Chapter IV (2)

Here again it is stated that the sea-serpent is only seen in July and August (and PONTOPPIDAN believes that these two months are the pairing-time of the animal), that it only appears in calm weather, and dives under water as soon as the wind rises. The writer believes that the animal frequents only the shores of Norway. According to an account of OLAUS MAGNUS, it seems, however, that the sea-serpent was also seen in the Baltic Ocean, and we know now for certain that the animal which EGEDE saw in Davis’ Straits at 64° N. lat., was also our Sea-Serpent. Evidently our Bishop did not hit on the idea that the Sea-Serpent could be a migratory animal.

“Like all who are enemies to credulousness I too doubted of the existence of the sea-serpent, when at last my doubt was dispelled by incontestable proofs. Amongst our ablest navigators and fishermen of this country there are many hundreds who prove the existence of the sea-serpent as eye-witnesses, and they agree pretty well in their descriptions, though there are many others who declare that they know the sea-serpent only from the tales of their neighbours. I, however, in my inquiry hardly met with a person who, when born in the Northern provinces, did not answer immediately with the greatest certainty and assurance. Nay, some so-called north-sailors, who are here (in Bergen) every year for commercial interests, even consider it as a shame to be earnestly questioned on that subject. They consider this question as superfluous as that one, whether there exists a cod-fish or an eel.”

We see hereby that in Norway the belief in the existence of the sea-serpent was as firm as possible amongst the sea-faring people.

“Though no one has ever been able to measure this animal, many witnesses agree in telling that the serpent must be as long as a cable, viz., 100 fathoms or 300 ells, whilst it lay on the surface of the water, so that only here and there behind the head, which is held upwards, some parts of the back were visible, which were also held upwards, whilst the serpent bent; and from afar one would have believed that he saw some tuns or hogsheads, which floated in a line, so that there was a space between each of them.”

Though the length of a cable or six hundred feet given to the sea-serpent is exaggerated, it may be more than 100 feet, why not? For there are other sea-animals, such as the whale, which measures more than 88 feet, and the fin-fish (_Balaenoptera loops_) which sometimes attains a length of about 105 feet.

It has been stated to PONTOPPIDAN by most of the eye-witnesses that the animal shows by its vertical undulations several coils above the water, and that these coils resembled from afar tuns or hogsheads floating in a line. It is very remarkable that these facts are repeatedly stated by witnesses who are independent of one another, even by persons who never heard of a sea-serpent.

“The head of all these animals has rather a high and broad forehead; some, however, have a sharp snout, others a quadrangular beak as cows and horses have, with large nostrils, and on the sides there are a few stiff hairs, or bristles, as other animals have with a good nose. And that the sea-serpent has a good nose, is proved by its flying away at the smell of castoreum, which the people who go out in summer to fish on the great bank, will never forget to take with them.”

The various ways of describing the head may be owed to this that different persons saw the head in different positions, that some of them saw it for such a short moment that it was impossible to say with certainty what form it had. It is not always explicable why one describes the head of an animal in one way and another in quite another. As to me I see in the head of a seal that of an otter, others distinctly see a man’s or a cat’s head in it, and the people in the service of the Zoological Gardens in the Hague exclaim “why, I can very well understand why that animal is called a sea-dog; it has a dog’s head, to be sure!” The fact is that we don’t know with any certainty the form of the sea-serpent’s head, but _most probably_ it resembles that of a sea-lion, which has also a head with a broad and flattened forehead, rather pointed, seen from one side, and blunt, seen in front. Here mention is also made of the large nostrils and the bristles on the lips of the animal.

“The eyes are, as one says, large and blue, they are rather like a pair of pewter plates.”

The eyes again are described differently. We have already heard them described as being black, red as fire, and now they are blue, viz. the ordinary blue, called tin-colour, that is a bluish-grey or a greyish-blue; so a grey rabbit is also called a blue rabbit; and grey fowls are called blue-fowls; there is rather a lilac tint to be observed in it. I cannot explain those differences otherwise than in the following way: when an observer sees the eyes in an oblique direction, he will always see this grey colour; when more in the axis of the eye, the colour is a bright dark black one, and when occasionally seen thus that the “tapetum lucidum” of the eye reflects the day-light, it is, as if the eyes were sparkling like fire.

“The serpent’s colour is dark brown over the whole body, but thereby spotted, and with light streaks, or maculated with distinctly visible light spots, like a turtle or a lackered table, except in the region of mouth and eyes where it is rather dark, so that it resembles those horses which we call moorish-heads or black-faces.”

We shall repeatedly have occasion to observe that these statements are correct. All eye-witnesses agree in this point.

“That this animal spouts like a whale through its nostrils, as Mr. EGEDE saw, has never been seen here by anybody.”

It is remarkable that though EGEDE has nowhere asserted that his animal was a sea-serpent, our learned Bishop seems to have recognized it as such at once, believing, however, it to be another species of the same genus. We have already stated that EGEDE did not see the animal spouting water, but he only saw the warm breath of the animal condensed in the cold air, just as BING, his brother missionary, figured it, and just as it is mentioned by accurate observers of whales. It is very easy to understand that EGEDE saw it, for the animal had apparently been under water for a long time; it suddenly appeared with so much violence, that a considerable part of its body was elevated above the surface of the sea, whilst, by a violent blow, the breath, hitherto held in, was pushed into the air. In this way parts of mucus of the inner surface of the nostrils and the little quantity of water adhering to the valves of the nose, must have been driven away at the same time, and the whole effect has been very accurately described by EGEDE and figured by BING, but has afterwards been exaggerated and altered by PONTOPPIDAN (see our fig. 22), and also in our century by Dr. R. HAMILTON (see our fig. 23).

