Chapter 9

_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._

There is nothing therefore in St. _Austin_ that justifies the being of _Men Pygmies_, or that the _Pygmies_ were _Men_; he rather makes them _Apes_. And there is nothing in his _Scholiast Ludovicus Vives_ that tends this way, he only quotes from other Authors, what might illustrate the Text he is commenting upon, and no way asserts their being _Men_. I shall therefore next enquire into _Bochartus_'s Opinion, who would have them to be the _Nubæ_ or _Nobæ_. _Hos Nubas Troglodyticos_ (saith[A] he) _ad Avalitem Sinum esse Pygmæos Veterum multa probant._ He gives us five Reasons to prove this. As, 1. The Authority of _Hesychius_, who saith, [Greek: Noboi Pygmaioi]. 2. Because _Homer_ places the _Pygmies_ near the Ocean, where the Nubæ were. 3. _Aristotle_ places them at the lakes of the _Nile_. Now by the _Nile Bochartus_ tells us, we must understand the _Astaborus_, which the Ancients thought to be a Branch of the _Nile_, as he proves from _Pliny, Solinus_ and _Æthicus_. And _Ptolomy_ (he tells us) places the _Nubæ_ hereabout. 4. Because _Aristotle_ makes the _Pygmies_ to be _Troglodytes_, and so were the _Nubæ_. 5. He urges that Story of _Nonnosus_ which I have already mentioned, and thinks that those that _Nonnosus_ met with, were a Colony of the _Nubæ_; but afterwards adds, _Quos tamen absit ut putemus Staturâ fuisse Cubitali, prout Poetæ fingunt, qui omnia in majus augent._ But this methinks spoils them from being _Pygmies_; several other Nations at this rate may be _Pygmies_ as well as these _Nubæ_. Besides, he does not inform us, that these _Nubæ_ used to fight the _Cranes_; and if they do not, and were not _Cubitales_, they can't be _Homer_'s _Pygmies_, which we are enquiring after. But the Notion of their being _Men_, had so possessed him, that it put him upon fancying they must be the _Nubæ_; but 'tis plain that those in _Nonnosus_ could not be a Colony of the _Nubæ_; for then the _Nubæ_ must have understood their Language, which the _Text_ saith, none of the Neighbourhood did. And because the _Nubæ_ are _Troglodytes_, that therefore they must be _Pygmies_, is no Argument at all. For _Troglodytes_ here is used as an _Adjective_; and there is a sort of _Sparrow_ which is called _Passer Troglodytes_. Not but that in _Africa_ there was a Nation of _Men_ called _Troglodytes_, but quite different from our _Pygmies_. How far _Bochartus_ may be in the right, in guessing the Lakes of the _Nile_ (whereabout _Aristotle_ places the _Pygmies_) to be the Fountains of the River _Astaborus_, which in his description, and likewise the _Map_, he places in the Country of the _Avalitæ_, near the _Mossylon Emporium_; I shall not enquire. This I am certain of, he misrepresents _Aristotle_ where he tells us,[B] _Quamvis in ea fabula hoc saltem verum esse asserat Philosophus, Pusillos Homines in iis locis degere_: for as I have already observed; _Aristotle_ in that _Text_ saith nothing at all of their being _Men_: the contrary rather might be thence inferred, that they were _Brutes_. And _Bochart's_ Translation, as well as _Gaza's_ is faulty here, and by no means to be allowed, _viz. Ut aiunt, genus ibi parvum est tam Hominum, quàm Equorum_; which had _Bochartus_ considered he would not have been so fond it may be of his _Nubæ_. And if the [Greek: Noboi Pygmaioi] in _Hesychius_ are such _Pygmies_ as _Bochartus_ makes his _Nubæ, Quos tamen absit ut putemus staturtâ fuisse Cubitali_, it will not do our business at all; and neither _Homer's_ Authority, nor _Aristotle's_ does him any Service.

[Footnote A: _Sam. Bochart. Geograph. Sacræ_, Part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 23. p.m. 142.]

[Footnote B: _Bocharti Hierozoici pars Posterior_, lib. I. cap. II. p. 76.]

But this Fable of _Men Pygmies_ has not only obtained amongst the _Greeks_ and _Indian Historians_: the _Arabians_ likewise tell much such Stories of them, as the same learned _Bochartus_ informs us. I will give his Latin Translation of one of them, which he has printed in _Arabick_ also: _Arabes idem_ (saith[A] _Bochartus_) _referunt ex cujusdam_ Græculi _fide, qui_ Jacobo Isaaci _filio_, Sigariensi _fertur ita narrasse_. _Navigabam aliquando in mari_ Zingitano, _& impulit me ventus in quandam Insulam_. _In cujus Oppidum cum devenissem, reperi Incolas Cubitalis esse staturæ, & plerosque Coclites. Quorum multitudo in me congregata me deduxit ad Regem suum. Fussit is, ut Captivus detinerer; & inquandam Caveæ speciem conjectus sum; eos autem aliquando ad bellum instrui cum viderem, dixerunt Hostem imminere, & fore ut propediem ingrueret. Nec multò post Gruum exercitus in eos insurrexit. Atque ideo erant Coclites, quod eorum oculos hæ confodissent. Atque Ego, virgâ assumptâ, in eas impetum feci, & illæ avolârunt atque aufugerunt; ob quod facinus in honore fui apud illos_. This Author, it seems, represents them under the same Misfortune with the _Poet_, who first mentioned them, as being blind, by having their Eyes peck'd out by their cruel Enemies. Such an Accident possibly might happen now and then, in these bloody Engagements, tho' I wonder the _Indian Historians_ have not taken notice of it. However the _Pygmies_ shewed themselves grateful to their Deliverer, in heaping _Honours_ on him. One would guess, for their own sakes, they could not do less than make him their _Generalissimo_; but our Author is modest in not declaring what they were.

[Footnote A: _Bochartus ibid_. p.m. 77.]

Isaac Vossius seems to unsettle all, and endeavours utterly to ruine the whole Story: for he tells us, If you travel all over _Africa_, you shall not meet with either a _Crane_ or _Pygmie_: _Se mirari_ (saith[A] _Isaac Vossius_) Aristotelem, _quod tam seriò affirmet non esse fabellam, quæ de Pygmæis & Bello, quod cum Gruibus gerant, narrantur. Si quis totam pervadat_ Africam, _nullas vel Grues vel Pygmæos inveniet_. Now one would wonder more at _Vossius_, that he should assert this of _Aristotle_, which he never said. And since _Vossius_ is so mistaken in what he relates of _Aristotle_; where he might so easily have been in the right, 'tis not improbable, but he may be out in the rest too: For who has travelled all _Africa_ over, that could inform him? And why should he be so peremptory in the Negative, when he had so positive an Affirmation of _Aristotle_ to the contrary? or if he would not believe _Aristotle's_ Authority, methinks he should _Aristophanes's_, who tells us,[B] [Greek: Speirein hotau men Geranos kroizon es taen libyaen metachorae]. _'Tis time to sow when the noisy Cranes take their flight into_ Libya. Which Observation is likewise made by _Hesiod, Theognis, Aratus_, and others. And _Maximus Tyrius_ (as I find him quoted in _Bochartus_) saith, [Greek: Hai geravoi ex Aigyptou ora therous aphistamenai, ouk anechomenai to thalpos teinasai pterygas hosper istia, pherontai dia tou aeros euthy ton Skython gaes]. i.e. _Grues per æstatem ex_ Ægypto _abscedentes, quia Calorem pati non possunt, alis velorum instar expansis, per aerem ad_ Scythicam _plagam rectà feruntur_. Which fully confirms that Migration of the _Cranes_ that _Aristotle_ mentions.

[Footnote A: _Isaac Vossius de Nili aliorumque stuminum Origine_, Cap. 18.]

[Footnote B: _Aristophanes in Nubibus_.]

But _Vossius_ I find, tho' he will not allow the _Cranes_, yet upon second Thoughts did admit of _Pygmies_ here: For this Story of the _Pygmies_ and the _Cranes_ having made so much _noise_, he thinks there may be something of truth in it; and then gives us his Conjecture, how that the _Pygmies_ may be those _Dwarfs_, that are to be met with beyond the Fountains of the _Nile_; but that they do not fight _Cranes_ but _Elephants_, and kill a great many of them, and drive a considerable Traffick for their teeth with the _Jagi_, who sell them to those of _Congo_ and the _Portuguese_. I will give you _Vossius's_ own words; _Attamen_ (saith[A] he) _ut solent fabellæ non de nihilo fingi & aliquod plerunque continent veri, id ipsum quoque que hìc factum esse existimo. Certum quippe est ultra_ Nili _fontes multos reperiri_ Nanos, _qui tamen non cum Gruibus, sed cum Elephantis perpetuum gerant bellum. Præcipuum quippe Eboris commercium in regno magni_ Macoki _per istos transigitur Homunciones; habitant in Sylvis, & mira dexteritate Elephantos sagittis conficiunt. Carnibus vescuntur, Dentes verô_ Jagis _divendunt, illi autem_ Congentibus & Lusitanis.

[Footnote A: _Isaac Vossius ibid_.]

_Job Ludolphus_[A] in his _Commentary_ on his _Æthiopick History_ remarks, That there was never known a Nation all of Dwarfs. _Nani quippe_ (saith _Ludolphus_) _Naturæ quodam errore ex aliis justæ staturæ hominibus generantur. Qualis verô ea Gens sit, ex qua ista Naturæ Ludibria tantâ copiâ proveniant, Vossium docere oportelat, quia Pumiliones Pumiles alios non gignunt, sed plerunque steriles sunt, experientia teste; ut planè non opus habuerunt Doctores Talmudici Nanorum matrimonia prohibere, ne Digitales ex iis nascerentur. Ludolphus_ it may be is a little too strict with _Vossius_ for calling them _Nani_; he may only mean a sort of Men in that Country of less Stature than ordinary. And _Dapper_ in his History of _Africa_, from whom _Vossius_ takes this Account, describes such in the Kingdom of _Mokoko_, he calls _Mimos_, and tells us that they kill _Elephants_. But I see no reason why _Vossius_ should take these Men for the _Pygmies_ of the Ancients, or think that they gave any occasion or ground for the inventing this Fable, is there was no other reason, this was sufficient, because they were able to kill the _Elephants_. The _Pygmies_ were scarce a Match for the _Cranes_; and for them to have encountered an _Elephant_, were as vain an Attempt, as the _Pygmies_ were guilty of in _Philostratus_[B] 'who to revenge the Death of _Antæus_, having found _Hercules_ napping in _Libya_, mustered up all their Forces against him. One _Phalanx_ (he tells us) assaulted his left hand; but against his right hand, that being the stronger, two _Phalanges_ were appointed. The Archers and Slingers besieged his feet, admiring the hugeness of his Thighs: But against his Head, as the Arsenal, they raised Batteries, the King himself taking his Post there. They set fire to his Hair, put Reaping-hooks in his Eyes; and that he might not breath, clapp'd Doors to his Mouth and Nostrils; but all the Execution that they could do, was only to awake him, which when done, deriding their folly, he gather'd them all up in his Lion's Skin, and carried them (_Philostratus_ thinks) to _Euristhenes_.' This _Antæus_ was as remarkable for his height, as the _Pygmies_ were for their lowness of Stature: For _Plutarch_[C] tells us, that _Q. Sterorius_ not being willing to trust Common Fame, when he came to _Tingis_ (now _Tangier_) he caused _Antæus's_ Sepulchre to be opened, and found his Corps full threescore Cubits long. But _Sterorius_ knew well enough how to impose upon the Credulity of the People, as is evident from the Story of his _white Hind_, which _Plutarch_ likewise relates.

[Footnote A: _Job Ludolphus in Comment, in Historiam Æthiopicam_, p.m. 71.]

[Footnote B: _Philostratus. Icon_. lib. 2. p.m. 817.]

[Footnote C: _Plutarch. in vita Q. Sertorij_.]

But to return to our _Pygmies_; tho' most of the great and learned Men would seem to decry this Story as a Fiction and mere Fable, yet there is something of Truth, they think, must have given the first rise to it, and that it was not wholly the product of Phancy, but had some real foundation, tho' disguised, according to the different Imagination and _Genius_ of the _Relator_: 'Tis this that has incited them to give their several Conjectures about it. _Job Ludolphus_ finding what has been offered at in Relation to the _Pygmies_, not to satisfie, he thinks he can better account for this Story, by leaving out the _Cranes_, and placing in their stead, another sort of Bird he calls the _Condor_. I will give you his own words: _Sed ad Pygmæos_ (saith [A] _Ludolphus_) _revertamur; fabula de Geranomachia Pygmæorum seu pugna cum Gruibus etiam aliquid de vero trahere videtur, si pro Gruibus_ Condoras _intelligas, Aves in interiore_ Africa _maximas, ut fidem penè excedat; aiunt enim quod Ales ista vitulum Elephanti in Aerem extollere possit; ut infra docebimus. Cum his Pygmæos pugnare, ne pecora sua rapiant, incredibile non est. Error ex eo natus videtur, quod primus Relator, alio vocabulo destitutus, Grues pro Condoris nominârit, sicuti_ Plautus _Picos pro Gryphilus_, & Romani _Boves lucas pro Elephantis dixere_.

[Footnote A: _Job Ludolphus Comment, in Historiam suam Æthiopic_. p. 73.]

'Tis true, if what _Juvenal_ only in ridicule mentions, was to be admitted as a thing really done, that the _Cranes_ could fly away with a _Pygmie_, as our _Kites_ can with a Chicken, there might be some pretence for _Ludovicus's Condor_ or _Cunctor_: For he mentions afterwards[A] out of _P. Joh. dos Santos_ the _Portuguese_, that 'twas observed that one of these _Condors_ once flew away with an Ape, Chain, Clog and all, about ten or twelve pounds weight, which he carried to a neighbouring Wood, and there devoured him. And _Garcilasso de la Vega_[B] relates that they will seize and fly away with a Child ten or twelve years old. But _Juvenal_[C] only mentions this in ridicule and merriment, where he saith,

Adsubitas Thracum volucres, nubemque sonoram Pygmæos parvis currit Bellator in armis: Mox impar hosti, raptusque per aera curvis Unguibus à fævâ fertur Grue.

[Footnote A: _Job Ludolphus ibid_. pag. 164.]

[Footnote B: _Garcilasso de la Vega Royal Comment_, of Peru.]

[Footnote C: _Juvenal Satyr_. 13 _vers_. 167.]

Besides, were the _Condors_ to be taken for the _Cranes_, it would utterly spoil the _Pygmæomachia_; for where the Match is so very unequal, 'tis impossible for the Pygmies to make the least shew of a fight. _Ludolphus_ puts as great hardships on them, to fight these _Condors_, as _Vossius_ did, in making them fight _Elephants_, but not with equal Success; for _Vossius_'s _Pygmies_ made great Slaughters of the Elephants; but _Ludolphus_ his _Cranes_ sweep away the _Pygmies_, as easily as an _Owl_ would a _Mouse_, and eat them up into the bargain; now I never heard the _Cranes_ were so cruel and barbarous to their Enemies, tho' there are some Nations in the World that are reported to do so.

Moreover, these _Condor_'s I find are very rare to be met with; and when they are, they often appear single or but a few. Now _Homer_'s, and the _Cranes_ of the Ancients, are always represented in Flocks. Thus _Oppian_[A] as I find him translated into Latin Verse:

_Et velut Æthiopum veniunt, Nilique fluenta Turmalim Palamedis Aves, celsoeque per altum Aera labentes fugiunt Athlanta nivosum, Pygmæos imbelle Genus, parvumque saligant, Non perturbato procedunt ordine densæ Instructis volucres obscurant aëra Turmis._

To imagine these _Grues_ a single Gigantick Bird, would much lessen the Beauty of _Homer's Simile_, and would not have served his turn; and there are none who have borrowed Homer's fancy, but have thought so. I will only farther instance in _Baptista Mantuan_:

_Pygmæi breve vulgus, iners Plelecula, quando Convenere Grues longis in prælia rostris, Sublato clamore fremunt, dumque agmine magno Hostibus occurrit, tellus tremit Indica, clamant Littora, arenarum nimbis absconditur aër; Omnis & involvit Pulvis solemque, Polumque, Et Genus hoc Hominum naturâ imbelle, quietum, Mite, facit Mavors pugnax, immane Cruentum._

[Footnote: A _Oppian lib. I. de Piscibus_.]

Having now considered and examined the various Opinions of these learned Men concerning this _Pygmaeomachia_; and represented the Reasons they give for maintaining their Conjectures; I shall beg leave to subjoyn my own: and if what at present I offer, may seem more probable, or account for this Story with more likelyhood, than what hath hitherto been advanced, I shall not think my time altogether misspent: But if this will not do, I shall never trouble my head more about them, nor think my self any ways concerned to write on this Argument again. And I had not done it now, but upon the occasion of Dissecting this _Orang-Outang_, or _wild Man_, which being a Native of _Africa_, and brought from _Angola_, tho' first taken higher up in the Country, as I was informed by the Relation given me; and observing so great a Resemblance, both in the outward shape, and, what surprized me more, in the Structure likewise of the inward Parts, to a _Man_; this Thought was easily suggested to me, That very probably this _Animal_, or some other such of the same _Species_, might give the first rise and occasion to the Stories of the _Pygmies_. What has been the [Greek: proton pheudos], and rendered this Story so difficult to be believed, I find hath been the Opinion that has generally obtained, that these _Pygmies_ were really a Race of _little Men_. And tho' they are only _Brutes_, yet being at first call'd _wild Men_, no doubt from the Resemblance they bear to _Men_; there have not been wanting those especially amongst the Ancients, who have invented a hundred ridiculous Stories concerning them; and have attributed those things to them, were they to be believed in what they say, that necessarily conclude them real _Men_.

To sum up therefore what I have already discoursed, I think I have proved, that the _Pygmies_ were not an _Humane Species_ or _Men_. And tho' _Homer_, who first mentioned them, calls them [Greek: andres pygmaioi], yet we need not understand by this Expression any thing more than _Apes_: And tho' his _Geranomachia_ hath been look'd upon by most only as a Poetical Fiction; yet by assigning what might be the true Cause of this Quarrel between the _Cranes_ and _Pygmies_, and by divesting it of the many fabulous Relations that the _Indian Historians_, and others, have loaded it with, I have endeavoured to render it a true, at least a probable Story. I have instanced in _Ctesias_ and the _Indian Historians_, as the Authors and Inventors of the many Fables we have had concerning them: Particularly, I have Examined those Relations, where Speech or Language is attributed to them; and shewn, that there is no reason to believe that they ever spake any Language at all. But these _Indian Historians_ having related so many extravagant Romances of the _Pygmies_, as to render their whole History suspected, nay to be utterly denied, that there were ever any such Creatures as _Pygmies_ in _Nature_, both by _Strabo_ of old, and most of our learned men of late, I have endeavoured to assert the Truth of their _being_, from a _Text_ in _Aristotle_; which being so positive in affirming their Existence, creates a difficulty, that can no ways be got over by such as are of the contrary Opinion. This _Text_ I have vindicated from the false Interpretations and Glosses of several Great Men, who had their Minds so prepossessed and prejudiced with the Notion of _Men Pygmies_, that they often would quote it, and misapply it, tho' it contain'd nothing that any ways favoured their Opinion; but the contrary rather, that they were _Brutes_, and not _Men_.

And that the _Pygmies_ were really _Brutes_, I think I have plainly proved out of _Herodotus_ and _Philostratus_, who reckon them amongst the _wild Beasts_ that breed in those Countries: For tho' by _Herodotus_ they are call'd [Greek: andres agrioi], and _Philostratus_ calls them [Greek: anthropous melanas], yet both make them [Greek: theria] or _wild Beasts_. And I might here add what _Pausanias_[A] relates from _Euphemus Car_, who by contrary Winds was driven upon some Islands, where he tells us, [Greek: en de tautais oikein andras agrious], but when he comes to describe them, tells us that they had no Speech; that they had Tails on their Rumps; and were very lascivious toward the Women in the Ship. But of these more, when we come to discourse of _Satyrs_.

[Footnote A: _Pausanias in Atticis_, p.m. 21.]

And we may the less wonder to find that they call _Brutes Men_, since 'twas common for these _Historians_ to give the Title of _Men_, not only to _Brutes_, but they were grown so wanton in their Inventions, as to describe several Nations of _Monstrous Men_, that had never any Being, but in their own Imagination, as I have instanced in several. I therefore excuse _Strabo_, for denying the _Pygmies_, since he could not but be convinced, they could not be such _Men_, as these _Historians_ have described them. And the better to judge of the Reasons that some of the Moderns have given to prove the Being of _Men Pygmies_, I have laid down as _Postulata's_, that hereby we must not understand _Dwarfs_, nor yet a Nation of _Men_, tho' somewhat of a lesser size and stature than ordinary; but we must observe those two Characteristicks that _Homer_ gives of them, that they are _Cubitales_ and fight _Cranes_.