2. Panofsky, Erwin. ‘Three Decades of Art History in the United States: Impressions of a Transplanted European’, in Meaning in the Visual Arts (Woodstock, N.Y. 1974) 321.Google Scholar

3. For example: Holly, M.A., Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History (Ithaca, N.Y. 1984)Google Scholar; Hart, J., ‘Erwin Panofsky and Karl Mannheim: A Dialogue on Interpretation’, Critical Inquiry 19 (1993) 534–566 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smyth, C.H. and Lukehart, P.M., eds., The Early Years of Art History in the United States: Notes on Essays, Teaching, and Scholars (Princeton 1993)Google Scholar; Mathews, T.F., Clash of the Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art (Princeton 1993)Google Scholar; and a volume devoted to historiographical studies of Schapiro, Meyer, Oxford Art Journal 17, no. 1 (1994).Google Scholar

4. Weitzmann, K., ‘Der Pariser Psalter MS. Grec. 139 und die mittelbyzantinische Renaissance’, Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 6 (1929) 178–194 Google Scholar; reprinted in Byzantine Liturgical Psalters and Gospels (London 1980).

5. Weitzmann’s vast bibliography on manuscripts is partially captured in an early collection of essays, Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, ed. H.L. Kessler (Chicago 1971) 335–339 and more definitively in his festschrift, Byzantine East, Latin West: Art Historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, ed. D. Mouriki (Princeton 1995) xv-xxiv.

6. These two students, Galavaris (taught in Canada at McGill University until his recent retirement) and Kessler (taught in the United States at the University of Chicago until the mid-1970s and since then at Johns Hopkins University), have produced an appreciable body of work in Byzantine and western Medieval manuscript studies, following Weitzmann’s method. They each contributed major monographs which form part of the Princeton series on manuscript illumination: Galavaris, G., The Illustrations of the Liturgical Homilies of Gregory Nazianzenus, Studies in Manuscript Illumination 6 (Princeton 1969 Google Scholar) and Kessler, H.L., The Illustrated Bibles from Tours, Studies in Manuscript Illumination 7 (Princeton 1977)Google Scholar. Kessler later collaborated with Weitzmann on a monograph initiating (but to date it is still the only volume) a new series in Old Testament manuscript studies, The Cotton Genesis. British Library Codex Cotton Otho B VI, The Illustrations in the Manuscripts of the Septuagint 1 (Princeton 1986).

7. Weitzmann’s influence is discerned in the work of manuscript scholars not trained by him. For example, his method informs Anthony Cutler’s early approach to manuscripts, see ‘The Spencer Psalter: A Thirteenth-Century Byzantine Manuscript in the New York Public Library’, Cahiers Archéologiques 23 (1974) 129–150, reprinted in idem, , Imagery and Ideology in Byzantine Art (London 1992)Google Scholar. A Weitzmann student, Gary Vikan, has thoughtfully addressed the issues raised by his mentor, specifically considering Byzantine attitudes toward models and copying in his ‘Ruminations on Edible Icons: Originals and Copies in the Art of Byzantium’, in Retaining the Original-Multiple Originals, Copies, and Reproductions, ed. K. Preciado, Studies in the History of Art 20 (Hanover and London 1989) 47–59.

8. Byzantine East, Latin West: Art Historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann.

9. Buchthal, H., The Miniatures of the Paris Psalter: A Study in Middle Byzantine Painting, Studies of the Warburg Institute 2 (London 1938)Google Scholar. Buchthal signalled his intention to take on Weitzmann’s earlier study in his introduction (9–10).

10. Walter, C., ‘Liturgy and the Illustration of Gregory of Nazianzen’s Homilies: An Essay in Iconographical Methodology’, REB 29 (1971) 183–212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 186–195, reprinted in idem, , Studies in Byzantine Iconography (London 1977)Google Scholar. Walter began his article by noting Weitzmann’s belief that the illustrated lectionary provides the model for the images found in other liturgical texts, a hypothesis fundamental to Galavaris’ study on the Gregory manuscripts. Walter was not to know at the time of the publication of his article that Weitzmann would never produce his promised monograph on Constantinopolitan lectionaries. I have taken up the problem of lectionaries in my own work.

11. Weitzmann, K., The Miniatures of the Sacra Parallela. Parisinus Graecus 923 (Studies in Manuscript Illumination 8, Princeton 1979)Google Scholar and Cormack’s, R. review in Burlington Magazine 123 (1981) 170–172 Google Scholar. He confronted similar issues briefly in his review of The Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue and Christian Art, by K. Weitzmann and H.L. Kessler, in Burlington Magazine 133 (1991) 315–316.

12. Cormack correctly stated, ‘Yet how far the marginal illustrations in the Paris gr. 923 justify the reconstruction of vast cycles on the scale envisaged by Weitzmann is open to doubt. It would be incautious to write a history of Byzantine art with the assumption that early book illustration took on the rôle implied by Weitzmann’ (review of The Miniatures of the Sacra Parallela, 171).

