1. But see Cormack, R., ‘New Art History vs. Old Art History: Writing Art History’, BMGS 10 (1986) 223–231 Google Scholar, and Kessler, H.L., ‘On the State of Medieval Art’, Art Bulletin 70, no. 2 (1988) who includes Byzantium within the rubric of medieval.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Those in Morris (1990) and Ćurčić and Mouriki (1991) will be considered individually below.

3. See also Vikan’s earlier Byzantine Pilgrimage Art (Washington DC 1982).

4. In an earlier article — Vikan, G., ‘Ruminations on Edible Icons: Originals and Copies in the Art of Byzantium’, Studies in the History of Art 20 (1989) 47–59 Google Scholar — Vikan made the neat point that icons are essentially ‘transparent’: the viewer looks through them to the figure represented. Here too he assessed those incredible edible icons, the relic tokens of Symeon the Stylite.

5. Translated, with other works by Benjamin, , in Illuminations (London 1970).Google Scholar

6. For more on Vikan’s mimetic theory, see his article cited in note 4 above and the discussion of manuscript studies below.

7. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 5 (1942) 1-33; reprinted with additional comments in Krautheimer’s Studies in Early Christian, Medieval, and Renaissance Art (New York 1969) 115-150.

8. Similarly, Mango refers to Demus’s 1960 discussion of the relationship between the Holy Apostles and San Marco; a fuller consideration appears in Demus, O., The Mosaics of San Marco in Venice (Chicago 1984).Google Scholar

9. E.g. Mathews, T., ‘The Sequel to Nicaea II in Byzantine Church Decoration’, Perkins Journal (July 1988) 11–21 Google Scholar; Brubaker, L., ‘Byzantine art in the ninth century: theory, practice, and culture’, BMGS 13 (1989) 36–37, 81.Google Scholar

10. For an article that blends both, apparently irreconcilable, approaches, I can but cite my own (as in note 9 above) 23-93.

11. See the articles cited in note 9 above, and Brubaker, L., ‘Perception and Conception: Art, Theory and Culture in Ninth-century Byzantium’, Word and Image 5, no. 1 (1989) 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. See Vickers, M., ‘Eighteenth-Century Taste and the Study of Greek Vases’, Past and Present 116 (1987) 98–137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the relationship between Berenson and Duveen is axiomatic: see, for example, Secrest, M., Being Bernard Berenson (New York 1979) especially 226–229, 399–407 Google Scholar. The classic examination of the relation between art history and art collecting remains Alsop, J., The Rare Art Traditions: The History of Art Collecting and its Linked Phenomena (Princeton 1982).Google Scholar

13. ‘Teddy Bear Patriarchy: Taxidermy in the Garden of Eden’, Social Text 4, no. 2 (1984) 20-64. For a less nuanced, but equally blunt, analysis of, especially, the Louvre, see Duncan, C. and Wallach, A., ‘The Universal Survey Museum’, Art History 3, no. 4 (1980) 448–469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and for a quick critique of recent attempts to understand past (and present) attitudes toward images of the other, Coombes, A.F. and Edwards, S., ‘Site Unseen: Photography in the Colonial Empire: Images of a Subconscious Eroticism’, Art History 12, no. 4 (1989) 510–516 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Shelly Errington, who has contributed greatly over the years to my understanding of how the museum intersects with the relationship between art history and the past, also has several pertinent articles in press.

14. The new ‘?Exhibition?’ at the Ashmolean, which I have not yet seen, apparently does the same in three-dimensions; other people have done so in lectures or private conversations, most notably Thelma Thomas.

15. Rouan, M.-F., ‘Une lecture “iconoclaste” de la Vie d’Etienne le jeune’, Traveaux et Mémoires 8 (1981) 415–4 Google Scholar36. Rouan, now publishing as Auzépy, has more to say on this: see below.

16. Wharton’s assessment of how we now read Grabar fascinated but did not quite convince me: my students are as TV-literate as hers, and the course I teach on the media (which mostly indicates that no one born before 1960 can do so — I have read Neil Postman and Mark Crispin Miller, but they have watched every rerun of Gilligan’s Island and Dynasty; we only truly met on Twin Peaks) has mostly served to convince me that we need the detachment granted by time before we can deconstruct ourselves.

17. ‘… la destruction de l’icône du Christ de la Chalcé par Léon III n’a jamais eu lieu, pour l’excellente raison que cette icône n’existait pas’ (491).

18. An edition of one of the texts on which Auzépy relies, the Breviarium of Nikephoros, has also appeared: Mango, C., Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History (Washington DC 1990).Google Scholar

19. My only quibble, and it is a minor one, is that they confuse emotional responses in general with certain specific manifestations of emotion, notably tears that the author assures the audience they will shed (i.e. projected tears), which, despite James’s and Webb’s assertions to the contrary, do not become a standard of image writing until around the year 800. See Brubaker (as in note 9 above) 24-26 and eadem (as in note 11 above) 19-32.

20. As, I am afraid, I have said elsewhere at extreme length: on the Hagia Sophia mosaic, Brubaker (as in note 9 above), 27 note 13.

21. Lowden, J., ‘The Production of the Vatopedi Octateuch’, DOP 36 (1982) 115–126.Google Scholar

22. See note 4 above.

23. The same desire, it has recently been argued, underlies the popularity of hagiography in Byzantium: Harvey, S.A., ‘Women in Early Byzantine Hagiography: Reversing the Story’, in Coon, L., Haldane, K., and Summers, E., eds., ‘That Gentle Strength ‘: Historical Perspectives on Women and Christianity (Charlottesville 1990) 36–59 Google Scholar. I thank Dr Harvey for allowing me to read this study in typescript.

24. In order to do so, we will also have to divorce ourselves from notions of art as commodity, ideas about the primacy of individual creativity, and various other modern myths that Vikan, who is a resolute pragmatist, does not wish to confront directly.

25. She also considers the more concrete function of the images, and concludes that their main purpose was ‘to double the volume’s sacred value’ (205).

26. In the eighth and ninth centuries, emperors were sometimes associated with martyrs, but without additional research I would not care to venture whether or not this is relevant to Ševčenko’s argument.

27. As first proposed by Weitzmann, K., ‘Byzantine Miniature and Icon Painting in the Eleventh Century’, The Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies (London 1967) 207–224 Google Scholar (reprinted in Weitzmann’s collected works, and in Kessler, H. L., ed., Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript illumination (Chicago 1971)Google Scholar. The thesis had earlier been questioned by, among others, C. Mango, ‘Lo stile cosidetto “monastico” della pittura bizantina’, Habitat — Strutture — Territorio, Atti del III Convegno internazionale di studio sulla civiltà rupestre medioevale nel mezzogiorno d’Italia (Galatina 1978) 45-62; and Kazhdan, A.P. and Epstein, A.W., Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Berkeley 1985).Google Scholar

28. On which see also my article in Scriptorium 45 (1991) 22-46, not included here as the issue had not yet appeared when BMGS went to press.

29. It must be said, however parenthetically, that one is not encouraged by the fact that the book is technically sloppy — for example, Bachkovo is treated as a different place from Bačkovo (74-75, 88-89), and one lengthy passage from the Life is quoted twice (77, 108) — and at times methodologically unsophisticated: secondary sources are cited when primary sources are readily accessible (55-56,117), style and iconography are sometimes confused (64-66), some arguments defy logic (52, on Athanasios) or perpetuate genuine errors (as when the Menologion of Basil II is apparently read as representative of metaphrastian menologia when it is neither representative nor metaphrastian); and why cite Krautheimer on the mosaics of San Marco rather than Demus?

30. Though access is now restricted, Cormack’s recent visit (reported by the authors) suggests that the paintings, though covered, remain intact.

31. The evidence, which is more complex than Gauthier-Walter imagines, will shortly appear in my monograph on Paris, gr. 510.

32. I thank Chris Wickham for this reference, and also for his comments on an earlier draft of this article.

33. I do not mean by this to disparage the empirical presentation of material, though it is, I am sure, all too clear from my presentation that 1 believe that this approach is the beginning rather than the goal of scholarship.

34. Podro, M., The Critical Historians of Art (New Haven 1982)Google Scholar provides an account of the founders of the discipline, their philosophies, and their contributions.

35. For this reason, I would argue thatpweconnoisseurship is essentially irrelevant to Byzantine art history (though not to the art market); but I would also argue strongly for the re-integration of stylistic analysis into a broader context — indeed, I think that the segregation of form and content in most studies of Byzantine imagery is extremely problematic.

36. On which see Benjamin, as in note 5 above, and, perhaps more accessibly, Berger, J., Ways of Seeing (London 1972)Google Scholar who summarises, popularises (in a 70s way that is now rather endearing), and updates Benjamin’s points.

37. Recently reprinted in revised form in Bourdieu, P., The Logic of Practice, trans. R. Nice (Oxford 1990) 271–283.Google Scholar