Chapter II: “Gloucester, August 28, 1817.” (4)

Remarkable is the fact that Mr. DE CAPELL BROOKE considers the animal to be “in all probability of the serpent tribe”, with which he of course means _snakes_.

“The strongest confirmation of the fact appears to be the account received at the island of Otersun. There it will be recollected, the serpent made its appearance in July, 1819, being visible a short distance from the shore, nearly every day, during the greater part of that month, and having been seen during that time by the whole of the population of the island. The information collected, indeed, is scantier than might have been expected, from its remaining so considerable a time; but the talent of observation in fishermen is far from considerable, and their curiosity is easily gratified. To these circumstances, and the general dread entertained of this animal, may be attributed the want of any attempt to take it. At the neighbouring island of Krogöen also, it will be remembered, that its having appeared was confirmed; and this would be sufficient at least to cause a wavering in the minds of those naturalists, who have treated former accounts as the mere offspring of imagination.”

We may add: not only their curiosity is easily gratified, but their fear to approach the animal too closely withholds them from investigating it nearer, or from observing it, as a naturalist or more curious person would do!

Further he discusses the subject historically, first comparing the Leviathan in the Book of Job with it, to which idea evidently MILTON’S _Paradise Lost_ led him. I am far from admitting any relation between the story in Holy Writ and the sea-serpents. He further quotes KNUD LEEMS (p. 138), OLAUS MAGNUS (n°. 1, p. 105, 109), HANS EGEDE (n°. 5), ERIC PONTOPPIDAN, and speaks of the letters written to and preserved in the library of Sir JOSEPH BANKS, then president of the Royal Society, by General HAWKINS and General HUMPHREYS.

I am also obliged to repeat here _in extenso_ his plea for the sea-serpent (p. 415-419):

“In the belief of the possibility of events, men are too generally guided by the limited knowledge of things they may possess; and there are doubtless many among the more uninformed classes, who, if told of the existence of an animal attaining the height of eighteen feet, such as the giraffe or camelopard, or that the ocean produced one like the whale, more than 100 feet in length, would not only stare with astonishment, but would as much doubt the truth of these assertions, as if informed of the sea-serpent. This is but natural; their knowledge of the world and its productions, deprived as they are of other means of attaining it, must be confined to the narrow sphere they live in; and the ideas they possess of life must necessarily be contracted.”

“The naturalist, however, whose views of creation are bounded by no country, and whose field of inquiry is the globe itself, sees with admiration though without surprise the rich kingdom of nature gradually unfolding itself to the researches of science, and finds his imperfect catalogue almost daily swelled by proofs of the existence of some new and extraordinary animal, which before was unknown to the world, or considered as living in the imagination alone. By the exertions of the present age, he has become acquainted with many creatures, in their forms and habits the most singular and strange; and thus he is taught never to deny the existence of any thing rashly; assured, as he is, by whatever he beholds, of the unlimited power of the great Creator; and conscious, that all which the utmost zeal of man can attain is a knowledge of but a very small portion of his works. When he considers the various discoveries of modern times, and the astonishing effects produced by the ingenuity of man in the united application of chemistry and mechanism, it gives him but a more exalted idea of that great superior force, which not only sets in motion this master machine, and indues it with powers of sense and reflection, but causes it to act in so extraordinary a manner in the creation and reproduction of matter. In fine the philosopher, whether his researches regard the minuteness or magnitude of creation, is equally prepared for the wonders that are displayed to his eye. The aid of the mikroscoop makes known to him the existence of myriads of living creatures, some of such incredible smallness, that the utmost powers of the magnifier can with difficulty render them visible; and of which thousands if put together, would not equal a grain of sand in bulk. He finds even, that the human body itself is filled with them; and that the structure of their own internal parts is equally complex and curious. When, however, he reflects, that each of these beings, diminutive as they are, may perhaps contain a countless number of other, visible but to the minuter tecture of their eyes, he is lost and bewildered, and can only look forward to the period, when his purer existence will be permitted to comprehend the great secrets of nature, and the mysteries of the universe. If, on the other hand, he directs his steps to the deep gnoom of the African forests, tenanted by their various wild inhabitants, he sees, on a sublimely enlarged scale the works of the Creator; whether he meets with the elephant supporting its enormous bulk with peaceful and dignified steps, or views the huge trunk of the stupendous boa serpent, extended to the length of fifty feet, and viing in size with the stately trees, between which it glides, the terror of all, and the sovereign of the forest. The secrets of the great deep alone are veiled from his inquiring eyes; and he regrets, that his structure prevents him from cleaving, like the finny tribe, the watery fluid, and gazing on the wonders below. Phenomena the most extraordinary, nay even a new world, would there be opened to his inspection, did not the grosser materials of his composition obstruct his pursuit. From the marine animal productions, notwithstanding, that come under his observation, he finds, on comparing them with those of the land, that they are larger, proportionably to the vast space allotted them; and he reasonably concludes, that in the existence of unknown regions of the ocean, compared with which the land we inhabit may be deemed but as a spot, and the depth of which is not merely that of some miles, but extends, for any thing that is known to the contrary, even from pole to pole; there may be a variety of animals, greatly exceeding in size even those which, on this account alone, have been deemed fabulous: yet that their bulk may, nevertheless, be fairly proportioned to the space they inhabit; and that living midway in this world of waters, without ever rising even to the surface, or seeing the light of heaven, they may be made, by the hand that fashioned them, and in ways unknown to us, subservient to the use and benefit of man.”

