Paintings

Introduction

Joshua Reynolds's paintings form one of the great bodies of eighteenth-century British portraiture. They are social records, theatrical inventions, family monuments, images of childhood, military celebrations, literary likenesses, fancy pictures and experiments in historical style. Reynolds is often introduced as a portrait painter, and rightly so, but the phrase can sound too narrow unless we remember how ambitious his portraits became. He wanted likeness to do more than preserve a face. He wanted it to carry dignity, learning, allegory and public meaning.

The National Portrait Gallery presents Reynolds as the central portraitist of his generation and the inaugural Royal Academy President, noting that he sought to raise portraiture through the Grand Manner by drawing on classical antiquity and the Old Masters.^[1] The National Gallery similarly describes him as the leading English portraitist of the eighteenth century, shaped by ancient art, Italian Renaissance painting, Rembrandt, Rubens and Van Dyck.^[2] Those two summaries give the essential frame. Reynolds's paintings belong to the business of portraiture, but also to a larger argument about what British art might become.

The range is wide. A single survey of Reynolds's paintings has to move from Mai (Omai) to Sarah Siddons as the Tragic Muse, from Lady Cockburn and her Three Eldest Sons to The Strawberry Girl, from The Ladies Waldegrave to Lord Heathfield of Gibraltar. These works do not simply illustrate a career. They show how Reynolds made portraiture elastic enough to include empire, theatre, childhood, motherhood, aristocratic display, military fame and classical reference.

At a Glance

• ArtistJoshua Reynolds
• Life1723–1792 ^[2][3]
• Core genrePortraiture enlarged through allegory and historical style ^[1][2]
• Portrait recordAssociated with 1,441 portraits in the National Portrait Gallery record ^[1]
• InstitutionFirst President of the Royal Academy ^[1]
• Grand MannerClassical antiquity and Old Master models adapted to modern sitters ^[1][2]
• Catalogue controlMannings and Postle distinguish paintings, subject pictures and variants ^[4]
• Major worksMai (Omai), Sarah Siddons and Lord Heathfield ^[5][6][10]
• Image afterlivesVersions, studio repetitions and reproductive prints require separate identification ^[4][9]
• Condition cautionFaded reds, cracking blacks and fragile paint structures affect present appearance ^[2][3][13]

Contents

1. Introduction
2. Portraiture as the centre
3. The catalogue problem
4. The Grand Manner in paint
5. Portrait formats and social use
6. Children and fancy pictures
7. Military and civic portraits
8. Materials and condition
9. Key paintings to know
10. Browse Joshua Reynolds Paintings

Portraiture as the centre

Portraiture was the centre of Reynolds's career. The National Portrait Gallery records him as artist or producer associated with 1,441 portraits, a figure that conveys the scale and complexity of his practice.^[1] Some of those works are autograph paintings; others involve versions, copies, prints after Reynolds or later objects connected with his designs. Even with those distinctions, the number shows a painter whose identity was built around the representation of people.

This emphasis makes historical sense. Georgian Britain offered a large and competitive market for portraits. Aristocratic families wanted images of lineage, marriage, children and inheritance. Military figures wanted public forms of honour. Actors and writers wanted images that could circulate their fame. Children became subjects of sentiment, charm and family pride. Reynolds understood this world and found ways to make it visually ambitious.

His achievement was not that he escaped social portraiture, but that he made it richer. A portrait could include the sitter's likeness, but it could also imply virtue, status, learning, performance or public service. Reynolds's paintings often ask viewers to read more than resemblance. Pose, costume, gesture, borrowed composition and setting become part of the sitter's identity.

That is why Reynolds's portraits can feel more theatrical than informal. He rarely treats the painted person as simply caught in a passing moment. Instead, he builds a role around the sitter. The role might be maternal, heroic, tragic, innocent, cultivated or imperial. The painting becomes a stage on which public character is made visible.

The catalogue problem

Any account of Reynolds's paintings needs strong catalogue control. Mannings's two-volume catalogue raisonné, with Martin Postle responsible for the subject pictures, is the essential modern backbone.^[4] It matters because Reynolds's output is large, complex and full of title, version and attribution problems.

Portraits could exist in more than one form. A sitter might appear in multiple works. Studio participation, copies, later engravings and prints after Reynolds could spread an image far beyond the original painting. Some titles are modern conveniences; others preserve older collection traditions. Some famous images became more familiar through reproduction than through direct access to the painting itself. Without catalogue discipline, Reynolds can quickly become a fog of repeated names and half-remembered images.

