Chapter 14

Treble concertina, double actionTenor concertina, single actionBass concertina, single actionDouble bass concertina, single action

Treble concertina, double action

Tenor concertina, single action

Bass concertina, single action

Double bass concertina, single action

The timbre of the concertina is penetrating but soft, and capable of the most delicate gradations of tone. This quality is due to a law of acoustics governing the vibration of free reeds by means of whichfortesandpianosare obtained by varying the pressure of the wind, as is also the case with the double reed or the single or beating reed, while the pressure of the reed with the lips combined with greater pressure of wind produces the harmonic overtones which are not given out by free reeds. The English concertina possesses one peculiarity which renders it unsuitable for playing with instruments tuned according to the law of equal temperament, such as the pianoforte, harmonium or melodion,i.e.it has enharmonic intervals between G♯ and A♯ and between D♭ and E♭. The German concertina is not constructed according to this system; its compass extends down to C or even B♭, but it is not provided with double action. It is possible on the English concertina to play diatonic and chromatic passages or arpeggios in legato or staccato style with rapidity, shakes single and double in thirds; it is also possible to play in parts as on the pianoforte or organ and to produce very rich chords. Concertos were written for concertina with orchestra by Molique and Regondi, a sonata with piano by Molique, while Tschaikowsky scored in his second orchestral suite for four accordions.

The aeola, constructed by the representatives of the original firm of Wheatstone, is a still more artistically developed concertina, having among other improvements steel reeds instead of brass, which increase the purity and delicacy of the timbre.

See alsoAccordion;Cheng;Harmonium;Free-Reed Vibrator.

(K. S.)

CONCERTO(Lat.concertus, fromcertare, to strive, also confused withconcentus), in music, a term which appears as early as the beginning of the 17th century, at first as a title of no very definite meaning, but which early acquired a sense justified by its etymology and became applied chiefly to compositions in which unequal instrumental or vocal forces are brought into opposition.

Although by Bach’s time the concerto as a polyphonic instrumental form was thoroughly established, the term frequently appears in the autograph title-pages of his church cantatas, even when the cantata contains no instrumental prelude. Indeed, so entirely does the actual concerto form, as Bach understands it, depend upon the opposition of masses of tone unequal in volume with a compensating inequality in power of commanding attention, that Bach is able to rewrite an instrumental movement as a chorus without the least incongruity of style. A splendid example of this is the first chorus of a university festival cantata,Vereinigte Zwietracht der wechselnden Saiten, the very title of which (“united contest of turn-about strings”) is a perfect definition of the earlier form ofconcerto grosso, in which the chief mass of the orchestra was opposed, not to a mere solo instrument, but to a small group called theconcertino, or else the whole work was for a large orchestral mass in which tutti passages alternate with passages in which the whole orchestra is dispersed in every possible kind of grouping. But the special significance of this particular chorus is that it is arranged from the second movement of the first Brandenburg concerto; and that while the orchestral material is unaltered except for transposition of key, enlargement of force and substitution of trumpets and drums for the original horns, the whole chorus part has been evolved from the solo part for a kit violin (violino piccolo). This admirably illustrates Bach’s grasp of the true idea of a concerto, namely, that whatever the relations may be between the forces in respect of volume or sound, the whole treatment of the form must depend upon the healthy relation of function between that force which commands more and that which commands less attention.Ceteris paribusthe individual, suitably placed, will command more attention than the crowd, whether in real life, drama or instrumental music. And in music the human voice, with human words, will thrust any orchestral force into the background, the moment it can make itself heard at all. Hence it is not surprising that the earlier concerto forms should show the closest affinity (not only in general aesthetic principle, but in many technical details) with the form of the vocal aria, as matured by Alessandro Scarlatti. And the treatment of the orchestra is,mutatis mutandis, exactly the same in both. The orchestra is entrusted with a highly pregnant and short summary of the main contents of the movement, and the solo, or the groups corresponding thereto, will either take up this material or first introduce new themes to be combined with it, and, in short, enter into relations with the orchestra very like those between the actors and the chorus in Greek drama. If the aria before Mozart may be regarded as a single large melody expanded by the device of the ritornello so as to give full expression to the power of a singer against an instrumental accompaniment, so the polyphonic concerto form may be regarded as an expansion of the aria form to a scale worthy of the larger and purely instrumental forces employed, and so rendered capable of absorbing large polyphonic and other types of structure incompatible with the lyric idea of the aria. Theda capoform, by which the aria had attained its full dimensions through the addition of a second strain in foreign keys followed by the original strainda capo, was absorbed by the polyphonic concerto on an enormous scale, both in first movements and finales (see Bach’s Klavier concerto in E, Violin concerto in E, first movement), while for slow movements theground bass(seeVariations), diversified by changes of key (Klavier concerto in D minor), the more melodic types of binary form, sometimes with the repeats ornamentally varied or inverted (Concerto for 3 klaviers in D minor, Concerto for klavier, flute and violin in A minor), and in finales therondoform (Violin concerto in E major, Klavier concerto in F minor) and the binary form (3rd Brandenburg concerto) may be found.

When conceptions of musical form changed and the modern sonata style arose, the peculiar conditions of the concerto gave rise to problems the difficulty of which only the highest classical intellects could appreciate or solve. The number and contrast of the themes necessary to work out a first movement of a sonata are far too great to be contained within the single musical sentence of Bach’s and Handel’s ritornello, even when it is as long as the thirty bars of Bach’s Italian concerto (a work in which every essential of the polyphonic concerto is reproduced on the harpsichord by means of the contrasts between its full register on the lower of its two keyboards and its solo stops on both). Bach’s sons had taken shrewd steps in forming the new style; and Mozart, as a boy, modelled himself closely on Johann Christian Bach, and by the time he was twenty was able to write concerto ritornellos that gave the orchestra admirable opportunity for asserting its character and resource in the statement in charmingly epigrammatic style of some five or six sharply contrasted themes, afterwards to be worked out with additions by the solo with the orchestra’s co-operation and intervention. As the scale of the works increases the problem becomes very difficult, because the alternation between solo andtutti easily produces a sectional type of structure incompatible with the high degree of organization required in first movements; yet frequent alternation is evidently necessary, as the orchestral solo is audible only above a very subdued orchestral accompaniment, and it would be highly inartistic to use the orchestra for no other purpose. Hence in the classical concerto the ritornello is never abandoned, in spite of the enormous dimensions to which the sonata style expanded it. And though from the time of Mendelssohn onwards most composers have seemed to regard it as a conventional impediment easily abandoned, it may be doubted whether any modern concerto, except the four magnificent examples of Brahms, and Dr Joachim’s Hungarian concerto, possesses first movements in which the orchestra seems to enjoy breathing space. And certainly in the classical concerto the entry of the solo instrument, after the long opening tutti, is always dramatic in direct proportion to its delay. The great danger in handling so long an orchestral prelude is that the work may for some minutes be indistinguishable from a symphony and thus the entry of the solo may be unexpected without being inevitable. This is especially the case if the composer has treated his opening tutti like the exposition of a sonata movement, and made a deliberate transition from his first group of themes to a second group in a complementary key, even if the transition is only temporary, as in Beethoven’s C minor concerto. Mozart keeps his whole tutti in the tonic, relieved only by his mastery of sudden subsidiary modulation; and so perfect is his marshalling of his resources that in his hands a tutti a hundred bars long passes by with the effect of a splendid pageant, of which the meaning is evidently about to be revealed by the solo. After the C minor concerto, Beethoven grasped the true function of the opening tutti and enlarged it to his new purposes. With an interesting experiment of Mozart’s before him, he, in his G major concerto,Op. 53, allowed the solo player to state the opening theme, making the orchestra enterpianissimoin a foreign key, a wonderful incident which has led to the absurd statement that he “abolished the opening tutti,” and that Mendelssohn in so doing has “followed his example.” In this concerto he also gave considerable variety of key to the opening tutti by the use of an important theme which executes a considerable series of modulations, an entirely different thing from a deliberate modulation from material in one key to material in another. His fifth and last pianoforte concerto, in E flat, commonly called the “Emperor,” begins with a rhapsodical introduction of extreme brilliance for the solo player, followed by a tutti of unusual length which is confined to the tonic major and minor with a strictness explained by the gorgeous modulations with which the solo subsequently treats the second subject. In this concerto Beethoven also dispenses with the only really conventional feature of the form, namely, thecadenza, a custom elaborated from the operatic aria, in which the singer was allowed to extemporize a flourish on a pause near the end. A similar pause was made in the final ritornello of a concerto, and the soloist was supposed to extemporize what should be equivalent to a symphonic coda, with results which could not but be deplorable unless the player (or cadenza writer) were either the composer himself, or capable of entering into his intentions, like Joachim, who has written the finest extant cadenza of classical violin concertos.

Brahms’s first concerto in D minor,Op. 15, was the result of an immense amount of work, and, though on a mass of material originally intended for a symphony, was nevertheless so perfectly assimilated into the true concerto form that in his next essay, the violin concerto,Op. 77, he had no more to learn, and was free to make true innovations. He succeeds in presenting the contrasts even of remote keys so immediately that they are serviceable in the opening tutti and give the form a wider range in definitely functional key than any other instrumental music. Thus in the opening tutti of the D minor concerto the second subject is announced in B flat minor. In the B flat pianoforte concerto,Op. 83, it appears in D minor, and in the double concerto,Op. 102, for violin and violoncello in A minor it appears in F major. In none of these cases is it in the key in which the solo develops it, and it is reached with a directness sharply contrasted with the symphonic deliberation with which it is approached in the solo. In the violin concerto,Op. 77, Brahms develops a counterplot in the opposition between solo and orchestra, inasmuch as after the solo has worked out its second subject the orchestra bursts in, not with the opening ritornello, but with its own version of the material with which the solo originally entered. In other words we have now not only the development by the solo of material stated by the orchestra but also a counter-development by the orchestra of material stated by the solo. This concerto is, on the other hand, remarkable as being the last in which a blank space is left for a cadenza, Brahms having in his friend Joachim a kindred spirit worthy of such trust. In the pianoforte concerto in B flat, and in the double concerto,1Op. 102, the idea of an introductory statement in which the solo takes part before the opening tutti is carried out on a large scale, and in the double concerto both first and second subjects are thus suggested. It is unnecessary to speak of the other movements of concerto form, as the sectional structure that so easily results from the opposition between solo and orchestra is not of great disadvantage to slow movements and finales, which accordingly do not show important differences from the ordinary types of symphonic and chamber music. The scherzo, on the other hand, is normally of too small a range of contrast for successful adaptation to concerto form, and the solitary great example of its use is the second movement of Brahms’s B flat pianoforte concerto.

Nothing is more easy to handle with inartistic or pseudo-classic effectiveness than the opposition between a brilliant solo player and an orchestra; and, as the inevitable tendency of even the most artistic concerto has been to exhaust the resources of the solo instrument in the increased difficulty of making a proper contrast between solo and orchestra, so the technical difficulty of concertos has steadily increased until even in classical times it was so great that the orthodox definition of a concerto is that it is “an instrumental composition designed to show the skill of an executant, and one which is almost invariably accompanied by orchestra.” This idea is in flat violation of the whole history and aesthetics of the form, which can never be understood by means of a study of averages. In art the average is always false, and the individual organization of the greatest classical works is the only sound basis for generalizations, historic or aesthetic.

(D. F. T.)

1Double and triple concertos are concertos with two or three solo players. A concerto for several solo players is called a concertante.

CONCH(Lat.concha, Gr.κόγχη), a shell, particularly one of a mollusc; hence the term “conchology,” the science which deals with such shells, more used formerly when molluscs were studied and classified according to the shell formation; the word is chiefly now used for the collection of shells (seeMollusca, and such articles asGastropoda,Malacostraca, &c.). Large spiral conchs have been from early times used as a form of trumpet, emitting a very loud sound. They are used in the West Indies and the South Sea Islands. The Tritons of ancient mythology are represented as blowing such “wreathed horns.” In anatomy, the termconchaor “conch” is used of the external ear, or of the hollowed central part leading to the meatus; and, in architecture, it is sometimes given to the half dome over the semicircular apse of the basilica. In late Roman work at Baalbek and Palmyra and in Renaissance buildings shells are frequently carved in the heads of circular niches. A low class of the negro or other inhabitants of the Bahamas and the Florida Keys are sometimes called “Conches” or “Conks” from the shell-fish which form their staple food.

CONCHOID(Gr.κόγχη, shell, andεἶδος, form), a plane curve invented by the Greek mathematician Nicomedes, who devised a mechanical construction for it and applied it to the problem of the duplication of the cube, the construction of two mean proportionals between two given quantities, and possibly to the trisection of an angle as in the 8th lemma of Archimedes. Proclus grants Nicomedes the credit of this last application, but it is disputed by Pappus, who claims that his own discovery wasoriginal. The conchoid has been employed by later mathematicians, notably Sir Isaac Newton, in the construction of various cubic curves.

The conchoid is generated as follows:—Let O be a fixed point and BC a fixed straight line; draw any line through O intersecting BC in P and take on the line PO two points X, X′, such that PX = PX′ = a constant quantity. Then the locus of X and X′ is the conchoid. The conchoid is also the locus of any point on a rod which is constrained to move so that it always passes through a fixed point, while a fixed point on the rod travels along a straight line. To obtain the equation to the curve, draw AO perpendicular to BC, and let AO = a; let the constant quantity PX = PX′ = b. Then taking O as pole and a line through O parallel to BC as the initial line, the polar equation is r = a cosec θ ± b, the upper sign referring to the branch more distant from O. The cartesian equation with A as origin and BC as axis of x is x²y² = (a + y)² (b² - y²). Both branches belong to the same curve and are included in this equation. Three forms of the curve have to be distinguished according to the ratio of a to b. If a be less than b, there will be a node at O and a loop below the initial point (curve 1 in the figure); if a equals b there will be a cusp at O (curve 2); if a be greater than b the curve will not pass through O, but from the cartesian equation it is obvious that O is a conjugate point (curve 3). The curve is symmetrical about the axis of y and has the axis of x for its asymptote.

CONCIERGE(a French word of unknown origin; the Latinized form wasconcergiusorconcergerius), originally the guardian of a house or castle, in the middle ages a court official who was the custodian of a royal palace. In Paris, when thePalais de la Citéceased about 1360 to be a royal residence and became the seat of the courts of justice, theConciergeriewas turned into a prison. In modern usage a “concierge” is a hall-porter or janitor.

CONCINI, CONCINO(d. 1617),Count Della Penna, Marshal d’Ancre, Italian adventurer, minister of King Louis XIII. of France, was a native of Florence. He came to France in the train of Marie de’ Medici, and married the queen’s lady-in-waiting, Leonora Dori, known as Galigai. The credit which his wife enjoyed with the queen, his wit, cleverness and boldness made his fortune. In 1610 he had purchased the marquisate of Ancre and the position of first gentleman-in-waiting. Then he obtained successively the governments of Amiens and of Normandy, and in 1614 the bâton of marshal. From then first minister of the realm, he abandoned the policy of Henry IV., compromised his wise legislation, allowed the treasury to be pillaged, and drew upon himself the hatred of all classes. The nobles were bitterly hostile to him, particularly Condé, with whom he negotiated the treaty of Loudun in 1616, and whom he had arrested in September 1616. This was done on the advice of Richelieu, whose introduction into politics was favoured by Concini. But Louis XIII., incited by his favourite Charles d’Albert, due de Luynes, was tired of Concini’s tutelage. The baron de Vitry received in the king’s name the order to imprison him. Apprehended on the bridge of the Louvre, Concini was killed by the guards on the 24th of April 1617. Leonora was accused of sorcery and sent to the stake in the same year.

In 1767 appeared at Brescia aDe Concini vita, by D. Sandellius. On the rôle of Concini see theHistoire de France, published under the direction of E. Lavisse, vol. vi. (1905), by Mariéjol.

CONCLAVE(Lat.conclave, fromcum, together, andclavis, a key), strictly a room, or set of rooms, locked with a key; in this sense the word is now obsolete in English, though theNew English Dictionarygives an example of its use so late as 1753. Its present loose application to any private or close assembly, especially ecclesiastical, is derived from its technical application to the assembly of cardinals met for the election of the pope, with which this article is concerned.

Conclave is the name applied to that system of strict seclusion to which the electors of the pope have been and are submitted, formerly as a matter of necessity, and subsequently as the result of a legislative enactment; hence the word has come to be used of the electoral assembly of the cardinals. This system goes back only as far as the 12th century.

Election of the Popes in Antiquity.—The very earliest episcopal nominations, at Rome as elsewhere, seem without doubt to have been made by the direct choice of the founders of the apostolic Christian communities. But this exceptional method was replaced at an early date by that of election. At Rome the method of election was the same as in other towns: the Roman clergy and people and the neighbouring bishops each took part in it in their several capacities. The people would signify their approbation or disapprobation of the candidates more or less tumultuously, while the clergy were, strictly speaking, the electoral body, met to elect for themselves a new head, and the bishops acted as presidents of the assembly and judges of the election. The choice had to meet with general consent; but we can well imagine that in an assembly of such size, in which the candidates were acclaimed rather than elected by counting votes, the various functions were not very distinct, and that persons of importance, whether clerical or lay, were bound to influence the elections, and sometimes decisively. Moreover, this form of election lent itself to cabals; and these frequently gave rise to quarrels, sometimes involving bloodshed and schisms,i.e.the election of antipopes, as they were later called. Such was the case at the elections of Cornelius (251), Damasus (366), Boniface (418), Symmachus (498), Boniface II. (530) and others. The remedy for this abuse was found in having recourse, more or less freely, to the support of the civil power. The emperor Honorius upheld Boniface against his competitor Eulalius, at the same time laying down that cases of contested election should henceforth be decided by a fresh election; but this would have been a dangerous method and was consequently never applied. Theodoric upheld Symmachus against Laurentius because he had been elected first and by a greater majority. The accepted fact soon became law, and John II. recognized (532) the right of the Ostrogothic court of Ravenna to ratify the pontifical elections. Justinian succeeded to this right together with the kingdom which he had destroyed; he demanded, together with the payment of a tribute of 3000 goldensolidi, that the candidate elected should not receive the episcopal consecration till he had obtained the confirmation of the emperor. Hence arose long vacancies of the See, indiscreet interference in the elections by the imperial officials, and sometimes cases of simony and venality. This bondage became lighter in the 7th century, owing rather to the weakening of the imperial power than to any resistance on the part of the popes.

9th to 12th Centuries.—From the emperors of the East the power naturally passed to those of the West, and it was exercised after 824 by the descendants of Charlemagne, who claimed that the election should not proceed until the arrival of their envoys. But this did not last long; at the end of the 9th century, Rome, torn by factions, witnessed the scandal of the posthumous condemnation of Formosus. This deplorable state of affairs lasted almost without interruption till the middle of the 11th century. When the emperors were at Rome, they presided over the elections; when they were away, the rival factions of the barons, the Crescentii and the Alberici especially, struggled for the spiritual power as they did for the temporal. During this period were seen cases of popes imposed by a faction rather than elected, and then, at the mercy of sedition, deposed, poisoned and thrown into prison, sometimes to be restored by force of arms.

The influence of the Ottos (962-1002) was a lesser evil; that of the emperor Otto III. was even beneficial, in that it led to the election of Gerbert (Silvester II., in 999). But this was only a temporary check in the process of decadence, and in 1146 Clement II., the successor of the worthless Benedict IX., admitted that henceforth not only the consecration but even theelectionof the Roman pontiffs could only take place in presence of theemperor. In fact, after the death of Clement II. the delegates of the Roman clergy did actually go to Polden to ask Henry III. to give them a pope, and similar steps were taken after the death of Damasus II., who reigned only twenty days. Fortunately on this occasion Henry III. appointed, just before his death, a man of high character, his cousin Bruno, bishop of Toul, who presented himself in Rome in company with Hildebrand. From this time began the reform. Hildebrand had the elections of Victor II. (1055), Stephen IX. (1057), and Nicholas II. (1058) carried out according to the canonical form, including the imperial ratification. The celebrated bullIn nomine Dominiof the 13th of April 1059 determined the electoral procedure;Election reserved to the cardinals.it is curious to observe how, out of respect for tradition, it preserves all the former factors in the election though their scope is modified: “In the first place, the cardinal bishops shall carefully consider the election together, then they shall consult with the cardinal clergy, and afterwards the rest of the clergy and the people shall by giving their assent confirm the new election.” The election, then, is reserved to the members of the higher clergy, to the cardinals, among whom the cardinal bishops have the preponderating position. The consent of the rest of the clergy and the people is now only a formality. The same was the case of the imperial intervention, in consequence of the phrase: “Saving the honour and respect due to our dear son Henry (Henry IV.), according to the concession we have made to him, and equally to his successors, who shall receive this right personally from the Apostolic See.” Thus the emperor has no rights save those he has received as a concession from the Holy See. Gregory VII., it is true, notified his election to the emperor; but as he set up a series of five antipopes, none of Gregory’s successors asked any more for the imperial sanction. Further, by this bull, the emperors would have to deal with thefait accompli; for it provided that, in the event of disturbances aroused by mischievous persons at Rome preventing the election from being carried out there freely and without bias, the cardinal bishops, together with a small number of the clergy and of the laity, should be empowered to go and hold the election where they should think fit; that should difficulties of any sort prevent the enthronement of the new pope, the pope elect would be empowered immediately to act as if he were actually pope. This legislation was definitely accepted by the emperor by the concordat of Worms (1119).

A limited electoral body lends itself to more minute legislation than a larger body; the college for electing the pope, thus reduced so as to consist in practice of the cardinals only, was subjected as time went on to laws of increasing severity. Two points of great importance were established by Alexander III. at the Lateran Council of 1179. The constitutionLicet de vitanda discordiamakes all the cardinals equally electors, and no longer mentions the lower clergy or the people; it also requires a majority of two-thirds of the votes to decide an election. This latter provision, which still holds good, made imperial antipopes henceforth impossible.

Abuses nevertheless arose. An electoral college too small in numbers, which no higher power has the right of forcing to haste, can prolong disagreements and draw out the course of the election for a long time. It is thisThe conclave.period during which we actually find the Holy See left vacant most frequently for long spaces of time. The longest of these, however, gave an opportunity for reform and the remedy was found in the conclave,i.e.in the forced and rigid seclusion of the electors. As a matter of fact, this method had previously been used, but in a mitigated form: in 1216, on the death of Innocent III., the people of Perugia had shut up the cardinals; and in 1241 the Roman magistrates had confined them within the “Septizonium”; they took two months, however, to perform the election. Celestine IV. died after eighteen days, and this time, in spite of the seclusion of the cardinals, there was an interregnum of twenty months. After the death of Clement IV. in 1268, the cardinals, of whom seventeen were gathered together at Viterbo, allowed two years to pass without coming to an agreement; the magistrates of Viterbo again had recourse to the method of seclusion: they shut up the electors in the episcopal palace, blocking up all outlets; and since the election still delayed, the people removed the roof of the palace and allowed nothing but bread and water to be sent in. Under the pressure of famine and of this strict confinement, the cardinals finally agreed, on the 1st of September 1271, to elect Gregory X., after an interregnum of two years, nine months and two days.

