Chapter IV (1)

The various accounts and reports concerning observations of Sea-Serpents, chronologically arranged and thoroughly discussed; and criticisms of the papers written about the subject.

An account of the appearance of a Sea-Serpent, published in _Nature_ of Nov. 18, 1880, induced me to make a study of that subject. A few months afterwards I wrote a little paper for the _Album der Natuur_, a Dutch periodical, designed to bring the latest progress and problems of Science in a very popular manner under the eyes of non-scientific readers.

In that paper I discussed the probability of the existence of an animal which was unknown to zoologists, but which nevertheless existed, and gave rise to all the narratives of the Great Sea-Serpent.

In January, 1889, I happened to come across a paper on the same subject by Mr. HENRY LEE. In this work “_Sea Monsters Unmasked_” the sea-serpent is explained in several manners, as having been a row of porpoises following one another, as some gigantic sea-weed, as huge calamaries, and though hesitatingly as any still unknown animal belonging to a genus of reptiles, the representatives of which are only known in the fossil state.

Having given another explanation in my above-mentioned paper, and seeing that Mr. LEE did not mention my supposition, I am now so bold as to repeat my attempt at explaining the Sea-Serpent in another manner; I have chosen the English language as being known to all zoologists and to all navigators.

The Sea-Serpents and other serpents of extraordinary dimensions, quoted by ARISTOTELES (_History of Animals_, Book 8, chapt. 28), PLINIUS (_Naturalis Historiae_, Lib. 4, cap. 23, Lib. 8, cap. 14), VALERIUS MAXIMUS (_de Factis Dictisque Memorabilibus_, Lib. 1, cap. 8, 1st. century), FLORUS (Lib. 2), SENECA (litt. 82), SILVIUS ITALICUS (Lib. 6), AULUS GELLIUS (Lib. 6, cap. 3), OROSIUS, ZONARES, DIODORUS SICULUS, VOLETERRANUS (_Commentariorum Urbanorum_ libri 38, book 12), PETR. MARTYR (_Decad._ 1, lib. 10), BAKIUS (_Posidonii Vita et Reliquiae_, p. 115), AELIANUS, VERGILIUS, etc., were most probably nothing but pythons.

The various kinds of _Serpens marinus_ alluded to by ARISTOTELES and PLINIUS, and afterwards described and figured by many other authors, evidently belong to the sea-eels, e. g. those of _Père_ JEAN BAPTISTE LABAT in 1722, or were doubtless real sea-snakes, which reach no greater length than about twelve feet.

For these reasons we will pass all the descriptions of these different animals, and review only reports of no earlier date than the year 1500 A. D.

Having examined all the descriptions and figures of the Great Sea-Serpent published from 1500 A. D. up to this day, we come to the conclusion, as we have already stated above, that some of the so-called sea-serpents were fishes of slender form, others were cuttles of extraordinary dimensions (_Cephalopoda Decapoda Chondrophora_). In all these cases it is not impossible, and sometimes not difficult for a zoologist, who is familiar with these creatures and their habits, to explain those observations, but the greater part of the accounts of Great Sea-Serpents do _not_ agree with the well-known shape of sea-weeds and cuttles, _nor_ with the habits of porpoises. Mr. LEE tries a few times to identify the Sea-Serpent with these kinds of animals, but all who saw the sea-serpent moving with vertical undulations, and figured it thus, knew the habits of those animals, and some of them testified, that it could not have been porpoises, which they knew well enough to be sure of it. I will add here that porpoises move irregularly and have dorsal fins, which must of course be visible whenever they appear on the surface, whilst in none of the accounts mentioning the sea-serpent moving in vertical undulations, there is any question of dorsal fins visible on the coils of the sea-serpent.

But let us now pass to the accounts that have come within our reach, and peruse them in order of their date.

* * * * *

=1=.--1522.--(See OLAUS MAGNUS, _Historia de gentibus_, etc.) “There is also another serpent of an astonishing size in an island called Moos, in the diocese of Hammer: which portends a change in the Kingdom of Norway, as a comet does in the whole world, as it was seen, anno 1522, raising itself high above the surface of the water and circling like a spire. Seen from afar this serpent was estimated by conjecture to be fifty cubits long; this event was followed by the banishment of King Christiernus and by a great persecution of the Bishops; and it also showed the destruction of the country, as Isidorus tells us of the birds of Diomedes.”

In the original Latin we read _atque in modum sphaerae convolvens_ (and wrinkling like a ball), but as this has no sense, I am convinced that we have to do with a misprint, and that the author evidently wrote _atque in modum spirae convolvens_, which I have translated above “and circling like a spire”. This evidently signifies that the observer saw the animal swimming with vertical undulations, parts of which were visible above the surface of the water.

Further we must direct our attention to the statement that the animal raised itself high above the surface of the water.

Finally that it was estimated to be fifty cubits long, i. e. about seventy-five feet.

* * * * *

OLAUS MAGNUS, the Archbishop of Upsala wrote in 1555 as follows:

“They who, either to trade, or to fish, sail along the shores of Norway, relate with concurring evidence a truly admirable story, namely that a very large serpent of a length of upwards of 200 feet, and 20 feet in diameter lives in rocks and holes near the shore of Bergen; it comes out of its caverns only on summernights and in fine weather to devour calves, lambs and hogs, or goes into the sea to eat cuttles, lobsters and all kinds of sea-crabs. It has a row of hairs of two feet in length, hanging from the neck, sharp scales of a dark colour, and brilliant flaming eyes. It attacks boats, and snatches away the men, by raising itself high out of the water, and devours them: and commonly this does not happen without a terrible event in the Kingdom, without a change being at hand, either that the princes will die or will be banished, or that a war will soon break out.”

This narrative tells us that the sea-serpent frequents the shores of Norway, that it appears mostly in summer, that it has large dimensions, and a considerable thickness. It has a row of hairs hanging down from its neck, its colour is dark, its eyes are brilliant and flaming. It only appears in fine weather.

We consider its devouring hogs, lambs and calves, and its appearance on summernights on land to take its prey to be a fable. The eating of squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters may be a fiction, or it may have been truly witnessed, the animal chewing them with its head above water, as seals and sea-lions do. The story of snatching away a man from the ships is evidently confounded with another tale, as it is not mentioned anywhere else with regard to the sea-serpent. It evidently refers to gigantic calamaries which occasionally attack boats and snatch away one of the crew. (See LEE, _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, I, _The Kraken_.). Its being covered with scales must be fictitious too, for they who saw a sea-serpent at a short distance, are unanimous in stating that it had no scales but a smooth skin.

On the same page of the text, OLAUS MAGNUS has figured a sea-serpent in the act of swallowing a man from a boat, which has just anchored on a rock, wherein the serpent has its hole. I give a facsimile of that figure in Fig. 14.--Mr. HENRY LEE who mostly sees calamaries and no other animals in the tales and figures representing the Great Sea-Serpent, tells us that: “the presumed body of the serpent was one of the arms of the squid, and the two rows of suckers thereto belonging are indicated in the illustration by the medial line traversing its whole length (intended to represent a dorsal fin) and the double row of transverse septa, one on each side of it”.--As to the snatching away a man of the crew, I quite agree with Mr. LEE, as already said above, but as to the figure of the serpent itself, I am strongly convinced that OLAUS MAGNUS or his draughtsman had no other intention than to delineate a large snake, and they gave it the large scales, mentioned in the text, but the scales are badly drawn. They further gave it a medial row of scales, as all snakes have such a medial row.

* * * * *

GESNER in his _Nomenclator aquatilium animantium_, 1560, gives two figures of the sea-serpent of which I give facsimiles in Fig. 15 and 16.--GESNER says that there is a large map of Scandinavia in OLAUS MAGNUS’ work, and on this map our fig. 15 is drawn in the Baltic Sea, and our fig. 16 in the Atlantic Ocean. In the original edition of 1555 there is but a small map of Scandinavia, which shows only the heads of several animals in the sea. I therefore conclude that there still exists another edition of MAGNUS’ work which I don’t know. Returning to our figures we immediately observe that the drawer has delineated large _snakes_, the one without scales, and swimming with _vertical_ undulations, the other with large scales, and that he did not intend to represent a dorsal fin by the medial line, but only a medial row of scales, unequal to the lateral. On the head three transversal rows of protuberances are visible, which evidently serve to represent the long hairs hanging down from the neck of the animal.

Of the sea-serpent GESNER tells us:

“In the Baltic or Swedish Ocean are found certain yellow sea-serpents of thirty or forty feet in length, which, when not provoked, do not harm any one. Of these sea-serpents OLAUS MAGNUS gives the following figure in his Map of Scandinavia”.--(See our fig. 15).

“On the same Map there is another sea-serpent, a hundred or two hundred feet long (as says the text, or three hundred, as states the number added to the figure), which sometimes appears near Norway in fine weather, and is dangerous to Sea-men, as it snatches away men from the ships. Mariners tell that it incloses ships, as large as our trading vessels, made on our rivers and lakes, by laying itself round them in a circle, and that the ship then is turned upside down. It sometimes makes such large coils above the water, that a ship can go through one of them. I give the figure as it is on the Map.”--(See our fig. 16.)

Here we meet with three other characteristics of the sea-serpent: it is harmless when not provoked, it encircles ships and turns them upside down, and its coils are so gigantic that a ship can go through one of them. The first characteristic is a real one: the sea-serpent is perfectly harmless, if not provoked. We observe this in almost every account. The other two are of course extraordinary exaggerations of its dimensions.

The two figures of GESNER copied on a reduced scale, with an extract of his text, appeared in the _Graphic_ of January 29, 1876.

* * * * *

The text in the edition of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work printed at Basle in 1567 is the same as that of the first edition printed in 1555 at Rome, but the figure between the text differs, and is doubtless a combination of our figg. 14 and 16, in miniature; see our fig. 17.

On the map of Scandinavia subjoined to the work also occurs a figure of the sea-serpent, which we have copied in our fig. 18.--This figure does not claim our attention; it represents an eel or a snake, it has no scales.--Not so fig. 17: it distinctly shows dorsal scales and ventral plates, just as snakes have. This seems to me a confirmation of my opinion that in all these figures the drawers had no other intention than to delineate a large snake, without any notion of the arms of a calamary. As to the seizing of a man, we believe that a large calamary was the robber, whose deed is wrongly attributed to the sea-serpent. Last not least, it distinctly shows the long hairs, hanging down from its neck, a true mane, and several credible persons declare to have seen them.

* * * * *

ALDROVANDUS, 1640, believes that the sea-serpent of the Baltic or Swedish Ocean is the same as that of the Norwegian Ocean. I believe he is right. Moreover he repeats the texts of OLAUS MAGNUS and GESNER. His figures are enlargements of the figures on the Map of Scandinavia, which accompanies the edition of OLAUS MAGNUS’ work, unknown to me, and mentioned above. He only omits the water, the ship and the man in its mouth. Of his figures I don’t give copies, because they are exact enlargements of our fig. 15 and 16.--

* * * * *

=2=.--1640?--(See ADAM OLEARIUS, _Gottorfische Kunstkammer_, Ed. I, 1650, Ed. II, 1674) “and that this is true has not long ago been confirmed by a Swedish nobleman at Gottorf, who declared to have heard from the Burgomaster of Malmoi, a trustworthy man, that, whilst standing on a hill on the Norwegian coast, he saw in the calm water a large serpent, which seen from afar, had the thickness of a wine barrel, and 25 windings. These serpents are said to appear on the surface of the water only in calm weather and at certain times.”

