“_Remark of the Editor._--The distance of the place of observation
being several hundred miles from the nearest coast, this serpent must
have been a denizen of the ocean; for the huge land snake of South
America could not navigate so far out to sea if indeed they ever take
to the ocean at all. The snake was perfectly quiet, and appeared quite
comfortable and at home on the waves. We must therefore consider this
case as settling the question of the real existence of a Sea-Serpent.
The absence of paddles or arms forbids us from supposing that this was
a swimming saurian.”
We may observe here that all the characters of the sea-serpent of Prof.
SILLIMAN’S acquaintance agree with those which are already known to us,
and that the supposition or negative explanation of Prof. SILLIMAN,
that this sea-serpent was not a swimming saurian is at least premature,
for the assertion of the eye-witness that “nothing like a fin was
seen” does not prove an “absence of paddles or arms”, which of course
remained hidden under water!
* * * * *
=81=.--1824, Summer.--In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of Oct. 1824, Vol. VIII,
n°. 168, p. 218, we read:
“The American Sea-Serpent is said to have appeared again this summer. A
Mr. Ruggles in Bristol County, has, as is mentioned by the Newburyport
Journal, seen it off Plum-Island and in Shad Cove at a distance of
about 100 feet. The head was two feet long and of a brown colour. Mr.
R. could distinctly observe the teeth in the mouth when opened. He
could not discern the tail, but several times, about thirty feet behind
the head, he observed parts of the animal in an undulating motion”.
Though this is not the first time that the teeth are mentioned to have
been seen, yet now again no description of them is given.
* * * * *
=82=.--1825?--In a paper by Dr. T. S. TRAILL, printed in n^o. 44, May,
1854, of the _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh_, we read:
“That in the ocean such animals do exist, have been affirmed by persons
worthy of credit. I shall notice an unpublished instance related to me
many years ago by my intelligent friend, the late Mr. Andrew Strang,
a gentleman of unblemished honour.” “Once, when on a deep-sea fishing,
he saw pass below his boat, at the depth of eight or ten feet, an
enormously long fish, of an eel-shape. It was swimming slowly with a
vermicular motion, and appeared to be at least sixty feet in length.”
It appeared to take no notice of them; but they hastily removed from
what they considered a dangerous neighbourhood. He stated that he was
shy in mentioning this circumstance, “lest the sceptical public should
class him with the fableloving Bishop of Bergen.” There is considerable
reason to believe that a similar fish has appeared more than once on
the western coasts of Scotland.
Neither date nor locality is mentioned. I don’t hesitate to put the
date at nearly thirty years back, and to choose the year 1825, and
to fix the locality on the western coasts of Scotland, because of
all the coasts of Great Britain only the western ones are frequented
by these animals. I know but one occurrence on the eastern coast of
Scotland, of which I have three observations (n^o. 141, 142, 143). I am
convinced that the animal seen by Mr. ANDREW STRANG was a sea-serpent.
Its enormous length of at least sixty feet, its _vermicular_ motion,
its eel-shape, at once betray it. Evidently the animal moved only by
vertical undulations, holding its four flappers pressed against its
body, otherwise Mr. STRANG would have compared it with “an alligator
with flappers like those of a sea-turtle and with a long neck,” as did
Captain HOPE (n^o. 119.)
* * * * *
=83=.--1826, June 16.--(_New York Advertiser_ of June 21, 1826, and
_American Journal of Science and Arts_, Vol. XI, 1826.)
“Capt. Holdrege, of the ship Silas Richards, which arrived yesterday
from Liverpool, states that in passing George’s Bank, five days since,
he had a fair view of the sea-serpent. It was about ten rods from the
ship, the sea perfectly calm, and that part which appeared out of water
about sixty feet in length. The head and protuberances were similar
to the representations which have frequently been given to him by
persons who had seen him near Cape Ann. He was going at a very slow
rate, and appeared unmindful of the ship. He was visible about seven
minutes to the passengers and crew, who were on deck at the time. A
certificate has been drawn up and signed by the passengers, which, with
a drawing made by one of the gentlemen, gives a minute description
of the serpent as seen by them. The number and credibility of the
witnesses, place beyond all doubt the existence of such an animal as a
sea-serpent.”
Of this occurrence we learn more in the _Edinb. Journ. Sc._, Vol. VI,
1827, where we read in a paper by Dr. HOOKER:
“That which has been the principal inducement for us to present this
imperfect paper to the public, is a letter which we have had the
pleasure of seeing addressed to Robert Barclay Esq. of Bury Hall,
Surrey, from Mr. Warburton, a gentleman belonging to the house of
Barclay, Brothers, and Company, London. That gentleman, proceeding in
his passage to America, on board the Silas Richards, New York packet,
Captain Holdrege, had an opportunity of beholding this sea-monster
on Friday the 16th of June off St. George’s Banks. But his own plain
statement must be presumed far more satisfactory to every candid mind
than any account extracted from his letter.”
“Pentonville, 20th September 1826”
“Dear Sir,”
“Having been informed by your grandson, Mr. Robert Reynolds, that you
were desirous of possessing a sketch of the sea-serpent as seen by me
in crossing the Atlantic, and to have some account of the same; in
compliance with your wishes, I have inclosed a rough pencil drawing of
the monster as it appeared during the time when its head was elevated
above the water, and I shall state the particulars attending this novel
exhibition.”
[Illustration: Fig. 27.--The sea-serpent as seen by Mr. WARBURTON.]
“The captain and myself were standing on the starboard side of the
vessel, looking over the bulwark, and remarking how perfectly smooth
was the surface of the sea. It was about half-past six o’clock P.
M., and a cloudless sky. On a sudden we heard a rushing in the water
a-head of the ship. At first we imagined it to be a whale spouting,
and turning to the quarter whence the sound proceeded, we observed
the serpent in the position as it appears in the sketch, slowly
approaching at not more than the rate of two miles an hour, in a
straight direction. I suppose we were hardly going through the water
so fast, for there was scarcely a breath of wind. I must premise that
I had never heard of the existence of such an animal. I instantly
exclaimed, why, there is a _sea-snake_! “That is the sea-serpent”,
exclaimed the captain, “and I would give my ship and cargo to catch the
monster”. I immediately called to the passengers, who were all down
below, but only five or six came up, among whom was Miss Magee, the
daughter of a merchant in New York. The remainder refused to come up,
saying there had been too many hoaxes of that kind already. I was too
eager to stand parleying with them, and I returned to the captain. In
the same slow style the serpent passed the vessel at about the distance
of 50 yards from us, neither turning his head to the right or left.
As soon as his head had reached the stern of the vessel, he gradually
laid it down in a horizontal position with his body, and floated along
like the mast of a vessel. That there was upwards of 60 feet visible,
is clearly shown by the circumstance, that the length of the ship was
upwards of 120 feet, and at the time his head was off the stern, the
other end (as much as was above the surface) had not passed the main
mast. The time we saw him, as described in the drawing, was two minutes
and a half. After he had declined his head we saw him for about twenty
minutes a-head, floating along like an enormous log of timber. His
motion in the water was meandering like that of an eel, and the rake he
left behind was like that occasioned by the passing of a small craft
through the water. We had but one harpoon on board, and the ship’s
long-boat was, for the time being converted into a _cow-house_. We
had two guns on board, but no ball..... I dined one day at the Hotel
of New York with Sir Isaac Coffin, who discredited the existence of
such an animal, which was reported to have been seen by Captain Bennet
of Boston about five years back; but as I assured him I had never
heard previously even the report of such a monster, and that I was an
_Englishman_, he gave full credit to it. The sketch I gave him also
corresponded with the description that was circulated at that time. The
humps on the back resembled in size and shape those of the dromedary. I
remain, Dear Sir, yours respectfully,
“William Warburton.”
I give in fig. 27 a facsimile of the figure, accompanying the paper of
Mr. HOOKER (_Edinb. Journ. Sc._ Vol. VI, 1827, Pl. I. fig. 10).
The description of the sea-serpent given here, may be summed up in
the following words: When it came to the surface a rushing of the
water was heard. The part which appeared out of water was about sixty
feet in length. It held its head some feet above the surface of the
water, swimming at a rate of two miles an hour, and showing bunches
on its back. After some moments it gradually laid down its head in a
horizontal position with its body, and floated along like the mast of
a vessel, evidently swimming with its body in a straight line, using
its flappers. The wake which it left behind was equal to that of a
small vessel. Nothing is said of the skin, which evidently was smooth,
otherwise the scales would have been seen and mentioned, for the animal
appeared not far from the vessel. Nor does the sketch show any scales.
The position of the head in the sketch, making nearly a right angle
with its neck, may have led others to say it resembled that of a horse,
if we take moreover in consideration that some individuals have a mane.
The individual seen by Captain HOLDREGE and Mr. WARBURTON evidently had
no mane.
* * * * *
=84=.--1826, June 18.--In the same letter from Mr. WARBURTON to ROBERT
BARCLAY there is a passage which we have omitted above and which runs
as follows:
“Two days after we saw him he was seen by another vessel off Cape
Cod, about 200 miles from where he made his appearance to us. This
intelligence reached New York about four days after we arrived there,
and the description given exactly corresponds with the foregoing.”
Evidently this was the same individual, or one of the same sex.
* * * * *
In 1827 Dr. HOOKER wrote the following paper for the _Edinburgh Journal
of Science_, Vol. VI:
“When we remember the numberless impositions concerning Natural
History, which at various periods have been detected, it is not
surprising that doubt should be a principal, nay, a necessary,
qualification of the student of Nature. Yet we cannot but think that
the scientific world in general has been too incredulous concerning
the sea-serpent, seeing the mass of concurrent testimony which has
been adduced to prove its existence. It is certainly true that vague
reports had been spread abroad with regard to this enormous animal
long ere any just foundation was afforded for them, and indeed before
we had heard of any who professed to have seen it. This may have
very far conduced to produce that scepticism which now is perfectly
unwarrantable. We are so accustomed, whenever the subject is introduced
in conversation, to couple it with the preposterous fables of the
_Kraken_, that it would be extremely difficult to break down the
barriers against belief which prejudice has so long assisted to
support. The accounts of the most credible witnesses have thus been
rejected, although, “_to make assurance doubly sure_”, the generality
of them have been taken upon oath.”
“So many wonderful discoveries, both in the arts and Sciences, have
been made within the last century, that it is astonishing how the
existence of the sea-serpent has been supposed either so marvellous
or impossible. Time has satisfactorily proved the veracity of Bruce,
and we must leave it to time to do the same office with regard to
the beholders of this “wonder of the deep.” Is this monster more
disproportionate to the extent of the sea than the elephant to that of
the land? Or, it may be asked, has it a solid bulk, (even according
to late most extravagant accounts), nearly approaching in magnitude
to that of the whale? Geology has been infinitely more fortunate than
zoology in many respects; theories only partially sustained have been
received; and while the recent discoveries of the _Plesiosaurus_ and
_Megalosaurus_ have made demands upon our powers of credence far
greater than the _serpent_, the descriptions of the latter animal have
received very little trust, and even much ridicule and contempt. In
general, however, it must be confessed, that people do not object to
the extraordinary proportions of such a creature, so much as to what
they consider the want of respectable and satisfactory evidence. We
trust to advance, in the sequel, such additional evidence to that
already presented, and of such respectability, as to confirm entirely
the truth of the existence of such an animal,--an animal concerning
which so many contradictory opinions have been hazarded as to its more
immediate nature and structure; and which, from the mystery in which
it has hitherto been wrapped, must be interesting to the most casual
admirer of nature:--which must be interesting even from the element
in which it lives; so vast, so unexplored in its inmost recesses. We
can have so little information with regard to an animal which has so
mighty an habitation, that it acquires a grandeur in our estimation
far surpassing those which inhabit the earth. The monsters of the deep
appear so independent of our influence, and so far removed from any
connection with us, that any increase of our knowledge in reference to
them must be highly gratifying.”
“It was during the year 1817 that it began to be correctly reported,
that in the neighbourhood of Boston and Gloucester in America, an
animal, in general construction nearly resembling a serpent, had been
frequently seen. These rumours created a good deal of excitement,
insomuch that, at a meeting of the Linnaean Society of New England, it
was determined more fully to investigate the matter. The Honourable
Lonson Nash of Gloucester was appointed by a Committee to gather
together all the information which might be obtained.”
“It is unnecessary here to dwell at any length upon the evidence which
his unremitting and meritorious exertions procured. From different
quarters, individuals of the highest respectability communicated
all the information which it was in their power to proffer, and all
declared themselves prepared to take an oath upon the accuracy of
their narrations. No testimony was received, excepting from those who
professed to have been personal witnesses of the monster: no weight was
given to their accounts deduced from the reports which were everywhere
circulated:--the unadorned and unexaggerated style in which their
statements were worded is of itself perfectly sufficient to win over
to all unqualified trust. The witnesses for the most part, unite in
ascribing a vertical motion to the creature. Fifty or sixty yards was
no uncommon distance between it and the spectators, and it was never
seen except in weather the most calm and bright. But these facts,
along with the various depositions, have been long laid before the
public in the “Report of the Committee of the Linnaean Society of New
England”, and it is our part now merely to adduce some corroborative
circumstances which have lately occurred, and which _we_ think puts
the matter for ever beyond the possibility of a doubt;--facts which
have already completely satisfied some highly scientific gentlemen, who
before were entirely sceptical.”
He next gives the letter from Mr. WARBURTON, of which we have
spoken above, and the letter from Mr. BOOTT, parts of which we have
inserted in n^o. 63 and 70. After the different passages from various
transactions and journals referring to the papers in Sir JOSEPH BANKS’
library (p. 220), Dr. HOOKER goes on:
“We sincerely hope that these few bare facts may satisfy all upon this
much agitated question; at least we think they must remove the ideal
connection between _our_ serpent, and
“That sea-snake, enormous curled,
“Whose monstrous circle girds the world.”
“It can now no longer be considered in association with hydras
and mermaids, for there has been nothing said with regard to it
inconsistent with reason. It may at least be assumed as a sober fact
in Natural History quite unconnected with the gigantic exploits of the
_God Thor_, or the fanciful absurdities of the Scandinavian mythology.
We cannot suppose, that the most ultra-sceptical can now continue
to doubt with regard to facts attested by such highly respectable
witnesses.”
It is a deplorable fact that all the endeavours of such an eminent
scientist to convince zoologists of the existence of sea-serpents, have
been in vain!
German translations of the whole of Dr. HOOKER’S paper as well as
of the letters from Dr. BOOTT and Mr. WARBURTON are in FRORIEP’S
_Notizen_, of April, 1827, Vol. XVII, n^o. 356, p. 49.
In the _American Journal of Science and Arts_, Vol. XII, June 1827, the
editor, Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, says:
“To us it seems a matter of surprise, that any person who has
examined the testimony, can doubt the existence of the Sea-Serpent;
the documents communicated by Dr. Bigelow of Boston, and published
in the second volume of this Journal, in 1820, were in our judgment
alone sufficient, to settle the question: the following letter is an
important additional document.”
This is the letter from Mr. WARBURTON to Mr. BARCLAY, reprinted
evidently from the _Edinb. Journal_ (n^o. 83, 84).
* * * * *
=85=.--1827, August 24.--According to FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ Vol. XIX,
n^o. 409, p. 193,
“the _Norwegische Handelszeitung_” (apparently of the 3d. or 4th. of
September, 1827), “contains fresh intelligence of the Sea-Serpent,
which confirms what has been published by Captain de Capell Brooke.”
“In the last days of the last month an animal was seen by several
trustworthy men in Christianiafjord, which, according to the
description, appears to be a sea-serpent of extraordinary dimensions.
On the 1st of this month five eyewitnesses were heard before the
justice of peace, and according to their agreeing declarations, the
animal held its head, which was dark and black, above the surface of
the water, and showed at least ten coils; there was a distance of
about twenty ells” (60 feet) “between each two coils, and the coils
themselves were about six ells” (18 feet) “so that the total length
of the animal may be estimated at 250 ells” (750 feet). “It moved
with about the swiftness of a common boat, rowed by a man in still
water, and caused a heavy rushing, like a strong motion in the water.
The thickness was about that of a large wine-barrel or pipe. No tail,
nor fins were observed. The rushing, it is believed, was caused by
the head. The coils were movable, i. e. what was above the water one
moment, was under it the next. Two eye-witnesses also declared, that
what they saw, was one coherent whole and were not several animals. On
Friday, the 24th. of August, at 10 o’clock A. M. the animal was seen
moving from the Vakkerö-Bay into the Bonnefjord. The animal was seen
from a distance of 200 fathoms.”
Although the dimensions are exaggerated, the other features of the
animal, viz. the head which is dark and black, and held above the
water, the undulating motion of the animal, its visible coils, the
rushing sound made by it, the apparent want of fins and the tail, which
were hidden under water, are correct and known to us.
* * * * *
=86=.--1827, August 26.--(The same journal, the same issue).
“And on Sunday, the 26th. of August at 7 o’clock in the evening it
came again from the fjord and swam towards the ship-wharf, passing
Liob-, and Principal-Islands.--It was then seen from a distance of 120
fathoms. The eye-witnesses declared, that, if asked, they were ready to
make oath to those declarations.”
* * * * *
=87=.--1827, September 3.--(The same journal, the same issue).--
“Christiania, Sept. 5.--The sea-serpent, mentioned in the
Monday-number, has been seen again the day before yesterday off
Nusodden.”
* * * * *
=88=.--1827, September 5.--(The same journal, the same issue).
“and to-day, off Lepager, by persons just as trustworthy as those who
were heard before the justice. Their affidavit in principal points
agrees with that of the former. A reward is offered to whoever will
kill it and bring it home.”
* * * * *
=89=.--1827, September 9.--(The same journal, the same issue).--
“Christiania, September 15.--Sunday last the sea-serpent appeared also
off Dröbak. Last week several persons saw large shoals of porpoises,
and therefore supposed that the alleged presence of the former could
not be true. But as among those who saw the sea-serpent, are many
fishermen and seamen, who know very well how to distinguish the several
sea-animals, and as it is not at all uncommon, that porpoises and
whales of the smaller kind appear here in the fjord, so there is no
reason to condemn the judicial concurrent testimonies.”
* * * * *
=90=, =91=.--1828? The well-known Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE, when on a
journey in Norway, noted down the following evidence, which he
published in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ of 1841.
“Nils Roe, workman at Mr. William Knutszon’s, an elderly and simple
man, relates: I saw the serpent twice, once at noon, and two days
afterwards towards the evening, in the fjord” (near Christiansund) “at
the back of Mr. Knutszon’s garden. The first time, when it was nearest
to me, it was about a hundred feet distant. It swam first along the
fjord, afterwards over against the spot, where I stood. I then observed
it for more than half an hour. Some strangers, who were on the opposite
shore, fired at it, when it disappeared.”
“The second time it was farther from me. It was small, perhaps twice
as long as this room (about forty-four feet); while swimming it made
serpentine movements, some to left and right, others up and down. I
cannot state its correct thickness, but it appeared to be about as a
common snake in proportion to its length. It was much thinner towards
the tail. Several times it raised its head wholly above the water,
but so, that it was just above the surface; the neck, however, and
the other part of the body were but partly visible above the surface.
The front of the head was rather pointed: the eyes were very large
and glistened like those of a cat. I did not see a tongue and did not
observe that it opened its mouth. I cannot state that the neck just
behind the head is much thinner than the head itself, for from the back
of the head commenced a mane like that of a horse, which waved to and
fro in the water. Just behind the head the mane was thickest and got
thinner further backwards; in general it was not very long. The colour
of the animal was a blackish brown.”
Again we meet with no character that is not known to us. All of them
have already been stated.
* * * * *
=92=.--1829?--The following is an evidence given before the same Mr.
RATHKE, being at Christiansund, and published by him in the journal
mentioned above.
“Lars Johnöen, a fisherman at Smölen, about 50 years of age. I have
seen the sea-serpent several times, but for the longest time and
nearest to me, twelve years ago in the dog-days in the fjord not far
from here (Christiansund), when I was alone, one noon, angling in a
boat. Then I saw it within two hours three times for a considerable
time, quite near to me. It came close to my boat, so that it was only
about six feet from me. (He placed himself in the room at a distance of
nearly six feet from the wall, and said, this was about the distance
between him and the serpent.) I became alarmed; recommended my soul to
God, laid myself down in the boat, and only held my head so far over
it, that I could observe the serpent. It swam now past the boat, that
was vehemently agitated by the ripple caused by its movements in the
water, which was previously smooth as a mirror, and afterwards took
itself off. After it had swam a considerable distance from me, I wound
my angling line round the little instrument commonly used (a frame,
moving on an axis) and I began again to fish. Not long afterwards,
however, the serpent came again quite close to the boat, which again
was violently agitated by the movements made by it in the water. I lay
down again, and remained quite still, keeping, however, a watchful eye
on the animal. Again it passed me, disappeared far off, and returned,
though not so close as before, and at last disappeared, when a light
wind rose, and ruffled the water. Notwithstanding my fright I yet
observed the animal very accurately. Its length was about five to six
fathoms, and the body, which was as round as a snake’s, was about two
feet in diameter. (Lars Johnöen measured on a table before him with
his hands a space of about two feet). The tail too appeared to me to
be round. The head was about as long and as thick as a brandy anker (a
ten gallon cask), it was not pointed but bluntly round. The eyes were
very large and glistening. Their size (or diameter) was about that of
this box here (five inches), and they were as red as my neckerchief
(crimson). The animal did not open its mouth, therefore I cannot give
its size. It constantly held its head above the surface of the water
in an acute angle; not so high, however, that the nose should come
over the board of a boat. Close behind the head, a mane like a horse’s
commenced, extending rather far down the neck, and spreading on both
sides; floated on the water; it was of tolerably long hair. The mane
as well as the head and the rest of the body was brown as this looking
glass frame (dark brown of old mahogany). I could not observe spots,
or stripes of other colours, nor were there any scales; it seemed as
if the body was quite smooth. The movements of the serpent were by
turns fast and slow; they were also slow when the animal approached my
boat. At the moment in which I could observe it best, its movements
were serpentine, up and down. The few undulations, made by those parts
of the body and the tail that were out of the water, were scarcely a
fathom in length. These undulations were not so high, that I could
see between them and the water.--When Lars Johnöen had given this
declaration, the drawing which Pontoppidan had given of the animal was
shown to him. He looked at it with astonishment, smiled and said that
he saw a great resemblance between it and the animal he had seen. He
likewise said, that some of the other sea-serpents he had seen were a
great deal longer than the one described above.”
This unvarnished account describes very well the animal’s general
doings, and accurately pictures its curiosity and harmlessness.
* * * * *
=93=.--1829, July.--We shall soon be acquainted with the appearance of
the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE of the _Daedalus_, on Aug. 6,
1848. Prof. RICHARD OWEN, questioned whether this animal could be a
snake or not, gave his answer in an article published in the _Times_
of Nov. 11, 1848, wherein he expresses his opinion that it must have
been a large seal. This article seems to have been reprinted in the
_Bombay Bi-monthly Times_. In the same journal for January, 1849,
appeared the following statement and objections against Professor
OWEN’S suggestions.
“I see, in your paper of the 30th December, a paragraph in which
a doubt is expressed of the authenticity of the account given by
Captain M’Quhae of the “great sea-serpent”. When returning to India,
in the year 1829, I was standing on the poop of the _Royal Saxon_, in
conversation with Captain Petrie, the commander of that ship. We were
at a considerable distance south-west of the Cape of Good Hope, in the
usual track of vessels to this country, going rapidly along (seven or
eight knots) in fine smooth water. It was in the middle of the day,
and the other passengers were at luncheon; the man at the wheel, a
steerage passenger, and ourselves, being the only persons on the poop.
Captain Petrie and myself, at the same instant, were literally fixed in
astonishment by the appearance, a short distance ahead, of an animal
of which no more generally correct description could be given than
that by Captain M’Quhae. It passed within thirty-five yards of the
ship, without altering its course in the least; but as it came right
abreast of us, it slowly turned its head towards us. Apparently about
one third of the upper part of its body was above water, in nearly
its whole length; and we could see the water curling up on its breast
as it moved along, but by what means it moved we could not perceive.
We watched it going astern with intense interest until it had nearly
disappeared, when my companion, turning to me with a countenance
expressive of the utmost astonishment, exclaimed, “Good heavens! what
can that be?” It was strange that we never thought of calling the party
engaged at luncheon to witness the extraordinary sight we had seen;
but the fact is, we were so absorbed in it ourselves, that we never
spoke, and scarcely moved, until it had nearly disappeared. Captain
Petrie, a superior and most intelligent man, has since perished in the
exercise of his profession. Of the fate of the others then on deck
I am ignorant; so the story rests on my own unsupported word, but I
pledge that word to its correctness. Professor Owen’s supposition,
that the animal seen by the officers of the _Daedalus_ was a gigantic
seal, I believe to be incorrect, because we saw this apparently similar
creature in its whole length, with the exception of a small portion
of the tail, which was under water; and, by comparing its length
with that of the _Royal Saxon_ (about six hundred feet), when exactly
alongside in passing, we calculated it to be in that, as well as in its
other dimensions, greater than the animal described by Captain M’Quhae.
Should the foregoing account be of any interest to you, it is at your
service; it is an old story, but a true one. I am not quite sure of our
latitude and longitude at the time, nor do I exactly remember the date,
but it was about the end of July.--R. DAVIDSON, Superintending Surgeon,
Nagpore Subsidiary Force, Kamptee, 3d January 1849.”
At present we have only to fix our attention on the animal’s
appearance, and not on Mr. DAVIDSON’S objections. As the reader will
observe, the whole description agrees with other accounts already
given. There is nothing in it that is new or unknown to us.
