Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

Book Eight — the cause for which the flood was sent

FOURTH DISPUTATION. Whether the Giants of whom Moses speaks were demons under a human appearance, or rather the sons of demons — that is, procreated from the intercourse of demons with women

LatineEnglish

FOURTH DISPUTATION. Whether the Giants of whom Moses speaks were demons under a human appearance, or rather the sons of demons — that is, procreated from the intercourse of demons with women.1

QUARTA DISPUTATIO. An Gigantes de quibus Moses loquitur fuerint Daemones sub humana specie, an vero Daemonum filii, hoc est ex Daemonum cum mulieribus concubitu procreati.

Paulus Burgensis in sua prima Additione ad Postillam Lyrani super hoc sextum caput libri Geneseos, ex etymologia vocabuli Hebraei Nephilim, quo utitur hoc loco Moses (quos interpres noster Latine vertit Gigantes), argumentatur fuisse Daemones sub humana specie; siquidem Nephilim...
Paul of Burgos, in his first Addition to Lyra’s Postill on this sixth chapter of the book of Genesis, argues, from the etymology of the Hebrew word Nephilim, which Moses uses here (and which our translator renders into Latin as “Giants”), that they were demons under a human appearance; since Nephilim…2
...significat cadentes, a verbo naphal quod sonat cadere, quo denotantur Daemones qui e caelo ceciderunt, sicut Dominus noster dixit: Videbam Satanam sicut fulgur de caelo cadentem; et Isaias: Quomodo cecidisti de caelo, Lucifer? Sed falsam esse opinionem Burgensis manifestis argumentis pervincitur. Ex Mosis enim narratione licet intelligere qui ab eo nominantur hoc loco Nephilim eos fuisse generatos ex commixtione filiorum Dei cum filiabus hominum, et propter eos praecipue missum esse diluvium, scilicet ut eorum peccata punirentur ipsis diluvio extinctis; Daemones autem nec generati sunt ex hominibus nec diluvio perierunt. Nec iuvat Burgensem etymologia vocabuli Nephilim. Doctissimi enim Hebraeorum, Rabbi Abraham et Aben-Esra, gigantes eo dictos esse Nephilim, id est cadentes, interpretantur, quod ceteri homines inusitatam corporis eorum vastitatem cernentes, stupore simul et timore oppressi, cadebant ante illos; vel quod illi violente irruerent in homines eosque in terram prosternerent (ad quod videtur allusisse Iob illis verbis: Irruit in me quasi gigas); vel quod illi gigantes ceciderunt in diluvio, quo forte referri posset illud Iob capit. 26: Ecce gigantes gemunt sub aquis. Hieronymus certe in Traditionibus Hebraicis super Genesim ait pro cadentibus sive Gigantibus Symmachum interpretatum esse violentos; nomen autem Cadentium, quod Hebraice est Nephilim, tam Angelis quam sanctorum liberis convenire — quasi posteri Seth, degenerantes a sanctitate et pietate maiorum, appellati sint cadentes, quod in via maiorum suorum non steterint, sed ad studia, instituta, moresque et flagitia posterorum Cain delapsi sint.
…means “the falling ones,” from the verb naphal, which means “to fall,” by which are denoted the demons who fell from heaven, as our Lord said: “I saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven”; and Isaiah: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer?” But that the opinion of Burgos is false is conclusively proved by manifest arguments. For from Moses’ narrative one may understand that those whom he here names Nephilim were generated from the mingling of the sons of God with the daughters of men, and that the Flood was sent chiefly on their account — namely, that their sins might be punished, they themselves being destroyed in the Flood; but demons were neither generated from men nor perished in the Flood. Nor does the etymology of the word Nephilim help Burgos. For the most learned of the Hebrews, Rabbi Abraham and Aben-Ezra, interpret the giants to have been called Nephilim, that is, “the falling ones,” because other men, seeing the unusual vastness of their bodies, oppressed at once by amazement and fear, fell down before them; or because they violently rushed upon men and laid them flat on the ground (to which Job seems to have alluded in those words: “He rushed upon me like a giant”); or because those giants fell in the Flood, to which perhaps could be referred that passage of Job, ch. 26: “Behold, the giants groan under the waters.” Jerome indeed, in the Hebrew Traditions on Genesis, says that for “the falling ones,” or “Giants,” Symmachus rendered “the violent”; and that the name “Falling ones,” which in Hebrew is Nephilim, fits both angels and the children of the holy — as though the descendants of Seth, degenerating from the holiness and piety of their forefathers, were called “the falling ones,” because they did not stand in the way of their forefathers, but slipped down to the pursuits, institutions, manners, and crimes of the descendants of Cain.3
Verum non significari hoc loco voce Nephilim Daemones, illud magno est argumento, quod in libro Numerorum eodem vocabulo appellantur gigantes qui erant ex stirpe Enac. Nam pro eo quod nos extremis verbis capitis 13 legimus: Ibi vidimus monstra quaedam filiorum Enac de genere giganteo — Hebraea verba si Latine ad verbum reddantur, hoc sonat: Vidimus quoque illic Nephilim, filios Hanach de Nephilim. Saepius tamen in sacris libris gigantes appellantur Rephaim; nam multis locis scripturae in quibus legimus vocabulum Gigantis, Hebraice est vox Rephaim, ut Prov. 9 et 21, Isa. 14 et 26, et Deuteronomio 2, ubi nos legimus: Terra gigantum reputata est; in ipsa olim habitaverunt gigantes, etc.; pro illo gigantes Hebraice est Rephaim.
But that by the word Nephilim demons are not here signified is strongly argued by this: that in the book of Numbers the giants who were of the stock of Enac are called by the same word. For in place of what we read in the closing words of chapter 13, “There we saw certain monsters of the sons of Enac, of the giant race,” the Hebrew words, if rendered into Latin word for word, sound thus: “We saw there also the Nephilim, the sons of Hanach, of the Nephilim.” More often, however, in the sacred books giants are called Rephaim; for in many passages of Scripture in which we read the word “Giant,” the Hebrew is the word Rephaim — as in Proverbs 9 and 21, Isaiah 14 and 26, and Deuteronomy 2, where we read: “It was reputed a land of giants; giants dwelt in it of old,” etc.; for that “giants,” the Hebrew is Rephaim.4
De origine autem huius vocis varie traditur. Nam Rapha, a quo Rephaim, significat sanare, cum aleph in fine; gigantes autem dicuntur Rephaim quia sunt robusti et fortes, sicut homines sani. Unde Thargum pro Rephaim fortes interpretatur. Si autem Rephaim Gigantes ducatur a raphah, quod sonat remissum et debilem, interpretabimur Gigantes nominatos esse Rephaim quod ceteri homines, cum eos viderent, metu debilitarentur et viribus destituerentur. Aut fortasse dicti sunt Rephaim a quodam gigante Rapha sic appellato, cuius posteri etiam gigantes dicti sunt Rephaim; et postea id nominis ad quoslibet gi-...
But the origin of this word is variously handed down. For Rapha, from which comes Rephaim, means “to heal,” with aleph at the end; and giants are called Rephaim because they are robust and strong, like healthy men. Whence the Targum interprets Rephaim as “the strong.” But if Rephaim (Giants) be derived from raphah, which means “slack” and “weak,” we shall interpret the Giants to have been named Rephaim because other men, when they saw them, were weakened by fear and bereft of their strength. Or perhaps they were called Rephaim from a certain giant so named, Rapha, whose descendants too, being giants, were called Rephaim; and afterward that name was applied to denote any gi-…5
...gantes significandos est accommodatum. Nam in priori libro Paralipomenon capite 21 nominantur quidam gigantes de stirpe Rapha; sicut etiam Enacim gigantes qui habitabant terram Hebron ab eorum parente Enac appellati sunt. Non igitur fuere Daemones quos Moses hoc loco vocavit Nephilim, id est gigantes.
…ants. For in the first book of Paralipomenon (Chronicles), ch. 21, certain giants of the stock of Rapha are named; just as also the Enacim, giants who dwelt in the land of Hebron, were named from their forefather Enac. The Nephilim, then — that is, the giants — whom Moses here named, were not demons.6
Fuit praeterea quorundam sententia gigantes hic a Mose nominatos fuisse quidem veros homines, sed ex Daemonum tamen coitu cum mulieribus generatos. Iosephus certe primo libro Antiquitatum, et Ambrosius in libro de Noë et Arca capite 4, gigantes illos fuisse Angelorum et mulierum filios significant; in quam sententiam videtur propensior etiam Magister Historiae Scholasticae in Historia libri Geneseos cap. 31, eandemque apertis verbis profitetur sub initium sacrae historiae Severus Sulpitius. Nam cum dixisset Angelos speciosarum forma Virginum captos illicitas cupiditates appetivisse, ac dignitatis suae originisque degeneres, relictis caelestibus domiciliis, matrimoniis se mortalibus miscuisse, subdit ex eorum coitu gigantes editos esse, cum diversae inter se naturae permixtio monstra gigneret.
There was, moreover, the opinion of some that the giants here named by Moses were indeed true men, but begotten from the intercourse of demons with women. Josephus, certainly, in the first book of the Antiquities, and Ambrose in the book On Noah and the Ark, ch. 4, signify that those giants were the sons of angels and women; to which opinion the Master of the Scholastic History too, in the History of the book of Genesis, ch. 31, seems more inclined; and the same is professed in open words, at the beginning of his Sacred History, by Sulpicius Severus. For when he had said that the angels, captivated by the beauty of comely maidens, sought illicit desires, and, degenerate from their dignity and origin, abandoning their heavenly dwellings, mingled themselves in marriages with mortals, he adds that from their intercourse giants were brought forth, since the mixing of natures diverse from one another begot monsters.7
Verum ulterius multo provectum est Francisci Georgii audax nimis, et ad devia et abrupta opinionum praeceps ingenium. Is enim in primo tomo suorum Problematum, problemate 54, 74 et 75, et in sexto tomo problem. 330 et 331, quatuor haec tradit, magna profecto animadversione digna. Primum est Daemones esse corporeos et, condensando corpora sua, posse cum mulieribus misceri. Alterum est eos habere proprium semen et ex mulieribus quas ineunt generare filios. Tertium est propriam Daemonum prolem esse gigantes — neque enim talia monstra ex solis hominibus aut visitato generationis humanae modo et ordine gigni posse — talesque fuisse gigantes hoc loco memoratos a Mose, scilicet natos ex commixtione filiorum Dei, id est Daemonum, cum filiabus hominum; et hoc esse semen illud serpentis, id est Diaboli, inter quod et inter semen mulieris, id est ceteros homines, Deus posuit inimicitias. Quartum est, post adventum Christi (qui imperium quod ille diu in mundo habuerat evertit, sicut ipse dixit de eo: Princeps huius mundi eiicietur foras), itaque Dominus noster prohibet ne potentia coëundi cum mulieribus et gignendi gigantes, quam Daemon olim exercuit, utatur; Christi propterea tempore non fuisse gigantes, quia Christus fregit potentiam Daemonum. Sed haec istius auctoris opinio gravissima foedissimaque in Philosophiam et Theologiam peccata et flagitia continet. Ac Daemones quidem non esse corporeos, nec posse eos ex mulieribus generare filios qui sint veri homines, multis argumentis supra ostendimus in secunda et tertia Disputatione earum trium Disputationum quas tractavimus super illis verbis, Videntes filii Dei filias hominum, etc. Nunc discutere oportet alia duo eius auctoris dicta: unum est gigantes non posse aliter generari quam ex coitu Daemonum cum mulieribus; alterum est, post adven-...
But the over-bold genius of Francesco Giorgio, headlong toward the byways and precipices of opinions, went much further. For he, in the first volume of his Problems, problems 54, 74, and 75, and in the sixth volume, problems 330 and 331, hands down these four things, worthy indeed of great censure. The first is that demons are corporeal and, by condensing their bodies, can mingle with women. The second is that they have their own seed and beget sons from the women they enter. The third is that the proper offspring of demons are giants — for such monsters cannot be begotten from men alone, or by the customary mode and order of human generation — and that such were the giants here recorded by Moses, namely born from the mingling of the sons of God, that is demons, with the daughters of men; and that this is that “seed of the serpent,” that is, of the Devil, between which and the “seed of the woman,” that is, the rest of men, God placed enmities. The fourth is that, after the coming of Christ (who overthrew the dominion which the Devil had long held in the world, as he himself said of him: “The prince of this world shall be cast out”), our Lord forbids [the Devil] to use the power of coupling with women and begetting giants which the demon once exercised; and that for this reason there were no giants in Christ’s time, because Christ broke the power of the demons. But this opinion of that author contains most grave and most foul offenses and outrages against Philosophy and Theology. And that demons are not corporeal, and cannot beget from women sons who are true men, we showed above by many arguments in the second and third Disputation of those three Disputations which we treated upon those words, “The sons of God seeing the daughters of men,” etc. Now we must examine two other sayings of that author: one is that giants cannot be generated otherwise than from the intercourse of demons with women; the other is that, after the com-…8
...tum Christi nec Daemones posse cum mulieribus coire, nec ullos fuisse gigantes.
…ing of Christ neither can demons couple with women, nor have there been any giants.9
Gigantes igitur non posse generari ex solis hominibus, sed eorum generationem effici a Daemone, nec verum est nec verisimile. Gigantes enim, cum sint veri homines, eiusdem substantiae sunt atque ceteri homines; differentia enim secundum magnitudinem et parvitatem humani corporis accidentalis est, nec variat speciem. Eorum autem quae sunt eiusdem speciei, sicut eadem secundum speciem est materia eademque forma, ita eadem quoque est causa efficiens et generans, idemque modus generationis; quapropter gigantes similiter ut ceteri homines ex solis hominibus citra Daemonum operam gigni possunt. Deinde commixtio eorum quae inter se sunt diversae speciei, si quid generat, id ab utroque unde generatur specie diversum est, ut videre licet in mulo qui ex equo et asina gignitur, aliisque similibus. Cum igitur inter Daemonem et hominem sit differentia non solum specifica, sed plusquam generica, si ex commixtione Daemonis cum muliere aliquid gigneretur, id profecto diversum esset ab utroque, id est nec daemon esset nec homo; sed gigantes veri sunt homines, non igitur ex Daemonum coitu cum mulieribus generantur.
That giants cannot be generated from men alone, but that their generation is effected by a demon, is neither true nor probable. For giants, since they are true men, are of the same substance as the rest of men; for the difference according to the largeness and smallness of the human body is accidental, and does not vary the species. And of things that are of the same species, just as the matter and the form are the same according to species, so also the efficient and generating cause is the same, and the same the mode of generation; wherefore giants, like the rest of men, can be begotten from men alone, without the demon’s agency. Next, the mingling of things that are of diverse species from one another, if it generates anything, [produces something] diverse in species from both whence it is generated — as may be seen in the mule, which is begotten from a horse and a she-ass, and in other like cases. Since, therefore, between a demon and a man there is a difference not only specific but more than generic, if anything were begotten from the mingling of a demon with a woman, it would assuredly be diverse from both — that is, it would be neither a demon nor a man; but giants are true men, therefore they are not generated from the intercourse of demons with women.10
Adhaec, extensio corporis humani secundum magnitudinem et parvitatem provenit ex materia, ex materiae scilicet vel copia vel penuria; at materiam humani corporis tota femina ministrat secundum Aristotelem (quae rectior sententia est), quocirca extensio corporis humani in maius vel contractio in minus non generanti sed mulieri assignari debet. Cum igitur Daemon, si ad generationem concurrit, vicem generantis praestet, gigantea corporis proceritas non ad ipsum sed ad mulierem referri debet. Adiice quod si mensura humani corporis naturaliter potest esse duplo aut etiam triplo minor quam est iusta et usitata humani corporis magnitudo (id quod exemplo pygmaeorum et nanorum manifestum est), cur non etiam naturaliter statura hominis duplo aut triplo maior esse possit quam plurimum solet esse? Quod si pygmaei et nani ex solis hominibus sine Daemonum concursu naturaliter generantur, cur non idem de generatione gigantum sentire ac dicere liceat? Sane, cum iusta hominis statura sit sex pedum, Augusti principatu quidam nomine Conopas, in deliciis Iuliae neptis Augusti habitus, duorum tantum pedum et unius palmi fuit, ut Plinius tradit lib. 7 cap. 15; idemque capite 2 eiusdem libri mira scribit de pygmaeorum insigni corporis parvitate.
Besides, the extension of the human body according to largeness and smallness comes from the matter — namely, from the abundance or scarcity of matter; but, according to Aristotle (which is the more correct opinion), the whole matter of the human body is furnished by the female; wherefore the extension of the human body into the greater, or its contraction into the smaller, ought to be assigned not to the generator but to the woman. Since, therefore, the demon, if it concurs in generation, plays the part of the generator, the giant-like height of body ought to be referred not to it but to the woman. Add that, if the measure of the human body can naturally be twice or even thrice smaller than the just and usual greatness of the human body (which is manifest from the example of pygmies and dwarfs), why could not the stature of a man also naturally be twice or thrice greater than it is generally wont to be? And if pygmies and dwarfs are naturally generated from men alone without the concurrence of demons, why may we not think and say the same about the generation of giants? Indeed, since the just stature of a man is six feet, in the principate of Augustus a certain man named Conopas, kept as a favorite of Julia, the granddaughter of Augustus, was only two feet and a palm tall, as Pliny relates in book 7, ch. 15; and in chapter 2 of the same book he writes marvels about the remarkable smallness of body of the pygmies.11
Ad extremum, non solum ante diluvium fuerunt illi gigantes quos hic memorat Moses, et quos iste auctor putat fuisse Daemonum filios, sed etiam post diluvium fuere gigantes qui appellantur in sacris litteris Enacim et Rephaim, ex Repha et Enac orti. Nec defuere aliis seculis gigantes quorum parentes noti fuerunt. Sicut igitur huiusmodi gigantes ex solis hominibus nati sunt, sic etiam qui fuere ante diluvium nasci potuerunt. Concludam hanc disputationem pulcherrima...
