That these fowls, which at present are everywhere common, were brought
to us from a different part of the world, is, I believe, generally
admitted; but respecting their original country, and the time when
they were first introduced into Europe, there is much difference of
opinion among those who in later times have made researches on that
subject[1502]. I shall therefore compare what has been advanced on both
sides with what I have remarked myself, and submit my decision to the
judgement of the reader.
The question, whether turkeys or turkey-fowls were known to the Greeks
and the Romans, will depend upon defining what those fowls were to
which they gave the name of _meleagrides_ and _gallinæ Africanæ_;
for in the whole ornithology of the ancients, there are no other
kind that can occasion doubt. It has however been justly remarked by
Perrault and others, that every thing which we find related by the
ancients of the _meleagrides_ can be applied only to the pintado or
Guinea fowl (_Numida meleagris_, Linn.), and not to the turkey; and
that the _gallinæ Africanæ_ were only a variety of the former, or a
species that approached nearly to them. Their spots, disposed in such
a manner as if formed by drops, on account of which, in modern times,
they have been called _pintados_ and _pientades_, and the marks on the
feathers of the wings, accord perfectly with the description given of
them by Clytus, the scholar of Aristotle[1503]; though in northern
countries, some Guinea fowls are found, the colour of which is more
mixed with white. But this is a variation not uncommon among birds
in general when removed from their native country, as is proved by
the white peacocks, which were first observed in Norway. The coloured
hood of thick skin which covers the head has also been accurately
described by Clytus, as well as the coloured fleshy excrescence on
the bill (_palearia carunculacea_). In size the _meleagrides_ were
like our largest common fowls, which is true also of the pintado; and
we must acknowledge with Clytus, that its naked head is too small in
proportion to the body. The figure of the pintado, like that of the
partridge, and its drooping tail, correspond equally well with the
epithet _gibberæ_, especially as the position of its feathers occasions
its back to appear elevated or bent upwards. The feet are like those
of the domestic fowl, but they are destitute of the spurs with which
those of the latter are furnished; and the pintado lays spotted eggs,
as described by Aristotle; but these, by the manner in which the fowls
are reared in Europe, are liable to variations. It deserves to be
remarked above all, that both sexes of the _meleagrides_ are so like,
that they can scarcely be distinguished; and this circumstance alone is
sufficient to confute those who pretend that the _meleagrides_ were our
turkeys. Had that been the case, it is impossible that Clytus in his
description, which seems to have been drawn up with great care, should
have omitted the proud and ridiculous gestures of the turkey-cock when
he struts about with his tail spread out like a fan, or thrown into
a circular form, and his wings trailing on the ground, or the long
excrescence that hangs down from his bill, and the tuft of black hair
on his breast. The unpleasant cry, and the unsocial disposition of the
_meleagrides_, are observed in the Guinea fowls, which, as the ancients
justly remarked, frequent rivers and marshes, where turkeys on the
other hand never thrive.
The ancients assure us that the native country of the _meleagrides_
was Africa[1504], where the Guinea fowls are still found in a wild
state, but where our turkeys were never seen wild. When writers however
mention places not in Africa, to which the former were brought, we are
not to suppose that they were carried thither directly from Africa.
The difference which Columella and Pliny[1505] make between the
_meleagrides_ and _gallinæ Africanæ_ is so trifling, as to imply only a
variety of the species; and the opinion of Pallas, who has occasionally
collected a number of important observations which may serve to explain
the natural history of the ancients, is highly probable, that we are
to understand under it the _Numida mitrata_, which he has described.
The red crest which the last-mentioned bird always has, and which
almost alone distinguishes it from the common Guinea fowl, seems
fully to prove this opinion[1506]. I shall here take occasion to
remark, that Buffon erroneously affirms that the Guinea fowls, which
were transmitted from the Greeks and the Romans, became extinct in
Europe in the middle ages; for we find mention made of them in English
writers, under the name of _Aves Africanæ_, _Afræ_, so early as about
the year 1277[1507].
