“Imogen, from Algoa Bay, towards London. Sunday 30th. March, 1856. Lat.
29 deg., 11 min. N., Long. 34 deg., 36 min. W., bar. 30.50; calm and
clear. Four vessels visible to southward and westward.”
“About five minutes past eleven A. M., the helmsman drew our attention
to something moving through the water, and causing a strong ripple
about 400 yards distant from our starboard quarter.”
“In a few moments it became more distinct, presenting the appearance
in fig. 1., and showing an apparent length of about forty feet (above
the surface of the sea), the undulations of the water extending
on each side to a considerable distance in its wake. Mr. Statham
immediately ascended to the maintopsailyard, Captain Guy and Mr.
Harries watching the animal from the deck with the telescope. After
passing the ship about half a mile, the serpent “rounded to” and raised
its head, seemingly to look at us (fig. 2), and then steered away to
the northward (N. E.), possibly to the neighbourhood of the Western
Islands, frequently lifting its head (fig. 3). We traced its course
until nearly on the horizon, from the topsailyard, and lost sight of it
from deck about 11 h. 45 m. A. M. No doubt remained on our minds as to
its being an immense snake, as the undulations of its body were clearly
perceptible, although we were unable to distinguish its eyes.”
“The weather being fine and the glossy surface of the sea only
occasionally disturbed by slight flaws (catspaws) of wind, we had a
perfect opportunity of noticing its movements.”
“In conformity to your regulations we inclose our references, and
remain,
“Sir, your obedient servants,
“James Guy, Commander,
“J. H. Statham, Julian B. Harries, D. J. Williamson, Passengers.”
After the figures of Capt. M’QUHAE of the _Daedalus_ (n^o. 118, fig.
28, 29, 30), which show the animal swimming with its body in a straight
line, these four figures of the animal are the best we have, but here
it is swimming with vertical undulations. To the description I can add
nothing, nor need I explain anything. Description and figures complete
each other and give an accurate and very natural idea of a sight of the
animal seen from afar.--
* * * * *
=129=.--1856, July 8.--(The _Illustrated London News_ of the 4th. of
October, 1856.)
“To the Editor of the Illustrated London News.”
“Colonial Agency, 4, Cullum-street, London, September 25th. 1856.”
“We hand you the following extract from the log-book of our ship
_Princess_, Captain A. R. N. Tremearne, in London Docks 15th. inst.,
from China, viz:--”
““Thuesday, July 8, 1856.--Latitude accurate 34° 56′ S.; Longitude
accurate 18° 14′ E. At one P. M. saw a very large fish, with a head
like a walrus, and twelve fins, similar to those in a black fish, but
turned the contrary way. The back was from 20 to 30 feet long; also a
great length of tail. It is not improbable that this monster has been
taken for the great sea-serpent. Fired and hit it near the head with
rifle-ball. At eight, fresh wind and fine.””
“We submit that the repeated accounts of seeing a marine monster,
whatever be its correct name or kind, yet harmonising in some leading
descriptions forbid longer doubt of one such creature existing, and
we inclose you a rough sketch as this one appeared, signed by Captain
Tremearne, who has been six years in our employ, and is otherwise well
known. His own private log contains a similar record, and we have
interrogated others of the _Princess_ crew, who assert the fact of such
appearance.”
“Captain Tremearne states that Captain Morgan, a passenger by the
_Princess_, but who at St. Helena joined the ship _Senator_, to command
her to Liverpool (where she is daily expected), also saw this monster,
and can corroborate the statements.”
“Until 13th. of October the _Princess_ will be at London Dock jetty,
loading for Melbourne, and naturalists and other scientific persons
can there make further inquiries, provided they do not subject Captain
Tremearne to correspondence or interrupt ship’s duties, which are
urgent for her speedy departure. The ship’s log-book and the rough
sketch of the fish can also be inspected at our office.”
“Edmund J. Wheeler and Co.”
[Illustration: Fig. 36.--The sea-serpent as seen by Captains TREMEARNE
and MORGAN.]
Though the description is very short, the figure enables us to make
the following conjecture. Captain TREMEARNE really saw a sea-serpent,
swimming with extraordinary speed, most probably because, on coming to
the surface, it was alarmed by the unexpected presence of the ship.
Having remained under water a long time it suddenly exhaled on coming
to the surface, and blew like a whale, as the figure shows. The
extreme velocity of its motion is cause that the impression of the head
was that of a walrus. But this is a remarkable fact. We have already
observed that a Norwegian fisherman described the head as resembling
that of a seal (n^o. 8), and that Mr. CUMMINGS (n^o. 29), too described
at first sight the head to resemble that of a seal. Afterwards Mr.
KRIUKOF (n^o. 36) better acquainted with sea-lions, described it as
resembling a sea-lion’s; more than once the bristles on the upper lip
are mentioned; one of the gentlemen of the _Daedalus_ drew a head
distinctly that of a Pinniped, and Captain TREMEARNE declares that it
had the head of a walrus. Most probably he has seen the animal close
to him and in its face, and saw the upper-lip with bristly whiskers,
though this is neither mentioned nor figured. The same uncommonly rapid
motion of the animal caused the captain to draw the neck too short and
to see “twelve fins”. He was the dupe of an optical illusion, resulting
from the very rapid paddling of the animal’s fore-flappers. But he
has very well observed that the posture of the flappers when directed
as upward as possible is “turned the contrary way to those in a black
fish”. The head is described by him as that of a mammal, belonging to
the order of Pinnipeds, the posture of the flappers is exactly that
which pinnipedian mammals, as sea-lions and walruses, would exhibit,
when swimming with extreme velocity. No reptile is able to lift up its
fore-limbs to such a height. The animal in this position, but seen
from behind, would have the external features as shown in the figure
of Lieutenant HAYNES (fig. 45, n^o. 148). And captain TREMEARNE has
also very well observed and delineated that six of the fins were on
the left, and six on the right sight of the animal as if rising out
of the water, and that the twelve were not situated on the animal’s
back. The rough back, too, is a proof that the animal had a mane. The
violent motions of the flappers must have caused a severe splashing
and foaming of the water; it is clear that this is omitted by captain
TREMEARNE when drawing his figure. So this report, though apparently
of no worth, is, with the figure, one of the most valuable reports of
an appearance of the sea-serpent, throwing light upon its rank in the
system of nature. Remarkable is the fact that captain TREMEARNE writes:
“it is not improbable that this monster has been taken for the great
sea-serpent”.
* * * * *
=130=.--1857, February 16.--The following letter was forwarded by
Dr. Biccard to his friend Mr. FAIRBRIDGE, at his request, was then
published in the _Cape Argus_ of the 14th. of March, 1857, and
reprinted, with the figure, in the _Illustrated London News_ of 1857,
June 13.--
[Illustration: Fig. 37 and 38.--Two Positions of the sea-serpent as
seen by Dr. BICCARD.]
