[ 1841. ] REPORTS AND PAPERS. FDO 
“On the Sea-Serpent of the Norwegians”. I am obliged to give a 
translation of his paper: 
“On a journey which I made through Norway I availed myself 
of the opportunity of making inquiries after a hitherto problematical 
and even doubted animal, the so-called sea-serpent (Soe Orm in 
the language of the Norwegians). The most favourable opportunity 
offered in Christiansund, in the neighbourhood of which this animal 
is said to have often been observed. The general notices which I 
received about the sea-serpent, agree in the following points: It is 
mostly seen in the larger fjords of Norway, but seldom in the 
open sea. In the fjord of Christiansund, which has such a consider- 
able extent, manifold ramifications, and in which numerous islets 
are found, it appears almost every year. It is said to have been 
especially observed in that part of the fjord on which the village 
of Lorvig is situated. This only happens in the warmest part of 
the year, viz. in the dog days, and only then when the weather 
is quite still and the surface of the water smooth. When after its 
appearance the water is ruffled, however slightly, it immediately 
disappears. Great is the dread of it, so that in the dog days many 
fishermen, otherwise intrepid, don’t go far into the sea, without 
taking with them asa foetida, which is said to drive away the 
animal by its smell, when thrown into the water. Moreover the 
fishermen advise to be very quiet, when a sea-serpent approaches , 
and therefore rowing must be avoided, because the least noise 
attracts it still more.” 
“To have, however, more accounts than those general ones which 
are spread amongst the people, I wrote to several persons who 
were said to have seen it with their own eyes. Some of them who 
at the request of Somren and Winuetm Knuprszon Brothers, two 
distinguished and very intelligent merchants, paid me a visit, I 
questioned personally; for others I had put down several questions 
to which I received a written answer. I will communicate here the 
result of my inquiry.” 
Now Mr. Raruke publishes the affidavits which I have inserted 
above (n°. 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 102), and his Postscript (see n°. 
107 and 108). | 
“If one’ Mr. RatHKeE goes on, “were to submit the above men- 
tioned evidences to an inquiry, one would soon observe, that they 
not only contain several contradictory statements, but also that each 
evidence by itself cannot pretend to accuracy. Yet I believe, that 
we may at least admit so much of them, to be right, that what 
