[28] De Ovi actione, hoc est de Pulli generatione.
Caput Secundum.

Part II
Chapter II
The activity of the egg
that is
 the generation of the chick

Iam quomodo ex ovo pulli generatio sequatur inquirendum ab eo Arist. et Galeni principio, quod etiam ab omnibus conceditur exordientes, videlicet quod omnia, quae in hac vita fiunt, ab his tribus fieri conspiciantur, artificibus, instrumentis, et materia. ut igitur in operibus artis faber aerarius ipse quidem est artifex; Instrumenta, Malleus, et incus; materia, ipsum aes; effectus, seu apotelesma est lebes v. g. vel concha: sic in naturae operibus, et artifice opus erit instrumentis, et materia. Sed illud scire convenit, quod in artefactis artifex, et instrumentum sunt separata, ut faber, et malleus, pictor et penicillus: at in naturae operibus coniuncta simul, et unum sunt: sic iecur, et opifex, et instrumentum gignendi sanguinis est: sic ventriculus opifex, et instrumentum chylosis est: sic quaeque corporis pars ut recte proin Aristot. dixerit moventes ab instrumentalibus distinguere non facile est. Ratio affertur a Galeno in libr. de form. foetus[1], quia in arte factis opifex forinsecus attingit, in naturalibus opifex causa instrumentis indita est, et per organa tota permeavit.

Now we have to investigate how the generation of the chick happens from the egg, starting from that principle of Aristotle* and Galen*, which is also accepted by everybody, that is, it is clearly seen that all the things happening in this life are produced by these three factors: makers, instruments and matter. As in fact in the works of art the maker is the artisan of the bronze, the instruments are the hammer and the anvil, the matter is the bronze, the result - apotélesma in Greek - is a basin or a pot, so in the works of nature will also be needed a maker, instruments and matter. But it is worthwhile to know that in the works of art the maker and the instrument are separate things as the blacksmith and the hammer, the painter and the brush. On the contrary in the works of nature they are joined together and are only one thing: so the liver is the maker and the instrument of blood production, so the stomach is the maker and the instrument to produce the chyle* - today chyme*, so it happens for whatever part of the body, so that rightly Aristotle said that it is not easy to distinguish the efficient causes from the instruments. The reason is reported by Galen in the book De formatione foetuum, because in the works of art the maker acts from outside, in the things of nature the maker is the cause placed inside the instruments and which permeated all the organs.

Quare in pulli procreatione, et agente tantum opus erit, et materia: atque in his duobus potissimum versari oratio debet: Quae duo explicans Arist.[2] marem formam, et principium motus praebere, foeminam vero corpus, atque materiam: atque has duas causas lacti comparabat. Nam in lactis concretione, corpus lac ipsum est; coagulum vero principium spissandi, cogendique obtinet.

Therefore in the generation of the chick only both the maker and the matter will be necessary, and also the discourse has to confine itself above all to these two factors. Aristotle, explaining these two things, was saying that the male supplies the shape and the principle of the movement, while the female supplies the structure and the matter, and he compared these two elements to the milk. In fact in the coagulation of the milk the structure is the milk itself, while the rennet possesses the principle of thickening and curdling.

Sed cum in ovo non solum pulli generatio fiat, sed etiam augmentum, et nutritio, ideo non agens tantum, et materia, sed etiam alimentum indagandum in ovo est: ideoque Arist. dicebat, naturam simul, et materiam animalis in ovo reponere, et satis cibi ad incrementum. Contineri autem in ovo et materiam, et pulli alimentum eo argumento ex Hipp. coniicitur, quod ubi exclusa est volucris, nullus humor in ovi testa inest, qui memorabilis existat.

But since in the egg doesn't happen only the generation of the chick, but also the growth and the nourishment, therefore in the egg we have to investigate not only the agent and the matter, but also the food. Therefore Aristotle said that the nature contemporarily puts in the egg both the matter of the animal and enough food for its growth. In fact we gather from the arguments of Hippocrates* that in the egg are contained both the matter and the food of the chick, since, when the bird is born, inside the shell of the egg no noteworthy liquid remains.

Tria igitur de pulli generatione in ovo indaganda sunt, agens, materia, et alimentum. Sed de his tribus primo statim vestibulo difficultates tres insurgunt. Prima ad pulli materiam et alimentum spectat. De horum utroque Hipp. in lib. de natura pueri ita scribit; pullum ex ovi luteo generari, et ex albo nutriri, et augeri. Atque idem sensisse priscos illos sapientissimos ex eo patet, quod Suidas ex Menandro scribit[3], vitellum νεοττὸν idest pullum appellatum fuisse, quod antiqui existimarent, ex ea parte pullum nasci. Et haec sententia adhuc confirmatur ex Anaxagora[4] a quo, ut Athenaeus scribit; ovi albumen appellatum est ὄρνιθος γάλα idest lac avis, quod nil aliud significat, quam alimentum avis; Confirmatur idipsum ex Alcmaeone Crotoniata, qui, ut refert Arist.[5] ipse quoque ovi albumen nuncupavit ὄρνιθος γάλα, et expresse dixit, pro cibo pullis esse, licet propter coloris affinitatem lac appellaverit.

Therefore there are three things to be investigated about the generation of the chick in the egg: the agent, the matter and the aliment. But about these three things immediately at the beginning three difficulties arise. The first one concerns the matter and the food of the chick. Of both these things Hippocrates in the book De natura pueri writes this way: The chick is engendered from the yellow of the egg and is fed and increased by the white. And it is evident that those very learned ancients thought the same thing since the lexicon Suidas* reports from Menander* that the yolk had been called neottós, that is chick, since the ancients thought that the chick was produced from that section. And this affirmation is confirmed also according to Anaxagoras*, by whom, as Athenaeus* writes, the albumen of the egg is called órnithos gála, that is, milk of bird - or milk of hen, since it means nothing but food of the bird. The same thing is confirmed by Alcmaeon of Croton* who, as Aristotle reports, also called órnithos gála the albumen of the egg, and he clearly said that it serves as food for the chicks, although he called it milk for the affinity of colour.

Quinimmo Arist. eo loci scribit, hanc opinionem hominum {fnisse} <fuisse> : quasi diceret. tunc temporis omnes fere homines existimasse, albumen esse pulli alimentum, luteum vero materiam. Igitur Hipp. Anaxagoras, Alcmeon, Menander, et prisci philosophi, peneque omnes alii voluerunt, [29] pullum ex vitello generari, ex albumine vero nutriri. Confirmat hanc opinionem Hipp. experientia, dum dicit, experientia confirmatum esse, ex ovi luteo pullum nasci, et ex albo nutriri, et augeri. Quae sane experientia[6] quomodo habeatur ab Hipp. non dicitur: nisi forte nos dicamus, experientiam desumptam esse ab ovo duplici donato vitello, ex quo gigni pullus quodammodo duplex videtur, nimirum cum duobus capitibus, quatuor cruribus, et similibus, cum  tamen unicum, et simplex adsit albumen.

Moreover Aristotle writes in that passage that this was the opinion of the men, as if he said that at that time almost all the men believed that the albumen was the food of the chick, while the yellow was the matter. Insofar Hippocrates, Anaxagoras, Alcmaeon, Menander, the ancient philosophers and almost all the others established that the chick is produced from the yolk, while it is nourished by the albumen. The observation of Hippocrates strengthens this point of view when he says that by the observation is confirmed the fact that the chick is born from the yellow of the egg and is fed and increased by the white. But by Hippocrates is not reported how such observation happens, perhaps we say that the observation has been inferred from an egg endowed with two yolks, from such an egg it is seen that somehow two chicks are produced, that is, with two heads, four legs and similar things, while nevertheless one mere albumen is present.

Sed praeterea Hippocratis, et priscorum experientia confirmari potest observatione a me facta in magno ovo, quod non perperam existimavimus binos adeptum esse vitellos: in quo tamen unum tantum invenimus, qui naturalis erat: alterum autem versus partem obtusam corpus non fuit vitellus, sed globulus vitello paulo minor, rotundus, duriusculus, et veluti membranoso corpore circundatus: quo transverse inciso abscessum esse existimabamus: sed potius naturale corpus esse comperimus, quod nihil praeter naturam in se contineret, nam repletum fere totum erat substantia parenchymati iecoris simili, quae tum colore, tum consistentia, tum odore carnem iecoris referebat; quo modo aliquando decoctum in aqua sanguinem per venam sectam emissum comperimus evasisse similem iecoris parenchymati, tum colore, tum odore, tum sapore, tum consistentia{)}.

But the observation of Hippocrates and of the ancients can be as well confirmed by the observation I have done in a big egg that rightly I thought as containing two yolks. Nevertheless in this egg I found only one yolk according to nature, while the other structure lying toward the obtuse side was not a yolk, but a small round formation and rather hard, a little smaller than a yolk and surrounded as by a membranous structure. After having incised it transversally, I thought it was an abscess, but I realized that on the contrary it was a natural formation containing in itself nothing unnatural. In fact it was almost entirely full of a substance similar to the parenchyma of the liver, which either for colour, or consistence or smell seemed flesh of liver, so as sometimes I noticed that the blood escaped from a sectioned vein and cooked in water was similar to the liver parenchyma for colour, smell and taste, as well as for consistence.

Si igitur ex vitello iecur generatur, ergo et aliae partes ex eodem procreabuntur, et corporabuntur, ut opinio antiquorum erat. Contra hanc tamen opinionem Arist. et cum eo Plin. dixerunt pullum ex albo liquore ovi corporari, ex luteo nutriri. Quia vero Arist. nihil non probatum reliquit, propterea hanc suam opinionem ex vitelli, et albuminis contraria natura probare nititur hoc modo.

If therefore the liver is generated starting from the yolk, then also the other parts will be created and will take shape starting from it, as it was opinion of the ancients. Nevertheless against this point of view Aristotle, and with him Pliny, said that the chick takes shape from the white liquid of the egg and that it is fed by the yellow. But since Aristotle didn't leave anything unverified, that's why he tries to find confirmation to this his point of view by resorting to the opposite nature of yolk and albumen in the following way.

Vitellus, et albumen inter se sunt contraria, et natura eorum contraria ex eo dignoscitur, quod luteum gelu duratur, et coit; calore contra humescit: ideoque cum vel in terra, vel per incubitum concoquitur, humescit. at quod tale est, cibus congruus animalibus nascentibus est: etenim alimentum et humidum, et fluidum esse oportet, ut facile permeare possit, teste eodem Arist.[7] eodem capite paulo infra ubi ait, cibum pullis humidum esse oportet, qualis plantae suppeditatur ad corpus alendum. Albumen contra gelu non concrescit, sed magis humescit, ignitum vero solidescit: ideoque cum ad generationem animalium concoquitur, crassescit: quare ex hoc consistit animal. Nam partes animalis solidae, non nisi per concretionem, quae fit a vi caloris, fiunt, et constituuntur: Itaque cum vitellus a calore fluidus efficiatur, merito alimentum pullo est: contra albumen, cum a calore crassescat, merito in solidas pulli partes secedit{;}<.>

The yolk and the albumen are contrary to each other and their contrary nature is deduced from the fact that the yellow hardens for the intense cold and coagulates, while it dampens with the warmth, and therefore it dampens when it is digested or in the earth or through the incubation. But since it has these characteristics, it is a proper food for growing animals. In fact a food has to be both damp and fluid so that it can easily penetrate. Witness is Aristotle himself a little more ahead in the same chapter, where he says that the food for the chicks must be damp as that provided to a plant to feed its structure. On the contrary the albumen doesn't harden with the intense cold, but it mostly liquefies, while it solidifies if placed on fire. Insofar, when it is digested for producing the animals, it solidifies, that's why the animal is constituted by it. In fact the parts of an animal become solid and are structured just through the condensation happening for the strength of the heat. Therefore, since the yolk is made fluid by the heat, then it is a food for the chick, on the contrary the albumen, since it is thickened by the heat, then it accumulates in the solid parts of the chick.

Unde iure ex Arist. sententia ex albo liquore ovi corporatur pullus, ex luteo nutritur. Atque hae sunt sententiae summorum virorum, ex quibus incertum est, ut videtis, quid statuendum sit de materia, et de alimento pulli: hoc est, quaenam materia, quodve alimentum in ovo ipsius pulli sit: an vitellus, an albumen: nam corticem, et membranas esse materiam, et alimentum pulli nullus omnino dixerit. Sed et de agente dubitatur. Nam cum agens sit maris, seu galli semen, ut cuique ex ovis subventaneis, seu Zephyriis appellatis perspicuum est, quae irrita, et in infoecunda sunt, quod gallo fuerint destituta, tamen quid sit illud, et ubi in ovo sit galli semen ignoratur.

Insofar, rightly, according to the affirmation of Aristotle, the chick takes shape from the white liquid of the egg and is fed by the yellow. And these are the opinions of renowned men, from which it results uncertain, as you see, what we have to affirm about the matter and the food of the chick, that is, in the egg what is the matter and what is the food of the chick: the yolk or the albumen. In fact nobody could say at all that the shell and the membranes are the matter and the food of the chick. But we are also in doubt about the agent. In fact, since the semen of the male, or of the cock, is the agent, as to whoever is evident according to the so-called windy or zephyrian eggs, which are sterile and infertile since they would have been deprived of the cock, nevertheless it is ignored what the semen is and where the semen of the cock is located in the egg.

[30] Ac gallum quidem semen in gallinam mittere certum est. Videmus enim gallum gallinae supervenire, et aliquid immittere: quod proculdubio aliud quam galli semen non est: propterea quod gallus testes habet, et spermatica vasa. Sed et Nuper huius rei observatio a me facta est in Gallo veteri annorum circiter septem, in quo vidimus, sinistro vasi spermatico per totam eius longitudinem, associatum alterum vas decuplo ipsomet spermatico grandius, corpus arteriae referens: quod suo principio pone testem appendebatur, inde vero deorsum recta ferebatur usque ad uropygium, et anum: ubi orificium habebat valde latum, quo aperto materia effluxit copiosissima lacti similis, qua totum quoque vas erat repletum usque ad summum, non tamen prorsus tum colore, tum consistentia simili.

Really it is certain that the cock introduces the semen in the hen. In fact we see that the cock climbs the hen and introduces something that, without doubt, is nothing but the semen of the cock, since the cock has the testicles and the spermatic ducts - the deferent ducts. But recently I did also an observation about this matter in an old cock of about seven years, in which I have seen that to the left spermatic duct for all its length was associated another duct ten times larger than the spermatic one and resembling the structure of an artery, and which with the initial part was suspended behind the testicle, and hence it went downward in straight line until the uropygial gland and the cloacal orifice. Here it showed a very wide orifice and when opened an abundant material similar to milk went out and of which was full also the whole duct until the upper end, nevertheless not fully alike both in colour and consistence.

Nam in principio alba quidem, ac dilutior, ut puta minus concocta: in fine vero albissima, minus liquida, magisque cocta apparuit. (Putavimus, huiusmodi vas esse loco varicosorum assistentium, ceu promptuarium seminis: quod illorum in morem spermatico vasi adiaceat: non tamen erat varicum modo intortum, aut anfractuosum, sed aequale, et laeve recta deorsum ferebatur: Praeterea materiam albam lacti similem semen esse coniecimus; ob album eius colorem cuique semini proprium: unde pisces vulgo dicuntur (da latte) quod semen lacti simile in seminis conceptaculis retineant: et Arist. de semine loquens, dicebat; et lacteum pisces omnes cartilagineos emittere humorem: Quod sane semen transumi, atque deponi a spermatico vase in huiusmodi amplissimum vas, opinati fuimus. Copiam autem tantam materiae, seu seminis prius admirati, tandem coniecimus, necessarium fuisse, ut tot gallorum coitibus, quot paucis horis, immo una horula peraguntur, sufficeret.)

