298 THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
rarely waxed poetic about nature's abundances, but he surely rejoiced that organic
form knew no limits beyond good design.
While always remaining within the boundaries prescribed by necessary
conditions of existence, nature abandons herself to all fecundity not limited
by these conditions; and without ever departing from the small number of
possible combinations for modification of important organs, she seems in
all accessory parts, to be limitlessly endowed... Thus we find that as we
move away from the principal organs, and approach those that are less
important, varieties are multiplied; and when we arrive at the surface,
where the nature of things ordains that the least important parts be placed,
and where any damage is least dangerous, the number of varieties becomes
so great that all the work of naturalists has not succeeded in giving us any
idea of its magnitude (1805, p. 58).Geoffroy's formalist vision
Since the modes and practices of science inevitably reflect a surrounding social
environment, we should scarcely be surprised that the early to mid 19th century
world of revolution in politics, and romanticism in art, literature, and music, also
inspired a series of biological movements called Naturphilosophie in Germany and
romantic, idealistic, transcendental, or philosophical anatomy elsewhere. A
scientific movement may begin under strong social influence and little compulsion
by data, but its empirical adequacy may ultimately rank high nonetheless.
(Evolutionists, above all other professionals, should be optimally preprogrammed
to appreciate the difference between reasons for origin, and assessment of eventual
value—see pp. 1214-1218 particularly for Nietzsche's analysis of this vital issue in
historiography.) Geoffroy, as the most important of the transcendental
morphologists, heard the songs of his time, but he also composed a flawed
symphony that plays better today than to the previous generation that built the
Modern Synthetic theory of evolution, and that improves even more when we
recover and refurbish the original instruments of its initial performance.
The story has been told many times and in many contexts (think of Don
Quixote), but romantic dreamers often temporize and lose ground while practical
schemers reap the benefits of accumulated diligence. Cuvier, three years younger
than Geoffroy, began his Museum career in a clearly subordinate professional
status. But while Geoffroy followed his bliss in Egypt, Cuvier built his career in
Paris. Cuvier soon overtook his former protector, and Geoffroy brooded. (Cuvier,
for example, entered the Academie des sciences, the forthcoming stage for the
great 1830 debate, in 1795, while Geoffroy did not win membership until 1807.)
By 1805, Cuvier had already published his Legons d'anatomie comparee in five
volumes, while Geoffroy had produced no major counterweight. Geoffroy, strong
in ambition whatever his shortcomings in political acumen, knew that he needed a
distinctive approach or discovery to secure his renown, and he found a guiding
light in