Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
it seemed that nature had undermined Europe's warmongers. Sensational-
istic reports appeared in Swiss newspapers, describing crowds gone mad in
southern Italy. 119 In the Jura, meanwhile, many observers reported tremors
coinciding with the Italian catastrophe. Schardt framed these reports as evi-
dence of “closely related movements” across the planet. “We are struck by
the impression that we are in the presence of closely related movements, of
which some are, by a kind of triggering effect, the consequences of others;
as a strong barometric low can be followed by a light shaking of the ground.
This is how we must consider the barely perceptible seismic phenomena
that were observed in our region, while neighboring countries and those be-
tween us and the great center of the quake were not perceptibly affected.” 120
Nonetheless, the observers themselves seemed unsure about the bearing of
these observations on events in Italy. None but Madame Bel-Perrin men-
tioned the victims. one recalled thinking, “If Switzerland were in Italy, one
would say that this is an earthquake.” 121
Even when scientists' narratives diverged from the perspectives of lay
observers, they carried crucial traces of this dialogue. Consider the case
of the 1885 earthquake in Bern, meticulously observed by the volunteers
Gempeler and Ischer. Gempeler's experience of the shaking convinced him
that this was an Einsturzbeben: “for the impression of this writer was none
other than that under his feet a rockslide must be taking place.” At first,
commission director forster agreed that this was indeed an Einsturzbeben.
Then, like a detective inspecting his clues, he arranged and rearranged the
felt reports. Epiphany struck in the “moment, in which the compilation of
the times of impact . . . lay before me.” It appeared that the earthquake had
been felt nearly simultaneously throughout the affected region, with reports
clustering along a long axis—a line that corresponded to the area struck by
another quake four years earlier. Before drawing a conclusion, however,
forster introduced a skeptical interlocutor: “But the enormously strong ef-
fects in Zweisimmen? and the hundreds of shocks that followed there daily
for months on the smallest area? was this then not an Einsturzbeben?” This
voice breaking into his train of thought was apparently none other than that
of Gempeler and his neighbors, insisting, in forster's imagination, on the
legitimacy of their observations and even of their interpretations. forster
continued: “ Certainly! but . . ..” With that “but” he went on to reconcile the
lay and expert points of view. Namely, a tectonic earthquake could have
produced, as a secondary effect, an Einsturzbeben in the Bernese village of
Zweisimmen. The horizon of the narrative had expanded, but the local story
survived. 122
Search WWH ::




Custom Search