History of All Cloven-Hoofed Quadrupeds

...ceives it. This part is also rough beyond others, lest if it were slippery, such crude food should slip forward into the next chamber.

Why the palate is rough.

But the palate is likewise hard and rough, and that for a twofold purpose: first, for that which we have already assigned to the first belly; (for since animals of this kind feed prone and are destitute of the front teeth of the upper jaw, and have a mouth clothed with a soft membrane, the fodder would slip out of a slippery mouth with no trouble) and then, for the easier crushing of the harder fodder. For what would the lower teeth do alone? Galen saw this second purpose of nature in the place most recently cited: But not (he says) because they are horned, therefore do they have more ventricles, or ruminate: but because they take in hard and thorny food, they do not need upper teeth; indeed even the camel, although it lacks horns, nevertheless both ruminates and has many bellies, since it feeds upon thorny and woody nourishment. For the sake of this, the internal membrane of the mouth is also entirely rough, and that which is drawn over the bellies similarly. Moreover, such a tunic is not only rough, but as we were saying a little before from Aristotle, hard and calloused. To these, I observe three things in the same Galen:

Observation on Galen. Book 3, On the Parts of Animals, ch. 1.

first, when he says, not because they are horned, therefore do they have more ventricles and ruminate; since it is certain that because they are horned, they have so many bellies and ruminate, for the matter of the teeth goes off into the horns, which Aristotle himself taught in these words: In the rest of the animals in which this matter does not go off into horns, nature has either increased the size of the teeth themselves by the common growth of all, or has produced protruding teeth, like horns, from the jaws. I note secondly, what he says: they do not need upper teeth, because they take in hard and thorny food: for the harder and rougher the fodder is, the more they need teeth, and indeed very strong ones; thirdly, he attributes the same use to the roughness of the internal belly as to the roughness of the palate, since the latter has a twofold use: namely, of retaining the nourishment lest it slip out, and of crushing it.

Galen is emended. Syntagma 7.

Whence learned men judge that the text of Galen has been corrupted: however, they restore only that part which treats of the teeth. Giovanni Emiliano of Ferrara, in his natural history of ruminants, judges that the negative particle not is read corruptly for the copulative and [καὶ], namely thus: ἀλλ' οὐ διὸ κέρατα ἔχουσι, διὰ τοῦτο πλείονας ἔχουσι γαστέρας, ἢ μηρυκάζει, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν ἄνωθεν δυσπέπτων τροφὴν, καὶ δεῖσθαι τῶν ἄνωθεν ὁδόντων, that is: "But not because they bear horns, therefore do they have more bellies, or ruminate, but because they feed on rough and hard food, and lack upper teeth." Mercuriali follows this restoration, though suppressing the name of Emiliano. Indeed, Mercuriali also denies that all animals deprived of these teeth are of a hard palate (contrary to Averroes, whom we have followed), on the argument that in horned animals of this kind, the material is so consumed in the fabrication of the horns that it cannot always suffice for hardening the palate and the tongue.

Book 5, Various Readings, ch. 14.

But some horned animal ought to have been produced that has a soft palate. The same Averroes gives the reasons why nature made four bellies, and not more or fewer: namely, those which have been declared by us for the most part.

In the commentary on On the Parts [of Animals], 3, 14. Why more bellies were given.

That more were given (he says), the cause was the lack of teeth, the hardness of the food, the weakness of digestion, the long distance, and the great dissimilarity of the food for nourishing the members, so that there is need for more transformations. But that there are four, and neither more nor fewer, the same philosopher thinks the cause to be this: that the first belly should receive the uncooked food, which is like a storehouse, and almost nothing should be worked upon it; but the other three should finish it, and that those three were also given because it was so convenient to nature. For three things have two extremes and a middle: the first begins to process the food, the middle works moderately upon the food, the third perfects it.

Book 9, History [of Animals], last chapter. Which horned animals ruminate.

Now, Aristotle in some place testifies that rumination does not belong to all horned animals toothed on only one side, but only to the domestic ones. They ruminate (he says) which lack the upper row of teeth, such as oxen, sheep, goats. Of wild animals, it is not yet certain that any ruminate, except those which sometimes spend time with men, like the stag: for that this animal ruminates is clear.

Book 10, ch. 73. Hieroglyphics, Book 8.

Pierio judges that this passage was carelessly rendered by Pliny, since he has it thus: Besides those already mentioned, of the wild animals, stags ruminate when they are nourished by us: as if (he says) taming were the cause of rumination. But indeed, as I think, either something is missing, or, which I cannot be led to believe, he did not express Aristotle, who proves by this argument that stags ruminate because those raised by us do the same. Otherwise than Pliny, Albertus also explains the same passage of Aristotle in the eighth book of On Animals, when he says: But no wild animal seems to ruminate, unless they are created in the form of some domestic ruminant, except only the stag, and those which are similar to the stag, such as the roe-buck and the hippelaphus.

Ruminants toothed on both sides.

Again, that rumination is proper only to those toothed on one side is by no means universally true; for there are some which, although they are toothed on both sides, nevertheless ruminate, such as the parrot-fish among fishes, and among quadrupeds the Pontic mouse, as Aristotle reports, and from him Pliny. Moreover, the parrot-fish ruminates because it does not have serrated teeth like other fishes, but blunt ones, as is gathered from these words of the philosopher:

Why the parrot-fish ruminates. On the Parts [of Animals] 3, 14.

To the race of fishes (he says) have been given teeth, but almost all, I might say, are serrated. For there is a certain small kind which does not have serrated teeth, such as that which is called the Scarus [parrot-fish], which alone is deservedly believed to ruminate for that reason. But why the Pontic mouse should ruminate, I have nothing to say. Since, however, even our common mice ruminate, as Pliny and Albertus testify, it is not far from reason that the Pontic mouse also has teeth that are not at all serrated: