HEIGHT AND POSITION OF MOUNT ST. ELIAS.
The height and position of Mount St. Elias have been measured several
times during the past century with varying results. The measurements
made prior to the expedition of 1890 have been summarized and
discussed by W. H. Dall, of the United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey, and little more can be done at present than give an abstract
of his report.
The various determinations are shown in the table below. The data from
which these results were obtained have not been published, with the
exception of the surveys made by the United States Coast Survey in
1874, printed in report of the superintendent for 1875.
_Height and Position of Mount St. Elias_.
-----+--------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------
Date.| Authority. | Height. | Latitude. | Longitude W.
-----+--------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------
1786 | La Pérouse | 12,672 feet | 60° 15' 00" | 140° 10' 00"
1791 | Malaspina | 17,851 " | 60 17 35 | 140 52 17
1794 | Vancouver | ----------- | 60 22 30 | 140 39 00
1847 | Russian Hydrogra- | | |
| phic Chart 1378 | 17,854 " | 60 21 00 | 141 00 00
1847 | Tebenkof (Notes) | 16,938 " | 60 22 36 | 140 54 00
1849 | Tebenkof | | |
| (Chart VII) | 16,938 " | 60 21 30 | 140 54 00
| Buch. Can. Inseln | 16,758 " | 60 17 30 | 140 51 00
1872 | English Admiralty |
| Chart 2172 | 14,970 " | 60 21 00 | 141 00 00
1874 | U. S. Coast Survey | 19,500 ±400 | 60 20 45 | 141 00 12
-----+--------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------
All of the figures given in the table have been copied from Dall's
report, with the exception of the position determined by Malaspina;
this is from a report of astronomical observations made during
Malaspina's voyage, which places the mountain in latitude 60° 17' 35"
and longitude 134° 33' 10" west of Cadiz.[36] Taking the longitude of
Cadiz as 6° 19' 07" west of Greenwich, the figures tabulated above are
obtained.
[Footnote 36: Ante, p. 65.]
{190} It was intended that Mr. Kerr's report, forming Appendix B,
should contain a detailed record of the triangulation executed last
summer, but a careful revision of his work by a committee of the
National Geographic Society led to the conclusion that the results
were not of sufficient accuracy to set at rest the questions raised by
the discrepancies in earlier measurements of the height of Mount St.
Elias; and as the work will probably be revised and extended during
the summer of 1891, only the map forming plate 8 will be published at
this time. Some preliminary publications of elevations have been made,
but these must be taken as approximations merely.[37]
[Footnote 37: The shore-line of the map, plate 8, and the positions of
the initial points or base-line of the triangulation are from the work
of the United States Coast Survey. The extreme western portion is from
maps published by the New York _Times_ and Topham expeditions. All the
topographic data are by Mr. Kerr, and all credit for the work and all
responsibility for its accuracy rest with him. The nomenclature is
principally my own, and has been approved by a committee of the
National Geographic Society.]
By consulting the map forming plate 8 it will be seen that Mounts
Cook, Vancouver, Irving, Owen, etc., are not in the St. Elias range.
Neither do they form a distinct range either topographically or
geologically. Each of these mountains is an independent uplift,
although they may have some structural connection, and are of about
the same geological age. Mount Cook and the peaks most intimately
associated with it are composed mainly of sandstone and shale
belonging to the Yakutat system. Mounts Vancouver and Irving are
probably of the same character, but definite proof that this is the
case has not been obtained.
The St. Elias uplift is distinct and well marked, both geologically
and topographically, and deserves to be considered as a mountain
range. The limits of the range have not been determined, but, so far
as known, its maximum elevation is at Mount St. Elias. The range
stretches away from this culminating point both northeastward and
northwestward, and has a well-marked V-shape. The angle formed by the
two branches of the range where they unite at Mount St. Elias is, by
estimate, about 140°. Each arm of the V is determined by a fault, or
perhaps more accurately by a series of faults having the same general
course, along which the orographic blocks forming the range have been
upheaved. The structure of the range is monoclinal, and {191}
resembles the type of mountain structure characteristic of the great
basin. The dip of the tilted blocks is northward.
The crest of the St. Elias range, as already stated, is composed of
schists which rest on sandstone, supposed to belong to the Yakutat
system. The geological age of the uplift is, therefore, very recent.
The secondary topographic forms on the crest of the range have
resulted from the weathering of the upturned edges of orographic
blocks in which the bedding planes are crossed by joints. The
resulting forms are mainly pyramids and roof-like ridges with
triangular gables. Extreme ruggedness and angularity characterize the
range throughout. There are no rounded domes or smoothed and polished
surfaces to suggest that the higher summits have ever been subjected
to general glacial action; neither is there any evidence of marked
rock decay. Disintegration of all the higher peaks and crests is
rapid, owing principally to great changes of temperature and the
freezing of water in the interstices of the rock; but the débris
resulting from this action is rapidly carried away by avalanches and
glaciers, so that the crests as well as the subordinate features in
the sculpture of the cliffs and pyramids are all angular. The subdued
and rounded contour, due to the accumulation of the products of
disintegration and decay, the indications of the advancing age of
mountains, are nowhere to be seen. The St. Elias range is young;
probably the very youngest of the important mountain ranges on this
continent. No evidences of erosion previous to the formation of the
ice-sheets that now clothe it have been observed. Glaciers apparently
took immediate possession of the lines of depression as the mountain
range grew in height, and furnish a living example from which to
determine the part that ice streams play in mountain sculpture.
{192}
APPENDIX A.
OFFICIAL INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING THE EXPEDITION.
In order to make the records of the St. Elias expedition complete,
copies of the instructions under which the work was carried out are
appended:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, GEOLOGIC BRANCH,
_Washington, D. C., May 28, 1890_.
Mr. I. C. RUSSELL, _Geologist_.
SIR: You are hereby detailed to visit the St. Elias range of Alaska
for work of exploration, under the joint auspices of the National
Geographic Society and the United States Geological Survey. The
Geological Survey furnishes instruments and contributes the sum of
$1,000 towards the expenses of the expedition. The money devoted to
this purpose is taken from the appropriation for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1890, and the manner of its expenditure must conform
to that fact.
The Survey expects that you will give special attention to glaciers,
to their distribution, to the associated topographic types, to
indications of the former extent of glaciation, and to types of
subaërial sculpture under special conditions of erosion, and that you
will also bring back information with reference to the age of the
formations seen and the type of structure of the range.
With the aid of Mr. Kerr, it is expected that you will secure definite
geographic information as to the belt of country traversed by you.
Very respectfully,
G. K. GILBERT,
_Chief Geologist_.
_Approved_,
J. W. POWELL, _Director_.
* * * * *
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, GEOLOGIC BRANCH,
_Washington, D. C., May 28, 1890_.
Mr. I. C. RUSSELL, _Geologist_.
SIR: You will proceed at the earliest practicable date to Tacoma,
Washington Territory, and thence by water to Sitka, Alaska, at which
point you will make special arrangements to visit the St. Elias range
of mountains and make geological examinations as per instructions
otherwise communicated. Mr. Mark B. Kerr, Disbursing Agent, will
report to you at Victoria, B. C., and accompany you on the expedition,
assisting you in the capacities of Disbursing Agent and Topographer.
On the completion of {193} your work you will return to Washington,
the route being left to your discretion, to be determined by
considerations which cannot now be foreseen.
Very respectfully,
G. K. GILBERT,
_Chief Geologist_.
_Approved_,
J. W. POWELL, _Director_.
* * * * *
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, GEOLOGIC BRANCH,
_Washington, D. C., May 28, 1890_.
Mr. MARK B. KERR, _Disbursing Agent_.
SIR: You are hereby detailed to assist Mr. I. C. Russell, Geologist,
who starts at once on an expedition to Alaska, under the joint
auspices of the National Geographic Society and the United States
Geological Survey. It is expected that you will immediately aid him in
disbursement, and that you will act during the exploratory part of the
expedition as topographer. Your duties will, however, not be limited
to these special functions, but you will be expected to perform any
other duties he may assign to you, and to labor in every way for the
success of the expedition.
It is expected that you will be reappointed to the grade of
topographer on the United States Geological Survey on the 1st of July,
1890, and you will please take the required oath of office before your
departure.
The money remaining in your possession as Disbursing Agent includes
that needed to meet Mr. Russell's salary and your own, and also the
sum of $1,000, allotted from the funds of the Geographic Branch for
expenses of the expedition prior to June 30. This amount you will
expend as directed by Mr. Russell, and his authority and certificate
will need to accompany your vouchers in rendering account of the same.
Very respectfully,
G. K. GILBERT,
_Chief Geologist_.
_Approved_,
J. W. POWELL, _Director_.
* * * * *
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, GEOLOGIC BRANCH,
_Washington, D. C., May 28, 1890_.
Mr. MARK B. KERR, _Disbursing Agent_.
SIR: You will proceed at once to San Francisco, California, and thence
by steamer or by rail and steamer to Sitka, Alaska. It is expected
that you will join Mr. I. C. Russell, Geologist, at Victoria, B. C.,
or at Sitka; and you will report to him for further orders.
Very respectfully,
G. K. GILBERT,
_Chief Geologist_.
_Approved_,
J. W. POWELL, _Director_.
* * * * *
{194}
_Washington, D. C., May 29, 1890_.
Mr. MARK B. KERR, _Topographer_.
SIR: You are hereby assigned to field-work in the vicinity of Mount
St. Elias, Alaska, in the party under charge of Mr. I. C. Russell.
Upon the receipt of these instructions you will please proceed without
delay to the field, and map upon a scale of four miles to an inch such
territory in the vicinity of Mount St. Elias, including that mountain,
as the field season will permit. The work should, if practicable, be
controlled by triangulation. Special attention in the course of your
work should be given to measuring the altitude of Mount St. Elias, and
it should be determined by triangulation and also, if practicable, by
barometer in such manner as to be conclusive.
The topographic work should be controlled by triangulation. As many
positions on this coast are approximately known, including a number of
the prominent peaks, astronomical determinations of position will not
be necessary unless needed to supplement the triangulation.
The details of your outfitting and the management of the work will be
left to your own judgment.
Very respectfully,
HENRY GANNETT,
_Chief Topographer_.
