Under Development
Shakespeare's primary source for Richard II, as for most of his chronicle histories, was Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles; the publication of the second edition in 1589 provides a terminus ad quem for the play. Edward Hall's The Union of the Two Illustrious Families of Lancaster and York appears also to have been consulted, and scholars have also supposed Shakespeare familiar with Samuel Daniel's poem on the civil wars.
A somewhat more complicated case is presented by the anonymous play The First Part of Richard II. This play, which exists in one incomplete manuscript copy (at the British Museum) is subtitled Thomas of Woodstock, and it is by this name that scholars since F. S. Boas have usually called it. This play treats the events leading up to the start of Shakespeare's play (though the two texts do not have identical characters). This closeness, along with the anonymity of the manuscript, has led certain scholars to attribute all or part of the play to Shakespeare, though, many critics view this play as a secondary influence on Shakespeare, and not as his work.
The play was entered into the Register of the Stationers Company on August 29, 1597 by the bookseller Andrew Wise; the first quarto was published by him later that year, printed by Valentine Simmes. The second and third quartos followed in 1598 — the only time a Shakespearean play was printed in three editions in two years. Q4 followed in 1608, and Q5 in 1615. The play was next published in the First Folio in 1623.
Richard II exists in a number of variations. The quartos vary to some degree from one another, and the folio presents further differences. The first three quartos (printed in 1597 and 1598, commonly assumed to have been prepared from Shakespeare's holograph) lack the deposition scene. The fourth quarto, published in 1608, includes a version of the deposition scene shorter than the one later printed, presumably from a prompt-book, in the 1623 First Folio. The scanty evidence makes explaining these differences largely conjectural. Traditionally, it has been supposed that the quartos lack the deposition scene because of censorship, either from the playhouse or by the Master of the Revels Edmund Tylney and that the Folio version may better reflect Shakespeare's original intentions. There is no external evidence for this hypothesis, however, and the title page of the 1608 quarto refers to a "lately acted" deposition scene.