M. Camb. Univ. Mm. 2.21 (Bern. Cat. ii. 9648). Contains Conf. Amantis only, without ‘Explicit,’ &c. (the last leaf being lost). Parchment, ff. 183, 14 × 9½ in. Quires of eight with catchwords and signatures: double columns of 46 lines: Latin summaries usually in margin, but occasionally in the text, as in A. Several hands, as follows, (1) ff. 1-32, 41-64, 73-88, 97-136, 145-152, 161-176; (2) ff. 33-40, 89-96, 137-144; (3) ff. 65-72; (4) ff. 153-160; (5) ff. 177-183. Finally another, different from all the above, adds sometimes a marginal note which has been dropped, as on ff. 4, 32 vo, 65, 72 vo. The first hand, in which more than two-thirds of the book is written, is fairly neat: the third much rougher than the rest, and also more inaccurate.
Floreated half border in fairly good style at the beginning of each book, except the third, fifth, and seventh, and two rather rudely painted miniatures, viz. f. 4 vo, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (the king in bed, crowned), and f. 8, the Confession, a curious little picture in the margin. The priest is laying his stole on the head of the penitent, whose features are evidently meant for a portrait. It is quite different however from that which we have in A. Below this picture we find the note, ‘Hic fiat Garnimentum.’
The last leaf is lost, containing no doubt the ‘Explicit,’ ‘Quam cinxere,’ and ‘Quia vnusquisque,’ as in A.
The names Stanhope and Yelverton are written on f. 39 (sixteenth cent.), and ‘Margareta Straunge’ on the first leaf (seventeenth cent.). Later the book belonged to Bishop Moore of Norwich (No. 462 in his library), and it passed with the rest of his books to the University of Cambridge in 1715, as a gift from the king.
M is very closely connected with A, as is shown by very many instances of special agreement, and some considerations suggest that it may be actually derived from it, as for example the writing of the Latin verses in the margin after f. 80, which in A seems to be connected with a change of hand, whereas in M it begins at the same point without any such reason. On the other hand M has a good many readings which are clearly independent, either correcting mistakes and omissions in A, as Prol. 195 marg., 937, i. 673 marg., 924, 1336, 3445, ii. 951, iii. 2529, vi. 620, or giving an early reading where A has a later, e.g. Prol. 869, i. 1118, 1755, ii. 961, 3516, iii. 1939, v. 3914, 5524, &c. In correctness of text and of spelling M is much inferior to A, especially as regards final e: for example, on f. 53 vo,
Came neuer ȝit to mannes ere Cam A
Tiding | ne to mannes siȝt Tidinge ... sihte A
Merueil whiche so sore aflihte Merueile which A
Amannes herte as it þe dede þo A
To hym whoche in þe same stede him which A