Chapter V: Part 5

After leaving port Bering traced the shores of Kamchatka and eastern Siberia as far as East Cape. Thence he sailed in a northeasterly direction. At 3 P.M., Aug. 14th, land was seen astern; the vessel continued in the same direction until 3 P.M. the next afternoon, having, at most, sailed about twenty-four hours out of sight of land but in shallow water. Bering then concluded he had gone far enough to show the separation of Asia from America, or any land to the eastward. No doubt he was influenced by the testimony of the residents of Kamchatka who knew the work which had been performed in this region by Deshneff and others, and also by the fact that the native testimony all pointed the same way. If he was convinced of the truth of this testimony he would have been disposed to accept as conclusive evidence which would not be so regarded by critics. All the evidence shows Bering as faithful to the letter of his orders, honest, patient with the ill-doing or insubordination of others, but perfectly satisfied with the accomplishment of what he had been specifically directed to perform, and with a tendency to limit the specifications to the narrowest construction they would bear. He adventured nothing beyond. In the arbitrary government under which he served, with the violent competition between foreign officers in the Russian service for promotion in rank and pay, who can criticise him for the prudence and caution which kept him well within his instructions? I certainly do not. But to say that he was a cautious, prudent and sagacious officer, is a different thing from asserting he was a daring, adventurous and heroic explorer. I have not been able to discover anything in his career justifying the latter estimate of his character.

At all events in the present case it must in time have occurred to him, or have been suggested by his officers or by the Kamchatkans after his return that the mere sailing off shore in admittedly shallow water for twenty-four hours, was not an absolutely conclusive proof that the continents were separated. Here was a man with a new vessel, a full crew, a year's provisions for all hands, who has come half around the globe, taking three and a half years to do it, building ships and at no end of labor of one sort and another; all this to get into the region where there is a question to be answered; and when he gets there he barely gives twenty-four hours to searching for that answer with a month of the season still available for work; and then starts for home without settling the question; with a right conclusion, it is true, but not of his own discovery, and without securing definite proof to defy critics.

Leaving out of account the continent within half a day's sail which he fairly ran away from, ignorantly, where is there anything adventurous, daring or heroic in such conduct?

It is evident that if Bering had sailed along the coast which the Chukchis said extended to the westward, instead of going off shore, away from it, he would have confirmed that part of their testimony, and given high probability to the assumption of their correctness in the rest.

As it was, he left the question in a state so unsettled as to be a subject of debate for nearly half a century; even authorities so friendly as Dr. Campbell assuming with great confidence that Bering's conclusions as to the separation of the two continents were erroneous. It was not until the voyages of Captain Cook and his associates were given to the world in 1784 that the matter was settled beyond controversy.

Even in regard to the details of his voyage it was only through Bergh's publication of Chaplin's logbook of the voyage in 1823, that the public were informed as to what Bering did, and it was only in 1847 that the unmutilated, but still ambiguous Report of 1730 was accessible even in Russian typography.

We find that all the authorities who published in the last century copies of Bering's map and accounts of his expedition arrived at what Lauridsen calls an "interesting misunderstanding."

This misunderstanding was that he had sailed along the Chukchi coast, as above suggested, and that his farthest point was in latitude 67° 18' on the coast of northeastern Siberia.

How was it possible that men of such exceptional intelligence as Du Halde and D'Anville and Müller, and Hazius, and Euler and Campbell were all so deceived?

The facts are as follows:

(1) The verbatim Report of the voyage, the logbook of the expedition, Bering's chart in its entirety, were inaccessible to the public for many years; the chart has never been fully engraved for publication.

(2) The fragments of the Report which were circulated in print were ambiguous in their language or erroneously modified; while the published reductions of the chart which got into print were misleading, or even erroneous.

(3) Two conflicting versions of the manuscript chart were circulated and appear to have been officially sent out. That which appears to be the later of the two is in some details quite erroneous and at variance with Bering's report as printed and with the facts derived from Chaplin's logbook, these two constituting the only authentic original information which has yet reached the public in printed form. But these two sources of correct data about the expedition were not printed until long after the charts had been widely circulated, while the extracts from the Report which appeared in print, even under so friendly an editor as Dr. Campbell were so modified as to support rather than expose the original error. How this arose there may be something in the Russian archives to explain, or, if not, the case seems insoluble. Whatever conclusion one arrives at, it is difficult to acquit Bering of all responsibility for the misconception, if, as Lauridsen claims, he was responsible for the chart of Du Halde in the form it was engraved.

