DESCRIPTION:
In 1854 Father Louis LaFleche was assigned to the mission de la riviere Sale and
began to assemble materials to build a church. Father LaFleche accompanied the
buffalo hunt and played a significant role at the Battle of Grand Coteau in 1851.
Sometime in September 1854 he officiated at the marriage of Pierre Delorme,
who would become the first MLA for St. Norbert.
Father Louis Lafleche missionary at Red River between 1844 and 1856
and future Archbishop of Trois-Rivières
Archives of the Historical Society of St. Boniface General Collection SHSB, SHSB15845
LOUIS-FRANÇOIS LAFLÈCHE,
Roman Catholic priest, politician, educator, author, and bishop; b. 4 Sept. 1818 in
Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade (La Pérade), Lower Canada, son of Louis-Modeste
Richer-Laflèche, a farmer, and Marie-Anne Joubin-Boisvert; d. 14 July 1898 in
Trois-Rivières.
Louis-François Laflèche’s grandfather, Modeste Richer-Laflèche – “an old grumbler
who is not at all easy to get along with,” according to Abbé Joseph Moll – shocked
the religious authorities with his independence of mind and nationalist
convictions, but was nevertheless a celebrated chief cantor in the period 1770–
1834 and proved a matchless educator for the child who would become a bishop.
The boy’s father, a man of a more retiring nature, ably managed a farm at
Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade and nine other properties, as well as part of the fief of
Sainte-Marie which he had received in joint ownership from his father-in-law, the
seigneur Augustin Joubin-Boisvert, who was a proprietor in the North West
Company. He also tried his hand at trade (buying, selling, or exchanging animals
and pieces of land), made mortgage loans, and engaged for a while in the lumber
industry (a sawmill on the Rivière à la Lime).
On his mother’s side Laflèche was descended from an Indian woman from the
northwest. Her daughter and Laflèche’s grandmother Marie-Anne Gastineau, a
Métis, had led a rather secluded life in Lower Canada devoted to prayer and
reading the saints’ lives; “quiet, retiring,” she had remained homesick for the
distant plains and she passed on to her grandson the touch of Indian blood that
would draw sneers from some of his opponents.
The Richer-Laflèches had seven children, of whom five (two girls and three
boys) reached adulthood. When the last-born child died in 1821, Louis-François
became the youngest of the family. Living next door to the church and to the
merchant and Liberal Pierre-Antoine Dorion* (heaven and hell!), the family was
capably run by Mme Richer-Laflèche, who favoured a strict education which was
even more stressed after teacher Craig Morris came to board in 1823. From the
two of them young Louis-François received a rudimentary education; in addition,
he was invited to attend the Latin school run by the former parish priest JosephMarie Morin in order to prepare himself for classical studies.
On 12 Oct. 1831 Laflèche became a boarder at the Séminaire de Nicolet. He
remained there until 1838 as a pupil in the classical program and from 1838 to
1844 as a theology student and a teacher. He was successful in his studies and
acquired a taste for history, science, and manual work (gardening and odd jobs).
When the time came to choose what he would do with his life, he decided, under
the guidance of his spiritual director Abbé Joseph-Onésime Leprohon*, the head
of the seminary, to become a secular priest.
Retained by his old school, Laflèche was in turn master of the fourth form
(Poetry), fifth form (Belles-Lettres), and sixth form (Rhetoric). He proved to be a
good teacher and, although strict and authoritarian, was able to “endear himself
to the schoolboys.” He was named bursar of the house for 1840–41; the added
burden wore him out, and the procurator, Charles Harper*, observed that he
needed a rest, “mentally, however, more than physically.” He had little time for
theology – the sound knowledge of ethics and Scripture which he later
demonstrated was acquired while in the Canadian west – but he took full
advantage of the new intellectual climate created by the prefect of studies, Abbé
Jean-Baptiste-Antoine Ferland*, and of the newly improved library.
Laflèche received the tonsure on 3 Sept. 1838, minor orders on 28 May 1840,
and the subdiaconate and diaconate on 27 and 29 May 1843; he began the 1843–
44 school year as a deacon. It seems, indeed, that the authorities in the
seminary, who complained that their best pupils were taken from them by
Quebec, wanted to assure themselves for as long as possible of the services of
this exceptional cleric whose “diverse and wide knowledge,” although “hidden,”
was spoken of highly. The brilliant teacher of rhetoric was nevertheless soon
called to new fields of activity.
In December 1843 Laflèche accepted an invitation from the bishop of Quebec’s
auxiliary for the North-West district, Bishop Joseph-Norbert Provencher*, to
become one of the handful of Catholic missionaries in the Red River settlement
(Man.). Ordained priest on 4 Jan. 1844, he spent the winter at Saint-Grégoire
(Bécancour), near Nicolet, as assistant priest to former missionary Jean Harper,
and on 27 April he set off by water from Lachine for the northwest. Because he
had neglected to take “some medicaments before leaving,” he was unwell
throughout the trip and began to suffer from rheumatism, which he was never
able to get rid of.
Laflèche reached St Boniface (Man.) on 21 June 1844 and remained in the
northwest until 1856. After a few fruitless trips out on the Prairies he went with
Oblate Alexandre-Antonin Taché to found the mission of Ile-à-la-Crosse (Sask.).
From 1846 to 1849 he looked after the “omnibus-house” there and the
evangelization of Indians living at or near the fort, while his companion travelled
to distant points such as Reindeer Lake and Lake Athabasca. At the end of three
years Bishop Provencher recalled him to St Boniface, having had him named his
coadjutor with the right of succession, but because of poor health Laflèche
refused the office outright. His illness grew worse at just the right moment. “He
takes pleasure in his infirmities because they prevent him from being bishop, an
office it would have been difficult to make him accept,” observed Provencher, who
then fixed his choice on young Taché.
Laflèche stayed at St Boniface until 1856. He carried on his ministry there “in
the manner of the curés in Canada”; when his health permitted he ministered to
the Métis at White Horse Plain (St François Xavier) and hunted buffalo with them
in 1850 and 1851. He narrowly escaped being killed when his party was attacked
by a band of Sioux. Vicar general of the diocese and administrator during
Bishop Provencher’s absences and at the time of his death, Laflèche also assisted
in the temporal government of the Red River settlement. He was appointed to the
Council of Assiniboia in 1850 and regularly intervened on the side of the Métis;
the governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company, Sir George Simpson*, praised him
for his good sense, moderation, and devotion to duty. In his spare time he
collected material on various subjects, for he was obliged, he said, “to act as
lawyer, notary, carpenter, & &.” He deepened his theological knowledge by
reading Abbé René-François Rohrbacher’s L’histoire universelle de l’église
catholique (29v., Paris, 1842–49). His remark to Benjamin Pâquet was not merely
humorous: “As for me, I have learned all my theology from Father Rohrbacher’s
Histoire, and I am convinced that you will not learn anything more at the college
in Rome.”
Sometime in September 1854 he officiated at the marriage of Pierre Delorme,
who would become the first MLA for St. Norbert. Laflèche’s health continued to
deteriorate. In 1854 he made his first trip back east to rest and to settle some
family problems; taking advantage of his stay, he wrote a long article on the Red
River settlement which appeared in the Rapport sur les missions du diocese de
Québec. He returned to St Boniface in May 1855, only to leave for good in
June 1856, “to seek once more on his native soil,” according to Taché, “a health
exhausted by twelve years of generous self-sacrifice.” He would forget neither his
friends in the northwest (to which he returned in 1880, 1887, 1892, and 1894)
nor the exiled compatriots he had met in and around St Paul (Minn.) during his
trips in 1854 and 1856.
After a few weeks’ rest Laflèche resumed his position on the staff at the
Séminaire de Nicolet, first as a mathematics and philosophy teacher, and then in
October 1857 as prefect of studies. True to the progressive spirit evident for
some time in the school, he gave a new impetus to studies and to the libraries.
When he was named superior in 1859 he showed similar determination: although
he successfully protested against the transfer of his institution to Trois-Rivières,
the cathedral town, he was unable to prevent the founding of the College de
Trois-Rivières. He also intervened in the matter of the proposed affiliation of the
Séminaire de Nicolet with the Université Laval and through his plain speaking
forced the university authorities to explain their position more clearly and to be
more receptive to suggestions from the colleges.
During the time he was at the Séminaire de Nicolet, Laflèche and his staff of 7
priests, 12 other teachers, and 11 regents (who supervised 30 students of
theology and 224 secondary-school pupils) emphasized order, discipline, and love
of hard work; the superior himself displayed exemplary firmness in nipping in the
bud “a few attempts at revolt” by the pupils against the regents, and in getting
rid of persons who were trying to form an “opposition party.” At various diocesan
events Laflèche never missed an opportunity to represent the seminary and to
speak with eloquence.
The success of Laflèche attracted the attention of Bishop Thomas Cooke* of TroisRivières, who despite his vehement protests called him in 1861 to serve as vicar
general and then shortly afterwards as procurator of the diocese. First Laflèche
had to save the diocese from almost certain bankruptcy, the result of building the
cathedral in an unfavourable economic climate and without the support of some
clergy. Within a few years he put the accounts in order, persuaded the creditors
to be patient, rallied the clergy and laity of the diocese, and succeeded in wiping
out the debt. Even as early as 1863 he found time to help his ageing bishop in
the routine administration of the diocese; he replaced him regularly in public
ceremonies and wrote the pastoral letters and instructions that continued to
appear over Cooke’s signature.
In 1865 Laflèche helped found Le Journal des Trois-Rivières, which became the
unofficial organ of the diocese, and between 20 June 1865 and 21 May 1866 he
published a series of 34 articles in it entitled “Quelques considérations sur les
rapports de la société civile avec la religion et la famille,.” There he explained his
concept of nationhood and of the relations between church and state, and he took
a stand openly on controversial matters such as emigration to the United States
and confederation; he also elaborated his thinking as a French Canadian
nationalist. A compendium of the key ideas that Laflèche defended until his death
and bible of die-hard ultramontanes till the 20th century, “Quelques
considérations” was reprinted as a book, thanks to Abbé Calixte Marquis*, and it
met with immediate and ongoing success: 3,497 copies were sold even before the
work was publicly launched, and there were many subsequent printings of the
complete text and of specific chapters.
On 24 Nov. 1866 Laflèche was named bishop of Anthedon in partibus infidelium
and Cooke’s coadjutor with the right of succession; once again he did everything
he could to avoid promotion and fell ill, prostrated by “dreadful pains” that for a
time raised “serious fears” among his entourage. He was none the less
consecrated in Trois-Rivières on 25 Feb. 1867.
His presence was immediately felt everywhere. In the diocese he took the place
of Cooke both for pastoral visitations and in spiritual and temporal administration.
He also replaced him in the episcopate, where he took the initiative of proposing
to his colleagues a pastoral letter in support of the British North America Act and
of publishing it himself (but under Cooke’s name). He was a dominant figure at
the fourth provincial council of Quebec, held in 1868: he participated in heated
discussions about the council’s proposed decree on political elections, and he
sided with the bishops and theologians from Montreal and Rimouski, dissociating
himself from the conciliatory stance of abbés Elzéar-Alexandre Taschereau and
Pâquet from Quebec and demanding that “perverse doctrines” (liberalism) be
denounced more firmly.
On 11 April 1869 Laflèche became administrator of the diocese of Trois-Rivières
and in this capacity he attended the first Vatican Council. He did not take the
floor, but he voted regularly with the ultramontanes; the acceptance on
18 July 1870 of the decree on papal infallibility was, he declared to the people of
his diocese, “the finest day” of his life. By then he had already replaced
Bishop Cooke, who had died on 31 March, and had written a pastoral letter to
mark his assumption of the episcopal see of Trois-Rivières. When he arrived there
on 9 August, 2,000 to 3,000 of the faithful were waiting to welcome him and
accompany him to his “magnificently decorated” cathedral. In the midst of
general rejoicing he mounted the throne that had awaited him for some months.
During his 27 years as bishop, Laflèche, even in the heat of the impassioned
debates of the period, attracted the ardent devotion of his people and of many
others. Princely when he officiated at long liturgical ceremonies with all the pomp
of the time, and imposing when he preached with an eloquence enriched by
imagery as well as doctrine, in private he displayed a warm cordiality and an
astonishing breadth of understanding. No one, for example, could enliven
conversation better than he, whether at table or in the drawing-rooms of the
bishop’s palace and the presbyteries. His door was open to all, especially to the
poor, and he distributed among the less fortunate the little money that came into
his hands. He liked to visit the sick and to walk about the streets of his town,
talking with ordinary folk and, in particular, with children. A familiar figure to the
citizens of Trois-Rivières, he was equally well known to people throughout the
diocese, whom he met on frequent visits, and whose problems he knew and made
his own.
The most dramatic event in his episcopate was the division of his diocese, which
was the subject of stormy debate for some ten years and was finally confirmed in
1885. After an initial, unsuccessful attempt in 1875–76 and a few years of
relative calm, Abbé Marquis assumed leadership of the secessionist movement on
the south shore of the St Lawrence and gained the support of most of the bishops
in the province (including Archbishop Taschereau, who intervened regularly and
firmly in Rome) as well as of the Université Laval. Marquis was also backed by a
number of the clergy on the south shore, in particular the staff of the Séminaire
de Nicolet, and by some politicians, both Liberals and moderate Conservatives,
who regarded Laflèche as the man behind their most unyielding ultramontane
opponents. Worked on by Pâquet, certain office holders at the Vatican – among
them the minutante Zepherino Zitelli – sided with those advocating the creation
of a diocese of Nicolet.
Despite the backing of the majority of his clergy (even those on the south shore)
as well as petitions against the splitting of the diocese from thousands of the
faithful (who were certainly not all being manipulated), Laflèche did not succeed
in getting his point of view accepted by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda.
On his trips to Rome he showed a lack of diplomatic finesse; his submissions were
too long and his attacks on some of the members and office holders of
Propaganda won him no good will. He was still worse served by his agent, Luc
Desilets*, whose apocalyptic visions and diatribes against freemasonry weakened
a cause already difficult to defend. But Archbishop Taschereau’s trip to Rome in
1884 and his efforts with the principal cardinals proved even more effective and
decisive. After long delays, including the intervention of the apostolic delegates
Dom Joseph-Gauthier-Henri Smeulders and Bishop John Cameron*, the decrees
that divided the diocese of Trois-Rivières, created the diocese of Nicolet, and
named Canon Elphège Gravel* of Saint-Hyacinthe to head the new ecclesiastical
district finally came out in early July 1885.
These decisions were the final result of the open struggle within the episcopate of
the province of Quebec between the pragmatic moderate ultramontane wing, led
by Taschereau and accused by its adversaries of being liberal, even liberal
Catholic, and the intransigent ultramontane wing personified by bishops Ignace
Bourget* and Laflèche. This relentless antagonism had become public knowledge
in 1871 with the appearance of the Programme catholique [see François-XavierAnselme Trudel*] and the statements of Taschereau and the Montreal and TroisRivières “veterans” opposing it. The rivalry fed on whatever came along: the antiLiberal campaign launched by the pastoral letter of the Quebec bishops issued on
22 Sept. 1875, written by Taschereau, who took it upon himself to add further
nuances in a pastoral letter dated 25 May 1876; the diverse views concerning the
involvement of priests in lawsuits on grounds of “undue spiritual influence” and
the action to be taken following the firm Déclaration de l’archevêque et des
évêques de la province ecclésiastique de Québec . . . dated 26 March 1877; the
discussions on reform of the electoral law and legislation dealing with marriage
(between a brother-in-law and sister-in-law); and finally the debates about
education, including the usefulness of normal schools for boys. In all these
cases – and many more – the archbishop of Quebec and the bishop of TroisRivières defended different positions.
At the heart of these discussions was the university question [see ÉdouardCharles Fabre; Ignace Bourget; Joseph Desautels*]. Guarded at first when he
was subordinate to Cooke, who was an ardent defender of the Université Laval,
Laflèche sided from 1871 with Bourget and those advocating a Catholic university
in Montreal. He endorsed unreservedly the Montrealers’ point of view on the
urgency of removing Catholic youth from the influence of Protestant, Englishspeaking universities, the danger presented by the “liberal” education dispensed
by the professors at Laval, and the lack of legal status of the branch that the
Université Laval had founded in Montreal in 1876. He did not hesitate to go to
Rome several times to denounce the Quebec institution and press for the
founding of a truly Catholic, that is to say ultramontane, university.
In adopting such a position the bishop of Trois-Rivières irritated the powerful
Archbishop Taschereau, who had been connected with Laval since its founding
and defended it as the apple of his eye. Laflèche also made enemies of the vast
majority of his colleagues, who, after Rome had initially reached a decision in
1876 (creating the branch in Montreal), regularly sided with their metropolitan.
