The most obvious difference between the new style and that of the old oak, in principles of design, is the greater unity and homogeneity of the newer. I have dwelt on the fact that in the old oak chair the ornament is chiefly and generally to be found on the upper part, and that in consequence there is a want of complete ensemble in the decorative scheme. Incised carving above and turned legs below do not sufficiently support each other, and this may, I think, be regarded as a defect which any new style, if it was to show points of easy superiority, was bound to correct. In the Charles II. chair and its immediate forerunner this defect is certainly most radically corrected, and, indeed, it does not reappear to any extent, except perhaps in those chairs of Chippendale style in which an ornate back is fitted to plain legs, in the subsequent history of English furniture. On the other hand, if in our review of Elizabethan and Jacobean oak we have come to the conclusion that amongst the usual and characteristic types the number and variety of patterns was not extremely large, and that certain shapes, as that of the guilloche and the S-curve and the semicircle, recur over and over again, we are also compelled to admit that the varieties of detail in Charles II. chairs of the ordinary kind are more limited still.

It is easier to find chairs of this period which are practically alike, than in the periods of old English oak. There seems to be even more of the all-embracing influence of a style which sets its mark upon every object of applied art, and confines it to a narrow mould, than there was in the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods.

1 The Fire of London (1666) must also be taken into account.

I do not mean to imply that the difference in this respect between the two periods under comparison was very great. If, however, we agree that wherever and by whomsoever the cabinets and chests and chairs of the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods were made, there was always a touch of local variety and a certain independence of idea to be found, that local variety and freedom of decorative motive seem almost entirely absent in the furniture of the later Stuart period. It is as if some master-mind, like that of Lebrun in French art of the period of Louis XIV., had laid it down that crowns, cherubs, and C-curves should constitute practically the entire stock-in-trade of the Charles II. chair-maker, and that if there is a crown above, it shall appear also below. It may be, indeed, that the slightly greater variety claimed for the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods is more apparent than real. The very defect, that is, of an older oak chair which cuts the design into two pieces, incised above and turned below, may be giving rise to this notion of greater variety and freedom in the earlier executant's choice.

In another respect, the new style introduced a great advantage. It was an incomparably lighter style, not only in appearance, but in actual weight. This is due to two causes. One is the banishment of the solid back, and the final substitution of the open uprights and rails. The other cause is the introduction of cane work for backs and seats. Aesthetically, the cane back, or part of a back, is not a success. Nothing can make the plaited cane look worthy of its surroundings. For the seat much more is to be said, aesthetically and hygienically, and very little against it. It is true that it necessitates a straight line along the front and sides of the seat which a stuffed cushion mitigates, but if the lower edge of the seat front be diversified, we can appreciate the contrast of a straight line above.