the northeastern frontier and the French capital, blocking the road to Paris. The adhesion of Italy to the Triple Alliance, the monopoly of Luxemburg by Germany, and the fear of the violation of the neutrality of Belgium and of Switzerland, have forced us to fortify our frontiers from Dunkirk all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. In the meantime military strategy has undergone some evolution. It has conserved the lines of fortification, but, counting more on the movements of the army, it has directed its efforts toward the construction of entrenched camps suitable to furnish strong bases of operations. At the same time it has multiplied railroad lines with vast terminals destined to concentrate rapidly large bodies of troops at points to be protected or attacked. From this conception an army organization results which may be described in general as follows:

THE FRENCH SYSTEM OF DEFENSES

In the fortified towns near the frontiers permanent garrisons are established destined to receive or to give the first blows of the war. On the frontier itself fortifications guard the principal railroads. Back of this region, on what one may call the military frontier, entrenched camps are connected by lines of fortifications and separated by intervals where the natural topography limits the field of action of the enemy. Here and there are several series of new entrenched camps. Still farther from the frontier are the great central points of our national defense, Paris and Lyons. Four army corps form the garrison of the northeastern frontier. They are on war footing and can enter upon a campaign a few hours after a declaration of war.

The natural configuration of France apparently determines four possible zones of military operations. 1. Lorraine, Champagne, Burgundy and Breese. 2. Artois, Flanders and Piccardy. 3. The valley of the Rhone and Provence. 4. Guyenne and Gascoygne. Here again the present conditions of foreign politics intervenes. They permit us, in view of our relations with Spain and also in view of the formidable barrier of the Pyrenees Mountains, to neglect this fourth zone and to concentrate our attention on the three others, which are in more or less direct contact with Germany and Italy. The first and the third, those of the northeast and of the southeast, are protected in whole or in part by mountains, rivers, hills and forests, and have received from military engineers additional fortifications at strategic points. The second, to the north, is destitute of natural fortification and must be fortified artificially.

On the northeast frontier, which is protected by the Jura Mountains, the Vosges Mountains, the Meuse River and its tributaries, the Meurthe and the Moselle, and secondarily by the Saone and the Marne, military genius has completed the works of nature by fortifying the exposed points. The Alpine frontier, naturally more easy to defend in spite of the relatively easy crossing of its passes, is fortified at numerous points, and secondarily by the great entrenched camps of Lyons and Toulon. The northern frontier is left open to the enemy by nature. The neutrality of Belgium, which covers it from a point northwest of German Lorraine to the north sea, should be sufficient to

protect it; but, in fact, no one believes that neutrality is a sufficient protection, not even the Belgians, who have multiplied on the Meuse defensive works and have strongly fortified Liege, Namur and Antwerp. All of the forts made by Belgium to repel invasion are so much added to the defense of France. Assuming an invasion which, crossing Belgium would try to penetrate our country, our armies would find it necessary to engage in battle immediately. They would be supported by the fortified points of Dunkirk, Lille, Maubeuge, Charlemont, and secondarily by Fere, Laon and Rheims.

If all the lines of defense of the frontier were broken, Morvan and the central plateau would see the final supreme efforts of national resistance.

If we consider the extreme difficulty of invading France through the Alps or the Jura Mountains, the considerable difficulty of army operations in the Vosges Mountains or in the Ardenne covered by forests and swamps, and if we consider on the other hand the natural battle fields formed by Lorraine and the Palatinate, the fields of the Moselle, the Meuse and the Sarre, or the vast plain of Flanders, we must conclude that the probable theatre of future hostilities is in these latter regions. Here also a neutrality intervenes-that of Luxemburg. But through its railroads the country is already in German control, and military strategists count so little upon the neutrality of Luxemburg that they accord to the adjacent plains of the Woevre the sad and glorious privilege of supporting the first shock of the war.

THE DEFENse of the NORTHEAST FRONTIER

The French frontier between Longwy and Belfort is divided into three parts which are distinguished by the nature of the country and the strength of the fortifications. The first part between Longwy and Nancy includes the plains of Woevre. The second, extending to Donon, faces the gap of Charmes. The third extends along the Vosges Mountains from Donon to Ballon.

The Woevre, a large plain whose valleys and roads give access to the Meuse and the important railroad which follows its course, is open to invasion. *** We may readily suppose that the invading army will attack by preference on the plains of Woevre. Furthermore the formidable way in which the German troops are massed on the front near Metz ready for the attack on the plains of Woevre is the principal but not the only point of danger along the northeast frontier. Before 1870, and even after that date, Moltke made of it the invariable plan of a war against France. The former Marshall, military writers, and officers discussed the plan, noted its inadequacy and supported it by a complimentary movement, a flanking movement through the gap of Stenay and a simultaneous more widely flanking movement through Belgium. They showed the advantage of attacking the French forces in front and on the flank at the same time, and also the difficulty of attacking our forces on a front too narrow to enable the Germans to profit by their numerical superiority.

The neutrality of Belgium is of little weight, but will the Germans expose themselves by violating it to a new enemy whose forces are not to be dis

dained? Will they have recourse to a flanking movement by the gap of Stenay together with the direct attack, or taking lessons from the last wars and recognizing the necessity of renewing an attack with fresh troops and having recourse to troops arranged deeply on Enechelon, will they revert to the plan of Moltke and adopt only the direct attack? That is the secret of tomorrow.

Reclus goes on to describe the disposition of the various parts of the German army on the three assumptions of (1) A direct attack on the plains of Woevre. (2) A direct attack together with a flanking movement through the gap of Stenay. (3) A direct attack together with an attack through the gap of Stenay and a wide flanking movement through Belgium. Finally he argues that both preparations in Switzerland and railroad construction in Germany make a flanking attack through Switzerland very improbable.

Translator's Note: It is an interesting fact that the Germans in the present war have respected the neutrality of Switzerland, and have violated the neutrality of Belgium, as predicted by Reclus. They have adopted the third one of the modes of attack described by him, because it was the plan which enabled them to make full use of their numerical superiority in men. As suggested by Reclus this violation of Belgian neutrality has resulted also in bringing England into the war, not only with her powerful navy, but also, contrary to his prediction, with a formidable army.

IN

THE PRESENT STATUS OF HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICAL
GEOGRAPHY

N the April School Science and Mathematics, Mr. Charles E. Peet of Lewis Institute, Chicago, publishes the first installment of the report of his committee's investigation of Physical Geography. He says:

"The impression has been abroad for some time that high school physiography is on the decline, that it has failed to make good and is either being displaced by other subjects or the course is being shortened to make place for other subjects. Your committee was appointed to ascertain the facts. The first effort of the committee was to learn how many schools have dropped the physiography in the last few years. Correspondence with the State Superintendents of Public Instruction of Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and Indiana, brought out the fact, that with one exception, there are no statistics in their possession bearing on this point. From the Minnesota superintendent we learn that the number of high schools in that state offering physiography have been practically constant in the last four years. Without taking a census of the high schools by mail, we have seen no way of getting the complete facts. In Iowa, Miss Alison E. Aitchison, a member of this committee, examined the entrance credentials filed by 473 students, representing more than 250 Iowa high schools and found that only 32 did not present physiography as an entrance credit. It is the opinion of one of the geologists of

the University of Iowa that physiography is being replaced by general science, and by agriculture and biology, but that the change is so recent that it does not yet show in the entrance credentials.

As another possible source of information letters were addressed to the principals of 161 high schools, in the states mentioned, which have recently adopted "Clark's General Science" as a textbook.

The committee received replies from forty-eight schools. Thirty-four of these schools offer a course in physical geography, and five in general geography. In nine schools physical geography has been dropped. In its place seven have substituted elementary science; one manual training for boys and physiology for girls; and another elementary science and general geography. In five of the thirty-four schools now giving physical geography the course has been cut to a half year, and elementary science introduced; in four schools physical geography has been moved to a later year by the introduction of elementary science."

One point in the enquiry had to do with the extent to which General Science is displacing Physical Geography and the reasons. Mr. Peet prints a list of six reasons given by different persons, and concludes with the statement: "The facts gathered do not show the marked falling off in the physiography that would be expected considering that the information comes from schools which have recently introduced a subject that is supposed to be displacing it."

Another line of enquiry aimed to discover to how great an extent the impression that "physiography has not made good" is true. The replies from colleges and normal schools indicate that they are not able to build their courses upon the knowledge of physiography supposed to have been gained in the high school. One college professor's reply seems to state the situation well: "The foundation (in physiography) is as good probably as the foundation in any other subject pursued in the high school for the same length of time. For example, half a year of algebra in the first year of high school is not a very sure foundation for mathematics."

To the question: "In your judgment how do the results in physiography compare with those in botany, zoology, physics, and chemistry?" seventeen answer that in physiography they are inferior. Four more say that they are inferior to the results in physics and chemistry, but equal to those in botany and zoology; one says that the results are inferior to those in botany with girls and in physics with boys. Eight answer that the results in physiography are equal to, and four that they are superior to those in the other subjects mentioned. Eight answer that they do not know, or that comparison is impossible. Other answers are: "The results are less definite but no less in value." "The value is greater on account of the greater value of the subject, but ordinary examinations would suggest a contrary conclusion, for physiography is not as well taught as are the other subjects." "The results are as permanent as those in the other subjects."

In reply to the question, "What tangible results do you observe have been

produced by the high school physiography?" eleven answer that no tangible results have been observed. Other answers are as follows:

1. "Most of the high schools in this state give a course in the first year which is intended to be an introduction to scientific methods of observation and reasoning. As the students have no foundation to build on, they do not really gain much, and so do not apply the little they do gain, and it does not stay with them. The course is usually taught by whichever instructor happens to have the least regular work on his schedule, without any regard to his fitness or preparation. Hence the net results are usually small; quite as often as not, they are actually negative. Frequently the student is given a distaste for science in general. A well selected course in general science taught by a specially trained instructor would give much better results.

"There are a few schools where the subject is well taught and good results are secured, but when the pupils are twelve to fourteen years old, as they usually are in the first year of the high school, the instruction given can hardly be called instruction in physiography. A few schools do really good work with their seniors in courses which emphasize and correlate the principles learned in the other science courses and so help to fix them."

2. "On the whole the results have been beneficial, but not commensurate with the time spent because of the teacher's general lack of preparation in geology."

3. "Where the teacher has been a good one, a great deal has been done to make the pupil think about processes going on around him. With a good teacher much interest has been developed and the work is excellent."

4. "High school physiography in so far as it is handled by specially trained teachers has been markedly successful and has supplied new and useful ideas in great numbers and more than any other subject. But the result is not apparent in cases where the music teacher or the teacher of English Literature or any other unqualified person is assigned the work in physiography. The day has passed when 'any old person' can handle physiography."

5. "I have spent considerable time in investigating this problem in Iowa, and I think I can say that a considerable interest in the subject has been developed, and one that is educational. This, I find, varies with the conditions under which it is taught."

6. "As a rule an interest is developed. In individual cases I have found the opposite."

7. "I rarely find a student enthusiastic about the subject; as a rule students are indifferent to it."

8. When high school physiography is well taught we get good results. Well taught students want to go on with the subject. They find it helpful in history, economics, and geology."

9. "General appreciation of earth sciences."

10. "Renders the student better able to cope with general geology and stimulates an interest in natural science."