Part 15

“The Finmark Sea also produces the hydra or sea-serpent, a huge monster, forty “passus” long, with a head resembling in size that of large sea-fishes, in shape that of a snake. This beast has a neck with a mane like a horse’s, a grey back and a whitish belly. In the dog days, when the sea is free from wind, the sea-serpent will come to the surface, bend itself in several coils, of which some are partly visible above the water, whilst others remain hidden under it. The seamen greatly fear this monster, and they do not trust themselves on the sea, when the animal is on the surface.”

The length of forty “passus”, i. e. 200 feet, the large head, resembling that of a snake, the mane, the grey back, the habit of the animal to swim with vertical undulations, are all characters known to us. We have here a new one, viz. that the belly is whitish, which we shall frequently meet hereafter. It is, however, not the belly that is meant here, but the animal’s throat. The animal’s neck being cylindrical, and its flappers constantly hidden under water, the observers thinking that the animal is eel-shaped, always call its throat “the belly”. We may safely suppose that the whole throat and the breast were seen, though not described, by HANS EGEDE, but that even he did not see the true belly.

* * * * *

=16=.--1770?--In a letter from Mr. MC. LEAN to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD written in Aug. 1803, and published in SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and Arts_ (Vol. II) we read:

“One of the same kind was seen above thirty years ago, by the deceased Capt. PAUL REED, of Boothbay.”

* * * * *

=17=.--1777 or 1778.--(_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV, Part I).

“The next notice is from Capt. ELEAZAR CRABTREE, who saw it in the same (Penobscot) Bay about the year 1785; he estimated its length at sixty feet, and its diameter he thought equal to that of a barrel, which is about twenty two inches.”

A testimony on oath was forwarded by Capt. CRABTREE to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, “but this was lost or mislaid.”--Fortunately, however, the notice was afterwards found back, and, as Prof. BIGELOW (see SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_ Vol. II) says, “is now in the hands of the corresponding Secretary of the Academy,” Mr. JOHN Q. ADAMS, “where it may be seen.”

Mr. A. BRADFORD anxious to have all the information he could get, did not rest satisfied till he had a testimony of Capt. CRABTREE. Capt. CRABTREE, however, at that time an old man did not write this testimony himself, but had it written by another in his presence and signed it as a correct statement. It is published in the above mentioned Journal, Vol. II, and runs as follows:

“Capt. CRABTREE, now of Portland, (late of Fox Islands, in the Bay of Penobscot), declares, that in the year 1777 or 1778, upon information of a neighbour, that a large serpent was in the water, near the shore, just below his house, and having often been told by individuals that they had before seen a similar sea-monster in that quarter, and doubting of the correctness of their reports, was induced to go down to the water to satisfy his own mind--that he saw a large animal, in the form of a snake, lying almost motionless in the sea, about thirty rods from the bank where he stood--that his head was about four feet above water--that, from the appearance of the animal, he was 100 feet in length--that he did not go off to the animal through fear of the consequences, and that he judged him to be about three feet diameter; he also says, that before that time, many people, living on those islands, on whose reports he could depend, had declared to him that they had seen such an animal--and that more than one had been seen by several persons together.”

“Signed”

“ELEAZAR CRABTREE.”

We have again the statement that the sea-serpent held its head four feet above the surface of the water; its length was estimated at 100 feet, its diameter three feet; it was evidently this slenderness which led Capt. CRABTREE to compare the sea-serpent with a snake. The undulations are not mentioned, consequently most probably it lay stretched out.

* * * * *

=18=.--1779.--(_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV. P. 1). “It appears by papers sent to the Academy in the year 1810, that this serpent was first seen in Penobscot Bay about the year 1779, by Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY: he compared it to an unwrought spar (meaning probably one of spruce), which the scaly surface and dark colour of the animal would very much resemble; he thought it fifty or sixty feet in length.”

