319. APPAYYADIKŞITA 321

APPAYYADIKŞITA 321

(Madras University, 1929) pp. 9-15, where a list collected from several sources is given. Many of the works are lost. In Hultzsch's Report on South Indian Sanskrit mss. vol. II. pp. 90-100 an extract from the शिवादित्यमसिदीपिका of अप्पय्य is set out, wherein अप्पय्य speaks of आचार्यदीक्षित and रहराज as his grand- father and father respectively and the colophon states that he was urged to write the work by king चिन्नबोम्म. This last was the son of चिन्नवीर and father of लिक्गमनायक. These three chiefs are mentioned in the Vilāpāka grant of śaka 1523 (I. A. vol. XIII, p. 127 note 17 and E. I. vol. IV. p. 269). The inscrip- tions of चिन्नबोम्म of Velur are dated saka 1471 and 1488 (vide South Indian Ins. vol. I. p. 69 and p. 84). Venkata I of Pennakonda urged अप्पय्य to compose the कुवलयानन्द and the former's inscriptions range from śaka 1508 to 1535 (E. I. vol. III. p. 238 Table) i. e. 1586 to 1613 A. D. Dr. Raghavan (in Proceeding of the !0th Session of the All India O. Confe- rence pp. 176-180) shows that there were three persons named Appayya in the same family in three generations. This circumstance has naturally caused some confusion. 39 The रसगङ्गाघर of जगनाथ. This work together with the commentary called मर्मप्रकाश by नागेशभद्ट has been edited in the K. M. series. This is a standard work on poetics, particu- larly on alankaras. The TeTRTeT stands next only to the aTT- लोक and the काव्यप्रकाश in the field of Poetics. Though a modern writer he has a wonderful command over classical Sanskrit. He cites his own examples, as he proudly says in ₹T. p. 3. 'निर्माय नूतनमुदाहरखानुरूपं काव्यं मयात्र निहितं न परस्य किन्चित। कि सेव्यते सुमनसां मनसापि गन्धः कस्तूरिकाजननशक्तिभृता मृगेय ॥'. His verses are composed in an easy, flowing and graceful style and exhibit great poetic talent. His method is first to define a topic, then to discuss it and elucidate it by citing his own examples and to comment on the views of his predecessors. His prose is characterised by a lucid and vigorous style and displays great critical acumen. He is always independent in his views and boldly criticizes on occasions esteemed ancient writers, e. g. ध्वन्यालोक (for regarding the verse प्राप्तश्रीः as an example of रूपक- ध्वनि, p. 247.), मम्मट (pp. 5,229, 324), अलक्कारसर्वस्व (pp.251,269, 301, 342 &c.), साहित्यदर्पण (p.7). His criticism displays great sanity of judgment, maintains a high level of brilliant polemics and acuteness and is generally couched in courteous language