166 National Geographic Magazine. 
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 conclu- 
sive 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 east- 
ward 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 expe- 
dition, 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 mod- 
ifications 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 accom- 
plished, 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. 
