Internalism and Laws of Form 311
to his advantage. As stated above, his book of documents went to the printers just
10 days after the debate ended. Although he did not importune Goethe directly, he
surely took full advantage of this fortuitous involvement (see Fig. 4-8 for some
private evidence). Speaking before the Academie later in 1830, Geoffroy noted
Goethe's favorable commentary on his "instant" book, referring to the great poet as
"the first authority of Germany... the celebrated Goethe... who has just
accorded my work the greatest honor that a French book can receive" (quoted in
Appel, 1987, pp. 166-167).
Taking a cue from Goethe's clout, Geoffroy actively recruited support from
literary leaders in France. Balzac dedicated Fere Goriot, perhaps his most famous
novel, "to the great and illustrious Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire as a tribute of admiration
for his labors and his genius." The avantpropos to Balzac's La comedie humaine
(1842) contains the following description of Geoffroy's system:
There is only one animal. The Creator has used only a single pattern for all
organized beings. The animal is a principle, which takes its external form,
or, to be more exact, the differences in its form, from the milieus in which it
is obliged to develop. Zoological species are the result of these differences.
The proclamation and defense of this system, which is, moreover, in
harmony with our ideas of divine power, will be the eternal glory of
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, the victor over Cuvier in this point of higher
science, and whose triumph has been hailed by the last article written by the
great Goethe (in Appel, 1987, p. 192).Balzac then used Geoffroy's centerpiece, in a timely and fascinating way, in this
and other novels—arguing that all people partake of a single human essence, with
individual variation best explained by environmental differences.
Geoffroy also courted the friendship and publicity of George Sand. Of a
meeting with Geoffroy at the Jardin des Plantes in 1836, she wrote: "The old
Geoffroy is for his part a rather curious beast, as ugly as the orangutan, as talkative
as a magpie, but for all that full of genius" (in Appel, 1987, p. 189). Geoffroy sent
Sand several of his publications; she declared herself unable to do them technical
justice, but still proclaimed them "broad and magnificent," throwing Cuvier "to the
ground ... for anyone who detests meanness in the arts" (in Appel, 1987, p. 189).
So many questions about historical influence find their best resolution in our
understanding of time frames and time scales. Cuvier may have won at least a
rhetorical victory in a scientific debate of great intellectual import but limited
duration and public impact during two months in 1830. But this event in clock time
then yielded to a literary tradition of retelling, orchestrated in large part by the sole
surviving protagonist. The original technical issues evoked little interest or
understanding among the chief literary retellers who, in Appel's words (1987, p.
175), "came to see Geoffroy as a heroic figure, Cuvier as a paltry fact collector,
and the debate as a major event in French intellectual history."
What version, then, should we embrace if we must address the largely