The various accounts and reports concerning observations of
Sea-Serpents, chronologically arranged and thoroughly discussed; and
criticisms of the papers written about the subject.
An account of the appearance of a Sea-Serpent, published in _Nature_
of Nov. 18, 1880, induced me to make a study of that subject. A few
months afterwards I wrote a little paper for the _Album der Natuur_, a
Dutch periodical, designed to bring the latest progress and problems
of Science in a very popular manner under the eyes of non-scientific
readers.
In that paper I discussed the probability of the existence of an animal
which was unknown to zoologists, but which nevertheless existed, and
gave rise to all the narratives of the Great Sea-Serpent.
In January, 1889, I happened to come across a paper on the same
subject by Mr. HENRY LEE. In this work “_Sea Monsters Unmasked_” the
sea-serpent is explained in several manners, as having been a row
of porpoises following one another, as some gigantic sea-weed, as
huge calamaries, and though hesitatingly as any still unknown animal
belonging to a genus of reptiles, the representatives of which are only
known in the fossil state.
Having given another explanation in my above-mentioned paper, and
seeing that Mr. LEE did not mention my supposition, I am now so bold as
to repeat my attempt at explaining the Sea-Serpent in another manner; I
have chosen the English language as being known to all zoologists and
to all navigators.
The Sea-Serpents and other serpents of extraordinary dimensions, quoted
by ARISTOTELES (_History of Animals_, Book 8, chapt. 28), PLINIUS
(_Naturalis Historiae_, Lib. 4, cap. 23, Lib. 8, cap. 14), VALERIUS
MAXIMUS (_de Factis Dictisque Memorabilibus_, Lib. 1, cap. 8, 1st.
century), FLORUS (Lib. 2), SENECA (litt. 82), SILVIUS ITALICUS (Lib.
6), AULUS GELLIUS (Lib. 6, cap. 3), OROSIUS, ZONARES, DIODORUS SICULUS,
VOLETERRANUS (_Commentariorum Urbanorum_ libri 38, book 12), PETR.
MARTYR (_Decad._ 1, lib. 10), BAKIUS (_Posidonii Vita et Reliquiae_, p.
115), AELIANUS, VERGILIUS, etc., were most probably nothing but pythons.
The various kinds of _Serpens marinus_ alluded to by ARISTOTELES and
PLINIUS, and afterwards described and figured by many other authors,
evidently belong to the sea-eels, e. g. those of _Père_ JEAN BAPTISTE
LABAT in 1722, or were doubtless real sea-snakes, which reach no
greater length than about twelve feet.
For these reasons we will pass all the descriptions of these different
animals, and review only reports of no earlier date than the year 1500
A. D.
Having examined all the descriptions and figures of the Great
Sea-Serpent published from 1500 A. D. up to this day, we come to the
conclusion, as we have already stated above, that some of the so-called
sea-serpents were fishes of slender form, others were cuttles of
extraordinary dimensions (_Cephalopoda Decapoda Chondrophora_). In
all these cases it is not impossible, and sometimes not difficult for
a zoologist, who is familiar with these creatures and their habits,
to explain those observations, but the greater part of the accounts
of Great Sea-Serpents do _not_ agree with the well-known shape of
sea-weeds and cuttles, _nor_ with the habits of porpoises. Mr. LEE
tries a few times to identify the Sea-Serpent with these kinds
of animals, but all who saw the sea-serpent moving with vertical
undulations, and figured it thus, knew the habits of those animals, and
some of them testified, that it could not have been porpoises, which
they knew well enough to be sure of it. I will add here that porpoises
move irregularly and have dorsal fins, which must of course be visible
whenever they appear on the surface, whilst in none of the accounts
mentioning the sea-serpent moving in vertical undulations, there is any
question of dorsal fins visible on the coils of the sea-serpent.
But let us now pass to the accounts that have come within our reach,
and peruse them in order of their date.
* * * * *
=1=.--1522.--(See OLAUS MAGNUS, _Historia de gentibus_, etc.) “There
is also another serpent of an astonishing size in an island called
Moos, in the diocese of Hammer: which portends a change in the Kingdom
of Norway, as a comet does in the whole world, as it was seen, anno
1522, raising itself high above the surface of the water and circling
like a spire. Seen from afar this serpent was estimated by conjecture
to be fifty cubits long; this event was followed by the banishment of
King Christiernus and by a great persecution of the Bishops; and it
also showed the destruction of the country, as Isidorus tells us of the
birds of Diomedes.”
In the original Latin we read _atque in modum sphaerae convolvens_ (and
wrinkling like a ball), but as this has no sense, I am convinced that
we have to do with a misprint, and that the author evidently wrote
_atque in modum spirae convolvens_, which I have translated above “and
circling like a spire”. This evidently signifies that the observer saw
the animal swimming with vertical undulations, parts of which were
visible above the surface of the water.
Further we must direct our attention to the statement that the animal
raised itself high above the surface of the water.
Finally that it was estimated to be fifty cubits long, i. e. about
seventy-five feet.
* * * * *
OLAUS MAGNUS, the Archbishop of Upsala wrote in 1555 as follows:
“They who, either to trade, or to fish, sail along the shores of
Norway, relate with concurring evidence a truly admirable story, namely
that a very large serpent of a length of upwards of 200 feet, and 20
feet in diameter lives in rocks and holes near the shore of Bergen; it
comes out of its caverns only on summernights and in fine weather to
devour calves, lambs and hogs, or goes into the sea to eat cuttles,
lobsters and all kinds of sea-crabs. It has a row of hairs of two feet
in length, hanging from the neck, sharp scales of a dark colour, and
brilliant flaming eyes. It attacks boats, and snatches away the men, by
raising itself high out of the water, and devours them: and commonly
this does not happen without a terrible event in the Kingdom, without
a change being at hand, either that the princes will die or will be
banished, or that a war will soon break out.”
This narrative tells us that the sea-serpent frequents the shores of
Norway, that it appears mostly in summer, that it has large dimensions,
and a considerable thickness. It has a row of hairs hanging down from
its neck, its colour is dark, its eyes are brilliant and flaming. It
only appears in fine weather.
We consider its devouring hogs, lambs and calves, and its appearance
on summernights on land to take its prey to be a fable. The eating of
squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters may be a fiction, or it may have
been truly witnessed, the animal chewing them with its head above
water, as seals and sea-lions do. The story of snatching away a man
from the ships is evidently confounded with another tale, as it is not
mentioned anywhere else with regard to the sea-serpent. It evidently
refers to gigantic calamaries which occasionally attack boats and
snatch away one of the crew. (See LEE, _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, I,
_The Kraken_.). Its being covered with scales must be fictitious too,
for they who saw a sea-serpent at a short distance, are unanimous in
stating that it had no scales but a smooth skin.
[Illustration: Fig. 14.--The sea-serpent as represented by Olaus
Magnus.]
On the same page of the text, OLAUS MAGNUS has figured a sea-serpent
in the act of swallowing a man from a boat, which has just anchored
on a rock, wherein the serpent has its hole. I give a facsimile of
that figure in Fig. 14.--Mr. HENRY LEE who mostly sees calamaries
and no other animals in the tales and figures representing the Great
Sea-Serpent, tells us that: “the presumed body of the serpent was one
of the arms of the squid, and the two rows of suckers thereto belonging
are indicated in the illustration by the medial line traversing its
whole length (intended to represent a dorsal fin) and the double row of
transverse septa, one on each side of it”.--As to the snatching away a
man of the crew, I quite agree with Mr. LEE, as already said above,
but as to the figure of the serpent itself, I am strongly convinced
that OLAUS MAGNUS or his draughtsman had no other intention than to
delineate a large snake, and they gave it the large scales, mentioned
in the text, but the scales are badly drawn. They further gave it a
medial row of scales, as all snakes have such a medial row.
* * * * *
GESNER in his _Nomenclator aquatilium animantium_, 1560, gives two
figures of the sea-serpent of which I give facsimiles in Fig. 15 and
16.--GESNER says that there is a large map of Scandinavia in OLAUS
MAGNUS’ work, and on this map our fig. 15 is drawn in the Baltic Sea,
and our fig. 16 in the Atlantic Ocean. In the original edition of 1555
there is but a small map of Scandinavia, which shows only the heads
of several animals in the sea. I therefore conclude that there still
exists another edition of MAGNUS’ work which I don’t know. Returning
to our figures we immediately observe that the drawer has delineated
large _snakes_, the one without scales, and swimming with _vertical_
undulations, the other with large scales, and that he did not intend
to represent a dorsal fin by the medial line, but only a medial row of
scales, unequal to the lateral. On the head three transversal rows of
protuberances are visible, which evidently serve to represent the long
hairs hanging down from the neck of the animal.
[Illustration: Fig. 15.--The sea-serpent illustrating the text of
Gesner.]
Of the sea-serpent GESNER tells us:
“In the Baltic or Swedish Ocean are found certain yellow sea-serpents
of thirty or forty feet in length, which, when not provoked, do not
harm any one. Of these sea-serpents OLAUS MAGNUS gives the following
figure in his Map of Scandinavia”.--(See our fig. 15).
[Illustration: Fig. 16.--The second sea-serpent illustrating the same
work.]
“On the same Map there is another sea-serpent, a hundred or two hundred
feet long (as says the text, or three hundred, as states the number
added to the figure), which sometimes appears near Norway in fine
weather, and is dangerous to Sea-men, as it snatches away men from the
ships. Mariners tell that it incloses ships, as large as our trading
vessels, made on our rivers and lakes, by laying itself round them in
a circle, and that the ship then is turned upside down. It sometimes
makes such large coils above the water, that a ship can go through one
of them. I give the figure as it is on the Map.”--(See our fig. 16.)
Here we meet with three other characteristics of the sea-serpent: it is
harmless when not provoked, it encircles ships and turns them upside
down, and its coils are so gigantic that a ship can go through one
of them. The first characteristic is a real one: the sea-serpent is
perfectly harmless, if not provoked. We observe this in almost every
account. The other two are of course extraordinary exaggerations of its
dimensions.
The two figures of GESNER copied on a reduced scale, with an extract of
his text, appeared in the _Graphic_ of January 29, 1876.
* * * * *
The text in the edition of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work printed at Basle in 1567
is the same as that of the first edition printed in 1555 at Rome, but
the figure between the text differs, and is doubtless a combination of
our figg. 14 and 16, in miniature; see our fig. 17.
[Illustration: Fig. 17.--The sea-serpent as represented in the Basle
edition of Olaus Magnus’ work.]
[Illustration: Fig. 18.--The sea-serpent, illustrating the Map of
Scandinavia in the Basle edition of Olaus Magnus’ work.]
On the map of Scandinavia subjoined to the work also occurs a figure of
the sea-serpent, which we have copied in our fig. 18.--This figure does
not claim our attention; it represents an eel or a snake, it has no
scales.--Not so fig. 17: it distinctly shows dorsal scales and ventral
plates, just as snakes have. This seems to me a confirmation of my
opinion that in all these figures the drawers had no other intention
than to delineate a large snake, without any notion of the arms of a
calamary. As to the seizing of a man, we believe that a large calamary
was the robber, whose deed is wrongly attributed to the sea-serpent.
Last not least, it distinctly shows the long hairs, hanging down from
its neck, a true mane, and several credible persons declare to have
seen them.
* * * * *
ALDROVANDUS, 1640, believes that the sea-serpent of the Baltic or
Swedish Ocean is the same as that of the Norwegian Ocean. I believe he
is right. Moreover he repeats the texts of OLAUS MAGNUS and GESNER.
His figures are enlargements of the figures on the Map of Scandinavia,
which accompanies the edition of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work, unknown to me,
and mentioned above. He only omits the water, the ship and the man in
its mouth. Of his figures I don’t give copies, because they are exact
enlargements of our fig. 15 and 16.--
* * * * *
=2=.--1640?--(See ADAM OLEARIUS, _Gottorfische Kunstkammer_, Ed. I,
1650, Ed. II, 1674) “and that this is true has not long ago been
confirmed by a Swedish nobleman at Gottorf, who declared to have
heard from the Burgomaster of Malmoi, a trustworthy man, that, whilst
standing on a hill on the Norwegian coast, he saw in the calm water
a large serpent, which seen from afar, had the thickness of a wine
barrel, and 25 windings. These serpents are said to appear on the
surface of the water only in calm weather and at certain times.”
Here again we have the statement, that in the Norwegian sea, and most
probably in the Sound between Sweden and Danmark, a large animal was
seen, looking like a huge serpent, and the confirmation that it comes
to the surface of the water only in calm weather and at certain times.
I beg the reader to fix his attention on those apparently insignificant
statements, as it will be seen that they are given several times
independant of one another.
* * * * *
JONSTON in his _Historia naturalis_, and his _Theatrum universale
omnium animalium_ of which several editions appeared in 1653, 1657,
1660, 1665, 1718 (edited by RUYSCH, quoted by Prof. W. D. PECK in
_Mem. Amer. Acad._ 1818, Vol. IV), 1764 and 1768, repeats the tales of
OLAUS MAGNUS, and the figures of GESNER and ALDROVANDUS.--
* * * * *
MILTON in his _Paradise Lost_, printed in 1667, comparing Satan with
huge monsters, also mentions the sea-serpent of the Norwegians, calling
it Leviathan (Book I, verse 192-208):
“Thus Satan, talking to his nearest mate,
With head up-lift above the wave, and eyes
That sparkling blaz’d; his other parts besides
Prone on the flood, extended long and large,
Lay floating many a rood, in bulk as huge
As whom the fables name of monstrous size
Titanian, or Earth-born, that war’d on Jove,
Briareus, or Typhon, whom the den
By ancient Tarsus held; or that sea-beast
Leviathan, which God of all his works
Created hugest that swim th’ ocean stream:
Him, haply slumb’ring on the Norway foam,
The pilot of some small night founder’d skiff
Deeming some island, off, as seamen tell,
With fixed anchor in his scaly rind,
Moors by his side under the lee, while night
Invests the sea, and wished morn delays.”
We observe that he mixes here also another story of a large sea-monster
on which sea-men, believing it some island, will anchor, a story told
about the Kraken and about the sperm-whales.
* * * * *
CHARLETON in 1668 quotes only ALDROVANDUS and OLAUS MAGNUS, giving
neither description nor figures.
* * * * *
=3=.--1687.--(RAMUS, _Norges Beskrivelse_, quoted by PONTOPPIDAN).
“In the year 1687 a Great Sea-Serpent was seen several times by several
persons in the Damsfjord, and once by eleven persons together. The
weather was calm, but as soon as the sun set and the wind began to
blow, it left the fjord, and like one who runs out a coil of rope can
know the length thereof, so one could see how long it was, before it
had wound off all its coils, and stretched itself at full length.”
In this account we read again that the animal is seen in calm weather
and that it shows coils or windings. For the first time the fact is
mentioned that it can stretch itself, evidently in a straight line.
Further on we shall read this several times.
* * * * *
=4=.--1720.--(PONTOPPIDAN, _Det förste Forsög paa Norges naturlige
Historie_).
“THORLACK THORLACKSEN has told me that in 1720 a sea-serpent had been
shut up a whole week in a little inlet, into which it came by high tide
through a narrow entrance of seven or eight fathoms deep, and that
eight days afterwards, when it had left the inlet, a skin of a snake or
serpent was found. One end of the skin had entirely sunk into the water
of the inlet, and no one could guess how long it was, the inlet in
which the skin partly lay, being several fathoms deep. The other end of
this skin was washed ashore by the current, where everybody could see
it; apparently it could not be used, for it consisted of a soft, slimy
mass. THORLACKSEN was a native of the harbour of Kobbervueg”.
It is evident that a true sea-serpent visited the little fjord daily
during that week, most probably in its pursuit of fish, for the
sea-serpent is sufficiently known to the Norwegians, and if it had been
an animal different from the common Norwegian sea-serpent, I am sure
that it would not have been called a sea-serpent. It is also stated
that the animal left the inlet. But the skin found afterwards was
certainly nothing else but a putrified long arm or tentacle of a great
calamary. The soft slimy nature of the skin sufficiently proves my
hypothesis. The great calamary died in the fjord or inlet, and its long
dead arm was washed ashore by the current, while the body sunk.
* * * * *
=5=.--1734, July 6.--The earliest account of HANS EGEDE’S encounter
with the sea-serpent we find in his work published in Danish at
Kopenhagen in 1740, entitled: “_A Full and Particular Relation of his
voyage to Greenland, as a Missionary, in the year 1734_”.
I have not had the opportunity of consulting this work, but the passage
about the sea-serpent runs most probably as follows:
“Anno 1734, July. On the 6th. appeared a very terrible sea-animal,
which raised itself so high above the water, that its head reached
above our main-top. It had a long sharp snout, and blew like a whale,
had broad, large flappers, and the body was, as it were, covered with a
hard skin, and it was very wrinkled and uneven on its skin; moreover on
the lower part it was formed like a snake, and when it went under water
again, it cast itself backwards and in so doing it raised its tail
above the water, a whole ship-length from its body: That evening we had
very bad weather.”
In the same year there appeared a German edition of this work, entitled
_Ausführliche und Wahrhafte Nachricht vom Anfange und Fortgange der
Groenländischen Mission_, etc., Hamburg, 1740, 4^o, which I have not
been able to consult either.
I don’t know whether there is an English or a French edition. In the
_Illustrated London News_ of Oct. 28, 1848, the writer of the article
_Evidences of the former appearance of the Sea-Serpent_ translated the
passage from a Danish copy of EGEDE’S _Full and Particular Relation_
in the British Museum. Evidently he was not very well up in the Danish
language, for his translation is partly incorrect. I am convinced that
in the original text EGEDE does not mention the exact locality where he
saw the animal. The translator tells us that it was off the south coast
of Greenland, which of course is incorrect, as Greenland has no south
coast. Of “sea-animal” he makes “sea-monster”, for “above our main-top”
he has “on a level with our main-top”, for “it blew like a whale” he
has “it blew water almost like a whale”, for “its body was as it were
covered with a hard skin” he has “its body was covered with shell-fish,
or scales”, and some parts are not translated at all.
