Part 27
“If one” Mr. RATHKE goes on, “were to submit the above mentioned evidences to an inquiry, one would soon observe, that they not only contain several contradictory statements, but also that each evidence by itself cannot pretend to accuracy. Yet I believe, that we may at least admit so much of them, to be right, that what those persons who bear the evidences, took for a long animal, was really such a one. For I should not know, what could be the cause of the illusion, which had created the belief in such an animal. Some persons, as I know, believe that what has been taken for a so-called sea-serpent, was nothing else but a row of porpoises, swimming in a line. But all those persons by whom the above mentioned evidences are borne were too familiar with the sea, and had observed porpoises together too often to be deceived by a row of such animals swimming on the surface of the water. If this, however, had been the case, all the observations related to me of the sea-serpent holding its head above the surface, and about its size, must have been mere fictions, and this I cannot believe. According to all this, it evidently cannot be doubted that there is a long serpentine animal in the sea of Norway, which may grow to a considerable length.”
Now Mr. RATHKE weighs and considers to what kind of animals the sea-serpent may belong. This, however, we omit here, as we have partly discussed these views in our Chapter on Would-be Sea-Serpents, where we spoke of the Animal of Stronsa, and as we shall once more refer to it in our Chapter of Explanations.
Every one, I think, will agree with me, that Mr. RATHKE has committed two faults. 1. He criticises the correctness of the statements in question, apparently without having taken the trouble to read all that had been written about the subject. If he had done so, he would never have said that the particulars of the evidences collected by him in Norway were sometimes contradictory; on the contrary, he would have observed that they completed one another! 2. He was the first scientific man and zoologist who had an opportunity to see the sea-serpent, probably even to kill it, and yet he returns to Germany without having made one single effort either to kill or to see it!
* * * * *
Immediately after Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE’S dissertation, the Editor of the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, the well-known Prof. Dr. W. F. ERICHSON, wrote a paper, in which he gave full details of the Animal of Stronsa and descriptions of the saved bones. He ends this extract with the words:
“Consequently the Animal of Stronsa has no relation at all with the sea-serpent of the Norwegians; the animal, however, seen by the Rev. Maclean” (n^o. 31) “might be considered as such an animal.”
These words convince me of the fact that Mr. ERICHSON, like Mr. RATHKE firmly believed that there are in the Norwegian seas animals still unknown to them, which are called “sea-serpents”.
* * * * *
=109=.--1842?--(_Times_, Nov. 4, 1848).--
“A parish priest residing on Romsdal fjord, about two days journey south of Drontheim, an intelligent person, whose veracity I have no reason to doubt, gave me a circumstantial account of one, which he had himself seen. It rose within 30 yards of the boat in which he was, and swam parallel with it for a considerable time. Its head he described as equalling a small cask in size, and its mouth, which it repeatedly opened and shut, was furnished with formidable teeth; its neck was smaller, but its body--of which he supposed that he saw about half on the surface of the water--was not less in girth than that of a moderate sized horse.” (Part of a letter from “OXONIENSIS”).--
* * * * *
=110=.--1842?--“Another gentleman, in whose house I stayed, had also seen one, and gave a similar account of it: it also came near his boat upon the fjord, when it was fired at, upon which it turned and pursued them to the shore, which was luckily near, when it disappeared” (Also a part of the letter from OXONIENSIS, _Times_, Nov. 4, 1848).
* * * * *
=111=.--1843, Summer.--In FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_, Vol. XXVIII, n^o. 606, p. 184, Nov. 1843, we read:
“Some months ago the sea-serpent again appeared between the islets and inlets of the fjord of Christiansund.”
* * * * *
=111 A=.--1843, October?--(FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_, Vol. 28, n^o. 606, p. 184).
“The Editors of the _Christiansands Posten_ add the following remarks: “This whole description accurately fits on an appearance, which the writer of these lines has witnessed a few times in the North Sea, and when the inhabitants of the coast near Ibbestad, if not withheld by their fear of the supposed sea-monster, had rowed with their boats towards the animal, they would soon have observed without any doubt that the supposed intervals between the coils were nothing else but water.””
The number of the _Christiansands Posten_ was most probably one of the beginning of November or of the end of October. Consequently the appearance spoken of must have taken place some days before. At all events this is a proof of an appearance of the sea-serpent, swimming in vertical undulations, near Ibbestad, in Norway, at that time.
* * * * *
=112=, =113=.--1845.--The report of Captain M’QUHAE, which we shall meet with a little further on, induced Mr. J. D. MORRIES STIRLING to write a letter on the sea-serpent to the Admiralty.
“By the courtesy” says the Editor of the _Illustrated London News_ in his number of Oct., 28, 1848, “of the Secretary to the Admiralty, we have been favoured with the following letter from a gentleman long resident in Norway.”
“13, Great Cumberland Street, October 25, 1848.”
“My dear Sir,--I regret that I have not found the volumes referred to in our conversation respecting the recent authentication of the existence of the sea-serpent by Captain M’Quhae, of H. M. frigate Daedalus, but I will give you that part of the information which I remember best. Several years ago, a museum was established at Bergen, in Norway, the directors of which have, amongst other subjects of interest, turned their study to Natural History in general, and to the elucidation of some of its more doubtful or less known subdivisions. The question of the sea-serpent’s existence had previously attracted the attention of several scientific men in Northern Europe; and my friend, the late Dr. Newmann, Bishop of Bergen--a man much and justly respected for his learning, research and energy--made it the subject of inquiry within the last twenty or twenty-five years among his clergy and those of the adjoining dioceses. The amount of proof thus collected was sufficient to convince any one, however sceptical, as it is not mere hearsay evidence, but the testimony of known and respectable persons in various walks of life. One of the most striking statements is made by some fishermen, who saw the animal quite close to them, and of whom one more hardy than the rest struck it with a boat-hook, upon which it immediately gave them chase; and, had they not been very near a small island or rock, on which they took refuge, in all probability they would have been destroyed.”
“The size of the sea-serpents seen in the Norwegian fjords varies much; and I do not now remember what the dimensions of the largest are said to be. As far as I can tax my memory, none of them lately seen are larger than that described by Capt. M’Quhae. The one seen by the fishermen above alluded to, was, I think, not above 70 feet long. I have written to my colleagues in the direction of the Bergen Museum, and as soon as their answer arrives I will give you a more full account.”
“There are I believe, several varieties of the reptile, known as the sea-serpent, but almost all the accounts agree as to the existence of a mane, and as to the great size of the eye. In several of the fossil reptiles somewhat approaching the sea-serpent in size and other characteristics, the orbit is very large; and in this respect, as well as having short paws or flappers, the descriptions of the northern sea-serpents agree with the supposed appearance of some of the antediluvian species. A great part of the disbelief in the existence of the sea-serpent has arisen from its being supposed to be the same animal as the Kraken, or rather from the names having been used indiscriminately.”
“In concluding this hurried statement, allow me to add my own testimony as to the existence of a large fish or reptile of cylindrical form. (I will not say sea-serpent.) Three years ago, while becalmed in a yacht between Bergen and Sogn in Norway, I saw (at about a quarter of a mile astern) what appeared to be a large fish ruffling the otherwise smooth surface of the fjord, and, on looking attentively, I observed what looked like the convolutions of a snake. I immediately got my glass, and distinctly made out three convolutions, which drew themselves slowly through the water. The greatest diameter was about ten or twelve inches. No head was visible; and from the size of each convolution, I supposed the length to be about thirty feet. The master of my yacht (who, as navigator, seaman, and fisherman, had known the Norwegian coast and North Sea for many years), as well as a friend who was with me, an experienced Norwegian sportsman and porpoise shooter, saw the same appearance at the same time, and formed the same opinion as to form and size. I mention my friend being a porpoise shooter, as many have believed that a shoal of porpoises following each other has given rise to the fable, as they called it, of the sea-serpent.”
