The contents of the manuscript are as follows:

(i) The ‘Quaestiones’ of Ugo Benzi (Hugo de Siena). This text contains those `de complexionibus (folio 1), `de equali ad pondus’ (folio 5 verso), ‘de etate consistendi` (folio 10), `de modo augmentationis` (folio 16 verso), ‘de malitia complexionis diverse` (folio 20), `utrum virtutes anime distinguantur ab invicem et ab anima` and `per obiecta` (folio 30; the two are not here separated), `de secundo modo equalitatis` (folio 31) and `de putrefactione` (folio 37).

For these works, some manuscripts of them and the printed editions containing some of them, see ‘Ugo Benzi’, pages 40-43, 198-204, 228-237, 382-398. Gaps are left in the text at folios 21 recto and verso and folio 22 has been torn out.

(ii) The sixth in a series of ‘sermones’ by an unidentified author, who begins `labore quinti sermonis exemptus sextum sermonem incipio, qui est de dispositionibus membrorum generationis`. The ‘sermo’ is divided into three tractatus: `de generatione in communi` (folio 43, incipit `Dalienus [sic] primo de virtutibus naturalibus dixit`), `de dispositionibus maternis (folio 92, incipit `[S]igna complexionis matricis calide sunt 12`), and `de dispositionibus in viris` (folio 170 verso, incipit `[T]emperate crasis testiculorum signa`). The second of these is identical in incipit and explicit with the text in Lille, MS.334, which is described as Nicolaus, `De passionibus mulierum.` It is possible that Nicolaus de Florentia, `Sermo de membris genitalibus`, in Utrecht, MS.692, is relevant. Further `Nicolas` has been added by a ?19th-century hand on folio 1 of this manuscript.

The manuscript is written by at least three scribes, changing at folio 107 verso[?] and folio 133[?]. The first line of each section is written in a display script, with elaborate calligraphic initials, some with animal heads, added; the latter are omitted on folio 16 verso and from folio 50, and the indications for them are also omitted from folio 102. There is no other decoration. There are a few marginal notes in a 16th-century hand, which seems also to have added the foliation.