Chapter II: Part 2

It appears to me that the possibility of error in this argument lies in the omission of all consideration of the migration of divides and the resulting adjustment of stream courses to deep internal structure; but at the time of the exploration of the Colorado river, this important process in the development of rivers was not understood. It now seems only natural that the original, consequent, cataclinal streams, flowing down the slopes of the range from crest to flanks, should have permitted the opening of subsequent monoclinal branches on the soft beds that they discovered; and that the shifting of divides in these monoclinal valleys should have led to the capture of several cataclinal streams by that particular one of the subsequent branches that grew out from the master stream, the Green river itself. Thus it must happen that the streams "which head near the summit of the range, and, running down the flank, turn into the Green river, are, in their upper courses, cataclinal, and when they turn to follow the strike of the rocks into Green river, are monoclinal" (161): this being a normal result of river work in cutting down the thousands of feet of rocks of various hardnesses, here concerned. The smaller streams of the Uinta range are therefore certainly not of necessity antecedent to the Uinta uplift: the probability is that they were originally purely consequent, and that at present they are nicely adjusted to the structures that they have discovered.

I have learned so much from the doctrine of baselevelling, as presented in Major Powell's writings, that I shall hope to profit by the lesson of the Uinta drainage as well: that is, the possibility that an apparently sound conclusion may be overturned when new processes that bear upon it are discovered. It is here said that the drainage of the Watchung crescent in New Jersey is an example of partial adjustment following a superimposed origin: hence the necessity of watching closely for the discovery of new principles in the history of river work that may call for a revision of this conclusion.

There are two other examples of peculiar accidents in the history of rivers in New Jersey, to which I wish to call attention; both of them in the latest cycle of the development of the State, that is, in the cycle which has changed the central region from its even baselevelled lowland surface, to the pastplain as we now see it. Like the uplift of the Schooley (Highland) peneplain, the uplift of the Central plain, in passing from the second to the third cycle, was not uniform throughout, but was greater in one place than in another. In the neighborhood of the lower Raritan river, a distinct though gentle slope to the northwest is apparent in the unconsumed surface of the pastplain; but this strong river runs southeastward against the slope; it is an anaclinal stream. The tilting of the pastplain is moderate, and its rocks are weak; the river is large and strong. Its anaclinal course is therefore best explained by regarding it as a mild example of an antecedent stream. But Ambrose's brook, a small stream to one side of the Raritan, flows northwest with the gentle slope that was given to the pastplain. Ambrose's brook therefore most likely is not a survivor from the previous cycle, but is a new stream consequent on the slight deformation by which the latest cycle here considered was ushered in. Manalapan and Assanpink are apparently of the same kind. (See fig. 1).

The Millstone river appears to be intermediate as respects origin between the Raritan and Ambrose's brook. It appears still to lie for the most part in the channel that it occupied before the elevation and tilting of the baselevelled Central plain, but the tilting of the plain seems to have reversed its direction of flow. It rises near the center of the State and flows northwestward till it joins the Raritan near Somerville, and on the way it crosses from the thrown or depressed to the heaved or elevated side of the "fall-line,"[11] and passes through a deep gap in the trap ridge of Rocky Hill back of Princeton. I believe there is no other Atlantic river which runs against the fall-line in this way; and it is certainly at first sight remarkable that a stream of moderate size like the Millstone should have held its own against a displacement that sufficed to deflect great rivers like the Delaware and the Susquehanna from their courses.

[Footnote 11: For an account of the "fall-line" displacement, see McGee, Seventh Ann. Rep., U. S. G. S., 1888, 616.]

The Millstone appears to have been a stream of the normal kind in the previous cycle, before the tilting of the Central plain, when it probably ran southeastward with its fellows, and carried off its share of waste in the baselevelling process of that time. No other supposition than this seems consistent with the general history of the region. It was during that cycle that the deep gap was cut in the Rocky Hill trap ridge. Then came the deformation of the baselevelled plain, the relatively recent elevation and gentle tilting that have permitted the streams to carve it into a pastplain; and with this, the dislocation along the fall-line. The inclination of the interstream surfaces of the pastplain leaves no doubt that it was tilted to the northwest, and to this tilting we must ascribe the present direction of the Millstone flow: but why did not the accompanying dislocation on the fall-line throw this moderate sized stream off of its track and divert it southwestward to the Delaware at Trenton, or northeastward to the Raritan below New Brunswick. The effect of the dislocation appears with considerable distinctness along a line from Trenton towards Amboy, in the less altitude of the general surface of the pastplain to the southeast than to the northwest of the line, the difference of altitude of the two parts being about a hundred feet. The persistence of the Millstone against such a dislocation seems to require that we should postulate a slower and smaller movement here than that which deflected the Delaware.

The reversed course of the Millstone cannot be regarded as an example of inversion following a capture of its ancient northern headwaters by a branch of the Raritan; for in such a case, surely the inversion could not have progressed farther south than the hard trap ridge of Rocky Hill, where a stable divide would have been formed: nor can the Millstone be regarded as an original stream, first developed and consequent upon the deformation of the Central plain, for in that case, it should consist of two separate parts; one part running from the actual head of the river to the fall-line, where it would turn southwest and cross the faint flat divide that separates it from the Delaware; the other part beginning by Princeton north of the fall-line, and running thence north to the Raritan. The continuity of these two parts in the actual Millstone seems to be explicable only by regarding the river as the upper portion of a single larger river that had reached an old age in the previous cycle; it was then broken in two at the head of the present river where the greatest elevation of the Central plain occurred, and thus had its former head waters reversed from a southeast to a northwest direction of flow across and against the fall-line break by the tilting of the plain. Only in this way can the deep gap in Rocky Hill be explained. The river is thus consequent on the tilting of the plain, and yet antecedent to the accompanying faulting. It cannot be called an original stream, for it had an ancestor in its very channel. It is not a purely consequent stream, for it runs against the heaved side of a fault. It is not a strictly antecedent stream, for it flows in a direction determined by a disturbance that occurred late in its life. It is too exceptional a stream to have a generic name. We cannot expect to find many others like it.

The result that has been of the greatest interest to me in these studies is the discovery of well-recorded and peculiar histories in the commonplace small-sized rivers of our Atlantic slope. We have looked for some years to the west as the region where river history should be illustrated, because it was there that the pioneers in this branch of study taught us the lessons on which our further work must depend. But home study as well as distant travel has its rewards, and with the progress of good topographic work on this side of the country we confidently await much instruction from a close acquaintance with the curious histories of many of our rivers which we know now only by name.

Harvard College, January, 1890.

* * * * *

_Supplementary Note_.--Professor Albrecht Penck of Vienna has published a valuable essay on "Die Bildung der Durchbruchsthäler" (Verein zur Verbreitung naturwissenschaftlicher Kenntnisse in Wien, 1888) from which the following historical notes are taken to illustrate the gradual overthrow of the fracture theory of cross valleys by the introduction of the idea that rivers can sometimes cut down their beds as fast as the land is uplifted or upfolded beneath them.

Ferd. Römer. Die jurassische Weserkette. Zeit. d. deutsch. geol. Gesellsch., ix, 1857, 581. The deepening of valleys by rivers and streams must keep pace with the gradual elevation of continental masses. The Porta Westphalica has thus been cut by the Weser in the Wiehen-Weser range, in the northeastern part of Westphalia.

A similar suggestion was briefly made a little later by Bischoff, to explain the gorge of the Rhine below Bingen. Lehrb. d. chem. u. phys. Geol., 2 Aufl., i, 374, 382; and again independently for the same river by Dücker. Zeitschr. d. Gesellsch. f. Erdk. Berlin, v, 1870, 183.

Gümbel explained the course of the Altmühl, a branch of the Danube which crosses the Frankish Jura in northwestern Bavaria, by supposing its course was defined before and maintained during the deformation of the range. Bavaria: Landes- und Volkskunde des Königreichs Bayern, 1865, iii, 756.

Medlicott recognized that many streams flowing from the inner Himalaya are older than the outer ranges, and showed reason for believing that they held their places while the outer ranges were tilted up. Mem. Geol. Survey India, iii, 1865, 6, 122, 127, 157, 163. A little later, he applied the same explanation to some Alpine rivers. The Alps and the Himalayas, a geological comparison. Q. Journ. Geol. Soc., London, xiv, 1868, 47, 52.

Wynne explains the Indus and adjacent rivers as of greater age than the elevation of the Salt Range in northwestern India. Mem. Geol. Survey India, xi, 1875; xiv, 1878.

Rütimeyer recognized the possibility of uprising ranges being cut down by transverse rivers, but regarded the occurrence as a rare one, thinking that lakes would generally appear behind such a growing barrier. He emphasized the idea that erosion works upstream, which Löwl has later developed farther. Ueber Thal- und Seebildung, Basel, 1869; 2 Aufl., 1874.

Tietze regarded the persistence of rivers across growing ranges as the rule rather than the exception. Die Bildung von Querthälern, Jahrb. d. k. k. Geol. Reichsanst., 1878, 581.

Hayden was perhaps the first to point out in this country the antecedent origin of certain headwaters of the Missouri in Montana, where the mountain ranges are frequently cut across by deep cañons. Amer. Journ. Science, xxxiii, 1862, 305. Hayden's Sixth Report, 1872 (1873), 85.

Reference may be made also to White, Hayden's Tenth Report, 1876 (1878), 52; Peale, id., 167; Bechler, id., 372. General discussion of valley making is given by Green, Geology for students and general readers, London, 1876; Hartung, Zeitschr. Gesellsch. f. Erdkunde, Berlin, 1878, 308.

In spite of the early date of some of these essays, the idea of the antecedent origin of rivers did not gain general recognition and acceptance till it was strongly stated by Powell.

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF BERING'S FIRST EXPEDITION, 1725-30, TOGETHER WITH A TRANSLATION OF HIS ORIGINAL REPORT UPON IT. With a Map.

BY WM. H. DALL.

CONTENTS.--Introductory remarks.--Instruments and Methods.--Sources of information.--Translation of Bering's Report.--Bering's List of Geographical Positions.--An Itinerary of the Expedition.--Annotated Synopsis of the Voyage compiled from all accessible data.--Comparative Table of Geographical Positions.--Resumé of the results of the Expedition.

In 1648 the tide of exploration and adventure setting eastward through Siberia, impelled the fitting out of seven small trading boats on the Kolyma river. Three of these, in charge of Simeon Deshneff, Gerasim Ankudinoff and Feodor Alexieff, respectively, reached Bering Strait. Ankudinoff's boat was wrecked on East Cape, but his party was accommodated on the others. There were hostilities with the Chukchi, the two boats were separated, and Deshneff's alone finally reached Kamchatka. Next year he constructed the trading post on the Anadyr river subsequently known as Anadyrsk.

There is a tradition that in 1654 a trader named Taras Stadukin followed Deshneff's route, made a portage across the neck of East Cape, circumnavigated Kamchatka, discovered the Kurile Islands, and finally reached the Gulf of Penjina in safety.

In 1711 an emissary named Peter Iliunsen Popoff was sent to East Cape by the Russians to induce the Chukchi to pay tribute. In this he failed, but brought back an account of islands beyond East Cape, and of a continent reported by the Chukchi to exist beyond these islands. Some statements which he made in regard to the people of this continent were regarded by geographers of the last century as fictitious, but with our better knowledge, they set the seal of authenticity upon Popoff's report and show that his journey was really made.

The political disorders which prevailed in Western Russia about this period, prevented any attention from being directed to the reports of these explorations, which were preserved in the archives at Yakutsk. Somewhat later the attention of geographers was directed toward this unknown corner of the world and the subject was brought to the notice of Peter the Great. He took great interest in it, drew up instructions for an expedition with his own hand and delivered them to Count Apraxin with orders to see them executed. A few days later, in January, 1725, he died; but the Empress desiring to carry out all the plans of her deceased husband as closely as possible, ordered their execution. Fleet-Captain Vitus Ivanovich Bering was nominated to the command of the expedition and Lieutenants Martin Spanberg[1] and Alexie Chirikoff to be his assistants.

[Footnote 1: So spelled by Bering himself.]

This expedition forms the subject of this paper. It has been treated of by various geographers and biographers, but so far the original report of Bering, printed in 1847 in the Russian language, has never been faithfully translated into any other language; while his map has never, in its entirety, been published at all. Reduced sketches derived from the maps and more or less mutilated and garbled versions of the report have appeared in sundry collections of voyages, and upon these the latest contributions to the history of the expedition have been in great part based.

Believing that the original report is a document of sufficient historic and geographic interest to be made accessible to those who do not read Russian, and that the errors of existing works make a critical review of the subject desirable, I have translated the document in question and prepared a general review of the present state of our knowledge in regard to the expedition.

Bering's Report being written in archaic and badly spelled Russian, with a singular disregard of punctuation and other literary niceties, the translation presented unusual difficulties, in solving which I have had the kind coöperation of that excellent Russian scholar Mr. J. Curtin. I am indebted to the Reverend Father Richards, president of Georgetown University, and Father Maas of Woodstock College, Md., for valuable information in regard to the church festivals and saints, whose names were utilized in the nomenclature of Bering's new discoveries. To Mr. Marcus Baker, Messrs. Gannett and Woodward, and Mr. C. C. Darwin of the Geological Survey; Dr. S. Hertzenstein of the Zoological Museum of the Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg; Baron Nordenskiöld of Stockholm, and Baron Robert Klinckofström; Drs. Holm and Stejneger of the U. S. National Museum, and Prof. Julius Olson of Madison, Wisconsin, I am indebted for numerous favors and courteous assistance, and to all of these gentlemen I desire to express my thanks.

In conclusion I desire to state that I am well aware this paper cannot be regarded as a finality, but as a contribution to the geographical history of North America it will not be without its value, while the fact that I have myself spent parts of three summers in scientific exploration of the coast visited by Bering and first charted by him, has greatly helped me in my discussion of minor details of his work.

INSTRUMENTS AND METHODS.

In considering the work done by the expedition it is very necessary to bear in mind the character of the instrumental outfit, if any, which they might have possessed, and the state of the science of navigation at the time.

When Bering and his two cartographers left St. Petersburg in February, 1725, the astronomical instrument in use by navigators was the Davis quadrant or "backstaff," in which the sun's altitude was measured by sighting without a telescope or tube on the shadow cast by the sun from one projection of the instrument upon another, the observer's back of course, being turned to the luminary. The only alternative to this was the still older astrolabe with which the observer had to look along the two lines of his angle at the same time, and which also depended upon sights or spurs attached to a frame. The reflecting quadrant of Hadley was not invented until 1731 and telescopes were not used on the instruments of navigation until somewhat later. There were no chronometers or reliable watches or clocks for use in dividing intervals of time. Even after the Hadley quadrant came into use, time was noted by a pendulum vibrating seconds, which could not be used on ship-board.

A futile attempt had been made by means of tables of variation of the compass to determine the longitude by comparison with observed variation in the field. Results by this method approached the truth accidentally, if at all. Lunar observations were the only means of getting an approximation to the longitude except the occultations of Jupiter's satellites, both methods being impracticable on board ship, with the instruments then employed.

In 1731 the astronomer Halley proved[2] that at that date it was still impossible to find the longitude correctly by the moon, the lunar tables being so inaccurate that an error of several hundred miles was quite possible and an accurate determination would depend upon the respective errors of instrument, observation and the lunar tables happening to balance one another. Halley ventured to express the hope that the tables may be so amended that an error may scarce ever exceed three minutes, which would correspond to a degree and a half of longitude, amounting at the equator to a distance of a little less than one hundred miles. Messerschmidt, who preceded Bering as an explorer of Eastern Siberia, was according to Middendorf (Sib. Reise, iv. 1, p. 56) thirty-two degrees out in his determination of the longitude, and the eastward extent of Asia in this region was underrated by that amount or thereabouts, on many maps.

