Tulip mania


from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brochure from the tulip mania in the Netherlands, printed 1637
Watercolor painting of a white and red striped tulip
Contemporary watercolor (17th century) of a Semper Augustus tulip , Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena

The tulip mania (also tulipomania , tulip madness , tulip bubble , tulip fever or tulip hysteria ; Dutch tulpenwoede , tulpengekte or bollengekte ) is a period in the Golden Age of the Netherlands , in which tulip bulbs became an object of speculation .

Tulips have been a popular item since their introduction to the Netherlands in the second half of the 16th century. They were cultivated in the gardens of the socially upper classes of the educated bourgeoisie, the learned and the aristocracy. In addition to the barter-based relationships of these lovers, the commercial trade in tulips was added at the end of the 16th century. In the 1630s, the prices for tulip bulbs rose to a comparatively extremely high level before the market collapsed abruptly at the beginning of February 1637.

The tulip mania is considered to be the first relatively well-documented speculative bubble in economic history. It is also used metaphorically to characterize other apparently irrational and risky financial developments. The interpretations of the occasion, the course and the social and economic consequences of the tulip mania diverge. For the traditional reading of events and effects, which can already be found in contemporary criticism and which was taken up by later interpretations, large parts of the Dutch population down to the lowest social classes were involved in the tulip trade in the 1630s. Accordingly, the rapid fall in prices meant the ruin of many participants and caused serious damage to the Dutch economy as a whole. Other interpretations try not to portray the rise and fall in prices of tulips in the light of the market efficiency hypothesis as an irrational and singular mania, highlight institutional causes for the bubble and relativize the overall economic relevance.

conditions

Tulip hobby in the Netherlands

The center of the biodiversity of the plant genus tulips ( Tulipa ) is in the southeastern Mediterranean region . Of the Persians who took over the Turks the cultivation of tulips in the 15th century. In the Ottoman Empire it was considered one of the finest flowers and was planted in large quantities in the Sultan's gardens by the 18th century at the latest . Tulips came from the Ottoman Empire to Vienna around 1555–60 via Constantinople (now Istanbul ) . Probably imported for the first time Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq , a Flemish nobleman and ambassador of Emperor Ferdinand I at the court of Suleiman I , tulips seeds and onions. One of the earliest, possibly even the first description of a tulip by a Western European has come down from him. In a letter dated September 1, 1555, he named her Tulipan . Tulips also reached Central Europe in other ways, for example from southern Europe or in the course of trade with the Levant . In 1559, the Swiss scholar Conrad Gessner saw a red tulip in the garden of the Augsburg banker Johannes Heinrich Herwarth, which he described as Tulipa Turcarum . The introduction of the tulip ushered in the so-called oriental period in the history of garden art , in which, in addition to tulips, hyacinths and daffodils also found their way into Western European garden culture and enjoyed great appreciation there.

Woodcut of a tulip ( Tulpa serotina flava ), from a separate appendix ('Plants from Thrace ') to Clusius' work on the flora of Spain

The Flemish botanist Carolus Clusius , prefect of the Imperial Medicinal Herb Garden ( Hortus botanicus medicinae ) in Vienna since 1573 , cultivated tulips on a large scale from 1574. In Maximilian II's garden he had onions and seeds planted or sown. In the following period, blooming tulips were described independently in Brussels (1577), in Leiden (1590), in Breslau (1594) and in Montpellier (1598). After a station in Frankfurt am Main, Clusius was appointed professor of botany in Leiden in 1593 , where he headed the Hortus botanicus . As in Frankfurt and Vienna, Clusius was in Leiden an important point in a network of flower lovers, theiebbers . They were connected to one another through their high social rank, their humanistic education and their appreciation for plants. Representatives of various social circles mingled in the exclusive circle of these enthusiasts. The flower lovers included scholars, educated and wealthy citizens (pharmacists, doctors, notaries, traders, lawyers) as well as nobles, for whom all dealing with plants was not an agriculture but a hobby .

Tulips were valued for several properties. They were new, exotic, exclusive, decorative and sophisticated. In order to cultivate their enthusiasm for floriculture and ranhebberij , amateurs created private gardens and visited each other in these to exchange ideas about the cultivation of the new varieties and to inspect the respective specimens. The creation of private gardens was promoted by the growth of Dutch cities beyond the city walls. For example, the houses that were built in the first half of the 17th century on the canals of Amsterdam's Herengracht , Keizersgracht and Prinsengracht were designed with rear gardens. In other cities such as Haarlem , gardens were laid out outside the city walls. In these gardens not only medicinal and useful herbs were grown, but the gardens were also used to cultivate new plant species such as tulips. For example , when Clusius died , the Hortus botanicus in Leiden , which was created primarily for medicinal plants, contained more than 600 tulip bulbs that were not associated with any medicinal effect. Some flower lovers specialized in collecting and growing tulips, which grew individually in the beds with a generous gap between them.

The increased appreciation and awareness of flowers found expression in the still lifes , as they were in this period by Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder. Ä. , Balthasar van der Ast and Roelant Savery were painted. In some of these works, the tulip appears in connection with other objects as a symbol of vanitas . The short flowering period from April to June and the early death of the plants after flowering made the tulips, as one reading of these pictures, a memento mori .

Tulips were also collected in cabinets of curiosities. These collections were basically divided into naturalia and artificialia . However, in practice, naturally occurring and man-made objects were collected and exhibited together. For example, the Hortus botanicus in Leiden also had a gallery (the Ambulacrum ) in which Barent ten Broecke the Elder's collection of rarities. Ä. (Bernardus Paludanus) was housed. Tulip bulbs and pictures of tulips were found in these art and natural objects cabinets alongside works of art and other rare and valuable items such as ostrich eggs, narwhal horns, rare minerals and mussels. Some authors like the Sieur de La Chesnée Monstereul went so far as to count the tulip among the artificialia and not among the naturalia because natural and human factors came together in the tulip cultivation.

