248. The University of Paris.—Since the thirteenth century, the University of Paris had been a centre of light and a resort for students. Ramus could say: “This University is not the university of one city only, but of the entire world.” But even in the time of Ramus, in consequence of the civil discords, and by reason also of the progress in the colleges organized by the Company of Jesus, the University of Paris declined; she saw the number of her pupils diminish. She persisted, however, in the full light of the Renaissance, in following the superannuated regulations which the Cardinal d’Estouteville had imposed on her in 1452; she fell behind in the routine of the scholastic methods. A reform was necessary, and in 1600 it was accomplished by Henry IV.

249. Statutes of 1600.—The statutes of the new university were promulgated “by the order and the will of the most Christian and most invincible king of France and Navarre, Henry IV.” This was the first time that the State directly intervened in the control of education, and that secular power was set up in opposition to the absolute authority of the Church.

In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries a reform had been made in the University, by the Popes Innocent III. and Urban V. The reformer of 1452, the Cardinal d’Estouteville, acted as the legate of the pontifical power. On the contrary, the statutes of 1600 were the work of a commission named by the king, and there sat at its deliberations, by the side of a few ecclesiastics, magistrates, and even professors.

250. Organization of the Different Faculties.—The University of Paris comprised four Faculties: the Faculties of Theology, of Law, and of Medicine, which corresponded to what we to-day call superior instruction, and the Faculty of Arts, which was almost the equivalent of our secondary instruction.[151]

It would take too long to enumerate in this place the different innovations introduced by the statutes of 1600. Let us merely say a word of the Faculty of Arts.

In the Faculty of Arts the door was finally opened to the classical authors. In a certain degree the tendencies of the Renaissance were obeyed. Nevertheless, the methods and the general spirit were scarcely changed. Catholicism was obligatory, and the French language remained under ban. Frequent exercises in repetition and declamation were maintained. The liberal arts were always considered “the foundation of all the sciences.” Instruction in philosophy was always reduced to the interpretation of the texts of Aristotle. As to history, and the sciences in general, no account whatever was taken of them.

251. Decadence of the University in the Seventeenth Century.—The reform, then, was insufficient, and the results were bad. While the colleges of the Jesuits attracted pupils in crowds, and while the Oratorians and the Jansenists reformed secondary instruction, the colleges of the University[152] remained mediocre and obscure. Save in rare exceptions, there were no professors of distinction; the education was formal, in humble imitation of that of the Company of Jesus; there was an abuse of abstract rules, of grammatical exercises, of written tasks, and of Latin composition; there was no disposition to take an advance step; but an obstinate resistance to the new spirit, which was indicated either by the interdiction of the philosophy of Descartes, or by the refusal to teach in the French language; in a word, there was complete isolation in immovable routine, and in consequence, decadence,—such is a summary history of the University of Paris up to the last quarter of the seventeenth century.

252. The Restoration of Studies and Rollin (1661-1741).—We must go forward to the time when Rollin taught, to observe a revival in the studies of the University. Several distinguished professors, as his master Hersan, Pourchot, and still others, had prepared the way for him. There was then, from 1680 to 1700, a real rejuvenescence of studies, which was initiated in part by Rollin.

Latin lost a little ground in consequence of a growing recognition of the rights of the French language and the national literature, which had just been made illustrious by so many masterpieces. The spirit of the Jansenist methods penetrated the colleges of the University. The Cartesian philosophy was taught in them, and a little more attention was given to the explication of authors, and a little less to the verbal repetition of lessons. New ideas began to infiltrate into the old citadel of scholasticism. The question came to be asked if celibacy was indeed an indispensable condition of the teaching office. Men began to comprehend that at least marriage was not a reason for exclusion. Finally, real progress was made in discipline as well as in methods, and the indubitable proof of this is the Treatise on Studies, by Rollin.

253. The Treatise on Studies.—Rollin has summed up his educational experience, an experience of fifty years, in a book which has become celebrated under the title of Treatise on Studies. The full title of this work was: De la maniÈre d’enseigner et d’Étudier les belles-lettres par rapport À l’esprit et au coeur. The first two volumes appeared in 1726, and the other two in 1728.

