not the date), discussing the best authenticated stories, says: "The Lynn
sea-serpent appears to be the most authentic, the writer having seen
several persons who saw it from the beach, and knowing others personally
or by reputation. The first animal of this kind seen about Lynn was in
1638, and was seen by Dr. John Josselyn; and again another was observed,
in 1819, by Mr. Cabot. Amos Lawrance, one of the pillars of old Boston,
said: 'I have never had any doubt of the existence of the sea-serpent
since the morning he was seen off Nahant by old Marshal Prince through his
famous masthead spy-glass. For within the next two hours I conversed with
Samuel Cabot and Daniel P. Parker, I think, and one or more persons
besides, who had spent a part of that morning in witnessing its movements.
In addition, Colonel Harris, the commander at Fort Independence, told me
that the creature had been seen by a number of his soldiers while standing
sentry at early dawn, some time before this show at Nahant; and Colonel
Harris believed it as firmly as though the creature were drawn up before
us in State Street, where we then were.' Such is the history of the Lynn
sea-serpent; and the following is an extract from the report of the
Linnæan Society of Boston, made by Dr. Bigelow and F. C. Gray: 'The
monster was from eighty to ninety feet long; his head usually carried
about two feet above the water; the body of a dark brown colour, with
thirty or forty more protuberances, compared by some to four-gallon kegs,
by others to a string of buoys, and called, by some, bunches on the back.
Motions very rapid--faster than those of a whale; swimming a mile in three
minutes, and sometimes more, leaving a wake behind him; chasing mackerel,
herrings, and other fish, which were seen jumping out of the water fifty
at a time as he approached. He only came to the surface of the sea in calm
and bright weather. A skilful gunner fired at him from our boat, and,
having taken good aim, felt sure he must have hit him on the head. The
creature turned towards him, then dived under the boat, and reappeared a
hundred yards on the other side.' In February of 1846 a letter was printed
in the various newspapers, signed by Captain Lawson, giving a description
of a monstrous snake seen by him from his vessel off Capes Charles and
Henry. The length was stated at one hundred feet, and on the back were
seen sharp projections. The head was small in proportion to the length."
I next append a few short statements which have appeared at various dates
in the public prints.
The _News of the World_, Sept. 28, 1879, states that Captain J. F. Cox,
master of the British ship _Privateer_, which arrived at Delaware
breakwater on Sept. 9, from London, says: "On August 5, one hundred miles
west of Brest (France), weather fine and clear, at 5 P.M., as I was
walking the quarter-deck, I saw something black rise out of the water,
about twenty feet, in shape like an immense snake of three feet diameter.
It was about three hundred yards from the ship, coming towards us. It
turned its head partly from us, and went down with a great splash, after
staying up about five seconds, but rose again three times at intervals of
ten seconds, until it had turned completely from us, and was going from us
at a great speed, and making the water boil all round it. I could see its
eyes and shape perfectly. It was like a great eel or snake, but as black
as coal tar, and appeared to be making great exertions to get away from
the ship. I have seen many kinds of fish, in five different oceans, but
was never favoured with a sight of the great sea-snake before."
The _Singapore Daily News_, April 6, 1878, in its Australian news quotes
from Wellington (New Zealand), Feb. 26 (this month corresponds with August
north of the Line): "The captain of the steamship _Durham_ reports having
seen a monster serpent off Nerowas Island. Thirty feet of the monster was
visible out of the water. The crew and passengers corroborate the report."
[Illustration: FIG. 71.--SEA-SERPENT SEEN FROM THE SHIP "SACRAMENTO," JULY
30, 1877. (_From the "Australian Sketcher."_)]
The _Australian Sketcher_ for November 24, 1877, states: "Captain W. H.
Nelson, of the American ship _Sacramento_, which arrived in this port from
New York on October 20, reported that he saw the sea-serpent on his
voyage. The _Argus_ paragraph on the subject stated: 'The date on which
the creature was seen was on July 30, the ship then being in lat. 31° 59'
N. and long. 37° W. The man at the wheel was the first to observe the
monster, and he at once called Captain Nelson, telling him what he saw;
but the latter, having the same feeling of incredulity with regard to the
sea-serpent as most other people, did not hurry from below. On coming on
deck, however, he was rewarded with a distant glimpse of the supposed
sea-serpent, which the helmsman, for his part, declared he saw quite
plainly. Some forty feet of the monster was alleged to be observable. It
appeared to be about the size of a flour-barrel in girth, and its colour
was yellowish; the head is described as being flat. The eyes were plainly
visible. Captain Nelson is convinced that what he saw was some
extraordinary marine monster.' We have obtained from John Hart, the man at
the wheel, a pencil sketch of the creature, of which we give an engraving.
The sketch is accompanied with a further description, in which the writer
says: 'This is a correct sketch of the sea-serpent seen by me while on
board the ship _Sacramento_, on her passage from New York to Melbourne, I
being at the wheel at the time. It had the body of a very large snake; its
length appeared to me to be about fifty feet or sixty feet. Its head was
like an alligator's, with a pair of flippers about ten feet from its head.
The colour was of a reddish brown. At the time seen it was lying perfectly
still, with its head raised about three feet above the surface of the sea,
and as it got thirty or forty feet astern, it dropped its head.'"
I confess that I do not attach much weight to this last example, from the
suspicious resemblance which the illustration given in the _Sketcher_
bears to an alligator, suggesting that possibly such a creature may have
been blown by winds or carried by currents to the position where it was
seen. It is true that Mr. Gosse quotes the size of the largest alligator
on record as only seventeen feet and a half, whereas the estimated length
of the supposed sea-serpent in this instance was from forty to sixty. But
against that may be argued the difficulty of estimating lengths or heights
when you have but a short inspection, and no object immediately near with
which to institute a comparison[264]; while I am by no means certain that
Mr. Gosse's maximum is correct. Dr. Dennys, of Singapore, has assured me
that some years back an alligator, approaching thirty feet in length,
haunted for some days the small tidal creek which runs through, and for
some miles above, that town; while I very well remember Mr. Gregory, the
Surveyor-General of Queensland, informing me that in the rivers in the
north of that colony there were alligators equalling in length a
whale-boat, say twenty-eight feet.
[Illustration: FIG. 72.--SEA-SERPENT SEEN FROM THE S.S. "CITY OF
BALTIMORE," IN THE GULF OF ADEN, JAN. 28, 1879. (_From the "Graphic" of
April 19, 1879._)]
The _Graphic_ of April 19th, 1879, contains a drawing of "a marine monster
seen from S.S. _City of Baltimore_, in the Gulf of Aden, January 28th."
The descriptive letter-press is as follows:--
"The following is an abstract of the account given by our correspondent,
Major H. W. I. Senior, of the Bengal Staff Corps, to whom we are indebted
for the sketch from which our engraving is taken: 'On the 28th January
1879, at about 10 A.M., I was on the poop deck of the steamship _City of
Baltimore_, in latitude 12° 28' N., longitude 43° 52' E. I observed a long
black object a-beam of the ship's stern on the starboard side, at a
distance of about three-quarters of a mile, darting rapidly out of the
water and splashing in again with a noise distinctly audible, and
advancing nearer and nearer at a rapid pace. In a minute it had advanced
to within half-a-mile, and was distinctly recognisable as the "veritable
sea-serpent." I shouted out "Sea-serpent! sea-serpent! Call the captain!"
Dr. C. Hall, the ship's surgeon, who was reading on deck, jumped up in
time to see the monster, as did also Miss Greenfield, one of the
passengers on board. By this time it was only about five hundred yards
off, and a little in the rear, owing to the vessel then steaming at the
rate of about ten knots an hour in a westerly direction. On approaching
the wake of the ship, the serpent turned its course a little way, and was
soon lost to view in the blaze of sunlight reflected on the waves of the
sea. So rapid were its movements, that when it approached the ship's wake,
I seized a telescope, but could not catch a view, as it darted rapidly out
of the field of the glass before I could see it. I was thus prevented from
ascertaining whether it had scales or not; but the best view of the
monster obtainable, when it was about three cables' length, that is, about
five hundred yards, distant, seemed to show that it was without scales. I
cannot, however, speak with certainty. The head and neck, about two feet
in diameter, rose out of the water to a height of about twenty or thirty
feet, and the monster opened its jaws wide as it rose, and closed them
again as it lowered its head and darted forward for a dive, reappearing
almost immediately some hundred yards ahead. The body was not visible at
all, and must have been some depth under water, as the disturbance on the
surface was too slight to attract notice, although occasionally a splash
was seen at some distance behind the head. The shape of the head was not
unlike pictures of the dragon I have often seen, with a bull-dog
appearance of the forehead and eye-brow. When the monster had drawn its
head sufficiently out of the water, it let itself drop, as it were, like a
huge log of wood, prior to darting forward under the water.'"
Major Senior's statement is countersigned by the two persons whom he
mentions as co-witnesses.
When in Singapore, in 1880, I received the personal testimony of Captain
Anderson, at that time chief officer of the _Pluto_ (property of the
Straits Government) and formerly a commander in the P. and O. Company's
service.
Captain Anderson assured me that he had twice seen large sea-serpents.
Once off Ushant, when he was chief officer of the _Delta_ in 1861. No
account was entered in the log nor any notice sent to the newspapers, for
fear of ridicule. On that occasion the whole ship's company saw it; it was
five (?) miles distant, and showed fifteen feet of its body out of the
water. It resembled a snake with a large fringe round the neck. It
appeared to be travelling, and moved its head to and fro like a snake. It
never spouted, and was observed for a quarter of an hour.
The second occasion was in the Red Sea, when he was in command of the
_Sumatra_, on the outward trip in October or November 1877. Off Mocha he
saw an animal, five miles distant, that lifted the body high out of the
water like a snake. All exclaimed, "There is the sea-serpent!" but no
entry was made in the log, or report made of it. The same creature was,
however, seen shortly after by a man-of-war close to Suez and reported.
In 1881 I once more had the personal testimony of an eye-witness.
Mr. J. H. Hoar, of the pilot station, Shanghai, China, informed me that he
saw a sea-serpent some years previously, when he was stationed at Ningpo,
on the China coast-line, a little south of the embouchure of the
Yangtse-kiang. He was at the time on the look-out for a vessel, from the
top of the bank of Lowchew Island, Chinsang, on the southern side of the
island fronting the six-mile passage. This island lies east of Worth
Point. The hill he was on was about one hundred and fifty feet high, the
snake distant about two hundred and fifty yards, the depth of water seven
fathoms. His attention was directed to it by a group of Chinamen calling
out "Shê," which means "snake." He saw it lying on the surface of the
water, resembling two masts of a junk end to end, but with a slight
interval. Presently it rose slightly, and then appeared all in one,
extended flat upon the surface of the water. He examined it with his
glass, and noticed the eye, which appeared to be as big as a coffee
saucer, and slate-coloured. The head was flat on the top. He estimated the
length at from one hundred and twenty to one hundred and forty feet.
He learned that it was the third occasion of its being seen in that place
within eight years. An account was published in one of the local journals,
by Mr. Sloman, from the statements of the Chinese observers. Mr. Hoar was
prevented from doing the same by the fear of being ridiculed. I may note
that there is a bay, not far from this spot, among the Chusan islands,
which has long been credited with being the abode of a great sea-dragon,
and in passing over which junks take certain superstitious precautions.
I have little doubt of the identity of the sea-serpent with the sea-dragon
of the Chinese. Dr. Dennys[265] says: "Of course our old friend, the
sea-serpent, turns up on the coasts of China, and the description of him
does not greatly differ from that recorded elsewhere. According to a
popular legend, the Chien Tang river was at one time infested by a great
kiau or sea-serpent, and in 1129 A.D., a district graduate is said to have
heroically thrown himself into the flood to encounter and destroy the
monster. It has been already noted that most of the river gods are
supposed to appear in the form of water-snakes, and that the sea-serpents
noticed in Chinese records have always infested the mouths of rivers."
The Rev. Mr. Butler, of the Presbyterian Mission in Ningpo, informed me
that a dragon which threatened boats was supposed by the Chinese to infest
a narrow passage called Quo Mung, outside of Chinaye. Formerly there were
two of them in the neighbourhood, which were very furious, and frequently
upset boats. They had to be appeased by a yearly offering of a girl of
fair appearance and perfect body. At last, one of the _literati_
determined to stop this. He armed himself, and jumped into the water;
blood rose to the surface. He had killed one of the dragons. The other
retired to the narrow place. A temple was erected to the hero at Peach
Blossom ferry.
It may be noted that both the Malays and the Chinese attribute the origin
of ambergris to either a sea-dragon or a sea-serpent. Thus, in the
description of Ambergris Island or Dragon Spittle Island, contained in the
_History of the Ming Dynasty_, Book 325, from which an extract is given
(in translation) by Mr. W. P. Groeneveldt, in his _Notes on the Malay
Archipelago and Malacca_, compiled from Chinese sources,[266] we find it
stated that "this island has the appearance of a single mountain, and is
situated in the Sea of Lambri, at a distance of one day and one night from
Sumatra. It rises abruptly out of the sea, which breaks on it with high
waves."
"Every spring numerous dragons come together to play on this island, and
they leave behind their spittle. The natives afterwards go in canoes to
the spot and collect this spittle, which they take with them.
"The dragon-spittle is at first like fat, of a black and yellow colour,
and with a fishy smell; by length of time it contracts into large lumps;
and these are also found in the belly of a large fish, of the size of the
Chinese peck, and also with a fishy smell. When burnt it has a pure and
delicious fragrance.
"It is sold in the market of Sumatra, one tael, official weight, costing
twelve golden coins of that country, and one cati,[267] one hundred and
ninety-two of such pieces, equal to about nine thousand Chinese copper
cash; and so it is not very cheap."
Dr. F. Porter Smith[268] states that there can be no doubt that the
costly, odorous, light yellow, gummy substance, found floating on the sea,
or procured from the belly of some large fish in the Indian Ocean, and
known by the Chinese of the present day as _lung sin_, or dragon's
spittle, is actually ambergris. The dragon is said to cough it up.
"A similar substance, called _kih-tiau-chi_, brought from Canton and
Foochow in former days, is said to be the egg of the dragon or a kind of
sea-serpent named _kih tiau_. The name _kih tiau_ is singularly like the
Greek name for a sea-monster."
One of the most remarkable accounts of sea-monsters, which I believe to be
thoroughly trustworthy, is of an animal seen in the Malacca Straits in
1876.
The first notice of it appeared in the _Straits Times Overland Journal_
for September 18th, 1876, in the form of a short editorial.
"Our friend Mr. Henry Lee, of _Land and Water_, who in his late work has
taken so much trouble to enter into and describe the habits and
peculiarities of the sea-serpent,[269] will be glad to hear that the
passengers and officers of the S.S. _Nestor_, which arrived here this
morning, are unanimous in the conclusion, and vouch for the fact, that an
extraordinary sea-monster was seen by them between Malacca and Penang on
their voyage to this port, on Monday, about noon. It was about two hundred
and fifty feet long, about fifty feet broad, square-headed, with black and
yellow stripes, closely resembling a salamander."
This was followed, on the succeeding day, by a letter from the captain.
SIR,--In reference to your paragraph in your yesterday's issue,
relating to our having seen a sea-monster answering to the popular
notion of a sea-serpent, I am prepared to vouch for the correctness of
the statement already made to you by the doctor and a passenger by my
ship.
Being on the bridge at the time (about 10 A.M.) with the first and
third officers, we were surprised by the appearance of an
extraordinary monster going in our course, and at an equal speed with
the vessel, at a distance from us of about six hundred feet. It had a
square head and a dragon black and white striped tail, and an immense
body, which was quite fifty feet broad when the monster raised it. The
head was about twelve feet broad, and appeared to be occasionally, at
the extreme, about six feet above the water. When the head was placed
on a level with the water, the body was extended to its utmost limit
to all appearance, and then the body rose out of the water about two
feet, and seemed quite fifty feet broad at those times. The long
dragon tail with black and white scales afterwards rose in an
undulating motion, in which at one time the head, at another the body,
and eventually the tail, formed each in its turn a prominent object
above the water.
The animal, or whatever it may be called, appeared careless of our
proximity, and went our course for about six minutes on our starboard
side, and then finally worked round to our port side, and remained in
view, to the delight of all on board, for about half an hour. His
length was reckoned to be over two hundred feet.
JOHN W. WEBSTER,
Commander, S.S. _Nestor_.
Singapore,
18th September 1876.
Mr. Cameron, proprietor of the journal, subsequently informed me that he
had specially warned Captain Webster of the certain doubt that would be
cast upon his statement, but he still insisted on its publication. It was
confirmed by Mr. H. R. Beaver, a merchant of Singapore, and other persons
who were passengers by the boat.
The same newspaper (_Straits Times Overland Journal_), on November 2,
1876, had the following extract from the _China Mail_:--
"It is more than probable that Captain Webster, of the steamer _Nestor_,
will be 'interviewed' very extensively when he reaches a berth in London
Docks. A genuine sea-serpent is not met with every day, and as the
observations made by the officers of the ship have, we understand, been
set down in some formal way before Consul Medhurst at Shanghai, to be
forwarded to the _Field_, the naturalists will be in a position to pursue
their researches when the captain arrives. Competent authorities are now
of opinion that the part of the monster formerly supposed to have been its
head, must have been a hump; and that its head's being under water would
account for the supreme contempt with which it treated the passage of the
steamer. The undulating motion of the huge animal would explain the
statement that this knob or hump rose occasionally about six feet out of
the water. The alternate yellow and black stripes which covered all that
could be seen of the body, appear to have conveyed the impression that the
tail was like that of a dragon covered with scales, although that
conclusion need not necessarily be looked upon as certain. If the head of
this unknown 'shape' was actually under water, then the length becomes
proportionately greater. It was over two hundred feet long before, it must
now be regarded as measuring, say, two hundred and fifty feet, which, with
forty-five or fifty feet beam, gives a leviathan of something like the
dimensions of an old-fashioned frigate."
A correspondent of the _Celestial Empire_, of Shanghai, wrote thus to the
journal:--
SIR,--If it is true that one of those who observed the marine monster
from the _Nestor_ is still here, it is very desirable that he should
give some fuller account of what he saw. Only a sciolist will deny
the possibility of such a beast, and Professor Owen himself has
remarked that the only absolutely incredible part of the accounts of
those who have seen it, is the statement of its vertical sinuosity,
which is impossible to any of the serpent tribe.
The monster seen by the _Nestor_, however, was probably one of the
Chelonidæ, "the father of all the turtles," as he is fitly called by
the natives of Sumatra, who fully believe in his existence, and to
whom he occasionally appears. Indeed, Baumgarten, in his _Malaysien_,
published at Amsterdam in 1829, describes the monster, and estimates
its length and breadth at one hundred and twenty and thirty cubits
respectively, measurements which agree very nearly with those given by
Captain Webster. Baumgarten[270] adds that it is a general belief in
Sumatra (vol. ii. p. 321, Ed. 1820), that whosoever sees him will die
within the year. "This," he says naively enough, "I have not been able
to prove."
Mr. David Aitken, of Singapore, wrote to the _Daily Times_ as follows:--
DEAR SIR,--Like many others, I have been astonished at the dimensions
given by you of the sea-serpent. They are certainly enormous, and they
far surpass anything I have ever seen or heard of. The largest snake
ever I authentically heard about was one which passed between the
surveying brigs _Krishna_ and _Menx_ when under the command of
Lieutenant Ward, of the Indian Navy, when surveying off the coast of
Sumatra, about the years 1858 and 1859. This monster passed by the
brigs one Sunday morning when they were moored somewhere opposite
Malacca. Its length was variously estimated at from the length of the
_Krishna_ to one hundred feet. Sixty feet was the moderate length set
down for its frame.
In or near the same place, another monster had been seen by a previous
surveying party.
Mr. Stephen Cave, M.P. for Shoreham, in 1861, communicated to Mr. Gosse a
short statement, which throws some light upon the food of the monster. It
is in the form of an extract from his journal written during a voyage to
the West Indies, in 1846, as follows:--
"Thursday, December 10, off Madeira, on board R.M.S. _Thomas_, made
acquaintance with a Captain Christmas, of the Danish Navy, a proprietor in
Santa Cruz, and holding some office about the Danish court. He told me he
once saw a sea-serpent between Iceland and the Faroe islands. He was
lying-to in a gale of wind, in a frigate of which he had the command, when
an immense shoal of porpoises rushed by the ship as if pursued; and, lo
and behold, a creature with a neck moving like that of a swan, about the
thickness of a man's waist, with a head like a horse, raised itself slowly
and gracefully from the deep, and, seeing the ship, it immediately
disappeared again, head foremost, like a duck diving. He only saw it for a
few seconds. The part above the water seemed about eighteen feet in
length. He is a singularly intelligent man, and by no means one to allow
his imagination to run away with him."
Witty journalists had a good time over the publication of the story of the
serpent seen by Captain Drevar, with which I shall wind up my list of
apparitions. As will be seen, however, the captain stuck manfully to his
guns, and I, for one, am of the belief that he really saw the incident
which he narrates. I have not met the captain himself, but I did, in
Singapore, meet with many who had heard the whole story from his own lips,
and whose impression was that he was a truthful man.
_The Barque "Pauline" Sea-serpent._
To the Editor of the _Calcutta Englishman_.
SIR,--As I am not sure that my statement respecting the sea-serpent
reached the _Shipping Gazette_ in London, I enclose a copy that may be
interesting to your numerous readers. I have been sent plenty of
extracts from English papers, nearly all of them ridiculing my
statement. I can laugh and joke on the subject as well as anyone, but
I can't see why, if people can't fairly refute my statement, they
should use falsehood to do so. The _Daily Telegraph_ says, "The ribs
of the ill-fated fish were distinctly heard cracking one after the
other, with a report like that of a small cannon; its bellowings
ceased, &c. To use the eloquent words of the principal spectator, it
'struck us all aghast with terror.'" If the writer knew anything of
sailors, he would not write such bosh. Fear and terror are not in
Jack's composition; and such eloquent words he leaves to such
correspondents as described the ever-doubtful "man-and-dog-fight." I
am just as certain of seeing what I described, as that I met the
advertisement that the _Telegraph_ has the largest circulation in the
world staring me at every street corner in London. It is easy for such
a paper to make any man, good, great, or interesting, look ridiculous.
Little wonder is it that my relatives write saying that they would
have seen a hundred sea-serpents and never reported it; and a lady
also wrote that she pitied anyone that was related to anyone that had
seen the sea-serpent. It is quite true that it is a sad thing for any
man to see more, to feel more, and to know more, than his fellows; but
I have some of the philosophy that made O'Connell rejoice in being the
most abused man in the United Kingdom, for he also had the power of
giving a person a lick with the rough side of his tongue. If I had any
such power I would not use it, for contempt is the sharpest reproof;
and this letter is the only notice I have taken of the many absurd
statements, &c. &c. &c.
GEORGE DREVAR,
_Master of the Pauline_.
Barque _Pauline_,
Chittagong, January 15, 1876.
[Illustration: FIG. 73.--SEA-SERPENT ATTACKING WHALE, AS SEEN BY CAPT.
DREVAR, OF THE BARQUE "PAULINE," IN 1876.]
[Illustration: FIG. 74.--SEA-SERPENT ATTACKING WHALE.--THE END OF THE
STRUGGLE.]
Barque _Pauline_, January 8th, 1875, lat. 5° 13' S., long. 35° W.,
Cape Roque, north-east corner of Brazil distant twenty miles, at 11
A.M.
The weather fine and clear, the wind and sea moderate. Observed some
black spots on the water, and a whitish pillar, about thirty-five feet
high, above them. At the first glance I took all to be breakers, as
the sea was splashing up fountain-like about them, and the pillar, a
pinnacle rock bleached with the sun; but the pillar fell with a
splash, and a similar one rose. They rose and fell alternately in
quick succession, and good glasses showed me it was a monster
sea-serpent coiled twice round a large sperm whale. The head and tail
parts, each about thirty feet long, were acting as levers, twisting
itself and victim around with great velocity. They sank out of sight
about every two minutes, coming to the surface still revolving, and
the struggles of the whale and two other whales that were near,
frantic with excitement, made the sea in this vicinity like a boiling
cauldron; and a loud and confused noise was distinctly heard. This
strange occurrence lasted some fifteen minutes, and finished with the
tail portion of the whale being elevated straight in the air, then
waving backwards and forwards, and laving [lashing?] the water
furiously in the last death-struggle, when the whole body disappeared
from our view, going down head-foremost towards the bottom, where, no
doubt, it was gorged at the serpent's leisure; and that monster of
monsters may have been many months in a state of coma, digesting the
huge mouthful. Then two of the largest sperm whales that I have ever
seen moved slowly thence towards the vessel, their bodies more than
usually elevated out of the water, and not spouting or making the
least noise, but seeming quite paralysed with fear; indeed, a cold
shiver went through my own frame on beholding the last agonising
struggle of the poor whale that had seemed as helpless in the coils of
the vicious monster as a small bird in the talons of a hawk. Allowing
for two coils round the whale, I think the serpent was about one
hundred and sixty or one hundred and seventy feet long, and seven or
eight in girth. It was in colour much like a conger eel, and the head,
from the mouth being always open, appeared the largest part of the
body.... I think Cape San Roque is a landmark for whales leaving the
south for the North Atlantic.... I wrote thus far, little thinking I
would ever see the serpent again; but at 7 A.M., July 13th, in the
same latitude, and some eighty miles east of San Roque, I was
astonished to see the same or a similar monster. It was throwing its
head and about forty feet of its body in a horizontal position out of
the water as it passed onwards by the stern of our vessel. I began
musing why we were so much favoured with such a strange visitor, and
concluded that the band of white paint, two feet wide above the
copper, might have looked like a fellow-serpent to it, and, no doubt,
attracted its attention.... While thus thinking, I was startled by the
cry of "There it is again," and a short distance to leeward, elevated
some sixty feet in the air, was the great leviathan, grimly looking
towards the vessel. As I was not sure it was only our free board it
was viewing, we had all our axes ready, and were fully determined,
should the brute embrace the _Pauline_, to chop away for its backbone
with all our might, and the wretch might have found for once in its
life that it had caught a Tartar. This statement is strictly true, and
the occurrence was witnessed by my officers, half the crew, and
myself; and we are ready, at any time, to testify on oath that it is
so, and that we are not in the least mistaken.... A vessel, about
three years ago, was dragged over by some sea-monster in the Indian
Ocean.
GEORGE DREVAR,
Master of the _Pauline_.
Chittagong, January 15, 1876.
Captain George Drevar, of the barque _Pauline_, appeared on Wednesday
morning at the Police-court, Dale-street, before Mr. Raffles,
stipendiary magistrate, accompanied by some of his officers and part
of the crew of the barque, when they made the following declaration:--
"We, the undersigned, captain, officers, and crew of the barque
_Pauline_, of London, do solemnly and sincerely declare that on July
8th, 1875, in latitude 5° 13', longitude 35° W., we observed three
large sperm whales, and one of them was gripped round the body with
two turns of what appeared to be a large serpent. The head and tail
appeared to have a length beyond the coils of about thirty feet, and
its girth eight or nine feet. The serpent whirled its victim round and
round for about fifteen minutes, and then suddenly dragged the whale
to the bottom, head first.
"GEORGE DREVAR, _Master_,
"HORATIO THOMPSON,
"HENDERSON LANDELLO,
"OWEN BAKER,
"WILLIAM LEWAN.
"Again, on July 13th, a similar serpent was seen about two hundred
yards off, shooting itself along the surface, head and neck being out
of the water several feet. This was seen only by the captain and one
ordinary seaman.
"GEORGE DREVAR, _Master_.
"A few moments after, it was seen elevated some sixty feet
perpendicularly in the air by the chief officer and the following able
seamen, Horatio Thompson, Owen Baker, William Lewan. And we make this
solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true.
"GEORGE DREVAR, _Master_,
"WILLIAM LEWAN, _Steward_,
"HORATIO THOMPSON, _Chief Officer_,
"JOHN HENDERSON LANDELLO, _2nd Officer_,
"OWEN BAKER."
Some confirmation of Captain Drevar's story is afforded by one quoted by
the Rev. Henry T. Cheeves, in _The Whale and his Captors_. The author
says:--
"From a statement made by a Kinebeck shipmaster in 1818, and sworn to
before a justice of the peace in Kinebeck county, Maine, it would seem
that the notable sea-serpent and whale are sometimes found in conflict. At
six o'clock in the afternoon of June 21st, in the packet _Delia_, plying
between Boston and Hallowell, when Cape Ann bore west-south-west about two
miles, steering north-north-east, Captain Shuback West and fifteen others
on board with him saw an object directly ahead, which he had no doubt was
the sea-serpent, or the creature so often described under that name,
engaged in fight with a large whale....
"The serpent threw up its tail from twenty-five to thirty feet in a
perpendicular direction, striking the whale by it with tremendous blows,
rapidly repeated, which were distinctly heard, and very loud, for two or
three minutes; they then both disappeared, moving in a south-west
direction; but after a few minutes reappeared in-shore of the packet, and
about under the sun, the reflection of which was so strong as to prevent
their seeing so distinctly as at first, when the serpent's fearful blows
with his tail were repeated and clearly heard as before. They again went
down for a short time, and then came up to the surface under the packet's
larboard quarter, the whale appearing first, and the serpent in pursuit,
who was again seen to shoot up his tail as before, which he held out of
water for some time, waving it in the air before striking, and at the same
time his head fifteen or twenty feet, as if taking a view of the surface
of the sea. After being seen in this position a few minutes, the serpent
and whale again disappeared, and neither was seen after by any on board.
It was Captain West's opinion that the whale was trying to escape, as he
spouted but once at a time on coming to the surface, and the last time he
appeared he went down before the serpent came up."
