Ut vero illud incertum est, ita hoc cum pueris, tum [240] senibus, et  ut dici solet, lippis, et tonsoribus notum[1], et quotidie observatum, nimirum Gallinaceum Gallum cum Sole habere sympathiam. Hunc enim ad omnes mundi angulos, festinantem, exortivum, occiduum, et meridianum voce admodum vocali, et alarum applausu congratulantis in morem, saepenumero salutat, et resalutat. Adducant modo alii quas velint manifestas rationes. Ego hinc solare animal Gallum vocaverim, uti alii[2] etiam Leonem ferarum generosissimum, qui non caetera animalia tantum, sed fortissimos quoque viros terret, quem tamen Gallus ne minimi quidem facit: at contra, illi et visus, immo auditus tantummodo pavorem incutit, etsi de eiusmodi antipathia {diversimodi} <diversimode> authores scribant.

But, such as that statement is uncertain, likewise what follows is known to both children and old men and, as one is accustomed to say, to blear-eyed people and barbers, and is daily observed, that is, the rooster has a fellow-feeling with the sun. For he frequently greets it and greets it again at all the corners of the world when it hastens, when rises, when sinks and at midday, with a loud voice and clapping his wings as congratulating. Let others bring forward now the evident reasons they wish. I should call the rooster a solar animal for the reason given above, as others also call the lion the bravest of wild animals, who not only terrifies other animals but even the bravest of men, but whom the rooster does not hold neither in the lowest esteem: on the contrary he strikes fear into the lion when this is seeing him, or rather when just hearing him, although apropos of such an antipathy the authors are writing in different ways.

Albertus[3] enim duobus in locis hoc de Gallo albo intelligit. Sed ante ipsum item Divus Ambrosius[4] tradidit: Leo, inquiens, Gallum, et maxime album ver{t}etur. Cum vero caeteri omnes, nullius coloris facta mentione, id simpliciter de Gallo tradant: itaque, quod cum venia huius sanctissimi patris dixerim, omnes Gallos a Leone timeri crediderim, si modo verum est, quod inter utrosque haec antipathia intercedat. Id enim a me non observatum est, nec ab aliquo observatum video. Sed si Plinio[5], Aeliano[6], Solino[7], Lucretio[8], Proclo[9], aliisque credimus, quemvis Gallum a Leone timeri constabit. At hi rursus causam huius odii non uno modo tradunt. Plinius bis disertissimis verbis eius mentionem faciens, primo cristam, et cantum, secundo cristam, et falcatam caudam timeri a Leone asserit: cuius verba maioris fidei causa ascribere placuit. Inquit ergo ibi[10]: Atque hoc tam saevum animal (Leonem) rotarum orbes circumacti, currusque inanes, et Gallinaceorum crista<e>, cantusque etiam magis terrent, sed maxime ignes: hic vero sic habet[11]: Quod si palma contigit statim in victoria canunt, seque ipsi principes testantur. Victus occultatur silens, aegreque servitium patitur. Et plebs tamen aeque superba graditur, ardua cervice, cristis celsa <, caelumque sola volucrum aspicit crebra, in sublime caudam quoque falcatam erigens>: itaque terrori sunt etiam Leonibus ferarum generosissimis.

In fact Albertus in two passages understands this apropos of white rooster. But similarly before him Saint Ambrose reported that when saying: The lion fears the rooster, especially a white one. But all other writers, without making mention of whichever color, simply report that apropos of the rooster: therefore, speaking by the leave of this very holy father, in my opinion all roosters are feared by the lion, if indeed it is true that this antipathy exists between them. But I have not observed this, nor do I see that it has been observed by anyone else. But if we believe Pliny, Aelian, Solinus, Lucretius, Proclus and others, it will come out that whatever rooster is feared by the lion. But on the other hand these authors do not hand down univocally the cause of this hatred. Pliny, making mention twice of it with very meaning words, at first affirms that by the lion are feared the comb and the crowing, then the comb and the sickle shaped tail: it seemed proper to me for a greater credibility to write down his words. Well, in the first passage he says: And this so fierce animal (the lion) is more frightened also by rims of wheels when turning around him, and by empty chariots, and by the comb of roosters and their crowing, but above all by fires. In the second passage he says: But if the palm of victory falls to them, they immediately sing as triumphant, immediately proclaim themselves as sovereigns. That who has been defeated hides in silence and reluctantly suffers the subjugation, however even the common flock, equally proud, walks with head held high, with erect comb, and the rooster is the only bird looking often at the sky, rising upwards also the sickle shaped tail: thus they strike terror even into lions the bravest of wild animals.

Vides igitur hic cantus nullam facere mentionem, cuius rursus Solinus[12] tantummodo meminit, Gallinaceorum cantus timere Leonem asserens. Denique Aelianus[13], Lucretius, et Proclus, aliique Gallinaceum simpliciter nominant. Quid ergo dicendum, statuendumque? Ego sum eius prorsus opinionis ut (si verum est, ut dixi, huiusmodi innatum odium; iam enim id praesuppono) Gallum ipsum quatenus tale animal est, a Leone pertimesci putem, nec inde id odium nasci credam, quod utrumque animal solare est, ut Proclus[14] existimat, sed occulti quid latere in Gallo, quo Leonem fuget. Atque hanc meam opinionem, quam semper saniori doctorum virorum iudicio subijcio, ex ipsomet Plinio[15] depromo{. Qui} <; qui> a Leonibus, et Pantheris homines non attingi, tradit, qui iure Galli peruncti fuerint, maxime, si ei allium admisceatur. Quae quidem res innatum Leonis timorem indicat, et hanc forte semina illa vocavit Lucretius, quae Leonum oculis incussa, illos ceu caecutire, timereque faciant: hic autem ita canit[16]:

Quin etiam Gallum nocte<m> explaudentibus alis

Auroram clara consuetum voce vocare,

No<e>nu queunt rapidi contra constare Leones

Inque tueri: ita continuo meminere fugai.

Nimirum quia sunt Gallorum in corpore quaedam

Semina, quae cum {sint} <sunt> oculis immissa Leonum

Pupillas interfodiunt acremque dolorem

Praebent, ut nequeant contra durare feroces:

Cum tamen haec nostras acies nil laedere possint:

Aut quia non penetrant, aut quod penetrantibus illis

Exitus ex oculis liber datur, in {remeando} <remorando>

Laedere non {possunt} <possint> ex ulla lumina parte.

You can see therefore that in the second passage he does not mention the crowing, of which on the contrary makes mention only Solinus when he asserts that the lion fears the crowing of the roosters. Finally Aelian, Lucretius, Proclus and others simply mention the rooster. What then must be said and affirmed? I am entirely of such an opinion (if, as I said, such an inborn hatred is true; for at this point I give it as assumption) that I think that the rooster himself being such an animal is feared by the lion, and I am inclined to believe that that hatred does not arise from the fact that both are solar animals, as Proclus thinks, but that in the rooster there is something hidden which would frighten the lion away. And I take this my opinion from Pliny himself and always I subject it to the saner judgment of learned men. He reports: Those men are not touched by lions and panthers who have been greased with rooster juice, especially if garlic is mixed with it. Undoubtedly this fact indicates an inborn fear of the lion, and perhaps Lucretius indicated it by those seeds which thrown into the lion’s eyes make them the same as blind and fearful: for he sings as follows:

Or rather, even the rooster driving away the night with his wings

is accustomed to call the dawn with a ringing voice

and the vehement lions cannot stand before him

or look at: so immediately they think of flight.

Doubtless because in the body of the rooster there are

certain seeds, which, thrown into the eyes of lions

pierce the pupils and cause harsh pain,

so that they cannot put up resistance to wild animals:

but on the contrary these seeds cannot hurt our eyes at all:

either because they do not penetrate or, when they are penetrating

a spontaneous exit occurs, and if they remain there

they cannot injure the eyes in any point.

Quod si vero quispiam contra allatam sententiam arguat, dicatque Leones crista maxime perterreri, idque inde constare, quod Capum non timea<n>t: id huic minime negaverim, sed cristam primarium, atque evidentissimum signum esse dixerim, quo praesens Gallum agnoscat, uti etiam cucu<r>ritus, dum longius abest. Unde is solam cristam, vel cantum duntaxat expavescere iure nequaquam concluserit. Neque etiam mirum fuerit, si et nos rem acu non tetigerimus. Etenim ipsemet Aelianus[17] causam explicare, cur scilicet Leo, et basiliscus Gallinaceum timeant, utpote abstrusam, atque abditam suum non esse tradidit: in quibus, inquiens, exquirendis etsi permulto abundant otio, plurimum temporis consumunt non tamen optatum assequuntur.

But if anyone should argue against the referred opinion and say that lions are especially frightened by the comb, and that this is proven from the fact that they do not fear the capon, I should by no means deny this to him, but I should say that the comb is a primary and very evident mark by which one, standing before, can recognize a rooster as well as its crowing when being rather far away. Hence such a person by no means can rightly conclude that they fear only the comb or only the crowing. For it nor would be strange if I too had not touched on a sore point. For Aelian himself reported that it was not his job to explain the reason why the lion and the basilisk fear the rooster since it is difficult and puzzling, adding that those who investigate such matters nevertheless have at their disposal a lot of leisure, waste very much time, but don’t attain the hoped-for goal.

Angui quoque Gallus terrori est: et Simia Gallum odit, sed cum magno eorum, ac hominum condemnatorum detrimento, ac ignominia: nam ob eiusmodi odium cum cane omnes simul parricidarum culeo includebantur, ut nimirum Simia Gallum persequeretur, Gallum fugeret anguis, anguis in hominem penetraret, atque [241] ita vivus parricida, viva sepultura fieret: proinde hoc significans Iuvenalis alibi[18] canit.

Clauditur adversis {contraria} <innoxia> simia fatis

Item alibi[19] rursus.

Cuius {in exitium} <supplicio> non debuit una parari

Simia, nec serpens unus, nec culeus unus.

Also for the snake the rooster is source of dread: also the monkey dislikes the rooster, with great harm and ignominy for all of them and for humans sentenced to death: for because of such a hate all of them were shut up along with the dog into the leather bag of the parricides - culleus - obviously so that the monkey persecuted the rooster, the snake fled the rooster, the snake penetrated into the man, and so the living parricide became a living sepulcher: hence, with this in mind, Juvenal elsewhere sings:

The innocent monkey because of adverse fate is shut up.

Likewise again in another passage:

For his execution - of Seneca - they have been provided

neither a single monkey, nor a single snake, nor a single leather bag.