me feel.
May 20, 2018
How we like to colour the past the way we chose to. Bring in real emotions were only probably brutality did.
March 7, 2019
What is gold or glory or God when faced with the long and unstoppable Time? Nothing... And this fantastic play (although read not seen) shows this exactly
January 17, 2020
I saw the film version many many years ago and have never forgotten Christopher Plummer鈥檚 wonderful performance. I enjoyed reading the play but would love to see it on stage.
February 13, 2023
Fascinating and full of beautiful imagery. This is a culture and a country I know nothing about - fascinating.
June 11, 2020
The story of Pizarro and how he took all the gold from Latin America. It is a great play and very seldom done due to the fact that it is almost entirely male cast.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.