text:
Frederick Barbarossa

Frederick Barbarossa (December 1122 – 10 June 1190), also known as Frederick I (Friedrich I; Federico I), was the Holy Roman Emperor from 1155 until his death 35 years later in 1190. He was elected King of Germany in Frankfurt on 4 March 1152 and crowned in Aachen on 9 March 1152. He was crowned King of Italy on 24 April 1155 in Pavia and emperor by Pope Adrian IV on 18 June 1155 in Rome. Two years later, the term sacrum ("holy") first appeared in a document in connection with his empire. He was later formally crowned King of Burgundy, at Arles on 30 June 1178. He was named Barbarossa by the northern Italian cities which he attempted to rule: Barbarossa means "red beard" in Italian; in German, he was known as Kaiser Rotbart, which in English means "Emperor Redbeard." The prevalence of the Italian nickname, even in later German usage, reflects the centrality of the Italian campaigns to his career.

Frederick was by inheritance Duke of Swabia (1147–1152, as Frederick III) before his imperial election in 1152. He was the son of Duke Frederick II of the Hohenstaufen dynasty and Judith, daughter of Henry IX, Duke of Bavaria, from the rival House of Welf. Frederick, therefore, descended from the two leading families in Germany, making him an acceptable choice for the Empire's prince-electors. Frederick joined the Third Crusade and opted to travel overland to the Holy Land. In 1190, Frederick drowned attempting to cross the Saleph River, leading to most of his army abandoning the Crusade before reaching Acre.

Historians consider him among the Holy Roman Empire's greatest medieval emperors. He combined qualities that made him appear almost superhuman to his contemporaries: his longevity, his ambition, his extraordinary skills at organization, his battlefield acumen, and his political perspicacity. His contributions to Central European society and culture include the re-establishment of the Corpus Juris Civilis, or the Roman rule of law, which counterbalanced the papal power that dominated the German states since the conclusion of the Investiture controversy. Due to his popularity and notoriety, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, he was used as a political symbol by many movements and regimes: the Risorgimento, the Wilhelmine government in Germany (especially under Emperor Wilhelm I), and the Nazi movement resulting in both golden and dark legends. Modern researchers, while exploring the legacy of Frederick, attempt to uncover the legends and reconstruct the true historical figure—these efforts result in new perspectives on both the emperor as a person and the social developments associated with him.

Early life
Frederick was born in mid-December 1122 in Haguenau, to Frederick II, Duke of Swabia and Judith of Bavaria. His father was from the Hohenstaufen family, and his mother was from the Welf family, the two most powerful families in Germany. The Hohenstaufens were often called Ghibellines, which derives from the Italianized name for Waiblingen castle, the family seat in Swabia; the Welfs, in a similar Italianization, were called Guelfs. Frederick was also a descendant of the Salian dynasty through his paternal grandmother Agnes as she was the daughter of Emperor Henry IV and Bertha of Savoy. He also had ties to the Salians through his mother Judith as she hailed from Emperor Otto II and his wife Theophanu. Therefore, Frederick carried on the bloodline of Emperor Otto the Great and his wives, Eadgyth and Adelaide. He learned to ride, hunt and use weapons at an early age, but could neither read nor write, and was also unable to speak the Latin language until later in life. He took part in several hoftag during the reign of his uncle, King Conrad III, which were a form of informal and irregular assembly popular among the nobles of the Holy Roman Empire. One took place in 1141 in Strasbourg, another in 1142 in Konstanz, 1143 in Ulm, 1144 in Würzburg and 1145 in Worms.

Second Crusade
In early 1147, Frederick decided to join the Second Crusade after his uncle, King Conrad III, had taken the crusader vow in public on 28 December 1146. Frederick's father, Duke Frederick II, strongly objected to this and according to Otto of Freising, the duke berated his brother for permitting his son to go. The elder Frederick, who was dying, expected his son to look after his widow and younger half-brother once he had passed on, not risk his life by going on a crusade. Perhaps in preparation for the crusade, Frederick married Adelaide of Vohburg sometime before March 1147. His father died on 4 or 6 April and Frederick succeeded him as the Duke of Swabia. The German crusader army departed from Regensburg seven weeks later.

In August 1147, while crossing the Byzantine Empire, an ill crusader stopped in a monastery outside Adrianople to recuperate. There he was robbed and killed. Conrad ordered Frederick to avenge him. The duke of Swabia razed the monastery, captured and executed the robbers and demanded they return the stolen money. The intervention of the Byzantine general Prosuch prevented further escalation. A few weeks later, on 8 September, Frederick and Welf VI were among the few German crusaders who survived when a flash flood destroyed the main camp. They had decided to encamp on a hill a ways away from the main army. The remains of the army reached Constantinople the following day.

Conrad III attempted to lead the army across Anatolia but finding this too difficult in the face of constant Turkish attacks near Dorylaeum, decided to turn back. The rearguard was subsequently annihilated. Conrad sent Frederick ahead to inform King Louis VII of France of the disaster and ask for help. The two armies, French and German, then advanced together. When Conrad fell ill around Christmas in Ephesus, he returned to Constantinople by ship with his personal retinue, which included Frederick. With Byzantine ships and money, the German army once again left Constantinople on 7 March 1148 and arrived in Acre on 11 April. After Easter, Conrad and Frederick visited Jerusalem, where Frederick was impressed by the charitable works of the Knights Hospitaller. He took part in the council of Acre on 24 June, where a decision was reached that the crusaders would attack Damascus.

The Siege of Damascus (24–28 July) lasted a mere five days and ended in failure. Gilbert of Mons, writing fifty years later, recorded that Frederick "prevailed in arms before all others in front of Damascus". On 8 September, the German army sailed out of Acre. On the route home, Conrad III and Frederick stopped in Thessaloniki where they swore oaths to uphold the treaty that Conrad had agreed with Emperor Manuel I Komnenos the previous winter. This treaty obligated the Germans to attack King Roger II of Sicily in cooperation with the Byzantines. After confirming the treaty, Frederick was sent ahead to Germany. He passed through Bulgaria and Hungary and arrived in Germany in April 1149.

Election
When Conrad died in February 1152, only Frederick and the prince-bishop of Bamberg were at his deathbed. Both asserted afterwards that Conrad had, in full possession of his mental faculties, handed the royal insignia to Frederick and indicated that he, rather than Conrad's own six-year-old son, the future Frederick IV, Duke of Swabia, succeed him as king. Frederick energetically pursued the crown and at Frankfurt on 4 March 1152 the kingdom's princely electors designated him as the next German king. He was crowned King of the Romans at Aachen several days later, on 9 March 1152.

The reigns of Henry IV and Henry V left the status of the German empire in disarray, its power waning under the weight of the investiture controversy. For a quarter of a century following the death of Henry V in 1125, the German monarchy was largely a nominal title with no real power behind it. The king, chosen by the prince-electors, was given no resources outside those of his own duchy and he was at the same time prevented from exercising any real authority or leadership. The royal title was furthermore passed from one family to another to preclude the development of any dynastic interest in the German crown. When Frederick was chosen as king in 1152, royal power had been in effective abeyance for over twenty-five years, and to a considerable degree for more than eighty years. The only real claim to wealth lay in the rich cities of northern Italy, which were still within the nominal control of the German king. The Salian line had died out with the death of Henry V in 1125 and the German princes refused to give the crown to his nephew, the duke of Swabia, for fear he would try to regain the imperial power held by Henry V. Instead, they chose Lothair III (1125–1137), who found himself embroiled in a long-running dispute with the Hohenstaufens, and who married into the Welfs. One of the Hohenstaufens gained the throne as Conrad III of Germany (1137–1152). When Frederick Barbarossa succeeded his uncle in 1152, there seemed to be excellent prospects for ending the feud, since he was a Welf on his mother's side. The Welf duke of Saxony, Henry the Lion, would not be appeased, however, remaining an implacable enemy of the Hohenstaufen monarchy. Barbarossa had the duchies of Swabia and Franconia, the force of his own personality, and very little else to construct an empire.

The Germany that Frederick tried to unite was a patchwork of more than 1,600 individual states, each with its own prince. A few of these, such as Bavaria and Saxony, were large. Many were too small to pinpoint on a map. The titles afforded to the German king were "Caesar", "Augustus", and "Emperor of the Romans". By the time Frederick would assume these, they were little more than propaganda slogans with little other meaning. Frederick was a pragmatist who dealt with the princes by finding a mutual self-interest. Unlike Henry II of England, Frederick did not attempt to end medieval feudalism, but rather tried to restore it, though this was beyond his ability. The great players in the German civil war had been the Pope, Emperor, Ghibellines and the Guelfs, but none of these had emerged as the winner.

Rise to power
Eager to restore the Empire to the position it had occupied under Charlemagne and Otto I the Great, the new king saw clearly that the restoration of order in Germany was a necessary preliminary to the enforcement of the imperial rights in Italy. Issuing a general order for peace, he made lavish concessions to the nobles. Abroad, Frederick intervened in the Danish civil war between Svend III and Valdemar I of Denmark and began negotiations with the Eastern Roman Emperor, Manuel I Comnenus. It was probably about this time that the king obtained papal assent for the annulment of his childless marriage with Adelheid of Vohburg, on the grounds of consanguinity (his great-great-grandfather was a brother of Adela's great-great-great-grandmother, making them fourth cousins, once removed). He then made a vain attempt to obtain a bride from the court of Constantinople. On his accession, Frederick had communicated the news of his election to Pope Eugene III, but had neglected to ask for papal confirmation. In March 1153, Frederick concluded the Treaty of Constance with the Pope, wherein he promised, in return for his coronation, to defend the papacy, to make no peace with king Roger II of Sicily or other enemies of the Church without the consent of Eugene, and to help Eugene regain control of the city of Rome.

