Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c17.32

v1.c17.32

I The quotations from these two writers in later literature are unfortunately mostly anonymous, and do not materially help us in this question. Among the very few cases where the author's name is cited along with his verses, Mammaṭa, himself a Kashmirian, correctly refers (ad ix 8a) the verse *sphuṭam arthālaṃkāram* to Rudraṭa (iv 32). Samudrabandha (p. 6) and Hemacandra (p. 286 Comm.) refers rightly to Rudraṭa vii 38-40 and vii 27 respectively. Ruyyaka, which discussing Rudraṭa's views, does not refer to his treatment of the *rasas* at all. On the other hand, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (p. 35) cites *vāmatā durlabhatvam* from *Śṛṅgāra-til.* (ii 41), and correctly refers to the author as Rudra. Vallabhadeva in his anthology cites a number of verses from the *Kāvyālaṃkāra* (421 = ii 17; 730 = iii 57; 1387 = vi 10; 1667 = ii 30; 2047 = vii 71; 2061 = vii 33; 2234 = vii 41; 2409 = vii 32), and with two exceptions, gives the name of the author correctly as Rudraṭa. Similarly Śārṅgadhara quotes eight verse from the *Śṛṅgāra-til.* (3409 = i 95; 3567 = i 35; 3568 = i 81; 3670 = ii 107; 3578 = ii 12; 3579 = ii 50; 3675 = i 51; 3754 = i 30), and with two exceptions, again, Rudrabhaṭṭa’s date is uncertain; but as Hemacandra (p. 110) is the oldest writer to quote and criticise his *maṅgala*-verse (i 1), we should place him between Rudraṭa and Hemacandra, i. e. later than the 9th century but earlier, probably not much earlier, than the 12th. One verse, however, of Rudra, which cannot be traced in his *Śṛṅgāra-tilaka*, is quoted by Dhanika (iv 60, ed. N. S. P. 1917, p. 103); and if this Rudra is the same as our author, he should be placed before the end of the 10th century.¹