The Story of Prague (1920)/Chapter 1

by František Lützow

The Story of Prague

CHAPTER I

Prague at the Earliest Period

THE earliest tales of the foundation of Prague are as those of most very ancient cities—entirely mythical. Here, as elsewhere, very ancient legends and traditions take the place of genuine history. Yet a notice of such ancient towns that ignored these legends would be valueless. It is almost certain that the earliest inhabited spot within the precincts of the present city of Prague was the hill on the right bank of the Vltava or Moldau, known as the Vysehrad (‘higher castle’ or Acropolis). It is also probable that the ‘higher castle’ was from a very early date the residence of a prince who ruled over part of Bohemia, and the very ancient legend that refers to the Vysehrad as the residence of Krok or Crocus, the earliest Sovereign of Bohemia, is no doubt founded on this fact. Krok is said to have left no son, but three daughters, Kazi, Teta and Libussa. Libussa, though the youngest, succeeded her father as ruler of Bohemia. Libussa is described by the ancient chronicler, Cosmas of Prague, as ‘a wonderful woman among women, chaste in body, righteous in her morals, second to none as judge over the people, affable to all and even amiable, the pride and glory of the female sex, doing wise and manly deeds; but, as nobody is perfect, this so praiseworthy woman was, alas, a soothsayer.’ The last words, no doubt, refer to Libussa’s prophecy of the future greatness of Prague, which will be mentioned presently.

The great merits of Libussa do not, however, appear to have reconciled the Bohemians to the rule of a woman. When Libussa had been sitting in judgment on a dispute between two nobles—brothers who both claimed the paternal inheritance—the one to whom the princess’s decision was unfavourable insulted her by exclaiming that it was a shame for a country to be ruled by a woman. Libussa then declared that she would no longer rule so ferocious a people. She bade the people disperse and reassemble on the following day, when she would accept as husband whomsoever they might select. The Bohemians, however, declared that they would leave the choice to her and accept as their ruler the man whom she would choose. Libussa, who here is represented as a visionary or soothsayer, then said, pointing to the distant hills, ‘Behind these hills is a small river called Belina and on its bank a farm named Stadic. Near that farm is a field and in that field your future ruler is ploughing with two oxen marked with various spots. His name is Premysl and his descendant will rule over you for ever. Take my horse and follow him; he will lead you to the spot.’

Guided by Libussa’s horse, the Bohemian envoys immediately set forth and found the peasant Premysl ploughing his field. They immediately saluted him as their ruler. Premysl mounted the horse and, followed by the Bohemian envoys, proceeded to the Vysehrad, where he was immediately betrothed to Libussa. The chroniclers tell us that when he arrived at the Vysehrad he still wore the dress of the Bohemian peasant, and that his rough shoes were preserved in the Vysehrad castle as late as the twelfth century. Premysl became the founder of a line that ruled in Bohemia up to 1306; and the present King of Bohemia, Francis Joseph, is his successor in the female line.

To Libussa is ascribed the second foundation of a city on the site of the present town of Prague. It is said to have taken place on the left bank of the Vltava, on the Hradcany Hill. The spot then, and even far later, was covered by a dense forest; the ancient Slavs, it may be noted, generally chose secluded spots surrounded by forests as their dwelling-places. The oldest account, and therefore the most valuable, is that of the chronicler, Cosmas of Prague (about 1045 to 1125), whom I shall again quote. He tells us that Libussa, ‘standing on a high rock on the Vysehrad in presence of her husband Premysl, and the elders of the people incited by the spirit of prophecy uttered this prediction: I see a town the glory of which will reach the stars. There is a spot in the forest, thirty stades from this village, which the River Vltava encircles, and which to the north the stream Brusnice secures by its deep valley; and to the south a rocky hill, which from its rocks takes the name of Petrin,^[1] towers above it. . . . When you have reached this spot you will find a man in the midst of the forest who is working at a door-sill for a house.^[2] And as even mighty lords bend before a low door, so from this event you shall call the town which you will build “Praha.” . . . They proceed immediately to the ancient forest, and having found the sign which had been given them they build on this site a town, Prague, the mistress of all Bohemia.’

This is the most ancient record of the foundation of Prague on which all subsequent ones are based. The older castle on the Vysehrad, separated from the newer foundation by the vast extent of land now occupied by the Staré Mesto (old town) and the Nové Mesto (new town) continued to be the frequent residence of the Bohemian princes.

