The financial resources of the country were increasing, we must, therefore, have an appearance of wealth.

Since marble is expensive why not top our tables, bureaus, dressers and the like with this beautiful native stone? Surely the ancient Romans made their columns of marble and granite combined; the Louis XV period has its consoles structurally in gilt and its tops in marble.

What matters it if the value difference between black walnut and white marble is somewhat strong, or if the proportions of one material to the other, or to the parts of the object in question, are totally unrelated? Then, too, there are the wonderful architectural effects of Sir Christopher Wren in England and in America.

Why not add some of these structural features to the already too ponderous bed? And then, if classic and non-classic mouldings will give it greater weight and a more decided appearance of luxury, why not put them on so long as they will stay on? Fatally the callow youth has expressed his first ideas of his new furniture in a most voluminous way.

We need not go into detail as to how the Oriental rug was used in this period, and also the rag carpet and the ingrain when they made their appearance. The Oriental was at least rare and expensive and the ingrain was quite new, while the rag carpets were but the leftovers of a less completely evolved people.

What is true of carpets and rugs is equally apparent in all other things found in the period which we call black walnut. Many of us can recall the crowded sitting-rooms, the newly done, over done parlours, and the ungainly and heavily furnished bedrooms, with a feeling of despair and pity. Nevertheless, bad as it was, impossible as it is, it was a natural step in the evolution of the modern idea. It was at least original. Orig-inality is one of the qualities which we must all rec-ognize as commendable and in line with progress. At the same time, to make originality the only criterion, or the main criterion, is to focus our attention on too unimportant an idea. Original things which are bad may be steps toward better ones, but they are not ends; they are means to an end, which end is, of course, an expression of ideas fitting and beautiful in themselves. To unqualifiedly condemn the black walnut movement is to refuse to realize the law of progress, but to fail to see its inconsistencies and its place as a means to an end, is to cloud the vision for all future creations which are original and better.

Because of the insatiable desire for self-expression which is a psychological quality, the American people were not satisfied with the black walnut era. They soon outgrew it, and instinctively turned to Europe for ideas with which to modify it. They still had with them the Queen Anne mirrors with their erratic, curved-line edges. Some of the furniture had equally impossible and distracting curved lines. The jig-saw, too, had made its appearance, and the straight line as a beauty factor was lost to sight.

Some one has said: "Anybody can appreciate a curved line, but it takes an artist to see beauty in a straight one." This may be true. But if it does not take an artist to see the difference between a beautiful curved line and one which is ugly, then there is no difference between curved lines and they are all beautiful.

Puritan severity, classic simplicity and consistency, qualities having their origin in the Greek ideal, had dominated a great part of the Colonial, but were completely lost in the period which extended from about 1840 to 1890. From 1875 on there were two conflicting influences - one the classic and the other the individualistic original, which we have just described.

The atrocities committed in 1875 and 1890 were not in furniture alone, but were, perhaps, even more noticeable in veranda brackets, which, by the way, supported nothing; in grills over doors where plain wall space should have been; league upon league of curved applique woodwork around mantels, and brass, gilt and iron chandeliers, where the writhing motions of a den of snakes would suggest perfect repose by comparison, and many other manifestations of this same idea. This, by the way, is the most difficult error to cope with in the field of art expression in the modern house.

Many American designers still believed these things to be good. Landlords and builders used them as baits to tempt their clients to a purchase. In fact, some remain who, either through force of habit or because they have not given the matter thought, fail to see the contortions, the unrelated motions and the ugly proportions created through the use of the meaningless curve.

From 1890 on there has been a strong reaction against this ugliest of all original periods. Contact with European countries through increased facilities for travel, the expenditure of vast sums of money by the wealthier classes in the importation of European art objects, the clearly defined and sane attitude of the best architects together with the increased desire and facility for education, wrought the great change. People began to see that original things were not always good. They also found by travel that their money could buy almost anything in any period.

Those who could afford to do so first espoused the rench idea for interiors. A few of the best and most expensive decorators in the country essayed to do a Louis XV, Louis XVI or Empire room, and assured the client that it was an exact reproduction as to walls and ceiling with original pieces for furnishing. In a few cases these rooms turned out to be good, and in not a few totally bad, because of a lack of harmony not only between the furniture and the walls but in the relations of the room with its furnishings and in its spirit to modern times.

It also happened that an actual reproduction of an article of furniture or of a ceiling as it was in France created a scale relation, colour combination or maze of motifs quite impossible under conditions here. For ten or fifteen years, however, the French manner was ardently courted and by some charmingly used. Few there were, however, who dared omit a single motif from the ceiling at Versailles for fear the client should discover that it was not an exact reproduction. There were fewer still who would have modified a period room in the slightest particular even by changing an article of furniture. It was slavish copy.

This domination of the French idea lasted for some time, but during the following ten years gradually changed, and the English manner became the rage.

For ordinary purposes and general use no styles are so well fitted for general service as this. This is because the English periods are the expression of a domestic idea, democratic in thought and meaning, and also because it is less expensive to reproduce the English periods in general than those of the better French styles. Still another reason, which is more important than either, is the fact that the French styles cannot be reproduced by any one save a craftsman with a perfect knowledge of the technique of his art. The French periods depend for their beauty upon their refined and exquisite charm. Unless these are elements in his consciousness, a craftsman cannot produce the results. The English periods are simpler, more intellectually conceived and more practically evolved. It takes as much intellect to reproduce the English periods with some degree of accuracy, but far less of the aesthetic sense is required than would be essential to the same degree of accuracy in the French styles.

At present we are entering a new era in this country. Neither the French styles nor the English express exactly what the most refined and educated person in any walk of life desires to express in his living-room, bedroom, dining-room or library. A strong tendency is apparent to return to the first principles of the Italian Renaissance. In them are found certain structural and decorative facts which are fundamentals in all periods which have followed.

The thoughtful student must analyze this Italian Renaissance, and he will find that the Classic, the Christian, and the Humanistic influences must be separately considered in order to form any estimate of its meaning. Having done this, it is not strange that our best decorators now are standing firmly on this first step in the evolution of the New Renaissance. The coming period in American art will be one in which the intellect and the feelings of a cultivated people with limitless resources will both assert themselves in the expression of the modern house.

No period will be copied in its entirety. No period will be omitted because unfit for the expression of an idea. Every period will be studied and studied with one thing in view, and that is to know the ideas for which the period stands, to see the qualities in applied art which stand for those ideas, and to use those ideas and qualities to express the individual idea in the home. This will be the Second Renaissance, the era which is opening before us.