by Mike Dash
The Amsterdam stock exchange ’t Hart, Jonker, and Zanden, Financial History of the Netherlands, pp. 53–56; Cotterell, Amsterdam, pp. 85–86; Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 348–50; Brereton, Travels in Holland, pp. 55–56.
De la Vega on small-time traders Cited by Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, p. 349. The descriptions of traders’ behavior date to somewhat after the mania period—to the 1680s, to be exact—and it may not necessarily have been so exaggerated in the 1630s.
Ubiquity of inns Deursen, Plain Lives, pp. 101–02.
Pub names Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, p. 202; Herbert, Still Life with a Bridle, p. 58.
Prostitution Deursen, Plain Lives, pp. 97–100. “Impudent whores” Brereton, Travels in Holland, p. 55.
Beginnings of the tavern trade Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 19.
Taverns involved in the tulip mania Haarlem inns definitely known to have been involved in the mania include Van de Sijde Specxs (The Flitch of Bacon), De Vergulden Kettingh (The Guilded Necklace), ’t Oude Haentgen, the Toelast in the Grote Markt, and De Coninck van Vranckrijck. In Amsterdam, De Mennoniste Bruyloft (The Mennonite Wedding) also served as a center of tulip dealing. Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 24, 42–43, 83, and (1934), p. 233.
The Quaeckels Cornelis Quaeckel senior was born around 1565 and married, in 1587, Trijn or Catharina Cornelisdr. Duyck. From 1609 he ran a tavern called the Bellaert in the Kruisstraat in Haarlem, but he also grew crops and tulips on an allotment near the Janspoort and on land he rented from the lord of Brederode near the castle of Huis ter Kleef. Roads leading to both locations were named Quaeckelslaan after the family. There seems to be no record that Quaeckel’s eldest son, Cornelis Cornelisz., had any involvement in the tulip trade, but he did testify in favor of the allegedly heretical painter Torrentius during his persecution in 1627. Cornelis Cornelisz. was Haarlem’s collector of taxes on soap until 1626 and lived until at least 1650. Jan Quaeckel, his tulip-trading brother, was born in 1601–02 and was buried in Haarlem on November 10, 1661. See Kurtz, “Twee Oude Patriciërshuizen,” p. 120; Haarlem Municipal Archives, notarial registers vol. 123vo; vol. 129, fol. 72; vol. 139, fol. 27vo–28; vol. 149, fol. 210; vol. 150, fols. 273–273vo, 394vo; Haarlem burial registers vol. 73, fol. 100vo. Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 134–36, gives details of the tulip species created by Cornelis Quaeckel senior.
Haarlem Groenveld et al., Deugd Boven Geweld, pp. 144, 172–74, 177.
Street lighting Lighting—using hundreds of lamps burning vegetable oil—was eventually introduced in Amsterdam in 1670, with such success that it quickly spread to other Dutch cities and then across Europe. Israel, Dutch Republic, p. 681.
Peat fires Mundy, Travels of Peter Mundy, pp. 64–65; Blainville, Travels Through Holland, vol. 1, p. 44.
Smoking Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 194–98; Deursen, Plain Lives, pp. 103–04.
Weapons Deursen, Plain Lives, pp. 110–11. A ban on weapons was instituted by the States of Holland in 1589, backed up in many cases by local legislation.
Paintings Stoye, English Travellers Abroad, p. 294, records comments about the magnificence of the paintings to be found in Dutch taverns by the English travelers Sir Dudley Carleton (1616) and Robert Bargrave (1656).
Drunkenness and drink Ibid., p. 162; Cotterell, Amsterdam, p. 73; Brereton, Travels in Holland, pp. 11–12.
Cost of an evening’s drinking Fynes Moryson, traveling in 1592, paid between twelve and twenty stuivers for a meal, complaining that this high price was the result of his paying for the ale consumed by his traveling companions, who spent the evening roistering by the fire. Moryson, An Itinerary, pp. 89–90.
Consumption of alcohol Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, p. 175; Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 191, 199.
Théophile de Viau Cited in Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, p. 173.
Quantity of beer consumed in Haarlem Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, p. 72, citing J. van Loenen, De Haarlemse Brouwindustrie voor 1600 (Amsterdam, 1950), p. 53.
Number of breweries Groenveld et al., Deugd Boven Geweld, p. 176; Raaij, Kroniek, entry for 1628.
The tavern trade Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1926), pp. 20–99; Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, p. 175.
Wine Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, pp. 173–74.
Chapter 12. The Orphans of Wouter Winkel
The little that we know about Wouter Winkel and his family is contained in documents from the Stad Archief at Alkmaar. These were recovered and published by A. van Damme among a collection of attorneys’ acts and pamphlets concerning the mania that appeared in a series of articles published in a bulb growers’ periodical around the turn of the century. Van Damme’s articles were subsequently collected and republished in book form in Aanteekeningen Betreffende de Geschiedenis der Bloembollen: Haarlem, 1899–1903 (Leiden: Boerhaave, 1976). Van Damme’s archival work, along with that of Nicolaas Posthumus, provides the bedrock of all serious studies of the tulip mania, including those of E. H. Krelage, and has not yet been supplemented in any significant way by more modern research.
Wouter Winkel Damme, Aanteekeningen Betreffende, pp. 91–93.
Alkmaar Vries, Dutch Rural Economy, pp. 157–59; Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, pp. 29–30, 55.
School age Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, p. 538.
Winkel’s collection The surviving records indicate that Winkel was in business with one or more partners, but it would appear that the stock was divided in August 1636, and the tulips auctioned at Alkmaar would appear to have been Winkel’s share of a larger collection. See Damme, Aanteekeningen Betreffende, p. 92.
Winkel as a grower It is extremely probable, but not quite certain, that Winkel cultivated tulips. Certainly the trustees of the Alkmaar orphans’ court did have his bulbs physically in their possession after lifting time, and on their instructions they were later replanted. Because bulbs had to be paid for on delivery, and because it seems improbable in the extreme that a tavern keeper could have had the thousands of guilders’ worth of liquid assets required to purchase such a valuable collection, I find it difficult to believe that the trustees collected bulbs that other growers had readied for delivery to the Oude-Schutters Doelen and that Winkel simply dealt in bulbs that he purchased for delivery after lifting and planned to sell on before autumn.
Dutch orphanages and old people’s homes Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s
Holland, pp. 100–01.
The grower from Blokker Krelage, De Pamfletten, p. 30.
The quality of the bidders at Alkmaar The only bidders we actually know about were Gerrit Adriaensz. Amsterdam of Alkmaar, Jan Cornelisz. Quaeckel of Haarlem, and Pieter Gerritsz. van Welsen, all wealthy and influential growers and dealers. See Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 81. See also chapter 13 for details.
The auction Damme, Aanteekeningen Betreffende, pp. 91–93.
Thus Admirael Liefkens Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, p. 49.
Hendrick Pietersz. Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 40–41.
Van Gennep’s ledger Ibid., pp. 39–40.
Utrecht and Groningen Representatives from Utrecht attended a conference at Amsterdam to try to control the collapse in the bulb trade (see chapter 13 for details). The apothecary Henricus Munting (1583–1658), who later founded the botanical garden at the University of Groningen, dealt in bulbs in the town of Groningen during the mania period, according to his son Abraham Munting in Naauwkeurige Beschryving, p. 911; see chapter 13. See also Nieuw Nederlandsch Biographisch Woordenboek, vol. 6, pp. 1044–45.
Tulip speculation in France Munting, Naauwkeurige Beschryving, p. 911.
Numbers involved in Utrecht A list of the thirty-nine florists who met in Utrecht on February 7, 1637, to elect representatives to a conference of growers due to be held in Amsterdam is given by Posthumus,
“Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 44.
Centers of the tulip trade Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 83–84.
Bulbs change hands ten times in a day Ibid., p. 77.
Peak prices Aitzema, Saken van Staet en Oorlogh, p. 504; Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 79; Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, p. 52.
Ten million guilders Aitzema, Saken van Staet en Oorlogh, p. 503.
Bank of Amsterdam Based on 1,375 accounts averaging 2,500 guilders apiece. See ’t Hart, Jonker, and Zanden, Financial History of the Netherlands, pp. 46–47.
Dutch East India Company Ibid., p. 54.
The Black Tulip Dumas, Black Tulip; Blunt, Tulipomania, p. 17.
Trade in pound goods Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 51–52.
Chapter 13. Bust
The principal sources of information on the crash are the attorneys’ acts of Haarlem and Amsterdam collected and published by N. W. Posthumus in “Die Speculatie in Tulpen in de Jaren 1636 en 1637,” parts 1–3, Economisch-Historisch Jaarboek (1926, 1927, 1934). These, however, relate almost entirely to disputes between growers and connoisseurs and need to be used with caution.
