Few epic scholars today would deny that the Mahåhårata can be read as literature; most indeed would insist that it should be. There is however a wider ranger of opinion in contemporary scholarship on the matter of what exactly we are doing when we read the Mahåbhårata as literature, and by extension a range of opinions on what policies and procedures should govern our reading. The authorship of the poem-a question directly impacting our reading of the text-is thus one of the most fundamental problems of epic scholarship. Increasingly, many epic scholars are embracing Alf Hiltebeitel's model of the poem as a largescale, short-term literary creation. Others have adopted a model whereby, despite an undefined period of growth over time, the epic came to possess a marked unity and narrative continuity through a unifying redactorial process. This latter model thus acknowledges a possibly extended chronology for the poem, but emphasizes the Mahåbhårata's inner consistency and continuity, often attributing such internal consistency to a single moment or period of definitive redaction. These models of authorshipwhether creation-or redaction-centered-then enable synchronous readings of the poem which identify design and deliberate literary construction across the epic text. Thus when even widely separated moments in the enormous poem are seen to cross-reference each other through the repetition of particular motifs, symmetrical construction of episodes or other kinds of conspicuous narrative mirroring, these models of creation or redaction appear to be vindicated, while longer-term diachronic models