Rase: another spelling of raze (literary) [closed]
I do not think that your question can be answered.
My 60-years-old Shorter Oxford English Dictionary states that 'rase' is archaic, citing a use in the 16th century, and prefers 'raze' citing a use also in the 16th century - a period in which English spelling was by no means settled.
I don't know what evidence is required to show that an archaic usage is literary. It might just have been a spelling mistake. Equally I don't know how you prove that such a usage was NOT literary.