sacred olive, but in the curtailed temple which left the olive outside,
it could admit directly to the latter only by the addition of the little
door in the southwest corner. The extreme simplicity of this door which
is without such simple ornamentation as that of the south door suggests
that in the original plan it was not intended to stand beside the
elaborate north door. The little door as well as the one in the west
wall were not features of the original Erechtheum, and their presence
was therefore not made more noticeable by the addition of mouldings of
any kind.
This interpretation, if correct, warrants the statement of the general
principle that the Greek architect sought, in case of curtailment of his
plan, to preserve as far as possible the essential features, and the
relations of the parts to one another, of the original. The builder of
the Erechtheum saved his west façade in modified form and found a place
for the west cella in the reduced central chamber.
The Erechtheum as originally planned was an altogether symmetrical
structure. The splendid north portal was to lead immediately into the
cella of the tokens, on either side of which were the shrines of the
divinities that had contended for the land of Attica. The balance of
structure would have reflected a balance of cults. The original
Erechtheum, in short, was an architectural sentence finely illustrating
the [Greek: men] and [Greek: de] of Greek feeling. With the Parthenon
and the Propylaea, it was to form a group of symmetrical monuments to
crown the Athenian acropolis in a manner worthy of the Periclean Age.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] A drawing of the façade as seen from this point is much needed.
[2] See Dörpfeld, _Ath. Mitt._, 1911, p. 59, for latest discussion of
the struggle.
[3] The few known facts about the Arrephoroi are conveniently gathered
together by Frazer, _op. cit._, II, p. 344.
[4] I am indebted to Dr. L. D. Caskey of the Museum of Fine Arts at
Boston for the photograph. He has also very kindly given me the benefit
of his intimate knowledge of the Erechtheum in various suggestive
criticisms. I take this occasion to express my sense of obligation.
[5] Pausanias seems to have been mistaken in speaking of two. So Frazer,
_op. cit._, II, p. 574, note 6.
[6] Cf. the disc with octopus ornament on the dress of one of the
maidens with that published by Schliemann, _Mykenae_, p. 194, no. 240.
[7] The origin and the meaning of the term [Greek: parastas] is clear. A
[Greek: parastas] is that which stands [Greek: para] a door or opening,
i.e. a jamb. A passage in the inscription which gives specifications for
Philon's Arsenal (_I. G._ II,^2 1054) is important in this connection.
After prescribing the dimensions of the door of the arsenal, the
material of the lintel, the inscription adds [Greek: parastadas stêsas
lithou pentelêikou k. t. l.] The [Greek: parastades] are clearly the
door jambs which stand [Greek: para] the door. By an easy and simple
extension the word came to designate not only the jamb but the wall of
which the jamb was a part.
End of Project Gutenberg's Problems in Periclean Buildings, by G. W. Elderkin