and small,
corridors, staircases, and other features have to be provided for.
This is completely in contrast to the Gothic principle of displaying
frankly on the outside the arrangement of what is within; but it must
be remembered that art often works most happily and successfully when
limited by apparently strict and difficult conditions, and these rules
have not prevented the great architects of the Renaissance from
accomplishing works where both the exterior and the interior are
thoroughly successful, and are brought into such happy harmony that
the difficulties have clearly been no bar to success. There is no
canon of art violated by such a method, the simple fact being that
Gothic buildings are designed under one set of conditions and
Renaissance under another.

It is less easy to defend the use of pilasters and columns large
enough to appear as though they were the main support of the building,
for purely decorative purposes; yet here perhaps the fault lies rather
in the extent to which the practice has been carried, and above all
the scale upon which it is carried out, than in anything else. Small
columns are constantly employed in Gothic buildings in positions where
they serve the aesthetic purpose of conveying a sense of support, but
where it is impossible for them to carry any weight. The Renaissance
architects have done the same thing on a large scale, but it must not
be forgotten that they only revived a Roman practice as part of the
ancient style to which they reverted, and that they are not
responsible for originating it.

It will be understood therefore that symmetry, strict uniformity, not
mere similarity, in features intended to correspond, and constant
repetition, are leading principles in Renaissance architecture. These
qualities tend to breadth rather than picturesqueness of effect, and
to similarity rather than contrast. Simplicity and elaboration are
both compatible with Renaissance design; the former distinguishes the
earlier and purer examples of the style, the latter those more recent
and more grandiose.

It should be observed that in the transition styles, such as our own
Elizabethan, or the French style of Francis the First, these
principles of design are mixed up in a very miscellaneous way with
those followed in the Gothic period. The result is often puzzling and
inconsistent if we attempt to analyse it with exactness, but rarely
fails to charm by its picturesque and irregular vividness.