La scuola della maldicenza

by Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Alberto Rossatti (Translator), Viola Papetti (Preface)

Testo inglese a fronte

La maldicenza è un vizio o un'arte? E' questo il mistero dei protagonisti di questa intricata commedia. Forse il segreto sta nel saper prendere la vita con filosofia e la soluzione a tutti i problemi prima o poi arriverà da sola. Qualcuno imparerà a non fidarsi delle apparenze, qualcun altro che nulla è duraturo come sembra, e qualcun altro ancora capirà di chi si può fidare veramente. Apparsa nel 1777, La scuola della maldicenza segnava l'addio alla più festosa stagione della commedia inglese: le commedie libertine, specchio e gioco della società del secolo illuminato, non reggeranno infatti l'ansia di verità e l'individualismo eroico del romanticismo.

Genres: Plays, Classics, Drama, Theatre, Fiction, 18th Century, Humor

249 pages, Paperback

First published May 8, 1777

About the author

Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751-1816) was an Irish-born playwright and poet and long-term owner of the London Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. For thirty-two years he was also a Whig Member of the British House of Commons for Stafford (1780–1806), Westminster (1806–1807) and Ilchester (1807–1812). Such was the esteem he was held in by his contemporaries when he died that he was buried at Poets' Corner in Westminster Abbey. He is known for his plays such as The Rivals, The School for Scandal and A Trip to Scarborough.

Reviews

[Classic reverie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had Richard Brinsley Sheridan on my list to read; an every growing list "to read".💕 I always find it interesting how we readers come to our next book and why "The School for Scandal" came ahead of all others and I chose it now? It had to do with Ouida's Puck and the discussion of plays and that play being mentioned; look below for those quotes if interested. Having Shakespeare on my list and will read this year or next; why I put him off? Intimidation, I guess? I read "Romeo and Juliet" in High School, hmm some 35 years ago, egads that is long ago!!😊
It seems this Irish playwright was a bit of a poor speller and his use of punctuation was quite off, I did not read this version but in my Delphi Collection of his works, where I have notes and highlights for those interested- look on my Richard Brinsley Sheridan shelf-which mentions this fact. I feel akin to a past fellow Irishman for it is unknown if my Irish part is the culprit to my errors.

Well I can just imagine being at the Drury Lane Theatre in May of 1777; watching this production but I doubt my ancestors would have had boxed seats; unawares of my ancestry past, I would love to travel back in time to taste all that surrounds and is that play. I found it brilliant in humor, satire and everything so to its era. I have read classic books which brings out hypocrisy and gossiping to do another harm, many times undeserved. That is this play in it so beautifully portrayed. The characters' names are quite funny and to the point; Mrs. Candour, Mr. Surface, Snake and Lady Sneerwell are some.
The play in brief- two brothers are quite different; one is the rake and other other is a man of sentiment. The older guardians want to test these young men to find them out but one older gentleman is prejudiced one way and the other lies in the other direction. It is humorous throughout.

A Goodreads friend, Radwa linked an audio version; I will listen to this week and report back how close that plays out.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EmqWX0j...

****Having finished listening to the play my thoughts; it was enjoyable but somethings were different and they also departed from the lines at some points. Several more gossip items not in the actual. My version had prose at the beginning and end. Snake's part in the beginning was taken by a cousin of Lady Sneerwell and he does not show up till the last act. It was enjoyable since I read this but my mind takes things in better when read so I can go slow when need be and get the whole of the play. The actors did a fine job! 😊***

" First staged at the Drury Lane Theatre on 8 May 1777, The School for Scandal received an enthusiastic welcome from audiences, though it only initially ran for twenty performances in its first season. However, it returned the following season for more than forty performances and by the end of the eighteenth century it had been staged more than two hundred times. The play was well received by critics, as they celebrated the wit and morals of the work. The essayist and critic, William Hazlitt, was effusive in his praise, describing it ‘the most finished and faultless comedy we have’ and stating that, ‘It professes a faith in the natural goodness as well as habitual depravity of human nature’. Similarly impressed was the late nineteenth century poet and critic, Edmund Gosse, who commented in A History of Eighteenth Century Literature that it was ‘perhaps the best existing English comedy of intrigue’."


