Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c17.5

v1.c17.5

The upper limit cannot be so definitely settled; but it seems probable that Rudraṭa was younger than Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Vāmana, with regard to whose date his own time to be settled. We need not go so far as to hold with Jacobi³ that Rudraṭa derived his idea of *vakrókti* from Ratnākara’s well-known poem *Vakrókti-pañcāśikā*, and therefore was later than Ratnākara, son of Amṛtabhānu, who lived under Bṛhaspati and Avantivarman; but it is clear that if this new idea of *vakrókti* did not originate in Ratnākara or even in Rudraṭa, it was defined for the first time by the latter and illustrated by the former as a particular poetic figure. This verbal figure is described as resting on *śleṣa* (paronomasia) and *kāku* (intonation) and is based on a deliberate misunderstanding of one’s words for the purpose of making a clever retort (Rudraṭa ii 14-17). Bhāmaha (ii 85), on the other hand, had taken *vakrókti*, not as a particular poetic figure, but as a certain strikingness of expression which characterises all poetic figures; while Daṇḍin had limited the range of *vakrókti* and made it a collective name for all poetic figures with the exception of *svabhāvókti* (ii 362 and comm. thereon). Vāmana