My initial reaction to this is that you are asking me to follow an extraordinarily convoluted trail with endless opportunities for misinterpretation, a host of speculative assertions and what appears to be a circular premise, ie: Jonson was writing in code because otherwise he doesn't support your theory. The more obscure this becomes the more it "proves" that he was writing in code, etc. While I certainly agree that Jonson knew "Shakespeare" was a non-de-plume, I don't think we require the help of anagrams and such to ascertain who he thought was using it.
The anagrams are not essential, though I think they are suggestive, and potentially offer confirmation of interpretation based on traditional allusion. I am not trying to prove that Jonson is using anagrams, nor that he is identifying Mary with Shakespeare, simply using my best understanding of how Jonson writes to unpack what he is doing in this poem. I do believe Jonson is using anagrams, but I can also demonstrate that finding valid anagrams according to Bellamy’s definition is not strong (maybe not any) indication of authorial intent. The analysis does not depend on the anagrams. I have no doubt about his reliance on Amores 1.15 for instance, and the reference to Basse is pretty obvious. If you have an alternative interpretation to offer I would be glad to have it. If you doubt that Jonson is writing cryptically, or that there is any meaning at all to be extracted, you simply do not understand Jonson.
I'd say the reference to Amores I 15 is a "dead" giveaway. Jonson is signalling Marlowe, with whom he had a remarkable relationship. Before he won praise for Every Man in his Humor, he co-authored Isle of Dogs with Nashe. We don't know what the play was about, but the Isle is directly across the Thames from Deptford and Mrs. Bull's house. In Every Man he includes an extended vamp on Hero and Leander with accusations of plagiarism that could be understood to be directed at Chapman's additions. The Basse reference is consistent with Marlowe and "dead" poets. That makes sense to me, anagrams notwithstanding.
The obvious connection is to Venus and Adonis where the title page motto is in Latin so not necessarily raising Marlowe. You should review Jonson's use of 1.15 (in his own translation) as characterization of Shakespeare (as Ovid) in Poetaster. Might find this helpful - https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004528871_015
Your continued usage of "Shakespeare" is more than a little confusing. What I see in Buckley's essay is a connection made between Marlowe and Jonson via Ovid. I don't see any mention of V&A. So, again, Jonson is very much signalling Marlowe when he quotes Amores I 15. I confess, I've never read Poetaster. It looks like it makes a lot more out of this connection than I ever imagined.
I use Shakespeare to mean the author. Poetaster is Jonson’s contribution to the Poetamachia or War of the poets primarily between himself, Dekker and Marston. He characterizes contemporary writers as Romans, he is Horace, Crispinus is Marston and Demetrius is Dekker. Ovid is generally but not universally understood to stand for Shakespeare. I thought you would appreciate the Marlovian focus of this article, but it is not the final word on the subject.
Final Word indeed. Jonson includes the wonderful scolding of Ovid by his father: "Your name shall live indeed, sir; you say true; but how infamously, how scorned and contemned in the eyes and ears of the best and gravest Romans, that you think not on; you never so much as dream of that. Are these the fruits of all my travail and expenses? Is this the scope and aim of thy studies? Are these the hopeful courses wherewith I have so long flattered my expectation from thee? Verses? Poetry? Ovid, whom I thought to see the pleader, become Ovid the play-maker?" Am I the only one who sees the parallel with Marlowe, the divinity scholar? And then Jonson banishes Ovid, another likely parallel with a banished Marlowe! I think you are going to have to revise your understanding of Jonson.
My initial reaction to this is that you are asking me to follow an extraordinarily convoluted trail with endless opportunities for misinterpretation, a host of speculative assertions and what appears to be a circular premise, ie: Jonson was writing in code because otherwise he doesn't support your theory. The more obscure this becomes the more it "proves" that he was writing in code, etc. While I certainly agree that Jonson knew "Shakespeare" was a non-de-plume, I don't think we require the help of anagrams and such to ascertain who he thought was using it.
The anagrams are not essential, though I think they are suggestive, and potentially offer confirmation of interpretation based on traditional allusion. I am not trying to prove that Jonson is using anagrams, nor that he is identifying Mary with Shakespeare, simply using my best understanding of how Jonson writes to unpack what he is doing in this poem. I do believe Jonson is using anagrams, but I can also demonstrate that finding valid anagrams according to Bellamy’s definition is not strong (maybe not any) indication of authorial intent. The analysis does not depend on the anagrams. I have no doubt about his reliance on Amores 1.15 for instance, and the reference to Basse is pretty obvious. If you have an alternative interpretation to offer I would be glad to have it. If you doubt that Jonson is writing cryptically, or that there is any meaning at all to be extracted, you simply do not understand Jonson.
I'd say the reference to Amores I 15 is a "dead" giveaway. Jonson is signalling Marlowe, with whom he had a remarkable relationship. Before he won praise for Every Man in his Humor, he co-authored Isle of Dogs with Nashe. We don't know what the play was about, but the Isle is directly across the Thames from Deptford and Mrs. Bull's house. In Every Man he includes an extended vamp on Hero and Leander with accusations of plagiarism that could be understood to be directed at Chapman's additions. The Basse reference is consistent with Marlowe and "dead" poets. That makes sense to me, anagrams notwithstanding.
The obvious connection is to Venus and Adonis where the title page motto is in Latin so not necessarily raising Marlowe. You should review Jonson's use of 1.15 (in his own translation) as characterization of Shakespeare (as Ovid) in Poetaster. Might find this helpful - https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004528871_015
Your continued usage of "Shakespeare" is more than a little confusing. What I see in Buckley's essay is a connection made between Marlowe and Jonson via Ovid. I don't see any mention of V&A. So, again, Jonson is very much signalling Marlowe when he quotes Amores I 15. I confess, I've never read Poetaster. It looks like it makes a lot more out of this connection than I ever imagined.
I use Shakespeare to mean the author. Poetaster is Jonson’s contribution to the Poetamachia or War of the poets primarily between himself, Dekker and Marston. He characterizes contemporary writers as Romans, he is Horace, Crispinus is Marston and Demetrius is Dekker. Ovid is generally but not universally understood to stand for Shakespeare. I thought you would appreciate the Marlovian focus of this article, but it is not the final word on the subject.
Final Word indeed. Jonson includes the wonderful scolding of Ovid by his father: "Your name shall live indeed, sir; you say true; but how infamously, how scorned and contemned in the eyes and ears of the best and gravest Romans, that you think not on; you never so much as dream of that. Are these the fruits of all my travail and expenses? Is this the scope and aim of thy studies? Are these the hopeful courses wherewith I have so long flattered my expectation from thee? Verses? Poetry? Ovid, whom I thought to see the pleader, become Ovid the play-maker?" Am I the only one who sees the parallel with Marlowe, the divinity scholar? And then Jonson banishes Ovid, another likely parallel with a banished Marlowe! I think you are going to have to revise your understanding of Jonson.