Here again we have the statement, that in the Norwegian sea, and most probably in the Sound between Sweden and Danmark, a large animal was seen, looking like a huge serpent, and the confirmation that it comes to the surface of the water only in calm weather and at certain times. I beg the reader to fix his attention on those apparently insignificant statements, as it will be seen that they are given several times independant of one another.

* * * * *

JONSTON in his _Historia naturalis_, and his _Theatrum universale omnium animalium_ of which several editions appeared in 1653, 1657, 1660, 1665, 1718 (edited by RUYSCH, quoted by Prof. W. D. PECK in _Mem. Amer. Acad._ 1818, Vol. IV), 1764 and 1768, repeats the tales of OLAUS MAGNUS, and the figures of GESNER and ALDROVANDUS.--

* * * * *

MILTON in his _Paradise Lost_, printed in 1667, comparing Satan with huge monsters, also mentions the sea-serpent of the Norwegians, calling it Leviathan (Book I, verse 192-208):

“Thus Satan, talking to his nearest mate,
With head up-lift above the wave, and eyes
That sparkling blaz’d; his other parts besides
Prone on the flood, extended long and large,
Lay floating many a rood, in bulk as huge
As whom the fables name of monstrous size
Titanian, or Earth-born, that war’d on Jove,
Briareus, or Typhon, whom the den
By ancient Tarsus held; or that sea-beast
Leviathan, which God of all his works
Created hugest that swim th’ ocean stream:
Him, haply slumb’ring on the Norway foam,
The pilot of some small night founder’d skiff
Deeming some island, off, as seamen tell,
With fixed anchor in his scaly rind,
Moors by his side under the lee, while night
Invests the sea, and wished morn delays.”

We observe that he mixes here also another story of a large sea-monster on which sea-men, believing it some island, will anchor, a story told about the Kraken and about the sperm-whales.

* * * * *

CHARLETON in 1668 quotes only ALDROVANDUS and OLAUS MAGNUS, giving neither description nor figures.

* * * * *

=3=.--1687.--(RAMUS, _Norges Beskrivelse_, quoted by PONTOPPIDAN).

“In the year 1687 a Great Sea-Serpent was seen several times by several persons in the Damsfjord, and once by eleven persons together. The weather was calm, but as soon as the sun set and the wind began to blow, it left the fjord, and like one who runs out a coil of rope can know the length thereof, so one could see how long it was, before it had wound off all its coils, and stretched itself at full length.”

In this account we read again that the animal is seen in calm weather and that it shows coils or windings. For the first time the fact is mentioned that it can stretch itself, evidently in a straight line. Further on we shall read this several times.

* * * * *

=4=.--1720.--(PONTOPPIDAN, _Det förste Forsög paa Norges naturlige Historie_).

“THORLACK THORLACKSEN has told me that in 1720 a sea-serpent had been shut up a whole week in a little inlet, into which it came by high tide through a narrow entrance of seven or eight fathoms deep, and that eight days afterwards, when it had left the inlet, a skin of a snake or serpent was found. One end of the skin had entirely sunk into the water of the inlet, and no one could guess how long it was, the inlet in which the skin partly lay, being several fathoms deep. The other end of this skin was washed ashore by the current, where everybody could see it; apparently it could not be used, for it consisted of a soft, slimy mass. THORLACKSEN was a native of the harbour of Kobbervueg”.

It is evident that a true sea-serpent visited the little fjord daily during that week, most probably in its pursuit of fish, for the sea-serpent is sufficiently known to the Norwegians, and if it had been an animal different from the common Norwegian sea-serpent, I am sure that it would not have been called a sea-serpent. It is also stated that the animal left the inlet. But the skin found afterwards was certainly nothing else but a putrified long arm or tentacle of a great calamary. The soft slimy nature of the skin sufficiently proves my hypothesis. The great calamary died in the fjord or inlet, and its long dead arm was washed ashore by the current, while the body sunk.

* * * * *

=5=.--1734, July 6.--The earliest account of HANS EGEDE’S encounter with the sea-serpent we find in his work published in Danish at Kopenhagen in 1740, entitled: “_A Full and Particular Relation of his voyage to Greenland, as a Missionary, in the year 1734_”.

I have not had the opportunity of consulting this work, but the passage about the sea-serpent runs most probably as follows:

“Anno 1734, July. On the 6th. appeared a very terrible sea-animal, which raised itself so high above the water, that its head reached above our main-top. It had a long sharp snout, and blew like a whale, had broad, large flappers, and the body was, as it were, covered with a hard skin, and it was very wrinkled and uneven on its skin; moreover on the lower part it was formed like a snake, and when it went under water again, it cast itself backwards and in so doing it raised its tail above the water, a whole ship-length from its body: That evening we had very bad weather.”

In the same year there appeared a German edition of this work, entitled _Ausführliche und Wahrhafte Nachricht vom Anfange und Fortgange der Groenländischen Mission_, etc., Hamburg, 1740, 4^o, which I have not been able to consult either.

