47 This much is well known. There is an important side light to this issue which has received less attention. That is the question of the point at which "pure" myth, if indeed such a thing may be postulated, becomes literature. There are many issues involved here — far too many to go into at the moment. However, it is clear that some adequate definition of the two terms "myth" and "literature" is a prime desideratum. This is beyond the scope of this, or perhaps any, article. On the other hand, it is clear that there are certain unmistakable differences between the story of Pururavas and Urva^i as it appears in, say the Satapathabrdhmana and Kalidasa^ V^kramorvaSzya. The first (exclusive of the Samhita verses) is a simple, unadorned narrative presentation of a mythic episode for ritual, i.e., religious, purposes. The purpose of the latter is, of course, the stimulation of esthetic transport in the audience for which it was intended. In both cases the story, or, that is to say, the myth, is molded to the purpose of the author. No one would deny that Kalidasa^ purpose is strictly "literary" while that of the Brahmana is not. But what about the "intermediary" cases? There are several versions of the Pururavas story which would appear to be somewhere in-between" the two from the standpoint of literary content or output. Or take the case of the Rama legends. Surely Valmik^s epic presupposes a simpler cycle of myth. The R^mayana itself is then a literary-type elaboration of- those myths without, however, being the same type of thing as works such as RaghuvamSa or Uttapapamacarita. Once again the difference has to do with the underlying intention of the authors. The point here is that there is something of a continuum running from simple myth, recounted as simply as possible, to highly ornate kavya treating the same material. Where, if anywhere, does one draw the line? Viewed in this way, it becomes clear that much of the mythological material that we find in the epics and Puranas partakes of both worlds. We find myths recounted at considerable length which show serious attention to the literary potential of language, as well as departure from straightforward narrative by means of material calculated to evoke the kinds of feelings associated with appreciation of true art-literature in India — feelings such as pity, fear, astonishment, amusement, etc. Interestingly, these portions of certain epic and Puranic myths seem; to bear little relation to the strictly mythical or religious content of the stories. The strong implication of such passages is that there were "literary" forces at work in the formation of the myths; forces which could perhaps have induced the author of redactor of a given piece to modify the myth for a certain effect, just as Kalidasa, on a much more exalted level to be sure, alters the tale of Pururavas. Without giving serious consideration to this kind of phenomenon in all its many ramifications, it would be foolish to feel that we understand Indian myth as we have it in much of the epic and Puranic literature. Indeed, we could hardly say that we were able to distinguish adequately myth from a form of literature,