General and specialized encyclopaedias within any culture reflect the extent of research conducted in that society and, consequently, reveal the body of knowledge and accumulated experience therein. In recent decades, the compilation of encyclopaedias has seen a notable surge in Iran, with both governmental and private research institutions increasingly engaging in this endeavor. The central question of this article is twofold: first, why should encyclopaedias be compiled and read at all? And second, why the Encyclopaedia Isfahanica in particular? To answer these questions, one must first have a brief understanding of how the idea of encyclopaedia-writing emerged as a phenomenon of the modern world, and when it began. Furthermore, one must also consider the key criteria and methodological standards for compiling an encyclopedic work. By addressing these two preliminary questions, the main question can be more clearly answered—that is, what role do encyclopaedias play in the intellectual and cultural life of a society?
An encyclopaedia is a repository of accurate and reliable knowledge, systematically organized in the form of alphabetically arranged articles, and compiled either within the domain of general knowledge or around a particular subject area—such as Islamic studies, the culture and civilization of Muslims, Iranian culture, or the regional culture of a specific area like Isfahan. The primary audience of encyclopaedias consists of educated but non-specialist readers. In this definition, the term systematic is of central importance, as it captures the essential nature of the encyclopaedia and plays a key role in understanding its function. The other components of the definition are clear. The term systematic refers to the meaning adopted by the early encyclopedists in Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Encyclopaedias are products of the Enlightenment era, grounded in the presentation of contemporary knowledge based on reason, empirical science, and secular thought. From the perspective of the encyclopedists, an encyclopaedia represents a collective intellectual endeavor and is pansophical movement which seeks to present, through the mobilization of all available epistemic resources and with a neutral and holistic approach, the most accurate and comprehensive human knowledge available in each field. This is achieved through:
- a historical perspective,
- a logical structure, and
- a concise yet sufficiently comprehensive style of expression.
The synthesis of these three elements constitutes the meaning of the term systematic. The process of producing knowledge in academic circles typically begins with a lecture or scholarly article that offers a new theory or insight on a specific topic or problem, or presents a new description or classification of a previously known issue.
In later works, that initial theory, insight, or description is explored further—either by the original author or by others. The collected results of these explorations are often published in book form. Over time, additional articles and books offer readers an expanding body of knowledge concerning the same topic or problem. In this way, over the course of history, a body of literature—i.e., a set of sources—emerges around a given concept or subject. Eventually, however, the accumulation of such materials makes it increasingly difficult for newer generations to consult the full range of sources or to trace the historical trajectory of the debate. At this stage, individuals—typically working as a team—who have read the relevant literature in its entirety and are familiar with the development of the discourse surrounding that subject, take on the task of writing an encyclopaedia entry. Such an entry provides a general overview of the topic or problem while also presenting the most important works and ideas in the field.
By producing this type of article, encyclopaedia authors accomplish several objectives: they save the reader’s time, they present a distilled summary of key information and ideas on the topic or issue, and they pave the way for further research by providing a reliable starting point. Thus, an encyclopaedia entry must, in principle, be grounded in previously published academic books and articles. Occasionally, however, oral history sources may also be consulted. At the Encyclopaedia Isfahanica, this is the general method we follow in article development. Alongside referring to canonical written sources, we make a special effort to produce oral history—particularly in relation to the master artisans of Isfahan, whose generation is gradually disappearing. In the collaborative process of writing an encyclopaedia article, several checkpoints or stages are typically designed. Each article will pass through all or most of these stages, depending on the capacity and expertise of the assigned author. These stages include: defining the entry and determining its place within the overall network of entries; commissioning the article to an author well-versed in all aspects of the subject; writing the article in accordance with the editorial policies of the encyclopaedia’s production team; first-stage evaluation; second or detailed evaluation, including review of content, sources, and citations by a peer or more senior researcher; copyediting; bibliography preparation; final review; and proofreading by the chief editor and the author.
An encyclopaedia article must be systematic—that is, it must adopt a historical approach, possess a logical structure, and employ a concise mode of expression. It is for this reason that it is often said: anyone who reads an encyclopaedia article stands upon the shoulders of the knowledge and experience of those who came before. Accordingly, professors often advise their students to begin any research by consulting a reputable encyclopaedia article on the subject, in order to become familiar with the background of the discussion. The student may then pursue further investigation by consulting selected sources cited in that article. Of course, this advice assumes that both professor and student intend to advance the boundaries of knowledge, not merely reproduce existing material through paraphrase or repetition.
