Breeches Bible
The Holy Bible. Printed by the Deputies of Christopher Barker, Printer to the Queenes most excellent Maiestie, [1596, no main title, dated from NT]; with Concordances, Imprinted by the Deputies of Christopher Barker, [nd, though Preface signed 1578)]; Sternhold and Hopkins, Printed by Iohn Windet for the Assignes of Richard Day, 1594. 8vo, full calf, spine perished, upper board detached but present; ff. [1 (To the Christian Reader, lacking preliminary title)], 2-358 (lacking 1), [4 (NT prelims, ?437-440)], 441-554, [90 (Concordances)], [pp. 98 (Sternhold, rest lacking to end)]; signed: [1]; OT: A2-A8 (lacking 1), B8-2X8, 2Y6 (lacking Apocrypha); NT: *4 (Prelims), 3K8-3Z8, [2 (final 2 leaves NT)]; Conc.: A8-K8, L2; Sternhold: A8-F8, G1-G2 (rest lacking); floriated initials; provenance: Samuel Brodhurst 1704 family bible with numerous MSS notes listing descent (his ink inscription to foot of NT title, though earlier MSS dates present). Black Letter.
It is not possible to find a directly comparable Bible in Herbert. There is a 1596 8vo Deputies edition listed (229) but neither the foliation nor the signatures agree. The Apocrypha is recorded as beginning on f.327b, whilst in this copy it would begin on f.359a (agreeing with the list of books in the NT prelims). Likewise, the NT is recorded as finishing on 3V7b, with a final blank, where this finishes on the verso of the second unsigned leaf after 3Z8. There is no colophonic date to the NT which would question the title's date, though it is interesting that the Prelims are not an integral part of the Bible's signatures - Herbert 229 lists contiguous signatures. In the absence of the main and OT titles it is difficult to say for sure which year they were printed, and the lack of the Apocrypha means it is not possible to check the colophon. It is only possible to say that the Bible is no earlier than 1596 in this binding. Herbert does note that 229 is lacking the Apocrypha (as here), this is not an uncommon occurrence with Bibles of this period as the canonicity of the books was disputed by the Anglican Church (unlike the Roman and Orthodox) and thus the choice to include (or actively remove) was a matter of personal conscience in relation to church doctrine.