A.'s volume provides a refreshing perspective on the latest Apollodorian studies. This publication is the result of research undertaken for his doctoral dissertation defended in 2016. Although the methodological foundation is the same in both works, the present book better articulates the different examples extracted from the Bibliotheca.

The purpose of the work is well defined in the introduction, which presents a solid theoretical framework and collects in a masterfully syntactic manner the most important secondary bibliography on the work of Apollodorus. A. eschews the Quellenforschung that obsessed the philologists of the last century – a practice that is currently kept alive in the Flemish school of Marc Huys and his disciples. Instead, A. is interested in delving into the diachronic dimension of the tradition, given that the text of Apollodorus is only a specific moment in the transmission. The importance of the work's genealogical concatenation structure is also stressed; this systematisation is not simply inherited from tradition but is the result of the mythographer's original compositional plan.

For this reason, instead of trying to find the sources for the mythic accounts without any cited authority, A. prefers to explore the ‘temporal stratigraphy’ that underlies the text (p. 6). A. strives to search for time marks that resulted in anachronisms concerning the general context of the mythic setting. Therefore, highlighting the original elements of the retelling of Apollodorus is the main objective of the volume. In order to accomplish this, Louis Gernet's notions of ‘image mythique’ and ‘polyvalence des images’ are applied to the myths. Here ‘image’ is understood as a ‘minimum unit of mythical language’.

In the first chapter, ‘La mano del mitografo’, A. focuses on the Apollodorian version of the distribution of sovereignty among the three sons of Kronos, which contrasts with the predominance of Zeus over his brothers present in pre-existing sources. In Apollodorus the ἀρχή is distributed among the three brothers based on a draw resulting in three δυναστείαι that correspond to three territorial areas. This idea differs from the conception of ἀρχή in the archaic tradition. In Homer, for instance, the division into three cosmic spheres does not imply a division of kingship – Zeus still has leadership in the assembly of the gods. Additionally, in Hesiod's Theogony the notion of βασιλεία is exclusively applied to Zeus after the overthrowing of Kronos (vv. 881–5). Even when talking about Kronos’ ‘reign’, he is referred to as ἄναξ (v. 486), and the βασιληίδα τιμήν is mentioned only to determine that he will lose it to Zeus (v. 462).

To understand Apollodorus’ rereading of the traditional elements, A. engages in an analysis of the use of ἀρχή, δυναστεία and βασιλεία. The examination of the context where δυναστεία appears in contrast to ἀρχή allows specifying the semantic evolution that implies the precision of spatial order in Apollodorus. In the same way, authors from imperial times, such as Polybius, use δυναστεία – or ἀρχή καὶ δυναστεία – to refer to power in terms of spatial dimensions, especially referring to Rome's hegemony. Originally, δυναστεία is a personal power, often illegitimate and informal, which is opposed to ἀρχή, the institutional power of the polis. Over time, δυναστεία also gained weight as a type of power that is exercised territorially.

‘La stratigrafia mitica e la Biblioteca’ examines the episode of the murder of the musician Linos by Herakles. It is a motif widely used in pottery and appears in many literary sources. The originality of Apollodorus resides in the fact that the resolution of the episode goes through a judicial process. A. ushers in a study of the ‘trans-contextualization’ of the legal incident (p. 67). First, he establishes the difference between a Theban vision of Herakles as a musician-hero and an Athenian vision that presents a negative characterisation in a comedic fashion. Then it is ascertained that the exemption from guilt does not affect the resolution of the conflict: in all versions Amphitryon sends Herakles with the shepherds. In the Bibliotheca the νόμος of Radamantis is invoked as an exoneration for the murder, which Herakles carried out in self-defence. The anachronism is evident since in Thebes, regarding the infant Herakles, there is no corpus civile regulating these actions. Apollodorus indicates, with the use of παραγιγνώσκω, that he refers to a written law – an element virtually absent in ancient mythical accounts. Demosthenes, however, offers a parallel with the case of Eveon, who killed Boeotus in a similar way to Herakles, when the offence was also not physical. Ultimately, this indicates that Apollodorus’ work should be taken into consideration alongside the erudite production from the Hellenist and imperial periods rather than that of Archaic epic poetry or early mythography. The stratigraphy, thus, places us in the fourth century bce, within its comedic context and judicial parody.

The third chapter, ‘Risalire al passato. La polivalenza delle immagini e la prosa mitografica’, discusses the transformation of two ‘nuclei narrativi’ across the tradition: the role of Gaia's wrath in the Bibliotheca's theogony and Pelops’ cannibalistic banquet. A. unravels the phases that lead from archaic cosmogonic notions of Gaia in Hesiod and the Orphic tradition to the Bibliotheca, passing through the Delphic ideology present in the Hymn of Apollo and Euripides. Gaia's actions answer to two intertwined functions in Apollodorus’ narrative: a ‘funzione vendicatrice’ that is the result of the killing of her offspring or relatives (i.e. Hekatonkheires, Cyclops, Typhon, the Delphic δράκαινα etc.) and a ‘funzione generatrice’, since she keeps generating new descendants that will challenge and try to overthrow the cosmic order (p. 76). Her rage embroils in a cycle that feeds on vengeance and generation. Hence the originality of Apollodorus’ Gaia resides in her active role in the theomachic struggle, unlike, for example, in Hesiod's Theogony, where she is well incorporated into the new Olympic rule.

In connection with Pelops’ banquet, A. surveys once again the ‘diacronia della tradizione’, taking into account primarily Pindar's first Olympian. In Apollodorus the θεῶν ἔρανος does not have an intrinsically impious undertone. Rather, ‘l'attenzione del mitografo si concentra, piuttosto, sulla rinascita dell'eroe e sugli effetti che conseguono alla sua bollitura’ (p. 106), as a process necessary to produce Poseidon's infatuation with the boy and the subsequent abduction. The key to the understanding of the passage in the Bibliotheca lies in ὡραιότερος γέγονε. The predicative ὡραιότερος has to be interpreted as ‘physically mature’, as ‘in a suitable age for sexual intercourse’, instead of ‘beautiful’. This interpretation puts the rejuvenation aspect into the spotlight. A. examines other examples of dismemberment and boiling with the intention of immortalising, such as Medea's deception of Pelias’ daughters or Demophon in the Hymn to Demeter. These parallels highlight the return to ἥβη as a necessary condition to access a state superior to humans and adjacent to the gods. A. amply demonstrates that there are mythical variants in Apollodorus that reflect ancient traditions, such as this rejuvenation ritual, which, due to its entanglement with the cannibalistic episode, had lost its positive meaning for later authors.

Scholars interested in myth re-telling and the case of Apollodorus’ Bibliotheca, in particular, will find this volume profitable. A. successfully acknowledges how necessary it is to understand the syntax, connections and associations that a mythical image establishes with others, in as much as ‘la tradizione ha conservato la sequenza di immagini mitiche, che costituiva il nucleo più antico dei racconti, pur attribuendo loro valori e giustificazione diversi’ (p. 122). A.'s fruitful method helps us recognise the processes that create an original narrative in a particular temporal stratum of the tradition.