The literature on encyclopaedism is becoming encyclopaedic. In the same year as the volume under review, there appeared a 504-page set of papers edited by A. Zucker (Encyclopédire: Formes de l'ambition encyclopédique dans l'Antiquité et au Moyen Âge [2013]). Before that there was P. Binkley (ed.), Pre-Modern Encyclopaedic Texts (1997). For Islamic encyclopaedism, there is G. Endress (ed.), Organizing Knowledge: Encyclopaedic Activities in the Pre-Eighteenth-Century Islamic World (2006); for Rome, J. König and T. Whitmarsh (edd.), Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire (2011); and for Byzantium, P. Van Deun and C. Macé (edd.), Encyclopedic Trends in Byzantium? (2011). Many other articles and monographs on the subject fill the 60-page bibliography in K. and W.'s book.

The definition of the encyclopaedia is notoriously elusive, especially as applied to ancient and medieval books; to what extent it is legitimate even to apply the term, which in its modern sense is a creature of the Enlightenment, is debatable. Most scholars agree that the focus needs to be on encyclopaedism rather than the encyclopaedia; that is, on such topics as the sociology and rhetoric of knowledge, the sources of authority, the media and forms used to capture the omne scibile, principles of selection and organisation, and so on. Cross-cultural comparisons are a crucial control (ancient, medieval and modern West; western and other traditions). Unsurprisingly, Foucault is prominent in K.'s and W.'s introduction. Though encyclopaedias are essentially derivative, second-order phenomena, most of the contributors to the volume argue hard for the originality and significance of their chosen specimens; so they are when looked at in certain ways, but some cases take more arguing than others. There is no doubt, however, that encyclopaedic undertakings are extremely important if one wishes to understand the history of knowledge.

A generous scope allows inclusion of much material that is pertinent to the larger issues, but the risk is that nearly anything may count as encyclopaedic. Some of the chapters may seem to stretch the point, but the unexpected interest of the subject can compensate. An example is C. Preston's illuminating discussion of William Dugdale's History of Imbanking and Drayning of Divers Fenns and Marshes both in Forein Parts and in this Kingdom, and of the Improvements Thereby (1662). Not at first glance a case of encyclopaedism, it turns out to be a comprehensive history and chorography of the fens of East Anglia and Lincolnshire, and a history of drainage generally; in effect it ‘tells of nothing less than England's national development over a millennium’ (p. 481). It was published amid politically charged circumstances as a justification of an ‘epic technological and financial undertaking’ to drain some million acres of land, the Channel Tunnel project of its day (p. 464).

The terrain covered by the 23 contributors is extensive. After an incisive introduction, the editors open the volume with an overview of encyclopaedism in the Roman Empire (with a survey of Greece before, and Late Antiquity after). There follow M. Hatzimichali on Alexandria and M. Beagon on Pliny. T. Morgan, one of the point-stretchers, looks at the collections of sayings (chreiai) attributed to wise men; another boundary-pusher is K. Oikonomopoulou on Plutarch's Quaestiones and their relation to encyclopaedism, a most instructive chapter. D. Harris-McCoy also tests the limits with a chapter on Artemidorus' Oneirocritica as a ‘fragmentary encyclopaedia’. J. Harries' discussion of Justinian's Corpus iuris civilis, particularly the Pandectae (aka Encyclopaedia), needs no justification and offers typically insightful observations about the purpose and character of this amazing publication. M. Formisano makes an adventurous case for the contribution made by late-antique technical manuals to encyclopaedic culture. The medieval section opens with three excellent chapters on Byzantium: P. Magdalino on the encyclopaedism of the ninth and tenth centuries; A. Németh on Constantine Porphyrogenitus' Excerpta Historica; and E. Gielen on Joseph Rhakyndytes' idiosyncratic synopsis of the sum of learning. I missed a reference to K. Alpers's very important Untersuchungen zu Johannes Sardianos und seinem Kommentar zu den Progymnasmata des Aphthonios (2nd edn 2013; first edn 2009), which demonstrates the abundance of resources available to Byzantine scholars in the first half of the ninth century, and rewrites the traditional narrative of a new beginning with Photius. E. Keen next provides an overview of Latin encyclopaedism; A. Merrills looks at Isidore of Seville in particular. I. Johnson investigates late medieval England, with a detailed study of Reginald Pecock's endeavours and tragic end. E. Muhanna asks ‘Why was the Fourteenth Century a Century of Arabic Encyclopaedism?’ and M. van Berkel writes on the Mamluk encyclopaedias of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; unknown territory to most classicists, I suspect, and a valuable addition here. Six chapters explore the Renaissance and Early Modern periods: A. Blair provides an overview; D. Andersson well stresses the importance of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century philosophy for contemporary encyclopaedism; P. Dover considers the reception of Solinus, ‘Pliny's ape’, in the Renaissance; N. Rhodes considers the encyclopaedias that were available to Shakespeare; then C. Preston on Dugdale, already mentioned; and W.N. West on the ‘ironic’ stance of encyclopaedists who admit the impossibility of completeness even while attempting it, arguing that, though it is a familiar topos from the Enlightenment onwards, it has a long history. The volume is rounded out by an impressive survey of 1,500 years of the Chinese encyclopaedia by H.T. Zurndorfer. The index is excellent.

Comparing the table of contents of the volumes edited by Binkley and Zucker mentioned above, one finds many topics and authors predictably occurring, with some contributions focusing more on the theoretical aspect and others on specific examples. Each of the three offers unique discussions of authors of encyclopaedic works not found in the others, or even mentioned in passing. K. and W. describe their volume as ‘complementary’ to Binkley's (p. 1 n. 1), and would probably say the same about Zucker's if they had known about it. One can put all three together, and still be far short of the goal of an encyclopaedia of encyclopaedism; that it is unattainable may have some bearing on the theoretical problem. Whatever one's take on it, the volume under review offers an outstanding entrée.