Not everyone agrees that Bowdlerism is a bad thing, and if we are honest, we must agree that we have our own acceptable standards of censorship where pornography, hate literature, racist literature, and the sensibilities of children intersect.  Surprisingly enough no less a critic than Swinburne takes up the cause of the much maligned Bowdler.  In "Social Verse" (1894) he says "More nauseous and more foolish cant was never chattered than that which would deride the memory or depreciate the merits of Bowdler. No man ever did better service to Shakespeare than the man who made it possible to put him into the hands of intelligent and imaginative children ; it may well be, if we consider how dearly the creator of Mamillius must have loved them, that no man has ever done him such good service" (p. 98).

It can't be the censorship alone to which we object.  Shakespeare is censored every day by the most eminent directors as they cut his lines to fit their conceptions.  It is, perhaps, the sense of dishonesty.  The changing of that which was intended, even though the intention does not fit our standards.  It is instructional, if nothing else, to realize that some very serious, liberal minded people are not dismissive of Bowdler's edits.

Bowdler's Preface to Vol. I of the 1818 Edition [Link to GBS]

PREFACE.

If a presumptuous artist should undertake to remove a supposed defect in the Transfiguration of Raphael¹, or in the Belvidere Apollo², and in making the attempt should injure one of those invaluable productions of art and genius, I should consider his name as deserving never to be mentioned, or mentioned only with him who set fire to the Temple of Diana³. But the works of the poet may be considered in a very different light from those of the painter and the statuary. Shakspeare⁴, inimitable Shakspeare, will remain the subject of admiration as long as taste and literature shall exist, and his writings will be handed down to posterity in their native beauty, although the present attempt to add to his fame should prove entirely abortive. Here, then, is the great difference. If the endeavour to improve the picture or the statue should be unsuccessful, the beauty of the original would be destroyed, and the injury be irreparable. In such a case let the artist refrain from using the chisel or the pencil: but with the works of the poet no such danger occurs, and the critic need not be afraid of employing his pen; for the original will continue unimpaired, although his own labours should immediately be consigned to oblivion. That Shakspeare is the first of dramatic writers Will be denied by few, and I doubt whether it will be denied by any who have really studied his works, and compared the beauties which they contain with the very finest productions either of our own or of former ages. It must, however, be acknowledged, by his warmest admirers, that some defects are to be found in the writings of our immortal bard. The language is not always faultless. Many words and expressions occur which are of so indecent a nature as to render it highly desirable that they should be erased. Of these the greater part were evidently introduced to gratify the bad taste of the age in which he lived, and the rest may perhaps be ascribed to his own unbridled fancy. But neither the vicious taste of the age, nor the most brilliant effusions of wit, can afford an excuse for profaneness or obscenity; and if these could be obliterated, the transcendant genius of the poet would undoubtedly shine with more unclouded lustre. To banish every thing of this nature from his writings is the object of the present undertaking. It is the wish of the editor to render the plays of Shakspeare unsullied by any scene, by any speech, or, if possible, by any word that can give pain to the most chaste, or offence to the most religious of his readers. Of the latter kind the examples are by no means numerous, for the writings of our author are for the most part favourable to religion and morality. There are, however, in some of his plays allusions to Scripture, which are introduced so unnecessarily, and on such trifling occasions, and are expressed with so much levity, as to call imperiously for their erasement. As an example of this kind I may quote a scene in the fifth act of Love's Labour Lost⁵, respecting one of the most serious and awful passages in the- New Testament. I flatter myself that every reader of the Family Shakspeare will be pleased at perceiving that what is so manifestly improper, is not permitted to be seen in it. The most Sacred Word in our language is omitted in a great number of instances, in which it appeared as a mere expletive; and it is changed into the word Heaven, in a still greater number, where the occasion of using it did not appear sufficiently serious to justify its employment.

Nee Deus intersit nisi digmis vindice nodus⁶

In the original folio of 1623 the same alteration from the old quartos is made in a great variety of places.

