DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4593#0127
IIO THE ISLES AND SHRINES OF GREECE
believe was adorned with paintings. There are signs
of nail-holes where the corners of the stones come
together, but we cannot be sure that they were not
made in later times. The walls themselves may have
been frescoed.
It is a question whether the exterior of the
building was painted. There are indications that
not the whole but parts of it were thus treated.
Some of the triglyphs are of poros stone. We can-
not suppose that this cheaper stone would be used
in a prominent and exposed position in a marble
building. That is contrary to Greek usage and ex-
ample. It might have been used, however, if it were
covered with stucco and painted. So long as wood
prevailed in marble buildings for beams and other
purposes it was painted; and, when afterward the
marble structure imitated the wooden form in which
it had its origin, it was still natural to decorate
the same parts. Thus the triglyphs representing the
ends of the beams were colored, and also the drops.
In later times, therefore, portions of the building
which were to be painted could be made out of poros
instead of more costly marble. Why should not the
gods, who see everywhere, approve such pious econ-
omy? At Olympia, for instance, there was no Pen-
telic marble, — nothing but a quarry of coarse shell
conglomerate. When the great temples which gave
renown to that place were built, this conglomerate
was covered with white stucco, which gave it the
appearance of marble. Such a veneer the gods
could not disdain.
Grand as was the Propylaea, there is evidence that
the plan of the architect was still grander. The
believe was adorned with paintings. There are signs
of nail-holes where the corners of the stones come
together, but we cannot be sure that they were not
made in later times. The walls themselves may have
been frescoed.
It is a question whether the exterior of the
building was painted. There are indications that
not the whole but parts of it were thus treated.
Some of the triglyphs are of poros stone. We can-
not suppose that this cheaper stone would be used
in a prominent and exposed position in a marble
building. That is contrary to Greek usage and ex-
ample. It might have been used, however, if it were
covered with stucco and painted. So long as wood
prevailed in marble buildings for beams and other
purposes it was painted; and, when afterward the
marble structure imitated the wooden form in which
it had its origin, it was still natural to decorate
the same parts. Thus the triglyphs representing the
ends of the beams were colored, and also the drops.
In later times, therefore, portions of the building
which were to be painted could be made out of poros
instead of more costly marble. Why should not the
gods, who see everywhere, approve such pious econ-
omy? At Olympia, for instance, there was no Pen-
telic marble, — nothing but a quarry of coarse shell
conglomerate. When the great temples which gave
renown to that place were built, this conglomerate
was covered with white stucco, which gave it the
appearance of marble. Such a veneer the gods
could not disdain.
Grand as was the Propylaea, there is evidence that
the plan of the architect was still grander. The