by Steve Wright and Michael Von der Porten
March 23, 2022
Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Allan Massie reviewed Laurence Bergreen’s recent book, In Search of a Kingdom. The non-fiction book is an account about English mariner and explorer, Sir Francis Drake. In his article, Massie notes that Bergreen made some careless mistakes, specifically citing Bergreen’s repeated comments that King James VI of England was brought up as Catholic when he was in fact a life-long Protestant. Massie then compliments Bergreen’s novel by asserting that “the accounts of Drake’s circumnavigation and subsequent naval career are very good indeed.” (Massie “Review”)
Unfortunately, we disagree with Massie’s positive comments. Bergreen’s lackadaisical approach to accuracy extends to maritime aspects of Drake’s life, too. We mostly discuss those problems regarding the area in which we are authorities; namely, that of Drake’s circumnavigation as related to his California landing. And we do not view these problems as careless errors so much as we find the book to be very flawed.
* * * *
1. Misunderstanding the Julian and Gregorian Calendars:
The problems begin before page one.
In an author’s note about calendar styles and dates, Bergreen accurately explains how the Julian calendar was changed to the Gregorian calendar by moving dates forward ten days in the year 1582. He then writes, “For example, older records state that Francis Drake departed from Plymouth December 23 on his circumnavigation. In our modern calendar, the equivalent is December 13” (ixx). Bergreen gets the equation completely backwards.
Bergreen says, “I have followed the modern, Gregorian calendar for all events in all locations” (ixx). Yet, all the circumnavigation dates in the text appear to be the old style dates. An example of this is the narrative in The World Encompassed which contains the detailed account of Drake’s chaplain, Francis Fletcher, who accompanied Drake on the circumnavigation. Fletcher, records the date the circumnavigating expedition left England as December 13 Old Style (O.S.) which is December 23 New Style (N.S.) (Drake 8). A simple fact checking search online have corrected this. Additionally, several copies of the original World Encompassed are available online for free—just as are numerous sources correctly noting the religion of James VI.
2. Confused co-mingling Drake’s two mule train raids into one event misidentified as occurring in Nombre de Dios:
Early in the book, Begreen writes of a voyage Drake made to plunder in and around the Caribbean (104). Most seriously, he has so many critical facts wrong that the narrative hopelessly confuses the real events and makes this section of the book entirely useless.
Adding to the frustration of errors is that this entire episode was written about by Philip Nichols who accompanied Drake on this journey. Nichols wrote about it in the book Sir Francis Drake Revived which is still in print today.
On May 24, 1572, Drake did sail from Plymouth Sound with the Swan and Pasco on an expedition to the Caribbean that would soon trouble the Spaniards on sea and land for several months. While on this expedition, Drake made important alliances with Cimarrons in Panama. The Cimarrons, former slaves who had escaped Spanish bondage, created and lived within independent settlements in the region. The alliance proved fruitful. On August 9, 1573, Drake would return to England laden with treasure.
Salient to understanding the mistakes in this section of Bergreen’s book, there were actually two raids carried out by the Englishmen and Cimarrons. The raids were ambushes designed to attack and plunder Spanish mule trains that were carrying a fortune in silver from the Pacific coast and across the Isthmus of Panama. The treasure would eventually be loaded onto ships and taken to Spain.
The mistakes begin when Bergreen writes, “During this period, the Cimarrons led Drake and his men to a mountain peak where they could view both the Atlantic and the Pacific.” Much of this statement is wrong. To execute the first raid, Drake’s combined force, which was Cimarron led, did march away from the Caribbean in a direction generally towards the Pacific. After a week of trekking, the Cimarrons brought Drake to a rolling area where a certain tall tree grew on a ridge formed by hills, not mountains (Nichols 45; Turner, pers. comm.). Led by Pedro, a senior Cimarron leader, Drake climbed the tree to a platform the Cimarrons had fashioned near the top. Here they could gaze upon the Caribbean in one direction and the Pacific in the other (Sugden 67; Nichols 45).