[Footnote 2: Phil. Trans. 1731, No. 421.]

One other means of approximating to the meridian remained, in the observation of eclipses. This from the comparative rarity of these occurrences in the case of the sun and moon, could with the imperfect instruments of those days be available but seldom. Owing to the difficulty of determining the exact time of the first and last contacts the longitudes computed by these observations were liable to quite as great inaccuracy as those computed from the lunar tables. Still an ordinary spyglass would enable an observer to note the time within a minute or two, and, if he was possessed of the local time, a simple comparison with the observed time of the eclipse in some locality where the longitude was known would give a fairly good determination, considering the instruments and methods of those days. Of the four eclipses of the moon occurring in 1728-9 two might have been observed without difficulty by Bering, one would have been invisible to him, and one might barely have been noted, but in all probability was not observed by him. In none of the published reports of the expedition is any mention made by Bering or his officers of the occurrence or observation of an eclipse, which seems very singular if by such an observation he was enabled to correct an error of 30° in the longitude of northeastern Siberia. However, Middendorf states (Sib. Reise, iv. 1, p. 56) that "Bering and his lieutenant in the years 1728 and 1729 observed in Kamchatka[3] two eclipses of the moon," by which they corrected the longitude. He gives no authority for this statement.

[Footnote 3: It is possible that an eclipse observed at Ilimsk in Middle Siberia by Chirikoff is thus erroneously referred to.]

Euler, who had access to the archives of the Admiralty College, while engaged on a Geography of Russia, mentions (Philos. Trans., No. 482, p. 421) that he was informed that Bering observed an eclipse "at Kamchatka." This letter of Euler's is copied by Campbell in Harris' Voyages (vol. II, Book III, p. 1024) and the expression "at Kamchatka" has led to the statement that these observations were made at the fort or village of Lower Kamchatka. This is an error since Bering gives no longitude for the fort in his table of geographical positions. It must be remembered that the name Kamchatka at that period was applied not merely to the peninsula as at present, but also to the whole region of northeastern Siberia, the governor of Kamchatka being located at Okhotsk. So to come within the probable meaning of the phrases used by Middendorf and Euler it is only necessary to suppose that the observations were made somewhere in that region. Lauridsen (Danish edition, note 34, p. 186) refers to a paper of Struve (Bull. phys.-math. Acad. St. Petersb., I, 1842, p. 290) containing a table of geographical positions in Russia, in connection with these alleged observations of Bering. An examination of Struve's paper does not bear out the implication of Lauridsen's reference, as Struve not only makes no mention whatever of Bering's observations there but specifically states that the first observations of precision made in this part of Siberia were those of Krassilnikoff who accompanied Bering's second expedition in 1741. It would seem extraordinary that a determination so important for geography as that of Bering and his companion should be unknown to so distinguished an astronomer as Struve who must have had access to all the archives of the early explorations by Russia. But it may be perhaps accounted for by the facts that Bering's observations were necessarily of a very rough and primitive character--as it is certain he had no instruments of precision; and that, for that reason, they were not received with entire confidence; so that Struve may have considered them insufficiently exact to be included with those of Krassilnikoff and others made with more modern appliances.

From the note in regard to the eclipses which is kindly contributed by Mr. Marcus Baker and from the other circumstances, it is evident that if Bering and his party made the observations alluded to, the eclipses noted were the partial eclipse of Feb. 25 (local calendar), 1728, of which he might have observed the last contact, or the total eclipse of Feb. 14, 1729, of which he might have observed the first contact and the totality. At the time of the last eclipse he was at Lower Kamchatka post, and as, in the list of positions handed in with his Report in 1730, no longitude is entered for this locality, it would seem that choice is reduced to the first of the two mentioned; which occurred when Bering was either at Bolsheretsk or on his way from that place to Lower Kamchatka, which he reached about a month later. Campbell's table of positions is credited by him to the year 1728, but my own opinion is that it was really derived (with various errors, interpolations, etc.) from Bering's table of 1730.

The ordinary method of getting the longitude of a place, and that upon which Bering originally depended, as his itinerary table shows, was by a continuous record of the distances and directions traveled from a point of known longitude. This record would afford the data from which the distance on a mean parallel, by means of a traverse table, could be computed. Laborious, imperfect, and slow as it was, it was the only sure reliance of the traveler in those days. Whether Bering observed an eclipse or not, it is certain that his original dependence was upon his itinerary, that his report was based upon that and that this part of his work was done as well as the nature of the method would permit. His silence about the eclipse may be due to the fact that he depended not upon astronomical but upon pedometric observations, to which the eclipse may have afforded some corrections. At any rate the pedometric determination of the distance between Tobolsk and Okhotsk or the peninsula of Kamchatka was in itself a tremendous undertaking.

I find by a rough calculation from Bering's data that the longitude resulting from his itinerary from Tobolsk to Okhotsk is 77° 36' E. The distance in a straight line is about 2,390 miles, but by the route Bering traveled the distance is a little more than 3,746 miles. The longitude in Bering's List of Positions is 76° 07', which differs from the pedometric measurement by 1° 29' (or about 45 miles). On Bering's map, Okhotsk is located in longitude 74° 30' E. of Tobolsk, while the most modern observations for Okhotsk put it in 142° 40' E. of Greenwich or 75° 40' E. of Tobolsk. So that Bering's pedometric measurement was nearly 60 miles in excess; his revised table (as corrected by the eclipse?) 27 miles in excess; and his map about 30 miles in error in the opposite direction. These discrepancies show the inexactness of the methods then in vogue and also that the pedometric method was not very much worse than the others in its results. Although there are several typographic or other errors in his table of itinerary which render exact comparisons impossible, it may be said that the error of the pedometric method, including the passage by sea from Okhotsk to Kamchatka, averages about two degrees or sixty geographical miles. In the cases of Okhotsk and Bolsheretsk the error is one of excess; in the case of the cape at the mouth of the Kamchatka river and of the turning point of the expedition north of Bering Strait, the result is too small by about the same amount.

That his chart and his revised list of positions should differ as they do, is quite as likely the result of the careless way in which the minutiæ of such work were generally regarded at that day, as to any difference of date, or of intentional modification.

To conclude our review of the instrumental means and methods then in use, it may be said that the compasses in use at that day were comparatively roughly made and more or less inaccurate. The variation was determined in a given latitude by the azimuth of the Polestar or the sun at setting observed by means of sights attached to the rim of the compass, which was a method accurate enough for the general purposes of navigation. The distance run was measured on shipboard by the log which was in about the same form and perfection as at present, being a very ancient invention.

The survey of a general coast-line was made by compass bearings on prominent points, repeated from successive stations, the distances of the ship's course being determined by the log and the courses by compass, with corrections for current and the variation. The lines thus obtained were checked by latitude observations made with Davis' backstaff when the weather permitted.

Apart from any of the methods mentioned it seems to have been overlooked that Bering might have corrected the longitudes of the N.E. Siberian coast by the ordinary dead reckoning kept on board his vessel, provided he started by adopting the longitude for the southern part of Kamchatka peninsula which was in common use on many of the charts of his day. Though it is true that the maps of that part of Siberia north and northeast from the Okhotsk sea were many degrees in error in the longitude, this observation does not hold good in regard to the southern end of Kamchatka. The work of the Jesuit fathers in China had already determined fairly well the position of China and Korea, while rude outlines of the northern islands of Japan, Sakhalin, the Kuriles and the south end of Kamchatka, were added to these on maps of Asia. The outlines are often very incorrect but it is quite evident what is intended. In nearly all early maps of this region which I have been able to consult, as for instance those of N. de Witt, I have found the south end of Kamchatka in approximately correct longitude. For instance, in the Novissimae Ephemerides of Manfredio, published at Bonn the same year that Bering left St. Petersburg, and which might well have been sent to him before he sailed, we find two charts of the paths of solar eclipses (Plates ii and iii). On these charts the meridian of 180° from Ferro passes across what is unmistakably the south end of Kamchatka, though northeastern Siberia remains a blank. This would be a sufficient starting point and is quite as correct as Bering's determinations; in fact is within a few miles of the modern longitudes for the same part of the peninsula. Dead reckoning along the shores of the peninsula, corrected by latitude observations, would have done all that was necessary to correct the meridian without observing any lunar eclipse, provided the surveyor started with such an assumption as Manfredio's or De Witt's charts supply.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

The general History of China [etc.] Done from the French of P[ere]. Du Halde [by R. Brookes]. London, John Watts, 1736. 4 vols. 8° with maps and ills.

This is referred to in the following text by the letter B.

This is the first English translation from the original French edition of the "Description géographique et historique de l'empire de la Chine" by the father J. B. Du Halde, published at the Hague in the same year as the above translation. The text of the original French I have not been able to consult, though, so far as Bering's voyage is concerned, there does not seem to have been any material abridgment in the translation above cited, for an opportunity of consulting which I am indebted to the Librarian of Congress.

The maps and charts of the original French edition were separately printed in an atlas by themselves, for the use of those who might desire to do without the text, under the following title:

Nouvel Atlas de la Chine, de la Tartarie Chinoise, et du Thibet: contenant Les Chartes générales & particulieres de ces Pays, ainsi que la Carte du Royaume de Corée; (etc.): Rédigées par M^r D'Anville, Géographe ordinaire de sa Majesté très Chrétienne, Précedé d'une description de la Boucharie, Par un Officier Suedois que a fait quelque sejour dans ce Pays. A la Haye, chez Henri Scheurleer MDCCXXVII. Folio, 12 pp. 42 charts.

The chart of Bering forms sheet 42, and differs from the others in being on Mercator's projection which indicates that it was copied directly from an original as stated in the text, and not redrawn. It is 20-3/4 by 9-3/8 inches on the neat-lines and is entitled:

"Carte des Pays traversé par le Cap^{ne}. Beerings depuis la ville de Tobolsk jusqu'a Kamtschatka."

Beneath the title is a table of four transliterated Russian terms for fort, post, village and convent, with their French equivalents. This and certain peculiarities in the transliteration of proper names make it certain that the original chart was in Russian and that the transliteration was done by some one not perfectly familiar with both languages. There are a few errors of the engraver in rendering single letters "c" appearing for "t" and "r" for "e" in a few places. The longitude is reckoned in degrees east from Tobolsk to which 67° degrees when added will give practically the meridian east from Greenwich. The transcriber of the map from the Russian appears to have been a Dane, G. Kondet.

