THE NEW-YORK EXHIBITION ILLUSTRATE D.

France a reform in household art. the influence of -which is yet felt throughoutthe world; for it is almost needless to say that at that day France ruled theworld of fashion with a sway yet more despotic than that which she exercisesnow, and that her dictates were deemed no less binding upon furniture thanupon dress ;—far more so, indeed, than they are at present; for your Englishmanof to-day thinks scorn of French ‘ flimsiness,’ except • in articles which are bynature flimsy.

The succeeding age, after the manner of succeeding ages, only exaggeratedthe style of its predecessor. But who needs to be told that the reign of LouisQuinze perpetuated all that was weak, all that was vicious in that of LouisQuatorze, while it threw off the stately formality and external propriety whichlent to that a semblance of respectability. This change was completely reflectedin the furniture of the period, in which all was done that an extravagant andlicentious fancy could do, to pervert and fritter away whatever was meritoriousin the style which had been bequeathed to it. The result was the elaboratelyabsurd mannerism known as rococo.

The next change was to as great an absurdity of a different kind. The Revo-lution and the Empire brought in an affectation of the classic; and the effectupon furniture was the production of ponderous and frigid monstrosities. As, inevery thing else, so in household decoration, the only end attained was caricaturewithout humor, travestie without fun. The solemn affectation of Greek andRoman forms was so ridiculous, that only the inherent vitality and grand simpli-city of the classic motives enabled them to survive “ the deep damnation of thistaking off; ” otherwise the very name, classic, would have provoked a smile.In the furniture of this day we find cornices which are movable, pillars and pilasterssupporting nothing and swinging upon hinges, and arches upon which nothingrests, and the only keys of which are the keys which unlock them that they may fallforward in the shape of desks and tables. Decorative furniture owes to thisage only the introduction of the beautiful Etruscan Greek chair, which w r ohave before described; and the severe, essential simplicity of which, while it, witha semblance of reason, may exclude the chair, in the estimation of some, fromornamental furniture, also preserved it from perversion and degradation at thehands of the second-hand Greeks and Romans of Anno Domini 1800.

At the present day we are, in furniture, as in the arts and all the mechanicalpursuits depending on them, more or less eclectic. But we sometimes wear ourrue with a difference, and when we do, that difference is sometimes on the side ofcomfort and convenience. In fact we have a furniture style of our own, which,though not original, bears yet the marks of our utilitarian age. It is a modifica-tion and a moderation of the style of Louis XIV.; and while it assumes the gracefulmotives of that style, it also reduces them to greater simplicity, and moulds theminto forms more consistent with comfort and constructive truth. This style ap-pears chiefly in chairs of all kinds and in sofas, and will readily recur to those atall observant upon the subject. The only specimen of it which we have en-graved, is the sofa on page 191, exhibited by Alexander Roux; and in this, muchof the carving upon the back is more than superfluous. The projections made byit, form surfaces very uninviting to human shoulders.

Most of the furniture in the Exhibition is of American manufacture ; and thedisplay may be taken as a fair index of the taste and judgment which we exercisein providing ourselves with household comfort and ornament. It must be ad-mitted that the conclusions forced upon us are not at all in favor of our good senseor our perceptions of beauty or fitness. The article exhibited in excess is thebuffet; the very one which is least suited to our means, our habits, and our styleof living. There are not a hundred private houses in New-York with a diningroom large enough for a buffet; and certainly not that number the owners ofwhich can afford to live in the style in which a man should live who has a buf-fet properly covered. And even in the few cases in which this is not true, inhow few of these can the sons look forward to the possession of the buffet whenthe father is obliged to leave his splendor ? and how many a daughter goes por-tionless from that splendor, and because of that splendor, to the home of a younghusband who has just struggled into competence? Now, this is all wrong. Thatbuffet does not fulfil its office. It does not make us feel the more welcome, or themore at ease while getting through the sumptuous and elaborate hospitalityof our host. On the contrary, it is quite uncomfortable to think that our enter-tainer and his family have little more than a usufruct interest in that splendidcombination of carved wood and plate. It interferes with the digestion of orto-lans, and deadens the bouquet of Lafitte, to reflect that our munificent friend’seldest son,—the young gentleman whose amiable weakness at the knees attractedour attention as he entered the drawing-room, if, according to an elegant phrasewhich he sometimes uses, the governor should take it into his head to pop offsome day,—that then this tender-hearted youth would have his feelings laceratedby the sight of the buffet and its plate under the hammer of the auctioneer. But,suggests some apologetic philanthropist, the cost of a buffet is not much to amoderately rich man, and many people have a buffet without plate. So they do,preposterous fools! and they might as well have a stable without horses, a tablewithout food, a library without books, or books without brains. A buffet re-quires a large dining-room and a respectable display of plate; which requires a

large and sumptuously furnished house; which requires a corresponding equipageand retinue of servants; and the comfortable enjoyment of those requires a con-sciousness that they will not all vanish into thin air at the death of one man.Consider the eternal fitness of things, good people, and banish your buffets infavor of the more modest sideboard; which, nevertheless can be made sufficientlybeautiful and sufficiently costly to be a becoming decoration for any dining-room.

