Chapter II: “Gloucester, August 28, 1817.” (10)

=151=.--1879, April 5.--In the _Graphic_ of July, 19th., 1879, and in _Nature_ for November 18th., 1880, we find the following statement:

“The accompanying engraving is a _fac-simile_ of a sketch sent to us by Captain Davison, of the steamship _Kiushiu-maru_, and is inserted as a specimen of the curious drawings which are frequently forwarded to us for insertion in the pages of this journal. Capt. Davison’s statement, which is countersigned by his chief officer, Mr. McKechnie, is as follows:--Saturday, April 5th., at 11.15 a. m. Cape Satano distant about nine miles, the chief officer and myself observed a whale jump clear out of the sea, about a quarter of a mile away. Shortly after it leaped out again, when I saw there was something attached to it. Got glasses, and on the next leap distinctly saw something holding on the belly of the whale. The latter gave one more spring clear of the water, and myself and chief then observed what appeared to be a large creature of the snake species rear itself about thirty feet out of the water. It appeared to be about the thickness of a junk’s mast and after standing about ten seconds in an erect position, it descended into the water, the upper end going first. With my glasses I made out the colour of the beast to resemble that of a pilot fish.”

It is clear that the Editor of the _Graphic_ is an unbeliever, else he would not have called these figures “specimens of the curious drawings which are frequently forwarded to us for insertion in the pages of this journal”. I think that there is nothing curious in these figures, which are as correct as possible.

Cape Satano is the most southern point of Japan, or better, of the Isle of Kiu Siu. It is also called Satano Misaki, of which “Saki” or “Misaki” signifies “cape”. The Russians call it Cape Chichakoff. This is the third time that we read of the sea-serpent being seen in the Pacific Ocean (see n^o. 36 and 119).

The most remarkable fact mentioned in this report is the gripping the whale. The reader will remember the report of a sea-serpent engaged with a whale, of course one of the smaller kind (n^o. 54). In 1833 some British officers saw a shoal of grampuses near Halifax, Nova Scotia, which appeared in an unusual state of excitement” and a little while afterwards the sea-serpent appeared, evidently hunting after the grampuses (n^o. 97). Again in 1850 (?) Captain CHRISTMAS saw “an immense shoal of porpoises rushing by the ship, as if pursued” and soon afterwards a sea-serpent made its appearance, curving its neck swan-like, evidently keeping a lookout and disappearing “head foremost like a duck diving” (n^o. 124). Also Captain BROWN saw it “surrounded by porpoises” (n^o. 56). And now we have for the fifth time the sea-serpent pursuing whales, and a second time that it is engaged with one which it had evidently gripped in its pectoral fin. I am convinced that the description “holding on the belly of the whale” is incorrect. The dimensions of the neck estimated at thirty feet in length and of about the thickness of the mast of a junk are certainly not exaggerated. After the whale’s escape, the sea-serpent for about ten seconds stood in an erect position, like the animal of Captain BROWN (n^o. 56), taking evidently a survey all around, then bent its neck swan-like as in shown in the figure and finally “descended into the water, the upper end going first”, exactly the way in which the animal behaved seen by Capt. CHRISTMAS (n^o. 124). The description of the colour as “resembling that of a pilot-fish”, is very vague, for the different pilot-fishes (_Naucrates_) have different colours, generally grey with some hue of blue, brown, or purple. The vague definition may be the result of a damp atmosphere, or it must be that the throat was turned towards the spectators, and not the back-part of the neck, which is nearly black. As the sea-serpent has a very long and pointed tail, the fan-shaped or double finned tail in fig. 49 must be accounted for. This I think may be done in the following four ways: 1. The tail represents the whale, disappearing in the water, which in so doing caused a severe splash as is shown in the figure. 2. The tail is an optical illusion and the two fins of it were in fact the animal’s hindflappers paddling furiously, which may be explained as an expression of the animal’s emotion, as the whale escaped, and in doing so, the flappers caused the violent splash. 3. Not the flappers but the tail of the animal was lashing the water vehemently, and caused the optical illusion and the immense splash and foam. 4. The drawer, believing that the animal had a cetacean tail or a fish-tail, drew one, lashing the water, and so represented more his own imagination than the reality; but in no case a double finned tail has ever belonged to an animal with a long swan-like curved neck, as is really believed by Mr. SEARLES V. WOOD in that number of _Nature_!

* * * * *

=152=.--1879, August 5.--(_Times_ of September 24, 1879).

“Capt. J. F. COX, master of the British ship _Privateer_, which arrived at Delaware breakwater on the 9th. inst. from London, says:--“On the 5th. ult., 100 miles west of Brest (France), weather fine and clear, at 5 p. m., as I was walking the quarter deck, looking to windward, I saw something black rise out of the water about twenty feet, in shape like an immense snake about three feet in diameter. It was about 300 yards from the ship, coming towards us. It turned its head partly from us, and went down with a great splash, after staying up about five seconds, but rose again three times at intervals of ten seconds, until it had turned completely from us and was going from us with great speed, and making the water all boiling round it. I could see its eyes and shape perfectly. It was like a great eel or snake, but as black as coal tar, and appeared to be making great exertions to get away from the ship. I have seen many kinds of fish in five different oceans, but was never favoured with a sight of the great sea-snake before.”

Of this unvarnished account Mr. WOOD says with reason (_Nature_, February 10, 1881), that it is “almost a duplicate of that of Major SENIOR” (n^o. 149). The colour of the animal is called black, the head and neck, like those of a snake, were elevated about twenty feet in the air. The animal stood so about five seconds, went down with a great splash, but rose again three times at intervals of ten seconds, thus behaving in the same way as the individual seen from the _City of Baltimore_ (n^o. 149). The thickness here is estimated at three feet. The animal moved from the vessel with great speed. Consequently the captain could not discern four different splashes, two of the fore and two of the hind-flappers, but he reports that the water was boiling all around it. I think that the animal here again was pursuing a shoal of fish and not trying to escape the vessel.--

* * * * *

=152 A=.--1881, Nov. 12?--The Zuid-Afrikaan, of Nov. 17, 1881, mentions:

“In the _Argus_ we read the following:--“Mr. C. M. HANSEN, functionary to the harbour-office, mentions, that on Saturday evening a little after six o’clock, being occupied in his garden near Monillepoint, he perceived near the spot where the _Athens_ was wrecked, a great sea-serpent, and that he immediately drew the attention of his wife and children, and several of his neighbours to this appearance. After viewing the coast at its ease for half an hour the monster turned its head seaward and disappeared. Mr. HANSEN describes this sea-monster as being about 75 feet long, of a dark colour and with a head of the size of a 54 gallon hogshead, resembling that of a bull-dog, and provided with a long and brown mane, hanging down.”

Undoubtedly the length of 75 feet is that of the part visible above the surface of the water. It is not mentioned whether the animal swam with its body in a straight line or in vertical undulations. It is not for the first time that we hear of the sea-serpent near Cape-Town, (for _Argus_ must no doubt be read _Cape Argus_), I pass the dimension of the head as I don’t know that of a 54 gallon hogshead. Remarkable is the comparison of the head with a bull-dog’s; it must have been seen in front, in order to make this impression. Again a mane was present and its colour is now called brown.

* * * * *

=153=.--1882, May 28th.--In the next account we read:

“At our arrival in Newcastle, I learned that some days before some fishermen of Lewis had observed the same or a similar animal.”

* * * * *

=154=.--1882, May 31.--(_Illustrirte Zeitung_ of 1st. of July, 1882).--

“The following report, with the accompanying engraving has been forwarded to us by Mr. Weisz, Captain of the Stettin Lloyd Steamer _Kätie_.”

“When the Stettin Lloyd Steamer _Kätie_, on her return from New-York to Newcastle, on the 31st. of May of this year, shortly after sunset and in that clear light which in this season takes place in fine weather in high northern latitudes, was about eight miles W. N. W. of Butt of Lewis (Hebrides), we observed on starboard before us, at a distance of about two miles a dark object lying on the surface, which was only slightly moved by the waves; first we took it for a wreck, as the highest end resembled the bow and the forepart of a ship, and the remaining hilly part resembled the broken waist-cloth of a ship filled with water. As we got nearer we saw with a glass on the left of the visible object, the water moving in a manner, as if the object extended there under the water, and this motion was of the same length as the part of the object, visible above the surface. Therefore we took care, not to steer too near, lest the screw should be damaged by some floating pieces of the wreck. But on getting nearer observed that the object was not a wreck, and, if we had not known with certainty that on these coasts there are no shallows, we should have taken this dark connected row of hills for cliffs. When we, however, changed our course obliquely from the object, which lay quite still all the time, to our astonishment there rose, about eighty feet from the visible end a fin about ten feet in height, which moved a few times, whilst the body gradually sunk below the surface. In consequence of this the most elevated end rose, and could distinctly be made out as the tail of a fish kind of immense dimensions.”

“The length of the visible part of this animal which had in no case any resemblance with the back of a whale, measured, according to our estimation, about 150 feet, the hills, which were from three to four feet in height, and about six or seven feet distant from each other, were smaller on the tail end, than on the head end, which withdrew from our observation.”

“At our arrival at Newcastle, I learned that some days before some fishermen of Lewis had observed the same or a similar animal. Had I directly recognized the object before us, to be one of these creatures, which for so long time belonged to the fables, I should certainly have neared it with the _Kätie_ as much as possible.”

It is obvious that captain WEISZ saw, and Mr. ANDREW SCHULTZ sketched the animal, ignorant of its being a sea-serpent. It became clear to them, when they arrived at Newcastle where they learned that a “sea-serpent” was seen by some fishermen of Lewis.

Here we have again the assertion that the animal showed bunches, though it lay still or nearly still, an observation already reported more than once, as the reader will remember. I am convinced that the dimensions are exaggerated, and that the disturbance of the water was caused by the length of the tail, and not of the head of the animal, which evidently was searching for food in a playful manner, as we may observe in seals and sea-lions in our Zoological Gardens, and in doing so turned for a moment its body round, and raised once or twice first one of its hindflappers “which it moved a few times”, and then raised one of its foreflappers, which was taken for a tail by the captain and the drawer. The long neck here commences, but was, with the head, constantly under water, evidently directed downwards, for there was no disturbance of the water visible here. It is clear that the _Kätie_ remained at a good distance from the animal, so that Mr. SCHULTZ, a well-known animal painter, could not obtain a better view of the flappers. The outlines of the flappers, however, are as correct as possible.

* * * * *

=155=.--1882, September 3.--(_Nature_, 1883, January 25).

“Believing it to be desirable that every well-authenticated observation indicating the existence of large sea-serpents should be permanently registered, I send you the following particulars.”

“About 3 p. m. on Sunday, September 3, 1882, a party of gentlemen and ladies were standing at the northern extremity of Llandudno pier, looking towards the open sea, when an unusual object was observed in the water near to the Little Orme’s Head, travelling rapidly westwards towards the Great Orme. It appeared to be just outside the mouth of the bay, and would therefore be about a mile distant from the observers. It was watched for about two minutes, and in that interval it traversed about half the width of the bay, and then suddenly disappeared. The bay is two miles wide, and therefore the object, whatever it was, must have travelled at the rate of thirty miles an hour. It is estimated to have been fully as long as a large steamer; say 200 feet; the rapidity of its motion was particularly remarked as being greater than that of any ordinary vessel. The colour appeared to be black, and the motion either corkscrew like or snake-like, with vertical undulations. Three of the observers have since made sketches from memory, quite independently of the impressions left on their minds, and on comparing these sketches, which slightly varied, they have agreed to sanction the accompanying outline as representing as nearly as possible the object which they saw. The party consisted of W. Barfoot, J. P. of Leicester, F. J. Marlow, solicitor, of Manchester, Mrs. Marlow, and several others. They discard the theories of birds or porpoises as not accounting for this particular phenomenon.”

“F. T. Mott.”

“Bristal Hill, Leicester, January 16.”

The appearance took place, as is stated, near Orme’s Head, a headland of the Northern coast of Wales, projecting in a north-western direction into the Irish Sea. The great rapidity of the movement through the water, estimated at thirty miles an hour, its great length of about 200 feet, its black colour, its vertical undulations and the whole external appearance of the animal, outlines of which are represented in the figure, at once betray the sea-serpent.

Another correspondent of _Nature_ immediately wrote to the Editor as follows: “I have seen four or five times something like what your correspondent describes and figures, at Llandudno, and have no doubt whatever that phenomenon was simply a shoal of porpoises. I never, however, saw the _head_ your correspondent gives.” There! It is just the head which shows that the animal seen by the party of gentlemen and ladies above mentioned, was one single animal and not a row of porpoises!

And therefore, one of the eye-witnesses, Mr. W. BARFOOT, promptly answered in _Nature_ of Febr. 8, 1883:

“Like your correspondent, Mr. Sidebotham (in _Nature_ Vol. XXVII, p. 315), I have frequently seen a shoal of porpoises in Llandudno Bay, as well as in other places, and on the occasion referred to by Mr. Mott, in _Nature_, Vol. XXVII, p. 293, the idea of porpoises was at first started but immediately abandoned. I will venture to suggest that no one has seen a shoal of these creatures travel at the rate of from twenty five to thirty miles an hour. I have seen whales in the ocean, and large flocks of sea-birds, such as those of the eider-duck, skimming its surface; but the strange appearance seen at Llandudno on September 3 was not to be accounted for by porpoises, whales, birds, or breakers, an opinion which was shared by all present.”

“William Barfoot.”

* * * * *

In 1883 Mr. HENRY LEE published his _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, one of the Series of publications of the International Fisheries Exhibition. This delightful book treats of the Kraken and the sea-serpent.

In the Preface Mr. LEE remarks:

“In treating of the so-called “sea-serpent”, I have been anticipated by many able writers. Mr. Gosse, in his delightful book “The Romance of Natural History”, published in 1862, devoted a chapter to it; and numerous articles concerning it appeared in various papers and periodicals.”

“But, for the information from which those authors have drawn their inferences, and on which they have founded their opinions, they have been greatly indebted, as must be all who have seriously to consider this subject, to the late experienced editor of the _Zoologist_, Mr. Edward Newman, a man of wonderful power of mind, of great judgment, a profound thinker, and an able writer. At a time when, as he said, “the shafts of ridicule were launched against believers and unbelievers in the sea-serpent in a very pleasing and impartial manner”, he, in the true spirit of philosophical inquiry, in 1847, opened the columns of his magazine to correspondence on this topic, and all the more recent reports of marine monsters having been seen are therein recorded. To him, therefore, the fullest acknowledgements are due.”

I too am under obligations to Mr. NEWMAN, as to one who has collected so many reports of the sea-serpent and published them in his journal, but I fail to see in him what Mr. LEE asserts him to be.

As to the contents of Mr. LEE’S “Great Sea-Serpent”, the second part of his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, I may be allowed to note the following.

First he mentions the various great snakes of antiquity and believes them to be merely boas (read pythons) and real sea-snakes. Next he represents a figure, found on a sarcophagus or coffin in the Catacombs of Rome, and tells us that it corresponds in many respects with some of the descriptions of the sea-serpent given several centuries afterwards. I, however, don’t observe any resemblance in them. I consider this monster as a singular combination of a horse and a fish, badly drawn, as one of the representations of those wonderful ideas or beliefs of antiquity concerning the existence of such monsters as sirens, tritons, the minotaurus, etc.

Further he treats of OLAUS MAGNUS, Bishop PONTOPPIDAN, HANS EGEDE, the Animal of Stronsa, and of various reports of the sea-serpent, and it is obviously a favoured idea of his that the sea-serpent is only to be accounted for by a great calamary; to prove this, he makes himself guilty of all kinds of misrepresentations and improbabilities; he considers every one as having been the dupe of optical deceptions, or as having made exaggerations, and their observations to be “full of error and mistakes”! And he who has never seen a sea-serpent, but sits pen in hand in his chair at his desk, knows it best of all: all sea-serpents were calamaries, except a very few, which were a row of porpoises! But the more Mr. LEE has to deal with more recent reports, the less he is able to explain the various sea-serpents by reference to his favoured calamary. Of the animals seen in the Harbour of Gloucester in 1817 he says: “Of this I can offer no zoological explanation”. He neither gives an explanation of the sea-serpent seen in 1833 by British officers (n^o. 97), nor of that in Lochourn (n^o. 137, 138, 139, 140). Then he says: “Many other accounts have been published of the appearance of serpent-like sea-monsters, but I have only space for two or three more of the most remarkable of them”. Truly, an easy way to get rid of them! One of these two or three more remarkable reports is the fight between the whale and the sea-serpent (n^o. 144) of which he proposes several explanations (I beg to refer the readers to that account), ending with the words: “it must be left for further elucidation”. The sea-serpent of the _City of Baltimore_ (n^o. 149) was misunderstood by him. He compares the _splash of the water_, caused by the animal’s dropping its neck like a log of wood into it, with the _caudal fins of a calamary_ (just imagine!) but ends: “but, as one with a bull-dog expression of eye-brow, visible at 500 yards distance, does not come within my ken, I will not claim it as much.” And of the animal of the _Osborne_ he says:

“It seems to me that this description cannot be explained as applicable to any one animal yet known. The ridge of dorsal fins might, possibly, as was suggested by Mr. FRANK BUCKLAND, belong to four basking sharks, swimming in line, in close order; but the combination of them with long flippers, and turtle-like mode of swimming, forms a zoological enigma which I am unable to solve.”

Nevertheless, in answering the question: “To which of the recognized class of created beings can this huge rover of the ocean be referred?” he says: “I reply: To the Cephalopoda” (i. e. calamaries). Such a contradiction I do not understand.

And notwithstanding his cherished great-calamary-hypothesis, and after having said some words about Mr. NEWMAN’s Plesiosaurus theory and Mr. WILSON’s ideas of the extraordinary development of snakes, he ends his work with the following conclusions:

“I arrive, then, at the following conclusions: 1st. That, without straining resemblances, or casting a doubt upon narratives not proved to be erroneous, the various appearances of the supposed “Great Sea-Serpent” may now be nearly all accounted for by the forms and habits of known animals; especially if we admit, as proposed by Dr. Andrew Wilson, that some of them, including the marine snakes, may, like the cuttles, attain to an extraordinary size.”

“2nd. That to assume that naturalists have perfect cognizance of every existing marine animal of large size, would be quite unwarrantable. It appears to me more than probable that many marine animals, unknown to science, and some of them of gigantic size, may have their ordinary habitat in the great depths of the sea, and only occasionally come to the surface; and I think it not impossible that amongst them may be marine snakes of greater dimensions than we are aware of, and even a creature having close affinities with the old sea-reptiles whose fossil skeletons tell of their magnitude and abundance in past ages.”

I am unable to follow out such a reasoning.

* * * * *

=156=.--1883, October 15?--The _Graphic_ of 20th. October, 1883, mentions, p. 387:

“The inevitable sea-serpent has turned up again. This time he has been seen going down the Bristol Channel towards the Atlantic at the rate of twenty-five miles per hour, and afterwards he was noticed off the north coast of Cornwall. The monster was about half a mile long, and left a greasy trail behind him.”

I have no doubt about the appearance of a sea-serpent in Bristol Channel, and a few hours or a day afterwards off the north coast of Cornwall, as several individuals have already been reported on the west coast of Great Britain. The greasy trail left behind it is not an improbability, but the length of half a mile is most probably an invention of the incredulous Editor of the Graphic!

* * * * *

Mr. C. HONIGH in his _Reisschetsen uit Noorwegen_ in _de Gids_ for 1884, p. 300 speaking of strange and violent motions in the water of the lake of Mjösen in Norway during perfectly calm weather tells us as a specimen of Norwegian superstition:

“People ascribe these motions to sea-serpents, in which many persons in Norway firmly believe upon the authority of undeniable witnesses and their observations. One of the most famous of these monsters lived some centuries ago in the lake of Mjösen, in the neighbourhood of Hamar, where it became entangled in the shallow. A monk killed it with arrow-shots in its eye, and the monster then floated to near the “Holy-Isle” to a place which is still called “Pilestöa”. And yet there is still a sea-serpent in the lake, which has coiled itself round the great bell of Hamar, which in the time of the seven years’ war was lowered to the bottom.”

Mr. HONIGH adds:

“After all I heard and saw at Bergen, I don’t doubt in the least that in the Atlantic and on the coasts of Norway really appear from time to time immensely large mammals of the seal-kind, known by the name of “great sea-serpent”, though I therefore don’t admit all fabulous tales about it.”

The words “mammals of the seal-kind” are explained by the following circumstance. In November, 1881, appeared from my pen, then a student’s pen, a little article on the sea-serpent, in which I tried to show that a sea-serpent is a yet undescribed long marine animal, closely allied to the pinnipeds, with a long neck and a long tail. Mr. HONIGH, in preparing his paper for the _Gids_ requested me to let him have a copy of my article, which I sent him, and he evidently accepted my supposition.

In a letter Mr. HONIGH tells me:

“In the literature of the Norwegians the sea-serpent or soe-orm is repeatedly mentioned, and in such an indisputable manner, that in my opinion there is no doubt of its existence.”

“On my return I learned from a gentleman of Bergen, that some time ago there was a part of the skeleton of a sea-serpent in the Museum of Natural History of Bergen.”

Though I begged Mr. HONIGH, teacher at the National Agricultural School at Wageningen, to communicate to me further particulars about the sea-serpent and about its literature, learned by him on his travels through Norway, and repeated this my question in February 1889, I am still waiting for an answer.

* * * * *

=157=.--1885, August 16.--(_Nature_ of September 10, 1885).

“It was hardly to be expected that the season should pass without the appearance of the sea-serpent somewhere, and if we are to believe the information forwarded to us from a correspondent in Norway, it has just visited the coast of Nordland. Three sundays ago some lads were returning to the Island of Röd from the church at Melö, in the middle of the day, when they saw far out in the fjord a streak in the sea which they believed to be a flock of wild ducks swimming. On proceeding further, however, they heard a whizzing as of a rushing fountain and in a few moments perceived a great sea-monster with great velocity making straight for the boat. It appeared to be serpentine in shape, with a flat scaly head, and the lads counted seventeen coils on the surface of the water just as it passed the stern of the boat so closely that they could have thrown a boathook into it. By subsequent measurements on land the length of the animal was estimated at about 200 feet. It pursued its course on the surface of the sea until close behind the boat when it went down with a tremendous noise, but reappeared a little after, shaping its course for the Melö, where it disappeared from view. Naturally, the lads were greatly frightened. The weather at the time was hot, calm, and sunny. Our informer states that the lads are intelligent and truthful, and that there is no reason to discredit their unanimous statement, made, as it were, in a terribly frightened condition. It might be added that the waters in which the animal was seen are some of the deepest on the Norwegian coast, and that it is not the first time fishermen have averred having seen the sea-serpent here. The existence of the sea-serpent is fully believed in along the coast of Norway.”

The sea-serpent in its rapid motion made, as is often stated, the water curl before its throat, which rushing sound was distinctly heard by the lads. Notwithstanding their great fright they yet saw the head was flat, but they were mistaken as to its being scaly. Moreover the account is unvarnished and the description of the animal’s motions is correct.

* * * * *

Mr. W. E. HOYLE, busy on the article “Sea-Serpent” for the 9th. Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1886 (June?) a number of titles of books and journals, which came in his way while studying the subject. This bibliography contains 89 numbers. They were printed, as the author says: “in the hope that they might be the means of saving time and labor on the part of others”. Alas, his hope has not been realized on my part, for I had nearly finished my work when I happened to find Mr. HOYLE’s paper quoted in the decennial Register of the _Zoologischer Anzeiger_. Only 25 of the numbers published by Mr. HOYLE were new additions to my “Literature on the subject”, and I could consult only three of them, amongst which Mr. HOYLE’s article “Sea-Serpent” in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ quoted above.

Though Mr. HOYLE states: “no satisfactory explanation has yet been given of certain descriptions of the sea-serpent”, among others of “the huge snake seen by certain of the crew of the Pauline” (n^o. 144, 145) and of “Lieutenant Hayne’s account” (n^o. 148), and though he ends his article with the words: “It would thus appear that, while, with very few exceptions, all the so-called sea-serpents can be explained by reference to some well-known animal or other natural object, there is still a residuum sufficient to prevent modern zoologists from denying the possibility that some such creature may after all exist”, he himself was evidently taken in by the different persons who explained the sea-serpent by reference to the most impossible suppositions! He enumerates eight different explanations and seems fully to agree with them. It is evident that his only purpose was to satisfy the request of writing an article on the Sea-Serpent for an Encyclopedia.

* * * * *

=158=.--1886, August.--In the _Graphic_ of September, 25, we read:

“The sea-serpent has now crossed the Atlantic, and has suddenly appeared near Kingston Point, on the Hudson. It was seen by two young men, who were rowing in a boat, and who, it seems, the monster fruitlessly chased. They describe the animal as growing furious, when it found them escaping. “It lashed the water with its tail, which seemed to be about seventy-five feet distance from its head. The head was as large and round as a flour-barrel; and its eyes of a greenish hue, looked “devilish”. Before resuming its journey up the Hudson, it squirted from its mouth a stream of foamy stuff resembling long shavings from a pine plank.”

I have no reason to consider this account as a hoax, though it almost reads like one. In the Norwegian accounts it is said that the sea-serpent very often follows boats. I have explained this by the animal’s curiosity, mixed with some fear. The young men may have observed the animal paddling with its hind flappers, a possible expression of some emotion, as I have also explained when speaking of the animal seen from the _Kiushiu Maru_ (n^o. 151), and they may have ascribed the foam to the lashing of its tail; or it really lashed its tail, as I also supposed on that occasion (n^o. 151). The length between head and tail estimated at seventy-five feet, is certainly not exaggerated. As the head is described round as a flour-barrel, it was evidently seen in its face. I refer to the animal of the _Osborne_ (n^o. 148) where the head seen from behind is also described and figured round as a bullet. Of the young men’s description that the eyes “looked devilish”, and also that of their colour being “of a greenish hue” I will only say that it is unique. The “stream of foamy stuff resembling long shavings from a pine plank” was of course nothing but a sudden exhalation, probably held for some time from curiosity and fear, and then suddenly sent forth. The locality where the sea-serpent appeared, may be apparently strange, it is, however, very well explicable, owing to the animal’s habit of frequenting shores, and to the habit of other pinnipeds of frequenting brackish water and even mouths of large rivers.--

* * * * *

=159=.--1886, August?--In the same number of the _Graphic_ it says:

“The serpent was also seen by the captain of a steamer, who “gave it the right of way”.”

* * * * *

=160=.--1886, August?--(On the same page):

“And yet another man (appropriately) named Jonah, who at first took the monster to be an immense tree floating with the tide--a notion which was quickly dispelled by the supposed tree throwing twenty feet of its length out of water.”

As the reader will remember, the comparison of the sea-serpent, swimming or lying on the surface, with a floating tree or log of wood, has been made more than once; evidently the animal raised its enormous neck for a moment out of water, to take a look-out.

* * * * *

=161=.--1889, May.--In the _Haagsche Courant_ of June 6, of this year, I read:

“The sea-serpent has again appeared, and been seen by a captain sailing from Liverpool to Philadelphia, who hitherto obstinately refused to believe in its existence.”

Of course I immediately wrote to the Editor, begging him for the name of the journal, from which this statement had been taken. The Editor courteously answered that one of his correspondents had forwarded him a written copy of the account taken from the 38th. number of the _Grondwet_ of May 21st., of this year, published in Holland, Michigan, but the written copy had already disappeared in the paper-basket, and the correspondent requested to send the original, answered that he was unable to do so for the same reason.

* * * * *

In the first days of December 1889, Mr. JOHN ASHTON published his _Curious Creatures in Zoology_. Pages 268-278 of his volume treat of the sea-serpent. The illustrations which accompany this part are: 1. A representation of a piece of sculpture on a wall of the Assyrian palace at Khorsabad, which as I believe, has nothing at all to do with the sea-serpent, but which is a bad drawing of a _Hydrophis_. 2. The drawing of GESNER (our fig. 16) twice reduced. 3. EGEDE’s sea-serpent, as it was published in PONTOPPIDAN (our fig. 22). 4. An eel-kind taken from ALDROVANDUS’ work, and 5. A reduced copy of Captain M’QUHAE’s sea-serpent (our fig. 28).--

Curious is Mr. ASHTON’s assertion, when speaking of the sea-serpent of Khorsabad-palace and of ARISTOTELES: “These ........ were doubtless marine snakes, which are still in existence, and are found in the Indian Ocean, but the larger ones seem to have been seen in more northern waters”. Consequently he believes, like Mr. ANDREW WILSON that the _Hydrophidae_ may develop gigantically and when in this condition make little trips from their common tropical residences to more northern latitudes!

Further he quotes OLAUS MAGNUS, GESNER, TOPSELL, ALDROVANDUS, PONTOPPIDAN, and EGEDE, but all by the way.

More space is devoted to the accounts of WALTER SCOTT, and to the observations of Mr. MACLEAN (n^o. 31), of a party of British officers (n^o. 97), of Lars JOHNÖEN (n^o. 92), of Captain M’QUHAE (n^o. 118), and of Lieutenant HAYNES (n^o. 148). All this, however, without giving the least explanation, and ending with these words:

“I think the verdict may be given that its existence although belonging to “Curious Zoology”, is not impossible, and can hardly be branded as a falsehood.”

* * * * *

=162=.--1890, June.--_De Amsterdammer_, _Weekblad voor Nederland_, of July 12th. of this year, mentions:

“The sea-serpent again.--Captain David Tuits, of the British schooner _Anny Harper_, has been favoured with a sight of it, near Long Island, not far from the coast of Connecticut. He is a perfectly trustworthy gentleman, who hitherto has never believed in sea-serpents, but who has now seen one on a clear day; the tail which was coloured brown with black spots, was about forty feet out of the water. The captain estimates the total length of the monster at over one hundred feet.”

I think it not too bold to consider this report almost a duplicate of our n^o. 135. There the sea-serpent is called “a large snake about 100 feet long, of a dark brown colour, head and tail out of water, the body slightly under”. Most probably captain Tuits also saw only the head and the tail of the animal, and not the trunk. The tail is described here to be brown with black spots. It is evident that only the upper part of the tail was seen.

I immediately enquired of the Editor of the _Amsterdammer_ about the source of this article; he, however, promptly answered me that his correspondent did not remember from which of the five or six German newspapers daily read by him, he had copied it.--

* * * * *

“To what class of known beings does this monster of the deep belong?” This question has caused various suppositions, to which we will turn our attention in the next chapter.--