Part 23
“For a length of time the most extraordinary accounts were circulated relating to it, till at last the whole story was generally considered as the fabric of American invention; and there are many, I believe, in this country” (Great Britain) “who do not consider it in any other light than that of a hoax. Judging, however, from the detailed accounts of the circumstance which are preserved among the papers of sir Joseph Banks, the principal facts appear to be these.”
And at p. 413:
“The repeated accounts of the serpent’s appearance having attracted the attention of the Linnaean Society at Boston, one of its members was deputed to visit the spot and to examine into the truth of them. This was accordingly done; and the above is the general substance of the various depositions sworn to before General Humphreys. This gentleman, who was a corresponding member of the Society, despatched to Sir Joseph Banks copies of the whole of these, which are still preserved in his library. Sir Joseph entered with warmth into this curious investigation; and the minuteness, with which every particular was supplied, showed how greatly he felt interested in the question.”
In Nov. 4, 1826, Dr. FRANCIS BOOTT wrote a letter to Dr. HOOKER, a part of which was published in the _Edinburgh Journal of Science_, Vol. VI, 1827. Dr. BOOTT, after some general remarks, goes on to express himself in the following terms:
“All that I could collect upon the subject was sent to Sir Joseph Banks, with whom I had repeated conversations about the animal, and the respectability of the individuals who affirmed to the sight of him. The great mass of evidence is to be found in the pamphlet published by the Linnaean Society of New England. The question as to the real appearance of a large serpent off the coast of Massachusetts, was put to rest by that publication. There could be no doubt of the fact, and the testimony of thousands who saw the animal _for one or two years afterwards_, must have been sufficient to satisfy the most incredulous.”
“I believe I was one of the first who mentioned to Sir Joseph Banks, that a large serpent had been seen on the American coast; at all events, I distinctly remember that when I first spoke to him on the subject, he was incredulous, and showed me a Plate of a similar animal in Pontoppidan’s _History of Norway_. I myself had no doubt of the truth of the assertions of the early observers of it, for many of them were known to me, and I was anxious to convince Sir Joseph of the discovery of a new and remarkable animal. I therefore was in the habit of sending him every information I could collect respecting it. In one of my last visits to Boston, I gathered testimony from individuals, and from the public papers, and was happy to find on my return to Europe, that Sir Joseph was satisfied of the existence of the serpent, though he continued doubtful of the relationship between the small snake (figure 1 of the Linnaean pamphlet) and the large serpent.”
In October, 1828, Mr. MITCHILL read a paper before the New York Lyceum, which paper will be found in our Chapter on Hoaxes. As we have already observed, this paper also contains a particular account concerning the letters addressed by General HUMPHREYS to Sir JOSEPH BANKS.
Again Dr. HAMILTON, in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, asserts:
“General Humphreys, by whom the affidavits were taken, transmitted a copy of them, and a detail of the whole circumstance, to the late Sir Joseph Banks, in whose Library the documents are still preserved.”
Remarkable fact! Nowhere I have found a paper of Sir JOSEPH BANKS himself, neither in the _Transactions of the Royal Society of London_, nor anywhere else. I beg the present members of this Very Learned Body to give me the loan of all the papers about the subject, or to publish them in their next volume.
* * * * *
=72=.--1820, July?--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through Sweden, during the Summer of 1820_, relates at p. 263:
“During the time I remained at Hundholm a curious circumstance occurred: One day when at dinner at Mr. Blackhall’s house, and thinking little of the sea-serpent, concerning which I had heard nothing for some time, a young man, the master of a small fishing yacht, which had just come in from Drontheim, joint our party; in the course of conversation, he mentioned that a few hours before, whilst close to Hundholm, and previous to his entering the harbour, two sea-snakes passed immediately under his yacht. When he saw them he was on the deck, and, seizing a handspike, he struck at them as they came up close to the vessel on the other side, upon which they disappeared. Their length was very great, and their colour greyish; but from the very short time they were visible, he could not notice any other particulars. He had no doubt of their being snakes as he called them, and the circumstance was related entirely of his own accord.”
* * * * *
=73=.--1820, August.--In the _Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2361, we read:
“He was several times seen in the month of August, 1820, from the piazza of the house of Col. Perkins, at Nahant.”
