Kraken Vr

[Patricia]

Thekraken, as a subject of sailors' superstitions and mythos, was first described in the modern era in a travelogue by Francesco Negri in 1700. This description was followed in 1734 by an account from Dano-Norwegian missionary and explorer Hans Egede, who described the kraken in detail and equated it with the hafgufa of medieval lore. However, the first description of the creature is usually credited to the Danish bishop Pontoppidan (1753). Pontoppidan was the first to describe the kraken as an octopus (polypus) of tremendous size,[b] and wrote that it had a reputation for pulling down ships. The French malacologist Denys-Montfort, of the 19th century, is also known for his pioneering inquiries into the existence of gigantic octopuses (Octupi).

The great man-killing octopus entered French fiction when novelist Victor Hugo (1866) introduced the pieuvre octopus of Guernsey lore, which he identified with the kraken of legend. This led to Jules Verne's depiction of the kraken, although Verne did not distinguish between squid and octopus.

Linnaeus may have indirectly written about the kraken. Linnaeus wrote about the Microcosmus genus (an animal with various other organisms or growths attached to it, comprising a colony). Subsequent authors have referred to Linnaeus's writing, and the writings of Bartholin's cetus called hafgufa, and Paullini's monstrum marinum as "krakens".[c] That said, the claim that Linnaeus used the word "kraken" in the margin of a later edition of Systema Naturae has not been confirmed.

The Swedish diminutive form krkel, a word for a branchy/spiny piece of wood,[29] have given name to a variety of sea dwelling plants in Swedish, most notably furcellaria lumbricalis, a species of red algae.[30][i] There is also the morphological derivation krkla (dialectal Norwegian: krekle), meaning crooked piece of wood, which has given name to primitive forms of whisks and beaters (cooking), made from the tops of trees by keeping a row of twigs as the beating element, resembling the appearance of a cephalopod, but also crosiers and shepherd's crooks.[33]

The first description of the krake as "sciu-crak" was given by Italian writer Negri in Viaggio settentrionale (Padua, 1700), a travelogue about Scandinavia.[39][40] The book describes the sciu-crak as a massive "fish" which was many-horned or many-armed. The author also distinguished this from a sea-serpent.[41]

The kraken was described as a many-headed and clawed creature by Egede (1741)[1729], who stated it was equivalent to the Icelanders' hafgufa,[42] but the latter is commonly treated as a fabulous whale.[43] Erik Pontoppidan (1753), who popularized the kraken to the world, noted that it was multiple-armed according to lore, and conjectured it to be a giant sea-crab, starfish or a polypus (octopus).[44] Still, the bishop is considered to have been instrumental in sparking interest for the kraken in the English-speaking world,[45] as well as becoming regarded as the authority on sea-serpents and krakens.[46]

Denys-Montfort (1801) published on two giants, the "colossal octopus" with the enduring image of it attacking a ship, and the "kraken octopod", deemed to be the largest organism in zoology. Denys-Montfort matched his "colossal" with Pliny's tale of the giant polypus that attacked ships-wrecked people, while making correspondence between his kraken and Pliny's monster called the arbor marina.[k] Finnur Jnsson (1920) also favored identifying the kraken as an inkfish (squid/octopus) on etymological grounds.

The krake (English: kraken) was described by Hans Egede in his Det gamle Grnlands nye perlustration (1729; Ger. t. 1730; tr. Description of Greenland, 1745),[50] drawing from the fables of his native region, the Nordlandene len [no] of Norway, then under Danish rule.[52][53]

According to his Norwegian informants, the kraken's body measured many miles in length, and when it surfaced it seemed to cover the whole sea, and "having many heads and a number of claws". With its claws it captured its prey, which included ships, men, fish, and animals, carrying its victims back into the depths.[53] Egede conjectured that the krake was equatable to the monster that the Icelanders call hafgufa, but as he had not obtained anything related to him through an informant, he had difficulty describing the latter.[42][l]

According to the lore of Norwegian fishermen, they could mount upon the fish-attracting kraken as if it were a sand-bank (Fiske-Grund 'fishing shoal'), but if they ever had the misfortune to capture the kraken, getting it entangled on their hooks, the only way to avoid destruction was to pronounce its name to make it go back to its depths.[55][56] Egede also wrote that the krake fell under the general category of "sea spectre" (Danish: se-trold og [se]-spgelse),[58] adding that "the Draw" (Danish: Drauen, definite form) was another being within that sea spectre classification.[24][56][m]

The hafgufa (described as the largest of the sea monsters, inhabiting the Greenland Sea) from the King's Mirror[66][67][o] continues to be identified with the kraken in some scholarly writings,[69][20] and if this equivalence were allowed, the kraken-hafgufa's range would extend, at least legendarily, to waters approaching Helluland (Baffin Island, Canada), as described in rvar-Odds saga.[70][p]

The description of the hafgufa in the King's Mirror suggests a garbled eyewitness account of what was actually a whale, at least to Grnlands historiske Mindesmaerker.[71] Halldr Hermannsson [sv] also reads the work as describing the hafgufa as a type of whale.[43]

Finnur Jnsson (1920) having arrived at the opinion that the kraken probably represented an inkfish (squid/octopus), as discussed earlier, expressed his skepticism towards the standing notion that the kraken originated from the hafgufa.[16]

Erik Pontoppidan's Det frste Forsg paa Norges naturlige Historie (1752, actually volume 2, 1753)[72] made several claims regarding kraken, including the notion that the creature was sometimes mistaken for a group of small islands with fish swimming in-between,[73] Norwegian fishermen often took the risk of trying to fish over kraken, since the catch was so plentiful[74] (hence the saying "You must have fished on Kraken"[75]).

However, there was also the danger to seamen of being engulfed by the whirlpool when it submerged,[76][12] and this whirlpool was compared to Norway's famed Moskstraumen often known as "the Maelstrom".[77][78]

Pontoppidan also described the destructive potential of the giant beast: "it is said that if [the creature's arms] were to lay hold of the largest man-of-war, they would pull it down to the bottom".[79][76][12][80]

Kraken purportedly exclusively fed for several months, then spent the following few months emptying its excrement, and the thickened clouded water attracted fish.[81] Later Henry Lee commented that the supposed excreta may have been the discharge of ink by a cephalopod.[82]

Pontoppidan wrote of a possible specimen of the krake, "perhaps a young and careless one", which washed ashore and died at Alstahaug, Norway, in 1680.[80][78][22] He observed that it had long "arms", and guessed that it must have been crawling like a snail/slug with the use of these "arms", but got lodged in the landscape during the process.[83][84] 20th century malacologist Paul Bartsch conjectured this to have been a giant squid,[85] as did literary scholar Finnur Jnsson.[86]

However, further down in his writing, compares the creature to some creature(s) from Pliny, Book IX, Ch. 4: the sea-monster called arbor, with tree-branch like multiple arms,[r] complicated by the fact that Pontoppidan adds another of Pliny's creature called rota with eight arms, and conflates them into one organism.[96][97] Pontoppidan is suggesting this is an ancient example of kraken, as a modern commentator analyzes.[98]

Pontoppidan then declared the kraken to be a type of polypus (=octopus)[101] or "starfish", particularly the kind Gesner called Stella Arborescens, later identifiable as one of the northerly ophiurids[102] or possibly more specifically as one of the Gorgonocephalids or even the genus Gorgonocephalus (though no longer regarded as family/genus under order Ophiurida, but under Phrynophiurida in current taxonomy).[106][109]

This ancient arbor (admixed rota and thus made eight-armed) seems like an octopus at first blush[110] but with additional data, the ophiurid starfish now appears bishop's preferential choice.[111]

The ophiurid starfish seems further fortified when he notes that "starfish" called "Medusa's heads" (caput medus; pl. capita medus) are considered to be "the young of the great sea-krake" by local lore. Pontoppidan ventured the 'young krakens' may rather be the eggs (ova) of the starfish.[112] Pontopiddan was satisfied that "Medusa's heads" was the same as the foregoing starfish (Stella arborensis of old),[113] but "Medusa's heads" were something found ashore aplenty across Norway according to von Bergen, who thought it absurd these could be young "Kraken" since that would mean the seas would be full of (the adults).[114][115] The "Medusa's heads" appear to be a Gorgonocephalid, with Gorgonocephalus spp. being tentatively suggested.[116][s]

In the end though, Pontoppidan again appears ambivalent, stating "Polype, or Star-fish [belongs to] the whole genus of Kors-Trold ['cross troll'], ... some that are much larger, .. even the very largest ... of the ocean", and concluding that "this Krake must be of the Polypus kind".[123] By "this Krake" here, he apparently meant in particular the giant polypus octopus of Carteia from Pliny, Book IX, Ch. 30 (though he only used the general nickname "ozaena" 'stinkard' for the octopus kind).[97][124][t]

3a8082e126