jump to navigation

Seventeenth-century English Dragons May 28, 2012

Posted by Beachcombing in : Modern

Beachcombing recently highlighted the case of a giant serpent in nineteenth-century Devon, a snake that was as thick as a thigh. Beach had assumed that this was a one off, but now he is wondering as he found a second reference to go with it. This one comes from a pamphlet with a straight-to-the-point title: The Flying Serpent or Strange News out of Essex. This was published in 1669 and tells how a beast that was spotted at Lodge Farm, Henham-on-the-Mount was

‘8 or 9 foot long, the smallest part of him about the bigness of a Man’s leg, on the middle as big as a Mans Thigh, his eyes were very large and piercing, about the bigness of a Sheep’s eye, in his mouth he had two rows of Teeth which appeared to their sight very white and sharp, and on his back h e had two wings indifferent large but not proportionable to the rest of his body, they judging them not to be above two hand fulls long, and w hen spreaded, not to extend from the top of one wing to the utmost end of the other above two foot at the most, and therefore altogether too weak to carry such an unwieldly body.

A flightless dragon then?! All this makes Beach wonder if (in imaginary terms) the Devonian snake was actually the last traces of belief in wyrms in those parts in the early eighteenth century.

Back to the Henham beast though. One writer, Alison Barnes, has gone on record with (she believes) the true identity of this beast. Crocodile? Salamander? Mutant adder? Well, actually none of the above. AB has argued that it was a practical joke. She claims that the author of the pamphlet, was also the author of the hoax: see further her ‘Ingenious William Winstanley: Poet, Journalist, Bookseller, Historian and Novelist of Saffron Walden and Quendon 1628-1698’. AB argues, in fact, that all the ‘solid witnesses’ were Winstanley’s friends and implies that lots of paper mache was employed.

So dragons were truly extinct by the seventeenth century in Britain? Well, yes and no. In 1614 another text was published whose title will speak for itself.  True and Wonderfull: A Discourse relating a strange and monstrous Serpent (or Dragon) lately discovered, and yet living, to the great annoyance and divers slaughters both of men and cattell, by his strong and violent Poyson: in Sussex, two miles from Horsam, in a woode called St. Leonards Forrest, and thirtie miles from London, this present month of August, 1614. With the true generation of Serpents.

Who needs annotated bibliographies when you have a hundred word titles? A description of the ‘dragon’ follows.

He is of countenance very proud, and at the sight or hearing of men or cattel, will raise his necke upright, and seem to listen and look about, with great arrogancy. There are likewise on either side of him discovered, two great bunches so big as a large footeball, and (as some thinke) will in time grow to wings

He was eight or nine feet in length and his middle part (the thickest) was, reportedly, like the axle tree of a cart.

What on earth is happening here? drbeachcombing AT yahoo DOT com

The Problem with Sea Apes May 24, 2012

Posted by Beachcombing in : Actualite, Contemporary, Modern

***Dedicated to Andy the Mad Monk and Invisible***

Beach has, since the early days of this site, shown a persistent interest in mermaids. It would be outrageous then to pass by the important new documentary coming out (or has it already aired?) on Animal Planet. The following is borrowed from Wikipedia (courtesy of the inestimable Invisible).

Mermaids: The Body Found is a two hour Animal Planet… The fictional film tells the story of a scientific team’s investigative efforts to uncover the source behind mysterious underwater recordings and an unidentified marine body. Two former National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists tell their story on camera for the first time. After investigating mass strandings of whales, the team claimed to have recorded mysterious underwater noises coming from an unknown source. This sound resembled a sound previously recorded in 1997, called the ‘bloop’. They also claimed to have recovered 30% of the remains of an unknown creature from inside a great white shark which was said to possess attributes of the human body. They alleged that the marine creature had hands, not fins, and the hip structure of an upright animal. These findings, along with many others led the team to determine that this unknown animal was very closely related to humans, possibly a mermaid.

So a mockumentary has been created to  entertain and to offer the latest theory on mermaids. And what is this theory? This time Beach borrows from part of a Fox News report (courtesy of Andy). Note how there is absolutely no mention here of the fictional content unless the word ‘compelling’ (as in ‘the punters don’t do simple facts’) is supposed to cover that!

In the two-hour CGI Special Mermaids: The Body Found, Animal Planet dives deep into the idea that mermaids may have been real, and, even better – related to humans! ‘It’s a very radical theory on human evolution, but we have approached an age-old myth and really chased its origins,’ Animal Planet honcho Charlie Foley told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column. ‘It has been compiled in a way that is very compelling, making us think that mermaids might not just be mythical creatures.’ The show unravels mysterious underwater sound recordings and presents a bone-chilling argument for the Aquatic Ape Theory, which suggests that during the transition from apes to hominid, some humans went through an aquatic stage. This stage is argued to have resulted in ‘aquatic ape-like’ creatures. ‘There are striking differences between us and other primates, yet [there are] many features we share with marine mammals, like the webbing between our fingers, which other primates don’t have, a layer of subcutaneous fat, and a loss of body hair,’ Foley explained. ‘We also have an instinctive ability to swim, and control over breath. Humans can hold breath up to 20 minutes, longer than any other terrestrial animal.’ Mermaids: The Body Found ponders the concept that coastal flooding millions of years ago turned some of our ancestors inland, while another group branched off into the deep water out of necessity and for food.

Beach has already highlighted sea apes. In fact, he dug up, to the best of his knowledge, the earliest reference to the concept that dates back to the eighteenth century. And this is where the problems begin… Readers might want to flag up problem concerning biology, which Beachcombing is, sadly, not qualified to do: drbeachcombing AT yahoo DOT com However, Beachcombing would like to stick his oar into the epistemology of sea-bourne monkeys.

