Monstrous sorts of _Men_, and they are mentioned too by _Pliny, Solinus,
Mela, Philostratus_, and others; and _Munster_ in his _Cosmography_[B] has
given a _figure_ of some of them; _Strabo_, I say, who was an Enemy to all
such fabulous Relations, no doubt was prejudiced likewise against the
_Pygmies_, because these _Historians_ had made them a Puny Race of _Men_,
and invented so many Romances about them. I can no ways therefore blame
him for denying, that there were ever any such _Men Pygmies_; and do
readily agree with him, that no _Man_ ever saw them: and am so far from
dissenting from those Great Men, who have denied them on this account,
that I think they have all the reason in the World on their side. And to
shew how ready I am to close with them in this Point, I will here examine
the contrary Opinion, and what Reasons they give for the supporting it:
For there have been some _Moderns_, as well as the _Ancients_, that have
maintained that these _Pygmies_ were real _Men_. And this they pretend to
prove, both from _Humane Authority_ and _Divine_.
[Footnote A: _Strabo Geograph._ lib. 15. p.m. 489. & lib. 2. p. 48. _&
alibi_.]
[Footnote B: _Munster Cosmograph._ lib. 6. p. 1151.]
Now by _Men Pygmies_ we are by no means to understand _Dwarfs_. In all
Countries, and in all Ages, there has been now and then observed such
_Miniture_ of Mankind, or under-sized Men. _Cardan_[A] tells us he saw one
carried about in a Parrot's Cage, that was but a Cubit high.
_Nicephorus_[B] tells us, that in _Theodosius_ the Emperour's time, there
was one in _Ægypt_ that was no bigger than a Partridge; yet what was to be
admired, he was very Prudent, had a sweet clear Voice, and a generous Mind;
and lived Twenty Years. So likewise a King of _Portugal_ sent to a Duke
of _Savoy_, when he married his Daughter to him, an _Æthiopian Dwarf_ but
three Palms high.[C] And _Thevenot_[D] tells us of the Present made by the
King of the _Abyssins_, to the _Grand Seignior_, of several _little black
Slaves_ out of _Nubia_, and the Countries near _Æthiopia_, which being
made _Eunuchs_, were to guard the Ladies of the _Seraglio_. And a great
many such like Relations there are. But these being only _Dwarfs_, they
must not be esteemed the _Pygmies_ we are enquiring about, which are
represented as a _Nation_, and the whole Race of them to be of the like
stature. _Dari tamen integras Pumilionum Gentes, tam falsum est, quàm quod
falsissimum_, saith _Harduin_.[E]
[Footnote A: _Cardan de subtilitate_, lib. 11. p. 458.]
[Footnote B: _Nicephor. Histor. Ecclesiiast._ lib. 12. cap. 37.]
[Footnote C: _Happelius in Relat. curiosis_, No. 85. p. 677.]
[Footnote D: _Thevenot. Voyage de Levant._ lib. 2. c. 68.]
[Footnote E: _Jo. Harduini Notæ in Plinij Nat. Hist._ lib. 6. cap. 22. p.
688.]
Neither likewise must it be granted, that tho' in some _Climates_ there
might be _Men_ generally of less stature, than what are to be met with in
other Countries, that they are presently _Pygmies_. _Nature_ has not fixed
the same standard to the growth of _Mankind_ in all Places alike, no more
than to _Brutes_ or _Plants_. The Dimensions of them all, according to the
_Climate_, may differ. If we consult the Original, _viz. Homer_ that first
mentioned the _Pygmies_, there are only these two _Characteristics_ he
gives of them. That they are [Greek: Pygmaioi] _seu Cubitales_; and that
the _Cranes_ did use to fight them. 'Tis true, as a _Poet_, he calls them
[Greek: andres], which I have accounted for before. Now if there cannot be
found such _Men_ as are _Cubitales_, that the _Cranes_ might probably
fight with, notwithstanding all the Romances of the _Indian Historians_, I
cannot think these _Pygmies_ to be _Men_, but they must be some other
_Animals_, or the whole must be a Fiction.
