Jesu, rex admirabilis,
Et triumphator nobilis,
Jesu, dulcedo cordium,
Fons vivus, lumen mentium,
Excedens omne gaudium
Et omne desiderium.
Mane nobiscum, Domine,
Et nos illustra lumine.
Pulsa mentis caligine,
Mundum reple dulcedine.
Now, I found two translations of the last stanza, and in particular of the final couplet. One was on the score I was given to learn this hymn in the 4-voice arrangement of Palestrina (it's his right?), and the final couplet was translated approximately as:
Scaccia la tenebra della mente
E riempi me, puro, di dolcezza.
Which in Italian means:
Dispel the darkness of the mind
And fill me, pure, with sweetness.
So they translated the line pulsa mentis caligine a little freely (it's an ablative absolute but it's translated with an imperative), and analyzed mundum in the last line as acc. sing. masc. of mundus, munda, mundum, referred to an implied me. When I saw that, I was like «Wait, that can't be right», so I looked online, and found another translation online which I cannot find right now, but which was close to this one, which ends the stanza with:
manda via il buio dalla mente,
riempi il mondo di dolcezza.
Send away the darkness from the mind,
Fill the world with sweetness.
Now I remember the one I found translated the ablative absolute as an a.a. and not as an imperative, but the point here is the last line, where the one I found, and this one too, interpret mundum as acc. sing. of mundus, world. This agreed with my instinct.
I came here to ask for arguments for (and possibly against) my gut instinct being right. What I can see here is that the first half of the stanza is all in the plural, nobiscum (with us), and nos illustra (enlighten us), and so abruptly switching from we to I with an implied pronoun seems a bit far-fetched, and imagining a plurale maiestatis to make the transition less abrupt is weird, because in a religious hymn sung by basically anyone a plurale maiestatis is definitely out of place, and besides it is not the choice of the score's translation.
Can any of you guys come up with any other argument supporting either of these two options as the most likely "correct" one, i.e. most likely the intention of the author of this hymn?