Creatures of the Deep: Kraken - Part Two

Kraken by OchreJelly

'It was a giant squid twenty-five feet long.  It was heading toward the Nautilus, swimming backward very fast.  Its huge immobile eyes were of a blue-green colour.  The eight arms, or rather legs, coming out of its head - it is this which has earned it the name of 'cephalopod' - were twice as long as its body and were twisting about like the hair of a Greel fury.  We could clearly make out the 250 suchers lining the inside of its tentacles, some of which fastened onto the glass panel of the lounge.  This monster's mouth - a horny beak like that of a parakeet - opened and closed vertically.  Its tongue, also made of a horn-like substance and armed with several rows of sharp teeth, would come out and shake what seemed like a veritable cutlery.  What a whim of nature!  A bird's beak in a mollusk!  Its elongated body, with a slight swelling in the middle, formed a fleshy mass that must have weighed between forty and fifty thousand pounds.  Its colour, which could change very fast according to the animal's mood, would vary from a ghastly grey to reddish brown.
                                                                                          20,000 Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne

Last time we learned about the origins of the Kraken and his traits.  Today we will continue to look at the theories and accounts of the Kraken after Potoppidan's  Natural History of Norway.

In 1781 another description of the Kraken appeared in Jacob Wallenberg's Min son på galejan or 'My son on the galley'.  Wallenberg is quite obviously working from Potoppidan's writings while adding a few details of his own and concluded his description with the assertion that the creature must be the sea serpent Leviathan.  Here he wrote:

Giant Squid by AlexRuizArt

'Kraken, also called the Crab-fish, which is not that huge, for heads and tails counted, he is no larger than our Öland [the second largest Swedish island - less than 16km]...  He stays at the sea floor, constantly surrounded by innumerable small fishes, who serve as his food and are fed by him in return: for his meal, (if I remember correctly what E. Pontopiddan writes,) lasts no longer than three months , and another three months are then needed to digest it.  His excrements nurture in the following an army of lesser fish, and for this reason, fishermen plumb after his resting place...  Gradually, Kraken ascends to the surface, and when he is at ten to twelve fathoms, the boats had better move out of his vicinity, as he will shortly thereafter burst up, like a floating island, spurting water from his dreadful nostrils and making ring waves around him, which can reach many miles.  Could one doubt that this is the Leviathan of Job?'

In 1801, Pierre Denys de Montfort reported a picture he'd seen in the St Thomas chapel in St. Malo in Brittany, France which shows an enormous squid or octopus wrapping its arms around the masts and rigging of a ship.  This incident is said to have occurred off the coast of Angola.  The sailors apparently made a promise to St. Thomas that they would make a pilgrimage if he saved them and then set about chopping off the arms with axes.  They survived the attack and later went to the chapel where the illustration of the experience was hung.

Narrow escape by leventep

Facsimile of De Montfort's "Poulpe colossal."

Montford also interviewed whalers at Dunkerque in France, who told him many stories of giant squid or octopus, with Captain Reynolds describing a 45 ft long squid arm which was 2 ft 6in in diameter which had been cut off.  Captain Jean-Magnus Dens claimed to have encountered another giant squid off the coast of Angola which he said had attacked and killed three men aboard his ship.  The crew fired five harpoons at the creature before it died, with Dens estimating the monster's tentacles to be more than 35 ft long.  He believed that, had the monsters managed to attach all of its arms to the ship it would have capsized.  A Captain Anderson told Montfort of his discovery of two huge tentacles on some rocks near Bergen, Norway which he said were so thick he could barely put his arms around them and around 25 ft long.  Montford claimed that many mysterious disappearances of ships could have been caused by giant cephalopods and spoke of the disappearance of ten ships in 1782.  The Biritsh Admiral, George Rodney, had managed to capture six French ships and four British ships were escorting them back to port but none of them arrived.  Montford believed that the kraken was responsible.  He also speculated that the kraken's arms might be so immense that they could span the 8.9 mile Straits of Gibraltar. 


In his 1802 Histoire Naturelle Générale et Particulière des Mollusques, Montford classifies two giant cephalopods as the colossal octopus and the kraken octopus, which refers to the giant squid.  Unfortunately, the rest of the scientific community thought that Montford's claims were outlandish and unbelievable.  Montford became something of a scientific pariah and he died in 1820 from starvation.

Tentacle of a Great Calamary - Conception Bay, Newfoundland, Oct. 26, 1873.

In the early 1850s the Danish zoologist, Johannes Japetus Smith Steenstrup, began to look into rumours of the Kraken.  He was particularly interested in a number of accounts from the 1540s which described some kind of sea monster which had been captured in the Oresund Strait.  The creature was taken to the king of Denmark, who had the remains dried to preserve them.  They were considered 'a rarity and a wonder.'  A sketch of this creature resembled a squid of considerable size.  In an 1854 lecture, Steenstrup  asserted that the Kraken existed outside of mythology and should be classified as a cephalopod, giving the creature the scientific name Architeuthis, meaning 'ruling squid'.  Other scientists, however, doubted Steenstrup's theory until 1873, when a fisherman managed to capture a 19ft long giant squid off the coast of Newfoundland. 

In 1883 Henry Lee recounted this and another event in the book Sea Monsters Unmasked, where he wrote:

Giant Squid by Dkaz

 'Still there remained a residuum of doubt in the minds of naturalists and the public... until, towards the close of the year 1873, two specimens were encountered on the coast of Newfoundland, and a portion of one and the whole of the other, were brought ashore, and preserved for examination by competent zoologists.
The circumstances under which the first was seen... were briefly and soberly as follows - Two fishermen were out in a small punt on the 26th of October 1873, near the eastern end of Belle Isle, Conception Bay, about nine miles from St. John's.  Observing some object floating on the water at a short distance, they rowed towards it, supposing it to be the debris of a wreck.  On reaching it one of them struck it with his 'gaff', when immediately it showed signs of life and shot out its two tentacular arms, as if to seize its antagonists.  The other man, named Theophilus Picot, though naturally alarmed, severed both arms with an axe as they lay on the gunwal of the boat, whereupon the animal moved off, and ejected a quantity of inky fluid while darkened the surrounding water for a considerable distance.  The men went home, and, as fishermen will, magnified their lost 'fish'.  The 'estimated' the body to have been 60 feet it length, and 10 feet across the tail fin; and declared that when the 'fish' attacked them 'it reared a parrot-like beak which was as big as a six-gallon keg.'

While Lee doubts the fishermen's estimation of the squid's size, Mr Harvey, a minister, managed to obtain part of one of the tentacles which the fishermen had managed to chop off during their encounter.  Alexander Murray, a geologist of Newfoundland, and Professor Verrill of Yale, measured it at 17ft long and 3.5ft in circumference.  Lee writes, 'By careful calculation of its girth, the breadth and circumference of the expanded sucker-bearing portion at its extremity, and the diameter of the suckers, Professor Verrill has computed its dimensions to have been as follows:—Length of body 10 feet; diameter of body 2 feet 5 inches. Long tentacular arms 32 feet; head 2 feet; total length about 44 feet. The upper mandible of the beak, instead of being "as large as a six-gallon keg" would be about 3 inches long, and the lower mandible 1½ inch long. From the size of the large suckers relatively to those of another specimen to be presently described, he regards it as probable that this individual was a female.'  This encounter and Steenstrup's research into the sightings which had occurred in the past brought the Kraken from myth into reality.

