Donati motet

[Arnica]

I'm trying to translate the text of a 17th-century motet by Ignazio Donati:

Pete, et agam, dic, et sequar ut tibi complaceam, o bone Jesu. Tu vero exaudi meos clamores, amores, mores, ores, res, es. En langueo amores et muto mores. En supplex ores, en res deploro. Ut tantum audiam post meos clamores, nam amor es, dilectus es.

I don't understand the two sentences in bold. In particular "amores", in the first. Is this some kind of complement of "langueo"? Or should it read "muto amores et mores"? And "ores" in the second. Can this be anything else the the verb orare? Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks.
PS. The punctuation is not original.

 

[Pacifica]

The intended meaning of langeo amores could be the same as langueo amoribus, with a weird construction being used for the sake of the rhyme. Or amores could possibly be meant as a vocative.

In the second problematic bit, oro would make more sense than ores, and it would rhyme with deploro so it could indeed be the original reading.

 

[Arnica]

Thank you! The second sentence of this motets uses echo-like assonances: clamores, amores, mores, ores, res, es. These echoes are then taken up in the following lines. Which means the reading "ores" can't be wrong. The very first sentence switches twice from the first person to the second. Couldn't it be the same here?

In what sense do you understand "en" in these two sentences?

Thanks.

 

[CSGD]

The intended meaning of langeo amores could be the same as langueo amoribus, with a weird construction being used for the sake of the rhyme.

Since it is intended to be poetic, it could be some kind of Greek acccusative / acc. respectus.

Can this be anything else the the verb orare?

I don't see where else it could come from. It is used as a verb in the bold sentence, after all.

The very first sentence switches twice from the first person to the second. Couldn't it be the same here?

I'm not entirely sure what he is trying to say, here. I suppose he sacrificed clarity there for the sake of getting the echo effect in, but as Pacifica said, it would make more sense to write oro here. Maybe the 2nd person singular subjunctive can be taken as an admonition to oneself or as a generalised admonition in the sense of oretur (for which it is often used), but such explanations, while possible, can easily be a bit too far-fetched. However, I can't really see any other way to make sense of it. Maybe others can.

In what sense do you understand "en" in these two sentences?

That's an interjection that doesn't really mean anything else but "O!" ... it is added for dramatic effect, and/or possibly to get an additional syllable in.

 

[kurwamac]

I appreciate what everyone has said about sacrificing sense to wordplay, but both vocative/Greek accusative sound forced to me, though one might be right I don't understand the second person ores at all, really.

 

[Avunculus H]

The very first sentence switches twice from the first person to the second. Couldn't it be the same here?

But in the first sentence the switches make sense - the speaker asks Jesus to demand something ("ask", "speak") and promises to oblige. But why should Jesus pray as a supplicant (supplex ores)?

 

[Arnica]

That's exactly what I'm wondering about. (The first sentence also uses the imperative, and not the subjunctive.) I just can't make sense of "ores". Which is why I asked here.