A phrase has been used to explain the Greek element in Shakespeare's
work, namely, "congruity of genius," which is apt to be resented by
Baconians. Perhaps they have a right to resent it, for "genius" is
hard to define, and genius is invoked by some wild wits to explain
feats of Shakespeare's which (to Baconians) appear "miracles." A
"miracle" also is notoriously hard to define; but we may take it
("under all reserves") to stand for the occurrence of an event, or
the performance of an action which, to the speaker who applies the
word "miracle," seems "impossible." The speaker therefore says, "The
event is impossible; miracles do not happen: therefore the reported
event never occurred. The alleged performance, the writing of the
plays by the actor, was impossible, was a miracle, therefore was done
by some person or persons other than the actor." This idea of the
IMPOSSIBILITY of the player's authorship is the foundation of the
Baconian edifice.

I have, to the best of my ability, tried to describe Mr. Greenwood's
view of the young provincial from Warwickshire, Will Shakspere. If
Will were what Mr. Greenwood thinks he was, then Will's authorship of
the plays seems to me, "humanly speaking," impossible. But then Mr.
Greenwood appeared to omit from his calculations the circumstance
that Will MAY have been, not merely "a sharp boy" but a boy of great
parts; and not without a love of stories and poetry: a passion
which, in a bookless region, could only be gratified through folk-
song, folk-tale, and such easy Latin as he might take the trouble to
read. If we add to these very unusual but not wholly impossible
tastes and abilities, that Will MAY have been a lad of genius, there
is no more "miracle" in his case than in other supreme examples of