Talk:Catherine de' Medici

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment
Basically a B class, needs an infobox and more references.
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 15:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: I just want to say: incredible work on this subject. Im pretty sure this is the most detailed biography of all wikipedia biographies. I noticed one thing was missing - cultural depictions of Catherine De Medici. Was she part of any fiction? novels? films? etc. Would like to know that. 77.250.25.165 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Constantly! --PL (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: one thing missing

message: It is very unclear from this article who Catherine's children were and many of them aren't even mentioned (such as her first son, Francis II who was King of France).  The Valois line of kings in the article seems to be the completely wrong timeframe as the last king listed is Charles VIII who died before Catherine was born.  
I am going to add the box of Henry II's children from his article (they are Catherine's as well) and changing the Valois branch to the Valois-Angoulême branch list of Monarchs.  Someone please correct me if there is a reason not to do this.  --  Jdvelasc 22:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children 

message: I have removed the tendentious reference to Maguerite de Valois' Memoirs: they in fact contain only one sentence about the death of Henri II (quoted in translation in my edit review). Similarly the nonsense about Nostradamus: for June of 1559 (not '1555' -- sorry!) he had predicted only that 'France shall greatly grow, triumph, be magnified, and much more so its Monarch.' Quatrain I.35, often supposed to have predicted the death of the King (especially if mistranslated as per a few edits ago!), was not in fact linked to it for the first time in print until 1614, 55 years later! It is perfectly clear from their writings that neither Nostradamus nor his secretary, Chavigny, had any idea of the proposed link. Thus, I have removed the Nostradamus references as well, even though he certainly had links with the Queen (not mentioned in the article). Please see the relevant article. --PL (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very helpful. If you see any other mistakes in the article (whether editors' fault or sources' fault), please could you remove them or mention them here. qp10qp (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, Nostradamus is now mentioned in a note—non credulously. qp10qp (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Maguerite de Valois and Nostradamus

message: I intend to cut the article down to a more reasonable length. Please don't be alarmed (I added the excess baggage myself in the first place): the material won't be wasted and will go into related articles, particularly those of the six kings (Francis I to Henry IV), in the future. qp10qp (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Making cuts

message: The following links need a disambig:
dauphin
dauphine
blood feud
cardinal of lorraine
francois
Randomblue (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed dauphin, blood feud, and Cardinal of Lorraine. Dauphine goes to the best page already, even though it is a disambiguation page of sorts, and I can't find any bare references to François. Yomanganitalk 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced Catherine's birthtime which is accurate.The eleven o'clock birthtime is not correct. If you wish to remove it, go ahead, I wont make anymore reverts. By the way, that other editor was not a vandal. By the Gregorian calendar Catherine was born on 23 April 1519. Just as George Washington was born 11 February by the Old Style calendar but his birthday is celebrated on 22 February after Gregorian was finally adopted in Britain and the Colonies.jeanne (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I assumed vandalism, but, as I expect you know, there are constant sneaky changes to dates in articles by people who wish us harm. I have removed the date again because the source used contradicts it; as you know, if we change information without changing the source, we leave the new information referenced to the wrong source. It's the same with the birthtime information. On a broader point, most books do not get microscopic about date styles and exact birthtimes; my bigger reference here is the silent one: all the books that do not bother the reader with these things at all. In our much shorter article, it is all the more important that we don't overdo detail, which can break the rhythm of the prose. It is the same not only with with birthtimes and styles of dating, but with titles, ancestries, styles of address, etc. Some editors are determined that Wikipedia articles should contain ever more detailed information on such things, but to what end? qp10qp (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I do see your point, and you are correct about the 23 April birthdate. That was her actual rectified birthdate but as she was born when the Julian calendar was still firmly in use, her contemporary recorded birthdate was 13 April, so the article must state this, otherwise readers will become confused. Her exact birthtime would suffice for a 500 page biography but I can see how too much information becomes rather unwieldy for an encyclopedia article. Sorry if I intruded on the article, I just felt that Catherine was one of history's more important personages and impulsively added her birthtime. Thank you for your patience and explanation.jeanne (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that you intruded, because we are all writing this encyclopedia. But in a fully referenced article, new information needs referencing to scholarly sources and tying in with existing information and references. I don't agree about the need to explain date style discrepancies, since the sources used do not bother to do that but simply give the reconstituted date. qp10qp (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? It seems to be historically much more normal to give actual dates as known at the time! --PL (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation 

message: Since Catherine de Medici was European, I feel that the British system of dating should be employed in the article rather than the American. Does anyone agree with me ?--jeanne (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: British dating should be used

message: The so-called "Portrait of Catherine de Medici as a child, by an unknown artist" is not Catherine de Médicis (by the way, the dress and hair style are absolutely not the ones of Catherine's youth). It's a well known portrait of her daughter-in-law, Marie Stuart, Queen of Scots, duh.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.245.146 (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right. I don't know why someone added it. I'll remove it.qp10qp (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong illustration 

message: Footnote # 26 claims that information regarding the doctor Jean Fernel and his advice can be found on page 68 of the Frieda book. This is incorrect. I have been able to access page 68 through googlebooks, and that page says nothing about doctor Fernel.
It is more likely that the information may appear on page 58, but I cannot see that page to confirm. A similar problem probably exists with footenote # 25, which cites page 67 of the same book. Ed8r (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, these page numbers are correct (I made the citations myself and have just checked them). I expect you are either looking at another edition with different pagination, or that the page numbers on Google Books are slightly out, as sometimes happens. qp10qp (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But part of my point is that this information does not appear on the page with that number (not a google page, but the number "printed" as part of the page itself). Page 68 of the book shown by googlebooks is about Francis' death. Ed8r (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, well in that case it must be a different edition. I promise you that the information I cited is on the pages given. I have a copy of the book. qp10qp (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, thanks for confirming that.Ed8r (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong page # in footnote(s) 

message: What is the " ' " in " Catherine de' Medici"? There is no such thing in French (which is my native language). 132.204.220.18 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Italian. Brutannica (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Ohhh! Thx. 132.204.220.18 (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is it for? 

