error] The triglyphs, regulae, and mutules were blue; the taenia
of the architrave and the soffit of the cornice between the
mutules with the adjacent narrow bands were red; the backgrounds
of sculpture, either blue or red; the hawk's-beak molding,
alternating blue and red; and so on. The principal uncertainty
regards the treatment of the unpainted members. Were these left of
a glittering white, or were they toned down, in the case of marble
buildings, by some application or other, so as to contrast less
glaringly with the painted portions? The latter supposition
receives some confirmation from Vitruvius, a Roman writer on
architecture of the age of Augustus, and seems to some modern
writers to be demanded by aesthetic considerations. On the other
hand, the evidence of the Olympia buildings points the other way.
Perhaps the actual practice varied. As for the coloring of Ionic
architecture, we know that the capital of the column was painted,
but otherwise our information is very scanty.

If it be asked what led the Greeks to a use of color so strange to
us and, on first acquaintance, so little to our taste, it may be
answered that possibly the example of their neighbors had
something to do with it. The architecture of Egypt, of
Mesopotamia, of Persia, was polychromatic. But probably the
practice of the Greeks was in the main an inheritance from the
early days of their own civilization. According to a well-
supported theory, the Doric temple of the historical period is a
translation into stone or marble of a primitive edifice whose
walls were of sun-dried bricks and whose columns and entablature
were of wood. Now it is natural and appropriate to paint wood; and
we may suppose that the taste for a partially colored architecture
was thus formed. This theory does not indeed explain everything.