Friday 26 August 2016

The Loch Ness Monster in 1896 (Part II)

It must be one of those nerdy things. Most people will prick up their ears at a Nessie story if it is a new photo, film or some exciting testimony. Here we like to get into the minutiae. Previously, I had addressed the puzzle of John Keel's 1896 Nessie. I now address something mentioned by Peter Costello in his 1974 book, "In Search of Lake Monsters". I quote from the recently released Kindle edition:

The animals in Loch Ness were even well known enough to be mentioned in the Glasgow Evening News in 1896.

No more is said by Costello and since then I have been left somewhat in limbo wondering what was said in those times about Nessie? Henry Bauer, in his "Enigma of Loch Ness" expresses frustration that Costello did not provide more information while arch-sceptic Ronald Binns, in his "Loch Ness Mystery - Solved", dismisses it as another example of so-called poor research by Nessie believers.

I had not resolved the issue in my book, "The Water Horses of Loch Ness", but by chance, the matter came to the fore during a visit to a bookshop on the Isle of Lewis in July. As is my wont, I went to the relevant section of the shop to check out publications relevant to folklore, legends and cryptids.

There the matter resolved itself as I flicked through a book published in 2006 called "Strange Things" written by John Campbell and Trevor Hall. This book is subtitled, "The Story of Fr Allan McDonald, Ada Goodrich Freer, and the Society for Physical Research's Enquiry into Highland Second Sight". However, the findings of any such enquiry were never published, most likely because there was nothing to publish. Suffice to say that Ada Freer was the woman charged with going up to the Highlands to do the investigation.




That in itself is a secondary matter to our own enquiry, but checking the book's index for Loch Ness references took me to a page which said this:

On returning to Oban from her trip to the isles, of which no more is known for this year (1896) as Lord Bute was in bad health in the autumn of that year and no letters written to him by Miss Freer after that of 20th August, already quoted, now exist, Miss Freer found the following comments on her activities quoted from the Glasgow Evening News in the Oban Times of 26th September:

Reading through the article recounts Miss Freer's travels through the Highlands and Hebridean islands, before coming to the bit of interest to us:

Also the uisge-each, as Miss Fiona MacLeod calls the water-horse in Gaelic which will bring a blush to the cheek of Celtic modesty, still cavorts in Hebridean meadows at nightfall, and Loch Ness is full of water-bulls.

But none of these manifestations is, we fear, for a lady interviewer with a kodak. To them must be brought the eye of faith and an hereditary nose for the uncanny gifts that stenography and the snapshot lens are poor substitutes far.

This would appear to be our 1896 Loch Ness Monster reference, or as they called it in those days, the Loch Ness Water Bull. The Glasgow Evening News is not available online (though it is available as microfilm in the Glasgow Mitchell Library). However, the Oban Times was also available on microfilm at the National Library of Scotland, which I occasionally frequent. So, I consulted the quoted Oban Times for 26th September 1896 to see the original source (shown below).




Zooming in on our target text, shows it has been correctly quoted in Campbell and Hall's book. As an aside to researchers, the Oban Times is also available online, but a text search revealed none of this story. One can only presume this issue missed the scanning process.




So another vague reference to the Loch Ness Monster is solved. But how did Peter Costello know about this source? The answer is that "Strange Things" was first published in 1968 (cover below) and so someone with a common interest in the paranormal and Nessie must have tipped off Costello and the Loch Ness community in general. My money would be on Tim Dinsdale, who was known to have an interest in both mysteries; but that is merely a guess.




What can be said about the actual Loch Ness reference? The first thing to note is that when the famous Water Horse (or Bull) of the Highlands is mentioned, out of all the many lochs in Scotland, the author plumps for ..... Loch Ness. Why am I not surprised? And this is 37 years before the Loch Ness Monster turned up.

Having studied the various references to loch monsters in pre-1933 literature, Loch Ness dominated and this article from 1896 just confirms what is known already. Nessie is the dominant lake cryptid as it was the dominant Kelpie in the 19th century.

Secondly, Loch Ness not only had a Water Bull, but it was "full of water-bulls". This may be a reference to a similar phrase from folklorist, John Campbell of Islay. But it tells us this was more than just a passing reference or an obscure tale from ancient times, but repeated, multiple stories of something strange in Loch Ness. Again, why am I not surprised?

Of course, sceptics today will pooh-pooh all this as just tall tales and mythology. Mind you, don't they say the same thing about modern reports? The problem is that critics expect something akin to a modern plesiosaur-like sighting report, but from Victorian times. That is not the way it works. People back then expressed what they saw in their cultural terms, just as people do today. However, underneath all this was the same, unknown creature.

What further does not surprise me is that once again the newspapers of the time poured disdain on such a beast. The phrase that will please hardened sceptics is "but none of these manifestations is, we fear, for a lady interviewer with a kodak ...". In other words, the newspaper author does not expect these creatures to be real. This confirmed my prior view that Victorian newspapers did not take these things seriously and hence did not publish accounts.

In summary, John Keel's story about the Atlanta Constitution's Nessie story was wrong. However, the reference to the Glasgow Evening News' Loch Ness monster was true. One could complete the loop by consulting that edition of the Glasgow Evening News published some days before the 26th September 1896. However, I do not anticipate that the Loch Ness reference there will differ at all from that in the Oban Times.

Therefore, I am glad to add this reference to the growing list of pre-Nessie Nessie accounts!

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com









39 comments:

  1. So Alex Campbell didn't invent it in 1930' when are people gunna wake up to the garbage some sceptics spout how do people know watCampbell did in 1930 old hat story's and some shud no better

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the "Alex Campbell the Liar" theory that is mythology, not Victorian loch monsters.

      But that's a discussion for another article on another day ....

      Delete
  2. Great article again Roland. Roy, you make a good point because sceptics are quick to dismiss old stories saying they have been exaggerated over time, but they are quick to cling on to old stories about Alex Campbell making up stories even before the first sighting. Its only exaggerated when it suits them. I love the old stories Roland, and again it is proof of sightings well before the 1930's. Great stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Many highland lochs were purported to contain "water horses" or "water bulls". These were just mythical creatures featured in stories designed to enhance a fear of water (and therefore reduce drowning tragedies). Of course there were references to these mythical beings in Loch Ness, it's huge! And if you search for these references you'll find them. Does it mean actual animals that are undiscovered live in ness and all the other lochs mentioned before 1933? No, of course it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We've had various sceptics come here over the years to "put us right" on everything. Having "corrected" us on the Cockrell picture with his expertise, "haveyouseenityet?" now brings his vast knowledge on Highland folklore to bear.

      However, your ignorance of the subject is shining through in this comment.

      I spent over a year researching a book on the subject. Yours was probably a copy and paste job from googling an almost as uninformed sceptic "expert".

      Once again, I have to waste time correcting these errors. The statistics of loch sizes versus monster stories is covered in my book and refutes your idea of "inevitable" stories.

      Your theory of water aversion is of course an invention of Victorian anthropologists and not the actual locals spoken to. Here is the 1st point where your ignorance of the subject is supernova like.

      Secondly, water bulls were docile creatures and even friendly disposed to man. So how exactly does this promote a fear of water?

      Thirdly, the dangerous water horse did not capture its inhabitants in the water or even by the lochside. It assumed the form of a horse and took to the highways and byways to get its victims. One story even tells of the Loch Ness Kelpie seekig victims on what is now the modern A9 road!

      I will be deleting your comments from now on which waste my time and deceive readers. If you make any sensible comments which are actually challenging, they will be approved.

      Delete
    2. Roland, I'm not trying to "deceive" anyone. If you censor out scepticism from your comment sections, how are you any different from the Wikipedia person who deleted the links? Censorship and information control isn't just a bad thing when it works against our opinions, it's a bad thing full stop!

      The descriptions of the water bull and water horse you've given here - do you honestly, hand on heart, not recognise them as pure mythology? They seem no more real than a flying fire-breathing dragon to me. How are they seriously being held up as evidence for animals in Loch Ness?

      Delete
    3. It's a shame, I was enjoying my exchanges with haveyouseenityet, as they do call into question a real wish to believe. And I have that wish, but hopefully not at the expense of common sense.

      Delete
    4. Martin, such people are not here to learn or "exchange". It's one way traffic and the only thing they want from you is a recantation from the heresy of lake cryptids.

      Delete
    5. Oh yes, quickly batten down the hatches! One of your disciples is beginning to think, Roland! We can't have that, can we?

      Delete
    6. I don't mind a bit of devil's advocate, but I have to agree trotting out the same argument that because there is no body that there is no animal (as only a carcass will do, and even then.....) doesn't really have us going anywhere. It's funny, my very intelligent and scientific partner took me to task the other day as I used the word 'evidence' regarding the LNM, and it made me think a bit. What actually qualifies as evidence? This is maybe in the eye of the beholder.

      Delete
    7. "Roland, I'm not trying to "deceive" anyone. If you censor out scepticism from your comment sections, how are you any different from the Wikipedia person who deleted the links? Censorship and information control isn't just a bad thing when it works against our opinions, it's a bad thing full stop!

      The descriptions of the water bull and water horse you've given here - do you honestly, hand on heart, not recognise them as pure mythology? They seem no more real than a flying fire-breathing dragon to me. How are they seriously being held up as evidence for animals in Loch Ness?"

      Well, how can I put this? I think your comments are rubbish and a waste of time. You may think you are being novel, but this stuff has been pedalled here before. Why do sceptics come back with the same old drivel time after time? Their objections are answered, but they come back again. Do you not consider that a waste of time?

      You are not here to learn anything, you don't receive "information", you only give it out. You're just here to earn some skeptic brownie points.

      As to your last point, this again shows how you twist words. I clearly said in my article these words:

      "People back then expressed what they saw in their cultural terms, just as people do today. However, underneath all this was the same, unknown creature."

      Can you now explain to me why you failed to take these words into account? Did you actually read the article or are you only interested in misreprsenting what I actually said?

      Whay should I accept comments from someone who can't be bothered to read the artice?

      Delete
    8. haveyouseenityet said:

      "Oh yes, quickly batten down the hatches! One of your disciples is beginning to think, Roland! We can't have that, can we?"

      But it will be no thanks to you I am afraid.

      Delete
  4. Fascinating piece of research, as always. Do we know the first time that someone linked Nessie with 'sea serpents'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oudeman's "The Loch Ness Animal" in 1934.

      Delete
    2. I had read that, although I was hoping there was an earlier occurrence, in order to bolster the believer's case. However, the 1933 Nessie seems to have become a modern myth in itself.

      Delete
    3. Only what I would call an oblique reference from 1852.

      Delete
  5. Lets not go as far back as water bulls for a moment, im quite sure nessie sightings didnt start with Alex Campbell or start in the early 30's. Over the years i have spoke to a few people who have had sightings before this and some who have told me their parents and grandparents had sightings well before the 1930's.The sceptics wont accept this and I dont understand why.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because it destroys their cherished belief that Nessie is a creation of 1930s hacks and opportunists.

      Delete
  6. Surely the old stories can't be ignored. ! I thought this type of thing was what Nessie investigation was all about! Bin branded some of the name calling by certain sceptics cus u believe there is something to the mystery just sums up their minds. I'm very surprised to be honest cus I thought sum people wer better than that......... May the investigation continue!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can ignore them if your prejudices are shouting loud enough.

      Delete
  7. Lets not forget most of these sceptics were once believers, and some even claimed a sighting, so the words halfwhit, suckers, and desperate are what they actually felt at the time themselves. I think certain sceptics had their fingers burnt a few years ago so maybe they are trying to pass the buck. Going back to the pre -1930 sightings I bet if you asked Steve Feltham he would confirm lots of sightings off older people or people who say their parents or grandparents saw something before 1930, So for us believers we can put this myth to bed, even if the sceptics cant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, NH, there is a definite sense that a lot of this scepticism is addressing their old selves.

      Delete
  8. Well my last take on the sceptics.I find it very disappointing they poke fun at genuine people who think they have seen things, especially Dickie Raynor. I suppose if you told the middle aged lady who was fooled by a boat wake from her cabin that she was a halfwit she might reply ' well yes fair enough, but it could be worse I could of taken a video of birds scurrying through the loch and tell everyone for 10 years it was a 7ft creature and it was very promising, then you could call me a Fullwit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nice investigation once again GB. I don't like sticking my nose in the whole skeptic vs. believer thing -- it's just a distraction from the real mystery. But when it comes to the pre-1930 debate, it can't be avoided. There are indeed those who have just drawn a line in the sand (or rather on the calendar) and say everything pre-1930 is "mere" folklore, and everything post-1930 is hype. Now that is a prefactual bias, ruling out any chance of the third possibility, that being a live animal to consider. I've had my own arguments with some of that ilk, and I'm afraid they really do represent close-minded individuals, and that's unfortunate.

    For haveyouseenityet's clarification, kelpie and water-bull folklore based on a non-existent animal would be pretty indistinguishable from the same folklore based an an existent animal. That stories exist (or not) is a human artifact. And that's got nothing to do with biological reality. You cannot rule out an animal because fiction HAS been written about it -- the animal won't actually care. You do have to do much better than that if you want to disprove anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From occasional, misty sightings in the past, to feared modern day troll, maybe haveyouseenityet? is also a work of folklore.

      Delete
  10. I have just got an example from Malcolm Robinson's book , it mentions a sighting made by a Mrs Carey in 1917.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could you elaborate on this Nessie Hunter please?

      Delete
    2. It just says she had a sighting in 1917 Martin, I was reading Malcolm's book at the same time as this blog was debating pre- 1930's sightings, so i added it.

      Delete
  11. Nice piece of research, which shows the lamentable laziness of previous LNM authors, Witchell, Dinsdale, Mackal, Whyte.

    However, put that Moet back in the cellar, it's still just a tiny victory, someone said something about beasts in Loch Ness that was reported in a newspaper that pre-dates the 1933 Nessie Mania.
    We need a lot more than one third hand account of an old wives tale.

    There is a STILL a massive lack of any anecdotal evidence [compared to 1933-34 ] of anything unusual in Loch Ness pre 1933.

    For starters, where are the 18th, 19th and early 20th century century sightings from the hundreds of Canal, railway and road builders ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John, compared to 1933-34, most Nessie periods show a massive lack. About 350 reports in two years compared to about 70 for the entire decade of the 1940s.

      1933-1934 should not be used as a benchmark for such things.

      Yes, I wish there were more accounts from the earlier years, but they are not there in such numbers. I have given my reasons why I think this was the way it was. The Highlanders' famous reticence plus their belief that speaking of the kelpie was bad luck contributed. Moreover, the media of the time had such a prejudiced attitude towards reports of water horses, water bulls and kelpies, they refused to give them any credence by publishing about them (as skeptics would wish it to be).

      It's only when you read the folklore books that you get a proper sense of what people were talking about.

      Delete
  12. A good point and it is still relevant today, Witchell points it out also, in 1933/34 the complete lack of annoying and obstructive foliage between the A82 road and the loch must have made a huge difference.
    I was driving on the north side of Loch Ness side this week and one could count on 3 or 4 fingers the number of decent, lengthy panoramic views a car passenger can expect to see on the 24 mile run.

    It must be annoying for tour bus tourists.

    ReplyDelete
  13. BTW haveyouseenityet, I deleted some of your comments simply due to the fact that you seem to love to have an argument and in my experience that normally ends up in 100 post long threads, dominating the comments section and generally ending up in more heat then light generated. Sorry, can't let you do that.

    Why don't you join the Zombie Plesiosaur Society on facebook .. or have you already been banned there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never seen the zombie society, but it's my intention to take a look. No I've not been banned from it, but your remark suggests it's a possibility. Could it be a place as reluctant to entertain open, democratic debate as you seem to be? I've looked back at your posts and this blog seems to completely die without a bit of lively debate. I'm not sure why it scares you so much, or do you like to always be in control of what's said about Loch Ness?

      Delete
    2. Open debate was not threatened, they've had their troubles too from overbearing sceptics which led to the formation of a sceptical sub-forum and the banning of well known trolls.

      The sceptical forum is a bit like a black hole. No light escapes from it and it threatens to crush all who enter it. It may be more your cup of tea.

      Delete
    3. The sceptical forum? If they ban non-sceptics from the forum I'm not interested in that either. Is there an "all opinions welcome" forum? That's what I'd like to join if there is. Then I can stop bothering you, plus avoid any sceptics who censor.

      Delete
    4. They don't ban non-sceptics, they just berate them.

      Delete
    5. Challenge their views or seriously attack them? I don't like the sound of this, and it runs contrary to the ethos of open debate.

      Delete