Until a recent period the English were almost the only people among
whom cock-fighting was a favourite amusement; and on that account it is
considered as peculiar to them, though it was esteemed among various
nations many centuries ago. It is not improbable that it was first
introduced into England by the Romans. That it, however, has been
constantly retained there, though the practice of inciting animals
to fight has been long scouted by moral and enlightened nations, is
as singular an anomaly, as that the Spaniards should still continue
their bull-fights, and that princes who wish to avoid the appearance
of cruelty should nevertheless pursue, with immoderate passion, the
detestable and so often condemned hunting with dogs. I shall leave to
others the task of moralising on these contradictions in the character
of whole nations as well as individuals, and shall here only give the
history of cock-fighting as far as I am acquainted with it.
This pastime is certainly very old; but I agree in opinion with Mr.
Pegge[1146], that Palmerius[1147] has made it much older than can
fully be proved. The latter supposes that Adrastus, the son of Midas,
king of Phrygia, killed his brother in consequence of a quarrel which
took place between them in regard to a battle of quails. Adrastus on
account of this murder fled to Crœsus; and as that prince lived about
550 years before the Christian æra, quail-fighting, according to the
opinion of Palmerius, must have been customary at that time; and in
this case one might admit that cock-fighting was of the same antiquity,
because the battles of the domestic cock are still more violent, and
can afford more amusement. Herodotus[1148], who relates the story of
Adrastus, does not mention the cause of the quarrel; but it is given by
the historian Ptolemy, the son of Hephestion, called also Alexandrinus,
who lived about the time of Trajan and Adrian[1149]. He however only
says that the two brothers quarrelled about a quail. Did any other
proofs exist that quail-fighting was common at so early a period, it
would indeed be then probable that the brothers quarrelled during that
pastime. But as no such proofs are to be found, many other causes of
quarrelling in regard to a quail, either in catching or pursuing it,
may be conceived.
It is however certain that quails, as well as the domestic cock, are
exceedingly irritable and quarrelsome birds; and that, like the latter,
they can be employed for fighting; but it appears that quail-fighting
was first practised by the Romans, in whose writings it is frequently
mentioned[1150]; whereas among the Greeks it seldom or never occurs,
while cock-fighting is spoken of on many occasions. The latter however
sported with quails; but their pastime with these birds seems not to
have been fighting, properly so called, where the great object of
contest is whose quail shall be the victor; but the information on
this subject is so imperfect that it cannot be fully understood[1151].
Sometimes the parties laid bets who could kill the other’s quails, or
the greatest number of them, with one blow. One placed a quail within
a circle, and another endeavoured by irritating the animal to make it
go beyond it. If he proved successful in this attempt, he was declared
the winner. Several were often placed within a circle at the same time,
and the person lost whose bird first quitted it. Kühn and others are of
opinion, that each of the parties endeavoured to induce the quail of
the other to leave the circle, by irritating or enticing it; but the
words appear without doubt to allude to a contest of several quails
with each other[1152], were it possible that the later Greeks had
learned to play at this game from the contests of the Romans.
Solon, however, in Lucian[1153], speaks of cock-fights and quail-fights
exhibited publicly at Athens. But Lucian lived in the second century,
had travelled into Italy, was well acquainted with the Roman customs,
and made Solon mention quail-fighting, which he never saw in Greece,
merely because he himself had seen it in Italy. This blunder may
appear too gross, perhaps, for so acute a writer as Lucian; but since
he has fallen into two anachronisms in the same dialogue, as he not
only makes Solon a contemporary of Lycurgus, who lived two centuries
earlier, but also introduces him as speaking of public cock-fights at
Athens, which were first established half a century later, that is to
say, after the battle of Marathon, he may readily have been guilty of a
third oversight, by transferring quail-fighting to Athens. But at any
rate similar games were usual in the island of Cyprus in the sixteenth
century.