Having premised this, we will now enquire into their Assertion that
maintain the _Pygmies_ to be a Race of _Men_. Now because there have been
_Giants_ formerly, that have so much exceeded the usual Stature of _Man_,
that there must be likewise _Pygmies_ as defective in the other extream
from this Standard, I think is no conclusive Argument, tho' made use of by
some. Old _Caspar Bartholine_[A] tells us, that because _J. Cassanius_ and
others had wrote _de Gygantibus_, since no Body else had undertaken it, he
would give us a Book _de Pygmæis_; and since he makes it his design to
prove the Existence of _Pygmies_, and that the _Pygmies_ were _Men_, I
must confess I expected great Matters from him.
[Footnote A: _Caspar. Bartholin. Opusculum de Pygmæis._]
But I do not find he has informed us of any thing more of them, than what
_Jo. Talentonius_, a Professor formerly at _Parma_, had told us before in
his _Variarum & Reconditarum Rerum Thesaurus_,[A] from whom he has
borrowed most of this _Tract_. He has made it a little more formal indeed,
by dividing it into _Chapters_; of which I will give you the _Titles_; and
as I see occasion, some Remarks thereon: They will not be many, because I
have prevented my self already. The _first Chapter_ is, _De Homuncionibus
& Pumilionilus seu Nanis à Pygmæis distinctis_. The _second Chapter, De
Pygmæi nominibus & Etymologia_. The _third Chapter, Duplex esse Pygmæorum
Genus; & primum Genus aliquando dari_. He means _Dwarfs_, that are no
_Pygmies_ at all. The _fourth Chapter_ is, _Alterum Genus, nempe Gentem
Pygmæorum esse, aut saltem aliquando fuisse Autoritatibus Humanis, fide
tamen dignorum asseritur_. 'Tis as I find it printed; and no doubt an
Error in the printing. The Authorities he gives, are, _Homer, Ctesias,
Aristotle, Philostratus, Pliny, Juvenal, Oppian, Baptista Mantuan_, St.
_Austin_ and his _Scholiast. Ludovic. Vives, Jo. Laurentius Anania, Joh.
Cassanius, Joh. Talentonius, Gellius, Pomp. Mela_, and _Olaus Magnus_. I
have taken notice of most of them already, as I shall of St. _Austin_ and
_Ludovicus Vives_ by and by. _Jo. Laurentius Anania_[B] ex Mercatorum
relatione tradit (saith _Bartholine_) eos _(sc. Pygmæos) in
Septentrionali Thraciæ Parte reperiri, (quæ Scythiæ est proxima) atque ibi
cum Gruibus pugnare_. And _Joh. Cassanius_[C] (as he is here quoted)
saith, _De Pygmæis fabulosa quidem esse omnia, quæ de iis narrari solent,
aliquando existimavi. Verùm cum videam non unum vel alterum, sed complures
Classicos & probatos Autores de his Homunculis multa in eandem fere
Sententiam tradidisse; eò adducor ut Pygmæos fuisse inficiari non ausim._
He next brings in _Jo. Talentonius_, to whom he is so much beholden, and
quotes his Opinion, which is full and home, _Constare arbitror_ (saith
_Talentonius_)[D] _debere concedi, Pygmæos non solùm olim fuisse, sed nunc
etiam esse, & homines esse, nec parvitatem illis impedimenta esse quo
minùs sint & homines sint._ But were there such _Men Pygmies_ now in
being, no doubt but we must have heard of them; some or other of our
Saylors, in their Voyages, would have lighted on them. Tho' _Aristotle_ is
here quoted, yet he does not make them _Men_; So neither does _Anania_:
And I must own, tho' _Talentonius_ be of this Opinion, yet he takes notice
of the faulty Translation of this Text of _Aristotle_ by _Gaza_: and tho'
the parvity or lowness of Stature, be no Impediment, because we have
frequently seen such _Dwarf-Men_, yet we did never see a _Nation_ of them:
For then there would be no need of that _Talmudical_ Precept which _Job.
Ludolphus_[E] mentions, _Nanus ne ducat Nanam, ne fortè oriatur ex iis
Digitalis_ (in _Bechor_. fol. 45).
[Footnote A: _Jo. Talentionij. Variar. & Recondit. Rerum. Thesaurus._ lib.
3. cap. 21.]
[Footnote B: _Joh. Laurent. Anania prope finem tractatus primi suæ
Geograph._]
[Footnote C: _Joh. Cassanius libello de Gygantibus_, p. 73.]
[Footnote D: _Jo. Talentonius Variar. & recondit. Rerum Thesaurus_, lib. 3.
cap. 21. p.m. 515.]
[Footnote E: _Job Ludolphi Comment. in Historiam Æthiopic._ p.m. 71.]
I had almost forgotten _Olaus Magnus_, whom _Bartholine_ mentions in the
close of this Chapter, but lays no great stress upon his Authority,
because he tells us, he is fabulous in a great many other Relations, and
he writes but by hear-say, that the _Greenlanders_ fight the _Cranes_;
_Tandem_ (saith _Bartholine_) _neque ideo Pygmæi sunt, si fortè sagittis &
hastis, sicut alij homines, Grues conficiunt & occidunt._ This I think is
great Partiality: For _Ctesias_, an Author whom upon all turns
_Bartholine_ makes use of as an Evidence, is very positive, that the
_Pygmies_ were excellent _Archers_: so that he himself owns, that their
being such, illustrates very much that _Text_ in _Ezekiel_, on which he
spends good part of the next _Chapter_, whose Title is, _Pygmæorum Gens ex
Ezekiele, atque rationibus probabilibus adstruitur_; which we will
consider by and by. And tho' _Olaus Magnus_ may write some things by
hear-say, yet he cannot be so fabulous as _Ctesias_, who (as _Lucian_
tells us) writes what he neither saw himself, or heard from any Body else.
Not that I think _Olaus Magnus_ his _Greenlanders_ were real _Pygmies_, no
more than _Ctesias_ his _Pygmies_ were real _Men_; tho' he vouches very
notably for them. And if all that have copied this Fable from _Ctesias_,
must be look'd upon as the same Evidence with himself; the number of the
_Testimonies_ produced need not much concern us, since they must all stand
or fall with him.
The _probable Reasons_ that _Bartholine_ gives in the _fifth Chapter_, are
taken from other _Animals_, as Sheep, Oxen, Horses, Dogs, the _Indian
Formica_ and Plants: For observing in the same _Species_ some excessive
large, and others extreamly little, he infers, _Quæ certè cum in
Animalibus & Vegetabilibus fiant; cur in Humana specie non sit probabile,
haud video: imprimis cum detur magnitudinis excessus Gigantæus; cur non
etiam dabitur Defectus? Quia ergo dantur Gigantes, dabuntur & Pygmæi. Quam
consequentiam ut firmam, admittit Cardanus,[A] licet de Pygmæis hoc tantùm
concedat, qui pro miraculo, non pro Gente._ Now Cardan, tho' he allows
this Consequence, yet in the same place he gives several Reasons why the
_Pygmies_ could not be _Men_, and looks upon the whole Story as fabulous.
_Bartholine_ concludes this _Chapter_ thus: _Ulteriùs ut Probabilitatem
fulciamus, addendum Sceleton Pygmæi, quod_ Dresdæ _vidimus inter alia
plurima, servatum in Arce sereniss._ Electoris Saxoniæ, _altitudine infra
Cubitum, Ossium soliditate, proportioneque tum Capitis, tum aliorum; ut
Embrionem, aut Artificiale quid Nemo rerum peritus suspicari possit.
Addita insuper est Inscriptio_ Veri Pygmæi. I hereupon looked into Dr.
_Brown_'s Travels into those Parts, who has given us a large Catalogue of
the Curiosities, the _Elector_ of _Saxony_ had at _Dresden_, but did not
find amongst them this _Sceleton_; which, by the largeness of the Head, I
suspect to be the _Sceleton_ of an _Orang-Outang_, or our _wild Man_. But
had he given us either a figure of it, or a more particular Description,
it had been a far greater Satisfaction.
[Footnote A: _Cardan. de Rerum varietate_, lib. 8. cap. 40.]