With regard to the specimens of buffets in the Exhibition, we have little to addto what has been said in introducing the engravings of the most important of them.They are generally well designed and appropriately decorated; and the carvingupon some of them claims high consideration as art. This is particularly the casewith that represented upon page 114, exhibited by Augustus Eliaers, of Boston,and which, although called a side-board, is actually a buffet, and with that uponpage 168, exhibited by Messrs. Bulkley & Ilerter, of New-York. The former iscomparatively modest in size, and though rich, is unimpeachably chaste in its dec-oration, and has a symmetry of outline which charms the eye. It has but onefault. The beautifully designed carved work upon it appears to have beenrubbed smooth. This finish is a blemish. No elaboration of surface can compen-sate for the loss of the spirited touches of the carver’s tool. The second is reallya noble work—not only large in size, but grand in style; and in the sharp linesand rich surfaces of its carved work it shows the peculiar beauty which disap-pears under the hand of the polisher. But it is only fit for the dining-hall of acastle or a manor-house.

The chairs exhibited, call for very little remark: they are generally neithervery good nor very bad. But one, which is represented on page 166, is worthyof notice as being almost the ideal of inappropriateness and discomfort. Its elab-orate and finely executed carving only renders it the more unfit for any place inwhich an easy chair should be admitted ; and the style of its decorations, thoughvery well for the fagade of an arsenal, is preposterous in the chamber, the draw-ing-room, or the library, where grim-visaged war should smooth his wrinkledfront.

Of tables, our pages exhibit three monstrosities and one fine model. Amongthe first is that exhibited on page 65, which in outline and in decoration is at waralike with the principles of construction and of good taste. The legs seem, andare, utterly worthless as supports; and the figures with which they are adornedonly tempt to the best disposition that could be made of them,-—to break themoff. The console table on page 125, and the centre table on page 175, are notmuch better. The former is deliberately designed to be as useless as possible;and looks more like the skeleton of some antediluvian insect than a piece ofhousehold furniture. The centre table exhibits a world of talent—and of rosewood,thrown away. The carving is very fine, but what of that? The thing out-ricocos ricoco. Here are caryatides with their heads rising above that whichthey support, and other caryatides which are actually supported by that whichthey should support. The form of the legs is such that the whole weight mustbe sustained by the mere lateral adhesion of the fibre at their smallest diameter,—which with ingenious perversity is placed exactly where the greatest strength isneeded,—and that it is impossible to put the thing to any use for which a tableis needed. A lady in a hoop might approach it and toss her fan upon it; hutthere its worth ends as a piece of furniture. The extension table, on page 125,exhibited by C. F. Hobe, is at once elegant, substantial, and useful; and is con-structed upon exactly those principles which the other three defy. This is notthe fault of the makers of the former, for those were made for show and sale topeople of bad or uninstructed taste, while the fourth was made for use.

"We have engraved only two bookcases; but these will amply serve the pur-pose of illustrating our views. The first object of a bookcase is the protectionof books; but this would be fully attained by keeping them in a chest or acabinet. There, however, access to them would be difficult, and so we placothem upon shelves for convenience; but we do not use the shelves of acloset because upon those the books would be hid from view, and we shouldbe deprived of that familiar acquaintaince with their exterior, which, tomost of those who really love books, is one great enjoyment in the pos-session of them. To the bookish man—not to say to the student or the biblioma-niac, the loving look at a prized volume, and the quiet caress of the appropriateattire with which the binder has clothed it, are a silent grace before intellectualmeat. The design of a bookcase is good then, just in so far as it combines pro-tection to books, convenience in their use, and pleasing display of them; and ob-viously, whatever ornament is added should not only be in harmony with these ob-jects, but entirely subordinate to them : the case should distract attention from itscontents. Judged by this standard, the two bookcases represented on pages 67 and173 have merits and defects. The former, exhibited by Messrs. Bulkley & Ilerteris a fine specimen of Gothic furniture. Its style and its ornaments are not onlybeautiful in themselves, but in perfect keeping with the purpose for which thepiece is designed. As we have before remarked, there is in the Gothic style apeculiar fitness to bookcases and to library furniture of all kinds. But this book-case, although it protects the books, and is tolerably well arranged, as far as con-venience is concerned, has the serious fault of concealing the greater portion ofits contents. It is rather a stately cabinet than a bookcase; and wherever it