Young—-Or do Prophet arum. 
49 
At Tours the Ordo took place in Matins of the Circumcision 
(Jan. 1), after the reading of the ninth lectio and before the sing¬ 
ing of the ninth responsory. 20 The prophetce entered the choir dur¬ 
ing the singing of certain cantilence. The summonses to the indi¬ 
vidual prophetce were delivered by duo clerici in pulpito, and the 
several prophecies seem to have been addressed to a sort of presid¬ 
ing cantor. The repetition of the ordo at Vespers is mentioned, 
but not described in detail. Although the actual utterances of the 
participants are not known, the nature of the performance must 
have been similar that of the Laon play. We may safely infer that 
the prophetce were specifically impersonated, and that they spoke in 
the formal sequence already familiar to us. It may be that at 
Matins one or more of the preceding lectiones were supplied by the 
pseudo-Augustinian sermon, and that the prophetce were introduced 
after the final lectio by way of didactic illustration. But this is the 
merest conjecture. 
If, then, the Ordo Prophetarum at Tours resembles the Laon ver¬ 
sion in general procedure, one may reasonably conjecture a similar¬ 
ity in liturgical association. It may well be that the Laon Ordo 
Prophetarum ,—and the Limoges version also,—is to be associated 
with the liturgy of the Circumcision. This conjecture, indeed, 
receives further support from the circumstances of the Ordo 
Prophetarum which we are to consider next. 
VI 
The two versions of the Ordo Propheta)rum already examined 
closely resemble the pseudo-Augustinian lectio in the number and 
names of the prophets presented. To the list of the lectio the 
Limoges version adds only Israel, and the Laon version, only 
Balaam. The possibilities in the way of addition are fully recog¬ 
nized only in such a play as the following, from the cathedral of 
Rouen d 
20 See the liturgical arrangement outlined above, p. 23. 
X I base my text upon Rouen, Bibliotheque de la Ville, Ms. 384 (olirn Y. 110), 
Ordinarium Rothomagense ssec. xiv, fol. 33r-35r, with variants from ibid., 
Ms. 382 (olim Y. 108), Ordinarium Rothomagense ssec. xv, fol. 31v-33r, and 
from Paris, Bibl. Nat., Ms. lat. 1232, fol. 26r—27r (manu saec. xvii). These are 
the only manuscript sources known to me. I know of no previous edition in 
which all three manuscripts are used. Sepet (p. 28) and Petit de Julleville 
(Les My stores, I, 37) erroneously report that we possess no extant manuscript 
sources at all. DuMeril mentions (p. 181, note) all three manuscripts as con- 
4—S. A. L. 