In fact in the initial part the material was white and more diluted, as if being less digested, in the final part it was very white, less liquid and more digested. (I thought that such a duct was in place of the varicose structures, as being the tank of the semen, since as them it was adjacent to the spermatic duct. Nevertheless it was not entangled or anfractuous as the varices, but was going downward in a straight line with uniform and smooth dimensions. Besides I hypothesized that the white material similar to milk was sperm because of its white colour characteristic of whatever sperm. Then the fishes are commonly said milky since they have a semen similar to milk in the deposits of the semen. And Aristotle speaking of the semen said that also all the cartilaginous fishes send forth a liquid similar to milk. In truth I thought that this semen is received and deposited by the spermatic duct in this very big duct. At first I have been marvelled by so much abundance of material or sperm, but finally I believed that it was necessary, so to be sufficient for so many mating of the cocks as are done in few hours, or rather, in one short hour.)

In dextro autem latere, nihil tale observavimus, sed videre visi sumus in fine bipartiri vas propositum, et maiorem portionem ad sinistram, minorem vero ad dextram regionem tendere. Penem autem galli reperire non potuimus. Inquirere hic dignum esset quomodo seminis exigua tantum portio in singulo coitu emittatur, non autem confertim totum, quod consistit in vase: praesertim cum vas recta deorsum descendat, et amplissimum, amplissimaque cavitate donatum sit. Praeterea cur in sinistro tantum latere eiusmodi vas reperiatur, cum tamen dextrum quoque vas spermaticum adsit. Sed his in aliud tempus reiectis ad propositum nostrum redeamus. Cum igitur certum sit ex his gallum, semen in gallinam eiaculari, illud tamen nullibi in ovo apparet.

On the right side I didn't observe anything similar, but it seemed me to see that the aforesaid duct in the terminal portion divided itself in two parts and that the greater part was going toward the left side, the smaller toward the right side. But I have not been able to find the penis of the cock. Therefore at this point it would be correct to investigate how in every single mating only a small quantity of semen is sent forth and not the whole semen present in the duct, above all for the fact that the duct goes down in a straight line, and that it is very wide and endowed with a very wide cavity. Besides, why such a duct is only found on the left side while nevertheless also the right spermatic duct is present. But we go back to our starting matter postponing these things to another moment. Although then it is ascertained that from these structures the cock ejaculates the semen in the hen, however it doesn't appear in any point of the egg.

Neque vero illud esse galli semen opinandum est, quod vulgares homines, potissimum autem mulierculae in ovo passim, la galladura, appellitant, quae in ovi summitate consistit, propterea quod haec corpora chalazae sunt, quae in ovis gallum tum expertis, tum non expertis insunt: in omnibus enim ovis chalazae visuntur, ac reperiuntur, et foecundis, et irritis: quod non contingeret, si chalazae essent galli semen, in ovo igitur galli semen non adest, sed quod maius adhuc est, neque etiam adesse potest, propterea quod in ovum galli semen pervenire non valet. Ratio est, quia gallus et si penem, et semen in gallinam immittit, utrunque tamen exiguum est, cum ocyssime se expediat: locus autem, in quem immittitur, ac pertingit, prope podicem est, ubi ovum iam perfectum corticem habet, aut saltim densa tunica obductum est, quam galli semen penetrare non potest.

But, in truth, we have not to believe that it is the semen of the cock what in the egg, unthinkingly, the laymen and above all the silly women often define as la galladura – the fertilizer of hen's egg, which is located in the summit of the egg, since these formations are the chalazae, present both in the eggs that experienced the cock and in those that didn't know it. In fact the chalazae are visible and found in all the eggs, both fertile and sterile, what would not happen if the chalazae were the semen of the cock. Therefore the semen of the cock is not present in the egg, but, and this is even more important, it is neither possible that it is present there, since the semen of the cock doesn't succeed in reaching the egg. The reason is the fact that, even if the cock introduces both the penis and the semen in the hen, both are nevertheless of small dimensions, since it acts in a hurry. Actually the point in which they are introduced and with which they enter in touch is located near the cloaca, where the egg, already completed, has the shell, or it is at least wrapped by a thick tunic which the semen of the cock cannot penetrate.

Neque dicendum [31] ullo modo est, semen longius ab utero rapi, cum et plicae interius, et spirae exterius, et prolixa uteri longitudo id prohibeant: quinimmo si aer intus per podicem insufflatus non permeat longius, ut supra demonstratum est multo minus semen permeare poterit. Et ex hac difficultate alia quoque tertia oritur. Nam etsi Galli semen agens in ovo est, ita ut pullus, non nisi galli seminis virtute, ac facultate oriatur; experientia tamen commonstrat, id solum sufficiens non esse, sed locum quoque ut agens necessario requiri. Unde etsi ut plurimum ova cubando, seu in cubatione gignitur pullus, non raro tamen etiam in fimo fit, ut Plinius[8] in Fimetis Aegypti fieri tradit: nonnunquam intra mulierum mammas, ut in sericinis ovis: interdum in aqua tepida positis ovis ex Arist.[9] sententia interdum in ripis fluminum, ut ex ovis piscium, ut Arist. Similiter scribit: interdum sub terrae gleba, ut in ovis serpentum.

Nor we have to say at all that the semen is kept for a rather long time by the uterus, since both the folds inside and the coils outside prevent this, as well as the marked length of the uterus. Or rather, if the air internally insufflated through the breech doesn't arrive fairly far, the semen can penetrate very less, as previously it was said. And from this difficulty also a third one is born. In fact, even if the semen of the cock is active in the egg, so that the chick is born only thanks to the power and the strength of the semen of the cock, nevertheless the experience teaches that alone it is not sufficient, but that necessarily also a place acting as agent must be searched. Thence even if mostly the chick is produced by the brooding of the eggs, that is, during the incubation, nevertheless not rarely this happens also in the manure, as Pliny hands down that it happens in the dunghills of Egypt; sometimes among the breasts of the women, as for the eggs of the silkworms, sometimes after having set the eggs in lukewarm water, according to the affirmation of Aristotle, sometimes on the shores of the rivers, as for the eggs of the fishes, as Aristotle writes, sometimes under the clods of earth, as for the eggs of the snakes.

Quae sane difficultas ex eo quoque adaugetur, quod uti refert Arist.[10] Democritus locum membra formare secundum formam parentum voluit: et Empedocles[11] uterum calidum mares facere, frigidum foeminas: ex quibus auctoribus vis efficiens in loco ponitur. Quinimmo Arist.[12] ad huiusmodi propositum{.} scribit historiam cuiusdam potatoris Syracusis, qui ovis sub storia in terra positis, tandiu potabat, donec ova ederent foetum: signum manifestissimum, locum multum conferre ad foetus generationem.

This difficulty is also increased because, as Aristotle reports, Democritus* stated that the place moulds the parts according to the shape of the parents, and Empedocles* affirmed that the warm uterus produces males, the cold one produces females. By such authors the generating strength is set in the place. Furthermore Aristotle apropos of this matter writes the history of a toper living in Syracuse and, after having put the eggs on the earth under a mat, he continued to drink until the eggs gave birth to a fetus. An extremely evident mark that the place contributes quite a lot to the generation of the fetus.

Patet igitur, controversiis plenam esse tractationem ovorum pulli. Ad primum autem dubium, quod attinet de pulli materia, et alimento: cum Hippocrates Anaxagoras, Alcmaeon, Menander, et prisci ex una: et Arist. et Plinius ex altera parte sibi invicem sint contrarii: Ideo non video quo modo solvi, aut componi haec inter eos controversia possit. Propterea ego meam afferam sententiam, ut a vobis iudicetur (auditores) paratissimus eam mutare, si opus sit.

Therefore it is evident that the treatment of the eggs of the chick is full of controversies. About the first doubt concerning the matter and the food of the chick, since Hippocrates*, Anaxagoras*, Alcmaeon*, Menander* and the ancients on one side, Aristotle and Pliny on the other side, are in contrast each other, therefore I don't see how this mutual controversy can be resolved and settled. Then I will expose my thesis so that it is judged by you, auditors, and I will be very ready to change it if necessary.

Utrique primum consentio, videlicet Hippocrati quod ex albumine, et Aristoteli quod ex vitello nutriatur pullus. Dissentio ab utroque, videlicet ab Hipp. quod ex vitello nascatur, et ab Arist. quod ex albumine corporetur pullus. In summa opinor ego, tam vitellum, quam albumen pulli tantummodo alimentum esse, nequaquam materiam. quae sententia, ut videtis, partim consentit, partim dissentit a propositis auctoribus. Quamvis Arist. uti dictum est, unicam tantum adduxerit rationem, ut suam probaret opinionem: Hippocrates vero dixerit, id experientia comprobatum esse; ego tamen hanc meam opinionem tribus probabo argumentis a sensu depromptis.

First of all I agree with both, that is, with Hippocrates since the chick would be fed by the albumen, and with Aristotle since it would be fed by the yolk. I disagree with both, that is with Hippocrates since the chick would be hatched from the yolk, and with Aristotle since it would take shape from the albumen. In short, I think that both the yolk and the albumen are only a food of the chick, not at all the matter constituting it. This affirmation, as you see, partly agrees, partly disagrees with the aforesaid authors. Although Aristotle, as I said, produced only one motivation to prove his thesis, while Hippocrates said that this is proven by the observation. Nevertheless I will support this my thesis with three arguments inferred from the observation.

Et primo neutrum ovi liquorem esse pulli materiam, ita demonstratur. Id, quod esse pulli materia debet, ex qua pullus corporatur, et gignitur, consumi debet, prout pulli generatio consummatur, et perficitur; haec est maior propositio, quae ita probatur ex Gal. et Aver. Quia Proiecto in uterum semine animalis, aut plantae in terram, illud sensim, et sensim verti videmus in corporis particulas: neque cessant partes spermatis recedere, et commutari, donec ex eo omnes perfecte compleantur corporis partes. Minor propositio est. Sed neque vitellus, neque albumen consumitur, dum pulli generatio consummatur; id quod probatur; quia consummata pulli generatione adhuc vitellus, et albumen superstites sunt usque ad finem, hoc est, usque quo pullus excluditur; ergo vitellus et albumen, materia ex qua pullus corporatur, esse non possunt.

And, firstly, that neither liquid of the egg is the matter of the chick, is shown in the following way. What has to be the matter of the chick, from which the chick takes shape and is produced, has to be consumed, according to whether the generation of the chick is carried out and completed. This is the more important condition which is proven by relying on Galen and Averroes in the following way. Since, after the semen of the animal has been introduced in the uterus, or that of a plant in the earth, we see it gradually and slowly change itself in particles of the body, and the components of the sperm don't stop fading away and to change themselves up to when all the parts of the body are perfectly finished by it. It is the less important condition. But neither the yolk nor the albumen run out until the generation of the chick is being completed, which is proven by the fact that, after having completed the generation of the chick, the yolk and the albumen still remain until the end, that is, until when the chick goes out of the egg. Therefore the yolk and the albumen cannot be the matter from which the chick takes the body.

Probo modo, vitellum, et album [32] esse pulli alimentum hac ratione. Alimentum pullo suppeditari debet, non solum ubi foetus in ovo concluditur, sed etiam ubi extra ovum exclusus pullus est, quia nutritio per totum vitae cursum nos associatur, et comitatur: Sed extra, pullus per os nutritur, et per exterius alimentum; ergo in ovo consistens nutrietur ex iis, quae in ovo sunt: quae etiam in ovo conservabuntur usque ad exclusionis pulli tempus: sed vitellus, et albumen conservantur in ovo usquequo pullus exit, ergo pulli erunt alimenta: Neque possunt esse generationis materia, quia generatio ut diximus intra paucos dies consummatur, et finitur: et post paucos dies cessat, et feriata iacet generatrix facultas: ex altera vero parte albumen, et vitellus conservantur, neque absumpta, et permutata videntur.

Now with the following reasoning I show that the yolk and the albumen are the food of the chick. The food must be provided to the chick not only when the fetus is shut up in the egg, but also when the chick came out of the egg, since the nutrition is near us and is our companion for all the length of the life. But, outside the egg, the chick feeds with the mouth and with an external food, hence, when it is in the egg, it will be fed by those things which are in the egg, and which also will remain in the egg until the moment of the escape of the chick. But the yolk and the albumen remain in the egg until when the chick goes out, thence they will be the food of the chick. And they cannot be the matter of the generation since, as I said, the generation happens and is completed within few days, and it stops after few days, and the generative power goes on holiday. On the contrary the albumen and the yolk remain and don't seem neither exhausted nor modified.

Omnia adhuc plenius confirmantur alia ratione desumpta ex vasis per vitellum et albumen propagatis, et discurrentibus: quae cum et sint numerosa, et a pullo tum in albuminis, tum in vitelli membranas propagata, et substantiam utriusque sensim imminuant, et absumant, quousque tota pene consumpta, absorptaque sit, et pullus tunc excludatur; ideo clarissime manifestant, vitellum et albumen, neque ambo esse pulli materiam, neque unum magis quam aliud, propterea quod ambo sensim, sensimque proportione quadam imminuuntur.

All these things are confirmed in a more exhaustive way with another motivation gathered from the blood vessels disseminated and flowing through the yolk and the albumen; which being numerous, as well as widespread in the membranes both of albumen and yolk, and which reduce and remove bit by bit the substance of both until when is almost wholly exhausted and absorbed, and then the chick hatches, insofar they show very clearly that both yolk and albumen are not the matter of the chick, neither that one is this more than the other, that's why both slowly and gradually decrease according to a certain percentage.

Quod si alterum horum esset materia generationis pulli, primo sicuti dictum est, {consumaretur} <consummaretur> in consummata pulli generatione, deinde pro generatione partium non indigerent vasis, quia vasa sunt instrumenta nutritionis potius, quam generationis; quamvis statim peracta generatione vasa praesto sint ad alimentum porrigendum, ac suppeditandum.

But, if one of the two were the matter of the generation of the chick, first of all, as I said, it would be consumed when the generation of the chick is completed; besides, for the generation of the parts, they would not need blood vessels, since the vessels are tools of nutrition rather than of generation, even if, as soon as the generation has been ended, the vessels are ready to provide and supply the nourishment.

Unde et ipse Arist.[13] dum in ovo foeto duas constituit venas umbilicales, quarum altera ad vitellum; altera ad membranam pullum investientem propagatur, eam tantum, quae ad vitellum nutritionis pulli gratia eo porrexit; quae vero ad membranam pullum investientem fertur, ea cuius gratia eo mittatur, explicare non potest, propterea quod haec re vera ad albumen, aut albuminis membranam (nutritionis pulli gratia) propagatur, quod ipse putavit pulli esse materiam, nequaquam alimentum ut est. Imo licet rursus Arist.[14] scribat, ex albo ovi animal fieri, ex luteo nutriri; tamen paulo post eod. cap. iis, quae in ovis cernuntur adductus; et quodammodo ab ipsamet veritate coactus, meam opinionem paulo ante propositam confirmavit, cum dixit[15], album a decimo die adhuc superesse in ovo; cum tamen decima die omnia sint iam corporata, et formata pulli organa; in quae albumen secedere, si ex eo [pullum fieri] pullus fieret, oportuisset.

Hence also Aristotle himself, when established that in the fertilized egg two umbilical veins exist, one of which goes towards the yolk, the other towards the membrane enveloping the chick, only that which went until here to the yolk to feed the chick; on the contrary he is not able to explain why that going towards the membrane winding the chick is sent there, since this in reality propagates to the albumen or to the membrane of the albumen (to feed the chick), since he himself thought that it was matter of the chick, but not food at all, as actually it is. Finally, even if Aristotle writes again that the animal has origin from the white of the egg and that it is fed by the yellow, nevertheless soon after in the same chapter, induced by those things that are seen in the egg, and in a certain way forced by the truth itself, he confirmed my thesis just now reported, when he said that in the egg the white is still in excess starting from the tenth day, while at the tenth day all the parts of the body of the chick already take shape and structure, where the albumen had necessarily to end up if the chick needed to take origin from it.

Rursus ibidem dicit Arist. ex duabus venis umbilicalibus productis, alteram, vitellum adire, alteram albumen: quod non contingeret, nisi albumen pulli alimentum esset. Atque haec de alimento pulli mea opinio est: cur autem pennati pullus duplici hoc alimento indiguerit, in usibus dicetur.

