Part 39

“Before ending the history of the interesting beings of which I have treated, I cannot help saying a few words about an animal, observed through centuries by many people of all ranks, and known to every one from the tales which are spread about it, but which is still ignored by naturalists. I mean the monstrous sea-serpent of the North, which in reality has nothing to do either with the sea-snakes, of which we have treated in the foregoing pages, or with my work. The numerous evidences given by very respectable persons to prove the existence of this enormous sea-animal, have imposed silence upon naturalists; I too should be silent, when the doubt which I always felt had not been turned into certainty by a little observation I made in the spring of 1826. Once when hunting on a stormy day along the coasts of the sea, I suddenly saw a sea-animal of great size swimming before the mouth of the Rhine-river. I was about to fire at this animal which I took for a shark, when I distinguished through the fog several others closely following each other. For the greater part hidden by the water, the upper part of this creature could be distinctly seen only for the short moment, when it was carried on the top of a wave, and plunged down into the precipice formed before it. The illusion caused by the continuous agitation of the waves indeed contributed to make doubtful the appearance of a great number of black objects, appearing together out of the water, disappearing the moment afterwards, and the whole of which deceitfully represented the simultaneous movements of the undulations of one single body. Convinced that the animals were unable to swim in vertical undulations, I kept looking at this spectacle, till I knew this monstrous creature to be composed of a little troop of porpoises.”

In the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_, of 1841, Mr. RATHKE, who published in it seven accounts of sea-serpents, gathered by him on his journey in Norway, says:

“If we submit the above mentioned evidences to an inquiry, we shall soon observe that they not only contain several contradictory statements, but that each of the evidences itself cannot even pretend to accuracy. Yet we may believe that what those persons took for a long animal, was really such a one. For I should not know, what else could be the cause of the illusion which has created the belief in such an animal. Truly, I know that some believe, that what has been taken for a so-called sea-serpent, to be nothing else but a row of porpoises, swimming in line. But all those persons, by whom the above-mentioned evidences are given were too familiar with the sea, and have too often observed porpoises together, 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’s holding its head above the surface, and about the size of it, must have been mere fiction, and this I cannot admit. 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.”

Again, as we learn in FRORIEP’S Neue Notizen, Vol. XXVIII, n^o. 606, p. 184, Nov. 1843, the Editors of the _Christiansand’s Posten_ after an account of a new appearance of the sea-serpent in the fjord of Christiansand, inserted in their columns, add the following remarks:

“This whole description tallies well with an appearance, which the writer of these lines has witnessed a few times in the North Sea, and if the inhabitants of the coast near Ibbestad, if not withheld by their fear of the supposed sea-monster, had rowed their boats to near the animal, they would undoubtedly have soon observed that the supposed intervals between the coils were nothing else but water. This great sea-serpent in reality consists of a row of porpoises, which in a shoal of from eight to twelve often swim after each other in line. As each of these brown animals, eight or ten feet long, when swimming, appears above the surface of the water at proportionably short intervals, in such a way, as if they were about to tumble head first, so every one, who sees such a row swimming, must at first sight believe to see the coils of an immense snake.”

In a letter from Mr. J. D. MORRIES STIRLING to Captain HAMILTON, R. N., Secretary to the Admiralty, we find the passage (see _Ill. Lond. News_ of October 28, 1848, and our n^o. 113):

“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.”

In ANDREW WILSON’S _Leisure Time Studies_ we read, 1879:

“The instance already alluded to, of a shoal of porpoises swimming in line, with their backs and dorsal fins appearing now and then, with a kind of regular alternating motion above the surface of the water, presents an example of a deceptive appearance brought about by a somewhat unusual habit of familiar animals.”

Mr. LEE in his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, 1883, treating of the figure of Mr. BENSTRUP (see our fig. 24), says:

“The supposed coils of the serpent’s body present exactly the appearance of eight porpoises following each other in line.”

I have treated of his explanation in the right place (n^o. 10). And on the following page he also asserts:

“I believe that in every case so far cited from Pontoppidan, as well as that given by Olaus Magnus, the supposed coils or protuberances of the serpent’s body were only so many porpoises swimming in line in accordance with their habit before mentioned. If an upraised head, like that of a horse, was seen preceding them, it was either unconnected with them, or it certainly was not that of a snake; for no serpent could throw its body into those vertical undulations.”