It appears, however, that the Romans bred and employed partridges
for fighting in the same manner as quails. Lampridius relates, that
the emperor Alexander Severus was fond of seeing battles of this
kind[1154]; and Ælian, who lived in Italy under Heliogabalus, in the
second century[1155], says that those who kept partridges for fighting,
when they pitted them against each other, placed the females close to
the males, in order to render them more courageous. Without doubt he
here speaks of what was then usual at Rome.
Cock-fighting was appointed at Athens to be a public or solemn pastime,
in consequence of a circumstance which occurred to Themistocles. At
least Ælian relates[1156] that this commander, when he led out the
Greeks against the Persians, happening to see two cocks fighting, took
that opportunity to rouse the courage of his soldiers, by telling them
that as these animals contended with so much obstinacy, though they
fought neither for their country, their families, nor their liberty,
but merely for the honour of victory, it was much more incumbent on
them to exert themselves with bravery, as they had all these causes of
incitement. Having defeated the enemy, as a memorial of his victory and
a future encouragement to bravery, it was ordered that fighting-cocks
should be exhibited every year, in a public theatre, in the presence of
the whole people.
Mr. Pegge and others are of opinion that the Greeks afterwards took
so much pleasure in the fighting of these birds, that they were
generally employed throughout all Greece for this pastime and for
betting. I am ready to admit that this is probable; but the institution
of Themistocles appears to me to be no proof that cock-fighting was
not practised at an earlier period. Even if it had been common, the
Athenians might have thought proper to establish a religious or at
least solemn cock-fighting to be exhibited every year. Themistocles
however is not the only person who employed the courage of game-cocks
as an incitement to bravery. Socrates inspired Iphicrates with courage,
by showing him with what ferocity the cock of Midas, or Meidias, and
that of Callias attacked each other[1157]. What Themistocles said to
his soldiers was addressed by Musonius as a philosopher to mankind, to
encourage them to support labour, danger, and pain, when duty or honour
require it[1158].
Many modern writers ascribe the establishment of public cock-fighting
at Athens, not to Themistocles, but to his contemporary Miltiades.
I have hitherto suspected that this arises merely from a confusion
of names, as is certainly the case in Moses du Soul[1159], where a
reference is made to Ælian, by whom however Miltiades is not mentioned.
At present, I am of opinion that Philo Judæus, who wrote in the first
century, gave occasion to this assertion. He relates, that when
Miltiades was about to lead the Grecian troops against the Persians, he
exhibited a cock-fight, in a place which had been employed for public
shows, in order to inspire courage into his soldiers by this spectacle,
and that the end proposed was accomplished; but nothing is said by that
author in regard to the establishment of annual cock-fights[1160].
According to this account, cock-fighting seems to have been at that
time not uncommon; but as it remains doubtful whether Philo speaks of
the campaign before the battle of Marathon, in which Miltiades and
Themistocles were both present, very little can be gathered from his
relation, and it appears to me not sufficient to contradict the more
circumstantial account of Ælian.
Another small mistake, which Pegge thought it worth while to notice,
deserves also perhaps to be rectified. Dalechamp[1161] and Potter[1162]
assert that Themistocles, while leading out his army, having heard a
cock crow, declared this to be an omen of victory, and after beating
the enemy he instituted cock-fighting in remembrance of that event.
I shall here remark, that Dalechamp is not the first person who made
this assertion. Peucer[1163], and at a period still earlier, Alexander
ab Alexandro[1164] mentioned the same thing, but no one ever pointed
out the passage in any ancient author upon which this assertion
was founded; and I have been as unsuccessful in my endeavours to
find it, as those who attempted to discover the sources from which
Alexander derived his information. This author perhaps collected from
manuscripts, in the fifteenth century, many things never printed, and
which therefore have been lost. He may also have written many things
from memory without remembering them all with accuracy.