That the ancients were not acquainted with our turkeys is still further
confirmed by the testimony of various historians and travellers, who
assure us in the first place, that these birds are still wild in
America; secondly, that they were brought to us from that country;
and thirdly, that before the discovery of the New World they were not
known in Europe. Besides, we are enabled, from the information which
they give us, to see how and when these animals were conveyed to those
countries where they at present are reared as domestic fowls; and these
proofs appear to me so strong, that I conclude Barrington asserted the
contrary, that he might obtain assent not so much by the force of truth
as by advancing absurdities. All animals multiply more easily, and
become larger, stronger, and more fruitful in those places which nature
has assigned to them for a residence, that is, where they originally
lived wild; and this observation seems to hold good in regard to the
turkeys in America. It is indeed probable that the number of wild
animals will always decrease in proportion as countries are peopled,
and as woods are cut down and deserts cultivated; it is probable also,
that at last no wild animals will be left, as has been the case with
sheep, oxen and horses, which have all long ago been brought into a
state of slavery by man. The testimony therefore of those who first
visited America, and who found there wild turkeys, deserves the greater
attention.
The first author in whom I find mention of them is Oviedo, who wrote
about the year 1525[1508]. He has described them minutely with that
curiosity and attention which new objects generally excite; and as he
was acquainted with no name for these animals, till then unknown to
the Europeans, he gave them that which he thought best suited to their
figure and shape. He calls them a kind of peacocks, and he relates
that even then, on account of their utility, and the excellent taste
of their flesh, they were not only reared and domesticated by the
Europeans in New Spain, where they were first found, but that they
were carried also to New Castille, and to the West India islands.
The other fowls likewise which he describes we have without doubt
procured from America, such for example as the _Crax alector_[1509].
Lopez de Gomara, whose book was printed in 1553, makes use of the name
_gallopavo_; and says that the animal resembles in shape the peacock
and the domestic cock; and that of all the fowls in New Spain its flesh
is the most delicious[1510]. In the year 1584 wild turkeys were found
in Virginia[1511]. René de Laudonniere found them on his landing in
North America in 1564[1512]. Fernandez also reckons them among the
birds of Mexico; and takes notice of the difference between those that
were wild and those which had been tamed[1513]. Pedro de Ciesa saw them
on the isthmus of Darien[1514], and Dampier in Yucatan[1515]. Besides
the testimony of many other later travellers which have been already
quoted by Buffon, and which I shall not here repeat, the accounts of
Kalm and Smyth in particular deserve to be noticed. The former, who
visited Pennsylvania in 1784, says, “The wild turkeys run about here
in the woods. Their wildness excepted, they are in nothing different
from ours, but in being generally a little larger, and in having redder
flesh, which is, however, superior in taste. When any one finds their
eggs in the woods, and places them under a tame hen to be hatched,
the young, for the most part, become tame also; but when they grow
up they make their escape. On this account people cut their wings
before they are a year old. These wild turkeys, when tamed, are much
more mischievous than those tamed by nature[1516].” Smyth assures us
that wild turkeys are so abundant in the uncultivated country behind
Virginia, and the southern provinces, that they may be found in flocks
of more than five thousand[1517].
These testimonies, in my opinion, are sufficiently strong and numerous
to convince any naturalist that America is the native country of these
fowls; but their weight will be still increased if we add the accounts
given us when and how they were gradually dispersed throughout other
countries. Had they been brought from Asia or Africa some centuries
ago, they must have been long common in Italy, and would have been
carried thence over all Europe. We, however, do not find that they
were known in that country before the discovery of America. It is
certain that there were none of them there at the time when Peter de
Crescentio wrote, that is to say, in the thirteenth century[1518]; else
he would not have omitted to mention them where he describes the method
of rearing all domestic fowls, and even peacocks and partridges. The
earliest account of them in Italy is contained in an ordinance issued
by the magistrates of Venice, in 1557, for repressing luxury, and in
which those tables at which they were allowed are particularised.
About the year 1570 Bartolomeo Scappi, cook to pope Pius V., gave in
his book on cookery several receipts for dressing these expensive and
much-esteemed fowls[1519]. That they were scarce at this period appears
from its being remarked that the first turkeys brought to Bologna were
some that had been given as a present to the family of Buonocompagni,
from which Gregory XII., who at that time filled the papal chair, was
descended.
That these fowls were not known in England in the beginning of the
sixteenth century, is very probable; as they are not mentioned in the
particular description of a grand entertainment given by archbishop
Nevil[1520]; nor in the regulations made by Henry VIII. respecting
his household, in which all fowls used in the royal kitchen are
named[1521]. They were, however, introduced into that country about the
above period; some say in the year 1524; others, in 1530; and some, in
1532[1522]. We know, at any rate, that young turkeys were served up
at a great banquet in 1555[1523]; and about 1585 they were commonly
reckoned among the number of delicate dishes[1524].
