Governing the Anthropocene: Novel

Ecosystems, Transformation and

Environmental Policy Sarah Clement
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/governing-the-anthropocene-novel-ecosystems-transf
ormation-and-environmental-policy-sarah-clement/
PALGRAVE STUDIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
AND REGULATION

Governing
the Anthropocene
Novel Ecosystems, Transformation and
Environmental Policy

Sarah Clement
Palgrave Studies in Environmental
Policy and Regulation

Series Editor
Justin Taberham
London, UK
The global environment sector is growing rapidly, as is the scale of the
issues that face the environment itself. The global population is estimated
to exceed 9 billion by 2050. New patterns of consumption threaten
natural resources, food and energy security and cause pollution and
climate change.
Policy makers and investors are responding to this in terms of support-
ing green technology as well as developing diverse regulatory and policy
measures which move society in a more ‘sustainable’ direction. More
recently, there have been moves to integrate environmental policy into
general policy areas rather than having separate environmental policy.
This approach is called Environmental Policy Integration (EPI).
The series will focus primarily on summarising present and emerging
policy and regulation in an integrated way with a focus on interdisciplin-
ary approaches, where it will fill a current gap in the literature.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15053
 Sarah Clement

Governing the
Anthropocene
Novel Ecosystems, Transformation
and Environmental Policy
Sarah Clement
Department of Geography and Planning
University of Liverpool
Liverpool, UK

Palgrave Studies in Environmental Policy and Regulation

ISBN 978-3-030-60349-6    ISBN 978-3-030-60350-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60350-2

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © Marko Poolamets

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

My motivation to write this book was fairly simple: human impacts are
transforming the planet, and changing governance could improve the
situation. I also realised that many different people working in biodiver-
sity conservation are concerned about the near-existential threat of these
changes on the work that they do, and many of them implicitly under-
stand governance challenges. Yet it seemed to me that there was a discon-
nect between the natural sciences literature on how ecosystems are
changing and the research on governance and transformation. While
there has certainly been a cross-fertilisation of ideas between governance
and ecological research, much of the governance literature remains
impenetrable for many natural scientists, practitioners, and policymak-
ers. There are many reasons for this, but one reason is perhaps that the
governance literature is, like so much academic literature, full of jargon.
There are many abstract and intertwined concepts that are not always
easy to untangle or even relevant for those working in other disciplines
and professions. Even though most conservationists can speak at length
about governance challenges and have many ideas about how they could
be overcome, sorting through the academic writing on the topic to find
some practical insights can be a formidable task, just as a foray into the
world of climate modelling might be daunting for many governance
researchers.

v
vi Preface

I learned this first-hand when I began my doctoral research. I was

asked to analyse the institutions and governance systems targeting biodi-
versity loss and explore ways that Australia could move beyond single-­
species approaches to target whole landscapes and ecosystems. At that
point, I had worked in environmental management and policy for a
decade, where I gained a wealth of direct experience of governance, both
as an environmental scientist in the field and as a social scientist and
policy advisor for government agencies. Having assumed that developing
a project on institutions and governance would be an easy task, I quickly
learned that this would not be the case. I realised that there was no single
agreed definition of what governance is, how to study it, or even what
form it should take. I could spend months just trying to decipher a single
school of thought on what an institution is and how these elusive features
of our social world could be studied. As with most academic disciplines,
there are many different perspectives and approaches within the gover-
nance literature, each with their own specialist language and perspectives
that are important for communication within the discipline, but make it
difficult for outsiders to understand.
My interest in novel ecosystems was also piqued during this time, as it
seemed to me that this contested concept could benefit from some of the
insight I was gaining in my governance research. There was also a realisa-
tion about the subjectivity of nature conservation that arose from my
background and experience. I grew up in America and received my envi-
ronmental science degree there, before leaving to work in Australia with
a very particular idea of what wilderness looks like. Although I knew
there was no such thing as ‘pristine’ anymore, I still had a sense that
nature was something that could be studied as something separate from
culture. Those ideas were challenged by my work in biodiversity conser-
vation, as I saw people who strongly believed nature needed active human
intervention to survive in many landscapes. Moving to the UK trans-
formed those ideas again, providing a clear example of just how different
novelty can be viewed in different contexts.
This book draws on the lessons of the governance literature, but seeks
to simplify those messages and translate them into practical terms. This is
not always possible. The use of specialised concepts from both the natural
 Preface vii

and social sciences is inevitable, but I try to distil these as much as pos-
sible and provide a glossary for reference. As you will see, there are also
many areas where the research findings are unclear, practical insights are
hard to pin down, and further work, across multiple disciplines, is des-
perately needed. In highlighting these deficiencies in our present under-
standing, my aim is to speak to a wider audience of individuals and
organisations who work in environmental conservation, both within and
outside of academia, about the scale of the task that lies ahead, and some
of the potential ways changing governance might help us more effectively
confront the ecological challenges of the Anthropocene.
A great deal has been written about how significant social, economic,
and political unrest can provide the conditions for positive policy change.
To take advantage of these windows of opportunity, it is important to
have a clear message about what the problem is, pragmatic ideas about
potential solutions, and a plan for leveraging political conditions in
favour of positive social change (Kingdon 1995). As I write this in 2020,
it feels as though the world could not be more tumultuous. The year that
started with Australia in flames has progressed through a series of remark-
able events, including global protests, further fires in the Arctic and
America, and, of course, the COVID-19 pandemic that sent much of the
world (and its economies) into lockdown. The positive impacts on nature
and carbon emissions resulting from these lockdown measures have
inspired a proliferation of thought pieces about how this will change our
relationship to the natural world. There are currently conversations about
how to use this opportunity to transition to a more sustainable economy.
There has been talk of a ‘green recovery’ and the launching of the UK
government’s policy of ‘build back better’, both of which put climate
change at the heart of political promises. These declarations are being
made as yet another significant change looms—Britain’s impending exit
from the European Union, which requires Britain to develop its own
environmental governance principles and regulations to fill the gaps. It
remains to be seen whether these windows of opportunity and these
political promises will lead to a sustainable transformation. While many
of the conditions are right, and many people acknowledge the need,
intentional social and governance transformations are difficult to
viii Preface

engineer. There is also a sense that many people are desperate to return to
‘normal’—a desire that might well unravel the hopeful expressions and
dreams of a ‘green future’ that have been nurtured amidst the maelstrom
of the COVID-19 crisis. Should this reversal not occur, however, the
aforementioned need for an understanding of the problems we face—
and an appreciation of what is achievable and what is not in answer to
these problems—will be as pressing as ever. The chapters ahead present a
first step towards fulfilling that need and with it, ideas and provocations
that, hopefully, will inspire others to explore further in their own work.
Liverpool, UK

Reference
Kingdon, J. W. (1995) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd ed.
New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
 Acknowledgements

All books are a collective effort, even if single authored. First and fore-
most, I need to thank all of the participants in my research. There are
hundreds of people who have participated in both large and small ways,
and I hope I did your views justice. In particular, I would like to thank
the experts who took the time to respond to my thorny questions about
scientific concepts, including Professor Richard Hobbs, Professor Chris
Thomas, Associate Professor Rachel Standish, Professor Pat Kennedy, Dr.
Joe Fontaine, Dr. Phil Zylstra, Professor Richard Bradshaw, and Professor
Rob Marrs. It is not an easy thing trying to marry governance and sci-
ence, and any failure to capture nuance is mine and not yours. To the
many colleagues who came to my various talks and seminars, particularly
those that heard about these thoughts in an embryonic stage, I appreciate
your thoughtful questions that help me develop my thinking. To Marko
for the photographs as well as the sort of inspiration that I didn’t even
know I needed; nothing is impossible. I appreciate the support of all of
my friends during this process, but a special thank you to Christina
Berry-Moorcroft for your indefatigable and helpful support. And to
Pandora, I cannot overstate your role as morale officer. Finally, to James
whose belief in my capacity never fades, and who encouraged me to do
this in the first place. As always, you offered support in every way, but

ix
x Acknowledgements

more than ever in this case you offered an intellectual sounding board,
much-needed critique, and you added a bit of levity to the whole opera-
tion. All in all, a successful mission.

Funding Statement Funding for the research in the Tasmanian Midlands

and Australian Alps was from the Australian Government’s National
Environmental Research Program as part of the Landscapes and Policy
Research Hub. Research on Nature-Based Solutions is part of a project
that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020
Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No
730426. The rest of the research was self-funded.
 Contents

1 Transformation and the Anthropocene  1

Narratives, Framing, and the Anthropocene    5
Geoscientific Debates: Framing the Evidence    8
Transformative Framings of the Anthropocene   15
Governance and the Anthropocene   19
What Is Governance, and Why Should It Change?   21
Novel Ecosystems, Governance, and the Anthropocene   24
A Way Forward?  26
References  27

2 Understanding Change and Governing Transformation 37

Social Science, Biodiversity, and the Anthropocene   38
The Governance Angle   40
Where Have We Gone Wrong?   42
Governance and Effectiveness   42
Governance: Barrier, Vessel, or Panacea?   45
Governance as Scaffolding   49
Understanding Institutions and Institutional Change   50
The Challenge of Institutional Change   52
Institutional Change in Context   55
Transformation, Adaptation, and Capacity   57

xi
xii Contents

Rising to the Challenge   62

References  63

3 Domains of Change in Biodiversity Conservation 75

Domains of Change   77
Domain 1: How We Talk about Conservation (Stories)   77
Domain 2: How We Think About Conservation (Ideas)   79
Domain 3: How We Decide About Conservation
(Objectives)  80
Domain 4: How We Structure Conservation (Policies)   83
Domain 5: How We Act (Capacities)   85
References  92

4 Novel Decisions and Conservative Frames 97

A Brief Overview of the Concept  100
The Geography of Novel Ecosystems  103
Framing Novel Ecosystems and Narrating Change  106
Novel Ecosystems and Declining Standards  108
All Is Not Loss  111
Biodiversity and Provenance  114
Novel Grassland Ecosystems and Conservative Frames in
Australia 118
Conserving Grasslands Under Changing Conditions  120
Multifunctional Landscapes, Expanding Narratives, and
Narrow Frames  122
Beyond Degradation  123
Expanding the Conservation Toolkit  125
Limits to Change  130
Reflecting on the Novel Ecosystem Framing  133
References 134

5 Cultural Landscapes and Novel Ecosystems145

Can Cultural Ecosystems Be Novel Ecosystems?  146
Changing Cultures and Shifting Baselines  148
Desirable States and Cultural Ecosystems  153
Cultural Severance and Biodiversity Loss  155
 Contents xiii

Heathland in the UK  156

Alvars in Estonia  166
Satoyama Landscapes in Japan  173
Lessons for Elsewhere  177
References 178

6 Climate Change, Conservation, and Expertise187

Conservation and Climate Change  191
Expert Perceptions on Managing Biodiversity in a
Changing Climate  194
Global Survey of Conservation Experts  197
Geography and Experience  197
Current Situation  199
Changing Management Practice  201
Managing for What Values?  206
Management Now and into the Future  209
Thoughts for the Future  213
Knowledge Governance and Adaptation  215
Balancing Precaution and Flexibility  218
References 221

7 Contested Concepts, Cultures of Knowledge, and the

Chimera of Change229
Framing Contests and Transforming Ecosystems  232
Fire and Transformation  234
Humans, Wildfire, and Biodiversity  235
Crisis—And Opportunity?  237
Catastrophic Bushfires and Contested Knowledge in
Australia 239
Framing the Future  248
Leveraging the Power of Nature to Confront Societal
Challenges 249
Origins, Principles, and Promises  253
Hope for the Future, or Chimera of Change?  259
References 270
xiv Contents

8 Conclusion: Reform, Reinvention, and Renewal281

Narrating Novelty  282
Knowledge, Capacity, and Tools for Change  283
The Culture of Conservation and the Conservation
of Culture  287
Assumptions, Principles, and Context  288
Reform, Reinvention, and Renewal  290
References 290

Glossary293

References297

Index347
 List of Figures

Fig. 6.1 Current intensity of impacts 199

Fig. 6.2 Perceived impact of climate change on ecological patterns and
processes202
Fig. 6.3 Likelihood of supporting the use of non-traditional
management options 203
Fig. 6.4 Personal importance of conservation goals for respondents 209
Fig. 6.5 Agreement with statements about management now and into
the future 210
Fig. 6.6 Considerations and level of influence on a typical
conservation project 213

xv
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 Example of scientific evidence used in defining the