Head and Tentacles of a Great Calamary Logie Bay, Newfoundland, Nov. 1873

The second event recorded by Henry Lee occurred in November 1873, when a smaller, but still large, squid came into the minister Mr Harvey's possession.  In this instance, three fishermen had found the squid tangled in their herring-net, which they were retrieving in Logie Bay.  Lee tells us: 'The body of this specimen was over 7 feet long; the caudal fin 22 inches broad; the two long tentacular arms 24 feet in length; the eight shorter arms each 6 feet long, the largest of the latter being 10 inches in circumference at the base; total length of this calamary 32 feet. Professor Verrill considers that this and the Conception Bay squid are both referable to one species—Steenstrup's Architeuthis dux.'

While there were many sightings and enocunters of dead giant squid over the years following the events Lee wrote about in 1883, sightings of the living specimen were rare.  One of these few sightings occurred in 1969 when Dennis Braun and two other marines aboard the USS Francis Marion had the opportunity to observe a giant squid of the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico, for over ten minutes.  They later estimated it to be around 100 feet long.

Colossal Squid Vs. Whale by AlizeyKhan

In 1995, a crew of whalers watched as a giant squid took on a sperm whale, which is its only natural predator.  Scientists later discovered the 50ft long whale dead, with one of the squids tentacles still wrapped around the whale's throat.  The scientists first believed that the whale had lost its battle with the giant squid.  However, the later found the mangled head of the squid inside the whale's stomach.

One of the series of images of a live giant squid taken by Kubodera and Mori in 2004

 In 2004 Japanese researchers were able to capture the first images of a live giant squid and then, in 2013, a Japanese crew recorded a the giant squid for the first time in its natural habitat.  While the squid was only 10ft long, this footage is considered 'ground-breaking.'  To view the video footage simply follow this link.   With the largest so far measuring 43ft in length, it is now widely accepted that the myths and legends which surround the Kraken were inspired by sightings of the giant squid.

That's all for today.  Next time I hope to share a few stories of the other legends which I haven't convered.  

Useful Resources

The Devil and Sherlock Holmes: Tales of Murder, Madness and Obsession by David Grann
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne
Sea Monsters Unmasked and Sea Fables Explained by Henry Lee
Is the Bermuda Triangle Really a Dangerous Place? and other Questions about the Ocean by Melissa Stewart
Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology, Volume 2 by George M. Eberhart
Richard Freeman: Pierre Denys de Montfort: Prophet of the Kraken
Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliere, des mollusques by Pierre Denys de Montfort
Min Son på Galejan by Jacob Wallenberg
Until We’re Ransacked for Parts: On Dismemberment, Backward Motion, and the Book-Length Essay

Creatures of the Deep: The Kraken - Part One

kraken Concept by bpsola

Below the thuners of the upper deep;
Far, far beneath in the abysmal sea,
His ancient, dreamless, uninvaded sleep
The Kraken sleepeth: faintest sunlights flee
About his shadowy sides: above him swell
Huge sponges of millennial growth and height;
And far away into the sickly light,
From many a wondrous grot and secret cell
Unnumber'd and enormous polypi
Winnow with giant arms the slumbering green.
There hath he lain for ages and will lie
Battening upon hyge seaworms in his sleep,
Until the latter fire shall heat the deep;
Then once by man and angels to be seen,
In roaring he shall rise and on the surface die.
                The Kraken by Alfred Lord Tennyson

The Kraken as we know it today is a legendary sea monster of huge proportions which is said to dwell off the coast of Norway and Greenland.  It is most often pictured as a giant Octopus or squid.  However, this is not how the kraken began.

Within the Harafnista Sagas of Norse mythology is the late-14th century Örvar-Oddr which details a journey to Helluland or Baffin Island.  During this journey, which takes the characters through the Greenland Sea, two giant sea-monsters are encountered: the hafgufa or sea-mist, and the lyngbakr or heather-back.  It is believed that the halfgufa later became the kraken.

Hafgufa

 'Now I will tell you that there are two sea-mosters.  One is called the hafgufa (sea-mist), another lyngbakr (heatherback).  It [the lyngbakr] is the largest whale in the world, but the hafgufr is the hugest monster in the sea.  It is the nature of this creature to swallow men and ships, and even whales and everything else within reach.  It stays submerged for days, then rears its head and nostrils above surface and stays that way at least until the change of tide.  Now, that sound we just sailed through was the space between its jaws, and its nostrils and lower jaw were those tocks that appeared in the sea, while the lyngbakr was the island we saw sinking down.  However, Ogmund Tussock has sent these creatures to you by means of his magic to cause the death of you [Odd] and all your men.  He thought more men would have gone the same way as those that already drowned, and he expected that the hafgufa would have swallowed us all.  Today I sailed through its mouth because I knew that it had recently surfaced.'

Some have speculated that the two monsters mentioned in the Hrafnista Sagas, the hafgufa and lyngbakr originate with the description of the medieval aspidochelone, a monstrous whale which fed by opening its jaws and releasing a fish-attracting smell.  This can be found in the King's Mirror or Konungs skuggsja, a Norwegian text from around 1250.  In the following extract, aspidochelone has been translated to kraken.

Aspidochelone by JaniceDuke

There is a fish not yet mentioned which it is scarcely advisable to speak about on account of its size, which to most men will seem incredible.  There are, moreover, but very few who can tell anything definite about it, inasmuch as it is rarely seen by men; for it almost never approaches the shore or appears where fishermen can see it, and I doubt that this sort of fish is very plentiful in the sea.  In our language it is usually called the 'kraken.'  I can say nothing definite as to its length in ells, for on those occasions when men have seen it, it has appeared more like an island that a fish.  Nor have I heard that one has ever been caught or found dead.  It seems likely that there are but two in all the ocean and that these beget no offspring, for I believe it is always the same ones that appear.  Nor would it be well for other fishes if they were as numerous as the other whales, seeing that they are so immense and need so much food.  It is said, that when these fishes want something to eat, they are in the habit of giving forth a violent belch, which brings up so much food that all sorts of fish in the neighborhood, both large and small, will rush up in the hope of getting nourishment and good fare.  Meanwhile the monster keeps its mouth open, and inasmuch as its opening is about as wide as a sound or fjord, the fishes cannot help crowding in in great numbers.  But as soons as its mouth and belly are full, the monster closes its mouth and thus catches and shuts in all the fishes that just previously had rushed in eagerly to seek food.

Footnotes contained within the King's Mirror speculate that the kraken or aspidochelone myth 'probably came to the North with the legend of St. Brendan, an Irish abbot, who was believed to have made a journey into the Atlantic about the middle of the sixth century.' 

St Brendan, the Irish Breanainn, is a saint of the 6th century is known as a great founder of monasteries as well a great traveller, who is said to have visited Scotland, Wales, and Brittany.  For now all we need to know of Brendan is of a particular part of his voyage to Tir Tairmgire (the Land of Promise) which was adapted by an anonymous medieval scholar into the Navagatio.  This legend can be found in a collection of stories about the lives of Christian saints called The South English Legendary, and has been copied and added to throughout the 14th century.  However, it is believed that much of the story was borrowed from other Irish literature, including the 9th century Voyage of Maol Duin and the early 8th century Voyage of Bran.  During this voyage, Breanainn and his monks land on what they think is an island.  When they start to cook their food, the island begins to move and eventually sinks beneath the sea.

A sea monster from the1621 Novi Orbis Indiae Occidentalis, representing the legend of St Brendan

'Saint Brendan and his brother monks went back to their ship and rowed strongly through the waves, enduring many storms, until the came to a great isle, and through our Lord's grace their ship drove onwards towards it; but before they could make landfall they came to some protuberance that prevented them from running the boat ashore.  One of Brendan's monks waded onto the land, but Brendan and the others remained in the ship.  This monk began to prepare a meal from the food he had brought with him; make a fire and boiled some fish in a cauldron.  But before it was cooked, before the fire had heated the water even, the island began to move up and down.  The monk was scared out of his wits and Saint Brendan watched in amazement as the island began to hurtle through the water, moving up and down like a living thing.  It swam for more than two miles before casting the fire into the sea.  The monks cried out to Saint Brendan to explain what was going on.
'Be still,' said this good man, 'and have no fear.  You think it is an island, but you are all wrong.  It is a fish of this great sea, the greatest that there is, and he tries by night and by day to put his tail into his mouth, but cannot because of his size.'

While the aspidochelone may be found in Norwegian texts, it is believed to be a compound of the Greek words aspis meaning either 'asp' or 'shield' and chelone meaning 'turtle'.  This monster appears in the Physiologus Latinus versio B, which is traditionally dated to the 2nd century, but is sometimes dated to the late 3rd and early 4th centuries, and was translated into Latin in around 700.  While I'm unable to translate Latin myself, I did manage to find the following translation for the Whale or asp-turtle:

The Whale (Asp-Turtle, Fastitocalon)by UrchinJoe

 'There is a monster in the sea which in Greek is called aspidochelone, in Latin 'asp-turtle'; it is a great whale, that has what appear to be beaches on its hide like those from the sea-shore.  This creature raises its back above the waves of the sea, so that sailors believe that it is just an island, so that when they see it, it appears to them to be a sandy beach such as is common along the sea-shore.  Believing it to be an island, they beach their ship alongside it, and disembarking, they plant stakes and tie up the ships.  Then, in order to cook a meal after this work, they make fires on the sand as if on land.  But when the monster feels the heat of these fires, it immediately submerges into the water, and pulls the ship into the depths of the sea.
Such is the fate of all who pay no heed to the Devil and his wiles, and place their hopes in him: tied to him by their works, they are submerged into the burning of Gehenna: for such is his guile.'

The asp-turtle can be found in the medieval Physiologus or Bestiary as a poem called The Whale (Asp-Turtle), believed to be written between 1022 and 1035 by Bishop Theobald and based on a 4th century Greek text, which you can read in full by following this link.

The poem tells us that the 'great asp-turtle...Fastitocalon...seems a bank of reedy grass along the shore, with rolling dunes behind.'  This appears to sailors like an island which the 'weary-hearted sailors mount...'  before 'they build a fire' and make 'their abode'.  However, the island, being a living creature 'plunges down, straight to the bottom deep he drags his prey', much like in the Physiologus Latinus versio B.

The famous Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus in his 1735 edition of Systema Naturae gives the creature which has previously described as the hafgufa, the whale and the asp-turtle the scientific name Microcosmus marinus, meaning 'little world in the sea', no doubt because the accounts of this creature state that it fools sailors into believing it is an island.  However, Linnaeus later removed it from the list of creatures contained in his writings, probably because he had no real proof of its existence.

the Kraken by Fenster

 So, while we know the kraken as a monstrously huge squid or octopus, at its origin it was actually a huge whale or turtle which people often mistook to be an island.  It was known by many names - asp-turtle, aspidochelone, halgufa - and many of the kraken's traits are inherited from these creatures.  However, in none of these accounts is the word kraken used, nor are any of the creatures remotely squid or octopus-like.  So, when was the name 'kraken' first used and how was the link between the kraken and the giant squid or octopus derived? 

The name 'kraken' comes from Bishop Potopiddan who first use the name in his The Natural History of Norway, published in 1755 .  The word 'kraken' is probably dervied from the Norwegian and Swedish 'krake' meaning an unhealthy animal, or something twisted.  In modern German, 'krake' (pl. kraken) means octopus, deriving from the Middle high German word 'krol', meaning 'curly'. 

Potopiddan tells us: 'the largest sea-monster in the world; it is called Kraken, Kraxen, or, as some name it, Krabben...'  He particulary agrees with the name Krabben because the 'name seems best to agree with the description of this creature, which is round, flat, and full of arms, or branches.'  Other names include 'Horven, or Soe-horven, and some Anker-trold.'  While Potopiddan tells us that he has consulted many authors on the subject of the kraken 'not one of them seems to know much of this creature, or at least to have a just idea of it,' but that 'they say however of floating islands...'

Potopiddan goes on to say that 'fishermen unanimously affirm, and without the least variation in their accounts, that when 'they row out several miles to sea, particularly in the hot Summer days...' they encounter shallow areas where they should be deep and here they expect to 'find the greatest plenty of fish'.  When this happens, the sailors 'judge that the Kraken is at the bottom.'  If, while they fish, the sea seems to become shallower still 'they find that the Kraken is raising himself nearer the surface' and 'immediately leave off fishing, take to their oars, and get away as fast as they can.'  As the Kraken comes to the surface, 'he there shows himself sufficiently... its back or upper part, which seems in the appearance about an English mile and an half in circumference'.  At this point the Kraken 'looks at first like a number of small islands, surrounded with something that floats and fluctuates like sea-weed.'  Potopiddan then says that 'serveral bright points or horns appear, which grow thicker and thicker the higher they rise above the surface of the water, and sometimes they stand up as high and as large as the masts of middle-siz'd vessels.'  He believes these to be the Kraken's arms and that 'if they were to lay hold of the largest man of war, they would pull it down to the bottom.'  And the danger is not just the time that the Kraken is present on the surface of the ocean.  When the Kraken starts to descend below the surface 'the danger is as great as before; because the motion of his sinking causes such a swell in the sea, and such an eddy or whirlpool, that it draws every thing down with it...'

Kraken Attack by BenWootten

Potopiddan speculates that the Kraken is probably 'of the Polype, or of the Star-fish kind..,' stating that his reasons are drawn from 'the parts which are seen rising at its pleasure'; its arms which 'are properly the tentacula, or feeling instruments, called horns as well as arms.'  He tells us that the arms are used for the creatures to 'move themselves, and likewise gather in their food.'  On their eating habits, Potopiddan tells us that the Kraken has 'a strong and peculiar scent, which it can emit at certain times, and by means of which it beguiles and draws other fish to come in heaps about it.'  He states that the Kraken, or Krabben, continually eats for months 'and in other months he always voids his excrements... [which] is said to be so very agreeable to the smell or taste of other fishes... that they gather together... and keep for that purpose directly over the Kraken.'  At this point the Kraken 'opens his arms, or horns, seizes and swallows his welcome guests,' which are then converted 'into a bait for other fish of the same kind.'

Potopiddan claims that the Kraken has not been known to do any real harm, at least not intentionally.  Any loss of life, he states, is because fishermen are unable to get out of the way of this creature in time.

So, what sources does Potopiddan use to reach these conclusions about the Kraken?

The Secret of Kraken Island by Kayman Studio

The first source that Potopiddan uses is 'Mr Luke Debes, in his Descriptopn of Faroe'  who speaks of 'islands which suddenly appear, and as suddenly vanish.'  These islands were believed to 'be inhabited by evil spirits.'  Potopiddan states that such islands 'are found here in Norway and in other places' and concludes that they can be 'nothing else but the Kraken, which some sea-faring people call Soe-draulen, that is Soe-trolden, Sea-mischief.'  Potopiddan says that the following quote from Baron Charles Grippenhielm confirms his opinion.

'Amongst the rocks about Stockholm there is sometimes seen a certain tract of land, which at other times disappears, and is seen again in another place.  Buraeus has placed this as an island in his map.  The peasants, who call it Gumarsore, say that it is not always seen, and that it lies out in the open sea, but I could never find it.  One Sunday, when I was out among the rocks, sounding the craft, it happened that, in one place, I saw something like three points of land in the sea, which surpris'd me a little, and I thought that I had inadvertently passed them over before.  Upon this, I called to a peasant to enquire for Gummars-orem but when he came we could see nothing of it; on which, the peasant said all was well, and that this prognosticated a storm, or a great quantity of fish.'

The Kraken. Magnus, Olaus. Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus. 1555

This, Potopiddan says, 'cannot possibly be anything else but the Kraken, Krabben, or Soe-horven.'  Potopiddan's next source is Olaus Magnus who, in his Historia gentibus septentrionalibus (History of the People of the Northern Regions), printed in 1555, writes of 'the horrible monsters which are found on the coast of Norway' and describes 'black, whale-sized, horrible beasts that look like uprooted trees,' whose heads are surrounded by 'sharp points in all directions, and of long horns.'  Magnus goes on to say that their eyeballs are more than 5ft in diameter, with the diameter of their glowing red pupils being 24 inches.  'The length of the head and outstretched arms of one of these monsters total 23ft', with the body being up to 29.5ft long, making the total length 52.5ft or 16 metres without the tentacles.  Magnus also claimed that these creatures were capable of pulling large boats down into the depths of the ocean and that they can appear like islands in the sea.  Magnus' account links well with Potopiddan's theory that the Kraken is an 'English mile and an half in circumference'; that the Kraken is  'full of arms, or branches' like an uprooted tree; and that  'if they were to lay hold of the largest man of war, they would pull it down to the bottom.' 

After this Potopiddan quotes Pliny the Elder's Natural History, where Pliny first speaks of Pritis and Balsena, the largest creatures in the world. 

'THE largest Creature in the Indian Sea is the Pristis and Balsena (Whale). In the Ocean of Gaul the largest is the Physeter, which lifteth itself up in the Manner of an immense Pillar, higher than the Sails of Ships ; and spouteth forth almost a Flood. In the Ocean of Gades there is a Tree spreading abroad with mighty Arms, to such an extent that it is believed to be the Cause why that Arm of the Sea is never entered. There are to be seen also what from their Shape are called Wheels, distinguished by four Rays ; with their two Eyes closing over the Naves on each Side.' 

Kraken by erenarik

This links with Potopiddan's assertion that the Kraken's arms sometimes 'stand up as high and as large as the masts of middle-siz'd vessels.'  Potopiddan also claims that that Pliny's description of the creature 'seems to agree with the accounts of the Kraken... with his many large horns or branches, as it were springing up from its body, which is round.'  He goes on to say that 'both these descriptons confirm my former suppositions... that this sea-animal belongs to the Polype or Star-fish species,' having heard 'that certain kinds of Polypus's grow to a monstrous size.'  Here, Potopiddan speaks of Athanas Kircher who, in his Mundus Subterranean, published in 1664, says that a particular starfish found in the Sicilian seas 'have ten rays, or branches, and a body as big as that of a man,' and again he quotes Pliny on a 'Polypus or a monstrous size, by the name of Ozaena [or Ozcena], because it diffuses a strong smell; for which reason the other fish follow.'  This, Potopiddan says, 'agrees exactly with what has been said already about the Norwegian Krake.'

Kraken by delic

'Other things which this author hath related may seem rather like something monstrous; for he affirmeth, that at Carteia there was one which used to go from the Sea into their open Cisterns, among their ponds, and there rob them of their salt fish; and this thievery was so enormous and long continued, that it gat itself the great displeasure of the keepers.  Fences were erected to stop the Passage, but these it passed over by means of a tree; nor could it have been taken but by the sagacity of the dogs: for as it was returning one night, they set upon it on all sides, and so raised the keepers, who were affrighted at the strange sight.  For, first of all, it was of unheard-of bigness; then its colour was covered over with the pickle, and the stink was horrible.  Who would have looked for a Polypus there, or have known it in such a condition?  They thought they had to encounter with some monster: for with its terrible vapour it drove away the dogs; and with the ends of its long tendrils it would lash them; sometimes with its stronger arms it knocked them, as with clubs; so that it was with difficulty they were able to kill it with several three-pronged spears.  Its head was... as big as a barrel that would contain fifteen Amphorae; and its beards a man could scarcely encompass with both his arms; they were full of protuberances like clubs, and thirty feet long.  The cavities or cups, and hollow vessels, were like great basins; and the teeth were conspicuous for their size.  The remains were preserved for a wonder, and weighed seven hundred pounds.'

Kraken by LozanoX

Let us now review the origin of the Kraken legend.

• We begin with Pliny the Elder in the 1st century AD in his Natural History.  Here Pliny speaks of the largest creature in the ocean, which can stand higher than the sails of ships.  This creature is like 'a tree spreading abroad with might arms'.  Pliny also speaks of a thieving Polypus which has a 'terrible vapour' which frightens the dogs and 'its long tendrils' or tentacles which it uses like clubs.  This creature was huge, weighing 'seven hundred pounds.'
• Next we have the 2nd or 3rd to 4th century Greek asp-turtle from the Physiologus Latinus versio B which speaks of a great whale which 'raises its back above the waves of the sea, so that sailors believe that it is just an island'.  Sailors land upon it and try to cook food, but 'when the monster feels the heat of these fires, it immediately submerges into the water, and pulls the ship into the depths of the sea.'
• This is followed by the medieval Bestiary poem of the asp-turle [whale] named Fastitocalon by  Bishop Theobald, which is based on a 4th century Greek text, possibly the Physiologus Latinus versio B.  This follows the same lines as the description found in the Physiologus Latinus about the great whale.
• Then, in 1250 we have King's mirror, which tells us of the aspidochelone, which appears   'more like an island that a fish' which attracts fish by 'giving forth a violent belch'.  The aspidochelone then simply sits there with its mouth open until it fill with fish and then 'as soons as its mouth and belly are full, the monster closes its mouth and thus catches and shuts in all the fishes that just previously had rushed in eagerly to seek food.'
• In the 14th century we have the Norse myth of the lyngbakr which is 'the largest whale in the world' and the halfgufa, which is 'the hugest monster in the sea.'  The halfgufa swallows 'men and ships, and even whales and everything else within reach,' while the lyngbakr appears like an island.

kraken unleashed by PaperCutIllustration

• Again in the 14th century we have the tale of Saint Brendan the Navigator who encountered a great fish which appears to be an island.  When they attempt to cook food, the great fish which hurtles 'through the water, moving up and down like a living thing,' before casting the fire into the sea and submerging itself.  This legend draws on texts from the early 8th and the 9th centuries.
• In 1555, Olaus Magnus writes of horrible monsters which are sometimes found off the coast of Norway.  These creatures are said to 'look like uprooted trees' which sometimes appear like islands and are capable of pulling large ships down into watery graves.
• In 1735, these creatures are given the scientific name Microcosmus marinus, meaning 'little world in the sea', by the Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus. 
• And, finally, we reach Bishop Potopiddan who seems to draw upon all of these sources in his creation of the Kraken.

That's all for today.  Next time we will look at the modern theories of the Kraken which begin after Potopiddan's naming of the Kraken and its traits.  As always, do check out some of the artists which create the spectacular images.  Just follow the links beneath the images.

Attack of the Kraken by VegasMike

Useful Resources

The Hrafnista Sagas by Ben Waggoner
Kraken: Fact or Fiction by Rick Emmer
The King's Mirror
The Legend of Saint Brendan
Latin Medieval Bestiary: Whale
Natural History by Pliny
The Natural History of Norway by Bishop Potopiddan
No Turtle Is an Island, Except for the Fastitocalon Called Aspidochelone

The Mystery of the Mary Celeste: Part Three

The Mary Celeste ghost ship was found without a crew

None of the theories which we've looked at so far can account for all of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Mary Celeste's crew, so let us look again at some facts which may provide us with some clues: Mary Celeste was abandoned by her captain and crew, they didn't just disappear.  They left on the ship's yawl.  The yawl would have been overloaded and could easily capsize.  They left in a hurry, leaving all clothing, food, and water behind.  However, there can't have been total panic as they took the time to collect the chronometer, sextant, and ship's papers.  The condition of the ship showed little damage.  So, whatever forced the crew to abandon ship had to be something they feared had happened or something they believed was going to happen in the near future but clearly never did.

A plausible theory was suggested by James H. Winchester, part-owner of the Mary Celeste.  He speculated that the ship's cargo of denatured alcohol gave off fumes which could have collected in the hold, forming an explosive mixture.  This could have ignited by a spark given off by friction between the metal bands on the barrels rubbing together or by a naked flame used during an inspection of the cargo.  Or perhaps the fumes were mistaken for smoke, causing the crew to believe that the ship was going to explode.  When questioned, experts expressed the opinion that the vapour would not have been visible but an explosive mixture could have formed.  However, any resulting explosion would not have been minor and would have blown the Mary Celeste out of the water.

A Ship Exploding

Another theory which has potential suggests that, due to stormy weather, Briggs gave the order to sail to the nearby Santa Maria Island so the crew could take refuge.  The cook then started a fire in the large galley stove to make hot food while the crew furled most of the sails, leaving just enough to hold her heading along the shore of the island.  When the food had been prepared, the men stopped to eat and then went back to work, pumping the bilge and setting the sails.  At that moment the sea floor beneath Mary Celeste was torn apart by a shallow-focused earthquake which, in the Azores, is a relatively common occurrence.
When the hard bottom suddenly shifts upwards, the seabed behaves like a giant piston which pushes and pulls the water, sending powerful waves of alternating pressure towards the surface.  The result would make those on board feel like there was no water beneath the ship, making it seem as though she was sitting on dry land during an earthquake.  In the event of a seaquake, the magnitude does not determine how much disturbance the ship would have felt.  The damage suffered by the ship is based on the sudden hastening of the rocky seafloor at the epicentre, which determines the intensity of the shockwaves in the water.  A magnitude 5.5 earthquake could quite easily have occurred beneath the Mary Celeste, terrifying the crew while being relatively unnoticed on Santa Maria Island.

The deck of the ship would have shaken violently, tossing the heavy cast-iron deck stove into the air.  When it landed, it resettled in a position outside of the chocks, which would usually keep it from sliding around during heavy seas.  Pots and pans would have gone flying, much like the iron covers on top of the stove.  The flew pipe came loose, shooting red-hot embers from the fire into the air above deck.  Severe vibrations also loosened the stays around nine barrels of denatured grain alcohol, dumping around 500 gallons of explosive liquid into the bilge, with the fumes rapidly spreading to the upper deck.

Choking on alcohol fumes, hearing the crashing sounds that surrounded them, seeing the embers flying around would have caused panic, causing them to abandon ship on the yawl to escape a pending explosion and almost certain death.

Ship and Waterspout

Another plausible and perhaps the most probable theory comes, in part, from Oliver Deveau and was suggested at the salvage hearing.  Deveau expressed the belief that the crew had become convinced that the ship was sinking, causing them to panic.  While this theory has previously been dismissed as being idiotic, with Deveau being the idiot, his comment needs to be taken in context.  What might cause the crew to believe the Mary Celeste was sinking?

Dr. James H. Kimble, once head of the United States Weather Bureau in New York, and the author Gershorn Bradford both suggested that Mary Celeste was hit by a waterspout, cousin of the land tornado.  Both believe the waterspout would have been relatively small and harmless, causing very little damage and leaving the ship no worse off than if she had encountered a storm.  However, the waterspout's inside barometric pressure is very low and, as the spout passed over, the pressure difference between the inside and the outside of the ship may have caused the hatch covers to be blown off much like the way a building's walls explode outward when hit by a tornado.  The crew may have dropped a rod down the pump well to measure how much water was in the hold.  The drop in barometric pressure could potentially cause the bilge water to rise up the pump well where a valve would prevent it returning the the hold.  While it would only be a temporary malfunction, the crew may not have realised, instead believing the Mary Celeste had leaked 2 metres of water in less than a minute.  Obviously, if you were to believe this, the Captain would think the ship was fast sinking and would give the order to abandon ship.  It would also allow them time to collect the sextant, chronometer, and ship's papers.

by Henry Austin

But why did the crew not climb back aboard when they realised the danger had passed?

The three previous theories would all result in the Captain, his family, and the crew to take to the lifeboat.  The yawl would usually he attached to the ship by a rope, giving the occupants the opportunity to board the ship if need be.  But what if the crew had forgotten to properly secure the line between the yawl and the ship?  The crew and captain would have been elated when they realised it was safe to reboard the ship, but the elation would have quickly vanished when they discovered they were no longer tied to the ship.  It has been suggested that the rope had not been tightened enough and the knots unravelled, or perhaps the crew were too panicked and forgot to tie it at all.  So, when it became evident that the ship was not going to explode or sink, it would have already been a fair distance away.  The captain would have to decide whether to attempt to catch Mary Celeste or to sail for the safety of Santa Maria Island, which would have been less than ten miles away.  While the island was close and easy to reach, to return without Mary Celeste, a perfectly seaworthy ship with a valuable cargo,  was to be disgraced.  If they attempted to catch the runaway ship, they might catch her which, while unlikely, is not impossible.  Or they might not.  If correct, this theory would imply they never caught the Mary Celeste and, with no provisions, an overloaded yawl, and the possibility of further storms, the survival of the occupants seems unlikely.

Lost at Sea by y Michael Ross

Five months later, five decomposed bodies were discovered tied to two rafts at Baudus in Austurias, near Madrid, Spain.  One corpse was wrapped in the American flag.  The story was reported on May 16th 1873 in the Daily Albion of Liverpool.  It is possible that this was the remainder of the crew of Mary Celeste.  However, having never been investigated, we will never know who they were or what ship they belonged to.



Useful Resources
Ghost Ship: The Mysterious True Story of the Mary Celeste and Her Missing Crew by Brian Hicks
Mary Celeste: The Greatest Mystery of the Sea by Paul Begg
Into the Bermuda Triangle: Pursuing the Truth Behind the World's Greatest Mystery by Gian Quasar
Out of this world: Mysteries of mind, space and time
The Bermuda Triangle Mystery Solved by Lawrence David Kusche
The World's Greatest Unsolved Mysteries (Mysteries and Secret) by Lionel & Patricia Fanthorpe
Deaf Whale - Mary Celeste Was Abandoned During a Seaquake

The Mystery of the Mary Celeste: Part Two

So, what theories have been suggested to explain why the Mary Celeste was abandoned by her crew?  While no answer can be put forward with absolute certainty, a number of theories have since been voiced with some being more plausible than others.

 Marie Celeste by jacktar51

Flood's first theory was that the original crew may have gained access to the cargo of denatured alcohol, leading to the consequent murder of Captain Briggs, his wife, their child, and first mate Richardson.  This theory has been proposed on several occasions since - once by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, William A. Richard, in an open letter printed on the front page of the New York Times in 1873, which stated:

The circumstances of the case tend to arouse grave suspicion that the master, his wife, and child, and perhaps the chief mate , were murdered in the fury of drunkenness by the crew, who had evidently obtained access to the alcohol with which the vessel was in part laden.
It is thought that the vessel was abandoned by the crew between the 25th day of November and the 5th day of December and that they either perished at sea, or, more likely, escaped on some vessel bound for some North or South American port or the West India Islands.

However, in reality denatured alcohol is liable to give the drinker acute pains long before he could become truly intoxicated.  There is also the fact that Briggs strictly forbid his crew to drink alcohol aboard the ship.  Flood was forced to desert this theory.

The Ghost Ship Mary Celeste by Bill Hubbard

His next suggestion was that both Briggs and Morehouse were working together.  Flood believed their plan could have gone as follows.  Briggs would kill his crew and dispose of their bodies before launching the lifeboat and sailing to a prearranged destination.  In the meantime, Morehouse would 'discover' the Mary Celeste abandoned and would sail her to Gibraltar where he would claim the salvage money.  The two men would then meet at a later date to split the money.  While this theory is at least plausible, there is no evidence that either Briggs or Morehouse were criminals.  The fact that Briggs was also part-owner of the Mary Celeste makes this even less likely as the salvage money wouldn't even cover his original investment.  Knowing this gives the suggestion very little credibility.  Flood abandoned this theory too.

Flood's third theory was that Morehouse, along with his crew, had boarded the Mary Celeste, slaughtering everyone in order to claim the salvage money.  However, Morehouse was not greedy, although many a writer had implied that he was, and he was reluctant to claim the Mary Celeste.  He couldn't really spare the men who would form a skeleton crew which would leave both vessels undermanned and at risk in the event of an emergency.  He was, however, eventually persuaded by Deveau to do just that.  While Flood tried very hard to make this theory stick he succeeded only in generating an atmosphere of suspicion, leading Morehouse and his crew being considered guilty until proven innocent.  This claim was denounced, clearing Morehouse and the crew of Dei Gratia of any wrongdoing.  After a lengthy and controversial hearing, they were granted a salvage reward of £1,700.  Many believe they should have received two or three times this amount.

The court itself was unable to offer a satisfactory explanation for what had happened to the crew.  The accusations voiced by Flood caused many a rumour to fly, including that Morehouse and his crew were pirates who had either seized the ship for its salvage value and disposed of the original captain and crew, much like Flood's accusations.  Another rumour tells us that Morehouse had planted some of his crew aboard the Mary Celeste in New York, with them taking over the ship, killing the occupants and throwing them overboard before awaiting the arrival of Morehouse and the Dei Gratia.

The majority of theories following Flood's own suggestions generally vary on the theme of murder committed by either the Mary Celeste's crew or the Dei Gratia's crew.  One such theory suggests that the owner of the Mary Celeste, J. H. Winchester, arranged for the crew to murder Captain Briggs and his family before sinking the ship for insurance, but that they somehow bungled the job, losing their lives in the process.  Perhaps the plan called for the crew to abandon ship as she ploughed into the rocks near the Azores but an unexpected wind blew the ship to safety, leaving the crew to drown.

The Mary Celeste is attacked by a sea serpent

Other theories, however, are not uncommon and are often eccentric.  In the 1900s, people favoured the 'monster from the depths' stories in which the Mary Celeste was attacked by a giant octopus which plucked the entire crew from the deck.  While this theory may attact illustrators, there are, quite obviously, a number of flaws.  If, for example, such a large and savage creature were to exist, it still seems highly improbable that the crew would hang around waiting to be picked off one by one.  It also seems unlikely that said creature would crave the yawl, chronometer, sextant, and ship's papers.

Morris K. Jessup suggested that the crew of the Mary Celeste were abducted by a UFO, which cannot be proven true or false either way, but is, regardless, unlikely.  Bermuda Triangle authors list the crew as unfortunate victims of the unexplained forces that they believe exist within the area.  However, this would make the supposed force selective and the 'Bermuda Triangle' would need to be greatly enlarged to the point that it reaches the Azores.  Another theory put forward by a group of more rational people was that the food and drinking water were contaminated, causing the crew to hallucinate at which point they were driven made and threw themselves overhoard.  This particular theory is plausible if you know very little about the case, but Deveau and other members of Dei Gratia's crew who sailed the Mary Celeste back to port used both the food and water and suffered no such effects.  It has also been suggested that, somewhere near the Azores, Mary Celeste became stranded on a 'ghost island', a shifting sandbar which comes and goes, and constantly changes position.  Believing that they were stranded indefinitely, the crew perhaps took to the yawl and were lost at sea while Mary Celeste was freed when the sandbar drifted, sailing back out to sea without a soul on board.

Many years after the actual event too place, one man claimed to be the only surviving member of the crew, alleging that the captain challenged the mate to a swimming race around the ship with both being killed by a shark.  As the remaining crew watched, Mary Celeste was struck by a rogue wave, dumping them all overboard.  The ship, however, remained upright and sailed on minus all but one of her crew.

One claimant's story appeared in the Nautical Magazine of Glasgow with Captain Dmitri Lukhmanov, identified as an 'agent of the Russian Volunteer fleet at Hong Kong,' writing about a man he had met in 1884.  Lukhmanov claims that a Greek sailor named Demetrius Specioti spoke of how he had sailed aboard the 'Ghost Ship' under another name.  Apparently, after a routine trip across the Atlantic, the crew of the 'Marie Celeste', as this account refers to her, were lost not far from Gibraltar when they were attacked by pirates.  The pirate ship had been flying the British flag when Briggs spotted it.  Speciati said that someone on this mystery vessel had signalled that they were short of provisions and were starving.

Abandoning Mary Celeste by Ken Petts

Briggs apparently invited them aboard so they could refresh their supplies.  It was only when the vessel drew alongside them that the crew of Marie Celeste noticed that something wasn't quite right, with only one man at the oars and a huge tarp covering the remainder of the boar.  By this point it was already too late; pirates jumped from beneath the tarp and overpowered Briggs and his crew, explaining that they had lost too many of their crew to disease and were in need of extra hands to man their ship.  Specioti said that the pirates left the Marie Celeste deserted for the Dei Gratia to find.
 It was not until later that the crew perished, according to Specioti.  While they were treated reasonably well by the pirates, a fever which had killed many of the original pirate crew eventually claimed Briggs anf his family.  The remaining crew apparently hatched a plan to overrun their captors, but waited too long.  Unfortunatelyan Italian mailer steamer collided with the pirate ship, sinking it and killing everyone aboard except, conveniently, Demetrius Specioti.  He claimed that, in the resulting confusion, he managed to get aboard the Italian ship, securing passage to the next port.  While there are documented cases of pirates taking ships near the African coast as recently as the 1890s, no one really seemed interested in Specioti's story.

Another claimant, one of many 'survivors' who have cropped up in the fifty years following the incident whose names are mysteriously absent from the crew list, had his 'true account' printed in an article called The Truth about the Marie Celeste: A Survivor's Tale, written by Lee Kaye, in Chamber's Journal in 1925.  The claimant, John Pemberton, claimed to have joined the crew of the Mary Celeste as ship's cook in 1870.  Pemberton went on to say that, in 1872, the crew were short-handed and this probably explained why Briggs would hire a 'sad bully' named Hullock for his mate.  Apparently Hullock and Briggs did not get along because Hullock had previously proposed to Sarah Briggs.  She had refused and Hullock blamed Briggs from keeping himaway from the woman he loved.  Pemberton also claimed that Briggs and Morehouse were partners in crime, planning to exchange a piece of the charter for some of Morehouse's crew.  They would meet off the Azores to transfer the sailors for cargo, but apparently there was a more sinister plan in the pipeline and trouble started soon before the ships would meet.

Pemberton claimed that early in the voyage Sarah Briggs was playing the pianoforte in the cabin during a storm when the securing lines snapped, crushing her to death.  Briggs was driven insane, accusing Hullock of sabotage and, shortly after, he went as far as accusing the entire crew of murder and ordered the steersman be thrown overboard.  The crew ignored the order but threw the pianoforte into the sea, hoping to calm their captain.  Later the same night, Briggs disappeared and Hullock is said to have told a crewmember that the captain 'went after the piano.'  By the end of November another sailor had been lost at sea during a brawl and two others deserted in the yawl.  When the Mary Celeste finally met with the Dei Gratia near the Azores, Morehouse discovered that only three sailors and Pemberton had survived the trip, so he took the ship for salvage money, claiming to have found it deserted.

