Outwardly this pet bird indicated wealth and status—a token of the exotic (and expensive) species then being brought back to Holland from the burgeoning international trade network established by the likes of the Dutch East India Company—and perhaps the source of this particular family's wealth. Symbolically—for the Dutch loved such emblems—the parrot could also be understood by the onlooker not just as a fashionable pet, but also as a symbol or paradigm of obedient learning and correct upbringing. The identity of this charming little boy remains, however, unknown. Indeed, the precise record of his young age is a sober reminder of the reality that fewer than half of the children born in the Netherlands at this date would survive to become adults, with the majority dying before the age of five. Such precious moments or memorials of childhood were, therefore, avidly commissioned by a rapidly growing and wealthy burgher class.

The tradition of portraying children in fine adult clothes, carrying toys or other luxuries, and often accompanied by pets emerged in the Netherlands in the second half of the sixteenth century. Showing the young sitter standing on a floor of checkered black and white tiles against a plain dark background continued to typify many child portraits in both the northern and southern Netherlands in the first half of the seventeenth century. No doubt on account of the boy's finery, this portrait has been associated with Amsterdam, the capital of Holland and the wealthiest city in the Northern Provinces, and specifically with the work of Dirck van Santvoort, one of the most accomplished painters of child portraits in that city in the second quarter of the century.

The authorship of this painting has been the subject of debate since (at least) 1890, when it was exhibited as a work by Dirck Santvoort and paired with another portrait by the same artist at the Königliche Akademie der Kunst in Berlin.[1] Its attribution was challenged by the exhibition’s curator, Wilhelm von Bode, who noted: “[It] can hardly be by this painter, since he was only 19 years old when the painting was created (1629). Furthermore, the treatment of this delightful little creature is more colourful and freer than Santvoort's.”[2]

Whilst there are many similarities to be observed from other works by Santvoort [Fig. 1], such as the full-length presentation of the subject and a colourful accessory worn against a neutral background, the present painting, as Von Bode noted in 1890, pre-dates all known portraits by the artist. The portrait has been linked to other artists, who specialised in child portraits, such as Cornelis de Vos (1584 – 1651), and its composition is very similar to a work attributed to Jacob Gerritsz. Cuyp (1594 – 1652) now in the Musée de Picardie in Amiens [Fig. 2]. However, in 2010, it was observed by Dr. Fred G. Meijer (then of the RKD) that the form of the inscription and date on the portrait, with its distinctive numerals and calligraphy, is of a kind used consistently throughout the career of the Rotterdam-based portraitist Jan Daemen Cool.[3]

Now considered as the leading portrait painter working in Rotterdam during the second quarter of the seventeenth century, Cool never signed his paintings, and was, until 1997, only known definitively by two portraits: the now lost portrait of Pieter Pietersz. Hein from 1629 and the group portrait depicting The Regents and Steward of The Holy Ghost Hospital in Rotterdam from 1653.[4] The latter provided a crucial starting point in the reconstruction of the artist’s oeuvre, as its authorship was confirmed by archival records. Following Rudi Ekkart’s study of Rotterdam portraits dating from 1620 and 1660, and using The Regents and Steward of The Holy Ghost Hospital portrait as a reference point, he was able to assemble a closely related group of portraits which were clearly executed by the same hand, that of Cool, dated in the years from 1629 to 1654.

Cool may well have studied in Delft with the leading portraitist of the day, Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt, when he married Agniesje Jaspersdr. in 1613, and in the following year he was admitted to that city’s Guild of St. Luke. He probably returned very soon after that to Rotterdam, where he was to spend the rest of his life. After the death of his wife in 1622, he re-married Lijsbeth Cornelisdr. the following year. Archive records suggest that the artist became a very wealthy man; following the death of his second wife in 1652, after nearly thirty years of marriage, he bought himself a place in the Rotterdam alms-house, and pledged to paint a group portrait of the governors, which as mentioned above, was to become the key portrait in establishing his oeuvre. He died eight years later in 1660.

[1] Dirck Alewijn, until recently with The Weiss Gallery.

[2] W. von Bode, “Ausstellung von werken der Niederländischen Kunst“ from Jahrbuch der König Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, Berlin 1890, p. 211.

[3] Rudi Ekkart, however, considers this portrait to be the work of an as-yet-unidentified North Netherlandish hand. Opinions recorded in the files of the RKD, the Netherlands Institute for Art History: https://rkd.nl/explore/images/132011

[4] See: R.E.O. Ekkart, “De Rotterdamse portrettist Jan Daemen Cool (ca. 1589-1660)” from Oud Holland 111 (1997).