If you want to explain the unicorn then it makes sense to look for a now extinct creature. After all, people no longer see unicorns (with very few exceptions) and those sightings there are usually involve travelers far from home confronted by unusual but known animals. If there was a unicorn-like animal ten thousand years ago then it is possible that this animal got trapped in an early phase of human myth and that it was passed down to us from there.

However, the problem with explaining mermaids in this way is that sightings continue  into the present. There are dozens of sightings, for example, from the Hebrides (Scotland) in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Beach can only see three ways forward in relation to the sea-ape theory.

(i) There is a small population of sea apes that survived (or survives) on and off the British coast and yet no body or photograph has ever turned up.

(ii) The mermaids that are seen cannot be explained as physical entities. Here you can give a psychological, a theosophist or a ‘pagan’ explanation, but sea apes are out.

(iii) By some bizarre mechanism presently beyond our understanding the sea ape, which has not lived on the Scottish coast for a thousand or ten thousand years, entered ‘collective memory’ and has reappeared in the imagination of locals: go to (ii) above but with sea apes ‘in’.

Beach just might be able to conceive, against all his better judgement, that in the wild backwoods of New Zealand or in the expanses of the Rocky Mountains there are giant flightless birds or unknown hominids. But if anyone finds a sea ape community on the coast of Scotland, he’ll eat a tonne of boiled sweets. He has never seen (pace Jungians) any proof for ancestral memory. And so he would plump for number (ii), as he would for fairies.

In fact, forget sea apes, mermaids seem to be sea fairies. And in many ways the sea ape theory is to mermaids what the late nineteenth century pygmy theory was to the fey.

People sometimes see things that are not physically present: whether they are truly external or not Beach will happily leave to the philosophers.  What is absolutely terrifying about this is that if our perception can play these kinds of tricks on us (or ‘pull back the veils of creation’ if you prefer) can our senses be trusted under any circumstances? On just that subject, looking forward to the documentary…

***

25 May 2012: Wade writes in ‘Your sea ape post instantly reminded me of the aquatic ape theory, first proposed by a German pathologist, Max Westenhofer, in 1942, then proposed again British marine biologist, Alister Hardy, in 1960. It has since been championed by Elaine Morgan, a Welsh writer (per Wikipedia). I saw a special on this years ago. It is a fascinating idea. My impression is that most anthropologists have either actively hated or completely ignored the theory as pseudo-science. Here are two links: Elaine Morgan’s  and an anthropologist’s view that examines the controversial theory and yields the sceptical response. Thanks Wade!

 

The Great Snake Scare of 1828 May 16, 2012

Posted by Beachcombing in : Modern

A cute little WtH story from deepest Devon (Tavistock) about a cryptid snake. Beach knows that nineteenth-century newspapers had a great time making up serpents and other monsters, cue ‘the 200-foot-long Hideous Ice Worm‘ with hat tip to Invisible. But in this case local tradition seems to have done the job for them.

I think it was in the summer of 1828 that an application was made to a magistrate to issue an order, for the security of the neighbourhood, that a certain monstrous snake, first seen in Pixy Lane, and afterwards in our orchard, should be well looked after. If the magistrate had to issue this order to apprehend the snake, or to secure the attention of the constables, the applicants themselves did not very clearly define. I never heard such a story as speedily found its way amongst the lovers of the marvellous.

No doubt, however, the snake that had been seen was an extraordinary one; and, as a matter of curiosity, I set to work to learn the most credible account of it that could be met with. One boy offered to take his ‘bible oath’ that he was leading up (i.e. walking up) Pisgey Lane with another lad, and on going to the hedge to pick something, a great snake leapt out, over the little boy’s shoulder, as he was standing beneath; crossed the road with great rapidity, and an old man who was near the spot, declared that the body of the long cripple (for so they here call a snake [long creeper?]) was as thick as his thigh [!!]; and so long, that he would not say how long it could be. I also heard an old woman, considered here a wise one, declare ‘the reptile was for all the world just such another snake as tempted Eve to eat the apple’.

Beach had a couple of years ago the experience of coming (literally) face to face with a snake when one reared up and started hissing at this blogger. The effect, even with a stick in your hand, is primal: humans are evidently hardwired to fear serpents. Beachcombing can understand then how a very long adder could have been exaggerated into this semi-monster. But ‘as thick as his thigh’?!? Perhaps the old man was a consumptive with  nil protein intake? Perhaps his thigh was as thick as our arms? Parallels maybe? drbeachcombing AT yahoo DOT com In any case, our author continues.

In our orchard, however, [the presence of the snake] produced a very different effect; for the formidable monster, luckily for us, having been there last seen, proved as good a guard as any dragon to the fruits there found, so that we had fewer apples stolen that year than we ever had before. What became of the snake no one could tell; but not in the days of monkish superstition could more extravagant tales respecting a reptile have been circulated or believed. On hearing these, I no longer wondered at the credulity of the old chronicler, who recorded that marvellous story about the monstrous snake at Rouen in Normandy, which swallowed knights whole, armour, horse and all, and at last required a saint himself to kill it.

Beach doesn’t want to bore his non-fairy loving readers but Pixy/Pisgey Lane, of course, refers to the fairies of the south-west. Make of that what you will…

Mermaid Killing in Exeter February 24, 2012

Posted by Beachcombing in : Modern

Beach recently stumbled upon yet another nineteenth-century British mermaid article. ‘…the most extraordinary, the most minute (I had nearly said the most recent), and certainly the most domestic of all stories of Mermaids, as well as that in which the veracity of the narrator is the most completely pledged for the accuracy of the detail, is one which relates to a marine animal seen by Mr Toupin of Exmouth, in Devonshire, on the 11th of August 1812.

