Tracing the filaments connecting the work of Norbert Elias to that of Max Weber is not an easy undertaking. This has not least to do with the manner in which Elias generally relates to the work of other sociologists. It seems to be a widely shared assessment that Elias only rarely, often indirectly or half-buried in footnotes, discloses his intellectual indebtedness to other sociologists. Van Krieken (1998), for example, remarks upon Elias's "confident self-assuredness about the innovatory nature of his sociological ideas' that goes hand in hand with a "disdain for engaging with current theoretical debates' (35). But Elias seems to have eschewed not only direct engagement with his contemporary colleagues. His treatment of the classics is equally characterized by a lack of concern with disclosing, commenting on—or as van Krieken put it—"let alone outlining or reconstructing, other theorists' ideas' (42). One will therefore not find a thorough and detailed treatment of Weber's sociology on Elias's part from which one could glean a clear picture of Elias's assessment of his predecessor's work. A comparison between the two based solely on Elias's direct references to Weber is of only limited fruitfulness, for this number, as Stefan Breuer (1994) pointed out, "is not exactly overwhelming" (42). Such an approach might suggest that there is only little common ground between Elias and Weber and that Elias only sparsely integrated Weberian themes into his framework.