Described Thomas James 241; Stanley P. 6; Nasmith 32; James, Corpus 32; Margaret Joyce Powell, The Pauline Epistles Contained in MS Parker 32, EETS es 116 (London, 1916), pp. ix–xvi; Doyle diss, vol. 2, p. 64; Morey, pp. 332–333, 344–346; Index of Images 17.

[1]

f. 1ra

Seynte marke ewangeliste þe chosene of god & þe godson of petre & in goddis worde his disciple did his prestehode in ysrael & eftir þat he was turnyde to þe feyth in ytalye he wrote þe gospel & as it is wryten of hym …

f. 56vb

… þe worde of þe gospel þurgh alle þe werlde to þe worship & lofynge of oure lord ihesu þe whylke regnys with þe fadyr & þe holy goste & worldys wiþouten ende amen.

Commentary on Mark. Titulus in upper margin severely cropped and stained; remaining inscription reads: ‘… bygynnyng of seynt marke gospelus […]yn …’. Text begins f. 1ra: ‘Inicium ewangelij iesu christi filij dei sicut scriptum est …’. On f. 56vb: ‘Here endis þe glose of marke þee ewangelist in englissche tunge thankyde be god amen’. Wells VIII:28; Wells Rev. 2:545 [39]. Text discussed FM I: ix–x; Paues 2, p. xxvii; Deanesly, pp. 279, 310. Following FM, all (including Wells Rev.) assume a relationship between the relatively short commentaries on Mark and Luke in the present MS, and the longer commentary on Matthew in BL Egerton 842 and in CUL Ii.2.12. However, as Anne Hudson has pointed out (Premature, p. 411), the reasons for this are not clear. There is no obvious connection between Matthew and the other two. Note that pace LALME in LP 235 and LP 164, Egerton and CUL do not contain the commentaries on Mark and Luke, only that on Matthew. Ann Eljenholm Nichols has suggested that differences in the illustrative programme and the layout point to different sources for Mark and Luke in the present MS (‘The Illustrations of CCCC MS 32: “Þe glose in Englissche tunge” ‘ in Image, Text and Church, 1380–1600: Essays for Margaret Aston, ed. Linda Clark et al. (forthc. Toronto, 2009).