* * * * *
_NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY_.
_Memorandum of Instructions to the Party sent out under the Direction
of Mr. I. C. Russell, assisted by Mr. Mark B. Kerr, to explore the
Mount St. Elias Region, Alaska, 1890_.
The general object of the expedition is to make a geographic
reconnoissance of as large an area as practicable in the St. Elias
range, Alaska, including a study of its glacial phenomena, the
preparation of a map of the region explored, and the measurement of
the height of Mount St. Elias and other neighboring mountains.
Observations should also be made and information collected on other
subjects of general scientific interest as far as practicable.
The purpose of these instructions is mainly to suggest the lines of
investigation that give promise of valuable results, but it is not
intended that they shall limit the director of the expedition in the
exercise of his own discretion.
GARDINER G. HUBBARD, _Chairman_,
MARCUS BAKER,
WILLARD D. JOHNSON,
_Committee_.
_Washington, D. C., May 29, 1890_.
{195}
APPENDIX B.
REPORT ON TOPOGRAPHIC WORK.
BY MARK B. KERR.
In addition to the ascent of Mount St. Elias, it was part of the
original plan of the expedition to make an accurate topographic map of
the region explored. It was not, however, for this purpose proposed to
divide the party or to deviate much from the most direct route to
Mount St. Elias from Yakutat bay. Triangulation of fair precision was
provided for. Details were to be filled in by approximate methods.
Field-work began June 20 by the careful measurement of a base-line,
3,850 feet in length, near the point of landing, on the northern shore
of Yakutat bay. Expansion was readily carried to the foot-hills, and
several horizontal angles were taken to an astronomical station of the
United States Coast and Geodetic Survey at Port Mulgrave. In the
region of these initial triangles, work was done from a central camp;
and topographic details were fixed with considerable precision by
intersection and vertical angles.
After the departure of the expedition from the Base Line camp, an
accident to the transit made resort to an inferior instrument
necessary, and, furthermore, as the region traversed proved to be
ill-adapted to, and the line of travel too direct for, the proper
development of a narrow belt of triangles, the anticipation of a
degree of precision in the triangulation which would give high value
to the determinations of position and altitude of the several peaks
was not realized; but topographic map work, showing the general
features, altitudes and location of the mountain ranges, valleys and
glaciers, was extended over about 600 square miles.
Within the approximate geometric control, stations were interpolated
by the three-point method, and minor locations were multiplied by
intersection and connected by sketch. The best meander possible under
the circumstances was carried forward on the line of travel by compass
directions and estimates of distance from time intervals. The work
ceased August 22 with the abandonment of the instruments in a
snow-storm of four days' duration on the eastern slope of Mount St.
Elias.
The accompanying map (a reduction of which forms plate 8, page 75)
shows the ice-streams and peculiar mountain topography of a region
heretofore unvisited, and constitutes a considerable addition to the
geography of Alaska.
{196}
APPENDIX C.
REPORT ON AURIFEROUS SANDS FROM YAKUTAT BAY.
BY J. STANLEY-BROWN.
Among the specimens obtained by Mr. I. C. Russell during the course of
his explorations on and about Mount St. Elias is a bottle of sand
procured from the beach on the extreme southern end of Khantaak
island, Yakutat bay, and characteristic of the shore material over a
large area. This sand was turned over to me for examination, and
additional interest was given to its study by the fact that it is from
a comparatively uninvestigated region and possesses, perhaps, economic
value; for the sample is gold-bearing, and it is said that a "color"
can readily be obtained by "panning" at many points on the bay shore.
Macroscopically, the sand has the appearance of ordinary finely
comminuted beach material; but it differs in the uniformity of the
size of its particles from beach sand from Fort Monroe and Sullivan
island, South Carolina, with which it was compared. Its mineralogic
constituents greatly surpass in variety those of the sands referred
to, but are markedly similar to those of gold-bearing sand from New
Zealand. At least twelve minerals are present, with an unusual
predominance of one, as will be noted later. Through the mixture of
white, green, and black grains, a dull greenish-black color is given
to the mass. The roundness of fragments is such as usually results
from water action, but it is less than that which results from
transportation by wind.
When put into a heavy liquid (Thoulet solution of a density of 3.1) in
order to determine the specific gravity of the constituents, it was
found that the sand is made up largely of the heavier materials, for
the amount that floated was trifling compared with that which quickly
sank. Even the abundant quartz was largely carried down by the
weightier ingredients bound up within it, and only a few water-clear
fragments were left behind. This would seem to suggest that the
lighter minerals are lacking in the neighboring rocks, or else have
been carried to greater distances by the sorting power of the water.
Among the minerals recognized, gold is the most important, though
relatively not abundant. It occurs in flakes or flattened grains from
a quarter to a half of a millimeter in size. The particles are
sufficiently numerous to be readily selected from their associates by
the aid of "panning" and a hand lens of good magnifying power, and if
distributed throughout the beach as plentifully as in the sample
would, under favorable conditions, pay for working. The flakes in
their rounded character show the effect of the agency which separated
them from their matrix; a separation so complete that no rock is found
adhering to the grains.
{197} Magnetite is present in great abundance and in a finely divided
state, the largest grains not exceeding a millimeter in length. It
forms by weight alone 15 or 20 per cent. of the entire mass, and when
the latter is sifted through a sieve of a hundred meshes to the inch
it constitutes 44 per cent. of this fine material. Crystallographic
faces are rare, and though often marred, still octahedrons (111, 1) of
considerable perfection are found.
Garnet occurs in such profusion that a pink tint is given to a mass of
selected grains of uniform size, and its predominance may be
considered the chief physical characteristic of the sand.
Two species were noted: one is a brilliant wine-red variety, which,
though not nearly so numerous as its duller relative, occurs more
frequently in crystals--the trapezohedral faces (211, 2-2)
predominating. The other garnet is readily distinguished by its
lighter amethystine tint and its greater abundance. Crystallographic
faces are somewhat rare and invariably dodecahedral (110, i). In the
absence of chemical analyses, any statements as to the exact species
to which these garnets should be referred would be largely
conjectural. Attention is quickly drawn to the perfection of these
minute garnets in their crystallographic faces and outlines, and to
their association with rounded fragments of their own kind as well as
of other minerals. Have these crystals survived by reason of their
hardness or by favoring conditions, or does their preservation suggest
the impotency of wave-action in the destruction of minute bodies?
Among the black, heavy grains occur individuals which, except in shape
and non-magnetic character, resemble magnetite. On crushing between
glass slides, thin slivers are obtained which in transmitted light are
green, and which, from their cleavage, pleochroism, high index of
refraction, small extinction angle, and insolubility in acid, are
readily recognized as hornblende.
Two groups of grains were noted which are distinguishable by slight
variation in color. Both are clear-yellowish green, but one is
somewhat darker than the other. The optical properties of both
indicate pyroxene and possibly olivine. Fortunately a fragment was
obtained in the orthodiagonal zone nearly normal to an optic axis
which gave an axial figure of sufficient definiteness to indicate its
optically positive character. A number of grains were selected from
minerals of both colors and subjected to prolonged heating in
hydrochloric acid without decomposition, indicating that both minerals
are pyroxene.
A few zircons, a fraction of a millimeter in size but perfect in form,
were found associated with others rounded on their solid angles and
edges. The crystals are of the common short form and bear the usual
faces in a greater or less degree of development. Pyramids of the
first and second order alternate in magnitude; pinacoid encroaches
upon prism, and _vice versa_.
Quartz constitutes by far the largest proportion of the minerals, both
in bulk and in weight. It is always fragmental; sometimes water-clear,
but chiefly occurs in opaque grains of different colors. It is seldom
free from material of a higher specific gravity, and is often so
tinted as to be almost indistinguishable from magnetite, but readily
bleaches in acid.
{198} Feldspar is sparingly present, and includes both monoclinic and
triclinic forms, whose crystallographic boundaries are invariably
lacking.
Treatment of the sand with dilute acid produces effervescence, which
is not due to incrustations of sodium carbonate. By persistent search
among particles separated in a heavy solution, a few grains were
discovered which, from their complete solubility with effervescence in
very dilute acid, as well as their optical properties, left no doubt
as to their being calcite.
The mica group has only one representative, biotite, and this occurs
most sparingly. Though much of the sand was examined, but few
fragments were found. Its foliated character renders it easily
transported by water and explains its absence from among the heavy
minerals.
Shaly, slaty and schistose material forms the major part of the
coarser grains. Thin sections from the largest pieces plainly
indicated hornblende schist.
A region of glaciers would seem to be favorable not only to the
collection of meteoric material, but also to the destruction of the
country rocks, the setting free of their mineralogic constituents in a
comparatively fresh state, and their transportation to the sea. It was
hoped that this sand would yield some of the rarer varieties of
minerals, but tests for native iron, platinum, chromite, gneiss, and
the titaniferous minerals proved ineffectual. Titanium is present, but
in such small quantities that it could only be detected by means of
hydrogen peroxide. The use of acid supersulphate and the borotungstate
of calcium test of Lasaulx failed to reveal the presence of native
iron.
It will be seen from the foregoing enumeration that the sand is made
up of grains of gold, magnetite, garnet, hornblende, pyroxene, zircon,
quartz, feldspar, calcite and mica, associated with fragments of a
shaly, slaty and schistose character. While the information at hand is
hardly sufficient to warrant much speculation concerning the rock
masses of the interior, still there is no doubt that the sand is
derived from the destruction of metamorphic rocks.
{199}
APPENDIX D.
REPORT ON FOSSIL PLANTS.
BY LESTER F. WARD.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
_Washington, D. C., March 12, 1891_.
Mr. I. C. RUSSELL, _United States Geological Survey_.
MY DEAR SIR: The following report upon the small collection of fossil
plants made by you at Pinnacle pass, near Mount St. Elias, Alaska, and
sent to this division for identification has been prepared by
Professor F. H. Knowlton, who gave the collection a careful study
during my absence in Florida. Previous to going away I had somewhat
hastily examined the specimens and seen that they consisted chiefly of
the genus _Salix_, some of them reminding me strongly of living
species. I have no doubt that Professor Knowlton's more thorough
comparisons can be relied upon with as much confidence as the nature
of the collection will permit, and I also agree with his conclusions.
