Chapter II (1)

Attempts to discredit the Sea-Serpent. Cheats and Hoaxes.

Home from their first voyage, sailor-lads, as Mr. Gosse says, are commonly eagerly beset for wonders. And what tales do they palm upon their credulous listeners? If they do not draw on their own invention, they tell the old stories they have heard when on fine evenings they were together with the old tars talking and chatting on the fore-deck. Of the latter many have no other origin than the imagination of a sailor’s brain; they are merely hoaxes; others again are exaggerated and garbled reports of what they have seen with their own eyes, or of what their comrades or their captain saw! There are the tales of the Unicorn, of the White Whale, that terrible “Moby Dick” of the Polar Regions, there are the fables of the Mermaids and Mermen, there are the exaggerations of the Kraken and the Sea-Serpent!

Except the last, all the other animals that gave rise to the terrible tales are known to Zoologists, and by their enlightenment even to the sailors themselves. This probably explains sufficiently why our sailors do not report any more encounters with Mermaids, or with the Kraken. They know now that they saw, or harpooned, manatees, or dugongs, and gigantic squids, or calamaries.

But suddenly the newspapers spread the rumour of a Sea-Serpent having been seen by Captain So and So, of the Royal Navy, and by the master, several midshipmen, and some men of the crew! The news is printed in hundreds of newspapers, and passes from mouth to mouth, in short, it becomes the topic of the day! A schooner, or a brig runs into a harbour, say that of Liverpool, and the Captain, and the crew are immediately asked if they have seen the sea-serpent. Unaware of the existence of such an animal they of course answer in the negative! But soon convinced by the affidavits printed in the newspapers, they swear that when on their next voyage they meet with it, they will bring it home! But on the next voyage, though they are constantly on the watch, the sea-serpent does not appear, and the time for returning home arrives. One of the sailors, perhaps even the captain hits upon an idea, a splendid one! Though he did not meet with the serpent, yet he has seen it with his own eyes! but the beast swam so rapidly that he could not pursue it! So in a moment he is resolved on hoaxing the gullible!

It is clear that the unbeliever must have had a great pleasure in inventing the hoax upon the subject, and in playing some splendid tricks on the believers!

Some of these hoaxes are admirably set up, and I will begin by telling my readers some of them, which I met with in the various works I had the opportunity to consult.

* * * * *

The earliest hoax or exaggerated report is that, published for the first time in the _Report_ of 1817. There we find in a letter from the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM JENKS the following:

“He” (Mr. STAPLES of Prospect) “told me also that about 1780, as a schooner was lying at a mouth of the river, or in the bay, one of these enormous creatures leaped over it between the masts--that the men ran into the hold for fright, and that the weight of the serpent sunk the vessel “one streak” or plank. The schooner was of about eighteen tons.”

* * * * *

Now follows the hoax of a JOSEPH WOODWARD, who had reason to be satisfied, for his tale appeared in many newspapers at Boston, New York, etc. It runs as follows:

“Another sea-serpent, different to the one first seen near Cape Anne, is said to have been seen, and the following declaration has been drawn up and attested in proper form.”

“I, the undersigned, Joseph Woodward, captain of the Adamant schooner of Hingham, being on my route from Penobscot to Hingham, steering W. N. W., and being about 10 leagues from the coast, perceived last Sunday, at two P. M. something on the surface of the water, which seemed to me to be of the size of a large boat. Supposing that it might be part of the wreck of a ship, I approached it; but when I was within a few fathoms of it, it appeared, to my great surprise, and that of my whole crew, that it was a monstrous serpent. When I approached nearer, it coiled itself up, instantly uncoiling itself again, and withdrew with extreme rapidity. On my approaching again, it coiled itself a second time, and placed itself at the distance of 60 feet at most from the bow of the ship.”

“I had one of my guns loaded with a cannon ball and musket bullets. I fired it at the head of the monster; my crew and myself distinctly heard the _ball_ and bullets strike against his body, from which they rebounded, as if they had struck against a rock. The serpent shook his head and tail in an extraordinary manner, and advanced towards the ship with open jaws. I had caused the cannon to be reloaded, and pointed it at his throat; but he had come so near, that all the crew were seized with terror, and we thought only of getting out of his way. He almost touched the vessel; and had not I tacked as I did, he would certainly have come on board. He dived; but in a moment we saw him appear again, with his head on one side of the vessel, and his tail on the other, as if he was going to lift us up and upset us. However, we did not feel any shock. He remained five hours near us, only going backward and forward.”

“The fears with which he at first inspired us having subsided, we were able to examine him attentively. I estimate that his length is at least twice that of my schooner, that is to say, 130 feet; his head is full 12 or 14; the diameter of the body below the neck is not less than six feet; the size of the head is in proportion to that of his body. He is of a blackish colour; his ear-holes (ouies), are about 12 feet from the extremity of his head. In short, the whole has a terrible look.”

“When he coils himself up, he places his tail in such a manner, that it aids him in darting forward with great force: he moves in all directions with the greatest facility and astonishing rapidity.”

“(Signed)”

“Joseph Woodward.”

“Hingham, May 12, 1818.”

“This declaration is attested by Peter Holmes and John Mayo, who made affidavit of the truth of it before a justice of peace.”

