'Too large, too lavish and too ostentatious to be beautiful.’ How far do you agree with this view of the Parthenon?

The constant stream of visitors to the Parthenon today is testament to the beauty and impact of the impressive temple, in the eyes of modern viewers. However, it is worth exploring whether the temple was considered beautiful by ancient viewers in its original 5th century context, even though it was large, lavish and ostentatious.Firstly, it is certainly true that the Parthenon was large by the standards of its day. At 69.5 metres by 30 metres, the temple was called 'hekatompedon' by the Greeks, meaning 'hundred footer'. Furthermore, the doric temple was unusual in having being octastyle (rather than hexastyle), to accommodate its unusually broad naos. It is, however, doubtful that the Parthenon's large size would be seen as negative by the Greeks. The temple still conforms to the 9:4 Doric ratio that was viewed as being perfect, in its dimensions and a number of design features. In addition, the Parthenon completely dominates the Athenian landscape, atop the Acropolis, making this crowning achievement for the Athenians visible for miles around. Importantly, it was (and still is) visible from the Pnyx hill where the Assembly met frequently throughout the year. This impressive feature of the skyline and an architectural feat was therefore more likely to inspire the Athenians with its size.Secondly, that the temple is too lavish is subjective, and we need to consider Athenian tastes regarding luxurious architecture. Immediately noticeable about the Parthenon is its abundance of architecture; it is unusual that a large Doric temple would have metopes on all four sides, with a total of 92 sculpted metopes. Sculpted metopes were more typical of small temples and treasuries in this period. A further unusually lavish features was the continuous frieze carved in low relief running along the outer wall of the naos, an ionic feature on a Doric building. In addition the friezes on the east and west pediments were carved entirely in the round, and the temple housed an exceptionally large chryselephantine statue of Athena. These features would have been seen by the Greeks as fitting for the temple's purpose of honouring the goddess Athena Parthenos, especially given its location on the Acropolis, a particularly sacred location for the Athenians. Moreover, in the context of the Peloponnesian War and a period of recovery after the Persian War, the temple would be regarded as beautiful for making a statement of Athenian strength and prosperity.Similarly, the argument that the temple was too ostentatious is also subjective. The temple exterior was constructed entirely out of Pentelic marble, excepting only the limestone foundations and the roof tiles of Parian marble. The Parian and Pentelic marble made the temple incredibly expensive to construct, and the roof required additional supports for the heavy marble tiles, which was uncommon as a marble roof of this size was unprecedented. However, to an ancient viewer these features would have made the temple appear brighter and so more beautiful. The potentially political readings of the architectural sculpture, too, would have contributed to the overall beauty of the temple for the ancient audience, rather than being a mark of ostentation. This is because Athenians in the Panathenaic procession could have related to the Panathenaic procession or the myth of Erechtheus (a mythical early king of Athens) depicted on the frieze, and to the victorious Greeks shown in the metopes.Therefore, on balance it is clear that there are a number of reasons why the ancient Athenian audience would have appreciated the size, luxury and ostentation of the Parthenon, and would not have questioned its beauty.