Chapter 15

See A. S. Hudson,The History of Concord, vol. i. (Concord, 1904); G. B. Bartlett,Concord: Historic, Literary and Picturesque(Boston, 1885); and Mrs J. L. Swayne,Story of Concord(Boston, 1907).

CONCORD,a city and the county-seat of Cabarrus county, North Carolina, U.S.A., on the Rocky river, about 150 m. W.S.W. of Raleigh. Pop. (1890) 4339; (1900) 7910 (1789 negroes); (1910) 8715. It is served by the Southern railway. Concord is situated in a cotton-growing region, and its chief interest is in the manufacture of cotton goods. The city is the seat of Scotia seminary (for negro girls), founded in 1870 and under the care of the Presbyterian Board of Missions for Freedmen, Pittsburgh Pa. Concord was laid out in 1793 and was first incorporated in 1851.

CONCORD,the capital of New Hampshire, U.S.A., and the county-seat of Merrimack county, on both sides of the Merrimac river, about 75 m. N.W. of Boston, Massachusetts. Pop. (1890) 17,004; (1900) 19,632, of whom 3813 were foreign-born; (1910, census) 21,497. Concord is served by the Boston & Maine railway. The area of the city in 1906 was 45.16 sq. m. Concord has broad streets bordered with shade trees; and has several parks, including Penacook, White, Rollins and the Contoocook river. Among the principal buildings are the state capitol, the state library, the city hall, the county court-house, the post-office, a public library (17,000 vols.), the state hospital, the state prison, the Centennial home for the aged, the Margaret Pillsbury memorial hospital, the Rolfe and Rumford asylum for orphan girls, founded by Count Rumford’s daughter, and some fine churches, including the Christian Science church built by Mrs Eddy. There are a soldiers’ memorial arch, a statue of Daniel Webster by Thomas Ball, and statues of John P. Hale, John Stark, and Commodore George H. Perkins, the last by Daniel C. French; and at Penacook, 6 m. N.W. of Concord, there is a monument to Hannah Dustin (seeHaverhill). Among the educational institutions are the well-known St Paul’s school for boys (Protestant Episcopal, 1853), about 2 m. W. of the city, and St Mary’s school for girls (Protestant Episcopal, 1885). From 1847 to 1867 Concord was the seat of the Biblical Institute (Methodist Episcopal), founded in Newbury, Vermont, in 1841, removed to Boston as the Boston Theological Seminary in 1867, and after 1871 a part of Boston University. The city has various manufactures, including flour and grist mill products, silver ware, cotton and woollen goods, carriages, harnesses and leather belting, furniture, wooden ware, pianos and clothing; the Boston & Maine Railroad has a large repair shop in the city, and there are valuable granite quarries in the vicinity. In 1905 Concord ranked third among the cities of the state in the value of its factory products, which was $6,387,372, being an increase of 51.7% since 1900. When first visited by the English settlers, the site of Concord was occupied by Penacook Indians; a trading post was built here about 1660. In 1725 Massachusetts granted the land in this vicinity to some of her citizens; but this grant was not recognized by New Hampshire, whose legislature issued (1727) a grant (the Township of Bow) overlapping the Massachusetts grant, which was known as Penacook or Penny Cook. The New Hampshire grantees undertook to establish here a colony of Londonderry Irish; but the Massachusetts settlers were firmly established by the spring of 1727, Massachusetts definitely assumed jurisdiction in 1731, and in 1734 her general court incorporated the settlement under the name of Rumford. The conflicting rights of Rumford and Bow gave rise to one of the most celebrated of colonial land cases, and although the New Hampshire authorities enforced their claims of jurisdiction, the privy council in 1755 confirmed the Rumford settlers in their possession. In 1765 the name was changed to the “parish of Concord,” and in 1784 the town of Concord was incorporated. Here, for some years before the War of American Independence, lived Benjamin Thompson, later Count Rumford. In 1778 and again in 1781-1782 a state constitutional convention met here; the first New Hampshire legislature met at Concord in 1782; the convention which ratified for New Hampshire the Federal Constitution met here in 1788; and in 1808 the state capital was definitely established here. The New HampshirePatriot, founded here in 1808 (and for twenty years edited) by Isaac Hill (1788-1851), who was a member of the United States Senate in 1831-1836, and governor of New Hampshire in 1836-1839, became one of the leading exponents of Jacksonian Democracy in New England. In 1814 the Middlesex Canal, connecting Concord with Boston, was completed. A city charter granted by the legislature in 1849 was not accepted by the city until 1853.

See J. O. Lyford,The History of Concord, New Hampshire(City History Commission) (2 vols., Concord, 1903);Concord Town Records, 1732-1820(Concord, 1894); J. B. Moore,Annals of Concord, 1726-1823(Concord, 1824); and Nathaniel Bouton,The History of Concord(Concord, 1856).

CONCORD, BOOK OF(Liber Concordiae), the collective documents of the Lutheran confession, consisting of theConfessio Augustana, theApologia Confessionis Augustanae, theArticula Smalcaldici, theCatechismi Major et Minorand theFormula Concordiae. This last was a formula issued on the 25th of June 1580 (the jubilee of the Augsburg Confession) by the Lutheran Church in an attempt to heal the breach which, since the death of Luther, had been widening between the extreme Lutherans and the Crypto-Calvinists. Previous attempts at concord had been made at the request of different rulers, especially by Jacob Andreä with his Swabian Concordia in 1573, and Abel Scherdinger with the Maulbronn Formula in 1575. In 1576 the elector of Saxony called a conference of theologians at Torgau to discuss these two efforts and from them produce a third. TheBook of Torgauwas evolved, circulated and criticized; a new committee, prominent on which was Martin Chemnitz, sitting at Bergen near Magdeburg, considered the criticisms and finally drew up theFormula Concordiae. It consists of (a) the “Epitome,” (b) the “Solid Repetition and Declaration,” each part comprising twelve articles; and was accepted by Saxony, Württemberg, Baden among other states, but rejected by Hesse, Nassau and Holstein. Even the free cities were divided, Hamburg and Lübeck for, Bremen and Frankfort against. Hungary and Sweden accepted it, and so finally did Denmark, where at first it was rejected, and its publication made a crime punishable by death. In spite of this very limited reception theFormula Concordiaehas always been reckoned with the five other documents as of confessional authority.

See P. Schaff,Creeds of Christendom, i. 258-340, iii. 92-180.

CONCORDANCE(Late Lat.concordantia, harmony, fromcum, with, andcor, heart), literally agreement, harmony; hence derivatively a citation of parallel passages, and specifically an alphabetical arrangement of the words contained in a book with citations of the passages in which they occur. Concordances in this last sense were first made for the Bible. Originally the word was only used in this connexion in the pluralconcordantiae, each group of parallel passages being properly aconcordantia. The Germans distinguish between concordances of things and concordances of words, the former indexing the subject matter of a book (“real” concordance), the latter the words (“verbal” concordance).

