Shakespeare We Know Not What We May Be

As Shakespeare once stated, “We know what we are, but not what we may be.” (Hamlet) And by this statement, the celebrated playwright opened up the concept that anything, or anyone, has the capacity to be anything they choose. However, it has been argued by Anti-Stratfordians for decades that, because of his deficiencies in certain aspects, such as proper education and means of attaining knowledge, Shakespeare could not have been the author of the works which have been heralded for centuries. But, as Shakespeare so eloquently postulated, the incriminatory facts are simply what “we know”. What we fail to know is what may have been. For all that is known, Shakespeare may have received courtly recollections from his hierarchical acquaintances, such as Edward de Vere; he may have partaken in consensual collaborations with his fellow playwrights, such as Christopher Marlowe; he may have simply been a bonafide genius. There are many immeasurable, undocumented interactions and facets
A ploy of such magnitude would have entailed years of diligent censure, secrecy, and a plethora of mishaps. Shakespeare was one of the most celebrated artists of his time; the suggestion that he was able to blatantly, and transparently deceive professors, scholars, and even Queen Elizabeth herself is saturated with the underlying essence of incredulity to even the most dedicated conspiratorialist. In 16th century London, global traffic and knowledge permeated every street corner, leaving scholars and artists and architects and noblemen in no short supply. In such a fruitful, inspirational environment, it is hardly far-fetched to believe that Shakespeare was able to access the sources of mental and creative stimulation that augmented his