"The collection consists of seven small hand specimens, upon which are
impressed no less than seventeen more or less completely preserved
dicotyledonous leaves.
"These specimens at first sight seem to represent six or eight
species, but after a careful study I think I am safe in reducing the
number to four, as several of the impressions have been nearly
obliterated by prolonged exposure and cannot be studied with much
satisfaction.
"The four determinable species belong, without much doubt, to the
genus _Salix_. Number 1, of which there is but a single specimen, I
have identified with _Salix californica_, Lesquereux, from the
auriferous gravel deposits of the Sierra Nevada in California.[38] The
finer nervation of the specimens from the auriferous gravels is not
clearly shown in Lesquereux's figures, nor is it well preserved in the
Mount St. Elias specimens; but the size, outline, and primary
nervation are identical.
"Number 2, of which there are six or eight specimens, may be compared
with _Salix raeana_, Heer,[39] a species that was first described from
Greenland and was later detected by Lesquereux in a collection from
Cooks inlet, Alaska.[40] The Mount St. Elias specimens are not very
much like the original figures of Heer, but are very similar, in
outline at least, to this species as figured by Lesquereux.[41] They
are also very similar to {200} some forms of the living _S. rostrata_,
Richardson, with entire leaves. It is clearly a willow, but closer
identification must remain for more complete material.
"Number 3, represented by four or five specimens, is broadly
elliptical in outline, and is also clearly a _Salix_. It is unlike any
fossil form with which I am familiar, but is very similar to the
living _S. nigricans_, For., var. _rotundifolia_, and to certain forms
of _S. silesiaca_, Willd. The nervation is very distinctly preserved,
and has all the characters of a willow leaf.
"Number 4, represented by three or four very fine specimens, is a very
large leaf, measuring 13 cm. in length and 3½ cm. in width at the
broadest point. It may be compared with _Salix macrophylla_, Heer,[42]
but it cannot be this species. It is also like some of the living
forms of _S. nigra_, Marsh., from which it differs in having perfectly
entire margins.
"While it is manifestly impossible, on the basis of the above
identifications, to speak with confidence as to the age or formation
containing these leaves, it can hardly be older than the Miocene, and
from its strong resemblance to the present existing flora of Alaska it
is likely to be much younger." [F. H. Knowlton.]
Very sincerely yours,
LESTER F. WARD.
[Footnote 38: Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. VI, no. 2, 1878, p. 10, pl.
i, figs. 18-21.]
[Footnote 39: Flor. foss. Arct., vol. I, 1868, p. 102, pl. iv, figs.
11-13; pl. xlvii, fig. 11.]
[Footnote 40: Proc. Nat. Mus., vol. V, 1882, p. 447.]
[Footnote 41: loc. cit., pl. viii, fig. 6.]
[Footnote 42: Tert. Fl. Helv., vol. II, 1856, p. 29, pl. lxvii, fig.
4.]
{201}
INDEX.
Admiralty bay, 56
Agassiz glacier, Ascent of, 147
-- -- named, 73
Age of St. Elias range, 175
Alpenstocks, Necessity for, 165
Alpine glaciers, 176, 180
Alton, Edmund, Contributions to exploration fund by, 75
_Archangelica_, Mention of, 89, 114
_Atrevida_ (The), Mention of, 63
Arevida glacier, 92, 105
Auriferous sands, 196, 197, 198
Avalanches, 145, 155
Baie de Monti, 56
-- named by La Pérouse, 60
Baker, Marcus, Explorations by, 70, 72
-- reference to bibliography by, 58
Base Line, Measurement of, 86
Bear, Meeting with, 94, 109
Belcher, Sir Edward, Explorations by, 68, 69
Bell, A. Graham, Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Bell, Charles J., Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Bering bay, Mention of, 56
Bering, Vitus, Explorations by, 58
Bien, Morris, Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Birnie, Jr., Rogers, Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Black glacier, Brief account of, 101, 104
Blossom island, Description of, 113, 122
Boursin, Henry, Mention of, 79
Broka, George, Explorations by, 73, 74
Camp hands, 166
Carpenter, Z. T., Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Carroll, Captain James, 78
Cascade glacier named, 144
Chaix hills named, 73
Chariot, The, Mention of, 140
Chatham, Mention of, 66
Cherikof, Alexei, Explorations of, 58
Christie, J. H., Member of expedition, 76
-- Work of, 82, 83, 84, 96, 103, 112, 113, 123, 162
Clover, Richardson, Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Cook, Captain James, Explorations of, 58
_Corwin_ (The) in Disenchantment bay, 100
-- Return of, 163
Crevasses, 181, 182
-- at Pinnacle pass, 130
Cross sound, visited by Vancouver's expedition, 67
Crumback, J. H., Member of expedition, 76
-- Work of, 96, 103, 122, 125, 129, 131, 135, 137
Dagelet, M., Mention of, 60
Dall, W. H., Explorations by, 70, 72
-- reference to bibliography by, 58
Dalton, John, glacier named for, 98
-- mention of, 73
Definition of formations in St. Elias region, 167
Desengaño bay, named by Malaspina, 63
Digges' sound, named by Vancouver, 68
Diller, J. S., Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Dip at Pinnacle pass, 140
_Discovery_ (The), Mention of, 66
Disenchantment bay, Canoe trip in, 96, 103
-- -- last view of, 163
-- -- mention of, 56
-- -- visited by Malaspina, 63, 64
Dixon, Captain George, Explorations of, 60, 62
De Monti bay, Arrival at, 79
_Descubierta_ (The), Mention of, 63
Devil's club (_Panax horridum_), Mention of, 95, 115
Dobbins, J. W., Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Dome pass, named, 146
Doney, L. S., Member of expedition, 76
-- Work of, 85, 158, 159, 160, 162
Douglass, Captain, Explorations of, 62
Dry bay, Mention of, 55
Farenholt, Lieutenant Commander O. F., Commander of U. S. S. _Pinta_,
79
Faulted pebble from Pinnacle pass, 171
Faults, 83, 136
-- Thrust, in Hitchcock range, 118
Floral hills, brief account of, 105, 108
-- pass, brief account of, 105, 108, 110
Formations of the St. Elias region, 167
Fossils at Pinnacle pass, 140
-- description of Yakutat system, 172
Fossil plants, Report on, by Lester F. Ward, 199, 200
Gabbro on the Marvine glacier, 123
Galiano, Don Dionisio Alcala, Mention of, 63
Galiano glacier, Visit to, 89, 90
Gannett, Henry, Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
-- Instructions from, 194
Geology of the St. Elias region, 167, 190, 191, 174
Geological Survey, Instructions from, 192, 193, 194
Gilbert, G. K., Instructions from, 192, 193
Glacial currents, 187
-- river, best example of, 183
-- streams, 183, 184
Glacier bay, mention of, 67
Glaciers in Disenchantment bay in 1792, 64, 65, 97
-- -- -- -- observed by Malaspina, 64, 65
-- -- -- -- -- -- Puget, 67, 68
-- of the St. Elias region, 176
-- west of Icy bay, 187
Greely, A. W., Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Guides, use of in ascending St. Elias, 166
Guyot glacier named, 73
Haenke, D. Tadeo, Haenke island named for, 65
-- island, Condition of, when seen by Malaspina, 63, 64, 65, 97
-- -- visit to, 96, 103
Hayden, Dr. F. V., glacier named for, 108
Hayden, Everett, Contributions to exploration fund by, 75
Hayden glacier, Brief account of, 108, 110, 111
Hays, J. W., Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Height and position of St. Elias, 189, 190
Hendriksen, Reverend Carl J., mention of, 80, 83
Hitchcock, Professor Edward, range named for, 112
-- range, brief account of, 112
-- -- from Pinnacle pass, 133
-- -- structure of, 118
Hooper, Captain C. L., Navigation of Disenchantment bay, 56, 100
Hosmer, E. S., Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
-- return of, 83
--, volunteer assistant, 76
Hubbard, Gardiner G., Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
--, glacier named for, 99
Hubbard glacier, brief description of, 99
Icebergs, Formation of, 98, 99, 101, 102
-- in Yakutat bay, description of, 87
Ice tunnels, 184
Instructions from Geological Survey, 192, 193, 194
-- -- National Geographic Society, 194
Irving, Professor R. D., Mountain named for, 144
Johnson, Willard D., Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
-- exploration planned by, 75
Judd, J. G., Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Jungen, Ensign C. W., Mention of, 81
Kerr, Mark B., assigned as an assistant, 75
-- report on topographic work, 193
Khantaak island, village on, 79, 80
King, Harry, Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Knapp, Hon. Lyman E., Mention of, 79
Knight island, scenery near, 83
-- -- named by Puget, 68
Knowlton, F. H., Report on fossil plants, 199, 200
_L'Astrolabe_, Mention of, 58
_La Boussole_, Mention of, 58
Lake Castani, Named, 73
Lakelets on the glaciers, 119, 120
Lakes, Abandoned beds of, near Blossom island, 116
La Pérouse, J. F. S., Explorations of, 58, 60
Leach, Boynton, Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Libbey, Professor William, explorations by, 72, 73
Lindsley, W. L., Member of expedition, 76
-- Work of, 122, 131, 134, 135, 139, 144, 149, 150, 153, 157, 158, 164
Lituya bay, mention of, 55
Logan, Sir W. E., Mountain named for, 141
Lucia glacier, brief account of, 192
-- -- crossing of, 105, 106, 108, 109
Lynn canal, mention of, 78
Malaspina, Alejandro, Explorations of, 62, 66
Malaspina glacier, character of, 187
-- --, described and named, 71, 72
-- --, excursion on, 120, 121, 162
-- --, from Blossom island, 118, 119
-- --, mention of, 56
Maldonado, reference to, 62, 63
Marvine, A. R., Glacier named for, 112
Marvine glacier, Account of, 112, 122, 124
McCarteney, C. M., Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Mirage in Yakutat bay, 87
Moraines, 195
-- medial, on the Marvine glacier, 123
-- on the Malaspina glacier, 134
-- near Yakutat bay, 191
Mount Augusta, avalanches on the sides of, 145
-- elevation of, 117
Mount Bering, Height and condition of, 65
Mount Cook, Appearance of, 92
-- named, 72
-- rocks composing, 92
Mount Fairweather, height of, 69
Mount Logan, named, 141
Mount Malaspina, Elevation of, 117
-- named, 72
Mount Newton, named, 146
Mount St. Elias (see St. Elias, Mount)
Mount Vancouver, named, 72
Muir glacier, Visit to, 78, 79
Mulgrave, Lord, Port Mulgrave named for, 60
National Geographic Society, Instructions from, 194
