Contrast:

1. "You shall not cross the barrier."
2. "Do not cross the barrier."

When uttering (a), U would characteristically intend A to think that U intends that A shall not cross the barrier; but it seems that a specification of Us meaning, for a normal utterance of (b), would be incompletely explicated unless it is stated that U intends A not merely to think that U intends that A shall not cross the barrier, but also himself to form the intention not to cross.

Let us then draw a distinction between what I might call "purely exhibitive" utterances (utterances by which the utterer U intends to impart a belief that he [U] has a certain propositional attitude), and utterances which are not only exhibitive but also what I might call

"protreptic" (that is, utterances by which U intends, via imparting the belief that he [U] has a certain propositional attitude, to induce a corresponding attitude in the hearer).

We reach, then, the fourth redefinition, version A:

"By uttering x U meant that »"P" is true iff

(BIA) (Ef) (3c):

U uttered x intending

(1)]

(2)

(4) > [as in the third redefinition, version A, with "V-ing that p" substituted for "r"]

(5)

(6)

(7)) and (for some cases)

Logic and Conversation

(8)] A, on the basis of the fulfillment of (6), himself toý that p.

Whether a substitution-instance of subclause (8) is to appear in the expansion of a statement of the form represented in the definiendum will depend on the nature of the substitution for "*" which that statement incorporates.

We can also reach the fourth redefinition, version B, by adding what appears above as subclause (8) to the definiens of the third re-definition, version B, as subclause (a) (5), together with a modification of clause (b) of the third redefinition, version B, to take into account that the intended response r is now specified in terms of the idea of 4-ing that p.

Whether either version of the fourth redefinition is correct as it stands depends crucially on the view to be taken of an imperatival version of the "countersuggestible man" example. Mr. A, wishing to be relieved of the immediate presence of Mrs. A, but regarding her as being, so far as he is concerned, countersuggestible, says to her,

"Now, dear, keep me company for a little." Would it be correct to say that Mr. A, who clearly did not mean Mrs. A to keep him company, meant by his remark that she was to (should) keep him company? If the answer is "yes," the fourth redefinition is inadequate since, according to it, to have meant that Mrs. A was to keep him company, Mr. A would have had to intend that she form the intention to keep him company, an intention which he certainly did not have. Emen-dation, however, would not be difficult; we alter the new subclause from "A, on the basis of the fulfillment of (6), himself to w to that p" to "A, on the basis of the fulfillment of (6), to think U to intend A to ứ that p." If, however, the answer is "no," then the fourth redefinition is left intact.

 In The Annals, Book 1, Chapter 17, the speech delivered by the mutineer Percennius is historically and stylistically notable because Tacitus actually writes it in oratio obliqua (indirect speech), not oratio recta(direct speech). [1, 2]

By converting Percennius's words into indirect speech, Tacitus maintains an authorial distance that subtly undermines the legitimacy of a common soldier and former theatrical leader. [1, 2]

The original Latin text in oratio obliqua and its equivalent conversion into direct oratio recta (along with English translations) illustrate how the speech shifts between these styles: [1, 2]

1. The Opening Grievance

• Tacitus’s Actual Text (Oratio Obliqua):
  "...interrogabat, cur paucis centurionibus, paucioribus tribunis in modum servorum oboedirent. quando ausuros exposcere remedia, nisi novum et nutantem adhuc principem precibus vel armis adirent?" [1, 2]
• Reconstructed Direct Speech (Oratio Recta):
  "...interrogabat: 'Cur paucis centurionibus, paucioribus tribunis in modum servorum oboeditis? Quando audebitis exposcere remedia, nisi novum et nutantem adhuc principem precibus vel armis adieritis?'" [1]
• English Translation:
  "...he asked: 'Why do you obey a few centurions, and even fewer tribunes, like slaves? When will you dare to demand remedies, if you do not approach a new and still unsteady emperor with prayers or arms?'" [1, 2]

2. The Hardship of Service

• Tacitus’s Actual Text (Oratio Obliqua):
  "Satis per tot annos ignavia peccatum, quod tricena aut quadragena stipendia senes et plerique truncato corpore tolerent. Ne dimissis quidem finem militiae esse, sed apud vexillum tendentes alio vocabulo eosdem labores perferre." [1, 2]
• Reconstructed Direct Speech (Oratio Recta):
  "'Satis per tot annos ignavia peccatum [est], quod tricena aut quadragena stipendia senes et plerique truncato corpore toleratis. Ne dimissis quidem finem militiae est, sed apud vexillum tendentes alio vocabulo eosdem labores perfertis.'" [1, 2]
• English Translation:
  "'For so many years we have erred through cowardice, because as old men—and many with mutilated bodies—you endure thirty or forty years of service. Even for those discharged, there is no end to military life; retained under the colors, you suffer the exact same hardships under a different name.'"

3. Valuing Life and Blood

• Tacitus’s Actual Text (Oratio Obliqua):
  "Denique argenti denos in diem asseis animam et corpus aestimari: hinc vestem arma tentoria, hinc saevitiam centurionum et vacationes munerum redimi."
• Reconstructed Direct Speech (Oratio Recta):
  "'Denique argenti denis in diem assibus anima et corpus aestimantur: hinc vestis, arma, tentoria, hinc saevitia centurionum et vacationes munerum redimuntur.'" [1]
• English Translation:
  "'In the end, our souls and bodies are valued at ten asses a day: from this, clothing, weapons, and tents must be paid for; with this, the cruelty of centurions and exemptions from duties must be bought off.'"[1]

---

Literary Context

While Percennius is restricted to oratio obliqua, Tacitus structurally contrasts this immediately afterward in Chapter 22 by giving another mutineer, Vibulenus, full oratio recta (direct speech). This narrative choice deliberately heights the dramatic tension when Vibulenus tearfully invents a fictional murdered brother to whip the crowd into a frenzy. [1, 2, 3]

If you are working on a specific translation or composition assignment, would you like to review the grammatical shift rules (like subjunctive mood changes and pronoun flips) used to jump between these two styles, or look at Vibulenus's actual direct speech text?

L'AI può commettere errori, quindi verifica le risposte 

and was percennius speech succesful-does the second mutineer credit him?

Yes, Percennius’s speech was wildly successful in achieving its immediate goal, launching a massive, chaotic military mutiny among the Pannonian legions. However, the second mutineer, Vibulenus, does not credit Percennius in his own famous speech. Instead, Vibulenus hijacks the momentum of the crowd to deliver a deeply personal, emotionally manipulative theatrical performance. [1, 2]

The success of Percennius's rhetoric and how Vibulenus interacts with it within the narrative framework of Tacitus's Annals develops through several key stages: [1]

1. The Immediate Success of Percennius

Percennius's speech (Annals 1.17) acts as the spark that sets the camp on fire. Tacitus notes that his audience was primed for rebellion, but Percennius successfully focuses their vague grievances into actionable rage. Following his speech: [1, 2]

• The soldiers completely refuse to obey their commanders.
• They forcefully unite three separate legions (the 8th, 11th, and 14th) into a single rebellious mass.
• They ignore the pleas of their general, Junius Blaesus, and physically drive out or assault the centurions.[1, 2, 3, 4]

2. Enter Vibulenus: No Credit, Just Escalation

When Vibulenus steps up to speak in Chapter 22, the mutiny has already broken out into open violence. He does not praise Percennius, quote him, or refer to his leadership. Instead, Vibulenus completely shifts the narrative from Percennius's structural, economic complaints (pay, years of service, clothing costs) to a visceral, bloody narrative of immediate atrocity. [1, 2]

Using the oratio recta (direct speech) denied to Percennius, Vibulenus cries out to the crowd: [1]

"You have indeed restored light and life to these innocent and most miserable men... but who will restore life to my brother, or my brother to me?" [1, 2]

He goes on to claim that Blaesus had his brother slaughtered by gladiators simply for speaking out for the soldiers. [1]

3. The Lie That Eclipsed Percennius

Vibulenus’s performance is so powerful that it completely drives the soldiers into a frenzy. They begin searching for the body and preparing to execute Blaesus's slaves. [1]

However, Tacitus reveals that Vibulenus’s brother did not exist. He fabricated the entire story. While Percennius successfully used logic and real grievances to start the fire, Vibulenus used a complete, theatrical lie to make it burn hotter. [1, 2]

The Ultimate Fate of Both Men

While Vibulenus didn't credit Percennius, history and the Roman command tied them together as the twin heads of the rebellion. When Tiberius’s son, Drusus the Younger, arrived with Germanicus's troops to put down the mutiny, the Roman command used a timely lunar eclipse to terrify the superstitious soldiers. [, 3, 4, 5]

As the soldiers began to doubt their own rebellion, loyalist officers went tent-to-tent asking the men: "Are we to swear loyalty to Percennius and Vibulenus? Will Percennius and Vibulenus grant us our pay?". Having broken the spirit of the mutiny, Drusus ordered both Percennius and Vibulenus to be executed, and their bodies were promptly buried inside the general's tent to avoid creating martyrs. [1, 3, 4, 5]

If you are tracking the specific themes of the Pannonian mutiny, would you like to explore how Tacitus uses theater and acting metaphors to describe both of these rebel leaders?

L'AI può commettere errori, quindi verifica le risposte 

and where P. speech take place? hed been an actor at Rome?

Percennius’s speech took place in a Roman military camp in the province of Pannonia (modern-day Hungary/Austria/Balkans). Specifically, Tacitus notes that three legions (the 8th, 11th, and 14th) were stationed together in summer quarters (aestivis castris) under the command of the general Junius Blaesus. When news of Emperor Augustus’s death reached the camp, Blaesus suspended normal military duties for a period of mourning and celebration, which gave the soldiers idle time to gather, complain, and eventually listen to Percennius. [1, 2, 3]

Had he been an actor in Rome?

Yes, but with an important distinction. Tacitus specifically writes that before becoming a soldier, Percennius had been a leader or claqueur of theatrical factions (dux olim theatralium operarum) in Rome. []

• His Role: Rather than just an actor performing on stage, he was a leader of the operae theatrales—the rowdy, organized groups of fans and hired applauders who frequented Roman theater.
• The Connection: These faction leaders were notorious in Rome for inciting theater riots, managing crowds, and coordinating public chants. [1]
• Why it Matters: Tacitus mentions this background deliberately to insult Percennius's character and explain his dangerous skillset. He tells the reader that Percennius possessed a "ready tongue" (procax lingua) and was highly "experienced in the actor's art of stirring an audience" (histrionali studio flagrare populos). []

By highlighting this, Tacitus implies that the mutiny was not a noble political uprising, but rather a dangerous riot orchestrated by a low-class street performer manipulating an ignorant, emotional crowd. []

If you are examining the societal views of the period, would you like to explore how Romans viewed actors and theater workers—who held a legal status known as infamia—or look at how the military general Blaesus tried to restore order?