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.