It appears to me that Shakspere’s company would be likely, as his plays were very popular, to make the same sort of agreement with him, and to give him such terms as he would be glad to accept,—­whether the wares were his own—­or Bacon’s.  He was a keen man of business.  In such a case, he would not write for Henslowe’s pittance.  He had a better market.  The plays, whether written by himself, or Bacon, or the Man in the Moon, were at his disposal, and he did not dispose of them to Henslowe, wherefore Henslowe cannot mention him in his accounts.  That is all.

Quoting an American Judge (Dr. Stotsenburg, apparently), Mr. Greenwood cites the circumstance that, in two volumes of Alleyn’s papers “there is not one mention of such a poet as William Shaksper in his list of actors, poets, and theatrical comrades.” {160a} If this means that Shakspere is not mentioned by Alleyn among actors, are we to infer that William was not an actor?  Even Baconians insist that he was an actor.  “How strange, how more than strange,” cries Mr. Greenwood, “that Henslowe should make no mention in all this long diary, embracing all the time from 1591 to 1609, of the actor-author . . .  No matter.  Credo quia impossibile!” {160b} Credo what? and what is impossible?  Henslowe’s volume is no Diary; he does not tell a single anecdote of any description; he merely enters loans, gains, payments.  Does Henslowe mention, say, Ben Jonson, when he is not doing business with Ben?  Does he mention any actor or author except in connection with money matters?  Then, if he did no business with Shakspere the actor, in borrowing or lending, and did no business with Shakespeare the author, in borrowing, lending, buying or selling, “How strange, how more than strange” it would be if Henslowe did mention Shakespeare!  He was not keeping a journal of literary and dramatic jottings.  He was keeping an account of his expenses and receipts.  He never names Richard Burbage any more than he mentions Shakespeare.

Mr. Greenwood again expresses his views about this dark suspicious mystery, the absence of Shakespeare or Shakspere (or Shak, as you like it), from Henslowe’s accounts, if Shak(&c.) wrote plays.  But the mystery, if mystery there be, is just as obscure if the actor were the channel through which Bacon’s plays reached the stage, for the pretended author of these masterpieces.  Shak—­was not the man to do all the troking, bargaining, lying, going here and there, and making himself a motley to the view for 0 pounds, 0s, 0d.  If he were a sham, a figure-head, a liar, a fetcher-and-carrier of manuscripts, he would be paid for it.  But he did not deal with Henslowe in his bargainings, and that is why Henslowe does not mention him.  Mr. Greenwood, in one place, {161a} agrees, so far, with me.  “Why did Henslowe not mention Shakespeare as the writer