Again in the same passage Aristotle says that, of the two formed umbilical veins, one goes to the yolk, the other to the albumen. Which would not happen if the albumen were not the food of the chick. And this is my point of view about the food of the chick. About the reason why the chick of a bird would need this double food, I will speak in the employments.

Ad Hippocratem autem, et Arist, ita respondendum est. Hippocrates dixit, experientia confirmatum esse, pullum ex luteo gigni, ex albo nutriri: sed haec experientia, quomodo habeatur, incertum est: neque enim Hippocrates eam edocuit. Quod si experientia antiquorum ea est, quam nos supra excogitavimus, et adduximus, de ovo unicum albumen, et duplicem sortito vitellum, ideoque duplicem procreante pullum?

But to Hippocrates and to Aristotle we have to reply in the following way. Hippocrates said that it has been confirmed by experience that the chick is born from the yellow and is fed by the white. But it is uncertain how this observation occurs, neither in fact Hippocrates explained it. But if the experience of the ancients is that I previously remembered and reported about an egg endowed with only one albumen and two yolks, and therefore able to produce two chicks,

Respondetur in proposito ovo chalazas, ex quibus corporatur pullus, aut esse duplices, aut longe [33] maiores, aut ita varias, ut duplicia crura, dupliciaque capita gigni, effingique possint. Ad observationem autem a me allatam respondetur, eam nil aliud innuere, nisi vitellum aptissimum esse, ut repente in sanguinem convertatur. Ad Arist. autem rationem supra adductam, qua probat ex albo pullum fieri, ex luteo nutriri, respondetur Aristotelis fundamentum, et suppositum forte verum non esse.

my reply is that in the aforesaid egg the chalazae, from which the chick originates, or are double, or are very greater, or so versatile that double legs and double heads can be born and take shape. The reply to the observation by me adduced is that nothing means but that the yolk is extremely proper to immediately turn itself into blood. To the theory of Aristotle previously adduced, by which he shows that the chick is formed by the white and fed by the yellow, I reply that perhaps the fundamental idea and the hypothesis of Aristotle are not true.

Nam sive Aristoteles loquatur de calore nativo, sive extraneo: et sive de exiguo, sive de excedenti, perpetuo verum est, a calore utrunque .i. tam luteum, quam album, aut crassescere, aut non crassescere. Quod vero uterque calor idem faciat: de extraneo calore id indicio est, quod si ovum ad ignem coquatur, et albumen obduretur, luteum quoque obdurabitur, si intensus sit calor: si vero mitis, neutrum.

In fact, whether Aristotle speaks of the innate and external heat, or of scarce and excessive heat, it is always true that both, that is, the yellow as well as the white thicken or don't thicken because of the heat. But about the fact that both the types of heat produce the same result, for the external heat it is a proof the fact that, if the egg is cooked over the fire and the albumen hardens, also the yellow will harden if the heat is intense, if on the contrary it is scarce none of the two things happens.

Quod si citius, et prius albumen obduratur, quam luteum, id inde provenit, quod album prius vim ignis persentit, tum quia propinquius est, tum quia cortici, tanquam denso corpori, cui vicinum est, vis ignis magis imprimitur; tum denique quia albuminis corporis maior fit evacuatio tum sensibilis, ut ex ovi sudore patet, tum insensibilis.

But if the albumen hardens more quickly and before the yellow, this comes from the fact that the white perceives earlier the strength of the fire, both because it is more nearby, and because the strength of the fire mostly accumulates in the shell being dense the structure near which it is placed, finally because a greater evaporation of the mass of the albumen happens, both observable, as it is evident from the perspiration of the egg, and imperceptible.

Quod si abrupto, et cocto sine cortice in aqua ovo, album concretum, luteum vero liquidum, fluidumque conspicias, respondeas identidem evenire: etenim si albumen prope vitellum observabis, ipsum quoque fluidum adnotabis. Quod vero utrunque .i. tam luteum, quam album a calore nativo incubantis crassescat, id indicio pariter de utroque est, quod in fine cum pullus prope tempus exclusionis est, utrunque crassius factum, videlicet tum vitellus, tum albumen apparet: verisimile autem est, hanc crassitudinem a principio incepisse, et sensim usque ad ultimum auctam in utroque esse: id quod similiter experientia comprobatum est in cubatis ovis subinde per insequentes dies intus visis, et ratio est; quia a vasis perpetuo id quod tenuius ex utroque est, exugitur et attrahitur.

But if, after having broken and cooked in water an egg without shell, you see that the white has solidified, while the yellow is liquid and fluid, you could reply that this always happens, since if you will observe the albumen near the yolk, you will notice that also this part is fluid. Then the fact that both, that is, both yellow and white thicken because of the endogenous heat of the brooder, this equally show for both that at the end, when the chick is near the moment of hatching, we see that both became denser, that is, the yolk and the albumen. On the other hand it is likely that they acquired this consistence from the beginning and that slowly it increased in both until the end. The same thing is proven by the experience from looking inside the incubated eggs during the following days, and the reason is that constantly that of both which is less dense, is sucked and absorbed by the blood vessels.

Sed pro Arist. mihi quoque alia succurrit firmissima ratio, desumpta ex eo, quod apparet in piscium genere cartilagineo: quod ovum intra se gignit, et vivum quoque foetum excludit. Ovum enim non perfecte, sed tantummodo vitellum in superiore utero gignit, in inferiore autem pisces: et vitelli in infernum uterum descendentes, singulo pisci e regione cordis, et iecoris per longum collum applicantur: et sine dubio nutrimentum piscibus porrigunt, quousque in suo utero concluduntur.

But in favour of Aristotle also another valid reasoning comes to my mind, gathered from what is seen in the cartilaginous fishes, since they produce in their inside the egg and also produce an alive fetus. In fact in the superior uterus they don't produce a completed egg, but only the yolk, the fishes in the inferior one. And the yolks, going down in the inferior uterus, stick to each fish, starting from the region of heart and liver for a long stretch, and without doubt they supply nourishment to the fishes as long as they remain shut up in their uterus.

Si igitur in hoc animali vitelli tantum in superno utero gignuntur, et alimentum, piscibus sunt, rationi consentaneum est, in inferno utero albumen gigni, et ex eo pisces inibi conclusos procreari. Firmissimum hoc pro Arist. argumentum est: quod ego ex Anatome piscis iam propositi excogitavi. Hanc tamen rationem ita solvemus: nihil scilicet prohibere, quominus in inferno utero chalazas gigni dicamus, ex quibus piscis corporetur: et hoc animalis genus, cum aquaticum sit, et frigidum, non indigere alio alimento, quam vitello, tanquam calido; forteque albumen sua natura tam frigidum esse, ut frigidae crustati piscis naturae non conveniat; proindeque admitti in crustato pisce non debet.

If therefore in this animal the yolks are formed only in the superior uterus and they are food for the fishes, it is logical that the albumen is produced in the inferior uterus and that the fishes here contained are procreated by it. This reasoning that I have drawn from the aforesaid anatomy of the fish is extremely in favour of Aristotle. However I will demolish this reasoning in this way: it is clear that nothing prohibits me to affirm that the chalazae are produced in the inferior uterus, from which the fish takes body, and this kind of animal, being aquatic and cold, needs no other food than the yolk which is warm. And probably the albumen is by its nature so cold to not be proper for the cold nature of a fish covered by a crust, that's why it must not to be introduced in a crustacean fish.

Id quod ex Arist.[16] confirmari posse videtur qui anates, et palustria copiosiore vitello donata esse prodidit. Sed dicere quoque possumus, pisces in secundo utero generari ex semine maris. Nam Arist.[17] dicit, pisces cartilagineos coire: refertque[18], nonnullos fateri, se vidisse quaedam ex cartilagineis aversa, [34] modo canum terrestrium cohaerere: et paulo post ait[19]; Cartilaginea morari in coitu diutius omnia, quae animal generant, quam quae ova: et rursus[20]; Pisces mares habere non testes, sed binos meatus, qui foetifico semine, cum coeundi est tempus, implentur, et lacteum omnes emittunt humorem. Si igitur semen emittunt cartilaginei pisces, ergo ex semine piscium generatio his extiterit, nequaquam ex albumine. Sed forte potior prima responsio est.

It seems that this can be confirmed according to Aristotle, who reported that the ducks and the marsh animals - birds - are endowed with a more abundant yolk. But we can also say that the fishes are produced in the second uterus by intervention of the semen of the male. In fact Aristotle says that the cartilaginous fishes are mating and he reports that some people testify to have seen some cartilaginous animals - fishes - to be turned in a contrary direction and to remain attached as the terrestrial dogs. And soon after he says: all the cartilaginous animals - fishes - producing an animal, linger in the coition more than those producing eggs. And still: the male fishes don't have testicles but two tubules which are filled with fertile semen when it is time of mating, and all of them send forth a milky liquid. If therefore the cartilaginous fishes send forth a semen, then in them the generation of the fishes happens from the semen and not at all from the albumen. But perhaps the first answer is preferable.

Sed dicetis<:> si album, et luteum in ovo pulli alimenta sunt, quae nam igitur materia pulli statuenda erit? cum iam dictum sit, in ovo semen non adesse; inveniatis vos hanc materiam inductione a sufficienti partium enumeratione. Remanent in ovo cortex, duae membranae, et chalazae: membranas, et ovi corticem nullus pulli materiam constituerit, ergo solae chalazae congrua erunt pulli materia. Sed et hae, quoque difficultatem habent.

But you will say: if in the egg the white and the yellow are food of the chick, then what must be defined as matter of the chick? Since already it has been said that in the egg there is not the semen, you could identify this matter by induction starting from a complete list of the parts. In the egg remain the shell, two membranes and the chalazae: nobody could affirm that the membranes and the shell of the egg are the matter of the chick, hence the chalazae alone will be an appropriate matter of the chick. But they too also present a difficulty.

Primo etenim chalazae videntur in ovo ligamentorum vicem tantum subire, cum manifeste appareat, harum ope vitellum albumini et membranis alligari. Secundo si chalazae pulli essent materia, in obtusiore tantum ovi parte, ubi pullus generatur, consisterent: atqui reperiuntur quoque chalazae in acutiore parte, ergo ex chalazis, tanquam ex materia, [ovum] pullus corporari non potest. Quarto[21], et quinto chalaza, quae in obtusa ovi parte consistit, exiguum, et pusillum adeo corpus est, ut nullo modo materia sufficiens esse possit, ex qua tot organa, tantaque pulli moles efficiatur. Ultimo adversus chalazas est authoritas Arist.[22] qui chalazas nihil conferre ad animalium generationem scribit.

First, indeed, the chalazae in the egg seem to only assume the function of ligaments, being evident that with their help the yolk is bound to albumen and membranes. Second, if the chalazae were the matter of the chick, they would be present only in the obtuse side of the egg, where the chick is produced. On the contrary the chalazae are found also in the acute side, thence the chick cannot take shape starting from the chalazae as being the matter. Fourth and fifth the chalaza present in the obtuse side of the egg is so a small and tiny structure that would not be able at all to be an enough matter from which so many organs and a so great body bulk of the chick are created. Finally, against the chalazae is the authority of Aristotle, who writes that the chalazae don't contribute at all to the generation of the animals.

Itaque ex qua materia pullus generetur, valde abstrusa, et recondita inquisitio est. Mea tamen sententia est, ut pullus, tanquam ex materia, ex chalazis corporetur. Id quod probatur primo, quia ex corporibus ovum construentibus, et pulli generationi idoneis solum tria sunt, {blbumen} <albumen>, vitellus, et chalazae: albumen, et vitellus nutrimentum totius pulli sunt, uti iam probatum est; ergo solae chalazae materia erunt, ex qua fit pullus. Praeterea inter ovi partes chalazae sunt corpora sui generis substantiae proprietate distincta ab albo, et luteo: a luteo quidem ut clarum est: ab albo autem: nam sunt corpuscula rotunda, globosa, et nodosa, albidiora, quam album, et claro splendore conspersa, ut grando. Igitur si diversa a luteo et albo sunt, etiam usum diversum, et distinctum ab utroque praebent, qui non alius, quam propositus, iure statui potest.

Insofar, from what matter the chick is produced, is a very abstruse and mysterious search. Nevertheless my point of view is that the chick structures its body from the chalazae using them as matter. Which is firstly proven since the structures composing the egg, and fitting to the generation of the chick, are only three, the albumen, the yolk and the chalazae. The albumen and the yolk are the nourishment of the whole chick, as already it has been shown. Thence only the chalazae will be the matter from which the chick is formed. Besides, among the parts composing the egg, the chalazae are sui generis structures which, for the characteristic of their substance, are different from the white and the yellow. From yellow, as it is evident, but also from white, since they are round, spherical and nodulous corpuscles, more white than the albumen and sprinkled with an intense shine, as the hail. Insofar, if they are different from yellow and white, they also supply a different employ and distinct from that of both, which cannot be rightly established otherwise I told before.

Rursus chalazae sunt in ovo eo loci positae, ubi pullus generatur, ergo ex iis pullus conflatur. Nam si coctum ovum in obtusa parte rumpas usque ad chalazas, easdem cavitati illi respondere conspicies, sub qua pullus efformatur, maxime autem caput eius consistit. Accedit, quod si videas pullum in primo sui ortu, videlicet post trium, aut quatuor dierum conceptum, quatuor observabis.

Moreover in the egg the chalazae are placed in that point where the chick is created, hence the chick is formed starting from them. In fact, if you break a cooked egg at the obtuse side until the chalazae, you will see that they are located in front of that cavity near which the chick is formed and above all its head is placed. Besides, if you observe the chick in the initial phase of its birth, that is, three or four days after it has been conceived, you will see four things.

Primo observabis caput magnum, album totum, et fere diaphanum, et in eo oculorum foramen ex nigra linea veluti anulo descriptum, et in medio eius rotundam pupillam albam, secundo huic [capitis] capiti spina continua satis evidenter apparebit, et ipsa alba, viscosa, et ad diaphanum propinquans, ita ut non ex alia materia haec .i. caput, et spinam genita esse possis concipere, quam ex chalaza: nam tota haec moles, ex qua caput, et spina constat, exacte chalazae substantiam aemulatur: et sicuti chalaza corpus potius oblongum, quam rotundum est, sic pulli corpus in prima formatione. [35] Tertio observabis rubedinem seu rubrum corpus sub capite anterius, et infra positum, quod sine dubio ex loci positione cor, et iecur est. Quarto duas venas, quae tum ad albumen, tum ad vitellum erunt propagatae: quarum trunci erunt contigui: sed propagines dispersae tum in album, tum in Luteum.

First, you will see a large head, all white and almost diaphanous, and in it the ocular holes outlined by a dark line as being a ring, and at its centre a white and round pupil. Second, on this head will appear, in a rather evident way, a continuous spine, also it white, viscous and rather diaphanous, so that you could realize that these structures, that is, head and spine, are produced by no other matter than the chalaza. In fact this whole mass, from which the head and the spine derive, exactly resembles to the substance of the chalaza, and like the chalaza it is a structure more oblong than round. This way the body of the chick appears at the beginning of its formation. Third, you will observe a ruddy colour or a red formation located in front and below under the head, which without doubt, for the location, are the heart and the liver. Fourth, two veins, that will go towards both the albumen and the yolk, whose trunks will be contiguous, but the ramifications scattered both in the albumen and in the yolk.

Curavi, ut hoc totum pingeretur, quod factum quidem est, sed diaphanum imitari pictor non potuit. At qui chalazam viderit, et huiuscemodi conceptum, quod ad corpus attinet se vidisse credat. Persuadet iugiter ranarum quoque generatio, quae ex nigris animalculis inchoat, vulgo hic ranabottoli, quorum non est conspicere nisi caput, et caudam, hoc est caput, et spinam, omnino sine cruribus, et brachiis: quibus tamen temporis progressu maioribus factis, iam nigro colore recedente, et colore vero ranarum eccedente, simul quoque sensim brachia, et crura expullulant; primo quidem exigua, et imperfecta, subinde perfecta, et consummata.

