In the first era of Shakespeare criticism, there were many aspects of his work that were considered to be, well, outrageous. One of the biggest was the way that the three unities of time, place and action, first posited in Aristotle's Poetics, were not only not observed, but flouted. Consider A Midsummer Night's Dream which seems to be set simultaneously in ancient Greece and sixteenth-century England - and that's not including Puck, Oberon and Titania. What about the famous anachronism of the chiming clock in Julius Caesar? And how about Time, who acts as the Chorus in A Winter's Tale, beginning act four by stating that sixteen years have passed? Maybe flouted isn't a strong enough word. Also, there is a great deal of contention around Shakespeare's use of history. Many commentators feel, for example, that Richard III gets a very unfair treatment in the plays in which he appears, and that Shakespeare maligned him to win favour with Elizabeth I, a Tudor (and therefore a descendant of Richmond who takes the crown at the end of Richard III). Others say he did the same to Macbeth, and that this version of history flattered the new king, James I, who also had an interest in the occult, hence the witches, etc. What reasons could Shakespeare have had for these types of decisions? I'll give you my theory tomorrow.