Cic., pro Sestio, XXIV

[hlawson38]

Cicero is condemning the pair of crooked consuls who turned the government upside down and sent Cicero into exile. I need help on classifying this use of the subjunctive:

Quodsi meis incommodis laetabantur, urbis tame periculo commoverentur.

Here is the LCL translation: Yet even if they rejoiced at my disasters, they ought to have been affected by the peril of the State.

I overlooked the contrary-to-fact meaning of commoverentur until after I had checked my reading against the translation. I can't give a satisfactory grammatical rationale for this sentence.

laetabantur: imperfect, passive indicative: they actually did rejoice
commoverentur: imperfect, active subjunctive: they should have been affected, but were not

[Hylander]

Allen & Greenough calls this the "hortatory" subjunctive.

Sec. 439b:

b. The Imperfect and Pluperfect of the hortatory subjunctive denote an unfulfilled obligation in past time:—

“ morerētur, inquiēs ” (Rab. Post. 29) , he should have died, you will say.
“potius docēret ” (Off. 3.88) , he should rather have taught.
“nē poposcissēs ” (Att. 2.1.3) , you should not have asked.
“saltem aliquid dē pondere dētrāxisset ” (Fin. 4.57) , at least he should have taken something from the weight.
[*] Note 1.--In this construction the Pluperfect usually differs from the Imperfect only in more clearly representing the time for action as momentary or as past.

[*] Note 2.--This use of the subjunctive is carefully to be distinguished from the potential use (§ 446). The difference is indicated by the translation, should or ought (not would or might).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0001

As you note, laetabantur is indicative because they actually did experience Schadenfreude at Cicero's misfortunes.

[hlawson38]

Many thanks Hylander for the call on that subjunctive, and for the reference to Allen and Greenough.