I took care that all these things are painted, which has been done, but the painter has not been able to reproduce the diaphaneity. Nevertheless who has seen a chalaza has to believe to have also seen such a conception concerning the body. Immediately also the generation of the frogs convinces, which starts from black little animals, here commonly said ranabottoli - tadpoles, of which it is possible to see only the head and the tail, that is the head and the spine, wholly without legs and arms, which nevertheless, when became greater with the passing of time, when by now the black colour weakens while the colour of the frogs intensifies, contemporarily and slowly the arms and the legs sprout, at first exile and defective, then perfect and finished.

Insuper chalazae nullae apparent genito, seu efformato iam perfecte pullo: cum autem reliquiae supersunt efformandarum partium, videlicet alarum, et crurum, quae ultimo loco fiunt, similiter et reliquiae Chalazarum supersunt, ergo a chalazis fiunt pulli. Amplius si in Chalazis tres tantum nodi sunt, videntur iure hi nodi respondere, tribus ventribus, capiti, Thoraci, et abdomini, seu tribus partibus praecipuis, cerebro, cordi, et iecori. Quod si quinque enumerentur, respondebunt praeter illas, alis etiam, et cruribus. Quod si nunquam {quotuor} <quatuor> nodi in chalazis visuntur, erit et hoc signum manifestum liquido commonstrans, chalazarum nodos numero partibus pulli praecipuis respondere.

Furthermore no more chalazae are seen in the generated or by now perfectly formed chick, while some sketches are remaining of the structures that have to be formed, that is, of wings and legs, which are formed last. Likewise also residues of the chalazae remain, thence the chicks are formed by the chalazae. Besides, if in the chalazae only three nodules exist, properly these nodules seem to correspond to three cavities, head, thorax and abdomen, or to the three main organs, brain, heart and liver. But if five nodules are counted, they will correspond, besides to those organs, also to wings and legs. But if in the chalazae never four nodules are seen, also this will be an evident sign showing in an unequivocal way that the nodules of the chalazae correspond in number to the principal parts of the chick.

His omnibus rationibus accedit ratio alia a similitudine desumpta: nam sicuti viviparum animal, ex pauca seminali materia corporatur; quod vero ad alimentum et nutritionem suggeritur, copiosissimum est; sic pro pulli generatione exigua c<h>alaza sufficiet: caetera autem in ovo contenta alimenta duntaxat pullo erunt: sic plantae ex exiguo et pusillo semine synapis, scilicet glandis, mali, pyrive maxima exoritur arbor, ut puta ex copiosissimo alimento tum alta, tum aucta: ut mirari non oporteat, si natura et album et luteum in ovo pro alimento tantum substituerit; exiguas vero c<h>alazas corporando pullo dicarit.

To all these proofs another proof is added, inferred from the similarity: in fact, as a viviparous animal takes shape from the small quantity of seminal matter, while what serves to nourishment and feeding is very abundant, so for the generation of the chick the small chalaza will be enough. The other things contained in the egg will only be foods for the chick. In the same manner the plants: that is, from an insignificant and very little seed of mustard, oak, apple or pear a very big tree is born, as fed and increased by a very abundant food. So we need not to be surprised if the nature has set in the egg as food only the white and the yellow, while devoted the little chalazae to give body to the chick.

Neque obstat, quod chalazae ligamenti vicem subeant, uti probatum est, vitellum, et albumen sibi invicem, tum vero etiam cortici per membranam alligantes: Id quod in cocto magis ovo conspicias; quoniam non inconvenit ipsas, et ligamenti usum praebere, et in pullum secedere, ac verti. Quinimmo necessaria est haec chalazarum colligatio albumini, et vitello, cum per hanc vasa ex utroque ad corpus foetus nutriendum appensa prodire necesse sit, quae alioqui hac colligatione destituta, et invicem separata, nutrire haudquaquam corpus foetus possent, cum vasa neque appendiculam, neque fundamentum, seu stragulum, cui firmari possent, haberent.

Nor is contrasting the fact that the chalazae carry out the function of ligament, as it has been shown that they tie the yolk and the albumen each other as well as also to the shell through the membrane. You can see this more in a cooked egg, since is not in conflict the fact that they offer both the function of ligament and the function of shrinking and turning themselves into chick. Moreover this link of the chalazae with the albumen and the yolk is necessary, since through this link the suspended blood vessels go feed the body of the fetus by using both the sources. If on the other hand they were devoid of this link and they were separated from each other, they could not feed the body of the fetus at all, since the blood vessels would not have neither a small appendix nor a base or carpet to which they can fix themselves.

Neque rursus obstat, chalazas in subventaneis ovis quoque reperiri, hoc est in ovis cunctis, tum quae gallum experta sunt, tum quae eodem sunt destituta; quoniam Chalazae eodem tempore cum ovi generatione generantur omnes, at foecundae postea redduntur ex galli semine in uterum immisso eas foecundante, ut infra dicetur.

Moreover nothing prevents that the chalazae are also found in the windy eggs, that is, in all the eggs both those that have known the rooster and those that have been deprived of it, since the chalazae are all generated contemporarily to the generation of the egg, but they are made fertile subsequently thanks to the semen of the cock introduced in the uterus and which fertilizes them, as it will be said later on.

Neque tertio obstat, quod utrobique .i. ad oppositas vitelli partes sint appositae, quoniam etsi fere semper in obtusiore ovi parte pullus generatur, et hanc [36] ob causam chalazae triplo fere maiores ea parte, quam acutiore sunt[23]; tamen quia fieri etiam interdum potest, ut in acutiore pullus generetur, licet non nisi raro id contingat; aut quia in operum naturae naturalissimo, potius naturam abundare in superfluis, quam deficere in necessariis oportuit; et ex abundanti quidpiam ponit, quod omnino generationem perficiat, neque irritam succedere permittat, ideo recte utrobique hoc est ad acutiorem et obtusiorem ovi partem positae chalazae sunt, ut si ex altera parte forte irritae essent chalazae, saltem ex altera fierent foecundae; quo modo videmus, naturam interdum foeminam hermaphroditum procreare, {aut} <seu> in foemina muliebrem, et masculum sexum constituere, ut omnino alteruter perficiatur, et foecundus succedat, neque ex toto irrita generatio sequatur.

Thirdly, nothing prevents that they are located in both parts, that is, in correspondence of opposite areas of the yolk, since, even if the chick is almost always produced in the obtuse side of the egg, and for this reason the chalazae are around three times greater in this part in comparison to the acute side, nevertheless, since sometimes it can happen that the chick is produced in the acute side, even if this rarely happens, or because, in the very natural operating of nature, it has been opportune that preferably the nature abounded in the superfluous things rather than to be scarce in necessary ones, and from the abundant it places something that fully accomplish the generation and doesn't allow to become sterile. Insofar the chalazae are rightly placed at both sides, that is at the acute and obtuse side of the egg. So that, if at one side by chance the chalazae are sterile, at least are fertile at the other side, in the same manner we see that the nature sometimes produces a female as a hermaphrodite, that is, in a female it puts the female and masculine sex, so that at least one of the two is improved and become fertile and a fully sterile generation doesn't result from it.

Accedit, quod etiam in ovis naturam variare apparet: quae modo obtusiore sui parte procedente emittit, id quod ut plurimum contingit: modo acutiore: item ut plurimum cortice duro intus genito: nonnunquam molli tantum membrana obducto, exeunte ovo. Sed neque illud obstare videtur{, si}<. Si> ambae chalazae foecundae sunt redditae a galli semine, cur non ex ambabus corporetur pullus, sed ex iis fere semper, quae in obtusiore ovi parte constituunt? irrita vero reddatur pulli generatio in chalazis, quae in acutiore ovi parte sunt?

The fact is adding that nature seems to show some variations also in the eggs, and it makes them go out now with their obtuse side, what for the more it happens, now with the acute side, for the more after internally a hard shell is formed, sometimes with an egg which goes out only covered by a soft membrane. But it seems that it is not an obstacle also the following. If both chalazae are made fertile by the semen of the cock, why the chick is not produced by both, but almost always by those placed in the obtuse side of the egg? While the generation of the chick would become sterile in the chalazae placed in the acute side?

Respondetur, enim, omnes quidem chalazas foecunditatem a semine fuisse consequutas, sed non pari ratione, ac virtute. Siquidem chalazae in obtusiore ovi parte positae, cum magis vicinae podici, et exitui sint, triplo fere aliis maiores, et hac ratione robustiores: ita sunt primae, quae seminis virtutem, et foecunditatis facultatem recipiunt, ideoque maius facultatis robur assumunt:

In fact we reply that actually all the chalazae acquired the fertility from the semen, but not with the same manner and energy. Since the chalazae placed in the obtuse side of the egg, being more near the cloaca and the exit, are almost three times greater than the others, and for this reason more strong, therefore they are the first ones receiving the power of the semen and the fertilizing capacity, and therefore they acquire a greater strength of action.

chalazae vero acutioris ovi partis, cum longe minores sint, et in altiore loco positae, minus recipiunt facultatis. Atque haec exigua facultas non difficulter evanescit in minoribus chalazis, ubi in maioribus iam facta conceptio est: et ad conceptum venae, et arteriae a vitello, et albumine porriguntur. Tunc enim omne alimentum, et vis omnis foecunditatis, nutritionis, et augmenti illuc porrigitur, ut interea iure a minoribus chalazis evanescat.

On the contrary the chalazae of the acute side of the egg, being much smaller and located in a higher position, receive less strength. Furthermore this scarce energy easily fades away in the smaller chalazae when in the greater ones the conception already happened, and the veins and the arteries are stretching to the product of the conception, starting from yolk and albumen. In fact in that moment in this point the whole food and all the strength of fertility, nutrition and growth are stretching, so that meanwhile these things rightly fade away in the smaller chalazae.

Quod si tamen aliquando accidat, ut acutior ovi pars iacto semini propinquior fiat, unde maior virtus ei communicetur; non inconvenit minores chalazas foecundiores reddi, et conceptionem fieri in minoribus posse, irritis interea aliis relictis. Neque id contra ovi definitionem est ab Arist. traditam, videlicet ovum esse, cuius ex parte animal gignitur: reliquum cibus ei, quod gignitur, est; quoniam inter ovi partes chalazae quoque enumerantur.

But nevertheless, if sometimes it happens that the acute part of the egg becomes closer to the emitted semen, and so a greater power is infused in it, it is not unsuitable that the smaller chalazae are made more fertile and that the conception can happen in the smaller ones, in the meantime the other ones being remained sterile. And this is not contrary to the definition of egg handed down by Aristotle, that is, the egg is that by a part of which an animal is produced, the remainder is food for it which is generated, since also the chalazae are included among the parts of the egg.

Ultimo ad illam de exiguitate chalazarum propositam rationem facile respondetur: nimirum generationem, et generationis vim in exiguo, et pusillo corpore consistere, et ipsis chalazis longe minori: id quod apparet in hoc exiguo pullo quatuor dierum: apparet quoque in omni semine, sive animalis sit, sive plantae: quod videmus omnino pusillum esse respectu animalis, et plantae generandae: sed animal, et planta gignitur quidem ex modica materia, et minimo semine: adaugetur autem, et in vastam magnitudinem increscit ab exuberante alimento: immo vero magna copia vitelli, et albuminis signum manifestum faciunt, haec corpora esse pulli alimenta, nequaquam materiam: propterea quod generatio intra paucos dies tota finitur, ac nutritio toto tempore durat, quousque utero gestatur pullus.

Finally, to those reasons adduced about the littleness of the chalazae we easily answer that the generation and the strength of the generation are present in a tiny and very small structure and more smaller than the chalazae. What is visible in this small chick of four days is also visible in whatever semen both of an animal and a plant, that we see to be extremely small by taking into consideration the generation of the animal and of the plant. But actually the animal and the plant are generated from very few matter and from a very little semen, while they become larger and very big thanks to the exuberance of food. And rather, the great abundance of yolk and albumen are an evident sign that these substances are food of the chick and not the generating matter, since the generation is wholly completed within few days and the nutrition lasts for the whole time when the chick is brought by the uterus.

[37] Praeterea si pullus ex albo, aut luteo generaretur, in magna mole generaretur, ut sunt ovi liquores, non in exigua, ut fit. Ad Arist. autem auctoritatem dicendum. Si verum est, albumen esse pulli alimentum[24], nequaquam materiam; pariter verum esse, chalazas esse pulli tantum materiam. Et cum aliter dicere non liceat, ab Aristot. recedimus: praesertim cum Aristot. nullam adducat rationem, cur chalazae non conferant ad pulli generationem.

Furthermore, if the chick was produced from the white or from the yellow, it would be generated very large, like the liquids of the egg are, not small, as it happens. To the authority of Aristotle we have to answer this way: if it is true that the albumen is the food of the chick and not the matter, similarly it is true that the chalazae are only the matter of the chick. And not being possible to say otherwise, I diverge from Aristotle, above all because Aristotle doesn't adduce any motivation of why the chalazae don't serve to the generation of the chick.

Caeterum non esse omnino hanc opinionem contemnendam ex eo patet, quod Aristot. dicit, secundum nonnullos chalazas generationi conferre: quamvis neque eorum ullam proponat rationem, a nobis autem plura sint proposita argumenta. Itaque, ut videtis, haec opinio mea non est, sed antiquissima: tempore enim Aristotelis, et ante etiam vigebat: et vulgus quoque, cum dicit, hanc esse la galladura, forte nil aliud intelligit, nisi partem eam, ex qua generatur, et corporatur pullus.

Furthermore, that this point of view is not altogether to be despised, it is evident from the fact that Aristotle says that according to some people the chalazae serve to the generation. Even if he doesn't adduce any of their reasons, while by me numerous reasonings are adduced. Then, as you see, this is not an opinion of mine, but is very ancient: in fact it was current at the time of Aristotle and also before. And also the people, when saying that this chalaza is the galladura – the semen of the cock, perhaps they mean nothing else except that this is the part from which the chick is generated and takes body.

Sed iam ad secundam difficultatem veniendum est scilicet de opifice causa, idest semine. Nam cum in ovo id non appareat, sicuti dictum est: cum tamen a gallo semen in uterum porrigatur; quaeritur cur in uterum galli semen immittatur, si in ovum non ingreditur? Item si in ovo non adest, quomodo ovum foecundum ex galli semine, quod non habet, efficiatur? Mea opinio est, Galli semen in uteri principium immissum et iactum, efficere totum uterum, et simul quoque omnes vitellos eo cadentes, ac totum denique ovum foecundum: idque facere sua facultate, seu spiritali substantia irradiante; eo modo, quo videmus, ex testibus, et semine alia quoque animalia foecunda reddi.

But now we have to come to the second difficulty, that is, the efficient cause, that is, the semen. In fact, since, as we said, it is not visible in the egg, while nevertheless the semen is brought in the uterus by the cock, we wonder: why the semen of the cock is introduced in the uterus if it doesn't enter the egg? Likewise, if it is not in the egg, how is the egg made fertile by the cock's semen which it doesn't possess? My opinion is that the semen of the cock, introduced and thrown into the initial part of the uterus, fertilizes the whole uterus and contemporarily also all the yolks going down here and finally the whole egg. And it does this for its power, that is, for the substance radiating as being a breath, likewise we see that also other animals are made fertile by testicles and semen.

Si quis enim in memoriam revocaverit incredibilem illam transmutationem, qua animal exectum afficitur, dum calorem, robur, et foecunditatem in toto corpore amittit; facile id quod dicimus uni tantum Gallinae utero evenire concedet, et certe in eadem specie capones satis id persuadent, qui ubi execti fuerunt, et testibus, semineque destituti, iam vigorem omnem, foecunditatemque amiserunt.

If someone, in fact, is recalling to memory that unbelievable transformation by which the castrated animal is struck when in the whole body loses heat, strength and fertility, easily he will allow that what we say is happening only to hen's uterus alone, and certainly the capons belonging to the same species are enough convincing about the fact that, when they were castrated and deprived of testicles and semen, they lost at  once every strength and fertility.

Id quod similiter exemplo vermium, qui sericini vel bombyces dicuntur, confirmatur: qui simul atque coiere, foemina mox semen iam receptum foras emittit, et subinde ova parit absoluta, et duro cortice obvoluta. Sed quod omnino verum sit, virtutem foecundandi tota ova, et quoque uterum a semine Galli provenire, patet ex eo, quod mulieres agunt, quae gallinam domi Gallo destitutam habentes, eam per unum, atque alterum diem alibi Gallo committunt: ex hoc enim exiguo tempore succedit ovorum omnium foecunditas per totum illud anni tempus.

Likewise, the same thing is confirmed by the example of the worms called silkworms or bombyces, whose female, as soon as they mated, immediately expels the semen just received and soon after gives birth to perfect eggs, and covered by a hard shell. But that it is wholly true that the power of fertilizing all the eggs as well as the uterus comes from the semen of the cock, becomes evident from what the women do, who, having at home a hen without cock, entrust her to a cock in another locality for one or two days. In fact, thanks to this short lapse of time, the fertility of all the eggs happens all through that period of the year.

Id quod et Aristot.[25] confirmat qui vult, quod cum semel aves coierint, omnia fere ova foecunda habere perseverent. Sed parva omnino perficiant (ita textus graecus sonat) Porro hanc foecunditatem communicari ovis Arist. censuit, cum nondum mutatum ovum ex luteo in album est, alibi, et forte melius scribit; antequam ovum ipsum a lutea in candidam ambientem partem proficiat, hoc est cum nondum perfectum, et absolutum ovum est, in secundo utero: affertque exemplum[26], quod si accidat, ut avis hypenemia idest subventanea ova ferat, si postea coeat, nondum mutato ovo ex luteo in album, foecunda ex subventitiis redduntur.

Also Aristotle confirms this, who pretends that when the birds mated only once, they continue to have fertile almost all the eggs. But they lay them very small (so the Greek text is speaking). Furthermore Aristotle was thinking that this fertility is transferred to the eggs when the egg not yet changed from yellow to white, and perhaps he writes this better in another point, by saying that this happens before the egg turns from yellow in winding white, that is, when the egg is not yet finished and completed in the second uterus. And he gives an example: if it happens that a bird lays some hypenemia eggs, that is windy, if subsequently it mates when the egg not yet changed from yellow into white, from full of wind they are made fertile.

Idem Aristot.[27] protulit idque rursus confirmavit paulo post; ubi habet quod ubi concepta ex coitu lutea sint, quae adhuc albumen non assumpserint, si tum cum alio mare coeat avis, proles, quae sequitur, similis est mari, qui secundum coitum iniverit, ideoque ait, nonnullos ex iis, [38] qui ut gallinae generosae procreentur, operam dant, id mutatis admissariis, {faceret} <facere>. Quo loco quaeritur cur Arist. voluerit subventanea ova foecundari, nondum mutato ovo ex luteo in album?

Aristotle reported the same thing and newly confirmed it soon after, when he says that when the yellows have been conceived with the coition and didn't already assume the albumen, if then the bird mates with another male, the ensuing offspring is similar to the male which did the second coition, hence he says that some of those people who are exerting themselves so that prolific hens are produced, do this by changing the fuckers. At this point we wonder: why Aristotle would like that the windy eggs are fertilized when the egg not yet changed from yellow to white?

Equidem id ob eam causam fieri autumo, quia virtus foecundandi facile impertitur chalazis, et vitello seu nudis, et adhuc albumine non obvolutis; maxime autem chalazis, tanquam quae materiam ipsi pullo praebeant, ut corporetur (videtur vero id meam de chalazis opinionem comprobare:) propterea subdit Aristot. at si iam candidum acceperunt humorem, fieri non potest, ut subventanea in foecunda mutentur. Porro seminis foecundandi virtus, ne ullo modo exhalare possit, sed diutius in utero consistere, ac toti impertiri; {naturam} <natura> ipsum conclusit, reposuitque in cavitatem, quasi bursam podici vicinam, et utero appensam[28], et ingressu tantum donatam, ut inibi diutius semine detento, virtus eiusdem magis conservaretur, et universo communicaretur utero; Etenim si haec non adesset vesica, nil obstaret, quin semen a descendente, et exeunte ovo foras impulsum extruderetur, et uterus foecundandi facultate destitutus relinqueretur.

It is without doubt my opinion that this happens because the fecundating power is easily assigned to the chalazae and to the yolk even if naked and not yet wrapped by the albumen, but above all to the chalazae, being those providing the matter to the chick itself so that it takes shape (this seems to confirm my opinion about the chalazae), thence Aristotle adds that, if already they received the white liquid, it cannot happen that the windy eggs turn into fertile. Moreover, so that the fecundating power of the semen is not able at all to fade away, but so that it can remain as long as it could in the uterus and to fully permeate it, the nature confined and placed it in a cavity similar to a bursa* - a pouch -  which is located near the cloaca and suspended to the uterus, and endowed only with an entrance, so that keeping here the semen for a rather long time, its strength is more preserved and is distributed to the whole uterus. In fact, if this bladder was not there, nothing would prevent that the semen is pushed out by the egg which is going down and out, and that the uterus was left devoid of fertilizing faculty.

In hanc vero vesicam eo facilius semen, penisque galli immittitur, quo sursum motu voluntario a gallina uropygio revoluto, rectior breviorque in vesicam paratur via, iterque: quae vesica in Gallina indica maior apparet; sed in nostrate conspicua quoque est. Ex dictis elicitur primo maxime autem ex eo, quod Arist. scribit maris semen sua facultate materiam contentam in foemina, et cibum qualitate quadam afficere: et virtute tantum contenta in genitura ovum vivificari, Arist.[29] sentire, ova a galli semine foecundari, et galli semen insignem foecundandi virtutem obtinere.

Indeed, in this bladder the semen and the penis of the cock are more easily introduced when with a voluntary movement the uropygial gland has been turned upward by the hen, and so are prepared a path and a course more rectilinear and more short toward the bladder. This bladder in the turkey hen appears greater, but it is great also in our local hen. From what it has been said, in first place we infer, above all from what Aristotle writes, that the semen of the male with its power somehow influences, from a qualitative point of view, the matter contained in the female as well as the food. Aristotle thinks that the egg is vivified only by the strength contained in the sperm, that the eggs are fertilized by the semen of the cock and that the semen of the cock possesses a great fertilizing power.

Cui rei nequaquam obstant; immo eam maxime declarant, quae ab eodem dicuntur. ubi reddens causam cur ova hypenemia idest subventanea irrita sunt, dicit, quod humor eorum crassescere in avis cubatione non potest, sed tam candida, quam lutea pars similis sibi perseverat. Haec enim ideo contingunt, quia Galli seminis vi destituuntur, videlicet calore, robore, et foecunditate, quae sane omnia ex semine proveniunt, propter quam causam, neque crassescere albumen et Vitellus, neque concoqui possunt ut in pullum vertantur, et ex utroque pullus fiat: sed sibi similis, uterque humor perseverat: hoc est incocta, et immutata utraque remanet materia tam albumen, quam vitellus. Unde et Arist.[30] paulo post eiusmodi ova aestate magis consistere scribit, nimirum propter calorem: et paulo inferius ait[31]: Incepta quoque, si adhuc parvis, desierit coitus, non accrescunt: sed si continuetur, celeri incremento augentur, iustamque magnitudinem implent, non propter aliam rationem, nisi propter calorem, qui a Galli semine provenit.

Above all those things said by him don't oppose this thesis, on the contrary, they are confirming it very much. When explaining the reason why the hypenemia eggs, that is windy, are sterile, he says that their liquid cannot thicken during the brooding of the bird, but both the white and yellow part remain identical to themselves. In fact these things happen since the eggs are deprived of the strength of the semen of the cock, that is, of the heat, of the strength and of the fertility, all things that without doubt come from the semen, that's why the albumen and the yolk cannot neither thick nor be assimilated to be transformed in a chick and the chick takes shape from both. But both the liquids continue to be consistent, that is, both the materials, both albumen and yolk, remain undigested and unchanged. Then soon after still Aristotle writes that such eggs are more frequent in summer, without doubt because of the heat. And soon after he says: Also the started eggs don't grow if the mating stopped while they were still small, but if it is resumed they quickly increase in greatness and reach the correct dimension for no other reason except because of the heat coming from the semen of the cock.

Docet igitur perbelle hoc loco Arist.[32] quomodo ova hypenemia non perficiantur, sed irrita, et imperfecta omnino remaneant, quae omnia fere non variant ab exemplo lactis, et coaguli, quod inspissandi facultatem habet, ut prodit Aristot. Elicitur ex dictis secundo, differentia inter ovipara, et vivipara penes generationis causas: Differunt .n. quae ex ovo ab iis quae ex semine fiunt, ex eo, quod ovipara materiam, ex qua corporatur pullus, distinctam, et separatam habent ab agente; vivipara autem simul, et causam efficientem, et materialem habent adiunctam, et concorporatam. Agens enim in oviparis semen Galli est in pennato, quod in ovo neque est, neque esse potest.

In this passage Aristotle clarifies very well how the windy eggs are not completed, but they continue to be wholly sterile and defective, all things almost not diverging from the example of the milk and of the rennet which has the faculty of coagulating, as Aristotle reports. Secondly, from the affirmations, the difference is deduced between ovipara and vivipara according to the manners of generation: in fact the animals generated from an egg differ from those born from a semen, since the ovipara have the matter, from which the chick takes shape, which is distinct and separated from the agent. On the contrary the vivipara contemporarily have the efficient and material cause which are united and brought together. In fact in the ovipara, in a bird, the agent is the semen of the cock, which is not placed neither can be placed in the egg.

Materia vero est chalaza, ex qua corporatur foetus, [39] ambo haec invicem distant per multum spatium. Nam chalaza Vitello iam formato, et in secundum uterum cadenti accedit, et ovo interno adiungitur; contra Galli semen prope podicem consistit, et per longissimum spatium a chalaza distat: sua tamen facultate irradiante, et uterum, et totum foecundat ovum. At semen in viviparo, et materia est, et agens, et in uno corpore utrunque simul consistit.

To say the truth, the matter is the chalaza, from which the fetus takes body, and both - matter and agent - are far each other quite a lot of space. In fact the chalaza joins up to the already formed yolk and which falls in the second uterus, and it adds itself to the inner part of the egg. On the contrary the semen of the cock is located in proximity of the cloaca and is quite a lot far from the chalaza, but with its irradiant power it fertilizes both the uterus and the whole egg. On the contrary in a viviparous the semen is both the matter and the agent, and both are placed together in only a structure.

Ex quibus videre videor Arist. sententiam suam, de causis generationis, a paucis receptam, tanquam veram in oviparis attulisse. Nam Arist.[33] in omnibus materiam foetus sanguinem menstruum mulieris, et foeminae esse, et ex eo foetum corporari tradidit; maris autem semen tanquam movens existere, et foetum ab eo resultare, et plasmari credit: ex hoc perfecto opere digeri, et evanescere semen opinatus est: Id vero in pennato distincte apparet. Nam in hoc materia chalaza est, quae in ovo intus est, et antequam ovum perficiatur, et vitellus albumen assumat, gignitur, et ovo apponitur.

From these things it seems me to notice that Aristotle adduced his theory on the causes of the generation in the ovipara as true theory accepted by few people. In fact Aristotle said that in all animals the matter of the fetus is the menstrual blood of the woman and of the female, and that from it the fetus takes shape, while he is believing that the semen of the male represents so to say the efficient cause and that the fetus comes from it and is moulded from it. He thought that the semen is dissolved and fades away when this function ended, which actually in a bird clearly results. In fact in it the matter is the chalaza, which in the egg is placed inside, and is produced and added to the egg before the egg is completed and the yolk surrounds itself with the albumen.

Semen autem Galli ad podicem immittitur, et in vesica reponitur, et conservatur, quousque pullus conformetur: immo vero per totum integrum anni tempus inibi servatur, posteaquam semel admisso Gallo, ova omnia per totum illud anni tempus foecunda redduntur, tanquam vesica unicum ob id foramen habente, ut in concluso loco semen Galli diutius ut in proprio, et congruo loco servetur: quo tempore praetergresso iam foecunditas evanescit, evanescente, et exhalante maris semine, ut dicit Arist. Sed et huius rei ultimum illud efficacissimum erit argumentum, si pisces ex Aristo. dum incurrentes ventres perfricant, quod piscatores vulgari voce, pisces sbrissare dicunt, aut per fluminum ripas ocyssime excurrentes, ova pene innumera iam eiecta albo semine, quod vulgo lac appellatur, respergunt.[34] Atque ita perfecta ea, et cortice obducta foecundant. Quanto magis foecundari chalazas totumque ovum consentaneum est, ubi maris semen in utero continetur, totusque uterus vi foecundandi praeditus est, ovum sensim sensimque formatur, et chalazae vitello atque albumini adiunguntur. Maxima enim atque potentissima vis foecundandi in semine apparet, cum ova etiam exterius in ambientem aerem aut aquam emissa tantam vim foecundandi habeant.

Actually the semen of the cock is introduced in the cloaca and stored and preserved in the bursa until when the chick shaped itself, or rather, in reality it is preserved here for all the reproductive season, and afterwards, when the cock mated only once, all the eggs are made fertile for all that reproductive season, as if the bursa because of this had only one hole, so that the semen of the rooster is preserved for a rather long time in a circumscribed place as in an appropriate and suited place. When this time passed, by now the fertility fades away since the semen of the cock fades away and evaporates, as Aristotle says. But it will be very important that last reasoning also of this thing: according to Aristotle, if the fishes, while darting, rub the abdomen, called in dialect by the fishermen sbrissare - to slip, or while moving very quickly along the banks of the rivers, then they sprinkle the almost innumerable just issued eggs with a white semen which commonly is said milk. And after having so completed and enclosed them with a covering, they fertilize them. It is logical that the chalazae and the whole egg are much more fertilized when the semen of the male is contained in the uterus and the whole uterus is endowed with the fertilizing power, so that the egg is formed slowly and the chalazae stick to the yolk and the albumen. In fact a huge and very powerful capacity to fertilize appears in the semen since the eggs have a great capacity to be fertilized also when they have been issued outside in an airy environment or in water.

Superest modo, ut ultimum aperiamus dubium de loco propositum. Certum igitur est, locum, ut locus est, nihil agere in semen, aut ovum, agit tamen merito qualitatum, quas obtinet, non omnium quidem, sed tantum primarum: quibus solis natura concessum est agere, et pati; Qualitates primae sunt calidum, frigidum, humidum, et siccum, vel separatae, et solae, singularesque; vel ad certam temperiem redactae.

I have only to clarify the last doubt I mentioned about the place. Therefore it is certain that the place, being a place, doesn't have any effect on the semen or on the egg, while it acts thanks to the qualities it possesses, not of all of them, but only of the primary ones, only to which is granted by nature to act and undergo. The primary qualities are the warmth, the cold, the dampness and the dryness, either separate and singly taken one by one, or united in a certain proportion.

Nullus philosophorum ausus est dicere, locum agere aut in ovum, aut in semen proprietate temperamenti, sed duntaxat separatis qualitatibus. Unde Empedocles uterum calidum mares facere censuit[35], frigidum foeminas: nisi forte Democritum excipiamus, qui locum membra formare secundum formam parentum dixit: At mehercule, si efficentia, seu facultas generandi ipsi utero, et loco accepta referatur, proculdubio semen ea destituetur.

None of the philosophers dared to say that the place acts either on the egg or on the semen for the characteristics of its temperament, but only for the qualities singly taken. Hence Empedocles* thought that the warm uterus produces males, and the cold uterus produces females, unless perhaps we listen to Democritus* who said that the place moulds the limbs according to the shape of the parents. But certainly! If the capacity or generating faculty is ascribed to the uterus itself and to the place, without doubt the semen will be deprived of it.

Atqui semen opificem solum esse ex ovis subventaneis Galli semine destitutis demonstratum aperte [esse] est. Sed id quoque demonstratur ex multa locorum varietate, in quibus pullus ex ovo procreatur. Etenim si opifex causa a loco penderet, unus, ac proprius esset cuique assignatus locus {uequaquam} <nequaquam> ovum pullum [40] formaret modo in fimetis, modo in aqua calida, modo intra mulierum mammas, modo in fluminum ripis, modo sub terrae gleba, aut in furno, et locis aliis id genus; propter magnam [qualitatem] qualitatum cuiusque loci varietatem: quae tamen in una {commnni} <communi> communicant qualitate, hoc est caliditate.