13. Review in Art Bulletin 65 (1983) 147–151.

14. Lowden, J., The Octateuchs: A Study in Byzantine Manuscript Illustration (University Park, Perm. 1992)Google Scholar, particularly his chapter, ‘Model, Source, Recension, Archetype’ (79–104). He also questions some of the premises behind Weitzmann’s and Kessler’s monograph on the Cotton Genesis in ‘Concerning the Cotton Genesis and other Illustrated Manuscripts of Genesis’, Gesta 31 (1992) 40–53. L. Brubaker has summarised and, on some points, queried Lowden’s inquiry in her state of the research article, ‘Life Imitates Art: writings on Byzantine art history, 1991–1992’, BMGS 17 (1993) 203–209.

15. Late in his life Weitzmann invited Massimo Bernabò to be his collaborator in order to complete this long-promised work. There is now some question whether this monograph will ever be published.

16. Lowden noted as well that ‘art historians have shown a marked reluctance to formulate alternatives. Some have followed his lead enthusiastically and have found the ‘Weitzmann Method’ helpful to their studies. Others, while not accepting his approach, have followed different strategies tacitly, as though the end result (…) would demonstrate the validity of the means without the need for further justification’, The Octateuchs, 7–8.

17. Weitzmann, K., Sailing with Byzantium from Europe to America: The Memoirs of an Art Historian (Munich 1994)Google Scholar. Published after Weitzmann’s death in 1993, it apparently was not edited for publication. I would like to thank Susan Boyd for making her copy available to me.

18. A different kind of recent academic autobiography is Kaplan, Alice, French Lessons (Chicago 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There is a vast array of literature on autobiography as a literary form, for example: Ashley, K., Gilmore, L., and Peters, G., eds., Autobiography & Postmodernism (Amherst 1994)Google Scholar; Sturrock, J., The Language of Autobiography: Studies in the First Person Singular (Cambridge and New York 1993)Google Scholar; and Eakin, P.J., Touching the World: Reference in Autobiography (Princeton 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; all have additional bibliography.

19. Walter suggested his own scepticism concerning Weitzmann’s assumptions concerning lectionaries, ‘Liturgy and the Illustration of Gregory Nazianzen’s Homilies’, 183.

20. Dolezal, M.-L., ‘The Elusive Quest for the “Real Thing”: The Chicago Lectionary Project Thirty Years On’, Gesta 35 (1996) 128–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Weitzmann, K., ‘The Narrative and Liturgical Gospel Illustrations’, in Parvis, M.M. and Wikgren, A.P., eds., New Testament Manuscript Studies (Chicago 1950) 151–174 Google Scholar; reprinted in Weitzmann, Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, 247–270.

22. Grafton, A., ‘The Origin of Scholarship’, The American Scholar 48 (1979) 260.Google Scholar

23. In his autobiography, Weitzmann presented many details of his life as a scholar: his teachers, his colleagues, his students, his travels, and his publications, but he does not expand upon the specifics of the genesis of his scholarship. Contrast this autobiography with that of Krautheimer, Richard, ‘And Gladly Did He Learn and Gladly Teach’, in Rome: Tradition, Innovation and Renewal (Victoria, B.C. 1991) 93–126.Google Scholar

For an overview of Weitzmann’s career by some of his students, see Kessler, H.L., ‘Kurt Weitzmann’, DOP 47 (1993) xix–xxiii Google Scholar; Galavaris, G., ‘Kurt Weitzmann’, Byzantina 17 (1994) 577–579 Google Scholar and his introduction to Sailing with Byzantium, 9–23; and D. Mouriki’s preface to Byzantine East, Latin West xi-xii.

24. Weitzmann, K.. ‘Byzantine Art and Scholarship in America’, American Journal of Archaeology 51 (1947) 394–418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This retrospective view was inspired by the Princeton Bicentennial Conference, ‘Scholarship and Research in the Arts’.

25. Ibid., 412.

26. Weitzmann, K., Illustrations in Roll and Codex: A Study of the Origin and Method of Text Illustration, Studies in Manuscript Illumination 2 (Princeton 1947; 2nd ed. 1970).Google Scholar

27. Weitzmann, , Sailing with Byzantium, 108–109 and 149 Google Scholar. Weitzmann was also invited to give two lectures at the third annual Dumbarton Oaks Symposium (1943) where he presented his ideas that were developing in the Princeton manuscript seminar.

28. Wescott, B.F. and Hort, F.J.A., The New Testament in Original Greek, 2 vols. (New York 1882) 2:19–72 Google Scholar. The chapter on methodology was written by Hort alone.

