Issue Editor: Jitka Pavlišová

The history of the exploration of the human body is one of reading backwards: from its surface appearance over anatomy up to the decoding of the genome, or from a mystical over a biological to a sociological definition, and so on. All attempts at deciphering this body were done according to a model of reading texts lying in layers behind each other. Only deciphering and critical reflection of a layer of signs let it become transparent so that the one lying beneath it could be recognised.

This poignant metaphor introduces the chapter on the mediality of the body and its contemporary variants in a publication No wind. No word: Neue Choreographie in der Gesellschaft des Spektakels (2001: 241) by an Austrian dance theorist Helmut Ploebst. In doing so, he points in particular to the peculiar way of reading the body which is constructed and developed at different periods in human history and through diverse cultural entities. And it is on the basis of these variable forms of reading the body that the specific existential conditions of cultures and the characteristic features of individual epochs and regions can be recognized. The body and the way it is (self)presented and (self)thematized in arts always simultaneously reflects its embedding in specific existential, cultural and socio-political contexts, and can therefore be considered without exaggeration as a tool for the diagnosis of time periods.

It is almost alarming how urgently this way of looking at and through the body is currently thematized. Following the expansion of poststructuralist theories of the fragmented subject, the deconstruction and destructuralization of the body, and concepts of flexible identities, we face even more subversive challenges in questions and research on human corporeality. They are related to the existence of the human being in a globalized, mediatized and, in recent decades, highly virtualized world, as well as to debates concerning biotechnology and genetic engineering. In the field of contemporary humanities, these phenomena are viewed through a distinctly civilization-critical perspective and can be summarized as the subject's transition to transhumanity. This awareness may raise an almost provocative question: How much of a body does a human being even need today?

For the forthcoming issue, we welcome contributions from various disciplines that are directly drawn from research into artistic forms and modes based on the human body, while also helping to strengthen and expand academic discourse on the various modifications and transformations of corporeality in the performing arts. We welcome studies devoted to diverse artistic strategies exploring the human body and how humans grasp, know and validate their existence and this world through them.

Please send studies with all relevant details to the issue editor at jitka.pavlisova@upol.cz by November 30, 2024, and texts falling under the other sections by the end of 2024. Any questions should be directed to the editor.

We look forward to your contributions,
The editors of Divadelní revue

Editor of the issue: Josefína Formanová

The repetitive movement of the back and forth makes me want more of it. It convinces me that something great is going to come out of repetition, if I am patient enough to follow it, step by step, or meticulous enough to delve into the repetition and variation, to observe the difference. I lean in, perched on the edge of my seat, and I observe not just the variations, but also something else. I observe myself desiring.

 (Eirini Kartsaki, Repetition in Performance: Returns and Invisible Forces, London: 2017, p. 135)

If it is true that repetition is a condition of uniqueness, then it undoubtedly applies to the performing arts. We usually say: the performance is authentic, the production is unique, or the show relates to the original play. But what do we actually mean by authenticity, uniqueness or originality? All variations on the notion of uniqueness necessarily rely on some form of repetition, whether it is an established gesture, a line, a stage arrangement, a dramatic template, or an entire artistic canon. A quote from the book Repetition in Performance suggests that there is a connection between repetition and uniqueness that exerts a special force in (perceiving) an artwork. Indeed, in the repetition of the same we may experience that which is reiterated in a novel or yet undiscovered way. The conflation of repetition and non-repetition can be understood as a metaphysical principle of the work, as the classical aesthetics from Kant on believe. It can be examined in relation to the aura or authenticity of the artwork as critical theory has done. It is equally possible, after the performative turn of the 60^th and 70^th of the 20^th century, to question whether what we experience as unique at all comes from the piece of art, or whether it is rather mediated by the audience. And last but not least, we may consider, to what extent the entanglement of repetition and uniqueness illuminates the task and capability of artistic criticism which is always stretched between a paraphrase and an interpretation, with an unresolvable answer of where one ends and the other begins.

So what can be repeated in a work of art or theatre, and what makes an artwork unique? Is it possible to repeat oneself in order to become original? And what does it mean to strive for this? The second issue of the 2025 volume focuses on the phenomenon of the memory of an artwork, the reception of art in terms of inalterability and its mediation, or why the same controversies keep recurring in debates about art criticism and what these reiterations reveal. We welcome systematic or historical scholarly studies elaborating on the dynamics of repetition and some form of uniqueness with respect to the specifics of different theoretical disciplines: from theatre theory, to philosophy, or even (and not ending with) sociology or cultural studies. We also welcome contributions which focus on particular practical cases or means of production or artistic critique, in which these dynamics are unveiled. Finally, we accept shorter formats with lower demands on the professional apparatus and reflecting on current events and phenomena (see the characteristic of each in the Guidelines section).

You are invited to send the scholarly studies with all required details to the editor of the issue at josefina.formanova@gmail.com by the end of May 2025. The texts of other formats are due for submission by the end of June 2025. Should you have any questions, you are encouraged to direct them to the same address.

We look forward to your contributions,
Divadelní Revue – Editorial Board

Editor of the issue: Pavel Drábek

[H]e who thinks he makes tragedy well, doesn’t run around showing it in other cities outside Attica, but brings himself straight here and, as is only fitting, shows it to these people.

Plato, Laches 183a–b

Since Plato we have written theatre history as a story of great names, great works, great places and great ideas. Karl Popper dubbed this epistemological approach as the spell of Plato and recognised it as the cornerstone of a closed society. In recent decades a debate has been going on about how to write more open and more inclusive theatre histories – such that they don’t prioritise cultural metropolises in the so-called developed world, or cultural metropolises that Western historiography has included in its area of interest. Our own spectating experience tells us that theatrical and performance activities don’t only occur “straight here” but also “in other cities outside Attica”. The variety and uniqueness of theatre and performance can’t be restricted to a few selected areas of interest. Likewise, historiographical practice that tries to broaden the horizons can’t be sidelined to the position of a penitent pleading for the kind attention of established theatre history. History writing needs to reflect the development of the society and of media, and try to capture how spectating experience evolves; what the place of theatrical and performance arts in a culture is; and how the cognitive pleasures enabled by these arts change and mutate. It was along similar lines that the editorial team of The Routledge Companion of Theatre and Performance Historiography conceived that book. Half a decade has elapsed and the debate needs to carry on.

In its new series (since 2024), the Theatre Revue declares its renewed interest in interdisciplinary connections. But the terminological and epistemological differences between diverse disciplines often lead to a low common denominator. At that point the unique qualities of the theatrical and performance arts may fall by the wayside, simply because the interdisciplinary idiom fails to capture it. Anthropology, sociology and other social sciences operate with facts and artefacts that have a certain objectivity. In contrast, the theatrical and performative artefact mostly can’t meet this criterion – unless we shift the methodology to tangible artefacts: dramatic texts, scenographic designs, costumes, props, production patterns and museum objects of any kind. The theatrical and performative artefact proper (or arteact, as Jan Roubal called it) exists in the ontological regime of the possible, of the propositional – be it fiction, or purely play. How can we write a multidisciplinary history of such a propositional artefact?

How can we learn this history, and how can we teach it? How can we come to terms with traditional approaches and with the heritage that has defined our history? How can we unlearn the habits that we were indoctrinated with during our studies, but can hardly stand the test of roadworthiness?

Indicative areas:

• the specifics of the theatrical and performance experience; history of aesthetic pleasure;
• history of creative collaboration among theatre and performance artists;
• history of possible acting and of possible theatrical worlds; history of performative propositionality;
• multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinary history; from the Gesamtkunstwerk to collaborative creative practice;
• decentralising history: from limitations of logocentric histories of great names, great works, great places and great ideas, towards histories of collective creation and collective action.

The first issue of the 2026 volume, edited by Pavel Drábek (Professor of Drama and Theatre Practice, University of Hull, UK), opens a broad discussion of how to write histories of theatre and performance in such a way that we, as students of the past, don’t see the uniquely theatrical and the uniquely performative slipping through our fingers. For the peer-reviewed sections, we welcome submissions in a range of formats and approaches. For the non-peer-reviewed sections, we also welcome shorter contributions of diverse kinds: from discussions of practical cases and case studies; through position papers, prolegomena, manifestos or other provocations; to texts that capture current events and phenomena (see the characteristic of each section in the Guidelines.

You are invited to send submissions for the peer-reviewed sections to the editor of the issue at paveldrabek024@gmail.com by the end of November 2025. The non-peer-reviewed submissions for the other sections are due by the end of December 2025. If you have any questions, please contact the issue editor at the same address.

We look forward to your contributions,

Theatre Revue – Editorial Board

Editor of the issue: Miroslav Lukáš

And so I realize more and more what you can get out of the collected data. My brother John once said: A database is wrongly conceived if you determine from the outset what should come out of it – you have to leave it open. And so I keep discovering new questions that can be answered with this collected data. And I hope that others will also discover this in the future. (Paul S. Ulrich: Über Paul S. Ulrich. In Frank-Rüdiger Berger – Stephan Dörschel (eds.). Es geht mir immer darum, Informationen zugänglich zu machen. Wege zu einer neuen Theatergeschichte. Paul S. Ulrich (1944–2023) zum 80. Geburtstag. Berlin 2024, s. 29)

The use of digital technologies in the humanities has become firmly rooted and has become an essential part of a range of research. On the one hand, there are projects that make data available to researchers in digital form (digital libraries, factual databases, etc.); on the other hand, there are research projects, mostly interdisciplinary, where digital methods help to answer new questions and grasp the topics under investigation in a different way. The question of the involvement of artificial intelligence is at stake.

The aim of the issue is to present the ways of using digital technologies in theatre historiography and other art and history disciplines. It will present how digital humanities can be reflected in the work of the (theatre) historian or how classical and digital approaches can be best combined to achieve more comprehensive results when working with historical sources.  It will introduce current research in theatre historiography and at the same time open a broader discussion on the possibilities of using these approaches in mining historical sources.

We are accepting submissions focused on research working with historical data, or on the processes by which historical data can be analyzed in a digital environment. Attention will be paid to projects that address spatial and social analysis, explore mobilities and networks of relationships, or deal with digital mapping or visualization that facilitate the understanding of various historical phenomena. We also welcome papers that address the actual digitization of historical sources and texts that present experiences with the use of digital technologies or the further potential of working with them in various art historical disciplines. We also accept shorter texts, reports, reflections or essays for the unreviewed section of the journal, or reflections on current events and phenomena (see the list of sections in the instructions For Authors on the journal’s website).

The issue will also commemorate the extensive work of Paul S. Ulrich (1944–2023), who devoted a significant part of his life to collecting data from the field of early German-language theatre and digitizing it.

Studies for the peer-reviewed section should be sent to the editor of the issue at miroslav.lukas@idu.cz by the end of May 2026, texts for the non-peer-reviewed sections by the end of June 2026. Please also direct any queries to the editor.

We look forward to your contributions,
Theatre Revue – Editorial Board

Editors of the issue: Věra Velemanová, Šárka Havlíčková Kysová

The issue aims to look at scenography not only as a means of representation, albeit metaphorical, of the world in historical and contemporary theatre studies. Since at least the twentieth century, the understanding of scenography as a non-passive modality of theatrical performance has been reinforced. Even the material, which often forms its basis, must be perceived in its activity, its "living force", if you like. In this issue, we look at the interaction between the actor's body and the "body" of the scene and therefore emphasize both the function of the actor's body in the scenography (in its "corporeal reality") and the relationship or rather conceptual intertwining, of the scenography and the actor. However, this journey of discovery does not end with the production concept. We also place the creation of the scenography in the hands, or rather into the senses, of the spectator because it is in his body that scenography is transformed into a complex, unsegmentable perception. The issue entitled Embodying the World through Scenography thus brings together a diverse mosaic of approaches that scenography as a discipline offers in relation to current conceptualizations of the theatrical and theoretical world, albeit often focused on the history of theatre or scenography.

You are invited to send the scholarly studies with all required details to the editors of the issue at vera.velemanova@idu.cz and sarka.havlickova@phil.muni.cz by the end of May 2024. The texts of other formats are due for submission by the end of June 2024. Should you have any questions, you are encouraged to direct them to the same addresses.

We look forward to your contributions,
Divadelní Revue – Editorial Board