<h2> <SPAN name="article12"></SPAN> Geographical Research </h2>
<p>The other day I met a man who didn’t know where Tripoli
was. Tripoli happened to come into the conversation, and he
was evidently at a loss. “Let’s see,” he
said. “Tripoli is just down by the--er--you know.
What’s the name of that place?”
“That’s right,” I answered, “just
opposite Thingumabob. I could show you in a minute on the
map. It’s near--what do they call it?” At this
moment the train stopped, and I got out and went straight
home to look at my atlas.</p>
<p>Of course I really knew exactly where Tripoli was. About
thirty years ago, when I learnt geography, one of the
questions they were always asking me was, “What are the
exports of Spain, and where is Tripoli?” But much may
happen in twenty years; coast erosion and tidal waves and
things like that. I looked at the map in order to assure
myself that Tripoli had remained pretty firm. As far as I
could make it out it had moved. Certainly it must have looked
different thirty years ago, for I took some little time to
locate it. But no doubt one’s point of view changes
with the decades. To a boy Tripoli might seem a long way from
Italy--even in Asia Minor; but when he grew up his standards
of measurement would be altered. Tripoli would appear in its
proper place due south of Sicily.</p>
<p>I always enjoy these periodic excursions to my atlas. People
talk a good deal of nonsense about the importance of teaching
geography at school instead of useless subjects like Latin
and Greek, but so long as you have an atlas near you, of what
use is geography? Why waste time learning where Tripoli and
Fiume are, when you can turn to a map of Africa and spot them
in a moment? In a leading article in <i>The Times</i> (no
less--our premier English newspaper) it was stated during a
general election that Darlington was in Yorkshire. You may
say that <i>The Times</i> leader writers ought to have been
taught geography; I say that unfortunately they have been
taught geography. They learnt, or thought they learnt, that
Darlington was a Yorkshire town. If they had been left in a
state of decent ignorance, they would have looked for
Darlington in the map and found that it was in Durham. (One
moment--Map 29--Yes, Durham; that’s right.) As it is,
there are at this moment some hundreds of retired colonels
who go about believing implicitly that Darlington is in
Yorkshire because <i>The Times</i> has said it. How much more
important than a knowledge of geography is the possession of
an atlas.</p>
<p>My own atlas is a particularly fine specimen. It contains all
sorts of surprising maps which never come into ordinary
geography. I think my favourite is a picture of the Pacific
Ocean, coloured in varying shades of blue according to the
depths of the sea. The deep ultramarine terrifies me. I
tremble for a ship which is passing over it, and only breathe
again when it reaches the very palest blue. There is one
little patch--the Nero Deep in the Ladrone Basin--which is
actually 31,614 feet deep. I suppose if you sailed over it
you would find it no bluer than the rest of the sea, and if
you fell into it you would feel no more alarmed than if it
were 31,613 feet deep; but still you cannot see it in the
atlas without a moment’s awe.</p>
<p>Then my atlas has a map of “The British Empire showing
the great commercial highways”; another of “The
North Polar regions showing the progress of
explorations”; maps of the trade routes, of gulf
streams, and beautiful things of that kind. It tells you how
far it is from Southampton to Fremantle, so that if you are
interested in the M.C.C. Australian team you can follow them
day by day across the sea. Why, with all your geographical
knowledge you couldn’t even tell me the distance
between Yokohama and Honolulu, but I can give the answer in a
moment--3,379 miles. Also I know exactly what a section of
the world along lat. 45 deg. N. looks like--and there are
very few of our most learned men who can say as much.</p>
<p>But my atlas goes even farther than this, though I for one do
not follow it. It gives diagrams of exports and imports; it
tells you where things are manufactured or where grown; it
gives pictures of sheep--an immense sheep representing New
Zealand and a mere insect representing Russia, and alas! no
sheep at all for Canada and Germany and China. Then there are
large cigars for America and small mild cigars for France and
Germany; pictures in colour of such unfamiliar objects as
spindles and raw silk and miners and Mongolians and iron ore;
statistics of traffic receipts and diamonds. I say that I
don’t follow my atlas here, because information of this
sort does not seem to belong properly to an atlas. This is
not my idea of geography at all. When I open my atlas I open
it to look at maps--to find out where Tripoli is--not to
acquire information about flax and things; yet I cannot
forego the boast that if I wanted I could even speak at
length about flax.</p>
<p>And lastly there is the index. Running my eye down it, I can
tell you in less than a minute where such different places as
Jorobado, Kabba, Hidegkut, Paloo, and Pago Pago are to be
found. Could you, even after your first-class honours in the
Geography Tripos, be as certain as I am? Of Hidegkut,
perhaps, or Jorobado, but not of Pago Pago.</p>
<p>On the other hand, you might possibly have known where
Tripoli was.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />