This essay examines the central question posed by Peter Shaffer's play Equus: why does Alan Strang blind the horses? Approaching the act from two distinct perspectives — the rational real world and Alan's self-constructed mythological "equus" world — the paper explores how psychiatrist Martin Dysart serves as a bridge between these realms. The analysis considers whether Alan's violence stems from mental illness, from the compulsions of a richly imagined horse-deity worship, or from both simultaneously. Drawing on key passages from the play, the essay concludes that Alan's act is driven by dual causes rooted in psychic disturbance and in the internal spiritual logic of his imagination.
The paper demonstrates the technique of dual-perspective analysis: rather than committing to a single interpretive lens, it deliberately maintains two competing frameworks (psychiatric realism and mythological imagination) and uses a mediating figure — Dysart — to show how they interact. This approach mirrors the play's own structural logic and allows the essay to engage with thematic complexity without oversimplifying.
The essay opens by posing the central dramatic question, then establishes the two interpretive worlds needed to answer it. It introduces Dysart as the figure connecting both worlds before evaluating each explanation in turn — madness first, then imaginative mythology. The conclusion synthesizes both answers, arguing that Alan's act cannot be reduced to a single cause.
From the moment the reader learns of Alan Strang's violent act, one question dominates Equus from beginning to end: why does Alan blind the horses? In order to answer this question, the play must be approached from two distinct points of view. The first is the real world — a world in which such an act is not only condemned but catalogued as a psychiatric problem. The second is the "equus" world, constructed by the author to make such an act intelligible. As Peter Shaffer himself states, Equus "creates a mental world in which the deed could be made comprehensible."
Hesther offers the clearest expression of what the real world makes of Alan's act: "the boy's in pain ... That's all I see." This is a predictable reaction to something deeply incomprehensible — an individual's beliefs and compulsions too obscure and disturbing to be interpreted as anything other than pathological suffering. For everyone operating within the real world, Alan Strang is in pain, and his act is the outward expression of an inner disturbance.
On the other hand, the "equus" world is a mythological realm born from Alan's own imagination. It operates not without rules, but according to rules that only the priests of the horse-god can understand and enact. Most importantly, Alan's imagination plays a demiurgic role, constructing the conditions under which all actions become possible and meaningful. Rather than a world of chaos, the "equus" world possesses its own internal logic — one that simply cannot be decoded from the outside.
These two worlds are held together by the figure of Martin Dysart, the psychiatrist who attempts both to cure Alan and to understand the rules of his imaginary world well enough to transpose them — in modified form — into the real world. Dysart describes himself in terms that reflect this dual role: "the Normal is the indispensable, murderous God of Health, and I am his Priest." He is the necessary presence who must explain the unnatural while simultaneously working to bring it within reach of the rational. His character is essential to understanding Shaffer's thematic design, because it is Dysart who exposes the inadequacy of any single explanation for Alan's behavior.
Viewed through the lens of the imaginary world, Alan's violence appears as the act of a priest fulfilling his obligations to the horse-god — a reasonable act by the internal standards of the world he inhabits. Yet the horse-god himself raises further questions. Is he the Devil, as Alan's mother insists, or simply a mythological figure in whom Alan genuinely believes — a personal creed rather than a malicious force? Dysart himself voices this uncertainty when he asks, "what dark is this?"
Turning to the real world for answers, one might dispose of the problem by concluding simply that Alan is mentally disturbed. By the standards of the real world, blinding six horses with a spike is an act of madness, and this label would appear sufficient. This is one answer we must consider: the boy was mad, and he is now being treated by a psychiatrist who works to explain what happened. Clinical psychiatric literature supports the notion that extreme violent acts can be symptoms of severe psychotic disturbance. However, Dysart himself prevents us from fully accepting this solution. It is he who unveils Alan's imagination and makes clear that there is considerably more to the matter than a diagnostic label can capture.
Alan blinds the horses because he is insane, and the blinding is an external manifestation of his internal psychic condition. At the same time, he blinds the horses because his imagination compels him to do so — because of the rich spiritual world he has created within himself and the mythological figures he has constructed, figures that push him toward extreme gestures. Neither explanation is sufficient alone. The play insists that both must be held together, and it is in the space between them that Shaffer locates his deepest questions about worship, normality, and the cost of cure.
You’re 80% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.