Now, in fact, Beachcombing has already reviewed Mr Toupin’s curious experience. But he has no explanation and, far more seriously, no good sources for what follows:

The River Ex and its vicinity is indeed remarkable, not only for the appearance of more than one Mermaid [!?], but for that of more remarkable Mermaids. It is not a century since a Mermaid was said to have been seen in the river just mentioned, close to the walls of the city of Exeter.

Now a century should bring us to the period 1730-1750 as the quoted publication was 1823: out author is usually reliable with chronology. However, what about this story that seems more folktale than eye-witness account?

Unlike the Batavian or Moluccan stranger, but like very other Mermaid on record, its humanity extended to the waist; and, so far like our present eastern curiosity, it bore, from the waist downward a resemblance to a salmon. It had, however, two legs placed below the waist, and absolute novelties in the history of Mermaids.

The author is, of course, right. Who has ever heard of a mermaid with tail and legs together? If Beach read this in a modern newspaper report he would assume that here was someone in a fancy dress outfit who had drunk too much perry. In any case, the legs in question did not help the Exeter mermaid, poor thing.

With these legs it left the shore of the river Ex, and ran before its pursuers, screaming with terror, till it was knocked down and killed!

The author tells us nothing more: did the good folks of Exeter eat the mermaid in question?

As one local blogger notes there is a Mermaid Yard in Exeter (relatively) near the river (and the walls??). It is very likely named after a local pub. Was this then a story after the fact to explain a local placename, onomastics, in short, gone mad? Any local knowledge: drbeachcombing AT yahoo DOT com

An Aberystwyth Mermaid February 13, 2012

Posted by Beachcombing in : Modern

***Dedicated to Andy the Mad Monk, who sent in news of the Zimbabwe mermaids, just over the hill from Aber***

Mermaids are the most despised of all the creatures of the British imagination. Folklorists have only had the decency to write two half decent books on them over the last century. The result is that there are lots of accounts out there that have never been gathered in. This one seemed, at least to Beachcombing, particularly endearing. It appeared in a Welsh newspaper (in Welsh) in the 1820s.

In the month of July, 1826, a farmer from the parish of Llanuwchaiarn, about three miles from Aberystwyth, whose house is within 300 feet of the seashore, descended, the rock, when the sun was shining beautifully upon the sea, and he saw a woman (as he thought) washing herself in the sea within a stone’s throw of him. At first, he modestly turned back ; but after a, moment’s reflection thought that a woman would not go so far out into the sea, as it was flooded at the time, and he was certain that the water was six feet deep in the spot where he saw her standing. After considering the matter, he threw himself down on his face and crept on to the edge of the precipice from which place he had a good view of her for more than half-an-hour, After scrutinizing her himself, he crept back to call his family to see this wonderful sight. After telling them what he had seen, he directed them from the door where to go and to creep near the rock as he had done. Some of them went when they were only half dressed, for it was early in the morning, and they had only just got up from bed. Arriving at the spot, they looked at her for about ten minutes, as the farmer was calling his wife and the younger child. When the wife came on, she did not throw herself down as the others had done, but walked on within sight of the creature; but as soon as the mermaid saw her, she dived into the water, and swam away till she was about the same distance from them as she was when she was first seen. The whole family, husband, wife, children, menservants and maid-servants, altogether twelve in number, ran along the shore for more than half-a-mile, and during most of that time, they saw her in the sea., and sometimes her head and shoulders were upwards out of the water. There was a large stone, more than a yard in height, in the sea, on which she stood when she was first seen. She was standing out of the water from her waist up, and the whole family declared that she was exactly the same as a young woman of about 18 years of age, both in shape and stature. Her hair was short, and of a dark colour; her face rather handsome, her neck and arms were like those of any ordinary woman, her breast blameless and her skin whiter than that of any person they had ever seen before. Her face was towards the shore. She bent herself down frequently, as if taking up water, and then holding her hand before her face for about half-a-minute. When she was thus bending herself, there was to be seen some black thing as if there was a tail turning up behind her. She often made some noise like sneezing, which caused the rock to echo. The farmer who had first seen her, and had had the opportunity of looking at her for some time, said that he had never seen but very few women so handsome in appearance as this mermaid. All the family, the youngest of whom is now eleven years old, are now alive, and we obtained this account, word for word, as it is given here, from them themselves within the last month.

Beach is always on the look out for mermaid accounts: drbeachcombing AT yahoo DOT com

Thanks to Wade for correcting a ridiculous error here.

Oh and the updated Bizarre History News Feed with thanks, as always, to contributors.

Medieval Dog-heads: An Eye-Witness Report January 9, 2012

Posted by Beachcombing in : Medieval

***Dedicated to Radko who sent in this passage***

An interesting passage from the Itinerarium of Friar Odoric (obit 1331), a pioneering Italian traveller in Asia: Odoric may have been the first European to reach Lhasa. He certainly stood before the great Khan and penetrated China.

He also visited the south seas. The island of Moumoran has never been satisfactorily identified but probably lies in the Philippines. The delicious English in what follows belongs to Richard Hakluyt: the Latin is that of William of Solagna, Odoric’s amanuensis.

