The Geographical Journal (Journal of the Royal Geographical Society): Volume IX, No. 4 [‎220r] (110/172)

THE TEACHING OF GEOGRAPHY IN RELATION TO HISTORY.*
By A. W. ANDREWS.
Much has been written about the teaching of geography, but, unfortunately, the
improvement in English schools of this subject has been most disappointing. Its
educational importance is, however, so great that I may perhaps venture to make a
few practical suggestions on a side of the subject which has been somewhat
neglected. It is only by systematizing the teaching of geography, especially in its
early stages, that we can hope to train future geographers, and obtain for geography
in English education the honoured and important position that it holds on the
continent.
At present, in most English schools some time is devoted to the teaching of
history, and in a few there is a systematized teaching of geography; but, un
fortunately, the two subjects are taught in almost complete isolation. At first it
seems almost inconceivable that this should be so, and certainly it is not from any
lack of theory on the subject. To quote merely one or two names: Ratzel ex
pressly declares that geography is by no means a Hilfswissenschaft, or subordinate
branch of history, but that the two sciences need one another and cannot be
separated. Herder, again, in an inimitable definition, tells us that history is geo
graphy set in motion; and Michelet goes so far as to say, “ L’Histoire est d’abord
toute Geographie.” Finally, to quote Sir A. Geikie, whose admirable book on
the teaching of geography should be in the hands of every teacher. “ Few obser
vant teachers will refuse to confess that the historical side of political geography is
generally in this country either neglected altogether at school or is treated in
the most meagre and perfunctory way. . . . The present political limits of a
state are too often supposed to have the same kind of stability as if they had been
boundaries fixed by nature. When France of the fifteenth century is spoken of,
what proportion of readers has any notion of the difference between what was called
France then and what is France now f Yet surely history cannot bo intelligently
understood unless such distinctions as this are kept in view.
“ It is hardly possible to exaggerate the importance, in geographical teaching, of
connecting the present aspect of the country and the present political boundaries
and social conditions with those that preceded them, and out of which they have
gradually grown. It is only in proportion as we realize what has been that we can
properly appreciate what is. And yet how constantly do we see geography taught
as if the existing state of things had always been maintained; as if, for instance,
the modern limits of countries had the same persistence and fundamental character
as geological boundary-lines. Obviously the study of the present must come first,
but we should never forget that the result must necessarily be superficial and
imperfect, until it has been connected with an inquiry into the past.”
One would fancy that a practical people like ourselves would have utilized some
of the abundant theory and material that lies within easy reach, but, unfortunately,
there is nothing in which we are more conservative than education. Mathew
Arnold’s famous lines in ‘ Empedocles ’ or ‘ Etna ’ might have been specially written
for educationalists:
“ And so they rubbed through yesterday
In the hereditary way ;
And they will rub through, if they cau.
To-morrow on the selfsame plan.”
* Paper read at the Royal Geographical Society, February IS, 189/.