.... Did Peter Brook have the authority to...
to master the complex Shakespeare authorship problem?
_______________________________
|  |
Why do we actually think that stage directors (such as P.Brook [with a knowledge related to details of Shakespeare plays] do have
the authority to master the complex issue of authorship?
Imagine you would be a great violonist and would have practiced and studied extensively all of Beethovens compositions from op.1 to opus 135 over time, and you would have noticed great developments, improvements, inventions, changes in stiles and perfection of his music throughout his life:
Would it in fact be necessary that you need to know anything ablout the life of Beethoven, in order to reach a high performance and could or should you draw conclusions out of Beethovens music alone about his life?
Not necessarily: Brook asks, if it is inconceivable that Shakespeare would not have been revealed by his colleagues as a fake, had he not written the plays, since the theatre would be always full of gossip and jealous rivalries, and in an age of often scurrilous pamphleteering!
The fact that no one has questioned his authorship at Shakespeares time is hugely significant for Peter Brook ,[ but fundamentally wrong! -> s.Blog 108] ,
Brooks argues that Shakespeare would have been a prime target for envious bad-mouthing as he was the only dramatist of the age with enough money to buy land when he retired.
Thats most perfect "circular reasoning"... ->(s.Blog 25!)
Peter Brook about Shakespeare
