Potential and deliberative subjunctive in questions

A subjunctive as the main verb, often in a question, can mean "would, could, might" (potential) or "should, am I to" (deliberative).

Examples

• neque enim inhonesta re aliqua me quisquam involverit 2.1for no one could entangle me in anything shameful
• quod hominem deteriorem non facit, vitam hominis deteriorem efficere qui possit? 2.11how could what does not make a man worse make his life worse?
• nam quis cuiquam id, quod non habet, abstulerit? 2.14for who could take from anyone what he does not have?
• cur illam, quae omnibus accidit, mutationem ac dissolutionem metuat aut suspectam quis habeat? 2.17why should anyone fear or distrust that change and dissolution which happens to all?

In the text 83

• II.1 nec laedi posse me ab horum ullo compertum habeo; (neque enim inhonesta re aliqua me quisquam involverit) sed nec succensere congeneri possum, eumve odisse.neque enim "for … not"; with it quisquam "anyone" means "no one". involverit could be a future perfect, but here it is a perfect subjunctive of possibility: "no one could involve me".
• II.11 at vero, quod hominem deteriorem non facit, vitam hominis deteriorem efficere qui possit?qui here is not the relative pronoun but an old adverb meaning 'how?'. The subjunctive possit makes the question potential, 'how could it …?', and the expected answer is 'it could not'.
• II.12 ejusdem denique facultatis fuerit, considerare, homo Deum quomodo, et qua sui parte contingat; quoque pacto habitura se sit pars ista, ubi corpore soluta fuerit.The genitive of characteristic again, with the infinitive considerare as subject. fuerit is a perfect subjunctive used as a potential, a softened statement: "it would be the task of the same faculty". (The same form is also the future perfect indicative, but the sense here is "would".)
• II.14 nam quis cuiquam id, quod non habet, abstulerit?abstulerit is the perfect subjunctive of aufero, used as a potential in a rhetorical question: "who could take away …?", expecting the answer "no one". cuiquam is a dative of the person something is taken from, normal with aufero.
• II.17 si autem elementis ipsis nihil grave contingit, quod in alterum unumquodque eorum jugiter transmutatur, cur corporis universi mutationem ac dissolutionem metuat aut suspectam quis habeat?A deliberative question in the subjunctive: "why should anyone fear … or regard (it) with suspicion?" suspectum habere aliquid means "to hold something suspect". quis here is indefinite, "anyone".
• III.8 In hominis castigati atque expurgati animo, nihil suppurati, nihil impuri, nihil subdoli offendas.offendas is a present subjunctive of possibility: "you would find", not "you find". The "you" is anyone at all. offendere here has its sense "come upon, find", not "offend".
• III.8 neque vero vitam hujus non consummatam fatum unquam abruperit. perinde ac si tragoedum dixerit quis ante fabulam peractam scena cessisse.abruperit is a perfect subjunctive of possibility, like offendas before: "nor could fate ever cut off". The perfect here has no past meaning; it only softens the statement. The same form is also the future perfect indicative, so read it with the sense of "could".
• III.8 quin nec servile quippiam in eodem aut affectatum deprehendas, aut addictum, aut abscissum, aut quod censuram refugiat, aut quod latebras requirat.
• IV.4 ecquam enim aliam excogitaverit quisquam politiam, cujus universum genus humanum sit particeps?excogitaverit is a perfect subjunctive used as a potential, a softened statement or question: "could anyone devise?" (The same form is also the future perfect, but the sense here is "could".) ecquam "any … at all?" is the interrogative ecquis used as an adjective with politiam; such a question expects the answer "none".
• IV.6 siquis aliter vult esse, idem ficum succo acri carere velit.velit is a potential subjunctive, "he would want, he might as well want". idem "the same man" is a common way of saying "he also, at the same time". velle takes an accusative and infinitive: ficum … carere "a fig to be without"; careo "be without" takes the ablative, succo acri "its sharp juice", the bitter milky sap of the fig.