“Cape Town, 11th. March, 1857.
“My dear Fairbridge,--According to your wish, I give you a short
description of the Sea-Serpent seen by me and others opposite the old
light-house at Green Point.”
“On Monday, the 16th. of February last, I went out to Green Point in
the afternoon. At about 5 p. m., or a little after, I was called by
Mr. Murray, the light-house-keeper, to “come and see a sea monster”.
I proceeded to the light-house, and from thence I saw on the water,
about 150 yards from the shore, the serpent, of which some details
have already appeared in print. It was lying in the position shown
in the accompanying sketch n^o. 1. I borrowed a rifle from Mr. Flail
(Mr. Murray’s father-in-law), and fired at the animal. The ball fell
short in front of it by about four yards, as shown in the sketch. The
animal did not move, and I then fired a second shot, the ball striking
about a foot and a half from it. The serpent, then apparently startled,
moved from his position, straightened himself out, and went under
water, evidently getting out of the way. He was invisible for about ten
minutes, at the expiration of which interval he reappeared at about two
hundred yards distance, and I should say about forty yards further off.
He then came right on towards the place where I first saw him; but,
before arriving there, my son, who had joined me, fired at the animal.
Unluckily, the discharge broke the nipple of the rifle, and I was thus
prevented from further firing. Upon reaching the place he had first
occupied, the serpent formed himself into the position delineated in
Sketch n^o. 2. He then stood right into the bay, and soon afterwards we
lost sight of him altogether.”
“As I have stated, the distance the animal kept from shore was not
more than 200 yards; its length was about 200 feet, but its thickness
I cannot tell, the upper part of the body only being visible. The head
could be seen but indistinctly, as he raised it at intervals, as shown
in the sketch. I consider the protuberance to be the upper part of the
head, but I could not discover the eyes, notwithstanding the short
distance, and the telescope which was a pretty good one. The colour of
the animal was a dark dull colour, except the head, which was maculated
with large white spots. The weather at this time was very calm, with a
light northwesterly breeze. Besides myself, the serpent was seen by Mr.
Hall, Mr. Murray, Mrs. and Miss Biccard, my two sons, and my coachman,
who all saw it distinctly.”
“Yours, &c.,
“Biccard.”
Nobody can help laughing when he sees this figure, representing
something very much like a black buoy, with white streaks and spots,
and glittering in the sun, having a long rope attached to it! It is,
however, pretty well done for one who cannot draw. As in so many other
instances the figures and the text complete each other. The animal
appears here nearly in the same position as it did in the Harbour of
Gloucester, in 1817. The same astonishing lateral flexibility! “It
lay down, in turning, in the form of a staple or horse-shoe” we have
learned on that occasion, and “in doing so it nearly touched its head
with its tail”, “the tail and the head then appeared only to be a few
yards one from another”, once “it lay down in the form of an S”, &c.
Though the Doctor does not describe this position, his figures tell it
us. As the second ball apparently startled it, it changed its position,
straightened itself out, disappeared, and came up after ten minutes,
about forty yards further off. It behaved in the same way in the
Harbour of Gloucester. The length may again be somewhat exaggerated,
though I do not think such to be the case. The white streaks and spots
on the head may have been the shining reflexion of day or sunlight,
the head being thoroughly wet, as the animal raised and dropped it at
intervals, which made the water run down every time, but it is also
very possible that the individual was really spotted on its head.
* * * * *
=131=.--1857, December 12.--(The _Times_ of February 5, 1858; the
_Zoologist_ for 1858, p. 5989.).
“I beg to enclose you a copy of an extract from the meteorological
journal kept by me on board the ship _Castilian_, on a voyage from
Bombay to Liverpool. I have sent the original to the Board of Trade,
for whom the observations have been made during my last voyage. I am
glad to confirm a statement made by the commander of Her Majesty’s ship
_Daedalus_, some years ago, as to the existence of such an animal as
that described by him.--G. H. Harrington; 14 and 14¹⁄₂, South Castle
Street, Liverpool, February 2, 1858.--
“Copy of an Extract from the Board of Trade Meteorological Journal,
kept by Captain Harrington, of the ship _Castilian_, from Bombay to
Liverpool.”
“Ship _Castilian_, December 12, 1857, north-east end of St. Helena,
bearing north-west, distance 10 miles.”
“At 6.30 p. m., strong breezes and cloudy, ship sailing about twelve
miles per hour. While myself and officers were standing on the lee-side
of the poop, looking towards the island, we were startled by the sight
of a huge marine animal, which reared its head out of the water within
twenty yards of the ship, when it suddenly disappeared for about half a
minute, and then made its appearance in the same manner again, showing
us distinctly its neck and head about ten or twelve feet out of the
water. Its head was shaped like a long nun-buoy, and I suppose the
diameter to have been seven or eight feet in the largest part, with a
kind of scroll, or tuft of loose skin, encircling it about two feet
from the top; the water was discoloured for several hundred feet from
its head, so much so that, on its first appearance, my impression was
that the ship was in broken water, produced, as I supposed, by some
vulcanic agency since the last time I passed the island; but the second
appearance completely dispelled those fears, and assured us that it was
a monster of extraordinary length, which appeared to be moving slowly
towards the land. The ship was going too fast to enable us to reach the
mast-head in time to form a correct estimate of its extreme length,
but from what we saw from the deck we conclude that it must have been
over two hundred feet long. The boatswain and several of the crew who
observed it from the top-gallant forecastle, state that it was more
than double the length of the ship, in which case it must have been
five hundred feet. Be that as it may, I am convinced that it belonged
to the serpent tribe; it was of a dark colour about the head, and was
covered with several white spots. Having a press of canvas on the ship
at the time, I was unable to round to without risk, and therefore was
precluded from getting another sight of this leviathan of the deep.”
“George Henry Harrington, Commander.”
“William Davies, Chief Officer.”
“Edward Wheeler, Second Officer.”
The animal seen by Captain HARRINGTON was no doubt a sea-serpent, of
which at first sight, only the head and a small portion of the neck
were exposed to the eyes of the spectators. Afterwards, when the animal
moved slowly towards the land, its whole length must have been visible,
and estimated at about two hundred feet. The head was seen in such a
direction that it resembled a “nun-buoy”. The diameter of the head may
have been six feet. At a moment that the animal contracted its neck, an
annular fold was formed round the neck just behind the head, as may
be seen in our sea-lions, and which led Captain HARRINGTON to write
“with a kind of scroll, or tuft of loose skin, encircling it about two
feet from the top” of the head, i. e. somewhat behind the occiput. The
discolouring of the water has of course nothing at all to do with the
animal or its appearance.
Some days afterwards (_Times_ of February 13, 1858; _Zoologist_ for
1858, p. 5990) this document was followed by an account of FREDERIC
SMITH, who stated that on December 28th., 1848, commanding the ship
PEKIN, they saw an extraordinary creature, which, when harpooned, and
hoisted on board, proved to be a piece of a gigantic sea-weed, twenty
feet long. “So like a huge living monster did this appear, that, had
circumstances prevented my sending a boat to it, I should certainly
have believed I had seen the great sea-snake.” Captain SMITH firmly
believes that the animals of the _Daedalus_ and of the _Castilian_ were
pieces of the same weed.
Hereupon, “An officer of H. M. S. _Daedalus_” wrote an apology in the
_Times_ of 16th. February, which we have inserted in n^o. 118. This
letter was immediately followed in the same paper of the same date by
the two following:
“Sir.--A letter appears in the _Times_ of to-day signed “Frederic
Smith” on the subject of the sea-serpent.
“The writer has this advantage over others who have reported the
occasional appearance of what he fairly calls “this queer fish”--that
he has handled as well as seen it. Still there would seem to be a
considerable variety in the genus, for, while the specimen obtained by
the _Pekin_ in 1848 was 4 inches in diameter and 20 feet in length,
that seen from the _Circassian_ is described, if I remember rightly, in
your paper of 4th. inst. as 10 feet or 11 feet in diameter, and upwards
of 200 feet in length.”
“In this latter instance it was seen only, and but a passing sight; and
testimony of this kind is just that which naturalists may be slow to
receive as evidence of any new fact; nevertheless the practised vision
of the _Circassian’s_ commander should go for something, and as it
would appear from the following letter that Captain Harrington is to be
in town next week and ready to answer any questions, it might be worth
the while of some of our philosophers to examine a little into the
question of what Capt. Harrington and his officers really did see.”
“I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant
“Blackheath, February 12.” “W. A. B. Hamilton.”
For _Circassian_ of course read _Castilian_.
“14, South Castle Street, Liverpool, February 8.
“Dear Sir,--I am in receipt of your favour of the 6th. of February, and
should be glad if my communication to the _Times_ might be instrumental
in dispelling many doubts respecting the existence of such a monster as
that described by myself and my officers.”
“I communicated it to Capt. Schomberg, R. N., of this place, in the
course of conversation, who advised me by all means to send a copy of
it to the _Times_.”
“Notwithstanding the assertions of men of science to the contrary I am
now sure that such animals exist. I could no more be deceived than (as
a seaman) I could mistake a porpoise for a whale. If it had been at a
great distance it would have been different, but it was not above 20
yards from the ship.”
“I am of opinion that this animal makes its appearance at the surface
at long intervals only. I am informed by Messrs. Lamport and Holt,
shipowners of this place, that one of their captains reported a similar
thing about two years ago, off the Island of St. Helena, but they took
no further notice of it, supposing, as your friend seems to do, that he
might have been deceived.”
“Twenty people, including Mrs. Harrington and my two officers, saw it
as distinctly as I now see the gas light which I am writing by. I am
well known in London, having commanded a steam transport during the
Russian war belonging to the North of Europe Steam Navigation Company.”
“Captain Claxton, R. N., of the Priory, Battersea, is a personal friend
of mine. I am also well known to Sir Colin Campbell, who is now in the
East. My present ship is 1604 tons new measurement, and a new ship,
of which I own a good part myself. There are, therefore, many reasons
(in addition to my holding a first-class certificate in the mercantile
marine) to hinder me from propagating a report which can do me no
good, and, if untrue, do injury to science in the room of assisting it
to elicit the truth in so important a matter as the discovery of the
inhabitants of the deep.”
“I shall be in town for three or four days in the early part of next
week. A letter addressed to me at the Jerusalem Coffee-House will meet
with attention, and, if my limited time permit, I should be glad to
have an interview with yourself, or any of your friends who might wish
to have a verbal explanation in this matter.”
“I have the honour to remain, Sir, your obedient servant
“G. H. Harrington.”
“To Rear-Admiral W. A. B. Hamilton”
This letter was again answered in a very witty way in the _Times_
of Febr. 23, 1858; this however, will be inserted in our chapter on
Explanations.
In the _Zoologist_ for 1858, p. 6015, Mr. ALFRED CHARLES SMITH, an old
acquaintance of ours (p. 299) now wrote the following remark:
“To one who firmly believes in the existence of some huge marine
monster of the serpent-form, such as the Northmen love to descant upon
(and I am not ashamed to own to such credulity, as I have already
declared in my Notes on Norway (Zool. 3229)), the clear and minute
account of Capt. Harrington, on the sea-monster which he and twenty
people saw on the 12th of December last, off the coast of St. Helena,
was exceedingly interesting; nor did the subsequent letter of Mr. F.
Smith tend to shake my belief in the accuracy of Capt. Harrington’s
statement, the particulars of the two alleged appearances being so very
different. I am not, however, about to argue the point, the premises
before us being far too unsatisfactory and vague to argue from. I
merely write to express my hope that as you have admitted the first
correspondence on the subject to the pages of the _Zoologist_, you
will give both parties fair play, and insert the remaining letters,
which appeared in the _Times_ of February 16th and 23 respectively,
copies of which I enclose, so that naturalists may have an opportunity
of studying the case in all its bearings, before they form their
conclusions.--Alfred Charles Smith; Yatesbury Rectory, Calne, March 5,
1858.”
Of course, it was but natural that also foreign newspapers should take
great delight in this polemic. So we find in the _Revue Britannique_,
of 1858, n^o 2, Febr. p. 496, an article full of erroneous statements:
“Amongst the grave questions of the day, we did not think of meeting
again, in the newspapers, with the famous sea-serpent, the problematic
existence of which seemed to be banished to the world of apocryphal, or
at least antediluvian animals; but no! three new eye-witnesses declare
to have seen it, and very well too. Now a Captain Smith, of Newcastle,
writes that he is convinced that these witnesses have been illuded, as
he himself was on the 28th. of December, 1848, when after believing to
see through his telescope an extraordinary monster, and after lowering
the great net of the ship, he drew in only a gigantic sea-weed of
twenty feet in length, which really had the form, attributed to
the fantastic reptile. This indirect refutation, however, does not
discourage the Rear-Admiral Harrington (imagine, a Rear-Admiral!) who
in a second article in the _Times_, repeats that he is sure of the
fact, that he has seen the sea-serpent twenty fathoms from his ship,
that he has recognized it, as if he would have recognized a whale on
the side of a porpoise, that his wife, who was on board, has seen it
with him, as had his two officers, in short, that he will come to
London, as soon as he has terminated his business at Liverpool, and
will furnish all evidences demanded by science and scepticism. If he
had only brought home the animal’s tail or one of its fins!”
