The terms denote individuals who wander from place to place without a settled home or regular employment. Historically, and often legally, these individuals were considered suspicious and subject to various forms of control or punishment. An example would be a person found sleeping in public with no visible means of support, potentially leading to arrest and being labeled under these terms.
Understanding these definitions is crucial for historical analysis, particularly when examining social control mechanisms and attitudes towards poverty and mobility. Recognizing how societies have defined and treated individuals deemed “undesirable” sheds light on prevailing social norms, economic anxieties, and power structures. The terminology and associated legal frameworks offer valuable insights into the past.
The following sections will explore the historical evolution of laws pertaining to such individuals, the social implications of being labeled in this way, and contemporary debates regarding homelessness and vagrancy. These topics will provide a deeper understanding of the complex social issues connected to this historical terminology.
1. Homelessness
Homelessness forms a critical component of the historical and contemporary understanding of the designation “rogue and vagabond.” Historically, the absence of a fixed residence served as a primary criterion for identifying individuals who fell under this label. The lack of a permanent address implied a detachment from societal structures, making these individuals subject to legal scrutiny and social ostracization. For instance, during periods of economic hardship, increased homelessness correlated directly with a rise in the application of vagrancy laws. Those without shelter were easily categorized as vagrants, regardless of their circumstances.
The link between homelessness and the “rogue and vagabond” definition is not simply descriptive; it is often causal. Poverty, unemployment, and lack of affordable housing can lead to homelessness, which in turn can trigger application of vagrancy laws, perpetuating a cycle of marginalization. This connection highlights the importance of addressing the root causes of homelessness, rather than merely punishing its symptoms. In many cities, individuals experiencing homelessness face arrest for activities such as sleeping in public spaces, further entrenching them in the system.
Understanding this connection is essential for shaping effective social policy. Recognizing that homelessness is often a consequence of systemic issues, rather than inherent criminality, necessitates a shift in focus from punishment to support. Addressing the underlying causes of homelessness, such as affordable housing shortages and lack of access to mental health services, is crucial for dismantling the outdated and harmful associations inherent in the term “rogue and vagabond.” This approach necessitates a nuanced understanding of the relationship between societal structures and individual circumstances.
2. Rootlessness
Rootlessness, as a component of the historical “rogue and vagabond definition,” signifies the absence of strong ties to a particular place, community, or social structure. This lack of rootedness was historically viewed with suspicion, implying a detachment from societal norms and obligations. The following aspects delve into the specific ways rootlessness contributed to the characterization and treatment of individuals as “rogues” and “vagabonds.”
-
Lack of Community Ties
The absence of established social connections within a community rendered individuals more vulnerable and less accountable. Without family, neighbors, or other forms of social support, their actions were less subject to scrutiny, and they were less likely to receive assistance during times of hardship. This isolation heightened the perception of them as potential threats to social order, reinforcing the negative connotations associated with vagrancy.
-
Absence of Property Ownership
Historically, property ownership conferred status and belonging. Individuals lacking land or a fixed dwelling were considered outside the established social hierarchy. This absence of material investment in a community further solidified their image as transient and unreliable. Legal systems often favored property owners, leaving the propertyless with fewer rights and protections.
-
Occupational Instability
Rootlessness often manifested as an inability to maintain stable employment. Wandering from place to place in search of work, or lacking a consistent trade, contributed to the perception of these individuals as idle and unproductive. Societal expectations of contributing to the economic well-being of the community placed those with unstable employment in a precarious position, subject to judgment and suspicion.
-
Geographic Mobility
Frequent movement from one location to another was a key characteristic associated with rootlessness. This mobility disrupted the establishment of local ties and made it difficult to track individuals, further fueling anxieties about their potential for disruptive or criminal behavior. The constant state of transience reinforced the perception of these individuals as outsiders, untethered to the responsibilities and expectations of settled communities.
These facets of rootlessness contributed significantly to the historical construction of the “rogue and vagabond” as a social category. The absence of community ties, property ownership, stable employment, and fixed residence all reinforced the perception of these individuals as threats to social order and economic stability. Understanding these historical associations is crucial for critically examining contemporary approaches to homelessness and social marginalization.
