kleitos were kindred spirits in their belief that beautiful proportions
resulted from strict adherence to harmonious numerical ratios,
whether in a temple more than 200 feet long or a life-size statue of a
nude man. For the Parthenon, the controlling ratio for the symme-
tria of the parts may be expressed algebraically as x = 2y 1. Thus,
for example, the temple’s short ends have 8 columns and the long
sides have 17, because 17 = (2 8) 1. The stylobate’s ratio of
length to width is 9:4, because 9 = (2 4) 1. This ratio also char-
acterizes the cella’s proportion of length to width, the distance be-
tween the centers of two adjacent column drums (the interaxial) in
proportion to the columns’ diameter, and so forth.
The Parthenon’s harmonious design and the mathematical pre-
cision of the sizes of its constituent elements tend to obscure the fact
that this temple, as actually constructed, is quite irregular in shape.
Throughout the building are pronounced deviations from the strictly
horizontal and vertical lines assumed to be the basis of all Greek post-
and-lintel structures. The stylobate, for example, curves upward at the
center on the sides and both facades, forming a kind of shallow dome,
and this curvature is carried up into the entablature. Moreover, the
peristyle columns lean inward slightly. Those at the corners have a di-
agonal inclination and are also about two inches thicker than the rest.
If their lines continued, they would meet about 1.5 miles above the
temple. These deviations from the norm meant that virtually every
Parthenon block and drum had to be carved according to the special
set of specifications dictated by its unique place in the structure. This
was obviously a daunting task, and a reason must have existed for
these so-called refinements in the Parthenon. Some modern ob-
servers note, for example, how the curving of horizontal lines and the
tilting of vertical ones create a dynamic balance in the building—a
kind of architectural contrapposto—and give it a greater sense of life.
The oldest recorded explanation, however, may be the most likely. Vi-
truvius, a Roman architect of the late first centuryBCEwho claimed to
have had access to Iktinos’s treatise on the Parthenon—again note the
kinship with the Canon of Polykleitos—maintained that the builders
made these adjustments to compensate for optical illusions. Vitruvius
noted, for example, that if a stylobate is laid out on a level surface, it
will appear to sag at the center, and that the corner columns of a
building should be thicker because they are surrounded by light and
would otherwise appear thinner than their neighbors.
The Parthenon is “irregular” in other ways as well. One of the
ironies of this most famous of all Doric temples is that it is “contami-
nated” by Ionic elements (FIG. 5-45). Although the cella had a two-
story Doric colonnade, the back room (which housed the goddess’s
treasury and the tribute collected from the Delian League) had fourEarly and High Classical Periods 1275-44Iktinosand Kallikrates,
Parthenon (Temple of Athena
Parthenos, looking southeast), Acropolis,
Athens, Greece, 447–438 bce.
The architects of the Parthenon believed
that perfect beauty could be achieved
by using harmonic proportions. The
ratio for larger and smaller parts was
x= 2y1 (for example, a plan of 17 8
columns).5-45Plan of the Parthenon, Acropolis,
Athens, Greece, with diagram of the
sculptural program (after Andrew
Stewart), 447–432 bce.
The Parthenon was lavishly decorated
under the direction of Phidias. Statues
filled both pediments, and figural reliefs
adorned all 92 metopes. There was also
an inner 524-foot sculptured Ionic frieze.N
0 10 20 30 405 0 feet
0 51510 metersSack of Troy (3 2 metopes)Centauromachy (3 2 metopes)Panathenaic Procession (frieze)Panathenaic procession (frieze)Procession (frie
ze)Amazonomachy (
1 4 metope
s)Contestbe
tween Athen
a^ a
nd
Poseidon
Giga
ntom
ach
y ((^1) 4 m
eto
pes)
Bir
th of Ath
en
a
Proc
ess
ion (f
rie
ze)
Athena
Parthenos