First Italian Campaign: 1154–55
Frederick undertook six expeditions into Italy. In the first, beginning in October 1154, his plan was to launch a campaign against the Normans under King William I of Sicily. He marched down and almost immediately encountered resistance to his authority. Obtaining the submission of Milan, he successfully besieged Tortona on 13 February 1155, razing it to the ground on 18 April. He moved on to Pavia, where he according to some historians received the Iron Crown and the title of King of Italy on 24 April in the Basilica of San Michele Maggiore. Other historians instead suggest his coronation took place in Monza on 15 April. Moving through Bologna and Tuscany, he was soon approaching the city of Rome. There, Pope Adrian IV was struggling with the forces of the republican city commune led by Arnold of Brescia, a student of Abelard. As a sign of good faith, Frederick dismissed the ambassadors from the revived Roman Senate, and Imperial forces suppressed the republicans. Arnold was captured and hanged for treason and rebellion. Despite his unorthodox teaching concerning theology, Arnold was not charged with heresy. As Frederick approached the gates of Rome, the Pope advanced to meet him. At the royal tent the king received him, and after kissing the pope's feet, Frederick expected to receive the traditional kiss of peace. Frederick had declined to hold the Pope's stirrup while leading him to the tent, however, so Adrian refused to give the kiss until this protocol had been complied with. Frederick hesitated, and Adrian IV withdrew; after a day's negotiation, Frederick agreed to perform the required ritual, reportedly muttering, "Pro Petro, non Adriano – For Peter, not for Adrian." Rome was still in an uproar over the fate of Arnold of Brescia, so rather than marching through the streets of Rome, Frederick and Adrian retired to the Vatican.

The next day, 18 June 1155, Adrian IV crowned Frederick I Holy Roman Emperor at St Peter's Basilica, amidst the acclamations of the German army. The Romans began to riot, and Frederick spent his coronation day putting down the revolt, resulting in the deaths of over 1,000 Romans and many more thousands injured. The next day, Frederick, Adrian, and the German army travelled to Tivoli. From there, a combination of the unhealthy Italian summer and the effects of his year-long absence from Germany meant he was forced to put off his planned campaign against the Normans of Sicily. On their way northwards, they attacked Spoleto and encountered the ambassadors of Manuel I Comnenus, who showered Frederick with costly gifts. At Verona, Frederick declared his fury with the rebellious Milanese before finally returning to Germany.

Disorder was again rampant in Germany, especially in Bavaria, but general peace was restored by Frederick's vigorous, but conciliatory, measures. The duchy of Bavaria was transferred from Henry II Jasomirgott, margrave of Austria, to Frederick's formidable younger cousin Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, of the House of Guelph, whose father had previously held both duchies. Henry II Jasomirgott was named Duke of Austria in compensation for his loss of Bavaria. As part of his general policy of concessions of formal power to the German princes and ending the civil wars within the kingdom, Frederick further appeased Henry by issuing him with the Privilegium Minus, granting him unprecedented entitlements as Duke of Austria. This was a large concession on the part of Frederick, who realized that Henry the Lion had to be accommodated, even to the point of sharing some power with him. Frederick could not afford to make an outright enemy of Henry.

On 9 June 1156 at Würzburg, Frederick married Beatrice of Burgundy, daughter and heiress of Renaud III, thus adding to his possessions the sizeable realm of the County of Burgundy. In an attempt to create comity, Emperor Frederick proclaimed the Peace of the Land, written between 1152 and 1157, which enacted punishments for a variety of crimes, as well as systems for adjudicating many disputes. He also declared himself the sole Augustus of the Roman world, ceasing to recognise Manuel I at Constantinople.

Second, Third and Fourth Italian Campaigns: 1158–1174
The retreat of Frederick in 1155 forced Pope Adrian IV to come to terms with King William I of Sicily, granting to William I territories that Frederick viewed as his dominion. This aggrieved Frederick, and he was further displeased when Papal legates chose to interpret a letter from Adrian to Frederick in a manner that seemed to imply that the imperial crown was a gift from the Papacy and that in fact the Empire itself was a fief of the Papacy. Disgusted with the pope, and still wishing to crush the Normans in the south of Italy, in June 1158, Frederick set out upon his second Italian expedition, accompanied by Henry the Lion and his Saxon troops. This expedition resulted in the revolt and capture of Milan, the Diet of Roncaglia that saw the establishment of imperial officers and ecclesiastical reforms in the cities of northern Italy, and the beginning of the long struggle with Pope Alexander III. Milan soon rebelled again and humiliated Empress Beatrice (see Legend below).

The death of Pope Adrian IV in 1159 led to the election of two rival popes, Alexander III and the antipope Victor IV, and both sought Frederick's support. Frederick, busy with the siege of Crema, appeared unsupportive of Alexander III, and after the sacking of Crema demanded that Alexander appear before the emperor at Pavia and to accept the imperial decree. Alexander refused, and Frederick recognised Victor IV as the legitimate pope in 1160. In response, Alexander III excommunicated both Frederick I and Victor IV. Frederick attempted to convoke a joint council with King Louis VII of France in 1162 to decide the issue of who should be pope. Louis neared the meeting site, but when he became aware that Frederick had stacked the votes for Victor, Louis decided not to attend the council. As a result, the issue was not resolved at that time.

The political result of the struggle with Pope Alexander was an alliance formed between the Norman state of Sicily and Pope Alexander III against Frederick. In the meantime, Frederick had to deal with another rebellion at Milan, in which the city surrendered on 6 March 1162; much of it was destroyed three weeks later on the emperor's orders. The fate of Milan led to the submission of Brescia, Placentia, and many other northern Italian cities. In August 1162 he triumphantly entered Turin and was crowned with his consort in the cathedral on August 15. Returning to Germany towards the close of 1162, Frederick prevented the escalation of conflicts between Henry the Lion from Saxony and a number of neighbouring princes who were growing weary of Henry's power, influence, and territorial gains. He also severely punished the citizens of Mainz for their rebellion against Archbishop Arnold. In Frederick's third visit to Italy in 1163, his plans for the conquest of Sicily were ruined by the formation of a powerful league against him, brought together mainly by opposition to imperial taxes.

In 1164, Frederick took what are believed to be the relics of the "Biblical Magi" (the Wise Men or Three Kings) from the Basilica di Sant'Eustorgio in Milan and gave them as a gift (or as loot) to the Archbishop of Cologne, Rainald of Dassel. The relics had great religious significance and could be counted upon to draw pilgrims from all over Christendom. Today they are kept in the Shrine of the Three Kings in the Cologne cathedral. After the death of the antipope Victor IV, Frederick supported antipope Paschal III, but he was soon driven from Rome, leading to the return of Pope Alexander III in 1165.

In the meantime Frederick was focused on restoring peace in the Rhineland, where he organized a magnificent celebration of the canonization of Charlemagne at Aachen, under the authority of the antipope Paschal III. Concerned over rumours that Alexander III was about to enter into an alliance with the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I, in October 1166 Frederick embarked on his fourth Italian campaign, hoping as well to secure the claim of Paschal III and the coronation of his wife Beatrice as Holy Roman Empress. This time, Henry the Lion refused to join Frederick on his Italian trip, tending instead to his own disputes with neighbors and his continuing expansion into Slavic territories in northeastern Germany. In 1167 Frederick began besieging Ancona, which had acknowledged the authority of Manuel I; at the same time, his forces achieved a great victory over the Romans at the Battle of Monte Porzio. Heartened by this victory, Frederick lifted the siege of Ancona and hurried to Rome, where he had his wife crowned empress and also received a second coronation from Paschal III. His campaign was halted by the sudden outbreak of an epidemic (malaria or the plague), which threatened to destroy the Imperial army and drove the emperor as a fugitive to Germany, where he remained for the ensuing six years. During this period, Frederick decided conflicting claims to various bishoprics, asserted imperial authority over Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary, initiated friendly relations with Manuel I, and tried to come to a better understanding with Henry II of England and Louis VII of France. Many Swabian counts, including his cousin the young Duke of Swabia, Frederick IV, died in 1167, so he was able to organize a new mighty territory in the Duchy of Swabia under his reign in this time. Consequently, his younger son Frederick V became the new Duke of Swabia in 1167, while his eldest son Henry was crowned King of the Romans in 1169, alongside his father who also retained the title.

Later years
Increasing anti-German sentiment swept through Lombardy, culminating in the restoration of Milan in 1169. In 1174 Frederick made his fifth expedition to Italy. (It was probably during this time that the famous Tafelgüterverzeichnis, a record of the royal estates, was made. ) He was opposed by the pro-papal Lombard League (now joined by Venice, Sicily and Constantinople), which had previously formed to stand against him. The cities of northern Italy had become exceedingly wealthy through trade, representing a marked turning point in the transition from medieval feudalism. While continental feudalism had remained strong socially and economically, it was in deep political decline by the time of Frederick Barbarossa. When the northern Italian cities inflicted a defeat on Frederick at Alessandria in 1175, the European world was shocked. With the refusal of Henry the Lion to bring help to Italy, the campaign was a complete failure. Frederick suffered a heavy defeat at the Battle of Legnano near Milan, on 29 May 1176, where he was wounded and for some time was believed to be dead. This battle marked the turning point in Frederick's claim to empire. He had no choice other than to begin negotiations for peace with Alexander III and the Lombard League. In the Peace of Anagni in 1176, Frederick recognized Alexander III as pope, and in the Peace of Venice in 1177, Frederick and Alexander III were formally reconciled. With decisions of Paschal III nullfied, Beatrice ceased to be referred as empress.

The scene was similar to that which had occurred between Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor at Canossa a century earlier. The conflict was the same as that resolved in the Concordat of Worms: Did the Holy Roman Emperor have the power to name the pope and bishops? The Investiture controversy from previous centuries had been brought to a tendentious peace with the Concordat of Worms and affirmed in the First Council of the Lateran. Now it had recurred, in a slightly different form. Frederick had to humble himself before Alexander III at Venice. The emperor acknowledged the pope's sovereignty over the Papal States, and in return Alexander acknowledged the emperor's overlordship of the Imperial Church. Also in the Peace of Venice, a truce was made with the Lombard cities, which took effect in August 1178. The grounds for a permanent peace were not established until 1183, however, in the Peace of Constance, when Frederick conceded their right to freely elect town magistrates. By this move, Frederick recovered his nominal domination over Italy, which became his chief means of applying pressure on the papacy.

In a move to consolidate his reign after the disastrous expedition into Italy, Frederick was formally crowned King of Burgundy at Arles on 30 June 1178. Although traditionally the German kings had automatically inherited the royal crown of Arles since the time of Conrad II, Frederick felt the need to be crowned by the Archbishop of Arles, regardless of his laying claim to the title from 1152.

Frederick did not forgive Henry the Lion for refusing to come to his aid in 1176. By 1180, Henry had successfully established a powerful state comprising Saxony, Bavaria, and substantial territories in the north and east of Germany. Taking advantage of the hostility of other German princes to Henry, Frederick had Henry tried in absentia by a court of bishops and princes in 1180, declared that imperial law overruled traditional German law, and had Henry stripped of his lands and declared an outlaw. He then invaded Saxony with an imperial army to force his cousin to surrender. Henry's allies deserted him, and he finally had to submit to Frederick at an Imperial Diet in Erfurt in November 1181. Henry spent three years in exile at the court of his father-in-law Henry II of England in Normandy before being allowed back into Germany. He finished his days in Germany, as the much-diminished Duke of Brunswick. Frederick's desire for revenge was sated. Henry the Lion lived a relatively quiet life, sponsoring arts and architecture. Frederick's victory over Henry did not gain him as much in the German feudalistic system as it would have in the English feudalistic system. While in England the pledge of fealty went in a direct line from overlords to those under them, the Germans pledged oaths only to the direct overlord, so that in Henry's case, those below him in the feudal chain owed nothing to Frederick. Thus, despite the diminished stature of Henry the Lion, Frederick did not gain his allegiances.

Frederick was faced with the reality of disorder among the German states, where continuous civil wars were waged between pretenders and the ambitious who wanted the crown for themselves. Italian unity under German rule was more myth than truth. Despite proclamations of German hegemony, the pope was the most powerful force in Italy. When Frederick returned to Germany after his defeat in northern Italy, he was a bitter and exhausted man. The German princes, far from being subordinated to royal control, were intensifying their hold on wealth and power in Germany and entrenching their positions. There began to be a generalized social desire to "create greater Germany" by conquering the Slavs to the east.

Although the Italian city states had achieved a measure of independence from Frederick as a result of his failed fifth expedition into Italy, the emperor had not given up on his Italian dominions. In 1184, he held a massive celebration, the Diet of Pentecost, when his two eldest sons were knighted, and thousands of knights were invited from all over Germany. While payments upon the knighting of a son were part of the expectations of an overlord in England and France, only a "gift" was given in Germany for such an occasion. Frederick's monetary gain from this celebration is said to have been modest. Later in 1184, Frederick again moved into Italy, this time joining forces with the local rural nobility to reduce the power of the Tuscan cities. In 1186, he engineered the marriage of his son Henry to Constance of Sicily, heiress to the Kingdom of Sicily, over the objections of Pope Urban III.

Pope Urban III died shortly after, and was succeeded by Pope Gregory VIII, who even as Papal Chancellor had pursued a more conciliatory line with the Emperor than previous popes and was more concerned with troubling reports from the Holy Land than with a power struggle with Barbarossa.

Third Crusade
Around 23 November 1187, Frederick received letters that had been sent to him from the rulers of the Crusader states in the Near East urging him to come to their aid. Around 1 December, Cardinal Henry of Marcy preached a crusade sermon before Frederick and a public assembly in Strasbourg. Frederick expressed support for the crusade but declined to take the cross on the grounds of his ongoing conflict with Archbishop Philip of Cologne. He did, however, urge King Philip II of France to take the cross through messengers and then in a personal meeting on 25 December on the border between Ivois and Mouzon.

On 27 March 1188, at the Diet of Mainz, the archbishop of Cologne submitted to Frederick. Bishop of Würzburg, Godfrey of Spitzenberg, preached a crusade sermon and Frederick asked the assembly whether he should take the cross. At the universal acclaim of the assembly, he took the crusader's vow. His second son, the duke of Swabia, followed suit. The eldest, Henry VI, was to remain behind in Germany as regent. At Mainz Frederick proclaimed a "general expedition against the pagans". He set the period of preparation as 17 April 1188 to 8 April 1189 and scheduled the army to assemble at Regensburg on 23 April 1189.

At Strasbourg, Frederick had imposed a small tax on the Jews of Germany to fund the crusade. He also put the Jews under his protection and forbade anyone to preach against the Jews. When mobs threatened the Jews of Mainz on the eve of the assembly in March, Frederick sent the imperial marshal Henry of Kalden to disperse them. Rabbi Moses then met with the emperor, which resulted in an imperial edict threatening maiming or death for anyone who maimed or killed a Jew. On 29 March, Frederick and the rabbi rode through the streets together. Frederick successfully prevented a repeat of the massacres that had accompanied the First Crusade and Second Crusade in Germany.

Because Frederick had signed a treaty of friendship with Saladin in 1175, he felt it necessary to give Saladin notice of the termination of their alliance. On 26 May 1188, he sent Count Henry II of Dietz to present an ultimatum to Saladin. A few days after Christmas 1188, Frederick received Hungarian, Byzantine, Serbian and Seljuk envoys in Nuremberg. The Hungarians and Seljuks promised provisions and safe-conduct to the crusaders. The envoys of Stefan Nemanja, grand prince of Serbia, announced that their prince would receive Frederick in Niš. Only with difficulty was an agreement reached with the Byzantine envoy, John Kamateros. Frederick sent a large embassy ahead to make preparations in Byzantium.

On 15 April 1189 in Haguenau, Frederick formally and symbolically accepted the staff and scrip of a pilgrim and set out. His crusade was "the most meticulously planned and organized" up to that time. According to one source written in the 1220s, Frederick organized a grand army of 100,000 men (including 20,000 knights) and set out on the overland route to the Holy Land; This number is believed to be inaccurate by modern scholars using incomplete contemporary sources that place the size of his army at 12,000–15,000 men, including 3,000–4,000 knights.

On 11 May 1189, after the majority of his army had already departed toward Hungary on land, Frederick sailed from Regensburg down the River Danube. When he came to the village of Mauthausen, Frederick ordered the village to be burned for levying a toll on the crusader army. The Crusaders then passed through Hungary, Serbia, and Bulgaria before entering Byzantine territory. While in Hungary, Barbarossa personally asked the Hungarian Prince Géza, brother of King Béla III of Hungary, to join the Crusade. The king agreed, and a Hungarian army of 2,000 men led by Géza escorted the German emperor's forces. Later on, Frederick camped in Philippopolis, then in Adrianople in the autumn of 1189 to avoid the winter climate in Anatolia, in the meantime, he received imprisoned German emissaries who were held in Constantinople, and exchanged hostages with Isaac II, as a guarantee that the crusaders would not sack local settlements until they depart the Byzantine territory. In March 1190, Frederick left Adrianople for Gallipoli at the Dardanelles, to embark to Asia Minor.

The armies coming from western Europe pushed on through Anatolia, where they were victorious at the Battle of Philomelium and defeated the Turks in the Battle of Iconium, eventually reaching as far as Cilician Armenia. The approach of Barbarossa's victorious German army greatly concerned Saladin, who was forced to weaken his force at the Siege of Acre and send troops to the north to block the arrival of the Germans.

Death and burials
Barbarossa opted on the local Armenians' advice to follow a shortcut along the Saleph River. Meanwhile, the army started to traverse the mountain path. On 10 June 1190, he drowned near Silifke Castle in the Saleph River. There are several conflicting accounts of the event:

 * According to "Ansbert", against everyone's advice, the emperor chose to swim across the river and was swept away by the current.
 * Another account recorded that Frederick was thrown from his horse while crossing the river, weighed down by his armour, and drowned.
 * According to the chronicler Ibn al-Athir, "the king went down to the river to wash himself and was drowned at a place where the water was not even up to his waist. Thus God saved us from the evil of such a man".
 * The writer of the Letter on the Death of the Emperor Frederick, a churchman who accompanied the crusader forces, reported that "after the many and terrible exertions that he [Frederick I] had undergone in the previous month and more, he decided to bathe in that same river, for he wanted to cool down with a swim. But by the secret judgment of God there was an unexpected and lamentable death and he drowned." Frederick, who liked to swim, as he went to bathe with Otto of Wittelsbach in the Adriatic, might have been exhausted from weeks of marching, hence he was fatally affected by the very hot summer in Anatolia. If the writer was Godfrey of Spitzenberg, Bishop of Würzburg, who was a close confidant of Frederick, the report would be the most plausible account of what happened, since he might have witnessed the emperor's death.