The collection of tulips and other rarities was critically examined in the Netherlands as early as the beginning of the 17th century. In his polemical collection of emblems Sinnepoppen (' Sinnsprüche ', Amsterdam 1614), published in 1614, Roemer Visscher compares the eagerness of the collectors of mussels with that of the collectors of tulips. In two consecutive sheets he shows on the one hand exotic shells under the title Tis misselijck waer een geck zijn gel aen leijt ("It's crazy what a fool spends his money on"), on the other hand tulips under the heading Een dwaes en zijn Gelt zijn haest ghescheijden ("A fool and his money are hastily divorced").

The tulip lovers maintained their relationships by trading , not selling, tulips. Their reputation was based on knowledge, honesty, reliability and the willingness to readily exchange knowledge and goods. However, the high esteem and rarity of the tulips also meant that they became a financially valuable commodity. This can be seen, for example, in the theft of tulip bulbs. Clusius was robbed twice in 1569 and over 100 tulips were stolen from him. The flower-lover culture was joined by the commercial trade in flowers. Rare plants and flowers have been traded since at least the mid-1570s. Clusius reports, for example, of dealers who sold snow roses in Vienna in 1576 . In addition to the established amateurs and their barter deals, there were new players who traded flowers commercially ( rhizotomi , 'root cutters ', as Clusius called them). However, there is also evidence that theiebbers themselves and not just the new traders who joined them were actively involved in the commodification of tulips and that they both bought and sold tulips.

Growing tulips

The rarity of tulips was not only due to their climate-related susceptibility to disease and rot. The preferred type of propagation also set limits to mass distribution: although tulips can be distributed via seeds, in this form a flowering plant needs seven to ten years to grow. Therefore, the propagation took place vegetatively using daughter onions. As geophytes , tulips form protected bulbs in the ground in order to survive the winter and sprout again the following spring. After flowering, daughter bulbs grow on the mother onions from spring to summer , which can be “cleared” after flowering. They then exist as independent flowering specimens. After flowering, the mother onions with the daughter onions that have formed are taken out of the ground over the summer and only replanted in September or October, where they overwinter until the next flowering.

Painting "Spring" by Brueghel
Spring (detail), Pieter Brueghel the Elder J. , 1635, private collection. Gardening work at the time of the tulip mania is shown. In the beds you can see the blooming tulips.

In the Netherlands, in addition to increasing the quantity of tulips, breeders and collectors also promoted the breeding of varieties . The knowledge about the correct ordering and care of plants was found both in treatises by botanists such as Rembert Dodoens and Matthias de L'Obel and in popular writings such as Emmanuel Sweerts Florilegium or Crispijn van de Passes the Elder. Ä. Hortus floridus common. Tulips were valued because of their spontaneous changes in color and shape and the innumerable variations they produced. In the period between 1630 and 1650, around 800 varieties of tulips with different names were known.

The cultivars that arose during breeding were classified into groups: for example, all single-colored red, yellow and white tulips were included under the Couleren , the Rozen showed a violet or purple color on a white background, while the bizards included all tulips that were red , brown or purple color on a yellow background. The patterned petals (“breaking”) are the result of the tulip mosaic virus , which is transmitted by aphids and can be passed on via infected daughter bulbs. Successful breeding lines were accordingly unpredictable and rare, especially because the reason for the sudden color change was unknown to the breeders at the time - it was only found in 1924 - and because the broken tulips were weaker and more susceptible and less constant in their color pattern than healthy tulips. Even if the breeders did not know the reason for the color variations, they looked for ways to break the tulips in a targeted manner. For example, two halves of different onions were tied together, tulip bulbs were soaked in ink, or pigeon dung was burned on the garden soil.

The appreciation for tulips in the Netherlands is expressed in their names. There are numerous tulips with the name components Admirael and Generael , which corresponds to the highest social positions attainable at this time. For example, one of the tulips from the breeder Francesco Gomes da Costa was called Admirael da Costa or the varieties Admirael van Enkhuizen or Generael from Generaels van Gouda came from Enkhuizen or Gouda . There were also allusions to precious materials (e.g. Goude Laeckens ' Goldstoff ') or well-known figures from classical antiquity (e.g. Schoone Helena 'Schöne Helena'). The names of tulip varieties were also often borrowed from other objects shown in the Chambers of Wonder. There are references to varieties with the French or Dutch names Agaat ( agate ), Morillon (unpolished emerald ), Ghemarmerde ( marbled ) or Marquetrine ( marquetry ).

It was especially the multicolored flamed, dashed, striped, bordered or speckled tulips that were at the center of the speculative deals of the tulip mania. Most of these varieties are now extinct. For example , no specimen has survived from the then most valuable tulip, Semper Augustus ('the always sublime'), because in recent times plants infected with the tulip mosaic virus have been destroyed by breeders so that they do not infect the entire population.

Organization of the Dutch tulip trade

Onions were traded in the summer months during the planting season. The cleared onions were sold in spot markets . The tulip trade could not be restricted to this short period. The traders began to buy and sell those bulbs that were still in the ground and could only be dug up later, after flowering. The stock exchange and futures contracts made in these transactions could be certified by a notary or were unofficially recorded on strips of paper ( coopcedulle ). Occasionally the two trading parties used an intermediary ( seghsman ) to negotiate the terms of purchase. Payment for the tulips was usually due when the bulbs were removed from the ground and handed over after flowering. As a consequence, the tulip trade developed into a speculative business , as no one was able to make binding statements about what the tulips traded would look like or whether they would even bloom in the new season. Because of this unclear trading basis, the tulip business was also known as wind trading .