* * * * *
=94=.--1830?--The well-known Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE, on his journey in
Norway, being in Christiansund, noted down the following evidence, to
publish it in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ of 1841.
“John Johnson, merchant, about 60 years of age, says in German: I
saw the animal some years ago in the fjord” (of Christiansund); “it
was about a thousand paces distant, when nearest to me; I observed
it for more than half an hour. It swam very swiftly, for in the same
time that we rowed about a quarter of a mile aside of it, it had swum
about one half of a mile. I saw it best when it swam in a semicircle
round a tolerable large rock that obstructed its passage, coming to
that side of it which was turned towards me; in doing this it partly
raised itself above the surface of the water. Its colour was blackish;
its length was about that of this house (55 feet). Except the head,
I did not observe much of its body, as it appeared but little above
the surface. Judging from what I observed now and then, I think its
thickness to be that of a stout man’s body. Its head was apparently
as large as a hat. It was not pointed, but seemed rather blunt; in
general, however, in comparison with its thickness, it was not very
long. It was held but little above the surface of the water, making
an acute angle with it; and it remained above the surface, as long as
I saw it. Owing to the distance I could not discern the eyes. Also on
account of the distance or because the neck was seldom elevated above
the surface, I could observe nothing of a mane. The agitation which it
caused in the water was very strong. The movements of the animal itself
were serpentine, up and down, like those of a swimming leech. When the
animal had reached a spot, where the water was ruffled by a rising
gentle wind, it disappeared. Moreover, I believe, that the animal is
not much to be feared and that it would not easily harm men.”
* * * * *
=95=.--1831?--The same Mr. RATHKE also noted down the following
declaration (published in the above mentioned journal.)
“Mr. William Knutszon and Candidatus Theologiae Booklune gave the
following written account: We together saw the sea-serpent in a narrow
fjord, at a distance of about one sixteenth of a mile” (about 515
yards) “for about a quarter of an hour; afterwards it dived, and came
up so far from us, that we could not see it plainly. The water was as
smooth as a mirror, and the animal had, as it moved on the surface,
quite the appearance of a worm, or of a snake. Its motions were in
undulations, and so strong, that white foam appeared before it, and
waves were caused at its sides, which extended over several fathoms.
It did not appear very high above the water, and it was principally
its length, which was quite considerable. Once, however, it stretched
its head quite erect in the air. The body was somewhat dark, and the
head nearly black; the body had nearly the form of an eel or of a
snake, a length of about fifty ells” (above one hundred feet) “and in
proportion to it an inconsiderable thickness. The breadth diminished
considerably from the head to the tail, so that the latter ended in a
point. The head was long and narrow in proportion to the throat, as the
latter appeared much greater than the former, which probably was the
consequence of its being provided with a mane. The details of the head
were not to be discerned, as the distance was too great.”
I may observe here that if these eye-witnesses declare that the head
seemed to be narrower than the throat, this may probably also be
the consequence of the animal’s contracting its neck. This may be
often seen in seals and sea-lions. If a common seal has contracted
its neck, it appears as if the animal has no neck, as if the head is
immediately connected with the body. In reality the neck is shortened,
and has become thicker than the head. If stretched, the neck on the
contrary is very well visible, and narrower than the head. The same in
sea-lions. If contracted, several rings of blubber surround the hind
part of the head, which appears smaller than the neck; if stretched,
the neck immediately gets much narrower and the head is broader than
the neck. The expression “which probably was the consequence of its
being provided with a mane” distinctly shows that the eye-witnesses,
knowing that others at other times saw a mane, intended to explain the
phenomenon they observed by the presence of this mane, which they could
impossibly see, “as the distance was too great.”
* * * * *
=96=.--1832, Summer.--(FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, XXXV, n^o. 756).
“There is again question in Norway of the sea-serpent. It is said to
have appeared and remained rather a long time in the Rödö- and Södelöw
fjords this summer, and to have been seen by many persons. Distinct
traces of it are said to have been found in the fields (??).”
We observe that Mr. FRORIEP adds two notes of interrogation after the
last words. Evidently he is unable to explain them. I am convinced of
the truth that the sea-serpent appeared in the fjords above mentioned.
As to the traces of it, I must tell my readers that the superstition of
the Norwegian people has forged this fable ever since they first became
aware that the sea-serpent frequented their fjords. We have already
met with this tale in PONTOPPIDAN’S _Natural History of Norway_, and
probably the Norwegians will tell it us again, if we ask them now!
* * * * *
=97=.--1833, May, 15.--(Zoologist p. 1714, 1847).
“On the 15th. of May, 1833, a party, consisting of Captain Sullivan,
Lieutenants Maclachlan and Malcolm of the Rifle Brigade, Lieutenant
Lyster of the Artillery, and Mr. Ince of the Ordnance, started from
Halifax in a small yacht for Mahone Bay, some forty miles eastward,
on a fishing excursion. The morning was cloudy, and the wind at S.
S. E., and apparently rising. By the time we reached Chebucto Head,
as we had taken no pilot with us, we deliberated whether we should
proceed or turn back; but, after a consultation, we determined on
the former, having lots of ports on our lee. Previous to our leaving
town, an old man-of-war’s-man we had along with us busied himself in
inquiries as to our right course; he was told to take his departure
from the Bull Rock, off Pennant Point, and that a W. N. W. course would
bring us direct on Iron Bound Island, at the entrance of Mahone or
Mecklenburgh Bay. He, however, unfortunately told us to steer W. S. W.,
nor corrected his error for five or six hours; consequently we had gone
a long distance off the coast. We had run about half the distance, as
we supposed, and were enjoying ourselves on deck, smoking our cigars,
and getting our tackle ready for the approaching campaign against the
salmon, when we were surprised by the sight of an immense shoal of
grampuses, which appeared in an unusual state of excitement, and which
in their gambols approached so close to our little craft, that some
of the party amused themselves by firing at them with rifles. At this
time we were jogging on at about five miles an hour, and must have
been crossing Margaret’s Bay. I merely conjecture where we were, as we
had not seen land since a short time after leaving Pennant Bay. Our
attention was presently diverted from the whales and “such small deer”,
by an exclamation from Dowling, our man-of-war’s-man, who was sitting
to leeward, of, “Oh sirs, look here!” We were started into a ready
compliance, and saw an object which banished all other thoughts, save
wonder and surprise.”
“At the distance of from a hundred and fifty to two hundred yards on
our starboard bow, we saw the head and neck of some denizen of the
deep, precisely like those of a common snake, in the act of swimming,
the head so far elevated and thrown forward by the curve of the neck,
as to enable us to see the water under and beyond it. The creature
rapidly passed, leaving a regular wake, from the commencement of which,
to the fore part, which was out of water, we judged its length to be
about eighty feet, and this within, rather than beyond the mark. We
were, of course, all taken aback at the sight, and, with staring eyes
and in speechless wonder, stood gazing at it for full half a minute.
There could be no mistake, no delusion, and we were all perfectly
satisfied that we had been favoured with a view of the “true and
veritable sea-serpent”, which had been generally considered to have
existed only in the brain of some Yankee skipper, and treated as a
tale not much entitled to belief. Dowling’s exclamation is worthy of
record. “Well, I’ve sailed in all parts of the world, and have seen rum
sights too in my time, but this is the queerest thing I ever see!” and
surely Jack Dowling was right. It is most difficult to give correctly
the dimensions of any object in the water. The head of the creature
we set down at about six feet in length, and that portion of the neck
which we saw at the same; the extreme length, as before stated, at
between eighty and one hundred feet. The neck in thickness equalled the
bole of a moderate-sized tree. The head and neck of a dark brown or
nearly black colour, streaked with white in irregular streaks. I do not
recollect seeing any part of the body.”
“Such is the rough account of the sea-serpent, and all the party
who saw it are still in the land of the living,--Lyster in England,
Malcolm in New South Wales with his regiment, and the remainder still
vegetating in Halifax.”
“W. SULLIVAN, Captain, Rifle Brigade, June 21, 1831.
“A. MACLACHLAN, Lieutenant, ditto, August 5, 1824.
“G. P. MALCOLM, Ensign, ditto, August 13, 1830.
“B. O’NEAL LYSTER, Lieut. Artillery, June 7, 1816.
“HENRY INCE, Ordnance Storekeeper at Halifax.”
Mr. NEWMAN, the editor of the _Zoologist_ adds between parentheses:
“The dates are those on which the gentlemen received their respective
Commission, I am not aware of their present rank. I am indebted to Mr.
W. H. Ince for this interesting communication: this gentleman received
it from his brother, Commander J. M. R. Ince, R. N. It is written by
their uncle, Mr. Henry Ince, the Ordnance store-keeper at Halifax, Nova
Scotia.”--
We observe that the colour of the head and neck is described as
“streaked with white in irregular streaks”, and that evidently the
sea-serpent hunted after the grampuses “which appeared in an unusual
state of excitement”.
This account translated into German is in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, Third
Series, III, n^o. 54, p. 148.
* * * * *
=98=, =99=.--1833, July.--In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of June 1834 we read
that Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN in a note to Mr. BAKEWELL’S _Introduction
to Geology_, stated that
“since 1820 nearly each year the mass of evidences has increased,
and that the current year 1833 has been particularly fertile in such
reports.”
Dr. HAMILTON in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, says:
“The last notice we have seen of this American animal bears date
July 1833. The Boston and New-York papers of that date state, that
the Sea-Serpent had again appeared off Nahant. “It was first seen
on Saturday afternoon, passing between Egg-Rock and the Promuntory,
winding his way into Lynn-Harbour, and again on Sunday morning, heading
for South-shores. He was seen by forty or fifty ladies and gentlemen,
who insist that they could not have been deceived.”
* * * * *
It is evident that many reports of great sea-serpents have been
published here and there, especially in Norwegian and North-American
newspapers, which I have had no opportunity to consult, and which
probably will never come within my reach. As we learn from Mr.
FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, Vol. XL, n^o. 879, p. 328, “Mr. R. Bakewell in
the latest edition of his Introduction to Geology (1833?) states: that
there are descriptions of the sea-serpent, wherein it is ascertained
that it “has flappers like sea-turtles”. I have not been able to
consult Mr. BAKEWELL’S work, but I insert this statement here, because
we shall observe afterwards more than once this comparison of the
flappers with analogous members of turtles.
* * * * *
=100=.--1834, Summer.--In Captain SHIBBLES’ report (n^o. 101) a passage
runs as follows:
“One of the crew told us that his appearance and motion are precisely
like that he saw last summer while in the bay” (of Gloucester) “which
was said to be a sea-serpent.”
Though no particulars are mentioned, I am convinced that the appearance
took place.
* * * * *
=101=.--1835, March or April.--(_Amer. Journ. Sc. Arts_ Vol. 28, 1835,
July.--)
“Captain Shibbles, of the brig Mangehan, of Thomastown, from Boston,
for New-Orleans, which arrived here (Gloucester, Mass., March or April,
1835) on Saturday last, states that he saw when about nine or ten miles
from Race Point light, what he, as well as the whole crew, supposed
to be a sea-serpent,--he could distinctly see it with the naked eye,
but to be certain, he took his glass and saw his eyes, neck and head,
which was about as large as a barrel--the neck had something that
looked like a mane upon the top of it; several times he raised his head
seven or eight feet above the water, and for thirty or forty minutes he
swam backward and forward with great swiftness. There were two other
vessels near, the crews of which were in the rigging looking at the
same object. Capt. S. states that it was very long, and that his head,
neck and tail and his motion in the water, was exactly like those of a
snake; every time he put his head out of water, he made a noise similar
to that of steam escaping from the boiler of a steam-boat..... The
Captain and crew attest to the correctness of this statement.”
As to the swimming backward and forward, I think that Captain SHIBBLES
meant that the animal swam to and fro, and that he used these
expressions in reference to the direction of the brig.
* * * * *
=102=.--1836?--Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE published in the _Archiv für
Naturgeschichte_ the following evidence, which he noted down when being
in Christiansund in Norway:
“The _Sorenskriver_ Gaeschke (a kind of judge of the same rank as
the German country-judges, or the British sheriffs) gave me the
following evidence: I saw the sea-serpent for a considerable time
in a small fjord, first from a boat, afterwards from the beach, and
from there during several minutes, at a distance of from thirty to
thirty-six feet. In the beginning it swam round the fjord at Torvig,
afterwards it went towards the mouth of the fjord. I saw its head
stretched considerably out of the water. I noticed as well two or three
undulations of the forepart of the body. Its motion was not like that
of an eel, but consisted in vertical undulations. They were so strong,
that they caused rather large waves; they were largest at the forepart
of the animal and gradually lessened towards the back. The traces of
them I discerned in a length of eight to ten fathoms, and in a breadth
of two or three fathoms. The head, apparently blunt in front, had the
size and nearly also the shape of an anker (ten-gallon cask) and the
visible coils of the body were round and their thickness was that of a
good timber-stock (twelve to fourteen inches square). I could not judge
the entire length of the animal, as I could not discern the animal’s
hindpart. The colour of the animal seemed to me to be a very dark grey
one. What I believed to be the eyes, had according to my estimation the
size of the outlines of a tea-cup (3¹⁄₂ inches). At the back of the
head there was a mane, which had the same colour as the rest of the
body.”
* * * * *
=103=.--1837, end of July.--(FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_, Vol. IV, n^o.
67, p. 7, October, 1837).
“About the much mentioned Sea-Serpent the Drontheim Newspaper contains,
as is ascertained, from an enlightened and trustworthy gentleman, the
following statement: “Uncommonly early in this Summer our coasts and
fjords were blessed with a mass of fat herrings, of which till to-day
very few were cleaned and pickled, because the uncommon greasiness of
the herrings made it difficult to preserve them in the warm air, which,
however, was so beneficient to agriculture. Since the beginning of the
dog-days the sea-serpent appeared on different spots in this country;
one of these sea-monsters seems to have constantly remained near
Storfosen and the Krovaag Isles; several fishermen were terrified in
the highest degree, when the sea-serpent suddenly came down so near to
them, that they had no time to think, to which side they should fly. It
is true this terrible visitor properly has not made an attack, but it
has followed the boat for a long distance, when one has tried to fly in
a great hurry, so that the men overworked themselves, and some of the
runaways fell ill afterwards. It is ascertained by quite trustworthy
persons, that the length of the sea-serpent may be estimated from 600
to 800 ells, or perhaps still more, because if one was near its head,
the other end of the sea-animal was not to be discerned distinctly. The
sea-serpent is thickest just behind the head, apparently as thick as a
large horse; its black and dark eyes are as large as an ordinary plate,
without being glossy or very movable; the skin is smooth and of a dark
colour; on the nose there are thick hairs, as on a seal’s, two or three
quarters of an ell long, also on the neck there is something movable,
which resembles the mane of a horse; the mouth, as far as the writer
knows, has not been seen distinctly, and it is quite uncertain whether
the animal is a beast of prey or not. Rarely does the sea-serpent
appear but in calm weather; its motions and shape are serpentine.
These observations are distinctly made in these days, amongst others
by a trustworthy and intelligent gentleman, who with his two sons had
reached a small islet, where the sea-serpent, after having followed
their boat, passed closely and slowly.”
Those who made the statement that when they were near the head, the
tail could not be discerned distinctly, of course, spoke the truth,
for the tail is very seldom above water, but they who afterwards
thereby imagined that the animal therefore must have a length of
from 600 to 800 ells, exaggerated in a most ridiculous manner. Again
we observe that the Norwegian fishermen are in great dread of the
sea-serpent, and the description of their behaviour is quite the same
as told us PONTOPPIDAN a century ago. Again we read of the habit of
the sea-serpent of following boats, but never attacking them, which
may only be the effect of mere curiosity. The description, moreover,
given by the not mentioned trustworthy and intelligent observer is
quite correct. All the characters given by him are already known to
us, and where he states that the eyes are not glossy, apparently in
contradiction with former statements, it is natural that in a certain
direction and in certain moments they need not give the impression of
being so. Remarkable is the statement of the animal having bristles on
its upper-lips, as in seals.
In Dr. HAMILTON’S _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, we read:
“The most recent account of this monster we have noticed, appeared
in the public Newspapers of Drontheim, in the autumn of 1837, and we
confess we cannot regard it as a sheer fabrication”.
And he further cites the above mentioned report and tells us that it
was the _Adis_ of Drontheim which contained those particulars. The
Krovaag Islands are called by Dr. HAMILTON the Kerchvang Islands, and
strange enough, the very interesting particulars about the skin, the
eyes and the bristles on the upper lips near the nose are omitted.
* * * * *
=104=.--1838?--The reader will soon be made acquainted with the well
known report of Captain M’QUHAE, of the _Daedalus_. As the report
was published in the newspapers of Oct., 1848, Captain BEECHY, of
the _Blossom_, “one of the most scientific officers and ablest naval
surveyors”, wrote a letter to Mr. FRANCIS BEAUFORT, F. R. S., Admiralty
Hydrographer. An extract from this letter appeared in the _Illustrated
London News_ of Oct. 28, 1848, and runs as follows:
“What an extraordinary creature the Daedalus seems to have fallen in
with! The description recalls to my mind an extraordinary appearance
we witnessed in the _Blossom_, in crossing the South Atlantic: I took
it for the trunk of a large tree, and before I could get my glass upon
deck it had disappeared, and I could nowhere find it--fresh breezes at
the time.”
As Captain BEECHY writes “recalls to my mind”, the “extraordinary
appearance” must have taken place some time ago, say ten years; so I
have chosen the year 1838, as the year in which it happened. If I may
ever get the opportunity to learn the exact year or date, I shall be
glad to correct my supposition in an eventual second edition. But for
the present I am sure that the “trunk of a large tree” which had so
suddenly disappeared, really was a sea-serpent.
* * * * *
Repeatedly we have already quoted Dr. HAMILTON’S work about the
_Amphibious Carnivora_, which appeared in the year 1839. The writer
sums up numerous reports and accounts, which he cited from other works,
or from which he gave only short extracts. One would say that Dr.
HAMILTON is an unbeliever, for he ends his chapter on this animal with
the words:
“With these extracts, and without farther comment, we close our
account of the Great Sea-Serpent, only remarking, that till favouring
circumstances bring the animal under the examination of Naturalists,
the satisfaction, which is desiderated respecting it, is scarcely to be
expected.”
I only ask, what then was the reason that he spoke of it, and that
he published these extracts in a book, which properly treated of
Amphibious Carnivora or the Pinnipeds (seals, walrusses, sea-lions and
sea-bears)? May it be, that he observed any relation between them and
the sea-serpent? I cannot believe it, for after the sea-serpent he
treats of the Kraken in the same volume. And why did he end in such
a vague way? May it be, because he could not give an explanation, or
because he hesitated to show the public that he was really a believer?
* * * * *
=105=.--1839, August?--According to FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_, vol.
XII, n^o. 248, of Oct., 1839, the _Boston Mercantile_ mentions that
Mr. BUBIER, Lieutenant of the U. S. Navy affirms to have seen the
sea-serpent on his way from Daims Island to Nahant, near Boston, and
estimated its length at 120 to 135 feet.
* * * * *
=106=.--1839.--In the same periodical on the same page we read that
Captain SMITH who had been a long time in the whale fishery, asserts
in the _Kennebek Journal_, that he never before saw such a creature,
and that if he had had a harpoon and lines on board, he would have
harpooned it.
* * * * *
=106=, =A=.--1840, April 21.--(_Journal du Havre_, 1840, Sept. 15,
_Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1716).--As I have not had the opportunity to
consult the first paper, I give the account as I have found it in the
_Zoologist_.
“A French captain has just related to us a remarkable circumstance,
which he has himself witnessed, and his recital exhibits a degree of
cautious reserve, which is well calculated to shake the obstinacy
of the most sceptical. We shall preface his narrative by the remark
that the sea serpent has been recently alleged to have been seen at
different points along the whole line of the American coast. Captain
d’Abnour, commander of the Ville de Rochefort, makes the following
statements:
“On the 21st. of April, 1840, while we were in 24 deg. 13 min. N.
latitude, and 89 deg. 52 min. W. longitude (calculated from the
meridian of Paris), in the gulf of Mexico, we were running under a
light breeze from E. N. E. with beautiful weather. In a few hours we
distinguished something like a long chain of rocks, falling off by a
gentle inclination at the two extremities, and elevated at the middle
by only a few feet over the level of the sea. Against this object the
sea broke softly. As we approached we remarked that its different parts
changed their position, and even their form, and we became perfectly
certain that it was not a reef. A little later, we distinguished by the
assistance of a telescope a long chain of enormous rings, resembling
a number of barrels linked together, and in form very like the back
of a silk worm. It was a three quarter view of the object which we
had first obtained. As the ship approached, these appearances became
more distinct, and we presently saw the extremity of an enormous
tail, longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black. This
tail appeared to wind itself up, and repose on a part of the object
itself. Then, at the other extremity, we saw a membrane rising to the
height of about two _metres_ from the water, and inclining itself at
a considerable angle upon the mass (without leaving it, however); and
this led me to conjecture that the monster before us was provided with
an apparatus for the purpose of respiration, like the lampreys. At last
we perceived something like an _antenna_ rising from the water, to the
great height of nearly eight _metres_, terminated by a crescent of
at least five _metres_ from one extremity to the other. We could not
approach sufficiently near to acquire any very positive idea as to what
we had seen; but everything led us to believe that it was an enormous
serpent of at least 100 _metres_ in length.”
Although the editors of the _Journal du Havre_ believed that Captain
D’ABNOUR by his “exhibiting a degree of cautious reserve would shake
the obstinacy of the most sceptical”, I think that on the contrary
his narrative has had quite another effect. Every sceptic, I think,
will smile or even laugh when he reads this report, for who can help
laughing when he reads of a “membrane which led me to conjecture that
the monster before us was provided with an apparatus for the purpose of
respiration, like the lampreys”, and of an “antenna of eight metres,
terminated by a crescent of at least five metres from one extremity to
the other.” We find here several limbs enumerated, and mentioned by the
names of the corresponding limbs of different classes of the animal
kingdom. A “membrane” in my opinion is a thin and transparent or nearly
transparent planely extended object. If what the captain saw was one, I
don’t know what it could be. If not, if untransparent, how could they
see from such a great distance, that it was thin; what reason was there
to call it a “membrane”?
I am convinced that Captain d’ABNOUR really saw a sea-serpent. The
animal lay extended on the surface of the water, nearly still, showing
numerous bunches; head and tail being under water and invisible.
Quite the same thing was afterwards witnessed by Captain WEISZ, of
the _Kätie_ (n°. 154, fig. 50). We know that sea-serpents lying still
may show coils or bunches or hillocks. It resembled “a long chain of
rocks, falling off by a gentle inclination at the two extremities, and
elevated at the middle by only a few feet over the level of the sea”.
The sea broke gently against it. As they approached, the animal seen
through a telescope had the appearance of “a long chain of numerous
rings, resembling a number of barrels linked together”. We remember
that this comparison has often been made by different witnesses. The
other comparison of the captain, viz.: “in form very like the back of
a silk worm” is also tolerably well chosen. “As the ship approached,
these appearances became more distinct” and the sea-serpent raised in
a playful manner “its enormous tail, longitudinally divided into two
sections, white and black”. We know that the animal’s head and neck are
longitudinally divided into two sections, dark brown or nearly black
above, and white beneath. It is, therefore, probable that also the
trunk has a dark back and a light coloured belly. The supposition of
this division of colours had already been made by Mr. MATTHEW GAFFNEY
(n^o. 41, p. 169). It is, therefore, very remarkable that Captain
d’ABNOUR really saw that the tail too is coloured black above and white
beneath! The animal curled its tail and let it for a moment “repose
on a part of” its body. Then, “at the other extremity” the animal
elevated its foreflapper to the height of about two metres (six feet)
from the water. The flapper “inclined itself at a considerable angle
upon the” body, consequently the animal made the same movement with its
foreflapper as the individual afterwards witnessed by Captain WEISZ
(n^o. 154, fig. 50). At last a tail of a spermwhale or of a finwhale
elevated above the water, “an antenna terminating in a crescent” “to
the height of nearly eight metres” (about 25 feet), which tail of
course has nothing at all to do with the sea-serpent. Captain d’ABNOUR
says: that it rose “from the water” and he says nothing as to its
relative position to the animal, nor whether it was close to or far
from it. The length of at least 100 metres (about 320 feet) is at all
events exaggerated. Evidently head and neck remained constantly under
the water.
The above mentioned account, translated into German, is in FRORIEP’S
_Notizen_, _Third Series_, Vol. III, n^o. 54, p. 148, 1847.
* * * * *
=106 B=.--1840, June?--In the _Journal du Havre_, of 15th September,
1840, (see _Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1716,) we read:
“Not long since the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ announced a new
appearance of this marine monster, about whose existence the world is
so naturally incredulous.”
I do not think that I am wrong in fixing this appearance in the month
of June of that year.
* * * * *
=107=.--1840, July?--In his Postscript Mr. RATHKE (_Archiv für
Naturgeschichte_, 1841, Vol. I) says:
“According to a letter addressed to me by Dr. Hoffmann, a respectable
physician in Molde, which is situated several miles south of
Christiansund on one of the largest fjords, the school-inspector
HAMMER, the adjunct KRAFT, and some other persons, who in 1840 made
together an excursion in a boat on this fjord, saw very distinctly a
so-called sea-serpent of considerable length.”
* * * * *
=107 A=.--1840, August?--The Editor of the _Journal du Havre_ before
publishing Capt. D’ABNOUR’S report (n^o. 106 A) says, (see _Zoologist_,
1847, p. 1715):
“We shall preface his narrative by the remark, that the sea-serpent has
been recently alleged to have been seen, at different points along the
whole line of the American coast.”
The Editor would have done better if he had published all the reports
of the sea-serpent, that had come within his reach. The reader must
know that with the terms “the whole line of the American coast” the
Editor can only have meant the east coast of British America and of the
United States, from Newfoundland to Cape Canaveral, Florida.
* * * * *
=108=.--1841.--In a Postscript to his paper (_Archiv für
Naturgeschichte_, 1841, Vol. I) Mr. RATHKE tells us:
“According to a letter which I received some time ago from Mr. Soern
Knutszon, a sea-serpent is again seen there some weeks after I had left
Christiansund, by several persons.”
* * * * *
The well known Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE in 1841 published in the _Archiv
für Naturgeschichte_, 7th year, Vol. I, his dissertation “On the
Sea-Serpent of the Norwegians”. I am obliged to give a translation of
his paper:
“On a journey which I made through Norway I availed myself of the
opportunity of making inquiries after a hitherto problematical and
even doubted animal, the so-called sea-serpent (Soe Orm in the
language of the Norwegians). The most favourable opportunity offered
in Christiansund, in the neighbourhood of which this animal is said to
have often been observed. The general notices which I received about
the sea-serpent, agree in the following points: It is mostly seen in
the larger fjords of Norway, but seldom in the open sea. In the fjord
of Christiansund, which has such a considerable extent, manifold
ramifications, and in which numerous islets are found, it appears
almost every year. It is said to have been especially observed in that
part of the fjord on which the village of Lorvig is situated. This
only happens in the warmest part of the year, viz. in the dog days,
and only then when the weather is quite still and the surface of the
water smooth. When after its appearance the water is ruffled, however
slightly, it immediately disappears. Great is the dread of it, so that
in the dog days many fishermen, otherwise intrepid, don’t go far into
the sea, without taking with them asa foetida, which is said to drive
away the animal by its smell, when thrown into the water. Moreover the
fishermen advise to be very quiet, when a sea-serpent approaches, and
therefore rowing must be avoided, because the least noise attracts it
still more.”
“To have, however, more accounts than those general ones which are
spread amongst the people, I wrote to several persons who were said
to have seen it with their own eyes. Some of them who at the request
of SOEREN and WILHELM KNUDTSZON Brothers, two distinguished and very
intelligent merchants, paid me a visit, I questioned personally; for
others I had put down several questions to which I received a written
answer. I will communicate here the result of my inquiry.”
Now Mr. RATHKE publishes the affidavits which I have inserted above
(n^o. 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 102), and his Postscript (see n^o. 107 and
108).
“If one” Mr. RATHKE goes on, “were to submit the above mentioned
evidences to an inquiry, one would soon observe, that they not only
contain several contradictory statements, but also that each evidence
by itself cannot pretend to accuracy. Yet I believe, that we may at
least admit so much of them, to be right, that what those persons who
bear the evidences, took for a long animal, was really such a one. For
I should not know, what could be the cause of the illusion, which had
created the belief in such an animal. Some persons, as I know, believe
that what has been taken for a so-called sea-serpent, was nothing else
but a row of porpoises, swimming in a line. But all those persons by
whom the above mentioned evidences are borne were too familiar with
the sea, and had observed porpoises together too often to be deceived
by a row of such animals swimming on the surface of the water. If
this, however, had been the case, all the observations related to
me of the sea-serpent holding its head above the surface, and about
its size, must have been mere fictions, and this I cannot believe.
According to all this, it evidently cannot be doubted that there is
a long serpentine animal in the sea of Norway, which may grow to a
considerable length.”
Now Mr. RATHKE weighs and considers to what kind of animals the
sea-serpent may belong. This, however, we omit here, as we have partly
discussed these views in our Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents, where we
spoke of the Animal of Stronsa, and as we shall once more refer to it
in our Chapter of Explanations.
Every one, I think, will agree with me, that Mr. RATHKE has committed
two faults. 1. He criticises the correctness of the statements in
question, apparently without having taken the trouble to read all
that had been written about the subject. If he had done so, he would
never have said that the particulars of the evidences collected by
him in Norway were sometimes contradictory; on the contrary, he
would have observed that they completed one another! 2. He was the
first scientific man and zoologist who had an opportunity to see the
sea-serpent, probably even to kill it, and yet he returns to Germany
without having made one single effort either to kill or to see it!
* * * * *
Immediately after Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE’S dissertation, the Editor of the
_Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, the well-known Prof. Dr. W. F. ERICHSON,
wrote a paper, in which he gave full details of the Animal of Stronsa
and descriptions of the saved bones. He ends this extract with the
words:
“Consequently the Animal of Stronsa has no relation at all with the
sea-serpent of the Norwegians; the animal, however, seen by the Rev.
Maclean” (n^o. 31) “might be considered as such an animal.”
These words convince me of the fact that Mr. ERICHSON, like Mr. RATHKE
firmly believed that there are in the Norwegian seas animals still
unknown to them, which are called “sea-serpents”.
* * * * *
=109=.--1842?--(_Times_, Nov. 4, 1848).--
“A parish priest residing on Romsdal fjord, about two days journey
south of Drontheim, an intelligent person, whose veracity I have no
reason to doubt, gave me a circumstantial account of one, which he had
himself seen. It rose within 30 yards of the boat in which he was, and
swam parallel with it for a considerable time. Its head he described
as equalling a small cask in size, and its mouth, which it repeatedly
opened and shut, was furnished with formidable teeth; its neck was
smaller, but its body--of which he supposed that he saw about half on
the surface of the water--was not less in girth than that of a moderate
sized horse.” (Part of a letter from “OXONIENSIS”).--
* * * * *
=110=.--1842?--“Another gentleman, in whose house I stayed, had also
seen one, and gave a similar account of it: it also came near his boat
upon the fjord, when it was fired at, upon which it turned and pursued
them to the shore, which was luckily near, when it disappeared” (Also a
part of the letter from OXONIENSIS, _Times_, Nov. 4, 1848).
* * * * *
=111=.--1843, Summer.--In FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_, Vol. XXVIII, n^o.
606, p. 184, Nov. 1843, we read:
“Some months ago the sea-serpent again appeared between the islets and
inlets of the fjord of Christiansund.”
* * * * *
=111 A=.--1843, October?--(FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_, Vol. 28, n^o. 606,
p. 184).
“The Editors of the _Christiansands Posten_ add the following remarks:
“This whole description accurately fits on an appearance, which the
writer of these lines has witnessed a few times in the North Sea, and
when the inhabitants of the coast near Ibbestad, if not withheld by
their fear of the supposed sea-monster, had rowed with their boats
towards the animal, they would soon have observed without any doubt
that the supposed intervals between the coils were nothing else but
water.””
The number of the _Christiansands Posten_ was most probably one of
the beginning of November or of the end of October. Consequently the
appearance spoken of must have taken place some days before. At all
events this is a proof of an appearance of the sea-serpent, swimming in
vertical undulations, near Ibbestad, in Norway, at that time.
* * * * *
=112=, =113=.--1845.--The report of Captain M’QUHAE, which we shall
meet with a little further on, induced Mr. J. D. MORRIES STIRLING to
write a letter on the sea-serpent to the Admiralty.
“By the courtesy” says the Editor of the _Illustrated London News_ in
his number of Oct., 28, 1848, “of the Secretary to the Admiralty, we
have been favoured with the following letter from a gentleman long
resident in Norway.”
“13, Great Cumberland Street, October 25, 1848.”
“My dear Sir,--I regret that I have not found the volumes referred
to in our conversation respecting the recent authentication of the
existence of the sea-serpent by Captain M’Quhae, of H. M. frigate
Daedalus, but I will give you that part of the information which I
remember best. Several years ago, a museum was established at Bergen,
in Norway, the directors of which have, amongst other subjects of
interest, turned their study to Natural History in general, and to the
elucidation of some of its more doubtful or less known subdivisions.
The question of the sea-serpent’s existence had previously attracted
the attention of several scientific men in Northern Europe; and my
friend, the late Dr. Newmann, Bishop of Bergen--a man much and justly
respected for his learning, research and energy--made it the subject of
inquiry within the last twenty or twenty-five years among his clergy
and those of the adjoining dioceses. The amount of proof thus collected
was sufficient to convince any one, however sceptical, as it is not
mere hearsay evidence, but the testimony of known and respectable
persons in various walks of life. One of the most striking statements
is made by some fishermen, who saw the animal quite close to them, and
of whom one more hardy than the rest struck it with a boat-hook, upon
which it immediately gave them chase; and, had they not been very near
a small island or rock, on which they took refuge, in all probability
they would have been destroyed.”
