Volume II Part 11 (1/2)

[28] This subject is first entered on in the 'Seven Lamps,' and carried forward in the final chapters of 'Modern Painters,'to the point where I hope to take it up for conclusion, in the sections of 'Our Fathers have told us' devoted to the history of the fourteenth century.

[29] See in the first volume, the plates of Sonchus Arvensis and Tussilago Petasites; in the second, Carduus tomentosus and Picris Echioides.

[30] For the sense in which this word is used throughout my writings, see the definition of it in the 52nd paragraph of the 'Queen of the Air,'

comparing with respect to its office in plants, ---- 59-60.

[31] Written in 1880.

[32] The plate of Chamaedrys, D. 448, is also quite right, and not 'too tall and weedlike,' as I have called it at p. 72.

[33] ”Stems numerous from the crown of the root-stock, de-c.u.mbent.”--S. The effect of the flower upon the ground is always of an extremely upright and separate plant, never appearing in cl.u.s.ters, (I meant, in close ma.s.ses - it forms exquisite little rosy crowds, on ground that it likes) or in any relation to a central root. My epithet 'rosea' does not deny its botanical de- or pro-c.u.mbency.

[34] Compare especially Galeopsis Angustifolia, D. 3031.

[35] Octavo: Paris, Hachette, 1865.

[36] See in the ninth chapter what I have been able, since this sentence was written, to notice on the matter in question.

[37] I envy the French their generalized form of denial, 'Il n'en est rien.'

[38] 'Sensiblement invariable;' 'unchanged, _so far as we can see,_' or to general sense; microscopic and minute change not being considered.