\n<\/p>\n
An Oxford mathematician has argued that the Parthenon\u2019s famous subtle curves were not designed to correct optical illusions \u2014 a claim repeated in architectural writing for centuries.<\/p>\n
Professor Alain Goriely, in a paper published in Royal Society Open Science<\/em>, says the visual effects usually cited to explain those refinements are either unproven or too weak to notice at normal viewing distances. The findings were first reported by The Guardian<\/em>.<\/p>\n The temple on the Acropolis, completed in the fifth century BC as a shrine to Athena, is not built of perfectly straight lines. Its stylobate, or base, rises by about six centimetres toward the centre. The conventional explanation is that the curve stops the platform from looking as if it sags.<\/p>\n Goriely found no evidence that long horizontal lines inherently appear to dip in the middle. A second argument invokes the Hering illusion, in which parallel lines can look bowed when crossed by other lines. He says that effect is strongest at acute angles; the Parthenon\u2019s columns are largely vertical, and there is no clear proof the illusion works the same way on a three-dimensional building.<\/p>\n He also examined entasis, the slight outward swell of the columns, often said to stop them looking thinner in the middle. He found no evidence for that illusion. The maximum bulge is only about 18 millimetres \u2014 barely perceptible from typical viewpoints.<\/p>\n In the paper, titled The illusion of illusions: There are no optical corrections in the Parthenon<\/em>, Goriely traces the theory to the Roman architect Vitruvius, who wrote about Greek buildings centuries after the Parthenon was finished. The idea was then copied through architectural literature until it hardened into orthodoxy.<\/p>\n Goriely told The Guardian<\/em> the claim may be \u201cthe oldest myth that we have,\u201d apart from religion. The curves, he suggests, may have had other uses: a cambered base could shed rainwater; slightly curved columns may simply have looked more organic.<\/p>\n The study does not settle why the builders chose those forms. Goriely says their intentions remain unknown, and that checking the evidence became \u201ca bit of a rabbit hole.\u201d He suggests the theory has lasted in part because it flatters the image of classical Greece as a civilisation of unmatched mathematical and architectural sophistication.<\/p>\n