Chapter II: “Gloucester, August 28, 1817.” (2)

“I likewise saw, what I believe to be the same animal this day, viz. the twenty third of August, A. D. 1817. This was in the morning, about seven o’clock. He then lay perfectly still, extended on the water, and I should judge that I saw fifty feet of him at least.”

“I should judge that I was forty rods from him this day. I had a good spy glass both days when I saw him. I continued looking at him about half an hour, and he remained still and in the same position, until I was called away. Neither his head nor tail were visible. His colour appeared to be a dark brown, and when the sun shone upon him, the reflection was very bright. I thought his body was about the size of a man’s body.”

“Amos Story.”

“Essex ss. Aug. 23, 1817. Personally appeared Amos Story, and made oath that the foregoing deposition by him subscribed is true, according to his best knowledge and belief.”

“Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”

As we read that the animal lay perfectly still, and as Mr. STORY does not mention that bunches were visible, we may conclude that it lay with its body in a straight line. Fifty feet of its length at least were visible. Its head and tail were not visible, says Mr. STORY, and yet the animal remained about half an hour in this position, which I think may thus be accounted for: the animal’s head, neck and back were in a straight line just above the surface of the water, so that its nose was also above it, which enabled the animal to breathe and to remain motionless, but at the distance of forty rods, though with a good spy glass, these particulars cannot have been distinctly seen by one who was not acquainted with the animal’s external features, and so he believed its head was invisible. That its tail was under water, I will believe with him.

* * * * *

=47=.--1817, August 24?--In the letter from Col. T. H. PERKINS to Mr. CUSHING, dated Oct. 13, 1820, Col. P. mentions the appearance of the sea-serpent as seen by Mr. and Mrs. MANSFIELD on the 22th. of Aug., 1817 (n^o. 45), and he continues:

“Subsequent to the period of which I have been speaking, the snake was seen by several of the crews of our coasting vessels, and in some instances within a few yards.”

I have therefore chosen the above date.

* * * * *

=48=.--1817, August 28.--(_Report of a Committee_, 1817).

“Sewell Toppan, Master of the schooner Laura, declares: That on thursday morning the 28th. day of August, at about 9 o’clock A. M. at about two miles, or two and half miles east of the eastern point of Cape Ann being becalmed, I heard one of my men call to the man at the helm, “what is this coming towards us”; being engaged forward, I took no further notice till they called again.--I then got on top of the deck load, at which time I saw a singular kind of animal or fish, which I had never before seen, passing by our quarter, at distance of about forty feet, standing along shore. I saw a part of the animal or fish ten or fifteen feet from the head downwards including the head; the head appeared to be of the size of a ten-gallon keg, and six inches above the surface of the water. It was of a dark colour. I saw no tongue, but heard William Somerby and Robert Bragg, my two men, who were with me, call out, “look at his tongue”. The motion of his head was sideways and quite moderate; the motion of the body, up and down. I have seen whales very often; his motion was much more rapid than whales or any other fish I have ever seen; he left a very long wake behind him; he did not appear to alter his course in consequence of being so near the vessel. I saw him much less time than either of the others, and not in so favourable a position to notice his head.”

“I have been to sea many years, and never saw any fish that had the least resemblance to this animal. Judging from what I saw out of water, I should judge the body was about the size of a half barrel in circumference.”

“Sewell Toppan”.

“Suffolk ss. Boston, September 1, 1817. Personally appeared captain Sewell Toppan, and made solemn oath, that the foregoing declaration by him subscribed is true.”

“Before me, Jos. May, Jus. Pacis.”

“Robert Bragg, of Newburyport, mariner, of the schooner Laura, of Newburyport, Sewell Toppan Master, testifies: That on thursday last, about ten o’clock A. M. coming in said schooner bound from Newburyport to Boston, off Eastern Point, (Cape Ann), about a mile and a half from the shore, I being on deck, the vessel being becalmed, looking at the windward, I saw something break the water, and coming very fast towards us, I mentioned it to the man at helm, William Somerby; the animal came about 28 or 30 feet from us, between the vessel and the shore, and passing very swiftly by us; he left a very long wake behind him. About six inches in height of his body and head were out of water, and as I should judge about 14 or 15 feet in length. He had a head like a serpent, rather larger than his body and rather blunt; did not see his eyes; when astern of the vessel about 30 feet, he threw out his tongue about two feet in length; the end of it appeared to me to resemble a fisherman’s harpoon; he raised his tongue several times perpendicularly, or nearly so, and let it fall again. He was in sight about ten minutes. I think he moved at the rate of 12 or 14 miles an hour; he was of a dark chocolate colour, and from what appeared out of water I should suppose he was two and a half feet in circumference; he made no noise; his back and body appeared smooth; a small bunch on each side of his head, just above his eyes; he did not appear to be at all disturbed by the vessel; his course was in the direction for the Salt Islands; his motion was much swifter than any whale that I have ever seen, and I have seen many--did not observe any teeth; his motion was very steady, a little up and down.”

“To this account I am willing to make oath.”

“Robert Bragg.”

