text:
Ohio v. United States EPA/Opinion of the Court

[p226] MERRITT, Circuit Judge.

This case seeks review of air pollution emissions limitations established by the Environmental Protection Agency for the smokestacks of two electric utility plants in the Cleveland area. Petitioners' principal argument is that the computer model, called CRSTER, used by EPA to forecast pollution from these plants and to set emissions limits allows too much pollution. They assert that this model should not be used in its present form to set emissions standards at the plant. We conclude that EPA acted arbitrarily in using the CRSTER model to set emissions limits without adequately validating, monitoring, or testing its reliability or its trustworthiness in forecasting pollution in the vicinity of these plants, and we order further action to test and validate the model as an adequate forecasting technique for these plants.

A. Procedural History
The Clean Air Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7642 (1982), as extensively revised in 1977, requires that the states establish acceptable written plans limiting the discharge into the atmosphere of various harmful gases such as ozone, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. These state plans must be established under federal guidelines (§ 7410) and enforced (§§ 7413(a)(2), 7416) in order to meet "national ambient air quality standards" set by the Environmental Protection Agency. In 1971, EPA set the primary national standard for sulfur dioxide, a gas released when coal, oil, or similar petroleum based products are burned by utilities, automobile engines, and other similar sources. The standard limits the concentration of sulfur dioxide in the ambient air to .03 parts per million as an annual arithmetic mean and .14 parts per million as a maximum 24-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year.

The purpose of the primary national sulfur dioxide standard and the enforcement scheme established by the Act is to ensure that the air breathed by people in all regions of the country will not contain more sulfur dioxide than the amount specified, the maximum level considered healthful (with a margin of safety) if inhaled for extended periods. The purpose of the state implementation plan is to ensure that the air in a state meets the national standards and that regions of dirty air are brought into compliance (§ 7410(a)(2)). In order to bring into compliance a region of dirty air, a so-called "nonattainment area," the plan must establish a maximum emission level for a pollutant by individual large-scale producers. The maximum level is called an "emissions limit" and a large-scale producer a "major stationary source."

The Cleveland, Ohio region is a nonattainment area for sulfur dioxide; the region includes areas where the concentration of sulfur dioxide in the ambient air exceeds the national standard. See 40 C.F.R. § 52.1871 (1985); Ohio v. Ruckelshaus, 776 F.2d 1333 (6th Cir. 1985). The two major sources whose sulfur dioxide levels are in question in this case, the Eastlake and Avon Lake plants, are electric utility plants owned by the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.

In the early 1970's, the state of Ohio developed a state plan setting emissions limits for producers of sulfur dioxide in Ohio. In 1973, EPA's approval of this plan was set aside by the Sixth Circuit because of procedural irregularities, Buckeye Power Co. v. EPA, 481 F.2d 162 (6th Cir. 1973), and Ohio subsequently withdrew key portions of its plan including the sulfur dioxide emissions limits at the two plants involved in this case. In 1976, because Ohio failed to develop a new plan, EPA promulgated a plan for the state of Ohio as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c). In developing this plan, EPA used a computer model called the [p227]  "Urban RAM model" to predict how sulfur dioxide emitted from the two power plants would be dispersed and would contribute to the pollution level in the atmosphere in the vicinity of the plants. The plan limited the amount of sulfur dioxide that the plants could emit to 1.43 pounds per million BTUs generated by fuel combustion at the Eastlake plant and 1.15 pounds per million BTUs for the Avon Lake plant.

In 1978, the utility company requested that EPA relax the emissions standard on the Eastlake and Avon Lake plants. In support of its request the company submitted studies showing that the Urban RAM model's predictions of sulfur dioxide concentrations in the air were significantly higher than actual empirically tested or monitored concentrations. These "validation studies" convinced EPA that the Urban RAM model overpredicted sulfur dioxide concentrations and that that model was not an appropriate tool for setting emissions limits at the plants. EPA tentatively concluded that the uncontrolled emissions of the plants would not result in a violation of national standards for sulfur dioxide. Consequently, on June 12, 1979 (before the date when the plants were required to comply with the 1976 emissions limits), EPA stayed enforcement of the limits, then proposed under § 7410(c) to change the emissions limits to levels equalling the plants' uncontrolled emissions, and asked for public comment.

The responses EPA received cast doubt on EPA's tentative conclusion that the proposed emissions limits would ensure that the region would come into compliance with the national standard. After the comment period had closed on the proposed change, EPA conducted additional modeling on the two plants. This time it used a model known as "CRSTER." On June 24, 1980, based on sulfur dioxide concentration predictions generated by the CRSTER model, EPA set the sulfur dioxide emissions limits at 5.65 pounds per million BTUs for the Eastlake plant and 4.1 or 4.65 pounds -- depending on the sulfur content of the oil burned -- per million BTUs for the Avon Lake plant.

In August 1980, the utility company, as well as North American Coal Corporation, NACCO Mining Company, and Northern Ohio Lung Association, all of whom are parties in this proceeding, filed petitions for reconsideration with EPA. In January 1981, EPA granted the petitions for reconsideration. EPA received further comments and reconsidered the new emissions limits, but on July 22, 1981, it reaffirmed the new limits. The utility company, Ohio, Massachusetts, Northern Ohio Lung Association, North American Coal Corporation, and NACCO Mining Company filed timely petitions for review of EPA's actions by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit under § 7607(b)(1), and EPA stayed enforcement of the emissions limits pending review by this Court. Pennsylvania, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio Mining & Reclamation Association, and Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Company have been allowed to intervene under Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, New Hampshire and Northern Ohio Lung Association (hereinafter referred to as "petitioners") favor more restrictive emissions limits. They argue that EPA violated the Clean Air Act when: (1) EPA revised the emissions limits for the plants using the CRSTER model without adequately demonstrating that the new standard will ensure attainment of the air quality standards for Ohio; (2) EPA failed to require continuous monitoring of sulfur dioxide emissions at the plants; (3) EPA failed to perform a "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" review before changing the limits; and (4) EPA failed to provide notice and opportunity for public comment prior to promulgating the latest emissions limits. EPA is generally aligned with North American Coal Corporation, NACCO Mining Company, Ohio, the utility company, Ohio Mining & Reclamation Association, and Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Company in arguing that: (1) EPA adequately demonstrated that the new emissions limits will ensure attainment of the national air quality standard; (2) the Act's monitoring requirement [p228]  will be satisfied by a general monitoring provision to be promulgated by EPA in rulemaking unrelated to this case; (3) EPA is not required to conduct a "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" review in the situation involved in this case; and (4) EPA cured any procedural defect by giving notice and opportunity to comment after the new limits were promulgated while EPA was reconsidering its decision to change the emissions limits.

B. The CRSTER Model
In "nonattainment areas" the Clean Air Act provides for measuring the amount and the spread of dirty air from a source by actual testing or by "air quality modeling," 42 U.S.C. § 7501(2). In such areas, the Act emphasizes the need for "a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources" in order "to assess the need" for more "reduction" to meet national standards, and presumably as a check on modeling techniques. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(b)(4).

An "air quality model" or "computer model" is a forecasting technique. It is a mathematical equation or algorithm expressing a theory and a set of predictions about the content and circulation of air in a limited area, usually less than 50 kilometers in radius. After plugging data in numerical form into the variables of the algorithm, the model uses the mathematical theory to forecast the physical and chemical behavior of pollutants in the air and to describe the way the pollutants will spread out in space and time. Models can be used to predict pollution from a single source, after factoring in an assumption about the amount of background pollution, or they can be used to predict the spread of pollution from each of a number of sources. The model must be supplied with a "data base" consisting of information about variables such as the capacity of the power plants, the sulfur content of the fuel used, the height and diameter of the smoke stacks, the geographical characteristics of the surrounding terrain, and at least one year's monitored weather conditions. See Case, Problems in Judicial Review Arising from the Use of Computer Models and Other Quantitative Methodologies in Environmental Decision Making, 10 B.C. Env. Aff. L. Rev. 251, 317, 324-25 (1982). In order to be useful, a model must accurately predict the "behavior" of the air system being modeled.

Most of the controversy in the instant case arises from EPA's use of one such model, known as CRSTER, in setting emissions limits for the two power plants. The CRSTER model is a single source model designed for application to hot, buoyant, stack effluents of the kind commonly produced by power plant and furnace chimneys. After factoring in background pollution, the CRSTER model is actually capable of modeling up to 19 sources, but only if they are in close proximity to one another -- multiple stacks at a single plant, for example. It treats all sources being modeled as occupying the same location. See U.S. EPA 450/2-77-013, User's Manual for Single-Source (CRSTER) Model, at 2-24, 2-25 (1977) (hereinafter referred to as the "CRSTER Manual"). The CRSTER model is a "gaussian plume dispersion" model, which means that it describes how a plume of dirty air emerging from a smoke stack will spread upward and outward according to the principles of fluid dynamics.

The model consists of a "preprocessor subroutine," which translates input data such as meteorological conditions and source characteristics into a format suitable for the model, and a set of subroutines that perform the actual modeling. These subroutines use data translated by the preprocessor to calculate how pollution from the source will spread out in light of the conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction) embodied in that data. In so doing, the model makes a number of simplifying assumptions about such factors as the constancy of wind speed and direction, the uniformity of emission, the inability of the plume to cross a low atmospheric layer called the "mixing level," the absence of vertical wind shear, the nonreactivity of the effluent, and the degree of diffusion of the plume.

[p229] The model's predictions are presented in the form of readings at a hypothetical network of sensors or monitors surrounding the source. The model provides for five rings of such sensors along 36 compass azimuths evenly spaced every ten degrees. In addition, the model produces outputs of highest and second-highest concentrations at each receptor, a ranking of the 50 highest concentrations for the year, and various other useful data, some of which are suitable for use as input data for other analytic programs.

C. Validation
The user's manual for the CRSTER model indicates that EPA subjected CRSTER to four validation studies at locations not involved in this case. CRSTER Manual at App. D-F. In an effort to determine the validity and overall accuracy of CRSTER, EPA attempted to validate the model at the Canal power plant, along Cape Code Bay in Massachusetts, and at the Philo, Stuart, and Muskingum plants in southern Ohio.

Based on empirical testing, EPA concluded that CRSTER generally tends during any given year to underestimate the highest and second-highest 24-hour estimated average and the 3-hour estimated average concentrations of sulfur dioxide. With respect to the 1-hour average, the CRSTER model overpredicted as often as it underpredicted. The amount of over- or underprediction varied from plant to plant, but the model is, according to the user's manual, "generally accurate within a factor of 2," a 200% deviation from actual fact. The user's manual states that this "accuracy is widely accepted for such point [i.e., 'single'] source models." Id., at D-4.

Several conclusions may be drawn about the CRSTER model on the basis of these four validation studies. First, CRSTER predicted the second-highest 1-hour sulfur dioxide estimated concentrations within a factor of two at two-thirds of the sampling sites. EPA believes that this is an acceptable range of accuracy. Second, CRSTER consistently underpredicted the second-highest 24-hour sulfur dioxide concentrations. Third, plant-specific factors appear to affect the degree to which CRSTER over- or underpredicts sulfur dioxide concentrations. Finally, CRSTER tends to underpredict at greater distances from the pollution source. The four validation tests described here make clear that EPA can validate the CRSTER at a particular site. It appears that on-site validation of CRSTER requires at least one full year of data gathering by EPA.

II. ACCURACY OF THE CRSTER MODEL
Petitioners' primary argument is that EPA has not shown that the new emissions limits, based on predictions generated by the CRSTER model, will ensure attainment of the national air quality standard for sulfur dioxide as required by the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(B). The main thrust of their argument is an attack on the CRSTER model. They assert that the model's predictions are not accurate reflections of actual pollution concentrations.

The first issue presented is whether EPA has demonstrated the CRSTER model to be sufficiently accurate to be used in setting emissions limits for the plants. In other words, is the CRSTER model accurate enough that EPA's reliance on this model was reasonable rather than arbitrary? 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9)(A). We are asked to assess the model's accuracy even though we are limited by a lack of information in the record demonstrating how reliably the model predicts the diffusion of sulfur dioxide in the region around the plants. No on-site study has been performed on the CRSTER model, as was done on the Urban RAM model, comparing the model's predictions of sulfur dioxide concentration for the areas surrounding the plants with actual monitored concentrations in these areas. No one has empirically tested the model or cross-checked its predictions against reality at the locations of the company's power plants.

The Clean Air Act requires that state implementation plans contain provisions that ensure empirical testing of source [p230]  emissions and ambient air quality. Under section 7502(b)(4), implementation plans developed for nonattainment areas must require a "comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources." The Act also provides that EPA may not approve a plan unless "it includes provision for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to . . . monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality." 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(c). Additionally, a plan must provide "for installation of equipment by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources . . . for periodic reports" and for correlation of this information with air quality standards. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(F).

In 1978 another panel of our Court found that EPA's plan for Ohio did not comply with the emissions monitoring requirement of § 7410(a)(2)(F). Northern Ohio Lung Association v. EPA, 572 F.2d 1182 (6th Cir. 1978). The Court remanded this aspect of the plan to EPA for reconsideration, but EPA has not yet complied with the Court's directive. EPA has failed to comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act which contemplate that empirical data will be collected on the amount of sulfur dioxide being emitted and the resulting concentrations of this pollutant in the ambient air.

EPA's reliance on the CRSTER model without testing the model against any monitored emissions from the plants and ambient air quality data from the area around the plants is arbitrary under these circumstances. The CRSTER model's unimpressive showing in the validation studies conducted at other sites in Ohio and Massachusetts suggests that the model's accuracy is suspect. Moreover, these studies emphasize that site-specific factors, such as local geography and weather conditions, affect the model's accuracy. We have no information in the record about what effect Lake Erie has on the diffusion of sulfur dioxide from these plants built along the shoreline, although all sides appear to agree that this factor is significant. In the absence of reliable data of some type, the trustworthiness of CRSTER predictions cannot be assessed.

In so holding, we recognize that other courts, in some cases, have not required EPA to test model predictions against monitored air quality data. See, e.g., South Terminal Corp. v. EPA, 504 F.2d 646 (1st Cir. 1974); Mision Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123 (1st Cir. 1976). However, in South Terminal, the First Circuit required EPA to demonstrate that its regulation was supported by adequate technical evidence. 504 F.2d at 663-67; see also Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 28 L. Ed. 2d 136, 91 S.C.t. 814 (1971); Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 477 F.2d 495, 507 (4th Cir. 1973) (agency has discretion in rulemaking, but must "explicate fully" its course of inquiry, analysis and reasoning so that reviewing court can conduct meaningful review). This circuit has favored requirements that EPA back up its regulations with checks against real world data. See, e.g., Northern Ohio Lung Association, 572 F.2d at 1182 (requiring emissions monitoring and correlation of emissions data with air quality data as provided for under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(F)).

The problems that complex technical cases such as this one pose for reviewing courts have been widely discussed. See, e.g., Case, supra; Yellin, High Technology and the Courts, 94 Harv. L. Rev. 489 (1981); Merges, Apple v. Franklin: An Essay on Technology and Judicial Competence, 2 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 62 (1983). No matter how sophisticated or involved the methods employed by EPA in reaching its decisions, in order to uphold those decisions under the Clean Air Act we must be able to see that the agency's actions were not arbitrary. [p231] In the absence of a record supporting the trustworthiness of agency decision-making tools as they were applied, we cannot uphold those tools' application. EPA has failed to provide such a record.

Furthermore, EPA's own guidelines explicitly recognize the importance of validation using monitored data.

"It must be noted that [we] have never encouraged the use of air quality models in place of measured data. In fact, EPA encourages the use of measured data in evaluating the effectiveness of control strategies and in determining emission limits. The two should be used in a complementary manner whenever possible. The air quality data can be especially useful in validating air quality models and thus have a direct impact on the air quality assessment."

U.S. EPA, Guideline on Air Quality Models 6 (1978).

Given the CRSTER model's demonstrated sensitivity to site-specific characteristics, EPA's failure to validate CRSTER at the Eastlake and Avon Lake plants in accordance with its own guidelines was arbitrary and capricious.

Having so held, we order the parties to advise the Court on the following matters within the time limits set forth in the accompanying order:

1. What empirical testing program should be undertaken to validate the CRSTER model as it was applied at the company's East Lake and Avon Lake plants? In addition, each party should include a clear, concise, and not overly technical explanation of why its validation scheme should be employed.

2. What emission levels ought to be required, as an interim measure, at the East Lake and Avon Lake plants until the CRSTER model has been validated?

III. "PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION" AND PROCEDURAL ERROR
Petitioners also argue that EPA violated the Clean Air Act by revising the Ohio plan without performing a "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" review. The Act requires such a review before a major source is built or modified causing an increase in emissions in an attainment area. S. Goldberg, Source Planning Under the New PSD Regulations, 11 BNA Environmental Reporter No. 30 (November 21, 1980). Petitioners assert that such a review is also required before the EPA may approve the relaxation of sulfur dioxide emissions limits.

We hold that EPA's promulgation of the new emissions limits does not trigger a Prevention of Significant Deterioration review. The regulations governing such reviews provide that "if a State Implementation Plan revision would result in increased air quality deterioration over any baseline concentration, the plan revision shall include a demonstration that it will not cause or contribute to a violation of the applicable increment(s)." 40 C.F.R. § 51.24(a)(2) (1985). Thus, only plan revisions that will result in pollution levels higher than the "baseline concentration" require reviews. The Act defines the baseline concentration in terms of ambient air concentration levels, 42 U.S.C. § 7479(4), and the regulations clarify that this means actual concentration levels existing on a "baseline date" (sometime after August 7, 1977). 40 C.F.R. § 51.24(b)(13) (1985). The new emissions limits could not have caused a deterioration in air quality, measured in actual pollution concentration levels, because the new limits would force the plants to reduce their emissions to levels that are lower than their emissions at any time since before 1976. Consequently, no Prevention of Significant Deterioration review was required.

Petitioners' final argument is that EPA erred by failing to provide notice and opportunity to comment prior to enacting the new emissions limits based on the CRSTER model's predictions. Under section 7607(d)(9)(D) we could reverse EPA's action because of this procedural error only if, in addition to other conditions, "there is [p232]  a substantial likelihood that the rule would have been significantly changed if such errors had not been made." 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(8). We recognize the importance of the concept of prior notice and opportunity to comment. However, in light of the fact that EPA granted petitions for reconsideration and received comments on the use of the CRSTER model but, nevertheless, reaffirmed the emissions limits based on the model, we hold that there is no "significant likelihood that the rule would have been . . . changed if the errors had not been made."


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/376

 Close Rolls, 1313–18, p. 113). Of all the king's friends, Warenne and Hugh le Despenser alone now refused to crave Lancaster's forgiveness (, p. 235). Finding, however, that obstinacy involved the loss of his remaining estates, Warenne was reconciled to his enemy on condition of an ‘exchange of lands’ (ib. p. 240) that was altogether in Lancaster's favour. Lancaster's conquests both in the West Riding and in the march remained his possessions for the rest of his life (Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23 pp. 531, 658, 1323–7 pp. 120, 479). In May 1319 Warenne also surrendered a large estate in Norfolk to the victor (ib. 1318–23, p. 68). The Countess Alice was, however, able to grant to her deliverer the life tenancy of several manors of her father's earldom of Salisbury.

In July 1319 Warenne attended the muster at Newcastle against the Scots, but little was effected against Bruce. Warenne's subjection to Lancaster was now complete. So late as July he joined with Lancaster in banishing the Despensers, and received formal pardon before parliament separated. However, when Edward II went to war against the Lancastrians, Warenne plucked up courage to join the king during his progress through the Welsh march. He was one of the four earls who lured the two Roger Mortimers into captivity (, p. 35). On 22 March 1322 he took part in the condemnation of Lancaster at Pontefract (, i. 165;, p. 77). He attended the York parliament that revoked the ordinances. However, his position was by no means secure. He had to surrender the manor of Aldbourne to the elder Despenser to save himself from destruction (Cal. Patent Rolls, 1327–30, p. 21), but he was at once allowed to resume possession of Bromfield and Yale (ib. p. 561), though Sandal and Conisborough were treated as royal escheats.

On 2 March 1325 Warenne was reluctantly sent with a hundred men-at-arms as captain of the king's army in Aquitaine (Fœdera, ii. 594;, p. 280). On 25 Aug. he sailed from Portsmouth, accompanied by Edmund, earl of Kent [q. v.] He effected nothing of importance, and next year, 1326, was back in England.

The quarrel between Edward II and Isabella made Warenne's support more necessary to the Despensers, and he at last received his reward. He had the custody of the isle of Axholme, forfeited to the crown by the treason of John de Mowbray [see, eighth ]. On 10 May 1326 he was appointed chief commissioner of array in the north. Already, on 7 May 1326, the West Riding estate, with Sandal and Conisborough, was restored for life, though he surrendered the reversion to the king. On 14 May he did the same for his Surrey, Sussex, and Welsh lands (Cal. Close Rolls, 1323–7, pp. 479, 573). He threw over the claims of his mistress and her children, though Matilda de Nerford's legal right to the reversion of the West Riding estate was so strong that on 19 May Warenne's brother-in-law, Edmund Fitzalan, earl of Arundel [q. v.], pledged himself that in the event of her obtaining legal possession after Warenne's death he would give the king an equivalent (ib. pp. 573–4). Warenne and Arundel were the two last earls to remain faithful to Edward II. Warenne, however, escaped the tragic fate of his brother-in-law, and on giving in his adhesion to the queen and Mortimer he was put forward prominently as their supporter, like Henry of Lancaster. He was one of the deputation of estates sent in January 1327 to urge abdication on Edward II. On 10 March he was at Edward III's coronation, and he was one of the standing council of regency, though his position was still by no means secure. He had to resign the Isle of Axholme to the young John de Mowbray [see, II, ninth ] (Cal. Close Rolls, 1327–30, p. 358, cf. p. 154). Henry of Lancaster claimed the Warenne West Riding estate as part of Thomas's possessions, and for some time it remained by mutual consent in the king's possession (ib. 1327–30, p. 79), though ultimately Warenne's prior rights were recognised. In February 1327 he was going beyond sea on the king's service, and in April was about to proceed to the marches of Scotland (ib. pp. 24, 70). On 29 March he was appointed supervisor of the commissioners of the peace for Oxfordshire (ib. p. 90). On 1 Sept. he received a new grant for life of Grantham and Stamford (ib. p. 160), and a little later some Despensers' property, already granted for life, was given to him in fee simple (ib. p. 271), as were some Essex manors forfeited by Edmund of Arundel (ib. p. 336). He entertained the king, who on 15 March 1329 paid him sixteen hundred marks by way of recognition (Cal. Close Rolls, 1327–30, p. 491). On 16 Sept. 1329 he received a grant of two thousand marks from the exchequer (ib. p. 441), and on 4 May 1330 the manor of Swanscombe and other lands and rent to a large amount were bestowed on him ‘on consideration of his agreement to remain always with the king’ (ib. p. 517); while in June he had the custody of a large part of

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Ohio v. United States EPA/Concurrence Engel

ENGEL, Circuit Judge, concurring.

I concur in Part III of Judge Merritt's opinion. I concur also in the issuance of the order as attached to the opinion.

Because I am interested in the responses which may be made by the parties to the inquiries set forth in the order, I am unable at this time to concur in that portion of the opinion that concludes that the EPA's failure to validate CRSTER at the Eastlake and Avon Lake Plants in accordance with its own guidelines was arbitrary and capricious. I therefore prefer to reserve my own judgment on this issue until we have received responses from the parties and have had a chance to evaluate it further.


text:
Page:Triangles of life, and other stories.djvu/75

 The announcement of the engagement made casually, in a nothing-in-particular tone, by Lizzie, made but little talk in the village, either amongst the women—who knew very well what it was worth (the extra nothing-in-particularness in the tone might have warned any one with intelligence, who understood Lizzie), or amongst the men, who bucoliced goodhumoredly about it. But the announcement of the date of the wedding (made in a cheerful nothing-inparticular tone by Lizzie) did make a lot of talk. However, the village agreed that " they had time to think better on it," as old Adams and his young cracked and twisted woodenjudy-doll-wife—the most recent couple there—three years married—put it. But "why"? the village didn't say. Probably because they didn't know.

You see there was nothing else to talk or speculate about at Chawlton at the time. Mrs. Adams hadn't had her proposed twins yet. Young Bob Wheeler hadn't even come to board with the Adamses at that time.

Little Billy rented one of the half -hutches, the one next the Bow Winders, and got the furniture from Staines, partly for cash and partly on time payment, to give himself plenty of time, and provide for unforeseen expenses. He would have taken one of the Winders, which was also vacant, and risked it, but popular opinion overbore him. Besides, Leonard was cautious and far-seeing for both their sakes. Lizzie had aimed at the Winder, but took its loss as nothing in particular,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/377

 the estates of the minor Thomas Bardolf (ib. p. 530). He managed, however, to retain his position after Mortimer's fall.

From the beginning of Edward III's reign Warenne had been much employed on Scottish affairs. On 23 Nov. 1327 he was joint commissioner to treat with the Scots. The revival of the Baliol party after Robert Bruce's death in 1329 opened out better prospects to him. Edward de Baliol [q. v.] was his first cousin, and before 1310 had been his ward (Fœdera, ii. 116). Warenne naturally profited by his kinsman's elevation to the throne of Scotland. Before 27 Feb. 1333 Baliol granted him the palatine earldom of Strathern (Cal. Patent Rolls, 1330–4, p. 555), then actually held by Earl Malise [see under ]. In June 1333 he joined in an expedition despatched to Baliol's assistance. On 23 July he was pardoned his debts to the crown in consideration of his great expenses in conducting the siege of Berwick (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1330–4, p. 457). In 1335 he was at the Newcastle muster, and invaded the Lothians along with Baliol, penetrating as far as Perth. With Baliol's final discomfiture Warenne lost his last hopes of his Scottish earldom. He retained the title until his death, though in 1343 David Bruce bestowed the earldom on Sir Morice Moray, the nephew of Earl Malise (, Complete Peerage, vii. 286).

In 1333 Warenne received a grant of the manor of Beeston, Norfolk, for life (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1330–4, p. 404). In September 1337 he was one of four appointed to lay before the people of Surrey the king's plans of national defence against the French (Rot. Parl. ii. 502). In 1338 he was a councillor to the little Edward of Cornwall, the nominal regent during Edward III's absence abroad (Chron. Angliæ, 1328–88, p. 7). In July 1339 he seems to have acted as sheriff of Surrey and Sussex (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1338–1340, p. 287), though the official lists do not mention his holding an office so beneath his dignity (List of Sheriffs, p. 136; P. R. O. Lists and Indexes, No. 9).

In Lent 1340 he was again one of five assistants to the little Duke of Cornwall. In Lent 1342 he was one of the earls whom ‘age and infirmity excused from taking part in a tournament at Dunstable’ (, p. 123). In July 1345 he was, however, again a councillor of regency during the king's absence abroad. Towards the end of his life he was enriched by the discovery of a treasure hidden in a cave in Bromfield through the incantations of a Saracen physician (, i. 264).

Warenne's domestic relations remained disorderly. In 1337 his countess quitted England (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1334–8, p. 561), and during the later years of his life he lived with Isabella de Holland, the daughter of a Lancashire knight, Robert de Holland, and of his wife Matilda, daughter and coheiress of Alan de la Zouch, whose brother became first Earl of Kent [see, first ]. Warenne's chief concern was now to transfer his remaining property to her and to his illegitimate children. In March 1333 he had obtained from the crown power to bequeath his goods freely by testament. His will is dated Sunday, 24 June, at Conisborough, and is printed in ‘Testamenta Eboracensia’ (i. 41–5, Surtees Soc.) By it he made numerous bequests to servants, friends, and dependents. He gave minute directions for his funeral, and bestowed many legacies on religious houses, the poor, and favourite shrines. His illegitimate children were scantily provided for; and Matilda de Holland, ‘ma compaigne,’ was made residuary legatee. Neither his wife nor his heir was mentioned, and Archbishop Stratford was appointed chief executor. On 30 June he died at Conisborough. He was buried at Lewes priory, under an arch on the left side of the high altar.

Warenne was early admitted to the brotherhood of Durham priory (‘offert Deo primordia floridæ juventutis,’ Hist. Dunelm. SS. Tres, p. cxiii, Surtees Soc.), had a Franciscan confessor during the end of his life, and was religious enough to have a French bible specially prepared for his benefit. He established about 1317 a chantry within Reigate Castle (Monasticon, vi. 518), and after 1335 reconstituted the Maison Dieu hospital at Thetford (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1334–1338 p. 158, 1338–40 p. 56). His relations with Lewes priory were as uneasy as those of his predecessors. Among his building operations may be included the still existing gateway of Lewes (, ii. 38; cf. Sussex Arch. Coll. vol. xxxiv.).

Joan of Bar long survived her husband. She died on 31 Aug. 1361, and was buried abroad. As there was no issue of the marriage, Warenne's nephew, Richard Fitzalan II, earl of Arundel (1307?–1376) [q. v.], was heir-at-law to the earldom. The estates which Warenne held at his death are enumerated in ‘Calendarium Inquisitionum post mortem’ (ii. 137). They now mainly reverted to the crown. The Yorkshire and other estates beyond the Tweed were regranted by Edward III to his son Edmund Langley [see, first ]. But on 25 June


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Roty, Louis Oscar

ROTY, rṓ'tḗ ' , (1846—). A French medalist and engraver, born in Paris. He was a pupil of Ponscarme and Dumont, and won the Prix de Rome in 1875. His subjects are treated with remarkable skill in obtaining the most delicate results. His portraits are also admirable. With Chapu, Degeorge, and Chaplin, he ranks as the greatest reviver of medallic art in France during the last century.


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Gibbs, Josiah Willard


text:
Page:The Celtic Review volume 5.djvu/99

 Lewis, Tìr nam ’eann, nang ’leann ’s nang ’aisgeach. N of the article, etc., is changed in sound to ng before g, and also before c in Scottish Gaelic generally. Thus an guth, the voice, is pronounced ‘ang guth,’ and an cù, the dog, ‘ang cù.’ ‘Whether you go or not?’ is in Lewis Gaelic ‘Eadar gu’n ’éid no nach téid thu?’ Téid, go, is itself eclipsed after an, gu’n, cha’n, nach, etc., in Scottish Gaelic generally i.e. it is pronounced ‘déid’ not ‘téid.’ In Skye the following cases of eclipsis have been observed:—

b after the article, e.g. am baile, the town, ‘am ’aile,’ nam baile of the towns ‘nam ’aile.’ So am bard, the poet, nam bard, of the poets, etc.

d after the article, as an duine, the man, ‘an ’uine’; after the preposition ‘an’ in the phrase an deaghaidh, after, and after the numeral aon, one.

g after the article, as an geamhradh, the winter, ‘an ’eamhradh.’

The change does not take place regularly and is not carried out consistently. An exceptional instance is the name Ben Jianabhaig not far from Portree, written Beinn Dìonabhaig in Mary MacPherson’s Songs (p. 23), and heard locally as Beinn ianabhaig. The neighbouring township is called in Gaelic Camus Jianabhaig, written Camstinvag by Martin, but D may have been changed to J after final s of Camus.

In Badenoch such a pronunciation may sometimes be heard as Am bosgail e? for Am fosgail e? Will it open?

The change of initial b to m sometimes in words and in place-names is explained by eclipsis. For example bealaidh, broom, a word thought to have come to us from the Pictish language, is mealaich with MacAlpine, and mealaidh in Skye; binid, rennet, is minid in North Argyll, and Moness, a place-name near Aberfeldy, was of old Buness.

Metathesis

‘Metathesis,’ Mr. Quiggin says, ‘is a frequent phenomenon in Gaelic dialects, as will be patent to any one turning over

title: Page:The Celtic Review volume 5.djvu/99


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/378

 1349 the southern Warenne estates were granted to the Countess Joan, with remainder to the Earl of Arundel. As long as Joan lived, Arundel did not assume the Warenne titles. However, after 1361, Arundel entered into possession of the estates, and henceforth styled himself Earl of Surrey or Warenne, as well as Earl of Arundel. Thus the house of Warenne became merged in the house of Fitzalan.

