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.