The roots of the encyclopedia to be presented here [henceforth: EMC] are quite deep. Their tips reach as far as conferences started in 1996 in Utrecht about the medieval chronicle. Three years later their organizers and regular attendants decided to found an association, the Medieval Chronicle Society. It was this constituency that in 2002 decided to edit an encyclopedia on their field of interest. Their efforts and Brill's expertise lead to the two volumes published in 2010.
EMC reflects the widened scholarly interest of our times in medieval narratives. As we know, initially chronicles and annals were mined by historians for the facts of the past, attempting to learn about the people and the events recorded in them. Later, wider questions were also asked, such as the political and social implications of the narratives, the background and the philosophy of the authors, and the mentalité expressed in the writings. It was relatively late; I believe in the later twentieth century, that literary scholars and art historians turned to these texts and the images often accompanying them. It is noteworthy that the editor in chief of EMC is by trade a Germanist and the contributor who seems to have written the greatest number of entries (E. D. Kennedy, over 120 titles) and is acknowledged as the main helper of the editor, started out as a student of English literature. The list of the contributors suggests that historians are in no ways in a majority among the authors of the EMC. The editors also imply that medieval chronicles did not lose their appeal in the course of times. The title page presents details of Rodin's famous Burghers of Calais, a monument commissioned by the city in 1885, based on a story told by Froissart for 1347, as a lieu de mémoire for--as the editor put it--"suffering and sacrifice, of cruelty but also of mercy." Many more examples could be added, but apparently authors were not encouraged to explore the modern Rezeptionsgeschichte (beyond the editorial and textual matters) of the chronicles.
To critically review a reference work of this size would demand familiarity with so many historical periods, countries, languages and genres that is unlikely to be claimed by anyone. I, for one, would not, even after a lifetime of reading and studying narrative sources. Therefore, let me just tell the readers of TMR what they can expect to find in these two hefty volumes and add only a few remarks that came to my mind while perusing it.
Statistics: the EMC contains 2552 entries by 443 contributors. Out of these, 82 are thematic (or "Leading") articles, while 2494 are entries on specific texts or authors; these, plus 14 on groups of related texts, refer to more than 2500 "chronicles." There are 65 illustrations, some not well known, many on diagrammatic chronicles. No doubt, an impressive enterprise! The four (or, in a way, five) indices of authors/titles, geographical terms, general items and manuscripts are also of great value. The fifth, a list of entries in the front of volume one (xxx-lxxxiv) offers an easy overview of the contents in alphabetical order, also listing the language, the place of origin and the century of writing. (It could have been useful to add here the page number as well for quick finding.) The columns on the origins and dates are in themselves interesting reading, suggesting the width of coverage as well as the main periods of history writing.
Apropos, dates: the definition of "Middle Ages" is always a tricky matter. The editors were here--just as in the regional coverage and definition of genre--rather magnanimous. They included quite a few Antique authors (such as Suetonius and Tacitus, but also Olympiad chronicles and the Parian Marble of 263 BC) as precursors or models for medieval writers (summarized in an entry on "Classical historical writing," 466-73). Their choice can be challenged, since Classical authors, like Livy or Pliny, were just as important examples for many a chronicler as these, among whom Tacitus was (as noted in the entry, 1409-10) barely known in the Middle Ages. At any rate, the Late Antique period, now ever more included in medieval studies, is very well represented and summarized in the article "Early Christian historical writing" (553-63). On the other end, it is always difficult to draw the line between the late medieval chronicler and the Humanist-Renaissance "historian." EMC is generous in this respect, too. The Italian Humanists such as Leonardo Bruni, Bocaccio or Lorenzo Valla, as well as Trithemius and Hartmann Schedel and many chronicles of the early sixteenth century are included; see the entry on "Renaissance historiography" (1269-73).
The general articles discuss cultural regions, genres, matters of codicology and of illuminations, and some major topoi of narratives.
A few of the "Leading Articles" are at the same time indicators of the intended wide coverage in terms of regions and genres. The ones on "Cultural spheres" show that EMC includes--besides the traditional Latin and Greek-Byzantine (229-36) circles--the Slavia Orthodoxa (1371-4, but I doubt that the majority of literature on this field is really in Italian) the Christian East (Armenia, Georgia, Syria, 807-11); the Arabic (and occasionally also Persian) Middle East (883-8); and the European Hebrew history writings (916-9). The historiography of the mendicant orders (242-5 and 633-6); and of the Teutonic Order (Prussia) received separate entries. I would have added one on the Nordic saga-chronicle tradition that is represented by a few good entries, as well. Actually, "Crusading chronicles" (499-500) may have been better here than in the genres section. [These regional articles are located in the alphabetical section and it may have been helpful to have the page numbers of them up front on pp. xxviii-xxix, so that one could easily find and read them as introductions to the topics.] I was pleased to note that within the Latin orbit the eastern borderlands of Europe--especially Bohemia with its early vernacular literacy--are also better represented than usual. Having pointed to the literary interests, I hardly need to add that vernacular narratives are extensively represented besides those in the learned languages, while, of course, the great majority of texts discussed are in Latin.
The essays on genres present a similarly catholic approach by editors and authors. The one on annals (45-52) and the very elegant one on chronicles (274-82) express the creed of the EMC constituency that the age-old debate about the precise definition of these two kinds of historical records (and the third notion of "history," supposedly superior to the former two) should be closed once for all. These old debates had much to do with the efforts of previous historians to establish the reliability of narratives. Annals were assumed to have been written contemporaneously with the events, and were thus more "true" than chronicles, which were supposed to be more informed by the author's choices. Now we look at memoria in a different way and also know more about the procedures of annalistic writing, thus there is no basis for making a sharp distinction. Then, quite a few chroniclers mix annalistic entries with more elaborate chronicle-style ones (often the former for older times, the latter for Zeitgeschichte). In this sense, chronicle for EMC embraces a wide range of narrative sources including travel reports; historically augmented cartularies (see 256-9), "visual chronicles" (such as the Bayeux tapestry, 150-2); all kinds of chronological tables and chronographies (on them, see 457-66); genealogical rolls (see 668-77) and also such Antique precursors as consularia and fasti (486-8 and 612-3). Moreover, having included Jewish and Muslim authors, the editors had to be generous in this respect, for many of those narratives are essentially records of the sequence of savants and their teachings on the holy books, thus as much theological as historical. (Whether including such epics as Firdawsi's Shāhnāma on 619-21 makes the category a trifle too wide, can be debated.) While most of the chronicles are published, quite a few unpublished (or only available in early editions) texts are also discussed and so are some medieval or early modern forgeries. A very wide selection, indeed.
Apparently, biography--especially saints' lives--fell through the filter of this definition. True, a number of royal Lives and some biographies of persons spiritual were included, but the wide range of writings usually subsumed under hagiography have been almost exclusively left out. They are sometimes hinted at, when their author figures with some other, "properly historical" work (e.g. Bede, Gregory of Tours, et al.; see s. v. Vita &c., in the Index, 1606). Present-day students of saints' lives regard at least a good part of them as historical narratives and certainly as records of how lives of exemplary persons were perceived in time and space. From such remarks in some articles (I did not note where) as "...not only hagiography, but also a historical source," I reckon that this omission was predicated not only by economy (which is, of course, reasonable, considering the volume of hagiographical writings), but also by choice. Some of the rare medieval and early modern autobiographies are included, but to refer to Guibert de Nogent's De vita sua merely in a sub clause is certainly a regrettable omission. It is, as is well known, not only an important piece of writing about (as John F. Benton titled his translation of it) "self and society in medieval France," but it is our best source for the very important urban movement of the commune of Laon.
Many of the "Thematic Articles" are written by the editor, who had the advantage (and the burden) of reading all entries. This is a great asset in such excellent overviews of his as "World chronicles" (1527-32), "Verse and prose" (1473-6) or the "Six Ages of the World" (among the topics of chronicles, 1367-70). However, at least the one on "Founding Heroes" (628-30) should have, perhaps, been given to someone studying the origo gentis; for the present essay, while covering a good sample of those, misses several important categories of eponymic ancestors of peoples (as Scota) or dynasties, such as the peasants Piast and Přemysl (with several parallels elsewhere) or the dioscuridic brothers, such as Czech and Lech or Hunor and Magor (for Huns and Magyars). Inevitably, the topical essays are somewhat uneven; some are needlessly verbose, some seem to me a bit too elementary. Actually, it is not quite clear what kind of readers were envisaged by the editors, when they find it necessary to explain what are the books of the Bible and translate every single foreign word (even such simple ones as conseiller or captain general) into English ad usum delphini. (On the other hand, I admit being illiterate enough not to have known what the frequently-referred-to "Fihrist" is, without being enlightened by this great encyclopedia. If I am correct, it is in none of the indices. The entry on "Manuscript production in England" (1022-4) is certainly an odd-one-out: it says little about the technical side of book production (which would hardly be different in England from elsewhere)--as one would expect--but is a simplified overview of English narratives, not matched by similar "national" entries for other regions. Of course, one could have added several more essays on "Topics in chronicle studies" (which includes topoi of chronicles), such as "mirrors of princes" or "Zeitkritik" in narratives and many more. But there are limits to what fits even into two huge volumes.