The original impetus to the making of concordances was due to the conviction that the several parts of the Bible are consistent with each other, as parts of a divine revelation, and may be combined as harmonious elements in one system of spiritual truth. To Anthony of Padua (1195-1231) ancient tradition ascribes the first concordance, the anonymousConcordantiae Morales, of which the basis was the Vulgate. The first authentic work of the kind was due to Cardinal Hugh of St Cher, a Dominican monk (d. 1263), who, in preparing for a commentary on the Scriptures, found the need of a concordance, and is reported to have used for the purpose the services of five hundred of his brother monks. This concordance was the basis of two which succeeded in time and importance, one by Conrad of Halberstadt (fl. c. 1290) and the other by John of Segovia in the next century. This book was published in a greatly improved and amplified form in the middle of the 19th century by David Nutt, of London, edited by T. P. Dutripon. The first Hebrew concordance was compiled in 1437-1445 by Rabbi Isaac Nathan b. Kalonymus of Arles. It was printed at Venice in 1523 by Daniel Bomberg, in Basel in 1556, 1569 and 1581. It was published under the titleMeir Natib, “The Light of the Way.” In 1556 it was translated into Latin by Johann Reuchlin, but many errors appeared in both the Hebrew and the Latin edition. These were corrected by Marius de Calasio, a Franciscan friar, who published a four volume folioConcordantiae Sacr. Bibl. Hebr. et Latin.at Rome, 1621, much enlarged, with proper names included. Another concordance based on Nathan’s was Johann Buxtorf the elder’sConcordantiae Bibl. Ebraicae nova et artificiosa methodo dispositae, Basel, 1632. It marks a stage in both the arrangement and the knowledge of the roots of words, but can only be used by those who know the massoretic system, as the references are made by Hebrew letters and relate to rabbinical divisions of the Old Testament. Calasio’s concordance was republished in London under the direction of William Romaine in 1747-1749, in four volumes folio, under the patronage of all the monarchs of Europe and also of the pope. In 1754 John Taylor, D.D., a Presbyterian divine in Norwich, published in two volumes theHebrew Concordance adapted to the English Bible, disposed after the manner of Buxtorf. This was the most complete and convenient concordance up to the date of its publication. In the middle of the 19th century Dr Julius Fürst issued a thoroughly revised edition of Buxtorf’s concordance. TheHebräischen und chaldäischen Concordanz zu den Heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments(Leipzig, 1840) carried forward the development of the concordance in several directions. It gave (1) a corrected text founded on Hahn’s Vanderhoogt’s Bible; (2) the Rabbinical meanings; (3) explanations in Latin, and illustrations from the three Greek versions, the Aramaic paraphrase, and the Vulgate; (4) the Greek words employed by the Septuagint as renderings of the Hebrew; (5) notes on philology and archaeology, so that the concordance contained a Hebrew lexicon. An English translation by Dr Samuel Davidson was published in 1867. A revised edition of Buxtorf’s work with additions from Fürst’s was published by B. Bär (Stettin, 1862). A new concordance embodying the matter of all previous works with lists of proper names and particles was published by Solomon Mandelkern in Leipzig (1896); a smaller edition of the same, without quotations, appeared in 1900. There are also concordances of Biblical proper names by G. Brecher (Frankfort-on-Main, 1876) and Schusslovicz (Wilna, 1878).

AConcordance to the Septuagintwas published at Frankfort in 1602 by Conrad Kircher of Augsburg; in this the Hebrew words are placed in alphabetical order and the Greek words by which they are translated are placed under them. A Septuagint concordance, giving the Greek words in alphabetical order, was published in 1718 in two volumes by Abraham Tromm, a learned minister at Groningen, then in the eighty-fourth year of his age. It gives the Greek words in alphabetical order; a Latin translation; the Hebrew word or words for which the Greek term is used by the Septuagint; then the places where the words occur in the order of the books and chapters; at the end of the quotations from the Septuagint places are given where the word occurs in Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the other Greek translations of the O. T.; and the words of the Apocrypha follow in each case. Besides an index to the Hebrew and Chaldaic words there is another index which contains a lexicon to theHexaplaof Origen. In 1887 (London) appeared theHandy Concordance of the Septuagint giving various readings from Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus and Ephraemi, with an appendix of words from Origen’s Hexapla, not found in the above manuscripts, by G. M., without quotations. A work of the best modern scholarship was brought out in 1897 by the Clarendon Press, Oxford, entitledA Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek versions of the Old Testament including the Apocryphal Books, by Edwin Hatch and H. A. Redpath, assisted by other scholars; this was completed in 1900 by a list of proper names.

The first Greek concordanceto the New Testament was published at Basel in 1546 by Sixt Birck or Xystus Betuleius (1500-1554), a philologist and minister of the Lutheran Church. This was followed by Stephen’s concordance (1594) planned by Robert Stephens and published by Henry, his son. Then in 1638 came Schmied’sταμιεῖον, which has been the basis of subsequent concordances to the New Testament. Erasmus Schmied or Schmid was a Lutheran divine who was professor of Greek in Wittenberg, where he died in 1637. Revised editions of theταμιεῖονwere published at Gotha in 1717, and at Glasgow in 1819 by the University Press. In the middle of the 19th century Charles Hermann Bruder brought out a beautiful edition (Tauchnitz) with many improvements. Theapparatus criticuswas a triumph of New Testament scholarship. It collates the readings of Erasmus, R. Stephens’ third edition, the Elzevirs, Mill, Bengel, Webster, Knapp, Tittman, Scholz, Lachmann. It alsogives a selection from the most ancient patristic MSS. and from various interpreters. No various reading of critical value is omitted. An edition of Bruder with readings of Samuel Prideaux Tregelles was published in 1888 under the editorship of Westcott and Hort. TheEnglishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament, and theEnglishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance, are books intended to put the results of the above-mentioned works at the service of those who know little Hebrew or Greek. Every word in the Bible is given in Hebrew or Greek, the word is transliterated, and then every passage in which it occurs is given—the word, however it may be translated, being italicized. They are the work of George V. Wigram assisted by W. Burgh and superintended by S. P. Tregelles, B. Davidson and W. Chalk (1843; 2nd ed. 1860). Another book which deserves mention is,A Concordance to the Greek Testament with the English version to each word; the principal Hebrew roots corresponding to the Greek words of the Septuagint, with short critical notes and an index, by John Williams, LL.D., Lond. 1767.

In 1884 Robert Young, author of an analytical concordance mentioned below, brought out aConcordance to the Greek New Testament with a dictionary of Bible Words and Synonyms: this contains a concise concordance to eight thousand changes made in the Revised Testament. Another important work of modern scholarship is theConcordance to the Greek Testament, edited by the Rev. W. F. Moulton and A. E. Geden, according to the texts adopted by Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, and the English revisers.

The first concordance to the English version of the New Testament was published in London, 1535, by Thomas Gybson. It is a black-letter volume entitledThe Concordance of the New Testament most necessary to be had in the hands of all soche as delyte in the communicacion of any place contayned in ye New Testament.

The first English concordance of the entire Bible was John Marbeck’s,A Concordance, that is to saie, a worke wherein by the order of the letters of the A.B.C. ye maie redely find any worde conteigned in the whole Bible, so often as it is there expressed or mentioned, Lond. 1550. Although Robert Stephens had divided the Bible into verses in 1545, Marbeck does not seem to have known this and refers to the chapters only. In 1550 also appeared Walter Lynne’s translation of the concordance issued by Bullinger, Jude, Pellican and others of the Reformers. Other English concordances were published by Cotton, Newman, and in abbreviated forms by John Downham or Downame (cd. 1652), Vavasor Powell (1617-1670), Jackson and Samuel Clarke (1626-1701). In 1737 Alexander Cruden (q.v.), a London bookseller, born and educated in Aberdeen, published hisComplete Concordance to the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to which is added a concordance to the books called Apocrypha. This book embodied, was based upon and superseded all its predecessors. Though the first edition was not remunerative, three editions were published during Cruden’s life, and many since his death. Cruden’s work is accurate and full, and later concordances only supersede his by combining an English with a Greek and Hebrew concordance. This is done by theCritical Greek and English Concordanceprepared by C. F. Hudson, H. A. Hastings and Ezra Abbot, LL.D., published in Boston, Mass., and by theCritical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, by E. L. Bullinger, 1892. TheInterpreting Concordance to the New Testament, edited by James Gall, shows the Greek original of every word, with a glossary explaining the Greek words of the New Testament, and showing their varied renderings in the Authorized Version. The most convenient of these isYoung’s Analytical Concordance, published in Edinburgh in 1879, and since revised and reissued. It shows (1) the original Hebrew or Greek of any word in the English Bible; (2) the literal and primitive meaning of every such original word; (3) thoroughly reliable parallel passages. There is aStudents’ Concordance to the Revised Version of the New Testamentshowing the changes embodied in the revision, published under licence of the universities; and a concordance to the Revised Version by J. A. Thoms for the Christian Knowledge Society.

Biblical concordances having familiarized students with the value and use of such books for the systematic study of an author, the practice of making concordances has now become common. There are concordances to the works of Shakespeare, Browning and many other writers.

(D. Mn.)

CONCORDAT(Lat.concordatum, agreed upon, fromcon-, together, andcor, heart), a term originally denoting an agreement between ecclesiastical persons or secular persons, but later applied to a pact concluded between the ecclesiastical authority and the secular authority on ecclesiastical matters which concern both, and, more specially, to a pact concluded between the pope, as head of the Catholic Church, and a temporal sovereign for the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in the territory of such sovereign. It is to concordats in this later sense that this article refers.

No one now questions the profound distinction that exists between the two powers, spiritual and temporal, between the church and the state. Yet these two societies are none the less in inevitable relation. The same men go to compose both; and the church, albeit pursuing a spiritual end, cannot dispense with the aid of temporal property, which in its nature depends on the organization of secular society. It follows of necessity that there are some matters which may be called “mixed,” and which are the legitimate concern of the two powers, such as church property, places of worship, the appointment and the emoluments of ecclesiastical dignitaries, the temporal rights and privileges of the secular and regular clergy, the regulation of public worship, and the like. The existence of such mixed matters gives rise to inevitable conflicts of jurisdiction, which may lead, and sometimes have led, to civil war. It is, therefore, to the general interest that all these matters should be settled pacifically, by a common accord; and hence originated those conventions between the two powers which are known by the significant name of concordat, the official name beingpactum concordatumorsolemnis conventio. In theory these agreements may result from the spontaneous and pacific initiative of the contracting parties, but in reality their object has almost always been to terminate more or less acute conflicts and remedy more or less disturbed situations. It is for this reason that concordats always present a clearly marked character of mutual concession, each of the two powers renouncing certain of its claims in the interests of peace.

For the purposes of a concordat the state recognizes the officialstatusof the church and of its ministers and tribunals; guarantees it certain privileges; and sometimes binds itself to secure for it subsidies representing compensation for past spoliations. The pope on his side grants the temporal sovereign certain rights, such as that of making or controlling the appointment of dignitaries; engages to proceed in harmony with the government in the creation of dioceses or parishes; and regularizes the situation produced by the usurpation of church property &c. The great advantage of concordats—indeed their principal utility—consists in transforming necessarily unequal unilateral claims into contractual obligations analogous to those which result from an international convention. Whatever the obligations of the state towards the ecclesiastical society may be in pure theory, in practice they become more precise and stable when they assume the nature of a bilateral convention by which the state engages itself with regard to a third party. And reciprocally, whatever may be the absolute rights of the ecclesiastical society over the appointment of its dignitaries, the administration of its property, and the government of its adherents, the exercise of these rights is limited and restricted by the stable engagements and concessions of the concordatory pact, which bind the head of the church with regard to the nations.

A concordat may assume divers forms,—historically, three. The most common in modern times is that of a diplomatic convention debated between the authorized mandatories of the high contracting parties and subsequently ratified by the latter; as, for example, the French concordat of 1801. Or, secondly, the concordat may result from two identical separateacts, one emanating from the pope and the other from the sovereign; this was the form of the first true concordat, that of Worms, in 1122. A third form was employed in the case of the concordat of 1516 between Leo X. and Francis I. of France; a papal bull published the concordat in the form of a concession by the pope, and it was afterwards accepted and published by the king as law of the country. The shades which distinguish these three forms are not without significance, but they in no way detract from the contractual character of concordats.

Since concordats are contracts they give rise to that special mutual obligation which results from every agreement freely entered into; for a contract is binding on both parties to it. Concordats are undoubtedly conventions of a particular nature. They may make certain concessions or privileges once given without any corresponding obligation; they constitute for a given country a special ecclesiastical law; and it is thus that writers have sometimes spoken of concordats as privileges. Again, it is quite certain that the spiritual matters upon which concordats bear do not concern the two powers in the same manner and in the same degree; and in this sense concordats are not perfectly equal agreements. Finally, they do not assume the contracting parties to be totally independent,i.e.regard is had to the existence of anterior rights or duties. But with these reservations it must unhesitatingly be said that concordats are bilateral or synallagmatic contracts, from which results an equal mutual obligation for the two parties, who enter into a juridical engagement towards each other. Latterly certain Catholics have questioned this equality of the concordatory obligation, and have aroused keen discussion. According to Maurice de Bonald (Deux questions sur le concordat de 1801, Geneva, 1871), who exaggerates the view of Cardinal Tarquini (Instit. juris publ. eccl., 1862 and 1868), concordats would be pure privileges granted by the pope; the pope would not be able to enter into agreements on spiritual matters or impose restraints upon the power of his successors; and consequently he would not bind himself in any juridical sense and would be able freely to revoke concordats, just as the author of a privilege can withdraw it at his pleasure. This exaggerated argument found a certain number of supporters, several of whom nevertheless sensibly weakened it. But the best canonists, from the Roman professor De Angelis (Prael. juris canon.i. 106) onwards, and all jurists, have victoriously refuted this theory, either by insisting on the principles common to all agreements or by citing the formal text of several concordats and papal acts, which are as explicit as possible. They have thus upheld the true contractual nature of concordats and the mutual juridical obligation which results from them.

The foregoing statements must not be taken to mean that concordats are in their nature perpetual, and that they cannot be broken or denounced. They have the perpetuity of conventions which contain no time limitation; but, like every human convention, they can be denounced, in the form in use for international treaties, and for good reasons, which are summed up in the exigencies of the general good of the country. Nevertheless, there is no example of a concordat having been denounced or broken by the popes, whereas several have been denounced or broken by the civil powers, sometimes in the least diplomatic manner, as in the case of the French concordat in 1905. The rupture of the concordat at once terminates the obligations which resulted from it on both sides; but it does not break off all relation between the church and the state, since the two societies continue to coexist on the same territory. To the situation defined by concordat, however, succeeds another situation, more or less uncertain and more or less strained, in which the two powers legislate separately on mixed matters, sometimes not without provoking conflicts.

We cannot describe in detail the objects of concordatory conventions. They bear upon very varied matters,1and we must confine ourselves here to a briefrésumé. In the first place is the official recognition by the state of the Catholic religion and its ministers. Sometimes the Catholic religion is declared to be the state religion, and at least the free and public exercise of its worship is guaranteed. Several conventions guarantee the free communication of the bishops, clergy and laity with the Holy See; and this admits of the publication and execution of apostolic letters in matters spiritual. Others define those affairs of major importance which may be or must be referred to the Holy See by appeal, or the decision of which is reserved to the Holy See. On several occasions concordats have established a new division of dioceses, and provided that future erections or divisions should be made by a common accord. Analogous provisions have been made with regard to the territorial divisions within the dioceses; parishes have been recast, and the consent of the two authorities has been required for the establishment of new parishes. As regards candidates for ecclesiastical offices, the concordats concluded with Catholic nations regularly give the sovereign the right to nominate or present to bishoprics, often also to other inferior benefices, such as canonries, important parishes and abbeys; or at least the choice of the ecclesiastical authority is submitted to the approval of the civil power. In all cases canonical institution (which confers ecclesiastical jurisdiction) is reserved to the pope or the bishops. In countries where the head of the state is not a Catholic, the bishops are regularly elected by the chapters, but the civil power has the right to strike out objectionable names from the list of candidates which is previously submitted to it. Other conventions secure the exercise of the jurisdiction of the bishops in their diocese, and determine precisely their authority over seminaries and other ecclesiastical establishments of instruction and education, as well as over public schools, so far as concerns the teaching of religion. Certain concordats deal with the orders and congregations of monks and nuns with a view to subjecting them to a certain control while securing to them the legal exercise of their activities. Ecclesiastical immunities, such as reservation of the criminal cases of the clergy, exemption from military service and other privileges, are expressly maintained in a certain number of pacts. One of the most important subjects is that of church property. An agreement is come to as to the conditions on which pious foundations are able to be made; the measure in which church property shall contribute to the public expenses is indicated; and, in the 19th century, the position of those who have acquired confiscated church property is regularized. In exchange for this surrender by the church of its ancient property the state engages to contribute to the subsistence of the ministers of public worship, or at least of certain of them.

Scholars agree in associating the earliest concordats with the celebrated contest about investitures (q.v.), which so profoundly agitated Christian Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries. The first in date is that which was concluded for England with Henry I. in 1107 by the efforts of St Anselm. The convention of Sutri of 1111 between Pope Paschal II. and the emperor Henry V. having been rejected, negotiations were resumed by Pope Calixtus II. and ended in the concordat of Worms (1122), which was confirmed in 1177 by the convention between Alexander III. and the emperor Frederick I. In this concordat a distinction was made between spiritual investiture, by the ring and pastoral staff, and lay or feudal investiture, by the sceptre. The emperor renounced investiture by ring and staff, and permitted canonical elections; the pope on his part recognized the king’s right to perform lay investiture and to assist at elections. Analogous to this convention was the concordat concluded between Nicholas IV. and the king of Portugal in 1289.

The lengthy discussions on ecclesiastical benefices in Germany ended finally in the concordat of Vienna, promulgated by Nicholas V. in 1448. Already at the council of Constance attempts had been made to reduce the excessive papal reservations and taxes in the matter of benefices, privileges which had been established under the Avignon popes and during the Great Schism; for example, Martin V. had had to make with the different nations special arrangements which were valid for five years only, and by which he renounced the revenues of vacant benefices. The council of Basel went further: it suppressedannates and all the benefice reservations which did not appear in theCorpus Juris. Eugenius IV. repudiated the Basel decrees, and the negotiations terminated in what was called the “concordat of the princes,” which was accepted by Eugenius IV. on his death-bed (bulls of February 5 and 7, 1447). In February 1448 Nicholas V. concluded the arrangement, which took the name of the concordat of Vienna. This concordat, however, was not received as law of the Empire. In Germany the concessions made to the pope and the reservations maintained by him in the matter of taxes and benefices were deemed excessive, and the prolonged discontent which resulted was one of the causes of the success of the Lutheran Reformation.

In France the opposition to the papal exactions had been still more marked. In 1438 the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges adopted and put into practice the Basel decrees, and in spite of the incessant protests of the Holy See the Pragmatic was observed throughout the 15th century, even after its nominal abolition by Louis XI. in 1461. The situation was modified by the concordat of Bologna, which was personally negotiated by Leo X. and Francis I. of France at Bologna in December 1515, inserted in the bullPrimitiva(August 18, 1516), and promulgated as law of the realm in 1517, but not without rousing keen opposition. All bishoprics, abbeys and priories were in the royal nomination, the canonical institution belonging to the pope. The pope preserved the right to nominate to vacant beneficesin curiaand to certain benefices of the chapters, but all the others were in the nomination of the bishops or other inferior collators. However, the exercise of the pope’s right of provision still left considerable scope for papal intervention, and the pope retained the annates.

In the 17th century we have only to mention the concordat between Urban VIII. and the emperor Ferdinand II. for Bohemia in 1640. In the 18th century concordats are numerous: there are two for Spain, in 1737 and 1753; two for the duchy of Milan, in 1757 and 1784; one for Poland, in 1736; five for Sardinia and Piedmont, in 1727, 1741, 1742, 1750 and 1770; and one for the kingdom of the Two Sicilies in 1741.

After the political and territorial upheavals which marked the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th, all these concordats either fell to the ground or had to be recast. In the 19th century we find a long series of concordats, of which a good number are still in force. The first in date and importance is that of 1801, concluded for France between Napoleon, First Consul, and Pius VII. after laborious negotiations. Save in the provisions relating to ecclesiastical benefices, all the property of which had been confiscated, it reproduced the concordat of 1516. The pope condoned those who had acquired church property; and by way of compensation the government engaged to give the bishops and curés suitable salaries. The concordat was solemnly promulgated on Easter Day 1802, but the government had added to it unilateral provisions of Gallican tendencies, which were known as the Organic Articles. After having been the law of the Church of France for a century, it was denounced by the French government in 1905. It remains, however, partly in force for Belgium and Alsace-Lorraine, which formed part of French territory in 1801.

We conclude with a brief chronological survey of the concordats during the 19th century, some now abrogated or replaced, others maintained. It must be observed that the denunciation of a concordat by a nation does not necessarily entail the separation of the church and the state in that country or the rupture of diplomatic relations with Rome.

1803. For the Italian republic, between Napoleon and Pius VII., analogous to the French concordat; abrogated.

1813. It is impossible to designate as a concordat the concessions which were wrested by violence from Pius VII. when ill and in seclusion at Fontainebleau, and which he at once retracted.

1817. For Bavaria; still in force.

1817. New French concordat, in which Louis XVIII. endeavoured to revive the concordat of 1516; but it was not put to the vote in the chambers, and never came into force.

1817. For Piedmont, completed in 1836 and 1841; was suppressed, like all other Italian concordats, by the formation of the kingdom of Italy.

1818. For the Two Sicilies, completed in 1834; lasted until the invasion of the kingdom of Naples by Piedmont.

1821. For Prussia; still in force.

1821. For the Rhine provinces not incorporated in Prussia, with the special object of regulating episcopal elections; concerned Württemberg, Baden, Hesse, Saxony, Nassau, Frankfort, the Hanseatic towns, Oldenburg and Waldeck. This first concordat was immediately suspended, and was not ratified until 1827; it is partially maintained. It had to be replaced by new concordats concluded with Württemberg in 1857 and the grand-duchy of Baden in 1859; but these conventions, not having been ratified by those countries, never came into force.

1824. For the kingdom of Hanover; maintained.

1827. For Belgium and Holland; abandoned by a common accord.

1828 and 1845. For Switzerland, for the reorganization of the bishoprics of Basel and Soleure; in force.

1847. For Russia, never applied by Russia. It was followed by several partial conventions.

1851. For Tuscany; lasted until the formation of the kingdom of Italy.

1851. For Spain, completed in 1859 and 1888; in force.

A convention on the religious orders was concluded in 1904, but had not received the assent of the Senate in 1908.

1855. For Austria; denounced in 1870. Several of its provisions are maintained by unilateral Austrian laws. The emperor of Austria continues to nominate to bishoprics by virtue of rights anterior to this concordat.

1857. For Portugal, completed in 1886 for the Portuguese possessions in the Indies; in force.

1886. For Montenegro; in force.

The numerous concordats concluded towards the middle of the 19th century with several of the South American republics either have not come into force or have been denounced and replaced by a more or less pacific modus vivendi.

For texts see Vincenzio Nussi,Quinquaginta conventiones de rebus ecclesiasticis(Rome, 1869; Mainz, 1870); Branden,Concordata inter S. Sedem et inclytam nationem Germaniae, &c. (undated). On the nature and obligation of concordats see Mgr. Giobbio,I Concordati(Monza, 1900);idem, Lezioni di diplomazia ecclesiastica(Rome, 1899-1903); Cardinal Cavagnis,Institutiones juris publici ecclesiastici(Rome, 1906). For the French concordats see A. Baudrillard,Quatre cents ans de concordat(Paris, 1905); Boulay de la Meurthe,Documents sur la négociation du concordat et sur les autres rapports de la France avec le Saint-Siège(Paris, 1891-1905); Cardinal Mathieu,Le Concordat de 1801(Paris, 1903); E. Sevestre,Le Concordat de 1801, l’histoire, le texte, la destinée(Paris, 1905). On the relations between the church and the state in various countries see Vering,Kirchenrecht, §§ 30-53.

(A. Bo.*)

1These are arranged under thirty-five distinct heads in Nussi’sQuinquaginta conventiones de rebus ecclesiasticis(Rome, 1869).

CONCORDIA,a Roman goddess, the personification of peace and goodwill. Several temples in her honour were erected at Rome, the most ancient being one on the Capitol, dedicated to her by Camillus (367B.C.), subsequently restored by Livia, the wife of Augustus, and consecrated by Tiberius (A.D.10). Other temples were frequently built to commemorate the restoration of civil harmony. Offerings were made to Concordia on the birthdays of emperors, and Concordia Augusta was worshipped as the promoter of harmony in the imperial household. Concordia was represented as a matron holding in her right hand apateraor an olive branch, and in her left acornu copiaeor a sceptre. Her symbols were two hands joined together, and two serpents entwined about a herald’s staff.

CONCORDIA(mod.Concordia Sagittaria), an ancient town of Venetia, in Italy, 16 ft. above sea-level, 31 m. W. of Aquileia, at the junction of roads to Altinum and Patavium, to Opitergium (and thence either to Vicetia and Verona, or Feltria and Tridentum), to Noricum by the valley of the Tilaventus (Tagliamento), and to Aquileia. It was a mere village until the time of Augustus, who made it a colony. Under the later empire it was one of the most important towns of Italy; it had a strong garrison and a factory of missiles for the army. The cemetery of the garrison has been excavated since 1873, and a large number of importantinscriptions, the majority belonging to the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th centuries, have been discovered. It was taken and destroyed by Attila inA.D.452. Considerable remains of the ancient town have been found—parts of the city walls, the sites of the forum and the theatre, and probably that of the arms factory. The objects found are preserved at Portogruaro, 1¼ m. to the N. The see of Concordia was founded at an early period, and transferred in 1339 to Portogruaro, where it still remains. The baptistery of Concordia was probably erected in 1100.

See Ch. Hülsen in Pauly-Wissowa,Realencyclopädie, iv. (Stuttgart, 1901) 830.

(T. As.)

CONCRETE(Lat.concretus, participle ofconcrescere, to grow together), a term used in various technical senses with the general significance of combination, conjunction, solidity. Thus the building material made up of separate substances combined into one is known as concrete (see below). In mathematics and music, the adjective has been used as synonymous with “continuous” as opposed to “discrete,”i.e.“separate,” “discontinuous.” This antithesis is no doubt influenced by the idea that the two words derive from a common origin, whereas “discrete” is derived from the Latindiscernere. In logic and also in common language concrete terms are those which signify persons or things as opposed to abstract terms which signify qualities, relations, attributes (so J. S. Mill). Thus the term “man” is concrete, while “manhood” and “humanity” are abstract, the names of the qualities implied. Confusions between abstract and concrete terms are frequent; thus the word “relation,” which is strictly an abstract term implying connexion between two things or persons, is often used instead of the correct term “relative” for people related to one another. Concrete terms are further subdivided as Singular, the names of things regarded as individuals, and General or Common, the names which a number of things bear in common in virtue of their possession of common characteristics. These latter terms, though concrete in so far as they denote the persons or things which are known by them (seeDenotation), have also an abstract sense when viewed connotatively,i.e.as implying the quality or qualities in isolation from the individuals. The ascription of adjectives to the class of concrete terms, upheld by J. S. Mill, has been disputed on the ground that adjectives are applied both to concrete and to abstract terms. Hence some logicians make a separate class for adjectives, as being the names neither of things nor of qualities, and describe them as Attributive terms.

CONCRETE,the name given to a building material consisting generally of a mixture of broken stone, sand and some kind of cement. To these is added water, which combining chemically with the cement conglomerates the whole mixture into a solid mass, and forms a rough but strong artificial stone. It has thus the immense advantage over natural stone that it can be easily moulded while wet to any desired shape or size. Moreover, its constituents can be obtained in almost any part of the world, and its manufacture is extremely simple. On account of these properties, builders have come to give it a distinct preference over stone, brick, timber and other building materials. So popular has it become that besides being used for massive constructions like breakwaters, dock walls, culverts, and for foundations of buildings, lighthouses and bridges, it is also proving its usefulness to the architect and engineer in many other ways. A remarkable extension of the use of concrete has been made possible by the introduction of scientific methods of combining it with steel or iron. The floors and even the walls of important buildings are made of this combination, and long span bridges, tall factory chimneys, and large water-tanks are among the many novel uses to which it has been put. Piles made of steel concrete are driven into the ground with blows that would shatter the best of timber. A fuller description of the combination of steel and concrete will be given later.

The constituents of concrete are sometimes spoken of as thematrixand theaggregate, and these terms, though somewhat old-fashioned, are convenient. The matrix is the lime or cement, whose chemical action with the added water causes the concrete to solidify; and the aggregate is the broken stone or hard materialConstituents.which is embedded in the matrix. The matrix most commonly used is Portland cement, by far the best and strongest of them all. The subject of its manufacture and examination is a most important and interesting one, and the special article dealing with it should be studied (seeCement), Here it will only be said that before using Portland cement very careful tests should be made to ascertain its quality and condition. Moreover, it should be kept in a damp-proof store for a few weeks; and when taken out for use it should be mixed and placed in position as quickly as possible, because rain, or even moist air, spoils it by causing it to set prematurely. The oldest of all the matrices is lime, and many splendid examples of its use by the Romans still exist. It has been to a great extent superseded by Portland cement, on account of the much greater strength of the latter, though lime concrete is still used in many places for dry foundations and small structures. To be of service the lime should be what is known as “hydraulic,” that is, not pure or “fat,” but containing some argillaceous matter, and should be carefully slaked with water before being mixed with the aggregate. To ensure this being properly done, the lumps of lime should be broken up small, and enough water to slake them should be added, the lime then being allowed to rest for about forty-eight hours, when the water changes the particles of quicklime to hydrate of lime, and breaks up the hard lumps into a powder. The hydrated lime, after being passed through a fine screen to sort out any lumps unaffected by the water, is ready for concrete making, and if not required at once should be stored in a dry place. Other matrices are slag cement, a comparatively recent invention, and some other natural and artificial cements which find occasional advocates. Materials like tar and pitch are sometimes employed as a matrix; they are used hot and without water, the solidifying action being due to cooling and to evaporation of the mineral oils contained in them. Whatever matrix is used, it is almost invariably “diluted” with sand, the grains of which become coated with the finer particles of the matrix. The sand should be coarse-grained and hard. It should be free from dirt—that is to say, free from clay or soft mud, for instance, which prevents the cement adhering to its particles, or again from sewage matter or any substance which will chemically destroy the matrix. The grains should show no signs of decay, and by preference should be of an angular shape. The sand obtained by crushing granite and hard stones is excellent. When lime is used as a matrix, certain natural earths such as pozzuolana or trass, or, failing these, powdered bricks or tiles, may be used instead of sand with great advantage. They have the property of entering into chemical combination with the lime, forming a hard setting compound, and increasing the hardness of the resulting concrete.

The commonest aggregates are broken stone and natural flint gravel. Broken bricks or tiles and broken furnace slag are sometimes used, the essential points being that the aggregate should be hard, clean and sound. Generally speaking, broken stones will be rough and angular, whereas the stones in flint gravel will be comparatively smooth and round. It might be supposed, therefore, that the broken stone will necessarily be the better aggregate, but this does not always follow. Experience shows that, although spherical pebbles are to be avoided, Portland cement adheres tightly to smooth flint surfaces, and that rough stones often give a less compact concrete than smooth ones on account of the difficulty of bedding them into the matrix when laying the concrete. In mixing concrete there is always a tendency for the stones to separate themselves from the sand and cement, and to form “pockets” of honeycombed concrete which are neither water-tight nor strong. These are much more liable to occur when the stones are flat and angular than when they are round. Modern engineers favour the practice of having the stones of various sizes instead of being uniform, because if these sizes are wisely proportioned the whole mixture can be made more solid, and the rough “pockets” avoided. For first-class work, however, and especially in steel concrete, it is customary to reject very largestones, and to insist that all shall pass through a ring 7/8 of an inch in diameter.

The water, like all the other constituents of concrete, should be clean and free from vegetable matter. At one time sea-water was thought to be injurious, but modern investigation finds no objection to it except on the score of appearance, efflorescence being more likely to occur when it is used.

Sometimes in massive concrete structures large and heavy stones as big as a man can lift are buried in the concrete after it is laid in position but while it is still wet. The stones should be hard and clean, and care must be taken that they are completely surrounded. Such concrete is known asrubble concrete.

In proportioning the quantities of matrix to aggregate the ideal to be aimed at is to get a concrete in which the voids or air-spaces shall be as small as possible; and as the lime or cement is usually by far the most expensive item, it is desirableProportions.to use as little of it as is consistent with strength. When natural flint gravel containing both stones and sand is used, it is usual to mix so much gravel with so much lime or cement. The proportions in practice generally run from 3 to 1 for very strong work, down to 12 to 1 for unimportant work. Some engineers have the sand separated from the stones by screens or sieves and then remixed in definite proportions. When stones and sand are obtained from different sources, their relative proportions have to be decided upon. A common way of doing this is first to choose a proportion of sand to cement, which will probably vary from 1 to 1 up to 4 to 1. It then remains to determine what proportion of stones should be added. For this purpose a large can, whose volume is known, is filled loosely with stones, and the volume of the voids between them is determined by measuring how much water the can will hold in addition to the stones. It is then assumed that the quantity of sand and cement should be equal to the voids. Moreover, the volume of sand and cement together is generally assumed to be equal to that of the sand alone, as the cement to a large extent fills up voids in the sand. For example, suppose it is resolved to use 2 parts of sand to 1 of cement, and suppose that experiment shows that in a pailful of stones two-fifths of the volume consists of voids, then 2 parts of sand (or sand with cement) will fill voids in 5 parts of stones, and the proportion of cement, sand, stones becomes 1:2:5. There are several weak points in this reasoning, and a more accurate way of determining the best proportions is to try different mixtures of cement, stones and sand, filling them into different pails of the same size, and then ascertaining, by weighing the pails, which mixture is the densest.

In determining the amount of water to be added, several things must be considered. The amount required to combine chemically with the cement is about 16% by weight, but in practice much more than this is used, because of loss by evaporation, and the difficulty of ensuring that the water shall be uniformly distributed. If the situation is cool, the stone hard, and the concrete carefully rammed directly it is laid down and kept moist with damp cloths, only just sufficient to moisten the whole mass is required. On the other hand, water should be given generously in hot weather, also when absorbent stone is used or when the concrete is not rammed. In these cases the concrete should be allowed to take all it can, but an excess of water which would flow away, carrying the cement with it, should be avoided.

The thorough mixing of the constituents is a most important item in the production of good concrete. Its object is to distribute all the materials evenly throughout the mass, and it is performed in many different ways, both byMixing.hand and by machine. The relative values of hand and machine work are often discussed. Roughly it may be said that where a large mass of concrete is to be mixed at one or two places a good machine will be of great advantage. On the other hand, where the mixing platform has to be constantly shifted, hand mixing is the more convenient way. In hand mixing it is usual to measure out from gauge boxes the sand, stones and cement or lime in a heap on a wooden platform. Then they are turned once or twice in their dry state by men with shovels. Next water is carefully added, and the mixture again turned, when it is ready for depositing. For important work and especially for thin structures the number of turnings should be increased. Many types of mixing machines are obtainable; the favourite type is one in which the materials are placed in a large iron box which is made to rotate, thus tumbling the matrix and aggregate over each other again and again. Another simple apparatus is a large vertical pipe or shoot in which sloping baffle plates or shelves are placed at intervals. The materials are fed in at the top of the shoot and fall from shelf to shelf, the mixing being effected by the various shocks thus given. When mixed the concrete is carried at once to the position required, and if the matrix is quick-setting Portland cement this operation must not be delayed.

