This new critical edition of Aulus Gellius' Noctes Atticae by Leofranc Holford-Strevens is intended to replace the previous Oxford Classical Text by Peter K. Marshall, published in 1968 but soon superseded by Marshall's own later discoveries as well as by other scholarship. Based on a thorough reconsideration of the manuscripts, of the indirect tradition, and of both the Latin and the Greek text, this new edition utilizes manuscript evidence unknown to previous editors, refines the standard account of relations between the earlier manuscripts, and distinguishes between readings in the later manuscripts derived from an older lost witness and those resulting from error or interpolation. All known witnesses to the indirect tradition as preserved in four florilegia have been examined, at times enabling readings less well supported by the manuscripts of the direct tradition to be restored. Above all, the approach to the transmitted text evinces a more sceptical, less trusting view than that of many recent editors: the apparatus criticus contains numerous emendations and suggestions, and in several places corrects the attribution of previous scholars' conjectures, yet remains more generous than Marshall's and avoids trivial details.

This new critical edition of Aulus Gellius' Noctes Atticae by Leofranc Holford-Strevens is intended to replace the previous Oxford Classical Text by Peter K. Marshall, published in 1968 but soon superseded by Marshall's own later discoveries as well as by other scholarship. Based on a thorough reconsideration of the manuscripts, of the indirect tradition, and of both the Latin and the Greek text, this new edition utilizes manuscript evidence unknown to previous editors, refines the standard account of relations between the earlier manuscripts, and distinguishes between readings in the later manuscripts derived from an older lost witness and those resulting from error or interpolation. All known witnesses to the indirect tradition as preserved in four florilegia have been examined, at times enabling readings less well supported by the manuscripts of the direct tradition to be restored. Above all, the approach to the transmitted text evinces a more sceptical, less trusting view than that of many recent editors: the apparatus criticus contains numerous emendations and suggestions, and in several places corrects the attribution of previous scholars' conjectures, yet remains more generous than Marshall's and avoids trivial details.