ABSTRACT
Shakespeare's employment of idealized moral role-players is more steady and pervasive than Marlowe's and his figures considerably more developed. During the second half of the twentieth century, critics vigorously expressed differing views on the debt Shakespeare's Richard II owed to Marlowe's Edward II. Both Edward II and Richard II were apparently born with an aesthetic sense so strong that, triggered by the will to play, it easily obliterates whatever moral sense they have or might develop. In Richard II, the ambiguity is more than psychological. Richard, for instance, leans heavily on the inviolability of the divine right of kings. Three major differences stand out: First, Richard has a more complex personality; the second is that the will to play in Edward and Richard is endemic in dissimilar ways; and the third is that Richard is forceful and active, whereas Edward is usually weak and passive.
