Until 1923 most critics were content to interpret as ‘a reversal o fortune’. Then, in ‘The Reverse of Aristotle’ , 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 of quid facundia posset I suggest that we simple-minded Ajaxes have fallen victims to the wit of Odysseus. (shrink)