“I, William Somerby of the Schooner Laura, testify and say: That on thursday last about 10 o’clock, A. M. as I was coming in said schooner from Newburyport, bound to Boston, off Brace’s cove, a little eastward of Eastern Point, (Cape Ann) about two miles from land, the sea calm, I was at helm. Robert Bragg, one of the crew, asked me if that was not the snake coming, pointing out a break in the water, south of us; a strange animal of the serpent form passed very swiftly by us--the nearest distance I should judge to be between 30 and 40 feet--the upper part of his head and back was above water--the length that appeared was about 12 or 15 feet, his head was like a serpent’s tapering off to a point. He threw out his tongue a number of times, extended about two feet from his jaws--the end of it resembled a harpoon--he threw his tongue backwards several times over his head, and let it fall again--I saw one of his eyes as he passed; it appeared very bright, and about the size of the eye of an ox. The colour of all that appeared was very dark, almost black. He did not appear to take any notice of the vessel, and made no noise. There appeared a bunch above the eye.--Should judge him to be about two and a half feet in circumference. Have often seen whales at sea. The motion of this animal was much swifter than that of any whale. The motion of the body was rising and falling as he advanced, the head moderately vibrating from side to side. The colour of his tongue was a light brown.”

“To this account I am willing to make oath.”

“William Somerby.”

“_Commonwealth of Massachusetts_, August 30, 1817. Then appeared Robert Bragg and William Somerby, and made oath to the truth of the above declarations, by them respectively subscribed.”

“Before me, Jos. May, Jus. Pacis.”

In these three depositions we find the same observation. As the head was moving moderately sideways, we may conclude that the animal, though it was also moving up and down, used its flappers too, so that with the use of the right fore-flapper its head went a little to the left; and otherwise went a little to the right by the motion of the left fore-flapper.--For ROBERT BRAGG’S “larger” in “the head was rather larger than the body”, we don’t hesitate to read “broader”.--It is the third time that the animal’s tongue was observed. The tongue most probably was rather pointed, which led the two mariners to compare it with a harpoon.--Remarkable is the statement of the animal having a small bunch on each side of the head just above its eyes. This is the heavy eye brow figured by BING (fig. 19) and so often described afterwards.

In a letter from Col. T. H. PERKINS dated Oct. 13, 1820, and published in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of Nov. 25, 1848, we read:

“Captain Tappan, a person well known to me saw him with his head above water two or three feet, at times moving with great rapidity, and at others slowly. He also saw what explained the appearance which I have described, of a horn on the front of the head. This was doubtless what was observed by Captain Tappan to be the tongue, thrown in an upright position from the mouth, and having the appearance which I have given to it.”

I quite agree with Col. T. H. PERKINS as to the explanation of the horn (see n^o. 44, p. 180.)--In the _Report_ of 1817 the name is spelt TOPPAN, whilst Col. PERKINS writes TAPPAN; but as the details of the two accounts of the prong, or spear, or horn, or tongue are the same, I am convinced that these two names identify the same person. So the statement of Captain TOPPAN, WILLIAM SOMERBY and ROBERT BRAGG is substantiated by COL. PERKIN’S letter.

* * * * *

=49=.--1817, August 30?--In the same letter from Col. PERKINS we read:

“One of the revenue cutters, whilst in the neighbourhood of Cape Ann, had an excellent view of him at a few yards’ distance; he moved slowly; and upon the approach of the vessel, sank and was seen no more.”

* * * * *

=50=.--1817, October 3.--In a letter from Mr. THOS. HERTTELL to Mr. SILVANUS MILLER, printed in the _Report of a Committee_, 1817, a passage runs as follows:

“Understanding that Mr. James Guion, a gentleman of character and respectability, had seen what was supposed to be the same animal, I yesterday conversed with him on the subject. He states that on Friday the 3d. inst. while on the point of land on the east side of the mouth of Mamaroneck harbour, he saw a little distance from the rocks, usually called the Scotch Caps, which lie at the extremity of Rye Point, a large marine animal, going with great rapidity up sound. He judged his speed to be little or no less than a mile in a minute. He describes the irregularity and unevenness of his back, about fifty feet of which appeared above the surface of the water, much in the way in which I have done.”

* * * * *

=51=.--1817, October 5.--The abovesaid letter runs as follows:

“Rye-Neck, Oct. 21, 1817”

“Silvanus Miller, Esq.”

“Sir, I observed in the Columbian of the 15th. inst. a paragraph stating that an animal had been seen in Long Island sound, corresponding with the description of the serpent lately seen in Gloucester harbour. That communication probably resulted from some observations which I made to you, and several other gentlemen, on the subject alluded to. When I spoke on that occurrence, I had no idea that it would become the subject of a newspaper remark; but since it has been publicly noticed, perhaps a more particular detail of the circumstances may not be deemed improper.”

“On Sunday, the 5th. inst. at 10 o’clock A. M. while standing a few rods from my house on Rye-Neck, I observed at a small distance to the southward and eastward of Mr. Ezekiel Halsted’s dwelling on Rye Point, and perhaps not more than a half mile from the shore, a long, rough, dark looking body, progressing rapidly up sound (towards New York) against a brisk breeze, and a strong ebb tribe. Viewing it with my glass convinced me it was a large living animal.--His back, forty to fifty feet of which was seen above the surface of the water, appeared to be irregular, uneven, and deeply indented. I did not at this time remark that his head was more elevated above the water than the ridges or humps on his back. Some trees standing near the water, Rye Point soon intercepting my view of him, I hastened to a situation from which I obtained another sight of him as he passed that part of the sound opposite Hempstead bay. At this time he appeared to be nearly in the middle of the sound--his body more depressed below and his head more elevated above the water, going with increased velocity in the direction of Sand’s point, creating a swell before him not unlike that made by a boat towed rapidly at the stern of the vessel. From the time I first saw him till I lost sight of him perhaps could not have exceeded ten minutes, in which short time he had gone probably not less than six or seven miles.”

