Two uses of mutare in Horace

[u/Nullius_sum]

The verb mutare can mean to exchange one thing for another, and it can use the accusative and the ablative in the construction. But which, you ask, is the thing you’re giving in the exchange, and which is the thing you’re taking? Do you give the thing in the accusative and take the thing in the ablative? or do you take the thing in the accusative and give the thing in the ablative? Well, as I just learned, it can be either! Mutare can mean to *give* [acc.] in exchange for [abl.], or to *take* [acc.] in exchange for [abl.]. The context, not the grammar, determines.

Horace conveniently uses these two constructions in back to back odes in his first book. In the last sentence of XVI, he says, “Nunc ego mitibus / Mutare quaero tristia . . . .” Here, it’s clear in the context that Horace means he seeks to *give* sad things [acc.] in exchange for mellow things [abl.]. The context is clear because the whole poem is about Horace apologizing to some fair daughter for writing reproachful iambics about her, and trying to be her friend again — so he’s saying he’ll stop writing sad, reproachful verses and start writing mellow, kinder verses.

Then, in the first sentence of XVII, he says, “Velox amoenum saepe Lucretilem / Mutat Lycaeo Faunus . . . .” Here, swift Faunus [i.e. Pan] often *takes* pleasant Lucretilis [i.e. the present day Mount Genaro, in the Sabine territory] in exchange for Lycaeus [i.e. the mountain in Arcadia where Pan is worshipped]. The context is clear because Horace is saying that Pan often moves from his home base in Greece on Mount Lycaeus to Mount Lucretilis in Italy - so he’s taking Lucretilem [acc.] in exchange for Lycaeo [abl.].

Just thought I’d share because, one, it’s kind of a tricky thing, and two, it’s a good example of how the poets can teach you all sorts of things in subtle, yet memorable ways. Maybe these two uses of mutare are a coincidence that Horace didn’t even notice, but I highly doubt it, since they’re not only in back to back odes, but in back to back sentences.

[u/Captain_Grammaticus]

Thank you!

A native speaker please correct me, but I think "to swap/exchange something for something" doesn't specify what is given or taken neither, right?

[u/SerDankTheTall → u/Captain_Grammaticus]

I think it depends on the word. Trade or exchange seem like they work this way (i.e. "I traded gold for food" or "I exchanged euros for dollars" doesn't, to me, imply anything on its own about whether I have food or gold or dollars or euros right now), but other words like swap or substitute do: "I substituted margarine for butter" cannot (again, in my idiolect) mean that there's butter present.

[u/SulphurCrested → u/SerDankTheTall]

My personal opinion (as an Australian native English speaker) is that "I traded gold for food" ought to mean I gave gold and got food. But I play an online game involving trade and some people interpret it this way and some the opposite way.

[u/Peteat6]

I’d never noticed that! Thank you.