RT III.

The three parts of Henry VI. are suspected, by Mr. Theobald, of being
supposititious, and are declared, by Dr. Warburton, to be certainly not
Shakespeare's[9]. Mr. Theobald's suspicion arises from some obsolete
words; but the phraseology is like the rest of our author's style, and
single words, of which, however, I do not observe more than two, can
conclude little.

Dr. Warburton gives no reason, but I suppose him to judge upon deeper
principles and more comprehensive views, and to draw his opinion from
the general effect and spirit of the composition, which he thinks
inferiour to the other historical plays.

From mere inferiority nothing can be inferred; in the productions of wit
there will be inequality. Sometimes judgment will err, and sometimes the
matter itself will defeat the artist. Of every author's works one will
be the best, and one will be the worst. The colours are not equally
pleasing, nor the attitudes equally graceful, in all the pictures of
Titian or Reynolds.

Dissimilitude of style, and heterogeneousness of sentiment, may
sufficiently show that a work does not really belong to the reputed
author. But in these plays no such marks of spuriousness are found. The
diction, the versification, and the figures, are Shakespeare's. These
plays, considered without regard to characters and incidents, merely as
narratives in verse, are more happily conceived, and more accurately
finished, than those of King John, Richard II. or the tragick scenes of
Henry IV. and V. If we take these plays from Shakespeare, to whom shall
they be given? What author of that age had the same easiness of
expression and fluency of numbers?

Having considered the evidence given by the plays themselves, and found
it in their favour, let us now inquire what corroboration can be gained
from other testimony. They are ascribed to Shakespeare by the first
editors, whose attestation may be received in questions of fact, however
unskilfully they superintended their edition. They seem to be declared
genuine by the voice of Shakespeare himself, who refers to the second
play in his epilogue to Henry V. and apparently connects the first act
of Richard III. with the last of the third part of Henry VI. If it be
objected that the plays were popular, and that, therefore, he alluded to
them as well known; it may be answered, with equal probability, that the
natural passions of a poet would have disposed him to separate his own
works from th