Young—Ordo Prophetarum. 
81 
ginning with the words Vos, inquam, convenio, O Judaei. The 
fresh documents brought forward in the present study merely ex¬ 
tend, elucidate, and confirm Sepet’s conception of this liturgico- 
dramatic development. 
From the extant texts it appears that even as a procession of 
prophets confined within the bounds of the liturgy the Ordo 
Prophetarum attained a conspicuous development in the direction 
of genuine and independent drama. It must be admitted, to be 
sure, that in so far as the mere formula of the Ordo is concerned, 
this dramatic invention tends toward a mediocre regularity. The 
inevitable uniformity in the summoning of a succession of wit¬ 
nesses, and in the delivering of their testimonies, suggests 
monotony. 2 But it is also clear that the liturgical dramatists ac¬ 
complished a good deal in the way of variety. The Laon and 
Rouen versions show great care in impersonation. 3 The costumes 
are at once brilliant and discriminating, and details of personality 
are often penetratingly disclosed. More striking still is the provi¬ 
sion, for certain witnesses, of conspicuous properties or mise en 
scene. The action centering in the ass of Balaam and in the fur¬ 
nace of Nebuchadnezzar, in the Rouen Ordo, develops into dramatic 
episodes of independent interest; and since one of these episodes 
is found near the beginning, and the other near the end, of a long 
defile of prophets, the dramatist may have intended explicitly to 
enliven a solemn formula with moments of comic suggestion. 
Let it be understood, finally, that the present study does not 
undertake to survey the career or the influence of the Ordo 
Prophetarum beyond the confines of liturgical drama. Sepet pur¬ 
sues the matter much farther, and through demonstration and con¬ 
jecture, outlines a development of the Ordo through several later 
and more comprehensive stages. He conjectures, in the first place, 
a form of the dramatic procession in which new witnesses appear, 
and in which prophets besides Balaam and Nebuchadnezzar were 
the centers of dramatic expansion; and he holds that certain of 
these special episodes may have been more extended than anything 
that we have seen in the plays of Laon and Rouen. 4 He then rea¬ 
sons that some of these special episodes detached themselves from 
2 Upon this monotony of Meyer (p. 52) is particularly insistent. 
3 It may be, of course, that the Limoges version also availed itself of im¬ 
personation, even though the rubrics of the extant text are silent. See above, 
p. 37. 
4 See Sepet, pp. 48-147. 
6—S. A. L. 