* * * * *
=132=.--1858, January 26.--The _Illustrated London News_ of March 20,
1858, mentions:
“The following is a report made by Captain Suckling, of the ship
_Carnatic_, of London, of a Sea Serpent seen by him between the Cape of
Good Hope and St. Helena:--“On the 26th of January, in latitude 19°10′
S., long 10°6′ W., about 5 minutes after noon, my attention was called
by Captain Shuttleworth, a passenger on board the _Carnatic_ to a large
spar sticking out of the water one end some thirty feet above the level
of the sea. It appeared to me to be the lower mast of some wrecked
vessel, and having the glass in my hand, with which I had been looking
at an American vessel in sight, I examined it narrowly. It seemed to
be passing very rapidly to the eastward, having altered its bearings
several points in the course of a few minutes, when it suddenly
disappeared, and came up shortly afterwards astern of the ship. It was
seen by all those on deck at the time, and it is their opinion, as well
as my own, that it was an enormous sea-serpent. The American ship _A.
B. Thompson_ from Bombay to London, was in company at the time--wind
light and variable, with clear weather”.--We have not space for the
Sketch obligingly sent with this account”.
The comparison with a spar, an unwrought spar, or spruce, a log
of timber, etc., has been made more than once, as the reader will
remember, and when we compare the figures, drawn by an officer of
H. M. S. _Plumper_ (fig. 31), and by Major SENIOR (fig. 46), we can
easily imagine, that in this position the animal must have illuded the
observers more than once. It is a pity that the sketch has not been
published. How many interesting drawings have in this way got into the
paper-basket!
* * * * *
In 1860 Mr. P. H. GOSSE published his _Romance of Natural History_,
First Series. The last chapter of this volume is entitled “the Great
Unknown” and is entirely devoted to the Great Sea-Serpent. His manner
of teaching Natural History to his readers was, as the able writer says
himself, a poetical one. “In my many years’ wandering through the wide
field of Natural History, I have always felt towards it something of
a poet’s heart, though destitute of a poet’s genius”. I can recommend
every zoologist and botanist to read his work in his leasure hours; I
have read it with great interest and pleasure, increasing my knowledge,
wandering with the writer from north to south and from east to west,
from one pole to the other and from continents to the greatest depths
of the ocean!
The sea-serpent’s question was such a favourite one of this romantic
naturalist, that in his preface he wrote the following about it:
“If I may venture to point out one subject on which I have bestowed
more than usual pains, and which I myself regard with more than common
interest, it is that of the last chapter in this volume. An amount
of evidence is adduced for the existence of the sub-mythic monster
popularly known as “the sea-serpent”, such as has never been brought
together before, and such as ought almost to set doubt at rest. But
the cloudy uncertainty which has invested the very being of this
creature; its home on the lone ocean; the fitful way in which it is
seen and lost in its vast solitudes; its dimensions, vaguely gigantic;
its dragon-like form; and the possibility of its association with
beings considered to be lost in an obsolete antiquity;--all these
are attributes which render it peculiarly precious to a romantic
naturalist. I hope the statisticians will forgive me if they cannot see
it with my spectacles.”
His chapter on the sea-serpent will also be read with great interest.
But there are several facts which he seems not to have been able
to explain. In describing the animal, seen near Cape Ann, 1817, he
writes: “_no appearance of mane was seen by any_”, without giving
any explanation; he has evidently underlined these words to draw the
readers’ attention to this evidence, which is so quite contradictory
to others, mentioned before and afterwards. On the same page (p. 284)
when repeating the expression of one of the eye-witnesses “the mode
of progression was like that of a caterpillar”, Mr. Gosse inserts
his opinion in the following terms: “probably a looping or geometric
caterpillar”. Now my readers will be at one with me, that the motion
of the geometric caterpillar is the last with which that of the
sea-serpent can be compared! The rapid motion of a common caterpillar
of some butterfly, when tickled on its back part, will give the best
idea.
The writer further tries to throw discredit on reports of Americans. He
says (p. 287):
“Though the position and character of some of these witnesses add
weight to their testimony, and seem to preclude the possibility of
their being either deceived or deceivers, on a matter which depended
on the use of their eyes, yet, owing to a habit prevalent in the
United States, of supposing that there is somewhat of wit in gross
exaggerations, or hoaxing inventions, we do naturally look with a
lurking suspicion on American statements, when they describe unusual or
disputed phenomena.”
I, however, am of the contrary opinion, and may turn his words in the
following way: Though we generally and naturally look with a lurking
suspicion on American statements, when they describe unusual or
disputed phenomena, owing to a habit prevalent in the United States,
of supposing that there is somewhat of wit in gross exaggerations, or
hoaxing inventions, we are bound to admit all that is stated by such
persons of unimpeachable character as Col. PERKINS and others, whose
testimonies we have inserted in our papers. They evidently communicated
what they saw, without any exaggeration and without any tendency to
crack a joke or to hoax.
Again p. 318 of his work, after having treated of only a few of the
different reports, that had come in up to his days (1860) Mr. GOSSE
goes on in the following terms:
“A large mass of evidence has been accumulated; and I now set myself
to examine it. In so doing, I shall eliminate from the inquiry all the
testimony of Norwegian eye-witnesses, that obtained in Massachusetts
in 1817, and various statements made by French and American captains
since. Confining myself to English witnesses of known character and
position, most of them being officers under the Crown, I have adduced
the following testimonies.”
Here again I must point out that there is not a single reason to
exclude all testimonies not coming from British navigators. With
such reasoning Mr. GOSSE makes himself ridiculous in the eyes of all
reasonable persons of his own and of other nations! That it is wrong
to exclude reports, because they are of Americans or Norwegians, the
reader himself will be ready to admit, I think, after having read the
different reports mentioned in this volume.
“The following testimonies” now, alluded to by Mr. GOSSE, are:
“1. That of five British officers, who saw the animal at Halifax, N.
S., in 1833” (n^o. 97).
“2. That of Captain M’Quhae and his officers, who saw it from the
_Daedalus_ in 1848,” (n^o. 118).
“3. That of Captain Beechy, who saw something similar from the
_Blossom_” (n^o. 104).
“4. That of Mr. Morries Stirling, who saw it in a Norwegian fjord”
(n^o. 113).
“5. That of Mr. Davidson, who saw it from the _Royal Saxon_, in 1829”
(n^o. 93).
“6. That of Captain Steele and others, who saw it from the _Barham_, in
1852.” (See our Chapter on Would-Be Sea-Serpents, 1852, August 28).
“7. That of Captain Harrington and his officers, who saw it from the
_Castilian_, 1857” (n^o. 131).
To our great astonishment Mr. Gosse also alludes to n^o. 6: That
of Captain STEELE, who saw it from the _Barham_, in 1852. Some
pages before, Mr. Gosse himself throws great doubt on this report,
believing that the animal seen by Captain STEELE and his officers was
a scabbard-fish, (the reader, I hope, will take the trouble to look up
the report of 1852, August 28, in my Chapter on Would-Be Sea-Serpents,
to read there again Mr. GOSSE’S own opinion of this report), and now he
uses this report amongst others to examine to which of the recognized
classes of created beings this rover of the ocean can be referred!
