This volume consists of two major parts: a brief introduction to four martyrologies and their mutual relationship is followed by an edition based on the manuscripts from Dublin and Lund. In the appendix, extracts from a Metz martyrology are found. An extensive bibliography is followed by various indices, i.e. of saints, places, names and a general index. The general benefits of this study are its focus on how these manuscripts are interrelated, i.e. the discussions on the processes of transmission, copying and editing the original text, and the information about how and by whom the martyrology was used. The martyrology was a fundamental liturgical book in the Middle Ages as it was used daily. To the local ecclesiastical community it both brought into life the history and heroes of the past and gave the local congregation an opportunity literally to be incorporated into universal ecclesiastical history as entries of locally venerated persons were added to universally venerated martyrs. Hereby, the local community was invited both to perform and to participate in universal ecclesiastical history. The interplay between ‘universal’ and ‘local’ is manifest in this volume. Emphasised also is the elementary interaction between heritage and renewal: the local clerics both had to uphold a tradition and adapt its content to local needs. The editor shows awareness of how important the martyrology was in the daily life of the cathedral in the Middle Ages. This volume also displays how universal texts and local traditions were transmitted into new ecclesiastical settings where elements that were originally intended to suit and serve a certain community were inherited, rearranged or omitted. Some critical comments need to be made. In my opinion ‘four cathedrals’ would have been a more appropriate title than ‘four cities’ as the actual use of the manuscript is focused. Furthermore, the introductions to the genre and to the individual manuscripts are too brief. In some cases this results in a lack of information and, as it seems, doubtful conclusions; in other cases factual errors are made. This could have been avoided by a more elaborated introductory part: more could have been said about the ecclesiastical context of the manuscripts, including the character of the cathedral chapters and their duties. Finally, the editorial policy is insufficiently presented: half a page mainly on spellings seems not to be enough when dealing with a complex manuscript situation. From a Scandinavian point of view, there is more to complain about. Apart from factual errors like the title of Knud Lavard (he was duke, not king) and the information about how and when Lund was incorporated in the kingdom of Sweden (in 1658, not in connection with the Reformation in the 1500s), the general impression is that the editor has neither consulted recent scholarship nor undertaken sufficient research on the local ecclesiastical setting. The language may have been an obstacle here, but the essential and correct information is accessible in various works in English on medieval Scandinavia.