The date of the foundation of Prague by Libussa is as uncertain as everything concerning that semi-mythical princess. Hajek of Libocan, a chronicler of the sixteenth century, gives the year 752 as the date of the foundation of the castle on the Hradcany Hill. It was at first of a very simple character, consisting probably but of wooden buildings. During the reign of Libussa’s successors—of whom little but their names is known^[3]—we have scant information as regards the growth of Prague. After the introduction of Christianity one of the earliest Christian churches is stated to have been erected on the Hradcany at Prague. The new settlement rapidly extended itself, and from an early date we read of the ‘suburbium Pragense,’ which extended on both banks of the river and included the present Mala Strana (small quarter) at the foot of the Hradcany Hill, as well as that part of the Staré Mesto that is nearest to the Vltava. Though there is but little trustworthy information concerning this early period, it is certain that the city gradually spread out on both banks of the river. They were from the earliest historical period united by a bridge that stood near the site of the present far-famed bridge.

Buildings not connected with either the Vysehrad or the Hradcany settlements sprang up at a very early period. According to Professor Tomek, as early as the year 993 some houses stood on the site of the present Poric Street (close to the State Railway Station).

Immediately after the introduction of Christianity, but particularly during the reign of the pious Wenceslas (920–935), many churches were erected at Prague, though the earliest building devoted to Christian worship was at Levy Hradec.^[4] According to some accounts a church on the Hradcany was dedicated to the Virgin by Borivoj, the first Christian ruler of Bohemia. It was in this church that St. Wenceslas received the tonsure. The earliest church on the Vysehrad probably dates from nearly the same time. Prince Wenceslas—afterwards sainted—built several churches, and also laid the foundations of the first buildings on the spot where St. Vitus’s Cathedral now stands. Wenceslas was induced to build this church by the gift of an arm of St. Vitus, a precious relic that he received from the German King, Henry I. The first church of St. Vitus, like all the earliest religious buildings in Bohemia, was in the Romanesque style. In 939 the remains of St. Wenceslas were conveyed here from Stará Boleslav, where he had (in 935) been murdered by his treacherous younger brother, Boleslav.^[5]

The successor of St. Wenceslas, Boleslav I., whom Palacky calls ‘one of the most powerful monarchs that ever occupied the Bohemian throne,’ greatly extended the frontiers of his country, a fact that necessarily largely increased the importance of his capital; but of yet greater importance for the development of Prague was—in accordance with the ideas of the time—the foundation of the bishopric in 973. It took place during the reign of Boleslav II., the son and successor of Boleslav I. Bohemia had formerly belonged to the diocese of Regensburg or Ratisbon. At the time of the foundation the Bohemian princes ruled not only over Bohemia and its sister lands (Moravia and Silesia), but also over Southern Poland, Galicia and a large part of Northern Hungary. All these countries formed parts of the new bishopric of Prague. Palacky justly regrets that an archbishopric was not founded for so vast an extent of land. It is only several centuries later that Prague became an archbishopric. The first bishop, Thietmar, was, after a short time, succeeded by Vojtech or Adalbert, a Bohemian who was afterwards sainted and is still one of the patrons of the country. After the death of Boleslav II., in 999, civil war broke out in Bohemia, and the development of Prague was necessarily retarded.

N. Erichsen. Prague Jan. 16. 1902. Tomb of Ottokar I.

TOMB OF OTTOKAR I.

The population of Prague—originally entirely Slavic—was at an early period increased by German immigrants. They first arrived at Prague as permanent residents during the reign of King Vratislav (1061–1092). They settled on the right bank of the Vltava, and, favoured by the Bohemian Sovereigns, increased rapidly. They were granted special privileges by Sobeslav, and these privileges were afterwards extended by King Wenceslas I. Thus the old town in distinction from the new town, afterwards founded by Charles IV., long had a somewhat German character, and indeed only entirely lost it during the Hussite Wars. The old document stating that ‘no German or Jew shall be burgomaster of the old town of Prague,’ which is still shown in the town hall, only dates from this period.

The old town, however, always contained a strong Bohemian-Slavic element, and the fusion of the two nationalities undoubtedly became closer when, during the reign of King Wenceslas I., the old town was—probably about the year 1235—enclosed with walls. These walls starting from the Vltava, near the present bridge of Francis Joseph, followed the line of the Elizabeth Street and the Josefské Námesti till they reached the Prikopy or Graben. Thence they proceeded along the present Prikopy, Ovocna ulice and Ferdinandova ulice till they rejoined the river, near the spot where the national theatre now stands. The Graben, now the principal thoroughfare of Prague by its name, which signifies ditch or trench, still recalls its original destination. The Prasná Brana (powder tower or gate) marks the spot where one of the gates of the old town stood. According to Dr. Tomek the fortifications consisted of a double wall and double ditch, which was filled with water derived from the Vltava. With the exception of the Vysehrad and a few straggling buildings near the present Poric Street, the new walls contained all that part of Prague that was situated on the right bank of the river.

Premysl Ottokar II., the son and successor of Wenceslas I., was one of Bohemia’s greatest kings. Both by successful warfare and by skilful diplomacy he so greatly enlarged his dominions, that his rule at one time extended from the Adriatic in the South to the Baltic in the North. Though his many campaigns left him little leisure to reside in his capital, Ottokar enlarged both the town and the fortifications of Prague. In 1257 he greatly added to the fortifications that no doubt already existed on the Hradcany Hill. He caused the whole Hradcany Hill to be surrounded by a strong wall and the various towers to be connected by covered passages. Ten knights and 300 armed men were to keep constant watch and ward over the fortifications. The still existent towers—Daliborka, Mikulka, and the white and the black towers—formed part of these fortifications. Somewhat later the King also enclosed with walls the Malá Strana (small quarter)—that is to say, the buildings that extended from the foot of the Hradcany to the river. Here fortifications were necessary in three directions only, as in the direction of the Hradcany that fortress protected the newly enclosed settlement.

It appears probable that when the old town had been fortified a tête-de-pont had been built on the left bank of the Vltava, which, together with a similar building on the right bank, was to secure the bridge of Prague. The fortified gate on the left bank was now included in the new fortifications. It may here be remarked that when the old town had been fortified the Jewish quarter (vicus Judæorum) had been included in these fortifications; gates, however, separated the Jewish quarter from the rest of the old town.

The Jewish colony of Prague is of very ancient origin. According to Mr Foges,^[6] who was himself a member of that community, Jews went there immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, if not even before that event. Popular tradition, always given to exaggeration, indeed affirms that Jews first settled at
THE JEWISH CEMETERY Prague, or rather at Buiarnum, which stood on the spot where Libussa afterwards founded Prague, before the beginning of the Christian era, and being therefore guiltless of all participation in the Crucifixion they had fared better in Prague in mediæval times than in most other cities. It is true that Jew-baiting was not unknown in Prague. Mr Foges quotes from the original Hebrew a graphic account of the great persecution of the Jews in 1389. Yet, on the whole, we find at Prague fewer traces of the intense hatred of the Jews which is general elsewhere, and individual Jews often were in favour with the rulers of Bohemia. Thus the Rabbi Löwi Bezalel, who died in 1609, and is buried in the old Jewish cemetery, enjoyed the favour of Rudolph II. Bezalel, who was a student of astronomy and astrology, then intimately connected with it, was a friend of Tycho Brahe, who attracted Rudolph’s attention to the learned Jew. Bezalel was summoned to the royal palace, on the Hradcany, and a very lengthy interview between him and Rudolph took place. It is stated that Bezalel, during his whole lifetime, refused to give any account of this mysterious interview. He was probably a cabalist, and many quaint legends have centred round his name.

According to Dr. Tomek the period between the circumvallation of the old town and the foundation of the new town was that in which the preponderance of the German element at Prague attained its height. The Sovereigns favoured the German immigrants, wishing to use them as a counterpoise to the overwhelming power of the masterful Bohemian nobles. The old chronicler Dalimil, when describing Ottokar II.’s departure on his last fatal campaign against Rudolph of Hapsburg, refers to the apathy of the Bohemians, many of whom considered themselves as neglected in favour of the Germans, and to the King’s resentment. He is made to say: ‘When I return from the wars I will inflict much evil on the Bohemians. I will thus stain the Petrin^[7] with their blood, that no Bohemian will any longer be seen on the bridge of Prague.’ The passage is interesting also, as showing how early the bridge of Prague became famous.^[8]