Now Mr. GOSSE passes to this inquiry: first, he asks, is it an animal
at all? And he comes to the conclusions that this must be so, for else
the being could not move with that astonishing rapidity. Further he
examines the sea-weed hypothesis, the seal-hypothesis, &c., and winds
up with: “my own confident persuasion, that there exists some oceanic
animal of immense proportions, which has not yet been received into
the category of scientific zoology; and my strong opinion, that it
possesses close affinities with the fossil _Enaliosauria_ of the lias.”
All the above-mentioned views will be considered in Chapter V.
To our great surprise we see that Mr. NEWMAN, the editor of the
_Zoologist_, who ever was a warm defender of the sea-serpent, and like
Mr. GOSSE firmly believed that there are still living _Plesiosauri_, is
of another opinion in 1860. In this year, a very large riband fish was
captured on the Bermuda Isles. Three descriptions of this fish appeared
in the _Zoologist_ (p. 6934, p. 6986, p. 6989), the last by Mr. NEWMAN
himself, who, thinking that it was a new species, gave it the name
of _Regalecus Jonesii_. The second description was by Mr. JONES, the
naturalist on the Bermudas, at whose deposal the fish was placed by Mr.
TRIMINGHAM, the captor. Mr. JONES, after his description, points out
some striking peculiarities, which this riband-fish and the sea-serpent
seen by captain M’QUHAE, had in common, and concludes that a part of
the reports of the great sea-serpent must have been caused by the
appearance of riband fishes. Now, Mr. NEWMAN, after the description of
his new species _Regalecus Jonesii_, as I have already said, seems to
waver in his opinion, for he adds:
“In reference to the last question mooted by Mr. JONES, the similarity
of _Regalecus Jonesii_ to Capt. M’QUHAE’S sea-serpent, I do not
consider myself competent to express an opinion. I am quite willing
for the present to allow every sea-serpent to hold on its own course;
hereafter a better opportunity may be afforded on comparing and
arranging the conflicting evidence already published in the “Zoologist.”
* * * * *
=133=, =134=.--1861? August.--(_Zoologist_, 1862, p. 7850).--
“On a Sunday afternoon, in the middle of August, above a hundred
persons, at that time in and about the hotel, were called on to
observe an extraordinary appearance in the sea, at no great distance
from the shore. Large shoals of small fish were rushing landwards in
great commotion, leaping from the water, crowding on each other, and
showing all the common symptoms of flight from the pursuit of some
wicked enemy. I had already more than once remarked this appearance
from the rocks, but in a minor degree; and on these occasions I could
always distinguish the shark, whose ravages among the “manhaidens”
was the cause of such alarm. But the particular case in question was
far different from those. The pursuer of the fugiting shoals soon
became visible; and that it was a huge marine monster, stretching to a
length quite beyond the dimensions of an ordinary fish, was evident
to all observers. No one, in short, had any doubt as to its being the
sea-serpent, or one of the species to which the animal or animals so
frequently before seen belonged. The distance at which this one was,
for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, visible, made it impossible to
give a description of its apparent dimensions so accurate as to carry
conviction to the sceptical. For us who witnessed it, it was enough to
be convinced that the thing was a reality. But one of the spectators,
Dr. Amos Binney, a gentleman of scientific attainments, drew up a
minute account of it, which is deposited in the archives of one of the
Philosophical Societies of Boston. I was and am quite satisfied that
on this occasion I had a partial and indistinct but positive view of
this celebrated nondescript; but had the least doubt rested on my mind
it would have been entirely removed by the event of the day following
the one just recorded. On that day, a little before noon, my wife was
sitting, as was her wont, reading on the upper piazza of the hotel. She
was alone. The gentlemen, including myself and my son, were, as usual,
absent at Boston, and the ladies were scattered in various directions.
She was startled by a cry from the house of “The sea-serpent! the
sea-serpent!” But this had been so frequent, by the way of joke, since
the event of the preceding day, and was so like “The wolf! the wolf!”
of the fable, that it did not attract her particular attention for a
moment or two, until she observed two women belonging to the family of
the hotel keeper running along the piazza towards the corner nearest
the sea, with wonder in their eyes, and the cry of “The serpent! the
serpent! he is turning! he is turning!” spontaneously bursting from
their lips. Then my wife did fix her looks in the direction they
ran; and sure enough she saw, apparently quite close beyond the line
formed by the rising ground above the rocks, a huge serpent, gliding
gracefully through the waves, having evidently performed the action of
turning round. In an instant it was in a straight line, moving rapidly
on; and after coasting for a couple of minutes the north west front
of the hotel, and (as accurately as the astonished observer could
calculate) looking as it stretched at full-length about the length
of the piazza,--that is to say, about ninety feet,--it sank quietly
beneath the surface, and was seen no more. The person who was thus so
lucky as to get this unobstructed view is one so little liable to be
led astray by any imaginary impulse, that I may reckon on her statement
with entirely as much confidence as if my own eyes had demonstrated
its truth.”--_Grattan’s Civilized America_, p. 39.--
Mr. NEWMAN, the editor of the _Zoologist_, ought to have mentioned
the writer of the article, the date of it and the locality where the
appearance took place. It was most probably Nahant, the well known
watering place near Lynn, Mass. I have had no opportunity to consult
GRATTAN’s _Civilized America_, therefore I have placed the note of
interrogation after the above-mentioned year.
In this report only a few words are devoted to the description of the
animal, yet the description itself is given as well as possible by the
lady who saw it from the upper piazza of the hotel.
* * * * *
=135=.--1863, May 16th.--(_Zoologist_, 1863, p. 8727).
“The following is a copy of a letter from an officer of the
African mail steamer _Athenian_, addressed to a gentleman in this
town:--“African Royal Mail Screw Steamer _Athenian_, Cape Palmas, May,
16, 1863.--My dear Sir,--All doubts may now be set at rest about the
great sea-serpent. On the 6th. of May the African Royal Mail Steam Ship
_Athenian_ on her passage from Teneriffe to Bathurst, fell in with
one. At about 7 a. m. John Chapple, quartermaster, at the wheel, saw
something floating towards the ship. He called the attention of the
Rev. Mr. Smith and another passenger, who were on deck at the time, to
it. On nearing the steamer it was discovered to be a large snake about
100 feet long, of a dark brown colour, head and tail out of water, the
body slightly under. On its head was something like a mane or sea-weed.
The body was about the size of our mainmast. You are at liberty to
publish this.”
The reader will observe that this too is a very insignificant
description, but it mentions one of the very few cases that the tail of
the animal was visible above the surface of the water.
The same report was published in the _Illustrated London News_ of 1863,
June, 13.--
* * * * *
=136=.--1871.--(G. VERSCHUUR, _Eene reis om de wereld in vier honderd
tachtig dagen_).--After an appearance of a would-be sea-serpent on
board the _Grenada_, which caused a dispute between those who saw it
and those who were not so fortunate,
“the second officer, who joined in the quarrel, declared to have seen
in 1871, near the coast of Australia a sea-serpent, which was several
meters in length.”
