Editorial Jan Lazardzig (Berlin) This volume sets out to discuss critical approaches to theatre and performance historiography. The focus lies on the pivotal role text, image and performance play in the production of historical knowledge. Epistemic conceptualizations of text, image and performance are at work in many ways in contemporary historiographies of theatre and performance - oftentimes in the form of discrete presuppositions. Where text stands in for traditions, genres and practices of written and codified knowledge, which is often seen as stable, reliable and archivable, performance marks its opposite, i. e. the ever fleeting, elusive and traceless moment, prone to be forgotten. Image, in this regard takes an intermediary position, both univocal and definite as well as illusive and deceptive. Not only within theatre and performance studies, but also in many other disciplines, text, image and performance (and their concomitant concepts) are to be understood as mutually dependent ways of practising, knowing and archiving culture: whether it is the distinction of oral, visual and scriptural cultures, the relation of archival / colonial and embodied memories, or the difference between tacit and codified knowledge. The aim of this volume is to come to a more nuanced and reflected historiography of theatre and performance by means of identifying and historicizing the specific materiality, mediality and epistemic agency of text, image and performance. Wherein lies the historic specificity and relationality of text, image and performance? And how does it play out in the production of historical knowledge? How can we think of new historiographies of theatre and performance beyond established conceptualizations of text, image and performance? From a methodological perspective, questions of translatability and codifiability, as well as experiences of loss, suppression and forgetfulness are also of supreme interest to the authors of this volume. The separation of text and performance has often been described as a touchstone for the development of both theatre and performance studies. Whereas theatre studies, departing from literary and drama studies, sought to conceptualize historiographies of performance rather than drama and text, performance studies took off from historiographical conceptualizations of culture as text in diverse fields of knowledge (such as ethnography, anthropology, cultural studies) to divert its analytical focus to everevolving cultures of performativity. Ever since, dichotomous epistemologies of text vs. performance (textuality vs. performativity) have determined historiographies of theatre and performance. This volume sets out to critically dissect these manifest epistemologies both historically and historiographically. Hence, the case studies presented in this volume are meant to reflect the historicity of text, image and performance in terms of new approaches to the historiography of theatre and performance. Two highly popular forms of 16 th century confessional drama, the Protestant Passion Play and the Catholic Saint Play, are at the centre of the contribution by Claudia Daiber and Elke Huwiler. The authors ask how “ the biblical text and, with it, history itself, [is] being negotiated on stage by means of performative strategies ” . They argue that play text and performance reflect Forum Modernes Theater, 32/ 2 (2021), 195 - 197. Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen DOI 10.2357/ FMTh-2021-0018 conflicting methods of Bible exegesis and antagonistic forms of liturgical rites. The stage turns into a site of religious knowledge production where “ the right denomination and moral behaviour ” are conveyed to the citizens in actu. Though Luther and Melanchthon both approved the pedagogical use of Passion Plays, mediating faith through education, theatre remains a highly contested medium among Protestant authors in the 17 th and 18 th centuries. François Lecercle and Clotilde Thouret, who jointly directed the research project La haine du théâtre (Hatred of the stage), collected and analysed hundreds of polemic treatises against theatre from all over Europe. Theatrophobia as a (overtly protestant) discourse is characterized by Lecerle as highly repetitive, “ constantly rewriting something which is already written ” . However, a closer look at the context of the polemicist ’ s treatises shows a “ displaced debate ” in which attacking the stage strikes different targets. “ Theatre ” he argues, “ invades all kinds of other debates, concerning the salvation of individuals, the way they may - or may not - lead their lives, or the relationship between the private and public spheres. ” As a cultural practice, the debates are also closely linked to the professionalization and institutionalization of theatre. Hence, Clotilde Thouret looks at a recurring topic in the controversies about theatre in Europe: “ reconsiderations of spectatorship and a new understanding of what a theatrical event is. ” She identifies