It is indeed true, that the crowing of a cock was sometimes considered
as a presage of victory. Thus Cicero quotes an instance[1165] where a
Bœotian soothsayer promised victory to the Thebans from the crowing
of a cock; and according to Pliny[1166], the same circumstance once
served to the Bœotians as an omen of victory over the Lacedæmonians.
How then could Themistocles make choice of a cock-fight to commemorate
a victory announced by the crowing of a cock? Besides, Anacharsis
in Lucian confirms the object of the institution assigned by Ælian.
In the history of antiquity many things are often repeated, without
any one taking the trouble to examine whether they can be proved by
the testimony of the ancients. Those who wish to attain to truth
and certainty in matters of this kind, will not consider such short
examinations to be of so little importance as they may to others appear.
Dempster has assigned another reason for the cock-fights established
by Themistocles, which, though adopted by many, is not even supported
by probability. He conceives that these cock-fights were like a kind
of permanent trophies or monuments of the conquered Persians, because
the game-cock was indigenous in Persia, and conveyed thence to other
countries[1167].
Athenæus[1168], indeed, quotes from a work of Menodotus some lines
by which the latter part of this assertion is confirmed; and
Aristophanes[1169] in two places calls the domestic cock a Persian
bird. It is proved by more modern accounts, that this species of fowl
is at present found wild in the East Indies and many neighbouring
countries. Sonnerat[1170] found them in Hindostan; and they were
seen by Cook and by Dampier on Pulo Condor and many islands of the
South Sea. According to the testimony of Gemelli Careri, they were
indigenous in the Philippine islands, and according to Morolla in
the kingdom of Congo. That they are still found wild in Georgia is
asserted by Reineggs[1171]. The account therefore of the Greeks, that
they obtained domestic fowls from Persia, may be admitted; but as in
cock-fights one Persian overcame another, how could these convey the
idea of a victory of the Greeks over the Persians? Is the object, then,
as stated by Lucian and Ælian not sufficient and intelligible?
That cock-fighting, in the course of time, became a favourite pastime
among the people, is proved by the frequent mention which is made of it
in various authors. Pliny says[1172] that it was exhibited annually at
Pergamus, in the same manner as combats of gladiators. In this city,
according to Petronius[1173], a boy was promised a fighting-cock; and
therefore it appears that boys kept cocks there for this pastime.
Æschines reproaches Timarchus with spending the whole day in gaming and
cock-fighting. Plato[1174] complains, that not only boys but grown-up
persons, instead of labouring, bred birds for fighting, and employed
their whole time in such idle amusements.
Cock-fights were represented also by the Greeks on coins and on cut
stones. That the Dardani had them on their coins we are told by
Pollux[1175]; and this seems to prove that these people were as fond of
that sport as their neighbours of Pergamus. Mr. Pegge caused engravings
to be made of two gems in the collection of Sir William Hamilton, on
one of which is seen a cock in the humble attitude of defeat, with its
head hanging down, and another in the attitude of victory, with an ear
of corn in its bill as the object of contest. On the other stone two
cocks are fighting, while a mouse carries away the ear of corn for
the possession of which they had quarrelled; a happy emblem of our
law-suits, in which the greater part of the property in dispute falls
to the lawyers and attorneys. Two cocks in the attitude of fighting are
represented also on a lamp found in Herculaneum[1176].
That the Greeks employed various means to increase the irritability
and courage of fighting-cocks is beyond all doubt. Besides the
circumstance already mentioned in regard to the females, they gave
them also food which produced nearly the same effect as opium does
in India, and as brandy did some years ago on the European armies.
