Bought from the Erich Galleries of New York in 1917, this portrait is the earliest acquisition by Percy S. Straus for the collection that came to Houston in 1944, but its attribution and the identity of the sitter have remained problematical. Straus believed it to have been painted by the English portraitist John Opie (1761–1807), who had been called “the boy wonder” by Sir Joshua Reynolds,¹ and who was indeed a likely candidate for this unsigned and undated half-length portrait of a young man. Opie was an accomplished and prolific portraitist active in London, and his portrait of Robert Southey (fig. 50.1) and his self-portrait (fig. 50.3), both painted in 1805, share a number of stylistic characteristics with the Straus painting.

Both the portrait of Robert Southey and that of Sir Charles Cuffley depict dark-haired young men, seen against a neutral background and placed well into the foreground of the picture space. Their lively features emerge from a Rembrandtesque chiaroscuro, and in both cases the artist concentrated on the portrayal of the faces. The fashionable hairstyle, with short curls falling onto the forehead, and even the heavy, carefully shaped eyebrows are further points of reference. The costume of both sitters, especially the stylish neckwear, corresponds very closely. Opie rendered the white muslin of the cravat with sketchy strokes, mere zigzags of the brush, and the same is true in the self-portrait. In the Cuffley portrait, however, the brushwork is much tighter, the details picked out with short, controlled brushstrokes. Furthermore, the air of drama inherent in the portrait of Southey is absent in the more sedate portrait of Cuffley. Despite these differences, however, the Opie attribution was deemed probable at the time, and the work was published in the Museum’s catalogue of the Straus Collection of 1945 as such.²

However, the attribution was repeatedly called into question over the years. The eminent Polish art historian Charles Sterling from the Musée du Louvre, who saw the painting in 1970, opined that the costume was not possible before 1820, and, consequently, John Opie, who died in 1807, could not be considered as the author. Sterling suggested Opie’s son Edward. In fact, John Opie died childless, and Edward Opie (1810–1894), his nephew, is precluded as author due to his late birthdate. Despite this fact, the Edward Opie attribution was upheld by Dr. Bertrand Davezac, curator of the Menil Foundation, in 1982, but neither this nor further attributions to Sir William Beechey (English, 1753–1839) and John Trumbull (American, 1756–1843) were thought tenable and therefore dismissed. Without a definite attribution, the work was catalogued as “English, early 19th century,” but recent research has pointed in a new direction.

On closer examination of the painting and by comparing the coat, vest, and elaborate cravat of the sitter with fashion plates of the years 1806–1810, an earlier date than 1820 seems entirely possible (fig. 50.2). The impact of George “Beau” Brummel (1778–1840), and his creation of the “dandy,” a type of a fashionable gentlemen, around 1800, is abundantly documented in contemporary fashion plates as well as in literature and portraiture. The high, pointed collar with widespread tips and the massive white cravat wound around the neck and ending in a small knot are quite typical for these early years. Together with the lacy ruffle of the shirt, visible thanks to the partially unbuttoned vest, the impeccably white and stylishly knotted cravat was considered the hallmark of the man of style. This type of neckwear and the rounded collar of Cuffley’s coat correspond closely to those details of the fashion plate of 1806 from the Costume Parisien (see fig. 50.2) as well as to the portrait of “Beau” Brummel by Richard Dighton of 1805 in J. B. Priestley’s The Prince of Pleasure and His Regency.³

Given the possibility of an early date, the attribution to John Opie becomes once again feasible, but for stylistic reasons it seems unlikely, given that the Cuffley portrait displays neither the drama nor the open brushwork characteristic of Opie. According to Jonny Yarker, an expert on early nineteenth century English art, it seems more likely to have been painted by William Arthur Devis (1763–1822), a well-known history painter and portraitist. Born as the nineteenth child of the painter Arthur Devis (1712–1787), William Arthur Devis spent the early part of his career in India, but returned to London in 1895 and became a successful portraitist, whose clientele consisted mainly of officers of the Royal Army and Navy. A portrait particularly close in style and feeling is that of John Cunningham Saunders, who was not a military man but a physician who treated many of the soldiers returning from the Egyptian campaign. He founded the London Eye Infirmary in 1805 and remained its director until his death (fig. 50.3).⁴ His portrait and that of Gwyllym Lloyd Wallace (1809; National Portrait Gallery, London) share the treatment of the fashion elements of the Cuffley portrait as well as a somewhat languid facial expression.

The sitter’s identity as Sir Charles Cuffley has proven impossible to ascertain. It has not surfaced among the known works of any of the artists considered as authors. Neither his name, nor any other member of a Cuffley family can be found in Debrett’s Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage and Companionage, suggesting that the baronetage was possibly only assumed. It is, nonetheless, a handsome portrait of a young Englishman and once no doubt held its own in the dining room of the Straus family, along with the other English portraits by Van Dyck (cat. 36), Sir Joshua Reynolds (cat. 47), a work thought to have been by Sir Henry Raeburn (cat. 48), and a work by Sir William Beechey that is no longer extant.

—Helga Kessler Aurisch