In 1738 HANS EGEDE wrote a _Journal of his mission_, in which he did
not mention the meeting, but his son PAUL EGEDE in the continuation of
this Journal, entitled _Continuation af Relationerne betreffende den
Groenlandske Mission_, Kjoebenhavn, 1741, gives a full account of it,
which we have translated above word for word.
[Illustration: Fig. 19.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Hans Egede, drawn
by Bing.]
I have not had the means of consulting the German translation of this
work, entitled _Fortgesetzte Relationen die Groenländische_ _Mission
betreffend_, Kopenhagen, 1741, so I cannot say anything about the text
or figures, but the translation which I found in the German edition
of PONTOPPIDAN’S _Natural History of Norway_ is correct. Not so the
English translation entitled _Journal of the Mission to Greenland_, 2d.
Vol. There we find, according to Mr. LEE who quotes the passage in his
_Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, first _sea-monster_ instead of _sea-animal_,
further, that _it spouted water like a whale_, instead of _it blew like
a whale_. There is a great difference between these two expressions.
A whale does not spout _water_ as is generally believed and figured.
Further, that the body seemed to be covered _with scales_, instead of
_with a hard skin_ or _crust_, for the Danish _skiell_ or _skiaell_ is
singular, and not plural. Finally, that the tail above the water was a
whole ship-length from the _head_ instead of from the _body_, for the
Danish _Kroppen_ signifies “the body”. Of course I cannot say anything
of the figures in this edition.
In the original Danish work of PAUL EGEDE there is a map of a part of
the coast of Greenland and of the Davis’ Straits, called Baals Rivier,
on which is situated the Danish Colony, the Good Hope (Gothaab). As it
was generally done in those days, Mr. BING, a brother-missionary of
EGEDE’S, drew on his map not only the animal but also the vessel in
the sea. I give here a facsimile of the figure of the animal, without
the ship. We distinctly see that the animal has rather a serpentlike
form with a large head, showing formidable teeth, an eye with a heavy
eye-brow, and a nostril; two flappers on the fore-part of the body, the
uneven skin, and a tail ending in a point.
On the same map there is also another figure, showing the animal’s
tail, after it had plunged back into the water. The tail is again
figured terminating in a point.
[Illustration: Fig. 20.--The same individual plunging back into the
water.]
We shall do well to observe the fact that the figure is an accurate
illustration of the text with regard to the animal blowing like a
whale; the breath which the animal exhales immediately after having
been under water a long time, is condensed in the cold air and forms
little curling clouds.
In the original Danish work of HANS EGEDE, entitled _A Full and
Particular Relation_, etc., of which we have spoken above, there is
also a figure. Though I have not had the opportunity to consult this
work, I am thoroughly convinced, that the map of Baals Rivier with the
two figures of the animal are quite the same, true facsimiles. The
above mentioned translator drew this figure on a reduced scale for his
article in the _Illustrated London News_, and as his text is incorrect,
his figure is so too, for he changed the rough skin into scales,
according to his own translation. (See our fig. 21.)
Afterwards Mr. LEE in his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_ made use of the
figure of the _Illustrated London News_ and so gave his readers again
an altered figure. For history’s sake I show here a true facsimile of
the figure as it appeared in the _Illustrated London News_, Oct. 28,
1848, and in Mr. LEE’S _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, London, 1883. A reduced
copy of it also appeared in the _Illustrirte Zeitung_ of February 3,
1877.
[Illustration: Fig. 21.--The drawing of Bing, as reprinted and altered
in the Illustrated London News of 1848.]
In the Danish work of HANS EGEDE _Det gamle Groenlands nye
Perlustration_ we read: “that it was seen at 64° lat. before the
colony”. “Its body was as thick as the ship and three or four times
longer”. Moreover the description of the animal is the same as in PAUL
EGEDE’S _Continuation_ of the Journal.
In the German edition of this work, entitled _Des alten Groenlands neue
Perlustration_, Copenhagen, 1742, we read: “that it was seen before the
Danish Colony, the Good Hope, that it had two broad flappers on the
fore-part of the body”.
In the Dutch edition, entitled: _Beschrijving van Oud Groenland_,
Delft, 1746, the translator did not allow himself so many liberties as
the English and the German translators did, but was more correct in his
expressions.
In the French edition, entitled _Description et histoire naturelle du
Groenland_, Copenhagen et Genève, 1763, the translator allowed himself
the liberty to tell his readers that “when the animal, which was
covered _with scales_, plunged back into the water, it did so with _the
belly turned upwards_!”
In the same year appeared a second German edition (translated from the
French) entitled _Beschreibung und Naturgeschichte von Groenland_,
Berlin, 1763, in which we even read that the animal _lay upon the water
with its belly turned upwards_ when it plunged back into the water!
In many respects the figure of Mr. BING and EGEDE’S text complete each
other.
Let us now have a look at both the text and the figures. We may do
this most safely, being convinced of the truth of EGEDE’S words and
BING’S figure. EGEDE “was a truthful, pious, and single-minded man,
possessing considerable powers of observation, and a genuine love
of natural history; his statements are modest, accurate, and free
from exaggeration. His illustrations bear the unmistakable signs of
fidelity.” (LEE, _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, p. 65.)
From what has been said of the animal, seen by EGEDE, we gather that it
appeared on the 6th. of July, 1734, in fine weather before the Danish
Colony the Good Hope, Davis Straits, Greenland; (EGEDE says: “the
following evening we had very bad weather”, so we may conclude that:)
the weather was fine, when the animal was seen; it had a considerable
length, say a hundred feet, and was much thicker than a snake of those
dimensions would be, say some eight feet; it raised its head, its neck
and the fore-part of its trunk high above the surface of the water, it
had a long, sharp snout, it blew like a whale (the breath of an animal
as large as a whale must of course have been distinctly visible in
those cold regions; I also wish to fix the reader’s attention on the
figure where the animal is not spouting a stream of water, but where
its breath is condensed by the cold, and forms little curling clouds
of vapour). It had broad and large flappers. EGEDE does not say: it
had broad flappers on the forepart of the trunk; as Egede does not
state that the figure, made by Mr. BING aboard his ship, directly after
the appearance of the animal, is not truthful, we must consider it as
being correct; so the animal had two large and broad flappers on the
fore-part of the trunk. The body _seemed_ to be covered with a hard
skin. For truth’s sake EGEDE wrote _seemed_, which is well done; for a
hard skin or crust would not have been _wrinkled_ when the animal bends
its body. Like all known air-breathing sea-animals of those dimensions
the animal must of course have had under its skin a relatively thick
layer of bacon, and I myself have often seen that the skin of sea-lions
and seals wrinkled, when the animal bent its body in such a manner as
the Sea-Serpent of EGEDE did. And we shall afterwards repeatedly see
that the sea-serpent has no scales but a smooth skin, as seals have.
And if the animal could have scales, they would be very large ones,
considering its colossal dimensions, in which case it must have been
easy to see the scales from a distance, though they were wet with the
water; but I can hardly believe that one can say of an animal, seen at
some distance and quite wet and shining with the water, whether it has
a crust or a soft skin. The latter has been the case, for the animal
showed wrinkles when bending its body. Its lower part was formed like
that of a snake, by which EGEDE evidently means to say that it was
perfectly round and tapered to the end of the tail, and that he _did
not see_ any appendages (which does not exclude their presence, for
the middle part of the body remained invisible, hidden by the water).
The creature plunged _backwards_ into the water. It evidently has a
considerable flexibility, as is also shown in the figure. Consequently
it cannot have been a snake, which has no dorso-ventral flexibility,
nor a gigantic calamary, as Mr. LEE thinks, which has no flexibility at
all! It had a very flexible, long tail, almost one half of the length
of its body, which was distinctly seen by EGEDE and figured by Mr.
BING. The tail of the animal, being of a considerable length, tapered
in a point, and had no caudal fins, neither horizontal nor vertical
ones. The figure shows an eye with a heavy eye-brow, a nostril, and
teeth; the flappers have external visible fingers, as sea-lions have;
those of porpoises and dolphins are without them. Afterwards we shall
more than once have occasion to observe that the sea-serpent’s head is
drawn by BING too large, and the neck too short.
[Illustration: Fig. 22.--Bing’s drawing as copied by Pontoppidan.]
Mr. LEE says in his frequently quoted work _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_,
“The sea-monster seen by EGEDE was of an entirely different kind”
(viz. from those mentioned by MAGNUS and PONTOPPIDAN). I am of the
opinion that if Mr. LEE had written: The sea-monster seen by EGEDE was
the same, but seen in an entirely different position, condition and
direction, he would have been nearer the truth; for careful inquiry
has shown me that the sea-serpents of MAGNUS and PONTOPPIDAN are the
same as those which still appear in the Norwegian seas, and those
have all the characters of EGEDE’S animal. Moreover we saw that the
animal, mentioned in our accounts 1, 2, 3 and 4, and according to the
descriptions of MAGNUS and GESNER had the following characteristics:
1. It raises itself out of the water to a considerable height. 2. It
swims with vertical undulations. 3. It has an enormous length, probably
upwards of a hundred feet. 4. It is much thicker than a snake of the
same length would be. 5. It has a row of hairs hanging down from its
neck. 6. Its colour is dark. 7. Its eyes are brilliant and flaming.
8. Its food consists of squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters. 9. It
is harmless, if not provoked. 10. It appears in fine weather. 11.
It can stretch itself in a straight line.--Of these facts the 1st.,
3d., 4th., and 10th. are stated by EGEDE; he could not mention the
2d., 8th., and 11th., because he did not see the animal swimming or
eating. Most probably he could not see the 5th., because he did not
see the animal on its back, but as the figure shows, somewhat on its
belly and somewhat from aside; moreover there are individuals without
a mane. EGEDE says nothing of its colour, its eyes, its harmlessness.
Its colour was evidently a dark brown one, the common colour of large
sea-animals, else he would have called it brilliant white, or green,
or red. The eyes are figured by BING, though not described by EGEDE,
but in PONTOPPIDAN’S work we read in a note to Chapt. VIII, § 7, that
Mr. BING mentioned to his brother-in-law, Parson SYLOW, at Hougs in the
parish of Bergen, that the eyes seemed to be reddish and like a burning
fire. So its harmlessness is the only fact we cannot derive with
certainty from EGEDE’S account.
PONTOPPIDAN relating EGEDE’S observation of the monster gives a copy
of Mr. BING’S figure, but as often occurred in those days, it is
not copied with great accuracy, and BING’S drawing has been altered
by PONTOPPIDAN so as to give quite another figure. (Our fig. 22 is
a facsimile of that of the German edition.) Mr. BING was right in
figuring the vaporous breath of the animal, and PONTOPPIDAN changes it
wrongly into a waterspout of more than 100 feet long! PONTOPPIDAN is
convinced, when seeing BING’S figure, that there are several species of
sea-serpents, all belonging to the same genus. I do not wish to discuss
this point.
[Illustration: Fig. 23.--Bing’s drawing as altered in Dr. Hamilton’s
work.]
Still more exaggerated is the figure of JARDINE’S _Naturalist’s
Library_, or rather that which Dr. R. HAMILTON presents to his readers.
He makes of it a serpentine dragon which has also the power of spouting
a splendid set of water some twenty feet high, a water-mass equalling
nearly half the volume of the animal’s body!
* * * * *
In his _Essay towards a Natural History of Serpents_, 1742, Mr. OWEN
repeats only (p. 14, and p. 143) the tales and reports of OLAUS MAGNUS
and GESNER.
* * * * *
=6=.--1743?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“It is said that a few
years ago a sea-serpent stranded on the cliffs near Amund in Nordfjord,
perhaps with high water, and died there and the carrion also caused a
dreadful smell.”
* * * * *
=7=.--1744?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“It is also told that a
sea-serpent stranded near the Isle of Karmen and that the stranding of
sea-serpents took place in more localities.”
There is nothing strange in the stranding of sea-serpents. Unluckily
the fear of the Norwegian people of sea-serpents is great enough to
keep them far away from them, even from their carrions, and so these
accounts don’t mention anything as a result of closer investigation.
* * * * *
=8=.--1745?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 1, note).--“A fisherman
relates to me that, on Sundsland, two miles from Bergen, he once saw a
long, large and strange animal so close to his boat, that the water,
brought in motion by the animal, dashed against it, but immediately it
disappeared again under water. The head resembled that of a seal, its
skin was also as woolly, but the body was as thick and as long as a
yacht of fifty tons, and the tail, which seemed to be about thirty-five
feet long, tapered towards the end which was as pointed as a boat-hook.”
Though PONTOPPIDAN did not seem to believe that this animal was his
sea-serpent, I am convinced that such was indeed the case, because
the whole description is exactly that of the animal. It is remarkable
that all the persons who saw the sea-serpent so close to their boat,
as this fisherman did, agree in giving it a smooth skin; now seals
when wet have also a smooth skin, and our fisherman was near enough to
the animal to detect the real nature of such a skin, viz. that it is
_hairy_, or as he expresses himself _woolly_. We shall afterwards more
than once meet with statements in which the head is compared with that
of a seal. The head, though resembling that of a seal, was of course
much larger. The body was as thick and as long as a yacht of fifty
tons, say about forty feet, and the tail was about thirty-five feet in
length, and tapered to its pointed end, like the animal of EGEDE and
those of the former writers MAGNUS, OLEARIUS and RAMUS, who compared
the body with that of a snake. As the fisherman mentions the length of
the tail, it is evident that he could see the beginning of it, so that
it may be supposed that there was a difference in thickness between the
body and the tail.
* * * * *
=9=.--1746, August.--(PONTOPPIDAN, _Det förste Forsög_,
_etc._).--PONTOPPIDAN relates:
“Last winter I happened to meet the Royal Commander and Pilot-general
at Bergen, Mr. LORENZ VON FERRY, and we spoke about this subject.
He told me that for a long time he had doubted the existence of the
sea-serpent, but that at last his experiences in 1746 had convinced
him. And though I could not say anything of importance against it, he
ordered to my satisfaction and that of others, two seamen, who were
with him in his boat, and had seen the animal and its blood which
coloured the water red after a shot of VON FERRY at it, to appear
before the public court of justice at Bergen. What those men confirmed
on oath may be found in the following instrument which I received in
original, and which I therefore think valuable enough to communicate in
extenso:”
“ALBERT CHRISTIAN DASS, His Royal Majesty’s Stadtholder at Bergen,
HANS CHRISTIAN GARTNER, His Royal Majesty’s Councillor of Justice
and Commerce, at the same time Secretary of the town, together with
JAN CLIES, OLE SIMENSEN, OLE BRINCHMAND, JOERGEN KOENIG for CONRAD
VON LANGE, MATTHIAS GRAM for ELIAS PETRUS TUCHSEN, CLAUS NATLER for
DIDRICH HASLOP, JOCHEM FOEGH for HENRICH HIORT, and JOERGEN WIERS for
HANS CHRISTIAN BYSZING, sworn citizens and additional deniers there,
declare, that on February the 22th., 1751, the Procurator JOHANN REUTZ
appeared before the public court of justice at Bergen, and presented
a paper he had received that day, and bearing the date of the day
before, from the honourable Captain and Pilot-general LORENZ VON FERRY.
And as the services of the appearer are requested in it, to supply
him a judicial hearing of witnesses, concerning the event mentioned
in the same paper, so the appearer, being there for that purpose,
pointed out two men living in this town, named NIELS PETERSEN KOPPER
and NIELS NIELSEN ANGLEWIGEN, begging that these men might be admitted
to a declaration on oath, that all has happened in particulars so as
is mentioned in the paper, which he begged to be registered in said
instrument. The above mentioned paper was read to the witnesses and
runs as follows:
“Mr. JOHANN REUTZ.”
“Sir,”
“In the latter end of August, in the year 1746, as I was on a voyage,
on my return from Trundheim, on a very calm and hot day, having a
mind to put in at Molde, it happened that when we had arrived with my
yacht within a mile of the aforesaid Molde, being at a place called
Jule-Naess, as I was reading in a book, I heard a kind of murmuring
voice from amongst the men at the oars, who were eight in number, and
observed that the man at the helm kept off from the land. Upon this
I inquired what was the matter, and was informed that there was a
sea-serpent before us. I then ordered the man at the helm to keep the
land again, and to come up with this creature of which I had heard so
many stories. Though the fellows were under some apprehension, they
were obliged to obey my orders. In the meantime the sea-snake passed by
us, and we were obliged to tack the vessel about in order to get nearer
to it. As the snake swam faster than we could row, I took my gun which
was loaded with small shot, and fired at it; on this he immediately
plunged under water. We rowed to the place where it sank down (which in
the calm might be easily observed) and lay upon our oars, thinking it
would come up again to the surface; however it did not. Where the snake
plunged down, the water appeared thick and red; perhaps the small shot
might have wounded it, the distance being very little. The head of this
sea-serpent, which it held more than two feet above the surface of the
water, resembled that of a horse. It was of a greyish colour, and the
mouth was quite black, and very large. It had black eyes, and a long
white mane, which hung down from the neck to the surface of the water.
Besides the head and neck, we saw seven or eight folds, or coils, of
this snake, which were very thick, and as far as we could guess there
was a fathom’s distance between each fold. I related this affair in a
certain company, where there was a person of distinction present, who
desired that I would communicate to him an authentic detail of all that
happened; and for this reason two of my sailors who were present at the
same time and place where I saw this monster, namely, NIELS PETERSEN
KOPPER, and NIELS NIELSEN ANGLEWIGEN, will appear in court, to declare
on oath the truth of every particular herein set forth; and I desire
the favour of an attested copy of the said descriptions.”
“I remain, Sir, your obliged servant,”
“L. VON FERRY.”
“Bergen, 21st. February 1751.
“After this the above-named witnesses gave their corporal oaths, and,
with their finger held up according to law, testified and declared the
aforesaid letter or declaration, and every particular set forth therein
to be strictly true. A copy of the said attestation was made out for
the said Procurator REUTZ, and granted by the Recorder. That this was
transacted in our court of justice we confirm with our hand and seals.”
“Actum Bergis, Anno, Die et Loco ut supra.”
“A. C. DASS.” “H. C. GARTNER.”
“J. CLIES.” “O. SIMENSEN.”
“O. BRINCHMAND” “J. KOENIG.”
“M. GRAM.” “C. NATLER.”
“J. FOEGH.” “J. WIERS.”
As to Mr. VON FERRY’S declaration that the head of the sea-serpent
resembled that of a horse, we cannot give another explanation than that
it evidently was held at nearly right angles with the neck, that the
nostrils were wide opened and large, and that the mane on the animal’s
neck altogether must have led him to think so. The statement that the
colour of the head was greyish, apparently contradictory to what had
as yet been said about the animal’s colour, viz., that it is a dark
brown one, may be explained, I think, as follows: the sea-serpent has
a skin as woolly as seals and sea-lions have; it had swum a long time
with its head two feet above the water, and the weather being very hot,
its skin was dried up, and had got a colour quite different from that
when being wet. When wet the common seal has a greenish or brownish
black colour, but when dry a greyish yellow one, with a somewhat
dark greenish hue; and the spots become less visible. So we see that
sea-lions are dark brown when wet, but when lying on the stone border
of their basin in our Zoological Gardens they very soon become dry in
the sunbeams and show a greyish yellow colour. But returning to Mr.
VON FERRY’S sea-serpent, the mouth, however, was black and very large.
The eyes were black, the mane long and white (being dry) hanging down
to the surface of the water. The coils, seven or eight in number, were
very thick and the distance between them was a fathom. The colour of
the coils is not mentioned; we may suppose that they were dark brown.
Prof. W. D. PECK (_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts. Sc._ IV, I, 1818) calls
this account a rational and credible one. “The figure which he”
(PONTOPPIDAN) “gives seems to have been made from the description of
Capt. DE FERRY, the officer above alluded to. In this figure, the head
and jugular region are raised out of the water; a little below the head
is a mane which seems to be inserted all round the back of the neck.
The appearance of this mane was most probably an optical deception, and
was nothing more than the water displayed by the neck in the progress
of the animal through it, returning to its level. It had probably no
mane. But of the existence of the animal, the testimony presented by
the Rev. Bishop is sufficiently conclusive.”
Prof. PECK seems not to have read PONTOPPIDAN so accurately as might
be expected from him, for the figure in PONTOPPIDAN’S work has quite
another origin, as we shall see below. Prof. PECK would not have
written his supposition of the mane, if one of the eye-witnesses of
the animal near Cape Ann (see below, 1817), had seen a mane. Moreover
PONTOPPIDAN asserts that nearly all agree in representing the animal
with a mane, and we shall read of several declarations further on.
As to the colour of the coils, Mr. LEE seems to be at one with me for
in his frequently quoted work _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ he says: “The
supposed coils of the serpent’s body present exactly the appearance of
eight porpoises following each other in line”, and: “I believe that
in every case so far cited from PONTOPPIDAN, as well as that given by
OLAUS MAGNUS, the supposed coils or protuberances of the serpent’s body
were only so many porpoises swimming in line, in accordance with their
habit before mentioned.” If Captain VON FERRY had described the coils
of his serpent as being white or red, Mr. LEE certainly would not have
supposed that they were eight porpoises.
Further Mr. LEE remarks: “If an upraised head, like that of a horse,
was preceding them, it was either unconnected with them, or it
certainly was not that of a snake; for no serpent could throw its body
into those vertical undulations.”
Very well, but if Mr. LEE wishes to explain the coils by porpoises, he
ought to account for the head which preceded them; this he silently
passes by, only saying it was not that of a snake. A fine explanation
indeed!
* * * * *
=10=.--1747?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“Governor BENSTRUP is
said to have had some years ago a similar meeting with the sea-serpent”
(to Mr. VON FERRY’S) “and he has figured it. I should like to possess
this figure to show it to my readers. I, however, show here another one
sent to me by Parson HANS STROEM, which he himself has copied from the
original.”
[Illustration: Fig. 24.--The Sea-Serpent as seen by Governor Benstrup.]
The figure shows a head with a mane, and six coils of the body. The
nostril is indicated, the mouth has no teeth, the eye is large.
It is remarkable that Mr. LEE tells us: “The figure of the sea-serpent
given by PONTOPPIDAN was drawn, he tells us, under the inspection of
a clergyman, Mr. HANS STROM, from descriptions given of it by two of
his neighbours, Messrs. REUTZ and TUCHSEN, of Herroe; and was declared
to agree in every particular with that seen by Captain DE FERRY, and
another subsequent observed by Governor BENSTRUP.”
Not only does not the first part of this statement tally with the words
of PONTOPPIDAN, but also the second part is discrepant, for the learned
Bishop goes on saying: “This figure agrees with the descriptions given
by two of his neighbours Messrs. REUTZ and TUCHSEN.”
Mr. VON FERRY is not mentioned at all on this occasion by PONTOPPIDAN!
Mr. BENSTRUP’S figure has also been copied by Dr. R. HAMILTON in the
volume of _Phocidae_ (seals) of JARDINE’S _Naturalist’s Library_, but
it has been greatly exaggerated. It seems that Dr. R. HAMILTON thought
it to be the same animal as that seen by EGEDE, for he figures both
animals with the same head and features. Of the figure of BENSTRUP too
he makes a serpentine dragon, swimming with corkscrew motions! O horror!
[Illustration: Fig. 25.--Benstrup’s drawing as altered in Dr.
Hamilton’s work.]
* * * * *
=11=.--1748?--Mr. REUTZ of Herröe declared to PONTOPPIDAN that the
drawing of Parson HANS STROEM agreed even in particulars with what he
saw of the serpent several times when he went in his boat to church.
* * * * *
=12=.--1749?--Also Mr. TUCHSEN of Herröe made the same declaration. He
too saw the animal several times when he went to church in his boat.
PONTOPPIDAN adds: “and then I do not even mention many other persons
of the same high rank and trustworthiness. The same Mr. TUCHSEN is the
only one who told me that he distinctly saw the difference in thickness
between the trunk and the tail of the animal, viz., the trunk is not
gradually growing smaller where the tail begins, but becomes smaller
at once and very distinctly. The body is as thick as a barrel of two
hogsheads. The tail is tapering towards its end, which is very pointed.”
This account is remarkable for the reason that it mentions the fact
that the beginning of the tail is distinctly visible. So we must
infer from it that the animal had thighs, and consequently had also
hind-limbs. And knowing that the fore-limbs which Egede saw, are
flappers, the hind-limbs too must be flappers; consequently the animal
has four flappers.
* * * * *
=13=.--1750?--PONTOPPIDAN, telling what he has learned from the
north-sailors says:
“One of these north-sailors tells that he was once so close to the
serpent, that he might have touched its smooth skin.”
Here is stated by a person who saw the sea-serpent close to his boat,
that the skin is smooth, a statement apparently contradictory to that
of the fisherman (n^o. 8), who declared it as woolly as a seal-skin.
The fact is that the one has distinctly recognized the hairy nature of
the skin, whilst the other did not discern it.
* * * * *
=14=.--1751?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 1, note). “An incertain
rumour tells me, that some peasants of Sundmöer have lately captured in
their nets a serpent of eighteen feet with four paws under its belly;
which they brought ashore. Thus it resembled a crocodile. The peasants
in their terror fled from their nets, and by doing so they gave an
opportunity to the serpent to do the same.”
Though the Bishop does not call this animal a sea-serpent, I am sure
it was one. In the Norwegian and Danish languages an Orm is a serpent,
viz., a long slender animal with a rather small head and a pointed
tail; and as it was captured in nets in the sea, it is certain, that
this animal, which PONTOPPIDAN compares with a crocodile, having a
slender and round body like a snake and four paws (or flappers) is
the same as the animal afterwards seen by Captain HOPE (n^o 119) and
compared by him with an alligator. The dimensions not surpassing twenty
feet, the animal must have been very young.
* * * * *
Now let us see what PONTOPPIDAN himself says of the sea-serpent, after
having heard hundreds of eye-witnesses:
“The sea-serpent, serpens marinus, by some people also called Aale
Tust, is the second wonderful and frightful sea-monster which ought
to be studied by him who looks with delight on the great deeds of
the Lord, and which is considered as the greatest wonder next to the
Kraken, which will be described hereafter. Before describing its habit
and shape, I feel again obliged to prove the real existence of the
serpent, as I did before with the mermen.”
The first kind of wonderful and frightful sea-monsters were the
mermen and mermaids. At present, we know with certainty what were
and are the mermen and mermaids of ancient days and our own time.
All zoologists are convinced they were nothing else but sea-cows or
manatees (_Thrichechus manatus L._ and _Thrichechus senegalensis_
DESM.) or dugongs (_Dagungus dugung_ GMEL.). Mr. LEE believes that the
occurrences of mermen and mermaids in the northern seas and even in the
waters round Great-Britain and Ireland “afford some slight hope that
the remarkable rytina (_Rytina borealis_ GMEL.) may not have become
extinct in 1768, as has been supposed, but that it may still exist
somewhat further south than it was met with by its original describer,
STELLER.” Some of the mermen of PONTOPPIDAN were nothing else but
Bladdernosed seals (_Cystophora cristata_ (ERXL) NILSS) as I already
proved in my little paper in the _Album der Natuur_ of 1882, and I see
that Mr. LEE comes to the same conclusion (_Sea Fables Explained_,
_London_, 1883).
We also know with certainty that the Kraken of the Norwegian tales and
the gigantic Octopus of DENYS DE MONTFORT really exist, and that they
are nothing else but gigantic calamaries and cuttles (_Cephalopoda_).
But we don’t know with certainty what the Great-Sea-Serpent really
is. That it exists, has already been stated by the highest scientific
persons, so no doubt need any longer be felt as to that fact.
“If it were not the wise and careful arrangement of the Creator, that
this sea-animal perpetually lives in the depths of the sea, except in
July and August, its pairing-time, during which it appears, when the
sea is quite calm, but dives as soon as the wind ruffles the surface
of the water; if this arrangement, I say, were not thus made for man’s
safety, the existence of the sea-serpent would want fewer proofs, than
even in Norway, thanks to God! is the case, the shores of which are the
only ones of Europe, frequented by this monster.”
Here again it is stated that the sea-serpent is only seen in July
and August (and PONTOPPIDAN believes that these two months are the
pairing-time of the animal), that it only appears in calm weather, and
dives under water as soon as the wind rises. The writer believes that
the animal frequents only the shores of Norway. According to an account
of OLAUS MAGNUS, it seems, however, that the sea-serpent was also seen
in the Baltic Ocean, and we know now for certain that the animal which
EGEDE saw in Davis’ Straits at 64° N. lat., was also our Sea-Serpent.
Evidently our Bishop did not hit on the idea that the Sea-Serpent could
be a migratory animal.
“Like all who are enemies to credulousness I too doubted of the
existence of the sea-serpent, when at last my doubt was dispelled by
incontestable proofs. Amongst our ablest navigators and fishermen of
this country there are many hundreds who prove the existence of the
sea-serpent as eye-witnesses, and they agree pretty well in their
descriptions, though there are many others who declare that they know
the sea-serpent only from the tales of their neighbours. I, however,
in my inquiry hardly met with a person who, when born in the Northern
provinces, did not answer immediately with the greatest certainty and
assurance. Nay, some so-called north-sailors, who are here (in Bergen)
every year for commercial interests, even consider it as a shame to be
earnestly questioned on that subject. They consider this question as
superfluous as that one, whether there exists a cod-fish or an eel.”
We see hereby that in Norway the belief in the existence of the
sea-serpent was as firm as possible amongst the sea-faring people.
“Though no one has ever been able to measure this animal, many
witnesses agree in telling that the serpent must be as long as a
cable, viz., 100 fathoms or 300 ells, whilst it lay on the surface of
the water, so that only here and there behind the head, which is held
upwards, some parts of the back were visible, which were also held
upwards, whilst the serpent bent; and from afar one would have believed
that he saw some tuns or hogsheads, which floated in a line, so that
there was a space between each of them.”
Though the length of a cable or six hundred feet given to the
sea-serpent is exaggerated, it may be more than 100 feet, why not? For
there are other sea-animals, such as the whale, which measures more
than 88 feet, and the fin-fish (_Balaenoptera loops_) which sometimes
attains a length of about 105 feet.
It has been stated to PONTOPPIDAN by most of the eye-witnesses that the
animal shows by its vertical undulations several coils above the water,
and that these coils resembled from afar tuns or hogsheads floating in
a line. It is very remarkable that these facts are repeatedly stated by
witnesses who are independent of one another, even by persons who never
heard of a sea-serpent.
“The head of all these animals has rather a high and broad forehead;
some, however, have a sharp snout, others a quadrangular beak as cows
and horses have, with large nostrils, and on the sides there are a few
stiff hairs, or bristles, as other animals have with a good nose. And
that the sea-serpent has a good nose, is proved by its flying away at
the smell of castoreum, which the people who go out in summer to fish
on the great bank, will never forget to take with them.”
The various ways of describing the head may be owed to this that
different persons saw the head in different positions, that some of
them saw it for such a short moment that it was impossible to say
with certainty what form it had. It is not always explicable why
one describes the head of an animal in one way and another in quite
another. As to me I see in the head of a seal that of an otter, others
distinctly see a man’s or a cat’s head in it, and the people in the
service of the Zoological Gardens in the Hague exclaim “why, I can very
well understand why that animal is called a sea-dog; it has a dog’s
head, to be sure!” The fact is that we don’t know with any certainty
the form of the sea-serpent’s head, but _most probably_ it resembles
that of a sea-lion, which has also a head with a broad and flattened
forehead, rather pointed, seen from one side, and blunt, seen in front.
Here mention is also made of the large nostrils and the bristles on the
lips of the animal.
“The eyes are, as one says, large and blue, they are rather like a pair
of pewter plates.”
The eyes again are described differently. We have already heard
them described as being black, red as fire, and now they are blue,
viz. the ordinary blue, called tin-colour, that is a bluish-grey or
a greyish-blue; so a grey rabbit is also called a blue rabbit; and
grey fowls are called blue-fowls; there is rather a lilac tint to be
observed in it. I cannot explain those differences otherwise than
in the following way: when an observer sees the eyes in an oblique
direction, he will always see this grey colour; when more in the
axis of the eye, the colour is a bright dark black one, and when
occasionally seen thus that the “tapetum lucidum” of the eye reflects
the day-light, it is, as if the eyes were sparkling like fire.
“The serpent’s colour is dark brown over the whole body, but thereby
spotted, and with light streaks, or maculated with distinctly visible
light spots, like a turtle or a lackered table, except in the region
of mouth and eyes where it is rather dark, so that it resembles those
horses which we call moorish-heads or black-faces.”
We shall repeatedly have occasion to observe that these statements are
correct. All eye-witnesses agree in this point.
“That this animal spouts like a whale through its nostrils, as Mr.
EGEDE saw, has never been seen here by anybody.”
It is remarkable that though EGEDE has nowhere asserted that his animal
was a sea-serpent, our learned Bishop seems to have recognized it as
such at once, believing, however, it to be another species of the
same genus. We have already stated that EGEDE did not see the animal
spouting water, but he only saw the warm breath of the animal condensed
in the cold air, just as BING, his brother missionary, figured it, and
just as it is mentioned by accurate observers of whales. It is very
easy to understand that EGEDE saw it, for the animal had apparently
been under water for a long time; it suddenly appeared with so much
violence, that a considerable part of its body was elevated above the
surface of the sea, whilst, by a violent blow, the breath, hitherto
held in, was pushed into the air. In this way parts of mucus of the
inner surface of the nostrils and the little quantity of water adhering
to the valves of the nose, must have been driven away at the same
time, and the whole effect has been very accurately described by EGEDE
and figured by BING, but has afterwards been exaggerated and altered
by PONTOPPIDAN (see our fig. 22), and also in our century by Dr. R.
HAMILTON (see our fig. 23).
“But many agree in telling that when it swims rapidly through the
water, it propels before it the water with such a violence that it
murmurs like a small mill-brook.”
This peculiarity has been repeatedly confirmed by the most trustworthy
eye-witnesses as we will observe more than once afterwards.
“Also the common sea-serpents of our shore differ from those of the
Greenland-coasts, seen by EGEDE, in having no rough and hard skin, but
a smooth one like a mirror, except on the neck, on which it has a mane,
resembling sea-weed.”
Remarkable again is the statement of its smooth skin, remarkable too is
the declaration of the sea-serpent having a mane, and most remarkable
the resemblance of this mane to sea-weed, an observation made by
several eye-witnesses independant of each other. It is surprising
that PONTOPPIDAN silently passes over the difference between his two
kinds of sea-serpents: that the Greenland one has two flappers on the
fore-part of its trunk.
“As they cast their skin like common snakes, some people pretend, that
a few years ago, a table-cloth has been made of such a slough found in
the harbour of Kobbervueg. This made me so curious, that I wrote to one
of the inhabitants of that harbour, to inquire after it, and as the
proverb says, to get a strap of the skin. However, there was nothing of
that skin, at least at that time. And a man of that harbour, who came
to Bergen, told me he knew nothing at all about it.”