29. Sandys, J.E., A History of Classical Scholarship, vol. 3, The Eighteenth Century in Germany, and the Nineteenth Century in Europe and the United States of America (Cambridge 1908; repr., New York and London 1967) 130 Google Scholar. Lachmann specialised mainly in the Latin poets but also did major work in New Testament studies. In fact, he produced an edition of the New Testament, employing his carefully developed system of textual criticism, which, ironically, discredited and rejected the Textus Receptus (what was considered the commonly received standard text upon which the first printed editions of the Greek New Testament were based) and was highly controversial in its time. See Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship from 1300–1850 (Oxford 1976) 190 Google Scholar and Metzger, B., The Text of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (New York and Oxford 1992) 124–125 Google Scholar for further discussion of Lachmann’s role in New Testament criticism. Metzger (119–146) gives a brief summary of textual criticism from the late eighteenth century to the present as it is related to New Testament texts.

30. Lachmann, however, by no means asserted that the edition he had produced was the original text of the New Testament. His intention was to produce a text that was in use in the eastern church in the fourth century. It is noteworthy that Lachmann, the founder of modern genealogical methodology, believed that recreation of the authorial original would be a hopeless endeavour. Metzger, , Text of the New Testament, 124–125 Google Scholar. For an analysis of Lachmann by a German scholar of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century see Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, History of Classical Scholarship, ed. Lloyd-Jones, H., trans. Harris, A. (Baltimore 1982) 130–132 Google Scholar. The genealogical method and all its features are clearly outlined by Maas, P. in Textual Criticism, trans. Flower, B. (Oxford 1958)Google Scholar. More recently, M.L. West has provided an even more propaedeutic set of guidelines for this method intended as a replacement for the Maas version, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique (Stuttgart 1973).

31. Hon asserted: ‘A new period began in 1831, when for the first time a text was constructed directly from the ancient documents without the intervention of any printed edition, and when the first systematic attempt was made to substitute scientific method for arbitrary choice in the discrimination of various readings’. Westcott and Hort, New Testament in Greek, 13. It should be noted that Lachmann’s method continued to dominate textual criticism of all types but especially classical studies in Germany from 1850 to the present. See Grafton, A., ‘From Politian to Pasquali’ Journal of Roman Studies 67 (1977) 171–176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In this discussion/review of E.J. Kenney, The Classical Text. Aspects of Editing in the Age of the Printed Book, Grafton analysed Lachmann’s method in the context of the history of textual criticism and the history of scholarship in general. He emphasised also the historical character of Lachmann’s method.

32. Weitzmann, K., ‘Adolph Goldschmidt’, College Art Journal 4 (1944) 50.Google Scholar

33. For a recent historiographical analysis of Goldschmidt, see Brush, K., The Shaping of Art History: Wilhelm Vòge, Adolph Goldschmidt, and the Study of Medieval Art (New York and Cambridge 1996)Google Scholar. As Brush states, ‘The critical eye, according to Goldschmidt, was informed not only by practice but also by a vast store of firsthand knowledge, which enabled the art historian to go beyond mere description and to locate the object within its historical context. At the same time, keen visual analysis of stylistic features allowed the art historian to sort, analyse and classify groups of anonymously produced works and to perceive developmental sequences linking them’ (92). She suggests that Goldschmidt was open to the idea that his hypotheses might be revised and his work on any monument may not be the last.

34. Among his earliest publications were two catalogues of Byzantine ivories on which he collaborated with Goldschmidt, , Die Byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des X-XIII Jahrhunderts, 2 vols. (Berlin 1930-1934)Google Scholar. He studied the decoration of Byzantine manuscripts from a stylistic point of view in Die Byzantinische Buchmalerei des 9. una 10. Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1935). In this volume he tried to arrange manuscripts according to their style of ornament and miniature. This is not so far removed from his later iconographical research — where he attempted to categorise manuscripts or their miniatures in iconographie families. Iconographie criteria were substituted for stylistic criteria. It is noteworthy that in his obituary for Goldschmidt, Weitzmann praised his mentor for not enforcing a particular methodology or trying to establish a school of research.

35. Weitzmann, K., Adolph Goldschmidt und die Berliner Kunstgeschichte (Berlin 1985)Google Scholar. For another view of Goldschmidt see Adolph Goldschmidt zum Gedächtnis 1863–1944 (Hamburg 1963). This book contains short tributes by various scholars and also a bibliography of Goldschmidt’s work. Goldschmidt’s annotated memoirs have been published in Roosen-Runge-Mollwo, M., ed., Adolph Goldschmidt, 1863–1944. Lebenserinnerungen (Berlin 1989).Google Scholar

36. Weitzmann, Adolph Goldschmidt, 15–17, 21, 25–27. See also Weitzmann, Sailing with Byzantium with its description of his student years in Berlin (38–39 and 45–57) and the years in Berlin (1929–1935) after he received his doctorate (59–82); and Sandin, K. and Ausdall, K. Van, ‘An Interview with Kurt Weitzmann’, Rutgers Art Review 5 (1984) 71–85 Google Scholar, for a similar, though condensed summary of his scholarly career.

