Quamvis Roma clara sit, Athenae mihi hoc anno cariores fuerunt, quia ibi et philosophum et rhetorem audire potui.

Because quamvis meaning although regularly takes the subjunctive in classical Latin.

So in Quamvis Roma clara sit, the verb is sit rather than est because Latin treats this as a concessive clause: although Rome is famous.

A learner can think of it like this:

• quamvis = although / however much
• sit = may be / is, in the subjunctive because of the grammar after quamvis

This does not necessarily make the meaning doubtful in English. It is just the normal Latin construction.

The adjectives agree with the nouns they describe.

• Roma is singular feminine, so clara is singular feminine.
• Athenae is plural in form, so cariores is plural feminine.

So:

• Roma clara sit = although Rome is famous
• Athenae ... cariores fuerunt = Athens was dearer / more प्रिय / more valued to me

Even though Athens is a single city in English, the Latin word Athenae is grammatically plural.

Yes, in meaning it is one city, but in Latin Athenae is one of those place names that are plural in form.

This is common with some city names, for example:

• Athenae = Athens
• Thebae = Thebes

So even when referring to one city, Latin uses plural grammar:

• Athenae ... fuerunt
• Athenae cariores

This is just something to memorize as part of the noun.

Mihi is the dative form of ego, meaning to me or for me.

In this sentence, it shows the person from whose point of view the comparison is made:

• Athenae mihi cariores fuerunt = Athens was dearer to me

This is very common with adjectives such as carus:

• mihi carus = dear to me
• tibi carus = dear to you

So mihi is not the subject and not a direct object; it is a dative depending on cariores.

Cariores is the comparative form of carus.

• carus = dear, valued, beloved
• carior = dearer, more valued
• cariores = plural feminine nominative, agreeing with Athenae

So Athenae mihi hoc anno cariores fuerunt means that Athens was dearer or more valued to the speaker.

An important point: Latin comparatives do not always have to state the second thing explicitly. Here the comparison is understood from the context:

• Although Rome is famous, Athens was dearer to me...

That naturally suggests dearer than Rome, even though Latin does not repeat it.

Hoc anno is ablative, and it expresses time when: in this year or more naturally this year.

• hic, haec, hoc = this
• anno = ablative singular of annus

So:

• hoc anno = this year

Latin often uses the ablative without a preposition for time expressions like this:

• eo die = on that day
• hac nocte = on this night / tonight
• hoc anno = this year

Fuerunt is perfect tense of sum, so here it means were in the sense of a completed past situation.

• sunt = are
• erant = were, ongoing in the past
• fuerunt = were, looked at as a completed fact

Since the sentence says hoc anno, the speaker is looking back on that year as a whole and saying that during it Athens turned out to be dearer.

So fuerunt can suggest something like:

• Athens proved dearer to me this year
• Athens was dearer to me this year

It is not just a simple equivalent of English were; the perfect gives a more completed, retrospective feel.

Because they are the direct objects of audire.

• audire = to hear, to listen to
• philosophum audire = to hear a philosopher
• rhetorem audire = to hear a rhetorician / teacher of rhetoric / public speaker

So:

• et philosophum et rhetorem audire potui = I was able to hear both a philosopher and a rhetorician

The verb audire takes a direct object in the accusative, just as English hear takes a direct object.

Et ... et ... means both ... and ...

So:

• et philosophum et rhetorem = both a philosopher and a rhetorician

Latin often uses repeated et for this structure. It is a very common pattern.

Compare:

• et Marcus et Julia venerunt = both Marcus and Julia came
• et scribit et legit = he both writes and reads

So here the speaker could hear two kinds of teacher or speaker, not just one.

Potui is the perfect tense of possum, meaning I was able or I could.

So:

• audire potui = I was able to hear / I could hear

This is not just ability in the abstract; in the perfect it often means the ability actually existed on that occasion, often implying that the action really happened.

So the clause suggests something like:

• because there I was able to hear both a philosopher and a rhetorician

and probably also that the speaker in fact did hear them.

Yes: Latin word order is flexible, and an infinitive often appears before its finite verb.

So audire potui is completely normal Latin for I was able to hear.

Latin could also in some contexts say potui audire, but audire potui is very natural. The main point is that potui is the finite verb and audire depends on it.

A useful rule for learners is:

• possum + infinitive = can / be able to do something

Here:

• potui audire or audire potui = I was able to hear

Quia introduces a reason clause: because.

• quia = because
• ibi = there

So the sentence gives a reason why Athens was dearer to the speaker:

• because there I was able to hear both a philosopher and a rhetorician

Here ibi refers to Athens. The idea is:

• Rome may be famous,
• but Athens was dearer to me this year,
• because there, in Athens, I had the opportunity to hear those teachers/speakers.

So quia ibi... explains the preference for Athens.

Because Latin has no articles like English a, an, and the.

So philosophum can mean:

• a philosopher
• the philosopher

and rhetorem can mean:

• a rhetorician
• the rhetorician

The context tells you which is more natural. In this sentence, English usually translates them as a philosopher and a rhetorician, because no specific individuals have been identified.

This is a very common adjustment when translating Latin into English.