Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
DUECHO ONCE MORE
In the course of a review of Hanssen, Spanische Grammatik, just
published in The Romanic Review II 331, Mr. Lang devotes more
than one page (334-35) to my etymology of Duecho (Mod. Phil. VII
['09] 53). Although the tone in which his remarks are made is not
warranted by the circumstances, I shall concern myself here wholly
with questions of fact.
In § 2 (p. 54) of my article I make the following statement:
"Lang, ZrP. XXXII p. 394, refers [in the body of an article] 1 for
doito de etc. to O.Sp. duecho and Prov. duch, [and in a footnote (3)
appended to duecho] 1 to Lanchetas (who deserves no mention), 2 to
Menendez Pidal, Manual § 122, 2 ducho<ductu, and to ZrP. XIX
p. 535. Carolina Michaelis de Vasconcellos, at the latter place, says:
' Ob [doito] auf doctus oder ductus zuruckzufiihren ist, steht ubrigens
noch nicht fest.' In a note appended to this statement she seems
to favor ductus."
Mr. Lang (p. 334) says: "Prof. Pietsch pieced the first two of
these notes [i.e. ZrP XXXII 394 notes 3 3 and 4] 1 and a shred of the
passage to which they are appended together, and inserted this patch-
work in his article as one of 'the previous attempts to settle the ety-
mology of these forms ' (i.e. ducho, duecho)." It ought to be clear to
Mr. Lang that a paragraph which specifically connects Du Cange-
Carpentier and Foerster with the discussion of Fr. duit, Levy with Pr.
dock . . . . , Cornu and Lang with Port, adoito and doito, does not confine
itself to a consideration of the forms ducho, duecho as Mr. Lang
strangely assumes. And why I should be charged with piecing
together two notes and a shred of the passage to which they are
appended, when the attachment of the notes to the passage in
question is the work of Mr. Lang himself, I do not understand.
Furthermore, if Mr. Lang had read my statements with care, he
would have seen that I do not in any part of my article suggest that
he had discussed the origin of the Sp. forms ducho, duecho, nor do I
1 Words in brackets are inserted by me. 3 1 use only note 3 ; cf. supra.
s "inde irae et lacrimae. "
417] 1 [Modern Philology, January, 1912
2 K. PlETSCH
credit to him any of "the previous attempts to settle the etymology
of these forms." I specifically say that he "refers" to others. That
in the body of his text Mr. Lang was concerned with the meaning of
doito is true; but footnote 3 reads as follows:
"Lanchetas, s.v.; Pidal, Gram. Hist? § 122, 2 ducho (lat. ductus).
Vgl. zur Etymologie auch Zeitschrift 19, 535, Anm. 5." 1
I submit that nothing in this note indicated that the three lines
devoted by Lanchetas to the etymology (which called forth my dis-
paraging remark in regard to Lanchetas) were excluded from Mr.
Lang's reference, and that the specific indication of the discussion of
the etymology by Menendez Pidal and the phrase "zur Etymologie
auch " in the reference to ZrP XIX suggested that these lines, no less
than the single line devoted by Lanchetas to the meaning, were con-
templated in Mr. Lang's reference. It is clear then that I did not
cite Mr. Lang as among those attempting to settle the etymology of
any form of duecho or its congeners and that I was entirely accurate
in the language I used concerning his reference to others.
1 have already spoken of the curious misinterpretation by which
Mr. Lang supposes that the only forms discussed by me are Sp.
ducho, duecho. Having made this misinterpretation, it is perhaps not
strange, but hardly fair, that he should substitute these Sp. forms for
my own expression "these forms" (referring of course, as the context
clearly shows, not only to the Sp. words but to cognate words
in the other Romance languages). And it is particularly unfair in
view of the use made of the substitution. Mr. Lang says: "In a
similar way Foerster, Rom. Stud. Ill p. 181 on O.Fr. duit [I say
"Fr. duit"; cf. infra], 2 Levy, SW. s.v. duire [I say "under Dozer, . . . .
under Duire"; cf. infra], 2 etc., Cornu, Grundriss I, 932, a propos of
Port, adoito, are laid under contribution for 'previous attempts to
settle the etymology of ducho, duecho.'" Anyone who reads my
article, § 2, p. 54, will see that I was entirely explicit in citing
Foerster, Levy, Cornu, and Lang for precisely the forms dealt with
i It Is interesting to see how this note is rendered in The Romanic Review 334 ;
"note 3 cites Lanchetas s.v. for the signification of duecho (and as his reference to Berceo
is correct, he deserved no disparaging remark), Menendez Pidal [Mr. Lang accepts my
silent correction of "Pidal" to "Menendez Pidal"), Manual % 122, 2 for ducho [yet this
word does not occur at all in the body of the article. Why was it cited?) and (Mrs.
Vasconcellos) Zr.P. 19, 535 for her opinion on the derivation of doito " — [the word
"etymology" Is twice avoided).
