Typographical revision and language option in the Evangelium from Snagov, 1697

The new edition of the Evangelium printed in Snagov, in 1697 (e1697) is dis-tinguished from the previous ones by two aspects: a) structure of the text – because the accuracy of the biblical references in relation to the moments of the church year is restored and ensured, thus making the correlation between the liturgical book of ecclesiastical use and the archetype-text, the New Testament , divided into chapters; b) linguistic option of the editor, which specifically and consistently aims at the regime of verbal tenses, i.e., the change of the forms of the simple perfect of the basic edition (e1693) into forms of compound perfect. Typographical and linguistic differences identified between e 1697 b[ucharest], e1697 i[ași] and e1697 v[ienna], of the eleven copies of the book, preserved to this day, indicate the unfolding of some stages in the realization of the edition, a complex and nonlinear editorial and typographical behaviour.


Emendations
The correctness alluded to in the title of the 1697 book concerned two aspects: a) the structure of the content and b) the linguistic form.
In the first regard, a), the differences between e 1697 and e1693 (and e 1682) are, most of the time, of detail, restoring and ensuring the accuracy of the respective moment of the church year and the accuracy of the biblical references. Distinctly from previous achievements 1 , in e 1697 the correlation is made between the liturgical book of church use and the text-archetype, the New Testament, divided into chapters: "Cade-se a ști că la E[va]ng[he]lia aceasta nu s-au pus zacealele pre cum au fost întîi, ce capetele: pentru ca să poată afla fieștecine mai lesne ce i-ar trebui la Tetravanghel. Și pre unde iaste steaoa aceasta [ ], să nu gîndească neștine că s-au pus în toate locuri pentru soroacă de săvîrșit, ce pentru unirea stihurilor den Tetravanghel." (e 1697, [III] r ).
A major correction compared to the 1693 edition is the completion of the text with the evangelical fragments corresponding to Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the seventeenth week after Pentecost of the church year: in e 1693, "Duminica a 16" [the 16 th Sunday] is immediately followed by "Sîmbătă a 17" [the 17 th Saturday] (116); in e 1682, the omisson does not exist (51 r -52 v ). It seems that Antim returns to the original source when some need arises.
Regarding the linguistic form of the text, b), it is noted that the new editor was especially concerned with the regime of verbal tenses. The other changes observed at the grammatical and lexical level do not show, judging by the inconsistency with which they were generally made, a particular concern in the direction of the renewal of language and expression. A major exception is the intervention aimed at changing the forms of the simple perfect from the basic edition (be it e1693 or e 1682 -the differences in this regard are minimal between the two) in compound perfect forms. The comparison between the 1697 version, "diortosită mai cu multă nevoință" ([I r ]), and that of 1693, on three corresponding fragments of text (see infra 2 ) highlights a consistent approach in this regard: nu șăzură -nu au șăzut; să sui -s-au suit; găsi -au găsit; scoasă -au scos; răsturnă -au răsturnat; etc. "Turnați acum și aduceți nunului." Și-i adusără. Și după ce gustă nunul apa ce să făcuse vin (și nu știia de unde iaste, iară slugile carii turnase apa știia), strigă pre ginere nunul. Și zise lui: "Tot omul întîiu vinul cel bun pune și, deaca să îmbată, atunce cel mai prost. Iară tu ai ținut vinul cel bun pînă acum." Aceasta făcu începătură seamnelor I[su]s în Cana Galileii. Și arătă slava sa și crezură întru el ucenicii lui.
In most of the situations that, in e1693, present constructions with the simple perfect seen in the above fragments, the verbal form was replaced with a compound perfect-sometimes with the option for another verb: puseră (e 1693, 264) -au aruncat (e 1697, 122 v ), fu (e 1693, 265) -s-au făcut (e 1697, 122 v )in the process of making the e1697. The action, with its high degree of consistency, is characteristic of the entire text and makes the narrative sequences of e 1697, unlike e1693, have the compound perfect as prototyping verbal tense.
The effort to remove the forms of simple perfect is, on the one hand, in accordance with the tendency signaled, in general, for the 17 th -18 th centuries, of restricting its area of circulation, in the spoken language, to Oltenia, Banat and Crișana; on the other hand, however, it runs counter to the habit of continuing to be used intensively in written texts (Frâncu, 2009, p. 306). The transition from the simple perfect to the compound perfect is not a general and blind rule in the process of editing, as can be seen in two cases present in the excerpted texts, where the simple perfect has been replaced by the pluperfect, for rendering a process located before another process in the past: fu (e1693, 265) -să făcuse (with a change of number as well, e 1697, 122 v ), fură (e 1693, 265) -să făcuse (e 1697, 123 r ). The diversity of linguistic choices regarding the regime of the verbal forms of the past tense, greater than that recorded in the basic edition, emphasizes the different temporal depths of the narrative and of the discursive plans, perceived and controlled by the editor. This is more evident in situations where two forms of simple perfect that are close or in immediate succession have different resolutions in the new edition, according to the chronology of the narrated events: "văzînd sutașul ce fu, slăvi pre D[u]mnezău" (e 1693, 265) -"văzînd sutașul cealea ce să făcuse, au slăvit pre D[u]mnezău" (e 1697, 123 r ); "Și toată mulțimea carea venise împreună la privirea aceasta, văzînd cealea ce fură, bătîndu-ș piepturile lor să întoarseră." (e 1693, 265) -"Și tot norodul ce fusease împreună la priveala aceaia, văzînd cealea ce să făcuse, bătîndu-ș piepturile sale, s-au întors." (e 1697, 123 r ).
The places where the simple perfect form is preserved are, by comparison, much rarer.

