The play Cathleen Ni Houlihan by Lady Gregory and W.B. Yeats has had a theatrical production history infused with the collaborative contributions of many outspoken artistic voices and historical figures, which culminated in the contemporary iconographic image of Cathleen Ni Houlihan. With time, iconographic images become imbued with the collective power of their respective society, obscuring the craft that went into the image’s initial creation. In the case of Cathleen Ni Houlihan, Lady Gregory’s contribution to the play has at times been either obscured or mythologized, both of which strip her authorial agency and, critically, have made unavailable a key authorial lens from which to understand the construction of the play. By using, respectively, a contemporary and feminist lens, literary criticism can deconstruct the iconography of Cathleen Ni Houlihan to display a history which demands placing greater authorial agency into the hands of Lady Gregory.

            The first step in understanding an image’s iconography is understanding its basic construction within its specific artistic format. An analysis of the text of the play will render a basic understanding of the mechanisms by which the Old Woman is transformed into the Young Girl with the Walk of a Queen, creating the image of Cathleen Ni Houlihan that is codified today as iconography. The underlying mechanism used by Lady Gregory through which this transformation takes place is intertextuality. Later, after the intertextually formed image is constructed in text, Lady Gregory goes on to build upon these intertextualities using the medium of theatre.

            The two types of intertextuality that are used in Cathleen Ni Houlihan are historical allusions and the aisling genre. Together, these two usages of intertext transform the Old Woman from a stranger into Cathleen Ni Houlihan, slowly imbuing her with these intertextual qualities. Intertextuality in Cathleen Ni Houlihan implicitly defines the Irish history and values which will motivate Michael and the audience to action, without necessitating an explicit statement of nationalist values. The benefit of creating this implicit statement is that the formed image of a future sovereign Ireland can be developed entirely in the mind of the audience.

            The first way that intertextuality is weaved into the text of the play is through the historical allusions. The use of historical allusions connects the past to the theatrical “present,” which is recontextualized by the audience as hope for the future. The Old Woman connects the Ireland’s history to the fictional “present” of the play, set during the 1798 rebellion, when she lists to Michael those who have died out of love for her: “Old Woman. There was a red man of the O’Donnells from the north, and a man of the O’Sullivans from the south, and there was one Brian that lost his life at Clontarf by the sea, and there were a great many in the west, some that died hundreds of years ago, and there are some that will die to-morrow” (Harrington 8). The footnotes aid in explicating these historical figures as, “Red Hugh O’Donnel (1571-1602), Donal O’Sullivan Beare (c. 1560-1618), and Brian Boru (926-1014)” (Harrington 8). The historical intertext is provided in poetic language, but allows those aware of the historical meaning to immediately view the Old Woman as a metaphor for Ireland and begin to associate her with a history of Irish people who sacrificed their lives fighting for Irish sovereignty. Further, the stakes of fighting for the sake of the Old Woman are clarified to the audience with the previous allusion, when she explains that she has had taken away from her, “My four beautiful green fields” (Harrington 7). The footnotes aid in explicating this as, “The island of Ireland’s traditional division is into four provinces: Ulster, Munster, Leinster, and Connacht” (Harrington 7). Therefore, these two historical allusions, together, display to the audience that the stake for which Cathleen Ni Houlihan will ask Michael to fight is the totality of Ireland, by calling upon a rich history of figures who have done so before him. The effect of this intertextuality is granting the agency and historical significance of these past figures into the fictional “present” of the play set during the 1798 rebellion. The audience at the premiere in 1902 and onward would have the knowledge of the failure of the 1798 rebellion which further re-contextualizes this intertextuality. Michael will fail, but it does not matter because he is intertextually aligned with a history of those who fought for Ireland’s sovereignty. This message would have been recontextualized by an Irish audience ruled by the United Kingdom, linking them and any of their future endeavors for Irish sovereignty to this rich history. The cumulative effect of these historical intertexts is a shared history of individuals fighting for the singular goal of sovereignty, creating an endless source of hope and inspiration for future generations.

            The second way that intertextuality is weaved into the text of the play is through the aisling genre. The intertextuality of the aisling genre in the play Cathleen Ni Houlihan allows the Old Woman to be granted the cumulative virtues that have been built up through the history of the aisling genre. The aisling genre creates the personification of Ireland as a woman in order for the poet to sing to Ireland and express national pride and a will of reclamation by display of sorrowful loss. William Heffernan (The Blind) in Caitilin Ni Uallachain expresses in 1720 a camaraderie among the Irish-people through the address of the poem as “we” and by the repeating ending stanza which express shared ownership through a reclamation of, “our Caitilin Ni Uallachain” (O’ Connor 23-24). The intertextual and re-interpretive use of Cathleen Ni Houlihan’s name is displayed by W.B. Yeats through Red Hanrahan’s Song about Ireland in 1894. Within this poem the themes of shared emotion and an unbreakable loyal bond is displayed through lyrics, through the camaraderie established by the literary device of Red Hanrahan’s narrative sorrow, and through the effects of Red Hanrahan’s singing has upon the others within his home. This sense of community and loyalty is conveyed in the lyrics, “But we have hidden in our hearts the flame out of the eyes/ Of Cathleen, the daughter of Houlihan” and “But we have all bent low and low and kissed the quiet feet/ of Cathleen the daughter of Houlihan” (O’ Connor 28). Between Heffernan and Yeats there is a shift from a first-person poem in Caitilin Ni Uallachain to a third-person narrative in Red Hanrahan’s Song about Ireland. The change grants a greater power to the figure of Cathleen Ni Houlihan through the intertextuality of Red Hanrahan’s lore and legendary singing ability. Red Hanrahan’s legend imbues the aisling poem with deeper nationalist resonance which creates a greater resonance with the Irish-people in association with the aisling genre. There is a cumulative intertextual effect from these two poems in the play Cathleen Ni Houlihan when the Old Woman shares her name, “Some call me the Poor Old Woman, and there are some that call me Cathleen, the daughter of Houlihan” (Harrington 9). The cumulative effect is a meta-physical transformation when the audience no longer sees the unremarkable Old Woman as a stranger and, instead, sees her as the figure of Cathleen Ni Houlihan. This instantly grants every physical aspect of her portrayal an implicit historical and metaphorical significance built on the intertext of the aisling genre.

            These intertextual changes are effects that can be achieved on paper, by weaving historical allusion and the aisling genre into the text and narrative of the play. However, the two usages of intertextuality, historical allusion and the aisling genre, to create this narrative and final image in the play, cannot compel through their construction alone. The intertextually formed image of Cathleen Ni Houlihan must be innovated upon to compel in the medium of theatre. Following the previous examples of intertextuality, Lady Gregory uses the medium of theatre to innovate upon the intertextuality of historical allusions with clever staging and innovates upon the intertextuality of the aisling genre by having Cathleen Ni Houlihan sing back to the Irish People.

            Lady Gregory builds upon the intertextual historical allusions with staging. Cathleen Ni Houlihan’s physical presence guides Michael through the stage directions of the play such examples include, “An OLD WOMAN passes the window slowly. She looks at MICHAEL as she passes” (Harrington 6), “MICHAEL watches her curiously from the door” (6), “MICHAEL sits down beside her on the hearth” (Harrington 8), and finally “MICHAEL breaks away from DELIA, stands for a second at the door, then rushes out, following the OLD WOMAN’s voice” (Harrington 11). This physical presence builds upon the intertextuality by demonstrating in visual terms, to the audience, a physical manifestation of Cathleen Ni Houlihan’s qualities which led Heffernan to poetry in sorrowful camaraderie and moved Red Hanrahan to tears through song. This physical presence demands an understanding of simple and clever staging, unique to the medium of theatre.

            Lady Gregory builds upon the intertextuality formed using the aisling genre by having Cathleen Ni Houlihan sing during the stage production. The aisling genre includes poems and songs which are a vessel to contain the sorrowful camaraderie that is felt towards this figure of Cathleen Ni Houlihan, who represents Ireland having been taken from her people. Lady Gregory builds on the intertextuality of the aisling genre by having Cathleen Ni Houlihan sing back to the Irish people, by using Michael as a proxy for the audience, and demonstrates on stage, through the power of her song, the intrinsically compelling qualities which motivated previous generations of Irish-people. It is Cathleen Ni Houlihan’s song which eventually guides Michael out the front door when he, “rushes out, following the OLD WOMAN’s voice” (Harrington 11). This physical communication, of both reception and response, is unique to the medium of theatre in which an audience is physically present to subtly respond to the actions of the players on stage, with the inverse being true as well.

            Lady Gregory does not only make use of intertextuality, but also innovates upon the constructed image using the medium of theatre. Together intertextuality, of historical allusions and aisling genre, along with theatrical innovations, creates the internal framework for the nuanced image of Cathleen Ni Houlihan. Deconstructing these internal facets of Cathleen Ni Houlihan’s iconography only requires the text of the play with light supplementary material for explication. Cumulatively, this creates a blueprint for how to optimally construct the narrative payoff at the end of the play. These are ways in which the image of Cathleen Ni Houlihan can be constructed from within, either in a generalized theatrical sense or for a modern understanding how to construct the play on stage. In contrast, the process of how this image is constructed from without, demands an understanding of the biographical and societal forces which effected the way the play was received at various times throughout history. However, when analyzing the play from without, literary criticism becomes necessary which raises a problem, that has not been addressed so far this paper.

            So far in the language of my paper I have given direct attribution of both intertextual and theatrical innovations to Lady Gregory in keeping with a contemporary reading from the Second Norton Critical Edition of Modern and Contemporary Irish Drama. However, this direct attribution in literary discourse was not always the case, in particular because, on its opening night and for a brief period of time thereafter, W.B. Yeat’s was given sole attribution as the writer of the play. This compounded upon by the intrinsically murky nature of collaboration, led to Lady Gregory not being given due credit for her construction of the play for a very long time. This formulation is problematic because it strips Lady Gregory of her authorial agency, taking away a lens which helps understand the mechanisms which creative the narrative that ultimately forms the image and iconography of Cathleen Ni Houlihan. Lady Gregory’s involvement with the writing of the play unlocks the ability to understand its construction through her unique literary understanding of theatre and Irish mythological history, upon which the plays intertextuality is created.

            Therefore, further deconstruction of the iconography of Cathleen Ni Houlihan requires understanding the history of how authorial attribution was reclaimed by Lady Gregory. This will illuminate the systemic problems which led to this misattribution in authorship and its perpetuation. My goal is to analyze the differences between symbolism and reality in order to uncover the parallels between both the iconography of Lady Gregory and the play Cathleen Ni Houlihan. By using, respectively, a contemporary and feminist lens, literary criticism can further deconstruct the iconography of Cathleen Ni Houlihan to display a history which demands placing greater authorial agency into the hands of Lady Gregory.

            Literary criticism can further deconstruct the iconography of Cathleen Ni Houlihan by using a contemporary lens to explicate the collaborative aspects of the production history of the play. In “Dead many times”: Cathleen ni Houlihan, Yeats, two old women, and a vampire Henry Meritt uses a contemporary lens to sift through the nuanced and murky aspects of the collaborative process that went into creating the play and later the iconography of Cathleen Ni Houlihan. To begin, Merritt establishes a contemporary perspective on the composition of the play which will go on to inform his later literary criticism: “According to much current opinion, in Roy Foster's words: ‘Textual evidence suggests that Gregory wrote most of the play; her own diaries, and contemporary rumour, bear this out. WBY always gave her due credit, but implied that the plot and construction were his. This annoyed her in later life but at the time she accepted that his name would sell. [...] Cathleen ni Houlihan, as it became [...], bears the hallmarks of the other plays Gregory came to write. It is straightforward, rather heavy-handed, reliant on predictable dramatic by-play and--for all its mechanical construction--dramatically very powerful.’ (6) What Yeats almost certainly contributed was the verse the Old Woman speaks. However, most of the dialogue, the plotting, and the resolution of the play seem to be “strongly influenced, if not provided, by Gregory. (7) It is these elements that determine the play's essential message” (Meritt 1-2). Meritt outlines the trouble with tracking the authorial agency of the play, even before the collaborative work of the theatrical production poses its own set of problems. The conflicting nature of Yeat’s and Lady Gregory’s account displays that even a modern understanding of the biographical history of the play, through first-person account alone, cannot sufficiently give a clear history. Instead, Meritt uses the contemporary lens, which is uniquely capable of accessing the large body of work of both individuals to assess the construction of the play in-line with the capability and style of the authors. Therefore, Merittt claims Lady Gregory deserves the majority of the credit because of her unique capability to create the narrative aspects of the play which formed the ending’s message. This implicitly includes intertextuality, through her specific knowledge of Irish mythology history and theatrical narrative. This contemporary lens is valuable as it displays the passage of time, access to the author’s bodies of work, and literary analysis that is necessary to separate the collaborative aspects of the play’s theatrical construction.

