This volume contains the proceedings (an introduction and twenty-two papers) of an international conference held in Leuven in 2009. The concept of Byzantine encyclopedism is one particularly associated with Paul Lemerle (because of his Le Premier Humanisme byzantine: notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au Xe siècle, published in 1971) and Byzantine culture of the tenth century, especially the projects associated with the emperor Constantine vii. However, Lemerle's identification of Byzantine encyclopedism has become contested; Paolo Odorico (who contributes to this volume) has argued instead for La cultura della syllogè (which Paul Magdalino renders into English in his paper as ‘the florilegic habit’, p. 143). Hence the question mark in the title of the conference and the volume. Key concerns of the editors and most of the contributors to the volume are to define encyclopedism and consider whether it is applicable to Byzantium, with a variety of conclusions. As Magdalino incisively remarks at the beginning of his contribution, ‘The present collection of papers on Byzantine encyclopedism is remarkable for its sceptical approach to the concept that forms its central theme.’ Also notable about the volume is that it spans the existence of the empire from late antiquity to the fourteenth century, not just focusing on the tenth century, the so-called ‘age of encyclopedism’. The volume is primarily divided into chronological segments. After introductory contributions by the editors and P. Schreiner there are sections on late antiquity (one paper, by Y. Papadogiannakis); the nineteenth and tenth centuries (nine papers, by A. Alexakis, J. Schamp, M. Grünbart, P. Odorico, F. Maltomini, T. Fernández, P. Magdalino, C. Sode and R. Ceulemans); the eleventh and twelfth centuries (five papers, by B. Crostini, E. Jeffreys, I. De Vos, S. Neirynck and A. Bucossi); the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (six papers, by Ph. Roelli, P. Canart, M. Featherstone, F. Tinnefeld, I. Pérez Martín and A. Rigo). The papers range from broad surveys to close examinations and editions of texts, and address both spiritual and secular texts (a variety of work that is hard to do justice to in a brief review). Some of the contributors are building on work that they have already undertaken and published while others are engaged in new and current projects which promise further fruits. This reviewer, despite the debate and divergence about encyclopedism itself, found the volume a rich assortment, both engaging and illuminating. Undoubtedly and inevitably the volume cannot be comprehensive, but one would have liked some discussion of the classical background, more on late antiquity (to have only one paper does seem rather inadequate), and a contribution on the one text that (most) people would be happy to characterise as an encyclopedia, the tenth-century Souda. Fuller indices would have been welcome too (just manuscripts and names are supplied). Perhaps an afterword by the editors would have been helpful also, to pull the diverse threads together. Nevertheless this is a welcome and useful volume which highlights an important and interesting ongoing debate and makes a significant contribution to the field of Byzantine literature.