India (chronologically)

As I have not posted about Indian maṣāḥif chronologically, here are some links:
1829 with Persian
1831 Calcutta, type, pleasing
1937 type
1840 lithograpgy
1850 Lucknow
1286/1852 Delhi, Sahāran­pūrī's Aḥmadi Press see below
1866 two lithographies
1867 Lucknow
1868 cheap bestseller
1869 three (twice Bombay)
1870 three
1875 Bombay
1876 Bareilly
1878 Lucknow
1879 translation by Shah ‘Abd al-Wahhāb Rafi ad-Din ad-Dihlawī
1883 (and 2000) South-West coast
1888 Dilhi Persian, Urdu
today (in German)
Taj company Ltd.
Indian spelling (in German)
Bombay spelling
izhar nūn in Bombay prints
Bombאy prints for the Dutch Indies
for Central Asia
Indian pause signs (German)
tajwid ‒ many from Lahore

The title of the 1852 print was: al-kitāb allaḏī qāla allāh taʿAlA fī waṣihī laʾin iǧtamaǧat ...

While the base text is Ḥafṣ it has information in other vowels in the inner margin and different rasm on the outer margins.

reprint

leaving the meaning partial reprint / offprint aside
"reprint" has two distinct meanings:
1. a reissue of a printed work using the same type, plates, etc, as the original
a new printing that is identical to an original; a reimpression.
a facsimile, a copy or reproduction of an old book, manuscript, map, art print
that is as true to the original source as possible.
a new impression, without alteration, of a book or other printed work.

2. a reproduction in print of matter already printed, a new impression, with minor alterations.

We have seen that there are no reprints in the strict sense of the King Fuʾād Edition of 1924 at all.
The editions 1925 to 1929 are different in size and (slightly) in content.
The large KFE II of 1952 has the same size but has almost a thousand changes in content (but not those of 1925 to '29).
The small kfe II after 1952 are made with the 1925 plates but with about a hundred changes introduced in 1952. ‒ I'd say: their text is with­out value, because it is a mix of two different editions, the one made by al-Husainī al-Ḥaddād and the one made under the auspicies of aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ.

Now, let's have a look as the Hyderabad edition of 1938.
It is a double reprint in the second meaning:
double, because of the English trans­lation from 1930 by M.M. Pickthall, and the 1924 Amiriyya print, the KFE I.
But there are imp­rovements in both part:
The English text has four minor changes in verse numbering:

with a kind of justification in English and Urdu

The Arab text is page and line identical with KFE I,
but has a technical dis­ad­vant­age (kasra being below the letters instead being inte­grated into the des­cen­ders like م)





kasra, kasratan, sequential kasratan, kasratan+mīm, and other signs below the base line (like sīn)











and minor improvement to make it acceptable to Indian Muslims.

/ʾallah/ with (short) kasra is changed into /ʾallāh/ with a (long) dagger;
ruquʿāt are added.

While there was no second impression in Hyderabad, in 1976, the year of a huge The World of Islam Festival in London, George Allen & Unwin made a reprint: with the unchanged original and an added foreword

this was reprinted in 1979, and in 1980 for Sharjah.

In the 1970s there were "reprints" in the second meaning (with slight changes) in Bairut:
Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnāni/al-Maṣrī printed (in one volume on Bible paper, just as in London) bilingual editions (with Pickthall's English trans­lation, and with the French one by Denise Masson) for the Lybian World Islamic Call Society.
In these "reprints" some mis­takes in the 1924 text mentioned in KFE II 1952 are changed: like (/ka­limat, qāʾim/ ...)

whether kasra draws the ham­za sign below the base­line has no­thing to do with the rasm, it is a con­ven­tion, but it must be the same in all places. While both the Maġ­rib and India have hamza near kasra, Otto­mans, Turks and Per­sians have it above the base­line.

and most of the time (some were forgotten) when a sura ends with tan­wīn it is changed to tanwīm
because in 1924 it was assumed that after a sura the next one is recited without a fresh basmala. Since 1952 a basmala is assumed, hence in­stead of /an, un, in/ now: /am, um, im/.

I will end with a horrific discovery for a German.
In the English language there is a proper term for our "Flachdruck":
pla·nog·ra·phy (plə-nŏg′rə-fē, plā-) n.
A process for printing from a smooth surface, as litho­graphy or offset.
And there is a wrong one:
li·thog·ra·phy (lĭ-thŏg′rə-fē) n.
A printing process in which the image to be printed is rendered on a flat surface, as on sheet zinc or aluminum, and treated to retain ink while the non­image areas are treated to repel ink.

This is just wrong: "lithos" meaning "stone", not "zinc", nor "aluminum"
The same mistake differently put:
lithography
1. the art or process of producing an image on a flat, specially prepared stone, treating the items to be printed with a greasy substance to which ink adheres, and of taking impressions from this on paper.
2. a similar process in which the stone is replaced by a zinc or aluminum plate, often provided with a photo­sensitive surface for reproduc­ing an image photo­graphical­ly.

While the first definition is fine, the second is stupidly wrong. Why use a word with "stone" in it   for a process with a metall plate, although there are proper terms for the process?
Since the language has the specific "offset" and the general "planography", there is no need to use "lithography" for printing with metall plates.

As much as I am happy with this 1980 reprint for Sharjah informing us of the printer, and the fact that it is an un­changed reproduc­tion, I am horrified by the use of "lithography" for "offset" (knowing that it is not a personal idiocracy).
thanks to Muhammad I. Hozien for providing this (and other images) from his huge collec­tions of maṣā­ḥif.
    ‒
­‒