Dodgeville chronicle. [volume] (Dodgeville, Wis.) 1862-current, 1873-02-14
The Giants Of Antiquity.

|
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 suit of armor of
huge proportions, in order to induce a
belief among the people he had con-
quered that 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 man,
even in his day, had degenerated. We
may suspect that even the Jewish writer's
were not entirely free from a 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 today, yet have seemed immense to
the children of Israel, who were more
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 a span in height; but the Vat
lean copy of the Septuagint (Cadex Vati-
canus), as old as any in existence (unless
the Sinaiticus exceeds it), reads -four
cubits and span," agreeing in this with
Josephus. To which account are we to
adhere? If to the latter, then the gian
| Of ho etir
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 a 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 a bedstead not in proper
ton to his actual size, but in proportion
to his fancied Importance. Tt 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 he
had very small foot. entirely out of pro-
portion to his size, or that he was very
tall man. The old writer's would have us
believe, too, that Rouland, the hero of
Rohcesvalles, was also of gigantic stature
and strength. Happily we had some di-
rect evidence on this point. Hakewill,
| quoting Camerarius, says: "Francis I.
King of France, who reigned about 100
years since, being DESTROYS to know the
truth of those things which were COM
monty spread touching the strength and
stature of Rouland, nephew of Charlie
magne, caused his sepulchre to be opened,
wherein his bones and bow were found
rotten, but his armor sound, though
covered with rust, which the King COM
manded to be secured off, and putting it
upon his own body, found it so fitted
him as thereby it appeared that Rouland
exceeded him little in bigness and stature
of body, though himself were not excess
i've tall or big" We have similar evil
dence in relation to the body of William
the Conqueror, which was reported to
have been dug up 400 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 con-
corning 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 de-
generating, is wholly gratuitous and has
no foundation in fact. Indeed, a vast
deal OF proof can be adduced tending to
show that the men of to-day are equal,
and probably superior, in stature to the
ancients. The Greeks and Romans were
undoubtedly of small size. The helmets
and sword hits that have come down to
us from the heroic ages could not be used
! by the present European nations. An
Gent rings also are generally too small for
modern fingers.
But the classic writers give testimony
enough on this point. Caesar, speaking
of the Gauls, says: "Their shortness of
stature, in comparison with the great
size of their bodies, is generally subject
of much contempt to the men Of Gaul."
Tacitus also describes the Germans as of
robust form and of great stature; and
Strabe says that he has seen Britons at
Rome who were half foot taller than the
tallest Italians. Yet there is no proof
that the men of these 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 under the average height of men
of the present day. 1t is the same with
the Egyptian mummies. According to
Athenaus, a man of four cubits, or six
feet in height, was considered of ''gigan-
tic size" in Egypt.
Apollodorus, the grammarian of
Athens, gives the height of the gigantic
Hercules" as four cubits; and Phya, the
woman who was selected to personate
Minerva, at Athens, at the time of Pisis-
tratus, on account of her great height,
which was considered wonderful, did
not exceed in stature four cubits less by
three fingers, or only about five feet ten.
Numerous other examples might be
given, but the facts cited are sufficient to
prove that mankind at the present day, if
| no greater, is certainly no less in height
and in size than in the days of old; and
tnat fully as many instances of abnor-
NAL stature have occurred in compare