            To further display the complicated nature of collaboration, and ultimately uphold his argument, Meritt fleshes out an example of one simple facet of the ending of the play which contained collaborative contributions from Gonne, Yeats, and Lady Gregory. The purpose of describing this granular exchange of ideas is to grant insight into the collaborative nature of their work, and by proxy, create a microcosm which may direct attention towards facets of the collaboration that can be said to have lasting effects on Cathleen Ni Houlihan’s iconography. Meritt begins the example as follows: “An important element in the play is highlighted by a temporary change made to it in its first production. During rehearsals, Gonne wrote to Yeats asking for a change to the ending: ‘We rehearsed Kathleen tonight, it went splendidly all but the end. It doesn't make a good curtain--We are all of opinion that Michael ought to go right out of the door instead of standing HESITATING. It doesn't seem clear if he doesn't go out. If he goes out Delia can throw herself on Bridget's shoulder in tears which makes a much better end. Please write at once and say if we may do that. [George] Russell & Miss Young & the Fays & all the actors want it & think it is much better indeed necessary. (Gonne-Yeats Letters, p. 150)’ The version published in Samhain had accommodated Gonne's suggestions” (Meritt 3-4). Tracking the collaboration up until this point, it is Yeats who had gone to Lady Gregory for assistance on the play and afterwards offered up the completed play to the Irish National Dramatic Company. This agreement is upon the insistence that Maud Gonne play the titular role of Cathleen Ni Houlihan. Only after this, does Gonne insist upon a change which fundamentally changes the tone of the ending. This change is made shortly thereafter, seemingly, without any input from Lady Gregory who had crafted the narrative upon which this ending hinges. The change speaks to Yeat’s willingness to accommodate Gonne and his sway over the theatre due to his social status. As well, it speaks to Gonne’s exertion and control over the way that the role of Cathleen Ni Houlihan should be both acted and received. This formulation speaks to the underlying issue at the genesis of the play. Simply put, W.B. Yeats and Maud Gonne held greater sway at the time of the plays initial production, which obfuscated and even stripped Lady Gregory of her authorial agency. Gonne’s small revision creates a drastically different ending departing from Lady Gregory’s construction. This matters because when deconstructing the iconography of Cathleen ni Houlihan the play, its early years looms heavy in the mind of its popular understanding.

            Meritt goes on to continue explicating the production history of the play, tracking what became of this small change in the years which followed: “This illuminates an important feature of the play as it was originally composed (and as Gregory herself later 'restored' it): initially, Michael Gillane was to have mixed emotions, was not going to precipitately rush out to join the French. In the version of the play Gregory edited in proof for A. H. Bullen to 'restore' the ending 'as it is acted', (32) hesitation plays an important part. Michael does not speak for the last twenty lines of the play, refusing to speak to Delia, his friends, and his parents. He makes no rousing speech calling on others to follow. When he finally and silently exits, the stage directions read: 'Michael breaks away from Delia, stands for a second at the door, then rushes out, following the Old Woman's voice. Bridget takes Delia, who is crying silently, into her arms' (Variorum Plays, p. 231). These revisions emphasize an important part of the original plan as far as Gregory was concerned. Wavering and thoughtful consideration are important factors before personal, not collective, engagement. Gonne and her Cathleen, by contrast, want total, social, instant, and vocal commitment” (Meritt 3-4). This portrayal complicates the notion of Gonne’s involvement in the play. Maud Gonne’s initial performance and the effect which this had on the popularity of the play cannot be understated. However, in future iterations of the play, particularly in association with what would become the Abbey Theatre, it was not Maud Gonne in the titular role, but fellow Irish National Dramatic Company actress Máire Nic Shiubhlaigh. In comparison, to Gonne’s radical nationalism, Shiubhlaigh was seen as an actor-activist. Even after this, Shiubhlaigh only performed the role for a brief time before it was performed predominately by Sara Allgood, an Irish Hollywood actress, through Ireland’s independence. Therefore, despite the nationalist roots and message of the play, the role of this iconic figure passed down to many different actresses of varying levels of activism towards Irish independence. This posits a difficult question on the nature of theater and iconography. How do initial theatrical runs inform subsequent performances, specifically, what did Gonne demand from her audience and how has this portrayal changed?

            For Meritt, these questions might be answered by the recursive and corrective force which Gregory continued to have over the play. While Gonne’s changes and initial notoriety as a beautiful radical nationalist actress may have charged the role and informed subsequent performers, it was both Gregory’s initial scaffolding and continued presence which allowed this contribution to continue to thrive well past Ireland’s independence. Evidence of this was that not only would Lady Gregory regain control over the narrative of the play, but also that she would go on to perform the titular role in Abbey Theatre performances in 1919. In addition to this answer, while Gonne’s demand for radical devotion to Irish sovereignty may have spoken to the radical and nationalist roots upon which the Irish National Dramatic Company was founded, it was not an approach that would last. As the demand for sacrifice became real in the wake of the actual possibility of Irish sovereignty, a more human approach may have been necessary which necessitated Lady Gregory’s more thoughtful approach to the sacrifice of one’s life. For example, in the wake of the Easter Rising, this sacrifice may have seemed all too real and Gonne’s radical approach may no longer have been seen to be an appropriate call to action. Regardless, it was Lady Gregory’s more considerate Michael which would evoke the implicit image of Cathleen Ni Houlihan well through Ireland attaining independence. Perhaps this change speaks to Lady Gregory’s understanding of the demands of the portrayal of Cathleen Ni Houlihan and perhaps speaks, implicitly, to her majority role in the creation of the play and its message.

            Meritt’s critical intervention is for the purpose of displaying Lady Gregory’s unique capability to create the image of Cathleen Ni Houlihan and argues that the obfuscation of her role in its creation was intentional as she was ultimately able to position herself, Yeats, and Gonne in societal positions which were in her favor. While this may not have been my usage of Meritt’s argument, one of his key interventions is the demonstration that the scaffolding of the realistic scene, dialogue, and mythological story which Lady Gregory created allowed for Gonne and Yeat’s collaborative contributions to stand out. Further, tracking Lady Gregory’s continued involvement with the play demands greater recognition for her contributions, despite the monumental nature of Gonne’s initial performance and Yeat’s initial billing as the sole writer. Meritt’s contemporary lens reaffirms greater authorial agency to Lady Gregory, but does not address the systemic reasons which necessitate placing greater authorial agency into the hands of Lady Gregory.

            Literary criticism can further deconstruct the iconography of Cathleen Ni Houlihan by using a feminist lens to explicate the necessity and stakes of deconstructing iconography. In Staging Hibernia: female allegories of Ireland in Cathleen Ni Houlihan and Dawn Tanya Dean uses a feminist lens to make the distinction between the symbolic and reality in relation to iconography in order to state the dangers which are posed when this distinction is not made.

            Dean begins her argument by outlining the process by which Lady Gregory’s image of Cathleen Ni Houlihan is transformed into iconography. Dean succinctly explains the basics of the phenomenon: “The choice to mine the myths of Ireland to synthesize a powerful woman as allegory was a consciously political choice as well as an artistic one. John Wilson Foster, in Fictions of the Irish Literary Revival, describes the nationalist aesthetic movement of the times: ‘The Irish Literary Revival of the late nineteenth century sought to redefine the country's present by recalling a past world of nobility and bravery. For writers of the period, recovery of the era of legend was 'recovery of a heroic Ireland.' (20) In hearkening back to the racial memory of these myths, Yeats and Gregory hoped to create an "enabling myth" that would mine the patriotism of audience members; to evoke a shared nostalgia that would inspire men to restore Ireland to her former glory in a transformation similar to that of Cathleen Ni Houlihan” (Dean 4). Dean is able to concisely explains the utilitarian purpose which Cathleen Ni Houlihan’s transformation serves. The transformation of Cathleen Ni Houlihan, on stage, inspires the audience to create the narrative image of the Young Girl with the Walk of the Queen through Ireland’s sovereignty. Once achieved, the image of Ireland in the minds of the Irish-people is not of the Old Woman, but of this new Cathleen Ni Houlihan. Propaganda becomes iconography. Dean leaves out the codification of this image across Ireland, when the newly-formed independent Irish government prints new currency with an image which displays the painting “Lady Lavery as Kathleen Ni Houlihan.” This physical printing on currency aligns the new Cathleen Ni Houlihan with the new Irish government and people in very concrete terms. It is a daily reminder and powerful symbol of an idea realized and brought into reality. However, for Dean, the codification of this iconic image comes with its own set of problems.

            In Dean’s intervention, there is an inverse to the formulation of the galvanizing force of Cathleen Ni Houlihan, as it creates an image of woman that is disparate from the reality that women of the Irish society of that time were living. Dean displays the problematic notion of the symbolic at odds with reality stating: “In their work in the theatre, Yeats, Gregory, and Gonne were creating a powerful patriotic symbol in the form of an embodied "Mother Ireland," as part of a cultural campaign to stage indigenous representations of Ireland and the Irish. Yet the pride of place of this female allegorical figure onstage was at odds with how Irish women were sidelined in political thought. Implicitly, these incarnations of Hibernia as Cathleen Ni Houlihan and Bride were limited to serving as a figurehead to rally the troops of the rebellion, valued only in the realm of the symbolic (Dean 5).” The reversal highlighted, through this formulation, is a critical evaluation of the systems real women had to endure and highlights the problematic nature of the symbolic at odds with reality. Dean specifically targets the notion that this image of a Young Woman with the Walk of a Queen galvanized audiences, yet Irish nationalist women were not only seen as exceptions to the societal norms, but at times discouraged from their advocacy. This creates a discrepancy between the iconographic potential of the image for women, in comparison to the limited societal role that women are actually allowed to undertake. In Dean’s construction, the image of Cathleen Ni Houlihan, though powerful and inspiring, has no valence on the reality of women. Iconography can have a power which minimizes the actual lives of the individuals it is portraying, even if it is being used for completely separate and moral cause.

            Dean creates an argument which displays the discrepancy formed between the symbolic and the real when figures are codified as icons. In doing so, Dean makes an implicit claim about Lady Gregory which is illuminated by a reading of Anne Fogarty’s Introduction (Editorial) Irish University Review: a journal of Irish Studies 2004, Spring-Summer, 34, 1 which illuminates a problem related to the work that Dean has been doing: “In the centenary year of the Abbey Theatre the occasion to acknowledge the work and contribution of one of its founders readily presents itself. However, it seems equally pressing to probe the problematic legacy of a woman writer and cultural and political activist who has become a strangely absent or vexed presence within accounts of the Revival period and within the selective and still male dominated annals of Irish literary history. How we make sense of Augusta Gregory should be of as much moment as our shifting relations to, and constantly mutating understanding of, James Joyce, W. B. Yeats, and J. M. Synge but the persistent erasure or demotion of female voices within Irish cultural consciousness automatically stamp this a minor concern or even a non-issue. It is perhaps because of this reluctance to grant due weight to women writers that Lady Gregory enjoys a literary afterlife in contemporary Ireland more as a symbolic icon than as an author in her own right” (Fogarty viii). The nuance that is required to understand Cathleen Ni Houlihan’s iconographic construction and deconstruction must, as well, be carefully applied to her author, Lady Gregory, when wrestling with the notions of authorial agency, iconography, and the symbolic. The transformation of Lady Gregory’s efforts in creating Cathleen Ni Houlihan from a collaborator to its creator is not enough. This is because the iconographic nature of this portrayal would not leave room for the study of her authorial agency, as it would transform Lady Gregory from a historical figure into a symbol for Ireland’s independence. This configuration is problematic in the same construction which separates the symbolic female from the female of reality. Lady Gregory’s endeavor becomes one of the symbolic capabilities of females in relation to nationalism for Irish sovereignty, instead of an authorial achievement as a woman in the early 20th century.

