The interdisciplinarity of the field of medieval studies is understood as a given, as scholars and students recognize that it is impossible to fully capture a sense and understanding of the period without seeing the whole as a complex, interconnected web of fields—history, literature, theology, philosophy, the arts, science, mathematics, economics, anthropology, sociology, and so forth. Recognizing this interdisciplinarity, it is a welcome book that treats a topic such as the performative aspects of Anglo-Saxon monasticism from the point of view of a scholar who comes to the examination from outside of medieval studies. Miroslaw Kocur's The Second Birth of Theatre: Performances of Anglo-Saxon Monks offers an intriguing, if uneven, examination of the interrelationship between monastic performance and theatre, and it does so in a way that stimulates questions about the role of performance and truth.

Miroslaw Kocur comes to the discussion of the performative aspects of Anglo-Saxon monasticism from the perspective of studying acting technique and the history of theatre. Kocur's previous work, On the Origins of Theatre, serves as a thematic companion to this work, as he traces the development of performance and acting from the early Stone Age to Ancient Greece (Peter Lang, 2016). In both works, Kocur's focus is on the way in which the performer expresses their craft through movement, memory, and presence.

Kocur's thesis in The Second Birth of Theatre differentiates Greek and medieval theatre by noting that the focus of the performance of the monks was to reveal truth and not to “create a convincing illusion” (93). This revelatory nature of monastic performance would call on the performers to “bare themselves radically, making honest and authentic confession the essence of their art” (94). To support this argument, Kocur uses Aethelwold's Regularis concordia and the Ordo representacionis Ade as the textual anchors for his examination of the development of performance in Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman monasticism. Kocur illustrates a solid grasp of the current major studies in the field, including the important work done by Sarah Foot and John Blair, as well as the study that is most closely related to this book, M. Bradford Bedingfield's The Dramatic Liturgy of Anglo-Saxon England (Boydell, 2002).

Kocur opens with a brief prologue: an examination of the story of Caedmon's transformation from shepherd to monk-poet, as related by Bede, that signals what he argues is a “revolution in the art practiced by the performer” (13). The book then moves into the body of the examination, divided into three main parts. The first, “Monk as Performer,” introduces a potentially interesting line of inquiry, arguing that the monks were “virtually forced to invent ‘theatre’” due to the daily and seasonal cycles of prayer offices and liturgies that they performed (25). The potential is diluted when the book immediately turns to a series of brief excurses sketching the history, practice, and spread of monasticism. It may be that Kocur's intended audience will benefit from the various primers, but it stalls the exploration of his argument. Part 1 rebounds effectively when Kocur turns his attention to a succinct exploration of Aethelwold's Regularis concordia. The Regularis likewise plays a central role in the second part, “Liturgical Performances,” wherein Kocur details liturgical action from the heart of the church year, providing short examples of monastic performance from each component of the Christmas and Easter cycles. The book is strongest when Kocur maintains this focus on the text and its description of monastic liturgical action. In the final section, “Church and Theatre,” Kocur explores the way in which liturgical performance moved from the monastery to the parish, focusing on the performance of the Ordo representacionis Ade. There is, again, a series of brief excurses on the clergy, the Mass, and transubstantiation, that would all benefit from a more thorough examination and integration into the broader argument that Kocur is making about the development of the performative aspects of liturgical life in the church. Kocur concludes this section with an absorbing examination of the content of the Ordo and its performative strategies, noting that “the primary task of the performers was to communicate meanings lucidly” (190). He closes the book with an epilogue that inverts the framing of the first part. The epilogue is entitled “Personal Epilogue: Performer as Monk,” in which he engages in a “dialog” with the late Jerzy Grotowski's “Performer” in order to “grasp the artistic message conveyed by the performative practices of mediaeval monks, at the same time avoiding banalization or vulgarization of the liturgical dimension” (197).

Miroslaw Kocur's book is valuable in that it presents the reader with opportunity to reflect on the performative aspects of Anglo-Saxon monasticism in such a way as to engage Kocur's broader question about the actor's craft in embodying an idea for the sake of illustrating truth. This is a book about what it means to be a performer that just so happens to use Anglo-Saxon monasticism as the vehicle for exploring this broader idea.