E.— GEOGRAPHY. 95 



Here I venture to maintain that the formulation by my honoured master, 

 the late Prof. A. J. Herbertson, of his scheme of the Major Natural Regions 

 of the World, whatever criticisms in detail may be directed upon it, repre- 

 sents one of the most fruitful and constructive achievements in the develop- 

 ment of modern geography, and it was the work of a man who had 

 deliberately trained himself for his task by severe discipline in many 

 branches of analytical science. 



All these developments have been based upon the firm foundations which 

 Ritter and Humboldt laid down, and are examples of the truth of Vidal de 

 la Blache's dictum that ' what geography, in exchange for the help which 

 it receives from other sciences can bring to the common treasury, is the 

 art of not dividing what nature brings together.' The fundamental objec- 

 tives of geography are the same to-day as those which the Greek 

 philosophers of Asia Minor and Alexandria conceived. There is a 

 ' Modern Geography ' only in the sense that there has been a restatement 

 of its scope and content in the light of all the new knowledge of the earth 

 which more specialised branches of inquiry have revealed. It was the 

 work of the great pioneers of the nineteenth century to disentangle it from 

 these associated subjects and to ascertain the guiding principles through 

 which and the means or technique by which contact and relationship 

 with them could be most fruitful and helpful in the attainment of the 

 ends for which all science stands. This clarification of its scope and 

 methods was essential if geography was to, be in a position to seize the 

 opportunities for increased usefulness afforded by the conditions of the 

 modern world. For the two circumstances which, granted vision and 

 understanding on the part of its exponents, have inevitably enhanced the 

 significance and value of our subject are surely these : that, on the one 

 hand, our more complete knowledge of the earth and of the distribution 

 of phenomena over its surface has made it possible to formulate far- 

 reaching and valuable generalisations as to their co-ordination and 

 relationship for which the material had hitherto been lacking, and, on the 

 other, that the rapidly increasing interdependence and inter-sensitiveness 

 of the different regions and peoples of the planet have made a synthetic 

 view of the world as of a whole made up of inter-related parts — which is 

 the prime object of geography — essential to human progress. 



It is against this background of modern geography as a whole that 

 the special aims and contributions of that part of it which we call Human 

 Geography must be considered. The separate, departmental ' political 

 geography ' of the early nineteenth century is for ever discredited. What- 

 ever value human geography may have is involved in its association with 

 all the rest of the subject-matter. It is on the question of the precise 

 nature of the relationship that difference of view arises. If time permitted 

 it would be interesting to review the principal contributions to the 

 philosophy of human geography which have been made since the time 

 of Humboldt and Ritter, but I must be content with indicating what seem 

 to me the main tendencies. 



From the ranks of geographers themselves — as distinct from the views 

 on the influence of natural conditions on human societies put forward 

 from time to time by philosophers and economists such as Feuerbach, 



