Bergsträßer saw the similarities between Warš editions and the Gizeh print.
Because he did not question al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād's assertion that "his" edition
was a reconstruction based on the oral text and the literature about How to Write
a Muṣḥaf, he assumed an immediate influence from Gizeh/Cairo to Fèz/Alger.
For me it was clear that it was the other way around.
But I had no proof.
I did not have an early print from the Maġrib (nor a Warš edition from Cairo from before 1920).
Finally, I can proof it. I have images from Faz prints from 1879,'81,'91, '92,'93,'94, '95,'99,
1900 and 1905.
The two oldes are in big format and still have red dots for hamza:
On the left the (presumably) first print by Ḥaǧǧ aṭ-Ṭaiyib al-Azraq 1879,
on the right the same text from Alger 1350/ 1931 (Maṭbaʿa aṯ-Ṯāʿlibiyya of Rūdūsī Quddūr ben Murād at-Turkī, likely ʿAbdal Qādir from Rhodes)
one from 1881:
Later they are without colour and smaller:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
a bombshell
Morteza Karimi-Nia has published a book Codex Mashhad , and a web site . Most interesting: Sura order like Codex Masʿud Orthography The o...
-
40 years ago Adrian Alan Brockett submitted his Ph.D. to the University of St.Andrews: Studies in Two Transmissions of the Qurʾān . Now...
-
There are many false assertions about the King Fuʾād Edition: that it is type printed ‒ it is type set, but offset printed that it ...
-
It is common knowledge that the King Fuʾād Edition of the Ḥafṣ qirāʾa was an immediate success in the Muslim world. Common knowledge, but...



No comments:
Post a Comment