I'm sure the ancient Muslims had their own editorial processes. It is fascinating to read the old orientalist translations on account of their arrogance. I sit here, a student of Arabic and no scholar by any means.

But even I can see in the section where the "corrections" to the Arabic are listed, and it amazes me that this "scholar" was unaware of such things like writing حقيقه hqiqh instead of حقيقة hqiqt is simply a form of shorthand used still today! But the arrogance of the orientalist makes him think that he knows more about Arabic literature and grammar than the Arabs themselves! The word is used with ال al, al-haqiaqt, and you can't use ه ha to say "his/its" if the word has al- at the beginning. This is probably why nobody bothered to dot the tight ta ة at the end.

Similar to the common practice of not writing the dots on a letter ya ي at the end of a word instead writing ى which looks like an alif but is obviously a ya to an experienced reader. The translator misunderstood and believed it was a mistake, حقيقه would mean "reality-his/its" in the masculine form while حقيقة is the feminine form of حقيق. This is the mistake of an amateur.

"Real poverty defined by Abu Abdallah b.
al-Jalla.
Characteristics of the true faqir according to Ibrahim al-Khawwas.
The third class do not possess anything, but when they are in want they beg of a brother Sufi and expiate the act of begging by their sincerity (sdqh)."

Here the translator assumes sadaqah, a type of charity commonly used to expiate sin (zakkat is mandatory giving) , is a mistake, unable to make the connection the translator becomes confused and subsitutes صدقه sadiqh for صدقة sadaqah.

It seems that what is being said is that the begging of the faqir is expiated by charity or sadaqah, giving a portion of what was given to him. No need exists to alter the Arabic or assume it to be an erroneous reading. Clearly the translator's area of expertise is language itself but he is no interpreter. This is common, a person who is capable of translation is not automatically qualified to interpret the meaning of the texts he/she is translating.

Being sincere doesn't expiate sins. Sadaqah can. This shows the arrogance of the ultimately unqualified orientalist, who believes he is editing "for the first time" a book that opens with a statement about the original, anonymous editor!

I guess that doesn't count because he wasn't European,

كتاب اللمع فى التصوف, تأليف أبى نصر عبد الله بن على السراج الطوسى, تحقيق رنولد الن نيكلسون طبعة 1914