Date range: 1950 / Subjects: letters (correspondence)

Start Over Date range 1950 Subjects letters (correspondence)

Letter from Blossom [Emilie M.] Reed to Philip Showalter Hench Box 142, Folder 66

Collection Context

Letter from Blossom [Emilie M.] Reed to Philip Showalter Hench and Mary Hench Box 43, Folder 29

Collection Context

Letter from Blossom Reed to Philip Showalter Hench 5 pages Box 43, Folder 40

Blossom Reed describes her financial troubles and considers selling her mother's paintings in order to keep her home. She alludes to writings of her mother's that would be of interest to Hench.

Collection Context

Letter from Eckman Effendi Kildare Klink to Philip Showalter Hench Box 146, Folder 15

Collection Context

Letter from Emilie Lawrence Reed to James E. Peabody Box 142, Folder 62

Collection Context

Letter from Emilie Lawrence Reed to Philip Showalter Hench Box 142, Folder 61

Collection Context

Letter from Emilie L. Reed to Marie C. Oemler Box 49, Folder 31

Collection Context

Letter from Estela Agramonte Rodriguez Leon to Philip Showalter Hench 3 pages Box 58, Folder 3

Rodriguez Leon would like her father's papers returned to her because she has promised them for a permanent exhibit. She believes that the data shows her father, Agramonte, was in Havana at the time of Lazear's death. Also, Rodriguez Leon lists papers that belonged to her father, Aristides Agramonte, that are on loan to Hench.

Collection Context

Letter from Estela Agramonte Rodriguez Leon to Philip Showalter Hench 2 pages Box 58, Folder 3

Rodriguez Leon has learned from her husband that he was able to retrieve her father's documents from the post office.

Collection Context

Letter from Francis A. [Wicket?] to Emilie L. Reed Box 49, Folder 29

Collection Context

Content Warning

ARVAS is an aggregator of archival resources. ARVAS does not have control of the descriptive language used in our members’ finding aids.

Finding aids may contain historical terms and phrases, reflecting the shared attitudes and values of the community from which they were collected, but are offensive to modern readers. These include demeaning and dehumanizing references to race, ethnicity, and nationality; enslaved or free status; physical or mental ability; religion; sex; and sexual orientation and gender identity.

Many institutions and organizations are in the process of reviewing and revising their descriptive language, with the intent to describe materials in more humanizing, inclusive, and harm-reductive ways. As members revise their descriptive language, their changes will eventually be reflected in their ARVAS finding aids.

Search

Search Constraints

Search Results

Content Warning

Limit your search

Repository

Collection

Date range

Creator

Places

Subjects

Level

Access