Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c32.13

v1.c32.13

We are thus confronted with two distinct traditions, embodied in these two different views and prevailing in the North and in the South of India respectively, with regard to the authorship of the *vṛtti*, there being no dispute as to Ruyyaka’s authorship of the *sūtra*-text itself. So far as we can judge, the North Indian tradition, obtaining in Kashmir, to which place both Ruyyaka and Maṅkhaka belonged, seems to be the authentic one; for the South Indian tradition is not uniform in this respect and does not always distinguish between the author of the *sūtra* and the *vṛtti* respectively. Thus Appayya Dīkṣita, a noted South Indian writer, refers⁴ to Ruyyaka or Rucaka as the author of the work as a whole, which is called the *Alaṃkāra-sarvasva*, attributing to him both the *sūtra* and the vṛtti; and Appayya is in agreement, in this respect, with Mallinātha¹, Kumārasvāmin², and Jagannātha³. On the other hand, the testimony of Jayaratha, himself a Kashmiriau, cannot be very well superseded by what the later commentator Samudrabandha says in conformity to a tradition which itself is not unanimous. It is also significant that while Ruyyaka (and even Jayaratha) is quoted and discussed extensively by later writers on Poetics, Maṅkhaka is not cited as a writer on the subject except once by Appayya in his Citra-mīmāṃsā (p. 10).