• IV.8 Quod hominem ipsum sese deteriorem non facit, nec vitam illius fecerit deteriorem; sed nec damno aut interiore aut exteriore affecerit.fecerit is a perfect subjunctive used as a potential, a cautious statement: "would not make (his life) worse either". The form is the same as the future perfect, as with excogitaverit in section 4. nec is "and not, not … either"; vitam illius "the life of that (man)", his life.
• IV.21 Animae si perennant, quomodo eas ab aeterno ceperit aer?ceperit is the perfect subjunctive of capio in the sense "hold, have room for". The subjunctive makes the question potential, "how could the air have held them?", a doubt rather than a plain question. ab aeterno "from eternity" is all past time.
• IV.46 illius quoque meminisse profuerit, qui quo via duceret, oblitus est.meminisse "to remember" (perfect in form, present in meaning) is the subject of profuerit and takes the genitive illius "that man". profuerit is from prosum "be useful": as a perfect subjunctive it says something modestly, "it would be useful". It could also be read as a future perfect, "it will prove useful", with much the same sense.
• IV.49 accidere enim ejusmodi quid cuivis poterat: at non quivis citra animi aegritudinem casum ejusmodi tulisset.tulisset, the pluperfect subjunctive of fero, is a potential of the past, "would have borne", with an unspoken condition: "if it had happened to him". non quivis "not anyone at all" is "not everyone". citra "on this side of" means "without" in Gataker's Latin.
• IV.49 aut naturae humanae adversari quicquam dixeris, quod secundum ejusdem voluntatem contingit?dixeris is the perfect subjunctive of dico used as a potential, a softened question: "would you say?". After it comes an accusative and infinitive, quicquam … adversari "that anything is contrary", with the dative naturae humanae again. quicquam "anything" is the word for questions that expect the answer "no".
• IV.49 nunquid casus ullus prohibeat te, justum esse, magnanimum, temperantem, prudentem, temeritate, errore immunem, modestum, liberum, aut aliud quid eorum, quae ubi affuerint, natura humana sua obtinet universa?nunquid (= numquid) asks a question expecting "no", like num: "surely no mishap could prevent you …?". prohibeat is a potential subjunctive, "could prevent". prohibere takes an accusative and an infinitive, prohibeat te … esse "prevent you from being", and all the adjectives that follow (justum, magnanimum …) are accusative because they describe te.
• V.1 num vero aegre feram, si ad ea agenda proficiscor, quorum gratia natus et in mundum productus sum?num asks a question that expects the answer "no": "am I really to take it badly?" feram is best taken as a deliberative subjunctive, "am I to bear?"; the same form is also the future, "shall I bear?", and the sense hardly changes. aegre ferre "to bear with difficulty" is the usual idiom for "to resent, take badly".
• V.9 tu vero aliud aliquid velis, quam quod naturae tuae convenit?velis is a potential subjunctive in a reproachful question: "would you want …?", set against what philosophy wants. aliud … quam "other than"; quod has its antecedent (id) left out: "other than (that) which suits your nature".
• V.9 ecquid enim istis blandius fuerit?fuerit is a perfect subjunctive used as a potential: "what could be …?", a cautious way of saying "nothing is". istis is an ablative of comparison, "than these things", the things your nature wants. blandius "more pleasing, more alluring" is chosen to answer pleasure, which allures.
• V.9 ipsa vero prudentia quid gratius compereris, cum facultatem intelligentia scientiaque in te praeditam ejusmodi cogitaveris, quae nusquam impingat, sed in omni re prospere feratur?
• V.10 contra potius solari se quemque par fuerit, dissolutionem sui naturalem operiendo, moramque interea haud gravate ferendo, dum duobus hisce acquiescit prorsus;par est "it is right" takes an accusative and infinitive as its subject: solari se quemque "that each one console himself" (solor is deponent). fuerit, a perfect subjunctive, softens it into a potential: "it would be right".
• V.12 Eas nunc et quaeras licet, utrum in honore habendae, aut in bonis censendae sint res hujusmodi, quibus animo prius conceptis illud commode possit adjici, homini istis instructo prae opulentia sua non suppetere, ubi ventris onus deponat.This accusative and infinitive is the saying itself, Menander's joke: "that for the man furnished with these things there is not, because of his wealth, (a place) where he may put down the load of his belly", i.e. he is so crammed with goods that he has nowhere to relieve himself. prae gives the cause that stands in the way ("for sheer wealth"); the subjunctive deponat "where he could …" is potential.
• V.23 qui igitur non pro fatuo merito habeatur, qui istis vel inflatur, vel cruciatur, vel de re aliqua, quae ad spatium perbreve molestiam exhibeat, quiritatur, quasi diu id fiat.The first qui is not the relative but the old adverb qui "how?". With the subjunctive habeatur it asks a question that expects one answer: "how then should he not deservedly be held a fool?", that is, he certainly should. pro fatuo habere is "to regard as a fool"; merito "deservedly" is an adverb. Gataker ends the question with a full stop.
• V.28 quid enim fecerit?fecerit is the perfect subjunctive used as a potential: "what could he do?", i.e. he cannot help it. (The future perfect looks the same, but makes no sense here.) Marcus's Greek can also be read "what will he do to you?"; Gataker's Latin takes it as "what can he do about it?", which the next sentence explains.
• V.29 cur hoc momenti alicujus esse videatur?
• V.29 velim autem, quae animantis ratione imbuti et ad societatem nati naturae sunt consentanea.velim is taken up again: "and what I would wish is …". As a free man I could do whatever I wish; but I wish only one kind of thing. The subjunctive softens the statement: "I would wish".
• V.32 Quorsum arte instructum ac peritum quenquam rudes animae imperitaeque conturbent?quorsum "to what end, why" opens a question in the subjunctive: conturbent "should they confound?" The subjunctive asks what reason there could be, and implies there is none: an untrained soul has no power to throw a trained one into confusion, as the next two sentences explain.
• V.33 istius tempus donec obvenerit, quid suffecerit, nisi ut Deos colas celebresque; hominibus benefacias, sustineas eos eisdemque abstineas; meminerisque ea omnia, quae extra corpusculi animulaeque tuae terminos consistunt, nec tua esse, nec in potestate tua sita?suffecerit is a perfect subjunctive used as a potential, a softened question: "what would be enough?" The answer comes as a noun clause, nisi ut … "except that you …". All its verbs are subjunctive, colas, celebres, benefacias, sustineas, abstineas, memineris, and together they amount to a list of commands for the time that is left: worship, praise, do good, bear, forbear, remember.
• V.35 communitatem autem quid laeserit?laeserit is a perfect subjunctive used as a potential: "what harm could it do?" quid is an inner object, as in quid te laesi? "what harm have I done you?", so communitatem quid laeserit is "what harm could it do the community?" The question expects the answer "none".
• V.36 quocunque loco deprehensus, felix futurus sis.
• VI.10 aut cur aliud quicquam mihi curae sit, quam ut quoquo modo in terram redigar?curae esse with a dative of the person is "to be a concern to someone": curae is a dative of purpose, "for a care", and mihi "to me". sit is a deliberative subjunctive in a question: "why should anything else concern me?".
• VI.15 in hoc igitur flumine, in quo consistere non datur, quorsum quis horum sic praeterlabentium quicquam in pretio habeat?A question in the subjunctive asks what one could or should do, and here expects no answer: quorsum quis … habeat? "to what end should anyone hold …?", meaning "no one has any reason to". quis after the question-word is the indefinite "anyone", and quicquam "anything" is the indefinite used in questions and negative sentences. in pretio habere "to hold in value" is "to value, prize".
• VI.16 at contra mentem propriam si in veneratione ac honore habueris, et tibi gratum id te faciat, et communioni accommodum, et Diis consentientem, dum quaecunque illi attribuunt ac constituunt, laudas.
