Conclusion

The Hanumannāṭaka is the greatest achievement of Śrī Hanumat. Traditionally it is known as Mahānāṭaka also. But the origin manuscript of this play is not available now. Tradition says that Hanumannāṭaka was written by Śrī Hanumat on a piece of stone; but Vālmīki thought that this play would decrease the charm and popularity of the Rāmāyaṇa, so he requested Hanumat to throw it into the sea. This dilapidated, stone-written work was discovered in the reign of Bhojarāja of Dhārā. The king having been charmed at the gracefulness of the play ordered Śrī Dāmodara Miśra, his court-poet to remake it.^[1] This edition was known as the western version of Śrī Dāmodara Miśra. Further, there is found another edition also, known as the Eastern edition by Śrī Madhusudana Miśra, in the reign of king Vikramāditya.^[2] The first edition is known as the Hanumannāṭaka and the second edition is known as the Mahānāṭaka.

The present thesis is an attempt at discussing Śrī Dāmodara’s Misrā’s Hanumannāṭaka from various perspectives. Śrī Dāmodara Miśra is one of the respectable authors, in Sanskrit literature, Though there is found another work of this author named the Vāṇībhuṣaṇa. This is a book on prosody. In this composition there are found the discussion on the metres.

The Hanumannāṭaka is a play of fourteen Acts, the story of which is based on the Rāmāyaṇa. Some variations have been made in the construction of the plot. In the 1^st Act of the drama, it is found that God has created Rāma-Lakṣmaṇa-Bharata and Śatrughna as the sons of king Daśaratha to control over the evils. Rāma was the eldest son having divine power. Maharṣi Viśvāmitra took Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa from Daśarātha to save the yajña from the Rākṣasas, they killed Tārakā and went to the hermitage. Subāhu, the Rākṣasa who created problems and trouble, was killed by them and Mārīca was made free. After that Maharṣi Viśvāmitra took them to Janakapurī to show the svayaṃvara of Sītā where the bow would be broken in to pieces. In the svayaṃvara, Rāma broke the bow. At that time Paraśurāma came there and had a debate with Rāma. In the long run, he came to recognize Rāma and his Vaiṣṇava bow and the Paraśu-astra given by Siva were handed over to Rāma and left the place. The function of marriage began and they returned to Ayudhyā after the completion of marriage. The second Act deals with the description of love-sports of Rāma and Sītā after marriage. The 3^rd Act is mainly descriptive, dealing with the agitation of Kaikeyī, exile of Rāma, the sorrow of the people and the relatives, Bharata’s rebuke of his mother, residence at Pañcavatī and departure of the two brothers in chase of the false deer. In the 4^th Act, it is found that Rāvaṇa was disguised as a beggar and caught Sītā to Laṅkā. Jaṭāyu’s fruitless attempt to rescue is also presented and the story is carried down to Rāma’s return after the chase to the deserted hut. The 5^th Act deals with Rāma’s sorrows, Jaṭāyu’s death, discussion between Rāma and Hanumat about Sītā, Vāli’s death, and the days spent by Rāma in the rainy season in the forest. In the 6^th Act there is a description of discussion of Rāma with Hanumat and his companions and Hanumat’s departure to Laṅkā to give message of Rāma to Sītā. There Hanumat met Sītā and gave her the message of Rāma and came back to Rāma with Sītā’s message. The 7^th Act of the Mahānaṭaka, which deals with the festival of Vijayādaśamī and the conversation between Vibhīṣaṇa and Rāvaṇa and problem in ocean to accept the bridge is solved. The 8^th Act deals with the sending of Aṅgada by Rāma to demand restoration of Sītā from Rāvaṇa. In the 9^th Act Mandodarī suggested Rāvaṇa to make Sītā free and to send her to Rāma but Rāvaṇa tried his best to show some artificial power to Sītā to convince her but he failed in his attempt for Saramā Rākṣasī, which is mentioned in the 10^th Act of the Hanumannāṭaka In the 11^th Act Rāvaṇa sent Kumbhakarṇa to fight against Rāma but he failed in his attempt and at last Kumbhakarṇa was killed by Rāma. In the 12^th Act, Meghanāda is found in the battle against Rāma and he was destroyed and failed in his attempt. In the 13^th Act, knowing that Meghanāda was defeated Rāvaṇa was perplexed and attacked Lakṣmaṇa. Lakṣmaṇa recovered at the treatment of Suṣeṇa, the Vaidya. In the 14^th Act there is found the description of the terrible fight between Rāma and Rāvaṇa, Rāvaṇa’s death, Sītā’s Agniparīkṣā, coronation of Vibhīsaṇa as per rule, Rāma’s coronation, Sītā’s exile and Rāma’s return to Ayodhyā etc. This Act ends with a verse expecting Rāma’s favour and grace..

