Apparitions and their Visionaries - Part II

The Apparition of 1879
The information on the Knock apparition is taken from many sources and books. The most prominent source is from Knock: The Virgin's Apparition in Nineteenth-Century Ireland by Eugene Hynes.1

The religious and political history of Ireland at the time of the claimed apparition is complex and has briefly been covered in part one. While not in full to give it justice, it is greatly detailed in Hynes' book and others and is very important to understand in connection to how the apparition claim came about. I will not quote the sources of information except a few, as links will be provided for many sources to further one's understanding.

There are hundreds of descriptions of Knock and they vary widely giving different impressions of what happened according to the eye-witnesses, sometimes adding information that was never a part of the original testimonies. There is no official version of what happened from the First Commission of Enquiry set up two months after the event. The documents and information from the Enquiry are scanty and most documents attributed to it have either been destroyed or gone missing. However, the Commission's collected testimonies were printed in two main newspapers in January which I will further detail in a moment.

The following description of what happened is not written and replicated exactly as I am about to do. I have gathered the facts from the witnesses depositions and their interviews to give the most accurate account as some stories leave out the facts and some include erroneous facts.

The main consensus written is that on a rainy day on the evening of August 21, 1879, fourteen people (as young as five and as old as seventy-five) saw a bright light over the south gable of the village chapel at Knock, Co Mayo. One man that same evening was a half a mile away and he also saw a light above the gable and thought that maybe the church was on fire but he did not investigate.

Enveloped in the bright light and seemingly floating two feet in the air was what looked like statues of the figures of Mary, Joseph, and what one woman claimed, and most all agreed, was the figure of a bishop because he had a mitre on his head. For some unknown reason, rather than attributing the mitre topped figure to St. Patrick, the lead seer, Mary Beirne, decided it was John the Apostle because it looked like a statue of the Apostle previously seen although that statue had no mitre. Some saw an altar to the right with a lamb on it and a cross above it, but not all did. None of the statues moved or spoke although at first, one person thought they had moved. The light and "statues" were first noticed between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. (still light outside) and continued to about 9:30 p.m.

The first to claim that she saw the light was Margaret (Maggie) Beirne2, 21, who went to lock up the church and noticed something white at the south end of the church. It was about 7:30. She thought nothing of it and went on home not mentioning it to anyone. The second sighting was with Mary McLoughlin, 45, who worked as a housekeeper for the Knock parish pastor, Archdeacon Bartholomew Cavanaugh, as she was on her way to Maggie's house to visit. She, too, saw a bright light about 7:30 and said she saw some statues. A storm had damaged the church the year before and some statues were destroyed and she thought they could have been a replacement for those that Fr Cavanagh may have ordered. Both of these women had gone on their way ending up, but arriving at different times, back at the same household of widow Mrs. Margaret Beirne.

Five members of Mrs. Beirne's household eventually saw the vision. One daughter, Mary Beirne, 29, sister of Maggie and daughter of Mrs. Beirne, went to walk with McLoughlin back to the church about 8:00. Neither McLoughlin or Maggie had said anything of what they earlier saw to anyone in the household. Mary told reporters a few months later that she was headed to the church to lock it up, the same church that her sister had already locked up earlier. Their brother was sacristan of the church and he opened and closed the church every day. Sometimes he had one of his sisters do it for him. There is no explanation of why they both went to lock up the church and had not communicated although living in the same house.

Before reaching the church Mary noticed the same bright light as her sister and McLoughlin had seen earlier as they reached the schoolhouse. She pointed out the statues to McLoughlin and then exclaimed, "they aren't statues, they moved!" McLoughlin stayed viewing the scene while Mary then went back to her mother's house to get her family, yet she only told her brother Dominque Beirne, Jr., 19, for some strange reason.

Dominque, Jr. then followed his sister Mary, and then he saw the light and figures she had described to him and he then went on to tell another household, where his cousin Dominque Beirne, Sr. lived. Dominque, Sr. then followed him back to the schoolhouse with John Durkan, 24, his servant boy, and a young child relative who was living with them, John Curry, who was five and Patrick Hill, eleven, who was visiting from Clairemorris. A neighbor, Patrick Beirne, 16, was apparently at the house or next door and came with them.

