PICTURES OF INNOCENCE

Children with Animals
in Georgian Art

From around the middle of the 18th century, many people in Britain began to think about childhood in new ways. At the same time, attitudes to animals were also changing, and pets became increasingly popular. Discover how new ideas about innocence, morality and family were reflected in the art of the Georgian age (1714–1837).

Earlier generations viewed childhood as a perilous time, when children had to be saved from immoral behaviour. By the mid 18th century, however, children were increasingly seen as inherently good. These new ideas were influenced by the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78), who argued that childhood was an age of innocence. His writings helped to establish a cult of childhood, which found its first visual expression in the work of British artists like Joshua Reynolds and Thomas Gainsborough.

Such attitudes coincided with changes in how 18th-century society perceived animals. Pets became increasingly popular and there was a growing view that the benevolent treatment of animals was a sign of a moral society. Before this period, pets rarely appeared as the focal point in portraiture, though there are some important early exceptions such as Gysbrecht van der Kuyl’s dazzling portrait of a King Charles spaniel, painted in 1665 (and now at Marble Hill House in Twickenham).

*A King Charles Spaniel*, 1665, by Gysbert van der Kuyl (1604–73). This lively picture shows the spaniel appearing from behind a drawn back curtain, as if on a stage without its master

*A King Charles Spaniel*, 1665, by Gysbert van der Kuyl (1604–73). This lively picture shows the spaniel appearing from behind a drawn back curtain, as if on a stage without its master

Georgian art reflects these shifts in attitude. Children and animals often appeared together in Georgian portraits and ‘fancy pictures’. Animals were also used as allegorical or religious symbols, or to reinforce the innocence and vulnerability of children.

‘Fancy pictures’

Detail from Two Girls Dressing a Kitten, by Joshua Reynolds

The ‘fancy picture’ was a new genre in British art which combined scenes of everyday life with elements of imagination, invention or storytelling. From the first half of the 18th century, painters of fancy pictures often cast their young subjects in symbolic fables, in which ordinary shepherd boys could become either infant saints or portents of immorality. Many British artists looked back to the example of Old Master painters such as Caravaggio (1571–1610) and Murillo (1617–82), who often depicted ragged street urchins and pedlars, and were inspired to portray rustic figures in elegant rural settings.

These fancy pictures quickly became fashionable and therefore lucrative for British artists, who had them engraved and more widely distributed as prints.

The Young Shepherdess

by Joshua Reynolds (1723–92)
c.1780

Children were a favourite subject for fancy pictures, and Sir Joshua Reynolds made many paintings of children in character roles.

In The Young Shepherdess the lambs, traditionally associated with innocence, are ignored by the child. Her large eyes, direct gaze, bare feet and partially draped torso give the painting disturbing sexual undertones. Although childhood was increasingly seen as a time of innocence, the age of consent was still only 12 when Reynolds made this picture around 1780.

There are three known versions of this rustic fancy picture.

The Young Shepherdess, by Joshua Reynolds , c.1780

Two Girls Dressing a Kitten by Candlelight, by Joseph Wright of Derby, c.1768–70

Two Girls Dressing a Kitten by Candlelight

by Joseph Wright of Derby (1734–97)
c.1768–70

In a darkened room two girls are playing with a tiny kitten. Much to its chagrin, they have abandoned their doll in favour of dressing him up – a parody of their future maternal roles.

But while it might seem innocent, this playacting also hints at children’s capacity for cruelty. The abuse of animals was of increasing concern to the Georgians and many artists and writers explored this as their subject.

Two Shepherd Boys with Dogs Fighting

by Thomas Gainsborough (1727–88)
1783

A red-haired shepherd rushes to defend his sheepdog from attack but is held back by another boy, who smirks at his own dog’s victory. The boys’ expressions of anguish and triumph echo the aggression and helplessness of their brawling dogs.

Moral as well as physical danger is at stake in Gainsborough’s fancy picture. As the boys and their dogs struggle, the flock seen in the background is neglected. The parallels between the dark-haired boy and his vicious dog hint at his capacity for future cruelty.

Two Shepherd Boys with Dogs Fighting, by Thomas Gainsborough, 1783

A Spanish Boy with a Dog, by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, c.1660–65

A Spanish Boy with a Dog

by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo (1617–82)
c.1660–65

The rustic genre scenes of ragged street children by the 17th-century Spanish artist Murillo were an important influence on British art in the late 18th century. The figures in Gainsborough’s fancy picture Two Shepherd Boys with Dogs Fighting were probably inspired by paintings like this one.

Here, a boy lounges on the roadside eating a pie, while his canine companion looks on hungrily. The dog’s intent gaze focuses our attention on the boy, who is entirely engrossed in his food.

Boy with a Kitten

by William Owen (1769–1825)
1807

Cats grew in popularity as pets in upper- and middle-class households during the 18th century. Although considered less faithful and more calculating than dogs, kittens were thought to make especially good pets for their capacity to teach children kindness.

In this fancy picture, the boy’s meal is disturbed by his kitten, who reaches a cheeky paw to the rim of his bowl. Such subjects were very popular as engravings. In 1810 a print of this picture was published with the title ‘Puss in Hopes’.

_{On loan from the Royal Academy of Arts, London}

Boy with a Kitten, by William Owen, 1807 (© Royal Academy of Arts, London; photographer: John Hammond)

A Shared Innocence

Detail from Boy and Rabbit, by Henry Raeburn

Unlike the often anonymous models who posed as characters in fancy pictures, the portraits featured in this section all show named individuals interacting with distinctive animals, some of them treasured family pets.

The role of pets in these paintings was both aesthetic and instructive. In Joshua Reynolds’s portrait of Master Philip Yorke, the inclusion of the seated spaniel both demonstrates the tender relationship between infant and dog, and hints at Master Yorke’s future role as a figure commanding authority and loyalty. George Romney’s portrait of Miss Martindale demonstrates a different approach. Rather than alluding to a strong bond between child and lamb, this artist employs the animal as a subtle symbol denoting innocence.

Lady Mary Leslie

by Joshua Reynolds (1723–92)
1764

Reynolds portrays ten-year-old Lady Mary Leslie as the personification of innocence, with the traditional attributes of a lamb and a flower garland. However, lambs were also the symbol of St Agnes, patron saint of those about to be married. The double meanings in the painting indicate that Lady Mary is a girl on the brink of adolescence. Her embrace of the lamb suggests both a shared innocence and a shared vulnerability.

Lady Mary Leslie, by Joshua Reynolds, 1764

Master Philip Yorke, by Joshua Reynolds, 1787

Master Philip Yorke

by Joshua Reynolds (1723–92)
1787

Three-year-old Philip Yorke and his Springer spaniel are united in spellbound concentration, watching a robin that has landed on the boy’s arm. His open hands express his childish amazement and delight, while his feet – set firmly side by side, mirroring those of his dog – emphasise the pair’s sudden stillness so as not to frighten the bird.

Reynolds’s use of a low ‘child’s eye’ perspective offers viewers a window into Master Philip’s innocent world.

Miss Martindale

by George Romney (1734–1802)
1781–2

Unlike his contemporaries Gainsborough and Reynolds, Romney has slipped the animal into this portrait very unobtrusively. The young sitter, Miss Martindale, about whom almost nothing is known, does not interact at all with the animal, nor it with her.

Seated in a formal pose, and wearing an elaborate bonnet decorated with feathers and a jewelled brooch, the little girl appears more like a small adult than a child, with the lamb added as a symbol of innocence.

Miss Martindale, by George Romney, 1781–2

Boy and Rabbit, by Henry Raeburn, 1814 (© Royal Academy of Arts, London; photographer: John Hammond)

Boy and Rabbit

by Henry Raeburn (1756–1823)
1814

Henry Raeburn Inglis is shown feeding a rabbit dandelion leaves, with one protective arm around the animal. While there is no record of the rabbit’s name, it was evidently a beloved pet rather than a wild animal.

Young Henry was the son of Raeburn’s stepdaughter and was close to the artist. He was deaf and unable to speak. This may have influenced his close bond with the rabbit, as there was no communication barrier between them.

_{On loan from the Royal Academy of Arts, London}

Miss Brummell

by Thomas Gainsborough (1727–88)
and Gainsborough Dupont (1754–97)
c.1781–2

In line with the ‘cult of childhood’ that developed in the 18th century, this portrait celebrates Miss Brummell as an innocent, uncorrupted by society. Far from the adult world symbolised by the distant house, she sits on a grassy verge surrounded by woodland, gazing thoughtfully away from us. She is completely at home in nature and seems not even to notice as the tiny kitten she cradles paws at her chest like an infant. Its pose hints at the maternal role Miss Brummell might one day fulfil.

Gainsborough Dupont was a nephew and pupil of Thomas Gainsborough.

Miss Brummell, by Thomas Gainsborough and Gainsborough Dupont, c.1781–2

Family Ties

Detail from The Brummell Children, by Joshua Reynolds c.1781–2

The commission of a family portrait gave artists like Edwin Landseer the opportunity to create more complex narratives which used the interaction of animals and sitters to reflect dynastic concerns. In his portrait of brothers Edward and Sydney on horseback, for example, the drama of the race suggests a boisterous sibling rivalry. Edward’s hat, blown off by the wind, has been retrieved by his faithful dog, signifying that as the elder brother and the heir he is a capable and respected master.

Similarly, in his portrait of Anne, Countess of Albemarle, with her son, Romney emphasises the readiness of a young child heir to take on the responsibilities of leading his family, but through very different pictorial means. Rather than showing William as a promising but energetic child, Romney portrays him as a miniature adult. Adopting the clothing and conciliatory pose of a reassuring adult, William simultaneously comforts his widowed mother while ensuring that his dog stays obediently seated.

The Brummell Children

by Joshua Reynolds (1723–92)
c.1781–2

In this lively portrait, five-year-old William Brummell and his three-year-old brother George play boisterously with their pet dogs, far from adult supervision or intervention. The painting reflects the popular 18th-century idea that children learned through their own experience, particularly when interacting with nature and animals.

Reynolds made many portraits of children and was celebrated for his ability to capture the vitality and spontaneity of his younger sitters.

The Brummell Children, by Joshua Reynolds, c.1781–2

The Angerstein Children, by Joshua Reynolds, c.1782–3

The Angerstein Children

by Joshua Reynolds (1723–92)
c.1782–3

In contrast to the spirited informality of Reynolds’s portrait of the Brummell brothers, this painting is a more traditional depiction of the children of a wealthy family. As the son and heir, nine-year-old John is the focus of the painting. His elder sister Juliana gently restrains the playful spaniel keen to leap into her lap. Traditional sporting dogs like spaniels were often associated with wealthy or aristocratic families.

Anne, Countess of Albemarle, and Her Son

by George Romney (1734–1802)
c.1777–9

This painting of five-year-old William, 4th Earl of Albemarle, with his mother, Anne, commemorates the death of his father when William was only a baby. Already the master of an extensive estate, the young earl is depicted standing in a glade beyond a lake in his parkland. Romney presents William as a small adult, formally dressed and comforting his mother as she gestures sadly with one extended finger towards a memorial urn on the left.

Beside William, his faithful spaniel rests his chin on his master’s hand in a comforting gesture which echoes that of the boy himself. A loyal dog served as a symbol of a child’s education, moral upbringing and faithfulness to family.

Anne, Countess of Albemarle, and Her Son, by George Romney, c.1777–9

The Honourable E.S. Russell and His Brother, by Edwin Landseer, 1834

The Honourable E.S. Russell and His Brother

by Edwin Landseer (1802–73)
1834

Landseer was discussing with their parents how he should paint the Russell brothers when the boys rode past the window, inspiring him to paint them on horseback.

The brothers, Edward and Sydney, tussle as their galloping ponies race neck and neck toward home. Although the race is playful sibling rivalry, it also suggests their jockeying for position within the family succession. This is mirrored in the rivalry of the horses, as one pulls ahead, glancing warily back at his companion ridden by the elder brother and heir, Edward.

While portraits of infants and animals flourished in Georgian Britain, not all children got to enjoy the benefits of this new age of innocence. As the Industrial Revolution gathered pace, less privileged children continued to go into employment at very young ages, but now they increasingly moved from domestic jobs to work in factories.

Although the vast majority of children’s lives remained difficult as the 19th century progressed, the demand for sentimentalised images of boys and girls only intensified. Victorian artists were inspired by the example of Reynolds and Gainsborough to create idyllic visions of pink-cheeked children at play.

However, as public awareness of urban poverty grew, some artists began to focus on the harsh realities that working children faced in Britain’s cities. Such highly romanticised images were part of a new development in the history of picturing children – designed to elicit sympathy, they would play a small part in improving labouring children’s lives.