an “ epistemology of the spectator ” which “ tends to resonate with the pragmatist aesthetics of Dickie or Goodman. ” Projections of ghosts, necromantic media experiments, so-called phantasmagoria, take centre stage in Kati Röttger ’ s contribution. According to Röttger, the spectacular image production of phantasmagoria epitomizes the Romantic interest in all kinds of spectacular technologies. She suggests historicizing the spectacle by means of its technologies in order to achieve a new, more integral and complex form of theatre historiography. Therefore, Röttger proposes a genealogical perspective on the relationship between the spectacle and modernity. She raises the question, to what extent the spectacle should be seen as an “ integral and constitutive element of modern society from its beginning onwards ” . In her contribution on dance photography, Isa Wortelkamp likewise offers a historiography that engages attentively with the specific historic mediality and materiality of its epistemic object. Here, early 20 th century dance photography is described by Wortelkamp as an encounter of two art forms, as a reciprocal relationship between image and movement, which results in a “ paradoxical presence ” of dance. In her detailed analysis of a damaged dance photograph of Olga Desmond ’ s Schwertertanz, she relates the image shown to the physical quality of the photograph, its handling and its preservation as an object. Wortelkamp emphasizes the importance of material traces of loss, decay and disappearance to reach beyond the representational level of photography. The entanglement of performance art and documentation is discussed in the article by Tancredi Gusman, which is based on the documenta archive in Kassel. Gusman shows how the role and status of photo and video documentation mutates throughout the history of performance art. Looking closely at documenta 5 (curated by Harald Szeemann) and 6 (curated by Manfred Schneckenburger), he argues that “ documentation began to play an essential role because of its ability to translate temporal events into tangible images and objects. ” An increasing relevance of performance art documentation throughout the 1970s correlates with an increased professionalization and institutionalization of the art form. Gusman concludes that the anti-documen- 196 Jan Lazardzig tary self-fashioning of performance artists is closely related to technical reproducibility. Reading and interpreting together has been the hallmark of revolutionary counterhegemonic movements from early Christianity onwards, as Christa-Marie Lerm Hayes ascertains in her contribution on “ stealth activities ” of “ reading together ” . Her case in point are Joyce reading groups dedicated primarily to Finnegans Wake, “ a book that programmatically makes everybody feel inadequate ” . Lerm Hayes identifies reading groups as counter-hegemonic community formations among artists like Joseph Beuys, Zbigniew Gostomski or KwieKulik, performing dissident knowledge in societies under duress. Reading together materializes as a practice of contesting institutions and powerful hierarchies of knowledge. In what way is a work of artists in the performing arts a challenge for historiography? How does a historiographical practice that is not based on representation operate? On which archive does it rely? What form does the narration take? Gabriele Brandstetter discusses these questions on the basis of a broad body of works, including those of performance artists such as Ai Weiwei, Boris Charmatz, Martin Nachbar, Rabih Mroué and Mette Ingvartsen. If there is an effect on a critical historiography, it is by “ doing history ” , Brandstetter concludes, by artists in dance and performance engaging with the mediality and materiality of texts, images and objects which are granted the importance to “ represent the world ” . The contributions in this thematic journal edition originate mainly from a conference ( “ Text, Performance, and the Production of Historical Knowledge ” ) which took place at the University of Amsterdam in early 2017. Elke Huwiler, Suzanne Kooloos and I organized the conference on behalf of the research group “ Historical Theater Research ” . The contributions by Isa Wortelkamp and Tancredi Gusmann derive from a meeting of the IFTR “ Historiography Working Group ” on archiving theatre and performance, which I hosted in spring 2019 at the Department of Theater Studies at Freie Universität Berlin. I would like to express my gratitude to Maureen England for her fine copy-editing of the articles for this journal edition. Maya Haeckel ’ s assistance in preparing the volume for print was also indispensable. I would like to thank the authors of this journal, not only for contributing to this volume but also for their patience and goodwill throughout an unduly prolonged time span. Last but not least, I thank Berenika Szymanski-Düll and Christopher Balme for accepting this thematic collection of articles for Forum Modernes Theater. 197 Editorial