* * * * *
=48=.--1817, August 28.--(_Report of a Committee_, 1817).
“Sewell Toppan, Master of the schooner Laura, declares: That on
thursday morning the 28th. day of August, at about 9 o’clock A. M. at
about two miles, or two and half miles east of the eastern point of
Cape Ann being becalmed, I heard one of my men call to the man at the
helm, “what is this coming towards us”; being engaged forward, I took
no further notice till they called again.--I then got on top of the
deck load, at which time I saw a singular kind of animal or fish, which
I had never before seen, passing by our quarter, at distance of about
forty feet, standing along shore. I saw a part of the animal or fish
ten or fifteen feet from the head downwards including the head; the
head appeared to be of the size of a ten-gallon keg, and six inches
above the surface of the water. It was of a dark colour. I saw no
tongue, but heard William Somerby and Robert Bragg, my two men, who
were with me, call out, “look at his tongue”. The motion of his head
was sideways and quite moderate; the motion of the body, up and down. I
have seen whales very often; his motion was much more rapid than whales
or any other fish I have ever seen; he left a very long wake behind
him; he did not appear to alter his course in consequence of being so
near the vessel. I saw him much less time than either of the others,
and not in so favourable a position to notice his head.”
“I have been to sea many years, and never saw any fish that had the
least resemblance to this animal. Judging from what I saw out of
water, I should judge the body was about the size of a half barrel in
circumference.”
“Sewell Toppan”.
“Suffolk ss. Boston, September 1, 1817. Personally appeared captain
Sewell Toppan, and made solemn oath, that the foregoing declaration by
him subscribed is true.”
“Before me, Jos. May, Jus. Pacis.”
“Robert Bragg, of Newburyport, mariner, of the schooner Laura, of
Newburyport, Sewell Toppan Master, testifies: That on thursday last,
about ten o’clock A. M. coming in said schooner bound from Newburyport
to Boston, off Eastern Point, (Cape Ann), about a mile and a half from
the shore, I being on deck, the vessel being becalmed, looking at the
windward, I saw something break the water, and coming very fast towards
us, I mentioned it to the man at helm, William Somerby; the animal
came about 28 or 30 feet from us, between the vessel and the shore,
and passing very swiftly by us; he left a very long wake behind him.
About six inches in height of his body and head were out of water,
and as I should judge about 14 or 15 feet in length. He had a head
like a serpent, rather larger than his body and rather blunt; did not
see his eyes; when astern of the vessel about 30 feet, he threw out
his tongue about two feet in length; the end of it appeared to me to
resemble a fisherman’s harpoon; he raised his tongue several times
perpendicularly, or nearly so, and let it fall again. He was in sight
about ten minutes. I think he moved at the rate of 12 or 14 miles an
hour; he was of a dark chocolate colour, and from what appeared out of
water I should suppose he was two and a half feet in circumference; he
made no noise; his back and body appeared smooth; a small bunch on each
side of his head, just above his eyes; he did not appear to be at all
disturbed by the vessel; his course was in the direction for the Salt
Islands; his motion was much swifter than any whale that I have ever
seen, and I have seen many--did not observe any teeth; his motion was
very steady, a little up and down.”
“To this account I am willing to make oath.”
“Robert Bragg.”
“I, William Somerby of the Schooner Laura, testify and say: That on
thursday last about 10 o’clock, A. M. as I was coming in said schooner
from Newburyport, bound to Boston, off Brace’s cove, a little eastward
of Eastern Point, (Cape Ann) about two miles from land, the sea calm,
I was at helm. Robert Bragg, one of the crew, asked me if that was
not the snake coming, pointing out a break in the water, south of us;
a strange animal of the serpent form passed very swiftly by us--the
nearest distance I should judge to be between 30 and 40 feet--the upper
part of his head and back was above water--the length that appeared was
about 12 or 15 feet, his head was like a serpent’s tapering off to a
point. He threw out his tongue a number of times, extended about two
feet from his jaws--the end of it resembled a harpoon--he threw his
tongue backwards several times over his head, and let it fall again--I
saw one of his eyes as he passed; it appeared very bright, and about
the size of the eye of an ox. The colour of all that appeared was very
dark, almost black. He did not appear to take any notice of the vessel,
and made no noise. There appeared a bunch above the eye.--Should judge
him to be about two and a half feet in circumference. Have often seen
whales at sea. The motion of this animal was much swifter than that
of any whale. The motion of the body was rising and falling as he
advanced, the head moderately vibrating from side to side. The colour
of his tongue was a light brown.”
“To this account I am willing to make oath.”
“William Somerby.”
“_Commonwealth of Massachusetts_, August 30, 1817. Then appeared Robert
Bragg and William Somerby, and made oath to the truth of the above
declarations, by them respectively subscribed.”
“Before me, Jos. May, Jus. Pacis.”
In these three depositions we find the same observation. As the head
was moving moderately sideways, we may conclude that the animal, though
it was also moving up and down, used its flappers too, so that with
the use of the right fore-flapper its head went a little to the left;
and otherwise went a little to the right by the motion of the left
fore-flapper.--For ROBERT BRAGG’S “larger” in “the head was rather
larger than the body”, we don’t hesitate to read “broader”.--It is
the third time that the animal’s tongue was observed. The tongue most
probably was rather pointed, which led the two mariners to compare
it with a harpoon.--Remarkable is the statement of the animal having
a small bunch on each side of the head just above its eyes. This is
the heavy eye brow figured by BING (fig. 19) and so often described
afterwards.
In a letter from Col. T. H. PERKINS dated Oct. 13, 1820, and published
in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of Nov. 25, 1848, we read:
“Captain Tappan, a person well known to me saw him with his head above
water two or three feet, at times moving with great rapidity, and at
others slowly. He also saw what explained the appearance which I have
described, of a horn on the front of the head. This was doubtless what
was observed by Captain Tappan to be the tongue, thrown in an upright
position from the mouth, and having the appearance which I have given
to it.”
I quite agree with Col. T. H. PERKINS as to the explanation of the
horn (see n^o. 44, p. 180.)--In the _Report_ of 1817 the name is spelt
TOPPAN, whilst Col. PERKINS writes TAPPAN; but as the details of the
two accounts of the prong, or spear, or horn, or tongue are the same,
I am convinced that these two names identify the same person. So the
statement of Captain TOPPAN, WILLIAM SOMERBY and ROBERT BRAGG is
substantiated by COL. PERKIN’S letter.
* * * * *
=49=.--1817, August 30?--In the same letter from Col. PERKINS we read:
“One of the revenue cutters, whilst in the neighbourhood of Cape Ann,
had an excellent view of him at a few yards’ distance; he moved slowly;
and upon the approach of the vessel, sank and was seen no more.”
* * * * *
=50=.--1817, October 3.--In a letter from Mr. THOS. HERTTELL to Mr.
SILVANUS MILLER, printed in the _Report of a Committee_, 1817, a
passage runs as follows:
“Understanding that Mr. James Guion, a gentleman of character and
respectability, had seen what was supposed to be the same animal, I
yesterday conversed with him on the subject. He states that on Friday
the 3d. inst. while on the point of land on the east side of the mouth
of Mamaroneck harbour, he saw a little distance from the rocks, usually
called the Scotch Caps, which lie at the extremity of Rye Point, a
large marine animal, going with great rapidity up sound. He judged his
speed to be little or no less than a mile in a minute. He describes
the irregularity and unevenness of his back, about fifty feet of which
appeared above the surface of the water, much in the way in which I
have done.”
* * * * *
=51=.--1817, October 5.--The abovesaid letter runs as follows:
“Rye-Neck, Oct. 21, 1817”
“Silvanus Miller, Esq.”
“Sir, I observed in the Columbian of the 15th. inst. a paragraph
stating that an animal had been seen in Long Island sound,
corresponding with the description of the serpent lately seen in
Gloucester harbour. That communication probably resulted from some
observations which I made to you, and several other gentlemen, on the
subject alluded to. When I spoke on that occurrence, I had no idea
that it would become the subject of a newspaper remark; but since it
has been publicly noticed, perhaps a more particular detail of the
circumstances may not be deemed improper.”
“On Sunday, the 5th. inst. at 10 o’clock A. M. while standing a few
rods from my house on Rye-Neck, I observed at a small distance to the
southward and eastward of Mr. Ezekiel Halsted’s dwelling on Rye Point,
and perhaps not more than a half mile from the shore, a long, rough,
dark looking body, progressing rapidly up sound (towards New York)
against a brisk breeze, and a strong ebb tribe. Viewing it with my
glass convinced me it was a large living animal.--His back, forty to
fifty feet of which was seen above the surface of the water, appeared
to be irregular, uneven, and deeply indented. I did not at this time
remark that his head was more elevated above the water than the ridges
or humps on his back. Some trees standing near the water, Rye Point
soon intercepting my view of him, I hastened to a situation from
which I obtained another sight of him as he passed that part of the
sound opposite Hempstead bay. At this time he appeared to be nearly
in the middle of the sound--his body more depressed below and his
head more elevated above the water, going with increased velocity in
the direction of Sand’s point, creating a swell before him not unlike
that made by a boat towed rapidly at the stern of the vessel. From the
time I first saw him till I lost sight of him perhaps could not have
exceeded ten minutes, in which short time he had gone probably not less
than six or seven miles.”
“I was yesterday informed on creditable authority, that on the day on
which I saw the above mentioned animal, he was seen by some persons at
or in the vicinity of the light house on Sand’s Point.”
“That it was a sea animal of great bulk, to me is certain.--That it is
what is usually called a Sea-Serpent, and the same which appeared in
Gloucester harbour, is only probable.”
“With much respect, Sir, yours, &c.”
“Thos. Herttell.”
Though the usual statement that the animal had bunches on its back
is here expressed in other terms, viz.: that its back was irregular,
uneven, deeply indented, it may be seen at a glance that no new feature
gave rise to these terms. The animal may moreover have had a mane,
extending all over the back.
* * * * *
N^o. 20 of the _Report_ is, as we have seen above (p. 161), 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. Here is an extract from the matter given by that Bishop
about the sea-serpent, and the whole affidavit of Capt. VON FERRY.
After this the Committee goes on:
“We have seen and heard sundry other statements of various authority
relating to similar animals, said to have been seen at sea by different
persons, but do not insert them in our report, because we consider the
foregoing testimony sufficient to place the existence of the animal
beyond a doubt; and because they do not appear so minute and so well
authenticated as the preceding documents.”
Poor Committee! Could they have foreseen that _seventy_ years
afterwards the existence of the sea-serpent was _not_ beyond a doubt,
at least among learned persons, they would not only have published all
those sundry other statements, but have exerted themselves more in the
matter than they did now. They would have gone to have a look at the
animal and made an affidavit of their observations, and--even then they
would not have been believed!
I would kindly beg the Linnaean Society of Boston, or that learned
Society which has inherited its archives, either to publish _all_
reports, accounts and letters in their hands, or to send them all to
me, that I may enlarge, correct and rectify this work in case a second
edition is called for.
The Committee, after having published the various exceedingly
interesting reports, was of course morally bound to explain the
phenomenon. What kind of beast could it be!? And before the question
had become embarrassing, a _deus ex machina_ in the form of a sick,
illformed and lame little snake presented itself suddenly in a field
near Loblolly Cove. It was killed by a labourer at that place. And as
the people believed that this was a spawn of the great sea-serpent, it
was bought by a certain Dr. and presented to the Committee to examine
it. The Committee really examined and dissected it, and gave a full
account of their experience in their _Report_. They considered the
little snake to be new to science, closely allied to the _Coluber
constrictor_ or Black Snake, a species common in those regions, and
gave it the name of _Scoliophis atlanticus_. This account is followed
by “two documents relating to the appearance of the _Scoliophis_, while
living, and to the circumstance under which it was killed.”
Next they gave “a few remarks on the question” (raised by the public)
“whether the great Serpent, seen in the Harbour of Gloucester, be
the _Scoliophis atlanticus_”. These “few remarks” fill three pages
and a half, and end with their conclusion that this is indeed the
case, “until a more close examination of the great Serpent shall have
disclosed some differences of structure, important enough to constitute
a specific distinction.”
* * * * *
Now, my readers will probably say that I have not yet explained why
none of the eye-witnesses of the animal seen near Cape Ann saw a
mane. I hope my readers will be satisfied when I tell them that I am
convinced that the female Sea-Serpent has no mane, and that the mane is
only a character of full grown males. So most of the eye-witnesses saw
a female. It is only the individual witnessed by Messrs. JAMES GUION
and THOS. HERTTELL which was most probably a male and had a mane. Seen
from a distance its back was uneven, and deeply indented.
* * * * *
Dr. HAMILTON in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, “Groep III”, devoted
a few pages to the “_Report of a Committee_”, giving a very short
extract from it.
* * * * *
I will insert here an extract from a letter written by EDWARD EVERETT,
Esq., Nov. 13, 1817, then in Paris, to the “Obermedicinalrath und
Ritter” BLUMENBACH in Göttingen. This extract, here printed for the
first time, is preserved in the Library of the Royal University of
Göttingen; it runs as follows:
“With Respect to the monstrous Serpent, of which I furnished you some
account, before leaving Göttingen, I am sorry to say that the Reports,
which circulated in the newspapers of his capture, were incorrect,
and that he has escaped. Great attempts were made, and large sums of
money offered, in Vain. I begun to collect a full account of him out
of 300 American Newspapers, which I intended for You, but as I hear
that a pamphlet, on the subject, is preparing by our Linnaean Society,
which will contain depositions made on Oath, I have prefered waiting,
till this appears, and I shall have it sent to you immediately. I
have received to-day a letter of Oct. 25 from my brother, in which he
informs me, that--a few days after the Serpent disappeared--a Young
Serpent, 3 feet long, corresponding with the large one in appearance,
was taken. This was brought to Boston, has been dissected, and
pronounced a Non-descript, by the Connoisseurs there. This will also
be described in the pamphlet of the Linnaean Society. Upon the subject
of the Serpent four letters have been written by Gen. Humphreys of
Boston--a member of the Royal Society--to Sir Joseph Banks; so that
it is possible something may appear in the Philosophical Transactions
about it.”
Afterwards we shall read more of the attempts to catch the Sea-Serpent.
It is a pity that Mr. EVERETT never published his collection! Most
probably it has gradually disappeared in the paper-basket! Apparently
Mr. EVERETT and Mr. BLUMENBACH corresponded much about the serpent: I
also found a list of ancient works in which the sea-serpent and large
snakes are mentioned, forwarded by the former to the latter, and in the
above-mentioned letter EVERETT calls the Sea-Serpent “Our old friend
the Serpent.”
As soon as the _Report_ reached Europe, Mr. H. M. DUCROTAY DE
BLAINVILLE made an extract from it in his _Journal de Physique, de
Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle_, Vol. 86, (Paris, 1818). Apparently
he too believed the little snake to be a new species, and therefore
paid more attention to it than to the large marine animal, which he
doubtlessly could not explain, and about which he did not trouble
himself much. In one respect Mr. DE BLAINVILLE tried to throw ridicule
on two reports, viz. those of ROBERT BRAGG and WILLIAM SOMERBY: “and
the imagination of some sailors is cause that they saw a tongue or
spear coming out of his mouth, to which they gave a length of twelve
feet, a circumference of 6 inches at the bottom and a termination as a
lancet.” As we saw, the two sailors only mentioned a _tongue_ of _two_
feet; they did not use the expression of spear, they neither gave the
circumference at the bottom, nor did they describe the termination as
a _lancet_’s but as a _harpoon_’s. It was Mr. FOSTER who saw a _prong_
or _spear_, but only of twelve _inches_ and terminating in a _small
point_. At all events Mr. DE BLAINVILLE has read badly!
But on the other hand he is a believer. His extract ends thus:
“If we were now to scrutinize the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent,
we must confess that it would be difficult to deny the appearance
of an animal of very great length, very slender, and swimming with
rapidity, in the sea near Cape Ann, but that it is a true snake, this
is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as the _Scoliophis_, this
assertion is still more doubtful, and finally that it is of the same
species, here the number of probabilities still diminishes, and becomes
totally null, if one believes that such an immense animal, as that
which is observed in the sea has gone ashore to lay its eggs.”
For this is firmly believed by the Committee!
* * * * *
Prof. W. D. PECK in his dissertation on the Sea-Serpent (_Mem. Am.
Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV. Pt. I, 1818) says:
“The testimony is ample of the existence of such a serpent, in the
portion of the Atlantic which washes our shores.”
After having mentioned some early accounts Prof. PECK says:
“These are the earliest notices I can find of this animal on our
shores, and their truth is rendered undubitable by the evidence lately
brought together by the Committee of the Linnaean Society, of men of
fair and unblemished character in Gloucester.”
After having given an extract from these evidences, Prof. PECK says:
“The accounts of all these persons are very consistent; to the
greater part it appeared to be straight, or without gibbosities or
protuberances on the back; one person thought it had protuberances, but
it seems probable that the upper flexures of its undulations occasioned
this opinion.”
“Its velocity is variously estimated; by some it was thought to move
a mile in a minute, by others in three, four, or five minutes. It has
great lateral flexibility, as is shewn by its turning short and moving
in an exactly contrary direction, advancing the head in a line parallel
with the body; hence its undulations when under water and equally
surrounded by the medium, may be either vertical or horizontal at the
will of the animal. The judgment of its velocity, however, without
knowing its precise distance and without instruments to observe it, is
extremely liable to err.”
“In the testimonies above referred to, the imagination seems to have
had no influence, and we certainly know from them, that the existence
of the animal to which they relate is indisputable; we know that it
moves by vertical undulations, at least while near the surface of the
sea; that it is laterally as flexible as other serpents; and that its
motion, at times, is very swift; but our knowledge is circumscribed by
these limits. It is to be hoped, that if it again visits our shores,
some successful means may be devised of taking it and presenting an
opportunity of completing our knowledge of so interesting a link in the
chain of animated beings.”
“It has been seen in Long Island sound, progressing southward; it seems
from this circumstance to be migratory, like the Coluber natrix in
Hungary, and may pass the winter season in Mexico or South America.”
A remarkable fact is it that Prof. PECK really believes that it was a
sea-snake of enormous dimensions!
* * * * *
The _Journal of Science and the Arts_, edited at the Royal Institution
of Great Britain, republished in its fourth Vol. (London, 1818) the
affidavits of Messrs. LONSON NASH and WILLIAM B. PEARSON, (n^o. 41, p.
170, and n^o. 44, p. 177) and the writer of the article declares: “the
existence of the animal is placed beyond doubt.” Now we are in 1892,
and yet it is doubted!
* * * * *
=52=.--1818 June.--(_Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts R. Inst. Gr. Britt._
VI, 1818.)
“The _Commercial Advertiser_ of June 9th. contains a letter from a
Captain of the brig _Wilson_, of Salem, bound to Norfolk, wherein he
states, that during his passage, off Cape Henry, he fell in with, as
he at first supposed, the wreck of a vessel, when he ordered his boat
to be lowered; but to his great astonishment he found it to be the
sea-serpent; he says, he then examined it, and such an object he never
before witnessed; he believed it to be 190 feet in length, and its
mouth and head were of an enormous size. After returning to the ship
they bore off, fearing the consequences that might result from its
coming in contact with the vessel.”
The only characters mentioned here are the enormous head and the length
of about 190 feet. Both may be exaggerated though greater dimensions
are mentioned in later trustworthy reports.
* * * * *
=53=.--1818, June 19.--(_Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts R. Inst. Gr.
Brit._ VI, 1818).--
“On the 19th of June he appeared in Sag-Harbour, and rewards were
offered to the whalers to secure it.”
* * * * *
=54=.--1818, June 21.--(_Ibidem_).
“S. West, of Hallowell, master of the Packet _Delia_, describes it as
seen on the 21st. of June, engaged with a whale.”
The writer does not mean to say that it was a whale-bone-whale or
a sperm-whale, but a whale of the smaller kind, viz. a dolphin, a
grampus, or a porpoise. We shall come across an account stating that
the eye-witnesses saw a panic amongst a shoal of porpoises, evidently
caused by a sea-serpent pursuing them (n^o. 97); and across another
account, stating that a sea-serpent was seen seizing a porpoise in one
of its lateral fins (n^o. 151). It is evident that when the opportunity
offers, a sea-serpent also preys on the grampuses, porpoises and
dolphins.
* * * * *
=55=.--1818 July 2.--(_Ibidem_).
“and on July 2d. two persons, J. Webber and R. Hamilton, saw it
about seven miles from Portland, between Cranch Island point and
Marsh-Island.”
* * * * *
=56=.--1818 July.--(_Phil. Mag._ LIV, 1819). The second Sea Serpent
described by Mr. RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ (for he believes there are several
species) is called by him:
“_Capt._ BROWN_’s Sea-Serpent_. This fish was observed by Capt. Brown
in a voyage from America to St. Petersburg, in July 1818, near 60° N.
latitude and 8° W. longitude, or north of Ireland. In swimming the
head, neck and forepart of the body stood upright like a mast: it was
surrounded by porpoises and fishes. It was smooth, without scales, and
had eight gills under the neck; which decidedly evinces that it is
not a snake, but a new genus of fish! belonging to the eighth order
_Tremapnea_, 28th. family _Ophictia_, and 3d. subfamily _Catremia_,
along with the genera _Sphagebranchus_ and _Symbranchus_ of Bloch,
which differ by having only one or two round gills under the neck. I
shall call this new genus _Octipos_ (meaning eight gills beneath); head
depressed, mouth transverse, large, eight transverse gills under the
neck, and its specific name and definition will be _Octipos bicolor_.
Dark brown above, muddy white beneath: head obtuse. Capt. Brown adds,
that the head was two feet long, the mouth fifteen inches, and the eyes
over the jaws, similar to the horse’s; the whole length might be 58
feet.”
Immediately we recognize our well-known Sea-Serpent, an individual
of which the length is estimated at 58 feet, which held its head and
very long neck upright whilst swimming. Captain BROWN says: “and the
forepart of the body”; of course, for he thought to see a snake; if he
had really seen the forepart of the body, (trunk) he would have seen
the shoulders and the fore-flappers. It was surrounded by porpoises
and fishes. Evidently the animal swam between them with the purpose to
snatch one of them. It had a smooth skin, no scales, and eight gills
under its neck. Dark brown above (i. e. on the dorsal part of head and
neck), muddy white beneath (i. e. on its throat); head obtuse (read
rather obtuse, seen from above or from below, or in front; just from
aside it is rather pointed). The head was two feet long, the mouth
fifteen inches (of course estimated dimensions), and the eyes over
the jaws similar to those of a horse (this definition was caused
by the heavy eye-brows and by the little bunch above each eye). The
whole description is exactly that of our animal in the above-mentioned
position and seen from a certain direction. For “eight gills” we may
safely read “eight gillsplits”, or eight splits caused by and lying
between nine folds or wrinkles, which in their turn are caused by the
animal bending its head rectangularly towards the throat. Such folds or
wrinkles are also seen in sea-lions, when they make the same motion,
and stout corpulent persons will know what is meant by a double chin!
* * * * *
=57=.--1818, July?--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through
Sweden_ in 1820, p. 187, says:--
“The fishermen at Sejerstad said a sea-serpent was seen two years ago
in the Folden Fjord, the length of which, as far as it was visible
was 60 feet. This had been told them by those who had seen it in the
Folden.”
* * * * *
=58=.--1818, August?--At p. 203 the same author mentions:
“On being asked (viz. the merchant of Fieldvigen) his opinion
respecting the serpent, he said he had never seen it himself, though
others had in that neighbourhood.”
=59=.--1818, August 19.--In 1818 in the United States many rewards were
offered to whalers to catch the animal, and many attempts were made to
do this, and to bring it home, dead or alive. Amongst others this was
the case at Boston. In the copy of the _Report of a Committee_ of 1817,
which I borrowed from the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen,
there was a paragraph from a newspaper of August 21, 1818, the head or
title of which was not noted down; the cutting runs as follows:
“Boston Aug. 21.”
“Transmitted by our N. Y. correspondents.”
“Capt. Rich, who went from here a few days since, in pursuit of the
sea-serpent, writes the concern as follows:
“_Squam River, Aug. 20th., 12 o’clock._--After several unsuccessful
attempts, we have at length fastened to this strange thing called the
sea-serpent. We struck him fairly, but the harpoon soon drew out. He
has not been seen since, and I fear the wound he received will make him
more cautious how he approaches these shores. Since my last, yesterday,
we have been constantly in pursuit of him; by day he always keeps a
proper distance from us, to prevent our striking oars. But a few hours
since, I thought we were sure of him, for I hove the harpoon into him
as fairly as ever a whale was struck; took from us about 20 fathoms of
warp before we could wind the boat, with as much swiftness as a whale.
We had but a short ride when we were all loose from him to our sore
disappointment.”
“Rich’d. Rich.”
“_Gloucester, Aug. 20._--As I thought it would be interesting to you
to hear from Capt. Rich, and as he is at some distance, I will give
you some particulars of his cruise. On Monday last he sailed from this
in a large whale boat, and two smaller ones well manned. My brother
commanded one of the boats. Yesterday they met the Serpent off Squam,
and chased him about seven hours, when they closed with him. He passed
directly under the bows of Capt. Rich’s boat; he immediately threw
the harpoon, which pierced him about two feet; he drew the boat a
considerable distance but went with such a velocity that he broke
that part of the boat through which the rope passed and drew out the
harpoon. I hope they will have another opportunity before they give up
the chase.”
“He has _no_ scales on him, and no bunches on his back, but his skin
is smooth, and looks similar to an eel. In the attack, Capt. Rich had
one of his hands wound. These particulars I have in a letter from my
brother.”
“Saml. Dexter.”
As far as I can judge after having read what I could find about the
Sea-Serpent, this is the only time that the animal was struck with a
harpoon. Evidently the animal then swam with its body in a straight
line. Interesting to us are the words: “He has _no_ scales on him, and
no bunches on his back, but his skin is smooth, and looks similar to an
eel”.
* * * * *
The attempts mentioned above were continued, and, as my readers already
read in my Chapter on hoaxes, ended with a hoax; at last a large tunny
was brought in, and many persons believed it to be the animal! Among
those who were present there was a Mr. ANDREWS NORTON; he wrote, Sept.
11, 1818, a letter about this affair to Mr. GEORGE BANCROFT, an extract
from which is also inserted in our Chapter on hoaxes. I will repeat
here his last words:
“I have only to add that if you should learn that any one of the
German literati is writing a volume upon Sea-Serpents, I beg you will
assure him that we” (Mr. NORTON and Prof. PECK) “do not consider the
circumstance connected with the deception just mentioned, as affecting
the evidence before obtained for their real existence.”--
* * * * *
_The Quarterly Journal of Literature, Science and the Arts R. Inst. Gr.
Brit._ repeats in its Vol. VII, London, 1819, the whole paper of Prof.
PECK, and a translation into German appeared in OKEN’s Isis of 1819.
* * * * *
The well-known RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, when in America, made the
sea-serpent a subject of study and inquiry as Prof. PECK had done. He
too wrote a paper about it, entitled: _Dissertation on Water-Snakes,
Sea-Snakes, and Sea-Serpents_. It seems that his dissertation appeared
in an American Journal or in American Transactions, and that it was
afterwards reprinted in the _Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. LIV, 1819.
He is a believer in Sea-Serpents, is evidently convinced that several
species exist, belonging to the family of the _Hydrophidae_, or real
Sea-Snakes.
After having mentioned 9 species of real Sea-Snakes, of which the last
was 8 to 10 feet long, he goes on:
“This last species appears to be the largest real Sea-Snake which has
fallen under the personal observation of naturalists as yet. But larger
species still have been noticed at different periods. If I had the
time and opportunity of perusing all the accounts of travellers and
historians, I could probably bring many into notice; but this tedious
labour must be postponed, and I must warn those who may be inclined
to inquire into the subject, not to be deceived by the imperfect and
exaggerated accounts of ancient and unknown writers. Whenever they
mention neither the scales nor tail of their Sea-Serpents, or when they
assert they had no scales, or had gills or fins, you must in all those
instances be certain that they are real fishes rather than serpents.
There might, however, be found some Sea-Snakes without scales, since
there are such land snakes; and there are fishes with scales and yet
without fins: but there are no fishes without gills, and no snakes
or serpents with gills!--in that important character the classical
distinction consists.”
“Nearly all the writers whom I can remember, have been unacquainted
with that obvious distinction; and they have, in imitation of the
ancient Greek and Roman writers, given the name of Sea-Snakes to the
large eels or fishes they happened to observe. This I apprehend is the
case with Pontoppidan, in his Natural History of Norway; with Mongitore
in his Remarkable Objects of Sicily; with Leguat, in his Travels to
Rodriguez Island, &c. Their observations, and the facts they record,
are notwithstanding equally valuable, since they relate to monstrous
unknown fishes, which seldom fall under the observation of men. The
individuals of huge species are not numerous in nature, either on land
or in water, and it is probable they often become extinct for want of
food or reproduction.”
“Among the four different animals which have lately been observed by
Americans, and named Sea-Serpents, only one (the Massachusetts Serpent)
appears to be such; another is evidently a fish, and two are doubtful.
I shall refer a few remarks on each.”
“1. _The Massachusetts Sea Serpent._ From the various and contradictory
accounts given of this monster by witnesses, the following description
may be collected.--It is about 100 feet long; the body is round and
nearly two feet in diameter, of a dark brown, and covered with large
scales in transverse rows; its head is scaly, brown mixed with white,
of the size of a horse’s and nearly the shape of a dog’s; the mouth
is large with teeth like a shark; its tail is compressed, obtuse,
and shaped like an oar. This animal came in August last into the bay
of Massachusetts in pursuit of shoals of fishes, herrings, squids,
&c. on which it feeds. Its motions are very quick: it was seen by a
great many; but all attempts to catch it have failed, although 5000
dollars have been offered for its spoils. It is evidently a real Sea
Snake, belonging probably to the genus _Pelamis_, and I propose to
call it _Pelamis megophias_, which means Great Sea Snake Pelamis. It
might however be a peculiar genus, which the long equal scales seem to
indicate and which a closer examination might have decided: in that
case the name of _Megophias monstrosus_ might have been appropriated to
it.”
We observe that Mr. RAFINESQUE gives here some characters to the
Massachusetts’s Sea-Serpent, with which we have met nowhere else,
apparently only for the purpose of rendering his supposition more
plausible: 1. “The scales”. It is true that some of the eye-witnesses
have declared the skin to be rough and scaly, but against _one_ who
says so, there are _twenty_ who deny it, describing the skin to be
smooth and having no scales. 2. “The scales are in transverse rows.”
This assertion is made nowhere else. 3. “Its head brown mixed with
white.” A new statement. The head is only described as white on its
throat and lower jaws. 4. “The head of the shape of a dog’s.” I did not
find this expression any where else; on the contrary all agree in its
resembling a serpent’s or a snake’s head. 5. “The teeth like a shark’s,
the tail compressed, obtuse, shaped like an oar.” Nobody saw either
teeth or tail! Indeed a splendid description after the reports given of
the animal’s external features!
* * * * *
=60=.--1819, June 6.--(SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and the
Arts_, Vol. II, Boston 1820.)
“I, Hawkins Wheeler, of Fairfield, in the County of Fairfield, and
state of Connecticut, mariner, Commander of the sloop Concord, of said
Fairfield, in her late passage from New York to Salem, in the County
of Essex and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on oath declare, that
during the said passage from New York to Salem, to wit, on Monday, the
6th. day of June instant, at about five o’clock in the morning, the
sloop being as near as I could judge, 15 miles N. W. of Race Point,
and within sight of Cape Ann, I was at the helm of the sloop, and saw
directly a-head, (the course of the vessel being N. W.) something that
resembled a snake, about 100 yards distance from the sloop, moving in
a S. W. direction. The animal moved in that direction, till he had
passed athwart the course of the sloop, and appeared directly over the
weather bow, when he altered his course to S. E. At this time he had
been visible about five minutes, when he sunk, and in about six or
eight minutes after, appeared again directly over the weather quarter,
about the same distance from the sloop--he continued in that course
about five or six minutes, when he sunk again, and I saw him no more.
His motion was at the rate of about four miles an hour, when he passed
ahead; but after he appeared again on the quarter, his motion was less
rapid. To the best of my judgment he was not more than 100 yards of
the vessel--the weather was good and clear--it was almost calm, with a
light air of wind from the S., the vessel was going about two knots--I
had a fair and distinct view of the creature, and from his appearance
am satisfied that it was of the serpent kind. The creature was entirely
black; the head, which perfectly resembled a snake’s, was elevated
from four to seven feet above the surface of the water, and his back
appeared to be composed of bunches or humps, apparently about as large
as, or a little larger than a half barrel; I think I saw as many as
ten or twelve, but did not count them; I considered them to be caused
by the undulatory motion of the animal--the tail was not visible,
but from the head to the last hump that could be seen, was, I should
judge, 50 feet. The first view I had of him appeared like a string
of empty barrels tied together, rising over what little swell of the
sea there was. What motion I could discern in the body of the animal
was undulatory, but he evidently moved his tail under water, and the
ripples produced by it indicated a sweeping motion, making a wake as
large as that made by the sloop.”
“Hawkins Wheeler.”
“Essex, ss. June 9th. 1819.--Then Hawkins Wheeler personally appeared,
and made oath that the foregoing affidavit by him subscribed, contains
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Before me
“Theodore Eames, Justice of the Peace.”