The Title of _Bartholine_'s _sixth Chapter_ is, _Pygmæos esse aut fuisse
ex variis eorum adjunctis, accidentibus_, &c. _ab Authoribus descriptis
ostenditur_. As first, their _Magnitude_: which he mentions from _Ctesias,
Pliny, Gellius_, and _Juvenal_; and tho' they do not all agree exactly,
'tis nothing. _Autorum hic dissensus nullus est_ (saith _Bartholine_)
_etenim sicut in nostris hominibus, ita indubiè in Pygmæis non omnes
ejusdem magnitudinis._ 2. The _Place_ and _Country_: As _Ctesias_ (he
saith) places them in the middle of _India_; _Aristotle_ and _Pliny_ at
the Lakes above _Ægypt_; _Homer_'s _Scholiast_ in the middle of _Ægypt_;
_Pliny_ at another time saith they are at the Head of the _Ganges_, and
sometimes at _Gerania_, which is in _Thracia_, which being near _Scythia_,
confirms (he saith) _Anania's Relation_. _Mela_ places them at the
_Arabian Gulf_; and _Paulus Jovius docet Pygmæos ultra Japonem esse_; and
adds, _has Autorum dissensiones facile fuerit conciliare; nec mirum
diversas relationes à_, Plinio _auditas._ For (saith he) as the _Tartars_
often change their Seats, since they do not live in Houses, but in Tents,
so 'tis no wonder that the _Pygmies_ often change theirs, since instead of
Houses, they live in Caves or Huts, built of Mud, Feathers, and
Egg-shells. And this mutation of their Habitations he thinks is very plain
from _Pliny_, where speaking of _Gerania_, he saith, _Pygmæorum Gens_
fuisse _(non jam esse) proditur, creduntque à Gruibus fugatos._ Which
passage (saith _Bartholine_) had _Adrian Spigelius_ considered, he would
not so soon have left _Aristotle's_ Opinion, because _Franc. Alvares_ the
_Portuguese_ did not find them in the place where _Aristotle_ left them;
for the _Cranes_, it may be, had driven them thence. His third Article is,
their _Habitation_, which _Aristotle_ saith is in _Caves_; hence they are
_Troglodytes_. _Pliny_ tells us they build Huts with Mud, Feathers, and
Egg-shells. But what _Bartholine_ adds, _Eò quod Terræ Cavernas
inhabitent, non injuriâ dicti sunt olim Pygmæi, Terræ filii_, is wholly
new to me, and I have not met with it in any Author before: tho' he gives
us here several other significations of the word _Terræ filij_ from a
great many Authors, which I will not trouble you at present with. 4. The
_Form_, being flat nosed and ugly, as _Ctesias_. 5. Their _Speech_, which
was the same as the _Indians_, as _Ctesias_; and for this I find he has no
other Author. 6. Their _Hair_; where he quotes _Ctesias_ again, that they
make use of it for _Clothes_. 7. Their _Vertues and Arts_; as that they
use the same Laws as the _Indians_, are very just, excellent Archers, and
that the King of _India_ has Three thousand of them in his Guards. All
from _Ctesias_. 8. Their _Animals_, as in _Ctesias_; and here are
mentioned their Sheep, Oxen, Asses, Mules, and Horses. 9. Their various
_Actions_; as what _Ctesias_ relates of their killing Hares and Foxes with
Crows, Eagles, &c. and fighting the _Cranes_, as _Homer, Pliny, Juvenal_.
The _seventh Chapter_ in _Bartholine_ has a promising Title, _An Pygmæi
sint homines_, and I expected here something more to our purpose; but I
find he rather endeavours to answer the Reasons of those that would make
them _Apes_, than to lay down any of his own to prove them _Men_. And
_Albertus Magnus's_ Opinion he thinks absurd, that makes them part Men
part Beasts; they must be either one or the other, not a _Medium_ between
both; and to make out this, he gives us a large Quotation out of _Cardan_.
But _Cardan_[A] in the same place argues that they are not Men. As to
_Suessanus_[B] his Argument, that they want _Reason_, this he will not
Grant; but if they use it less or more imperfectly than others (which yet,
he saith, is not certain) by the same parity of Reason _Children_, the
_Boeotians_, _Cumani_ and _Naturals_ may not be reckoned _Men_; and he
thinks, what he has mentioned in the preceding _Chapter_ out of _Ctesias_,
&c. shews that they have no small use of Reason. As to _Suessanus_'s
next Argument, that they want Religion, Justice, &c. this, he saith, is
not confirmed by any grave Writer; and if it was, yet it would not prove
that they are not _Men_. For this defect (he saith) might hence happen,
because they are forced to live in _Caves_ for fear of the _Cranes_; and
others besides them, are herein faulty. For this Opinion, that the
_Pygmies_ were _Apes_ and not _Men_, he quotes likewise _Benedictus
Varchius_,[C] and _Joh. Tinnulus_,[D] and _Paulus Jovius_,[E] and several
others of the Moderns, he tells us, are of the same mind. _Imprimis
Geographici quos non puduit in Mappis Geographicis loco Pygmæorum simias
cum Gruibus pugnantes ridiculè dipinxisse._
[Footnote A: _Cardan. de Rerum varietate_, lib. 8. cap. 40.]
[Footnote B: _Suessanus Comment. in Arist. de Histor. Animal._ lib. 8.
cap. 12.]
[Footnote C: _Benedict. Varchius de Monstris. lingua vernacula._]
[Footnote D: _Joh. Tinnulus in Glotto-Chrysio._]
[Footnote E: _Paulus Jovius lib. de Muscovit. Legalione._]
The Title of _Bartholine's eighth_ and last _Chapter_ is, _Argumenta eorum
qui Pygmæorum Historiam fabulosam censent, recitantur & refutantur._ Where
he tells us, the only Person amongst the Ancients that thought the Story
of the _Pygmies_ to be fabulous was _Strabo_; but amongst the Moderns
there are several, as _Cardan, Budæus, Aldrovandus, Fullerus_ and others.
The first Objection (he saith) is that of _Spigelius_ and others; that
since the whole World is now discovered, how happens it, that these
_Pygmies_ are not to be met with? He has seven Answers to this Objection;
how satisfactory they are, the Reader may judge, if he pleases, by
perusing them amongst the Quotations.[A] _Cardan_'s second Objection (he
saith) is, that they live but eight years, whence several Inconveniences
would happen, as _Cardan_ shews; he answers that no good Author asserts
this; and if there was, yet what _Cardan_ urges would not follow; and
instances out of _Artemidorus_ in _Pliny_,[B] as a _Parallel_ in the
_Calingæ_ a Nation in _India, where the Women conceive when five years
old, and do not live above eight._ _Gesner_ speaking of the _Pygmies_,
saith, _Vitæ autem longitudo anni arciter octo ut_ Albertus _refert._
_Cardan_ perhaps had his Authority from _Albertus_, or it may be both took
it from this passage in _Pliny_, which I think would better agree to
_Apes_ than _Men_. But _Artemidorus_ being an _Indian Historian_, and in
the same place telling other Romances, the less Credit is to be given to
him. The third Objection, he saith, is of _Cornelius à Lapide_, who denies
the _Pygmies_, because _Homer_ was the first Author of them. The fourth
Objection he saith is, because Authors differ about the Place where they
should be: This, he tells us, he has answered already in the fifth
Chapter. The _fifth_ and last Objection he mentions is, that but few have
seen them. He answers, there are a great many Wonders in Sacred and
Profane History that we have not seen, yet must not deny. And he instances
in three; As the _Formicæ Indicæ_, which are as big as great Dogs: The
_Cornu Plantabile_ in the Island _Goa_, which when cut off from the Beast,
and flung upon the Ground, will take root like a _Cabbage_: and the
_Scotland Geese_ that grow upon Trees, for which he quotes a great many
Authors, and so concludes.
[Footnote A: _Respondeo._ 1. _Contrarium testari Mercatorum Relationem
apud_ Ananiam _supra Cap. 4._ 2. _Et licet non inventi essent vivi à
quolibet, pari jure Monocerota & alia negare liceret._ 3. _Qui maria
pernavigant, vix oras paucas maritimas lustrant, adeo non terras omnes à
mari dissitas._ 4. _Neque in Oris illos habitare maritimis ex Capite
quinto manifestum est._ 5. _Quis testatum se omnem adhibuisse diligentiam
in inquirendo eos ut inveniret._ 6. _Ita in terra habitant, ut in Antris
vitam tolerare dicantur._ 7. _Si vel maximè omni ab omnibus diligentia
quæsiti fuissent, nec inventi; fieri potest, ut instar Gigantum jam
desierint nec sint ampliùs_.]
[Footnote B: _Plinij Hist. Nat._ lib. 7. cap. 2. p.m. 14.]
Now how far _Bartholine_ in his Treatise has made out that the _Pygmies_
of the Ancients were real _Men_, either from the Authorities he has
quoted, or his Reasonings upon them, I submit to the Reader. I shall
proceed now (as I promised) to consider the Proof they pretend from _Holy
Writ_: For _Bartholine_ and others insist upon that _Text_ in _Ezekiel_
(_Cap. 27. Vers. 11_) where the _Vulgar_ Translation has it thus; _Filij
Arvad cum Exercitu tuo supra Muros tuos per circuitum, & Pygmæi in
Turribus tuis fuerunt; Scuta sua suspenderunt supra Muros tuos per
circuitum._ Now _Talentonius_ and _Bartholine_ think that what _Ctesias_
relates of the _Pygmies_, as their being good _Archers_, very well
illustrates this Text of _Ezekiel_: I shall here transcribe what Sir
_Thomas Brown_[A] remarks upon it; and if any one requires further
Satisfaction, they may consult _Job Ludolphus's Comment_ on his _Æthiopic
History_.[B]
[Footnote A: Sir _Thomas Brown's Enquiries into Vulgar Errors_, lib. 4.
cap. 11. p. 242.]