“Here let me pause; for though the subject appears the more interesting and inexhaustible the more it is pursued, yet I feel insensible, that I have wandered very far, and that the thoughts, to which the sea-serpent gave rise, have already comprised the whole globe.”

The most remarkable accounts mentioned by Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE are translated in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, 1823, IV, 84, p. 273.

* * * * *

=80=.--1824 January.--In the _American Journal of Science and Arts_ conducted by Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, Vol. 28, July, 1835, we read:

“The following statement having been made by a gentleman of great intelligence and candor, a cool and judicious observer, who has travelled very extensively and traversed the seas in many climates, the editor desired a written notice of the facts which he is permitted to publish without the name of the author; with him he is, however, well-acquainted and reposes full confidence in his integrity and in his freedom from any influence of imagination.”

“Boston, April, 5th., 1835.”

“To Prof. Silliman,--Dear Sir,--On my passage from the River La Plata to this country in January, 1824, latitude 34¹⁄₂° South, and 48° West longitude, I saw what was first supposed to be a fish called an Albicore; but, on further examination it was discovered to be a serpent of which I cannot give a clearer description than to say that a common dark coloured land snake is, in miniature, a perfect representation. A light breeze prevailed at the time and the sea was quite smooth. It first appeared within ten feet of the vessel, its head was, perhaps, two feet above the water and appeared as large as a ten gallons keg; the eye was distinctly seen. The whole length of the serpent was about half the length of the vessel, say 40 feet. The size and circumference of the body, was nearly as large as a barrel; nothing like a fin was seen. I could not make out the distinct appearance of the tail. The serpent remained almost motionless while in sight, the head above water and eyes directed towards the vessel.”

Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN adds to it a

“_Remark of the Editor._--The distance of the place of observation being several hundred miles from the nearest coast, this serpent must have been a denizen of the ocean; for the huge land snake of South America could not navigate so far out to sea if indeed they ever take to the ocean at all. The snake was perfectly quiet, and appeared quite comfortable and at home on the waves. We must therefore consider this case as settling the question of the real existence of a Sea-Serpent. The absence of paddles or arms forbids us from supposing that this was a swimming saurian.”

We may observe here that all the characters of the sea-serpent of Prof. SILLIMAN’S acquaintance agree with those which are already known to us, and that the supposition or negative explanation of Prof. SILLIMAN, that this sea-serpent was not a swimming saurian is at least premature, for the assertion of the eye-witness that “nothing like a fin was seen” does not prove an “absence of paddles or arms”, which of course remained hidden under water!

* * * * *

=81=.--1824, Summer.--In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of Oct. 1824, Vol. VIII, n°. 168, p. 218, we read:

“The American Sea-Serpent is said to have appeared again this summer. A Mr. Ruggles in Bristol County, has, as is mentioned by the Newburyport Journal, seen it off Plum-Island and in Shad Cove at a distance of about 100 feet. The head was two feet long and of a brown colour. Mr. R. could distinctly observe the teeth in the mouth when opened. He could not discern the tail, but several times, about thirty feet behind the head, he observed parts of the animal in an undulating motion”.

Though this is not the first time that the teeth are mentioned to have been seen, yet now again no description of them is given.

* * * * *

=82=.--1825?--In a paper by Dr. T. S. TRAILL, printed in n^o. 44, May, 1854, of the _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh_, we read:

“That in the ocean such animals do exist, have been affirmed by persons worthy of credit. I shall notice an unpublished instance related to me many years ago by my intelligent friend, the late Mr. Andrew Strang, a gentleman of unblemished honour.” “Once, when on a deep-sea fishing, he saw pass below his boat, at the depth of eight or ten feet, an enormously long fish, of an eel-shape. It was swimming slowly with a vermicular motion, and appeared to be at least sixty feet in length.” It appeared to take no notice of them; but they hastily removed from what they considered a dangerous neighbourhood. He stated that he was shy in mentioning this circumstance, “lest the sceptical public should class him with the fableloving Bishop of Bergen.” There is considerable reason to believe that a similar fish has appeared more than once on the western coasts of Scotland.

Neither date nor locality is mentioned. I don’t hesitate to put the date at nearly thirty years back, and to choose the year 1825, and to fix the locality on the western coasts of Scotland, because of all the coasts of Great Britain only the western ones are frequented by these animals. I know but one occurrence on the eastern coast of Scotland, of which I have three observations (n^o. 141, 142, 143). I am convinced that the animal seen by Mr. ANDREW STRANG was a sea-serpent. Its enormous length of at least sixty feet, its _vermicular_ motion, its eel-shape, at once betray it. Evidently the animal moved only by vertical undulations, holding its four flappers pressed against its body, otherwise Mr. STRANG would have compared it with “an alligator with flappers like those of a sea-turtle and with a long neck,” as did Captain HOPE (n^o. 119.)

* * * * *

=83=.--1826, June 16.--(_New York Advertiser_ of June 21, 1826, and _American Journal of Science and Arts_, Vol. XI, 1826.)

“Capt. Holdrege, of the ship Silas Richards, which arrived yesterday from Liverpool, states that in passing George’s Bank, five days since, he had a fair view of the sea-serpent. It was about ten rods from the ship, the sea perfectly calm, and that part which appeared out of water about sixty feet in length. The head and protuberances were similar to the representations which have frequently been given to him by persons who had seen him near Cape Ann. He was going at a very slow rate, and appeared unmindful of the ship. He was visible about seven minutes to the passengers and crew, who were on deck at the time. A certificate has been drawn up and signed by the passengers, which, with a drawing made by one of the gentlemen, gives a minute description of the serpent as seen by them. The number and credibility of the witnesses, place beyond all doubt the existence of such an animal as a sea-serpent.”

Of this occurrence we learn more in the _Edinb. Journ. Sc._, Vol. VI, 1827, where we read in a paper by Dr. HOOKER:

“That which has been the principal inducement for us to present this imperfect paper to the public, is a letter which we have had the pleasure of seeing addressed to Robert Barclay Esq. of Bury Hall, Surrey, from Mr. Warburton, a gentleman belonging to the house of Barclay, Brothers, and Company, London. That gentleman, proceeding in his passage to America, on board the Silas Richards, New York packet, Captain Holdrege, had an opportunity of beholding this sea-monster on Friday the 16th of June off St. George’s Banks. But his own plain statement must be presumed far more satisfactory to every candid mind than any account extracted from his letter.”

“Pentonville, 20th September 1826”

“Dear Sir,”

“Having been informed by your grandson, Mr. Robert Reynolds, that you were desirous of possessing a sketch of the sea-serpent as seen by me in crossing the Atlantic, and to have some account of the same; in compliance with your wishes, I have inclosed a rough pencil drawing of the monster as it appeared during the time when its head was elevated above the water, and I shall state the particulars attending this novel exhibition.”

“The captain and myself were standing on the starboard side of the vessel, looking over the bulwark, and remarking how perfectly smooth was the surface of the sea. It was about half-past six o’clock P. M., and a cloudless sky. On a sudden we heard a rushing in the water a-head of the ship. At first we imagined it to be a whale spouting, and turning to the quarter whence the sound proceeded, we observed the serpent in the position as it appears in the sketch, slowly approaching at not more than the rate of two miles an hour, in a straight direction. I suppose we were hardly going through the water so fast, for there was scarcely a breath of wind. I must premise that I had never heard of the existence of such an animal. I instantly exclaimed, why, there is a _sea-snake_! “That is the sea-serpent”, exclaimed the captain, “and I would give my ship and cargo to catch the monster”. I immediately called to the passengers, who were all down below, but only five or six came up, among whom was Miss Magee, the daughter of a merchant in New York. The remainder refused to come up, saying there had been too many hoaxes of that kind already. I was too eager to stand parleying with them, and I returned to the captain. In the same slow style the serpent passed the vessel at about the distance of 50 yards from us, neither turning his head to the right or left. As soon as his head had reached the stern of the vessel, he gradually laid it down in a horizontal position with his body, and floated along like the mast of a vessel. That there was upwards of 60 feet visible, is clearly shown by the circumstance, that the length of the ship was upwards of 120 feet, and at the time his head was off the stern, the other end (as much as was above the surface) had not passed the main mast. The time we saw him, as described in the drawing, was two minutes and a half. After he had declined his head we saw him for about twenty minutes a-head, floating along like an enormous log of timber. His motion in the water was meandering like that of an eel, and the rake he left behind was like that occasioned by the passing of a small craft through the water. We had but one harpoon on board, and the ship’s long-boat was, for the time being converted into a _cow-house_. We had two guns on board, but no ball..... I dined one day at the Hotel of New York with Sir Isaac Coffin, who discredited the existence of such an animal, which was reported to have been seen by Captain Bennet of Boston about five years back; but as I assured him I had never heard previously even the report of such a monster, and that I was an _Englishman_, he gave full credit to it. The sketch I gave him also corresponded with the description that was circulated at that time. The humps on the back resembled in size and shape those of the dromedary. I remain, Dear Sir, yours respectfully,

“William Warburton.”

I give in fig. 27 a facsimile of the figure, accompanying the paper of Mr. HOOKER (_Edinb. Journ. Sc._ Vol. VI, 1827, Pl. I. fig. 10).

The description of the sea-serpent given here, may be summed up in the following words: When it came to the surface a rushing of the water was heard. The part which appeared out of water was about sixty feet in length. It held its head some feet above the surface of the water, swimming at a rate of two miles an hour, and showing bunches on its back. After some moments it gradually laid down its head in a horizontal position with its body, and floated along like the mast of a vessel, evidently swimming with its body in a straight line, using its flappers. The wake which it left behind was equal to that of a small vessel. Nothing is said of the skin, which evidently was smooth, otherwise the scales would have been seen and mentioned, for the animal appeared not far from the vessel. Nor does the sketch show any scales. The position of the head in the sketch, making nearly a right angle with its neck, may have led others to say it resembled that of a horse, if we take moreover in consideration that some individuals have a mane. The individual seen by Captain HOLDREGE and Mr. WARBURTON evidently had no mane.

* * * * *

=84=.--1826, June 18.--In the same letter from Mr. WARBURTON to ROBERT BARCLAY there is a passage which we have omitted above and which runs as follows:

“Two days after we saw him he was seen by another vessel off Cape Cod, about 200 miles from where he made his appearance to us. This intelligence reached New York about four days after we arrived there, and the description given exactly corresponds with the foregoing.”

Evidently this was the same individual, or one of the same sex.

* * * * *

In 1827 Dr. HOOKER wrote the following paper for the _Edinburgh Journal of Science_, Vol. VI:

“When we remember the numberless impositions concerning Natural History, which at various periods have been detected, it is not surprising that doubt should be a principal, nay, a necessary, qualification of the student of Nature. Yet we cannot but think that the scientific world in general has been too incredulous concerning the sea-serpent, seeing the mass of concurrent testimony which has been adduced to prove its existence. It is certainly true that vague reports had been spread abroad with regard to this enormous animal long ere any just foundation was afforded for them, and indeed before we had heard of any who professed to have seen it. This may have very far conduced to produce that scepticism which now is perfectly unwarrantable. We are so accustomed, whenever the subject is introduced in conversation, to couple it with the preposterous fables of the _Kraken_, that it would be extremely difficult to break down the barriers against belief which prejudice has so long assisted to support. The accounts of the most credible witnesses have thus been rejected, although, “_to make assurance doubly sure_”, the generality of them have been taken upon oath.”

“So many wonderful discoveries, both in the arts and Sciences, have been made within the last century, that it is astonishing how the existence of the sea-serpent has been supposed either so marvellous or impossible. Time has satisfactorily proved the veracity of Bruce, and we must leave it to time to do the same office with regard to the beholders of this “wonder of the deep.” Is this monster more disproportionate to the extent of the sea than the elephant to that of the land? Or, it may be asked, has it a solid bulk, (even according to late most extravagant accounts), nearly approaching in magnitude to that of the whale? Geology has been infinitely more fortunate than zoology in many respects; theories only partially sustained have been received; and while the recent discoveries of the _Plesiosaurus_ and _Megalosaurus_ have made demands upon our powers of credence far greater than the _serpent_, the descriptions of the latter animal have received very little trust, and even much ridicule and contempt. In general, however, it must be confessed, that people do not object to the extraordinary proportions of such a creature, so much as to what they consider the want of respectable and satisfactory evidence. We trust to advance, in the sequel, such additional evidence to that already presented, and of such respectability, as to confirm entirely the truth of the existence of such an animal,--an animal concerning which so many contradictory opinions have been hazarded as to its more immediate nature and structure; and which, from the mystery in which it has hitherto been wrapped, must be interesting to the most casual admirer of nature:--which must be interesting even from the element in which it lives; so vast, so unexplored in its inmost recesses. We can have so little information with regard to an animal which has so mighty an habitation, that it acquires a grandeur in our estimation far surpassing those which inhabit the earth. The monsters of the deep appear so independent of our influence, and so far removed from any connection with us, that any increase of our knowledge in reference to them must be highly gratifying.”

“It was during the year 1817 that it began to be correctly reported, that in the neighbourhood of Boston and Gloucester in America, an animal, in general construction nearly resembling a serpent, had been frequently seen. These rumours created a good deal of excitement, insomuch that, at a meeting of the Linnaean Society of New England, it was determined more fully to investigate the matter. The Honourable Lonson Nash of Gloucester was appointed by a Committee to gather together all the information which might be obtained.”

“It is unnecessary here to dwell at any length upon the evidence which his unremitting and meritorious exertions procured. From different quarters, individuals of the highest respectability communicated all the information which it was in their power to proffer, and all declared themselves prepared to take an oath upon the accuracy of their narrations. No testimony was received, excepting from those who professed to have been personal witnesses of the monster: no weight was given to their accounts deduced from the reports which were everywhere circulated:--the unadorned and unexaggerated style in which their statements were worded is of itself perfectly sufficient to win over to all unqualified trust. The witnesses for the most part, unite in ascribing a vertical motion to the creature. Fifty or sixty yards was no uncommon distance between it and the spectators, and it was never seen except in weather the most calm and bright. But these facts, along with the various depositions, have been long laid before the public in the “Report of the Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England”, and it is our part now merely to adduce some corroborative circumstances which have lately occurred, and which _we_ think puts the matter for ever beyond the possibility of a doubt;--facts which have already completely satisfied some highly scientific gentlemen, who before were entirely sceptical.”

He next gives the letter from Mr. WARBURTON, of which we have spoken above, and the letter from Mr. BOOTT, parts of which we have inserted in n^o. 63 and 70. After the different passages from various transactions and journals referring to the papers in Sir JOSEPH BANKS’ library (p. 220), Dr. HOOKER goes on:

“We sincerely hope that these few bare facts may satisfy all upon this much agitated question; at least we think they must remove the ideal connection between _our_ serpent, and

“That sea-snake, enormous curled,
“Whose monstrous circle girds the world.”

“It can now no longer be considered in association with hydras and mermaids, for there has been nothing said with regard to it inconsistent with reason. It may at least be assumed as a sober fact in Natural History quite unconnected with the gigantic exploits of the _God Thor_, or the fanciful absurdities of the Scandinavian mythology. We cannot suppose, that the most ultra-sceptical can now continue to doubt with regard to facts attested by such highly respectable witnesses.”

It is a deplorable fact that all the endeavours of such an eminent scientist to convince zoologists of the existence of sea-serpents, have been in vain!

German translations of the whole of Dr. HOOKER’S paper as well as of the letters from Dr. BOOTT and Mr. WARBURTON are in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, of April, 1827, Vol. XVII, n^o. 356, p. 49.

In the _American Journal of Science and Arts_, Vol. XII, June 1827, the editor, Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, says:

“To us it seems a matter of surprise, that any person who has examined the testimony, can doubt the existence of the Sea-Serpent; the documents communicated by Dr. Bigelow of Boston, and published in the second volume of this Journal, in 1820, were in our judgment alone sufficient, to settle the question: the following letter is an important additional document.”

This is the letter from Mr. WARBURTON to Mr. BARCLAY, reprinted evidently from the _Edinb. Journal_ (n^o. 83, 84).

* * * * *

=85=.--1827, August 24.--According to FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ Vol. XIX, n^o. 409, p. 193,

“the _Norwegische Handelszeitung_” (apparently of the 3d. or 4th. of September, 1827), “contains fresh intelligence of the Sea-Serpent, which confirms what has been published by Captain de Capell Brooke.”

“In the last days of the last month an animal was seen by several trustworthy men in Christianiafjord, which, according to the description, appears to be a sea-serpent of extraordinary dimensions. On the 1st of this month five eyewitnesses were heard before the justice of peace, and according to their agreeing declarations, the animal held its head, which was dark and black, above the surface of the water, and showed at least ten coils; there was a distance of about twenty ells” (60 feet) “between each two coils, and the coils themselves were about six ells” (18 feet) “so that the total length of the animal may be estimated at 250 ells” (750 feet). “It moved with about the swiftness of a common boat, rowed by a man in still water, and caused a heavy rushing, like a strong motion in the water. The thickness was about that of a large wine-barrel or pipe. No tail, nor fins were observed. The rushing, it is believed, was caused by the head. The coils were movable, i. e. what was above the water one moment, was under it the next. Two eye-witnesses also declared, that what they saw, was one coherent whole and were not several animals. On Friday, the 24th. of August, at 10 o’clock A. M. the animal was seen moving from the Vakkerö-Bay into the Bonnefjord. The animal was seen from a distance of 200 fathoms.”

Although the dimensions are exaggerated, the other features of the animal, viz. the head which is dark and black, and held above the water, the undulating motion of the animal, its visible coils, the rushing sound made by it, the apparent want of fins and the tail, which were hidden under water, are correct and known to us.

* * * * *

=86=.--1827, August 26.--(The same journal, the same issue).

“And on Sunday, the 26th. of August at 7 o’clock in the evening it came again from the fjord and swam towards the ship-wharf, passing Liob-, and Principal-Islands.--It was then seen from a distance of 120 fathoms. The eye-witnesses declared, that, if asked, they were ready to make oath to those declarations.”

* * * * *

=87=.--1827, September 3.--(The same journal, the same issue).--

“Christiania, Sept. 5.--The sea-serpent, mentioned in the Monday-number, has been seen again the day before yesterday off Nusodden.”

* * * * *

=88=.--1827, September 5.--(The same journal, the same issue).

“and to-day, off Lepager, by persons just as trustworthy as those who were heard before the justice. Their affidavit in principal points agrees with that of the former. A reward is offered to whoever will kill it and bring it home.”

* * * * *

=89=.--1827, September 9.--(The same journal, the same issue).--

“Christiania, September 15.--Sunday last the sea-serpent appeared also off Dröbak. Last week several persons saw large shoals of porpoises, and therefore supposed that the alleged presence of the former could not be true. But as among those who saw the sea-serpent, are many fishermen and seamen, who know very well how to distinguish the several sea-animals, and as it is not at all uncommon, that porpoises and whales of the smaller kind appear here in the fjord, so there is no reason to condemn the judicial concurrent testimonies.”

* * * * *

=90=, =91=.--1828? The well-known Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE, when on a journey in Norway, noted down the following evidence, which he published in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ of 1841.

“Nils Roe, workman at Mr. William Knutszon’s, an elderly and simple man, relates: I saw the serpent twice, once at noon, and two days afterwards towards the evening, in the fjord” (near Christiansund) “at the back of Mr. Knutszon’s garden. The first time, when it was nearest to me, it was about a hundred feet distant. It swam first along the fjord, afterwards over against the spot, where I stood. I then observed it for more than half an hour. Some strangers, who were on the opposite shore, fired at it, when it disappeared.”

“The second time it was farther from me. It was small, perhaps twice as long as this room (about forty-four feet); while swimming it made serpentine movements, some to left and right, others up and down. I cannot state its correct thickness, but it appeared to be about as a common snake in proportion to its length. It was much thinner towards the tail. Several times it raised its head wholly above the water, but so, that it was just above the surface; the neck, however, and the other part of the body were but partly visible above the surface. The front of the head was rather pointed: the eyes were very large and glistened like those of a cat. I did not see a tongue and did not observe that it opened its mouth. I cannot state that the neck just behind the head is much thinner than the head itself, for from the back of the head commenced a mane like that of a horse, which waved to and fro in the water. Just behind the head the mane was thickest and got thinner further backwards; in general it was not very long. The colour of the animal was a blackish brown.”

Again we meet with no character that is not known to us. All of them have already been stated.

* * * * *

=92=.--1829?--The following is an evidence given before the same Mr. RATHKE, being at Christiansund, and published by him in the journal mentioned above.

“Lars Johnöen, a fisherman at Smölen, about 50 years of age. I have seen the sea-serpent several times, but for the longest time and nearest to me, twelve years ago in the dog-days in the fjord not far from here (Christiansund), when I was alone, one noon, angling in a boat. Then I saw it within two hours three times for a considerable time, quite near to me. It came close to my boat, so that it was only about six feet from me. (He placed himself in the room at a distance of nearly six feet from the wall, and said, this was about the distance between him and the serpent.) I became alarmed; recommended my soul to God, laid myself down in the boat, and only held my head so far over it, that I could observe the serpent. It swam now past the boat, that was vehemently agitated by the ripple caused by its movements in the water, which was previously smooth as a mirror, and afterwards took itself off. After it had swam a considerable distance from me, I wound my angling line round the little instrument commonly used (a frame, moving on an axis) and I began again to fish. Not long afterwards, however, the serpent came again quite close to the boat, which again was violently agitated by the movements made by it in the water. I lay down again, and remained quite still, keeping, however, a watchful eye on the animal. Again it passed me, disappeared far off, and returned, though not so close as before, and at last disappeared, when a light wind rose, and ruffled the water. Notwithstanding my fright I yet observed the animal very accurately. Its length was about five to six fathoms, and the body, which was as round as a snake’s, was about two feet in diameter. (Lars Johnöen measured on a table before him with his hands a space of about two feet). The tail too appeared to me to be round. The head was about as long and as thick as a brandy anker (a ten gallon cask), it was not pointed but bluntly round. The eyes were very large and glistening. Their size (or diameter) was about that of this box here (five inches), and they were as red as my neckerchief (crimson). The animal did not open its mouth, therefore I cannot give its size. It constantly held its head above the surface of the water in an acute angle; not so high, however, that the nose should come over the board of a boat. Close behind the head, a mane like a horse’s commenced, extending rather far down the neck, and spreading on both sides; floated on the water; it was of tolerably long hair. The mane as well as the head and the rest of the body was brown as this looking glass frame (dark brown of old mahogany). I could not observe spots, or stripes of other colours, nor were there any scales; it seemed as if the body was quite smooth. The movements of the serpent were by turns fast and slow; they were also slow when the animal approached my boat. At the moment in which I could observe it best, its movements were serpentine, up and down. The few undulations, made by those parts of the body and the tail that were out of the water, were scarcely a fathom in length. These undulations were not so high, that I could see between them and the water.--When Lars Johnöen had given this declaration, the drawing which Pontoppidan had given of the animal was shown to him. He looked at it with astonishment, smiled and said that he saw a great resemblance between it and the animal he had seen. He likewise said, that some of the other sea-serpents he had seen were a great deal longer than the one described above.”

This unvarnished account describes very well the animal’s general doings, and accurately pictures its curiosity and harmlessness.

* * * * *

=93=.--1829, July.--We shall soon be acquainted with the appearance of the sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE of the _Daedalus_, on Aug. 6, 1848. Prof. RICHARD OWEN, questioned whether this animal could be a snake or not, gave his answer in an article published in the _Times_ of Nov. 11, 1848, wherein he expresses his opinion that it must have been a large seal. This article seems to have been reprinted in the _Bombay Bi-monthly Times_. In the same journal for January, 1849, appeared the following statement and objections against Professor OWEN’S suggestions.

“I see, in your paper of the 30th December, a paragraph in which a doubt is expressed of the authenticity of the account given by Captain M’Quhae of the “great sea-serpent”. When returning to India, in the year 1829, I was standing on the poop of the _Royal Saxon_, in conversation with Captain Petrie, the commander of that ship. We were at a considerable distance south-west of the Cape of Good Hope, in the usual track of vessels to this country, going rapidly along (seven or eight knots) in fine smooth water. It was in the middle of the day, and the other passengers were at luncheon; the man at the wheel, a steerage passenger, and ourselves, being the only persons on the poop. Captain Petrie and myself, at the same instant, were literally fixed in astonishment by the appearance, a short distance ahead, of an animal of which no more generally correct description could be given than that by Captain M’Quhae. It passed within thirty-five yards of the ship, without altering its course in the least; but as it came right abreast of us, it slowly turned its head towards us. Apparently about one third of the upper part of its body was above water, in nearly its whole length; and we could see the water curling up on its breast as it moved along, but by what means it moved we could not perceive. We watched it going astern with intense interest until it had nearly disappeared, when my companion, turning to me with a countenance expressive of the utmost astonishment, exclaimed, “Good heavens! what can that be?” It was strange that we never thought of calling the party engaged at luncheon to witness the extraordinary sight we had seen; but the fact is, we were so absorbed in it ourselves, that we never spoke, and scarcely moved, until it had nearly disappeared. Captain Petrie, a superior and most intelligent man, has since perished in the exercise of his profession. Of the fate of the others then on deck I am ignorant; so the story rests on my own unsupported word, but I pledge that word to its correctness. Professor Owen’s supposition, that the animal seen by the officers of the _Daedalus_ was a gigantic seal, I believe to be incorrect, because we saw this apparently similar creature in its whole length, with the exception of a small portion of the tail, which was under water; and, by comparing its length with that of the _Royal Saxon_ (about six hundred feet), when exactly alongside in passing, we calculated it to be in that, as well as in its other dimensions, greater than the animal described by Captain M’Quhae. Should the foregoing account be of any interest to you, it is at your service; it is an old story, but a true one. I am not quite sure of our latitude and longitude at the time, nor do I exactly remember the date, but it was about the end of July.--R. DAVIDSON, Superintending Surgeon, Nagpore Subsidiary Force, Kamptee, 3d January 1849.”

At present we have only to fix our attention on the animal’s appearance, and not on Mr. DAVIDSON’S objections. As the reader will observe, the whole description agrees with other accounts already given. There is nothing in it that is new or unknown to us.

* * * * *

=94=.--1830?--The well-known Mr. HEINRICH RATHKE, on his journey in Norway, being in Christiansund, noted down the following evidence, to publish it in the _Archiv für Naturgeschichte_ of 1841.

“John Johnson, merchant, about 60 years of age, says in German: I saw the animal some years ago in the fjord” (of Christiansund); “it was about a thousand paces distant, when nearest to me; I observed it for more than half an hour. It swam very swiftly, for in the same time that we rowed about a quarter of a mile aside of it, it had swum about one half of a mile. I saw it best when it swam in a semicircle round a tolerable large rock that obstructed its passage, coming to that side of it which was turned towards me; in doing this it partly raised itself above the surface of the water. Its colour was blackish; its length was about that of this house (55 feet). Except the head, I did not observe much of its body, as it appeared but little above the surface. Judging from what I observed now and then, I think its thickness to be that of a stout man’s body. Its head was apparently as large as a hat. It was not pointed, but seemed rather blunt; in general, however, in comparison with its thickness, it was not very long. It was held but little above the surface of the water, making an acute angle with it; and it remained above the surface, as long as I saw it. Owing to the distance I could not discern the eyes. Also on account of the distance or because the neck was seldom elevated above the surface, I could observe nothing of a mane. The agitation which it caused in the water was very strong. The movements of the animal itself were serpentine, up and down, like those of a swimming leech. When the animal had reached a spot, where the water was ruffled by a rising gentle wind, it disappeared. Moreover, I believe, that the animal is not much to be feared and that it would not easily harm men.”

* * * * *

=95=.--1831?--The same Mr. RATHKE also noted down the following declaration (published in the above mentioned journal.)

“Mr. William Knutszon and Candidatus Theologiae Booklune gave the following written account: We together saw the sea-serpent in a narrow fjord, at a distance of about one sixteenth of a mile” (about 515 yards) “for about a quarter of an hour; afterwards it dived, and came up so far from us, that we could not see it plainly. The water was as smooth as a mirror, and the animal had, as it moved on the surface, quite the appearance of a worm, or of a snake. Its motions were in undulations, and so strong, that white foam appeared before it, and waves were caused at its sides, which extended over several fathoms. It did not appear very high above the water, and it was principally its length, which was quite considerable. Once, however, it stretched its head quite erect in the air. The body was somewhat dark, and the head nearly black; the body had nearly the form of an eel or of a snake, a length of about fifty ells” (above one hundred feet) “and in proportion to it an inconsiderable thickness. The breadth diminished considerably from the head to the tail, so that the latter ended in a point. The head was long and narrow in proportion to the throat, as the latter appeared much greater than the former, which probably was the consequence of its being provided with a mane. The details of the head were not to be discerned, as the distance was too great.”

I may observe here that if these eye-witnesses declare that the head seemed to be narrower than the throat, this may probably also be the consequence of the animal’s contracting its neck. This may be often seen in seals and sea-lions. If a common seal has contracted its neck, it appears as if the animal has no neck, as if the head is immediately connected with the body. In reality the neck is shortened, and has become thicker than the head. If stretched, the neck on the contrary is very well visible, and narrower than the head. The same in sea-lions. If contracted, several rings of blubber surround the hind part of the head, which appears smaller than the neck; if stretched, the neck immediately gets much narrower and the head is broader than the neck. The expression “which probably was the consequence of its being provided with a mane” distinctly shows that the eye-witnesses, knowing that others at other times saw a mane, intended to explain the phenomenon they observed by the presence of this mane, which they could impossibly see, “as the distance was too great.”

* * * * *

=96=.--1832, Summer.--(FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, XXXV, n^o. 756).

“There is again question in Norway of the sea-serpent. It is said to have appeared and remained rather a long time in the Rödö- and Södelöw fjords this summer, and to have been seen by many persons. Distinct traces of it are said to have been found in the fields (??).”

We observe that Mr. FRORIEP adds two notes of interrogation after the last words. Evidently he is unable to explain them. I am convinced of the truth that the sea-serpent appeared in the fjords above mentioned. As to the traces of it, I must tell my readers that the superstition of the Norwegian people has forged this fable ever since they first became aware that the sea-serpent frequented their fjords. We have already met with this tale in PONTOPPIDAN’S _Natural History of Norway_, and probably the Norwegians will tell it us again, if we ask them now!

* * * * *

=97=.--1833, May, 15.--(Zoologist p. 1714, 1847).

“On the 15th. of May, 1833, a party, consisting of Captain Sullivan, Lieutenants Maclachlan and Malcolm of the Rifle Brigade, Lieutenant Lyster of the Artillery, and Mr. Ince of the Ordnance, started from Halifax in a small yacht for Mahone Bay, some forty miles eastward, on a fishing excursion. The morning was cloudy, and the wind at S. S. E., and apparently rising. By the time we reached Chebucto Head, as we had taken no pilot with us, we deliberated whether we should proceed or turn back; but, after a consultation, we determined on the former, having lots of ports on our lee. Previous to our leaving town, an old man-of-war’s-man we had along with us busied himself in inquiries as to our right course; he was told to take his departure from the Bull Rock, off Pennant Point, and that a W. N. W. course would bring us direct on Iron Bound Island, at the entrance of Mahone or Mecklenburgh Bay. He, however, unfortunately told us to steer W. S. W., nor corrected his error for five or six hours; consequently we had gone a long distance off the coast. We had run about half the distance, as we supposed, and were enjoying ourselves on deck, smoking our cigars, and getting our tackle ready for the approaching campaign against the salmon, when we were surprised by the sight of an immense shoal of grampuses, which appeared in an unusual state of excitement, and which in their gambols approached so close to our little craft, that some of the party amused themselves by firing at them with rifles. At this time we were jogging on at about five miles an hour, and must have been crossing Margaret’s Bay. I merely conjecture where we were, as we had not seen land since a short time after leaving Pennant Bay. Our attention was presently diverted from the whales and “such small deer”, by an exclamation from Dowling, our man-of-war’s-man, who was sitting to leeward, of, “Oh sirs, look here!” We were started into a ready compliance, and saw an object which banished all other thoughts, save wonder and surprise.”

“At the distance of from a hundred and fifty to two hundred yards on our starboard bow, we saw the head and neck of some denizen of the deep, precisely like those of a common snake, in the act of swimming, the head so far elevated and thrown forward by the curve of the neck, as to enable us to see the water under and beyond it. The creature rapidly passed, leaving a regular wake, from the commencement of which, to the fore part, which was out of water, we judged its length to be about eighty feet, and this within, rather than beyond the mark. We were, of course, all taken aback at the sight, and, with staring eyes and in speechless wonder, stood gazing at it for full half a minute. There could be no mistake, no delusion, and we were all perfectly satisfied that we had been favoured with a view of the “true and veritable sea-serpent”, which had been generally considered to have existed only in the brain of some Yankee skipper, and treated as a tale not much entitled to belief. Dowling’s exclamation is worthy of record. “Well, I’ve sailed in all parts of the world, and have seen rum sights too in my time, but this is the queerest thing I ever see!” and surely Jack Dowling was right. It is most difficult to give correctly the dimensions of any object in the water. The head of the creature we set down at about six feet in length, and that portion of the neck which we saw at the same; the extreme length, as before stated, at between eighty and one hundred feet. The neck in thickness equalled the bole of a moderate-sized tree. The head and neck of a dark brown or nearly black colour, streaked with white in irregular streaks. I do not recollect seeing any part of the body.”

“Such is the rough account of the sea-serpent, and all the party who saw it are still in the land of the living,--Lyster in England, Malcolm in New South Wales with his regiment, and the remainder still vegetating in Halifax.”

“W. SULLIVAN, Captain, Rifle Brigade, June 21, 1831.

“A. MACLACHLAN, Lieutenant, ditto, August 5, 1824.

“G. P. MALCOLM, Ensign, ditto, August 13, 1830.

“B. O’NEAL LYSTER, Lieut. Artillery, June 7, 1816.

“HENRY INCE, Ordnance Storekeeper at Halifax.”

Mr. NEWMAN, the editor of the _Zoologist_ adds between parentheses:

“The dates are those on which the gentlemen received their respective Commission, I am not aware of their present rank. I am indebted to Mr. W. H. Ince for this interesting communication: this gentleman received it from his brother, Commander J. M. R. Ince, R. N. It is written by their uncle, Mr. Henry Ince, the Ordnance store-keeper at Halifax, Nova Scotia.”--

We observe that the colour of the head and neck is described as “streaked with white in irregular streaks”, and that evidently the sea-serpent hunted after the grampuses “which appeared in an unusual state of excitement”.

This account translated into German is in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, Third Series, III, n^o. 54, p. 148.

* * * * *

=98=, =99=.--1833, July.--In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of June 1834 we read that Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN in a note to Mr. BAKEWELL’S _Introduction to Geology_, stated that

“since 1820 nearly each year the mass of evidences has increased, and that the current year 1833 has been particularly fertile in such reports.”

Dr. HAMILTON in his _Amphibious Carnivora_, 1839, says:

“The last notice we have seen of this American animal bears date July 1833. The Boston and New-York papers of that date state, that the Sea-Serpent had again appeared off Nahant. “It was first seen on Saturday afternoon, passing between Egg-Rock and the Promuntory, winding his way into Lynn-Harbour, and again on Sunday morning, heading for South-shores. He was seen by forty or fifty ladies and gentlemen, who insist that they could not have been deceived.”

* * * * *