Wednesday 21 October 2015

An Old Tale from Loch Ness

Nothing to do with Nessie, but an amusing tale of life on the loch from "Angling and Art in Scotland: some fishing experiences related and illustrated" by Ernest Edward Briggs, published in 1908.

But the morning train from Perth was quite an express, and, if I remember rightly, only took four hours to accomplish the distance, arriving at Inverness about eleven o'clock. That gave one ample time to look around the cleanly little Highland town, and to pay a visit to the fishing-tackle shop ; for the steamer up Loch Ness did not leave until three in the afternoon. This afternoon boat, which went no farther than Fort Augustus, was also of the most leisurely ; you could, however, get a decent tea on board, with fish and cold meat. A peaceful calm pervaded the whole establishment. It was impossible to instil any great amount of energy into any of the employees; the utmost excitement on the part of a passenger brought no answering light of enthusiasm to the eye of the deck-hand. It was on this boat that a portly, well-to-do, though irascible Highlander, bound for the Temple Pier at Glenurquhart, found as he neared his destination that his portmanteau had been mislaid.

The luggage for the various ports had been put under tarpaulins, each in a separate pile, for it was a wet afternoon, and the pile destined for Glenurquhart, when examined, did not furnish the missing article. This fact, when demonstrated, produced a perfect ferment in the mind of the owner, who charged about the deck accusing the captain and sailors, jointly and severally, of having made away with his luggage. One of the sailors particularly, whom he vowed had brought the precious case on board, fell under his severest displeasure. But the company, from the captain downwards, were in no wise to be ruffled. This dignitary, in fact, remained perfectly unmoved by the most forcible language and threats, merely affirming that if the portmanteau had been properly labelled for the Temple Pier, it would have been found amongst the articles destined for that port, and therefore there was no doubt that it had never been brought aboard.

Ultimately, when Glenurquhart was reached, the excitable gentleman had to go ashore minus his luggage, muttering half-articulated threats into his beard, evidently having himself now some doubts as to whether the bone of contention had been properly labelled or no. But the climax came when one of the deck-hands — perhaps more conscientious than his fellows — actually found the missing article amongst the Fort Augustus luggage, and literally hurled it on to the pier just as the moorings were being cast off. The owner immediately pounced upon his property, growling over it as a dog would growl over a bone. He rapidly examined the label, and found it to be correctly addressed.

I Ah! you should have seen him then, that irate Highlander, alternately thumping with his fist the label which he had hastily torn from off the portmanteau — and which he was holding up for the captain's edification, as he ran along the pier keeping pace with the now moving boat or vigorously shaking that same fist at the imperturbable despot, bawling out as he did so, "Ye're condemned, Sir! Ye're condemned!" It was a mercy, in his excitement, that he did not tumble into the water on coming to the end of the pier, where for several minutes we could see him dancing like a bear on hot iron, gesticulating wildly, while his curses were wafted ever more faintly over the waves as the steamer forged ahead.

I note the observation "the utmost excitement on the part of a passenger brought no answering light of enthusiasm to the eye of the deck-hand" and wonder if even a raising of the eyebrow would be elicited if any passenger had seen the "huge fish" spoken of in former times gambolling nearby? Imagine the scene.

Gladys: Look! Look! What are those three humps and long neck in the water?!

Claude (looking at zombie crewmen): Clearly nothing to get excited about, Darling. It must be a bow wave generated by a sturgeon pursuing a cormorant. Another sandwich, Dear?


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
 



27 comments:

  1. Ah, but to have lived in those idyllic times. The new century was still young, but brought out the worst in humanity. WWI had yet to come. The horrors of WWII, the stalemate in Korea, the disastrous folly in Vietnam and a plethora of dirty little wars around the globe, in the distant future. The inception of the endless modern middle east conflicts. The Cold War brought the threat of nuclear annihilation.