* * * * *
=74=.--1820?--The following report was published in the _Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2460.
“What degree of confidence the following story may gain is to me a subject of very little consideration; for as I can have no view of gaining anything by it, so it certainly will appear that it would hardly be worth the trouble of invention; but as a story of this sort has made its appearance among our transatlantic friends, without being at all credited, it is as likely in Europe this may have the same fate; yet if it can afford any amusement or information for intelligent and scrutinizing minds, for their gratification I freely give it to the press, assuring them, on my sacred honour, of the truth of what I am about to describe. On Sunday, about 5. P. M., being then in latitude 46, longitude 3, by dead reckoning, observed an immense body on the surface of the water, apparently without motion, but water spouting from it, not unlike the blowing of a whale. I immediately got my glass; and, from its rugged appearance and showing nothing where the water issued from, I began to entertain some doubts, that this must have been the vigia laid down for Barenethy’s rocks or the three chimneys, and, so prepared in my own mind, I directed the steering sails to be taken in and the ship prepared for going about. Some of my ship’s company were of opinion it was a ship-bottom up: this I thought not unlikely, and went into the main cat harpens to look more distinctly at it: the appearance then was still steady, but irregular. I saw neither head nor tail above the water, but a hump from one extreme resembling the rise or point of rather a triangular rock: this tapered to a distance,--I certainly believe 70 or 100 feet, and the water broke over it, a little beyond it: it discharged the spout; but nothing showing itself, undetermined in mind what it could be, or whether I should tack the ship, it all at once disappeared, and, to my great astonishment, a head and neck--resembling something of a serpent’s--made its appearance, erected about six feet above the surface of the water. After taking a survey towards the vessel, it all at once vanished, leaving us full of conjecture and surprise. It gives me more confidence in making the above statement, as one of the seamen, whose name is Jonathan Townsend, was in the main top, and saw the creature I have described, and would feel no hesitation in taking an oath to it.--George Sanford, Lieutenant R. N.”
[“Copied from a memorandum-book of Lieut. Sanford, and communicated by Dr. Scott, of Exeter. There is no date to the above statement, but it is presumed to have been written about the year 1820. Lieut. Sanford then commanded a merchant-ship, the Lady Combermere.--E. N.”]
No doubt the latitude of 46 degrees is northern lat., so that the appearance occurred in the Bay of Biscay.--The act of breathing of the sea-serpent, after having remained for some time under the surface of the water, just as in whales, has an appearance generally called “spouting”. Apparently the animal held its head just at water-level, and so it showed “nothing where the water issued from”. The rugged appearance may have been caused by the animal lying with several bunches on its back, as afterwards was also reported by the Lloydsteamer _Kätie_ (n°. 154) or by its having a mane, extending all along the neck and back. The “hump from one extreme resembling the rise or point of rather a triangular rock” must have been the animal’s head which it lifted up just above the surface. Nearly the same appearance will be observed in the figure of one of the officers of H. M. S. _Plumper_ (fig. 31). Let the dimensions moreover be somewhat exaggerated, the “head and neck resembling something of a serpent’s erected about six feet above the surface of the water”, the “taking a survey towards the vessel”, and the vanishing at once, makes all comment superfluous; all these characters have more than once been reported of this creature.
* * * * *
In the _Philosophical Magazine and Journal_, Vol. LVII, 1821, we find an extract from the numerous reports communicated by Prof BIGELOW in SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and the Arts_, Boston, Vol. II, 1820, May.
* * * * *
We have already quoted MILTON, who in his _Paradise Lost_, printed in 1667, compares Satan with some huge monsters, amongst others the sea-serpent. Parts of these verses have been more than once cited by writers of articles on the sea-serpent. I cannot but express my surprise at this custom, for there is not one single word or expression in MILTON’S verses, which is taken from accounts, reports, or tales of the sea-serpent itself. WALTER SCOTT, however, in his _Pirate_: which was published in 1821, vol. I, chapt. II, says a few words about the animal, which are so correct, that they must have been taken from some or other report:
“The Ocean also had its mysteries, etc.”
“The Sea-Snake was also known, which arising out of the depths of Ocean, stretches to the skies his enormous neck, covered with a mane like that of a war-horse, and with its broad glittering eyes, raised mast-head high, looks out, as it seems, for plunder or for victims.”
The large glittering eyes, the enormous neck, covered with a mane are known characters, and the rising from the depths high into the air, standing nearly upright and viewing for a moment all around, evidently taking a survey, is a habit observed more than once.
* * * * *
=75=.--1821, Summer.--Col. T. H. PERKINS on the 13th. of Oct. 1820, when on board the _Ann Marie_, wrote a letter to his friend JNO P. CUSHING, which he published in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of 25th. Nov. 1848, after the excitement caused by the appearance of an individual on the 6th. of August, 1848. The different parts of this letter are inserted partly in our Chapter on Hoaxes (p. 20, 21) and partly in n^o. 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 63. The Editor of the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ now goes on:
“In addition to this interesting narrative our venerable correspondent gives letters from several members of his family, who _the next summer_ had opportunity to see the sea-serpent, in which the appearance of the animal is minutely described. This correspondence is very interesting; the description of the animal agrees entirely with that given above, and we regret that want of space must prevent the insertion of it.”
It is a great pity that all these letters have not been published. Perhaps they are now lost for ever!
* * * * *
=76=.--1821.--In a letter from WILLIAM WARBURTON to ROBERT BARCLAY, Esq. printed in the _Edinburgh Journal of Science_, Vol. VI, 1827, p. 130, and dated 20th. September 1826, we read:
“I dined one day at the Hôtel of New York with Sir Isaak Coffin, who discredited the existence of such an animal, which was reported to have been seen by Captain Bennett of Boston, about five years back.”
Of course the occurrence took place near the coast of the U. S.
* * * * *
=77=.--1821, September 25? In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of Jan. 1822, I, we read:
“The Sea-Serpent, of which much has been spoken of late years, has been clearly seen again this year by many persons with spy-glasses, and it is described by all of them and the descriptions agree pretty well with each other: on Sept. 27 last a distinguished merchant of Nantucket, Mr. Francis Joy, jun. made a declaration of it on oath before the justice of the peace.”
* * * * *
=78=.--1821?--Dr. HIBBERT in his _Description of the Shetland Islands_ says at p. 565:
“I have heard, in Shetland, of a sea-serpent being seen off the Isle of Stenness, Vailey Island and Dunrossness.”
This report is also quoted by Dr. R. HAMILTON in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839.
* * * * *
=79=.--1822.--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his Travels through Sweden, &c., 1823, says in a note, p. 416:
“In some very recent accounts I have received from Finmark, founded on respectable authority, the sea-serpent is stated to have appeared off Soröe this last summer (1822) and to have been seen by many of the inhabitants of that Island. The length of the animal is described as about a fourth of an English mile, its size that of a full grown ox; the colour of a greyish brown; and the weather when it made its appearance, calm and fine.”
Fear must have enlarged its length: the diameter, the colour, the calmness of the weather, however, are all correct.
* * * * *
Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through Sweden &c._, 1823, at p. 403 tells us a remarkable fact, viz. the striking agreement of the fabulous tales of the sea-serpent of those days (1820) with those, related by PONTOPPIDAN. The passage runs as follows:
“The following information, however, which he” (the sexton of Maasöe) “gave me concerning this animal deserves a greater share of attention. It is the practise of the fishermen, he said, when at any time they found themselves suddenly surrounded by the folds of the serpent, and obliged to pass over a part of it, never to attempt making their way between the openings, caused by part of the body of the animal being concealed under water, for fear of its raising and upsetting the boat. On the contrary, they rowed with all their strength against one of the visible folds, as the serpent, as soon as he feels the touch of the boat, naturally sinks down and enables it thus to pass over in safety. It will appear perhaps as a striking circumstance, that looking afterward into Pontoppidan, I found the foregoing particulars the very substance of what is related in his work, which may be said to be unknown in Finmark, and even of his name my informant had never heard.”
Indeed, this is remarkable, but it is only a proof of the scrupulousness with which fables are told unchanged! The passages from PONTOPPIDAN referred to by our traveller have been discussed by me--p. 134.
