Part 24

“The naturalist, however, whose views of creation are bounded by no country, and whose field of inquiry is the globe itself, sees with admiration though without surprise the rich kingdom of nature gradually unfolding itself to the researches of science, and finds his imperfect catalogue almost daily swelled by proofs of the existence of some new and extraordinary animal, which before was unknown to the world, or considered as living in the imagination alone. By the exertions of the present age, he has become acquainted with many creatures, in their forms and habits the most singular and strange; and thus he is taught never to deny the existence of any thing rashly; assured, as he is, by whatever he beholds, of the unlimited power of the great Creator; and conscious, that all which the utmost zeal of man can attain is a knowledge of but a very small portion of his works. When he considers the various discoveries of modern times, and the astonishing effects produced by the ingenuity of man in the united application of chemistry and mechanism, it gives him but a more exalted idea of that great superior force, which not only sets in motion this master machine, and indues it with powers of sense and reflection, but causes it to act in so extraordinary a manner in the creation and reproduction of matter. In fine the philosopher, whether his researches regard the minuteness or magnitude of creation, is equally prepared for the wonders that are displayed to his eye. The aid of the mikroscoop makes known to him the existence of myriads of living creatures, some of such incredible smallness, that the utmost powers of the magnifier can with difficulty render them visible; and of which thousands if put together, would not equal a grain of sand in bulk. He finds even, that the human body itself is filled with them; and that the structure of their own internal parts is equally complex and curious. When, however, he reflects, that each of these beings, diminutive as they are, may perhaps contain a countless number of other, visible but to the minuter tecture of their eyes, he is lost and bewildered, and can only look forward to the period, when his purer existence will be permitted to comprehend the great secrets of nature, and the mysteries of the universe. If, on the other hand, he directs his steps to the deep gnoom of the African forests, tenanted by their various wild inhabitants, he sees, on a sublimely enlarged scale the works of the Creator; whether he meets with the elephant supporting its enormous bulk with peaceful and dignified steps, or views the huge trunk of the stupendous boa serpent, extended to the length of fifty feet, and viing in size with the stately trees, between which it glides, the terror of all, and the sovereign of the forest. The secrets of the great deep alone are veiled from his inquiring eyes; and he regrets, that his structure prevents him from cleaving, like the finny tribe, the watery fluid, and gazing on the wonders below. Phenomena the most extraordinary, nay even a new world, would there be opened to his inspection, did not the grosser materials of his composition obstruct his pursuit. From the marine animal productions, notwithstanding, that come under his observation, he finds, on comparing them with those of the land, that they are larger, proportionably to the vast space allotted them; and he reasonably concludes, that in the existence of unknown regions of the ocean, compared with which the land we inhabit may be deemed but as a spot, and the depth of which is not merely that of some miles, but extends, for any thing that is known to the contrary, even from pole to pole; there may be a variety of animals, greatly exceeding in size even those which, on this account alone, have been deemed fabulous: yet that their bulk may, nevertheless, be fairly proportioned to the space they inhabit; and that living midway in this world of waters, without ever rising even to the surface, or seeing the light of heaven, they may be made, by the hand that fashioned them, and in ways unknown to us, subservient to the use and benefit of man.”

“Here let me pause; for though the subject appears the more interesting and inexhaustible the more it is pursued, yet I feel insensible, that I have wandered very far, and that the thoughts, to which the sea-serpent gave rise, have already comprised the whole globe.”

The most remarkable accounts mentioned by Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE are translated in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, 1823, IV, 84, p. 273.

* * * * *

=80=.--1824 January.--In the _American Journal of Science and Arts_ conducted by Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, Vol. 28, July, 1835, we read:

“The following statement having been made by a gentleman of great intelligence and candor, a cool and judicious observer, who has travelled very extensively and traversed the seas in many climates, the editor desired a written notice of the facts which he is permitted to publish without the name of the author; with him he is, however, well-acquainted and reposes full confidence in his integrity and in his freedom from any influence of imagination.”

“Boston, April, 5th., 1835.”

“To Prof. Silliman,--Dear Sir,--On my passage from the River La Plata to this country in January, 1824, latitude 34¹⁄₂° South, and 48° West longitude, I saw what was first supposed to be a fish called an Albicore; but, on further examination it was discovered to be a serpent of which I cannot give a clearer description than to say that a common dark coloured land snake is, in miniature, a perfect representation. A light breeze prevailed at the time and the sea was quite smooth. It first appeared within ten feet of the vessel, its head was, perhaps, two feet above the water and appeared as large as a ten gallons keg; the eye was distinctly seen. The whole length of the serpent was about half the length of the vessel, say 40 feet. The size and circumference of the body, was nearly as large as a barrel; nothing like a fin was seen. I could not make out the distinct appearance of the tail. The serpent remained almost motionless while in sight, the head above water and eyes directed towards the vessel.”

Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN adds to it a

“_Remark of the Editor._--The distance of the place of observation being several hundred miles from the nearest coast, this serpent must have been a denizen of the ocean; for the huge land snake of South America could not navigate so far out to sea if indeed they ever take to the ocean at all. The snake was perfectly quiet, and appeared quite comfortable and at home on the waves. We must therefore consider this case as settling the question of the real existence of a Sea-Serpent. The absence of paddles or arms forbids us from supposing that this was a swimming saurian.”

We may observe here that all the characters of the sea-serpent of Prof. SILLIMAN’S acquaintance agree with those which are already known to us, and that the supposition or negative explanation of Prof. SILLIMAN, that this sea-serpent was not a swimming saurian is at least premature, for the assertion of the eye-witness that “nothing like a fin was seen” does not prove an “absence of paddles or arms”, which of course remained hidden under water!

* * * * *

=81=.--1824, Summer.--In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of Oct. 1824, Vol. VIII, n°. 168, p. 218, we read:

“The American Sea-Serpent is said to have appeared again this summer. A Mr. Ruggles in Bristol County, has, as is mentioned by the Newburyport Journal, seen it off Plum-Island and in Shad Cove at a distance of about 100 feet. The head was two feet long and of a brown colour. Mr. R. could distinctly observe the teeth in the mouth when opened. He could not discern the tail, but several times, about thirty feet behind the head, he observed parts of the animal in an undulating motion”.

Though this is not the first time that the teeth are mentioned to have been seen, yet now again no description of them is given.

* * * * *

=82=.--1825?--In a paper by Dr. T. S. TRAILL, printed in n^o. 44, May, 1854, of the _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh_, we read:

“That in the ocean such animals do exist, have been affirmed by persons worthy of credit. I shall notice an unpublished instance related to me many years ago by my intelligent friend, the late Mr. Andrew Strang, a gentleman of unblemished honour.” “Once, when on a deep-sea fishing, he saw pass below his boat, at the depth of eight or ten feet, an enormously long fish, of an eel-shape. It was swimming slowly with a vermicular motion, and appeared to be at least sixty feet in length.” It appeared to take no notice of them; but they hastily removed from what they considered a dangerous neighbourhood. He stated that he was shy in mentioning this circumstance, “lest the sceptical public should class him with the fableloving Bishop of Bergen.” There is considerable reason to believe that a similar fish has appeared more than once on the western coasts of Scotland.

Neither date nor locality is mentioned. I don’t hesitate to put the date at nearly thirty years back, and to choose the year 1825, and to fix the locality on the western coasts of Scotland, because of all the coasts of Great Britain only the western ones are frequented by these animals. I know but one occurrence on the eastern coast of Scotland, of which I have three observations (n^o. 141, 142, 143). I am convinced that the animal seen by Mr. ANDREW STRANG was a sea-serpent. Its enormous length of at least sixty feet, its _vermicular_ motion, its eel-shape, at once betray it. Evidently the animal moved only by vertical undulations, holding its four flappers pressed against its body, otherwise Mr. STRANG would have compared it with “an alligator with flappers like those of a sea-turtle and with a long neck,” as did Captain HOPE (n^o. 119.)

* * * * *

=83=.--1826, June 16.--(_New York Advertiser_ of June 21, 1826, and _American Journal of Science and Arts_, Vol. XI, 1826.)

“Capt. Holdrege, of the ship Silas Richards, which arrived yesterday from Liverpool, states that in passing George’s Bank, five days since, he had a fair view of the sea-serpent. It was about ten rods from the ship, the sea perfectly calm, and that part which appeared out of water about sixty feet in length. The head and protuberances were similar to the representations which have frequently been given to him by persons who had seen him near Cape Ann. He was going at a very slow rate, and appeared unmindful of the ship. He was visible about seven minutes to the passengers and crew, who were on deck at the time. A certificate has been drawn up and signed by the passengers, which, with a drawing made by one of the gentlemen, gives a minute description of the serpent as seen by them. The number and credibility of the witnesses, place beyond all doubt the existence of such an animal as a sea-serpent.”

Of this occurrence we learn more in the _Edinb. Journ. Sc._, Vol. VI, 1827, where we read in a paper by Dr. HOOKER:

“That which has been the principal inducement for us to present this imperfect paper to the public, is a letter which we have had the pleasure of seeing addressed to Robert Barclay Esq. of Bury Hall, Surrey, from Mr. Warburton, a gentleman belonging to the house of Barclay, Brothers, and Company, London. That gentleman, proceeding in his passage to America, on board the Silas Richards, New York packet, Captain Holdrege, had an opportunity of beholding this sea-monster on Friday the 16th of June off St. George’s Banks. But his own plain statement must be presumed far more satisfactory to every candid mind than any account extracted from his letter.”

“Pentonville, 20th September 1826”

“Dear Sir,”

“Having been informed by your grandson, Mr. Robert Reynolds, that you were desirous of possessing a sketch of the sea-serpent as seen by me in crossing the Atlantic, and to have some account of the same; in compliance with your wishes, I have inclosed a rough pencil drawing of the monster as it appeared during the time when its head was elevated above the water, and I shall state the particulars attending this novel exhibition.”

“The captain and myself were standing on the starboard side of the vessel, looking over the bulwark, and remarking how perfectly smooth was the surface of the sea. It was about half-past six o’clock P. M., and a cloudless sky. On a sudden we heard a rushing in the water a-head of the ship. At first we imagined it to be a whale spouting, and turning to the quarter whence the sound proceeded, we observed the serpent in the position as it appears in the sketch, slowly approaching at not more than the rate of two miles an hour, in a straight direction. I suppose we were hardly going through the water so fast, for there was scarcely a breath of wind. I must premise that I had never heard of the existence of such an animal. I instantly exclaimed, why, there is a _sea-snake_! “That is the sea-serpent”, exclaimed the captain, “and I would give my ship and cargo to catch the monster”. I immediately called to the passengers, who were all down below, but only five or six came up, among whom was Miss Magee, the daughter of a merchant in New York. The remainder refused to come up, saying there had been too many hoaxes of that kind already. I was too eager to stand parleying with them, and I returned to the captain. In the same slow style the serpent passed the vessel at about the distance of 50 yards from us, neither turning his head to the right or left. As soon as his head had reached the stern of the vessel, he gradually laid it down in a horizontal position with his body, and floated along like the mast of a vessel. That there was upwards of 60 feet visible, is clearly shown by the circumstance, that the length of the ship was upwards of 120 feet, and at the time his head was off the stern, the other end (as much as was above the surface) had not passed the main mast. The time we saw him, as described in the drawing, was two minutes and a half. After he had declined his head we saw him for about twenty minutes a-head, floating along like an enormous log of timber. His motion in the water was meandering like that of an eel, and the rake he left behind was like that occasioned by the passing of a small craft through the water. We had but one harpoon on board, and the ship’s long-boat was, for the time being converted into a _cow-house_. We had two guns on board, but no ball..... I dined one day at the Hotel of New York with Sir Isaac Coffin, who discredited the existence of such an animal, which was reported to have been seen by Captain Bennet of Boston about five years back; but as I assured him I had never heard previously even the report of such a monster, and that I was an _Englishman_, he gave full credit to it. The sketch I gave him also corresponded with the description that was circulated at that time. The humps on the back resembled in size and shape those of the dromedary. I remain, Dear Sir, yours respectfully,

“William Warburton.”

I give in fig. 27 a facsimile of the figure, accompanying the paper of Mr. HOOKER (_Edinb. Journ. Sc._ Vol. VI, 1827, Pl. I. fig. 10).

The description of the sea-serpent given here, may be summed up in the following words: When it came to the surface a rushing of the water was heard. The part which appeared out of water was about sixty feet in length. It held its head some feet above the surface of the water, swimming at a rate of two miles an hour, and showing bunches on its back. After some moments it gradually laid down its head in a horizontal position with its body, and floated along like the mast of a vessel, evidently swimming with its body in a straight line, using its flappers. The wake which it left behind was equal to that of a small vessel. Nothing is said of the skin, which evidently was smooth, otherwise the scales would have been seen and mentioned, for the animal appeared not far from the vessel. Nor does the sketch show any scales. The position of the head in the sketch, making nearly a right angle with its neck, may have led others to say it resembled that of a horse, if we take moreover in consideration that some individuals have a mane. The individual seen by Captain HOLDREGE and Mr. WARBURTON evidently had no mane.

* * * * *

=84=.--1826, June 18.--In the same letter from Mr. WARBURTON to ROBERT BARCLAY there is a passage which we have omitted above and which runs as follows:

“Two days after we saw him he was seen by another vessel off Cape Cod, about 200 miles from where he made his appearance to us. This intelligence reached New York about four days after we arrived there, and the description given exactly corresponds with the foregoing.”

Evidently this was the same individual, or one of the same sex.

* * * * *

In 1827 Dr. HOOKER wrote the following paper for the _Edinburgh Journal of Science_, Vol. VI:

“When we remember the numberless impositions concerning Natural History, which at various periods have been detected, it is not surprising that doubt should be a principal, nay, a necessary, qualification of the student of Nature. Yet we cannot but think that the scientific world in general has been too incredulous concerning the sea-serpent, seeing the mass of concurrent testimony which has been adduced to prove its existence. It is certainly true that vague reports had been spread abroad with regard to this enormous animal long ere any just foundation was afforded for them, and indeed before we had heard of any who professed to have seen it. This may have very far conduced to produce that scepticism which now is perfectly unwarrantable. We are so accustomed, whenever the subject is introduced in conversation, to couple it with the preposterous fables of the _Kraken_, that it would be extremely difficult to break down the barriers against belief which prejudice has so long assisted to support. The accounts of the most credible witnesses have thus been rejected, although, “_to make assurance doubly sure_”, the generality of them have been taken upon oath.”

“So many wonderful discoveries, both in the arts and Sciences, have been made within the last century, that it is astonishing how the existence of the sea-serpent has been supposed either so marvellous or impossible. Time has satisfactorily proved the veracity of Bruce, and we must leave it to time to do the same office with regard to the beholders of this “wonder of the deep.” Is this monster more disproportionate to the extent of the sea than the elephant to that of the land? Or, it may be asked, has it a solid bulk, (even according to late most extravagant accounts), nearly approaching in magnitude to that of the whale? Geology has been infinitely more fortunate than zoology in many respects; theories only partially sustained have been received; and while the recent discoveries of the _Plesiosaurus_ and _Megalosaurus_ have made demands upon our powers of credence far greater than the _serpent_, the descriptions of the latter animal have received very little trust, and even much ridicule and contempt. In general, however, it must be confessed, that people do not object to the extraordinary proportions of such a creature, so much as to what they consider the want of respectable and satisfactory evidence. We trust to advance, in the sequel, such additional evidence to that already presented, and of such respectability, as to confirm entirely the truth of the existence of such an animal,--an animal concerning which so many contradictory opinions have been hazarded as to its more immediate nature and structure; and which, from the mystery in which it has hitherto been wrapped, must be interesting to the most casual admirer of nature:--which must be interesting even from the element in which it lives; so vast, so unexplored in its inmost recesses. We can have so little information with regard to an animal which has so mighty an habitation, that it acquires a grandeur in our estimation far surpassing those which inhabit the earth. The monsters of the deep appear so independent of our influence, and so far removed from any connection with us, that any increase of our knowledge in reference to them must be highly gratifying.”

“It was during the year 1817 that it began to be correctly reported, that in the neighbourhood of Boston and Gloucester in America, an animal, in general construction nearly resembling a serpent, had been frequently seen. These rumours created a good deal of excitement, insomuch that, at a meeting of the Linnaean Society of New England, it was determined more fully to investigate the matter. The Honourable Lonson Nash of Gloucester was appointed by a Committee to gather together all the information which might be obtained.”

“It is unnecessary here to dwell at any length upon the evidence which his unremitting and meritorious exertions procured. From different quarters, individuals of the highest respectability communicated all the information which it was in their power to proffer, and all declared themselves prepared to take an oath upon the accuracy of their narrations. No testimony was received, excepting from those who professed to have been personal witnesses of the monster: no weight was given to their accounts deduced from the reports which were everywhere circulated:--the unadorned and unexaggerated style in which their statements were worded is of itself perfectly sufficient to win over to all unqualified trust. The witnesses for the most part, unite in ascribing a vertical motion to the creature. Fifty or sixty yards was no uncommon distance between it and the spectators, and it was never seen except in weather the most calm and bright. But these facts, along with the various depositions, have been long laid before the public in the “Report of the Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England”, and it is our part now merely to adduce some corroborative circumstances which have lately occurred, and which _we_ think puts the matter for ever beyond the possibility of a doubt;--facts which have already completely satisfied some highly scientific gentlemen, who before were entirely sceptical.”

He next gives the letter from Mr. WARBURTON, of which we have spoken above, and the letter from Mr. BOOTT, parts of which we have inserted in n^o. 63 and 70. After the different passages from various transactions and journals referring to the papers in Sir JOSEPH BANKS’ library (p. 220), Dr. HOOKER goes on:

“We sincerely hope that these few bare facts may satisfy all upon this much agitated question; at least we think they must remove the ideal connection between _our_ serpent, and

“That sea-snake, enormous curled, “Whose monstrous circle girds the world.”

“It can now no longer be considered in association with hydras and mermaids, for there has been nothing said with regard to it inconsistent with reason. It may at least be assumed as a sober fact in Natural History quite unconnected with the gigantic exploits of the _God Thor_, or the fanciful absurdities of the Scandinavian mythology. We cannot suppose, that the most ultra-sceptical can now continue to doubt with regard to facts attested by such highly respectable witnesses.”

It is a deplorable fact that all the endeavours of such an eminent scientist to convince zoologists of the existence of sea-serpents, have been in vain!

German translations of the whole of Dr. HOOKER’S paper as well as of the letters from Dr. BOOTT and Mr. WARBURTON are in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, of April, 1827, Vol. XVII, n^o. 356, p. 49.

In the _American Journal of Science and Arts_, Vol. XII, June 1827, the editor, Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, says: