047

  • Miss Constance Malford

  • n.d.
  • Arist unknown
  • Oil on wood panel
  • 36.8 x 25.5 cm., 14-5/8 x 10-1/8"
  • Catherine Carter Goebel, Paul A. Anderson Chair in the Arts Purchase, Paul A. Anderson Art History Collection, Augustana College 2000.33

Essay by Lauren Habenicht, Class of 2001 and Catherine Carter Goebel, Editor

This oil painting illustrates a loose, painterly style similar to that of eighteenth-century English artist, William Hogarth, known for his effective images of children. This work perhaps reveals a slice of the lives of eighteenth and nineteenth-century working class children. It depicts a young girl, most likely dressed in secondhand clothing, common among poor families at the time. Perhaps she is wearing shoes too large, or maybe none at all (Mitchell 137). Holding what appears to be a full basket, she is probably following in her family's footsteps, helping with agricultural work.

For the majority of the nineteenth century, there were no laws regulating child labor, so children worked as much as adults and were often treated harshly. They started working regularly around the age of seven or eight, and sometimes as early as three or four (Mitchell 43). They would labor long, grueling hours, sunrise to sunset, and often walk miles to work. Children were ideal for urban factory work (web gallery 146) for several reasons: they did not need great strength because machinery provided most of the power, they had small hands and fingers to operate the equipment, and they were employed cheaply (Mitchell 2). Yet, even though they earned very little, their families, often large, depended on their earnings for daily survival. In rural society, large families provided more laborers for the family farm. Boys usually were put to work earlier than girls because they were physically stronger. Young children aided in tasks such as tending cattle or picking weeds, as they grew older, they helped with duties that required more strength such as plowing or mowing (Hopkins 12).

Another interpretation of this piece might be that this young girl is an aristocrat, playing at being a lower class rural child. Since the eighteenth-century example of Queen Marie Antoinette in her hamlet at Versailles, the social elite was fascinated with going back to nature and living the simple life. At this time, English artists like Thomas Gainsborough and Sir Joshua Reynolds depicted many upper class patrons, including children, in more relaxed and natural settings. The fact that the back of this piece is labeled: Miss Constance Malford, suggests that this young lady had some status during her lifetime. In addition, the gilt frame, if original, is an indication that this was deemed an important work of art. Constance may simply be carrying fruit or vegetables while dressed in play clothes, still rather ornate by our standards, but much more appropriate to the task than those she would have worn for high tea. The sparkling brushwork and the beautifully modeled face indicate a master's touch to this painting.