I repeat here what I have said above (n^o. 10): If Mr. LEE wishes to explain the coils by reference to porpoises, he ought to tell me what was the head that resembled a horse’s head.

Again on p. 96 of his work, after having concluded that the great calamaries “have played the part of the sea-serpent in many well-authenticated incidents”, he says: “In other cases, such as some of those mentioned by Pontoppidan, the supposed vertical undulations of the snake seen out of water have been the burly bodies of so many porpoises swimming in line--the connecting undulations beneath the surface have been supplied by the imagination.”

After an alleged appearance of a sea-serpent near Great Orme’s Head (n^o. 155), Mr. SIDEBOTHAM, a correspondent of _Nature_ writes in this journal (1883, Febr. 1):

“I have seen four or five times something like what your correspondent describes and figures, at Llandudno, crossing from the Little Orme’s Head across the bay, and have no doubt whatever that the phenomenon was simply a shoal of porpoises. I never, however, saw the head your correspondent gives, but in other respects what I have seen was exactly the same; the motions of porpoises might easily be taken for those of a serpent; once I saw them from the top of the Little Orme, they came very near the base of the rock, and kept the line nearly half across the bay.”

Here we have a remarkable assertion: “I never, however, saw the head.” I remind here my readers of Mr. CUMMINGS’ question “who ever saw a row of porpoises with a head of a seal?”

I need not say that porpoises swimming in line, do so very irregularly. They are in the habit of continually throwing up their bodies half above the surface of the water, and so their backfin is clearly visible, but nowhere the sea-serpent is said to have on each coil a backfin. Sometimes one porpoise is only visible, a moment afterwards three, eight, or more, but never the whole row is seen at once, while the undulations of the sea-serpent are constantly visible above the surface, moving with the greatest regularity. Every one will feel that this explanation is not satisfactory; it does not even explain a single observation. Besides, how to explain the swan-like neck, so often seen by reference to porpoises? To avoid repetitions, I beg the reader to refer to the testimonies of Mr. CUMMINGS (n^o. 29) and Mr. PRINCE (n^o. 63), in which they clearly bring to light the difference between the appearance of the sea-serpent and that of a row of porpoises.

And where a naturalist, like Mr. SCHLEGEL, describes the effect caused by a row of porpoises, he has no right to assert that those persons who declare to have seen the sea-serpent, were the dupe of an optical illusion. Mr. SCHLEGEL should have said: “On one occasion I was nearly deceived by a row of porpoises, but alas, I never saw a sea-serpent!”

* * * * *

The =second= explanation is that of the Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England (Boston). This Committee consisted of the Hon. Judge DAVIS, Prof. JACOB BIGELOW, and Mr. FRANCIS C. GRAY. This learned body after having published, 1817, exceedingly interesting reports, was of course morally bound to explain the phenomenon. What kind of beast could it be!? and before they began to feel puzzled, a _deus ex machina_ in the form of a sick, illformed and lame little snake presented itself suddenly in a field near Loblolly Cove. It was killed by a working man at that place, bought by Dr. So and So, and presented to the Committee to examine it, because people believed that this animal was a spawn of the great sea-serpent. The Committee really examined and dissected it and gave a full account of their experience in their _Report_. They considered the little =snake= to be =new to science=, closely allied to the _Coluber constrictor_ or Black Snake, a common species of North-America, and gave it the name of _Scoliophis atlanticus_. This account is followed by two documents describing how the _Scoliophis_ looked while it was alive, and the circumstance under which it was killed. I present here to my readers the _Scoliophis atlanticus_ reduced to ¹⁄₆ of its size, and a separate full-sized figure of its head, showing the two wounds caused by the pitchfork with which the animal was killed.

Next they gave: “A few remarks on the question” (broached by the public) “whether the great serpent, seen in the Harbour of Gloucester be the Scoliophis Atlanticus.” These “few remarks” fill three pages and a half and end with the words:

“On the whole, as these two animals agree in so many conspicuous, important and peculiar characters, and as no material difference between them has yet been clearly pointed out, excepting that of size, the Society will probably feel justified in considering them individuals of the same species, and entitled to the same name, until a more close examination of the great Serpent shall have disclosed some difference of structure, important enough to constitute a specific distinction.”

