310 THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
lively interest in the debate and wrote two articles on the subject, including the
very last piece before his death (Goethe, 1832). Although Goethe declared no
victor, his basic sympathy lay with Geoffroy—a kindred soul who defended poetic
insight against pure empiricism, and who had, in a real sense that inspired their
deepest intellectual bond, completed for animals (with the archetypal vertebra) the
program that Goethe had begun so brilliantly for plants (and their archetypal leaf).
The debate of Geoffroy and Cuvier unfolded during one of the most important
and tumultuous events of 19th century French history—the revolution of 1830.
This coincidence prompted the most famous anecdote of the entire episode—a tale
that documents the extent of Goethe's involvement. Goethe's friend Frederic Soret
recalled:
The news of the Revolution ... reached Weimar today, and set everyone in a
commotion. I went in the course of the afternoon to Goethe's. "Now," he
exclaimed as I entered, "what do you think of this great event? The volcano
has come to an eruption; everything is in flames, and we no longer have a
transaction behind closed doors!" "A frightful story," I replied. "But what
else could be expected under such notorious circumstances, and with such a
ministry, than that matters would end with the expulsion of the royal
family?" "We do not appear to understand each other, my good friend,"
replied Goethe. "I am not speaking of those people at all, but of something
entirely different. I am speaking of the contest, of the highest importance
for science, between Cuvier and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, which has come to
an open rupture in the Academy" (quoted in Appel, 1987, p. 1).In his first article (1831, p. 179), Goethe conjured up the scene of debate: "In
this sanctuary of science... where all is order and decorum, where one encounters
people of high culture, where one responds with moderation ... lively debate has
broken out, debate which appears to lead only to personal dissention, but which,
viewed from a higher perspective, has more value and more future worth." He then
epitomized the differences between the protagonists in both method and theory
(1831, p. 180): "Cuvier presents himself as having an indefatigable zeal for
distinction and description... Geoffroy devotes himself to the hidden affinities of
creatures... The totality is always present in an interior sense, from which follows
the conviction that the particular can arise from the totality."
Goethe also recognized the link between a commitment to formalist
constraints and channels, and a reluctance to explain morphology by utility and
adaptation—for he had promoted the same correlation in his own work on plants.
Presenting the most essential aspect of Geoffroy's methodology, Goethe writes
(1832, p. 62): "It is necessary to cite, as most important, his having shown the
uselessness of explanations in terms of final causes."
Geoffroy surely enjoyed good fortune in Cuvier's death and Goethe's interest,
but he also actively campaigned in an unconventional yet strikingly effective
manner, for elevating the importance of the debate and rewriting its story