[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Cope and Marsh



He certainly was quite antisocial, but I would describe his sexuality as
being just diffident. In all I have read about him, he seems to have been
equally indifferent towards men and women. It is curious that a man of his
time with his fortune did not at least take a token wife for social reasons.
Quite a few important men of the time took wives because they were supposed
to have one, and then mostly ignored the poor ladies.

I think his lifelong manner of solitary living, and his bluff exterior
suggested that he was very confused sexually, but I don't see him going very
far either way. He worked hard to keep people at an arms distance, and seems
to have never entered into any kind of social life. Even his assistants who
became such bitter enemies don't seem to suggest anything sexual, just that
he was a really obnoxious person.

Curious.

Clair Russell Ossian, PhD
Professor Emeritus, Geology
Tarrant County College
2805 Raintree Drive
Carrollton, TX 75006

972-416-5211
clastic@verizon.net




On 4/7/13 12:24 PM, "Jane P Davidson" <jdhexen@unr.edu> wrote:

>  Some of us historians  ( I think I can pretty much speak for Mark Jaffe,  the
> Marsh biographer)  suspect strongly that Marsh was gay.   Mr. Cope was not;
> his proclivities went the other direction as you know I am sure.  Actually I
> think that the remark of Cope about Marsh's being  "unnatural"  is a reference
> to Marsh's supposed sexuality.   I guess we will have to wait for the great
> beyond to find out??  ;)
> 
> Jane D