But suppose, merely for the sake of argument, that Will Shakspere too had genius in that amazing degree which, in _Henry V_, the Bishop of Ely and the Archbishop of Canterbury describe and discuss in the case of the young king. In this passage we perceive that the poet had brooded over and been puzzled by the “miracle” (he uses the word) of genius. Says Canterbury speaking of the Prince’s wild youth, “Never was such a sudden scholar made.” One Baconian objection to Shakespeare’s authorship is that during his early years in London (say 1587–92) he was “such a sudden scholar made” in various things. The young king’s “addiction was to courses vain, His companies unletter’d, rude, and shallow,” precisely like Shakespeare’s courses and companions at Stratford “Had never noted in him any study.” Stratford tradition, a century after Shakespeare left the town, did not remember “any study” in him; none had been “noted,” nor could have been remembered. To return to Henry, he shines in divinity, knowledge of “commonwealth affairs,” “You would say, it hath been all in all his study.” He is as intimate with the art of war; to him “Gordian knots of policy” are “familiar as his garter.” He _must_ have “The art and practic part of life,” as “mistress to this theorie,” “Which is a wonder how his Grace should glean it,” as his youth was riotous, and was lived in all men’s gaze, “And never noted in him any study, Any retirement, any sequestration From open haunts and popularity.” The Bishop of Ely can only suggest that Henry’s study or “contemplation” “Grew like the summer grass, fastest by night, Unseen,” and Canterbury says “It must be so, for miracles are ceased.” And thus the miracle of genius baffles the poet, for Henry’s had been “noisy nights,” notoriously noisy. Now, as we shall later show, Bacon’s rapid production of the plays, considering his other contemporary activities and varied but always absorbing interests, was as much a miracle as the sudden blossoming of Henry’s knowledge and accomplishments; for all Bacon’s known exertions and occupations, and his deepest and most absorbing interest, were remote from the art of tragedy and comedy. If we are to admit the marvel of genius in Bacon, of whose life and pursuits we know much, by parity of reasoning we may grant that the actor, of whom we know much less, may have had genius: had powers and could use opportunities in a way for which Baconians make no allowance.