Why do we think that Shakespeare stage directors [with a vast knowledge relating to details of the 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 string quartetts and other compositions from op.1 to opus 135 over time, you would have noticed great developments, improvements, inventions, changes in stiles and perfection of his music and so on throughout his life. Would it be in fact 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: Brooks suggests 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 seems to have questioned his authorship at the time is hugely significant [for Peter Brooks] , but he does not seem to realize that there is no historic proof whatsoever that anybody knew about the Stratford man as the author , nobody must have known anything at the time ...
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!)