I don’t know whether there is an English or a French edition. In the _Illustrated London News_ of Oct. 28, 1848, the writer of the article _Evidences of the former appearance of the Sea-Serpent_ translated the passage from a Danish copy of EGEDE’S _Full and Particular Relation_ in the British Museum. Evidently he was not very well up in the Danish language, for his translation is partly incorrect. I am convinced that in the original text EGEDE does not mention the exact locality where he saw the animal. The translator tells us that it was off the south coast of Greenland, which of course is incorrect, as Greenland has no south coast. Of “sea-animal” he makes “sea-monster”, for “above our main-top” he has “on a level with our main-top”, for “it blew like a whale” he has “it blew water almost like a whale”, for “its body was as it were covered with a hard skin” he has “its body was covered with shell-fish, or scales”, and some parts are not translated at all.

In 1738 HANS EGEDE wrote a _Journal of his mission_, in which he did not mention the meeting, but his son PAUL EGEDE in the continuation of this Journal, entitled _Continuation af Relationerne betreffende den Groenlandske Mission_, Kjoebenhavn, 1741, gives a full account of it, which we have translated above word for word.

I have not had the means of consulting the German translation of this work, entitled _Fortgesetzte Relationen die Groenländische_ _Mission betreffend_, Kopenhagen, 1741, so I cannot say anything about the text or figures, but the translation which I found in the German edition of PONTOPPIDAN’S _Natural History of Norway_ is correct. Not so the English translation entitled _Journal of the Mission to Greenland_, 2d. Vol. There we find, according to Mr. LEE who quotes the passage in his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, first _sea-monster_ instead of _sea-animal_, further, that _it spouted water like a whale_, instead of _it blew like a whale_. There is a great difference between these two expressions. A whale does not spout _water_ as is generally believed and figured. Further, that the body seemed to be covered _with scales_, instead of _with a hard skin_ or _crust_, for the Danish _skiell_ or _skiaell_ is singular, and not plural. Finally, that the tail above the water was a whole ship-length from the _head_ instead of from the _body_, for the Danish _Kroppen_ signifies “the body”. Of course I cannot say anything of the figures in this edition.

In the original Danish work of PAUL EGEDE there is a map of a part of the coast of Greenland and of the Davis’ Straits, called Baals Rivier, on which is situated the Danish Colony, the Good Hope (Gothaab). As it was generally done in those days, Mr. BING, a brother-missionary of EGEDE’S, drew on his map not only the animal but also the vessel in the sea. I give here a facsimile of the figure of the animal, without the ship. We distinctly see that the animal has rather a serpentlike form with a large head, showing formidable teeth, an eye with a heavy eye-brow, and a nostril; two flappers on the fore-part of the body, the uneven skin, and a tail ending in a point.

On the same map there is also another figure, showing the animal’s tail, after it had plunged back into the water. The tail is again figured terminating in a point.

We shall do well to observe the fact that the figure is an accurate illustration of the text with regard to the animal blowing like a whale; the breath which the animal exhales immediately after having been under water a long time, is condensed in the cold air and forms little curling clouds.

In the original Danish work of HANS EGEDE, entitled _A Full and Particular Relation_, etc., of which we have spoken above, there is also a figure. Though I have not had the opportunity to consult this work, I am thoroughly convinced, that the map of Baals Rivier with the two figures of the animal are quite the same, true facsimiles. The above mentioned translator drew this figure on a reduced scale for his article in the _Illustrated London News_, and as his text is incorrect, his figure is so too, for he changed the rough skin into scales, according to his own translation. (See our fig. 21.)

Afterwards Mr. LEE in his _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_ made use of the figure of the _Illustrated London News_ and so gave his readers again an altered figure. For history’s sake I show here a true facsimile of the figure as it appeared in the _Illustrated London News_, Oct. 28, 1848, and in Mr. LEE’S _Sea Monsters Unmasked_, London, 1883. A reduced copy of it also appeared in the _Illustrirte Zeitung_ of February 3, 1877.

In the Danish work of HANS EGEDE _Det gamle Groenlands nye Perlustration_ we read: “that it was seen at 64° lat. before the colony”. “Its body was as thick as the ship and three or four times longer”. Moreover the description of the animal is the same as in PAUL EGEDE’S _Continuation_ of the Journal.

In the German edition of this work, entitled _Des alten Groenlands neue Perlustration_, Copenhagen, 1742, we read: “that it was seen before the Danish Colony, the Good Hope, that it had two broad flappers on the fore-part of the body”.

In the Dutch edition, entitled: _Beschrijving van Oud Groenland_, Delft, 1746, the translator did not allow himself so many liberties as the English and the German translators did, but was more correct in his expressions.

In the French edition, entitled _Description et histoire naturelle du Groenland_, Copenhagen et Genève, 1763, the translator allowed himself the liberty to tell his readers that “when the animal, which was covered _with scales_, plunged back into the water, it did so with _the belly turned upwards_!”

In the same year appeared a second German edition (translated from the French) entitled _Beschreibung und Naturgeschichte von Groenland_, Berlin, 1763, in which we even read that the animal _lay upon the water with its belly turned upwards_ when it plunged back into the water!

In many respects the figure of Mr. BING and EGEDE’S text complete each other.

Let us now have a look at both the text and the figures. We may do this most safely, being convinced of the truth of EGEDE’S words and BING’S figure. EGEDE “was a truthful, pious, and single-minded man, possessing considerable powers of observation, and a genuine love of natural history; his statements are modest, accurate, and free from exaggeration. His illustrations bear the unmistakable signs of fidelity.” (LEE, _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, p. 65.)