Then Begreen describes Drake’s subsequent raid on the mule train as “. . . at the location of their ambush in Nombre de Dios. . . .” (104). The trouble is, no such raid occurred. Factually, there were two raids on mule trains and neither was in the town of Nombre de Dios. The first materialized shortly after Drake scaled the tall tree, possibly near a hamlet called Venta Cruz (Webster; Sugden 67). Fortunately for the Spaniards, a young and intoxicated sailor named Robert Pike spoiled the first ambush attempt by pre-maturely revealing himself to the Spanish forward guards (Sugden 68).
Much later—in March 1573—Drake’s combined forces added a group of French corsairs and effected the second ambush, this time successfully. A copious amount of gold and silver was taken. Although Bergreen places the location this ambush squarely in Nombre de Dios, no mule train raid took place there. Drake purposefully staged the ambush about six miles from the town at the Campos River (Sugden 72). The location was chosen was to avoid alerting any Spanish forces at Nombre de Dios while being close enough to the town that the Spaniards would feel safe enough to somewhat relax their vigilance. Drake had already suffered greatly when the people of Nombre de Dios had vigorously repulsed an entirely different situation when he directly attacked the town on July 28, 1572.
Drake knew to avoid the settlement. Contrary to Bergreen’s narrative, Drake made no further attacks in the town. All in all, this part of Bergreen’s narrative is so infested with egregious inaccuracies that this section of the book is worse than entirely useless to the reader—it provides utterly inaccurate material regarding important events.
3. Exclusion of Tello’s bark:
Bergreen mentions the capture of a frigate—fregata in Spanish—near Caño Island which is 11 miles northwest of Punta Llorona, Costa Rica (194). John Drake, Francis Drake’s young cousin who served on the voyage, referred to the vessel as a bark (Nuttall 49). Readers will find various sources mention the ship as either Tello’s frigate or Tello’s bark.
Identification of large naval warships as frigates began during the late eighteenth century. Prior to that time, a frigate was a comparatively diminutive ship of a small or medium size and often built in New World shipyards for coastal trading. They were substantial enough that—in a pinch—they could suffice for the journey on the trans-Atlantic passage (Spate 20). Considering that Bergreen mentions the other ships in Drake’s fleet and considering how vital Tello’s bark was, it is unfortunate that Bergreen excluded additional mention of her in his narrative.
Tello’s bark was probably about 38 feet long and measured10 feet at its widest point. She likely had a deep draft of about five feet, and proved to be a steady and capable sailor (“What Is Tello’s Bark”). Faced with a very leaky flagship, the Golden Hind, Drake swapped his pinnace for the superior vessel, Tello’s bark (Sugden 129; Nuttall 49). Drake knew that the bark would give support when careening the Golden Hind, and offered security as a lifeboat. Additionally, the bark would enhance Drake’s ability for close-to-shore navigation and exploration.
Consequently, Drake transferred crew and corresponding supplies from the Golden Hind to the bark and she proved a worthy sailing companion all the way to California where—according to John Drake—she was abandoned when the Golden Hind left New Albion and sailed for the Farallon Islands (Nutall 49). When reading Bergreen’s book, one does not know that the ship made the trip to what is now Oregon and California, ably served Drake for almost four months, and participated in noteworthy events.
As it is, the reader is led to believe that the Golden Hind alone traveled north into the coast of the present day United States. Factually, Tello’s bark journeyed tack for tack with the Golden Hind during critical parts of the circumnavigation. A student of Drake’s circumnavigation should know this. Tello’s bark is worthy of further inclusion.
4. Incorrect ordering of Guatulco raid and the capture of Zarate’s ship:
Among the egregious errors Bergreen makes is incorrectly recording the order of Drake’s raid on the coastal village Guatulco, located in present day southwest Mexico, and his capture of Don Francisco Zarate’s ship. Bergreen’s account is in direct conflict with the accounts of Francis Fletcher, John Drake, and Don Francisco Zarate himself.
On April 4, 1579, Drake surprised and captured Zarate’s ship and took a modest amount of treasure (Sugden 129; Nuttall 50, 202). Only after capturing this humble prize did Drake sail for Guatulco, which he raided before leaving on April 16 (Drake 113). He would then sail Tello’s bark and the Golden Hind into the Pacific and reach New Albion on June 17 without encountering any other ships (Drake 113). From there, Drake would depart from the North American continent and set a course for home.
Ordered dates regarding these events are not clear in Bergreen’s book. Perhaps this is why he has the events chronologically transposed. Lacking any dates for the Guatulco raid, the nearest one can find any time reference in Bergreen’s book is in the paragraph immediately preceding his first mention of Drake’s raid on the coastal village. Here, Bergreen tells of the crew’s encounter of an earthquake near Costa Rica and identifies it as “later in March” (196).
After the Guatulco raid, Bergreen then brings the reader to the capture of Zarate’s ship. After this, the author leads the reader to Drake’s next task—beginning the long journey back to England with the purloined treasure. As such, Bergreen relies on the text order to chronologically establish the events (196-204). And he got it wrong.
Bergreen’s order of events:
1. conduct Guatulco raid
2. capture of Zarate’s ship
3. depart from Guatulco
Actual order of events:
1. capture of Zarate’s ship
2. conduct Guatulco raid
3. depart from Guatulco
5. Discrepancies regarding the journey to New Albion:
A. Impossible speed of the Golden Hind
Following and understanding the narrative becomes complicated on pages 206-208 when Bergreen leaps forwards and backwards in time and location. Perhaps this unintentionally contributes to the book’s inaccuracy. As is, the narrative is impossible to reconcile with fact and reality.
At page 206, the author has the reader in the vicinity of the Oregon Dunes on June 6, 1569 O.S. As the reader continues forward to page 208, Bergreen brings narrative back in time one day to June 5 O.S. at 48º in the vicinity of the Olympic Peninsula. Bergreen specifically describes the Golden Hind as “hugging the shore” (209). The distance traveled between these two points would have been 320 nautical miles (NM). Covering this distance in one day is entirely impossible for either ship, the Golden Hind or Tello’s bark. Three hundred twenty nautical miles in 24 hours is 13 knots, an utterly ridiculous speed to attribute to Drake’s ship. [1]
The Oregon Dunes-to-Olympic Peninsula narrative is only one example of the impossible speeds one must attribute to Drake’s ship in order to reconcile Bergreen’s dates and locations. Bergreen has Drake travel the Guatulco-to-Oregon Dunes leg of the trip at 48 NM per day, but the Oregon Dunes-to-Olympic Peninsula-to-San Francisco leg at 110 NM per day.
None of these distances and speeds are realistic. These are more than simple inconsistencies; they are careless errors.
During daylight in open seas, encountering good conditions, and with favorable winds, Drake could have averaged three to four knots per hour. Of course, Drake also had to contend with night. Instead of hugging the shore along an unfamiliar coast at night, his ships would have reduced sail, pointed out to sea, turned back toward land at midnight, and then continued along the coast—all of which reduces his speed lower than three to four knots he could maintain in favorable conditions. Additionally, one must also consider variables such as unpredictable tide races, contrary currents, inconsistent winds, and intermittent fog. Along with these worries is a healthy amount of caution complicated by the nuances of unknown coasts such as rocks, sea stacks, and hidden shoals which dictate sailing concerns along this stretch of coast. Drake’s ships would be very unlikely to exceed 20 nautical miles in a day (Von der Porten “Doubting Drake”).
B. Incorrect location attributed to chaplain Fletcher’s description
In Bergreen’s account of Drake’s journey to New Albion, he identifies a vague anchorage at 44 degrees north—a cove (208). And in that paragraph, referencing the 44 degrees north location, Bergreen inappropriately records Fletcher’s description of the denuded landscape: “How unhandsome and deformed appeared the face of the earth itself shewing trees without leaves, and the ground without greenness in those months of June and July” (208).
Fletcher did factually write these words. One may read them in The World Encompassed (Drake 117). However, they are specifically stated following Fletcher’s recording of 38º 8’ latitude, not 44º as Bergreen has mistakenly asserted (Drake 115). Fletcher records no reference of 44º anywhere near these words. Additionally, 38º latitude and this description of the land perfectly fits the location and landscape of the rolling coastal plains above Drakes Bay at Point Reyes National Seashore, the site of the National Historic Landmark recognizing Drake’s New Albion claim (Turner 168-170).
6. San Francisco Bay incorrectly identified as New Albion
Bergreen vaguely implies San Francisco Bay as the location of Drake’s anchorage and encampment. He offers no precise position for Drake’s presence within the scores of miles of shoreline which frame the body of water. He is unable to do so because Drake did not land in San Francisco Bay. This mistake leads us to our gravest concern with Bergreen’s book.
Numerous and foremost organizations, scholars, and mariners identify Drake’s Cove within the Drakes Bay region at Point Reyes National Seashore in California as the site of Drake’s 1579 landing and New Albion claim. This is roughly 30 miles north of San Francisco. A painfully short list of affirmations is here:
A. After a comprehensive blind peer review, the U.S. Department of the Interior identified Drake’s 1579 landing as associated with the Drakes Bay Historic and Archeological District as a National Historic Landmark in 2012 (“List of NHLs by State”).
B. Even though Bergreen correctly identifies the Coast Miwok as the people with whom Drake interacted, he ironically disputes their descendants—the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria—who identify Drakes Bay as the site of their encounter with the English mariner. Greg Sarris, chairman of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, was a featured speaker at the National Historic Landmark dedication which recognized Drake’s landing and interaction with the Coast Miwok at Drakes Bay (“Plaque Dedicated”).
C. The State of California Historical Resources Commission has identified Drake’s Cove—which is adjacent to Drakes Bay—as the site of New Albion: Drake’s anchorage and his crew’s encampment (“2020 Actions Taken”). Pursuant to this, the location was codified as California Historical Landmark, number 1061 (Kovner).
D. Michael Turner, who has visited each of Drake’s circumnavigation anchorages and landings, says of the Drakes Bay site, “No Drake anchorage has ever been placed under so much scrutiny and been the subject of such a mass of research and field work over so many years (Turner 169).
E. Dr. John Sugden, who wrote Drake’s defining biography and in support of the landmarks, states, “No aspect of Drake’s career has suffered more false leads than the site of Nova Albion (Sugden 332).
A comprehensive list of endorsements may be viewed here:
We regret that Bergreen disputes these authorities by identifying San Francisco Bay as the location of New Albion. The reader is left not knowing why he does so.
7. Carelessness with geographical descriptions
Bergreen incorrectly mentions rocky shores in his narrative. No period sources support this description. Rocky shores stem from Bergreen’s imagination.
Bergreen writes, “Farther inland, Drake’s men were agreeably surprised by the change in terrain. The rocky shore gave way to a fertile forest. . . ” (214). We do know with certainty that the men of Drake’s crew were struck by the abrupt change in the nature of the land when they journeyed from their encampment and into the interior country. Fletcher described the inland area as “a goodly country, and fruitfull soyle, stored with many blessings fit for the use of man” (Drake 132). So in this, Bergreen is accurate.
However, when Bergreen writes that this fertile land was in contrast to “the rocky shore,” he errs (214). Contrary to rocky shores, Fletcher writes of “white bancks and cliffes, which lie toward the sea (Drake 132). Elizabethan era geographer and writer, Richard Hakluyt, records the phrase “white cliffs, which lie toward the sea” (Hakluyt 15). Nowhere do these writers or any other period writer describe rocky shores. Rocky shores are completely detached from the historical record.
In keeping with the period commentary of both Fletcher and Hakluyt, Bergreen notes that Drake named the land New Albion because these white cliffs reminded him of the white cliffs in England (215; Drake 132; Hakluyt 15). As this point, Bergreen is right. However, Bergreen continues making mistakes when writing about the location of these white cliffs and white banks. White banks and white cliffs factually do stand about 30 miles up the coast from where Bergreen places Drake in California, and they are key to locating Drake’s California landing. They line much of Drake’s Bay, and they are easily accessed to be seen. They are not rocky, and they are not in San Francisco Bay.
There are no white banks nor white cliffs in San Francisco Bay. Nor do any banks or cliffs of any type in San Francisco Bay lie toward the sea—they face inward toward the Bay. In this matter, Bergreen contradicts Fletcher, Hakluyt, and geographical reality. Even a cursory visit to the area or glance at an atlas reveals this. At this point, Bergreen should have immediately recognized that Drake did not land in San Francisco Bay.
The white banks along the shore at Drakes Bay at Point Reyes are white because of the light color of the sand and soil—not rocks. And the cliffs along Drakes Bay are quite evocative of those along the English Channel—which is why the homesick English mariner named the region New Albion. Furthermore, nowhere in the regions of San Francisco Bay nor Drakes Bay are banks or cliffs comprised of white rocks.
Bergreen has swerved into other entirely avoidable errors here.
8. Misidentifying the conie [2]
Fletcher wrote that the Englishmen found “a multitude of a strange kinde of Conie” (Drake 132). Fletcher went on to describe them by listing key attributes: resembling a conie but with a smaller body and head, tail like a rat, feet like a mole, and cheek pockets in which to gather and store food (Drake 132). The conie is identified as Thomomys bottae bottae, the pocket gopher (Morison 703). It singularly fits Fletcher’s description in every respect.
Drake Navigators Guild members Robert Allen and Robert Parkinson did comprehensive research on this matter, and it is endorsed by pre-eminent authorities. Dr. Robert T. Orr, Curator of Birds and Mammals at the California Academy of Sciences reviewed and assisted with the manuscript of their extensive report (“Brief Sampling of Evidence”). Allen and Parkison’s work is impressive even to the extent that it is recognized for its fine quality in Great Explorers: The European Discovery of America, written by two-time Pulitzer Prize winning historian Admiral Samuel Morison (Morison 698).
Nevertheless, Bergreen has improbably identified the conie as Castor candensis, the California beaver (214). Beavers lack food storage pouches and are substantially larger than a rabbit, typically ranging from 35 to 65 pounds in weight and are three to four feet in length (“Beaver”).
This is a very curious mistake due to exactly how very wrong it is.
9. Farallon Islands
Bergreen maintains that it is “a stretch” to classify the Farallon Islands as islands (217). Drake did not think so. He called them islands, and properly named them the Islands of Saint James (Drake 134). Drake’s chaplain, Francis Fletcher also referred to them as islands (Drake 134).
While several are indeed islets, this is not true for all of them. The largest of the formations, Southeast Farallon Island, is 95 acres in area and 357 feet high. It is substantial enough that people have periodically resided there well back into the 19th century. Not only do living quarters still exist there, once there was also a school (“History of the Farallon Islands”; “About the Refuge”).
A diminishing turn of the phrase—a stretch to call them islands—is confusing or somewhat misleading. An island is different from an offshore bar, rock, or sea stack. Drake was entirely correct in recognizing them as islands, and so today are people correct by expressing and understanding them in such terms.
* * * *
Books such as Bergreen’s In Search of a Kingdom are developed as works of both fact and reasoning. The purpose in writing the book was reasoned judgment demonstrating how Drake’s circumnavigation and participation in the defeat of Spain’s Invincible Armada deeply influenced his nation’s future history. In doing so, Bergreen should have presented accurate facts when describing the accounts and details of Drake’s history.
But, as Massie points out, Bergreen made careless errors. A stray error in a work with the magnitude and detail of Bergreen’s book is understandable and may be expected. However, regarding the section of the book in which we are authorities, we find errors to be endemic, even serious. Additionally, there are numerous other errors we have found, but this is enough for now.
While researching, synthesizing materials, and writing a comprehensive account of the Drake’s circumnavigation is a daunting amount of work, it is also a fairly straight forward task. Correct and respected information exists. Three main sources take care of almost all of the information necessary for understanding Drake’s epic journey: 1) The World Encompassed which has the lengthy, detailed account kept by Drake’s chaplain, Francis Fletcher, 2) Michael Turner’s In Drake’s Wake Volume 2 The World Voyage, and 3) Zelia Nuttall’s New Light On Drake. Turner has visited every Drake anchorage and landing made during the circumnavigation and gives precise details about each one of them in his book. His knowledge about Drake’s journey is unsurpassed. Nuttall gives us critically important details with the accounts of John Drake—Francis Drake’s young cousin who sailed on the voyage—and the Portuguese and Spaniards who encountered Drake during his voyage. A number of ancillary sources would very well fill in remaining particulars.
If an author has arguments for rewriting history, let him present those points, document them thoroughly, and argue them strongly. Bergreen neglects to do that. Or, if an author supports the historical narrative but believes it leads to new conclusions, tell those stories and argue for the new results—Bergreen avoids that, too.
Building on completely reliable sources promotes accuracy. Given that Bergreen’s account lacks accuracy despite his impressive list of numerous reliable sources, one has to ask the question, “Why?” Unfortunately, there is no satisfactory answer. Not only is the account flawed, it is needlessly flawed.
In the end, Bergreen’s once over lightly in the research department has served Bergreen, the readers, accuracy, and history very poorly.
Notes
[1] With the value of one nautical mile per hour, a knot is used to measure speed.
[2] Conie, also spelled coney, is an archaic English word for the European rabbit
[3] Francis Fletcher’s account of Drake’s circumnavigation is reproduced in The World Encompassed. The book credits Sir Francis Drake, 1st Baronet. He is the nephew and namesake of his circumnavigating uncle.
Works Cited
“About the Refuge.” United States Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Farallon_Islands/about/.html. Retrieved May 26, 2021.
Aker, Raymond. Report Of Findings Relating To Identification Of Sir Francis Drake’s Encampment at Point Reyes National Seashore. Palo Alto: Drake Navigators Guild, 1970 and 1976.
“Beaver.” Smithsonian Institution, National Zoo. https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/beaver. Retrieved May 25, 2021.
Bergreen, Laurence. In Search of a Kingdom. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2021.
“Brief Sampling of Evidence: Flora and Fauna.” Drake Navigators Guild. https://www.discoveringnovaalbion.org/evidence-flora-and-fauna. Retrieved June 1, 2021.
Drake, Sir Francis. The World Encompassed by Sir Francis Drake, being his next voyage to that of Nombre de Dios. Boston: Adamant Media Corporation, 2005. [3]
Hakluyt, Richard. The Voyage of Sir Francis Drake Around the Whole Globe. United Kingdom: Penguin Classics, 2015.
“History of the Farallon Islands.” United States Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Farallon_Islands/about/history.html. Retrieved May 26, 2021.
Kovner, Guy. "Drake's Cove wins historical landmark status". Press Democrat Media Co. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/drakes-cove-wins-historical-landmark-status/. Retrieved 10 November 2021.
“List of NHLs by State.” National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalhistoriclandmarks/list-of-nhls-by-state.htm. Retrieved June, 4, 2021.
Massie, Allan. “ ‘In Search of a Kingdom’ Review: Navigating a Sea of Rivals”. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-search-of-a-kingdom-review-navigating-a-sea-of-rivals-11619044757. Retrieved June 1, 2021.
Morison, Samuel Eliot. The Great Explorers. New York: Oxford University Press: 1978.
Nichols, Philip. Sir Francis Drake Revived. U.S.A. 2015.
Nuttal, Zelia. New Light On Drake. London: Hakluyt Society. 1914.
“Plaque Dedicated in Drakes Bay Historic & Archaeological District.” Miwok Archaeological Preserve. https://www.discoveringnovaalbion.org/resources/1565839570709/23%20MAPOM_NHL_photos_1.jpeg. Retrieved June 4, 2021.
Sugden, John. Sir Francis Drake. London: Pimlico, 2006.
Spate, Oskar. The Pacific Since Magellan, Volume 1: The Spanish Lake. London: Croom Helm Ltd. 1979.
Turner, Michael. Pers. comm. to Steve Wright. January 20, 2022.
Turner, Michael. In Drake’s Wake Volume 2 The World Voyage. United Kingdom: Paul Mould Publishing, 2006.
“2020 Actions Taken.” California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30293. Retrieved June 4, 2021.
Von der Porten, Edward. “Doubting Drake? 7 Reasons Why Drake Didn’t Reach British Columbia in 1579.” https://abcbookworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/newspaper_2004_3.pdf. Retrieved June 3, 2021.
Webster, Edwin. “The Site of Venta de Chagre.” http://www.indrakeswake.co.uk/Society/Research/ventadechagre.htm. Retrieved January 20, 2022.
“What is Tello’s Bark?” Drake Navigators Guild. https://www.discoveringnovaalbion.org/what-is-tellos-bark. Retrieved June 1, 2021.