As to the renewing of the skin, we see that the Bishop was taken in!
But we must respect him that he did not rest before he knew the truth
or the untruth of the fact, and that he also mentions his inquiry.
Though the Bishop may have been deceived, his endeavours to find out
the truth enhance his trustworthiness.
“That the flesh of these animals is soft, has been stated by some
who tell of a small, and probably young sea-serpent which was taken
unexpectedly on board a ship. It instantly died, and nobody dared to
touch it, till the crew was forced at last to cast it over board, owing
to the intolerable smell arising from the soft and tough slime, in
which it was dissolved by the action of the air. But this animal cannot
have been a sea-serpent, for, as will be remembered, it is only seen in
the calmest weather and sinks into the deep at the least motion in the
air.”
We agree with the Bishop, though for other reasons than he.
After having related the two strandings of a sea-serpent (n^o. 6, 7),
PONTOPPIDAN goes on:
“I would that in such cases some one had inquired whether this serpent
had a strong backbone, which seems to be necessary to keep together
the mass of such a gigantic animal. The sharks, however, which are
also cartilaginous fishes without bones, have such a backbone, but it
is very subtile and even in the largest sharks only ten ells long.
The sea-serpent, like sharks, eels and whales also seems to be a
viviparous, not an oviparous fish, and most probably it seeks the other
sex in the above mentioned season. It is said, that when this animal is
ruttish, it looks after ships and boats, which it probably takes for
something else. If this be true, as seamen say, those are wrong who
think that the sea-serpent is not born in the sea, but on land, and
lives in forests and among mountains, till it can no longer hide its
body in it; it is said that it then seeks some river, and floats out to
the sea, as some people pretend to have seen.”
There is but one single reason why we think the sea-serpent is a
viviparous being, viz. its hairy skin. It is certain that an animal
with long hairs on its neck, has also hairs on its whole body, which
has also been stated once already (n^o. 8), and hairy animals are
viviparous (except the _Monotrymata_). Most probably PONTOPPIDAN called
the sea-serpent viviparous for the same reason, otherwise I cannot find
a single fact that would have led him to this conclusion. Its seeking
the other sex cannot be a reason, for all animals do so in the warm
season. I think that it looked after ships because it is a curious
animal, knowing no fear of strange things or persons. It is evidently
a fable that it brings forth young ones on the shore, probably
originating in the fact that the sea-serpent has sometimes been seen in
fjords, even in small ones, or probably originating in the fact that
also seals creep ashore in the critical moment, whelp there and return
with their young ones to the sea as soon as possible.
“The question which troubles us most is the following: Is this animal
dangerous to men, and how are they to defend themselves against this
monster? ARENDT BERNDSEN (_Danmarks og Norges frugtbare Herlighed_ p.
308) answers the first question in the affirmative, and tells us that
the sea-serpent, as well as the sperm-whale, even often runs down men
and ships. That such things happened in this region, I never heard of
with certainty; but the north-sailors tell that it had occasionally
happened that the sea-serpent raised itself and threw itself straight
across a boat, nay across a large yacht of several hundred tons, and
had dragged it to the depths. One of these north-sailors tells that he
was once so close to the serpent, that he might have touched its smooth
skin; he mentions at the same time that this serpent sometimes snatches
a man from a boat, with its head raised upward and gives the others
of the crew an opportunity to escape. Whether these reports are to be
believed or not, I don’t know, because it is uncertain whether these
serpents live on prey.”
We see the Bishop weighing and considering whatever he heard, and not
accepting everything for truth. We think that PONTOPPIDAN is right in
giving no credit to the narrative that the sea-serpents made themselves
guilty of sinking ships and eating men. It is mentioned already twice,
that the sea-serpent raised itself high above the surface of the water;
yet the flappers are not mentioned; so we may conclude that these are
situated far from the head, or, what is the same, that the animal has a
very long neck.
PONTOPPIDAN further tells us that the sea-serpent sometimes encloses
ships by laying itself round them in a circle, that the fishermen then
row over its body there where a coil is visible, for when they reach
the coil, it sinks, while on the contrary the invisible parts rise.
Further, that the serpent swims with an incredible velocity, and that
the fishermen who are much afraid of it, when seeing that it follows
them, throw any object, for instance a scoop, at it, when the animal
generally plunges into the deep. But most fishermen are in the habit of
taking castoreum with them, for the serpent cannot bear the smell of
it. And still further on he tries to explain the considerable length
of the animal some witnesses speak of; the Bishop namely believes that
two or more individuals followed each other, for they are only seen
in rutting-time. And in his tenth paragraph, trying to answer the
question, why those large serpents only frequent the northern seas, he
says:
“To this question I answer that the Creator of all beings disposes
of the dwellings of His different creatures in different places by
His wise intentions, which are not to be known to us. Why won’t the
reindeer thrive anywhere but in the high and cold mountains? Why do the
whales frequent only the north pole? Why are India and Egypt almost the
only countries, where men have to fear crocodiles? No doubt because it
pleases the wise Creator.”
Here PONTOPPIDAN takes leave of the Sea-Serpent, and begins to treat of
the large snakes mentioned by PLINIUS and other ancient authors, and we
too will take leave of our honest and trustworthy Bishop, who has so
often been laughed at for what he relates in his chapter on monsters.
And yet two of his monsters, the mermaids and the Kraken, are unmasked,
why cannot his third be accounted for?
* * * * *
Now let us again collect all the facts which are not impossible from a
zoologist’s point of view.
We have before us an animal of the following imperfect description:
The whole _length_ of this animal far surpasses one hundred feet, and
the smallest individual ever seen measured eighteen feet. The greatest
_thickness_ or diameter seems to be in the foremost third of its whole
length, and in large individuals surpasses ten or even fifteen feet.
Its _head_ is small in reference to the body, its _neck_ is long
and slender, round as the body of a snake or eel; the thick _trunk_
too is round: The _tail_ is also round, thinner than the body and
gradually grows thinner to its end, which is pointed. The animal has
four _flappers_. The foremost are probably found about one fourth of
the length, the hindmost probably in the middle of the whole length.
The _skin_ of the animal is hairy or woolly as a seal-skin; when wet
it is smooth and glittering as a mirror. A long _mane_ hangs down from
the neck, and that mane is sometimes described as resembling sea-weed;
when dry, the mane is whitish, or pale. The _head_ is described as
resembling that of a seal, or that of a horse. It tapers to the nose
of the animal, so that some witnesses declare it has a sharp snout,
others, however, that its end is like that of a cow’s, or a horse’s
head, it has a broad and high, but flattened _forehead_. The _nostrils_
are large, but as they are not always seen, it is evident that the
animal can close them like a seal; on the _lips_ some stiff hairs or
bristles are planted. The _colour of the head_, when wet, is dark
brown, when dry, however, greyish, except round the mouth and the
eyes, where it is almost black. The _mouth_ is large and provided with
_teeth_. The _eyes_ are large, sometimes described as being bluish
and dull, sometimes black, glittering and brilliant, and sometimes
reddish as a burning fire. We have already tried to explain these
different statements. Its _eye-brows_ are distinctly visible. Of the
_neck_ no particulars are observed except that it is long, round,
and bears a mane, I should say like that of the Antarctic Sea-lions
(_Otaria jubata_) but much more developed. Its _fore-flappers_ are
broad and large, and have probably an indented hind-edge, for Mr.
BING drew externally visible fingers. Of its _hind-flappers_ nothing
is mentioned. There is a visible _difference in thickness between
the trunk and the_ very long _tail_ of the animal: the body is not
gradually growing smaller where the tail begins, but becomes small at
once, and very distinctly. Here the animal’s hind-flappers must be
placed. The _colour_ of the body is said to be a dark brown, spotted
and with light streaks, or marked with distinctly visible light spots.
It has an astonishing flexibility in the neck as well as in the trunk
and in the tail. It can bend its body sideways and backwards, and
undulate it up and down like a rope. When the animal bends till it
is U- or horse-shoe shaped, the skin obtains many folds or wrinkles.
The _mode of swimming_ is mostly by vertical undulations, which are
partly visible above the surface of the water; the end of the tail is
always hidden under water when the animal swims. From afar the visible
parts of the coils are said to resemble tuns, buoys, wine-barrels or
hogsheads. The coils are either very large, and then 7 or 8 of them
are visible, and a distance of a fathom is between each two coils, or
they are very small, and then it is said that twenty-five of them are
visible. This is only to be explained by the degree of speed with which
the animal undulates its body. For the same reason it also swims more
or less swiftly; it may also swim with its body in a straight line,
using in this case of course its flappers; this, however, happens very
seldom; when swimming rapidly it propels the water before it with such
a violence, that it boils and splashes up, with foam and a distinctly
audible rushing. When swimming, the animal holds its head two feet
above the surface of the water. Sometimes it raises its neck and head
to a considerable height. Once the condensed breath of the animal was
visible, and it was said to blow like a whale. It is only seen in
summer and in fine weather. It is harmless when not provoked, it is
curious and stupid. It feeds probably on cuttles, lobsters and crabs,
(certainly however on fish.).
* * * * *
Now we will go on with the perusal of the accounts concerning the
animal and we shall observe that in general the accounts or rather
the descriptions of the eye-witnesses repeat, and sometimes even in
particulars, what we have gathered from the 14 above mentioned accounts
and from what PONTOPPIDAN has taught us. I first invite the reader
to follow me to the eastern coasts of the United States, next to the
Northern Pacific, on the western coasts of Scotland, then again to the
United States, and finally to Norway. In all these places, nay in every
part of the world we shall meet with the animal which we shall find
to be a true cosmopolitan, though the Atlantic seems to be its proper
place of residence.
* * * * *
=15=.--1751.--In a letter from Capt. GEORGE LITTLE to the Rev. ALDEN
BRADFORD, printed in the second volume of SILLIMAN’S _American Journal
of Science and Arts_, we read:
“A monster of the above description was seen in the same place, by
JOSEPH KENT, of Marshfield, 1751. KENT said he was longer and larger
than the main boom of his sloop, which was 85 tons. He had a fair
opportunity of viewing him, as he saw it within ten or twelve yards of
his sloop.”
In the “above description” the sea-serpent is described as having the
appearance of a large black snake, from 45 to 50 feet long, with a head
of nearly the size of that of a man, which he carried four or five
feet above the water, and with the greatest diameter of 15 inches. The
individual which was seen by JOSEPH KENT was evidently larger; by “the
same place” is meant Round Pond in Broad Bay and near Muscongus Island.
* * * * *
KNUD LEEMS, as we learn in A. DE CAPELL BROOKE’S _Travels through
Norway_, a northern divine, wrote his _Beskrivelse over Finmarkens
Lappen_, 1765, in which he mentions, p. 332, the sea-serpent in the
following terms:
“The Finmark Sea also produces the hydra or sea-serpent, a huge
monster, forty “passus” long, with a head resembling in size that of
large sea-fishes, in shape that of a snake. This beast has a neck with
a mane like a horse’s, a grey back and a whitish belly. In the dog
days, when the sea is free from wind, the sea-serpent will come to the
surface, bend itself in several coils, of which some are partly visible
above the water, whilst others remain hidden under it. The seamen
greatly fear this monster, and they do not trust themselves on the sea,
when the animal is on the surface.”
The length of forty “passus”, i. e. 200 feet, the large head,
resembling that of a snake, the mane, the grey back, the habit of the
animal to swim with vertical undulations, are all characters known
to us. We have here a new one, viz. that the belly is whitish, which
we shall frequently meet hereafter. It is, however, not the belly
that is meant here, but the animal’s throat. The animal’s neck being
cylindrical, and its flappers constantly hidden under water, the
observers thinking that the animal is eel-shaped, always call its
throat “the belly”. We may safely suppose that the whole throat and the
breast were seen, though not described, by HANS EGEDE, but that even he
did not see the true belly.
* * * * *
=16=.--1770?--In a letter from Mr. MC. LEAN to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD
written in Aug. 1803, and published in SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of
Science and Arts_ (Vol. II) we read:
“One of the same kind was seen above thirty years ago, by the deceased
Capt. PAUL REED, of Boothbay.”
* * * * *
=17=.--1777 or 1778.--(_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV, Part I).
“The next notice is from Capt. ELEAZAR CRABTREE, who saw it in the same
(Penobscot) Bay about the year 1785; he estimated its length at sixty
feet, and its diameter he thought equal to that of a barrel, which is
about twenty two inches.”
A testimony on oath was forwarded by Capt. CRABTREE to the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, “but this was lost or
mislaid.”--Fortunately, however, the notice was afterwards found back,
and, as Prof. BIGELOW (see SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_ Vol. II)
says, “is now in the hands of the corresponding Secretary of the
Academy,” Mr. JOHN Q. ADAMS, “where it may be seen.”
Mr. A. BRADFORD anxious to have all the information he could get, did
not rest satisfied till he had a testimony of Capt. CRABTREE. Capt.
CRABTREE, however, at that time an old man did not write this testimony
himself, but had it written by another in his presence and signed it as
a correct statement. It is published in the above mentioned Journal,
Vol. II, and runs as follows:
“Capt. CRABTREE, now of Portland, (late of Fox Islands, in the Bay of
Penobscot), declares, that in the year 1777 or 1778, upon information
of a neighbour, that a large serpent was in the water, near the shore,
just below his house, and having often been told by individuals that
they had before seen a similar sea-monster in that quarter, and
doubting of the correctness of their reports, was induced to go down
to the water to satisfy his own mind--that he saw a large animal, in
the form of a snake, lying almost motionless in the sea, about thirty
rods from the bank where he stood--that his head was about four feet
above water--that, from the appearance of the animal, he was 100 feet
in length--that he did not go off to the animal through fear of the
consequences, and that he judged him to be about three feet diameter;
he also says, that before that time, many people, living on those
islands, on whose reports he could depend, had declared to him that
they had seen such an animal--and that more than one had been seen by
several persons together.”
“Signed”
“ELEAZAR CRABTREE.”
We have again the statement that the sea-serpent held its head four
feet above the surface of the water; its length was estimated at 100
feet, its diameter three feet; it was evidently this slenderness
which led Capt. CRABTREE to compare the sea-serpent with a snake.
The undulations are not mentioned, consequently most probably it lay
stretched out.
* * * * *
=18=.--1779.--(_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV. P. 1). “It appears
by papers sent to the Academy in the year 1810, that this serpent was
first seen in Penobscot Bay about the year 1779, by Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY:
he compared it to an unwrought spar (meaning probably one of spruce),
which the scaly surface and dark colour of the animal would very much
resemble; he thought it fifty or sixty feet in length.”
It is evident that Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY only compared it with an
unwrought spar, and estimated the length of the visible part to be
fifty or sixty feet. Now Mr. W. D. PECK adds: “which the scaly surface
and the dark colour of the animal would very much resemble”. I,
however, take it that the animal swam with its body in a straight line,
elevating its back but very little above the surface of the water, yet
showing a length of fifty to sixty feet, and so the back of the neck
and trunk quite covered with a mane resembling sea-weed, and the dark
colour of the animal must have led Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY to the comparison
with an unwrought spar.
* * * * *
=19=.--1780, May.--“Captain GEORGE LITTLE” who saw the animal, wrote “a
letter” containing his observation to the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, “but this letter is lost or mislaid” (_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts
Sc._ Vol. IV, P. 1.). When we consult SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. of Sc. and
Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820), we observe that Mr. ALDEN BRADFORD collected
for truth’s sake some affidavits of eye-witnesses; he had learned that
Capt. GEORGE LITTLE was an eye-witness, he asked him for an affidavit,
which he received and forwarded to the corresponding Secretary of the
Academy; after some trouble the letter was found back and published. It
runs as follows:
“Marshfield, March, 13th., 1804.”
“Sir”,
“In answer to yours of 30th. of January last, I observe, that in May,
1780, I was lying in Round Pond, in Broad Bay, in a public armed ship.
At sunrise, I discovered a large Serpent, or monster, coming down the
Bay, on the surface of the water. The cutter was manned and armed. I
went myself in the boat, and proceeded after the serpent. When within a
hundred feet, the mariners were ordered to fire on him, but before they
could make ready, the Serpent dove. He was not less than from 45 to 50
feet in length; the largest diameter of his body, I should judge, 15
inches; his head nearly of the size of that of a man, which he carried
four or five feet above the water. He wore every appearance of a common
black snake. When he dove he came up near Muscongus Island--we pursued
him, but never came up within a quarter of a mile of him again.”
“I have the honor to be sir,
“Your friend and humble servant
“Geo. Little.”
It is evident that the animal moved away from the Captain, who thus saw
only its occiput. As the head is thought to have nearly the size of
that of a man, and the whole length to be 45 to 50 feet, it is evident
that either the head is estimated too small, or the length too great;
moreover it is clear that the captain saw nearly the whole length;
this sometimes occurs; generally, however, only the foremost part is
visible. Again it is mentioned that the sea-serpent held its head four
feet above the surface of the water, and that the colour was black.
A letter from Mr. A. MC. LEAN to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, printed in
the same pages, contains a passage, running as follows:
“Another was seen in Muscongus Bay in time of the American war, two
miles from the place where I lived then.”
I consider this passage as relative to Capt. GEORGE LITTLE’S
observation.
* * * * *
=20=.--1781?--In the same letter the above mentioned lines are followed
by the words:
“and another soon afterwards off Meduncook”.
* * * * *
=21=.--1782?--In a letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, of Bath, to
the Hon. Judge DAVIS, of Boston, dated September 7, 1818, and published
in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:
“Mr. CUMMINGS observes, that the British saw him in their expedition
to Bagaduse”...... “The British supposed the length of that which they
saw to be three hundred feet, but this Mr. CUMMINGS imagines to be an
exaggeration.”