352 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 



peared Sokolov replied to them, heading his papers "Bering and 

 Chirikov." His contention was that Chirikov did not receive all 

 thecredit he merited for the part he took in theBeringexpeditions. 

 Baer took notice of the attack and defended his position in the 

 St. Peter sbur ger Zeitung (Nos. 114, 115, 116). The controversy 

 had this good in it: it stimulated a study of the original docu- 

 ments, and the results of these researches appeared in the Zap- 

 iski Hydrograficheskago Departamenta and brought out many 

 points unknown before. In 1872 Baer, then eighty years of age, 

 completed his monograph and summarized the points of the 

 controversy in an admirable way. Towards the end of the 

 nineteenth century Lauridsen, a Dane, took up the cudgels in 

 behalf of Bering. 



Secondary Materials 



Mezhov's "Bibliographia Sibirita" is the best published work on 

 the subject but is neither complete nor wholly reliable. A 

 hitherto unpublished card bibliography of Alaska which has 

 been prepared by Judge James Wickersham of Juneau is much 

 better than Mezhov's for Alaska. 



The secondary material is not altogether satisfactory. It is 

 almost two hundred years since Bering received his commission 

 to undertake his first voyage, and during that long period only 

 six men have been sufficiently interested in the subject to give 

 it careful consideration, either in whole or in part. These men 

 are Miiller, Coxe, Sokolov, Baer, Bancroft, and Lauridsen. One 

 of these is a Russian, and the two Germans were in the service of 

 Russia at the time of their writing. The most important book 

 in this field is, after all, the third volume of Miiller's "Sammlung 

 Russischer Geschichte," published in 1758. Soon after its appear- 

 ance this work was translated into Russian, English, and French. 

 Although since that time much paper and ink have been used up 

 in telling this story, yet very little that is new has been added to 

 our knowledge of the subject. Both Russian and non-Russian 

 scholars have preferred to follow Miiller's version than to consult 

 the originals. Miiller's work, although very valuable, should not 

 be used as a source, but along with the sources. Miiller was too 