For the purpose of illustrating the expected appearance of a tulip, the breeders and traders commissioned copperplate engravings , watercolors and gouaches of tulip varieties and collected them in trade and auction catalogs , so-called tulip books . A total of 45 copies of them were preserved at the beginning of the 21st century. The peculiarity of these tulip books is that in addition to the illustrations themselves, the names and occasionally also the weight and prices of the varieties shown are shown on the edge of the leaves.

colored drawing of nine different tulips and one bulb
Plate 10 from the Florilegium of the florist and grower Emanuel Sweerts . The tulip book published in Frankfurt am Main in 1612 was based on his sales and mail order catalog for bulb plants.

With the increasing popularity of the ornamental plant, new forms of the tulip trade were added, and from the mid-1630s onwards, prices rose compared to other products. By 1634 at the latest, speculators entered the market who not only bought tulips in the hope of planting them in their garden at a later date, but acquired them in order to sell them on at a profit when prices rose. The short sale was widespread in other sectors of the Dutch economy. The Dutch East India Company sold its shipped goods before they could be delivered. However, the States General banned this type of trade in 1610, and the ban was upheld in the following years, 1621, 1630, and 1636. This meant that such contracts were not enforceable in court. However, the dealers who did business in this way were not explicitly pursued, so that forms of short selling were always used. These verdicts could also not prevent warrants on tulip bulb shares from being traded.

The most comprehensive description of the organization of the Dutch tulip trade at the time of the tulip mania has been preserved in the speculation- critical pamphlet Samenspraeken , which reproduces three satirical dialogues by the two weavers Gaergoedt ('Greed') and Waermondt ('Wahrmund'). It was distributed by Adriaen Roman from Haarlem shortly after the end of the speculative bubble in 1637 . If one follows the description there, then the trade in tulip bulbs did not take place in stock exchange buildings, but the traders met in so-called colleges ( collegie or comparitje ) in certain hostels and taverns. At the college meetings, tulips were traded and assessed, and knowledge about varieties and actors was exchanged. Tulip bulbs were sold partly as individual onion specimens, partly by weight, especially according to the goldsmith's unit asen (one Aes = 0.048 grams and one pound = 9,729 Ases in Haarlem and 10,240 Ases in Amsterdam).

The seller had the option of an auction ( in het ootjen ) or both sides wrote their price request on a slip of paper or a board ( borden ) and two negotiators ( seghsmannen ) selected in each case agreed on a price ( met de Borden ). Buyers were required to pay a fee of 2.5 percent of the sales price, or up to three florins (the so-called. "Wine money" or Wijnkoop in Dutch guilders, so in florins (Dfl) or guilders ) to pay the site for Food, drinks and tips were given. If one wanted to get out of already started sales negotiations, then the payment of a rouwkoop (fine) was due. Sometimes the obligation to deliver an onion was negotiated through intermediaries. Tulips were also auctioned at official auctions, such as the auctions of a Weeskamer ( orphanage ), when the latter auctioned the estate of a deceased for the benefit of his children.

Data and history

Tulip prices

No complete price data has been received for the period from 1630 to 1637. It is therefore not possible to make exact statements about the price trend and the extent of the depreciation of tulip bulbs. The majority of the data also come from the semen Spraek . The list by the American economic historian Peter M. Garber , who compiled the information on sales of 161 onions of 39 varieties between 1633 and 1637, shows that even the same tulip varieties were traded at different prices at the same time. The reason for this lies in the different possible trading modes and trading locations. Tulips could be sold or acquired in the futures exchanges of the colleges , at auctions, on spot markets at growers and through notarized futures contracts.

Diagram showing the price development of tulips between November 1636 and May 1637
A standardized price index for tulip bulb contracts. The dates between February 9, 1637 and May 1, 1637 are missing.

As early as the 1620s it was possible to obtain very high prices for individual tulip varieties. The Semper Augustus tulip is an example of this . It was traded as the most expensive tulip of all time in 1637. According to a report from 1623, all twelve tulips of this variety that existed at that time should belong to the Amsterdam citizen Adriaan Pauw on his estate in Heemstede . In 1623 each of these onions cost 1,000 guilders, in 1624 the price was 1,200 guilders, in 1633 it had risen to 5,500 guilders and in 1637 30,000 guilders were offered for three onions. For comparison: the average annual income in the Netherlands was around 150 guilders, the most expensive houses on an Amsterdam canal cost around 10,000 guilders. However, these very high tulip prices seem to have been the exception at the time. In 1611 tulips of the variety Cears op de Candlelaer ('candles on a candlestick') were sold for 20 guilders. From October 1635, dates have been received on the sale of a Saeyblom van Coningh tulip for 30 guilders. That the prices for tulip bulbs rose at the beginning of the 1630s can be seen from the varieties for which several price data are available in chronological order. For example, the price of a tulip of the Groot Gepluymaseerde variety doubled from 0.07 gulden per Aes on December 28, 1636 to 0.15 gulden per Aes on January 12, 1637. The price of the Switserts variety rose from 125 gulden in these two weeks 1,500 guilders for the pound, a twelve-fold increase.

course

The prices for tulips reached their peak at the Weeskamer auction on February 3, 1637 in Alkmaar . It was organized by the weesmesters (rectors of the orphanage) for the descendants of Wouter Bartholomeusz Winckel. At the auction, a total of around 90,000 guilders were achieved for 99 lots of tulip bulbs. However, there is no reliable evidence for either the individual prices or the buyers. A leaflet published a short time after the auction contains a price list, but no information on who is said to have bid these sums at the auction. The average price of the tulips auctioned was 793 guilders. Most of the interest in the later arguments about the events attracted the tulips, for which much higher prices are said to have been offered. A tulip of the 'Viceroy' variety went under the hammer for 4,203 guilders, and an Admirael van Enchhysen was sold for 5,200 guilders.

