minor correction

Author: danbalogh

xml-provisional/DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00107.xml

@@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ n="82" break="no"/>ne dattasy<choice><sic>ā</sic><corr>a</corr></choice> ś<cho
 <p rend="stanza" n="14"><supplied reason="subaudible">Then</supplied> his brother by a different mother, Vimalāditya’s son Vijayāditya, obtained kingship after forcibly expelling that King <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>nr̥pati</foreign></supplied> Rājarāja from the land. He—</p>
 <p rend="stanza" n="15">—the forehead ornament of the Lunar dynasty, the son of Rājamārtaṇḍa <supplied reason="explanation">Vimalāditya</supplied>, the valiant King <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>bhūpa</foreign></supplied> Vijayāditya, majestic, endowed with heroism and greatly auspicious—donned the turban <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>paṭṭa</foreign></supplied> of sovereignty over Veṅgī upon the multitude of Śaka years measured by eyes <supplied reason="explanation">2</supplied>, arrows <supplied reason="explanation">5</supplied> and treasures <supplied reason="explanation">9</supplied> <supplied reason="explanation">i.e. Śaka 952 expired</supplied>, when the harsh-rayed <supplied reason="subaudible">sun</supplied> was staying in Cancer <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>karka</foreign></supplied>, on the day of Aditi’s son <supplied reason="explanation">i.e. of Āditya, hence Sunday</supplied> that was the fifth <supplied reason="subaudible"><foreign>tithi</foreign></supplied> of a bright <supplied reason="subaudible">fortnight</supplied>, in the asterism <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>bha</foreign></supplied> of the Sun,<note>See the commentary about the date.</note> with Virgo <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>kanya</foreign></supplied> as ascendant <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>lagna</foreign></supplied>.</p>
 <p rend="stanza" n="16">Those who seek to harm him, he treats like <supplied reason="subaudible">his own</supplied> sons <supplied reason="subaudible">provided that they</supplied> seek his pardon. Retainers and learned men, he treats like <supplied reason="subaudible">his own</supplied> kinsmen, with gifts of honour. Young women belonging to another, he treats like <supplied reason="subaudible">his own</supplied> mother. Being <supplied reason="subaudible">thus</supplied> free of crookedness in his conduct, he as king safeguards <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>av-</foreign></supplied> the earth as well as his own moral duty <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>dharma</foreign></supplied>.</p>
-<p rend="stanza" n="17">The fame of this king <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>kṣitipa</foreign></supplied> Cālukya-Bhīma shines forth, being evidently <supplied reason="subaudible">the goddess</supplied> Gaurī, <supplied reason="subaudible">yet</supplied>—absurdly!—blatantly disobeying <supplied reason="subaudible">her father</supplied> Himavat and shunning the body of Umā’s lord <supplied reason="subaudible">her husband Śiva</supplied>… <supplied reason="subaudible">but in fact</supplied> <seg rend="pun">being proven white, leaping high over the Himalaya, and <seg cert="low">rivalling the body of Śiva</seg></seg>.<note>The stanza is rather difficult to interpret, owing in part to a scribal error, for which the apparatus to line 68. It seems certain that it is an apparent contradiction (<foreign>virodhābhāsa</foreign>) which hinges on the ambiguity of <foreign>gaurī</foreign>, a name of the goddess Pārvatī and an adjective meaning ‘pale, white,’ hence ‘bright’ or ‘spotless’. The double entendre is self-evident in the first quarter, but I am uncertain how the second quarter ought to be read when not applying to the goddess. Provided that I have emended the text correctly, the only interpretation I can offer is that in the translation above. The verb <foreign>dviṣ-</foreign> can, in poetic language, mean ‘vie with, rivalise’ in addition to the straightforward sense ‘be hostile,’ and Śiva’s body is often conceived of as white (being smeared with ashes), so the king’s fame may be understood to rival that whiteness. However, this reading of <foreign>dviṣ-</foreign> is something of a stretch, while <foreign>umeśvarāṅga</foreign> means the same thing, ‘the body of Śiva,’ in both readings, which is not very elegant.</note></p>
