Even when I was raising five sons (no daughters), even long before my oldest son's wife gave birth to identical twin baby girls (two years ago this past Sunday), I was drawn to this sweet image of two little lasses digging in the sand at the beach. Nowadays when I look at it, I am reminded of the twins.
However, after years of fondly perusing this painting and saying to myself, "What a darling pair of little girls!", it has suddenly struck me that it may be possible that the child wearing a sort of smock in the foreground was meant to be a boy--but fashions being what they were for toddler boys during the era it was painted, he looks like a girl. Otherwise, wouldn't that child be wearing a sunbonnet, too? And tights? And a lace petticoat? And wouldn't Cassatt have titled this work "Girls Playing on the Beach"?
As illustrated by this old photograph of a Victorian boy in a sailor suit (dress!), circa late 1880's, it must have been kind of hard to tell the lads from the lasses.
![]() |
Yikes! If my boys didn't know already how glad they are that they didn't grow up back in the Victorian Age, I think they do now! |
You know I love Mary Cassatt also. This beach painting might look really cute hanging in your granddaughters' room. I think her depictions of children are so sweet and I definitely plan to find one or two or her prints to hang in a nursery someday! :)
ReplyDeleteof*
DeleteI should give a copy of it to my d-i-l. Good idea!
ReplyDelete