“But many agree in telling that when it swims rapidly through the water, it propels before it the water with such a violence that it murmurs like a small mill-brook.”

This peculiarity has been repeatedly confirmed by the most trustworthy eye-witnesses as we will observe more than once afterwards.

“Also the common sea-serpents of our shore differ from those of the Greenland-coasts, seen by EGEDE, in having no rough and hard skin, but a smooth one like a mirror, except on the neck, on which it has a mane, resembling sea-weed.”

Remarkable again is the statement of its smooth skin, remarkable too is the declaration of the sea-serpent having a mane, and most remarkable the resemblance of this mane to sea-weed, an observation made by several eye-witnesses independant of each other. It is surprising that PONTOPPIDAN silently passes over the difference between his two kinds of sea-serpents: that the Greenland one has two flappers on the fore-part of its trunk.

“As they cast their skin like common snakes, some people pretend, that a few years ago, a table-cloth has been made of such a slough found in the harbour of Kobbervueg. This made me so curious, that I wrote to one of the inhabitants of that harbour, to inquire after it, and as the proverb says, to get a strap of the skin. However, there was nothing of that skin, at least at that time. And a man of that harbour, who came to Bergen, told me he knew nothing at all about it.”

As to the renewing of the skin, we see that the Bishop was taken in! But we must respect him that he did not rest before he knew the truth or the untruth of the fact, and that he also mentions his inquiry. Though the Bishop may have been deceived, his endeavours to find out the truth enhance his trustworthiness.

“That the flesh of these animals is soft, has been stated by some who tell of a small, and probably young sea-serpent which was taken unexpectedly on board a ship. It instantly died, and nobody dared to touch it, till the crew was forced at last to cast it over board, owing to the intolerable smell arising from the soft and tough slime, in which it was dissolved by the action of the air. But this animal cannot have been a sea-serpent, for, as will be remembered, it is only seen in the calmest weather and sinks into the deep at the least motion in the air.”

We agree with the Bishop, though for other reasons than he.

After having related the two strandings of a sea-serpent (n^o. 6, 7), PONTOPPIDAN goes on:

“I would that in such cases some one had inquired whether this serpent had a strong backbone, which seems to be necessary to keep together the mass of such a gigantic animal. The sharks, however, which are also cartilaginous fishes without bones, have such a backbone, but it is very subtile and even in the largest sharks only ten ells long. The sea-serpent, like sharks, eels and whales also seems to be a viviparous, not an oviparous fish, and most probably it seeks the other sex in the above mentioned season. It is said, that when this animal is ruttish, it looks after ships and boats, which it probably takes for something else. If this be true, as seamen say, those are wrong who think that the sea-serpent is not born in the sea, but on land, and lives in forests and among mountains, till it can no longer hide its body in it; it is said that it then seeks some river, and floats out to the sea, as some people pretend to have seen.”

There is but one single reason why we think the sea-serpent is a viviparous being, viz. its hairy skin. It is certain that an animal with long hairs on its neck, has also hairs on its whole body, which has also been stated once already (n^o. 8), and hairy animals are viviparous (except the _Monotrymata_). Most probably PONTOPPIDAN called the sea-serpent viviparous for the same reason, otherwise I cannot find a single fact that would have led him to this conclusion. Its seeking the other sex cannot be a reason, for all animals do so in the warm season. I think that it looked after ships because it is a curious animal, knowing no fear of strange things or persons. It is evidently a fable that it brings forth young ones on the shore, probably originating in the fact that the sea-serpent has sometimes been seen in fjords, even in small ones, or probably originating in the fact that also seals creep ashore in the critical moment, whelp there and return with their young ones to the sea as soon as possible.

“The question which troubles us most is the following: Is this animal dangerous to men, and how are they to defend themselves against this monster? ARENDT BERNDSEN (_Danmarks og Norges frugtbare Herlighed_ p. 308) answers the first question in the affirmative, and tells us that the sea-serpent, as well as the sperm-whale, even often runs down men and ships. That such things happened in this region, I never heard of with certainty; but the north-sailors tell that it had occasionally happened that the sea-serpent raised itself and threw itself straight across a boat, nay across a large yacht of several hundred tons, and had dragged it to the depths. One of these north-sailors tells that he was once so close to the serpent, that he might have touched its smooth skin; he mentions at the same time that this serpent sometimes snatches a man from a boat, with its head raised upward and gives the others of the crew an opportunity to escape. Whether these reports are to be believed or not, I don’t know, because it is uncertain whether these serpents live on prey.”

We see the Bishop weighing and considering whatever he heard, and not accepting everything for truth. We think that PONTOPPIDAN is right in giving no credit to the narrative that the sea-serpents made themselves guilty of sinking ships and eating men. It is mentioned already twice, that the sea-serpent raised itself high above the surface of the water; yet the flappers are not mentioned; so we may conclude that these are situated far from the head, or, what is the same, that the animal has a very long neck.