From what has been said of the animal, seen by EGEDE, we gather that it appeared on the 6th. of July, 1734, in fine weather before the Danish Colony the Good Hope, Davis Straits, Greenland; (EGEDE says: “the following evening we had very bad weather”, so we may conclude that:) the weather was fine, when the animal was seen; it had a considerable length, say a hundred feet, and was much thicker than a snake of those dimensions would be, say some eight feet; it raised its head, its neck and the fore-part of its trunk high above the surface of the water, it had a long, sharp snout, it blew like a whale (the breath of an animal as large as a whale must of course have been distinctly visible in those cold regions; I also wish to fix the reader’s attention on the figure where the animal is not spouting a stream of water, but where its breath is condensed by the cold, and forms little curling clouds of vapour). It had broad and large flappers. EGEDE does not say: it had broad flappers on the forepart of the trunk; as Egede does not state that the figure, made by Mr. BING aboard his ship, directly after the appearance of the animal, is not truthful, we must consider it as being correct; so the animal had two large and broad flappers on the fore-part of the trunk. The body _seemed_ to be covered with a hard skin. For truth’s sake EGEDE wrote _seemed_, which is well done; for a hard skin or crust would not have been _wrinkled_ when the animal bends its body. Like all known air-breathing sea-animals of those dimensions the animal must of course have had under its skin a relatively thick layer of bacon, and I myself have often seen that the skin of sea-lions and seals wrinkled, when the animal bent its body in such a manner as the Sea-Serpent of EGEDE did. And we shall afterwards repeatedly see that the sea-serpent has no scales but a smooth skin, as seals have. And if the animal could have scales, they would be very large ones, considering its colossal dimensions, in which case it must have been easy to see the scales from a distance, though they were wet with the water; but I can hardly believe that one can say of an animal, seen at some distance and quite wet and shining with the water, whether it has a crust or a soft skin. The latter has been the case, for the animal showed wrinkles when bending its body. Its lower part was formed like that of a snake, by which EGEDE evidently means to say that it was perfectly round and tapered to the end of the tail, and that he _did not see_ any appendages (which does not exclude their presence, for the middle part of the body remained invisible, hidden by the water). The creature plunged _backwards_ into the water. It evidently has a considerable flexibility, as is also shown in the figure. Consequently it cannot have been a snake, which has no dorso-ventral flexibility, nor a gigantic calamary, as Mr. LEE thinks, which has no flexibility at all! It had a very flexible, long tail, almost one half of the length of its body, which was distinctly seen by EGEDE and figured by Mr. BING. The tail of the animal, being of a considerable length, tapered in a point, and had no caudal fins, neither horizontal nor vertical ones. The figure shows an eye with a heavy eye-brow, a nostril, and teeth; the flappers have external visible fingers, as sea-lions have; those of porpoises and dolphins are without them. Afterwards we shall more than once have occasion to observe that the sea-serpent’s head is drawn by BING too large, and the neck too short.

Mr. LEE says in his frequently quoted work _Sea-Monsters Unmasked_, “The sea-monster seen by EGEDE was of an entirely different kind” (viz. from those mentioned by MAGNUS and PONTOPPIDAN). I am of the opinion that if Mr. LEE had written: The sea-monster seen by EGEDE was the same, but seen in an entirely different position, condition and direction, he would have been nearer the truth; for careful inquiry has shown me that the sea-serpents of MAGNUS and PONTOPPIDAN are the same as those which still appear in the Norwegian seas, and those have all the characters of EGEDE’S animal. Moreover we saw that the animal, mentioned in our accounts 1, 2, 3 and 4, and according to the descriptions of MAGNUS and GESNER had the following characteristics: 1. It raises itself out of the water to a considerable height. 2. It swims with vertical undulations. 3. It has an enormous length, probably upwards of a hundred feet. 4. It is much thicker than a snake of the same length would be. 5. It has a row of hairs hanging down from its neck. 6. Its colour is dark. 7. Its eyes are brilliant and flaming. 8. Its food consists of squids, cuttles, crabs and lobsters. 9. It is harmless, if not provoked. 10. It appears in fine weather. 11. It can stretch itself in a straight line.--Of these facts the 1st., 3d., 4th., and 10th. are stated by EGEDE; he could not mention the 2d., 8th., and 11th., because he did not see the animal swimming or eating. Most probably he could not see the 5th., because he did not see the animal on its back, but as the figure shows, somewhat on its belly and somewhat from aside; moreover there are individuals without a mane. EGEDE says nothing of its colour, its eyes, its harmlessness. Its colour was evidently a dark brown one, the common colour of large sea-animals, else he would have called it brilliant white, or green, or red. The eyes are figured by BING, though not described by EGEDE, but in PONTOPPIDAN’S work we read in a note to Chapt. VIII, § 7, that Mr. BING mentioned to his brother-in-law, Parson SYLOW, at Hougs in the parish of Bergen, that the eyes seemed to be reddish and like a burning fire. So its harmlessness is the only fact we cannot derive with certainty from EGEDE’S account.

PONTOPPIDAN relating EGEDE’S observation of the monster gives a copy of Mr. BING’S figure, but as often occurred in those days, it is not copied with great accuracy, and BING’S drawing has been altered by PONTOPPIDAN so as to give quite another figure. (Our fig. 22 is a facsimile of that of the German edition.) Mr. BING was right in figuring the vaporous breath of the animal, and PONTOPPIDAN changes it wrongly into a waterspout of more than 100 feet long! PONTOPPIDAN is convinced, when seeing BING’S figure, that there are several species of sea-serpents, all belonging to the same genus. I do not wish to discuss this point.

Still more exaggerated is the figure of JARDINE’S _Naturalist’s Library_, or rather that which Dr. R. HAMILTON presents to his readers. He makes of it a serpentine dragon which has also the power of spouting a splendid set of water some twenty feet high, a water-mass equalling nearly half the volume of the animal’s body!

* * * * *

In his _Essay towards a Natural History of Serpents_, 1742, Mr. OWEN repeats only (p. 14, and p. 143) the tales and reports of OLAUS MAGNUS and GESNER.

* * * * *

=6=.--1743?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“It is said that a few years ago a sea-serpent stranded on the cliffs near Amund in Nordfjord, perhaps with high water, and died there and the carrion also caused a dreadful smell.”

* * * * *

=7=.--1744?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“It is also told that a sea-serpent stranded near the Isle of Karmen and that the stranding of sea-serpents took place in more localities.”

There is nothing strange in the stranding of sea-serpents. Unluckily the fear of the Norwegian people of sea-serpents is great enough to keep them far away from them, even from their carrions, and so these accounts don’t mention anything as a result of closer investigation.

* * * * *

=8=.--1745?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 1, note).--“A fisherman relates to me that, on Sundsland, two miles from Bergen, he once saw a long, large and strange animal so close to his boat, that the water, brought in motion by the animal, dashed against it, but immediately it disappeared again under water. The head resembled that of a seal, its skin was also as woolly, but the body was as thick and as long as a yacht of fifty tons, and the tail, which seemed to be about thirty-five feet long, tapered towards the end which was as pointed as a boat-hook.”

Though PONTOPPIDAN did not seem to believe that this animal was his sea-serpent, I am convinced that such was indeed the case, because the whole description is exactly that of the animal. It is remarkable that all the persons who saw the sea-serpent so close to their boat, as this fisherman did, agree in giving it a smooth skin; now seals when wet have also a smooth skin, and our fisherman was near enough to the animal to detect the real nature of such a skin, viz. that it is _hairy_, or as he expresses himself _woolly_. We shall afterwards more than once meet with statements in which the head is compared with that of a seal. The head, though resembling that of a seal, was of course much larger. The body was as thick and as long as a yacht of fifty tons, say about forty feet, and the tail was about thirty-five feet in length, and tapered to its pointed end, like the animal of EGEDE and those of the former writers MAGNUS, OLEARIUS and RAMUS, who compared the body with that of a snake. As the fisherman mentions the length of the tail, it is evident that he could see the beginning of it, so that it may be supposed that there was a difference in thickness between the body and the tail.

* * * * *

=9=.--1746, August.--(PONTOPPIDAN, _Det förste Forsög_, _etc._).--PONTOPPIDAN relates:

“Last winter I happened to meet the Royal Commander and Pilot-general at Bergen, Mr. LORENZ VON FERRY, and we spoke about this subject. He told me that for a long time he had doubted the existence of the sea-serpent, but that at last his experiences in 1746 had convinced him. And though I could not say anything of importance against it, he ordered to my satisfaction and that of others, two seamen, who were with him in his boat, and had seen the animal and its blood which coloured the water red after a shot of VON FERRY at it, to appear before the public court of justice at Bergen. What those men confirmed on oath may be found in the following instrument which I received in original, and which I therefore think valuable enough to communicate in extenso:”

“ALBERT CHRISTIAN DASS, His Royal Majesty’s Stadtholder at Bergen, HANS CHRISTIAN GARTNER, His Royal Majesty’s Councillor of Justice and Commerce, at the same time Secretary of the town, together with JAN CLIES, OLE SIMENSEN, OLE BRINCHMAND, JOERGEN KOENIG for CONRAD VON LANGE, MATTHIAS GRAM for ELIAS PETRUS TUCHSEN, CLAUS NATLER for DIDRICH HASLOP, JOCHEM FOEGH for HENRICH HIORT, and JOERGEN WIERS for HANS CHRISTIAN BYSZING, sworn citizens and additional deniers there, declare, that on February the 22th., 1751, the Procurator JOHANN REUTZ appeared before the public court of justice at Bergen, and presented a paper he had received that day, and bearing the date of the day before, from the honourable Captain and Pilot-general LORENZ VON FERRY. And as the services of the appearer are requested in it, to supply him a judicial hearing of witnesses, concerning the event mentioned in the same paper, so the appearer, being there for that purpose, pointed out two men living in this town, named NIELS PETERSEN KOPPER and NIELS NIELSEN ANGLEWIGEN, begging that these men might be admitted to a declaration on oath, that all has happened in particulars so as is mentioned in the paper, which he begged to be registered in said instrument. The above mentioned paper was read to the witnesses and runs as follows:

“Mr. JOHANN REUTZ.”

“Sir,”

“In the latter end of August, in the year 1746, as I was on a voyage, on my return from Trundheim, on a very calm and hot day, having a mind to put in at Molde, it happened that when we had arrived with my yacht within a mile of the aforesaid Molde, being at a place called Jule-Naess, as I was reading in a book, I heard a kind of murmuring voice from amongst the men at the oars, who were eight in number, and observed that the man at the helm kept off from the land. Upon this I inquired what was the matter, and was informed that there was a sea-serpent before us. I then ordered the man at the helm to keep the land again, and to come up with this creature of which I had heard so many stories. Though the fellows were under some apprehension, they were obliged to obey my orders. In the meantime the sea-snake passed by us, and we were obliged to tack the vessel about in order to get nearer to it. As the snake swam faster than we could row, I took my gun which was loaded with small shot, and fired at it; on this he immediately plunged under water. We rowed to the place where it sank down (which in the calm might be easily observed) and lay upon our oars, thinking it would come up again to the surface; however it did not. Where the snake plunged down, the water appeared thick and red; perhaps the small shot might have wounded it, the distance being very little. The head of this sea-serpent, which it held more than two feet above the surface of the water, resembled that of a horse. It was of a greyish colour, and the mouth was quite black, and very large. It had black eyes, and a long white mane, which hung down from the neck to the surface of the water. Besides the head and neck, we saw seven or eight folds, or coils, of this snake, which were very thick, and as far as we could guess there was a fathom’s distance between each fold. I related this affair in a certain company, where there was a person of distinction present, who desired that I would communicate to him an authentic detail of all that happened; and for this reason two of my sailors who were present at the same time and place where I saw this monster, namely, NIELS PETERSEN KOPPER, and NIELS NIELSEN ANGLEWIGEN, will appear in court, to declare on oath the truth of every particular herein set forth; and I desire the favour of an attested copy of the said descriptions.”