Taught by experience, the new pope considered what steps could be taken to prevent the recurrence of such abuses; in 1274, at the council of Lyons, he promulgated the constitutionUbi periculum, the substance of whichLaws made by Gregory X.was as follows: At the death of the pope, the cardinals who were present are to await their absent colleagues for ten days; they are then to meet in one of the papal palaces in a closed conclave; none of them is to have to wait on him more than one servant, or two at most if he were ill; in the conclave they are to lead a life in common, not even having separate cells; they are to have no communication with the outer world, under pain of excommunication for any who should attempt to communicate with them; food is to be supplied to the cardinals through a window which would be under watch; after three days, their meals are to consist of a single dish only; and after five days, of bread and water, with a little wine. During the conclave the cardinals are to receive no ecclesiastical revenue. No account is to be taken of those who are absent or have left the conclave. Finally, the election is to be the sole business of the conclave, and the magistrates of the town where it was held are called upon to see that these provisions be observed. Adrian V. and John XX. were weak enough to suspend the constitutionUbi periculum; but the abuses at once reappeared; the Holy See was again vacant for long periods; this further proof was therefore decisive, and Celestine V., who was elected after a vacancy of more than two years, took care, before abdicating the pontificate, to revive the constitution of Gregory X., which was inserted in the Decretals (lib. i. tit. vi.,de election.cap. 3).

Since then the laws relating to the conclave have been observed, even during the great schism; the only exception was the election of Martin V., which was performed by the cardinals of the three obediences, to which the council of Constance added five prelates of each of the six nations represented in that assembly. The same was the case up to the 16th century. At this period the Italian republics, later Spain, and finally the other powers, took an intimate interest in the choice of the holder of what was a considerable political power; and each brought more or less honest means to bear, sometimes that of simony. It was against simony that Julius II. directed the bullJulius II.Cum tam divino(1503), which directed that simoniacal election of the pope should be declared null; that any one could attack it; that men should withdraw themselves from the obedience of a pope thus elected; that simoniacal agreements should be invalid; that the guilty cardinals should be excommunicate till their death, and that the rest should proceed immediately to a new election. The purpose of this measure was good, but the proposed remedy extremely dangerous; it was fortunately never applied. Similarly, Paul IV. endeavoured by severe punishments to check the intriguing and plotting for the election of a new pope while his predecessor was still living; but the bullCum secundum(1558) was of no effect.

Pius IV. undertook the task of reforming and completing the legislation of the conclave. The bullIn eligendis(of October 1st, 1562), signed by all the cardinals, is a model of precision and wisdom. In addition to the pointsPius IV.already stated, we may add the following: that every day there was to be a scrutiny,i.e.a solemn voting by specially prepared voting papers (concealing the name of the voter, and to be opened only in case of an election being made at that scrutiny), and that this was to be followed by the “accessit,”i.e.a second voting, in which the cardinals might transfer their suffrages to those who had obtained the greatest number of votes in the first. Except in case of urgent matters, the electionwas to form the whole business of the conclave. The cells were to be assigned by lot. The functionaries of the conclave were to be elected by the secret vote of the Sacred College. The most stringent measures were to be taken to ensure seclusion. The bullAeterni Patrisof Gregory XV. (15th of November 1621)Gregory XV.is a collection of minute regulations. In it is the rule compelling each cardinal, before giving his vote, to take the oath that he will elect him whom he shall judge to be the most worthy; it also makes rules for the forms of voting and of the voting papers, for the counting, the scrutiny, and in fact all the processes of the election. A second bull,Decet Romanum Pontificem, of the 12th of March 1622, fixed the ceremonial of the conclave with such minuteness that it has not been changed since.

All previous legislation concerning the conclave was codified and renewed by Pius X.’s bull,Vacante Sede Apostolico(Dec. 25, 1904), which abrogates the earlier texts, except Leo XIII.’s constitutionPraedecessores Nostri(May 24, 1882), authorizing occasional derogations in circumstances of difficulty,e.g.the death of a pope away from Rome or an attempt to interfere with the liberty of the Sacred College. The bull of Pius X. is rather a codification than a reform, the principal change being the abolition of the scrutiny of accession and the substitution of a second ordinary scrutiny during the same session.

On some occasions exceptional circumstances have given rise to transitory measures. In 1797 and 1798 Pius VI. authorized the cardinals to act contrary to such of the laws concerning the conclave as a majority of them should decide not to observe, as being impossible in practice. Similarly Pius IX., by means of various acts which remained secret up till 1892, had taken the most minute precautions in order to secure a free and rapid election, and to avoid all interference on the part of the secular powers. We know that the conclaves in which Leo XIII. and Pius X. were elected enjoyed the most complete liberty, and the hypothetical measures foreseen by Pius IX. were not applied.

Until after the Great Schism the conclaves were held in various towns outside of Rome; but since then theyThe conclave at Rome.have all been held in Rome, with the single exception of the conclave of Venice (1800), and in most cases in the Vatican.

There was no place permanently established for the purpose, but removable wooden cells were installed in the various apartments of the palace, grouped around the Sistine chapel, in which the scrutinies took place. The arrangements prepared in the Quirinal in 1823 did duty only three times, and for the most recent conclaves it was necessary to arrange an inner enclosure within the vast but irregular palace of the Vatican. Each cardinal is accompanied by a clerk or secretary, known for this reason as a conclavist, and by one servant only. With the officials of the conclave, this makes about two hundred and fifty persons who enter the conclave and have no further communication with the outer world save by means of turning-boxes. Since 1870 the solemn ceremonies of earlier times have naturally not been seen; for instance the procession which used to celebrateModern procedure.the entry into conclave; or the daily arrival in procession of the clergy and the brotherhoods to enquire at the “rota” (turning-box) of the auditors of the Rota: “Habemusne Pontificem?” and their return accompanied by the chanting of the “Veni Creator”; or the “Marshal of the Holy Roman Church and perpetual guardian of the conclave” visiting the churches in state. But a crowd still collects morning and evening in the great square of St Peter’s, towards the time of the completion of the vote, to look for the smoke which rises from the burning of the voting-papers after each session; when the election has not been effected, a little straw is burnt with the papers, and the column of smoke then apprises the spectators that they have still no pope. Within the conclave, the cardinals, alone in the common hall, usually the Sistine chapel, proceed morning and evening to their double vote, the direct vote and the “accessit.” Sometimes these sessions have been very numerous; for example, in 1740, Benedict XIV. was only elected after 255 scrutinies; on other occasions, however, and notably in the case of the last few popes, a well-defined majority has soon been evident, and there have been but few scrutinies. Each vote is immediately counted by three scrutators, appointed in rotation, the most minute precautions being taken to ensure that the voting shall be secret and sincere. When one cardinal has at last obtained two-thirds of the votes, the dean of the cardinals formally asks him whether he accepts his election, and what name he wishes to assume. As soon as he has accepted, the first “obedience” or “adoration” takes place, and immediately after the first cardinal deacon goes to theLoggiaof St Peter’s and announces the great news to the assembled people. The conclave is dissolved; on the following day take place the two other “obediences,” and the election is officially announced to the various governments. If the pope be not a bishop (Gregory XVI. was not), he is then consecrated; and finally, a few days after his election, takes place the coronation, from which the pontificate is officially dated. The pope then receives the tiara with the triple crown, the sign of his supreme spiritual authority. The ceremony of the coronation goes back to the 9th century, and the tiara, in the form of a high conical cap, is equally ancient (seeTiara).

In conclusion, a few words should be said with regard to the right ofveto. In the 16th and 17th centuries the character of the conclaves was determined by the influence of what were then known as the “factions,”i.e.the formationThe right of veto.of the cardinals into groups according to their nationality or their relations with one of the Catholic courts of Spain, France or the Empire, or again according as they favoured the political policy of the late pope or his predecessor. These groups upheld or opposed certain candidates. The Catholic courts naturally entrusted the cardinals “of the crown,”i.e.those of their nation, with the mission of removing, as far as lay in their power, candidates who were distasteful to their party; the various governments could even make public their desire to exclude certain candidates. But they soon claimed an actual right of formal and direct exclusion, which should be notified in the conclave in their name by a cardinal charged with this mission, and should have a decisive effect; this is what has been called the right of veto. We cannot say precisely at what time during the 16th century this transformation of the practice into a right, tacitly accepted by the Sacred College, took place; it was doubtless felt to be less dangerous formally to recognize the right of the three sovereigns each to object to one candidate, than to face the inconvenience of objections, such as were formulated on several occasions by Philip II., which, though less legal in form, might apply to an indefinite number of candidates. The fact remains, however, that it was a right based on custom, and was not supported by any text or written concession; but the diplomatic right was straightforward and definite, and was better than the intrigues of former days. During the 19th century Austria exercised, or tried to exercise, the right of veto at all the conclaves, except that which elected Leo XIII. (1878); it did so again at the conclave of 1903. On the 2nd of August Cardinal Rampolla had received twenty-nine votes, when Cardinal Kolzielsko Puzina, bishop of Cracow, declared that the Austrian government opposed the election of Cardinal Rampolla; the Sacred College considered that it ought to yield, and on the 4th of August elected Cardinal Sarto, who took the name of Pius X. By the bullCommissum Nobis(January 20, 1904), Pius X. suppressed all right of “veto” or “exclusion” on the part of the secular governments, and forbade, under pain of excommunication reserved to the future pope, any cardinal or conclavist to accept from his government the charge of proposing a “veto,” or to exhibit it to the conclave under any form.

Bibliography.—The best and most complete work is Lucius Lector,Le Conclave, origine, histoire, organisation, législation ancienne et moderne(Paris, 1894). See also Ferraris,Prompta Bibliotheca, s. v. Papa, art. i.; Moroni,Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica, s. v. Conclave, Conclavisti, Cella, Elezione, Esclusiva; Bouix,De Curia Romana, part i. c. x.;De Papa, part vii. (Paris, 1859, 1870); Barbier de Montault,Le Conclave(Paris, 1878). On the conclave of Leo XIII., R. de Cesare,Conclave di Leone XIII.(Rome, 1888). On the conclave of Pius X.: an eye-witness (Card. Mathieu),Les Derniers Jours de Léon XIII et le conclave(Paris, 1904). See further, for the right of veto: Phillips,Kirchenrecht, t. v. p. 138; Sägmüller,Die Papstwahlen und die Staate(Tübingen, 1890);Die Papstwahlbullen und das staatliche Recht des Exclusive(Tübingen, 1892); Wahrmund,Ausschliessungsrecht der katholischen Staaten(Vienna, 1888).

(A. Bo.*)

CONCORD,a township of Middlesex county, Massachusetts, U.S.A., about 20 m. N.W. of Boston. Pop. (1900) 5652; (1910, U.S. census) 6421. Area 25 sq. m. It is traversed by the Boston & Maine railway. Where the Sudbury and Assabet unite to form the beautiful little Concord river, celebrated by Thoreau, is the village of Concord, straggling, placid and beautiful, full of associations with the opening of the War of Independence and with American literature. Of particular interest is the “Old Manse,” built in 1765 for Rev. William Emerson, in which his grandson R. W. Emerson wroteNature, and Hawthorne hisMosses from an Old Manse, containing a charming description of the building and its associations. At Concord there is a state reformatory, whose inmates, about 800 in number, are employed in manufacturing various articles, but otherwise the town has only minor business and industrial interests. The introduction of the “Concord” grape, first produced here by Ephraim Bull in 1853, is said to have marked the beginning of the profitable commercial cultivation of table grapes in the United States. Concord was settled and incorporated as a township in 1635, and was (with Dedham) the first settlement in Massachusetts back from the sea-coast. A county convention at Concord village in August 1774 recommended the calling of the first Provincial Congress of Massachusetts—one of the first independent legislatures of America—which assembled here on the 11th of October 1774, and again in March and April 1775. The village became thereafter a storehouse of provisions and munitions of war, and hence became the objective of the British expedition that on the 19th of April 1775 opened with the armed conflict at Lexington (q.v.) the American War of Independence. As the British proceeded to Concord the whole country was rising, and at Concord about 500 minute-men confronted the British regulars who were holding the village and searching for arms and stores. Volleys were exchanged, the British retreated, the minute-men hung on their flanks and from the hillsides shot them down, driving their columns on Lexington. A granite obelisk, erected in 1837, when Emerson wrote his ode on the battle, marks the spot where the first British soldiers fell; while across the stream a fine bionze “Minute-Man” (1875) by D. C. French (a native of Concord) marks the spot where once “the embattled farmers stood and fired the shot heard round the world” (Emerson). Concord was long one of the shire-townships of Middlesex county, losing this honour in 1867. The village is famous as the home of R. W. Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry D. Thoreau, Louisa M. Alcott and her father, A. Bronson Alcott, who maintained here from 1879 to 1888 (in a building still standing) the Concord school of philosophy, which counted Benjamin Peirce, W. T. Harris, Mrs J. W. Howe, T. W. Higginson, Professor William James and Emerson among its lecturers. Emerson, Hawthorne, Thoreau and the Alcotts are buried here in the beautiful Sleepy Hollow Cemetery. Of the various orations (among others one by Edward Everett in 1825) that have been delivered at Concord anniversaries perhaps the finest is that of George William Curtis, delivered in 1875.

Back to Index Next