“The size of the sea-serpents seen in the Norwegian fjords varies
much; and I do not now remember what the dimensions of the largest
are said to be. As far as I can tax my memory, none of them lately
seen are larger than that described by Capt. M’Quhae. The one seen
by the fishermen above alluded to, was, I think, not above 70 feet
long. I have written to my colleagues in the direction of the Bergen
Museum, and as soon as their answer arrives I will give you a more full
account.”
“There are I believe, several varieties of the reptile, known as the
sea-serpent, but almost all the accounts agree as to the existence
of a mane, and as to the great size of the eye. In several of the
fossil reptiles somewhat approaching the sea-serpent in size and
other characteristics, the orbit is very large; and in this respect,
as well as having short paws or flappers, the descriptions of the
northern sea-serpents agree with the supposed appearance of some of the
antediluvian species. A great part of the disbelief in the existence
of the sea-serpent has arisen from its being supposed to be the same
animal as the Kraken, or rather from the names having been used
indiscriminately.”
“In concluding this hurried statement, allow me to add my own testimony
as to the existence of a large fish or reptile of cylindrical form. (I
will not say sea-serpent.) Three years ago, while becalmed in a yacht
between Bergen and Sogn in Norway, I saw (at about a quarter of a mile
astern) what appeared to be a large fish ruffling the otherwise smooth
surface of the fjord, and, on looking attentively, I observed what
looked like the convolutions of a snake. I immediately got my glass,
and distinctly made out three convolutions, which drew themselves
slowly through the water. The greatest diameter was about ten or twelve
inches. No head was visible; and from the size of each convolution, I
supposed the length to be about thirty feet. The master of my yacht
(who, as navigator, seaman, and fisherman, had known the Norwegian
coast and North Sea for many years), as well as a friend who was with
me, an experienced Norwegian sportsman and porpoise shooter, saw the
same appearance at the same time, and formed the same opinion as to
form and size. I mention my friend being a porpoise shooter, as many
have believed that a shoal of porpoises following each other has given
rise to the fable, as they called it, of the sea-serpent.”
* * * * *
=114=.--1845 or 1846, Summer.--(Copied in the _Illustrated London News_
of June, 13, 1857, from the _Cape Argus_ of March, 14, 1857).
“Sir,--I inclose a letter addressed to me by a friend Dr. Biccard (with
a drawing) containing an interesting account of the sea-serpent seen
by him and others off the old lighthouse at the entrance of Table Bay
on the 16th. of last month. It savours not a little of presumption
to maintain that such a marine monster does exist, in the face of
the deliberately recorded opinion of the greatest living Zoologist,
Professor Owen, yet I venture to do so upon the simple testimony
of my own eyes. In the year 1845, or 6, Mr. G. D. Brunette (of St.
George’s-street, the conveyancer) and myself were fishing at Camp’s
Bay one bright, clear summer day. There was not a breath of air, and
the water was as smooth as the surface of a pond. About midday we were
leaving the rocks to proceed to the marine villa, when Mr. Brunette
suddenly directed my attention to what he at first thought was a whale.
A moment’s inspection was sufficient, however, to detect the real
nature of the animal. At about a mile from the shore we saw a line of
shining black objects, like a string of large casks, floating on the
surface of the water, lying parallel with the shore. It kept gently
bobbing up and down, and on one occasion we saw the whole length for
a few seconds above the water. Judging from the size of an Indiaman,
1000 tons, at a similar distance, I should say the animal’s length was
from 150 to 200 feet. Of its girth I can form no estimate; but, from
the show it made at so great a distance, it must have been at least
three feet above the level of the sea. Nor could we distinguish head
from tail, though near one extremity we saw what looked like foam or
froth, as though the animal was blowing water in a lateral direction.
It seemed to be basking in the warm sun, with no other motion than that
I have described, or dipping under occasionally. After watching it for
about a quarter of an hour we started for the villa, for the purpose
of borrowing a telescope, but we had scarcely walked ten yards when we
observed the animal turn slowly round and then made off in a straight
line to seawards, towards the N.W. It moved at a rapid rate; so much
so that when we got to the house and procured the glass it had reached
such a distance that we could not distinguish it better than we had
done with our naked eyes while on the rocks. The motion while moving
off was undulatory, the cask like substances submerging and emerging
from time to time, and glittering in the sun till we lost sight of them
altogether, which was about an hour after first seeing the animal. That
this animal was a sea-serpent I never had the slightest doubt; yet,
knowing the general incredulity on this subject, neither Mr. Brunette
nor myself cared much to boast of what we had seen, so we said nothing
about it; but as Dr. Biccard has obligingly, at my request, furnished
me with particulars, for general information, of the animal seen by him
under such favourable circumstances, I am induced to add my own poor
testimony to the many facts now on record, proving conclusively the
existence of a great marine saurian or some similar animal. I would
point out that a gentleman as Dr. Biccard’s well known scientific
attainments is not likely to mistake a seal for a serpent; and that the
six or seven individuals who witnessed the evolutions of the animal at
so short a distance as 200 yards could scarcely have been misled by a
piece of seaweed, or by a seal.”
“The narrative of Dr. Biccard will be read with interest, and I beg
to refer those who feel any interest in it to an article on the Great
Sea-Serpent in the Westminster Review for January 1849.”
“Yours, &c.,” “Chas. A. Fairbridge.”
“Cape Town, 13th. March, 1857.”
The above mentioned letter will be inserted in its right place
hereafter, (n°. 130). It is clear enough that we have here an
unvarnished account of an appearance of a true sea-serpent. The
appearance of a line of shining black objects, like a string of large
casks is a common one. Its length, estimated at upwards of 150 feet, is
surely not exaggerated, as we shall observe afterwards. As the animal
raised itself at least three feet above the level of the sea, its
diameter may have been some fifteen feet. The animal evidently lay with
its nostrils just at water-level, so that in exhaling it caused “a foam
or froth, as though blowing water in a lateral direction”. I think,
that the observer was a little mistaken as to the direction, which
cannot have been quite a lateral one.
* * * * *
=115=.--1845, July 28.--(_Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1606).
“The Rev. Mr. P. W. Deinbolt, Archdeacon of Molde, gives the following
account of one, which was seen last summer near Molde. The 28th. of
July, 1845, J. C. Lund, bookseller and printer; G. S. Krogh, merchant;
Christian Flang, Lund’s apprentice, and John Elgenses, labourer, were
out on Romsdale-fjord, fishing. The sea was, after a warm, sunshiny
day, quite calm. About seven o’clock in the afternoon, at a little
distance from the shore, near the ballast place and Molde Hove, they
saw a long marine animal, which slowly moved itself forward, as it
appeared to them, with the help of two fins, on the fore-part of
the body nearest the head, which they judged by the boiling of the
water on both sides of it. The visible part of the body appeared to
be between forty and fifty feet in length, and moved in undulations,
like a snake. The body was round and of a dark colour, and seemed to
be several ells (an ell two feet) in thickness. As they discerned a
waving motion in the water behind the animal, they concluded that
part of the body was concealed under water. That it was one connected
animal they saw plainly from its movement. When the animal was about
one hundred yards from the boat, they noticed tolerably correctly its
fore-part, which ended in a sharp snout; its colossal head raised
itself above the water in the form of a semi-circle; the lower part was
not visible. The colour of the head was dark brown and the skin smooth;
they did not notice the eyes, or any mane or bristles on the throat.
When the serpent came about a musket-shot near, Lund fired at it, and
was certain the shots hit it in the head. After the shot it dived,
but came up immediately. It raised its neck in the air, like a snake
preparing to dart on his prey. After he had turned and got his body
in a straight line, which he appeared to do with great difficulty, he
darted like an arrow against the boat. They reached the shore, and the
animal, perceiving it had come into shallow water, dived immediately
and disappeared in the deep. Such is the declaration of these four
men, and no one has cause to question their veracity, or imagine that
they were so seized with fear that they could not observe what took
place so near them. There are not many here, or on other parts of the
Norwegian coast, who longer doubt the existence of the sea-serpent. The
writer of this narrative was a long time sceptical, as he had not been
so fortunate as to see this monster of the deep; but after the many
accounts he has read, and the relations he has received from credible
witnesses, he does not dare longer to doubt the existence of the
sea-serpent.”
“P. W. Deinbolt.”
“Molde, 29th. Nov. 1845.”
I need scarcely observe that the eye-witnesses of this appearance were
deceived as to their opinion that the “boiling of the water on both
sides of the head” was caused by “two fins on the forepart of the
body, nearest the head”. The two fore-flappers of the sea-serpent are
situated at rather a great distance from the head. The animal has a
very long neck. This assertion is proved by their own words: “it raised
its neck in the air”. If there were two fins near the head, large
enough to cause any boiling of water, they would have been seen then by
the persons, who would have mentioned them. The so-called boiling of
the water was nothing but the commonly observed rushing caused by the
animal’s motion through the water.