37. Weitzmann provided a similar litany of his own students and their dissertation topics in his autobiography.

38. Weitzmann, Adolph Goldschmidt, 24–28. According to Weitzmann, Goldschmidt exhorted his students to study various fields, particularly classics and classical archaeology, believing that a strong background in the ancients provided a good basis for the investigation of medieval art, among other fields. Weitzmann, as is clear from both his statement and his scholarship, took this advice to heart.

39. Ibid., 12.

40. Byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen and Byzantinische Buchmalerei. Weitzmann’s investigation and classification of the ornament and illumination of Byzantine manuscripts is closely allied to Goldschmidt’s method evident in his ivory catalogues: formulating groups of objects according to stylistic affinity and hypothesising regional or scriptorium origins to match stylistic likeness of objects. Other students of Goldschmidt in their research on Carolingian and Ottonian manuscripts, for example, pursued the same or similar procedure of analysis and codification.

41. Weitzmann, ‘Byzantine Art and Scholarship’, 394–418.

42. Ibid., 398–399.

43. Ibid., 418. Although he began to distance himself from the formalistically based method of his mentor, Goldschmidt, in an interesting generational leap, he in fact employed that of one of his mentor’s mentors, Anton Springer (Weitzmann does not make this connection, however). Springer relied on a philological method for classifying manuscripts into genealogical relationships according to iconography as well as style. See K. Brush, The Shaping of Art History 26–32 for a discussion of Springer.

44. For Weitzmann’s comments on the situation in Germany in the 1930s, see Sailing with Byzantium, 77–82.

45. Weitzmann was careful to repeat several times that he was not a Jew and this is also reported in two of his obituaries (see footnote 23). In a puzzling omission in his auto-history, he did not mention that his wife is Jewish (the scholar Josepha Weitzmann-Fiedler); he only stated that she joined him in Princeton, three years after he went there (1938), Sailing with Byzantium, 77–82, 126. Weitzmann’s selective history itself addressed the nature of autobiography, what its purpose is and what it reveals or does not reveal about the author. Frank Kermode, in his memoir, Not Entitled (New York 1995), contributed an adroit and sympathetic discussion of the nature of autobiography (153–169). He professed: ‘Writing truthfully of one’s life therefore requires what may seem to be a scandalous breach of the promise to be truthful. And it can be further argued, even more disconcertingly, that in the ordinary course of his written narrative, as of the interminable day-to-day account he gives himself of himself, the autobiographer will remember only in order to forget what he cannot bear to remember’ (156). See also footnote 18.

46. K. Weitzmann, ‘Byzantine Art and Scholarship in America’, 411.

47. Ibid., 411. Weitzmann again reviewed the history of Byzantine scholarship in America focusing exclusively on Princeton in ‘The Contribution of the Princeton University Department of Art and Archaeology to the Study of Byzantine Art’, in Byzantium at Princeton: Byzantine Art and Archaeology at Princeton University, ed. Slobodan Ćurčić and Archer St. Clair (Princeton 1986) 11–30.

48. See footnote 15.

49. Ibid., 412. Weitzmann referred to the following publications from the University of Chicago: Goodspeed, E.J., Riddle, D.W., and Willoughby, H.R., The Rockefeller McCormick New Testament, 3 vols. (Chicago 1932 Google Scholar) and Colwell, E.C. and Willoughby, H.R., The Four Gospels of Karahissar, 2 vols. (Chicago 1936)Google Scholar. This again indicates that Weitzmann was in close contact with the New Testament textual critics at the University of Chicago. Colwell and Riddle were the instigators of the lectionary project there, begun just before Weitzmann arrived in the United States and in full operation by the time his review article was published.

50. Goldschmidt, A., An Early Manuscript of the Aesop Fables of Avianus and Related Manuscripts (Studies in Manuscript Illumination 1, Princeton 1947).Google Scholar

51. Weitzmann decided that he needed to publish a methodological statement and other studies on other manuscripts before finishing his investigation of the Octateuchs, Sailing with Byzantium, 97. See Weitzmann, K., The Joshua Roll, A Work of the Macedonian Renaissance, Studies in Manuscript Illumination 3 (Princeton 1948 Google Scholar) and idem, The Miniatures of the Sacra Parallela.

52. Weitzmann, Roll and Codex. In the second edition (1970), Weitzmann included a few revisions with addenda which are comprised mostly of new bibliography and clarification of some points. Useful is Weitzmann’s list of all the reviews of his original publication (225).

53. Ibid., 182–192.

54. See footnote 28.

55. Weitzmann, , Sailing with Byzantium, 108–109.Google Scholar

56. Ibid., 446. See Gregory, C.R. Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes (Leipzig 1900)Google Scholar. Gregory also created the numbering system for lectionaries that is still used by textual scholars.

57. Westcott, and Hort, , New Testament in Greek, 19 Google Scholar. The full impact of his statement implied that New Testament criticism is dependent on classical textual criticism.

58. Ibid., 20–22.

59. Ibid., 22–30.

60. Ibid., 30–39.

61. Hort explicitly stated, in what he termed his second principle of textual criticism, that ‘all trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is founded on the study of their history’. (40). Their history, for Hort, is the sum of their diverse relationships best illustrated by a family tree.

62. Ibid., 39–40.

63. Ibid., 57.

64. Hort outlined the genealogical method, step by step, instructing textual critics both in the method of determining genealogical relationships between documents and in the procedure of application of genealogy in various cases. See 39–59 for his detailed discussion.

65. Ibid., 65–66.

66. Hort stated this principle subtly in the section quoted above (57) and again in his discussion of the applications of genealogy (53–59). Finally, in the concluding section of his chapter on method, Hort cautioned: ‘The utmost result that can be obtained under this condition is the discovery of what is relatively original: whether the readings thus relatively original were also the readings of the autograph is another question, which can never be answered in the affirmative with absolute decision except where the autograph itself is extant, but which admits of approximative answers varying enormously in certainty according to the nature of the documentary evidence for the text generally’ (66).

67. Weitzmann, ‘Byzantine Art and Scholarship’, 318.

68. Weitzmann, , Roll and Codex, 182.Google Scholar

69. Ibid.

70. One cannot entirely fault Weitzmann for this since his contemporaries in textual criticism were also overstating their achievements; see Dolezal, ‘Elusive Quest for the “Real Thing’“. Furthermore, Weitzmann exaggerated Hort’s claims concerning the potential for establishing a close facsimile of the autograph text. Hort warned that textual criticism, and the genealogical method specifically, could achieve only partial success. See footnote 66.

71. Weitzmann, , Roll and Codex, 183.Google Scholar

72. Weitzmann’s exploration of pictorial theory and methodology was more prudent than his application of it. In his subsequent studies of manuscripts of various types, he was less tolerant of iconographie deviations from the ‘pure’ archetype whether caused by stylistic change or creative input from the artist as he became more concerned with re-creating the hypothesised iconographically correct original.

73. Weitzmann, , Roll and Codex, 47–129.Google Scholar

74. Ibid., 185–186.

75. Ibid., 186–187.

76. Ibid., 190–191.

77. See Vikan’s comments on Octateuch illustration and its transmission and his interpretation of Byzantine copying, ‘Ruminations on Edible Icons: Originals and Copies in the Art of Byzantium’, 47–49, 57.

78. Lowden addressed this issue in The Octateuchs, 37.

79. Walter also alluded to this in his brief analysis of Weitzmann’s method, ‘Liturgy and the Illustration of Gregory of Nazianzen’s Homilies’, 187–188.

80. Weitzmann, , Roll and Codex, 191–192.Google Scholar

81. Dolezal, ‘Elusive Quest for the “Real Thing’“.

82. Weitzmann, , Sailing with Byzantium, 100.Google Scholar

83. For an overview of the letters and memoirs of the Chicago scholars Willoughby and Edgar Goodspeed, see Withers, Ben, ‘The Photograph and the Manuscript: Episodes in the History of Art History at The University of Chicago’, Chicago Art Journal (Spring 1994) 35–41 Google Scholar. I thank Kathleen Maxwell for sending me a copy of this article.

84. This collection of around five thousand photographs is housed in the Epstein Archive of Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago. It is part of a much larger collection of photographs (about seventeen thousand total) assembled by Willoughby for research and teaching. See Withers, ‘The Photography and the Manuscript’ 36.

85. Withers, , ‘The Photograph and the Manuscript’, 39–40.Google Scholar

86. Metzger, B.M., The Saturday and Sunday Lessons from Luke in the Greek Gospel Lectionary, Studies in the Lectionary Text of the Greek New Testament II, no. 3., ed. Colwell, E.C. (Chicago 1944)Google Scholar and Harms, R., The Matthean Weekday Lessons in the Greek Gospel Lectionary, Studies in the Lectionary Text of the Greek New Testament II, no. 6, ed. Wikgren, A.P. (Chicago 1966).Google Scholar

87. Weitzmann, K., ‘Das Evangelion im Skevophylakion zu Lawra’, Seminarium Kondakovianum 8 (1938) 83–98 Google Scholar; reprinted in Byzantine Liturgical Psalters and Gospels.

88. Weitzmann, , Roll and Codex, 173.Google Scholar

89. Colwell, E.C., ‘Is There a Lectionary Text of the Gospels?’, Harvard Theological Review 25 (1932) 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90. Metzger, , Text of the New Testament, 29 and 29, no. 2 Google Scholar. The first edition of this handbook was published in 1964.

91. See footnote 21.

92. Weitzmann did indicate he understood the difference between textual criticism and art-historical analysis of the lectionary when he stated in the conclusion of ‘Narrative and Liturgical Illustration’: ‘It is true, as we said before, that the illustrations in lectionaries make no contribution to the establishment of the archetype of the Gospels in the way the text of the lectionaries promises to do whenever it will be more fully studied’ (174). But, establishment of the ur-text of the Gospels was not the only function of lectionary research and presumption of a separate lectionary text (its own ur-text), a different matter altogether, could only encourage Weitzmann’s assumption concerning lectionary decoration.