The Treatise on Studies is not like the Émile, which was published twenty years later, a work of venturesome inquiry and original novelties; but is a faithful exposition of the methods in use, and a discreet commentary on them. While this treatise belongs by its date to the eighteenth century, it is the pedagogy of the seventeenth century, and the traditions of the University under the reign of Louis XIV. that Rollin has collected, and of which he has simply wished to be the reporter. In the Latin dedication, which he addresses to the Rector of the University of Paris, he clearly defines his intentions and his purpose:—

“My first design was to put in writing and define the method of teaching which has long been in use among you, and which, up to this time, has been transmitted only by word of mouth, and through a sort of tradition; and to erect, so far as I am able to do it, a durable monument of the rules and practice which you have followed in the instruction of youth, for the purpose of preserving, in all its integrity, the taste for belles-lettres, and to preserve it, if possible, from the injuries and the alterations of time.”

254. Different Opinions.—Rollin has always had warm admirers. Voltaire called the Treatise a book “forever useful,” and whatever may be our reservations on the deficiences, and on the short and narrow views of certain parts of the pedagogy of Rollin, we must subscribe to this judgment. But we shall not go so far as to accept the enthusiastic declarations of Villemain, who complains that the study of the Treatise is neglected in our time, “as if new methods had been discovered for training the intelligence and the heart”; and he adds, “Since the Treatise on Studies, not a forward step has been taken.” This is to undervalue all the earnest efforts that have been made for two centuries by educators just as profound as was the ever timid and cautious Rollin. When we compare the precepts of the Treatise with the reforms which the spirit of progress has already effected, and particularly with those which it will effect, we are astonished to hear Nisard say: “In educational matters, the Treatise on Studies is the unique book, or better still, the book.”

To put such a burden of pompous praise on Rollin is to compromise his real worth; and without ceasing to do justice to his wise and judicious spirit, we wish to employ more discretion in our admiration.

255. Division of the Treatise on Studies.—Before calling attention to the most interesting parts of the Treatise on Studies, let us briefly state the object of the eight books of which it is composed.

The Treatise opens with a Preliminary Discourse which recites the advantages of instruction.

The title of the first book is: Exercises which are proper for very young children; of the education of girls. Rollin acknowledges that he treats only very superficially “this double subject,” which is foreign to his original plan. In fact, the first edition of his Treatise on Studies contained but seven books, and it is only in 1734 that he wrote, “at the urgent requests and prayers of several persons,” that short essay on the education of boys and girls which first appeared under the form of a supplement, and which became the first book of the work only in the subsequent editions.

The different subjects proper for training the youth in the public schools, that is, in the colleges,—such is the object of the six books which follow: Book II. Of the learning of the languages; that is, the study of Greek and Latin; Book III. Of poetry; Book IV. Of rhetoric; Book V. Of the three kinds of eloquence; Book VI. Of history; Book VII. Of philosophy.

Book VIII., the last, entitled Of the interior government of schools and colleges, has a particular character. It does not treat of studies and intellectual exercises, but of discipline and moral education. It is, on all accounts, the most original and interesting part of Rollin’s work, and it opens to us the treasures of his experience. This eighth book has been justly called the “Memoirs of Rollin.” That which constitutes its merit and its charm is that the author here at last decides to be himself. He does not quote the ancients so much; but he speaks in his own name, and relates what he has done, or what he has seen done.

256. General Reflections on Education.—There is little to be gathered out of the Preliminary Discourse of Rollin. He is but slightly successful in general reflections. When he ventures to philosophize, Rollin easily falls into platitudes. He has a dissertation to prove that “study gives the mind more breadth and elevation; and that study gives capacity for business.”

On the purpose of education, Rollin, who copies the moderns when he does not translate from the ancients, is content with reproducing the preamble of the regulations of Henry IV., which assigned to studies three purposes: learning, morals and manners, and religion.

“The happiness of kingdoms and peoples, and particularly of a Christian State, depends on the good education of the youth, where the purpose is to cultivate and to polish, by the study of the sciences, the intelligence, still rude, of the young, and thus to fit them for filling worthily the different vocations to which they are destined, without which they will be useless to the State; and finally, to teach them the sincere religious practices which God requires of them, the inviolable attachment they owe to their fathers and mothers and to their country, and the respect and obedience which they are bound to render princes and magistrates.”

