WORK OF THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY 255 
epoch it has become a science of the earth in which the chaos of 
geograjihic features and historical stages is reduced to order, 
while the body of description is enriched in quantity and even 
more in quality, and the art of describing is greatly im])roved. 
So in modern geograj)!!}’’ each district, the continent, even the 
entire world is considered not simply as an assemblage of feat- 
ures. but as an expression of tangible forces and conditions, a 
record of the [>ast, and an index to the future, and thus the dead 
features are imbued with living interest. Briefly stated, the an- 
cient geograph}" was static, the modern geograph}’’ is essentially 
dynamic. 
With the transformation of geography from art to science its 
method changed. In the ancient and transitional epochs, when 
description was the end and aim of geographic work, men sought 
unknown lands and waters, and through their zeal and courage 
the earth was explored save for small areas in the Americas, 
Asia, Africa, and Australia, and for larger but more forbidding 
areas in the Arctic and especially in the Antarctic. Modern 
geographers in like manner seek the unknown, but their eyes 
are flxed on agencies and conditions, or on causes and effects, 
rather than on material features, and their aim is the com})lete 
reading of terrestrial history rather than the complete mapping 
of the terrestrial surface. So, while the methods blend much as 
the stages overlap, it is just to say that the early method of 
geographic work was exploration, and that the modern method 
is research. 
THE FUTURE OF GEOGRAPHY 
The transformation of geograi)hy began with the introduction 
of history and culminated with the incorporation of the principles 
of geology. Much was taken also from biology, chiefly through 
the doctrine of evolution, which afforded a rational view of 
successional relations; but less was obtained from anthropology, 
despite the fact that this branch of knowledge was the original 
contributor of history. The poverty of anthropology as a donor 
of geogra])hic knowledge is due partly to the fact that history 
was fettered by scholasticism almost from the beginning, partly 
to the fact that students hesitated long before applying thei)rin- 
eiples of evolution to human b(‘ings and institutions. Accord- 
ingly human geogra|)hy is still in the transitional stage, so far at 
least as most of the geographers and geographic institutions of the 
world are concerned. It is indeed recognized that tribes and 
