Greenwood, in one place, {161a} agrees, so far, with me. "Why did
Henslowe not mention Shakespeare as the writer of other plays" (than
Titus Andronicus and Henry VI)? "I think the answer is simple
enough." (So do I.) "Neither Shakspere nor 'Shakespeare' ever wrote
for Henslowe!" The obvious is perceived at last; and the reason
given is "that he was above Henslowe's 'skyline,'" "he" being the
Author. We only differ as to WHY the author was above Henslowe's
"sky-line." I say, because good Will had a better market, that of
his Company. I understand Mr. Greenwood to think,--because the Great
Unknown was too great a man to deal with Henslowe. If to write for
the stage were discreditable, to deal (unknown) with Henslowe was no
more disgraceful than to deal with "a cry of players"; and as
(unknown) Will did the bargaining, the Great Unknown was as safe with
Will in one case as in the other. If Will did not receive anything
for the plays from his own company (who firmly believed in his
authorship), they must have said, "Will! dost thou serve the Muses
and thy obliged fellows for naught? Dost thou give us two popular
plays yearly,--gratis?"

Do you not see that, in the interests of the Great Secret itself,
Will HAD to take the pay for the plays (pretended his) from somebody.
Will Shakspere making his dear fellows and friends a present of two
masterpieces yearly was too incredible. So I suppose he did have
royalties on the receipts, or otherwise got his money; and, as he
certainly did not get them from Henslowe, Henslowe had no conceivable
reason for entering Will's name in his accounts.

Such are the reflections of a plain man, but to an imaginative soul
there seems to be a brooding mist, with a heart of fire, which half
conceals and half reveals the darkened chamber wherein abides "The