A groundbreaking scholarly study of crime and punishment in Qajar Iran Drawing on a rich array of primary sources in multiple languages, Farzin Vejdani argues that the ambiguity in defining the boundaries between private and public in Qajar Iran often corresponded with the jurisdictional friction between government authorities and religious scholars regarding who had the authority to police and punish public crimes. This ambiguity had implications for the spaces in which illicit acts were carried out: “private” parties in domestic residences where music, alcohol, and prostitution were present were often tolerated by local police officials but raised the ire of religious authorities and their followers, who raided these residences, ironically in violation of strong Islamic norms of privacy. Crimes that were manifest but remained unpunished triggered a crisis of legitimacy that often coincided with upstart Islamic religious scholars challenging the state’s authority. Even when the government had every intention of punishing a crime, convicted criminals sought shelter in sanctuaries—including shrines, mosques, royal stables, and telegraph offices—which were even more inviolable than private residences. This inviolability, grounded in both Islamic prohibitions of violence on sacred grounds and Iranian imperial traditions of redress, allowed criminals to negotiate a lesser sentence, safe passage for voluntary exile, or forgiveness.

The book provides highlights on the key concepts and trends of evolution in the History of Chinese Legal System, as one of the series of books of “China Classified Histories”.

The 1960 publication of We Hold These Truths marked a significant event in the history of modern American thought. Since that time, Sheed & Ward has kept the book in print and has published several studies of John Courtney Murray's life and work. We are proud to present a new edition of this classic text, which features a comprehensive introduction by Peter Lawler that places Murray in the context of Catholic and American history and thought while revealing his relevance today. From the new Introduction by Peter Lawler: The Jesuit John Courtney Murray (1904-67) was, in his time, probably the best known and most widely respected American Catholic writer on the relationship between Catholic philosophy and theology and his country's political life. The highpoint of his influence was the publication of We Hold These Truths in the same year as an election of our country's first Catholic president. Those two events were celebrated by a Time cover story (December 12, 1960) on Murray's work and influence. The story's author, Protestant Douglas Auchincloss, reported that it was "The most relentlessly intellectual cover story I've done." His amazingly wide ranging and dense-if not altogether accurate-account of Murray's thought was crowned with a smart and pointed conclusion: "If anyone can help U.S. Catholics and their non-Catholic countrymen toward the disagreement that precedes understanding-John Courtney Murray can." . . . Murray's work, of course, is treated with great respect and has had considerable influence, but now it's time to begin to think of him as one of America's very few genuine political philosophers. His disarmingly lucid and accessible prose has caused his book to be widely cited and celebrated, but it still is not well understood. It is both praised and blamed for reconciling Catholic faith with the fundamental premises of American political life. It is praised by liberals for paving the way for Vatican II's embrace of the American idea of religious liberty, and it is

Explores hieroglyphs as a metaphor for the relationship between new media and writing in British modernism

The first comparative analysis of Catholic inquisitions and Calvinist consistories in the great Christian age of reformation.

This compelling book, first published in 1995, changed historians' understanding of the history of public penance, a topic crucial to debates about the complex evolution of individualism in the West. Mary C. Mansfield demonstrates that various forms of public humiliation, imposed on nobles and peasants alike for shocking crimes as well as for minor brawls, survived into the thirteenth century and beyond.