24 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 
words of Famulus Regis. There is, of course, nothing to show that 
any of the personages named in the rubrics are, or are not, actually 
impersonated. From the laconic legitur of the introductory rubric 
one more naturally infers that there is no impersonation. 
It cannot he asserted positively that the text before us represents 
a chronological stage between the use of the sermo as an ordinary, 
undialogued lectio in Matins and the use of it unmistakable drama. 
Since the lectio of Salerno is known to us only in a printed version 
of the late sixteenth century, one might contend that it represents 
not a pre-dramatie stage of the development, but a later stage in 
which the influence of the dramatic Ordo Prophetarum merely 
lingers. To me, however, the very presence of a dialogued lectio in 
a printed service-book of the year 1594 seems to indicate a long 
tradition; and while awaiting further knowledge concerning the 
mediaeval usages of the church of Salerno, I shall regard the text 
before us as representing a stage between the normal liturgical 
lectio and the fully dramatized Ordo Prophetarum. 
IV 
However dramatic the version from Salerno may seem, it still 
retains the essential outline and language of the Augustinian lectio: 
the prophecies are still merely incidental in an expository address,— 
an address which has, to be sure, been reduced, but which still 
forms the backbone of the piece. We pass naturally, then, to a 
version from the monastery of St. Martial at Limoges, in which the 
prophecies are virtually free from enclosing exposition, are given 
a special literary form, and are set to music i 1 
1 Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. latin 1139, Troparium Martialense ssec. xii, fol. 55v-58r. 
The manuscript is described by L.-J.-N. Monmerque and P. Michel, Theatre 
frangais au Moyen Age, Paris, 1842, pp. 1-3, by E. de Coussemaker, Histoire de 
VHarmonie au Moyen Age, Paris, 1852, pp. 126-127, and by the same author in 
his Drames liturgiques du Moyen Age, Rennes, 1860, pp. 311-319. See also 
W. Meyer, Fragmenta Burana, Berlin, 1901, pp. 50-51. Since this manuscript 
contains the famous Sponsus, numerous notes upon it have been written by 
students of romantic dialects (See W. Foerster and E. Koschwitz, Altfran- 
zosiches Uehungshuch, Leipzig, 1902, col. 91-94). The text printed below has 
been previously edited numerous times. I collate the editions of E. DuMeril 
(Les Origines latines du Theatre moderne, Caen, 1849, pp. 179-187.—D.), Mag- 
nin (Journal des Savants, 1846, pp. 88—93.—M.), Coussemaker (Drames 
liturgiques du Moyen Age, pp. 16—20.—C.), and Monmerqug and P. Michel 
(Theatre frangais au Moyen Age, pp. 6-9.—N.). Although Sepet does not edit 
the text as a whole, I collate the parts that he transcribes (pp. 15-21 passim) 
from the manuscript (S). I do not consider the text of T. Wright (Early Mys- 