It is quite astonishing that scientific men could come to the conclusion that the large animal, that gave rise to the 51 accounts which the Committee could have gathered up to their days, was a full grown individual of the species they called _Scoliophis atlanticus_! If they had collected all these accounts, if they had seriously compared them, they would have come most probably to the conclusion that they did not know precisely what it was, but that it could never be a snake.

Also from another point of view it is hard to explain that the Committee believed the sea-serpent to be of the same species as the little _Scoliophis_. Three persons mentioned the tongue, which was not bifid, while the tongue of _Scoliophis_ is so! And the most accurate testimonies agree that the skin was smooth and had _no_ scales!

The newspapers brought the accounts of 1817 to Europe and no doubt drew the attention of many zoologists, but only Mr. H. M. DUCROTAY DE BLAINVILLE dared handle the subject publicly. As soon as the _Report_ of the Committee of 1817 reached him, he made an extract from it in his _Journal de Physique_, etc., Vol. 86, 1818, Paris. He, however, made much more of the little curious snake, apparently believing too that it was a new species, than of the large marine animal of which he was unable to give any explanation. Mr. DE BLAINVILLE does not hesitate to express his astonishment that the Committee concluded the sea-serpent to be a real snake and an adult of their _Scoliophis atlanticus_, and ended his extract:

“If we will now scrutinize severely the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent, we must avow that it would be difficult to deny the appearance in the sea near Cape Anne; of an animal of very great length, very slender, and swimming with rapidity, but that it is a true snake, is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as the _Scoliophis_, is an assertion still more doubtful; and finally to hold that it is of the same species, reduces the number of probabilities which become null, if one is to believe that such an immense animal as that observed in the sea, goes ashore to lay its eggs!”

For this is firmly believed by the members of the Committee!

For Mr. DE BLAINVILLE who did not give himself the trouble to collect as many accounts as possible, to read OLAUS MAGNUS, PONTOPPIDAN, EGEDE, etc., it was of course impossible to conceive what animal had been seen near Cape Ann, nor was he, for the same reason, able to explain the very different declarations of the witnesses concerning the length of the animal.

Mr. A. LESUEUR, who was a companion of the celebrated Mr. PÉRON, and who, in 1818, lived at Boston, wrote to Mr. DE BLAINVILLE to say that he had not only seen the little snake, but had dissected the same portion of the vertebral column as did the members of the Committee, together with several inches of another portion of the snake, and concluded that the figure of the little snake published by the Committee was very well drawn, but that the figure of the portion of the vertebral column was very badly done; of this he gave another figure, and furthermore asserted that the little snake not only was nothing else but a true snake, closely allied to the Black Snake (_Coluber constrictor_), but that it was in a state of disease and notably difformed. Of the great Sea-Serpent he said nothing, because he had not seen it himself.

The dissertation of Mr. DE BLAINVILLE and the extract from Mr. LESUEUR’S letter translated into German are in OKEN’S _Isis_, 1819.

Mr. FRORIEP in his _Notizen_, Vol. 4, 1823, expresses himself about this explanation in the following manner:

“As long as the Linnaean Society, to prove their explanation, cannot depose an accurate observation or a dissection, we may be allowed to entertain modest doubt about their explanation.”

Of this little _Coluber_ we find also the following passage in SCHLEGEL’S _Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens_, La Haye, 1837, p. 80:

“In the same country a snake has been found, probably of the species called _Coluber constrictor_, of which all parts were disfigured by sickness much so, that they believed to recognize in this kind of monster the famous Sea-Serpent of the North, so well-known for its enormous size. The extract from the dissertation, published in Boston, will be found in the _Journal de Physique_ Vol. 86, p. 297.”

Dr. HAMILTON, in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, apparently believes that the little _Scoliophis atlanticus_ was the spawn of the Great Sea-Serpent, at least he heads his Group III:

“The Great Sea-Serpent.”

“Scoliophis atlanticus? Linn. Soc. of Boston”.

We see that he is not quite sure of it, as he puts a note of interrogation after the scientific name.

Without any doubt the _Scoliophis atlanticus_ was a difformed specimen of _Coluber constrictor_. It was the bunches on its back, which induced the Committee to suppose this little snake to be a spawn of the sea-serpent, which had also bunches on its back. After the discovery that the little snake was a difformed one, the explanation falls to the ground. Moreover the smooth skin and the presence of four flappers of the sea-serpent, are proofs against this supposition.