It is evident that Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY only compared it with an unwrought spar, and estimated the length of the visible part to be fifty or sixty feet. Now Mr. W. D. PECK adds: “which the scaly surface and the dark colour of the animal would very much resemble”. I, however, take it that the animal swam with its body in a straight line, elevating its back but very little above the surface of the water, yet showing a length of fifty to sixty feet, and so the back of the neck and trunk quite covered with a mane resembling sea-weed, and the dark colour of the animal must have led Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY to the comparison with an unwrought spar.

* * * * *

=19=.--1780, May.--“Captain GEORGE LITTLE” who saw the animal, wrote “a letter” containing his observation to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, “but this letter is lost or mislaid” (_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV, P. 1.). When we consult SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. of Sc. and Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820), we observe that Mr. ALDEN BRADFORD collected for truth’s sake some affidavits of eye-witnesses; he had learned that Capt. GEORGE LITTLE was an eye-witness, he asked him for an affidavit, which he received and forwarded to the corresponding Secretary of the Academy; after some trouble the letter was found back and published. It runs as follows:

“Marshfield, March, 13th., 1804.”

“Sir”,

“In answer to yours of 30th. of January last, I observe, that in May, 1780, I was lying in Round Pond, in Broad Bay, in a public armed ship. At sunrise, I discovered a large Serpent, or monster, coming down the Bay, on the surface of the water. The cutter was manned and armed. I went myself in the boat, and proceeded after the serpent. When within a hundred feet, the mariners were ordered to fire on him, but before they could make ready, the Serpent dove. He was not less than from 45 to 50 feet in length; the largest diameter of his body, I should judge, 15 inches; his head nearly of the size of that of a man, which he carried four or five feet above the water. He wore every appearance of a common black snake. When he dove he came up near Muscongus Island--we pursued him, but never came up within a quarter of a mile of him again.”

“I have the honor to be sir,

“Your friend and humble servant

“Geo. Little.”

It is evident that the animal moved away from the Captain, who thus saw only its occiput. As the head is thought to have nearly the size of that of a man, and the whole length to be 45 to 50 feet, it is evident that either the head is estimated too small, or the length too great; moreover it is clear that the captain saw nearly the whole length; this sometimes occurs; generally, however, only the foremost part is visible. Again it is mentioned that the sea-serpent held its head four feet above the surface of the water, and that the colour was black.

A letter from Mr. A. MC. LEAN to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, printed in the same pages, contains a passage, running as follows:

“Another was seen in Muscongus Bay in time of the American war, two miles from the place where I lived then.”

I consider this passage as relative to Capt. GEORGE LITTLE’S observation.

* * * * *

=20=.--1781?--In the same letter the above mentioned lines are followed by the words:

“and another soon afterwards off Meduncook”.

* * * * *

=21=.--1782?--In a letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, of Bath, to the Hon. Judge DAVIS, of Boston, dated September 7, 1818, and published in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:

“Mr. CUMMINGS observes, that the British saw him in their expedition to Bagaduse”...... “The British supposed the length of that which they saw to be three hundred feet, but this Mr. CUMMINGS imagines to be an exaggeration.”

I think Mr. CUMMINGS is right in this supposition.

* * * * *

=22=.--1783? --In the same letter we read:

“People also of Mount Desert have seen the monster.”

* * * * *

=23=.--1784?--In the same letter we find:

“June 28th., 1809. Mr. CUMMINGS observes that a Mr. CROCKET saw two of them together about twenty years since”....... “One of those seen by Mr. CROCKET was smaller than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS, and their motion in the sea appeared to be a perpendicular winding, and not horizontal.”

This appearance is also mentioned in the _Mem. Am. Acad. Arts Sc._ (IV, I, 1818) where we read about the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands:

“and one of them, a Mr. CROCKET, had seen two of them together about the year 1787.”

And in SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820) we read in a letter from Mr. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, written Jan., 1804:

“About twenty years since, two of those serpents, they say, were seen by one Mr. CROCKET, who then lived upon Ash Point.”

The fact that there were _two_ animals together only claims our attention, which is of course not wonderful, as they may have been a male and a female, or a mother and a young one. One of the two must have been quite small, as it is reported: “One of those was smaller than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS”; consequently the other was as large as or even larger than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS, ergo the difference in size of these two must have been considerable. The occurrence of two together is reported only a very few times. Evidently these animals lead solitary lives.

We see that the dates differ, but we will take the date of 1784, relying upon the words of Mr. CUMMING’S letter of 1804: “about twenty years since”.

* * * * *

=24=.--1785?--In the same letter it says:

“Sept. 10, 1811. Have heard to day further testimony respecting the Sea-Serpent of the Penobscot. A Mr. STAPLES, of Prospect, of whom I inquired as I passed, was told by a Mr. MILLER, of one of the Islands in the bay, that he had seen it; and “it was as big as a sloop’s boom, and about sixty or seventy feet long”.

* * * * *

=25=.--1786, August 1.--(_Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1911).--

“Having seen much notice taken in the _Zoologist_ of the question of the great sea-serpent, allow me to subjoin an extract from the log-book of a very near relative, dated August 1st., 1786, onboard the ship “_General Coole_”, in lat. 42° 44′ N., and long. 23° 10′ W.--”

“A very large snake passed the ship; it appeared to be 16 or 18 feet in length, and 3 or 4 feet in circumference, the back of a light ash-colour and the belly thereof yellow.”

“According to the log the ship was becalmed at the time. You may rely on the correctness of this, and any one desiring of satisfy himself may see the original log.” “S. H. Saxby; Bouchurch, Isle of Wight. September, 8, 1847.”

Of course only the length is given of the visible part, else it would be impossible that an animal of 16 feet in length and 3 or 4 feet in circumference made the impression of being a serpent or snake; the whole trunk and tail must have been hidden under water. As the colour of the animal’s back is noted as a light ash-colour, I suppose that the animal having swum a long time in the sun without diving under water, the skin had become dry and showed the ash-colour; the colour of the belly (read throat) is stated to be yellow. This statement already mentioned above we shall see repeated more than once.

* * * * *

=26=.--1787?--In the letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, dated, Bath, September 17, 1817, to the Hon. Judge Davis of Boston, and printed in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:

“Aug. 23, 1809.--Mr. CHARLES SHAW (then of Bath, now an attorney in Boston,) informed me, that a Capt. LILLIS, with whom he had sailed, observed cursorily in conversation, that he had seen off the coast a very singular fish; it appeared, said he, more like a snake than a fish, and was about forty feet long. It held its head erect, had no mane, and looked like an ordinary serpent. He asked Mr. SHAW if he had ever seen, or read, or heard of such an animal.”

* * * * *

=27=.--1794?--In the same letter from the Rev. Mr. JENKS, printed in the _Report_ of 1817, we find:

“Mr. Cummings observes that the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands have seen such an animal”......

“When he was seen by the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands two persons were together at both times.”

It is clear that the year 1794 must be fixed as the date for one of the two times, for in the letter from Mr. CUMMINGS to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, written in Jan., 1804, and printed in the second volume of SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and Arts_, (1820), we find the following passage:

“A few years before, perhaps ten years since, two of those large serpents were seen by two other persons on that Island” (Fox Island) “as their neighbours informed me.”

Again two individuals were seen together.

* * * * *

=28=.--1799?--And the date of the second time, that the animal was seen, must be the year 1799, for in the same letter from Mr. CUMMINGS (1804), it says:

“Two young men of Fox Island, intelligent and credible, saw an animal of this kind about five years since, as they then informed me. They told me, that the serpent which they saw was about sixty feet long, and appeared to have an ascending and descending motion.”

* * * * *

=29=.--1802 July.--In the letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, of Bath, to the Hon. Judge DAVIS, of Boston, dated September 17, 1817, and published in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:

“June 28th. 1809. The Rev. Mr. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS who has been much employed in Missions in the District of Maine, and navigated his own boat among the islands, &c. in the discharge of his duty, informs me, in conversation, which was immediately written from his lips, that in Penobscot bay has been occasionally seen within these thirty years, a sea-serpent, supposed to be about sixty feet in length, and of the size of a sloop’s mast. Rev. Mr. CUMMINGS saw him, in company with his wife and daughter, and a young lady of Belfast, MARTHA SPRING; and judged he was about three times the length of his boat, which is twenty three feet. When he was seen this time he appeared not to notice the boat, though he was distant, as nearly as could be ascertained, but about fifteen rods.” ..... “A gentleman of intelligence (Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD of Wiscasset, now Secretary of the Commonwealth) inquired of Mr. CUMMINGS whether the appearance might not be produced by a number of porpoises following each other in a train; but Mr. CUMMINGS asserts, that the animal held its head out of water about five feet till he got out to sea; for when seen he was going out of the bay, and Mr. CUMMINGS was ascending it. The colour was a bluish green about the head and neck, but the water rippled so much over his body, that it was not possible to determine its tint. The shape of the head was that of a common snake, flattened, and about the size of a pail. He was seen approaching, passing, and departing. Till this, Mr. CUMMINGS was as incredulous in respect to its existence, as many of his neighbours. The weather was calm, and it was the month of August, in which month, Mr. CUMMINGS remarks, that, as far as he had heard, the serpent makes his appearance on the coast.”

“I am inclined to suppose that Mr. Cummings’ account is that, which in one of the public papers was lately alluded to, as having been communicated to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, but mislaid.”

In the _Mem. Am. Acad. Arts and Sc._ Vol. IV. Part 1, 1818, we read also:

“A letter from this gentleman” (Mr. CUMMINGS) “was forwarded to the Academy about the year 1806, giving a particular account of the animal, as he saw it at a small distance; but this letter is lost or mislaid.”

Fortunately this letter was only mislaid, and found back in the hands of the corresponding Secretary, the Hon. JOHN Q. ADAMS, and printed in SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820). The letter runs as follows:

“Sullivan, Aug. 17th. 1803.”

“My Dear Sir,”

“With peculiar pleasure I comply with your request, though the urgency of my affairs must excuse my brevity. It was sometime in July 1802 that we saw this extraordinary sea monster, on our passage to Belfast, between Cape Rosoi and Long Island. His first appearance was near Long Island. I then supposed it to be a large shoal of fish with a seal at one end of it, but wondered that the seal should rise out of water so much higher than usual; but, as he drew nearer to our boat, we soon discovered that this whole appearance was but one animal in the form of a serpent. I immediately perceived that his mode of swimming was exactly such as had been described to me by some of the people of FOX Islands, who had seen an animal of this kind before, which must confirm the veracity of their report. For this creature had not the horizontal but an ascending and descending serpentine motion. This renders it highly probable that he never moves on land to any considerable distance and that the water is his proper element. His head was rather larger than that of a horse, but formed like that of a serpent. His body we judged was more than sixty feet in length. His head and as much of his body as we could discover was all of a blue colour except a black circle round his eye. His motion was at first but moderate, but when he left us and proceeded towards the ocean, he moved with the greatest rapidity. This monster is the sixth of the kind, if our information be correct, which has been seen in this bay within the term of eighteen years. Mrs. CUMMINGS, my daughter and Mss. MARTHA SPRING were with me in the boat all that time, and can attest to the above description.”

“I continue yours in Christian affection

“ABRAHAM CUMMINGS.”

“REV. ALEXANDER MC. LEAN.”

Mr. MC. LEAN forwarded this letter to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD who says of it:

“The account was liable to some objections, and not so particular as might be wished. I therefore wrote Mr. Cummings, and in reply, received a statement more in detail,”

which runs as follows:

“Sullivan, Jan. 18th. 1804.”