[Footnote B: _Comment. in Hist. Æthiopic._ p. 73.]
The _second Testimony_ (saith Sir _Thomas Brown_) _is deduced from Holy
Scripture; thus rendered in the Vulgar Translation_, Sed & Pygmæi qui
erant in turribus tuis, pharetras suas suspenderunt in muris tuis per
gyrum: _from whence notwithstanding we cannot infer this Assertion, for
first the Translators accord not, and the Hebrew word_ Gammadim _is very
variously rendered. Though_ Aquila, Vatablus _and_ Lyra _will have it_
Pygmæi, _yet in the_ Septuagint, _it is no more than Watchman; and so in
the_ Arabick _and_ High-Dutch. _In the_ Chalde, Cappadocians, _in_
Symmachus, Medes, _and in the_ French, _those of_ Gamed. Theodotian _of
old, and_ Tremillius _of late, have retained the Textuary word; and so
have the_ Italian, Low Dutch, _and_ English _Translators, that is, the Men
of_ Arvad _were upon thy Walls round about, and the_ Gammadims _were in
thy Towers._
_Nor do Men only dissent in the Translation of the word, but in the
Exposition of the Sense and Meaning thereof; for some by_ Gammadims
_understand a People of_ Syria, _so called from the City of_ Gamala; _some
hereby understand the_ Cappadocians, _many the_ Medes: _and hereof_
Forerius _hath a singular Exposition, conceiving the Watchmen of_ Tyre,
_might well be called_ Pygmies, _the Towers of that City being so high,
that unto Men below, they appeared in a Cubital Stature. Others expound it
quite contrary to common Acception, that is not Men of the least, but of
the largest size; so doth_ Cornelius _construe_ Pygmæi, _or_ Viri
Cubitales, _that is, not Men of a Cubit high, but of the largest Stature,
whose height like that of Giants, is rather to be taken by the Cubit than
the Foot; in which phrase we read the measure of_ Goliah, _whose height is
said to be six Cubits and span. Of affinity hereto is also the Exposition
of_ Jerom; _not taking_ Pygmies _for Dwarfs, but stout and valiant
Champions; not taking the sense of [Greek: pygmae], which signifies the
Cubit measure, but that which expresseth Pugils; that is, Men fit for
Combat and the Exercise of the Fist. Thus there can be no satisfying
illation from this Text, the diversity, or rather contrariety of
Expositions and Interpretations, distracting more than confirming the
Truth of the Story._
But why _Aldrovandus_ or _Caspar Bartholine_ should bring in St. _Austin_
as a Favourer of this Opinion of _Men Pygmies_, I see no Reason. To me he
seems to assert quite the contrary: For proposing this Question, _An ex
propagine_ Adam _vel filiorum_ Noe, _quædam genera Hominum Monstrosa
prodierunt?_ He mentions a great many monstrous Nations of _Men_, as they
are described by the _Indian Historians_, and amongst the rest, the
_Pygmies_, the _Sciopodes_, &c. And adds, _Quid dicam de_ Cynocephalis,
_quorum Canina Capita atque ipse Latratus magis Bestias quàm Homines
confitentur? Sed omnia Genera Hominum, quæ dicuntur esse, esse credere,
non est necesse._ And afterwards so fully expresses himself in favour of
the _Hypothesis_ I am here maintaining, that I think it a great
Confirmation of it. _Nam & Simias_ (saith he) _& Cercopithecos, &
Sphingas, si nesciremus non Homines esse, sed Bestias, possent isti
Historici de sua Curiositate gloriantes velut Gentes Aliquas Hominum nobis
impunitâ vanitate mentiri._ At last he concludes and determines the
Question thus, _Aut illa, quæ talia de quibusdam Gentibus scripta sunt,
omnino nulla sunt, aut si sunt, Homines non sunt, aut ex_ Adam _sunt si
Homines sunt._