For history’s sake, as well as to acquaint my readers with all that has been written for or against the subject, I am obliged to insert all that Mr. BROOKE further says about it. After having repeated nearly all what PONTOPPIDAN mentioned about it, he goes on:
“Taking upon the whole a fair view of the different accounts related in the foregoing pages respecting the sea-serpent, no reasonable person can doubt the fact of some marine animal of extraordinary dimensions, and in all probability of the serpent tribe, having been repeatedly seen by various persons along the Norway and Finmark coasts. These accounts, for the most part, have been given verbally from the mouths of the fishermen; an honest and artless class of men who, having no motive for misrepresentation, cannot be suspected of a wish to deceive. Could this idea, however, be entertained, the circumstance alone, of their assertions having been so fully confirmed by others in more distant parts, would be sufficient to free them from any imputation of this kind. The simple facts are these: In traversing a space of full 700 miles of coast, extending to the most northern point, accounts have been received from numerous persons respecting the appearance of an animal, called by them a sea-serpent. This of itself would induce some degree of credit to be given to it; but when these several relations as to the general appearance of the animal, its dimensions, the state of the weather, when it has been seen, and other particulars are so fully confirmed, one by the other, at such considerable intervening distances, every reasonable man will feel satisfied of the truth of the main fact. Many of the informants, besides, were of superior rank and education; and the opinions of such men as the _Amtmann_ (Governor) of Finmark, Mr. Steen of Carlsöe, _Prösten_ (Dean) Deinbolt of Vadsöe, and the Bishop of Nordland and Finmark, who was even an eye witness, ought not to be disregarded. There does not appear the least probability, or even possibility, that any other marine animal at present known on the northern coast, could have been confounded with the sea-serpent. The finners, a species of whale already mentioned, are too well known to occasion any mistake; and the total want of similarity in shape, appearance, and size, if they were even rare, would be sufficiently obvious.”
Remarkable is the fact that Mr. DE CAPELL BROOKE considers the animal to be “in all probability of the serpent tribe”, with which he of course means _snakes_.
“The strongest confirmation of the fact appears to be the account received at the island of Otersun. There it will be recollected, the serpent made its appearance in July, 1819, being visible a short distance from the shore, nearly every day, during the greater part of that month, and having been seen during that time by the whole of the population of the island. The information collected, indeed, is scantier than might have been expected, from its remaining so considerable a time; but the talent of observation in fishermen is far from considerable, and their curiosity is easily gratified. To these circumstances, and the general dread entertained of this animal, may be attributed the want of any attempt to take it. At the neighbouring island of Krogöen also, it will be remembered, that its having appeared was confirmed; and this would be sufficient at least to cause a wavering in the minds of those naturalists, who have treated former accounts as the mere offspring of imagination.”
We may add: not only their curiosity is easily gratified, but their fear to approach the animal too closely withholds them from investigating it nearer, or from observing it, as a naturalist or more curious person would do!
Further he discusses the subject historically, first comparing the Leviathan in the Book of Job with it, to which idea evidently MILTON’S _Paradise Lost_ led him. I am far from admitting any relation between the story in Holy Writ and the sea-serpents. He further quotes KNUD LEEMS (p. 138), OLAUS MAGNUS (n°. 1, p. 105, 109), HANS EGEDE (n°. 5), ERIC PONTOPPIDAN, and speaks of the letters written to and preserved in the library of Sir JOSEPH BANKS, then president of the Royal Society, by General HAWKINS and General HUMPHREYS.
I am also obliged to repeat here _in extenso_ his plea for the sea-serpent (p. 415-419):
“In the belief of the possibility of events, men are too generally guided by the limited knowledge of things they may possess; and there are doubtless many among the more uninformed classes, who, if told of the existence of an animal attaining the height of eighteen feet, such as the giraffe or camelopard, or that the ocean produced one like the whale, more than 100 feet in length, would not only stare with astonishment, but would as much doubt the truth of these assertions, as if informed of the sea-serpent. This is but natural; their knowledge of the world and its productions, deprived as they are of other means of attaining it, must be confined to the narrow sphere they live in; and the ideas they possess of life must necessarily be contracted.”