One of the few drawbacks of concrete is that, unlike brickwork or masonry, it has nearly always to be deposited within moulds or framing which give it the required shape, and which are removed after it is set. Indeed, the troubleMoulds.and expense of these moulds sometimes prohibit its use. It is essential that they shall be strong and stiff, so as not to yield at all from the pressure of the wet concrete. The moulds for the face of a wall consist generally of wooden shutters, leaning against upright timbers which are secured by horizontal or raking struts to firm ground, or to anything that will bear the weight. If a smooth and neat face is wanted other precautions must be taken. The shutters must be planed, and coated with a mixture of soap and oil, so as to come away easily after the concrete is set. Moreover, when depositing the concrete, a shovel or other tool must be worked between the wet concrete and the shutter. This draws sand and water to the face and prevents the rough stones from showing themselves. Sometimes rough concrete is rendered over with a plaster of cement and sand after the shutters have been removed, but this is liable to peel off and should be avoided.

The method of depositing depends on the situation. If for important walls, or for small scantlings such as steel concrete generally involves, the concrete should be deposited in quite small quantities and very carefully rammedDepositing.into position. If for massive walls, it is usual to tip it out in large quantities from a barrow or wagon, and simply spread it in layers about a foot thick. Depositing concrete under water for breakwaters and bridge foundations requires special skill and special appliances. It is usually done in one of three ways:—(a) By moulding the concrete ashore into large blocks, which, when sufficiently hard, are lowered through the water into position by a crane or similar machine with the aid of divers. The most notable instance of this type of construction was at the port of Dublin, where Mr B. B. Stoney made blocks no less than 350 tons in weight. Each block formed a piece of the quay wall 12 ft. long and 27 ft. high, being made on shore and then deposited in position by floating sheers of special design. (b) By moulding the concrete into what are called “bag-blocks.” In this system the concrete is filled into bags, which are at once lowered through the water like the blocks. But in this case the concrete being still wet can adapt itself more or less to the shape of the adjoining bags, and strong rough walls can be built in this way. Sometimes the bags are made of enormous size, as at Aberdeen breakwater, where the contents of each bag weighed 50 tons. The canvas was laid in a hopper barge and there filled with the concrete and sewn up. The enormous bag was then dropped through a door in the bottom of the barge upon the breakwater foundation. (c) By depositing the wet concrete through the water between temporary upright timber frames which form the two faces of the wall. In this case very great care has to be taken to prevent the cement from being washed away from the other constituents when passing through the water. Indeed, this is bound to happen more or less, but it is guarded against by lowering the concrete slowly in a special box, the bottom of which is opened as it reaches the ground on which the concrete is to be laid. This method can only be carried out in still water, and where strong and tight framing can be built which will prevent the concrete from escaping. For small work the box can be replaced by acanvas bag secured by a special tripping noose which can be loosened when the bag has reached the ground. The concrete escapes from the bag, which is then drawn up and refilled.

Concrete may be compared with other building materials like masonry or timber from various points of view, such as strength, durability, convenience of building, fire-resistance, appearance and cost. Its strength variesStrength.within very wide limits according to the quality and proportions of the constituents, and the skill shown in mixing and placing them. To give a rough idea, however, it may be said that its safe crushing load would be about ½ cwt. per sq. in. for lime concrete, and 1 to 5 cwt. for Portland cement concrete. The safe tensile strength of Portland cement concrete would be something like one-tenth of its compressive strength, and might be far less. On this account it is usual to neglect the tensile strength of concrete in designing structures, and to arrange the material in such a way that tensile stresses are avoided. Hence slabs or beams of long span should not be built of plain concrete, though when reinforced with steel it is admirably adapted for these purposes.

In regard to durability good Portland cement concrete is one of the most durable materials known. Neither hot, cold, nor wet weather has practically any effect whatever upon it. Frost will not injure it after it has once set, thoughDurability.it is essential to guard it from frost during the operations of mixing and depositing. The same praise cannot, however, be given to lime concrete. Even though the best hydraulic lime be used it is wise to confine it to places where it is not exposed to the air, or to running water, and indeed for important structures the use of lime should be avoided. Good Portland cement is so much stronger than any lime that there are few situations where it is not cheaper as well as better to use the former, because, although cement is the more expensive matrix, a smaller proportion of it will suffice for use. Lime should never be used in work exposed to sea-water, or to water containing chemicals of any kind. Portland cement concrete, on the other hand, may be used without fear in sea-water, provided that certain reasonable precautions are taken. Considerable alarm was created about the year 1887 by the failure of two or three large structures of Portland cement concrete exposed to sea-water, both in England and other countries. The matter was carefully investigated, and it was found that the sulphate of magnesia in the sea-water has a decomposing action on Portland cements, especially those which contain a large proportion of lime or even of alumina. Indeed, no Portland cement is free from the liability to be decomposed by sea-water, and on a moderate scale this action is always going on more or less. But to ensure the permanence of structures in sea-water the great object is to choose a cement containing as little lime and alumina as possible, and free from sulphates such as gypsum; and more important still to proportion the sand and stones in the concrete in such a way that the structure is practically non-porous. If this is done there is really nothing to fear. On the other hand, if the concrete is rough and porous the sea-water will gradually eat into the heart of the structure, especially in a case like a dam, where the water, being higher on one side than the other, constantly forces its way through the rough material, and decomposes the Portland cement it contains.

As regards its convenience for building purposes it may be said roughly that in “mass” work concrete is vastly more convenient than any other material. But concrete is hampered by the fact that the surface always has toConvenience and appearance.be formed by means of wooden or other framing, and in the case of thin walls or floors this framing becomes a serious item, involving expense and delay. In appearance concrete can rarely if ever rival stone or brickwork. It is true that it can be moulded to any desired shape, but mouldings in concrete generally give the appearance of being unsatisfactory imitations of stone. Moreover, its colour is not pleasing. These defects will no doubt be overcome as concrete grows in popularity as a building material and its aesthetic treatment is better understood. Concrete pavings are being used in buildings of first importance, the aggregate being very carefully selected, and in many cases the whole mixture coloured by the use of pigments. Care must be taken in their selection, however, as certain colouring matters such as red lead are destructive to the cement. One of the great objections to the appearance of concrete is the fact that soon after its erection irregular cracks invariably appear on its surface. These cracks are probably due to shrinkage while setting, aggravated by changes in temperature. They occur no less in structures of masonry and brickwork, but in these cases they generally follow the joints, and are almost imperceptible. In the case of a smooth concrete face there are no joints to follow, and the cracks become an ugly feature. They are sometimes regulated by forming artificial “joints” in the structure by embedding strips of wood or sheet iron at regular intervals, thus forming “lines of weakness,” at which the cracks therefore take place. A pleasing “rough” appearance can be given to concrete by brushing it over soon after it has set with a stiff brush dipped in water or dilute acid. Or, if hard, its surface can be picked all over with a bush hammer.