Two days after the auction in Alkmaar, on February 5, 1637, the fall in prices in Haarlem had begun . At one of the regular pub auctions, none of the tulips on offer could be sold at the expected price. In the next few days the tulip market collapsed throughout the Netherlands. The system of trading only worked as long as the traders anticipated rising prices and the option that a buyer would be willing to purchase the real tulip bulb. When no new buyers were found who wanted to get into the price spiral, the value of tulips fell by an estimated more than 95 percent. At the end of the bubble, traders found themselves obliged to buy tulip bulbs in summer at a price well above current market prices, while other market players had sold tulip bulbs that were only a fraction of the value for which they were bought.

Leaflet
Lijste van eenighe Tulpaen overcooked aende meeste-biedende. Leaflet of the price list of the 99lots of tulip bulbs auctionedat the Weeskamer auction in 1637 in Alkmaar.

To find a way out of this crisis, on February 23, 1637, various cities sent delegates to a meeting in Amsterdam . A total of 36 florists from twelve cities and regions (Haarlem, Leiden, Alkmaar, Utrecht , Gouda, Delft , Vianen , Enkhuizen, Hoorn , Medemblik and the De Streeck region) were represented at this gathering . Dealers from Amsterdam were also present, but they refused to sign the agreement. The agreement stipulated that all sales contracts would be valid. But any buyer had the right until March 1637 to cancel purchases made after November 30, 1636 (the end of the previous planting season). In this case, only 10 percent of the purchase price would have had to be paid as a fine as compensation. But because this agreement was not legally binding and an important center of trade with Amsterdam refused to cooperate, the agreement was not kept.

A second attempt to resolve the crisis came from cities under pressure from influential florists. In Haarlem, for example, it was proposed to submit the idea to the states of Holland and West Friesland to annul all transactions since the end of the last planting period ( planttijt ) at the end of September 1636 without penalties. The council of elders ( vroedschap ) discussed this proposal on March 4, 1637 and came to the conclusion that this matter should be represented before the states. This decision was also supported by the mayors ( burgemeesters ), probably under the influence of important rulers (members of the patrician city government in the Netherlands ) such as Cornelis Guldewagen and Johan de Wael. Both owned breweries in Haarlem, belonged to the bourgeois upper class and held various public offices in the city administration for decades. Just before the price drop, they entered the tulip business by buying 1,300 bulbs from the garden of bankrupt Amsterdam merchant Anthony de Flory. They appear in the court files because they tried several times to get out of the contract in court.

In Hoorn the magistrate took the same route, while Alkmaar took the opposite route. On March 14, 1637, Alkmaar called on his representatives in the states to demand compliance with all treaties. The states dealt with the petitions, but on April 11, 1637, they referred the cities to the Supreme Court of the Province of Holland ( Hof van Holland ). In its decision of April 23, 1637, promulgated by the States on April 25, 1637, the Tribunal stated: First, all treaties should remain in force. Secondly, the individual cities should support the bloemists in their search for amicable solutions ( viam concordiea ). If this fails, the problems should be reported back to the Court. Third, if the buyers broke their agreement, the sellers were allowed to resell the onions in question. The first buyer should be responsible for the difference between the first agreed price and the second price achieved.

In Haarlem, this arbitration award was implemented in such a way that from May 1, 1637 disputes over tulip sales could no longer be brought to court. The florists had to come to an agreement among themselves. However, since many disputes remained unsolved in this way, the burgemeesters of Haarlem turned again to the Hof van Holland in June 1637 with the request that the arbitration award be set aside. But because the court did not obey this request, the burgemeesters of Haarlem put together a commission on January 30, 1638 ( Commisarissen van den Bloemen Saecken ). A similar solution was found in Alkmaar and, based on current knowledge, possibly also in other cities. The aim was to settle the conflicts amicably (per accomodatie ). The final solution was confirmed by the mayors of Haarlem on May 28, 1638: the contracts could be canceled if the buyers were willing to pay a fine of 3.5 percent of the original purchase price.

Explanations

There are different approaches to explain the rise and fall in prices of tulips in the winter of 1636/37. While traditionally a critical interpretation of events as irrational mania prevailed, more recent works from market-rational, institutional and historical perspectives seek more balanced interpretations. The tulip bulb craze in the 17th century is also often used to assess current market conditions. The Austrian financial market supervisory board member Helmut Ettl and JP Morgan boss Jamie Dimon compared the Bitcoin events with the historical tulip mania. "The price continues to rise and at the end of the day the bubble bursts and a lot of people have lost a lot of money," said Ettl.

Traditional interpretations

The traditional interpretation of the rise and fall in prices of tulips understands these events as excessive financial speculation and reckless madness . The book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds , which the Scottish journalist Charles Mackay published in London in 1841, was decisive in spreading the idea of ​​a tulip mania . Mackay represented the thesis of irrational mass behavior and supported this with the examples of the South Sea bubble and the scandal surrounding the Mississippi Company (both 1720).

Basic elements of his presentation, which were passed on many times in the subsequent disputes, are, on the one hand, the claim that the tulip mania has spread to all segments of the population in the Netherlands and driven them into commercial speculation, and on the other hand, the claim that it ruined those involved and unified the Dutch economy as a whole dealt severe damage. In addition, Mackay's text spread some anecdotes that could be found again and again afterwards, such as the one about the exchange of a very large shopping cart for a tulip of the 'Viceroy' variety or about the mishap of a man who accidentally mistook one of the precious tulip bulbs for a simple vegetable onion and ate it .

Goods allegedly exchanged for a Viceroy onion .
120 bushels of wheat 448 guilders
240 bushels of rye 558 guilders
Four fat oxen 480 guilders
Eight fat pigs 240 guilders
Twelve fat sheep 120 guilders
Two Oxhofte of wine 70 guilders
Four loads of beer 32 guilders
Two barrels of butter 192 guilders
1,000 pounds of cheese 120 guilders
A bed 100 guilders
A suit 80 guilders
A silver drinking cup 60 guilders
Total 2,500 guilders

Mackay's most important source for his information and the critical reading of the tulip mania he put forward is Johann Beckmann , who in turn relied on the Dutch botanist Abraham Munting . He was born in 1626 and is not an eyewitness to the tulip mania. Munting relied on two documents, which thus form the basis for all later texts and their critical interpretation of the tulip trade. On the one hand this is a chronicle by Lieuwe van Aitzema and on the other hand the pamphlet seed spraek by Adriaen Roman. Since Aitzema in turn bases his description on pamphlets and leaflets , this collection of contemporary texts forms the main source of the popular discussion of the tulip mania. The majority of the criticism in these leaflets and handouts, which were circulating in various cities in the spring of 1637, accuses the florists of having made tulips their idols and thus offending God, of seeking money through unfair trading and of having the social Order endangered.

Mackay's picture of the rise and fall in prices of tulips as a comprehensive and destructive mania makes the historical event a prime example of a market development misdirected by mass hysteria . In this form, the tulip mania finds its way into popular scientific considerations on financial markets and later financial crises , such as Burton Malkiel's A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) or Kenneth Galbraith's A Short History of Financial Euphoria (1990). The tulip mania also appears in Oliver Stone's film Wall Street: Money Doesn't Sleep Up (2010). In it, the speculator Gordon Gekko uses a historical representation of the changing market value of tulips to explain and evaluate the financial crisis from 2007 onwards .

Market rational explanation

Since the 1980s, economists have tried a more positive view of speculative behavior and critically examined Mackay's interpretation. The extent to which the wave of speculation affected the population and the extent of the negative economic effects of the tulip mania are questioned.

In his explanation of why the dealers were willing to pay ever higher prices for tulips, the American economic historian Peter M. Garber emphasizes the aspect of playful diversion and the increased willingness to take risks in times of plague. During the first half of the 17th century, bubonic plague epidemics were rampant in Dutch cities, which Garber cites as a reason for the willingness to take risks and as an explanation for the sums of money available (through inheritance).

Based on the price data he used for tulip sales in the winter of 1636/1637 and for transactions of tulips that followed in 1643, 1722 and 1739, he argues that the annual price decline varied from variety to variety and could range from 76 percent to 24 percent. In comparison with the prices for hyacinths in the 18th century, Garber explains that the claim that the tulip mania was a one-off event cannot be sustained. Rather, the price curves would show clear parallels. In the case of hyacinths, too, the prices for the most expensive varieties have fallen to one to two percent of their original value within three decades.

Douglas French's reasoning follows on from Garber's rational market explanation, based on the market efficiency hypothesis . He claims that the tulip mania was also possible because the monetary policy of the Amsterdam currency exchange bank ( Wisselbank ) and the capture of the Spanish silver fleet on September 17, 1628 by Piet Pieterszoon Heyn meant that more money was available that could be used for speculative purposes.

Institutional statement

The American economist Earl A. Thompson contradicts Garber's comparative argument . He points out that the price drop of tulips in the 1630s was not the claimed change of around 40 percent, but 99.999 percent.

Thompson explains with the decree that the dealers' delegates passed in Amsterdam on February 24th that the dealers were ready to bid ever higher sums of money for tulips in the winter of 1636/1637. He assumes that this document was not the reaction to the price drop at the beginning of February, but only the end point of a longer undertaking. The dealers had strived to be able to cancel the contracts without loss if necessary, and had already entered into high-risk contracts ahead of time, pending confirmation of this suggestion. In its interpretation, the decree opens a release clause for sales contracts. The buyer of tulip bulbs was free to withdraw from contracts entered into and in this case to pay a contractual penalty of 3.5 percent of the commercial value. This possibility has favored the price-driving speculations of the dealers, who expected rising prices and resale profits, but could have got out at the risk of a price decline and only lost a fraction of the contract sum. In this sense, the mania is only an economically rational response to the change in the legal framework. The fall in prices was in turn caused by events in the Thirty Years War . The advance of the Swedes after the battle of Wittstock dampened the expectation of the Dutch traders that German princes would enter the tulip trade and buy the overpriced tulips.

Historical explanation

In her study of the socio-economic context of tulip cultivation and trade in the Dutch Golden Age, the American historian Anne Goldgar examines several popular claims about the circumstances and consequences of the tulip mania. Her work is essentially based on the evaluation of historical sources, in particular the testimonies of sales and court records for three centers of the tulip trade: Amsterdam, Haarlem and Enkhuizen. At the beginning of her presentation, she points out a problem with any investigation into tulip mania, which has to deal with the fact that the documents on prices, transactions and the actors involved have only been incomplete.

The first claim she examined concerns the level of trading activity. Contrary to the idea already advocated in the early pamphlets and later by Mackay that the tulip mania had affected large parts of the population, Goldgar takes the opinion that the phenomenon only affected a small group of the population, especially wealthy merchants and craftsmen. The relevant reports on delusional and mass trafficking, on the other hand, were based on contemporary propaganda and religiously motivated social criticism . In total, she was able to identify 285 people who were involved in the tulip trade in Haarlem at the beginning of the 17th century. In Amsterdam there were around 60, in Enkhuizen around 25. In this small group of bloemists or florists , neither members of the highest nor the lowest social classes were represented. The buying and selling of tulips was, she claims, an urban phenomenon, which was practiced especially in the densely populated province of Holland and there especially by merchants, notaries, doctors, silversmiths, master craftsmen, innkeepers, brewery owners and pharmacists. In some cases, mayors, schepen ( ' lay judges ') and members of the council of elders were also involved in the tulip business. From the mid-1630s onwards, companies were formed in which several financial and executive partners acted together on the market. As can be seen from the tax registers (created in 1631 for Amsterdam and 1628, 1650 and 1653 for Haarlem), they all belonged to the class of wealthy townspeople. Goldgar was unable to find any evidence for the participation of the weavers and chimney sweeps frequently mentioned in the pamphlets, or for the presence of nobles.

Title page
Title page of the text Samen-Spraek tusschen Waermondt ende Gaergoedt , Adriaen Roman (Haarlem 1637 (reprint))

Goldgar argues that the tulip trade was a phenomenon of the bourgeois-upper class even during the tulip mania. Accordingly, there is continuity between the ranhebbers , who particularly valued tulips because of their beauty and rarity, and the bloemists , who also saw the tulips as commodities and investments. Like the tulip lovers, the tulip dealers were also linked in close family, religious (a disproportionately high proportion of Mennonites traded in tulips), local and business networks.

The trade was also, as the dialogues in the Samen-Spraek showed , an orderly system of obligations and processes as they were maintained in the colleges. The colleges were not only the social event for the trade in tulips, but also a moral, if not legally binding, authority for the assessment of tulips and the evaluation of transactions . Goldgar understands the negotiations in the colleges as an expression of the Dutch discussiecultuur , which tried to solve commercial and social problems through discussion, compromise and negotiation. Goldgar also claims that the traders were proficient in dealing with the risks of wind trading . In a Dutch economy geared towards maritime trade, speculative transactions were common. The Dutch East India Company sold its goods before they had reached customers. Also enjoyed betting and lotteries great popularity, and tulips were even made bets. As evidence of the seriousness and importance of the tulip trade, Goldgar sees the plans of the States General in the summer of 1636 to tax the transactions. The trade in tulips should be taxed at the same time as the idea of ​​introducing taxes on other luxury goods such as the possession of servants , the consumption of tobacco or the game of cards . Following the usual procedure, the States General referred this proposal to the individual cities for discussion, but the session ended on February 7, 1637 and in May 1637 the idea was rejected again due to the lower prices.

The trust-based trade in “intangible” goods appears to have been an important factor behind the rapid fall in prices. Real tulip bulbs were not sold and bought, but the option of a future tulip that would bloom according to a certain pattern. Against this background, one of the reasons for the drop in prices could have been the rumor of overproduction as a result of the increase in demand, because the price was also based on the rarity of the tulip variety.

Second, Goldgar denies that the tulip mania had serious negative consequences for the Dutch economy and for individual tulip dealers. The practice of the tulip trade stipulated that the purchase price was only due when the tulip bulb was lifted out of the ground after it had blossomed. That is why neither real tulip bulbs nor amounts of money changed hands in the transactions in the winter of 1636/1637. If, as a result of the falling prices, the two trading parties therefore agreed to cancel the purchase, nobody suffered serious financial damage. The sellers were not able to sell their tulips for the price they had hoped for, but in principle only got into difficulties if they had already used the expected income for other purposes than credit in advance . The buyers, on the other hand, could not hope for a profitable resale, but if a penalty was due they came out of business with a comparatively small loss. In the chains of buyers and sellers, only those who actually owned the tulip had to accept losses. In the longest of these chains, in which a tulip bulb was resold in one planting period, Goldgar has a total of five participants.

As far as the alleged bankruptcy of numerous traders is concerned, Goldgar only finds sporadic indications of such consequences. In the case of the painter Jan van Goyen , who lost 894 guilders in his tulip deals, Goldgar shows that he suffered more losses from speculating in land than from trading in tulips. In addition, the collapse in tulip prices did not mean an economic downturn for the Netherlands. Overall, the economy grew steadily until the middle of the 17th century. The demonstrably shorter periods of economic downturn would have occurred in the early 1620s and between 1626 and 1631, but not in the aftermath of the tulip mania after 1637.

The tulip mania was therefore less a financial crisis than a cultural crisis in which confidence in the market, in payment security and in trust-based trade was shaken. Vivid evidence of this is that the famous doctor Nicolaes Tulp , who previously named himself after the swarmed flower, removed the tulip picture from his house on Keizersgracht in Amsterdam after the price collapsed . For strict Calvinists like him, the rush of tulips shocked the humanist tradition of moderation.

Reception in art and literature

Engraving of a "Mallewagen"
De Mallewagen alias het valete der Bloemisten , copper engraving by Crispin van der Passe the Elder . J. , 1637
Painting "Flora's Mallewagen"
Flora's Mallewagen , painting by Hendrick Gerritsz. Pot , around 1640, Frans Hals Museum in Haarlem
Copper engraving "Florae's Gecks-kap"
Florae's Gecks-cape , copper engraving by Cornelis Danckerts after Pieter Nolpe, 1637
Painting "Persiflage of the Tulipomania"
Persiflage of the tulipomania , painting by Jan Brueghel the Elder J. , 2nd quarter of the 17th century, Frans Hals Museum in Haarlem

The tulip trade, which got out of joint, was immediately artistically processed. The copper engraving De Mallewagen alias het valete der Bloemisten by Crispin van der Passe d. J. contains a moralizing criticism that has contributed significantly to the interpretation of the tulip mania as a phase of rampant addiction to speculation. The tulips that the goddess Flora carries on a sailing wagon are given names of tulip varieties that represent the preciousness of the flowers on sale : Semper Augustus , Generael Bol and Admirael van (n) Horn . The citizens who run after the car shout: Wy willen mee vaeren ('We want to go with you'). A monkey clinging to the mast soils Flora, which in some diatribes was referred to as Bloemenhoertje ('flower whore'). The car itself is heading for the Laetus vloet , the flood of oblivion. On the beach, a farmer (trying Santvorder Boer , a farmer from Zandvoort ), the Schout , so the mayor to draw attention to the disaster. The coats of arms on the wagon can possibly be associated with certain bar houses , since the names given, such as Witte Wambuis or Bastart Pyp, were typical names for such locations. In the four depictions in the corners of the engraving, scenes from the tulip trade are shown: top left a tulip bed with a buyer, top right the Bloemists' compariti , and another trading scene in the tavern at the bottom left. The abrupt end of speculation is illustrated at the bottom right. As if it were done, a word soo word cooked a wysser advises (“When the deed of fools has been done, wise advice is sought”). The traders sit and stand in confusion, while a craftsman remarks on the right edge of the picture: How did dat think (“Who would have thought that”).

Better known than the copper engraving by Crispin van der Passe the Elder. J. is the satirical picture of Flora's jester's carriage ( Flora's Mallewagen , Frans-Hals-Museum , Haarlem) painted on this model by Hendrik Gerritz Pot around 1640 . Also shown here is a sailing wagon in which Flora is sitting with bouquets of tulips in her hand. At her feet you can see a drinking figure with a fool's cap, who is called Leckebaerd (Schleckmaul, Leckerbeck) and symbolizes gluttony . According to this picture pattern, the car collects other trucks . The man with a tulip-adorned fool's cap is called Liegwagen (the lying mouth), the older man with the cane wallet and the watch is interpreted as Graegreich (Gernereich), the woman with the scales in hand is the Vergaer al (heaps of) and the The figure with the two faces sitting on the front of the carriage is the Ydel Hope . She stretches out her hand to a bird that ontfflgen Ydel Hope (escaped vain hope). In the left background of the picture you can see Haarlem with the Church of St. Bavo , while in the foreground a loom and a code of law are trampled underfoot. In the right background you can already see the fate of the vehicle and its occupants: it plunges into the sea, having become unguided.

Even more significant is the relationship between foolishness and tulips speculation in the lurch Florae's Gecks-kap Cornelis Danckerts. It shows an oversized fool's cap in which a tavern has found space in which a tulip auction is going on. The scales on the table seem to be used to weigh the tulips. Behind the cap, Flora, sitting on a donkey, is harassed by an angry crowd. In the left and right foreground, the faded tulips are brought to the waste. The laughing third is the landlord who earned money from the trading tulip lovers and speculators. The devil in the left background is holding a fool's cap on a fishing rod and a pile of entries for the tulip auction as bait.

Jan Brueghel the Younger approaches the subject differently again . His satire on the Tulipmania (second quarter 17th century, Frans Hals Museum, Haarlem) presents several narrative individual scenes monkey is in human clothes. In their roles as brokers and tulips tulips buyers point to the absurdity of the tulip trade. Thus the viewer sees a feast with which potential buyers should be amused, as well as the various stages of the trade up to the desperation of the ruined buyer. In the price list that one of the monkeys in the foreground is studying, you can read, among other things: “Price of / flowers / viceroy 300 / asen 1500” . The name of the Viceroy tulip variety , which brought in 4,600 guilders at an auction in 1637, can also be found on the gable of the inn. In addition, monkeys are shown checking the weight of tulip bulbs; one monkey is beaten up by his wife because he wasted the money on the expensive tulip bulbs, another is attacked, robbed and killed by highwaymen . A second version from an Austrian private collection ( Allegory of Tulipomania ) was auctioned in 2011 at the Viennese auction house Im Kinsky for a total of 92,500 euros.

In 1966 the book was made into a film by Rombach: Adrian the Tulip Thief was one of the first television films to be broadcast in color. The servant Adrian rascals his way through the tulip mania, becomes rich and poor again. More recently, the tulip mania has been used as a historical background for narratives in particular. Deborah Moggach's book Tulip Fever (2001) tells of the unhappy love between a painter and his model and the risky attempt to get rich by buying a Semper Augustus (see also Tulip Fever (film) ). At the time of the tulip mania, Enie van Aanthuis 'novel Die Tulpenkönigin (2007), in which an orphan is bequeathed tulip bulbs and she uses this inheritance to get rich as a tulip dealer, and Olivier Bleys' work Semper Augustus (2007) about the unscrupulous also play Machinations of a tulip dealer.

