have been adopted into English from other languages."[BO] I doubt if any missionary has made such a statement.  His further assertion, that “the word most commonly used applies to both sexes,” would have more force, if Mr. Hearn had stated what the word is.  His English definition of the term has not enabled me to find the Japanese equivalent, although I have discussed this question with several Japanese.  It is their uniform confession that the Japanese language is defective in its terminology on this topic, the word with which one may exhort a woman to be chaste being inapplicable to a man.  The assertion of the missionaries has nothing whatever to do with the question as to whether the terms used are pure Japanese or imported Chino-Japanese; nor has it any reference to the fact that the actual language is deficient in abstract terms.  It is simply that the term applicable to a woman is not applicable to a man.  And this in turn proves sharp contrasts between the ideals regarding the moral duties of men and of women.

An interesting point in the Japanese moral ideal is the fact that the principle of filial obedience was carried to such extremes that even prostitution of virtue at the command of the parents, or for the support of the parents, was not only permitted but, under special conditions, was highly praised.  Modern prostitution is rendered possible chiefly through the action of this perverted principle.  Although the sale of daughters for immoral purposes is theoretically illegal, yet, in fact, it is of frequent occurrence.

Although concubinage was not directly taught by Confucius, yet it was never forbidden by him, and the leaders and rulers of the land have lent the custom the authority and justification of their example.  As we have already seen, the now ruling Emperor has several concubines, and all of his children are the offspring of these concubines.  In Old Japan, therefore, there were two separate ideals of morality for the two sexes.

The question may be raised how a social order which required such fidelity on the part of the woman could permit such looseness on the part of the man, whether married or not.  How could the same social order produce two moral ideals?  The answer is to be found in several facts.  First, there is the inherent desire of each husband to be the sole possessor of his wife’s affections.  As the stronger of the two, he would bring destruction on an unfaithful wife and also on any who dared invade his home.  Although the woman doubtless has the same desire to be the sole possessor of her husband’s affection, she has not the same power, either to injure a rival or to punish her faithless husband.  Furthermore, licentiousness in women has a much more visibly disastrous effect on her procreative functions than equal licentiousness in man.  This, too, would serve to beget and maintain different ethical standards for the two sexes.  Finally, and perhaps no less effective than the two preceding, is the fact that the general social consciousness held different conceptions in regard to the social positions of man and woman.  The one was the owner of the family, the lord and master; to him belonged the freedom to do as he chose.  The other was a variety of property, not free in any sense to please herself, but to do only as her lord and master required.