            Dean’s critical intervention in conversation with Fogarty’s piece display the stakes of forgoing close analysis of the construction of the iconic in relation to Lady Gregory and her play Cathleen Ni Houlihan. The difference is that Lady Gregory created Cathleen Ni Houlihan, forging her image using intertextuality drawing upon historical allusions and the aisling genre. It is an image that is formed purely from the mythological, which is able to compel using the symbolic. The threshold of understanding is in its construction. However, unlike her creation, Lady Gregory is a human being. When rendered purely into the symbolic, deconstruction of Lady Gregory as an icon strips her of her agency. Therefore, authorial agency must be placed in Lady Gregory’s hands, through direct attribution to the facets of the play which compel, or risk losing this lens to the symbolic. In doing so, there is an active recognition between the symbolic and the real, which recognizes the problematic formation between the power of symbolic woman and the stifled reality of the real woman. This recognizes both the history of misattribution and dangers of heightened symbolic attribution, which create the gendered systemic framework that has made it difficult to truly recognize the literary achievement that Lady Gregory made in the construction of Cathleen Ni Houlihan.

Bibliography

Merritt, Henry. "'Dead many times': Cathleen ni Houlihan, Yeats, two old women, and a vampire." The Modern Language Review, vol. 96, no. 3, July 2001, p. 644. Gale Literature Resource Center, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A79277540/LitRC?u=ucirvine&sid= bookmark-LitRC&xid=fcf04008. Accessed 9 Feb. 2022.

            In “Dead many times”: Cathleen ni Houlihan, Yeats, two old woman, and a vampire Henry Merritt’s article’s purpose is to grant Lady Gregory greater authorial intent over the play Cathleen Ni Houlihan. Meritt’s method of approach is biographical, comparing real life events to that of the play. Merritt focuses on comparing the forming image of Cathleen Ni Houlihan before the play’s initial production, through citation of the events of Maud Gonne, Lady Gregory, and Yeats’ lives, to consider the pull each had in the forming image of the Old Woman. In addition, Merritt cites many cumulative Irish mythological and literary forces which combined, uniquely within Lady Gregory’s purview, to form Cathleen Ni Houlihan’s image. The purpose of the article is to grant Lady Gregory greater authorial agency in the production of Cathleen Ni Houlihan amongst the murky collaborative aspects of her and Yeat’s play.

            In “Dead many times”: Cathleen ni Houlihan, Yeats, two old woman, and a vampire Henry Merritt uses biographical analysis in conversation with the text of Cathleen Ni Houlihan to argue that Lady Gregory intentionally forsake attribution as a primary author for the cumulative greater social effects that would follow. This argument relies on creating a fundamental argument for Lady Gregory’s agency in creating the narrative and iconography of the play. This argument was useful in my own paper in establishing this same agency by using a biographical account. This allowed me to display Lady Gregory’s agency internally, from the text of the play, and externally from this biographical account. While I may not have followed through on displaying Merritt’s greater argument, the base of knowledge that he creates in the biographical account contains a concise, logical, and concrete argument which allowed me to put it into conversation with other literary criticisms.

Dean, Tanya. "Staging Hibernia: female allegories of Ireland in Cathleen Ni Houlihan and Dawn." Theatre History Studies, vol. 33, annual 2014, pp. 71+. Gale Literature Resource Center, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A394184060/LitRC?u=ucirvine&sid=bookmark-LitRC&xid=ffeb0c00. Accessed 9 Feb. 2022.

            In Staging Hibernia: female allegories of Ireland in Cathleen Ni Houlihan and Dawn Tanya Dean’s critical essay’s purpose is to analyze the iconography of Cathleen Ni Houlihan and Dawn in relation to the Irish political and historical landscape. Dean’s method of approach is historical and political tracking the formation of the nationalist Daughters of Ireland, in relation to Maud Gonne and by extension Yeats, in order to center on the image of the female in relation to Ireland. This approach is weaved with the literary notion of Ireland as a woman in Cathleen Ni Houlihan and Dawn. Dean approaches the topic with a feminist lens. The purpose is to track and investigate the compelling aspects of the image of Ireland as a woman through the relationship between these plays, their female authors, and their shared history with Ireland. The critical intervention is to grant greater agency to the women involved in these plays, by arguing against the patriarchal narrative of history.

            In Staging Hibernia: female allegories of Ireland in Cathleen Ni Houlihan and Dawn Tanya Dean’s argument is a critique of a society which creates a discrepancy between the symbolic and realistic capabilities of women. Dean displays this through the biographical accounts of the power of the iconography of the female figures in Cathleen Ni Houlihan and Dawn, and the mistreatment of their respective authors Lady Gregory and Maud Gonne. Dean is interested in creating a powerful real-life resonance by focusing on Maud Gonne’s theatrical production Dawn. In Dawn, there is a figure inspired by Cathleen Ni Houlihan who functions in a similar capacity. This figure is juxtaposed with Maud Gonne’s real-life nationalist and suffrage advocacy, which was both outside of the norm for a female and, at times, stifled by the greater movement towards nationalism. Comparing this theatrical figure to Maud Gonne’s life directly juxtaposes the symbolic capability of the female with real women upon whom societal limits are placed. In my paper, the formulation of this difference between the symbolic and the real is key to creating stakes for the discrepancy between popular notions of the play and Merritt’s academic account. While I did not make use of Dean’s focus on Dawn or Maud Gonne, I was able to use the formulation of her argument, in relation to Cathleen Ni Houlihan and Lady Gregory, which implicitly, follows the same structure. Following this structure, I was able to perform a similar investigation between the symbolic and real in regard to both Lady Gregory and Cathleen Ni Houlihan by putting Dean’s work in conversation with other literary criticism.

Fogarty, Anne. “Introduction.” Irish University Review: A Journal of Irish Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2004, p. viii-xiii.

            In “Introduction (Editorial)” Anne Fogarty introduces the 2004 Spring/Summer Lady Gregory issue of the Irish University Review journal by giving an account of the then-current academic field surrounding Lady Gregory’s work. In particular, Fogarty is invested in establishing the unique dichotomy growing in the academic field and public sphere between Lady Gregory’s perception as an icon distinct from her literary achievements, specifically because she is a woman. The article’s approach is to create a foundation which summarizes the academic landscape of the time, in order to inform the diverse range of critical approaches to Lady Gregory’s work that will follow. Through this, the article has a unique critical intervention which outlines a growing problem forming within the academic sphere, in regard to Lady Gregory’s work, which displays an underlying systemic issue of gender in relation to literature.

            In “Introduction (Editorial)” Anne Fogarty creates the image of the then-contemporary landscape of academic criticism of Lady Gregory’s work. This is useful in creating a stage upon which to place Merritt’s biographical account and Dean’s critical intervention in conversation with one another. While Fogarty goes on to give a rich descriptive account of the problem, similar to the one Dean investigates, as well as an introduction to several major approaches to Lady Gregory’s work, the opening page clearly states, from an academic perspective, the problem which I will be seeking to answer. While I do not go on to flesh out Fogarty’s piece, it is a critical piece of literary criticism upon which to concretely situate my argument, lest it be rendered in the abstract. Fogarty’s piece allows my piece to, as well, create a bridge between the past in Merritt’s biographical account of the play’s early production history and the near-present in Dean’s 2014 piece. This is because Fogarty’s piece published in 2004 explains a mounting problem that is corrected both through the piece’s existence, as well as, through the definitive language of the Norton Critical Edition of Modern and Contemporary Irish Drama, the text for the course, which pays deep attributive language towards Lady Gregory. This reflects the now changed academic perspective to her authorial agency. Without this piece, it is difficult to display the previous problem that is corrected through the definitive attributive language towards Lady Gregory in contemporary text.