The numbering of oecumenical synods is not fixed; the list most used in the Roman Church to-day is that of Hefele (Conciliengeschichte, 2nd ed., I. 59 f.):
(Each of these and certain other important synods are treated in separate articles.)
By including Pisa (1409) and by treating Florence as a separate synod, certain writers have brought the number of oecumenical councils up to twenty-two. These standard lists are of the type which became established through the authority of Cardinal R. F. Bellarmine (1542-1621), who criticized Constance and Basel, while defending Florence and the fifth Lateran council against the Gallicans. As late as the 16th century, however, “the majority did not regard those councils in which the Greek Church did not take part as oecumenical at all” (Harnack,History of Dogma, vi. 17). The Greek Church accepts only the first seven synods as oecumenical; and it reckons the Trullan synod of 692 (the Quinisextum) as a continuation of the sixth oecumenical synod of 680. But concerning the first seven councils it should be remarked that Constantinople I. was but a general synod of the East; its claim to oecumenicity rests upon its reception by the West about two centuries later. Similarly the only representatives of the West present at Constantinople II. were certain Africans; the pope did not accept the decrees till afterwards and they made their way in the West but gradually. Just as there have been synods which have come to be considered oecumenical though not convoked as such, so there have been synods which though summoned as oecumenical, failed of recognition: for instance Sardica (343), Ephesus (449), Constantinople (754). The last two received the imperial confirmation and from the legal point of view were no whit inferior to the others; their decrees, however, were overthrown by subsequent synods. As the Protestant leaders of the 16th century held fast the traditional christology, they regarded with veneration the dogmatic decisions of Nicaea I., Constantinople I., Ephesus and Chalcedon. These four councils had enjoyed a more or less fortuitous pre-eminence both in Roman and in canon law, and by many Catholics at the time of the Reformation were regarded, along with the three great creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian), as a sort of irreducible minimum of orthodoxy. In the 17th century the liberal Lutheran George Calixtus based his attempts at reuniting Christendom on thisconsensus quinquesaecularis. Many other Protestants have accepted Constantinople II. and III. as supporting the first four councils; and still others, notably many Anglican high churchmen, have felt bound by all the oecumenical synods of the undivided Church. The common Protestant attitude toward synods is, however, that they may err and have erred, and that the Scriptures and not conciliar decisions are the sole infallible standard of faith, morals and worship.
Protestant Councils.—The churches of the Reformation have all had a certain measure of synodal life. The Church of England has maintained its ancient provincial synods or convocations, though for the greater part of the 18th and the first part of the 19th centuries they transacted no business. In the Lutheran churches of Germany there was no strong agitation in favour of introducing synods until the 19th century, when a movement, designed to render the churches less dependent on the governmental consistories, won its way, until at length Prussia itself fell into line (1873 and 1876). As the powers granted to the German synods are very limited, many of their advocates have been disillusioned; but the Lutheran churches of America, being independent of the state, have developed synods both numerous and potent. In the Reformed churches outside Germany synodal life is vigorous; its forms were developed by the Huguenots in days of persecution, and passed thence to Scotland and other presbyterian countries. Even many of the churches of congregational polity have organized national councils (seeCongregationalism); but here the principle of the independence of the local church prevents the decisions from binding those congregations which do not approve of the decrees. Moreover, in the last decade of the 19th century a growing desire for a rapprochement between the Free Churches in the United Kingdom as a whole led to the annual assembly of the Free Church Council for the consideration of all matters affecting the dissenting bodies. This body has no executive or doctrinal authority and is rather a conference than a council. In general it may be said that synods are becoming more and more powerful in Protestant lands, and that they are destined to still greater prominence because of the growing sentiment for Christian unity.
Authorities.—General Collections:Collectio regia(Paris, 1644, 37 vols.) (the first very extensive work); P. Labbe (not Labbé) and G. Cossart,Sacrosancta concilia(Paris, 1672, 17 vols.), with supplement by Étienne Baluze (Baluzius), 1683 (based on above); J. Hardouin (Harduinus),Conciliorum collectio regia maxima(Paris, 1715), 11 tomi in 12 vols, (to 1714; more exact; indexed; serious omissions); enlarged edition by N. Coletus (Venice, 1728-1732), supplemented by J. D. Mansi,Sanctorum conciliorum et decretorum nova collectio(Lucca, 1748, 6 tomi). Convenient but fallible is Mansi’sSacrorum conciliorum et decretorum nova et amplissima collectio(Florence, 1759-1767; completed Venice, 1769-1798, 31 vols.); facsimile reproduction by Welter (Paris, 1901 ff.), adding (tom. O)Introductio seu apparatus ad sacrosancta concilia, and (tom. 17B and 18B) Baluze,Capitularia regum Francorum, and continuing to date by reproducing parts of Coletus and of Mansi’s supplement to Coletus, and furnishing (tom. 37 ff.) a new edition of the councils from 1720 on by J. B. Martin and L. Petit. A careful text of Roman Catholic synods from 1682 to 1870 isCollectio Lacensis(Acta et decreta sacrorum conciliorum recentiorum, Friburgi, 1870 ff.), 7 vols.Special Collections: Great Britain:Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae, ed. D. Wilkins (London, 1737, 4 vols.);Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, ed. by A. W. Haddan and W. Stubbs (Oxford, 1869 ff., 4 vols.); J. W. Joyce,Handbook of the Convocations or Provincial Synods of the Church of England(London, 1887);Concilia Scotiae(1225-1559), ed. Joseph Robertson (Edinburgh, Bannatyne Club, 1866, 2 tom.).United States:Collectio Lacensis(Roman Catholic synods);The American Church History Series(New York, 1893 ff. 13 vols.) gives information on the various Protestant synods.France.—Concilia aevi Merovingici, rec. F. Maassen (Hanover, 1893) (Monumenta Germaniae historica, Legum sectioiii.,Concilia, tom. i.);Concilia antiqua Galliae, cur. J. Sirmond (Paris, 1629, 3 vols.); supplement by P. de la Lande (Paris, 1666); L. Odespun,Concilia novissima Galliae(Paris, 1646);Conciliorum Galliae tam editorum quam ineditorum, stud. congreg. S. Mauri, tom. i. (Paris, 1789). Synods of the Reformed Churches of France are contained in J. Quick,Synodicon in Gallia reformata(London, 1692, 2 vols.); J. Aymon,Tous les synodes nationaux des églises réformées de France(La Haye, 1710, 2 vols.); E. Hugues,Les Synodes du désert(Paris, 1885 f., 3 vols.). For the synods of other countries see Herzog-Hauck, 3rd ed., 19,262 f., and Wetzer and Welte, 2nd ed., 3809 f.Less Elaborate Texts:Canones apostolorum et conciliorum saeculorum, iv.-vii., rec. H. T. Bruns (Berlin, 1839, 2 vols.) (still useful); J. Fulton,Index Canonum(3rd ed., New York, 1892) (3rd and 4th centuries); W. Bright,Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils(2nd ed., Oxford, 1892);Die Kanones derwichtigsten altkirchlichen Conzilien nebst den apostolischen Kanones, ed. F. Lauchert (Freiburg i. B., 1896);Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum, quae de rebus fidei et morum a conciliis oecumenicis et summis pontificibus emanarunt, ed. H. Denzinger (7th ed., Würzburg, 1895);Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche, ed. by A. Hahn (3rd edition, revised and enlarged, Breslau, 1897), with variant readings; C. Mirbt,Quellen zur Geschichte des Papsttums und des römischen Katholizismus(2nd much enlarged ed., Tübingen, 1901); E. F. Karl Müller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche (Leipzig, 1903) (for all countries). These last five are elaborately indexed.Translations:John Johnson,A Collection of the Laws and Canons of the Church of England[601-1519], 2 parts (London, 1720; reprinted Oxford, 1850 f., in theLibrary of Anglo-Catholic Theology); P. Schaff,The Creeds of Christendom(New York, 1877, 3 vols.) (texts and translations parallel);Canons and Creeds of the First Four Councils, ed. by E. K. Mitchell, inTranslations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, published by the Department of History of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. iv. 2 (1897); H. R. Percival,The Ecumenical Councils(New York, 1900) (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. xiv.; translates canons and compiles notes; bibliography in Introduction).General Histories of Councils:C. J. von Hefele,Conciliengeschichte(Freiburg i. B., 1855); English translation of the earlier volumes toA.D.787, fromA.D.326 on, based on the second German edition (Edinburgh, 1871 ff.); French, by Delarc (Paris, 1869-1874, 10 vols.). This first edition not entirely superseded by the second, made after the Vatican council, and continued by Knöpfler and by Hergenröther (Freiburg, 1873-1890, 9 vols.); a French translation, with continuation and critical and bibliographical notes,par un religieux bénédictin de Farnborough, tome i. 1repartie (Paris, Létouzey, 1907); Paul Viollet,Examen de l’histoire des conciles de Mgr Hefele(Paris, 1876) (Extrait de la Revue historique); W. P. du Bose,The Ecumenical Councils(New York, 1896) (popular); P. Guérin,Les Conciles généraux et particuliers(Paris, 1868, 3rd impression, 1897, 3 tom.); see also A. Harnack,History of Dogma(Boston, 1895-1900, 7 vols.); F. Loofs,Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte(4th ed., enlarged, Halle, 1906).Literature:Dictionnaire universel et complet des conciles, rédigé par A. C. Peltier, publié par Migne (Paris, 1847, 2 vols.) (Migne,Encyclopédie théologique, vol. 13 f.); Z. Zitelli-Natali,Epitome historico-canonica conciliorum generalium(Rome, 1881); F. X. Kraus,Realencyklopädie der christlichen Altertümer, vol. i. (Freiburg-i.-B., 1882) (art. “Concilien” by Funk); William Smith and S. Cheetham,Dictionary of Christian Antiquities(London, 1876-1880, 2 vols.) (erudite detail); Wetzer und Welte’sKirchenlexikon, 2nd ed. by Hergenröther and Kaulen (Freiburg i. B., 1882-1903, 13 vols.) (art. “Concil” by Scheeben);La Grande Encyclopédie(Paris, s.d., 31 vols.) (numerous articles); P. Hinschius,Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten in Deutschland, vol. 3 (Berlin, 1883) (fundamental and masterly); R. von Scherer,Handbuch des Kirchenrechtes, vol. i. (Graz, 1886) (excellent notes and references); E. H. Landon,A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church, (revised ed., London, [1893], 2 vols.) (paraphrases chief canons; needs revision); Martigny,Dictionnaire des antiquités chrétiennes(3rd ed., Paris, 1889) (for ceremonial); R. Sohm,Kirchenrecht, vol. i. (Leipzig, 1892) (brilliant); A. Kneer,Die Entstehung der konziliaren Theorie(Rome, 1893);Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, begründet von J. J. Herzog, 3rd revised ed. by A. Hauck (Leipzig, 1896 ff.) (in vol. 19 Hauck’s excellentSynoden, 1907); F. X. Funk,Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen(Paderborn, 1897); A. V. G. Allen,Christian Institutions(New York, 1897), chap. xi.; C. A. Kneller, “Papst und Konzil im ersten Jahrtausend” (Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, vols. 27 and 28, Innsbruck, 1893 f.); F. Bliemetzrieder,Das Generalkonzil im grossen abendländischen Schisma(Paderborn, 1904); Wilhelm and Scannell,Manual of Catholic Theology(3rd ed., London, 1906, sect. 32); J. Forget, “Conciles,” in A. Vacant and E. Mangeot,Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, tome 3, 636-676 (Paris, 1906 ff.), with elaborate bibliography;The Catholic Encyclopedia(New York, 1907 ff.).
