The verses are written in littera textualis by a single hand.

Based on a number of characteristics, such as the very fine 'hairlines' after the final letters t and r, the hand can be dated to the last quarter of the fourteenth century, as Pleij already had suspected (1986, 126). Erik Kwakkel reached the same conclusion after studying photographical reproductions of the manuscript fragments. He notes that the fragments are probably to be dated later rather than earlier in second half of the fourteenth century on the basis of one particular paleographic feature, namely the form of the letter v (and w). In the fifteenth century, the height of the two strokes is usually equal while in the fourteenth century the left stroke normally reaches slightly higher than the second. The script on the fragments reflects a transitional stage, as the first tall stroke of the v (and w) does not always appear in the fragments. Considering also the style of the majuscules in the capital column and the overall aspect of the script, Kwakkel considers a date or production in the last quarter of the fourteenth century to be the most plausible.

Modern folation (1 to 4) in pencil using Arabic numerals in the left upper corner on the recto side.

The fragment originally formed part of a single-quire booklet of five bifolia, a quinio. A reconstruction of the original collation (by the author of this Description) is available on VisColl: 1V(10). The surviving fragments once formed the inner and outer bifolium of the original booklet.

The fact that the quire was actually bound is evident from the (sometimes torn) sowing holes.

All four leaves have been trimmed along the lower side, resulting in the loss of one or two verses on each side. Fol. 1 and fol. 2 have also been trimmed along the outer margin, resulting in further text loss.

In addition to the loss of text due to the trimmed edges, significant traces of glue are visible in a number of places, mainly on the outer double leaf fol. 1v-4r. The upper right corners of fol. 1r and fol. 3r are badly damaged. Attempts have also been made to stabilise these sites with Japanese paper. At the bottom left of fol. 1r, the fragment is creased, rendering one line illegible. The tops of fol. 2r and fol. 3v have also been reinforced with Japanese paper. There is also some other damage, such as the two (quite clumsily repaired) tears on fol. 2 and the tear on fol. 3. On fol. 1r, fol. 2r, fol. 3r, and fol. 4v, there are impressions of stamps reading ‘VILLE DE LYON Grande Bibliothèque’ and/or ‘LYON BIBLIOTH DE LA VILLE’. The shelfmark ‘Ms 6848’ is written in pencil by a modern hand on fol. 1r (top left), fol. 3v (right) and fol. 4r (top).

Plain initials (red) indicate the start of the stanzas; rubric (red); colour-stroked letters (red) at the start of each verse.

The fragments do not appear to have been written in Maerlant's usual Flemish dialect, but rather in Brabantian, although Flemish features are still in evidence in some places, such as in certain rhymes: pit (=put): wit (vs. 20-21) and cochte: volbrochte (vs. 51-52). Comparison with the text of the critical edition shows that the Flemish dialectal colouring seems to have been removed in a number of instances. We find the following examples:

• dinct > dunckt (Eerste Martijn: vs. 66, vs. 756, vs. 772 and vs. 901; Tweede Martijn: vs. 3 and vs. 76; Derde Martijn: vs. 435 and 496)
• tlijf > dlijf (Eerste Martijn: vs. 138)
• upt > opt (Eerste Martijn: vs. 166, vs. 782; Tweede Martijn: vs. 31)
• updat > opdat (Derde Martijn: vs. 390)
• renen > reinen (Derde Martijn: vs. 340)
• rene > reine (Derde Martijn: vs. 414)
• onbekenden > ombekinden (Tweede Martijn: vs. 48)
• bede > both (Tweede Martijn: vs. 11 and vs. 732)
• vul > full (Tweede Martijn: vs. 781)
• hovet > hoet (Tweede Martijn: vs. 11)
• soete > suete (Derde Martijn: vs. 413)

In the Lyon fragments the Flemish form of the feminine personal pronoun 'soe' has been replaced by the Brabant dialect marker 'si' (Eerste Martijn: vs. 58, 59, 73, 84, 732, 733, 735, 736, 740, 741, 756, 879, 959, and 970; Tweede Martijn: vs. 60, 63, 67, 75, 77, 78, and 96), and we read 'selc' instead of 'sulc' (Eastern Flemish and Brabantian; vs. 898 of the Eerste Martijn).

Evert van den Berg added a few further observations on the dialectal features of the fragments:

• delet soe > deilt si (Eerste Martijn, vs. 741)
• ic bems > ic bens (Tweede Martijn, vs. 28); the Flemish variant still occurs in the far west of Brabant in the thirteenth century, but not thereafter.

Nothing is known about the history of the manuscript before it was fragmented and reused in the binding of an incunable.

The incunable contains several ownership marks. A fifteenth-century entry refering to the purchase of the book, presumably by the first owner, whose name has been crossed out, can be seen after the colophon on fol. JJJ [5] verso. The other ownership marks are later and all refer to the Carmelite monastery of Lyon. On fol. aa 2 r are handwritten entries: '[.. Be]rthelot [...] carmelite 1571', ‘Ex bibliotheca Carmeli Lugdunensis D 10’, ‘Ex bibliotheca Carmeli Lugdunensis’, and ‘Ad usum fratris Roberti Berthelot Carmelita Lugdunensis’. On the lower flyleaf is again written ‘Ad usum fratris Roberti Berthelot Carmelita Lugdunensis’. Robert Berthelot was a Carmelite from Lyon, who was appointed bishop of Damascus and suffragan of the archdiocese of Lyon (1601-1630). In 1630, he donated his library to the Carmelite monastery in Lyon. On the inside of the lower board is a printed label relating to the cataloging of the book: ‘Bibliothecae Majoris Carmeli Lugdunis inscriptus catalogo Anno 1770’, with the year added by hand.

During a research stay in 1986 at the Bibliothèque municipale in Lyon the Dutch medievalist Herman Pleij discovered the two bifolia in a Latin incunable from 1490 (now available on Google Books). When Pleij discovered the fragments, bifolium fol. 1/4 was used as upper pastedown. Fol. 1v/4r originally faced the board with the text of the fragment perpendicular to the gutter of the book. When the fragment was removed from the binding, it left an offset of the text on the wood and the leather turn-ins. The exact position of the other fragment in the binding is unclear, but both fragments have a fold along the upper margin which suggests that the stub was folded around the first quire, with fol. 1/4 forming the pastedown and fol. 2/3 the flyleaf.

After an initial attempt to remove the fragments in 1986 they were left in place, but they are now detached from the binding, which makes it possible to study them.