Two Whales, 400 Years Apart

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
"Beached wale near Beverwijk, 1601." Jan Saenredam. 1602. Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons.“Beached wale near Beverwijk, 1601.” Jan Saenredam. 1602. Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
This 1602 engraving by Dutch artist Jan Saenredam records the actual beaching of a sperm whale at Beverwijk on 19 December 1601. Crowds of curious onlookers are gathering—some arriving by foot, some by horse and carriage, some splashing through the shallows offshore. 
 
 
 
The scene heaves with the industry of Lilliputian townsmen scaling the impromptu mountain with hobnails, hands, and knees. In this close-up you can see two men probe the whale’s eye with a sword.
 
 

Saenredam’s engraving records in Latin the whale’s measurements: 60 feet long by 14 feet high, with a circumference of 36 feet, the flukes 14 feet wide and the lower jaw of 12 feet long. That’s the uppermost known size of sperm whales. In life, he might have weighed some 60 tons.  

 
 
The artist pictures himself in the left foreground sketching the whale. His assistants are creating a windbreak from his outstretched cloak. 

 
In front of Saenredam’s self-portrait you can see the whale’s shredded tongue—a characteristic signature of killer whales. Some orcas seem to favor tongue above all other whale meat and might only consume that and leave all the rest untouched. 
 

The state of the tongue in this picture indicates the sperm whale was probably dead before beaching. 

 

 

The small inset view of the dead whale also shows the peeled skin characteristic of the work of killer whales.

 

The whale wears what looks like a tow line around his tailstock. So maybe some townspeople rowed him ashore. Or are they planning to row him offshore (since he appears to be getting stinky already)?  Seems like the two men behind the tailstock are taking the measurements. Maybe they’re planning to divvy the whale up. Even if the meat’s rotting, it would be of value to, say, swine farmers.  The spermaceti oil alone would provide a huge windfall for the town—or whoever “owned” the carcass. Would love to know how they worked that out. A large bull sperm whale might possess three tons of waxy spermaceti. Here’s some of what I wrote about that in Deep Blue Home:

This was the treasure lusted after by whalemen of old, an elixir for nineteenth-century medicine and technology as ubiquitous as petroleum products are today and used for many of the same purposes: lubricants and rust-proofing in watches, lenses, and scientific instruments; oils for transmissions and engines; waxy elements in lotions, ointments, glycerines, pomades, detergents; as well as additives to vitamins and medicinal compounds. Spermaceti was, in the words of the eminent whale researchers Hal Whitehead and Linda Weilgart of Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, the oil that lubricated the Industrial Revolution.[i] It was also the finest fuel for candles and such a standard of its day that candlepower—once an official unit of illumination—was calibrated against the light emitted in the course of an hour by burning a spermaceti candle.

 

Meanwhile, these two jaunty fellows are arriving on scene with a flensing knife, ready to disassemble the remains. 

 

Though these two flensers seem to have gotten there ahead of them.

 
  
We know about the whale’s decay thanks to the man at the centerpiece of Saenredam’s engraving—the figure of the Count of Nassau-Dietz, a hero in Holland’s war of independence against Spain.  Handkerchief held to war-weary nose, he stands alongside the whale’s unsheathed penis, averting his eyes. A delicate hero, outsized.
 

 

According to BibliOddyssey (warning: prepare to disappear down an absorbing blogger-hole), Saenredam’s engraving is actually a disaster allegory:

This elaborate illustration… belongs to a narrow genre of disaster allegories—of which Saenredam’s print is perhaps the finest example—that found a receptive audience, chiefly in the 17th century. Beached whales were regarded as significant… because beachings were a part of the folklore, seen as bad omens and associated with disasters and tragedies… In a series of slightly obscure vignettes, Saenredam alludes to other circumstances that are associated with or thought to be attributable to the whale’s appearance on the coast. In the far background we have both solar and lunar eclipses which occurred shortly after the whale’s appearance and, like comets and other irregularly occurring natural phenomena, were seen by contemporary observers as harbingers of doom. An unhappy face has been caricatured onto the moon(s). An angel bearing the coat of arms of Amsterdam, watched over by the ominous looking father time, is shot by death and falls from the sky, and may represent the epidemic of plague fatalities in the capital in the first couple of years of the 17th century. In the cartouche below the lion, the cartographic wind symbol can be seen blowing the land away in reference to an earthquake that occurred at the beginning of 1602.

 

The Latin verse at the foot of the print is by the Dutch poet Dirk Schrevel. I’ve started to work through a Google translation but it’s going to take me a while. If you want to explore this image further, there’s a high-resolution zoomable view of it at Beeldebank.

For a modern image of a sperm whale, complete with radically evolved thinking since 1601, check out this video of Bryant Austin‘s powerful work.


Trailer: In the Eye of the Whale from MMCTA on Vimeo.

 

[i]  From Whitehead‘s and Weilgart’s, The Sperm Whale: Social Females and Roving Males, in Cetacean Societies: Field Studies of Whales and Dolphins, edited by Janet Mann, et al. ISBN: 9780226503417.

 
Crossposted from Deep Blue Home.

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate