02-05-2009, 02:22 AM
But I think the overall point shouldn't be missed either. As Paul said, the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. Even if we assume that the snake's proportions were exaggerated and mythological, from that follows absolutely nothing. Say Regulus encountered and slain a perfectly natural yet terrifying 10ft snake: this in itself would be foil for stories. The first person would say that a "gigantic" snake was encountered (did someone always have to measure it?); the next person, hearing that, would convey that it was terrifying and ate animals whole, to others; the third person, hearing that, might've wondered why it couldn't eat people too; etc.
Some scholars have been all too willing to say that since the final details were unrealistic, then the whole story was completely fabricated. If Regulus battled a dragon, or at least a snow-bear in the middle of Africa, then the situation would be different. Roman historiography never mentions actually fantastical details, and the last person to whom such details apply is the first person whom it purports to describe: Romulus. After that the history is relentlessly natural. There is no Fabius Maximus battling dragons, or Manlius Torquatus flying on a pegasus.
Some scholars have been all too willing to say that since the final details were unrealistic, then the whole story was completely fabricated. If Regulus battled a dragon, or at least a snow-bear in the middle of Africa, then the situation would be different. Roman historiography never mentions actually fantastical details, and the last person to whom such details apply is the first person whom it purports to describe: Romulus. After that the history is relentlessly natural. There is no Fabius Maximus battling dragons, or Manlius Torquatus flying on a pegasus.
Multi viri et feminae philosophiam antiquam conservant.
James S.
James S.