The feelings expressed by Dalimil, who always writes as the champion of the Bohemian aristocracy, were, however, by no means universal among the Bohemians, many of whom were warmly attached to their Sovereign. We read that when, on June 27th, 1278, Ottokar left Prague for the last time he took leave of all those whom he loved and who were faithful to him; the clergy and the whole people followed him to the city-gates with prayers and many tears. They seem to have foreseen the fatal defeat on the Marchfeld where Ottokar lost his life. When the news of his death reached Prague, lamentation was general from the royal palace to the lowliest hovel. Though Ottokar was under sentence of excommunication, the Bohemians, never very heedful of the Papal authority, thronged to the altars to pray for the eternal salvation of their beloved Sovereign, while the bells of all the churches of Prague, nearly a hundred in number, tolled. During the short reigns of his successors, the last Premyslide princes, Bohemia was involved in almost incessant war.

Soon after the extinction of the Premyslide dynasty
THE HRADCANY AND OTTOKAR TOWERS (1306), John of Luxemburg, son of the German Emperor Henry VII., became King of Bohemia (in 1310). His adventurous reign concerns the annals of Prague but very little. A Sovereign who declared that ‘Paris was the most chivalrous town in the world, and that he only wished to live there,’ naturally neglected his Bohemian capital. The Bohemians complained that his short visits to Prague were only made for the purpose of obtaining financial aid from the Estates of Bohemia. His incessant campaigns, that extended from Lithuania and Hungary to Italy and France, indeed involved him in constant financial difficulties.

It is characteristic of the knight-errant King that he seriously contemplated re-establishing at Prague the round-table of King Arthur. He invited all the most famous knights in Europe to that city in 1319; nobody, however, appears to have responded to his call: After King John’s death on the battlefield of Crécy, his son Charles IV. (or I. as King of Bohemia) became his successor. Differing in most respects from his father, he was a devoted lover of Prague, and may almost be considered a second founder of the city. The districts of Prague, the Malá Strana and the Staré Mesto, that were already enclosed by walls, had become insufficient to shelter the ever-increasing population. Charles therefore decided on building a new city on the right bank of the Vltava. The old chronicler, Benes of Weitmil, tells us that ‘in the year of the Lord mcccxlviii., on the day of St. Marc, our Lord Charles, King of the Romans and of Bohemia, laid the first stone, and founded the new city of Prague, building a very strong wall with ramparts and high towers extending from the Castle of Vysehrad to Poric. The Vysehrad Hill also he surrounded with a wall and very strong towers, and the whole work was carried out within two years. And he also ordered that gardens and vineyards should be planted around the city of Prague.’ It is interesting to note in connection with this statement of the old chronicler that Dr. Tomek also tells us that during the reign of Charles many citizens bought land outside the town and established vineyards there.

The new town received great privileges from Charles, and the foundation of the University, which contributed largely to increasing the population of the town,
CHARLES IV., FROM TRIFORIUM
OF ST. VITUS also had a very favourable effect on the new community. The ‘new town,’ the limits of which were soon extended, enjoyed the rank of a royal town, a name given to those cities only that had been awarded special privileges by the Bohemian Kings.

Charles had, while temporary ruler of Bohemia during the absence of his father, succeeded in persuading the Papal See to raise the bishopric of Prague to an archbishopric. It was through his influence also that his friend Ernest of Pardubic, a member of one of the oldest noble families of Bohemia, was chosen as first Archbishop of Prague.

It was on Ernest also that Charles conferred the dignity of being the first Chancellor of the newlyfounded University of Prague. That foundation is, as regards the annals of the world, the most important event in the history of Prague. That a movement in favour of Church reform should originate here at a time when Geneva and Wittenberg were unknown as centres of theological strife was only rendered possible by the fact that Prague had become the site of one of the then very scanty universities.

At the meeting of the Estates at Prague in 1348 Charles made the following statement: ‘One of our greatest endeavours is that Bohemia our kingdom, for which we feel greater affection than for any of our other lands, should, through our action, be adorned by a great number of learned men; thus will the faithful inhabitants of that kingdom, who incessantly thirst for the fruits of learning, be no longer obliged to beg for foreign alms, rather will they find a table prepared for them in their own kingdom; thus will the natural sagacity of their minds move them to become cultured by the possession of knowledge.’ Charles concluded by informing the assembly that he had resolved to found the University of Prague.