But, according to the windy eggs deprived of the semen of the cock, it has clearly been shown that the semen is the sole agent. But this is also shown by the great variety of places in which the chick is produced from the egg. In fact, if the efficient cause depended on the place, to each animal an unique and specific place would be assigned and by no manner an egg would produce a chick now in dunghills, now in warm water, now among the breasts of the women, now on the shores of the rivers, now under a sod of earth, or in an oven and other places of this type, because of the great variety of quality of every place, which nevertheless are in relationship for a quality they have in common, that is, the heat.

Unde Arist.[36] dicit quod quamvis incubante ave oritur pullus, tamen si aut tempus sit, bene temperatum, aut locus, in quo ova manent, tepidus, concoquuntur, et avium ova, et oviparorum quadrupedum sine parentis incubitu: Haec enim omnia in terra pariunt, concoquunturque ova tepore terrae: et paulo post[37]; tempus ova concoquere ait: et rursus paulo post, perficitur animal in ovo celerius diebus tepidis, [tempore] tepore enim iuvatur. Nam concoctio est calor [quidem] quidam: terra enim suo calore concoquit: et quae incubant, hoc idem faciunt: adhibent enim suum calorem: haec Arist.

Therefore Aristotle says that although the chick hatches when a bird broods, nevertheless if the climate has a right temperature, or if the place where the eggs are located is lukewarm, both the eggs of birds and of oviparous quadrupeds mature without the brooding of their parent. In fact all these animals lay in the earth and the eggs are matured by the warmth of the earth. A little later he says that the climate mature the eggs, and still a little later he says that an animal in an egg is completed more quickly during the lukewarm days, in fact it is helped by the warmth. Actually the digestion is a kind of heat. In truth the earth makes to mature with its heat, and the brooding animals do this same thing: in fact they use their own heat. Aristotle writes this.

Quapropter dicendum est, loca omnia pullos ex ovis procreare ope tantum teporis, et caliditatis loci. sic Gallinae ova cubando ea calefaciunt: sic per calorem mulierum mammarum sericina ova viva redduntur: sic fimeta suo calore pullum in ovis excitant: sic piscium ova a Solis calore excalfacta, in pisces vertuntur: sic idem Sol serpentum ova calefaciendo, in serpentulos ipsa mutat: sic denique aves omnes nidos suos ea forma, situ, et materia effingunt, et construunt, ut ova inferius calefaciant, et foveant. Sive enim ex luto, ut turdi, et hirundines: sive ex piscium spinis, ut {Alciones} <Alcyones>: sive ex paleis, stipula, aut foeno, ut passer: sive ex condenso frutice, ut perdices, et coturnices: sive in terrae cavernis[38], ut {merope} <merops> in Boaetia[39] [Boeotia?]: sive in saxis, et domibus, ut cuculus[40]: sive in arborum cavernis, ut upupa: quae sane omnia, materia nidorum sunt exterior: perpetuo tamen interius nidis supersternitur aut lanugo, aut pluma, aut aliud quid mollissimum: quod ova ea parte, quam avis non contingit, foveat, calefaciatque, et pullos pennis destitutos ab asperiore contactu omnino tueatur: summatim quicquid locus agit in ovum, id totum per caliditatem contingit.

Therefore we have to say that all the places produce chicks from the eggs only with the help of warmth and heat of the place. So the hens, incubating the eggs, warm them, so through the heat of the breasts of the women the eggs of the silkworm become alive, so the dunghills with their heat stimulate the chick in the eggs, so the eggs of the fishes, heated by the warmth of the sun, turn into fishes, likewise the sun, heating the eggs of the snakes, turns them into little snakes, so, finally, all the birds mould and build their nests with a shape, a structure and a material so that they heat and warm the eggs at the bottom. Or with the mud as thrushes* and swallows*, or with the skeletons of the fishes as sea-gulls, or with straw, stubble or hay as the sparrow, or with a thick bush as partridges* and quails*, or in the earth's holes as the bee-eater at Carro (SV) [more probably in Boeotia*], or among the stones and in the houses as the cuckoo, or in the cavities of the trees as the hoopoe. All these things are the external material of the nests, while inside the nests is always spilled either fluff or feathers or something else very soft, so that they warm and heat the eggs at that side the bird doesn't touch, and so that the chicks without feathers are wholly protected from a too much rough contact. In short, whatever thing a place does to the egg, the whole happens through the heat.

Haec tamen caliditas, et si transmutare ovi corpus in pullum potens est, non tamen ut loci caliditas id in ovo praestat: sed quod plurium locorum varia efficit caliditas, nil aliud est, nisi quia excitat seminis facultatem adhuc consopitam, aut in potentia, aut in primo actu, ipsamque ad secundum revocat actum: ita ut semen in animal migret, et ex chalaza pullus creetur, corporeturque. Quod verum esse ex eo patet, quia alias ova nascerentur etiam ex se ipsis, si calor quicunque moderatus sufficiens, et conveniens accederet: sericina enim ova etiam sine mammarum calore ex se ipsis, ac tantummodo ex aeris tepore nascerentur: similiter et alia.

Nevertheless this heat, even if able to transform the substance of the egg into a chick, however it doesn't succeed in doing this in the egg like the heat of a place, but, since the heat of many places is varying, it limits itself to stimulate the power of the semen still dozing, or on the potential phase, or at the first stage, and it excites it to the second stage, so that the semen turns itself into an animal and the chick is created and takes shape from the chalaza. That this is true is evident from the fact that otherwise the eggs would be born also alone if any sufficient moderate and proper heat entered them. In fact the eggs of the silkworm would be born alone also without the heat of the breasts and only with the warmth of the air, and the same happens for other eggs.

Hoc tamen loco difficultas oritur, videtur enim non esse verum, calorem quemcunque foecundandi vim ad actum deducere, sed potius temperiem; cum semen non nisi in uterum proiectum perficiatur, nequaquam in alium calentem locum immissum cumque is semen attrahat valenti vi, et ad ipsum quoquomodo accurrat, non videtur id, nisi temperamenti proprietate praestare? Respondetur, quod aves incubatu utantur, alia vero minime, ut pisces, formicae, serpentes, et pleraque alia, ea causa est; quoniam corporis calore, structura, et plumis fovere, et calefacere ovum possunt, et ita facultates de potentia ad actum revocare, ut pullus oriatur.

Nevertheless at this point a difficulty arises, since it seems not to be true that any heat carries out the fertilizing strength, but rather a moderate temperature, since the semen becomes perfect only if introduced in the uterus and never if introduced in another warm place, and since the uterus attracts the semen with marked strength and in whatever way goes towards it, doesn't it seem to do such operation for the characteristic of its temperature? We reply: because the birds use the brooding, while other animals not at all, as fishes, ants, snakes and quite a lot of others, the reason is the following: because with the heat of the body, with the bodily structure and with the feathers they can heat and warm the egg, and so to recall the capabilities from the potentiality to the action, so that the chick hatches.

Caetera non cubant, quod neque calorem sufficientem sunt adepta, neque corporis aptam ad cubandum [41] structuram, neque plumas, quibus foveant: ideoque haec omnia fovenda calori Solis committuntur; veruntamen alia sub terrae gleba, ut serpentes, et reptilium genus: alia super herbis, ut pisces: alia in folliculis, et vesicis arborum ramis appensis, ut vermes, rugae[41]; alia alibi, excipitur vulgo asiarius piscis[42], qui ova extra non emittit, sed intra se continet, perficit, et vivum foetum edit, ne propter eorum mollitiem pereant: Mollissimum enim animal hoc est, ideoque cartilagineum, quod materiam in ossa durare natura non potuerit propter mollitiem. Arist.[43] reddens causam cur aves incubant, quadrupeda ovipara minime, dicit, quadrupedum ova, ut validiora tepore concoqui, avium vero ut imbecilliora parentem desiderare: quomodo autem haec quidem imbecilliora, illa vero validiora sint, non dixit.

Other animals don't brood since they are not endowed with a sufficient heat neither have a bodily structure suitable for brooding, nor feathers by which to heat. Therefore all these eggs are entrusted to the heat of the sun to be heated, nevertheless some under a sod of earth as the snakes and the genus of the reptiles, others on grasses as the fishes, others in pouches and in vesicles hung to the branches of the trees as the worms and the caterpillars, other eggs in other places. The fish commonly called asiario is an exception, it doesn't spawn its eggs, but it keeps them inside of itself, it brings them to completion and gives birth to an alive fetus, so that they don't go lost because of their softness. In fact this is a very soft animal, and therefore cartilaginous, since nature because of the softness has not been able to harden the matter turning it into bones. Aristotle, explaining the reason why the birds brood, while the quadrupeds oviparous don't do it at all, states that the eggs of the quadrupeds, being more strong, are made to mature by the warmth, while those of the birds, being more weak, need a parent. But he didn't say how these are more weak and those are more strong.

Ultimo Arist.[44] pariendi tempus in Gallinis constituit aestate quidem vigesimum secundum diem; hyeme aliquando vigesimum quintum, celerius enim aestate propter ambientis calorem, quam hyeme excludunt: aliis autem plus, minus temporis pullorum excludendorum assignatur, pro ut proprium temperamentum, et nativus cuiusque calor requirit.

Finally Aristotle established the time necessary to the hatching in the hens, in summer at 22^nd  day, in winter sometimes at 25^th day, in fact in summer they hatch more quickly than in winter because of the surrounding heat. For other birds a time is established greater or smaller than that necessary for hatching of the chicks, depending on what requires their temperature and the inborn heat of each one.

Cum igitur constitutum iam sit, Pullum tanquam ex materia ex ovi chalaza, tanquam vero ab agente ex Galli semine ovum foecundante generari: nutrimentum autem pulli esse duplex, album et luteum, et a calore cubantis, tum vero a quovis alio calore moderato facultatem generativam consopitam, et quietam excitari: Modo nil aliud restat, nisi videre quot, et quae actiones in ovo celebrentur, ut eximius hic effectus videlicet pulli generatio sequatur, inde quomodo, et quo ordine partes foetus formentur: denique quo modo adaugeantur, et nutriantur explicare, sic enim omnes, quae in utero, seu ovo pennatorum actiones peraguntur, contemplabimur, cognitis autem actionibus, facile, et facultates, et opera facta propalantur, etenim actiones a facultatibus, opera autem facta ab actionibus dimanant.

Therefore by now it has been established that the chick is generated, as matter, by the chalaza of the egg, as agent, by the semen of the cock fertilizing the egg, and that the nourishment of the chick is double, the white and the yellow, and that the dozing and quiescent generative ability is put in movement by the heat of who is brooding, or by a whatever other moderate heat. Now we have only to see how many and what activities occur in the egg, so that this extraordinary result comes true, that is, the generation of the chick, then, how and in what order the parts of the fetus are formed. Finally, to explain how they increase and are fed. In fact so we will examine all the activities occurring in the uterus or in the egg of the birds. After having known the activities, easily the powers and the done works become known, since the activities come from the faculties, while the finished works come from the activities.

Tres primum actiones sunt, quae in ovo avi supposito apparent. Prima est pulli generatio, secunda eiusdem accretio, Tertia nutritio nuncupatur. Prima, hoc est generatio, propria est ovi actio; secunda, et tertia videlicet accretio, et nutritio maiori ex parte extra ovum succedunt, tamen in ovo inchoantur et quoque perficiuntur. Quae actiones sicuti a tribus facultatibus dimanant, generatrice, auctrice, et nutritoria: sic eas tria opera facta consequuntur.

First of all the activities appearing in an egg put under a bird are three. The first is the generation of the chick, the second is its growth, the third is called nutrition. The first, that is the generation, is an activity proper of the egg, the second and the third, that is the growth and the nutrition, for the most part occur outside the egg, nevertheless they start in the egg and there are also carried out. These activities come as from three faculties: generative, augmentative and nutritive, and so three finished works follow them.

Ex generatione enim omnes pulli partes resultant; ex accretione, et nutritione, auctum, et nutritum pulli corpus. De prima, hoc est de pulli generatione prius agentes, scire licet, ope generatricis facultatis pulli partes, quae prius non erant, produci, atque ita ovum in pulli corpus migrare. Dum autem quaevis pars in alteram commigrat, illam propriae essentiae commutationem subire necessarium est; alioqui eadem substantia maneret, simulque eamdem in aptam, et convenientem naturae suae figuram, situm, et magnitudinem conformari est necesse, hisque duabus absolvitur procreatio substantiae commutatione, et conformatione.

In fact all the parts of the chick are resulting from the generation, the increased and fed body of the chick is resulting from growth and nutrition. About the first one, that is the generation of the chick, it is worthwhile to know that by means of the generating faculty the first active parts of the chick are produced, which before didn't exist, and that so the egg turns itself into the body of the chick. When whatever part turns itself into another, it is necessary that it undergoes the change of its own essence, otherwise it would remain the same substance, and contemporarily it is necessary that it turns into a shape, a structure and a greatness right and suitable to its nature, and the generation is fulfilled by these two things: the transformation of the substance and its structuring.

Immutatrix igitur, et formatrix facultas harum functionum causae erunt. Una unamquanque corporis partem, qualem cernimus, ex ovi chalaza produxit; [alteram] altera figuram illi, compagemque, et situm propriis usibus idoneum contulit. Prima, quae tum immutatrix, tum etiam alteratrix appellatur facultas, tota naturalis est, et sine ulla cognitione agit, [42] et calido, frigido, humido, et sicco assumpto, totam per totam chalazae substantiam alterat, et alterando in pulli partes immutat, hoc est in carnem, ossa, cartilaginem, ligamenta, venas, arterias, nervos, et si quae sunt in animali, seu pullo, partes omnes similares, ac simplices convertit, (quae omnes huius alteratricis facultatis opera sunt) easque ex proprio, ingenitoque calore, et spiritu galli semen ex ovo, hoc est chalaza alterando, et commutando generat, creat, producitque, propriam substantiam, substantiaeque proprietatem cuique impertiens.

Insofar the faculty of changing and forming will be the causes of these functions. One of them produced from the chalaza of the egg each part of the body as we see it, the other supplied it with a shape, a structure and a proper place for its own uses. The first faculty, called both transformer and also transmuter, is quite natural and acts without any knowledge, and after having absorbed the warmth, the cold, the dampness and the dryness, completely changes through the whole substance of the chalaza, and changing turns itself into the parts of the chick, that is in flesh, bones, cartilage, ligaments, veins, arteries, nerves, and in all those similar and simple parts present in an animal or in the chick (all being works of this transmuter faculty), and the semen of the cock produces and creates them from its own heat and innate spirit starting from the egg. That is, the chalaza, by altering and changing, generates, creates and produces its substance, and by distributing to each part the property of the substance.

Altera vero, quae formatrix dicitur, quaeque similares partes dissimilares efficit, iis scilicet ornatum ex apta figura, iusta magnitudine, idoneo situ, et congruo numero, conferens, iam proposita longe nobilior est, et summa sapientia praedita; de qua propterea Aristo. dubitavit an divinioris esset originis, et a calido, frigido, humido, et sicco res diversa. Nam revera genito v. g. per alteratricem oculo, ponere postea ipsum in capite, non in calcaneo, et rotundam illi praebere figuram, non quadrangulam, aut aliam: magnitudinem autem moderatam, et numerum, qui neque unum, neque tres, neque plures oculos comprehendat; haec (inquam) opera non naturaliter, sed cum electione, et cognitione, atque intellectu potius facta videntur.

But the other already quoted faculty called formative and making dissimilar the similar parts, that is, conferring them a beauty coming from a proper aspect, a correct greatness, a fitting position and a congruous number, it is very more important and endowed with enormous wisdom, thence Aristotle doubted that it was rather of divine origin and a thing different from warmth, cold, dampness and dryness. Actually, in reality, once the eye has been produced thanks to the transformer faculty, to put it subsequently in the head and not in the heel, and to give it a round shape, not quadrangular, or of another type, then of a moderate greatness and of a number that is neither one nor three, neither containing quite a lot of eyes, I would say that these activities seem to have been done not naturally, but rather by choice and knowledge and intelligence.

Videtur siquidem formatrix facultas exactam habere cognitionem, et providentiam tum futurae actionis, tum usus cuiusque partis, et organi, praevidens quippe quasi infinita sapientia praedita, oculos ad videndum esse comparatos, visioni vero idoneos futuros, si in eminenti loco consistant, ut tanquam de specula cuncta prospicere, et collustrare possint: rotundaque figura debere conformari, quo ad cuncta videnda quo quo versum e vestigio moveantur; tum duorum numerum eis competere, quo plura videant, et uno laeso, alter dimidium saltim actionis retineat; quae omnia cum  providentia, et ratione facta potius, quam naturaliter videntur; ideoque non est mirandum, ut dixi, si de hac formatrice foetus facultate Arist.[45] dubitavit, an divinioris sit originis, et a calido, frigido, humido, et sicco res diversa. Haec igitur, sunt facultates, actiones, et opera facta generatricis, quae Galli semini, et ovi chalazis indita est.

Actually it seems that the formative faculty has an exact knowledge and foresight both of a future action and of the use of every part and organ, because it foresees, as if endowed with endless wisdom, that the eyes are pre-arranged to see, that is, that they will become suitable for the vision if placed in a high position, so that they can look and observe all the things as from a summit, and that must be moulded with a round shape, so to move in whatever direction to see at once all the things. Then the number two is due to them, so that they see more things, and if one has been injured the other keeps at least the half of the activity. All these things seem to have been created with foresight and rationality instead than naturally. Insofar, as I said, we don't have to marvel if Aristotle doubted that this formative faculty of the fetus is rather of divine origin and that it is a thing different from warmth, cold, dampness and dryness. Therefore these are the faculties, the activities and the finished work of the parent, which is intrinsic to the semen of the cock and to the chalazae of the egg.

Neque vos turbet (Auditores) ex pusillo, minimoque corpore, cuiusmodi chalaza est, innumeras propemodum resultare pulli partes, et organa; quoniam id [occulta] oculata fide vobis erit perspectum, si mecum exiguum hoc pulli principium minus forte, quam chalaza sit, contemplabimini; in quo cor adesse ex pulsu percipietis; inde caput, oculos, spinam oculis ipsis videbitis; alius vero omnes pulli partes in hoc exiguo corpusculo contineri, omnium earum generatio, quae exiguo temporis spatio succedit, manifestum omnino vobis faciet. Et haec de prima ovi actione quae est pulli generatio; ad quam celebrandam, et Galli semen agens, et foecundans, et chalaza tanquam materia substituta est.

Neither has to trouble you, listeners, the fact that from a small and dwarfish structure, as the chalaza is, almost innumerable parts and organs of the chick are coming out, since this will become clear to you, by an eye proof, if you will consider with me that this primordium of the chick is perhaps smaller than the chalaza; in which - the chick - you will perceive, from the pulsation, that there the heart is, then with the eyes themselves you will see the head, the eyes, the backbone. In short, it will be quite evident to you that all the parts of the chick are contained in this dwarfish structure, and that the generation of all of them happens in a short course of time. These are the things concerning the first activity of the egg corresponding to the generation of the chick; to practice this, the fertilizing semen of the cock is acting, and the chalaza has been appointed as matter - from which the chick originates.

Sed non haec sola in ovo provenit, atque conspicitur actio a galli semine foecundante proveniens; sed etiam accretio eorum, quae genita sunt, quae ex nutritione expletur, secundo loco insurgit, et sese [exeit] exerit: accretio (inquam) tanta, quanta sufficit, ut pullus membra mollissima, et pene fluida quae in prima adeptus est formatione, tam firma habeat et constantia, ut per os cibum capere, et ad capiendum moveri, tum vero illum sensibus discernere utcunque possit. Sane foetus augmentum nutritione, utrunque autem alimento completur; actiones {[39]} <[43]> autem utriusque eaedem esse videntur.

But in the egg doesn't occur and is not seen only this activity coming from the fertilizing semen of the cock, but also the growth of the generated structures. The activity carried out by the nutrition occurs in a second time and shows itself. I would say that the growth is as much as enough so that the chick has so firm and strong those very soft and almost fluid limbs, acquired at the beginning of the formation, so to be able to take the food with the mouth and to move for taking it, and then it succeeds anyhow in distinguishing it through the senses. Without doubt the growth of the fetus is completed by the nutrition and both the things are completed by the food, thence the functions of both seem to be identical.

Nam attractio, retentio, concoctio, quae tanquam nutritioni propriae censentur actiones, ipsius quoque accretionis communes sunt, eamque perficiunt. Quas sane actiones effectrices praecedunt facultates, subsequuntur autem opera facta: effectrices autem facultates sunt attractrix, retentrix, concoctrix, et expultrix: denique quae apponit, agglutinat, et tandem nutrimentum assimilat: opera autem facta sunt (ut summatim dicam) auctus, et nutritus tum pullus, tum omnes pulli partes.

In fact the assumption, the retention, the digestion, which are held as characteristic activities of nutrition, are also common to the growth itself and bring it to an end. In truth the creative faculties precede these activities, but the performed works come after. The creative faculties are the attractive, the retentive, the digestive and the expulsive. Finally, that one affixing, agglutinating and finally assimilating the nourishment. On the other hand, to summarize, the finished works are both the grown and fed chick, and all the parts of the chick.

Haec porro pulli auctio, et nutritio, quia tanquam ab agente ab ovi insitis facultatibus, tanquam vero ex materia ex sanguine exuberante fiunt, sanguis vero in ovo nullus insit; propterea natura ipsum ex aliqua materia suppeditare constituit, in ovo tum albumen, tum vitellum posuit, quae in sanguinem fere dictum, factum migrant, et propositum augendi, nutriendique corpus foetus scopum, et usum complent. Iam igitur omnes facultates, actiones, et opera facta, quae ab ovo, et in ovo proveniunt, proposita sunt.

Furthermore this growth of the chick and the nourishment, since as far as agent is concerned, are produced by faculties inborn in the egg, but as far as matter by blood in exuberance, while in the egg there is no blood. Insofar the nature established to supply it with some matter, and set in the egg both the albumen and the yolk, which, almost no sooner said than done, turn themselves into blood and carry out the aforesaid purpose and necessity to increase and to feed the body of the fetus. Therefore all the performed faculties, actions and works, coming from the egg and ending in the egg, have been by now told.

Superest modo, ut in huius tractationis fine contemplemur, perpendamusque quo ordine, hoc est, quae prius, quaeve posterius partes, et organa in ovo gignantur: sic enim (ni fallor) tota haec contemplatio suum finem, suosque numeros fuerit assecuta. In cuius indagine duo ponenda fundamenta sunt: alterum a corpore, alterum a re incorporea desumptum, ut puta a natura, et ab anima.

At the end of this treatment we only have to examine and attentively appraise in what order, that is, what parts and organs in the egg are generated before and what later. In fact, if I am not mistaken, in this way this whole analysis will achieve its purpose and its objectives. In such investigation two fundamental principles have to be set, one inferred from the body and the other from the incorporeal, that is, from nature and soul.

Corporeum fundamentum appello, quod a natura corporis dependet, et fluit: et ab arte factis facile exemplum desumitur. Sicuti enim quodcumque aedificium, et fabrica ab arte constructa, prius fundamenta requirit, super quibus universum aedificium ponatur, ut sustentetur: inde parietes eriguntur, a quibus, et pavimenta, et tecta sustineantur; tum vero suppellex, et caetera domus ornamenta iis appenduntur, ac stabiliuntur: ita profecto natura fabricam animalis molitur. Ossa tanquam fundamenta primum constituit, ut iis omnes corporis partes nascantur, appendantur, ac stabiliantur: quae etiam alio nomine prius formantur, et constituuntur.

I call corporeal foundation that one depending and springing from the nature of the body, and an easy example is inferred from the artworks. In fact, as whatever well made building and construction first request the foundations on which the whole building is set so that it is supported, then the walls are erected by which have to be supported both the floors and the roofs, then the furniture and the other ornaments of the house are hung and fixed to them: really this way the nature organizes the structure of an animal. Firstly it organizes the bones as if they were the foundations, so that on them are born, hung and consolidate all the parts of the body. They are formed and organized previously also with another name.

Nam cum ossa ex mollissima, et membranea substantia primam suam habeant originem, et paulo post durissima fiant, ideo multum temporis poni oportet in generatione ossis, ut os durissimum efficiatur, ideoque prius gignitur. Hinc Gal.[46] non cuicunque artificio animalis fabricam comparat, sed maxime navigio. Inquit enim sicuti navigii fundamentum, et principium carina est, ex qua costae hinc inde in circulum recurvatae, et instar cratis modice inter se distantes porriguntur, ut universa navigii fabrica ex carina, tanquam ex congruo supposito principio postea consummetur; sic in animali fabrica natura per spinam porrectam, et costas circumductas quasi carinam, et fabricae principium congruum constitutum, totam deinde componit, et perficit molem.

In fact, since the bones take their first origin from a very soft and membranous substance, and soon after they become very hard, therefore quite a lot of time has to be employed in the generation of the bone so that the bone becomes very hard, and therefore it is generated as first. Therefore Galen doesn't compare the creation of an animal to whatever artwork, but above all to a ship. In fact he says that, as the basis and the beginning of a ship is the keel, from which the sides curved as a circle and a little bit distant each other as a hurdle are branching off here and there, so that afterwards the whole construction of the ship is ended from the keel as from a principle harmonically presupposed, so afterwards in the creation of an animal the nature composes and perfects the whole structure by a lengthened backbone and by the bent coasts as if being a hull and a harmonically structured principle of the construction.

Quocirca si in pulli generatione tale quidpiam a principio statim conspicias, videlicet totam spinam productam, et costas delineatas, et caput efformatum, dicas quasi carinam esse animali fabricae paratam, et appositam; et caput altius caeteris, quasi puppim, erectum. At vero si spina tanquam carina, prior caeteris genita est, omnino, et spinalem medullam prius intus poni erat necessarium. Quod si spinalis medulla ante spinam formari, includique [44] debet, omnino cerebrum, quod spinali medullae principium est, conformari prius erat conveniens. Sed multos in admirationem adducit, cur natura oculos magis evidentes, et pene caeteris partibus maiores construxerit?

Therefore, if in the generation of the chick starting from the beginning you note at once something similar, that is, the whole formed spine and the sketched coasts, and the shaped head, you would say that to the construction of the animal has been prepared and arranged a keel, and that the head, more aloft than the other structures, is erect as being a poop. But if the spine almost being a keel has been generated before the other structures, it was absolutely necessary that before at its inside also the spinal marrow was placed. Thence, if the spinal marrow has to be formed before the backbone and has to be included in it, it was absolutely opportune that the brain, which serves as beginning for the spinal marrow, was formed first. But what follows marvels quite a lot of people: why nature would have built the eyes more evident and almost greater than the remaining structures?

Nisi dicamus, oculorum naturam pene totam diaphanam esse, ideoque sanguinem in eorum generatione naturam non admittere, sed maxime diaphana corpora: cuiusmodi chalazarum corpus est, ideoque statim a chalazis ad magnam partem conformari, ut sanguis modice ad illorum generationem concurrat. Quod si concurrere multum sanguinis dicamus, omnino alio nomine oculi prius, et gignuntur, et perficiuntur: propterea quod oculi ex diversis admodum, et inter se contrariis partibus conflantur, opacis scilicet, nigrisque, et corpulentis, ut uvea tunica, et choroide: et ex diaphanis albissimis, rarissimis, et purissimis, nimirum crystallino, aqueo, et vitreo humore: item cornea, coniunctiva, retina, aranea[47]. Sed in contrariis partibus constituendis natura multum temporis, multum laboris ponit, ut partes contrarias mutuo a materia separet: ergo prius erant oculi formandi, et gignendi.

Unless we say that the structure of the eyes is almost all diaphanous, and therefore nature doesn't use blood in producing them, but especially in producing diaphanous bodies, as the body of the chalazae is, and therefore they are at once and in a large extent formed by the chalazae, so that the blood little contributes to their generation. But if we say that quite a lot of blood contributes, the eyes are absolutely generated and completed previously with another name. Therefore the eyes are composed by very different and each other contrary parts, that is opaque, black and thick, as the tunic of uvea and choroid, and by diaphanous, very white, very thin and very pure structures, that is, crystalline lens, aqueous and vitreous humour, likewise cornea, conjunctiva, retina, arachnoid – perhaps the choroid of today. But in building the contrary parts, nature employs a lot of time and a lot of labour, so to reciprocally separate the contrary parts from the matter; thence the eyes had to be formed and produced before.

His addi tanquam tertia causa, usus potest; oculi enim tanquam maxime necessarii, statim infantibus nascentibus aperiuntur, ideoque prius gigni, ut prius perfectionem adipiscantur, necesse est. Iam igitur patet ex arte factis, cur natura spinam primo, et caput efformarit, et veluti carinam animali fabricae constituerit. Satius autem fuerit dicere, artem ab ipsa natura didicisse, et ipsam fuisse imitatam, quoniam uti dicit ubique Galenus[48] natura, et antiquior est, et in operibus suis magis sapiens, quam ars; idem exactissime conspicitur in ranarum generatione, quae ex exiguis animalculis inchoatur vulgo hic ranabottoli: quorum non est conspicere nisi caput, et caudam, hoc est caput, et spinam sine cruribus penitus, et brachiis: quae tamen temporis progressu maiora facta, iam nigro colore recedente, et colore vero ranarum accedente, simul quoque brachia, et crura expullulare videntur; primo quidem exigua, et imperfecta; subinde perfecta, et consummata. Confirmat igitur perbelle hoc totum, inchoata ranarum productio.

As third motive can be added to these reasons, that of the use. In fact the eyes, being very necessary, are immediately opened to the infants when are born, hence it is necessary that they are generated as first ones so to reach the perfection firstly. Then it is already clear from the works of art why nature formed at first the backbone and the head and placed them as a keel for building an animal. On the other hand it would be preferable to say that the art learned from nature itself and that the latter has been imitated, since as always Galen says the nature is more ancient and more wise in its works than the art is. The same thing is seen in a perfect way in the generation of the frogs starting from dwarfish little animals, here in Padua commonly called ranabottoli - the tadpoles, of which it is possible to see only the head and the tail, that is the head and the backbone completely deprived of legs and arms, and that however with the progressing of the time, when they become greater, while the black colour goes out and that of frogs arrives, contemporarily also the arms and the legs are seen to sprout, at first small and defective, then ended and completed. Insofar all this is confirmed very well by the beginning of the formation of the frogs.

Alterum fundamentum partium prius, et posterius generandarum sumitur a natura, hoc est ab anima; a qua animalis corpus regitur, ac gubernatur. Si enim duo sunt gradus animae, vegetalis, et sensitivus; vegetalisque est tempore, et natura prior, cum ipsis plantis sit communis; omnino organa vegetali deservientia, prius generanda, conformandaque sunt, quam quae {sensititivae} <sensitivae>, et motivae accomodantur, facultati praecipue autem principalia, et quae rationem obtinent gubernantis; Sunt autem haec organa potissimum duo, iecur, et cor: iecur quidem tanquam sedes concupiscibilis, seu vegetalis, seu nutritoriae: cor aut tanquam organum, quod suo calore, et vegetalem, et quamcunque aliam facultatem vegetat et perficit: ideoque cum vegetali societatem, et nexum validum habet.

The other principle, related to the generation before and after of the parts, is assumed by nature, that is by the soul, by which the body of the animal is ruled and governed. If in fact the components of the soul are two, vegetative and sensitive, and the vegetative is antecedent for time and for nature, being common to the plants themselves, undoubtedly the organs useful to the vegetative component have to be produced and structured before those being at the head of the sensorial and motor faculty, on the other hand above all those principal and possessing the principle of the regulation. These organs are above all two, the liver and the heart, the liver as the centre of the concupiscible or vegetative or nourishing function, the heart as the organ which with its heat makes to grow and improves both the vegetative and any other faculty. Therefore it possesses a valid bond and connection with the vegetative faculty.

