This week, ‘Just Stop Oil protestors’ attacked a beautiful painting known as the ‘Rockeby Venus’ which made headlines across the world. The media were quick to point out that this particular painting had been attacked before, by a Suffragette often referred to as ‘Slasher Mary’. In this post, we will take a brief look at the history of Rockeby Venus and its encounter with ‘Slasher Mary’.
Diego Velázquez
Diego Velázquez (1599 – 1660), the painter of Rockeby Venus was a celebrated Spanish Painter during his lifetime. He was the leading court painter at the Spanish court under the reign of King Philip IV of Spain and Portugal. Velázquez was named the official painter to the King and produced around 31 portraits of the King. He also produced masterpieces of the King’s family and court. Velazquez’s portrait of María Teresa (1638–1683), Infanta of Spain, Philip IV’s daughter is an incredible work of art which is a testament to his skill.1
Like all great painters, Velázquez’s influence on the world of art continued after his death. He was a great influence on 19th and 20th-century impressionists such as Pablo Picasso and Francis Bacon who offered their own interpretations of some of his images.2
Rockeby Venus
Seventeenth-century Spain was a staunchly Catholic country. As a result, nude paintings were discouraged. Rockeby Venus is the only (surviving) Velázquez nude painting. The theme of the painting is beauty. The subject of the painting is the Roman goddess, Venus. She was considered to be the most beautiful of the goddesses.3 To protect her virtue and to adhere to contemporary conventions, Venus is depicted with her back towards the viewer. Her reflection is shown in a mirror which is held up by her son, Cupid.4
Velázquez spent some time in Italy and painted Rockeby Venus there. He was influenced by the Italian tendency to paint Venus in a reclining position as this pose differed from contemporary Spanish art. Likely Velázquez used a model for the painting. The use of nude female models was frowned upon at the time, however, Italian artists appeared to have been a little more liberal. And so given the close attention to detail in the painting, we can assume that a nude female model was used. The identity of the model however remains a mystery.
In 1651, the Rockeby Venus was listed among the collection of Gaspar Méndez de Haro, the 7th Marquis of Carpio. The painting was hung on the ceiling over a bed, thus indicating that it was intended to be a private, erotic image.5
The Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU)
In the first decades of the 20th century, the Suffragette movement made a concerted effort to become more militant. The Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) was formed in 1903 and was led by Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst. One of the ways in which WSPU members tried to draw attention to their movement was through destructive means, they would smash shop windows and damage property. In 1912, one member, Mary Leigh threw a hammer at the Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith. The hammer narrowly missed his head.
In short, similar to the members of the Just Stop Oil movement today, the WSPU aimed to cause public nuisance to bring attention to their cause. Both movements in their time have been the subject of much controversy, partly because of their methods.
Slasher Mary
Mary Richardson (1882/3 – 1961) was a member of the WSPU and a devoted follower of Emmeline Pankhurst whom she greatly admired. She was arrested 9 times and served a total of 3 years in prison. Richardson gave a harrowing account of being force-fed by prison guards and doctors during her hunger strike – a tactic used by imprisoned suffragettes:
The process of driving the tube through the nose is very terrible, as the tube is usually too large for the nasal cavity, and when there appears to be any obstruction, more and more violent pushing is resorted to. On one occasion Dr Pearson almost tore my nose in his repeated efforts to force the tube through the opening, merely because he did not take pains to locate the nasal-throat cavity carefully. When I remonstrated, he replied:- “There is congestion, and I must force it through”.
Extract of a statement from Mary Richardson on forcible feeding, 6 February 1914 .
Richardson was one of the first WSPU members to initiate a hunger strike. She smashed windows at the Home Office and committed arson.
The Attack on the Rockeby Venus
Mary Richardson earned her name Slasher Mary during an incident on 10th March 1914. The Manchester Guardian described the scene:
Yesterday was a public day at the National Gallery. The woman, producing a meat chopper from her muff or cloak, smashed the glass of the picture, and rained blows upon the back of the Venus. A police officer was at the door of the room, and a gallery attendant also heard the smashing of the glass. They rushed towards the woman, but before they could seize her she had made seven cuts in the canvas.
The Manchester Guardian (1901-1959); Mar 11, 1914.
Mary Richardson attacked the Rockeby Venus and as a result, the National Gallery along with other museums were closed. Richardson claimed that she attacked the painting in response to the arrest of Mrs Pankhurst the previous day. She issued a statement explaining her actions which was printed in the press:
“I have tried to destroy the picture of the most beautiful woman in mythological history as a protest against the Government for destroying Mrs Pankhurst, who is the most beautiful character in modern history. Justice is an element of beauty as much as colour and outline on canvas. Mrs Pankhurst seeks to procure justice for womanhood, and for this she is being slowly murdered by a Government of Iscariot politicians. If there is an outcry against my deed, let every one remember that such an outcry is an hypocrisy so long as they allow the destruction of Mrs Pankhurst and other beautiful living women, and that until the public cease to countenance human destruction the stones cast against me for the destruction of this picture are each an evidence against them of artistic as well as moral and political humbug and hypocrisy.”
”Miss Richardson’s Statement”. The Times. London. 11 March 1914.
She was sentenced to 6 months in prison, the maximum penalty for the destruction of artwork.
Why Did Slasher Mary Target the Rockeby Venus?
Slasher Mary attempted to draw attention to the actual harm being done to female bodies in the rough treatment they received from the authorities. The attack on an erotic piece of art may have also been a response to the sexualisation of women. Members of the WSPU often complained of suffering from sexual assaults from the authorities, particularly during their arrest and imprisonment.
Slasher Mary’s attack on the Rockeby Venus was described as brutal and sent shock waves throughout the nation. The painting was purchased by public subscription for the costly sum of £45,000 a mere eight years before the attack and was very much seen as one of the nation’s pieces of art. The WSPU targeted places and property that would draw lots of national attention, and Slasher Mary knew an attack on such a famous national treasure would make headline news.
Fortunately, the National Gallery were able to restore the painting to much of its former glory.
The attack of Slasher Mary on the Rockeby Venus was just one of many actions taken by the WSPU before the First World War in their efforts to secure votes for women. Some women were eventually granted the vote in 1918 but this was more due to the contribution of women during the War than some of the controversial tactics used by the WSPU.
Slasher Mary became a socialist and then a fascist in the 1930s claiming that fascism was the only path for Great Britain to take. Slasher Mary was a controversial figure in later life, not just as the first attacker, or slasher of the Rockeby Venus.
- Metmuseum.org: https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/vela/hd_vela.htm ↩︎
- https://www.historyhit.com/culture/the-rokeby-venus-velazquezs-vision-of-female-beauty/ ↩︎
- https://www.thehistoryofart.org/diego-velazquez/rokeby-venus/ ↩︎
- L.H. Zirpolo, Historical Dictionary of Baroque Art and Architecture, (2018), p. 490. ↩︎
- L.H. Zirpolo, Historical Dictionary of Baroque Art and Architecture, (2018), p. 490. ↩︎
,_1647-51,_01.jpg){kind=link}