[197] Obscurus quidam de natura rerum huiusmodi spicula, seu calcaria in Gallinis errore potius, quam opere naturae quandoque dari tradit: verum quamvis mihi raro Gallinas calcaribus praeditas {videri} <videre> contigerit, tamen Aristoteles[1] id affirmat ita scribens: Gallinae cum mares vicerint, cucu<r>riunt: cristaque etiam, caudaque erigitur, ita ne facile praeterea sit, an faeminae sint, cognoscere: nonnunquam etiam calcaria parva iis enascuntur. Et Iulius Alexandrinus[2], nescio nunquid ex propria observatione, an potius Aristotelis authoritate super hac re ita scribit: Quid? an non Aristotelem authorem habemus, vidimusque partim aliquando ipsi idem nos, Gallinas, quae maris animum induissent, experta semel de Gallis victoria, supervenire mares coitu solitas, irrito quidem conatu, sed solitas tamen: et quod dicta in primis nostra confirmat, atque author idem est, crista, caudaque Gallorum in morem erecta visas, tanta marium similitudine, ut discernere non facile fuerit. Iisdem observatum parva quoque nata calcaria quaedam locis suis. Haec ille. Aristoteles[3] naturam arbitratur calcaria addidisse in avium genere iis, quae ob corporis molem sunt ad volandum minus idoneae. Sed haec propositio, quod pace tanti viri dixerim, quo minus vera sit, Gallopavo, Otis, ac id genus aves aliae ostendunt, quae licet ad volandum aeque ineptae sint, calcaribus nihilominus carent. Calcaria cum ab aliis Atticis, tum potissimum ab Aristotele πλῆκτρα appellantur: Dorice πλᾶκτρα, communiter κέντρα.

An obscure writer on natural history says that in hens such spikes, or spurs, sometimes are present more because a mistake rather than through the agency of Nature: in truth, although I have rarely happened to see hens equipped with spurs, nevertheless Aristotle affirms such a thing when writing as follows: The hens, when they won the males, they crow a cock-a-doodle-doo: also the comb straightens up as well as the tail, so that after it is not easy to recognize whether they are females: sometimes also small spurs grow out to them. And Julius Alexandrinus, I don’t know whether according on his own observation or rather on witness of Aristotle, writes as follows: What? Isn’t true that we have Aristotle as witness, and I myself have partly seen sometimes some hens, those who had worn the male’s instinct, after they had experienced the victory over roosters, they were accustomed to mount the males in coition, in truth in a fruitless attempt, but however they were usually doing so: and in confirmation of what I said at the beginning, and he himself is witness, they have been seen with combs and tails erected like the roosters, in such a manner so similar to males that it wouldn’t be easy to distinguish them - from the formers. In them they have been observed also small spurs grown out in the proper place. These are his words. Aristotle thinks that among the genus of birds Nature endowed with spurs those which because of body’s size are less fit for flying. But, to speak without offending so great a man, that this statement is not true at all it is proved by turkey, bustard and other birds of that kind, which, nevertheless alike unfit for flying, in spite of this they lack spurs. Spurs, both by other Attica’s inhabitants and especially by Aristotle are called plêktra: in Doric plâktra, usually kéntra.

Caeteras partes cum aliis plerisque avibus communes habent: Siquidem quod Plinius[4] Gallinas probet imparibus digitis, id non de numero dicere voluisse videri posset, sed quod non debeant aeque longi esse, nisi etiam post subiungeret, aliquando et super quatuor digitos transverso uno: nam inde quinque digitos intellexisse, non autem calcar illud quod aliquando eis adnasci ex Aristotele diximus, aperte videmus: et Columella[5] etiam Gallinas probat, quae quinque digitos habent, ita tamen ne cruribus emineant transversa calcaria. Quare quid de eiusmodi digitis dicam, plane ignoro: cum alioqui pedes {pentadactili} <pentadactyli> neque in avium hoc genere, nec in alio observari, nisi in monstris ex abundantia materiae videamus: qualis ille pes {penctadatilos} <pentadactylus> est, quem mihi olim nescio a quo donatum in musaeo meo reservo.

They have the remaining parts in common with the best part of other birds: since Pliny appreciates the hens with unequal toes, it could seem that he didn’t want to make reference to their number, but that they don't have to be of the same length, except that just after he also adds: sometimes also for the presence of a toe arranged in a slanting direction in addition to the other four toes: hence, in fact, we clearly see that he meant five toes and not that spur which, according to Aristotle, we said sometimes growing out to them: and Columella appreciates also those hens which have five toes, so that however no spurs are sticking out transversally from their legs. Therefore, I am at all at a loss what to say about such toes: since in other respects we see from an abundance of matter that five-toed feet are not observed neither in this genus of birds nor in any other, except in monsters: like it is that pentadactylous foot which was given to me I don’t know by whom and which I keep in my museum.

Ut vero modo quoad fieri licet breviter Gallum nostrum describamus, itaque doctissimi Angeli Politiani[6] elegantissimos hosce versus prius citabimus.

Comes it merito plebs caetera Regi

Formoso regi, cui vertice purpurat alto

{Factigiatus} <Fastigiatus> apex, dulcique errore coruscae

Splendescunt cervice iubae, perque aurea colla,

Perque humeros it pulcher honos, palea ampla decenter

Albicat ex rutilo, atque torosa in pectora pendet

Barbarum in morem: stat adunca cuspide rostrum,

Exiguum spatii rostrum. Flagrantque tremendum

Ravi oculi, niveasque caput late explicat aur{e}is.

Crura pilis hirsuta rigent, iu<n>cturaque nodo

vix distante sedet, durus vestigia mucro

Armat: in immensum, pinnaeque, hirtique lacerti

Protenti excurrunt, duplicique horrentia vallo

Falcatae ad Caelum tolluntur acumina caudae.

Hactenus ille.

As far as it is possible to do it, let’s now describe our rooster shortly, and therefore I shall first quote these very elegant verses of very learned Angelo Poliziano.

The rest of common folk walks along as companion of the rightly king

the handsome king, on whose head is brightly shining of crimson

the pointed comb, and in his sweet wandering

his shining manes glitter on his neck, and across the golden neck,

and across the shoulders the wonderful beauty is spreading, the broad red wattle is harmoniously

suffused with white, and it is hanging upon the brawny chest

likewise beards: the beak stretches out with a hooked peak,

a beak small in size. And glow in a terrible way

the grey tawny eyes, and the head widely spreads out snow-white earlobes.

The legs rise bristling with hair, and on the legs

with only just wide apart articulations he roosts: a hard spike is arming his feet:

the wings and the shaggy arms when spread

enormously lengthen, and made terrible by a double fence

the points of the sickle-shaped tail are raised towards the sky.

Thus far his words.

Probus vero, et laudabilis Gallus esto eiusmodi. Corpore sit procero et elato, quales in primis Varro[7] laudat, in certamine sit pertinax, quin im<m>o qui pugnam ipse non prius auspicetur tantum, si pugnandum est, et aggredientibus aliis fortiter repugnet, verumetiam acriter sese de illis ulciscatur, et animalia, quae nocent Gallinis, non modo non pertimescat, sed pro eisdem illa oppugnet: alioqui Columella[8] pugnaces, et rixosae libidinis Gallos improbat, quod plerunque caeteros infestent, et non patiantur inire faeminas, cum ipsi interim pluribus sufficere nequeant. Unde et alibi dicebat[9]. {Mores} <Mares> autem, quamvis non ad pugnam, neque ad victoriae laudem praeparentur: maxime tamen generosi probantur, ut sint elati, alacres, vigilaces, et ad saepius canendum prompti, nec qui facile terreantur. Nam interdum resistere debent, et protegere coniugalem gregem: quin attollentem minas serpentem vel aliud noxium animal interficere. Florentinus pugnacissimos eligi vult, eosque cum usu, atque experientia, tum signis quibusdam internosci ait: sed tales ob allatam a Columella rationem potius improbantur.

Truly, an excellent and praiseworthy cock must be as follows. He must be of tall and slender body, like those Varro is especially praising, persistent in combat, even better he must be able not only to begin the fight if he must fight and to bravely repel the attackers, but also to fiercely avenge himself on them, and not only able in not fearing the animals harming hens, but to face up them in defense of his hens: on the other hand Columella condemns pugnacious and of quarrelsome lechery roosters because they mostly attack the others and do not allow them to mount the females, while in the meantime they themselves are unable to be sufficient for quite a lot of hens. Therefore he was also saying in another point: The males, although they are not trained for fighting nor for the praise of a victory, are nevertheless considered of first class if they are tall, agile, watchful and ready to crow more frequently, and not easily get frightened. In fact sometimes they must put up resistance and protect their conjugal flock, even to kill a threatening snake or another harmful animal. Florentinus wants that should be selected those which are the most pugnacious, and he says that we recognize them by practice and by experience as well as by certain signs: but such subjects are rather disapproved because of the reason brought forward by Columella.

Deliaci, qui Gallorum educationem praecipue celebravere, Tanagricum genus, et Rhodium probabant, nec minus Chalcidicum, et Medicum (quod ab imperito vulgo litera mutata Melicum appellatur) quoniam procera corpora, et animos ad praelia pertinaces requirebant; author est idem Columella[10].

The Delians, who more than everybody usually bred roosters, appreciated Tanagran and Rhodian breeds as well as Chalcidian and Median (which with one changed letter is called Melian by incompetent folk) since they sought for tall bodies and spirits persistent at fighting; Columella himself is witness.