conferring a special status upon them. Sometimes the 18 “major Pura ̄n.as” are
contrasted with 18 “minor Pura ̄n.as” (upapura ̄n.as; cf. Brahmavaivarta4.132.
10,22), but there is far less agreement as to the names of the latter than there
is for the maha ̄pura ̄n.as.Rocher discusses the two categories, and concludes that
the distinction between them is purely artificial, because “there is no basic dif-
ference between the maha ̄pura ̄n.as on the one hand and the upapura ̄n.as on the
other” (Rocher 1986: 69).
However, it may be that the number 18 was not intended originally to single
out a particularly weighty group of Pura ̄n.as from the rest. Originally it may have
been a statement about the Pura ̄n.as generally. There were 18 Pura ̄n.as, just as
there were 18 parvansin the Maha ̄bha ̄rata, 18 chapters in the Bhagavadgı ̄ta ̄, 18
days of the Maha ̄bha ̄ratabattle, and 18 armies fighting in it. In other words, the
“18-ness” of the Pura ̄n.as may be a symbol of their close connection with
theMaha ̄bha ̄rata.There are other signs of such a connection: almost all the
bra ̄hman.ical Sanskrit Pura ̄n.as begin, as the Maha ̄bha ̄ratadoes, with a conversa-
tion between the Bard (Su ̄ ta) and the r.s.isof the Naimis.a forest. Without excep-
tion, their standard meter is that of the Maha ̄bha ̄rata, the s ́loka.This, of course,
is not peculiar to the Maha ̄bha ̄rata– indeed the Ra ̄ma ̄yan.aclaims that its com-
poser Va ̄lmı ̄ki invented the s ́loka(Ra ̄m1.2). But while the Ra ̄ma ̄yan.aintroduces
its speeches with metrical formulas which are part of its essential structure, the
Pura ̄n.as follow the Maha ̄bha ̄a ̄ratain using “prose formulae...ofthe type arjuna
uva ̄caandr.s.aya u ̄cuh.... and so on” (Goldman 1984: 17). Their reputed author,
Vya ̄sa, is held to be the composer of the Maha ̄bha ̄rataalso. They almost all employ
theMaha ̄bha ̄rata’s introductory verse, applying to themselves the title Javathat
it uses for the Maha ̄bha ̄rata.
The exact meaning of this claim is not certain. Do the Pura ̄n.as regard them-
selves as some kind of extension to the Maha ̄bha ̄rata? Perhaps: they extend and
systematize its mythic chronology, and retell many of its myths. But the human
beings who appear in pura ̄n.ic stories do not struggle to understand and follow
dharmain the manner of the Maha ̄bha ̄rata’s protagonists. They are for the most
part exemplars or opponents ofbhaktiwho play stereotyped roles in relation to
the Supreme God whom they adore or defy. Perhaps what the Pura ̄n.as are claim-
ing is that they complement the Maha ̄bha ̄ratain some way, making up together
theitiha ̄sapura ̄n.awhich is necessary to augment the Veda (Mbh 1.1.204;
1.2.235/Va ̄yu1.200–1).
The “Five Characteristic Topics”
In the preface to his Vis.n.upura ̄n.a(the first translation of a Pura ̄n.a into English,
originally published in 1840), H. H. Wilson said that “that which has five char-
acteristic topics” (his translation ofpañcalaks.an.a) meant that the contents of a
Pura ̄n.a were:
134 freda matchett