Dioscorides[1177] and Pliny[1178] ascribe this effect to a plant which
they call _adiantum_. The former says it was given to game-cocks and
quails, and the latter that it was given to game-cocks and partridges,
to incite them to fight. Garlick, _allium_, was employed also, as we
are told by Xenophon, not only for game-cocks but also for horses and
soldiers. That the Greeks, however, like the English at present, armed
their cocks with steel spurs, in order to render their battles more
bloody, is denied by Pegge; though the contrary seems to be proved by
a passage in Aristophanes, now become a proverb, and the remarks of
the scholiast[1179]. As the English procure the strongest and best
fighting-cocks from other countries, and often from Germany, through
Hamburg, the Greeks, in the like manner, obtained foreign game-cocks
for the same purpose[1180].
Why the Romans showed more fondness for quail-fighting than for
cock-fighting I do not know; but it is certain that they had not the
latter, or at any rate only seldom and at a late period, which appears
to be very singular, as they began then more and more to imitate the
Greeks. Varro mentions the breeds which were chiefly sought for in
Greece; but he adds, that though they might be good for fighting, they
were not fit for breeding[1181]. Had the breeding of game-cocks been an
employment, he would have spoken in a different manner. Columella also
ridicules the breeding of these cocks, as a Grecian custom, and prefers
the native race to all others. Eustathius, in the place already quoted,
says expressly that the Romans preferred quails to game-cocks; yet in
later times we find mention among them of cock-fighting, as has been
before remarked.
There were cocks in England in the time of Julius Cæsar[1182]; but
it is said that they were kept there merely for pleasure, and not
used as food. The latter part of this account is not improbable. The
inhabitants of the Pelew Islands, we are told, eat only the eggs of
their hens, and not the flesh. But the question, how old cock-fighting
is in England, cannot be determined. Pegge says, the oldest information
which he found on this subject was in the Description of the City
of London by William Fitz-Stephens, who lived in the reign of Henry
II., and died in 1191[1183]. This writer relates that every year on
Shrove Tuesday the boys at school brought their game-cocks to the
master, and the whole forenoon was devoted to cock-fighting, for the
amusement of the pupils. The theatre or cock-pit, therefore, was in the
school-house, and the pupils seem to have had the direction of it. To
this information I can add, that cock-fighting in France was forbidden
by a council in 1260, on account of some mischief to which it had given
rise[1184].
This pastime has been sometimes forbidden even in England, as was the
case under Edward III. and Henry VIII.; also in the year 1569, and even
later; but it was nevertheless retained to a late period. Even Henry
VIII. himself instituted fights of this kind; and a writer worthy of
credit relates, that James I. took great delight in them[1185]. In
modern times this cruel amusement has been carried beyond all bounds;
so that the cock-fights in China[1186], Persia[1187], Malacca[1188],
and America[1189], are nothing in comparison of those called the
_battle-royal_ and the _Welsh main_. In the former a certain number
of cocks are let loose to fight, and when they have destroyed each
other, the survivor is accounted the victor, and obtains the prize. In
the latter kind of battle, sixteen pair of cocks, for example, being
pitted against each other, the sixteen conquerors are made to fight
again; the eight of these which are victors, must fight a third time;
and the four remaining a fourth time, till at length the two last
conquerors terminate, by a fifth contest, this murderous game, after
thirty-one cocks have successively butchered each other amidst the
noisy exultation of the spectators, who however make a pretence to the
character of magnanimity.
[Cock-fighting is one of the chief amusements throughout the East
Indies and China, and it is a fashionable pastime for ladies in Peru.
The spot on which the cock-pit Royal, which was built in the reign of
Charles II., existed, is now used for the meetings of the members of
Her Majesty’s Privy Council. The custom of cock-throwing, that is, of
throwing sticks at a cock exposed at a stake and which was practised
in this country at Shrovetide, is supposed to have originated during
the war with France in the reign of Edward III., and to have been
considered a mark of hatred and contempt for the French people, of whom
that bird was the national emblem; but the conjecture rests upon no
solid authority and must be regarded as mere legend.
Cock-fighting is now forbidden and punishable by law in Great Britain,
and every attempt is made to prevent this and other similar barbarous
sports and to convict the offenders, by the Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals.]