* * * * *
=156=.--1883, October 15?--The _Graphic_ of 20th. October, 1883,
mentions, p. 387:
“The inevitable sea-serpent has turned up again. This time he has been
seen going down the Bristol Channel towards the Atlantic at the rate of
twenty-five miles per hour, and afterwards he was noticed off the north
coast of Cornwall. The monster was about half a mile long, and left a
greasy trail behind him.”
I have no doubt about the appearance of a sea-serpent in Bristol
Channel, and a few hours or a day afterwards off the north coast of
Cornwall, as several individuals have already been reported on the
west coast of Great Britain. The greasy trail left behind it is not
an improbability, but the length of half a mile is most probably an
invention of the incredulous Editor of the Graphic!
* * * * *
Mr. C. HONIGH in his _Reisschetsen uit Noorwegen_ in _de Gids_ for
1884, p. 300 speaking of strange and violent motions in the water of
the lake of Mjösen in Norway during perfectly calm weather tells us as
a specimen of Norwegian superstition:
“People ascribe these motions to sea-serpents, in which many persons
in Norway firmly believe upon the authority of undeniable witnesses
and their observations. One of the most famous of these monsters
lived some centuries ago in the lake of Mjösen, in the neighbourhood
of Hamar, where it became entangled in the shallow. A monk killed it
with arrow-shots in its eye, and the monster then floated to near the
“Holy-Isle” to a place which is still called “Pilestöa”. And yet there
is still a sea-serpent in the lake, which has coiled itself round the
great bell of Hamar, which in the time of the seven years’ war was
lowered to the bottom.”
Mr. HONIGH adds:
“After all I heard and saw at Bergen, I don’t doubt in the least that
in the Atlantic and on the coasts of Norway really appear from time to
time immensely large mammals of the seal-kind, known by the name of
“great sea-serpent”, though I therefore don’t admit all fabulous tales
about it.”
The words “mammals of the seal-kind” are explained by the following
circumstance. In November, 1881, appeared from my pen, then a student’s
pen, a little article on the sea-serpent, in which I tried to show
that a sea-serpent is a yet undescribed long marine animal, closely
allied to the pinnipeds, with a long neck and a long tail. Mr. HONIGH,
in preparing his paper for the _Gids_ requested me to let him have a
copy of my article, which I sent him, and he evidently accepted my
supposition.
In a letter Mr. HONIGH tells me:
“In the literature of the Norwegians the sea-serpent or soe-orm is
repeatedly mentioned, and in such an indisputable manner, that in my
opinion there is no doubt of its existence.”
“On my return I learned from a gentleman of Bergen, that some time ago
there was a part of the skeleton of a sea-serpent in the Museum of
Natural History of Bergen.”
Though I begged Mr. HONIGH, teacher at the National Agricultural School
at Wageningen, to communicate to me further particulars about the
sea-serpent and about its literature, learned by him on his travels
through Norway, and repeated this my question in February 1889, I am
still waiting for an answer.
* * * * *
=157=.--1885, August 16.--(_Nature_ of September 10, 1885).
“It was hardly to be expected that the season should pass without the
appearance of the sea-serpent somewhere, and if we are to believe the
information forwarded to us from a correspondent in Norway, it has
just visited the coast of Nordland. Three sundays ago some lads were
returning to the Island of Röd from the church at Melö, in the middle
of the day, when they saw far out in the fjord a streak in the sea
which they believed to be a flock of wild ducks swimming. On proceeding
further, however, they heard a whizzing as of a rushing fountain and in
a few moments perceived a great sea-monster with great velocity making
straight for the boat. It appeared to be serpentine in shape, with a
flat scaly head, and the lads counted seventeen coils on the surface
of the water just as it passed the stern of the boat so closely that
they could have thrown a boathook into it. By subsequent measurements
on land the length of the animal was estimated at about 200 feet.
It pursued its course on the surface of the sea until close behind
the boat when it went down with a tremendous noise, but reappeared a
little after, shaping its course for the Melö, where it disappeared
from view. Naturally, the lads were greatly frightened. The weather at
the time was hot, calm, and sunny. Our informer states that the lads
are intelligent and truthful, and that there is no reason to discredit
their unanimous statement, made, as it were, in a terribly frightened
condition. It might be added that the waters in which the animal was
seen are some of the deepest on the Norwegian coast, and that it is not
the first time fishermen have averred having seen the sea-serpent here.
