Abstract

Until 1923 most critics were content to interpretas ‘a reversal o fortune’. Then, in ‘The Reverse of Aristotle’ (C.R. 1923, pp. 98–104), Mr. F. L. Lucas argued persuasively for Vahlen's interpretation of the term as ‘a reversa of intention’, ‘any event where the agent's intention is over-ruled to produce an effect the exact opposite of his intention’. The result has been wide acceptanct for Vahlen's theory. This may be a case of truth prevailing after two thousanc years of error, but it looks to me more like an instance ofquid facundia possetI suggest that we simple-minded Ajaxes have fallen victims to the wit of Odysseus.