“Rev. and Dear Sir,”

“I can recollect nothing material which could render my description of that animal more convincing. I am not sure that this motion was ascending and descending; all we can say is, _it appeared so to us_ (for he was seen not only by me, but by three other persons). His real motion might be horizontal. Perhaps his nearest distance from us was ten rods. The sea was then very smooth, and very little wind, but still there was such a constant rippling of the water over his body, that I could not distinctly observe the magnitude or colour of any part but his head and neck. The degree of his rapidity I cannot explain. But certain I am that he had a serpent’s head, of a colour as blue as possible, and a black ring round his eye. The head was three feet in circumference _at least_. Who ever saw fifty or sixty porpoises moving after each other in a right line, and in such a manner that those who formed the rear were no larger than haddock or mackerel, and none but the foremost shewed his head? Who ever saw a serpent’s head upon a porpoise or whale? We saw him swim as far as from Long Island to the Cape before he disappeared. His head and neck all the time out of water. Now who ever saw a porpoise swim so great a distance without immerging at all? This is the best information which you can obtain from

“Your Friend and Servant”

“ABRAHAM CUMMINGS.”

“Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD.”

“P. S. The head and neck of the animal were of the same colour.”

The first apparently inexplicable fact is that Mr. CUMMINGS declares the colour of the head and neck first “blue”, then “as blue as possible,” and a few years afterwards “a bluish green.” But I think that we must not rely too much upon this definition of the colour, for, as we observe in daily life, different persons will give different names to a dark colour, some will call a nearly black colour “blue” while another does not see any blue in it at all; consequently we may safely suppose that the colour was the common dark brown, nearly black one, and that Mr. CUMMINGS called such a colour “as blue as possible” or “a bluish green.” Yet it is probable that the colour of sea-serpents may sometimes vary as in our common seals.

It is a fact that claims our close attention that the first impression the animal made upon him was “to be a large shoal of fish” (read “porpoises”) “with a head of a seal at one end of it, but wondered that the seal should rise out of water so much higher than usual”. Here we have an almost faithful picture of the common appearance of the animal, which reminds us of Mr. Benstrup’s figure (fig. 24). But as the serpent drew nearer to Mr. CUMMINGS’ boat, the resemblance diminished, because the serpent has not such thick upper lips as our common seal, so that the snout is rather sharp, and the forehead being moreover flat, the resemblance is also that of a snake’s head! The mode of swimming was up and down, and Mr. CUMMINGS in his second letter says “it appeared so to us, his real motion might be horizontal”. Mr. CUMMINGS expresses himself cautiously; and to explain his hesitation I think it is here the right place to mention a singular property of the sea-serpent. It is observed in 1818 that some witnesses distinctly saw the animal moving up and down and progressing very rapidly, and that some others of them declared that they distinctly saw the animal with many bunches on its back, that it moved through the water, apparently not by undulating up and down, but they were astonished that the sea-serpent moved. The sea-serpent further has the property of keeping his bunches when lying quite still. Consequently it may show itself in the following ways: 1. Lying perfectly still with the body in a straight line. 2. Lying perfectly still, but with many folds or bunches on its back. 3. Swimming with its body in a straight line, using its flappers. 4. Swimming with bunches on its back, propelling itself by its flappers, not by vertical undulations. 5. Swimming with vertical undulations, and not with its flappers. 6. Swimming with vertical undulations and with its flappers.

I repeat here the words of Mr. CUMMINGS: “Who ever saw fifty or sixty porpoises moving after each other in a right line, and in such a manner that those who formed the rear were no larger than haddock or macquerel, and none but the foremost shewed his head. Who ever saw a serpent’s head upon a porpoise or whale? Now who ever saw a porpoise swim so great a distance without immerging at all?” And we may add: Who ever saw porpoises without backfins? (The white whale, _Beluga leucas_ has no back fin, but it is of a white colour, while the sea-serpent is almost black.)

I think it is here the right place to observe that the very different dimensions given to sea-serpents can be explained in two ways: 1. The animals may have been more or less visible above the surface of the water, and the hind part hidden under water is not always estimated in proportion to the visible fore-part. 2. The observers have not always seen the same individual, but of course young ones, middle-aged and old individuals, males and females.

* * * * *