• VI.26 Si quis te rogaverit, Antonini nomen quomodo scribatur, nunquid cum vocis intensione elementa singula proferres?
• VI.44 etenim consilii expertem Deum nec cogitare facile fuerit.The infinitive cogitare is the subject: "to conceive (of such a god) would not be easy". nec here means "not even", like ne … quidem. fuerit is a perfect subjunctive of possibility, a softened statement: "it would hardly be easy", i.e. it is next to unthinkable.
• VI.44 ut autem male mihi facerent, ecquid eos impelleret?impellere aliquem ut is "drive someone to do something". The ut clause, the thing they might be driven to, is put first for weight: "to do me harm — what would drive them to that?". The imperfect subjunctive impelleret speaks of a case that is not real: "what would drive them?". ecquid "anything at all?" expects the answer "nothing". male facere with the dative is "to do harm to".
• VI.44 ecquid enim vel illis ipsis, vel universo, cujus praecipue curam gerunt, inde accederet?accedo "come in addition, be added": "what would be added (to them) from it?", i.e. "what would they gain?". The imperfect subjunctive again: a case imagined, not real. Harming me would profit neither the gods nor the world, so there is no motive.
• VI.44 sin de nulla prorsus re consilia ineunt, quod tamen impium est credere, quorsum tunc immolemus, supplicemus, juremus, alia faciamus, quae facimus singuli, tanquam si Deos praesentes et conversantes nobiscum habeamus:Deliberative subjunctives: a question about what one is to do, in the present subjunctive: "to what end then should we sacrifice, pray, swear …?". quorsum "whither, to what end". The verbs name the ordinary acts of ancient religion: sacrifice, prayer, oaths by the gods. If the gods cared for nothing, all of it would be pointless.
• VI.44 at si de nulla re, inquam, nostra consilia ineunt; quidni egomet mihi consulam?quidni "why not?" with the subjunctive asks what one should do: "why should I not take counsel …?". egomet is ego with the emphatic -met: "I myself". Note the play on consulo: with de and the ablative it is "take counsel about" (as in the earlier sentences); with the dative it is "take thought for, look after": mihi consulam "look after myself".
• VI.58 Quo minus secundum naturae tuae rationem vivas, nemo te coegerit.
• VI.58 praeter rationem vero naturae communis nihil tibi contigerit.
• VII.18 Cur mutationem quis metuat?metuat is a deliberative subjunctive: the question asks what one should do, "why should anyone fear change?", and implies that there is no reason. quis is not "who?" but the indefinite "anyone", as after si and num.
• VII.24 Siquidem enim ita vultum quis obfirmaverit, ut peccati sensus omnis aufugerit, quorsum homo sic affectus vitam protrahat amplius?A deliberative question in the subjunctive, asking what one should do: quorsum … protrahat "to what end should he drag out (his life)?". sic affectus is "so disposed", in that state. The answer expected is "to none": a man who no longer even notices his faults has lost what life is for.
• VII.31 meminisse suffecerit, lege certa pleraque ferri, aut paucis saltem duntaxat exceptis.suffecerit is a perfect subjunctive used as a potential: "it would be enough", a modest way of putting a conclusion. (The same form is also the future perfect, "it will be enough"; the sense is much the same.) Its subject is the infinitive meminisse "to remember", from memini, a verb with perfect forms and present meaning.
• VII.44 Ego huic responsum hoc, justumque illud, referrem.referrem is imperfect subjunctive, the "would" of a statement made under an unspoken condition: "I would reply (if he said so)". responsum referre is "to give back an answer". huic is the critic Socrates imagines, who asks whether he is not ashamed of a way of life that has put him in danger of death.
• VII.49 quid enim amplius sis visurus?
• VII.58 cur tu igitur horum similis esse velis?velis is a deliberative subjunctive in a question, "why should you want?", expecting the answer "there is no reason". similis "like" takes a genitive or a dative; with persons the genitive is common: horum similis "like these men".
