# tu plantata micas secus est ubi cursus aquarum



## bedefan

Hello all,

I'm still working through some Fortunatus translations.

I'm wondering about the following elegiac couplet (about a tree):

_tu plantata micas secus est ubi cursus aquarum
spargis et ornatas flore recente comas_.


The _tu _is feminine.

Can this be rendered something like:

"You glimmer, planted beside where the course of waters is
and you dapple your adorned leaves with a young flower."

I'm particularly baffled by the first line. I'm guessing _secus _here means "beside"? Lewis and Short gives that as an alternate meaning. And then the object of _secus _would be _ubi_, and the _est _is just strangely placed? Does that make any sense?

I'm also curious about how to take _spargis_. Could it mean something more like "sprinkle"?

Thanks a bunch.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Hi,


bedefan said:


> I'm particularly baffled by the first line. I'm guessing _secus _here means "beside"? Lewis and Short gives that as an alternate meaning. And then the object of _secus _would be _ubi_, and the _est _is just strangely placed? Does that make any sense?


The placement is strange but I think you got it right and it seems like this was a possible order in later Latin. I didn't do a thorough search but google gives results like

Spiritus exutum se gaudeat esse solutum,
Est ubi virtutum regnum sine labe statutum.
May his spirit rejoice to be rid of it and freed,
Where the kingdom of virtues is established without stain.

Est ubi gloria nunc Babylonia
Where now is the glory of Babylon



> I'm also curious about how to take _spargis_. Could it mean something more like "sprinkle"?


I think it does, but I'd also say in the second line you have two main verbs: you sprinkle and adorn...


----------



## Cagey

Your translation looks good to me. 
A couple of minor comments:

1) _secus_ in Late Latin is an adverb, meaning _near_.  This does not change your translation, but offers a less strained explanation of the grammar.

2) Yes, _spargis_ can mean _sprinkle, strew, scatter_, as for instance seeds, flowers, or leaves.

3)Re:  _ornatas flore recente comas_: I would be inclined to take _flore_ as an ablative of means with _ornatas_, so, "adorned by/with a young flower." 
Also, the singular _flore_ may stand for flowers in general: "the young/ fresh flower" or "young flowers".  Or maybe, to preserve the singular, "with fresh bloom."


----------



## brian

Hi bedefan,

I think perhaps "comas" refers not to the leaves of the flower, but rather to the grass upon which the flower is planted. It seems the author is saying that the plant itself adorns the grass (ground) by giving it (the grass) the flower itself. My take:



> _tu plantata micas secus est ubi cursus aquarum
> spargis et ornatas flore recente comas_.


_You spring forth/shine bright*, planted along the path of the water(s)
And you cover the grass adorned with a fresh flower._

*In terms of water and fountains, "micare" means "to spring forth," but in terms of stars, lightning, etc. means "to shine bright." Here maybe it depends on the context of the rest of the poem, though as it is I'd choose "spring forth."


brian


----------



## modus.irrealis

This hymn seems to be discussed in some of the older books that are scanned online (at archive.org, http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=&scope=books, books.google.com -- which are all good resources for this kind of thing).

About _secus ubi est_, it's strange that these books all comment about _secus_ being used unclassically as a preposition -- with an unexpressed object (possibly _locus_) that's modified by _ubi_, but nobody mentions the position of _est_, which maybe is not so strange a position after all. And they all compare this line to Psalm 1.3: et erit tamquam lignum quod plantatum est secus decursus aquarum...

And nobody, there or here, seems to like my idea of taking _comas_ as a verb (but then why _et_ after _spargis_?), but one note has:


> 'foliage.' The idea of _spargis_ appears to be that the tree showers its beneficent leaves upon those who take refuge under it.


----------



## Cagey

Don't you think, MI, that _et_ follows _spargis_ in the manner usual with _que_?


----------



## modus.irrealis

Cagey said:


> Don't you think, MI, that _et_ follows _spargis_ in the manner usual with _que_?


It's probably just my inexperience with Latin showing. Knowing Greek better than Latin, in the back of my head I have _et_ = _kai_ and _que = te_, so I've been thinking that _et_ can only go with what follows and doesn't function like _que_. Even now that I take _comas_ as a noun, I still want to interpret _et_ as meaning "too" or "even" and affecting what follows. But now I know better.


----------

