Part 63

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 I shall notice an unpublished instance related to me many years ago by my intelligent friend, the late Mr.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: