Beaufort Republican. [volume] (Beaufort, S.C.) 1871-1873, 1873-02-06
The Giants of Antiquity.

The Giants of Antiquity.
In examining the claims of the
giants of antiquity we must take into
consideration the fact that it was the
custom of all ancient nations to magnify
the stature of their kings and heroes.
TO be considered giant in strength
and size was the ambition OF every war
rior. 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 O belief among the
people he had conquered that he was OF
great stature. Homer exaggerates the
size and strength of oil 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 sus-
pect that even the Jewish writer's we're
not entirely free from q similar feeling.
Admitting that q people like the Rep.
hahn existed in Palestine, of greater
stature than the Hebrews, it would re-
auire but little stretch of poetic i'm
agination to paint them as giants. They
may have been no larger in comparison
with their conquerors than are the Pa
tagonians beside other more civilized
races of to-day, yet have seemed i'm
manse 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 au-
thorized version makes Goliath, for in
stance, six cubits and p span in
height; but the Vatican copy Of the
Septuagint, (Codex Vaticans). as old as
any in existence, (unless the Sinaiticus
exceeds it), reads "four cubits and a
span," agreeing in this with Josephus.
To which account are we to adhere?
If to the latter, then tie giant of the
Philistines was only little ovel six and
half feet in stature, instead of nine
and half. The sacred writer does not
give lis the measure of King Og, but
only that of his bedstead. 1t is not
necessary 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 Alexander, and used a bedstead not
in proportion to his actual size, but in
proportion to his fancied Importance.
It is curious to observe that, according
to DR.. Smith, the words in Deuteronomy
translated bedstead of iron" are also
susceptible of the rendering, " "sarco-
phagus of black basalt," but this does
not initiate againt 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 Wal
win, nephew of King Arthur, and one OF
his famous knights, fourteen @eet III
length; and Hollinshead, quoting Syl-
vester 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. 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 end his pala-
dins have been represented as OF great
stature
Eginhard 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, entirely out
of proportion to his size, or that he was
very tall man. The old writer's would
have us believe too that Rouland the
hero of Roncesvalles, was also of gigan-
tic stature and strength. Happily we
have some direct evidence on this point.
Hakewil, quoting Cqmerarius, says
"FrancisI King of France, who relgned
about one hundred years since, being
desirous to know the truth of those
things which were commonly spread
touching the strength and stature of
Rouland, nephew to Charlemagne,
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
manding to be secured off, and putting
it ON his own body, found it so fit for
him, as thereby it appeared that Rou-
land exceeded him but little in bigness
and stature of body, though himself
were not excessive tall or big" Wehaye
similar evidence in relation to the body
of William the Conqueror, which was
reported to have been dug up, four hun
dred years after buriel, and found to be
eight feet in length; for Stowe says
that, when the English took Cannes, in
1852, some soldiers broke into the monu-
ment 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 shows to be pure myths, and
that nine-tenths of the remainder could
be reduced in size very materially.
Pliny's assertion that mankind is grad
ually degenerating is wholly gratuitous,
and has no foundation in fact. Indeed,
vast deal of proof can be abducted
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-hilts that
have come down to us from the heroic
ages could not be used by the majority
of soldiers of the present European
nations. Ancient rings, also, are too
small for modern fingers.
4