Névé fields, 180, 181, 182
Newton glacier, Ascent of, 150
Newton, Henry, Mountain named for, 146
New York _Times_, Expedition of, 72, 73
Nordhoff, Charles, Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Norris glacier, Mention of, 78
Nunatak in the Lucia glacier, 106
Oil stoves, Use of, 164
_Orel_, Mention of the, 70
_Otkrytie_, Mention of the, 69
Outfit necessary for Alaskan expeditions, 165
_Panax horridum_, 95, 115
Partridge, William, Member of expedition, 76
-- Work of, 158, 159, 162
Piedmont glaciers, characteristics of, 122, 176, 185, 186
-- -- example of, 120, 121
-- type of glaciers, mention of, 57
Pimpluna rocks, mention of, 70, 187
Pinnacle pass cliffs, account of, 132, 137
-- -- --, height of, 137
-- -- --, view from, 132
-- --, description of, 130, 132
-- -- named, 130
-- system, description of rocks of, 167, 170
-- -- named, 131
_Pinta_, mention of the, 79, 81
Phipps, C. J., Port Mulgrave named for, 60
Plants on Blossom island, 114
Point Esperanza, Camp at, 82, 84, 85
-- Glorious, named, 137
-- Riou, Mention of, 69
Port Mulgrave, 56
-- -- named by Dixon, 60
Powell, J. W., Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Powell, William B., Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Puerto del Desengaño, Mention of, 56
Puget, Peter, Explorations of, 66, 68
Pyramid harbor, Mention of, 78
_Queen Charlotte_, Mention of the, 60
--, voyage on the, 78, 79
Rations, 164
Report on sands from Yakutat bay by J. Stanley-Brown, 196, 197, 198
Rivers, Glacial, 183
Rope cliff, named, 149
Route (new), suggested, 163, 164
Russell, Israel C., Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Salmon (and trout) fishing, 162
Sands, Auriferous from Yakutat bay, 196, 197, 198
Schwatka, Lieutenant Frederick, explorations by, 72, 73
Serpentine on the Marvine glacier, 123
Seton-Karr, H. W., explorations of, 72, 73
Seward glacier, crevasses on, 133, 179, 180
-- -- crossing of, 142
-- -- description of, 177, 178, 179
Seward, Hon. W. H., Glacier named for, 129
Sitka, arrival at, 79
Snow crests, figures of, 143
-- line, description of Alpine glaciers above, 180
-- -- -- -- -- -- below, 183
Snow line, elevation of, 92, 111
-- on mountain crests, 182
Soundings in Disenchantment bay, 56
Stamy, Thomas, Member of expedition, 76
-- Work of, 137, 139, 144, 150, 153, 157, 158, 160
Stanley-Brown, J., Report on sands from Yakutat bay, 196, 197, 198
St. Elias described by La Pérouse, 59, 60
--, discovery of, by Bering, 58
--, first full view of, 135
--, view of, 91, 92
--, height and position of, 189, 190
-- -- -- -- --, by Tebenkof, 69
-- -- -- of, determined by La Pérouse, 60
-- -- -- -- -- Malaspina, 64, 65, 66
-- range, age of, 175
-- --, character of peaks of, 175
-- region, glaciers of, 176
-- schist, description of rocks of, 167, 173
--, suggested new route to, 163, 164
-- uplift, 190
Stein, Robert, translations by, 59, 64, 65, 66
Strait of Annan, 56
Structure, 174
Swiss guides in Alaskan exploration, 166
_Sulphur_, Mention of the, 69
Taku glacier, Mention of, 78
-- inlet, Visit to, 78
Tebenkof, Captain, Notes on Alaska by, 69, 70
Terrace on northern shore of Yakutat bay, 82, 85
-- point, Brief account of, 106
Thompson, Gilbert, Contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Tide-water glaciers defined, 101
Topographic work, Report on, 195
Topham, Edwin, Explorations by, 73, 74
Topham, W. H., explorations by, 73, 74
-- reference to map by, 177
Triangulation, Commencement of, 86
Tunnels in the ice, 184
Tyndall glacier, Named, 73
Tyndall, J., cited on marginal crevasses, 127
United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, explorations of, 70, 72
Vancouver, Captain George, Explorations by, 66, 68
_Veratrum viride_, Mention of, 114
Ward, Lester F., Report on fossil plants, 199, 200
White, Thomas, Member of expedition, 76
--, Work of, 158, 160
Willis, Baily, contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Williams, C. A., contribution to exploration fund by, 75
Williams, William, explorations by, 73, 74
Yakutat bay, Arrival at, 79
-- --, Base camp on Western shore of, 86, 89
-- --, Shores of described, 57
-- --, Synonomy of, 56
-- Indians, described by Dixon, 61
-- system, Description of rocks of, 167
-- -- named, 131
VOL. III, PP. 205-261, I-XXXV, PL. 21, FEBRUARY 19, 1892
THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE
[Illustration: National Geographic Society seal]
WASHINGTON
PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY.
Price, 75 cents.
CONTENTS.
Page.
The Cartography and Observations of Bering's First Voyage; by
A. W. GREELY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Height and Position of Mount St. Elias; by ISRAEL C. RUSSELL . . 231
The Heart of Africa; by E. C. HORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Report of Committee on Exploration in Alaska . . . . . . . . . . 248
Notes--La Carte de France, dite de l'Etat Major, par M. J. COLLET 250
Polar Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
The Crossing of Tibet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Statistics of Railways in United States . . . . . . . . . 255
Index to volume III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Title-page and Imprimatur of Board of Managers . . . . . . . i
Contents and Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Publications of the National Geographic Society . . . . . . . v
Proceedings of the National Geographic Society . . . . . . . vii
Officers of the Society for 1892 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
Members of the Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
{205}
VOL. III, PP. 205-230, PL. 21, JANUARY 28, 1892
THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE
THE CARTOGRAPHY AND OBSERVATIONS OF BERING'S FIRST VOYAGE.
BY GENERAL A. W. GREELY.
(_Presented before the Society March 20, 1891._)
It was with no ordinary pleasure that the members of the National
Geographic Society listened to the critical review and admirable essay
on Bering's first expedition, 1725-1730, read before this Society,
together with a translation of Bering's report on the expedition in
question, by one of our learned and distinguished members, Professor
William H. Dall. The subject then under consideration is one of great
interest, and this Society owes a debt of gratitude to Professor Dall
for his assiduous labor in collating and translating the available
data on this voyage, and must indorse the general conclusions reached
in a critical essay which is the result of careful, conscientious
research conjoined to much erudition. It is especially fortunate, in
view of the vagueness of Bering's report, that it should have been
translated and reviewed by a traveler and investigator so thoroughly
familiar with the topography of Bering strait and the adjacent region.
{206} It may appear somewhat presumptuous for the present writer to
further dwell on some points of subordinate importance, even with the
view of supplementing the investigations of Professor Dall; but he is
encouraged to the effort by the admirable spirit in which that
gentleman works, which is so clearly indicated in his own words: "I am
well aware this paper cannot be regarded as a finality, but as a
contribution to the geographical history of North America it will not
be without its value." This spirit encourages every one to contribute
his mite to elucidate the history of this interesting and ill-known
period.
The supplementary remarks now presented mainly relate to two points:
first, the cartographic reproduction of Bering's discoveries; second,
the alleged observations of lunar eclipses in Kamshatka by Bering and
his lieutenants in 1728-'29.
In attempting to add to Professor Dall's essay or to elucidate some
points, it is but natural to felicitate one's self that chance has put
in one's way rare data in the shape of text and map. Nevertheless,
much difficulty has been experienced in efforts to consult
publications and charts bearing on this subject, as supplementary to
the data in the writer's own library. Fortunately, among his personal
books and maps are the following, which have escaped the critical, if
not casual, observation of Professor Dall:
1. The original Hague[1] edition of Père du Halde, which Dall was
unable to consult; it is entitled "Description Géographique,
Historique, Chronologique, Politique, et Physique de l'Empire et de la
Tartarie Chinoise," etc. 4 vols., 4°: à la Haye, 1736.
[Footnote 1: The first edition, in French, was published at Paris, 4
vols., folio, 1735.]
2. De l'Isle's scattered essays, entitled "Mémoires pour servir à
l'histoire et au progres de l'Astronomie, de la Géographie, et de la
Physique, etc., etc.: à St. Petersbourg, de l'imprimeris de l'Académie
des Sciences. MDCCXXXVIII [1738]."
3. "Atlas Russien: contenant une Carte Générale et dix-neuf Cartes
particulieres de tout l'Empire de Russie et des Pays limitrophes
construites conformément aux règles de la Geographie et aux dernières
Observations. Par l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.
Petersbourg. St. Petersbourg, 1745."
This was the first atlas published in Russia in the map department
established by order of Peter the Great in the Academy of Sciences of
St. Petersburg. It includes a general map of the Russian Empire and
nineteen maps of provinces.
{207} 4. "Carte de la Sibérie et des Pays voisins. Pour servir a
Histoire générale des Voyages par le S. Bellin, Ing. de la Marine,"
two parts, undated, but to which E. Dufosse, of Paris, assigns the
date of 1749. The atlas for this work was originally published by Abbe
Prevost at Paris, 1747, et seq., the charts being engraved by Bellin.
This chart appears on casual inspection to be more accurate than
either that of d'Anville or of de l'Isle, or of the Russian atlas.
5. The very interesting and valuable map of J. N. de l'Isle, Paris,
1752 (without, however, the accompanying memoir).
I do not think the original map has ever fallen under the notice of
Professor Dall, although a garbled reproduction of it is mentioned in
his review as follows:
"A chart which deserves notice, though almost wholly fictitious, being
chiefly devoted to the spurious discoveries of the alleged Admiral de
Fonte, was issued by J. N. de l'Isle with the concurrence of M. P.
