Pierre Baillot (1771–1842) was a central figure in the development of the early nineteenth-century French School of violin playing. This school was itself the source of the twentieth-century Russian and American schools, and all the great players of the modern era can trace their lineage back to Baillot and his colleagues. The French School was the first to systematize violin teaching within an institutional framework with normative aspirations. Its history is bound up with that of the Paris Conservatoire, established in 1795. Work by French scholars of the Conservatoire and its teaching has tended to assert a continuity of ideals and aesthetics across time, even an essential Frenchness, and work by English-language scholars has been more concerned with the influence of the School on developments in playing styles and composition than on the evolution of attitudes to music teaching. This analysis of the language of the two founding pedagogical texts reveals a contested cultural landscape, and explores how a revolutionary institution with lofty principles could be overtaken by cultural change in a few short decades. It finishes by questioning the traditional elision of the French and Franco-Belgian schools, and suggests that Brussels, rather than constituting a mere branch of the Paris school, rescued it from premature irrelevance.

中文翻译：

---

法国小提琴学院在革命与反动之间的演奏：皮埃尔·巴洛特 1803 年和 1834 年论文的比较

Pierre Baillot (1771–1842) 是 19 世纪早期法国小提琴演奏学派发展的核心人物。这所学校本身就是 20 世纪俄罗斯和美国学校的源头，现代所有伟大的球员都可以将他们的血统追溯到 Baillot 和他的同事们。法国学校是第一个在具有规范愿望的制度框架内系统化小提琴教学的学校。它的历史与成立于 1795 年的巴黎音乐学院密切相关。法国音乐学院学者的工作及其教学倾向于主张跨越时间的理想和美学的连续性，甚至是基本的法国性，英语学者的工作更关注学校对演奏风格和作曲发展的影响，而不是对音乐教学态度的演变。对两部创始教学文本语言的分析揭示了一个有争议的文化景观，并探讨了一个具有崇高原则的革命机构如何在短短几十年内被文化变革所取代。它以质疑法国和法国-比利时学派的传统省略结束，并建议布鲁塞尔，而不是仅仅构成巴黎学派的一个分支，将其从过早的无关紧要中拯救出来。并探讨了一个具有崇高原则的革命机构如何在短短几十年内被文化变革所取代。它以质疑法国和法国-比利时学派的传统省略结束，并建议布鲁塞尔，而不是仅仅构成巴黎学派的一个分支，将其从过早的无关紧要中拯救出来。并探讨了一个具有崇高原则的革命机构如何在短短几十年内被文化变革所取代。它以质疑法国和法国-比利时学派的传统省略结束，并建议布鲁塞尔，而不是仅仅构成巴黎学派的一个分支，将其从过早的无关紧要中拯救出来。