* * * * *
=22=.--1783? --In the same letter we read:
“People also of Mount Desert have seen the monster.”
* * * * *
=23=.--1784?--In the same letter we find:
“June 28th., 1809. Mr. CUMMINGS observes that a Mr. CROCKET saw two
of them together about twenty years since”....... “One of those seen
by Mr. CROCKET was smaller than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS, and their
motion in the sea appeared to be a perpendicular winding, and not
horizontal.”
This appearance is also mentioned in the _Mem. Am. Acad. Arts Sc._ (IV,
I, 1818) where we read about the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands:
“and one of them, a Mr. CROCKET, had seen two of them together about
the year 1787.”
And in SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820) we read in a
letter from Mr. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, written
Jan., 1804:
“About twenty years since, two of those serpents, they say, were seen
by one Mr. CROCKET, who then lived upon Ash Point.”
The fact that there were _two_ animals together only claims our
attention, which is of course not wonderful, as they may have been a
male and a female, or a mother and a young one. One of the two must
have been quite small, as it is reported: “One of those was smaller
than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS”; consequently the other was as large as
or even larger than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS, ergo the difference in
size of these two must have been considerable. The occurrence of two
together is reported only a very few times. Evidently these animals
lead solitary lives.
We see that the dates differ, but we will take the date of 1784,
relying upon the words of Mr. CUMMING’S letter of 1804: “about twenty
years since”.
* * * * *
=24=.--1785?--In the same letter it says:
“Sept. 10, 1811. Have heard to day further testimony respecting the
Sea-Serpent of the Penobscot. A Mr. STAPLES, of Prospect, of whom I
inquired as I passed, was told by a Mr. MILLER, of one of the Islands
in the bay, that he had seen it; and “it was as big as a sloop’s boom,
and about sixty or seventy feet long”.
* * * * *
=25=.--1786, August 1.--(_Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1911).--
“Having seen much notice taken in the _Zoologist_ of the question of
the great sea-serpent, allow me to subjoin an extract from the log-book
of a very near relative, dated August 1st., 1786, onboard the ship
“_General Coole_”, in lat. 42° 44′ N., and long. 23° 10′ W.--”
“A very large snake passed the ship; it appeared to be 16 or 18 feet
in length, and 3 or 4 feet in circumference, the back of a light
ash-colour and the belly thereof yellow.”
“According to the log the ship was becalmed at the time. You may rely
on the correctness of this, and any one desiring of satisfy himself
may see the original log.” “S. H. Saxby; Bouchurch, Isle of Wight.
September, 8, 1847.”
Of course only the length is given of the visible part, else it would
be impossible that an animal of 16 feet in length and 3 or 4 feet in
circumference made the impression of being a serpent or snake; the
whole trunk and tail must have been hidden under water. As the colour
of the animal’s back is noted as a light ash-colour, I suppose that the
animal having swum a long time in the sun without diving under water,
the skin had become dry and showed the ash-colour; the colour of the
belly (read throat) is stated to be yellow. This statement already
mentioned above we shall see repeated more than once.
* * * * *
=26=.--1787?--In the letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, dated,
Bath, September 17, 1817, to the Hon. Judge Davis of Boston, and
printed in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:
“Aug. 23, 1809.--Mr. CHARLES SHAW (then of Bath, now an attorney in
Boston,) informed me, that a Capt. LILLIS, with whom he had sailed,
observed cursorily in conversation, that he had seen off the coast a
very singular fish; it appeared, said he, more like a snake than a
fish, and was about forty feet long. It held its head erect, had no
mane, and looked like an ordinary serpent. He asked Mr. SHAW if he had
ever seen, or read, or heard of such an animal.”
* * * * *
=27=.--1794?--In the same letter from the Rev. Mr. JENKS, printed in
the _Report_ of 1817, we find:
“Mr. Cummings observes that the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands
have seen such an animal”......
“When he was seen by the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands two
persons were together at both times.”
It is clear that the year 1794 must be fixed as the date for one of
the two times, for in the letter from Mr. CUMMINGS to the Rev. ALDEN
BRADFORD, written in Jan., 1804, and printed in the second volume of
SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and Arts_, (1820), we find the
following passage:
“A few years before, perhaps ten years since, two of those large
serpents were seen by two other persons on that Island” (Fox Island)
“as their neighbours informed me.”
Again two individuals were seen together.
* * * * *
=28=.--1799?--And the date of the second time, that the animal was
seen, must be the year 1799, for in the same letter from Mr. CUMMINGS
(1804), it says:
“Two young men of Fox Island, intelligent and credible, saw an animal
of this kind about five years since, as they then informed me. They
told me, that the serpent which they saw was about sixty feet long, and
appeared to have an ascending and descending motion.”
