Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1873-02-14
The Giants OF Antiquity.

Inc UtanIb OF AnJlQuiIys
In examining the claims of the giants Of
antiquity, we must take into considera-
ton the fact that it was the custom OF all
ancient nations TO magnify the stature of
their Kings and heroes. To be con-
sidered a giant in strength and size was
the ambition of every warrior. Even the
great Alexander was not free from this
vanity, for we are 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 had con-
quered that he was of great stature.
Homer exaggerates the size and strength
of all thc heroes of the Trojs n war, and
i5aCs us to infer that the whole race of man,
even in his day, had degenerated. We
nay suspect that even the Jewish writers
were not entirely free from similar fail
ing. Admitting that a people like the
Rephaim existed in Palestine, of greater
stature than the Hebrews, it would re-
quire but little stretch of poetic imag-
ination to paint them as giants. They
may have been no larger in comparison
with their conquerors than are the Pata-
gonians beside other more civilized races
of to-day, yet have seemed immense to
tut CHlluIeu vi WIN NCI6
probably under than over the average
height.
Again, there is no absolute certainty
that the Biblical text, as we have it, is as
it was originally written. Our authorized
version makes Goliath, for instance, six
cubits and span in height; but the Vat
ican copy of the Septuagint (Cadex Vati-
canus), as old as any in existence (unless
the Sinaiticus exceeds iD, reads "four
cubits and a span," agreeing in this with
Josephus. To which account are we to
adhereY If to the latter, then the giant
of the Philistines was only little over
six and half feet in stature, instead of
nine and half. The sacred writer does
not give us the measure of King Og, but
only that of his bedstead. 1t is not nee
essary to dispute The thirteen and half
feet of the giant couch, but we are half
inclined to suspect that Og was afflicted
with an ambition similar to that of Alex
ander, and used bedstead not in proper
| tion to his actual size, but in proportion
to his fancied importance. 1t is curious
to observe that, according to Dr. Smith,
the words in Deuteronomy translated
'bedstead of iron" are also susceptible of
the rendering 'sarcophagus of black ba-
salt," but this does not initiate against
the probability of our supposition.
Comparatively modern writers 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;
and Hollinshead, quoting Sylvester Gi-
radius, says that the body of King Ar.
thur, found in Glastonbury in 1889, was
two feet higher than any man that came
to see it. AS Camden. who gives an &C,
count of the discovery, says nothing OF
the popularity of the corpse, the story
is probably without foundation. In like
manner, Charlemagne and his paladins
have been represented as of great stature
Eignhard says that the great Emperor
was ''seven of his own feet" in height
from which we must infer either that ht
had very small foot. entirely out of pro
portion to his size, or that he was very
tall man The old writers would have us
believe, too, that Rouland, the hero Of
Rohcesvalles, was also of gigantic statur,
and strength. Happily we had some di
rect evidence on this point. Hakewill
quoting Camerarius, says: Francis l.
King of France, who reigned about 10(
years ance, being desirous to know thu
truth of those things which were com
monty spread touching the strength anC
stature Of ROuland, nephew of Charlie
magne, caused his sepulchre to be opened
wherein his bones and bow were fouDC
rotten, but his armor sound, thougl
covered with rust, which the King com
manded to be secured off, and putting i
upon his own body, found it so fittet
him as thereby it appeared that Roulant
exceeded him little in bigness and statur
of body, though himself were not excess
i've tall or big" We have similar evi
dence in relation to the body of William
the Conqueror, which was reported L
have been dug up 400 years after burial
and found to be eight feet in length; TO
Stowe Gays that, when the English too
J Cannes in 1869, some soldiers broke int
the monument in search of booty an
found nothing remarkable about tn
bones.
Were 1t possible to get at the truth cor
cerning the giants of antiquity, there
little doubt but that half of them coul
be shown to be pure myths, and tina
nine.tenths of the remainder could b
reduced in size very materially. Pliny'
assertion that mankind is gradually dt
generating, is wholly gratuitous and hs
no foundation in fact, Indeed, vas
deal of proof can be adduced tending I
show that the men of to- day are equa
, and probably superior, in stature to th
ancients. The Greeks and Romans wer
: undoubtedly of small size. The helmet
and sword hilts that have come down I
us from the heroic ages could not be use
: by the present European nations. Al
2 cient rings also are generally too small fc
l modern fingers.
J. But the classic writers give testimon
I enough on this point. Caesar, speakin
A of the Gauls, says; "Their shortness
s stature, in comparison with the gres
i size of their bodies, is generally subje,
g of much contempt to the men of Gaul.
S Tacitus also describes the Germans as {
e robust form and of great stature; an
], StrAbe saws that he has seen BritOns