488 THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
the globe has been much convulsed by successive revolutions and various
catastrophes. But his ideas change as soon as he digs into that soil which
presents such a peaceful aspect, or ascends the hills which border the plain;
they are expanded, if I may use the expression, in proportion to the
expansion of his view; and they begin to embrace the full extent and
grandeur of those ancient events (pp. 29-30).The next several sections of the Essay present, in sequence, a framework for
regarding catastrophe as the primary agent of geological change—"proofs of
revolutions"; "proofs that revolutions have been numerous"; "proofs that
revolutions have been sudden"; "proofs of the occurrence of revolutions before the
existence of living beings." Cuvier then examines, as Lyell did but to reach an
opposite conclusion, the efficacy of modern causes, declaring them insufficient to
render the events of catastrophic episodes. Cuvier's words—in the most famous
passage of his entire oeuvre—have usually been cited out of context, to equate
catastrophism with despair and even with hostility to scientific explanation. But,
clearly, Cuvier harbored no such intent. He does express some regret at the
discordance between catastrophic and daily causes— for the task of science would
become easier if present forces sufficed. But the significance of the geological
record lies in its potential for documenting the catastrophic causes:
It has long been considered possible to explain the more ancient revolutions
on its surface by means of these still existing causes; in the same manner as
it is found easy to explain past events in political history, by an
acquaintance with the passions and intrigues of the present day. But we
shall presently see that unfortunately this is not the case in physical history;
the thread of operation is here broken, the march of nature is changed, and
none of the agents that she now employs were sufficient for the production
of her ancient works [or, to cite Cuvier's most famous line in its French
original—le fil des operations est rompu; la marche de la nature est
changee; et aucun des agens qu'elle emploie aujourd'hui ne lui auroit suffi
pour produire ses anciens ouvrages] (1818, p. 44; 1812, P- 17).Note Cuvier's careful choice of words. He does not appeal to mystery by stating
that current causes didn't work in an uninterpretable past; rather, he deems modern
causes insufficient to explain the evidence for historical catastrophes. We must
therefore study the geological record directly if we wish to resolve the causes of
catastrophes. I find nothing objectionable, or contrary to good scientific
methodology, in this argument.
Cuvier summarizes the substantive part of his Essay in a paragraph that unites
catastrophe with directionality, and the physical record with the biological history
of the earth:
Life, therefore, has been often disturbed on this earth by terrible events—
calamities which, at their commencement, have perhaps moved and
overturned to a great depth the entire outer crust of the globe, but