Mistake or Textual Variant?
The distinction between a scribal error, in which the text has been copied incorrectly, and a textual variant, in which the form of a word or the phrasing of a sentence varies between accepted liturgical traditions, is not always clear. In an era when spelling was not always homogenous and textual or liturgical standards not always easy to enforce, no two liturgical manuscripts looked exactly the same. Sometimes, the text contains variations which appear incorrect in comparison to some or most other liturgical manuscripts but which can be found in some others.
This word, "perient," appears in other thirteenth-century Dominican graduals such as Princeton University Archive MS 245 as "peribunt." However, both make sense within the context of the sentence, and "perient" can be found in Santa Sabina Archivum Generale Ordinis Praedicatorum, XIV L1.
The text here reads "insurrex(er)u(n)t i(n) me," a variant which can be found in other manuscripts like Göttingen Stadtarchiv AB III 9. The more common version is "insurrexerunt adversum me."
The "ut" here in "tuo ut uiuam" has been added in by a corrector. The "ut" is not found in Princeton MS 245 but appears elsewhere, such as in Porrentury, Bibliothèque cantonale jurassiene, 18.
This instance of "uinum factum" is a grammatical error: the phrase should read "aquam vinum factam dicit," as "aquam" (and not "vinum") should agree with "factam." However, other manuscripts contain this mistake, including Göttingen Stadtarchiv AB III 9. The fact that Western MS 097 shares multiple variations, even erroneous ones, with the Göttingen manuscript points to a possible relationship between the two manuscripts: perhaps they shared a similar source text?