Ph. Buache, the French geographer, made for de l'Isle a reduced copy of the second chart, and it is supposed that the map before you is a substantial reproduction of that copy.
In the preface to de l'Isle's scattered essays, 1738, St. Petersburg, page 2, we find:
"Aiant comparé la situation du Kamschatka et des pais voisins, avec celle de la Chine, du roiaume de Corée, du Japon, et de la terre d'Yeco, qui m'étoit connue d'ailleurs, je me suis fait un sistème, & j'ai dressé l'an 1731, une carte de cette extremité orientale de l'Asie. J'ai marque aussi sur cette carte les dernières terres connues de l'Amerique, les plus voisines de cette partie septentrionale de l'Asie, afin de faire voir ce qui restoit encore d'inconnu entre-deux. On trouvera dans ce recueil une reduction de cette carte, avec le Mémoire que j'ai dressé dans ce temsla, & lu a l'Academie, dans lequel je rends raison de la construction de cette carte."
Only one volume of de l'Isle's essays appeared, so that the map and memoir promised in the introduction were never, so far as can be learned, published in their original form. The statements made by de l'Isle, however, unless definitely refuted, should be given full credit, seeing that the work was published by the Academy of Sciences at St. Petersburg, to which the map and memoir were presented, as is claimed, only seven years earlier. A doubt does, however, exist as to the date of the map made by de l'Isle. On this point Adelung, in his "History of Northeastern Voyages," Halle, 1768, page 569, evidently quoting from Müller, says:
"On the 17th of April, 1732, the order was, therefore, sent from the privy Cabinet to the Senate, which thereupon inquired of the Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg what and how much had as yet been found out about Kamschatka, the surrounding countries and waters. The Academy confided the making of the report to Mr. Delisle, who prepared a chart upon which Kamschatka, Jeso, according to the description of the crew upon the Castricom, the Staten island, Company island, and the coast of Gama were designated. This chart was supplemented by a memoir in which he described the discoveries already made and suggested various routes for making new ones. He expressed himself in regard to those routes in the following manner: 'If one have attained the northern boundary of Asia, and at the same time the eastern limits, as far as Captain Bering went on his first voyage, one cannot fail to arrive in America, and might even choose the route, either northeast or southeast, whichever he prefers, as he would have, at most, only 600 miles to pass over. 2. Or, without venturing so far, it would perhaps be better and more comfortable to sail from the east coast of Kamschatka, go directly east, to look for the neighboring country which Bering found traces of in his first voyage. 3. Finally, he thought that if they should sail southeast from Kamschatka they would perhaps more speedily and more certainly discover the country seen by Juan de Gama.'"
Can the inconsistency between the dates, as given by Müller and Adelung on the one hand, and by de l'Isle on the other, be reconciled, or is it apparent rather than real? As Bering, according to the Russian marine officer (Waxel?) returned to St. Petersburg on March 1, 1730, it is reasonable to suppose that de l'Isle, whose duties were those of a cartographer, had finished within the next year and a half his reproduction of Bering's working chart. The fact that the order of inquiry about the results of the voyage did not leave the privy council until April 17, 1732, does not necessarily indicate that the map at least, if not the memoir, was not already prepared, even if not in possession of the Academy of Sciences. It appears probable that the map may have been drawn by de l'Isle in 1731, but it is quite certain that it was not made public until 1732.
Lauridsen speaks of a map in Moscow in 1731, and, as it is evident from "Lettre d'un" that there was no difficulty in persons of influence procuring copies from the Senate, it is likely that the Moscow chart was a copy of the map of de l'Isle, and that the date of 1731 is correct; but this theory must rest on Lauridsen producing evidence that such a map existed in Moscow in 1731.
The Russian officer speaks with authority as to the map of 1732. Commenting on de l'Isle's account of the circumstances under which he compiled the map of 1732, he continues as follows:
"The Empress Anne having directed her Senate to give instructions to M. Bering for the second voyage, that body believed that it could not act with success unless it obtained from the Academy the fullest information relative to the situation of the lands and seas to be traversed. Therefore the Academy was so ordered by the Senate, which enjoined on M. de l'Isle the construction of the map of which I speak, and, for a clearer understanding, an explanatory memoir; which being done, both map and memoir were presented to the Academy by the Senate. Consequently, there is no reason to doubt that, far from exciting the Russians to new discoveries, far from being the cause of Bering's second voyage, M. de l'Isle only worked under specific orders. It is quite another question whether or not the memoir contributed to the success of the expedition, which I will discuss later. However that may be, the Senate gave a copy of it, as well as of the map, to M. Bering. I took a second copy of the memoir, which enabled me to compare it with what M. de l'Isle has now said to us of it in his later memoir of Paris."
These and other statements confirm those of de l'Isle as to the date of the map, in which year d'Anville engraved it (1732, or 1731 at the earliest), and likewise indicate that copies of both map and memoir were obtainable without great difficulty.