Part 67

Those who made the statement that when they were near the head, the tail could not be discerned distinctly, of course, spoke the truth, for the tail is very seldom above water, but they who afterwards thereby imagined that the animal therefore must have a length of from 600 to 800 ells, exaggerated in a most ridiculous manner. Again we observe that the Norwegian fishermen are in great dread of the sea-serpent, and the description of their behaviour is quite the same as told us PONTOPPIDAN a century ago. Again we read of the habit of the sea-serpent of following boats, but never attacking them, which may only be the effect of mere curiosity. The description, moreover, given by the not mentioned trustworthy and intelligent observer is quite correct. All the characters given by him are already known to us, and where he states that the eyes are not glossy, apparently in contradiction with former statements, it is natural that in a certain direction and in certain moments they need not give the impression of being so. Remarkable is the statement of the animal having bristles on its upper-lips, as in seals.

In Dr. HAMILTON’S Amphibious Carnivora, 1839, we read:

“The most recent account of this monster we have noticed, appeared in the public Newspapers of Drontheim, in the autumn of 1837, and we confess we cannot regard it as a sheer fabrication”.

And he further cites the above mentioned report and tells us that it was the Adis of Drontheim which contained those particulars. The Krovaag Islands are called by Dr. HAMILTON the Kerchvang Islands, and strange enough, the very interesting particulars about the skin, the eyes and the bristles on the upper lips near the nose are omitted.

* * * * *

=104=.--1838?--The reader will soon be made acquainted with the well known report of Captain M’QUHAE, of the Daedalus. As the report was published in the newspapers of Oct., 1848, Captain BEECHY, of the Blossom, “one of the most scientific officers and ablest naval surveyors”, wrote a letter to Mr. FRANCIS BEAUFORT, F. R. S., Admiralty Hydrographer. An extract from this letter appeared in the Illustrated London News of Oct. 28, 1848, and runs as follows:

“What an extraordinary creature the Daedalus seems to have fallen in with! The description recalls to my mind an extraordinary appearance we witnessed in the Blossom, in crossing the South Atlantic: I took it for the trunk of a large tree, and before I could get my glass upon deck it had disappeared, and I could nowhere find it--fresh breezes at the time.”

As Captain BEECHY writes “recalls to my mind”, the “extraordinary appearance” must have taken place some time ago, say ten years; so I have chosen the year 1838, as the year in which it happened. If I may ever get the opportunity to learn the exact year or date, I shall be glad to correct my supposition in an eventual second edition. But for the present I am sure that the “trunk of a large tree” which had so suddenly disappeared, really was a sea-serpent.

* * * * *

Repeatedly we have already quoted Dr. HAMILTON’S work about the Amphibious Carnivora, which appeared in the year 1839. The writer sums up numerous reports and accounts, which he cited from other works, or from which he gave only short extracts. One would say that Dr. HAMILTON is an unbeliever, for he ends his chapter on this animal with the words:

“With these extracts, and without farther comment, we close our account of the Great Sea-Serpent, only remarking, that till favouring circumstances bring the animal under the examination of Naturalists, the satisfaction, which is desiderated respecting it, is scarcely to be expected.”

I only ask, what then was the reason that he spoke of it, and that he published these extracts in a book, which properly treated of Amphibious Carnivora or the Pinnipeds (seals, walrusses, sea-lions and sea-bears)? May it be, that he observed any relation between them and the sea-serpent? I cannot believe it, for after the sea-serpent he treats of the Kraken in the same volume. And why did he end in such a vague way? May it be, because he could not give an explanation, or because he hesitated to show the public that he was really a believer?

* * * * *

=105=.--1839, August?--According to FRORIEP’S Neue Notizen, vol. XII, n^o. 248, of Oct., 1839, the Boston Mercantile mentions that Mr. BUBIER, Lieutenant of the U. S. Navy affirms to have seen the sea-serpent on his way from Daims Island to Nahant, near Boston, and estimated its length at 120 to 135 feet.

* * * * *

=106=.--1839.--In the same periodical on the same page we read that Captain SMITH who had been a long time in the whale fishery, asserts in the Kennebek Journal, that he never before saw such a creature, and that if he had had a harpoon and lines on board, he would have harpooned it.

* * * * *

=106=, =A=.--1840, April 21.--(Journal du Havre, 1840, Sept. 15, Zoologist, 1847, p. 1716).--As I have not had the opportunity to consult the first paper, I give the account as I have found it in the Zoologist.

“A French captain has just related to us a remarkable circumstance, which he has himself witnessed, and his recital exhibits a degree of cautious reserve, which is well calculated to shake the obstinacy of the most sceptical. We shall preface his narrative by the remark that the sea serpent has been recently alleged to have been seen at different points along the whole line of the American coast. Captain d’Abnour, commander of the Ville de Rochefort, makes the following statements:

“On the 21st. of April, 1840, while we were in 24 deg. 13 min. N. latitude, and 89 deg. 52 min. W. longitude (calculated from the meridian of Paris), in the gulf of Mexico, we were running under a light breeze from E. N. E. with beautiful weather. In a few hours we distinguished something like a long chain of rocks, falling off by a gentle inclination at the two extremities, and elevated at the middle by only a few feet over the level of the sea. Against this object the sea broke softly. As we approached we remarked that its different parts changed their position, and even their form, and we became perfectly certain that it was not a reef. A little later, we distinguished by the assistance of a telescope a long chain of enormous rings, resembling a number of barrels linked together, and in form very like the back of a silk worm. It was a three quarter view of the object which we had first obtained. As the ship approached, these appearances became more distinct, and we presently saw the extremity of an enormous tail, longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black. This tail appeared to wind itself up, and repose on a part of the object itself. Then, at the other extremity, we saw a membrane rising to the height of about two metres from the water, and inclining itself at a considerable angle upon the mass (without leaving it, however); and this led me to conjecture that the monster before us was provided with an apparatus for the purpose of respiration, like the lampreys. At last we perceived something like an antenna rising from the water, to the great height of nearly eight metres, terminated by a crescent of at least five metres from one extremity to the other. We could not approach sufficiently near to acquire any very positive idea as to what we had seen; but everything led us to believe that it was an enormous serpent of at least 100 metres in length.”

Although the editors of the Journal du Havre believed that Captain D’ABNOUR by his “exhibiting a degree of cautious reserve would shake the obstinacy of the most sceptical”, I think that on the contrary his narrative has had quite another effect. Every sceptic, I think, will smile or even laugh when he reads this report, for who can help laughing when he reads of a “membrane which led me to conjecture that the monster before us was provided with an apparatus for the purpose of respiration, like the lampreys”, and of an “antenna of eight metres, terminated by a crescent of at least five metres from one extremity to the other.” We find here several limbs enumerated, and mentioned by the names of the corresponding limbs of different classes of the animal kingdom. A “membrane” in my opinion is a thin and transparent or nearly transparent planely extended object. If what the captain saw was one, I don’t know what it could be. If not, if untransparent, how could they see from such a great distance, that it was thin; what reason was there to call it a “membrane”?

I am convinced that Captain d’ABNOUR really saw a sea-serpent. The animal lay extended on the surface of the water, nearly still, showing numerous bunches; head and tail being under water and invisible. Quite the same thing was afterwards witnessed by Captain WEISZ, of the Kätie (n°. 154, fig. 50). We know that sea-serpents lying still may show coils or bunches or hillocks. It resembled “a long chain of rocks, falling off by a gentle inclination at the two extremities, and elevated at the middle by only a few feet over the level of the sea”. The sea broke gently against it. As they approached, the animal seen through a telescope had the appearance of “a long chain of numerous rings, resembling a number of barrels linked together”. We remember that this comparison has often been made by different witnesses. The other comparison of the captain, viz.: “in form very like the back of a silk worm” is also tolerably well chosen. “As the ship approached, these appearances became more distinct” and the sea-serpent raised in a playful manner “its enormous tail, longitudinally divided into two sections, white and black”. We know that the animal’s head and neck are longitudinally divided into two sections, dark brown or nearly black above, and white beneath. It is, therefore, probable that also the trunk has a dark back and a light coloured belly. The supposition of this division of colours had already been made by Mr. MATTHEW GAFFNEY (n^o. 41, p. 169). It is, therefore, very remarkable that Captain d’ABNOUR really saw that the tail too is coloured black above and white beneath! The animal curled its tail and let it for a moment “repose on a part of” its body. Then, “at the other extremity” the animal elevated its foreflapper to the height of about two metres (six feet) from the water. The flapper “inclined itself at a considerable angle upon the” body, consequently the animal made the same movement with its foreflapper as the individual afterwards witnessed by Captain WEISZ (n^o. 154, fig. 50). At last a tail of a spermwhale or of a finwhale elevated above the water, “an antenna terminating in a crescent” “to the height of nearly eight metres” (about 25 feet), which tail of course has nothing at all to do with the sea-serpent. Captain d’ABNOUR says: that it rose “from the water” and he says nothing as to its relative position to the animal, nor whether it was close to or far from it. The length of at least 100 metres (about 320 feet) is at all events exaggerated. Evidently head and neck remained constantly under the water.

The above mentioned account, translated into German, is in FRORIEP’S Notizen, Third Series, Vol. III, n^o. 54, p. 148, 1847.

* * * * *

=106 B=.--1840, June?--In the Journal du Havre, of 15th September, 1840, (see Zoologist, 1847, p. 1716,) we read:

“Not long since the Boston Daily Advertiser announced a new appearance of this marine monster, about whose existence the world is so naturally incredulous.”

I do not think that I am wrong in fixing this appearance in the month of June of that year.

* * * * *