A friend sent me a joke on email, which he said that he had bowdlerized for me. Interesting word. Here are some published uses of it that I found on the internet:
"His tempestuous high school years are touched upon in a delightful scene where the precocious Roy infuriates his English teacher by trying to restore some of Shakespeare's saucier lines to that classroom's bowdlerized study of Hamlet." --Herman Goodden, "A Few Scenes in the Life of Roy McDonald," London Free Press, December 7, 2000
"He added that he bowdlerized some of the lyrics -- substituting 'jerk' and 'butt' for some less printable words." --Lloyd Grove, "The Reliable Source," Washington Post, February 15, 2001
It was a new word to me, Kalleh, and I tried to get it's meaning out of the context you gave in the two examples. I still went to AHD to make sure, though. I guess I "bowdlerize" jokes when I tell them to my elderly volunteers at work! At least now I have a $20 word for it, as Wordcrafter would say!
Posts: 1412 | Location: Buffalo, NY, United States
My trusty old dictionary says that it comes from Thomas Bowdler, an English editor in 1836. He must have expurgated for his readers. Anyone else know more?
Thomas Bowdler (1754-1825) was an English doctor and philanthropist who published an expurgated edition of Shakespeare's plays. His sister, Henrietta (Harriet?) Bowdler, was probably the editor of the first edition of Family Shakespeare, in 1807, which consisted of 20 expurgated plays. Thomas Bowdler was the editor of the 1818 edition, which contains the entire works of Shakespeare. He also published a censored version of History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and parts of the Old Testament.
Bowdlerize became part of the vocabulary by 1826, 1836 or 1838, depending on which authority you believe.
Bowdler does deserve credit for helping to popularize Shakespeare.
All this information is from the following souces. The first source includes a letter from a man who (in 1998) was researching Thomas Bowdler.
Thanks, Tinman. I have to say, I don't recall Shakepeare being that off-color. Am I wrong? Loved your links; I found myself linking forever in the middle one?
he's got lots of filthy stuff in there! he's pretty clever about disguising it. it's like the joke that hits you on the way home.
ted turner is the new bowdler. ever watch a movie on tbs? it's comic the way they substitute silly words for real cussing. i read somewhere, maybe it was from one of you guys, i dunno, that a new editing system is coming out for parents to chop up their own dvd's and edit out anything their kids shouldn't see. mr. and mrs. bowdler. the bowdler family.
"family rents blockbuster: dad gets bowdler jones, hacks up rental. charges filed. story at 11".
He certainly wrote Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare, in 1970, but I don't think the main intention was to put back the Bowdlerised parts. I read it many years ago and remember only that it "set the scene" for most of the plays, describing the historical background for the scenes and the characters.
I can easily imagine him deliberately drawing people's attention to all the dirty bits that Bowdler objected to though. After all he also wrote several collections of filthy limericks and referred to himself as a 'dirty old man'.
Bob, you understand Asimov quite well, but this book (which I happen to own) happens not to run in that direction. Asimov's introduction explains his thrust. Much in Shakespeare turns on classical allusions and England's own history. That was a background which was familiar to his original audience -- but which is foreign to modern Americans, and Asimov strives to bring those dimensions to the fore.
For example, there is great force to his reading of Hamlet as a power struggle, between Hamlet and Claudius, as rival claimants to the throne.
quote:The Elizabethan audience would therefore well understand that a kind's brother might succeed to the throne to the exclusion of the king's son. They would also understand quite well, without being told, that the son would be in mortal danger. ... [M]odern audiences may be insufficiently aware of this point.
I didn't doubt you for a moment. I was just wondering if maybe he'd written something else that combined his interest in Shakespeare with his more lecherous leanings. After all he was pretty prolific in all sorts of fields - sci-fi, limericks, literary criticism, science popularisation, non-fiction. I've read a lot of his stuff but I'm no expert. I was wondering if maybe he had written more than one work on the Bard.
Isaac Asimov is one of my favourite writers and it is surprising how few people realise his talent.
If I have occasion to need a short story for a reading (I belong to several Public Speaking Clubs) I usually choose Asimov since his stories are very accessible and make their points well.
I recommend "The Immortal Bard" as a starter - it's about Shakespere.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Is there any difference between polymath and polyhistor? M-W says they are synonymous; AHD says polymath: a person of great or varied learning. polyhistor: a person with broad knowledge
muse, dear Greek scholar, do the roots math and histor suggest and subtle distinction between "learning" and "knowledge"?
Though I don't claim to have the monopoly here on all that is Greek, yes, shufitz, you're right (but I think you already knew that ). a polymath is one who has learned much and a polyhistor is one who knows much. I think the first word focuses on the process while the second on the result.
Polymath comes from poly = much, many + mathaino = to learn.
Polyhistor derives from poly + histor = from the ancient Greek verb oeda = to know. So the histor is the one who knows.
The verb historo means to look for information, to seek knowledge, ie. science as opposed to myth. So it then came to mean acquired knowledge about people and things, things that actually happened in the past. Thus we have the word history.
>> yes, shufitz (but I think you already knew that)
Actually, you give me too much credit. To me, "to have learned" and "to know" seem very much the same. (Really, the only distinction I can see is that the former might conceivably imply "book-smarts without street smarts".) I was wondering whether there's some subtle difference, between the equivalent greek words, that might have been lost in translating them from the greek into "learn" and "know".