Faithful to his predilection for France, Charles modelled his regulations for the new University entirely on those of the University of Paris. The students were divided into ‘nations’ according to their nationality. In Prague we find the Bohemian, Polish, Bavarian and Saxon ‘nations’; each of these separately elected members to the general council of the University.

The new foundation seems to have been very successful from the first. Benes of Weitmil writes: ‘The University’ (studium) ‘became so great that nothing equal to it existed in all Germany; and students came there from all parts—from England, France, Lombardy, Poland, and all the surrounding countries, sons of nobles and princes, and prelates of the Church from all parts of the world.’

No special building seems at first to have been erected for the University. Many professors delivered their lectures at their own apartments, while of the five professors of the theological faculty one lectured in St. Vitus’s Cathedral, the other four, all monks, in the monasteries to which they belonged. The lectures were at first always delivered in Latin, and it is, therefore, equally incorrect to maintain that the Prague University was at its beginning a genuinely German one as to say that it had, from the origin, a really Bohemian—national—character.

In the last years of his life Charles caused several colleges to be built for the benefit of the students. The first of these colleges was founded when Charles ‘bought the house of the Jew Lazarus in the old town,’ which afforded a dwelling-place for twelve professors. Charles also gave a library to the newly-founded college. During the reign of his son this, the most important of these foundations, was transferred to the building known as the ‘Carolinum,’ which henceforth became the centre of the University.

Everything connected with the University was to Charles of the greatest interest, and the Sovereign was often present at the ‘disputations’ which, according to the mediæval custom, took place there.

Charles was also the founder of a confraternity or guild of artists, of which painters, sculptors, wood-carvers and goldsmiths were members, and which, as Palacky says, took the place of a modern academy of arts.

Charles—who, as his very curious Latin memoirs prove—was a very devout Christian, was a great church builder. He rebuilt and enlarged St. Vitus’s Cathedral, and among his many ecclesiastical constructions the Karlov and the Church and Monastery of Emaus may be mentioned.

The great prosperity that Bohemia and Prague in particular enjoyed during the reign of Charles produced a tendency to luxury, and had a somewhat harmful influence on the morality of the people and of the wealthy clergy in particular. Thence arose a strong and general demand for Church reform which afterwards culminated in Hus. It would be very tempting to refer here to the forerunners of Hus who lived during the reign of Charles, but here, as everywhere, the need of compression confronts me.
THE GOTHIC PROJECTION, CAROLINUM Yet a short mention should be made of Conrad Waldhauser and Milic of Kromerize. The former, an Austrian by birth, was called to Prague in 1358 by Charles, and preached at several churches there, but principally at the Tyn Church, where he became rector about the year 1360. Though he generally preached in German, his sermons, containing eloquent denunciations of the immorality and luxury of the times, greatly impressed the Praguers, even the vast Tyn Church occasionally became insufficient to contain his audience, and he sometimes preached in the streets and market-places. He strongly inveighed against the immorality and extravagance of the citizens of Prague, and the result of his preaching was very striking. We read that the women of Prague discarded the jewelry to which they were accustomed, their precious veils, their dresses trimmed with gold and pearls, and adopted simple clothing ; usury ceased, and many who had formerly committed that sin declared themselves ready to compensate their former victims. Many citizens who had led an immoral life did public penance, and henceforth gave a good example to others.

As was perhaps inevitable, the great success obtained by Waldhauser was resented by other preachers at Prague. This feeling became more intense when Waldhauser attacked the mendicant friars. In 1364 the Dominican monks accused him of heresy, and brought two points in which, they said, his teaching was contrary to the Church, before Archbishop Ernest. Waldhauser lost no time in presenting his defence, and when the Archbishop appointed day and hour, when anyone who had any grievance against Conrad might appear before the Archiepiscopal Court, no accuser came forth.

This success seems to have encouraged Waldhauser to continue his denunciations of the corruption of the clergy. He was again accused, both by the Dominican and Augustine friars. The latter especially accused him of apostasy. Waldhauser defended himself in a Latin Apologia, which has been preserved. Its tone allows us to infer that his attacks against the immorality of the monks must have been very violent. It is a proof of the liberal mind of Charles, who has by German writers often been accused of undue subservience to the Church of Rome, that Waldhauser none the less retained his office as rector of the Tyn Church up to his death.

