332 ORIQIKAL ARTICLES. 



different meaning from that which Goethe would affix to them. 

 When the translator has the rendering " a hand with a claw," he has 

 lost the meaning of the passage ; it should be, a hand and the forceps 

 of a crab, both analogous as to function. 



The akalephe or Actinia has been a stumblingblock to the 

 translator. In one place, 144, he translates it the jelly-fish, he then 

 correctly renders it by Actinia, and again the rendering akalephe is 

 a Medusa. Now akalephe always signifies the Actinia, and never 

 the Medusa ; it was also called kvi^u, and was used as food. The 

 description of Archistratus leaves no doubt as to this ; he mentions 

 them in the same verse, and compares their feelers to leaves. 



Kvi^ag 6\p(i)i'uy rag an<piK6fiOVQ aKaXtjcpag. 



As to the wandering of the akalephe it is well-known that the 

 Actinia can move from place to place. 



The Holothuria has also been misunderstood by the translator. It 

 ia a Medusoid animal, and has no relation to the animals which have 

 obtained that name in modern times. When Aristotle brings the 

 sponge and the Holothviria together, his intention has escaped the 

 translator. The free Holothuria and the adherent sponge agree in 

 this, that they are incapable of locomotion. If this is not strictly 

 true of the Medusa, it holds good of some other animals. 



We shall notice only two other mistakes. At p. 145, the sentence 

 beginning, " There are some animals which for the first part of their 

 " existence," &c. The meaning of Aristotle is, there ai'e insects 

 w^hich pass their larval state in the water, and afterwards become 

 winged insects. The gnat and the oistroi are not diflerent animals, 

 but diftereut states of the same animal. 



The translator has thrown no light on the ojiinion of Aristotle 

 respecting the supposed animal nature of the sponge, nor has he 

 succeeded in finding the solution of the difficulty. As the subject is 

 of some interest, we shall endeavour to explain the mistakes into 

 which many writers have fallen respecting the opinions of Aristotle. 

 With respect to the sponges, properly so called, we think his opinion 

 is that they are truly plants, -rravTekCJg iome rolg ([>vtoIc, viii. 1. 3. 

 When he speaks of their shrinking when laid hold of, he subjoins his 

 usual sceptical ale (pafxt, as they say. He also says their contractility 

 is denied by the people of Torone, where he himself must have 

 examined the sponges in his youth. On the other hand, however, 

 he mentions another kind of sponge, called Aphjsia, because it could 

 not be cleaned. This kind has great ducts or pores, but their tissue 

 is compact, and when cut up their substance is found to be more 

 dense and glutinous than that of other sponges, and resembles lung. 

 It is agreed on all hands that this kind lives for a long time, v. 14. 6. 

 I'his kind, although called a sponge, is obviously the Alci/onhcm 

 digitabim, or some allied species. When it is remembered that the 

 Alcyonium is endowed Avith motion and sensation, Aristotle's dis- 

 cussion respecting the nature of rhe sponge becomes intelligible. 