* * * * *
=29=.--1802 July.--In the letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, of
Bath, to the Hon. Judge DAVIS, of Boston, dated September 17, 1817, and
published in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:
“June 28th. 1809. The Rev. Mr. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS who has been much
employed in Missions in the District of Maine, and navigated his own
boat among the islands, &c. in the discharge of his duty, informs me,
in conversation, which was immediately written from his lips, that in
Penobscot bay has been occasionally seen within these thirty years, a
sea-serpent, supposed to be about sixty feet in length, and of the size
of a sloop’s mast. Rev. Mr. CUMMINGS saw him, in company with his wife
and daughter, and a young lady of Belfast, MARTHA SPRING; and judged
he was about three times the length of his boat, which is twenty
three feet. When he was seen this time he appeared not to notice the
boat, though he was distant, as nearly as could be ascertained, but
about fifteen rods.” ..... “A gentleman of intelligence (Rev. ALDEN
BRADFORD of Wiscasset, now Secretary of the Commonwealth) inquired of
Mr. CUMMINGS whether the appearance might not be produced by a number
of porpoises following each other in a train; but Mr. CUMMINGS asserts,
that the animal held its head out of water about five feet till he
got out to sea; for when seen he was going out of the bay, and Mr.
CUMMINGS was ascending it. The colour was a bluish green about the head
and neck, but the water rippled so much over his body, that it was
not possible to determine its tint. The shape of the head was that of
a common snake, flattened, and about the size of a pail. He was seen
approaching, passing, and departing. Till this, Mr. CUMMINGS was as
incredulous in respect to its existence, as many of his neighbours. The
weather was calm, and it was the month of August, in which month, Mr.
CUMMINGS remarks, that, as far as he had heard, the serpent makes his
appearance on the coast.”
“I am inclined to suppose that Mr. Cummings’ account is that, which
in one of the public papers was lately alluded to, as having been
communicated to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, but mislaid.”
In the _Mem. Am. Acad. Arts and Sc._ Vol. IV. Part 1, 1818, we read
also:
“A letter from this gentleman” (Mr. CUMMINGS) “was forwarded to the
Academy about the year 1806, giving a particular account of the animal,
as he saw it at a small distance; but this letter is lost or mislaid.”
Fortunately this letter was only mislaid, and found back in the hands
of the corresponding Secretary, the Hon. JOHN Q. ADAMS, and printed in
SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820). The
letter runs as follows:
“Sullivan, Aug. 17th. 1803.”
“My Dear Sir,”
“With peculiar pleasure I comply with your request, though the urgency
of my affairs must excuse my brevity. It was sometime in July 1802
that we saw this extraordinary sea monster, on our passage to Belfast,
between Cape Rosoi and Long Island. His first appearance was near Long
Island. I then supposed it to be a large shoal of fish with a seal at
one end of it, but wondered that the seal should rise out of water so
much higher than usual; but, as he drew nearer to our boat, we soon
discovered that this whole appearance was but one animal in the form
of a serpent. I immediately perceived that his mode of swimming was
exactly such as had been described to me by some of the people of FOX
Islands, who had seen an animal of this kind before, which must confirm
the veracity of their report. For this creature had not the horizontal
but an ascending and descending serpentine motion. This renders it
highly probable that he never moves on land to any considerable
distance and that the water is his proper element. His head was rather
larger than that of a horse, but formed like that of a serpent. His
body we judged was more than sixty feet in length. His head and as
much of his body as we could discover was all of a blue colour except
a black circle round his eye. His motion was at first but moderate,
but when he left us and proceeded towards the ocean, he moved with
the greatest rapidity. This monster is the sixth of the kind, if our
information be correct, which has been seen in this bay within the term
of eighteen years. Mrs. CUMMINGS, my daughter and Mss. MARTHA SPRING
were with me in the boat all that time, and can attest to the above
description.”
“I continue yours in Christian affection
“ABRAHAM CUMMINGS.”
“REV. ALEXANDER MC. LEAN.”
Mr. MC. LEAN forwarded this letter to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD who says
of it:
“The account was liable to some objections, and not so particular as
might be wished. I therefore wrote Mr. Cummings, and in reply, received
a statement more in detail,”
which runs as follows:
“Sullivan, Jan. 18th. 1804.”
“Rev. and Dear Sir,”
“I can recollect nothing material which could render my description
of that animal more convincing. I am not sure that this motion was
ascending and descending; all we can say is, _it appeared so to us_
(for he was seen not only by me, but by three other persons). His real
motion might be horizontal. Perhaps his nearest distance from us was
ten rods. The sea was then very smooth, and very little wind, but still
there was such a constant rippling of the water over his body, that
I could not distinctly observe the magnitude or colour of any part
but his head and neck. The degree of his rapidity I cannot explain.
But certain I am that he had a serpent’s head, of a colour as blue
as possible, and a black ring round his eye. The head was three feet
in circumference _at least_. Who ever saw fifty or sixty porpoises
moving after each other in a right line, and in such a manner that
those who formed the rear were no larger than haddock or mackerel, and
none but the foremost shewed his head? Who ever saw a serpent’s head
upon a porpoise or whale? We saw him swim as far as from Long Island
to the Cape before he disappeared. His head and neck all the time out
of water. Now who ever saw a porpoise swim so great a distance without
immerging at all? This is the best information which you can obtain from
“Your Friend and Servant”
“ABRAHAM CUMMINGS.”
“Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD.”
“P. S. The head and neck of the animal were of the same colour.”
The first apparently inexplicable fact is that Mr. CUMMINGS declares
the colour of the head and neck first “blue”, then “as blue as
possible,” and a few years afterwards “a bluish green.” But I think
that we must not rely too much upon this definition of the colour, for,
as we observe in daily life, different persons will give different
names to a dark colour, some will call a nearly black colour “blue”
while another does not see any blue in it at all; consequently we may
safely suppose that the colour was the common dark brown, nearly black
one, and that Mr. CUMMINGS called such a colour “as blue as possible”
or “a bluish green.” Yet it is probable that the colour of sea-serpents
may sometimes vary as in our common seals.
It is a fact that claims our close attention that the first impression
the animal made upon him was “to be a large shoal of fish” (read
“porpoises”) “with a head of a seal at one end of it, but wondered
that the seal should rise out of water so much higher than usual”.
Here we have an almost faithful picture of the common appearance of
the animal, which reminds us of Mr. Benstrup’s figure (fig. 24). But
as the serpent drew nearer to Mr. CUMMINGS’ boat, the resemblance
diminished, because the serpent has not such thick upper lips as our
common seal, so that the snout is rather sharp, and the forehead being
moreover flat, the resemblance is also that of a snake’s head! The mode
of swimming was up and down, and Mr. CUMMINGS in his second letter
says “it appeared so to us, his real motion might be horizontal”. Mr.
CUMMINGS expresses himself cautiously; and to explain his hesitation I
think it is here the right place to mention a singular property of the
sea-serpent. It is observed in 1818 that some witnesses distinctly saw
the animal moving up and down and progressing very rapidly, and that
some others of them declared that they distinctly saw the animal with
many bunches on its back, that it moved through the water, apparently
not by undulating up and down, but they were astonished that the
sea-serpent moved. The sea-serpent further has the property of keeping
his bunches when lying quite still. Consequently it may show itself
in the following ways: 1. Lying perfectly still with the body in a
straight line. 2. Lying perfectly still, but with many folds or bunches
on its back. 3. Swimming with its body in a straight line, using its
flappers. 4. Swimming with bunches on its back, propelling itself by
its flappers, not by vertical undulations. 5. Swimming with vertical
undulations, and not with its flappers. 6. Swimming with vertical
undulations and with its flappers.
I repeat here the words of Mr. CUMMINGS: “Who ever saw fifty or sixty
porpoises moving after each other in a right line, and in such a
manner that those who formed the rear were no larger than haddock or
macquerel, and none but the foremost shewed his head. Who ever saw a
serpent’s head upon a porpoise or whale? Now who ever saw a porpoise
swim so great a distance without immerging at all?” And we may add: Who
ever saw porpoises without backfins? (The white whale, _Beluga leucas_
has no back fin, but it is of a white colour, while the sea-serpent is
almost black.)
I think it is here the right place to observe that the very different
dimensions given to sea-serpents can be explained in two ways: 1. The
animals may have been more or less visible above the surface of the
water, and the hind part hidden under water is not always estimated in
proportion to the visible fore-part. 2. The observers have not always
seen the same individual, but of course young ones, middle-aged and old
individuals, males and females.
* * * * *
I will insert here a letter from the REV. ALDEN BRADFORD to the Hon.
JOHN Q. ADAMS, to show my readers how the former troubled himself about
the question.
“Wiscasset, May 22, 1804.”
“_To the Honorable_ John Q. Adams, _corresponding Secretary of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences_.
“Sir,
“As one object of the Academy is to notice and preserve discoveries
in _Natural History_, I am induced to communicate to the society the
following account of a _Sea-Serpent_, which I have lately collected.”
“It will probably be within the recollection of some persons conversant
with Navigation, that in the course of a few years past, there have
been vague reports of an animal of this description having been seen in
or near Penobscot Bay. But little credit, however, was attached to the
story, and no particular authentic account has yet been given to the
public on the subject.”
“A few months ago I happened to hear related the story of one, which
was seen in the Bay of Penobscot in 1802. And for my own satisfaction,
I have been inquisitive to the truth of the account, and to the
general evidence of the existence of such an animal. The first
correct information I received was from the perusal of a letter to
Rev. Alexander McLean, from Rev. Mr. Cummings of Sullivan; which is
enclosed, and marked _A._ and some remarks were added by Mr. McLean
at my request. The account was liable to some objections, and not so
particular as might be wished. I therefore wrote Mr. Cummings, and in
reply, received a statement more in detail, which accompanies this, and
is marked _B._”
“I was afterwards informed, that George Little Esq. late commander of
the Boston frigate, saw a sea-monster similar to the one described
by Mr. _Cummings_, in the time of the revolutionary war with
Great-Britain; and as I was anxious for all the information that was
to be had, I wrote him on the subject, and he forwarded the enclosed
(marked _C._) in answer to my letter. I have also the testimony of a
Capt. _Crabtree_ of Portland, an intelligent man, which is direct and
positive. This is also enclosed and marked _D._ It was written in his
presence and received his signature, as a correct statement.”
“All this evidence, I think, cannot fail to establish the fact _that a
large sea-serpent has been seen in and near the Bay of Penobscot_. The
existence of such a _Monster_ can no longer be reasonably disputed. But
whether he constantly resides in that vicinity, or whether he coasts
further south or north, during a part of the year, more particular
information is necessary to ascertain. Nor is it known on what species
of fish he subsists. By this communication I have it in view only
to furnish evidence of the actual existence of the animal. It will
probably operate in favour of further information, and lead to a
particular history of this hitherto undescribed Serpent.
“I am with great esteem
“Your humble servant
“A. Bradford.”
The four letters above mentioned and marked _A_, _B_, _C_, and _D_, are
already inserted in their right places. I refer my readers to n^o. 29,
where the letters marked _A_ and _B_ are copied, to n^o. 19, where that
marked C is inserted, and to n^o. 17, where the letter marked D will be
found back.
* * * * *
=30=.--1805? Mr. RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ (_Phil. Mag._ LIV, 1819) in his
_Additions_ to his dissertation, says:
“4. Mr. W. LEE has brought to notice another Sea-Snake, seen by him
many years ago near Cape Breton and Newfoundland, which was over 200
feet long, with the back of a dark green: it stood in the water in
flexuous hillocks, and went through it with impetuous noise. This
appears to be the largest on record and might well be called _Pelamis
monstrosus_; but if there are other species of equal size, it must be
called then _Pelamis chloronotis_, or Green-back Pelamis.”
The length of 200 feet is estimated more than once, though in many
instances probably exaggerated. The definition of the colour to be
a dark green one, we have already explained above, discussing the
report of Mr. CUMMINGS. The flexuous hillocks are of course nothing
else but the vertical undulations, the impetuous noise is caused by
the fore-flappers as will be stated afterwards. Of Mr. RAFINESQUE’S
determination I will say nothing, because it is a false one and a proof
of his credulity.
* * * * *
=31=.--1808, June.--At a meeting of the Wernerian Natural History
Society on the 13th. of May, 1809 (_Phil. Mag._, Vol. 33, p. 411) “the
Secretary read a letter from the Rev. Mr. MACLEAN of Small Isles,
mentioning the appearance of a vast Sea-Snake, between 70 and 80 feet
long, among the Hebrides, in June, 1808.”
This letter is printed in the first Volume of the _Memoirs of the
Wernerian Natural History Society_ (1811) and runs as follows:
“To the Secretary of the Wernerian Natural History Society.”
“Eigg Island, 24th April 1809.”
“Sir”
“Your letter of the first instant I received, and would have written
in answer thereto sooner, had I not thought it desirable to examine
others relative to the animal of which you wish me to give a particular
account.”
“According to my best recollection, I saw it in June 1808 not on
the coast of Eigg, but on that of Coll. Rowing along that coast, I
observed, at about the distance of half a mile, an object to windward,
which gradually excited astonishment. At first view it appeared like
a small rock. Knowing there was no rock in that situation, I fixed my
eyes on it close. Then I saw it elevated considerably above the level
of the sea, and after a slow movement, distinctly perceived one of its
eyes. Alarmed at the unusual appearance and magnitude of the animal, I
steered so as to be at no great distance from the shore. When nearly in
a line betwixt it and the shore, the monster directing its head (which
still continued above water) towards us, plunged violently under water.
Certain that he was in chace of us, we plied hard to get ashore. Just
as we leaped out on a rock, taking a station as high as we conveniently
could, we saw it coming rapidly under water towards the stern of our
boat. When within a few yards of the boat, finding the water shallow,
it raised its monstrous head above water, and by a winding course get,
with apparent difficulty clear of the creek, where our boat lay, and
where the monster seemed in danger of being imbayed. It continued to
move off, with its head above water, and with the wind for about half
a mile, before we lost sight of it.--Its head was rather broad, of a
form somewhat oval. Its neck somewhat smaller. Its shoulders, if I can
so term them, considerably broader, and thence it tapered towards the
tail, which last it kept pretty low in the water, so that a view of
it could not be taken so distinctly as I wished. It had no fin that I
could perceive, and seemed to me to move progressively by undulation up
and down. Its length I believed to be from 70 to 80 feet; when nearest
to me, it did not raise its head wholly above water, so that the neck
being under water, I could perceive no shining filaments thereon, if it
had any. Its progressive motion under water I took to be rapid, from
the shortness of the time it took to come up to the boat. When the
head was above water, its motion was not near so quick; and when the
head was most elevated it appeared evidently to take a view of distant
objects.
