and concertos, may be approached. In Petrograd my own assistants, who
were familiar with my ideas, prepared my pupils for me. And in my own
experience I have found that one cannot teach by word, by the spoken
explanation, alone. If I have a point to make I explain it; but if my
explanation fails to explain I take my violin and bow, and clear up the
matter beyond any doubt. The word lives, it is true, but often the word
must be materialized by action so that its meaning is clear. There are
always things which the pupil must be shown literally, though
explanation should always supplement illustration. I studied with
Joachim as a boy of sixteen--it was before 1866, when there was still a
kingdom of Hanover in existence--and Joachim always illustrated his
meaning with bow and fiddle. But he never explained the technical side
of what he illustrated. Those more advanced understood without verbal
comment; yet there were some who did not.

"As regards the theory that you can tell who a violinist's teacher is by
the way in which he plays, I do not believe in it. I do not believe that
you can tell an Auer pupil by the manner in which he plays. And I am
proud of it since it shows that my pupils have profited by my
encouragement of individual development, and that they become genuine
artists, each with a personality of his own, instead of violinistic
automats, all bearing a marked family resemblance."

Questioned as to how his various pupils reflected different phases of
his teaching ideals, Professor Auer mentioned that he had long since
given over passing final decisions on his pupils. "I could express no
such opinions without unconsciously implying comparisons. And so few
comparisons really compare! Then, too, mine would be merely an
individual opinion. Therefore, as has been my custom for years, I will
continue to leave any ultimate decisions regarding my pupils' playing to