E. Committee to frame rules, directions, and statutes of the Boylston Professorship of Rhetoric and Oratory, 1804

This subseries consists of a paper notebook containing a handwritten draft of the report presented to the Harvard Corporation on April 30, 1804 by the Committee to frame Rules, Directions, and Statutes of the Boylston Professorship of Rhetoric and Oratory. The handwritten report provides a numbered list of rules related to the Boylston Professorship and is dated April 16, 1804. The report is followed by a certification signed May 1, 1804 from President Joseph Willard that he was unable to attend the meeting of the Corporation to discuss the professorship.

Draft of the Rules, Directions, and Statutes of the Boylston Professorship of Rhetoric and Oratory in Harvard College, [ca. 1804]

This original draft was probably written by Eliphalet Pearson (1752-1826) as a member of the committee charged with the task of establishing the rules, directions, and statutes for the Boylston Professorship by the Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers. This draft is heavily edited and contains many cross outs through the text.

E. Committee to frame rules, directions, and statutes of the Boylston Professorship of Rhetoric and Oratory, 1804

This subseries consists of a paper notebook containing a handwritten draft of the report presented to the Harvard Corporation on April 30, 1804 by the Committee to frame Rules, Directions, and Statutes of the Boylston Professorship of Rhetoric and Oratory. The handwritten report provides a numbered list of rules related to the Boylston Professorship and is dated April 16, 1804. The report is followed by a certification signed May 1, 1804 from President Joseph Willard that he was unable to attend the meeting of the Corporation to discuss the professorship.

Common places, new places. The labour law rhetoric of the crisis. WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" .INT - 92/2012

'Common places', as argued in this paper, may at times fulfil a persuasive function. This is the case of messages enshrined in Europe 2020. In the aftermath of an unprecedented economic and financial crisis they may sound like common places. European institutions have given precedence to measures on financial and budgetary stability, thus marginalising social and employment policies. The only promising developments, the 'new places' in labour law, must be searched in the new synergies among employment and cohesion policies. National and subnational levels of decison-making should be favoured in order to attain the delivery of new partnership agreements, supported by European structural funds.

National Visions of EU Defence Policy - Common Denominators and Misunderstandings. CEPS Paperbacks. December 2013

The premise of this study is simple: before discussing what defence strategy the EU should adopt at Brussels-level, member states should clarify what they expect individually from the EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Inspired by the confusion about EU defence policy in most European capitals, this authoritative study inverts the usual analytical approach applied to the debate on European strategy. Rather than initiating the enquiry from the perspective of common interests guiding CSDP, it analyses how seven prominent member states see CSDP as a tool to pursue their strictly national interests. Five researchers immersed themselves in the foreign policy worlds of Paris, London, Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Stockholm and Madrid, looking at CSDP through national lenses and away from the potentially distorting influence of ‘Brussels’ rhetoric.