This intimate, newly discovered double-portrait by Mary Beale, one of Britain’s first professional female artists, is a significant addition to the artist’s oeuvre. Painted at the height of Beale’s professional career in the late 1670s, it is a sublime example of the artist’s few known largescale portraits and perhaps unique as a formal double-portrait of this size.

The work depicts two young siblings, seated within an Arcadian landscape looking confidently out to the viewer. The portrait numbers a small but expanding oeuvre of formal portraits of children painted by Beale, however it can be said this is one of Beale’s finest examples of the genre.

Beale’s sensitive handling is reminiscent of the artist’s intimate head-studies, a body of work that aided Beale’s training in painting the human form. An example of these studies can be seen in Beale’s portrait of her son Bartholomew, painted c. 1663-4, now located at the Yale Centre for British Art, which shows the artist’s capability in capturing the personality of the young boy on a small scale.

The study is a poignant reminder that, despite working as a professional artist, as a woman, Beale was not permitted to join a formal studio or study life-drawing, consequently she turned to her own family for training. It is this fact that makes Beale’s portraiture all the more remarkable and often shows a sensitivity in her work that can be lacking in the portraiture of her male counterparts.

Much like the study, the faces of the two children in this formal portrait have been delicately rendered and show how Beale’s independent training gave her the great ability to capture the innocence of a child, a skill obtained by the continual study of her own children.

The young boy to the right is depicted wearing classically inspired dress of rich red silk. He holds a bow in his right hand while a quiver of arrows is tied to his waist by a golden chain. His sister is shown to the left dressed not in classical attire but instead she wears the fashion of the period. for them to wear expensive silks.

In the centre of the composition, Beale has placed a red and black parrot. Research has indicated this to be related to the Psittrichas Parrot otherwise known as the Dracula Parrot which hails from Papa New Guinea. Such household pets would have been enormously expensive as they would have been imported from the Far East. It’s placement has no doubt been included by Beale to further indicate the wealth of the two children.

Beale is known to have included the parrot in another, slightly earlier, portrait of a young boy, which was on the art market some 15 years ago, where it is depicted in an identical position. As such the parrot clearly acted as a motif that the artist thought to be fitting to include in portraits of children. Parrots are often depicted in child portraiture to signify a symbol of learning. The playful way in which the parrot imitates the human voice, so too shall the children imitate their parents behavior.

Although the present identity of the two children is unknown, despite the suggestion of wealth and status seen throughout this portrait, the quick impasto paint work and close, intimate composition would suggest the children were known to Beale beyond the professional relationship as sitters. Beale often painted for her friends and it could well be that this work was painted not as a formal commission but for a friend. It’s unusual size of 40 x 32 inches would tend to support this, suggesting it was done on spare canvas rather than the traditional 50 x 40 inch canvas that Beale often used for portraits of this nature.

Indeed, Beale’s friend and mentor Sir Peter Lely (1618-1660) had two children, Anne and John, who were both born in the late 1660s and who Lely himself sketched, a portrait of John in crayons that remained with Lely ’s descendants until only recently and a portrait of Ann in the British Museum. Looking at these two works on paper, there appears to be a striking resemblance to the two children in this work, particularly the blond hair and blue eyes of the young John and the face shapes of both children.

Lely is known to have painted multiple works for Charles and Mary Beale, including a portrait of their son Bartholomew, now in the collection at Dulwich Picture Gallery. Charles Beale noted in his 1677 diary that “Mr Lely came to see Mrs Beale’s paintings, several of them he much commended, and upon observation said Mrs Beale was much improv ’d in her painting” [1]. However, despite their close professional and personal friendship and clear admiration from the great master, no documentation exists describing any works by Beale that were owned by Lely.

Although much academia has been spent on Lely ’s important art collection of old master paintings and drawings, it is not known what portraits exist of the artist’s family and indeed, some now lost works are mentioned in the wills of his children. It would seem highly likely that Beale did indeed paint for her friend Sir Peter Lely, and this present example could well be the result of such a commission.

Lely ’s son John died in November 1728 after which the house in had lived in in Kew was emptied and the contents offered for sale by the pioneering auctioneer Christopher Cock on 31 January 1729. Although a sales catalogue does not survive, if indeed this portrait does depict Anne and John Lely, it would almost certainly have been included in this sale.

The first historic mention of this portrait is 12 January 1812 when the collection of Bishop Benjamin Hoadly and his son Dr John Hoadly was offered for sale at Christie’s. The Hoadlys moved in an erudite London social circle and certainly knew Mary and Charles Beale and likely also knew Sir Peter Lely ’s children. Bishop Hoadly ’s wife, Sarah was herself an artist who worked for a time as Mary Beale’s studio assistant so acquiring such a portrait would have been, if anything, nostalgic for the Hoadlys. Considering their ownership of the work, the sitters were presumably known to the Hoadlys as they were Mary Beale.

Following the Hoadly sale in 1812, the portrait was bought by the coach-builder and art dealer Charles Spackman, the patron of Thomas Barker of Bath. It then passed to a private collection until it reappeared at Christie’s South Kensington in 1678 when its attribution had been lost and it was sold as being by Sir Godfrey Kneller. From here it was bought by the hotelier Peter Smedley after he acquired the property Ston Easton Park, where it remained until 2022.

This portrait helps to further expand the understanding of Mary Beale’s practice, both as a rare large-scale work and also as a potentially unique double-portrait. The fact it almost certainly depicts children she knew on a personal level further helps to demonstrate how her studio operated and how Beale, as an artist, worked.

The identity of the two children possibly being those of her friend and mentor Sir Peter Lely further adds to the uniquely personal nature of this work as it would how Beale painting a commission for an artist she had the utmost respect for.

[1] Horace Walpole, Anecdotes of Painting in England, vol. III, 4th edn, J. Dodsley, London, 1786, p. 134.