Jacques de Vitry, a historian of the Crusades, outlined Frederick's endeavors and Saladin's dilemma, in which he reported:

While these were the varied fortunes of the first in the field, Frederick, the Roman emperor, set out on his journey by land with great power and a countless host of warriors. Passing over the borders of Germany, he crossed Hungary, Macedonia, and Greece and marched through the land of the Saracens with a mighty hand and a stretched-out arm. He took Iconium, Philomena, and many other cities, and reached Armenia, where, during great heat, he went into the river, which the natives call the Iron River, to bathe, and therein for our sins was miserably drowned, and so died to the loss of all Christendom. Saladin so greatly feared his approach that he ordered the walls of Laodicia, Gibelet, Tortosa, Biblium and Beyrout, to be pulled down, sparing only the fortresses, that is the citadels and towers.

Frederick's death caused several thousand German soldiers to leave the force and return home through the Cilician and Syrian ports. The German-Hungarian army was struck with an onset of disease near Antioch, weakening it further. Only 5,000 soldiers, a third of the original force, arrived in Acre. Barbarossa's son, Frederick VI of Swabia, carried on with the remnants of the German army, along with the Hungarian army under the command of Prince Géza, with the aim of burying the emperor in Jerusalem, but efforts to preserve his body in vinegar failed. Hence, his flesh was interred in the Cathedral of Saint Peter in Antioch, his bones in the Cathedral of Tyre, and his heart and inner organs in Saint Paul's Church, Tarsus.

The unexpected demise of Frederick left the Crusader army under the command of the rivals Philip II and Richard, who had traveled to Palestine separately by sea, and ultimately led to its dissolution. Richard continued to the East where he fought Saladin, winning territories along the shores of Palestine, but ultimately failed to win the war by conquering Jerusalem itself before he was forced to return to his own territories in north-western Europe, known to modern historians as the Angevin Empire. He returned home after he signed the Treaty of Ramla agreeing that Jerusalem would remain under Muslim control while allowing unarmed Christian pilgrims and traders to visit the city. The treaty also reduced the Latin Kingdom to a geopolitical coastal strip extending from Tyre to Jaffa.

Frederick and the Justinian code
The increase in wealth of the trading cities of northern Italy led to a revival in the study of the Justinian Code, a Latin legal system that had become extinct centuries earlier. Legal scholars renewed its application. It is speculated that Pope Gregory VII personally encouraged the Justinian rule of law and had a copy of it. The historian Norman Cantor described Corpus Juris Civilis (Justinian Body of Civil Law) as "the greatest legal code ever devised". It envisaged the law of the state as a reflection of natural moral law, the principle of rationality in the universe. By the time Frederick assumed the throne, this legal system was well established on both sides of the Alps. He was the first to use the availability of the new professional class of lawyers. The Civil Law allowed Frederick to use these lawyers to administer his kingdom in a logical and consistent manner. It also provided a framework to legitimize his claim to the right to rule both Germany and northern Italy. In the old days of Henry IV and Henry V, the claim of divine right of kings had been severely undermined by the Investiture controversy. The Church had won that argument in the common man's mind. There was no divine right for the German king to also control the church by naming both bishops and popes. The institution of the Justinian code was used, perhaps unscrupulously, by Frederick to lay claim to divine powers.

In Germany, Frederick was a political realist, taking what he could and leaving the rest. In Italy, he tended to be a romantic reactionary, reveling in the antiquarian spirit of the age, exemplified by a revival of classical studies and Roman law. It was through the use of the restored Justinian code that Frederick came to view himself as a new Roman emperor. Roman law gave a rational purpose for the existence of Frederick and his imperial ambitions. It was a counterweight to the claims of the Church to have authority because of divine revelation. The Church was opposed to Frederick for ideological reasons, not the least of which was the humanist nature found in the revival of the old Roman legal system. When Pepin the Short sought to become king of the Franks in the 8th century, the church needed military protection, so Pepin found it convenient to make an ally of the pope. Frederick, however, desired to put the pope aside and claim the crown of old Rome simply because he was in the likeness of the great emperors of old, who tended to have a domineering role over the church, Caesaropapism. Pope Adrian IV was naturally opposed to this view and undertook a vigorous propaganda campaign designed to diminish Frederick and his ambition. To a large extent, this was successful.

Economic policy
Frederick did little to encourage economic development in Germany prior to the autumn of 1165. In that year he visited the lower Rhineland, the most economically advanced region in Germany. He had already travelled to northern Italy, the most economically advanced region in the Empire, three times. From 1165 on, Frederick pursued economic policies to encourage growth and trade. There is no question that his reign was a period of major economic growth in Germany, but it is impossible now to determine how much of that growth was owed to Frederick's policies.

The number of mints in Germany increased ninefold in the reign of Frederick and his son Henry, from about two dozen mints at the start of his reign to 215 mints in 1197 and from a mere two royal mints to 28. Frederick himself established at least twelve royal mints, including those of Aachen, Donauwörth, Ulm, Haguenau, Duisburg, Kaiserswerth, Frankfurt, Gelnhausen and Dortmund. He also granted privileges exempting the merchants of Aachen, Gelnhausen, Haguenau, Monza, Rome, Pisa and Venice from all tolls within the Empire.

Charismatic leader

Otto of Freising, Frederick's uncle, wrote an account of his reign entitled Gesta Friderici I imperatoris (Deeds of the Emperor Frederick), which is considered to be an accurate history of the king. Otto's other major work, the Chronica sive Historia de duabus civitatibus (Chronicle or History of the Two Cities) had been an exposition of the Civitas Dei (The City of God) of Augustine of Hippo, full of Augustinian negativity concerning the nature of the world and history. His work on Frederick is of opposite tone, being an optimistic portrayal of the glorious potentials of imperial authority. Otto died after finishing the first two books, leaving the last two to Rahewin, his provost. Rahewin's text is in places heavily dependent on classical precedent. For example, Rahewin's physical description of Frederick reproduces word-for-word (except for details of hair and beard) a description of another monarch, Theodoric II written nearly eight hundred years earlier by Sidonius Apollinaris:

"His character is such that not even those envious of his power can belittle its praise. His person is well-proportioned. He is shorter than very tall men, but taller and more noble than men of medium height. His hair is golden, curling a little above his forehead ... His eyes are sharp and piercing, his beard reddish [barba subrufa], his lips delicate ... His whole face is bright and cheerful. His teeth are even and snow-white in color ... Modesty rather than anger causes him to blush frequently. His shoulders are rather broad, and he is strongly built ..."

In the opinion of Norman Cantor, Frederick's charisma led to a fantastic juggling act that, over a quarter of a century, restored the imperial authority in the German states. His formidable enemies defeated him on almost every side, yet in the end he emerged triumphant. When Frederick came to the throne, the prospects for the revival of German imperial power were extremely thin. The great German princes had increased their power and land holdings. The king had been left with only the traditional family domains and a vestige of power over the bishops and abbeys. The backwash of the Investiture controversy had left the German states in continuous turmoil. Rival states were in perpetual war. These conditions allowed Frederick to be both warrior and occasional peace-maker, both to his advantage.

Legend
Frederick is the subject of many legends, including that of a Kyffhäuser legend. Legend says he is not dead, but asleep with his knights in a cave in the Kyffhäuser mountains in Thuringia or Mount Untersberg at the border between Bavaria, Germany, and Salzburg, Austria, and that when the ravens cease to fly around the mountain he will awake and restore Germany to its ancient greatness. According to the story, his red beard has grown through the table at which he sits. His eyes are half closed in sleep, but now and then he raises his hand and sends a boy out to see if the ravens have stopped flying. A similar story, set in Sicily, was earlier attested about his grandson, Frederick II. To garner political support the German Empire built atop the Kyffhäuser the Kyffhäuser Monument, which declared Kaiser Wilhelm I the reincarnation of Frederick; the 1896 dedication occurred on 18 June, the day of Frederick's coronation.

In medieval Europe, the Golden Legend became refined by Jacopo da Voragine. This was a popularized interpretation of the Biblical end of the world. It consisted of three things: (1) terrible natural disasters; (2) the arrival of the Antichrist; (3) the establishment of a good king to combat the anti-Christ. These millennial fables were common and freely traded by the populations on Continental Europe. End-time accounts had been around for thousands of years, but entered the Christian tradition with the writings of the Apostle Peter. German propaganda played into the exaggerated fables believed by the common people by characterizing Frederick Barbarossa and Frederick II as personification of the "good king".

Another legend states that when Barbarossa was in the process of seizing Milan in 1158, his wife, the Empress Beatrice, was taken captive by the enraged Milanese and forced to ride through the city on a donkey in a humiliating manner. Some sources of this legend indicate that Barbarossa implemented his revenge for this insult by forcing the magistrates of the city to remove a fig from the anus of a donkey using only their teeth. Another source states that Barbarossa took his wrath upon every able-bodied man in the city, and that it was not a fig they were forced to hold in their mouth, but excrement from the donkey. To add to this debasement, they were made to announce, "Ecco la fica" (meaning "behold the fig"), with the feces still in their mouths. It used to be said that the insulting gesture (called fico), of holding one's fist with the thumb in between the middle and forefinger came by its origin from this event.

Frederick's legend was further reinforced in the early twentieth century, when Adolf Hitler named Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union after him.

Historiography
Scholarly evaluations of Frederick began in the nineteenth century, but have been hampered by the unfortunate deaths of key researchers who did not have the chance to complete their works (such as Henry Simonsfeld who died in 1913, Wilhelm von Giesebrecht who died in 1889 and Johannes Laudage who died in an accident in 2008). Nevertheless, the two volumes about Frederick (that focus on his relationship with the Welfs and the Papacy) in Wilhelm von Giesebrecht's Geschichte der Deutschen Kaiserzeit (1855–88), completed by his student Bernhard von Simson in 1895, later became the scholarly standard work on the emperor's life.