• VII.58 aut cur non potius motus alienos eis relinquas, qui his alios afficiunt, et afficiuntur ipsi; ipse totus in hoc intentus, quo modo casibus istiusmodi utare?
• VII.66 aut quod per compita fastuose incedebat; quod tamen an verum fuerit, merito dubitaveris.quod "which (thing)" is a relative linking back to the last clause, and it is also the subject of the indirect question an verum fuerit "whether it was true": "which, however, you might rightly doubt was true". an after a verb of doubting is "whether". merito dubitaveris "you might with reason doubt": the perfect subjunctive states a possibility, and "you" is anyone.
• VII.73 Ubi bene tu alicui fecisti, et beneficio ille affectus est, quid stultorum instar tertium quippiam ultra haec quaeras, puta, benefici hominis existimationem, aut beneficii accepti remunerationem?quid "why?" is an adverbial accusative. quaeras is a deliberative subjunctive, "why should you look for …?", a question that expects no answer. stultorum instar "like fools": instar "likeness" takes the genitive. tertium quippiam "some third thing" beyond the two, the giving and the receiving, is spelled out after puta "for instance", the imperative of puto used as an adverb.
• VII.75 in multis tranquilliorem fecerit te, hoc in memoria si habueris.fecerit is a perfect subjunctive used as a potential, a modest statement: "it would make you calmer". (The future perfect looks the same, but read it with the sense of "would".) Its subject is the thought itself, the hoc of the si clause. facere with an object and a predicate is "to make (someone) so": tranquilliorem … te "you calmer", with the comparative of tranquillus.
• VIII.1 at haec quomodo quis faciat? si decreta nactus sit, a quibus appetitiones actusque istiusmodi profluant.A deliberative question in the subjunctive: "how is one to do these things?". quis is the unstressed indefinite "anyone, one"; haec "these things" are what human nature demands.
• VIII.10 at neminem virum bonum probumque poenituerit, quod voluptatem unquam ullam omiserit.poenituerit could be future perfect indicative or perfect subjunctive. Here it is the perfect subjunctive used as a potential: "no good man would regret". It says what would be so, not what has happened.
• VIII.17 sin minus, quid tibi queri profuerit?queri "to complain" is a deponent infinitive used as a noun, the subject of profuerit; quid "in what way, what good" is an adverbial accusative, and tibi the dative with prodesse "be of use to". profuerit is best taken as a potential perfect subjunctive, "what good would it do?"; read as a future perfect it means much the same, "what good will it have done?".
• VIII.37 Nunquid etiamnum Veri tumulo assidet Panthea; aut Pergamus? nunquid Hadriani Chabrias, aut Diotimus? ridiculum foret.foret is another form of esset "would be": the subjunctive answers the questions, "that would be absurd". The idea of them sitting there still is laughable.
• VIII.37 ecquid ergo facerent illi, mortuis istis?
• VIII.47 pari modo, si anxium te habet, quia hoc aut illud quod rectum tibi videtur, non facis, cur non facere potius quam angi velis?velis is a potential subjunctive in a question: "why would you not choose …?". potius quam "rather than" compares two infinitives, facere "to do (it)" and angi "to be distressed", the present passive infinitive of ango. The cure for that anxiety is simply to do the right thing.
• VIII.50 ne pergas dicere, Quare autem in mundo ista sint?Gataker marks the start of the quoted question with a capital. sint is subjunctive in a direct question that complains rather than asks: "why should such things be in the world?" ista has its slighting tone here, "such things".
• VIII.50 sed, quod in hac ejus arte maxime mireris, cum se certis terminis circumscripserit, quicquid intra se corrumpi, senescere, ac inutile fieri videtur, in semet convertit, aliaque ex his ipsis nova producit;quod looks ahead to the whole main statement: "(a thing) which you would most admire in this art of hers". mireris is a potential subjunctive of the deponent miror, "you would wonder at". ejus "her" is Nature, who stays the subject of convertit and producit.