Catherine Murray, 8, was staying at her grandmother's, Mrs. Beirne, and had followed Mary and Dominque back to the church. She said in an interview with a reporter that she followed Mary and Dominque to the schoolhouse where eventually all the witnesses had stood to view the light and statues. From there, she was sent back to her grandmother's house—where Mary had just come from—to tell her grandmother, Margaret, and aunt Margaret (Maggie), who had already seen the light when locking up the church. She ended up only telling her aunt Margaret (Maggie) who then went to the schoolhouse. Maggie testified that she went back to the house to get her mother, Margaret. Margaret said "I was called out at about a quarter past eight o’clock by my daughter Margaret (Maggie)." Margaret later said in an interview that she and Maggie went to the schoolhouse together. There was no mention of going with Catherine and it is presumed that this was when Maggie went back to get her mother.

All in all, that was three trips to the same house to get all five to the chapel. Mary walked with McLoughlin, and then went and got her brother Dominique with Catherine following. Catherine got her aunt Maggie, and Maggie then went back and got her mother, Margaret. Notice from the drawing that their home was only a short walk from the schoolhouse and chapel.

Mary went to another house besides her own, she went to Judith Campbell's, 22, who lived with her mother and was said to be dying (she died shortly after). Visiting the Campbell's at the time was Bridget Trench, 75. Bridget and Judith left the dying mother and followed Mary back to the schoolhouse.

Mrs. Hugh Flatley, 44, independently was passing by at about 8 pm, and witnessed the vision, though she also mistook the figures for statues, and went on her merry way. The person who saw the light from a half a mile away, Patrick Walsh, 65, had gone out to check on livestock when he saw the light high up on the gable.

The vision lasted until approximately 9:30 and then disappeared. Most of the witnesses did not stay very long apparently not impressed. Bridget Trench left after about an hour. Widowed Margaret Beirne stayed only fifteen minutes. Patrick Beirne stayed ten minutes. Young Catherine Murray stayed twenty minutes. Dominick Bryne, Sr. left after 15 minutes and presumably with the servant Durkan and the young boy Curry. At some time, Mrs. Flatley was going by and saw the statues kept on going. Margaret (Maggie) Beirne stayed 15 minutes and then left. Mary McLoughlin had left by the time Patrick Hill, Dominick Byrne, Jr., Dominick Byrne, Sr., John Durkan, Patrick Beirne, and John Curry got there. After looking at the apparition for about half an hour she said she went to the priest’s dwelling, about 8:30 and told him what she saw but he appeared to make nothing of it and did not go. Patrick Beirne said he was there for an hour and half and left because he was very wet. If he got there after McLoughlin had left it would have been either at 8:30 when she said she left or she really left more around 8:15 and was only seeing the figures for 15 minutes.

Dominick Jr. testified he left after an hour to see Mrs. Campbell who was in a dying state. Judith Campbell had left the scene around 9:00 p.m. (she stated in one interview 9:30 but that time does not match the others) to check on her elderly dying mother.  Finding her mother lying on the floor unconscious, she feared that her mother had died.  It was about 9:15 p.m. that Judith summoned those left at the church to come to help her, which was only Mary Beirne and Dominick Jr. left at the apparition site. After seeing that Mrs. Campbell had revived and was not dead, about 10-15 minutes later, they went back to the church only to find that the lights and images were gone. If Judith left at 9 it would have been more like 9:15 that she summoned those left to come to help her, not 9:30 as she stated.

All the testimonies can be read in full from the Tuam News releases shared in John MacPhilpin's book3, and the only surviving evidence of what the First Commission received from the eye-witnesses, except for three that will be explained in a moment.

First and Second Commission
On the following day Fr Cavanagh heard all about the vision and then, according to McLaughlin, “recollected that I had told him about going to see it.” He wrote to the Bishop of Tuam to let him know of the apparition. We learn from the Taum newspaper that the apparition claim was investigated on October 21, 1879. The main objective of the First Commission was to collect and document depositions from the apparition eyewitnesses. Yet there are no copies of any records of who did the investigation, how many, and how they did it (each seer privately or together) and who they were to report to. The fate of the original documents collected and produced from the 1879 investigation is unknown. The documents were either lost or destroyed. According to the newspaper "the Archbishop of Taum" set up the First Commission but no one is sure which archbishop, Rev. John MacHale, or John MacEvilly.