The existence of the sea-serpent is fully believed in along the coast
of Norway.”
The sea-serpent in its rapid motion made, as is often stated, the water
curl before its throat, which rushing sound was distinctly heard by
the lads. Notwithstanding their great fright they yet saw the head
was flat, but they were mistaken as to its being scaly. Moreover the
account is unvarnished and the description of the animal’s motions is
correct.
* * * * *
Mr. W. E. HOYLE, busy on the article “Sea-Serpent” for the 9th.
Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1886 (June?) a
number of titles of books and journals, which came in his way while
studying the subject. This bibliography contains 89 numbers. They were
printed, as the author says: “in the hope that they might be the means
of saving time and labor on the part of others”. Alas, his hope has
not been realized on my part, for I had nearly finished my work when
I happened to find Mr. HOYLE’s paper quoted in the decennial Register
of the _Zoologischer Anzeiger_. Only 25 of the numbers published by
Mr. HOYLE were new additions to my “Literature on the subject”, and I
could consult only three of them, amongst which Mr. HOYLE’s article
“Sea-Serpent” in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ quoted above.
Though Mr. HOYLE states: “no satisfactory explanation has yet been
given of certain descriptions of the sea-serpent”, among others of “the
huge snake seen by certain of the crew of the Pauline” (n^o. 144, 145)
and of “Lieutenant Hayne’s account” (n^o. 148), and though he ends
his article with the words: “It would thus appear that, while, with
very few exceptions, all the so-called sea-serpents can be explained by
reference to some well-known animal or other natural object, there is
still a residuum sufficient to prevent modern zoologists from denying
the possibility that some such creature may after all exist”, he
himself was evidently taken in by the different persons who explained
the sea-serpent by reference to the most impossible suppositions! He
enumerates eight different explanations and seems fully to agree with
them. It is evident that his only purpose was to satisfy the request of
writing an article on the Sea-Serpent for an Encyclopedia.
* * * * *
=158=.--1886, August.--In the _Graphic_ of September, 25, we read:
“The sea-serpent has now crossed the Atlantic, and has suddenly
appeared near Kingston Point, on the Hudson. It was seen by two
young men, who were rowing in a boat, and who, it seems, the monster
fruitlessly chased. They describe the animal as growing furious, when
it found them escaping. “It lashed the water with its tail, which
seemed to be about seventy-five feet distance from its head. The head
was as large and round as a flour-barrel; and its eyes of a greenish
hue, looked “devilish”. Before resuming its journey up the Hudson,
it squirted from its mouth a stream of foamy stuff resembling long
shavings from a pine plank.”
I have no reason to consider this account as a hoax, though it
almost reads like one. In the Norwegian accounts it is said that the
sea-serpent very often follows boats. I have explained this by the
animal’s curiosity, mixed with some fear. The young men may have
observed the animal paddling with its hind flappers, a possible
expression of some emotion, as I have also explained when speaking
of the animal seen from the _Kiushiu Maru_ (n^o. 151), and they may
have ascribed the foam to the lashing of its tail; or it really lashed
its tail, as I also supposed on that occasion (n^o. 151). The length
between head and tail estimated at seventy-five feet, is certainly not
exaggerated. As the head is described round as a flour-barrel, it was
evidently seen in its face. I refer to the animal of the _Osborne_
(n^o. 148) where the head seen from behind is also described and
figured round as a bullet. Of the young men’s description that the eyes
“looked devilish”, and also that of their colour being “of a greenish
hue” I will only say that it is unique. The “stream of foamy stuff
resembling long shavings from a pine plank” was of course nothing but
a sudden exhalation, probably held for some time from curiosity and
fear, and then suddenly sent forth. The locality where the sea-serpent
appeared, may be apparently strange, it is, however, very well
explicable, owing to the animal’s habit of frequenting shores, and to
the habit of other pinnipeds of frequenting brackish water and even
mouths of large rivers.--
* * * * *
=159=.--1886, August?--In the same number of the _Graphic_ it says:
“The serpent was also seen by the captain of a steamer, who “gave it
the right of way”.”