Below some comments made by characters in Ouida's Puck; The School for Scandal is mentioned as well as Shakespeare in regards to comparing Sheridan in brief. The errors in quotes below belong to my ebook version, sorry for that.
"At that moment she was called, and passed on to the stage. The piece played that night was the perennial "School for Scandal." In such pure comedy and elegant art she was supreme, they said; though her still greater triumphs were in parts of pathos and of power. Lady Teazle is a rdle which any actress who is graceful and a gentlewoman can play with ease. There are but little light and shade in it; and there is not any kind of passion. But even here there was so much grace in her; all conventional readings were so utterly discarded; there were such charming alternations of playful piquance and of scornful dignity; whilst over the whole was cast the ineffable charm of a youth so seductive, that I no longer wondered at the celebrity with which the town had crowned her."
"Why do people only tolerate Sheridan, and go into ecstasies over burlesques ?" said Beltran. "Because we want to laugh and not to think," said Denzil. "Now, to laugh at Sheridan you must first think with him."
"She answered you as to Shakspeare," replied Beltran. "As for Sheridan—he amuses us because his satires suit us so well still, and his-cbaracters are our own people disguised in wig and powder Our society is artificial, passionleas, insincere. So is his. He is a mirror in which we see our own faces; it is the costume only that differs."

Looking forward to reading him again at some point!😊

[AiK · Rating 4 out of 5]

Пьеса Шеридана – образец острой сатиры великосветского общества восемнадцатого века, в которой автор высмеивает праздное времяпрепровождение аристократов, когда от скуки распространяются злобные сплетни, часто выдуманные и взятые с потолка, разрушаются репутации, расстраиваются браки и строятся всяческие козни против тех, кого салон леди Снируэл избрал жертвой своего злословия. Мнение общества сильно разнится с действительным положением дел и трезвый совет Раули самому сформировать мнение о братьях Сэрфес позволили их дяде сэру Оливеру провести испытания. Он убеждается, что Чарльз довольно веселый малый, легкомысленный, но чистосердечный. Джозеф же был изобличен в лицемерии и лжи, хотя общество давало ему исключительно положительные характеристики, причем изобличен в довольно комичной ситуации, когда супруги Тизл были спрятаны в одной комнате и слышали все. Счастливый конец, тем не менее, сопровождается все теми же сплетнями и досужими домыслами, и общество выдумывает подробности, как Чарльз был застигнут с леди Тизл сэром Питером и мужчины то ли одновременно выстрелили в друг друга, и пуля отрикошетила в почтальона, то ли сэр Питер лежит, пронзенный шпагой. Общество неисправимо.

[David Sarkies · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's About the Money
16 September 2017

I have to admit that I hate it when I go to all the trouble to write a review and then proceed to lose it. One of the main reasons is that I write it in a word processor, and then read through it before posting it up on Goodreads. Anyway, I went to all the trouble of writing it while I was on the train heading down for an exploration of Kew, and when I get home I suddenly discover that it has disappeared, which means that everything that I had written had suddenly gone and I now have to sit down and write it all again. Oh well, I guess that is life, and maybe I should make sure that I save it properly next time.

Anyway, it baffles me with all of the Hollywood rubbish that they have been producing of late that they don't dig into some of these older plays, tweak them, and turn them into a movie. From what I gathered from Wikipedia, The School for Scandal had been made into a couple of movies in the past, though one is lost and the other is a silent movie (I believe that there is a third which is a BBC production, though that could be the lost one due to the BBC having a habit of making movies and then getting rid of them for some unknown reason).

The thing is that there are actually some really good stories, such as this one, that could easily be made into a rather engaging movie. However, it seems that Hollywood simply sticks with things that it believes to be tried and true – remakes, rom-coms, and mindless action flicks. Okay, you do get some directors, such as Guy Ritchie, that do push the boundaries, but in the end once they become famous they end up simply falling into the tried and true category (which I've noticed that of late hasn't actually been working all that well, if the monumental flops of 2017 are anything to go by). Maybe I could create some Youtube videos in that regard, but then again I would need a crew, and a half decent camera that isn't my mobile phone, for that to work.

So, the School for Scandal is a pretty complex story, one so complex that the synopsis on Wikipedia goes into so much detail that I found myself getting lost in that in the same way that I became lost in the play. This is probably why I would like to see Hollywood (or other filmakers) take some risks with these plays because they are actually pretty good, and unfortunately because they aren't Shakespeare they don't get performed all that much. Okay, I did find a website that has a heap of videos of plays on it, but unfortunately the only way you can access it is if you are studying at a University that happens to have an account with the site – if you are just an individual mug like me then unfortunately you don't get the chance. Sure, I can understand the reluctance of the theatre from filming and releasing their plays on video because it would have the effect of lowering audience numbers, and there isn't a huge amount of money in theatre as it is (though obviously enough to keep it as a going concern). Actually, I should have done some research before writing this because there is a film from 1976 (currently on Youtube), of this play.

In short this is a play about money. It's about people who have money, who owe money, and who want money and will stoop to whatever means to get their hands on it (and marriage seems to be the main way that some of them will go about it). Okay, while it is a bit off putting that the scandalous people are all female, and the rather innocent (and stupid) characters are men, due to its age I am willing to put that aside. Anyway, it still works well since the scheming women do tend to be a stereotypical type of character from plays of the period. Anyway, most of the men are stupid so I guess that balances it out somewhat.

In a way it is a bit like Merchant of Venice, though it is somewhat grittier, to an extent. The male characters do tend to be of aristocratic origin, which is probably why they are stupid – well, not all of them because the men that have money have the money because they are smart. However, one of them seems to be continually in debt, but that probably has a lot to do with him being aristocratic – a lot of them paid for a lifestyle that they simply could not afford, and basically didn't have an income that justified such extravagant living. Okay, while they did manage to get money, that money rarely went to paying off debts, but rather continuing the extravagant lifestyle and putting them further into debt. Oh, there is even a Jew moneylender, but once again he's pretty smart in that he refuses to lend money to somebody who simply cannot pay for it.

I guess it is why images of the early modern period creates images of dirty cities and horrid infrastructure – the rulers were more interesting in waging wars and maintaining their lifestyle as opposed to actually developing the economy of their countries. Note that when the countries began to transition to democracies the infrastructure became much better. On the eve of the revolution, the infrastructure of France was dreadful, and was getting worse, simply because the people who could do something about it were too busy building palaces and having parties, and everybody else was basically paying taxes to support that lifestyle.

I guess I'll finish this review off with saying something about debt – it is insidious. I am quite fortunate that I never got caught up in the debt trap, though I came pretty close. Actually, I am still quite surprised that I was able to live the lifestyle that I did when I was a student on government handouts. However, that probably has a lot to do with things being much cheaper back then, and also that my bank let me overdraw my account to ridiculous levels because they kept on hitting me with overdraft fees everytime I did so. However, the funny thing with debt is that people have this habit of preferring to spend money than pay down debt, so when they get money they spend it on things as opposed to paying off their debt. Okay, I'm hardly one to criticise people on that because I still have a student debt that I have managed to get out of paying off, but then again I'm hardly the only one that has managed to wiggle their way out of it. I guess that in the end we just don't like going without.

