Re: FW: Re: Toresella

[Karl Kluge <kckluge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rene wrote:

> --- ddhopper <ddhopper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > The botanist Hugh O'Neill, a friend of R.G. Kent,[...]
> 
> Interesting. Where did you learn that they knew each other?
> 
> > In O'Neill's unpublished notes he identifies quite a few more plants
> > to my understanding.
> 
> O'Neill was at the Catholic University IIRC, and Theodore Petersen 
> refers frequently to an O'Neill MSS with plant identifications. Perhaps
> these notes or this unpublished (?) MS is still available in the CUA 
> archives...

I believe the following message I saved from the list may answer the
question of what happened to O'Neill's notes:

> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 02:28:27 -0700
> From: rmalek <madimi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: O'Neill
> To: VSG <voynich@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rzandber@xxxxxxxxxxx <rzandber@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: voynich@xxxxxxxx <voynich@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 1:41 AM
> Subject: O'Neill
> 
> >I know this is hopeless, but I'll try anyway:
> >
> >Rayman wrote:
> >
> >> Although O'Neill was the first to report a more recent date
> >> by examination, his report has been generally unavailable
> >> and therefore unread by most researchers.
> >
> >We all know of his short article in Speculum, also repeated in Brumbaugh's
> >book, but Petersen makes copious references
> >to plant identifications from some " O'Neill MSS ". I
> >think he even gives pages numbers. Working at the same
> >University, Petersen would have had access to a book
> >or article draft, even if it never made it to print.
> >So the question is: is this MS still extant? Has anybody
> >seen it?
> >Apparently, it is not with Petersen's material kept
> >at the Marshall foundation, otherwise it would have
> >appeared in Jim's bibliography.
> 
> Several years ago I purchased an amount of documents (mostly old
> photographs) that pertained to the Voynich.  The subject matter of the
> ensemble led me to believe it was a portion of the R. G. Kent collection.
> Among that collection was a lengthy recital by Hugh O'Niell, and it was from
> that document that I made my above claims.  I initially assumed that the
> articles were previously in the hands of a collector of  Voynichiana, and
> gave no thought to the later date, considering it simply an addendum and
> incentive to the grouping of documents I had purchased.  Now you force me to
> varify my source as authentic, a matter I do not doubt.  If mine is a copy
> of the original, the original is in Zeta, and that I can find.  Nothing is
> hopeless.
> 
> 
> Regards,   Rayman