93. Colwell, E.C., ‘Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and Its Limitations’, Journal of Biblical Literature 66 (1947) 109–133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; reprinted in idem, , Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, New Testament Tools and Studies 9, ed. Metzger, B. (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1969) 63–83.Google Scholar

94. Colwell, , ‘Genealogical Method’, 80–83.Google Scholar

95. Colwell, E.C., ‘Hort Redivivus: A Plea and A Program’, in Transitions in Biblical Scholarship, Essays in Divinity 6, ed. Rylaarsdam, J.C. (Chicago 1968) 131–156 Google Scholar. Reprinted in idem, , Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 148–171 Google Scholar. Colwell stated: ‘Fenton John Anthony Hort needs to be brought back to life. He made a major contribution to the textual criticism of the New Testament in the nineteenth century. He can make a major contribution today’ (148). He continued to praise the comprehensiveness of Hort’s method and then set forth a design to utilise Hort in current textual criticism.

96. Weitzmann, , Roll and Codex, 132–133.Google Scholar

97. Dolezal, , ‘Elusive Quest for the “Real Thing”’, 131.Google Scholar

98. Weitzmann, , Roll and Codex, 173 Google Scholar. Weitzmann used the lectionary to clarify the connection between textual criticism and pictorial criticism: the deviations found in the text or in the miniature can be useful for establishing recensions or families of manuscripts.

99. Ibid., 185.

100. Ibid., 105.

101. Weitzmann, , ‘Narrative and Liturgical’, 151–174 Google Scholar. It was here that Weitzmann first stated his intention to publish a monograph under the auspices of Dumbarton Oaks, The Illustration of Constantinopolitan Lectionaries. He mentioned this projected publication in subsequent lectionary articles, but he stated that this plan had been abandoned in the addenda to his reprinted article, ‘The Constantinopolitan Lectionary, Morgan 639’, Studies in Art and Literature for Belle da Costa Greene, ed. Dorothy Miner (Princeton 1954) 358–373 in the 1980 Variorum Reprint, Byzantine Liturgical Psalters and Gospels. Weitzmann referred to his paper as a prolegomenon to the no longer forthcoming monograph (n. 1, 215).

102. Weitzmann, , ‘Narrative and Liturgical’, 152 Google Scholar. He was referring to Colwell, Riddle, Goodspeed and Willoughby.

103. Ibid., 174.

104. Ibid., 154. The phrase ‘present form’ is Weitzmann’s and should be interpreted as his belief of what that form must be, not necessarily what actually existed.

105. Ibid. In fact, the research of the textual scholars indicated a complicated reconstruction for the lectionary text, a morass of recensions and bewildering relationships. See Dolezal, , ‘Elusive Quest for the “Real Thing”’, 131–133.Google Scholar

106. Weitzmann, ‘Narrative and Liturgical’, 169.

107. Ibid., 170.

108. Weitzmann, K., ‘A 10th Century Lectionary. A Lost Masterpiece of the Macedonian Renaissance’, Revue des études sud-est européennes 9 (1971) 617–640 Google Scholar; reprinted in Byzantine Liturgical Psalters and Gospels.

109. Ibid., 618–619. In a later article, Weitzmann suggested the incorporation of lectionary full-page feast scenes into a tenth century Gospel book, ‘An Illustrated Greek New Testament of the Tenth Century in the Walters Art Gallery’, Gatherings in Honor of Dorothy E. Miner, eds. U.E. McCracken, L.M.C. Randall, and R.H. Randall, Jr. (Baltimore 1974) 19–38; reprinted in Byzantine Liturgical Psalters and Gospels. He also repeated his position that a lost archetype of the lectionary can be proven to have existed possibly as early as the second half of the ninth century (36–38).

110. Weitzmann, ‘A 10th Century Lectionary’, 621–639. The feast scenes that comprised the iconographical programme of the lost archetype were: the Anastasis, Incredulity of Thomas, Ascension, Pentecost, Raising of Lazarus, Entry into Jerusalem, Washing of the Feet, Last Supper, Crucifixion, Deposition from the Cross, Birth of the Virgin, Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple, Nativity, Circumcision, Baptism, Presentation in the Temple, Annunciation, Metamorphosis, and the Koimesis.

111. Lowden, , The Octateuchs, 105–119.Google Scholar

112. Weitzmann, ‘A 10th Century Lectionary’, 618; idem, ‘Illustrated Greek New Testament’, 38; and idem, Sailing with Byzantium, 405 and 544–545.

113. Weitzmann.’Narrative and Liturgical’, 153. Also, idem, ‘Byzantine Miniature and Icon Painting in the Eleventh Century’, The Proceedings of the XHIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Oxford. 5–10th September, 1966, eds. J.M. Hussey, D. Obolensky, and S. Runciman (London 1967) 207–224; reprinted in Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, 271–313.

114. Of the more than 2,400 extant lectionaries, fewer than 20 are extensively illustrated. While there would have been more lectionaries originally, which have since been destroyed, the number of deluxe lectionaries would still have been proportionately small. See Aland, K., Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: Zweite, neubearbeitete und ergänzte Auflage (Berlin 1994) 219–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

115. Another Weitzmann student, Jeffrey Anderson, repeated Weitzmann’s assumptions concerning the lectionary in The New York Cruciform Lectionary (University Park, Penn. 1992). See my review of this monograph in Speculum 69 (1994) 731–733.

116. Weitzmann, ‘A 10th Century Lectionary’, 619; idem, ‘Narrative and Liturgical’, 170; and idem, Sailing with Byzantium, 405.

117. Likhachova, V.D., Byzantine Miniature (Moscow 1977)Google Scholar pls. 5–10 and Lektionar von St. Petersburg: vollstandige Faksimile-Ausgabe im Originalformat des codex gr. 21, gr. 21a der Russischen Nationalbibliothek in St. Petersburg, 2 vols: Facsimile and Commentary (Graz 1994).

118. Weitzmann, ‘Das Evangelion im Skevophylakion zu Lawra’. In the addenda, Weitzmann acceded to a later date, in the twelfth century, for this manuscript and in doing so relinquished his argument concerning its patronage and purpose (98). See also Pelekanides, S.M., Christou, P.C., and Tsoumis, Ch., The Treasures of Mount Athos (Athens 1979) 3:28–33, 217–219.Google Scholar

119. Pelekanides, , Treasures of Mount Athos, 2:24–29 Google Scholar, 293–295 (Iviron cod. 1) and 2:150–171, 349–353 (Panteleimon cod. 2).

120. Weitzmann, , Byzantinische Buchmalerei, pls. LXXI–LXXIII Google Scholar and Kominis, A.D., ed., Patmos; Treasures of the Monastery (Athens 1988) 306.Google Scholar

121. Weitzmann,’Narrative and Liturgical’, 154. Weitzmann further justified his dismissal of contrary evidence by invoking the research of the textual critics. They maintained that most lectionaries came from a Constantinopolitan recension and Weitzmann felt, despite the exceptions, that the pictures supported the textual critics’ contention.

122. Weitzmann, ‘Constantinopolitan Lectionary’, 358. Weitzmann emphatically stated that ‘There is no other group of illuminated Greek manuscripts where the level of artistic perfection is as high as among lectionaries’. He believed that only the best artists would have been employed to produce this liturgical book.

123. Weitzmann, K., ‘An Imperial Lectionary in the Monastery of Dionysiou on Mount Athos. Its Origin and its Wanderings’, Revue des études sud-est européennes 7 (1969) 239–253 Google Scholar; reprinted in Byzantine Liturgical Psalters and Gospels. See Dolezal, M.-L., ‘Illuminating the Liturgical Word: Text and Image in a Decorated Lectionary (Mount Athos, Dionysiou Monastery, cod. 587)’, Word & Image 12 (1996) 23–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

124. Weitzmann attributed another lectionary specifically to imperial patronage. It is a luxurious purple codex with gold uncial text which would indicate an imperial connection, but it was not illustrated. It has an abridged text, but a different abridgement than in Dionysiou cod. 587. See ‘Ein kaiserliches Lektionar einer byzantinischen Hofschule’, Festschrift Karl M. Swoboda zum 28 Januar 1959 (Vienna 1959) 309–320; reprinted in Byzantine Liturgical Psalters and Gospels,

125. Weitzmann, ‘Constantinopolitan Lectionary’, 358–373.

126. Ibid., 373.

127. K. Weitzmann, ‘Narrative and Liturgical’, 155–157; and Dolezal, M.-L., ‘The Middle Byzantine Lectionary: Textual and Pictorial Expression of Liturgical Ritual’ (Ph.D. Diss., University of Chicago 1991)Google Scholar and forthcoming monograph, Ritual Representations. The Middle Byzantine Lectionary through Text and Image (Penn State Press).

128. Weitzmann, ‘Byzantine Miniature’, 290–291.

129. Pellett, D., ‘The Holy Week Lections in the Greek Gospel Lectionary’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago 1954) 157 Google Scholar; and Dolezal, ‘Elusive Quest for the “Real Thing”’, 133–134.

130. Rice, D.T., review of illustrations of Roll and Codex. A Study of the Origin and Method of Text Illustration, by Weitzmann, K., in Byzantinoslavica 11 (1950) 108–110.Google Scholar

131. A. Katzenellenbogen, review of Illustrations of Roll and Codex. A Study of the Origin and Method of Text Illustration, by K. Weitzmann, in Speculum 23 (1948) 513. Weitzmann was similarly praised for ‘defining historical principles in the relationship between the written word and its pictorial accompaniment, especially in this most complex area’ by H. Bober in his review in Art Bulletin 30 (1948) 284. He further commended the use of methods adapted from textual criticism.

132. Earlier discussions include S. Alpers and Alpers, P., ‘“Ut Pictura Poesis”? Criticism in Literary Studies and Art History’, New Literary History 3 (1972) 437–458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the same journal see Grabar, O., ‘History of Art and History of Literature: Some Random Thoughts’, 559–568 Google Scholar. More recent discussions of text-image issues can be found in Word & Image, 1985-present. Other recent discussions are, Mitchell, W.J.T., Iconology. Image, Text, Ideology (Chicago 1986)Google Scholar; idem, , Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation (Chicago 1994)Google Scholar; Camille, M., Image on the Edge: The Margins of Medieval Art (Cambridge, Mass. 1992)Google Scholar; and Corrigan, K., Visual Polemics in the Ninth-Century Byzantine Psalters (New York 1992).Google Scholar

133. Greg, W.W., ‘The Rationale of Copy-Text’, Studies in Bibliography 3 (1950) 19–36 Google Scholar; reprinted in Bibliography and Textual Criticism, eds. O.M. Brack, Jr. and W. Barnes, (Chicago 1969) 41–58. See also Wilson, F.P., ‘Shakespeare and the “New Bibliography:’, The Bibliographical Society 1892–1942. Studies in Retrospect (London 1945) 76–135.Google Scholar

134. Among the earliest formulations of this theory of final intentions was Bowers, F., ‘Current Theories of Copy-Text, with an Illustration from Dryden’, Modern Philology, 68 (1950) 19–36 Google Scholar; reprinted in Bibliography and Textual Criticism, 59–72. See also idem, , ‘Some Principles for Scholarly Editions of Nineteenth-Century American Authors’, Studies in Bibliography 17 (1964) 223–228 Google Scholar; reprinted in Bibliography and Textual Criticism, 194–201. Bowers made his own critical intentions clear when he stated ‘When an author’s manuscript is preserved, this has paramount authority, of course’ (197). For more detailed discussion see idem, , Bibliography and Textual Criticism (Oxford 1964)Google Scholar and idem, , Textual and Literary Criticism (Cambridge 1966)Google Scholar. Another view of the theory of final intentions can be found in Tanselle, G.T., ‘The Editorial Problem of Final Authorial Intention’, Studies in Bibliography 29 (1976) 167–211 Google Scholar. See also Gaskell, P., A New Introduction to Bibliography (Oxford 1972)Google Scholar and Greetham, D.C., Textual Scholarship: An Introduction (New York and London 1994).Google Scholar

135. McGann, J., A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism (Chicago 1983)Google Scholar. McGann provided a clear summary of Bowers’ method. Using a poem of Byron as an example, he demonstrated how the idea of final intention can lead to misconceptions about an author’s work.

136. Ibid., 81.

137. Ibid., 111–123. McGann stated: ‘To determine copy-text and the rules for emendation on the elementary basis recommended by the Bowers’ line of reasoning is to make crucial textual decisions without taking adequate and systematic account of all the relevant factors. A hypnotic fascination with the isolated author has served to foster an overdetermined concept of authorship, but (reciprocally) an underdetermined concept of literary work’. (121–122). See also McKenzie, D.F., Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts, The Panizzi Lectures 1985 (London 1986)Google Scholar. McKenzie also criticised Bowers’ method which he believed had been elevated to a scientific status by some textual critics. Like McGann, he has called for a more complex view of texts which would include consideration of the transmission, production, and reception of texts, what he defined as the sociology of texts.

138. The Times Literary Supplement, 22 July 1949, 480.

139. Contact between scholars in New Testament studies and literature is also evident. See Dearing, V.A., ‘Methods of Textual Editing’, Paper presented at a seminar on bibliography at the William Andrews Clark Library, University of California at Los Angeles, 12 May 1962 Google Scholar; reprinted in Bibliography and Textual Criticism, 73–101 and idem, , ‘Some Notes on Genealogical Methods in Textual Criticism’, Novum Testamentum 9 (1967) 278–297.Google Scholar

140. Bowers, F., Principles of Bibliographical Description (Princeton 1949)Google Scholar. He stated, for example, ‘The concern of the descriptive bibliographer, on the other hand, is to examine every available copy of an edition of a book in order to describe in bibliographical terms the characteristics of an ideal copy of this edition, to explain and describe the printing and textual history of the edition, and finally to arrange it in a correct and logical relationship to other editions’ (6).

141. Attention here has been paid to the construction and implementation of a specific methodology in the discipline of manuscript studies. Similarly, however, Otto Demus created a restrictive methodological approach to church decoration; in his case, he imposed a system in order to elucidate the genesis of post-iconoclastic monumental painting. His classic statement is Byzantine Church Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium (London 1948). Demus’ approach has dominated discussions of church decoration since its publication, but it is now being reconsidered. One such reconsideration is Mathews, T.F., ‘The Sequel to Nicaea II in Byzantine Church Decoration’, Perkins Journal 41 (July 1988) 11–21.Google Scholar