The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1873-03-29
The Giants Of Antiquity.

tion that 1t was the custom Of all ancient
nations TO magnify the stature oftheir kings
and heroes. To be considered a giant
in strength and size was the ambition of
every warrior. Even the great Alexander
was not free from this vanity, for we ars
told that in one of his Asian expeditions,
he caused TO be made and left behind him
a suit of armor of huge proportions, in order
to induce belief among the people he |
was Of great stature Homer exaggerates
the size and strength Of all the heroes of |
the Trojan war, and leads us to infer that |
the whole race of men, even in his day, |
had degenerated. We may suspect even
that the Jewish writers were not entirely |
free from n similar failing. Admitting |
that people like the Rephaim existed in
Palestine, of greater stature than the He
brews, it would require but little stretch
Of poetic imagination to paint them as
giants They may have been no larger
in comparison with their conquerors than
are the Patagonians, besids other more
civilized races Of to day, yet have seemed
immense to the children of Israel, who
were more probably under than over the
average h ight
Again, there is no absolute certainty
that the Biblical text, as We have it, is as
was originally written. Our authorized ver-
sion makes Goliath, for instance, six cubits
and span in height, but the Vatican copy
Of Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus) as old as
any in existence unless the Sinaiticus ex-
ceeds it), reads "four cubits and span"
agreeing in this with Josephus. To which
account are We to adhere? If to the lat
ter, then the giant Of the Philistines was
only little over six feet and half in
stature, instead of nine and half The
sacred writer does not give US the measure
Of King 0g, but only that of his bedstead.
II is not necessary to dispute the thirteen
and half feet of the giants couch, but
we are half inclind to suspect that ogl
was afflicted with an ambition similar to
that eff Alexander, and used bedstead
not in proportion to his actual size but in
proportion to his fancied Importance 1t
Is curious to observe that, according 10
DIR. Smith, the words in Deuteronomy,
translated "bedstead Of iron" are also
susceptible of the rendering, 'sarcophagus
of black basalt," but this does not initiate
against the probability Of our supposition.
Comparatively, modern writer's are not
free from like exaggerations in regard to
the stature Of noted men. William of
Malmesbury makes the tomb Of Walwin,
nephew of King Arthur, and one of his
famous knights, fourteen feet in length
Hollinshead, quoting Sylvester Giraldus,
says that the body Of King Arthur, found
in Glastonbury, in 1889, was two feet
higher than any man who came to see it.
As Camden who gives an account of the
discovery, fails to note this popularity, of
the corpse, the story is probably without
foundation. In like manner, Charlemagne
and his paladins have been represented
as Of great stature. Eginhart says that
the great emperor was seven Of his own
feet in height, from which we must infer
either that he had a very small foot, en-
tirely out Of proportion to his size, or that
he was very tall man. The old writers
would have US believe, too, that Roland,
the hero of Roncesvalles, was also of Vi
gantic stature and strength Happily, we
have some direct evidence on this point.
Hakewill, quoting CAmerlrius says Fran
els l., King of France, who reigned about
n hundred years since, being desirious to
know the truth of those things which were
commonly spread touching the strength and
stature Of Rouland, nephew to Charlie
magne, caused his sepulchre to be opened,
wherein his bones and bow were found
rotten, but his armor sound, though COW
cred with rust, which the King comman-
ding to be secured off, and putting il
upon his own body, found it to fit him,
as thereby it appeared that 'Rouland ex-
ceeded him but little in hignesse and
stature of body, though himselfe were not
excessive tall or big" We have similar
evidence in relation to the body of William
the Conqueror which was reported to have
been dug up, four hundred years after burial,
and found to be eight feet in length; for
Stowe says that, when the English took
Cannes, in 1862, some soldiers broke into
the monument in search Of booty, and found
nothing remarkable about the bones.
Were it possible to get at the truth
concerning the giants Of antiquity, there
is little doubt but that half of them could
be shown to be pure myths, and that nine
tenths Of the remainder could be reduced
in size very materially. Pliny's assertion
that mankind is gradually degenerating, is
wholly gratuitous, and has no foundation
in fact. Indeed, vast deal Of proof can
be adduced, tending to show that the men
Of to-day are equal, and pro, ,ably su-
perior in stature to the ancient,. The
Greeks and Romans were undoubtedly of
small size. The helmets and sword-hiits
that have come to us from the heroic ages,
could not be used by the majority Of
soldiers Of the present Europen nations.
Ancient rings, also, are generally too small
for modern fingers.
But the classic writers give testimony
enough on this point. Cesar, speaking
of the Gauls, says: "0ur shortness Of
stature, in comparison with the great size
of their bodies, is generally a subject of
contempt to the men Of Gaul.n Tacifus
also describes the Germans as of robust
form, and of great stature; Strabo says
that he had seen Britons at Rome who were
a half-foot taller than the tallest Italians.
Yet there is no proof that the men ofthese
nations were any larger in ancient times
than they are now. On the contrary, the
graves and barrows tell different story.
The remains are usually underline average
height Of men of the present day. Ii is