* * * * *
=114=.--1845 or 1846, Summer.--(Copied in the _Illustrated London News_ of June, 13, 1857, from the _Cape Argus_ of March, 14, 1857).
“Sir,--I inclose a letter addressed to me by a friend Dr. Biccard (with a drawing) containing an interesting account of the sea-serpent seen by him and others off the old lighthouse at the entrance of Table Bay on the 16th. of last month. It savours not a little of presumption to maintain that such a marine monster does exist, in the face of the deliberately recorded opinion of the greatest living Zoologist, Professor Owen, yet I venture to do so upon the simple testimony of my own eyes. In the year 1845, or 6, Mr. G. D. Brunette (of St. George’s-street, the conveyancer) and myself were fishing at Camp’s Bay one bright, clear summer day. There was not a breath of air, and the water was as smooth as the surface of a pond. About midday we were leaving the rocks to proceed to the marine villa, when Mr. Brunette suddenly directed my attention to what he at first thought was a whale. A moment’s inspection was sufficient, however, to detect the real nature of the animal. At about a mile from the shore we saw a line of shining black objects, like a string of large casks, floating on the surface of the water, lying parallel with the shore. It kept gently bobbing up and down, and on one occasion we saw the whole length for a few seconds above the water. Judging from the size of an Indiaman, 1000 tons, at a similar distance, I should say the animal’s length was from 150 to 200 feet. Of its girth I can form no estimate; but, from the show it made at so great a distance, it must have been at least three feet above the level of the sea. Nor could we distinguish head from tail, though near one extremity we saw what looked like foam or froth, as though the animal was blowing water in a lateral direction. It seemed to be basking in the warm sun, with no other motion than that I have described, or dipping under occasionally. After watching it for about a quarter of an hour we started for the villa, for the purpose of borrowing a telescope, but we had scarcely walked ten yards when we observed the animal turn slowly round and then made off in a straight line to seawards, towards the N.W. It moved at a rapid rate; so much so that when we got to the house and procured the glass it had reached such a distance that we could not distinguish it better than we had done with our naked eyes while on the rocks. The motion while moving off was undulatory, the cask like substances submerging and emerging from time to time, and glittering in the sun till we lost sight of them altogether, which was about an hour after first seeing the animal. That this animal was a sea-serpent I never had the slightest doubt; yet, knowing the general incredulity on this subject, neither Mr. Brunette nor myself cared much to boast of what we had seen, so we said nothing about it; but as Dr. Biccard has obligingly, at my request, furnished me with particulars, for general information, of the animal seen by him under such favourable circumstances, I am induced to add my own poor testimony to the many facts now on record, proving conclusively the existence of a great marine saurian or some similar animal. I would point out that a gentleman as Dr. Biccard’s well known scientific attainments is not likely to mistake a seal for a serpent; and that the six or seven individuals who witnessed the evolutions of the animal at so short a distance as 200 yards could scarcely have been misled by a piece of seaweed, or by a seal.”
“The narrative of Dr. Biccard will be read with interest, and I beg to refer those who feel any interest in it to an article on the Great Sea-Serpent in the Westminster Review for January 1849.”
“Yours, &c.,” “Chas. A. Fairbridge.”
“Cape Town, 13th. March, 1857.”
The above mentioned letter will be inserted in its right place hereafter, (n°. 130). It is clear enough that we have here an unvarnished account of an appearance of a true sea-serpent. The appearance of a line of shining black objects, like a string of large casks is a common one. Its length, estimated at upwards of 150 feet, is surely not exaggerated, as we shall observe afterwards. As the animal raised itself at least three feet above the level of the sea, its diameter may have been some fifteen feet. The animal evidently lay with its nostrils just at water-level, so that in exhaling it caused “a foam or froth, as though blowing water in a lateral direction”. I think, that the observer was a little mistaken as to the direction, which cannot have been quite a lateral one.
* * * * *
=115=.--1845, July 28.--(_Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1606).
“The Rev. Mr. P. W. Deinbolt, Archdeacon of Molde, gives the following account of one, which was seen last summer near Molde. The 28th. of July, 1845, J. C. Lund, bookseller and printer; G. S. Krogh, merchant; Christian Flang, Lund’s apprentice, and John Elgenses, labourer, were out on Romsdale-fjord, fishing. The sea was, after a warm, sunshiny day, quite calm. About seven o’clock in the afternoon, at a little distance from the shore, near the ballast place and Molde Hove, they saw a long marine animal, which slowly moved itself forward, as it appeared to them, with the help of two fins, on the fore-part of the body nearest the head, which they judged by the boiling of the water on both sides of it. The visible part of the body appeared to be between forty and fifty feet in length, and moved in undulations, like a snake. The body was round and of a dark colour, and seemed to be several ells (an ell two feet) in thickness. As they discerned a waving motion in the water behind the animal, they concluded that part of the body was concealed under water. That it was one connected animal they saw plainly from its movement. When the animal was about one hundred yards from the boat, they noticed tolerably correctly its fore-part, which ended in a sharp snout; its colossal head raised itself above the water in the form of a semi-circle; the lower part was not visible. The colour of the head was dark brown and the skin smooth; they did not notice the eyes, or any mane or bristles on the throat. When the serpent came about a musket-shot near, Lund fired at it, and was certain the shots hit it in the head. After the shot it dived, but came up immediately. It raised its neck in the air, like a snake preparing to dart on his prey. After he had turned and got his body in a straight line, which he appeared to do with great difficulty, he darted like an arrow against the boat. They reached the shore, and the animal, perceiving it had come into shallow water, dived immediately and disappeared in the deep. Such is the declaration of these four men, and no one has cause to question their veracity, or imagine that they were so seized with fear that they could not observe what took place so near them. There are not many here, or on other parts of the Norwegian coast, who longer doubt the existence of the sea-serpent. The writer of this narrative was a long time sceptical, as he had not been so fortunate as to see this monster of the deep; but after the many accounts he has read, and the relations he has received from credible witnesses, he does not dare longer to doubt the existence of the sea-serpent.”
“P. W. Deinbolt.”
“Molde, 29th. Nov. 1845.”
I need scarcely observe that the eye-witnesses of this appearance were deceived as to their opinion that the “boiling of the water on both sides of the head” was caused by “two fins on the forepart of the body, nearest the head”. The two fore-flappers of the sea-serpent are situated at rather a great distance from the head. The animal has a very long neck. This assertion is proved by their own words: “it raised its neck in the air”. If there were two fins near the head, large enough to cause any boiling of water, they would have been seen then by the persons, who would have mentioned them. The so-called boiling of the water was nothing but the commonly observed rushing caused by the animal’s motion through the water.
* * * * *
=117=.--1846, August 8.--(_Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1608).
“Sunds Parsonage, August 31, 1846.”