3. Poverty
Poverty constitutes a central element within the historical and ongoing relevance of the “rogue and vagabond definition.” It is not merely a correlating factor but a primary driver and defining characteristic in the ascription of this label. Lack of financial resources and economic opportunity directly contribute to the conditions and behaviors historically associated with this designation.
-
Economic Marginalization
Economic marginalization, a direct consequence of poverty, limits access to stable employment, housing, and essential resources. Individuals experiencing economic marginalization are often forced into transient living situations, seeking work wherever available, thus fitting the description of a vagabond. The inability to secure consistent income makes maintaining a fixed residence challenging, increasing the likelihood of being perceived as a societal burden and falling under the historical definitions of “rogue and vagabond.”
-
Criminalization of Survival
Poverty can lead to the criminalization of survival strategies. Activities such as sleeping in public spaces, begging for money, or engaging in petty theft to obtain food and shelter can result in arrest and further entrenchment in the legal system. These actions, driven by economic necessity, reinforce the negative stereotypes associated with vagrancy and contribute to the perception of impoverished individuals as lawless or dangerous. Vagrancy laws, historically used to control the movement of the poor, exemplify the criminalization of survival.
-
Social Stigma and Exclusion
Poverty carries significant social stigma, leading to exclusion from mainstream society. Individuals experiencing poverty may face discrimination in employment, housing, and access to social services. This social isolation can further limit their opportunities and perpetuate a cycle of poverty and marginalization. The historical construction of the “rogue and vagabond” often involved associating poverty with moral failings, reinforcing societal biases and justifying discriminatory treatment.
-
Lack of Legal Recourse
Poverty often limits access to legal representation and protection. Individuals lacking financial resources may be unable to navigate the legal system effectively, making them more vulnerable to unfair treatment and exploitation. This lack of legal recourse can exacerbate the challenges faced by those labeled as “rogues” or “vagabonds,” as they may be unable to challenge unjust accusations or defend their rights effectively. This disparity underscores the power imbalances inherent in the historical application of vagrancy laws.
These facets of poverty demonstrate its integral role in shaping the historical and ongoing relevance of the “rogue and vagabond definition.” Poverty not only contributes to the conditions associated with this label but also exacerbates the challenges faced by those subjected to it. Addressing the root causes of poverty, rather than simply punishing its symptoms, is essential for dismantling the outdated and harmful associations inherent in this historical terminology.
4. Idleness
Historically, “idleness” was a core component in defining individuals as “rogues and vagabonds.” It represented more than simply a lack of employment; it signified a perceived refusal to contribute to the economic and social well-being of the community. This perceived unwillingness to work was often conflated with moral deficiency and a potential for criminal behavior. A person found capable of labor but choosing not to engage in it was viewed with suspicion and subject to legal penalties under vagrancy laws.
The significance of idleness within this definition lies in its connection to social control. Defining and punishing idleness served as a mechanism to enforce labor discipline and maintain social order. For instance, during the early industrial revolution, individuals displaced from agricultural work and struggling to find factory employment were frequently labeled as vagrants due to their “idle” state. This criminalization of unemployment ensured a readily available workforce, even under exploitative conditions. Furthermore, the concept of “idleness” was often applied disproportionately to marginalized groups, reinforcing existing social hierarchies and prejudices.
The historical association of “idleness” with criminality and social deviance continues to influence contemporary perceptions of unemployment and poverty. While modern social safety nets provide some support for those unable to find work, the stigma of “idleness” persists, affecting attitudes towards welfare recipients and the long-term unemployed. Understanding this historical connection is crucial for challenging harmful stereotypes and promoting policies that address the root causes of unemployment, rather than simply punishing those who are perceived as “idle.”
5. Suspicion
Suspicion forms a cornerstone of the historical construction and application of the “rogue and vagabond definition.” The very act of labeling individuals under this designation hinges upon pre-existing suspicions regarding their potential for lawlessness, deviancy, or economic parasitism. It isn’t solely based on demonstrable acts but rather on perceived attributes and circumstances that provoke apprehension within a community. This inherent suspicion often precedes any actual transgression, effectively criminalizing status rather than behavior. A person’s appearance, lack of a fixed address, or engagement in transient labor could trigger suspicion, leading to their classification and treatment as a “rogue” or “vagabond.”
This dynamic is exemplified by historical instances where entire groups were targeted based on unfounded suspicions. During periods of economic hardship or social unrest, migrant workers were frequently viewed with suspicion, accused of spreading disease, stealing resources, or inciting rebellion. Such suspicions, often fueled by xenophobia or economic anxieties, led to discriminatory laws and practices designed to control and suppress these populations. Even seemingly innocuous actions, such as gathering in public places or seeking assistance from local charities, could be interpreted as evidence of malicious intent, justifying intervention by law enforcement. The importance of understanding this connection lies in recognizing how societal fears and prejudices can be codified into legal frameworks that disproportionately impact vulnerable populations.
In summary, the “rogue and vagabond definition” is inextricably linked to the element of suspicion. This suspicion, rooted in socio-economic anxieties and often unsupported by factual evidence, served as a primary justification for the marginalization and criminalization of individuals lacking stable employment and residence. Recognizing this dynamic is essential for critically examining contemporary approaches to homelessness, poverty, and social control, and for challenging the underlying biases that perpetuate discriminatory practices.
6. Outlawry
Outlawry, historically, represented the most extreme form of legal exclusion, stripping an individual of all legal rights and protections. This concept bears a significant connection to the “rogue and vagabond definition,” although the relationship is complex. While not all “rogues and vagabonds” were formally declared outlaws, the social and legal treatment they faced often mirrored aspects of outlawry. Lacking established community ties and economic means, individuals labeled as such were frequently denied access to justice and subjected to arbitrary treatment, effectively placing them outside the bounds of legal protection afforded to settled members of society. For example, vagrancy laws often permitted summary arrest and punishment without due process, resembling the diminished legal standing of an outlaw.
The significance of understanding this connection lies in recognizing how the “rogue and vagabond definition” could function as a precursor to, or a de facto form of, outlawry. By labeling individuals as undesirable and outside the social order, authorities could justify denying them basic rights and protections. Historical examples include instances where itinerant workers were denied legal recourse for exploitation or abuse, effectively rendering them outside the reach of the law. This parallels the situation of formally declared outlaws, who could be killed or robbed with impunity. Furthermore, the stigmatization associated with the “rogue and vagabond” label could lead to social ostracism, isolating individuals from potential sources of support and leaving them vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.
In conclusion, while the “rogue and vagabond definition” did not equate to formal outlawry, the practical consequences for those labeled as such often resulted in a similar deprivation of legal rights and protections. Understanding this connection highlights the potential for seemingly benign social categories to be used as tools of marginalization and oppression, effectively placing vulnerable populations outside the scope of legal and social safeguards. This understanding is critical for ensuring that contemporary legal and social systems provide equal protection and justice for all, regardless of their economic status or social standing.
7. Mobility
Mobility, defined as the capacity to move from one place to another, represents a critical and often contentious aspect within the historical understanding of the “rogue and vagabond definition.” It was not merely the act of physical relocation that was scrutinized, but rather the implications and perceived motivations behind such movement that fueled suspicion and legal repercussions. Understanding how mobility factored into the characterization of individuals as “rogues” or “vagabonds” provides insight into historical anxieties surrounding social control and economic stability.
-
Transient Labor and Economic Instability
The pursuit of work often necessitated frequent movement, particularly for those lacking specialized skills or access to established labor markets. Migrant workers, traveling from place to place in search of seasonal employment, were frequently viewed with suspicion, as their itinerant lifestyle made them difficult to track and control. This economic instability, coupled with a lack of fixed residence, reinforced the negative stereotypes associated with vagrancy and increased the likelihood of legal intervention. Examples include the treatment of harvest workers during periods of economic downturn, who were often labeled as “undesirables” and subjected to vagrancy laws.
-
Migration and Social Disruption
Significant population movements, whether driven by famine, war, or economic opportunity, could disrupt established social structures and strain resources in receiving communities. Migrants, often lacking local connections and facing cultural barriers, were viewed with suspicion as potential sources of disorder or disease. This anxiety was often reflected in vagrancy laws that targeted newcomers and restricted their movement, effectively criminalizing the act of seeking refuge or economic betterment. Historical examples include the treatment of refugees fleeing conflict zones, who were often subjected to discriminatory laws and practices based on unfounded fears of criminality.
-
Lack of Fixed Residence and Social Control
The absence of a permanent dwelling was a primary indicator of vagrancy and a key factor in triggering legal intervention. Individuals without a fixed address were perceived as being outside the bounds of social control, making them subject to increased scrutiny and regulation. Vagrancy laws often criminalized activities such as sleeping in public spaces or begging for money, effectively punishing individuals for their lack of stable housing. This link between mobility and lack of residence highlights the importance of addressing housing insecurity as a means of preventing the application of outdated and harmful legal frameworks. Examples include contemporary debates surrounding the legality of homeless encampments and the criminalization of activities associated with homelessness.
-
Resistance to Sedentary Social Norms
The “rogue and vagabond definition” implicitly valorized a sedentary lifestyle, rooted in the ownership of property and the adherence to established social norms. Individuals who chose to embrace a more mobile existence, whether for philosophical, economic, or personal reasons, were often viewed with suspicion and subject to social ostracization. This resistance to sedentary social norms challenged the established power structures and threatened the social order, leading to legal and social repercussions for those who defied expectations. Examples include the historical persecution of nomadic groups or individuals who embraced alternative lifestyles outside the mainstream.
In conclusion, the element of mobility, as it relates to the “rogue and vagabond definition,” underscores the historical emphasis on social control, economic stability, and adherence to established norms. By examining the ways in which mobility was perceived and regulated, it becomes clear that the definition was not merely descriptive but also prescriptive, seeking to enforce a particular vision of social order and economic productivity. Understanding these historical associations is crucial for critically evaluating contemporary approaches to homelessness, migration, and social marginalization, and for ensuring that legal and social systems do not perpetuate discriminatory practices based on outdated and harmful stereotypes.
8. Vagrancy
Vagrancy serves as a central, practically synonymous concept in understanding the “rogue and vagabond definition.” The state of being without a fixed residence or regular employment, the core tenets of vagrancy, directly correspond to the characteristics that historically defined individuals as “rogues and vagabonds.” Vagrancy laws, designed to regulate or suppress this condition, effectively codified the “rogue and vagabond definition” into legal statutes. These laws, often targeting the poor and unemployed, exemplify the direct causal link between the status of vagrancy and the imposition of social and legal penalties associated with the “rogue and vagabond” label. A historical instance involves increased enforcement of vagrancy laws during periods of economic depression, leading to the mass arrest and imprisonment of unemployed individuals simply for lacking visible means of support.
The importance of vagrancy as a component of the “rogue and vagabond definition” lies in its practical application as a mechanism for social control. By criminalizing the state of being without a fixed residence or employment, authorities could regulate the movement of populations, enforce labor discipline, and suppress perceived threats to social order. Furthermore, the term “vagrancy” provided a legal justification for the marginalization and mistreatment of individuals lacking economic and social capital. For example, individuals arrested for vagrancy were often subjected to forced labor or other forms of exploitation, reinforcing their marginalized status. Today, some argue that contemporary laws targeting homelessness or public loitering echo the historical intent and effect of vagrancy laws.
In summary, vagrancy is not merely a characteristic associated with the “rogue and vagabond definition,” but rather a foundational element that defines and operationalizes the concept. Understanding this relationship is crucial for critically examining the historical and contemporary uses of vagrancy laws as instruments of social control and for advocating for policies that address the root causes of homelessness and poverty, rather than simply punishing their symptoms. The challenge remains in distinguishing between legitimate concerns for public safety and the discriminatory application of laws that disproportionately target vulnerable populations based on their economic status and housing situation.
9. Lawlessness
Lawlessness, in the context of the “rogue and vagabond definition,” represents a perceived or actual disregard for established legal codes and societal norms. This association, whether justified or not, historically contributed to the marginalization and criminalization of individuals lacking fixed residence and regular employment.
-
Perceived Threat to Social Order
The absence of settled ties and economic stability often fostered the suspicion that individuals fitting the “rogue and vagabond definition” posed a threat to social order. Their lack of investment in the community, coupled with their potential desperation, led to the presumption of a higher propensity for criminal activity. This perception, even in the absence of concrete evidence, frequently resulted in discriminatory treatment and the application of harsh penalties under vagrancy laws. An example includes the heightened surveillance and policing of transient populations during periods of economic instability.
-
Enforcement of Vagrancy Laws
Vagrancy laws, historically used to regulate the movement and behavior of the poor and unemployed, served as a mechanism for enforcing perceived lawfulness. These laws often criminalized activities such as sleeping in public spaces, begging, or simply being present in a particular location without a clear purpose. The enforcement of these laws effectively equated poverty and homelessness with lawlessness, contributing to the stigmatization and marginalization of individuals fitting the “rogue and vagabond definition.” A practical example involves the arrest and prosecution of homeless individuals for violating ordinances prohibiting public camping or loitering.
-
Actual Criminal Activity
While not all individuals fitting the “rogue and vagabond definition” engaged in criminal behavior, the circumstances of their lives often increased their vulnerability to involvement in illegal activities. Lack of economic opportunity, social support, and access to legal recourse could lead individuals to resort to crime as a means of survival. Furthermore, the stigmatization and marginalization associated with the “rogue and vagabond” label could create a self-fulfilling prophecy, pushing individuals further outside the bounds of societal norms and legal structures. An example can be seen in the historical association of itinerant populations with petty theft or other forms of survival crime.
-
Erosion of Legal Protections
The perception of “rogues and vagabonds” as inherently lawless often resulted in the erosion of their legal protections. Accusations of criminal activity, even without substantial evidence, could be used to justify arbitrary arrest, detention, and punishment. Furthermore, individuals lacking fixed residence or economic resources often faced difficulties in accessing legal representation and asserting their rights, further exacerbating their vulnerability to abuse and exploitation. This erosion of legal protections effectively placed individuals fitting the “rogue and vagabond definition” outside the full scope of legal safeguards afforded to other members of society. Historically, this has been evidenced by the disproportionate sentencing of vagrants compared to more settled individuals accused of similar crimes.
In conclusion, the association of lawlessness with the “rogue and vagabond definition” highlights the complex interplay between social perceptions, legal structures, and economic realities. This historical association served to justify the marginalization and criminalization of vulnerable populations, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and social exclusion. Examining this connection is crucial for understanding the historical roots of contemporary biases and for advocating for policies that promote social justice and equal protection under the law.
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the “Rogue and Vagabond Definition”
The following section addresses common inquiries and clarifies potential misunderstandings surrounding the historical and contemporary significance of the terms “rogue” and “vagabond.”
Question 1: What specific characteristics historically defined an individual as a “rogue” or “vagabond?”
The primary characteristics included the absence of a fixed residence, lack of regular employment, and a perceived unwillingness to engage in productive labor. Additional factors contributing to this classification were a lack of community ties, geographic mobility, and a general suspicion of potential lawlessness.
Question 2: How did vagrancy laws contribute to the social marginalization of individuals fitting the “rogue and vagabond definition?”
Vagrancy laws criminalized the state of being without a fixed residence or regular employment, effectively punishing individuals for their economic circumstances. These laws enabled authorities to regulate the movement of populations, enforce labor discipline, and suppress perceived threats to social order, further marginalizing vulnerable individuals.
Question 3: What role did poverty play in the application of the “rogue and vagabond definition?”
Poverty was a central factor, as it directly contributed to the conditions associated with the “rogue and vagabond” label, such as homelessness and lack of employment. The criminalization of survival strategies, such as sleeping in public spaces or begging, further entrenched impoverished individuals in the legal system.
Question 4: Was the “rogue and vagabond definition” solely based on demonstrable acts of criminality?
No. The definition often relied on perceived attributes and circumstances that triggered suspicion, rather than on concrete evidence of criminal activity. A person’s appearance, lack of a fixed address, or transient lifestyle could lead to classification and treatment as a “rogue” or “vagabond,” even in the absence of any illegal behavior.
Question 5: To what extent did social stigma contribute to the challenges faced by individuals labeled as “rogues” or “vagabonds?”
Social stigma played a significant role, leading to exclusion from mainstream society and limiting access to employment, housing, and social services. This social isolation perpetuated a cycle of poverty and marginalization, reinforcing societal biases and justifying discriminatory treatment.
Question 6: Are there contemporary parallels to the historical treatment of “rogues and vagabonds?”
Some argue that contemporary laws targeting homelessness, public loitering, and unauthorized encampments echo the historical intent and effect of vagrancy laws. These laws can disproportionately impact vulnerable populations and may perpetuate discriminatory practices based on economic status and housing situation.
Understanding the historical context and nuances of the “rogue and vagabond definition” is crucial for critically evaluating contemporary approaches to homelessness, poverty, and social justice. The long-lasting implications of historical biases continue to shape societal attitudes and legal frameworks.
The next section will address the long-term societal impacts and potential future implications of understanding the historical “rogue and vagabond definition.”
Insights Regarding the “Rogue and Vagabond Definition”
The following guidelines are designed to promote a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the “rogue and vagabond definition,” facilitating more informed analyses and interpretations of its historical and contemporary relevance.
Tip 1: Prioritize Historical Contextualization:
Understanding the “rogue and vagabond definition” necessitates a thorough examination of the specific historical period and societal norms in which it was applied. Vagrancy laws and social attitudes towards poverty and mobility varied considerably across time and place. Avoid ahistorical generalizations and focus on the unique circumstances shaping the application of the terms in each context.
Tip 2: Recognize the Fluidity of the Definition:
The “rogue and vagabond definition” was not a fixed and objective category, but rather a fluid and contested concept. Its application was often influenced by social biases, economic anxieties, and political considerations. Acknowledge the subjective nature of the definition and avoid treating it as a neutral or objective description of individual characteristics.
Tip 3: Analyze the Interplay of Economic Factors:
Economic factors, such as poverty, unemployment, and access to resources, played a central role in the construction and application of the “rogue and vagabond definition.” Examine the economic conditions that contributed to vagrancy and the ways in which vagrancy laws were used to enforce labor discipline and maintain social control.
Tip 4: Scrutinize Legal Frameworks:
Vagrancy laws and other legal statutes provided the formal basis for identifying and punishing individuals fitting the “rogue and vagabond definition.” Analyze the specific provisions of these laws, their enforcement mechanisms, and their impact on marginalized populations. Pay particular attention to potential biases and discriminatory practices embedded within the legal system.
Tip 5: Examine Social Perceptions and Stereotypes:
Social perceptions and stereotypes significantly influenced the treatment of individuals labeled as “rogues” or “vagabonds.” Explore the ways in which these individuals were portrayed in literature, popular culture, and official discourse. Identify the negative stereotypes associated with vagrancy and analyze their impact on societal attitudes and legal policies.
Tip 6: Consider the Impact on Human Rights:
The application of the “rogue and vagabond definition” often resulted in the denial of basic human rights, including the right to housing, employment, and due process. Analyze the ways in which vagrancy laws and social attitudes contributed to the marginalization and oppression of vulnerable populations. Consider the ethical implications of applying such labels and the importance of upholding human rights for all individuals, regardless of their economic status or social standing.
Tip 7: Connect Historical Context to Contemporary Issues:
The historical treatment of “rogues and vagabonds” provides valuable insights into contemporary issues such as homelessness, poverty, and social inequality. Analyze the parallels between historical vagrancy laws and modern policies targeting vulnerable populations. Recognize the long-lasting effects of historical biases and stereotypes and advocate for policies that promote social justice and equal opportunity.
A comprehensive understanding of the “rogue and vagabond definition” necessitates a multi-faceted approach, considering historical context, economic factors, legal frameworks, social perceptions, human rights implications, and connections to contemporary issues. This analysis provides a foundation for informed discussions and effective advocacy.
The following segments will deliver the conclusion of this discourse.
Conclusion
This exploration has demonstrated that the “rogue and vagabond definition” is not merely an antiquated term but rather a complex historical and social construct. The analysis revealed how societal anxieties surrounding poverty, mobility, and social order shaped the application of this label, often resulting in the marginalization and criminalization of vulnerable populations. Key elements, including homelessness, idleness, and perceived lawlessness, were shown to be central to understanding the historical significance and long-lasting impact of this terminology. Furthermore, the discussion highlighted the role of vagrancy laws in codifying discriminatory practices and reinforcing social inequalities.
The enduring legacy of the “rogue and vagabond definition” necessitates continued critical examination. Recognizing the historical roots of contemporary biases towards homelessness and poverty is essential for fostering a more just and equitable society. Future efforts should focus on dismantling discriminatory legal frameworks, challenging harmful stereotypes, and promoting policies that address the root causes of social and economic marginalization. The imperative is to move beyond outdated and oppressive definitions towards a more compassionate and inclusive approach to social welfare and human rights.