Yet greater was the fervour of Milic, who, in 1369, succeeded Waldhauser as rector of the Tyn Church. Milic had early in life held important offices at the Court of Charles. A canon of the Cathedral of Prague, he had also been appointed Vice-Chancellor of the Court, and had for some time in that capacity accompanied Charles during his travels, The desire for Church reform and a return to the primitive Church, then so prevalent in Bohemia, induced Milic to renounce all his honours and to seek refuge in poverty. After having acted as curate for some time in a poor village, Milic returned to Prague, where his sermons, preached in the Church of St. Nicholas in the Malá Strana, soon attracted general attention. Following in the steps of Waldhauser, he eloquently denounced the corruption of his times; but he seems to have strayed further from the doctrine of Rome than Waldhauser had done. Incessant study of the Apocalypse, and the horror which the evil ways of his day inspired in him, appear to have ripened in his mind the idea that the end of the world was approaching. He gave expression to his views not only in his sermons, but also in a written work, entitled, Libellus de Antechristo. The monks of Prague, his enemies, as they had been those of Waldhauser, denounced him to the Papal See, and Milic started for Rome, where, in the absence of Pope Urban, he was imprisoned. After the Pontiff’s arrival an interview between him and Milic took place, when Urban, recognising the purity of his motives, caused him to be liberated, and allowed him to return to Prague. Through the favour of Charles he here obtained the rectorship of the Tyn Church, as already mentioned. Coming from a thoroughly Slavic part of Moravia, Milic was well acquainted with the national language, and, indeed, only learnt German late in life. His sermons, therefore, attracted yet more attention than those of his predecessor. Milic did not limit himself to invectives against vice, but endeavoured by his own activity to reform the people of Prague. Through his influence the ill-famed buildings known as Benatky (Venice) were destroyed and a building erected on the spot to which the name of ‘Jerusalem’ was given, the first instance of the adoption of biblical names, that afterwards became so frequent in Bohemia. The fallen women who had formerly dwelt at Benatky now lived as penitents at ‘Jerusalem,’ and were the object of Milic’s particular care.

At the end of his life Milic again incurred the hostility of the ecclesiastical authorities. He repaired to the Papal Court at Avignon in 1374, but died (there) before the ecclesiastical court before which his case was brought and had pronounced judgment. His memory was long held in reverence by the Bohemians.^[9]

The reign of Charles I. marks so important a step in the development of Prague that it may be interesting to note here the various divisions of the city such as they existed during his reign, and after he had so greatly enlarged the city. Prague then consisted of three ‘royal’ cities, that is to say, communities that had received special privileges from the Sovereign.

They were the old town (Staré Mesto), new town (Nové Mesto), both on the right bank of the Vitava, and the {{lang|cs|Malá Strana(( (small quarter), on the left bank of the river. Besides these the community of Hradčany was under the rule of the burgrave of the Prague castle, and that of Vysehrad under that of the abbot of the monastery of that name. All these and some minor communities enjoyed special privileges, greater in some, smaller in other cases. Charles, however, in the last year of his life, united for a time the two royal cities on the right bank of the river.

 

1. The hill near Prague still known as the Petrin, or in German ‘Laurenziberg.’
2. In Bohemian ‘prah.’
3. These will be found at the end of this volume.
4. See Chapter VIII.
5. It may not be unnecessary to caution English renders against confusing the name of this prince with that of the town of Stará Boleslav; in German, Alt Bunzlau.
6. In his Alterthümer der Prager Josefstadt (i.e., Jewish town). This very curious little book, dedicated to the late Sir Moses Montefiore, who visited Prague on his way to Palestine, contains a great deal of little-known information concerning the Jewish colony at Prague.
7. See note, p. 3. The Petrin was the place where the executions generally took place.
8. The yet more ancient author of the Alexandreis also expressed fear that ‘soon no Bohemian would any longer be seen on the bridge of Prague.’ Hus also refers to the bridge when he states ‘that it would be easier to find a stag with golden antlers on the bridge of Prague than a worthy priest.’
9. His disciple, Matthew of Janov, writes: ‘Ipse Milicius, filius et imago domini Jesu Christi, apostolorumque ipsius similitudo prope expressa et ostensa.’