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:
Saturday, 26 September 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Bombay
1358/1959 1299/1880
-
There are two editions of the King Fuʾād Edition with different qurʾānic text. There are some differences in the pages after the qurʾānic t...
-
At the start of this year's Ramaḍān Saima Yacoob, Charlotte, North Carolina published a book on differences between printed maṣāḥi...
-
There is a text in the web Chahdi is an expert on The Qur’an, its Transmission and Textual Variants: Confronting Early Manuscripts and Wri...