Printing variants
That we are faced with a programmed intention to emendate the text in linguistic terms is a fact that is discovered not only after comparing the successive editions of the book, but also in the research of the copies of the 1697 edition, existing today.
There are 11 copies registered in Catalogul colectiv al cărții vechi românești (see Evanghelie. Snagov, 1697). Of these, we were able to compare in detail three: a copy held by the Library of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest, inv. 467 (further, for the discussion on the linguistic and typographical differences between them, e 1697 b); a copy owned by the Library of the Romanian Academy, Iaşi, inv. n.a. (e 1697 i); and the copy in the Collection of Old Manuscripts and Prints of the Austrian National Library, inv. 22.C.11 (e 1697 v). The three copies are not absolutely identical: there are differences between them of typographical and linguistic nature, that indicate the development of some stages in the realization of the edition. The differences concerning the regime of the verbal tenses, in this case, the emendation of the simple perfect from the basic edition (e 1682/1693) are recorded in portions of text printed on 1 r-v and 4 r-v :  (9) În vreamea aceaia nuntă să făcu în Cana Galileii (4 v /2) În vreamea aceaia nuntă s-au făcut în Cana Galileii (4 v /2) Și-i aduseră (9) Și-i aduseră (4 v /2) Și i-au adus. (4 v /2) după ce gustă nunul apa ce să făcuse vin (9) după ce gustă nunul apa ce să făcuse vin (4 v /2) după ce au gustat nunul apa ce să făcuse vin (4 v /2) Belonging to the edition e 1697, the copy e 1697 i records, as we have indicated above, the strong tendency to emend the forms in the paradigm of the verbal past; but it presents a number of simple perfect forms that do not appear in the e 1697 v and e 1697 b, but which correspond to the forms of the base edition at the places concerned. It is possible that, working on the text, the editor / printer has made a first wave of changes, printing accordingly the typographic sheet, with a text shape visible in e 1697 i; to a reassessment of what had been done until then, probably under the influence of a clearer and clearer conviction regarding the justice of this emendatory practice, the editor returns to the text, corrects it additionally (or reconstructs the page) and reprints accordingly the typographic sheet, with a form of the text visible in the e1697 v and e 1697 b; and then continues in a manner that, until the end, satisfies him in terms of c) whole word vs. shorthand/letter written above the row: e 1697 i e 1697 v/b ( Finally, in the binding of the book are used all the typographical versions of the text, which determines the production and putting into circulation of distinct copies 5 . The fact that the amendments do not concern the entire typographical achievement (they can be observed, regardless of their nature-see also infra-, up to 7 r ) leads us to consider unfounded the introduction in our discussion, for the edition e 1697, the notions of initial circulation, to which e 1697 i (and, probably, others) would belong, and second circulatio, etc., to which other specimens would belong. It is however certain that the objects e1697 i, e 1697 v and e1697 b, arising from the entire printing activity, reflect distinct moments in the text editing process.
Those indicated so far place the execution of sheets 1 r-v and 4 r-v of the copy e1697 i in the precedence of that of the corresponding sheets of e1697 v and b. However, the chronological conjecture must be modified for the sheets 2 r-v and 3 r-v , where the differences put the e 1697 v copy in opposition to the e 1697 i and b copies. Here also, they are rather typographical and graphic: a) the use of a different model of letter: e 1697 v e 1697 i/b (2 r /1, r.6) (2 r /1, r.6) (2 r /2, r.31) (2 r /2, r.31) (2 v /2, r.4) (2 v /2, r.4) b) the use of a different letter but with the same phonetic value: e 1697 v e 1697 i/b (2 r /1, r.9) (2 r /1, r.9) (2 r /1, r.2) (2 r /1, r.2) (2 r /2, r.14) (2 r /2, r.14) ( Apart from this type of changes made at a given time, there are also some-much fewer-that concern the actual use of the language at another level, namely different phonetic forms of the same linguistic unit: e 1697 v e 1697 i/b sculîndu-se (2 r /1, r.29) sculîndu-să (2 r /1, r.29) Isaia (2 r /1, r.6) Isaiia (2 r /1, r.6) luund (2 v /1, r.27) luînd (2 v /1, r.27) Finally, on 7 r , three forms place together the e1697 i and v copies, on the one hand, and the e 1697 b copy, on the other: e 1697 i/v e1697 b vășmînt (7 r /1, r.4) veșmînt (7 r /1, r.4) nimănui (7 r /1, r.18) nimunui (7 r /1, r.18) sămn (7 r /2, r.18) semn (7 r /2, r.18) If the observed facts clearly show a process of returning in several stages on the editing of the text, its motivations remain unclear in some of the situations exposed above. In the process of printing the 1697 edition, the sheets 2 r-v and 3 r-v for example are reworked, although the nature and number of the resulting changes do not indicate an orientation determined by the judgment on the linguistic aspect of the text, as it happens-we believe-in the case of changes related to the grammar of the verb.

Conclusions
Regardless of the causes of the resumption of work on some portion of the text, the existence of typographical variants, capitalized in the final realization of the Gospel of Snagov, from 1697, highlights a complex and nonlinear editorial and typographical behavior. The existence of differences between copies, of any type, also means that the results of the research of the text strictly for the purpose of its linguistic description will vary-even if to an extent that can be considered small-depending on the chosen copy (possibly incidentally) as the object of study. On the other hand, however, it is precisely the practice of the repeated embossing of the typographical object in situ that offers the modern linguist the chance to perceive not the language of the text, but the language that writes the text, emanating from someone's consciousness, which in this way, indirectly, reveals its applied judgment on what is in accordance with the linguistic habits of the era and of the place.