[Footnote 11:  Kaemmerer, op. cit.]

[Footnote 12:  Kaemmerer, op. cit.]

CHAPTER VIII

[Footnote 1:  Renaissance und Humanismus in Italien und Deutschland.]

[Footnote 2:  Renaissance und Humanismus in Italien und Deutschland.]

[Footnote 3:  Zoeckler.]

[Footnote 4:  Comp.  Hase, Sebastian Frank von Woerd der Schwarmgeist.]

[Footnote 5:  Comp.  Hubert, Kleine Schriften.]

[Footnote 6:  Zoeckler, etc.]

[Footnote 7:  Comp.  Uhland, Schriften zur Geschichte der Dichtung und Sage.  Alte hoch und nieder deutsche Volkslieder, where plants, ivy, holly, box, and willow, represent summer and winter.]

[Footnote 8:  Uhland.]

[Footnote 9:  Uhland.]

[Footnote 10:  Wunderhorn.]

[Footnote 11:  Biese, op. cit.]

[Footnote 12:  Fred Cohn, ‘Die Gaerten in alter und neuer Zeit,’ D. Rundschau 18, 1879.  In Italy in the sixteenth century there was a change to this extent, that greenery was no longer clipt, but allowed to grow naturally, and the garden represented the transition from palace to landscape, from bare architectural forms to the free creations of Nature.  The passion for flowers—­the art of the pleasure garden, flourished in Holland and Germany. (Falke.)]

[Footnote 13:  W.H.  Riehl states (Kulturstudien aus drei Jahrhunderten) that Berlin, Augsburg, Leipzig, Darmstadt, and Mannheim were described in the seventeenth century as having ’very fine and delightful positions’; and the finest parts of the Black Forest, Harz and Thuringian mountains as ‘very desolate,’ deserted, and monotonous, or, at best, as not particularly pleasant scenery.  If only a region were flat and treeless, a delicious landscape could be charmed out of it.  Welcker, Court physician at Hesse Cassel, describing Schlangenbad in 1721, said that it lay in a desolate, unpleasing district, where nothing grew but foliage and grass, but that through ingenious planting of clipt trees in lines and cross lines, some sort of artistic effect had been produced.  Clearly the principles of French garden-craft had become a widely accepted dogma of taste.  Riehl contrasts the periwig period with the mediaeval, and concludes that the mediaeval backgrounds of pictures implied feeling for the wild and romantic.  He says:  ’In the Middle Ages the painters chose romantic jagged forms of mountains and rocks for backgrounds, hence the wild, bare, and arid counted as a prototype of beautiful scenery, while some centuries later such forms were held to be too rustic and irregular for beauty.’  One cannot entirely agree with this.  He weakens it himself in what follows.  ’It was not a real scene which rose Alp-like before their mind’s eye, but an imaginary and sacred one; their fantastic, romantic ideal called for rough and rugged environment’:  and