Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
complacence about Swiss liberty, she alluded to the cultural homogene-
ity that favored the spontaneous intimacy of her letters to Schardt. That
homogeneity was undoubtedly a significant factor in the flourishing of an
enterprise like the Earthquake Commission—even if Bel-Perrin preferred to
imagine that she was linked to Schardt by cosmic “affinities.”
Scientific Charisma
Even setting aside the case of Madame Bel-Perrin, it is clear that Schardt's
correspondents were motivated not only by respect for “science” but, more
particularly, for Schardt as its embodiment. They were “coming to the aid of
science, of which you are one of the representatives.” “Since I know that you
like to be informed on the subject of earthquakes,” one letter opened, as if
the writer were doing Schardt a personal favor.
110
Some used their devotion
to science to differentiate themselves from members of lower classes. Thus
one writer noted that neighboring buildings were inhabited “by a popula-
tion of workers who without doubt will not themselves relate observations
of this sort.” Most striking is their common desire to be of assistance to
Schardt himself. It meant something to these writers to address a man of
science, perhaps one they knew from his contributions to the local scientific
society.
As macroseismological networks expanded toward the end of the nine-
teenth century, they became increasingly bureaucratic. observers lost some
of the motivation of personal contact with charismatic personalities like
Heim, forel, Brügger, and Schardt. In Austria, for instance, when the state
Earthquake Service outgrew the oversight of the Vienna Academy of Sciences
and was transferred to the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geophys-
ics (ZAMG), scientists worried that the network would suffer. The ZAMG's
director expressed his concern to the ministry of culture: “People always see
a state institute only as a bureaucratic institution and regard the directorate
as functionaries [
Beamten
]. Particularly for those circles that have enjoyed
higher education, this is enough to make them stand aside or even to be-
have decidedly hostilely, because they are willing to subordinate themselves
to the scientific authority of the imperial academy, but not to a functionary.
This trait is certainly not justified, however it exists and must be reckoned
with.”
111
“In our experience,” he added, “the best observers are those ideal-
ists, who make observations entirely voluntarily, out of the purest objective
interest, and certainly for that reason demand a purely individual, personal,
non-bureaucratic treatment.”
112