* * * * *
=160=.--1886, August?--(On the same page):
“And yet another man (appropriately) named Jonah, who at first took the
monster to be an immense tree floating with the tide--a notion which
was quickly dispelled by the supposed tree throwing twenty feet of its
length out of water.”
As the reader will remember, the comparison of the sea-serpent,
swimming or lying on the surface, with a floating tree or log of wood,
has been made more than once; evidently the animal raised its enormous
neck for a moment out of water, to take a look-out.
* * * * *
=161=.--1889, May.--In the _Haagsche Courant_ of June 6, of this year,
I read:
“The sea-serpent has again appeared, and been seen by a captain sailing
from Liverpool to Philadelphia, who hitherto obstinately refused to
believe in its existence.”
Of course I immediately wrote to the Editor, begging him for the name
of the journal, from which this statement had been taken. The Editor
courteously answered that one of his correspondents had forwarded
him a written copy of the account taken from the 38th. number of the
_Grondwet_ of May 21st., of this year, published in Holland, Michigan,
but the written copy had already disappeared in the paper-basket, and
the correspondent requested to send the original, answered that he was
unable to do so for the same reason.
* * * * *
In the first days of December 1889, Mr. JOHN ASHTON published his
_Curious Creatures in Zoology_. Pages 268-278 of his volume treat of
the sea-serpent. The illustrations which accompany this part are: 1.
A representation of a piece of sculpture on a wall of the Assyrian
palace at Khorsabad, which as I believe, has nothing at all to do with
the sea-serpent, but which is a bad drawing of a _Hydrophis_. 2. The
drawing of GESNER (our fig. 16) twice reduced. 3. EGEDE’s sea-serpent,
as it was published in PONTOPPIDAN (our fig. 22). 4. An eel-kind taken
from ALDROVANDUS’ work, and 5. A reduced copy of Captain M’QUHAE’s
sea-serpent (our fig. 28).--
Curious is Mr. ASHTON’s assertion, when speaking of the sea-serpent of
Khorsabad-palace and of ARISTOTELES: “These ........ were doubtless
marine snakes, which are still in existence, and are found in the
Indian Ocean, but the larger ones seem to have been seen in more
northern waters”. Consequently he believes, like Mr. ANDREW WILSON that
the _Hydrophidae_ may develop gigantically and when in this condition
make little trips from their common tropical residences to more
northern latitudes!
Further he quotes OLAUS MAGNUS, GESNER, TOPSELL, ALDROVANDUS,
PONTOPPIDAN, and EGEDE, but all by the way.
More space is devoted to the accounts of WALTER SCOTT, and to the
observations of Mr. MACLEAN (n^o. 31), of a party of British officers
(n^o. 97), of Lars JOHNÖEN (n^o. 92), of Captain M’QUHAE (n^o. 118),
and of Lieutenant HAYNES (n^o. 148). All this, however, without giving
the least explanation, and ending with these words:
“I think the verdict may be given that its existence although belonging
to “Curious Zoology”, is not impossible, and can hardly be branded as a
falsehood.”
* * * * *
=162=.--1890, June.--_De Amsterdammer_, _Weekblad voor Nederland_, of
July 12th. of this year, mentions:
“The sea-serpent again.--Captain David Tuits, of the British schooner
_Anny Harper_, has been favoured with a sight of it, near Long Island,
not far from the coast of Connecticut. He is a perfectly trustworthy
gentleman, who hitherto has never believed in sea-serpents, but who
has now seen one on a clear day; the tail which was coloured brown
with black spots, was about forty feet out of the water. The captain
estimates the total length of the monster at over one hundred feet.”
I think it not too bold to consider this report almost a duplicate of
our n^o. 135. There the sea-serpent is called “a large snake about 100
feet long, of a dark brown colour, head and tail out of water, the body
slightly under”. Most probably captain Tuits also saw only the head and
the tail of the animal, and not the trunk. The tail is described here
to be brown with black spots. It is evident that only the upper part of
the tail was seen.
I immediately enquired of the Editor of the _Amsterdammer_ about the
source of this article; he, however, promptly answered me that his
correspondent did not remember from which of the five or six German
newspapers daily read by him, he had copied it.--
* * * * *
“To what class of known beings does this monster of the deep belong?”
This question has caused various suppositions, to which we will turn
our attention in the next chapter.--