I have shied away from writing yet another taxonomy of violin performing practices. Such texts exist already (and arguably, my 2003 monograph fits this mould); in any case, such discussions in book form give the impression of pretension to a monolithic authority they often do not deserve. Instead, the thrust of this chapter and the following one is to parse elements of violin performing practices in terms of their ‘ideals’. Maybe that way topics such as vibrato or tempo flexibility can be not merely accounted, but rather understood. Grasping such an understanding is important – applying ‘rational’ principles alone risks misapprehending the role of the violinist at a time when this went beyond such prosaic factors as operational procedure.

Looking at ideology like this reveals something of a paradox. On the one hand, art was to be ‘free’ – a window upon the emotions and the soul. On the other (to a greater or lesser extent), it was to be controlled, disciplined, and rendered ‘correctly’ – policed, maybe, by appeal to tradition, or a veneration of celebrated figures. Admittedly, this also characterises modern practices. The notion of the ‘canon’ operates in the context of the deification of the great composer, and here HIP is complicit. Indeed, HIP might be seen to extend the idea even further: no longer is it a matter of holy (ur)texts alone, but also the requirement of specific stylistic, technical, and organological practices, to respect ‘composer intentions’ or (to use Clive Brown's more subtle term), ‘expectations’.

One element is the notion of that which is ‘natural’, or ‘healthy’. There is a moral (even religious) edge to this as well, as discussed in the previous chapter. Even in his old age, it is notable that Joachim's prowess is alluded to in terms of his good, stout constitution, for example. Mention of his (inevitably) deteriorating health in old age is rare, and mainly to be found in less reverential, arguably modernist, texts, such as those by Flesch, or Grimson & Forsyth.