Authorities.—General Collections:Collectio regia(Paris, 1644, 37 vols.) (the first very extensive work); P. Labbe (not Labbé) and G. Cossart,Sacrosancta concilia(Paris, 1672, 17 vols.), with supplement by Étienne Baluze (Baluzius), 1683 (based on above); J. Hardouin (Harduinus),Conciliorum collectio regia maxima(Paris, 1715), 11 tomi in 12 vols, (to 1714; more exact; indexed; serious omissions); enlarged edition by N. Coletus (Venice, 1728-1732), supplemented by J. D. Mansi,Sanctorum conciliorum et decretorum nova collectio(Lucca, 1748, 6 tomi). Convenient but fallible is Mansi’sSacrorum conciliorum et decretorum nova et amplissima collectio(Florence, 1759-1767; completed Venice, 1769-1798, 31 vols.); facsimile reproduction by Welter (Paris, 1901 ff.), adding (tom. O)Introductio seu apparatus ad sacrosancta concilia, and (tom. 17B and 18B) Baluze,Capitularia regum Francorum, and continuing to date by reproducing parts of Coletus and of Mansi’s supplement to Coletus, and furnishing (tom. 37 ff.) a new edition of the councils from 1720 on by J. B. Martin and L. Petit. A careful text of Roman Catholic synods from 1682 to 1870 isCollectio Lacensis(Acta et decreta sacrorum conciliorum recentiorum, Friburgi, 1870 ff.), 7 vols.
Special Collections: Great Britain:Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae, ed. D. Wilkins (London, 1737, 4 vols.);Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, ed. by A. W. Haddan and W. Stubbs (Oxford, 1869 ff., 4 vols.); J. W. Joyce,Handbook of the Convocations or Provincial Synods of the Church of England(London, 1887);Concilia Scotiae(1225-1559), ed. Joseph Robertson (Edinburgh, Bannatyne Club, 1866, 2 tom.).
United States:Collectio Lacensis(Roman Catholic synods);The American Church History Series(New York, 1893 ff. 13 vols.) gives information on the various Protestant synods.
France.—Concilia aevi Merovingici, rec. F. Maassen (Hanover, 1893) (Monumenta Germaniae historica, Legum sectioiii.,Concilia, tom. i.);Concilia antiqua Galliae, cur. J. Sirmond (Paris, 1629, 3 vols.); supplement by P. de la Lande (Paris, 1666); L. Odespun,Concilia novissima Galliae(Paris, 1646);Conciliorum Galliae tam editorum quam ineditorum, stud. congreg. S. Mauri, tom. i. (Paris, 1789). Synods of the Reformed Churches of France are contained in J. Quick,Synodicon in Gallia reformata(London, 1692, 2 vols.); J. Aymon,Tous les synodes nationaux des églises réformées de France(La Haye, 1710, 2 vols.); E. Hugues,Les Synodes du désert(Paris, 1885 f., 3 vols.). For the synods of other countries see Herzog-Hauck, 3rd ed., 19,262 f., and Wetzer and Welte, 2nd ed., 3809 f.
Less Elaborate Texts:Canones apostolorum et conciliorum saeculorum, iv.-vii., rec. H. T. Bruns (Berlin, 1839, 2 vols.) (still useful); J. Fulton,Index Canonum(3rd ed., New York, 1892) (3rd and 4th centuries); W. Bright,Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils(2nd ed., Oxford, 1892);Die Kanones derwichtigsten altkirchlichen Conzilien nebst den apostolischen Kanones, ed. F. Lauchert (Freiburg i. B., 1896);Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum, quae de rebus fidei et morum a conciliis oecumenicis et summis pontificibus emanarunt, ed. H. Denzinger (7th ed., Würzburg, 1895);Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche, ed. by A. Hahn (3rd edition, revised and enlarged, Breslau, 1897), with variant readings; C. Mirbt,Quellen zur Geschichte des Papsttums und des römischen Katholizismus(2nd much enlarged ed., Tübingen, 1901); E. F. Karl Müller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche (Leipzig, 1903) (for all countries). These last five are elaborately indexed.
Translations:John Johnson,A Collection of the Laws and Canons of the Church of England[601-1519], 2 parts (London, 1720; reprinted Oxford, 1850 f., in theLibrary of Anglo-Catholic Theology); P. Schaff,The Creeds of Christendom(New York, 1877, 3 vols.) (texts and translations parallel);Canons and Creeds of the First Four Councils, ed. by E. K. Mitchell, inTranslations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, published by the Department of History of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. iv. 2 (1897); H. R. Percival,The Ecumenical Councils(New York, 1900) (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. xiv.; translates canons and compiles notes; bibliography in Introduction).
General Histories of Councils:C. J. von Hefele,Conciliengeschichte(Freiburg i. B., 1855); English translation of the earlier volumes toA.D.787, fromA.D.326 on, based on the second German edition (Edinburgh, 1871 ff.); French, by Delarc (Paris, 1869-1874, 10 vols.). This first edition not entirely superseded by the second, made after the Vatican council, and continued by Knöpfler and by Hergenröther (Freiburg, 1873-1890, 9 vols.); a French translation, with continuation and critical and bibliographical notes,par un religieux bénédictin de Farnborough, tome i. 1repartie (Paris, Létouzey, 1907); Paul Viollet,Examen de l’histoire des conciles de Mgr Hefele(Paris, 1876) (Extrait de la Revue historique); W. P. du Bose,The Ecumenical Councils(New York, 1896) (popular); P. Guérin,Les Conciles généraux et particuliers(Paris, 1868, 3rd impression, 1897, 3 tom.); see also A. Harnack,History of Dogma(Boston, 1895-1900, 7 vols.); F. Loofs,Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte(4th ed., enlarged, Halle, 1906).
Literature:Dictionnaire universel et complet des conciles, rédigé par A. C. Peltier, publié par Migne (Paris, 1847, 2 vols.) (Migne,Encyclopédie théologique, vol. 13 f.); Z. Zitelli-Natali,Epitome historico-canonica conciliorum generalium(Rome, 1881); F. X. Kraus,Realencyklopädie der christlichen Altertümer, vol. i. (Freiburg-i.-B., 1882) (art. “Concilien” by Funk); William Smith and S. Cheetham,Dictionary of Christian Antiquities(London, 1876-1880, 2 vols.) (erudite detail); Wetzer und Welte’sKirchenlexikon, 2nd ed. by Hergenröther and Kaulen (Freiburg i. B., 1882-1903, 13 vols.) (art. “Concil” by Scheeben);La Grande Encyclopédie(Paris, s.d., 31 vols.) (numerous articles); P. Hinschius,Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten in Deutschland, vol. 3 (Berlin, 1883) (fundamental and masterly); R. von Scherer,Handbuch des Kirchenrechtes, vol. i. (Graz, 1886) (excellent notes and references); E. H. Landon,A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church, (revised ed., London, [1893], 2 vols.) (paraphrases chief canons; needs revision); Martigny,Dictionnaire des antiquités chrétiennes(3rd ed., Paris, 1889) (for ceremonial); R. Sohm,Kirchenrecht, vol. i. (Leipzig, 1892) (brilliant); A. Kneer,Die Entstehung der konziliaren Theorie(Rome, 1893);Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, begründet von J. J. Herzog, 3rd revised ed. by A. Hauck (Leipzig, 1896 ff.) (in vol. 19 Hauck’s excellentSynoden, 1907); F. X. Funk,Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen(Paderborn, 1897); A. V. G. Allen,Christian Institutions(New York, 1897), chap. xi.; C. A. Kneller, “Papst und Konzil im ersten Jahrtausend” (Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, vols. 27 and 28, Innsbruck, 1893 f.); F. Bliemetzrieder,Das Generalkonzil im grossen abendländischen Schisma(Paderborn, 1904); Wilhelm and Scannell,Manual of Catholic Theology(3rd ed., London, 1906, sect. 32); J. Forget, “Conciles,” in A. Vacant and E. Mangeot,Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, tome 3, 636-676 (Paris, 1906 ff.), with elaborate bibliography;The Catholic Encyclopedia(New York, 1907 ff.).
(W. W. R.*)
1For the Greek Council seeBoule; for the Hebdomadal Council seeOxford; see alsoEngland:Local Government.2Fromἡ οἰκουμἐνη (γῆ). the inhabited world; Latinoecumenicusoruniversalis. The English forms “oecumenical” and “ecumenical” are both used.
1For the Greek Council seeBoule; for the Hebdomadal Council seeOxford; see alsoEngland:Local Government.
2Fromἡ οἰκουμἐνη (γῆ). the inhabited world; Latinoecumenicusoruniversalis. The English forms “oecumenical” and “ecumenical” are both used.
COUNCIL BLUFFS,a city and the county-seat of Pottawattamie county, Iowa, U.S.A., about 2½ m. E. of the Missouri river opposite Omaha, Nebraska, with which it is connected by a road bridge and two railway bridges. Pop. (1890) 21,474; (1900) 25,802, of whom 3723 were foreign-born; (1910) 29,292. It is pre-eminently a railway centre, being served by the Union Pacific, of which it is the principal eastern terminus, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, the Chicago, Milwaukee & Saint Paul, the Chicago & Northwestern, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, the Chicago Great-Western, the Illinois Central, and the Wabash, which together have given it considerable commercial importance. It is built for the most part on level ground at the foot of high bluffs; and has several parks, the most attractive of which, commanding fine views, is Fairmount Park. With the exception of bricks and tiles, carriages and wagons, agricultural implements, and the products of its railway shops, its manufactures are relatively unimportant, the factory product in 1905 being valued at only $1,924,109. Council Bluffs is the seat of the Western Iowa Business College, and of the Iowa school for the deaf. On or near the site of Council Bluffs, in 1804, Lewis and Clark held a council with the Indians, whence the city’s name. In 1838 the Federal government made this the headquarters of the Pottawattamie Indians, removed from Missouri. They remained until 1846-1847, when the Mormons came, built many cabins, and named the place Kanesville. The Mormons remained only about five years, but on their departure for Utah their places were speedily taken by new immigrants. During 1849-1850 Council Bluffs became an important outfitting point for California gold seekers—the goods being brought by boat from Saint Louis—and in 1853 it was incorporated as a city.
COUNSEL AND COUNSELLOR,one who gives advice, more particularly in legal matters. The term “counsel” is employed in England as a synonym for a barrister-at-law, and may refer either to a single person who pleads a cause, or collectively, to the body of barristers engaged in a case. Counsellor or, more fully, counsellor-at-law, is practically an obsolete term in England, but is still in use locally in Ireland as an equivalent to barrister. In the United States, a counsellor-at-law is, specifically, an attorney admitted to practice in all the courts; but as there is no formal distinction of the legal profession into two classes, as in England, the term is more often used loosely in the same sense as “lawyer,”i.e.one who is versed in, or practises law.
COUNT(Lat.comes, gen.comitis, Fr.comte, Ital.conte, Span.conde), the English translation of foreign titles equivalent generally to the English “earl.”1In Anglo-French documents the wordcountewas at all times used as the equivalent of earl, but, unlike the feminine form “countess,” it did not find its way into the English language until the 16th century, and then only in the sense defined above. The title of earl, applied by the English to the foreign counts established in England by William the Conqueror, is dealt with elsewhere (seeEarl). The present article deals with (1) the office of count in the Roman empire and the Frankish kingdom, (2) the development of the feudal count in France and under the Holy Roman Empire, (3) modern counts.
1. The Latincomesmeant literally a companion or follower. In the early Roman empire the word was used to designate the companions of the emperor (comites principis) and so became a title of honour. The emperor Hadrian chose senators as companions on his travels and to help him in public business. They formed a permanent council, and Hadrian’s successors entrusted thesecomiteswith the administration of justice and finance, or placed them in military commands. The designationcomesthus developed into a formal official title of high officers of state, some qualification being added to indicate the special duties attached to the office in each case. Thus in the 5th century, among thecomitesattached to the emperor’s establishment, we find,e.g., thecomes sacrarum largitionumand thecomes rei privatae; while others, forming the council, were styledcomites consistorii. Others were sent into the provinces as governors,comites per provincias constituti; thus in theNotitia dignitatumwe find acomes Aegypti, acomes Africae, acomes Belgicae, acomes Lugdunensisand others. Two of the generals of the Roman province of Britain were styled thecomes Britanniaeand thecomes littoris Saxonici(count of the Saxon shore).
At Constantinople in the latter Roman empire the Latin wordcomesassumed a Greek garb asκόμηςand was declined as a Greek noun (gen.κόμητος); thecomes sacrarum largitionum(count of the sacred bounties) was called at Constantinopleὁ κόμης τῶν σακρῶν λαργιτιώνωνand thecomes rerum privatarum(count of the private estates) was calledκόμης τῶν πριβάτων. The count of the sacred bounties was the lord treasurer or chancellor of the exchequer, for the public treasury and the imperial fisc had come to be identical; while the count of the private estates managed the imperial demesnes and the privy purse. In the 5th century the “sacred bounties” corresponded to theaerariumof the early Empire, while theres privataerepresented the fisc. The officers connected with the palace and the emperor’s person included the count of the wardrobe (comes sacrae vestis), the count of the residence (comes domorum), and, most important of all, thecomes domesticorum et sacri stabuli(graecized asκόμης τοῦ στάβλου). The count of the stable, originally the imperial master of the horse, developed into the “illustrious” commander-in-chief of the imperial army (Stilicho,e.g., bore the full title as given above), and became the prototype of the medieval constable (q.v.).
An important official of the second rank (spectabilis, “respectable” as contrasted with those of highest rank who were “illustrious”) was the count of the East, who appears to have had the control of a department in which 600 officials were engaged. His power was reduced in the 6th century, when he was deprived of his authority over the Orient diocese, and became civil governor of Syria Prima, retaining his “respectable” rank. Another important officer of the later Roman court was thecomes sacri patrimonii, who was instituted by the emperor Anastasius. In this connexion it should be observed that the wordpatrimoniumgradually changed in meaning. In the beginning of the 3rd centurypatrimoniummeant crown property, andres privatameant personal property: at the beginning of the 6th centurypatrimoniummeant personal property, andres privatameant crown property. It is difficult to give briefly a clear idea of the functions of the three important officialscomes sacrarum largitionum,comes rei privataeandcomes sacripatrimonii; but the terms have been well translated by a German author asFinanzminister des Reichsschatzes(finance minister of the treasury of the Empire),F. des Kronschatzes(of the crown treasury), andF. des kaiserlichen Privatvermögens(of the emperor’s private property).
The Frankish kings of the Merovingian dynasty retained the Roman system of administration, and under them the wordcomespreserved its original meaning; thecomeswas a companion of the king, a royal servant of high rank. Under the early Frankish kings somecomitesdid not exercise any definite functions; they were merely attached to the king’s person and executed his orders. Others filled the highest offices,e.g.thecomes palatiiandcomes stabuli(seeConstable). The kingdom was divided for administrative purposes into small areas calledpagi(pays, Ger.Gau), corresponding generally to the Romancivitates(seeCity).2At the head of thepaguswas thecomes, corresponding to the GermanGraf(Gaugraf, cf. Anglo-Saxonscire-gerefa,3sheriff). Thecomeswas appointed by the king and removable at his pleasure, and was chosen originally from all classes, sometimes from enfranchised slaves. His essential functions were judicial and executive, and in documents he is often described as the king’s agent (agens publicus) or royal judge (judex publicusorfiscalis). As the delegate of the executive power he had the right to military command in the king’s name, and to take all the measures necessary for the preservation of the peace,i.e.to exercise the royal “ban” (bannus regis). He was at once public prosecutor and judge, was responsible for the execution of the sentences of the courts, and as the king’s representative exercised the royal right of protection (mundium regis) over churches, widows, orphans and the like. He enjoyed a triple wergeld, but had no definite salary, being remunerated by the receipt of certain revenues, a system which contained the germs of discord, on account of the confusion of his public and private estates. He also retained a third of the fines which he imposed in his judicial capacity.
Under the early Carolings the title count did not indicate noble birth. Acomeswas generally raised from childhood in the king’s palace, and rose to be a count through successive stages. The count’s office was not yet a dignity, nor hereditary; he was not independent nor appointed for life, but exercised the royal power by delegation, as under the Merovingians. While, however, he was theoretically paid by the king, he seems to have been himself one of the sources of the royal revenue. The counties were, it appears, farmed out; but in the 7th century the royal choice became restricted to the larger landed proprietors, who gradually emancipated themselves from royal control, and in the 8th century the termcomitatusbegins to denote a geographical area, though there was little difference in its extent under the Merovingian kings and the early Carolings. The count was about to pass into the feudatory stage. Throughout the middle ages, however, the original official and personal connotation of the title was never wholly lost; or perhaps it would be truer to say, with Selden, that it was early revived with the study of the Roman civil law in the 12th century. The unique dignity of count of the Lateran palace,4bestowed in 1328 by the emperor Louis IV. the Bavarian on Castrucio de’ Antelminelli, duke of Lucca, and his heirs male, was official as well as honorary, being charged with the attendance and service to be performed at the palace at the emperor’s coronation at Rome (Du Cange, s.v.Comites Palatii Lateranensis; Selden, op. cit. p. 321). This instance, indeed, remained isolated; but the personal title of “count palatine,” though honorary rather than official, was conferred on officials—especially by the popes on those of the Curia—had no territorial significance, and was to the last reminiscent of those early comites palatii whose relations to the sovereign had been purely personal and official (seePalatine). A relic of the old official meaning of “count” still survives in Transylvania, where the head of the political administration of the Saxon districts is styled count (comes,Graf) of the Saxon Nation.
2.Feudal Counts.—The process by which the official counts were transformed into feudal vassals almost independent is described in the articleFeudalism. In the confusion of the period of transition, when the title to possession was usually the power to hold, designations which had once possessed a definite meaning were preserved with no defined association. In France, by the 10th century, the process of decomposition of the old organization had gone far, and in the 11th century titles of nobility were still very loosely applied. That of “count” was, as Luchaire points out, “equivocal” even as late as the 12th century; any castellan of moderate rank could style himselfcomtewho in the next century would have been calledseigneur(dominus). Even when, in the 13th century, the ranks of the feudal hierarchy in France came to be more definitely fixed, the style of “count” might imply much, or comparatively little. In the oldest register of Philip Augustus counts are reckoned with dukes in the first of the five orders into which the nobles are divided, but the list includes, besides such almost sovereign rulers as the counts of Flanders and Champagne, immediate vassals of much less importance—such as the counts of Soissons and Dammartin—and even one mediate vassal, the count of Bar-sur-Seine. The title was still in fact “equivocal,” and so it remained throughout French history. In the official lists it was early placed second to that of duke (Luchaire,Manuel, p. 181, note 1), but in practice at least the greatcomtes-pairs(e.g.of Champagne) were the equals of any duke and the superiors of many. Thus, too, in modern times royal princes have been given the title of count (Paris, Flanders, Caserta), the heir of Charles X. actually changing his style, without sense of loss, from that of duc de Bordeaux to that of comte de Chambord. From the 16thcentury onwards the equivocal nature of the title in France was increased by the royal practice of selling it, either to viscounts or barons in respect of their fiefs, or to richroturiers.
