A defining feature of scholarship in the Roman imperial period is the systematic collection of knowledge and its diverse expression across a wide range of texts. The vast number of Greco-Roman authors dedicated to the accumulation of knowledge reveals a distinct poetics of collecting. This practice provides fundamental insights into contemporary reading habits and the broader intellectual landscape of the period. In terms of media, two common forms of representation are the encyclopedia and the miscellany — the former driven by monumental ambitions, the latter by an entertaining yet didactic purpose. Beyond the rhetoric of comprehensiveness, both genres share the fundamental techniques of gathering, sifting and compiling — processes imbued with a distinctly imperial-era eruditio that prizes the unusual, the remarkable and the obscure. Ultimately rooted in cultural memory and identity politics, these texts transform the gathered knowledge into a force that actively shapes the educational canon of their age.

While encyclopedias prioritise utility as works of reference, miscellanies must navigate the reader’s potential impatience, striving to transform the accumulation of facts into a form of entertainment. This aesthetic imperative lies at the heart of a scholarly approach that aims to decode imperial prose collections and their authors’ literary accomplishments for a modern readership; Scott DiGiulio’s monograph represents its recent culmination with regard to Aulus Gellius. By navigating the intricate web of inter- and intratextual connections within the Noctes Atticae while illuminating its underlying literary strategies and didactic intent, DiG. offers distinct ‘ways of reading’ that redefine our understanding of the Gellian intellectual project and the broader literary culture of the High Roman Empire. At its core, this book argues that the miscellanistic aesthetic of the Noctes Atticae — which Gellius presents as the fruit of his extensive reading (adnotationes, pref. 3) — mirrors the contemporary reader’s broader experience of navigating the literary landscape in the Antonine age. Through the strategic deployment of varietas within the textual fabric, Gellius pilots his audience through the expansive sea of Greco-Roman erudition, ultimately redefining contemporary reading practices.

Preceded by an incisive introduction on the miscellanistic project, DiG.’s seven chapters offer a comprehensive study of Gellius’ work, viewed through a series of interlocked ‘Gellian’ reading lenses. The first chapter examines how the Noctes Atticae engages with the Latin literary canon; by looking beyond Gellius’ overt preference for Republican literature, it identifies the authorial persona as a keen observer of the literary criticism of his own day.

Through an analysis of the title and the table of contents, the second chapter identifies the paratextual apparatus as the primary architecture — and thus the interpretive framework — of the miscellanistic project. Expanding the study of the paratextual strategies, the third chapter focuses on the Preface as a site where Gellius frames the work’s aesthetic potential, claiming literary authority and orchestrating the ideal reader’s engagement with the text. The fourth chapter brings the intratextual facets of the Noctes Atticae to the fore, examining the internal mechanics of Gellius’s heterogenous composition. DiG. vividly demonstrates how Gellius engages with the concept of varietas through recurring words, characters, or texts, prompting the reader to consider these interactions. The fifth chapter traces the Alexandrian heritage of Gellius’s miscellanistic project. DiG. frames the opening of the first book as a deliberately patterned sequence, suggesting that the aesthetic principles of the Hellenistic poetry book were transposed into the realm of prose scholarship. The following chapter offers an intriguing case study of book three, which DiG. utilises to crystallise Gellius’ underlying artistic intent. The final chapter turns to literary reception and illuminates the long-term legacy of Gellius’ miscellanistic project and the enduring influence of the ways of reading elaborated throughout the Noctes Atticae.

DiG. impressively demonstrates how the text’s distinctive facets — its paratextual framework, intertextual networks and intratextual echoes — operate in tandem to construct a sophisticated literary prose collection, one that prioritises the act of reading, ultimately confronting the audience with a suite of mediated interpretative approaches. His insightful close readings shed light on the puzzling, polyphonic nature of the text, navigating its inherent heterogeneity with both scholarly rigour and interpretive sensitivity. Occasionally, the analysis leans toward speculative overreach, as when DiG. ascribes authorial intent to the mismatches between the table of contents and the text itself, viewing them as a deconstruction of paratextual norms intended to provoke deeper readerly engagement and to foreground the work’s sophisticated literary status. More broadly, in light of the fragmentary survival of the Greco-Roman compilatory literature, the extent of the originality of the Gellian miscellanistic project — as posited by DiG. — remains necessarily elusive. Ultimately, DiG.’s learned study substantially enriches our understanding of the manifold textual performances of the imperial poetics of collecting — a practice marked by inherent structural instability — offering a fresh and persuasive lens through which to view the Antonine miscellany.