This hoax was reprinted in the _Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature and the Arts of the Royal Institute at London_, Vol. VI, 1818, and was apparently believed in by the sender. Mr. OKEN also inserted the tale of WOODWARD in his _Isis_, of 1818, p. 2100.--Thirty years afterwards Mr. EDWARD NEWMAN, the editor of _The Zoologist_, published it in his journal of 1848, p. 2028, without, however, mentioning the source from which he copied it! Why did not he do so? Apparently because he felt ashamed of giving such an old story, and because he was aware of the fact, that the whole account was wonderful, and contained many impossibilities!

Astonishing enough, Mr. FRORIEP translated this piece from the _Zoologist_, and inserted it in his journal (_Notizen_, Third Series, Vol. VI, n^o 131, p. 328), and ends this article with the following remark:[1]

[1] The translations are done as literally as possible.

“This communication tallies with those about the sea-serpent, published in our 3d. volume p. 148, which are also taken from the _Zoologist_. Some German newspapers have then amused themselves with our communications, as with a newspaper-hoax. We, however, shall go on to gather whatever from time to time will still come to us to solve an apparently fabulous matter in Zoology.”

The story, however, roused the indignation of Mr. W. W. COOPER, of Worcester (see _The Zoologist_, 1848, p. 2192). I will let him speak himself:

“I have waited anxiously to see whether any more competent person than myself would offer any observation upon the statement of Captain Woodward, published in the March number of the Zoologist, relating to the Great “Sea-serpent”. As no one has done so, I beg to offer you the following: In a note which you added in this statement, you say, “The foregoing statement was formally signed and sworn to at Hingham, by captain Woodward, on the 12th of May”. What 12th of May? You should have told your readers. Now, evidence given upon oath is generally considered as conclusive, except where the party swearing is known to be unworthy of credit, or the evidence given is not consistent with itself. Of Captain Woodward I know nothing; I never heard of him till I read the “Zoologist” for last March. It is, therefore, upon the latter ground that I venture to attack his statement, and I do so because in a disputed question it is necessary to throw aside all evidence that will not stand the stricktest scrutiny. Captain Woodward tells us nothing of his where-abouts, except that he was sailing from Penobscot to Hingham, steering W. N. W., nor of the date when he says he saw the serpent, except that it was on “Sunday last at 2 p. m.” This is not sufficiently accurate. But these are trifling points. The most extraordinary part of the statement will appear from this: Captain Woodward says, the beast moved with _extreme_, or, as he afterwards expressed himself, _astonishing_ rapidity; that when he fired at the monster it was sixty feet at the most from the bow of the ship, which appears to have been the nearest part of the vessel to the animal; but after he fired the beast advanced towards his ship; that he had caused his cannon to be reloaded and pointed at its throat,--of course while it was advancing towards his vessel,--but before he could fire his crew were seized with terror; that he tacked and got out of its way. So here we have an animal sixty feet from the ship, moving with astonishing rapidity _towards the ship_, which it appears was also moving _towards the animal_, and yet allowing time to load a cannon, point it at its throat, and afterwards to tack to get out of its way. Truly a most accommodating serpent! But again, the animal remained five hours near the ship, allowing itself to be minutely examined, but yet no further attempt to kill the beast! And what is almost equally strange, though even the position of the ear-holes is mentioned,--such minute observation does Capt. Woodward seem to have made,--yet no description is given of any scales, or anything else, to account for what is before stated, that Capt. Woodward and his crew “distinctly heard the ball and bullets strike against his body, from which they rebounded as though they had struck against a rock”. It is much to be regretted that these inconsistencies did not strike you before you made public the statement in question; it is also to be regretted that no one better able than myself to point them out has undertaken to do so. But it is highly desirable, in the present state of our ignorance upon this subject, that none but the most inexceptionable evidence should be received. Let us have “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” I need hardly add, that in these observations I am actuated by no unfriendly feeling towards Captain Woodward: my desire is to get at the truth of the matter; and I should hail with delight the day when one of these monsters of the deep, whatever they may be (for some animal with which we are unacquainted has, I firmly believe, been seen), is brought to our shores and lodged in one of our museums, to be at once the wonder and admiration of naturalists.--W. W. Cooper; Claines, Worcester, June 2, 1848.”

Here ends the history of this hoax, utterly smashed!

Mr. Edward Newman has never answered to this attack!

* * * * *

In 1818, when again notice was given of the presence of a sea-serpent in the neighbourhood of Boston, a reward of 5000 dollars was offered to the whalers for securing it, and bringing it home dead or alive. I will insert here the whole history of these attempts, for they finished with a trick.

In the copy of the _Report of the Committee_ of 1817, which I have borrowed from the Library of the Royal University of Göttingen, there is a paragraph from a newspaper of August, 21, 1818, the head or title of which is wanting; it runs as follows:

“Boston, Aug. 21.”

“Transmitted by our N. Y. Correspondents.

“Capt. Rich, who went from here a few days since, in pursuit of the Sea-serpent, writes the concern as follows:

“_Squam River, Aug. 20th. 12 o’clock._--After several unsuccessful attempts, we have at length fastened to this strange thing called the Sea-Serpent. We struck him fairly but the harpoon soon drew out. He has not been seen since, and I fear the wound he received will make him more cautious how he approaches these shores. Since my last, yesterday, we have been constantly in pursuit of him; by day he always keeps a proper distance from us, to prevent our striking oars. But a few hours since, I thought we were sure of him, for I hove the harpoon into him as fairly as ever a whale was struck; took from us about 20 fathoms of warp before we could wind the boat, with as much swiftness as a whale. We had but a short ride when we were all loose from him to our sore disappointment.”

“Rich’d. Rich”.

“Gloucester, Aug. 20.--As I thought it would be interesting to you to hear from Capt. Rich, and as he is at some distance, I will give you some particulars of his cruise. On Monday last, he sailed from this in a large whale boat, and two smaller ones well manned. My brother commanded one of the boats. Yesterday they met the Serpent off Squam, and chased him about seven hours, when they closed with him. He passed directly under the bows of Capt. Rich’s boat; he immediately threw the harpoon, which pierced him about two feet; he drew the boat a considerable distance but went with such a velocity that he broke that part of the boat through which the rope passed and drew out the harpoon. I hope they will have another opportunity before they give up the chase.”

“He has _no_ scales on him, and no bunches on his back, but his skin is smooth, and looks similar to an eel. In the attack, Capt. Rich had one of his hands wounded. These particulars I have in a letter from my brother”.

“Saml. Dexter”.

After the perusal of this work my readers will know why I am disposed to believe that the animal struck by Captain RICH was really a Sea-Serpent. As far as I can judge, after having read all that I have found about the sea-serpent, this is the only time that the animal was struck with a harpoon. Balls have often been fired at it, but it has never been killed yet. In the same copy of the _Report of the Committee_ of 1817, there was a letter from Mr. ANDREWS NORTON to Mr. GEORGE BANCROFT, at that time a resident at Göttingen. I give here an extract from this letter concerning the matter in question.

“Last Friday morning upon going to breakfast at Dr. Ware’s, I found there the papers of the day, in which was announced the most interesting fact, that the Sea-Serpent had been taken by the expedition fitted out for that purpose. In the Daily Advertiser in particular nearly a column was filled with the circumstances of his capture, and of the manner in which the information had been received, viz. from a person whose name was given, and who had come express from Gloucester, the evening before, to bring the news. He was said to be 120 feet long, and the Board of Health had sent down two boats to stop him in the Harbour. After talking about it all breakfast time, I immediately went to Reed’s stable, got a horse and chaise, put a news-paper in my pocket, rode to Professor Peck’s, showed him the paper, and offered to carry him into Boston, and to procure a boat to go out with him into the Harbour, that he might examine it. He was not well, and said at first that he could not go; but gradually grew warm upon the subject, and concluded at last that it would never do for him not to see it. When I had fairly got him into the chaise, his spirits rose with the exertion he had made, with the thoughts of the memoir and letters which he should write, and with the triumph which he anticipated over the Linnaean Society and their “diseased black snake”, as he contemptuously called it (meaning the small serpent, killed near the shore at Gloucester); for he pledged himself that we should find that the sea-serpent had no bunches on his back. I too anticipated with great satisfaction the honorable mention of me, which his gratitude would induce him to make in his memoir upon the subject, and expected confidently to float down to posterity behind Mr. Peck, upon this enormous animal. We entered Boston, and rode immediately to the end of Central Wharf to the store of a Mr. Rich, who had fitted out the expedition. The first person we saw was Judge Davis, whose countenance foreboded evil. His first words were to inform us that we had come in to be disappointed, for that the serpent was not taken! (I am not in the habit of using notes of admiration, but the present occasion seems to require one). The sailors, however, affirmed, as he said, that they had taken some most extraordinary fish of very large size, which he was going to see. I had little appetite left for seeing extraordinary fishes, but went to accompany Mr. Peck. We proceeded a wharf to the South End, and making our way through a croud, obtained admission into the dark lower room of a store where we found a considerable number of other gentlemen waiting. After some delay the fish was dragged in from the small vessel in which it had been brought, wrapped in sail. As soon as it was uncovered and fairly exposed to view, it was pronounced by all who knew any thing on the subject to be nothing but a Thunny, or Horse Mackerel, of a common size.--We had been gradually prepared for the disappointment, so that the shock was not so great as you might suppose. The report in the morning’s paper had arisen from a _mystification_ performed upon the person who brought it to Boston, by the crew of the vessel engaged in the expedition. The sailors who dragged in the fish were part of this crew; and instead of their being tossed over the wharf into the water, by way of punishment for their imposition, and to teach them better morals, as they infallibly would have been by any mob out of Boston, there was actually a collection made to reward them for their trouble in taking the fish and bringing it to exhibit. This fact, I think, deserves to be recorded for the honor of Boston, and particularly of us gentlemen present.--I have only to add that if you should learn that any one of the German literati is writing a volume upon Sea-Serpents, I beg you will assure him, that we do not consider the circumstance, connected with the deception just mentioned, as affecting the evidence before obtained for their real existence.--In the Messenger of this week which I will send by the next opportunity you will find one or two notices of this affair p. 756 and p. 758.”

I have had no opportunity to consult the above mentioned passage from this _Messenger_. I think most of my readers know a tunny (_Thynnus thynnus_ (_Linn._)). For those, however, who don’t, I give here a figure of it.

