The progress of this decorative style was suddenly arrested by the "Renaissance," or re vival of ancient classical art and literature, of which Italy was the earliest seat, and from whence the impulse was given that communi cated itself speedily to the rest of Europe. A genuine and self-evolved style instantly went out of fashion, and was discarded for an imi tation and counterfeit one based on the copy ing of understood classic models which were applied without consideration to the most incon gruous objects. The classical temple was the dominant idea in the manufacture of furniture as well as in the construction of a palace or a cathedral, and columns were considered as necessary in one species of art as in the other. All the architectural details of Roman buildings were then applied to furniture; the lions, griffins. chimeras, etc., of the temple frieze encumbered the stately pillars of the Italian palaces, and caryatides and Roman trophies replaced the patron saint and the crucifix. With all its ab surdities, it must be noted that this style was in the hands of great men, and their produc tions display a boldness and vigor of line, and a mastery over human and animal forms that give dignity to a licentious freedom of design in which all appropriateness is forgotten. Speci mens of the Renaissance are still met with, though daily increasing in value. crothic art never recovered its lost ground.
With various modifications the Renaissance style continued dominant for nearly two cen turies. In England it degenerated into positive ugliness, the furniture of the time of Elizabeth and James I having very little to recommend it in tasteful design. It is distinguished by a mixture of overwrought heavy molding,' com bined with thin spindly columns, twisted legs, and other inelegant characteristics. Magnifi cence is sometimes attempted in the value of the material, as in the famous set of chamber fur niture in chased silver executed for a royal visit at Knowle Park, the seat of the dukes of Dorset in Kent. It was succeeded by the style named after the French monarch, its patron and encourager, Louis XIV.
The modern predominance of France in the construction of furniture is owing to the minis ter Colbert. He it was who brought together the best workmen of Europe, and by an edict of the year 1667 established the French royal manufactory of furniture. The new style which the productions of this establishment assumed appears to have been worked out undesignedly, and, like every such successful phase of art, was the genuineproduct of circumstances. Nov
elty and magnificence seem to have been the great features aimed at; these were sought by varied treatment of surface in cabinet furni ture (as inlays of metals, ivory, enamels, por celain tablets, tortoise shell, etc.), and by an incrustation of broken scroll panel work, which hid the real constructive forms and frittered away the graceful outlines of the Renaissance into a confused and unsymmetrical mass. Un der Louis XV the same school of art contin ued, and it received new elaboration under the successors of Boule, Riesner and Gouthier; their works are known to connoisseurs as arti cles of vertu by the respective styles of each master, and fine specimens bring almost fabulous prices. Probably more of this class of furni ture is to be found in Great Britain than in all the rest of Europe, a great change of own ers having been brought about by the French Revolution. While the splendid extravagances of Louis XIV were holding sway in France, the prevailing taste in England seems rather to have been modified by the fashion introduced from Holland by William III. The native woods, oak or wainscot, chestnut, etc., were about this time superseded for furniture by the dark and heavy West India mahogany, the in variable material of the ill-designed and awk ward furniture familiar to us in the immortal designs of Hogaith. A better style based on that of France was introduced by Chippendale, but a severer and more artistic taste was dis played by the designs of Heppelwhite and Shera ton. In the latter part of the reign of Louis XVI another change is apparent in French furniture. Greece and Rome were looked up to as standards of correctness in furniture as well as in politics. But instead of impressing their own genius on designs inspired by ancient models as did the great artists of the Renais sance, the authors of this revival were too often content with frigid imitation. The classi cal style did not long hold sway, and since that time the practice of both France and England (and with them the rest of Europe) has been purely eclectic. At present designs after the best work of the older makers are much in favor in both Europe and America. See FUR NITURE INDUSTRY IN AMERICA, THE.