That part of this chart east from 112° E. Gr. has been fairly reproduced by Lauridsen (Chart I) with the omission of some unimportant names and the addition of a signature (not the ordinary autograph) of Bering. This is reproduced with a different running headline to accompany Olson's translation.

The fourth volume of Brookes' translation (pp. 429-440) contains

"A succinct narrative of Captain Beerings's Travels into Siberia:"

with a reduction of the above-mentioned map, on which there is no trace of the island of St. Demetrius, even its name, which alone appears on the Du Halde map, is here omitted. Otherwise this version of the map does not differ from Du Halde's, more than one copy of a drawing usually differs from another. When Bering started on his expedition he was accompanied by two cartographers (Bergh, First Voy. of the Russ. pp. 2-5, fide Lauridsen) Luzhin and Potiloff, and to one or both of them under Bering's direction the construction of the map in question was probably due.

When Bering made his report it was accompanied by a list of positions for important places visited by the Expedition.

Dr. Campbell, while gathering material for his second edition of Harris' Voyages, procured a copy of this unpublished list of positions and prints it in his account of Bering's travels, with the comment that it was sent by Bering from Kamchatka, before his return to Russia, and to the Senate at St. Petersburg, to which Bering did not report. Whether due to the transcriber or the printer there are several very obvious errors in the list as printed by Campbell, and when it is compared with Bering's own list we see that there are also several interpolations.

But the positions adopted in the chart, said by Du Halde to have been brought to St. Petersburg by Bering on his return (a statement confirmed by the mention of a chart in the report itself), are not identical with the positions enumerated in the list. This leads to the suspicion that Bering's first chart was not published, and that the chart issued was due to a recomputation and revision of his data. This suspicion is made stronger by the statement of Lauridsen, who gives no authority, however, that Bering's chart was made in Moscow in 1731,[4] though this may merely mean that some of the copies which were distributed to various personages were so prepared.

[Footnote 4: Lauridsen, Am. ed., p. 57.]

These manuscript copies of the chart and report were sent to various foreign courts, as a matter of general interest, by the Russian authorities. The copy used by Du Halde was communicated to him by the King of Poland who had received it as a "Present worthy of his regard and curiosity" (Du Halde, iv, p. 439, Brookes' ed.). Other copies were sent to Sweden and probably to England and other countries. In the journal, "Ymer," of the Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography (1884, p. 93) is a short notice by E. Dahlgren of three manuscript copies of Bering's chart of his first expedition, or rather of charts embodying its results. Two of these charts are in the Royal archives of Sweden and measures 58 x 135 cm. One of them is ornamented with ten colored drawings of natives of Siberia. The other is without these but does not seem to be a copy of the first as it has a number of soundings between St. Lawrence and the Diomede Islands which are not on the former, and some names which are peculiar to it. Both have many more names than are given on the chart published by Du Halde. Both of the manuscripts have a legend referring to the coast from the Kolyma eastward, on the north coast of Siberia, to the effect that it is put down from older charts and information, doubtless furnished by the archives at Yakutsk. The third copy is in the possession of Baron Robert Klinckofström, of Stafsund, Sweden.

Through the kind offices of Baron Nordenskiöld and the generosity of Baron Klinckofström, the last mentioned chart has been forwarded to the writer through the Smithsonian Institution for examination. It appears to be essentially the same as the second of the two charts referred to as comprised in the Royal Swedish Archives. The result of my examination of it leads me to the belief that there were two different charts sent out in manuscript by the Russian authorities. The first, which I regard as the earlier, and which is certainly more accurate, shows the island of St. Demetrius in its proper place in accordance with Bering's Report and list of positions. It formed the basis of Campbell's engraving which will be referred to later, and of the chart which appears in the various editions of Du Halde. It is possible that this represents the original chart prepared by Bering in Kamchatka during the winter of 1728-9. The second and probably later form of the chart is represented by the Klinckofström chart, upon which the name and island of St. Demetrius have vanished and a smaller island in the corresponding latitude is represented close to the Siberian coast and westward from the meridian passing through the eastern extreme of East Cape. This island is named the island of St. Diomede. If it is intended as a revised position for the island of St. Demetrius of the other chart and of Bering's Report, it is in conflict with the facts and with the position assigned to St. Demetrius in the report. No one who had sailed between St. Demetrius and East Cape could have sanctioned such a position for the island with honesty. If a different island is intended the question arises, Why is St. Demetrius omitted? This second chart is obviously the basis upon which in D'Anville's chart of Asia (1753) the configuration of the eastern extreme of Siberia is based, and I suspect that the chart of the Imperial Academy of Sciences at St. Petersburg and the reproduction of Jefferys, were also derived from it as far as this region is concerned.

It would be rash, in the absence of authentic information which only the Russian archives can supply, to hazard an opinion as to the origin of the important difference between these charts. I may return to this point later. Apart from this, it may be added that the northern coast of Siberia from East Cape west to Cape Shelagskoi is represented as mountainous throughout its extent. A legend states that it is laid down from older charts and information. This relieves Bering from the responsibility for the fictitious or at least grossly erroneous and exaggerated form and direction given to Cape Shelagskoi on his chart. The west coast of the Okhotsk sea and part of its northeastern shores not visited by Bering are stated to be laid down from "information." This map is not dated and the blank space in the title left for Bering's autograph has never been filled. No name of draughtsman or place or authority of issue are indicated upon it. It measures 51 by 20-1/8 inches between the neat-lines. It is in black and white, the mountains washed in, the only color being small green trees as a conventional sign for wooded country. A copy of the earlier chart fell into the hands of Dr. Campbell and was published by him in his edition of Harris' Voyages,[5] together with a version of the report which is more or less mutilated and to which the editor to make his book more readable has added certain flowers of rhetoric which detract from its accuracy. Campbell's copy of the map is the most perfect yet published and the only one showing the island of St. Demetrius in its proper place.

[Footnote 5: HARRIS, JOHN. Complete collection of Voyages and travels [etc.]. London, T. Woodward [and others] 1748. 2 v. folio, maps and plates, Vol. 2, pp. 1016-1041, is devoted to a discussion of Bering's discoveries, entitled: Book III, Section VIII. "A distinct account of part of the northeast frontier of the Russian Empire, commonly called the country of Kamschatka or Kamschatska including the voyages of Captain Behring for discovering toward the East [etc.], collected from the best authorities both printed and manuscript."]

In Du Halde's copy and those derived from it the eastern border of the chart has cut off the island, though in some of them, as in that of 1736, the name remains. The only fault to be noted in Campbell's edition of Bering's map is the omission by the engraver of the small bay named Preobrazhenia by Bering and which, though it is not named, appears on the other editions of the map. The title is as follows:

"An exact chart of all the countries through which Cap^t. Behring travelled, from Tobolski Capital of Siberia to the country of Kamtschatka."

The size of the map is 7 x 12¾ inches. It extends on the east to the meridian of 126° east from Tobolsk which enables the "Isle of St. Demetrius" (our present Big Diomede) to appear in its proper place. The editions previously reported have all stopped at the 124th meridian, thus cutting off the island, whose name sometimes appeared and sometimes did not.

It will be observed that Dr. Campbell in this paper was the means of introducing the erroneous and obnoxious Germanized spelling of Bering's name into English literature. This is a pretty good indication that he had no autographic documents from Bering himself, and that his manuscripts were obtained from German sources, or at least had been transcribed into the German language. In his thorough search of the literature of the subject and lengthy discussion of the results, Dr. Campbell undoubtedly gathered the fullest account of the first expedition which had up to that date been printed. In order to enliven his history of the proceedings, the good Doctor occasionally rises to flights of fancy, and the theories he held were long since proved erroneous.

There are several other English translations of Du Halde's China, of which the following is the most important:

"A description of the empire of China and Chinese-Tartary, together with the kingdoms of Korea, and Tibet: containing the geography and history (natural as well as civil) of those countries. From the French of P. J. B. Du Halde, Jesuit. Illustrated with general and particular maps, and adorned with a great number of cuts. With notes geographical, historical and critical, and other improvements, particularly in the maps, by the Translator." London, Edward Cave, 1741. 2 vols. folio, maps and ills.

This edition does not show the name of the translator, but he was evidently a man of no small attainments as a geographer and cartographer, and introduced numerous improvements and corrections into the charts of D'Anville, which accompanied the original edition of Du Halde. A copy of this was presented to the library of Harvard College by the province of New Hampshire in 1765-6, for an opportunity of examining which I am indebted to the courtesy of Mr. Justin Winsor, the Librarian.

The text of this edition, compared with that of 1736, is as much as possible abridged, yet contains nothing not in the original, but the map exhibits certain additions to be noted. This map is entitled,

"A Map of Capt. Beerings' travels from Tobolskoy to Kamchatka between y^e years 1725 and 1730. With improvements by y^e Editor." It contains the following note by the editor. "Capt. Beerings probably observ'd y^e Lat.^d in y^e Principal places thro' w^{ch} he pass'd, tho' two Observations only are mentioned in his Journal. But M^r Kyrilow in his Map of the Russian Empire does not follow y^e Author in this respect for instance he places Ilimski 1° 30' more north, Yakutskoy 2° more south, and Cape Chiokotskago 1° more south than Cap^t. Beerings; likewise other places in Proportion. I have reckon'd y^e Long^d of Tobolskoy from Paris according to an Eclipse of y^e Sun observed at Hamburg and Tobolskoy, mentioned by Mr. Strahlenberg in his account of y^e Northern parts of Europe and Asia. This is all that can be done till y^e return of y^e Russian Mathematicians sent to make observations and discoveries throughout Siberia." Then follows a line "Inscribed to Francis Gashrey Esq^r."

The main body of the chart is that of Du Halde's original and the scale is the same, but the height of the neat-lines is only 8-5/8 inches. Bering's track from Okhotsk to Bolsheretsk, across Kamchatka, northward to 67° 18'; also his track eastward from Kamchatka in 1729 and around the peninsula to Bolsheretsk and Okhotsk; are indicated by dotted lines. The two latitudes noted in Bering's journal are indicated on this map by a +, and the northern one is placed near the Asiatic coast in latitude 118° E. from Tobolsk. At the top of the map the supposed Paris meridians[6] are indicated, a difference between Paris and Tobolsk being assumed of 70° degrees, which is about five degrees too much. There are also sundry infelicities in the transliteration of the names from the French of D'Anville.

[Footnote 6: In the Campbell map these are taken as east from London with an allowance of 67° between London and Tobolsk.]

A chart which deserves notice, though almost wholly fictitious, being chiefly devoted to the spurious discoveries of the alleged Admiral de Fonte, was issued by J. N. de L'Isle with the concurrence of M. P. Buache, or at his suggestion. It appeared at Paris, in 1752, and was copied for Jefferys' (2d) edition of Voyages from Asia to America in 1764. I do not know if this copy appeared in the first edition, but presume it did.

For present purposes the interesting features of this map are as follows:

Opposite the eastern extreme of the Chukchi peninsula there is represented part of America with the legend, "Terres vues par Mr. Spanberg in 1728, frequentées à présent par les Russes, qui en apportent de très belles fourrures." In the English edition the legend is "Seen by Spanberg 1728." Four islands are represented in the strait between Asia and America, corresponding in a general way to the four now known to exist there. Connected with America and north of the Chukchi peninsula is land with an island off it corresponding not badly to Wrangell and Herald Islands, and marked "Discovered in 1722." It is possible that this land is a hypothetical compound of the land reported by the Chukchis east of the strait with that which they knew to be visible in clear weather from Cape Yakan, more or less confused accounts of which had long been current among persons interested in these regions.

The next chart of note in this connection was published by D'Anville, the royal geographer of France, who had previously prepared the original map of Bering for publication. He issued a general map of Asia, in three parts, each of two leaves which could be joined together, of which the first part appeared in 1751 and the third part in 1753, entitled:

Troisième Partie de la Carte/d'Asie,/contenant/La Sibérie/et quelques autres parties/de la Tartarie,/Publiée sous les Auspices de Monseigneur/Louis-Philippe d'Orléans/Duc d'Orléans/Prémier Prince du Sang./Par le S^r. d'Anville,/Sécrétaire de Son Alt^s. Sereniss^s./MDCCLIII./Avec Privilége./

This map is in two sheets (each 20 x 21 inches), the engraving of the geographical part by Guill. de la Haye and of the ornamental title by De Lafosse. The longitude is reckoned from Ferro, and the map is constructed on a scale of 23 French leagues to 60 geographical miles. The boundaries are colored and the sea shore shaded with short horizontal lines. It is on the polyconic projection.

This map includes many of the additions to geography in eastern Siberia which were due to the members of the great Siberian expedition. The courses and branches of the rivers especially were augmented and corrected as well as named. The branches of the Anadyr River were represented and named, but as no new information in regard to the coast had been received at that date, this river was still mapped as entering the sea to the south and west of Cape Thaddeus, as erroneously laid down by Bering, who confounded with the Anadyr a small river which does come in here, and passed the estuary of the true Anadyr without seeing it. The coast lines are essentially those of Bering. Beyond the basins of the Kolyma and Anadyr is marked "Terre inconnue"; a small supplement in the north-east corner of the map, on half the scale of the map, represents the north-east extreme of Asia as delineated by Bering. This little supplement is of considerable interest as it gives fuller information than that which appears on the original publication of Du Halde, perhaps from a more modern version of Bering's chart, as previously suggested.

Several names appear for the first time in cartographic history, upon this map. Preobrazhenia Bay; Bolshoia River falling into Holy Cross Bay, and the "Isle de St. Diomide" are among these. The Island of St. Demetrius is omitted, as well as its name. The Island of St. Diomide is placed about on a line between East Cape and Cape Chukotski, to the westward of the meridian of East Cape. There is a discrepancy averaging about five minutes in latitude and longitude between the positions on this map and those on the second version of the Bering manuscript charts. But in the main these differences are, I suspect, merely due to carelessness in copying, and the general harmony between the two leads to the belief that the D'Anville outline for this region was based on the second version of the manuscript.

The differences of position for points on this part of the coast are numerous. I have noted them in the comparative table of positions herewith. They may be chiefly owing to slips in transferring from the Mercator to the Polyconic projection; but some of them are due to new information, probably derived from the surveyors of the second expedition. Bering island appears on the map, in about its proper place, though Copper island is not indicated, nor are any of the Aleutians shown. I suspect this is the first publication of a cartographic kind on which Bering island is laid down, as the map of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, embodying the geographical results of Bering's Voyage to the coast of America, was not engraved until a year later, while De L'Isle's of 1752 does not contain them.

The island between Cape Shelaginski and East Cape off the northern coast, on Bering's map, is omitted by D'Anville. The Kamchatkan peninsula in latitude 56° is represented to have a width of 180 miles, while Bering made it 270 miles.

A most important contribution to the subject appeared in Müller's Historical Collections known as the "Sammlung Russische Geschichte" and published at St. Petersburg (Kayserl. Academie der Wissenschaften, 1732-64. 8°. Nine volumes.) Des dritten Bandes (erstes, zweytes und drittes Stück, pp. 1-304, 1758) contains the original account of the Russian Voyages toward America from which the work of Jefferys has, with some errors and omissions, been translated. As far as regards Bering's first voyage, there is only one error of consequence made by Jefferys, which will be noted in its place. This book is extremely rare, and the only copy in America which I have been able to find after much enquiry, is in the library of the Smithsonian Institution.

The first volume of this series has the title

"Eröffnung eines Vorschlages zu Verbesserung der Russischen Historie Durch den Druck eines Stückweise herauszugebenden Sammelungen von allerly zu den Umstanden und Begebenheiten dieses Reichs gehorigen Nachrichten. St. Petersburg, bey der Keyserl. Academie der Wissenschaften, 1732."

The succeeding volumes have the running title "Sammlung Russische Geschichte" with the number of the parts subjoined but no other title-page.