Warenne left numerous illegitimate children. His children by Matilda de Nerford, named John and Thomas, who were living in 1316, had apparently died before him. He had a Welsh son named Ravlyn, who in 1334 joined in the attack of the Hope garrison on Ralph Butler. The sons mentioned in the will are: (1) Sir William de Warenne, the largest legatee, to whom his father had in January 1340 granted 122 acres of waste from the manor of Hatfield, Yorkshire, at a rent of 10l. a year (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1338–40, p. 411). (2) Edward de Warenne, the same probably as the Sir Edward de Warren who, by his marriage with Cicely de Eton, heiress of the barons of Stockport, established himself at Poynton and Stockport, Cheshire, and was the ancestor of the later Warrens of Poynton, barons of Stockport. It was in honour of the last male representative of this house, Sir George Warren (d. 1801), that John Watson, rector of Stockport, wrote his elaborate ‘History of the Earls of Warren or Surrey,’ in which he vainly sought to prove the legitimate descent of his benefactor from Reginald de Warren, the son of Earl William (d. 1138) [q. v.] of the elder Norman house, and to urge that the earldom ought to be revived in his favour. The early arms of this family suggest that Matilda de Nerford was Edward's mother. (3) Another William de Warenne, prior of Horton, Kent, to whom his father bequeathed his French bible. There were also three daughters: (4) Joan de Basing; (5) Catharine; and (6) Isabella, a canoness of Sempringham.

[Ann. Londoni, Chron. of Monk of Malmesbury and Canon of Bridlington in Chronicles of Edward I and II, Trokelowe, Flores Hist. vol. iii., Murimuth, Walsingham, Chron. Angliæ, 1328–88 (all the above in Rolls Ser.); Chron. de Lanercost (Maitland Club); Chron. Walter de Hemingburgh (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Cont. Trivet, ed. Hall; Calendars of Close and Patent Rolls; Parl. Writs, vols. i. ii.; Rymer's Fœdera; Statutes of the Realm, vol. i.; Testamenta Eboracensia, vol. i. (Surtees Soc.); Watson's Memoirs of the Earls of Warren or Surrey, 1782, ii. 1–74; Ormerod's Cheshire, iii. 680–7, 794–796, ed. Helsby; Earwaker's East Cheshire; Hunter's South Yorkshire, i. 108–10; Dugdale's Baronage, i. 80–2; Dugdale's Monasticon, vol. vi.; Sussex Archæological Collections, vols. ii. iii. vi. xxxiv.; G. E. C[okayne]'s Complete Peerage, vii. 328–9, cf. also vii. 286 and iv. 236; Doyle's Official Baronage, iii. 472–3; Nicolas's Hist. Peerage, pp. 463, 465, ed. Courthope.]  WARENNE or WARREN, WILLIAM, first (d. 1088), appears to have been the son of Rodulf or Ralph, called ‘filius episcopi,’ by his second wife, Emma, Rodulf himself being the son of Hugh (d. 1020), bishop of Coutances, by a sister of Gunnor, wife of Richard I (d. 996), duke of the Normans (, Gundrada de Warenne, p. 11; Archæological Journal, iii. 7; Cont. of, viii. 37, makes his mother a niece of Gunnor). His name was derived from his fortress situated on the left bank of the Varenne, and called after that river, though later called Bellencombre (Seine-Inférieure), where there are some ruins of a castle of the eleventh century. He was a knight at the battle of Mortemer in 1054; and when, after the battle, Roger de Mortemer, his kinsman (he is incorrectly called his brother, ib.; Stapleton says that he was uncle), offended Duke William, the duke gave the castle of Mortemer to William Warenne (, p. 658).

He was one of the lords consulted by the duke with reference to his complaints against Harold (d. 1066) [q. v.], and was present at the battle of Hastings (, p. 135). When the Conqueror returned to Normandy in March 1067 he appointed William, with other lords, to assist the two viceroys in England. Grants of land were given him by the king; in Sussex he held Lewes, where he erected a castle, and about a sixth part of the county. He is said to have built another castle at Reigate in Surrey, and a third at Castle Acre in Norfolk. In 1069 he received Conisborough in the West Riding, with its appendages, and he became wealthy, for in 1086 he held lands in twelve counties (, Introduction to Domesday, i. 213; ). He fought against the rebels in the Isle of Ely in 1071, and is represented as having a special grudge against Hereward, who is said to have slain his brother Frederic (Liber de Hyda, p. 295; Gesta Herewardi, pp. 46, 54, 61; Liber Eliensis, c. 105; Frederic occurs as a landholder in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, see Domesday, ff. 196, ii, 465 b, 170 b, 172 b, but was dead in 1086). During the absence of the king in 1075 Warenne was joint chief justiciar with Richard de Clare (d. 1090?) [q. v.], and took


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/379

 a leading part in suppressing the rebellion of the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk. In 1077 he and his wife Gundrada [q. v.] founded the priory of St. Pancras at Lewes, the first house of the Cluniac order that was founded in England; and in that year Lanzo was sent over by the mother-house of Cluni as the first prior (for the first and genuine charter of foundation see, Charters and Records of Cluni, i. 44–5). In a spurious charter of foundation recited in 1417 (ib. pp. 47–53; Monasticon, v. 12), which should not entirely be disregarded, William is made to say that he and his wife had been advised by Lanfranc [q. v.] to found a religious house, and that they determined on their foundation in consequence of a visit that they made to Cluni when they were intending to go on a pilgrimage to Rome, but were prevented by the war between the pope and the emperor, and when they were admitted into the brotherhood of the house. William made large grants to his priory (Manuscript Register of Lewes); it received a charter from the Conqueror, and held a high place among the ‘daughters of Cluni’ (, u.s.). In January 1085 William and other lords were engaged in the siege of Ste.-Susanne in Maine, which was held against the Normans by the viscount Hubert de Beaumont; they had no success, and were most of them wounded (, p. 649).

William of Warenne remained faithful to William Rufus in the rebellion of 1088, and the position of his castle at Lewes rendered his loyalty especially useful to the king (ib. p. 667;, William Rufus, i. 59). Probably in that year Rufus gave him the earldom of Surrey; Orderic (p. 680) represents the grants as made at an assembly that the king held at Winchester in 1090, probably at Easter (see, u.s.), and adds that the earl died shortly afterwards. He also (p. 522) speaks of a grant of ‘Surrey’ as made to him by the Conqueror, and William's name occurs in the testes of two charters of the Conqueror to Battle Abbey as ‘comes de Warr’ (see Monasticon, iii. 244–5); but these testes are certainly spurious, indeed the charters themselves are not above suspicion. Nor does Orderic's notice of the grant of ‘Surrey’ necessarily imply a grant of the earldom; taken with his account of the grant by Rufus, it seems rather to exclude such a grant. Freeman indeed considers that William must have received a grant of the earldom from the Conqueror, and accordingly gives him the title of earl before 1087 (see Norman Conquest, iv. 471 n., 584, 659); but considering the number of times that his name occurs in genuine records of the Conqueror's time without the title of earl, as specially in ‘Domesday,’ there is no valid reason for Freeman's supposition. (The question is well discussed by Mr. Round in the Complete Peerage, vii. 322, art. ‘Surrey.’ The assertion of some genealogists that William held a Norman earldom of Warenne is contrary to an invariable Norman usage. On the custom of describing English earls by their christian names followed by their title, and in some cases with a distinctive suffix, as ‘Willelmus comes Warenna,’ where Warenne is used as a surname to distinguish Earl William from other earls of the same name, see, Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 145.)

It is said that the earl was wounded in the leg by an arrow at the siege of Pevensey, and was carried to Lewes, where he died, after leaving his estates in England to his elder, and in Flanders to his younger, son (Liber de Hyda, p. 299; the authority, though late, may be accepted, see William Rufus, i. 76n.; the estates in Flanders must have come to the earl by his marriage). The earl's death may then be dated 24 June 1088, for Pevensey was surrendered probably in May in that year (the day is given in the Manuscript Register of Lewes Priory, f. 105, and the date is also noted in Annales de Lewes ap. Sussex Archæological Collections, ii. 24; Dugdale, followed by Doyle, gives 24 June 1089). He was buried in the chapter-house of Lewes, with an epitaph given by Orderic (p. 680). He is described as remarkably valiant (, i. 189).

He married (1) Gundrada [q. v.], sister of Gerbod, a Fleming, earl of Chester, and by her had two sons, William de Warenne (d. 1138) [q. v.] and Rainald or Reginald, who fought on the side of Duke Robert in 1090, was taken prisoner at Dive in 1106, and pardoned by Henry I (, pp. 690, 819, 821), and a daughter Edith [see under ], whose daughter Gundred married Nigel de Albini, and was mother of Roger de Mowbray I (d. 1188?) [q. v.] After the death of Gundrada in 1085, William married (2) a sister of Richard Goet, or Gouet, of Perche Gouet (Eure et Loire) (, u.s., p. 20; Bermondsey Annals, iii. 420).

Besides the priory of Lewes, he founded the priory of Castle Acre as a dependency of Lewes (Monasticon, v. 49), and is said to have been a benefactor of St. Mary's at York (ib. iii. 546, 550). He is accused of having unjustly held lands belonging to the abbey of Ely, and it is related that on the night of his death the abbot heard his soul crying for mercy, and that shortly afterwards his widow


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/380

 sent a hundred shillings to the church, which the monks refused to receive as the money of one who was damned (Liber Eliensis, c. 119). The story is no doubt connected with a long dispute between his descendants and the monastery. His remains were discovered at Lewes in 1845, and were reinterred at Southover in that borough (Sussex Archæological Collections, ii. 11, xl. 170; Archœologia, xxxi. 439).

[Authorities cited in the text; Watson's Earls of Warren and Surrey; Stapleton's Norm. Excheq. and ap. Archæol. Journal, iii. 1; Registrum de Lewes, Cotton. MS. Vespasian, F. xv.; Addit. MS. (Eyton's MSS.) 31939.]  WARENNE or WARREN, WILLIAM, second (d. 1138), elder son of William de Warenne (d. 1088) [q. v.], by his wife Gundrada [q. v.], succeeded his father as earl of Surrey in 1088, and is frequently described as ‘Willelmus comes de Warenna’ (see, Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 321). In January 1091 he helped Hugh (d. 1094) [q. v.] of Grantmesnil to defend Courcy against Robert de Bellême [q. v.] and Duke Robert (, p. 692). About 1093–4 he sought to marry Matilda (1080–1118) [q. v.], or Edith, daughter of Malcolm III [q. v.], king of Scots, who married Henry I. This marriage may have been at the bottom of the earl's hatred of Henry; he mocked at the king's love of hunting and called him ‘Harts-foot’ [see ], and in 1101 shared in inciting Duke Robert to invade England (, p. 785). He joined Robert on his landing. He was disinherited, and accompanied the duke back to Normandy (ib. p. 788). The duke's visit to England in 1103 is said to have been made at the instigation of the earl, who prayed Robert to intercede for him that he might be restored to his earldom, saying that it brought him in a revenue of 1,000l. Henry restored him, and from that time he was the king's faithful adherent and trusted friend (ib. pp. 804–5). Henry contemplated giving him one of his natural daughters in marriage, but was dissuaded by Anselm [q. v.], who urged that the earl and the lady were within the prohibited degrees, the earl being in the fourth and the king's daughter in the sixth generation (, Epistolæ, iv. 84; Anselm's reckoning would match the descent assigned to William de Warenne (d. 1088) [q. v.] as great-grandson of the father of Gunnor).

At the battle of Tinchebray in 1106 the earl commanded the third division of the king's army, and when the castle of Elias de St. Saens on the Varenne was taken in 1108 Henry gave it to him. He fought in the battle of Brenneville, or Brémule, on 20 Aug. 1119, and is said to have encouraged the king in his determination to take a personal share in the combat (, pp. 853–4). He was with the king at his death at the castle of Lions on 1 Dec. 1135, and was appointed governor of Rouen and the district of Caux by the chief men of the duchy (ib. p. 901). In 1136 he attended the court held by Stephen at Westminster, and subsequently attested the king's charter of liberties at Oxford (, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 262–3). He is said to have died in that year (, a. 1136); but as he was alive in 1137—for in that year his son, William de Warenne III [q. v.], was styled ‘juvenis’ (, p. 910)—it is safe to accept the authority of the manuscript register of Lewes priory (f. 105), which dates his death 11 May 1138. He was buried with his father in the chapter-house of Lewes.

He married the beautiful Elizabeth, or Isabel, daughter of Hugh the Great, count of Vermandois, a son of Henry I of France, and widow of Robert de Beaumont (d. 1118) [q. v.], count of Meulan, from whom he carried her off while Robert was still living, though she was the mother of eight children ( De Contemptu Mundi, sect. 8). She died on 13 Feb. 1131, and was buried at Lewes. By her he had three sons and two daughters, William de Warenne (d. 1148) [q. v.], Reginald, and Ralph (for Ralph see Monasticon, v. 15; the editors are mistaken in heading Charter No. xi., in which the grantor speaks of Ralph ‘frater meus,’ as given by William de Warenne (d. 1138), as may be seen by the teste, one of the witnesses being Ascelin, bishop of Rochester, who was not consecrated until 1142; the charter was therefore given by William de Warenne (d. 1148), and Ralph was his brother). Reginald was assured in the possession of the castles of Bellencombre and Mortemer by the agreement made between Stephen and Duke Henry (Henry II) in 1153, the rest of the Warenne inheritance passing to Stephen's son William (d. 1159) (Fœdera, i. 18); Reginald was one of the persecutors of Archbishop Thomas in 1170, and became a wealthy baron by his marriage with Adeline or Alice, daughter and sole heir of William de Wormegay in Norfolk (, i. 67, following, Britannia, col. 393, ed. Gibson, maintains that the lord of Wormegay was Reginald, son of William de Warenne, d. 1088, because in Reginald's charter to St. Mary Overy, Southwark—Monasticon, vi. 171—he speaks of ‘Isabella comitissa domina mea’ as a different person from his mother, but the


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/381

 Isabella of the charter was doubtless the grantor's niece, the daughter of William de Warenne, d. 1148). By Adeline Reginald had a son William, who founded the priory of Wormegay (ib. vi. 591), and left as his sole heir his daughter Beatrice, who married (1) Dodo, lord Bardolf, and (2) Hubert de Burgh [q. v.], earl of Kent. Earl William's two daughters were Gundrada, who married (1) Roger de Beaumont, earl of Warwick, and in 1153 expelled Stephen's garrison from the castle of Warwick and surrendered it to Henry; and (2) William, called Lancaster, baron of Kendal, and, it is said, a third husband; and Ada or Adeline, who in 1139 married Henry of Scotland [q. v.], son of David I. He made many grants to the priory of Lewes, and was regarded as its second founder (Manuscript Register of Lewes;, Charters and Records of Cluni), completed the foundation of the priory of Castle Acre begun by his father, and made grants to the abbey of Grestein in Normandy and to the ‘infirm brethren’ of Bellencombre (Monasticon, vi. 1113).

[Authorities cited in text.]

WARENNE or WARREN, WILLIAM, third (d. 1148), was the eldest son of William de Warenne, second earl of Surrey (d. 1138) [q. v.], and half-brother of Robert de Beaumont (1104–1168) [q. v.], earl of Leicester, Waleran de Beaumont [q. v.], count of Meulan, and Hugh, earl of Bedford. He was with Stephen's army at Lisieux in June 1137; he took a prominent part in the disturbance that broke out between the king's Norman and Flemish followers (, p. 910). He succeeded his father as Earl of Surrey in 1138. Together with Robert de Beaumont he was present at the battle of Lincoln in 1141, and fled early in the fight (ib. p. 922; p. 273). During the king's imprisonment he remained faithful to the queen (, p. 923), and when the empress Matilda and her forces retreated from Winchester he pursued them, in company with William of Ypres [q. v.] and his Flemings, and assisted in the capture of Earl Robert of Gloucester [q. v.] at Stockbridge, near Andover (Cont. ii. 135; the chronicler's words are somewhat ambiguous, and, in his Earls of Warren and Surrey, has taken them as meaning that Earl William was on the side of the empress, and was taken together with Earl Robert; but the declaration of Orderic that he remained faithful to the queen is conclusive). He was with the king at his Christmas court at Canterbury, and when he was in the eastern counties early in 1142 (, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 143, 158). A notice of a bribe paid to him and three others of the king's captains by Geoffrey, abbot of St. Albans, where they were minded to burn the town (Gesta Abbatum S. Albani, i. 94), has suggested (, u.s. p. 206) that he assisted at the capture of Geoffrey de Mandeville [q. v.] in September 1143 (Historia Anglorum, i. 271).

The earl took the cross with Louis VII and a crowd of other nobles at Vézelai on Easter-day, 31 March 1146, and accompanied the crusading army which set out in June 1147. In the march from Laodicea in January 1148 he was helping to guard the rear of the army when he was cut off by the Turks, and either killed on the spot or, according to the belief of some in England, died after a very short captivity (, Ep. 39, from Louis VII, who speaks of the earl as his kinsman, as he was through his mother;, xv. 1, c. 25, where he is said to have been slain on the day of the fight; , a. 1148; i. 100 ap. Becket Materials, where his noble end is contrasted with his brother Reginald's evil conduct towards Archbishop Thomas; Chron. de Mailros, a. 1147). His death is dated in the register of Lewes priory (f. 106) 13 Jan.

He married Ela or Adela, daughter of William Talvas, count of Ponthieu, son of Robert de Bellême [q. v.], who married for her second husband Patrick, earl of Salisbury, and died in 1174. By her he had one daughter, Isabel, his heir, who married, (1) before 1153, William, second son of King Stephen, who became in consequence Earl of Surrey, and was sometimes designated as ‘William de Warenne;’ and after his death, without children, in October 1159, (2) Hamelin, natural son of Geoffrey, count of Anjou [see ]. She died in 1199, and was buried in the chapter-house of Lewes priory.

Earl William gave a charter to Lewes priory conveying seisin of his grant by offering hair which Henry of Blois [q. v.], bishop of Winchester, cut from his and his brother Ralph's heads before the altar (Monasticon, v. 15), and before going on the crusade founded the priory of Thetford, Norfolk, for canons regular of the Holy Sepulchre (ib. vi. 729).

[Authorities cited in text.]

WARENNE, WILLIAM, (d. 1240), was the son of Earl Hamelin de Warenne [q. v.] and of his wife Isabella, the heiress of the elder line of earls of Warenne. His parents were


text:
Page:Triangles of life, and other stories.djvu/108

96 into in my wanderings about the city, the awful monotony of London ceases to oppress me. For the first few days I thought it more dreadful than the monotony of the Bush, and more utterly hopeless, seeing that the Bush becomes settled and humanized, while London can only change with the changes of the centuries.

I suppose I'll make some blunders, in detail, with my first impressions, but they will be the blunders of hundreds, maybe thousands, who come to London, get the same impressions, and take 'em away and never lose 'em. So many writings will still hold true as of first impressions. I want to drive all this into your thick head, because I intend to write to you pretty regularly, and i know that you will regard some parts of my letters as cheap copy for that old democratic rag of yours, the Come-by-Chance Boomerang. I don't mind—it will save me writing at length to all the boys, as I promised.

I am writing under a disadvantage, for which I never bargained when I left Australia. I have heard Australians say that you cannot get round the real size of the difference between Sydney or Melbourne and London until you return to Australia, and I feel not that that is true. A returned Australian once said to me: "When you go to London you don't think much of it, but when you come back to Sydney the houses seem about a foot high." This was before they began to build sky-scrapers in Australia. My present impression is that in Sydney city the houses in general are higher than in London—but that is probably


text:
Page:Triangles of life, and other stories.djvu/109

Rh because of the few rally tall buildings in Sydney. You see, they don't allow high buildings in London.

You do not so quickly realize the contrast between a big thing and a small thing of the same kinds, seen previously, as between a greater thing, seen some time ago, and a lesser thing seen now. See? Well, look here! St. Pancras Railway Station covers, under the unbroken arch of roof (260 feet at the base), five long, comfortable platforms, a wide carriage-way, and ten lines of rail; Redfern Station, Sydney—the largest we have—has only two little platforms and a double line of rail under the main roof. But the general idea is the same, and to me—with three months and some fifteen thousand miles of ocean between the two stations—St. Pancras is only Redfern blown out, or magnified, but enlarged to an extent which I shall not be able to realize until I strike Redfern again. St. Pancras is about—how many times bigger than Redfern? but this doesn't strike you until you begin to study it out; and I suppose few Australians who visit London would take that trouble. This is scarcely a first impression, but let it pass. I have an idea that when I go back, Sydney—where I spent the greatest part of my life—will surprise me a deal more than London did at first. Then for some first impressions of Sydney. And (this might sound like a ridiculous paradox) I have an impression that Australians, who come to London and stay awhile, never realize the size of their disappointment—they keep on expecting to be surprised presently, and having a vague idea that the street they're in must lead toward the city proper—


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/382

 married in 1163 or 1164, and he was already of sufficient age to consent to and witness charters in the early part of the reign of Richard I (, Liber Niger Scaccarii, i. 371). He was therefore much over age when his father's death, in April 1202, put him in possession of both title and estates. His earlier acts are liable to be confused with those of William Warenne of Wormegay, justice of the Jews and justice of the curia regis, who died about 1209 [see under, d. 1138].

Warenne had livery of his lands on 12 May 1202 (Rot. Lit. Pat. p. 10). The loss of Normandy in 1204 deprived him of Bellencombre and his other ancestral estates in that duchy. However, his English interests were much greater than his Norman ones, and he remained faithful to John. On 19 April 1205 he received from John, as a recompense for his fidelity, a grant of Grantham and Stamford to be held until John reconquered Normandy or made Warenne a competent exchange for it (Rot. Lit. Claus. p. 28). The right of tallaging Stamford, save by royal precept, was expressly withheld, but on 9 June John allowed him to exact a tallage from that town (Rot. Lit. Claus. p. 37). In February 1206 he was one of those escorting William, king of Scotland, on his visit to England (Rot. Lit. Pat. p. 56). In 1206 Warenne was in France with the king (ib. p. 74). On 20 Aug. 1212 he and two others received the custody of the castles of Bamborough and Newcastle-on-Tyne, and of the bailiwick of the county of Northumberland during pleasure (Rot. Lit. Pat. p. 94). He had to purge himself of a suspicion of treason before he was allowed possession (ib. p. 94 b). In September 1212 he took charge of Geoffrey, son of Geoffrey de Say, whom John held as a hostage (Rot. Lit. Claus. p. 124). In the troubles of John, first with the pope and then with his barons, Warenne was one of the little group of nobles closely related to the royal house which adhered to the king as long as was possible. He was one of the four barons who, at Dover on 13 May 1213, swore by the king's soul that John would observe his promise of submission to Innocent III and Archbishop Langton ( iii. 249, Engl. Hist. Soc.), and on 15 May he attested John's resignation of his crown into Pandulf's hands (ib. iii. 254). He was one of those directed by Innocent III, on 31 Oct. 1213, to complete and keep the peace between John and the English church (Rot. Lit. Pat. p. 39). On 21 Nov. 1214 he attested John's charter of freedom of election to the churches (Select Charters, p. 289). On the same day the king allowed him to take twenty deer in the royal forests in Essex (Rot. Lit. Claus. p. 178). On 15 Jan. 1215 he was granted a house in the London Jewry by the king (Rot. Cartarum, p. 203). In the final struggle for Magna Carta he was one of the few magnates who adhered to John until the defection of London ( iii. 300). Even after that he did not join the confederates in the capital; and on 15 June was present at Runnymede (ib. iii. 302), though most of his knights deserted him for the popular cause (, p. 171). He was one of the king's ‘fideles’ by whose council Magna Carta was issued (ib. p. 296). He was one of the ‘obsecutores et observatores’ of the charter, who swore to obey the mandates of the twenty-five executors (, ii. 605). In November 1215 he was among the king's representatives at a conference with the Londoners in Erith church to treat of peace (Rot. Lit. Pat. p. 158). In January 1216, however, he seems to have wavered in his fidelity, and some of his lands were taken into the king's hands (ib. p. 246). Yet he soon came back to the king, who on 15 Jan. gave him all the lands of the king's enemies in Norfolk among his own sub-tenants (ib. p. 245), and on 26 Jan. directed his officers to keep his lands in peace and restore any that had been taken from him (ib. p. 246). On 26 May he was made warden of the Cinque ports ‘because the king does not want to put a foreigner over them’ (Rot. Lit. Pat. p. 184); while on 1 June John empowered him to receive the rebels back to their allegiance (ib. p. 185). By this time, however, Louis of France had been received in London, and Warenne at last deserted the king he had served so long ( iii. 369); though so late as 17 Oct. John's order to Falkes de Breauté to release the men of Earl Warenne whom his servants had captured suggests that the king had hopes of bringing him back to his side (Rot. Lit. Claus. p. 291).

On 17 Jan. 1216–17 Warenne was commanded by Honorius III to return to the allegiance of Henry III (Cal. Papal Letters, 1198–1304, p. 43). In April 1217 he made a truce for eight days with the regent Pembroke (Fœdera, i. 146), and subsequently abandoned Louis for the service of the little Henry III ( iv. 12). He was rewarded with various grants of lands. On 24 Aug., according to one manuscript of Matthew Paris, he was present at the sea fight with Eustace the Monk off Dover (, iii. 28–9). Between 1217 and 1226 he was sheriff of Surrey, William


text:
Page:Triangles of life, and other stories.djvu/110

98 that London begins to grow on them and surprise 'em gradually.

There are many things I want to tell you about. We expect to find English people cold, reserved and inhospitable, and are not disappointed; but we seldom study the reasons. No need to come to England for that. They are reserved and inhospitable, because they have to be—they are so hopelessly bound by the same customs (or superstitions) and cast-iron conditions, which are surely, and not too slowly, gaining ground in Australian cities, and which papers like the old Boomerang have been slogging at for years. The English do not seem, to Australian city people more cold-blooded than the people of Australian cities themselves appear from a bushman's point of view.

I think, after all, the best thing I can do is to write straight on and describe the things which I have up to date seen and experienced, and the impressions I got from them; and I hope the reason for the real (or apparent) inhospitality of English people, for the vague, irritating feeling of disappointment we have on first visiting London, and for many other things, will appear plain to you as I write.

By the way, they call wheat "corn" in England, so in speaking of you to English friends I've had to explain that you were nicknamed after the stalk of the Indian corn (maize), else they'd think you were a very slender reed indeed to lean on or run against, instead of the tough old stalk you are; but I suppose you are pretty slender after the shearing season Out-


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/383

 de Mara acting as his deputy (List of Sheriffs, p. 135). In March 1220 he excused his attendance at Henry III's coronation on the plea of a severe illness (Fœdera, i. 160). At Whitsuntide 1220 he was ordered to escort Alexander, king of Scots, from Berwick to York (Rot. Lit. Claus. p. 436). On the fall of Falkes de Breauté in 1224, Warenne received the custody of his wife ( iv. 99); and after the order for Falkes's banishment was issued, Warenne conducted him to his ship (ib. iv. 103; see ). On 11 Feb. 1225 he witnessed the confirmation of Magna Carta and the issue of the charter of the forest (Burton Annals, pp. 232, 236). On 11 July 1226 he was among those of the king's council urged by the pope to labour for the reconciliation of Falkes de Breauté (Cal. Papal Letters, 1198–1304, p. 112). In 1227 Warenne joined Richard, earl of Cornwall [q. v.], when that noble quarrelled with his brother, Henry III. A great meeting of Richard's party was held at Warenne's town of Stamford (ib. iv. 143). In May 1230, when Henry III went abroad, Warenne was one of the three justices who acted as regents during his absence (Tewkesbury Annals, p. 74). He was friendly with the justiciar, Hubert de Burgh, and several letters between them are printed in Shirley's ‘Royal Letters’ (i. 15, 42, 112, &c.). In June 1230 he was appointed to carry out the assize of arms in Surrey and Sussex (Royal Letters, i. 373). When Hubert de Burgh fell in 1232, Warenne joined with Richard of Cornwall and the Earls Marshal and Ferrars in acting as sureties for the disgraced justiciar, who was confined at Devizes Castle under the charge of four knights of the above four earls ( iv. 258; Tewkesbury Annals, p. 88; Royal Letters, i. 410). He witnessed the reissue of the charter on 28 Jan. 1236 (Tewkesbury Annals, p. 104). In January 1236 he acted as chief butler at the coronation of Queen Eleanor, in place of his son-in-law, Hugh de Albini, earl of Arundel or Sussex, a minor (, iii. 338), and in 1237 was one of the opposition leaders who were made members of the royal council (ib. iii. 383). In 1238 he was sent by the king to Oxford with an armed force to save the legate Otho and his followers from the violence of the Oxford scholars. He imprisoned Odo of Kilkenny and three other masters in Wallingford Castle (ib. iii. 483–4). He was one of the four barons made treasurers of the thirtieth without whose approval the king could not spend it (, iv. 186). He died on 27 May 1240 at London (ib. iv. 12), and was buried at Lewes priory.

Warenne was the founder of a small priory of Austin canons at Reigate (Monasticon, vi. 517–18). He confirmed old and made new grants to Lewes priory, and made grants to Roche Abbey, Yorkshire. Watson summarises most of these and other benefactions. He had serious difficulties in his dealings with Lewes priory and the abbot of Cluny, its alien chief (Cal. Papal Letters, 1198–1304, pp. 119, 186). In 1238 Warenne was cited before Bishop Grosseteste for permitting mass to be celebrated indecorously in the hall of his manor at Grantham (, Epistolæ, pp. 171–3, Rolls Ser.). He was no friend of the Jews, arresting some of his Jewish burgesses at Grantham in 1222 on the charge of making a game in ridicule of the Christian faith. However, he released them under bail (Rot. Lit. Claus. p. 491).

Warenne is said to have married, as his first wife, Matilda, daughter of William of Albini, earl of Sussex, who died in 1215 without issue, and was buried at Lewes (, i. 77;, i. 208). If so, she may have been the Countess of Warenne who was imprisoned in 1203 and found sureties, one of whom was William of Albini (Rot. Lit. Pat. p. 29). Otherwise it was William's aged mother. He certainly married in 1225 Matilda, the eldest daughter and subsequently coheiress of William Marshal, earl of Pembroke (d. 1219) [q. v.] Matilda was the widow of Hugh Bigod, third earl of Norfolk, who died in February 1225. She married her second husband ‘immediately’ (Dunstable Annals, p. 94), certainly by October 1225. By her Warenne was the father of John de Warenne (1231?–1304) [q. v.], his successor. Their daughter Isabella married Hugh de Albini, earl of Sussex, who died in 1243. Isabella survived him nearly forty years. It was not until after her death in 1282 that her brother, John de Warenne, began to be styled Earl of Sussex as well as of Surrey. William's more usual title was ‘Comes de Warenne.’ Watson, though not apparently on good authority, assigns to William an illegitimate son, Griffin de Warenne, and a daughter, who was King John's mistress and the mother of Richard, the king's son, who killed Eustace the Monk.

[Rotuli Literarum Clausarum, Rotuli Literarum Patentium, Rotuli Cartarum, Rymer's Fœdera, vol. i. (all in Record Comm.); Calendar of Papal Letters, 1198–1304; Stubbs's Select Charters; Roger of Wendover (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Gervase of Canterbury, Ralph Coggeshall, Matthew Paris's Chron. Majora, Tewkesbury and Dunstaple Annals, in Annales Monastici (all in Rolls Ser.); Dugdale's Baronage, i. 76–7;


text:
Page:Triangles of life, and other stories.djvu/126

114 can go in twelve lawful directions (if you count round the corners); while there is sure to be a cabby trying variations. Also he has to take nervous women across the street and save them in spite of themselves.

The London policeman wears two breast-pockets on his tunic (this is a hint for Australian artists), and I think the pockets would be an improvement to the uniforms of the "traps" of a certain city I know—with, in one pocket, a small book in big type, "Defoe" style for preference, setting forth the virtues of common civility, and, in the other, a book which would explain to the Bobby, in language fitted to his comprehension, that he is a servant of the people, and not a recruiting agent for the gaols.

In my next letter I'll tell you about St. Paul's, the Abbey, and the Tower, and a good many other things.


text:
Page:Pierre.djvu/263

Rh hour of suffering; but it is heroism to stand unflinched both at our own and at some loved one's united suffering; a united suffering, which we could put an instant period to, if we would but renounce the glorious cause for which ourselves do bleed, and see our most loved one bleed. If he would not reveal his father's shame to the common world, whose favourable opinion for himself, Pierre now despised; how then reveal it to the woman he adored? To her, above all others, would he now uncover his father's tomb, and bid her behold from what vile attaintings he himself had sprung? So Pierre turned round and tied Lucy to the same stake which must hold himself, for he too plainly saw, that it could not be, but that both their hearts must burn.

Yes, his resolve concerning his father's memory involved the necessity of assuming even to Lucy his marriage with Isabel. Here he could not explain himself, even to her. This would aggravate the sharp pang of parting, by self-suggested, though wholly groundless surmising in Lucy's mind, in the most miserable degree contaminating to her idea of him. But on this point, he still fondly trusted that without at all marring his filial bond, he would be enabled by some significant intimations to arrest in Lucy's mind those darker imaginings which might find entrance there; and if he could not set her wholly right, yet prevent her from going wildly wrong.

For his mother Pierre was more prepared. He considered that by an inscrutable decree, which it was but foolishness to try to evade, or shun, or deny existence to, since he felt it so profoundly pressing on his inmost soul; the family of the Glendinnings was imperiously called upon to offer up a victim to the gods of woe; one grand victim at the least; and that grand victim must be his mother, or himself. If he disclosed his secret to the world, then his mother was made the victim; if at all hazards he kept

title: Page:Pierre.djvu/263


text:
Page:Pierre.djvu/264

250 it to himself, then himself would be the victim. A victim as respecting his mother, because under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the non-disclosure of the secret involved her entire and infamy-engendering misconception of himself. But to this he bowed submissive.

One other thing—and the last to be here named, because the very least in the conscious thoughts of Pierre; one other thing remained to menace him with assured disastrousness. This thing it was, which though but dimly hinted of as yet, still in the apprehension must have exerted a powerful influence upon Pierre, in preparing him for the worst.

His father's last and fatal sickness had seized him suddenly. Both the probable concealed distraction of his mind with reference to his early life as recalled to him in an evil hour, and his consequent mental wanderings; these, with other reasons, had prevented him from framing a new will to supersede one made shortly after his marriage and ere Pierre was born. By that will, which as yet had never been dragged into the courts of law; and which, in the fancied security of her own and her son's congenial and loving future, Mrs. Glendinning had never but once, and then inconclusively, offered to discuss, with a view to a better and more appropriate ordering of things to meet circumstances non-existent at the period the testament was framed; by that will, all the Glendinning property was declared his mother's.

Acutely sensible to those prophetic intimations in him, which painted in advance the haughty temper of his offended mother, as all bitterness and scorn toward a son, once the object of her proudest joy, but now become a deep reproach, as not only rebellious to her, but glaringly dishonourable before the world; Pierre distinctly foresaw, that as she never would have permitted Isabel Banford in her true character to cross her threshold; neither would

title: Page:Pierre.djvu/264


text:
Page:Pierre.djvu/265

Rh she now permit Isabel Banford to cross her threshold in any other, and disguised character; least of all, as that unknown and insidious girl, who by some pernicious arts had lured her only son from honour into infamy. But not to admit Isabel, was now to exclude Pierre, if indeed on independent grounds of exasperation against himself, his mother would not cast him out.

Nor did the same interior intimations in him which fore-painted the above bearing of his mother, abstain to trace her whole haughty heart as so unrelentingly set against him, that while she would close her doors against both him and his fictitious wife, so also she would not willingly contribute one copper to support them in a supposed union so entirely abhorrent to her. And though Pierre was not so familiar with the science of the law, as to be quite certain what the law, if appealed to concerning the provisions of his father's will, would decree concerning any possible claims of the son to share with the mother in the property of the sire; yet he prospectively felt an invincible repugnance to dragging his dead father's hand and seal into open court, and fighting over them with a base mercenary motive, and with his own mother for the antagonist. For so thoroughly did his infallible presentiments paint his mother's character to him, as operated upon and disclosed in all those fiercer traits,—hitherto held in abeyance by the mere chance and felicity of circumstances,—that he felt assured that her exasperation against him would even meet the test of a public legal contention concerning the Glendinning property. For indeed there was a reserved strength and masculineness in the character of his mother, from which on all these points Pierre had everything to dread. Besides, will the matter how he would, Pierre for nearly two whole years to come, would still remain a minor, an infant in the eye of the law, incapable of personally asserting any legal claim; and

title: Page:Pierre.djvu/265


text:
Page:Pierre.djvu/266

252 though he might sue by his next friend, yet who would be his voluntary next friend, when the execution of his great resolve would, for him, depopulate all the world of friends?

Now to all these things, and many more, seemed the soul of this infatuated young enthusiast braced.

III

There is a dark, mad mystery in some human hearts, which, sometimes, during the tyranny of a usurper mood, leads them to be all eagerness to cast off the most intense beloved bond, as a hindrance to the attainment of whatever transcendental object that usurper mood so tyrannically suggests. Then the beloved bond seems to hold us to no essential good; lifted to exalted mounts, we can dispense with all the vale; endearments we spurn; kisses are blisters to us; and forsaking the palpitating forms of mortal love, we emptily embrace the boundless and the unbodied air. We think we are not human; we become as immortal bachelors and gods; but again, like the Greek gods themselves, prone we descend to earth; glad to be uxorious once more; glad to hide these god-like heads within the bosoms made of too-seducing clay.

Weary with the invariable earth, the restless sailor breaks from every enfolding arm, and puts to sea in height of tempest that blows off shore. But in long night-watches at the antipodes, how heavily that ocean gloom lies in vast bales upon the deck; thinking that that very moment in his deserted hamlet-home the household sun is high, and many a sun-eyed maiden meridian as the sun. He curses Fate; himself he curses; his senseless madness, which is himself. For whoso once has known this sweet knowledge, and then fled it; in absence, to him the avenging dream will come.

title: Page:Pierre.djvu/266


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Gibbs, Oliver Wolcott


text:
Page:Pierre.djvu/267

Rh Pierre was now this vulnerable god; this self-upbraiding sailor; this dreamer of the avenging dream. Though in some things he had unjuggled himself, and forced himself to eye the prospect as it was; yet, so far as Lucy was concerned, he was at bottom still a juggler. True, in his extraordinary scheme, Lucy was so intimately interwoven, that it seemed impossible for him at all to cast his future without some way having that heart's love in view. But ignorant of its quantity as yet, or fearful of ascertaining it; like an algebraist, for the real Lucy he, in his scheming thoughts, had substituted but a sign—some empty x—and in the ultimate solution of the problem that empty x still figured; not the real Lucy.

But now, when risen from the abasement of his chamber floor, and risen from the still profounder prostration of his soul, Pierre had thought that all the horizon of his dark fate was commanded by him; all his resolutions clearly defined, and immovably decreed; now finally, to top all, there suddenly slid into his inmost heart the living and breathing form of Lucy. His lungs collapsed; his eyeballs glared; for the sweet imagined form, so long buried alive in him, seemed now as gliding on him from the grave; and her light hair swept far adown her shroud.

Then, for the time, all minor things were whelmed in him; his mother, Isabel, the whole wide world; and one only thing remained to him;—this all-including query—Lucy or God?

But here we draw a veil. Some nameless struggles of the soul cannot be painted, and some woes will not be told. Let the ambiguous procession of events reveal their own ambiguousness.

title: Page:Pierre.djvu/267


text:
Page:Pierre.djvu/268

 BOOK XI

HE CROSSES THE RUBICON

I

within the Maelstrom, man must go round. Strike at one end the longest conceivable row of billiard balls in close contact, and the furthermost ball will start forth, while all the rest stand still; and yet that last ball was not struck at all. So, through long previous generations, whether of births or thoughts, Fate strikes the present man. Idly he disowns the blow's effect, because he felt no blow, and indeed, received no blow. But Pierre was not arguing Fixed Fate and Free Will, now; Fixed Fate and Free Will were arguing him, and Fixed Fate got the better in the debate.

The peculiarities of those influences which on the night and early morning following the last interview with Isabel, persuaded Pierre to the adoption of his final resolve, did now irresistibly impel him to a remarkable instantaneousness in his actions, even as before he had proved a lagger.

Without being consciously that way pointed, through the desire of anticipating any objections on the part of Isabel to the assumption of a marriage between himself and her; Pierre was now impetuously hurried into an act, which should have the effective virtue of such an executed intention, without its corresponding motive. Because, as the primitive resolve so deplorably involved Lucy, her image was then prominent in his mind; and hence, because he felt all eagerness to hold her no longer in suspense, but by a certain sort of charity of cruelty, at once to pronounce to her her fate; therefore, it was 5em

title: Page:Pierre.djvu/268


text:
Page:Pierre.djvu/269

Rh among his first final thoughts that morning to go to Lucy. And to this, undoubtedly, so trifling a circumstance as her being nearer to him, geographically, than Isabel, must have contributed some added, though unconscious influence, in his present fateful frame of mind.

On the previous undetermined days, Pierre had solicitously sought to disguise his emotions from his mother, by a certain carefulness and choiceness in his dress. But now, since his very soul was forced to wear a mask, he would wear no paltry palliatives and disguisements on his body. He went to the cottage of Lucy as disordered in his person, as haggard in his face.

II

She was not risen yet. So, the strange imperious instantaneousness in him, impelled him to go straight to her chamber-door, and in a voice of mild invincibleness, demand immediate audience, for the matter pressed.

Already namelessly concerned and alarmed for her lover, now eight-and-forty hours absent on some mysterious and undisclosable affair; Lucy, at this surprising summons was overwhelmed with sudden terror; and in oblivion of all ordinary proprieties, responded to Pierre's call, by an immediate assent.

Opening the door, he advanced slowly and deliberately toward her; and as Lucy caught his pale determined figure, she gave a cry of groping misery, which knew not the pang that caused it, and lifted herself trembling in her bed; but without uttering one word.

Pierre sat down on the bedside; and his set eyes met her terrified and virgin aspect.

'Decked in snow-white, and pale of cheek, thou indeed art fitted for the altar; but not that one of which thy fond heart didst dream:—so fair a victim!'

title: Page:Pierre.djvu/269


text:
Page:Pierre.djvu/270

256 'Pierre!'

''Tis the last cruelty of tyrants to make their enemies slay each other.'

'My heart! my heart!'

'Nay;—Lucy, I am married.'

The girl was no more pale, but white as any leper; the bedclothes trembled to the concealed shudderings of all her limbs; one moment she sat looking vacantly into the blank eyes of Pierre, and then fell over toward him in a swoon.

Swift madness mounted into the brain of Pierre; all the past seemed as a dream, and all the present an unintelligible horror. He lifted her, and extended her motionless form upon the bed, and stamped for succour. The maid Martha came running into the room, and beholding those two inexplicable figures, shrieked, and turned in terror. But Pierre's repeated cry rallied Martha from this, and darting out of the chamber, she returned with a sharp restorative, which at length brought Lucy back to life.

'Martha! Martha!' now murmured Lucy, in a scarce audible whispering, and shuddering in the maid's own shuddering arms, 'quick, quick; come to me—drive it away! wake me! wake me!'

'Nay, pray God to sleep again,' cried Martha, bending over her and embracing her, and half turning upon Pierre with a glance of loathing indignation. 'In God's holy name, sir, what may this be? How came you here; accursed!'

'Accursed?—it is well. Is she herself again, Martha?'

'Thou hast somehow murdered her; how then be herself again? My sweet mistress! oh, my young mistress! Tell me! tell me!' and she bent low over her.

Pierre now advanced toward the bed, making a gesture for the maid to leave them; but soon as Lucy re-caught his haggard form, she whisperingly wailed again, 'Martha! 'Martha! drive it away!—there—there! him—him!'

title: Page:Pierre.djvu/270


text:
Page:Pierre.djvu/271

Rh and shut her eyes convulsively, with arms abhorrently outstretched.

'Monster! incomprehensible fiend!' cried the anew terror-smitten maid—'depart! See! she dies away at the sight of thee—begone! Wouldst thou murder her afresh? Begone!'

Starched and frozen by his own emotion, Pierre silently turned and quitted the chamber; and heavily descending the stairs, tramped heavily—as a man slowly bearing a great burden—through a long, narrow passage leading to a wing in the rear of the cottage, and knocking at Mrs. Llanyllyn's door, summoned her to Lucy, who, he briefly said, had fainted. Then, without waiting for any response, left the house, and went directly to the mansion.

III

'Is my mother up yet?' said he to Dates, whom he met in the hall.

'Not yet, sir;—heavens, sir! are you sick?'

'To death! Let me pass.'

Ascending toward his mother's chamber, he heard a coming step, and met her on the great middle landing of the stairs, where in an ample niche, a marble group of the temple-polluting Laocoon and his two innocent children, caught in inextricable snarls of snakes, writhed in eternal torments.

'Mother, go back with me to thy chamber.'

She eyed his sudden presence with a dark but repressed foreboding; drew herself up haughtily and repellingly, and with a quivering lip, said, 'Pierre, thou thyself hast denied me thy confidence, and thou shalt not force me back to it so easily. Speak! what is that now between thee and me?'

'I am married, mother.'

title: Page:Pierre.djvu/271


text:
Page:Pierre.djvu/272

258 'Great God! To whom?'

'Not to Lucy Tartan, mother.'

'That thou merely sayest 'tis not Lucy, without saying who indeed it is, this is good proof she is something vile. Does Lucy know thy marriage?'

'I am but just from Lucy's.'

Thus far Mrs. Glendinning's rigidity had been slowly relaxing. Now she clutched the baluster, bent over, and trembled, for a moment. Then erected all her haughtiness again, and stood before Pierre in incurious, unappeasable grief and scorn for him.

'My dark soul prophesied something dark. If already thou hast not found other lodgment, and other table than this house supplies, then seek it straight. Beneath my roof, and at my table, he who was once Pierre Glendinning no more puts himself.'

She turned from him, and with a tottering step climbed the winding stairs, and disappeared from him; while in the baluster he held, Pierre seemed to feel the sudden thrill running down to him from his mother's convulsive grasp.

He stared about him with an idiot eye; staggered to the floor below, to dumbly quit the house; but as he crossed its threshold, his foot tripped upon its raised ledge; he pitched forward upon the stone portico, and fell. He seemed as jeeringly hurled from beneath his own ancestral roof.

IV

Passing through the broad courtyard's postern, Pierre closed it after him, and then turned and leaned upon it, his eyes fixed upon the great central chimney of the mansion, from which a light blue smoke was wreathing gently into the morning air.

'The hearth-stone from which thou risest, never more,

title: Page:Pierre.djvu/272


text:
Page:Pierre.djvu/273

Rh I inly feel, will these feet press. Oh God, what callest thou that which has thus made Pierre a vagabond?'

He walked slowly away, and passing the windows of Lucy, looked up, and saw the white curtains closely drawn, the white cottage profoundly still, and a white saddle-horse tied before the gate.

'I would enter, but again would her abhorrent wails repel; what more can I now say or do to her? I cannot explain. She knows all I purposed to disclose. Ay, but thou didst cruelly burst upon her with it; thy impetuousness, thy instantaneousness hath killed her, Pierre!—Nay, nay, nay!—Cruel tidings who can gently break? If to stab be inevitable; then instant be the dagger! Those curtains are close drawn upon her; so let me upon her sweet image draw the curtains of my soul. Sleep, sleep, sleep, sleep, thou angel!—wake no more to Pierre, nor to thyself, my Lucy!'

Passing on now hurriedly and blindly, he jostled against some oppositely-going wayfarer. The man paused amazed; and looking up, Pierre recognised a domestic of the mansion. That instantaneousness which now impelled him in all his actions, again seized the ascendency in him. Ignoring the dismayed expression of the man at thus encountering his young master, Pierre commanded him to follow him. Going straight to the 'Black Swan,' the little village inn, he entered the first vacant room, and bidding the man be seated, sought the keeper of the house, and ordered pen and paper.

If fit opportunity offer in the hour of unusual affliction, minds of a certain temperament find a strange, hysterical relief, in a wild, perverse humorousness, the more alluring from its entire unsuitableness to the occasion; although they seldom manifest this trait toward those individuals more immediately involved in the cause or the effect of their suffering. The cool censoriousness of the mere

title: Page:Pierre.djvu/273


text:
Page:Pierre.djvu/274

260 philosopher would denominate such conduct as nothing short of temporary madness; and perhaps it is, since, in the inexorable and inhuman eye of mere undiluted reason, all grief, whether on our own account, or that of others, is the sheerest unreason and insanity.

The note now written was the following:—

'For that Fine Old Fellow, Dates.

'Dates, my old boy, bestir thyself now. Go to my room, Dates, and bring me down my mahogany strongbox and lock-up, the thing covered with blue chintz; strap it very carefully, my sweet Dates, it is rather heavy, and set it just without the postern. Then back and bring me down my writing-desk, and set that, too, just without the postern. Then back yet again, and bring me down the old camp-bed (see that all the parts be there), and bind the case well with a cord. Then go to the left corner little drawer in my wardrobe, and thou wilt find my visiting-cards. Tack one on the chest, and the desk, and the camp-bed case. Then get all my clothes together, and pack them in trunks (not forgetting the two old military cloaks, my boy), and tack cards on them also, my good Dates. Then fly round three times indefinitely, my good Dates, and wipe a little of the perspiration off. And then—let me see—then, my good Dates—why, what then? Why, this much. Pick up all papers of all sorts that may be lying round my chamber, and see them burned. And then—have old White Hoof put to the lightest farm-wagon, and send the chest, and the desk, and the camp-bed, and the trunks to the "Black Swan," where I shall call for them, when I am ready, and not before, sweet Dates. So God bless thee, my fine, old, imperturbable Dates, and adieu!—Thy old, young master,

'Nota bene.—Mark well, though, Dates. Should my

title: Page:Pierre.djvu/274


text:
Page:Pierre.djvu/275

Rh mother possibly interrupt thee, say that it is my orders, and mention what it is I send for; but on no account show this to thy mistress—D' ye hear? again.'

Folding this scrawl into a grotesque shape, Pierre ordered the man to take it forthwith to Dates. But the man, all perplexed, hesitated, turning the billet over in his hand; till Pierre loudly and violently bade him begone; but as the man was then rapidly departing in a panic, Pierre called him back and retracted his rude words; but as the servant now lingered again, perhaps thinking to avail himself of this repentant mood in Pierre, to say something in sympathy or remonstrance to him, Pierre ordered him off with augmented violence, and stamped for him to begone.

Apprising the equally perplexed old landlord that certain things would in the course of that forenoon be left for him (Pierre), at the inn; and also desiring him to prepare a chamber for himself and wife that night; some chamber with a commodious connecting room, which might answer for a dressing-room; and likewise still another chamber for a servant; Pierre departed the place, leaving the old landlord staring vacantly at him, and dumbly marvelling what horrible thing had happened to turn the brain of his fine young favourite and old shooting comrade, Master Pierre.

Soon the short old man went out bare-headed upon the low porch of the inn, descended its one step, and crossed over to the middle of the road, gazing after Pierre. And only as Pierre turned up a distant lane, did his amazement and his solicitude find utterance.

'I taught him—yes, old Casks;—the best shot in all the country round is Master Pierre;—pray God he hits not now the bull's eye in himself.—Married? married? and coming here?—This is pesky strange!'

title: Page:Pierre.djvu/275


text:
Page:Pierre.djvu/276

 BOOK XII

ISABEL: MRS. GLENDINNING: THE PORTRAIT: AND LUCY

I

on the previous night Pierre had left the farmhouse where Isabel harboured, it will be remembered that no hour, either of night or day, no special time at all had been assigned for a succeeding interview. It was Isabel, who for some doubtlessly sufficient reason of her own, had, for the first meeting, assigned the early hour of darkness.

As now, when the full sun was well up the heavens, Pierre drew near the farm-house of the Ulvers, he descried Isabel, standing without the little dairy-wing, occupied in vertically arranging numerous glittering shield-like milk-pans on a long shelf, where they might purifyingly meet the sun. Her back was toward him. As Pierre passed through the open wicket and crossed the short, soft, green sward, he unconsciously muffled his footsteps, and now standing close behind his sister, touched her shoulder and stood still.

She started, trembled, turned upon him swiftly, made a low, strange cry, and then gazed rivetedly and imploringly upon him.

'I look rather queerish, sweet Isabel, do I not?' said Pierre at last with a writhed and painful smile.

'My brother, my blessed brother!—speak—tell me—what has happened—what hast thou done? Oh! Oh! I should have warned thee before, Pierre, Pierre; it is my fault—mine, mine!' 5em

title: Page:Pierre.djvu/276