We also learn from the newspaper who were the investigators. The newspaper states that the First Commission was made up of three principal investigators from the clergy, Archdeacon Cavanagh of Knock, Canon Waldron of nearby Ballyhaunis, and Canon Ulick Bourke of Claremorris (MacHale's nephew). The Commission's final verdict was that "the testimony of all the witnesses taken as a whole is trustworthy and satisfactory."

With most of the documents presumed lost from the First Commission, a Second Commission was opened after interest in Knock was prompted by some after a long decline of pilgrimages to the apparition. The Second Commission was in 1936 and only two of the original witnesses were alive at that time. Their testimonies were deemed “satisfactory” but still no definitive verdict on the apparition has ever been declared. While no decision has ever been made by a pope regarding the authenticity of the apparition at Knock, two popes have visited the Knock Shrine, Pope John Paul II visited in 1979 and Pope Francis in 2018, lending the apparition implicit papal sanction.

Prior to Pope John Paul's visit, a Basilica was built in Knock in 1976. Up until that time Knock was deemed as  "a bit of a shanty town" and " an absolute mess, awful—stallholders peddling cheap religious wares, incredibly garish and gaudy." A traveler from Belfast concurred, speaking of "muddy pavements and stalls that sold the most horrendously bad tat".

Evidence For the Testimonies
Trying to piece together what really happened on the night of the apparition is difficult. By the time the First Commission took down the testimonies of the 15 witnesses, it was six weeks after the vision. The original depositions were lost but copies were released by Fr Cavanaugh and/or Canon Bourke—both on the Commission—to the Tuam newspaper connected with Bourke. From the beginning the publishers presented the apparition as authentic and as having been established beyond any doubt.

John MacPhilpin, Editor and owner of the Tuam News broke the story of the apparition on 9 Jan 1880. Prior to that, the Bishop wanted to keep it under wraps. However, MacPhilpin knew about the vision for some time because his uncle, Canon Bourke (the original founder of the newspaper) served on the First Commission. MacPhilpin's brother was also a priest. The Tuam News was known unofficially as a quasi-official organ of the archdiocese.

MacPhilpin wrote his book (already linked above) about the apparitions with the "original" statements collected at the Commission. The book was also written in a style beyond a layman's usual religious knowledge pointing to the fact that Canon Bourke, his priest brother, and the Knock parish priest, Cavanagh, most likely assisted him.

The other main source on the Knock apparition was The Nation which published eight weekly issues from January through March 1880 on the apparition, sending a special correspondent to interview the witnesses. These articles also got reprinted verbatim in the U.S. weekly publication, Ave Maria, over the course of several months. The Nation coverage went on through October 1880 and printed the witnesses testimonies slightly different than the Tuam News and MacPhilpin's book. Thus, some of the testimonies printed were supposedly from the First Commission provided by Fr. Cavanagh, and some from the newspaper correspondent's interviews in January. Fr Cavanagh also provided to the Tuam News his list of claimed miracles connected with the apparition site.

A few of the original 8 Oct 1879 depositions surfaced a hundred years later. In 1881 a famous nun, Margaret Anna Cusack (Sr Mary Francis Clare) widely known as ‘The Nun of Kenmare’ moved to Knock two years after the apparition. Things did not go well for her relationship with Fr Cavanagh or Archbishop MacEvilly, so she left. She took with her some of the apparition witnesses' written statements and a lot of other related documents. Eventually, the documents were found preserved in the archives of the Sisters of St Joseph of Peace in Washington, D.C.

MacPhilpin’s book, as well as the newspaper articles, were carefully constructed as an endorsement of the event as supernatural as the only possible explanation. As it turned out, the "special correspondent" sent by The Nation was Thomas Sexton, who was elected to parliament, served on the executive of the Land League, and became Lord Mayor of Dublin. Sexton had strong connections to Archbishop MacHale and two of the priests claimed to have comprised the commission. Fr Cavanagh, the chairman of the commission, also assisted Sexton giving him everything he had on the depositions and later published a letter indicating that the press accounts by Sexton were “substantially correct” although they differed from the same depositions published in the Tuam News.

Controversy Regarding Apparition, Seers, and Clergy
What seems clear is that the one-day investigation on 8 October 1879 did not result in one definitive, final and agreed version of the seer’s accounts and that the process of describing and characterizing the event continued as one or more commission members rewrote or reformatted the seer’s testimony, thereby taking further steps in the process of socially constructing the reality of the apparition in ways which ignored the anti-clericalism associated with apparitions. Then those "embellished" and "translated" testimonies were what was then popularized in the newspapers.

Some of the issues with the testimonies were:

  • Fifteen witnesses were interrogated but were not sworn under oath.
  • Five of the eye-witnesses lived in the same Beirne household and four others were their relatives and McLoughlin was a good friend of Mrs. Beirne, had no family, and loyal to her employer, archbishop Cavanaugh. Bridget Trench was dependent on the charity of the neighbors. All had strong ties to the clergy and supportive of Fr. Cavanaugh while the rest of the county, in general, were against him for supporting the landlords and condemning the land movement at the pulpit.
  • The short turn-around time for completing the investigations suggests that the reliability of the eyewitnesses was not scrutinized very deeply or was not a priority.
  • Several were not signed by the "supposed" originator.
  • One was delivered in Irish and transcribed in English as it was taken down.
  • One testimony says, "it is the same as the others".
  • Testimonies vary. Two boys saw angels, no one else did. Only a few mention they saw an altar. The altar is described differently. The lamb above it is described differently between those who saw it. The cross above those who saw the altar is not there in some descriptions.
  • Bridget, in a changing testimony, stated she tried to kiss a foot of the Virgin but only encountered the wall. She was 75 and only spoke Irish. Her testimony taken down by an interpretor states she touched a foot. It is curious how she could have climbed over the wall or was there another entrance she took. The other two who went closer climbed over the wall.
  • Most everyone else viewed the figures from outside the wall, and at an odd angle to the gable. See the diagram above.
  • Everyone claims they saw "St. John" because the main seer, Mary Beirne said it was so and told her family and the Campbell house, while her brother Dominque then repeated the same scene to five others before they arrived to see it themselves. A few mention it was a 'bishop' because of his mitre but the commission deleted any references to it being a bishop.

Theory on what was behind the Apparition
The description given by the witnesses of flat two-dimensional figures that did not move has led some to believe the apparition was created using a magic lantern. Magic lanterns provided one of the most popular forms of entertainment in the 18th and 19th centuries, establishing many of the first 2-D special effects. Using an artificial light source and a combination of lenses, these devices enlarged small transparency images or miniature models and projected them onto a wall or screen. The fact that there was a bright circular light surrounding the figures lends further credence to this view.

The Revd. Dr. Francis Lennon, Professor of Science at Maynooth College, tested other possibilities besides the supernature and concluded it was impossible for the image to be generated by a magic lantern. However, it was shown by the British television documentary "Is There Anybody There?" broadcast in October 1987 and produced by Karl Sabbagh that a simple right-angled shaving mirror placed under the church gable could reflect the image in such a way as to achieve the results that Dr Lennon claimed were impossible. The magic lantern theory was again revived in a British television program, "Is There Anybody There?" produced by Karl Sabbagh and telecast on October 31, 1987. In this production Nicholas Humphrey demonstrated how a passable magic lantern image could be projected from within the gable of a Cambridge church, using a right-angled shaving mirror. Humphrey suggested fraud by Archdeacon Cavanagh, one of the three commissioners. In support of the theory, a document from the State Papers in Dublin Castle was cited in which Cavanagh, parish priest of Knock, was reported by a spy as criticizing rebels and consequently endangering his prestige in the area by championing landlords and attacking local Fenians or Land League leaders. The idea that Cavanagh, widely respected in his parish, might resort to fraud was not well received.

The Mason firm traded in scientific and optical equipment, including lantern slide projectors. According to Edward Chandler, it was one of the few firms in Dublin that provided a slide making service and "a religious or university lecturer could take a miscellaneous collection of photographs, prints, maps, and other documents and have them made into a set of slides for projection."4

Thomas Mason told his grandson that he had rented a magic lantern to a Knock priest at the time of the apparition. He left an account of that transaction and its consequences. This transaction may or may not have been involved in the original claimed apparition as it may have been rented by some of the scientists investigating the claim months after the apparition.

In the late 1960s the professor of Logic and Psychology at the National University, Dublin, Rev. Feichin O'Doherty, said he had been asked to investigate the reported events at Knock. O'Doherty said that there was a document in an archive of the diocese of Tuam in which the writer from the North, many years later, gave an account of how his brother, a policeman in Knock at the time of the claimed apparition had projected an image on the gable wall of the Church from a local school, using a "magic lantern". Irish journalist Eoghan Harris wrote in the Sunday Independent of Dublin that his grandfather, a farmer from near the area, believed (like many at the time) that the apparition was created by two local policemen with a magic lantern.

in 1987, the Trinity College Dublin professor David Berman reported on this in a 1979 article in the British magazine The Skeptic. He has also had seen the same letter and wrote that “there is a letter in the Tuam diocesan archive from a Michael McConnell from Belfast, who says that a friend of his called Constable McDermott, who had been stationed at Knock, had told him that the apparition had been produced by a magic lantern operated by a Protestant policeman stationed at Knock”. He also heard a statement some years previously “from a senior member of the Irish judiciary, to the effect that a solicitor of his acquaintance told him that his grandfather hired a magic lantern to Archdeacon Cavanagh during the week in question”. Berman said this is just hearsay but he still concluded the apparition most likely resulted from from “the projection of a magic lantern slide”. It also pointed to contradictions in witness statements.

Melvin Harris, a BBC investigative reporter, conducted a series of lantern experiments. Harris was working on TV series in which Arthur C Clarke investigated modern-day apparitions of the Virgin Mary in three distinct locations, one of which was the site of moving statues in Ballinspittle in 1985. Harris recreated Lennon’s experiments with a lantern projector on a set that replicated the site of the apparition in Knock. Despite some complications, Harris managed to recreate the “apparition.”

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence in the witness statements to support the use of a magic lantern. A relative of Patrick Beirne told a reporter when Patrick touched the eyes of the Virgin with his fingers he observed “two dark spots” that appeared upon removing his hand. They remained for a brief time before resuming their prior appearance. This account suggests that he had interacted with a lantern that utilized smoke as a projection medium. When questioned whether he had seen any other source of the light he responded that he had not checked his surroundings and could not say if there was any physical light source.

The vision lasted for over an hour, during which time it remained static and, unlike other Marian apparitions, there were no messages spoken or heard.  The figures were described by some witnesses as statues. Some of those testimonies were refined both by the clergy and witnesses to later only use the word "figures".5 The light surrounding the statues sparkled in the rain. Tuam News reported "As some persons were hurriedly going along the road which leads to the chapel...they perceived the wall beautifully illuminated by a soft, white, flickering light, through which could be perceived brilliant stars twinkling as on a fine frosty night." This flickering is a telltale symptom of a magic lantern.

Archdeacon Callaugh did all in his power to propagate and encourage the developing cult and pilgrimage. The Sunday Times of London wrote that the local priests, Frs Cavanagh and Bourke, successfully monopolized presentation of the apparition in the wider media. Practically all the early news reporters relied on the co-operation of these priests and interviewed people they selected. He and his priest colleagues were anxious to promote the apparition as a real miracle according to some witness reports and there is proof they influenced the memories and manipulated the alleged witnesses to tell the same story as well as changed the original testimonies released to the press. Since five of the witnesses lived in the same house and another four were relatives the witnesses' conversations about what happened would have corrupted each other’s memories so that the story unconsciously got better and more convincing and consistent and more preternatural in the telling before their depositions were even taken.5 

The Limerick photographer, T. O’Connor, visited Knock in February 1880. He published a short book6 after his visit. He interviewed some of the witnesses and Fr Cavanagh. He wrote that Cavanagh said that when the messenger came he was in his office, "When my housekeeper returned home that night she said that she had seen the Blessed Virgin at the chapel." He then went on to say it was all nonsense and he would not come, that what they saw was a reflection of the lights of the lamp before the altar. "At first I gave no serious attention to her words. Afterward, when I began to think that a wonder might really have been witnessed, I concluded that the people did not leave the church until the apparition was no longer visible, so I remained at home that night."

