9 
Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 
only first disclosed the essential nature of this liturgical play, but 
also described the early stages of its genesis in general terms that 
may still be accepted. The discovery of new examples and new 
facts, however, has rendered Sepet’s demonstration noticeably in¬ 
complete, and calls for a fresh survey of the phenomena. Upon 
such a survey I now venture, calling attention to the fact that the 
present study differs from that of Sepet in several particulars. 
Whereas, in the first place, Sepet considered the prophet-play both 
in its relations to the liturgy and in its later developments in the 
vernaculars, I confine myself to the Ordo Prophetarum as a strictly 
liturgical play. Secondly I re-edit from the manuscripts all the 
dramatic texts known to me. Sepet presented none of these texts 
in extenso, and with one important version he was not acquainted. 7 
Finally, from manuscripts and printed books, I offer materials that 
are, I believe, brought into this consideration for the first time. 
Within its limited field, then, I hope that my study may be found 
relatively complete. 
I 
Among apocryphal works -of St. Augustine is found a sermon of 
substantial length entitled Contra Judceos, Paganos, e’t Arianos 
Sermo de Symbolo. * 1 Although the Augustinian authorship has 
been generally discredited in modern times, 2 the attribution to the 
la liturgie catholique.” L. Petit de Julleville (Les. My sieves, Vol. I, Paris, 1880, 
pp. 35-45) bases his account of the prophet-play frankly upon Sepet. P. Weber 
(G-eistliches Schauspiel und kirchliche Kunst, Stuttgart, 1894, pp. 41-48) surveys 
Sepet’s work with approval, and adds certain contributions of detail. W. Meyer 
(Fragmenta Bur ana, Berlin, 1901, pp. 50-56) accepts Sepet’s demonstration of 
the origin of the Ordo Prophetarum and adds important suggestions; but upon 
later parts of Sepet’s study he passes certain strictures, for which he is appro¬ 
priately rebuked by W. Creizenach ( Liter at urblatt fur germanische und roman- 
ische Philologie, Vol. XXIII, 1902, col. 203.) Chambers (Vol. II, pp. 52-55) pays 
explicit homage to Sepet, and follows him avowedly; but he includes a consid¬ 
eration of the Laon play, which was unknown to the French savant, and adds 
significant observations upon details. The one or two minor contributions of 
Chasles (Les Prophetes du Christ, in La Vie et les Arts Liturgiques, 3e Annee, 
No. 25, January, 1917, pp. 121-134) are mentioned in appropriate places below. 
7 1 refer to the version from Laon. See below pp. 39—49. 
1 This sermon is found in the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine’s works, 
Sancti Aurelii Augustini . . . Opera, Vol. VIII, Paris, 1688, Appendix, 
col. 11-20. It is reprinted by Migne, Pat. Lat., Vol. XLII, col. 1117-1130. 
2 The Benedictine editors (loc. cit., col. 11-12) cite the dictionis barbaries and 
the multa . . . delibata ex Augustino. See Weber, p. 41; Sepet, p. 8, note 2. 
