But still more confusing is the definition when we recall that if the benevolent man is wholly unconscious of self, and is thinking only of the one whom he is helping, then he himself is no longer existing.  But in that case how can he help the poor man or even continue to think of him?  Perfect altruism is self-annihilation!  Knowledge of itself by the mind is that which constitutes it!  But enough.  It has become clear that these terms have not been used consistently, nor are the definitions such as to command the assent of any careful psychologist or philosopher.  What the writer means to say is, I judge, that the measure of a man’s personality is the amount of impression he makes on his fellows.  For the whole drift of his argument is that both the physical and mental aggressiveness of the Occidental is far greater than that of the Oriental; this characteristic, he asserts, is due to the deficient development of personality in the Orient, and this deficient development he calls “impersonality.”  If those writers who describe the Orient as “impersonal” fail in their definition of the term “personal,” their failure to define “impersonal” is even more striking.  They use the term as if it were so well known as to need no definition; yet their usage ascribes to it contrary conceptions.  As a rule they conceive of “impersonality” as a deficiency of development; yet, when they attempt to describe its nature, they speak of it as self-suppression.  A clear statement of this latter point may be found in a passage already quoted:  “Politeness takes the place of personalities.  With him [the Oriental], self is suppressed, and an ever-present regard for others is substituted.”  “Impersonality, by lessening the interest in one’s self, induces one to take interest in others.”  In this statement it will be noted the “self is suppressed.”  Does “impersonality” then follow personality, as a matter of historical development?  It would so appear from this and kindred passages.  But if this is true, then Japan is more instead of less developed than the Occident.  Yet this is exactly the reverse of that for which this school of thought contends.

Let us now examine some concrete illustrations adduced by those who advocate Japanese impersonality.  They may be arranged in two classes:  those that are due wholly to invention, and those that are doubtless facts, but that may be better accounted for by some other theory than that of “impersonality.”

Mr. Lowell makes amusing material out of the two children’s festivals, known by the Japanese as “Sekku,” occurring on March 3 and June 5 (old calendar).  Because the first of these is exclusively for the girls and the second is exclusively for the boys, Mr. Lowell concludes that they are general birthdays, in spite of the fact which he seems to know that the ages are not reckoned from these days.  He calls them “the great impersonal birthdays”; for, according to his supposition, all the girls celebrate their birthdays