Dear Mr. Edmunds: I am much obliged to you for yours of April 8, with General Casey's letter and the two Congressional documents. I am agreeably surprised to learn from General Casey's interesting letter that the normal proportions have been so early observed hitherto in the construction of the obelisk. In fact, it being difficult to obtain such vast masses of granite rock, even in the quarries of Syene, entirely free from flaws, the Egyptians were very often obliged to depart more or less from the proportions most satisfactory to the eye, and the Washington obelisk conforms so nearly to those proportions, except in two points, that it is hardly subject to criticism. These points are, the batter, which is more rapid than in any obelisk known to me, and the pyramidion. Perhaps the designer adopted the proportions from considerations of stability, as a summit considerably less than the base would give greater security, and when the dimensions are all so great, differences of proportion are less appreciable.
As to the form and proportion of the pyramidion, the existing obelisks are more uniform than in the measurements of the shaft, and I think that, not merely on the ground of precedent but on that of taste, it would be by all means advisable to give to the pyramidion of the Washington obelisk a height of not less than fifty feet. In any case, if the height of the pyramidion is not greater than the side of its base, the summit will have a truncated shape quite out of harmony with the soaring character of the structure.
I infer from General Casey's drawings, accompanying Mr. Corcoran's letter, that the plan of a sort of temple-like excrescence from the base—a highly objectionable feature—is abandoned. It is curious that we do not know precisely what the Egyptian form of the base was. Some authorities state it was a die of larger dimensions than the shaft, and with sides battering at the same rate as the shaft, but I do not find satisfactory evidence that this was by any means universal, though it would certainly be an appropriate and harmonious form. Of course any desirable base can be constructed around the shaft. There are obelisks the surface of which indicates that they were stuccoed, and this suggests that if the shaft of the Washington obelisk shall from time or difference of material be found parti-colored, surface uniformity of tone may be obtained by the same process.
We have no knowledge of any Egyptian obelisk much exceeding one hundred feet in height, though some writers speak of such monuments of considerably greater dimensions. The extreme difficulty of obtaining monoliths exceeding one hundred feet renders it probable that the measurements of the authorities referred to were mere vague estimates rather than ascertained dimensions.
* * * * * *
Yours truly,
GEO. P. MARSH.
Brookline, Mass., August 1, 1878.
My Dear Sir: Your favor of the 20th ultimo reached me yesterday. I thank you for sending me the copy of Mr. Story's letter, which I have read with great interest. I am only a second vice-president of the Monument Association, and am not included in the commission for completing the work. I had no part or lot in the original design of the Monument. * * * As an original question, I might have desired a different design; and I had no small part in inducing the building committee, many years ago, to omit the pantheon at the base, and to confine the design to a simple obelisk. After that was arranged, and when the Monument had reached so considerable a height, I was very averse to changing the plan. A whole generation of men, women, and children had contributed, in larger or smaller sums, to this particular Monument; and States, cities, and foreign nations had sent stones for its completion.