Been a long time...

Much has happened, but because of previous traffic, my entries will remain oblique, however meaningful to me.

Over last year's research:

A document that is the nearest thing to a lynchpin to my work that there is.

Photographed hard copies of non-microed (and thus, previously unexploited), 100-135 year old newspapers with some unique personal data of area pioneers, and cultural notes.

From these, discovered the anti-organized-religion views of a prominent local figure who believed they were writing safely under pseudonym.

Discovered 1890+ microed papers worth searching in Dayton.

Concretely established A's whereabouts circa Feb. 1877, which continues to shorten the window of the unknown between home and the stage.

Assisted in determining names of friends attached to a bracelet once belonging to A, sold at auction.

I'm re-engaged at creating the map, replete with extinct place-names and features, to better grasp the geography of the time.

I have the faith of my cohorts, and occasionally their direct assistance.



I'm just getting my research's first wind this year, as until recently, I've just felt I've been dragging last year into this.  What I need to accomplish this year:

Contact the descendants of S. P., seeking photos, data.

Contact possible descendant of E. R., seeking photos, data.

Contact trustee, seeking info.

Search T. T. recs.

Rephoto missing bits of newspaper.

Acquire birth, death, and marriage mfms for research.

Complete transcriptions of GWC's writings; compile for publication.


Much to do; must do much soon.

Little victories.

Well, through some online sleuthing and some luck, I've conclusively established the fate of one of the A Bs, namely C.  The problem is, this doesn't yet yield any definite answers on I.  What seems apparent is that I was not in fact a brother to C.  C appears to have been the eldest child in his family, and his brothers remained living under the shelter of their parents for some time.  While he would marry, and have children, he may have died as early as 56 years old, but this last part has to be verified.

This leaves "Colonel I A" an open question.  He doesn't appear in Australia until well outside the span of the A Bs, and well after C is safely retired from the Vaudeville circuit with a new and lucrative profession.

Time to dig into C's cause of death, if that's in fact when and where he died...

The A Bs.

The A Bs are a point of intrigue with me, in no small part because it seems so little is known about them save that they were the marksmanship act to beat for years.  I can find no photographs of them, but it's said that C A married A F, who'd been the leading lady of the B B C, and it is alleged that A went on to some fame beyond the combination, but I can't find for what, or if her marriage survived.

Meanwhile, on the trail of I A, I found records of a man going by that name ("Colonel I A") in Australia whose touted 1889 "Re-appearance after 4 years’ absence of America’s Greatest Rifleman” ended when his eyesight failed and he died May 9, 1908.  The title and stagename were only for the stage.  He served as an American military scout during the Civil War and achieved the rank of sergeant, but his real name was I P S.  A recent excursion to Australia to find the graves of Civil War vets found his in Rookwood Cemetery, Sydney.

"The (A Bs), whose marvelous marksmanship has been the subject of wide comment, will vary the chances of putting a pellet through one or the other's head.  There is a fascination about this kind of an exhibition that is curious, and maybe it is bloodthirsty...  ...there is a buzz of expectation when their act is reached which tells of the shadow of a terrible fear and fascination that (fastens?) upon their audience.  This is the fatal shadow which it seems to us must follow them wherever they exhibit their skill."

San Francisco Call, July 15, 1877 via The New York Clipper., Aug. 4, 1877

In other news, looking over my microfilms, the Gallipolis Bulletin is a political rag of little use, but the Gallipolis Journal which has advertisements for amusements including Robinson's Circus, may be more fruitful.  That said, there are better avenues to search.

Oh, and this.

A bit here, a bit there,

Well, just finally managing my intended schedule today.  Got out for a 2.5 mile jog, and now winding down to sleep.  Yesterday found some interesting pieces, though...  A poster for "B & A" among others, and some information on F & A's publicity agent in 1888.  Maybe more this evening.  Must sleep.

Found some good data on SHB (and wife) this morning (it includes his physical description, but no photo of the man yet), worked on a "Little Nemo" mockup, separated a cel from its matting, and touched base with the Wentzels.

Didn't get a lot done today, but I also got some sleep.  Mondays are always hard, 'cause you're resetting your sleep schedule.  Tomorrow, the new routine:

Exercise after work.

Cool shower.

Sleep.

Wake and write (2 hrs.+?).

Research.

I won't say "research 'til work", because I suspect I'll be interrupted with a phone call tomorrow, but that's the ideal.

No more time to write.

Easter.

Quiet Easter. Called family, left a message. Had dinner with Christina's family.

Found this article.  It's worth a look for those considering whether Annie was a victim of sexual abuse.  This has always been an open question and a point of conjecture among researchers and even her relatives living today.  While I believe it to be an important question to ask, it's a dangerous one to try to answer with any certainty unless one has irrefutable proof.  Even a hundred fifty years later, sexual abuse is a potent charge and can upset historians and living descendants (as is evident from a previous book on the topic, which shall remain unnamed, but took dramatic liberties with the story that annoyed the staff at The Garst).

And while the article notes Annie had no children of her own, and speculates thus from the possibility of sexual abuse that her marriage to Frank may have been an "asexual marriage of convenience" (a common notion which is too often used in a circular manner:  "She was sexually abused, and the trauma kept her from having children."  "How do we know she was sexually abused?"  "Well, the fact that she had no children supports this likelihood."), this ignores her married (to Benjamin Grabfelder), childless elder sister Sarah Ellen, who only died in 1939 at the age of 81.  She didn't live with "The Wolves."  Is there something we should also draw from this?  And though she died young at 26, another sister, Elizabeth, had none either with husband Martin Brewer.  Nor sister Lydia with husband Joseph Stein, though she lived 'til she was 29-and-a-half.  Can we really consider Annie's childlessness a distinct feature that tells us something about that chapter of her life, or does it tell us something about the nature of the Mosey daughters, or perhaps nothing at all?

Questions usually deserve to be asked.  Some, however, do not warrant being answered when it presumes a knowledge no one has, and when other questions inspire answers of equal merit as alternatives.