On the other hand, there are frequent mentions of advances of money to authors who were working at plays for Henslowe, singly, or in pairs, threes, fours, or fives.  We find Drayton, Dekker, Chapman, and nine authors now forgotten by all but antiquarians.  We have also Ben Jonson (1597), Marston, Munday, Middleton, Webster, and others, authors in Henslowe’s pay.  But the same of Shakespeare never appears.  Mysterious!  The other men’s names, writes Dr. Furness, occur “because they were all writers for Henslowe’s theatre, but we must wait at all events for the discovery of some other similar record, before we can produce corresponding memoranda regarding Shaksper” (sic) “and his productions.” {157a}

The natural mind of the ordinary man explains all by saying, “Henslowe records no loans of money to Shakspere the actor, because he lent him no money.  He records no payments for plays to Shakespeare the author-actor, because to Henslowe the actor sold no plays.”  That is the whole explanation of the Silence of Philip Henslowe.  If Shakspere did sell a play to Henslowe, why should that financier omit the fact from his accounts?  Suppose that the actor was illiterate as Baconians fervently believe, and sold Bacon’s plays, what prevented him from selling a play of Bacon’s (under his own name, as usual) to Henslowe?  To obtain a Baconian reply you must wander into conjecture, and imagine that Bacon forbade the transaction.  Then why did he forbid it?  Because he could get a better price from Shakspere’s company?  The same cause would produce the same effect on Shakspere himself; whether he were the author, or were Bacon’s, or any man’s go-between.  On any score but that of money, why was Henslowe good enough for Ben Jonson, Dekker, Heywood, Middleton, and Webster, and not good enough for Bacon, who did not appear in the matter at all, but was represented in it by the actor, Will?  As a gentleman and a man of the Court, Bacon would be as much discredited if he were known to sell (for 6 pounds on an average) his noble works to the Lord Chamberlain’s Company, as if he sold them to Henslowe.

I know not whether the great lawyer, courtier, scholar, and philosopher is supposed by Baconians to have given Will Shakspere a commission on his sales of plays; or to have let him keep the whole sum in each case.  I know not whether the players paid Shakspere a sum down for his (or Bacon’s) plays, or whether Will received a double share, or other, or any share of the profits on them, as Henslowe did when he let a house to the players.  Nobody knows any of these things.

“If Shakspere the player had been a dramatist, surely Henslowe would have employed him also, like the others, in that behalf.” {159a} Henslowe would, if he could have got the “copy” cheap enough.  Was any one of “the others,” the playwrights, a player, holding a share in his company?  If not, the fact makes an essential difference, for Shakspere was a shareholder.  Collier, in his preface to Henslowe’s so-called “Diary,” mentions a playwright who was bound to scribble for Henslowe only (Henry Porter), and another, Chettle, who was bound to write only for the company protected by the Earl of Nottingham. {159b} Modern publishers and managers sometimes make the same terms with novelists and playwrights.