In 1975, Frederick's charters were published. This and the postwar abandonment of the Kyffhäuser myth have led to the publications of several new biographies. The notable recent authorities among German-speaking historians include Ferdinand Opll, Johannes Laudage, and Knut Görich. Opll's Friedrich Barbarossa (1990) presents the emperor as a pragmatic leader with a capacity of adaptation and recovery after defeat. Laudage investigates the important role of the concept of honour in Frederick's decisions while explaining the far-reaching visions of the emperor and his advisers, while Görich (who also emphasizes the honour, or honor imperii factor) questions whether traditional researchers have overemphasized the intentional side of Frederick's politics and instead highlights his flexibility and consensus-building capability as a leader.

In Italy, the scholarly attention towards Frederick's person and his reign is also considerable, with notable contributions including Franco Cardini's sympathetic 1985 biography or the 1982 work Federico Barbarossa nel dibattito storiografico in Italia e in Germania, edited by Manselli and Riedmann, considered by Schumann to be a definite synthesis of non-nationally oriented historiography approaches (combining German and Italian research results) of the last forty years.

Artistic depictions

 * In Victor Hugo's romantic play Les Burgraves (1843), Frederick (as character Frédéric de Hohenstaufen) returns many years after he was presumed dead, as expected by some medieval legends.
 * Cyrus Townsend Brady's Hohenzollern; a Story of the Time of Frederick Barbarossa (1901) begins with a dedication to "the descendants of the great Germanic race who in Europe, in America, and in the Far East rule the world".
 * Land of Unreason (1941), by L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt, mentions the castle of the Kyffhäuser.
 * Umberto Eco's novel Baudolino (2000) is set partly at Frederick's court, and also deals with the mystery of Frederick's death. The imaginary hero, Baudolino, is the Emperor's adopted son and confidant.
 * In the 2009 movie Barbarossa (also titled Sword of War and Barbarossa: Siege Lord), Barbarossa is one of the main characters, played by Rutger Hauer.
 * The German broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) 2018 documentary (The Germans), featured Frederick I in its 3rd of 6 episodes.
 * Recently, to commemorate the emperor, the Supply Battalion 131 (called "Battalion Barbarossa") of the Kyffhäuser barracks (Kyffhäuser-Kaserne, Bundeswehr) built a huge ground artwork in Bad Frankenhausen, which uses among other things 300 roles of fabric (each was 100 meters long). The mission is named Rotbart ("Redbeard").
 * In the video game series, Sid Meier's Civilization, Barbarossa makes an appearance as a playable leader in Civilization VI.

Children
Frederick's first marriage, to Adelheid of Vohburg, did not produce any children and was annulled.

From his second marriage to Beatrice of Burgundy, he had the following children:

 * 1) Beatrice (end 1162/early 1163 – at least early 1174/1179). King William II of Sicily first asked for her hand, but the marriage negotiations never came through. She married Guillaume (II) count of Chalon in 1173 and was mother to Beatrix, countess of Chalon.
 * 2) Frederick V, Duke of Swabia (Pavia, 16 July 1164 – 28 November 1170).
 * 3) Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor (Nijmegen, November 1165 – Messina, 28 September 1197).
 * 4) Conrad (Modigliana, February 1167 – Acre, 20 January 1191), later renamed Frederick VI, Duke of Swabia after the death of his older brother.
 * 5) Gisela (October/November 1168 – end 1184). She was betrothed to Richard, Count of Poitou (later King of England) but died before they could be married.
 * 6) Otto I, Count of Burgundy (June/July 1170 – killed, Besançon, 13 January 1200).
 * 7) Conrad II, Duke of Swabia and Rothenburg (February/March 1172 – killed, Durlach, 15 August 1196).
 * 8) Renaud (October/November 1173 – before April 1174/soon after October 1178).
 * 9) William (June/July 1175 – soon after October 1178).
 * 10) Philip (February/March 1177 – killed, Bamberg, 21 June 1208) King of Germany in 1198.
 * 11) Agnes (early 1179 – 8 October 1184). She was betrothed to King Emeric of Hungary, but died before they could be married.
 * 12) Possibly Clemence, wife of Sancho VII of Navarre.

title: Frederick Barbarossa


text:
Dari

Dari (endonym: دری ), Dari Persian (فارسی دری,, or , ), or Eastern Persian is the variety of the Persian language spoken in Afghanistan. Dari is the Afghan government's official term for the Persian language; it is known as Afghan Persian or Eastern Persian in many Western sources. The decision to rename the local variety of Persian in 1964 was more political than linguistic to support an Afghan state narrative. Dari is most closely related to Tajiki Persian as spoken in Tajikistan and the two share many phonological and lexical similarities. Apart from a few basics of vocabulary, there is little difference between formal written Persian of Afghanistan and Iran; the languages are mutually intelligible. Dari Persian is the official language for approximately 35 million people in Afghanistan and it serves as the common language for inter-ethnic communication in the country.

As defined in the 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan, Dari (or Farsi) is one of the two official languages of Afghanistan; the other is Pashto. Dari is the most widely spoken language in Afghanistan and the native language of approximately 25–55% of the population. Dari serves as the lingua franca of the country and is understood by up to 78% of the population.

Dari served as the preferred literary and administrative language among non-native speakers, such as the Turco-Mongol peoples including the Mughals, for centuries before the rise of modern nationalism. Also, like Iranian Persian and Tajiki Persian, Dari Persian is a continuation of Middle Persian, the official religious and literary language of the Sassanian Empire (224–651 AD), itself a continuation of Old Persian, the language of the Achaemenids (550–330 BC). In historical usage, Dari refers to the Middle Persian court language of the Sassanids.

Etymology
Dari is a name given to the New Persian language since the 10th century, widely used in Arabic (compare Al-Estakhri, Al-Muqaddasi and Ibn Hawqal) and Persian texts.

Since 1964, it has been the official name in Afghanistan for the Persian spoken there. In Afghanistan, Dari refers to a modern dialect form of Persian that is the standard language used in administration, government, radio, television, and print media. Because of a preponderance of Dari native speakers, who normally refer to the language as Farsi (فارسی, "Persian"), it is also known as "Afghan Persian" in some Western sources.

There are different opinions about the origin of the word Dari. The majority of scholars believe that Dari refers to the Persian word dar or darbār, meaning "court", as it was the formal language of the Sassanids. The original meaning of the word dari is given in a notice attributed to Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ (cited by Ibn al-Nadim in Al-Fehrest). According to him, "Pārsī was the language spoken by priests, scholars, and the like; it is the language of Fars." This language refers to Middle Persian. As for Dari, he says, "it is the language of the cities of Madā'en; it is spoken by those who are at the king's court. [Its name] is connected with presence at court. Among the languages of the people of Khorasan and the east, the language of the people of Balkh is predominant."

The Dari language spoken in Afghanistan is not to be confused with the language of Iran called Dari or Gabri, which is a language of the Central Iranian subgroup spoken in some Zoroastrian communities.

History
Dari comes from Middle Persian which was spoken during the rule of the Sassanid dynasty. In general, Iranian languages are known from three periods, usually referred to as Old, Middle, and New (Modern) periods. These correspond to three eras in Iranian history, the old era being the period from some time before, during, and after the Achaemenid period (that is, to 300 BC), the Middle Era being the next period, namely, the Sassanid period and part of the post-Sassanid period, and the New era being the period afterward down to the present day.

The first person in Europe to use the term Deri for Dari may have been Thomas Hyde in his chief work, Historia religionis veterum Persarum (1700).

Dari or Deri has two meanings. It may mean the language of the court:
 * "the Zebani Deri (Zeban i Deri or Zaban i Dari = the language of Deri), or the language of the court, and the Zebani Farsi, the dialect of Persia at large (...)"

It may also indicate a form of poetry used from Rudaki to Jami. In the fifteenth century it appeared in Herat under the Persian-speaking Timurid dynasty. The Persian-language poets of the Mughal Empire who used the Indian verse methods or rhyme methods, like Bedil and Muhammad Iqbal, became familiar with the araki form of poetry. Iqbal loved both styles of literature and poetry, when he wrote: "1

Garče Hendī dar uzūbat šakkar ast

tarz-e goftār-e Darī šīrīn tar ast"

This can be translated as:

Even though in euphonious Hindi is sugar – Rhyme method in Dari is sweeter

Uzūbat usually means "bliss", "delight", "sweetness"; in language, literature and poetry, uzubat also means "euphonious" or "melodic".

Referring to the 14th-century Persian poet Hafez, Iqbal wrote:

"Šakkar-šakan šavand hama tūtīyān-i Hind

zīn qand-i Pārsī ki ba Bangāla mē-ravad"

English translation:

"All the parrots of India will crack sugar

Through this Persian Candy which is going to Bengal" Here qand-e Pārsī ("Rock candy of Persia") is a metaphor for the Persian language and poetry.

Persian replaced the Central Asian languages of the Eastern Iranics. Ferghana, Samarkand, and Bukhara were starting to be linguistically Darified in originally Khorezmian and Soghdian areas during Samanid rule. Dari Persian spread around the Oxus River region, Afghanistan, and Khorasan after the Arab conquests and during Islamic-Arab rule. The replacement of the Pahlavi script with the Arabic script in order to write the Persian language was done by the Tahirids in 9th century Khorasan. The Dari Persian language spread and led to the extinction of Eastern Iranian languages like Bactrian and Khwarezmian with only a tiny amount of Sogdian descended Yaghnobi speakers remaining, as the ancestors of Tajiks started speaking Dari after relinquishing their original language (most likely Bactrian) around this time, due to the fact that the Arab-Islamic army which invaded Central Asia also included some Persians who governed the region like the Sassanids. Persian was a prestigious high-ranking language and was further rooted into Central Asia by the Samanids. Persian also phased out Sogdian. The role of lingua franca that Sogdian originally played was succeeded by Persian after the arrival of Islam.

