The 17th century was a period of transition in world history. It was marked globally by social movements emerging in response to widespread drought, famine, disease, warfare, and dislocation linked to climate change. Historians have yet to situate Safavid Iran (1501–1722) within the “General Crisis.” This article, coauthored by an environmental historian and a climate scientist, revisits primary sources and incorporates tree-ring evidence to argue that an ecological crisis beginning in the late 17th century contributed to the collapse of the imperial ecology of the Safavid Empire. A declining resource base and demographic decline conditioned the unraveling of imperial networks and the empire's eventual fall to a small band of Afghan raiders in 1722. Ultimately, this article makes a case for the connectedness of Iran to broader global environmental trends in this period, with local circumstances and human agency shaping a period of acute environmental crisis in Iran.

The governorships of Muhammad Ismaʿil Khan Vakil al-Mulk (1859–68) and Murtaza Quli Khan Vakil al-Mulk II (1868–78) in Qajar Kirman were highlighted by an extensive building campaign which initiated a period of significant social and economic change in the province. This article explores the activities of local elites in managing their family estates in the context of this project through a careful analysis of provincial geographical and historical writings, Persian-language travelogues, and commentary by European administrators and travelers. Kirmani elites began investing in land and commercial agriculture on an unprecedented scale, accelerating Kirman's absorption into global economic patterns as a producer of raw materials like cotton, wool, and opium. An integrated political economy developed regionally through the expanding networks of elite households and their estates, reinforced by families combining landownership with administrative functions in rural areas. This process demonstrates the extent to which Iranians were active participants in transforming their communities in the context of the advance of global capitalism, with longstanding patterns of elite household competition playing an important role in mediating social and political change locally.

Literature on the Great Game presents a strong dichotomy between European aggressors and Oriental victims. However, Qajar Iran possessed its own forgotten imperial project in Central Asia, explored here through an 1844 travelogue published anonymously in Iran as Safarnameh-ye Bokhara. This text, whose author is identified here as Qajar statesman ‘Abbas Qoli Khan, details a diplomatic exchange with the amir of Bokhara over the life and death of Rev. Joseph Wolff and the infamous disappearance of British agents Stoddart and Conolly. Notably, ‘Abbas Qoli Khan pressed Qajar claims to Marv to the amir, utilizing a discourse of historical and cultural unity between Iran and Greater Khorasan, in contrast to that of difference and hierarchy common in Anglo-Russian imperial projects.

One hundred fifty Hickman right atrial catheters were inserted into 143 patients and were followed prospectively until removal. Primary indications for their use were: cancer chemotherapy (45), parenteral nutrition (35), antibiotic therapy (63), and miscellaneous (7). The overall catheter-associated infection rate was 12.0%. Since the mean duration of catheterization was 125 days, the infection/duration rate was 1.0/1,000 days of use. The risk of infection differed significantly according to the primary indication for catheterization: parenteral nutrition > antibiotic therapy > cancer chemotherapy. The increased risk of catheter-associated infection attributable to duration of catheterization was additive, and the per day risk of such infections remained constant regardless of duration. Nearly two-thirds of patients were discharged home with catheters in place, without adversely affecting infection risk.

Over the past decade I have periodically taught an undergraduate course entitled “Studies in Religious Ethics: Taking Human Life.” Three traditions are studied: Judaism, Catholicism and Protestantism. “Studies in Religious Ethics” has precedence in the title in order to convey the intention that the readings would be in the ethics of religious traditions, and that the principal purpose of the course is to come to a better knowledge and understanding of ethics in the context of religious thought and communal life. I intend, thereby, to deflect the interest of persons who are interested only in the moral questions of taking human life. “Taking Human Life” was chosen for two reasons. First, the moral teachings on these questions and the ethical and theological justifications for them provide specific points of reference around which particular comparisons between Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism can be made. One can, for example, look at the questions of capital punishment, and by following the arguments of a standard Catholic source, an article that assesses the classic Jewish tradition, and a Protestant theologian like Karl Barth, begin to indicate both the methods and the contents of each tradition. The practical moral questions become avenues which one can take into the history of each tradition, into the ethical theories of each tradition, and into the patterns of moral authority of each tradition. A second reason for “Taking Human Life” is that the questions used are those to which contemporary students frequently have affective responses of considerable depth, and also opinions which have not been thoroughly considered. While it is not a major purpose of the course to bring students’ opinions under critical scrutiny, their interest in the questions motivates their participation in the class, and a latent consequence of their reading and the discussions is a critical examination of the reasons they hold their frequently outspoken opinions.

The field of Christian ethics has been the location of a debate over the past decades between roughly delineated parties representing an allegiance to the use of formal prescriptive principles on the one hand, and those representing the cause of the more existential response to a particular situation on the other hand. The debate has taken place in Europe and the United States, it has taken place in Catholicism and in Protestantism. In European Protestant literature Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics, particularly Volume II/2, Bonhoeffer's Ethics, and Niels Søe's Kristelig Etik, have represented what has been called a “contextual” approach. More traditional Lutheran theologians who stress the importance of ethics under the law have a larger place for traditional ethical principles. Werner Elert and Walter Künneth would be representative of this group. In Catholic literature there was a movement in the early years after World War II that came to be called “situational morality.” A critic has typified it in the following terms, “The ultimate differences between this new morality and traditional morality come down then to this: In an objective system of ethics the moral judgment is submitted to an extrinsic norm, an ontological norm founded on the principles of being. In situational ethics the moral judgment is measured only by the subjective, immanent light of the individual in question.” In contrast to the situational emphasis is the whole tradition of natural law ethics and moral theology as this developed in Roman Catholicism. It should be noted that some of the recent Catholic ethics continues to be influenced by a situational approach, though not in the extreme way of earlier materials.