Part 53

“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.”