NOTES

General

A surprisingly large amount is known about the history of the tulip, which enjoyed the good fortune both of being highly regarded and of flourishing when garden writing was at its early apogee. As well as good early summaries such as Sir Daniel Hall’s The Book of the Tulip (London: Martin Hopkinson, 1929), several scarce but excellent regional studies have appeared, notably Michiel Roding and Hans Theunissen’s The Tulip: A Symbol of Two Nations (Utrecht & Istanbul: Turco-Dutch Friendship Association, 1993) and Sam Segal’s pamphlet Tulips Portrayed: The Tulip Trade in Holland in the Seventeenth Century (Lisse: Museum voor de Bloembollenstreek, 1992). The most comprehensive general account, however, is undoubtedly Anna Pavord’s The Tulip(London: Bloomsbury, 1998).

Those interested in the history of the Netherlands in the seventeenth century are also richly catered to, most recently by the publication of Jonathan Israel’s highly acclaimed overview The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness and Fall, 1477–1806 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). Social historians have Simon Schama’s rather more controversial The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (London: Fontana, 1991) and A. T. van Deursen’s comprehensive Plain Lives in a Golden Age: Popular Culture, Religion and Society in Seventeenth Century Holland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

The history of the tulip mania itself, however, remains remarkably obscure, and even now it has never been the subject of an exhaustive scholarly inquiry that makes full use of the mass of raw material available in Dutch archives. Many of the short accounts of the subject are based on badly flawed popular studies, most notably Charles Mackay’s entertaining but misleading Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (Ware: Wordsworth Editions, 1995), which remains in print today despite having originally appeared in 1841. (Much more reliable, though still dependent on secondary sources, is the fairly extensive modern reanalysis by Joseph Bulgatz, published in Ponzi Schemes, Invaders from Mars and More Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds [New York: Harmony, 1992], which has, however, attracted very little attention.)

Apart from contemporary pamphlets, collected by E. H. Krelage in De Pamfletten van den Tulpenwindhandel 1636–1637 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1942), the most valuable Dutch sources are the solicitors’ acts, which still exist for most of the cities caught up in the mania and record not only some of the (comparatively rare) legal agreements for the purchase of tulip bulbs but also the proceedings brought as a result of the collapse of prices in 1637. The extracts that have appeared—most notably those collated by A. van Damme, Aanteekeningen Betreffende de Geschiedenis der Bloembollen: Haarlem, 1899–1903 (a collection of turn-of-the-century journal articles finally collected and published at Leiden by Boerhaave, 1976) and Nicolaas Posthumus, who published both pamphlets and some contemporary source material in “Die Speculatie in Tulpen in de Jaren 1636 en 1637,” parts 1–3, in Economisch-Historisch Jaarboek 12 (1926), pp. 3–19; 13 (1927), pp. 1–85; 18 (1934), pp. 229–40, are in no way comprehensive; van Damme even states that the acts he published were chance discoveries rather than the products of systematic research.

By far the most exhaustive account of the period remains Krelage’s monumental Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland: De Tulpomanie van 1636–37 en de Hyacintenhandel 1720–36 (Amsterdam, 1942), upon which a good portion of the present book is based. It is, however, now in some respects outdated. My general feeling, after reviewing the available material, is that even after sounding the necessary notes of caution about the reliability of the popular accounts, historians and particularly economists remain guilty of exaggerating the real importance and extent of the tulip mania.

The following notes abbreviate authors and titles of works cited; for full information, please refer to the Bibliography.

Chapter 1. A Mania for Tulips

The principal source of information on events in Alkmaar in February 1637 is A. van Damme, Aanteekeningen Betreffende de Geschiedenis der Bloembollen: Haarlem, 1899–1903 (Leiden: Boerhaave, 1976). On the appearance and behavior of Dutch tulip traders, see both Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1962), and the more recent and more analytical A. T. van Deursen, Plain Lives in a Golden Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

Value of a tulip Garber, “Tulipmania,” p. 537n, states that in 1637 each guilder contained 0.856g of gold. One gram of gold was thus worth 1.17 guilders. A Viceroy bulb sold at auction in Alkmaar on February 5 fetched 146 guilders per gram, making it worth 125 times its weight in gold.

Richest man Israel, Dutch Republic, p. 348.

Tulip fortunes Garber, “Tulipmania,” p. 550.

Chapter 2. The Valleys of Tien Shan

The early history of the tulip is very largely obscure. Its Asian origins are discussed by Turhan Baytop, “The Tulip in Istanbul During the Ottoman Period,” in Michiel Roding and Hans Theunissen, eds., The Tulip: A Symbol of Two Nations (Utrecht & Istanbul: Turco-Dutch Friendship Association, 1993), and the enthusiasm for wild tulips in Persia rather briefly by Wilfrid Blunt, Tulipomania (London: Penguin, 1950).

Asian origins of the tulip Baytop, “Tulip in Istanbul,” pp. 50–56.

Early appreciation of tulips Certainly the Hittites, who dominated much of Asia Minor two thousand years before the birth of Christ, already appreciated the beauty of wild bulbous flowers. Ancient inscriptions record that the advent of spring was marked each year in the Hittite realm by a celebration called the An.tah.sum-sar, which may be translated as “bulb festival” and which appears to have coincided with the first flowering of the crocus. (Today many Anatolians still celebrate a similar festival, called Hidrellez, each May, during which they go on picnics and eat a couscous of bulgur wheat and mashed crocus bulbs.) The flowering of tulips may have held a similar significance for peoples of the steppe, who experienced winters harsher than anything encountered in the crocus country of Asia Minor, and among whom the arrival of spring must have been at least as eagerly anticipated. See Baytop, “Tulip in Istanbul,” p. 51.

The tulip in Persia Hall, Book of the Tulip, p. 44; Blunt, Tulipomania, pp. 22–23; Schloredt, Treasury of Tulips, p. 62.