“I was yesterday informed on creditable authority, that on the day on which I saw the above mentioned animal, he was seen by some persons at or in the vicinity of the light house on Sand’s Point.”

“That it was a sea animal of great bulk, to me is certain.--That it is what is usually called a Sea-Serpent, and the same which appeared in Gloucester harbour, is only probable.”

“With much respect, Sir, yours, &c.”

“Thos. Herttell.”

Though the usual statement that the animal had bunches on its back is here expressed in other terms, viz.: that its back was irregular, uneven, deeply indented, it may be seen at a glance that no new feature gave rise to these terms. The animal may moreover have had a mane, extending all over the back.

* * * * *

N^o. 20 of the _Report_ is, as we have seen above (p. 161), 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. Here is an extract from the matter given by that Bishop about the sea-serpent, and the whole affidavit of Capt. VON FERRY.

After this the Committee goes on:

“We have seen and heard sundry other statements of various authority relating to similar animals, said to have been seen at sea by different persons, but do not insert them in our report, because we consider the foregoing testimony sufficient to place the existence of the animal beyond a doubt; and because they do not appear so minute and so well authenticated as the preceding documents.”

Poor Committee! Could they have foreseen that _seventy_ years afterwards the existence of the sea-serpent was _not_ beyond a doubt, at least among learned persons, they would not only have published all those sundry other statements, but have exerted themselves more in the matter than they did now. They would have gone to have a look at the animal and made an affidavit of their observations, and--even then they would not have been believed!

I would kindly beg the Linnaean Society of Boston, or that learned Society which has inherited its archives, either to publish _all_ reports, accounts and letters in their hands, or to send them all to me, that I may enlarge, correct and rectify this work in case a second edition is called for.

The Committee, after having published the various exceedingly interesting reports, was of course morally bound to explain the phenomenon. What kind of beast could it be!? And before the question had become embarrassing, 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 labourer at that place. And as the people believed that this was a spawn of the great sea-serpent, it was bought by a certain Dr. and presented to the Committee to examine it. 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 species common in those regions, and gave it the name of _Scoliophis atlanticus_. This account is followed by “two documents relating to the appearance of the _Scoliophis_, while living, and to the circumstance under which it was killed.”

Next they gave “a few remarks on the question” (raised 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 their conclusion that this is indeed the case, “until a more close examination of the great Serpent shall have disclosed some differences of structure, important enough to constitute a specific distinction.”

* * * * *

Now, my readers will probably say that I have not yet explained why none of the eye-witnesses of the animal seen near Cape Ann saw a mane. I hope my readers will be satisfied when I tell them that I am convinced that the female Sea-Serpent has no mane, and that the mane is only a character of full grown males. So most of the eye-witnesses saw a female. It is only the individual witnessed by Messrs. JAMES GUION and THOS. HERTTELL which was most probably a male and had a mane. Seen from a distance its back was uneven, and deeply indented.

* * * * *

Dr. HAMILTON in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, “Groep III”, devoted a few pages to the “_Report of a Committee_”, giving a very short extract from it.

* * * * *

I will insert here an extract from a letter written by EDWARD EVERETT, Esq., Nov. 13, 1817, then in Paris, to the “Obermedicinalrath und Ritter” BLUMENBACH in Göttingen. This extract, here printed for the first time, is preserved in the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen; it runs as follows:

“With Respect to the monstrous Serpent, of which I furnished you some account, before leaving Göttingen, I am sorry to say that the Reports, which circulated in the newspapers of his capture, were incorrect, and that he has escaped. Great attempts were made, and large sums of money offered, in Vain. I begun to collect a full account of him out of 300 American Newspapers, which I intended for You, but as I hear that a pamphlet, on the subject, is preparing by our Linnaean Society, which will contain depositions made on Oath, I have prefered waiting, till this appears, and I shall have it sent to you immediately. I have received to-day a letter of Oct. 25 from my brother, in which he informs me, that--a few days after the Serpent disappeared--a Young Serpent, 3 feet long, corresponding with the large one in appearance, was taken. This was brought to Boston, has been dissected, and pronounced a Non-descript, by the Connoisseurs there. This will also be described in the pamphlet of the Linnaean Society. Upon the subject of the Serpent four letters have been written by Gen. Humphreys of Boston--a member of the Royal Society--to Sir Joseph Banks; so that it is possible something may appear in the Philosophical Transactions about it.”

Afterwards we shall read more of the attempts to catch the Sea-Serpent. It is a pity that Mr. EVERETT never published his collection! Most probably it has gradually disappeared in the paper-basket! Apparently Mr. EVERETT and Mr. BLUMENBACH corresponded much about the serpent: I also found a list of ancient works in which the sea-serpent and large snakes are mentioned, forwarded by the former to the latter, and in the above-mentioned letter EVERETT calls the Sea-Serpent “Our old friend the Serpent.”

As soon as the _Report_ reached Europe, Mr. H. M. DUCROTAY DE BLAINVILLE made an extract from it in his _Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle_, Vol. 86, (Paris, 1818). Apparently he too believed the little snake to be a new species, and therefore paid more attention to it than to the large marine animal, which he doubtlessly could not explain, and about which he did not trouble himself much. In one respect Mr. DE BLAINVILLE tried to throw ridicule on two reports, viz. those of ROBERT BRAGG and WILLIAM SOMERBY: “and the imagination of some sailors is cause that they saw a tongue or spear coming out of his mouth, to which they gave a length of twelve feet, a circumference of 6 inches at the bottom and a termination as a lancet.” As we saw, the two sailors only mentioned a _tongue_ of _two_ feet; they did not use the expression of spear, they neither gave the circumference at the bottom, nor did they describe the termination as a _lancet_’s but as a _harpoon_’s. It was Mr. FOSTER who saw a _prong_ or _spear_, but only of twelve _inches_ and terminating in a _small point_. At all events Mr. DE BLAINVILLE has read badly!

But on the other hand he is a believer. His extract ends thus:

“If we were now to scrutinize the existence of the Great Sea-Serpent, we must confess that it would be difficult to deny the appearance of an animal of very great length, very slender, and swimming with rapidity, in the sea near Cape Ann, but that it is a true snake, this is doubtful; that it is of the same genus as the _Scoliophis_, this assertion is still more doubtful, and finally that it is of the same species, here the number of probabilities still diminishes, and becomes totally null, if one believes that such an immense animal, as that which is observed in the sea has gone ashore to lay its eggs.”

For this is firmly believed by the Committee!

* * * * *

Prof. W. D. PECK in his dissertation on the Sea-Serpent (_Mem. Am. Acad. Arts Sc._ Vol. IV. Pt. I, 1818) says:

“The testimony is ample of the existence of such a serpent, in the portion of the Atlantic which washes our shores.”

After having mentioned some early accounts Prof. PECK says:

“These are the earliest notices I can find of this animal on our shores, and their truth is rendered undubitable by the evidence lately brought together by the Committee of the Linnaean Society, of men of fair and unblemished character in Gloucester.”

After having given an extract from these evidences, Prof. PECK says:

“The accounts of all these persons are very consistent; to the greater part it appeared to be straight, or without gibbosities or protuberances on the back; one person thought it had protuberances, but it seems probable that the upper flexures of its undulations occasioned this opinion.”

“Its velocity is variously estimated; by some it was thought to move a mile in a minute, by others in three, four, or five minutes. It has great lateral flexibility, as is shewn by its turning short and moving in an exactly contrary direction, advancing the head in a line parallel with the body; hence its undulations when under water and equally surrounded by the medium, may be either vertical or horizontal at the will of the animal. The judgment of its velocity, however, without knowing its precise distance and without instruments to observe it, is extremely liable to err.”

“In the testimonies above referred to, the imagination seems to have had no influence, and we certainly know from them, that the existence of the animal to which they relate is indisputable; we know that it moves by vertical undulations, at least while near the surface of the sea; that it is laterally as flexible as other serpents; and that its motion, at times, is very swift; but our knowledge is circumscribed by these limits. It is to be hoped, that if it again visits our shores, some successful means may be devised of taking it and presenting an opportunity of completing our knowledge of so interesting a link in the chain of animated beings.”

“It has been seen in Long Island sound, progressing southward; it seems from this circumstance to be migratory, like the Coluber natrix in Hungary, and may pass the winter season in Mexico or South America.”

A remarkable fact is it that Prof. PECK really believes that it was a sea-snake of enormous dimensions!

* * * * *

The _Journal of Science and the Arts_, edited at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, republished in its fourth Vol. (London, 1818) the affidavits of Messrs. LONSON NASH and WILLIAM B. PEARSON, (n^o. 41, p. 170, and n^o. 44, p. 177) and the writer of the article declares: “the existence of the animal is placed beyond doubt.” Now we are in 1892, and yet it is doubted!

* * * * *

=52=.--1818 June.--(_Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts R. Inst. Gr. Britt._ VI, 1818.)

“The _Commercial Advertiser_ of June 9th. contains a letter from a Captain of the brig _Wilson_, of Salem, bound to Norfolk, wherein he states, that during his passage, off Cape Henry, he fell in with, as he at first supposed, the wreck of a vessel, when he ordered his boat to be lowered; but to his great astonishment he found it to be the sea-serpent; he says, he then examined it, and such an object he never before witnessed; he believed it to be 190 feet in length, and its mouth and head were of an enormous size. After returning to the ship they bore off, fearing the consequences that might result from its coming in contact with the vessel.”

The only characters mentioned here are the enormous head and the length of about 190 feet. Both may be exaggerated though greater dimensions are mentioned in later trustworthy reports.

* * * * *

=53=.--1818, June 19.--(_Quart. Journ. Sc. Litt. Arts R. Inst. Gr. Brit._ VI, 1818).--

“On the 19th of June he appeared in Sag-Harbour, and rewards were offered to the whalers to secure it.”

* * * * *

=54=.--1818, June 21.--(_Ibidem_).

“S. West, of Hallowell, master of the Packet _Delia_, describes it as seen on the 21st. of June, engaged with a whale.”

The writer does not mean to say that it was a whale-bone-whale or a sperm-whale, but a whale of the smaller kind, viz. a dolphin, a grampus, or a porpoise. We shall come across an account stating that the eye-witnesses saw a panic amongst a shoal of porpoises, evidently caused by a sea-serpent pursuing them (n^o. 97); and across another account, stating that a sea-serpent was seen seizing a porpoise in one of its lateral fins (n^o. 151). It is evident that when the opportunity offers, a sea-serpent also preys on the grampuses, porpoises and dolphins.

* * * * *

=55=.--1818 July 2.--(_Ibidem_).

“and on July 2d. two persons, J. Webber and R. Hamilton, saw it about seven miles from Portland, between Cranch Island point and Marsh-Island.”

* * * * *

=56=.--1818 July.--(_Phil. Mag._ LIV, 1819). The second Sea Serpent described by Mr. RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ (for he believes there are several species) is called by him:

“_Capt._ BROWN_’s Sea-Serpent_. This fish was observed by Capt. Brown in a voyage from America to St. Petersburg, in July 1818, near 60° N. latitude and 8° W. longitude, or north of Ireland. In swimming the head, neck and forepart of the body stood upright like a mast: it was surrounded by porpoises and fishes. It was smooth, without scales, and had eight gills under the neck; which decidedly evinces that it is not a snake, but a new genus of fish! belonging to the eighth order _Tremapnea_, 28th. family _Ophictia_, and 3d. subfamily _Catremia_, along with the genera _Sphagebranchus_ and _Symbranchus_ of Bloch, which differ by having only one or two round gills under the neck. I shall call this new genus _Octipos_ (meaning eight gills beneath); head depressed, mouth transverse, large, eight transverse gills under the neck, and its specific name and definition will be _Octipos bicolor_. Dark brown above, muddy white beneath: head obtuse. Capt. Brown adds, that the head was two feet long, the mouth fifteen inches, and the eyes over the jaws, similar to the horse’s; the whole length might be 58 feet.”

Immediately we recognize our well-known Sea-Serpent, an individual of which the length is estimated at 58 feet, which held its head and very long neck upright whilst swimming. Captain BROWN says: “and the forepart of the body”; of course, for he thought to see a snake; if he had really seen the forepart of the body, (trunk) he would have seen the shoulders and the fore-flappers. It was surrounded by porpoises and fishes. Evidently the animal swam between them with the purpose to snatch one of them. It had a smooth skin, no scales, and eight gills under its neck. Dark brown above (i. e. on the dorsal part of head and neck), muddy white beneath (i. e. on its throat); head obtuse (read rather obtuse, seen from above or from below, or in front; just from aside it is rather pointed). The head was two feet long, the mouth fifteen inches (of course estimated dimensions), and the eyes over the jaws similar to those of a horse (this definition was caused by the heavy eye-brows and by the little bunch above each eye). The whole description is exactly that of our animal in the above-mentioned position and seen from a certain direction. For “eight gills” we may safely read “eight gillsplits”, or eight splits caused by and lying between nine folds or wrinkles, which in their turn are caused by the animal bending its head rectangularly towards the throat. Such folds or wrinkles are also seen in sea-lions, when they make the same motion, and stout corpulent persons will know what is meant by a double chin!

* * * * *

=57=.--1818, July?--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through Sweden_ in 1820, p. 187, says:--

“The fishermen at Sejerstad said a sea-serpent was seen two years ago in the Folden Fjord, the length of which, as far as it was visible was 60 feet. This had been told them by those who had seen it in the Folden.”

* * * * *

=58=.--1818, August?--At p. 203 the same author mentions:

“On being asked (viz. the merchant of Fieldvigen) his opinion respecting the serpent, he said he had never seen it himself, though others had in that neighbourhood.”

=59=.--1818, August 19.--In 1818 in the United States many rewards were offered to whalers to catch the animal, and many attempts were made to do this, and to bring it home, dead or alive. Amongst others this was the case at Boston. In the copy of the _Report of a Committee_ of 1817, which I borrowed from the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, there was a paragraph from a newspaper of August 21, 1818, the head or title of which was not noted down; the cutting runs as follows:

“Boston Aug. 21.”

“Transmitted by our N. Y. correspondents.”

“Capt. Rich, who went from here a few days since, in pursuit of the sea-serpent, writes the concern as follows:

“_Squam River, Aug. 20th., 12 o’clock._--After several unsuccessful attempts, we have at length fastened to this strange thing called the sea-serpent. We struck him fairly, but the harpoon soon drew out. He has not been seen since, and I fear the wound he received will make him more cautious how he approaches these shores. Since my last, yesterday, we have been constantly in pursuit of him; by day he always keeps a proper distance from us, to prevent our striking oars. But a few hours since, I thought we were sure of him, for I hove the harpoon into him as fairly as ever a whale was struck; took from us about 20 fathoms of warp before we could wind the boat, with as much swiftness as a whale. We had but a short ride when we were all loose from him to our sore disappointment.”

“Rich’d. Rich.”

“_Gloucester, Aug. 20._--As I thought it would be interesting to you to hear from Capt. Rich, and as he is at some distance, I will give you some particulars of his cruise. On Monday last he sailed from this in a large whale boat, and two smaller ones well manned. My brother commanded one of the boats. Yesterday they met the Serpent off Squam, and chased him about seven hours, when they closed with him. He passed directly under the bows of Capt. Rich’s boat; he immediately threw the harpoon, which pierced him about two feet; he drew the boat a considerable distance but went with such a velocity that he broke that part of the boat through which the rope passed and drew out the harpoon. I hope they will have another opportunity before they give up the chase.”

“He has _no_ scales on him, and no bunches on his back, but his skin is smooth, and looks similar to an eel. In the attack, Capt. Rich had one of his hands wound. These particulars I have in a letter from my brother.”

“Saml. Dexter.”

As far as I can judge after having read what I could find about the Sea-Serpent, this is the only time that the animal was struck with a harpoon. Evidently the animal then swam with its body in a straight line. Interesting to us are the words: “He has _no_ scales on him, and no bunches on his back, but his skin is smooth, and looks similar to an eel”.

* * * * *

The attempts mentioned above were continued, and, as my readers already read in my Chapter on hoaxes, ended with a hoax; at last a large tunny was brought in, and many persons believed it to be the animal! Among those who were present there was a Mr. ANDREWS NORTON; he wrote, Sept. 11, 1818, a letter about this affair to Mr. GEORGE BANCROFT, an extract from which is also inserted in our Chapter on hoaxes. I will repeat here his last words:

“I have only to add that if you should learn that any one of the German literati is writing a volume upon Sea-Serpents, I beg you will assure him that we” (Mr. NORTON and Prof. PECK) “do not consider the circumstance connected with the deception just mentioned, as affecting the evidence before obtained for their real existence.”--

* * * * *

_The Quarterly Journal of Literature, Science and the Arts R. Inst. Gr. Brit._ repeats in its Vol. VII, London, 1819, the whole paper of Prof. PECK, and a translation into German appeared in OKEN’s Isis of 1819.

* * * * *

The well-known RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, when in America, made the sea-serpent a subject of study and inquiry as Prof. PECK had done. He too wrote a paper about it, entitled: _Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes, and Sea-Serpents_. It seems that his dissertation appeared in an American Journal or in American Transactions, and that it was afterwards reprinted in the _Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. LIV, 1819. He is a believer in Sea-Serpents, is evidently convinced that several species exist, belonging to the family of the _Hydrophidae_, or real Sea-Snakes.

After having mentioned 9 species of real Sea-Snakes, of which the last was 8 to 10 feet long, he goes on:

“This last species appears to be the largest real Sea-Snake which has fallen under the personal observation of naturalists as yet. But larger species still have been noticed at different periods. If I had the time and opportunity of perusing all the accounts of travellers and historians, I could probably bring many into notice; but this tedious labour must be postponed, and I must warn those who may be inclined to inquire into the subject, not to be deceived by the imperfect and exaggerated accounts of ancient and unknown writers. Whenever they mention neither the scales nor tail of their Sea-Serpents, or when they assert they had no scales, or had gills or fins, you must in all those instances be certain that they are real fishes rather than serpents. There might, however, be found some Sea-Snakes without scales, since there are such land snakes; and there are fishes with scales and yet without fins: but there are no fishes without gills, and no snakes or serpents with gills!--in that important character the classical distinction consists.”

“Nearly all the writers whom I can remember, have been unacquainted with that obvious distinction; and they have, in imitation of the ancient Greek and Roman writers, given the name of Sea-Snakes to the large eels or fishes they happened to observe. This I apprehend is the case with Pontoppidan, in his Natural History of Norway; with Mongitore in his Remarkable Objects of Sicily; with Leguat, in his Travels to Rodriguez Island, &c. Their observations, and the facts they record, are notwithstanding equally valuable, since they relate to monstrous unknown fishes, which seldom fall under the observation of men. The individuals of huge species are not numerous in nature, either on land or in water, and it is probable they often become extinct for want of food or reproduction.”

“Among the four different animals which have lately been observed by Americans, and named Sea-Serpents, only one (the Massachusetts Serpent) appears to be such; another is evidently a fish, and two are doubtful. I shall refer a few remarks on each.”

“1. _The Massachusetts Sea Serpent._ From the various and contradictory accounts given of this monster by witnesses, the following description may be collected.--It is about 100 feet long; the body is round and nearly two feet in diameter, of a dark brown, and covered with large scales in transverse rows; its head is scaly, brown mixed with white, of the size of a horse’s and nearly the shape of a dog’s; the mouth is large with teeth like a shark; its tail is compressed, obtuse, and shaped like an oar. This animal came in August last into the bay of Massachusetts in pursuit of shoals of fishes, herrings, squids, &c. on which it feeds. Its motions are very quick: it was seen by a great many; but all attempts to catch it have failed, although 5000 dollars have been offered for its spoils. It is evidently a real Sea Snake, belonging probably to the genus _Pelamis_, and I propose to call it _Pelamis megophias_, which means Great Sea Snake Pelamis. It might however be a peculiar genus, which the long equal scales seem to indicate and which a closer examination might have decided: in that case the name of _Megophias monstrosus_ might have been appropriated to it.”

We observe that Mr. RAFINESQUE gives here some characters to the Massachusetts’s Sea-Serpent, with which we have met nowhere else, apparently only for the purpose of rendering his supposition more plausible: 1. “The scales”. It is true that some of the eye-witnesses have declared the skin to be rough and scaly, but against _one_ who says so, there are _twenty_ who deny it, describing the skin to be smooth and having no scales. 2. “The scales are in transverse rows.” This assertion is made nowhere else. 3. “Its head brown mixed with white.” A new statement. The head is only described as white on its throat and lower jaws. 4. “The head of the shape of a dog’s.” I did not find this expression any where else; on the contrary all agree in its resembling a serpent’s or a snake’s head. 5. “The teeth like a shark’s, the tail compressed, obtuse, shaped like an oar.” Nobody saw either teeth or tail! Indeed a splendid description after the reports given of the animal’s external features!

* * * * *

=60=.--1819, June 6.--(SILLIMAN’S _American Journal of Science and the Arts_, Vol. II, Boston 1820.)

“I, Hawkins Wheeler, of Fairfield, in the County of Fairfield, and state of Connecticut, mariner, Commander of the sloop Concord, of said Fairfield, in her late passage from New York to Salem, in the County of Essex and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on oath declare, that during the said passage from New York to Salem, to wit, on Monday, the 6th. day of June instant, at about five o’clock in the morning, the sloop being as near as I could judge, 15 miles N. W. of Race Point, and within sight of Cape Ann, I was at the helm of the sloop, and saw directly a-head, (the course of the vessel being N. W.) something that resembled a snake, about 100 yards distance from the sloop, moving in a S. W. direction. The animal moved in that direction, till he had passed athwart the course of the sloop, and appeared directly over the weather bow, when he altered his course to S. E. At this time he had been visible about five minutes, when he sunk, and in about six or eight minutes after, appeared again directly over the weather quarter, about the same distance from the sloop--he continued in that course about five or six minutes, when he sunk again, and I saw him no more. His motion was at the rate of about four miles an hour, when he passed ahead; but after he appeared again on the quarter, his motion was less rapid. To the best of my judgment he was not more than 100 yards of the vessel--the weather was good and clear--it was almost calm, with a light air of wind from the S., the vessel was going about two knots--I had a fair and distinct view of the creature, and from his appearance am satisfied that it was of the serpent kind. The creature was entirely black; the head, which perfectly resembled a snake’s, was elevated from four to seven feet above the surface of the water, and his back appeared to be composed of bunches or humps, apparently about as large as, or a little larger than a half barrel; I think I saw as many as ten or twelve, but did not count them; I considered them to be caused by the undulatory motion of the animal--the tail was not visible, but from the head to the last hump that could be seen, was, I should judge, 50 feet. The first view I had of him appeared like a string of empty barrels tied together, rising over what little swell of the sea there was. What motion I could discern in the body of the animal was undulatory, but he evidently moved his tail under water, and the ripples produced by it indicated a sweeping motion, making a wake as large as that made by the sloop.”

“Hawkins Wheeler.”

“Essex, ss. June 9th. 1819.--Then Hawkins Wheeler personally appeared, and made oath that the foregoing affidavit by him subscribed, contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Before me

“Theodore Eames, Justice of the Peace.”

“I, Gersham Bennet, of Fairfield, in the County of Fairfield, and State of Connecticut, mariner, on oath declare, that I was mate of the sloop Concord, Hawkins Wheeler, master, in her late passage from New York to Salem, Mass., that on Monday, the 6th. day of June inst., at seven o’clock in the morning, I was on the deck of the sloop, sitting on the hatches--the vessel was steering N. W. and was then about eighteen miles from Race Point--the man at the helm made an outcry, and said there was something alongside that he wanted me to look at. I looked, and saw something on the larboard side of the vessel, about twelve rods, certainly not exceeding fourteen, from the vessel, that resembled a serpent or snake. I immediately arose and went to the side of the vessel, and took a position on the rough tree, holding on by the shrouds; I there saw a serpent of an enormous size and uncommon appearance, upon the water; his head was about the length of the anchor stock above the surface of the water, viz. about seven feet. I looked at the anchor stock at the time, and formed my opinion by comparing the two objects. The weather was very clear and good and the water almost calm; and I had, I think, as good a view of the animal as if I had been within two rods of him. The colour of the animal throughout, as far as could be seen, was black, and the surface appeared to be smooth, without scales--his head was about as long as a horse’s and was a proper snake’s head--there was a degree of flatness, with a slight hollow on the top of his head--his eyes were prominent, and stood out considerably from the surface, resembling in that respect the eyes of a toad, and were nearer to the mouth of the animal than to the back of the head. I had a full view of him for seven or eight minutes. He was moving in the same direction with the sloop, and about as fast. The back was composed of bunches about the size of a flour barrel, which were apparently about three feet apart--they appeared to be fixed, but might be occasioned by the motion of the animal, and looked like a string of casks or barrels tied together--the tail was not visible, but the wake of his tail which he evidently moved under water, showed a horizontal or sweeping motion, producing a wake as large as the vessel made. He turned his head two or three times slowly round towards and from the vessel, as if taking a view of some object on board. I went up on the rigging, for the purpose of taking a view of him from above; but before I had reached my station, he sunk below the surface of the water, and did not appear again. Gersham Bennett.”

“Essex ss. June 9th. 1819.--Then Gersham Bennett personally appeared and made oath that the foregoing affidavit by him subscribed, contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Before me,

“Theodore Eames, Justice of the Peace.”

It is probable that Mr. BENNETT is right in considering the “wake as large as the vessel made” was produced by a horizontal or sweeping motion of the tail, but it is far more probable that it was caused by the motion of the hind-flappers, supposed the animal nearly touched the surface of the water with the hinder part of the body.

New characters to us are these: that there is a slight hollow on the top of its head, that its eyes are prominent, and stand out considerably from the surface, resembling in that respect the eyes of a toad, and that they are nearer to the mouth of the animal than to the back of the head.

* * * * *

=61=.--1819, July.--A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his _Travels through Sweden, in the Summer of 1820_, says at p. 187:

“As I had determined, on arriving at the coast, to make every inquiry respecting the truth of the accounts, which had reached England the preceeding year, of the sea-serpent having recently seen off this part of Norway, I shall simply give the different reports, I received of it during my voyage to the North Cape, leaving others to their own conclusions, and without expressing, at least for the present, any opinion respecting them.”

and at p. 198:

“From him (the postmaster Mr. SCHILDERUP) I learned some curious particulars respecting the sea-serpent, which had caused so much alarm and wonder in Norway, and the report of which, as I have said, had even reached England. From having formerly been in the Norwegian sea service, he was called Captain Schilderup; and seemed a quick intelligent man. It appeared, that the serpent had actually been off the island for a considerable length of time during the preceding summer, in the narrow part of the Sound, between this island (Ottersum) and the continent; and the description he gave of it was as follows.”

“It made its appearance for the first time in the month of July, 1819, off Ottersum, in the sound above mentioned. Previous to this he had often heard of the existence of these creatures, but never before believed it. During the whole of that month the weather was excessively sultry and calm; and the serpent was seen every day, nearly in the same part of the Sound. It continued there while the warm weather lasted, lying motionless, and as if dozing in the sun-beams.--This part of his account reminded me of the monster of the deep, so finely described by Milton.”

“The number of persons living on the island, he said, was about thirty; the whole of whom, from motives of curiosity, went to look at it while it remained. This was confirmed to me by subsequent inquiries among the inhabitants, who gave a similar account of it. The first time that he saw it, he was in a boat, at a distance of about 200 yards. The length of it he supposes to have been about 300 ells, or 600 feet. Of this he could not speak accurately; but it was of very considerable length; and longer than it appeared, as it lay in large coils above the water to the height of many feet. Its colour was greyish. At the distance at which he was, he could not ascertain whether it were covered with scales; but when it moved, it made a loud crackling noise, which he distinctly heard. Its head was shaped like that of a serpent, but he could not tell whether it had teeth or not. He said it emitted a very strong odour, and that the boatmen were afraid to approach near it, and looked on its coming as a bad sign, as the fish left the coast in consequence. Such were the particulars he related to me. Thanking him for his information, I took my leave of him, and proceeded on my voyage.”

And at p. 200:

“Near Ottersum is the small Island of Krogoën”, (upon which a merchant lived, who hearing that Mr. BROOKE was an Englishman, who travelled to North-Cape, put to him numberless questions.) “Having answered all these questions as well as I could, and a momentary pause ensuing I seized the opportunity now to have my turn; and wishing to hear something still farther respecting the sea-monster, I began to overwhelm him with interrogations, as to its length, colour, appearance, time it staid, by whom seen, and many others that occurred to me. However ludicrous the earnest loquacity on both sides might have been, I had the satisfaction of hearing him confirm, in every particular, the account of Capt. Schilderup at Ottersum; and that many of the people at Krogoën had also witnessed it. It did not appear, however, that any one had ventured very near it, from the dread that was entertained of it.”

Of course the length of the animal, estimated from a distance of 200 yards, is exaggerated. The greyish colour is that which the animal obtains when drying in the sunshine, as I have already explained before. For the first time we meet with the statement that the animal emits a very strong odour, which is twice stated here. As we shall once more come across this statement, we must needs believe it. In my last chapter I will return to this fact, proving that it is not an impossible character of sea-serpents.

* * * * *

=62=.--1819, August 12?--Mr. SMITH informed us the sea-serpent had been seen the evening before at Nahant-beach. (Part of the following report.)

* * * * *

=63=.--1819, August 13?--There appeared an interesting account of an eye-witness about a sea-serpent in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of 19th. August, 1819. I have not been able to consult this journal. The report was translated in OKEN’s _Isis_ of 1819, p. 1754, accompanied by the figure, made by the eye-witness. Happily I found the same in SILLIMAN’s _American Journal Sc. Arts_, Vol. II, Boston, 1820, but without the figure. It runs as follows:

“The recent appearance of this animal at Nahant, in the view of several hundred persons, has furnished, perhaps, more conclusive proof of his existence, than any that has before been made public. For the satisfaction of our readers, we have procured a copy of the following letter, which gives a very clear and intelligible description of his appearance and movements. We have heard verbal statements from a great number of gentlemen, all of whom agree in substance with what is here related.”

“_Copy of a letter from_ James Prince, _Marshal of the District, to the Hon. Judge_ Davis, _dated_”:

“Nahant, Aug. 16th., 1819.”