“I, Gersham Bennet, of Fairfield, in the County of Fairfield, and
State of Connecticut, mariner, on oath declare, that I was mate of the
sloop Concord, Hawkins Wheeler, master, in her late passage from New
York to Salem, Mass., that on Monday, the 6th. day of June inst., at
seven o’clock in the morning, I was on the deck of the sloop, sitting
on the hatches--the vessel was steering N. W. and was then about
eighteen miles from Race Point--the man at the helm made an outcry,
and said there was something alongside that he wanted me to look at.
I looked, and saw something on the larboard side of the vessel, about
twelve rods, certainly not exceeding fourteen, from the vessel, that
resembled a serpent or snake. I immediately arose and went to the side
of the vessel, and took a position on the rough tree, holding on by
the shrouds; I there saw a serpent of an enormous size and uncommon
appearance, upon the water; his head was about the length of the anchor
stock above the surface of the water, viz. about seven feet. I looked
at the anchor stock at the time, and formed my opinion by comparing
the two objects. The weather was very clear and good and the water
almost calm; and I had, I think, as good a view of the animal as if I
had been within two rods of him. The colour of the animal throughout,
as far as could be seen, was black, and the surface appeared to be
smooth, without scales--his head was about as long as a horse’s and was
a proper snake’s head--there was a degree of flatness, with a slight
hollow on the top of his head--his eyes were prominent, and stood out
considerably from the surface, resembling in that respect the eyes of
a toad, and were nearer to the mouth of the animal than to the back of
the head. I had a full view of him for seven or eight minutes. He was
moving in the same direction with the sloop, and about as fast. The
back was composed of bunches about the size of a flour barrel, which
were apparently about three feet apart--they appeared to be fixed,
but might be occasioned by the motion of the animal, and looked like
a string of casks or barrels tied together--the tail was not visible,
but the wake of his tail which he evidently moved under water, showed a
horizontal or sweeping motion, producing a wake as large as the vessel
made. He turned his head two or three times slowly round towards and
from the vessel, as if taking a view of some object on board. I went
up on the rigging, for the purpose of taking a view of him from above;
but before I had reached my station, he sunk below the surface of the
water, and did not appear again. Gersham Bennett.”
“Essex ss. June 9th. 1819.--Then Gersham Bennett personally appeared
and made oath that the foregoing affidavit by him subscribed, contains
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Before me,
“Theodore Eames, Justice of the Peace.”
It is probable that Mr. BENNETT is right in considering the “wake as
large as the vessel made” was produced by a horizontal or sweeping
motion of the tail, but it is far more probable that it was caused by
the motion of the hind-flappers, supposed the animal nearly touched the
surface of the water with the hinder part of the body.
New characters to us are these: that there is a slight hollow on
the top of its head, that its eyes are prominent, and stand out
considerably from the surface, resembling in that respect the eyes of
a toad, and that they are nearer to the mouth of the animal than to the
back of the head.
* * * * *
=61=.--1819, July.--A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through Sweden,
in the Summer of 1820_, says at p. 187:
“As I had determined, on arriving at the coast, to make every inquiry
respecting the truth of the accounts, which had reached England the
preceeding year, of the sea-serpent having recently seen off this part
of Norway, I shall simply give the different reports, I received of
it during my voyage to the North Cape, leaving others to their own
conclusions, and without expressing, at least for the present, any
opinion respecting them.”
and at p. 198:
“From him (the postmaster Mr. SCHILDERUP) I learned some curious
particulars respecting the sea-serpent, which had caused so much
alarm and wonder in Norway, and the report of which, as I have said,
had even reached England. From having formerly been in the Norwegian
sea service, he was called Captain Schilderup; and seemed a quick
intelligent man. It appeared, that the serpent had actually been off
the island for a considerable length of time during the preceding
summer, in the narrow part of the Sound, between this island (Ottersum)
and the continent; and the description he gave of it was as follows.”
“It made its appearance for the first time in the month of July, 1819,
off Ottersum, in the sound above mentioned. Previous to this he had
often heard of the existence of these creatures, but never before
believed it. During the whole of that month the weather was excessively
sultry and calm; and the serpent was seen every day, nearly in the same
part of the Sound. It continued there while the warm weather lasted,
lying motionless, and as if dozing in the sun-beams.--This part of his
account reminded me of the monster of the deep, so finely described by
Milton.”
“The number of persons living on the island, he said, was about thirty;
the whole of whom, from motives of curiosity, went to look at it while
it remained. This was confirmed to me by subsequent inquiries among the
inhabitants, who gave a similar account of it. The first time that he
saw it, he was in a boat, at a distance of about 200 yards. The length
of it he supposes to have been about 300 ells, or 600 feet. Of this he
could not speak accurately; but it was of very considerable length;
and longer than it appeared, as it lay in large coils above the water
to the height of many feet. Its colour was greyish. At the distance
at which he was, he could not ascertain whether it were covered with
scales; but when it moved, it made a loud crackling noise, which he
distinctly heard. Its head was shaped like that of a serpent, but he
could not tell whether it had teeth or not. He said it emitted a very
strong odour, and that the boatmen were afraid to approach near it,
and looked on its coming as a bad sign, as the fish left the coast
in consequence. Such were the particulars he related to me. Thanking
him for his information, I took my leave of him, and proceeded on my
voyage.”
And at p. 200:
“Near Ottersum is the small Island of Krogoën”, (upon which a
merchant lived, who hearing that Mr. BROOKE was an Englishman, who
travelled to North-Cape, put to him numberless questions.) “Having
answered all these questions as well as I could, and a momentary pause
ensuing I seized the opportunity now to have my turn; and wishing
to hear something still farther respecting the sea-monster, I began
to overwhelm him with interrogations, as to its length, colour,
appearance, time it staid, by whom seen, and many others that occurred
to me. However ludicrous the earnest loquacity on both sides might
have been, I had the satisfaction of hearing him confirm, in every
particular, the account of Capt. Schilderup at Ottersum; and that many
of the people at Krogoën had also witnessed it. It did not appear,
however, that any one had ventured very near it, from the dread that
was entertained of it.”
Of course the length of the animal, estimated from a distance of 200
yards, is exaggerated. The greyish colour is that which the animal
obtains when drying in the sunshine, as I have already explained
before. For the first time we meet with the statement that the animal
emits a very strong odour, which is twice stated here. As we shall
once more come across this statement, we must needs believe it. In my
last chapter I will return to this fact, proving that it is not an
impossible character of sea-serpents.
* * * * *
=62=.--1819, August 12?--Mr. SMITH informed us the sea-serpent had been
seen the evening before at Nahant-beach. (Part of the following report.)
* * * * *
=63=.--1819, August 13?--There appeared an interesting account of an
eye-witness about a sea-serpent in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of
19th. August, 1819. I have not been able to consult this journal. The
report was translated in OKEN’s _Isis_ of 1819, p. 1754, accompanied
by the figure, made by the eye-witness. Happily I found the same in
SILLIMAN’s _American Journal Sc. Arts_, Vol. II, Boston, 1820, but
without the figure. It runs as follows:
“The recent appearance of this animal at Nahant, in the view of several
hundred persons, has furnished, perhaps, more conclusive proof of
his existence, than any that has before been made public. For the
satisfaction of our readers, we have procured a copy of the following
letter, which gives a very clear and intelligible description of his
appearance and movements. We have heard verbal statements from a great
number of gentlemen, all of whom agree in substance with what is here
related.”
“_Copy of a letter from_ James Prince, _Marshal of the District, to the
Hon. Judge_ Davis, _dated_”:
“Nahant, Aug. 16th., 1819.”
“Dear Sir,”
“I presume I may have seen what is generally thought to be the
sea-serpent--I have also seen my name inserted in the evening newspaper
printed at Boston on Saturday, in a communication on this subject. For
your gratification, and from a desire that my name may not sanction
any thing beyond what was presented and passed in a review before me,
I will now state that which, in the presence of more than two hundred
other witnesses, took place near the long beach of Nahant, on Saturday
morning last.”
[Illustration: Fig. 26.--The sea-serpent as delineated by Mr. Prince.]
“Intending to pass two or three days at Nahant, with my family, we
left Boston early on Saturday morning. On passing the halfway house,
on the Salem turn pike, Mr. Smith informed us the sea-serpent had
been seen the evening before at Nahant-beach, and that a vast number
of people from Lynn, had gone to the beach that morning, in hopes of
being gratified with a sight of him: This was confirmed at the hotel.
I was glad to find I had brought my famous mast-head spy-glass with
me, as it would enable me, from its form and size, to view him to
advantage, if I might be so fortunate as to see him. On our arrival
on the beach, we associated with a considerable number of persons, on
foot and in chaises, and very soon an animal of the fish-kind made
his appearance. His head appeared about three feet out of water; I
counted thirteen bunches on his back: my family thought there were
fifteen--he passed three times at a moderate rate across the bay, but
so fleet as to occasion a foam in the water--and my family and myself,
who were in carriage, judged he was fifty feet in length, and, at the
extend, not more than sixty; whether, however, the wake might not add
to the appearance of his length; or whether the undulation of the
water, or his peculiar manner of propelling himself, might not cause
the appearance of protuberances, I leave for your better judgment. The
first view of the animal occasioned some agitation, and the novelty
perhaps prevented that precise discrimination which afterwards took
place--as he swam up the bay, we and the other spectators moved on, and
kept abreast of him; he occasionally withdrew himself under water, and
the idea occurred to me that this occasionally raising his head above
the level of the water, was to take breath, as the time he kept under
water was of an average about eight minutes; after being accustomed to
view him, we became more composed; and made the annexed figure of his
outlines. Mrs. Prince and the coachman having better eyes than myself,
were of great assistance to me in marking the progress of the animal;
they would say he is now turning, and by the aid of my glass I saw him
distinctly in this movement; he did not turn without occupying some
space, and taking into view the time and space which he found necessary
for his ease and accommodation, I adopted it as a criterium to form
some judgment of his length--I had seven distinct views of him from
the long beach so called, and at some of them the animal was not more
than a hundred yards distance. After being on the long beach about an
hour, the animal disappeared, and I proceeded on towards Nahant; but
on passing the second beach, I met Mr. James Magee, of Boston, with
several ladies in a carriage, prompted by curiosity to endeavor to see
the animal, and we were again gratified beyond even what we saw in the
other bay; which I concluded he had left in consequence of the number
of boats in the offing in pursuit of him--the noise of whose oars must
have disturbed him, as he appeared to us to be a harmless timid animal.
We had more than a dozen different views of him, and each similar to
the other; one however so near, that the coachman exclaimed: “Oh, see
his glistening eye”. Thinking I might form some calculation of his
length by the time and distance of each turn; and taking an angle with
my two hands of the length he exhibited, that is to say, from his head
to his last protuberance, and applying the same angle to other objects,
I feel satisfied of the correctness of my decision that he is sixty
feet long, unless the ripple of his wake deceived me--nor my dear sir,
do I undertake to say he was of the snake or eel kind, though this
was the general impression on my family, the spectators and myself.
