The Optical Corrections of the Doric Temple
The optical corrections can be shortly summarized as follows: In a fully developed Doric temple there were practically no straight lines or right angles at all. The most important corrections were: the base or stylobate was arched upwards in the middle; the columns were tilted inwards, in the corners in two directions. In the corners the inter-columniations were also shortened; the outermost intercolumniation was narrower than the others. The corner columns were often also thicker than the other ones. The walls of the cella were in many temples tilted inwards. Different tiltings appeared frequently even in the architrave; the whole front could be tilted outwards; on the flanks the tilting was commonly inwards, as for instance in the Parthenon where the corrections appear as most complete. Further, the whole architrave was in line with the form of the stylobate, forming an equal arch. In the picture above the corrections are presented strongly exaggerated, (J. J. Coulton) but it still shows the principle of them very well.
These corrections were first mentioned by the Roman architect and writer Vitruvius who lived in the first century BC. He also gave them an explanation, according to which they were meant to prevent optical distortions that otherwise would make the temple look faulty. This explanation has ever since been repeated by most scholars although some of them maintain that the corrections were actually implemented to bring vitality to the otherwise too static appearance of the temple.
These corrections were first mentioned by the Roman architect and writer Vitruvius who lived in the first century BC. He also gave them an explanation, according to which they were meant to prevent optical distortions that otherwise would make the temple look faulty. This explanation has ever since been repeated by most scholars although some of them maintain that the corrections were actually implemented to bring vitality to the otherwise too static appearance of the temple.
The Parthenon
_The Vitruvian interpretation is unacceptable because for
instance in the Parthenon the extremely strong shortening of the corner
intercolumniation is clearly seen, and nobody could ever interpret it as
a temple with all columns at unanimous distances from each other.
Besides, in the Parthenon there are even shorter
metopes at the corners, causing the double contraction of columns. It
is therefore obvious beyond any doubt that this effect has been
deliberately wanted; not only a desperate attempt to avoid a "problem."
Yet, the Parthenon is the temple where the corrections have been applied
most completely and skillfully, and therefore the reason for their
existence must be some other factor. Besides, most likely the words of
Vitruvius are based on the book written by Ictinus, the designer of this
very temple about his design.
On the other hand, the theory that the refinements were used to bring vitality into the otherwise dead appearance of the temple is not entirely satisfactory either. In that case we would not be able to explain the fact that Vitruvius, who obviously had been acquainted with the book written by Ictinus about the design of the Parthenon, is speaking explicitly about correcting optical distortions. It is therefore obvious that the true explanation of the corrections has not yet been found.
Many psychological tests show that we are not able to see the necessity of the corrections. Therefore it is obvious that the true explanation of them must be searched in the differences of ideals between the ancient Greece and our age. It is further obvious that there must have been a significant difference between the ideals of the ancient Greeks and the age of Vitruvius too. The Virtuvian interpretation of the "Doric corner conflict" proves beyond any doubt that he actually didn't understand its meaning at all. Most likely he was only repeating the words of Ictinus, without really understanding their true meaning because of different ideals.
On the other hand, the theory that the refinements were used to bring vitality into the otherwise dead appearance of the temple is not entirely satisfactory either. In that case we would not be able to explain the fact that Vitruvius, who obviously had been acquainted with the book written by Ictinus about the design of the Parthenon, is speaking explicitly about correcting optical distortions. It is therefore obvious that the true explanation of the corrections has not yet been found.
Many psychological tests show that we are not able to see the necessity of the corrections. Therefore it is obvious that the true explanation of them must be searched in the differences of ideals between the ancient Greece and our age. It is further obvious that there must have been a significant difference between the ideals of the ancient Greeks and the age of Vitruvius too. The Virtuvian interpretation of the "Doric corner conflict" proves beyond any doubt that he actually didn't understand its meaning at all. Most likely he was only repeating the words of Ictinus, without really understanding their true meaning because of different ideals.