It’s 1612 London. You’re at the Globe, watching a performance of Cardenio, and while you nay not enjoy the smell, you still enjoy the show along with everyone else crammed into the floor of the Globe. It’s now 1613 London. You are standing before the burnt remains of the Globe Theatre, alongside many others. You know that the Globe will be rebuilt, and no one was injured, so life moves on. The following year the Globe is rebuilt, but only stands for another 30 years before the Puritans of London tear it down once more. Then, jump to 1997 London. The Globe has been rebuilt after many years of research, and historians, Anglophiles, literature nuts, actors, performers, musicians, artists, everyone from top to bottom wants to go see “Shakespeare’s Globe.” There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that this is a recreation, a guess at what the Globe used to look like based off hard data, written accounts, sketches, and anything else that gave a glimpse into what the Globe used to look like. You, a person who has seen both the Globe and Globe 2.0, come to see Shakespeare’s Globe. You see the places where they were wrong but made a good guess. You see things that are so accurate it brings you back to the days of the Globe’s original glory. You see the people who were never able to experience the Globe firsthand, and they are now able to see plays, go on informational tours, and see some of the original signs and props that survived. You see how excited they are to be visiting Shakespeare’s Globe, and you’re both excited and happy for them and for yourself.
In a way, that is what us recons (reconstructionists) do. We’ll never be able to visit Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Scandinavia, or anywhere else our deities come from. We may never be able to smell the real Kyphi that burned in Egyptian temples or drink the wine at Bacchus festivals, but here and now we are able to find ways to make it work for us. We don’t have any illusions that what we are doing isn’t exact to the way things were, but sometimes we find ways to get around our modern shackles. And, for many of us, it’s better to try than to not give any effort at all. Yes, it takes loads of research and hours spent trying to figure out what translation to use, but that’s part of the pleasure. If you don’t care about literature or Shakespeare then you might not understand why people are so eager to visit the new Globe, but that doesn’t mean that the people who want to see it are wrong, it just means they have a different set of values. Alternatively, just because you may think that the Globe is one of the greatest recreations to ever grace the planet doesn’t mean you have a right to say that the people who don’t care are uneducated, stupid, or bad people. Then, there are some people who are stuck in the middle. They think it’s interesting and cool, but just wish that they could visit the “real” Globe, so they go visit the Rose theatre instead (I see this as people who take the information that is currently available in the culture that relate or have roots to the original practices and integrate them partially into their practice.)
The interesting thing about the whole “to recon or not to recon” question is that it’s completely down to the individual. Are you willing to take the time to not only do the research and struggle through interpreting modern information about the past, but are you willing to try and perform some of these practices yourself? Do you want to try bits and pieces of it first before doing all the needed research? Are you not interested at all in trying to recreate things, but like to know the way it was? All of this should be okay and acceptable, so why do we argue about it? Why do some recons get hate for trying to build their own Globe, and why do some recons get mad at the people who don’t care about trying to build a new Globe? Both people on both sides make the individual who is trying their hand at reconstructing the past in a modern setting feel like failure is imminent when it isn’t.
So, to recon or not to recon? It’s up to you.
Sent to the Sun 