In Germany the change from the official to the territorial and hereditary counts followed at the outset much the same course as in France, though the later development of the title and its meaning was different. In the 10th century the counts were permitted by the kings to divide their benefices and rights among their sons, the rule being established that countships (Grafschaften) were hereditary, that they might be held by boys, that they were heritable by females and might even be administered by females. TheGrafschaftbecame thus merely a bundle of rights inherent in the soil; and, the count’s office having become his property, the old counties orGauenrapidly disappeared as administrative units, being either amalgamated or subdivided. By the second half of the 12th century the official character of the count had quite disappeared; he had become a territorial noble, and the foundation had been laid of territorial sovereignty (Landeshoheit). The first step towards this was the concession to the counts of the military prerogatives of dukes, a right enjoyed from the first by the counts of the marches (seeMargrave), then given to counts palatine (seePalatine) and, finally, to other counts, who assumed by reason of it the style of landgrave (Landgraf,i.e.count of a province). At first all counts were reckoned as princes of the Empire (Reichsfürsten); but since the end of the 12th century this rank was restricted to those who were immediate tenants of the crown,5the other counts of the Empire (Reichsgrafen) being placed among the free lords (barones,liberi domini). Counts of princely rank (gefürstete Grafen) voted among the princes in the imperial diet; the others (Reichsgrafen) were grouped in theGrafenbänke—originally two, to which two more were added in the 17th century—each of which had one vote. In 1806, on the formation of the Confederation of the Rhine, the sovereign counts were all mediatized (seeMediatization). Even before the end of the Empire (1806) the right of bestowing the title of count was freely exercised by the various German territorial sovereigns.
3.Modern Counts.—Any political significance which the feudal title of count retained in the 18th century vanished with the changes produced by the Revolution. It is now simply a title of honour and one, moreover, the social value of which differs enormously, not only in the different European countries, but within the limits of the same country. In Germany, for instance, there are several categories of counts: (1) the mediatized princely counts (gefürstete Grafen), who are reckoned the equals in blood of the European sovereign houses, an equality symbolized by the “closed crown” surmounting their armorial bearings. The heads of these countly families of the “high nobility” are entitled (by a decree of the federal diet, 1829) to the style ofErlaucht(illustrious, most honourable); (2) Counts of the Empire6(Reichsgrafen), descendants of those counts who, before the end of the Holy Roman Empire (1806), wereReichsständischi.e.sat in one of theGrafenbänkein the imperial diet, and entitled to a ducal coronet; (3) Counts (a) descended from the lower nobility of the old Empire, titular since the 15th century, (b) created since; their coronet is nine-pointed (cf. the nine points and strawberry leaves of the English earl). The difficulty of determining in any case the exact significance of the title of a German count, illustrated by the above, is increased by the fact that the title is generally heritable by all male descendants, the only exception being in Prussia, where, since 1840, the rule of primogeniture has prevailed and the bestowal of the title is dependent on a rent-roll of £3000 a year. The result is that the title is very widespread and in itself little significant. A German or Austrian count may be a wealthy noble of princely rank, a member of the Prussian or Austrian Upper House, or he may be the penniless cadet of a family of no great rank or antiquity. Nevertheless the title, which has long been very sparingly bestowed, always implies a good social position. The styleAltgraf(old count), occasionally found, is of some antiquity, and means that the title of count has been borne by the family from time immemorial.
In medieval France the significance of the title of count varied with the power of those who bore it; in modern France it varies with its historical associations. It is not so common as in Germany or Italy; because it does not by custom pass to all male descendants. The title was, however, cheapened by its revival under Napoleon. By the decree of the 1st of March 1808, reviving titles of nobility, that of count was assignedex officioto ministers, senators and life councillors of state, to the president of the Corps Législatif and to archbishops. The title was made heritable in order of primogeniture, and in the case of archbishops through their nephews. These Napoleonic countships, increased under subsequent reigns, have produced a plentiful crop of titles of little social significance, and have tended to lower the status of the counts deriving from theancien régime. The title of marquis, which Napoleon did not revive, has risen proportionately in the estimation of the Faubourg St Germain. As for that of count, it is safe to say that in France its social value is solely dependent on its historical associations.
Of all European countries Italy has been most prolific of counts. Every petty Italian prince, from the pope downwards, created them for love or money; and, in the absence of any regulating authority, the title was also widely and loosely assumed, while often the feudal title passed with the sale of the estate to which it was attached. Casanova remarked that in some Italian cities all the nobles werebaroni, in others all wereconti. An Italiancontemay or may not be a gentleman; he has long ceased,quacount, to have any social prestige, and his rank is not recognized by the Italian government. As in France, however, there are some Italiancontiwhose titles are respectable, and even illustrious, from their historic associations. The prestige belongs, however, not to the title but to the name. As for the papal countships, which are still freely bestowed on those of all nations whom the Holy See wishes to reward, their prestige naturally varies with the religious complexion of the country in which the titles are borne. They are esteemed by the faithful, but have small significance for those outside. In Spain, on the other hand, the title ofconde, the earlier history of which follows much the same development as in France, is still of much social value, mainly owing to the fact that the rule of primogeniture exists, and that, a large fee being payable to the state on succession to a title, it is necessarily associated with some degree of wealth. The Spanish counts of old creation, some of whom are grandees and members of the Upper House, naturally take the highest rank; but the title, still bestowed for eminent public services or other reasons, is of value. The title, like others in Spain, can pass through an heiress to her husband. In Russia the title of count (graf, fem.grafinya), a foreign importation, has little social prestige attached to it, being given to officials of a certain rank. In the British empire the only recognized counts are those of Malta, who are given precedence with baronets of the United Kingdom.
See Selden,Titles of Honor(London, 1672); Du Cange,Glossarium Med. Lat.(ed. Niort, 1883) s.v. “Comes”;La Grande Encyclopédie, s.v. “Comte”; A. Luchaire,Manuel des institutions françaises(Paris, 1892); P. Guilhiermoz,Essai sur l’origine de la noblesse en France au moyen âge(Paris, 1902); Brunner,Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, Band ii. (Leipzig, 1892).
See Selden,Titles of Honor(London, 1672); Du Cange,Glossarium Med. Lat.(ed. Niort, 1883) s.v. “Comes”;La Grande Encyclopédie, s.v. “Comte”; A. Luchaire,Manuel des institutions françaises(Paris, 1892); P. Guilhiermoz,Essai sur l’origine de la noblesse en France au moyen âge(Paris, 1902); Brunner,Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, Band ii. (Leipzig, 1892).
1The exact significance of a title is difficult to reproduce in a foreign language. Actually, only some foreign counts could be said to be equivalent to English earls; but “earl” is always translated by foreigners by words (comte,Graf) which in English are represented by “count,” itself never used as the synonym of “earl.” Conversely old English writers had no hesitation in translating as “earl” foreign titles which we now render “count.”2The changing language of this epoch speaks ofcivitates, subsequently ofpagi, and later ofcomitatus(counties).3The A.S.gerefa, however, meaning “illustrious,” “chief,” has apparently, according to philologists, no connexion with the GermanGraf, which originally meant “servant” (cf. “knight,” “valet,” &c.). It is the more curious that thegerefashould end as a servant (“reeve”), theGrafas a noble (count).4“Count of the Lateran Palace” (Comes Sacri Lateranensis Palatii) was later the title usually bestowed by the popes in creating counts palatine. The emperors, too, continued to make counts palatine under this title long after the Lateran had ceased to be an imperial palace.5Of these there were four who, as counts of the Empirepar excellence, were sometimes styled “simple counts” (Schlechtgrafen),i.e.the counts of Cleves, Schwarzburg, Cilli and Savoy; they were entitled to the ducal coronet. Three of these had become dukes by the 17th century, but the count (now prince) of Schwarzburg still styled himself “Of the four counts of the Holy Roman Empire, count of Schwarzburg” (see Selden, ed. 1672, p. 312).6This title is borne by certain English families,e.g.by Lord Arundell of Wardour. In other cases it has been assumed without due warrant. See J. H. Round, “English Counts of the Empire,” inThe Ancestor, vii. 15 (Westminster, October 1903).
1The exact significance of a title is difficult to reproduce in a foreign language. Actually, only some foreign counts could be said to be equivalent to English earls; but “earl” is always translated by foreigners by words (comte,Graf) which in English are represented by “count,” itself never used as the synonym of “earl.” Conversely old English writers had no hesitation in translating as “earl” foreign titles which we now render “count.”
2The changing language of this epoch speaks ofcivitates, subsequently ofpagi, and later ofcomitatus(counties).
3The A.S.gerefa, however, meaning “illustrious,” “chief,” has apparently, according to philologists, no connexion with the GermanGraf, which originally meant “servant” (cf. “knight,” “valet,” &c.). It is the more curious that thegerefashould end as a servant (“reeve”), theGrafas a noble (count).
4“Count of the Lateran Palace” (Comes Sacri Lateranensis Palatii) was later the title usually bestowed by the popes in creating counts palatine. The emperors, too, continued to make counts palatine under this title long after the Lateran had ceased to be an imperial palace.
5Of these there were four who, as counts of the Empirepar excellence, were sometimes styled “simple counts” (Schlechtgrafen),i.e.the counts of Cleves, Schwarzburg, Cilli and Savoy; they were entitled to the ducal coronet. Three of these had become dukes by the 17th century, but the count (now prince) of Schwarzburg still styled himself “Of the four counts of the Holy Roman Empire, count of Schwarzburg” (see Selden, ed. 1672, p. 312).
6This title is borne by certain English families,e.g.by Lord Arundell of Wardour. In other cases it has been assumed without due warrant. See J. H. Round, “English Counts of the Empire,” inThe Ancestor, vii. 15 (Westminster, October 1903).
COUNTER. (1) (Through the O. Fr.conteoir, moderncomptoir, from Lat.computare, to reckon), a round piece of metal, wood or other material used anciently in making calculations, and now for reckoning points in games of cards, &c., or as tokens representing actual coins or sums of money in gambling games such as roulette. The word is thus used, figuratively, of something of no real value, a sham. In the original sense of “a means of counting money,or keeping accounts,” “counter” is used of the table or flat-topped barrier in a bank, merchant’s office or shop, on which money is counted and goods handed to a customer. The term was also applied, usually in the form “compter,” to the debtors’ prisons attached to the mayor’s or sheriff’s courts in London and some other boroughs in England. The “compters” of the sheriff’s courts of the city of London were, at various times, in the Poultry, Bread St., Wood St. and Giltspur St.; the Giltspur St. compter was the last to be closed, in 1854. (2) (From Lat.contra, opposite, against), a circular parry in fencing, and in boxing, a blow given as a parry to a lead of an opponent. The word is also used of the stiff piece of leather at the back of a boot or shoe, of the rounded angle at the stern of a ship, and, in a horse, of the part lying between the shoulder and the under part of the neck. In composition, counter is used to express contrary action, as in “countermand,” “counterfeit,” &c.
COUNTERFEITING(from Lat.contra-facere, to make in opposition or contrast), making an imitation without authority and for the purpose of defrauding. The word is more particularly used in connexion with the making of imitations of money, whether paper or coin. (SeeCoinage Offences;Forgery.)
COUNTERFORT(Fr.contrefort), in architecture, a buttress or pier built up against the wall of a building or terrace to strengthen it, or to resist the thrust of an arch or other constructional feature inside.
