In my opinion, equal parts.

Re-Enacting, in my mind, is a realistic interpretation of another place and time. I feel that the sort of theatre we do takes it to a much more outgoing, interactive and personal level. Watching the daily life of people in any time can be pretty monotonous. We take what's interesting and amplify it.

I'm sure there are others who can put it in a more articulate fashion.

When we add the filter of Dickens we do a sort of odd hybrid by portraying his fictional sterotype or charicature of another place and time.

In this context, I would say that neither and both apply, but only to make way for a third category. We are literary "re-enactors". We are re-enacting the literary works of Charles Dickens, not just performing them on a stage. Yet, we are not re-enacting any piece of history. Yes, we are recreating a historical setting. Mr. Dickens set his novels in Victorian London, so you need that living back drop to make the characters come alive.

Even having just been called a (What was it Cher?) "stick-in-the-mud-history-geek" this past weekend by a friend, I would argue that history should take a back seat where it disagrees with the pages of Charles Dickens ... for this one Fair, that is.

I know it's a trifle vulgar to quote oneself, but from a currently unpublished paper titled "The Actor and the Historian":

************************************************************************************************

I offer therefore to the reader's consideration, what I regard as one of the classic and definitive allegorical statements of the task of the historian, surrounded by criticisms of the same. I believe that this statement captures the central work that the historian does, and cautions against several of the greatest crimes which historians fall victim to :

Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you [do] not ov[e]rstep the modesty of nature. For anything over done is far from the purpose. . . .to hold, as it were, the mirror up to nature; . . . to show the very age and body of the time his form. . . Oh, there be [those] I have seen . . . .and heard others praise, . . . that have so [failed in interpretation]...that I had thought nature's journeymen had made man, and not made him well....

While the scientist may not recognize these lines, this is the advice which Shakespeare's Hamlet offers the players, which the modern theater still holds to be an important and definitive statement on the job of the actor nearly four hundred years later. "But what has this to do with History?" I suspect is the question of historians. I reply that this advice as well defines the job of the historian, and that the advice, criticism, and methodology used by actors should be careful considered by historians, as the jobs of historian and actor much resemble each other. I believe Becker was far more insightful than even he might have perceived, when he stated:

. . .We are thus of that ancient and honorable company of wise men of the tribe, of bards and story-tellers and minstrels, of soothsayers and priests, to whom in successive ages has been entrusted the keeping of useful myths. . .

While those of the modern historical orthodoxy have by this point probably, dismissed me as a dangerous lunatic, this line of thought should bear some examination. In considering the comparison, we must go beyond the common stereotypes of both professions. Commonly, historians think of actors as loud, rude sorts who dress and behave strangely in public and throw marvelous parties. Historians on the other hand, are pictured as bookish academics, in cardigans and bow ties who haunt back stacks in libraries and have little in the way of intemperate fun.
However, should we ignore the stereotypes and simply reduce the jobs of historian and actor to a simple functional description, one might produce the following:

Historian: A person who interprets historical texts to an audience.
Actor: A person who interprets texts through physicalization to an audience.

Considered in this light, the differences between the actor and the historian constitute two points. First that the historian starts from a presupposition of material. Simply put, his chosen field is that of the past, and that is what he will interpret. In contrast, the actor, defines himself by his choice of final expression, that of physicalizing his interpretations of a text. While the choice of material, or the final product will prove to influence the habits of the worker, it is the central act of interpretation that binds these two professions together.

****************************************************************************************************************

Let us not forget, that while Dickens' canon is a wide array of fiction stories (with a few NON-FICTION items thrown in too), it represents a fairly vivid portrayal of a specific slice of a past bounded by time and place...and was quite recognizable by the readers of his time as being cominc sketches of very real "types" whom his readership could recognize. To recreate these stories for a modern audience *within the manner of Chas. Dickens' time" is to inevitably make historical interpretations...through the medium of theater.

I'd say that pitting one agains the other is a false dichotomy.