* * * * *
=137=, =138=, =139=, =140=.--1872, August 20th., 21st., 23d. and
24th.--In the _Zoologist_ of May 1873, p. 3517, the following
statements of high respectable gentlemen are published.
“Appearance of an Animal, believed to be that which is called the
Norwegian Sea-Serpent, on the Western Coast of Scotland, in August,
1872. By the Rev. John Macrae, Minister of Glenelg, Invernesshire, and
the Rev. David Twopeny, Vicar of Stockbury, Kent.”
“On the 20th. of August, 1872, we started from Glenelg in a small
cutter, “the Leda”, for an excursion to Lochourn. Our party consisted,
besides ourselves, of two ladies, F. and K., a gentleman G. B., and a
Highland lad. Our course lay down the Sound of Sleat, which on that
side divides the Isle of Skye from the mainland, the average of breadth
of the Channel in that part being two miles. It was calm and sunshiny,
not a breath of air, and the sea perfectly smooth. As we were getting
the cutter along with oars we perceived a dark mass about two hundred
yards astern of us, to the north. While we were looking at it with our
glasses (we had three on board) another similar black lump rose to the
left of the first, leaving an interval between; then an other and an
other followed, all in regular order. We did not doubt its being one
living creature: it moved slowly across our wake, and disappeared.
Presently the first mass, which was evidently the head, reappeared,
and was followed by the rising of the other black lumps, as before.
Sometimes three appeared, sometimes four, five, or six, and then sank
again. When they rose, the head appeared first, if it had been down,
and the lumps rose after it in regular order, beginning always with
that, next the head, and rising gently; but when they sank, they sank
all together, rather abruptly, sometimes leaving the head visible. It
gave the impression of a creature crooking up its back to sun itself.
There was no appearance of undulation: when the lumps sank, other lumps
did not rise in the intervals between them. The greatest number we
counted was seven, making eight with the head, as shown in the sketch
N^o. 1. The parts were separated from each other by intervals of about
their own length, the head being rather smaller and flatter than the
rest, and the nose being very slightly visible above the water; but we
did not see the head raised above the surface either this or the next
day, nor could we see the eye. We had no means of measuring the length
with any accuracy, but taking the distance from the centre of one lump
to the centre of the next to be six feet, and it could scarcely be
less, the whole length of the portion visible, including the intervals
submerged, would be forty-five feet.”
[Illustration: Fig. 39 and 40.--Two positions of the Sea-Serpent as
seen by the Rev. JOHN MACRAE and the Rev. TWOPENY.]
“Presently, as we were watching the creature, it began to approach us
rapidly, causing a great agitation in the sea. Nearly the whole of the
body, if not all of it, had now disappeared, and the head advanced
at a great rate in the midst of a shower of fine spray, which was
evidently raised in some way by the quick movement of the animal--it
did not appear how,--and not by spouting. F. was alarmed and retreated
to the cabin, crying out that the creature was coming down upon us.
When within about a hundred yards of us it sank and moved away in
the direction of Skye, just under the surface of the water, for we
could trace its course by the waves it raised on the still sea to the
distance of a mile or more. After this it continued at intervals to
show itself, careering about at a distance, as long as we were in that
part of the Sound, the head and a small part only of the body being
visible on the surface; but we did not again on that day see it so near
nor so well as at first. At one time F. and K. and G. B. saw a fin
striking up at a little distance back from the head, but neither of us
were then observing.”
“On our return the next day we were again becalmed on the north side
of the opening of Lochourn, where it is about three miles wide, the
day warm and sunshiny as before. As we were dragging slowly along in
the afternoon the creature again appeared over towards the south side,
at a greater distance than we saw it the first day. It now showed
itself in three or four rather long lines, as in the sketch N^o 2, and
looked considerably longer than it did the day before: as nearly as we
could compute, it looked at least sixty feet in length. Soon it began
careering about, showing but a small part of itself, as on the day
before, and appeared to be going up Lochourn. Later in the afternoon,
when we were still becalmed in the mouth of Lochourn, and by using
the oars had nearly reached the Island of Sandaig, it came rushing
past us about a hundred and fifty yards to the south, on its return
from Lochourn. It went with great rapidity, its black head only being
visible through the clear sea, followed by a long trail of agitated
water. As it shot along, the noise of its rush through the water
could be distinctly heard on board. There were no organs of motion
to be seen, nor was there any shower of spray as on the day before,
but nearly such a commotion in the sea as its quick passage might be
expected to make. Its progress was equable and smooth, like that of a
log towed rapidly. For the rest of the day, as we worked our way home
northwards through the Sound of Sleat, it was occasionally within sight
of us until night fall, rushing about at a distance, as before, and
showing only its head and a small part of its body on the surface. It
seemed on each day to keep about us, and as we were always then rowing,
we were inclined to think it might perhaps be attracted by the measured
sound of the oars. Its only exit in this direction to the north was by
the narrow Strait of Kylerhea, dividing Skye from the mainland, and
only a third of a mile wide, and we left our boat, wondering whether
the strange creature had gone that way or turned back again to the
south.”--
“We have only to add to this narration of what we saw ourselves
the following instances of its being seen by other people, of the
correctness of which we have no doubt:
“The ferrymen on each side of Kylerhea saw it pass rapidly through on
the evening of the 21st., and heard the rush of the water: they were
surprised, and thought it might be a shoal of porpoises, but could not
comprehend their going so quickly.”
“Finlay Macrae, of Bundaloch, in the parish of Kintail, was within the
mouth of Lochourn on the 21st., with other men in his boat, and saw the
creature at about the distance of one hundred and fifty yards.”
“Two days after we saw it, Alexander Macmillan, boat-builder at Dornie,
was fishing in a boat in the entrance of Lochduich, halfway between
Druidag and Castledonan, when he saw the animal near enough to hear
the noise and see the ripple it made in rushing along in the sea. He
says, that what seemed its head was followed by four or more lumps,
or “half-rounds”, as he calls them, and that they sometimes rose and
sometimes sank all together. He estimated its length as not less
than sixty and eighty feet. He saw it also in two subsequent days in
Lochduich. On all these occasions his brother Farquhar was with him in
the boat, and they were both much alarmed and pulled to the shore in
great haste.”
“A lady at Duisdale, in Skye, a place overlooking the part of the Sound
which is opposite the opening of Lochourn said that she was looking out
for the glass when she saw a strange object on the sea which appeared
like eight seals in a row. This was just about the time we saw it.”
“We were also informed that about the same time it was seen from the
island of Eigg, between Eigg and the mainland about twenty miles to the
south-west of the opening of Lochourn.”
“We have not permission to mention the names in these two last
instances.”
