The only appropriation for this work as yet made by Congress is two
hundred thousand dollars, contained in the act of August 2, 1876, which
sum will be exhausted by the end of August, 1880.
The estimate for completing this work is $667,000, and the time required
will be four working seasons.
Very respectfully, your ob't servant,
THOS. LINCOLN CASEY,
_Lieutenant-Colonel Engineers, U.S.A.,
Engineer in Charge._
UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER,
WASHINGTON, D. C., _March 31, 1879_.
DEAR SIR: I inclose, as possibly of interest, extracts from a letter I
have just received from Hon. George P. Marsh, our Minister at Rome.
These extracts refer to the Washington Monument question. Mr. Marsh is
among the most learned and accomplished of those in any country who have
given the subject of architecture and monumental art attention.
Very truly yours,
GEO. F. EDMUNDS.
Gen. T. L. CASEY,
_Corps of Engineers_.
[Extracts.]
ROME, _February 9, 1879_.
DEAR MR. EDMUNDS: By a letter from the sculptor Mead to Mrs. Marsh, I
understand that the main feature of the Washington Monument is to be an
obelisk of great height, surmounted by a colossal statue, and with
_bas-reliefs_ at a suitable height from the base. I believe I have
not only seen but sketched every existing genuine--that is,
Egyptian--obelisk, for no other can fairly said to be genuine. The
obelisk is not an arbitrary structure which every one is free to erect
with such form and proportions as suit his taste and convenience, but
its objects, form, and proportions were fixed by the usage of thousands
of years; they satisfy every cultivated eye, and I hold it an esthetical
crime to depart from them.
In its objects the obelisk is monumental, its inscriptions having
reference to and indicating what or whom it commemorates. I do of think
_bas-reliefs_ too great a departure from the primitive character the
inscriptions, because we can come no nearer an alphabet answering the
purpose.
The most important point is the form and proportions of the structure,
as to which the modern builder of obelisks transgresses greatly. The
Egyptian obelisks do not, indeed, all conform with mathematical
exactness to their own normal proportions, but (probably from defects in
the stone) frequently vary somewhat from them. When truly fashioned,
however, they are more pleasing to the eye than when deviating from the
regular shape.
The obelisk consists: First, of a naked shaft, with or without
inscription, the height of which is ten times the width of its base, so
that if the base of the shaft is fifty feet square, then the height of
the shaft must be five hundred feet. For optical reasons (which cannot
be considered in the Washington Monument, it being too late) the faces
of the shaft are slightly convex.
The dimensions of the shaft are reduced as it rises, and in this point
the ancient obelisks vary more than any other, the top of the shaft
varying from two-thirds to three-quarters of the linear measurement of
the base. Hence, if the base of the shaft (I do mot mean of the pedestal
or plinth, if there is one) is fifty feet square, its summit may be
anywhere between thirty-three and one-third and thirty-seven and
one-half feet square. The obelisks much reduced are the most graceful,
but in this case the great height will of itself reduce the apparent
measurement, so that perhaps thirty-five would not be too much. But the
shaft has already gone up so far as to have settled those questions of
form irrevocably. Second, of a pyramidion or apex, the form and
proportions of which are constant. The base of the pyramidion is of
exactly the same dimensions as the summit of the shaft, and unites with
it directly without any break (except, of course, one angle), and with
no ledge, molding, or other disfigurement. The height of the pyramidion
is equal to the length of a side of the base of the shaft, and therefore
greater than the side of its own base.
There are cases where the hyeroglyphics run up one or more faces of the
pyramidion, but in general these faces are perfectly plain.
The Egyptians often covered the whole pyramidion with a closely fitted
gilt bronze cap, the effect of which most have been magnificent.
It has been said that it was sometimes surmounted by a gilt star, but I
doubt this, for the casing of the pyramidion would of itself have much
the same effect.
The notion of spitting an the sharp point of the pyramidion is supremely
absurd. Not less so is the substitution of a low hipped roof for am
acute pyramidion, or the making of a window in the face of the
pyramidion or of the shaft, both which atrocities were committed in the
Bunker Hill Monument. There will no doubt be people who will be foolish
enough to insist on a peep-hole somewhere; and if they must be gratified
the window should be of the exact form and size of one of the stones,and
provided with a close-fitting shutter colored exactly like the stone, so
that when shut it would be nearly or quite imperceptible from below.
* * * * *
Yours truly,
GEO. P. MARSH.
Hon. GEO. F. EDMUNDS.
WASHINGTON, D. C., _May 12, 1879_.
MY DEAR GENERAL: I have received from Mr. Marsh a letter on the subject
of the Monument, a copy of which I herewith forward to you, thinking it
may interest you.
Yours truly,
GEORGE F. EDMUNDS.
General T. L. CASEY,
_Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. C._
ROME, _April 25, 1879_.
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.
To tear it all down, with a view to improve the design, was abhorrent to
me. Story called to see me when he was in Boston, and I told him that,
so far as I was concerned, my first wish was to finish the Monument as a
simple obelisk; but that, if a change was unavoidable, owing to any
insecurity of the foundations, his idea of turning it into an ornamental
Lombard Tower was the best plan I had seen suggested. * * *
I am aware that what is called "advanced art" looks with scorn on
anything so simple and bald as an obelisk, more especially when it is
made up of a thousand pieces, instead of being a monolith shaft. Yet the
Bunker Hill Monument, of which the design was furnished by one of our
earliest and best artists, Horatio Greenough, is one of these complete
obelisks, and Webster was proud to apostrophize it as "the true orator
of the day," when he was pronouncing his own incomparable oration.
I recall other obelisks, at home and abroad, which tell their story most
impressively; and when I look around to see what "advanced art" has done
for us and done for itself to the myriad soldiers' monuments which have
been recently erected, I fall back on the simple shaft as at least not
inferior to any one of them in effect and as free from anything tinsel
or tawdry.
A grand arch, which I believe you once proposed, would be a noble
monument of our Union, and might well be the subject of independent
consideration in season for the centennial of the organization of the
Government in 1889. I have repeatedly urged such an arch as
commemorative of our Constitutional Union, in Boston. But it would have
still greater propriety in Washington. I cannot help hoping, however,
that it will be erected with new stones, and without any disturbance of
the Washington obelisk.
Pardon me for so long a letter and for so frank an expression of my
views.
I have heard nothing on the subject of late from any of the
Commissioners or of the Association, but have taken it for granted that
the whole matter was decided.
If, however, it is to be reopened, I shall be very glad to see Mr.
Story's designs, and to consult with you agreeably to your friendly
invitation.
Believe me, dear Mr. Morrill, respectfully and truly,