In McPhilpin's book, The Apparitions and Miracles of Knock, Cavanagh explained why he did not go to see the vision. "On the night of the first apparition my housekeeper asked leave to visit a friend, and remained out unusually late (she returned back at 8:30 and had only been gone an hour). While wondering what had become of her, she made her appearance in a very excited state, exclaiming: 'Oh! your reverence, the wonderful and beautiful sight ! The Blessed Virgin has appeared up at the chapel, with St. Joseph and St. John, and we have stood looking at them this long time. Oh the wonderful sight!' Inferring that the vision had disappeared, and omitting to question my housekeeper on that point, I did not go up, and I have regretted ever since that I omitted to do so. On another occasion a messenger was sent down to fetch me: I was in bed after a fatiguing day, and, having a prospect of hard work on the morrow, did not rise."

If someone else went to his house to get him "on another occasion", not one of the eye-witnesses said they did. Patrick Hill mentioned someone should get the priest before they climbed over the wall, but they went ahead and climbed the wall without doing so. The only way Fr Cavanagh would know someone tried to fetch him was if someone told him the next day, since he was in bed. His statement also contradicts the housekeeper who said, "I went to the priest’s house and told what I had beheld, and spoke of the beautiful things that were to be seen at the gable of the chapel. I asked him or said, rather, it would be worth his while to go to witness them. He appeared to make nothing of what I said, and consequently he did not go." She also said, "Cavanagh heard the next day all about the apparition from the others who had beheld it and then it came to his recollection that I had told him the previous evening about it, and asked him to see it." Both occurrences suggest Fr Cavanagh was not being honest and even points to the fact that he was deliberately hiding something. And how could it "come to his recollection" as if it happened a long time ago and was something as remarkable as a vision of the Virgin Mary that he would forget?

The day after the apparition Cavanagh started credulously promoting the vision as genuine and immediately he bottled rainwater that had flowed down the gable to distribute as holy water supposedly with curative powers. He himself started taking cement from the apparition gable and sending pieces out in the mail for healing. He also gave some water with cement in it to someone he was giving the last rites to and supposedly the man recovered. In other words, Cavanagh believed more in the “special power” of the gable cement than in prayer. Pilgrims who started coming also began stripping the cement from the gable wall of the chapel and they made large holes in the ground beside it carrying off cement and clay and water from the gutters for what they believed were its miraculous curative properties. Cavanagh had a diary of all the claimed cures which he gave to the newspapers to print, encouraging the pilgrims and initially allowing them to chip away at the wall. Eventually, the wall became threatened in its integrity and a border was put up. The pilgrims then starting bringing their own ladder to chip away above the border.

Cavanagh's house had a view of the gable from his house and had the light been as bright as some witnesses said he would have easily noticed it. McClaughlin could have also easily told him to go to his window and look at the light. One witness, Patrick Walsh, said he saw the light from a half a mile away! The picture to the right is Fr Cavanagh in front of his house. You can see how clear the gable can be seen from it, positioned directly above Fr Cavanagh.

An interesting story from The Story of My Life7, London, 1891. The Nun of Kenmare, Sister Cusack tells her experience in Knock. While enthusiastic about the apparition she quickly changed her mind when people saw above the altar a bright light and were exclaiming, “There it is! Now we have seen for ourselves!” After experimenting with kneeling where she could see the light and standing up where she could not, she discovered that the light was coming from a large stone the setting sun was reflected on. She went to tell Fr Cavanagh to go remove the stone as she thought it dreadful the people were deceived but he would not remove it. This made me very skeptical as far as he was concerned."

After the apparition was published, Fr Cavanagh was highly promoted as an esteemed trustworthy and an "excellent clergyman". What behavior he is known for in Knock prior to the apparition was his denunciation of early local organizers of the Land League with his inflammatory oratory attacking several men by name at the altar. That behavior violated ecclesiastical behavior. Some have suggested that this could be a motive for Fr Cavanagh to have had some kind of hand in the apparition to distract his parishioners.

Conclusion to be continued..


1Knock: The Virgin's Apparition in Nineteenth- Century Ireland by Eugene Hynes

2Alternate spelling for the Bierne family is "Byrne".

3The Apparitions and Miracles at Knock, by John MacPhilpin.

4Edward Chandler, 2001, Photography in Ireland: The Nineteenth Century. Dublin: Edmund Burke.

5The Apparition at Knock, A Survey of Facts and Evidence, Rev. Michael Walsh.

6A Visit to Knock, by T. O'Connor, February, 1880.

7Margaret Anna Cusack, The Story of My LIfe, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1891.