• IX.3 etiamsi enim offendi eis te neutiquam oportet, sed curare eos, placideque ferre; meminisse tamen licuerit, quod ab hominibus haud idem tecum sentientibus discessurus es.licuerit is the perfect subjunctive of licet "it is allowed", used, as often, to say something modestly: "it may be allowed", "you may well". Its subject is the infinitive meminisse "to remember", perfect in form but present in meaning.
• IX.9 facilius enim quis terreni quippiam terrenae rei nulli adjunctum repererit, quam hominem ab homine omni prorsus sejunctum.repererit is the perfect subjunctive of reperio, used for what one would do: "one would more easily find". quis is the indefinite "someone, anyone", here without si or ne before it. terreni quippiam "something of the earthy" is a partitive genitive: "something earthy". adjunctum "joined" agrees with quippiam and takes the dative terrenae rei nulli "to no earthy thing".
• IX.29 nam dogmata hominum quis mutaverit?The object comes first for weight. mutaverit is a perfect subjunctive used as a potential, "who could change?", a question that expects the answer "no one". dogmata (a Greek word, neuter plural) are a man's settled opinions, the judgements from which all his actions spring; unless these change, outward obedience is worth little.
• IX.35 ecquis ergo dixerit omnia et facta fuisse, et semper factum iri mala?ecquis "is there anyone who…?" asks a question that expects the answer no, and the perfect subjunctive dixerit is potential: "would anyone say?". The next sentence still depends on this dixerit.
• IX.40 an non ergo potius fuerit eis quae in potestate tua sunt cum libertate uti, quam ad ea quae extra potestatem tuam sunt, cum servitute animique abjectione anxie ferri?an non opens a question that expects the answer yes: "would it not be …?". fuerit is a potential perfect subjunctive, and potius esse is "to be preferable, be better". Its subjects are the two infinitives compared by quam: uti "to use" and ferri "to be carried".
• IX.40 quanquam quis dixerit, Deos nobis opem non conferre ad ea etiam quae in nobis sita sunt?quanquam at the head of a sentence corrects what came before: "and yet". quis dixerit "who would say?" means "no one would say".
• IX.40 alter, quomodo illius imperium abjiciam? tu, quomodo ut ne abjicere opus habeam?
• X.6 quemadmodum civi illi vitam prospere fluere quivis existimet, qui in actionibus quae civitatis secum ejusdem consortibus utiles sint, obeundis constanter perrexerit, et quicquid civitas ipsi attribuerit, gratanter acceperit.quemadmodum "just as" brings in a comparison from city life; Gataker sets it after a full stop, as a sentence of its own: "just so would anyone judge". existimet is a potential subjunctive, "anyone would judge", and it takes an accusative and infinitive: vitam prospere fluere "that life flows prosperously", with civi illi "for that citizen".
• X.12 hoc enim assequi, ut juste agas, optimum est: nec nisi ab hoc aberrando excideris.nec … nisi "not … except" amounts to "only": "you could fail only by straying from this". aberrando is the ablative of the gerund, "by straying". excidere (from ex + cadere "fall", not excīdere "cut out") is to fall out, to miss one's aim; excideris is a perfect subjunctive of possibility, "you could fail". Since acting justly is in your own power, the only failure open to you is leaving it.
• X.13 nunquid oblitus sis, quales isti, qui de aliis laudandis vituperandisque tantopere se efferunt, in lecto sint, quales ad mensam,
• X.30 praesertim, si succurrerit una, cogi hominem. quid enim faceret?cogi is the present passive infinitive, "is forced": not by outward violence but by his own opinion. If he thinks money or pleasure good, he cannot help pursuing it. quid enim faceret? is a deliberative question with the imperfect subjunctive, "for what was he to do?", that is, "what else could he do?" Given what he believed, he had no other course.
• X.32 hoc autem totum in te situm est. quis enim te bonum simplicemve esse prohibuerit?prohibuerit is a perfect subjunctive of possibility in a question: "who could prevent you?", with the answer "no one". prohibere takes the person in the accusative and an infinitive, te … esse "you from being"; -ve "or" joins the two adjectives.
• X.33 ante ingemiscere non desinas, quam eo te adegeris, ut quod voluptuariis hominibus est luxu diffluere, hoc tibi fuerit de subjecta quaque oblata tibi materia ea facere, quae humanae constitutioni conveniant.
• X.33 horum autem, quae infortunia dicimus, nihil legem laedit. quod autem legem non laedit, nec civitatem, nec civem laeserit.quod has no antecedent: "(that) which does not harm the law". laeserit is a perfect subjunctive of possibility, "would harm", with nec … nec "neither … nor". So the argument closes: misfortunes do not harm the law, so they harm neither the city nor the citizen.
• X.34 Qui decretis veris imbutus est, hunc dictum brevissimum et e trivio arreptum quodlibet commonere suffecerit de moerore metuve pellendo. quale illud est,suffecerit is a perfect subjunctive with potential force: "would be enough". Its subject is dictum … quodlibet "any saying at all", with the two descriptions set between; the infinitive commonere "to remind" completes it.
• X.35 Sani est oculi, cernere visibilia quaevis, nec dicere, Viridia velim.The eye's own words, quoted: "green things I would like". velim is a softened, potential subjunctive, "I should like", and viridia a neuter plural adjective used as a noun. Green was thought restful for weak or inflamed eyes, so a sore eye asks for green and turns from everything else.
• X.35 quae vero dixerit, Liberos mihi salvos velim; et, Omnes quicquid fecero laudent, velim; oculi est instar viridia poscentis, vel dentium tenella postulantium.
• X.36 cur ergo diutius istic moram trahere quis cupiat?A deliberative question in the subjunctive: "why should anyone want …?" quis is the indefinite "anyone", as often in such questions. moram trahere "to draw out a stay" is to linger.
• XI.13 quid enim tibi mali contigerit, modo quod naturae tuae conveniat, id ipse facias?quid … mali "what of evil" is quid with a partitive genitive, the usual Latin for "what harm". contigerit (from contingo "befall", with the dative tibi) is a perfect subjunctive used, like repererit in 9.9, for what could be: "what harm could have befallen you?" The question expects the answer "none".
• XI.18 sed quomodo tollam? reputando nihil tibi inhonestum contigisse.tollam could be future, "how shall I take them away?", or present subjunctive; read as a deliberative question, "how am I to take them away?". Marcus puts the question to himself and answers it at once.
• XI.34 alioqui spicas etiam demeti, infaustum fuerit.The subject is an accusative and infinitive, "that ears of corn are reaped", and fuerit, a perfect subjunctive, has potential force: "would be unlucky". The harvest is the death of the corn, yet no one calls it a bad omen; Epictetus uses the same image (Discourses 3.24.91).
• XII.16 quid enim fecerit, qui sic affectus fuerit?fecerit, perfect subjunctive, is potential: "what would he do?", i.e. what else could he do? A man in that state acts from it, as the fig tree bears its juice. sic affectus "so disposed, in that state", as in 9.1.
• XII.25 ejicere autem ecquis impediat?ecquis "is there anyone who …?" asks a question that expects the answer "no one". impediat is a potential subjunctive, "could prevent", and what is prevented is the infinitive ejicere "to throw (it) out", put first for stress: "and who could stop you throwing it out?"
• XII.34 Nihil magis ad mortem contemnendam incitaverit, quam si consideres, etiam eos qui voluptatem in bonis, dolorem in malis habent, eam tamen contempsisse.incitaverit is a perfect subjunctive used as a potential, which makes a cautious statement: "nothing would spur (you) more". The form could also be a future perfect indicative, but with si consideres beside it the pair reads as a "would … if" condition. ad mortem contemnendam is the gerundive with ad: "to despising death".