“I remain, Sir, &c.
“DONALD MACLEAN.”
To understand well what Mr. MACLEAN meant with “shining filaments”
which he did _not_ see, I must return to the “Animal of Stronsa”, the
putrified body of a large basking shark. My readers will remember that
the putrified dorsal fins of that shark resembled bristles, which
were transparent, and gave light in the dark (p. 61). Evidently the
Secretary of the Wernerian Society writing to Mr. MACLEAN, asked him to
give a full description of the animal seen by him near “the coast of
Eigg”, and whether he saw on its back “shining filaments” or not. Of
course, Mr. MACLEAN did not see them!
For the first time it is mentioned by an eye-witness that the shoulders
were visible. Mr. MACLEAN adds: “if I can so term them”. This is very
remarkable, for we may safely take it for granted, that he, like all
other persons, believed to see a sea-snake, or serpentine animal, and
yet, though he could not know, that it has flappers, and probably would
not have believed it, when it was told him, he has distinctly seen that
the animal at once became much broader behind its long neck.
The animal plunged violently under water. When Mr. MACLEAN had reached
his safe position he saw the animal swimming rapidly under water
towards his boat. We must suppose that it swam so near the surface,
though under water and invisible, that the surface rippled, and a wake
was formed by the motion of the animal. The animal coming in shallow
water, turned immediately and swam away. Once it did not raise its head
quite above water, so that the neck was under water. When the head was
most elevated, it appeared evidently to take a view of distant objects.
These five habits as yet new to us, will be observed and reported
several times afterwards. The other statements of Mr. MACLEAN are all
mere repetitions of so often mentioned peculiarities.
* * * * *
=32=.--1808 June.--In the same letter we read:
“About the time I saw it, it was seen about the Isle of Canna. The crew
of thirteen fishing boats, I am told, were so much terrified at its
appearance, that they in a body fled from it to the nearest creek for
safety. On the passage from Rum to Canna the crew of one boat saw it
coming towards them, with the wind, and its head high above water. One
of the crew pronounced its head as large as a little boat, and each
of its eyes as large as a plate. The men were much terrified, but the
monster offered them no molestation.--From those who saw it, I could
get no interesting particulars additional to those above mentioned.”
The dimensions given to the head and eye may be exaggerated. It is
remarkable that the animal is so often coming in the neighbourhood of
a boat, and is yet perfectly harmless. This confirms my supposition
expressed above that the animal is sometimes very inquisitive.
PONTOPPIDAN would say “it thought to see the other sex, for it was
pairing time!”
The whole letter from Mr. MACLEAN to the Secretary of the Wernerian
Society is reprinted in Dr. HAMILTON’S _Amphibious Carnivora_ (a volume
of JARDINE’S _Naturalist’s Library_), 1839, without any remark or
explanation.
* * * * *
=33=.--1810?--Sir WALTER SCOTT in the Notes to _The Pirate_ says,
according to Mr. ASHTON (_Curious Creatures in Zoology_, 1889):
“The author knew a mariner, of some reputation in his class, vouch for
having seen the celebrated Sea-Serpent. It appeared as far as could be
guessed, to be about a hundred feet long, with the wild mane and fiery
eyes which old writers ascribe to the monster.”
I am convinced that the adjectives “wild” and “fiery” and the phrase
“which old writers ascribe to the monster” are no additions made by
the mariner, who simply may have told that the sea-serpent seen by him
was about a hundred feet long, had a mane like a horse, or resembling
sea-weed, and had red eyes. Unluckily neither the date, nor the
locality is mentioned. The date cannot be far back from 1820; so I have
chosen 1810, but of the locality of course nothing can be guessed.
* * * * *
=34=, =35=.--1815, June 20 and 21.--In the _Report of a Committee_, of
1817, we read that this Committee wrote a letter to Mr. SAMUEL DAVIS,
of Plymouth, requesting him to examine upon oath some respectable men
of that place, with regard to the appearance of the animal in 1815.
This letter runs as follows:
“Boston, September 1, 1817.
