[1] The term "Hittite" is here used as a loose but convenient
designation for closely related groups of N. Syria; see HITTITES.
DEBRECZEN, a town of Hungary, capital of the county of Hajdu, 138 m. E.
of Budapest by rail. Pop. (1900) 72,351. It is the principal Protestant
centre in Hungary, and bears the name of "Calvinistic Rome." Debreczen
is one of the largest towns of Hungary, and is situated in the midst of
a sandy but fertile plain. It consists of the inner old town, and
several suburbs, which stretch out irregularly into the plain. The walls
of the old town have given place to a broad boulevard and several open
commons, beautifully laid out. The most prominent of its public
buildings is the principal Protestant church, built at the beginning of
the 19th century, which ranks as the largest in the country, but has no
great architectural pretensions. In its immediate neighbourhood is the
Protestant Collegium, for theology and law, which is one of the most
frequented institutions of its kind in Hungary, being attended by over
two thousand students. This college was founded in 1531, and possesses a
rich library and other scientific collections. The town hall, the
Franciscan church, the Piarist monastery and college, and the theatre
are also worthy of mention. Amongst its educational establishments it
includes an agricultural academy. The industries of the town are
various, but none is of importance enough to give it the character of a
manufacturing centre. Its tobacco-pipes, sausages and soap are widely
known. It carries on an active trade in cattle, horses, corn and honey,
while four well-attended fairs are held annually. The municipality of
Debreczen owns between three hundred and four hundred square miles of
the adjoining country, which possesses all the characteristics of the
Hungarian _puszta_, and on which roam large herds of cattle.
The town is of considerable antiquity, but owes its development to the
refugees who flocked from the villages plundered by the Turks in the
15th century. In 1552 it adopted the Protestant faith, and it had to
suffer in consequence, especially when it was captured in 1686 by the
imperial forces. In 1693 it was made a royal free city. In 1848-1849 it
formed a refuge for the national government and legislature when
Budapest fell into the hands of the Austrians; and it was in the great
Calvinist church that, on Kossuth's motion (April 14th, 1849) the
resolution was passed declaring the house of Habsburg to have forfeited
the crown of St Stephen. On the 3rd of July the town was captured by the
Russians.
DEBT (Lat. _debitum_, a thing owed), a definite sum due by one person to
another. It may be created by contract, by statute or by judgment.
Putting aside those created by statute, recoverable by civil process,
debts may be divided into three classes, (1) judgment debts, (2)
specialty debts, and (3) simple contract debts. As to judgment debts, it
is sufficient to say that, when by the judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction an order is made that a sum of money be paid by one of two
parties to another, such a debt is not only enforceable by process of
court, but it can be sued upon as if it were an ordinary debt. A
specialty debt is created by deed or instrument under seal. Until 1869
specialty debts had preference under English law over simple contract
debts in the event of the bankruptcy or death of the debtor, but this
was abolished by the Administration of Estates Act of that year. The
main difference now is that a specialty debt may, in general, be created
without consideration, as for example by a bond (a gratuitous promise
under seal), and that a right of action arising out of a specialty debt
is not barred if exercised any time within twenty years, whereas a right
of action arising out of a simple contract debt is barred unless
exercised within six years. (See LIMITATION, STATUTES OF.) Any other
debt than a judgment or specialty debt, whether evidenced by writing or
not, is a simple contract debt. There are also certain liabilities or
debts which, for the convenience of the remedy, have been made to appear
as though they sprang from contract, and are sometimes termed
quasi-contracts. Such would be an admission by one who is in account
with another that there is a balance due from him. Such an admission
implies a promise to pay when requested and creates an actionable
liability _ex contractu_. Or, when one person is compelled by law to
discharge the legal liabilities of another, he becomes the creditor of
the person for the money so paid. Again, where a person has received
money under circumstances which disentitle him to retain it, such as
receiving payment of an account twice over, it can generally be
recovered as a debt.
At English common law debts and other choses in action were not
assignable (see CHOSE), but by the Judicature Act 1873 any absolute
assignment of any debt or other legal chose in action, of which express
notice in writing is given to the debtor, trustee or other person from
whom the assignor would have been entitled to receive or claim such
debt, is effectual in law. Debts do not, as a general rule, carry
interest, but such an obligation may arise either by agreement or by
mercantile usage or by statute. The discharge of a debt may take place
either by payment of the amount due, by accord and satisfaction, i.e.
acceptance of something else in discharge of the liability, by set-off
(q.v.), by release or under the law of bankruptcy (q.v.). It is the duty
of a debtor to pay a debt without waiting for any demand, and, unless
there is a place fixed on either by custom or agreement, he must seek
out his creditor for the purpose of paying him unless he is "beyond the
seas." Payment by a third person to the creditor is no discharge of a
debt, as a general rule, unless the debtor subsequently ratifies the
payment. When a debtor tenders the amount due to his creditor and the
creditor refuses to accept, the debt is not discharged, but if the
debtor is subsequently sued for the debt and continues willing and ready
to pay, and pays the amount tendered into court, he can recover his
costs in the action. A creditor is not bound to give change to the
debtor, whose duty it is to make tender in lawful money the whole amount
due, or more, without asking for change. (See PAYMENT.) A debtor takes
the risk if he makes payment through the post, unless the creditor has
requested or authorized that mode of payment. The payment of a debt is
sometimes secured by one person, called a surety, who makes himself
collaterally liable for the debt of the principal. (See GUARANTEE.) The
ordinary method of enforcing a debt is by action. Where the debt does
not exceed L100 the simplest procedure for its recovery is that of the
county court, but if the debt exceeds L100 the creditor must proceed in
the high court, unless the cause of action has arisen within the
jurisdiction of certain inferior courts, such as the mayor's court of
London, the Liverpool court of passage, &c. When judgment has been
obtained it may be enforced either by process (under certain conditions)
against the person of the debtor, by an execution against the debtor's
property, or, with the assistance of the court, by attaching any debt
owed to the debtor by a third person. Where a debtor has committed any
act of bankruptcy a creditor or creditors whose aggregate claims are not
less than L50 may proceed against him in bankruptcy (q.v.). Where the
debtor is a company or corporation registered under the companies acts,
the creditor may petition to have it wound up. (See COMPANY.)
Imprisonment for debt, the evils of which have been so graphically
described by Dickens, was abolished in England by the Debtors Act 1869,
except in cases of default of payment of penalties, default by trustees
or solicitors and certain other cases. But in cases where a debt or
instalment is in arrear and it is proved to the satisfaction of the
court that the person making default either has or has had since the
date of the order or judgment the means to pay the sum in respect of
which he has made default and has refused or neglected to pay, he may be
committed to prison at the discretion of the judge for a period of not
more than forty-two days. In practice, a period of twenty-one days is
usually the maximum period ordered. Such an imprisonment does not
operate as a satisfaction or extinguishment of the debt, and no second
order of commitment can be made against him for the same debt, although
where the court has made an order or judgment for the payment of the
debt by instalments a power of committal arises on default of payment of
each instalment. In Ireland imprisonment for debt was abolished by the
Debtors Act (Ireland) 1872, and in Scotland by the Debtors (Scotland)
Act 1880. In France it was abolished in 1867, in Belgium in 1871, in
Switzerland and Norway in 1874, and in Italy in 1877. In the United
States imprisonment for debt was universal under the common law, but it
has been abolished in every state, except in certain cases, as where
there is any suspicion of fraud or where the debtor has an intention of
removing out of the state to avoid his debts. (See also CONTRACT;
BANKRUPTCY.)
DEBUSSY, CLAUDE ACHILLE (1862- ), French composer, was born at St
Germain-en-Laye on the 22nd of August 1862, and educated at the Paris
Conservatoire under Marmontel, Lavignac, Massenet and Guiraud. There
between 1874 and 1884 he gained many prizes for solfege, pianoforte
playing, accompanying, counterpoint and fugue, and, in the last-named
year, the coveted Grand Prix de Rome by means of his cantata _L'Enfant
prodigue_. In this composition already were thought to be noticeable the
germs of unusual and "new" talent, though in the light of later
developments it is not very easy to discern them, for then Debussy had
not come under the influence which ultimately turned his mind to the
system he afterwards used, not only with peculiar distinction but also
with particular individual and complete success. Nevertheless, the mind
had clearly been prepared by nature for the reception of this influence
when it should arise; for, in order to fulfil that condition of the Prix
de Rome which entails the submitting periodically of compositions to the
judges, Debussy sent to them his symphonic suite _Printemps_, to which
the judges took exception on the ground of its formlessness. Following
in the wake of _Printemps_ came _La damoiselle elue_ for solo, female
voice and orchestra--a setting of a French version of Rossetti's "The
Blessed Damosel"--which in the eyes of the judges was even more
unorthodox than its predecessor, though, be it said, fault was found as
much with the libretto as with the music. Both works were denied the
customary public performance.
The Rome period over, Debussy returned to Paris, whence shortly he went
to Russia, where he came directly under the influence referred to above.
In Russia he absorbed the native music, especially that of Moussorgsky,
who, recently dead, had left behind him the reputation of a "musical
nihilist," and on his return to Paris Debussy devoted himself to
composition, the stream of his muse being even in 1908 as fluent as
twenty years before. To him public recognition was slow in coming, but
in 1893 the Societe Nationale de Musique performed his _Damoiselle
elue_, in 1894 the Ysaye Quartet introduced the string quartet, while in
the same year the _Prelude a l'apres-midi d'un Faune_ was heard, and
brought Debussy's name into some prominence. As time passed the
prominence grew, until the climax of Debussy's creative career was
reached by the production at the Opera Comique on the 30th of April 1902
of his masterpiece _Pelleas et Melisande_. Herein lay the whole strength
of Debussy's system, the perfection of his appeal to the mind and
imagination as well as to the emotions and senses. Since its production
the world has been enriched by _La Mer_, and by the _Ariettes oubliees_,
but the lyric drama remains on its own lofty pedestal, a monument of
elusive and subtle beauty, of emphatic originality and of charm. In an
Apologia Debussy has declared that in composing _Pelleas_ he "wanted to
dispense with parasitic musical phrases. Melody is, if I may say so,
almost anti-lyric, and powerless to express the constant change of
emotion or life. Melody is suitable only for the chanson, which confirms
a fixed sentiment. I have never been willing that my music should
hinder, through technical exigencies, the change of sentiment and
passion felt by my characters. It is effaced as soon as it is necessary
that these should have perfect liberty in their gestures or in their
cries, in their joy, or in their sorrow."
The list of Debussy's works is a lengthy one. Several of them have been
referred to already. Among the others, of which the complete list is too
long to print here, are the dances for chromatic harp or pianoforte;
_Images_; incidental music to _King Lear_; the _Petite Suite_; _Trois
Nocturnes_; innumerable songs, as _Proses Lyriques_ (text by Debussy);
two series of Verlaine's _Fetes galantes_; _Cinq Poemes de Baudelaire_;
many pianoforte pieces.
In 1891 Debussy was appointed critic of the _Revue Blanche_. In his
first notice he expressed his faith thus: "I shall endeavour to trace in
a musical work the many different emotions which have helped to give it
birth, also to demonstrate its inner life. This, surely, will be
accounted of greater interest than the game which consists in dissecting
it as if it were a curious timepiece."
As to the theories, so much debated, of this remarkable
musician--probably in the whole range of musical history there has not
appeared a more difficult theorist to "place." Unquestionably Debussy
has introduced a new system of colour into music, which has begun
already to exert widespread influence. Roughly, Debussy's system may be
summarized thus:
His scale basis is of six whole tones (enharmonic), as (1) middle C, D,
E, G[flat], A[flat], B[flat], which are of excellent sound when
superimposed in the form of two augmented unrelated triads.
/ B[flat] / A[sharp]
< G[flat]or enharmonically < F[sharp]
\ D \ D
/ A[flat] / G[sharp]
< E < E
\ C \ C
used frequently incomplete (i.e. by the omission of one note) by
Debussy.