Mannings and Postle help organise that fog. They separate portraits from subject pictures, record variants and provide a structure for identifying works across collections and histories.^[4] For a broad paintings guide, that means caution. It is better to describe types and major examples than to pretend that every local title is self-explanatory. Reynolds's art rewards exactness.

The problem is not only scholarly. It affects how the paintings are understood. A copy after Reynolds is evidence of popularity or transmission, but it is not the same thing as the original work. A print after Reynolds may preserve a composition and widen its fame, but it has its own medium and maker. A later title may shape interpretation in ways Reynolds did not control. These distinctions are part of the paintings' history.

The Grand Manner in paint

Reynolds's Grand Manner is not a separate corner of his work. It is a way of thinking that runs through many of his most ambitious paintings. The National Portrait Gallery explains that he borrowed from classical antiquity and the Old Masters to fill portraits with moral and heroic symbolism.^[1] In paint, this meant that a sitter could be given the scale, pose, light and compositional gravity of older art.

The Grand Manner allowed Reynolds to dignify modern portraiture. Instead of presenting a sitter only as a fashionable person in contemporary dress, he might surround that person with signs of virtue, power, tragedy or classical association. He could borrow the authority of Van Dyck, Rubens, Rembrandt, Venice, Rome or antique sculpture and adapt it to a London sitter. The result is often a portrait that looks backward and forward at once.

This method is especially visible in works that transform a sitter into an emblem. Sarah Siddons as the Tragic Muse is a portrait of an actress, but the Huntington identifies Siddons as portrayed as the Muse of Tragedy, with Pity and Terror in the shadows behind her.^[6] The painting does not abandon portraiture. It enlarges it until celebrity, theatre and allegory occupy the same space.

The Grand Manner could also operate more quietly. In family portraits, children and mothers might echo religious or allegorical models. In military portraits, pose and setting could create a sense of civic destiny. In aristocratic portraits, gesture and costume might turn social standing into apparent natural grace. Reynolds's method was not always subtle, but it was rarely casual.

Italy and the old-master inheritance

Reynolds's paintings are difficult to understand without his Italian formation. The National Gallery and National Galleries of Scotland both place his 1749-52 travel and study period at the centre of his artistic development.^[2][3] Italy gave him more than a store of admired names. It gave him a way to imagine portraiture as something larger than a trade in likenesses.

This inheritance appears in the weight he gives to pose, colour and precedent. Reynolds wanted a modern British portrait to carry echoes of great art without losing contact with the sitter. That was a delicate balance. If the borrowing became too obvious, the portrait could feel like costume theatre. If the likeness remained too plain, it might lack the grandeur he sought. His strongest paintings keep the two forces alive: the recognisable person and the remembered museum of older art.

Van Dyck was especially important for aristocratic ease, but Reynolds's imagination ranged more widely. Venetian colour, Roman dignity, Rembrandt's shadow and Rubens's amplitude all offered different tools.^[2] These sources helped him build portraits that seemed learned without becoming purely antiquarian. A sitter could appear modern in identity but old-masterly in pictorial authority.

The old-master inheritance also explains the density of some compositions. Reynolds often arranges figures as though he were solving an inherited problem: how to place bodies, hands, drapery, symbolic objects and glances into a convincing whole. Even when the subject is a child, actor or aristocratic sister, the painting may be quietly conversing with earlier art. That conversation is one of the pleasures of looking at Reynolds carefully.

Portrait formats and social use

Reynolds's paintings also differ by format and social purpose. A head-and-shoulders portrait, a full-length aristocratic image, a family group, a theatrical allegory and a military portrait do not make the same claims. Each format asks viewers to understand the sitter differently. Scale, pose and setting are not neutral choices; they help determine the social force of the work.

The full-length portrait was especially useful for ambition. It allowed Reynolds to show a sitter's body, costume, stance and surroundings as part of identity. In a full-length work, the sitter could occupy space with authority, move through landscape, command a symbolic object or appear almost on a stage. This is part of the power of Mai (Omai), Sarah Siddons as the Tragic Muse, Lord Heathfield of Gibraltar and Colonel Acland and Lord Sydney: The Archers.^{[5][6][10][11]}

Group portraits created a different challenge. They needed coherence as well as likeness. Lady Cockburn and her Three Eldest Sons binds mother and children through movement, touch and allegory.^[7] The Ladies Waldegrave uses the shared act of needlework to link three sisters in a unified design.^[8] In both cases, the painting is not merely a gathering of sitters. It is a social relation made visible.

Smaller or more intimate works could work through concentrated feeling rather than grand staging. Child portraits and fancy pictures often rely on vulnerability, charm, dreaminess or sentimental tension. Their power comes from closeness rather than public scale. Reynolds was flexible enough to understand that not every painting needed the same temperature of grandeur.

Women, family and aristocratic display

Women appear throughout Reynolds's paintings as sitters, mothers, sisters, actresses, beauties, patrons and public figures. His portraits of women often hold together likeness, social position and symbolic role. A sitter might be presented as graceful, learned, maternal, theatrical or mythological, depending on the commission and the ambition of the image.

Lady Cockburn and her Three Eldest Sons is one of the clearest examples of this layered method. The National Gallery identifies the work as a portrait of Augusta Anne, Lady Cockburn, with her three infant boys, but also as a personification of Charity, drawing on traditional images of the theological virtue.^[7] Reynolds adapted Van Dyck and other sources to make a family portrait behave like an elevated moral composition.

The painting shows how Reynolds could turn motherhood into public imagery. Lady Cockburn is not simply recorded with her children. She becomes a living version of care, fertility, lineage and virtue. The boys' movement gives the image energy, while the older artistic references give it authority. Reynolds uses the family group to make domestic affection look worthy of grand painting.

The Ladies Waldegrave works differently. National Galleries of Scotland describes the three Waldegrave sisters collaboratively working on needlework, with the shared activity linking them together.^[8] The painting is not maternal. It is a conversation piece of sisterhood, refinement and aristocratic availability. The women are individuals, but the composition binds them through coordinated action.

Together, these works show Reynolds's sensitivity to the social meanings of family portraiture. A family picture could celebrate affection, advertise status, display accomplishment or suggest dynastic promise. It could seem intimate while still performing for a public world of visitors, inheritance and reputation.

Reynolds was especially adept at making aristocratic leisure appear meaningful. Needlework, motherhood, musicality, reading, hunting, archery or theatrical pose could all be turned into signs of taste and character. This does not mean the paintings are neutral descriptions of daily life. They are refined constructions. The sitter's activity is selected, shaped and elevated so that private identity and public display reinforce one another.

That construction can be beautiful and artificial at the same time. In The Ladies Waldegrave, the sisters' coordinated work at the table creates harmony, but it also presents marriageable aristocratic women within a disciplined composition of grace and accomplishment.^[8] Reynolds's paintings often operate in this double register: pleasure on the surface, social strategy underneath.

Children and fancy pictures

Reynolds painted children with unusual frequency and influence. Some are named sitters from elite families; others became famous as images of childhood itself. These pictures need care because their charm can hide their complexity. Childhood in Reynolds is not merely natural innocence. It is also a visual language shaped by sentiment, family ambition, reproduction and the art market.

The Strawberry Girl is a particularly revealing case. The Wallace Collection records that Reynolds painted four versions, with two known to survive, including the Wallace painting and another at Bowood House.^[9] X-ray evidence shows that the Wallace version was altered and may have been painted in parallel with, or as a second version of, the Bowood picture.^[9] That history is a perfect example of why Reynolds's paintings must be handled as objects with versions, not only as familiar images.

The appeal of such works lies partly in their emotional directness. A child set apart from adult society can become a focus for vulnerability, tenderness or imagination. But the paintings also belong to a culture that increasingly valued childhood as a subject. Reynolds helped make child portraiture and fancy pictures central to British visual taste. The image of the child could be personal, sentimental and marketable at the same time.

Other current Reynolds subjects, including The Age of Innocence, The Infant Samuel, Miss Bowles, Master Hare and Lady Caroline Howard, belong to this broader field. Some are portraits with known sitters; some have acquired more general titles or meanings. Their individual histories need separate locks, but as a group they show how Reynolds could move between likeness and type.

This movement between likeness and type is central to Reynolds's child imagery. A named child could become more than a family member; an unnamed or more generalized child could become an image of innocence, devotion, vulnerability or rustic feeling. That expansion made the paintings powerful for viewers who had no personal connection to the sitter. Reynolds helped make childhood visually available as an emotional idea.

