These three conspicuous features of the older life in Japan help us to reach a clear conception as to what constitutes progress.  We may say that true progress consists in that continuous, though slow, transformation of the structure of society which, while securing its more thorough organization, brings to each individual the opportunity of a larger, richer, and fuller life, a life which increasingly calls forth his latent powers and capacities.  In other words, progress is a growing organization of society, accompanied by a growing liberty of the individual resulting in richness and fullness of life.  It is not primarily a question of unreflecting happiness, but a question of the wide development of manhood and womanhood.  Both men and women have as yet unmeasured latent capacities, which demand a certain liberty, accompanied by responsibilities and cares, in order for their development.  Intellectual education and a wide horizon are likewise essential to the production of such manhood and womanhood.  In the long run this is seen to bring a deeper and a more lasting happiness than was possible to the undeveloped man or woman.

The question of progress is confused and put on a wrong footing when the consciousness of happiness or unhappiness, is made the primary test.  The happiness of the child is quite apart from that of the adult.  Regardless of distressing circumstances, the child is able to laugh and play, and this because he is a child; a child in his ignorance of actual life, and in his inability to perceive the true conditions in which he lives.  Not otherwise, I take it, was the happiness of the vast majority in Old Japan.  Theirs was the happiness of ignorance and simple, undeveloped lives.  Accustomed to tyranny, they did not think of rebellion against it.  Familiar with brutality and suffering, they felt nothing of its shame and inhumanity.  The sight of decapitated bodies, the torture of criminals, the despotism of husbands, the cringing obedience of the ruled, the haughtiness of the rulers, the life of hard toil and narrow outlook, were all so usual that no thought of escape from such an order of society ever suggested itself to those who endured it.

From time to time wise and just rulers did indeed strive to introduce principles of righteousness into their methods of government; but these men formed the exception, not the rule.  They were individuals and not the system under which the people lived.  It was always a matter of chance whether or not such men were at the head of affairs, for the people did not dream of the possibility of having any voice in their selection.  The structure of society was and always had been absolute militarism.  Even under the most benevolent rulers the use of cruel torture, not only on convicted criminals, but on all suspected of crime, was customary.  Those in authority might personally set a good example, but they did not modify the system.  They owned not only the soil but practically the laborers also, for these could