| E | |
| C | |
| B♭ | |
| A♭ | (A♯ enharmonically altered to B♭) |
| F♯ | |
| 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. δέκα, 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 Kléber,
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 général Decaen (Caen, 1850). (J. Hl. R.)
DECALOGUE (in patristic Gr. ἡ δεκάλογος, sc. βἰβλος or
νομοθεσία), 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, §12). 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
- ↑ A Hebrew fragment probably of the 2nd century A.D., in the University Library, Cambridge, containing the Decalogue with several variant readings; see S. A. Cook, Proceed. Soc. Bibl. Archaeology (1903), pp. 34-56; F. C. Burkitt, Jewish Quarterly Review (1903), pp. 392-408; N. Peters, D. älteste Abschrift d. zehn Gebote (1905).
- ↑ So, for example, Augustine, l.c., Thomas, Summa (Prima Secundae, qu. c. art. 4), and recently Sonntag and Kurtz. Purely arbitrary is the idea of Lutheran writers (Gerhard, Loc. xiii. § 46) that the ninth commandment forbids concupiscentia actualis, the tenth conc. originalis.