“I remain, Sir, your obliged servant,”

“L. VON FERRY.”

“Bergen, 21st. February 1751.

“After this the above-named witnesses gave their corporal oaths, and, with their finger held up according to law, testified and declared the aforesaid letter or declaration, and every particular set forth therein to be strictly true. A copy of the said attestation was made out for the said Procurator REUTZ, and granted by the Recorder. That this was transacted in our court of justice we confirm with our hand and seals.”

“Actum Bergis, Anno, Die et Loco ut supra.”

“A. C. DASS.” “H. C. GARTNER.”
“J. CLIES.” “O. SIMENSEN.”
“O. BRINCHMAND” “J. KOENIG.”
“M. GRAM.” “C. NATLER.”
“J. FOEGH.” “J. WIERS.”

As to Mr. VON FERRY’S declaration that the head of the sea-serpent resembled that of a horse, we cannot give another explanation than that it evidently was held at nearly right angles with the neck, that the nostrils were wide opened and large, and that the mane on the animal’s neck altogether must have led him to think so. The statement that the colour of the head was greyish, apparently contradictory to what had as yet been said about the animal’s colour, viz., that it is a dark brown one, may be explained, I think, as follows: the sea-serpent has a skin as woolly as seals and sea-lions have; it had swum a long time with its head two feet above the water, and the weather being very hot, its skin was dried up, and had got a colour quite different from that when being wet. When wet the common seal has a greenish or brownish black colour, but when dry a greyish yellow one, with a somewhat dark greenish hue; and the spots become less visible. So we see that sea-lions are dark brown when wet, but when lying on the stone border of their basin in our Zoological Gardens they very soon become dry in the sunbeams and show a greyish yellow colour. But returning to Mr. VON FERRY’S sea-serpent, the mouth, however, was black and very large. The eyes were black, the mane long and white (being dry) hanging down to the surface of the water. The coils, seven or eight in number, were very thick and the distance between them was a fathom. The colour of the coils is not mentioned; we may suppose that they were dark brown.

Prof. W. D. PECK (_Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts. Sc._ IV, I, 1818) calls this account a rational and credible one. “The figure which he” (PONTOPPIDAN) “gives seems to have been made from the description of Capt. DE FERRY, the officer above alluded to. In this figure, the head and jugular region are raised out of the water; a little below the head is a mane which seems to be inserted all round the back of the neck. The appearance of this mane was most probably an optical deception, and was nothing more than the water displayed by the neck in the progress of the animal through it, returning to its level. It had probably no mane. But of the existence of the animal, the testimony presented by the Rev. Bishop is sufficiently conclusive.”

Prof. PECK seems not to have read PONTOPPIDAN so accurately as might be expected from him, for the figure in PONTOPPIDAN’S work has quite another origin, as we shall see below. Prof. PECK would not have written his supposition of the mane, if one of the eye-witnesses of the animal near Cape Ann (see below, 1817), had seen a mane. Moreover PONTOPPIDAN asserts that nearly all agree in representing the animal with a mane, and we shall read of several declarations further on.

As to the colour of the coils, Mr. LEE seems to be at one with me for in his frequently quoted work _Sea Monsters Unmasked_ he says: “The supposed coils of the serpent’s body present exactly the appearance of eight porpoises following each other in line”, and: “I believe that in every case so far cited from PONTOPPIDAN, as well as that given by OLAUS MAGNUS, the supposed coils or protuberances of the serpent’s body were only so many porpoises swimming in line, in accordance with their habit before mentioned.” If Captain VON FERRY had described the coils of his serpent as being white or red, Mr. LEE certainly would not have supposed that they were eight porpoises.

Further Mr. LEE remarks: “If an upraised head, like that of a horse, was preceding them, it was either unconnected with them, or it certainly was not that of a snake; for no serpent could throw its body into those vertical undulations.”

Very well, but if Mr. LEE wishes to explain the coils by porpoises, he ought to account for the head which preceded them; this he silently passes by, only saying it was not that of a snake. A fine explanation indeed!

* * * * *

=10=.--1747?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 7).--“Governor BENSTRUP is said to have had some years ago a similar meeting with the sea-serpent” (to Mr. VON FERRY’S) “and he has figured it. I should like to possess this figure to show it to my readers. I, however, show here another one sent to me by Parson HANS STROEM, which he himself has copied from the original.”

The figure shows a head with a mane, and six coils of the body. The nostril is indicated, the mouth has no teeth, the eye is large.

It is remarkable that Mr. LEE tells us: “The figure of the sea-serpent given by PONTOPPIDAN was drawn, he tells us, under the inspection of a clergyman, Mr. HANS STROM, from descriptions given of it by two of his neighbours, Messrs. REUTZ and TUCHSEN, of Herroe; and was declared to agree in every particular with that seen by Captain DE FERRY, and another subsequent observed by Governor BENSTRUP.”

Not only does not the first part of this statement tally with the words of PONTOPPIDAN, but also the second part is discrepant, for the learned Bishop goes on saying: “This figure agrees with the descriptions given by two of his neighbours Messrs. REUTZ and TUCHSEN.”

Mr. VON FERRY is not mentioned at all on this occasion by PONTOPPIDAN!

Mr. BENSTRUP’S figure has also been copied by Dr. R. HAMILTON in the volume of _Phocidae_ (seals) of JARDINE’S _Naturalist’s Library_, but it has been greatly exaggerated. It seems that Dr. R. HAMILTON thought it to be the same animal as that seen by EGEDE, for he figures both animals with the same head and features. Of the figure of BENSTRUP too he makes a serpentine dragon, swimming with corkscrew motions! O horror!

* * * * *

=11=.--1748?--Mr. REUTZ of Herröe declared to PONTOPPIDAN that the drawing of Parson HANS STROEM agreed even in particulars with what he saw of the serpent several times when he went in his boat to church.

* * * * *

=12=.--1749?--Also Mr. TUCHSEN of Herröe made the same declaration. He too saw the animal several times when he went to church in his boat. PONTOPPIDAN adds: “and then I do not even mention many other persons of the same high rank and trustworthiness. The same Mr. TUCHSEN is the only one who told me that he distinctly saw the difference in thickness between the trunk and the tail of the animal, viz., the trunk is not gradually growing smaller where the tail begins, but becomes smaller at once and very distinctly. The body is as thick as a barrel of two hogsheads. The tail is tapering towards its end, which is very pointed.”

This account is remarkable for the reason that it mentions the fact that the beginning of the tail is distinctly visible. So we must infer from it that the animal had thighs, and consequently had also hind-limbs. And knowing that the fore-limbs which Egede saw, are flappers, the hind-limbs too must be flappers; consequently the animal has four flappers.

* * * * *

=13=.--1750?--PONTOPPIDAN, telling what he has learned from the north-sailors says:

“One of these north-sailors tells that he was once so close to the serpent, that he might have touched its smooth skin.”

Here is stated by a person who saw the sea-serpent close to his boat, that the skin is smooth, a statement apparently contradictory to that of the fisherman (n^o. 8), who declared it as woolly as a seal-skin. The fact is that the one has distinctly recognized the hairy nature of the skin, whilst the other did not discern it.

* * * * *

=14=.--1751?--(PONTOPPIDAN, Chapt. VIII, § 1, note). “An incertain rumour tells me, that some peasants of Sundmöer have lately captured in their nets a serpent of eighteen feet with four paws under its belly; which they brought ashore. Thus it resembled a crocodile. The peasants in their terror fled from their nets, and by doing so they gave an opportunity to the serpent to do the same.”

Though the Bishop does not call this animal a sea-serpent, I am sure it was one. In the Norwegian and Danish languages an Orm is a serpent, viz., a long slender animal with a rather small head and a pointed tail; and as it was captured in nets in the sea, it is certain, that this animal, which PONTOPPIDAN compares with a crocodile, having a slender and round body like a snake and four paws (or flappers) is the same as the animal afterwards seen by Captain HOPE (n^o 119) and compared by him with an alligator. The dimensions not surpassing twenty feet, the animal must have been very young.

* * * * *

Now let us see what PONTOPPIDAN himself says of the sea-serpent, after having heard hundreds of eye-witnesses:

“The sea-serpent, serpens marinus, by some people also called Aale Tust, is the second wonderful and frightful sea-monster which ought to be studied by him who looks with delight on the great deeds of the Lord, and which is considered as the greatest wonder next to the Kraken, which will be described hereafter. Before describing its habit and shape, I feel again obliged to prove the real existence of the serpent, as I did before with the mermen.”

The first kind of wonderful and frightful sea-monsters were the mermen and mermaids. At present, we know with certainty what were and are the mermen and mermaids of ancient days and our own time. All zoologists are convinced they were nothing else but sea-cows or manatees (_Thrichechus manatus L._ and _Thrichechus senegalensis_ DESM.) or dugongs (_Dagungus dugung_ GMEL.). Mr. LEE believes that the occurrences of mermen and mermaids in the northern seas and even in the waters round Great-Britain and Ireland “afford some slight hope that the remarkable rytina (_Rytina borealis_ GMEL.) may not have become extinct in 1768, as has been supposed, but that it may still exist somewhat further south than it was met with by its original describer, STELLER.” Some of the mermen of PONTOPPIDAN were nothing else but Bladdernosed seals (_Cystophora cristata_ (ERXL) NILSS) as I already proved in my little paper in the _Album der Natuur_ of 1882, and I see that Mr. LEE comes to the same conclusion (_Sea Fables Explained_, _London_, 1883).

We also know with certainty that the Kraken of the Norwegian tales and the gigantic Octopus of DENYS DE MONTFORT really exist, and that they are nothing else but gigantic calamaries and cuttles (_Cephalopoda_).

But we don’t know with certainty what the Great-Sea-Serpent really is. That it exists, has already been stated by the highest scientific persons, so no doubt need any longer be felt as to that fact.

“If it were not the wise and careful arrangement of the Creator, that this sea-animal perpetually lives in the depths of the sea, except in July and August, its pairing-time, during which it appears, when the sea is quite calm, but dives as soon as the wind ruffles the surface of the water; if this arrangement, I say, were not thus made for man’s safety, the existence of the sea-serpent would want fewer proofs, than even in Norway, thanks to God! is the case, the shores of which are the only ones of Europe, frequented by this monster.”