“Sir”,
“At a meeting of the Linnaean Society of the 18th. ult., the
subscribers there appointed a Committee for the purpose of collecting
any evidence which may exist respecting a remarkable animal,
denominated a _Sea Serpent_, reported to have been recently seen in and
near the Harbour of Gloucester. The Committee have procured evidence
from Gloucester, which they are preparing to report to the Society,
and this evidence is of such a character, that they have thought it
expedient to extend their inquiry to other reported appearances of a
similar nature on our coasts. An appearance of this sort is mentioned
as having been noticed by some persons at Plymouth two or three years
since. We would ask your assistence in procuring the evidence on this
subject.
“Your connection with the Society seems to authorize the request for
your assistence in having the evidence on this subject, which may exist
at Plymouth, properly taken and transmitted; but separately from any
such claim, we know your habitual readiness to aid in any investigation
in natural science. This subject is now of general interest among us,
and will probably be so abroad. Any cooperation which you may wish from
magistrates and intelligent gentlemen at Plymouth, we doubt not will be
readily afforded you. We shall suspend our final report to the Society,
until your communication shall be received.”
“Yours respectfully and
with esteem
“John Davis }
“Jacob Bigelow } Committee.
“Francis C. Gray }
The answer was as follows:
“Plymouth, Oct. 2, 1817.”
“Gentlemen.”
“Inclosed is the deposition duly authenticated of Capt. E. Finney of
this town, descriptive of an unusual animal, which was seen by him in
the outer harbour of Plymouth, in June 1815. Capt. Finney lives a few
miles from town, and is much engaged in business, which must apologize
for the delay that has followed, since the receipt of your letter of
the first of September. His deposition is impartial and unbiassed--and
agrees uniformly with his first declarations in 1815--besides he has
not read, whatever he may have heard, of the Cape Ann descriptions; he
has been from his youth accustomed to a seafaring life--in the fishing
employ, and in foreign voyages--has frequently seen whales, and almost
every species of fish.”
“The drawing on the other page (made by me) I have shewn to Capt.
Finney, who says it illustrates his conceptions on the subject exactly.
All your questions were asked him, and when his replies are negative,
such as gills, breathing holes, &c. &c. it must not be inferred that
such things were not displayed--but only that he did not see them, &c.
Certain house carpenters, who were at work on a building near the spot,
also saw it; as well as many others--these persons dwell with emphasis
on the long and distant _wake_ made in the water by the passage of
the fish.--As to the point of time, it must have been from known data
between the 18th. and 25th. of June. And I would remark, that this is
exactly the season when the first setting in of mackerel occurs in our
bay.”
“Yours respectfully”
“S. Davis.”
And the deposition of Captain FINNEY as follows:
“I, Elkanah Finney of Plymouth, in the county of Plymouth, Mariner,
testify and say: That about the twentieth of June, A. D. 1815, being
at work near my house, which is situated near the sea-shore in
Plymouth, at a place called Warren’s cove, where the beach joins the
main land; my son, a boy, came from the shore and informed me of an
unusual appearance on the surface of the sea in the cove. I paid little
attention to his story at first; but as he persisted in saying that he
had seen something very remarkable, I looked towards the cove, where I
saw something which appeared to the naked eye to be a drift sea-weed.
I then viewed it through a perspective glass, and was in a moment
satisfied that it was some aquatic animal, with the form, motion, and
appearance of which I had hitherto been unacquainted. It was about a
quarter of a mile from the shore, and was moving with great rapidity
to the northward. It then appeared to be about thirty feet in length;
the animal went about half a mile to the northward; then turned about,
and while turning, displayed a greater length than I had before seen;
I supposed at least a hundred feet. It then came towards me, in a
southerly direction, very rapidly, until he was in a line with me,
when he stopped, and lay entirely still on the surface of the water.
I then had a good view of him through my glass, at the distance of a
quarter of a mile. His appearance in this situation was like a string
of buoys. I saw perhaps thirty or forty of these protuberances or
bunches, which were about the size of a barrel. The head appeared to be
about six or eight feet long, and where it was connected with the body
was a little larger than the body. His head tapered off to the size
of a horse’s head. I could not discern any mouth. But what I supposed
to be his under jaw had a white stripe extending the whole length of
the head, just above the water. While he lay in this situation, he
appeared to be about a hundred or a hundred and twenty feet long. The
body appeared to be of a uniform size. I saw no part of the animal
which I supposed to be a tail. I therefore thought he did not discover
to me his whole length. His colour was a deep brown or black. I could
not discover any eyes, mane, gills, or breathing holes. I did not see
any fins or legs. The animal did not utter any sound, and it did not
appear to notice any thing. It remained still and motionless for five
minutes or more. The wind was light with a clear sky, and the water
quite smooth. He then moved to the southward; but not with so rapid a
motion as I had observed before. He was soon out of my sight. The next
morning I rose very early to discover him. There was a fresh breeze
from the south, which subsided about eight o’clock. It then became
quite calm, when I again saw the animal about a mile to the northward
of my house, down the beach. He did not display so great a length as
the night before, perhaps not more than twenty or thirty feet. He often
disappeared, and was gone five or ten minutes under water. I thought
he was diving or fishing for his food. He remained in nearly the same
situation, and thus employed for two hours. I then saw him moving
off, in a northeast direction, towards the light house. I could not
determine whether its motion was up and down, or to the right and left.