According to the account of some writers, turkeys must have been known
much earlier in France; but on strict examination no proofs of this
can be found. The earliest period assigned for their introduction into
that country is given by Beguillet[1525], who confidently asserts
that they were brought to Dijon under the reign of Philip the Bold,
about the year 1385. Had this French author quoted his authority, we
might have discovered what gave rise to his mistake; but as he has
not, one cannot help suspecting that the whole account is a fiction
of his own. De la Mare also is in an error when he relates that the
first turkeys in France were those which Jaques Cœur, the well-known
treasurer to Charles VII., brought with him from the Levant, and kept
on his estate in Gatinois, after he had received the king’s permission
to return to the kingdom. This Cœur, however, who was banished in
1450, never returned, but died in the island of Chio in the year
1456[1526]. Equally false is the account given by Bouche in his History
of Provence, that René, or Renatus, king of Naples and duke of Anjou,
first brought turkeys into the kingdom, and reared them in abundance at
Rosset[1527]. This author gives as his authority the oral tradition of
the neighbourhood, which certainly cannot be put in competition with
testimony of a more authentic nature. Another Bouche[1528], who a few
years ago wrote also a History of Provence, and who has collected many
things that do honour to Renatus, makes no mention of this service,
though he could not be ignorant of what had been before related by
his namesake. Had these fowls been known so early as the time of that
monarch, who died in 1480, it is impossible that they could have been
so scarce in France as they really were above a hundred years after.
The assertion, often repeated, but never indeed proved, that they were
first brought to France by Philip de Chabot, admiral under Francis
I., is much more probable. Chabot died in 1543; and what Scaliger
says, that in 1540 some turkeys were still remaining in France, may be
considered as alluding to the above circumstance. This much however
is certain, that Gyllius, who died in 1555, gave soon after the first
scientific description of them, which has been inserted both by Gesner
and Aldrovandus in their works on ornithology. The same year the first
figure of them was published by Bellon. About the same time they were
described also by La Bruyere-Champier, who expressly remarks that they
had a few years before been brought to France from the Indian islands
discovered by the Portuguese and the Spaniards[1529]. How then could
Barrington assert that this Frenchman meant the East and not the West
Indies? They must, however, have been a long time scarce in France;
for, in the year 1566, when Charles IX. passed through Amiens, the
magistrates of that place did not disdain to send him, among other
presents, twelve turkeys[1530]. This information seems to agree with
the account often quoted, that the first turkeys were served up, as
a great rarity, at the wedding dinner of that monarch in the year
1570[1531]; but it seems the breed of these fowls was not very common
under Charles IX.; for they are not named in the ordinances of 1563 and
1567, in which all other fowls are mentioned. In the year 1603, Henry
IV. caused higglers to be punished who carried away turkeys from the
country villages without paying for them, under a pretence that they
were for the use of the queen[1532]. I shall here also remark, that I
can nowhere find that the Jesuits are entitled to the merit of having
introduced these fowls into France[1533].
As these American fowls must have been carried to Germany through other
lands, we cannot expect to find them in that country at an earlier
period. Gesner, who published his Ornithology in 1555, seems not even
to have seen them. We are, however, assured by several authors, such as
B. Heresbach[1534], Colerus[1535] and others, that turkeys were brought
to Germany so early as 1530; and in the same year carried to Bohemia
and Silesia[1536]. Respecting the northern countries, I know only, on
the authority of Pontoppidan, that they had been in Denmark two hundred
years before his time.
As these fowls are found at present both in Asia and Africa, it may
be worth while to inquire at what period they were carried thither,
especially as these quarters of the world have been by some considered
as their native countries. In China there are no other turkeys than
those which have been introduced from other parts, as we are expressly
assured by Du Halde, though he erroneously adds that they were quite
common in the East Indies. They were carried to Persia by the Armenians
and other trading people, and to Batavia by the Dutch[1537]. In the
time of Chardin they were so scarce in Persia that they were kept in
the Emperor’s menagerie[1538]. In the kingdom of Congo, on the Gold
Coast, and at Senegal, there are none but those belonging to the
European factories. According to Father de Bourzes there are none of
them in the kingdom of Madura; and we are told by Dampier that this is
the case in the island of Mindanao. Prosper Alpinus also gives the same
account in regard to Nubia and Egypt; and Gemelli Carreri says there is
none of them in the Philippines; though I agree with Buffon in laying
very little stress upon the Travels known under that name, which we
have reason to suppose not genuine.
It is worthy of remark, that Cavendish found a great number of
turkeys in the island of St. Helena so early as the year 1588; and
Barrington misapplies this circumstance to prove that these fowls
did not come from America. It is, however, very doubtful whether
Cavendish really meant our turkeys, as he says, “Guiney cocks, which
we call turkeys[1539];” for the first name belongs to what are at
present called pintados; and it is therefore uncertain which kind
ought here to be understood. But even allowing that they were turkeys,
is it improbable that they should be on an island which had often
been visited by the Portuguese? The account of De la Croix is of as
little weight; for he says that in the woods of Madagascar there are
many _coqs d’Inde_[1540]. De la Croix published his book in 1688, at
which time there were in South America wild horses and wild cattle.
Does this, therefore, invalidate the certainty of these animals being
carried thither from Europe?
I intended to enter into a critical examination of those grounds upon
which Barrington endeavours to prove that turkeys were originally
brought from Africa; but on reading over his essay once more, I find
the greater part of his arguments are sufficiently refuted by what I
have proved from the most authentic testimony; and nothing now remains
but to add a few observations. Barrington considers it improbable that
these fowls should be so soon spread all over Europe, as Cortez first
visited Mexico in 1519, subdued the capital in 1521, and returned to
Spain in 1527. To me, however, it does not appear incredible; for I
could prove by several instances, that the curiosity excited by the
most remarkable American productions soon became general. Those, for
example, who take the trouble to inquire into the history of maize or
Turkish corn will make the same remark; though it is a truth fully
established that we procure that grain from America. How soon did
tobacco become common! In the year 1599 the seeds were brought to
Portugal; and in the beginning of the seventeenth century it began to
be cultivated in the East Indies. When Barrington asserts that these
fowls were carried to America by the Europeans, in the same manner as
horses and cattle, this argument may be turned against himself; for he
must doubtless find it equally improbable that they should so soon
become common, numerous and wild, in the New World, as they must have
been according to the authorities above quoted.
As many fat turkeys were purchased yearly in Languedoc and sent to
Spain in the time of cardinal Perron[1541], it is thence concluded
that these fowls were not brought to France through the latter. Perron
died in 1620. At that period turkeys were very common; and whoever is
acquainted with the industry of the Spaniards will not find it strange
that the French should begin earlier to make the rearing of these
animals an employment. How falsely should we reason, were we to say
that it is impossible the English and French should procure the best
wool from Spain, because the Spaniards purchase the best cloth from the
French and the English!
One proof by which Barrington endeavours to show that turkeys were
esteemed so early as the fifteenth century is very singular. He quotes
from Leland’s Itinerary that _capons of Grease_ were served up at
an entertainment, under Edward IV., in 1467. The passage alluded to
I cannot find; but an author must be very self-sufficient and bold
indeed, to convert _capons of Grease_ into _capons of Greece_, and to
pretend that these were turkeys[1542].
What, however, most excites my surprise is, that the name of these
fowls even should be assumed by this writer as a ground for his
assertion. Had they, says he, been brought from America, they would
have been called American or West Indian fowls; as if new objects had
names given to them always with reflection. Names are often bestowed
upon objects before it is known what they are or whence they are
procured. Ray, Minshew[1543], and others have been induced by the
name turkey-fowls to consider Turkey as their original country; but
whoever is versed in researches of this kind must know that new foreign
articles are often called Turkish, Italian, or Spanish. Is Turkey the
original country of maize? or is Italy the original country of these
birds, because they have been sometimes called Italian fowls? Even
allowing that turkeys had acquired their German name (_kalekuter_)
from Calicut, this, at any rate, would prove nothing further than that
it was once falsely believed that these animals were brought from
Calicut to Europe: but I suspect that the appellation _kalekuter_,
as well as the names _truthenne_, _putjen_, and _puten_, were formed
from their cry. Chardin offers a conjecture which is not altogether
to be neglected. That traveller thinks that these fowls were at first
considered as a species of the domestic fowl, and that they were called
Indian, because the largest domestic fowls are produced in that country.