257. Primary Studies.—Rollin is original when he introduces us to the classes of the great colleges where he has lived; but is much less so when he speaks to us of little children, whom he has never seen near at hand. He has never known family life, and scarcely ever visited public schools; and it is through his recollections of Quintilian that he speaks to us of children.

There is, then, but little to note in the few pages that he has devoted to the studies of the first years, from three to six or seven.

One of the most interesting things we find here, perhaps, is the method which he recommends for learning to read,—“the typographic cabinet of du Mas.” “It is a novelty,” says the wise Rollin, “and it is quite common and natural that we should be suspicious of this word novelty.” But after the examination, he decides in favor of the system in question, which consists in making of instruction in reading, something analogous to the work of an apprentice who is learning to print. The pupil has before him a table, and on this table is placed a set of pigeon-holes, “logettes,” which contain the letters of the alphabet, printed on cards. The pupil is to arrange on the table the different letters needed to construct the words required of him. The reasons that Rollin gives for recommending this method, successful tests of which he had seen made, prove that he had taken into account the nature of the child and his need of activity:—

“This method of learning to read, besides several other advantages, has one which seems to me very considerable,—it is that of being amusing and agreeable, and of not having the appearance of study. Nothing is more wearisome or tedious in infancy than severe mental effort while the body is in a state of repose. With this device, the mind of the child is not wearied. He need not make a painful effort at recollection, because the distinction and the name of the boxes strike his senses. He is not constrained to a posture that is oppressive by being always tied to the place where he is made to read. There is free activity for eyes, hands, and feet. The child looks for his letters, takes them out, arranges them, overturns them, separates them, and finally replaces them in their boxes. This movement is very much to his taste, and is exactly adapted to the active and restless disposition of that age.”

Rollin seems really to believe that there “is no danger in beginning with the reading of Latin.” However, “for the schools of the poor, and for those in the country, it is better,” he says, “to fall in with the opinion of those who believe that it is necessary to begin with the reading of French.”

It may be thought that Rollin puts a little too much into the first years of the child’s course of study. Before the age of six or seven he ought to have learned to read, to write, to be nourished on the Historical Catechism of Fleury, to know some of the fables of La Fontaine by heart, and to have studied French grammar, and geography. At least, Rollin requires that “no thought, no expression, which is within the child’s range,” shall be allowed to be passed by. He requires that the teacher speak little, and that he make the child speak much, “which is one of the most essential duties and one of those that are the least practised.” He demands, above all else, clearness of statement, and commends the use of illustrations and pictures in reading books. “They are very suitable,” he says, “for striking the attention of children, and for fixing their memory; this is properly the writing of the ignorant.”[154]

258. The Education of Girls.—The same reasons explain the shortcomings of Rollin’s views on the education of women, and the relative mediocrity of his ideas on the education of children. Living in solitude and in the celibate state, he had no personal information on these subjects, and so he goes back to FÉnelon for his ideas on the education of women, and to Quintilian in the case of children.

Is the study of Latin fit for girls? Such is the first question which he raises; but he has the wisdom to answer it in the negative, save for “nuns, and also for Christian virgins and widows.” “There is no difference in minds,” Rollin emphatically says, “that is due to sex.” But he does not extend the consequences of this excellent principle very far. He is content to require of women the four rules of arithmetic; orthography, in which he is not over exacting, for “their ignorance of orthography should not be imputed to them as a crime, since it is almost universal in their sex;” ancient history and the history of France, “which it is disgraceful to every good Frenchman not to know.”[155] As to reading, Rollin is quite as severe as Madame de Maintenon: “The reading of comedies and tragedies may be very dangerous for young ladies.” He sanctions only Esther and Athalie. Music and dancing are allowed, but without enthusiasm and with endless precautions:—

“An almost universal experience shows that the study of music is an extraordinary dissipation.”

“I do not know how the custom of having girls learn to sing and play on instruments at such great expense has become so common.... I hear it said that as soon as they enter on life’s duties, they make no farther use of it.”

259. The Study of French.—Rollin is chiefly preoccupied with the study of the ancient languages; but he has the merit, notwithstanding his predilection for exercises in Latin, of having followed the example of the Jansenists so far as the importance accorded to the French language is concerned.

“It is a disgrace,” he says, “that we are ignorant of our own language; and if we are willing to confess the truth, we will almost all acknowledge that we have never studied it.”

Rollin admitted that he was “much more proficient in the study of Latin than in that of French.” In the opening of his Treatise, which he wrote in French only that he might place himself within the reach of his young readers and their parents, he excuses himself for making a trial in a kind of writing which is almost new to him. And in congratulating him on his work, d’Aguesseau wrote, “You speak French as if it were your native tongue.” Such was the Rector of the University in France at the commencement of the eighteenth century.

Let us think well of him, therefore, for having so overcome his own habits of mind as to recommend the study of French. He would have it learned, not only through use, but also “through principles,” and would have “the genius of the language understood, and all its beauties studied.”

Rollin has a high opinion of grammar, but would not encourage a misuse of it:—

“Long-continued lessons on such dry matter might become very tedious to pupils. Short questions, regularly proposed each day after the manner of an ordinary conversation, in which they themselves would be consulted, and in which the teacher would employ the art of having them tell what he wished to make them learn, would teach them in the way of amusement, and, by an insensible progress, continued for several years, they would acquire a profound knowledge of the language.”

It is in the Treatise on Studies that we find for the first time a formal list of classical French authors. Some of these are now obscure and forgotten, as the Remarkable Lives written by Marsolier, and the History of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres, by de Boze; but the most of them have held their place in our programmes, and the judgments of Rollin have been followed for two centuries, on the Discourse on Universal History, by Bossuet, on the works of Boileau and Racine, and on the Logic of Port Royal.

Like all his contemporaries, Rollin particularly recommends Latin composition to his pupils. However, he has spoken a word for French composition, which should bear, first, on fables and historical narratives, then on exercises in epistolary style, and finally, on common things, descriptions, and short speeches.

260. Greek and Latin.—But it is in the teaching of the ancient languages that Rollin has especially tried the resources of his pedagogic art. For two centuries, in the colleges of the University, his recommendations have been followed. In Greek, he censures the study of themes, and reduces the study of this language to the understanding of authors. More of a Latinist than of a Hellenist, of all the arguments he offers to justify the study of Greek, the best is, that, since the Renaissance, Greek has always been taught; but, without great success, he admits:—

“Parents,” he says, “are but little inclined in favor of Greek. They also learned Greek, they claim, in their youth, and they have retained nothing of it; this is the ordinary language which indicates that one has not forgotten much of it.”

But Latin, which it does not suffice to learn to read, but which must be written and spoken, is the object of all Rollin’s care, who, on this point, gives proof of consummate experience. Like the teachers of Port Royal, he demands that there shall be no abuse of themes in the lower classes, and recommends the use of oral themes, but he holds firmly to version, and to the explication of authors:—

“Authors are like a living dictionary, and a speaking grammar, whereby we learn, through experience, the very force and the true use of words, of phrases, and of the rules of syntax.”

This is not the place to analyze the parts of the Treatise on Studies which relate to poetics and rhetoric, and which are the code, now somewhat antiquated, of Latin verse and prose. Rollin brings to bear on this theme great professional sagacity, but also a spirit of narrowness. He condemns ancient mythology, and excludes, as dangerous, the French poets, save some rare exceptions. He claims that the true use of poetry belongs to religion. He has no conception of the salutary and wholesome influence which the beauties of poetry and eloquence can exercise over the spirit.

261. Rollin the Historian.—Rollin has made a reputation as an historian. Frederick II. compares him to Thucydides, and Chateaubriand has emphatically called him the “FÉnelon of History.” Montesquieu himself has pleasantly said: “A noble man has enchanted the public through his works on history; it is heart which speaks to heart; we feel a secret satisfaction in hearing virtue speak; he is the bee of France.”

Modern criticism has dealt justly with these exaggerations. The thirteen volumes of his Ancient History, which Rollin published, from 1730 to 1738, are scarcely read to-day. His great defect as an historian is his lack of erudition and of the critical spirit; he accepts with credulity every fable and every legend.

We are to recollect, however, that as professor of history—and in truth he pretended to be only this—Rollin has greater worth than as an historian. He knew how to introduce into the exposition of facts great simplicity and great facility. And especially he attempted to draw from events their moral lesson. “We ought not to forget,” says a German of our time, “that Rollin has never made any personal claim to be considered an investigator in historical study, but that the purpose he had chiefly in view was educational. As he was the first to introduce the study of history into French colleges (this is true only of the colleges of the University), he sought to remedy the complete absence of historical reading adapted to the needs of the young. This is a great educational feat; for it is undeniable that his works are of a nature to give to the young of all nations a real taste for the study of history, and at the same time a vivid conception of the different epochs, and of the life of nations.”[156]

262. The Teaching of History.—However, considered simply as a professor of history, Rollin is far from being irreproachable. Doubtless it is good to moralize on history, and to make of it, as he says, “a school of enduring glory and real grandeur.” But is not historical accuracy necessarily compromised, and is there not danger of making the subject puerile, when the teacher is guided exclusively by the idea of moral edification?

Another graver fault in Rollin is that he systematically omits the history of France, and with it, all modern history. In this respect, he falls below the Oratory, Port Royal, Bossuet, FÉnelon, and Madame de Maintenon. It is interesting to observe, moreover, that Rollin recognizes the utility of the study of national history, but his excuse for omitting it is the lack of time:—

“I do not speak of the history of France.... I do not think it possible to find time, during the regular course of instruction, to make a place for this study; but I am far from considering it as of no importance, and I observe with regret that it is neglected by many persons to whom, nevertheless, it would be very useful, not to say necessary. When I say this, it is myself that I criticise first, for I acknowledge that I have not given sufficient attention to it, and I am ashamed of being in some sort a stranger in my own country after having traversed so many others.”

263. Philosophy.—It is moral edification that Rollin seeks in philosophical studies, as in historical studies. With but little competence in these matters, he admits that he has applied himself only very superficially to the study of philosophy. He knows, however, the value of ethics and logic, which govern the morals and perfect the mind; of physics, which furnishes us a mass of interesting knowledge; and finally, of metaphysics, which fortifies the religious sentiment. The ethics of antiquity seems to him worthy of attention; it is, in his view, the introduction to Christian ethics.

264. Scientific Instruction.—Rollin has given us a compendium of astronomy, of physics, and of natural history. Without doubt his essays have but a moderate value. Rollin’s knowledge is often inexact, and his general ideas are narrow. He is capable of believing that “nature entire is made for man.” But yet he deserves some credit for having comprehended the part that the observation of the sensible world ought to play in education:—

“I call children’s physics a study of nature which requires scarcely anything but eyes, and which, for this reason, is within the reach of all sorts of persons, and even of children. It consists in making ourselves attentive to the objects which nature presents to us, to consider them with care, and to admire their different beauties; but without searching into their secret causes, which comes within the province of the physics of the scientist.

“I say that even children are capable of this, for they have eyes, and are not wanting in curiosity. They wish to know; they are inquisitive. It is only necessary to awaken and nourish in them the desire to learn and to know, which is natural to all men. This study, moreover, if it may be so called, far from being painful and tedious, affords only pleasure and amusement; it may take the place of recreation, and ordinarily ought not to take place save in playing. It is inconceivable how much knowledge of things children might gain, if we knew how to take advantage of all the occasions which they furnish for the purpose.”

265. The Educative Character of Rollin’s Pedagogy.—It should not be supposed that Rollin’s exclusive purpose was to make Latinists and literary men. I know very well that he himself has said that “to form the taste was his principal aim.” Nevertheless, he has thought of other things,—moral qualities not less than intellectual endowments. He wished to train at once “the heart and the intellect.” With him, instruction in all its phases takes an educative turn. He esteems knowledge only because it leads to virtue. In the explication of authors, attention should be directed to the morality of their thoughts, at least as much as to their literary beauty. The maxims and examples which their writings contain should be skillfully put in relief, so that these readings may become moral lessons not less than studies in rhetoric. To sum up in a word, Rollin follows the tradition of the Jansenists, and not that of the Company of Jesus.

266. Christianity of Rollin.—Rollin, though persecuted for his Jansenist tendencies, was a fervent Christian. “A Roman probity” did not suffice for him; he desired a Christian virtue. Consequently, he requires that religious instruction should form a part of every lesson. A regulation which dates from his rectorship required that the scholar in each class should learn and recite each day one or more maxims drawn from the Holy Scriptures. This custom has been maintained to this day. Rollin knew, moreover, that the best means of inspiring piety is to preach by example, and to be pious one’s self:—

“To make true Christians,—this is the end and purpose of the education of children; all the rest but fulfills the purpose of means.... When a teacher has received this spirit, there is nothing more to say to him....”

