Ambiguous Cum-Clause and Relative Pronoun in a Harbor Passage
Your Latin III class is parsing an original four-sentence passage you wrote for a unit on Roman harbors: "Cum mercator navem suam in portu reliquisset, ancilla, quae epistulam domini custodiebat, subito ad litus cucurrit. Nam nautae, quos mercator antea monuerat, sarcinas in scaphas iam ferebant. Puella tamen, ubi primum signum tubae audivit, epistulam in sinu suo celavit, ne a rivalibus videretur." A student renders the first clause "Although the merchant had left his ship," cannot decide whether "quae" refers to ancilla or navis, and translates "ne videretur" as "so that she was not seen." The student asks why "cum" does not simply mean "because" here. You have five minutes before the bell and want to correct the reasoning, not just supply answers.
1. Evaluate the student's "although" rendering of cum. What syntactic and contextual evidence should decide among temporal, causal, and concessive readings?
Read the worked answer
The form cum + pluperfect subjunctive (reliquisset) permits several readings: temporal ("when/after"), causal ("since"), or concessive ("although"). Syntax alone does not decide. Concessive cum normally signals a contrast that the main clause resists, and classical prose often reinforces it with tamen, quidem, or an explicit antithesis. Here the main clause reports the ancilla's immediate reaction, not a surprising consequence: the merchant's departure creates the conditions for her running to the shore. The pluperfect marks the departure as prior to cucurrit, which favors "when/since" rather than "although." The student should test the concessive reading by asking whether the sentence implies "despite the merchant's departure, she ran"-there is no such contrast. The defensible teaching point is that cum is not a one-gloss word; the subjunctive mood plus discourse context, not a dictionary equivalent, determines the clause type.
2. How should the student resolve the antecedent of quae, and what rule governs the case of the relative pronoun?
Read the worked answer
The student should first identify gender, number, and sense, then function. Quae is feminine singular, so it can agree with ancilla or navis, both feminine singular. Proximity is not decisive, but the relative clause-epistulam domini custodiebat, "was guarding the master's letter"-fits a household slave far better than a ship. The main clause also makes ancilla the actor who runs, so the relative clause naturally characterizes her. The case of quae is nominative because it is the subject of custodiebat; the antecedent's case is irrelevant to the relative pronoun's case. A useful check is to substitute each candidate: "the slave girl, who was guarding the letter" is coherent; "the ship, which was guarding the letter" is not. The student should state both the gender/number agreement and the semantic fit.
3. Is "so that she was not seen" an adequate rendering of ne videretur? Explain the construction and the voice.
Read the worked answer
It is close in meaning but grammatically imprecise. Ne + imperfect subjunctive in secondary sequence expresses negative purpose: "so that she would not be seen" or "to avoid being seen." The student's English "was not seen" uses a past indicative and can suggest a reported fact rather than a purpose. Videretur is imperfect passive subjunctive; the subject is puella/ancilla, and a rivalibus is ablative of agent with a/ab. The purpose clause explains why she hid the letter in her bosom. A precise translation preserves both the negative purpose and the passive voice. The instructor should also note that ne is the standard negative purpose marker, not non, and that the imperfect subjunctive is expected after the perfect-tense main verb celavit.