NATIONAL GALLERY OUTRAGE.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2129, 22 April 1914, Page 7

NATIONAL GALLERY OUTRAGE.

HUE ROKEBY VENUS.

SUFFRAGIST PRISONER IN COURT.

EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE*

The famous Rokeby Velasquez, commonly known as the "Venus with the Mirror," which was. presented id tho National Gallery in 1906, Was, as stated in the cablegrams recently, mutiliated by the prominont militant woman Suffragist Mary Richardson, S'ho attacked the picture with a email chopper with a .long narrow blado, similar to the instruments used by butchers, and in a few seconds indicted- upon ib sevcro if not irreparable damage. Altogether tho canvas was slashed it! six or sovfert places, tho cut 3 extending from tho top to tho bottom of the picture. What is described by ono who afterwards saw the damaged masterpiece as probably tho most - serious blow has caused a cruel wound in tho neck. For three or four inohes, he says, according to. tho "Daily Mail," it , runs almost vertically, and spreads out an inch wido. Another severe cut has been aggravated apparently by tho chopper having been twisted a little as it was withdrawn for tho nest blow. Further, there is a broad laceration starting ilear the left shoulder, and roughly forming, with two other cuts, a letter "N." Two of the limbs of tfmt letter

are 6ix or eight inches long, and tho third is a gash extending right beyond the body and sorno inches through tho drapery below it.. The other cuts are ' cleanly mado in tho region of the Waist. Tho weapon with which the damage was done luckily had a keen edge, and en did less mischief than ah old and biunt weapon would have done. . The Attaok on tho Picture. . Miss Richardson, who tvaa released under tho Oat/ and Mouse Act in October last, and has not since been rearrested, visited the National Gallery about 11 o'clock in the niorning. She stood in front of the Venus for bouiO lhoments, apparently in contemplation. of it. There was nothing ill her appearance or demeanour to arouse the suspicions of the uniformed attendant and a police constable who were on duty in the room and were standing within seven or eight yards of her.' Tho first throught of the attendant, wliert lie heard the smashing of glass, was that the skylight had been broken; but a moment later lie saw the woman ; hacking furiously at the picture with achopper which,, it is assumed, she had concealed under hor jacket. Ho rail ' towards liar, but he was retarded somewhat by tho polished and slippery floor. The constable reached the woman first, nnd seizing her by tho right arni jlrcvented hor from doing further mischief. Slio allowed herself, to bp led quietly away to tho inspectors' oiiico. > Addressing a few visitors to the Gallery who had meanwhile collected, she said, "Yes, lam a Suffragette. You can get another picture, but you cannot get a life, as they are 1 killing Mrs. Pankiiurst."

/ : Miss Richardson's Statement. Tho following statement, signed by Miss Richardson, in explanation of her net, has been'received by the' Women's Social.and Political Union:—

"I have tried, to destroy, the picture of tho most'lJeatiiiftil ill mythological history as. a. protest against tho Government for destroying Mrs. Pankhiirst, who'is the most beautifulcharactor in modern history. Justice is an element of beauty as much as[ coloilr and outline on canvas. Mrs. Panlfhurst seeks to procure justice for womanhood,, and for this she is being slowly niurdered by a. Government of Iscariot politicians. If there is an outcry against my deed, let everyone remember that such an outcry is an hypocrisy so long ns they allow tho destruction Mrs. Pankhurst and other beautiful living women, aiid that until the public efiase to couhtertance humali destruction tho stones oast against me for the destruction of this picture are each ah evidence pgainst them of artistic as Well as; moral tthd political humbug and hypocrisy."

History of the Picture,

Tho Rokcby Velasquez was purchased in January, 1906, from Messrs. Agnew by the National Art Collections Fund for £45,000, and was by them presented to the National Gallery, where it has hung ever since. It was universally recognised by good judges as one of the tna&terpieccs of tho great Spanish artist, ahd tho width of the circle to which it appealed was shown by the Subscription list, which contains names from lovers of art of every class, from the very rich to persons of extremely modest nieans. The list was headed by "An Englishman," who gave £10,000, then followed Lord Michelham with £8000, Messrs; Agnew with £52150, the late Dr. Ludwig Mond with £2000, and many others who gave £500, £250, £100, £50, atid so on, till wo come to "A Young Student," who contributed 2s.

. Considerable controvery has from time to time taken place concerning the history of tho picturo. Many judges believed at one period that it was identical with the "Cupid and Psycho" of iY elasquez, which was catalogued amongst the collection in tho Mirror Hall of the Alcazar Palace, Madrid, and which disappeared after tho great fire of 1734. • Ou this assumption tho question of possible damage, by firo was raised about tho timo when the picturo wa3 bought for tho National Gallery. lUcont researches have, however, prov-! Ed that tho Venus was not in the Al-j cazar collection, but was entered in the! catalogue of the collection of Don Gas- j par de Haro, Viceroy of Naples, and | cousin, of that famous Count-Duke i Oliyarez, renowned as the patron of Vol-! atqitez., The history of. the picture is thus known to within a few years of the timo when it was painted—-about 1655. . Ftom the HarOs it passed to the Dukes of Alba as pari of a marriage portion, and froni them to Codoy, the Spanish statesman. It \vas brought to England by the Duke of Wellington in 1806, having been sold to Buchanan, tlie dealer and agent, who bought it for £500 for Air. Morritt, of Rokeb.v Hall, Yorkshifo, tho friend of ; St. 'Walter Scott. It remained in his family for close upon 100 years. In 1005 Mr. 11. E. Morritt, the then owrwr, obtained the permission of tho Court of Chancery to sell tho picturo, which was an heirloom, and it camo, after ono or two interesting stages, into the hands of Messrs. Agnew. During tho tinio that it belonged to tho Morritt family tlie picture was only exhibited on two occasions—in Manchaster,' in 1857, when local' prejudico against studies from the nude caused it to bo "hung high up," and afterwards at Burlington House* in 1890, when it was so obscured by dirt and old varnish that the faco in the mirror could scarcolv bo distinguished. _ The statements current about i tho timo of tho purchase for tho National Gallery that tho pictiire had been injured wcro controverted by' a report published in December, 1905, by a Special committee of thrco members,. who inspected it with tho glass removed. They declared that, while the canvas had been enlarged by a strip at tile top a fow inches wide to make room for the figure of the Cupid holding a mirror, as a whole it was (piito sound. ' After purchase, it was shown in Manchester, Liverpool, and Edinburgh. The Masterpiece Described. Tho picture tnfeasuros about 70in. by SOin., and .represents Venus, a ( fflar-

vellously gracoful femalo figure, lyrna on a coucu, quito nude, with her back t<} tho spectator, and looking nt •herself ill a small minor, which shows the reflection of her face, nnd is hold for her by a delightful littlo Cupid. Tlio Venus is tlio only nude study by Velasquez, who seized tho chance which tho favour of Philip IV gnvo him to defy tho strict cdiots of tho Church and Inquisition on tho matter. Tliroo other works by tho painter in tho National Gnllory are Admiral Paroja, a head of Philip IV, and a. full-length portrait of tho samo King, tho latter an oarlv work.

In April, 1910. tlio Venus onco more bflcamo the centre of controversy owing to tho publication of a statement by Mr. James Greig to tlio effect tliat he had discovered the monogram «J.l3—• DM on tho picture. This was taken to signify Jtinn Dautista del Mazo, the son-jn-law of Velasquez and his successor as Court painter to Philip IV. Once again tlio'glass covering tho picture was removed and a comtnitteo of experts requisitioned to make an examination. They reported that they had satisfied themselves that the marks nnd cracks observed did not show tlio vestige of any monogram or signature.