In his report he states that their northernmost latitude was 67° 18', that "all along the seacoast to this place wind elevated mountains." On turning to the Du Halde chart we find the range of mountains continued along the Chukchi coast until it reaches the latitude of 67° 18' where it stops. If Bering drew the chart so, it would have been deception, but it is quite as probable that the editor modified the chart in engraving it, to correspond to his understanding of Bering's ambiguity. As this would present nothing questionable to the reader, in the absence of the details omitted by Bering, it would have been nothing surprising if Campbell's interpolation of a false longitude for Lower Kamchatka, in his list of positions, might have been, not a typographical error, but an attempt to make the position agree with this erroneous assumption. If it was a pure accident, the coincidence is extraordinary. Of course Bering never was on this coast but Du Halde's map is so engraved as to lead directly to the false inference that he had been.

Again Bering says in his Report that at his turning point the land no longer extended to the north and that no projecting points could be observed in any direction. Since he had deliberately sailed away from the shores without attempting to follow their trend this observation would be absurd unless we suppose it addressed to a reader who took it for granted that the vessel was still skirting the coast. There is no mention in his Report of the fact that he had sailed away from the coast, nor of the still more important fact that the soundings showed that the water was comparatively shallow and discolored. Of course in the absence of direct proof of the separation of Asia and America this last evidence would tend to indicate that Bering was only in a bay or shallow arm of the sea and that he suppressed it shows, if not a want of candor, at least an injudicious reticence.

The map for the day when it was made (in the earlier version) was a good one, and is appropriately praised by Cook, who had a copy of Campbell's Harris on his vessel when exploring in the same region fifty years later.

In his report of the trip eastward from Kamchatka in 1729, Bering says nothing about the weather being foggy or stormy, but merely asserts that he sailed nearly 200 versts and saw no trace of land. He leaves it to be inferred that he could have seen land if it had been there to see, which if the weather was foggy was not true.

The impression which these facts leave upon the mind is that Bering did certainly frame his language so as to convey the idea that his evidence of the separation of the two continents and of the absence of land eastward from Kamchatka was more conclusive than it was in reality.

That this was done to avoid criticism seems a natural inference. That an examination of his list of positions would have shown the location of the point whence he turned back to be to the eastward of the easternmost of his reported land is true, but his list of positions was not published with his report, does not agree with his maps, and when published by Campbell was garbled, as I have shown.

That the truth, however, did get out and that criticism was not successfully avoided, is a matter of history. There can be little doubt that Bering's anxiety to undertake the second expedition, which followed, was stimulated by a desire to set these criticisms (which would naturally be magnified by his enemies) finally at rest.

It may be suggested that Bering's report was modified by the authorities, though why they should make these particular modifications is not very evident. Bering was the only person who could profit by them and the natural conclusion is that he should be held responsible.

In pointing out that some of Bering's acts are vulnerable to criticism I am far from desiring to sully his memory or give the idea that he was not entitled to great praise for what he accomplished, much of which was admirably done.

I wish merely to apply a gentle corrective to the exaggerated and injurious flattery and undiscriminating praise which has been injudiciously indulged in by his latest biographer.

If the interest in the subject be stimulated by discussion from these opposing points of view, so as to result in the publication of some of the material still hidden in the Russian archives I shall be more than repaid for the time I have devoted to the question, even if the publication of the original data should show some of my conclusions to be ill founded or erroneous.

_Note_--The reception of the original work of Bergh while reading the proofs of these pages has enabled me to correct several errors of previous writers, but it was too late to incorporate here the additional material which Bergh's work affords. This will enable me to add, in a future publication, some historical data which have never appeared in English and which are necessary to complete the record. I desire in this place to express my gratitude for and appreciation of the liberality of the authorities of that ancient seat of learning, the University of Upsala, as exhibited in their willingness to send such a valuable document to a foreign student half around the world for purposes of historical research.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE BY MARCUS BAKER.

ON THE ALLEGED OBSERVATION OF A LUNAR ECLIPSE BY BERING IN 1728-9.

Bering was in Eastern Siberia, Kamchatka and the adjacent waters in 1728 and 1729. Could he have observed a lunar eclipse there at that time?

According to the ephemeris of Manfred[1] published at Bonn in 1725 there were two partial eclipses of the moon visible in Europe in 1728, and two total eclipses of the moon in 1729.

[Footnote 1: Manfredius (Eustachius). Novissimae ephemerides motuum coelestium e Cassinianis tabulis ad meridianum Bononiae supputatae auctoribus Eustachio Manfredio (etc.) Tomus 1. ex anno 1726 in annum 1737 (etc.) 4° _Bononiae_, MDCCXXV.]

In regard to these four eclipses the ephemeris furnishes the following data:

| 1728, | 1728, | 1729, | 1729,
| Feb. 24. | Aug. 19. | Feb. 13. | Aug. 8.
-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------
Eclipse begins | 18^h 32^m | 4^h 07^m | 7^h 45^m | 12^h 02^m
Total immersion | -- -- | -- -- | 8 46 | 13 02
Middle of eclipse | 20 0 | 5 35 | 9 35 | 13 52
Emersion begins | -- -- | -- -- | 10 24 | 14 42
Eclipse ends | 21 29 | 7 03 | 11 25 | 15 42
-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------
Digits eclipsed | 9 51 S.| 7 45 N.| 19 46 | 19 44 S.
Sun rises | 18 36 | -- -- | -- -- | -- --
Sun sets | -- -- | 6 49 | -- -- | -- --
Eclipse | Partial | Partial | Total | Total.
-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------
Sun's declination | -9° 38' | +12° 42' | -13° 16' | +16° 09'
" hourly motion | + 0.9 | - 0.8 | + 0.8 | - 0.7
-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------

In this table the calendar is Gregorian, the time is apparent or true sun time, the day is reckoned from noon and the hours are counted continuously through the entire 24.

The present observatory in Bonn is in

Latitude 50° 43' 45" N.
Longitude 0^h 28^m 23^s E. from Greenwich.

At the date of the _first eclipse_ Bering was on his way across the southern end of Kamchatka from Bolsheretsk to Lower Kamchatka. This would make his position somewhere near latitude 55° N. and longitude 160° or 10^h 40^m E. from Greenwich.

He was therefore 10^h 12^m east of Bonn for which we have the elements of this eclipse as computed by Manfred. With this data together with the latitude and sun's declination we have the following data for the eclipse in the region where Bering was.

Beginning of eclipse 4^h 44^m
Middle of eclipse 6 12
End of eclipse 7 41
Sun sets 5 07

This means that the sun set, bearing about W. by S. ½ S., and the moon rose in partial eclipse, bearing about E. by N. ½ N., at 5^h 07^m after apparent noon or 23 minutes after the eclipse had begun. The eclipse lasted for 2^h 34^m after sunset, or until 7^h 41^m in the evening, thus rendering observation of the last contact plainly visible.

At the date of the _second eclipse of 1728_, August 19, Bering was at sea somewhere in the vicinity of the strait which bears his name. Assuming his position to have been latitude 65° N. and longitude 188° or 12^h 32^m E. from Greenwich, equal to 12^h 04^m E. from Bonn, and as before taking the data from Manfred's ephemeris we have as follows:

Beginning of eclipse 16^h 11^m
Middle of eclipse 17 39
End of eclipse 19 07
Sun rises 16 04

It thus appears that the first contact of this partial eclipse of the northern limb of the moon may have been just barely visible to Bering. The moon bearing about SW. by W. was entering the earth's shadow about five minutes before the sun's rising and its own setting. If much importance attaches to determining the possibility to Bering of observing this eclipse then a more precise calculation is needful.

At the date of the _first lunar eclipse of 1729_, February 13, Bering was at Lower Kamchatka, in latitude 56° 03' N. and longitude 162° 15' or 10^h 49^m E. from Greenwich equal to 10^h 21^m E. from Bonn. For this place we have from Manfred:

Eclipse begins 18^h 06^m
Total immersion 19 07
Middle of eclipse 19 56
Emersion begins 20 45
Eclipse ends 21 46
----------
Sun rises 19^h 21^m

Thus it appears that this total and almost central eclipse of the moon lasting 3^h 40^m began at Bering's station 1^h and 15^m before sunrise of February 14, the total immersion occurring 14 minutes before sunrise. It is manifest, therefore, that Bering might have observed this eclipse.

The _second lunar eclipse of 1729_ occurred August 8, when Bering was in or near Okhotsk and about returning to Europe. We may assume his position to have been latitude 59° 20' N. and longitude 142° 40' or 9^h 31^m E. from Greenwich, equal to 9^h 03^m E. from Bonn. This eclipse was also total and almost central, but at Bering's station was wholly invisible, beginning at 9^h 05^m A.M. and ending at 12^h 45^m P.M.