“On Saturday, the 8th. inst., in the course between the islands of Sartor Leer and Tös, a sea-monster, supposed to be a sea-serpent, was seen by several persons. Early on this day as the steamer Biörgvin passed through Rognefjord towing a vessel to Bergen, Daniel Salomonson, a cotter, saw a sea-monster, whose like he declares he never met with although accustomed to the sea and its inhabitants from his earliest years. The animal came swimming from Rognefjord in a westerly direction towards his dwelling at Grönnevigskioeset, in the northern part of the parish of Sund. The head appeared like a Foering boat (about twenty feet long) keel uppermost, and from behind it raised itself forward in three, and sometimes four and five undulations, each apparently about twelve feet long: its rate appeared to be that of a light boat rowed by four active men. When it reached Grönnevigskioeset at a distance of two rifle-shots it turned with considerable noise and continued its course towards Lundenoes. Later about eleven o’clock on the same day his wife Ingeborg, in Daniel’s absence, heard a loud noise in the sea, and she and two little children saw a great sea monster, such as described above, take a northerly course, close by their place at such a rate that the waves were dashed on the shore in the same way as when a steamer is passing by. Neither of them say that they saw anything like eyes or fins, or indeed anything projecting from its round form, but they declare that the colour of the animal was dark brown, and that it often rose up with gentle undulations, sometimes, however, sinking below the surface so that merely a stripe indicated the rapid course of the gigantic body.--On the same morning a lad, by name Abraham Abrahamsen Hagenoes, was out fishing in the Rognefjord, not far from Lundenoes, and just ready to throw out his line, when he, as he asserts, became aware that on about one hundred fathoms a monster with a head as large as a Foering boat (about twenty feet long) and a long body lay upon the sea like large kegs and was nearing his boat: seized with a panic he exerted all his strength to reach the shore, and as the animal, apparently following him, was only about forty fathoms off, he leaped ashore, drew up the boat and ran up the bank, whence he viewed the monster which had by this time approached the shore within twenty fathoms. He says that that part of the body which was visible was about sixty feet in length, and that its undulating course was similar to the eel: that the colour of the back was blackish, shining strongly, and as far as he could distinguish there was a whitish stripe under the belly.”
“Report also says that the sea-serpent was seen by several persons in Biornfjord causing a great deal of dread, but of this our informants want authentic accounts. Our informant further says that he has no reason whatever to doubt the truth of the story of the man and his wife, or the truthworthiness of the lad Abraham, except as far as that his fears may have caused him to see several things through a magnifying glass.”
I am convinced that by a head as large as a Foering boat (about twenty feet long) must be meant the head and a great part of the neck. The other characters are mere repetitions of what we have so often observed. Very interesting again is the statement of the lad that the animal had a white stripe “under the belly”. As the lad cannot have seen the proper belly of the animal, it must have been the throat; the boy thought that he saw a snake, and I think that he, being questioned, would tell me that a snake has a head, a trunk and a tail, and hardly any neck and throat. I am also convinced, that the boy has not seen with a magnifying glass: the measurements, he gives, are not exaggerated.
* * * * *
In 1847, Mr. EDWARD NEWMANN, the Editor of the _Zoologist_ had the courage to open the columns of his Journal to all kinds of reports and discussions about the great sea-serpent. He says (p. 1604):
“It has been the fashion for so many years to deride all records of this very celebrated monster, that it is not without hesitation I venture to quote the following paragraphs in his defence. A month only has elapsed since I had occasion to quote with approbation, a very marked passage from the pen of Sir J. W. Hershell (Zool. 1586): I may apply it with equal propriety to the enquiry of the era of the Irish deer, or of the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent. Naturalists, or rather those who choose thus to designate themselves, set up an authority above that of fact and observation, the gist of their enquiries is whether such things _ought to be_, and whether such things _ought not to be_; now fact-naturalists take a different road to knowledge, they enquire whether such things _are_ and whether such things _are not_. The _Zoologist_, if not in itself the fountain-head of this _fact_ movement, may at least claim to be the only public advocate of that movement; and it is therefore most desirable, that it should call the attention of its readers to the following remarkable paragraphs. They are quoted from one of our daily papers, which gives them as literal translations from the Norse papers, in which they originally appeared; the localities mentioned are intimately known to all travellers in Norway; and the witnesses are generally highly respectable and of unimpeachable veracity. The very discrepancies in the accounts prove the entire absence of any preconcerted scheme of deception. The only question therefore for the fact-naturalists to decide, is simply, whether all of the records now collected, can refer to whales, fishes, or any other marine animals with which we are at present acquainted.”