Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c10.s11.4

c10.s11.4

Bhavabhūti had very good relations with the repertoire which presented his plays on stage. And yet in his second play, i.e. the *Mālatīmādhavam*, Bhavabhūti expresses his anguish for being disregarded. G.K. Bhat opines that the reason for this so-called disregard lies in Bhavabhūti's neglect of his family traditions, and his indulgence in theatre. This does not sufficiently explain the outburst by Bhavabhūti. It is true that in the tradition of highly orthodox and scholarly family to which Bhavabhūti belonged, writing of poetry or play was supposed to be an inferior task of derogatory nature. However, Bhavabhūti would not expect appreciation from his family members whom he has left to seek his career as a dramatist. It is clear that he is unhappy because his first play *Mahāvīracaritam* has not been properly received. Bhavabhūti has recast the whole story of *Rāmāyaṇa* offering new interpretations to many of its characters and episodes. This redesigning of the whole story must have been somewhat startling for his audience. This in itself cannot become a reason for the disregard of which Bhavabhūti is talking in his verse — ye *nāma kecidiḥ naḥ*, etc. It is Bhavabhūti's portrayal of the character of Paraśurāma that must have caused a furor amongst a section of the society, to the extent that there was a movement to seize the copies of the text of *Mahāvīracaritam* and destroy them by putting them into fire.³⁰