PONTOPPIDAN further tells us that the sea-serpent sometimes encloses ships by laying itself round them in a circle, that the fishermen then row over its body there where a coil is visible, for when they reach the coil, it sinks, while on the contrary the invisible parts rise. Further, that the serpent swims with an incredible velocity, and that the fishermen who are much afraid of it, when seeing that it follows them, throw any object, for instance a scoop, at it, when the animal generally plunges into the deep. But most fishermen are in the habit of taking castoreum with them, for the serpent cannot bear the smell of it. And still further on he tries to explain the considerable length of the animal some witnesses speak of; the Bishop namely believes that two or more individuals followed each other, for they are only seen in rutting-time. And in his tenth paragraph, trying to answer the question, why those large serpents only frequent the northern seas, he says:

“To this question I answer that the Creator of all beings disposes of the dwellings of His different creatures in different places by His wise intentions, which are not to be known to us. Why won’t the reindeer thrive anywhere but in the high and cold mountains? Why do the whales frequent only the north pole? Why are India and Egypt almost the only countries, where men have to fear crocodiles? No doubt because it pleases the wise Creator.”

Here PONTOPPIDAN takes leave of the Sea-Serpent, and begins to treat of the large snakes mentioned by PLINIUS and other ancient authors, and we too will take leave of our honest and trustworthy Bishop, who has so often been laughed at for what he relates in his chapter on monsters. And yet two of his monsters, the mermaids and the Kraken, are unmasked, why cannot his third be accounted for?

* * * * *

Now let us again collect all the facts which are not impossible from a zoologist’s point of view.

We have before us an animal of the following imperfect description:

The whole _length_ of this animal far surpasses one hundred feet, and the smallest individual ever seen measured eighteen feet. The greatest _thickness_ or diameter seems to be in the foremost third of its whole length, and in large individuals surpasses ten or even fifteen feet. Its _head_ is small in reference to the body, its _neck_ is long and slender, round as the body of a snake or eel; the thick _trunk_ too is round: The _tail_ is also round, thinner than the body and gradually grows thinner to its end, which is pointed. The animal has four _flappers_. The foremost are probably found about one fourth of the length, the hindmost probably in the middle of the whole length. The _skin_ of the animal is hairy or woolly as a seal-skin; when wet it is smooth and glittering as a mirror. A long _mane_ hangs down from the neck, and that mane is sometimes described as resembling sea-weed; when dry, the mane is whitish, or pale. The _head_ is described as resembling that of a seal, or that of a horse. It tapers to the nose of the animal, so that some witnesses declare it has a sharp snout, others, however, that its end is like that of a cow’s, or a horse’s head, it has a broad and high, but flattened _forehead_. The _nostrils_ are large, but as they are not always seen, it is evident that the animal can close them like a seal; on the _lips_ some stiff hairs or bristles are planted. The _colour of the head_, when wet, is dark brown, when dry, however, greyish, except round the mouth and the eyes, where it is almost black. The _mouth_ is large and provided with _teeth_. The _eyes_ are large, sometimes described as being bluish and dull, sometimes black, glittering and brilliant, and sometimes reddish as a burning fire. We have already tried to explain these different statements. Its _eye-brows_ are distinctly visible. Of the _neck_ no particulars are observed except that it is long, round, and bears a mane, I should say like that of the Antarctic Sea-lions (_Otaria jubata_) but much more developed. Its _fore-flappers_ are broad and large, and have probably an indented hind-edge, for Mr. BING drew externally visible fingers. Of its _hind-flappers_ nothing is mentioned. There is a visible _difference in thickness between the trunk and the_ very long _tail_ of the animal: the body is not gradually growing smaller where the tail begins, but becomes small at once, and very distinctly. Here the animal’s hind-flappers must be placed. The _colour_ of the body is said to be a dark brown, spotted and with light streaks, or marked with distinctly visible light spots. It has an astonishing flexibility in the neck as well as in the trunk and in the tail. It can bend its body sideways and backwards, and undulate it up and down like a rope. When the animal bends till it is U- or horse-shoe shaped, the skin obtains many folds or wrinkles. The _mode of swimming_ is mostly by vertical undulations, which are partly visible above the surface of the water; the end of the tail is always hidden under water when the animal swims. From afar the visible parts of the coils are said to resemble tuns, buoys, wine-barrels or hogsheads. The coils are either very large, and then 7 or 8 of them are visible, and a distance of a fathom is between each two coils, or they are very small, and then it is said that twenty-five of them are visible. This is only to be explained by the degree of speed with which the animal undulates its body. For the same reason it also swims more or less swiftly; it may also swim with its body in a straight line, using in this case of course its flappers; this, however, happens very seldom; when swimming rapidly it propels the water before it with such a violence, that it boils and splashes up, with foam and a distinctly audible rushing. When swimming, the animal holds its head two feet above the surface of the water. Sometimes it raises its neck and head to a considerable height. Once the condensed breath of the animal was visible, and it was said to blow like a whale. It is only seen in summer and in fine weather. It is harmless when not provoked, it is curious and stupid. It feeds probably on cuttles, lobsters and crabs, (certainly however on fish.).