The crash Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, p. 80; Posthumus, “Tulip Mania in Holland,” pp. 144–45.
Gaergoedt’s plight Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1926), pp. 33–39.
Henricus Munting Munting, Naauwkeurige Beschryving, p. 911; Nieuw Nederlandsch Biographisch Woordenboek, vol. 6, pp. 1044–45; Murray, “Introduction of the Tulip,” p. 29.
Geertruyt Schoudt Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 48–49.
According to one contemporary He was Abraham Munting, the son of Henricus Munting of Groningen, whose price data appear in Munting, Naauwkeurige Beschryving, p. 910.
Prices in May 1637 These examples are drawn from the Samenspraecken and thus probably need to be treated with a certain caution. Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 80–81&n.
Some florists did travel The fictional Gaergoedt was an example of the breed. Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1926), p. 24.
The Mennonite Wedding Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1934), pp. 233–34.
Van Cuyck Ibid., p. 235.
Van Goyen Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 65–66; Damme, Aanteekeningen Betreffende, pp. 21–22; Vogelaar, Jan van Goyen, pp. 13–20. Gerrit Amsterdam Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 81. Willem Lourisz. Deursen, Plain Lives, pp. 94–97.
Boortens and van Welsen Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 53–55.
Jan Quaeckel at Alkmaar Municipal Archives, Haarlem, notarial registers, vol. 149 fol. 210, September 1, 1639.
Jan Admirael Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 69–70; (1934), pp. 236–37.
Meeting at Utrecht Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, p. 81.
Meeting at Amsterdam Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 49; Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 83–84; Bulgatz, Ponzi Schemes, p. 103.
An ominous caveat See Blunt, Tulipomania, p. 16.
Chapter 14. Goddess of Whores
For Dutch tulip pamphlets, see E. H. Krelage, De Pamfletten van den Tulpenwindhandel, 1636–1637 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1942), which reprints all but the three Samenspraecken. (These had already been published by Posthumus in “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” [1926].) On the various conspiracy theories of the tulip mania, see E. H. Krelage, “Het Manuscript over den Tulpenwindhandel uit de Verzameling Meulman,” Economisch-Historisch Jaarboek 12 (1943). On the liquidation, Posthumus’s three-part collection of contemporary sources, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen,” is again invaluable.
Dr. Tulp Beijer et al., Nicolaes Tulp, pp. 15–19, 49–51; Griffey, “What’s in a Name?;” Cotterell, Amsterdam, pp. 125–26; Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 171, 186–87.
Adolphus Vorstius The anecdote of Vorstius the tulip-hater is recounted by several authors, although there seems to be no contemporary authority to vouch for its truth. See Blunt, Tulipomania, p. 15, and Herbert, Still Life with a Bridle, p. 60. For Vorstius himself, see Brereton, Travels in Holland, pp. 40–41. Vorstius’s father, himself a professor at Leiden, had delivered Clusius’s funeral elegy; Nieuw Nederlandsch Biographisch Woordenboek, vol. 4, p. 1411.
Kappists Bulgatz, Ponzi Schemes, p. 99.
Flood of broadsides About forty-five examples printed between December 1636 and March 1637 are known to have survived, but given the ephemeral nature of such products, the number actually produced was almost certainly greater.
The role of pamphlets Although most of the surviving broadsides are unoriginal and contain little that is new, they are often unintentionally revealing. It is particularly instructive to compare the relatively mild and sober tones of the early pamphlets with the increasingly bitter and sarcastic prints that began to appear when the craze was at its peak in January 1637; this adds weight to the suggestion that the tulip trade had remained relatively sober and responsible until quite late in 1636 and flared into true mania only at the end of the year for a matter of a few weeks. On pamphlets generally, see Harline, Pamphlets, Printing; and Watt, Cheap Print and Popular Piety, pp. 264–66.
Flora in the pamphlets Krelage, De Pamfletten, pp. 88–91, 109–11, 149, 160, 164–67, 187–88.
The legend of Flora This retelling of the myth appeared in the first of the Samenspraecken. See Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1926), p. 24. See also Segal and Roding, De Tulp en de Kunst, p. 23, and Segal, Tulips Portrayed, p. 15.
Artistic depictions of the mania Segal, Tulips Portrayed, pp. 12–15; Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 363–66; Bulgatz, Ponzi Schemes, pp. 106–07.
Pamphlets commissioned by growers or connoisseurs See Krelage, De Pamfletten, pamphlets no. 9, 14, 33, 36.
Resolutions of Haarlem City Council Municipal Archives, Haarlem, Aantee-keningen van C. J. Gonnet Betreffende de Dovestalmanege in de Grote Houstraat, de Schouwburg op het Houtplein, het Stadhuis in de Frase Tijd, Haarlemse Plateelbakkers en Plateelbakkerijen en de Tulpomanie van 1637–1912; Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 51, 57; and Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, p. 93.
Hoorn’s plea to the States of Holland Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 52.
Only two of the fifty-four They were Burgomaster Jan de Waal and Councilor Cornelis Guldewagen. Ibid., pp. 61–64, 73–74; Municipal Archives, Haarlem, Heerenboek I.
One anonymous author Krelage, “Het Manuscript over den Tulpenwind-handel,” pp. 29–30.
Blame placed on bankrupts, Jews, and Mennonites Ibid.; Deursen, Plain Lives, pp. 32–33; Krelage, De Pamfletten, pp. 287–302. Jacques de Clerq Information courtesy of drs Daan de Clercq, Amsterdam. A grower from Amsterdam Krelage, “Het Manuscript over den Tulpenwind-handel,” pp. 29–30.
Jan Breughel Blunt and Stearn, Art of Botanical Illustration, p. 128.
The Court of Holland and the resolution of the States Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 56–60; Posthumus, “Tulip Mania in Holland,” p. 146; Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, p. 93; and Bulgatz, Ponzi Schemes, pp. 104–05.
In the event, the Court of Holland did hear at least one tulip case. This was a suit brought by the widow of Paulus van Beresteyn, who had been one of Haarlem’s most eminent attorneys. Van Beresteyn came from a patrician family and was rich and influential enough to be counted among the regents of Haarlem even though he was a professed Catholic. He was a lieutenant of the civic guard and a governor of the Latin School, which prepared the children of the ruling class for the university. He was an extremely wealthy man, with total capital well in excess of twelve thousand guilders, and he invested some of his money in Haarlem property. His interest in tulips, though, was probably that of a connoisseur rather than a florist. He lived in a large house on the Wijngaerderstraat and grew tulips in a garden on the Dijcklaan—a road that
ran between two of the city’s gates.
Van Beresteyn died, aged forty-eight, at the height of the mania in December 1636, two months before tulip prices crashed and eight weeks after selling six beds of tulips lying in his garden to a consortium of buyers comprising a local bookseller, Theunis Cas, and a second man named Jan Sael. The sale had been concluded on September 29, before bulb prices began their final catastrophic rise, and the consortium paid the bargain price of 312 guilders—plus an atlas from Cas’s shop—for the beds. Shortly afterward van Beresteyn sold the whole of his garden, excluding the bulbs, to a local bleacher named Nicolaes van der Berge. Van der Berge then approached Cas and Sael and agreed to buy the tulips for a total of 362 guilders. The agreement was that van der Berge would take on the consortium’s debt to van Beresteyn’s estate and pay them, in addition, a premium of fifty guilders. On February 6, the day after prices in Haarlem crashed, Cas and Sael went to a local notary to confirm their willingness to proceed with this transaction, stating that tulips remained highly prized elsewhere in Holland, and in the summer van der Berge took possession of the bulbs when they were lifted. He failed, however, to pay for them when settlement fell due, and eventually the van Beresteyn family took action, issuing proceedings against not only the bleacher but also Cas and Sael.
Why this case, of all cases, found its way before the Court of Holland remains unclear. But it contains several striking features. It shows how difficult it was to determine who owned the bulbs traded during the mania, even when the chain of ownership was relatively short and straightforward; evidently, even those who had owned tulips only temporarily could easily be caught up in the melee of claim and counterclaim. It also demonstrates that long after the tavern trade collapsed, there were some among the ranks of the richer traders and the connoisseurs who believed tulips were still a potentially good investment. Algeemen RijksArchief, The Hague, Civiele processtukken II B 44, records of the Court of Holland; Municipal Archives, Haarlem, Index to Heerenboek, p. 12; Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 82; Beresteyn and Hartman, Genealogie van het Geslacht, pp. 133–36, 219–22. Resolutions of the cities of Holland Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 60.