DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.796#0230
196 THE ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS
the Parthenon. In our treatment of this unique and beautiful
structure, let us first inquire into its history, next discuss
its plans and uses, and thirdly examine its architectural ,
qualities and sculptural decorations, relegating the discussion
of the relation it bears to the other temples on the Acropolis
to Appendix iii. As already intimated, we believe that the pre-
sent temple is the successor of an older and doubtless smaller
structure that stood on about the same spot. The unique
plan of the building suggests of itself that some very special
requirement or situation must have dictated its location and
arrangement. This requirement is found in the existence of
the so-called " tokens" (o-jyteia), to wit, the salt well and the
trident mark, and the olive tree, each having a sacred and
symbolic meaning, pointing to the triple worship and trinity
of divinities to whom the temple was dedicated, and whose
altars were set up within its walls. Scanty remains of the
foundation of an earlier structure, marked 5 in our plan, are
believed by Penrose to have belonged to an earlier temple
or shrine which occupied this spot. But these remains are too
few to afford any idea of what this structure was. That they
are earlier than the present Erechtheum is most probable, and
that they belonged to the so-called Pandroseum (E), which
lay partly beneath the Erechtheum, is possible.
Just when the Erechtheum was begun is not known.
Michaelis argues that no time since the death of Pericles
was so favorable for the beginning of this building as the
period of quiet and cessation of hostilities which set in with
the conclusion of the peace of Nicias, that is about 421.
But Dorpfeld is inclined to put the date a few years earlier
and in closer relation with the time of the building of the
Propylaea, possibly in 432. From an inscription (119) con-
taining a report of the building commissioners on the state
of progress of the new temple, it is known that the building
was far advanced, but still incomplete, in 409 B.C. From
other inscriptions (120) giving specifications of the work done
by the masons and other workmen, together with the sums
of money paid to each artisan for his work, it is inferred
that in 407 the building was complete, though not finished
in all its details (121). About a year later, 406, the temple
was injured by fire, if we interpret the statement of Xenophon
the Parthenon. In our treatment of this unique and beautiful
structure, let us first inquire into its history, next discuss
its plans and uses, and thirdly examine its architectural ,
qualities and sculptural decorations, relegating the discussion
of the relation it bears to the other temples on the Acropolis
to Appendix iii. As already intimated, we believe that the pre-
sent temple is the successor of an older and doubtless smaller
structure that stood on about the same spot. The unique
plan of the building suggests of itself that some very special
requirement or situation must have dictated its location and
arrangement. This requirement is found in the existence of
the so-called " tokens" (o-jyteia), to wit, the salt well and the
trident mark, and the olive tree, each having a sacred and
symbolic meaning, pointing to the triple worship and trinity
of divinities to whom the temple was dedicated, and whose
altars were set up within its walls. Scanty remains of the
foundation of an earlier structure, marked 5 in our plan, are
believed by Penrose to have belonged to an earlier temple
or shrine which occupied this spot. But these remains are too
few to afford any idea of what this structure was. That they
are earlier than the present Erechtheum is most probable, and
that they belonged to the so-called Pandroseum (E), which
lay partly beneath the Erechtheum, is possible.
Just when the Erechtheum was begun is not known.
Michaelis argues that no time since the death of Pericles
was so favorable for the beginning of this building as the
period of quiet and cessation of hostilities which set in with
the conclusion of the peace of Nicias, that is about 421.
But Dorpfeld is inclined to put the date a few years earlier
and in closer relation with the time of the building of the
Propylaea, possibly in 432. From an inscription (119) con-
taining a report of the building commissioners on the state
of progress of the new temple, it is known that the building
was far advanced, but still incomplete, in 409 B.C. From
other inscriptions (120) giving specifications of the work done
by the masons and other workmen, together with the sums
of money paid to each artisan for his work, it is inferred
that in 407 the building was complete, though not finished
in all its details (121). About a year later, 406, the temple
was injured by fire, if we interpret the statement of Xenophon