[192] claudicantes enim illae licet caeteris foecundiores sint, in omnibus passim locis reperiuntur, et genus suum non servant, aut propagant, sed ita nanae nescio quo casu nascuntur. Praeterea verisimile mihi non videtur, quomodo, et cur Aristoteles, qui omnes animalium differentias diligentissime observavit, literisque mandavit, et hanc non annotaverit. Plinius Hadrianas a nanis etiam distinguere non videtur, quamvis diversis de his agat capitibus. Sed nanas non vocat, verum modo Hadrianas, modo pumiliones. Postquam enim Hadrianis maximam laudem circa foecunditatem attribuisset[1], mox sententiam fusius explicans, de eisdem ita infit[2]: Est et pumilionum genus non sterile in {iis} <his> (nimirum optimis) quod non alio in genere alitum, sed quibus {certa}[3] <centra> foecunditas rara, et incubatio ovis noxia: quasi dicat: ova illis non supponenda esse, quoniam pullos suos sint interempturae, ut dixit Aristoteles, qui colorem quoque addidit, varium[4] nempe, quem omisit Plinius, forte quasi superfluum fuerit eum addere: quod vix crediderim. Philosophus enim nihil frustra dicere solet. Gylbertus Longolius quasdam Gallinas Germanice Leihennen, quasi Gallinas parturientes dicas, appellari ait, et Hadrianas esse conijcit, colore vero varias esse, et rostro {longiusculo} <candidiusculo[5]>, pullos vero columbarum pipiones <colore> referre.

supposing that such limping hens are more productive than others, they are found everywhere in any country, and they don’t take care of their offspring neither perpetuate them, but I don’t know for what reason they hatch so dwarf. Further, it does not seem likely to me how and why Aristotle, who very carefully observed all the characteristics of the animals and wrote them down, did not annotate this one too. It seems that also Pliny is not distinguishing between Hadrianae and dwarfs although he deals with them in different chapters. But he does not call them dwarfs, but now Hadrianae, now small. For after he gave the Hadrianae the greatest praise for their fecundity, afterwards, when explaining at greater length his statement, he says in this manner about them: There is also a non-sterile breed of dwarfs among those (without doubt very good) which does not occur in other genus of birds, but those with spurs are seldom prolific and their incubation is harmful to eggs: as if he would say: eggs should not be set under them since they will kill their chicks, as Aristotle said, who added also their color, that is variegated, which Pliny omitted, as perhaps it should been nearly superfluous to add it: what I can barely believe. For the Philosopher is accustomed to say nothing in vain. Gisbert Longolius says that some hens are called Leihennen in German, as though you might say hens that lay eggs, and he concludes that they are Hadrianae, that truly they are of various colors and with a rather whiter beak, while their chicks regarding their color bear a resemblance to squabs.

Quod vero Aristoteles[6] Hadrianas ferocire dicat, factum esse putat ob patriae mutationem, cum in calidiores regiones devectae, et ferocioris ingenii redditae sunt. Has ego (si modo tales ibi dentur) Hadrianas esse prius plane credebam. At cum ferocire eas neget, id vero Aristoteles[7] aperte tradat, nimirum in proprios pullos, quos, ut inquit, saepe interimunt: et Plinius, ut ostendi, eandem ob causam tanquam incubationi ineptas, reijciat: immutata opinione omnino censeo, nec tales Hadrianas esse. Verum cum et ipse interim, quae certo Hadrianae dici possint nunquam viderim, itaque suum cuique liberum iudicium relinquo, aliorum opinionem tantum examinasse contentus. Video tamen plerosque viros doctos, forte quia et ipsi alias non haberent, quas Hadrianas dicere possent, Gyberti Longolii sententiam amplecti.

But being that Aristotle says that Hadrianae are aggressive, he – Longolius - thinks that this happened because they changed their origin place, and when transferred to warmer regions they also turned into a more aggressive temperament. Previously it had been my absolute belief that these hens (on condition that such hens are there existing) were Hadrianae. But being that he – Longolius - states that they are not aggressive, while Aristotle is unequivocally referring this, just toward their chicks which, as he says, often they kill, and also Pliny, as I pointed out, despises them on account of the same reason as unsuited for incubation, without any doubt I think with unchanged opinion that neither aforesaid hens are Hadrianae. However, since for the present I also never have seen hens which can surely be called Hadrianae, I leave therefore everyone his own freedom of thought, having confined myself to only look into the opinions of others. Nevertheless, I notice that most of learned men embrace Gisbert Longolius’ view, perhaps because they also didn’t have available any other hens which they could call Hadrianae.

Columella etiam quasdam Gallinas pumiliones vocat, quae nunquid eaedem sint cum pumilionibus Plinii, rursus subdubito. Etenim Columella[8] nec propter foecunditatem, nec propter aliud emolumentum eas nimium probat: hic, uti diximus pro foecundissimis habet: et inter nostri saeculi scriptores Conradus Heresbachius pumiliones, etsi vetustas cum ob infoecunditatem, tum ob alias causas improbat: tamen pluribus locis foecundas reperiri, ovaque plurima edere asserens, et in Britannia hoc tempore ad cibos delicatos expeti. Quas vero Longolius pumilas vocat, et Germanice Kriel[9] interpretatur, eae, ut paulo ante dixi, passim extant, per terram reptant, claudicando potius, quam incedendo, nos etiam na{i}nas appellamus. Flandri, ut audio gekrielde hennens. Aristoteles[10] de suis Hadrianis loquens, cur multa admodum pariant, hanc rationem reddit, quod propter corporis exiguitatem, alimentum ad {partitionem sumptiterur} <partionem sumptitetur>. Has, ut inquit, Chrysippus apud Athenaeum[11], Athenienses alere studebant, quanquam nostris inutiliores: Adriatici vero contra nostras accersire solebant.

Columella also calls certain hens dwarfs, but once more I doubt that they are the same dwarf hens of Pliny. For Columella does not appreciate them too much either for their fecundity or any other advantage. He - Pliny, as I said, does consider them very prolific: and, among writers of our century, Conrad Heresbach disapproves the dwarfs even if aged, both because of their lack of fecundity as well as for other reasons: also claiming that we can found fecund hens in many places and that they lay very many eggs, and that at the present time in Britain they are sought to make delicacies. Those which Longolius calls dwarfs, and translated into Dutch as kriel, as I just said are found everywhere, they creep over the earth limping rather than walking, we also call them dwarfs. The Flemish, as I hear, call them gekrielde hennens. Aristotle, speaking of his Hadrianae gives this reason why they lay very many eggs: because on account of their thinness of body the food is employed for procreation. As Chrysippus says in Athenaeus: The Athenians did their best in breeding these hens, although they were more useless than ours: whereas, on the contrary, the peoples of the Adriatic sea were accustomed to get ours.

Sunt et praeterea alia Gallinarum genera ab antiquis magno honore habita: quae itidem fere nobis incognitae sunt. Tales sunt Tanagraeae, Lydae, Rhodiae, Chalcidicae, Medicae, et Alexandrinae. Ex Tanagraeis Gallos potius, quam Gallinas probabant, eorumque bina erant genera. Alii enim μάχιμοι, id est, pugnaces vel proeliares erant, ut Hermolaus vertit: alii Cossiphi, qui Lydas magnitudine aequabant, quorum Pausanias[12] meminit, et Corvis colore similes esse tradit (hinc nimirum Cossiphi dicti, quod Merularum instar atri coloris sint) et barbam, et cristam habuisse instar anemones (quo loco Hermolaus habet calcaria, et apex anemone<s>[13] floris macula<e>[14] modo rubent, quod non placet: siquidem in nulla Gallina calcar unquam rubere visum est). Candida item signa exigua in rostro supremo, et caudae extremitate. Mihi eiusmodi Gallorum genus prorsus ignotum est. Veruntamen cum Graeci Tanagricas e Boeotia, item Athenaeus, Rhodias, Columella, et Martialis, nec minus Chalcidicas, et Medicas, et nonnulli Alexandrinas Aegyptias ad pugillatum, et praelia commendant: itaque quispiam easdem esse suspicari possit, etsi a doctissimo M. Varrone, et Columella, necnon a Plinio apertissime distingui videantur. Nam si diligenter, et ad trutinam, quod aiunt, gravissimorum horum authorum verba examines, nullam ferme inter omnes notabilem differentiam reperies, et alios aliis pugnaciores tantum dicere videbis. Ita eodem prorsus modo in Europa nostra cernimus aliam gentem alia pugnaciorem esse, cum tamen interim nulla alia corporis nota discrepent.

Furthermore there are also other breeds of hens which were held in high esteem by ancients: which likewise are almost unknown to us. Such are the hens of Tanagra, Lydia, Rhodes, Chalcis, Media, and Alexandria. Of Tanagran chickens they appreciated the roosters rather than hens, and of them there were two breeds. Some were the máchimoi, i.e. they were pugnacious or fighters, as Hermolaus Barbarus translated: others were the cossyphi mentioned by Pausanias, which equaled in size the Lydian hens, and he says their color to be similar to that of crows (hence precisely called cossyphi – blackbirds - because they have a dark color as that of blackbirds) and that they had both the beard – wattles - and the comb like an anemone (in this passage Hermolaus has the spurs and the comb are reddish like a patch of an anemone’s flower, what I do not think right: since in any hen no spur ever has been seen to be reddish). At the same time there are small white marks on the tip of the beak and on the extremity of the tail. Such a breed of roosters is quite unknown to me. However, since the Greeks, for wrestling and fighting, commend the hens of Tanagra in Boeotia, alike Athenaeus is doing, Columella and Martial those of Rhodes and alike those of Chalcis and Media, and some people those of Egyptian Alexandria: therefore someone could assume that they are the same hens, even though it is clear that by the very learned Marcus Varro and by Columella, as well as by Pliny, they are very clearly distinguished - apart. But, as they say, if you would carefully weigh up and with a balance the words of these highly reliable writers, you would find almost no outstanding difference among all - these chickens, and you would see that they merely say that some are more pugnacious than others. Thus just in the same way we clearly see that in our Europe a people is more aggressive than another one, while on the contrary they no differ in any other somatic trait.

Tanagrici, Medici, et Chalcidici, inquit Varro[15], sine dubio sunt pulchri, et ad proeliandum inter se maxime idonei, sed ad partus sunt steriliores. Columella vero nulla pugnacitatis facta mentione[16], Tanagrici, inquit, plerunque Rhodiis, et Medicis amplitudine pares, non multum moribus a vernaculis distant, sicut et Chalcidici: cum paulo ante dixisset: Rhodii generis, aut Medici propter gravitatem, neque Gallos nimis [193] salaces, neque foecundas esse Gallinas.

Varro says: Tanagran, Median and Chalcidian roosters are without doubt handsome and very skilful in fighting against themselves, but rather unfruitful as far as offspring is concerned. Columella, without any mention of pugnacity, says: Tanagran chickens, which mostly are equal to the Rhodian and Median in size, they do not differ much in their behaviour from our chickens, as well as the Chalcidian do: having said a little before: Of the Rhodian or Median breed because of the weight neither roosters are too much lustful nor hens prolific.