Young — Ordo Prophet arum. 
17 
III 
Still more important than the matter of dramatic style and 
content, however, is the question of dramatic delivery. There can 
be no doubt that the sermon before us, like many other mediaeval 
homilies, contains material suitable for dialogue and impersona¬ 
tion, and hence for drama. We may well ask, therefore, how far 
the homily in the form before us actually proceeded in the direc¬ 
tion of dramatic rendition. 
That the lectio as it stands was not delivered as a dialogue seems 
perfectly clear from the use of the word inquit in the responses. 1 
The use of this word seems to prove conclusively that the utter¬ 
ances of the persons summoned are delivered not by separate 
speakers, but by the lector himself. 2 The most that can be assumed 
is that the lector altered his voice in such a way as to distinguish 
between summons and response. 3 
Although, then, the lectio in use at Arles could not have been re¬ 
cited as dialogue, there is no reason why there should not exist other 
versions in which the several prophecies were spoken by separate 
persons. Such a version is courageously conjectured by Sepet as 
follows: 
J’en conlus de plus qu’on a fini, a un moment donnd, par completer les 
flexions de voix en leur donnant pour organes des lecteurs differents, et 
qu’alors chaque ton, c’est-a-dire cliaque prophete, a eu son interprete, le 
dialogue demeurant cependant toujours enchassd dans le recit. Cette con¬ 
clusion repose sinon sur des preuves pdremptoires, au moins sur des in¬ 
ductions raisonnables. C’est une conjecture, mais c’est, je crois, une con¬ 
jecture vraisemblable. 4 
Although Sepet could find no text with which to support this 
conjecture, and although he constructed it upon feeble data, 5 it has 
1 For example: Ecce, inquit, uirgo, etc.; Hie est, inquit, Deus noster, etc. 
2 Early in his argument Sepet seems to affirm the presence of dialogue in the 
lectio (“la reponse suivant immediatement la question et par consequent con- 
stituant un dialogue,” p. 9) ; but he subsequently corrects himself (“ce qui nous 
indique bien qu’il n’y avait pas de dialogue proprement dit,” p. 23). Chasles 
sees clearly (p. 123) that the presence of the word inquit precludes dialogue. 
3 See Sepet, pp. 13, 23. The varying of a single lector’s (or cantor’s) voice 
in the rendering of the passiones of Holy Week is discussed at length in my 
article Observations on the Origin of the Mediaeval Passion-Play, in Publica¬ 
tions of the Modern Language Association, Vol. XXV (1910), pp. 309-333. 
4 Sepet, p. 13. See also Sepet, pp. 42, 96-97. 
6 Sepet bases (pp. 10, 13) his conjecture, in the first place, upon the analogy 
of the Passiones of Holy Week. He asserts (p. 10) that as early as the thir- 
2—S. A. Li. 