Actors, writers and celebrity

Reynolds's paintings also belong to the rise of modern celebrity. Actors, writers and public intellectuals were not aristocrats in the old hereditary sense, but they could become widely recognised figures. Reynolds's studio gave them images with lasting cultural authority.

Sarah Siddons as the Tragic Muse is the summit of this theatrical mode. The Huntington describes Siddons as a famed actress and cultural icon, shown as the Muse of Tragedy, with the figures of Pity and Terror behind her.^[6] Reynolds turns an actress into a monument of tragic performance. The painting is not only about Siddons's face or costume. It is about the public imagination that gathered around her.

Dr Samuel Johnson represents a different kind of fame. The National Gallery notes Reynolds's friendship with Johnson, and Johnson appears within the painter's wider circle of intellectual sociability.^[2] A portrait of Johnson is not a court image or aristocratic display. It belongs to authorship, conversation, moral seriousness and literary reputation. Reynolds's portraits of writers and thinkers helped fix the visible identity of the Georgian intellectual world.

These works show how portraiture expanded in the eighteenth century. Fame did not come only through birth or office. It could come through performance, publication, wit, theatrical power or public conversation. Reynolds understood that a portrait could make such fame durable. The sitter might be known in a theatre, club, bookshop, exhibition or print, and the painting could gather those forms of recognition into one image.

Military and civic portraits

Reynolds's military portraits are among his most dramatic works. They turn uniform, landscape, gesture and symbol into public statements. A military sitter is not merely a private person who happened to serve. He can become an embodiment of courage, command or national interest.

Lord Heathfield of Gibraltar is the key example. The National Gallery identifies the sitter as George Augustus Eliott, later Lord Heathfield, defender of Gibraltar during the long Spanish and French siege that ended in 1782.^[10] Reynolds shows him holding the great key of Gibraltar against smoke and danger, creating an image of steadfast command before victory. The portrait was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1787 and engraved soon afterward to capitalise on Heathfield's fame.^[10]

The painting demonstrates Reynolds's ability to make portraiture almost historical. The sitter is still recognisable, but the image is built around event, symbol and public memory. The key, smoke, cannon and gaze turn the portrait into a civic drama. It also shows how Reynolds's paintings could work with print culture. Engraving spread the image and helped convert military reputation into a visual legend.

Colonel Acland and Lord Sydney: The Archers belongs to another kind of public masculinity. The Tate-linked partner record identifies it as a 1769 oil on canvas at Tate Britain.^[11] It is not a battlefield image but a sporting portrait of aristocratic friendship, action and leisure. The outdoor setting, full-length scale and archery motif make social identity appear energetic and heroic.

Military and sporting portraits also show Reynolds's skill with bodies in action. Portraiture can easily become static, especially when status is the main concern. Reynolds often avoids that stillness by building diagonals, gestures and props into the design. Heathfield's key, the archer's bow, a soldier's uniform or an outdoor setting can pull the sitter out of private likeness and into public action.

These paintings are also reminders that Reynolds's art participated in Britain's political imagination. Gibraltar, military honour, masculine leisure and national service were not neutral subjects. They belonged to a culture thinking about power, war, territory and social leadership. Reynolds's images helped give those ideas persuasive visual form.

Subject pictures and myth

Although portraits dominate Reynolds's career, he also produced subject pictures, religious images, mythological works and fancy compositions. Martin Postle's role in cataloguing the subject pictures for Mannings is a reminder that this part of the oeuvre has its own problems and importance.^[4] Reynolds wanted British painting to reach beyond likeness, and subject pictures gave him another way to pursue elevated art.

Works such as Cupid Untying the Zone of Venus, The Infant Samuel, The Strawberry Girl and other fancy or devotional subjects occupy a borderland. Some are not portraits in the strict sense; others draw on portrait practice while moving toward sentiment, myth or religious narrative. Reynolds was interested in the emotional and symbolic potential of figures even when no formal sitter identity was central.

These pictures also connect to his academic theory. Reynolds believed artists should learn from great models and aspire to general forms of beauty and meaning.^[12] Subject pictures gave him more room to work with idealised figures, inherited stories and the visual language of old art. Yet his strongest works often remain close to the portrait habit: they are interested in presence, expression and the figure as a bearer of social feeling.

The boundary between portrait and subject picture can therefore be porous. Sarah Siddons as the Tragic Muse is a portrait, but it behaves like an allegory. The Strawberry Girl may not be a conventional named portrait in the same way as an aristocratic likeness, but it still depends on the emotional immediacy of a human figure. Reynolds's paintings often matter because they occupy these mixed categories.

Religious and mythological paintings also reveal Reynolds's ambition beyond the portrait market. He believed in the prestige of history painting, even though the National Gallery notes that he had limited opportunity to practise it and that his greatest works remained portraits.^[2] Subject pictures let him test the language of ideal beauty, devotional feeling and inherited story. They also show why portrait habits continued to shape him: even in mythology or devotion, he remained fascinated by face, gesture and bodily presence.

The retained painting group

The group of Reynolds paintings considered in this cluster gives a useful cross-section of the career. It includes famous full-length portraits, family groups, child images, theatre, military identity, literary portraiture, aristocratic women, mythological and devotional subjects, prints and drawings. It is not the whole of Reynolds, but it covers enough variety to show why his art mattered to different audiences.

The major works form the interpretive spine. Mai (Omai) opens questions of global encounter, celebrity and cross-cultural representation.^[5] Sarah Siddons as the Tragic Muse shows theatrical portraiture at its most monumental.^[6] Lady Cockburn and her Three Eldest Sons and The Ladies Waldegrave show how Reynolds built family and aristocratic imagery through older art and social performance.^[7][8] Lord Heathfield of Gibraltar gives the heroic military mode its most forceful form.^[10]

The narrower works are just as useful because they show the breadth of the studio. Miss Bowles, Master Hare, Lady Caroline Howard, Lady Bampfylde, Mrs Abington, Doctor Samuel Johnson, Jane Fleming, Countess of Harrington, Lady Sunderland, Cupid Untying the Zone of Venus and Suzanna Beckford each bring a different problem of sitter, date, title, type or collection history. Their value lies partly in the fact that they prevent Reynolds from becoming a handful of famous images.

This breadth is also why the paintings hub must stay flexible. Reynolds's work was not a neat sequence of masterpieces separated from ordinary production. It was a living portrait enterprise, with high art, social demand, experiments, commissions, repetitions, celebrity and reproduction all entangled. The individual paintings make best sense when seen inside that larger system.

Studio, versions and reproduction

Reynolds's paintings circulated through a larger system of studio work, repetition and reproduction. The issue is not merely that many images became famous. It is that fame often produced versions, copies and prints. A single composition could have several material lives: the original painting, a studio version, an engraved image, later impressions, collection copies and printed references in catalogues.

This is why The Strawberry Girl is so instructive. The Wallace Collection notes multiple versions and uses X-ray evidence to understand changes in the Wallace painting.^[9] The work's identity is not just the title and image. It is the relation between versions, revisions and surviving objects. Reynolds's practice was less tidy than a simple list of masterpieces might suggest.

Prints also altered the life of paintings. Lord Heathfield of Gibraltar was engraved soon after exhibition, extending the portrait's fame beyond the original canvas.^[10] Many Reynolds portraits entered public awareness through mezzotints and engravings. The print could preserve the composition while changing scale, tone and audience. It made painted celebrity portable.

For viewers, the practical rule is simple: ask what kind of object is being discussed. An oil painting by Reynolds, a studio repetition, an engraved version after Reynolds and a later reproduction are related but not identical. The history of a Reynolds image often includes all of them.

Materials and condition

The present appearance of Reynolds's paintings can be deceptive because his technique was famously unstable. The National Gallery notes that his paintings are not perfectly preserved, with faded reds and cracking blacks.^[2] National Galleries of Scotland similarly states that his technique was often unsound and that many pictures have deteriorated badly.^[3] These cautions are essential for looking at the paintings today.

The National Gallery Technical Bulletin gives the fullest overview. Research on paintings in the Wallace Collection and National Gallery describes fragile paint structures, fading flesh paints, complex media and unpredictable conservation needs.^[13] Reynolds experimented with oils, resins, varnishes, glazes, pigments and layering practices in pursuit of richness and old-master depth. Those experiments sometimes produced long-term instability.