The religious spirit of Rollin comes to view on each page of his book:—

“It remains for me,” he says, in concluding his preface, “to pray God, in whose hands we all are, we and our discourses, to deign to bless my good intentions.”

267. Interior Discipline of the Colleges.—The part of the Treatise on Studies which has preserved the most interest, and which will be studied with the most profit, is certainly that which treats of the interior government of schools and colleges. Here, though he does not completely divest himself of his method of borrowings, and references to the authority of others, and though he is especially under the influence of Locke, whose wise advice on rewards and punishments he reproduces almost verbatim, Rollin makes use of a long personal experience. We have charged him with not knowing the little child. On the other hand, he knows exactly what scholars a little older are,—children from ten to sixteen years old. And he not only knows them, but he loves them tenderly. He gives them this testimony, which affection alone can explain, that he has always found them reasonable.

268. Enumeration of the Questions treated by Rollin.—To give an idea of this part of the Treatise, the best way is to reproduce the titles of the thirteen articles composing the chapter entitled General Counsels on the Education of the Young:—

I. What end should be proposed in education? II. How to study the character of children in order to become able to instruct them properly. III. How at once to gain authority over children. IV. How to become loved and feared. V. Punishments: 1. Difficulties and dangers in punishments; 2. Rules to be observed in punishments. VI. Reprimands: 1. Occasion for reprimanding; 2. Time for making the reprimand; 3. Manner of reprimanding. VII. Reasoning with children. Stimulating them with the sense of honor. Making use of commendation, rewards, and caresses. VIII. How to train children to be truthful. IX. How to train children to politeness, to cleanliness, and to exactness. X. How to make study attractive. XI. How to give rest and recreation to children. XII. How to train the young to goodness by instruction and example. XIII. Piety, religion, zeal for the salvation of children.

269. Public Education.—Rollin does not definitely express himself on the superiority of public education. He does not dare give formal advice to parents; but he brings forward the advantages of the common life of colleges with so much force, that it is very evident that he prefers it to a private education. Let it be noted, besides, that he accepts on his own account “the capital maxim of the ancients, that children belong more to the State than to their parents.”

270. The Rod.—In the matter of discipline, Rollin leans rather to the side of mildness. However, he does not dare pronounce himself absolutely against the use of the rod. That which in particular causes him to hesitate, which gives him scruples, which prevents him from expressing a censure which is at the bottom of his heart, but which never rises to his lips, is that there are certain texts of the Bible whose interpretation is favorable to the use of the rod. It is interesting to notice how, in a strait between his sentiments as a docile Christian and his instincts towards mildness, the good and timid Rollin tries to find a less rigorous meaning in the sacred text, and to convince himself that the Bible does not say what it seems to say. After many hesitations, he finally comes to the conclusion that corporal chastisements are permitted, but that they are not to be employed save in extreme and desperate cases; and this is also the conclusion of Locke.

271. Punishments in General.—But how many wise counsels on punishments, and on the precautions that must be taken when we punish or reprimand! One should refrain from punishing a child at the moment he commits his fault, because this might then exasperate him and provoke him to new breaches of duty. Let the master be cool when he punishes, and avoid the anger which discredits his authority. The whole of this excellent code of scholastic discipline might be quoted with profit. Rollin is reason and good sense itself when he guides and instructs the teacher as to his relations with the pupil. Doubtless the most of these precepts are not new; but when they come from the mouth of Rollin, there is something added to them which I cannot describe, but which gives to the most threadbare advice the authority of personal experience.

272. Conclusion.—We shall not dwell on the other precepts of Rollin. The text must be consulted for his reflections on plays, recreations, the means of making study attractive, and on the necessity of appealing to the child’s reason betimes, and of explaining to him why one does this or that. In this last part of the Treatise on Studies there is a complete infant psychology which is lacking neither in keenness nor in penetration. In particular, there is a code of moral discipline which cannot be too highly commended to educators, and to all those who desire, in the words of Rollin, “to train at once the heart and the mind” of the young. Rollin has worked for virtue even more than for science. His works are less literary productions than works on morals, and the author himself is the perfect expression of what can be done for the education of the young by the Christian spirit allied to the university spirit.