I wish it were in my power to say of indecency as I have said of profaneness, that the examples of it are not very numerous. Unfortunately the reverse is the case. Those persons whose acquaintance with Shakspeare depends on theatrical representations, in which great alterations are made in the plays, can have little idea of the frequent recurrence in the original text, of expressions, which, however they might be tolerated in the sixteenth century, are by no means admissible in the nineteenth. Of these expressions no example can in this place be given. I feel it however incumbent on me to observe, in behalf of my favourite author, that in comparison with most of the contemporary poets, and with the dramatists of the seventeenth century, the plays of Shakspeare are remarkably decent; but it is not sufficient that his defects are trifling in comparison with writers who are highly defective. It certainly is my wish, and it has been my study, to exclude from this publication whatever is unfit to be read aloud by a gentleman to a company of ladies. I can hardly imagine a more pleasing occupation for a winter's evening in the country, than for a father to read one of Shakspeare's plays to his family circle. My object is to enable him to do so without incurring the danger of falling unawares among words and expressions which are of such a nature as to raise a blush on the cheek of modesty, or render it necessary for the reader to pause, and examine the sequel, before he proceeds further in the entertainment of the evening. But though many erasures have for this purpose been made in the writings of Shakspeare in the present edition, the reader may be assured that not a single line, nor even the half of a line, has in any one instance been added to the original text. I know the force of Shakspeare, and the weakness of my own pen, too well, to think of attempting the smallest interpolation.

In a few, but in very few instances, one or two words (at the most three) have been inserted to connect the sense of what follows the passage that is expunged, with that which precedes it. The few words -which are thus added, are connecting particles, words of little moment, and in no degree affecting the meaning-of the author, or the story of the play. A word that is less objectionable is sometimes substituted for a synonymous word that is improper.

In the following work I have copied the text of the last edition of the late Mr. Steevens.  I do not presume to enter into any critical disputes as to certain readings of Judean, or Indian; May, or Way of Life ; or any thing of that nature, respecting which many persons of superior abilities have entertained contrary opinions.

My great objects in this undertaking are to remove from the writings of Shakspeare some defects which diminish their value, and at the same time to present to the public an edition of his plays, which the parent, the guardian, and the instructor of youth may place without fear in the hands of the pupil; and from which the pupil may derive instruction as well as pleasure; may improve his moral principles while he refines his taste; and without incurring the danger of being hurt with any indelicacy of expression, may learn in the fate of Macbeth, that even a kingdom is dearly purchased, if virtue be the price of the acquisition.

THOMAS BOWDLER.

Rhyddings, 
April 30. 1818.

Notes to the Preface to the 1818 Edition

1.  The Transfiguration is considered the last painting by the Italian High Renaissance master Raphael. It was left unfinished by Raphael, and is believed to have been completed by his pupil, Giulio Romano, shortly after Raphael's death in 1520. The picture is now housed in the Pinacoteca Vaticana of the Vatican Museum in the Vatican City. (Wikipedia). 

2.  Belvidere Apollo, usually spelled "Belvedere": The Apollo Belvedere or Apollo of the Belvedere, also called the Pythian Apollo, is a celebrated marble sculpture from Classical Antiquity. It was rediscovered in the late 15th century, during the Renaissance. From the mid-18th century, it was considered the greatest ancient sculpture by ardent neoclassicists and for centuries epitomized ideals of aesthetic perfection for Europeans and westernized parts of the world. (Wikipedia)  

3.  The Temple of Diana:  The Temple of Artemis (Greek: Ἀρτεμίσιον Artemision), also known less precisely as Temple of Diana, was a Greek temple dedicated to Artemis completed— in its most famous phase— around 550 BC at Ephesus (in present-day Turkey) under the Achaemenid dynasty of the Persian Empire. Nothing remains of the temple, which was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. There were previous temples on its site, where evidence of a sanctuary dates as early as the Bronze Age....The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus was destroyed on July 21, 356 BC in an act of arson committed by a certain Herostratus. According to the story, his motivation was fame at any cost, thus the term herostratic fame.

A man was found to plan the burning of the temple of Ephesian Diana so that through the destruction of this most beautiful building his name might be spread through the whole world. Valerius Maximus, VIII.14.ext.5

The Ephesians, outraged, announced that Herostratus' name never be recorded (damnatio memoriae). Strabo later noted the name, which is how we know it today. (Wikipedia) 

4.  Original spellings have been retained from the 1818 edition found at Google Book Search. 

5.  Click here for Act V of Love's Labour Lost in the Bowdler 1818 edition, and here for the same act in the 1785 Johnson-Steevens-Reed 3 edition.  The 1813 Johnson-Steevens-Reed edition, vol. VII, containing Love's Labour's Lost, is available at the Internet Archive, but links within the work, to Act V specifically, are not possible. 

6.  The following is from A New Dictionary of Quotations from the Greek, Latin, and Modern Languages, 1869, p. 288: 

Nee deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus incident. Lat.
HORACE.— "Nor let a god interfere, unless a difficulty present itself worthy a god's unraveling." The poet is advising play-writers. Do not introduce an extraordinary or supernatural appearance, unless on an occasion of the highest importance.

"Nor let a god in person stand displayed,
Unless the laboring plot deserve his aid."

N.B. Horace intends this precept as a censure upon a common fault among the ancient tragic poets, that of having recourse to some deity for the unraveling of the plot, whenever they were at a loss in relation to it. He was made to descend in a species of machine; whence the expression, Deus ex machina [a god out of a machine]. The passage is often quoted in an abridged form: thus, "Nee deus intersit." 

Bowdler's Preface to Measure for Measure, 1818 [Link to GBS]

PREFACE
TO
THE FOLLOWING THEATRE COPY
OF
MEASURE FOR MEASURE.

This Comedy contains scenes which are truly worthy of the first of dramatic poets. Isabella pleading with Angelo in behalf of mercy to her brother, and afterwards insisting that his life must not be purchased by the sacrifice of her chastity, is an object of such interest, us to make the reader desirous of overlooking the many great defects which are to be found in other parts of this play. The story is little suited to a comedy. The wickedness of Angelo is so atrocious, that I recollect only one instance of a similar kind being recorded in history; and that is considered by many persons as of doubtful authority.¹ His crimes, indeed, are not completed, but he supposes them to be so; and his guilt is as great as it would have been, if the person of Isabella had been violated, and the head of Ragozine had been Claudio's. This monster of iniquity appears before the Duke, defending his cause with unblushing boldness; and after the detection of his crimes, he can scarcely be said to receive any punishment. A hope is even expressed that he will prove a good husband, but for no good reason — namely, because he has been a little bad.  Angelo betrayed the trust reposed in him by the Duke ; he threatened Isabella that if she would not surrender her virtue, he would not merely put her brother to death, but make his death draw out to lingering sufferance ; and finally, when he thought his object accomplished, he ordered Claudio to be murdered in violation of his most solemn engagement. These are the crimes which, in the language of Mariana, are expressed by the- words a little bad; and, with a perfect knowledge- of Angelo's having committed them, she

"Craves no other nor no better man."

Claudio's life having been preserved by the Provost, it would not, perhaps, have been lawful to have put Angelo to death; but the Duke might, with great propriety, have addressed him in the words of Bolingbroke to Exton,

"Go wander through the shade of night, " And never show thy head by day nor light."

Other parts of the play are not without faults. The best characters act too much on a system of duplicity and falsehood; and the Duke, in the fifth act, trifles cruelly with the feelings of Isabella, allowing her to suppose her brother to be dead, much longer than the story of the play required. Lucio is inconsistent as well as profligate. He appears, in the first act, as the friend of Claudio, and in the fifth, he assists the cause of Angelo, whom he supposes to have been his murderer. Lastly, the indecent expressions with which many of the scenes abound, are so interwoven with the story, that it is extremely difficult to separate the one from the other.²

Feeling my own inability to render this play- sufficiently correct for family-reading, I have thought it advisable to print it (without presuming to alter a single word) from the published copy, as performed at the Theatre Royal, Covent Garden.

The alterations, as I am informed, are the work of that gentleman, to whose theatrical talents and laudable exertions, united to those of his unrivalled sister, our dramatic writers in general, and Shakspeare in particular, are more indebted than to any person since the death of Mr. Garrick.