Unde si in supposito ovo post tres dies videas ea parte, qua pullus gignitur, cor palpitare, ut quoque testatur Arist.[49], non mireris, sed dicas, cor ad vegetalem pertinere, et propterea primum generari: rationi quoque consentaneum est, et iecur similiter una cum corde gigni sed latere, quia non palpitet ut cor, nam et ipse Arist.[50] iecur, et cor pari ratione in animali corpore constitui asseverat, ita ut si cor est, est et iecur, ait Aristot.

Then if in a brooded egg you see after three days the heart palpitating in that point where the chick is generated, as also Aristotle testifies, you don't have to marvel, but you have to say that the heart belongs to the vegetative system and therefore it is firstly produced. It is also reasonable that similarly also the liver is produced with the heart, but sideways, since it doesn't palpitate as the heart, in fact also Aristotle himself affirms that the liver and the heart grow up in the body of the animal for identical motives, so that if there is the heart, there is also the liver, Aristotle says.

Si igitur iecur, et cor primo generantur, consonum quoque est, et caetera organa [45] his duobus deservientia cum his similiter generari; ut ratione cordis, pulmones, et ratione iecoris, omnia membra, quae fere in infimo ventre consistunt: Praeterea venas, et arterias, non solum propter eandem rationem similiter cum corde, et iecore gigni, necesse est, sed etiam ita gigni peculiari ratione confirmatur. Quod si enim simul atque iecur, et cor genita sunt, statim et nutriri, et augeri incipiunt: nutrimentum autem non nisi per venas comportatur, necessario venas paratas esse, et iam genitas, cum primum iecur genitum est, oportet; alioqui alimenti defectu interiret.

Therefore if the liver and the heart are first generated, it is correct that also the other organs useful to these two are likewise produced together with them: like the lungs because of the heart, and because of the liver all the structures present in the almost lowest part of the abdomen. Furthermore it is not only necessary that the veins and the arteries are produced for the same reason together with the heart and the liver, but also confirmation is given that they are so produced for a particular reason. In fact if the liver and also the heart are produced together, immediately they begin to be fed and to grow. Afterwards the nourishment is transported only through the veins and necessarily the veins must be ready and generated as soon as the liver has been produced, otherwise it would die for lack of nourishment.

Similiter de corde, et arteriis dicendum est: videlicet non posse nutritionem iecoris succedere sine calore cordis, qui per arterias circumfunditur: ideo neque etiam mireris, si arterias pulsare videris, et ad membranam, ubi pulli generatio fit, venas, arteriasque per parvi circuli superficiem in pullum transmissas, intuearis. Liquet, igitur ex his in prima statim pulli generatione iecur, cor, venas, arterias, pulmones, et omnia in infimo ventre membra contenta generari: item carinam, hoc est caput cum oculis, ac tota spina, et thorace conformari: ita ut in pulli generatione primis quatuor, aut quinque diebus omnia iam proposita conspiciantur, ac tantum artus desint, hoc est alae, et crura, et quae haec componunt, ut ossa, articuli, et musculosum genus: quae ratione optima posterius gignuntur, quod motus actio, postrema omnium animalium actionum sit, et a vegetali facultate longissimo distans intervallo: unde organa quoque ad motum spectantia, et ipsa postremo loco generanda sunt.

We have to say the same thing about the heart and the arteries, that is: the nutrition of the liver cannot happen without the heat of the heart, which is spread through the arteries. Therefore you should neither to marvel if you see the arteries pulsating and if you observe the veins and the arteries spreading in the chick through the surface of a small circle until the membrane where the generation of the chick happens. Therefore from these things it is clear that, just at the beginning of the generation of the chick, the liver, the heart, the veins, the arteries, the lungs and all the structures contained in the inferior part of the abdomen are generated. Likewise the hull takes shape, that is the head with the eyes and the whole backbone and thorax. So that during the generation of the chick in the first four or five days already all the aforesaid things are seen, and only the limbs are missing, that is, wings and legs and the structures composing them, as bones, articulations and various muscles, which for very good reasons are produced afterwards, since the movement is the last of the activities of all the animals and very far from the vegetative faculty, thence also the parts concerning the movement have to be last generated.

Atque haec de animalium generatione ex veris ovis, et proprie dictis proposita sint. Nunc ovorum actio, seu animalium generatio ex ovis improprie dictis proponenda est.

And these things we reported are concerning the generation of the animals from true and properly said eggs. Now we have to relate the activity of the eggs, that is, the generation of the animals from improperly said eggs.

Hanc Arist. passim vermis generationem esse tradit. Differre autem hanc a prima ex perfectis ovis voluit: quod haec ex parte sui animal generant, ex parte nutriunt, alia vero totum, quod habent, in animalis, hoc est vermis generatione conferunt, ita ut ex ovo toto vermis nascatur: propter quam causam[51] eiusmodi ova nequaquam heterogeneas partes, sed duntaxat homogeneas continent: quod Arist.[52] significavit per illud verbum, fluidum, unde dicit; Genus quoddam papilionum durum quiddam simile cartamo idest cnici semini producit, sed intus fluidum: ex quo toto (nimirum fluido, et homogeneo in ovo contento) nascitur vermis: qui ex Arist. [53]imperfectum animal est, et fere homogeneum, et indiscretum: et cum ex toto eo fluido vermis nascatur sequitur, in ovo nullam superesse materiam, quae alimentum vermi sit.

Here and there Aristotle reports that the following generation is that of the worm. In fact he stated that this generation differs from the first one happening from the perfect eggs, since from one of their portion these eggs are producing the animal, they nourish it with another part. The other eggs transfer anything they have into the generation of the animal, that is of the worm, so that from the whole egg a worm is born. Because of this such eggs don't contain at all heterogeneous parts, but only homogeneous, which Aristotle expressed with that word, fluid, hence he says: A kind of butterflies produces something hard, similar to the safflower*, that is, to the seed of safflower, but which inside is fluid, and from the whole (that is, from the homogeneous fluid contained in the egg) a worm is born, which for Aristotle is a defective animal and almost homogeneous and undifferentiated. And since from all that fluid a worm is born, it follows that in the egg doesn't remain any material which can serve as food for the worm.

Attamen Arist.[54] vermen nutriri, et augeri voluit, et emittere excrementa. Ergo aderit in ovo etiam alimenti portio; neque verum erit, ex toto eo animal fieri. Sed triplex afferri responsio potest. Prima, ut vermis in ovo genitus habeat in se, hoc est intus suo corpore aliquam materiam inconcoctam, quae per ulteriorem concoctionem ipsimet alimento sit. Alia responsio est, ut dicamus definitiones aliquantulum variando. Ovum proprie dictum id esse, ex cuius minori parte animal gignitur, videlicet ex chalaza: ex maiore autem nutritur, ut puta ex albumine, et vitello: ovum vero improprie dictum contra scilicet esse; ex cuius maiori parte animal gignitur, ex minori vero nutritur. Quae responsio videtur meae suprapositae sententiae magis [46] competere. Tertia responsio ex Arist. elicitur; qui vult, vermen ex toto ovo genitum iam extra ovum in ambiente degere, et exterius nutriri, augerique, et emittere excrementa: Si enim ex toto ovo vermis gignitur, consonum est, eo genito, nihil reliqui ex ovo superesse; sed ad actionem ovi improprie dicti redeamus.

However Aristotle established that the worm feeds and increases, and that it sends forth excrements. Insofar in the egg there will be also a portion of food and it won't be true that the animal is formed from the whole egg. But a triplex answer can be given. The first, since the worm produced in the egg would have inside itself, that is, inside its body, a little bit of indigested matter which for further digestion becomes food for it. The other answer lies in saying the definitions with a little bit of variations. The egg properly said is that from whose smaller part the animal is produced, that is from chalaza, while it is fed from the greater one, that is, from albumen and yolk. On the contrary the improperly said egg is exactly that from whose greater part the animal is produced and is fed from the smaller one. This answer seems to be more consistent with my affirmation previously brought. The third answer is deduced from Aristotle, who affirms that the worm generated by the whole egg when is out of the egg lives in the environment and is fed and increased outside, and that it sends forth excrements. If in fact the worm is generated from the whole egg, it is correct that, once generated, nothing of the egg remains. But we return to the activity of the improperly said egg.

Arist. sicuti duplicem quodammodo ovi naturam, duplexque ovum constituit in hoc genere, uti in historia diximus; ita duplicem ponit actionem, genitumque animal duplex. Etenim ex primis ovis, quae primordia generationis sunt, vermis perpetuo gignitur: nimirum ex ovis muscarum, formicarum, apum, sericinorum bombycum animalium, et ex ovo cartamo simili, et aliis id genus, in quibus quid fluidum continetur, et ex eo fluido toto vermis nascitur: ex secundis vero ovis, quae ab ipsomet verme fabricantur, papiliones gignuntur[55], et exeunt scilicet volatile animal, quod in putamine, seu folliculo, ceu ovo, continetur, et concluditur: et abrupto folliculo exit, ut de locustarum ovis Aristot.[56] prodit cum locustas ex ovo hoc sane modo fieri, et erumpere tradidit. locustae pariunt in rimis sua ova, quae durant hyeme, et in terra ineunte aestate proveniunt ex foetu anni superioris locustae, quae in terram faetum deponunt; ita ut quasi favus esse videatur, hinc vermiculi, speciem ovi gerentes oriuntur: qui terra praetenui, tanque membranula ambiuntur, qua disiecta emergunt locustae, ac evolant.

Aristotle, like put somehow in this type of egg a double nature of the egg and a double egg, as I told in the description, so he establishes in it a double activity and a double generated animal. In fact the worm is always produced by the first eggs which are the starts of the generation, that is, from the eggs of flies, ants, bees, silkworms, and from the egg similar to the safflower and others of this kind, in which something fluid is contained, and from this whole fluid the worm is born. From the second eggs, built by the worm itself, the butterflies are born and they go out as a flying animal, which is contained and held in the shell or follicle or egg. When the follicle has been broken, it goes out, as Aristotle reports about the eggs of the locusts, when he reported that the locusts are formed and go out of the egg just in this way. The locusts give birth in the cracks to their eggs and they remain here during the winter, and at the beginning of the summer the locusts are sprouting in the earth, which are coming from the fetus of the previous year, which lay the fetus in the earth, so that it almost seems a honeycomb, and hence some little worms are born which seem eggs, which are wound by a very thin earth as being a thin membrane, and when this has been broken, the locusts emerge and fly away.

Eodem modo fieri generationes vermium, Bombycum, qui sericini appellantur, conspicimus. Etenim ex ovis ineunte aestate a papilionibus superiore anno exclusis, ac toto hyberno tempore sic servatis, postea circa Veris medium a calore solis, ut dicit Arist. et ab alio quoque moderato calore, v. g. inter mulierum mammas, facultates in ovo insitas excitante, oboriuntur vermes; qui statim atque orti sunt, mori folia comedentes nutriuntur, augentur, et emittunt excrementa: ubi autem iustum receperint augmentum, tum a cibo cessant, et folliculi fabricae toti dediti, tandem in folliculo a se ipsis fabrefacto, ceu in ovo se includunt, ubi in aurelias[57], seu chrysalidas primum versi, hoc est vermem quodammodo immobilem, mox in papiliones degenerant, qui rupto folliculo, foras evolant: caeterum hi alas tantum quatiunt, nequaquam a solo sese attollentes, sed ambulant ita dimotis alis, donec mare foeminae occurrente diu coeant: a coitu foeminae mox ova excludunt, et moriuntur, ut quoque mares.[58]

We see that the generation of the worms of bombyces, called silkworms, happens in the same way. In fact, from the eggs laid by the butterflies in the preceding year at the beginning of summer and so preserved during the whole winter season, then about the middle of spring the worms are born for the heat of the sun, as Aristotle says, and for some other moderate heat, for example among the breasts of the women, which excites the faculties present in the egg. The worms, as soon as are born, are nourished by eating the leaves of the mulberry, they grow and send forth excrements. When they acquired a correct increase then stop to eat and, wholly devoted to the cocoon making, finally lock themselves in a cocoon by themselves elegantly worked as being an egg, where, at first turned into aureliae - golden - or chrysalises, that is in a worm somehow immobile, subsequently they turn into butterflies which, having broken the cocoon, fly outside. On the other hand they only beats the wings without absolutely rising from the ground, but they walks moving the wings until they mate for a long time when a male meets with a female. Immediately after the coition the females lay the eggs and die, as also the males.

Caeterum non eadem generationis, et formarum successio omnibus est. Etenim insecta aut ex ovo gignuntur, aut ex animalibus generis eiusdem[59], ut phalangia, et aranei; ex phalangiis, et araneis, ut bruchi, locustae, cicadae: aut non ex animalibus sed sponte: Alia ex rore, qui frondibus inhaeret, videlicet verno tempore, cum natura fert. alia ex {hyberno} <hiberno> tempore diutius australi: alia ex coeno, aut fimo putrescente: alia in lignis aut stirpium ipsarum aut caesis: alia in animalium pilis, alia in excrementis aut excretis, aut intus in corpore contentis: Quorum nullum ex ovo, quod non praeest, suam generationem adipiscitur: quamvis ex iis aliquot aliam postea subeant mutationem, et in folliculo ovi speciem referente se includant.

Furthermore not all of them show the same sequence of generation and appearance. In fact the insects are generated either from the egg or from animals of the same species, as poisonous spiders and spiders from poisonous spiders and spiders, as caterpillars, locusts and cicadas; or not from animals but spontaneously; others from the dew sticking to the foliage, naturally in spring period, when the nature is productive, others in winter period when the wind of south persists, others from the mud or from the putrescent manure, others in the woods either of the stumps themselves or in cut woods, others in the hair of the animals, others in the excrements expelled or contained inside the body. None of them draws its own generation from an egg, since it doesn't exist, even if some of them subsequently run into a mutation and shut themselves in a pouch with the appearance of an egg.

Uti autem in propositis paucior formarum successio est, sic in nonnullis numerosior, uti ex Aristot.[60] elicitur tum fieri ex quodam verme grandiore, qui veluti cornua gemina protendit, suique generis est, primum toto immutato, erucam: [47] deinde eum qui bombyx appellatur: ex hoc necydalum[61], invalidum dixerim: quae varia formarum successio in semestri temporis spatio completur. Nonnunquam Arist. simpliciorem ponit insectorum generationem ut loco citato: ubi apum, et crabronum, et vesparum vermes quandiu recentes sunt et aluntur, tantisper et stercus emittere videntur: et cum formae lineamenta receperint, sub qua facie nymphae appellantur, iam neque cibum praeterea, capiunt, neque ullum reddunt alvi excrementum, sed coerciti, et contracti quiescunt, nec ullo pacto movere se patiuntur, usque dum species destinata perficiatur: quo facto evolat proles, rupto, quo continebatur folliculo. Atque haec de ovis improprie dictis, et eorum actione, et insectis ab iisdem prodeuntibus dicta sufficiant: quae summa cum ratione Plinius libr. {II.} <XI.> c. I.[62] immensae subtilitatis animalia esse opinatus est.

As in the aforesaid animals a lesser turnover of the forms exists, likewise in some of them it is more numerous, as it is inferred from Aristotle: sometimes it happens that from a greater worm, stretching out like twin horns and belonging to its own genus, at first fully unchanged, subsequently a caterpillar is born, then that called silkworm, from this a chrysalis of the silkworm, which I would call feeble, and this different succession of forms is completed in the turn of one semester. Aristotle sometimes states a simpler generation of the insects as in the quoted passage, where the worms of bees, hornets and wasps until are rather young and nourish themselves, likewise they are seen to also send forth dung, and when they acquired the lineaments of the aspect according to which they are called nymphs, don't take anymore food neither send forth intestinal excrements, but they retire rolled up and contracted, neither for any reason they allow themselves to move until when the fixed aspect is completed. Having done this, the offspring flies away after having broken the follicle by which it was contained. And these things we said about the improperly called eggs, about their activity and the insects originating from them, have to be enough. Pliny in XI,1 advisedly thought that they are animals of an enormous littleness.