M.'s book contributes masterfully to the study of Greek mythography, which in recent years has experienced notable progress, especially since the publication of R. Fowler's Early Greek Mythography (two vols, 2000/2013) and more recently with the appearance of the Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Mythography (edd. R.S. Scott and S. Trzaskoma [2022]).
M. establishes a double focus of analysis: at a macro-level M. addresses the study of the Bibliotheca as a whole. Far from being considered, once again, a kind of mythological encyclopaedia, the book is analysed as a work with a specific purpose and structure, built upon a solid blueprint. At a micro-level M. delves into the genealogical structure and the way in which each piece of mythical narrative takes its part in the whole. The study of the Agenorid myth is undertaken in the edition, translation and commentary of Bibl. 3.1–56, deepening the micro-level with a detailed dissection of the text.
The chronological range of the sources and the bibliography consulted is comprehensive: from the complete set of manuscripts (even those neglected by earlier editors) to the most recent studies, passing through the humanistic editions and the abundant nineteenth-century scholarship, the foundation of all subsequent research. An example of this exhaustiveness is the first in-depth analysis of the story of the twelve labours of Heracles in the MS Neapolitanus Bibl. Nat. II D.4, on the basis of textual coincidences with Ps.-Apollodorus, a brand-new contribution to the study of the textual tradition of the Bibliotheca (section 3.2.7, pp. 68–77).
The book is structured in three parts. Part 1: ‘Pseudo-Apollodorus and the Bibliotheca’; Part 2: ‘Composition and Organization of the Bibliotheca’; Part 3: ‘Commentary on Bibl. III.1–56’. Part 1 is subdivided into four chapters: (1) ‘The Author of the Bibliotheca. A Brief Introduction’; (2) ‘The Purpose and Target Audience of the Bibliotheca’; (3) ‘The Textual History of the Bibliotheca’; (4) ‘The Book Division of the Bibliotheca’. This first part is an update on the most debated issues in recent scholarship. Chapter 3 stands out as the most complete description of the textual transmission of the Bibliotheca that improves M. Papathomopoulos’s and F.J. Cuartero's introductions to their respective, recent editions (2010).
Part 2 includes the following chapters: (5) ‘The Content and Arrangement of Book III’; (6) ‘Formulaic Phrases as Organizational Tools in the Bibliotheca’; (7) ‘Sources and Method of Ps.-Apollodorus’. This is the most innovative part of the book. M. takes a stand on some of the most debated points and provides convincing arguments. What follows is an attempt to outline in a few words some of the most prominent issues.
Chapter 5 analyses the structure of Book 3 as a preliminary study for the commentary in Part 3. In section 5.2 M. reassesses the traditional recourse to the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women to study the structure and planning of the Bibliotheca. In 5.3 she questions the hypothesis of Pherecydes being the main source on the macro-level.
Chapter 6 takes up the issue of the composition based on formulaic phrases and cross-references as an approach to Ps.-Apollodorus’ method.
Chapter 7 analyses Ps.-Apollodorus’ use of sources. M. resumes some of the arguments outlined in Chapter 5 and applies them to the entire text. In 7.3 she admits a Hesiodic inspiration at the macro-level, but not at the micro-level, as her focus on the different branches of the genealogy shows (p. 152). In other words, the Bibliotheca does not follow a compositional scheme based on Hesiod, although the points of agreement are many. In 7.5 she returns to Pherecydes. Despite frequent coincidences in the story and the structure of the genealogies, the fragmentary state of Pherecydes’ works advises caution. Furthermore, Pherecydes is often cited only as testimony to a genealogical or mythical variant. M. also rules out the hypothesis of the Bibliotheca being an epitome of the works of Pherecydes, although its influence is undeniable. She warns of the risk of circularity: given that both the Catalogues attributed to Hesiod and the works of Pherecydes are fragmentary, if Ps.-Apollodorus is adduced to organise these fragments, the fragmentary editions cannot later be used to analyse the structure of the Bibliotheca.
M. rejects any possibility of identifying the direct source(s) of Ps.-Apollodorus at the macro-level given the fragmentary state in which they are preserved. Conversely, M. does not consider the hypothesis of a new and original organisation of the mythical material by the mythographer, a hypothesis that has not been sufficiently studied to date. M. reinforces the hypothesis according to which the cited sources do not fully coincide with the sources consulted by the author. In many cases the mention of an author is made only to show disagreement.
Other sections of Chapter 7 are devoted to the relationship between Ps.-Apollodorus and other classical authors, namely Homer (section 7.2), tragedy (7.9) and early mythographers (Acusilaus [7.4], Hellanicus [7.5], Herodorus [7.7]). In four excursuses she assesses all the marginal testimonies of the mythical tradition: Tabulae Iliacae (excursus A), Mythographus Homericus (B), Hyginus (C), Scholia in Phoenissas and Thomas Magister (D). The effort made by M. and the results of her research are, at this point, a great contribution to the understanding of the position of the Bibliotheca in the mythographical tradition. She demonstrates that Ps.-Apollodorus often coincides with other sources from the imperial period (discussed in the excursuses), showing preference for the most common versions of his own time.
The synthesis in section 7.12 gathers the conclusions of all the analysis undertaken in Part 2. M. applies to Book 3 the method that A. Söder applied to Book 1 (‘Quellenuntersuchung zum 1. Buch der Apollodorschen Bibliothek’ [Diss. Würzburg, 1939]), as she admits: focusing on the use of sources rather than discussing for the thousandth time intertextual relations between Ps.-Apollodorus and his models appears to be quite innovative and productive. She advocates for the use of intermediate sources, a theory that is certainly not new, but is for the first time supported by systematic analysis.
The commentary in Part 3 is divided into five thematic sections: (1) ‘Introduction to the Agenorids’; (2) ‘Cretan Myths’; (3) ‘Theban Myths: Cadmus and Dionysus’; (4) ‘Theban Myths: Amphion & Zethus and the Labdacids’; (5) ‘Theban Myths: Oedipus’. Her own edition of the text is followed by an English translation, an apparatus criticus and the commentary on philological and mythological issues (like Fowler, EGM, vol. 2, but organised by lemmata following the text), covering problems of transmission and textual criticism, intertextuality, the discussion of mythographic variants and the analysis of the use of sources. Likewise, she resumes the issue of the formulaic phrases discussed in Chapter 6 in a more in-depth analysis as a study of the structure of Book 3.
M. offers an excellent volume, the outcome of an accurate philological method. It is a highly specialised book that takes the current issues concerning Ps.-Apollodorus one step further. The reader has the impression of having two books in one, as the long title suggests: a treatise on the Bibliotheca and a commented edition of section 3.1–56. Continuous reading of the entire volume provides a fully documented update, followed by the exposition of M.'s theses. Discussion of specific passages will be especially useful to readers interested in case studies, who will be able to navigate the book easily with the help of several indexes and tables.
