Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-05-09

memory, power OF reflection and power OF
Inference they come. each ono to be felt
by him, after he has once yielded to them
and experienced their results. III connection
with a foresight OF those results IL Is
obvious that every instructive act in an
animal with memory must cease to be
blind after being once repeated
An insect that lays her eggs in a place
where she never sees them Matched must
always do so 'biindly,' but hen who has
already Matched a brood can hardly be
assumed TO sit with perfect blindness on
her second nest. Some expectation of
consequences must in every case like this
be aroused. and this expectation according
as II is desired or Is something dlsliked
must necessarily either reinforce or inhibit
the mere Impulse. The hens idea OF the
chickens would probably encourage her to
sit; rats memory, on the other hand,
or former escape from trap would neu.
tralize his impulse TO take bait from any.
thing that reminded him OF that trap"
How 40 we interpret these illustrations
of the psychologist? How may they be
applied TO the instinct Of man TO guard and
protect the woman OF his clan? How does
This instinct OF man compare with the
instinct or the bee TO follow its queen to
protect her and TO care for her SO that the
hlVe may not become extinct? And what
has 1t all 10 do with the tendency of men
]urjes 10 free women III this year of nine
teen hundred and fifteen?
Instincts give us habits and habits wear
deep grooves OF impulse in the mind
somewhere back in the neolithic period
nature whispered TO man that the first law
OF his impulse must be to guard the
female. Gradually, as man has come ND
through the stages OF progress, that i'm
pulse has grown into a habit OF mind
When reason began TO dawn il reinforced
this impulse. From that point on we have
the two forces Of instinct and reason
digging out the channel OF habit. IL rela-
ton with his woman. man has the self
preserving instincts of the silk worm the
defensive instinct Of the rattlesnake, the
hunting instinct OF the hawk the self per-
petuating instinct of the bee. And in addi.
tion he has bulwarlled his instincts with
an expectancy furnished by the growing
powers OF reason. Ills instinct has been
10 guard the female at all costs. His
reason has told him that this impulse was
fundamental 10 his existence.
In this connection it is interesting 10
note that mans mind has focused more
ana more upon the guardianship of the
female as he has progressed through his
historical epochs. His earliest school OF
thought centred in her. His will, his
reasoning power his perception of space,
his emotions. Ills imagination were first
extended TO obtain food and shelter for the
female From tile hunting animal he
turned into an agrculturist because his
woman demanded greater assurance OF
has been through The successive steps
toward civilization. Man has come walk
ing up through the cons, fighting every
inch or the way, so that his woman might
nave her rishtiul place in the sun TO carry
on the work for which nature endowed her.
Even a Wicked Woman
Still Excites Mans Sympathy.
Is it surprising that with such an
habitual focusing point his mind has
developed instructive impulses for her pro.
lection which at time dominate every die
tate of the intellect? The situation is a
very simple one. Intellect might tell a
man that a criminal woman was a peril
dangerous enemy to the well being OF a
sane and safe society. His intellect might
prove to him that a criminal woman i'm
perilled the permanence of his family life
tho very thing his instinct has fought to
preserve-and yet the old habit OF blind
unreasonns protection for the female
might well up unanimously with uncontrol-
liable power and manifest itself in a ver-
dict Of not guilty.
So have we come to the social premium
on woman's life. With the instinct for
blind, unreasoned protection has naturally
grown another habit OF mind-the attitude
Of guardianship. And with guardianship
came naturally both an assumption Of
authority and an acceptance Of irrespOnsi
bility for the woman. Roman law made a
constant effort TO protect and to excuse the
woman. a wife could not be held in a
criminal action if she committed theft
against her husband. The various state
ments of the Roman jurists make tho mat
ter clear. Sabinus and Proculus held that
a wife could commit theft. but that there
could he no criminal action. Juvenal tells
lis that husbands were SO complacent
toward erring wives that they could not be
induced to prosecute them. Ulpian re-