At one time Portland cement concrete was considered to be lacking in fireproof qualities, but now it is regarded as one of the best fire-resisting materials known. Although experiments on this matter are badly needed, there is littleResistance to fire.doubt that good steel concrete is very nearly indestructible by fire. The matrix should be Portland cement, and the nature of the aggregate is important. Cinders have been and are still much favoured for this purpose. The reason for this preference lies in the fact that being porous and full of air, they are a good non-conductor. But they are weak, and modern experience goes to show that a strong concrete is the best, and that probably materials like broken clamp bricks or burnt clay, which are porous and yet strong, are far better than cinders as a fireproof aggregate. Limestone should be avoided, as it soon splits under heat. The steel reinforcement is of immense importance in fireproof work, because, if properly designed, it enables the concrete to hold together and do its work even when it has been cracked by fire and water. On the other hand, the concrete, being a non-conductor, preserves the steel from being softened and twisted by excessive temperature.

Only very general remarks can be made on the subject of cost, as this item varies greatly in different situations and with the market price of the materials used. But in England it may be said that for massive work such as big wallsCost.and foundations concrete is nearly always cheaper than brickwork or masonry. On the other hand, for reasons already given, thin walls, such as house walls, will cost more in concrete. Steel concrete is even more difficult to generalize about, as its use is comparatively new, but even in the matter of first cost it is proving a serious rival to timber and to plate steel work, in floors, bridges and tanks, and to brickwork and plain concrete in structures such as culverts and retaining walls, towers and domes.

Artificial Stones.—There are many varieties of concrete known as “artificial stones” which can now be bought ready moulded into the form of paving slabs, wall blocks and pipes: they are both pleasing in appearance and very durable, being carefully made by skilled workmen. Granolithic, globe granite and synthetic stone are examples of these. Some, such as victoria stone, imperial stone and others, are hardened and rendered non-porous after manufacture by immersion in a solution of silicate of soda. Others, like Ford’s silicate of limestone, are practically lime mortars of excellent quality, which can be carved and cut like a sandstone of fine quality.

Steel Concrete.—The introduction of steel concrete (also known as ferroconcrete, armoured concrete, or reinforced concrete) is generally attributed to Joseph Monier, a French gardener, who about the year 1868 was anxious to build some concrete water basins. In order to reduce the thickness of the walls and floor he conceived the idea of strengthening them by building in a network of iron rods. As a matter of fact other inventors were at work before Monier, but he deserves much credit for having pushed his invention with vigour, and forhaving popularized the use of this invaluable combination. The important point of his idea was that it combined steel and concrete in such a way that the best qualities of each material were brought into play. Concrete is readily procured and easily moulded into shape. It has considerable compressive or crushing strength, but is somewhat deficient in shearing strength, and distinctly weak in tensile or pulling strength. Steel, on the other hand, is easily procurable in simple forms such as long bars, and is exceedingly strong. But it is difficult and expensive to work up into various forms. Concrete has been avoided for making beams, slabs and thin walls, just because its deficiency in tensile strength doomed it to failure in such structures. But if a concrete slab be “reinforced” with a network of small steel rods on its under surface where the tensile stresses occur (see fig. 1) its strength will be enormously increased. Thus the one point of weakness in the concrete slab is overcome by the addition of steel in its simplest form, and both materials are used to their best advantage. The scientific and practical value of this idea was soon seized upon by various inventors and others, and the number of patented systems of combining steel with concrete is constantly increasing. Many of them are but slight modifications of the older systems, and no attempt will be made here to describe them in full. In England it is customary to allow the patentee of one or other system to furnish his own designs, but this is as much because he has gained the experience needed for success as because of any special virtue in this or that system. The majority of these systems have emanated from France, where steel concrete is largely used. America and Germany adopted them readily, and in England some very large structures have been erected with this material.

The concrete itself should always be the very best quality, and Portland cement should be used on account of its superiority to all others. The aggregate should be the best obtainable and of different sizes, the stones being freshly crushed and screened to pass through a 7/8 in. ring. Very special care should be taken so to proportion the sand as to make a perfectly impervious mixture. The proportions generally used are 4 to 1 and 5 to 1 in the case of gravel concrete, or 1:2:4 or 1:2½:6 in the case of broken stone concrete. But, generally speaking, in steel concrete the cost of the cement is but a small item of the whole expense, and it is worth while to be generous with it. If It is used in piles or structures where it is likely to be bruised the proportion of cement should be increased. The mixing and laying should all be done very thoroughly; the concrete should be rammed in position, and any old surface of concrete which has to be covered should be cleaned and coated with fresh cement.

The reinforcement mostly consists of mild steel and sometimes of wrought iron: steel, however, is stronger and generally cheaper, so that in English practice it holds the field. It should be mild and is usually specified to have a breaking (tensile) strength of 28 to 32 tons per sq. in., with an elongation of at least 20% in 8 in. Any bar should be capable of being bent cold to the shape of the letter U without breaking it. The steel is generally used in the form of long bars of circular section. At first it was feared that such bars would have a tendency to slip through the concrete in which they were embedded, but experiments have shown that if the bar is not painted but has a natural rusty surface a very considerable adhesion between the concrete and steel—as much as 2 cwt. per sq. in. of contact surface—may be relied upon. Many devices are used, however, to ensure the adhesion between concrete and bar being perfect. (1) In the Hennebique system of construction the bars are flattened at the end and split to form a “fish tail.” (2) In the Ransome system round bars are rejected in favour of square bars, which have been twisted in a lathe in “barley sugar” fashion. (3) In the Habrick system a flat bar similarly twisted is used. (4) In the Thacher system a flat bar with projections like rivet heads is specially rolled for this purpose. (5) In the Kahn system a square bar with “branches” is used. (6) In the “expanded metal” system no bars are used, but instead a strong steel netting is manufactured in large sheets by special machinery. It is made by cutting a series of long slots at regular intervals in a plain steel plate, which is then forcibly stretched out sideways until the slots become diamond-shaped openings, and a trellis work of steel without any joints is the result (fig. 2).

The structures in which steel concrete is used may be analysed as consisting essentially of (1) walls, (2) columns, (3) piles, (4) beams, (5) slabs, (6) arches. The designs differ considerably according to which of these purposes the structure is to fulfil.

The effect of reinforcingwallswith steel is that they can be made much thinner. The steel reinforcement is generally applied in the form of vertical rods built in the wall at intervals, with lighter horizontal rods which cross the vertical ones, and thus form a network of steel which is buried in the concrete. These rods assist in taking the weight, and the whole network binds the concrete together and prevents it from cracking under a heavy load. The vertical rods should not be quite in the middle of the wall but near the inner and outer faces alternately. Care must be taken, however, that all the rods are covered by at least aninch of concrete to preserve them from damage by rust or fire. In the Cottancin system the concrete is replaced by bricks pierced with holes through which the vertical rods are threaded; the horizontal tie-rods are also used, but these do not merely cross the vertical ones, but are woven in and out of them.

Columnshave generally to bear a heavier weight than walls, and have to be correspondingly stronger. They have usually been made square with a vertical steel rod at each corner. To prevent these rods from spreading apart they must be tied together at frequent intervals. In some systems this is done by loops of stout wire connecting each rod to its neighbour, and placed one above the other about every 10 in. up the column (figs. 3 and 4). In other systems a stout wire is wound continuously in a spiral form round the four rods. Modern investigation goes to prove that the latter is theoretically the more economical way of using the steel, as the spiral binding wire acts like the binding of a wire gun, and prevents the concrete which it encloses from bursting even under very great loads.

Back to Index Next