Certainly it is a very strange animal. I have been accustomed to see
whales, grampuses, porpoises, and other large fishes, but he partook
of the appearance of none of these. The whale and the grampus would
have spouted--the shark never raises his head out of water, and the
porpoise skips and plays; neither of these has such appearances on the
back or such a head as this animal. The shark it is true, has a fin on
his back, and often the fluke of his tail is out of water; but these
appendages would not display the form, and certainly not the number of
protuberances, which this animal exhibited; nor is it the habit of the
shark to avoid a boat. The water was extremely smooth, and the weather
clear: we had been so habituated to see him, that we were cool and
composed--the time occupied was from a quarter past eight to half past
eleven--a cloud of witnesses exceeding two hundred, brought together
for a single purpose, were all alike satisfied and united as to
appearances, and as to the length and size of the animal; but you must
deduct the influence which his passage through the water and the manner
he propelled himself might have as to the apparent protuberances on
his back, and the ripple occasioned by his motion on his real length,
of all which you can judge equally well and better than myself. I must
conclude there is a strange animal on our coast--and I have thought an
unvarnished statement might be gratifying to a mind attached to the
pursuit of natural science, and aid in the inquiries on a controverted
question, which I knew to have interested you. I have ventured on
the description, being also induced to hope, that if anything on the
marvellous is stated as coming from me, you will correct it.
“Accept the respects and attention of
“Dear Sir, yours sincerely
“James Prince.”
We see that Mr. PRINCE uses many words to give a very short description
of the animal. Yet we are able to gather the following details. Its
head appeared about three feet out of the water, there were 13 or 15
bunches on its back, sometimes the rapidity was moderate, occasioning,
however, a foam in the water; length 50 to 60 feet; the animal left
behind it a wake; sometimes it withdrew itself under water; it appeared
to be a harmless timid animal; its eyes were glistening. All these
characters, external features and habits are long known to us. Mr.
PRINCE first said the animal belonged to the fish-kind; afterwards,
however, he dared not say whether it was of the snake or eel-kind;
yet his figure shows large scales and a fish-tail. It is astonishing
that the person who is so careful in his expressions, is so inaccurate
when handling the pencil. The head of the animal in his figure is
more that of a young duck than of a serpent or snake, which the head
of the sea-serpent is said to resemble closely. The coils are badly
drawn, and though 13 to 15 bunches were seen, only six are delineated.
The rippling of the water on the animal’s left side and before it is
well represented, on its right side, however, it is quite wrong. The
two racked-formed wings are certainly the representation of the foam,
caused in the water by the animal’s rapid motion. And finally the
scales and the fish-tail are drawn by Mr. PRINCE though he has not seen
them! I am obliged to state again that this figure is a facsimile of
that which I found in OKEN’s _Isis_; the very one of the _Boston Daily
Advertiser_ I have had no opportunity to see.
The letter from Mr. PRINCE is translated into Dutch in the
_Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen voor 1820, Tweede Stuk, Mengelwerk_.
On the same day it was seen by Mr. CABOT, who wrote the following
letter (SILLIMAN’s _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_, II, 1820) to our well known
“Col. T. H. Perkins”
“Brookline, August 19, 1819.
“Dear Sir”
“I very willingly comply with your request to state what I saw of the
_Sea-Serpent_ at _Nahant_, on Saturday last, particularly as I happened
to see it under favourable circumstances to form a judgment, and to
considerable advantage in point of position and distance.”
“I got into my chaise about seven o’clock in the morning to come to
Boston, and on reaching the long Beach observed a number of people
collected there and several boats pushing off and in the offing. I was
speculating on what should have occasioned so great an assemblage there
without any apparent object, and finally had concluded that they were
embarking in those boats on a party of pleasure to Egg Rock, or some
other point.”
“I had not heard of the _Sea-Serpent_ being in that neighbourhood, and
I had not lately paid much attention to the evidences which had been
given of its existence, the idea of this animal did not enter my mind
at the moment.”
“As my curiosity was directed towards the boats to ascertain the course
they were taking, my attention was suddenly arrested by an object
emerging from the water at the distance of about one hundred or one
hundred and fifty yards, which gave to my mind at the first glance the
idea of a horse’s head. As my eye ranged along I perceived at a short
distance eight or ten regular bunches or protuberances, and at a short
interval three or four more. I was now satisfied that the _Sea-Serpent_
was before me, and after the first moment of excitement produced by the
unexpected sight of so strange a monster taxed myself to investigate
his appearance as accurately as I could.”
“My first object was the Head, which I satisfied myself was serpent
shaped, it was elevated about two feet from the water, and he depressed
it gradually, to within six or eight inches as he moved along. I could
always see under his chin, which appeared to hollow underneath or to
curve downward. His motion was at that time very slow along the Beach,
inclining towards the shore; he at first moved his head from side to
side as if to look about him. I did not see his eyes, though I have
no doubt I could have seen them if I had thought to attend to this.
His bunches appeared to be not altogether uniform in size, and as he
moved along some appeared to be depressed, and others brought above
the surface, though I could not perceive any motion in them. My next
object was to ascertain his length. For this purpose I directed my eye
to several whale boats at about the same distance, one of which was
beyond him, and by comparing the relative length, I calculated that
the distance from the animal’s head to the last protuberance I had
noticed, would be equal to about five of those boats. I felt persuaded
by this examination that he could not be less than eighty feet long; as
he approached the shore and came between me and a point of land which
projects from the eastern end of the Beach, I had another means of
satisfying myself on this point.”
“After I had viewed him thus attentively for about four or five
minutes, he sunk gradually into the water and disappeared; he
afterwards again made his appearance for a moment at a short distance.”
“My first reflection after the animal was gone, was, that the idea I
had received from the description you gave of the animal you saw at
_Gloucester_, in 1817, was perfectly realized in this instance; and
that I had discovered nothing you had not before described. The most
authentic testimony given of his first appearance there seemed to me
remarkably correct; and I felt as if the appearance of this monster had
been already familiar to me.”
“After remaining some two or three hours on the Beach, without again
seeing him, I returned towards Nahant; and in crossing the small beach,
had another good view of him, for a longer time, but at a greater
distance. At this time he moved more rapidly, causing a white foam
under the chin, and a long wake, and his protuberances had a more
uniform appearance. At this time he must have been seen by two or three
hundred persons on the beach and on the heights each side, some of whom
were very favourable situated to observe him.”
“I am very respectfully”
“your obedient servant”
“Samuel Cabot.”
The Editor of the American Journal, Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, adds:
“It is almost superfluous to add, that Mr. Cabot and his friend Col.
Perkins, are gentlemen of the first standing and consideration.”
On Oct. 13, 1820, Col. T. H. PERKINS, when on board the _Ann Marie_,
wrote a letter to his friend Mr. JNO. P. CUSHING; he published it in
the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of 1848, Nov. 25; a passage of it runs as
follows:
“Besides the instances I have mentioned, there were many others
reported of his having been seen the same year. In that year, 1817,
although there were several reports of his having been seen, yet they
were not well authenticated, nor do I place any confidence in them.”
“In the month of August, in the last year, he again made his appearance
in our vicinity, and under very satisfactory circumstances. The weather
being hot, many of our citizens resorted to Nahant to pass a few
weeks. On the number were Mr. and Mrs. Cabot and their children. Mr.
Cabot had a view of him for more than half an hour at one time. He was
in a chair, and had reached what is termed the long beach, when he
saw several persons collected half a mile from him, which called his
attention to the object which occupied them. Mr. C. had heard me often
describe the view I had had of the serpent in 1817, and recognized in
what was visible just without the breakers, and within a quarter of
a mile, the monster which was supposed by many to exist nowhere but
in the imaginations of those who had reported to have seen him. Mr.
Cabot immediately rode back to Nahant; took Mrs. Cabot into his chair
and returned to the beach; but the animal was no longer visible. By
this time the inhabitants of Lynn had assembled to the number of some
hundreds, on and near the beach, and all the visitors of Nahant were
upon the alert. Having given over the hope of seeing him, Mr. Cabot
was returning to leave his wife at her lodgings, when, to their mutual
delight, he came in view just without the surf of the little beach, and
within a quarter of a mile or less of where they stood.”
“Marshal Prince, James Magee, and many persons of my acquaintance
had a fine sight of him, and all agreed in their account of him in
the principal particulars. They all agreed as to the rapidity of his
movements, being very much beyond anything living they had ever seen.
The apparent bunches on his back they consider as arising from the
construction of his body, and that the movement was vertical and not
horizontal. At one time his head was about two or three feet above
water, but soon depressed to the level of the sea. When not swimming to
be in pursuit of his prey, his motion was not rapid. They saw him turn
and bring his body into a letter S, the head being at right angles with
the tail. From fifteen to twenty three bunches, or apparent bunches,
were counted by the different persons who saw him, and his size round
they thought to be that of a common firkin or half barrel”.
“No one thought they saw the whole of the body at a time, the tail
seeming always to be considerably under water. The greatest length
given to him was one hundred feet and no one who had a good sight of
him thought him less than eighty feet in length. If the number of
protuberances is twenty-three (and it seems there are at least this
number), and calculating them to be distant from centre to centre four
feet (and I think, considering their thickness, they cannot be less
than this), he would be ninety two feet long. They all agreed, too, as
to the colour being quite dark, approaching to black.”
In a letter from Dr. BOOTT to Dr. HOOKER, dated London, Nov. 4, 1826,
part of which was published in the _Edinb. Journ. of Sc._, we read that
he visited Boston to gather testimony from eye-witnesses. He then says:
“During this visit I distinctly remember the news coming from Nahant
one morning, of the Serpent being in the bay of that place, distant
about sixteen miles from Boston. Many hurried down to see it, and
among them my brother Mr. James Boott. I was prevented from some cause
leaving Boston. My brother reported that he distinctly saw a large
serpent, about a mile from the shore; and that thousands were watching
its motion on the beach and rocks. The first idea that occurred to my
brother was that it was a horse swimming, its head at the time bearing
a resemblance to that of the latter creature. He afterwards saw the
undulating line of its back, and remained several hours watching the
animal. Colonel Perkins of Boston, his wife, and family, were present
at this time, as far as I recollect.”
So we have of this appearance three different statements of respectable
persons, who distinctly saw the animal on the same spot.
This appearance of the sea-serpent near Nahant is also mentioned in Dr.
HAMILTON’s _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839.
* * * * *
=64=.--1819, August.--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE says in his _Travels
through Sweden, &c._, at p. 207:
“I there” (Stenesöen) “obtained from his” (PEDER GREGER’S) “son John
Greger, a young man, who employed himself in the fishery, still
further information respecting the sea-serpent; it was in August of
the preceding year, while fishing with others in the Vieg or Vegfjord,
that he saw it; at that time they were on shore, hauling in their nets,
and it appeared about sixty yards distant from them, at which they
were not a little alarmed, and immediately retreated. What was seen
of it above water, he said, appeared six times the length of their
boat, of a grey colour, and lying in coils a great height above the
surface. Their fright prevented them from attending more accurately to
other particulars. In fact they all fairly took to their heels, when
they found the monster so near them. The weather at the time was very
hot and calm. Farther to the south (at Stenesöen) he said it was seen
several times, and it remained there for a considerable period.”
* * * * *
=65=.--1819, August.--The same author at p. 216 of his volume relates:
“My honest boatmen who had brought me all the way from Leköe, a
distance of near sixty miles, now left me. Previous to their departure
they gave me the following account of the sea-serpent, which is here
inserted as they related it, without the least variation. They were
fishermen and had been up at the North Cape. During the time they
remained there they saw the serpent twice, once at no very great
distance from them. It was of a grey colour; the head blackish, with
teeth. What they discerned of it they judged to be at least five times
the length of their boat, which is about thirty feet. It moved in large
folds on the water; and when they saw it, they rowed away from it as
fast as they could. The weather was very calm at the time.”
This is the most northern appearance of the sea-serpent. The teeth are
mentioned here, though not described.
* * * * *
=66=.--1819? August?--The same author at p. 222 of his _Travels_ tells
us:
“To the testimony of others respecting the existence of the
sea-serpent, I shall now add that of the bishop” (of the Nordlands and
Finmark) “himself, who was eye-witness to the appearance of two in the
bay of the Shuresund, or Sorsund, in the Drontheim _fjord_, about eight
Norway miles from Drontheim. He was but a short distance from them, and
saw them plainly. They were swimming in large folds, part of which was
seen above the water, and the length of what appeared the largest he
judged to be about 100 feet. They were of a darkish grey colour; the
heads hardly discernable, from their being almost under water; and they
were visible for only a short time. Before that period he had treated
the account of them as fabulous; but it was now impossible, he said,
to doubt their existence, as such numbers of respectable people, since
that time had likewise seen them on different occasions.”
Not a single fact that need astonish us. That _two_ were seen together
is not reported for the first time, as the reader will remember. The
swimming “in large folds, part of which was seen above water”, is a
very accurate description of the effect made by the swimming animals.
The colour is described as a darkish grey, which is exactly the colour
of the animal, when seen at a short distance. Their holding their heads
very low, only just above the surface of the water, is a common habit
of them too.
* * * * *
=67=.--1819? August?--The same author relates (p. 403):
“The last account respecting the existence of the sea-serpent I
received from him” (the sexton of Maasöe) “during our journey. He
was fishing, as he said, with others in the Mageröe-Sund, when they
discerned the monster of the deep, stretching out his bulk in many
a spiral fold, and basking on the surface of the water. Its colour
was dark and as to its length, he assured me, with looks of wonder
and almost of alarm, that it nearly reached from the Mageröe side
to the mainland opposite. In this measurement fear, doubtless, was
the principal agent; for as to any accurate observations made by
himself, they were out of the question. My friend the sexton was much
too prudent a man, to hazard any at such a juncture. A glance was
sufficient for him to commence his flight forthwith, as fast as his
arms would enable him.”
Of course I agree with Mr. DE CAPELL BROOKE as to the exaggerated
dimensions attributed to the animal by the sexton of Maasöe. The words
“spiral folds”, of course, are wrong, the author meant the sinuosities
in which the animal moves. Its colour is here described dark, which
corresponds with so many other testimonies.
* * * * *
=68=.--1819? August?--At page 406 of the volume of this author we read
in a note:
“The account of the serpent, received by him” (Prösten DEINBOLT of
Vadsöe) “from several persons on that part of the coast, agreed with
those which have been already given.”
This, of course, is only a report of the appearance of the sea-serpent
near Vadsöe.
* * * * *
=69=.--1819, Aug. 26.--“_Extract of a letter from_ Mr. Cheever Felch,
Chaplan to the United States’ ship Independance of 74 guns, to the
Editor of the Boston Centinel.” (SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_, Vol.
II).
“Gloucester, August 26, 1819.
“Dear Sir.
“Others having taken in hand to give some account of the Sea-Serpent, I
know not why I should not have the same liberty. Being on this station,
in the United States’ schooner Science, for the purpose of surveying
this harbor, we were proceeding this morning down the harbor, in the
schooner’s boat; when abreast of Dallivan’s Neck, William T. Malbone,
Esq. Commander of the Schooner, seeing some appearance on the water,
said--“_there is your sea-serpent_”, meaning it as a laugh on me, for
believing in its existence; but it prooved to be no joke. The animal
was then between thirty and forty yards distance from us. Mr. Malbone,
Midshipman Blake, myself, and our four boatmen, had a distinct view
of him. He soon sunk; but not so deep but we could trace his course.
He rose again within twenty yards distance of us, and lay sometime on
the water. He then turned, and steered for Ten Pound Island; we pulled
after him; but finding that he was not pleased with the noise of our
oars, they were laid in, and the boat skulled. We again approached very
near him. He continued some length of time, playing between Ten Pound
Island and Stage Point. As he often came near the Point, we thought
we could get a better view of him there, than from the boat, of which
he seemed conspicuous. Mr. Malbone and myself landed; and the boat
was sent to order the schooner down, for the purpose of trying what
effect a twelve pound carronade would have upon him. He did not remain
long after we landed, so that I was unable to effect my intention, of
ascertaining, accurately, his length, with my instruments. From my
knowledge of aquatic animals, and habits, and intimacy with marine
appearances, I could not be deceived. We had a good view of him, except
the very short period while he was under water, for half an hour.--His
colour is a dark brown, with white under the throat. His size, we
could not accurately ascertain, but his head is about three feet in
circumference, flat and much smaller than his body. We did not see his
tail; but from the end of the head to the fartherest protuberance, was
not far from one hundred feet. I speak with a degree of certainty,
from being much accustomed to measure and estimate distances and
length. I counted fourteen bunches on his back, the first one, say ten
or twelve feet from his head, and the others about seven feet apart.
They decreased in size towards the tail. These bunches were sometimes
counted with, and sometimes without a glass. Mr. Malbone counted
thirteen, Mr. Blake thirteen and fourteen, and the boatman about the
same number. His motion was sometimes very rapid, and at other times he
lay nearly still. He turned slowly, and took up considerable room in
doing it. He sometimes darted under water, with the greatest velocity,
as if seizing prey. The protuberances were not from his motion, as they
were the same whether in slow or rapid movement. His motion was partly
vertical and partly horizontal, like that of fresh water snakes. I have
been much acquainted with the snakes in our interior waters. His motion
was the same. I have given you in round numbers, one hundred feet,
for his length, that is, what we saw; but I should say he must be one
hundred and thirty feet in length, allowing for his tail. There were
a considerable number of birds about the sea-serpent as I have seen
them about a snake on shore. That there is an aquatic animal in the
form of a snake, is not to be doubted. Mr. Malbone, till this day, was
incredulous. No man would now convince him, there was not such a being.
The sketch or picture of Marshal Prince, is perfectly correct. I could
not, with my own pencil, give a more correct likeness.”
“With respect”
“Your obedient servant”
“Cheever Felch”
“Major B. Russell.”
I will not contest Mr. FELCH’S opinion about Mr. PRINCE’S figure! As
to the letter itself there is not a single statement which can detract
from or add to our present notions of the sea-serpent.
In 1846 Col. T. H. PERKINS, of whom we have spoken more than once,
requested Mr. BOLTON, who was first Lieutenant of the _Independence_ in
1819, to send him some particulars about this appearance. Mr. BOLTON
promptly replied under date of July 14, 1846. This letter, published by
Col. PERKINS in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of Nov. 25, 1848, runs as
follows:
“In the year 1817 I was the first lieutenant of the Independence, of 74
guns, then lying in the harbour of Boston.”
“In the course of the spring or summer a party of officers were
detailed, by order of Commodore Bainbridge, to survey the coast of the
bay, to a limited extent northeastward and outside of the light-house.”
“The officers selected for this duty were the sailingmaster of the
ship, Wm. T. Malbone, and the Rev. Cheever Fetch, the instructor of the
midshipmen.”
“To assist in the service several of the most competent and elder
midshipmen were designated. As they alternated periodically with other
gentlemen of the same grade, I cannot with any degree of precision
venture to name them. I hope that some of them are yet living, and,
further, that they have advanced in professional distinction. There
were also added a sufficient number of seamen and boys.”
“Commodore Bainbridge, Mr. Malbone and Mr. Felch died some years ago.”
“I recollect that on the first occasion, when the Lynx returned to
the Independence, of which ship she was the tender, that Mr. Malbone
reported as having seen a monstrous sea-animal, not before known to
him, of the snake species; the length doubtful, but estimated at some
eighty or more feet; and added as an accident, that the officers and
men employed in a small boat to carry out the soundings had returned in
haste, and indeed alarm, to the Lynx, which was at anchor.”
“These statements were corroborated by Mr. Felch, the officers and
crew.”
“Subsequently it was seen several times, by some of the party, who,
being soon satisfied that it was harmless approached comparatively
near, and no doubt gave me a minute description of its appearance as
it presented itself to them; but if so, the particular details have
escaped my memory.”
“These facts are all that I can with distinctness and certainty
mention. Wm. Compton Bolton, Captain in the Navy of the United States,
Saratonga Springs, July 14, 1846; to Hon. T. H. Perkins, Boston.”--
It cannot surprise us that in some particulars, as “in the year 1817”,
and in some others this letter does not agree with the foregoing letter
from the Rev. CHEEVER FELCH himself, as twenty-seven years had since
elapsed.
* * * * *
=70=.--1819, September?--Dr. FRANCIS BOOTT in a letter to Dr. HOOKER,
dated London, Nov. 4, 1826, and published in the _Edinb. Journ. Sc._,
VI, 1827, says:
“I remember also that a letter appeared in the _Boston Centinel_, soon
after, published by an officer in the American Navy, who reported
that, on his return from a survey of some part of the coast, he saw,
when out of sight of land, a large serpent. He was so near that he
drew an outline of it, and that outline accompanied the paragraph.
When you showed me Mr. Warburton’s figure on the card, I at first
thought it was a copy of that of the _Centinel_. I can only add, for
your own satisfaction, that _I_ have no doubt of the existence of this
remarkable animal.”
As Dr. BOOTT is speaking of a visit at Boston in August 1819, the
words “soon after” of course signify in the latter part of August or
in the beginning of September. As the officer was “on his return”
and published his encounter in the _Boston Centinel_, the appearance
most probably occurred not far from Boston. The reader will find Mr.
WARBURTON’S drawing further on (n°. 83).
* * * * *
=71=.--1819, September 13?--(_Phil. Mag._ LIV, 1819).
“The great Sea-Snake has been seen again towards the middle of
September, in the bay of Massachusetts, and three yellow collars
observed on his neck, which has led some to believe it might be
another individual and species; but this circumstance might have
been overlooked before. It is not stated whether it had streaks of a
lighter hue on the body, as the first was represented to have by some
witnesses. It is therefore likely that the two characters of “streaks
of a lighter hue on the body and three yellow collars on the neck”, may
be added to its description. The collars are described as about two
inches broad, and one foot apart.”
The three yellow collars observed on its neck may be explained as
follows: The animal has a hairy skin, as we have already seen, like a
seal-skin. Now, when the neck is wet and contracted by the animal, its
skin gets wrinkles, of course running round the neck, as is also the
case in sea-lions. Those parts of these wrinkles, which are deepest,
remain wet for a very long time, because they are not exposed to the
air; those, however, which are highest, if we may use this expression,
are not only most exposed to the air, but the hairs on those parts
diverge and dry as soon as possible; and--when dry, they have a yellow
greyish colour. If the animal now stretches its neck, it may show
one, two, &c., even eight or more yellow-coloured collars round its
dark brown neck, which may have a breadth of about two inches and
a distance of one foot between them. This phenomenon or appearance,
as already stated, is often to be seen in our zoological gardens on
sea-lions and seals.
* * * * *
In the _Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. LIV, 1819, Dr. RAFINESQUE says:
“Dr. Mitchill informs me that General Hawkins has written a memoir
on the sea-serpent of Massachusetts, which he has sent, with a
drawing, to Sir Joseph Banks; it is a paper of some length, and much
interest, as it relates facts, and all the circumstances attending the
appearance and natural history of those huge animals, taken upon oath
of eye-witnesses. He attempts to prove, with much probability, that
several individuals have been seen, and two at least, if not three
species; one with three collars, another without any, and a smaller
one.”
In SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_, Vol. II, 1820, I have found the
following extract from a letter to the Editor, dated Boston, April 8,
1820:
“I have lately received a letter from Sir Joseph Banks, written by his
own hand, in which he expresses his full faith in the existence of
our Serpent in the Sea, and not only as it regards himself, but his
friends, and he is grateful for every new communication I have given
him on that subject, and writes with the same enthusiasm that he did
several years ago. Although he is now very infirm.”
Evidently this was a letter from General HAWKINS.
Professor BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, the Editor of this journal adds:
“Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society of London, the
Companion of Capt. Cook, is now at a very advanced age but still
vigourous in his intellectual powers, and ardent in the promotion of
every species of useful knowledge.”
In Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE’S _Travels through Sweden_, we find at p.
411:
“For a length of time the most extraordinary accounts were circulated
relating to it, till at last the whole story was generally considered
as the fabric of American invention; and there are many, I believe,
in this country” (Great Britain) “who do not consider it in any other
light than that of a hoax. Judging, however, from the detailed
accounts of the circumstance which are preserved among the papers of
sir Joseph Banks, the principal facts appear to be these.”
And at p. 413:
“The repeated accounts of the serpent’s appearance having attracted the
attention of the Linnaean Society at Boston, one of its members was
deputed to visit the spot and to examine into the truth of them. This
was accordingly done; and the above is the general substance of the
various depositions sworn to before General Humphreys. This gentleman,
who was a corresponding member of the Society, despatched to Sir
Joseph Banks copies of the whole of these, which are still preserved
in his library. Sir Joseph entered with warmth into this curious
investigation; and the minuteness, with which every particular was
supplied, showed how greatly he felt interested in the question.”
In Nov. 4, 1826, Dr. FRANCIS BOOTT wrote a letter to Dr. HOOKER, a part
of which was published in the _Edinburgh Journal of Science_, Vol. VI,
1827. Dr. BOOTT, after some general remarks, goes on to express himself
in the following terms:
“All that I could collect upon the subject was sent to Sir Joseph
Banks, with whom I had repeated conversations about the animal, and the
respectability of the individuals who affirmed to the sight of him.
The great mass of evidence is to be found in the pamphlet published
by the Linnaean Society of New England. The question as to the real
appearance of a large serpent off the coast of Massachusetts, was put
to rest by that publication. There could be no doubt of the fact, and
the testimony of thousands who saw the animal _for one or two years
afterwards_, must have been sufficient to satisfy the most incredulous.”
“I believe I was one of the first who mentioned to Sir Joseph Banks,
that a large serpent had been seen on the American coast; at all
events, I distinctly remember that when I first spoke to him on the
subject, he was incredulous, and showed me a Plate of a similar animal
in Pontoppidan’s _History of Norway_. I myself had no doubt of the
truth of the assertions of the early observers of it, for many of them
were known to me, and I was anxious to convince Sir Joseph of the
discovery of a new and remarkable animal. I therefore was in the habit
of sending him every information I could collect respecting it. In one
of my last visits to Boston, I gathered testimony from individuals, and
from the public papers, and was happy to find on my return to Europe,
that Sir Joseph was satisfied of the existence of the serpent, though
he continued doubtful of the relationship between the small snake
(figure 1 of the Linnaean pamphlet) and the large serpent.”
In October, 1828, Mr. MITCHILL read a paper before the New York Lyceum,
which paper will be found in our Chapter on Hoaxes. As we have already
observed, this paper also contains a particular account concerning the
letters addressed by General HUMPHREYS to Sir JOSEPH BANKS.
Again Dr. HAMILTON, in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, asserts:
“General Humphreys, by whom the affidavits were taken, transmitted a
copy of them, and a detail of the whole circumstance, to the late Sir
Joseph Banks, in whose Library the documents are still preserved.”
Remarkable fact! Nowhere I have found a paper of Sir JOSEPH BANKS
himself, neither in the _Transactions of the Royal Society of London_,
nor anywhere else. I beg the present members of this Very Learned Body
to give me the loan of all the papers about the subject, or to publish
them in their next volume.
* * * * *
=72=.--1820, July?--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through
Sweden, during the Summer of 1820_, relates at p. 263:
“During the time I remained at Hundholm a curious circumstance
occurred: One day when at dinner at Mr. Blackhall’s house, and thinking
little of the sea-serpent, concerning which I had heard nothing for
some time, a young man, the master of a small fishing yacht, which
had just come in from Drontheim, joint our party; in the course of
conversation, he mentioned that a few hours before, whilst close to
Hundholm, and previous to his entering the harbour, two sea-snakes
passed immediately under his yacht. When he saw them he was on the
deck, and, seizing a handspike, he struck at them as they came up
close to the vessel on the other side, upon which they disappeared.
Their length was very great, and their colour greyish; but from the
very short time they were visible, he could not notice any other
particulars. He had no doubt of their being snakes as he called them,
and the circumstance was related entirely of his own accord.”
* * * * *
=73=.--1820, August.--In the _Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2361, we read:
“He was several times seen in the month of August, 1820, from the
piazza of the house of Col. Perkins, at Nahant.”
* * * * *
=74=.--1820?--The following report was published in the _Zoologist_ of
1849, p. 2460.
“What degree of confidence the following story may gain is to me a
subject of very little consideration; for as I can have no view of
gaining anything by it, so it certainly will appear that it would
hardly be worth the trouble of invention; but as a story of this sort
has made its appearance among our transatlantic friends, without being
at all credited, it is as likely in Europe this may have the same fate;
yet if it can afford any amusement or information for intelligent and
scrutinizing minds, for their gratification I freely give it to the
press, assuring them, on my sacred honour, of the truth of what I am
about to describe. On Sunday, about 5. P. M., being then in latitude
46, longitude 3, by dead reckoning, observed an immense body on the
surface of the water, apparently without motion, but water spouting
from it, not unlike the blowing of a whale. I immediately got my glass;
and, from its rugged appearance and showing nothing where the water
issued from, I began to entertain some doubts, that this must have been
the vigia laid down for Barenethy’s rocks or the three chimneys, and,
so prepared in my own mind, I directed the steering sails to be taken
in and the ship prepared for going about. Some of my ship’s company
were of opinion it was a ship-bottom up: this I thought not unlikely,
and went into the main cat harpens to look more distinctly at it: the
appearance then was still steady, but irregular. I saw neither head nor
tail above the water, but a hump from one extreme resembling the rise
or point of rather a triangular rock: this tapered to a distance,--I
certainly believe 70 or 100 feet, and the water broke over it, a
little beyond it: it discharged the spout; but nothing showing itself,
undetermined in mind what it could be, or whether I should tack the
ship, it all at once disappeared, and, to my great astonishment, a head
and neck--resembling something of a serpent’s--made its appearance,
erected about six feet above the surface of the water. After taking a
survey towards the vessel, it all at once vanished, leaving us full of
conjecture and surprise. It gives me more confidence in making the
above statement, as one of the seamen, whose name is Jonathan Townsend,
was in the main top, and saw the creature I have described, and would
feel no hesitation in taking an oath to it.--George Sanford, Lieutenant
R. N.”
[“Copied from a memorandum-book of Lieut. Sanford, and communicated by
Dr. Scott, of Exeter. There is no date to the above statement, but it
is presumed to have been written about the year 1820. Lieut. Sanford
then commanded a merchant-ship, the Lady Combermere.--E. N.”]
No doubt the latitude of 46 degrees is northern lat., so that the
appearance occurred in the Bay of Biscay.--The act of breathing
of the sea-serpent, after having remained for some time under the
surface of the water, just as in whales, has an appearance generally
called “spouting”. Apparently the animal held its head just at
water-level, and so it showed “nothing where the water issued from”.
The rugged appearance may have been caused by the animal lying with
several bunches on its back, as afterwards was also reported by the
Lloydsteamer _Kätie_ (n°. 154) or by its having a mane, extending all
along the neck and back. The “hump from one extreme resembling the
rise or point of rather a triangular rock” must have been the animal’s
head which it lifted up just above the surface. Nearly the same
appearance will be observed in the figure of one of the officers of
H. M. S. _Plumper_ (fig. 31). Let the dimensions moreover be somewhat
exaggerated, the “head and neck resembling something of a serpent’s
erected about six feet above the surface of the water”, the “taking
a survey towards the vessel”, and the vanishing at once, makes all
comment superfluous; all these characters have more than once been
reported of this creature.
* * * * *
In the _Philosophical Magazine and Journal_, Vol. LVII, 1821, we find
an extract from the numerous reports communicated by Prof BIGELOW in
SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and the Arts_, Boston, Vol. II,
1820, May.
* * * * *
We have already quoted MILTON, who in his _Paradise Lost_, printed
in 1667, compares Satan with some huge monsters, amongst others the
sea-serpent. Parts of these verses have been more than once cited
by writers of articles on the sea-serpent. I cannot but express my
surprise at this custom, for there is not one single word or expression
in MILTON’S verses, which is taken from accounts, reports, or tales of
the sea-serpent itself. WALTER SCOTT, however, in his _Pirate_: which
was published in 1821, vol. I, chapt. II, says a few words about the
animal, which are so correct, that they must have been taken from some
or other report:
“The Ocean also had its mysteries, etc.”
“The Sea-Snake was also known, which arising out of the depths of
Ocean, stretches to the skies his enormous neck, covered with a mane
like that of a war-horse, and with its broad glittering eyes, raised
mast-head high, looks out, as it seems, for plunder or for victims.”
The large glittering eyes, the enormous neck, covered with a mane are
known characters, and the rising from the depths high into the air,
standing nearly upright and viewing for a moment all around, evidently
taking a survey, is a habit observed more than once.
* * * * *
=75=.--1821, Summer.--Col. T. H. PERKINS on the 13th. of Oct. 1820,
when on board the _Ann Marie_, wrote a letter to his friend JNO P.
CUSHING, which he published in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of
25th. Nov. 1848, after the excitement caused by the appearance of an
individual on the 6th. of August, 1848. The different parts of this
letter are inserted partly in our Chapter on Hoaxes (p. 20, 21) and
partly in n^o. 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 63. The Editor of the _Boston Daily
Advertiser_ now goes on:
“In addition to this interesting narrative our venerable correspondent
gives letters from several members of his family, who _the next summer_
had opportunity to see the sea-serpent, in which the appearance of the
animal is minutely described. This correspondence is very interesting;
the description of the animal agrees entirely with that given above,
and we regret that want of space must prevent the insertion of it.”
It is a great pity that all these letters have not been published.
Perhaps they are now lost for ever!
* * * * *
=76=.--1821.--In a letter from WILLIAM WARBURTON to ROBERT BARCLAY,
Esq. printed in the _Edinburgh Journal of Science_, Vol. VI, 1827, p.
130, and dated 20th. September 1826, we read:
“I dined one day at the Hôtel of New York with Sir Isaak Coffin, who
discredited the existence of such an animal, which was reported to have
been seen by Captain Bennett of Boston, about five years back.”
Of course the occurrence took place near the coast of the U. S.
* * * * *
=77=.--1821, September 25? In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of Jan. 1822, I, we
read:
“The Sea-Serpent, of which much has been spoken of late years, has been
clearly seen again this year by many persons with spy-glasses, and it
is described by all of them and the descriptions agree pretty well with
each other: on Sept. 27 last a distinguished merchant of Nantucket, Mr.
Francis Joy, jun. made a declaration of it on oath before the justice
of the peace.”
* * * * *
=78=.--1821?--Dr. HIBBERT in his _Description of the Shetland Islands_
says at p. 565:
“I have heard, in Shetland, of a sea-serpent being seen off the Isle of
Stenness, Vailey Island and Dunrossness.”
This report is also quoted by Dr. R. HAMILTON in his _Amphibious
Carnivora_, 1839.
* * * * *
=79=.--1822.--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his Travels through Sweden,
&c., 1823, says in a note, p. 416:
“In some very recent accounts I have received from Finmark, founded
on respectable authority, the sea-serpent is stated to have appeared
off Soröe this last summer (1822) and to have been seen by many of
the inhabitants of that Island. The length of the animal is described
as about a fourth of an English mile, its size that of a full grown
ox; the colour of a greyish brown; and the weather when it made its
appearance, calm and fine.”
Fear must have enlarged its length: the diameter, the colour, the
calmness of the weather, however, are all correct.
* * * * *
Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through Sweden &c._, 1823, at
p. 403 tells us a remarkable fact, viz. the striking agreement of the
fabulous tales of the sea-serpent of those days (1820) with those,
related by PONTOPPIDAN. The passage runs as follows:
“The following information, however, which he” (the sexton of Maasöe)
“gave me concerning this animal deserves a greater share of attention.
It is the practise of the fishermen, he said, when at any time they
found themselves suddenly surrounded by the folds of the serpent, and
obliged to pass over a part of it, never to attempt making their way
between the openings, caused by part of the body of the animal being
concealed under water, for fear of its raising and upsetting the boat.
On the contrary, they rowed with all their strength against one of
the visible folds, as the serpent, as soon as he feels the touch of
the boat, naturally sinks down and enables it thus to pass over in
safety. It will appear perhaps as a striking circumstance, that looking
afterward into Pontoppidan, I found the foregoing particulars the very
substance of what is related in his work, which may be said to be
unknown in Finmark, and even of his name my informant had never heard.”
Indeed, this is remarkable, but it is only a proof of the
scrupulousness with which fables are told unchanged! The passages from
PONTOPPIDAN referred to by our traveller have been discussed by me--p.
134.
For history’s sake, as well as to acquaint my readers with all that has
been written for or against the subject, I am obliged to insert all
that Mr. BROOKE further says about it. After having repeated nearly all
what PONTOPPIDAN mentioned about it, he goes on:
“Taking upon the whole a fair view of the different accounts related in
the foregoing pages respecting the sea-serpent, no reasonable person
can doubt the fact of some marine animal of extraordinary dimensions,
and in all probability of the serpent tribe, having been repeatedly
seen by various persons along the Norway and Finmark coasts. These
accounts, for the most part, have been given verbally from the mouths
of the fishermen; an honest and artless class of men who, having no
motive for misrepresentation, cannot be suspected of a wish to deceive.
Could this idea, however, be entertained, the circumstance alone, of
their assertions having been so fully confirmed by others in more
distant parts, would be sufficient to free them from any imputation of
this kind. The simple facts are these: In traversing a space of full
700 miles of coast, extending to the most northern point, accounts have
been received from numerous persons respecting the appearance of an
animal, called by them a sea-serpent. This of itself would induce some
degree of credit to be given to it; but when these several relations
as to the general appearance of the animal, its dimensions, the state
of the weather, when it has been seen, and other particulars are so
fully confirmed, one by the other, at such considerable intervening
distances, every reasonable man will feel satisfied of the truth of the
main fact. Many of the informants, besides, were of superior rank and
education; and the opinions of such men as the _Amtmann_ (Governor) of
Finmark, Mr. Steen of Carlsöe, _Prösten_ (Dean) Deinbolt of Vadsöe, and
the Bishop of Nordland and Finmark, who was even an eye witness, ought
not to be disregarded. There does not appear the least probability,
or even possibility, that any other marine animal at present known on
the northern coast, could have been confounded with the sea-serpent.
The finners, a species of whale already mentioned, are too well known
to occasion any mistake; and the total want of similarity in shape,
appearance, and size, if they were even rare, would be sufficiently
obvious.”
Remarkable is the fact that Mr. DE CAPELL BROOKE considers the animal
to be “in all probability of the serpent tribe”, with which he of
course means _snakes_.
“The strongest confirmation of the fact appears to be the account
received at the island of Otersun. There it will be recollected, the
serpent made its appearance in July, 1819, being visible a short
distance from the shore, nearly every day, during the greater part
of that month, and having been seen during that time by the whole
of the population of the island. The information collected, indeed,
is scantier than might have been expected, from its remaining so
considerable a time; but the talent of observation in fishermen is far
from considerable, and their curiosity is easily gratified. To these
circumstances, and the general dread entertained of this animal, may
be attributed the want of any attempt to take it. At the neighbouring
island of Krogöen also, it will be remembered, that its having appeared
was confirmed; and this would be sufficient at least to cause a
wavering in the minds of those naturalists, who have treated former
accounts as the mere offspring of imagination.”
We may add: not only their curiosity is easily gratified, but
their fear to approach the animal too closely withholds them from
investigating it nearer, or from observing it, as a naturalist or more
curious person would do!
Further he discusses the subject historically, first comparing the
Leviathan in the Book of Job with it, to which idea evidently MILTON’S
_Paradise Lost_ led him. I am far from admitting any relation between
the story in Holy Writ and the sea-serpents. He further quotes KNUD
LEEMS (p. 138), OLAUS MAGNUS (n°. 1, p. 105, 109), HANS EGEDE (n°. 5),
ERIC PONTOPPIDAN, and speaks of the letters written to and preserved in
the library of Sir JOSEPH BANKS, then president of the Royal Society,
by General HAWKINS and General HUMPHREYS.
I am also obliged to repeat here _in extenso_ his plea for the
sea-serpent (p. 415-419):
“In the belief of the possibility of events, men are too generally
guided by the limited knowledge of things they may possess; and there
are doubtless many among the more uninformed classes, who, if told
of the existence of an animal attaining the height of eighteen feet,
such as the giraffe or camelopard, or that the ocean produced one like
the whale, more than 100 feet in length, would not only stare with
astonishment, but would as much doubt the truth of these assertions, as
if informed of the sea-serpent. This is but natural; their knowledge of
the world and its productions, deprived as they are of other means of
attaining it, must be confined to the narrow sphere they live in; and
the ideas they possess of life must necessarily be contracted.”
“The naturalist, however, whose views of creation are bounded by no
country, and whose field of inquiry is the globe itself, sees with
admiration though without surprise the rich kingdom of nature gradually
unfolding itself to the researches of science, and finds his imperfect
catalogue almost daily swelled by proofs of the existence of some new
and extraordinary animal, which before was unknown to the world, or
considered as living in the imagination alone. By the exertions of the
present age, he has become acquainted with many creatures, in their
forms and habits the most singular and strange; and thus he is taught
never to deny the existence of any thing rashly; assured, as he is,
by whatever he beholds, of the unlimited power of the great Creator;
and conscious, that all which the utmost zeal of man can attain is a
knowledge of but a very small portion of his works. When he considers
the various discoveries of modern times, and the astonishing effects
produced by the ingenuity of man in the united application of chemistry
and mechanism, it gives him but a more exalted idea of that great
superior force, which not only sets in motion this master machine,
and indues it with powers of sense and reflection, but causes it to
act in so extraordinary a manner in the creation and reproduction
of matter. In fine the philosopher, whether his researches regard
the minuteness or magnitude of creation, is equally prepared for the
wonders that are displayed to his eye. The aid of the mikroscoop makes
known to him the existence of myriads of living creatures, some of
such incredible smallness, that the utmost powers of the magnifier can
with difficulty render them visible; and of which thousands if put
together, would not equal a grain of sand in bulk. He finds even, that
the human body itself is filled with them; and that the structure of
their own internal parts is equally complex and curious. When, however,
he reflects, that each of these beings, diminutive as they are, may
perhaps contain a countless number of other, visible but to the minuter
tecture of their eyes, he is lost and bewildered, and can only look
forward to the period, when his purer existence will be permitted
to comprehend the great secrets of nature, and the mysteries of the
universe. If, on the other hand, he directs his steps to the deep gnoom
of the African forests, tenanted by their various wild inhabitants, he
sees, on a sublimely enlarged scale the works of the Creator; whether
he meets with the elephant supporting its enormous bulk with peaceful
and dignified steps, or views the huge trunk of the stupendous boa
serpent, extended to the length of fifty feet, and viing in size with
the stately trees, between which it glides, the terror of all, and
the sovereign of the forest. The secrets of the great deep alone are
veiled from his inquiring eyes; and he regrets, that his structure
prevents him from cleaving, like the finny tribe, the watery fluid,
and gazing on the wonders below. Phenomena the most extraordinary, nay
even a new world, would there be opened to his inspection, did not
the grosser materials of his composition obstruct his pursuit. From
the marine animal productions, notwithstanding, that come under his
observation, he finds, on comparing them with those of the land, that
they are larger, proportionably to the vast space allotted them; and
he reasonably concludes, that in the existence of unknown regions of
the ocean, compared with which the land we inhabit may be deemed but as
a spot, and the depth of which is not merely that of some miles, but
extends, for any thing that is known to the contrary, even from pole to
pole; there may be a variety of animals, greatly exceeding in size even
those which, on this account alone, have been deemed fabulous: yet that
their bulk may, nevertheless, be fairly proportioned to the space they
inhabit; and that living midway in this world of waters, without ever
rising even to the surface, or seeing the light of heaven, they may
be made, by the hand that fashioned them, and in ways unknown to us,
subservient to the use and benefit of man.”
“Here let me pause; for though the subject appears the more interesting
and inexhaustible the more it is pursued, yet I feel insensible, that I
have wandered very far, and that the thoughts, to which the sea-serpent
gave rise, have already comprised the whole globe.”
The most remarkable accounts mentioned by Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE are
translated in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, 1823, IV, 84, p. 273.
* * * * *
=80=.--1824 January.--In the _American Journal of Science and Arts_
conducted by Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, Vol. 28, July, 1835, we read:
“The following statement having been made by a gentleman of great
intelligence and candor, a cool and judicious observer, who has
travelled very extensively and traversed the seas in many climates,
the editor desired a written notice of the facts which he is permitted
to publish without the name of the author; with him he is, however,
well-acquainted and reposes full confidence in his integrity and in his
freedom from any influence of imagination.”
“Boston, April, 5th., 1835.”
“To Prof. Silliman,--Dear Sir,--On my passage from the River La Plata
to this country in January, 1824, latitude 34¹⁄₂° South, and 48°
West longitude, I saw what was first supposed to be a fish called an
Albicore; but, on further examination it was discovered to be a serpent
of which I cannot give a clearer description than to say that a common
dark coloured land snake is, in miniature, a perfect representation.
A light breeze prevailed at the time and the sea was quite smooth. It
first appeared within ten feet of the vessel, its head was, perhaps,
two feet above the water and appeared as large as a ten gallons keg;
the eye was distinctly seen. The whole length of the serpent was about
half the length of the vessel, say 40 feet. The size and circumference
of the body, was nearly as large as a barrel; nothing like a fin was
seen. I could not make out the distinct appearance of the tail. The
serpent remained almost motionless while in sight, the head above water
and eyes directed towards the vessel.”