From Manuscript to Blog: Technologies of Transmission in Lady Jane Lumley s The Tragedy of Iphigenia

Transcription

1 From Manuscript to Blog: Technologies of Transmission in Lady Jane Lumley s The Tragedy of Iphigenia Abstract This essay traces Lady Jane Lumley s early modern adaptation of Euripides Iphigenia at Aulis through history and media: from sixteenth century manuscript to twentieth century publication to twenty-first century live performance and on-going, on-line presence. With particular attention to the original manuscript and the 2013 performance, this essay shows how successive remediations of Lumley s play are both deeply influenced by their medium, creating new iterations of the original text, while also engaging with ongoing discourse around it, and so comprising a narrative of the play s passage through time. This essay argues that the Rose Company s 2013 performance of Lumley s Iphigenia takes up uncertainty about the original manuscript s form and purpose, and uses script and casting to generate a sophisticated, two-fold intervention into discourse around this play, championing its status as drama and as a product of a woman s pen. The 2013 production constitutes an argument that is not bounded by the beginning and end of the show, but is augmented, elaborated and extended by its material and virtual paratexts, including the video archive on which this essay is based. The performance asks its audience to consider the relationship between text and speech, gender and authorship, reading and performance in Lumley s Iphigenia. Keywords: women s writing; transmission; Renaissance literature; reception studies; performance Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Left Iphigenia at Aulis (circa 407 BCE) is the last surviving work by the classical Greek tragedian Euripides. 1 Itself a retelling of an older Homeric story that of Agamemnon s sacrifice of his daughter Iphigenia to ensure good winds and a safe passage to Troy it has been the subject of retellings and adaptations into many different languages and genres. Euripides Iphigenia at Aulis first entered the English language in a sixteenth-century adaptation by Lady Jane Lumley entitled The Tragedie of Euripides called Iphigeneia translated out of Greake into Englisshe. This essay will trace one branch of the play s passage through history and material forms by following its progressive transformation from manuscript, to print, to performance, to on-line video and commentary. After outlining this fascinating evolution, I will consider Lumley s original manuscript and the 2013 performance in more detail. Both manuscript and performance are, I will argue, open texts which display, in their materiality, a remarkably dynamic interplay between oral and scribal authority, 1 In fact Iphigenia at Aulis was most likely an incomplete draft at the time of Euripides death, and was actually completed by Euripides the Younger, before further changes were made in the fourth century (by others unknown) to make it more appealing to a later audience (Kovacs 157). The full history of this play s transmission would make for a very interesting study. 1

2 destabilising the idea of transmission as either distinctly oral or textual. By examining the performance s script and casting, I hope to show how it responds to the manuscript s uncertain genre, constructing not only an interpretation of its source text, but a sophisticated argument about it as well. The fact that it does so in conjunction with material and virtual paratexts further contributes to this play s complex history of transmission, which repeatedly suggests an interconnectedness between each material iteration of the play. It is worth noting to begin with the nature of the relationship between Euripides Iphigenia at Aulis and Lady Jane Lumley s translation. Translation, as it was understood in early modern England, rarely entailed literal transmission, but rather involved the appropriation of the source or master text, adapting it to a new cultural and linguistic context (Copeland 221-2). In keeping with this practice, Lumley retains Euripides narrative, as well as the general sense and structure of many of the speeches, while also making significant formal and stylistic changes. Among the most obvious are her use of prose rather than verse; a substantial reduction in the role of the chorus; a comprehensive deemphasis throughout on the particularities of the classical Greek setting; and corresponding allusions to contemporary sixteenth century terms and customs. Lumley appears to have consulted Erasmus 1506 Latin translation of Iphigenia as well as the original Greek (Purkiss 168). Her play is not, therefore, an original composition in the modern sense of the term. But as the first English version of Iphigenia and as the first recorded play penned by an Englishwoman, it is without precedent. As a text, moreover, which generates its own editions, staging and discourse, it is an apt place to begin this genealogy of transmission. Lumley s Iphigenia survives as part of the Lumley collection in a quarto manuscript volume in the British Library (Royal MS 15 A ix). The exact date of its composition is unknown, with some scholars placing it as early as 1550, and others arguing for a later date (see Purkiss, 168; Wynne- Davies, 117). The lack of evidence concerning its production and transmission has had a strong impact on its historical reception. The question, for example, of whether or not it was written to be performed indeed whether it was performed looms large, but no documentary proof of performance survives. The manuscript, about which we know very little, was all but neglected for 450 years, until its publication in the early twentieth century. Harold H. Child compiled and edited the first print edition for the Malone Society in The second, and only other, edition, edited by Diane Purkiss, was published in Both print editions are based on the manuscript, retain original spelling and include line numbers (not in the original) for scholarly use. Purkiss s edition, however, situates the play beside two others Elizabeth Cary s The Tragedie of Mariam and the Countess of Pembroke s The Tragedie of Antonie in a volume entitled Three Tragedies by Renaissance Women. A reproduction of 16 th century Italian artist Sofonisba Anguissola s self-portrait illustrates the front cover a visual allusion to the book s attempt to recover and convey evidence of women s self- 2