In the _Philosophical Magazine_, Vol. LIII, p. 71, of January 1819, we read:

“T. Say, Esq., of Philadelphia, in a letter received from him by Dr. Leach, announces that a Captain Rich had fitted out an expedition purposely to take this leviathan, of which so much has been said in the newspapers and even in some scientific journals. He succeeded in “fastening his harpoon in what was acknowledged by all the crew to be the veritable Sea-serpent (and which several of them had previously seen and made oath to): but when drawn from the water, and full within the sphere of their vision, it proved that this serpent, which fear had loomed to the gigantic length of 100 feet, was no other than a harmless Tunny (_Scombrus Thynnus_) nine or ten feet long!”

We see that Mr. NORTON and Prof. PECK immediately recognized the whole story as a Yankee-trick, but that Prof. T. SAY was the dupe of it!

From a letter from Prof. JACOB BIGELOW to Prof. BENJAMIN SILLIMAN (_Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_, Vol. II, Boston, 1820) I conclude that Prof. SAY’S letter was printed in THOMSON’S _Annals_ for Jan. 1819. If anybody can tell me the exact title of THOMSON’S _Annals_, he will oblige me, indeed. I have had no opportunity to consult it. A part of this letter was translated into German, and inserted in OKEN’S _Isis_ of 1819, p. 653. I will try to translate this part into English again:

“I regret that many scientific journals in Europe have in good earnest treated of the absurd story of the Great Sea-Serpent, which is nothing but a result of defective observation connected with an extravagant degree of fear. You will already know, that Capt. RICH has thrown light upon the subject; out of his own means he fitted out a ship to catch this Leviathan. He succeeded.....” (etc., the rest of the letter runs like the part from the _Philosophical Magazine_, quoted above).

Mr. RAFINESQUE SCHMALTZ, however, says, (see _Phil. Mag._ Vol. LIV, 1819):

“The _Pelamis megophias_, or Great Sea-Snake, appears to have left the shores of Massachusetts, and to have baffled the attempts to catch it, probably because those attempts were conducted with very little judgment. But a smaller snake, or fish, nine feet long, and a strange shark, have been taken, of which the papers give no description: let us hope that they will be described by the naturalists at Boston”.

And Prof. JACOB BIGELOW, of Boston (SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_, Vol. II, Boston, 1820):

“In the following year” (1818) “Capt. Rich of Boston, went on an expedition fitted out for the purpose of taking the Sea-Serpent, and after a fruitless cruise of some weeks, brought into port a fish of the species commonly known to mariners and fishermen by the name of Tunny, Albicore or Horse Mackerel, the _Scomber Thynnus_ of Linnaeus, and which fish he asserted to be the same as that denominated Sea-Serpent. This disappointment of public curiosity was attended at the time by a disbelief on the part of many, of the existence of a distinct marine animal of the serpent-kind, or of the dimensions and shape represented by the witnesses of Gloucester and elsewhere.”

“It is hoped that the unsuccessful termination of Capt. Rich’s cruise will not deter others from improving any future opportunities which may occur for solving what may now perhaps be considered the most interesting problem in the science of Natural History.”

This was written in 1820, and the problem is not quite solved yet!

The trick of Capt. RICH is also mentioned in the paper of Mr. MITCHILL, spoken of further on.

Again Colonel T. H. PERKINS relates in the _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of November 25, 1848, the trick of Capt. RICH as follows (copied from the _Zoologist_ of 1849, p. 2361).

“As it happened, a circumstance took place which did not do much credit to the actors in it, but which served to fortify the unbelief of our southern brethern. Believing that the possession of the sea-serpent would be a fortune to those who should have him in their power, many boats were fitted out from Cape Ann and other places in the neighbourhood of his haunts, armed with harpoons and other implements, and manned with persons used to the whale fishery, in hopes of getting near enough to him to fasten their harpoons in his side. Among others a Captain Rich (not Benjamin Rich), of Boston, took command of a party, which was fitted out at some expense, and went into the bay, where they cruised along shore two or three days without seeing the serpent. With a view, however, to keep the joke from themselves, they determined to throw or attempt to throw it upon others, though at the _expense of truth_! They spread a report that they had caught the serpent, or what had been taken for one, and that he was to be seen at a place mentioned in the advertisement.”

“Thousands were flocking to see this wonder, when it was found to be no other than a large horse macquerel, which (though a great natural curiosity, weighing sometimes 600 or 700 pounds) very much disappointed those, who had been induced to visit it. Those who had declared their disbelief of the existence of the Sea-serpent amongst ourselves were delighted to find their opinions were confirmed, and gave themselves great credit for their judgment and discrimination. The report spread from Boston to New Orleans, that what had been thought by some persons to be a sea-serpent had proved to be a horse macquerel, and even those who had been believers now supposed that those who had reported that they had seen the serpent had either misrepresented or had been themselves deceived. As no report of the snake having been seen after the capture of the macquerel was made, during that year, Captain Rich had the laugh with him, until circumstances, which have transpired since, have borne rather against him. Thus much for the transactions of the past years.”

* * * * *

_The Lake Erie Serpent._--In Mr. RAFINESQUE’S _Dissertation on Sea-Snakes_, we read (See _Phil. Mag._ Vol. LIV, 1819):

“It appears that our large lakes have huge serpents or fishes, as well as the sea. On the 3d. of July, 1817, one was seen in Lake Erie, three miles from land, by the crew of a schooner, which was 35 or 40 feet long, and one foot in diameter; its colour was a dark mahogany, nearly black. This account is very imperfect, and does not even notice if it had scales; therefore it must remain doubtful whether it was a snake or a fish. I am inclined to believe it was a fish, until otherwise convinced: it might be a gigantic species of eel, or a species of the above genus _Octipos_. Until seen again, and better described, it may be recorded under the name of _Anguilla gigas_ or Gigantic Eel.”

And in the _Additions_ to this dissertation:

“The Water-Snake of Lake Erie has been seen again, and described to be of a copper colour, with bright eyes, and 60 feet long. It is added, that at a short distance balls had no effect on him: but it is omitted to mention whether it was owing to have hard scales (in which case it might be a real snake of the genus _Enhydris_ or _Pelamis_), or to the indexterity of the marksman.”

Every one feels that Mr. RAFINESQUE was the dupe of a hoax, and that he was so, indeed, will be seen from Mr. MITCHILL’S dissertation (see below) in which more hoaxes are to be found.

* * * * *

Unbelievers not only invented tales to play a trick to believers, but when scientific men, they even read papers before learned assemblies, with a view of ridiculing the matter. I believe there has been no greater attempt to throw discredit on the sea-serpent, than that of Mr. SAMUEL L. MITCHILL. I am obliged to communicate to my readers his whole paper, even at the risk of wearying them. It was published in SILLIMAN’S _Am. Journ. Sc. Arts_, 1829, and runs as follows:

“The History of Sea-Serpentism, extracted from Samuel L. Mitchill’s Summary of the progress of Natural Science within our United States, for a few years past; read before the New York Lyceum, at a succession of sittings during October, 1828.--N^o. 35.--The Sea-Serpent. (Communicated for this Journal).”

“This subject, the author observed, would scarcely be worthy of notice, before this learned and respectable assembly, if it had not happened, that during several years, it, or something so imagined and so called, had frequently been presented for public consideration; and that paragraphs and statements in the newspapers and journals, do yet, from time to time, attract the attention of their readers.”

“This alleged monster of the deep first haunted the coast of Massachusetts, and frightened more particularly the neighbourhood of Gloucester with his presence. Observations were made, and evidence was collected to a large amount. These were so considerable and imposing, that the Linnean Society of New England published a book on the subject, with the figure of the enormous reptile under the name of _Scoliophis_. As the fishermen and naturalists could not catch him and bring him ashore for inspection, it was concluded to fortify the story by oaths. Accordingly, affidavits were made to great extent, containing the particulars of what the several deponents believed they had seen, and, as far as swearing went, such solemn declarations presented a strong case. Their operation however upon my mind was, that there was nothing better to show than those statements upon paper, which were, in no sense of the words, proofs of the fact, but merely expressions of the opinions formed by the deposing witnesses of what they had observed in the water. I who was a believer in the first instance, was gradually sworn into scepticism, which finally ended in incredulity.”

“About this stage of the panic, General David Humphreys did me the honor of a visit, and requested me to listen while he read a manuscript. To this I instantly consented. I discovered that my distinguished friend had visited Massachusetts for the express purpose of collecting all the testimony he could find concerning the sea-serpent. He was highly delighted with his success; and had reduced his researches into the form of letters addressed to Sir Joseph Banks, then President of the London Royal Society. He evidently intended to take the lead of the Linnean Society, and to acquire the honor and glory of making the wonderful intelligence known first to the sçavans of Europe. He did not vouchsafe, even to name me in the communication. After a very pleasant interview, during which I found that he positively considered himself right in the investigation, and I determined on my part to enter into no discussion about it, he requested me to receive the writing, and engage some bookseller to cause it to be put to press without delay. The reason for this was, that he was obliged to return forthwith to New-Haven. I made a contract in his behalf, and directed the proofsheets to be sent to him there. I had a lucky escape from an association with the extraordinary creature.”

“Afterwards, a mutilated specimen of a snake, killed on the land, somewhere thereabout, was brought to me preserved in alcoholic spirit. This had been exhibited as the spawn or young of the Great Scoliophis. The head, which contains the strong _ophiological_ characters, had been crushed and destroyed. But, as far as I could judge, from the formation of the belly and tail, it had been a native of the land, (apparently a _coluber_,) and had, of course, no pretention to claim kindred with its pretended parent of the ocean.”

“I was the better enabled, I thought, to form a more correct opinion, relative to the matter, by reason of my possessing in my museum, at the time, four true sea-serpents, which my navigating friends had brought me from the Gulf of Mexico, and the Chinese Sea.”

“The history of Sea Serpentism is a very memorable part of the sayings and doings in this enlightened age and country. For the benefit of the present generation, and of posterity, it ought to be written. In proceeding to pen a short sketch of it, I must premise, that I am one of the last persons in existence who would presume to put a limit to creative power. I admit that the all-mighty being could make a water-snake as easily as a fish; and that such an animal might be as big as a _Kraken_, as easily as the diminutive size of the _Stickleback_. Yet, on reviewing these legends of the times, there is found such a propensity towards the strange and the marvellous, that the men of the present day show a credulity very much resembling that of the remote ages, when the terraqueous globe was peopled with gorgons, mermaids, chimeras, hydras, dragons, and all the monsters of fabulous zoology.”

“(a). The first tale I remember to have considered seriously relative to it was this: it had been determined, they said, to put a steam boat in operation at Boston to coast along shore and to convey passengers. It was foreseen that such a vessel would traverse the currents and pass among the islands with an ease and a speed unknown to boats moved by oars and sails; and of course, much of the business of transporting passengers would be taken away from the small craft heretofore employed. The large boat would thus destroy the small ones, or, as was expressed by another word, devour them. Under these forebodings, the steam-vessel made a trip, with favourable auspices. Some wag, the account proceeds, wrote for one of the gazettes, an allegorical description of a sea-serpent, that had been descried off Nahant and Gloucester, and had probably come there to consume all the small fish in the place. The narrative, given with such grave diction and imposing seriousness, was received by many as an actual and literal occurrence, and credited accordingly.”

“(b). Long Island Sound put in a claim for a sea-serpent. On this fiction I am well satisfied of the particulars that follow. An active young fellow who had become weary of ploughing the land, bought a little sloop of about fifteen tons, which I remember to have seen; and resolved to try his luck in ploughing the waves. He named his vessel the _Sea-Serpent_. She was mostly employed in carrying country produce to the New-York market and in bringing manure back, with the advantage of passengers when any offered. This boat was on her way from Mamaroneck harbor or thereabout toward the city, and was met by a sloop from that place, a short distance from City-Island. The captain of the latter, on arriving at home, was eagerly interrogated by a quidnunc for news; and being a man of some humor and fancy, told his neighbor, the querist, he had just seen the sea-serpent. He then described how (alluding to the barrels on deck) he had seen the bunches on his back; how high the head (meaning the bowsprit) was out of water; how the black and white colours (meaning the painted waist) were variegated; how he saw the lashing of the tail (meaning the motion of the boom in jibing as she was going along before a fair easterly wind); that this sea-serpent was proceeding with a speed equalling at least from five to six knots an hour, which made all white before him (meaning the foam at the bows). The good man took the joke in real earnest, went away and told it to a sensible acquaintance. This latter wrote a formal and solemn account of it; which, travelling an extensive round in the sheets of intelligence, was finally embodied in the aforesaid book, where it is registered as a part of the evidence.”

“(c). It was about this period of these transactions that I received from Boston an ichthyological production, enclosed in a letter, respectfully written, and with postage paid, submitting to me whether that article was not a piece of a sea-serpent’s hide? It had been found on the shore of the region which the alarming visitor frequented; and was supposed to have been separated from his body by one of the musket balls which had been fired at him and washed ashore. To this serious communication I returned for answer that it was simply a portion of skin with closely adhering scales, belonging to the bony scaled pike (Esox osseus), an inhabitant of the Atlantic Ocean.”

“(d). So much curiosity and excitement were now raised about the sea-serpent, that he was a prominent topic of conversation. The feeling was more intense, inasmuch as it was confidently declared he had been frequently observed near boats and vessels. It was at length concluded to fit an expedition, expressly for the purpose of catching him, with a select crew, under the command of Captain Rich. Day after day he cruised over tracts where the sea-serpent had, according to information, been observed, without discovering anything like him. At length, a creature was descried, which some of the men on board said they had seen before, and that it was the sea-serpent. The captain pursued the game a considerable time longer, with much vigilance and patience, until it was at a distance near enough to be harpooned. He was taken on board, and found to be a fish of the Mackerel family. I saw the preparation of it in the Greenwood Museum, and satisfied myself that it was an individual of a well known species called _Tunny_ in the Mediterranean, and _Albicore_ in the Atlantic sea.”

“After the capture of the fish, the persons who, when they saw him in the water, declared positively that he was the sea-serpent, now changed their minds, and swore he was not.”

“At length the man of successful exertion arrived with his prize; and unexpectedly and unfortunately drew upon him the displeasure of his employers for attempting to impose upon them a _Horse-Mackerel_ (as they call it) for a _Sea-Serpent_! He told me the story himself.”

“(e). In this fervor of opinion, it was supposed for a time that a sea-serpent existed in Lake Ontario. A coasting navigator, somewhere between Kingston and York, had several times during his trips observed among the islands and rocks something that appeared to be a long animal with vertical flexures of the back, resembling lumps or humps of variegated black and white hues. He told some of his acquaintances what peculiar appearances had presented themselves to his view; and that he intended the next opportunity to take a more close and correct survey. He did so, shortly after, when the whole phenomenon ascended into the air! It turned out to be a speckled mother duck, with a numerous brood of young ones. They swam in a line, with the parent bird at the head. And as they rose and descended on the undulations, gave an appearance so like that ascribed to the sea-serpent, that the captain, though a wary man, would have solemnly declared, until he was undeceived, his belief in the existence of a sea-serpent there!”

