society (and what is feudal society if not militant?) the position of woman is necessarily low, improving only as society becomes more industrial.  Now is M. Guizot’s theory true of Japan, or is Mr. Spencer’s?  In reply I might aver that both are right.  The military class in Japan was restricted to the samurai, comprising nearly 2,000,000 souls.  Above them were the military nobles, the daimio, and the court nobles, the kuge—­these higher, sybaritical nobles being fighters only in name.  Below them were masses of the common people—­mechanics, tradesmen, and peasants—­whose life was devoted to arts of peace.  Thus what Herbert Spencer gives as the characteristics of a militant type of society may be said to have been exclusively confined to the samurai class, while those of the industrial type were applicable to the classes above and below it.  This is well illustrated by the position of woman; for in no class did she experience less freedom than among the samurai.  Strange to say, the lower the social class—­as, for instance, among small artisans—­the more equal was the position of husband and wife.  Among the higher nobility, too, the difference in the relations of the sexes was less marked, chiefly because there were few occasions to bring the differences of sex into prominence, the leisurely nobleman having become literally effeminate.  Thus Spencer’s dictum was fully exemplified in Old Japan.  As to Guizot’s, those who read his presentation of a feudal community will remember that he had the higher nobility especially under consideration, so that his generalization applies to the daimio and the kuge.

I shall be guilty of gross injustice to historical truth if my words give one a very low opinion of the status of woman under Bushido.  I do not hesitate to state that she was not treated as man’s equal; but until we learn to discriminate between difference and inequalities, there will always be misunderstandings upon this subject.

When we think in how few respects men are equal among themselves, e.g., before law courts or voting polls, it seems idle to trouble ourselves with a discussion on the equality of sexes.  When, the American Declaration of Independence said that all men were created equal, it had no reference to their mental or physical gifts:  it simply repeated what Ulpian long ago announced, that before the law all men are equal.  Legal rights were in this case the measure of their equality.  Were the law the only scale by which to measure the position of woman in a community, it would be as easy to tell where she stands as to give her avoirdupois in pounds and ounces.  But the question is:  Is there a correct standard in comparing the relative social position of the sexes?  Is it right, is it enough, to compare woman’s status to man’s as the value of silver is compared with that of gold, and give the ratio numerically?  Such a method of calculation excludes from consideration