E \
C |
A >
F[sharp] |
D /
Now, upon the basis of an augmented triad a tune may be played above it
provided that it be based upon the six-tone scale, and a fugue may be
written, the re-entry of the subject of which may be made upon any note
of the scale, and the harmony will be complete. To associate this scale
with the ordinary diatonic scale let a major 9th be taken, e.g.: one may
conventionally flatten or sharpen the fifth of this (A becoming [sharp]
or [flat] as desired): if _both_ the flattened and sharpened fifths be
taken in the one chord this chord is arrived at:
E
C
B[flat]
A[flat] (A[sharp] enharmonically altered to B[flat])
F[sharp]
D
which is composed of the notes of the aforesaid scale (1), and Debussy
thereby proves his case to belong to the "primitifs." It will be noticed
that chords of the 9th in sequence and in all forms occur in Debussy's
music as well as the augmented triad harmonics, where the melodic line
is based on the tonal scale. This, in all likelihood, is the outcome of
Debussy's instinctive feeling for the association of his so-called
discovery with the ordinary scale. The "secret," it may be added, comes
not from Annamese music as has been frequently stated, but probably from
Russia, where certainly it was used before Debussy's rise. (R. H. L.)
DECADE (from Gr. [Greek: deka], ten), a group or series containing ten
members, particularly a period of ten years. In the new calendar made at
the time of the French Revolution in 1793, a decade of ten days took the
place of the week. The word is also used of the divisions containing ten
books or parts into which the history of Livy was divided.
DECAEN, CHARLES MATHIEU ISIDORE, COUNT (1769-1832), French soldier, was
born at Caen on the 13th of April 1769. He was educated for the bar, but
soon showed a strong preference for the military career, in which he
quickly made his way during the wars of the French Revolution under
Kleber, Marceau and Jourdan, in the Rhenish campaigns. In 1799 he became
general of division, and contributed to the success of the famous attack
by General Richepanse on the Austrian flank and rear at Hohenlinden
(December 1800). Becoming known for his Anglophobe tendencies, he was
selected by Napoleon early in the year 1802 for the command of the
French possessions in the East Indies. The secret instructions issued to
him bade him prepare the way, so that in due course (September 1804 was
hinted at as the suitable time) everything might be ready for an attack
on the British power in India. Napoleon held out to him the hope of
acquiring lasting glory in that enterprise. Decaen set sail with Admiral
Linois early in March 1803 with a small expeditionary force, touched at
the Cape of Good Hope (then in Dutch hands), and noted the condition of
the fortifications there. On arriving at Pondicherry he found matters in
a very critical condition. Though the outbreak of war in Europe had not
yet been heard of, the hostile preparations adopted by the Marquis
Wellesley caused Decaen to withdraw promptly to the Isle of France
(Mauritius), where, during eight years, he sought to harass British
trade and prepare for plans of alliance with the Mahratta princes of
India. They all came to naught. Linois was captured by a British
squadron, and ultimately, in 1811, Mauritius itself fell to the Union
Jack. Returning to France on honourable terms, Decaen received the
command of the French troops in Catalonia. The rest of his career calls
for no special mention. He died of the cholera in 1832.
See M. L. E. Gautier, _Biographie du general Decaen_ (Caen, 1850).
(J. Hl. R.)
DECALOGUE (in patristic Gr. [Greek: he dekalogos], sc. [Greek: biblos]
or [Greek: nomothesia]), another name for the biblical _Ten
Commandments_, in Hebrew the _Ten Words_ (Deut. iv. 13, x. 4; Ex. xxxiv.
28), written by God on the two tables of stone (Ex. xxiv. 12, xxxii.
16), the so-called _Tables of the Revelation_ (E.V. "tables of
testimony," Ex. xxxiv. 29), or _Tables of the Covenant_ (Deut. ix. 9,
11, 15). These tables were broken by Moses (Ex. xxxii. 19), and two new
ones were hewn (xxxiv. 1), and upon them were written the words of the
covenant by Moses (xxxiv. 27 sqq.) or, according to another view, by God
himself (Deut. iv. 13, ix. 10). They were deposited in the Ark (Ex. xxv.
21; 1 Kings viii. 9). In Deuteronomy the inscription on these tables,
which is briefly called the covenant (iv. 13), is expressly identified
with the words spoken by Jehovah (Yahweh) out of the midst of the fire
at Mt. Sinai or Horeb (according to the Deuteronomic tradition), in the
ears of the whole people on the "day of the assembly," and rehearsed in
v. 6-21. In the narrative of Exodus the relation of the "ten words" of
xxxiv. to the words spoken from Sinai, xx. 2-17, is not so clearly
indicated, and it is generally agreed that the Pentateuch presents
divergent and irreconcilable views of the Sinaitic covenant.
As regards the Decalogue, as usually understood, and embodied in the
parallel passages in Ex. xx. and Deut. v., certain preliminary points of
detail have to be noticed. The variations in the parallel texts are
partly verbal, partly stylistic (e.g. "Remember the Sabbath day," Ex.;
but "observe," &c., Deut.), and partly consist of amplifications or
divergent explanations. Thus the reason assigned for the institution of
the Sabbath in Exodus is drawn from the creation, and agrees with Gen.
ii. 3. In Deuteronomy the command is based on the duty of humanity to
servants and the memory of Egyptian bondage. Again, in the tenth
commandment, as given in Exodus, "house" means house and household,
including the wife and all the particulars which are enumerated in ver.
17. In Deuteronomy, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife," comes
first, and "house" following in association with field is to be taken in
the literal restricted sense, and another verb ("thou shalt not desire")
is used.
The construction of the second commandment in the Hebrew text is
disputed, but the most natural sense seems to be, "Thou shalt not make
unto thee a graven image; (and) to no visible shape in heaven, &c.,
shalt thou bow down, &c." The third commandment might be rendered, "Thou
shalt not utter the name of the Lord thy God vainly," but it is possible
that the meaning is that Yahweh's name is not to be used for purposes of
sorcery.
The order of the commandments relating to murder, adultery and
stealing varies in the Vatican text of the Septuagint, viz. adultery,
stealing, murder, in Ex.; adultery, murder, stealing, in Deut. The
latter is supported by several passages in the New Testament (Rom.
xiii. 9; Mark x. 19, A.V.; Luke xviii. 20; contrast Matt. xix. 18),
and by the "Nash Papyrus."[1] It may be added that the double system
of accentuation of the Decalogue in the Hebrew Bible seems to preserve
traces of the ancient uncertainty concerning the numeration.
_Divisions of the Decalogue._--The division current in England and
Scotland, and generally among the Reformed (Calvinistic) churches and in
the Orthodox Eastern Church, is known as the Philonic division (Philo,
_de Decalogo_, S12). It is sometimes called by the name of Origen, who
adopts it in his _Homilies on Exodus_. On this scheme the preface, Ex.
xx. 2, has been usually taken as part of the first commandment. The
Church of Rome and the Lutherans adopt the Augustinian division (Aug.,
_Quaest. super Exod._, lxxi.), combining into one the first and second
commandments of Philo, and splitting his tenth commandment into two. To
gain a clear distinction between the ninth and tenth commandments on
this scheme it has usually been felt to be necessary to follow the
Deuteronomic text, and make the ninth commandment, Thou shalt not covet
thy neighbour's wife.[2] As few scholars will now claim priority for the
text of Deuteronomy, this division may be viewed as exploded. But there
is a third scheme (the Talmudic) still current among the Jews, and not
unknown to early Christian writers, which is still a rival of the
Philonic view, though less satisfactory. Here the preface, Ex. xx. 2, is
taken as the first "word," and the second embraces verses 3-6.
See further Nestle, _Expository Times_ (1897), p. 427. The decision
between Philo and the Talmud must turn on two questions. Can we take
the preface as a separate "word"? And can we regard the prohibition of
polytheism and the prohibition of idolatry as one commandment? Now,
though the Hebrew certainly speaks of ten "words," not of ten
"precepts," it is most unlikely that the first word can be different
in character from those that follow. But the statement "I am the Lord
thy God" is either no precept at all, or only enjoins by implication
what is expressly commanded in the words "Thou shalt have no other
gods before me." Thus to take the preface as a distinct word is not
reasonable unless there are cogent grounds for uniting the
commandments against polytheism and idolatry. But that is far from
being the case. The first precept of the Philonic scheme enjoins
monolatry, the second expresses God's spiritual and transcendental
nature. Accordingly Kuenen does not deny that the prohibition of
images contains an element additional to the precept of monolatry,
but, following De Goeje, regards the words from "thou shalt not make
unto thyself" down to "the waters under the earth" as a later
insertion in the original Decalogue. Unless this can be made out, the
Philonic scheme is clearly best, and as such it is now accepted by
most scholars.
How were the ten words disposed on the two tables? The natural
arrangement (which is assumed by Philo and Josephus) would be five and
five. And this, as Philo recognized, is a division appropriate to the
sense of the precepts; for antiquity did not look on piety towards
parents as a mere precept of probity, part of one's duty towards one's
neighbour. The authority of parents and rulers is viewed in the Old
Testament as a delegated divine authority, and the violation of it is
akin to blasphemy (cf. Ex. xxi. 17 and Lev. xx. 9 with Lev. xxiv. 15,
16, and note the formula of treason, 1 Kings xxi. 13).
We have thus five precepts of piety on the first table, and five of
probity, in negative form, on the second, an arrangement which is
accepted by the best recent writers. But the current view of the Western
Church since Augustine has been that the precept to honour parents heads
the second table. The only argument of weight in favour of this view is
that it makes the amount of writing on the two tables less unequal,
while we know that the second table as well as the first was written on
both sides (Ex. xxxii. 15). But we shall presently see that there may be
another way out of this difficulty.
_Date._--It is much disputed what the original compass of the Decalogue
was. Did the whole text of Ex. xx. 2-17 stand on the tables of stone?
The answer to this question must start from the reason annexed to the
fourth commandment, which is different in Deuteronomy. But the express
words "and he added no more," in Deut. v. 22, show that there is no
conscious omission by the Deuteronomic speaker of part of the original
Decalogue, which cannot therefore have included the reason annexed in
Exodus. On the other hand the reason annexed in Deuteronomy is rather a
parenetic addition than an original element dropped in Exodus. Thus the
original fourth commandment was simply "Remember the Sabbath day to keep
it holy."[3] When this is granted it must appear not improbable that the
elucidations of other commandments may not have stood on the tables, and
that Nos. 6-9 have survived in their original form. Thus in the second
commandment, "Thou shalt not bow down to any visible form," &c., is a
sort of explanatory addition to the precept "Thou shalt not make unto
thee a graven image." And so the promise attached to the fifth
commandment was probably not on the tables, and the tenth commandment
may have simply been, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,"
which includes all that is expressed in the following clauses. Such a
view gets over the difficulty arising from the unequal length of the two
halves of the Decalogue.
It is quite another question whether there is any idea in the Decalogue
which can be as old as Moses. It is urged by many critics that Moses
cannot have prohibited the worship of Yahweh by images; for the
subsequent history shows us a descendant of Moses as priest in the
idolatrous sanctuary of Dan. There were teraphim in David's house, and
the worship of Yahweh under the image of a calf was the state religion
of the kingdom of Ephraim. Even Moses himself is said to have made a
brazen serpent which, down to Hezekiah's time, continued to be
worshipped at Jerusalem. It is argued from these facts that
image-worship went on unchallenged, and that this would not have been
possible had Moses forbidden it. The argument is supported by others of
great cogency. Although the literary problems of the chapters which
narrate the law-giving on Mt. Sinai are extremely intricate, it is
generally agreed that Ex. xx. cannot be ascribed to the oldest source,
and if, in accordance with many critics, this chapter is ascribed to the
Elohist or Ephraimite school, its incorporation can scarcely be older
than the middle of the 8th century, and is probably later. With this,
the condemnation of adultery in Gen. xx. 1-17 (contrast xii. 10-20,
xxvi. 6-11) is in harmony, and the prohibition of the worship of the
heavenly bodies is aimed at a form of idolatry which is frequently
alluded to in the times of the later kings. The lofty ethics (e.g. tenth
commandment) is in itself no _sound_ criterion, whilst the external form
of the laws, though characteristic of later codes, need not be taken as
evidence of importance. But the general result of a study of the
Decalogue as a whole, in connexion with Israelite political history and
religion, strongly supports, in fact demands, a post-Mosaic origin, and
modern criticism is chiefly divided only as to the approximate date to
which it is to be ascribed. The time of Manasseh (cf. especially its
contact with Micah vi. 6-8) has found many adherents, but an earlier
period, about 750 B.C. (time of Amos and Hosea), is often held to
satisfy the main conditions; the former, however, is probably nearer the
mark.
_The Decalogue of Exodus xxxiv._--In the book of Exodus the words
written on the tables of stone are nowhere expressly identified with the
ten commandments of chap. xx. In xxv. 16, xxxi. 18, xxxii. 15, we simply
read of "the testimony" inscribed on the tables, and it seems to be
assumed that its contents must be already known to the reader. The
expression "ten words" first occurs in xxxiv. 28, in a passage which
relates the restoration of the tables after they had been broken. But
these "ten words" are called "the words of the covenant," and so can
hardly be different from the words mentioned in the preceding verse as
those in accordance wherewith the covenant was made with Israel. And
again, the words of ver. 27 are necessarily the commandments which
immediately precede in vv. 12-26. Accordingly many recent critics have
sought to show that Ex. xxxiv. 12-26 contains just ten precepts forming
a second decalogue.[4]
These consist not of precepts of social morality, but of several laws of
religious observance closely corresponding to the religious and ritual
precepts of Ex. xxi.-xxiii. The number ten is not clearly made out, and
the individual precepts are somewhat variously assigned. They prohibit
(1) the worship of other gods, (2) the making of molten images; they
ordain (3) the observance of the feast of unleavened bread, (4) the
feast of weeks, (5) the feast of ingathering at the end of the year, and
(6) the seventh-day rest; to Yahweh belong (7) the firstlings, and (8)
the first-fruits of the land; they forbid also (9) the offering of the
blood of sacrifice with leaven, (10) the leaving-over of the fat of a
feast until the morning, and (11) the seething of a kid in its mother's
milk. This scheme ignores the command to appear thrice in the year
before Yahweh which recapitulates Nos. 3-5, and the decade is obtained
by omitting No. 6, which some hold to be out of place. Others include
"none shall appear before me empty-handed" (xxxiv. 20), and unite Nos.
4-5, 9 and 10. C. F. Kent (_Beginnings of Heb. Hist._ pp. 183 sqq.)
obtains a decalogue from scattered precepts in Ex. xx.-xxiii., which
corresponds with Nos. 2, 7, 6, 3 and 5 (in one), 9 and 10 (in one), 11
above, and adds (a) the building of an altar of earth (xx. 24), (b)
offering from the harvest and wine-press (xxii. 29), (c) firstlings of
animals (xxii. 29 sqq.; cf. No. 7, and xxxiv. 19); (d) prohibition
against eating torn flesh (xxii. 31).[5] The so-called Yahwist Decalogue
in xxxiv. presupposes a rather more primitive stage in society, partly
nomadic and partly agricultural; No. 6 is suitable only for
agriculturists and cannot have originated among nomads. The whole may be
summed up in a sentence:--"Worship Yahweh and Yahweh alone, without
images, let the worship be simple and in accord with the old usage;
forbear to introduce the practices of your Canaanitish neighbours"
(Harper). It would seem to represent more precisely a Judaean standpoint
(cf. the simpler customs of the Rechabites, q.v.).
If such a system of precepts was ever viewed as the basis of the
covenant with Israel, it must belong to a far earlier stage of religious
development than that of Ex. xx. This is recognized by Wellhausen, who
says that our decalogue stands to that of Ex. xxxiv. as Amos stood to
his contemporaries, whose whole religion lay in the observance of sacred
feasts. To those accustomed to look on the Ten Words written on the
tables of stone as the very foundation of the Mosaic law, it is hard to
realize that in ancient Israel there were two opinions as to what these
"Words" were. The hypothesis that Ex. xxxiv. 10-26 originally stood in a
different connexion, and was misplaced at some stage in the redaction of
the Hexateuch, does not help us, since it would still have to be
admitted that the editor to whom we owed the present form of the chapter
identified this little code of religious observances with the Ten Words.
Were this the case the editor, to quote Wellhausen, "introduced the most
serious internal contradiction found in the Old Testament."[6]
_The Decalogue in Christian Theology._--Following the New Testament, in
which the "commandments" summed up in the law of love are identified
with the precepts of the Decalogue (Mark x. 19; Rom. xiii. 9; cf. Mark
xii. 28 ff.), the ancient Church emphasized the permanent obligation of
the ten commandments as a summary of _natural_ in contradistinction to
_ceremonial_ precepts, though the observance of the Sabbath was to be
taken in a spiritual sense (Augustine, _De spiritu et litera_, xiv.;
Jerome, _De celebratione Paschae_). The medieval theologians followed in
the same line, recognizing all the precepts of the Decalogue as moral
precepts _de lege naturae_, though the law of the Sabbath is not of the
law of nature, in so far as it prescribes a determinate day of rest
(Thomas, _summa_, I^ma II^dae, qu. c. art. 3; Duns, _Super sententias_,
lib. iii. dist. 37). The most important medieval exposition of the
Decalogue is that of Nicolaus de Lyra; and the 15th century, in which
the Decalogue acquired special importance in the confessional, was
prolific in treatises on the subject (Antoninus of Florence, Gerson,
&c.).
Important theological controversies on the Decalogue begin with the
Reformation. The question between the Lutheran (Augustinian) and
Reformed (Philonic) division of the ten commandments was mixed up with
controversy as to the legitimacy of sacred images not designed to be
worshipped. The Reformed theologians took the stricter view. The
identity of the Decalogue with the eternal law of nature was maintained
in both churches, but it was an open question whether the Decalogue, as
such (that is, as a law given by Moses to the Israelites), is of
perpetual obligation. The Socinians, on the other hand, regarded the
Decalogue as abrogated by the more perfect law of Christ; and this view,
especially in the shape that the Decalogue is a civil and not a moral
law (J. D. Michaelis), was the current one in the period of 18th-century
rationalism. The distinction of a permanent and a transitory element in
the law of the Sabbath is found, not only in Luther and Melanchthon, but
in Calvin and other theologians of the Reformed church. The main
controversy which arose on the basis of this distinction was whether the
prescription of one day in seven is of permanent obligation. It was
admitted that such obligation must be not natural but positive; but it
was argued by the stricter Calvinistic divines that the proportion of
one in seven is agreeable to nature, based on the order of creation in
six days, and in no way specially connected with anything Jewish. Hence
it was regarded as a _universal positive_ law of God. But those who
maintained the opposite view were not excluded from the number of the
orthodox. The laxer conception found a place in the Cocceian school.
LITERATURE.--Geffcken, _Uber die verschiedenen Eintheilungen des
Dekalogs und den Einfluss derselben auf den Cultus_; W. Robertson
Smith, _Old Test. Jew. Church_, pp. 331-345, where his earlier views
(1877) in the _Ency. Brit._ are largely modified (cf. also _Eng. Hist.
Rev._ (1888) p. 352); Montefiore, _Hibbert Lectures_ (1892), Appendix
I; W. R. Harper, _Internat. Crit. Comm. on Amos and Hosea_, pp. 58-64
(on the position of the Decalogue in early pre-prophetic religion of
Israel); C. A. Briggs, _Higher Criticism of Hexat_.^2 pp. 189-210; see
also the references under EXODUS. (W. R. S.; S. A. C.)