* * * * *

Now we will go on with the perusal of the accounts concerning the animal and we shall observe that in general the accounts or rather the descriptions of the eye-witnesses repeat, and sometimes even in particulars, what we have gathered from the 14 above mentioned accounts and from what PONTOPPIDAN has taught us. I first invite the reader to follow me to the eastern coasts of the United States, next to the Northern Pacific, on the western coasts of Scotland, then again to the United States, and finally to Norway. In all these places, nay in every part of the world we shall meet with the animal which we shall find to be a true cosmopolitan, though the Atlantic seems to be its proper place of residence.

* * * * *

=15=.--1751.--In a letter from Capt. GEORGE LITTLE to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, printed in the second volume of SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and Arts_, we read:

“A monster of the above description was seen in the same place, by JOSEPH KENT, of Marshfield, 1751. KENT said he was longer and larger than the main boom of his sloop, which was 85 tons. He had a fair opportunity of viewing him, as he saw it within ten or twelve yards of his sloop.”

In the “above description” the sea-serpent is described as having the appearance of a large black snake, from 45 to 50 feet long, with a head of nearly the size of that of a man, which he carried four or five feet above the water, and with the greatest diameter of 15 inches. The individual which was seen by JOSEPH KENT was evidently larger; by “the same place” is meant Round Pond in Broad Bay and near Muscongus Island.

* * * * *

KNUD LEEMS, as we learn in A. DE CAPELL BROOKE’S _Travels through Norway_, a northern divine, wrote his _Beskrivelse over Finmarkens Lappen_, 1765, in which he mentions, p. 332, the sea-serpent in the following terms:

“The Finmark Sea also produces the hydra or sea-serpent, a huge monster, forty “passus” long, with a head resembling in size that of large sea-fishes, in shape that of a snake. This beast has a neck with a mane like a horse’s, a grey back and a whitish belly. In the dog days, when the sea is free from wind, the sea-serpent will come to the surface, bend itself in several coils, of which some are partly visible above the water, whilst others remain hidden under it. The seamen greatly fear this monster, and they do not trust themselves on the sea, when the animal is on the surface.”

The length of forty “passus”, i. e. 200 feet, the large head, resembling that of a snake, the mane, the grey back, the habit of the animal to swim with vertical undulations, are all characters known to us. We have here a new one, viz. that the belly is whitish, which we shall frequently meet hereafter. It is, however, not the belly that is meant here, but the animal’s throat. The animal’s neck being cylindrical, and its flappers constantly hidden under water, the observers thinking that the animal is eel-shaped, always call its throat “the belly”. We may safely suppose that the whole throat and the breast were seen, though not described, by HANS EGEDE, but that even he did not see the true belly.

* * * * *

=16=.--1770?--In a letter from Mr. MC. LEAN to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD written in Aug. 1803, and published in SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and Arts_ (Vol. II) we read:

“One of the same kind was seen above thirty years ago, by the deceased Capt. PAUL REED, of Boothbay.”

* * * * *

=17=.--1777 or 1778.--(_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV, Part I).

“The next notice is from Capt. ELEAZAR CRABTREE, who saw it in the same (Penobscot) Bay about the year 1785; he estimated its length at sixty feet, and its diameter he thought equal to that of a barrel, which is about twenty two inches.”

A testimony on oath was forwarded by Capt. CRABTREE to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, “but this was lost or mislaid.”--Fortunately, however, the notice was afterwards found back, and, as Prof. BIGELOW (see SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_ Vol. II) says, “is now in the hands of the corresponding Secretary of the Academy,” Mr. JOHN Q. ADAMS, “where it may be seen.”

Mr. A. BRADFORD anxious to have all the information he could get, did not rest satisfied till he had a testimony of Capt. CRABTREE. Capt. CRABTREE, however, at that time an old man did not write this testimony himself, but had it written by another in his presence and signed it as a correct statement. It is published in the above mentioned Journal, Vol. II, and runs as follows:

“Capt. CRABTREE, now of Portland, (late of Fox Islands, in the Bay of Penobscot), declares, that in the year 1777 or 1778, upon information of a neighbour, that a large serpent was in the water, near the shore, just below his house, and having often been told by individuals that they had before seen a similar sea-monster in that quarter, and doubting of the correctness of their reports, was induced to go down to the water to satisfy his own mind--that he saw a large animal, in the form of a snake, lying almost motionless in the sea, about thirty rods from the bank where he stood--that his head was about four feet above water--that, from the appearance of the animal, he was 100 feet in length--that he did not go off to the animal through fear of the consequences, and that he judged him to be about three feet diameter; he also says, that before that time, many people, living on those islands, on whose reports he could depend, had declared to him that they had seen such an animal--and that more than one had been seen by several persons together.”

“Signed”

“ELEAZAR CRABTREE.”

We have again the statement that the sea-serpent held its head four feet above the surface of the water; its length was estimated at 100 feet, its diameter three feet; it was evidently this slenderness which led Capt. CRABTREE to compare the sea-serpent with a snake. The undulations are not mentioned, consequently most probably it lay stretched out.