According to the Iranian linguist Zana Vahidian, the reason that Dari is the language most people in Afghanistan can understand and speak is that Afghanistan moved its capital from Kandahar to Kabul in the 18th century.

Geographical distribution
Dari is one of the two official languages of Afghanistan. In practice though, it serves as the de facto lingua franca among the various ethnolinguistic groups.

Dari is spoken natively by approximately 25-80% of the population of Afghanistan as a primary language. Tajiks, who comprise approximately 27% of the population, are the primary speakers, followed by Hazaras (9%) and Aymāqs (4%). Moreover, while Pashtuns generally speak Pashto, those living in Tajik and Hazara dominated areas also use Dari as their main language. The World Factbook states that about 80% of the Afghan population speaks the Dari language. About 2.5 million Afghans in Iran and Afghans in Pakistan, part of the wider Afghan diaspora, also speak Dari as one of their primary languages.

Dari dominates the northern, western, and central areas of Afghanistan, and is the common language spoken in cities such as Balkh, Mazar-i-Sharif, Herat, Fayzabad, Panjshir, Bamiyan, and the Afghan capital of Kabul where all ethnic groups are settled. Some Dari-speaking communities also exist in southwestern and eastern Pashtun-dominated areas such as in the cities of Ghazni, Farah, Zaranj, Lashkar Gah, Kandahar, and Gardez.

Cultural influence
Dari has contributed to the majority of Persian borrowings in several Indo-Aryan languages, such as Urdu, Hindi, Punjabi, Bengali and others, as it was the administrative, official, cultural language of the Persianate Mughal Empire and served as the lingua franca throughout the Indian subcontinent for centuries. Often based in Afghanistan, Turkic Central Asian conquerors brought the language into South Asia. The basis in general for the introduction of Persian language into the subcontinent was set, from its earliest days, by various Persianized Central Asian Turkic and Afghan dynasties. The sizable Persian component of the Anglo-Indian loan words in English and in Urdu therefore reflects the Dari pronunciation. For instance, the words dopiaza and pyjama come from the Dari pronunciation; in Iranian Persian they are pronounced do-piyāzeh and pey-jāmeh. Persian lexemes and certain morphological elements (e.g., the ezāfe) have often been employed to coin words for political and cultural concepts, items, or ideas that were historically unknown outside the South Asian region, as is the case with the aforementioned "borrowings". The Dari language has a rich and colorful tradition of proverbs that deeply reflect Afghan culture and relationships, as demonstrated by U.S. Navy Captain Edward Zellem in his bilingual books on Afghan Dari proverbs collected in Afghanistan.

Differences between Iranian and Afghan Persian
There are phonological, lexical, and morphological differences between Afghan Persian and Iranian Persian. For example Dari has more vowels than Iranian Farsi.

Phonological differences
The phonology of Dari as spoken in Kabul, compared with Classical Persian, is overall more conservative than the standard accent of Iran. In this regard Dari is more similar to Tajiki Persian. The principal differences between standard Iranian Persian and Afghan Persian as based on the Kabul dialect are:

 * 1) The merging of majhul vowels  and  into  and  respectively in Iranian Persian, whereas in Afghan Persian, they are still kept separate. For instance, the identically written words شیر 'lion' and 'milk' are pronounced the same in Iranian Persian as, but differently as  for 'lion' and  for 'milk' in Afghan Persian, similar to Tajiki Persian. The long vowel in زود "quick" and زور "strength" is realized as  in Iranian Persian, in contrast, these words are pronounced  and  respectively by Persian speakers in Afghanistan.
 * 2) The Classical Persian high short vowels  and  tend to be lowered in Iranian Persian to  and, unlike in Dari where they might have both high and lowered allophones.
 * 3) The treatment of the diphthongs of early Classical Persian "ay" (as "i" in English "size") and "aw" (as "ow" in Engl. "cow"), which are pronounced  (as in English "day") and  (as in Engl. "low") in Iranian Persian. Dari, on the other hand, is more like ancient Persian, e.g. نخیر 'no' is realized as  in Iranian but  in Afghan Persian, and نوروز 'Persian New Year' is  in Iranian but  in Afghan Persian. Moreover,  is simplified to  in normal Iranian speech, thereby merging with the lowered Classical short vowel  (see above). This does not occur in Afghan Persian.
 * 4) The pronunciation of the labial consonant و, which is realized as a voiced labiodental fricative  in standard Iranian, is still pronounced with the classical bilabial pronunciation  in Afghanistan;  is found in Afghan Persian as an allophone of  before voiced consonants and as variation of  in some cases, along with.
 * 5) The convergence of the voiced uvular stop  (ق) and the voiced velar fricative  (غ) in some dialects of Iranian Persian (presumably under the influence of Turkic languages like Azeri and Turkmen) is absent in Dari, where the two are still kept separate.
 * 6)  and  in word-final positions are distinguished in Dari, whereas  is a word-final allophone of  in Iranian Persian.

Dialect continuum
The dialects of Dari spoken in Northern, Central, and Eastern Afghanistan, for example in Kabul, Mazar, and Badakhshan, have distinct features compared to Iranian Persian. However, the dialect of Dari spoken in Western Afghanistan stands in between the Afghan and Iranian Persian. For instance, the Herati dialect shares vocabulary and phonology with both Dari and Iranian Persian. Likewise, the dialect of Persian in Eastern Iran, for instance in Mashhad, is quite similar to the Herati dialect of Afghanistan.

Varieties of Dari
In a paper jointly published by Takhar University and the Ministry of Education in 2018, researchers studying varieties of Persian from Iran to Tajikistan, Identified 3 dialect groups (or macro dialects) present within Afghanistan. In an article about various languages spoken in Afghanistan, Encyclopaedia Iranica identified a nearly identical categorization but considered varieties spoken in the Sistan region to constitute a distinct group.

Takhar and the MOE only discussed vocabulary differences between the dialect groups and did not extensively discuss phonological differences between these groups. However there was a noticeable difference in the romanizations of the Western dialects and the South-Eastern dialects. Chiefly that the vowel diacritic "pesh" (Kasrah) was romanized with an "i" for South-Eastern dialects but as an "e" for western dialects. This is presumably due to a difference in quality, however the paper itself did not explain why the vowels were transliterated differently.

South-Eastern
The South Eastern group (also referred to the Southern and Eastern group) constitutes varieties spoken in and around Kabul, Parwan, Balkh, Baghlan, Samangan, Kunduz, Takhar, Badakhshan and others. A distinctive character of this group is its conservative nature compared to, for example, the Tehrani dialect. This can be seen in its Phonology (e.g. it's preservation of "Majhul" vowels), Morhphonology and Syntax, and it's Lexicon. A further distinction may be made between varieties in and near Kabul and varieties in and near Afghan Turkistan. With dialects near Kabul exhibiting some influences from languages in southern Afghanistan and South Asia and dialects in Afghan Turkistan exhibiting more influence from Tajik. All South-Eastern varieties exhibited some influence from Uzbek. Despite the Afghanistan Ministry of Education referring to this group as "South-Eastern" some of the varieties included are in the north.

As seen in many Hazaragi varieties, certain Eastern Dialects have developed a system of retroflex consonants under pressure from Pashto. They are not widespread, however.

The Kabuli dialect has become the standard model of Dari in Afghanistan, as has the Tehrani dialect in relation to the Persian in Iran. Since the 1940s, Radio Afghanistan has broadcast its Dari programs in Kabuli Dari, which ensured the homogenization between the Kabuli version of the language and other dialects of Dari spoken throughout Afghanistan. Since 2003, the media, especially the private radio and television broadcasters, have carried out their Dari programs using the Kabuli variety.

Western
The Western group includes various varieties spoken in and around: Herat, Badghis, Farah and Ghor. Varieties in this group share many features with the dialects of Persian spoken in Eastern Iran, and one may make many comparisons between the speech of Herat and Mashhad.

Hazaragi
The third group recognized by Afghanistan Ministry of Education is Hazaragi. Spoken by the Hazara people, these varieties are spoken in the majority of central Afghanistan including: Bamyan, parts of Ghazni, Daikundi, Laal Sari Jangal in Ghor province, 'uruzgan khas', in a wide area in the west of Kabul which is mainly recognized as Dashti Barchi, and some regions near Herat. As a group, the Hazaragi varieties are distinguished by the presence of retroflex consonants and distinctive vocabulary. However it has been shown that Hazaragi is more accurately a sub-dialect of Dari rather than its own variety of Persian.

Sistani
Afghanistan's Ministry of Education does not make a distinction between varieties of the Sistan region and the varieties in the Western group. However Encyclopaedia Iranica considers the Sistani dialect to constitute their own distinctive group, with notable influences from Balochi.

Consonants

 * Stops // are phonetically dental [].
 * A glottal stop /ʔ/ only appears in words of Arabic origin.
 * A flap sound // may be realized as a trill sound [], in some environments, mostly word-final position; otherwise, they contrast between vowels wherein a trill occurs as a result of gemination (doubling) of [], especially in loanwords of Arabic origin. Only [] occurs before and after consonants; in word-final position, it is usually a free variation between a flap or a trill when followed by a consonant or a pause, but flap is more common, only flap before vowel-initial words.
 * As in many other languages, is realized as bilabial  before bilabial stops and as velar  before velar stops.
 * is voiced to before voiced consonants.
 * /w/ is almost always voiced as, as in Middle Persian.

Vowels
Dari does not distinguish [] and [] in any position, these are distinct phonemes in English but are in un-conditional free variation in nearly all dialects of Dari. There are no environmental factors related to the appearance of [] or [] and native Dari speakers do not perceive them as different phonemes (that is to say, the English words bet [bt] and bit [bt] would be nearly indistinguishable to a native Dari speaker). However, speakers in Urban regions of Kabul, Panjšir and other nearby provinces in southern and eastern Afghanistan tend to realize the vowel as []. Speakers of Dari in central Afghanistan (i.e. Hazaragi speakers) tend to realize the vowel in proximity to, or identically to, [], unless the following syllable contains a high-back vowel. Speakers in western Afghanistan (such as in the Herat or Farah province) and some rural regions in the Kabul province (not the city) most commonly realize the vowel as []. Additionally, in some varieties of Dari, the phoneme [] appears as an allophone of [a].
 * When occurring as lax, the open vowels are raised to.

Political views and disputes on the language
Successive governments of Afghanistan have promoted New Persian as an official language of government since the time of the Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526), even as those governments were dominated by Pashtun people. Sher Ali Khan of the Barakzai dynasty (1826–1973) first introduced the Pashto language as an additional language of administration. The local name for the Persian variety spoken in Afghanistan was officially changed from Farsi to Dari, meaning "court language", in 1964. Zaher said there would be, as there are now, two official languages, Pashto and Farsi, though the latter would henceforth be named Dari. Within their respective linguistic boundaries, Dari and Pashto are the media of education.

The term continues to divide opinion in Afghanistan today. While Dari has been the official name for decades, "Farsi" is still the preferred name to many Persian speakers of Afghanistan. Omar Samad, an Afghan analyst and ambassador, says of the dispute:

"This debate pits those who look at language as a shared heritage that includes thinkers, writers, and poets of the Farsi language against those who believe that Dari has older roots and provides a distinct identity that cannot be confused with Iran's claim."

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Dari


text:
Social contract

In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is an idea, theory or model that usually, although not always, concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Conceptualized in the Age of Enlightenment, it is a core concept of constitutionalism, while not necessarily convened and written down in a constituent assembly and constitution.

Social contract arguments typically are that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order. The relation between natural and legal rights is often a topic of social contract theory. The term takes its name from The Social Contract (French: Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique), a 1762 book by Jean-Jacques Rousseau that discussed this concept. Although the antecedents of social contract theory are found in antiquity, in Greek and Stoic philosophy and Roman and Canon Law, the heyday of the social contract was the mid-17th to early 19th centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of political legitimacy.

The starting point for most social contract theories is an examination of the human condition absent any political order (termed the "state of nature" by Thomas Hobbes). In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience, assuming that 'nature' precludes mutually beneficial social relationships. From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate why rational individuals would voluntarily consent to give up their natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.

Prominent 17th- and 18th-century theorists of the social contract and natural rights included Hugo de Groot (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel von Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) and Immanuel Kant (1797), each approaching the concept of political authority differently. Grotius posited that individual humans had natural rights. Thomas Hobbes famously said that in a "state of nature", human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to plunder, rape and murder; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men contract with each other to establish political community (civil society) through a social contract in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to an absolute sovereign, one man or an assembly of men. Though the sovereign's edicts may well be arbitrary and tyrannical, Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of a state of nature. Hobbes asserted that humans consent to abdicate their rights in favor of the absolute authority of government (whether monarchical or parliamentary).

Alternatively, Locke and Rousseau argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so.

The central assertion that social contract theory approaches is that law and political order are not natural, but human creations. The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the means towards an end—the benefit of the individuals involved—and legitimate only to the extent that they fulfill their part of the agreement. Hobbes argued that government is not a party to the original contract and citizens are not obligated to submit to the government when it is too weak to act effectively to suppress factionalism and civil unrest.

The model of the social contract
There is a general form of social contract theories, which is: "I chooses R in M and this gives I* reason to endorse and comply with R in the real world insofar as the reasons I has for choosing R in M are (or can be) shared by I*."With M being the deliberative setting; R rules, principles or institutions; I the (hypothetical) people in original position or state of nature making the social contract; and I* being the individuals in the real world following the social contract.

Classical thought
Social contract formulations are preserved in many of the world's oldest records. The Indian Buddhist text of the second century BC Mahāvastu recounts the legend of Mahasammata. The story goes as follows: "In the early days of the cosmic cycle mankind lived on an immaterial plane, dancing on air in a sort of fairyland, where there was no need of food or clothing, and no private property, family, government or laws. Then gradually the process of cosmic decay began its work, and mankind became earthbound, and felt the need of food and shelter. As men lost their primeval glory, distinctions of class arose, and they entered into agreements with one another, accepting the institution of private property and the family. With this theft, murder, adultery, and other crime began, and so the people met together and decided to appoint one man from among them to maintain order in return for a share of the produce of their fields and herds. He was called 'the Great Chosen One' (Mahasammata), and he received the title of raja because he pleased the people."

In his rock edicts, the Indian Buddhist king Asoka was said to have argued for a broad and far-reaching social contract. The Buddhist vinaya also reflects social contracts expected of the monks; one such instance is when the people of a certain town complained about monks felling saka trees, the Buddha tells his monks that they must stop and give way to social norms.

Epicurus in the fourth century BC seemed to have had a strong sense of social contract, with justice and law being rooted in mutual agreement and advantage, as evidenced by these lines, among others, from his Principal Doctrines (see also Epicurean ethics):

"31. Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.

32. Those animals which are incapable of making binding agreements with one another not to inflict nor suffer harm are without either justice or injustice; and likewise for those peoples who either could not or would not form binding agreements not to inflict nor suffer harm.

33. There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm."

The concept of the social contract was originally posed by Glaucon, as described by Plato in The Republic, BookII.

"They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than the good. And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice;—it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honoured by reason of the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, Socrates, of the nature and origin of justice."

The social contract theory also appears in Crito, another dialogue from Plato. Over time, the social contract theory became more widespread after Epicurus (341–270 BC), the first philosopher who saw justice as a social contract, and not as existing in Nature due to divine intervention (see below and also Epicurean ethics), decided to bring the theory to the forefront of his society. As time went on, philosophers of traditional political and social thought, such as Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau put forward their opinions on social contract, which then caused the topic to become much more mainstream.

Renaissance developments
Quentin Skinner has argued that several critical modern innovations in contract theory are found in the writings from French Calvinists and Huguenots, whose work in turn was invoked by writers in the Low Countries who objected to their subjection to Spain and, later still, by Catholics in England. Francisco Suárez (1548–1617), from the School of Salamanca, might be considered an early theorist of the social contract, theorizing natural law in an attempt to limit the divine right of absolute monarchy. All of these groups were led to articulate notions of popular sovereignty by means of a social covenant or contract, and all of these arguments began with proto-"state of nature" arguments, to the effect that the basis of politics is that everyone is by nature free of subjection to any government.

These arguments, however, relied on a corporatist theory found in Roman law, according to which "a populus" can exist as a distinct legal entity. Thus, these arguments held that a group of people can join a government because it has the capacity to exercise a single will and make decisions with a single voice in the absence of sovereign authority—a notion rejected by Hobbes and later contract theorists.

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (1651)
The first modern philosopher to articulate a detailed contract theory was Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the state of nature were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", a state in which self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the "social", or society. Life was "anarchic" (without leadership or the concept of sovereignty). Individuals in the state of nature were apolitical and asocial. This state of nature is followed by the social contract.

The social contract was seen as an "occurrence" during which individuals came together and ceded some of their individual rights so that others would cede theirs. This resulted in the establishment of the state, a sovereign entity like the individuals now under its rule used to be, which would create laws to regulate social interactions. Human life was thus no longer "a war of all against all".

The state system, which grew out of the social contract, was, however, also anarchic (without leadership). Just as the individuals in the state of nature had been sovereigns and thus guided by self-interest and the absence of rights, so states now acted in their self-interest in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were thus bound to be in conflict because there was no sovereign over and above the state (more powerful) capable of imposing some system such as social-contract laws on everyone by force. Indeed, Hobbes' work helped to serve as a basis for the realism theories of international relations, advanced by E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau. Hobbes wrote in Leviathan that humans ("we") need the "terrour of some Power" otherwise humans will not heed the law of reciprocity, "(in summe) doing to others, as wee would be done to".

John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689)
John Locke's conception of the social contract differed from Hobbes' in several fundamental ways, retaining only the central notion that persons in a state of nature would willingly come together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would be bound morally, by the Law of Nature, in which man has the "power... to preserve his property; that is, his life, liberty and estate against the injuries and attempts of other men". Without government to defend them against those seeking to injure or enslave them, Locke further believed people would have no security in their rights and would live in fear. Individuals, to Locke, would only agree to form a state that would provide, in part, a "neutral judge", acting to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it.

While Hobbes argued for near-absolute authority, Locke argued for inviolate freedom under law in his Second Treatise of Government. Locke argued that a government's legitimacy comes from the citizens' delegation to the government of their absolute right of violence (reserving the inalienable right of self-defense or "self-preservation"), along with elements of other rights (e.g. property will be liable to taxation) as necessary to achieve the goal of security through granting the state a monopoly of violence, whereby the government, as an impartial judge, may use the collective force of the populace to administer and enforce the law, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner—the condition in the state of nature.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du Contrat social (1762)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), in his influential 1762 treatise The Social Contract, outlined a different version of social-contract theory, as the foundations of society based on the sovereignty of the "general will".

Rousseau's political theory differs in important ways from that of Locke and Hobbes. Rousseau's collectivist conception is most evident in his development of the "luminous conception" (which he credited to Denis Diderot) of the "general will". Summarised, the "general will" is the power of all the citizens' collective interest—not to be confused with their individual interests.