The meaning of the qualifiers impartial and holistic in the definition adopted by encyclopedists is clear. Naturally, if authors of encyclopaedia entries deliberately neglect to present a well-established or significant viewpoint, their work will fall short of scholarly standards and credibility. It is important to note that, in this context, impartiality refers to the stage of information gathering—not to the expression of scholarly opinion. The latter is more contentious, as some argue that it is unrealistic to expect a scholar to remain entirely neutral in the course of intellectual inquiry. In what follows, I will offer a more detailed explanation of the three core components that define the standard of systematic encyclopaedia writing.
The term historical approach is commonly used to refer to a method whereby the author presents information with careful attention to the chronological development of the subject or concept. In this approach, it implies that, when writing about a person, topic, or concept, the author must consider the major historical changes—whether in the individual’s life, the meaning of the subject, or the evolution of the concept itself. This meaning of the term is straightforward and widely accepted. Nevertheless, many historical inaccuracies found in sources stem from neglecting this very approach. However, the expression historical approach has undergone its own semantic transformation and has acquired two more complex meanings, which may be less familiar. The reader is invited to skip the remainder of this paragraph if the following discussion seems overly technical. At times, the term refers to the philosophical outlook of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (d. 1832), who advanced the idea that all things must be understood within the larger phenomenon of history. While Aristotle had proposed that each entity be defined by its genus and differentia, nineteenth-century thinkers—particularly under Hegel’s influence—argued that the essence of anything is fully comprehensible only in relation to its historical context. In this view, all understanding is historically conditioned; the arguments and interpretations that explain a belief or theory are only valid within their specific historical context. Accordingly, the history of ideas becomes virtually synonymous with history itself. This second sense is often referred to as historism—a term that is sometimes (though not always accurately) translated into Persian as rūykard-e tārīkhī (historical approach). Thomas Kuhn’s theory of paradigms in the natural sciences was influenced by this conception of history and of the expression. Thinkers such as Wilhelm Dilthey regarded all human sciences as historical in this sense, yet they rejected the positivist view that the humanities must conform to the methods and standards of the natural sciences. With the rise of historism—the view that all knowledge must be historically contextualized—another perspective emerged from the positivist tradition in philosophy: historicism or historicity. This position asserts that any historical claim must be verifiable through reliable evidence. In this framework, truth and falsity—whether in regard to the claims of religion, sacred texts, or historical narratives—are judged by rational and demonstrable standards. All historical assertions must be testable and communicable, preferably within a causal or correlational framework that allows for generalizations and even predictive models. This method is not compatible with phenomenological approaches to the study of religion, which follow a different epistemological orientation. When encyclopedists speak of a historical approach, they generally intend a synthesis of all three of these conceptions, which have evolved over the past two centuries. Accordingly, a key standard in writing an encyclopaedia entry is to observe the historical sequence of the topic, pay close attention to its historical context, and refrain from reporting claims that cannot be substantiated or verified by others.
In writing any article, the author must consciously organize the material—an endeavor that requires a logical framework. While it is neither possible nor desirable to prescribe a single structural model for all articles, what matters is that a coherent internal logic be present. This means that at any point in the article, if either the author or the reader were to ask, “How does this section relate to the main claim/idea or purpose of the article?”, the answer should be clear. A logically structured article should prevent both conceptual and compositional confusion. This logical organization is achieved through an academic writing tool: the paragraph. Classical texts generally did not make use of paragraph divisions in the modern sense. In a research article with a well-defined logical structure, each paragraph should contain a central idea, provide coherent elaboration on that idea, and maintain continuity with the larger argument (though here we will omit detailed discussion of topic sentences, coherence, and cohesion). In encyclopaedia articles, however, each paragraph typically corresponds to either a specific historical period or a certain aspect of the subject, while still maintaining cohesion and unity. Paragraphs are not decorative elements inserted merely to relieve the reader’s fatigue or to make the page appear more filled. Nor should authors arbitrarily decide when to start a new paragraph based on convenience or visual aesthetics. Rather, paragraphs serve as indicators of the article’s logical structure. Authors must therefore pay careful attention to the sequence and integrity of their paragraphs, as these are essential to the clarity and reliability of the encyclopedic article.
An encyclopaedia article is intended to convey a long and often complex historical development using a limited number of words. This objective requires, first and foremost, that the article be networked—that is, the author should refer the reader to related entries instead of elaborating on every associated topic within a single article. For example, if the entry is about a particular neighborhood in Isfahan, it would be inappropriate to offer detailed descriptions of all major historical monuments located there. Instead, the author should mention key landmarks (e.g., in the case of Jubāre, its minarets or synagogues) and indicate—by means of an asterisk or another standardized symbol—that a separate entry exists for each one. The establishment of such a cross-referenced network of entries—a process that might be termed the engineering of articles—is essential to any encyclopaedia project and is by no means a simple task. In the Encyclopaedia Isfahanica, entries that are independently developed as full articles are marked with an asterisk and, on the website, are displayed in color and with clickable functionality. However, this marking system is applied with discretion and is limited to cases where the reader may not be aware that a separate article already exists for the subject in question. Second, encyclopaedia authors must carefully prioritize the content of each article. They should omit trivial or nonessential information—details that would make little or no difference to the reader whether included or not. Third, the article must be written in a style that is firm, precise, and—borrowing a phrase from the literary tradition—free from redundancy, ornamentation, or rhetorical excess. Determining which material to include and which to leave out may seem straightforward, but in practice it is one of the most difficult challenges in encyclopaedic writing.
With this definition of an encyclopaedia in mind, the Encyclopaedia Isfahanica seeks, first, to present accurate and comprehensive knowledge about the history, culture, and civilization of Isfahan in a structured and systematic manner to researchers, educated non-specialists, and all interested readers. In all articles, the conceptual or theoretical framework is centered on Isfahan itself. Second, by introducing this body of knowledge to both Iranian and non-Iranian audiences, we aim not only to safeguard and preserve the cultural and civilizational identity of Isfahan, but also to invite others to visit the city and witness the magnificence of a thriving civilization and the flourishing of a polyphonic culture with a long and distinguished history. In Isfahanica, knowledge and information are presented in three languages—Persian, Arabic, and English—and through two main formats: alphabetically arranged entries; a thematic categorization based on twelve major subject areas. In addition, users can access their desired content through a dedicated search function.
Bottom of Form
This essay concludes with three final observations: First, the production of encyclopaedias is an essential component in completing the cycle of knowledge production. However, for this cycle to be viable, far greater effort must be devoted to the creation of foundational academic articles and books, which serve as the evidentiary base for encyclopaedic writing. These two categories of scholarly output exist in a dialectical relationship—each one dependent on the other. While universities and seminaries typically focus on producing specialized studies on narrow topics, encyclopaedia institutions concentrate on compiling encyclopaedic entries. Without a solid body of detailed, high-quality academic research, the writing of reliable encyclopaedia entries is impossible. Conversely, without access to well-written encyclopaedic entries, progress in producing new scholarly works is hindered. Second, given the current shortfall in the production of standard academic articles and books in Iran, the burden falls disproportionately on encyclopaedia authors across various institutions. These writers are often compelled—due to the lack of reliable existing research—not simply to synthesize and critically report on prior studies, but to carry out foundational investigations themselves. Even assuming this work is done successfully, such a task is not only mentally exhausting but also extraordinarily time-consuming and resource-intensive. There is real concern that such a process may never be brought to completion. Third, it is recommended that research and academic institutions, including universities, take greater care to ensure that new research topics are not redundant. They should require both researchers and students, at the very outset of their projects, to consult relevant encyclopaedia entries as part of their literature review. Doing so will help to prevent duplication and, in turn, provide valuable material for future encyclopaedia authors. To avoid redundant efforts, the Encyclopaedia Isfahanica republishes well-crafted articles on Isfahan from other encyclopaedias with minor revision and with full acknowledgement of property rights.
By Saeid Edalatnejad (Scientific Deputy of the Encyclopaedia Isfahanica and Faculty Member at the Encyclopaedia Islamica Foundation)