    Today the danger of world wide terrorism, the new fascism and communism, it's ultimate goal of world domination, with it's twisted religious and political ideologies. No high technology and conveniences back then, which ironically makes life more complicated and stressful today. But I digress, as my commentary is not about Nessie either, just wishful sentiment and longing for a simpler time when all you had to face was an occasional irascible, cantankerous, but harmless Highlander. I wish I had a time machine!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah now this makes a lot of sense John. I've long thought that when people like yourself and Roland fight and fight against all the fakery and other insurmountable problems faced by the Loch Ness Monster myth, you are in fact chasing a bygone era. A gentler, more innocent and magical past. I understand your thinking and I don't feel it's anything to be sneered at.

      Delete
    2. My main thrust was the contrast between life then and life now, that was the theme of the article. My flight of fantasy was in imagining a time when life was simpler. Wars, fanatical religion and technology being the main shapers and influences in the evolution of the modern world. I am not the the type of escapist you imply, wishing to live in a world before the mainstream popularity of the LNM, as if I wished it had never been. “Fight against all the fakery” you got that one right, we condemn it whenever possible. Nice try in your attempt to psychoanalyze me.

      Delete
    3. John Alvarado, I don't think he or she above was trying to insult you. I think it was a compliment in fact. I agree with the anonymous poster that it's good to remain interested in things from the past. I personally admire people like yourself John. Traditional, trustworthy and refusing to deviate from your path purely on the basis science has proven you wrong. IMHO we need more of the uncritical thinking people like you display. The world would be a better place for it.

      Delete
    4. Hmm, the condescension contained in the compliment. But I let these crass comments thru occassionally to show how arrogant the likes of you are.

      Delete
    5. I suspect Glasgow Boy allows these comments through because they increase reader interest. The place is dead when it's just left to people like John telling Glasgow Boy how great all his articles are.

      Cryptozoology thrives on debate. Always has done always will do.

      Delete
    6. Yes, the place would be far more enhanced if you were here telling Glasgow Boy how crap all his articles are.

      Given the level of debate I have seen elsewhere, we'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes thriving cryptozoological debate. Your comments seem to focus on the commenters rather than the subject matter, which I do not class as "debate".

      Delete
    7. Glasgow Boy if that reply is aimed at me (I'm the anon poster of 02:27) I don't ever insult your articles. I am not the same contributor as the previous anons above so I do not focus on commenters. I like your articles but I do also find the site rather dull without debate and discussion on the articles.

      Delete
    8. Well, since people insist on being anonymous and indistinguishable from each other, that's not my problem.

      Delete
    9. Well maybe, but when I read statements like “Ah that makes a lot of sense” “people like you” as opposed to people like us “Loch Ness Monster myth” and “magical past” (as if I should also be believing in Fairies) all in a so called compliment when a simple I agree with you, with relevant elaboration would suffice, it kind of sets an alarm off and gives a condescending, sarcastic tone to the comment, or is veiled with an insult, I went through that with John what's his face, sone may remember. Besides I was commenting on life in 1908, not on the monster. Seems I can't make an innocuous, relevant comment, without the skeptics being offended.

      Another thing, I don't make comments just because I see that nobody is commenting on a certain article, just to keep it alive, or how great the article is. As far as I'm concerned they are all great and I suspect believers, skeptics and others without an opinion one way or another also enjoy them. Although at times, I may make a comment to see what kind of reaction it brings, but, it is not my intention to bait in order to pounce on a commenter for what he or she posts. Isn't that the whole idea, sharing of ideas and thoughts. Also when I see a comment that I perceive as a clear put on or a prank, I will rebuke the poster stridently. (Like Sam Sonar and others who claim to have significant information and when they are pressed to put up or shut up, they do the latter.)

      GB posts these stories because it is his hobby and his passion, I'm sure he has more important things do do in his life. And I agree that the comments are an important element to the blog, and half the fun of reading this blog. I have said so in the past when GB “threatened” to do away with them, because they where taking up too much of his time and had other more pressing things to focus on. This problem with Anonymous posters has aways been a problem not only here but on other sites. I tend to think that people post anonymously because they feel secure that they cannot be held accountable for what they may say that goes against what others may really think. For all we know Anonymous may be the one and only person playing mind games with us!

      Delete
  2. Three guesses who Anon is! I cant see how science has prooved John wrong Anon. Please explain ----

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pete, I think I know where you're going with this and it has raised an eyebrow with me. Like I said before “I feel a disturbance in the force” But we can't be too sure. :-)

      Delete
    2. I agree with you John although it wasn't me that made the comment you responded to. I haven't commented for a while but I'm still here so to speak. :-)

      Delete
    3. Ha Ha, OK, I guess in this case one Pete is as good as another, as long as you differentiate yourself from the other. I'll remember that. Now if only there was a system to assign numbers to anonymouses ( the mean spirited ones) it would make things easier. That probably wouldn't stop them from making snide, condescending comments, (maybe they would think twice) but at least we would know which one it was from for sure and address them accordingly. Some anonymouses are considerate enough to at least identify their true self at the end of their comment. That's classy.

      Delete
  3. Bobby "Hoots" McAfee24 October 2015 at 07:54

    I'm not sure Anonymous is who I think you think it is, but I may be wrong. In fact I may not even be right about who you think it is! Wish people would leave the lovely John alone though, he's one of the good guys.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! Thanks. It's the first time I've ever been called “lovely”, I'm blushing. ;-)

      Delete
  4. At what point does our Blog Host decide to put an end to anonymous posting?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still no answer to this oft-repeated question, I notice.

      Delete
    2. Is it to allow Jake to post in his various guises and thus offer the perception that the skeptics are outnumbered...?

      Delete
    3. ekm I am sure Roland is as aware as the rest of us how utterly obvious it is that Jake keeps posting under various names and anonymously. He has a unique grasp of the English language so is entirely unable to conceal his identity. As to why Roland does nothing about it? Well Jake believes in a Loch Ness Monster so he's free to continue posting his garbled insults under any name he chooses. Perhaps Roland does think the public will be fooled by the fake numbers game Jake keeps pulling, but I very much doubt it. Roland is brighter than that.

      Delete
  5. The numbers game?????? Sums it up lol ' there's nore of us than you ner ner' !!!! Quite ridiculous lol and im sure GB is aware people are posting like me ie !!!!!!!! or :)))))) so it looks like its good old me posting anon. Yes ur right....GB aint stupid :))

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jake your posts unfairly give readers the impression that particularly stupid people believe in Nessie. You are not helping our cause one jot. The sceptics run rings around you but none of the rest of us. Take a break or change your debating style, please.

      Delete
    2. Another skeptic posting as Anonymous. You lot are not that clever we cant see through you.

      Delete
  6. Lol run rings rpund me haha . Thats why they resort to insults when they cant argu!! Guess again :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am totally serious. The articles of this blog empower the cryptozoologist. Your posts simply undo a lot of that good. I dread to think what the casual observer must think when reading most of your comments.

      For anyone reading this, as well as the somewhat challenged ppeople you see posting, a great deal of educated people believe unusual animals inhabit Loch Ness. I am educated to PhD level, and I believe the mystery is worthy of further investigation.

      Delete
  7. I would actually agree with the above comments. Jake does not help us with his confrontational style and frequent fake posts. Some may find it amusing but it hardly helps the cause of trying to enable people to take the LNM seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Confrontational???? More defensive i say!!@soz but i disagree with u all. U dont need a degree to have an interest in the mystery! Personally i think people take it far too serious . Have a smile....its only a creature in water :))) . But i respect GB its his blog so if he feels im not serious or clever enough then i will gladly leave. No problem. I will continue my personal quest for the truth ( with a smile) . Life is too short :))) . So i bid u all farewell. No harm done. All the best to u all x xx sorry GB ;)

    ReplyDelete