The present extent of the Lyell industry would have puzzled the historians of geology who wrote at the turn of the century. In their accounts, Lyell appears as an important, but not as a pivotal figure: even in their narratives of British geology during the 1830S and 1840s, they give as much prominence to glacial theory, to the foundation of the Geological Survey, and to Murchison's and Sedgwick's work on the Palaeozoic, as to the publication of Principles of geology. Woodward's History of the Geological

Society of London (1907) is a good example." In this official history of the professional community that commanded Lyell's staunchest allegiance, Woodward makes no attempt to devalue or debunk Lyell: indeed, he uses a ringing quotation from Lyell as an epigraph for his book, and, in the text, Lyell is listed among the" Great Masters of the Science", together with Buckland, Conybeare, Sedgwick and Murchison. But within the book as a whole, Woodward gives no special prominence to the publication of Principles, and to Lyell's subsequent work. Praise for individual items of Lyell's work is scattered liberally throughout the book, but no impression of Lyell's having redirected the practice of the Society's members is conveyed. It is important, in view ofa good deal ofsubsequent historical work, that Woodward notably does not characterize the 1830S and 1840S as years of debate between two schools of thought, one led by Lyell, the other jointly led by Buckland, Sedgwick and Murchison. Von Zittel's History ofgeology and palaeontology, translated and published in England in 1901, was written from a more comprehensive, international standpoint. P Again, Lyell is presented very favourably: Zittel calls Principles" epoch-making". But despite this seemingly unambiguous tribute, in practice, Zittel makes no sharp separation between Lyell and his contemporaries. He says that the methodology that Lyell advocated was already being practised in Germany by Von Hoff, and in France by Constant Prevost. In his discussion of specific theories, Zittel similarly dilutes the novelty of Lyell's work: Deshayes's contribution toward the subdivision ofthe Tertiary is brought into prominence, and in the survey of the subsequent development of worldwide Tertiary studies, Lyell becomes just one ofa host of productive geologists. In his chapter on the history of palaeontology, Lyell scarcely appears, and Lyell's radically novel non-progressionist interpretation of life-history is not mentioned at