His quickest motion was very rapid; I should suppose at the rate of
fifteen or twenty miles an hour. Mackerel, manhaden, herring, and other
bait fish abound in the cove where the animal was seen.”
“Elkanah Finney.”
“_Plymouth_ ss. October 2, 1817. The above named Elkanah Finney
appeared and made oath to the truth of the foregoing statement, by him
subscribed, before me
Nathaniel M. Davis, Jus. Peace.”
In vain have I tried to get a look at the above mentioned “first
declarations in 1815”.
Though the Committee now possessed the long wished-for drawing of the
Sea-Serpent, it did not publish it, nor did it state why it did not.
The “questions” of which Mr. DAVIS writes will be presented to our
readers hereafter. We see that the animal may remain quite still on
the surface of the water, keeping, however, its coils, or joints, or
bunches. It was a large individual. Its head seemed to be from 6 to 8
feet, its whole length far above one hundred and twenty feet. “Its head
was a little larger than the body”, we must of course read: “Its head
was a little broader than the neck”. It had a white stripe extending
over the whole length of the head, just above the water, in the place
where the underjaw must have been. We may look upon all the statements
of Capt. FINNEY, as to the animal’s colour, dimensions, motions, &c.
as quite correct: he was a man too well acquainted with the different
sea-animals, to be mistaken in any observation. Moreover, all his
statements will soon and successively be repeated over and over again,
till there remains not a shadow of doubt of their truth, which, in my
opinion, is now already the case.
* * * * *
=36=.--1816?--In the “_Voyages_” of the well known OTTO VON KOTZEBUE,
which appeared in Weimar in 1821, translated into English, in London,
1821, and into Dutch, in Amsterdam, 1822, we read that on the Isle
of Unalaska, one of Aleutes, he had made the acquaintance of a Mr.
KRIUKOF, living there since 1795, and being Agent of the American
Company. VON KOTZEBUE writes:
“Mr. Kriukof’s description of a sea animal which pursued him at
Behring’s Island, where he had gone for the purpose of hunting, is
very remarkable. Several Aleutians affirm they have often seen this
animal. It is of the shape of the Red serpent, and immensely long; the
head resembles that of the sea-lion, and two disproportionately large
eyes give it a frightful appearance. “It was very fortunate for us”
said Kriukof, “that we were so near land, or else the monster would
have swallowed us: it stretched its head far above the water, looked
about for prey, and vanished. The head soon appeared again, and that
considerably nearer: we rowed with all our might, and were very happy
to have reached the shore before the serpent. The sea-lions were so
terrified at the sight, that some rushed into the water, and others hid
themselves on the shore. The sea often throws up pieces of flesh which,
according to opinion, is that of this serpent, which no animal, not
even the raven, will touch. Some Aleutians, who had once tasted some of
it, suddenly died.”
This passage was told by Mr. KRIUKOF to von KOTZEBUE in Aug. 1817. So
we have taken 1816 as the year of the appearance, though it may have
happened earlier. When Mr. VON KOTZEBUE wrote his book in 1820, he had
already heard of the Sea-Serpent, which appeared in 1817 in the Harbour
of Gloucester, Mass., and so he adds:
“If a sea-serpent really has been seen on the coast of North-America,
it may have been one of this frightful species.”
What now are the most interesting parts of this notice? First of all
that the Sea-Serpent is a common visitor of the Northern South-Sea, for
the Aleutians affirmed that they often saw it. But the description of
the head claims our close attention. We already said that the animal
must have a hairy skin, for it has a mane, and those persons who saw it
very closely confirm this. The head has already been twice described
as resembling that of a seal, and afterwards we shall meet again with
such a description; generally, however, it is said to resemble that of
a snake, or a serpent, and sometimes to be sharp. What head combines
these characters? I say the head of a sea-lion. It resembles more
or less that of a seal, and seen from aside, more or less that of a
snake, is rather pointed, because a sea-lion has not such formidable
upper lips as seals have, and rather blunt. Why has nobody given
this description? I say, because nobody among the eye-witnesses ever
saw a sea-lion, neither the Norwegian, nor the many eye-witnesses of
Massachusetts, nor even afterwards the other witnesses. The only one
who could make this comparison was Mr. KRIUKOF, and the Aleutians,
who live surrounded by these animals. The sea-lion’s head is rather
blunt, rather pointed, rather long, and flattened on the forehead,
has also some whiskers, which are also attributed to sea-serpents by
eye-witnesses in Norway, according to PONTOPPIDAN, and afterwards again
by a person who saw it at a few yards’ distance from him.
Moreover KRIUKOF’S comparison with the Red Snake, a species evidently
known to him, the disproportionate large eyes, the habit of the animal
to stretch its long neck far above the surface of the water, apparently
to look about for prey, to follow a boat at some distance, it being
supposed to be inquisitive, though harmless, are all statements we have
already met with or will meet with afterwards. It seems that sea-lions
too often become the prey of the sea-serpent, otherwise these creatures
would not have been so afraid of it.
As to the pieces of flesh, I am convinced that they are not of a
sea-serpent, but either of sea-lions, of porpoises, or of another
smaller kind of whales, which are the rests of a meal of our friend.
They are washed ashore in a putrified state, and their not being to
the taste of the ravens is probably a story, which, like the report of
the death of the Aleutians who had tasted of it, must without doubt be
considered as a mere fable. This report is reprinted in the _Magazine
and Journal_, Vol. LVIII, 1821.
* * * * *
“In the month of August, 1817,” we read in the _Report of a Committee_,
&c. printed Dec. 1817, Boston, by CUMMINGS and HILLARD,
“In the month of August, 1817, it was currently reported on various
authorities, that an animal of very singular appearance had been
recently and repeatedly seen in the harbour of Gloucester, Cape Ann,
about thirty miles distant from Boston. It was said to resemble a
serpent in its general form and motions, to be of immense size, and to
move with wonderful rapidity; to appear on the surface of the water
only in calm and bright weather; and to seem jointed, or like a number
of buoys or casks following each other in a line.”
“In consequence of these reports, at a meeting of the Linnaean Society
of New England, holden at Boston on the 18th. day of August, the
Hon. John Davis, Jacob Bigelow, M. D. and Francis C. Gray, Esq. were
appointed a Committee to collect evidence with regard to the existence
and appearance of any such animal. The following report made by that
Committee is now published by order of the Society.”
“Linnaean Society of New England.”
“The Committee appointed on the 18th. of August last to collect
evidence with regard to the existence and appearance of a Sea-Serpent,
said to have been recently seen in the harbour of Gloucester, now lay
before the Society the following facts and documents.”
“On the 19th. of August your Committee wrote to the Hon. Lonson Nash
of Gloucester, requesting him to examine upon oath some of the
inhabitants of that town with regard to the appearance of this animal,
to make the examination as early as possible, to request the persons
examined not to communicate to each other the substance of their
respective statements, until they were all committed to writing; to
have these statements signed and certified in due form, and sent to
us. Our letter also contained certain rules with regard to the mode of
conducting this examination, and questions to be put to the persons
examined.”
“In answer to it we received from Mr. Nash a letter, dated 28th.
August, enclosing eight depositions, duly certified, which on the 1st.
September were read before the Society as were also three depositions
taken in Boston, on the 30th. August and 1st. September. You directed
us to return your thanks to Mr. Nash for his readiness in complying
with our request, to continue the investigation of the subject
committed to us, in such manner as we should deem expedient, and to
lay before you a formal report of the whole evidence that should be
procured. In compliance with your directions, the chairman of the
Committee wrote again to Mr. Nash on the 2d. September, and received
from him an answer, dated 9th. September. We also wrote to Mr. Samuel
Davis of Plymouth on the 1st. September, requesting him to examine upon
oath some respectable men of that place, with regard to the appearance
of an animal said to have been seen there in the year 1815, and to
resemble the one lately seen near Gloucester; this letter contained
the same rules and questions as were sent to Mr. Nash. In answer to
this application, a letter from that gentleman was received on the 4th.
October, enclosing the deposition of Capt. E. Finney. Your Committee
have also received a communication from the Rev. William Jenks of Bath
relative to the subject. All these documents are now laid before you in
the following order.”
“1. The rules and questions of your Committee.
“2. The letter from Mr. Nash of 28th August, enclosing the eight
following depositions.
“3. The deposition of Amos Story.
“4. That of Salomon Allen.
“5. That of Eppes Ellery.
“6. That of William H. Foster.
“7. That of Matthew Gaffney.
“8. That of James Mansfield.
“9. That of John Johnston.
“10. That of William B. Pearson.
“11. The deposition of Sewall Toppan }
“12. That of Robert Bragg } taken at Boston.
“13. That of William Somerby }
“14. The letter from our Chairman to Mr. Nash.
“15. The answer of Mr. Nash.
“16. Our letter to Mr. S. Davis of Plymouth.
“17. His answer, containing
“18. The deposition of Elkanah Finney.
“19. The letter from the Rev. William Jenks to your Committee.
“20. Is an account of a serpent said to have been frequently seen in
the North Sea, extracted from the history of Norway, written by
the Right Rev. Erich Pontoppidan, bishop of Bergen, in the year
1751.