Tradition and Innovation in Doric Design III: The Work of Iktinos

Abstract

Discussions of the Parthenon, by Dinsmoor, Carpenter and Bundgaard, among others, do not come to grips with the theoretical basis of the design; the first two scholars seem to believe that an acknowledged masterpiece was created by accident, while the third attributes the design to Pheidias, who abandoned accepted Doric canons in order to provide a more effective setting both for the great cult statue and for the whole ensemble of architectural sculpture. Yet there is no sound reason for rejecting the ancient literary evidence associating Iktinos with the design of the Parthenon. It is here maintained that Iktinos deliberately employed the unusual octastyle facade, pronounced angle contraction, and shallow prostyle porches, in order to produce a harmony in plan and elevation that could not have been achieved in any other way. It is further argued that absence of close resemblance between the exteriors of the Parthenon and the temple at Bassai does not justify rejection of Pausanias' attribution of Bassai to Iktinos, nor of his date (early in the Peloponnesian War); recent studies by Mallwitz and Cooper seem to confirm Pausanias' testimony, at least for the exterior of the building. The absence of classical Athenian features was due in part to the force of tradition, in part to inability to afford the costly refinements of Athenian Doric. The Bassai interior, which contains more decorative innovations than any other Doric temple, and anticipates many fourth century and Hellenistic developments, is clearly a modification of the original design. The non-Attic character of the Ionic order, and (according to some scholars, at least) the Peloponnesian style of the sculpture, suggest local, or at least Peloponnesian, designer(s), familiar with, but standing apart from, the Attic tradition. The architect can hardly have been Iktinos; and Hofkes-Brukker's attribution of the sculpture to Paionios of Mende is not persuasive.