THOMAS SHERIDAN'S CORIOLANUS
>Genest (vol. iv, p. 417) gives this analysis of Sheridan's Coriolanus; or, The Roman Matron: “Act 1st. The first act of Shakspeare is entirely omitted except the scene between Veturia and Volumnia (for Sheridan has preferred Thomson's names to Shakspeare's), with which this play begins—then follows the 2d act of Shakspeare not materially altered, except that in the Senate scene Coriolanus does not appear till he is called. Act 2d consists of Shakspeare's 3d act—the first part of it, when the Tribunes enter, is curtailed in a manner that reflects the utmost disgrace on Sheridan's judgment— ‘Have you informed them since?Hear you this Triton of the minnows?
Mark you his absolute shall’—
and some other of Coriolanus' most effective speeches are omitted. (Dennis had before done the same.) Act 3d is not contaminated with one line from Shakspeare—it consists of Thom- son's 1st act, with some addition from the 2d. Act 4th begins with the scene between Tullus and Volusius from Thomson's 3d act; then follows a scene at Rome between Menenius and the Tribunes; this scene is made up from 3 scenes of Shakspeare, with some addition about throwing the Tribunes from the Tarpeian Rock—then follows another scene between Tullus and Volusius from Thomson. Act 5th is entirely Thomson's, except that when Tullus and Coriolanus quarrel, about 17 lines are introduced from Shakspeare; and after Coriolanus is dead Tullus speaks 2 lines from Shakspeare and 7 that Sheridan gives him—Galesus concludes the play as in Thomson—the Epilogue to Thomson's play is added with the conclusion altered—On the whole this alteration is a very bad one— many fine parts of Shakspeare's play are omitted to make room for some cold scenes from Thomson—Sheridan has added a second title—the Roman Matron— was not the original one sufficient? or was it proper that a play to be produced at Covent Garden should imitate those country playbills in which a stupid second title is frequently added to attract the vulgar? In the preface the person who made the alteration says the success this play has met with in both kingdoms (for it was first performed on the Dublin stage) has more than answered his expectations—he adds that the military ovation had been much admired—Sheridan conveyed in his acting a masterly knowledge of the character of Coriolanus and the play drew some good houses. (Wilkinson.)”
“ J. P. Kemble, whose great part was Coriolanus, made an alteration, which was acted at Drury Lane in 1789. What might have been a legiti- mate and judicious abridgment and adaptation of Shakespeare's play is spoiled by borrowing from Thomson in the Fourth and Fifth Acts. In the Fourth Act especially there is certainly no necessity for a resort to such a practice, as Shake- speare has provided an abundance of material. As it is, five whole scenes are rejected in favor of inferior matter from Thomson. In the Fifth Act the action and dialogue are more Thomson's than Shakespeare's. The latter's conclusion being a little lame, Kemble saw fit to attempt to improve it by introducing the quarrel scene between Coriolanus and Aufidius from Thomson. Granting that he has accomplished his object, one cannot but wish that he had not known Thomson's play, or, instead of resorting to it, had confined himself to Shakespeare. The same judiciousness he had exhibited in revising the first three acts would probably, if applied in treating the last two, have produced a definitive acting version of Shakespeare's play.
”
“ In 1806 Coriolanus was again revised by Kemble, and three more additions were published—one in 1811, one in 1812, and one in 1814. In 1820 the Tragedy underwent another alteration at the hands of R. W. Elliston.
”H. T. Hall (Sh's Plays, p. 29)