[Illustration: FIG. 75.--SEA-SERPENT ATTACKING WHALE. (_From Sketches by
Capt. Davidson, S.S. "Kiushiu-maru."_)]
A remarkable and independent corroboration of modern date comes from the
Japan seas. It was reported both in local papers and in the _San
Francisco Californian Mail-Bag_ for 1879, from which I extract the notice
and the illustrative cuts (Fig. 75).
"The accompanying engravings are _fac-similes_ of a sketch sent to us by
Captain Davidson, of the steamship _Kiushiu-maru_,[271] and is inserted as
a specimen of the curious drawings which are frequently forwarded to us
for insertion. Captain Davidson's statement, which is countersigned by his
chief officer, Mr. McKechnie, is as follows:--
"'Saturday, April 5th, at 11.15 A.M., Cape Satano distant about nine
miles, the chief officer and myself observed a whale jump clear out of the
sea, about a quarter of a mile away.
"'Shortly after it leaped out again, when I saw there was something
attached to it. Got glasses, and on the next leap distinctly saw something
holding on to the belly of the whale. The latter gave one more spring
clear of the water, and myself and chief officer then observed what
appeared to be a creature of the snake species rear itself about thirty
feet out of the water. It appeared to be about the thickness of a junk's
mast, and after standing about ten seconds in an erect position, it
descended into the water, the upper end going first. With my glasses I
made out the colour of the beast to resemble that of a pilot fish.'"
There is an interesting story[272] of a fight between a water-snake and a
trout, by Mr. A. W. Chase, Assistant United States Coast Survey, which,
_magnis componere parva_, may be accepted as an illustration of how a
creature of serpentine form would have to deal with a whale; only, as on
the surface or in mid-water it would be prevented from grasping any rocks
by which to anchor itself, we may readily conceive it holding on with a
tenacious grip of its extended jaws, and drawing itself up to the enemy
until it could either embrace it in its coils or stun it with violent
blows of the tail.[273]
"The trout, at first sight, was lying in mid-water, heading up stream. It
was, as afterwards appeared, fully nine inches in length.... This new
enemy of the trout was a large water-snake of the common variety, striped
black and yellow. He swam up the pool on the surface until over the trout,
when he made a dive, and by a dexterous movement seized the trout in such
a fashion that the jaws of the snake closed its mouth. The fight then
commenced. The trout had the use of its tail and fins, and could drag the
snake from the surface; when near the bottom, however, the snake made use
of its tail by winding it round every stone or root that it could reach.
After securing this tail-hold, it could drag the trout towards the bank,
but on letting go the trout would have a new advantage. This battle was
continued for full twenty minutes, when the snake managed to get its tail
out of the water and clasped around the root of one of the willows
mentioned as overhanging the pool. The battle was then up, for the snake
gradually put coil after coil around the root, with each one dragging the
fish toward the land. When half its body was coiled it unloosed the first
hold, and stretched the end of its tail out in every direction, and
finding another root, made fast; and now, using both, dragged the trout on
the gravel bank. It now had it under control, and, uncoiling, the snake
dragged the fish fully ten feet up on the bank, and, I suppose would have
gorged him," &c. &c.
Captain Drevar follows Pontoppidan (probably unwittingly) in identifying
the sea-serpent with the leviathan of Scripture, quoting Isaiah xxvii. 1,
"In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall
punish leviathan, the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked
serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea." As I read the
above passage, it is the dragon that is in the sea, and not the leviathan,
which should be identified with the sea-serpent, unless the two, dragon
and leviathan, are in apposition, which does not seem to be the case.
These various narratives which I have collected are, for the most part,
well attested by the signature, or declaration on oath, of well-known and
responsible people. Captain Drevar, in the small pamphlet which he had
printed for private circulation, says: "Does any thinking person imagine I
could keep command over men with a deliberate lie in our mouths?" and a
similar question may be asked, with, I think, the possibility of only one
reply, in the case of the narratives of Captain M'Quhœ and other officers
and commanders in various navies and merchant vessels, and of the numerous
other reputable witnesses who have affirmed, either as a simple statement
or on oath, that they have seen sundry remarkable sea-monsters. I used the
expression, "I think," because, of course, there is the possibility of
scepticism.
"Authority, in matters of opinion, divides itself (say) into three
principal classes: there is the authority of witnesses; they testify to
matters of fact. The judgment upon these is commonly, though not always,
easy; but this testimony is always the substitution of the faculties of
others for our own, which, taken largely, constitutes the essence of
authority.
"This is the kind which we justly admit with the smallest jealousy. Yet
not always; one man admits, another refuses, the authority of a
sea-captain and a sailor or two on the existence of a sea-serpent."[274]
I, for my part, belong to the former of these two categories. I believe in
the statements that I have recorded, and in the following reasoning
address only those who do likewise.
That mistakes have occasionally occurred is undoubted. Mr. Gosse records
two instances in which long patches of sea-weed so far excited the
imagination of captains of vessels as to cause them to lower boats and
proceed to the attack.
The credibility of ghost stories generally is much affected when supposed
apparitions are investigated and traced to some simple cause; and the
hypersceptical may argue on parallel grounds that the transformation, in
some few instances, of a supposed sea-serpent into sea-weed, or the
admission of the plausible suggestion that it has been simulated by a
seal, a string of porpoises, or some other very ordinary animals, largely
affects the whole question.
And this would undoubtedly be the case if the conditions of the several
examples were at all similar. But the hesitation or temporary
misapprehension of captains or crews, in a thousand instances, as to the
nature of a string of weed, supine on the surface, and lashed into
fantastic motion by the surge of the ocean waves, has absolutely no
bearing on the positive stories of a creature which is seen in calm fjords
and bays to roll itself coil after coil, uplift its head high above the
water, exhibit capacious jaws armed with teeth, conspicuous eyes, and paws
or paddles, which pursues and menaces boats, presents a tangible object to
a marksman, and when struck disappears with a mighty splash.
The probability of a gigantic seal, or of a string of porpoises, being
mistaken for a sea-serpent by post-captains and their officers in the Navy
is small, but becomes almost, if not quite, impossible when the observers
are fishermen on coasts like those of Norway, who have been in the habit
of seeing seals and porpoises almost every day of their lives. We may,
therefore, freely grant that occasional mistakes have arisen, just as we
have admitted that undoubtedly many hoaxes have been indulged in.
A rational and commonplace explanation is quite possible in some cases,
as, for example, in that of a creature of abnormal appearance seen by the
crew of Her Majesty's yacht, the _Osborne_, in the Mediterranean, which
was suggested, with great probability, to have been, if I remember
correctly, some species of shark; while the supposed sea-serpent, washed
up on the Isle of Stronsa, in 1808, proved, on scientific examination, to
be a shark of the genus Selache, probably belonging to the species known
as "the barking shark."
The great oceanic bone shark, known to few except whalers, which has been
stated to reach as much as sixty feet in length, may also occasionally
have originated a misconception; and there must be still remaining in the
depths of the ocean undescribed species of fish, of bizarre form, and
probably gigantic size, the occasional appearance of which would puzzle an
observer.
For example, in November 1879, an illustration was given in the _Graphic_
of "another marine monster," professing to be a sketch in the Gulf of Suez
from H.M.S. _Philomel_, accompanied by the following descriptive
letter-press:--
"This strange monster," says Mr. W. J. Andrews, Assistant Paymaster,
H.M.S. _Philomel_, "was seen by the officers and ship's company of this
ship at about 5.30 P.M. on October 14, when in the gulf of Suez, Cape
Zafarana bearing at the time N.W. seventeen miles, lat. 28° 56' N., long.
32° 54' E.
"When first observed it was rather more than a mile distant on the port
bow, its snout projecting from the surface of the water, and strongly
marked ripples showing the position of the body. It then opened its jaws,
as shown in the sketch, and shut them again several times, forcing the
water from between them as it did so in all directions in large jets. From
time to time a portion of the back and dorsal fin appeared at some
distance from the head. After remaining some little time in the
above-described position, it disappeared, and on coming to the surface
again it repeated the action of elevating the head and opening the jaws
several times, turning slowly from side to side as it did so.
[Illustration: FIG. 76.--ANOTHER MARINE MONSTER. A Sketch in the Gulf of
Suez, from H.M.S. "Philomel," Oct. 14, 1879. (_From the "Graphic," Nov.
1879._)]
"On the approach of the ship the monster swam swiftly away, leaving a
broad track like the wake of a ship, and disappeared beneath the waves.
"The colour of that portion of the body that was seen was black, as was
also the upper jaw. The lower jaw was grey round the mouth, but of a
bright salmon colour underneath, like the belly of some kinds of lizard,
becoming redder as it approached the throat. The inside of the mouth
appeared to be grey with white stripes, parallel to the edges of the jaw,
very distinctly marked. These might have been rows of teeth or of some
substance resembling whalebone. The height the snout was elevated above
the surface of the water was at least fifteen feet, and the spread of the
jaws quite twenty-five feet."
Strangely enough, a proximate counterpart of this fish, but of mimic size,
was made known to science in 1882. My attention was called by Mr. Streich,
of the German Consulate in Shanghai, to a description of this in the
_Daheim_, an illustrated family paper, published in Leipzig, with an
illustrative figure, from which I inferred that the monster seen by the
crew of the _Philomel_ was only a gigantic and adult specimen of a species
belonging to the same order, perhaps to the same genus, as the
Eurypharynx, adapted to live in the depths of the ocean, and only
appearing upon the surface rarely and as the result of some abnormal
conditions. I give _fac-similes_ of both engravings, in order that my
readers may draw their own comparison. The letter-press of the Daheim is
as follows:--
"_A New Fish._[275]
"The deep-sea explorations of last year, which extended over eight
thousand metres in depth, brought to light some very extraordinary
animals, of which, up to the present date, we have no idea. The most
curious one was found by the French steamer _Le Travailleur_, on which
there was a staff of naturalists, and of the number was M. Milne Edwards.
They were entirely devoted to deep-sea dredging.
"Between Morocco and the Canary Islands, at two thousand three hundred
metres depth, the dredge caught a most wonderful animal, which at the
first glance nobody thought to be a fish. This fish, of which we give
here a picture, dwells on the bottom of the sea where the water is +5°
Celsius,[276] in a kind of red slime composed of the shells of small
Globigerinæ. On account of its curious mouth it has been called
_Eurypharynx Pelicanoides_, _i.e._ the Pelican-like Broad-jaws. This
creature is distinguished from all its class by the peculiar construction
of its mouth, its under jaw being of a structure different from that of
any other fish, possessing only two small teeth and a big pouch of most
expansible skin, similar to the sac which a pelican has on its under jaw.
In this sac it (the Broad-jaw) collects its food, and as its stomach is of
very small dimensions, we may, from analogy with other fishes, conclude
that it digests partly in this sac.
[Illustration: FIG. 77.--EURYPHARYNX PELICANOIDES. (_From the Daheim._)]
"The swimming apparatus of this fish is not much developed, and reduced to
a number of spines erect from the back and the belly.
"The pectoral fins, which are immediately behind the eye, are also very
small, so that we may conclude from this that this fish does not move
much, and is not a good swimmer.
"It only inhabits the bottom of the sea. Its body decreases gradually
backwards till it finishes in a string-like tail. The organs for breathing
are not much developed. Six slits (gill apertures?) allow the water to
enter.
"The colour of the fish (the size of which we do not find in our
authority) is velvet black."
Before proceeding further I must point out that we may dismiss from our
minds the possibility of the so-called sea-serpent being merely a large
example of those marine serpents of which several species and numerous
individuals are known to exist on the coast of many tropical countries,
for these are rarely more than from four to six feet in length, although
Dampier[277] mentions one which he saw on the northern coast of Australia,
which was long (but the length is not specified) and as big as a man's
leg. He gives a curious instance of these biters being bit, which he
observed not far from Scoutens Island, off New Guinea:--
"On the 23rd we saw two snakes, and the next morning another passing by
us, which was furiously assaulted by two fishes that had kept in company
five or six days. They were shaped like mackerel, and were about that
bigness and length, and of a yellow-greenish colour. The snake swam away
from them very fast, keeping his head above water. The fish snapped at his
tail; but when he turned himself that fish would withdraw and another
would snap; so that by turns they kept him employed. Yet he still defended
himself, and swam away at a great pace, till they were out of sight."
Leguat[278] speaks of a marine serpent, over sixty pounds in weight, which
he and his comrades in misfortune captured and tasted, when marooned by
order of the Governor of the Mauritius on some small island off the
harbour, about six miles from the shore. He says:--
"It was a frightful sea-serpent, which we in our great simplicity took for
a large lamprey or eel. This animal seemed to us very extraordinary, for
it had fins, and we knew not that there were any such creatures as
sea-serpents. Moreover, we had been so accustomed to discover creatures
that were new to us, both at land and at sea, that we did not think this
to be any other than an odd sort of eel that we never had seen before, yet
which we could not but think more resembled a snake than an eel. In a
word, the monster had a serpent or crocodile's head, and a mouth full of
hooked, long and sharp teeth.... When our purveyors came we related to
them what had happened to us, and showed them the eel's head, but they
only said they had never seen the like."
In spite of Leguat's impression, I think it was only some species of
conger eel.
Marine serpents are abundant on the Malay coast, and particularly so in
the Indian Ocean. Niebuhr says:--
"In the Indian Ocean, at a certain distance from land, a great many
water-serpents, from twelve to fifteen inches in length, are to be seen
rising above the surface of the water. When these serpents are seen they
are an indication that the coast is exactly two degrees distant. We saw
some of these serpents, for the first time, on the evening of the 9th of
September; on the 11th we landed in the harbour of Bombay."[279]
These sea-snakes are reputed to be mostly, if not entirely, venomous.
Their motion in the water is by undulation in a horizontal, not in a
vertical, direction; they breathe with lungs; their home is on the
surface, and they would perish if confined for any considerable period
beneath it.
[Illustration: FIG. 78.--SCOLIOPHIS ATLANTICUS. Killed on the Sea-shore
near Boston, in 1817, and at that time supposed to be the young of the
Sea-Serpent.]
It is an open question whether conger eels may not exist, in the ocean
depths, of far greater dimensions than those of the largest individuals
with which we are acquainted. Major Wolf, who was stationed at Singapore
while I was there in 1880, gave me information which seems to corroborate
this idea. He stated that when dining some years before with a retired
captain of the 39th Regiment, then resident at Wicklow, the latter
informed him that, having upon one occasion gone to the coast with his
servant in attendance on him, the latter asked permission to cease
continuing on with the captain in order that he might bathe. Having
received permission, he proceeded to do so, and swam out beyond the edge
of the shallow water into the deep. A coastguardsman, who was watching him
from the cliff above, was horrified to see something like a huge fish
pursuing the man after he had turned round towards the shore. He was
afraid to call out lest the man should be perplexed. The man, however,
heard some splash or noise behind him, and looked round and saw a large
head, like a bull-dog's head, projecting out of the water as if to seize
him. He made a frantic rush shoreways, and striking the shallow ground,
clambered out as quickly as possible, but broke one of his toes from the
violence with which he struck the ground. This story was confirmed by a
Mr. Burbidge, a farmer, who stated that on one occasion when he himself
was bathing within a mile or so of the same spot, the water commenced
swirling around him, and that, being alarmed, he swam rapidly in, and was
pursued by something perfectly corresponding with that described by the
other narrator, and which he supposed to be a large conger eel. In each
case the length was estimated at twenty feet. Mr. Gosse gives the greatest
length recorded at ten feet.
Were we only acquainted with a small and certain proportion of the
sea-serpent stories, we might readily imagine that they had been
originated by a sight of some monstrous conger, but there are details
exhibited by them, taken as a whole, which forbid that idea. We must
therefore search elsewhere for the affinities of the sea-serpent.
And first as to those authorities who believe and who disbelieve in its
existence.
Professor Owen, in 1848, attacked the _Dædalus_ story in a very masterly
manner, and extended his arguments so as to embrace the general
non-probability of other stories which had previously affirmed it. He was,
in fact, its main scientific opponent.
Sir Charles Lyell, upon the other hand, was, I believe, persuaded of its
existence from the numerous accounts which he accumulated on the occasion
of his second visit to America, especially evidence procured for him by
Mr. J. W. Dawson, of Pictou, as to one seen, in 1844, at Arisaig, near the
north-east end of Nova Scotia, and as to another, in August 1845, at
Merigomish, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Agassiz also gave in his adhesion to it. "I have asked myself, in
connection with this subject, whether there is not such an animal as the
sea-serpent. There are many who will doubt the existence of such a
creature until it can be brought under the dissecting knife; but it has
been seen by so many on whom we may rely, that it is wrong to doubt any
longer. The truth is, however, that if a naturalist had to sketch the
outlines of an icthyosaurus or plesiosaurus from the remains we have of
them, he would make a drawing very similar to the sea-serpent as it has
been described. There is reason to think that the parts are soft and
perishable, but I still consider it probable that it will be the good
fortune of some person on the coast of Norway or North America to find a
living representative of this type of reptile, which is thought to have
died out."
Mr. Z. Newman was the first scientific man to absolutely affirm his belief
in its existence, and to indicate its probable zoological affinities; and
he was ably followed by Mr. Gosse, who, in the charming work[280] already
frequently quoted, exhaustively discusses the whole question.
Mr. Gosse, however, to my mind, forgoes a great portion of the advantage
of his argument by a too limited acceptance of authorities, and leaves
untouched, as have all who preceded him, the question of the breathing
apparatus of the creature, and also omits insisting, as he might well have
done, on the remarkable coincidence of the seasons and climatic conditions
at and under which the creature ordinarily exhibits itself, which may be
quoted first as an argument in favour of the reality of the different
stories, and, secondly, as affording indications of the nature and habits
of the creature to which they relate.
Both Mr. Newman and Mr. Gosse, moreover, laboured under the disadvantage
of being unacquainted with some of the later stories, such as that of the
_Nestor_ sea-serpent seen in the Straits of Malacca, which appears to
amply substantiate the general conclusion at which they had already,
happily, as I conceive, arrived.
In nearly all the cases quoted, and in all of those where the creature has
appeared in the deep fjords of Norway or in the bays of other coasts, the
date of its appearance has been some time during the months of July and
August, and the weather calm and hot. These last summer conditions, in
high latitudes, do not obtain for long together, so that the auspices
favourable to the appearance of the creature would probably not exist for
more than a few weeks in each season, and during the remainder of the year
it would rest secluded in the depths of the fjords, presuming those to be
its permanent habitation, or in some oceanic home, if, as would seem more
likely to be the case, its appearance in the bays and fjords was simply
due to a temporary visit, made possibly in connection with its
reproduction; for, were its habitation in the fjords constant, we should
expect it to make its appearance annually, instead of at irregular and
distant intervals.
We must also infer that it is a non-air-breathing creature.
Professor Owen, in his very able discussion of the _Dædalus_ story, bases
his main argument against the serpentine character of the creature seen in
this and other instances on there being either no undulation at all of the
body, or a vertical one, which is not a characteristic of serpents, and on
the fact of no remains having ever been discovered washed up on the Norway
coasts. He says:--
"Now, a serpent, being an air-breathing animal, with long vesicular and
receptacular lungs, dives with an effort, and commonly floats when dead,
and so would the sea-serpent, until decomposition or accident had opened
the tough integument and let out the imprisoned gases.... During life the
exigencies of the respiration of the great sea-serpent would always compel
him frequently to the surface; and, when dead and swollen, it would
Prone on the flood, extended long and large,
Lie floating many a rood.
Such a spectacle, demonstrative of the species if it existed, has not
hitherto met the gaze of any of the countless voyagers who have traversed
the seas in so many directions."
But, assuming it to be neither a serpent nor an air-breathing creature,
the very cogent arguments which he applied so powerfully fall to the
ground, and I may at once state that a review of the whole of the reported
cases of its appearance entirely favours the first assumption, while a
little reflection will show the necessity of the latter. No air-breathing
creature, or rather a creature furnished with lungs, could possibly exist,
even for a season only, in the inland bays of populous countries like
Norway and Scotland without continually exposing itself to observation;
but this is not the case. Whereas there is no difficulty in conceiving
that a creature adapted to live in the depths of the ocean could breathe
readily enough at the surface, even for considerable periods; for we know
that fish of many kinds, and notably carp, can retain life for days, and
even weeks, when removed from the water, provided they happen to be in a
moist situation.
Again, a power of constriction, a characteristic of boas and pythons, and
therefore implying an alliance with them, is not necessarily indicated, as
might be supposed, even by the action affirmed in Captain Drevar's story;
for a creature of serpentine form, attacking another, might coil itself
round for the mere purpose of maintaining a hold while it tore its victim
open with its powerful jaws and teeth. This action is simply that of an
eel which, on being hooked, grasps weeds at the bottom to resist capture.
Nor are we bound to accept in any way the captain's suggestion that the
monster gorged its victim after the fashion of a land-serpent. It may as
readily have torn it open and fed on it as an eel might; and it is,
indeed, not unreasonable to suppose that so powerful a monster would find
its prey among large creatures, such as seals, porpoises, and the smaller
cetaceæ.
That the sea-serpent was formerly more frequently seen on the Norwegian
coasts than now I consider probable, as also that its visits were
connected with its breeding season, and discontinued in consequence of the
greater number and larger size of vessels, and especially of the
introduction of steam. As a parallel instance, I may mention that, in the
early days of the settlement of Australia, sperm whales resorted to the
harbours along its coasts for calving purposes, and were sufficiently
numerous to cause the maintenance of what were called "bay whaling
stations" at Hobart Town, Spring Bay, and many other harbours of Tasmania
and South Australia. At the present time, the sperm whale rarely
approaches within ten miles of the coast, and the small whaling fleet
finds scanty occupation in the ocean extending south from the great
Australian bight to the south cape of Tasmania. Mr. Gosse eliminates from
his concluding analysis of sea-serpent stories all those recorded by
Norwegian and American observers, and argues only upon a selected number
resting on British evidence.
By this contraction he loses as a basis of argument a number of accounts
which I consider as credible as those he quotes, and from which positive
deductions might be drawn, more weighty than those of similar, but merely
inferential, character which he employs.
The account of the monster seen by Hans Egede, for example, where the
creature exhibited itself more completely than it did in any of the
instances selected by Mr. Gosse, specifically indicated the possession of
paws, flippers, fins or paddles, while this can only be surmised at, in
the latter cases to which I refer, from the progressive steady motion of
the creature, with the head and neck elevated above the surface, and
apparently unaffected by any undulatory motion of the body. This at once
removes it from the serpent class, without any necessity for the
additional confirmation which the enlarged proportions of the body in
comparison with those of the neck, as given in Egede's amended version,
afford us.
