The Family Shakespeare

Main

Date: 11 Mar 2008 04:55:11
From: samsloan
Subject: The Family Shakespeare

The Family Shakespeare

in Three Volumes:

in which nothing is added to the original text;
but those words and expressions are omitted
which cannot with propriety
be read aloud in a Family

The Dramatic works of
William Shakespeare
adopted for
Family Reading

by Thomas Bowdler, Esq., F.R.S., F.S.A

with an introduction by Sam Sloan

Volume One The Comedies

All's Well That Ends Well, As You Like It, The Comedy of Errors,
Love's Labour's Lost, Measure for Measure, The Merchant of Venice, The
Merry Wives of Windsor, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Much Ado About
Nothing, Taming of the Shrew, The Tempest, Twelfth Night, The Two
Gentlemen of Verona, The Winter's Tale

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891951

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891986

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891994

The Family Shakespeare in One Volume : in which nothing is added to
the original text; but those words and expressions are omitted which
cannot with propriety be read aloud in a Family

The Dramatic works of
William Shakespeare
adopted for
Family Reading

by Thomas Bowdler, Esq., F.R.S., F.S.A

Volume One The Comedies

All's Well That Ends Well, As You Like It, The Comedy of Errors,
Love's Labour's Lost, Measure for Measure, The Merchant of Venice, The
Merry Wives of Windsor, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Much Ado About
Nothing, Taming of the Shrew, The Tempest, Twelfth Night, The Two
Gentlemen of Verona, The Winter's Tale

First Printed in 1816
Fifth Printing 1861
Sixth Printing 2008

Copyright (c) ch, 2008 by
Sam Sloan and
Ishi Press International

ISBN 0-923891-95-1

Ishi Press International
1664 Davidson Avenue, Suite 1B
Bronx NY 10453
USA
917-507-7226
Printed in the United States of America

Introduction

The Family Shakespeare is one of the most famous works ever written.
There is even a word introduced by it into the English language:
"Bowdlerized"

The American Heritage Dictionary defines bowdlerize as: "To remove
material that is considered offensive or objectionable from (a book,
for example)".

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines bowdlerize to mean:

1. to expurgate (as a book) by omitting or modifying parts considered
vulgar
2. to modify by abridging, simplifying, or distorting in style or
content

Basically, the author or really the editor Thomas Bowdler (1754-1825)
went through all 36 recognized plays by William Shakespeare and cut
out all the dirty or scary parts, so as to make it suitable to be read
to children.

The book was enormously successful at first, going through several
printings. However, eventually, the book was subjected to calumny and
ridicule, precisely because it cut out all the scary or controversial
parts. Bowdler's name has since became associated with censorship of
literature, motion pictures and television programs.

For example, in the opening scene of Othello is the following line:
"'I am one Sir, that come to tell you, your Daughter, and the Moore,
are now making the Beast with two backs".

Bowdler re-write this line to say:

"I am one that comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are now
together."

See Volume 2 Page 342

Actually, this change was not so bad. One wonders what the fuss was
all about.

Indeed most of the editorial changes by Thomas Bowdler were not so
radical as has been commonly supposed. In many ways, they improve upon
the work of Shakespeare by making his words easier to understand by
the modern reader.

Bowdler has certainly been treated unfairly by history. No publication
or performance of a play by Shakespeare follows the original script
exactly, for the simple reason that the language has evolved and
modern audiences would not understand it. Thus there have been many
editorial changes to Shakespeare. It is just that these modern editors
do not put their names on the cover and announce what they have done.

I will add two personal notes:

My daughter, Sandra, age 6, goes to the Shakespeare School in Bronx,
New York.

However, this is not because she is studying to be a Shakespearian
scholar.

Rather, it is because her school, which is a New York City Public
School, is located on Shakespeare Avenue.

I happen to be among those who believe that Shakespeare did not write
Shakespeare. I believe that the real author of Shakespeare was a
woman. I do not know the name of the woman. My conclusion is based on
the fact that every possible man of that era has been considered and
eliminated, mainly because they died too soon or were born to late to
have written all of Shakespeare. On the other hand, scholars have had
a blind spot to the possibility could have written it, perhaps because
of the very obscenities that Thomas Bowdler edited out.

I have advanced the theory that Shakespeare was written by One reason
why most male candidates for being the author of Shakespeare can be
eliminated is that they either died too soon or died too late.
However, if we consider women, there are an almost unlimited number of
possible candidates, because in those times so little was known about
them, and so many lived a life span which would have given them time
to write all of Shakespeare.

A good place to start would be Elizabeth Vere. It so happens that she
was the daughter of Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford), who is
considered to be a possible author of Shakespeare, and she was also
the wife of William Stanley (Sixth Earl of Derby), who is another
leading candidate for being the author of Shakespeare. Why has not
Elizabeth Vere herself been considered as the possible author of all
of Shakespeare?

Sam Sloan

Date: 27 Mar 2008 18:06:51
From: Rob
Subject: Re: The Family SOUP

On 27, 4:22 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Sam Sloan
>
> lol

More SOUP from Sam

Date: 27 Mar 2008 15:42:03
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 27, 5:22 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Sam Sloan
>
> lol

This is to countermand Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell who keeps trying to
cover up my postings.

Sam Sloan

Date: 27 Mar 2008 14:22:10
From: Rob
Subject: Re: The Family SOUP

> Sam Sloan
lol

Date: 27 Mar 2008 13:58:57
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

The Third Volume of the Family Shakespeare, the Histories, is out,
published today:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891994

This is a companion to The Comedies and The Histories, published last
week.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891951

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891986

Note that I raised the price from $24.95 to $25.95. This is because
Amazon gives free shipping to orders over $25, so a customer who buys
a book for $25.95 has to pay less because he does not have to pay for
shipping.

The Family Shakespeare is the Famous Book by Thomas Bowdler, who made
Shakespeare suitable for family reading by taking out the dirty and
scary parts, thus Bowdlerizing it.

Sam Sloan

Date: 21 Mar 2008 04:03:10
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 18, 3:48 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 18, 2:51 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have just been notified that Sam Sloan, that distinguished
> > Shakespearian scholar, has just reprinted the first two volumes of the
> > (bowdlerized) Dramatic Works of Shakespeare.
>
> > They should be available within 24-48 hours on Amazon at:
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891951
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891986
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891994
>
> > The two reprinted volumes are the Comedies and the Tragedies. The
> > third volume, the Histories, will come a few days later.
>
> > Sam Sloan
> > Shakespearian Scholar
>
> So now you're a Shakespearean scholar, Sam? What university or
> organization recognizes you as such? Is it the same outfit that
> declared you World Champion of Chinese Chess in 1988? I notice that
> you make that claim about one minute into this video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAON2vgw1kc
>
> One tends to think that both titles were awarded by the SSAIA (The
> Sam Sloan Academy of Imaginary Accomplishments).

Was that the same 'body' who gave P Innes his Nearly an IM title?

Date: 21 Mar 2008 11:34:45
From: Peter Groves
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1e550f02-bb53-4e94-9362-1051e7e10557@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 18, 3:48 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > On 18, 2:51 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I have just been notified that Sam Sloan, that distinguished
> > > Shakespearian scholar, has just reprinted the first two volumes of the
> > > (bowdlerized) Dramatic Works of Shakespeare.
> >
> > > They should be available within 24-48 hours on Amazon at:
> >
> > >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891951
> >
> > >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891986
> >
> > >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891994
> >
> > > The two reprinted volumes are the Comedies and the Tragedies. The
> > > third volume, the Histories, will come a few days later.
> >
> > > Sam Sloan
> > > Shakespearian Scholar
> >
> > So now you're a Shakespearean scholar, Sam? What university or
> > organization recognizes you as such? Is it the same outfit that
> > declared you World Champion of Chinese Chess in 1988? I notice that
> > you make that claim about one minute into this video:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAON2vgw1kc
> >
> > One tends to think that both titles were awarded by the SSAIA (The
> > Sam Sloan Academy of Imaginary Accomplishments).
>
> Was that the same 'body' who gave P Innes his Nearly an IM title?
>

Not to mention his MA in Philology (Failed).

--
Peter G.

"A sure sign of a lunatic is that sooner or later, he brings up the
Templars." (Umberto Eco)

Date: 21 Mar 2008 12:54:06
From: Paul Crowley
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

"Peter Groves" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<usual trivialities >

> "A sure sign of a lunatic is that sooner or later, he brings up the
> Templars." (Umberto Eco)

A sure sign of an academic pseud is that,
sooner or later, he brings up Umberto Eco.

Paul.

Date: 22 Mar 2008 09:51:26
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

"Paul Crowley" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Peter Groves" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> <usual trivialities>
>
> > "A sure sign of a lunatic is that sooner or later, he brings up the
>> Templars." (Umberto Eco)
>
> A sure sign of an academic pseud is that,
> sooner or later, he brings up Umberto Eco.

You have to be careful here Paul!

You are tangling with (1) our academic who, when outwitted in a humanities
newsgroup by a woman, took to calling her 'wanker', which I presume is what
they do at his institution [?] but possible from the library looking out at
all the fools in the real world outside.

And with (2) the famous author of the phrase, "Old English is dead", which,
by rekable economy utilises exactly 4 words of Old English to say so.

The great difficulty in the Shakespeare Wars for me personally is to admit
that I think Shakespeare dunnit!

What <horror > would happen if someone asked me to 'explain' such as this
pair, who don't as much think Shakespeare did it, (the process of their
thoughts being hidden under a bushell, or something rather larger), and then
I would have to disclaim them! Would have to say that I obtain my views by
studying variously, and I do not recognise these eartswhile 'colleagues' to
have done same, or rather to have understood aught.

In fact, it is usually far more pleasant, informing and even diligent unto
any exploration, to pick a Baconian or an Oxford Man! Even unto a
lovian - but not an Elvys man!

Dr. Groves might return to the 100-acre wood, to his sheltered pasture and
the little copse therein by the quiet tinkling stream, the better to sputter
and splutter.

And, as naturally, he should also take Eyeore here with him.

Cordially, Phil Innes

>
> Paul.
>
>

Date: 22 Mar 2008 22:09:13
From: Peter Groves
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Paul Crowley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Peter Groves" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > <usual trivialities>
> >
[ ...] the phrase, "Old English is dead", which,
> by rekable economy utilises exactly 4 words of Old English to say so.

And a sure sign of a moron is that like Innes and Crowley he persists in
expressing moronic beliefs despite evidence and reasoned argument to the
contrary. As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool to his folly.

--
Peter G.

"A sure sign of a lunatic is that sooner or later, he brings up the
Templars." (Umberto Eco)

Date: 20 Mar 2008 09:13:58
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

The first two volumes of The Family Shakespeare, the Comedies and the
Tragedies, are out, published today.

They may be ordered from Amazon at the following addresses:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891951

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891986

The third volume, the Histories, will take a few days longer, and will
become available at:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891994

Sam Sloan

Date: 18 Mar 2008 13:48:53
From:
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 18, 2:51=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have just been notified that Sam Sloan, that distinguished
> Shakespearian scholar, has just reprinted the first two volumes of the
> (bowdlerized) Dramatic Works of Shakespeare.
>
> They should be available within 24-48 hours on Amazon at:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891951
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891986
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891994
>
> The two reprinted volumes are the Comedies and the Tragedies. The
> third volume, the Histories, will come a few days later.
>
> Sam Sloan
> Shakespearian Scholar

So now you're a Shakespearean scholar, Sam? What university or
organization recognizes you as such? Is it the same outfit that
declared you World Champion of Chinese Chess in 1988? I notice that
you make that claim about one minute into this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DqAON2vgw1kc

One tends to think that both titles were awarded by the SSAIA (The
Sam Sloan Academy of Imaginary Accomplishments).

Date: 18 Mar 2008 11:51:01
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

I have just been notified that Sam Sloan, that distinguished
Shakespearian scholar, has just reprinted the first two volumes of the
(bowdlerized) Dramatic Works of Shakespeare.

They should be available within 24-48 hours on Amazon at:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891951

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891986

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891994

The two reprinted volumes are the Comedies and the Tragedies. The
third volume, the Histories, will come a few days later.

Sam Sloan
Shakespearian Scholar

Date: 17 Mar 2008 12:17:17
From:
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 17, 3:06=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 17, 12:09 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17, 11:28 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 17, 10:19 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 17, 9:02 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > I'll simply download it from Google Books instead of buying it.
>
> > > > Google Books does not have it. Otherwise, I would not be reprinting
> > > > it.
>
> > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > Oddly enough, Sam Sloan is mistaken.
>
> > =A0 Neil, I take it you are speaking ironically? Sam is mistaken about
> > as often as fish are wet.
>
> For those of you over here in the "Humanities" section unfamiliar with
> Taylor Kingston, he fancies himself as a great scholar and even a
> chess player too, but he spends most of his life stalking Sam Sloan,
> thereby gaining one of the simple pleasures of life.
>
> Sam Sloan

Actually, Sam is, as usual, wrong on almost all points above. But I
do enjoy pointing out his errors, which is about as difficult as
telling night from day. For those of us in the chess newsgroups, Sam
is one of our great laughingstocks, a continual source of amusement.
So, Sam, how much you gonna bet me? $10K, or are you game for more?

Date: 17 Mar 2008 12:06:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 17, 12:09 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 17, 11:28 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 17, 10:19 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 17, 9:02 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I'll simply download it from Google Books instead of buying it.
>
> > > Google Books does not have it. Otherwise, I would not be reprinting
> > > it.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > Oddly enough, Sam Sloan is mistaken.
>
> Neil, I take it you are speaking ironically? Sam is mistaken about
> as often as fish are wet.

For those of you over here in the "Humanities" section unfamiliar with
Taylor Kingston, he fancies himself as a great scholar and even a
chess player too, but he spends most of his life stalking Sam Sloan,
thereby gaining one of the simple pleasures of life.

Sam Sloan

Date: 17 Mar 2008 09:41:43
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 17, 11:09 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 17, 11:28 am, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 17, 10:19 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 17, 9:02 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I'll simply download it from Google Books instead of buying it.
>
> > > Google Books does not have it. Otherwise, I would not be reprinting
> > > it.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > Oddly enough, Sam Sloan is mistaken.
>
> Neil, I take it you are speaking ironically? Sam is mistaken about
> as often as fish are wet.

Yes, I was being ironic.

> >http://shakespeare.palo.edu/Editors/Bowdler.htm
>
> > "I have been able to locate and link the following full-view editions
> > of The Family Shakespeare:
>
> > * The second edition of 1818 (Google Book Search):
> > o Vol. I - The Tempest; Two Gentlemen of Verona; Merry Wives
> > of Windsor; Twelfth Night
> > o Vol. II - Measure for Measure; Much Ado About Nothing; A
> > Midsummer Night's Dream; Love's Labour's Lost;
> > o Vol. III - The Merchant of Venice; As You Like It; All's
> > Well That Ends Well; The Taming of the Shrew
> > o Vol. IV - The Winter's Tale; The Comedy of Errors;
> > Macbeth; King John
> > o Vol. V - Richard II; Henry IV Part 1; Henry IV Part 2;
> > Henry V (Note: Unfortunately GB does not have a full-view entry for
> > this volume. Use the 1825 edition entry below for the texts).
> > o Vol. VI - Henry VI, Part 1; Part 2; Part 3
> > o Vol. VII - Richard III; Henry VIII; Troilus and Cressida
> > o Vol. VIII - Timon of Athens; Coriolanus; Julius Caesar;
> > Antony and Cleopatra
> > o Vol. IX - Cymbeline; Titus Andronicus; King Lear
> > o Vol. X - Romeo and Juliet; Hamlet; Othello
> > * The fourth edition of 1825 (Google Book Search - this edition
> > maintains the same order of works as the 1818 edition):
> > o Vol. I; Vol. II; Vol. III; Vol. IV; Vol. V; Vol. VI; Vol.
> > VII; Vol. VIII; Vol. IX; Vol. X.
> > * A single-volume edition of 1843 (Google Book Search).
> > * A single-volume edition of 1847 (Internet Archive)

Date: 17 Mar 2008 09:09:07
From:
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 17, 11:28=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On 17, 10:19 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 17, 9:02 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I'll simply download it from Google Books instead of buying it.
>
> > Google Books does not have it. Otherwise, I would not be reprinting
> > it.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Oddly enough, Sam Sloan is mistaken.

Neil, I take it you are speaking ironically? Sam is mistaken about
as often as fish are wet.

> http://shakespeare.palo.edu/Editors/Bowdler.htm
>
> "I have been able to locate and link the following full-view editions
> of The Family Shakespeare:
>
> =A0 =A0 * The second edition of 1818 (Google Book Search):
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o Vol. I - The Tempest; Two Gentlemen of Verona; Merry=
Wives
> of Windsor; Twelfth Night
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o Vol. II - Measure for Measure; Much Ado About Nothin=
g; A
> Midsummer Night's Dream; Love's Labour's Lost;
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o Vol. III - The Merchant of Venice; As You Like It; A=
ll's
> Well That Ends Well; The Taming of the Shrew
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o Vol. IV - The Winter's Tale; The Comedy of Errors;
> Macbeth; King John
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o Vol. V - Richard II; Henry IV Part 1; Henry IV Part =
2;
> Henry V (Note: =A0Unfortunately GB does not have a full-view entry for
> this volume. =A0Use the 1825 edition entry below for the texts).
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o Vol. VI - Henry VI, Part 1; Part 2; Part 3
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o Vol. VII - Richard III; Henry VIII; Troilus and Cres=
sida
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o Vol. VIII - Timon of Athens; Coriolanus; Julius Caes=
ar;
> Antony and Cleopatra
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o Vol. IX - Cymbeline; Titus Andronicus; King Lear
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o Vol. X - Romeo and Juliet; Hamlet; Othello
> =A0 =A0 * The fourth edition of 1825 (Google Book Search - this edition
> maintains the same order of works as the 1818 edition):
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o Vol. I; Vol. II; Vol. III; Vol. IV; Vol. V; Vol. VI;=
Vol.
> VII; Vol. VIII; Vol. IX; Vol. X.
> =A0 =A0 * A single-volume edition of 1843 (Google Book Search).
> =A0 =A0 * A single-volume edition of 1847 (Internet Archive)

Date: 17 Mar 2008 08:28:01
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 17, 10:19 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 17, 9:02 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'll simply download it from Google Books instead of buying it.
>
> Google Books does not have it. Otherwise, I would not be reprinting
> it.
>
> Sam Sloan

Oddly enough, Sam Sloan is mistaken.

http://shakespeare.palo.edu/Editors/Bowdler.htm

"I have been able to locate and link the following full-view editions
of The Family Shakespeare:

* The second edition of 1818 (Google Book Search):
o Vol. I - The Tempest; Two Gentlemen of Verona; Merry Wives
of Windsor; Twelfth Night
o Vol. II - Measure for Measure; Much Ado About Nothing; A
Midsummer Night's Dream; Love's Labour's Lost;
o Vol. III - The Merchant of Venice; As You Like It; All's
Well That Ends Well; The Taming of the Shrew
o Vol. IV - The Winter's Tale; The Comedy of Errors;
Macbeth; King John
o Vol. V - Richard II; Henry IV Part 1; Henry IV Part 2;
Henry V (Note: Unfortunately GB does not have a full-view entry for
this volume. Use the 1825 edition entry below for the texts).
o Vol. VI - Henry VI, Part 1; Part 2; Part 3
o Vol. VII - Richard III; Henry VIII; Troilus and Cressida
o Vol. VIII - Timon of Athens; Coriolanus; Julius Caesar;
Antony and Cleopatra
o Vol. IX - Cymbeline; Titus Andronicus; King Lear
o Vol. X - Romeo and Juliet; Hamlet; Othello
* The fourth edition of 1825 (Google Book Search - this edition
maintains the same order of works as the 1818 edition):
o Vol. I; Vol. II; Vol. III; Vol. IV; Vol. V; Vol. VI; Vol.
VII; Vol. VIII; Vol. IX; Vol. X.
* A single-volume edition of 1843 (Google Book Search).
* A single-volume edition of 1847 (Internet Archive)

Date: 17 Mar 2008 08:20:41
From:
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 17, 11:06=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> What did however survive are some vague sexually suggestive
> references. For example, in Henry IV, Part 1, Scene 2, the Prince
> says, "The signs of leaping houses". The term "leaping houses" appears
> nowhere else in literature but it seems obvious that "leaping houses"
> are houses of prostitution.
>
> Bowdler was allowing none of that, so the term "leaping houses" was
> just cut out.
>
> The following words were cut out above:
> and clocks the tongues of bawds and dials the signs of leaping-houses
> and the blessed sun himself a fair hot wench in flame-coloured taffeta

Seems odd that our Sam would want to publish the bowdlerized
Shakespeare, since Bowdler cut out things like bawds, wenches and
whorehouses, i.e. those things that most interest Sam.
Sam, you got the money for our bet ready yet? 10 grand minimum, but
I'll go higher if you like.

Date: 17 Mar 2008 08:19:05
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 17, 9:02 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> I'll simply download it from Google Books instead of buying it.

Google Books does not have it. Otherwise, I would not be reprinting
it.

Sam Sloan

Date: 17 Mar 2008 08:06:52
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

The original Shakespeare published in 1623 did not contain any of what
we would call today obscenity, because there was censorship in
Shakespeare's time as well. If any obscene words were actually spoken
by the actors in Shakespeare's plays, that would be unknown today, as
the government censors did not allow sexually explicit words to appear
in the print version, nor did they allow God's name to be taken in
vain. However, it was allowed to use words in praise of God and Jesus.

Two words that do pop up in Shakespeare are "zounds" and "'Sblood".
These words occur most often in The Histories, especially as spoken by
Falstaff. These may have been words invented by Shakespeare to convey
the ideas while evading government censors.

'Sblood is taken to mean "God's blood" which can mean Catholic wine
and thus is not obscene to Catholics. Some words obscene to
Protestants were not obscene to Catholics. The conflicts between the
Catholics and the Protestants in Shakespeare's time must be
remembered.

What did however survive are some vague sexually suggestive
references. For example, in Henry IV, Part 1, Scene 2, the Prince
says, "The signs of leaping houses". The term "leaping houses" appears
nowhere else in literature but it seems obvious that "leaping houses"
are houses of prostitution.

Bowdler was allowing none of that, so the term "leaping houses" was
just cut out.

The original in Henry IV, Part 1, Scene 2 is as follows:

Thou art so fat-witted, with drinking of old sack and unbuttoning thee
after supper and sleeping upon benches after noon, that thou hast
forgotten to demand that truly which thou wouldst truly know. What a
devil hast thou to do with the time of the day? Unless hours were cups
of sack and minutes capons and clocks the tongues of bawds and dials
the signs of leaping-houses and the blessed sun himself a fair hot
wench in flame-coloured taffeta, I see no reason why thou shouldst be
so superfluous to demand the time of the day.

The Bowdlerized version is as follows (see page 630):

Thou art so fat-witted, with drinking of old sack and sleeping upon
benches after noon, that thou hast forgotten to demand that truly
which thou wouldst truly know. What hast thou to do with the time of
the day? Unless hours were cups of sack and minutes capons, I see no
reason why thou shouldst be so superfluous to demand the time of the
day.

The following words were cut out above:

unbuttoning thee after supper and

a devil

and clocks the tongues of bawds and dials the signs of leaping-houses
and the blessed sun himself a fair hot wench in flame-coloured taffeta

The reasons for these cuts are apparent. "unbuttoning thee after
supper" refers to using the toilet. At that time, men's zippers had
not yet been invented, so a man had to unbutton his pants to use the
toilet.

a devil is a common obscenity, similar to using the Lord's name in
vain.

the signs of leaping-houses refers to signs advertising houses of
prostitution.

a fair hot wench in flame-coloured taffeta means a prostitute wearing
red clothing.

The original edition was published anonymously in 1807 in Bath,
England. Subsequent research has established that it was written by
Harriet Bowdler, the elder sister of Thomas Bowdler. It covered only
20 of the plays by Shakespeare. It was little noticed and attracted
only three reviews.

In 1809, "The Family Shakespeare" edited by Thomas Bowdler was
published. He had restored most of the deletions by his sister Harriet
but had introduced some of his own. It added 16 plays to the original
20 and thus all 36 plays by Shakespeare appeared in expurgated
editions.

In subsequent editions of "The Family Shakespeare", words were
sometimes taken out and then later restored again. This may explain
why it has been reported that the words Out, damned spot! in MacBeth,
Act V, Scene 1 were removed by Bowdler and replaced by Out crimson
spot, but in the edition reprinted here, Out, damned spot! is present
on page 336.

Thomas Bowdler died in 1825 and his sister Harriet died in 1830.
Harriet never ried. Thomas ried so briefly that his riage was
not even mentioned in his obituary. There were no children.

Scholars still debate whether most of the work was done by Thomas or
by his sister Harriet.

The copyright on "The Family Shakespeare" expired in 1860. The edition
reprinted here, published in 1861, obviously came out when it did to
take advantage of the expiration of the copyright.

Date: 17 Mar 2008 06:02:24
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 17, 7:40 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:83bccf2c-c33c-446d-bfa9-855e2e0eaf8e@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 15, 4:19 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> samsloan wrote:
> >> > On 14, 10:48 pm, The Historian <[email protected]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On 14, 6:37 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >>> My re-printing of The Family Shakespeare is in the final stages of
> >> >>> production. The first two volumes, The Comedies and the Tragedies,
> >> >>> could even be out this weekend. Even if not, all three volumes shou=
ld
> >> >>> be out by the end of the coming week.
> >> >>> When they come out, they will be available at the following
> >> >>> addresses:
> >> >>>http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891951
> >> >>>http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891986
> >> >>>http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891994
> >> >>> This is the first reprinting of The Family Shakespeare that I know =
of
> >> >>> since 1861.
> >> >>> Sam Sloan
> >> >> Which edition are you reprinting? And is there a new introduction to=

> >> >> the work?
>
> >> > I am reprinting the 1861 edition which, I believe, is the last
> >> > printing.
>
> >> > I have written a new introduction but I am also reprinting the
> >> > original introduction by Thomas Bowlder
>
> >> > Here is a subject for you to study.
>
> >> > In many places, parts that were supposedly edited out by Thomas
> >> > Bowlder, are in the edition I am reprinting. Some of those supposedly=

> >> > edited out sections are still there.
>
> >> > For example, when Lady MacBeth says, "Out, out damned spot", I have
> >> > read that Bowlder removed that.
>
> >> > However, in the edition I am reprinting, "Out, out damned spot" is
> >> > there.
>
> I presume what Bowdler 'edited out' is as result of the 'damned' rather th=
an
> the dog.

The 1818 edition, available in a download from Google Books, has
"damned."

> Do Americans know or use the term 'bowdlerized'? The term is from earlier
> than 1861, and from 1818, when Thos Bowdler excised material from
> Shakespeare on 'moral grounds' so that these "those words and expressions
> are ommitted which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a family."

Yes, we do know and use the term. Thank you once again for
'enlightening' us all on a subject we probably know better than you
do.

> Bowdlerize is mentioned in a 1952 Websters, but not the Norton Anth. Eng.
> Lit.

Is there a reason a literature anthology would use the term?

> In Ben=E9t [Readers Encycl.] it mentions that Bowlder went on to 'treat'
> Gibbon's Decline and Fall in the same way - and lists the words associated=

> with his name as "bowdlerist, bowdlerizer, bowdlerism, bowdlerization, etc=
."
>
> Quite why anyone would want to reprint Dr. Bowdler's edition these days is=
a
> tad obscure.

I cannot speak for Sam Sloan's reason for reprinting it (did I just
use the words "Sam Sloan" and "reason" in the same sentence?), but
such items as Bowdler's Shakespeare and Weems biography of Washington
are interesting cultural artifacts, and deserve to be brought out
every now and then. That said, I'll simply download it from Google
Books instead of buying it.

>
> >> > So, I am wondering if Bowlder may have restored some of the deleted
> >> > words in later editions.
>
> >> Have you done any actual research on Bowdler /at/ /all/?
>
> > Probably not. Sloan was once described as a person who uses the
> > newsgroups for questions that a normal person would use Google for.
>
> > (You might wish
> >> to start with the article in Wikipedia, especially where it points out
> >> that the first edition was edited not by him, but by his sister
> >> Henrietta.)
>
> >> --
> >> John W. Kennedy

Date: 15 Mar 2008 16:30:38
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 15, 4:19 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <[email protected] > wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On 14, 10:48 pm, The Historian <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> On 14, 6:37 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> My re-printing of The Family Shakespeare is in the final stages of
> >>> production. The first two volumes, The Comedies and the Tragedies,
> >>> could even be out this weekend. Even if not, all three volumes should
> >>> be out by the end of the coming week.
> >>> When they come out, they will be available at the following addresses:
> >>>http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891951
> >>>http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891986
> >>>http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891994
> >>> This is the first reprinting of The Family Shakespeare that I know of
> >>> since 1861.
> >>> Sam Sloan
> >> Which edition are you reprinting? And is there a new introduction to
> >> the work?
>
> > I am reprinting the 1861 edition which, I believe, is the last
> > printing.
>
> > I have written a new introduction but I am also reprinting the
> > original introduction by Thomas Bowlder
>
> > Here is a subject for you to study.
>
> > In many places, parts that were supposedly edited out by Thomas
> > Bowlder, are in the edition I am reprinting. Some of those supposedly
> > edited out sections are still there.
>
> > For example, when Lady MacBeth says, "Out, out damned spot", I have
> > read that Bowlder removed that.
>
> > However, in the edition I am reprinting, "Out, out damned spot" is
> > there.
>
> > So, I am wondering if Bowlder may have restored some of the deleted
> > words in later editions.
>
> Have you done any actual research on Bowdler /at/ /all/?