COUNTERPOINT(Lat.contrapunctus, “point counter point,” “note against note”), in music, the art happily defined by Sir Frederick Gore Ouseley as that “of combining” melodies: this should imply that good counterpoint is the production of beautiful harmony by a combination of well-characterized melodies. The individual audibility of the melodies is a matter of which current criticism enormously overrates the importance. What is always important is the peculiar life breathed into harmony by contrapuntal organization. Both historically and aesthetically “counterpoint” and “harmony” are inextricably blended; for nearly every harmonic fact is in its origin a phenomenon of counterpoint. And if in later musical developments it becomes possible to treat chords as, so to speak, harmonic lumps with a meaning independent of counterpoint, this does not mean that they have really changed their nature; but it shows a difference between modern and earlier music precisely similar to that between modern English, in which metaphorical and abstract expressions are so constantly used that they have become a mere shorthand for the literal and concrete expression, and classical Greek, where metaphors and abstractions can appear only as elaborate similes or explicit philosophical ideas. The laws of counterpoint are, then, laws of harmony with the addition of such laws of melody as are not already produced by the interaction of harmonic and melodic principles. In so far as the laws of counterpoint are derived from purely harmonic principles, that is to say, derived from the properties of concord and discord, their origin and development are discussed in the articleHarmony. In so far as they depend entirely on melody they are too minute and changeable to admit of general discussion; and in so far as they show the interaction of melodic and harmonic principles it is more convenient to discuss them under the head of harmony, because they appear in such momentary phenomena as are more easily regarded as successions of chords than as principles of design. All that remains, then, for the present article is the explanation of certain technical terms.
1.Canto Fermo(i.e.plain chant) is a melody in long notes given to one voice while others accompany it with quicker counterpoints (the term “counterpoint” in this connexion meaning accompanying melodies). In the simplest cases theCanto Fermohas notes of equal length and is unbroken in flow. When it is broken up and its rhythm diversified, the gradations between counterpoint on aCanto Fermoand ordinary forms of polyphony, or indeed any kind of melody with an elaborate accompaniment, are infinite and insensible.
2.Double Counterpointis a combination of melodies so designed that either can be taken above or below the other. When this change of position is effected by merely altering the octave of either or both melodies (with or without transposition of the whole combination to another key), the artistic value of the device is simply that of the raising of the lower melody to the surface. The harmonic scheme remains the same, except in so far as some of the chords are not in their fundamental position, while others, not originally fundamental, have become so. But double counterpoint may be in other intervals than the octave; that is to say, while one of the parts remains stationary, the other may be transposed above or below it by some interval other than an octave, thus producing an entirely different set of harmonies.
Double Counterpoint in the 12thhas thus been made a powerful means of expression and variety. The artistic value of this device depends not only on the beauty and novelty of the second scheme of harmony obtained, but also on the change of melodic expression produced by transferring one of the melodies to another position in the scale. Two of the most striking illustrations of this effect are to be found in the last chorus of Brahms’sTriumphliedand in the fourth of his variations on a theme by Haydn.
Double Counterpoint in the 10thhas, in addition to this, the property that the inverted melody can be given in the new and in the original positions simultaneously.
Double counterpoint in other intervals than the octave, 10th and 12th, is rare, but the general principle and motives for it remain the same under all conditions. The two subjects of theConfiteorin Bach’s B minor Mass are in double counterpoint in the octave, 11th and 13th. And Beethoven’s Mass in D is full of pieces of double counterpoint in the inversions of which a few notes are displaced so as to produce momentary double counterpoint in unusual intervals, obviously with the intention of varying the harmony. Technical treatises are silent as to this purpose, and leave the student in the belief that the classical composers used these devices, if at all, in a manner as meaningless as the examples in the treatises.
3.Triple, Quadruple and Multiple Counterpoint.—When more than two melodies are designed so as to combine in interchangeable positions, it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid chords and progressions of which some inversions are incorrect. In triple counterpoint this difficulty is not so great; although a complete triad is dangerous, as it is apt to invert as a “6/46⁄4” which requires careful handling. On the other hand, in triple counterpoint the necessity for strictness is at its greatest, because there are only six possible inversions, and in a long polyphonic work most of these will be required. Moreover, the artistic value of the device is at its highest in three-part polyphonic harmony, which, whether invertible or not, is always a fine test of artistic economy, while the inversions are as evident to the ear, especially where the top part is concerned, as those in double counterpoint. Triple counterpoint (and a fortiori multiple counterpoint) is normally possible only at the octave; for it will be found that if three parts are designed to invert in some other interval this will involve two of them inverting in a third interval which will give rise to incalculable difficulty. This makes the fourth of Brahms’s variations on a theme of Haydn almost miraculous. The plaintive expression of the whole variation is largely due to the fact that the flowing semiquaver counterpoint below the main theme is on each repeat inverted in the 12th, with the result that its chief emphasis falls upon the most plaintive parts of the scale. But in the first eight bars of the second part of the variation a third contrapuntal voice appears, and this too is afterwards inverted in the 12th, with perfectly natural and smooth effect. But this involves the inversion of two of the counterpoints with each other in the 9th, a kind of double counterpoint which is almost impossible. The case is unique, but it admirably illustrates the difference between artistic and merely academic mastery of technical resource.
Quadruple Counterpointis not rare with Bach. It would be more difficult than triple, but for the fact that of its twenty-four possible inversions not more than four or five need be correct.Quintuple counterpointis admirably illustrated in the finale of Mozart’sJupiter Symphony, in which everything in the successive statement and gradual development of the five themes conspiresto give the utmost effect to their combination in the coda. Of course Mozart has not room for more than five of the 120 possible combinations, and from these he selects such as bring fresh themes into the outside parts, which are the most clearly audible.Sextuple Counterpointmay be found in Bach’s great double chorus,Nun ist das Heil, and in the finale of his concerto for three claviers in C, and probably in other places.
4.Added Thirds and Sixths.—An easy and effective imitation of triple and quadruple counterpoint, embodying much of the artistic value of inversion, is found in the numerous combinations of themes in thirds and sixths which arise from an extension of the principle which we mentioned in connexion with double counterpoint in the 10th, namely, the possibility of performing it in its original and inverted positions simultaneously. ThePleni sunt coeliof Bach’s B minor Mass is written in this kind of transformation of double into quadruple counterpoint; and the artistic value of the device is perhaps never so magnificently realized as in the place, at bar 84, where the trumpet doubles the bass three octaves and a third above while the alto and second tenor have the counter subjects in close thirds in the middle.
Almost all other contrapuntal devices are derived from the principle of thecanonand are discussed in the articleContrapuntal Forms.
As a training in musical grammar and style, the rhythms of 16th-century polyphony were early codified into “the five species of counterpoint” (with various other species now forgotten) and practised by students of composition. The classical treatise on which Haydn and Beethoven were trained was Fux’sGradus ad Parnassum(1725). This was superseded in the 19th century by Cherubini’s, the first of a long series of attempts to bring up to date as a dead language what should be studied in its original and living form.