The line is preserved in a passage of Consentius ‘De Barbarismis et Metaplasmis’ : sicut Lucilius ‘ore corupto’; dempsit enim unam litteram per metaplasmum, r; et Ennius ‘huic statuam,’ etc.

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)

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. (shrink)

Vahlen , 21–4) regards this as one of the most obscure passages in the treatise. But he himself has furnished the material for an understanding of it, and perhaps a little more can be done.

The use of ατ τοτο, ‘this very thing’, is perfectly familiar in classical Greek; but there is no general awareness, as witness the silence of the reference grammars and lexica, of the parallel usage of ατός juxtaposed with κενος, which is in fact not infrequent in the classical period, and mentioned in Apollonius Dyscolus . The examination of this construction which follows is intended not only to add to our knowledge of Greek syntax, and thereby to defend some passages against (...) erroneous emendations, but also to place in a wider context one of Plato's ways of referring to the Forms. As far as I can establish, the only scholar who has ever paid much attention to ατς κενος is J. Vahlen in 1906, and that in an obscure place, to explain an obscure passage; moreover, he simply accumulated parallels from authors of the Imperial period, without discussing how the construction is employed. It will emerge that the usage is no less frequent earlier, when it is used in a greater variety of ways, especially by Plato. (shrink)