Possibly it is worth while here to give more than a passing notice to the ascent of the Nile in the seventeenth century, made by the noted Pedro Páez, a Spanish Jesuit. He left an account of it which Kircher published in his "OEdipus Ægyptiacus" but which James Bruce angrily described as an invention. Bruce claims that he himself was the first to explore the river. But Bruce followed Páez by at least 150 years. The question is discussed at length by two writers in the "Biographie universelle," under the titles "Bruce" and "Paez." Páez was born at Olmeda in 1564. He entered the Society when he was eighteen years of age and was sent to Goa in 1588. He was assigned to attempt an entry of Abyssinia; to facilitate his work, he assumed the dress of an Armenian. He had to wait a year for a ship at Ormuz, and when, at last, he embarked he was captured by an Arab pirate, ill-treated and thrown into prison. As he was unable to procure a ransom, he spent seven years chained to the oar as a galley slave, but was finally set free and reached Goa in 1596. He was then employed in several missions of Hindostan, but again set out for Abyssinia which he reached in 1603. To acquaint himself with the language of the people he buried himself in a monastery of Monophysite monks, and then began to give public lessons in the city. His success as a teacher attracted attention, and he was finally called before the emperor, where his eloquence and correctness of speech captivated and ultimately helped to convert the monarch. A grant of land was given him at Gorgora where he built a church. The question of the sources of the Nile was frequently discussed, and in 1618 Páez ascended the river. He was thus the first modern European to make the attempt. He told the story in the two large octavos, which at the time of the Suppression could be found in most of the libraries of the Society. Bruce asserts, however, that nothing is said in these volumes about the discovery, and he accuses Kircher of imposture. But, says the writer in the "Biographie universelle," the fact is that between the account of Páez and that of Bruce there is scarcely any difference except in a few insignificant details; so that if Bruce is right, so also are Páez and Kircher. Páez explored the river as early as 1618, whereas Bruce arrived there only in 1772, that is 154 years later. "Bruce," says another writer "makes it clear that someone had preceded him and displays his temper in every line."