[Brigid · Rating 4 out of 5]

This fun play parodies the social lives of 18th century lords and ladies, poking fun at their interactions and adding a moral lesson or two about spreading gossip. All the stereotypes are at play: the aging man and his much-younger bride; the two brothers both beset in dramas of their own; the young ward promised to one brother but in love with the other; the vengeful older woman with a mind for destroying others' matches; the gossip unaware of her own sharp tongue; as well as a bevy of others. "The School for Scandal" is said to be based on the lives of the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire as well as their inner circle. It is a funny, biting story with witty dialogue and a meandering-yet-engaging plot.

[Muhammad Galal · Rating 3 out of 5]

مسرحية تحكي عن حياة النميمة، تغلغلها في الوسط الأرستقراطي الإنجليزي،
ويحكي بشكل ساخر ما كان يجري على ألسنة الناس،
هي فترة في عموم أدب الإنجليز لها أسلوبها المتفرد،

عمل جيد، ثلاث نجوم من أصل خمسة.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this play 45 years ago for an undergraduate survery course for which its role was to represent Restoration Comedies. I only remembered having done it last week when I was reading Antonia Fraser's sublime biography of Charles II. If I had not been familiar with Sheridan, I would have had a great deal of trouble following Fraser's discussion of the era in which Charles II the ruled.

This simply proves that the benefits of reading good literature often arrive after a very long gestation. On the initial reading, this play seems very trite. However, its rewards will last a lifetime.

[Marina · Rating 5 out of 5]

I often find myself idealizing 18th century Britain as a place where every single person was erudite, witty, and genteel all the time. That'll happen to you if you sit around languishing over Pope, Swift, Gay, Johnson, and others of their ilk all day, as I do (As Horace said, "Oh, if only the earth in its earlier years had given me birth to live among those heroes!"... or something like that). I need books like this to remind me that the majority of people, particularly in high society, have always been just as petty, conceited, hypocritical, and downright ignorant as they can be now.
This is basically the 18th century British version of the Real Housewives, except a hell of a lot more fun. I love anything that evokes a soap opera, and this play certainly fulfills that.
My favorite aspect of this play was the host of swears Sheridan used. Off the top of my head:
-Odd's life! (rather than God's life)
-Odd's death!
-Odd's heart!
-'Sdeath! (God's death)
-'Slife!
-Zounds!
-Egad!
-Plague on you/ plague on't! (I gotta start using that more often)
&ct. &ct. &ct.

[Alan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found Wycherley's Country Wife to be better, and also more teachable for my mostly female
two-year college students. Perhaps the earlier, Moliere-influenced Restoration plays reflect better
the initial dynamics of country Whig versus Court Tory, which lasted over a century.
Fascinating that Sheridan was performed during the American Revolution, around the time Johnson
was completing his first English Dictionary in his house still there near the 17C Cheshire Cheese pub
off Fleet Street.

[حسين ابن أبي صفوان · Rating 2 out of 5]

هذه المسرحية مليئة بالثرثرة، والحديث اليومي، والسير الثابت نحو النهاية السعيدة المثلى، والأحداث والشخوص الذي أريد لها تزجية الوقت والمتعة قبل طرح أو نقد سلوكيات المجتمع وعواطفه وقتئذ. ولعل بعد عهد كتابة أهمّ أعمال ريتشارد شيريدان - قرابة 240 عامًا - كفيلة بتغيّر الذّوق من ذلك الوقت حتى الآن؛ غير أن تقيمي إبداعي في المرتبة الأولى، وكما أرى النصّ، فإنه لم يرقني كثيرًا.

[Radwa · Rating 2 out of 5]

- "كن عادلا قبل أن تكون كريما"
* لماذا؟ سأفعل لو أمكنني ولكن ما العدالة إلا امرأة بطيئة الخطى

[Aila · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was surprisingly funny.

Quick to read and quite witty.
Now I have to prepare for a test on it tomorrow. :'^)

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

The restoration drama of the reign of Charles II of England, of which this play is one of the more notable representatives, has gotten a bad reputation for its cynicism.  Intriguingly enough, the way that this drama often attacked the middle class sensibilities of Puritans and other like-minded folk [1] led to a long-lasting decline in the fortunes of English drama, which were seen as antithetical to the decent and upright morality of the ordinary English person.  When looking at this play, those critics have a point, as this is definitely a play with a cynical worldview.  Yet it is precisely that cynical worldview of the play that makes it so current for today and makes its revival rather unsurprising, given that we too live in a cynical age where morality and those who seek to present a public picture of rectitude are themselves viewed as hypocrites in disguise, similar to the way that Moliere was writing in France during this same period.  I happen to believe that not all apparent virtue is a cloak for vice, but our day and age shares a lot with the cynical immorality of the restoration era, not least in corrupt government and a widespread mistrust of institutions.

In less than 100 pages this play presents two or three hours of sparkling drama that is both of its time and relevant to our own.  The play is divided into two acts.  In the first act, we are mostly presented with the goings on of a group of untrustworthy people with allegorical names that could have come out of the morality plays of the early 16th century English stage.  At the heart of the play is the rivalry of two brothers, the generous-hearted but dissolute Charles and the superficially upright but deeply corrupt Joseph.  This rivalry is for the heart of certain women in their circle, not the least of which is Maria, whose father is pressuring her to marry Joseph but who loves Charles, although plenty of other ladies of somewhat dubious moral virtue are involved as well.  In the second act their uncle plays a trick on both of them and sees both of them in all of their glory, bidding for the paintings of Charles that show family members while pretending to be a poor relation in need of money to Joseph, who is overwhelmed by trying to hide an awkward situation with someone else's wife from public knowledge.  In the end, the lesser of the immorality prevails in a suitably cynical conclusion which promises no moral reformation but an exposure of the most wicked among the group of cynics.

In looking at this play, it is remarkable that almost all of the first act of the play goes by before we even meet the main character of the play in Charles.  It seems as if this is a setup, in that the playwright is content to have his reputation thoroughly blackened by the conventional types before exposing him as the lesser of the evils.  Yet the framing of the play is obviously manipulative in that it seeks to incriminate the audience as well for being too quick to judge in the absence of evidence, and the fact that there are no good options presented is more than a little bit disconcerting for the place of this play in drama as a whole.  The most noble characters are a drunken spendthrift, a somewhat deceptive older man who has spent a great deal of time engaged in imperialism in India, and an older gentleman whose marriage to a young woman has not gone as well as he would have hoped and who would be viewed especially negatively today on the grounds of his fondness for much younger ladies.  The rest of the characters are still more disreputable, and this play stands as a reminder that while it is witty and funny it does not go down well and is precisely the sort of drama that brings disrepute on the theater itself.  Make of that what you will.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013...

[Darryl Friesen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Utterly brilliant and fiendishly hilarious!! Sheridan is absolutely Shakespeare’s and Wilde’s equal in his comedic chops!! An absolute must-read!!

[Vic · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was on my book list for English Lit in college. It was one of the few texts I kept through the years. I was already heavily into reading Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer, and so Richard Sheridan's comedy of manners fit right in.

[Sara Shemes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very cute

[Marty Reeder · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps I was far too predisposed towards this play before I even set eyes on it. Of course, often high expectations can jade an experience when they aren’t matched. So, School for Scandal, in spite of or because of my blatant pre-reading favoritism, managed to earn itself my high regard.

But how did I happen upon this obscure, eighteenth century, no-longer-in-print play in the first place? This won’t surprise those who know me well, but while reading Ron Chernow’s extensive biography on George Washington, I discovered that the play that Washington often attended and referenced—even more so than the more well known (now) Cato—was School for Scandal, a comedy. Well, in my obsessive push for all things Washington, coupled with a passion for plays—particularly comedies, I knew that School for Scandal would be a must-read for me. Luckily, with a Kindle, this turned out to be both cheap (free) and convenient.

As for the play itself, it turns out to be pretty sharp satire on high class society, its gossip, hypocrisy, and ultimate savagery. As a play/satire alone it is well done and entertaining, with memorable characters and lasting lessons. As far groundbreaking, eloquent, genre-changing literature, well, this is not your play, which explains why it could have been so popular in its day but got lost through the annals of time.

For me, though, historically, it is a boon. There are enough parallels with Washington’s personality that seeing why he was so enamored with the play makes complete sense. The absolute aversion to calumny and unsubstantiated gossip fits right in with a man that despised the cattiness of sensational newspapers reporting and the bitter bickering of political factions. Also, the mocking of London’s high society and the indirect nod to rural, upper class way of life is very compatible with Colonial American lifestyle—Washington’s in particular, as a Virginian gentleman farmer. I suppose further exploration into the deep-seeded similarities between Washington’s life philosophies and this play’s themes warrants a yawn-inducing, 15 essay … so I will refrain from it here.

Sufficeth to say, if you are a Washington buff and interested in what interested and entertained him … read this play. If you couldn’t care less about Washington and his worldview, then you should still be sufficiently entertained by Sheridan’s work on its merit alone. Either way, it couldn’t hurt to dabble in this play—and become the next pupil in the School for Scandal.

[Yani · Rating 4 out of 5]

Relectura febrero 2016

[...] tan malos son los que transmiten historias como los que las inventan.

Algo así como Gossip Girl en 1777, pero con personajes más adultos y sin tanto drama adolescente. La obra es muy entretenida y se lee rápido, porque no presenta dificultades en el argumento ni nada parecido. Creo que la intención de Sheridan fue que se entendiera el mensaje, precisamente.

A grandes rasgos, se trata de un grupo de gente bien posicionada socialmente que disfruta de inventar rumores (las víctimas pueden estar hasta en el mismo círculo íntimo) para luego hacerlos circular. Y si se le gana al peri��dico, mejor. La trama está centrada en los hermanos Surface (uno está en la ruina económica mientras el otro se entretiene intrigando en contra de medio mundo) y en el matrimonio Teazle, que tiene a cargo a María, quien está interesada en uno de los hermanos (no especifico nombres así no arruino mucho la historia).

Pequeño punto que quiero señalar: los rumores de infidelidad siempre los protagonizan las mujeres, mientras que los hombres sólo son noticia si están en bancarrota. Detalles, detalles.

A lo largo de los actos se van a tratar temas muy universales: la convivencia de un matrimonio, la ambición de las personas, el despilfarro en la ciudad, la malignidad de los chismosos, la hipocresía y las dificultades que todo esto genera. Por supuesto, no faltarán los equívocos y las conversaciones que se escuchan a escondidas. Es un obra muy clásica y creo que por eso es tan directa en lo que está contando. Viniendo de un escandaloso como Sheridan, no esperaba menos.

[Nick Black · Rating 4 out of 5]

The earliest literature I can think of that's actually funny (as in: Chaucer does not count, no matter what you people say, and neither does Shakespeare). Hrmm, actually, this was 1777 and not the seventeenth century as I'd thought, so it's beat out by Rabelais, Cervantes, and Swift at a minimum. Pope had a few witty lines as well, if I recall. And a case can be made for Catullus, Juvenal, certainly Aristophanes, Lucilius...argh I don't know shit, and oughtn't say shit :/.

[Adam Floridia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Although written 100 years later, this is a very typical Restoration drama: mistaken identities, love triangles, characters hiding behind screens, etc.. Devoid of wit, though, this can best be compared to a modern day soap opera.

[Lynda · Rating 5 out of 5]

A delightful reread of one of my favorite plays.

[Ioan Prydderch · Rating 2 out of 5]

I saw no academic advantage in studying this play whatsoever.

[Malin · Rating 2 out of 5]

meh.