+<p rend="stanza" n="17">The fame of this king <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>kṣitipa</foreign></supplied> Cālukya-Bhīma shines forth, being evidently <supplied reason="subaudible">the goddess</supplied> Gaurī, <supplied reason="subaudible">yet</supplied>—absurdly!—blatantly disobeying Himavat <supplied reason="explanation">her father</supplied> and shunning the body of Umā’s lord <supplied reason="explanation">her husband Śiva</supplied>… <supplied reason="subaudible">but in fact</supplied> <seg rend="pun">being proven white, leaping high over the Himalaya, and <seg cert="low">rivalling the body of Śiva</seg></seg>.<note>The stanza is rather difficult to interpret, owing in part to a scribal error, for which the apparatus to line 68. It seems certain that it is an apparent contradiction (<foreign>virodhābhāsa</foreign>) which hinges on the ambiguity of <foreign>gaurī</foreign>, a name of the goddess Pārvatī and an adjective meaning ‘pale, white,’ hence ‘bright’ or ‘spotless’. The double entendre is self-evident in the first quarter, but I am uncertain how the second quarter ought to be read when not applying to the goddess. Provided that I have emended the text correctly, the only interpretation I can offer is that in the translation above. The verb <foreign>dviṣ-</foreign> can, in poetic language, mean ‘vie with, rivalise’ in addition to the straightforward sense ‘be hostile,’ and Śiva’s body is often conceived of as white (being smeared with ashes), so the king’s fame may be understood to rival that whiteness. However, this reading of <foreign>dviṣ-</foreign> is something of a stretch, while <foreign>umeśvarāṅga</foreign> means the same thing, ‘the body of Śiva,’ in both readings, which is not very elegant.</note></p>
 <p n="69-71">That majestic shelter of all the world <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>sarva-lokāśraya</foreign></supplied>, His Majesty King <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>mahārāja</foreign></supplied> Viṣṇuvardhana, the Emperor <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>rājādhirāja</foreign></supplied>, His Majesty the divine Vijayāditya <supplied reason="explanation">VII</supplied>, convokes all householders <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>kuṭumbin</foreign></supplied>—including foremost the territorial overseers <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>rāṣṭrakūṭa</foreign></supplied>—and, witnessed by all dignitaries <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>pradhāna</foreign></supplied>, commands them as follows.</p>
 <p rend="stanza" n="18">Having defeated all rival rulers <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>kṣitipa</foreign></supplied>, the lord <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>rājan</foreign></supplied> Kucamma had made it possible for his suzerain the king <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>bhūpati</foreign></supplied> to take over the earth, and he obtained a reward from him.<note>I translate what I believe to have been the intended message, but for this translation to be syntactically possible, <foreign>kucamma-rāja</foreign> ought to be in the nominative rather than the instrumental. The name itself is problematic, see the apparatus to line 72 and the commentary.</note></p>
 <p rend="stanza" n="19">The majestic lord <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>rājan</foreign></supplied> Cāme as husband, and <supplied reason="subaudible">his</supplied> faithful <supplied reason="subaudible">wife</supplied> Kāmāmbikā, had a son born <supplied reason="subaudible">to them</supplied>: the lord <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>bhūpa</foreign></supplied> Bhīma.<note>The stanza is problematic on several counts. It consists only of three <foreign>pāda</foreign>s instead of four, and the first of the three is grossly unmetrical. I see no straightforward way to restoring the correct metre. The phrasing of the received text is also awkward and, with two occurrences of <foreign>ca</foreign>, it would rather suggest that Bhīma had three parents: Cāme, Cāme’s lord <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>bhartr̥</foreign></supplied>, and Kāmāmbikā. I wonder if, before being mangled by the scribe, the stanza might have actually said that Kāmāmbikā was the daughter of Cāme’s overlord. I also wonder if the missing fourth quarter might have introduced another generation between Bhīma and the donee. See also the commentary.</note></p>