THE EXCISED "MY'S." 237 



selection of the most categorical my out of the whole 

 forty-five, shows that Mr. Darwin knew all about his 

 my's, and, while seeing reason to remove this, held 

 that the others might very well stand. He even left 

 " On my view of descent with modification," * which, 

 though more capable of explanation than " my theory," 

 &c, still runs it close ; nevertheless the excision of 

 even a single my that had been allowed to stand 

 through sueh close revisions as those to which the 

 " Origin of Species " had been subjected betrays un- 

 easiness of mind, for it is impossible that even Mr. 

 Darwin should not have known that though the my 

 excised in 1866 was the. most technically categorical, 

 the others were in reality just as guilty, though no 

 tower of Siloam in the shape of excision fell upon 

 them. If, then, Mr. Darwin was so uncomfortable 

 about this one as to cut it out, it is probable he was 

 far from comfortable about the others. 



This view derives confirmation from the fact that 

 in 1869, with the fifth edition of the "Origin of 

 Species," there was a stampede of my's throughout 

 the whole work, no less than thirty out of the original 

 forty-five being changed into "the," "our," "this," or 

 some other word, which, though having all the effect 

 of my, still did not say " my " outright. These my's 

 were, if I may say so, sneaked out ; nothing was said 

 to explain their removal to the reader or call attention 

 to it. Why, it may be asked, having been considered 

 during the revisions of 1861 and 1866, and with 

 only one exception allowed to stand, why should they 

 , * P. 454, ed. I. 