“(f). Lake Erie brought forward pretensions too for a sea-serpent. One of the coasting vessels, navigated by three men, as she was steering eastward from Detroit, discovered something afloat on the hither side of the islands called “The Sisters”, which, when she arrived at the place of her destination on the southern shore, was reported by the men at the tavern and the printing office, to be the very creature. Mr. Printer wrote a paragraph on the subject, and inserted it in his paper, in which it travelled far and wide. It may be relied on that this alleged inhabitant of that inland sea, has been reduced to genus and species, by a distinguished naturalist, and registered very orderly in zoology. Now let us find what the production really turned out to be. The sheriff of the county, a sensible man, heard of the marvel, and conceiving that he knew as much about the lake as any person whatever, went on board full of curiosity, to make inquiry about it. He found but one of the people on board, whom he interrogated closely concerning the wonderful sight, with which he and his associates had entertained the neighbourhood. The sailor was soon implicated in contradictions. The querist, aware of the fellow’s confusion, asked him if he was not ashamed to propagate such falsehoods? He then said, if the sheriff would not be affronted, he would relate the whole story just as it was. At the place aforesaid, they passed a dry tree afloat; and concluding that the butt or root would do for a head, some knots on the trunk for knobs or bunches, and the top for a tail, they would have a little pastime by telling a story of a sea-serpent, which they thought their lake was as much entitled to as any other water. The whole three had agreed to tell the same tale and support it!”

“(g). When the skin, &c. of the huge basking shark, that had straggled from the Northern Ocean and had been killed in Raritan Bay (Squalus Maximus), was exhibited in New York City, the inhabitants were openly and earnestly invited by notice in words at length displayed in front of the house, to enter and behold the sea-serpent. The conceit took very well!”

“Now, after all these mistakes, deceptions and wilful perversions on the subject, every person of consideration may admit that the gambols of porpoises, the slow motions of basking sharks, and the yet different appearances of balaenopterous whales, all of which have fins on their backs, may have given rise to those parts of the narrations, not already herein commented upon.”

Professor SILLIMAN, the editor of the journal, could not help saying in a note:

“We give place to the _scepticism_ of the learned author, although not ourselves _sceptical_ on this subject. We do not see how such evidence as that presented by Dr. Bigelow Vol. II p. 147 of this Journal--particularly in the statements of Capt. Little of the Boston Frigate, and of Marshall Prince and family, and of Mr. Cabot, can be set aside--although we have no doubt that there have been on this subject both error and imposition; and we are far from believing that every thing that has been called a sea-serpent has really been such.”

Now in the whole dissertation there is not one single _proof_ of the non-existence of the sea-serpent. Mr. MITCHILL gathered some _hoaxes_, which no doubt greatly amused his audience, but his statements are sadly wanting in correctness. He says, that the sea-serpent _first_ haunted the coast of Massachusetts, while if he in October 1828, had taken the trouble to look up the literature on the subject, he would have found that the sea-serpent had already appeared on the coasts of Norway, in the Northern Atlantic, in Davis’ Straits, in the Northern Pacific near Behring’s Isle, and all along the Eastern coasts of the United States. The Linnaean Society, he further asserts “published a book on the subject, with the figure of the enormous reptile under the name of _Scoliophis_”. This is also untrue, for the Society only figured an individual of a sick and ill-formed _Coluber constrictor_, the so-called Black Snake, having only the length of about one yard! The “mutilated specimen of a snake” which was brought to him in alcoholic spirit, was the same figured by the Linnaean Society; and where Mr. MITCHILL says that he is convinced that the snake was a common native of the land, “apparently a _Coluber_”, he expresses an opinion which the Society already printed in their little book. Consequently he cannot claim priority in this matter. And finally, where he says that the story of the active young fellow with his sloop, called “the sea-serpent” is published in the aforesaid book of the Linnaean Society, he has told his audience and his readers what is commonly called “a falsehood”, for in the whole book there is not one “formal and solemn account” in which there is question of “white and black colours” which “were variegated”, of a “tail” which “lashed” the water, and of a motion of “six knots an hour, which made all white before him”.

I may safely express here my opinion that the whole paper of Mr. MITCHILL is an unscientific, deceptive dissertation, unworthy of notice, and that the way in which he ridiculed the endeavours of the Committee was unfair.

* * * * *

Another hoax which appeared in some American newspapers I have found, translated into German, in FRORIEP’S _Notizen_, of 1830, June, Vol. XXVII, n^o. 589, p. 265:

“Again a story about the sea-serpent will be found in American newspapers. Capt. DELAND with the schooner _Eagle_ ran into Charlston on the 27th. of March” (1830) “from Turtle River, and with his crew is willing to confirm by oath the truth of the following declaration: On the 23d. of March, at 11 o’clock A. M., at about a mile from Simons Bay, we perceived at the distance of about 300 yards a large body, resembling an alligator, which sometimes moved with the vessel, sometimes lay motionless on the surface. Capt. DELAND, who perceived that he approached the animal, loaded a musket with a ball, and steered so, that he approached it within 20 or 25 yards at a moment that it lay quite still and apparently careless. Capt. DELAND aimed with great sagacity at the hindpart of the head, the only part that was just visible, and the ball evidently struck. At this moment the monster, to the great terror of the crew, came directly up to the vessel, and in passing dealt her two or three heavy blows with its tail, of which the first struck the stem, and caused a shaking, felt by every-one on board. The Captain, as soon as he perceived the animal approach, jumped upon the load of cotton which lay on deck, and the whole crew, the mate not excepted, only thought of their safety. They all had opportunity to see their enemy and agree that its length was about 70 feet. The body was as thick as or thicker than a sixty-gallon keg, of a grey colour, eel-shaped, without visible fins and apparently covered with scales, the back full of joints or bunches, the head and beak resembled an alligator’s, the former 10 feet long, and as big as a hogshead. A smaller individual was observed at a great distance (!), which, however, disappeared at the shot, afterwards, however, both were seen again together, when they passed the North-Breaker where they disappeared.--Captain D. says, that four years ago he saw a similar creature at some distance off Doboy and had fired four times at it; without, however, causing such a visit as in the present case. He believes, that this terrible undescribed animal has strength enough to damage a vessel of the size of the _Eagle_, if not to destroy it, and feels happy to have got rid of it in this way. He further asserts that he has certainly not erred with regard to the shape of the sea-monster, and that it was different from whales and other inhabitants of the deep, which he has ever witnessed” (_Chronicle_).

Though the description of the form might lead to the belief that what is reported to have been seen was a real sea-serpent, yet I consider the whole account as a story, because it is not the habit of the sea-serpent to attack a ship after having been struck by a ball, but to plunge down and to disappear.

* * * * *

Again the sea-serpent was said to have appeared in Lake Ontario. In FRORIEP’S _Notizen_ of August 1835, Vol. 45, n^o. 980, p. 186, we read:

“The Colossal Sea-Serpent is again reported in the American newspapers. Now it is even told that it has been seen in Lake Ontario, 78 feet long, as thick as a large flour-barrel, and of a blue colour spotted with brown. If this is not an illusion, the sea-serpent at last ought to have been explained or will be so very soon”.

It seems that Mr. FRORIEP really believes, that if this report is not the result of an optical illusion, it is trustworthy, and that the appearance of the Sea-Serpent in Lake Ontario does not belong to the impossibilities! Every one will agree with me, that the report can only be the result of an illusion, or that it is a hoax.

* * * * *

In 1845 Dr. ALBERT C. KOCH “exhibited a large skeleton of a fossil animal, under the name of _Hydrarchos Sillimanni_ in Broadway, New York, purporting to be that of an extinct marine serpent. These remains consisted of a head and vertebral column, measuring in all 114 feet, of a few ribs attached to the thoracic portion of the latter, and of parts of supposed paddles” (see _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._ Nov. 1845, Vol. II, p. 65). I show here to my readers the figure of this skeleton, which I have found in the _Wochenblatt für das Christliche Volk_ of 1878. The description of this skeleton in full particulars is given by Prof. WYMAN in the above mentioned American Journal. I will not trouble my readers with it, but only mention that Prof. WYMAN in the same paper proved that “these remains never belonged to one and the same individual, and that the anatomical characters of the teeth indicate that they are not those of a reptile, but of a warm blooded mammal”. And he comes to the conclusion that the greater part of the bones belonged to the genus _Basilosaurus_ of HARLAN, 1824, an animal allied to the seals. The same genus is called _Zeuglodon_ by Prof. RICHARD OWEN in 1839, _Dorudon_ by Prof. GIBBES in 1845, and _Saurocetus_ by Prof. AGASSIZ.

In the same _Proceedings_, of Dec. 1845, Vol. II, p. 73, Prof. H. D. ROGERS too states, that according to the form and structure of some loose bones, the skeleton must be of at least two individuals of _Basilosaurus_.

In the same periodical (of Jan. 1846, Vol. II, p. 94) we read that Dr. KOCH also told the public that the bones had been found together, in a position which proved that they belonged to one individual, and that the vertebrae formed an integral series, arranged in the order in which they were lying when discovered. That this assertion too was a mere fabrication, is not only shown by Prof. WYMAN, as we have seen above, but also in a letter by Dr. LISTER, who stated that Dr. KOCH had dug up the bones in _different_ places in Alabama.

A little notice on this imposture was written by the New York correspondent in the _Cincinnati Gazette_ which, translated into German, appeared in FRORIEP’S _Neue Notizen_ of Febr. 1846, Vol. 37, n^o 801, p. 134.

In the _Illustrated London News_ of Oct. 28, 1848, we read that Prof. SILLIMAN attested: “that the spinal column belongs to the same individual, that the skeleton differs, most essentially, from any existing or fossil serpent, although it may countenance the popular (and I believe well founded) impression of the existence in our modern seas of huge animals, to which the name of Sea-Serpent had been attached”.

These words were undoubtedly taken from another newspaper or journal, but I can hardly believe that Prof. SILLIMAN had a share in this imposture.

In the _Illustrated London News_ of Nov. 4, 1848, the Editor published a letter directed to him by the well-known Geologist and Palaeontologist MANTELL:

“Sir,--Will you allow me to correct a statement that appeared in the last Number of your interesting publication? The fossil mentioned at the conclusion of the admirable notice of the so-called Sea-Serpent, as having been exhibited in America under the name of _Hydrarchos Sillimannii_, was constructed by the exhibitor Koch, from bones collected in various parts of Alabama, and which belonged to several individual skeletons of an extinct marine cetacean, termed _Basilosaurus_ by the American naturalists, and better known in this country by that of _Zeuglodon_, a term signifying _yoked teeth_. Mr. Koch is the person who, a few years ago, had a fine collection of fossil bones of elephants and mastodons, out of which he made up an enormous skeleton, and exhibited it in the Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly, under the name of _Missourium_. This collection was purchased by the trustees of the British Museum, and from it were selected the bones which now constitute the matchless skeleton of a Mastodon in our National Gallery of Organic Remains”.