A Brig's Officers Believed to Have Been Murdered at Sea

Pemberton's tale, while containing more that its fair share of factual errors, was expanded to book length by Lawrence J. Keating in 1929 and found a massive audience by offering a tale rich in detail.  The elements of unrequited love, jealousy, and murder made other stories about the ship pale in comparison and, with Pemberton still living, the story appeared credible.  The book, The Great Mary Celeste Hoax, was a bestseller on both sides of the Atlantic, and Pemberton rapidly rose to fame.  Keating, in his introduction, claimed the noble intention of putting 'on record an exact and accurate account of what really did happen on board the vessel during her famous and magical voyage, to explain why and how she was abandoned, and to reveal what became of the crew.'  He also claimed to have interviewed 'survivors', referencing a number of official papers to expose the mystery, while offering no clue of where the answers had hidden for fifty years.  He stated: It would not be possible nor appropriate, in a book of the present dimensions, to include in extenso all the reports and documents which have been examined for the purpose of this work, or to recount in detail the complete narratives of the men who have knowledge of the separate phases of the mystery of the Mary Celeste.  While Keating corrected the mistakes he had made in the article, when stretched to full length, the tale was so full of unrealistic plot lines that it was almost meaningless.  However, the book was published by reputable publishing houses in both London and New York, making it the most successful book published on the famous ghost ship.

Many an interview was sought by journalists, but Pemberton remained elusive until a 'special correspondent' of the London Evening Standard somehow managed to track him down.  People began to question the tale, with Frederick J. Shepard, a librarian in Buffalo, commenting in the Buffalo News that the book had 'scarcely a correctly stated fact in it.'  Even the painting in the front of the book bore no resemblence to the real Mary Celeste.  While the book was slated by many, some reporters searched high and low for the survivor who had told the tale.  The coveted interview was obtained as well as a photograph of Pemberton, with both being published on May 6th, 1929 in the Evening Standard.

However, 20 years later, it came to light that the only true statement in Keating's book was in the title.  Macdonald Hastings, a British writer and one-time editor of The Strand, made some inquiries about Lawrence Keating and received a letter from another old ship captain who had met Keating.  A mutual friend of the captain and Hastings declared Keating a fake.  The story had been a hoax with Lee Kaye, Lawrence Keating and the Evening Standard's 'special correspondent' being one and the same person - an Irish Liverpudlian named Lawrence J. Keating.  Hastings noted that the Evening Standard article had already proved the tale a fake because the photograph of the man professing to be John Pemberton did not exist.  He was actually Keating's father.

That's all for today.  Next time we will look at the plausible theories for the disappearance of Mary Celeste's crew.

The Mystery of the Mary Celeste: Part One

The 'disappearance' of the Mary Celeste, a 103 foot long brigantine weighing 282 tons, is considered by many to be one of the most interesting mysteries of the sea.  All derelict ships are compared to it no matter where they are found.  In fact, any real mystery is called the 'Mary Celeste' of its field; Flight 19, for example, is known as the 'Mary Celeste of aviation'.  However, Mary Celeste never actually disappeared.  When looking at this particular mystery, it was in fact the crew that disappeared and were never heard from again.  The crew's disappearance is the central element of the long and unfortunate history of the Mary Celeste, which was considered by many seamen to be jinxed.

Mary Celeste's Crew List

The Captain of the Mary Celeste was Benjamin Spooner Briggs.  Born in Wareham, Massachusetts on 24th April 1835, Briggs was the second of five sons and the third of six children born to Captain Nathan and his wife Sophia.  This was a seafaring family, with two of the five sons becoming master mariners at an early age, one of which was Benjamin, and all but one of the sons going to sea.  Benjamin's sister, Maria, also went to sea when she married a sea captain named Joseph D. Gibbs.  Briggs had already commanded the schooner Forest King, the barque Arthur, and the brigantine Sea Foam.  Some later authors portrayed Briggs as a man whose religious beliefs, along with his insistence that all his crew abstain from alcohol, made him fanatical, causing him to be weak and ineffectual as a captain.  However, he was actually believed to be a man of strict beliefs and religious conviction.  Those who knew him described Briggs as having 'the highest character as a Christian and as an intelligent and active shipmaster.'  Briggs was also a new shareholder in the Mary Celeste, ready to take her on her first voyage after a meticulous refit.

Benjamin, Sarah and Sophia Briggs

Briggs also brought two family members along for the voyage.  Sarah Elizabeth Briggs, the daughter of a preacher of the Congregational Church in Marion, Massachusetts and Captain Briggs wife, and Sophia Matilda Briggs, their 2 year old daughter, also made the voyage, while their eldest child, Arthur Stanley, remained at home with his grandmother.

Albert G. Richardson, first mate of the Mary Celeste

The first mate of Mary Celeste was 28 year old Albert G. Richardson, who was considered to be trustworthy and competent.  Richardson was a soldier in the American Civil War and was married to a niece of James H. Winchester, part-owner of the Mary Celeste.  Both Richardson and Briggs had worked together previously and Richardson was held in high esteem.

Andrew Gilling, whose birthplace was given as New York, served as second mate.  It is believed that he was actually of Danish extraction, due to the pastor of the parish of Kathy, Samso, Denmark having written to the Royal Danish Consul at Gibraltar on July 8th, 1873 on behalf of 'the bereaved and sorrowful mother' of Andrew Gilling.  The pastor sought any information pertaining to his fate and asked how he should proceed in having Gilling's possessions returned to his mother.  Gilling is also believed to have been honest and respectable.

The cook and steward, 23 year old Edward William Head, came from Brooklyn, New York, where he was respected by those that knew him.  He was described by Captain Winchester in the New York Sunday World as coming from Williamsburg 'where he was respected by all who knew him.'

Four other sailors, all of German birth, concludes the crew list of the Mary Celeste.  Very little is known about these four men.  Two of the seamen, Volkert and Boz Lorenzen, were believed to be brothers who lost all of their possessions when shipwrecked prior to their joining the crew of the Mary Celeste.  There is some mystery surrounding the oldest member of the crew, 35 year old Arian Martens who, while a qualified and experienced mate, had only signed on with Briggs as an ordinary seaman.  The final member of the crew was 23 year old Gottlieb Goodschaad or Goodschaal.  While we have very little information about these four seamen, they appear to have been of god character.

On 24th March 1873, a T. A. Nickelsen wrote to the US Consul in Gibraltar from Utersum on the Isle of Fohr, which was then a part of Prussia:

DEAR SIR - Please excuse me for writing these few lines of information regarding two sailors (brothers) belonging to the American Brig Mary Celeste, their mother and their wives wish to know in which condition the ship has been found, whether the boats were gone or not, whether the log-book has been found on board or not, so as to find out what day they have left the ship, and further do they like to know whether any sign of disturbance have been found on board.  I know three of the sailors personally and know them to be peaceable and first-class sailors.  Please favour us with an answer and let us know your opinion why they left said brig - I remain, Yours truly, T. A, Nickelsen

Nickelson was referring to the brothers Volkert and Boz Lorenzen and Arian Martens.  Both Volkert and Boz had a wife, and Volkert also had a daughter, Ida.  Martens was also married and, when he disappeared, his wife was pregnant with their second daughter, Clara.

