________________
#tft* (#10) behind the many transformations which the legend had undergone, even if one supposed that such a nucleus had once existed: the point of departure could in inany instances just as well have been mythological (p. 68). Sørensen objected also to the use Lassen had made of genealogies and his allegorical explanation of proper names and events (pp. 65-66). He likewise rejected completely the way in which Lassen tried to reconstruct three different recensions. For instance, Lassen believed to have found an important fragment of the oldest recension in the Bhāratasūtra (Book I, parvan 61; 55 in the critical edition). According to Sørensen this text is nothing more than an extract summarising parts of the contents, and Lassen is wrong in trying to discover in it a part of the oldest form of the saga (p. 101).
Sørensen distinguished between the Mahābhārata saga, the Mahābhārata poem and the Mahābhārata compilation (p. 54). He believed that it would not be possible to uncover the legends which form the basis for the main story of the Mahābhārata because the Mahābhārata is the only source available. However, Sørensen considered it possible to separate, in great part, with absolute certainty the poem and the compilation (p. 55). However, in one place he concedes that in some instances the decision as to what constitutes an interpolation remains subjective and that there is a danger of moving in a circle by proceeding from assumptions which ought first to be proven or refuted independently (p. 133). The poem must have been created by a poet who made use of popular songs which were recited by different rhapsodes (p. 83). These songs belonged to the same main cycle of legends and were recited and revised so that they could be joined together as a whole dominated by one basic and all-embracing legend (p. 81). Here we see clearly the influence of similar theories which were held with regard to the formation of the Homeric epics on the basis of different lays (or Lieder). According to Sørensen, the poem was the result of the work of generations of poets, just as the Mahābhārata compilation was the work of several generations (pp. 81-82). These poets made use of popular legends about heroes. Under the influence of theological speculation, these heroes were made into sons of gods who fought with heavenly weapons against mythical beings. Sørensen believed that the poets who created the Mahābhārata poem already had written texts at their disposal (p. 86). Writing must have been used at an early period, because the works which were compiled by the brahmans were too large to be remembered by heart. Moreover, such studies as philosophy and grammar were impossible without writing. He also believed that the loose connection between the old parts and later additions of didactic and other materials indicated a written tradition. As far as I know no other scholar has considered it necessary to assume such an important role for