“John Macrae”
“David Twopeny”
“P. S. The writers of the above account scarcely expect the public
to believe in the existence of the creature which they saw. Rather
than that, they look for the disbelief and ridicule to which the
subject always gives rise, partly on account of the animal having
been pronounced to be a snake, without any sufficient evidence, but
principally because of the exaggerations and fables with which the
whole subject is beset. Nevertheless they consider themselves bound to
leave a record of what they saw, in order that naturalists may receive
it as a piece of evidence, or not, according to what they think it is
worth. The animal will very probably turn up on these coasts again,
and it will be always in that “dead season”, so convenient to editors
of newspapers, for it is never seen but in the still warm days of
summer or early autumn. There is a considerable probability that it
has visited the same coasts before. In the summer of 1871 some large
creature was seen for some time rushing about in Lochduich, but it did
not show itself sufficiently for any one to ascertain what it was. Also
some years back a well-known gentleman of the west coast, now living,
was crossing the Sound of Mull, from Mull to the mainland, “on a very
calm afternoon, when”, as he writes, “our attention was attracted to a
monster which had come to the surface not more than fifty yards to our
boat. It rose without causing the slightest disturbance of the sea, or
making the slightest noise, and floated for some time on the surface,
but without exhibiting its head or tail, showing only the ridge of the
back, which was not that of a whale, or any other sea-animal that I
had ever seen. The back appeared sharp and ridgelike, and in colour
very dark, indeed black, or almost so. It rested quietly for a few
minutes, and then dropped quietly down into the deep, without causing
the slightest agitation. I should say that above forty feet of it,
certainly not less, appeared on the surface.” It should be noticed
that the inhabitants of that western coast are quite familiar with the
appearance of whales, seals and porpoises, and when they see them,
they recognize them at once. Whether the creature which pursued Mr.
Maclean’s boat off the Island of Coll in 1808, and of which there is an
account in the Transactions of the Wernerian Society (Vol. I, p. 442),
was one of these Norwegian animals, it is not easy to say. Survivors
who knew Mr. Maclean say that he could quite be relied upon for truth.”
“The public are not likely to believe in the creature till it is
caught, and that does not seem likely to happen just yet, for a variety
of reasons,--one reason being that it has, from all the accounts given
of it, the power of moving very rapidly. On the 20th., while we were
becalmed in the mouth of Lochourn, a steam launch slowly passed us,
and, as we watched it, we reckoned its rate at five or six miles an
hour. When the animal rushed past us on the next day at about the same
distance, and when we were again becalmed nearly in the same place, we
agreed that it went quite twice as fast as the steamer, and we thought
that its rate could not be less then ten or twelve miles an hour. It
might be shot but would probably sink. There are three accounts of its
being shot at in Norway; in one instance it sank, and in the other two
it pursued the boats, which were near the shore, but disappeared when
it found itself getting into shallow water.”
“It should be mentioned that when we saw this creature and made our
sketches of it, we had never seen Pontoppidan’s “Natural History”,
or his print of the Norwegian sea-serpent, which has a most striking
resemblance to the first of our own sketches. Considering the great
body of reasonable Norwegian evidence, extending through a number of
years, which remains after setting aside fables and exaggerations, it
seems surprising that no naturalist of that country has ever applied
himself to make out something about the animal. In the meantime, as the
public will most probably be dubious about quickly giving credit to
our account, the following explanations are open to them, all of which
have been proposed to me, _viz_:--porpoises, lumps of sea-weed, empty
herring-barrels, bladders, logs of wood, waves of the sea, and inflated
pig-skins; but as all these theories present to our minds greater
difficulties than the existence of the animal itself, we feel obliged
to decline them.”
“D. Twopeny.”
We observe at a glance that the figures show nearly exactly the same
outlines as the figure of Mr. BENSTRUP (fig. 24). The reappearing and
disappearing of the animal is well pictured and evidently recalls to
my readers’ mind the “sinking down like a rock” of American reports.
The reader will observe that the appearance took place nearly in the
same locality as that of 1808, June (n^o. 31, 32). Moreover we need
not add anything to the unvarnished reports. As to the appearances of
the large creatures in 1871 and “some years back”, communicated in the
post-scriptum, their descriptions, are too vague for me to see in them
sea-serpents.--The fin striking up at a little distance from the head,
of course, was one of the animal’s fore-flappers.--
* * * * *
Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_, who first was a firm
believer in the sea-serpent, and expressed his opinion that it might be
a still living _Plesiosaurus_ or an animal closely allied to it, and
who afterwards evidently wavered in his opinion, after his description
of the _Regalecus Jonesii_, a ribband-fish, (see above p. 319), now
suddenly adds to the evidences of the Rev. JOHN MACRAE and the Rev.
DAVID TWOPENY, the following note:
“I have long since expressed my firm conviction that there exists
a large marine animal unknown to us naturalists; I maintain this
belief as firmly as ever. I totally reject the evidence of published
representations; but do not allow their imaginary figures to interfere
with a firm conviction, although I admit their tendency is always in
that direction: the figures and exaggerated descriptions of believers
are far more damaging to a faith in such an animal than the arguments,
the ridicule on the explanatory guesses of unbelievers. The guess that
a little seal was magnified by Captain M’Quhae into a monster several
hundred feet in length is simply incredible: we smile at the conceit,
and that is all.”
So he is again converted into a firm believer, but he does not now
express any supposition as to the kind of animal that it may be.
* * * * *
=141=, =142=, =143=.--1873, November 16?, 17?, 18?--I have not been
able to get a sight at the _Times_ of Nov. 20th. of this year, but I
have found an extract from an account in it, in the _Zoologist_ of
December of that year, p. 3804, running as follows:
“Mr. Joass, an eye-witness, writing in the _Times_ of November 20,
says, “the ears seemed to be diaphanous and nearly semicircular flaps
or valves over-arching the nostrils, which were in front. The cavity
of the eye appeared to be considerably further back, and a peculiar
glimmer in it, along with the sudden disappearance of the creature,
presented, indeed, the only signs of its vitality, as far as I could
see, while I watched it for half an hour, apparently drifting with
the rising tide, but always keeping about the same distance off shore
..... Dr. Soutar and I are more or less familiar with the forms of the
porpoise, seal, halibut, conger, and even shark, both in and out of the
water.”
In the same journal and on the same page we read the following “Extract
from a letter from Mr. Joass, of Golspie, to the Rev. John Macrae, of
Glenelg:”
“On Thuesday afternoon last, lady Florence Leveson Gower and the Hon.
