Centenarian - Bon-vivant - Fraud?

In 1745 the directors of Job’s hospital in Utrecht commisioned an unknown ‘good master’ to paint a portrait of Jan Geritsz. Kuijper alias Jan Practiseer ‘to serve as a memorial’. At that point Jan had been living in the retirement home for more than 30 years; he was 105 years of age – at least that was what the directors believed.

Jan Gerritsz. Kuyper alias Jan Practiseer (1648-1749) follower of Jan Maurits Quinkhard, c. 1745. The painting shown in the interiour of Jan's room, with a woman lashing out against a man, may allude to Jan's reputation as bon-vivant.

Source: RKD Afbeeldingsnummer 0000151313.

Jan had entered the retirement home in 1714. He paid an entry sum of 350 guilders and became a corrodian, receiving food and lodging for the rest of his life. Curiously, his (third) wife continued to live elsewhere in the town of Utrecht. Did she give Jan the boot? She might have had good reason to do so: shortly after becoming a corrodian at Job’s hospital there were complaints of ‘drunkenship and inappropriate talk’ and 80-year old Jan was said to be ‘the main troublemaker’. He was temporarily banned (a usual punishment in retirement homes) but readmitted after pleas from his wife and children and him promising to improve his ways. Many years later, at the honourable age of 94, the bon-vivant Jan was again banned for unruly behaviour.

Yet the directors of Job’s hospital cherished their jolly senior, perhaps in particular because the loss of his sight and mobility in his final years caused Jan to tone down a bit. This was also when he really began to live up to his nickname ‘Practiseer’ (to contemplate) as he is reported to have spend at least a couple of hours a day sitting in his room alone. In spite of this the directors decided to have their long-time inmate portrayed as the lively presence he had been for so many years.

Job's hospital shortly after Jan Practiseer had passed away. Hendrik Gerbrand Schutter, 1756.

Source: Rijksmuseum RP-T-1895-A-3350.

There can be no doubt Jan was a centenarian. However, there is dispute about whether he lived to be 101 or 111 years: the historian Van Klaveren found evidence suggesting Jan might have misrepresented his age when he entered Job’s hospital. He suggests this may have been on purpose, as directors usually took life expectancy into account when they calculated corrody prices: by adding ten years to his age, and claiming he was 76, sly Jan was certain to pay a lower entry sum.

In general retirement-home directors were well aware of such trickery, and usually required the elderly to present evidence from baptismal records. Whether the directors of Job’s hospital had done so is unclear though. We do know they were not very familiar with issuing corrodies: in 1714 they admitted Jan and another paying costumer out of dire necessity – but this was not at all standing practise. Is this why Jan managed to cheat the directors into believing he was 76 in stead of 66 – and with them also scores of marvelled artists and reporters after he passed away at the age of ‘111’ in 1749?

For a meagre 350 guilders the hospital had had to maintain Jan for more than 35 years. At least there was a valuable lesson in this for the gullible directors: retirement was a hazardous business and best left to the financially educated.

References: G. van Klaveren, ‘Hoe oud werd Jan Practiseer?’ Maandblad van Oud-Utrecht 19:6 (1946) 41-43.

Website Jan Lafeber.