
Eight or Nine Wise Words About Letter-Writing (1890)
A collection of quotes on the topic of law, in-laws, mother, mother-in-law.
Eight or Nine Wise Words About Letter-Writing (1890)
Letter to Colette, August 10, 1918
1910s
Source: Married By Morning
“A mother-in-law dies only when another devil is needed in hell.”
“The mother of a trophy wife is not automatically a trophy mother-in-law.”
Source: The Appeal
“Yet you would not drive a car with your mouth unless you are my mother-in-law.”
NetWorker, November/December 1996
Commenting on the gestures vs. speech debate in computing.
On the civil service, in Portrait of a Profession: The Civil Service Tradition (1950)
During an election campaign speech in Amethi, as quoted in Mrs. "Gandhi's feisty daughter-in-law: more than a political nuisance?" http://www.csmonitor.com/1983/0406/040644.html, The Christian Science Monitor (6 April 1983)
1981-1990
Raymond Cattell (1987), Intelligence: Its Structure, Growth and Action. p. 61
Quote on corporate sponsorship http://www.nme.com/photos/in-her-own-words-mias-20-sharpest-quotes/172930/16/4#5 reprinted in NME (2010)
Sourced quotes
Opening sentence, The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin
“Conscience is a mother-in-law whose visit never ends.”
1940s–present, A Mencken Chrestomathy (1949)
Attributed inBright Words for Dark Days: Meditations for Women Who Get the Blues (1994) by Caroline Adams Miller, p. 10
1990s
On being driven away by her mother-in-law Indira Gandhi, as quoted in "Son's Widow Quits Gandhi Household" http://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/31/world/son-s-widow-quits-gandhi-household.html, The New York Times (31 March 1982)
1981-1990
Charles Mallinson in Ch. 19; Charles Mallinson's mother, Maggie, and his uncle, Gavin Stevens, besides being their parents' only children, are twins.
The Town (1957)
“I haven't spoken to my mother-in-law for 18 months. I don't like to interrupt her.”
“…a bride who is bullied by her mother-in-law will herself become a bad mother-in-law.”
about Ralph Kronig's criticism on Samuel Goudsmit's proposal of a self-rotating electron, inflicting the same reaction to Goudsmit as Kronig had been incurred from Wolfgang Pauli [Tomonaga, Sin-Itiro, translated by Takeshi Oka, The Story of Spin, University of Chicago Press, 1997, 0-226-80794-0, 217]
Source: The Sword or the Cross, Which Should be the Weapon of the Christian Militant? (1921), Ch.4 p. 63-64
Context: We find the verses, "I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matt. 10:34), and "Let him sell his cloak and buy a sword" (Luke 22:36), which are used as proof that Jesus wanted his disciples to be prepared for war.... in Matthew, we find that the very next verse reads: "For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.... If one means that Jesus came to bring a literal sword then the next means that he came as a great home-wrecker, setting the members thereof one against the other. Such a literal interpretation prevents any clear understanding of the words of Jesus. Surely his words, "I came not to send peace but a sword," mean that he came to bring about a sharp division between those who do right and those who do wrong. In Kent's translation of the New Testament, these words read: "I did not come to bring peace, but a struggle. For I came to make a man disagree with his father, a daughter with her mother, and a daughter-in-law with her mother-in-law. It is to be doubted if a single reputable Biblical scholar can be found who will interpret these words to mean that Jesus had reference to a literal sword as a means of accomplishing a desired end. With reference to the passage in Luke, one has only to read the verses that follow to see that Jesus could not have meant these words as a sanction of war. It was the last evening of Jesus life... He himself was about to be reckoned with transgressors and surely his disciples would have to encounter bitter opposition. They must therefore be prepared must be armed must have swords.... the disciples, promptly misunderstanding Jesus' reference to a sword, reminded him that they had two, and he replied, "It is enough" or according to Moffatt's translation, "Enough! Enough!"). But obviously, two swords were not enough to defend his life from his strong and determined foes; two swords were not enough for war. They were, however, enough and even one was enough, to convey his thought of being prepared for the time of stress that was approaching. Professor Hastings Rashdall, the eminent theologian and philosopher, says in this connection: "More probably the words were 'a piece of ironical foreboding,' which the disciples took literally. The 'it is enough' will then mean, 'Drop that idea: my words were not meant seriously."
"On Truth" in Damn! A Book of Calumny (1918), p. 53
1910s