3 fashioning and creative agency in early modern history (see Appendix B). Purkiss s volume reflects and encourages a growing interest in early modern women s writing, and her material cover frames the play in terms of gender and authorship. Moving from manuscript and print to performance, it was Diane Purkiss s edition that the Rose Company consulted in their staging of The Tragedy of Iphigenia. The Rose Company describe themselves as an all-female theatre company based in Lancashire, England, dedicated to staging lost works (The Rose Company website). Although their production of Iphigenia was subsequently remounted and toured throughout England, the only fully archived performance to date is the work in progress performance staged at the University of Reading Early Modern Studies Conference in July As this essay is an exploration of the significance of technologies of transmission rather than a theatrical review, this performance s unfinished status is no hindrance to discussion. In fact its status as work in progress only highlights the intriguing position Iphigenia occupies between performance and written text. As the final instalment in the history of this play s transmission we need to consider the digital technology which allows this performance to be archived, but also explained, publicised and discussed. The video footage was filmed and edited by Sam Mitchinson and Francesca Hayden from the University of Reading, and is available on-line, hosted by the University of Reading website. Also available on-line are blogs and publicity, uploaded by the Rose Company or their affiliated organisations (the University of Reading and the University of Lancaster), which, I will suggest, function as paratexts to the Reading performance. Turning now to Lumley s original manuscript in more detail, we are confronted with the problematic question of its dramatic status. As a play by an aristocratic noblewoman which pre-dates the era of commercial performance, it would certainly not have been performed in public in the sense that later sixteenth century plays were. It could, however, have been performed as part of household entertainment, perhaps read aloud, or even been performed at court. To argue that a text s medium of transmission is essential to its interpretation requires knowledge about its historical production and transmission. In this case an already-difficult task, given the intervening centuries, is made more difficult, by, as I have already mentioned, the scarcity of evidence. But to suggest an interpretation that ignores a text s material history is to uproot it from its context and risk significant misunderstanding. In the 1940s, for example, classicists David Greene and Frank Crane both dismissed Lumley s Iphigenia as a pedagogical exercise and a work of childhood, judging it as a poor translation of Euripides original, and so ignoring the social and cultural conditions of its production (Greene 542; Crane 227). Since the 1990s, feminist scholars have challenged this, seeking instead to position the play as a drama. This too can be problematic. Alison Findlay writes: We have thus 3

4 reached a critical frontier. To argue the performability of early women s drama is insufficient, but to move ahead and try to put such plays in their place as theatre, we must enter unknown territory (9). She attempts to cross this frontier by locating the women-authored dramas she studies in space, in order to map an affiliation between writers, likely sites of performance, such as private homes, gardens and courts, and texts (16). But this approach, in its effort to overcome the frustrating gaps in historical evidence, assumes performance, then seeks evidence for its a priori position. In doing so it implicitly and ahistorically privileges performance as the more desirable mode of transmission for early modern women s drama, including Iphigenia. This assumption may not accurately reflect the way performance and textual cultures were valued in Lumley s time. Matthew Dimmock and Andrew Hadfield take issue with the kind of anachronistic thinking which privileges drama as a product of elite culture, and textual inscriptions such as graffiti or marginalia as a product of low or popular culture, showing how the opposite was often true, but more importantly showing how the two categories were, in fact, deeply interwoven in early modern England (3-5). Straznicky also acknowledges the complications around the way drama for performance and drama for private consumption were viewed (1-18). She avoids ahistorical hierarchies by framing Iphigenia and other, similar dramas, as closet drama a genre whose very characteristics, as she explains, are their liminal status between public and private consumption, transmission and significance (2-4). This in-between territory neither precludes household performance, nor requires it. Closet drama s usefulness as a term, as defined by Straznicky, lies in its ability to encompass both. Following Straznicky s lead when thinking about this play s literary production, the question of whether or not it was envisaged as a performance becomes less urgent, allowing us instead to ask what the written text itself has to offer on this question. The manuscript bears intriguing witness to its dual possibility as a text to be read or performed. Lumley s neat italic hand has laid out the pages with an eye to formality, consistency and a visual rhythm suggestive of a printed book, including a title page, The Argument of the Tragedie, a list of speakers, and the play itself. Short lines are completed with decorative flourishes a detail that speaks to the aesthetics of the page rather than to the meaning of the text (see Appendix A). Running headings and catchwords are further evidence of a text that is self-consciously material: an item to be held, considered, viewed. At the same time speech tags abbreviated so as not to create too large a margin, and therefore too narrow a space for the speeches themselves mark it as a dramatic text as does, of course, the list of The names of the Spekers in this Tragedie (my italics). Though stage entrances and exits are omitted, this follows the original Greek, and these stage directions may be inferred from the text. Other markers of the play s dual possibilities are embedded in the text itself. The tussling over Agamemnon s letter early on in the play first between Menelaus and Agamemnon s servant, Senex, and then between the brothers themselves is evidence of this. Certainly the dialogue implies a physical confrontation between Menelaus and Senex, and therefore performance: 4

5 Menelaus: O thou frowarde felowe deliver me thi letters and make no more busyness heare. Senex: Helpe O Agamemnon I suffer iniurie heare of Menelaus... (153-5) 2 But equally, by going on to describe what Menelaus has just enacted, Senex: (continued)... : for withe stronge hande, he hath taken awaie your letter and he passethe not of honestie nor yet of righte. (155-7) Senex is filling in a reading audience, allowing them to imagine the action for themselves. Lumley s play is potentially a performance script, but equally potentially a play to be read. The suggestions of both oral and scribal culture in the material format and dramatic content of her handwritten manuscript reflect this; in this sense, Lumley s Iphigenia is generically indeterminate. We might call it an open text. Intriguingly, the Rose Company production mirrors this openness in regard to medium. Between lines and , Aliki Chapple, playing Menelaus, mimes her speeches, while Emma Rucastle (member of the chorus and on-stage prompt) reads Menelaus s lines aloud. Ruth Gregson, playing opposite Menelaus as Agamemnon, speaks her own lines as before. What the mime sequence does is to shine the spotlight literally and metaphorically on the material presence of the script on stage. Emma Rucastle nears centre stage, the most brightly lit space, script in hand, to read aloud Menelaus s lines. The fact that the script is made to look like a book suggests an extra level of stylisation and self-conscious interaction with the notion of transmission, disclosing the authority of the text, which the actors smooth and stylised delivery usually seeks to obscure. The presence of the printed text on stage, nowhere more so than at this moment when it intervenes in the dramatic action, poses dramatic authority as a tentative, invented authority one that lasts only as long as the illusion of the performance, and is always vulnerable to overthrow. The sequence may be a way to cover a weakness, taking the burden of line memorisation off Aliki Chapple, who plays two characters, and was no doubt played in the straightforward way in subsequent performances, but, at least for the purposes of this exploration, it is even more interesting in this draft form, for the way it self-consciously acknowledges the textual forces at work in the play s production. 2 Unless otherwise indicated, I use Diane Purkiss 1998 edition throughout, both because it is the most recent, and because it is the edition The Rose Company consulted in their production. 5

6 The Rose Company, in staging Lumley s Iphigenia, also draw out and interpret the script s dramatic potential as they transmit the play through bodies in space rather than words on a page. This process involves detailed textual negotiations, which we can understand as either contingent or considered, though both arise as a result of the live performance medium. The former category involves textual emendations that are contingent in the sense that they derive from the unpredictable nature of live performance, where lapses of memory, human error, impromptu deviation and improvisation can all potentially occur. When Senex, for example, early on in the play describes his master Agamemnon s distress, he should say otherwiles you seal it, and anone unseal it againe, lamentinge and wepinge (36-7), but Alison Findlay, playing Senex, elides the words lamentinge and wepinge, and so de-emphasisses Agamemnon s emotional distress; in the next line the actor substitutes the word witte for mind (38), thus modernising the feel of the sentence; and at the end of this speech she interpolates the words when she came to Troy when recounting Helen s actions, again giving the text a colloquial tone. These examples of omission, substitution and interpolation affect the fidelity of the play s transmission, and subtly impact interpretation and tone. An example of the second category, the considered textual negotiation, involves a deliberate editing or correction of Lumley s original text, and occurs at lines , at the end of the debate between Agamemnon (Iphigenia s father and leader of the Greek armies), and Menelaus (Agamemnon s brother, on whose behalf the armies are gathered). In rhetorical terms this section is known as the agon a formal debate that is characteristic of all Euripides plays (Lloyd, 2). When, in Euripides Iphigenia at Aulis, after Menelaus has accused Agamemnon of deceit and lack of resolve, and Agamemnon, in turn, has attacked Menelaus for his ill-conceived jealousy, Euripides has Menelaus lament his lack of support, and Agamemnon offer him advice ( ). Lumley s version of the scene unfolds a little differently, as she inverts the mens actions, so that instead of Menelaus it is now Agamemnon lamenting his lack of friends, while Menelaus offers advice. In a play in which the motivations and intentions of Agamemnon in particular are already depicted as both dubious and changeable, this inversion, in which Agamemnon moves so swiftly from fiery accusations to self-pity, casts further doubt on his character s emotional veracity. Most scholars explain the inversion as an error on Lumley s part, and perhaps it was (Demers 32; Greene 542). It lasts for 13 lines, and is then corrected. But Lumley s version does make sense, especially in light of Agamemnon s changeability elsewhere in the play. Ultimately Lumley s authorial intention is unclear. The Rose Company s production chooses to emend Lumley s text, correcting the allocation of Menelaus and Agamemnon s lines from between , bringing it into step with Euripides original. At first glance this might seem an unusual decision; neither Harold H. Child nor Diane Purkiss make this emendation their priority is to preserve Lumley s original text. But the medium of live theatre has different requirements. A closer examination of the dramatic repercussions of the two possible versions of the text suggests a reason for the change. 6

7 Patricia Demers notes how Lumley s inversions make Agamemnon sound friendless and plaintive (32). As a character that exhibits a wide range of emotions during the course of the play, from morose contemplation (19-21) to indignation (161-3), from troubled guilt (300-11) to hardened resolve (725-6), plaintive is not an impossible tone for him to strike. The difficulty is in the speed of the unexplained transformation from aggressor to victim: Agamemnon: I fear me leste you are moche more to be reprehended [than I], for that you beinge delivered of an evell wife, can not be contented. Chorus: Thes saienges truly do not agree withe that whiche was spoken before. Yet notwithestandinge they do teache us well, that we oughte not willingly to hurte our children. Agamemnon: Alas I wretche have never a frinde. ( ) The change turns on Agamemnon alone, making it a leap, if not a break, in the character s dramatic continuity. The dramaturgical risk is that the actor portrays Agamemnon as erratic, uncontrolled, or slyly manipulative, an interpretation which would emphasise the personal aspect of the tragedy over the political, the personal character eccentricities of the man over the play s thematic exploration of the tragic consequences of the collision between state and family duty. Lumley s version, then, is dramatically feasible, but does present difficulties. There are distinct dramatic advantages, on the other hand, to swapping Agamemnon and Menelaus s lines. First, it continues the pattern of exchange established in the agon, where two people exchange lines of roughly equal length (Lloyd, 5-6). If these lines, beginning from Alas I wretch have never a frinde are instead attributed to Menelaus, the pattern of equal time and exchange continues. Second, it gives the actors something to respond to Menelaus s pronounced friendlessness would clearly refer to Agamemnon s failure to provide support, and his harsh words. Third, it fully delays both Agamemnon s expression of grief/semirepentance and Menelaus s moment of relenting until after the messenger has announced the arrival of Iphigenia and Clytemnestra, thereby placing the dramatic emphasis on the women, and particularly on Iphigenia, around whom the rest of the play revolves. Fourth, and probably most importantly, having delayed this moment, the text then supports it with an embedded stage direction, when Agamemnon says to Menelaus, I pray you brother let me see your hand (314) a moment of embodied, and so theatrical, solidarity. It seems clear that The Rose Company have privileged dramatic coherence over absolute adherence to the letter of the play a decision that is tied to their chosen medium of transmission. Importantly, their decision leverages other embedded dramatic resources in Lumley s original, such as the handshake, thus maintaining a close proximity to their source text, in spite of their editorial license. 7

8 While the textual emendations might seem the most obvious way that The Rose Company s stage production interprets Lumley s original script, they are by no means the most important. The allfemale cast reference and challenge Western theatre history which, to quote Alisa Solomon, is deeply entwined with questions of femininity both because its originary mimetic activity was female impersonation. And... because patriarchal culture has sustained an ideal of the artificial, malleable, and changeable woman (3). The female cast has a particular poignancy given this play s performance history. In Euripides Athens women, though depicted in drama, were permitted neither to perform nor to watch the plays (Cartledge 3-5). Similarly prevailing public theatre norms in sixteenth century England did not permit women on stage. In addition, the Rose Company, by drawing attention to women as agents of transmission in this way, are like the Purkiss edition of the play with the selfportrait on the cover and like the cover of the Reading performance program which also depicts a woman s face (see Appendix C) marking their project as one of literary recovery. In each case, regardless of technology, the female form is harnessed as a vehicle of transmission in order to challenge and intervene in a literary history that has under-represented women s contributions. Helene Keyssar s introduction to feminist theatre practises designates two identifiable phases: an early, recuperative phase in the 1970s and 80s, more concerned with the recovery of women s historical agency than with a critical orientation; and a subsequent phase marked by diversification of approach and a more sophisticated critical practise (3). The Rose Company s production, we have seen, fits the first category, indeed notes this explicitly in the program; it also ventures into the second of Keyssar s categories, as it implicitly engages with questions of gender and authorship. The significance of the all-female cast ought not to be misconstrued as a gender blind exercise, because the feminine subjecthood of both Iphigenia the character and Lumley the author are central to the production; nor should it be taken as an example of queering the canon, because while this is a historical text, it is not traditionally canonical; staging it at all is an intervention into both historic and contemporary commentary on the text, much of which questions its status as drama at all, and Lumley s status as a writer. In the 1940s Greene and Crane both dismissed Lumley s Iphigenia as a pedagogical exercise and a work of childhood. Other interest has derived primarily from its category as a woman s translation (Deborah Uman, Patricia Demers, Jaime Goodrich). Diane Purkiss acknowledges its status as a drama, but dates the play to Lumley s very early teens, and suggests the play was certainly only written to be read (xxv and xvii). Scholars such as Alison Findlay, Marion Wynne-Davies, and Stephanie Hodgson-Wright controversially argue that this play was not only performable, but was written to be performed part of a genre that Wynne-Davies nominates as household drama (126). That the Rose Company have presented this play as a staged production is itself an intervention into this debate, suggesting, by the very fact of its having been performed, that it is and was performable indeed Alison Finday, one of the foremost scholars advocating the play as a drama, was one of the founding members of the Rose Company. Thus the staged version, while still 8