* * * * *

=18=.--1779.--(_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV. P. 1). “It appears by papers sent to the Academy in the year 1810, that this serpent was first seen in Penobscot Bay about the year 1779, by Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY: he compared it to an unwrought spar (meaning probably one of spruce), which the scaly surface and dark colour of the animal would very much resemble; he thought it fifty or sixty feet in length.”

It is evident that Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY only compared it with an unwrought spar, and estimated the length of the visible part to be fifty or sixty feet. Now Mr. W. D. PECK adds: “which the scaly surface and the dark colour of the animal would very much resemble”. I, however, take it that the animal swam with its body in a straight line, elevating its back but very little above the surface of the water, yet showing a length of fifty to sixty feet, and so the back of the neck and trunk quite covered with a mane resembling sea-weed, and the dark colour of the animal must have led Mr. STEPHAN TUCKEY to the comparison with an unwrought spar.

* * * * *

=19=.--1780, May.--“Captain GEORGE LITTLE” who saw the animal, wrote “a letter” containing his observation to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, “but this letter is lost or mislaid” (_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV, P. 1.). When we consult SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. of Sc. and Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820), we observe that Mr. ALDEN BRADFORD collected for truth’s sake some affidavits of eye-witnesses; he had learned that Capt. GEORGE LITTLE was an eye-witness, he asked him for an affidavit, which he received and forwarded to the corresponding Secretary of the Academy; after some trouble the letter was found back and published. It runs as follows:

“Marshfield, March, 13th., 1804.”

“Sir”,

“In answer to yours of 30th. of January last, I observe, that in May, 1780, I was lying in Round Pond, in Broad Bay, in a public armed ship. At sunrise, I discovered a large Serpent, or monster, coming down the Bay, on the surface of the water. The cutter was manned and armed. I went myself in the boat, and proceeded after the serpent. When within a hundred feet, the mariners were ordered to fire on him, but before they could make ready, the Serpent dove. He was not less than from 45 to 50 feet in length; the largest diameter of his body, I should judge, 15 inches; his head nearly of the size of that of a man, which he carried four or five feet above the water. He wore every appearance of a common black snake. When he dove he came up near Muscongus Island--we pursued him, but never came up within a quarter of a mile of him again.”

“I have the honor to be sir,

“Your friend and humble servant

“Geo. Little.”

It is evident that the animal moved away from the Captain, who thus saw only its occiput. As the head is thought to have nearly the size of that of a man, and the whole length to be 45 to 50 feet, it is evident that either the head is estimated too small, or the length too great; moreover it is clear that the captain saw nearly the whole length; this sometimes occurs; generally, however, only the foremost part is visible. Again it is mentioned that the sea-serpent held its head four feet above the surface of the water, and that the colour was black.

A letter from Mr. A. MC. LEAN to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, printed in the same pages, contains a passage, running as follows:

“Another was seen in Muscongus Bay in time of the American war, two miles from the place where I lived then.”

I consider this passage as relative to Capt. GEORGE LITTLE’S observation.

* * * * *

=20=.--1781?--In the same letter the above mentioned lines are followed by the words:

“and another soon afterwards off Meduncook”.

* * * * *

=21=.--1782?--In a letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, of Bath, to the Hon. Judge DAVIS, of Boston, dated September 7, 1818, and published in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:

“Mr. CUMMINGS observes, that the British saw him in their expedition to Bagaduse”...... “The British supposed the length of that which they saw to be three hundred feet, but this Mr. CUMMINGS imagines to be an exaggeration.”

I think Mr. CUMMINGS is right in this supposition.

* * * * *

=22=.--1783? --In the same letter we read:

“People also of Mount Desert have seen the monster.”

* * * * *

=23=.--1784?--In the same letter we find:

“June 28th., 1809. Mr. CUMMINGS observes that a Mr. CROCKET saw two of them together about twenty years since”....... “One of those seen by Mr. CROCKET was smaller than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS, and their motion in the sea appeared to be a perpendicular winding, and not horizontal.”

This appearance is also mentioned in the _Mem. Am. Acad. Arts Sc._ (IV, I, 1818) where we read about the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands:

“and one of them, a Mr. CROCKET, had seen two of them together about the year 1787.”

And in SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820) we read in a letter from Mr. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, written Jan., 1804:

“About twenty years since, two of those serpents, they say, were seen by one Mr. CROCKET, who then lived upon Ash Point.”

The fact that there were _two_ animals together only claims our attention, which is of course not wonderful, as they may have been a male and a female, or a mother and a young one. One of the two must have been quite small, as it is reported: “One of those was smaller than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS”; consequently the other was as large as or even larger than that seen by Mr. CUMMINGS, ergo the difference in size of these two must have been considerable. The occurrence of two together is reported only a very few times. Evidently these animals lead solitary lives.

We see that the dates differ, but we will take the date of 1784, relying upon the words of Mr. CUMMING’S letter of 1804: “about twenty years since”.

* * * * *

=24=.--1785?--In the same letter it says:

“Sept. 10, 1811. Have heard to day further testimony respecting the Sea-Serpent of the Penobscot. A Mr. STAPLES, of Prospect, of whom I inquired as I passed, was told by a Mr. MILLER, of one of the Islands in the bay, that he had seen it; and “it was as big as a sloop’s boom, and about sixty or seventy feet long”.

* * * * *

=25=.--1786, August 1.--(_Zoologist_, 1847, p. 1911).--

“Having seen much notice taken in the _Zoologist_ of the question of the great sea-serpent, allow me to subjoin an extract from the log-book of a very near relative, dated August 1st., 1786, onboard the ship “_General Coole_”, in lat. 42° 44′ N., and long. 23° 10′ W.--”

“A very large snake passed the ship; it appeared to be 16 or 18 feet in length, and 3 or 4 feet in circumference, the back of a light ash-colour and the belly thereof yellow.”

“According to the log the ship was becalmed at the time. You may rely on the correctness of this, and any one desiring of satisfy himself may see the original log.” “S. H. Saxby; Bouchurch, Isle of Wight. September, 8, 1847.”

Of course only the length is given of the visible part, else it would be impossible that an animal of 16 feet in length and 3 or 4 feet in circumference made the impression of being a serpent or snake; the whole trunk and tail must have been hidden under water. As the colour of the animal’s back is noted as a light ash-colour, I suppose that the animal having swum a long time in the sun without diving under water, the skin had become dry and showed the ash-colour; the colour of the belly (read throat) is stated to be yellow. This statement already mentioned above we shall see repeated more than once.

* * * * *

=26=.--1787?--In the letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, dated, Bath, September 17, 1817, to the Hon. Judge Davis of Boston, and printed in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:

“Aug. 23, 1809.--Mr. CHARLES SHAW (then of Bath, now an attorney in Boston,) informed me, that a Capt. LILLIS, with whom he had sailed, observed cursorily in conversation, that he had seen off the coast a very singular fish; it appeared, said he, more like a snake than a fish, and was about forty feet long. It held its head erect, had no mane, and looked like an ordinary serpent. He asked Mr. SHAW if he had ever seen, or read, or heard of such an animal.”

* * * * *

=27=.--1794?--In the same letter from the Rev. Mr. JENKS, printed in the _Report_ of 1817, we find:

“Mr. Cummings observes that the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands have seen such an animal”......

“When he was seen by the inhabitants of Fox and Long Islands two persons were together at both times.”

It is clear that the year 1794 must be fixed as the date for one of the two times, for in the letter from Mr. CUMMINGS to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD, written in Jan., 1804, and printed in the second volume of SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and Arts_, (1820), we find the following passage:

“A few years before, perhaps ten years since, two of those large serpents were seen by two other persons on that Island” (Fox Island) “as their neighbours informed me.”

Again two individuals were seen together.

* * * * *

=28=.--1799?--And the date of the second time, that the animal was seen, must be the year 1799, for in the same letter from Mr. CUMMINGS (1804), it says:

“Two young men of Fox Island, intelligent and credible, saw an animal of this kind about five years since, as they then informed me. They told me, that the serpent which they saw was about sixty feet long, and appeared to have an ascending and descending motion.”

* * * * *

=29=.--1802 July.--In the letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS, of Bath, to the Hon. Judge DAVIS, of Boston, dated September 17, 1817, and published in the _Report_ of 1817, we read:

“June 28th. 1809. The Rev. Mr. ABRAHAM CUMMINGS who has been much employed in Missions in the District of Maine, and navigated his own boat among the islands, &c. in the discharge of his duty, informs me, in conversation, which was immediately written from his lips, that in Penobscot bay has been occasionally seen within these thirty years, a sea-serpent, supposed to be about sixty feet in length, and of the size of a sloop’s mast. Rev. Mr. CUMMINGS saw him, in company with his wife and daughter, and a young lady of Belfast, MARTHA SPRING; and judged he was about three times the length of his boat, which is twenty three feet. When he was seen this time he appeared not to notice the boat, though he was distant, as nearly as could be ascertained, but about fifteen rods.” ..... “A gentleman of intelligence (Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD of Wiscasset, now Secretary of the Commonwealth) inquired of Mr. CUMMINGS whether the appearance might not be produced by a number of porpoises following each other in a train; but Mr. CUMMINGS asserts, that the animal held its head out of water about five feet till he got out to sea; for when seen he was going out of the bay, and Mr. CUMMINGS was ascending it. The colour was a bluish green about the head and neck, but the water rippled so much over his body, that it was not possible to determine its tint. The shape of the head was that of a common snake, flattened, and about the size of a pail. He was seen approaching, passing, and departing. Till this, Mr. CUMMINGS was as incredulous in respect to its existence, as many of his neighbours. The weather was calm, and it was the month of August, in which month, Mr. CUMMINGS remarks, that, as far as he had heard, the serpent makes his appearance on the coast.”

“I am inclined to suppose that Mr. Cummings’ account is that, which in one of the public papers was lately alluded to, as having been communicated to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, but mislaid.”

In the _Mem. Am. Acad. Arts and Sc._ Vol. IV. Part 1, 1818, we read also:

“A letter from this gentleman” (Mr. CUMMINGS) “was forwarded to the Academy about the year 1806, giving a particular account of the animal, as he saw it at a small distance; but this letter is lost or mislaid.”

Fortunately this letter was only mislaid, and found back in the hands of the corresponding Secretary, the Hon. JOHN Q. ADAMS, and printed in SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and Arts_ (Vol. II, 1820). The letter runs as follows:

“Sullivan, Aug. 17th. 1803.”

“My Dear Sir,”

“With peculiar pleasure I comply with your request, though the urgency of my affairs must excuse my brevity. It was sometime in July 1802 that we saw this extraordinary sea monster, on our passage to Belfast, between Cape Rosoi and Long Island. His first appearance was near Long Island. I then supposed it to be a large shoal of fish with a seal at one end of it, but wondered that the seal should rise out of water so much higher than usual; but, as he drew nearer to our boat, we soon discovered that this whole appearance was but one animal in the form of a serpent. I immediately perceived that his mode of swimming was exactly such as had been described to me by some of the people of FOX Islands, who had seen an animal of this kind before, which must confirm the veracity of their report. For this creature had not the horizontal but an ascending and descending serpentine motion. This renders it highly probable that he never moves on land to any considerable distance and that the water is his proper element. His head was rather larger than that of a horse, but formed like that of a serpent. His body we judged was more than sixty feet in length. His head and as much of his body as we could discover was all of a blue colour except a black circle round his eye. His motion was at first but moderate, but when he left us and proceeded towards the ocean, he moved with the greatest rapidity. This monster is the sixth of the kind, if our information be correct, which has been seen in this bay within the term of eighteen years. Mrs. CUMMINGS, my daughter and Mss. MARTHA SPRING were with me in the boat all that time, and can attest to the above description.”

“I continue yours in Christian affection

“ABRAHAM CUMMINGS.”

“REV. ALEXANDER MC. LEAN.”

Mr. MC. LEAN forwarded this letter to the Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD who says of it:

“The account was liable to some objections, and not so particular as might be wished. I therefore wrote Mr. Cummings, and in reply, received a statement more in detail,”

which runs as follows:

“Sullivan, Jan. 18th. 1804.”

“Rev. and Dear Sir,”

“I can recollect nothing material which could render my description of that animal more convincing. I am not sure that this motion was ascending and descending; all we can say is, _it appeared so to us_ (for he was seen not only by me, but by three other persons). His real motion might be horizontal. Perhaps his nearest distance from us was ten rods. The sea was then very smooth, and very little wind, but still there was such a constant rippling of the water over his body, that I could not distinctly observe the magnitude or colour of any part but his head and neck. The degree of his rapidity I cannot explain. But certain I am that he had a serpent’s head, of a colour as blue as possible, and a black ring round his eye. The head was three feet in circumference _at least_. Who ever saw fifty or sixty porpoises moving after each other in a right line, and in such a manner that those who formed the rear were no larger than haddock or mackerel, and none but the foremost shewed his head? Who ever saw a serpent’s head upon a porpoise or whale? We saw him swim as far as from Long Island to the Cape before he disappeared. His head and neck all the time out of water. Now who ever saw a porpoise swim so great a distance without immerging at all? This is the best information which you can obtain from

“Your Friend and Servant”

“ABRAHAM CUMMINGS.”

“Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD.”

“P. S. The head and neck of the animal were of the same colour.”

The first apparently inexplicable fact is that Mr. CUMMINGS declares the colour of the head and neck first “blue”, then “as blue as possible,” and a few years afterwards “a bluish green.” But I think that we must not rely too much upon this definition of the colour, for, as we observe in daily life, different persons will give different names to a dark colour, some will call a nearly black colour “blue” while another does not see any blue in it at all; consequently we may safely suppose that the colour was the common dark brown, nearly black one, and that Mr. CUMMINGS called such a colour “as blue as possible” or “a bluish green.” Yet it is probable that the colour of sea-serpents may sometimes vary as in our common seals.

It is a fact that claims our close attention that the first impression the animal made upon him was “to be a large shoal of fish” (read “porpoises”) “with a head of a seal at one end of it, but wondered that the seal should rise out of water so much higher than usual”. Here we have an almost faithful picture of the common appearance of the animal, which reminds us of Mr. Benstrup’s figure (fig. 24). But as the serpent drew nearer to Mr. CUMMINGS’ boat, the resemblance diminished, because the serpent has not such thick upper lips as our common seal, so that the snout is rather sharp, and the forehead being moreover flat, the resemblance is also that of a snake’s head! The mode of swimming was up and down, and Mr. CUMMINGS in his second letter says “it appeared so to us, his real motion might be horizontal”. Mr. CUMMINGS expresses himself cautiously; and to explain his hesitation I think it is here the right place to mention a singular property of the sea-serpent. It is observed in 1818 that some witnesses distinctly saw the animal moving up and down and progressing very rapidly, and that some others of them declared that they distinctly saw the animal with many bunches on its back, that it moved through the water, apparently not by undulating up and down, but they were astonished that the sea-serpent moved. The sea-serpent further has the property of keeping his bunches when lying quite still. Consequently it may show itself in the following ways: 1. Lying perfectly still with the body in a straight line. 2. Lying perfectly still, but with many folds or bunches on its back. 3. Swimming with its body in a straight line, using its flappers. 4. Swimming with bunches on its back, propelling itself by its flappers, not by vertical undulations. 5. Swimming with vertical undulations, and not with its flappers. 6. Swimming with vertical undulations and with its flappers.

I repeat here the words of Mr. CUMMINGS: “Who ever saw fifty or sixty porpoises moving after each other in a right line, and in such a manner that those who formed the rear were no larger than haddock or macquerel, and none but the foremost shewed his head. Who ever saw a serpent’s head upon a porpoise or whale? Now who ever saw a porpoise swim so great a distance without immerging at all?” And we may add: Who ever saw porpoises without backfins? (The white whale, _Beluga leucas_ has no back fin, but it is of a white colour, while the sea-serpent is almost black.)

I think it is here the right place to observe that the very different dimensions given to sea-serpents can be explained in two ways: 1. The animals may have been more or less visible above the surface of the water, and the hind part hidden under water is not always estimated in proportion to the visible fore-part. 2. The observers have not always seen the same individual, but of course young ones, middle-aged and old individuals, males and females.

* * * * *

I will insert here a letter from the REV. ALDEN BRADFORD to the Hon. JOHN Q. ADAMS, to show my readers how the former troubled himself about the question.

“Wiscasset, May 22, 1804.”

“_To the Honorable_ John Q. Adams, _corresponding Secretary of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences_.

“Sir,

“As one object of the Academy is to notice and preserve discoveries in _Natural History_, I am induced to communicate to the society the following account of a _Sea-Serpent_, which I have lately collected.”

“It will probably be within the recollection of some persons conversant with Navigation, that in the course of a few years past, there have been vague reports of an animal of this description having been seen in or near Penobscot Bay. But little credit, however, was attached to the story, and no particular authentic account has yet been given to the public on the subject.”

“A few months ago I happened to hear related the story of one, which was seen in the Bay of Penobscot in 1802. And for my own satisfaction, I have been inquisitive to the truth of the account, and to the general evidence of the existence of such an animal. The first correct information I received was from the perusal of a letter to Rev. Alexander McLean, from Rev. Mr. Cummings of Sullivan; which is enclosed, and marked _A._ and some remarks were added by Mr. McLean at my request. The account was liable to some objections, and not so particular as might be wished. I therefore wrote Mr. Cummings, and in reply, received a statement more in detail, which accompanies this, and is marked _B._”

“I was afterwards informed, that George Little Esq. late commander of the Boston frigate, saw a sea-monster similar to the one described by Mr. _Cummings_, in the time of the revolutionary war with Great-Britain; and as I was anxious for all the information that was to be had, I wrote him on the subject, and he forwarded the enclosed (marked _C._) in answer to my letter. I have also the testimony of a Capt. _Crabtree_ of Portland, an intelligent man, which is direct and positive. This is also enclosed and marked _D._ It was written in his presence and received his signature, as a correct statement.”

“All this evidence, I think, cannot fail to establish the fact _that a large sea-serpent has been seen in and near the Bay of Penobscot_. The existence of such a _Monster_ can no longer be reasonably disputed. But whether he constantly resides in that vicinity, or whether he coasts further south or north, during a part of the year, more particular information is necessary to ascertain. Nor is it known on what species of fish he subsists. By this communication I have it in view only to furnish evidence of the actual existence of the animal. It will probably operate in favour of further information, and lead to a particular history of this hitherto undescribed Serpent.

“I am with great esteem

“Your humble servant

“A. Bradford.”

The four letters above mentioned and marked _A_, _B_, _C_, and _D_, are already inserted in their right places. I refer my readers to n^o. 29, where the letters marked _A_ and _B_ are copied, to n^o. 19, where that marked C is inserted, and to n^o. 17, where the letter marked D will be found back.

* * * * *

=30=.--1805? Mr. RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ (_Phil. Mag._ LIV, 1819) in his _Additions_ to his dissertation, says:

“4. Mr. W. LEE has brought to notice another Sea-Snake, seen by him many years ago near Cape Breton and Newfoundland, which was over 200 feet long, with the back of a dark green: it stood in the water in flexuous hillocks, and went through it with impetuous noise. This appears to be the largest on record and might well be called _Pelamis monstrosus_; but if there are other species of equal size, it must be called then _Pelamis chloronotis_, or Green-back Pelamis.”

The length of 200 feet is estimated more than once, though in many instances probably exaggerated. The definition of the colour to be a dark green one, we have already explained above, discussing the report of Mr. CUMMINGS. The flexuous hillocks are of course nothing else but the vertical undulations, the impetuous noise is caused by the fore-flappers as will be stated afterwards. Of Mr. RAFINESQUE’S determination I will say nothing, because it is a false one and a proof of his credulity.

* * * * *

=31=.--1808, June.--At a meeting of the Wernerian Natural History Society on the 13th. of May, 1809 (_Phil. Mag._, Vol. 33, p. 411) “the Secretary read a letter from the Rev. Mr. MACLEAN of Small Isles, mentioning the appearance of a vast Sea-Snake, between 70 and 80 feet long, among the Hebrides, in June, 1808.”

This letter is printed in the first Volume of the _Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society_ (1811) and runs as follows:

“To the Secretary of the Wernerian Natural History Society.”

“Eigg Island, 24th April 1809.”

“Sir”

“Your letter of the first instant I received, and would have written in answer thereto sooner, had I not thought it desirable to examine others relative to the animal of which you wish me to give a particular account.”