# The Woman in the Rokeby Venus Is Nameless and Her Attacker Explained Herself Repeatedly > No document names a woman in Velazquez's Rokeby Venus. Mary Richardson, who slashed it in 1914, explained her choice in a statement, a memoir and later interviews. > The Study - 2026-11-09 > Canonical HTML: https://iconotheca.com/study/nameless-sitter-named-attacker-rokeby-venus/ ## Key points - No source read names a woman in the Rokeby Venus: the 1651 Coronel inventory the Gallery links to it says 'a nude woman', and the mistress story joins a documented affair to a canvas without a document between them. - Mary Richardson's 1914 statement, printed in The Times on 11 March and its opening sentence reprinted by The Spectator on 14 March, argues an exchange of the most beautiful woman in mythology for Emmeline Pankhurst and says nothing against the nude. - The complaint about men gaping at the picture comes from later interviews, one dated to 1952 by two secondary writers, 38 years after the act, and no original text of any of them was read. - The Spectator of 14 March 1914 counts seven injuries, six clean cuts and one ragged bruise, which may reconcile later counts of six, seven and eight. ## One 1651 inventory calls the figure 'a nude woman' and no source names her ## Mary Richardson explained her choice of the Venus in a statement, a memoir and later interviews ## The 1914 statement argues from beauty and justice and never mentions the nude ## The later accounts add a cash value and a dislike of the picture and of the way men looked at it ## The count of cuts and the price of the damage came from the Keeper, and the sources disagree on the count ## She was sentenced to six months, and the attack was followed by more attacks on pictures A canvas can be known for centuries without anyone writing down the woman it shows, and the woman who cut it explained herself in a statement, a memoir and later interviews that do not say quite the same thing. Where a record has a dated statement and later recollections, the dated statement sets the question and the recollections answer it, and the archive should say which is which. ## Questions **Is the woman in the Rokeby Venus identified?** No source read for this article names her. The National Gallery notes that the face in the mirror is blurred and asks whether a real woman was hidden, and the 1651 Coronel inventory entry it links to the picture says 'a nude woman'. A claim that she was Velazquez's mistress in Italy rests on a documented affair and no document naming a model. **Why did Mary Richardson slash the Rokeby Venus?** In her statement of 11 March 1914 she said it was a protest against the Government for destroying Emmeline Pankhurst, whom she called the most beautiful character in modern history. Later accounts add that the picture was valuable in cash terms and that she disliked the painting or the way men looked at it; one such interview is dated to 1952 by secondary writers. **What sentence did Mary Richardson receive for the attack?** Six months' imprisonment, according to The Spectator of 14 March 1914 and the London Museum, which says she was released on 6 April with recurring appendicitis. The sources read do not say which court passed the sentence. **How many times was the Rokeby Venus cut in 1914?** Counts differ. The Spectator of 14 March 1914 says seven places, six of them clean cuts and one a ragged bruise; the London Museum says seven wounds; a 2023 Art Newspaper article says eight gashes. ## Sources - [1] The National Gallery, London, 'The Toilet of Venus (The Rokeby Venus)', NG2057: overview, in-depth text, provenance and bibliography. - [2] The National Gallery, London, artist page 'Diego Velazquez 1599-1660', biography and bibliography (Montagu 1983). - [3] The Spectator, 14 March 1914, page 3, notice of the mutilation of the Rokeby Velazquez (Spectator Archive). - [4] 'Mary Raleigh Richardson (died 7 November 1961)', Monstrous Regiment of Women blog, reproducing 'Miss Richardson's Statement', The Times, 11 March 1914. - [5] Philip McCouat, 'From the Rokeby Venus to Fascism Pt 1: Why did suffragettes attack artworks?', Journal of Art in Society. - [6] London Museum, object 50.82/1393, Central News photograph, Mary Richardson leaving for police court, 10 March 1914, with catalogue text. - [7] 'Slashing the Rokeby Venus', Fight for the Right: the Birmingham Suffragettes project blog, 19 December 2012 (quotes Richardson's later account). - [8] Retrospect Journal, 'The Painted Question, The Iconoclast Answer' (dates the gaping remark to a 1952 interview). - [9] Alberti's Window, 'Wednesday, June 19th, 2013' (dates the remark to 1952 and cites the BBC series The Private Life of a Masterpiece). - [10] The National Gallery, London, 'Keepers' (list of Keepers, Hawes Harison Turner 1898-1914). - [11] Louis Jebb, 'How Velazquez's Rokeby Venus became a symbol of public pride and then political protest', The Art Newspaper, 8 November 2023. - [12] Women's Suffrage Resources, database entry 'Miss Mary Raleigh Richardson' (nine recorded entries; records conflicting). - [13] Wikipedia (English), 'Mary Richardson'. TERTIARY: used only for its report of Helena Wojtczak's judgment on the memoir Laugh a Defiance; the biography itself was not read. - [14] Wikipedia (English), 'Rokeby Venus'. TERTIARY: used only for the report that a mistress is claimed and that the identity of any model is speculative.