2 Words in brackets are inserted by me.
Duecho Once More 3
by them and that the verb connected with each name indicated pre-
cisely what each had done; I said:
"Foerster .... derives Fr. duit .... from doctum "
"Levy enters doch .... under Dozer, duitz .... under Duire."
"Cornu .... connects adoito .... with edoctus. Lang, ZrP.
XXXII p. 394, refers for doito de etc "
These and my other references to Romance forms follow the same
order in which they are given in § 1, p. 53. I submit that my work
should be judged by what I have written, not by what Mr. Lang has
substituted in its stead.
Mr. Lang then sets forth how Diez, Kunst- und Hofpoesie 125,
"quotes Sp. ducho," how Diez, Et. Wb. 564, "distinctly connects Sp.
ducho with ducere," how Diez, Gramm.537 (=11 185), "identifies O.Sp.
aducho with adduclus." And he concludes his article: "In so far,
then, as it was at all necessary, in the light of its sense and of such
words as acueducto, aguaducho, conducta, conducho (adj.) etc., to
establish the etymology of ducho (and with this of dialectic duecho,
quoted from Berceo and identified with ducho as early as 1885 by
Cuervo, Apuntaciones crlticas p. 477), this was done once for all by
the Founder of Romance Philology in works still honored by scholars,
and it is greatly to be regretted that his name should be so con-
spicuously absent in an article resuming this subject."
First. For Sp. ducho in general I refer the reader (§1, p. 53)
to Cuervo, Dice. s.v. Cuervo has about one column and a half (95
lines) on ducho, usage, history, and etymology. It would have been
more than superfluous to refer to or cite, by the side of Cuervo, this
note (one line) from Diez, KHp.: "doito (doyto) D. 34=douto
gewohnt, geiibt; sp. ducho."
Secondly. For the etymology of ducho I refer the reader (§1,
p. 54) to the statement of "Covarruvias (1674) s.v. Dvcho: 'Dvcho
.... vale tanto como acostumbrado, del verbo Latino duco ducis.
xi. ductum ....'" Again it would have been more than super-
fluous to quote Diez, who centuries after Covarruvias came to the
same conclusion. Furthermore, in §2, p. 55, the division begin-
ning: "Sanchez ....," it is clear that I am dealing with what has
been said about the etymology of duecho and not that of ducho. Diez
has to the best of my knowledge nothing about duecho. There was no
reason to mention his name.
4 K. PlETSCH
Thirdly. Mr. Lang is wrong in saying that Diez has once for
all established "the etymology of ducho (and with this of dialectic
duecho ....)." The honor of having definitely connected duecho
with ductu cannot be claimed for Diez who does not even mention
duecho. And Diez is too full of honors to miss this.
More might be said, but "sat prata biberunt."
Inasmuch as there is nothing in the fifty-two lines of Mr. Lang's
remarks which either corrects or supplements my etymology of duecho,
I profit by the opportunity to offer some additional matter collected
since the publication of my first article.
Ad 1: Prim. Cr6n. Gen. 604 b 28 somos duchos (duechos 0)
deste menester. Florinea 1 (NBAE XIV) 164 b cosa no duecha.
Ad 2: I wish to emphasize Baist's statement: "docho fehlt kas-
tilisch" and my own: "neither docto nor doto is found in Spain as
early as duecho." And I would add that while docere is not attested
either, there is much evidence for ducere. "There remains then only
ductu as etymon."
Ad 3 I b: F. Juzgo 39 V. L. 22 Esc. Gfiecho (Text f echo).
Ad 3 I d: F. Oviedo (Vigil) 13 dientro (F. Avilfe 122 dintro).
Vigil 67 b (1274). Caveda 63 (s. XVII) ; 75. La 011a asturiana 14. 29.
Ad 3 I e la: Altspan. Glossen 98 (ZrP XIX 7) sen. 2
/S: Staaff, L'ancien dialecte 16onais 37, 36 (1246) sien. 164,
12 (1283). Cart. Eslonza 272 (1300). 273 (1302) ssien. 283 (1323).
310 (1347). 312 (1347) ssien.
Ad 3 II c : Ord. Caragoga I 234 nuena.
Ad 3 II e: ZrP XXXIV 642 note 2 bueytre(s).
Ad 3 II e a: Cart. Covarrubias (1907) 100 (1255) mocho menos-
cabada. Ferreiro, Fueros municipales de Santiago y de su tierra I
380 (Carta dirigida por D. Fernando IV, desde Salamanca, el 15
de Junio de 1312) mocho menguadas.
Ad 3 II f /3: Ord. Caragoca I 277 adueyto.
The University of Chicago
i Printed 1554.
2 Of. also Priebsch's note, ZrP XIX 21. For senes, sines see further MonSndez Pldal,
Cantar I 391. To one instance for sines de cited at the latter place I would add Ord.
Caragoca I 266. 270. 271. On the other hand de sin occurs in Leyendas Mor. 1 126. 131.
150. Finally I beg leave to mention Arag. sinse « sines ?), cf. Two Old Spanish Versions
of the Disticha Oatonis 15 note 55.