Circa ova, quae supponenda sunt, duo maxime considerare oportet, qualitatem nempe, et numerum. Ne sint itaque subventanea, seu hypenemia, sed Gallum expertarum Gallinarum, atque haec recentia, plena, quae aquae dulci iniecta submerguntur, in quibus soli obtentis semen Galli apparet, nihil autem vacui, et si fieri potest, vetularum potius quam pullastrarum.

As to the eggs which are to be placed under the hen, two items especially must be observed, and precisely their quality and number. Let them not be wind-eggs or full of air, but eggs from hens who entered in touch with the rooster, and recent, full, which, when set in sweet water, are submerged, in which, when put against the sun light, the semen of the rooster is visible and nothing of empty space, and, if possible, eggs of aged hens rather than of pullets.

Sed in eiusmodi ovorum electione inter Plinium[1], et Columellam[2] insignis est contradictio, cum ille intra decem dies edita laudet, vetustiora, aut recentiora infoecunda existimans: hic vero, etsi quae decem dierum sunt, infoecunda non putet, aptissima tamen ad excludendum recentissima quaeque iudicet. Sed malim ego hac in re Columellae assentiri, eoque magis cum hunc sequi Albertum videam, qui etiam illud addit, ova quatriduana optima esse, minus vero probari infra aut supra hoc tempus nata: sed haec Alberti determinatio quodam modo Columellae adversatur, qui dum recentissima, ut dixi, laudat, eo ova incubationi aptiora innuere videtur, quo ortui suo proximiora existunt: quin im<m>o observari vult, dum eduntur, ac signo aliquo notari, ut, quanto prius fieri possit, glocientibus supponantur, caeteraque vel reponantur, vel aere permutentur. Super qua re inquisitae a me nostrae mulierculae, Alberti potius, quam Columellae praeceptum sequendum praedicant, quia inquiunt recentia unius diei, vel etiam duorum supposita irrita, et putrida fiunt.

But regarding the selection of such eggs there is a noteworthy contradiction between Pliny and Columella, since the former praises eggs laid since ten days, considering infertile the older or more recent ones: the latter, however, although he does not think infertile ten-day-old eggs, nevertheless judges as very suitable for hatching also the very recent ones. But I prefer to agree with Columella in this matter, all the more because it seems to me that Albertus follows him, being that he also adds that four-day-old eggs are the best, while those laid before or after this period are less approved: however, this conclusion of Albertus in some manner is opposing to Columella, who, as I said, while is praising the very recent ones, he seems to hint that the eggs are the more fit for incubation the more are close to their birth: or rather, he wishes to pay attention to when they are laid, and that they are marked with some sign, so that may be placed as soon as possible under the clucking hens, and that the remaining are either put aside or bartered for money. Our farm girls I questioned about this subject declare that is to be followed the advice of Albertus rather than that of Columella, because they say that fresh eggs one-day-old or even two-day-old when placed under a hen become fruitless and rotten.

Verum etsi quandoque ova omnibus iam dictis bonitatis signis praedita sint, fit tamen ut nonnunquam minime foetum excludant, idque vel incubantis, vel quae ea {a}edidit Gallinae culpa. Eorum enim quae pariunt nonnulla quandoque infoecunda sunt, quamvis ex coitu conceperint, quod inde colligimus, quia nullus ex iis provenit foetus, licet diligentissime incubatu foveantur. Sunt vero potissimum sterilia, vel quia subventanea sunt, vel alias ob causas, quas ad quatuor hasce Albertus redigit. Primo propter corruptum albumen, ex quo partes pulli formari debeant. Secundo propter vitelli corruptionem, unde suppeditandum erat alimentum, nam sic pullus imperfecte formatur, et partes quaedam in ipso {absolutae non} <non absolutae>[3] inveniuntur, et non coniunctae, sicut in abortu animalis vivipari ante perfectionem lineamentorum foetus. Albumine vero corrupto, nihil omnino per totam incubationem formatur, sed ovum totum marcidum evadit, et foetidum, uti sanies corrumpitur in apostemate. Tertio contingit ovum vitiari membranarum, et fibrarum, quae per albumen tendunt, culpa: Nam corrupta tunica, quae continet vitellum, humor vitellinus effluit, et confunditur cum albumine; itaque impeditur ovi foecunditas. Corruptis vero fibris, corrumpuntur, et venae, et nervi pulli, impeditur eius nutritio, compago destructis ligamentis dissolvitur, et laesis nervis sensus amittitur. Quarto propter vetustatem, exhalante spiritu, in quo est virtus formativa: unde vitellus pondere suo penetrat albumen, et ad testam fertur in eam partem, cui incumbit ovum. Hisce igitur quatuor modis ova infoecunda fieri contingit.

Truly, even when the eggs are endowed with all the just aforesaid marks of excellence, they sometimes nevertheless do not at all produce a foetus, and this happens either because of the incubating hen or because of the hen who laid them. For sometimes some eggs they lay are infertile although the hens conceived them by coitus, a thing we gather from the fact that no foetus issues from such eggs although they are very diligently warmed by incubation. But they are especially sterile either because they are wind-eggs, or for other reasons which Albertus traces back to the following four. First, on account of the corrupt albumen, from which the parts of the chick were to be formed. Second, because of the corruption of the yolk, whence the sustenance of the chick was to be provided, for thus the chick is formed imperfectly, and in it are found certain unfinished parts and not joined together, as in the abortion of a viviparous animal before the perfection of the lineaments of the foetus. But, since the albumen is corrupted, nothing is formed at all throughout the entire incubation, and the whole egg becomes decayed and fetid, as the pus goes bad in an abscess. Third, it happens that the egg deteriorates because of the membranes and fibers which stretch through the albumen. For when the tunic which contains the yolk is corrupted, the liquid of the yolk flows out and mingles with the albumen; thus the fecundity of the egg is hindered. But when the fibers are corrupted, the veins and nerves of the chick are also corrupted, its nutrition is hindered, when the ligaments are destroyed the bond between the parts is dissolved and when the nerves are injured the sensitivity is lost. Fourth, because of getting old, since the air in which lies the formative property comes out: hence the yolk by its own weight penetrates the albumen and moves to the shell, in that part where the egg is bending. Therefore it happens that the eggs become infertile in these four ways.

In secundo quidem modo, ut hoc iterum repetamus, aliquando accidit, quod humoribus corruptis partes igneae combustae ferantur ad putamen, unde ovum in tenebris lucet, quemadmodum truncus arboris putrefactae, cuiusmodi ovum sibi visum in regione Corascena Avicenna testatur. Sunt et alii forte corruptionis ovorum modi, sed qui sub iam dictis facile comprehendi possunt. Depravantur, inquit Aristoteles[4], ova, et fiunt, quae urina appellantur, tempore potius calido, idque ratione. Ut enim vina temporibus calidis coalescunt faece subversa: hoc enim causa est, quod depraventur: sic ova pereunt vitello corrupto. Id[5] enim in utriusque terrena portio est. Quamobrem et vinum obturbatur faece permista, et ovum vitello diffuso. Multiparis igitur hoc accidit merito, cum non facile omnibus calor conveniens reddi possit, sed aliis deficiat, aliis superet, et quasi putrefaciendo obturbet. Haec ille: quae vero urina vocat, Plinius[6] aliis cynosura vocari scribit, forte quod aestate, ut diximus, et sub cane magis urina fiant: quia etiam canicularia dicuntur. Caelius οὔρια ova (modo οὔρια eadem sint, ut videtur, cum urinis) quasi fluctuosa dici putat: nam οὔρον, inquit, ventum[7] dicunt: quo argumento etiam ab Homero mul{t}os[8] dici οὐρῆας coniectant periti, et recenset Eustathius διὰ τὸ ἄγονον, id est, ob insitam non gignendi proprietatem, quod eorum semen sit ἀνεμαῖον, id est spiritosum, et proinde foecunditatis nescium[9]: et rursus, ubi quaerit, unde eiusmodi ova fluitent? Ratio, inquit, erui illinc potest quod aquescant, ac spiritus contabescentia concipiant plurimum: qua ratione colligitur et illud, cur in aqua pereuntes, primo quidem ima petere: mox ubi computrescere coeperint, emergere, ac fluitare soleant.

In the second way, to repeat it again, sometimes it happens that the igneous burned parts are carried towards the shell by corrupted fluids, whence the egg gives out light in the dark, like does the trunk of a rotten tree - by bioluminescence, and Avicenna testifies that such an egg has been observed by he himself in the Khurasan region. There are perhaps also other manners of corruption of the eggs, but which can be easily included among those I just said. Aristotle says: Eggs are spoiling and those called unfertilized grow up preferably in the warm season, and this happens because of a reason. For as wines grow sour in warm seasons from the shaking-up of lees: for this is the reason why they are spoiling: so eggs turn bad when the yolk is spoiled. For in both cases it represents - they represent - the earthy portion. For this reason they become turbid both wine because of mixed lees and egg because of scattered yolk. Therefore it is natural that this happens in birds who lay many eggs, since the proper amount of heat cannot easily be provided to all the eggs, but for some it is insufficient, for others it is too much, and it makes them turbid as though putrefying them. Thus far Aristotle: the eggs he calls urina, Pliny writes that by others are called cynosura, perhaps because, as I said, in the summer and during the dog days - August - they become more infertile: which is why they are also called of dog days. Lodovico Ricchieri thinks they are called oúria eggs (as long as the oúria ones, as it seems, are corresponding to unfertilized ones) as they were shaken by waves: for he says that they call a wind oùron - the favourable wind: which is why the experts conjecture that the mules are called ourêas also by Homer, and Eustathius expounds with dià tò ágonon, that is, because of an inborn characteristic of infertility, since their semen is anemaîon, that is, windy and therefore unfit to fecundity: and in addition, when he wonders “why do eggs of this kind keep afloat?” The reason, he says, can be drawn from the fact that they become liquid like water and while decaying they take up a lot of air: for this reason it can also be gathered why when steeped in water, first they go to the bottom: as soon as they begun to rot, usually they come up and float.

Etsi tamen spiritu ita intus concepto aquae innatantia putredinem suam testentur eiuscemodi ova, ac proinde infoecunditatem, non ergo subventanea seu hypenemia sunt, ut Calepinus perperam exponit, nam hypenemia sine Galli congressu Gallinae pariunt, sed ita fiunt iam dictas ob causas, quibus demum addere potes, quando ab incubante Gallina reliquuntur, atque hinc forte Florentinus, qua die subditurus es ova, non unam tantum Gallinam, sed tres, [223] quatuorve superponi praecipit.

However, although eggs of this kind, having so taken air into themselves, are indicating their rottenness by floating on water, and then their infertility, because of this they are not subventanea or hypenemia, as Ambrogio Calepino erroneously reports, for hens lay hypenemia eggs when didn’t have coition with a rooster, but these eggs become such for the just given reasons, to which one can lastly add because they are abandoned by incubating hen, and perhaps because of this reason Florentinus advises that on the day when one is putting eggs under a hen, not one only but three or four hens should be placed upon them.