The present work is an impressive example of Mary
Beale’s full-length child portraiture and an exciting new addition to her
oeuvre. For many years, it was erroneously attributed to her male contemporary,
Sir Peter Lely (1618-1680).

Although the sitter’s identity is unknown at
present, he was evidently part of Beale’s close circle of ecclesiastical
patrons. The boy is shown dressed in classical robes and seated in a verdant
landscape, gesturing to a steepled church in the distant landscape; the subject
is ostensibly secular, albeit one with Christian undertones. During a time heavily
influenced by religious beliefs, subtle allusions to faith were frequently
incorporated into portraiture. In this instance, the young boy is shown with a lamb
and crook, attributes of St John the Baptist, who lived an austere life in the
wilderness.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of
religion in Beale’s life and its influence on her portraiture. She was born
into a well-to-do Puritan household and throughout her life placed a strong
emphasis on human relationships such as friendship, family and community. Beale’s
circles of friends included clergymen, intellectuals, and artists, and each
year, she paid 10% of her income from each portrait into a ‘Pious and
Charitable Account’, which was maintained even when the family was in financial
difficulties.[1]

As a woman, to succeed in a profession that required close
personal interaction with clients, such as portrait painting, maintaining a
reputation for virtue and propriety was essential. Beale’s association with
influential members of the church would have aided her navigation of the
gendered expectations of her time, providing her with an additional layer of
social legitimacy, patronage, and a support network necessary to pursue her
career in a socially acceptable manner. This structure proved valuable for Beale,
whose association with influential religious figures led to a significant
growth in her circle of patronage.

The majority of surviving works by Beale on this
scale show a heavy reliance on the compositional designs of her contemporary
Sir Peter Lely (1618-1680). Lely was the most celebrated portrait painter of
the Restoration period, so his influence is to be expected. The present work,
however, shows a freedom of expression seldom seen by Beale on this scale; the
composition is ambitious yet not overly ostentatious and is treated with a
level of restraint befitting a patron conscious of appearing overindulgent. It
is perhaps the case that Beale’s ecclesiastical patrons were less domineering and
granted her a wider scope for creative expression, as opposed to her
higher-status sitters who wanted the Lely ‘look’ at a Beale price point. The
quality of Beale’s output on this scale can vary, however, the present work
demonstrates a deft combination of confidence and sensitivity one expects in a
work wholly by her hand.

The sitter remains, at present, unidentified,
although the portrait is thought to have been passed down by descent in the
Hayley family. Dr William Hayley (c. 1657-1715) was a contemporary of Beale and
was chaplain to her friend and patron Sir William Trumbull (1636-1716)
on his
trips to Paris in 1684 and Constantinople in 1686-91. Hayley didn’t marry until
1696, ruling out the possibility that this could portray one of his children,
but it is possible that it portrays an as yet unidentified kinsman or a child
from his close circle of friends.

[1] H. Draper, ‘Mary Beale (1633-1699) and her ‘paynting
roome’ in Restoration London’, 2020, doctoral thesis, University of London, p.
206-7.