Bob, a nice, thought-provoking post.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but I thought I'd address a couple of issues as I see it.
Mark,
You may be right that Goethe was a musical philistine, but that in and of itself does not disqualify his statement. In fact his statement could be read to have little to do with music and much to do with architecture. In any event, he was obviously not talking about golf course design, the idea would have been new/non-existent at that time. On the other hand, he could be totally wrong.
Phillip,
I suspect that your idea of the evolution of courses is close to reality, but I don't think your idea of the constancy of architecture is totally correct. In this day and age, most buildings or houses are simply torn down when they've outlived their usefulness. But think back to an age when a farm or home would be in a family for generations, those buildings grew, changed, multiplied, and died (burned; a common occurrence). The homes and public buildings from that age were at the mercy of nature as much as (if not more than) golf courses are.
Peter,
You delve into the gray areas as well and as often as anyone. In this case, unfortunately I don't quite get the connection between the timeline from your simile (first golfer of the day), and the timeline from your example (Augusta). In human terms, I think there is quite a difference between a day and a century (or several decades as in the example). I would think that the difference between a day and a century is greater (to an individual) than the differnce between a century and a millenium. None will live long enough to judge the difference.
Sorry to have gone on so much. And again, just playing devil's advocate, obviously there are no concrete answers in a subject like this. But even so, I think this type of discussion worthwhile.
Charlie