Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

v. 35 (1899-1900)

Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

v. 36 (1900-1901)

Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

v. 7 (1865-1868)

Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

v. 43 (1907-1908)

Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

v. 38 (1902-1903)

Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

v. 39 (1903-1904)

The University of Missouri studies.

2

Letters from Daniel Bates to William Jenks, May 1795-September 1798

Daniel Bates wrote these five letters to his friend and classmate, William Jenks, between May 1795 and September 1798. In a letter written May 12, 1795, Bates informs Jenks, who was then employed as an usher at Mr. Webb's school, of his studies of Euclid, the meeting of several undergraduate societies, and various sightings of birds, gardens and trees. In a letter written in November 1795 from Princeton, where he was apparently on vacation with the family of classmate Leonard Jarvis, he describes playing the game "break the Pope's neck" and tells Jenks what he was reading (Nicholson, Paley?, and Thompson) and what his friend's father was reading (Mirabeau and Neckar).

National Minorities, Nationalizing States, and External National Homelands in the New Europe. Notes toward a Relational Analysis. Institute of Advanced Studies Political Science Series, 11 December 1993

Nationalism remains central to politics in and among the new nation-states. Far from »solving« the region's national question, the most recent reconfiguration of political space – the replacement of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia by some twenty would-be nation-states – only recast it in a new form. It is this new phase and form of the national question that I explore in this paper. I begin by outlining a particular relational configuration – the triadic relational nexus between national minorities, nationalizing states, and external national homelands – that is central to the national question in post-Soviet Eurasia. In the second, and most substantial, section of the paper, I argue that each of the »elements« in this relational nexus – minority, nationalizing state, and homeland – should itself be understood in dynamic and relational terms, not as a fixed, given, or analytically irreducible entity but as a field of differentiated positions and an arena of struggles among competing »stances.« In a brief concluding section, I return to the relational nexus as a whole, underscoring the dynamically interactive quality of the triadic interplay.