In this present dissertation the topics are presented in seven chapters. The 1^st chapter starts with the description of Sanskrit Kāvya, Dṛśyakāvya and Śravya-Kāvya varieties of Dṛśyakāvya, specialities of Nāṭaka and Mahānāṭaka and some important plays based on the Rāmāyaṇa.

The 2^nd chapter deals with the description of Śrī Dāmodara Miśra, his genealogy and other works of the author. There are found many opinions about the authorship but it can be said that Śrī Dāmodara is the author this Hanumannāṭaka under discussion. He lived in Mithilā and flourished during 16^th century A.D.

The content of the Hanumannāṭaka, its source, deviation from the original, innovation made by dramatist, probable reasons for deviation and innovation are discussed in the 3^rd chapter. The writer Śrī Dāmodara Miśra is found having commendable ability of creativity. It is a fact that Vālmikī’s Rāmāyaṇa is a Śravyakāvya, whereas the Hanumannāṭaka is a Dṛśyakāvya. The dramatist is supposed to utilize his own innovative skill to make his writing a successful one and it is the case with the Hanumannāṭaka also.

The 4^th chapter deals with the literary assessment of the Hanumannāṭaka The points discussed in this chapter are adherence of the Hanumannāṭaka to the norms of a Mahānāṭaka, Guṇa, Rīti, Rasa, principal sentiment, metrical structure of the verses, Kavisamayas, characterization, use of prākṛt, supernatural elements in the Hanumannāṭaka, and examination of various elements of the Nāṭaka in the play.

The 5^th chapter deals with the philosophical and religious elements in the play, social order, dress and decoration, family life, information of various flora and fauna etc.

Examination of the language from the literary perspectives, influence of other poets upon the dramatist, influence of the dramatist upon other writers are discussed in the 6^th chapter.

The 7^th chapter is the concluding one.

The Hanumannāṭaka of Śrī Dāmodara Miśra is occupying a significant position among the Rāmāyanic plays in Sanskrit. The dramatist Śrī Dāmodara Miśra possesses genuine literary skill and the play Hanumannāṭaka becomes an interesting one with the poetic talent and scholarship. However, it is felt that though the Hanumannāṭaka has been traditionally ascribed the status of a Mahānāṭaka yet one may not be happy with the mode of presentation of the events in a dramatic way. Many a dramatic elements of a conventional Sanskrit play are wanting in it. Moreover, the playwright is found less interested in imposing dramatic action; he is happy with the representation of the emotion of the characters concerned. Of course, more emphasis upon delineation of emotional condition and less weightage upon dramatic suspense and action can be said to be a feature of almost all the Sanskrit plays; and Śrī Dāmodara Miśra is also not an exception in this regard. As a result one may find the drama more appealing as a poem than a drama. This present dissertation has attempted to deal with some of the important aspects of this drama. It is hoped that this work will be of some use for further research on Rāmāyanic plays in general and on the Hanumannāṭaka of Śrī Dāmodara Miśra in particular.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

racitamanilaputrena … miśradāmodareṇa// Hanumannāṭaka,XIV. 96

[2]:

eṣa śrīlahanumatā … evetyasau// Mahānāṭaka I.149