If my Readers should think (and I confess myself to be of that opinion) that "Measure for Measure" is not yet an unobjectionable play, I would request them to peruse it attentively in its original form; and I am fully persuaded that there is no person, who will not then bestow praise on the ability with which Mr. Kemble has improved it, rather than express surprise at "its not being entirely freed from those defects which are inseparably connected with the story.

Thomas Bowdler.

1.  Kirk (Bowdler's Note).

2.  It is gratifying to me to perceive that Mrs. Inchbald, the respectable Editor of " the British Theatre," in her preface to this play, has expressed her sentiments respecting Angelo and the comic characters, in terms exactly corresponding with my own (Bowdler's Note).

Bowdler's Preface to the Two Parts of Henry IV in the edition of 1818 [GBS Link]

PREFACE OF THE EDITOR
TO
THE TWO PARTS OF HENRY IV.

My late excellent friend, Mrs. Montagu¹, in her Essay on the Writings and Genius of Shakspeare, has paid particular attention to Henry the IVth. In this, as in every part of her work, good principles, judicious argument, and refined taste, appear in all her observations; but I confine myself to the more immediate objects of the present publication,— purity, and decency of expression.

Every person must be sensible, that of all the historical plays, the Two Parts of Henry the IVth. are the most difficult to render fit for family reading. To clear them of all indecent, and indelicate expressions, without destroying the wit and spirit of Falstaff, and without injuring the narrative, is indeed an arduous undertaking; but I hope I may remove many objectionable passages, though I may not be able to render the work perfect. "Est quodam prodire tenus, si non datur ultra"² Feeling the difficulty of the task, I take as a guide the following extract from the just observations of my deceased friend.

"There are delicacies of decorum in one age unknown to another age : but whatever is immoral, is equally blameable in all ages; and every approach to obscenity, is an offence, for which wit cannot atone, nor the barbarism or the corruption of the times afford an excuse. Mine hostess Quickly is of a species not extinct. It may be said, the author there sinks from comedy to farce ; but she helps to complete the character of Falstaff, and some of the dialogues in which she is engaged are diverting. Every scene in which Doll Tearsheet appears, is indecent; and therefore not only indefensible, but inexcusable."

After the foregoing quotation, my readers will not be surprised, if the name of the last mentioned person is not to be found in the following plays.  I hope that all obscenity is equally banished from them. I wish it were in my power in like manner to exclude every expression which approaches to vulgarity or indelicacy; but this, I fear, cannot be done, unless the whole of those scenes are omitted, in which any of the comic characters appear. The present publication may possibly be censured by two classes of readers, of very different sentiments. Those persons who are unwilling to be deprived of any part of the wit of Falstaff (whatever may be the expense of retaining it) will perhaps be displeased at the omission of the evening scene between him and Doll Tearsheet, and their followers. To them I reply, that consistently with the design of the present edition of Shakspeare, the omission was unavoidable ; but I regret it the less, because, as was suggested in my preface, those readers can gratify their taste by having recourse to former editions of the Second Part of Henry the IVth.³

Other persons may possibly complain that there still remain in this work, some expressions which are not consistent with that perfect delicacy of sentiment, with which it were desirable that every publication should be conducted. To this objection I fear that I can give no answer that will be quite satisfactory. I can only say, that I have endeavoured to render the speeches of Falstaff and his companions as correct as they could be rendered, without losing sight of their characters and dispositions. Those persons who still object to their language, cannot I believe do better, than confine their reading to the serious parts of the three following plays, which possess "such merit, as can hardly be equalled in any other dramatic poet, and is seldom exceeded by our own immortal bard.

Thomas Bowdler.

Notes to the Preface to the Two Parts of Henry IV.

