Since I have had a son and daughter-in-law, I have begun to think that it is absurd to reflect on the nature of this or that class of individual, because members of the same class are of opposite sexes. I often thought I had found a theory about such and such a class of people, such as servants, cousins, relations-in-law, &c., until one day, when I was being quite truthful with myself, I understood that a great many of my theories were reversible according to sex. This was most strikingly apparent with regard to my children-in-law. I decided that it is very objectionable for strange people to marry into a family and then idealise the being they have married, without reference to the lifelong knowledge of that being’s character possessed by the other members of the family. It seemed to me that my son-in-law made himself ridiculous about Anne; he really sickened me sometimes. He said that she was so delicate and sensitive he was sometimes afraid of crushing her with his blundering, thoughtless criticisms when she appeared to differ from him. That was nonsense, and I told him to go ahead fearlessly, and say what he thought; even if she was my own daughter, I was not blind to her faults. Therefore, logically, according to this theory, my daughter-in-law, Constance, would be not only wise in pointing out his faults to Tom, but she would be neglecting a duty were she not to speak out. Then I saw the reversible nature of my feeling. To be blinded by love is undoubtedly a fault, but in the case of married people both are not equally to blame. As in this diagram, taking A as the mother-in-law, those with a cross representing children of the male sex. The children-in-law are D and E. [Illustration]