Mrs. Coke, driving near the sea, about eight miles east from Dunrobin,
saw what seemed to them a large and long marine animal; on Wednesday
morning Dr. Soutar, of Golspie, saw a large creature rushing about
in the sea. about fifty yards from shore: it frequently raised what
seemed a neck seven feet out of the water, and from the length of
troubled water behind it appeared to be fifty or sixty feet long. He
said to his family on meeting them at breakfast, “If I believed in
sea-serpents, I should say I had seen one this morning”. I may mention
that this gentleman is a most trustworthy observer and cautious man. On
Thursday I saw what seemed some drift sea-weed. When your report was
published Dr. Tayler, the author of “Thanatophidia of India” was at
the castle; I asked him what he thought of the matter, and he said he
was quite prepared to believe in such a monster. Mr. Vernon Harcourt
told me that he was in a small yacht off Glenelg on the evening of the
day mentioned in your report, and about six miles from the locality
and that he and his crew saw what seemed a great moving mass, which,
but for some engagement or the lateness of the hour, they would have
examined.”
It is evident that the greater part of the account of the _Times_ is
not reprinted in the _Zoologist_.
The above given descriptions are poor, giving no approximative
measurements of the diameter of the neck, &c.
This is the only appearance of the animal on the _eastern_ coasts of
Great Britain!
Again I am obliged to express my astonishment that Mr. NEWMAN does not
mention any date, neither of the appearances, nor of Mr. JOASS’ letter.
* * * * *
=144=.--1875, July 8.--In the _Illustrated London News_ of November
20th., 1875, appeared the following engraving and account:
“Our Engraving is an exact representation of a sketch we have received,
with the following letter from the Rev. E. L. Penny, M. A., Chaplain to
H. M. S. _London_, at Zanzibar, Oct. 21:--
“I send you herewith a sketch of the great sea-serpent attacking a
spermwhale, which I have made from the descriptions of the captain and
crew of the barque _Pauline_, and they have, after careful examination,
pronounced it to be correct. The whale should have been placed deeper
in the water, but I should then have been unable to depict so clearly
the manner in which the animal was attacked.”
“Captain Drevar, of the barque _Pauline_, bound with coals for her
Majesty’s naval stores at Zanzibar, when in lat. 5 deg. 13 min. S.,
long. 35 deg. W., on July 8 last, observed three very large sperm
whales, and one of them was gripped round the body, with two turns, by
what appeared to be a huge serpent. Its back was of a darkish brown
and its belly white, with an immense head and mouth, the latter always
open; the head and tail had a length beyond the coils about 30 ft.; its
girth was about 8 ft. or 9 ft. Using its extremities as levers, the
serpent whirled its victim round and round for about fifteen minutes,
and then suddenly dragged the whale down to the bottom, head first. The
other two whales, after attempting to release their companion, swam
away upon its descent, exhibiting signs of the greatest terror.”
[Illustration: Fig. 41.--The so-called “Fight between a sea-serpent and
a spermwhale”.]
“On July 13 this or another sea-serpent was again seen, about 200 yards
off the stern of the vessel, shooting itself along the surface, 40
ft. of its body being out of the water at a time. Again, on the same
day, it was seen once more, with its body standing quite perpendicular
out of the water to the height of 60 ft. This time it seemed as if
determined to attack the vessel, and the crew and officers armed
themselves with axes for self defence.”
“Captain Drevar is a singularly able and observant man, and those
of the crew and officers with whom I conversed were singularly
intelligent; nor did any of their descriptions vary from one another in
the least--there were no discrepancies.”
This report translated into German appeared in the _Illustrirte
Zeitung_ of Dec. 4th. 1875.
We observe that the so-called fight between the sea-serpent and the
spermwhale took place in 5° 13′ S. lat., 35° W. long, i. e. near Cape
San Roque (Eastern coast of Brazil), and that the barque _Pauline_ on
October 21 of that year was at Zanzibar, laden with coals. The reports
were evidently copied from the Captain’s journal or log-book, and the
figure was drawn by the Rev. E. L. PENNY, at Zanzibar. The barque did
not return directly to England, but steered for Akyab (British Burmah);
from where she sailed home, for we read in the _Illustrated London
News_ of January 13, 1877 (p. 35, third column):
“The great sea-serpent will not be ignored. He has now appeared, by
affidavit, in a police court. The captain and crew of a vessel called
the _Pauline_ which has arrived in the Mersey from Akyab, report that
in July, 1875, off Cape San Roque, on the north-east coast of Brazil,
they saw the great sea-serpent. On Thuesday, the captain, whose name
is Drevar, appeared before the stipendiary magistrate of Liverpool,
Mr. Raffles, and expressed a wish, on his own behalf and that of his
crew, to make a declaration affirming the truth of their statements
respecting the serpent. Mr. Raffles desired Captain Drevar to prepare a
written declaration and bring it before him. This captain Drevar did,
on Wednesday, accompanied by a number of his crew. The declaration is
to the effect that he and others on board the Pauline, on July 8, 1875,
while in latitude 5 deg. 13 min. S., longitude 35 deg. W., observed
three large spermwhales, one of which was gripped round the body with
two turns of what appeared to be a huge serpent. The head and tail
appeared to have a length, beyond the coils, of about thirty feet, and
the girth seemed to be eight or nine feet. The serpent whirled its
victim round and round for about fifteen minutes, and then suddenly
dragged the whale to the bottom head first. Again, on July 13, a
similar serpent was seen about 200 yards off the _Pauline_, shooting
itself along the surface, its head and neck being several feet out of
the water. Subsequently the head of the animal was shot sixty feet into
the air. The declaration was signed by Captain Drevar, Horatio Thompson
(chief officer), John Henderson Landells (second officer), William
Lewarn (steward) and Owen Baker (seaman).
1 am so fortunate as to be able to communicate the account as it
appeared in the newspapers of the 10th. and 11th. of January, 1877. I
have found it in ANDREW WILSON’s _Leisure Time Studies_:
“The story of the mate and crew of the barque _Pauline_, of
London, said to have arrived in port from a twenty months’ voyage
to Akyab,--about having seen “a sea-serpent” while on a voyage in
the Indian seas, was declared to on oath before Mr. Raffles, the
stipendiary magistrate, at the Liverpool Police-Court. The affidavit
was made in consequence of the doubtfullness with which anything about
the “sea-serpent” has hitherto been received; and to show the genuine
character of the story it has been placed judicially on record. The
following is a copy of the declaration, which will be regarded as
unprecedented in its way:--
“BOROUGH OF LIVERPOOL, IN THE COUNTY PALATINE
OF LANCASTER, TO WIT.
“We, the undersigned, captain, officers, and crew of the barque
_Pauline_ (of London), of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, in the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, do solemnly and sincerely
declare that on July 8, 1875, in lat. 5° 13′ S., long 35° W., we
observed three large sperm whales, and one of them was gripped round
the body with two turns of what appeared to be a huge serpent. The head
and tail appeared to have a length beyond the coils of about thirty
feet, and its girth eight or nine feet. The serpent whirled its victim
round and round for about fifteen minutes, and then suddenly dragged
the whale to the bottom, head first”.
GEORGE DREVAR, _Master_.