message: According to the article:
...when in early 1531 Francis I of France proposed his second son, Henry, Duke of Orléans. Clement jumped at the offer. Henry was a prize catch for Catherine, who despite her wealth was a commoner.
Her father was a duke and her mother was a countess. How could she be a commoner?!
Top.Squark (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that it is her parentage that made her noble. I think she belonged to real nobility after succeeding to the County of Auvergne. Users who significantly contributed to this article should be able to answer your question. Surtsicna (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't such parentage sufficient to make one noble? Top.Squark (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not always. For example, in the UK, commoners are all people who are neither sovereign nor peers. So, the children of the King (Queen) of the United Kingdom are born commoners, except for the eldest son who is born Duke of Cornwall. Queen Elizabeth II's youngest son was a commoner until 1999, when he was given the title of Earl of Wessex. Elizabeth herself was a commoner until she became sovereign, because she held no title in her own right. Her daughter Anne is still technically a commoner. If children of a king can be commoners, then I understand that children of a duke can be commoners as well. Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The form in the UK isn't the same as the one on the continent and the British monarchs' children are Princes and Princesses so they are not commoners.  On continental Europe almost any families that bears a title for many generation are nobility; some noblity become so powerful and influencial through marriage that they become royalty like the Ernestine Saxon dukes and princes of Anhalt.  Catherine's father was a duke but her paternal ancestors beyond that are titleless bankers and statemen, so she wouldn't have the long royal and noble lineage of other noblewomen. Her mother was of noble roots but her father wasn't.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in fact Mary, Queen of Scots often sneered at Catherine's commoner status, referring to her as a banker's daughter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, the titles of prince and princess of the United Kingdom are not titles of peerage. Those titles are courtesy titles. The eldest son is the only child of a British monarch who is not born a commoner because he is born as Duke of Cornwall. All the others are commoners. Even the queen consort is a commoner, unless she holds a peerage title in her own right (e.g. Anne Boleyn). Surtsicna (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're referring to the British system of titles and nobility.  It doesn't make sense when you put in the prospective of Catherine who was from Italy.  I don't really know how Italian titles work but they were mostly granted by either the HR emperor or the Pope and hereditary there after either in male or female lines.  Any British can recieved a peerage title from the monarch; almost everyone of the illegitimate sons of Charles I had peerage titles so they were royals not commoners.  Yet they would not have been illegiable to marry any courtesy title princess and archduchess of their days because they were bastard sons.  --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: There is more than one meaning of the word "commoner."  There is a technical one, as in "eligible to serve in the House of Commons before 1999," but there's also another, more common everyday meaning by which Queens consort and royal princes are not considered commoners. john k (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence discussed here seems to use the technical meaning of the word "commoner". Surtsicna (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled as to why a sentence about an Italian aristocrat who became queen of France would use a technical English definition of "commoner".  john k (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously the meaning "one who is neither duke/count/baron nor sovereign is a commoner", whether only British or not, is the one used in the sentence: "Henry was a prize catch for Catherine, who despite her wealth was a commoner." I don't know how else to explain why a legitimate daughter of a duke and a countess was a commoner. According to the "more common everyday meaning", Catherine was not a commoner. Am I missing something? Surtsicna (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence which describes Catherine as a commoner is sourced to a good ref, therefore it is being used correctly in the article and should stay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: That hardly makes much sense, in that in that case, most queens of France were "commoners," including Archduchesses of Austria and so forth.  At any rate, obviously the sense in which Catherine was a commoner is that the Medici, despite any recently acquired noble titles, were a nouveau riche family, having begun their rise in the wool trade and then made most of their money in banking, rather than one coming from the old territorial nobility (as the Este, for instance, had), or even the old money urban patriciate.  It has nothing in particular to do with English definitions of nobility.  john k (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anne Boleyn was a commoner despite her father's elevation to the peerage. Catherine was not considered royal by any of her contemporaries.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not royal, but arguably noble or aristocratic, which are often used as antonyms for "commoner."  john k (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the article should just describe her as a non-royal rather than use the word commoner. It could instead read: "Despite her wealth, Catherine was not royal". That would be accurate as well as non-polemic. Comments?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But arguably she was a commoner.  Her family, as I said before, was not from the old medieval territorial nobility, nor even from the old late medieval urban patriciate.  The Medici arose out of the guilds, and made their money in banking.  Lorenzo's title as duke of Urbino was totally dubious, as well, and was not actually hereditary, since the Della Rovere returned after his death.  She was arguably noble or aristocratic, but only arguably so.  I'm not sure about the best solution, but I think "commoner" is probably closer to being right than merely "non-royal".  Perhaps we should describe the Medici as "nouveau riche" instead. john k (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

text: "...Medici - as their name suggested - having originally been doctors or apothecaries, descendants of a charcoal burner who had moved into Florence from the Mugello." -- The House of Medici, Hibbert, p30. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We can all agree that she was noble on her maternal side; however, the Medicis were certainly not of the nobility as they began as tradesmen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a paragrapher earlier in the article, explaining Catherine's family background in short. Hopefully, this would allow the reader to understand her categorization as a "commoner" better.Top.Squark (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catherine was a commoner?! 

message: According to the article
When Catherine had realized Francis was going to die, she made a pact with Antoine de Bourbon by which he would renounce his right to the regency of the future king, Charles IX, in return for the release of his brother Condé.
Whence did he get this right in the first place?
Top.Squark (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As first prince of the blood. Should probably say "claim to the regency" rather than "right". john k (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antoine de Bourbon's right to regency 

message: According to the article
The monarchy had lost control of the country, and was in no position to assist England in the face of the coming Spanish attack.
Why should it have assisted England? Was it bound to by some treaty?
Top.Squark (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No treaty, but Spanish control of England would have been an awful result for France. john k (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have been the end of France as a nation and kingdom.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  France assisting England against Spain? 

message: As Catherine died seven years after the Gregorian Calendar came into use, which was her actual birthdate? Was it 13 April by the old Julian Calendar or rectified to the new Gregorian Calendar making 3 April her contemporary date of birth?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthdate

message: I have been editing at Wikipedia long enough to know that ugly is a peacock word, just as not destined to be a beauty is a peacock phrase. Have it your way then; after all, peacocks are lovely birds.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not short, I'm just "decidedly lacking in height". It was a long-winded synonym for "ugly" that lacked the pithiness of the original. Neither was peacocky though - if you're starting to think that all adjectives are peacockry then you've been editing for too long. Yomanganitalk 18:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I've probably been living too long. As I said before, go ahead and keep it the way it is. I don't have a problem with the phrase.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is too funny... -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not destined to be a beauty" kills several birds with one stone, including peacocks. qp10qp (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not destined to be a beauty, decidedly lacking in beauty, whatever; just as long as she's not described as a 16th century Sharon Stone-(Oh, Happy Birthday, Sharon!).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did I say she was ugly?

message: Please note that I have added a section regarding the legend that Catherine de' Medici spread a long grocery list of items as well as the forks to eat them with to this very excellent article - because, although it may seem odd to take up space REFUTING falsehoods, it seems very important to do so on Wikipedia.
Although this is my first attempt at a Wikipedia entry, I do so as a longstanding contributor to the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery, which in collaboration with the British Library, has instigated an effort to get scholars adding to the food-related content, particularly as regards women.
Catherine's culinary legend is a controversial issue, ostensibly because it's been repeated so many times that people believe it to be gospel truth. The reasons why this should happen are a subject that I will eventually dwell on in book length form but have developed in articles that include:
"Catherine de'Medici's Fork," in The Proceedings to the 2005 Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery: Food and Authenticity (Totnes, Devon, 2006).
"The Sexual Politics of Cutlery", in Feeding Desire: Design and the Tools of the Table, 1500--2005, catalog to the exhibition held at the Smithsonian /Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum, held May 6--Oct 29, 2006 and published by Assouline in 2006.
The intent of this added section is to clarify more recent research on the subject, rather than to "out" those who continue to misguidedly believe in it. Therefore, I have refrained from citing references about those who continue to reprise it. There are many, stretched across many places. However, to justify this claim please refer to my review (titled "Myths of taste) of Sandra M. Gilbert's The Culinary Imagination in the Times Literary Supplement of 19 and 26 December 2014 , p. 14.
I kindly invite any queries on this addition. 
I also would love to add to the "patron of the arts" section as well as the source list with a few of the things that Catherine most definitely did do and own. She absolutely owned forks, as shown by the published inventory of the objects left in her Parisian residence. She also owned a first edition of Scappi's Opera of 1570, which I've held in my hands in its sumptuous crimson velvet cover embroidered with her coat-of-arms. This copy, in fact, provided the Scappi illustrations that appear in my first book, Apples of Gold in Settings of Silver: Stories of Dinner as a Work of Art (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002). 
Although alluded to, and referenced re: Yate's still important book, The Valois Tapestries, the "magnificences" orchestrated by Catherine constitute a significant contribution to the arts of entertaining. Sir Roy Strong's work on this subject has hugely enriched our understanding of these events and inspired much new research in its stead.
If I "pass muster" I would like to gently embellish the current "patron of the arts" article to reflect these areas of research.
Do, however, please send along any comments or concerns -- Carolin C. Young  CarolinCYoung (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Carolin. I believe this was a useful section to add (I said this already when it was in your sandbox). It is negative rather than positive, but widespread mistaken opinions do have to be discussed, and shown with references to be mistaken, as you are doing. If you have also further material to add  on Catherine as a patron of the arts, I think you should go ahead when you're ready. Andrew Dalby 09:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section on the culinary legend. 

