but I insist that it will have to grapple with political questions.  As he says, a city is not a place, but “a drama in time.”  The question for the sociological student of history is:  How has this inequality of wealth and of service arisen, and how is it to be prevented in the future?  That is the problem we have to study if we wish to make sociology a vital interest.  A definition of progress is really the first step in sociology.  Prof.  Geddes’ next paper should give us a definition of progress, and it is better that we begin to fight over a definition of progress, in order to get a dynamic agreement, than that we should multiply the archaeological study of many towns.  I admit that it is very interesting.  In travelling in South Africa, I often tried to gather how communities began; what, for example, was the nucleus of this or that village.  It was surprising how very few had an idea of any nucleus at all.  I deprecate the idea, however, that [Page:  124] we are all to amass an enormous accumulation of such researches.  Mr. Booth’s single compilation for London is a study for years; but Mr. Booth’s admirable investigation of the difficulties of life among the poor of London does not of itself give any new impulse to the solution of the problem of London.  It merely gives exact knowledge in place of general knowledge.  The problem of sociology arose on the general knowledge.  I fear lest the work of sociology should run to an extension of this admirable study instead of to the stimulation of action taken on that particular knowledge, or on more general knowledge.  We all knew there was plenty of poverty, and how it was caused.  We all had Ideals as to how it was to be got rid of in the future; but the question is:  Is the collection of detail or the prescription of social method the kind of activity that the Sociological Society is to take up?

Sir Thomas Barclay said: 

I am not sure that I agree with Mr. Robertson that it is desirable to define either “progress” or “civilisation.”  On the whole, their chances lie rather in the great variety of ideas of what constitutes them than in any hard-and-fast notion of their meaning.  They are generalisations of what is, rather than an object towards which effort should tend.  But neither do I agree with Prof.  Geddes’ restriction of “civics” to the mere outward part of municipal effort.  In America the word “civics” is applied to the rights and duties of citizens, and I should like to see Prof.  Geddes include in Civics the connection between citizen life and the outward improvement of cities.  I am sure, however, Professor Geddes, as a practical man, will deal rather with realities than theoretical views on the subject for which he has done so much himself.  Edinburgh owes more than many are willing to admit to Prof.  Geddes.  I think Ramsay Lodge one of the greatest embellishments of the Castle Hill in Edinburgh.  I hope he will now be successful in doing something still more admirable