Young—Or do Prophetarum. 
77 
ately, followed by a version of the Easter play, Visitatio Sepul- 
chri , 23 We ought, therefore, to feel assured that the Hortum prce- 
destinatio in the Einsiedeln text does not belong to the preceding 
Ordo Prophetarum, but is to be related to the succeeding Visitatio 
Sepul chri. 
But our assurance is not quite complete; for although in thought 
the Hortum prcedestinatio is decisively alien to the Ordo Prophet- 
arum and to the Christmas season, the Rouen Festum Asinorum 
does actually conclude with the singing of this prose; 24 and the 
Einsiedeln dramatist may have allowed a similar incongruity. It 
must be admitted, moreover, that in the Einsiedeln manuscript it¬ 
self there is nothing to disprove absolutely the inclusion of the 
prose in the preceding prophet-play, now largely lost. In the 
present state of our information, the precise dramatic relations of 
the fragmentary Hortum prcedestinatio in the Einsiedeln manu¬ 
script must be left undecided. 25 
The second text for special consideration is the following, of 
uncertain provenience : 26 
lx Epiphania Domini 
Lectio Isaiae prophetae: Surge, illuminare, Ierusalem, quia venit 
lumen tuum, et gloria Domini super te orta est. 
Gloriosi 
Et famosi 
Regis festum 
Celebrantes 
Gaudeamus; 
Cuius ortum 
Vitae portum 
Nobis datum 
Praedicantes 
Aveamus. 
23 See above, note 12. 
24 See above, pp. 62, 71. 
23 Since the Hortum prcedestinatio fragment is immediately followed (not in the 
margin, as Meyer says [p. 51], but as the ending of line 3) by the rubric In 
Resurrectione, and since the opening words (Quern queritis) are written in 
uncials, Meyer holds (p. 51) that the Hortum prcedestinatio fragment is effect¬ 
ually separated from the Visitatio Sepulchri, and has “Nichts mit dem Oster- 
spiel zu thun.” I myself do not regard the rubric and the uncials as decisive in 
effecting the separation. The general situation under discussion may be 
grasped from note 1 above. Even though the Hortum prcedestinatio fragment 
be regarded as effectually separated from the succeeding Visitatio, the associa¬ 
tion of the'fragment with the Ordo Prophetarum is a matter of uncertainty. 
28 1 take this text from Analecta Hymnica Medii 2Evi, Vol. XLIX, Leipzig, 
1906, pp. 182-183. Concerning his source, the editor, Clemens Blume, writes 
(p. 183) : “Cod. ms. saec. 14.—-Bannister, dem ich die Abschrift verdanke, 
konnte leider den Fundort und die Provenienz der Handschrift nicht mehr 
ermitteln.” 
