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. (continued 2)
Reading edition
“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 no. 29, where the letters marked A and B are copied, to no. 19, where that marked C is inserted, and to no. 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 - Committee.
“Jacob Bigelow
“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 - taken at Boston.
“12. That of Robert Bragg
“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, - Esq’rs.
“Jacob Bigelow, and
“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 no. 41 on p. 164 and no. 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 no. 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 (no. 34 and 35); the intelligence of the encounter on the 28th. of August we will communicate afterwards (no. 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, no. 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 no. 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 no. 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 no. 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 (no. 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 no. 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 (no. 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.”