Moreouer I traueled on further by the ocean-sea towards the south, and passed through many countries and islands, whereof one is called Moumoran, and it containeth in compasse ii. M. [2000] miles, wherein men and women haue dog faces, and worship an oxe for their god: and therefore euery one of them cary the image of an oxe of gold or siluer vpon their foreheads. The men and the women of this country go all naked, sauing that they hang a linen cloth before their priuities. The men of the said country are very tall and mighty, and by reason that they goe naked, when they are to make battell, they cary yron or steele targets before them, which do couer and defend their bodies from top to toe: and whomsoeuer of their foes they take in battel not being able to ransom himselfe for money, they presently deuoure him: but if he be able to redeeme himselfe for money, they let him go free. Their king weareth about his necke 300. great and most beautifull vnions, and saith euery day 300. prayers vnto his god. He weareth vpon his finger also a stone of a span long which seemeth to be a flame of fire, and therefore when he weareth it, no man dare once approch vnto him: and they say that there is not any stone in the whole world of more value then it. Neither could at any time the great Tartarian Emperour of Katay either by force, money, or policie obtaine it at his hands: notwithstanding that he hath done the vtmost of his indeuour for this purpose.

Ultra transiui per mare Oceanum uersus meridiem, et transiui per multas contratas et insulas, quarum una uocatur Moumoran, et habet in circuitu 2000. milliaria, in qua homines portant facies caninas et mulieres similitèr, et unum bouem adorant pro Deo suo, et ideo quilibet unum bouem aureum uel argenteum in fronte portat: Homines illius contratæ et mulieres uadunt totaliter nudi, nisi quod unum pannum lineum portant ante uerenda sua. Homines illius regionis sunt maximi et fortissimi, et quia uadunt nudi, quando debent bellare, portant unum scutum de ferro, quod cooperit eos à capite usque ad pedes, et si contingat eos aliquem de aduersarijs capere in bello qui pecunia non possit redimi, statim comedunt eum; si autem possit se redimere pecunia, illum abire permittunt: Rex eorum portat 300. margaritas ad collum suum maximas et pulcherrimas, et 300. orationes omni die dicit Deo suo: Hic etiam portat in digito suo unum lapidem longitudinis unius spansæ, et dum habet illum uidetur ab alijs quasi una flamma ignis, et ideò nullus audet sibi appropinquare, et dicitur quòd non est lapis in mundo pretiosior illo. Magnus autem imperator Tartarorum de Katai, nunquam ui, nec pecunia, nec ingenio illum obtinere potuit, cùm tamen circa hoc laborauerit.

There are two other medieval texts which have canine humans living to the south or east of India. Ibn Battuta (obit 1369) mentions Barahnakar (?) where men (though not women) have dog mouths. Marco Polo (obit 1324) writes, meanwhile, that the people of the Andaman islands have dog heads. The fact that three fourteenth-century sources pick this up must surely suggest that there is a borrowed Asian topos at work here?

Of these three doggy sources Marco Polo is likely dealing in second-hand information about regions he had never visited and is, in any case, he is – apologies to MP fans – the least trustworthy. But Odoric and Ibn Battuta apparently came face to face with the dog-heads and they are extremely trustworthy.

There must have been some feature of an alien physiognomy that convinced the travellers they had encountered another species, or our own species with unusual features. Had they stumbled upon the borders between racial groups: the northern limits of the Austronesian peoples, for example? It is difficult though to see what would be ‘dog-like’ to European or Asian eyes.

Any explanations? We are all out. drbeachcombing AT yahoo DOT com

***

 

11 Jan 2012: First up KMH wants to remind readers that we’ve had dogheads and this debate before. Beach should have put the links in: here is St Christopher and here are Indian dogheads. KMH then continues. ‘My suggestion is that these people suffered from what we call a genetic defect which covered their faces with hair. Rare examples exist even today. The disease is called hypertrichosis.’    Grammy, has no theory but points to some unusual passages in the Bible. ‘The puzzle of human faces resembling dogs has intrigued me for decades.  In I Chronicles 12:8 (KJV), there’s this:  ”And of the Gadites, there separated themselves unto David into the hold to the wilderness men of might, and men of war fit for the battle, that could handle shield and buckler, whose faces were like the faces of lions, and were as swift as the roes upon the mountains;” There is also a mention of “lionlike men of Moab” in 2 Samuel 23:20, which is repeated in I Chronicles 11:22.   I always thought that lions’ faces looked like dogs.   The make-up staff produced a believable “lion-like” face for the old TV series Beauty and The Beast by simulating the divided upper lip.  And the whole subject is fascinating!‘ Finally, Greg offers this: ‘Concerning your post on reports of dog-headed and dog-faced people living in the Adaman Islands and other locales to the south and east of India, I suspect the witnesses were referring to the skull shapes of the peoples they encountered, which often differed from European and North African norms. Aboriginal peoples of the Adaman Islands, Australia, Melanesia and sub-Saharan Africa tend to possess jaws which protrude outward from the facial plane to a noticeably greater extent than the average European or North African.  The extent of jaw projection is sometimes referred to as prognathism and is measured statistically (by those who do such things) by the “Alveolar index”.  A couple of webpages that discuss this subject can be found at feminine beauty and racial reality  and . Variations in physical appearance between ethnic groups is a sensitive subject with a long and shameful history.  In the nineteenth century, Havelock Ellis noted the higher frequency of prognathism among what he referred to as the ‘lower races’.  It is easy to imagine our medieval correspondents, insensitive to their own biases and ethnocentrism, describing peoples with protruding jaws that they encountered as ‘dog-headed’ or ‘dog-faced’.Hopefully, these noxious, racially-based norms of physical beauty will continue to fade into obscurity‘. Hear, hear to that! Thanks Greg, KMH and Grammy!

21 Jan 2012: Radko writes in: ‘One thing I would like to point out is that Odoricus was born in a family of a Czech soldier serving during time when Czech king Premysl Otakar II controlled that particular part of Italy and I therefore can’t help but claim Odoricus as a Czech, being Czech myself, not an Italian. You place Moumoran to Philippines but I don’t think it follows the flow of the journey. Would it be possible that Moumoran is in fact Malabar or Malayalam?’ Thanks Radko!

 

Swearing to Mermaids December 3, 2011

Posted by Beachcombing in : Modern

A further Scottish Mermaid sighting, dating to October 1809. This one is particularly interesting because there seems to have been a concerted effort to get the local ‘yokels’ – whose testimony is usually reckoned at less than naught – to swear to what they saw.

Neil McIntosh in Sandy Island, Canna, states that he has heard from different individuals in the island of Canna, that they have seen the fish called Mermaids; that these animals had the upper parts resembling the human figure, and the lower extremities resembling a fish. In particular, about six years ago, Niel Stewart and Neil McIsaac, both alive in Canna, when walking upon the sea beach on the north end of the island, on a Sunday, saw, stretched on a rock at a small distance, an animal of this description, having the appearance of a woman in the upper parts, and of a fish below; that on seeing them it sprung into the water, after which they had a more distinct view of its upper part, which strongly resembled a female of the human species. That Lachlan McArthur, of the same island, informed McIntosh, that some years ago, sailing from Uist to Skye in a stormy day, he saw rising from the water, near the stern of the boat in which he was, a. figure, resembling a human in its upper parts, which terrified him extremely. Neil McIntosh further states, that he himself, about five years ago, was steering a boat from Canna to Skye in a stormy day; that when about one-fourth of the passage from Canna, he saw something near him of a white colour, and of the human figure, spring almost out of the water, which he took for the animal above described; but as it instantly disappeared again, he had no opportunity of examining it minutely; that he felt considerable alarm at the sight of it, as a general opinion or prejudice exists amongst the inhabitants of the Western Isles, that it is extremely unlucky to meet with or look upon such animals at sea, or to point them out to the rest of the crew, unless they observe it themselves.

Fairly modest stuff, but in many ways the most interesting part of the letter is the legalistic coda. Oaths and attestations are breaking out in folklore.

Signed, Neil McIntosh; Robert Brown, factor for Clanrannald witness; Donald McNeil, of Canna, witness; Wm Campbell, W. S. Edinburgh, witness; James Gillespie, architect, Edinburgh, witness. Portree, 2nd October, 1809.

That what is above written is a true copy of the original.

Attested, Malcolm Wright, N. P.

Beachcombing should say that since writing this up he has come across a second copy of the same with some variants. Not sure what that is about.

Strangehistory is always interested in mermaid stories! drbeachcombing AT yahoo DOT com

A Dark Age British Sasquatch? November 18, 2011

Posted by Beachcombing in : Medieval

*** This post is dedicated to Adrian S ***

One epic poem survives from Anglo-Saxon England: Beowulf.

Beowulf, for those who do not know, was a Danish hero who, in the course of said poem fights three monsters: first Grendel, second Grendel’s mother and third a dragon who gets the better of him. Grendel particularly has excited attention from scholars and cryptozoologists who have suggested that we might have here a glimpse of a humanoid monster from the Scandinavian swamp-lands.

Beachcombing knows Beowulf relatively well: or perhaps it would be truer to say that he once knew the poem well. And this morning, spurred on by an email from Adrian S,  he decided to ransack the text looking for references to Grendel. What is striking though (and this, by the way, passes for wisdom in Anglo-Saxon circles) is the vagueness of the description of Grendel. The poet accidentally or by design has created a ‘Thing’ that never actually appears on the screen.

It is, of course, the classic strategy of the horror film director. You don’t show the man in the gorilla suit, you just see hints and flashes and noises in the bushes with possibly one final 'money shot'. Film the screaming face, not the goon in the pantomime outfit!

This is fine psychology. Any viewer (or in the case of Beowulf) a listener or reader is forced to construct their own demon in their head. And reading Beowulf this morning the experience is a frightening one.

But what about the ‘hints’ and ‘flashes’. Well, Grendel and his mother are described as male and female shaped. They belong to the race of Cain – the ‘evil’ son of Adam. They are large enough that Grendel (a young of the species?) can eat men: he kills thirty at a time. Grendel in his fight with Beowulf leaves an arm behind: and this has been taken to mean that Grendel was or could be bipedal. Finally, they dwell in a mire on the moor: indeed, Grendel’s mother lives underwater.

So what is Grendel? The sensible explanation would be that Grendel is a human nightmare: like trolls, fairies and elves. Marshland is, after all, traditionally associated with supernatural creatures. And no creature that the world has known in the last several million years is capable of doing what Grendel does in the poem.

However, let’s say for the sake of argument that this was a real creature: what was Grendel then? There is one simple explanation that the dating of the poem hints at.

Beowulf appears in an eleventh-century manuscript. It describes events, meanwhile, in the fifth or sixth century. It could have been composed any time between. Michael Lapidge, in an important recent article, gives very strong reasons for thinking that the copy from which our one surviving manuscript derives dates back to before 750.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Beowulf was written c. 700, what could the Anglo-Saxon poet be describing? Well, the easiest explanation would be one of the last British bears. We know that there were bears in Roman times in Britain, particularly in the north. Very likely some stragglers survived into the eighth century along the margins of Britain, in East Anglia, the Pennines and Scotland.

Bears were, of course, still known in Scandinavia where the poem was set, but in Anglo-Saxon parts they would have been less familiar and grandparent’s exaggerated stories about bear atrocities out hunting is as credible explanation as any for Grendel and his mother.

A curiosity: the name Beowulf (Bee-wolf?) might mean bear.

Any other explanations: drbeachcombing AT yahoo DOT com

***

19 Nov 2011: First up is CCBC ‘In 1978 the Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia held a Sasquatch Symposium and various papers were presented and later collected in Manlike Monsters On Trial, Halpin and Ames, UBC Press, 1980. These include ‘Medieval Monsters’ by David Lyle Jeffrey. Jeffrey notes that there were two medieval monster traditions: one derived from St. Augustine who saw these creatures as part of ‘the deliberate diversity of creation in which each rational being is still descended from Adam’. The other tradition is from north Europe, Germanic, and pagan; it holds that these monsters embody evil forces. As the North became Christian, so the traditions melded and "the Germanic monsters became ‘descendants of Cain'’. Jeffrey notes that both the Tiberius and Cotton Vitellius mss contain drawings of humanoid monsters and points to a particular man-eating monster as a type of þyrs, a term used (once) to describe Grendel. Jeffrey also notes that, though these hairy giants were always evil in the North, in the South they were often more benign and that some of the Northern names for these creatures seem to indicate a derivation from more gentle concepts. (Which may also have to do with differing concepts of wilderness, if you accept – and you needn't – that Grendel and similar creatures are projections of wilderness.) Anyway, Jeffrey develops the notion that Grendel is a thinking being, a monster but ‘not wholly outside the human condition’. ‘In placing Grendel as 'of the race of Cain' the poet at once accomplishes two things. First, he heightens our appreciation for the violation of hospitality and sanctuary which is taking place by alluding to a figure from biblical literature who is profoundly associated with such a violation. Secondly, by using Cain he applies specific Christian traditions concerning pollution of family order and outcast experience which at once strengthens the human character of Grendel and elevates the character of his depredation to that of a conscious moral agency’. So Grendel is human-ish, a soul-bearer, who has been cast out of the human community and is thus non-human in a profound way. Whew! I didn't think I was  going to write all that! This just shows that I've spent too much time thinking about the Christian/pagan divide in Beowulf. I just want to add that the creatures that Grettir the Strong fights in his saga are not in the same category of being, although they are mentioned in various places, as sasquatchi: they are walking dead, if you will, not hairy forest giants. Now, as to your actual question: was there such a creature in Britain c. 700? I doubt it. Bears don't make the cut, I think. My thoughts on this follow some forty years of following sasquatch stories in British Columbia. We have bears, sasquatch are human creations. There are no such creatures outside of human myth, no zoological specimens. (Disappointing to a guy who loved Ivan Sanderson's books, but such is the price of knowledge.)  On the other hand, I try to maintain an open mind on Yeti matters, though that has become more difficult as my opinions ossify with age.’ Then there is Jon K. ‘Ignoring the possibility that the Beowulf legend is a fictional narrative in entirety, I like the idea of a residual bear population. The behaviour of brown bears in N. America is sometimes problematic as they are drawn to human populations for their resources. In that light, it isn't difficult to imagine a dwindling population coming into conflict with settlements in their territory. Sheep and goat had been domesticated for centuries and would present easy prey. I looked at the etymology of bear and this isn't so encouraging. In Koch's Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopaedia (p121, p129 ) he notes that Welsh and Celtic words for bear were rooted in variations of 'arto.'  This doesn't go far in shedding doubt on the idea of a bear, but it makes me wonder why, if Beowulf had pre-Anglo-Saxon origins, 'art/arto' isn't part of Grendel's name? Let's face it, if it was real, what else could it have been? Perhaps it was an early iteration of the Sawney Bean mythos whereby some cannibalistic family stalk the darkness on the outskirts of settlements? Such tales litter regional folklore and appear to have no basis in reality. A bear is likely the most parsimonious explanation beyond rural legend. Incidentally, beyond Bullfinch's Mythology and childhood encyclopaedias, my abiding love of the Grendel story comes from a Marillion B-side where they played it live. Between that and the animated movie, the cultural impact of the story is rather impressive.’ Beowulf is certainly Germanic, my understanding though is that there is no consensus as to what the word means: though coming up with cooky theories is always good for bating Anglo-Saxonists. Thanks Jon K and CCBC!

 

 

More Caithness Mermaids October 23, 2011

Posted by Beachcombing in : Modern

Mermaid posts. It has been a while… This one should be read together with another nineteenth-century Caithness sighting. It cannot be a coincidence that two letters were sent at the same time relating to the same village. Presumably the publicity given to Miss Mackay in late May for her sighting, encouraged or emboldened William Munro, a school teacher, to recall his own close encounter, when a Dr Torrence, his correspondent, required it.

Thurso, 9th June, 1809.

Dear Sir, Your queries respecting the Mermaid are before me: from the general scepticism which prevails among the learned and intelligent about the existence of such a phenomenon, had not your character and real desire for investigation been too well known to me for supposing that you wished to have a fertile imagination indulged by a subject of merriment, I would have been disposed to have concluded that in this instance you aimed at being ranked among the laughing philosophers at my expense. Sensible, however, that this is not the case, and taking it for granted that you are sincere, I shall endeavour to answer your queries, though there is little probability that any testimony which I can give respecting the mermaid will operate towards convincing those who have not hitherto been convinced by the repeated testimonies adduced in support of the existence of such an appearance.

About twelve years ago [1797?], when I was Parochial schoolmaster at Reay, in the course of my walking on the shore of Sandside Bay, being a fine warm day in summer I was induced to extend my walk towards Sandside Bay, when my attention was arrested by the appearance of a figure resembling an unclothed female, sitting upon a rock extended into the sea., and apparently in the action of combing its hair, which flowed around its shoulders, and of a light brown colour. The resemblance which the figure bore to its prototype in all its visible parts was so striking that had not the rock on which it was sitting been dangerous for bathing I would have been constrained to have regarded it as really an human form, and to an eye unaccustomed to the situation it must have undoubtedly appeared as such.

The head was covered with hair of the colour above mentioned and shaded on the crown, the forehead round, the face plump, the cheeks ruddy, the eyes blue, the mouth and lips of a. natural form resembling those of a, man, the teeth I could not discover as the mouth was shut: the breasts and abdomen, the arms and fingers of the size of a full grown body of the human species, the fingers, from the action in which the hands were employed, did not appear to be webbed, but as to this I am not positive. It remained on the rock three or four minutes after I observed it, and was exercised during that period in combing its hair which was long and thick, and of which it appeared proud, and then dropped into the sea, which was level with the abdomen, from whence it did not appear to me. I had a distinct view of its features, being at no great distance on an eminence above the rock on which it was sitting and the sun brightly shining. Immediately before its getting into its natural element it seemed to have observed me, as the eyes were turned towards the eminence on which I stood.

It may be necessary to remark that previous to the period I beheld this object I had heard it frequently reported by several persons, and some of them persons whose veracity I never heard disputed, that they had seen such a phenomenon as I have described, though then like many others I was not disposed to credit their testimony on this subject. I can say of a truth that it was only by seeing the phenomenon I was perfectly convinced of its existence. If the above narrative can in any degree be .subservient towards establishing the existence of a phenomenon hitherto almost incredible to naturalists or to remove the scepticism of others, who are ready to dispute everything which they cannot fully comprehend, you are welcome to it from, Dear Sir, your most obliged and most humble servant, W[illia]m Munro.

Why does this source ring less true than that of Miss Mackay? Beach suspects it is the anthropomorphic detail about hair-combing or perhaps it is just his long-standing ire against school teachers. WM was much mocked in contemporary newspapers: hopefully relatively little of it reached him up in the far north.

Any other mermaid sightings rare or otherwise? drbeachcombing AT yahoo DOT com

A Dragon in Medieval East Anglia September 16, 2011

Posted by Beachcombing in : Medieval

Beach had a fabulous evening trying to convince his elder daughter (3) that dragons do exist. This involved placing a small bean bag draco at various inaccessible points of the house and creating a domestic dragon mythology: dragons only eat salted foods; dragons hate men; dragon baby’s mothers steal keys etc etc. The picture above was snapped when the dragon was finally tempted down into the garden by some salted milk. Soon after it accompanied Beach’s daughter to bed and is, as we speak, travelling – may the saints have mercy upon it – to the kindergarten to be abused by fourteen infant horrors. If this writer was a scaly one, he’d prefer St George and a gladium with or without the pretty lady.

Anyway, after such a long drawn out ‘con’ Beach felt compelled to give one of those rare dragon eye-witness stories from the Middle Ages.

In these times [1405], close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury [in Suffolk] has appeared, a disaster for the country, a dragon, with a huge body, a crested head, serrated teeth and a long, long tail. After having killed a shepherd the dragon then slew many sheep. The men of the lord – Richard Waldegrave, knight of the domain in which the dragon had appeared – then came out to shoot at him with arrows. The dragon’s body was unhurt, however, despite being hit by arrows that bounced off his back as if it were iron or hard rock. The arrows that hit the spine of his back gave a ringing or chiming sound as they hit, as if they had hit a burning plate, and then fell down, the hide of this enormous beast being impenetrable. Then, in order to destroy the dragon, all the country was summoned. And when the dragon saw that he was to be attacked by arrows again, he fled into a marsh or swamp there and hid himself among the long reeds there and he was not ever seen again.

Sub hiis diebus,  draco, uastus corpore, cristato capite, dente serrato, cauda protensa nimia longitudine, nuper apparuit, malo patriae, iuxta uillam de Buryram prope Sudburyam, qui pastorem peremit ouium, ouesque plurimas interfecit. Ad quem sagittandum serui Domini Ricardi de Waldegraue, militis, cuius in dominio draco latuit, sunt egressi; sed corpus eius omnes elusit ictus sagittantium, resilieruntque sagittae ab eius crate, uelut a ferro uel duro lapide; et quae super spinam dorsi ceciderunt, exsiliere, tinnitum reddentes uelut offendissent luminam aeream, et procul euolauerunt, ratione cutis belluae impenetrabilis. Ad cuius occisionem quasi patria tota fuit summonita. Uerum cum uidisset se iterum sagittis impetendum, fugit in paludem, et inter arundineta delituit; nec amplius uisus fuit.

One of Beachcombing’s sources alleges that this was a Theropods! Others compare it to Alien Big Cats: because it killed sheep? Then there is also a local account that suggests that it was a crocodile, presumably it had swum to Suffolk from the Nile. Beach is simply confused. The fifteenth century is not his thing. But this is a contemporary source, though not an East Anglia one: the Chronicle of Richard II and Henry IV  of which there are three overlapping versions. (Many authors refer to John de Trokelowe who had been dead the best part of a century in 1405.)

So how do we even begin to explain this serpent in East Anglia? Perhaps the crocodile explanation is not so foolish as it first seems. Had a traveller brought back a baby from the Mediterranean and released it in the environs? Had a medieval English zoo lost one of its inmates?

Alternatively, Beach is struck by the fact that there are a lot of local legends on this topic based around local names: e.g. the final dragon fight takes place at Wormingford (worm = serpent = dragon). Is it possible that our chronicler picked up a legend from a travelling East Anglian who had drunk rather too much cider?

Any other solutions? Drbeachcombing AT yahoo DOT com

***

17 Sept 2011: Some great emails on this, an example of posts being far more valuable than the post. First up is Invisible who gives us the general background: I think you’re on the right track with the dragon-as-Holy-Land-souvenir idea. In the most famous of English dragon stories – the story of the Lambton Worm – the Hero has just returned from a Crusade before slaying the Worm (although in some versions of the legend, the Worm was active before he went away so he could not have brought it back with him.)  There is also such a link—real or fancied–between actual votive crocodiles in churches, which are almost always said to have been brought from Egypt or the Holy Land by a Crusader. Peter Ackroyd (with no citation) says in Thames: The Biography that Richard the Lionheart brought a crocodile back from the Crusades and housed it in the Tower menagerie, but it escaped into the river. (A Bures town site also mentions this legend, adding that it was a present to Richard from Saladin.) There are votive crocs in Italy , Spain (a 13th c. Egyptian sultan sent one to Alfonso X), Tenerife , Switzerland (you can see a photo of the St. Gall croc at this taxidermy blog.) , Moravia , and France . The Holy Land votive crocodile of St Bertrand de Comminges, immortalized in “Canon Alberic’s Scrap-book” by M.R. James, is one of nine crocodiles designated as ancient monuments in France . With stuffed ‘dragons’ hung in churches all over Europe , it is frustrating to report that I cannot find a single one in a British church. However there was ‘A Fine Large Alligator from Egypt’ listed in the inventory of the English Cabinet of Curiosities you reported on last year. And because, in a spirit of child-like wonder, I want this dragon legend to be true, I like to hope that one day the bones of a large crocodile will be unearthed in the former wetlands of Wormingford.’ Then comes Open Sesame who may have got a whiff of a crocodile legend from Wormingford (Wikipedia): ‘The modern form of the place name, recorded from 1254, gave rise to three stories of dragons, (worm meaning serpent or dragon). The first story says the village is the location where the patron saint of England, St George, famously killed his dragon. A mound in the village is said to cover the body of the legendary dragon. The second, apparently unsubstantiated, is that a crocodile escaped from Richard I of England’s menagerie in the Tower of London and caused much damage in Wormingford before being killed by Sir George Marney. There is a stained glass window in the local parish church (St Andrew’s) which depicts this event. The third, written in 1405 by John de Trokelowe, a monk, told of a dragon who threatened Richard Waldegrave’s territory near Sudbury but fled into the Mere when pursued’. Jacob writes in to point out that Wormingford was originally Withermund’s Ford and that the name predates the dragon, Widemondefort in Domesday, 1086: obviously though the legend remains interesting. Then, finally, Crackerjack reminds Beachcombing of the discovery of some crocodiles in nineteenth-century England (remembered too in Charles Fort?), quoting the Resologist: ‘But an invasion that is more difficult to explain was discussed in the Gentleman’s Magazine in 1866 and 1867: several crocodiles had been found alive in England, quoting the resologist. ‘The story was first related by George R. Wright, F.S.A., who saw one of the specimens stuffed and on display in a farm house tenanted by William Phillips. The animal was found in 1856 or 1857, on the same farm at Over-Norton, Oxfordshire. Mr. Phillips was walking in his farmyard when his attention was drawn to what looked like a dead lizard, about a foot in length, with a wound in its belly, lying in the gutter. ‘Upon, however, taking it up, he soon discovered that the animal was not a lizard, and he immediately asked his laborers, who were close by, unstacking some faggots for the use of the house, if they knew anything about it. The answer was that they had killed it as it ran out of a stack of wood, I think the day before; and on Mr. Phillips expressing his regret at their having done so without bringing it to him alive, they replied they could easily get him another, as at the place where the wood was cut a few miles form the farm, near to Chipping-Norton Common, and not far from the village of Salford, at the `minny’ pool – which I presume is a shortened form of Minnow – they saw them frequently in the water and on the land and often running up the trees.’’ Thanks Crackerjack, Invisible, Open Sesame and Jacob.

22 Sept 2011:  Dennis writes in with this consideration linking back to some older posts: ‘After your alien/fairy post I felt inclined to reread Passport to Magonia.  Vallee says fairy lore, ufonaut encounters, and religious apparitions are only the ever changing masks of a true unknown phenomenon that affects human consciousness.  After reading so many of the cases he cites in this book it seems this dragon story you just posted would fit in with them just fine.  The interesting thing here is the sound of ringing coming from the dragon after the arrows hit it.  Vallee also goes to great pains to tell us the ufo phenom has a physical dimension so if the dragon was of this same phenom this too would fit. Not too long ago you did a post concerning the book Magic and Mystery in Tibet.  The story of the tulpa in that book I have thought for a while could be a key to understanding this mystery.  The mind (or in the case of UFO/Fairy/Dragon the group mind/totality of human consciousness) creates a tulpa (in the case of group mind ((rather unconsciously)) let’s say UFO) which in turn affects the mind generating the phenom.  Did that make sense?  Anyway just a hypothesis…very interesting stuff.’ Shaun, meanwhile, just has questions: I read your recent posting on dragons with interest. Two questions came to mind: Is there any historical record (besides this account) of the knight mentioned, Richard Waldegrave? Some deed or court document, or perhaps a mention in a chronicle, would do much to establish the incident as fact. Though it seems unlikely, I must ask: Were there ever any crocodiles, alligators or other large nasties known to make their homes in Britain? I’ve never heard such, but one wonders, perhaps some adventurous sea-going handbag fodder did wander up from the West African shore, or surf the Gulf Stream ? Unlikely is not impossible. Any such cases on record?’ As to Richard Waldegrave Beach does not know: though it strikes him that there is a sweet little article to be written on this and that RW would be the place to start. With crocodiles Beach knows of nothing save the Oxfordshire case mentioned above. He expects to be contradicted, but presumably the only way that one of these creatures would ever have made it to Britain would be through human agency? Perhaps other readers will do better than Beach. Thanks Shaun and Dennis!

Page 1 of 3123