Lord Heathfield of Gibraltar makes the issue visible. The National Gallery states that the portrait was already in poor condition within twenty years of being painted, with cracking caused by defects in Reynolds's technique.^[10] That does not make the work less important. It means that the painting's current surface records both Reynolds's ambition and the material risks of his method.

This condition history should temper interpretation. Colour may have shifted. Flesh may be paler than intended. Dark passages may have cracked or sunk. A Reynolds painting is often a surviving negotiation between original brilliance and later deterioration. To look carefully is to imagine what the painting once did while respecting the object that remains.

How to approach the paintings

A Reynolds painting is best approached through several questions at once. Who is represented? What role is the sitter being asked to play? What older art does the composition recall? What social ambition does the image serve? What has condition changed? What later prints, versions or copies helped shape the work's reputation?

These questions prevent the paintings from becoming either simple society portraits or abstract examples of theory. Reynolds's art lives between those poles. His sitters were real people with names, families, professions and ambitions. His paintings were also crafted objects built from inherited forms, studio decisions, materials and public expectations.

The viewer should also notice how often Reynolds converts stillness into performance. A mother with children becomes Charity. An actress becomes Tragedy. A military commander becomes Gibraltar's defender. Three sisters sewing become a refined image of aristocratic unity. A visiting Polynesian celebrity becomes a figure of global encounter and artistic bravura. Reynolds's paintings turn identity into theatre, but a theatre governed by the seriousness of portraiture.

This is why the paintings remain compelling even when their social world feels distant. They reveal a society thinking about itself through images. They show rank, fame, childhood, family, empire, virtue and taste becoming visible. They also show a painter trying to make British portraiture intellectually ambitious without losing the power of likeness.

Key paintings to know

Several works offer a useful entrance into Reynolds's painted world. Mai (Omai) is essential because it combines portraiture, celebrity, cross-cultural encounter and the Grand Manner. The National Portrait Gallery describes it as a majestic, non-commissioned portrait that dominated the 1776 Royal Academy exhibition and represented Mai with grandeur, dignity and authority.^[5]

Sarah Siddons as the Tragic Muse shows Reynolds turning theatrical fame into allegory. The Huntington's record emphasises Siddons's role as a celebrated actress and identifies Pity and Terror as shadowed figures behind her.^[6] Lady Cockburn and her Three Eldest Sons reveals how family portraiture could borrow from religious and allegorical art.^[7] The Ladies Waldegrave shows aristocratic sociability and coordinated action within a refined group portrait.^[8]

The Strawberry Girl opens the field of fancy pictures, versions and childhood imagery.^[9] Lord Heathfield of Gibraltar demonstrates the heroic military portrait and the condition problems that can accompany Reynolds's technique.^[10] Colonel Acland and Lord Sydney: The Archers offers the sporting and aristocratic outdoor portrait.^[11] Together these paintings show why Reynolds cannot be reduced to any single formula.

The paintings matter because they changed the expectations surrounding British portraiture. Reynolds did not simply paint the Georgian elite. He gave that elite, and the wider culture of celebrity around it, a grand pictorial language. His paintings are beautiful, problematic, learned, theatrical, fragile and historically dense. Their power lies in the way they make likeness carry the ambitions of an age.

That ambition is what holds the variety together. Reynolds could be polished, sentimental, calculating, daring and unstable in technique, but his paintings keep asking the same question: how far can a portrait go while still remaining anchored in a living sitter? The answer changes from work to work, which is why the paintings remain more various than any single label suggests, and why each major canvas needs its own careful reading. That variety is the real subject of the Reynolds paintings tradition.

Browse Joshua Reynolds Paintings

Colonel Acland and Lord Sydney: The Archers

The Age of Innocence

The Infant Samuel

Sarah Siddons as the Tragic Muse

Lady Cockburn and Her Three Eldest Sons

Captain George KH Coussmaker

The Ladies Waldegrave

Mrs Abington

Lady Caroline Howard

Lady Sarah Bunbury Sacrificing to the Graces

The Strawberry Girl

Portrait of Mai (Omai)

Lady Elizabeth Delmé and her Children

Self-Portrait as a Deaf Man

Three Ladies Adorning a Term of Hymen

Suzanna Beckford

Cupid Untying the Zone of Venus

Master Hare

Lady Bampfylde

Jane Fleming Countess of Harrington

Miss Bowles

Doctor Samuel Johnson

Lady Sunderland

Lord Heathfield of Gibraltar