9 operating within the stream of recovery of women s texts, is also making a substantially different argument than Diane Purkiss s print edition. The Reading production, through its being staged at all but particularly because staged by an all-female cast, thereby referencing the debates around female authorship in early modern England performs an ontological argument about its source text, asserting that Lumley s Iphigenia is a drama, not just a translation exercise, and that it is a drama composed for performance, not just for reading. Following Donald McKenzie, who argues that the meaning of a text is embedded in the sociology of its production and reception, and that texts must therefore be read in their full historical and social contexts (4), we could say that this argument is bounded neither in time nor in space. Supporting, or framing, the performance in real time was the University of Reading Early Modern Studies Conference itself, including the play s oral introduction, and the paper program which was distributed to audience members. These paratexts are important but ephemeral. The production s ongoing on-line presence, on the other hand, is more lasting. These include the director s blog, which engages with readers and provides text and photographic updates on the rehearsal process and subsequent shows (Elart Productions blog). More recently the Rose Company began its own website, which retrospectively covers the Reading performance, as well as later versions and tours of the finished show and publicity (The Rose Company website). Perhaps most important is the aforementioned video archive, which, as an edited text of the play would warrant its own discussion, if space allowed. These paratexts situate the play within literary and dramatic discourse, and as such are integral to its interpretation. Understanding this production, as I have suggested, as an argument about the original text, we can say that the paratexts extend and archive this argument in and across time, making possible a wider audience and extended interaction with it including repeated visits and interaction by twitter or . They reinforce the recuperative agenda of the performance (for example the paper program describes the company as dedicated to bringing lost texts to life ); they reiterate the fact that the performance event itself was an interpretive act and intervention into critical narratives around the play (for example the Reading Early Modern Studies Conference s on-line introduction to the video archive frames the production as part of a renewed interest in early women's drama which aims to refute the common critical assumption that women's drama was unperformed and unperformable ); they underline the significance of both gender and authorship (for example Alison Findlay explains Lumley s biographical context, which is eerily reflective of the play, in the Lancaster University blog); and they shed light on the play s cross-casting (for example short reports by cast members give insights into the cross-casting rehearsal process in the Northern Renaissance Seminar blog). Thus the argument of the play is elucidated and preserved in text, image and video in an on-line platform, further complicating the notion of oral and textual independence, and of purity of medium. 9

10 Even as I have shown how different media impact this play s interpretation, the concept of either textual or oral independence has been unsettled at each stage. As Eric Havelock has shown, drama in classical Greece developed at a critical juncture between oral and literate consciousness, a fact that is expressed in its own co-reliance on norms of orality and developing norms of literacy (126). This generic position of drama, lodged between performance and script, is one reason for this recurring theme. But it is also due to Iphigenia s position as a closet drama, and as a female-authored play, with its uncertain history of transmission. The Rose Company production, as we saw, picked up on this theme, presenting an intriguing sequence where the text, dressed as a printed book, took centre stage, thus asserting its dramatic authority alongside the performers. In fact the Reading production, for all that it was a work in progress performance, used the tools of its medium and here I have focused on textual emendations and casting to suggest a compelling interpretation of Iphigenia, but also a sophisticated, two-fold argument: at one level, the production taps into existing discourse around the recovery of women s writing; at another level it puts forward an ontological argument about the original manuscript s historical status as a performable, and performed, drama. The production itself constitutes an intervention into scholarly commentary on the play, which is not bounded by the beginning and end of the show, but is augmented, elaborated and extended by its material and virtual paratexts, including the video archive on which my own reading is based. The Rose Company harness the oral, textual and visual technologies of the theatre and of the on-line environment to articulate a sophisticated argument about the relationship between text and speech, gender and authorship, reading and performance in Lumley s Iphigenia. 10

11 Appendices Appendix A: Page from Lady Jane Lumley s manuscript (reproduced in Harold H. Child s Iphigenia at Aulis Translated by Lady Lumley). Appendix B: Front cover of Diane Purkiss s edited collection Three Tragedies by Renaissance Women. 11

12 Appendix C: Front cover of the program for The Rose Company s 2013 work in progress performance of Iphigenia at Aulis. 12

13 Bibliography Cartledge, Paul. Deep Plays : theatre as process in Greek civic life. The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy. Ed. P.E. Easterling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Print. Child, Harold H. (Ed. and Intro.). Iphigenia at Aulis translated by Lady Jane Lumley. Trans. Lady Jane Lumley. London: Malone Society, Pages. Print. Crane, Frank D. Euripides, Erasmus, and Lady Lumley. Classical Journal (1944): Electronic. Copeland, Rita. Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages: Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Print. Demers, Patricia. On First Looking into Lumley s Euripides. Renaissance and Reformation (1999): Electronic. Dimmock, Matthew and Hadfield, Andrew (Intro and Eds). Introduction. Literature and Popular Culture in Early Modern England. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, Print. Early Modern Studies Conference Resources and Links Page. University of Reading. N.d. Internet. 12 June Euripides. Iphigenia at Aulis. Euripides. Trans. David Kovacs. London: Harvard University Press, Print. Findlay, Alison. Playing Spaces in Early Modern Women s Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Print.. Iphigenia: the first known play by a Renaissance woman staged in Lancaster. University of Lancaster. 18 November Blog. 12 June Goodrich, Jaime. Returning to Lady Lumley s Schoolroom: Euripides, Isocrates and the Paradox of Women s Learning. Renaissance and Reformation (2012): Electronic. Greene, David H. Lady Lumley and Greek Tragedy. Classical Journal (1941): Electronic. Havelock, Eric A. The Muse Learns to Write: Reflections on Orality and Literacy from Antiquity to the Present. New Haven: Yale University Press, Print. Hodgson-Wright, Stephanie. Jane Lumley s Iphigeneia at Aulis: Multum in parvo or, Less is More. Readings in Renaissance Women s Drama: Criticism, History and Performance, Eds S.P Cerasano and Marion Wynne-Davies. London and New York: Routledge, Print. Iphigenia. Northern Renaissance Seminar (Lancaster University). N.d. Blog. 12 June Keyssar, Helene. Introduction. Feminist Theatre and Theory. Ed. H. Keyssar. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan, Print. Lloyd, Michael. The Agon in Euripides. Oxford: Clarendon Press, Print. 13

14 Lumley, Lady Jane. The Tragedie of Euripides called Iphigeneia translated out of Greake into Englisshe. N.d. British Library. Manuscript. (Royal MS 15 A ix).. The Tragedie of Euripides called Iphigeneia translated out of Greake into Englisshe. Three Tragedies by Renaissance Women. Ed. Diane Purkiss. London: Penguin Books, Print. McKenzie, Donald F. Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts. London, Print. Purkiss, Diane (Ed.). Three Tragedies by Renaissance Women. London: Penguin Books, Print. Reading Early Modern Studies Conference. The Tragedie of Euripides called Iphigenia - Video. Reading University Website. 9 July Internet. 12 June Rucastle, Emma. Elart Productions. N.d. Blog. 12 June Solomon, Alisa. Re-Dressing the Canon: Essays on Theater and Gender. London and New York: Routledge, Print. Straznicky, Martha. Privacy, Playreading, and Women s Closet Drama, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, The Rose Company Home Page. N.d. Internet. 15 June Uman, Deborah. Women as Translators in Early Modern England. Newark: University of Delaware Press, Print. Wynne-Davies, Marion. The Good Lady Lumley s Desire: Iphigeneia and the Nonsuch Banqueting House. Heroines of the Golden Stage: Women and Drama in Spain and England Eds Rina Walthaus and Marguerite Corporaal. Kassel: Edition Reichenberger, Print. 14