Chapter IV (3)

“According to my best recollection, I saw it in June 1808 not on the coast of Eigg, but on that of Coll. Rowing along that coast, I observed, at about the distance of half a mile, an object to windward, which gradually excited astonishment. At first view it appeared like a small rock. Knowing there was no rock in that situation, I fixed my eyes on it close. Then I saw it elevated considerably above the level of the sea, and after a slow movement, distinctly perceived one of its eyes. Alarmed at the unusual appearance and magnitude of the animal, I steered so as to be at no great distance from the shore. When nearly in a line betwixt it and the shore, the monster directing its head (which still continued above water) towards us, plunged violently under water. Certain that he was in chace of us, we plied hard to get ashore. Just as we leaped out on a rock, taking a station as high as we conveniently could, we saw it coming rapidly under water towards the stern of our boat. When within a few yards of the boat, finding the water shallow, it raised its monstrous head above water, and by a winding course get, with apparent difficulty clear of the creek, where our boat lay, and where the monster seemed in danger of being imbayed. It continued to move off, with its head above water, and with the wind for about half a mile, before we lost sight of it.--Its head was rather broad, of a form somewhat oval. Its neck somewhat smaller. Its shoulders, if I can so term them, considerably broader, and thence it tapered towards the tail, which last it kept pretty low in the water, so that a view of it could not be taken so distinctly as I wished. It had no fin that I could perceive, and seemed to me to move progressively by undulation up and down. Its length I believed to be from 70 to 80 feet; when nearest to me, it did not raise its head wholly above water, so that the neck being under water, I could perceive no shining filaments thereon, if it had any. Its progressive motion under water I took to be rapid, from the shortness of the time it took to come up to the boat. When the head was above water, its motion was not near so quick; and when the head was most elevated it appeared evidently to take a view of distant objects.

“I remain, Sir, &c.

“DONALD MACLEAN.”

To understand well what Mr. MACLEAN meant with “shining filaments” which he did _not_ see, I must return to the “Animal of Stronsa”, the putrified body of a large basking shark. My readers will remember that the putrified dorsal fins of that shark resembled bristles, which were transparent, and gave light in the dark (p. 61). Evidently the Secretary of the Wernerian Society writing to Mr. MACLEAN, asked him to give a full description of the animal seen by him near “the coast of Eigg”, and whether he saw on its back “shining filaments” or not. Of course, Mr. MACLEAN did not see them!

For the first time it is mentioned by an eye-witness that the shoulders were visible. Mr. MACLEAN adds: “if I can so term them”. This is very remarkable, for we may safely take it for granted, that he, like all other persons, believed to see a sea-snake, or serpentine animal, and yet, though he could not know, that it has flappers, and probably would not have believed it, when it was told him, he has distinctly seen that the animal at once became much broader behind its long neck.

The animal plunged violently under water. When Mr. MACLEAN had reached his safe position he saw the animal swimming rapidly under water towards his boat. We must suppose that it swam so near the surface, though under water and invisible, that the surface rippled, and a wake was formed by the motion of the animal. The animal coming in shallow water, turned immediately and swam away. Once it did not raise its head quite above water, so that the neck was under water. When the head was most elevated, it appeared evidently to take a view of distant objects. These five habits as yet new to us, will be observed and reported several times afterwards. The other statements of Mr. MACLEAN are all mere repetitions of so often mentioned peculiarities.

* * * * *

=32=.--1808 June.--In the same letter we read:

“About the time I saw it, it was seen about the Isle of Canna. The crew of thirteen fishing boats, I am told, were so much terrified at its appearance, that they in a body fled from it to the nearest creek for safety. On the passage from Rum to Canna the crew of one boat saw it coming towards them, with the wind, and its head high above water. One of the crew pronounced its head as large as a little boat, and each of its eyes as large as a plate. The men were much terrified, but the monster offered them no molestation.--From those who saw it, I could get no interesting particulars additional to those above mentioned.”

The dimensions given to the head and eye may be exaggerated. It is remarkable that the animal is so often coming in the neighbourhood of a boat, and is yet perfectly harmless. This confirms my supposition expressed above that the animal is sometimes very inquisitive. PONTOPPIDAN would say “it thought to see the other sex, for it was pairing time!”

The whole letter from Mr. MACLEAN to the Secretary of the Wernerian Society is reprinted in Dr. HAMILTON’S _Amphibious Carnivora_ (a volume of JARDINE’S _Naturalist’s Library_), 1839, without any remark or explanation.

* * * * *

=33=.--1810?--Sir WALTER SCOTT in the Notes to _The Pirate_ says, according to Mr. ASHTON (_Curious Creatures in Zoology_, 1889):

“The author knew a mariner, of some reputation in his class, vouch for having seen the celebrated Sea-Serpent. It appeared as far as could be guessed, to be about a hundred feet long, with the wild mane and fiery eyes which old writers ascribe to the monster.”

I am convinced that the adjectives “wild” and “fiery” and the phrase “which old writers ascribe to the monster” are no additions made by the mariner, who simply may have told that the sea-serpent seen by him was about a hundred feet long, had a mane like a horse, or resembling sea-weed, and had red eyes. Unluckily neither the date, nor the locality is mentioned. The date cannot be far back from 1820; so I have chosen 1810, but of the locality of course nothing can be guessed.

* * * * *

=34=, =35=.--1815, June 20 and 21.--In the _Report of a Committee_, of 1817, we read that this Committee wrote a letter to Mr. SAMUEL DAVIS, of Plymouth, requesting him to examine upon oath some respectable men of that place, with regard to the appearance of the animal in 1815. This letter runs as follows:

“Boston, September 1, 1817.

“Sir”,

“At a meeting of the Linnaean Society of the 18th. ult., the subscribers there appointed a Committee for the purpose of collecting any evidence which may exist respecting a remarkable animal, denominated a _Sea Serpent_, reported to have been recently seen in and near the Harbour of Gloucester. The Committee have procured evidence from Gloucester, which they are preparing to report to the Society, and this evidence is of such a character, that they have thought it expedient to extend their inquiry to other reported appearances of a similar nature on our coasts. An appearance of this sort is mentioned as having been noticed by some persons at Plymouth two or three years since. We would ask your assistence in procuring the evidence on this subject.

“Your connection with the Society seems to authorize the request for your assistence in having the evidence on this subject, which may exist at Plymouth, properly taken and transmitted; but separately from any such claim, we know your habitual readiness to aid in any investigation in natural science. This subject is now of general interest among us, and will probably be so abroad. Any cooperation which you may wish from magistrates and intelligent gentlemen at Plymouth, we doubt not will be readily afforded you. We shall suspend our final report to the Society, until your communication shall be received.”

“Yours respectfully and
with esteem

“John Davis }
“Jacob Bigelow } Committee.
“Francis C. Gray }

The answer was as follows:

“Plymouth, Oct. 2, 1817.”

“Gentlemen.”

“Inclosed is the deposition duly authenticated of Capt. E. Finney of this town, descriptive of an unusual animal, which was seen by him in the outer harbour of Plymouth, in June 1815. Capt. Finney lives a few miles from town, and is much engaged in business, which must apologize for the delay that has followed, since the receipt of your letter of the first of September. His deposition is impartial and unbiassed--and agrees uniformly with his first declarations in 1815--besides he has not read, whatever he may have heard, of the Cape Ann descriptions; he has been from his youth accustomed to a seafaring life--in the fishing employ, and in foreign voyages--has frequently seen whales, and almost every species of fish.”

“The drawing on the other page (made by me) I have shewn to Capt. Finney, who says it illustrates his conceptions on the subject exactly. All your questions were asked him, and when his replies are negative, such as gills, breathing holes, &c. &c. it must not be inferred that such things were not displayed--but only that he did not see them, &c. Certain house carpenters, who were at work on a building near the spot, also saw it; as well as many others--these persons dwell with emphasis on the long and distant _wake_ made in the water by the passage of the fish.--As to the point of time, it must have been from known data between the 18th. and 25th. of June. And I would remark, that this is exactly the season when the first setting in of mackerel occurs in our bay.”

“Yours respectfully”

“S. Davis.”

And the deposition of Captain FINNEY as follows:

“I, Elkanah Finney of Plymouth, in the county of Plymouth, Mariner, testify and say: That about the twentieth of June, A. D. 1815, being at work near my house, which is situated near the sea-shore in Plymouth, at a place called Warren’s cove, where the beach joins the main land; my son, a boy, came from the shore and informed me of an unusual appearance on the surface of the sea in the cove. I paid little attention to his story at first; but as he persisted in saying that he had seen something very remarkable, I looked towards the cove, where I saw something which appeared to the naked eye to be a drift sea-weed. I then viewed it through a perspective glass, and was in a moment satisfied that it was some aquatic animal, with the form, motion, and appearance of which I had hitherto been unacquainted. It was about a quarter of a mile from the shore, and was moving with great rapidity to the northward. It then appeared to be about thirty feet in length; the animal went about half a mile to the northward; then turned about, and while turning, displayed a greater length than I had before seen; I supposed at least a hundred feet. It then came towards me, in a southerly direction, very rapidly, until he was in a line with me, when he stopped, and lay entirely still on the surface of the water. I then had a good view of him through my glass, at the distance of a quarter of a mile. His appearance in this situation was like a string of buoys. I saw perhaps thirty or forty of these protuberances or bunches, which were about the size of a barrel. The head appeared to be about six or eight feet long, and where it was connected with the body was a little larger than the body. His head tapered off to the size of a horse’s head. I could not discern any mouth. But what I supposed to be his under jaw had a white stripe extending the whole length of the head, just above the water. While he lay in this situation, he appeared to be about a hundred or a hundred and twenty feet long. The body appeared to be of a uniform size. I saw no part of the animal which I supposed to be a tail. I therefore thought he did not discover to me his whole length. His colour was a deep brown or black. I could not discover any eyes, mane, gills, or breathing holes. I did not see any fins or legs. The animal did not utter any sound, and it did not appear to notice any thing. It remained still and motionless for five minutes or more. The wind was light with a clear sky, and the water quite smooth. He then moved to the southward; but not with so rapid a motion as I had observed before. He was soon out of my sight. The next morning I rose very early to discover him. There was a fresh breeze from the south, which subsided about eight o’clock. It then became quite calm, when I again saw the animal about a mile to the northward of my house, down the beach. He did not display so great a length as the night before, perhaps not more than twenty or thirty feet. He often disappeared, and was gone five or ten minutes under water. I thought he was diving or fishing for his food. He remained in nearly the same situation, and thus employed for two hours. I then saw him moving off, in a northeast direction, towards the light house. I could not determine whether its motion was up and down, or to the right and left. His quickest motion was very rapid; I should suppose at the rate of fifteen or twenty miles an hour. Mackerel, manhaden, herring, and other bait fish abound in the cove where the animal was seen.”

“Elkanah Finney.”

“_Plymouth_ ss. October 2, 1817. The above named Elkanah Finney appeared and made oath to the truth of the foregoing statement, by him subscribed, before me

Nathaniel M. Davis, Jus. Peace.”

In vain have I tried to get a look at the above mentioned “first declarations in 1815”.

Though the Committee now possessed the long wished-for drawing of the Sea-Serpent, it did not publish it, nor did it state why it did not. The “questions” of which Mr. DAVIS writes will be presented to our readers hereafter. We see that the animal may remain quite still on the surface of the water, keeping, however, its coils, or joints, or bunches. It was a large individual. Its head seemed to be from 6 to 8 feet, its whole length far above one hundred and twenty feet. “Its head was a little larger than the body”, we must of course read: “Its head was a little broader than the neck”. It had a white stripe extending over the whole length of the head, just above the water, in the place where the underjaw must have been. We may look upon all the statements of Capt. FINNEY, as to the animal’s colour, dimensions, motions, &c. as quite correct: he was a man too well acquainted with the different sea-animals, to be mistaken in any observation. Moreover, all his statements will soon and successively be repeated over and over again, till there remains not a shadow of doubt of their truth, which, in my opinion, is now already the case.

* * * * *

=36=.--1816?--In the “_Voyages_” of the well known OTTO VON KOTZEBUE, which appeared in Weimar in 1821, translated into English, in London, 1821, and into Dutch, in Amsterdam, 1822, we read that on the Isle of Unalaska, one of Aleutes, he had made the acquaintance of a Mr. KRIUKOF, living there since 1795, and being Agent of the American Company. VON KOTZEBUE writes:

“Mr. Kriukof’s description of a sea animal which pursued him at Behring’s Island, where he had gone for the purpose of hunting, is very remarkable. Several Aleutians affirm they have often seen this animal. It is of the shape of the Red serpent, and immensely long; the head resembles that of the sea-lion, and two disproportionately large eyes give it a frightful appearance. “It was very fortunate for us” said Kriukof, “that we were so near land, or else the monster would have swallowed us: it stretched its head far above the water, looked about for prey, and vanished. The head soon appeared again, and that considerably nearer: we rowed with all our might, and were very happy to have reached the shore before the serpent. The sea-lions were so terrified at the sight, that some rushed into the water, and others hid themselves on the shore. The sea often throws up pieces of flesh which, according to opinion, is that of this serpent, which no animal, not even the raven, will touch. Some Aleutians, who had once tasted some of it, suddenly died.”

This passage was told by Mr. KRIUKOF to von KOTZEBUE in Aug. 1817. So we have taken 1816 as the year of the appearance, though it may have happened earlier. When Mr. VON KOTZEBUE wrote his book in 1820, he had already heard of the Sea-Serpent, which appeared in 1817 in the Harbour of Gloucester, Mass., and so he adds:

“If a sea-serpent really has been seen on the coast of North-America, it may have been one of this frightful species.”

What now are the most interesting parts of this notice? First of all that the Sea-Serpent is a common visitor of the Northern South-Sea, for the Aleutians affirmed that they often saw it. But the description of the head claims our close attention. We already said that the animal must have a hairy skin, for it has a mane, and those persons who saw it very closely confirm this. The head has already been twice described as resembling that of a seal, and afterwards we shall meet again with such a description; generally, however, it is said to resemble that of a snake, or a serpent, and sometimes to be sharp. What head combines these characters? I say the head of a sea-lion. It resembles more or less that of a seal, and seen from aside, more or less that of a snake, is rather pointed, because a sea-lion has not such formidable upper lips as seals have, and rather blunt. Why has nobody given this description? I say, because nobody among the eye-witnesses ever saw a sea-lion, neither the Norwegian, nor the many eye-witnesses of Massachusetts, nor even afterwards the other witnesses. The only one who could make this comparison was Mr. KRIUKOF, and the Aleutians, who live surrounded by these animals. The sea-lion’s head is rather blunt, rather pointed, rather long, and flattened on the forehead, has also some whiskers, which are also attributed to sea-serpents by eye-witnesses in Norway, according to PONTOPPIDAN, and afterwards again by a person who saw it at a few yards’ distance from him.

Moreover KRIUKOF’S comparison with the Red Snake, a species evidently known to him, the disproportionate large eyes, the habit of the animal to stretch its long neck far above the surface of the water, apparently to look about for prey, to follow a boat at some distance, it being supposed to be inquisitive, though harmless, are all statements we have already met with or will meet with afterwards. It seems that sea-lions too often become the prey of the sea-serpent, otherwise these creatures would not have been so afraid of it.

As to the pieces of flesh, I am convinced that they are not of a sea-serpent, but either of sea-lions, of porpoises, or of another smaller kind of whales, which are the rests of a meal of our friend. They are washed ashore in a putrified state, and their not being to the taste of the ravens is probably a story, which, like the report of the death of the Aleutians who had tasted of it, must without doubt be considered as a mere fable. This report is reprinted in the _Magazine and Journal_, Vol. LVIII, 1821.

* * * * *

“In the month of August, 1817,” we read in the _Report of a Committee_, &c. printed Dec. 1817, Boston, by CUMMINGS and HILLARD,

“In the month of August, 1817, it was currently reported on various authorities, that an animal of very singular appearance had been recently and repeatedly seen in the harbour of Gloucester, Cape Ann, about thirty miles distant from Boston. It was said to resemble a serpent in its general form and motions, to be of immense size, and to move with wonderful rapidity; to appear on the surface of the water only in calm and bright weather; and to seem jointed, or like a number of buoys or casks following each other in a line.”

“In consequence of these reports, at a meeting of the Linnaean Society of New England, holden at Boston on the 18th. day of August, the Hon. John Davis, Jacob Bigelow, M. D. and Francis C. Gray, Esq. were appointed a Committee to collect evidence with regard to the existence and appearance of any such animal. The following report made by that Committee is now published by order of the Society.”

“Linnaean Society of New England.”

“The Committee appointed on the 18th. of August last to collect evidence with regard to the existence and appearance of a Sea-Serpent, said to have been recently seen in the harbour of Gloucester, now lay before the Society the following facts and documents.”

“On the 19th. of August your Committee wrote to the Hon. Lonson Nash of Gloucester, requesting him to examine upon oath some of the inhabitants of that town with regard to the appearance of this animal, to make the examination as early as possible, to request the persons examined not to communicate to each other the substance of their respective statements, until they were all committed to writing; to have these statements signed and certified in due form, and sent to us. Our letter also contained certain rules with regard to the mode of conducting this examination, and questions to be put to the persons examined.”

“In answer to it we received from Mr. Nash a letter, dated 28th. August, enclosing eight depositions, duly certified, which on the 1st. September were read before the Society as were also three depositions taken in Boston, on the 30th. August and 1st. September. You directed us to return your thanks to Mr. Nash for his readiness in complying with our request, to continue the investigation of the subject committed to us, in such manner as we should deem expedient, and to lay before you a formal report of the whole evidence that should be procured. In compliance with your directions, the chairman of the Committee wrote again to Mr. Nash on the 2d. September, and received from him an answer, dated 9th. September. We also wrote to Mr. Samuel Davis of Plymouth on the 1st. September, requesting him to examine upon oath some respectable men of that place, with regard to the appearance of an animal said to have been seen there in the year 1815, and to resemble the one lately seen near Gloucester; this letter contained the same rules and questions as were sent to Mr. Nash. In answer to this application, a letter from that gentleman was received on the 4th. October, enclosing the deposition of Capt. E. Finney. Your Committee have also received a communication from the Rev. William Jenks of Bath relative to the subject. All these documents are now laid before you in the following order.”

“1. The rules and questions of your Committee.
“2. The letter from Mr. Nash of 28th August, enclosing the eight
following depositions.
“3. The deposition of Amos Story.
“4. That of Salomon Allen.
“5. That of Eppes Ellery.
“6. That of William H. Foster.
“7. That of Matthew Gaffney.
“8. That of James Mansfield.
“9. That of John Johnston.
“10. That of William B. Pearson.
“11. The deposition of Sewall Toppan }
“12. That of Robert Bragg } taken at Boston.
“13. That of William Somerby }
“14. The letter from our Chairman to Mr. Nash.
“15. The answer of Mr. Nash.
“16. Our letter to Mr. S. Davis of Plymouth.
“17. His answer, containing
“18. The deposition of Elkanah Finney.
“19. The letter from the Rev. William Jenks to your Committee.
“20. Is an account of a serpent said to have been frequently seen in
the North Sea, extracted from the history of Norway, written by
the Right Rev. Erich Pontoppidan, bishop of Bergen, in the year
1751.