Finally, not only before the Flood were there those giants whom Moses here records, and whom that author supposes to have been the sons of demons, but after the Flood too there were giants, who are called in the sacred writings Enacim and Rephaim, sprung from Repha and Enac. Nor were there lacking, in other ages, giants whose parents were known. As, therefore, giants of this kind were born from men alone, so too those who lived before the Flood could be born. I shall conclude this disputation with a most beautiful…12
...rima, et ad nostrae opinionis confirmationem validissima, B. Augustini sententia. Refellens Augustinus opinionem eorum qui putabant filios Dei qui mixti sunt cum filiabus hominum intelligi debere Angelos, eo quod ex illis geniti dicantur fuisse gigantes qui videntur ex solis hominibus propter inusitatam corporis molem generari non posse, ita scribit: Verum hoc movet quosdam, quod ex illis qui dicti sunt Angeli Dei et ex mulieribus quas illi amaverunt, non quasi homines generis nostri, sed gigantes legimus esse natos; quasi vero corpora hominum modum nostrum longe excedentia non etiam nostris temporibus nata sint. Nonne ante paucos annos, cum Romanae urbis (quod a Gothis factum est) appropinquaret excidium, Romae fuit femina cum suo patre et sua matre, quae corpore giganteo longe ceteris praeminebat? Ad quam visendam mirabilis fiebat undequaque concursus; et hoc erat maximae admirationi, quod parentes eius nec saltem tam longi homines erant quam longissimos videre consuevimus. Idemque Augustinus, sub finem eiusdem capitis, opinionem eorum qui dicebant gigantes non habuisse homines patres sed fuisse natos ex Daemonibus, fabulosam appellat, et depromptam ex apocrypho quodam et fabularum referto libro qui olim ferebatur sub nomine Henoch.
…most beautiful, and most powerful for the confirmation of our opinion, judgment of the blessed Augustine. Refuting the opinion of those who thought that the ‘sons of God’ who mingled with the daughters of men ought to be understood as angels — on the ground that from them are said to have been born the giants, who seem unable to be generated from men alone because of their unwonted bulk of body — Augustine writes thus: “But this troubles some, that we read that from those who were called ‘angels of God’ and from the women whom they loved, there were born not, as it were, men of our race, but giants — as though, indeed, bodies of men far exceeding our measure had not been born in our own times also. Was there not, a few years ago, when the destruction of the city of Rome (which was done by the Goths) was drawing near, a woman at Rome, with her father and her mother, who by her gigantic body far surpassed the rest? To see her a marvelous concourse came from every quarter; and this was the great wonder, that her parents were not even as tall as the tallest men we are accustomed to see.” And the same Augustine, toward the end of the same chapter, calls the opinion of those who said that the giants had no human fathers but were born of demons a fable, drawn from a certain apocryphal book stuffed with fables, which was once circulated under the name of Enoch.13
Illud autem quod ab eodem isto auctore proditum est, post adventum Christi domini nostri ademptam esse Daemonibus potestatem coeundi cum mulieribus, atque ob eam causam nullos fuisse post id temporis in terris gigantes, et falsa nititur ratione, nec minus falsam continet sententiam. Fundamentum enim ac firmamentum eius opinionis est gigantes non nisi a Daemonibus gigni posse, quod procul a vero esse paulo ante ostensum est. Falsa item sententia est Daemones post adventum Salvatoris nostri coitu cum mulieribus prohiberi. Beatus enim Augustinus in lib. 15 De Civit. Dei cap. 23 confirmat auctoritate gravium virorum, quibus non credere impudentis sit, etiam suo tempore Daemones saepe improbos fuisse mulieribus earumque expetiisse et peregisse concubitum. Pervulgata quoque est et multis probata experimentis Theologorum de succubis atque incubis Daemonibus doctrina. Repetat memoria lector quae nos eadem re supra disputavimus, cum explicaremus disputationem tertiam super illis verbis: Videntes filii Dei filias hominum, etc.
But that which was set forth by that same author — that after the coming of Christ our Lord the power of coupling with women was taken from the demons, and that for this reason there were no giants on earth after that time — rests on a false reasoning, and contains a no less false opinion. For the foundation and prop of his opinion is that giants can be begotten only by demons, which was shown a little above to be far from the truth. The opinion too is false, that demons after the coming of our Savior are forbidden intercourse with women. For the blessed Augustine, in book 15 of The City of God, ch. 23, confirms on the authority of weighty men (whom it would be the part of an impudent person not to believe) that even in his own time demons were often wicked toward women and desired and accomplished intercourse with them. Widespread, too, and proved by many experiences, is the doctrine of the theologians concerning succubus and incubus demons. Let the reader recall to memory what we disputed on this same matter above, when we explained the third disputation upon those words, “The sons of God seeing the daughters of men,” etc.14
Nullos porro fuisse gigantes post Domini nostri adventum, manifestis sibi suique temporis exemplis refellit Augustinus, cuius exemplum de gigantea quadam femina supradicto loco memorata non attinet iterare. Plinius de quodam gigante, principe Claudio Romae viso, libro 7 cap. 16 hunc in modum scribit: Procerissimum hominem aetas nostra, Claudio principe, Gabbaram nomine, ex Arabia advectum, novem pedum et totidem unciarum vidit. Fuere sub Augusto semipede addito, quorum corpora eius miraculi gratia in conditorio Sallustianorum asservabantur hortorum; Pusioni et Secundillae erant nomina. Sic Plinius. Iulius Scaliger in opere quod scripsit adversus Cardanum, exercitatione 263, affirmat vidisse se Mediolani in publico nosocomio...
Moreover, that there were no giants after the coming of our Lord, Augustine refutes by manifest examples of his own and his own time — whose example of a certain gigantic woman, recorded in the aforesaid place, it is needless to repeat. Pliny, concerning a certain giant seen at Rome under the emperor Claudius, writes in book 7, ch. 16, in this manner: “The tallest man our age has seen was one named Gabbara, brought from Arabia under the emperor Claudius, nine feet and as many inches tall. Under Augustus there were two, half a foot taller, whose bodies, for the sake of that marvel, were preserved in the tomb of the Sallustian gardens; their names were Pusio and Secundilla.” Thus Pliny. Julius Scaliger, in the work he wrote against Cardano, in exercise 263, affirms that he himself saw at Milan, in the public hospital…15
...iuvenem unum tantae proceritatis ut stare non posset; neque enim potuerat a natura satis alimenti ad crassitudinem roborisque proportionem suppeditari; itaque iacebat, explebatque lectos duos simul in longitudinem iunctos. Addit praeterea illud accurata observatione dignum, Samogithios populos qui inter Prussiam et Livoniam sunt, cum procera statura maxima ex parte sint, tamen quasi per vices tum proceros tum pene nanos generare, haud absimili ingenio quarundam arborum tertio quoque anno fructum ferentium; quasi materia semel exhausta, tanquam succidaneas reponat reliquias natura, dum quod in nano abiuraverat dependit in magnitudine insigniori. Ita Scaliger.
…a certain young man of such height that he could not stand; for nature had not been able to supply nourishment enough for the thickness and proportion of his strength, and so he lay down, and filled two beds joined together lengthwise. He adds, moreover, this, worthy of careful observation: that the Samogitian peoples, who are between Prussia and Livonia, although for the most part of tall stature, nevertheless beget, as it were by turns, now the tall, now the almost dwarfish — not unlike the disposition of certain trees that bear fruit every third year, as if, the matter being once exhausted, nature lays up the residue as a reserve, paying back in more remarkable size what it had withheld in the dwarf. So Scaliger.16
Non extra fidem est quorundam coniectura existimantium ex hac historia Mosis de Gigantibus cepisse occasionem priscos poetas ea de Gigantibus fabulandi quae ab ipsis prodita sunt litteris, scilicet veritatem sacrae historiae fabularum et mendaciorum admixtione adulterantes et foedantes. Finxerunt Poetae gigantes ex Terra Coelique sanguine fuisse natos, quo tempore Saturnus pudenda patris abscidit, ut canit Hesiodus in Theogonia. Quanquam Apollodorus libro primo solius Terrae filios facit Gigantes, eosdemque ab irata Ope (Terra) editos in Deorum ultionem, a quibus occisi fuerant Titanes. Homerus tamen in Odyssea Neptuni et Iphimedeae filios Gigantes tradit, qui Ossam Pelio et Olympum imponere conati sint, ut in caelum ad expugnandum Iovem conscenderent. Istos dicunt Poetae non solum corporis magnitudine praecelluisse viribusque invictos fuisse, sed etiam terribili plane aspectu, capillis e capite promissis, barba prolixa pedibusque anguineis, ut scribit Ovidius libro quinto Fastorum illis versibus: Terra feros partus, immania monstra, gigantes / edidit, ausuros in Iovis ire domum. / Mille manus illis dedit, et pro crinibus angues; / atque ait: In magnos arma movete deos. / Extruere hi montes ad sidera summa parabant, / et magnum bello sollicitare Iovem. / Fulmina de caeli iaculatus Iuppiter arce, / vertit in auctores pondera vasta suos.
It is not beyond belief, the conjecture of some who think that from this account of Moses about the Giants the ancient poets took occasion to fable about Giants those things which have been set forth by them in their writings — namely, corrupting and defiling the truth of the sacred history by an admixture of fables and falsehoods. The poets feigned that the giants were born from the Earth and the blood of Heaven, at the time when Saturn cut off his father’s privy parts, as Hesiod sings in the Theogony. Although Apollodorus, in the first book, makes the Giants sons of Earth alone, and these brought forth by an angry Ops (Earth) to avenge the gods, by whom the Titans had been slain. Homer, however, in the Odyssey, hands down that the Giants were sons of Neptune and Iphimedeia, who tried to set Ossa on Pelion and Olympus [on Ossa], to climb up into heaven to storm Jupiter. These, the poets say, not only excelled in greatness of body and were unconquered in strength, but were also of plainly terrible aspect, with hair flowing from the head, a long beard, and serpent feet, as Ovid writes in the fifth book of the Fasti in those verses: “The Earth brought forth fierce births, huge monsters, the giants, / who would dare to go against the house of Jove. / She gave them a thousand hands, and serpents for hair, / and said: Move your arms against the great gods. / These prepared to pile mountains up to the highest stars, / and to assail great Jove with war. / Jupiter, hurling thunderbolts from heaven’s citadel, / turned the vast weights back upon their authors.”17
Habitasse tradunt eos in campis Phlegraeis, atque inibi bellum cum Diis commisisse — licet Pausanias in Arcadicis Bathon vallem locum eius proelii fuisse affirmet. Cum autem super altissimos montes conscendissent, dicitur ingentia saxa in Deos iaculati, quorum ea quae in mare deciderunt insulas, quae autem in terram montes esse factos. Tradunt praeterea tantum Diis metum primo aspectu sua temeritate et audacia iniecisse, ut cum primum Typhoeus eis visus est, omnes in Aegyptum aufugerint, ubi longo itinere defessi ac spe fugae destituti se in varias animalium formas transformati occultaverint, ut canit Ovidius libro 5 Metamorphoseos; atque ob eam causam Aegyptios ea ipsa animalia, in quorum se Dii speciem induerant, pro diis coluisse. Typhoeum autem tanta corporis magnitudine perhibent ut tota Sicilia supra eius corpus sit imposita: supra dextram eius Pelorus promontorium Italiam prospectans, supra laevam Pachynus, super crura Lilybaeus, caputque Aetna gravetur. Occisi autem sunt Gigantes, alii quidem ab aliis diis, praecipue Palladis consilio et per vim Herculis, detrusique sunt ad inferos.
They relate that the giants dwelt in the Phlegraean fields, and there waged war with the gods — although Pausanias, in the Arcadica, affirms that the Vale of Bathos was the site of that battle. And when they had climbed up the highest mountains, they are said to have hurled huge rocks at the gods, of which those that fell into the sea became islands, but those that fell on land, mountains. They relate, moreover, that the giants by their rashness and audacity struck such fear into the gods at first sight that, as soon as Typhoeus appeared to them, all fled into Egypt, where, wearied by the long journey and bereft of hope of flight, they hid themselves transformed into various shapes of animals, as Ovid sings in book 5 of the Metamorphoses; and that for this reason the Egyptians worshiped as gods those very animals into whose form the gods had put themselves. And they report Typhoeus to have been of such bodily size that all Sicily is laid upon his body: over his right hand the promontory Pelorus, looking toward Italy; over his left, Pachynus; over his legs, Lilybaeus; and his head is weighed down by Aetna. The Giants were slain, some by some gods, others by others, chiefly by the counsel of Pallas and the might of Hercules, and were thrust down to the underworld.18
Fabulosa haec Poetarum de Gigantibus commenta Macrobius lib. 1 Saturnaliorum cap. 20 secundum mythologiam sic interpretatur: Gigantes autem quid aliud fuisse credendum est quam hominum quandam impiam gentem Deos negantem, et ideo existimatam Deos e caelo pellere voluisse? Horum pedes in draconum volumina desinebant, quod significat nihil eos rectum, nihil superum cogitasse, totius vitae eorum gressu atque processu in inferna vergente. Haec Macrobius.
These fabulous inventions of the poets about the Giants, Macrobius, in book 1 of the Saturnalia, ch. 20, interprets according to mythology thus: “But what else are we to believe the Giants to have been than a certain impious race of men denying the gods, and therefore reputed to have wished to drive the gods from heaven? Their feet ended in serpent-coils, which signifies that they thought nothing upright, nothing of the things above, the whole course and progress of their life tending toward the things below.” Thus Macrobius.19

Translator’s notes

  1. Heading of the Fourth Disputation. ↩
  2. Opening (continues on p. 121): Paul of Burgos’s argument from the etymology of Nephilim. Margin: Paul of Burgos. ↩
  3. §(against Burgos, continued from p. 120): the argument refuted — the Nephilim were begotten of the union and perished in the Flood; the Hebrew etymology (Rabbi Abraham, Aben-Ezra, Jerome/Symmachus). Margins: Isa. 14; Luke 10; Rabbi Abraham; Aben-Ezra; Job 16; Jerome. ↩
  4. §119: that Nephilim does not mean demons — it names the giants of Enac’s stock (Numbers 13); and giants are more often called Rephaim. Margins: Nephilim; Rephaim. ↩
  5. §120 (continues on p. 122): the origin of the word Rephaim variously given. Margin: ‘On the origin of the word Rephaim, by which giants are signified in the sacred writings.’ ↩
  6. §120 (continued from p. 121): Rapha and Enac as eponyms (1 Paralipomenon 20); the Nephilim were not demons. ↩
  7. §121: the view that the giants were true men, but begotten of demons’ intercourse (Josephus, Ambrose, the Master of the Scholastic History, Sulpicius Severus). Margins: ‘The opinion that the giants were sons of demons is refuted’; Josephus; Ambrose; Master of the Scholastic History; Sulpicius Severus. ↩
  8. §122 (continues on p. 123): the four bold claims of Francesco Giorgio, judged worthy of severe censure. Margins: ‘A remark against Francesco Giorgio’; Gen. 3; John 12. ↩
  9. §122 (continued from p. 122): the second of Giorgio’s claims stated in full. ↩
  10. §124: giants are true men, of the same substance as the rest, generated from men alone — size is an accidental difference. Margin: ‘Giants are generated, like other men, from men alone, without the demon’s agency.’ ↩
  11. §125: bodily size comes from the matter (the female’s, per Aristotle), not the generator; the pygmy/dwarf analogy. Margins: Aristotle; Pliny (Nat. Hist. 7.15–16, the dwarf Conopas). ↩
  12. §126 (continues on p. 124): there were giants after the Flood too (Enacim, Rephaim), of known parents; sentence breaks off (‘I shall conclude this disputation with a most beautiful…’). ↩
  13. §126 (continued from p. 123): the close of the Fourth Disputation — Augustine’s witness (the giant woman seen at Rome before the Gothic sack); and his calling ‘giants had no human fathers’ a fable from the apocryphal book of Enoch. Margin: Augustine, City of God, bk. 15, ch. 23. ↩
  14. §127: refutation of Giorgio’s claim that, after Christ’s coming, demons were barred from coupling with women and so no giants remained. Margins: ‘That there were no giants after Christ’s coming, refuted as false’; Augustine. ↩
  15. §128 (continues on p. 125): Augustine refutes from his own day the claim that no giants existed after Christ; Pliny on the giant Gabbara, and Pusio and Secundilla. Margins: Pliny; Julius Scaliger. ↩
  16. §128 (continued from p. 124): Scaliger’s giant youth, and his note on the Samogitians who alternately bear tall and dwarfish offspring. ↩
  17. §129 (continues on p. 126): the poets took occasion from this passage to fable about giants (Hesiod, Apollodorus, Homer, Ovid’s Fasti). Margins: Josephus, Antiquities; Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, bk. ?, ch. 4; Hesiod; Apollodorus; Homer, Odyssey bk. 11; Ovid. ↩
  18. §130: the giants in the Phlegraean fields; the hurled rocks; Typhoeus and the gods’ flight to Egypt; Typhoeus pinned under Sicily. Margins: Pausanias; Ovid (Metamorphoses 5). ↩
  19. §131: Macrobius’s mythological reading of the giants — an impious, God-denying race. Margin: Macrobius (Saturnalia, bk. 1, ch. 20). ↩