Bauche or at his suggestion. It appeared at Paris in 1752, and was
copied for Jeffery's second edition of voyages from Asia to America in
1764. I do not know if this copy appeared in the first edition, but
presume it did."
As the original of de l'Isle's chart (1752) is here exhibited
to-night, it is evident that Jeffery was careless, and that the map,
which I infer Dall has never seen, is really more valuable than is set
forth in his address; otherwise so critical an observer as Dall would
not have said: "I suspect this (referring to d'Anville's map of 1753,
with Bering island thereon) is the first publication of a cartographic
kind on which Bering island is laid down, as the map of the Imperial
Academy of Sciences, embodying the geographical results of Bering's
voyage to the coast of America, was not engraved until a year later,
while de l'Isle's of 1752 does not contain them." You will see that
this is an error, for the "I(sle) de Beering" is plainly inscribed on
the map. (This map has been reproduced by photolithography and forms
the accompanying plate 21.)
[Illustration: PLATE 21. CARTE GÉNÉRALE DES DÉCOUVERTES de l'Amiral de
Fonte.]
Dall further describes the copy of this map in the following terms:
"Connected with America and north of the Chukchi peninsula is land
with an island off it corresponding not badly to Wrangell and Herald
islands and marked 'Discovered in 1722.' It is possible that this land
is a hypothetical compound of the land reported by the Chukchis east
of the strait with that which they knew to be visible in clear weather
from Cape Yakan, more or less confused accounts of which had long been
current among persons interested in these regions."
{208} The legend on the original chart indicates that Dall's surmise
is correct, for the copy is not only abbreviated, but is in error as
to date. On the original it runs: "Grande Terre découverte en 1723 au
s'enfeuit les Tzutzy l'orsqu'ils sont poursuivis par les Russes que ne
les ont pas encore soumis."
There is another important legend on a very large imaginary island
about five degrees of longitude to the east of Bering island. On the
northern side of this land the text runs thus: "Terres dont le
Capitaine Beering's à en des indices dans son premier voyages en
1728." On the southern edge is the legend: "Cotes vues par Mrs.
Tchirikow et de l'Isle en Septembre 1741." Immediately south of the
land are two route tracks, with these legends: "Route du Kamtschatka a
l'Amerique par le Capitaine Tchirikow et Mr. de l'Isle de la Croyere
en Juin et Juillet, 1741," "Retour de l'Amerique au Kamtschatka en
Aout et Septembre 1741." The latter route track touches an indentation
in the southwestern coast, as though the vessel had entered the bay,
which has five mountains in the background.
The legend--"Terres vues par les Russes en 1741 ou le Capitaine
Tchirikow perdit sa Chaloupe armée de 10 hommes"--is likewise of
interest, as controverting the statement that "De l'Isle's (chart) of
1752 does not contain ... the geographical results of Bering's voyage
to the coast of America." It embodies a large part, but not all, of
the discoveries.
6. Buache's memoir and maps entitled: "Considerations geographiques et
physiques sur les Nouvelles Decouvertes au Nord de la Grande Mer,
appellee vulgairement la Mer du Sud; avec des Cartes qui y sont
relatives. Par Philippe Buache, Premier Geographe," etc. A Paris
M.DCC.LIII [1753], 4°, 158 pp. With my copy there is a separate
pamphlet, consisting of 13 maps, folio, with a preface and index,
quarto. The preface (4°, two leaves unpaged) is entitled: "Exposé des
Découvertes au Nord de la Grande Mer, etc., etc. Presenté au Roy le 2.
Septembre 1753, par Philippe Buache, etc." The index (4°, 4 pp.) runs:
"Liste des Cartes concernant les Nouvelles Découvertes au Nord de la
Grande Mer, &c. Par Philippe Buache, &c. Janvier, 1755."
These thirteen maps are very interesting. The first and second charts
bear particularly on the subject of this paper. The first is entitled:
"Carte des Nouvelles Découvertes entre la partie Orient'le de l'Asie
et l'Occid'le de l'Amerique avec des Vues sur la Gr'de Terre reconnue
par les Russes en 1741 &c., &c. Dressée {209} par Philippe Buache.
Presentée a l'Acad. des Sciences le 9. Aout 1752 et approuvée dans son
Assemblée du 6. Septembre suivant."
This map, somewhat fuller in details than that of de l'Isle, shows:
"Découvertes des Russes depuis 20 ans." There are route tracks of the
first expedition marked: "Route des Russes au N.E. et au N. en 1728 et
1731," and "Retour en 1731." Two route tracks of the later voyage have
the legends: "Route de Kamtchatka a l'Amerique en 1741. Retour des
Russes au Kamtchatka." Other legends are as follows: "Isle Beering;"
"Detroit du Nord" (Bering strait); "Terre déc. en 1723 par les Russes,
ou Isle dont le P. Avril a parle" (large land near Wrangell island);
"Terres reconnues par les Russes" (American coast in latitude 56 N.);
"Côtes vues par les Russes en 1741; Port ou les Russes ont aborde"
(fictitious and extensive land east of Bering island, on which are
also the following: "Puchochotskes selon Strahlenberg," and "Terre
habitée, ou Presqu' Isle, que je suppose joindre les découvertes des
Russes avec celles de l'Am'l de Fonte").
The second map, "Carte des Découv'tes de l'Am'al de Fonte avec les
Terres vuës et reconnues par les Russes, par Philippe Buache," has
other pertinent and interesting legends. In Bering strait appears:
"Beering a trouvé au N. et a l'E. de ce parage que la Mer y etoit
libre," and immediately eastward on the American coast below the
parallel of the arctic circle: "Terre découv. en 1731, et ou les
Russes ont rencontré un home qui s'est dit habitant d'un gr'd
Continent." On the American coast from 55° to 57° north latitude:
"Terres déc. en Juill., 1741, et où les Russes ont laisse 10 homes qu'
ils n' ont pu rejoindre." Over "Terre habitée," a large land just east
of Bering island: "Le Capitaine Beering a trouvé dans ce parage de 50
à 60 deg. les Indices d'une Côte et une gr. Riv. ou il a envoye
quelqu's homes qui ne sont revenus."
It is evident that these maps must have been actually published as
early as September 2, 1753, the date on which was presented the
"Exposé des Découvertes, etc., au Roy," but the charts give no further
indication than the legend: "Publiée sous le privilege de l'Acad.
R'le. des Sc. du 6 Sept'bre, 1752: à Paris." The actual date of issue
may or may not have been earlier than the map of de l'Isle of
September 9, 1752.
7. (Possibly most important of all) a letter of an officer of the
Russian Navy. This appeared first in Russian, presumably {210} printed
at St. Petersburg in 1752 or 1753; the original Russian I have not
seen. It was translated, however, into French and printed at Berlin
(not dated) in 1753, under the following title: "Lettre d'un officier
de la Marine Russienne. A un Seigneur de la Cour concernant la carte
des nouvelles découvertes au nord de la mer du Sud et le mémoire qui y
sert d'explication. Publiée par M. de l'Isle, à Paris en 1752. Traduit
de l'Original Russe, à Berlin, chez Haude et Sperer, Libraires de la
Cour et de l'Academie Royale (1753)."
This edition forms part of my library, and is the only copy which I
know of in the United States. It is not to be found in the Library of
Congress, the Astor Library, the Boston Athenæum, or the Boston Public
Library. It is not even in the Royal Library at St. Petersburg, but,
as might be anticipated, is in the British Museum. I find it nowhere
catalogued in any bibliography of arctic or subarctic works. The
French edition was inserted, with some changes, it is believed, in the
eighteenth volume of the Nouvelle Bibliotheque Germanique.
8. "A letter from a Russian Sea-Officer to a Person of Distinction at
the Court of St. Petersburg, containing Remarks on Mr. de l'Isle's
Chart and Memoir relative to the New Discoveries North and East from
Kamtschatka, together with some Observations on that Letter by Arthur
Dobbs, Governor of East Carolina, to which is added Mr. de l'Isle's
Explanatory Memoir on his Chart." 8vo, 85 pp., London, 1754.
The "Arthur Dobbs" who published this edition, and who possibly was
the translator thereof, is well known as the energetic promoter of the
discovery of the "northwest passage," and was personally interested in
discovery voyages to Hudson bay. The explanatory memoir of de l'Isle's
chart is a translation of the memoir previously mentioned as belonging
to the map of 1752, which memoir I have not been able to consult in
the original French. It may be added that Dobbs' reproduction of the
"Letter from a Russian naval officer" is not accurate, the translation
in places being so carelessly or indifferently made that the text
cannot be relied on for critical purposes.
This English translation is to be found neither in the Library of
Congress, the Boston Public Library, the Boston Athenæum, nor in the
Library of the American Geographic Society. It is, however, in the
Astor Library, and a second copy at one time belonged to the library
of Mr. J. C. Brevoort.
{211} 9. "Mappe Monde. Carte Universelle de la Terre. Par J. B. Nolin,
Geographe." 1755, 20¼ x 27 inches. On this appear the legends: "I. de
Beering; Detroit de Nord; Terres découvertes par les Ruses [sic] en
1741; Terres veues en 1741."
It is quite possible that this is the first map of the world on which
Bering island was charted.
10. John Christopher Adelung's very interesting history of sea voyages
for the discovery of a "northeast passage," which was published in
quarto form under the following title: "Geschichte der Schiffahrten
und Versuche welche zur Entdeckung des Nordöstlichen Weges nach Japan
und China von verschiedenen Nationen unternommen worden. Zum Behufe
der Erdbeschreibung und Naturgeschichte dieser Gegenden entworfen von
Johann Christoph Adelung, Herzoglich Sachsichen Rath Halle bey Johann
Justinus Gebauer, 1768."
11. Notice des Ouvrages de M. d'Anville. 8°, Paris, An. X [1802], 120
pp. By Barbic du Bocage.
In addition to these and other works from my own collection, I have
consulted at the library of the United States Naval Observatory, in
this city, "Histoire de l'Academie Royale des Sciences, Année 1750,"
Paris, 1754, and the same, "Année 1754," Paris, 1757, which contain
articles on de l'Isle's manuscript maps of 1731 and 1752, the latter
being substantially identical with the published map of 1752.
* * * * *
From Dall's review we learn that Lauridsen is responsible for the
statement that the discoveries of Bering in his first voyage were
shown on a chart made at Moscow in 1731, but no authority is given as
to the cartographer. Later I shall adduce evidence to confirm Dall's
opinion that the Moscow map was merely a copy, such as were
distributed to personages of importance or to those connected with the
expedition. It is further susceptible of, as I think, tolerably
satisfactory proof that the outlines of Kamshatka, with fairly correct
meridians of longitude, were made public in a chart by de l'Isle not
in 1731, but the year following, 1732, and it is likely that the lost
map of that year was substantially reproduced in the chart of 1752,
which I have the pleasure of now presenting for your examination.
De l'Isle presented this map to the Academy of Sciences of Paris on
April 8, 1750. The circumstances connected with the {212} presentation
have been drawn from the official records of the Royal Academy of
Sciences, and are as follows:[2]
Cette année (1750) M. de l'Isle lut à l'assemblee publique de
l'Acadèmie, un Mémoire sur les Nouvelles Découvertes au nord de la mer
du Sud; et presenta en meme temps une Carte que M. Buache avoit
dressée sur ses Mémoires, et qui representoit ces Découvertes avec
toute la partie du Globe terrestre, à laquelle elles appartiennent.
Ces Ouvrages, alors manuscrit, furent depuis publiés en 1752, M.
Buache presenta dans cette meme année la première partie de ses
Considérations géographiques sur le meme sujet, avec les Cartes qui y
étoient relatives.[3]
"Muni de ces premières connoissances [referring to the discoveries of
1729-1739] M. de l'Isle traça une carte qui representoit l'extremite
orientale de l'Asie, avec la partie opposée de l'Amerique
septentrionale qui y répond, afin de faire voir aisément ce qui
restoit à découvrir, et il dressa un Mémoire dans lequel il exposoit
la manière qu'il jugeoit la plus avantageuse pour faire ces
découvertes."[4]
"Mais les vaisseaux Russes qui avoient été envoyés pour les
découvertes dont nous venous de parler (1731-1741), n'étant pas encore
revenus lorsqu'elle lui fut envoyé il extremit l'examen après son
retour en France, qui étoit assez prochain. A son arrivée, il
communiqua ses vues et cette relation a M. Buache; celui-ci, qui par
la," etc., etc.[5]
"Cette Mémoire [de l'Isle, 1750] étoit accompagnée d'une carte qui
étoit comme l'esquisse du système géographique de M. de l'Isle sur
cette partie."[6]
[Footnote 2: Extracts from Histoire de l'Acadèmie Royale des Sciences,
Année MDCCL (1750), 4°, Paris, 1754; and the same, Année 1753, 4°,
Paris, 1757.]
[Footnote 3:_ Loc. cit._, "Année MDCCL," p. 142.]
[Footnote 4: _Ibid._, p. 151.]
[Footnote 5: _Ibid._, p. 145.]
[Footnote 6: _Loc. cit._, "Année 1753," p. 263.]
It has been pointed out by several authorities that some of M. de
l'Isle's statements in his memoir of 1752 are to be received with
caution, especially his elaborate endeavors to impress the Paris
Academy with the belief that the discoveries of Bering subsequent to
the first voyage were the result of his (de l'Isle's) own carefully
considered instructions. In this connection Adelung says:
"De l'Isle, in his Explication de la carte des nouvelles découvertes
au Nord [1752], traces out his proposed route quite differently
[referring to de l'Isle's previous statements in his report to the St.
Petersburg Academy in 1732], somewhat as if it had been outlined in
view of accomplished facts."
{213} It behooves us, then, to inquire carefully into the authenticity
of the alleged map of de l'Isle of 1731, since if he antedated his
opinions as to the route he might also have antedated his map.
Fortunately we do not have to depend only on de l'Isle's own
statement, either in 1750 before the Academy of Sciences at Paris, or
as published in 1738 at St. Petersburg and printed at the printing
office of the Royal Academy; for we also have extraneous and
convincing evidence, even from sources critically hostile to the
French astronomer.
M. de l'Isle, in his Mémoires sur les Nouvelles découvertes au Nord de
la mer du Sud, Paris, 1752, says:
"After I had, near twenty years ago, got these first informations of
the longitude of Kamschatka by means of Captain Bering's map and
journal, I made use of them in constructing the map, representing the
eastern extremity of Asia, with the opposite coast of North America,
in order to show at once what still remains for discovery between two
large parts of the world.
"This map I had the honor of presenting to the Empress Anne and the
Senate, in order to animate the Russians to undertake these
discoveries, and it took effect, this princess ordering a second
voyage to be made according to the plan which I had drawn up for it."
"Two maps," he adds, were presented to the Academy in Paris, "one
being a copy of the map which I had drawn at St. Petersburg, 1731, on
Captain Bering's first voyage, and had the honor of presenting to the
Empress Anne and the Senate, with a manuscript memoir explaining its
use and construction." The other map (from which the lithograph before
you was lately reproduced) was, according to de l'Isle, only changed
by adding the later discoveries of Bering and his lieutenants.
De l'Isle further says of this chart:
"The second manuscript map which I laid before the Academy at Paris
was in all respects like the former, only with the advantages of the
new discoveries made since 1731."
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 {214} 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, {215} 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.
An interesting note as to the authenticity and origin of the {216}
chart of d'Anville, 1737, appears in the narrative of Adelung, who
speaks with a certain air of authority. He says:
"These Beering maps were, after the captain's return, sent from Russia
to the King of Poland, who presented them to Mr. du Halde or, rather,
to Mr. d'Anville, who made the charts for his work. Du Halde is
therefore very correctly informed when he, in the Mémoires de Trevoux
(737 pages, 2,389 f.) considers these charts questionable and imagines
that they were merely made by d'Anville from Beering's journal."
But further evidence from an unquestionable source is available as to
date. The charts in du Halde's "China" were engraved between the years
1729 and 1734, and all but the general maps were completed prior to
1733. The date 1732 is assigned by d'Anville's colleague to the map of
Bering's journey. Of these maps it is further said:
"They form what is commonly known as d'Anville's Atlas of China.
Nevertheless this geographer did not participate equally in the
production of all. The detailed maps (of which the Bering map is one)
were furnished by the Jesuits and he only supervised the engraving,
but the general charts were entirely the work of d'Anville, who
reconstructed and amplified them from all possible sources. They were
reproduced at Hague under the title 'New Atlas of China,' etc., by M.
d'Anville."
These statements of d'Anville's colleague, M. Barbic du Bocage, are
thus verified by du Halde, page lxix:
"Pour les Cartes Générales, nous y avons peu touché & celle du Voyage
du Capitaine Beerings paroit sans le moindre changement."
In the Russian atlas, 1745, the explanatory text regarding map 19,
whereon appears the extreme northeastern coast of Siberia and the
greater part of Kamshatka, runs as follows:
"We have determined the location of these provinces in part by
astronomical observations which have been made there, and in part upon
certain geographical and hydrographic maps which have been transmitted
to us."
So far as Kamshatka and the Bering strait regions go, it is reasonable
to believe that this chart, since it was published by the Royal
Academy of Sciences, is substantially a reproduction of the map
transmitted to the Academy by de l'Isle in 1732, especially as this
geographer was employed for about thirteen years in amassing data for
the atlas in question.
{217} The writer has very carefully compared the chart of Kamshatka
and adjoining regions as published in d'Anville's atlas of 1736, in
the Russian atlas of 1745, and in the de l'Isle chart of 1752. From
comparisons he is led to believe that these maps have substantially
the same basis--that is, the chart prepared by de l'Isle in 1732 for
the Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg. In this connection the
criticism of the Russian officer is significant. He says: "I will now
finish with a general observation about the part of Siberia that we
see on M. de l'Isle's chart (1752). It is simply a copy of the Russian
atlas (1745), without even corrections of the errors of drawing and
writing which have crept into that work." Elsewhere he adds: "We can
correct the error of M. de l'Isle, who places Bering island at 54
degrees, only a short distance from Avatscha, whereas it is on the
56th parallel, 60 miles off Avatscha and 40 Dutch miles from the mouth
of the Kamschatka river."
It is worthy of note that on Bellin's map of 1749(?) Bering island is
crossed by the 56th parallel of latitude, and that along the southern
edge of the Arctic ocean is a route track, marked "Voyage fait par Mer
en 1648 par 3 vaisseaux Russiens dont un est parvenu a la
Kamtschatka." On de l'Isle's chart of 1752 also appears the route of
1648, but Bering island is in latitude 54°. As to the position of
Bering isle, the truth, as the Wise Man tells us is oft the case,
abides between the two, as the 55th parallel intersects the land in
question. At Cape Shelagskoi, d'Anville, 1737, the Russian atlas of
1745 and the de l'Isle of 1752 agree in charting four islands
northeast of the cape instead of two islands to the west. This
indicates a common origin to the charts, and where else can it be
ascribed than to the de l'Isle map of 1732? The Russian officer,
however, gives a clue as to the date when work on the map was
commenced. He says:
"At that time I visited M. de l'Isle. I was a witness of his
geographical labors as far as they had new discoveries for their
object. I acted as interpreter to M. Bering in the conversations which
he had with him; and I can assert positively that when M. de l'Isle
began that chart the second expedition was already ordered, and
Captain Bering, knowing what was still wanting to his discoveries,
offered to continue them and his lieutenants with him, and they
received promotion in consequence."
Lauridsen says:
"On January 5, 1732, the Senate gave him leave of absence to go to St.
Petersburg.... Almost simultaneously he was promoted, in regular {218}
succession, to the position of captain-commander in the Russian fleet,
the next position below that of rear-admiral."
This indicates that the expedition was decided on at least as early as
January 5, 1732; possibly earlier. Fortunately we are not left to
inference, for elsewhere the Russian officer says:
"Mr. de l'Isle 'throws discredit on our discoveries by leaving on his
chart the fictitious land of Gama, which, in order to avoid
conflicting with our accounts, he places (in 1752) a little more to
the west and south than he did on his chart of 1732.'"
This definitely fixes the year in which de l'Isle presented the map to
the Senate.
