Tulipomania (34 page)

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.

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.

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.