The Ambiguous Cum-Clause at the Siege
During a timed practice paper, a student encounters this sentence in a passage about a hilltown siege: 'Cum barbari portas oppugnarent, tamen oppidani, qui paucissimi erant, virtutem summam praestiterunt.' Her draft reads: 'When the barbarians were attacking the gates, nevertheless the townspeople, who were very few, displayed the greatest courage.' Her teacher marks the cum-clause as mistranslated and asks her to reconsider. The student knows that cum can be temporal, causal, or concessive, and that the mood of the verb matters. She also notices the word tamen in the main clause and the relative clause qui paucissimi erant. She has five minutes left in the exam and must decide quickly whether to revise her translation, and if so, how. The sentence is worth four marks: two for the cum-clause, one for the relative clause, one for the main clause. She cannot ask for help.
1. Identify the function of the cum-clause in the sentence and justify your choice with two grammatical signals. Then give the correct translation of the whole sentence.
Read the worked answer
The cum-clause is concessive: 'Although the barbarians were attacking the gates...' Two signals: (1) The main clause contains 'tamen' ('nevertheless'), which explicitly marks a contrast and is the standard partner of a concessive cum-clause. (2) The verb 'oppugnarent' is subjunctive. A purely temporal 'when/while' would normally take the indicative ('oppugnabant') unless it is narrative cum, but narrative cum is not paired with 'tamen'. The relative clause 'qui paucissimi erant' adds a second concessive colour ('though they were very few'), reinforcing the contrast. Correct translation: 'Although the barbarians were attacking the gates, nevertheless the townspeople, though they were very few, displayed the greatest courage.'
2. How would the translation change if 'tamen' were removed? Would the cum-clause still be concessive?
Read the worked answer
Without 'tamen', the concessive force is weaker but not impossible. The subjunctive 'oppugnarent' still allows a concessive reading ('although'), but it could also be causal ('since the barbarians were attacking') or temporal ('when'). In practice, a Roman reader would use context: the relative clause 'qui paucissimi erant' hints at concession (the townspeople were few, yet they fought bravely). But the decisive signal is gone, so the sentence becomes ambiguous. A safe translation might be 'When or since the barbarians were attacking the gates, the townspeople, though very few, displayed the greatest courage.' The removal of 'tamen' does not force a temporal reading, but it removes the explicit contrast.
3. If the verb were indicative 'oppugnabant' instead of subjunctive 'oppugnarent', what would the cum-clause mean, and why would 'tamen' then be odd?
Read the worked answer
With the indicative, 'cum' is temporal: 'When or while the barbarians were attacking the gates.' The indicative presents the action as a plain fact in time, not as a circumstance viewed through the writer's comment. 'Tamen' would be odd because a temporal 'when' clause does not set up a concession; 'nevertheless' expects an 'although' clause. To keep 'tamen', you need the subjunctive to signal concession. This shows that mood, not just the word 'cum', carries the grammatical meaning.