We learn, however, from Lauridsen that "as early as April 17 (1732)
the Empress ordered that Bering's proposition should be executed, and
charged the Senate to take the necessary steps for that purpose.... On
May 2 it [_i.e._, the Senate] promulgated two ukases, in which it
declared the objects of the expedition and sought to indicate the
necessary means." It is very improbable that, in the case of so
dilatory a man as de l'Isle, this chart could have been elaborated and
drawn, the memoir written, a report made by the Academy to the Senate,
and action be taken in the fifteen days which elapsed between the
order for the chart and Bering's instructions. It is possible that the
chart was drawn at the end of 1731, and that de l'Isle, for obvious
reasons, gave it the earliest possible date.
In giving an account of Bering's provisions, as Dall says, every
historian has followed a mutilated, if not garbled, paragraph from
Bering's original report. The excerpts from Brooke's translation of du
Halde, which was followed in Campbell's edition of Harris' Voyages,
are as follows:
"The provisions consisted of carrots for want of corn [= grain or
wheat], the fat of fish, uncured, served instead of butter, and salt
fish supplied the place of all other meats."
"Fish oil was his butter and dried fish his beef and pork. Salt he was
obliged to get from the sea; ... he distilled spirits from 'sweet
straw.'"
It appears from Bering's own journal, as well as from du Halde's
account, that in 1727 Bering ordered one of his officers to endeavor
to "deliver to the command at Kamschatka some part of the provisions,
iron, and tar." Bering himself said that he was obliged to use tar
made from the native spruce, "since {219} the tar which we should have
brought with us had not arrived." This is confirmed by the additional
note in du Halde, which says that the provisions, iron, pitch, and tar
did not arrive till 1728, conveying the inference that it came too
late to be of service. Bering appears to have had, on July 3, 1727,
2,300 poods of flour, equal to about 8,300 pounds, which would be less
than a year's supply for his entire party. I cannot agree with Dall
that Bering had plenty of flour or meal and meat.
I have said "From Bering's own report," because it seems incredible
that du Halde did not have a transcript of Bering's report, since his
narrative (du Halde's) follows almost word for word Dall's
translation. It is not surprising that different transcripts should
differ slightly on unimportant matters.
However this may be, it is evident that Brooke's translation of du
Halde is careless. For instance, in Brooke's translation (edition
London, 1736) of du Halde, on page 430, the number of Bering's party
should be 33 instead of 30, and on page 440, where the voyage from
Ochotsk to Takutski is given as from July 23 to October 2, the
first-named date should be July 29.
Dall doubts that "carrots" were of Bering's provisions. Brooke omits
the italicized words of du Halde's narrative (p. 567, la Haye, 1736):
"Les provisions consistoient en carottes _et en racines_." As
indicated by context, the roots were radishes and turnips. The word
"carottes" is explained by a passage in Grieve's Kamshatka as follows:
"The morkovai poushki, or _carrot_ bunches, are so called because they
are like carrots in their leaf as well as in taste. They likewise eat
this green in the spring, but they oftener sour it like sour crout or
make a liquor with it." Doubtless Bering took these "carrot bunches"
with him.
Another question which has engaged my attention is that concerning the
lunar eclipses which Bering or his party is said to have observed in
the winter 1728-'9. Dall says: "In none of the published reports of
the expedition is any mention made by Bering or his officers of the
occurrence or observation of an eclipse.... However, Middendorf states
(Sib. Reise, iv. I, p. 56) that Bering and his lieutenants in the
years 1728 and 1729 observed in Kamtschatka two eclipses of the moon,
by which they corrected the longitude. He gives," says Dall, "no
authority for this statement, and it is probable that an eclipse
observed at Ilimsk, in middle Siberia, by Chirikoff is thus
erroneously referred {220} to." Mr. Marcus Baker, in a paper appended
to Dall's account, makes it evident that such eclipses, if any, were
those of February 25 (local calendar), 1728, or February 24, 1729.
My own investigations confirm the statements of Middendorf, and in
support of this I refer to de l'Isle and to the author of the
"Letter." In this connection, however, we have the clear and definite
statements of de l'Isle, both in his essays of 1738 at St. Petersburg
and his memoir of 1752 at Paris. These statements are fully confirmed
by the evidence of the Russian marine officer, who certainly served
with Bering in his later expeditions if not in the first, and whose
familiarity with all the records and papers should have enabled him
definitely to contradict de l'Isle on the main question instead of
correcting him in details. In his St. Petersburg memoirs of 1738 (page
10) de l'Isle writes:
"On verra a cette occasion la situation du Kamtchatka de terminée par
deux eclipses de Lune, que M. le Capitaine Bering & ses gens y sont
observées dans leur premier voyage [the expedition 1725-'30], & dont
j'ai rendu compte a l'Academie aussi-tot que ces observations m'ont
ete communiquées."
In the paper of Paris, 1752 ("Nouvelles découvertes au Nord de la Mer
du Sud") de l'Isle says on this point:
"Captain Beering and his lieutenant likewise took observations at
Kamschatka of two eclipses of the moon in the years 1728 and 1729,
which helped me to chart the longitude of that eastern extremity of
Asia with all the precision which the nature of these observations,
made by seamen and with their own instruments, would admit of; but
these first determinations have been since confirmed by observations
on Jupiter's satellites, taken in that place with the utmost accuracy
by my brother and some Russians conversant in this kind of
observations and who were provided with the best of instruments."
It appeared to me possible that the report on the eclipses of the moon
made by de l'Isle to the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences might be
traced up among the archives of that society. In searching for
information on this point it was learned from Mr. O. Fassig, librarian
of the Signal Office, that among the unpublished manuscripts in the
Pulkova library, St. Petersburg, were a number by de l'Isle. A list of
the manuscripts of M. de l'Isle was compiled and published in 1844 by
the distinguished astronometer O. Struve, and among the number is one
entitled: "Observations pour la longitude du Kamchat, d'ou se conclut
aussi de Tobolsk. 1729, MSS."
{221} It was reasonable, in view of de l'Isle's statements in 1738, to
suppose that this is the report made to the Academy by him as soon as
the observations were furnished him. I had hoped to present with this
sketch definite information on this point, since a kinsman of the
collator of the manuscripts (I refer to the very distinguished
representative of Russia to the United States, M. de Struve) most
courteously offered his valuable mediation in the matter.
Unfortunately, I have as yet no further information, but I expect a
communication as to the contents of the MSS. at an early day.
Criticising the memoir of de l'Isle of 1752, the Russian officer
ridicules the author for speaking of Kamshatka as a town, but he
adds:[7]
"It is certain likewise that M. Bering and his lieutenant, M.
Tschirikow [quoting from de l'Isle's Memoir of 1752], had, in the
years 1728 and 1729, observed at Kamschatka two eclipses of the moon;
but that by these observations M. de l'Isle was enabled to determine
the longitude of this most eastern part of Asia, with such precision
that the same had been confirmed in the second expedition, by precise
observations of the satellites of Jupiter is what I cannot well
conceive. Mr. de l'Isle himself intimates that Messieurs Bering and
Tschirikow were not provided with astronomical instruments. They
observed both these eclipses by the help, not of pendulums, but of
their watches, without being able to know whether they went right or
wrong; which makes it almost incredible that a determination based on
these two eclipses should exactly agree with that deduced from the
observations of Jupiter's satellites."
[Footnote 7: "Une Lettre," Berlin, p. 19.]
The officer, from his own account, served with Bering. In the
introduction to "Une Lettre" he says:
"The orders of your Excellency [to whom the letter was addressed as
written by his orders] will be complied with by me with more than one
inspiring motive, and I shall not dwell on my unfitness, although I
could find excellent pretexts for such an excuse, inasmuch as many of
greater experience and equal application participated with me in the
discoveries which resulted from the two voyages, called by us the
Kamtschatkan expeditions. The only grounds on which preference could
be shown me over them arise from my being charged, after my return
from America, with the comparison of the journals of the various
vessels together and with whatever was elsewhere to be found relative
to lands situated in the South Sea, in order to therefrom construct a
map which should accurately represent them all."
{222} This officer, then, should be the very best authority on this
question, especially as he gives details, is always exact in his
dates, and sets no value on the observations. Whether or not such
observations of lunar eclipses took place, these extracts tend to
confirm Dall's opinion that they served no purpose in determining the
longitude of Kamshatka.
The letter and its author are worth some attention at our hands. As
has been said, it was published anonymously, and I do not know that
its authorship has ever been traced. It appears from the letter that
the writer was an officer of the Russian navy; that he was a Russian;
that he was on familiar terms with both Bering and de l'Isle; that he
acted as interpreter between them in 1730-1731; that he was with
Bering in his last voyage to America, and was one of the ship-wrecked
mariners on Bering island, and that on his return to St. Petersburg he
was charged with the compilations from the various ship journals. As
the naval officer states he was with Bering on Bering island, it is
evident that it must have been either Swen Waxel, Sophron Chitrow, or
Steller, the well-known scientific professor serving with Bering's
expedition. It could not have been Steller, since the professor was a
German, and moreover he died in November, 1746, prior to the date of
the letter. It is improbable that it was Chitrow, who was originally
in a subordinate position as a master-of-fleet, but while serving in
Kamshatka and prior to Bering's second voyage was made a lieutenant.
It is not likely that a subordinate of Chitrow's position should have
been so situated in St. Petersburg as to have served as an interpreter
between Bering and de l'Isle. It is therefore more than probable that
Lieutenant Swen Waxel was the author of the letter. In further
confirmation, this officer says that he is charged with the
preparation of a chart out of the material furnished by the maps and
journals of the separate vessels. As we know from other sources, Waxel
later made a chart of the Kamschatka region.
Waxel displayed great energy and excellent judgment in conducting
affairs on Bering island, both before and after Bering's death, and it
is gratifying to note his intellectual discrimination in dealing with
de l'Isle's fictitious account of a journey in America said to have
been made by one Admiral de Fonte. Waxel skilfully dissects this
geographical invention, clearly proving its inconsistencies, while
geographical writers in England were engaged years later in
endeavoring to prove its truthfulness.
{223} It is significant that although Waxel omits any reference to it,
the following paragraph, which is evidently intended to be exculpatory
of Bering's turning back at the most northerly point of his first
voyage, forms part of Bering's report as translated by Dall: "Neither
from the Chukchi coast nor to the eastward could any extension of the
land be observed." This very important sentence does not appear in
du Halde's account, and evidently was not in the copy which was
furnished him. Possibly the person who furnished the copy to du Halde
omitted it. Elsewhere Waxel adds:
"I say nothing here which I have not repeatedly heard M. Bering say. I
also saw his instructions."
This gives value to his statements in reference to Bering's efforts to
find land east of Avatscha bay, whereof Waxel quotes de l'Isle as
saying:
"On his return to Kamtschatka (in 1729) M. Bering learned that there
was a land to the east, which could be seen in clear, fine weather. He
attempted to go thither, after having repaired the damage his vessel
had suffered in a storm. The second attempt was fruitless, for after
sailing about forty leagues to the east without seeing land, he was
assailed by a violent tempest and a contrary wind, which quickly drove
him back to the port whence he had emerged."
In criticism Waxel adds:
"Would not this narrative lead one to believe that the second attempt
of M. Bering had been made immediately after the first voyage [in
1729]? However, it was entirely otherwise: Before making this journey
M. Bering wintered at Kamtschatka, set sail only on June 5, 1729, and,
_without intending to return to the port which he was quitting_,
doubled the southern point of Kamtschatka and went straight to the
mouth of the river Bolschaia-Reka and thence to Ochozk."
He further says:
"Perhaps it may appear strange that M. Bering during this voyage did
not fall in with the island (Bering island) whereon he was shipwrecked
during his second expedition; but the isle might have been hidden by
fogs, which are very common in that sea."
Waxel's account of the second voyage is worth translating, being the
plain tale of a participant, who is as modest as he is truthful, for
Waxel nowhere mentions his own name nor the {224} efficient service he
rendered first to his chief and later to his shipwrecked comrades. He
writes in "Une Lettre" as follows:
"Let us now come to the details of the second expedition, which M. de
l'Isle pretends owes its origin to a map of _his_ and was undertaken
according to a memoir made by himself. 'I had the honor,' he says, 'in
1731 to present this chart to the Empress Anne and to the Senate, in
order to stimulate the Russians to explorations of what still remained
to be discovered, and it had its effect.' Was it time or age which
caused M. de l'Isle to commit this error? Could he have forgotten the
orders which led him to make the chart in question? Had he remembered
it, perhaps he would not have said that he presented the chart to the
Empress, and still less that he made it in order to excite the
Russians to new discoveries. At that time I visited M. de l'Isle; I
was a witness of his geographical labors, as far as they had new
discoveries for their object; I acted as interpreter to M. Bering in
the conversations which he had with him; and I can assert positively
that when M. de l'Isle began that chart the second expedition was
already ordered, and Captain Bering, knowing what was still wanting to
his discoveries, offered to continue them and his lieutenants with
him; and they each received promotion in consequence.
"It is therefore true that M. de l'Isle's work must be attributed to
the orders of his superiors; and I remember that the Empress Anne
having commissioned her secretary to give the necessary instructions
to M. Bering for his new voyage, the latter did not think he could
carry it on successfully without getting from the Academy all the
information possible concerning the countries and waters where he was
to navigate. The Academy was therefore called upon by the Senate, and
it ordered M. de l'Isle to compile the chart of which I speak, and in
order that it might be better understood, to explain it in a memoir;
which having been done, the chart and the memoir were presented to the
Senate by the Academy; so that there can be no possible doubt that, so
far from having stimulated the Russians to new discoveries, so far
from having occasioned the new voyage of M. Bering, M. de l'Isle only
worked according to the orders he had received. There arises another
question, as to whether the memoir caused the success of the
expedition, which I will treat later on. However that may be, the
Senate gave a copy of it to M. Bering as well as of the chart. I took
a second copy, which enables me to compare it with what M. de l'Isle
tells us about it in his last memoir from Paris.
"He pretends to have proposed three different routes to be followed in
order to discover what was still unknown. The first, to sail straight
to Japan, pass Yeco, or rather the straits which separate it from the
island of the States and the land of the Company, to discover what is
to the north of Yeco and search for the passage between that country
and the coast of eastern Tartary. This is what is called giving advice
after the event. In the original memoir there is not a word said about
any such researches. M. de l'Isle contents himself with proposing
three different routes for finding the countries lying near to
Kamshatka on the east. {225} The first two, we must admit, agree well
enough with the second and third routes mentioned in the Paris memoir.
They are expressed in these terms:
"1. 'If one advances to the most northern extremity of Asia, and at
the same time the most eastern point reached by Captain Bering (wrong
supposition, as I have already remarked), one cannot fail to reach
America, no matter what route one takes between the northeast and
southeast, at a distance of not more than 600 leagues (great error in
estimating the distance of the opposite lands of Asia and America,
since they are only separated in the north by a narrow strait which
widens as it goes south).'
"2. 'Without going so far, it would perhaps be easier to start from
the eastern coast of Kamshatka, sail directly east and reconnoitre the
neighboring land, of which M. Bering discovered indications on his
first voyage.'
"In regard to the third route, M. de l'Isle conjectures as follows:
"3. 'Perhaps the countries seen by Don Juan de Gama might be found
more speedily and with more certitude by seeking them to the southeast
of Kamshatka;' the outcome of which project showed him his mistake,
which is apparently the reason that induced him to change it to that
of the route by Japan and Yeco.
"Nothing is so imperfect in detail, and withal so dry, as the recital
of M. Bering's voyage with which M. de l'Isle regales us. He makes him
start in 1741 to look to the east of Kamshatka for the land which he
had seen indications of in his first voyage. 'He did not go very far,'
he says, 'for, being assailed by a violent storm during thick weather,
he could not remain at sea, and brought up on a desert island in
latitude 54°, only a short distance from the Port of Avatcha from
whence he had sailed.'
"M. Bering, then, did nothing but fail, and he did so soon after
leaving port. I must therefore supplement the meagreness of M. de
l'Isle's relation by giving an account of the voyage of M. Bering and
the other officers, chiefs of these expeditions, which will be so much
the more easy as I took part in them and as I can, besides, refer to
the charts and journals of each vessel as proofs of my correctness.
"The Captain Commanding Bering and Captains Spangenberg and
Tschirikow, with several other naval officers, left St. Petersburg in
the spring of 1733. They waited at Yakouzk and Ochozk until the
vessels being built at this latter place for their expedition were
completed, and when all was ready for the departure of M. de
Spangenberg he was dispatched first, according to the orders of the
Senate. He started, then, from Ochozk in the month of June, 1738,
having three vessels under his command, to which he added a large
covered row-boat of 24 oars, which he caused to be constructed at
Bolscherezkoi Ostrog in Kamshatka, where he wintered. This boat was to
be used to go into the narrow straits between the islands that they
might find and where the ships could not go. In the summer of 1739 he
went to Japan, the long chain of islands situated between Japan and
Kamshatka serving to guide him. He landed at two different places in
Japan and was received with great civility by the people of the
country; but he never went to Matsmai, the principal place {226} on
the island of Yeco, as M. de l'Isle erroneously states. He thought he
had sufficiently complied with his instructions without doing so, and
returning to Ochozk, passed the winter at Yakouzk. As soon as a
detailed account of this voyage was seen in St. Petersburg they
concluded by the route which M. Spangenberg had followed that he must
have passed near the coast of Corea, and he was therefore ordered to
make a second voyage in order to confirm the first. He started in 1741
and 1742, but his ship, built hastily and of unseasoned wood, leaked
and obliged him to return.
"MM. Bering and Tschirikow left Ochozk the 4th of September, 1740.
They both had the same destination; the second was to follow the track
of the first. They only took different vessels so as to be able to
assist each other more efficaciously in case of any accident. Without
entering the Bolschaia-Reka river, as is customary in coming from
Ochozk, they immediately rounded the southern point of Kamshatka and
anchored at Avatscha, or port of St. Peter and St. Paul, as they
called it. While wintering in these places, they made all their
preparations for commencing in spring their principal voyage, which
was to have America as its object. Owing, however, to the uncertainty
as to the route which they were to follow, M. Bering assembled a naval
council on the 4th of May, 1741, and it was resolved to endeavor first
to discover the land of Don Juan de Gama, a fatal resolution which was
the cause of all of our disasters. The 4th June we put to sea.
M. Bering had on his vessel, sent by the Academy, an adjutant,
M. Steller, physician by profession, but above all well versed in all
that pertained to natural history. M. de la Croyere was with
M. Tschirikow. Although M. Bering and M. Tschirikow were not to
separate, according to their instructions, they could not avoid it,
for eight days after sailing they were separated by storms and fogs.
The search for the pretended land of Gama caused them to direct their
course southeast; they continued to sail in that direction as far as
the 46th degree without, however, finding the slightest vestige of it.
They then changed their course to the northeast and both reached the
coast of America, but in different places and without knowing of the
whereabouts of the other. M. Bering and we who accompanied him saw
land for the first time after being six weeks at sea. We then
calculated that we were about five hundred Dutch leagues from
Avatscha. We provided ourselves with fresh water. We saw indications
of inhabitants, but could perceive no one. After being at anchor three
days, M. Bering consulted with his officers, and it was resolved to
return. The 21st July we weighed anchor before sunrise. There was
nothing to do but to follow the coast, which stretched westward; but
navigation was seriously embarrassed by frequent islands, and when we
tried to put to sea we were met by storms and contrary winds, which
caused us new delays every day. In order to procure fresh water, we
returned towards the coast, from which we had kept as far as possible.
Soon it was in sight, seeming about ten miles distant. We anchored
between the islands, and the one where we landed was
Schoumagin-Ostrow. The water was good, but although taken from a lake,
there was, nevertheless, some sea water in it brought by the tide,
which sometimes inundated the island. Afterwards {227} we felt
disastrous effects from its use, in sickness and the loss of several
of our men, who died. We tried in vain during three or four days to
discover some natives of the country, whose fires we could see at
night on the coast. The 4th of September these savages finally came,
of themselves, in little canoes, and, having announced their arrival
to us by a loud cry, they presented us with their calumets, in sign of
peace. These calumets were sticks with the wings of falcons attached
to the end. We understood from their gestures that they were inviting
us to come on land in order to furnish us with provisions and fresh
water. We wished to profit by the opportunity, and some of us ventured
to follow them; but soon, however, misunderstandings arose and all
communication was broken off.