Although Rousseau wrote that the British were perhaps at the time the freest people on earth, he did not approve of their representative government, nor any form of representative government. Rousseau believed that society was only legitimate when the sovereign (i.e. the "general will") were the sole legislators. He also stated that the individual must accept "the total alienation to the whole community of each associate with all his rights". In short, Rousseau meant that in order for the social contract to work, individuals must forfeit their rights to the whole so that such conditions were "equal for all". "[The social contract] can be reduced to the following terms: Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in a body, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole."

Rousseau's striking phrase that man must "be forced to be free" should be understood this way: since the indivisible and inalienable popular sovereignty decides what is good for the whole, if an individual rejects this "civil liberty" in place of "natural liberty" and self interest, disobeying the law, he will be forced to listen to what was decided when the people acted as a collective (as citizens). Thus the law, inasmuch as it is created by the people acting as a body, is not a limitation of individual freedom, but rather its expression. The individual, as a citizen, explicitly agreed to be constrained if, as a private individual, he did not respect his own will as formulated in the general will.

Because laws represent the restraint of "natural liberty", they represent the leap made from humans in the state of nature into civil society. In this sense, the law is a civilizing force. Therefore Rousseau believed that the laws that govern a people help to mould their character.

Rousseau also analyses the social contract in terms of risk management, thus suggesting the origins of the state as a form of mutual insurance.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's individualist social contract (1851)
While Rousseau's social contract is based on popular sovereignty and not on individual sovereignty, there are other theories espoused by individualists, libertarians, and anarchists that do not involve agreeing to anything more than negative rights and creates only a limited state, if any.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) advocated a conception of social contract that did not involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract was not between individuals and the state, but rather among individuals who refrain from coercing or governing each other, each one maintaining complete sovereignty upon him- or herself:

"What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau's] idea. The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society. In this, the notion of commutative justice, first brought forward by the primitive fact of exchange, ... is substituted for that of distributive justice ... Translating these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is to say, in its highest significance, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other."

John Rawls' Theory of Justice (1971)
Building on the work of Immanuel Kant with its presumption of limits on the state, John Rawls (1921–2002), in A Theory of Justice (1971), proposed a contractarian approach whereby rational people in a hypothetical "original position" would set aside their individual preferences and capacities under a "veil of ignorance" and agree to certain general principles of justice and legal organization. This idea is also used as a game-theoretical formalization of the notion of fairness.

David Gauthier's Morals by Agreement (1986)
David Gauthier's "neo-Hobbesian" theory argues that cooperation between two independent and self-interested parties is indeed possible, especially when it comes to understanding morality and politics. Gauthier notably points out the advantages of cooperation between two parties when it comes to the challenge of the prisoner's dilemma. He proposes that, if two parties were to stick to the original agreed-upon arrangement and morals outlined by the contract, they would both experience an optimal result. In his model for the social contract, factors including trust, rationality, and self-interest keep each party honest and dissuade them from breaking the rules.

Philip Pettit's Republicanism (1997)
Philip Pettit (b. 1945) has argued, in Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (1997), that the theory of social contract, classically based on the consent of the governed, should be modified. Instead of arguing for explicit consent, which can always be manufactured, Pettit argues that the absence of an effective rebellion against it is a contract's only legitimacy.

Elections
Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that societal laws are upheld up the collective will of the citizens whom they represent. Thus, in obeying laws, the citizen "remains free." Within elections, the will of the establishment is the will of the collective. Barring corruption, the legitimacy of the democractic government is absolute. "In every real democracy, magistracy is not an advantage, but a burdensome charge which cannot justly be imposed on one individual rather than another. The law alone can lay the charge on him on whom the lot falls. For, the conditions being then the same for all, and the choice not depending on any human will, there is no particular application to alter the universality of the law."

According to other social contract theorists, when the government fails to secure their natural rights (Locke) or satisfy the best interests of society, citizens can withdraw their obligation to obey or change the leadership through elections or other means including, when necessary, violence. Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and therefore the rule of God superseded government authority, while Rousseau believed that democracy (majority-rule) was the best way to ensure welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence.

Courtroom
In court, the social contract is used to diagnose mental health, with the ultimate aim of delivering a fair sentence. Judge John Geoffrey Jones called it "an aspect of the instinct for self-preservation." He saw the committer of bad deeds as the impervious person: that "rare person whose intuition is stunted and who misses out on instruction grows up uninhibited, so continues bad deeds." Jones argued that the legitimancy of the judiciary is not absolute. Rather than the court, it is the psychiatrist's job to diagnose mental health. "My own present, unresolved thoughts are that 'evil' is within the realm of theologians and moral philosophers. Doctors, judges and lawyers would do well to concern themselves with bad deeds and bad health, that is deeds, which society has determined as criminal. If the perpetrators of bad deeds are not sick, they should be punished according to law. If they are sick, they should be treated."

Consent of the governed
An early critic of social contract theory was Rousseau's friend, the philosopher David Hume, who in 1742 published an essay "Of Civil Liberty". The second part of this essay, entitled "Of the Original Contract", stresses that the concept of a "social contract" is a convenient fiction: "As no party, in the present age can well support itself without a philosophical or speculative system of principles annexed to its political or practical one; we accordingly find that each of the factions into which this nation is divided has reared up a fabric of the former kind, in order to protect and cover that scheme of actions which it pursues. ... The one party [defenders of the absolute and divine right of kings, or Tories], by tracing up government to the DEITY, endeavor to render it so sacred and inviolate that it must be little less than sacrilege, however tyrannical it may become, to touch or invade it in the smallest article. The other party [the Whigs, or believers in constitutional monarchy], by founding government altogether on the consent of the PEOPLE suppose that there is a kind of original contract by which the subjects have tacitly reserved the power of resisting their sovereign, whenever they find themselves aggrieved by that authority with which they have for certain purposes voluntarily entrusted him."

Hume argued that consent of the governed was the ideal foundation on which a government should rest, but that it had not actually occurred this way in general. "My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just foundation of government where it has place. It is surely the best and most sacred of any. I only contend that it has very seldom had place in any degree and never almost in its full extent. And that therefore some other foundation of government must also be admitted."

Natural law and constitutionalism
Legal scholar Randy Barnett has argued that, while presence in the territory of a society may be necessary for consent, this does not constitute consent to all rules the society might make regardless of their content. A second condition of consent is that the rules be consistent with underlying principles of justice and the protection of natural and social rights, and have procedures for effective protection of those rights (or liberties). This has also been discussed by O.A. Brownson, who argued that, in a sense, three "constitutions" are involved: first, the constitution of nature that includes all of what the Founders called "natural law"; second, the constitution of society, an unwritten and commonly understood set of rules for the society formed by a social contract before it establishes a government, by which it does establish the third, a constitution of government. To consent, a necessary condition is that the rules be constitutional in that sense.

Tacit consent
The theory of a tacit social contract holds that by remaining in the territory controlled by some society, which usually has a government, people give consent to join that society and be governed by its government if any. This consent is what gives legitimacy to such a government.

Other writers have argued that consent to join the society is not necessarily consent to its government. For that, the government must be set up according to a constitution of government that is consistent with the superior unwritten constitutions of nature and society.

Explicit consent
The theory of an implicit social contract also goes under the principles of explicit consent. The main difference between tacit consent and explicit consent is that explicit consent is meant to leave no room for misinterpretation. Moreover, you should directly state what it is that you want and the person has to respond in a concise manner that either confirms or denies the proposition.

Contracts must be consensual
According to the will theory of contract, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties voluntarily agree to it, either tacitly or explicitly, without coercion. Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century lawyer who argued before the United States Supreme Court and staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, argued in his essay No Treason that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all. An abolitionist, he made similar arguments about the unconstitutionality of slavery in the US.

Modern Anglo-American law, like European civil law, is based on a will theory of contract, according to which all terms of a contract are binding on the parties because they chose those terms for themselves. This was less true when Hobbes wrote Leviathan; at that time more importance was attached to consideration, meaning a mutual exchange of benefits necessary to the formation of a valid contract, and most contracts had implicit terms that arose from the nature of the contractual relationship rather than from the choices made by the parties. Accordingly, it has been argued that social contract theory is more consistent with the contract law of the time of Hobbes and Locke than with the contract law of our time and that certain features in the social contract which seem anomalous to us, such as the belief that we are bound by a contract formulated by our distant ancestors, would not have seemed as strange to Hobbes' contemporaries as they do to us.

title: Social contract


text:
Speech (disambiguation)

Speech is the vocal form of human communication.

Speech or speaking
 * Spoken language
 * Discourse
 * Animal language, forms of animal communication that are considered to show similarities to human language
 * Talking animal or speaking animal, any non-human animal which produces sounds or gestures resembling those of a human
 * Connected speech in linguistics, a continuous sequence of sounds forming utterances or conversations in spoken language
 * Public speaking, a process of speaking to a group of people in a structured, deliberate manner
 * Speech imitation, the saying by one individual of the spoken vocalizations made by another individual
 * Speech synthesis, the artificial production of human speech language
 * Right speech, a component of the Noble Eightfold Path in Buddhism
 * Speech (Steamhammer album), 1972
 * Speech (Speech album), 1996

People

 * Speech (rapper) (born 1968), an American rapper and musician
 * Speech Debelle (born 1983), a British rapper and Mercury Prize winner

title: Speech (disambiguation)


text:
User:Carpentis

Carpentis is David Maddalena

dpmaddalena@gmail.com

http://imby.net (art and theology)

http://maddalena.imby.net

Wrote the original article on Lent. The interested reader can find an extended reflective series of essays on Lent and some of its holy days at http://www.brightsadness.org

These Lent devotions are written from the perspective of a modern Christian for others who have no church tradition related to Lenten liturgical practice, and are not meant to replace or replicate any established liturgical practice. They are intended, simply, as a guide for the curious and the committed to comprehend and prepare for the great joy of Easter.

title: User:Carpentis