The creature seen in the Straits of Malacca, and one quoted by Mr. Newman,
in the _Zoologist_, exhibit characters which confirm Egede's story. In the
latter instance, "Captain the Hon. George Hope states that, when in H.M.S.
_Fly_, in the Gulf of California, the sea being perfectly calm and
transparent, he saw at the moment a large marine animal, with the head and
general figure of an alligator, except that the neck was much longer, and
that instead of legs the creature had four large flappers, somewhat like
those of turtles, the anterior pair being larger than those of the
posterior. The creature was distinctly visible, and all its movements
could be observed with ease. It appeared to be pursuing its prey at the
bottom of the sea. Its movements were somewhat serpentine, and an
appearance of annulations or ring-like divisions of the body were
distinctly perceptible." Mr. Gosse, commenting on this story, says: "Now,
unless this officer was egregiously deceived, he saw an animal which could
have been no other than an Enaliosaur, a marine reptile of large size, of
sauroid figure, with turtle-like paddles."
In the former case the creature was far more gigantic and robust, in
contradistinction to the slender and serpentine form more usually
observed, and we must consequently infer that there is not merely one but
several distinct species of marine monster, unknown and rarely exhibiting
themselves, belonging to different genera, and perhaps orders, but all
popularly included under the title of "sea-serpent."
The attempt to classify these presents difficulties. Mr. Gosse, however,
has very ably reviewed the somewhat scanty materials at his command, and,
agreeing with the suggestion made originally by Mr. Newman, has elaborated
the argument that one of the old Enaliosaurs exists to the present day.
This form, Palæontology tells us, commenced in the Carboniferous, attained
its maximum specific development in the Jurassic, and continued to the
close of the Cretaceous periods. This rational suggestion is supported by
the collateral argument that some few Ganoid fishes and species of
Terebratula, have continuously existed to the present time; that certain
Placoid fishes, of which we have no trace, and which consequently must
have been very scarce during Tertiary periods, reappear abundantly as
recent species; that the Iguanodon is represented by the Iguana of the
American tropics, and that the Trionychidæ, or river tortoises, which
commenced during the Wealden, and disappeared from thence until the
present period, are now abundantly represented in the rivers of the Old
and the New World.
The points of resemblance between the northern and most often seen form of
the sea-serpent and certain genera of the Enaliosaurs, such as
Plesiosaurus, are a long swan-like neck, a flattened lizard-like head and
progress by means of paddles. A difficulty in this connection arises,
however, in respect to the breathing apparatus. Palæontologists favour the
idea that the Plesiosaurus and its allies were air-breathing creatures
with long necks, adapted to habitual projection above the surface. Such a
construction and habit is, as I have before said, to my mind, impossible
in the case of an animal of so scarce an appearance as the sea-serpent;
and I am incapable of estimating how far the theory is inflexible in
regard to the old forms that I have mentioned. May there not be some
large marine form combining some of the characters of the salamander and
the saurians; may not the pigmy newt of Europe, the large salamander
tenanting the depths of Lake Biwa in Japan, and the famous fossil form,
the _Homo Diluvii Testis_ of Sheuzberg, have a marine cousin linking them
with the gigantic forms which battled in the Oolitic seas? May not the
tuft of loose skin or scroll encircling its head have some connection with
a branchial apparatus analagous to that of the Amphibia; and was not the
large fringe round the neck, like a beard, noticed on the one seen by
Captain Anderson when in the Delta in 1861, of a similar nature?
In conclusion, I must strongly express my own conviction, which I hope,
after the perusal of the evidence contained in the foregoing pages, will
be shared by my readers, that, let the relations of the sea-serpent be
what they may; let it be serpent, saurian, or fish, or some form
intermediate to them; and even granting that those relations may never be
determined, or only at some very distant date; yet, nevertheless, the
creature must now be removed from the regions of myth, and credited with
having a real existence, and that its name includes not one only, but
probably several very distinct gigantic species, allied more or less
closely, and constructed to dwell in the depths of the ocean, and which
only occasionally exhibit themselves to a fortune-favoured wonder-gazing
crew.
NOTE.
It is with great pleasure that I add the following testimony of a belief
in the existence of the sea-serpent, from a country which has not hitherto
been supposed to have any traditions relating to it. My inquiries in
Burmah, as to a belief among its inhabitants in sundry so-called mythical
beings, led me unexpectedly on the track of the following information, for
which I am indebted to the scholarship and courtesy of F. Ripley, Esq.,
Government Translator in the Secretariat Department, Rangoon.
EXTRACT from the _Kavilakhana dépané_, pp. 132-133.
[Author--Mingyi Thiri Mahazeyathu, the Myaunghla Myoza, Nanig-ngan-gya
Wundauk, or Sub-Minister for Foreign Affairs to His Majesty the late
King of Burmah.]
"The creature Nyan is called in the Mágadha language _Tanti-gáha_, in the
Bengáli _Gara_; in the Sakkata, _Gráha_ or _Avagráh_; and in the Burmese,
Nyan.
"Hence are to be found the following passages, viz.:--
"'_Tanti-gáha_--The creature Nyan, of the immense length of one or two
hundred fathoms,' in the _Shri Sariputtara Apadan_.
"'_Graho_ or _Avagraho_--a predatory monster, in shape like an
earthworm,' in the _Amarakosha Abhidhan_;
and
"'_Dvagar samudda maha nady sanga mela táká yazantu vigera itichate_,'
in the commentary of the _Amarakosha Abhidhan_.
"From these works, which contain definitions of two words designative of
the creature Nyan, it will be gathered that there does exist a predatory
monster in the form of an earthworm, which inhabits estuaries and the
mouths of great rivers.
"Regarding the predatory instincts of this creature, it should be
understood that it attacks even such animals as elephants. Hence the
_Dhammathats_, in dealing with the decision of cases of hire of
live-stock, wishing to point out that no fault lies through losses owing
to natural accidents, make the following remarks:--
"'There shall be no fault held if oxen die by reason of a snake
gliding under them.'
"'There shall be no fault held, if buffaloes die by reason of a dove
resting on their horns.'
"'There shall be no fault held if oxen and buffaloes die of their
having eaten a grasshopper.'
"'There shall be no fault held if elephants die by reason of their
having been encoiled in the folds of a Nyan.'
"'There shall be no fault held if horses die by reason of their having
been sucked by bilas.'
"The Poetical Version of the _Pokinnaka Dhammathat_, which is a
compilation of several Dhammathats, in the same strain, says:--
[Here follows a verse, the same in effect as the above.]
"From such passages it will be seen that there is a frightful monster of
extraordinary strength, which is capable of capturing even such animals as
elephants."
"In the form of oath of fealty administered by successive kings to their
feudatories and vassals, the following imprecation is to be found:--
"'May I die through being seized by alligators and Nyans.'"
[Here follows an explanatory note respecting the four species of
danger to be found in the ocean.]
"In the reign of King Alaung-mindara-gyé, the founder of the city of
Ratana Singha--when he went on an expedition against Ayudhara or Yodhaya
(Siam) and was crossing the Martaban river, he lost some two or three
elephants, which were destroyed as soon as they had entered the water. The
King ascertained from the lower country inhabitants that they had been
captured and bitten by the creature Nyan. Two or three elephants were
similarly lost in Ava, when it was also ascertained that they had been
captured by the Nyan. There goes a saying that the Nyan is some one to two
hundred fathoms long. The form of oath of fealty contains an imprecation
in which the Nyan is to fulfil a part. And there are writings which make
mention of its existence."