in Photius review shows that he too considered this Apollodorus to be the author, and the attribution was accepted by modern scholars until quite recently, although it was increasingly recognized that it raises serious problems. Not until 1873, when the publication of a thesis on the Library by Carl Robert forced a reconsideration of the matter, were these problems fully confronted.
There is one very definite indication that the Library could not have been written during the lifetime of Apollodorus of Athens: it contains a reference to the Chronicles of Castor of Rhodes (p. 59). This was a study in comparative chronology which is said to have contained tables which extended to 61 BC; and the date of its author is confirmed by a report that he married the daughter of Deiotarus, an eastern king who was defended by Cicero in 45 BC. Unless the reference to Castor was added to the text at a later period (and there is no reason to suppose that it was) the Library must have been written a century or more after the death of Apollodorus of Athens.
In view of the difficulty raised by this citation, we must ask whether the Library is in any case a book which we could reasonably accept as the work of a scholar of Apollodorus stature and period. In truth, it is not at all what we would expect from a learned Alexandrian scholar. Rather than an original synthesis achieved through the authors own research and reflection (as was surely the case with Apollodorus treatise on the gods), we have an elementary handbook which the author compiled by consulting and epitomizing standard sources. And the author made no attempt to interpret the myths and explain their meaning in rationalistic terms, as was characteristic of Hellenistic mythographers. In relation to the gods, for instance, many writers of this period would explain that they represented forces of nature, or that they had originally been human beings who later had divine status attributed to them. Although it is explicitly attested that Apollodorus of Athens adopted such an approach, there is not a trace of it in the Library; nor was the author disconcerted by the fabulous element in many heroic myths (unlike Diodorus, who often provides rationalized versions, following Hellenistic sources). He simply accepts the myths as enjoyable stories which formed an important part of the Greek heritage, a characteristic attitude in later times. Furthermore, there are features in the authors use of language which suggest that the book was written at a later period than the second century BC. In short, there is every indication that the attribution to Apollodorus of Athens can be confidently rejected.
Apollodorus was a fairly common name, and it is conceivable that the Library was compiled by an author of that name who was later confused with the famous scholar of an earlier period; but it is more likely that our book is sailing under a flag of convenience. Perhaps, as Robert suggested, the author was too timid to launch the work under his own name, or perhaps later copyists found it to their advantage to pass it off as the work of a distinguished scholar. In any case, we know nothing about the author. Accordingly, the author is sometimes referred to as the pseudo-Apollodorus, particularly in the continental literature; but it is more convenient to use the traditional name, with due reservation.
Accepting that the traditional attribution reveals nothing about the author, can we infer anything about his time of birth, or his origins, or perhaps even his character from the book itself? It must be stated from the outset that a compilation of this kind is of its very nature unlikely to reveal much about its author, and in the present instance some features which might be of help in that regard are lacking. There is no dedication, and there are no incidental allusions to things that the author has seen or experienced. Nor does he make any reference to recent or contemporary events; indeed, the only historical event mentioned by him is the Phocian War (p. 163), which took place in the fourth century BC. It is possible, however, to draw some conclusions about when the Library may have been written, and perhaps about the origins of its author.
The reference to Castor (the latest author to be cited) shows that the Library could not have been written before the first half of the first century BC. To establish a later limit with equal certainty, it would be necessary to find a reference to the Library in another work which could be dated to a sufficiently early period. In practice, however, this approach is unproductive.
Although, as was remarked above, the Library is cited quite frequently in the scholia and elsewhere, all the relevant sources are either hard to date or were certainly written at a much later period. We must therefore rely on internal criteria. Let us consider first the authors use of language, which might be expected to provide the most definite indications.
Although the authors Greek is generally unexceptional, there are features in his vocabulary and idiom which are more characteristic of later Greek. He occasionally uses words in senses which are not attested before the early Christian era, and sometimes the verb forms and minor points of grammar and expression are suggestive of later usage (even if they are not entirely unparalleled in the works of earlier authors). On these stylistic grounds, it is commonly agreed that the Library would be best dated to the first or second century AD (although some would place it somewhat earlier or later); and the authors general attitude and approach is consistent with such a dating. It has been remarked that in contrast to many Hellenistic writers, he is uncritical in his approach to myth. This is not because he accepts all the stories as being literally true, but because his approach is that of an antiquarian, so the question of truth or falsity is no longer relevant. This antiquarian approach, accompanied by a taste for the archaic and picturesque, and the desire to take stock of aspects of the Greek heritage, were characteristic of authors writing under the early empire. One has only to think of Plutarch or Pausanias. In preparing this summa of Greek myth, the present author was writing on a lesser scale in a work that belonged to an inferior genre; but the literature of epitomes and popular handbooks was itself characteristic of the age, and in its way, witnessed to the same tendencies.