Anthropocene11
Table 3.1 Governance principles, definitions, and implications for the
Anthropocene81
Table 3.2 Ways to change institutions through institutional work 88
Table 6.1 Summary of survey participants 198
Table 6.2 Effectiveness of current approaches in addressing the top 3
most intense drivers of biodiversity loss 201
Table 6.3 Likelihood of supporting management of novel ecosystems
by geographic focus of respondent 204
Table 6.4 Likelihood to support introduction of non-native species
that are more likely to survive in a changing climate by
geographic focus 205
Table 6.5 Likelihood of supporting primarily social goals in managing
biodiversity in a changing climate 208
Table 6.6 Information-related constraints to adaptation 211
Table 6.7 Governance constraints to adaptation 212
Table 7.1 Potential institutional work strategies to enable change in
fire governance 250
Table 7.2 Key performance indicators for the Liverpool Urban
GreenUP project 261

xvii
 1
Transformation and the Anthropocene

Human impacts on natural systems are unprecedented, intensifying, and

widespread. While many of the consequences of human actions are
plainly evident or at least well publicised, the full extent of anthropogenic
causes of environmental decline are more pervasive and extensive than
many realise. Now that the majority of the world’s population lives in
cities, it is perhaps still possible to think there are areas, away from human
population centres, that are untouched by humans. It is tempting (and
comforting) to believe there is a wilderness ‘out there’ that remains pris-
tine, providing a refuge for nature. There are certainly refuges, but to say
they are pristine would be an overstatement. Estimates of the extent of
human impacts vary, but a recent study found up to 95% of the Earth has
been modified by humans in some way, primarily through human settle-
ment, agriculture, transportation, natural resource extraction, and energy
production (Kennedy et al. 2019). Humans are a relative newcomer to
the planet, appearing 5–7 million years ago—just a few seconds before
midnight if all of geological time were presented as a 24-hour clock. It
was much more recent still that we began to have truly large-scale impacts
on the planet and its natural environment, specifically when the first
crops were cultivated and cities constructed 10,000 years ago. During

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 1

S. Clement, Governing the Anthropocene, Palgrave Studies in Environmental Policy and
Regulation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60350-2_1
2 S. Clement

this brief time in command of the planet, humans have become a power-
ful force of change globally, and perhaps even the world’s most powerful
pressure in accelerating evolutionary change in other species (Palumbi
and Mu 2007). When considered on a geographical scale, our ‘success’ in
modifying our environment over such a short period is almost impressive.
It is less impressive when considered through the lens of ecological
sustainability. Despite many modern metrics of human progress showing
improvement, the extent of human impacts jeopardises the functionality
of the very systems we rely on for human health and economic prosperity.
Although not always evident in the short term, the steady expansion of
human footprints across the globe has, inevitably, risked the long-term
health of many of the Earth’s systems. With respect to ecosystems, changes
can be the result of large-scale activities such as land clearing, but often
they are the cumulative result of less-dramatic actions. Known as ‘death
by a thousand cuts,’ even with environmental legislation in place, many
smaller-scale changes over time have caused a gradual but steady loss of
species, habitats, and ecosystem function1 (Dales 2011). The cumulative
impacts are substantial, with persistent and pervasive changes leading to
degradation of ecosystems at a planetary scale. Most of these changes are
gradual, but some have argued that they will also lead to more abrupt
changes called ‘tipping points’. Although this idea is being contested and
difficult to evidence (Brook et al. 2013; Hillebrand et al. 2020), the idea
that we have already exceeded several planetary boundaries that would
constitute a ‘safe operating spaces’ for the planet has achieved purchase,
particularly for climate change and biodiversity (Rockström et al. 2009a,
b; Mace et al. 2014; Newbold et al. 2016). The concern is that these
steady changes will lead to much more dramatic, abrupt changes.
Although this has proven difficult to evidence and anticipate, the concern
is that drivers of change can be synergistic and reinforce each other (e.g.
through feedback loops). This concept of a ‘safe operating space’ reflects

1
Ecosystem function has several different meanings in ecology, including ecological processes that
sustain an ecological system and the services an ecosystem provides to humans or other organisms
(Jax and Setälä 2005). Most often in this book, ‘ecosystem function’ is used to refer to the ecological
processes that control the fluxes of energy, nutrients, and organic matter through an environment
(e.g. primary production, nutrient cycling) (Cardinale et al. 2012). Ultimately, these are linked to
ecosystem services and the benefits ecosystems provide to humans and other organisms.
 1 Transformation and the Anthropocene 3

concerns that there are thresholds that should not be crossed, and that
the gradual changes we observe will ultimately lead to changes so signifi-
cant that we cannot reverse them, leading to even greater challenges for
humanity.
Although environmental change is often studied by focusing on par-
ticular systems (e.g. the hydrosphere, geosphere, biosphere, and atmo-
sphere), a more human-focused study reminds us that the planet functions
as a system (‘the Earth System’2), with social dimensions truly embedded
into these dynamics. The latter includes economic drivers, which are
social in origin and key influence on human behaviours. Although driv-
ers of environmental change can be natural in origin, the vast majority of
environmental change is now caused, either directly or indirectly, by
humans. Humans are not just sources of change, but they also are depen-
dent on natural systems and vulnerable to changes in those systems. The
Earth System and social systems are mutually vulnerable and mutually
dependent (Fraser et al. 2003). Environmental change is not just a con-
cern for ‘environmentalists’ but for all inhabitants of the planet, given
this reflexive relationship.
Although globally humans have demonstrated remarkable capacity to
adapt to change through technology and other innovations, there are
natural limits. It is now possible we are approaching thresholds that, once
crossed, could lead to cascading effects and even irreversible changes at
continental and even planetary scales, with subsequent impact on life and
livelihoods (Rockström et al. 2009a, b; Hughes et al. 2013; Steffen et al.
2015). While the goal of most environmental policies is to maintain the
stability of ecosystems, this can be problematic for a number of reasons.
First, the intuitive notion of stability as it is commonly understood by lay
people and policymakers—that is, as something that is relatively static or
that ecosystems reach a ‘climax’ state and return to this state following
disturbance—is not consistent with modern understandings of ecological
stability or ecosystem dynamics more generally. Policy documents and
peak environmental bodies also often leave the concept of ecological
2
The ‘Earth System’ refers to the idea that the Earth ‘behaves as a single, self-regulating system
comprised of physical, chemical, biological, and human components’ (Moore III et al. 2001). It is
used in discussions of the Anthropocene to emphasise that humans have changed the way this
whole system is functioning.
4 S. Clement

stability ill-defined and rarely capture the multiple components of stabil-

ity covered in the ecological literature and observed in the ‘real world’. In
reality, stability is a multidimensional concept that tries to capture the
different aspects of the dynamics of the system and its response to pertur-
bations3 (Donohue et al. 2016). Both disturbances and responses to dis-
turbances are multifaceted and occur at multiple levels (e.g. species,
communities), and neither this complexity nor the dynamic nature of
ecosystems is captured in most current policies.
Even if the goal of stability were to be retained, but with a more mod-
ernised approach to understanding and measuring it, achieving that goal
is not straightforward, in part because the relationship between human
causes and ecological effects is complex. For example, there are delays
between cause and effect, which make it challenging to predict and craft
responses on political timescales. Disturbances themselves are multidi-
mensional, varying in both type and intensity, and interacting with each
other, potentially producing synergistic effects (Kéfi et al. 2019). Even
though most ecological change is from incremental, persistent human
impacts that gradually degrade ecosystems, some research suggests that
dramatic ‘regime shifts’ can occur, where large, often abrupt and unex-
pected changes affect biodiversity and ecosystem function (Biggs et al.
2018). There is even some suggestion that we might be living on bor-
rowed time, and even though many places are changing slowly over lon-
ger periods of time, there are dramatic changes that eventually will need
to be reckoned with (Hughes et al. 2013).
Extinction is a normal feature of the biosphere, but rates are currently
100–1000 times the background extinction rate (Pimm et al. 2014), and
there can be large delays between habitat degradation now and extinction
of species. There can be substantial delays between losses of habitat and
species extinctions, known as extinction debt (Kuussaari et al. 2009).
Although it is thought that we still have some time to repay these debts,
we are racking up substantial extinction debts. Without faster and more
effective responses, those debts will eventually need to be paid. Knowing

3
There are at least 163 definitions of stability and 70 different components discussed in the litera-
ture (Grimm and Wissel 1997), but perhaps most commonly discussed are asymptotic stability,
resilience, resistance, robustness, persistence, and variability from Pimm (1984).
 1 Transformation and the Anthropocene 5

how to predict and prevent dramatic changes is critical, as it can be costly

and difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to bring ecosystems back
from the brink. While human impacts have steadily expanded and not
yet reached natural limits, it seems that we are in an era where we must
(finally) confront the reality of a finite world.
Globally, the changes to the Earth have been so profound that some
scientists have suggested we have left the relative safety and stability of the
most recent geologic epoch, the Holocene, and entered into a new epoch
known as the ‘Anthropocene’. Environmental change has always been an
enduring feature of the Earth, and the ideas that species evolve and sys-
tems are dynamic are fundamental to our understanding of natural sys-
tems. As the old adage goes, if there is one thing that is constant, it is
change. However, the pace and extent of change over the last few centu-
ries have been unusual in the Earth’s history, particularly because they can
be attributed to a single species, Homo sapiens. As a term to describe this
age marked by human impact, the name Anthropocene is not universally
embraced. Some authors, for example, have pointed out the irony and
arrogance of humans naming an epoch after themselves (Haraway et al.
2016; Brannen 2019), remarking that it is symbolic of the same human
failings that created such widespread destruction in the first place (Moore
2016). Whether or not ‘the Anthropocene’ is the right term is a legiti-
mate debate, but the term does at least serve as a useful shorthand for
describing the scale and extent of human impacts on the planet.

Narratives, Framing, and the Anthropocene

Despite not being a formal epoch, the term Anthropocene has proven to
be immensely useful across disciplines and with reference to a wide range
of topics. Over the past two decades, the use of the term Anthropocene
as a means of describing the transformative changes to the biosphere
caused by humans has increased rapidly across multiple fields in academia
and in the popular press. The result of this wide usage has been an abun-
dance of definitions and ways of framing the concept of the Anthropocene,
all deployed for different purposes and imbued with politics, values, dis-
ciplinary perspectives, normative assumptions, and more.
6 S. Clement

This book does not seek to resolve academic debates or controversies

about the term ‘Anthropocene’. It does not dwell on the basic question of
whether or not we are in the Anthropocene or attempt to provide some
sort of universal definition of the Anthropocene. In fact, the reader does
not have to believe that we are actually in a new geologic epoch in order
to gain insights from its contents. The book focuses on the evidence for
the transformative changes happening in both socio-economic and eco-
logic systems at present, and discusses the role of governance in address-
ing them. The technical name for this time period is somewhat irrelevant
for that purpose. However, the use of the term Anthropocene throughout
this book and so prominently in the title does serve an important pur-
pose: framing.
Framing and narratives play fundamental roles in shaping information
and how it is used in environmental policy and governance. They influ-
ence how problems are defined, who and what is considered relevant to
causing and resolving those problems, and what solutions are favoured or
discounted, and thus shape the outcomes of policy interventions
(Shanahan et al. 2011; Clement et al. 2016a, b). Policy narratives are like
other stories; they are used to make sense of events and actions and reveal
values and beliefs about what should be done and how. Policy narratives
need at least one character who is cast as villain, victim, or hero, and has
tangible, measurable effects on shaping policy realities (Shanahan et al.
2013). In Anthropocene narratives, there is a general ‘human’ who can be
cast as all three of these roles, but the tendency is to shape narratives
around one of these three types of categories. These are used to help us
make sense of what has passed, what is to come, and what role we should
play in where this story goes.
Stakeholders who are invested in a policy issue can use narratives to
convince others that a particular way of understanding and solving a
problem is the right way. Communicating the Anthropocene is not just
about relaying facts but also about telling stories. How people talk about
the Anthropocene may draw on scientific evidence, but such data will be
weaved into a story, with a plot and a sequence of events, including dra-
matic moments, symbols, and characters, as well as a central moral
(McBeth et al. 2010). Irrespective of the formal designation of the
Anthropocene, many stories of the Anthropocene are already being told,
 1 Transformation and the Anthropocene 7

complete with ideas about how we got here, who is responsible, who
might ‘save’ us, what we should do about the current state of affairs, and
what might come next. These stories are inevitably influential in how we
govern the challenges of the Anthropocene.
Framing is equally important for governance as a linguistic tool, where
particular aspects of that story are elevated or made more salient to the
audience. Frames are vitally important because they are used by everyone
to organise thoughts. They are central to our understanding and percep-
tion of reality and can influence our identity and conduct (Goffman
1974). The implications are that framing influences what is and is not on
the agenda, and ultimately, the translation of facts, values, and interests
into policy (Fünfgeld and McEvoy 2014). Framing influences how prob-
lems are defined, how causal agents (human or non-human) and their
effects are analysed, how the moral of the story is evaluated, and what
remedies are suggested (Entman 1993). While the evidence for the
Anthropocene may be measured empirically, when translated into gover-
nance and policy arenas, consideration of why, who, how, and where
problems have emerged involves framing. Debates over environmental
policy are often the result of conflicting framings of problems and can
contribute to policy failure (Paloniemi et al. 2012; Freitag 2014). While
the formal definition of the Anthropocene is important for scientific pre-
cision, it is not the sole driver of how the discussion of its challenges and
solutions are narrated and framed, both formally in law and policy and
informally in practice. As we will see throughout this book, science is
often sidelined in decision-making, much to the frustration of scientists.
While scientific evidence is important, it is at least equally important to
understand how terms are used and understood by people who are
involved in confronting the key challenges of the Anthropocene, and
how that ultimately translates to policy and action (or inaction).
The debates about whether we are in a new epoch, why and how we
got here, and what this says about humanity underscore various narra-
tives that have emerged about the Anthropocene. Reflecting on these
briefly can provide insight into what aspects are considered most relevant
for confronting the linked social and ecological challenges of the
Anthropocene that are the focus of this book. Subsequent chapters
explore the ways that these challenges play out across different themes,
8 S. Clement

focusing on transforming ecosystem, and explore how they are under-

stood in different places. This also means that, rather than adopting a
single framing of the Anthropocene or the many challenges it presents, it
is more productive to confront the multiple ways in which these chal-
lenges are understood, interpreted, and addressed by stakeholders
involved in causing or addressing the many causes of environmental
problems. The reasons it is important are simple: the Anthropocene is
complex and ill-structured, and so too are the reasons for environmental
decline. Policymakers prefer problems that are structured and, as such,
tend to simplify environmental challenges. In doing so, they can ironi-
cally make problems more intractable, not less, by neglecting the perspec-
tives, interests, and contributions of many important stakeholders, which
can lead to more conflict and gridlock (Hisschemöller and Hoppe 1995).
One of the many ways to remedy this is through governance reform
which, as this book will demonstrate, requires us to reflect on what the
problems are that we are trying to address. Analysing narratives and fram-
ing are central to this.

Geoscientific Debates: Framing the Evidence

Naming a geologic epoch is not normally an activity associated with poli-

tics, but rather scientific debate and collation of substantial evidence in
peer-reviewed literature and institutional reports. Yet the term
‘Anthropocene’, and even the scientific process of defining it, is sur-
rounded by controversy and has come to mean quite a bit more than a
new geologic epoch. Superficially, it is still possible to offer a fairly
straightforward definition of the Anthropocene as a geologic epoch
marked by humans as the dominant cause of changes to the Earth System,
as evidenced by enduring fingerprints of human activity that can be iden-
tified and measured in geologic strata (Lewis and Maslin 2015b).
However, behind this simple statement, there is some controversy within
the scientific community, with implications not just for formal defini-
tions of the Anthropocene but ultimately also for ideas about how society
should respond to the challenges that characterise this new epoch.
 1 Transformation and the Anthropocene 9

Setting aside debates about the merits of, and motivations for, choos-
ing to name this epoch after ourselves, the notion that we are living in a
human-centred epoch is certainly not new or without scientific basis. The
term Anthropocene and similar variations (e.g. Anthropozoic, Age of
Man) had been used since the nineteenth century (Lewis and Maslin
2015b), before being popularised in the early 2000s by atmospheric
chemist Paul J. Crutzen, who compellingly argued that we needed a term
that more accurately described the human-dominated era in which we
live (Crutzen 2002). Epochs are generally defined in part by the emer-
gence of new species. Although the term Holocene, when it was coined,
was originally associated with the emergence of humans, it has come to
mean something more mundane among scientists, that is, the current
warm and stable interglacial period (Lewis and Maslin 2018). Although
it has not been without controversy, the geological community agreed
that Crutzen’s assertions were worth investigating, establishing an
Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) as a subgroup of their peak inter-
national bodies and charging it with the task of investigating the evidence
for biological and chemical changes in sediments that can be used to
define the so-called ‘golden spike’.4
Although the term Anthropocene is used widely in provocations about
the state of the planet, the scientific process of defining it is fairly bureau-
cratic, with the proposal made via a small group of experts on the AWG
and ratified by a network of international committees (Subcommission
on Quaternary Stratigraphy 2019). If such a spike is agreed, then the
Anthropocene could become an official part of the Geologic Time Scale,
marking the date when the Earth officially moved into a new state (Lewis
and Maslin 2015b). As a date has not yet been agreed, formally we are
still in the Holocene, but this has not slowed the use of the term. For
many, the Anthropocene has become a useful, or at least provocative, way
of describing the way humans have transformed the natural world.

4
A golden spike, also known as a Global Stratotype Section and Point, marks a change in the Earth
System in stratigraphic material (e.g. rock, sediment, glacier ice). A date can also be agreed by com-
mittee (called a Global Standard Stratigraphic Age), but the golden spike is the preferred marker
(Lewis and Maslin 2015b). For an accessible and more detailed discussion on the history, science,
and politics of defining the Anthropocene, see Lewis and Maslin (2018).
10 S. Clement

For the Anthropocene to have a formally agreed definition, it needs to

have a start date, and that date needs to be supported by evidence. The
formal process of establishing the date of the ‘golden spike’ involves an
evaluation of scientific evidence by experts through peak international
geological committees. There is a growing body of literature in which
evidence is being amassed to support different start dates. The evidence
for dramatic human impacts is certainly there (Table 1.1). Evidence from
a wide range of disciplines supports the idea that the current scale and
intensity of environmental change is unprecedented, driven largely by
human actions. These impacts can be readily measured and evidenced
across a wide range of examples, whether it be greatly accelerated rates of
species extinction, sharp increases in atmospheric carbon concentrations,
alteration of nitrogen or phosphorus cycles, nuclear fallout, deposition of
plastic and other novel materials, or increased rates of soil erosion—the
evidence is as wide-reaching as it is irrefutable (Waters et al. 2016). While
the body of evidence generally converges to highlight the dramatic con-
sequences of human actions, there are nonetheless scientific debates
about whether all of these measures are relevant to defining a geo-
logic epoch.
For the purposes of governance, knowing when the Anthropocene
started is perhaps the least important debate because it tells us very little
about what we should do about it. Still, it can have demonstrable impacts
on environmental management. In particular, for this book, it is useful to
understand the timescales involved in these changes, as the issue of what
historical baseline we should strive for is central to many of the themes in
this book. At this point, there seems to be an emerging consensus on
when the Anthropocene started, which is essential for codifying the
epoch in the Geologic Time Scale. The AWG has put forward a proposal
that marks the mid-twentieth century, and many authors have published
evidence in agreement with this (Steffen et al. 2015; Zalasiewicz et al.
2015; Waters et al. 2016; Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy
2019). There is some debate on this point, with some authors suggesting
the date is too late, as it fails to capture critically important historical
human impacts, such as the Industrial Revolution. Initial proposals had
in fact suggested an earlier date of 1750 to capture all of the Industrial
Revolution and to coincide with an evident ‘Great Acceleration’ of
 1 Transformation and the Anthropocene 11

Table 1.1 Example of scientific evidence used in defining the Anthropocene

Example impacts Selected evidence
Deposition of Human-produced trace fossils and biohorizons on land and
man-materials in marine sediments, with materials such as aluminium,
concrete, and plastics prevalent
Increased Increase in particulates from combustion
consumption of
fossil fuels
Changes in Increase in nitrogen and phosphorus signatures in ice, lake
nutrient cycling strata, and soils
(e.g. from
fertilisers)
Changes in Increases in CO2 and CH4 emissions to levels not seen for at
atmospheric least 800,000 years (starts in 1750 with Industrial
carbon Revolution, more markedly in 1950s). Earlier changes in
carbon may also be considered, e.g. the ‘Orbis Spike’ in
1610, where abandonment of farmland following the
death of 50 million humans after Europeans arrived in
the Americas led to a dip in atmospheric CO2 from
increases in carbon sequestration; increases in carbon
8000 years ago from deforestation or 5000 years ago
from farming are sometimes also considered
Global changes to This category of evidence is extensive, including an
the climate increase in average global temperatures (0.85°C),
system sea-level rise of 20 cm in the last 100 years, changes in
precipitation patterns, changes in weather patterns
(including increases in extreme weather events), glacial
retreat, and thinning of sea ice
Use of nuclear Radionuclide fallout, which peaked in 1964, after the
weapons Partial Test Ban Treaty century (‘bomb spike’)
Loss of Potential ‘Sixth Mass Extinction Event’ if current rates
biodiversity continue, as measured by extinctions at 100–1000 times
the background rate since 1500, further increase from the
nineteenth century. Species removals are non-­random and
tend to be larger animals targeted by humans
Global movement ‘The Great Homogenization’: unprecedented large-scale
of species movement of species across continents leading to a small
number of species being extraordinarily common
globally. The emergence of new hybrid species is also
sometimes used as a marker

(continued)
12 S. Clement

Table 1.1 (continued)

Example impacts Selected evidence

Increase in Geochemical signatures—polyaromatic hydrocarbons,
human-caused polychlorinated biphenyls, and pesticide residues, lead
contamination (1945–50)
Sources: (Ruddiman 2003; Ehlers and Krafft 2006; Steffen et al. 2007; Barnosky
2014; IPCC 2014; Pimm et al. 2014; Lewis and Maslin 2015b; Waters et al. 2016)

socio-economic activity that affected planetary systems (Crutzen 2002).

Others have suggested a start date as early as 1610 because this captures
the effects of increasing global movement of humans between continents.
In particular, the post-1492 colonisation of the Americas, which brought
disease, the deaths of 50 million people, and the subsequent abandon-
ment of agricultural land, actually decreased atmospheric CO2 (Lewis
and Maslin 2015a). Although pre-European colonisation is often still
used as a benchmark for ‘ideal’ ecosystem states in restoration, it is
becoming increasingly difficult to achieve it. Within the Anthropocene
debate, the idea that these earlier dates are golden spikes seems conten-
tious, prompting a number of published rebuttals (c.f. Hamilton 2015a;
Dalby 2016). Still, even earlier dates have been proposed, including
5000–8000 years ago, to coincide with forest clearing and agriculture,
which increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the
atmosphere (Ruddiman 2003). At this point, however, it seems likely
that the mid-twentieth-century date will prevail in formal proposals,
given it has favour among the AWG, which will make its recommenda-
tion to key scientific bodies.5 Whether it will be formalised or not is still
an open question, but it is worth bearing this consensus date in mind as
we progress through the book, as many conservation goals aim for a time
well before this.
This bureaucratic process of framing what the Anthropocene ‘means’
in a technical sense obscures several more fundamental debates. It may
seem a fairly straightforward task of combing through evidence and

5
The AWG’s proposal will need agreement from a supermajority (60%) of its parent bodies (i.e. the
Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy and the International Commission on Stratigraphy).
This then will ultimately need to be ratified by the Executive Committee of geology’s peak body,
the International Union of Geological Sciences.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of How to
build a house
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

Title: How to build a house

an architectural novelette

Author: Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc

Translator: Benjamin Bucknall

Release date: September 17, 2023 [eBook #71669]

Language: English

Original publication: London: Sampson Low, Marston, Low, and

Searle, 1874

Credits: Bob Taylor, deaurider and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HOW TO

BUILD A HOUSE ***
HOW TO BUILD A HOUSE.

THE OLD CHÂTEAU.

 HOW TO BUILD A HOUSE:
AN ARCHITECTURAL NOVELETTE.

BY
E. VIOLLET-LE-DUC.

TRANSLATED BY BENJAMIN BUCKNALL,

ARCHITECT

LONDON:
SAMPSON LOW, MARSTON, LOW, AND SEARLE,
CROWN BUILDINGS, 188, FLEET STREET.
1874.

[All Rights Reserved.]

 LONDON
R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS,
BREAD STREET HILL.
 TRANSLATOR’S NOTE.

Among the voluminous and invaluable published works of M. Viollet-

le-Duc, none perhaps will have greater interest for the amateur or for
the practical architect than the “Histoire d’une Maison.” Of all the
architectural problems of the day there is not one of greater
importance or difficulty than that of building a house which shall fulfil
the various needs and conditions of a modern dwelling; and the
author has brought the results of a long course of study, observation,
and experience, to bear upon this problem in a most practically
instructive and fascinating shape. A lively narrative introduces the
reader to the minute and thorough discussion of every stage of the
processes involved, so that his attention is agreeably relieved; and
each step is illustrated by plates and diagrams, which render the
details intelligible even to the least informed student.
As the scene of this architectural novelette is laid in France, there
is much both in the general remarks and in the arrangements of the
building described which only applies to the social conditions and
requirements of the French. But the value of the principles laid down
and the practical instruction conveyed is not thereby materially
lessened, since every page of the book exhibits important truths or
excellent methods, which are of general application. By following out
those principles it would be easy to obtain the same admirable
adaptation of arrangement, soundness of construction, and charm of
design for an English house, which the author has so ably laid down
and fully illustrated in reference to its French counterpart.
It may be interesting to the reader to know that the “Histoire d’une
Maison” was written and illustrated by M. Viollet-le-Duc during the
evenings of two months—July and August—of last year (1873),
which were spent by him in the Alps for the purpose of surveying and
mapping for the French Government the whole of the French Alps—
a task accomplished by him, alone and unassisted, with minute
accuracy and beauty of delineation, and in a marvellously brief time.
 Benjamin Bucknall,
Architect.
Oystermouth, Swansea,
April 1st, 1874.
 CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
PAGE
PAUL GETS AN IDEA 1

CHAPTER II.
WITH A LITTLE HELP, PAUL’S IDEA IS DEVELOPED 13

CHAPTER III.
THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE 26

CHAPTER IV.
PAUL’S IDEAS RESPECTING ART, AND HOW THEY WERE MODIFIED 31

CHAPTER V.
PAUL PURSUES A COURSE OF STUDY IN PRACTICAL
40
ARCHITECTURE

CHAPTER VI.
HOW PAUL IS LED TO RECOGNIZE CERTAIN DISTINCTIONS
60
BETWEEN ETHICS AND ARCHITECTURE

CHAPTER VII.
SETTING OUT THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE HOUSE, AND
71
OPERATIONS ON THE GROUND

CHAPTER VIII.
PAUL REFLECTS 81

CHAPTER IX.
PAUL, CLERK OF THE WORKS 88
 CHAPTER X.
PAUL BEGINS TO UNDERSTAND 96

CHAPTER XI.
THE BUILDING IN ELEVATION 106

CHAPTER XII.
OBSERVATIONS ADDRESSED TO EUGÈNE BY PAUL, AND THE
115
REPLIES MADE TO THEM

CHAPTER XIII.
THE VISIT TO THE BUILDING 121

CHAPTER XIV.
PAUL FEELS THE NECESSITY OF IMPROVING HIMSELF IN THE ART
126
OF DRAWING

CHAPTER XV.
CONSIDERATION OF THE STAIRCASES 133

CHAPTER XVI.
THE CRITIC 137

CHAPTER XVII.
PAUL INQUIRES WHAT ARCHITECTURE IS 146

CHAPTER XVIII.
THEORETICAL STUDIES 156

CHAPTER XIX.
THEORETICAL STUDIES (continued) 172

CHAPTER XX.
STUDIES INTERRUPTED 183
 CHAPTER XXI.
BUILDING RECOMMENCED—THE TIMBER WORK 189

CHAPTER XXII.
THE CHIMNEYS 204

CHAPTER XXIII.
THE CANTINE 211

CHAPTER XXIV.
THE JOINER’S WORK 214

CHAPTER XXV.
WHAT PAUL LEARNT AT CHATEAUROUX 222

CHAPTER XXVI.
THE SLATING AND PLUMBING 230

CHAPTER XXVII.
ORDER IN FINISHING THE WORK 241

CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE HOUSE-WARMING 247
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
FIG PAGE
THE OLD CHÂTEAU Frontispiece.
THE OLD CELLAR Vignette.
1. PLAN OF THE GROUND FLOOR 22
2. PLAN OF THE FIRST FLOOR 24
3. ROOF PLAN 33
4. PLAN OF THE SECOND FLOOR 36
5. THE ENTRANCE FRONT 37
6. EXAMPLE OF A BUILDING SITE 46
7. DITTO 47
8. DITTO 49
9. SECTION OF CELLAR VAULT 53
10. THE OLD CELLAR 54
11. THE OLD CELLAR STAIRS 56
12. THE BULGED WALLS 58
13. CONSTRUCTION OF A ROOF PRINCIPAL 62
14. CAMBERED TIMBER 67
15. THE OLD ROOF 68
16. COUPLED TIMBERS 69
17. DITTO 69
18. TIMBER CLIPS 70
19. SETTING OUT THE BUILDING 73
20. USE OF THE THEODOLITE 79
21. THE CELLAR PLAN 89
22. DEPOSIT OF EXCAVATED SOIL 92
23. FOUNDATION STONES 94
24. SECTION OF SEWER 95
25. CENTERING OF CELLAR VAULT 97
26. SECTION OF CELLAR AIR-HOLES 99
27. RESPECTIVE VIEW OF DITTO 100
28. SPRING OF THE CELLAR VAULTING 101
29. THE GARDEN FRONT 103
30. THE QUOIN STONES 107
31. THE WINDOW CASING 108
32. THE CEILINGS 110
33. METHOD OF TRIMMING THE FLOORS 112
34. PERSPECTIVE OF DITTO 112
35. VIEW OF THE BUILDING OPERATIONS 120
36. HOLLOW BEDDED STONES 123
37. DRAWING MODELS 128
38. DITTO 129
39. PLANS AND SECTION OF THE PRINCIPAL STAIRS 132
40. THE STAIRCASE STRING 135
41. STEP OF WINDING STAIRS 136
42. SECTION OF THE SIDE WALLS, WITH DETAILS 163
43. AN ORIEL WINDOW 166
44. BAY WINDOW OF BILLIARD-ROOM 170
45. DETAIL OF CORNICE, STRING COURSE, ETC. 176
46. TRANSVERSE SECTION OF THE HOUSE 191
47. PLAN OF THE ROOF SUPPORTS 192
48. SECTION OF THE ROOF 194
49. THE STAIRCASE ROOF 196
50. FLAWS IN TIMBER 198
51. COUPLED BEAMS 199
52. SECTION OF THE FLOOR JOISTS 201
53. DITTO 201
54. SECTION OF THE FLOOR BEAMS 201
55. THE DORMER WINDOWS 203
56. THE DOORS 216
57. DETAILS OF DITTO 217
58. THE CASEMENTS 218
59. DETAILS OF DITTO 219
60. THE METHOD OF SLATING 233
61. DETAILS OF THE PLUMBER’S WORK 235
62. THE NEW HOUSE 258
HOW TO BUILD A HOUSE.
 CHAPTER I.
PAUL GETS AN IDEA.

Who is happier than the young student from the Lyceum when he
comes home for the summer vacation, bringing with him proofs of a
well-spent year? Everything smiles upon him. The sky is serene, the
country wears its loveliest dress, and the fruit is ripe.
Everyone congratulates him on his success, and predicts for him,
after his six weeks’ repose, an energetic recommencement of
congenial labour, crowned by a brilliant career in the future.
Yes, our student is a happy fellow; the air seems preternaturally
light, the sun shines more brightly, and the meadows wear a richer
green. Even the unwelcome rain is laden with perfume.
As soon as the morning breaks he hastens to revisit his favourite
haunts in the park—the stream, the lake, and the farm—to see the
horses, the boat, and the plantations.
He chats with the farmer’s wife, who smilingly presents him with a
nice galette, hot from the oven. He walks with the gamekeeper, who
tells him all the news of the neighbourhood while going his rounds.
The sound of the sheep bells is musical—nay, even the monotonous
song of the shepherd-boy, now grown a tall fellow, and aspiring to
the full dignity of shepherd.
It is indeed a happy time. But in a few days the shade of the noble
trees, the lovely scenery, the long walks, the gamekeeper’s stories,
and even the boating, become wearisome, unless some congenial
occupation presents itself to occupy the mind. It is the privilege of old
age alone to delight in memories, and always to find fresh pleasure
in the contemplation of woods and fields.
The stores of memory are soon exhausted by youth; and quiet
meditation is not to its taste.
Monsieur Paul—a lively youth of sixteen—did not, perhaps,
indulge in these reflections in the abstract; but as a matter of fact,
after a week passed at the residence of his father, who cultivated his
considerable estate in the province of Berry, he had almost
exhausted the stock of impressions which the return to the paternal
domain had excited. During the long scholastic year how many
projects had he not formed for the next vacation! Six weeks seemed
too short a time for their accomplishment. How many things had he
to see again; how much to say and do. Yet in eight days all had been
seen, said, and done.
Besides, his eldest sister, who had been lately married, had set
out on a long journey with her husband; and as to Lucy, the
youngest, she seemed too much occupied with her doll and its
wardrobe to take an interest in the thinkings and doings of her
respected brother.
It had rained all day; and the farm, visited by M. Paul for the fifth
time, had presented a sombre and mournful aspect. The fowls
crouching under the walls had a pensive look; and even the ducks
were dabbling in the mud in melancholy silence. The gamekeeper
had indeed taken M. Paul with him on a hare-hunting expedition, but
they had returned without success, and pretty well soaked. To his
disappointment, M. Paul had found the keeper’s stories rather long
and diffuse—not the less so as they were being repeated for the
third time with few variations. Moreover, the veterinary surgeon had
announced that morning, to M. Paul’s vexation, that his pony had
caught a cold and must not quit the stable for a week. The paper had
been read after dinner, but M. Paul was little attracted by its politics,
and the miscellaneous intelligence was deplorably uninteresting.
Monsieur de Gandelau (Paul’s father) was too much taken up with
agricultural matters, and perhaps also with the treatment of his gout,
to seek to relieve the ennui of which his son was the victim; and
Madame de Gandelau, still suffering from the depression caused by
her eldest daughter’s departure, was working with a kind of
desperation at a piece of tapestry, whose destination was a mystery
to all about her, and perhaps even to the person who was so
laboriously adding stitch to stitch.
 “You have had a letter from Marie?” said M. de Gandelau, putting
down the newspaper.
“Yes, my dear, this evening. They are enjoying themselves
excessively; the weather has been charming, and they have had the
most delightful excursions in the Oberland. They are on the point of
passing the Simplon for Italy. Marie will write to me from Baveno,
Hôtel de——”
“Capital! and how are they?”
“Quite well.”
“And they still mean to go to Constantinople on that important
business?”
“Yes, N—— has had a letter urging him to go; they will take Italy
only en route. They hope to embark at Naples in a month, at latest.
But Marie tells me they cannot return within a year. She does not
appear to think much of so long an absence, but it gives me a pang
which no arguments for its necessity can alleviate.”
“Ah! well, but do you expect our children to marry for our
advantage? And was it not settled that it should be so? They say
affection seldom stands the test of living constantly together on a
journey. N—— is a good, noble fellow, hard-working, and a little
ambitious, which is no bad thing. Marie loves him; she has
intelligence and good health. They will pass the trial successfully, I
have not a doubt, and will return to us well-tried companions for life,
thoroughly acquainted with each other, and having learned how to
further and to suffice for one another’s happiness; and with that
spice of independence which is so necessary for preserving a good
understanding with one’s neighbours.”
“I daresay you are right, my dear; but this long absence is not the
less painful to me, and this year will seem a long one. I shall
certainly be glad when I begin to prepare their rooms for them here,
and have only a few days to reckon till I may hope to see them
again.”
“Certainly, certainly; and I too shall be delighted to see them at
home. Paul, too! But as it is certain they will be a year away, it would
be a fine opportunity for resuming my plan.”
“What, my dear? Do you mean building the house you were
thinking of, on that bit of land which is part of Marie’s dowry? I beg of
you to do nothing of the kind. We have quite enough room for them
here, and for their children, if they have any. And, after this long
absence, it will be a new trial to me to have Marie settled at a
distance from us—not to have her near me. Besides, her husband
cannot stay three-quarters of a year in the country. His engagements
do not allow of it. Marie would then be alone. What can she do in a
house all to herself, with her husband absent?”
“She will do, my love, as you did yourself, when my business
called me—as it did too often—away from home; yet we were young
then. She will have her house to see after; she will get into the way
of managing her property; she will have occupation and
responsibilities; and so she will be satisfied with herself and with the
result of her thought and work. Believe me, I have seen the warmest
family affections weakened and destroyed by the habit of married
children living with their parents. The wife likes to be mistress in her
own house; and this is a sound and just feeling; we should not run
counter to it. A woman who has been wisely educated, having a
house to look after and the responsibility and independence which
responsibility in every form brings with it, is more capable of
maintaining her own dignity of character than one who has been kept
all her life in a state of tutelage. Marie would be very comfortable
here, very happy to be with us, and her husband would be not less
satisfied in knowing that she was with us; but she would not have a
home of her own. An unmarried daughter is only in her place when
with her mother; but a wife is only in her place in her own house. A
married woman in her mother’s house takes her place only as a
guest. And even if we suppose no mutual irritation to arise from this
life in common—and this can hardly fail to arise—it is certain that
indifference to practical interests, nonchalance, and even ennui, and
all the dangers thence ensuing, are sure to be caused by it.
“You have brought up your daughter too well for her not to be
ardently desirous of fulfilling all her duties; you have always shown
her an example of activity too conspicuous for her not to wish to