The great sea-serpent (part 2 of 5)

Preface

In all ages meteoric stones have fallen on the earth. Many of them were found by persons who were in search of them; they preserved them, and thus collections were made in private rarity cabinets and in natural history cabinets. Many learned persons believed in meteoric stones, but many others were sceptical, and their attacks were so violent, and their mockery about stones that fell from the atmosphere, or were thrown by the men in the Moon to the inhabitants of the Earth, so sharp as to shake the belief of many a collector, and the happy possessor, fearing the mockery of the so-called learned men, concealed his treasures, or threw them away on the dust-hill, or in a ditch.

But at last there appeared a firm believer in aerolites, named CHLADNI, who took the trouble to collect all accounts concerning observations of meteoric stones from the ancient times up to the nineteenth century. He showed 1. The immense number of facts. 2. The strikingly concurrent testimony in all the accounts independent of one another.

In the year 1829 he published his work “Ueber Feuermeteore” (i. e. on Meteoric Stones) in Vienna, and from that moment the eyes of unbelievers were opened. Meteoric stones were again found, and were proved to be quite different from terrestrial stones. From that moment the belief in the existence of meteoric stones was fixed for ever.

The author of the present Volume has been at the pains to collect all accounts concerning observations of Sea-Serpents. His work has the same purpose as CHLADNI’S had in 1829. It is his sincere hope that it may meet with the same success.

THE HAGUE,

A. C. O. JZN.

February 1^{st}, 1891.

III. Would-be Sea-Serpents 60

IV. The various accounts and reports concerning observations of Sea-Serpents, chronologically arranged and thoroughly discussed; and criticisms on the papers written about the subject 102

V. The various explanations hitherto given 380

VI. Conclusions 485 List of observations 485 A. Fables, fictions, exaggerations and errors 495 B. Facts 498 1. External characters 498 a. Dimensions 498 b. Form 505 c. Skin 511 2. Internal or anatomical characters 512 3. Colours, individual variations 513 4. Sexual differences, mane 515 5. Physiological characters 517 a. Nutritory functions 517 1. Eating, food 517 2. Breathing 518 3. Excretion 518 b. Functions of the senses 519 1. Feeling 519 2. Taste 519 3. Smell 519 4. Hearing 520 5. Sight 520 c. Functions of the muscular system 520 1. Relative mobility of organs 520 2. Motions 522 3. Voice 530 d. Generation, growth 530 6. Psychical characters 531 a. Not taking notice of objects 531 b. Taking notice of objects 531 c. Curiosity, probably mixed with suspicion 531 d. Suspicion 531 e. Harmlessness 532 f. Timidity 532 g. Fearlessness 532 h. Fear 532 i. Fright 533 j. Fury 533 k. Toughness 533 l. Playsomeness 533 m. Sensibility of fine weather 534 7. Enemies 535 8. Repose, sleep, death 535 9. Geographical distribution 537 10. Nomenclature 545 C. Conclusions 546 1. Comparison with allied animals 546 2. Its rank in the System of Nature 560

Appendix 572

Last word 592

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

Page. Fig. 1.--Thynnus thynnus (Linn.) 19 Fig. 2.--Hydrarchos Sillimanni Koch 31 Fig. 3 and 4.--Would-be Sea-Serpent seen near Galveston 55 Fig. 5.--The Sea-Monster, as Mr. C. RENARD supposed to have seen it 58 Fig. 6.--The largest calamary, ever found, with a scale of 80 feet 61 Fig. 7.--The Animal of Stronsa 63 Fig. 8.--Squalus maximus, Linn. 72 Fig. 9.--Chimaera monstrosa, Linn. 76 Fig. 10.--Lamna cornubica (Linn.) 78 Fig. 11.--A large calamary, swimming on the surface of the sea 88 Fig. 12.--Lineus longissimus, Sow 91 Fig. 13.--Gymnetrus gladius, Cuv. Val. 93 Fig. 14.--The Sea-Serpent, as represented by OLAUS MAGNUS 106 Fig. 15.--The Sea-Serpent, illustrating the text of GESNER 107 Fig. 16.--The second Sea-Serpent, illustrating the same work 108 Fig. 17.--The Sea-Serpent, as represented in the Basle edition of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work 109 Fig. 18.--The Sea-Serpent, illustrating the Map of Scandinavia in the Basle edition of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work 109 Fig. 19.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by HANS EGEDE, drawn by Mr. BING 114 Fig. 20.--The same individual, plunging back into the water 115 Fig. 21.--The drawing of Mr. BING, as reprinted and altered in the Illustrated London News of 1848 116 Fig. 22.--Mr. BING’S drawing, as copied by PONTOPPIDAN 119 Fig. 23.--Mr. BING’S drawing, as altered in Dr. HAMILTON’S work 120 Fig. 24.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Governor BENSTRUP 126 Fig. 25.--Mr. BENSTRUP’S drawing, as altered in Dr. HAMILTON’S work 127 Fig. 26.--The Sea-Serpent, as delineated by Mr. PRINCE 207 Fig. 27.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Mr. WARBURTON 234 Fig. 28.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by the Officers of the Daedalus 273 Fig. 29.--Another sketch of the same individual 274 Fig. 30.--A sketch of the head of the same individual 276 Fig. 31.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by an officer of H. M. S. Plumper 296 Fig. 32, 33, 34 and 35.--The Sea-Serpent as seen by Capt. GUY, of the Imogen 304 Fig. 36.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Captains TREMEARNE and MORGAN 306 Fig. 37 and 38.--Two positions of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by Dr. BICCARD 308 Fig. 39 and 40.--Two positions of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by the Rev. JOHN MACRAE and the Rev. DAVID TWOPENY 323 Fig. 41.--The so-called “Fight between a sea-serpent and a sperm-whale” 330 Fig. 42.--Another representation of the so-called “Fight between a sea-serpent and a sperm-whale” 334 Fig. 43.--The sperm-whale going down head foremost to the bottom 335 Fig. 44.--The ridge of fins, mentioned in the report of the Osborne 348 Fig. 45.--The Sea-Serpent as seen by Commander PEARSON and Lieutenant HAYNES of the Osborne 349 Fig. 46.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen by Major SENIOR of the City of Baltimore 357 Fig. 47.--Outline of the back of the Sea-Serpent, as seen by the Rev. H. W. BROWN 361 Fig. 48 and 49.--Two positions of the sea-serpent, as seen by Captain DAVISON of the Kiushiu Maru 363 Fig. 50.--The Sea-Serpent, as seen from the Stettin Lloyd Steamer Kätie near the Hebrides. Drawn under the supervision of the Captain, Mr. WEISZ, by the American animal-painter Mr. ANDREW SCHULTZ 367 Fig. 51.--Outline of the Sea-Serpent seen near Little Orme’s Head, drawn by Mr. F. T. MOTT, after three different sketches 369 Fig. 52.--Phocaena phocoena (Linn.). 381 Fig. 53.--A row of porpoises 385 Fig. 54.--Scoliophis atlanticus, one sixth of full size 386 Fig. 55.--Its head, full size 386 Fig. 56.--Hydrophis pelamidoides 390 Fig. 57.--Balaenoptera physalus (Linn.). 398 Fig. 58.--Ichthyosaurus communis, skeleton 400 Fig. 59.--Ichthyosaurus communis, restored 400 Fig. 60.--Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus, skeleton 401 Fig. 61.--Plesiosaurus dolichodeirus, restored 402 Fig. 62.--Chlamydosaurus 432 Fig. 63.--Iguana tuberculata 433 Fig. 64.--Catodon macrocephalus 435 Fig. 65.--Basilosaurus, skeleton 436 Fig. 66.--Basilosaurus, restored 436 Fig. 67.--Basilosaurus as imagined by Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD, JUN. 442 Fig. 68.--Eurypharynx pelecanoides, Vaillant 445 Fig. 69.--Macrorhinus leoninus (Linn.) 449 Fig. 70.--Position of a gigantic calamary, by which Mr. HENRY LEE explains Mr. BING’S drawing 475 Fig. 71.--Thrichechus manatus Linné 482 Fig. 72.--Sea-Serpent, side view, outlines, drawn from the descriptions 516 Fig. 73.--Sea-Serpent, back view, outlines, drawn from the descriptions 516 Fig. 74.--Zalophus californianus (Lesson) Allen?--Drawn by W. P. from a living specimen in the Brighton Aquarium.--From the Illustrated London News of Jan. 6, 1877 547 Fig. 75.--Zalophus californianus (Lesson) Allen?--Drawn by W. P. from a living specimen in the Brighton Aquarium.--From the Illustrated London News, of Jan. 6, 1877 548 Fig. 76.--Eumetopias Stelleri (Lesson) Peters.--Drawn by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin.--From the Illustrirte Zeitung of Jan. 27, 1877 549 Fig. 77.--Eumetopias Stelleri (Lesson) Peters.--Sketched by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the Illustrirte Zeitung of Jan. 27, 1877 550 Fig. 78.--Eumetopias Stelleri (Lesson) Peters.--Sketched from a living specimen by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the Illustrirte Zeitung of Jan. 27, 1877 550 Fig. 79.--Eumetopias Stelleri (Lesson) Peters.--Sketched by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the Illustrirte Zeitung of Jan. 27, 1877 551 Fig. 80.--Eumetopias Stelleri (Lesson) Peters.--Sketched by the animal-painter G. MÜTZEL from a living specimen in the Zoological Gardens of Berlin. From the Illustrirte Zeitung of Jan. 27, 1877 551 Fig. 81.--Otaria jubata (Forster) Desmarest.--From the List of the Vertebrated Animals now or lately Living in the Gardens of the Zoological Society of London, 1877 552 Fig. 82.--Callorhinus ursinus (Linné). Gray.--From BREHM’S, “Thierleben” 553

I.

Literature on the Subject.

An asterisk (*), placed before the works, mentioned in the list, signifies that the author has had no opportunity to consult them.

1555.--=Olaus Magnus.= Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus, earumque diversis statibus, conditionibus, etc., etc. Romae, 1555, p. 771.

*1556.--=Olaus Magnus.= Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus, etc., etc., (Editio nec Romae nec Basileae).

1560.--=Gesner.= Nomenclator aquatilium animantium (= Historia animalium liber IV), Tiguri, 1560, p. 93, 94.

1567.--=Olaus Magnus.= Historia de gentium septentrionalium variis conditionibus statibusve, etc., etc., Basileae, 1567, p. 799.

*1608.--=Edward Topsell.= The history of serpents, or the second booke of living creatures. With wood cuts in-fol. London, 1608, (315 pag.).

1640.--=Aldrovandus.= Serpentum et draconum historiae libri duo. Bononiae, 1640, p. 58, 59, 296.

1653.--=Jonston.= Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V, et de serpentibus et draconibus libri II. Francofurti, 1653.

1657.--=Jonston.= Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V, et de serpentibus et draconibus libri II, Amstelodami, 1657.

1660.--=Jonston.= Naeukeurige beschrijving van de natuur der vissen en der slangen en draken. Amsterdam, 1660. Deel II en IV.

*1665.--=Jonston.= Historiae naturalis de piscibus et cetis libri V, et de serpentibus et draconibus libri II, Amstelodami, 1665.

1667.--=Milton.= Paradise Lost. I, 192-208.

1668.--=Charleton.= Onomasticon zoicon. Londini, 1668. p. 34.

*1670.--=Berndsen.= Danmarks og Norges fruchtbare Herlighed, 1670?

1674.--=Adam Olearius.= Gottorfische Kunstkammer. Schleswig, 1674.

*1690.--=Ramus.= Norges Beskrivelse, 1690?

1718.--=Jonston.= Theatrum universale omnium animalium, Amstelaedami. Edidit =Ruysch=. 1718.

*1722.--=Jean Baptiste Labat.= Nouveau Voyage aux Isles de l’Amérique, contenant l’histoire naturelle de ces pays, etc. 6 Vols. Paris, Giffard, 1722. 12^o.

1724.--=Jean Baptiste Labat.= Nouveau Voyage aux Isles de l’Amérique, contenant l’histoire naturelle de ces pays, etc. 6 Vols. La Haye, 1724.

1725.--=Père Labat.= Nieuwe reizen naar de franse eilanden van Amerika: In ’t Nederlandsch in ’t ligt gebracht door =W. C. Dijks=. Amsterdam, 1725, Vol. IV. P. I. p. 43.--Vol. IV. P. II. p. 105.

*1730.--=P. Dass.= Beskrivelse over Nordland. 1730?

*1740.--=Hans Egede.= (A Full and Particular Relation of his Voyage to Greenland, as a Missionary, in the year 1734, printed in Danish at) Kjoebenhavn, 1740.

*1740.--=Hans Egede.= Ausführliche und Wahrhafte Nachricht vom Anfange und Fortgange der Groenländischen Mission, etc. Hamburg, 1740. 4^o.

1741.--=Paul Egede.= Continuation af Relationerne betreffende den Groenlanske Mission, Tilstand og Beskaffenhed, Kjoebenhavn, 1741.

*1741.--=Paul Egede.= Fortgesetzte Relationen die Groenländische Mission betreffend; Kopenhagen, 1741.

1741.--=Hans Egede.= Det gamle Groenlands nye Perlustration. Kjoebenhavn, 1741.

1742.--=Hans Egede.= Des alten Groenlands neue Perlustration. Copenhagen, 1742.

*1742.--=Paul Egede.= Journal of the mission to Greenland, 2^d. Vol. London, 1742. (The first Vol. by =Hans Egede=, and the third Vol. by =Niels Egede= do not contain anything about the subject.)

*1742.--=Labat.= Nouveau Voyage aux Isles françaises de l’Amérique, VII, p. 341. Paris, 1742.

1742.--=Charles Owen.= An Essay towards a Natural History of Serpents. London, John Gray, 1742.

*1743?--=Paul Egede.= Efterretninger om Grönland. Kjöbenhavn, 1743? p. 45-46.

*1745.--=Hans Egede.= A description of Greenland. London. 1745.

1746--=Hans Egede.= Beschrijving van Oud Groenland, Delft, 1746.

*1753--=Eric Pontoppidan.= Det förste Forsög paa Norges natuurlige Historie. Kjoebenhavn, 2^d. Vol. 1753.

1754.--=Erich Pontoppidan.= Versuch einer natuerlichen Historie von Norwegen, 2^d. Vol. Cap. VIII. § 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Kopenhagen, 1754.

1755.--=Eric Pontoppidan.= The Natural History of Norway. London, 1755.

*1760.--=Hans Egede.= New Natural History of Greenland. 1760.?

1763.--=Hans Egede.= Description et Histoire Naturelle de Groenland. Copenhague et Genève, 1763.

1763.--=Hans Egede.= Beschreibung und Naturgeschichte von Groenland. Berlin, 1763.

*1764.--=Jonston.= Theatrum universale omnium animalium. Heilbron, 1764.

*1765.--=Knud Leems.= Beskrivelse over Finmarkens Lapper, 1765.

*1767.--=Canutus Leemius.= De Lapponibus Finmarchiae eorumque lingua, vita et religione historia, c. notis =J. E. Gruneri=. (Text in Latin and Danish.) 2 Vols. 4^o. with 100 figgs.

*1768.--=Jonston.= Historia naturalis de piscibus et cetis, et de serpentibus et draconibus. Rouan, 1768.

*1771.--=Knud Leems.= Nachrichten von den Lappen in Finmarken, ihrer Sprache, Sitten, u. s. w. Aus dem Dän. übers. v. =J. J. Volckmann=. Leipzig, 1771. 8^o.

*1789.--=Paul Egede.= (Intelligences from Greenland, in the original Danish language). Kjoebenhavn, 1789.

*1790.--=Paul Egede.= Nachrichten von Groenland aus einem Tagebuch geführt von 1721-1788. Kopenhagen, 1790.

*1805.--=Peter Ascanius.= Icones rerum naturalium, ou figures enluminées d’histoire naturelle du Nord. Cah. V. Copenhague 1805. (In the first four Cahiers the author does not touch the subject).

1808, Nov.--The Philosophical Magazine. Vol. 32, p. 190.

1809, Jan.--The Philosophical Magazine. Vol. 33, p. 90.

1809, March.--The Philosophical Magazine. Vol. 33, p. 251.

1809, May.--The Philosophical Magazine. Vol. 33, p. 411.

1809, July.--=E. Home.= An anatomical account of the Squalus Maximus, which, etc.--Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society at London, 1809. Vol. 98, p. 206-220.

1811, March.--=Dr. Barclay.= Remarks on some parts of the animal that was cast ashore on the Island of Stronsa, September 1808.--Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society, Vol. I.

1817, Aug. 20.--Extract from a letter from =S. G. Perkins=, Esq. dated Boston, Aug. 20, 1817, to =E. Everett=, in Paris.--(This extract, a manuscript, preserved in the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, has never before been printed.)

*1817, Oct. 15.--The Columbian (newspaper).

*1817, Oct. 22 or 23.--(A New York newspaper).

1817, Nov. 13.--Letter from =Edward Everett= in Paris to the “Obermedicinalrath und Ritter” =Blumenbach= in Göttingen.--(This letter preserved in the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, has never before appeared in print).

1817, Dec.--Report of a Committee of the Linnaean Society of New England relative to a large marine animal, supposed to be a sea-serpent, seen near Cape Ann, Massachusetts, in August, 1817. 8^o. Boston, 1817, with two plates, 52 pg.

*1817.--Transactions of the Linnaean Society of New England. Boston, 1817.

1818, April.--=H. M. Ducrotay de Blainville.= Sur un nouveau genre de Serpent, Scoliophis, et le Serpent de mer vu en Amérique en 1817.--Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle. Vol. 86. Paris, 1818.

1818, June.--Sur le serpent nommé Scoliophis.--Extrait d’une lettre de =M. A. Lesueur= au Rédacteur (=Mr. H. M. Ducrotay de Blainville=). Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle. Vol. 86. Paris 1818.

1818.--=Hoffmann= and =Oken=. Thier von Stronsa. =Oken’s= Isis, II, 1818, p. 2096.

1818.--=W. D. Peck.= Some Observations on the Sea-Serpent.--Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Vol. IV. Part 1. Cambridge 1818.

1818.--American Sea Serpent.--The Journal of Science and the Arts.--Edited at the Royal Institution of Great Britain. Vol. IV. London, 1818, p. 378.

1818.--American Sea-Serpent.--The Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature and the Arts. R. Inst. Vol. VI. London, 1818, p. 163.

1818.--Wieder eine ungeheure Meerschlange an America.--=Oken’s= Isis, 1818, p. 2100.

*1818, June 9.--Commercial Advertiser, Boston.

1818, Aug. 21.--(Boston Newspaper). A paragraph from this newspaper is preserved in the library of the Royal University of Göttingen.

1818, Sept. 11.--Letter from =Mr. Andrews Norton= to =Mr. George Bancroft=, at that time a resident at Göttingen.--The letter is preserved in the library of the Royal University of Göttingen, and has never before appeared in print.

*1818.--W .... On the history of the Great Sea-Serpent.--=Blackwood’s= Magazine, III. p. 33-42.

1819, Jan.--American Sea-Serpent.--The Philosophical Magazine, Vol. LIII, p. 71.

1819.--=W. D. Peck.= Some observations on the Sea Serpent.--The Quarterly Journal of Literature, Science and the Arts. R. Inst. Vol. VIII. London, 1819, p. 68.

1819.--Scoliophis. Eine neue Schlangen-Sippe.--=Oken’s= Isis, 1819, p. 113.

1819.--Meerschlange in Amerika. =Lesueur= aus Amerika an =Blainville=.--=Oken’s= Isis, 1819. p. 263.

1819.--Ueber die Meerschlange an Amerika. Von =T. Say= aus Philadelphia an =Leach= in London.--=Oken’s= Isis, 1819, p. 653.

1819.--Einige Bemerkungen über die Meerschlange von Amerika, von =W. D. Peck=, Prof. d. N. G. in Amerika.--=Oken’s= Isis, 1819, p. 1123.

*1819. Aug. 19.--Boston Daily Advertiser.

*1819.--Boston Centinel.

1819.--Amerikanische Meerschlange.--=Oken’s= Isis, 1819. p. 1754.

1819. Nov.--=C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz.= Dissertation on Water-Snakes, Sea-Snakes and Sea-Serpents.--Philosophical Magazine. Vol. LIV.

1820, May.--=Prof. Jacob Bigelow.= Documents and Remarks respecting the Sea-Serpent.--=Silliman’s= American Journal of Science and Arts. Vol. II, p. 147-154. Boston (1819) 1820.

1820.--De beruchte Zeeslang op de kusten van Noord-Amerika.--Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen voor 1820, Tweede Stuk, Mengelwerk, Amsterdam, 1820.

1821.--On the American Sea-Serpent.--The Philosophical Magazine and Journal, Vol. 57, 1821, p. 356-359.

1821.--=Walter Scott.= The Pirate, Vol. I, Chp. II.

1821.--=Otto von Kotzebue.= Entdeckungs-Reise in die Süd-See und nach der Behrings-Strasse zur Erforschung einer nordöstlichen Durchfahrt. Unternommen in den Jahren 1815, 1816, 1817 und 1818. Weimar, 1821, Zweiter Band, p. 108.

*1821.--=Otto von Kotsebue.= Voyage of discovery into the South-Sea and Behring’s Straits, London, 1822.

1821.--Sea-Serpent.--The Philosophical Magazine and Journal, Vol. 58, p. 454.

1821.--Analysis of one of the Vertebrae of the Orkney Animal.--The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal. Vol. V, p. 227.

1822. Jan.--=Froriep’s= Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, I, n^o. 19, p. 294.

1822.--=Dr. Hibbert.= Description of the Shetland-Islands. London, 1822, p. 565.

1822.--=Otto von Kotsebue.= Ontdekkingsreis in de Zuid-Zee en naar de Behrings straat in de jaren 1815, 1816, 1817 en 1818, tweede deel p. 277. Amsterdam, 1822.

*1822. June, 15.--New-York ... (newspaper).

1822. Aug.--Die sogenannte Seeschlange.--=Froriep’s= Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, III, n^o. 48, p. 53.

1823. Febr.--=Froriep’s= Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, IV, n^o. 68, p. 24.

1823.--=A. de Capell Brooke.= Travels through Sweden, Norway and Finmark in the Summer of 1820. London 1823.

1823. June.--Nachrichten über die grosse Seeschlange.--=Froriep’s= Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, IV, n^o. 84, p. 273.

*1824.--Newbury port ... (newspaper).

1824.--=Froriep’s= Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, VIII, n^o. 168, p. 218.

*1826. June 21.--New York Advertiser.

1826. Oct.--Sea-Serpent.--The American Journal of Science and Arts, conducted by =Benjamin Silliman=, Vol. XI.

1827.--=Dr. Hooker.= Additional testimony respecting the Sea-Serpent of the American Seas.--The Edinburgh Journal of Science, Vol. VI, 1827, p. 126.

1827, April.--=Dr. Hooker.= Fernere Zeugnisse über die Seeschlange in den Amerikanischen Meere.--=Froriep’s= Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, XVIII, n^o. 256, p. 49.

1827, June.--Sea Serpent.--The American Journal of Science and Arts, conducted by =Benjamin Silliman=, Vol. XII, June, 1827, New Haven.

*1827, Aug.--Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.

*1827, Sept. 5.--Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.

*1827, Sept. 15.--Norwegische Handelszeitung zu Christiania.

1828, Jan.--=Froriep’s= Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, XIX, n^o. 409, p. 193.

*1828.--=John Fleming.= A history of British Animals, etc., Edinburgh, 1828.

1829.--=Sam. L. Mitchill.= The history of Sea Serpentism.--=Silliman’s= American Journal of Science and Arts, 1829.

1830, April, May.--Chronicle.

1830, June.--=Froriep’s= Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, XXVII, n^o. 589, p. 265.

1832, Nov.--=Froriep’s= Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, XXXV, n^o 756, p. 122.

*1834.--=Bakewell.= Introduction to Geology. Chap. XVI, p. 312; with a note of Prof. =Silliman=.

1834. June.--=Froriep’s= Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, XL, n^o 879, p. 328.

*1834.--=C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz.=--Abhandlung über Wasser-Schlangen, etc.--=Oken’s= Isis, 1834. Extract from Phil. Mag. 1819.

1835. July.--A sea-serpent.--=Silliman’s= American Journal of Science and Arts, Vol. 28, New Haven, July, 1835.

1835. Aug.--=Froriep’s= Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, XLV, n^o 980. p. 186.

1837.--=H. Schlegel.= Essai sur la physionomie des Serpens, Amsterdam, 1837.

*1837, Sept.--The “Adis” of Drontheim, (newspaper).

1837, Oct.--=Froriep’s= Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, IV, n^o 67, p. 7.

1839.--=Dr. R. Hamilton.= Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV of =Jardine’s= Naturalist’s Library).

*1839.--The Athenaeum, London, 1839, p. 902.

*1839.--Boston Mercantile.

*1839.--Kennebek Journal.

1839, Oct.--=Froriep’s= Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, XII, n^o 248, p. 88.

*1840.--Boston Daily Advertiser.

*1840, Sept. 15.--Journal du Havre.

1841.--=H. Rathke.= Ueber die Seeschlange der Norweger.--Archiv für Naturgeschichte 7^{er} Jahrgang, I, 1841, p. 278.

*1843.--Christiansund Posten.

1843, Nov.--=Froriep’s= Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, XXVIII, n^o 606, p. 184.

*1844.--=H. Schlegel.= Essay on the physiognomy of Serpents, Edinburgh, 1844.

*1845.--Cincinnati Gazette.

1845, Nov.--Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, Vol. II, p. 65.

1845, Dec.--Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, Vol. II, p. 73.

1846, Jan.--Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, Vol. II, p. 94.

1846, Febr.--=Froriep’s= Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, XXXVII, n^o 801, p. 134.

1847.--=Dr. R. Hamilton.= Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV, of =Jardine’s= Naturalist’s Library).

1847.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1847, p. 1604-1608.

*1847.--The Zoologist, London, 1847, n^o LIV, wrapper.

1847.--The Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1847, p. 1714-1716.

1847.--=Charles Cogswell.= A plea for the North Atlantic Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1847, p. 1841-1846.

1847.--The Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1847, p. 1911.

1847, July.--Ueber die Seeschlange.--=Froriep’s= Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, Dritter Reihe, III, 54, p. 148.

1847, Oct.--The Zoologist, London, 1847, Preface.

1848.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1848, p. 2028.

1848, June.--=Froriep’s= Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, Dritter Reihe, VI, 131, p. 328.

1848.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1848, p. 2192-2193.

*1848, Oct. 9.--The Times.

*1848, Oct. 13.--The Times.

*1848, Oct. 21.--The Literary Gazette.

*1848, Oct. 21.--The Globe.

*1848, Oct. 23.--The Times.

1848, Oct. 28.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Illustrated London News.

*1848, Nov. 2.--The Times.

*1848, Nov. 4.--The Times.

1848, Nov. 4.--The fossil Sea-Serpent.--The Illustrated London News.

*1848, Nov. 11.--=Prof. Richard Owen.=--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Times.

1848, Nov. 15?--Note on the subject “Dodo” of Mssrs. =Strickland= and =Melville=.--Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 444.

1848, Nov. 15?--=Prof. Richard Owen.= The Great Sea-Serpent.--Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 2d. Series, Vol. II, p. 458.

*1848, Nov. 21.--The Times.

1848, Nov. 23.--=Prof. Richard Owen.= The Great Sea-Serpent.--=Galignani’s= Messenger.

*1848, Nov. 25.--Boston Daily Advertiser.

1848, Nov. 25.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Illustrated London News.

1848, Nov. 27.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1848, p. 2306-2324.

1848, Nov. 27.--The Zoologist, London, 1848, Preface.

1848, Dec.--=Prof. Richard Owen.= Ueber die Seeschlange. =Froriep’s= Notizen a. d. Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, Dritter Reihe, VIII, n^o 169, p. 231.

*1848.--Transactions of the Linnaean Society of New England, Boston, 1848.

*1848, Dec. 30.--Bombay Bi-monthly Times.

*1849.--Life and Letters of Campbell, 1849?

*1849, Jan.--Westminster Review.

*1849, Jan.--Bombay Bi-monthly Times.

*1849, March?--Boston Atlas.

*1849.--Montrose Standard.

1849.--Enormous undescribed animal.--The Zoologist, London, 1849, p. 2356

1849.--Inquiries respecting the Bones of a large Marine Animal, cast ashore on the Island of Stronsa, 1808.--The Zoologist, London, 1849, p. 2358-2363.

1849, Apr. 14.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Illustrated London News.

1849.--The Sea-Serpent?--The Zoologist, London, 1849, p. 2395-2398.

1849.--A strange Marine Animal.--The Zoologist, London, 1849, p. 2433.

1849, May, 19.--The Sea-Serpent.--The Illustrated London News.

*1849, July, 9.--The Sun.

1849, July.--Ueber die Grosse Seeschlange.--=Froriep’s= Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde, Dritter Reihe, X, n^o 205, p. 97.

1849.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1849, p. 2458-2460.

1849.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1849, p. 2541.

1849.--The Zoologist, London, 1849.--Preface.

1850, Jan. 12.--The Sea-Serpent.--The Illustrated London News.

1850, Jan. 19.--The Great Sea-Serpent. The Illustrated London News.

*1850.--Romance of the Sea-Serpent or Ichthyosaurus. Also a collection of the ancient and modern authorities, with letters from distinguished merchants and men of science. Cambridge, U. S. 1850, 12^o, 172 pages.

*1850.--Christian Mercury (U. S. newspaper).

*1850.--Charlestown Courier.

1850, April 20.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Illustrated London News.

1850.--The Great Sea-Serpent again.--The Zoologist, London, 1850, p. 2803.

*1850, Sept. 2.--Cork Constitution.

*1850, Sept. 7.--Cork Constitution.

1850, Sept. 7.--The Sea-Serpent again!--The Illustrated London News.

*1850, Sept. 11.--Cork Reporter.

1850, Sept. 14.--The Sea-Serpent.--The Illustrated London News.

1850.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1850, p. 2925-2928.

1850, Dec. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History. Vol. III, p. 328.

1851.--Rev. =Alfr. Chrl. Smith=. Notes on Observations in Natural History during a Tour in Norway.--The Zoologist, London, 1851, p. 3228.

1851, Oct.--=Froriep’s= Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde, Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie, n^o 395.

*1852, Febr.--New York Tribune.

1852, Febr.--=Galignani’s= Messenger.

*1852, Febr.--Philadelphia Bulletin.

*1852, Mrch. 10.--The Times.

1852, Mrch. 13.--The Great Sea-Serpent caught at last.--The Illustrated London News.

1852, Mrch.--=Froriep’s= Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde, Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie, p. 486.

1852, Mrch.--=Froriep’s= Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde, Abth. Zoologie und Palaeontologie, p. 491.

1852, Apr.--Reported Capture of the Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, p. 3426-3429.

*1852, Nov. 17.--The Times.

1853, Jan.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1853, p. 3756.

1854, June?--=Dr. T. S. Traill.= On the supposed Sea-Snake, cast on shore in the Orkneys in 1808, and the animal seen from H. M. S. “Daedalus” in

1848.--Proceedings of the Royal Society at Edinburgh, III, n^o 44, p. 208.

1855, Febr. 17.--The Sea-Serpent Once More.--The Illustrated London News.

*1855, Aug. 13.--Buffalo Daily Reporter.

1855, Sept. 15.--The Great Serpent.--The Illustrated London News.

*1855, Oct. 1.--The Times.

1855. The Great American Snake Caught. The Zoologist, London, 1855, p. 4896.

1856, May 3.--Another Sea-Serpent.--The Illustrated London News.

1856, Oct. 4.--The Sea-Serpent again. The Illustrated London News.

1856.--The Great Sea-Serpent. The Zoologist, London, 1856, p. 4948.

1856.--The Sea-Snake Story a fiction. The Zoologist, London, 1856, p. 4998.

*1857, Febr. and March.--Cape Argus.

*1857, March 14.--Cape Argus.

1857, June 13.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Illustrated London News.

*1858, Febr. 5.--The Times.

*1858, Febr. 13.--The Times.

*1858, Febr. 16.--The Times.

*1858, Febr. 23.--The Times.

1858, Febr.--Revue Britannique, n^o 2, p. 496.

1858, March 20.--Another Sea-Serpent.--The Illustrated London News.

*1858, July or Aug.--Java Bode.

*1858, Oct. 6.--Amsterdamsche Courant.

1858.--Another Peep at the Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1858, p. 5989.

1858.--The Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1858, p. 6015-6018.

1859.--Another Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1859, p. 6492.

1860.--=Dr. R. Hamilton=, Amphibious Carnivora, Group III, (Vol. XXV of =Jardine’s= Naturalist’s Library.)

1860.--=P. H. Gosse.= The Romance of Natural History, Vol. I, Lond., Nisbet, 1860.

1860.--A Sea-Serpent in the Bermudas.--The Zoologist, London, 1860, p. 6934.

1860.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1860, p. 6985-6993.

1860.--The Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1860, p. 7051-7052.

1860.--On the Probable Origin of Some Sea-Serpents.--The Zoologist, London, 1860, p. 7237.

1860.--Captain =Tailor’s= Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1860, p. 7278.

1860, Sept.--Skibbereen Eagle.

*1860, Sept.--Cork Constitution.

1861.--A Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1861, p. 7354.

*1862.--=Grattan’s= Civilized America, p. 39.

1862.--The Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1862, p. 7850-7852.

1863.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1863, p. 8727.

1863, June 13.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Illustrated London News.

*1870, April 9.--=F. Buckland=, The Sea-Snake Again.--Land and Water.

1872, June 13.--Nature, Vol. VI.

1872, Aug. 1.--Nature, Vol. VI.

1872, Aug. 17.--Sea-Serpent, lately seen near Galveston. The Graphic.

*1872, Sept. 7.--Land and Water.

1872, Sept. 12.--Nature, Vol. VI.

1873, May.--Appearance of an Animal, believed to be that which is called the Norwegian Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1873, p. 3517-3522.

*1873, Nov.--The Scotsman.

*1873, Nov. 20.--The Times.

1873, Dec.--The supposed Sea-Serpent.--The Zoologist, London, 1873, p. 3804.

1875, Nov. 20.--The Great Sea-Serpent.--The Illustrated London News.

1875, Dec. 4.--Illustrirte Zeitung.

1876, June 29.--The Sea-Serpents of the seventeenth Century.--The Graphic.

*1876, June.--The Scotsman.

*1876, June.--The Courant.

*1876, Dec.?--London and China Telegraph.

*1876, Dec.--Good Words.

*1877.--=J. Adams.= Account of a supposed Sea-Serpent seen off Nepean Island. Proceedings Lit. Philosophical Society of Liverpool, n^o XXXI, p. LXVIII.

*1877, Jan. 6.--=J. K. Webster.=--The Sea-Monster.--Advertiser and Ladies’ Journal.

*1877, Jan. 10, sqq.--(Newspapers of Liverpool).

1877, Jan. 13.--Illustrated London News, p. 35, 3d column.

*1877, Jan. 15.--=R. A. Proctor.= Strange Sea-Monsters.--The Echo.

1877, Jan. 27.--The Sea-Serpent.--The Graphic.

1877, Febr. 3.--Zur Geschichte der Seeschlange.--Illustrirte Zeitung.

*1877, Mrch.--=R. A. Proctor.= Strange Sea-Creatures.--The Gentlemen’s Magazine.

*1877, June 13?--Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette.

*1877, June 14.--The Times.

1877, June 16.--The Graphic, p. 563, 3^d. column.

1877, June 30.--The Sea-Serpent.--The Graphic.

*1877, Sept. 4.--Manchester Courier.

*1877, Sept. 8.--=F. Buckland.= Occurrence of a Sea-Serpent.--Land and Water.

*1877, Sept. 15.--=F. Cornish=, Reply to =Buckland=.--Land and Water.

*1878.--Wochenblatt für das Christliche Volk.

*1878, May 24.--=F. Buckland.= Supposed Sea-Snake caught in Australia.--Land and Water.

1878, Sept. 5.--The Sea-Serpent explained.--Nature, Vol. XVIII.

*1878, Sept. 6.--The Scotsman.

1878, Sept. 12.--The Sea-Serpent explained.--Nature, Vol. XVIII.

1878, Sept. 19.--The Sea-Serpent explained.--Nature, Vol. XVIII.

1879.--=Andrew Wilson.= Leisure Time Studies; chiefly biological; a Series of Essays and Lectures. With Numerous Illustrations, London, Chatto and Windus, 1879.

1879, Jan. 30.--(Critic of =Mr. Wilson’s= Leisure Time Studies).--Nature, Vol. XIX.

1879, April 19.--The Graphic.

1879, July 19.--The Graphic.

1879, July 24.--The Sea-Serpent.--Nature, Vol. XX.

*1879, Sept. 24.--The Times.

1880.--=A. Günther.= The Study of Fishes, p. 521. Edinburgh, 1880.

1880, Nov. 18.--=Searles V. Wood=, Jun. Order Zeuglodontia.--Nature, Vol. XXIII.

1881, Febr. 10.--=Searles V. Wood.= Zeuglodontia.--Nature, Vol. XXIII.

*1881, Sept. 8.--Madras Mail.

1881, Oct. 8.--Le Monde Illustré.

1881, Oct. 13.--Nature, Vol. XXIV.

1881, Nov. 12.--=A. C. Oudemans, Jzn.= Iets over fabelachtige verhalen en over het vermoedelijk bestaan van de groote Zeeslang.--Album der Natuur, 1882, p. 13-26. (The issue appeared already Nov. 12, 1881).

*1881, Nov. 15?--Cape Argus.

1881, Nov. 17.--De Zuid-Afrikaan.

1881, Nov. 26.--Nieuws van den Dag.

1882, Jan.--=P. Harting.= Een Zeeslang.--Album der Natuur, 1882, p. 66.

*1882.--=Catherine C. Hopley.= Curiosities and Wonders of Serpent-Life. London, 1882, 8^o p. 247-267.

*1882, May, 22.--Giant cuttlefishes.--Scotsman.

*1882, June.--The Sea-Serpent at Shetland.--Glasgow Herald.

*1882, June.--Newcastle Chronicle.

1882.--Die Neueste Seeschlange.--Illustrirte Zeitung, p. 2035.

*1882, July, 1.--A. Stradling.--Land and Water.

1882.--=G. Verschuur.= Eene reis rondom de wereld in vierhonderd en tachtig dagen. Haarlem, 1882.

1883.--=Henry Lee.= Sea Monsters Unmasked.--London, Clowes & Son, 1883.

1883, Jan., 25.--The Sea-Serpent.--Nature, Vol. XXVII.

1883, Febr. 1.--The Sea-Serpent.--Nature, Vol. XXVII.

1883, Febr. 8.--The Sea-Serpent.--Nature, Vol. XXVII.

1883, Febr. 15.--The Sea-Serpent.--Nature, Vol. XXVII.

1883, Oct. 20.--The Inevitable Sea-Serpent.--The Graphic p. 387.

*1883, Nov. 4.--Chambers’ Journal, p. 748.

*1884, Sept. 14.--Inverness Courier.

1884, Nov.--=C. Honigh.= Reisschetsen uit Noorwegen.--De Gids, p. 300.

*1885, July, 29-Sept. 6.--=W. Reid.= History of Sea-Serpents.--=John O’Groat= Journal.

*1885, Sept. 1.--The Sea-Serpent again.--Scotsman.

1885, Sept. 10.--Nature, Vol. XXXII.

*1886, Sept. 15.--The Sea-Serpent again.--Evening Dispatch, Edinburgh.

1886, Sept. 25.--The Graphic.

1886.--=W. E. Hoyle.= Sea-Serpent.--Encyclopaedia Britannica Ed. 9.

1886.--=W. E. Hoyle.= Contribution to a Bibliography of the Sea-Serpent (read 21st. April, 1886).--Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society of Edinburgh. 1886.

*1889, May 21.--De Grondwet, n^o 38.--(Journal, edited in Holland, Michigan, U. S. A.)

1889, June 6.--Haagsche Courant.

1889, Dec. 7?--=John Ashton.= Curious Creatures in Zoology.--With 130 Illustrations throughout the text. London, John C. Nimmo (1890) p. 268-278.

1890, July 12.--De Amsterdammer, Weekblad voor Nederland.

and probably:

*17 ?--=Mongitore.= Remarkable Objects of Sicily.

*18 ?--=Leguat.= Travels to Rodrigues Island.

*1888.--=A. Nicholson.= Snakes, Marsupials and Birds.

Should any reader know of any other contribution to the literature of the sea-serpent, he is earnestly requested by the author of this work to inform him about it.

II.

Attempts to discredit the Sea-Serpent. Cheats and Hoaxes.

Home from their first voyage, sailor-lads, as Mr. Gosse says, are commonly eagerly beset for wonders. And what tales do they palm upon their credulous listeners? If they do not draw on their own invention, they tell the old stories they have heard when on fine evenings they were together with the old tars talking and chatting on the fore-deck. Of the latter many have no other origin than the imagination of a sailor’s brain; they are merely hoaxes; others again are exaggerated and garbled reports of what they have seen with their own eyes, or of what their comrades or their captain saw! There are the tales of the Unicorn, of the White Whale, that terrible “Moby Dick” of the Polar Regions, there are the fables of the Mermaids and Mermen, there are the exaggerations of the Kraken and the Sea-Serpent!

Except the last, all the other animals that gave rise to the terrible tales are known to Zoologists, and by their enlightenment even to the sailors themselves. This probably explains sufficiently why our sailors do not report any more encounters with Mermaids, or with the Kraken. They know now that they saw, or harpooned, manatees, or dugongs, and gigantic squids, or calamaries.

But suddenly the newspapers spread the rumour of a Sea-Serpent having been seen by Captain So and So, of the Royal Navy, and by the master, several midshipmen, and some men of the crew! The news is printed in hundreds of newspapers, and passes from mouth to mouth, in short, it becomes the topic of the day! A schooner, or a brig runs into a harbour, say that of Liverpool, and the Captain, and the crew are immediately asked if they have seen the sea-serpent. Unaware of the existence of such an animal they of course answer in the negative! But soon convinced by the affidavits printed in the newspapers, they swear that when on their next voyage they meet with it, they will bring it home! But on the next voyage, though they are constantly on the watch, the sea-serpent does not appear, and the time for returning home arrives. One of the sailors, perhaps even the captain hits upon an idea, a splendid one! Though he did not meet with the serpent, yet he has seen it with his own eyes! but the beast swam so rapidly that he could not pursue it! So in a moment he is resolved on hoaxing the gullible!

It is clear that the unbeliever must have had a great pleasure in inventing the hoax upon the subject, and in playing some splendid tricks on the believers!

Some of these hoaxes are admirably set up, and I will begin by telling my readers some of them, which I met with in the various works I had the opportunity to consult.

* * * * *

The earliest hoax or exaggerated report is that, published for the first time in the Report of 1817. There we find in a letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS the following:

“He” (Mr. STAPLES of Prospect) “told me also that about 1780, as a schooner was lying at a mouth of the river, or in the bay, one of these enormous creatures leaped over it between the masts--that the men ran into the hold for fright, and that the weight of the serpent sunk the vessel “one streak” or plank. The schooner was of about eighteen tons.”

* * * * *

Now follows the hoax of a JOSEPH WOODWARD, who had reason to be satisfied, for his tale appeared in many newspapers at Boston, New York, etc. It runs as follows:

“Another sea-serpent, different to the one first seen near Cape Anne, is said to have been seen, and the following declaration has been drawn up and attested in proper form.”

“I, the undersigned, Joseph Woodward, captain of the Adamant schooner of Hingham, being on my route from Penobscot to Hingham, steering W. N. W., and being about 10 leagues from the coast, perceived last Sunday, at two P. M. something on the surface of the water, which seemed to me to be of the size of a large boat. Supposing that it might be part of the wreck of a ship, I approached it; but when I was within a few fathoms of it, it appeared, to my great surprise, and that of my whole crew, that it was a monstrous serpent. When I approached nearer, it coiled itself up, instantly uncoiling itself again, and withdrew with extreme rapidity. On my approaching again, it coiled itself a second time, and placed itself at the distance of 60 feet at most from the bow of the ship.”

“I had one of my guns loaded with a cannon ball and musket bullets. I fired it at the head of the monster; my crew and myself distinctly heard the ball and bullets strike against his body, from which they rebounded, as if they had struck against a rock. The serpent shook his head and tail in an extraordinary manner, and advanced towards the ship with open jaws. I had caused the cannon to be reloaded, and pointed it at his throat; but he had come so near, that all the crew were seized with terror, and we thought only of getting out of his way. He almost touched the vessel; and had not I tacked as I did, he would certainly have come on board. He dived; but in a moment we saw him appear again, with his head on one side of the vessel, and his tail on the other, as if he was going to lift us up and upset us. However, we did not feel any shock. He remained five hours near us, only going backward and forward.”

“The fears with which he at first inspired us having subsided, we were able to examine him attentively. I estimate that his length is at least twice that of my schooner, that is to say, 130 feet; his head is full 12 or 14; the diameter of the body below the neck is not less than six feet; the size of the head is in proportion to that of his body. He is of a blackish colour; his ear-holes (ouies), are about 12 feet from the extremity of his head. In short, the whole has a terrible look.”

“When he coils himself up, he places his tail in such a manner, that it aids him in darting forward with great force: he moves in all directions with the greatest facility and astonishing rapidity.”

“(Signed)”

“Joseph Woodward.”

“Hingham, May 12, 1818.”

“This declaration is attested by Peter Holmes and John Mayo, who made affidavit of the truth of it before a justice of peace.”

This hoax was reprinted in the Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature and the Arts of the Royal Institute at London, Vol. VI, 1818, and was apparently believed in by the sender. Mr. OKEN also inserted the tale of WOODWARD in his Isis, of 1818, p. 2100.--Thirty years afterwards Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN, the editor of The Zoologist, published it in his journal of 1848, p. 2028, without, however, mentioning the source from which he copied it! Why did not he do so? Apparently because he felt ashamed of giving such an old story, and because he was aware of the fact, that the whole account was wonderful, and contained many impossibilities!

Astonishing enough, Mr. FRORIEP translated this piece from the Zoologist, and inserted it in his journal (Notizen, Third Series, Vol. VI, n^o 131, p. 328), and ends this article with the following remark:[1]

[1] The translations are done as literally as possible.

“This communication tallies with those about the sea-serpent, published in our 3d. volume p. 148, which are also taken from the Zoologist. Some German newspapers have then amused themselves with our communications, as with a newspaper-hoax. We, however, shall go on to gather whatever from time to time will still come to us to solve an apparently fabulous matter in Zoology.”

The story, however, roused the indignation of Mr. W. W. COOPER, of Worcester (see The Zoologist, 1848, p. 2192). I will let him speak himself:

“I have waited anxiously to see whether any more competent person than myself would offer any observation upon the statement of Captain Woodward, published in the March number of the Zoologist, relating to the Great “Sea-serpent”. As no one has done so, I beg to offer you the following: In a note which you added in this statement, you say, “The foregoing statement was formally signed and sworn to at Hingham, by captain Woodward, on the 12th of May”. What 12th of May? You should have told your readers. Now, evidence given upon oath is generally considered as conclusive, except where the party swearing is known to be unworthy of credit, or the evidence given is not consistent with itself. Of Captain Woodward I know nothing; I never heard of him till I read the “Zoologist” for last March. It is, therefore, upon the latter ground that I venture to attack his statement, and I do so because in a disputed question it is necessary to throw aside all evidence that will not stand the stricktest scrutiny. Captain Woodward tells us nothing of his where-abouts, except that he was sailing from Penobscot to Hingham, steering W. N. W., nor of the date when he says he saw the serpent, except that it was on “Sunday last at 2 p. m.” This is not sufficiently accurate. But these are trifling points. The most extraordinary part of the statement will appear from this: Captain Woodward says, the beast moved with extreme, or, as he afterwards expressed himself, astonishing rapidity; that when he fired at the monster it was sixty feet at the most from the bow of the ship, which appears to have been the nearest part of the vessel to the animal; but after he fired the beast advanced towards his ship; that he had caused his cannon to be reloaded and pointed at its throat,--of course while it was advancing towards his vessel,--but before he could fire his crew were seized with terror; that he tacked and got out of its way. So here we have an animal sixty feet from the ship, moving with astonishing rapidity towards the ship, which it appears was also moving towards the animal, and yet allowing time to load a cannon, point it at its throat, and afterwards to tack to get out of its way. Truly a most accommodating serpent! But again, the animal remained five hours near the ship, allowing itself to be minutely examined, but yet no further attempt to kill the beast! And what is almost equally strange, though even the position of the ear-holes is mentioned,--such minute observation does Capt. Woodward seem to have made,--yet no description is given of any scales, or anything else, to account for what is before stated, that Capt. Woodward and his crew “distinctly heard the ball and bullets strike against his body, from which they rebounded as though they had struck against a rock”. It is much to be regretted that these inconsistencies did not strike you before you made public the statement in question; it is also to be regretted that no one better able than myself to point them out has undertaken to do so. But it is highly desirable, in the present state of our ignorance upon this subject, that none but the most inexceptionable evidence should be received. Let us have “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” I need hardly add, that in these observations I am actuated by no unfriendly feeling towards Captain Woodward: my desire is to get at the truth of the matter; and I should hail with delight the day when one of these monsters of the deep, whatever they may be (for some animal with which we are unacquainted has, I firmly believe, been seen), is brought to our shores and lodged in one of our museums, to be at once the wonder and admiration of naturalists.--W. W. Cooper; Claines, Worcester, June 2, 1848.”

Here ends the history of this hoax, utterly smashed!

Mr. Edward Newman has never answered to this attack!

* * * * *

In 1818, when again notice was given of the presence of a sea-serpent in the neighbourhood of Boston, a reward of 5000 dollars was offered to the whalers for securing it, and bringing it home dead or alive. I will insert here the whole history of these attempts, for they finished with a trick.

In the copy of the Report of the Committee of 1817, which I have borrowed from the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, there is a paragraph from a newspaper of August, 21, 1818, the head or title of which is wanting; it 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 wounded. These particulars I have in a letter from my brother”.

“Saml. Dexter”.

After the perusal of this work my readers will know why I am disposed to believe that the animal struck by Captain RICH was really a Sea-Serpent. As far as I can judge, after having read all that I have found about the sea-serpent, this is the only time that the animal was struck with a harpoon. Balls have often been fired at it, but it has never been killed yet. In the same copy of the Report of the Committee of 1817, there was a letter from Mr. ANDREWS NORTON to Mr. GEORGE BANCROFT, at that time a resident at Göttingen. I give here an extract from this letter concerning the matter in question.

“Last Friday morning upon going to breakfast at Dr. Ware’s, I found there the papers of the day, in which was announced the most interesting fact, that the Sea-Serpent had been taken by the expedition fitted out for that purpose. In the Daily Advertiser in particular nearly a column was filled with the circumstances of his capture, and of the manner in which the information had been received, viz. from a person whose name was given, and who had come express from Gloucester, the evening before, to bring the news. He was said to be 120 feet long, and the Board of Health had sent down two boats to stop him in the Harbour. After talking about it all breakfast time, I immediately went to Reed’s stable, got a horse and chaise, put a news-paper in my pocket, rode to Professor Peck’s, showed him the paper, and offered to carry him into Boston, and to procure a boat to go out with him into the Harbour, that he might examine it. He was not well, and said at first that he could not go; but gradually grew warm upon the subject, and concluded at last that it would never do for him not to see it. When I had fairly got him into the chaise, his spirits rose with the exertion he had made, with the thoughts of the memoir and letters which he should write, and with the triumph which he anticipated over the Linnaean Society and their “diseased black snake”, as he contemptuously called it (meaning the small serpent, killed near the shore at Gloucester); for he pledged himself that we should find that the sea-serpent had no bunches on his back. I too anticipated with great satisfaction the honorable mention of me, which his gratitude would induce him to make in his memoir upon the subject, and expected confidently to float down to posterity behind Mr. Peck, upon this enormous animal. We entered Boston, and rode immediately to the end of Central Wharf to the store of a Mr. Rich, who had fitted out the expedition. The first person we saw was Judge Davis, whose countenance foreboded evil. His first words were to inform us that we had come in to be disappointed, for that the serpent was not taken! (I am not in the habit of using notes of admiration, but the present occasion seems to require one). The sailors, however, affirmed, as he said, that they had taken some most extraordinary fish of very large size, which he was going to see. I had little appetite left for seeing extraordinary fishes, but went to accompany Mr. Peck. We proceeded a wharf to the South End, and making our way through a croud, obtained admission into the dark lower room of a store where we found a considerable number of other gentlemen waiting. After some delay the fish was dragged in from the small vessel in which it had been brought, wrapped in sail. As soon as it was uncovered and fairly exposed to view, it was pronounced by all who knew any thing on the subject to be nothing but a Thunny, or Horse Mackerel, of a common size.--We had been gradually prepared for the disappointment, so that the shock was not so great as you might suppose. The report in the morning’s paper had arisen from a mystification performed upon the person who brought it to Boston, by the crew of the vessel engaged in the expedition. The sailors who dragged in the fish were part of this crew; and instead of their being tossed over the wharf into the water, by way of punishment for their imposition, and to teach them better morals, as they infallibly would have been by any mob out of Boston, there was actually a collection made to reward them for their trouble in taking the fish and bringing it to exhibit. This fact, I think, deserves to be recorded for the honor of Boston, and particularly of us gentlemen present.--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 do not consider the circumstance, connected with the deception just mentioned, as affecting the evidence before obtained for their real existence.--In the Messenger of this week which I will send by the next opportunity you will find one or two notices of this affair p. 756 and p. 758.”

I have had no opportunity to consult the above mentioned passage from this Messenger. I think most of my readers know a tunny (Thynnus thynnus (Linn.)). For those, however, who don’t, I give here a figure of it.

In the Philosophical Magazine, Vol. LIII, p. 71, of January 1819, we read:

“T. Say, Esq., of Philadelphia, in a letter received from him by Dr. Leach, announces that a Captain Rich had fitted out an expedition purposely to take this leviathan, of which so much has been said in the newspapers and even in some scientific journals. He succeeded in “fastening his harpoon in what was acknowledged by all the crew to be the veritable Sea-serpent (and which several of them had previously seen and made oath to): but when drawn from the water, and full within the sphere of their vision, it proved that this serpent, which fear had loomed to the gigantic length of 100 feet, was no other than a harmless Tunny (Scombrus Thynnus) nine or ten feet long!”

We see that Mr. NORTON and Prof. PECK immediately recognized the whole story as a Yankee-trick, but that Prof. T. SAY was the dupe of it!

From a letter from Prof. JACOB BIGELOW to Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN (Am. Journ. Sc. Arts, Vol. II, Boston, 1820) I conclude that Prof. SAY’S letter was printed in THOMSON’S Annals for Jan. 1819. If anybody can tell me the exact title of THOMSON’S Annals, he will oblige me, indeed. I have had no opportunity to consult it. A part of this letter was translated into German, and inserted in OKEN’S Isis of 1819, p. 653. I will try to translate this part into English again:

“I regret that many scientific journals in Europe have in good earnest treated of the absurd story of the Great Sea-Serpent, which is nothing but a result of defective observation connected with an extravagant degree of fear. You will already know, that Capt. RICH has thrown light upon the subject; out of his own means he fitted out a ship to catch this Leviathan. He succeeded.....” (etc., the rest of the letter runs like the part from the Philosophical Magazine, quoted above).

Mr. RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, however, says, (see Phil. Mag. Vol. LIV, 1819):

“The Pelamis megophias, or Great Sea-Snake, appears to have left the shores of Massachusetts, and to have baffled the attempts to catch it, probably because those attempts were conducted with very little judgment. But a smaller snake, or fish, nine feet long, and a strange shark, have been taken, of which the papers give no description: let us hope that they will be described by the naturalists at Boston”.

And Prof. JACOB BIGELOW, of Boston (SILLIMAN’S Am. Journ. Sc. Arts, Vol. II, Boston, 1820):

“In the following year” (1818) “Capt. Rich of Boston, went on an expedition fitted out for the purpose of taking the Sea-Serpent, and after a fruitless cruise of some weeks, brought into port a fish of the species commonly known to mariners and fishermen by the name of Tunny, Albicore or Horse Mackerel, the Scomber Thynnus of Linnaeus, and which fish he asserted to be the same as that denominated Sea-Serpent. This disappointment of public curiosity was attended at the time by a disbelief on the part of many, of the existence of a distinct marine animal of the serpent-kind, or of the dimensions and shape represented by the witnesses of Gloucester and elsewhere.”

“It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination of Capt. Rich’s cruise will not deter others from improving any future opportunities which may occur for solving what may now perhaps be considered the most interesting problem in the science of Natural History.”

This was written in 1820, and the problem is not quite solved yet!

The trick of Capt. RICH is also mentioned in the paper of Mr. MITCHILL, spoken of further on.

Again Colonel T. H. PERKINS relates in the Boston Daily Advertiser of November 25, 1848, the trick of Capt. RICH as follows (copied from the Zoologist of 1849, p. 2361).

“As it happened, a circumstance took place which did not do much credit to the actors in it, but which served to fortify the unbelief of our southern brethern. Believing that the possession of the sea-serpent would be a fortune to those who should have him in their power, many boats were fitted out from Cape Ann and other places in the neighbourhood of his haunts, armed with harpoons and other implements, and manned with persons used to the whale fishery, in hopes of getting near enough to him to fasten their harpoons in his side. Among others a Captain Rich (not Benjamin Rich), of Boston, took command of a party, which was fitted out at some expense, and went into the bay, where they cruised along shore two or three days without seeing the serpent. With a view, however, to keep the joke from themselves, they determined to throw or attempt to throw it upon others, though at the expense of truth! They spread a report that they had caught the serpent, or what had been taken for one, and that he was to be seen at a place mentioned in the advertisement.”

“Thousands were flocking to see this wonder, when it was found to be no other than a large horse macquerel, which (though a great natural curiosity, weighing sometimes 600 or 700 pounds) very much disappointed those, who had been induced to visit it. Those who had declared their disbelief of the existence of the Sea-serpent amongst ourselves were delighted to find their opinions were confirmed, and gave themselves great credit for their judgment and discrimination. The report spread from Boston to New Orleans, that what had been thought by some persons to be a sea-serpent had proved to be a horse macquerel, and even those who had been believers now supposed that those who had reported that they had seen the serpent had either misrepresented or had been themselves deceived. As no report of the snake having been seen after the capture of the macquerel was made, during that year, Captain Rich had the laugh with him, until circumstances, which have transpired since, have borne rather against him. Thus much for the transactions of the past years.”

* * * * *

The Lake Erie Serpent.--In Mr. RAFINESQUE’S Dissertation on Sea-Snakes, we read (See Phil. Mag. Vol. LIV, 1819):

“It appears that our large lakes have huge serpents or fishes, as well as the sea. On the 3d. of July, 1817, one was seen in Lake Erie, three miles from land, by the crew of a schooner, which was 35 or 40 feet long, and one foot in diameter; its colour was a dark mahogany, nearly black. This account is very imperfect, and does not even notice if it had scales; therefore it must remain doubtful whether it was a snake or a fish. I am inclined to believe it was a fish, until otherwise convinced: it might be a gigantic species of eel, or a species of the above genus Octipos. Until seen again, and better described, it may be recorded under the name of Anguilla gigas or Gigantic Eel.”

And in the Additions to this dissertation:

“The Water-Snake of Lake Erie has been seen again, and described to be of a copper colour, with bright eyes, and 60 feet long. It is added, that at a short distance balls had no effect on him: but it is omitted to mention whether it was owing to have hard scales (in which case it might be a real snake of the genus Enhydris or Pelamis), or to the indexterity of the marksman.”

Every one feels that Mr. RAFINESQUE was the dupe of a hoax, and that he was so, indeed, will be seen from Mr. MITCHILL’S dissertation (see below) in which more hoaxes are to be found.

* * * * *

Unbelievers not only invented tales to play a trick to believers, but when scientific men, they even read papers before learned assemblies, with a view of ridiculing the matter. I believe there has been no greater attempt to throw discredit on the sea-serpent, than that of Mr. SAMUEL L. MITCHILL. I am obliged to communicate to my readers his whole paper, even at the risk of wearying them. It was published in SILLIMAN’S Am. Journ. Sc. Arts, 1829, and runs as follows:

“The History of Sea-Serpentism, extracted from Samuel L. Mitchill’s Summary of the progress of Natural Science within our United States, for a few years past; read before the New York Lyceum, at a succession of sittings during October, 1828.--N^o. 35.--The Sea-Serpent. (Communicated for this Journal).”

“This subject, the author observed, would scarcely be worthy of notice, before this learned and respectable assembly, if it had not happened, that during several years, it, or something so imagined and so called, had frequently been presented for public consideration; and that paragraphs and statements in the newspapers and journals, do yet, from time to time, attract the attention of their readers.”

“This alleged monster of the deep first haunted the coast of Massachusetts, and frightened more particularly the neighbourhood of Gloucester with his presence. Observations were made, and evidence was collected to a large amount. These were so considerable and imposing, that the Linnean Society of New England published a book on the subject, with the figure of the enormous reptile under the name of Scoliophis. As the fishermen and naturalists could not catch him and bring him ashore for inspection, it was concluded to fortify the story by oaths. Accordingly, affidavits were made to great extent, containing the particulars of what the several deponents believed they had seen, and, as far as swearing went, such solemn declarations presented a strong case. Their operation however upon my mind was, that there was nothing better to show than those statements upon paper, which were, in no sense of the words, proofs of the fact, but merely expressions of the opinions formed by the deposing witnesses of what they had observed in the water. I who was a believer in the first instance, was gradually sworn into scepticism, which finally ended in incredulity.”

“About this stage of the panic, General David Humphreys did me the honor of a visit, and requested me to listen while he read a manuscript. To this I instantly consented. I discovered that my distinguished friend had visited Massachusetts for the express purpose of collecting all the testimony he could find concerning the sea-serpent. He was highly delighted with his success; and had reduced his researches into the form of letters addressed to Sir Joseph Banks, then President of the London Royal Society. He evidently intended to take the lead of the Linnean Society, and to acquire the honor and glory of making the wonderful intelligence known first to the sçavans of Europe. He did not vouchsafe, even to name me in the communication. After a very pleasant interview, during which I found that he positively considered himself right in the investigation, and I determined on my part to enter into no discussion about it, he requested me to receive the writing, and engage some bookseller to cause it to be put to press without delay. The reason for this was, that he was obliged to return forthwith to New-Haven. I made a contract in his behalf, and directed the proofsheets to be sent to him there. I had a lucky escape from an association with the extraordinary creature.”

“Afterwards, a mutilated specimen of a snake, killed on the land, somewhere thereabout, was brought to me preserved in alcoholic spirit. This had been exhibited as the spawn or young of the Great Scoliophis. The head, which contains the strong ophiological characters, had been crushed and destroyed. But, as far as I could judge, from the formation of the belly and tail, it had been a native of the land, (apparently a coluber,) and had, of course, no pretention to claim kindred with its pretended parent of the ocean.”

“I was the better enabled, I thought, to form a more correct opinion, relative to the matter, by reason of my possessing in my museum, at the time, four true sea-serpents, which my navigating friends had brought me from the Gulf of Mexico, and the Chinese Sea.”

“The history of Sea Serpentism is a very memorable part of the sayings and doings in this enlightened age and country. For the benefit of the present generation, and of posterity, it ought to be written. In proceeding to pen a short sketch of it, I must premise, that I am one of the last persons in existence who would presume to put a limit to creative power. I admit that the all-mighty being could make a water-snake as easily as a fish; and that such an animal might be as big as a Kraken, as easily as the diminutive size of the Stickleback. Yet, on reviewing these legends of the times, there is found such a propensity towards the strange and the marvellous, that the men of the present day show a credulity very much resembling that of the remote ages, when the terraqueous globe was peopled with gorgons, mermaids, chimeras, hydras, dragons, and all the monsters of fabulous zoology.”

“(a). The first tale I remember to have considered seriously relative to it was this: it had been determined, they said, to put a steam boat in operation at Boston to coast along shore and to convey passengers. It was foreseen that such a vessel would traverse the currents and pass among the islands with an ease and a speed unknown to boats moved by oars and sails; and of course, much of the business of transporting passengers would be taken away from the small craft heretofore employed. The large boat would thus destroy the small ones, or, as was expressed by another word, devour them. Under these forebodings, the steam-vessel made a trip, with favourable auspices. Some wag, the account proceeds, wrote for one of the gazettes, an allegorical description of a sea-serpent, that had been descried off Nahant and Gloucester, and had probably come there to consume all the small fish in the place. The narrative, given with such grave diction and imposing seriousness, was received by many as an actual and literal occurrence, and credited accordingly.”

“(b). Long Island Sound put in a claim for a sea-serpent. On this fiction I am well satisfied of the particulars that follow. An active young fellow who had become weary of ploughing the land, bought a little sloop of about fifteen tons, which I remember to have seen; and resolved to try his luck in ploughing the waves. He named his vessel the Sea-Serpent. She was mostly employed in carrying country produce to the New-York market and in bringing manure back, with the advantage of passengers when any offered. This boat was on her way from Mamaroneck harbor or thereabout toward the city, and was met by a sloop from that place, a short distance from City-Island. The captain of the latter, on arriving at home, was eagerly interrogated by a quidnunc for news; and being a man of some humor and fancy, told his neighbor, the querist, he had just seen the sea-serpent. He then described how (alluding to the barrels on deck) he had seen the bunches on his back; how high the head (meaning the bowsprit) was out of water; how the black and white colours (meaning the painted waist) were variegated; how he saw the lashing of the tail (meaning the motion of the boom in jibing as she was going along before a fair easterly wind); that this sea-serpent was proceeding with a speed equalling at least from five to six knots an hour, which made all white before him (meaning the foam at the bows). The good man took the joke in real earnest, went away and told it to a sensible acquaintance. This latter wrote a formal and solemn account of it; which, travelling an extensive round in the sheets of intelligence, was finally embodied in the aforesaid book, where it is registered as a part of the evidence.”

“(c). It was about this period of these transactions that I received from Boston an ichthyological production, enclosed in a letter, respectfully written, and with postage paid, submitting to me whether that article was not a piece of a sea-serpent’s hide? It had been found on the shore of the region which the alarming visitor frequented; and was supposed to have been separated from his body by one of the musket balls which had been fired at him and washed ashore. To this serious communication I returned for answer that it was simply a portion of skin with closely adhering scales, belonging to the bony scaled pike (Esox osseus), an inhabitant of the Atlantic Ocean.”

“(d). So much curiosity and excitement were now raised about the sea-serpent, that he was a prominent topic of conversation. The feeling was more intense, inasmuch as it was confidently declared he had been frequently observed near boats and vessels. It was at length concluded to fit an expedition, expressly for the purpose of catching him, with a select crew, under the command of Captain Rich. Day after day he cruised over tracts where the sea-serpent had, according to information, been observed, without discovering anything like him. At length, a creature was descried, which some of the men on board said they had seen before, and that it was the sea-serpent. The captain pursued the game a considerable time longer, with much vigilance and patience, until it was at a distance near enough to be harpooned. He was taken on board, and found to be a fish of the Mackerel family. I saw the preparation of it in the Greenwood Museum, and satisfied myself that it was an individual of a well known species called Tunny in the Mediterranean, and Albicore in the Atlantic sea.”

“After the capture of the fish, the persons who, when they saw him in the water, declared positively that he was the sea-serpent, now changed their minds, and swore he was not.”

“At length the man of successful exertion arrived with his prize; and unexpectedly and unfortunately drew upon him the displeasure of his employers for attempting to impose upon them a Horse-Mackerel (as they call it) for a Sea-Serpent! He told me the story himself.”

“(e). In this fervor of opinion, it was supposed for a time that a sea-serpent existed in Lake Ontario. A coasting navigator, somewhere between Kingston and York, had several times during his trips observed among the islands and rocks something that appeared to be a long animal with vertical flexures of the back, resembling lumps or humps of variegated black and white hues. He told some of his acquaintances what peculiar appearances had presented themselves to his view; and that he intended the next opportunity to take a more close and correct survey. He did so, shortly after, when the whole phenomenon ascended into the air! It turned out to be a speckled mother duck, with a numerous brood of young ones. They swam in a line, with the parent bird at the head. And as they rose and descended on the undulations, gave an appearance so like that ascribed to the sea-serpent, that the captain, though a wary man, would have solemnly declared, until he was undeceived, his belief in the existence of a sea-serpent there!”

“(f). Lake Erie brought forward pretensions too for a sea-serpent. One of the coasting vessels, navigated by three men, as she was steering eastward from Detroit, discovered something afloat on the hither side of the islands called “The Sisters”, which, when she arrived at the place of her destination on the southern shore, was reported by the men at the tavern and the printing office, to be the very creature. Mr. Printer wrote a paragraph on the subject, and inserted it in his paper, in which it travelled far and wide. It may be relied on that this alleged inhabitant of that inland sea, has been reduced to genus and species, by a distinguished naturalist, and registered very orderly in zoology. Now let us find what the production really turned out to be. The sheriff of the county, a sensible man, heard of the marvel, and conceiving that he knew as much about the lake as any person whatever, went on board full of curiosity, to make inquiry about it. He found but one of the people on board, whom he interrogated closely concerning the wonderful sight, with which he and his associates had entertained the neighbourhood. The sailor was soon implicated in contradictions. The querist, aware of the fellow’s confusion, asked him if he was not ashamed to propagate such falsehoods? He then said, if the sheriff would not be affronted, he would relate the whole story just as it was. At the place aforesaid, they passed a dry tree afloat; and concluding that the butt or root would do for a head, some knots on the trunk for knobs or bunches, and the top for a tail, they would have a little pastime by telling a story of a sea-serpent, which they thought their lake was as much entitled to as any other water. The whole three had agreed to tell the same tale and support it!”

“(g). When the skin, &c. of the huge basking shark, that had straggled from the Northern Ocean and had been killed in Raritan Bay (Squalus Maximus), was exhibited in New York City, the inhabitants were openly and earnestly invited by notice in words at length displayed in front of the house, to enter and behold the sea-serpent. The conceit took very well!”

“Now, after all these mistakes, deceptions and wilful perversions on the subject, every person of consideration may admit that the gambols of porpoises, the slow motions of basking sharks, and the yet different appearances of balaenopterous whales, all of which have fins on their backs, may have given rise to those parts of the narrations, not already herein commented upon.”

Professor SILLIMAN, the editor of the journal, could not help saying in a note:

“We give place to the scepticism of the learned author, although not ourselves sceptical on this subject. We do not see how such evidence as that presented by Dr. Bigelow Vol. II p. 147 of this Journal--particularly in the statements of Capt. Little of the Boston Frigate, and of Marshall Prince and family, and of Mr. Cabot, can be set aside--although we have no doubt that there have been on this subject both error and imposition; and we are far from believing that every thing that has been called a sea-serpent has really been such.”

Now in the whole dissertation there is not one single proof of the non-existence of the sea-serpent. Mr. MITCHILL gathered some hoaxes, which no doubt greatly amused his audience, but his statements are sadly wanting in correctness. He says, that the sea-serpent first haunted the coast of Massachusetts, while if he in October 1828, had taken the trouble to look up the literature on the subject, he would have found that the sea-serpent had already appeared on the coasts of Norway, in the Northern Atlantic, in Davis’ Straits, in the Northern Pacific near Behring’s Isle, and all along the Eastern coasts of the United States. The Linnaean Society, he further asserts “published a book on the subject, with the figure of the enormous reptile under the name of Scoliophis”. This is also untrue, for the Society only figured an individual of a sick and ill-formed Coluber constrictor, the so-called Black Snake, having only the length of about one yard! The “mutilated specimen of a snake” which was brought to him in alcoholic spirit, was the same figured by the Linnaean Society; and where Mr. MITCHILL says that he is convinced that the snake was a common native of the land, “apparently a Coluber”, he expresses an opinion which the Society already printed in their little book. Consequently he cannot claim priority in this matter. And finally, where he says that the story of the active young fellow with his sloop, called “the sea-serpent” is published in the aforesaid book of the Linnaean Society, he has told his audience and his readers what is commonly called “a falsehood”, for in the whole book there is not one “formal and solemn account” in which there is question of “white and black colours” which “were variegated”, of a “tail” which “lashed” the water, and of a motion of “six knots an hour, which made all white before him”.

I may safely express here my opinion that the whole paper of Mr. MITCHILL is an unscientific, deceptive dissertation, unworthy of notice, and that the way in which he ridiculed the endeavours of the Committee was unfair.

* * * * *

Another hoax which appeared in some American newspapers I have found, translated into German, in FRORIEP’S Notizen, of 1830, June, Vol. XXVII, n^o. 589, p. 265:

“Again a story about the sea-serpent will be found in American newspapers. Capt. DELAND with the schooner Eagle ran into Charlston on the 27th. of March” (1830) “from Turtle River, and with his crew is willing to confirm by oath the truth of the following declaration: On the 23d. of March, at 11 o’clock A. M., at about a mile from Simons Bay, we perceived at the distance of about 300 yards a large body, resembling an alligator, which sometimes moved with the vessel, sometimes lay motionless on the surface. Capt. DELAND, who perceived that he approached the animal, loaded a musket with a ball, and steered so, that he approached it within 20 or 25 yards at a moment that it lay quite still and apparently careless. Capt. DELAND aimed with great sagacity at the hindpart of the head, the only part that was just visible, and the ball evidently struck. At this moment the monster, to the great terror of the crew, came directly up to the vessel, and in passing dealt her two or three heavy blows with its tail, of which the first struck the stem, and caused a shaking, felt by every-one on board. The Captain, as soon as he perceived the animal approach, jumped upon the load of cotton which lay on deck, and the whole crew, the mate not excepted, only thought of their safety. They all had opportunity to see their enemy and agree that its length was about 70 feet. The body was as thick as or thicker than a sixty-gallon keg, of a grey colour, eel-shaped, without visible fins and apparently covered with scales, the back full of joints or bunches, the head and beak resembled an alligator’s, the former 10 feet long, and as big as a hogshead. A smaller individual was observed at a great distance (!), which, however, disappeared at the shot, afterwards, however, both were seen again together, when they passed the North-Breaker where they disappeared.--Captain D. says, that four years ago he saw a similar creature at some distance off Doboy and had fired four times at it; without, however, causing such a visit as in the present case. He believes, that this terrible undescribed animal has strength enough to damage a vessel of the size of the Eagle, if not to destroy it, and feels happy to have got rid of it in this way. He further asserts that he has certainly not erred with regard to the shape of the sea-monster, and that it was different from whales and other inhabitants of the deep, which he has ever witnessed” (Chronicle).

Though the description of the form might lead to the belief that what is reported to have been seen was a real sea-serpent, yet I consider the whole account as a story, because it is not the habit of the sea-serpent to attack a ship after having been struck by a ball, but to plunge down and to disappear.

* * * * *

Again the sea-serpent was said to have appeared in Lake Ontario. In FRORIEP’S Notizen of August 1835, Vol. 45, n^o. 980, p. 186, we read:

“The Colossal Sea-Serpent is again reported in the American newspapers. Now it is even told that it has been seen in Lake Ontario, 78 feet long, as thick as a large flour-barrel, and of a blue colour spotted with brown. If this is not an illusion, the sea-serpent at last ought to have been explained or will be so very soon”.

It seems that Mr. FRORIEP really believes, that if this report is not the result of an optical illusion, it is trustworthy, and that the appearance of the Sea-Serpent in Lake Ontario does not belong to the impossibilities! Every one will agree with me, that the report can only be the result of an illusion, or that it is a hoax.

* * * * *

In 1845 Dr. ALBERT C. KOCH “exhibited a large skeleton of a fossil animal, under the name of Hydrarchos Sillimanni in Broadway, New York, purporting to be that of an extinct marine serpent. These remains consisted of a head and vertebral column, measuring in all 114 feet, of a few ribs attached to the thoracic portion of the latter, and of parts of supposed paddles” (see Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist. Nov. 1845, Vol. II, p. 65). I show here to my readers the figure of this skeleton, which I have found in the Wochenblatt für das Christliche Volk of 1878. The description of this skeleton in full particulars is given by Prof. WYMAN in the above mentioned American Journal. I will not trouble my readers with it, but only mention that Prof. WYMAN in the same paper proved that “these remains never belonged to one and the same individual, and that the anatomical characters of the teeth indicate that they are not those of a reptile, but of a warm blooded mammal”. And he comes to the conclusion that the greater part of the bones belonged to the genus Basilosaurus of HARLAN, 1824, an animal allied to the seals. The same genus is called Zeuglodon by Prof. RICHARD OWEN in 1839, Dorudon by Prof. GIBBES in 1845, and Saurocetus by Prof. AGASSIZ.

In the same Proceedings, of Dec. 1845, Vol. II, p. 73, Prof. H. D. ROGERS too states, that according to the form and structure of some loose bones, the skeleton must be of at least two individuals of Basilosaurus.

In the same periodical (of Jan. 1846, Vol. II, p. 94) we read that Dr. KOCH also told the public that the bones had been found together, in a position which proved that they belonged to one individual, and that the vertebrae formed an integral series, arranged in the order in which they were lying when discovered. That this assertion too was a mere fabrication, is not only shown by Prof. WYMAN, as we have seen above, but also in a letter by Dr. LISTER, who stated that Dr. KOCH had dug up the bones in different places in Alabama.

A little notice on this imposture was written by the New York correspondent in the Cincinnati Gazette which, translated into German, appeared in FRORIEP’S Neue Notizen of Febr. 1846, Vol. 37, n^o 801, p. 134.

In the Illustrated London News of Oct. 28, 1848, we read that Prof. SILLIMAN attested: “that the spinal column belongs to the same individual, that the skeleton differs, most essentially, from any existing or fossil serpent, although it may countenance the popular (and I believe well founded) impression of the existence in our modern seas of huge animals, to which the name of Sea-Serpent had been attached”.

These words were undoubtedly taken from another newspaper or journal, but I can hardly believe that Prof. SILLIMAN had a share in this imposture.

In the Illustrated London News of Nov. 4, 1848, the Editor published a letter directed to him by the well-known Geologist and Palaeontologist MANTELL:

“Sir,--Will you allow me to correct a statement that appeared in the last Number of your interesting publication? The fossil mentioned at the conclusion of the admirable notice of the so-called Sea-Serpent, as having been exhibited in America under the name of Hydrarchos Sillimannii, was constructed by the exhibitor Koch, from bones collected in various parts of Alabama, and which belonged to several individual skeletons of an extinct marine cetacean, termed Basilosaurus by the American naturalists, and better known in this country by that of Zeuglodon, a term signifying yoked teeth. Mr. Koch is the person who, a few years ago, had a fine collection of fossil bones of elephants and mastodons, out of which he made up an enormous skeleton, and exhibited it in the Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly, under the name of Missourium. This collection was purchased by the trustees of the British Museum, and from it were selected the bones which now constitute the matchless skeleton of a Mastodon in our National Gallery of Organic Remains”.

“Not content with the interest which the fossils which he collected in various parts of the United States really possess, Mr. Koch, with the view of exciting the curiosity of the ignorant multitude, strung together all the vertebrae he could obtain of the Basilosaurus, and arranged them in a serpentine form; manufactured a skull and claws, and exhibited the monster as a fossil Sea-Serpent, under the name above mentioned--Hydrarchos. But the trick was immediately exposed by the American naturalists, and the true nature of the fossil bones pointed out.”

“Bones of the Basilosaurus have been found in many parts of Alabama and South Carolina, in green sand belonging to a very ancient (Eocene) tertiary formation. Hundreds of vertebrae, bones of the extremities, portions of the cranium, and of the jaws with teeth, have from time to time been collected. Remains of species of the same genus have also been found near Bordeaux and in Malta”.

“Professor Owen has shown that the original animal was a marine cetacean, holding an intermediate place between the Cachelots and the herbivorous species. It must have attained a length equal to that of the largest living whales; for a series of vertebrae was observed in situ, that extended in a line 65 feet. An interesting Memoir on the Basilosaurus by Dr. Gibbes, of Columbia, was published in the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Vol. I, 2^d. Series, 1847; and a Memoir on the remains of the same animal, by Prof. Owen appeared in the “Transactions of the Geological Society of London”, Vol. VI; a brief notice of which is inserted in my “Medals of Creation” p. 826, under the name of Zeuglodon cetoides”.

“Gideon Algernon Mantell”.

“19, Chestersquare, Pimlico, Oct. 31. 1848”.

In the Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat, Hist. (Vol. III, p. 328, Dec. 1850) we read:

“This animal” (the Basilosaurus) “was supposed by Dr. KOCH to be a reptile, a marine serpent, but Dr. Wyman has exposed the fallacy of this opinion, and shown that it was a warm blooded mammal”.

I do not think this to be the true view of the matter. I firmly believe that Dr. KOCH knew very well what he did, and that he was in every way an impostor who cheated the credulous people of their money. The honour of the discovery that the Basilosaurus is a warm blooded mammal is due to Prof. OWEN. Dr. WYMAN has only recognized that the bones were of the Basilosaurus.

The further history of the large skeleton exhibited in New York is related to us in that same Journal:

“Koch’s sea-serpent was carried to Dresden, where it was described by Carus, who figured it and even restored the cranium, of which then only a portion had been found. Carus restored the cranium of a reptile, but this was a mere fiction of his imagination; for an entire cranium has since been found, proving beyond a doubt that the Zeuglodon was not a reptile but a cetacean; the teeth being inserted by double roots into double alveoli is positive evidence that it was a warmblooded mammal. Muller has also carefully studied this specimen, and pronounces it unquestionably a cetacean.”

* * * * *

The reader will further on see mention made of a report, generally known as that of the Daedalus. It appeared in the newspapers of October, 1848. As soon as it was published, the following letter was addressed to the Editor of the Globe. It first appeared in the number of 21. Oct., 1848, of that journal, next in the Times of 23d. Oct. and in the Illustrated London News of 28 Oct. It runs as follows:

“Mary Ann, of Glasgow, Glasgow, October 19”.

“I have just reached this port, on a voyage from Malta and Lisbon, and my attention having been called to a report relative to an animal seen by the master and crew of Her Majesty’s ship Daedalus, I take the liberty of communicating the following circumstance:--

“When clearing out of the port of Lisbon, on the 30th of September last, we spoke the American brig Daphne, of Boston, Mark Trelawney master. He signalled for us to heave to, which we did; and standing close round her counter, lay-to while the mate boarded us with the jolly boat, and handed a packet of letters to be despatched per first steamer for Boston on our arrival in England. The mate told me that when in lat. 4° 11′ S., long. 10° 15′ E., wind dead north, upon the 20th of September, a most extraordinary animal had been seen: from his description it had the appearance of a huge serpent or snake, with a dragon’s head. Immediately upon its being seen, one of the deck guns was brought to bear upon it, which having been charged with spike-nails, and whatever other pieces of iron could be got at the moment, was discharged at the animal, then only distant about forty yards from the ship; it immediately reared its head in the air, and plunged violently with its body, showing evidently that the charge had taken effect. The Daphne was to leeward at the time, but was put about on the starboard tack and stood towards the brute, which was seen foaming and lashing the water at a fearful rate: upon the brig nearing, however, it disappeared, and, though evidently wounded, made rapidly off at the rate of 15 or 16 knots an hour, as was judged from its appearing several times upon the surface. The Daphne pursued for some time, but the night coming on the master was obliged to put about and continue his voyage”.

“From the description given by the mate, the brute must have been nearly 100 feet long, and his account of it agrees in every respect with that lately forwarded to the admiralty by the captain of the Daedalus. The packet of letters to Boston, I have no doubt, contains the full particulars, which, I suppose, will be made public”.

“There are letters from captain Trelawney to a friend in Liverpool, which will probably contain some further particulars, and I have written to get a copy for the purpose of getting the full account. James Henderson, Master, Broomielaw, Berth, n^o 4”.

The same story was inserted in the Zoologist of 27 Nov. 1848, and Mr. NEWMAN the Editor who half a year before had fallen into the snare laid by the so-called captain WOODWARD, and who was taken to task by Mr. COOPER, grown more careful, now added:

“Doubtless the sagacious production of some selfstyled philosophical naturalist, who is pledged to one of the hypothetical modes of explaining away the existence of a sea-serpent, and who hopes by a hoax of this kind to throw discredit on Captain M’Quhae’s statement”.

Now, I think, Mr. NEWMAN was on the right track!

* * * * *

In the Illustrated London News for 1850, April 20, Supplement, we read:

“The following we extract from the Christian (United States) Mercury.--The following letter from a gentleman of Beaufort gives exciting news of what may, by this time, be the “seat of war”. The old fellow has got into close quarter, and if he does not make a sudden and fortunate dash, has nothing better than offering himself as an oblation on the altar of science:--Beaufort, March 15, 1850. The report of Captain Bankenship and passengers has been verified by many other witnesses. This formidable sea-monster has been seen again to day, we understand, in our waters. When discovered by those on board the steamer, his “eminence” was in Port Royal Sound, a distance of seven or eight miles from this town. Since that time he has been lazily making his way up Broad-River, and was seen by a gentleman, we understand, to-day in White Branch River, an arm of the Broad, he is reported to be making his way higher up still, when, perhaps, he may be captured. He is described as being from 120 to 150 feet in length, and of proportionate bulk; has the head of a serpent, which he carries, when in motion, five or six feet out of the water, about ten feet from his head is a hump, resembling a huge hogshead, and as far as he could be seen, out of the water a succession of humps was observed. He was pursued for several miles along the bank of the river, at times the party in pursuit coming very near to him. He was shot at with a rifle and shot gun, which had the effect of making him timid, and caused him to sink below the surface of the water when nearly approached. We understand that a party from this place has been made up to capture him, if possible. The plan is to man two large flats with a cannon to each, one going below where he is represented to be, and the other above, and then approach each other, and, when he is discovered, to fire into him. In this way he may be taken if, peradventure, he does not take them first. The Whale Branch is not more than 100 yards wide, and there is every probability of an animated conflict with this king of the waters within his own dominions; and I suppose it is admitted that the battle must be waged upon his own terms. The “Charlestown Courier” has a letter from Beaufort, of the same date, and of a similar tenor to which is appended the following:--Information has just reached us that the said sea-serpent is ashore at the mouth of Skull Creek. If so, the prize is certain, and Beaufort immortalized.”

Mr. NEWMAN inserted this tale in his Zoologist of 1850, p. 2803, however, not without the following introduction:

“Ever since Prof. OWEN attempted to confound this leviathan with the seals, on which he probably feeds, taking in whole shoals of them at a mouthful, and draining of the water with his seaserpentbone apparatus in the manner of a whale filling his stomach with medusae and shrimps: ever since the promulgation of this humilating hypothesis, the great sea-serpent has felt himself snubbed and has doggedly kept in deep water, pertinatiously resolved, no doubt, to withhold himself in future from the incredulous malevolence of men. But he has relented: the recurrence of St. Valentine has warmed his heart: he has once more risen to the surface, and has wisely concluded to shun the disparaging Britishers, and to select, as of yore, for the scene of his auto-exhibition, the shores of a nation, at once the smartest and most credulous on earth. The papers of the United States are fraught with intelligence respecting him; cannon have been discharged, and reports say that he is actually ashore. My first extract is from a religious newspaper, entitled the “Christian Mercury.””

The reader will afterwards get acquainted with Prof. OWEN’S suggestions; it is not now the right moment to enter into them; I will only observe that Mr. NEWMAN also wrote the following last word:

“The London papers have repeated all this, intermixed with a perfect flood of wit: the shafts of which are directed against believers and unbelievers, in a very pleasing and impartial manner. Is it still a hoax, or a Brachioptilon Hamiltoni?--EDWARD NEWMAN, London, April 20, 1850.”

I must confess that I too am much inclined to believe, that all that has above been mentioned is a mere hoax, though the description of the animal agrees with that of the Sea-serpent. It is striking that the arm of the Broad-River is first called White-River, and a few lines afterwards Whale-River.--As to the Brachioptilon Hamiltoni, it is a kind of shark.

* * * * *

Again in the Illustrated London News for 1850, Sept. 7, appeared a hoax in the following terms:

“The Cork Constitution publishes the following circumstantial letter: Courtmasherry, Aug. 29.--Sir,--The following particulars, the accuracy of which need not to be questioned, will, I doubt not, interest many of your readers:--The different fishing establishments on the shore of this extensive bay, extending from the Old Head of Kinsale to the Seven Heads, have been within the last few days abundantly supplied with fish of every description, and the greatest activity prevails to profit by the bounty which has been thus sent to us literally in shoals. It has been noticed too, that some description of fish, haak for instance, has been captured further within the limits of the inner harbour than was ever known before. In fact, as I heard it observed, the fish was literally leaping ashore. These novel appearances, however, it was my lot to see fully accounted for yesterday (August 28). At about 1 o’clock A. M. when sailing in my yacht, with a slight breeze off shore, about two miles to the south of the beacon erected to the Barrel rocks, one of the party of four gentlemen on board (M. B. of Bandon) drew attention towards the structure, with the interrogatory of: “Do you see anything queer about the Barrels?” In an instant the attention of all on board was rivetted on an object which at first struck me as like the upheaved thick end of a large mast, but which, as it made out plainer, proved to be the head of some huge fish or monster. On bearing down towards the object we could distinctly see, with the naked eye, what I can best describe as an enormous serpent without mane or fur or any like appendage. The portion of the body above water, and which appeared to be rubbing or scratching itself against the beacon, was fully thirty feet long, and in diameter I should say about a fathom. With the aid of a glass it was observed that the eyes were of immense size, about nine inches across the ball, and the upper part of the back appeared covered with a furrowed shell-like substance. We were now within rifle shot of the animal, and, although some on board exhibited pardonable nervousness at the suggestion, it was resolved to fire a ball at the under portion of the body whenever the creature’s unwieldy evolutions would expose its vulnerable part. The instant the piece was discharged the monster rose as if impelled by a painful impulse to a height which may appear incredible, say at least thirty fathoms, and culminating with the most rapid motion dived or dashed itself under water with a splash that almost stopped our breath with amazement. In a few moments all disturbance of the water subsided, and the strange visitor evidently pursued his course to seaward. On coming up to the beacon we were gratified to find adhering to the supports numerous connecting scaly masses, such as one would think to be rubbed from a creature “coating” or changing its old skin for a new one. These interesting objects can be seen at the Horse Rock Coast Guard station, and will repay a visit. These particulars I have narrated in the clearest manner I am able, and if others, in other boats, who had not so good an opportunity of seeing the entire appearance of the animal as those in my boat had, should send you a more readable account of it, I pledge myself none will more strictly adhere to the real facts. I am, Sir, your very obedient servant, “Roger W. Travers””, in the Cork Constitution, Sept. 2.

And in the number of September 14 of the same year, we read:

“The mysterious stranger has been again seen by Mr. Travers and his enterprising yachtsmen. They have brought four rifles to bear upon his left eye which, it seems, he most merrily winked at his pursuers. He would have laughed in his sleeve at the pleasant conceit, but we learn that he had just put off his coat. He, however, wished them a polite good morning, and descended to unknown depths”.

“On Saturday last (August 31), the weather having the appearance of being settled fine, I put out to sea, determined, as far as the capabilities of my little craft would permit, to go any length in finding out the position of the stranger, hoping, by keeping a constant look out in every direction, to discover him. Nor was I disappointed, the animal, lured no doubt by the dense masses of fish now off the coast, having remained within a comparatively short distance of the land. At about 11. o’clock A. M., when off Dunwordy-head, one of my crew on the look out sang out: “The sea-serpent on starboard bow!” and on looking in the direction indicated, I had the pleasure of at once recognizing the same monster that I had before seen, and greatly do I regret, indeed, that you or some person conversant with natural history were not on board with me. We drew as close as I thought consistent with safety, and had ample proof of the creature being piscivorous, he being at the time engaged in bolting a great number of large haak or congereels. I had now for the first time a view of his tail, which entirely differs from the usual form of that extremity in most descriptions of fish, being furnished with no fin, but somewhat resembling a huge elephant’s trunk or proboscis, the end long drawn out and curling and twisting in a very remarkable manner. I really feel afraid to hazard expressing in figures what I judge to be the dimensions of the animal, but I do believe that if it were stretched straight from head to tail it would be rather over than under thirty fathoms long, and of that length I am satisfied fully half is seven feet in diameter. The mouth is a most capacious organ, and opens something like that of an alligator. The small size of the gills, for I could discern nothing like the blowing holes of a whale, rather surprised me. The nose, I think, is formed of a soft flesh-like substance, not bony; and from the broken condition of the external coat of scales I am satisfied, as before observed, that the beast is now in its “coating” state. After a little time it appeared evident that he had fallen asleep, as we could perceive him rapidly drifting on shore at the east side of Dunworly-head; and I once more, although I now feel with more rashness than discretion, resolved to try the effect of firearms in capturing him. Four rifles were prepared, brought simultaneously to bear on the animal’s head, and, giving the word myself, and directing all to aim for the eye turned towards us, bang went the pieces in a volley, the shots taking evident effect. His first movement was to shake his head and wink the wounded eye in a rapid manner, and then, as if to cool the painful wound, he suddenly dived, since when I have not had the slightest trace of him either by my own observation or through others”. Cork Constitution, Sept. 7.

“The Cork Constitution, referring to the foregoing says:--Since the above letter was received, the following information on the same subject came to hand. Monday last a party of gentlemen belonging to this city were enjoying a sailing excursion in the Antelope yacht, belonging to Mr. Wheeler, along the coast from Glandore to Kinsale. Passing the Old Head of Kinsale, the day unusually fine, they observed an extraordinary commotion in the sea, apparent to every one on board. The bay at Kinsale was at the time filled with fish. In a few moments they perceived a large serpent-like fish on the surface, that could not be less than 120 feet in length. In shape it resembled a long funnel of an immense steamer. Unfortunately they were not sufficiently near the monster to give a description, of the head and body. After lying on the surface for a few minutes, it suddenly dashed ahead with a velocity, as far as could be seen for a distance of two miles, of at least sixty miles an hour. It then disappeared. It was believed that the sea-serpent must have been in pursuit of the shoals of fish that thronged the bay. It is a singular circumstance that, notwithstanding the unusual quantity of fish that was observable, the Kinsale hookers were most unsuccessful, as it was stated they did not obtain a single take during the evening. The gentlemen who have witnessed the visit of the monster, and whose statement is detailed above, may be relied on as above all suspicion”.--Cork Constitution Sept. 7.--

The Zoologist of course could not overlook such statements. In the year 1850 this journal inserted the three reports (see p. 2925):

“The Great Sea-Serpent has again appeared with immense éclât in the newspapers. Most respectable witnesses are called to speak a word in his favour, as will be seen by the following extracts from the daily press. It should, however, be premised that a number of brief and analogous paragraphs had previously located him “at Howth”, “off Wexford”, and “off Cork”; so that he made the grand demonstration at Kinsale, he appeared to be taking a coasting trip round the shores of old Ireland.”

Here follow the above mentioned three hoaxes, of Courtmasherry, August 29, August 31, and September 2. Further we read in the Zoologist:

“A few friends accompanied me on a boating excursion this day (Sept. 9) whose names are William Silk, John Hunt, George Williams, Henry Seymour, and Edward Barry, and, being off the Souverein-Islands, our attention was directed by one of the party to an extraordinary appearance ahead of the boat; immediately all eyes were turned to see what it was, when, to our astonishment and fright, the above monster of the deep was bearing down to us; we were at once thrown into an awful fright, and thought it best to retreat for the shore; on our landing, Mr. W. Silk, who was armed with a double barrelled gun, discharged both barrels at the monster, but without effect. I need not describe his appearance, as you are aware of it before, but from inquiries from various boatmen I am told he has been off the harbour the last three days.”--John Good, of Kinsale.” in Cork Reporter, Sept. 11.

Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the Zoologist, adds:

“The next account states that a party encountered the monster in Ballycotton Bay, fired into him, and made him disgorge a shoal of fishes, some of which fell into the boat, and being handled, gave the crew the most terrific electric shocks; where upon the naturalist of the party immediately concluded, and I think, with great judgment, that the sea-serpent is neither more nor less than the electric eel (Gymnotus electricus).”

“The last account published in London, on this day (September 24), reports his capture and death at Youghal, in the county of Cork, together with full admeasurements, and the names of the parties concerned in the galant achievement.”

“There was something that struck me as unsatisfactory about several parts of this highly exciting narrative. One o’clock in the morning, and without the assistance of a moon, was rather a strange time to make such exact observations. Again, about the scales; why not sent some to London or Dublin?--why keep them at the light-house? And again, the bearing of Kinsale bay did not quite correspond with my remembrance of the place: so I epistolized the chief actors, and particularly entreated Mr. Travers to send me a handful of scales, and a more detailed account: alas! there was no response. After a while I bethought myself of a friend in London who corresponds with the accountant of the Principal Bank at Bandon. To this gentleman my friend, with prompt kindness, applied, and I have now the pleasure of laying his most explicit answer before the readers of the “Zoologist”.”

“Dear Sir,--I reply to your note relative to the Sea-Serpent, there is not one word of truth in the statements put forward in the newspapers: there is no such person as Roger W. Travers, but there is a person named James W. Travers, to whom I believe it has been done to annoy (and indeed with great effect). Mr. Thomson’s family has been staying in the neighbourhood, but do not hear a word of it except what is to be seen in the papers about it. Dear Sir, yours truly, H. O.’ Callaghan.”--Bandon, Sep. 18, 1850.

“Any comment on this would be superfluous.--Edward Newman.”

The trouble Mr. NEWMAN gave himself to get possession of the scales, and to know whether the reports were true or not, is the best proof that he was caught in the snare!

* * * * *

The Sea-Serpent caught at last! (See The New York Tribune for 1852, February, GALIGNANI’S Messenger for 1852, Februari, The Illustrated London News for 1852, March, 18, The Times for 1852, March 10, The Zoologist for 1852 p. 3426--3429, Spenerische Zeitung for 1852, March).

“Ship Monongahela, at Sea, Feb. 6.--A small vessel has just been reported from my mast-head, and as she is apparently bound into some of the northern parts, I intend to speak her, purposely to acquaint, through your widely diffused journal, the people of the United States, of the fact of the existence and capture of the sea-serpent--a monster deemed fabulous by many--but the truth of whose existence is for ever settled, and, I trust I shall be excused in saying, by Yankee intrepidity. On the morning of January 13, when in lat. 3 deg. 10 min. south, and long. 131 deg. 50 min. west, the man on the look out, seated on the foretopmast cross-trees, sang out: “White Water” and in reply to my “Where away?” said “Two points on the lee bow”. Supposing it to be made by sperm whales, and being very anxious to obtain oil, I ordered my ship to be kept off, and immediately went aloft with my spyglass. I will observe that for several days we had been struggling along with very light and baffling winds, but at day-light of the morning of the 13th. the wind had drawn to the south-south-west, become steady, and threatened to blow a gale. I was aloft nearly half an hour before I observed anything like “white water” and then I presumed it to be made by a “school”, or rather schoal of porpoises; but wishing to be certain, I ordered the mate, as it was seven bells, to turn up all hands, square in the yards, and send out the port studding sails. It being my breakfast hour I urged the man to keep both eyes open, and came down; but before I reached the deck my attention was called to the sudden and vehement cry of Onnetu Vanjau, a Marquesan Islander, “Oh! look! look! Me see!--too much--too much!” All eyes were instantly directed to the savage to ascertain where he was looking, and then all eyes turned to the lee quarter. I had just time to see “black skin” when it disappeared. The native was excited, and in reply to my question said: “No whale--too much--too big--too long. Me no see all same dat fellar--me fraid”. Not being able to tell which way the animal or fish was bound, I luffed and came aback, ordering the lines into the boat and the crews to “stand by”. The horizon was scanned in every direction for nearly an hour, when giving up all hopes I braced forward and went below. The native continued to look with eagerness, pushed on by the observations of the crew, who asserted that he had seen nothing, but he proved the truth of his sight in a few minutes by uttering another cry, and with more vehemence than the first. I rushed on deck, and the first look, not a mile to leeward, rested on the strangest creature I had ever seen in the ocean. It was apparently still, but “shobbing” up and down, as we say of sperm whales. I knew it was not a whale. The head I could not see, but the body had a motion like the waving of a rope when shaken and held in the hand. Every eye in the ship regarded it attentively, and not a word was spoken or sound uttered. In a few minutes the whole length of the body rose and lay on the water; it was of an enormous length. Presently the extremity or tail moved or vibrated, agitating the water, and then the head rose entirely above the water, and moved sideways slowly, as if the monster was in agony or suffocating. “It is a sea-serpent” I exclaimed; “stand by the boats”. There was a hesitancy, and the mate said, “of what use is there lowering for him? We only lose time, and gain nothing besides”. I abruptly checked him, and ordered all hand to be called aft. When they had mustered I told them I wished to “try” that fellow. I urged them with all the eloquence I possessed, telling them there were but few who believed in the existence of a sea-serpent, and that a wish had been expressed that a whale ship might fall in with one of them--that if we did not attack him, and should tell of seeing him when we got home, we should be laughed at and derided--and the very first question would be: “Why didn’t you try him?” I told them our courage was at stake--our manhood, and even the credit of the whole American whalefishery, and concluded by appealing to their cupidity--holding out that we might possibly get him into some southern port. “I do not order one of you to go in the boats”, I said “but who will volunteer?” Let me say to their credit, every American in the ship stepped out at once, followed by all but one native and two Englishmen. I ordered the boat-steerers and officers to examine and see that every thing in and about the boats was in perfect order. I had already jumped into my boat when the serpent began to move very rapidly, and it was necessary to stand after him. The wind was piping up strongly, but as we gained I continued to carry all sail, hoping to be able to lower before the gale rendered it impossible. The serpent worked to windward, which compelled me to haul on the wind, and soon after I carried away my fore top-gallant mast; this was most unlucky for us, and, what was still worse, we lost sight of the monster. We repaired damages with all possible despatch, and still kept on the wind, hoping to see his snakeship. In less than an hour we saw him again, but some way to windward; soon ascertaining that he partly turned, and was headed baft for beam, I put the ship about on the other tack. The wind had increased so much, that I was obliged to put a single reef in the fore and mizen topsails. The serpent disappeared for a few minutes again, but when he rose he was a mile ahead of the ship, and going slowly to leeward, having made a complete circuit. I frankly admit my hopes were feeble of ever really capturing him, and the gale made me hesitate about lowering; but the time arrived, the serpent was still, and we nearly half a mile to windward. I came to with the head yards aback to have a better control of all the ship, and told the ship-keeper to keep close to us, and by no means to lose sight of us for an instant. We lowered, myself taking the lead, and in a few strokes--the wind and sea carrying us to leeward--I told the boat-steerer, James Wittemore, of Vermont, to “stand up”. With calm and cool intrepidity he laid hold of his iron (harpoon), and, when I beckoned with a movement of my hand, quick as thought both of his weapons were buried to the socket in the repulsive body before us. I shouted ’stern, but there was no visible motion of his snakeship. I shifted ends with the boat-steerer, and cleared away a lance as quickly as possible, beckoning them to pull up, that I might get a lance, when a movement of the body was visible, and the head and tail of the monster rushed as it were to “touch the wound”. The frightfulness of the head as it approached to boat, filled the crew with terror, and three of them jumped over board. I instinctively held out my lance, and its sharp point entered the eye. I was knocked over and felt a deep churning off the water around me. I rose to the surface and caught a glimpse of the writhing body, and was again struck and carried down. I partly lost my consciousness under water but recovered it; when I rose again in the bloody foam, the snake had disappeared, and I shouted, “pick up the line”. The third mate Mr. Benson, caught a bight at my line near the end, and bent on his, which in an instant began to be taken out rapidly. The mate picked me up as soon as I rose to the surface, and in a few minutes all were picked up--one was severely bruised and another insensible, but he recovered and both are now well. The snake had taken my line, the third mate’s, and was taking the second mate’s, when I ordered the mate to bend on and give his line to the ship. The snake was sounding, and I cautioned the officers not to hold on too hard, for fear of drawing the irons. At first the line went out rapidly, but decreased gradually, nevertheless I was obliged to get up a spare-line out of the fore hold and bend on. For fear that the ship would by its weight on the line draw the irons, I put on several drags and gave the line to the mate, when it became stationary. There were now out four boats’ lines, 225 fathoms in a boat, and two-thirds of another line, 100 fathoms more--in all 1,000 fathoms, six feet in a fathom, 6,000 feet--better than one mile and an eighth, an enormous depth, and the pressure at that distance is inconceivable. It was now blowing furiously, and I scarcely dared to carry sail enough to keep the ship up, the boat was in peril, and I was obliged to take the line to the ship again, and run the risk of the irons drawing. I made the end of the line fast and took in all sail but enough to keep her steady, and waited in alarm the snake’s rising, the parting of the line, or the irons drawing. At 4 p. m. the wind began to shift, which favoured us a little; at 5 p. m. it, to our great joy, began to abate. At 8 p. m. a sudden lull; line taut. The night was beautiful, sky clear, wind scarcely a breath and sea rapidly falling, no eye was closed in the ship--we were speculating on our prey. It was evident he was on the bottom. He stayed down a long time; but on reflection I considered that was his forte--that he was at home there. At 4 a. m. of the 14th., 16 hours after he went down, the line began to slack, I had it taken to the windlass, when we got nearly two lines “hand over hand”, then there came a strain again. This strain continuing, I told every body to bear a hand and get breakfast, and just before we were through, the cook cried out, “Here he is”. In no time all were on deck, and sure enough he had risen; but all that was visible was a bunch, apparently the bight of the snake, where he had been fastened to. I lowered three boats, and we lanced the body repeatedly without eliciting any sign of life. While we were at work he gradually rose to the surface, and around him floated what I took to be pieces of his lungs which we cut with our lances. To make our work sure we continued to lance, eagerly seeking for his life, when he drew himself up and we pulled away, and then witnessed the terrific dying struggles of the monster. None of the crew who witnessed that terrible scene will ever forget it; the evolutions of the body were rapid as lightning, seeming like the revolving of a thousand enormous black wheels. The tail and head would occasionally appear in the surging bloody foam, and a sound was heard, so dead, unearthy, and expressive of acute agony, that a shrill of horror ran through our veins. The convulsive efforts lasted 10 or 15 minutes, when they suddenly stopped, the head was partially raised--it fell--the body partly turned, and lay still. I took off my hat, and nine terrific cheers broke simultaneously from our throats. Our prey was dead. Luckily he floated buoyantly, and we took him alongside, and while doing so he turned over, lying belly up. Every eye beamed with joy as we looked at him over the rail, and the crew again cheered vociferously, and I joined them. We now held a consultation as to what we should do, and I had requested all hands to offer their opinions. After a short talk, all of us felt convinced that it would be impossible to get him into port, and then we concluded to try and save his skin, head, and bones, if possible. In the first place I requested a Scotchman, who could draw tolerably, to take a sketch of him as he lay, and the mate to measure him. It was now quite calm, and we could work to advantage. As I am preparing a minute description of the serpent, I will merely give you a few general points. It was a male; the length 103 feet 7 inches; 19 feet 1 inch around the neck; 24 feet 6 inches around the shoulders; and the largest part of the body, which appeared somewhat distended, 49 feet 4 inches. The head was long and flat, with ridges; the bones of the lower jaw are seperate; the tongue had its end like the head of a heart. The tail ran nearly to a point, on the end of which was a flat firm cartilage. The back was black, turning brown on the sides; then yellow, and on the centre of the belly a narrow white streak two-thirds of its length; there were also scattered over the body dark spots. On examining the skin we found, to our surprise, that the body was covered with blubber, like that of a whale, but it was only four inches thick. The oil was clear as water, and burnt nearly as fast as spirits of turpentine. We cut the snake up, but found great difficulty, and had to “flense” him, the body would not roll, and the blubber was so very elastic, that when stretched 20 feet by the blocks, it would, when cut off, shrink to 5 or 6 feet. We took in the head, a frightful object, and are endeavouring to preserve it with salt. We have saved all the bones, which the men are not done clearing yet. In cutting open the serpent we found pieces of squid and a large blackfish, the flesh of which dropped from the bones. One of the serpent’s lungs was three feet longer than the other. I should have observed that there were 94 teeth in the jaws, very sharp, all pointing backward and as large as one’s thumb at the gum, but deeply and firmly set. We found it had two spoutholes or spiracles, so it must breathe like a whale; it also had four swimming paws, or imitations of paws, for they were like hard, loose flesh. The joints of the back were loose, and it seemed as if, when it was swimming that it moved two ribs and a joint at a time, almost like feet. The muscular movement of the serpent after it was dead made the body look as if it were encircled by longitudinal ridges. We were nearly three days in getting the bones in, but they are now nearly clean, and are very porous and dark coloured. The heart I was enabled to preserve in liquor, and one of the eyes, but the head, notwithstanding it is cool, begins to emit an offensive odour; but I am so near the coast now that I shall hold on to it as it is; unless it is likely to breed a distemper. Every man in the ship participates in my anxiety. 2 p. m. I have just spoken the vessel; she proves to be the brig Gipsy, Captain Sturges, eight days from Ponce, P. R., with oranges and merchandise, bound to Bridgeport. He has kindly offered to put these sheets in the post office when he arrives. As soon as I get in I shall be enabled to furnish you a more detailed account.--I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Charles Seabury, Master, Whale-ship Monongahela, of New Bedford.”

Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the Zoologist, adds:

“Very well like a hoax, but well drawn up.”

Mr. ROBERT FRORIEP, the Editor of the Tagsberichte über die Fortschritte der Natur- und Heilkunde, (Abtheilung Zoologie und Palaeontologie n^o. 486, 1852, March), says:

“The picturesque description of the adventure is lively and reads pleasantly, yet it makes the impression, as if the whole is one of the stories, so often occurring in American newspapers. Nothing can be concluded with any certainty from the description of the animal of 104 feet length and 16 feet thickness, with two spout-holes and a skin like that of whales. The intrepid captor of the monster says that he has preserved the bones, the skin, the skull with its flesh adhering to it, an eye and the heart, and as he must come back ashore, a naturalist will at last have opportunity to examine and determine these remains, and we shall learn then, whether the fable of the Sea-Serpent is founded, and what the Sea-Serpent may probably be. As soon as possible we will mention more accurate reports.”

Some time afterwards Mr. ROBERT FRORIEP wrote, (same journal n^o. 491):

“As it was supposed, we learn from a communication of the Philadelphia Bulletin that the story of the capture of the Sea-Serpent is a fiction. The crew that was said by the New York Tribune to have met with the ship of Captain SEABURY in the open sea and to have taken home the report, has declared, that it has nowhere met with a ship Monongahela, Captain SEABURY.”

* * * * *

Another reported capture of a sea-serpent was published in the Buffalo Daily Republic, of the 13th. of August, 1855, partly inserted in the Illustrated London News of the 15th. of September, of that year, and in toto in the Zoologist of that year, p. 4896, and in the Times of October, 1, 1855:

“The “Buffalo Daily Republic” of the 13th. of August, announces the capture of the great American water-snake on that day in the Silver Lake, near Perry village, New York. On Sunday, the 12th. the snake came to the surface, displaying 30 feet length of his body. On Monday morning all were on the alert. At nine o’clock the snake appeared between the whaleman’s boat and the shore: he lay quiescent on the surface, and the whaleman’s boat moved slowly towards him, Mr. Smith, of Covington, pointing his patent harpoon. On reaching within ten feet of the snake, the iron whistled in the air, and he darted off towards the upper part of the lake, almost dragging the boat under water by his movement. Line was given him, and in half an hour his strength seemed much exhausted. The whaleman then went ashore and gradually hauled the line in. When within fifty feet of the shore, the snake showed renewed life, and with one dart nearly carried off the whole line; but he was dragged slowly ashore amid excitement unexampled in the district. Four or five ladies fainted on seeing the snake, who, although ashore, lashed his body into tremendous folds, and then straightened himself out in agony with a noise that made the earth tremble. The harpoon had penetrated a thick muscular part, eight feet from his head. He is 59 feet 8 inches in length, and has a most disgusting look. A slime a quarter of an inch thick covers his body, and if removed is instantly replaced by exudation. The body is variable in size. The head is the size of a full grown calf. Within eight feet from the head the neck gradually swells to the thickness of a foot in diameter; it then tapers down, and again gradually swells to a diameter of two feet in the centre, giving about six feet girth; it then tapers off towards the tail, and ends in a fin, which can expand in fan-shape three feet across, or close in a sheath. Double rows of fins are alternately placed along the belly. The head is most singular. The eyes are large, staring and terrific, with a transparent membrane attached to the lids, protecting the eye without impeding the vision. No gills appear. The mouth is like that of the fish called a sucker; it can stretch so as to swallow a body a foot and a half in diameter: there are no teeth; a bony substance, extending in two parallel lines, covers the upper and lower part of the head. The sides and back are dusky brown; the belly is dirty white. Although sinuous like a snake, there are hard knot-like substances along the back. The harpoon is still in him. He lies in the water, confined with ropes, which keep his body in a curve, so that he cannot get away. He can use his head and tail, with which he stirs the water all around. When he rears his head (which he generally keeps under water) he presents a fearful aspect. In expanding his mouth he exhibits a blood-red cavity, horribly to look at, and the air rushes forth with a heavy short puff.”

The well known Mr. SPENCER F. BAIRD, the late zealous Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, U. S. on reading this in the Zoologist, sent to the Editor the following letter (Zoologist, 1856, p. 4998):

“In the November number of the “Zoologist” (Zool. 4896) I notice an extract from an American paper, respecting the capture of the “Great American Snake”. You have probably since learned that the account is an unmitigated hoax, manufactured by a newspaper-editor, while on a summer vacation, for the purpose of furnishing material for his editorial correspondence.--SPENCER F. BAIRD, Smithsonian Institution Washington, U. S. December 28, 1855.”

* * * * *

The following splendid trick is of Captain TAYLOR, who is even called “a respectable and trustworthy gentleman”, nay, who, when the truth of it was inquired into, even “confirmed the statement”!

In the Zoologist of 1860, p. 6985, we read:

“The following extract from the log of the “British Banner”, which arrived at Liverpool on Sunday, 18 March, last, appeared in the Liverpool Daily Post of March 20. “On the 25th. April in lat. 12° 7′ east, and longitude 93° 52′ south, felt a strong sensation as if the ship were trembling. Sent second mate to see what was up; the latter called out to me to go up the fore rigging and look over the bows. I did so, and saw an enormous serpent shaking the bowsprit with his mouth. There was about thirty feet of the serpent out of the water, and I could see in the water abaft of our stern; must have been at least three hundred feet long; was about the circumference of a very wide crinoline petticoat, with black back, shaggy mane, horn on his forehead, and large glaring eyes, placed rather near the nose, and jaws about eight feet long; he did not observe me, and continued to shake the bowsprit and to throw the sea alongside into a foam, until the former came clear away of the ship. The serpent was powerful enough, although the ship was carrying all sail, and going at about six knots at the time, he attacked us, to stop her way completely. When the bowsprit with the jibboom sails and rigging went by the board, the monster swallowed the foretopmast staysail and flying jib, with the greatest apparent ease; he also snapped the thickest of the rigging asunder like thread. He sheered off a little after this, and returned apparently to scratch himself against the side of the ship, making a most extraordinary noise, resembling that on board a steamer when the boilers are blowing off. A whale breached within a mile of the ship at this time, and the serpent darted off after it like a flash of lightning, striking the vessel with his tail, and staving in all the starboard quarter gaily. Saw no more of it, but caught a young one in the afternoon, and brought it on to Melbourne.--William Taylor, Master, “British Banner”.”

“[The British Banner arrived here on Sunday, and is now in the Albert Dock. Captain Taylor declares that the above statement is perfectly correct.--Editor Daily Post.]”

Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN, the Editor of the Zoologist, adds hereto:

“It is impossible for any story to read more like a hoax than this, but I had ready means of procuring, through a friend at Lloyd’s, the information that there is such a ship as the “British Banner”, that she is commanded by Mr. William Taylor, a respectable and trustworthy gentleman, and that she did arrive at Liverpool on Sunday, 18 March, last past, and is now in the Albert Dock. Armed with this information I wrote to Capt. Taylor, who has replied in the most courteous manner; he confirms the above statement, adding that he sent it to the Daily Post himself, and adding also that the young one reported to have been caught was presented to the Museum at Melbourne, where it was thoroughly inspected and pronounced to be a veritable sea-serpent.”--

It is not quite clear whether Mr. NEWMAN was a second time the dupe of a trick, or not, but I think he really was!

Mr. GEORGE GUYON, Ventnor, Isle of Wight, on the contrary, wrote the following poem (see Zoologist, p. 7051, 1860):

“I’ve a story to tell--I don’t say that it’s true-- But just as I heard it I tell it to you. A ship there was sailing upon the blue sea With her canvas all set, when the captain, said he “I feel that the vessel is all of a tremble, A sort of sea earthquake it seems to resemble; Send forward the mate to see what is the matter.” When lo! what he saw would have made your teeth shatter, An enormous big snake rising out of the sea, Some three hundred feet long it might possibly be, And in bulk it might equal a “wide crinoline” (At least seven yards round that description must mean). With jaws eight feet long, and with eyes fiercely glaring, A horn and a mane; he looked horribly daring, While the bowsprit he shook in his terrible mouth. ’T was in Latitude east and in Longitude south, This is somewhat obscure, but I think on the whole It occurred th’ other side of the Antarctic pole, The ship making six knots--leaving foam in her wake, Yet she stopped at the touch of this wonderful snake; And the jibboom and bowsprit were snapped like a straw; But his strength was outdone by his marvellous maw; For he swallowed the stay-sail and also the jib, Like a boy gulping oysters--they went down to glib. With his stay to his stomac he turned him about, And gave with his tail such a vigorous flout, That some timbers to atoms were crushed by the blow, And what more might have happened we none of us know, When an object appeared for the which he set sail, And both object and story were much like a whale.”

Afterwards, (Zoologist, p. 7278, of the same year) we find the following about the young sea-serpent of Captain TAYLOR:

“Captain Taylor’s Sea-Serpent.--A friend, who has the opportunity of communicating with Melbourne on the subject of the young sea-serpent which Captain Taylor says (Zool. 6985) he presented to the Museum at Melbourne, has ascertained through Mr. Coates, of that town, that Captain Taylor is so far correct, that he did at the time specified present a specimen of Pelamys bicolor to the Museum in question, and Professor M’Coy exhibited the same to Mr. Coates. Of course there is no rational ground for concluding that this small sea snake is the young of any such gigantic creature as Captain Taylor has described.--Edward Newman.”

But of a great Sea-Serpent of Captain TAYLOR we don’t find any more statements!

* * * * *

We have read the various hoaxes which appeared in the Cork Constitution of 1850; the Skibbereen Eagle too is not averse to publishing a similar hoax (See Zoologist, 1861, p. 7354):

“As Samuel Townsend, Esq., J. P., of Whitehall, was sailing in Whitehall Harbour, he saw, following his wake, what appeared to him (from the many descriptions he had read of the monster) to be a sea-serpent about twenty five or thirty feet in length; and being in a small boat he endeavoured to keep as respectful a distance as possible. There was, however, another boat in the harbour at the time, in which was Mr. Samuel Kingston, his brother, Mr. John Kingston (of Trinity College, Dublin), and a party of ladies. These parties also saw the huge monster; and upon raising its neck about six feet above the surface the females became greatly alarmed, when Mr. John Kingston, who is a remarkably good shot, fired at it, upon which it immediately disappeared. Mr. Townsend informed us the serpent presented a beautiful appearance, having large, brilliant scales of a yellow hue, and is of opinion it was struck by the shot fired by Mr. Kingston. It was likewise distinctly seen from the windows of Whitehall-House. Mr. Robert Atkins told us he saw it the day before of Barlogue.”--

* * * * *

The following hoax is not inferior to any of the foregoing (Nature, of 13th. of June 1872):

“Mr. J. COBBIN of Durban, forwards to the Natal Colonist the following account of a “sea-serpent” seen by him:--“During my last passage from London, I saw no less than three sea-serpents, but an account of the last will suffice. On 30th. December last, on board the Silvery Wave, in lat. about 35′ 0″ S., and long. 33′ 30″ E., at 6.20 P. M. solar time, an enormous sea-serpent passing nearly across our bows compelled the alteration of our course. He was at least one thousand yards long, of which about one third appeared on the surface of the water at every stroke of his enormous fan-shaped tail, with which he propelled himself, raising it high above the waves, and arching his back like a land-snake or a caterpillar. In shape and proportion he much resembled the cobra, being marked by the same knotty and swollen protuberance at the back of the head on the neck. The latter was the thickest part of the serpent. His head was like a bull’s in shape, his eyes large and glowing, his ears had circular tips and were level with his eyes, and his head was surrounded by a horny crest, which he erected and depressed at pleasure. He swam with great rapidity and lashed the sea into a foam, like breakers dashing over jagged rocks. The sun shone brightly upon him; and with a good glass I saw his overlapping scales open and shut with every arch of his sinuous back coloured like the rainbow.”

* * * * *

I don’t know whether the following, taken from the Graphic, is a true hoax, or an optical illusion, but I think it is a hoax. There we read in the number of August, 17th., 1872:

“Concerning this much discussed animal, whose existence mariners from the earliest times have firmly asserted, and landsmen as obstinately persisted in doubting, we have received the following from Mr. Walthew, a well-known ship-owner and merchant in Liverpool:--“Report of Captain A. Hassel, of barque St. Olaf, from Newport to Galveston, Texas.--Two days before arrival at Galveston, and about 4.30 P. M. on May 13, weather calm, smooth sea, lat. 26° 52′, long. 91° 20′, I saw a shoal of sharks passing the ship. Five or six came under the vessel’s stern, but before we could get out a line they went off with the rest. About two minutes after, one of the men sang out that he saw something on the weather bow, like a cask on its end. Presently another one called out that he saw something rising out of the water like a tall man. On a nearer approach we saw it was an immense serpent, with its head out of the water, about 200 ft. from the vessel. He lay still on the surface of the water, lifting his head up, and moving the body in a serpentine manner. Could not see all of it; but what we could see, from the after part of the head, was about 70 ft. long and of the same thickness all the way, excepting about the head and neck, which were smaller, and the former flat, like the head of a serpent. It had four fins on its back, and the body of a yellow greenish colour, with brown spots all over the upper part and underneath white. The whole crew were looking at it for fully ten minutes before it moved away. It was about six feet in diameter. One of the mates has drawn a slight sketch of the serpent, which will give some notion of its appearance.--A. Hassel, master of Norwegian barque St. Olaf.--Witness to signature, J. Fredk. Walthew.”--

The accompanying engravings are also published, and I give facsimiles of them in Fig. 3 and 4.--I think that Captain HASSEL after having seen the shoal of sharks, two minutes afterwards saw four of these individuals swimming perfectly in a line, the foremost occasionally lifting its head above the surface, and the backs with the backfin of each animal being visible. The distance between the first and the last being about seventy feet, the whole row looked like a huge serpent, and gave thus rise to the story, which, as I have already said above, may be a hoax, or a true statement of what they saw. Evidently one of the mates first drew the sketch exactly as he saw the four sharks, but afterwards, answering his own question: “how would the serpent look, if floating on the surface?” sketched the second figure, where a boa or python with four fins is represented floating on the water like a cork, or better like the skin of such an animal puffed up!

* * * * *

A splendid hoax was again communicated by a correspondent of the Monde Illustré to the Editor, and published in the number of October, 8, 1881, of that journal.

“On board the steamer The Don, of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company.--Captain ROBERT WOOLWARD.”

“Sunday, August 14, 1881”.

“To the Editor.”

“I commence my letter by asking you a correspondent’s diploma of the journal Le Monde Illustré for my friend Mr. E. DE CONTRERAS Y ALCANTARA, an inhabitant of Ponce, Isle of Porto Rico, Spanish colony.”

“I owe to Mr. DE CONTRERAS the subjoined sketch, the exactness of which is guaranteed by the seven signatures of the eye witnesses, who are:

“Mr. E. DE CONTRERAS Y ALCANTARA, of Ponce, Isle of Porto Rico,

Mr. CARLO LOPEZ ALDANA, of Lima, Peru,

Mr. HENRIQUE ROMAN, of Cartagena, Columbia,

Mr. A. E. XIMENES DE SAN JOSÉ, of Costa Rica,

Mr. MAURICE RENARD, of Paris,

Mr. C. RENARD, of Paris, your correspondent.

“The appearance lasted for ten minutes, in full moonlight. As I made the sketch, my son noted down his observations, Mr. CONTRERAS too; we compared and exchanged our several observations, these gentlemen at the little window of the smoking-saloon, and I just above, resting upon the port-hole and supported by a rope.”

“The monster seemed to measure about forty or fifty meters, from the head to the tail, as far as the numerous coils made an approximative estimation possible. The body from the dorsal ridge to the midst of the belly seemed to be covered by several ranges of scales, or a rough skin like that of sharks, but forming overlapping layers of scales. The back is very darkish and gradually growing lighter towards the belly, where it is a dirty grey. The entire body is marked with alternating transversal stripes, darkish green, chesnut coloured, and grey; the tail seems to taper in a point, like that of eels. I preserve for the end the description of the head, which we have properly examined, and which is very remarkable. This head is not oval, and rather pointed, as in most of the snakes; it forms at its cranium a great mass with rough and irregular outlines. From the occiput it is provided with a hard and movable crest, with very sharp points; this crest may be lowered on the neck so as to become invisible. The upper jaw projects, as is shown in the sketch, the end is doubled up, and a dark hollow, like a nostril is visible there; the lower jaw, more pointed, shows below hollow and convex outlines, like sacs, doubtless for the act of swallowing. The teeth are sharp, enormous, and white. From the throat, attached to a kind of cushion, projects a hard tongue, pointed, provided with suckers, and glittering like steel, and phosphorescing as the sea occasionally does; the eye is round, very glittering, very movable, and seems to be able to look backward, so rapid and “bien combinées” are the animal’s evolutions; the orbit is bordered by a ring of lighter colour and seems to be overarched by an eye-brow provided with hairs or bristles.”

“The face, from the snout to the neck presents a lateral oblique line, grey in colour, on both sides of which three other similar lines run towards it.”

“The movement of the animal in the water, seems to produce no sound at all, but undulating waves and a very slight ripple.”

“It caused a stench enough to make one ill; this smell, which hung about us for more than half an hour, was like that of a fermentation by heat on a large scale of the house of LESAGE, the great gatherers of Asnières, mingled with that of a dozen of charcoal-black works of Billancourt.”

“To neutralize it, all the shops of several of our best perfumers would be wanted.”

“The monster seems to be old, judging partly from its dimensions, and partly from its colour and the roughness of its integument.”

“This is not the first time that similar animals are observed.”

“The first time it was seen in 1847 by the Portuguese ship Ville de Lissabonne, captain JUAN ALPHONSO ZARCO Y CAPEDA.”

“This date coincides with the buffooneries of the Charivari on the Constitutionel, and with the first disease of the potatoes.”

“In 1864, the second of The Don observed a similar animal near the coast of Japan; he tattooed it on his arm.”

“I end this series of reports by assuring you that the monster was seen on Wednesday evening, August 10, 1881, by the undersigned, at a quarter to ten P. M. in

latitude 29° 60′ longitude 42° 40′

reckoning the degrees, according to the log-book on board, from the meridian of Greenwich.”

“C. RENARD.”

“(Here follow the seven signatures above-mentioned).”

The Editor of the Monde Illustré adds:

“We leave to the author of this letter and of the subjoined sketch all the responsibility of an assertion which seems to us, least to say, strange, and the details of which we communicate to our readers with due reserve.”

* * * * *

Let us now pass on to reports of would-be sea-serpents.

III.

Would-be Sea-Serpents.

It is by no means astonishing that in the vast waters of the ocean several objects, totally different from the animal generally known as the Great Sea-Serpent, gave rise to tales of that Great Unknown, such as wrecks, gigantic sea-weeds, or even animal beings. So we meet with an account dated:

1720.--(See PONTOPPIDAN.) “THORLACK THORLACKSEN has told me that in 1720 a Sea-Serpent had been shut up a whole week in a little inlet, in which it came with high tide through a narrow entrance of seven or eight fathoms deep, and that eight days afterwards, when it had left the inlet, a skin of a snake or serpent was found. One end of the skin had sunk into the water of the inlet, so that its length could not be made out, as the inlet was several fathoms deep, and the skin partly lay there. The other end of this skin was washed on the shore by the current, where everybody could see it; apparently, however, it could not be used, for it consisted of a soft slimy mass. THORLACKSEN was a native of the harbour of Kobbervueg.”

It may be that a real sea-serpent remained a week in the inlet. The Norwegian fishermen know the sea-serpent too well to make mistakes. Another animal would not have been called a sea-serpent, and a short description of it would have been given. But the skin wrongly attributed to the sea-serpent, was certainly nothing else but a putrified long arm or tentacle of a gigantic calamary. The description “soft and slimy mass” proves this sufficiently. The great calamary died in the fjord, or inlet, and its long dead arm was floated ashore by the current, while the body sank. Such great calamaries, the true Krakens, have been measured, and found to have a body of 30 feet in length with long tentacles of 58 feet (see LEE, Sea Monsters Unmasked, London, 1883). I give here a figure of the largest ever found. (See our Fig. 6.)

* * * * *

1808.--The Animal of Stronsa.--Perhaps no stranded animal, even the so-called sea-monks of the seventeenth and the eighteenth century caused such an excitement among the learned as “the animal of Stronsa”.

The oldest report of it is certainly a letter from Mr. CAMPBELL, in which only the following lines refer to it:

“A snake (my friend TELFORD received a drawing of it) has been found thrown on the Orkney-Isles, a sea-snake with a mane like a horse, 4 feet thick and 55 feet long, this is seriously true. MALCOLM LAING, the historian saw it, and sent a drawing of it to my friend.”

The letter was first printed in the work entitled: “Life and Letters of Campbell”, and afterwards the above quoted lines were reprinted in the Zoologist for 1849, p. 2395.

In the Proceedings of the Meeting of the Wernerian Natural History Society on the 19th. of November, 1808, printed in the Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 32, p. 190, we read:

“At this meeting Mr. P. NEILL read an account of a great Sea-Snake, lately cast ashore in Orkney. This curious animal, it appears, was stranded in Rothiesholm Bay, in the Island of Stronsa. Malcolm Laing, Esq., M. P. being in Orkney at the time, communicated the circumstance to his brother, Gilbert Laing Esq., advocate at Edinburgh, on whose property the animal had been cast. Through this authentic channel Mr. Neill received his information. The body measured fifty five feet in length, and the circumference of the thickest part might be equal to the girth of an Orkney pony. The head was not larger than that of a seal, and was furnished with two blow holes. From the back a number of filaments (resembling in tecture the fishing-tackle known by the name of silk-worm gut) hung down like a mane. On each side of the body were three large fins, shaped like paws, and jointed. The body was unluckily knocked to pieces by a tempest; but the fragments have been collected by Mr. Laing, and are to be transmitted to the Museum at Edinburgh. Mr. Neill concluded with remarking, that no doubt could be entertained that this was the kind of animal described by Ramus, Egede, and Pontoppidan, but which scientific and systematic naturalists had hitherto rejected as spurious and ideal.”

In the meeting of the same Society on the 14th. of January, 1809, (see Phil. Mag. Vol. 33. p. 90.),

“Dr. John Barclay communicated some highly curious observations which he had made on the caudal vertebrae of the Great Sea-Snake, (formerly mentioned) which exhibit in their structure some beautiful provisions of Nature, not hitherto observed in the vertebrae of any other animal.”

“And Mr. Patric Neill read an ample and interesting account of this new animal, collected from different sources, especially letters of undoubted authority, which he had received from the Orkneys. He stated, however, that owing to the tempestuous season, the head, fin, sternum, and dorsal vertebrae, promised some weeks ago to the University Museum at Edinburgh, had not yet arrived; but that he had received a note from Gilbert Meason, esq., (the gentleman on whose estate in Stronsa the sea-snake was cast,) intimating that they might be expected by the earliest arrivals from Orkney. In the mean time, he submitted to the Society the first sketch of a generic character. The name proposed for this new genus was Halsydrus, (from ἁλς the sea, and ὑδρος a water snake); and as it evidently appeared to be the Soe-Ormen described above half a century ago, by Pontoppidan, in his Natural History of Norway, it was suggested that its specific name should be H. Pontoppidani.”

Mr. MALCOLM LAING and Dr. GRANT, living on Stronsa, were requested to take down the affidavits of the eye-witnesses, and at the meeting of the Wernerian Society on the 11th. of February, 1809, (see Phil. Mag. Vol. 33. p. 251),

“the Secretary (Mr. P. Neill) laid before the Society copies of those affidavits made before the justices of peace at Kirkwall in Orkney, by several persons who saw and examined the carcass of the great sea snake (Halsydrus Pontoppidani) cast ashore in Stronsa in October last; with remarks illustrative of the meaning of some passages in these affidavits.”

The above-mentioned communication of Dr. JOHN BARCLAY was printed in 1811 in the first Volume of the Memoirs of the Wernerian Society, and contains a detailed description of some vertebrae of the animal. The figures of these vertebrae are splendid, also those of the dried and shrivelled skull and a portion of one of the pectoral fins, with the cartilages that connect it with the body. As well the descriptions as the figures betray at a glance the shark nature of the animal. We will not trouble our readers with them, and we will also omit the figures, except one; it is a drawing made after the description of one of the eye-witnesses. (See our Fig. 7).

The Paper of Dr. BARCLAY was entitled: Remarks on some parts of the animal that was cast ashore on the island of Stronsa, Sept. 1808. The above-mentioned affidavits were also printed in 1811, in the first Volume of the Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society, and run as follows:

“At Kirkwall, Nov. 10. 1808.

“In presence of Dr. Robert Groat, Physician in Kirkwall, and Malcolm Laing, Esq; M. P. Two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace of the County of Orkney.

“Compeared Thomas Fotheringhame, house-carpenter in Kirkwall; who solemnly declared, That being in Stronsa during the gales of wind in October last; he went to see the strange fish that was driven ashore in Rothiesholm Bay: That he measured his length with a foot-rule, which was exactly fifty-five feet, from the junction of the head and neck, where there was the appearance of an ear, to the tail: That the length of the neck, from the ear to the shoulder, was ten feet three inches, as nearly as he recollects. And being shewn a drawing of the animal, he declared, That the neck appeared to him to be too long. That the fins or arms, or, as they were called on the island, the wings of the animal, were jointed to the body nearer the ridge of the back than they appear in the drawing: That the toes were less spread out, and tapering more to a point, unless when purposely lifted up; but were not webbed unless the space of an inch and a half in breadth, where they joined each other; and the length seemed to be about eight inches: That he measured one of the wings next the head, which was four feet and a half in length, and in shape, from the first joint to the extremity, it resembled a goose-wing without the feathers: That the hollow between the snout and the upper part of the skull, appeared to him not to be quite so deep as represented in the drawing: That in every other respect the drawing appears to be so exact, that if the fish had not been mentioned, it would have brought it to his recollection: That from the ridge of the back to the belly, the body appeared to be four feet in depth, and the circumference rather oval than round; but that he did not measure either: That the mane or bristles of the back extended from the shoulder to within two feet and a half of the tail, and were of a shining appearance when wet; but shrunk up, and turned yellow, when dried: That the mane was thin, about two inches and a half in breadth towards the shoulder, and two inches in breadth at the tail: That the skin seemed to be elastic when compressed, and of a greyish colour, without any scales: it was rough to the feeling, on drawing the hand over it, towards the head; but was smooth as velvet when the hand was drawn towards the tail: That the extremity of the tail was about two inches in thickness, and somewhat rounded; and as he saw no part of the bones, he cannot say whether any part of the tail had been broken off or not: That the eyes appeared to be no larger than those of a seal: That there were two spout holes on each side of the neck, about an inch and a fourth in diameter, and at the same distance from the head as appears in the drawing: That he lifted up the snout, and examined the throat, which was too narrow to admit his hand: That a part of the bones of the lower jaw, resembling those of a dog, were remaining at that time, with some appearance of teeth, which were soft, and could be bent by the strength of the hand: That he observed no nipples, or organs of generation; the belly having been burst open by the violence of the sea: That the stomach was about the size of a ten gallon cask; and the bowls about the bulk of those of a cow: That the bristles of the back which had been pulled off through curiosity, were luminous in the dark, while they continued wet. And all this he declares to be truth, &c.

“(Signed)”

“Thomas Fotheringhame.”

“Kirkwall, Nov. 19, 1808.”

“Compeared John Peace, tenant in Dounatoun in Rothiesholm; and being interrogated, solemnly declares, That on the 26th. day of September last, he went a fishing off the east part of Rothiesholm-head, when he perceived as he imagined, a dead whale, on some sunk rocks, about a quarter of a mile from the Head: That his attention was first directed to it by the sea-fowl screaming and flocking about it; and on approach of it, in his boat, he found the middle part of it above the surface of the water: That he then observed it to be different from a whale, particularly in having fins or arms, one of which he raised with his boat-hook above the surface of the water: That this was one of the arms next the head, which was larger and broader than the others nearer the tail; and at that time the fin or arm was edged all around, from the body to the extremity of the toes, with a row of bristles about ten inches long, some of which he pulled off, and examined in the boat: That about ten days afterwards, a gale of south east wind came on, and the surge drove the fish ashore on Rothiesholm-Head: That he measured it by fathoms, and found it about fifty-four or fifty-five feet in length: That he observed the six arms, or wings as they are called on the island; but perceived no part of the bristles then round the edges of the fins or arms, and supposes, that being in a putrid state, they had been beaten off by the sea, or washed away: That a small part of the belly was broken up when he saw it then, from which the stomach, as he now supposes it to have been, had fallen out: That the stomach, which he took at first for the penis, from the one end of it being joined to the body; but on seeing it after it was opened, he concluded it to have been the stomach, as it resembled the second stomach of a cow: That he did not measure the circumference of the animal, but it appeared to be of the thickness of a middle sized horse round the girth, of twelve or thirteen hands high. And being shewn a drawing of the animal, and desired to point out the resemblance or difference, he declared, That the joint of the foremost leg was broader than represented in the drawing, being more rounded from the body to the toes, and narrower at the upper end than at its junction with the toes: That the limb itself was larger than the hinder ones, and the uppermost joint or shoulder was altogether attached to the body: That in all other respects the drawing appears to him to be an exact resemblance of the fish, as it lay on the beach: That the mane came no further than the shoulder, and extended to the tail, part of which appeared to have been broken off: That the length of the neck, the situation of the spout-holes, and of the eye, the shape of the snout, the position and distance of the limbs from each other, appear to him to be exactly preserved in the drawing: That the lower jaw was awanting when he saw it: That the fish was of a greyish colour: That he observed no nipples or organs of generation, unless as above mentioned: That the part of the belly which was burst open, and from which the stomach had fallen out, was between the two limbs that are situated in the middle of the animal. And all this he solemnly declares to be truth. And declares he cannot write.”

“Eodem die”

“Compeared Mr. George Sherar, tacksman of Rothiesholm in the island of Stronsa; who being interrogated, solemnly declared, That on the 20th. of October, being in Rothiesholm-head he saw the crew of John Peace’s boat examining something on the water, which he took to be a dead whale: That about ten days afterwards, a gale of east wind having taken place he went to see if the whale was driven ashore, and found it in a creek, lying on its back, about a foot under water; and from the view which he had of its figure, length and limbs, his curiosity induced him to return a day or two after the gale had abated, when he found it thrown upon the beach, a little below high water mark, and lying on its belly, as represented in the drawing: That he returned next morning, with a foot-rule, purposely to measure it, and found it to be exactly fifty-five feet in length, from the hole in the top of the skull (which he has brought to town with him), to the extremity of the tail: That the length of the neck was exactly fifteen feet, from the same hole to the beginning of the mane: That he measured also the circumference of the animal as accurately as he could, which was about ten feet, more or less; and the whole body, where the limbs were attached to it, was about the same circumference: That the lower jaw or mouth was awanting; but there were some substances or bones of the jaw remaining; when he first examined it, which are now away: That it had two holes on each side of the neck, besides the one on the back of the skull: That the mane or bristles were about fourteen inches in length each, of a silvery colour, and particularly luminous in the dark, before they were dried: That the upper part of the limbs, which answers to the shoulder-blade, was joined to the body like the shoulder-blade of a cow, forming a part of the side: That a part of the tail was awanting, being incidentally broken off at the extremity; where the last joint of it was bare, was an inch and a half in breadth: That the bones were of a gristly nature, like those of a halibut, the back-bone excepted, which was the only solid one in the body: That the tail was quite flexible, turning in every direction, as he lifted it; and he supposes the neck to have been equally so, from its appearance at the time: That he has brought in, to deliver to Mr. Laing, the skull, two joints of one of the largest limbs, next the head, with different parts of the backbone, besides the bones that were formerly sent in: That there were either five or six toes upon each paw, about nine inches long, and of a soft substance: That the toes were separate from each other, and not webbed, as far as he could observe; and that the paw was about half a foot each way, in length and in breadth: That a few days thereafter, a gale of wind came on, and drove it to another part of the shore, where it was broken to pieces by the surge, and when Mr. Petrie came out to take a drawing of it, no part of the body remained entire: That he endeavoured to convey an idea of the animal to Mr. Petrie, by drawing the figure of it as accurately as he could, with chalk, on the table, exactly as it lay on the shore, after which Mr. Petrie made six or seven different sketches or plans of the fish, before he could bring it to correspond, in each minute particular, with the strong idea which he retains of its appearance: That he was the more attentive to its shape, dimensions and figure, in order to be able to give an accurate account of it to any travellers that might come to Rothiesholm, and that he is ready to make oath that the drawing is an exact resemblance of the fish, as it appeared when he measured it; and corresponds in all particulars with the idea which he entertains of the figure, dimensions, and proportions of the fish: That the substance of the body appeared like coarse, ill coloured beef, interlarded with fat or tallow, without the least resemblance or affinity to fish; but when put into a lamp, and the lamp placed on the fire, it neither flamed nor melted, but burned away like a gristly substance: That he perceived no teeth in the upper jaw; the lower jaw and tongue being awanting, and the palate also away: That the aperture of the throat appeared to be so wide, that he might have put his foot down through it: That the joints of the limbs were not united by a ball and socket but were lapped over each other, and united by some means which he does not comprehend: That there were two canals, one above and another below the backbone, large enough to admit one’s finger, and extending from the vertebrae of the neck, to the extremity of the tail, containing two ligaments, which he supposed, enabled the animal to raise itself up, or to bend its body in a spiral form: That a tract of strong easterly wind had prevailed, before the body was discovered upon the shore, and that he saw the body on two or three different occasions, after he had measured it, and before it went to pieces. And all this he declares to be truth, &c.”

“(Signed)”

“Geo. Sherar.”

“Compeared Mr. William Folsatter, tacksman of Whitehall, in the island of Stronsa; who being interrogated, solemnly declared, That having heard that it was a dead whale that had come on shore in Rothiesholm-head, he did not see the body till about the 28th. day of October, when it had gone to pieces: That he saw about nine or ten feet of the back-bone, and some bones of the paws, and what was supposed to be the stomach which last he had the curiosity to open; that it was about four feet long, and as thick as a firkin, but flatter: That the membranes that formed the divisions, extended quite across the supposed stomach, and were about three sixteenth of an inch in thickness, and at the same distance from each other, and of the same substance, with the stomach itself: That the section of the stomach, after it was opened, had the appearance of a weaver’s reed: That he opened about a fourth part of the supposed stomach which contained nothing but a reddish substance, like blood and water, and emitted a fetid smell: That he was very doubtful at the time whether it was really the stomach or not; but that each end of it had the appearance of terminating in a gut. And all this he solemnly declares to be the truth, &c.

“(Signed)”

“Wm. Folsetter.”

“The said Mr. George Sherar being again interrogated, declares, That he examined the supposed stomach, after it had been opened by Mr. Folsitter, and that he laid it open to the farther end: That there was something like a gut at the end which he opened, about two inches long, with a small aperture: That the stomach had the same appearance from end to end, and contained nothing but a substance like blood and water: That the large bone of which a drawing was taken, was considered as the collar-bone; and that it was situated with the broad and thick part downwards and the open part towards the vertebrae of the back: That he observed no appearance of fins about the neck or breast, or other parts of the body, except the six paws already described. And all this he solemnly declares to be truth, &c.”

“(Signed)”

“Geo. Sherar.”

One of the ablest ichthyologists of those days, Mr. EVERARD HOME examined the “sea-snake”, and recognized it for a Basking shark. Immediately after his paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 98, entitled “An anatomical account of the Squalus maximus (of Linnaeus), which, &c.,” especially of an individual of thirty feet six inches, “entangled in the herring nets, belonging to the fishermen of Hastings, 13 Nov. 1808”, Mr. HOME goes further:

“I cannot close the present paper without mentioning, that nearly the same period, two other Squali of large dimensions were thrown upon our coast. The probable cause of this event, is the season being uncommonly boisterous and tempestuous. On the 3d. of January, 1809, a fish was thrown ashore at Penrhyn, in Cornwall. On hearing of it from a person on the spot, I sent down a drawing of the subject of this paper to compare with it, and the fish proves to be of the same species, and a male, measuring thirty-one feet in length.”

“The other was thrown ashore on the 7th. of October, 1808, at Rothiesholm, an estate of Gilbert Meason, Esq. in Stronsay, one of the Orkney isles. It had been seen lying on some sunken rocks, eleven days before, was in a half putrid state, and the sea fowls were in great numbers feeding upon it. Those who saw it, reported that the skin was rough in one direction, and smooth like satin in the other. At the time of its being examined, the skin and a great many other parts of the fish were wanting.”

“Mr. Meason, with a zeal for science which does him infinite credit, upon hearing the strange accounts which were given of this sea-monster, got his brother, Malcolm Laing, Esq. and Dr. Grant, an eminent physician (both justices of the peace), to take depositions on the spot, from those persons who had seen the fish, that its real appearance might be ascertained. This examination, however, did not take place till six weeks after the fish was thrown ashore.”

“These depositions were sent to Sir Joseph Banks, who put them into my hands. (The depositions are very long, and exceedingly minute; they are preserved in the Board-book of the Royal Society). I also received, a short time after, from my friend Mr. Laing, in consequence of a request I made for that purpose, that part of the skull, which contained the brain, the upper jaw having been separated from it, a considerable number of the vertebrae of the back united together by their natural attachments, a portion of one of the pectoral fins, with the cartilages that unite it to the spine, and a long and short cartilage forming the support of one of the gills. On comparing these different parts, with those of the Squalus maximus, they were found to agree, not only in their form, but also in their dimensions. This led to the opinion of the fish being a Squalus, a very different one from what was formed by those who saw it in the mutilated state in which it was thrown ashore, and who called it a sea-snake. In the different depositions, several parts are accurately described, such as the valvular intestine, which was taken for the stomach, and the bristles of the mane, which are described as ligamentous fibres, one of them is in my possession, and is of the same kind with the fibres forming the margin of the fins of the squalus maximus. The drawing that was made from memory, and which I have annexed, will enable me in a few words to point out how much, in some things, those who saw the fish adhered to truth, and in others allowed their imagination to supply deficiencies, for one of them declared, with confidence, that the drawing was so exact a representation of what he had seen, “that he fancied he saw the beast lying before him, at a distance on the beach.”

“The drawing is correct in the representation of the head, and anterior part of the fish, from which the skin, the upper and lower jaw, the gills, and gullet, had been separated by putrification; and when we consider that the liver and the other viscera were all destroyed, except the valvular intestine, which was taken away by the observers, the size of the body that remained would be nearly in proportion with the drawing. The legs are tolerably exact representations of the holders in the male Squalus maximus, described in a former part of this paper, and therefore are not imaginary, only that four have been added which did not exist. This is satisfactorily determined by the pectoral fin, which is preserved, having no resemblance to them. The mane, they said, was composed of ligamentous fibres, one of which was sent to London; this corresponds, in its appearance, with the fibres that form the termination of the fins and tail of the Squalus maximus, such an appearance therefore was seen, but could only be met with in the place of the two dorsal fins, instead of being continued along the back, as in the drawing. The contortions towards the tail are such, as the invertebral joints could not admit of, they are therefore imaginary.”

“It is said, two different persons measured the fish; one by fathoms, the other by a foot-rule, and that it was fifty-five feet long. Their accuracy is at least doubtful, as the parts that are preserved correspond with those of a fish about thirty feet long, and it is rendered still more so, as the person who gives the length in fathoms, says, he saw at that time the six legs, the two foremost being larger than the hinder ones, and the lower joint more rounded from the body to the toes. The pectoral fin, which is preserved, proves this declaration to be incorrect: the person who measured the fish with a foot-rule, declares the length, from the hole in the head to the beginning of the mane, to be exactly fifteen feet, which is probably correct since a Squalus of about thirty-six feet long would measure, from the forepart of the skull to the dorsal fin, about fifteen feet; but the other measurement must be questionable.”

“It is deserving of remark, that there is no one structure represented in this drawing, which was not actually seen. The skeleton of the holders corresponds with the legs in the drawing, the margin of the dorsal fin in a putrid state with the mane; so that the only errors are in the contortions towards the tail, the length of the fish and the number of the holders, which were mistaken for legs. (This mistake of the holders of the male shark for legs, has been frequently made. There is a drawing in Sir Joseph Bank’s library, sent from Ireland, in which the fish is represented walking like a duck, with broad webbed feet. The skin of a male Squalus maximus was exhibited in London, some years ago, distended by means of hoops, and the holders were shown as its legs, on which it occasionably walked). And when we recollect that the drawing was made from memory six weeks after the fish had been seen by those, who describe it, during which interval it had been their principal subject of conversation, we may conclude that so extraordinary an object, as the mutilated fish must appear, when believed to be a perfect one, would, in their different discourses, have every part exaggerated, and it is only remarkable that the depositions kept so close to the truth as they have done.”

“It is of importance to science; that it should be ascertained, that this fish is not a new animal unlike any of the ordinary productions of nature, and we are indebted to the zeal and liberality of Mr. Meason and Mr. Laing, who have collected a sufficient body of evidence to enable me to determine that point, and prove it to be a Squalus, and the orifices behind the eye, which communicate with the mouth met with in the skull, renders it very probable, that it is a Squalus maximus.”

“This opinion is further confirmed by the Squalus maximus, known by the name of the basking shark, being frequently seen upon the coast of Scotland.”

The only remark I have to make is: Mr. HOME will never have believed that the animal of Stronsa really measured 56 feet, and so made himself guilty of throwing discredit on the accurate measuring of the eye-witnesses.

I present here to my readers the figure of a Squalus maximus, or Basking-shark, thus enabling them to make this animal’s acquaintance, if they don’t know it yet.

Of course Mr. BARCLAY rejected Mr. Home’s supposition, and wrote a paper against it, printed in the first volume of the above mentioned Memoirs, running as follows:

“Since reading the first paper of Mr. Home, where he treats of the vertebrae of the Squalus maximus, I have seen another, entitled “An anatomical account of the Squalus maximus”. In this last paper, he seems to be convinced, that the animal of Stronsa is a Squalus maximus. The scale on which he draws his figure of the squalus, is a scale of half an inch to a foot.”

“Measuring by this scale, the head of his squalus is five feet and a half, from the joint of the upper jaw to the gills. The dried and shrivelled head of the animal of Stronsa, measures only twelve inches from the first vertebra to the farthest part that remains of the jaw.”

“The diameter of the head of the squalus maximus, from right to left, at the angle of the mouth, was, according to Mr. Home, five feet. The broadest part of the head of the animal of Stronsa is, in its present state, only seven inches.”

“The diameter of the larger vertebrae, near the head, in the squalus, was, according to Mr. Home, seven inches. The first cervical vertebra in the animal of Stronsa, is still adhering to the head, and is only two inches in diameter.”

“Yet some of the vertebrae of this animal, which are still preserved, are six inches and a half in diameter; and the first vertebrae which I saw, were from four to five and a half inches across.”

“The smallness of the cervical vertebrae, in the animal of Stronsa, confirms the account of those who saw it, that the animal had a neck. But the Squalus maximus, if Mr. Home’s figure be accurate, had nothing resembling a neck. And, indeed, Artedi observes, that “omnes pisces qui pulmonibus destituuntur, collo quoque carent: Ergo soli pisces cetacei collum habent.” The presence of a neck, therefore, as peculiar to cetaceous fishes, confirms likewise the account of the spiracula or ear-holes, ascribed to this animal of Stronsa.”

“The length of Mr. Home’s squalus was thirty feet six inches. The length of the animal of Stronsa, by actual measurement was fifty five feet, or, exclusive of the head, fifty four; and yet a part of the tail was supposed to be wanting. The circumference of the animal of Stronsa was, by actual measurement, about ten feet, meant, I suppose, at the thickest part. If the animal had been cylindrical at that part, the diameter from the dorsal to the sternal aspect must have been about three feet four inches. The diameter of the squalus at the thickest part, measuring from the dorsal to the sternal aspect, is nearly six feet; its circumference, had it been cylindrical nearly eighteen feet.”

“The animal of Stronsa had a mane, extending from the shoulder to near the caudal extremity (i. e. about thirty nine feet), after deducting the length of the head and neck, which, when together were sixteen feet. I have still a specimen of that mane, which I got from Mr. Urquhart; and all the specimens which were brought here, confirm the accounts that were sent of it from the Orkneys. The bristles of that mane are not like the radii of a fin, nor, although they were, has the squalus a fin extending from the shoulder to the tail.”

“A drawing which was sent to me by our very active and obliging Secretary, Mr. Neill, was executed, I am told, from the original, by Mr. Urquhart; and its accuracy is confirmed by the dried specimen now before us. It represents the sternum and two parts corresponding two scapulae, and those organs which are named paws. Mr. Home says, that these organs resemble the pectoral fins of his squalus. But the length of the pectoral fins, measuring along the upper margin, is four feet, the length of the paw cannot be determined, as part of it is wanting; the part that remains, measures seventeen inches.”

“The breadth of the fin, measuring across the radii, is three feet and seven inches; while the greatest breadth of the paw in its dried state, is only five inches and three quarters.”

“Those parts which in form resemble the scapulae and exhibit articular surfaces at each extremity, were probably ribs.”

“Mr. Home concludes by observing, that “it is of importance to science, that it should be ascertained, that this fish is not a new animal, unlike any of the ordinary productions of nature.” Of what importance it is to science to admit no new genera or species into our catalogues of natural history, I cannot conceive. But it is certainly of much importance to science, that the naturalist should be cautious not to determine the species of an animal upon vague evidence. Now what evidence had Mr. Home that this animal was a squalus, and even to suppose that it was a squalus maximus?”

I may be allowed to make the following remark: Mr. BARCLAY does not seem to make any difference between “a head” of a Squalus and “a skull.” It is true that the “head” of a Squalus maximus of thirty feet and a half measures five feet and a half, but its “skull” has only a length of ten inches. It is true that the diameter of the “head” of such a shark measures from right to left about five feet, but its “skull” would have only a few inches in breadth. It is true that the diameter of the larger vertebrae near the head of such an individual may be about seven inches, but what is indicated by Mr. BARCLAY in the head of his “animal of Stronsa” to be the “first cervical vertebra”, is (don’t laugh!) the cartilaginous nose tip with its two contorted cartilaginous appendages!--No wonder that the animal of Stronsa had “a neck”, for all the parts between the skull and the pectoral fins, except the vertebral column and some adherent flesh, were washed away, whilst the basking shark of Mr. HOME had no neck, because it was entire.--Curious, indeed, is the naive passage in which ARTEDI is quoted!

In the comparison of Mr. HOME’S basking shark and his own stranded animal, Mr. BARCLAY also wholly overlooks, when he states the dimensions, that they were those of the entirely putrified remains of an animal, and not of an undamaged being.

Dr. BARCLAY seems to entirely reject Mr. HOME’S idea that the “mane” had never extended over the whole back, but what was seen were only fibres of the putrified backfins, in the two places of the foremost and the hindmost backfin, and that the rest of the “mane” only existed in the imagination of the witnesses.

In comparing the dimensions of the pectoral fins and the paws, Mr. BARCLAY again forgets that he has only before him a totally mutilated specimen.

An extract from the “Remarks” of Dr. BARCLAY was given by Dr. HOFFMANN in OKEN’S Isis, II, 1818, p. 2096, where amongst others he says:

“The paper is full of obscurities, which originate as well in the differences of the reports of uneducated eye-witnesses, as in the slubbering and inaccurate mode of describing of the writer himself;” but Mr. HOFFMANN himself is not free from inaccuracies! In none of Dr. BARCLAY’S papers mention is made of a “membranaceous comb extended over bony rays, which was running from the shoulders to the end of the tail, over the back.” He has evidently translated this (if we may use this expression) from the figure (see our fig. 7). But this figure was made for print by Mr. SYME, after a drawing made on one of the islands from the description given there, and Mr. SYME has changed the “mane” (long loose hairs hanging down) into a true backfin of an eel, which he figured exactly as he was accustomed to do. Every one will be convinced of the truth of my assertion, if he will give himself the trouble to compare the figures of eels and muraenas, made by the same Mr. SYME in the same volume, with the engraving of the “animal of Stronsa.”

Immediately after this paper Mr. OKEN, the editor of the Isis, wrote another one, in which he begins by saying that the imperfect description of the animal does not allow to prove any relationship with other animals. Further he comes to the conclusion, that, as no animal with a bony skeleton has six feet, it must have been a cartilaginous fish, a male one, of which the two pterygopodia (a pair of additional paring-organs, the so-called “claspers” or “holders”) were regarded as the third pair of feet, whilst the ventral and pectoral fins were the other pairs. “It is, however, no shark,” he goes on, and adduced 7 proofs for this theory; “it is, neither a cetacean,” and for this opinion he gives 4 different reasons. And yet he has the boldness to conclude: “The animal consequently is more related to the sharks, and as it is not a true shark, it must be a Chimaera”; but the reasons given to prove this are of course still more forced and irrelevant. I will add here that he also says: “finally individuals of Chimaera of 30 feet in length, have already been caught”, a manifest untruth, for the largest ever measured were of three feet and a half!--For those readers who never saw a Chimaera, or sea-cat, or a figure of it, I have delineated the Chimaera monstrosa in our fig. 9.

In the Edinb. Philos. Journ. Vol. V, 1821, an analysis is published of one of the vertebrae of the Orkney-Animal. The analysis was made by Dr. JOHN DAVY, and communicated “a considerable time ago” by Dr. LEACH to the Wernerian Society. To trouble my readers with this analysis would be superfluous.

Dr. HIBBERT in his Description of the Shetland Islands, 1822, really believes that:

“The existence of the sea-snake,--a monster of fifty-five feet long, is placed beyond a doubt, by the animal that was thrown on shore in Orkney, the vertebrae of which are to be seen in the Edinburgh Museum.”

Dr. HAMILTON too, in his Amphibious Carnivora, 1839, is of the same opinion: “We turn first” he says “to an account of an animal which apparently belonged to this class” (viz. the class of sea-serpents), “which was stranded in the Island of Stronsa, one of the Orkneys, in the year 1808”, and he goes on giving some details of the stranded animal, taken from the Memoirs of the Wernerian Society. Later on we learn from him that:

“Dr. FLEMING” in his History of British Animals, 1828, (this work I have not been able to consult), “in his notice of this animal, suggests that these members were probably the remains of pectoral, ventral and caudal fins.”

Mr. RATHKE in the Archiv für Naturgeschichte of 1841, after having published some accounts, collected by him in Norway about the sea-serpent, and after having declared that he himself is a firm believer in it, goes on:

“To which group of known animals, however, this being belongs, cannot be asserted with any degree of certainty. The supposition, however, is at hand, that it is closely related to that animal, which in 1816” (read 1808) “stranded in Stronsa, one of the Orkneys, and of which several pieces of the skeleton are said to be preserved in the Museum of the University of Edinburgh, and in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. I have read a note about it in the London Journal the Athenaeum, 1839, p. 902, which note is taken from the work: The Naturalist’s Library, Amphibious Carnivora, including the Walrus and Seals, also of the Herbivorous Cetacea. By B. Hamilton, M. D. (Edinburgh, Lizars). An ample description of the saved rests of the animal is said to have been written by Dr. BARCLAY in the first Volume of the Memoirs of the Wernerian Society. I had, however, not the means of consulting this dissertation. According to the above-mentioned note or extract the creature stranded in Stronsa measured 56 feet and had (on its thickest part?) a circumference of 12 feet. The head was small and one foot long, the neck slender and 15 feet long. The organs of motion are said to have consisted of three pairs of fins: one pair of which is believed to have been properly a caudal fin. The foremost pair of fins measured 4 feet; these were the longest, and their tops looked like toes, partly, however, webbed together. From the shoulders a kind of bristly mane extended to near the extremity of the tail. The skin was smooth, without scales and of a grey colour. The eye was as large as a seal’s. The throat was too narrow to admit the hand.”

“Judging from these truly incomplete statements, viz. that the head was relatively very small, the neck very long and slender, and the extremeties were like fins, one may suppose that the animal stranded in Stronsa resembled a Plesiosaurus; and that consequently it belonged to the Amphibia, viz. to the Saurians.”

Prof. Dr. W. F. ERICHSON, the well known Editor of the Archiv für Naturgeschichte, expressed his opinion about the animal of Stronsa, immediately after the appearance of Mr. RATHKE’S dissertation. After having given full details of Mr. BARCLAY’S paper, and an ample description of the saved parts, he says: “All these parts belong undoubtedly to a shark,” and:

“Everard Home already declared the animal to be a shark, and in spite of all that Dr. Barclay asserts to the contrary, it will be so for ever, only it may not have been a Selache maxima, but a Lamna cornubica, which also reaches a considerable length. So the animal of Stronsa has no relation at all with the sea-serpent of the Norwegians.”

I have only to observe that I am surprised that Mr. ERICHSON could arrive at this conclusion, as the Lamna cornubica, or porbeagle has never attained a length above 18 feet.--Our fig. 10 represents a porbeagle.

It is astonishing, yet it is true, that Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the Zoologist, after all that had been written about the animal of Stronsa, was not yet convinced of its being a shark. In his journal of 1849, p. 2358, he asked the following

“Inquiries respecting the bones of a large marine animal cast ashore on the Island of Stronsa in 1808.”

“In the “Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society” (vol. I. p. 418) is a paper by Dr. Barclay, on a large animal cast ashore on the island of Stronsa. In illustration of his paper, the Doctor figures the head with a vertebra attached, four other vertebrae and a sternum with a paddle “and two parts corresponding two scapulae” attached. He speaks of the originals of these figures as specimens then before the audience he was addressing. He gives seven inches as the diameter of the head, and two inches as the diameter of the cervical vertebra then still attached to the head. The total length of the animal is given as fifty-five feet, and this from actual admeasurement. It is now positively asserted that the animal in question was a shark; but the utter impossibility of a shark fifty-five feet in length having a head only seven inches in diameter, and cervical vertebrae only two inches in diameter, is so manifest that further inquiry seems desirable; and I shall esteem it a great kindness if any naturalist who may possess the means of doing so will reply to the following questions:--

“1. How were the bones by Dr. Barclay obtained?

“2. What is the evidence that they belonged to one animal?

“3. Where are these bones preserved?

“4. What is their present state?

“5. Has the skull ever been denuded of skin, muscle, etc.?

“6. Has it ever been examined by a competent comparative anatomist? and if so, what opinion has he pronounced on it?

“Surely there are naturalists in Edinburgh who can answer the questions at once. It seems very irrational to speculate on the genus, order or class, to which a recent animal belongs, while the head and sternum of the creature are still in existence.”--

The following “Reply” to these questions was given, printed in the Zoologist for 1849, p. 2396:

“Reply to Mr. NEWMAN’s Inquiries respecting the Bones of the Stronsa Animal.--Seeing your queries regarding the bones of an animal cast on shore at Stronsa, described by Dr. Barclay in the “Memoirs of the Wernerian Society”,--after some little trouble I have been able to answer most of these questions.”

“1. How were the bones described by Dr. Barclay obtained?--It will be seen in the “Wernerian Memoirs” (Vol. I. p. 438), that George Sherar, one of those who saw the animal, mentions that he brought away, to deliver to Mr. Laing (the Scotch historian), the skull, two joints of one of the largest limbs next the head, with different parts of the back-bone, besides the bones that were formerly sent in. Mr. Laing, I suppose, forwarded them to Dr. Barclay.”

“2. What is the evidence that they belonged to one animal?--The answer to this is simply that the aforesaid George Sherar took them from the same animal.”

“3. Where are these bones preserved? 4. What is their present state?--Three of the vertebrae are in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, in a dried state, and are 6 inches in diameter; and four in the University Natural History Museum, preserved in spirits, and are still articulated to each other, whereas the other three are separate.”

“5. Has the skull ever been denuded of skin, muscle, &c.?--6. Has it ever been examined by a competent comparative anatomist? if so, what opinion has he pronounced on it?--This is answered by the annoying fact that the skull has not been preserved.”

“On inquiring of Professor Goodsir with regard to the vertebrae, he tells me he has examined them, and that they are undoubtedly those of a Shark (Squalus maximus), as are the skull, sternum and scapulae, figured in the “Wernerian Memoirs”, p. 418.”

“We would naturally suppose that the affidavit of those who saw this extraordinary animal would be of some avail; but on closer inspection even these will be found to have little weight in the argument. In the first place it is infortunate that no well-educated person saw it: they were all ignorant, illiterate men, who most likely knew nothing further of a shark than that it was an animal with a huge mouth, capable of discussing so many seamen at a bite, and whose teeth are peculiarly adapted for amputating limbs. In the next place we find these witnesses agreeing in one most absurd particular, viz., in the animal having six legs: on this point it is needless to expatiate; every one knowing anything of comparative anatomy must see at once the impossibility of such a structure: moreover, even granting its possibility, it is at once cancelled by Mr. Urquhart’s figure of the sternum and scapulae with an ordinary fin thereto attached (Wern. Mem. Vol. I. p. 418); the third pair of appendages Dr. Fleming in his “British Animals”, supposes were claspers. In the last place we may notice one striking contradiction in the evidences: Thomas Fotheringhame seems to have been astonished at such a large animal having such a narrow throat,--so narrow indeed that it would not admit his hand; while George Sherar would have had no difficulty in putting his foot down it: and as there is nothing to prove that Thomas Fotheringhame’s hand was larger than George Sherar’s foot, we are led to the conclusion that one or other must have made a mistake in his calculation.”

“We might further suggest the improbability of any animal sixty feet long having a head only seven inches in diameter, and we might even suspect the carpenter’s footrule of showing a decided taste for the marvellous; but we must now conclude with this single remark, that if the Stronsa Animal was not a shark it was certainly not the great sea-serpent, which, if it does exist, will most likely be allied to the Plesiosauri of by-gone days, and to which the animal seen by the Rev. Mr. Maclean, Eigg-Island (Wern. Mem. I. p. 442), seems to have borne a strong resemblance.--Jas. C. Howden; Musselburgh, February, 1849.”

As to the animal seen by Mr. MACLEAN, see our report n^o. 31, in the following chapter.

One would think that the question about the “animal of Stronsa” was now set at rest. Not at all! Dr. THOMAS STEWART TRAILL wrote a paper about it, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Vol. III, n^o. 44, 1854, June, comparing it with the animal seen by the Captain, officers and crew of H. M. S. Daedalus (see our report n^o. 118 in the next chapter). The part of his dissertation, respecting the “animal of Stronsa” runs as follows:

“The discussions which arose about four years ago on the animal reported to have been seen on 6th. August 1848, by Captain M’Quhae, the officers and crew of H. M. S. Daedalus, in the Southern Atlantic, between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena, about 300 miles off the African shore, recalled my attention to the materials I had collected respecting the vast animal cast ashore on Stronsey, one of the Orkneys, in 1808.”

“I was not there at the time, but copies of the depositions made by those who had seen and measured it were transmitted to me by order of Malcolm Laing Esq., the historian of Scotland, on whose property it was stranded; and I obtained other notes from several individuals resident in Orkney.”

“The evidence of the most intelligent persons who had seen and measured the animal was carefully collected, and copies of it were transmitted by Mr. Laing to Sir Joseph Bankes, and other naturalists. Soon afterwards Mr. Laing sent, through his brother, the late Gilbert Laing Meason, to the Museum of our University the skull and several vertebrae. The cartilaginous omoplates, to which a portion of the pectoral fin, or wing, as it was termed by the natives, were afterwards sent to Edinburgh, where I saw and examined them.”

“Two of the vertebrae were transmitted to me with portions of what was termed the mane of the animal, which I now exhibit.”

“The dead animal was first observed by some fishermen lying on a sunken rock, about a quarter of a mile from Rothiesholm-Head; but in a few days a violent gale from the S. E. cast it on shore in a creek near the headland, where it remained for some time tolerably entire; and it was subsequently broken up by the fury of the waves. Before it was thus broken into several pieces it was examined, and measured by several intelligent inhabitants of the Island; and their testimony collected as above stated was forwarded to London, Edinburgh, etc. The declarations were, however, accompanied by a very absurd drawing of the animal, which was thus produced. Many days elapsed ere the tempestuous weather allowed any communication with other Islands; and when the storm abated, a young man was sent from Kirkwall by Mr. Laing, to collect what information he could on the subject. But by this time the body of the animal was completely broken up. This lad, who was no draughtsman, and ignorant of Natural History, endeavoured, from the descriptions of those who had seen the animal most entire, to delineate with chalk on a table a figure of the animal. The rude figure so produced was transferred by pencil to paper, and copies of it were handed about as real representations of the animal.”

“That it had a general resemblance to the animal was admitted by those who had seen it; but from the accounts I afterwards obtained, it would appear that the jointed legs, which the lad had attached to it, are creations of his own imagination.”

“The appendages, which gave rise to this strange representation, were never called legs by those who saw the animal, but were denominated by them wings or fins or swimming paws. “That nearest the head was broader than the rest, about four-and-a-half feet in length, and was edged all round with bristles or fibres, about ten inches long”. The “lower jaw was wanting when it was cast ashore, but there remained cartilaginous teeth in portions of the jaws”. Before it was discovered putrefaction had commenced, especially in the fins. The animal had a long and slender neck, on which there were two spiracles on each side.”

“The wings would seem to have been the remains of fins, altered by incipient decomposition. The six may perhaps be remains of pectoral, abdominal, and anal fins, and perhaps they may have been placed, like those of some of the shark family, farther from the centre of the abdomen than in ordinary fishes. Indeed one of the witnesses states that “the wings of the animal were jointed to the body nearer the ridge of the back than they appear in the drawing”.”

“The portion of the anterior fin or wing, which was attached to the omoplates, consisted of cartilaginous rays; and when such a structure of fin is partially separated by commencing decomposition, the rays might easily, to the eyes of the uninitiated in natural science, seem like toes or fingers.”

“Even the great Cuvier admits this resemblance when describing the fins of fishes:”--

“Des rayons plus ou moins nombreux soutenant de nageoires membraneuses representent grossièrement les doigts, des mains, et des pieds.”

“As much of the value of the descriptions of the Orkney animal rests on the character and credibility of the individuals who saw it most entire, I may be permitted to state that I personally knew the three principal witnesses, Thomas Fotheringhame, George Sherar, and William Folsetter, to be men of excellent character, and of remarkable intelligence. They were not ignorant fishermen, as the witnesses were represented to be; but two of them were of the better sort of farmers in that part of Orkney; and the first and the last of them were also very ingenious mechanics, much accustomed to the use of the footrule, the instrument employed in measuring the animal.”

“They were men of such honour, intelligence, and probity, that I can have no doubt of the correctness of any statement they made of their impressions of what they had so carefully observed.”

“It was, therefore, not without surprise, that some months after these accounts were sent to London, I read a paper by Mr. Home (afterwards Sir Everard), in which he recklessly sets aside the evidence of the persons who saw and measured the animal in its most entire condition, as to its dimensions of length and thickness; and maintains that it was nothing but a Basking shark (Selache maximum!), which he supposes the love of the marvellous had magnified so enormously in the eyes of those whom he is pleased to call “ignorant fishermen”. Unfortunately for Home’s hypothesis, the Basking shark was probably far more familiar to those men than to himself; for it is often captured among the Orkney Islands; and its length and proportional thickness are so totally different from the animal in question, that the two could scarcely be confounded, by the most “ignorant fishermen” who had ever seen them.”

“These witnesses assert that the Stronsey animal (though a portion towards the tail was broken off when they took its dimensions) measured no less than fifty five feet in length; whereas that of the largest Basking shark of which we possess any accurate account scarcely exceeds thirty six feet.”

“The circumference of the two animals is no less widely different. My notes states the circumference at the thickest part of the body of the Orkney animal to be about ten feet, when it tapered much towards the head and the tail; whereas the circumference of a large Basking shark, where thickest, is not less than twenty feet. Besides, the shark-like figure of the latter could scarcely be confounded with the eel-like form of the Stronsey animal.”

“(The diameter of the animal is a little differently stated by different witnesses. But as we are told that its contour was more oval than round, we can easily explain the discrepancy. One witness, who had not measured it, speaks of it as equalling a middle-sized horse in thickness. On measuring four horses of from thirteen to fourteen hands in height, I found their greatest circumference to be from seventy-one to seventy-three inches, (or from five feet eleven inches to six feet one inch), or an average of six feet, that is less than the thickest part of our animal, but seemingly near that of its average dimensions.)”

“The mane as it is termed, may perhaps be the remains of a decomposed fin; but the fibres do not seem to be the rays of a fin; and the animal seen from the Daedalus is stated to have had a mane, floating about like sea-weed; and a similar appendage has generally been noticed in some less distinct accounts of a supposed sea-serpent.”

“Supposing this to be a dorsal fin, it extended from the anterior wings, or pectoral fins, towards the tail for thirty seven feet, and differs from the dorsal fin of any species of shark. If the mane consisted of detached fibres extending for thirty seven feet on the back, it is analogous to no appendage of any known marine animal. That its rays or fibres are very peculiar, will appear from the specimen now exhibited. These round fibres are fourteen inches in length; and in the dried state, have a yellow colour and transparency, equal to that of isinglass.”

“The vertebrae, which have been preserved in spirit in our Museum, have been exceedingly well described by Dr. Barclay, in the Wernerian Transactions, Vol. I; and undoubtedly, in their want of processes and cartilaginous structure, have much resemblance to those of chondropterygious fishes. One of the vertebrae adherent to the cranium, measured only two inches across; while that of the Basking-shark, in the same situation, is about seven inches in diameter. Dr. Barclay’s paper is accompanied by an engraving of the omoplates, and upper portion of the pectoral fin, which are accurately given, from a drawing made from the recent remains, by the late Mr. John T. Urquhart, an accomplished draughtsman, and able naturalist. I know the representation to be correct, for I saw and handled the specimen. The substance of this part was a firm, but flexible cartilage, and seemed to have been placed in the muscles; just as Cuvier describes the omoplates of sharks to be: Leurs omoplates sont suspendues dans le chair, en arrière des Branchies, sans s’articuler ni au crâne ni à l’espine. The Orkney animal seems to have had two circular spiracles on each side of its neck, about 1¹⁄₄ inch in diameter; whereas the Basking shark has five linear spiracles on each side, a foot or more in length.”

“The cranium, which I also very carefully examined, was far too small for that of a Basking shark of even one-fourth the usual length of that species. It measured in its dried state no more than twelve inches in length, and its greatest diameter was only seven inches. A Basking shark of thirty-six feet long would have had a head of at least five feet in length; and the diameter of the cranium at the angles of the mouth, would have measured probably five feet. These proportions positively show, that the Orkney animal could not possibly be confounded by intelligent men, accustomed to see the Basking shark, with that fish. There was a hole on the top of the cranium, something similar to the blow-hole of the cetaceans; but its lateral spiracles and cartilaginous bones forbid us to refer it to the order of cetacea”.

“Every thing proves the Orkney animal to have been a chondropterygious fish, different from any described by naturalists; but it has no pretensions to the denomination of Sea Serpent or Sea Snake, although its general form, and probably its mode of progression in the Ocean, may give it some resemblance to the order of Serpentes. Certainly, it cannot be confounded with any known shark; nor does it belong to the family of Squalidae”.

I am obliged to point out some discrepancies in Mr. TRAILL’S paper. First he asserts that in a few days the dead animal was cast on shore by a violent gale “where it remained for sometime tolerably entire”. This is not true, for the dead animal was already in a very putrified and damaged state, when it floated on the surface of the sea, for the pectoral fin was already putrified and the fibres had become loose.

Again: the teeth of the animal were not called “cartilaginous”, but they were described as “soft, and” that “they could be bent by the strength of the hand”.

Mr. TRAILL further says that “they would seem to have been the remains of fins, altered by incipient decomposition. The six may be remains of pectoral, abdominal and anal fins”. Now there is no fish known to Zoologists, that has two anal fins. The anal fin is therefore called an unpaired fin!

In comparing the dimensions of the animal of Stronsa with those of HOME’S Basking-shark, the writer, like Dr. Barclay, permanently believes that the animal was “in its most entire condition”! Further he asserts that the “length of the largest Basking shark of which we possess any accurate account, scarcely exceeds thirty six feet”. Consulting Prof. H. SCHLEGEL’S De visschen van Nederland, I read, however:

“The largest individual ever observed on the coasts of England, had a length of 36 feet. On the coasts of Norway, individuals are usually observed much larger than the boats fitted out for this capture, which are of about 40 feet. According to earlier intelligences, transmitted by trustworthy witnesses to the Bishop GUNNER, sometimes individuals of more than 70, and even of more than 100 feet in length were captured on the coasts of Norway”.

In considering the “mane” he also overlooks the fact that the two dorsal fins and the caudal fin were entirely decomposed, so that their fibres had become quite loose. According to the so called “first cervical vertebra” he made the same mistake as Dr. Barclay!

The two “circular spiracles on each side of the neck” have of course no relation at all with the five linear true gill-splits (not “spiracles” as Mr. TRAILL says) of the Basking-shark. These “two spiracles on each side of the neck” were in no case “spiracles”. They may have been decomposed stems of the vascular system in the flesh near the skull of the animal.

Dr. TRAILL, no more than Dr. BARCLAY, seemed to have known the difference between the “head” of a shark and its “skull” or “cranium”!

The “hole on the top of the cranium” which is also figured in the engraving representing the skull in the Memoirs of the Wernerian Society is evidently the result of putrification and of an external injury.

I need not tell my readers what I think about “the animal of Stronsa”. They may more than once have observed that I agree with Mr. EVERARD HOME’S opinion in all particulars, except in the so-called exaggerated dimensions. I firmly believe that the carcass of the animal measured fifty-five feet from the head to the end of the tail, and as a piece of tail seems to have been broken off, the vertebral column may even have been one of sixty feet. The dried and shrivelled skull measured twelve inches “from the first cervical vertebra to the farthest part that remains of the jaw”. But as I have pointed out that this “first cervical vertebra” was in reality the cartilaginous nose tip with its two contorted cartilaginous appendages, and as this nose tip must have measured (see the drawing of the skull in the Memoirs of the Wernerian Society, Vol. I) two inches, the whole skull measured fourteen inches. But the skull was dried and shrivelled, consequently we may safely admit that it measured in its perfect state about twenty inches. Consequently I conclude that: the largest Basking-shark that ever stranded on the coasts of Great Britain measured upwards of sixty feet, viz. the so-called “Animal of Stronsa”. The putrified body of it was floated ashore, and the putrification had continued so far that the almost black covering of the two backfins and the tail-fin were not only washed away by the waves, but that their yellow fibres had become loose. The eye-witnesses evidently reasoned that these fibres must have been present all along the back between these three parts, now far remote one from another, but were washed away, and they therefore concluded that the animal had “a mane, extending from the shoulders” (the part of the back at the level of the pectoral fins) “to the tail”, i. e. to the end of the tail. Or, according to another witness it extended “to within two feet and a half of the tail”; which may be explained in two ways, viz., either he meant that the mane extended to within two feet and a half beyond the level of the last pair of paws (the claspers), consequently the level where the tail begins, and here is the exact place of the hindmost back-fin, or he meant that the mane did not quite extend to the point of the tail, from which we in our turn may conclude that the last two feet and a half of the tail had already been wholly cleared from the fibres of the putrified tail-fin.

Moreover putrification on one side, and the beating of the waves on the other side, had already removed the animal’s enormous jaws, gills, with adherent muscles and cartilages, and all the entrails, except the valvular intestine. On persons who never saw such a mutilated specimen of a shark, the animal must have made the impression of being a sea-snake!

As to the sketch, made by Mr. PETRIE after the descriptions of one of the witnesses, and with regard to the “mane” somewhat altered by Mr. SYME, it will appear at a glance that besides the ridiculous legs, the head (read skull) of it is drawn too large. The carrion was 56 feet long and the drawing only 74 lines, consequently the length of one foot is represented by a space of 1.3 line. A skull of 14 inches should therefore be in this drawing only 1.5 line long, and not 6 lines. Last not least, the “mane” is not delineated on only three different places, as it really was, but from the “shoulders” to the end of the tail, according to the wrong conclusions of those “most intelligent eye-witnesses”! This terrible “mane” was evidently the only cause of all this trouble, and of the whole puzzle!

* * * * *

1816.--Phil. Mag., LIV, 1819.--The third sea-serpent described by Mr. RAFINESQUE (for he believes there are several species), is called by him:

“3. The Scarlet Sea-Serpent. This was observed in the Atlantic Ocean, by the captain and crew of an American vessel from New-York, while reposing and coiled up, near the surface of the water, in the summer of 1816. It is very likely that it was a fish, and perhaps might belong to the same genus with the foregoing; I shall refer it thereto, with doubt, and name it Octipos? coccineus. Entirely of a bright crimson; head acute. Nothing further descriptive was added in the gazettes where the account was given, except that its length was supposed to be about 40 feet.”

I am convinced that this “sea-serpent” was a great calamary. As the greatest ever found, measured from the tip of the tail to the tips of the extended shorter arms about 30 feet (a calamary reposing or swimming in the sea always has its long tentacular arms coiled up), the length of 40 feet probably is exaggerated. I give here a figure of a large calamary, swimming on the surface of the water (taken from Mr. HENRY LEE’S Sea-Monsters Unmasked, 1883, corrected, however, as to its proportions), and now my readers most probably will agree with me that such an animal has been seen. The hillocks of the short arms make the appearance of a long undulating body. The body of such an animal is quite scarlet or crimson, and the tail (the so-called head) is acute.

* * * * *

1822, June.--In FRORIEP’S Notizen of 1822, III, we read:

“Some time ago the American newspapers were filled with the reports of a sea-serpent which showed itself in the neighbourhood. Also more than a year ago an animal was caught, supposed to be such a one, which, however, was recognized as a large tunny. It appears by the New-York newspaper of June 15th., that such an animal taken for a great sea-serpent has been caught in a bay near Middleton-Point. This monster measured thirty feet and has a circumference of 18 feet. It had already been seen for some days, floating like a huge trunk. Some persons had fired at it with guns, but without any result. Having got into shallow water it could not regain the high sea, was killed with harpoons, towed aland and flayed. The liver alone produced three barrels of train-oil. It took six men two hours to drag the skin, which will be stuffed, to a distance of about 200 yards off. None of the old whalemen and seamen who saw the animal, knew it. There were no guts (?) and there was no heart (??). In the beak six rows of small sharp teeth were counted and the throat was wide enough for a tall man to pass. The skin was lead coloured and could be used as a stone for sharpening knives (apparently an unusual large shark?)”

About the tunny I allow myself to refer the reader to our fig. 1.--We immediately agree with Mr. FRORIEP that this animal was a large shark. Evidently it was dead, “floating some days like a huge trunk”. The reason that no whaleman recognized the animal, that neither guts nor heart was found, is of course to be found in the fact that the animal was putrified, irrecognizable, and had already lost its guts and some other entrails. Evidently it was a basking-shark, Squalus maximus (See our fig. 8). The length of 30 feet and girth of 18 feet is normal in this species. Norwegian fishermen harpoon it to procure the train-oil from the liver. The teeth are comparatively small and conical, the skin is lead coloured and can really be used as a whet-stone.--

* * * * *

1849.--In the Zoologist of 1849, p. 2335, we read:

“A young sea-serpent.--On Friday, while some fishermen belonging to Usan were at the out-sea fishing, they drew up what appeared to them a young sea-serpent, and lost no time in bringing the young monster to the secretary of our Museum. The animal, whatever it may be called, is still alive, and we have just been favoured with a sight of it; but whether it really be a young sea-serpent or not, we shall leave those who are better acquainted with Zoology than we are to determine. Be it what it may, it is a living creature, more than 20 feet in length, less than an inch in circumference, and of a dark brown chocolate colour. When at rest its body is round; but when it is handled it contracts upon itself, and assumes a flattish form. When not disturbed its motions are slow; but when taken out of the water and extended, it contracts like what a long cord of caoutchouc would do, and folds itself up in spiral form, and soon begins to secrete a whitish mucous from the skin, which cements the folds together, as for the purpose of binding the creature into the least possible dimensions.”--“Montrose Standard.”--

“[This creature was probably a specimen of Gordius marinus. I am obliged for the extract.--E. Newman.]”

Mr. NEWMAN suggesting this worm to be a Gordius marinus evidently did not mean the Gordius marinus of LINNÉ, but that of MONTAGU. The former is a little worm of about one half of an inch in length, living parasitically in the entrails of some fishes, especially in herrings, whilst the latter is identical to Lineus longissimus of SOWERBY, belonging to the family of Lineidae, to the order of Nemertini, to the class of Platyelminthes or Flat-Worms. Of this species individuals of thirty to forty-five feet in length have occasionally been dredged.

Having the means of consulting the splendid work of the British Nemerteans of Mr. Mc. INTOSH, I am able to show my readers in fig. 12 this Lineus longissimus, on a reduced scale.

* * * * *

1849, March 26.--Another would be sea-serpent; (Zoologist p. 2433 for 1849):

“A strange marine animal, of great size and strength, was captured on the 26th. of March off Cullercoats, near Newcastle. By the enclosed handbill, which has been forwarded to me, it appears to be quite unknown to the neighbouring savants. The honest fishermen who drew the struggling monster to land are not, however, overscrupulous about the name, provided it be attractive enough to extract from the pockets of “ladies and gentlemen 6_d._; working people 3_d._ each”: they therefore boldly announce him as “the great sea-serpent caught at last”. My correspondent very judiciously observes, that whatever the animal may be, it adds another to the many evidences constantly occurring that there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of by the most experienced practical observers. Some thirty five years since, the distinguished anatomist Dr. Barclay, was fain to reproach his contemporaries with the folly of affecting to suppose that they knew every thing. What additions have five and thirty years not given to Science! As the animal in question must be at least a local visitor, may we not hope, that some resident naturalist will favour us with a notice of it?”

“The great Sea-Serpent caught at last, by fourteen fishermen, off Cullercoats, on Monday last, March 26, 1849. This most wonderful monster of the deep was discovered by a crew of fishermen, about six miles from the land, who, after a severe struggle, succeeded in capturing this, the most wonderful production of the mighty deep. This monster has been visited by numbers of the gentry and scientific men of Newcastle, and all declare that nothing hitherto discovered in Natural History affords any resemblance to this. As an object of scientific inquiry, this “great unknown” must prove a subject of peculiar interest. Many surmises as to its habits, native shores, etc., have already been made, but nothing is really known. The general opinion expressed by those that are best able to judge, is, that this is the great sea-serpent, which hitherto has only been believed to have a fabulous existence, but which recent voyagers declare they have seen. Now exhibiting, at the shop, 57, Grey Street, opposite the High Bridge. Admission: ladies and gentlemen 6_d._, Working people 3_d._ each.”

In the Illustrated London News of May 19, 1849, we find the following account of this capture:

“The Sea-Serpent.--We observe in the Newcastle papers that a strange and hitherto unknown fish, nearly 13 feet in length, and possessing many of the characteristics which the captain of the Daedalus enumerated in his description of the great Sea-Snake, has really been caught off the Northumbrian coast, by the Cullercoats’ fishermen, and has been exhibited in Newcastle, where it has created the greatest sensation. The members of the National History Society of that town have duly reported upon it, and expressed their opinion, that it is a young specimen of the genus Gymnetrus, only four of which species, and those very rare, are known to ichthyologists, and described by Cuvier and others as inhabiting the Indian, Mediterranean and White Seas. The present specimen has become the property of a Newcastle merchant, who has presented it to the museum of that town; and we understand that, in accordance with a very general wish of most of our distinguished naturalists, it is now exhibiting in the metropolis.”

As we read in the Zoologist for 1849, p. 2460--2462, Mr. ALBANY HANCOCK and Dr. EMBLETON now declared it to be a probably new species of the genus of riband-fish (Gymnetrus).

Fig. 13 shows the readers a kind of riband-fish, the Gymnetrus gladius of CUVIER and VALENCIENNES, taken from the Règne Animal. This fish is of a silvery colour, except the fins and the peculiar articulated head-ornaments, which are crimson. Its length is about ten feet, its home the Mediterranean. The Gymnetrus Banksii or Regalecus Banksii of Cuvier, closely allied to it, measures about twenty feet, sometimes more, and is, though rarely, hitherto caught only near the British shores. The fish in question therefore most probably belonged to this species.

* * * * *

1852, Aug. 28.--Mr. ALFRED NEWTON, of Elveden Hall, forwarded the following report to the Editor of the Zoologist (see this journal for 1853, p. 3756).

“I have lately received the following account from my brother, Capt. Steele, 9th. Lancers, who on his way out to India in the Barham, saw the sea-serpent. Thinking it might be interesting to you, as corroborating the account of the Daedalus, I have taken the liberty of sending you the extract from my brother’s letter:--“On the 28th. of August, in long. 40° E., lat. 37° 16′ S., about half-past two, we had all gone down below to get ready for dinner, when the first mate called us on deck to see a most extraordinary sight. About five hundred yards from the ship there was the head and neck of an enormous snake; we saw about sixteen or twenty feet out of the water, and he spouted a long way from his head; down his back he had a crest like a cock’s comb, and was going very slowly through the water, but left a wake of about fifty or sixty feet, as if dragging a long body after him. The captain put the ship off her course to run down to him, but as we approached him, he went down. His colour was green, with light spots. He was seen by every one on board.” My brother is no naturalist, and I think this is the first time the monster has ever been seen to spout.”

“I am told by a gentleman whose brother was on board the ship (the Barham) referred in the following extract from “The Times” newspaper of November 17, 1852, that the occurrence there related took place between 35° and 40° S. lat. and 40° and 45° E. long., being about 650 miles due south of Madagascar. I understand that the particulars of the event as there stated closely agree with those furnished to my informant, and further, which is perhaps the most interesting part of the whole circumstance, that the animal was observed to “blow” or “spout” in the same manner that a whale does.”

“Extract from an Officer’s Letter written between the Cape and Madras. You will be surprised to hear that we have actually seen the great sea-serpent, about which there has been so much discussion. Information was given by a sailor to the captain, just as we were going to dinner. I was in my cabin at the time, and from the noise and excitement, I thought the ship was on fire. I rushed on deck, and on looking over the side of the vessel I saw a most wonderful sight, which I shall recollect as long as I live. His head appeared to be about sixteen feet above the water, and he kept moving it up and down, sometimes showing his enormous neck, which was surmounted with a huge crest in the shape of a saw. It was surrounded by hundreds of birds, and we at first thought it was a dead whale. He left a track in the water like the wake of a boat, and from what we could see of the head and part of his body, we were led to think he must be about sixty feet in length, but he might be more. The captain kept the vessel away to get nearer to him, and when we were within a hundred yards he slowly sank into the depths of the sea. While we were at dinner he was seen again, and a midshipman took a sketch of him, of which I will send you a copy.”--The Times.

Mr. GOSSE, in his Romance of Natural History, 1^{st} Series, p. 311, says of these rapports:

“The descriptions, however, show great discrepancy with that of the creature, seen from the Daedalus” (see report n^o. 118 in the next chapter) “and cannot be considered confirmatory of the former account, otherwise than as proving that immense unrecognized creatures of elongate form roam the ocean.”

“Mr. Alfred Newton, of Elveden Hall, an excellent and well-known naturalist, adds the guarantee of his personal acquaintance with one of the recipients of the above letters.”

“I note this, because discredit has been undeservedly cast on the phenomena observed, by foolish fabulous stories having been published under fictitious names, for the purpose of hoaxing.”

“If it were not for the spouting--which is not mentioned by one observer, and may possibly have been an illusion,--I should be inclined to think that this may have been one of the scabbard fishes, specimens of which inhabit the ocean of immense size. They carry a high serrated dorsal fin, and swim with the head out of the water.”

By inserting these reports in the present chapter, I already show my readers, that I agree with Mr. GOSSE, that this animal cannot have been a sea-serpent.

I confess that I am unable to give a decisive answer to the question as to what kind of animal it really was. Apparently the most plausible explanation is that given by Mr. Gosse, viz., that it was a riband or scabbard fish. The dorsal fin which in these kind of fishes begins at the occiput, is red or crimson coloured, and serrated, so that it may have given rise to the expressions of “a crest like a cock’s comb”, and “a huge crest in the shape of a saw”. But riband fishes are deep-sea fishes. When floating on the surface they are dying or already dead. They never “swim with their head above the surface”! Moreover the green colour does not agree with the common silvery hue of these animals. A riband fish is delineated in fig. 13, p. 93.

But wonderful it may seem that after having uttered this opinion, a few pages further on Mr. GOSSE uses this report amongst others to fix the class of living creatures to which the sea-serpent belongs. And what is the conclusion he arrives at?--that it belongs to the group of Plesiosauri, or at least is related to it!

* * * * *

1858, July 9.--Another Sea-Serpent.--(Zoologist, 1859, p. 6492.)--“The Amsterdamsche Courant of October 6, 1858, inserts the following letter from Captain L. Bijl, of the Dutch bark “Hendrik Ido Ambacht”, to the “Jorn-Bode”:--“Sailing in the South Atlantic, in 27° 27′ N. Lat., and 14° 51,′ E. long., we perceived on July the 9th., between twelve and one o’clock in the afternoon, a dangerous sea monster, which during nine days constantly kept alongside of us to 37° 55′ S. lat., and 42° 9′ E. long. This animal was about 90 feet long and 25 to 30 feet broad, and, most of the time, it struck the ship with such a force as to make it vibrate. The monster blew much water, which spread an unpleasant stench over the deck. The captain, fearing lest the animal might disable the rudder, did his utmost to get rid of his fearful antagonist, but without success. After it had received more than a hundred musket-balls, a harpoon and a long iron bar, blood was seen to flow from various wounds, so that at last from loss of strength, the monster could swim behind our vessel no longer, and we were delivered of it. By its violent blows against the copper the animal’s skin had been damaged in several places.”--J. H. van Lennep, Zeist.”[2]

[2] Jorn Bode is most probably a misprint for Java-Bode. Zeist is the well-known charming village, east of Utrecht, the fourth town of the Netherlands.

As to the animal, seen from the Hendrik Ido Ambacht, I think it must have been a sick spermwhale, which was out of temper; why else should it have been so angry that it followed the bark nine days, cuffing it “most of the time”? Moreover the nature of spermwhales is well enough known as angry and war-like.

* * * * *

1860?--In the Zoologist for this year we read p. 6934:

“A sea-serpent in the Bermudas.--I beg to send you the following account of a strange sea-monster captured on these shores, the animal being, in fact, no less than the great sea-serpent which was described as having been seen by Captain M’Quhae, of H. M. S. “Daedalus”, a few years since. Two gentlemen named Trimingham were walking along the shore of Hungary Bay, in Hamilton Island, on Sunday last, about eleven o’clock, when they were attracted by a loud rushing noise in the water, and, on reaching the spot, they found a huge sea-monster, which had thrown itself on the low rocks, and was dying from exhaustion in its efforts to regain the water. They attacked it with large forks which were lying near at hand for gathering in sea-weed, and unfortunately mauled it much, but secured it. The reptile was sixteen feet seven inches in length, tapering from head to tail like a snake, the body being a flatfish oval shape, the greatest depth at about a third of its length from the head, being eleven inches. The colour was bright and silvery; the skin destitute of scales but rough and warty; the head in shape not unlike that of a bull-dog, but it is destitute of teeth; the eyes were large, flat, and extremely brilliant, it had small pectoral fins, and minute ventral fins, and large gills. There were a series of fins running along the back, composed of short, slender rays, united by a transparent membrane, at the interval of something less than an inch from each other. The creature had no bone, but a cartilage running through the body. Across the body at certain intervals were bands, where the skin was of a more flexible nature, evidently intended for the creature’s locomotion, screw like, through the water. But its most remarkable feature was a series of eight long thin spines of a bright red colour springing from the top of the head and following each other at an interval of about an inch; the longest was in the centre: it is now in the possession of Colonel Munro, the acting Governor of the Colony; and I had the opportunity of examining it very closely. It is two feet seven inches long, about three eighth of an inch in circumference at the base, and gradually tapering, but flattened at the extreme end, like the blade of an oar. The shell of these spines is hard, and, on examination by a powerful glass, appeared to be double, some red colouring matter being between the shells; the outside, which to the touch and natural eye was smooth, being rough and much similar to the small claws or feelers of the lobster or crayfish. The centre was a wide pith, like an ordinary quill. The three foremost of these spines were connected for about half their length by a greasy filament; the rest being unconnected; the serpent had the power of elevating or depressing the crest at pleasure. The serpent was carefully examined by several medical and scientific gentlemen; the head, dorsal spine, and greater part of the crest are in the possession of J. M. Jones Esq., an eminent naturalist, who will, doubtless, send home a more learned description of this “wonder of the deep”. I regret that the immediate departure of the mail for England prevents my preparing you any more careful drawing of this great “sea-serpent” than that I enclose.”

Mr. NEWMAN, the Editor of the Zoologist, adds hereto the following note:

“Written by Captain Hawtaigne, of Her Majesty’s 39 Foot. I place implicit reliance on the narrative, except as to the animal being identical with that seen by Capt. M’Quhae, of which I think there is no evidence. Mr. J. M. Jones is an old subscriber to the Zoologist, and a most intelligent; but the query occurs to me, “Is not this sea-serpent a ribband fish?”--

Yes, this sea-serpent was a ribband fish. And the “eminent naturalist”, Mr. J. M. JONES, soon afterwards described this species for the Zoologist, p. 6986. Here we read that the Editor, Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN has “received the following particulars of this most interesting capture from an old and valued correspondent of the Zoologist. It must be read in connection with a previous note on the same animal in the April number of the Zoologist. (Zool. p. 6934)”.

Now follows the description of the animal, by Mr. J. MATHEW JONES, with which we will not trouble our readers, only referring them to our fig. 13, p. 93, of a ribband fish, closely allied to the specimen, captured in the Bermudas.

Mr. JONES adds comparisons of this fish with the great sea-serpent seen by Captain M’QUHAE (see report n^o. 118), and concludes that part of the reports concerning the great sea-serpent originated from the appearance of ribband fishes. His views of the matter, however, will be treated of in our chapter on the various explanations.

Immediately after this article Mr. NEWMAN wrote another, in which he shows that this fish is a new species, giving it the name Regalecus Jonesii, NEWMAN. How far Mr. NEWMAN was right in doing so, I am unable to decide. He gives a full description of his new species, and adds that he is not competent to express an opinion upon the similarity of Regalecus Jonesii to Capt. M’QUHAE’S sea-serpent.

* * * * *

1878.--The Scotsman of September 6th. of this year has inserted in its columns the following account.

“A Baby Sea-Serpent.--From Van Diemen’s Land comes news of the capture of a queer fish. It is fourteen feet long, fifteen inches deep from the neck to the belly, tapering two inches to the tail, and eight inches in diameter in the thickest place. There are no scales, but the skin is like polished silver, with eighteen dark lines and rows of spots running from the head to the tail each side. There is a mane on the neck twenty inches long, and continues from the head to the tail; small head, no teeth, protrusive mouth, capable of being extended four inches like a sucker; eyes flat, about the size of a half crown, and like silver, with black pupils. There are two feelers under the chin, thirty-two inches long. The fish was alive when captured.”

Mr. ANDREW WILSON who communicated this capture in Nature of the 12th. of September, 1878, Vol. XVIII, thinks that this account “seems explicable only on the tape fish theory.” I think he might have written “is explicable only on the tape fish theory”, or in short: “this was evidently a tape fish.” A tape fish is identical to a ribband fish. Though these fishes are deep-sea fishes, some species evidently don’t live at great depth, and are occasionally cast ashore after a storm, as had also happened, in 1860, on the Bermudas (see hereabove).

* * * * *

1879, December 23.--(G. VERSCHUUR, Eene reis rondom de wereld in 480 dagen, p. 51.)

On the 21st. of December, 1879, Mr. VERSCHUUR on board the Granada, left Mazatlan, a harbour on the western coast of Mexico, for San Francisco. Probably on the 23d. the Granada passed Cape San Lucas at 23° N. lat. Mr. VERSCHUUR says:

“Past Cape San Lucas, one afternoon, as I am gazing at the ocean surface, I see a long neck rising out of the water very close to the ship. I beckon some other passengers who are on deck, and after a few minutes the object in question appears a second time. It is the neck of a snake, one would say, and we estimate the length of the visible part of the animal at about a meter. The thickness is about that of the upper-arm of a full-grown man and the head ends in a point, and is as large as a child’s head”.

“We call the whole crew, and the captain as well as some officers run to. But the animal does not appear again. Nevertheless five of us had seen the animal distinctly, so that a violent altercation arose, when one of the officers said we evidently were mistaken, because the sea-serpent did not exist.”

“Nobody of us, it is true, could affirm that it was a sea-serpent. We could only firmly maintain that what we had seen, agreed in all respects with the shape of a serpent.”

“The second officer, who joined in the conversation, declared to have observed in 1871 near the coast of Australia, a sea-serpent which was several meters in length, and when this statement too was called in question, the quarrel got warmer and warmer, and, as it generally happens in such cases, every one kept his own opinion, and the world did not get any the wiser for it.”

“Does the sea-serpent exist, or does he not? This is a problem which has been answered more than once in the most affirmative manner, and also in a negative sense. I have heard the question disputed on more than one voyage.”

In order to obtain more particulars about the animal, I wrote to Mr. VERSCHUUR Oct. 26th., 1889, directing to him the following questions:

“Did the features of the “snake” make on you the impression to be those of a mammal, like those of a seal or sea-lion, though the pointed head more resembled that of a snake?”

“Or had the head, though being much larger, more the shape of that of an eel?”

“Were there just behind the head a pair of fins, as eels have?”

“Why did the visible part make on you the impression to be a “neck”. You speak of a “neck” of a snake. Was the diameter near the head smaller than that just above the water, as if the animal was still thicker under water?”

“Or did you observe the contrary?”

“Was the “snake” perfectly round, or was it provided on its back with a fin, as in eels?”

“What colour had your snake, and had the belly and the back the same colour?”

“Did you observe any eyes, nostrils, ears, ear holes, gills, whiskers, or any other appendages?”

“These are all questions which a zoologist wants to have answered in order to determine somewhat, what animal may have been seen by you.”

Mr. VERSCHUUR had the courtesy to send me an early answer Oct. 30th., 1889. The part of this letter referring to my questions runs as follows:

“I greatly regret to say that my answers will not help you much. The distance at which I saw this strange animal was too great, and the appearance too short, to observe anything of the particulars stated by you.”

“The part which we saw rise out of the sea had, if my memory does not deceive me, the thickness of a full-grown upper-arm, and the length of from 1 to 1¹⁄₂ meter.”

“The head seemed to be round, and of the common shape of a snake’s head, i. e. having nearly the tapering shape of the “cobra” or of the rattlesnake.”

“Of scales, eyes, fins, etc., I could observe nothing, during this short appearance. The colour seemed to me to be a greyish one.”

“I regret not being able to give you more details than those written by me in my book of travels.”

I think this animal was of the eel-tribe, the dimensions were too small even to admit the supposition that it was a spawn of the sea-serpent.

* * * * *

We observe that many so-called great sea-serpents are to be explained by reference to known animals. There are, however, a great many sea-serpents which don’t answer to the description of any known being at all, unless we venture upon a suggestion which is either wrong, forced, or premature, and which can be accepted only with a smile or a shrug of the shoulders.

Some sea-serpent explainers are in the habit of explaining one single sea-serpent, say by reference to a row of porpoises, and then try to account for others by this suggestion, the upshot of which is that the explainer does no longer see his way clear of the difficulties which beset him, and driven to his wits’ end, cuts the Gordian knot, leaving a great many sea-serpents unexplained.

Others, like Mr. GOSSE, Mr. ANDREW WILSON, and Mr. HENRY LEE, were prepossessed with opinions which made of every sea-serpent a Plesiosaurus, an extraordinarily developed Hydrophis, or a large Calamary (Architeuthis).

But none of them hit on the plan to put all the accounts, tales, and reports of this great unknown animal side by side, to point out the statements which are immediately recognizable as strange, or explicable by reference to some known animal, and finally to decide which of the known animals may have been bold enough to present itself as a deceitful serpentine creature, or, if the result is negative and leads to the conclusion that the sea-serpent does not belong to any known species of animal, to decide, what kind of animal does exist, though unknown to zoologists! And to this inquiry we pass now.

IV.

The various accounts and reports concerning observations of Sea-Serpents, chronologically arranged and thoroughly discussed; and criticisms of the papers written about the subject.

An account of the appearance of a Sea-Serpent, published in Nature of Nov. 18, 1880, induced me to make a study of that subject. A few months afterwards I wrote a little paper for the Album der Natuur, a Dutch periodical, designed to bring the latest progress and problems of Science in a very popular manner under the eyes of non-scientific readers.

In that paper I discussed the probability of the existence of an animal which was unknown to zoologists, but which nevertheless existed, and gave rise to all the narratives of the Great Sea-Serpent.

In January, 1889, I happened to come across a paper on the same subject by Mr. HENRY LEE. In this work “Sea Monsters Unmasked” the sea-serpent is explained in several manners, as having been a row of porpoises following one another, as some gigantic sea-weed, as huge calamaries, and though hesitatingly as any still unknown animal belonging to a genus of reptiles, the representatives of which are only known in the fossil state.

Having given another explanation in my above-mentioned paper, and seeing that Mr. LEE did not mention my supposition, I am now so bold as to repeat my attempt at explaining the Sea-Serpent in another manner; I have chosen the English language as being known to all zoologists and to all navigators.

The Sea-Serpents and other serpents of extraordinary dimensions, quoted by ARISTOTELES (History of Animals, Book 8, chapt. 28), PLINIUS (Naturalis Historiae, Lib. 4, cap. 23, Lib. 8, cap. 14), VALERIUS MAXIMUS (de Factis Dictisque Memorabilibus, Lib. 1, cap. 8, 1st. century), FLORUS (Lib. 2), SENECA (litt. 82), SILVIUS ITALICUS (Lib. 6), AULUS GELLIUS (Lib. 6, cap. 3), OROSIUS, ZONARES, DIODORUS SICULUS, VOLETERRANUS (Commentariorum Urbanorum libri 38, book 12), PETR. MARTYR (Decad. 1, lib. 10), BAKIUS (Posidonii Vita et Reliquiae, p. 115), AELIANUS, VERGILIUS, etc., were most probably nothing but pythons.

The various kinds of Serpens marinus alluded to by ARISTOTELES and PLINIUS, and afterwards described and figured by many other authors, evidently belong to the sea-eels, e. g. those of Père JEAN BAPTISTE LABAT in 1722, or were doubtless real sea-snakes, which reach no greater length than about twelve feet.

For these reasons we will pass all the descriptions of these different animals, and review only reports of no earlier date than the year 1500 A. D.

Having examined all the descriptions and figures of the Great Sea-Serpent published from 1500 A. D. up to this day, we come to the conclusion, as we have already stated above, that some of the so-called sea-serpents were fishes of slender form, others were cuttles of extraordinary dimensions (Cephalopoda Decapoda Chondrophora). In all these cases it is not impossible, and sometimes not difficult for a zoologist, who is familiar with these creatures and their habits, to explain those observations, but the greater part of the accounts of Great Sea-Serpents do not agree with the well-known shape of sea-weeds and cuttles, nor with the habits of porpoises. Mr. LEE tries a few times to identify the Sea-Serpent with these kinds of animals, but all who saw the sea-serpent moving with vertical undulations, and figured it thus, knew the habits of those animals, and some of them testified, that it could not have been porpoises, which they knew well enough to be sure of it. I will add here that porpoises move irregularly and have dorsal fins, which must of course be visible whenever they appear on the surface, whilst in none of the accounts mentioning the sea-serpent moving in vertical undulations, there is any question of dorsal fins visible on the coils of the sea-serpent.

But let us now pass to the accounts that have come within our reach, and peruse them in order of their date.

* * * * *

=1=.--1522.--(See OLAUS MAGNUS, Historia de gentibus, etc.) “There is also another serpent of an astonishing size in an island called Moos, in the diocese of Hammer: which portends a change in the Kingdom of Norway, as a comet does in the whole world, as it was seen, anno 1522, raising itself high above the surface of the water and circling like a spire. Seen from afar this serpent was estimated by conjecture to be fifty cubits long; this event was followed by the banishment of King Christiernus and by a great persecution of the Bishops; and it also showed the destruction of the country, as Isidorus tells us of the birds of Diomedes.”

In the original Latin we read atque in modum sphaerae convolvens (and wrinkling like a ball), but as this has no sense, I am convinced that we have to do with a misprint, and that the author evidently wrote atque in modum spirae convolvens, which I have translated above “and circling like a spire”. This evidently signifies that the observer saw the animal swimming with vertical undulations, parts of which were visible above the surface of the water.

Further we must direct our attention to the statement that the animal raised itself high above the surface of the water.

Finally that it was estimated to be fifty cubits long, i. e. about seventy-five feet.

* * * * *

OLAUS MAGNUS, the Archbishop of Upsala wrote in 1555 as follows:

“They who, either to trade, or to fish, sail along the shores of Norway, relate with concurring evidence a truly admirable story, namely that a very large serpent of a length of upwards of 200 feet, and 20 feet in diameter lives in rocks and holes near the shore of Bergen; it comes out of its caverns only on summernights and in fine weather to devour calves, lambs and hogs, or goes into the sea to eat cuttles, lobsters and all kinds of sea-crabs. It has a row of hairs of two feet in length, hanging from the neck, sharp scales of a dark colour, and brilliant flaming eyes. It attacks boats, and snatches away the men, by raising itself high out of the water, and devours them: and commonly this does not happen without a terrible event in the Kingdom, without a change being at hand, either that the princes will die or will be banished, or that a war will soon break out.”

This narrative tells us that the sea-serpent frequents the shores of Norway, that it appears mostly in summer, that it has large dimensions, and a considerable thickness. It has a row of hairs hanging down from its neck, its colour is dark, its eyes are brilliant and flaming. It only appears in fine weather.

We consider its devouring hogs, lambs and calves, and its appearance on summernights on land to take its prey to be a fable. The eating of squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters may be a fiction, or it may have been truly witnessed, the animal chewing them with its head above water, as seals and sea-lions do. The story of snatching away a man from the ships is evidently confounded with another tale, as it is not mentioned anywhere else with regard to the sea-serpent. It evidently refers to gigantic calamaries which occasionally attack boats and snatch away one of the crew. (See LEE, Sea Monsters Unmasked, I, The Kraken.). Its being covered with scales must be fictitious too, for they who saw a sea-serpent at a short distance, are unanimous in stating that it had no scales but a smooth skin.

On the same page of the text, OLAUS MAGNUS has figured a sea-serpent in the act of swallowing a man from a boat, which has just anchored on a rock, wherein the serpent has its hole. I give a facsimile of that figure in Fig. 14.--Mr. HENRY LEE who mostly sees calamaries and no other animals in the tales and figures representing the Great Sea-Serpent, tells us that: “the presumed body of the serpent was one of the arms of the squid, and the two rows of suckers thereto belonging are indicated in the illustration by the medial line traversing its whole length (intended to represent a dorsal fin) and the double row of transverse septa, one on each side of it”.--As to the snatching away a man of the crew, I quite agree with Mr. LEE, as already said above, but as to the figure of the serpent itself, I am strongly convinced that OLAUS MAGNUS or his draughtsman had no other intention than to delineate a large snake, and they gave it the large scales, mentioned in the text, but the scales are badly drawn. They further gave it a medial row of scales, as all snakes have such a medial row.

* * * * *

GESNER in his Nomenclator aquatilium animantium, 1560, gives two figures of the sea-serpent of which I give facsimiles in Fig. 15 and 16.--GESNER says that there is a large map of Scandinavia in OLAUS MAGNUS’ work, and on this map our fig. 15 is drawn in the Baltic Sea, and our fig. 16 in the Atlantic Ocean. In the original edition of 1555 there is but a small map of Scandinavia, which shows only the heads of several animals in the sea. I therefore conclude that there still exists another edition of MAGNUS’ work which I don’t know. Returning to our figures we immediately observe that the drawer has delineated large snakes, the one without scales, and swimming with vertical undulations, the other with large scales, and that he did not intend to represent a dorsal fin by the medial line, but only a medial row of scales, unequal to the lateral. On the head three transversal rows of protuberances are visible, which evidently serve to represent the long hairs hanging down from the neck of the animal.

Of the sea-serpent GESNER tells us:

“In the Baltic or Swedish Ocean are found certain yellow sea-serpents of thirty or forty feet in length, which, when not provoked, do not harm any one. Of these sea-serpents OLAUS MAGNUS gives the following figure in his Map of Scandinavia”.--(See our fig. 15).

“On the same Map there is another sea-serpent, a hundred or two hundred feet long (as says the text, or three hundred, as states the number added to the figure), which sometimes appears near Norway in fine weather, and is dangerous to Sea-men, as it snatches away men from the ships. Mariners tell that it incloses ships, as large as our trading vessels, made on our rivers and lakes, by laying itself round them in a circle, and that the ship then is turned upside down. It sometimes makes such large coils above the water, that a ship can go through one of them. I give the figure as it is on the Map.”--(See our fig. 16.)

Here we meet with three other characteristics of the sea-serpent: it is harmless when not provoked, it encircles ships and turns them upside down, and its coils are so gigantic that a ship can go through one of them. The first characteristic is a real one: the sea-serpent is perfectly harmless, if not provoked. We observe this in almost every account. The other two are of course extraordinary exaggerations of its dimensions.

The two figures of GESNER copied on a reduced scale, with an extract of his text, appeared in the Graphic of January 29, 1876.

* * * * *

The text in the edition of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work printed at Basle in 1567 is the same as that of the first edition printed in 1555 at Rome, but the figure between the text differs, and is doubtless a combination of our figg. 14 and 16, in miniature; see our fig. 17.

On the map of Scandinavia subjoined to the work also occurs a figure of the sea-serpent, which we have copied in our fig. 18.--This figure does not claim our attention; it represents an eel or a snake, it has no scales.--Not so fig. 17: it distinctly shows dorsal scales and ventral plates, just as snakes have. This seems to me a confirmation of my opinion that in all these figures the drawers had no other intention than to delineate a large snake, without any notion of the arms of a calamary. As to the seizing of a man, we believe that a large calamary was the robber, whose deed is wrongly attributed to the sea-serpent. Last not least, it distinctly shows the long hairs, hanging down from its neck, a true mane, and several credible persons declare to have seen them.

* * * * *

ALDROVANDUS, 1640, believes that the sea-serpent of the Baltic or Swedish Ocean is the same as that of the Norwegian Ocean. I believe he is right. Moreover he repeats the texts of OLAUS MAGNUS and GESNER. His figures are enlargements of the figures on the Map of Scandinavia, which accompanies the edition of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work, unknown to me, and mentioned above. He only omits the water, the ship and the man in its mouth. Of his figures I don’t give copies, because they are exact enlargements of our fig. 15 and 16.--

* * * * *

=2=.--1640?--(See ADAM OLEARIUS, Gottorfische Kunstkammer, Ed. I, 1650, Ed. II, 1674) “and that this is true has not long ago been confirmed by a Swedish nobleman at Gottorf, who declared to have heard from the Burgomaster of Malmoi, a trustworthy man, that, whilst standing on a hill on the Norwegian coast, he saw in the calm water a large serpent, which seen from afar, had the thickness of a wine barrel, and 25 windings. These serpents are said to appear on the surface of the water only in calm weather and at certain times.”

Here again we have the statement, that in the Norwegian sea, and most probably in the Sound between Sweden and Danmark, a large animal was seen, looking like a huge serpent, and the confirmation that it comes to the surface of the water only in calm weather and at certain times. I beg the reader to fix his attention on those apparently insignificant statements, as it will be seen that they are given several times independant of one another.

* * * * *

JONSTON in his Historia naturalis, and his Theatrum universale omnium animalium of which several editions appeared in 1653, 1657, 1660, 1665, 1718 (edited by RUYSCH, quoted by Prof. W. D. PECK in Mem. Amer. Acad. 1818, Vol. IV), 1764 and 1768, repeats the tales of OLAUS MAGNUS, and the figures of GESNER and ALDROVANDUS.--

* * * * *

MILTON in his Paradise Lost, printed in 1667, comparing Satan with huge monsters, also mentions the sea-serpent of the Norwegians, calling it Leviathan (Book I, verse 192-208):

“Thus Satan, talking to his nearest mate, With head up-lift above the wave, and eyes That sparkling blaz’d; his other parts besides Prone on the flood, extended long and large, Lay floating many a rood, in bulk as huge As whom the fables name of monstrous size Titanian, or Earth-born, that war’d on Jove, Briareus, or Typhon, whom the den By ancient Tarsus held; or that sea-beast Leviathan, which God of all his works Created hugest that swim th’ ocean stream: Him, haply slumb’ring on the Norway foam, The pilot of some small night founder’d skiff Deeming some island, off, as seamen tell, With fixed anchor in his scaly rind, Moors by his side under the lee, while night Invests the sea, and wished morn delays.”

We observe that he mixes here also another story of a large sea-monster on which sea-men, believing it some island, will anchor, a story told about the Kraken and about the sperm-whales.

* * * * *

CHARLETON in 1668 quotes only ALDROVANDUS and OLAUS MAGNUS, giving neither description nor figures.

* * * * *

=3=.--1687.--(RAMUS, Norges Beskrivelse, quoted by PONTOPPIDAN).

“In the year 1687 a Great Sea-Serpent was seen several times by several persons in the Damsfjord, and once by eleven persons together. The weather was calm, but as soon as the sun set and the wind began to blow, it left the fjord, and like one who runs out a coil of rope can know the length thereof, so one could see how long it was, before it had wound off all its coils, and stretched itself at full length.”

In this account we read again that the animal is seen in calm weather and that it shows coils or windings. For the first time the fact is mentioned that it can stretch itself, evidently in a straight line. Further on we shall read this several times.

* * * * *

=4=.--1720.--(PONTOPPIDAN, Det förste Forsög paa Norges naturlige Historie).

“THORLACK THORLACKSEN has told me that in 1720 a sea-serpent had been shut up a whole week in a little inlet, into which it came by high tide through a narrow entrance of seven or eight fathoms deep, and that eight days afterwards, when it had left the inlet, a skin of a snake or serpent was found. One end of the skin had entirely sunk into the water of the inlet, and no one could guess how long it was, the inlet in which the skin partly lay, being several fathoms deep. The other end of this skin was washed ashore by the current, where everybody could see it; apparently it could not be used, for it consisted of a soft, slimy mass. THORLACKSEN was a native of the harbour of Kobbervueg”.

It is evident that a true sea-serpent visited the little fjord daily during that week, most probably in its pursuit of fish, for the sea-serpent is sufficiently known to the Norwegians, and if it had been an animal different from the common Norwegian sea-serpent, I am sure that it would not have been called a sea-serpent. It is also stated that the animal left the inlet. But the skin found afterwards was certainly nothing else but a putrified long arm or tentacle of a great calamary. The soft slimy nature of the skin sufficiently proves my hypothesis. The great calamary died in the fjord or inlet, and its long dead arm was washed ashore by the current, while the body sunk.

* * * * *

=5=.--1734, July 6.--The earliest account of HANS EGEDE’S encounter with the sea-serpent we find in his work published in Danish at Kopenhagen in 1740, entitled: “A Full and Particular Relation of his voyage to Greenland, as a Missionary, in the year 1734”.

I have not had the opportunity of consulting this work, but the passage about the sea-serpent runs most probably as follows:

“Anno 1734, July. On the 6th. appeared a very terrible sea-animal, which raised itself so high above the water, that its head reached above our main-top. It had a long sharp snout, and blew like a whale, had broad, large flappers, and the body was, as it were, covered with a hard skin, and it was very wrinkled and uneven on its skin; moreover on the lower part it was formed like a snake, and when it went under water again, it cast itself backwards and in so doing it raised its tail above the water, a whole ship-length from its body: That evening we had very bad weather.”

In the same year there appeared a German edition of this work, entitled Ausführliche und Wahrhafte Nachricht vom Anfange und Fortgange der Groenländischen Mission, etc., Hamburg, 1740, 4^o, which I have not been able to consult either.

I don’t know whether there is an English or a French edition. In the Illustrated London News of Oct. 28, 1848, the writer of the article Evidences of the former appearance of the Sea-Serpent translated the passage from a Danish copy of EGEDE’S Full and Particular Relation in the British Museum. Evidently he was not very well up in the Danish language, for his translation is partly incorrect. I am convinced that in the original text EGEDE does not mention the exact locality where he saw the animal. The translator tells us that it was off the south coast of Greenland, which of course is incorrect, as Greenland has no south coast. Of “sea-animal” he makes “sea-monster”, for “above our main-top” he has “on a level with our main-top”, for “it blew like a whale” he has “it blew water almost like a whale”, for “its body was as it were covered with a hard skin” he has “its body was covered with shell-fish, or scales”, and some parts are not translated at all.

In 1738 HANS EGEDE wrote a Journal of his mission, in which he did not mention the meeting, but his son PAUL EGEDE in the continuation of this Journal, entitled Continuation af Relationerne betreffende den Groenlandske Mission, Kjoebenhavn, 1741, gives a full account of it, which we have translated above word for word.

I have not had the means of consulting the German translation of this work, entitled Fortgesetzte Relationen die Groenländische Mission betreffend, Kopenhagen, 1741, so I cannot say anything about the text or figures, but the translation which I found in the German edition of PONTOPPIDAN’S Natural History of Norway is correct. Not so the English translation entitled Journal of the Mission to Greenland, 2d. Vol. There we find, according to Mr. LEE who quotes the passage in his Sea-Monsters Unmasked, first sea-monster instead of sea-animal, further, that it spouted water like a whale, instead of it blew like a whale. There is a great difference between these two expressions. A whale does not spout water as is generally believed and figured. Further, that the body seemed to be covered with scales, instead of with a hard skin or crust, for the Danish skiell or skiaell is singular, and not plural. Finally, that the tail above the water was a whole ship-length from the head instead of from the body, for the Danish Kroppen signifies “the body”. Of course I cannot say anything of the figures in this edition.

In the original Danish work of PAUL EGEDE there is a map of a part of the coast of Greenland and of the Davis’ Straits, called Baals Rivier, on which is situated the Danish Colony, the Good Hope (Gothaab). As it was generally done in those days, Mr. BING, a brother-missionary of EGEDE’S, drew on his map not only the animal but also the vessel in the sea. I give here a facsimile of the figure of the animal, without the ship. We distinctly see that the animal has rather a serpentlike form with a large head, showing formidable teeth, an eye with a heavy eye-brow, and a nostril; two flappers on the fore-part of the body, the uneven skin, and a tail ending in a point.

On the same map there is also another figure, showing the animal’s tail, after it had plunged back into the water. The tail is again figured terminating in a point.

We shall do well to observe the fact that the figure is an accurate illustration of the text with regard to the animal blowing like a whale; the breath which the animal exhales immediately after having been under water a long time, is condensed in the cold air and forms little curling clouds.

In the original Danish work of HANS EGEDE, entitled A Full and Particular Relation, etc., of which we have spoken above, there is also a figure. Though I have not had the opportunity to consult this work, I am thoroughly convinced, that the map of Baals Rivier with the two figures of the animal are quite the same, true facsimiles. The above mentioned translator drew this figure on a reduced scale for his article in the Illustrated London News, and as his text is incorrect, his figure is so too, for he changed the rough skin into scales, according to his own translation. (See our fig. 21.)

Afterwards Mr. LEE in his Sea-Monsters Unmasked made use of the figure of the Illustrated London News and so gave his readers again an altered figure. For history’s sake I show here a true facsimile of the figure as it appeared in the Illustrated London News, Oct. 28, 1848, and in Mr. LEE’S Sea Monsters Unmasked, London, 1883. A reduced copy of it also appeared in the Illustrirte Zeitung of February 3, 1877.

In the Danish work of HANS EGEDE Det gamle Groenlands nye Perlustration we read: “that it was seen at 64° lat. before the colony”. “Its body was as thick as the ship and three or four times longer”. Moreover the description of the animal is the same as in PAUL EGEDE’S Continuation of the Journal.

In the German edition of this work, entitled Des alten Groenlands neue Perlustration, Copenhagen, 1742, we read: “that it was seen before the Danish Colony, the Good Hope, that it had two broad flappers on the fore-part of the body”.

In the Dutch edition, entitled: Beschrijving van Oud Groenland, Delft, 1746, the translator did not allow himself so many liberties as the English and the German translators did, but was more correct in his expressions.

In the French edition, entitled Description et histoire naturelle du Groenland, Copenhagen et Genève, 1763, the translator allowed himself the liberty to tell his readers that “when the animal, which was covered with scales, plunged back into the water, it did so with the belly turned upwards!”

In the same year appeared a second German edition (translated from the French) entitled Beschreibung und Naturgeschichte von Groenland, Berlin, 1763, in which we even read that the animal lay upon the water with its belly turned upwards when it plunged back into the water!

In many respects the figure of Mr. BING and EGEDE’S text complete each other.

Let us now have a look at both the text and the figures. We may do this most safely, being convinced of the truth of EGEDE’S words and BING’S figure. EGEDE “was a truthful, pious, and single-minded man, possessing considerable powers of observation, and a genuine love of natural history; his statements are modest, accurate, and free from exaggeration. His illustrations bear the unmistakable signs of fidelity.” (LEE, Sea-Monsters Unmasked, p. 65.)

From what has been said of the animal, seen by EGEDE, we gather that it appeared on the 6th. of July, 1734, in fine weather before the Danish Colony the Good Hope, Davis Straits, Greenland; (EGEDE says: “the following evening we had very bad weather”, so we may conclude that:) the weather was fine, when the animal was seen; it had a considerable length, say a hundred feet, and was much thicker than a snake of those dimensions would be, say some eight feet; it raised its head, its neck and the fore-part of its trunk high above the surface of the water, it had a long, sharp snout, it blew like a whale (the breath of an animal as large as a whale must of course have been distinctly visible in those cold regions; I also wish to fix the reader’s attention on the figure where the animal is not spouting a stream of water, but where its breath is condensed by the cold, and forms little curling clouds of vapour). It had broad and large flappers. EGEDE does not say: it had broad flappers on the forepart of the trunk; as Egede does not state that the figure, made by Mr. BING aboard his ship, directly after the appearance of the animal, is not truthful, we must consider it as being correct; so the animal had two large and broad flappers on the fore-part of the trunk. The body seemed to be covered with a hard skin. For truth’s sake EGEDE wrote seemed, which is well done; for a hard skin or crust would not have been wrinkled when the animal bends its body. Like all known air-breathing sea-animals of those dimensions the animal must of course have had under its skin a relatively thick layer of bacon, and I myself have often seen that the skin of sea-lions and seals wrinkled, when the animal bent its body in such a manner as the Sea-Serpent of EGEDE did. And we shall afterwards repeatedly see that the sea-serpent has no scales but a smooth skin, as seals have. And if the animal could have scales, they would be very large ones, considering its colossal dimensions, in which case it must have been easy to see the scales from a distance, though they were wet with the water; but I can hardly believe that one can say of an animal, seen at some distance and quite wet and shining with the water, whether it has a crust or a soft skin. The latter has been the case, for the animal showed wrinkles when bending its body. Its lower part was formed like that of a snake, by which EGEDE evidently means to say that it was perfectly round and tapered to the end of the tail, and that he did not see any appendages (which does not exclude their presence, for the middle part of the body remained invisible, hidden by the water). The creature plunged backwards into the water. It evidently has a considerable flexibility, as is also shown in the figure. Consequently it cannot have been a snake, which has no dorso-ventral flexibility, nor a gigantic calamary, as Mr. LEE thinks, which has no flexibility at all! It had a very flexible, long tail, almost one half of the length of its body, which was distinctly seen by EGEDE and figured by Mr. BING. The tail of the animal, being of a considerable length, tapered in a point, and had no caudal fins, neither horizontal nor vertical ones. The figure shows an eye with a heavy eye-brow, a nostril, and teeth; the flappers have external visible fingers, as sea-lions have; those of porpoises and dolphins are without them. Afterwards we shall more than once have occasion to observe that the sea-serpent’s head is drawn by BING too large, and the neck too short.

Mr. LEE says in his frequently quoted work Sea-Monsters Unmasked, “The sea-monster seen by EGEDE was of an entirely different kind” (viz. from those mentioned by MAGNUS and PONTOPPIDAN). I am of the opinion that if Mr. LEE had written: The sea-monster seen by EGEDE was the same, but seen in an entirely different position, condition and direction, he would have been nearer the truth; for careful inquiry has shown me that the sea-serpents of MAGNUS and PONTOPPIDAN are the same as those which still appear in the Norwegian seas, and those have all the characters of EGEDE’S animal. Moreover we saw that the animal, mentioned in our accounts 1, 2, 3 and 4, and according to the descriptions of MAGNUS and GESNER had the following characteristics: 1. It raises itself out of the water to a considerable height. 2. It swims with vertical undulations. 3. It has an enormous length, probably upwards of a hundred feet. 4. It is much thicker than a snake of the same length would be. 5. It has a row of hairs hanging down from its neck. 6. Its colour is dark. 7. Its eyes are brilliant and flaming. 8. Its food consists of squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters. 9. It is harmless, if not provoked. 10. It appears in fine weather. 11. It can stretch itself in a straight line.--Of these facts the 1st., 3d., 4th., and 10th. are stated by EGEDE; he could not mention the 2d., 8th., and 11th., because he did not see the animal swimming or eating. Most probably he could not see the 5th., because he did not see the animal on its back, but as the figure shows, somewhat on its belly and somewhat from aside; moreover there are individuals without a mane. EGEDE says nothing of its colour, its eyes, its harmlessness. Its colour was evidently a dark brown one, the common colour of large sea-animals, else he would have called it brilliant white, or green, or red. The eyes are figured by BING, though not described by EGEDE, but in PONTOPPIDAN’S work we read in a note to Chapt. VIII, § 7, that Mr. BING mentioned to his brother-in-law, Parson SYLOW, at Hougs in the parish of Bergen, that the eyes seemed to be reddish and like a burning fire. So its harmlessness is the only fact we cannot derive with certainty from EGEDE’S account.

PONTOPPIDAN relating EGEDE’S observation of the monster gives a copy of Mr. BING’S figure, but as often occurred in those days, it is not copied with great accuracy, and BING’S drawing has been altered by PONTOPPIDAN so as to give quite another figure. (Our fig. 22 is a facsimile of that of the German edition.) Mr. BING was right in figuring the vaporous breath of the animal, and PONTOPPIDAN changes it wrongly into a waterspout of more than 100 feet long! PONTOPPIDAN is convinced, when seeing BING’S figure, that there are several species of sea-serpents, all belonging to the same genus. I do not wish to discuss this point.

Still more exaggerated is the figure of JARDINE’S Naturalist’s Library, or rather that which Dr. R. HAMILTON presents to his readers. He makes of it a serpentine dragon which has also the power of spouting a splendid set of water some twenty feet high, a water-mass equalling nearly half the volume of the animal’s body!

* * * * *

In his Essay towards a Natural History of Serpents, 1742, Mr. OWEN repeats only (p. 14, and p. 143) the tales and reports of OLAUS MAGNUS and GESNER.

* * * * *

=6=.--1743?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“It is said that a few years ago a sea-serpent stranded on the cliffs near Amund in Nordfjord, perhaps with high water, and died there and the carrion also caused a dreadful smell.”

* * * * *

=7=.--1744?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“It is also told that a sea-serpent stranded near the Isle of Karmen and that the stranding of sea-serpents took place in more localities.”

There is nothing strange in the stranding of sea-serpents. Unluckily the fear of the Norwegian people of sea-serpents is great enough to keep them far away from them, even from their carrions, and so these accounts don’t mention anything as a result of closer investigation.

* * * * *

=8=.--1745?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 1, note).--“A fisherman relates to me that, on Sundsland, two miles from Bergen, he once saw a long, large and strange animal so close to his boat, that the water, brought in motion by the animal, dashed against it, but immediately it disappeared again under water. The head resembled that of a seal, its skin was also as woolly, but the body was as thick and as long as a yacht of fifty tons, and the tail, which seemed to be about thirty-five feet long, tapered towards the end which was as pointed as a boat-hook.”

Though PONTOPPIDAN did not seem to believe that this animal was his sea-serpent, I am convinced that such was indeed the case, because the whole description is exactly that of the animal. It is remarkable that all the persons who saw the sea-serpent so close to their boat, as this fisherman did, agree in giving it a smooth skin; now seals when wet have also a smooth skin, and our fisherman was near enough to the animal to detect the real nature of such a skin, viz. that it is hairy, or as he expresses himself woolly. We shall afterwards more than once meet with statements in which the head is compared with that of a seal. The head, though resembling that of a seal, was of course much larger. The body was as thick and as long as a yacht of fifty tons, say about forty feet, and the tail was about thirty-five feet in length, and tapered to its pointed end, like the animal of EGEDE and those of the former writers MAGNUS, OLEARIUS and RAMUS, who compared the body with that of a snake. As the fisherman mentions the length of the tail, it is evident that he could see the beginning of it, so that it may be supposed that there was a difference in thickness between the body and the tail.

* * * * *

=9=.--1746, August.--(PONTOPPIDAN, Det förste Forsög, etc.).--PONTOPPIDAN relates:

“Last winter I happened to meet the Royal Commander and Pilot-general at Bergen, Mr. LORENZ VON FERRY, and we spoke about this subject. He told me that for a long time he had doubted the existence of the sea-serpent, but that at last his experiences in 1746 had convinced him. And though I could not say anything of importance against it, he ordered to my satisfaction and that of others, two seamen, who were with him in his boat, and had seen the animal and its blood which coloured the water red after a shot of VON FERRY at it, to appear before the public court of justice at Bergen. What those men confirmed on oath may be found in the following instrument which I received in original, and which I therefore think valuable enough to communicate in extenso:”

“ALBERT CHRISTIAN DASS, His Royal Majesty’s Stadtholder at Bergen, HANS CHRISTIAN GARTNER, His Royal Majesty’s Councillor of Justice and Commerce, at the same time Secretary of the town, together with JAN CLIES, OLE SIMENSEN, OLE BRINCHMAND, JOERGEN KOENIG for CONRAD VON LANGE, MATTHIAS GRAM for ELIAS PETRUS TUCHSEN, CLAUS NATLER for DIDRICH HASLOP, JOCHEM FOEGH for HENRICH HIORT, and JOERGEN WIERS for HANS CHRISTIAN BYSZING, sworn citizens and additional deniers there, declare, that on February the 22th., 1751, the Procurator JOHANN REUTZ appeared before the public court of justice at Bergen, and presented a paper he had received that day, and bearing the date of the day before, from the honourable Captain and Pilot-general LORENZ VON FERRY. And as the services of the appearer are requested in it, to supply him a judicial hearing of witnesses, concerning the event mentioned in the same paper, so the appearer, being there for that purpose, pointed out two men living in this town, named NIELS PETERSEN KOPPER and NIELS NIELSEN ANGLEWIGEN, begging that these men might be admitted to a declaration on oath, that all has happened in particulars so as is mentioned in the paper, which he begged to be registered in said instrument. The above mentioned paper was read to the witnesses and runs as follows:

“Mr. JOHANN REUTZ.”

“Sir,”

“In the latter end of August, in the year 1746, as I was on a voyage, on my return from Trundheim, on a very calm and hot day, having a mind to put in at Molde, it happened that when we had arrived with my yacht within a mile of the aforesaid Molde, being at a place called Jule-Naess, as I was reading in a book, I heard a kind of murmuring voice from amongst the men at the oars, who were eight in number, and observed that the man at the helm kept off from the land. Upon this I inquired what was the matter, and was informed that there was a sea-serpent before us. I then ordered the man at the helm to keep the land again, and to come up with this creature of which I had heard so many stories. Though the fellows were under some apprehension, they were obliged to obey my orders. In the meantime the sea-snake passed by us, and we were obliged to tack the vessel about in order to get nearer to it. As the snake swam faster than we could row, I took my gun which was loaded with small shot, and fired at it; on this he immediately plunged under water. We rowed to the place where it sank down (which in the calm might be easily observed) and lay upon our oars, thinking it would come up again to the surface; however it did not. Where the snake plunged down, the water appeared thick and red; perhaps the small shot might have wounded it, the distance being very little. The head of this sea-serpent, which it held more than two feet above the surface of the water, resembled that of a horse. It was of a greyish colour, and the mouth was quite black, and very large. It had black eyes, and a long white mane, which hung down from the neck to the surface of the water. Besides the head and neck, we saw seven or eight folds, or coils, of this snake, which were very thick, and as far as we could guess there was a fathom’s distance between each fold. I related this affair in a certain company, where there was a person of distinction present, who desired that I would communicate to him an authentic detail of all that happened; and for this reason two of my sailors who were present at the same time and place where I saw this monster, namely, NIELS PETERSEN KOPPER, and NIELS NIELSEN ANGLEWIGEN, will appear in court, to declare on oath the truth of every particular herein set forth; and I desire the favour of an attested copy of the said descriptions.”

“I remain, Sir, your obliged servant,”

“L. VON FERRY.”

“Bergen, 21st. February 1751.

“After this the above-named witnesses gave their corporal oaths, and, with their finger held up according to law, testified and declared the aforesaid letter or declaration, and every particular set forth therein to be strictly true. A copy of the said attestation was made out for the said Procurator REUTZ, and granted by the Recorder. That this was transacted in our court of justice we confirm with our hand and seals.”

“Actum Bergis, Anno, Die et Loco ut supra.”

“A. C. DASS.” “H. C. GARTNER.” “J. CLIES.” “O. SIMENSEN.” “O. BRINCHMAND” “J. KOENIG.” “M. GRAM.” “C. NATLER.” “J. FOEGH.” “J. WIERS.”

As to Mr. VON FERRY’S declaration that the head of the sea-serpent resembled that of a horse, we cannot give another explanation than that it evidently was held at nearly right angles with the neck, that the nostrils were wide opened and large, and that the mane on the animal’s neck altogether must have led him to think so. The statement that the colour of the head was greyish, apparently contradictory to what had as yet been said about the animal’s colour, viz., that it is a dark brown one, may be explained, I think, as follows: the sea-serpent has a skin as woolly as seals and sea-lions have; it had swum a long time with its head two feet above the water, and the weather being very hot, its skin was dried up, and had got a colour quite different from that when being wet. When wet the common seal has a greenish or brownish black colour, but when dry a greyish yellow one, with a somewhat dark greenish hue; and the spots become less visible. So we see that sea-lions are dark brown when wet, but when lying on the stone border of their basin in our Zoological Gardens they very soon become dry in the sunbeams and show a greyish yellow colour. But returning to Mr. VON FERRY’S sea-serpent, the mouth, however, was black and very large. The eyes were black, the mane long and white (being dry) hanging down to the surface of the water. The coils, seven or eight in number, were very thick and the distance between them was a fathom. The colour of the coils is not mentioned; we may suppose that they were dark brown.

Prof. W. D. PECK (Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts. Sc. IV, I, 1818) calls this account a rational and credible one. “The figure which he” (PONTOPPIDAN) “gives seems to have been made from the description of Capt. DE FERRY, the officer above alluded to. In this figure, the head and jugular region are raised out of the water; a little below the head is a mane which seems to be inserted all round the back of the neck. The appearance of this mane was most probably an optical deception, and was nothing more than the water displayed by the neck in the progress of the animal through it, returning to its level. It had probably no mane. But of the existence of the animal, the testimony presented by the Rev. Bishop is sufficiently conclusive.”

Prof. PECK seems not to have read PONTOPPIDAN so accurately as might be expected from him, for the figure in PONTOPPIDAN’S work has quite another origin, as we shall see below. Prof. PECK would not have written his supposition of the mane, if one of the eye-witnesses of the animal near Cape Ann (see below, 1817), had seen a mane. Moreover PONTOPPIDAN asserts that nearly all agree in representing the animal with a mane, and we shall read of several declarations further on.

As to the colour of the coils, Mr. LEE seems to be at one with me for in his frequently quoted work Sea Monsters Unmasked he says: “The supposed coils of the serpent’s body present exactly the appearance of eight porpoises following each other in line”, and: “I believe that in every case so far cited from PONTOPPIDAN, as well as that given by OLAUS MAGNUS, the supposed coils or protuberances of the serpent’s body were only so many porpoises swimming in line, in accordance with their habit before mentioned.” If Captain VON FERRY had described the coils of his serpent as being white or red, Mr. LEE certainly would not have supposed that they were eight porpoises.

Further Mr. LEE remarks: “If an upraised head, like that of a horse, was preceding them, it was either unconnected with them, or it certainly was not that of a snake; for no serpent could throw its body into those vertical undulations.”

Very well, but if Mr. LEE wishes to explain the coils by porpoises, he ought to account for the head which preceded them; this he silently passes by, only saying it was not that of a snake. A fine explanation indeed!

* * * * *

=10=.--1747?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“Governor BENSTRUP is said to have had some years ago a similar meeting with the sea-serpent” (to Mr. VON FERRY’S) “and he has figured it. I should like to possess this figure to show it to my readers. I, however, show here another one sent to me by Parson HANS STROEM, which he himself has copied from the original.”

The figure shows a head with a mane, and six coils of the body. The nostril is indicated, the mouth has no teeth, the eye is large.

It is remarkable that Mr. LEE tells us: “The figure of the sea-serpent given by PONTOPPIDAN was drawn, he tells us, under the inspection of a clergyman, Mr. HANS STROM, from descriptions given of it by two of his neighbours, Messrs. REUTZ and TUCHSEN, of Herroe; and was declared to agree in every particular with that seen by Captain DE FERRY, and another subsequent observed by Governor BENSTRUP.”

Not only does not the first part of this statement tally with the words of PONTOPPIDAN, but also the second part is discrepant, for the learned Bishop goes on saying: “This figure agrees with the descriptions given by two of his neighbours Messrs. REUTZ and TUCHSEN.”

Mr. VON FERRY is not mentioned at all on this occasion by PONTOPPIDAN!

Mr. BENSTRUP’S figure has also been copied by Dr. R. HAMILTON in the volume of Phocidae (seals) of JARDINE’S Naturalist’s Library, but it has been greatly exaggerated. It seems that Dr. R. HAMILTON thought it to be the same animal as that seen by EGEDE, for he figures both animals with the same head and features. Of the figure of BENSTRUP too he makes a serpentine dragon, swimming with corkscrew motions! O horror!

* * * * *

=11=.--1748?--Mr. REUTZ of Herröe declared to PONTOPPIDAN that the drawing of Parson HANS STROEM agreed even in particulars with what he saw of the serpent several times when he went in his boat to church.

* * * * *

=12=.--1749?--Also Mr. TUCHSEN of Herröe made the same declaration. He too saw the animal several times when he went to church in his boat. PONTOPPIDAN adds: “and then I do not even mention many other persons of the same high rank and trustworthiness. The same Mr. TUCHSEN is the only one who told me that he distinctly saw the difference in thickness between the trunk and the tail of the animal, viz., the trunk is not gradually growing smaller where the tail begins, but becomes smaller at once and very distinctly. The body is as thick as a barrel of two hogsheads. The tail is tapering towards its end, which is very pointed.”

This account is remarkable for the reason that it mentions the fact that the beginning of the tail is distinctly visible. So we must infer from it that the animal had thighs, and consequently had also hind-limbs. And knowing that the fore-limbs which Egede saw, are flappers, the hind-limbs too must be flappers; consequently the animal has four flappers.

* * * * *

=13=.--1750?--PONTOPPIDAN, telling what he has learned from the north-sailors says:

“One of these north-sailors tells that he was once so close to the serpent, that he might have touched its smooth skin.”

Here is stated by a person who saw the sea-serpent close to his boat, that the skin is smooth, a statement apparently contradictory to that of the fisherman (n^o. 8), who declared it as woolly as a seal-skin. The fact is that the one has distinctly recognized the hairy nature of the skin, whilst the other did not discern it.

* * * * *

=14=.--1751?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 1, note). “An incertain rumour tells me, that some peasants of Sundmöer have lately captured in their nets a serpent of eighteen feet with four paws under its belly; which they brought ashore. Thus it resembled a crocodile. The peasants in their terror fled from their nets, and by doing so they gave an opportunity to the serpent to do the same.”

Though the Bishop does not call this animal a sea-serpent, I am sure it was one. In the Norwegian and Danish languages an Orm is a serpent, viz., a long slender animal with a rather small head and a pointed tail; and as it was captured in nets in the sea, it is certain, that this animal, which PONTOPPIDAN compares with a crocodile, having a slender and round body like a snake and four paws (or flappers) is the same as the animal afterwards seen by Captain HOPE (n^o 119) and compared by him with an alligator. The dimensions not surpassing twenty feet, the animal must have been very young.

* * * * *

Now let us see what PONTOPPIDAN himself says of the sea-serpent, after having heard hundreds of eye-witnesses:

“The sea-serpent, serpens marinus, by some people also called Aale Tust, is the second wonderful and frightful sea-monster which ought to be studied by him who looks with delight on the great deeds of the Lord, and which is considered as the greatest wonder next to the Kraken, which will be described hereafter. Before describing its habit and shape, I feel again obliged to prove the real existence of the serpent, as I did before with the mermen.”

The first kind of wonderful and frightful sea-monsters were the mermen and mermaids. At present, we know with certainty what were and are the mermen and mermaids of ancient days and our own time. All zoologists are convinced they were nothing else but sea-cows or manatees (Thrichechus manatus L. and Thrichechus senegalensis DESM.) or dugongs (Dagungus dugung GMEL.). Mr. LEE believes that the occurrences of mermen and mermaids in the northern seas and even in the waters round Great-Britain and Ireland “afford some slight hope that the remarkable rytina (Rytina borealis GMEL.) may not have become extinct in 1768, as has been supposed, but that it may still exist somewhat further south than it was met with by its original describer, STELLER.” Some of the mermen of PONTOPPIDAN were nothing else but Bladdernosed seals (Cystophora cristata (ERXL) NILSS) as I already proved in my little paper in the Album der Natuur of 1882, and I see that Mr. LEE comes to the same conclusion (Sea Fables Explained, London, 1883).

We also know with certainty that the Kraken of the Norwegian tales and the gigantic Octopus of DENYS DE MONTFORT really exist, and that they are nothing else but gigantic calamaries and cuttles (Cephalopoda).

But we don’t know with certainty what the Great-Sea-Serpent really is. That it exists, has already been stated by the highest scientific persons, so no doubt need any longer be felt as to that fact.

“If it were not the wise and careful arrangement of the Creator, that this sea-animal perpetually lives in the depths of the sea, except in July and August, its pairing-time, during which it appears, when the sea is quite calm, but dives as soon as the wind ruffles the surface of the water; if this arrangement, I say, were not thus made for man’s safety, the existence of the sea-serpent would want fewer proofs, than even in Norway, thanks to God! is the case, the shores of which are the only ones of Europe, frequented by this monster.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

“Signed”

“ELEAZAR CRABTREE.”

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

“Marshfield, March, 13th., 1804.”

“Sir”,

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

“I have the honor to be sir,

“Your friend and humble servant

“Geo. Little.”

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

“and another soon afterwards off Meduncook”.

* * * * *

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

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

I think Mr. CUMMINGS is right in this supposition.

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

Again two individuals were seen together.

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Sullivan, Aug. 17th. 1803.”

“My Dear Sir,”

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

“I continue yours in Christian affection

“ABRAHAM CUMMINGS.”

“REV. ALEXANDER MC. LEAN.”

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

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

which runs as follows:

“Sullivan, Jan. 18th. 1804.”

“Rev. and Dear Sir,”

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

“Your Friend and Servant”

“ABRAHAM CUMMINGS.”

“Rev. ALDEN BRADFORD.”

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

“Wiscasset, May 22, 1804.”

“To the Honorable John Q. Adams, corresponding Secretary of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

“Sir,

“As one object of the Academy is to notice and preserve discoveries in Natural History, I am induced to communicate to the society the following account of a Sea-Serpent, which I have lately collected.”

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

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

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

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

“I am with great esteem

“Your humble servant

“A. Bradford.”

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

“Eigg Island, 24th April 1809.”

“Sir”

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

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

“I remain, Sir, &c.

“DONALD MACLEAN.”

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

=33=.--1810?--Sir WALTER SCOTT in the Notes to The Pirate says, according to Mr. ASHTON (Curious Creatures in Zoology, 1889):

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

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

* * * * *

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

“Boston, September 1, 1817.

“Sir”,

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

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

“Yours respectfully and with esteem

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

The answer was as follows:

“Plymouth, Oct. 2, 1817.”

“Gentlemen.”

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

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

“Yours respectfully”

“S. Davis.”

And the deposition of Captain FINNEY as follows:

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

“Elkanah Finney.”

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

Nathaniel M. Davis, Jus. Peace.”

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

“Linnaean Society of New England.”

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

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

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

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

I.

“Boston, Aug. 19, 1817.

“The Committee appointed by the Linnaean Society, at their meeting on the 18th. inst. for the purpose of collecting any evidence which may exist respecting a remarkable animal, denominated a Sea Serpent, reported to have recently been seen in and near the harbour of Cape Ann, have concluded on the following method of proceeding in the execution of their commission.”

“I. The examination to be confined to persons professing actually to have seen the animal in question.

“II. Such persons to be examined as may be met with by either of the Committee, or by Hon. Lonson Nash of Gloucester, who is to be requested by a letter addressed to him from the Committee to undertake this service.”

“III. All testimony on the subject to be taken in writing, and after being deliberately read to the person testifying, to be signed by him, and sworn before a magistrate. The examinations to be separate, and the matter testified by any witness not to be communicated until the whole evidence be taken.”

“IV. The persons testifying to be requested first to relate their recollections on the subject, which being taken down, the following questions to be proposed, if not rendered unnecessary by the statement given.”

“Questions.”

“1. When did you first see this animal?”

“2. How often and how long at a time?”

“3. At what times of the day?”

“4. At what distance?”

“5. How near the shore?”

“6. What was its general appearance?”

“7. Was it in motion or at rest?”

“8. How fast did it move, and in what direction?”

“9. What parts of it were above the water and how high?”

“10. Did it appear jointed or only serpentine?”

“11. If serpentine, were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”

“12. How many distinct portions were out of water at one time?”

“13. What were its colour, length and thickness?”

“14. Did it appear smooth or rough?”

“15. What were the size and shape of its head, and had the head ears, horns, or other appendages?”

“16. Describe its eyes and mouth.”

“17. Had it gills or breathing holes, and where?”

“18. Had it fins or legs, and where?”

“19. Had it a mane or hairs, and where?”

“20. How did its tail terminate?”

“21. Did it utter any sound?”

“22. Did it appear to pursue, avoid or notice any thing?”

“23. Did you see more than one?”

“24. How many persons saw it?”

“25. State any other remarkable fact.”

II.

“Gloucester, August 28, 1817.”

“John Davis, } “Jacob Bigelow, and } Esq’rs. “Francis C. Gray }

“Gentlemen,

“I have received your favour of the 19th. inst. In that communication you request my assistance, in collecting evidence relative to a strange marine animal, that has appeared in the harbour in this place; and I have most cheerfully complied with your request. The subject is calculated to excite much interest, at home and abroad.”

“The deponents were interrogated separately, no one knowing what the others had testified, and though they differ in some few particulars, still, for the most part, they agree.”

“I am confident, from my own observation, that Mr. Allen is mistaken, as to the motion of the animal. His motion is vertical. I saw him, on the 14th. instant, for nearly half an hour. I should judge he was two hundred and fifty yards from me, when the nearest. I saw him twice with a glass for a short time, and at other times, with the naked eye. At that distance, I could not take in the two extremities of the animal that were visible, at one view, with a glass. His manner of turning is well described in Messrs. Pearson’s and Gaffney’s descriptions. The persons who have deposed before me, are men of fair and unblemished characters. The interrogatories that you sent to me were all put to the witnesses; but generally, I have omitted inserting them in the depositions, when the witnesses declared their inability to answer them.”

“I think Mr. Allen is likewise mistaken, as to the distinct portions of the animal that were visible, at one time. I saw, at no time, more than eight distinct portions; though more may have been visible; still, I cannot believe that fifty distinct portions were seen, at one time. I believe the animal to be straight, and that, the apparent bunches were caused by his vertical motion.”

“I have questioned Daniel Gaffney, who was in the boat with his brother Matthew, when he fired at the animal, and Daniel’s answers corroborate Matthew’s testimony.”

“Respectfully, gentlemen,

“Your most ob’t

“Lonson Nash.”

We observe that the Linnaean Society has exerted all its energies in the matter and has acted with the greatest accuracy. In our historical treatice we, however, have not followed the above order, but arranged the depositions chronologically.

* * * * *

=37=.--1817, August 6?--In a letter from Mr. S. G. PERKINS, dated Boston, Aug. 20, 1817, to Mr. E. EVERETT in Paris, preserved in the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, and which we shall hereafter present to our readers in toto, we read:

“About a fortnight since, two women, who live near the entrance of the Harbour of Cape Ann, reported that they saw a Sea-Monster come into the Harbour, that it had the appearance of a Snake, was of great length, &c.”

* * * * *

=38=.--1817, August, 10.--(See the Report of 1817).

“I, Amos Story of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, mariner, depose and say, that on the tenth day of August A. D. 1817, I saw a strange marine animal, that I believe to be a serpent, at the southward and eastward of Ten Pound Island, in the harbour in said Gloucester. It was between the hours of twelve and one o’clock when I first saw him, and he continued in sight for an hour and half. I was setting on the shore, and was about twenty rods from him when he was the nearest to me. His head appeared shaped much like the head of a sea turtle, and he carried his head from ten to twelve inches above the surface of the water. His head at that distance appeared larger than the head of any dog that I ever saw. From the back part of his head to the next part of him that was visible, I should judge to be three or four feet. He moved very rapidly through the water, I should say a mile in two, or at most, in three minutes. I saw no bunches on his back. On this day, I did not see more than ten or twelve feet of his body.”

Though Mr. STORY compares the animal’s head with that of a sea-turtle, probably because he saw it in such a direction that it seemed short and thick; his statement that it carried its head a foot above the water, and that it was larger than that of any dog at a distance of twenty rods,--the head may even have been of about two feet--, that its motion was rapid, are all mere repetitions of facts well known to us. He did not see bunches on its back, the animal consequently swam with its body in a straight line, a habit we have also already met with. Just behind the head a part of the neck of about four feet was hidden under water, and then twelve feet of the animal’s body were visible again.

* * * * *

=39=, =40=, =41=.--1817, August 12, 13, 14.--(See the Report, printed in 1817).

“I, Solomon Allen 3d. of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, shipmaster, depose and say; that I have seen a strange marine animal, that I believe to be a sea-serpent, in the harbour in said Gloucester. I should judge him to be between eighty and ninety feet in length, and about the size of a half barrel, apparently having joints from his head to his tail. I was about one hundred and fifty yards from him, when I judged him to be of the size of a half barrel. His head formed something like the head of the rattle snake, but nearly as large as the head of a horse. When he moved on the surface of the water, his motion was slow, at times playing about in circles, and sometimes moving nearly straight forward. When he disappeared, he sunk apparently directly down, and would next appear at two hundred yards from where he disappeared, in two minutes. His colour was a dark brown, and I did not discover any spots upon him.”

“Question. When did you first see this animal?”

“Answer. I saw him on the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth of August, A. D. 1817.”

“Q. How often, and how long at a time?”

“A. I was in a boat on the twelfth inst. and was around him several times, within one hundred and fifty yards of him. On the thirteenth inst. I saw him nearly all the day, from the shore. I was on the beach, nearly on a level with him, and most of the time he was from one hundred and fifty to three hundred yards from me. On the fourteenth, I saw him but once, and had not so good a view of him.”

“Q. What parts of it were above the surface if the water, and how high?”

“A. Its joints or bunches, appeared about eight or ten inches above the surface of the water.”

“Q. Did it bend its body up and down in moving, or to the right and left?”

“A. He moved to the right and left.”

“Q. How many distinct portions of it were out of the water, at one time?”

“A. I should say fifty distinct portions.”

“Q. Did it appear smooth or rough?”

“A. It appeared rough and scaly.”

“Q. Had it ears, horns, or any other appendages?”

“A. I perceived none.”

“Q. How did its tail terminate?”

“A. He seemed to taper towards (what I thought) his tail, though I had no distinct view of his tail.”

“Q. Did it utter any sound?”

“A. Not in my hearing.”

“Q. Did it appear to pursue, avoid, or notice any thing?”

“A. It appeared to me to avoid the boat where I was, though afterwards, I saw him make towards a boat, in which was Mr. Gaffney and others.”

“Q. Did you see more than one?”

“A. I did not.”

“Q. How many persons saw it?”

“A. Twenty or thirty persons were in view of me.”

“Q. Did he open his mouth when you saw him, and if so, how wide?”

“A. Yes, when I looked at him from the shore with a glass at about two hundred yards distance, his mouth appeared to be open about ten inches. I had no glass, when I saw him from the boat.”

“Q. Did he carry his head above the surface of the water?”

“A. Yes, at times, about two feet, then again he would carry the top of his head just on the surface of the water.”

“Q. Did he turn short and quick, and what was the form of the curve that he made?”

“A. He turned short and quick, and the first part of the curve that he made in turning resembled the link of a chain; but when his head came parallel with his tail, his head and tail appeared near together.

“Solomon Allen 3d.”

“Essex, ss. August 21, 1817. Personally appeared Solomon Allen the third, and made oath that the foregoing facts by him subscribed, are true, according to his best knowledge and belief.”

“Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”

As we have already seen, Mr. LONSON NASH wrote in his letter to the Committee:

“I am confident, from my own observation, that Mr. Allen is mistaken, as to the motion of the animal. His motion is vertical.” And:

“I think Mr. Allen is likewise mistaken as to the distinct portions of the animal, that were visible, at one time. I saw at no time more than eight distinct portions; though more may have been visible; still I cannot believe that fifty distinct portions were seen at one time.”

As to the motion of the animal I believe that Mr. ALLEN was really mistaken. When the animal was nearest to him, there was still a distance of a hundred and fifty yards between Mr. ALLEN and the animal. As to the number of the bunches which Mr. ALLEN reports, viz. fifty, I believe that he has not counted them; he says: I should say fifty. PONTOPPIDAN tells us that the greatest number ever seen was twenty-five, and I believe that this is indeed the case.

Moreover its length of from eighty to ninety feet, the size of the visible part to be that of a half barrel, the resemblance of the head to a rattle-snake’s, say a common snake’s, the size of it to be that of a horse’s, say two feet, &c., &c., are all common statements. Of course Mr. ALLEN is also mistaken as to its scaly surface. The roughness, however, may have been the result of the rippling of the water. When the animal disappeared it sunk directly down, like a rock, a statement which we have met with and shall meet with several times. That the teeth of the animal were not visible at a distance of two hundred yards cannot surprise us. In the animal’s turning its flexibility again is mentioned: head and tail approaching, nay, nearly touching each other.

* * * * *

=41=.--1817, August 14.--See also no 41 on p. 164.--(Report of a Committee, 1817).

“I, Epes Ellery, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, shipmaster, depose and say; that on the 14th. day of August, 1817, I saw a sea animal that I thought to be a serpent, in the harbour in said Gloucester. I was on an eminence, near low water mark, and about thirty feet above the level of the sea, when I saw him. I should judge that he was about one hundred and fifty fathoms from me. I saw the upper part of his head, and I should say about forty feet of the animal. He appeared to me to have joints, about the size of a two-gallon keg. I was looking at him with a spy-glass, when I saw him open his mouth, and his mouth appeared like that of a serpent; the top of his head appeared flat. His motion when he turned was quick, but I will not express an opinion of his velocity. The first part of the curve that he made in turning was of the form of a staple, and as he approached towards his tail, he came near his body with his head, and then ran parallel with his tail, and his head and tail then appeared together.”

“Q. At what time of the day did you see him?”

“A. It was a little after sun set.”

“Q. What parts of it were above the surface of the water, and how high?”

“A. I did not count the number of bunches, but they appeared about six inches above the surface of the water.”

“Q. Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”

“A. Vertical.”

“Q. Did it appear to pursue, avoid, or notice any thing?”

“A. It did not appear to avoid any thing. He appeared to be amusing himself, though there were several boats not far from him.”

“Q. Did you see more than one?”

“A. I did not.”

“Q. How many persons saw it?”

“A. There were fifteen or twenty persons near where I was.”

“Epes Ellery.”

Essex ss. August, 25, 1817. Personally appeared Epes Ellery, and made oath to the truth of the foregoing facts by him subscribed.

“Cor. Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”

Not a single fact which has not been stated before.

* * * * *

=41=.--1817, August 14.--(See also n^o. 41 on p. 164 and n^o. 41 on p. 167.)--(Report of a Committee, 1817).

“I, William H. Foster, of Gloucester, in the county of Essex, merchant, depose and say: That on the fourteenth day of August, A. D. 1817, I first saw an uncommon sea-animal, that I believe to have been a serpent, in the harbour in said Gloucester. When I first discovered him, his head was above the surface of the water, perhaps ten inches, and he made but little progress through the water. He was apparently shaded with light colours. He afterwards went in different directions, leaving on the surface of the water, marks like those made by skating on the ice. Then he would move in a straight line west, and would almost in an instant, change his course to east, bringing his head, as near as I could judge, to where his tail was; or in fact, to the extreme hinder part visible, raising himself as he turned, six or eight inches out of water, and shewing a body at least forty feet in length.”

Its being shaded with light colours is already mentioned by PONTOPPIDAN. Its leaving a wake behind it has already been stated many times, and will often be stated afterwards. Also its mode of turning, giving to its body the form of a staple.”

* * * * *

=41=.--1817, August 14.--(See also n°. 41 on p. 164, p. 167, p. 168.)--(Report of a Committee, 1817.).

“I, Matthew Gaffney, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, ship carpenter, depose and say: That on the fourteenth day of August, A. D. 1817, between the hours of four and five o’clock in the afternoon, I saw a strange marine animal, resembling a serpent, in the harbour in said Gloucester. I was in a boat, and was within thirty feet of him. His head appeared full as large as a four-gallon keg, his body as large as a barrel, and his length that I saw, I should judge forty feet at least. The top of his head was of a dark colour, and the under part of his head appeared nearly white, as did also several feet of his belly, that I saw. I supposed and do believe that the whole of his belly was nearly white. I fired at him, when he was the nearest to me. I had a good gun, and took good aim. I aimed at his head, and think I must have hit him. He turned towards us immediately after I had fired, and I thought he was coming at us: but he sunk down and went directly under our boat, and made his appearance at about one hundred yards from where he sunk. He did not turn down like a fish, but appeared to settle directly down, like a rock. My gun carries a ball of eighteen to a pound; and I suppose there is no person in town, more accustomed to shooting than I am. I have seen the animal at several other times, but never had so good a view of him, as on this day. His motion was vertical, like a caterpillar.”

“Q. How fast did it move?”

“A. I should say he moved at the rate of a mile in two, or at most three minutes.”

“Q. Did it appear smooth or rough?”

“A. I thought it smooth, when I was endeavouring to take aim at him, and will not say positively, that he was smooth, though that is still my belief.”

“Q. Does he turn quick and short, and if so, what is the form of path that he makes, in turning?”

“A. He turns quick and short, and the first part of the curve that he makes in turning, is in the form of the staple; but his head seems to approach rapidly towards his body, his head and tail moving in opposite directions, and when his head and tail came parallel, they appear almost to touch each other.”

“Q. Did he appear more shy, after you had fired at him?”

“A. He did not; but continued playing as before.”

“Q. Who was in the boat with you, when you fired at the serpent?”

“A. My brother Daniel, and Augustin M. Webber.

“Matthew Gaffney.”

“Essex, ss. August 28, 1817. Then Matthew Gaffney made oath that the foregoing, by him subscribed, is true according to his best knowledge and belief.

“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace”

As we have already seen Mr. LONSON NASH in his letter to the Committee wrote:

“His manner of turning is well described in Mr. Gaffney’s description...... I have questioned Daniel Gaffney, who was in the boat with his brother Matthew when he fired at the animal, and Daniel’s answer corroborate Matthew’s testimony.”

We read here that the underpart of the head appeared almost white, and several feet of its belly too (read of the underpart of its neck, or of its throat). Further Mr. GAFFNEY goes on: “I supposed and do believe that the whole of his belly was nearly white”. This is very remarkable, for Mr. GAFFNEY seems to be familiar with sea-animals, as porpoises, &c., and a very good observer, and his conclusion is quite right from a zoological point of view. Very remarkable is the animal’s demeanor after the shot. Apparently furious, it directed itself suddenly to the shooter, but when very near to him, it sank down like a rock and appeared again far away. This manner of acting will afterwards be described again in Norway. Again its manner of disappearing is described as sinking like a rock. The mode of turning too is just the same as is mentioned every where.

* * * * *

=41=.--1817, August 14.--(See also n^o. 41 on p. 164, p. 167, p. 168, p. 168.) (Report of a Committee, 1817.)

We read in the letter from Mr. LONSON NASH to the Committee that he himself saw the animal:

“I saw him on the 14th. instant, for nearly half an hour. I should judge he was two hundred and fifty yards from me, when the nearest. I saw him twice with a glass for a short time, and at other times, with the naked eye. At that distance, I could not take in the two extremities of the animal, that were visible, at one view with a glass...... His motion is vertical..... His manner of turning is well described in Messrs. Pearson’s and Gaffney’s descriptions..... I saw, at no time, more than eight distinct portions; though more may have been visible..... I believe the animal to be straight, and that the apparent bunches were caused by his vertical motion.”

The Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. JOHN DAVIS immediately wrote to Mr. LONSON NASH the following letter:

“Boston, September 2, 1817.”

“Sir”,

“Your letter of the 28th. ult. to the Committee of the Linnaean Society, and the accompanying depositions, were duly received, and were yesterday communicated to the Society. The Committee are greatly obliged to you for your ready compliance with their request. In these sentiments the Society unite, and I am charged with the agreeable office of communicating to you their vote of thanks for your very acceptable labours. What you have thus accomplished will go far in giving some precise and accurate conceptions on a subject, peculiarly exposed to exaggeration and mistake. This evidence, with some additional documents, will probably be published. The Committee will not make their final report on the subject of their Commission until evidence shall be procured respecting some other reputed appearances of like description, particularly one at Plymouth in 1815.”

“We have been informed that the animal at Gloucester was once seen, and it was said by a woman, lying dormant very near the shore. The Committee wished this intimation to be given to you, that if it should point to any material circumstances, the evidence might be taken.”

“The last we hear of the object of our inquiry is of his appearance off East Point on the 28th. ult. This we gather from the testimony of captain Toppan, and his crew, of the schooner Laura, coming from Newburyport to Boston.”

“It appears by your letter, that you had sight of the animal. A letter from you, giving a detailed account of your observations, would be particularly acceptable.”

“We understand that a gentleman in Gloucester, (Captain Beach) has a drawing, supposed to be a good representation of the animal. Some information respecting this drawing would be agreeable; how far it is considered by those who had the best view of the animal as a correct representation, and whether the person possessing it would be disposed to permit an engraving from it to be annexed to the publication of the evidence, and on what terms. Yours very respectfully,

“Jno Davis.”

“We have already read the report of the appearance of 1815 (n^o. 34 and 35); the intelligence of the encounter on the 28th. of August we will communicate afterwards (n^o. 48). The answer of Judge NASH, omitting the intelligence about the animal reposing on the rocks (this report has been discussed some pages further on, n^o. 45) runs as follows (See Report of a Committee, 1817):

“Gloucester, September 9, 1817.”

“Sir”,

“Your favoured of the 2d. inst. has been received. The vote of thanks of the Linnaean Society for my services was highly gratifying to me, not simply on account of the high consideration I entertain for the members of that laudable institution; but likewise for the agreeable manner, and respectable channel, through which their vote of thanks was communicated to me.”

“You request a detailed account of my observations, relative to the serpent. I saw him on the fourteenth ultimo, and when nearest, I judged him to be about two hundred and fifty yards from me. At that distance I judged him (in the largest part) about the size of a half barrel, gradually tapering towards the two extremes. Twice I saw him with a glass, only for a short time, and at other times, with the naked eye, for nearly half an hour. His colour appeared nearly black--his motion was vertical. When he moved on the surface of the water, the track of his rear was visible, for at least half a mile.”

“His velocity, when moving on the surface of the water, I judged was at the rate of a mile in about four minutes. When immersed in the water, his speed was greater, moving, I should say, at the rate of a mile in two or at most three minutes. When moving under water, you could often trace him by the motion of the water, on the surface, and from this circumstance, I conclude he did not swim deep. He apparently went as straight through the water, as you could draw a line. When he changed his course, he diminished his velocity but little--the two extremes that were visible appeared rapidly moving in opposite directions, and when they came parallel, they appeared not more than a yard apart. With a glass, I could not take in, at one view, the two extremes of the animal, that were visible. I have looked at a vessel, at about the same distance, and could distinctly see forty five feet. If he should be taken, I have no doubt that his length will be found seventy feet, at least, and I should not be surprised, if he should be found one hundred feet long. When I saw him I was standing on an eminence, on the sea shore, elevated about thirty feet above the surface of the water, and the sea was smooth.”

“If I saw his head, I could not distinguish it from his body; though there were seafaring men near me, who said that they could distinctly see his head. I believe they spoke truth; but not having been much accustomed to look through a glass, I was not so fortunate.”

“I never saw more than seven or eight distinct portions of him above the water, at any one time, and he appeared rough; though I supposed this appearance was produced by his motion. When he disappeared, he apparently sunk directly down like a rock.”

“Captain Beach has been in Boston for a week past, and I am informed that he is still there. An engraving from his drawing of the serpent has been, or is now, making at Boston, but I have not been able to ascertain how far his drawing is thought a correct representation.”

“Respectfully, Sir,

Your most obedient,

Lonson Nash.”

Mr. W. D. PECK says of this declaration (Mem. Am. Acad. Arts Sc. Vol. IV. Pt. 1.)

“The account of it by Lonson Nash Esq. Justice of the Peace in Gloucester, from his own observation, is perfectly free from prejudice, and as clear and satisfactory as can be expected of an object at a distance of two hundred and fifty yards.”

Remarkable in this testimony is again the considerable wake the animal leaves behind it when swimming rapidly. Easy it is to explain why the speed is greater under water than when partly visible above the surface of the water. Those parts viz. which are above the surface must be borne by the body hidden under water, consequently this carries a burden, and the speed, it is evident, cannot be so rapid as when the animal is quite under water, in which position each part of the animal’s body is carried by the water itself, and not by the individual. It has no burden to carry, it is specifically lighter, and the speed can reach its maximum.--Remarkable too is the fact that the animal, when swimming under water, does so just below the surface, and causes the rippling of it. This is a habit of Pinnipeds.

Where Mr. Nash thinks that the apparent roughness is produced by its motion, I am convinced that he is right. He could not distinguish its head from its body, which cannot surprise us; both are of the same thickness, when seen from aside, and I believe too that the seafaring men, more accustomed to look with a glass, distinctly saw the difference between head and neck. Moreover the mode of turning, its length of more than seventy feet, its sinking down like a rock, when disappearing, need not be spoken of; they were mere repetitions of former statements.

I am sorry I have not been able to get a look at Mr. BEACH’S figure.

* * * * *

=42=.--1817, August 15.--(Report of a Committee, 1817).

“I, James Mansfield, of Gloucester, in the county of Essex, merchant, depose and say: That I saw a strange creature, of enormous length, resembling a serpent. I think this was on the 15th. of August, A. D. 1817. I should say he was from forty to sixty feet in length, extended on the surface of the water, with his head above the water about a foot. He remained in this position but a short time, and then started off very quick, with much greater velocity than I have seen him move with at any other time. I saw bunches on his back about a foot in height, when he lay extended on the water. His colour appeared to me black or very dark. It was a little before six o’clock P. M. when I saw him. I should say, he moved a mile in five or six minutes.”

“Q. How near the shore was the serpent?”

“A. About one hundred and eighty yards from the shore where I stood.”

“Q. Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”

“A. Vertical.”

“Q. What were the size and shape of its head; and had it ears, horns, or any other appendages?”

“A. His head appeared to be about the size of the crown of a hat, at the distance from whence I saw him. The shape of his head I cannot describe, and I saw no ears, horns, or other appendages. I had no spy glass, and cannot describe him so minutely as I otherwise could. I have seen him at other times, but my view of him was not so good, as on this day.”

“James Mansfield.”

“Essex, ss. August 27, 1817. Then James Mansfield made oath to the truth of the foregoing deposition by him subscribed.”

“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. Pacis.”

We have here again the statement that the animal is able to keep its bunches, when it lies extended on the water.

* * * * *

=43=.--1817, August 17.--(Report of a Committee, 1817.) The second part of the affidavit of Mr. WILLIAM H. FOSTER runs as follows:

“On the seventeenth of August instant, I again saw him. He came into the harbour, occasionally exhibiting parts of his body, which appeared like rings or bunches. As he drew near, and when opposite to me, there rose from his head or the most forward part of him, a prong or spear about twelve inches in height, and six inches in circumference at the bottom, and running to a small point.”

“Q. Might not the prong or spear that you saw, have been the tongue of the serpent?”

“A. I thought not; as I saw the prong before I saw his head; but it might have been.”

“Q. At what distance were you, when you saw the spear of the serpent?”

“A. I should judge forty rods; I had a spyglass when I saw the prong or spear.”

“Q. Did the animal appear round?”

“A. He did.”

“Q. Did he appear jointed, or only serpentine?”

“A. He appeared jointed.”

“Q. Were its sinuosities vertical or horizontal?”

“A. Vertical.”

“Q. What was its colour?”

“A. It appeared brown.”

“Q. Did it appear smooth or rough?”

“A. It appeared smooth.”

“Q. What was the size and shape of his head?”

“A. At the distance where I was, his head appeared as large as a man’s head; but I cannot describe its shape.”

“Q. Did it appear to pursue, avoid or notice objects?”

“A. I thought it appeared to notice objects.”

“Q. How fast did it move?”

“A. At the rate of a mile in a minute, at times, I have no doubt.”

“William H. Foster.”

“Essex ss. August 27, 1817. Personally appeared William H. Foster, and made oath that the foregoing deposition, by him subscribed, is true, according to his best knowledge and belief.”

“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”

The first statement that strikes us is the prong or spear, seen by Mr. FOSTER. I am convinced that this instrument, seen by him at a distance of forty rods, and with a spy-glass, rising from the foremost part of the head, about 12 inches, or a foot, in length, pointed at its end, and having six inches in circumference, or two in diameter, at the bottom, was nothing else but the animal’s tongue.

* * * * *

=43=.--1817, August 17.--See also n^o. 43 on p. 175.--(Report of a Committee, 1817).--

“I, John Johnston, jun, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, of the age of seventeen years, depose and say: That on the evening of the seventeenth day of August, A. D. 1817, between the hours of eight and nine o’clock, while passing from the shore in a boat, to a vessel lying in the harbour of said Gloucester, I saw a strange marine animal, that I believe to be a serpent, lying extended on the surface of the water. His length appeared to be fifty feet at least, and he appeared straight, exhibiting no protuberances. Capt. John Corliss and George Marble were in the boat with me. We were within two oars length of him. We immediately rowed from him, and at first concluded to pass by his tail; but fearing we might strike it with the boat, concluded to pass around his head, which we did, by altering our course. He remained in the same position, till we lost sight of him. We approached so near to him that I believe I could have reached him with my oar. There was not sufficient light to enable me to describe the animal.”

“John Johnston, jun.”

“Essex, ss. August 25, 1817. Personally appeared John Johnston, jr. and made oath that the foregoing deposition, by him subscribed, is true according to his best knowledge and belief.”

“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”

This account is as interesting as all the other ones; though no further particulars are described, it is again mentioned that more than fifty feet of the animal’s back part were visible, lying perfectly still on the surface of the water, showing no bunches at all.

* * * * *

=44=.--1817, August 18.--In the letter of Mr. S. G. PERKINS to Mr. E. EVERETT, dated Boston Aug. 20, 1817, we read:

“But on Saturday, the day before yesterday, a vessel arrived at Beverly from the bank of New-foundland. The captain and the crew report that, off Cape Ann Harbour, they saw a Sea Monster of the Snake kind, lying on the water, of immense length. That the crew were so much alarmed, that they got away as soon as they could, and that they estimated it at 100 feet long.”

=44=.--1817, August 18.--See also n^o. 44 hereabove.--(Report of a Committee, 1817).--

“I, William B. Pearson, of Gloucester, in the County of Essex, merchant, depose and say: That I have, several times, seen a strange marine animal, that I believe to be a serpent, of great size. I have had a good view of him, only once, and this was on the 18th. of August, A. D. 1817. I was in a sailboat, and when off Webber’s cove (so called) in the harbour of said Gloucester, I saw something coming out of the cove; we hove to, not doubting but that it was the same creature that had been seen several times in the harbour, and had excited much interest among the inhabitants of Gloucester. James P. Collins was the only person with me. The serpent passed out under the stern of our boat, towards Ten Pound Island; then he stood in towards us again, and crossed our bow. We immediately exclaimed: “here is the snake!” From what I saw of him, I should say that he was nothing short of seventy feet in length. I distinctly saw bunches on his back, and once he raised his head out of water. The top of his head appeared flat, and was raised seven or eight inches above the surface of the water. He passed by the bow of the boat, at about thirty yards distance. His colour was a dark brown. I saw him at this time about two minutes. His motion was vertical. His velocity at this time was not great, though at times, I have seen him move with great velocity, I should say at the rate of a mile in three minutes, and perhaps faster. His size I judged to be about the size of a half barrel. I saw Mr. Gaffney fire at him, at about the distance of thirty yards. I thought he hit him, and afterwards he appeared more shy. He turned very short, and appeared as limber and active as the eel, when compared to his size. The form of the curve when he turned in the water, resembled a staple; his head seemed to approach towards his body for some feet; then his head and tail appeared moving rapidly, in opposite directions, and when his head and tail were on parallel lines, they appeared not more than two or three yards apart.”

“Q. At what time in the day was this?”

“A. Between the hours of five and six in the afternoon.”

“Q. How many distinct portions of it were out of water at one time?”

“A. Ten or twelve distinct portions.”

“Q. Can you describe his eyes and mouth.”

“A. I thought and believe, that I saw his eye at one time, and it was dark and sharp.”

“Q. How did its tail terminate?”

“A. I had not a very distinct view of his tail; I saw no bunches towards, what I thought the end of the tail, and I believe there were none. From where I judged his navel might be, to the end of his tail, there were no bunches visible.”

“William B. Pearson.

Essex, ss. August 27, 1817. Then William B. Pearson made oath to the truth of the above.”

“Before Lonson Nash, Jus. of Peace.”

In this account too there is not a single fact which has not been mentioned before, except that the tail did not show bunches, while the back did. From that point of the body where Mr. PEARSON judged his navel might be towards the end of the tail, the animal had no bunches. It is probable that we are meant to read: from the middle of the visible part, where the animal seemed to be thickest. It is also probable that the animal’s external characters, though Mr. PEARSON says he believed it to be a serpent, made on him the impression of a mammal.

=44=.--1817, August 18.--See also n^o. 44 p. 176 and hereabove.--In the above-mentioned letter from Mr. S. G. PERKINS to Mr. E. EVERETT we read:

“My Brother--Colonel Perkins--went down to Cape Ann two days ago to see it. He says that he is satisfied that such an animal is there. As he stood on the shore, it came within the eighth of a mile of him, but as he did not see it so distinctly, as to be able to state all its points, he has not said any thing to the public about it.”

Fortunately Col. T. H. PERKINS wrote down his experiences in a letter, dated Oct. 13, 1820, when on board the ship Ann Marie, to his friend JNO. P. CUSHING. He published it in the Boston Daily Advertiser of Nov. 25, 1848, after the excitement caused by the appearance of the sea-serpent seen by the Daedalus (n^o. 118). The whole is reprinted in the Zoologist of 1849, p. 2358, which I had the opportunity to consult. The part of the letter, treating of his visit runs as follows:

“Boston, November, 1848.”

“In the paper called the “Illustrated London News” of 28th. October, is an account given by Capt. M’Quhae, of H. R. M. ship Daedalus, of a sea-serpent, seen from his ship in August last, on her passage from the East-Indies, and between the Cape of Good Hope and St. Helena. The perusal of several articles on the subject leads me to send you a letter written by me on my passage from England to the United States, in August, 1820, to Jno. P. Cushing, my friend and then partner, residing at Canton in China. I also send you a memorandum from Commander Bolton, of the U. S. Navy, giving the report of the gentlemen of the Navy who were on board a tender called the Lynx, and who had a very favourable opportunity of satisfying themselves of the existence of the animal which had caused so much excitement. The serpent was seen in 1817, ’19, and ’20, from the shore, and the reports show the bunches to be produced by the vertical motion of the body when in action. From the drawings which accompany the letter of Capt. M’Quhae, there are none of the protuberances, and which would lead to the opinion that the animal seen on the other side of the Equator differs in genus from that which has been seen on our coast. The drawings of the sea-serpent seen on the coast of Norway, given in the report of the Bishop Pontoppidan, are identical with the appearance of the animal which has been so often spoken of as visiting our northern seas. T. H. Perkins.”

“On board the ship Ann Marie, at sea, lat. 46, long. 44, Oct. 13, 1820.”

“My dear sir,--When on shore I have little time to spare from business to devote to details which I am now to communicate.”

“During the past three years you will have seen accounts in the newspapers, or reports will have met you in another form of an immense sea-serpent having infested our shores in Boston Bay. The first appearance he made in the summer of 1817, in the harbour of Cape Ann. Wishing to satisfy myself on a subject on which there existed a great difference of opinion, I myself visited Gloucester with Mr. Lee. On our way down we met several persons returning, who had visited the place where he was said to have exhibited himself, and who reported to us that he had not been seen for two or three days past. We however, continued our route to Gloucester, though with fears that we should not be gratified with the sight of the monster which we sought. I satisfied myself, from conversation with several persons who had seen him, that the report in circulation was not a fable. All the town were, as you may suppose, on the alert; and almost every individual, both great and small, had been gratified, at a greater or less distance, with a sight of him. The weather was fine, the sea perfectly smooth, and Mr. Lee and myself were seated on a point of land which projects into the harbour, and about twenty feet above the level of the water, from which we were distant about fifty or sixty feet......

“Whilst thus seated, I observed an agitation in the water at the entrance of the harbour, like that which follows a small vessel going five or six miles an hour through the water. As we knew there was no shoal where the water was thus broken, I immediately said to Mr. Lee that I had no doubt that what I had seen was the sea serpent in pursuit of fish. Mr. Lee was not directing his attention to the spot which I speak of, and had not seen the foam of the water, the animal having immediately disappeared.”

“In a few moments after my exclamation, I saw on the opposite side of the harbour, at about two miles distance from where I had first seen, or thought I saw, the snake, the same object, moving with a rapid motion up the harbour, on the western shore. As he approached us, it was easy to see that his motion was not that of the common snake, either on the land or in the water, but evidently the vertical movement of the caterpillar. As nearly as I could judge, there was visible at a time about forty feet of his body. It was not, to be sure, a continuity of body, as the form from head to tail (except as the apparent bunches appeared as he moved through the water) was seen only at three or four feet asunder. It was very evident, however, that his length must be much greater than what appeared, as, in his movement, he left a considerable wake in his rear. I had a fine glass, and was within from one-third to half a mile of him. The head was flat in the water, and the animal was, as far as I could distinguish, of a chocolate colour. I was struck with an appearance in the front part of the head like a single horn, about nine inches to a foot in length, and of the form of a marlinespike. There were a great many people collected by this time, many of whom had before seen the same object, and the same appearance. From the time I first saw him until he passed by the place where I stood, and soon after disappeared, was not more than fifteen or twenty minutes.”

“I left the place fully satisfied that the reports in circulation, although differing in details, were essentially correct. I returned to Boston, and having made my report, I found Mrs. Perkins and my daughters disposed to make a visit to Gloucester with me when the return of the animal should be again announced. A few days after my return I went again to Cape Ann with the ladies; we had a pleasant ride, but returned ungratified in the object which carried us there.”

The reader knows already that I don’t agree with Col. T. H. PERKINS as to the generic difference of the sea-serpent.--It is the second time that the tongue of the animal is seen to be thrown out.

* * * * *

All these reports of course greatly alarmed the people, and divided them into believers and unbelievers. Letters were written to Europe. As it is of interest to know the public opinion about the subject, it is perhaps not unnecessary to communicate here the letters which I found, especially those hitherto unpublished. On the 20th. of August of 1817 Mr. S. G. PERKINS wrote a letter to Mr. E. EVERETT, then at Paris; this letter is preserved in the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen. An extract from it, respecting the sea-serpent, here printed for the first time, runs as follows:

“You will except me to give you some account of the extraordinary monster, which is now the subject of universal conversation here. So far as we know anything of it, I will give it you, but we have yet to learn its Genus, species and character. About a fortnight since, two women, who live near the entrance of the Harbour of Cape Ann, reported that they saw a Sea-Monster come into the Harbour, that it had the appearance of a Snake, was of great length, &c. But little attention, however, was paid to this report, and it gained no public circulation. Within a week the Country has been agitated with reports of the existence of the monster, and men of reputation and character have made known, that they have distinctly seen the animal. Many have gone off in search of him in Boats, and muskets have been fired at him, without any other effect than alarming him and deterring him from suffering the approach of the boats. He is represented to be from 50 to 100 feet long, of the size of a barrel about the body, which is formed into parallel rings, which--when he is on the top of the water--are so prominent, that they resembled buoys attached to each other. Its motions, when in pursuit of its prey, are very rapid, and create a wake like a small vessel passing thro’ the water. My Brother--Colonel Perkins--went down to Cape Ann two days ago to see it. He says that he is satisfied that such an animal is there. As he stood on the shore, it came within the eighth of a mile of him, but as he did not see it so distinctly as to be able to state all its points, he has not said any thing to the public about it. Many persons--who are well known as men of character--have assured me they have seen 30 or 40 feet of it out of water at once. These reports have created various opinions and sensations, many disbelieving the whole story, and others not doubting it, in the least. My brother goes again to morrow morning to pass a week at Cape Ann. It comes into the harbour daily, in pursuit of the herrings, which resort here in great quantities. All these facts, however, were loose, and from the variety of Reports, people had gotten to doubt their foundation, and supposed it was only a number of porpuses following each other, in rapid succession. But on Saturday, the day before yesterday, a vessel arrived at Beverly from the banks of Newfoundland. The captain and crew report that, off Cape Ann Harbour, they saw a Sea-Monster of the Snake kind, lying on the water, of immense length. That the crew were so much alarmed, that they got away as soon as they could, and that they estimated it, at 100 feet long. Other particulars were stated, which I do not recollect. This had revived the belief, in its existence, and great efforts will be made to take it dead or alive. I heard to day that a subscription was on foot, and that an express has been sent to Nantucket for twenty whale men to come up with their boats and apparatus to destroy it. The Linnean Society have appointed a Committee to go down and investigate it, of which Judge Davis is Chairman.”

* * * * *

=45=.--1817, August 22?--We have already seen that the Chairman of the Committee asked Judge NASH to give, if possible, an evidence of the fact that a woman saw the animal lying dormant very near the shore. In speaking of Mr. NASH’S answer we skipped this evidence to insert it here. It runs as follows:

“I have seen and conversed with the woman, who was said to have seen the serpent dormant on the rocks, near the water, to whom you refer in yours; but she can give no material evidence. She says that she saw something, resembling a large log of wood, on the rocks, on the extreme eastern point of Ten Pound Island, (a small island in our harbour), resting partly on the rocks, and partly in the water. The distance was about half a mile. She took a glass, looked at the object and saw it move. Her attention was for a short time arrested, by some domestic avocation, and when she looked for the object again, it had disappeared.”

The letter from the Hon. JOHN DAVIS, the Chairman of the Committee, was dated Sept. 2, 1817. The appearance, therefore, took place before this date. Fortunately we have another testimony of this position of the animal. In the letter from Col. T. H. PERKINS, dated Oct. 13, 1820, and published by him in the Boston Daily Advertiser of Nov. 25, 1848, we read that he visited the harbour of Gloucester. This must have been on the 18th. of August 1817 (see n^o. 44. p. 178.); after having described this visit the Colonel goes on:

“A few days after my return I went again to Cape Ann with the ladies; we had a pleasant ride, but returned ungratified in the object which carried us there.”

“Whilst at Cape Ann I talked with many persons who had seen the serpent, and among others with a person of the name of Mansfield, one of the most respectable inhabitants of the town. His account to me was, that a few days before, as he was taking a ride with his wife in a chair, the road taking them close to a bank which overlooks the harbour (and is nearly a perpendicular precipice), he saw an uncommon appearance, which induced him to descend from the carriage, when he saw the sea-serpent, in which until then he had been an unbeliever. The animal was stretched out, partly over the white sandy beach, which had four or five feet of water upon it, and lay partly over the channel. He desired his wife to get out of the chair, which she did. He said he had made up his mind as to the length of the snake, but wished the opinion of his wife on the same subject. He asked her what she should consider his length; she answered that she could not undertake to say how many feet in length he was, but that she thought him as long as the wharf behind their house, an object with which she had always been familiar. Mr. Mansfield said he was of the same opinion. The wharf is one hundred feet in length. It is to be observed that the person above spoken of had been such an unbeliever in the existence of this monster, that he had not given himself the trouble to go from his house to the harbour when the report was first made of such an animal being there.”

Consequently I may fix the appearance of the animal resting on a bank, or beach, or rock, on the 22th. of August, 1817. This is the only report I have found of this way of reposing of the animal, but I cannot believe that these reports are contrary to truth.

* * * * *

=46=.--1817, August, 23.--(Report of a Committee, 1817). Mr. AMOS STORY after having made affidavit of his having seen the animal on the tenth of August, goes on:

“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.”

“Dear Sir,”

“I presume I may have seen what is generally thought to be the sea-serpent--I have also seen my name inserted in the evening newspaper printed at Boston on Saturday, in a communication on this subject. For your gratification, and from a desire that my name may not sanction any thing beyond what was presented and passed in a review before me, I will now state that which, in the presence of more than two hundred other witnesses, took place near the long beach of Nahant, on Saturday morning last.”

“Intending to pass two or three days at Nahant, with my family, we left Boston early on Saturday morning. On passing the halfway house, on the Salem turn pike, Mr. Smith informed us the sea-serpent had been seen the evening before at Nahant-beach, and that a vast number of people from Lynn, had gone to the beach that morning, in hopes of being gratified with a sight of him: This was confirmed at the hotel. I was glad to find I had brought my famous mast-head spy-glass with me, as it would enable me, from its form and size, to view him to advantage, if I might be so fortunate as to see him. On our arrival on the beach, we associated with a considerable number of persons, on foot and in chaises, and very soon an animal of the fish-kind made his appearance. His head appeared about three feet out of water; I counted thirteen bunches on his back: my family thought there were fifteen--he passed three times at a moderate rate across the bay, but so fleet as to occasion a foam in the water--and my family and myself, who were in carriage, judged he was fifty feet in length, and, at the extend, not more than sixty; whether, however, the wake might not add to the appearance of his length; or whether the undulation of the water, or his peculiar manner of propelling himself, might not cause the appearance of protuberances, I leave for your better judgment. The first view of the animal occasioned some agitation, and the novelty perhaps prevented that precise discrimination which afterwards took place--as he swam up the bay, we and the other spectators moved on, and kept abreast of him; he occasionally withdrew himself under water, and the idea occurred to me that this occasionally raising his head above the level of the water, was to take breath, as the time he kept under water was of an average about eight minutes; after being accustomed to view him, we became more composed; and made the annexed figure of his outlines. Mrs. Prince and the coachman having better eyes than myself, were of great assistance to me in marking the progress of the animal; they would say he is now turning, and by the aid of my glass I saw him distinctly in this movement; he did not turn without occupying some space, and taking into view the time and space which he found necessary for his ease and accommodation, I adopted it as a criterium to form some judgment of his length--I had seven distinct views of him from the long beach so called, and at some of them the animal was not more than a hundred yards distance. After being on the long beach about an hour, the animal disappeared, and I proceeded on towards Nahant; but on passing the second beach, I met Mr. James Magee, of Boston, with several ladies in a carriage, prompted by curiosity to endeavor to see the animal, and we were again gratified beyond even what we saw in the other bay; which I concluded he had left in consequence of the number of boats in the offing in pursuit of him--the noise of whose oars must have disturbed him, as he appeared to us to be a harmless timid animal. We had more than a dozen different views of him, and each similar to the other; one however so near, that the coachman exclaimed: “Oh, see his glistening eye”. Thinking I might form some calculation of his length by the time and distance of each turn; and taking an angle with my two hands of the length he exhibited, that is to say, from his head to his last protuberance, and applying the same angle to other objects, I feel satisfied of the correctness of my decision that he is sixty feet long, unless the ripple of his wake deceived me--nor my dear sir, do I undertake to say he was of the snake or eel kind, though this was the general impression on my family, the spectators and myself. Certainly it is a very strange animal. I have been accustomed to see whales, grampuses, porpoises, and other large fishes, but he partook of the appearance of none of these. The whale and the grampus would have spouted--the shark never raises his head out of water, and the porpoise skips and plays; neither of these has such appearances on the back or such a head as this animal. The shark it is true, has a fin on his back, and often the fluke of his tail is out of water; but these appendages would not display the form, and certainly not the number of protuberances, which this animal exhibited; nor is it the habit of the shark to avoid a boat. The water was extremely smooth, and the weather clear: we had been so habituated to see him, that we were cool and composed--the time occupied was from a quarter past eight to half past eleven--a cloud of witnesses exceeding two hundred, brought together for a single purpose, were all alike satisfied and united as to appearances, and as to the length and size of the animal; but you must deduct the influence which his passage through the water and the manner he propelled himself might have as to the apparent protuberances on his back, and the ripple occasioned by his motion on his real length, of all which you can judge equally well and better than myself. I must conclude there is a strange animal on our coast--and I have thought an unvarnished statement might be gratifying to a mind attached to the pursuit of natural science, and aid in the inquiries on a controverted question, which I knew to have interested you. I have ventured on the description, being also induced to hope, that if anything on the marvellous is stated as coming from me, you will correct it.

“Accept the respects and attention of

“Dear Sir, yours sincerely

“James Prince.”

We see that Mr. PRINCE uses many words to give a very short description of the animal. Yet we are able to gather the following details. Its head appeared about three feet out of the water, there were 13 or 15 bunches on its back, sometimes the rapidity was moderate, occasioning, however, a foam in the water; length 50 to 60 feet; the animal left behind it a wake; sometimes it withdrew itself under water; it appeared to be a harmless timid animal; its eyes were glistening. All these characters, external features and habits are long known to us. Mr. PRINCE first said the animal belonged to the fish-kind; afterwards, however, he dared not say whether it was of the snake or eel-kind; yet his figure shows large scales and a fish-tail. It is astonishing that the person who is so careful in his expressions, is so inaccurate when handling the pencil. The head of the animal in his figure is more that of a young duck than of a serpent or snake, which the head of the sea-serpent is said to resemble closely. The coils are badly drawn, and though 13 to 15 bunches were seen, only six are delineated. The rippling of the water on the animal’s left side and before it is well represented, on its right side, however, it is quite wrong. The two racked-formed wings are certainly the representation of the foam, caused in the water by the animal’s rapid motion. And finally the scales and the fish-tail are drawn by Mr. PRINCE though he has not seen them! I am obliged to state again that this figure is a facsimile of that which I found in OKEN’s Isis; the very one of the Boston Daily Advertiser I have had no opportunity to see.

The letter from Mr. PRINCE is translated into Dutch in the Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen voor 1820, Tweede Stuk, Mengelwerk.

On the same day it was seen by Mr. CABOT, who wrote the following letter (SILLIMAN’s Am. Journ. Sc. Arts, II, 1820) to our well known

“Col. T. H. Perkins”

“Brookline, August 19, 1819.

“Dear Sir”

“I very willingly comply with your request to state what I saw of the Sea-Serpent at Nahant, on Saturday last, particularly as I happened to see it under favourable circumstances to form a judgment, and to considerable advantage in point of position and distance.”

“I got into my chaise about seven o’clock in the morning to come to Boston, and on reaching the long Beach observed a number of people collected there and several boats pushing off and in the offing. I was speculating on what should have occasioned so great an assemblage there without any apparent object, and finally had concluded that they were embarking in those boats on a party of pleasure to Egg Rock, or some other point.”

“I had not heard of the Sea-Serpent being in that neighbourhood, and I had not lately paid much attention to the evidences which had been given of its existence, the idea of this animal did not enter my mind at the moment.”

“As my curiosity was directed towards the boats to ascertain the course they were taking, my attention was suddenly arrested by an object emerging from the water at the distance of about one hundred or one hundred and fifty yards, which gave to my mind at the first glance the idea of a horse’s head. As my eye ranged along I perceived at a short distance eight or ten regular bunches or protuberances, and at a short interval three or four more. I was now satisfied that the Sea-Serpent was before me, and after the first moment of excitement produced by the unexpected sight of so strange a monster taxed myself to investigate his appearance as accurately as I could.”

“My first object was the Head, which I satisfied myself was serpent shaped, it was elevated about two feet from the water, and he depressed it gradually, to within six or eight inches as he moved along. I could always see under his chin, which appeared to hollow underneath or to curve downward. His motion was at that time very slow along the Beach, inclining towards the shore; he at first moved his head from side to side as if to look about him. I did not see his eyes, though I have no doubt I could have seen them if I had thought to attend to this. His bunches appeared to be not altogether uniform in size, and as he moved along some appeared to be depressed, and others brought above the surface, though I could not perceive any motion in them. My next object was to ascertain his length. For this purpose I directed my eye to several whale boats at about the same distance, one of which was beyond him, and by comparing the relative length, I calculated that the distance from the animal’s head to the last protuberance I had noticed, would be equal to about five of those boats. I felt persuaded by this examination that he could not be less than eighty feet long; as he approached the shore and came between me and a point of land which projects from the eastern end of the Beach, I had another means of satisfying myself on this point.”

“After I had viewed him thus attentively for about four or five minutes, he sunk gradually into the water and disappeared; he afterwards again made his appearance for a moment at a short distance.”

“My first reflection after the animal was gone, was, that the idea I had received from the description you gave of the animal you saw at Gloucester, in 1817, was perfectly realized in this instance; and that I had discovered nothing you had not before described. The most authentic testimony given of his first appearance there seemed to me remarkably correct; and I felt as if the appearance of this monster had been already familiar to me.”

“After remaining some two or three hours on the Beach, without again seeing him, I returned towards Nahant; and in crossing the small beach, had another good view of him, for a longer time, but at a greater distance. At this time he moved more rapidly, causing a white foam under the chin, and a long wake, and his protuberances had a more uniform appearance. At this time he must have been seen by two or three hundred persons on the beach and on the heights each side, some of whom were very favourable situated to observe him.”

“I am very respectfully”

“your obedient servant”

“Samuel Cabot.”

The Editor of the American Journal, Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, adds:

“It is almost superfluous to add, that Mr. Cabot and his friend Col. Perkins, are gentlemen of the first standing and consideration.”

On Oct. 13, 1820, Col. T. H. PERKINS, when on board the Ann Marie, wrote a letter to his friend Mr. JNO. P. CUSHING; he published it in the Boston Daily Advertiser of 1848, Nov. 25; a passage of it runs as follows:

“Besides the instances I have mentioned, there were many others reported of his having been seen the same year. In that year, 1817, although there were several reports of his having been seen, yet they were not well authenticated, nor do I place any confidence in them.”

“In the month of August, in the last year, he again made his appearance in our vicinity, and under very satisfactory circumstances. The weather being hot, many of our citizens resorted to Nahant to pass a few weeks. On the number were Mr. and Mrs. Cabot and their children. Mr. Cabot had a view of him for more than half an hour at one time. He was in a chair, and had reached what is termed the long beach, when he saw several persons collected half a mile from him, which called his attention to the object which occupied them. Mr. C. had heard me often describe the view I had had of the serpent in 1817, and recognized in what was visible just without the breakers, and within a quarter of a mile, the monster which was supposed by many to exist nowhere but in the imaginations of those who had reported to have seen him. Mr. Cabot immediately rode back to Nahant; took Mrs. Cabot into his chair and returned to the beach; but the animal was no longer visible. By this time the inhabitants of Lynn had assembled to the number of some hundreds, on and near the beach, and all the visitors of Nahant were upon the alert. Having given over the hope of seeing him, Mr. Cabot was returning to leave his wife at her lodgings, when, to their mutual delight, he came in view just without the surf of the little beach, and within a quarter of a mile or less of where they stood.”

“Marshal Prince, James Magee, and many persons of my acquaintance had a fine sight of him, and all agreed in their account of him in the principal particulars. They all agreed as to the rapidity of his movements, being very much beyond anything living they had ever seen. The apparent bunches on his back they consider as arising from the construction of his body, and that the movement was vertical and not horizontal. At one time his head was about two or three feet above water, but soon depressed to the level of the sea. When not swimming to be in pursuit of his prey, his motion was not rapid. They saw him turn and bring his body into a letter S, the head being at right angles with the tail. From fifteen to twenty three bunches, or apparent bunches, were counted by the different persons who saw him, and his size round they thought to be that of a common firkin or half barrel”.

“No one thought they saw the whole of the body at a time, the tail seeming always to be considerably under water. The greatest length given to him was one hundred feet and no one who had a good sight of him thought him less than eighty feet in length. If the number of protuberances is twenty-three (and it seems there are at least this number), and calculating them to be distant from centre to centre four feet (and I think, considering their thickness, they cannot be less than this), he would be ninety two feet long. They all agreed, too, as to the colour being quite dark, approaching to black.”

In a letter from Dr. BOOTT to Dr. HOOKER, dated London, Nov. 4, 1826, part of which was published in the Edinb. Journ. of Sc., we read that he visited Boston to gather testimony from eye-witnesses. He then says:

“During this visit I distinctly remember the news coming from Nahant one morning, of the Serpent being in the bay of that place, distant about sixteen miles from Boston. Many hurried down to see it, and among them my brother Mr. James Boott. I was prevented from some cause leaving Boston. My brother reported that he distinctly saw a large serpent, about a mile from the shore; and that thousands were watching its motion on the beach and rocks. The first idea that occurred to my brother was that it was a horse swimming, its head at the time bearing a resemblance to that of the latter creature. He afterwards saw the undulating line of its back, and remained several hours watching the animal. Colonel Perkins of Boston, his wife, and family, were present at this time, as far as I recollect.”

So we have of this appearance three different statements of respectable persons, who distinctly saw the animal on the same spot.

This appearance of the sea-serpent near Nahant is also mentioned in Dr. HAMILTON’s Amphibious Carnivora, 1839.

* * * * *

=64=.--1819, August.--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE says in his Travels through Sweden, &c., at p. 207:

“I there” (Stenesöen) “obtained from his” (PEDER GREGER’S) “son John Greger, a young man, who employed himself in the fishery, still further information respecting the sea-serpent; it was in August of the preceding year, while fishing with others in the Vieg or Vegfjord, that he saw it; at that time they were on shore, hauling in their nets, and it appeared about sixty yards distant from them, at which they were not a little alarmed, and immediately retreated. What was seen of it above water, he said, appeared six times the length of their boat, of a grey colour, and lying in coils a great height above the surface. Their fright prevented them from attending more accurately to other particulars. In fact they all fairly took to their heels, when they found the monster so near them. The weather at the time was very hot and calm. Farther to the south (at Stenesöen) he said it was seen several times, and it remained there for a considerable period.”

* * * * *

=65=.--1819, August.--The same author at p. 216 of his volume relates:

“My honest boatmen who had brought me all the way from Leköe, a distance of near sixty miles, now left me. Previous to their departure they gave me the following account of the sea-serpent, which is here inserted as they related it, without the least variation. They were fishermen and had been up at the North Cape. During the time they remained there they saw the serpent twice, once at no very great distance from them. It was of a grey colour; the head blackish, with teeth. What they discerned of it they judged to be at least five times the length of their boat, which is about thirty feet. It moved in large folds on the water; and when they saw it, they rowed away from it as fast as they could. The weather was very calm at the time.”

This is the most northern appearance of the sea-serpent. The teeth are mentioned here, though not described.

* * * * *

=66=.--1819? August?--The same author at p. 222 of his Travels tells us:

“To the testimony of others respecting the existence of the sea-serpent, I shall now add that of the bishop” (of the Nordlands and Finmark) “himself, who was eye-witness to the appearance of two in the bay of the Shuresund, or Sorsund, in the Drontheim fjord, about eight Norway miles from Drontheim. He was but a short distance from them, and saw them plainly. They were swimming in large folds, part of which was seen above the water, and the length of what appeared the largest he judged to be about 100 feet. They were of a darkish grey colour; the heads hardly discernable, from their being almost under water; and they were visible for only a short time. Before that period he had treated the account of them as fabulous; but it was now impossible, he said, to doubt their existence, as such numbers of respectable people, since that time had likewise seen them on different occasions.”

Not a single fact that need astonish us. That two were seen together is not reported for the first time, as the reader will remember. The swimming “in large folds, part of which was seen above water”, is a very accurate description of the effect made by the swimming animals. The colour is described as a darkish grey, which is exactly the colour of the animal, when seen at a short distance. Their holding their heads very low, only just above the surface of the water, is a common habit of them too.

* * * * *

=67=.--1819? August?--The same author relates (p. 403):

“The last account respecting the existence of the sea-serpent I received from him” (the sexton of Maasöe) “during our journey. He was fishing, as he said, with others in the Mageröe-Sund, when they discerned the monster of the deep, stretching out his bulk in many a spiral fold, and basking on the surface of the water. Its colour was dark and as to its length, he assured me, with looks of wonder and almost of alarm, that it nearly reached from the Mageröe side to the mainland opposite. In this measurement fear, doubtless, was the principal agent; for as to any accurate observations made by himself, they were out of the question. My friend the sexton was much too prudent a man, to hazard any at such a juncture. A glance was sufficient for him to commence his flight forthwith, as fast as his arms would enable him.”

Of course I agree with Mr. DE CAPELL BROOKE as to the exaggerated dimensions attributed to the animal by the sexton of Maasöe. The words “spiral folds”, of course, are wrong, the author meant the sinuosities in which the animal moves. Its colour is here described dark, which corresponds with so many other testimonies.

* * * * *

=68=.--1819? August?--At page 406 of the volume of this author we read in a note:

“The account of the serpent, received by him” (Prösten DEINBOLT of Vadsöe) “from several persons on that part of the coast, agreed with those which have been already given.”

This, of course, is only a report of the appearance of the sea-serpent near Vadsöe.

* * * * *

=69=.--1819, Aug. 26.--“Extract of a letter from Mr. Cheever Felch, Chaplan to the United States’ ship Independance of 74 guns, to the Editor of the Boston Centinel.” (SILLIMAN’S Am. Journ. Sc. Arts, Vol. II).

“Gloucester, August 26, 1819.

“Dear Sir.

“Others having taken in hand to give some account of the Sea-Serpent, I know not why I should not have the same liberty. Being on this station, in the United States’ schooner Science, for the purpose of surveying this harbor, we were proceeding this morning down the harbor, in the schooner’s boat; when abreast of Dallivan’s Neck, William T. Malbone, Esq. Commander of the Schooner, seeing some appearance on the water, said--“there is your sea-serpent”, meaning it as a laugh on me, for believing in its existence; but it prooved to be no joke. The animal was then between thirty and forty yards distance from us. Mr. Malbone, Midshipman Blake, myself, and our four boatmen, had a distinct view of him. He soon sunk; but not so deep but we could trace his course. He rose again within twenty yards distance of us, and lay sometime on the water. He then turned, and steered for Ten Pound Island; we pulled after him; but finding that he was not pleased with the noise of our oars, they were laid in, and the boat skulled. We again approached very near him. He continued some length of time, playing between Ten Pound Island and Stage Point. As he often came near the Point, we thought we could get a better view of him there, than from the boat, of which he seemed conspicuous. Mr. Malbone and myself landed; and the boat was sent to order the schooner down, for the purpose of trying what effect a twelve pound carronade would have upon him. He did not remain long after we landed, so that I was unable to effect my intention, of ascertaining, accurately, his length, with my instruments. From my knowledge of aquatic animals, and habits, and intimacy with marine appearances, I could not be deceived. We had a good view of him, except the very short period while he was under water, for half an hour.--His colour is a dark brown, with white under the throat. His size, we could not accurately ascertain, but his head is about three feet in circumference, flat and much smaller than his body. We did not see his tail; but from the end of the head to the fartherest protuberance, was not far from one hundred feet. I speak with a degree of certainty, from being much accustomed to measure and estimate distances and length. I counted fourteen bunches on his back, the first one, say ten or twelve feet from his head, and the others about seven feet apart. They decreased in size towards the tail. These bunches were sometimes counted with, and sometimes without a glass. Mr. Malbone counted thirteen, Mr. Blake thirteen and fourteen, and the boatman about the same number. His motion was sometimes very rapid, and at other times he lay nearly still. He turned slowly, and took up considerable room in doing it. He sometimes darted under water, with the greatest velocity, as if seizing prey. The protuberances were not from his motion, as they were the same whether in slow or rapid movement. His motion was partly vertical and partly horizontal, like that of fresh water snakes. I have been much acquainted with the snakes in our interior waters. His motion was the same. I have given you in round numbers, one hundred feet, for his length, that is, what we saw; but I should say he must be one hundred and thirty feet in length, allowing for his tail. There were a considerable number of birds about the sea-serpent as I have seen them about a snake on shore. That there is an aquatic animal in the form of a snake, is not to be doubted. Mr. Malbone, till this day, was incredulous. No man would now convince him, there was not such a being. The sketch or picture of Marshal Prince, is perfectly correct. I could not, with my own pencil, give a more correct likeness.”

“With respect”

“Your obedient servant”

“Cheever Felch”

“Major B. Russell.”

I will not contest Mr. FELCH’S opinion about Mr. PRINCE’S figure! As to the letter itself there is not a single statement which can detract from or add to our present notions of the sea-serpent.

In 1846 Col. T. H. PERKINS, of whom we have spoken more than once, requested Mr. BOLTON, who was first Lieutenant of the Independence in 1819, to send him some particulars about this appearance. Mr. BOLTON promptly replied under date of July 14, 1846. This letter, published by Col. PERKINS in the Boston Daily Advertiser of Nov. 25, 1848, runs as follows:

“In the year 1817 I was the first lieutenant of the Independence, of 74 guns, then lying in the harbour of Boston.”

“In the course of the spring or summer a party of officers were detailed, by order of Commodore Bainbridge, to survey the coast of the bay, to a limited extent northeastward and outside of the light-house.”

“The officers selected for this duty were the sailingmaster of the ship, Wm. T. Malbone, and the Rev. Cheever Fetch, the instructor of the midshipmen.”

“To assist in the service several of the most competent and elder midshipmen were designated. As they alternated periodically with other gentlemen of the same grade, I cannot with any degree of precision venture to name them. I hope that some of them are yet living, and, further, that they have advanced in professional distinction. There were also added a sufficient number of seamen and boys.”

“Commodore Bainbridge, Mr. Malbone and Mr. Felch died some years ago.”

“I recollect that on the first occasion, when the Lynx returned to the Independence, of which ship she was the tender, that Mr. Malbone reported as having seen a monstrous sea-animal, not before known to him, of the snake species; the length doubtful, but estimated at some eighty or more feet; and added as an accident, that the officers and men employed in a small boat to carry out the soundings had returned in haste, and indeed alarm, to the Lynx, which was at anchor.”

“These statements were corroborated by Mr. Felch, the officers and crew.”

“Subsequently it was seen several times, by some of the party, who, being soon satisfied that it was harmless approached comparatively near, and no doubt gave me a minute description of its appearance as it presented itself to them; but if so, the particular details have escaped my memory.”

“These facts are all that I can with distinctness and certainty mention. Wm. Compton Bolton, Captain in the Navy of the United States, Saratonga Springs, July 14, 1846; to Hon. T. H. Perkins, Boston.”--

It cannot surprise us that in some particulars, as “in the year 1817”, and in some others this letter does not agree with the foregoing letter from the Rev. CHEEVER FELCH himself, as twenty-seven years had since elapsed.

* * * * *

=70=.--1819, September?--Dr. FRANCIS BOOTT in a letter to Dr. HOOKER, dated London, Nov. 4, 1826, and published in the Edinb. Journ. Sc., VI, 1827, says:

“I remember also that a letter appeared in the Boston Centinel, soon after, published by an officer in the American Navy, who reported that, on his return from a survey of some part of the coast, he saw, when out of sight of land, a large serpent. He was so near that he drew an outline of it, and that outline accompanied the paragraph. When you showed me Mr. Warburton’s figure on the card, I at first thought it was a copy of that of the Centinel. I can only add, for your own satisfaction, that I have no doubt of the existence of this remarkable animal.”

As Dr. BOOTT is speaking of a visit at Boston in August 1819, the words “soon after” of course signify in the latter part of August or in the beginning of September. As the officer was “on his return” and published his encounter in the Boston Centinel, the appearance most probably occurred not far from Boston. The reader will find Mr. WARBURTON’S drawing further on (n°. 83).

* * * * *

=71=.--1819, September 13?--(Phil. Mag. LIV, 1819).

“The great Sea-Snake has been seen again towards the middle of September, in the bay of Massachusetts, and three yellow collars observed on his neck, which has led some to believe it might be another individual and species; but this circumstance might have been overlooked before. It is not stated whether it had streaks of a lighter hue on the body, as the first was represented to have by some witnesses. It is therefore likely that the two characters of “streaks of a lighter hue on the body and three yellow collars on the neck”, may be added to its description. The collars are described as about two inches broad, and one foot apart.”

The three yellow collars observed on its neck may be explained as follows: The animal has a hairy skin, as we have already seen, like a seal-skin. Now, when the neck is wet and contracted by the animal, its skin gets wrinkles, of course running round the neck, as is also the case in sea-lions. Those parts of these wrinkles, which are deepest, remain wet for a very long time, because they are not exposed to the air; those, however, which are highest, if we may use this expression, are not only most exposed to the air, but the hairs on those parts diverge and dry as soon as possible; and--when dry, they have a yellow greyish colour. If the animal now stretches its neck, it may show one, two, &c., even eight or more yellow-coloured collars round its dark brown neck, which may have a breadth of about two inches and a distance of one foot between them. This phenomenon or appearance, as already stated, is often to be seen in our zoological gardens on sea-lions and seals.

* * * * *

In the Philosophical Magazine, Vol. LIV, 1819, Dr. RAFINESQUE says:

“Dr. Mitchill informs me that General Hawkins has written a memoir on the sea-serpent of Massachusetts, which he has sent, with a drawing, to Sir Joseph Banks; it is a paper of some length, and much interest, as it relates facts, and all the circumstances attending the appearance and natural history of those huge animals, taken upon oath of eye-witnesses. He attempts to prove, with much probability, that several individuals have been seen, and two at least, if not three species; one with three collars, another without any, and a smaller one.”

In SILLIMAN’S Am. Journ. Sc. Arts, Vol. II, 1820, I have found the following extract from a letter to the Editor, dated Boston, April 8, 1820:

“I have lately received a letter from Sir Joseph Banks, written by his own hand, in which he expresses his full faith in the existence of our Serpent in the Sea, and not only as it regards himself, but his friends, and he is grateful for every new communication I have given him on that subject, and writes with the same enthusiasm that he did several years ago. Although he is now very infirm.”

Evidently this was a letter from General HAWKINS.

Professor BENJAMIN SILLIMAN, the Editor of this journal adds:

“Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society of London, the Companion of Capt. Cook, is now at a very advanced age but still vigourous in his intellectual powers, and ardent in the promotion of every species of useful knowledge.”

In Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE’S Travels through Sweden, we find at p. 411:

“For a length of time the most extraordinary accounts were circulated relating to it, till at last the whole story was generally considered as the fabric of American invention; and there are many, I believe, in this country” (Great Britain) “who do not consider it in any other light than that of a hoax. Judging, however, from the detailed accounts of the circumstance which are preserved among the papers of sir Joseph Banks, the principal facts appear to be these.”

And at p. 413:

“The repeated accounts of the serpent’s appearance having attracted the attention of the Linnaean Society at Boston, one of its members was deputed to visit the spot and to examine into the truth of them. This was accordingly done; and the above is the general substance of the various depositions sworn to before General Humphreys. This gentleman, who was a corresponding member of the Society, despatched to Sir Joseph Banks copies of the whole of these, which are still preserved in his library. Sir Joseph entered with warmth into this curious investigation; and the minuteness, with which every particular was supplied, showed how greatly he felt interested in the question.”

In Nov. 4, 1826, Dr. FRANCIS BOOTT wrote a letter to Dr. HOOKER, a part of which was published in the Edinburgh Journal of Science, Vol. VI, 1827. Dr. BOOTT, after some general remarks, goes on to express himself in the following terms:

“All that I could collect upon the subject was sent to Sir Joseph Banks, with whom I had repeated conversations about the animal, and the respectability of the individuals who affirmed to the sight of him. The great mass of evidence is to be found in the pamphlet published by the Linnaean Society of New England. The question as to the real appearance of a large serpent off the coast of Massachusetts, was put to rest by that publication. There could be no doubt of the fact, and the testimony of thousands who saw the animal for one or two years afterwards, must have been sufficient to satisfy the most incredulous.”

“I believe I was one of the first who mentioned to Sir Joseph Banks, that a large serpent had been seen on the American coast; at all events, I distinctly remember that when I first spoke to him on the subject, he was incredulous, and showed me a Plate of a similar animal in Pontoppidan’s History of Norway. I myself had no doubt of the truth of the assertions of the early observers of it, for many of them were known to me, and I was anxious to convince Sir Joseph of the discovery of a new and remarkable animal. I therefore was in the habit of sending him every information I could collect respecting it. In one of my last visits to Boston, I gathered testimony from individuals, and from the public papers, and was happy to find on my return to Europe, that Sir Joseph was satisfied of the existence of the serpent, though he continued doubtful of the relationship between the small snake (figure 1 of the Linnaean pamphlet) and the large serpent.”

In October, 1828, Mr. MITCHILL read a paper before the New York Lyceum, which paper will be found in our Chapter on Hoaxes. As we have already observed, this paper also contains a particular account concerning the letters addressed by General HUMPHREYS to Sir JOSEPH BANKS.

Again Dr. HAMILTON, in his Amphibious Carnivora, 1839, asserts:

“General Humphreys, by whom the affidavits were taken, transmitted a copy of them, and a detail of the whole circumstance, to the late Sir Joseph Banks, in whose Library the documents are still preserved.”

Remarkable fact! Nowhere I have found a paper of Sir JOSEPH BANKS himself, neither in the Transactions of the Royal Society of London, nor anywhere else. I beg the present members of this Very Learned Body to give me the loan of all the papers about the subject, or to publish them in their next volume.

* * * * *

=72=.--1820, July?--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his Travels through Sweden, during the Summer of 1820, relates at p. 263:

“During the time I remained at Hundholm a curious circumstance occurred: One day when at dinner at Mr. Blackhall’s house, and thinking little of the sea-serpent, concerning which I had heard nothing for some time, a young man, the master of a small fishing yacht, which had just come in from Drontheim, joint our party; in the course of conversation, he mentioned that a few hours before, whilst close to Hundholm, and previous to his entering the harbour, two sea-snakes passed immediately under his yacht. When he saw them he was on the deck, and, seizing a handspike, he struck at them as they came up close to the vessel on the other side, upon which they disappeared. Their length was very great, and their colour greyish; but from the very short time they were visible, he could not notice any other particulars. He had no doubt of their being snakes as he called them, and the circumstance was related entirely of his own accord.”

* * * * *

=73=.--1820, August.--In the Zoologist of 1849, p. 2361, we read:

“He was several times seen in the month of August, 1820, from the piazza of the house of Col. Perkins, at Nahant.”

* * * * *

=74=.--1820?--The following report was published in the Zoologist of 1849, p. 2460.

“What degree of confidence the following story may gain is to me a subject of very little consideration; for as I can have no view of gaining anything by it, so it certainly will appear that it would hardly be worth the trouble of invention; but as a story of this sort has made its appearance among our transatlantic friends, without being at all credited, it is as likely in Europe this may have the same fate; yet if it can afford any amusement or information for intelligent and scrutinizing minds, for their gratification I freely give it to the press, assuring them, on my sacred honour, of the truth of what I am about to describe. On Sunday, about 5. P. M., being then in latitude 46, longitude 3, by dead reckoning, observed an immense body on the surface of the water, apparently without motion, but water spouting from it, not unlike the blowing of a whale. I immediately got my glass; and, from its rugged appearance and showing nothing where the water issued from, I began to entertain some doubts, that this must have been the vigia laid down for Barenethy’s rocks or the three chimneys, and, so prepared in my own mind, I directed the steering sails to be taken in and the ship prepared for going about. Some of my ship’s company were of opinion it was a ship-bottom up: this I thought not unlikely, and went into the main cat harpens to look more distinctly at it: the appearance then was still steady, but irregular. I saw neither head nor tail above the water, but a hump from one extreme resembling the rise or point of rather a triangular rock: this tapered to a distance,--I certainly believe 70 or 100 feet, and the water broke over it, a little beyond it: it discharged the spout; but nothing showing itself, undetermined in mind what it could be, or whether I should tack the ship, it all at once disappeared, and, to my great astonishment, a head and neck--resembling something of a serpent’s--made its appearance, erected about six feet above the surface of the water. After taking a survey towards the vessel, it all at once vanished, leaving us full of conjecture and surprise. It gives me more confidence in making the above statement, as one of the seamen, whose name is Jonathan Townsend, was in the main top, and saw the creature I have described, and would feel no hesitation in taking an oath to it.--George Sanford, Lieutenant R. N.”

[“Copied from a memorandum-book of Lieut. Sanford, and communicated by Dr. Scott, of Exeter. There is no date to the above statement, but it is presumed to have been written about the year 1820. Lieut. Sanford then commanded a merchant-ship, the Lady Combermere.--E. N.”]

No doubt the latitude of 46 degrees is northern lat., so that the appearance occurred in the Bay of Biscay.--The act of breathing of the sea-serpent, after having remained for some time under the surface of the water, just as in whales, has an appearance generally called “spouting”. Apparently the animal held its head just at water-level, and so it showed “nothing where the water issued from”. The rugged appearance may have been caused by the animal lying with several bunches on its back, as afterwards was also reported by the Lloydsteamer Kätie (n°. 154) or by its having a mane, extending all along the neck and back. The “hump from one extreme resembling the rise or point of rather a triangular rock” must have been the animal’s head which it lifted up just above the surface. Nearly the same appearance will be observed in the figure of one of the officers of H. M. S. Plumper (fig. 31). Let the dimensions moreover be somewhat exaggerated, the “head and neck resembling something of a serpent’s erected about six feet above the surface of the water”, the “taking a survey towards the vessel”, and the vanishing at once, makes all comment superfluous; all these characters have more than once been reported of this creature.

* * * * *

In the Philosophical Magazine and Journal, Vol. LVII, 1821, we find an extract from the numerous reports communicated by Prof BIGELOW in SILLIMAN’S American Journal of Science and the Arts, Boston, Vol. II, 1820, May.

* * * * *

We have already quoted MILTON, who in his Paradise Lost, printed in 1667, compares Satan with some huge monsters, amongst others the sea-serpent. Parts of these verses have been more than once cited by writers of articles on the sea-serpent. I cannot but express my surprise at this custom, for there is not one single word or expression in MILTON’S verses, which is taken from accounts, reports, or tales of the sea-serpent itself. WALTER SCOTT, however, in his Pirate: which was published in 1821, vol. I, chapt. II, says a few words about the animal, which are so correct, that they must have been taken from some or other report:

“The Ocean also had its mysteries, etc.”

“The Sea-Snake was also known, which arising out of the depths of Ocean, stretches to the skies his enormous neck, covered with a mane like that of a war-horse, and with its broad glittering eyes, raised mast-head high, looks out, as it seems, for plunder or for victims.”

The large glittering eyes, the enormous neck, covered with a mane are known characters, and the rising from the depths high into the air, standing nearly upright and viewing for a moment all around, evidently taking a survey, is a habit observed more than once.

* * * * *

=75=.--1821, Summer.--Col. T. H. PERKINS on the 13th. of Oct. 1820, when on board the Ann Marie, wrote a letter to his friend JNO P. CUSHING, which he published in the Boston Daily Advertiser of 25th. Nov. 1848, after the excitement caused by the appearance of an individual on the 6th. of August, 1848. The different parts of this letter are inserted partly in our Chapter on Hoaxes (p. 20, 21) and partly in n^o. 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 63. The Editor of the Boston Daily Advertiser now goes on:

“In addition to this interesting narrative our venerable correspondent gives letters from several members of his family, who the next summer had opportunity to see the sea-serpent, in which the appearance of the animal is minutely described. This correspondence is very interesting; the description of the animal agrees entirely with that given above, and we regret that want of space must prevent the insertion of it.”

It is a great pity that all these letters have not been published. Perhaps they are now lost for ever!

* * * * *

=76=.--1821.--In a letter from WILLIAM WARBURTON to ROBERT BARCLAY, Esq. printed in the Edinburgh Journal of Science, Vol. VI, 1827, p. 130, and dated 20th. September 1826, we read:

“I dined one day at the Hôtel of New York with Sir Isaak Coffin, who discredited the existence of such an animal, which was reported to have been seen by Captain Bennett of Boston, about five years back.”

Of course the occurrence took place near the coast of the U. S.

* * * * *

=77=.--1821, September 25? In FRORIEP’S Notizen of Jan. 1822, I, we read:

“The Sea-Serpent, of which much has been spoken of late years, has been clearly seen again this year by many persons with spy-glasses, and it is described by all of them and the descriptions agree pretty well with each other: on Sept. 27 last a distinguished merchant of Nantucket, Mr. Francis Joy, jun. made a declaration of it on oath before the justice of the peace.”

* * * * *

=78=.--1821?--Dr. HIBBERT in his Description of the Shetland Islands says at p. 565:

“I have heard, in Shetland, of a sea-serpent being seen off the Isle of Stenness, Vailey Island and Dunrossness.”

This report is also quoted by Dr. R. HAMILTON in his Amphibious Carnivora, 1839.

* * * * *

=79=.--1822.--Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his Travels through Sweden, &c., 1823, says in a note, p. 416:

“In some very recent accounts I have received from Finmark, founded on respectable authority, the sea-serpent is stated to have appeared off Soröe this last summer (1822) and to have been seen by many of the inhabitants of that Island. The length of the animal is described as about a fourth of an English mile, its size that of a full grown ox; the colour of a greyish brown; and the weather when it made its appearance, calm and fine.”

Fear must have enlarged its length: the diameter, the colour, the calmness of the weather, however, are all correct.

* * * * *

Mr. A. DE CAPELL BROOKE in his Travels through Sweden &c., 1823, at p. 403 tells us a remarkable fact, viz. the striking agreement of the fabulous tales of the sea-serpent of those days (1820) with those, related by PONTOPPIDAN. The passage runs as follows:

“The following information, however, which he” (the sexton of Maasöe) “gave me concerning this animal deserves a greater share of attention. It is the practise of the fishermen, he said, when at any time they found themselves suddenly surrounded by the folds of the serpent, and obliged to pass over a part of it, never to attempt making their way between the openings, caused by part of the body of the animal being concealed under water, for fear of its raising and upsetting the boat. On the contrary, they rowed with all their strength against one of the visible folds, as the serpent, as soon as he feels the touch of the boat, naturally sinks down and enables it thus to pass over in safety. It will appear perhaps as a striking circumstance, that looking afterward into Pontoppidan, I found the foregoing particulars the very substance of what is related in his work, which may be said to be unknown in Finmark, and even of his name my informant had never heard.”

Indeed, this is remarkable, but it is only a proof of the scrupulousness with which fables are told unchanged! The passages from PONTOPPIDAN referred to by our traveller have been discussed by me--p. 134.

For history’s sake, as well as to acquaint my readers with all that has been written for or against the subject, I am obliged to insert all that Mr. BROOKE further says about it. After having repeated nearly all what PONTOPPIDAN mentioned about it, he goes on:

“Taking upon the whole a fair view of the different accounts related in the foregoing pages respecting the sea-serpent, no reasonable person can doubt the fact of some marine animal of extraordinary dimensions, and in all probability of the serpent tribe, having been repeatedly seen by various persons along the Norway and Finmark coasts. These accounts, for the most part, have been given verbally from the mouths of the fishermen; an honest and artless class of men who, having no motive for misrepresentation, cannot be suspected of a wish to deceive. Could this idea, however, be entertained, the circumstance alone, of their assertions having been so fully confirmed by others in more distant parts, would be sufficient to free them from any imputation of this kind. The simple facts are these: In traversing a space of full 700 miles of coast, extending to the most northern point, accounts have been received from numerous persons respecting the appearance of an animal, called by them a sea-serpent. This of itself would induce some degree of credit to be given to it; but when these several relations as to the general appearance of the animal, its dimensions, the state of the weather, when it has been seen, and other particulars are so fully confirmed, one by the other, at such considerable intervening distances, every reasonable man will feel satisfied of the truth of the main fact. Many of the informants, besides, were of superior rank and education; and the opinions of such men as the Amtmann (Governor) of Finmark, Mr. Steen of Carlsöe, Prösten (Dean) Deinbolt of Vadsöe, and the Bishop of Nordland and Finmark, who was even an eye witness, ought not to be disregarded. There does not appear the least probability, or even possibility, that any other marine animal at present known on the northern coast, could have been confounded with the sea-serpent. The finners, a species of whale already mentioned, are too well known to occasion any mistake; and the total want of similarity in shape, appearance, and size, if they were even rare, would be sufficiently obvious.”

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.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us