Young—Ordo Prophetarum . 
37 
dramatic Ordo Prophetarum. In the absence of adequate rubrics, 
we are left in considerable uncertainty as to the manner in which 
it was produced. We are at least sure that the piece was delivered 
as a dialogue, or as a succession of dialogues. This is clear both 
from the nature of the utterances themselves and from the use of 
the rubric responsum. One may reasonably suppose that the in¬ 
troductory exhortations and the summonses are all sung by the 
same cleric, or group of clerics,—we cannot be more specific . 98 
We may infer also that at each summons one of the prophets ap¬ 
peared in person and responded with his prophecy. Of impersona¬ 
tion, upon the part either of the summoner or of the prophets, we 
cannot be sure. The fact that the name of each prophet is written 
as a rubric immediately before the summons seems to indicate that 
a separate speaker appeared at this point, and it suggests that he 
impersonated the prophet concerned . 99 As to the part of the church 
in which the performance occurred, and as to mise en scene , we 
have no knowledge. 
In the absence of more precise information we may accept some 
such conjectural description of the performance as the following 
from Magnin : 100 
Moreover the lectio and the Limoges version agree in differing from the Greek 
in the prophecy of Daniel. La Piana acknowledges these facts. The one sub¬ 
stantial suggestion of the Limoges author’s borrowing from the Greek is the 
summons and prophecy of Israel (Jacob), which is wanting in the Latin lectio, 
but which is found in the other two texts in the following forms: 
Ordo of Limoges 
Israel, vir lenis, inque 
De Xpisto <qu8e> nosti firme. 
Responsum: 
Dux de Iuda non tolletur 
Donee adsit qui mittetur 
Salutare Dei verbum 
Expectabunt gentes mecum. 
Hesychius 
II apdffTTjdL tw ’Ia/ccu/3 /cat rl Xeyei 
/jLera^i) t&v evXoyi&v Kar&fiaOe. 
Ovk etcXeixf/et apxwv tt- ’lovda, /cat 
riyovfievos £k tCov /xrjpcov avrov, ecus ov 
eX 07 f os diroKeiTai /cat avros TrposdoKia 
ktiv&v. 
(Migne, Pat. Or., xciii, 1460) 
This parallel may, or may not, show that for the prophecy of Israel the 
Limoges author resorted to Hesychius. If he borrowed at all, he borrowed little. 
98 As I have said above (p. 25), DuMeril’s (and Coussemaker’s) con¬ 
jectured Praecentor and Magnin’s conjectured Sacerdos imply undue certainty 
upon the part of these editors. Petit de Julieville (Les Mysteres, Vol. I, p. 36) 
adopts Magnin’s conjecture, and Chasles (p. 123), that of DuM§ril and Cousse- 
maker. The term Appellatores of the Laon version (See below, pp. 41-45) and' 
the words Chorus and Vocatores of the Rouen Festum Asinorum (See below, 
pp. 50-63) suggest that the introductory verses and the summonses of the- 
Limoges verses were not sung by a single person. 
99 Sepet (p. 25) considers impersonation not improbable. 
100 Journal des Savants, 1846, p. 88. A somewhat less venturesome conjecture- 
is advanced by Sepet, pp. 25-26. See also Sepet, pp. 40-41. Both Magnin and; 
Sepet acknowledge the conjectural nature of their descriptions. 