[latner3 · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson-1963.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was a bit lukewarm when I had read Sheridan's The Rivals, so I was very pleasantly surprised to find that I enjoyed The School for Scandal quite a bit! The story has some genuinely fun twists and turns, and I definitely found myself laughing out loud at several points during the story. There were even some characters to sympathise with. I listened to the LA Theatre Works audio production, and the performances were all around enjoyable. I would definitely recommend checking this one out, especially if you're only reading one of Sheridan's plays.

[Holly · Rating 2 out of 5]

People constantly bitching about each other got boring quite quickly. Gets two stars for having some ooh drama moments

[Evie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wish my gossip was this fun

[♡ella grey♡︎ · Rating 3 out of 5]

All of their names are iconic.

[نورهان | El-Badawy · Rating 3 out of 5]

"" Never believe what is said "
Every person we meet has two faces Reality and Appearance . Unfortunately we can't discover that we are deceived until fate reveals every thing .
Throughout the relations between members of the scandal's school , we mock at some behavior of 18th English communities . Actually and Arabic communities also ."

"Let's start with analyzing the main characters :
- Joseph surface : He seems to be a model of moral man , or as sir Peter Teazel said " a model for the young men of the age " , this is his appearance but the reality is more awful . His bad behavior appears in his attitude towards his uncle " Oliver Surface " when sir Oliver disguises as their needy relative Mr. Stanley and when he agrees with Lady Sneerwell to fabricate facts to hinder the marriage of his brother Charles and Maria because he is in love with Maria's Fortune ; and throw dust in people's eyes .
Actually I see him as one of the most horrible scandal-mongers .He is selfish , hypocrite and treacherous man .

- Charles Surface : He seems to be reckless , irresponsible and dissipated . Despite his bankruptcy and debts , he is very oppressed as his brother spread a scandal that Charles is having a love affair with Lady Teazel to stop any communications between him and Maria .

The conduct of the two brothers is the base of this play . But the play discusses another essential idea , the domestic life of Sir Peter Teazel and Lady Teazel.
First : Lady Teazel is a rural young wife married an old man because of his wealth and his social rank . She always quarrels with him as she spend a lot of money in nonsense . Her husband suspects that she has a love affair with Charles but in Screen Scene truth appears , without her the Screen scene loses its meaning .
Second : There are many contrasts between the life of Sir peter and his wife . She is a young woman full of youth power and wants to feel as a real woman but sir peter is an old man wants to live his last days in peace with a rational wife .
- Lady Teazel is a rural woman used to live a simple poor life in countryside but Sir peter is a noble rich man. I don't know how they get in touch with each other !
There is no means of communication in their relationship .
I don't believe in social classification but I already believe in cultural classification ."

"Sheridan uses the comedy of manner to ridicule this community that's only interested in appearances .
This play has a multiple complex plot but I think it is not boring .
we should know that " Tale-bearers are as bad as tale-makers " and even you try to approve a scandal , it dies .
we should take care of our tongue and think of the word before we say it as a character dead at every word."


I do enjoyed reading it , but I'm tired of doing its review .
Finally I do it ^^

[إسراء Diab · Rating 5 out of 5]

مدرسة الفضائح لشريدان
درست المسرحية لأول مرة في الجامعة في 2014 وكانت من أكثر الأعمال خفة التي درستها في المسرح، وبعد حوالي 7 سنوات جلست لأستمع للمسرحية بترجمتها العربية لأجدها مازالت بذات الخفة واللطافة!

مدرسة الفضائح لشريدان من أولى أعمال المسرح الساخر الموجه للسخرية من ذات الطبقة التي تستطيع حضور المسرحيات تلك! لك أن تتخيل ان تدفع مبلغًا من المال وتذهب لمشاهدة عملًا ما، لتجد نفسك محل السخرية ومحور القصة!
عندما كتب شريدان هذه المسرحية وتلاه العديد من الكتاب كان الهدف هو كشف الصورة الحقيقة لطبقة النبلاء والأثرياء في المجتمع الإنجليزي في هذا الوقت. فخلف المساحيق اللافتة والأزياء الراقية والحفلات الفاخرة والمقتنيات باهظة الثمن، هناك وجه قبيح يجلس خلف كل هذا، ومسرحيات مثل مدرسة الفضائح كُتبت لهذا الغرض بالتحديد؛ تعرية المجتمع من الزيف!

مدرسة الفضائح تحكي عن مجموعة من "النبلاء" الذين كرسوا حياتهم للنميمة ونشر الكذب عن الآخرين، والافتراء حتى على اصدقائهم! لتدور بهم الحياة ويجدو انفسهم ضحية لكل افترائتهم! كمثال حي على القول:
"كل ساق سيسقى بما سقى"

ثم ومن خلال الشخصيتين الأهم في المسرحية الأخوين سيرفيس، يضع شريدان بين أيدينا أحد أهم عوامل المسرحية وهي المقارنة بين الظاهر والباطن، بين الحقيقة والاشاعات، بين الجوهر والمظهر الزائف.
لا تصدق ابدًا في المظاهر، ولا تحكم على الكتاب من غلافه.
وكذلك لا تثق في كل ما تسمعه اذناك، فـكثير مما تتناوله ألسان الناس محض كذب وافتراء.
وابحث قليلًا في جوهر من امامك، فليس كل ما يلمع ذهبًا.

المسرحية بها عدد كبير من الشخصيات وتحوي على علاقات كثيرة بين شخصياتها، لكنها ليست معقدة ابدًا، يمكن القول أنها سهل ممتنع، فالمسرحية بسيطة واللغة الساخرة الكوميدية المستحوذه على النص تجعل التجربة لطيفة وسلسة.

وبما أنني استمعت للمسرحية بالعربية، ولم أستطع أن أجد النص العربي اطلاقًا، لا يوجد اقتباسات لدي للأسف. لكن علق في ذهني قول أحد الشخصيات ما معناه "أن النميمة ونشر الفضحية عن الآخرين بغرض المتعة والضحك فقط هو أسوأ بكثير من نشرها بدافع الانتقام، فهو عمل غير مبرر ولا يمكن أن يصدر عن أشخاص ذات نفوس سليمة"

تجربة سماعية لطيفة وأداء سناء جميل وحسين رياض كان فوق الوصف حقيقي.
خمس نجوم منذ 2014 وحتى الآن.

[Gale · Rating 3 out of 5]

Graduate Studies in Gossip and Family Intrigue

Sheridan's 1777 farcical treatment of upper class snobbery and reputation ruination sparkles even two centuries later--whether on the boards or on the pages. Delightfully irreverent this five-act play entertains despite its period setting, for costumes, accessories and expressions can not detract from the basic functioning and foibles of human nature. The Dover Thrift edition includes A PORTRAIT (flattering poem addressed to a possible patroness), a PROLOGUE written by Garrick, an acclaimed actor-manger, and an EPILOGUE written by Mr. Colman. Yet the actual dialogue stands alone, in never-ending waves of wit and satire.

Offering an extensive cast these 75 pages reveal the worst of Sheridan's 18th century Society; the last names alone indicate shamelessly the predominant character flaws among the self-centered cheats, flatterers and hypocrites: Mrs. Sneerwell, the Surface brothers, Lady Teazle, and Mrs. Candour among others. Literary gimmicks include mistaken identities, overheard conversations and outrageous distortion of the facts which precipitates shocking rumors. No one's reputation is safe, while some characters delight in spouting sentiments and expressing moralistic platitudes.

The machinations of this cast of zanies who take themselves most seriously--whether motivated by love or money--provide amusing fodder
for those who appreciate Comedy raised to the heights of an art form. Audiences and readers alike will experience the entire gamut of humor in this slender volume, for bon mots are interspersed among the devious plottings and dastardly scheming of the various characters--often at direct odds with each other. Lessons of Life and morality can be learned (possibly by lack of proper example) if one enrolls in this entertaining School for Scandal.

(February 9, 2010)