message: I was reading through and noticed a portion of the article had fully typed citation numbers in the text. I removed the [1] and [2] and marked that portion with citation needed templates as some of it was marked as quotes. I'm not familiar enough with this subject to tackle the issue. Lizabetha (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article issue 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Catherine de' Medici. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305043658/http://www.wondersandmarvels.com/2010/06/history%E2%80%99s-black-widow-the-legend-of-catherine-de-medici.html to http://www.wondersandmarvels.com/2010/06/history%E2%80%99s-black-widow-the-legend-of-catherine-de-medici.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am concerned this new added section 'in media' is unduly weighted, as is shown even on this talk page Catherine has been in a wide range of media, yet as the section currently stands, one would believe she had only appeared in this new tv show. Do you plan to balance this section more, with a wider portrait of her media appearances? Sovietblobfish (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns over new 'In Media' section 

message: The section as it stands throws views of Catherine de' Medici's (near) contemporaries and modern esotericists together in a confusing jumble and then lets modern scholars comment on that. It would be better to order it as follows: 1 describe contemporary opinion with necessary context from historians, 2 present scholar's views, and 3 describe the reception of her in esoteric literature and whatever is influenced by that. The section relies a lot on Gardner now, but she was also written about by Blavatsky and Eliphas Levi.
There are two other issues:
* The mention of Catherine's instruction in astronomy and astrology could be scrapped. They don't have to suggest anything that her contemporaries regarded as particularly involved in the "occult" (as in "occult philosophy"), even less in hermetics or kabbalism, and certainly don't imply modern connotations of "occultism".
* I've put in a reference for Bodin and verified that the passage contains a description of the "ritual", but he doesn't even seem mention Catherine on that page. Is she or Charles IX ever mentioned in the necromancer's "mass"? Or is it a case of expansion by uncritical later readers?
Any comments? 195.169.52.21 (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to the occult section and a suggestion 

message: It is unclear to me why this article devotes so much time to bizarre fringe scholarship about various ways in which  Catherine was 'involved in the occult' 
It is even more unclear to me why Gerald Gardner, a 20th century Wiccan's opinion's on the queen are relevant to our article? He is not a contemporary of the queen, nor is he representative of historical scholarship?  Sovietblobfish (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gerald Gardner 

message: There's been a lot of changes back and forth on the description of Medici lately. Rather than this devolving into an edit war, how about we establish how we want to refer to her:
:Her father was a Medici (Italian), her mother was a La Tour d'Auvergne (French). She was raised in Italy but then ruled in France. So either she's both, or she's Italian because that's where she was brought up (+ inheritance in this time largely comes patrilinealy and much of the French aristocracy derided her Italianess) or she's French because that's where she spent her adult life.
I don't particularly care which is agreed on Sovietblobfish (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  French or Italian or French and Italian Noblewoman 

message: Speaking of the short 'not-destined-to-be-a-beauty'ness of the girl, her intelligent compensation of it by bringing multiple pairs of high heeled shoes to her marriage (at 14 to an older man with known gorgeous mistresses) is widely held to be the event that established high heels as a Thing in European fashion, following on the heels of the ridiculous pointed toes and the ridiculous flippers that the aristocracy amused/harrassed themselves with in the centuries prior.
It's all over the internet and several footwear related pages so I assume, if it's not in the article already, that's because someone has been removing it. The sourcing was just inadequate so far? or are there extremely firm reasons to doubt the popular account? Even if there are, this is Out There widely enough on a major enough topic that it's worth having a paragraph of well-sourced debunking anyway. — LlywelynII 12:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the article history, it doesn't seem as though someone's removing it – it's just never been added.  A google scholar search isn't really turning up anything about Catherine de' Medici which discusses her supposed popularisation of high heels, so I suspect it's simply not considered important to the biography of Catherine.  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: But what about the SHOES?!