The art historical and codicological articles are also excellent (and here I am even less competent to judge their quality). They include such technical matters as "Layout" (1001-11), "Rubrics" (1301-3) and "Workshops" (1525-7) as well as different aspects of manuscript illumination. Only someone who is reading through the book A to Z (as I had to) will notice that some issues in this field are addressed more than twice or even three times (such as the 50-line/50 years per page arrangement of Martinus Polonus/of Opava); a bit of editorial coordination would have been appropriate. The illustrations are well selected and (with very few exceptions) come out well.
Individual entries on chronicles are augmented by a small number of "Group articles" treating closely related chronicles, annals or genealogical rolls together. This choice could have been wider; for example, the several later redactions of the Russian chronicles, heavily dependent on each other, could have been summarized and so could the historically formulated Hussite and Utraquist writings, of which a great number is listed. Not merely for the sake of economy one could have seen some of these texts better in their development when treated next to each other. (I am sure this holds for writing from areas with which I am less familiar.)
Every entry on a chronicle (in the widest sense, as above) or an author with several works (variants of authors' names are usually given, too) opens with a brief statement on the place or region for which it is relevant and then presents--as far as it is known--an outline of the author's life. Then his (rarely--merely 15 times!--her) works are listed, usually in chronological order, or in order of their importance. The manifest (admitted or not) or probable sources of the text are listed as well as the later users of the narrative. Contributors were encouraged to discuss the intricacies of textual and manuscript tradition, often in great detail (sometimes not easy to follow), a feature not to be found in the general reference works, such as the Roman Repertorium. A major strength of the EMC is that the entries point out the historical and often political importance of the narrative. Usually, it is underlined for what period the text is of primary value (considering that many or most medieval narratives contain extensive borrowings for period before the author's life). Besides the manuscript tradition, entries connect the given text to its forerunners and followers (suggesting the impressive network of reading and rewriting of history all across Europe). Above all, the contributors do not refrain from passing judgment on the aesthetic as well as the historical value of the text. Scholarly controversies about date, authorship or textual tradition are also frequently reported, authors often coming down on one side or the other, which is very refreshing in a handbook. These all seem to me to be the most valuable aspects of EMC, especially when one consults it for a text one knows little about. Considering the wide coverage, there would be many of those for most of us!
The entries close with a bibliography listing under "Text" the editions and/or translations and under "Literature" the critical studies on the chronicle and/or the author. If relevant, a reference to the Repertorium (as RepFont) is given. In a work of this size, it is inevitable that entries differ in many respects. Some contributors emphasize one, other another aspect of the writing under review. I fear that the editors either did not stipulate clearly (or did not manage to enforce) the format of the bibliography (while the entries do usually follow the agreed-to scheme). It would have been valuable to always list the best (or at least, most recent) edition, considering that recent ones usually refer to the older printings. (One should tell, for example, that Lambert of Hersfeld was edited not only in 1894 but also more recently in 1957 with German translation; and so on.) Sometimes (I noticed it mainly for the Polish and Czech entries) a minor chronicle's short description is accompanied by a dozen titles, mostly in--for most of us--not easily readable languages, while others list barely any (so, for example, Jacque LeGoff is not cited a propos Joinville on p. 909 while his celebrated book on St Louis is extensively based on Jean's Vie).
Finally, the indices. The one on "Works and Authors" (1549-1609) is, naturally, not a repetition of the entry-list of vol. 1, but contains references to authors and titles mentioned in the entries as precursors or successors, sources and borrowings of other narratives. It is enlightening reading in itself, suggesting, once more, the interrelationship of chronicles and annals all across Europe. Variants of names (and titles) are also included. (I would have listed Constantine VII Porphyrogenetos also under C, not only as Konstantinos. I'm sure one could find other desiderata as well.) The "General Index" (1610-35) is a fair try at indexing names, institutions and a number of subjects (such as "Aetates," "Banks," "Plagues," "Relics" etc.), but, of course, cannot be comprehensive; still, useful. The geographical names (1636-52) do not include whole countries or regions (those are in the list in vol. 1), but only cities and other locations. I found the extensive "Index of Manuscripts" (1653-1727) not only a splendid guide for anyone who wishes to study narratives, but quite fascinating reading it itself showing the fata libelli across the continent (and beyond). It is interesting to see that besides the great depositories (London, Paris, the Vatican etc.) a good number of manuscripts are kept in small town and college libraries and archives. The last twenty pages (1728-48) list the contributors and the entries supplied by them: this will be for some time a valuable directory of chronicle scholars, historians, art historians and students of literature. Their affiliation is given, so that one may be able to find them at their universities or other institutions.
That a work of this size has a number of typos (especially wrong hyphenations of foreign words and names unknown to MSWord) is self-evident. I have sent my list to the publisher and was assured that they will be corrected in the digitalized version, soon to be available.
All in all, I would suggest that, while the volumes are bit awkward for bedside reading, one should page them not only for reference, but for exciting reading about books and manuscripts one had never heard of before.