Part 26
This account translated into German is in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, Third Series, III, n^o. 54, p. 148.
* * * * *
=98=, =99=.--1833, July.--In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of June 1834 we read that Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN in a note to Mr. BAKEWELL’S _Introduction to Geology_, stated that
“since 1820 nearly each year the mass of evidences has increased, and that the current year 1833 has been particularly fertile in such reports.”
Dr. HAMILTON in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, says:
“The last notice we have seen of this American animal bears date July 1833. The Boston and New-York papers of that date state, that the Sea-Serpent had again appeared off Nahant. “It was first seen on Saturday afternoon, passing between Egg-Rock and the Promuntory, winding his way into Lynn-Harbour, and again on Sunday morning, heading for South-shores. He was seen by forty or fifty ladies and gentlemen, who insist that they could not have been deceived.”
* * * * *
It is evident that many reports of great sea-serpents have been published here and there, especially in Norwegian and North-American newspapers, which I have had no opportunity to consult, and which probably will never come within my reach. As we learn from Mr. FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, Vol. XL, n^o. 879, p. 328, “Mr. R. Bakewell in the latest edition of his Introduction to Geology (1833?) states: that there are descriptions of the sea-serpent, wherein it is ascertained that it “has flappers like sea-turtles”. I have not been able to consult Mr. BAKEWELL’S work, but I insert this statement here, because we shall observe afterwards more than once this comparison of the flappers with analogous members of turtles.
* * * * *
=100=.--1834, Summer.--In Captain SHIBBLES’ report (n^o. 101) a passage runs as follows:
“One of the crew told us that his appearance and motion are precisely like that he saw last summer while in the bay” (of Gloucester) “which was said to be a sea-serpent.”
Though no particulars are mentioned, I am convinced that the appearance took place.
* * * * *
=101=.--1835, March or April.--(_Amer. Journ. Sc. Arts_ Vol. 28, 1835, July.--)
“Captain Shibbles, of the brig Mangehan, of Thomastown, from Boston, for New-Orleans, which arrived here (Gloucester, Mass., March or April, 1835) on Saturday last, states that he saw when about nine or ten miles from Race Point light, what he, as well as the whole crew, supposed to be a sea-serpent,--he could distinctly see it with the naked eye, but to be certain, he took his glass and saw his eyes, neck and head, which was about as large as a barrel--the neck had something that looked like a mane upon the top of it; several times he raised his head seven or eight feet above the water, and for thirty or forty minutes he swam backward and forward with great swiftness. There were two other vessels near, the crews of which were in the rigging looking at the same object. Capt. S. states that it was very long, and that his head, neck and tail and his motion in the water, was exactly like those of a snake; every time he put his head out of water, he made a noise similar to that of steam escaping from the boiler of a steam-boat..... The Captain and crew attest to the correctness of this statement.”
As to the swimming backward and forward, I think that Captain SHIBBLES meant that the animal swam to and fro, and that he used these expressions in reference to the direction of the brig.
* * * * *
=102=.--1836?--Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE published in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ the following evidence, which he noted down when being in Christiansund in Norway:
“The _Sorenskriver_ Gaeschke (a kind of judge of the same rank as the German country-judges, or the British sheriffs) gave me the following evidence: I saw the sea-serpent for a considerable time in a small fjord, first from a boat, afterwards from the beach, and from there during several minutes, at a distance of from thirty to thirty-six feet. In the beginning it swam round the fjord at Torvig, afterwards it went towards the mouth of the fjord. I saw its head stretched considerably out of the water. I noticed as well two or three undulations of the forepart of the body. Its motion was not like that of an eel, but consisted in vertical undulations. They were so strong, that they caused rather large waves; they were largest at the forepart of the animal and gradually lessened towards the back. The traces of them I discerned in a length of eight to ten fathoms, and in a breadth of two or three fathoms. The head, apparently blunt in front, had the size and nearly also the shape of an anker (ten-gallon cask) and the visible coils of the body were round and their thickness was that of a good timber-stock (twelve to fourteen inches square). I could not judge the entire length of the animal, as I could not discern the animal’s hindpart. The colour of the animal seemed to me to be a very dark grey one. What I believed to be the eyes, had according to my estimation the size of the outlines of a tea-cup (3¹⁄₂ inches). At the back of the head there was a mane, which had the same colour as the rest of the body.”
* * * * *
=103=.--1837, end of July.--(FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_, Vol. IV, n^o. 67, p. 7, October, 1837).
“About the much mentioned Sea-Serpent the Drontheim Newspaper contains, as is ascertained, from an enlightened and trustworthy gentleman, the following statement: “Uncommonly early in this Summer our coasts and fjords were blessed with a mass of fat herrings, of which till to-day very few were cleaned and pickled, because the uncommon greasiness of the herrings made it difficult to preserve them in the warm air, which, however, was so beneficient to agriculture. Since the beginning of the dog-days the sea-serpent appeared on different spots in this country; one of these sea-monsters seems to have constantly remained near Storfosen and the Krovaag Isles; several fishermen were terrified in the highest degree, when the sea-serpent suddenly came down so near to them, that they had no time to think, to which side they should fly. It is true this terrible visitor properly has not made an attack, but it has followed the boat for a long distance, when one has tried to fly in a great hurry, so that the men overworked themselves, and some of the runaways fell ill afterwards. It is ascertained by quite trustworthy persons, that the length of the sea-serpent may be estimated from 600 to 800 ells, or perhaps still more, because if one was near its head, the other end of the sea-animal was not to be discerned distinctly. The sea-serpent is thickest just behind the head, apparently as thick as a large horse; its black and dark eyes are as large as an ordinary plate, without being glossy or very movable; the skin is smooth and of a dark colour; on the nose there are thick hairs, as on a seal’s, two or three quarters of an ell long, also on the neck there is something movable, which resembles the mane of a horse; the mouth, as far as the writer knows, has not been seen distinctly, and it is quite uncertain whether the animal is a beast of prey or not. Rarely does the sea-serpent appear but in calm weather; its motions and shape are serpentine. These observations are distinctly made in these days, amongst others by a trustworthy and intelligent gentleman, who with his two sons had reached a small islet, where the sea-serpent, after having followed their boat, passed closely and slowly.”
Those who made the statement that when they were near the head, the tail could not be discerned distinctly, of course, spoke the truth, for the tail is very seldom above water, but they who afterwards thereby imagined that the animal therefore must have a length of from 600 to 800 ells, exaggerated in a most ridiculous manner. Again we observe that the Norwegian fishermen are in great dread of the sea-serpent, and the description of their behaviour is quite the same as told us PONTOPPIDAN a century ago. Again we read of the habit of the sea-serpent of following boats, but never attacking them, which may only be the effect of mere curiosity. The description, moreover, given by the not mentioned trustworthy and intelligent observer is quite correct. All the characters given by him are already known to us, and where he states that the eyes are not glossy, apparently in contradiction with former statements, it is natural that in a certain direction and in certain moments they need not give the impression of being so. Remarkable is the statement of the animal having bristles on its upper-lips, as in seals.
In Dr. HAMILTON’S _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, we read:
“The most recent account of this monster we have noticed, appeared in the public Newspapers of Drontheim, in the autumn of 1837, and we confess we cannot regard it as a sheer fabrication”.
And he further cites the above mentioned report and tells us that it was the _Adis_ of Drontheim which contained those particulars. The Krovaag Islands are called by Dr. HAMILTON the Kerchvang Islands, and strange enough, the very interesting particulars about the skin, the eyes and the bristles on the upper lips near the nose are omitted.
* * * * *
=104=.--1838?--The reader will soon be made acquainted with the well known report of Captain M’QUHAE, of the _Daedalus_. As the report was published in the newspapers of Oct., 1848, Captain BEECHY, of the _Blossom_, “one of the most scientific officers and ablest naval surveyors”, wrote a letter to Mr. FRANCIS BEAUFORT, F. R. S., Admiralty Hydrographer. An extract from this letter appeared in the _Illustrated London News_ of Oct. 28, 1848, and runs as follows:
“What an extraordinary creature the Daedalus seems to have fallen in with! The description recalls to my mind an extraordinary appearance we witnessed in the _Blossom_, in crossing the South Atlantic: I took it for the trunk of a large tree, and before I could get my glass upon deck it had disappeared, and I could nowhere find it--fresh breezes at the time.”
As Captain BEECHY writes “recalls to my mind”, the “extraordinary appearance” must have taken place some time ago, say ten years; so I have chosen the year 1838, as the year in which it happened. If I may ever get the opportunity to learn the exact year or date, I shall be glad to correct my supposition in an eventual second edition. But for the present I am sure that the “trunk of a large tree” which had so suddenly disappeared, really was a sea-serpent.
* * * * *
Repeatedly we have already quoted Dr. HAMILTON’S work about the _Amphibious Carnivora_, which appeared in the year 1839. The writer sums up numerous reports and accounts, which he cited from other works, or from which he gave only short extracts. One would say that Dr. HAMILTON is an unbeliever, for he ends his chapter on this animal with the words:
“With these extracts, and without farther comment, we close our account of the Great Sea-Serpent, only remarking, that till favouring circumstances bring the animal under the examination of Naturalists, the satisfaction, which is desiderated respecting it, is scarcely to be expected.”
I only ask, what then was the reason that he spoke of it, and that he published these extracts in a book, which properly treated of Amphibious Carnivora or the Pinnipeds (seals, walrusses, sea-lions and sea-bears)? May it be, that he observed any relation between them and the sea-serpent? I cannot believe it, for after the sea-serpent he treats of the Kraken in the same volume. And why did he end in such a vague way? May it be, because he could not give an explanation, or because he hesitated to show the public that he was really a believer?
* * * * *
=105=.--1839, August?--According to FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_, vol. XII, n^o. 248, of Oct., 1839, the _Boston Mercantile_ mentions that Mr. BUBIER, Lieutenant of the U. S. Navy affirms to have seen the sea-serpent on his way from Daims Island to Nahant, near Boston, and estimated its length at 120 to 135 feet.
* * * * *
=106=.--1839.--In the same periodical on the same page we read that Captain SMITH who had been a long time in the whale fishery, asserts in the _Kennebek Journal_, that he never before saw such a creature, and that if he had had a harpoon and lines on board, he would have harpooned it.
* * * * *
=106=, =A=.--1840, April 21.--(_Journal du Havre_, 1840, Sept. 15, _Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1716).--As I have not had the opportunity to consult the first paper, I give the account as I have found it in the _Zoologist_.
“A French captain has just related to us a remarkable circumstance, which he has himself witnessed, and his recital exhibits a degree of cautious reserve, which is well calculated to shake the obstinacy of the most sceptical. We shall preface his narrative by the remark that the sea serpent has been recently alleged to have been seen at different points along the whole line of the American coast. Captain d’Abnour, commander of the Ville de Rochefort, makes the following statements:
“On the 21st. of April, 1840, while we were in 24 deg. 13 min. N. latitude, and 89 deg. 52 min. W. longitude (calculated from the meridian of Paris), in the gulf of Mexico, we were running under a light breeze from E. N. E. with beautiful weather. In a few hours we distinguished something like a long chain of rocks, falling off by a gentle inclination at the two extremities, and elevated at the middle by only a few feet over the level of the sea. Against this object the sea broke softly. As we approached we remarked that its different parts changed their position, and even their form, and we became perfectly certain that it was not a reef. A little later, we distinguished by the assistance of a telescope a long chain of enormous rings, resembling a number of barrels linked together, and in form very like the back of a silk worm. It was a three quarter view of the object which we had first obtained. As the ship approached, these appearances became more distinct, and we presently saw the extremity of an enormous tail, longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black. This tail appeared to wind itself up, and repose on a part of the object itself. Then, at the other extremity, we saw a membrane rising to the height of about two _metres_ from the water, and inclining itself at a considerable angle upon the mass (without leaving it, however); and this led me to conjecture that the monster before us was provided with an apparatus for the purpose of respiration, like the lampreys. At last we perceived something like an _antenna_ rising from the water, to the great height of nearly eight _metres_, terminated by a crescent of at least five _metres_ from one extremity to the other. We could not approach sufficiently near to acquire any very positive idea as to what we had seen; but everything led us to believe that it was an enormous serpent of at least 100 _metres_ in length.”
Although the editors of the _Journal du Havre_ believed that Captain D’ABNOUR by his “exhibiting a degree of cautious reserve would shake the obstinacy of the most sceptical”, I think that on the contrary his narrative has had quite another effect. Every sceptic, I think, will smile or even laugh when he reads this report, for who can help laughing when he reads of a “membrane which led me to conjecture that the monster before us was provided with an apparatus for the purpose of respiration, like the lampreys”, and of an “antenna of eight metres, terminated by a crescent of at least five metres from one extremity to the other.” We find here several limbs enumerated, and mentioned by the names of the corresponding limbs of different classes of the animal kingdom. A “membrane” in my opinion is a thin and transparent or nearly transparent planely extended object. If what the captain saw was one, I don’t know what it could be. If not, if untransparent, how could they see from such a great distance, that it was thin; what reason was there to call it a “membrane”?
I am convinced that Captain d’ABNOUR really saw a sea-serpent. The animal lay extended on the surface of the water, nearly still, showing numerous bunches; head and tail being under water and invisible. Quite the same thing was afterwards witnessed by Captain WEISZ, of the _Kätie_ (n°. 154, fig. 50). We know that sea-serpents lying still may show coils or bunches or hillocks. It resembled “a long chain of rocks, falling off by a gentle inclination at the two extremities, and elevated at the middle by only a few feet over the level of the sea”. The sea broke gently against it. As they approached, the animal seen through a telescope had the appearance of “a long chain of numerous rings, resembling a number of barrels linked together”. We remember that this comparison has often been made by different witnesses. The other comparison of the captain, viz.: “in form very like the back of a silk worm” is also tolerably well chosen. “As the ship approached, these appearances became more distinct” and the sea-serpent raised in a playful manner “its enormous tail, longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black”. We know that the animal’s head and neck are longitudinally divided into two sections, dark brown or nearly black above, and white beneath. It is, therefore, probable that also the trunk has a dark back and a light coloured belly. The supposition of this division of colours had already been made by Mr. MATTHEW GAFFNEY (n^o. 41, p. 169). It is, therefore, very remarkable that Captain d’ABNOUR really saw that the tail too is coloured black above and white beneath! The animal curled its tail and let it for a moment “repose on a part of” its body. Then, “at the other extremity” the animal elevated its foreflapper to the height of about two metres (six feet) from the water. The flapper “inclined itself at a considerable angle upon the” body, consequently the animal made the same movement with its foreflapper as the individual afterwards witnessed by Captain WEISZ (n^o. 154, fig. 50). At last a tail of a spermwhale or of a finwhale elevated above the water, “an antenna terminating in a crescent” “to the height of nearly eight metres” (about 25 feet), which tail of course has nothing at all to do with the sea-serpent. Captain d’ABNOUR says: that it rose “from the water” and he says nothing as to its relative position to the animal, nor whether it was close to or far from it. The length of at least 100 metres (about 320 feet) is at all events exaggerated. Evidently head and neck remained constantly under the water.
The above mentioned account, translated into German, is in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, _Third Series_, Vol. III, n^o. 54, p. 148, 1847.
* * * * *
=106 B=.--1840, June?--In the _Journal du Havre_, of 15th September, 1840, (see _Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1716,) we read:
“Not long since the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ announced a new appearance of this marine monster, about whose existence the world is so naturally incredulous.”
I do not think that I am wrong in fixing this appearance in the month of June of that year.
* * * * *
=107=.--1840, July?--In his Postscript Mr. RATHKE (_Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, 1841, Vol. I) says:
“According to a letter addressed to me by Dr. Hoffmann, a respectable physician in Molde, which is situated several miles south of Christiansund on one of the largest fjords, the school-inspector HAMMER, the adjunct KRAFT, and some other persons, who in 1840 made together an excursion in a boat on this fjord, saw very distinctly a so-called sea-serpent of considerable length.”
* * * * *
=107 A=.--1840, August?--The Editor of the _Journal du Havre_ before publishing Capt. D’ABNOUR’S report (n^o. 106 A) says, (see _Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1715):
“We shall preface his narrative by the remark, that the sea-serpent has been recently alleged to have been seen, at different points along the whole line of the American coast.”
The Editor would have done better if he had published all the reports of the sea-serpent, that had come within his reach. The reader must know that with the terms “the whole line of the American coast” the Editor can only have meant the east coast of British America and of the United States, from Newfoundland to Cape Canaveral, Florida.
* * * * *
=108=.--1841.--In a Postscript to his paper (_Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, 1841, Vol. I) Mr. RATHKE tells us:
“According to a letter which I received some time ago from Mr. Soern Knutszon, a sea-serpent is again seen there some weeks after I had left Christiansund, by several persons.”
* * * * *
The well known Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE in 1841 published in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, 7th year, Vol. I, his dissertation “On the Sea-Serpent of the Norwegians”. I am obliged to give a translation of his paper:
“On a journey which I made through Norway I availed myself of the opportunity of making inquiries after a hitherto problematical and even doubted animal, the so-called sea-serpent (Soe Orm in the language of the Norwegians). The most favourable opportunity offered in Christiansund, in the neighbourhood of which this animal is said to have often been observed. The general notices which I received about the sea-serpent, agree in the following points: It is mostly seen in the larger fjords of Norway, but seldom in the open sea. In the fjord of Christiansund, which has such a considerable extent, manifold ramifications, and in which numerous islets are found, it appears almost every year. It is said to have been especially observed in that part of the fjord on which the village of Lorvig is situated. This only happens in the warmest part of the year, viz. in the dog days, and only then when the weather is quite still and the surface of the water smooth. When after its appearance the water is ruffled, however slightly, it immediately disappears. Great is the dread of it, so that in the dog days many fishermen, otherwise intrepid, don’t go far into the sea, without taking with them asa foetida, which is said to drive away the animal by its smell, when thrown into the water. Moreover the fishermen advise to be very quiet, when a sea-serpent approaches, and therefore rowing must be avoided, because the least noise attracts it still more.”
“To have, however, more accounts than those general ones which are spread amongst the people, I wrote to several persons who were said to have seen it with their own eyes. Some of them who at the request of SOEREN and WILHELM KNUDTSZON Brothers, two distinguished and very intelligent merchants, paid me a visit, I questioned personally; for others I had put down several questions to which I received a written answer. I will communicate here the result of my inquiry.”
Now Mr. RATHKE publishes the affidavits which I have inserted above (n^o. 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 102), and his Postscript (see n^o. 107 and 108).