Frozen out, owing his allegiance to a handful of die-hards who clamoured for a
canonical investigation of the religious situation in the province of Quebec,
Laflèche issued a stream of inflammatory articles, several inspired if not written
by Abbé Desilets. The most important was the Mémoire de l’évêque des TroisRivières sur les difficultés religieuses en Canada, published in Rome in 1882,
which explicitly questioned the orthodoxy of the Université Laval and even that of
the archbishop, and denounced the intrigues of Pâquet and Zitelli in Rome. This
text rapidly became known in Quebec through the agency of Taschereau’s friends
in Rome as well as an edition printed in Trois-Rivières and widely circulated in
ultramontance circles. It fostered a long controversy that was sustained with
passion by newspapers sympathetic to one or other of the rival camps and that
had repercussions in Rome in the form of memoranda and counter-memoranda,
letters from all perspectives, delegations of every sort, clamours for legal action,
and other initiatives.
The Holy See regularly supported the Quebec side, with the result that from 1883
to 1885 Laflèche and his friends were inundated with decisions and decrees that
even the intervention in 1883–84 of the apostolic delegate Smeulders was unable
to stave off. The Université Laval retained its monopoly and was even able to
obtain funds from the dioceses. But it was the division of the diocese of TroisRivières that had a stronger impact on the public and crushed Laflèche and his
supporters. Taschereau’s complete victory was further confirmed with the
announcement of his elevation to the rank of cardinal in 1886.
Laflèche had no choice but to respect and submit to these decisions which not
only he but many others found strange, and he asked the people of his diocese to
be “completely submissive and obedient in every respect to the papal ruling.” He
none the less proved a tough negotiator when the time came to divide debts and
revenues with Nicolet. In 1888 Rome decided once more; again Laflèche
submitted, but he declared himself to be “in no way” surrendering “any of the
rights that my diocese may still have in this matter or in that of its territory.” It
came as no surprise therefore that until his death he made efforts to recover the
south shore or replace it with parts of the dioceses of Quebec and Montreal.
Feebly backed by his colleagues, even those who thought that the situation in the
diocese of Trois-Rivières had to be improved, Laflèche regularly met with refusal
from Rome.
In 1885 the old fighter, now 67 years of age and the head of a diocese much
reduced in size, drew closer to his people; he faithfully kept up his pastoral visits
and preached as often as possible in his cathedral, where his eloquence, like that
of an “ancient prophet,” attracted a stream of visitors, among whom were to be
found a number of politicians. In 1892 his silver jubilee as bishop was the
occasion for sumptuous celebrations in which the only negative note was the
absence, albeit justified, of Cardinal Taschereau.
The dean of Canadian bishops none the less found himself drawn into national
concerns and obliged to adopt a position in public. Such was the case in 1885
with the second rebellion under Louis Riel*. Warned to be on his guard by his
friend Taché, who thought the Métis leader “a wretched madman and a
sectarian,” Laflèche took a prudent stand, although he was the first, along with
his clergy, to subscribe to a fund for Riel’s widow. The nationalist movement led
by Honoré Merger frightened him because he perceived Liberal influence in it, and
parting company with his lifelong friends among the Conservatives would have
been difficult for him. His attitude rubbed off on Le Journal des Trois-Rivières and
the elected representatives from the region, who refused to join the national
alliance. It culminated in his publishing letters warning against Mercier’s
followers, which were widely circulated at the time of the federal elections in
1887, and in his breaking with the more extreme ultramontane group (Jules-Paul
Tardivel*, Father Joseph Grenier, Trudel, and others) that had so strongly
supported him in his earlier struggles; the departure of the Jesuits from TroisRivières in 1889 is also attributable to fear of the Liberals.
In the final years of his life Laflèche’s interest was drawn particularly to the fight
for Catholic schools in Manitoba. Thomas Greenway*’s government had no sooner
attacked the dual public school system in 1890 than the former missionary to the
northwest wrote to the secretary of state, Joseph-Adolphe Chapleau, in support of
a memorandum from Archbishop Taché of St Boniface asking the federal
government to disallow the provincial statute; Laflèche denounced this “iniquitous
law” which openly assaulted “the two sentiments dearest to man’s heart:
language and faith.”
Throughout the legal skirmishing that marked
the early years of the Manitoba school
question, Laflèche in every way supported his
old friend Taché, who was sick and enfeebled
by age. Having paid a visit in 1892 to comfort
him, he returned to St Boniface in 1894 to
deliver at his graveside “one of the finest
pieces of sacred eloquence that . . . has ever
been heard in this country,” according to the
Quebec Liberal newspaper L’Électeur.
Laflèche backed equally strongly Taché’s
successor, Oblate Adélard Langevin*. This
support was marked by two high points in
May 1896. The first was the collective pastoral
letter of the Quebec bishops, who condemned
the Manitoba laws, albeit in moderate terms,
and asked Catholics to cast their votes only for
federal candidates “who promise formally and
solemnly to vote in parliament in favour of
legislation giving the Catholic minority in Manitoba the educational rights that are
recognized to be theirs by the Most Honourable Privy Council of England.” The
second was Laflèche’s sermon, announced beforehand, on “the application of
Catholic doctrine to the Manitoba school question,” in which he unequivocally
condemned Wilfrid Laurier* as “a rationalist Liberal” promoting “a doctrine
completely contrary to Catholic doctrine” and asked people not to support the
party leader.
Attacked furiously by the Liberals but upheld by the majority of the bishops,
Laflèche’s “political sermon” did not prevent the Liberal victory in June 1896 and
the settlement between Laurier and Greenway that followed in November. Laurier
made reference to this incident in asking for an apostolic delegate who could
settle once and for all the matter of relations between political parties and the
clergy. The young delegate Rafaelo Merry del Val irritated a number of bishops,
including Laflèche and the administrator of the archdiocese of Quebec, LouisNazaire Bégin*, who was expressing more and more openly ideas close to those
of the dean of bishops. When the encyclical Affari vos of 8 Dec. 1897 arrived,
Bishop Bégin, in collaboration with the new archbishop of Montreal, Paul
Bruchesi*, prepared a pastoral letter longer than the document from Rome, which
presented the papal text in a light favourable to the bishops (although they had
been indirectly reprimanded by the supreme pontiff) and insisted on the remedial
legislation and the “sacred obligations” that had not been mentioned in the
encyclical. In a memorandum to his clergy Laflèche merely promulgated Affari
vos without comment, attaching Bégin’s “masterly” letter, which he praised for its
clarity and precision and accepted as his own with “the same authority for the
diocese of Trois-Rivières as for that of Quebec.” The bishop, in his 80th year, was
entrusting command to a person whom he had fought so long as a “liberal”
opponent.
Late in May 1898, a few weeks after attending Cardinal Taschereau’s funeral,
Laflèche set out, as he had every year, on his pastoral round. He fell ill and had
to return to Trois-Rivières, where he entered hospital on 6 July. He died there on
14 July.
The legacy of the second bishop of Trois-Rivières lived on after his death. He long
remained the model par excellence of the bishop, father and pastor of his people,
who did not mince words in speaking to his flock but who was not afraid to weep
with them. More than 25 years after his death, the magnificent ceremonies that
accompanied the raising of a monument to his memory still drew a huge crowd
and occasioned dithyrambic eulogies which were collected in a publication fittingly
entitled Apothéose de Monseigneur Louis-François R.-Laflèche. He also remained
the very symbol of the die-hard ultramontane, in the words of André LabarrèrePaulé “the crusader,” “the herald of the good, of tradition,” “the man of strength
and conviction, believing in his mission and his ideas to the point of
stubbornness.” His many personal set-backs, which wove, as it were, the web of
his long life as a fighter, had been quickly forgotten. But the gist of his thought
was kept alive and an attempt was made to build, in French Canada, a Christian
civilization along the lines Laflèche had conceived. However, after a long
adulation in ecclesiastical and nationalistic circles, he, together with Bourget and
even Maurice L. Duplessis*, became the scapegoat for those who saw the time
before the Quiet Revolution in Quebec only as a period of “great darkness” with
its roots in the “retrograde” ideas and the unyielding authoritarianism of this
“ancient prophet” of the absolute. But his obvious good faith has been universally
recognized, and especially the essential role he played, which made him one of
the most important figures in French Canada in the second half of the 19th
century.