* * * * *

The =third= explanation. In the Chapter on Hoaxes I have already inserted the letter from Prof. T. SAY, of Philadelphia, to Prof. LEACH, of London, in which the former, relying upon a trick of the crew of the vessel commanded by captain RICHARD RICH, firmly believed and declared the Sea-Serpent to be nothing but =a large tunny=. Prof. SAY’S letter is also printed in THOMSON’S _Annals_ of January, 1819. We have inserted a figure of a tunny in the above mentioned Chapter, fig. 1.

Prof. BIGELOW’S indignation rose against this explanation; in SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts._ Vol. II, Boston, 1820, we read:

“In some of the Scientific Journals remarks have been published, in which the testimony of these witnesses” (of Gloucester and elsewhere), “is announced to be an “absurd story”, attributable to a “defective observation connected with an extravagant degree of fear” (See Thomson’s _Annals_, for January 1819)”.

“In the American Journal of Science Vol. I, p. 260, is a note from the same author, on the identity of _Scoliophis_ with _Coluber constrictor_. As this gentleman probably received his knowledge on the subject from p. 40th. of the Linnaean Society’s Report, it might have been decorous in him to have noticed the source from which he got his information.”

“As the friends of Science can have no object in view more important than the attainment of truth, it is proper to submit to the public consideration some additional evidence in regard to the size and shape of this marine animal which has come to light since the publication of Captain Rich’s letter on the subject. This evidence is partly the result of observations during the present year, and partly the contents of a communication made to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences fifteen years ago, but which, having been mislaid, has not before been published. The reader will judge whether it is a “defective observation” which has produced a remarkable coincidence between witnesses in different periods and places, unknown to each other; or whether it was “an extravagant degree of fear” which induced the commander of an American frigate to man his boats and go with his mariners in pursuit of this unknown animal. It may be proper to add that the original letters constituting the communication last alluded to, are in the hands of the corresponding Secretary of the Academy, where they may be seen. It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination of Capt. Rich’s cruise will not deter others from improving any future opportunities which may occur for solving what may now perhaps be considered the most interesting problem in the science of Natural History.”

How to make the animal’s head (which is like that of a snake, a seal, a walrus, a sea-lion), its long neck, its four flappers, its enormous long pointed tail, agree with the general outlines of a tunny, even of nine or ten feet in length!?

* * * * *

The =fourth= explanation. Mr. CONSTANT SAMUEL RAFINESQUE SMALTZ, in his _Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes, and Sea-Serpents_ (_Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. 54, 1819.), is evidently convinced of the fact that there are several kinds of sea-serpents, which are merely =sea-snakes of a very large size=. (Family _Hydrophidae_), of which I give a figure representing the _Hydrophis pelamidoides_, and Mr. RAFINESQUE classes two different sea-serpents under this head, proposing for them the names of _Pelamis megophias_ (_Megophias monstrosus_) and _Pelamis monstrosus s. chloronotis_.

Mr. GOSSE, in his _Romance of Natural History_, after discussing the question whether the sea-serpent may be an optical illusion caused by a huge stem of sea-weed, or a large seal, a cetacean, a basking shark, a ribbon fish, or a large kind of eel, continues his considerations in the following terms:

“To the Reptiles, however, popular opinion has pretty uniformly assigned this denizen of the sea, and his accepted title of “sea-serpent” sufficiently indicates his zoological affinities in the estimation of the majority of those who believe in him. Let us, then, test his claims to be a serpent.”

“The marine habit presents no difficulty. For, in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, there are numerous species of true snakes (_Hydrophidae_), which are exclusively inhabitants of the sea. They are reported to remain much at the surface, and even to sleep so soundly there, that the passing of a ship through a group sometimes fails to awaken them.”

“None of these are known to exceed a few feet in length, and, so far as we know, none of them have been found in the Atlantic.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON on the contrary in September, 1878, declares in _Nature_ (Vol. XVIII, Sept. 12) that:

“As a firm believer from the standpoint of Zoology the large development of the marine ophidians of warm seas offers the true explanation of the sea-serpent mystery,....”

But a few lines further on he also tells us:

“I am far from contending that a sea-snake developed in the ratio of a giant “cuttle fish”, presents the only solution of this interesting problem. A long tape fish, or even a basking shark of huge dimensions, might do duty in the eyes of non-zoological observers for a “sea-serpent”.”--

In his _Leisure Time Studies_, the same writer returns to his favourite idea: