SCRIPTURE GIANTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4393, 19 April 1875, Page 3

SCRIPTURE GIANTS.

Various estimates have been made of the probable height of Goliath aud Og. The uncertain element is the cubic used. Goliath’s height, six cubits and a span (1 Sam. xvii. 4), has generally been concluded to be from Oft. Gin. to 12ft. Og is commonly supposed to have been rather taller, but the estimate is based on the length of his bedstead, nine cubits (Dent. iii. 11). On this it is quite hazardous to depend. A giant king might pride himself on his stature, and wish to keep up the idea of it by a specially large bedstead of iron. It seems probable that Goliath was more gigantic than the warriors mentioned as of 1 the sons of the giants,” of “great stature,” and the like. Supposing the shekel of brass to be the same as a shekel of iron, Goliath’s spear was twice the weight of that of Ishbibenob. In modern days soldiers of 10ft. in height would not ;be .specially valued. Frederick William’s army of giants was a matter of ridicule rather than of awe. Let us sec how far the giants of old differed from them. We now lay no great stress on a few inches in height. Frederick William had some enormous men found him by tho Czar, but wo may safely fix his limit at 10ft., a height of which we have few men recorded during the last 2000 years. His guards, however, were individual specimens, in most cases men who from some exceptional cause grew wonderfully ; in short, they were' overgrown men. The giants in Scripture were a race, and the difference is very great. It is uncommon to find a man with a stock of vital energy differing greatly from his fellows ; that is, those of his race. Consequently, a very tall man is generally rather feeble.,. In some cases a very well-made tall man may have his arteries and limbs so formed that the work of the heart in pumping the blood to the extremities is loss felt than might bo supposed. Still men that have shown extraordinary energy (wo are not now speaking of single efforts of strength), very active loaders in wars, for example, have, on the whole, been remarkable rather as being short than tall. Napoleon was very short, perhaps 6ft. 4ml Nelson was very small. Wellington, we believe, hardly sft. Sin. Peter the Great was short rather than tall. As far as we can learn, Gustavas Adolphus is almost the only great leader that was decidedly tall. Marlborough was a handsome man, but there seems ho record of his being actually tall. It may well have been with him as with Louis XIV., of whom we hear, that when stripped of his high heels and wig, and laid in his coffin, his attendants could hardly believe that they saw in the little human frame before them, the body of “Lo Grand Monarquo.” And William 111. was undersized, and his extraordinary opponent, Luxemburg, was a dwarf. Claverhouse was small; so, we believe, was Cromwell. As, however, there is considerable difficulty in obtaining reliable evidence on such points, we pass at once to what wo believe to be the fair conclusion. To judge if a man is overgrown or not—and on this depends his real fitness for severe work—wo must know not only his own height, but that of his race generally. An Englishman of the upper classes of sft. lOin. in height need by no means be an overgrown man, but wc should suspect a Frenchman of- the same stature. To English ears the incident sounds strange of General Bonaparte walking up to a knot of discontented French officers in Egypt, and informing one that “ five feet ton inches” would not prevent his being hanged for mutiny. A race of giants, then—men who naturally grew to a height of 10ft., with vital powers in proportion—would bo indeed terrible in the species of war waged between Israel and the Philistines.