Prior to the voyage, Mary Celeste was loaded with 1701, or, according to some, 1709, barrels of denatured grain alcohol, valued at $37,000, which was shipped by Meissnet Ackerman and Co., merchant of New York.  The destination was Genoa, Italy, and it was to be delivered to Mascerenhas and Co.  Briggs explained to his mother in a letter dated November 3rd 1872 that the preparations for the voyage were 'tedious, perplexing and very tiresome.'  Loading of the cargo was completed before dark on Sunday 2nd November with Briggs planning to sail on the Tuesday.  He visited the New York office of the United States Shipping Commissioner on Monday to sign the 'Articles of Agreement' with the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, accepting liability for $3,400 on the vessel's freight.  Some accounts of the tale claim that Briggs and his wife met with Captain Morehouse of Dei Gratia for dinner the evening before the voyage began at Astor House, which, for many years, was considered the finest hotel in the United States.  There is, however, no evidence that the two men knew each other.

Mary Celeste as Amazon in 1861

Then, early on 5th November 1872, Mary Celeste was towed from Pier 44 to a bay of Staten Island, New York by the Sandy Hook pilot ship.  The Mary Celeste, however, didn't begin her voyage until November 7th due to storms which forced Briggs to drop anchor for an extra two days before he was willing to risk venturing out to sea.  Sarah wrote to her mother-in-law telling her, 'it was strong head wind, and B sail it looked so thick and nasty ahead we shouldn't gain much if we were beating and banging about.'  They sought shelter, waiting for the weather to calm before finally setting sail.  This was the last time anyone would see the crew of Mary Celeste.
Some believers in jinxes and predetermined misfortune may blame the Mary Celeste for her bad luck.  Others might blame the Briggs family, who seem to have been equally doomed.  The Mary Celeste suffered misfortune from the day she was launched, but the Briggs family also seem to attracted disaster.  Benjamin, as we know, vanished at sea.  His brother, Oliver, was lost at sea when his ship sank.  Nathan and Zenas, two other brothers, died at sea of yellow fever.  His sister Maria drowned when her husband's ship was struck by a steamer and his father was killed when he was struck by lightning as he stood in the doorway of his home.

Eight days after Mary Celeste departed from New York, Dei Gratia left with a cargo of petroleum bound for Gibraltar on November 15th 1872 with David Reed Morehouse, a Nova  Scotian, as her captain.  Oliver Deveau served as first mate.  Both the captain and the rest of the crew of the Dei Gratia were experienced seamen and are believed by most to have been of good character.

Chart of approximate course taken by Mary Celeste and Dei Gratia

Twenty days later, on December 5th, John Johnson of the British brigantine Dei Gratia sighted a vessel around 5 miles off the port bow shortly after 1pm, between the Azores and Portugal.  To be exact, Mary Celeste was discovered drifting at 38° 20' north, 17° 15' west, 599 miles west of Gibraltar.  It is interesting to note the location at which Mary Celeste was found when taking into consideration the fact that they mystery of the Mary Celeste and her missing crew are so often included in tales of the Bermuda Triangle.  In actual fact, she was no where near the Triangle at any point from November 25th, when Briggs wrote in the temporary log, to when she was first sighted by the Dei Gratia on December 5th.

Having noticed the poor condition of the ship's sails along with her slight 'yawing' and the lack of people on the deck of the mystery vessel, Johnson called the second mate, John Wright, and together they spoke with Captain Morehouse.  Morehouse studied the ship through his telescope and then gave the order to offer assistance.  At around 3pm, having closed the distance to about 400 yards of the mystery ship, Morehouse hailed her several times.  No reply was received, leading to Morehouse's decision to send some of his crew aboard to investigate.

An engraving of Mary Celeste as she was found, abandoned

Deveau, Wright and Johnson rowed over to the ship, noticing the name Mary Celeste as they neared it.  Johnson stayed in the boat while Deveau and Wright climbed aboard.  Over the next hour they searched Mary Celeste from stem to stern.  The main staysail was discovered on the foreward house both the foresail and upper foresail had been lost.  The fore-topmost staysail (the jib) and the fore-lower-topsail were set with the remaining sails furled.  Some of the running rigging was in poor condition, parts having blown away and other parts hanging over the side of the ship.  The main peak halyard - a stiff 90 metre long rope used to hoist the outed end of the gaff sail - was broken and mostly missing.  The binnacle had been knocked over and was broken.  The ship's wheel was spinning.  Some of the hatch covers were well secured but others had been removed and were found discarded near the hatchways.  There was less than 30cm of water in the galley and most of the six months' provisions were unspoilt.  There was also an ample supply of fresh water.  The cargo of denatured alcohol was intact and in good conditions.  While the condition of the ship was better than most vessels that then regularly sailed the Atlantic, she was completely deserted.  Her condition showed signs of having recently been caught in a storm but there was no evidence to provide clues as to why she had been abandoned by her crew.

Deveau found the temporary log on the table in Captain Briggs' cabin.  The most recent recording read: Monday 25th.  At five o'clock made island of St Mary's bearing ESE.  At eight o'clock Eastern point bore SSW six miles distant.  Deveau also found a chart showing Mary Celeste's progress up to November 24th.

Some accounts tells us that a meal had been prepared, or that the meal was cooking on the stove.  Others have the dishes washed and properly stored away.  Others still detail how the table had been laid with still warm cups of coffee, tea, eggs, bacon, bread and butter.  A vial of oil was supposedly found sitting upright on a sewing machine, which would indicate calm seas.  It is impossible to know which accounts are fact and which are fiction, although most are likely fictional.

The True Story of the Mary Celeste

The captain's personal items were all on board and there were apparently toys on his bed, as if a child had been playing there.  Some versions tell us a sword was found hanging on the wall or under the captain's bed, sometimes with blood stains, sometimes with rust stains, sometimes with nothing.  Some versions of the tale tell us that blood or wine stains were seen on the woodwork and on the sails, although wine stains would indicate the drinking of alcohol when the captain was strictly against any being consumed aboard the ship.  Others make no mention of alcohol at all.

A number of items were missing: the chronometer, sextant, bill of landing, navigation book, and a small yawl which had been lashed to the main hatch, although some accounts have the yawl still of the ship when it was searched by Deveau.  The railing which had run along beside the yawl had been removed.  This at least answered the question of where the ship's crew had gone; the abandoned ship.  It didn't, however, offer an explanation of why Briggs would abandon a perfectly seaworthy ship in favour of a small and comparatively unstable boat, especially when one considers that he had his family with him.  Sailors have always considered abandoning ship as a desperate act which is only taken when there is no other alternative.  Descriptions of the ship's condition vary considerably, but overall Mary Celeste was in good condition.  As one of Dei Gratia's crew later said, Mary Celeste was 'in a fit enough state to sail around the world.'

A painting the Dei Gra­tia

Deveau along with two other seamen, Augustus Anderson and Charles Lund, had the Mary Celeste ready to sail within two days.  Together the Mary Celeste and Dei Gratia set sail for Gibraltar.  On December 12th the two ships arrived and, within two hours of dropping anchor, the crew were placed under arrest by Thomas J. Vecchio, of the Vice-Admiralty Court.  Frederick Solly Flood, the Attorney General for Gibraltar and Advocate General for the Queen in her Office of Admiralty, believed the abandonment of Mary Celeste could only be a result of murder and piracy.  Without Flood the mystery of Mary Celeste would probably have faded into obscurity.  However, his accusations voiced at the hearings in the Vice-Admiralty Court attracted worldwide publicity, with Flood asking one question above all others.

Why was Mary Celeste abandoned?

That's all of today.  Next time we will look at the theories which have been suggestion to account for the abandonment of Mary Celeste.  As with Flight 19, I will include all sources at the end of the final post on Mary Celeste.