The map for the day when it was made (in the earlier version) was a good one, and is appropriately praised by Cook, who had a copy of Campbell's Harris on his vessel when exploring in the same region fifty years later. In his report of the trip eastward from Kamchatka in 1729, Bering says nothing about the weather being foggy or stormy, but merely asserts that he sailed nearly 200 versts and saw no trace of land. He leaves it to be inferred that he could have seen land if it had been there to see, which if the weather was foggy was not true. The impression which these facts leave upon the mind is that Bering did certainly frame his language so as to convey the idea that his evidence of the separation of the two continents and of the absence of land eastward from Kamchatka was more conclusive than it was in reality. That this was done to avoid criticism seems a natural inference. That an examination of his list of positions would have shown the location of the point whence he turned back to be to the eastward of the easternmost of his reported land is true, but his list of positions was not published with his report, does not agree with his maps, and when published by Campbell was garbled, as I have shown. That the truth, however, did get out and that criticism was not successfully avoided, is a matter of history. There can be little doubt that Bering's anxiety to undertake the second expedition, which followed, was stimulated by a desire to set these criticisms (which would naturally be magnified by his enemies) finally at rest. It may be suggested that Bering's report was modified by the authorities, though why they should make these particular modifications is not very evident. Bering was the only person who could profit by them and the natural conclusion is that he should be held responsible. In pointing out that some of Bering's acts are vulnerable to criticism I am far from desiring to sully his memory or give the idea that he was not entitled to great praise for what he accomplished, much of which was admirably done. I wish merely to apply a gentle corrective to the exaggerated and injurious flattery and undiscriminating praise which has been injudiciously indulged in by his latest biographer. If the interest in the subject be stimulated by discussion from these opposing points of view, so as to result in the publication of some of the material still hidden in the Russian archives I shall be more than repaid for the time I have devoted to the question, even if the publication of the original data should show some of my conclusions to be ill founded or erroneous.