Probably not. Sloan was once described as a person who uses the
newsgroups for questions that a normal person would use Google for.

(You might wish
> to start with the article in Wikipedia, especially where it points out
> that the first edition was edited not by him, but by his sister Henrietta.)
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy

Date: 17 Mar 2008 08:40:25
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:83bccf2c-c33c-446d-bfa9-855e2e0eaf8e@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 15, 4:19 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> samsloan wrote:
>> > On 14, 10:48 pm, The Historian <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 14, 6:37 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>> My re-printing of The Family Shakespeare is in the final stages of
>> >>> production. The first two volumes, The Comedies and the Tragedies,
>> >>> could even be out this weekend. Even if not, all three volumes should
>> >>> be out by the end of the coming week.
>> >>> When they come out, they will be available at the following
>> >>> addresses:
>> >>>http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891951
>> >>>http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891986
>> >>>http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891994
>> >>> This is the first reprinting of The Family Shakespeare that I know of
>> >>> since 1861.
>> >>> Sam Sloan
>> >> Which edition are you reprinting? And is there a new introduction to
>> >> the work?
>>
>> > I am reprinting the 1861 edition which, I believe, is the last
>> > printing.
>>
>> > I have written a new introduction but I am also reprinting the
>> > original introduction by Thomas Bowlder
>>
>> > Here is a subject for you to study.
>>
>> > In many places, parts that were supposedly edited out by Thomas
>> > Bowlder, are in the edition I am reprinting. Some of those supposedly
>> > edited out sections are still there.
>>
>> > For example, when Lady MacBeth says, "Out, out damned spot", I have
>> > read that Bowlder removed that.
>>
>> > However, in the edition I am reprinting, "Out, out damned spot" is
>> > there.

I presume what Bowdler 'edited out' is as result of the 'damned' rather than
the dog.

Do Americans know or use the term 'bowdlerized'? The term is from earlier
than 1861, and from 1818, when Thos Bowdler excised material from
Shakespeare on 'moral grounds' so that these "those words and expressions
are ommitted which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a family."

Bowdlerize is mentioned in a 1952 Websters, but not the Norton Anth. Eng.
Lit.

In Ben�t [Readers Encycl.] it mentions that Bowlder went on to 'treat'
Gibbon's Decline and Fall in the same way - and lists the words associated
with his name as "bowdlerist, bowdlerizer, bowdlerism, bowdlerization, etc."

Quite why anyone would want to reprint Dr. Bowdler's edition these days is a
tad obscure.

Phil Innes

>> > So, I am wondering if Bowlder may have restored some of the deleted
>> > words in later editions.
>>
>> Have you done any actual research on Bowdler /at/ /all/?
>
> Probably not. Sloan was once described as a person who uses the
> newsgroups for questions that a normal person would use Google for.
>
> (You might wish
>> to start with the article in Wikipedia, especially where it points out
>> that the first edition was edited not by him, but by his sister
>> Henrietta.)
>>
>> --
>> John W. Kennedy
>
>
>

Date: 14 Mar 2008 23:39:21
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 15, 6:00 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 14, 10:48 pm, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:

> In many places, parts that were supposedly edited out by Thomas
> Bowlder, are in the edition I am reprinting. Some of those supposedly
> edited out sections are still there.
>
> For example, when Lady MacBeth says, "Out, out damned spot", I have
> read that Bowlder removed that.
>
> However, in the edition I am reprinting, "Out, out damned spot" is
> there.
>
> So, I am wondering if Bowlder may have restored some of the deleted
> words in later editions.

I don't think that damned has ever been considered much of an
expletive in Britain. I have never heard or seen it edited out
anywhere.
Actually I might have seen it done once, in an edition of the Rape of
the Lock - as "d------!", but I am not sure.

Date: 15 Mar 2008 16:48:13
From: John W. Kennedy
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

Offramp wrote:
> I don't think that damned has ever been considered much of an
> expletive in Britain. I have never heard or seen it edited out
> anywhere.

"Damme!" (i.e., "Damn me!") was not omitted in Victorian all-child
productions of "H. M. S. Pinafore". However, it is worth noting that
Lewis Carroll was shocked by it. Compare that to how Gilbert felt
himself compelled to alter his original title "Ruddygore" by a single
letter, though complaining, "...I suppose you'll take it that if I say
'I admire your ruddy countenance,' I mean 'I like your bloody cheek.'"
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"

Date: 15 Mar 2008 21:34:02
From: Alan Jones
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

"John W. Kennedy" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Offramp wrote:
>> I don't think that damned has ever been considered much of an
>> expletive in Britain. I have never heard or seen it edited out
>> anywhere.
>
> "Damme!" (i.e., "Damn me!") was not omitted in Victorian all-child
> productions of "H. M. S. Pinafore". However, it is worth noting that Lewis
> Carroll was shocked by it. Compare that to how Gilbert felt himself
> compelled to alter his original title "Ruddygore" by a single letter,
> though complaining, "...I suppose you'll take it that if I say 'I admire
> your ruddy countenance,' I mean 'I like your bloody cheek.'"

"Damn" was acceptable in its full sense even when censored as an expletive.
Lady M was presumably saying something like "Out, accursed spot", which I
imagine would have passed through Bowdler's filter. But someone may know
otherwise. (I've only just noticed that it's Lady M who is damned, not the
spot of innocent Duncan's blood damnably spilt. Alas, one can evidently
study, teach and direct a play without ever properly reading every word.)

Alan Jones

Date: 22 Mar 2008 08:58:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

"Alan Jones" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John W. Kennedy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Offramp wrote:
>>> I don't think that damned has ever been considered much of an
>>> expletive in Britain. I have never heard or seen it edited out
>>> anywhere.
>>
>> "Damme!" (i.e., "Damn me!") was not omitted in Victorian all-child
>> productions of "H. M. S. Pinafore". However, it is worth noting that
>> Lewis Carroll was shocked by it. Compare that to how Gilbert felt himself
>> compelled to alter his original title "Ruddygore" by a single letter,
>> though complaining, "...I suppose you'll take it that if I say 'I admire
>> your ruddy countenance,' I mean 'I like your bloody cheek.'"
>
> "Damn" was acceptable in its full sense even when censored as an
> expletive. Lady M was presumably saying something like "Out, accursed
> spot", which I imagine would have passed through Bowdler's filter. But
> someone may know otherwise. (I've only just noticed that it's Lady M who
> is damned, not the spot of innocent Duncan's blood damnably spilt. Alas,
> one can evidently study, teach and direct a play without ever properly
> reading every word.)

Actually, use of both words DAMN and SPOT are of uncertain meaning in
Elizabethan times, except these references:-

SPOT: as Icelandic /spotti/ or [D] Spat, which a meaning much then as now,
which is straightforward and continued into English with SPOT; to drop; to
sprinkle [West] and SPOTTLE; (2) to splash or dirty [West], though an older
[?] reference is SPOTIL; spittle,

When thou wolt do awey the lettre, wete a pensel
with spotil or with watur...

/ Reliq Antiq. i. 109

Its the DAMN which is of uncertain use for an Elizabethan. Damno [L.]
Damnum; to fine, from wrote da; to give. But an [arch.] use of DAMN in
English is ; to condemn to death. If we are to credit Aubrey; to hurt or to
injure is the sense of DAMNIFY; //Aubrey's Wilts, Royal Soc. MS p. 109.

I note the A. Norm. word is DAMPNE; to condemn, "Dampny"// Launfal, 837.

Provincially, offers Halliwell, DANG as an imprecation is a possible
softening of damn, and is 'common in the provinces - but but conclusive is

To throw down, or strike with violence.
"Dang'd down to hell," //lowe iii. 352.
DANGE; has a meaning of 'struck' in Eglamour, 550.

Dekker uses DAMBE; to damn.

OUT is also relatively straightforward, and [A. Sax.].

Interest in OUT is because of Shakespeare own varied use of it, hence;-

(1) Away! It is often an exclamation of dissapointment. "Out, alas!" occurs
in [Shak] in the same sense as

For the wiche his enmys cryed, Owte and alas !
Thayre red colowrus chaunged to pale hewe ;
/MS. Bibl. Reg. 17 D. xv.

(2) Full ; completely. //Tempest, i. 2. ((Still in use in Hereford, says
JOH, circa 1650.)

(4) One other significant not is OUT O'CRY; out of measure. //Comedy of
Patient Grissel, p. 20/

And the oldest reference I can find is this one, which recombines an echo of
'out with the sense of the other words in the sentence;-

OUTAMY; to injure or hurt?

Ac the helm was so hard y-wro3t,
That he mi3t outamy him no3t
Wyth no dynt of swerde.

// MS. Ashmole, 33, f. 49.

I mention these things to restore or re-emphasise the sense of Elizabethan
usage, rather than what survived the Victorians, who were, at least
publicly, shocked by everything.

> Alan Jones
>

Date: 14 Mar 2008 23:00:29
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 14, 10:48 pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On 14, 6:37 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My re-printing of The Family Shakespeare is in the final stages of
> > production. The first two volumes, The Comedies and the Tragedies,
> > could even be out this weekend. Even if not, all three volumes should
> > be out by the end of the coming week.
>
> > When they come out, they will be available at the following addresses:
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891951
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891986
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891994
>
> > This is the first reprinting of The Family Shakespeare that I know of
> > since 1861.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Which edition are you reprinting? And is there a new introduction to
> the work?

I am reprinting the 1861 edition which, I believe, is the last
printing.

I have written a new introduction but I am also reprinting the
original introduction by Thomas Bowlder

Here is a subject for you to study.

In many places, parts that were supposedly edited out by Thomas
Bowlder, are in the edition I am reprinting. Some of those supposedly
edited out sections are still there.

For example, when Lady MacBeth says, "Out, out damned spot", I have
read that Bowlder removed that.

However, in the edition I am reprinting, "Out, out damned spot" is
there.

So, I am wondering if Bowlder may have restored some of the deleted
words in later editions.

Sam Sloan

Date: 15 Mar 2008 17:19:35
From: John W. Kennedy
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

samsloan wrote:
> On 14, 10:48 pm, The Historian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On 14, 6:37 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> My re-printing of The Family Shakespeare is in the final stages of
>>> production. The first two volumes, The Comedies and the Tragedies,
>>> could even be out this weekend. Even if not, all three volumes should
>>> be out by the end of the coming week.
>>> When they come out, they will be available at the following addresses:
>>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891951
>>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891986
>>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891994
>>> This is the first reprinting of The Family Shakespeare that I know of
>>> since 1861.
>>> Sam Sloan
>> Which edition are you reprinting? And is there a new introduction to
>> the work?
>
> I am reprinting the 1861 edition which, I believe, is the last
> printing.
>
> I have written a new introduction but I am also reprinting the
> original introduction by Thomas Bowlder
>
> Here is a subject for you to study.
>
> In many places, parts that were supposedly edited out by Thomas
> Bowlder, are in the edition I am reprinting. Some of those supposedly
> edited out sections are still there.
>
> For example, when Lady MacBeth says, "Out, out damned spot", I have
> read that Bowlder removed that.
>
> However, in the edition I am reprinting, "Out, out damned spot" is
> there.
>
> So, I am wondering if Bowlder may have restored some of the deleted
> words in later editions.

Have you done any actual research on Bowdler /at/ /all/? (You might wish
to start with the article in Wikipedia, especially where it points out
that the first edition was edited not by him, but by his sister Henrietta.)

--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have
always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"

Date: 14 Mar 2008 21:50:08
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

> In this introduction I can't see any mention of Bowdler's chess career
> - the only thing that would make it on-topic at rgcm.http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=31577
> Which has Ray Keene's comment:
> "ray keene: there is scope for believing that d bowdler is actually
> thomas bowdler 1754-1825- a member of the royal society who was known
> to play chess-to be an associate of philidor -as well as being the man
> who bowdlerised shakespeare-as editor of the family shakespeare he
> wrote-those words and expressions are omitted-ie from his edited
> version of shakespeare-which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a
> family. bowdlerising has become since then synonymous with prudish
> expurgation or censorship. however he was evidently no mean chess
> player and this game is undoubtedly a forerunner in the conceptual
> sense of the anderrssen v kieseritsky immortal game.i mention the
> relationship between bowdler-philidor and the astronomer sir william
> herschel in this weeks issue of the spectator-sadly it is not
> available on line." [sic]
>
This game is a forerunner of the immortal game? That is really hard
for me to swallow, just as some other comments involving Staunton
being a forerunner of the hypermoderns. One of the fascinating things
about mid-19th century chess is that
players did have their very own styles, in a way which became much
less true as everybody started absorbing the same chess literature.
Anderssen had a style which was nothing like Philidor's or Bowdler's.
Of the many interesting things about the early what I always try to
remember as a lesson is that when your pieces are attacked, don't
automatically retreat - look for an attack of your own. Keene knows
chess much better than I do, but he has a tendency to look at a single
old game and see it as a stepping stone to a modern idea, without
looking at other games of the time. Many interesting ideas were tried,
but they don't connect very well with modern ideas. Anderssen was
legendary for his combinations, both in OTB play and problems; his
games look nothing like Philidor's.

By the way, I never thought that there was any doubt that the Bowdler
of Shakespeare fame was the same as the chess player - am I missing
something? I could look up old sources from the time, but in my mind
this was set as a definite identification.

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 22 Mar 2008 08:08:20
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:17358cf0-7566-417a-a77e-d2e10effe52a@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> In this introduction I can't see any mention of Bowdler's chess career
>> - the only thing that would make it on-topic at
>> rgcm.http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=31577
>> Which has Ray Keene's comment:
>> "ray keene: there is scope for believing that d bowdler is actually
>> thomas bowdler 1754-1825- a member of the royal society who was known
>> to play chess-to be an associate of philidor -as well as being the man
>> who bowdlerised shakespeare-as editor of the family shakespeare he
>> wrote-those words and expressions are omitted-ie from his edited
>> version of shakespeare-which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a
>> family.

<. >

> By the way, I never thought that there was any doubt that the Bowdler
> of Shakespeare fame was the same as the chess player - am I missing
> something? I could look up old sources from the time, but in my mind
> this was set as a definite identification.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

"Dr. Bowdler wrote on medicine and was a Fellow of the Royal Society and the
Society of Antiquities, as well as editing the infamous /Family Shakespeare/
in his later years. These six [op cit] are the only individuals who can be
identified with any confidence among the dozen or so known opponents of
Philidor during the last decade of his life, whose names are preserved by
chance in two contemporary manuscript notebooks*."

Richard Eales / Chess The History of a Game.

*footnote 27 to page 119, in chapter: Game of the Intellectuals, reads:-

Philidor himself published nine of his games, involving eight opponents, as
a supplement to his Analysis of the Game of Chess, 1790. George Atwood's
manuscript note-book supplies an additional sixty-two games and four names
of opponents in England. The second manuscript contain six games but no
other new information.

---
Phil Innes

Date: 14 Mar 2008 20:48:29
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 14, 6:37 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> My re-printing of The Family Shakespeare is in the final stages of
> production. The first two volumes, The Comedies and the Tragedies,
> could even be out this weekend. Even if not, all three volumes should
> be out by the end of the coming week.
>
> When they come out, they will be available at the following addresses:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891951
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891986
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891994
>
> This is the first reprinting of The Family Shakespeare that I know of
> since 1861.
>
> Sam Sloan

Which edition are you reprinting? And is there a new introduction to
the work?

Date: 14 Mar 2008 19:20:21
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 11, 5:55 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> A good place to start would be Elizabeth Vere. It so happens that she
> was the daughter of Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford), who is
> considered to be a possible author of Shakespeare,

I think it is at least *possible* that Edward de Vere wrote
Shakespeare - of all the alternative author hypotheses, that is the
only one that isn't downright kooky.

John Savard

Date: 14 Mar 2008 16:37:13
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

My re-printing of The Family Shakespeare is in the final stages of
production. The first two volumes, The Comedies and the Tragedies,
could even be out this weekend. Even if not, all three volumes should
be out by the end of the coming week.

When they come out, they will be available at the following addresses:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891951

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891986

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891994

This is the first reprinting of The Family Shakespeare that I know of
since 1861.

Sam Sloan

Date: 12 Mar 2008 08:45:21
From: Art Neuendorffer
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

> "Art Neuendorffer" <[email protected]> wrote :
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> This all seems rather esoteric;
>> why did you think it would interest me?
>
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **
> Let me not take that as a joke. The whole shebang may or may not interest
> you, since after all, it is a cipher of sorts, though pre-Elizabethan. I
> think the experts are currently puzzling over the following factor - and
> here is a comment by a chess historian of some note:-
>
> Richard Eales says, "nothing like this puzzle has so far been found in other
> publications, or the older manuscripts or printed chess books".
>
> Therefore I wondered if you would recognise something // like // this
> puzzle. I also presume that such experts are currently puzzling over
> plain-text, and may not be familiar with acrostical references and other
> codifications
>
> Have you heard of any of these editons before? Thought that around 400 Latin
> and 300 German copies [ of The Nuremberg Chronicle, 1493 ] still exist.
> There is also 1 known English translation by Walter Schmauch who translated
> one of the German copies into English [a copy is located in the Free Library
> of Philadelphia].
>
> You do not have the benefit of seeing all the text, in facsimile or in
> translation, and perhaps my inquiry to you is idle in any case,
> since it presumes an interest you may not hold.

I do not have the benefit of seeing ANY of the text,
in facsimile or in translation.

I have no idea what "the puzzle" is here
or why you think ciphers are involved.

I'm interested in 16th century Rosicrucians and how they
evolved into Scottish Rite Freemasons. Do you think that
this stuff would illuminated me in this regard?

Art

Date: 12 Mar 2008 08:14:54
From: Art Neuendorffer
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Dear Art,
>
> I discovered this odd crosspost and take the opportunity to ask an
> antiquarian something about an 'old' chess manuscript. Do you know of this=

> :-
>
> [extracta]
>
> Around the same time in Germany (1493) Hartmann Schedel writes Nuremberg
> Chronicles Attached are two pics from a page taken out of the Nuremberg
> Chronicles which I discovered to have an unknown chess citation.
>
> I am uncertain I can post you the whole of the material since it is
> copyright and we are gaining permissions to do so, meanwhile forwarding th=
e
> material to a GrandMaster [chess!] in England with interest in such stuff.=

> Perhaps I can obtain you a private copy?
>
> [[ published in Latin on June 12, 1493. On December 23 of that same year, =
it
> was published in German. ]]
>
> A text scholar Siegfried Schoenle is researching this aspect of things "Th=
e
> motif of chess-playing Xerxes is used by the late German collector and che=
ss
> historian Gerd Meyer of L=FCbeck"
>
> The woodcut in question might be from Wolgemut, Pleydenwurff or Albrecht
> Durer [apprentice Durer!].
>
> All this of course follows recent DaVinci material.
>
> Anyway - e-mail me for the whole text if this interests you, which
> nevertheless must be kept privvy.
>
> Cordially, Phil Innes
-----------------------------------------------------
This all seems rather esoteric;
why did you think it would interest me?

Art

Date: 12 Mar 2008 11:32:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

"Art Neuendorffer" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:55559524-ad80-43b4-b6b0-aaaaa990744f@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Dear Art,

-----------------------------------------------------
This all seems rather esoteric;
why did you think it would interest me?

**
Let me not take that as a joke. The whole shebang may or may not interest
you, since after all, it is a cipher of sorts, though pre-Elizabethan. I
think the experts are currently puzzling over the following factor - and
here is a comment by a chess historian of some note:-

Richard Eales says, "nothing like this puzzle has so far been found in other
publications, or the older manuscripts or printed chess books".

Therefore I wondered if you would recognise something // like // this
puzzle. I also presume that such experts are currently puzzling over
plain-text, and may not be familiar with acrostical references and other
codifications

Have you heard of any of these editons before? Thought that around 400 Latin
and 300 German copies [ of The Nuremberg Chronicle, 1493 ] still exist.
There is also 1 known English translation by Walter Schmauch who translated
one of the German copies into English [a copy is located in the Free Library
of Philadelphia].

You do not have the benefit of seeing all the text, in facsimile or in
translation, and perhaps my inquiry to you is idle in any case, since it
presumes an interest you may not hold.

Cordially, Phil Innes
**
Art

Date: 11 Mar 2008 21:35:57
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 11, 11:55 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> The Dramatic works of
> William Shakespeare
> adopted for
> Family Reading
>
> by Thomas Bowdler, Esq., F.R.S., F.S.A

In this introduction I can't see any mention of Bowdler's chess career
- the only thing that would make it on-topic at rgcm.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=31577
Which has Ray Keene's comment:
"ray keene: there is scope for believing that d bowdler is actually
thomas bowdler 1754-1825- a member of the royal society who was known
to play chess-to be an associate of philidor -as well as being the man
who bowdlerised shakespeare-as editor of the family shakespeare he
wrote-those words and expressions are omitted-ie from his edited
version of shakespeare-which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a
family. bowdlerising has become since then synonymous with prudish
expurgation or censorship. however he was evidently no mean chess
player and this game is undoubtedly a forerunner in the conceptual
sense of the anderrssen v kieseritsky immortal game.i mention the
relationship between bowdler-philidor and the astronomer sir william
herschel in this weeks issue of the spectator-sadly it is not
available on line." [sic]

Also, later on, there is this brilliantly jejune observation from some
other schmo:
"morphyvsfischer: His bowdlerized Shakespear works suck. Get the
authentic kind."

LOROL!

Date: 11 Mar 2008 20:55:18
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 11, 1:42 pm, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 11, 4:47 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Art Neuendorffer
>
> I've seen his name a lot. He is a bit of a crank who likes Shakespeare
> and James Joyce. We may get him here now, like that MI5 nutcase.

Art N. is a bit of a crank the way the Tour de France is a bit of a
bike ride.

Date: 11 Mar 2008 11:42:28
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 11, 4:47 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Art Neuendorffer

I've seen his name a lot. He is a bit of a crank who likes Shakespeare
and James Joyce. We may get him here now, like that MI5 nutcase.

Date: 11 Mar 2008 07:09:42
From: Art Neuendorffer
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 11, 7:55 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> My daughter, Sandra, age 6, goes to
> the Shakespeare School in Bronx, New York.
>
> However, this is not because she is
> studying to be a Shakespearian scholar.
>
> Rather, it is because her school, which is a New York City
> Public School, is located on Shakespeare Avenue.
.
Perhaps she studying to be a Rev. Isaac B Crawford scholar.
.
On 11, 7:55 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> I happen to be among those who believe that Shakespeare did not write
> Shakespeare. I believe that the real author of Shakespeare was a
> woman. I do not know the name of the woman. My conclusion is based on
> the fact that every possible man of that era has been considered and
> eliminated, mainly because they died too soon or were born to late to
> have written all of Shakespeare. On the other hand, scholars have had
> a blind spot to the possibility could have written it, perhaps because
> of the very obscenities that Thomas Bowdler edited out.
>
> I have advanced the theory that Shakespeare was written by One reason
> why most male candidates for being the author of Shakespeare can be
> eliminated is that they either died too soon or died too late.
> However, if we consider women, there are an almost unlimited number of
> possible candidates, because in those times so little was known about
> them, and so many lived a life span which would have given them time
> to write all of Shakespeare.
.
Because of the risks of childbirth men generally outlived women.
.
On 11, 7:55 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> A good place to start would be Elizabeth Vere. It so happens that she
> was the daughter of Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford), who is
> considered to be a possible author of Shakespeare, and she was
> also the wife of William Stanley (Sixth Earl of Derby), who is another
> leading candidate for being the author of Shakespeare. Why has not
> Elizabeth Vere herself been considered as the possible author of all
> of Shakespeare?

If longevity is the PRIY requirement for authorship
then Lizzy is beaten by her hubby:

William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby: (1561 - 29 September 1642)
Elizabeth Vere, Countess of Derby: (July 2, 1575 - ch 10, 1626)

Art Neuendorffer

Date: 11 Mar 2008 12:47:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

Dear Art,

I discovered this odd crosspost and take the opportunity to ask an
antiquarian something about an 'old' chess manuscript. Do you know of this
:-

[extracta]

Around the same time in Germany (1493) Hartmann Schedel writes Nuremberg
Chronicles Attached are two pics from a page taken out of the Nuremberg
Chronicles which I discovered to have an unknown chess citation.

I am uncertain I can post you the whole of the material since it is
copyright and we are gaining permissions to do so, meanwhile forwarding the
material to a GrandMaster [chess!] in England with interest in such stuff.
Perhaps I can obtain you a private copy?

[[ published in Latin on June 12, 1493. On December 23 of that same year, it
was published in German. ]]

A text scholar Siegfried Schoenle is researching this aspect of things "The
motif of chess-playing Xerxes is used by the late German collector and chess
historian Gerd Meyer of L�beck"

The woodcut in question might be from Wolgemut, Pleydenwurff or Albrecht
Durer [apprentice Durer!].

All this of course follows recent DaVinci material.

Anyway - e-mail me for the whole text if this interests you, which
nevertheless must be kept privvy.

Cordially, Phil Innes

"Art Neuendorffer" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a26f8464-6d9e-403f-954b-3c2b127e3c59@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 11, 7:55 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> My daughter, Sandra, age 6, goes to
>> the Shakespeare School in Bronx, New York.
>>
>> However, this is not because she is
>> studying to be a Shakespearian scholar.
>>
>> Rather, it is because her school, which is a New York City
>> Public School, is located on Shakespeare Avenue.
> .
> Perhaps she studying to be a Rev. Isaac B Crawford scholar.
> .
> On 11, 7:55 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I happen to be among those who believe that Shakespeare did not write
>> Shakespeare. I believe that the real author of Shakespeare was a
>> woman. I do not know the name of the woman. My conclusion is based on
>> the fact that every possible man of that era has been considered and
>> eliminated, mainly because they died too soon or were born to late to
>> have written all of Shakespeare. On the other hand, scholars have had
>> a blind spot to the possibility could have written it, perhaps because
>> of the very obscenities that Thomas Bowdler edited out.
>>
>> I have advanced the theory that Shakespeare was written by One reason
>> why most male candidates for being the author of Shakespeare can be
>> eliminated is that they either died too soon or died too late.
>> However, if we consider women, there are an almost unlimited number of
>> possible candidates, because in those times so little was known about
>> them, and so many lived a life span which would have given them time
>> to write all of Shakespeare.
> .
> Because of the risks of childbirth men generally outlived women.
> .
> On 11, 7:55 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> A good place to start would be Elizabeth Vere. It so happens that she
>> was the daughter of Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford), who is
>> considered to be a possible author of Shakespeare, and she was
>> also the wife of William Stanley (Sixth Earl of Derby), who is another
>> leading candidate for being the author of Shakespeare. Why has not
>> Elizabeth Vere herself been considered as the possible author of all
>> of Shakespeare?
>
> If longevity is the PRIY requirement for authorship
> then Lizzy is beaten by her hubby:
>
> William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby: (1561 - 29 September 1642)
> Elizabeth Vere, Countess of Derby: (July 2, 1575 - ch 10, 1626)
>
> Art Neuendorffer

Date: 11 Mar 2008 05:33:20
From: hj
Subject: Re: The Family Shakespeare

On 11, 7:55=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> I happen to be among those who believe that Shakespeare did not write
> Shakespeare. I believe that the real author of Shakespeare was a
> woman. I do not know the name of the woman. My conclusion is based on
> the fact that every possible man of that era has been considered and
> eliminated, mainly because they died too soon or were born to late to
> have written all of Shakespeare. On the other hand, scholars have had
> a blind spot to the possibility could have written it, perhaps because
> of the very obscenities that Thomas Bowdler edited out.
>
> I have advanced the theory that Shakespeare was written by One reason
> why most male candidates for being the author of Shakespeare can be
> eliminated is that they either died too soon or died too late.
> However, if we consider women, there are an almost unlimited number of
> possible candidates, because in those times so little was known about
> them, and so many lived a life span which would have given them time
> to write all of Shakespeare.
>
> A good place to start would be Elizabeth Vere. It so happens that she
> was the daughter of Edward de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford), who is
> considered to be a possible author of Shakespeare, and she was also
> the wife of William Stanley (Sixth Earl of Derby), who is another
> leading candidate for being the author of Shakespeare. Why has not
> Elizabeth Vere herself been considered as the possible author of all
> of Shakespeare?
>
> Sam Sloan

=3D=3D > Another country heard from. Or: *yet* another country heard from.
Give E.V. a spot at the back of the claimant line.

=3D=3D > Why isn't your candidate Will Shakespeare, who actually wrote the
damned things?

hj