triumphed. . . . Among these peoples no less than a thousand strongholds had been captured, according to the inscriptions. . . . In addition to all this the inscriptions set forth etc." In Appian (Mithr. 117) we read: Παρεφέρετο δέ καὶ πίναξ ἐγγεγραμμένων Tovde. Pliny (N. H. VII.98) gives the very words of the praefatio of this triumph. Apparently too in the triumph Pompey used the title rex regum of Tigranes (Dio 37.6.2), probably on a titulus.

Such tituli were then certainly used in Pompey's triumph, and one may well have been employed in connection with the representations of the battle, defeat and flight of Tigranes and Mithridates, to which we have referred. If so, might it not have read somewhat as follows: "Tigranes Mithridatesque pugnant, vincuntur, fugiunt"? This is of course pure conjecture, but it does not at any rate seem wholly without the bounds of possibility. And if by any chance this hypothesis should be correct, how easy for Caesar, of whom Cicero wrote (Suetonius Iulius 55.2): “Quis sententiis aut acutior aut crebrior? Quis verbis aut ornatior aut elegantior?" to outdo "pugnant, vincuntur, fugiunt" by the alliterative trio "veni, vidi, vici," emphasizing the rapidity of the victory by omitting all mention of fighting. This is, we repeat, wholly conjectural, but it is tempting to suppose that Pompey's representations of fighting, victory and rout on the part of the rulers of Pontus were the source of Caesar's "brag" when he triumphed over the ruler of this very same people.

The effectiveness of the Latin used by Caesar in comparison with a literal rendering in Greek struck Plutarch who said (Caesar 50):

‘Ρωμαϊστὶ δὲ αἱ λέξεις εἰς ὅμοιον ἀπολήγουσαι σχῆμα ρήματος οὐκ ἀπίθανον τὴν βραχυλογίαν ἔχουσιν.

"In Latin, however, the words have the same inflectional ending, and so a brevity which is most impressive."

Mr. Reid suggests in the article previously mentioned that for the form of his announcement Caesar may have had in mind a Greek fragment ascribed to Democritus and running as follows: ὁ κόσμος σκήνη: ὁ βίος πάροδος· ἦλθες, εἶδες, ἀπῆλθες. This is indeed not impossible, but lacking as we do any evidence of a particular interest in Democritus on Caesar's part, one won6 Cf. Zonaras X.5.

ders whether the germ of the idea may not have come from such a hypothetical titulus as we have described, in Pompey's triumph, and the form, so effective in Latin, may not have been derived from some Latin author dear to Caesar. His admiration for Terence, dimidiatus Menander, aureolus Terentius, puri sermonis amator, is sufficiently attested by his own poem quoted in Suetonius' life of Terence. Now in Terence Phormio 1.2.53 we find the words: "Imus; venimus; videmus." We have here a group of three words, as in Caesar's statement, all of them verbs and having the same ending. Two of the three verbs in Terence are alliterative, and the initial consonant which is repeated (v) is the one employed by Caesar in all three of his verbs. Indeed, most striking of all, two of the three verbs are the identical verbs used by Caesar, though not in the same form. Asyndeton is employed both by Terence and by Caesar. The close correspondence is obvious, and the effect of rapidity at which Caesar aimed, had clearly been achieved by Terence.

It may be argued that the Terentian sentence has no content of importance and is therefore not likely to have impressed itself on Caesar's mind. As a great admirer of Terence and moreover as one fond of pithy sayings, he might readily have been struck by the form of a sentence otherwise unimportant. Certainly the editor of a collection of åлоqdέyuaτa' was on the alert for statements whose form was striking.

Once more we are in the realm of conjecture, but in this instance the conjecture seems to have something firmer on which to rest.

In conclusion, therefore, one would say that this statement of Caesar's is well authenticated. It clearly was employed by Caesar to stress the rapidity of his victory over Pharnaces, for the purpose of contrasting it with the protracted struggle of Pompey against Mithridates, Pharnaces' father and ruler of the same people. It is moreover possible that in Pompey's triumph over Mithridates a titulus was borne, reading somewhat as follows: "Tigranes Mithridatesque pugnant, vincuntur, fugiunt," and that Caesar not only obtained the germ of his idea from that statement, but intended to recall it to the minds of the Romans. Finally, we have the possibility that a fragment of Democritus may have

7 Cf. Suet. Iul. 56 and Cic. ad Fam. IX.16.4.

suggested to Caesar the form of his boast. On this we cannot arrive at any definite conclusion, but it appears far more likely that to a trio of verbs in the Phormio (1.2.53) of Terence, an author of whom he was so fond, Caesar owed the form of his statement.

CAESAR'S THRASONICAL BOAST

By HAROLD W. GILMER

Allegheny College

In the Philological Quarterly for July 1924 (Vol. III, No. 3, p. 273), Professor J. S. Reid, discussing Caesar's famous "veni, vidi, vici" message, suggests a passage from Democritus as the possible source. Is it necessary to go back to Democritus? Does not the source lie much closer to Caesar, both in time and in literature? The well-known epigram preserved in Suetonius's Vita Terenti is good evidence that the old poet was a favorite of Caesar. A careful reading of Terence will reveal a more probable source of the famous "cablegram." A feature of his style, which becomes almost a mannerism, is what may be termed a sort of "telegraphic brevity." This takes various forms, particularly that of a staccato movement involving such verb-successions as the "thrasonical boast."

It is in this latter feature of Terence's style in which we may find the ultimate inspiration of Caesar's message. Particularly noteworthy are the following passages: And. 89 ff.: Dedit, cenavit. Gaudebam. Heaut. 644: mi Chremes, peccavi, fateor, vincor. 373: cibum una capias, adsis, tangas, ludas, propter dormias. Eunuch. 593-594: accersitur lautum interea virgo: iit, lavit, rediit. Phorm. 103-104: imus, venimus, videmus. 135-136: persuasumst homini; factumst; ventumst; vincimur; duxit. 867-868: ire perrexi, accessi, astiti, animam compressi, aurem admovi. Adelph. 474: ignotumst, tacitumst, creditumst. 703: periit: abiit: navem ascendit. 963: docui, monui, bene praecepi.

For further examples of this feature of Terence's style compare the following passages: And. 102; 116-117; 127-129; 285. Eunuch. 49; 54-55; 192ff.-195; 252; 377; 574; 817; Phorm. 186; 595-596; 829-830; Adelph. 117-118; 120-121; 303; 319; 470; 482; 495-496; 795; 813; 814; 927; 991.

ON THE ETYMOLOGY OF HAMLET

By KEMP MALONE

The Johns Hopkins University

In a recent number of the Philological Quarterly1 Professor A. L. Andrews has argued against the validity of my etymology of the name Hamlet, and has advanced an alternative explanation. Mr. Andrews has presented his case with considerable ingenuity, but in my judgment he has failed to shake the linguistic and historical foundations upon which my etymology rests. Before presenting my objections to Mr. Andrews's theories, however, I will summarize my own views as originally presented. A full statement of the case will be found in Vol. I, cap. 2 of my Literary History of Hamlet.

Any etymology of Hamlet must of course proceed from Amlópi, the Icelandic form of the name. This form I analyze as Aml+ópi. I further explain Aml- as the regular Irish counterpart of a Scandinavian Anle. My theory amounts to this: the hero, earlier called Anle ópe 'mad Ole,' later, in Ireland, came to be called Amlope because Anle ópe would, by rule, become Amlópe in Irish pronunciation. I thus postulate Irish transmission, on grounds which I need not repeat here, since Mr. Andrews makes no specific assault upon them. Be it noted furthermore that Anle is a familiar Scandinavian name, and that the use of ope as a by-name does not lack parallels, as Mr. Andrews himself observes. My etymology is thus, at bottom, simple enough-even commonplace. Its only interesting feature, indeed, is the Irish transmission, and even this is not unparalleled. In other words, my etymology is of such sort that, once pointed out, it becomes obvious.

Mr. Andrews proposes a quite different etymology. He looks upon Amlope as a "typical compound Old Germanic personal name without any question of a by-name," and regards "the first

1 III, 320.

2 Mr. Andrews says, "The whole name [Amlópe] has frequently been brought into connection, if not with Oli, at any rate with its compound Oláfr." But Olafr is not a compound of Oli. The two names are as distinct as Edwin and Edward.

3 Still later the -ó- would be reduced to -a- in Irish pronunciation.