1.  Mrs. Elizabeth Montagu, An Essay on the Writings and Genius of Shakespeare (1769).  The link is to an 1810 edition of the work.  This link is to the 1785 edition.  I could not find links to the 1769 edition at GBS or Internet Archive.  The following is a note on Elizabeth Montegu and the publication history of "An Essay" taken from Jack Lynch's extract from this essay:  "Elizabeth Montagu: The Essay was published anonymously in 1769 by Elizabeth Montagu (1720-1800), known as the "Queen of Bluestockings." Editions and reprints followed in 1770, 1772, 1777, 1778, 1785, and 1810; a pirated Dublin edition appeared in 1769; and translations appeared in German (1771), French (1777), and Italian (1828)."  For more on Mrs. Montagu, see this Bartleby.com article.  Mrs. Montagu wrote her essay to protest the views of Voltaire on Shakespeare.  An illuminating, but early (1902) guide is Shakespeare and Voltaire, by Thomas Lounsbury.  Wikipedia has two relevant articles, one on Mrs. Montagu herself, and one on the Blue Stockings Society. 

2.  Est quodam prodire tenus, si non datur ultra.  Lat. Horace.—  "It is always in our power to advance to a certain point, to arrive at a certain point of wisdom, even if we are not permitted to go further:"— " Though of exact perfection you despair,/Yet every step to virtue's worth your care." from A New Dictionary of Quotations, GBS. 

3.  A point Bowdler makes in his Preface to the 1818 edition is that if you don't like the censorship, read one of the numerous other editions of the plays.  It is not as if he has defaced the "original" of the text, assuming such a thing exists.  In his Preface he explicitly exempts his own brand of censorship from the just condemnation that would be levied upon the alteration of a painting or a work of sculture. 

Bowdler's Preface to Othello in the edition of 1818 [Link to GBS]

PREFACE TO OTHELLO.

This tragedy is justly considered as one of the noblest efforts of dramatic genius that has appeared in any age or in any language; but the subject is unfortunately little suited to family reading. The arguments which are urged, and the facts which are adduced as proofs of adultery, are necessarily of such a nature as cannot be expressed in terms of perfect delicacy; yet neither the arguments, nor the facts, can be omitted; for although every reader must weep

" O'er gentle Desdemona's woes."¹

Yet I believe there is no person who would wish to' aggravate the guilt of Othello, by leaving out any of those circumstances which give an appearance of truth to the suggestions of Iago.

From the multitude of indecent expressions which abound in the speeches of the inferior characters, I have endeavoured to clear the play, but I cannot erase all the bitter terms of reproach and execration with which the transports of jealousy and revenge are expressed by the Moor, without altering his character; losing sight of the horror of those passions ; and, in fact, destroying the tragedy. I find myself, therefore, reduced to the alternative of either departing in some degree from the principle on which this publication is undertaken, or materially injuring a most invaluable exertion of the genius of Shakspeare. I have adopted the former part of the alternative, and, in making this decision, I have been much influenced by an opinion which I have long entertained, that this play, in its present form, is calculated to produce an excellent effect on the human mind; by exhibiting a most forcible and impressive warning against the admission of that baneful passion, which, when once admitted, is the inevitable destroyer of conjugal happiness.

That adultery is a crime which is deservedly placed next to murder, will be allowed, not only by the Christian, but by every being whose mind is not wholly insensible to the most obvious principles of virtue. But in proportion to the enormity of the offence, should be the caution with which the suspicion is permitted to be entertained; for, besides the injury which is thus done to the person accused, the jealous accuser will assuredly exclaim with Othello: —

" O now for ever,
" Farewell the tranquil mind — farewell content."

Shakspeare appears to have been particularly desirous of warning mankind against the indulgence of this dreadful passion, for, independent of various observations in different parts of his works, he has made it the principal subject of no less than four of his very good plays; exerting his matchless powers in painting it with every variety of colouring that was calculated to warn the human mind against its admission. It is laughably ridiculous in Ford ; it is justly odious in Leontes; we tremble for its consequences in Posthumus; and we view them in their utmost horror in Othello.

After the foregoing observations, I shall only add, that I have endeavoured to erase the objectionable expressions which so frequently occur in the original text, whenever it could be done consistently with the character and situation of the speaker; but if, after all that I have omitted, it shall still be thought that this inimitable tragedy is not sufficiently correct for family reading, I would advise the transferring it from the parlour to the cabinet, where the perusal will not only delight the poetic taste, but convey useful and important instruction both to the heart and the understanding of the reader.

Thomas Bowdler.

1.  Scott's Rokeby (Bowdler's note).