1 859.] LYELL. 229 



plan than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice pro- 

 foundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modifica- 

 tion in your new edition ;* nothing, I am convinced, could be 

 more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. 

 To have maintained in the position of a master, one side of a 

 question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a 

 fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer 

 a parallel. ''For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly ; for, thinking 

 of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often 

 and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have 

 asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a 

 phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that in- 

 vestigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly 

 wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criti- 

 cisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. 

 I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an 

 atheist, &c., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural 

 selection could injure your works ; but I hope and think not, 

 for, as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is 

 expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views 

 are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots. 



I cannot help thinking that you overrate the importance of 

 the multiple origin of dogs. The only difference is, that in the 

 case of single origins, all difference of the races has originated 

 since man domesticated the species. In the case of multiple 

 origins, part of the difference was produced under natural con- 

 ditions. I should infinitely prefer the theory of single origin 

 in all cases, if facts would permit its reception. But there 

 seems to me some a priori improbability (seeing how fond 

 savages are of taming animals), that throughout all times, and 

 throughout all the world, man should have domesticated one 



* It appears from Sir Charles lished till 1865. He was, however, 



Lyell's published letters that he in- at work on the ' Antiquity of Man ' 



tended to admit the doctrine of in 1860, and had already deter- 



evolution in a new edition of the mined to discuss the ' Origin ' at 



'Manual,' but this was not pub- the end of the book. _, 