History of the Turks The Ottoman portion of the tulip’s story is much better documented than its very early history. An accessible summary of Turkish history in this period is Inalcik, Ottoman Empire.

The tulip in Ottoman history to 1453 Demiriz, “Tulips in Ottoman Turkish Culture and Art,” pp. 57–75.

The story of Hasan Efendi Ibid., p. 57.

Babur and the Turkish gardening tradition Pallis, In the Days of the Janissaries, p. 198.

The tulip as a religious symbol The Turks were not the only people to regard the flower as a religious symbol. Among the Pennsylvania Dutch—German immigrants who traveled to the east coast of America from the seventeenth century—stylized three-petal tulips were used as a motif that symbolized the Holy Trinity. They were often used to adorn important papers such as birth certificates. See Schloredt, Treasury of Tulips, p. 43.

Chapter 3. Within the Abode of Bliss

Horticulture is hardly central to the history of the Ottoman Empire, and it features scarcely at all in conventional histories. The best guides to the story of the tulip’s time in Turkey have been accounts of Istanbul. The best of these is certainly Philip Mansel,Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire, 1453–1924 (London: John Murray, 1995). For the Ottoman palaces, the indispensable source is Barnette Miller, Beyond the Sublime Porte: The Grand Seraglio of Stambul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1931). Dr. Miller was probably the first Westerner to gain access to the inner courtyards of the Topkapi, and she did so at a time, early in the twentieth century, when they still looked much as they had in earlier times. She worked hard to reconstruct those institutions—such as the harem and the gardens—that had fallen into disuse or disrepair, and her work has formed the basis for all subsequent descriptions of Ottoman palace life.

Battle of Kosovo Malcolm, Kosovo, pp. 58–80. For the chronicler, see Pavord, Tulip, p. 31.

Bayezid’s shirt There is some dispute about the age of this garment. The Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts dates it to about 1400, but Demiriz, “Tulips in Ottoman Turkish Culture and Art,” p. 71, suggests that the style dates the shirt to about 1550. The tradition therefore remains unproven—but even if Demiriz is right, it is certainly not impossible that Bayezid wore a similar shirt.

Bayezid Inalcik, Ottoman Empire, pp. 14–18; Norwich, Byzantium, pp. 343–45, 364–69.

Constantinople and Sultan Mehmed Mansel, Constantinople, chapter 1. Sultan Mehmed’s gardens Wheatcroft, Ottomans, pp. 26–29; Mansel, Constantinople, pp. 57–58.

Sultan Süleyman and the Istanbul tulips Baker, “Cult of the Tulip in Turkey,” p. 240; Baytop, “Tulip in Istanbul,” pp. 52–53; Demiriz, “Tulips in Ottoman Turkish Culture and Art,” pp. 57–58, 74–75. Some authorities argue that Istanbul tulips were not in fact bred until the second half of the seventeenth century (see Pavord, Tulip, pp. 39, 45); the matter is unclear.

Florists in Istanbul Baytop, “Tulip in Istanbul,” p. 51.

Sultan Selim and bulbs from Persia and Syria Ibid., p. 53; Baker, “Cult of the Tulip in Turkey,” pp. 238–40.

The sultan’s palace and gardens Demiriz, “Tulips in Ottoman Turkish Culture and Art,” pp. 59, 67; Mansel, Constantinople, pp. 60–61, 71, 73–75, 221–22; Miller, Beyond the Sublime Porte, pp. 4–21, 151–56; Penzer, Harem, pp. 40, 252–60; Cassels, Struggle for the Ottoman Empire, pp. 53–54, 57–58.

The bostancis Mansel, Constantinople, pp. 74–75, 221–22; Cassels, Struggle for the Ottoman Empire, p. 53; Penzer, Harem, pp. 62, 185.

The head gardener’s race It does not seem to be known when exactly this weird custom originated. See Miller, Beyond the Sublime Porte, pp. 145, 250 n31.

Chapter 4. Stranger from the East

The early history of the tulip in Europe—insofar as it is known or can be guessed—was first thoroughly documented by Hermann, Grafen zu Solms-Laubach, in Weizen und Tulpe und deren Geschichte (Leipzig: Arthur Felix, 1899), and summarized in English by Sir Daniel Hall, The Book of the Tulip (London: Martin Hopkinson, 1929). More recent research is very briefly summarized by Sam Segal, Tulips Portrayed: The Tulip Trade in Holland in the Seventeenth Century (Lisse: Museum voor de Bloembollenstreek, 1992).

Lopo Vaz de Sampayo Vaz’s connection with the tulip is also mentioned in Blunt, Tulipomania, p. 8n. Details of his career have been drawn from Whiteway, Rise of Portuguese Power in India, pp. 208–13, 221–23. Nunho da Cunha, incidentally, was the son of Tristão da Cunha, who gave his name to a flyspeck island in the Atlantic that still forms one of the remoter outposts of the British Commonwealth.

Monstereul Charles de la Chesnée Monstereul’s book was the earliest to be entirely devoted to the tulip and therefore carries some weight among historians of the flower.

Duration of voyages to Portugal Whiteway, Rise of Portuguese Power in India, p. 46.

Tulip hailed as something new Hall, Book of the Tulip, p. 36.

Evidence for tulips in Europe before sixteenth century Ibid., pp. 17, 36–37.

Busbecq Baytop, “Tulip in Istanbul,” p. 52; Martels, Augerius Gislenius

Busbequius, pp. 152, 440–52. On the proper dating of Busbecq’s first encounter with the tulip, see Martels, pp. 449–50. George Sandys Cited in Pavord, Tulip, pp. 35–36.

Busbecq’s letters The book was Legationis Turcicae Epistolae Quatuor (Antwerp, 1581), and it was a best-seller in its time.

Busbecq and the introduction of the tulip Another good reason for doubting that the ambassador was personally responsible for bringing the tulip to Europe is that Busbecq frequently boasted that he had been the first to introduce the sweet fig to the West. Given the fame that the tulip had already attained by the time of his death in 1591, it seems inconceivable he would not also have claimed credit for that discovery, if he knew he had been the first to make it. See Martels, Augerius Gislenius Busbequius, pp. 450–52.

The word tulip in English According to Hall, Book of the Tulip, p. 17, it first appeared in Lyte’s translation of Florum et Coronarium Odoratumque Nonnularum, by Clusius’s friend Rembert Dodoens, originally published in Antwerp in 1568.

Conrad Gesner Hall, Book of the Tulip, p. 39; Segal, Tulips Portrayed, p. 3; Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 15–16; Fischer, Conrad Gesner. For the frog story, see Jan Bondeson, “Prodigious Vomiting,” in A Cabinet of Medical Curiosities (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997). Catalogus Plantarum, incidentally, was not published until two centuries after Gesner’s death; his description of the tulip first appeared in an appendix he added to a book written by his friend Valerius Gordus, which was published in 1561.

“In the month of April …” Quoted in Hall, Book of the Tulip, p. 39.

Tulipa turcarum Although a species of tulip named in Gesner’s honor was long thought to be that discovered at Augsberg, it would appear, according to Murray, “Introduction of the Tulip,” p. 19, that the species in Herwart’s garden was probably T. suavenolensand not T. gesneriana at all.

Tulip seen in Italy by Johann Kentmann Segal, Tulips Portrayed, pp. 3, 21 n6. Kentmann labeled this flower T. turcica, but it appears to have been an example of the species T. sylvestris.

The Fugger gardens Ehrenberg, Grosse Vermögen, p. 38. See also Polnitz, Die Fugger. Anton Fugger, the son of the founder of the Fugger empire, offered employment to both Gesner and Clusius; neither, owing perhaps to religious scruples (since the Fuggers bankrolled much of the Counter-Reformation), accepted.

Early tulips in England and Europe Hall, Book of the Tulip, p. 40; Jacob, Tulips, p. 3; Blunt, Tulipomania, pp. 10–11.

Garret and Gerrard Blunt, Tulipomania, pp. 10–11; Pavord, Tulip, pp. 104–05.

Chapter 5. Clusius

Easily the most comprehensive biography of Clusius is that published by F. W. T. Hunger in the two volumes of Charles d’Ecluse (Carolus Clusius), Nederlandsch Kruidkundige, 1526–1609 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1927, 1943), from which much of the material in this chapter is drawn. A popular biography by Johan Theunisz, Carolus Clusius: Het Merkwaardige Leven van een Pionier der Wetenschap (Amsterdam: P. N. Van Kampen & Zoon, 1939) adds a few details, mainly to elaborate on the botanist’s early life. Clusius’s scattered work on the tulip—which, it has to be stressed, was never remotely central to his botanical work as a whole—has fortunately been summarized, in English, by W. van Dijk, A Treatise on Tulips by Carolus Clusius of Arras (Haarlem: Enschedé, 1951).

Anecdote of the Flemish merchant This story was originally recorded by Clusius himself and is mentioned in Dijk, Treatise on Tulips, p. 8.

Thus it was in the spring of 1563 This part of the account is speculation on my part, but it does strike me as unlikely, if the merchant thought the tulip bulbs were onions, that anyone would have realized what they really were until they had flowered.

Execution of an uncle This was Mathieu d’Ecluse, who was actually burned in April 1567 during the duke of Alba’s attempts to put down Protestantism in the Habsburg Netherlands. See Hunger, Charles d’Ecluse, vol. 1, p. 97.

Extent of Clusius’s correspondence The estimate of four thousand letters is based on a calculation by Hunger in ibid., vol. 1, p. 98.

Clusius on the tulip Clusius first mentioned the flower in an appendix to his book on the flora of Spain, Historia Stirpium per Hispanias Observatorum, published in 1576 (pp. 510–15), even though the flower was not native to that country. This does perhaps suggest that it was while he was traveling in Spain that he first heard about it from Rye. He elaborated considerably on its botany in a work on the flora of Austria, Historia Stirpium Pannoniae, published in 1583 (pp. 145–69), and again in his masterpiece,Rariorum Plantarum Historia, of 1601 (pp. 137–52).

Experiments at Frankfurt This was in 1593. See Murray, “Introduction of the Tulip,” p. 19.

Clusius’s character and disposition Hunger, Charles d’Ecluse, vol. 1, p. 323. Marie de Brimeu’s compliment Ibid., vol. 2, p. 217.

Clusius’s poverty Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 111, 122.

Plant trade between the Ottomans and Vienna Theunisz, Carolus Clusius, p. 68.

Clusius and Busbecq Clusius had already, in 1569, written to von Krafftheim asking him to obtain samples of plants from Busbecq. Hunger, Charles d’Ecluse, vol. 1, pp. 108, 139.

Busbecq’s seed Dijk, Treatise on Tulips, p. 32.

Flower thieves Hunger, Charles d’Ecluse, vol. 1, p. 158; vol. 2, pp. 115, 135; Theunisz, Carolus Clusius, pp. 50, 78.

Lost all his teeth Hunger, Charles d’Ecluse, vol. 1, pp. 180, 240.

Chapter 6. Leiden

The biographies by Hunger and Theunisz are again the principal sources for Clusius’s career at Leiden. On the university at Leiden, the course of the Dutch Revolt, and the historical background to the mania period, see Jonathan Israel’s magisterial The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness and Fall, 1477–1806 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). The university, and particularly its famous anatomy school, was frequently mentioned by foreign visitors, and the accounts of Sir William Brereton, Travels in Holland, the United Provinces etc … 1634–1635 (London: Chetham Society, 1844), and John Evelyn, The Diary of John Evelyn, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), make interesting reading. In discussing the tulip’s botany, I have drawn on Daniel Hall, The Book of the Tulip (London: Martin Hopkinson, 1929), and E. van Slogteren, “Broken Tulips,” in The Daffodil and Tulip Yearbook (London: Royal Horticultural Society, 1960).

Clusius in Frankfurt Hunger, Charles d’Ecluse, vol. 2, pp. 153–54, 164–65, 167, 172–75.

Arrival in Leiden Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 210–13.

Leiden Israel, Dutch Republic, pp. 308, 328; Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, pp. 8, 12, 23, 239.

Dutch Revolt Israel, Dutch Republic, pp. 169–75, 181–82.

University of Leiden Ibid., pp. 569–72; Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 57, 175; Brereton, Travels in Holland, pp. 41–42; Evelyn, Diary, pp. 51–54; Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, p. 154.

The Leiden hortus Hunger, Charles d’Ecluse, vol. 1, pp. 189–94, 214–18; vol. 2, p. 4; Israel, Dutch Republic, pp. 571–72, 1043; Brereton, Travels in Holland, p. 42.

“True monarch of the flowers” From a letter dated February 28, 1602, quoted in Hunger, Charles d’Ecluse, vol. 1, p. 269.

Walich Ziwertsz. Wassenaer, Historisch Verhael 9, section April–October 1625, p. 10; Hensen, “De Vereering van St. Nicolaas,” p. 187.

Clusius on tulips Dijk, Treatise on Tulips, pp. 7–32.

Botany of the tulip Segal, Tulips Portrayed, pp. 5–12; Hall, Book of the Tulip, pp. 99–110; Murray, “Introduction of the Tulip,” pp. 21–23.

Offsets Mather, Economic Production, p. 44.

Rosen, Violetten, and Bizarden tulips Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, p. 33, makes the point that these category names were introduced only in the nineteenth century, but they are so convenient that we will use them here. The Violetten varieties, incidentally, are also sometimes known as bybloemen tulips.

“Superbly fine” and “rude” Ibid., p. 21.

Attempts to replicate breaking Pavord, Tulip, p. 11.

Solution to the problem of breaking Hall, Book of the Tulip, pp. 104–06.

Clusius and the demand for tulip bulbs Hunger, Charles d’Ecluse, vol. 1, pp. 214, 237.

Theft of bulbs Theunisz, Carolus Clusius, p. 120; Hunger, Charles d’Ecluse, vol. 1, pp. 237–38, 241; vol. 2, p. 197.

“The seventeen provinces were amply stocked” Cited in Blunt, Tulipomania, p. 9.

Chapter 7. An Adornment to the Cleavage

The early history of the tulip in the United Provinces and France is not especially well documented. The basic details given here are summarized from Krelage’s books and from the works of contemporary gardeners such as Abraham Munting, Waare Oeffening der Planten (Amsterdam: Hendrik Rintjes, 1671), from W. S. Murray, “The Introduction of the Tulip, and the Tulipomania,” Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society (March 1909), and Sam Segal, Tulips Portrayed: The Tulip Trade in Holland in the Seventeenth Century (Lisse: Museum voor de Bloembollenstreek, 1992); the latter also includes a useful discussion of what is known about seventeenth-century tulip books.

Monstereul’s eulogy Cited by Segal, Tulips Portrayed, p. 4.

Lobelius The Latinized name of Mathias de l’Obel, whose work on tulips was published in a French herbal of 1581. See Segal, Tulips Portrayed, p. 3.

Varieties of tulip Ibid., p. 4; Murray, “Introduction of the Tulip,” p. 21. These totals exclude Turkish species, which by the eighteenth century numbered more than thirteen hundred by themselves. Early tulip lovers Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 23–24; Krelage, Drie Eeuwen Bloembollenexport, pp. 6, 17.

The tulip in France Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, p. 29; Munting, Naauwkeurige Beschryving der Aardgewassen, pp. 907–11; Garber, “Tulip-mania,” p. 543. Although dealt with by contemporary garden writers, the history of this early French tulip mania is still obscure and would probably repay some original research.

The rose as empress of the garden Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, p. 49.

The tulip connoisseurs Stadsbibliotheek, Haarlem, Passe, Een Cort Verhael van den Tulipanen, p. 4; Krelage, Drie Eeuwen Bloembollenexport, p. 6.

Paulus van Beresteyn Beresteyn and Hartman, Genealogie van het Geslacht, p. 134.

Jacques de Gheyn Regteren Altena, Jacques de Gheyn, vol. 1, pp. 2–3, 14, 38, 40, 59, 66, 69–70, 131–32, 153.

Guillelmo van de Heuvel Leonhardt, Het Huis Bartolotti, pp. 14–15, 39–40; Israel, Dutch Republic, p. 348.

The Golden Age Price, Culture and Society in the Dutch Republic; Israel, Dutch Republic, pp. 547–91.

Dutch country houses Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 292–95; Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie, pp. 7, 27–28. Jokes in church Cotterell, Amsterdam, p. 119. The usual fine was six stuivers per joke.

Jacob Cats Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 211, 293, 437.

Lord Offerbeake’s garden Brereton, Travels in Holland, pp. 44–45.

“All these fools want …” English translation from Segal, Tulips Portrayed, p. 16.

Of de Moufe-schans Hondius, Dapes Inemptae. On the true ownership of the Moufe-schans, which is sometimes incorrectly said to have been Hondius’s own home, see Nieuw Nederlandsch Biographisch Woordenboek, vol. 8, pp. 812–13.

The prince of Orange’s garden Brereton, Travels in Holland, pp. 34–35.

Chapter 8. The Tulip in the Mirror

My discussion of Semper Augustus is based, as all such discussions must be, on the chronicle of Nicolaes Jansz. van Wassenaer. Van Wassenaer, the son of an Amsterdam physician, taught at the Latin School in Haarlem and then in Amsterdam before becoming a professional writer (and part-time physician) after 1612. His chronicle, Historisch Verhael aller Gedencwaerdiger Gheschiedenissen, 5–9 (Amsterdam: Iudocus Hondius and Jan Jansen, 1624–25), which is in general one of the most reliable available, is the principal source of information on the flower.

The passages on the progress of the tulip craze are based as before on the works of Krelage, supplemented by those of Nicolaas Posthumus, “Die speculatie in Tulpen in de Jaren 1636 en 1637,” parts 1–3, Economisch-Historisch Jaarboek 12 (1926), pp. 3–9; 13 (1927), pp. 1–85; 18 (1934), pp. 229–40; and “The Tulip Mania in Holland in the Years 1636 and 1637,” in W. C. Scoville and J. C. LaForce, eds., The Economic Development of Western Europe, vol. 2 (Lexington, Mass., 1969), and Peter Garber, “Tulipmania,”Journal of Political Economy 97 (June 1989), pp. 535–60. Information on Dutch gardens of the period is drawn from Paul Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962), and Simon Schama’s The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (London: Fontana, 1991).

Information on tulip books comes from Segal, Tulips Portrayed, and Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland. The Hortus Floridus of Chrispijn van de Passe has been the subject of some research; see Spencer Savage, “The ‘Hortus Floridus’ of Crispijn vande Pas,” Transactions of the Bibliographic Society, ser. 2, vol. 4 (1923), pp. 181–206, and Eleanour Rohde, Crispian Passeus’s “Hortus Floridus” (London, 1928–29). Savage’s English translation appeared in the 1970s: Hortus Floridus: The Four Books of Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter Flowers, Engraved by Crispin van de Pas (London: Minerva, c. 1974).

Adriaen Pauw Israel, Dutch Republic, pp. 159, 319, 458–59, 518–19, 522–33; and Boer et al., Adriaan Pauw, pp. 20–27. Today only a small portion of the Heemstede estate can still be seen; the rest has been swallowed up by Haarlem and now forms one of the southernmost suburbs of the city.

Pauw’s mirrored garden Wassenaer, Historisch Verhael, vol. 5, p. 40 and verso. It is possible that the Violetten variety Pauw, mentioned in Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, p. 138, was created by him or at least named for him.

Semper Augustus Wassenaer, Historisch Verhael, vol. 5, p. 40 verso and 41; vol. 7, p. 111 and verso; vol. 9, p. 10. See also Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 32–33, 68; Garber, “Tulipmania,” p. 537; Segal, Tulips Portrayed, pp. 8–9.

The ownership of Semper Augustus In recent years several authorities have confidently stated that the owner of Semper Augustus was none other than Adriaen Pauw, but they have not read van Wassenaer’s work carefully. In fact, although the chronicler did see specimens of the flower and did visit the garden at Heemstede, nowhere does he link the two, and the description he gives of Pauw’s single tulip bed makes it unlikely that Semper Augustus—a flower that any connoisseur would have planted in solitary splendor—would have been grown there.

Several unreferenced anecdotes suggest that other Semper Augustus bulbs were sold, but until they can be confirmed in contemporary records I would be reluctant to accept them at face value. Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, p. 65n, says that an Amsterdammer sold a Haarlemmer the flower on condition that neither would sell any further Semper Augustus bulbs without notifying the other first. The Amsterdam connoisseur later succumbed to the temptation of 3,000 guilders and a cabinet worth 10,000 guilders for a single bulb. When the Haarlemmer discovered this deception, he in turn sold three bulbs for 30,000 guilders. Similarly Munting, writing some thirty-five years after the mania, quoted an unreferenced bookkeeper’s entry that reads: “Sold to N.N., a Semper Augustus weighing 123 azen, for the sum of 4,600 florins. Above this sum a new and well-made carriage and two dapple gray horses with all accessories to be delivered within two weeks, the money to be paid immediately.” He also alleges a bulb was sold for 5,500 florins at public auction. See Munting, Naauwkeurige Beschryving, pp. 907–11.

Balthasar and Daniël de Neufville Gelder de Neufville, “De Oudste Generatics,” pp. 6–8; Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 129, 140. These varieties bore the corrupted name “de Novil.”

Tulip growers Hunger, Charles d’Ecluse, vol. 1, p. 241; vol. 2, p. 251.

Henrik Pottebacker Segal, Tulips Portrayed, p. 8; Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 127, 138.

Rhizotomi and apothecaries Hunger, Charles d’Ecluse, vol. 1, pp. 303–06; Krelage, Drie Eeuwen Bloembollenexport, p. 17. On the unreliability of apothecaries, see Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, pp. 73, 157.

The tulip as aphrodisiac Segal and Roding, De Tulp en de Kunst, p. 22. The contemporary English garden writer John Parkinson mentions the supposed aphrodisiac qualities of the flower in Paradisus Terrestris (1629), confessing however: “For force of Venereous quality, I cannot say … not having eaten many.” Quoted in Blunt, Tulipomania, pp. 10–11.

Actors in the early tulip trade: Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 11–15.

Gardens outside Haarlem Temmininck et al., Haarlemmerhout 400 Jaar, pp. 98–99.

Pieter Bol and Barent Cardoes Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, p. 42; Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, p. 356. Cardoes died late in 1657 (Haarlem Burial Registers 72, fol. 100), but the business he established was still in existence in the eighteenth century.

Francisco da Costa Unsurprisingly, da Costa’s business was a very sound one, and it survived the mania and continued until at least 1645. Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 42–43, 55; Krelage, “Het Manuscript over den Tulpenwindhandel,” p. 30.

Bulb exports Today fully two-thirds of Dutch bulbs are exported, and the largest single producer, Germaco, ships some 35 million bulbs a year overseas.

Emanuel Sweerts Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, p. 25.

Tulip books The earliest known flower book dates to 1603 and is French. Books portraying only tulips came into existence as the mania developed; the oldest of these dates to about 1635. See Segal and Roding, De Tulp en de Kunst, pp. 78–81; Segal, Tulips Portrayed, pp. 17–20; Taylor, Dutch Flower Painting, pp. 10–12.

Van Swanenburch’s tulip book This book is now in the Netherlands Economics History Archive in Amsterdam. The notes on prices appear to have been written by the book’s—anonymous—original owner.

Cos’s tulip book This manuscript, correctly titled Verzameling van een Meenigte Tulipaanen …, was made in 1637. (Oddly there do not seem to be any other records of a florist named Cos in the city archives, although Krelage does note the existence of a tulip variety named Kos.) It is now in the Universiteitsbibliotheek at Wageningen.

Tulip nomenclature Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 33–37, 128.

“If a change in a Tulip is effected …” Cited by Murray, “Introduction of the Tulip,” p. 24.

Traveling bulb sellers Pavord, Tulip, p. 153.

Chapter 9. Florists

The social history of the United Provinces during the Golden Age is ably dealt with by A. T. van Deursen, Plain Lives in a Golden Age: Popular Culture, Religion and Society in Seventeenth Century Holland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Details of day-to-day life are added by Paul Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962). Among contemporary authors, the greatest authority was generally reckoned to be Sir William Temple, whose Observations upon the United Provinces of the Netherlands did not, unfortunately, appear until 1673, well after the mania. This short book was nevertheless based on the author’s observations during visits dating back to 1652, and as Temple was for some time the English ambassador to the United Provinces and took a keen professional interest in the reasons for Dutch success, his work is far more thoughtful and analytical than the muddled impressions of travelers, as well as being considerably less superficial.

Physical description of the United Provinces Temple, Observations, pp. 95, 113–14; Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, p. 277; Israel, Dutch Republic, pp. 1–3, 9–14.

“An universall quagmire …” The Englishman was the propagandist Owen Felltham, and his work was published when Anglo-Dutch antagonism reached its peak in the middle of the seventeenth century. His views of the Dutch need to be seen in this context. Cited in Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, p. 44.

The English ambassador Temple, Observations, pp. 95, 113–14.

The classes of Dutch society Israel, Dutch Republic, pp. 330, 337–53, 630–38; Deursen, Plain Lives, pp. 4–8, 13, 32, 47–48, 194; Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, pp. 232–41; Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 19–21, 316, 579–81.

The working day Deursen, Plain Lives, pp. 5, 11; Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, pp. 5–6, 53.

Food Deursen, Plain Lives, pp. 4, 19–20, 82; Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 162–64, 169–70, 230; Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, pp. 67–74; Cotterell, Amsterdam, pp. 24, 48; Brereton, Travels in Holland, p. 6.

Cleanliness Deursen, Plain Lives, pp. 19, 41; Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, pp. 137–39, 169; Brereton, Travels in Holland, p. 68.

Population Israel, Dutch Republic, p. 328.

Baudartius and the pressure of overpopulation Deursen, Plain Lives, pp. 3–4, 8.

Spread of the fashion for gardening in the Netherlands Cotterell, Amsterdam, pp. 88, 131; Brereton, Travels in Holland, p. 38; Mundy, Travels of Peter Mundy, vol. 4, p. 75; Segal, Tulips Portrayed, p. 8; Bulgatz, Ponzi Schemes, p. 86.

Dutch savings Temple, Observations, p. 102.

The gambling impulse Deursen, Plain Lives, pp. 67–68, 105–06; Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 306–07, 347; Zumthor, Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, p. 76.

Chapter 10. Boom

The course of the mania is set out best in E. H. Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland: De Tulpomanie van 1636–37 en de Hyacintenhandel 1720–36 (Amsterdam, 1942). A general summary of events, with rather more interpretation, can be found in Nicolaas Posthumus, “The Tulip Mania in Holland in the Years 1636 and 1637,” in W. C. Scoville and J. C. LaForce, eds., The Economic Development of Western Europe, vol. 2 (Lexington, Mass., 1969), pp. 138–49.

Hoorn Israel, Dutch Republic, pp. 317–18.

The tulip house Damme, Aanteekeningen Betreffende, pp. 23–24. According to van Damme, the house was renovated in 1755, at which time the stone tulips were inscribed with some memorial to the mania. At some time in the 1880s or early 1890s, the house was demolished, and the tulips were purchased by J. H. Krelage, one of the leading tulip growers of Haarlem, and set in the wall of his library. Van Damme, incidentally, describes the chronicle from which he drew many of his details as Velius’s, but in fact Velius’s work runs no further than 1630. He must therefore have meant a continuation of the original chronicle. The reliability of this work is not entirely clear. From the context in which the chronicler mentions the tulip house it seems the passage may not be contemporary.

The development of the tulip mania Posthumus, “The Tulip Mania in Holland,” pp. 140–42; Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 42, 49–52.

A contemporary chronicler Aitzema, Saken van Staet en Oorlogh, p. 504. Like many of the prices cited by historians of the mania, van Aitzema’s seem to be drawn from the fictionalized Samenspraecken, three pamphlets published in 1637 that purported to record conversations between a tulip dealer and his friend. See chapter 11 for details.

Generael der Generaelen van Gouda Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 35, 49. Schama says that Gouda was one of the cheapest and least spectacular varieties, which is not correct.

Later prices quoted for Semper Augustus Ibid., pp. 32–33, 68; Garber, “Tulip-mania,” p. 537; Segal, Tulips Portrayed, pp. 8–9.

Soap See Israel, Dutch Republic, p. 347.

Land in Schermer polder; the merchant lover Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, p. 30, citing one of the pamphlets published during the mania.

Anecdotes of a sailor and an English traveler The story of the sailor is recorded by J. B. Schuppius as a memory of his youth in Holland, according to Solms-Laubach, Weizen und Tulpe, p. 76. It was famously retold in considerably embellished form in Mackay,Extraordinary Popular Delusions, p. 92. Mackay tells the (unreferenced) story of the English traveler. Peter Garber has drawn attention to the fundamental implausibility of these anecdotes, see Garber, “Tulipmania,” p. 537 & n.

Dutch recession Israel, Dutch Republic, pp. 314–15.

Weavers Those who note the predominance of linen workers among the tulip maniacs include Posthumus, “Tulip Mania in Holland,” p. 143.

Sales by bulb and by the bed Ibid., p. 141.

Trades of Jan Brants and Andries Mahieu Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 13–14.

Sales between April and August All the early records of tulip trading are dated between April and August. Ibid., pp. 11–15; Posthumus, “Tulip Mania in Holland,” p. 141.

The windhandel Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 358–59.

The futures trade ’t Hart, Jonker, and Zanden, Financial History of the Netherlands, pp. 53–54; Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 339, 349–50; Vries and Woude, First Modern Economy, p. 151; Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 338–39; Zumthor,Daily Life in Rembrandt’s Holland, p. 262.

Bans on futures trading ’t Hart, Jonker, and Zanden, Financial History of the Netherlands, p. 55.

Trading by the ace Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 46–48.

Gerrit Bosch Alkmaar notarial archive, vol. 113, fol. 71vo–72vo, July 23, 1637 (copy in the Posthumus Collection, Netherlands Economic History Archive).

Profit on spice voyages Israel, Dutch Republic, p. 320.

David de Mildt Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 16.

Henrick Lucasz. and Joost van Haverbeeck Ibid., pp. 19–20.

Jan Admirael Ibid., pp. 17–18, 21–22.

The value of a bulb The best data come from the auction held at Alkmaar in February 1637, where several bulbs of the same variety, but of different weights, were sold to the same bidders in the course of a single day. See Damme, Aanteekeningen Betreffende, pp. 92–93.

Tulip companies Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 26, 32–36.

Bulbs per ace and per thousand aces See Damme, Aanteekeningen Betreffende, pp. 92–93.

They came from all walks of life Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1926), pp. 3–99.

Bulbs bought to plant and trade Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 24–25.

The Samenspraecken These three important pamphlets were reprinted in ibid., pp. 20–99. They have been discussed by Krelage in Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 70–73, and in De Pamfletten van den Tulpenwindhandel, pp. 2–4; and also by Murray, “Introduction of the Tulip,” pp. 25–27; Jacob, Tulips, pp. 10–12; Segal, Tulips Portrayed, pp. 13–15; Herbert, Still Life with a Bridle, pp. 57–58; and Schama, Embarrassment of Riches, pp. 359–60. None of these accounts, incidentally, agrees with any of the others on precisely how the information in the Samenspraecken should be interpreted, mute testimony to the remarkable obscurity of the text of the original pamphlets.

Payments in kind As noted, these examples too derive from the Samenspraecken. See Bulgatz, Ponzi Schemes, p. 97.

Aert Ducens Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 38. In 1643 van de Heuvel’s wife appeared before a notary and confirmed that this agreement had been canceled after the tulip market crashed.

Jeuriaen Jansz. Ibid., pp. 27–28. In this case the seller’s name is given as “Cresser,” but the records of the mania are full of misspelled surnames, and it is almost certainly Creitser who was meant.

Cornelis Guldewagen Ibid., pp. 61–65, 72–74.

Abraham de Goyer Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1934), pp. 231–32. Null and void Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 85.

Cases of deceit and fraud Segal, Tulips Portrayed, p. 12; Murray, “Introduction of the Tulip,” p. 25.

Everything that could be called a tulip Aitzema, Saken van Staet en Oorlogh, p. 504.

Chapter 11. At the Sign of The Golden Grape

My account of Dutch tavern life has been pieced together from numerous secondary sources, the most significant being those of van Deursen and Schama. The English travelers Moryson, Brereton, and Mundy all make some mention of the subject, and their personal experiences add color to the general remarks of the social historians. Haarlem’s brewing industry is described in S. Slive, ed., Frans Hals (The Hague: SDU, 1990). The taverns of Haarlem are touched on by S. Groenveld et al., Deugd Boven Geweld. Een Geschiedenis van Haarlem, 1245–1995 (Hilversum: Verloren, 1995), which is more rewarding than an English translation of its title (“Virtue Above Violence”) might suggest, and the brothels of the Haarlemmerhout are rather tentatively passed over by Temmininck et al. in the even more unenticingly titled Haarlemmerhout 400 Jaar. “Mooier is de Wereld Nergens.” (Haarlem: Schuyt & Co., 1984)—“400 Years of Haarlem Wood: ‘Nowhere in the World Is More Beautiful.’” Thankfully Geoffrey Cotterell’s anecdotal historyAmsterdam: The Life of a City (Farnborough: D.C. Heath, 1973) adds some more entertaining details about the role that food and drink played in Dutch life.

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.

Munting Munting, Naauwkeurige Beschryving, p. 911.

Van Bosvelt Municipal Archives, Haarlem, Resolution of November 5, 1637, Aanteekeningen van C.J. Gonnet; Bulgatz, Ponzi Schemes, p. 105.

Many contracts nullified Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 69.

Cases in Alkmaar Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1934), p. 240.

De Block Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 48–49.

Abraham de Goyer Ibid., pp. 65–67.

Hans Baert Ibid., p. 76.

Admirael and de Hooge Ibid., p. 68.

Willem Schonaeus As well as being a poor judge of tulips, Koster must have been something of an optimist; even after the crash in prices, he agreed to continue with the transaction, and he paid his deposit—820 guilders, about 12 percent of the purchase price—as late as May 25. By the autumn, though, he had evidently changed his mind about the wisdom of the agreement and defaulted, forcing Schonaeus to take action. See Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 71, 79. Willem Schonaeus (1600–67) lived in one of Haarlem’s best-known houses, De Hoofdwacht on the Grote Markt. See Kurtz, “De Geschiedenis van Ons,” pp. 37–38.

Cases in Haarlem See Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 71, 79.

De Clerq Ibid., pp. 77, 79.

Haarlem’s court of arbitration Ibid., p. 80; Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 96–97; Bulgatz, Ponzi Schemes, p. 105.

Friend makers Brereton, Travels in Holland, pp. 8–9, 22; Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 80; Municipal Archives, Haarlem, Aantee-keningen van C. J. Gonnet; Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1934), pp. 239–40.

Dubbleden Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 84–85.

Van Goyen’s insolvency It is not clear why van Goyen did not take advantage of the opportunity to settle his debts at 3.5 percent, which would have meant paying only thirty guilders. Probably the regents of The Hague did not follow their colleagues in Haarlem in setting up an arbitration panel to settle local cases.

Chapter 15. At the Court of the Tulip King

Many of the books that were consulted for chapter 3 were also useful here, particularly those of Mansel and Miller. Surprisingly, there seems to be no good biography of Ahmed III, but accounts of his tulip fêtes appear in numerous secondary sources, many of which have been drawn on; the most original and useful were Arthur Baker, “The Cult of the Tulip in Turkey,” Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society (September 1931), and Michiel Roding and Hans Theunissen, eds., The Tulip: A Symbol of Two Nations(Utrecht and Istanbul: Turco-Dutch Friendship Association, 1993). The historical background has been taken both from general histories such as Alan Palmer, The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire (London: John Murray, 1992), and more specialist studies, including Lavender Cassels, The Struggle for the Ottoman Empire, 1717–1740 (London: John Murray, 1966).

Mehmed IV and the tulip Palmer, Decline and Fall, pp. 10, 14–15, 37; Bay-top, “Tulip in Istanbul,” pp. 50–56; Miller, Beyond the Sublime Porte, p. 124.

Ibrahim the Mad During his eight-year reign, he was also noted for deflowering a virgin every Friday. See Palmer, Decline and Fall, p. 19; Penzer, Harem, pp. 188–91.

Execution might, after all, still be their lot When court officials entered the cage to call Süleyman II (1687–91) to the throne in succession to Mehmed IV, the new sultan is said to have cried out in terrified exasperation: “If my death has been commanded, say so. Since my childhood, I have suffered forty years of imprisonment. It is better to die at once than to die a little every day. What terror we endure for a single breath.” See Inalcik, Ottoman Empire, p. 60.

The time of tulips Göçek, East Encounters West, p. 10.

Nedim the poet Palmer, Decline and Fall, p. 36; Wheatcroft, Ottomans, pp. 77, 79; Mansel, Constantinople, p. 181.

Sultan Ahmed’s flower festivals Barber, Lords of the Golden Horn, pp. 109–10; Mansel, Constantinople, pp. 76–78, 180–81; Palmer, Decline and Fall, pp. 37–38; Miller, Beyond the Sublime Porte, pp. 124–26; Penzer, Harem, pp. 258–60.

General passion for tulips in Ahmed’s reign Demiriz, “Tulips in Ottoman,” pp. 57–58; Baytop, “Tulip in Istanbul,” p. 55; Baker, “Cult of the Tulip in Turkey,” p. 235.

Eighteenth-century criteria for ideal tulips Baytop, “Tulip in Istanbul,” p. 53; Demiriz, “Tulips in Ottoman,” pp. 57–58; Murray, “Introduction of the Tulip,” p. 20.

Ottoman officials’ flowers and bribes of tulips Mansel, Constantinople, p. 182; Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire, p. 234.

Fazil Pasha Mansel, Constantinople, p. 147.

Damat Ibrahim Palmer, Decline and Fall, pp. 33–35, 38.

The Sa’adabad Ibid., p. 34; Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire, p. 234; Mansel, Constantinople, pp. 180–81; Göçek, East Encounters West, pp. 51, 79; Pallis, Days of the Janissaries, p. 199.

The fall of Damat Ibrahim and Ahmed III Palmer, Decline and Fall, pp. 38–39.

Mahmud I and the decline of the tulip in Turkey Barber, Lords of the Golden Horn, p. 110; Wheatcroft, Ottomans, pp. 80–81.

Chapter 16. Late Flowering

The later history of the bulb trade is reliably covered in modern histories. The hyacinth trade is described in detail by E. H. Krelage in Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland: De Tulpomanie van 1636–37 en de Hyacintenhandel 1720–36 (Amsterdam, 1942), and the later history of the tulip by both Krelage, in Drie Eeuwen Bloembollenexport (The Hague: Rijksuitgeverijj, 1946), and Daniel Hall, in The Book of the Tulip (London: Martin Hopkinson, 1929).

Continuing trade in tulips Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 97–110; Krelage, Drie Eeuwen Bloembollenexport, pp. 15–18; Segal, Tulips Portrayed, p. 17; Mundy, Travels of Peter Mundy, vol. 4, p. 75; Garber, “Tulipmania,” pp. 550–53.

Aert Huybertsz. Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), pp. 82–83.

Haarlem as the center of the later bulb trade Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 102–04; Krelage, Drie Eeuwen Bloembollenexport, pp. 9–11.

Desiderata of van Oosting and van Kampen Cited in Segal, Tulips Portrayed, p. 11, and Hall, Book of the Tulip, pp. 48–49.

The hyacinth trade Krelage, Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland, pp. 142–96, and Krelage, Drie Eeuwen Bloembollenexport, pp. 13, 645–55; Garber, “Tulip-mania,” pp. 553–54; Bulgatz, Ponzi Schemes, pp. 109–14.

A $4,000 bottle of Coca-Cola Pendergrast, For God, Country, p. 211.

The history of the tulip to the present day Krelage, Drie Eeuwen Bloembollen-export, pp. 15–18.

Craze for dahlias Bulgatz, Ponzi Schemes, pp. 108–09. During this episode there was even talk of the propagation of blue dahlias—as much a botanical impossibility as the black tulip.

Craze for gladioli Posthumus, “Tulip Mania in Holland,” p. 148.

Chinese spider lily mania Malkiel, Random Walk down Wall Street, pp. 82–83.

Florida land boom Bulgatz, Ponzi Schemes, pp. 46–75.

If you find an error please notify us in the comments. Thank you!