§ III. The place where we may best commence our inquiry is one renowned
in the history of Venice, the space of ground before the Church of Santa
Maria Formosa; a spot which, after the Rialto and St. Mark's Place,
ought to possess a peculiar interest in the mind of the traveller, in
consequence of its connexion with the most touching and true legend of
the Brides of Venice. That legend is related at length in every Venetian
history, and, finally, has been told by the poet Rogers, in a way which
renders it impossible for any one to tell it after him. I have only,
therefore, to remind the reader that the capture of the brides took
place in the cathedral church, St. Pietro di Castello; and that this of
Santa Maria Formosa is connected with the tale, only because it was
yearly visited with prayers by the Venetian maidens, on the anniversary
of their ancestors' deliverance. For that deliverance, their thanks were
to be rendered to the Virgin; and there was no church then dedicated to
the Virgin, in Venice, except this.[27]
Neither of the cathedral church, nor of this dedicated to St. Mary the
Beautiful, is one stone left upon another. But, from that which has been
raised on the site of the latter, we may receive a most important
lesson, introductory to our immediate subject, if first we glance back
to the traditional history of the church which has been destroyed.
§ IV. No more honorable epithet than "traditional" can be attached to
what is recorded concerning it, yet I should grieve to lose the legend
of its first erection. The Bishop of Uderzo, driven by the Lombards from
his Bishopric, as he was praying, beheld in a vision the Virgin Mother,
who ordered him to found a church in her honor, in the place where he
should see a white cloud rest. And when he went out, the white cloud
went before him; and on the place where it rested he built a church, and
it was called the Church of St. Mary the Beautiful, from the loveliness
of the form in which she had appeared in the vision.[28]
The first church stood only for about two centuries. It was rebuilt in
864, and enriched with various relics some fifty years later; relics
belonging principally to St. Nicodemus, and much lamented when they and
the church were together destroyed by fire in 1105.
It was then rebuilt in "magnifica forma," much resembling, according to
Corner, the architecture of the chancel of St. Mark;[29] but the
information which I find in various writers, as to the period at which
it was reduced to its present condition, is both sparing and
contradictory.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account