literature

Popular science overviews

Scientific investigations

  • Douglas E. French: The Dutch Monetary Environment During Tulipomania . In: The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics . Volume 9, Number 1, 2006, pp. 3-14, doi : 10.1007 / s12113-006-1000-6 .
  • Douglas E. French: Early Speculative Bubbles & Increases in the Money Supply . Ludwig von Mises Institute , Auburn 2009, ISBN 978-1-933550-44-2 .
  • John Kenneth Galbraith : A Short History of Financial Euphoria . Penguin Books, New York 1990, ISBN 0-670-85028-4 .
  • Peter M. Garber: Tulipmania . In: Journal of Political Economy . Volume 97, Number 3, 1989, pp. 535-560, doi : 10.1086 / 261615 .
  • Peter M. Garber: Famous First Bubbles . In: The Journal of Economic Perspectives , 4 (2), 1990, pp. 35-54, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942889
  • Peter M. Garber: Famous First Bubbles: The Fundamentals of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge 2000, ISBN 0-262-07204-1 .
  • André van der Goes (Ed.): Tulipomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2006, ISBN 90-400-8840-3 .
  • Anne Goldgar: Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, ISBN 978-0-226-30125-9 .
  • Charles P. Kindleberger and Robert Aliber: Manias, Panics, and Crashes. A History of Financial Crises . 5th edition. Wiley, Hoboken 2005, ISBN 978-0-471-46714-4 .
  • Ernst H. Krelage: Het Manuscript on the tulip wind trade uit de Verzameling-Meulman . In: Economisch-Historisch Jaarboek . Volume 22, 1943, p. 38.
  • Ernst H. Krelage: Bloemenspeculatie in Nederland . PN van Kampen & Zoon, Amsterdam 1942.
  • Ernst H. Krelage: De Pamfletten van den Tulpenwindhandel 1636–1637 . Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague 1942.
  • Ernst H. Krelage: Drie Eeuwen Bloembollenexport . Rijksuitgeverij, The Hague 1946.
  • Nicolaas Wilhelmus Posthumus : De Speculatie in Tulips in de Jaren 1636 en 1637 . In: Economisch-Historisch Jaarboek . Volume 12, 1926, pp. 3-99.
  • Nicolaas Wilhelmus Posthumus: The Tulip Mania in Holland in the Years 1636 and 1637 . In: Journal of Economic and Business History . Volume 1, Number 3, 1929, pp. 434-466.
  • Simon Schama : The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age . Alfred A. Knopf, New York 1987, ISBN 0-394-51075-5 .
  • Pascal Schwaighofer, Jan Verwoert: Tulipmania , Edition Fink, Zurich © May 2016, ISBN 978-3-037-46194-5 (Based on a conversation between Pascal Schwaighofer and Jan Verwoert, Le Foyer, Zurich, July 3, 2014).
  • Robert J. Shiller : Irrational Exuberance . 2nd Edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton 2005, ISBN 0-691-12335-7 .
  • Earl A. Thompson: The Tulipmania. Fact or Artifact? In: Public Choice . Volume 130, number 1/2, 2007, pp. 99-114, doi : 10.1007 / s11127-006-9074-4 .

Works of fiction

Web links

Wiktionary: Tulip mania  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations
Commons : Tulipomania  - collection of images, videos and audio files

Individual evidence

  1. Mike Dash: Tulipomania: The Story of the World's Most Coveted Flower and the Extraordinary Passions it Aroused . Gollancz, London 1999, pp. 1-3.
  2. ^ Robert J. Shiller: Irrational Exuberance. 2nd Edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton 2005, pp. 85 and pp. 247-248.
  3. ^ Charles P. Kindleberger , Robert Aliber: Manias, Panics, and Crashes. A History of Financial Crises . 5th edition. Wiley, Hoboken 2005, p. 16.
  4. Sam Segal: The botany of the tulip . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 29.
  5. Anna Pavord: The Tulip . Paperback edition. Bloomsbury, London 2004, pp. 30-31.
  6. Yildiz Demirez: The tulip in the Ottoman-Turkish art and culture . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 9. According to Demirez, the Ottoman enthusiasm for tulips reached its peak when it was already ebbing in Western Europe. Tulips were only obtained during the reign of Ahmed III. and his grand vizier Ibrahim Pascha , who was given the name Schukjufé Perwera ('tulip expert') by the sultan , has a "vital importance" (p. 10). This period was also referred to in retrospect by the Turkish historian Ahmet Refık as Lâle Devri ('Tulip Time '). See Anne Goldgar: Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 31.
  7. Anna Pavord: The Tulip . Paperback edition. Bloomsbury, London 2004, pp. 31-55.
  8. Anna Pavord: The Tulip . Paperback edition. Bloomsbury, London 2004, pp. 56-62.
  9. Holger Schuckelt: The way of the tulip to Europe . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 18. The problem with these dates of Busbecq's descriptions and shipments is the unclear origin of the letters and thus also of the events they testify. Busbecq provided each of his letters with the date and place, but it cannot be said with certainty whether he wrote these letters in the corresponding situation or not until shortly before the publication of the first volume of his travelogue in 1581 ( Legationis Turciae Epistolae Quattuor , Antwerp ) wrote down. Busbecq also made a mistake in naming the names: The Persian terms tul-band or dulband (transcription in Ottoman Turkish: tülbend or dülbend ) refer to the turban or turban fabric in the Ottomans, while the tulip is correctly called lâle .
  10. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 31.
  11. ^ Conrad Gessner: De Hortis Germaniae Liber Recens , Strasbourg 1561. Holger Schuckelt: The way of the tulip to Europe . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 20.
  12. Clusius: Rariorum aliquot stirpium per Hispanias obseruatarum historia, libris duobus expressa , Antwerp 1567. The illustration itself comes from the stock of images of the printer Christoffel Plantijn and was also published in a book by Rembert Dodoens ( Florum, et coronarium odoratarumque nonnullarum herpenum historia , Antwerp 1568) and a work by Matthias de L'Obel ( Plantarum seu Stirpium Historia , Antwerp 1576).
  13. Holger Schuckelt: The way of the tulip to Europe . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, pp. 22-23.
  14. a b Holger Schuckelt: The way of the tulip to Europe . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 25.
  15. Anna Pavord: The Tulip . Paperback edition. Bloomsbury, London 2004, pp. 62-63.
  16. Mike Dash: Tulipomania: The Story of the World's Most Coveted Flower and the Extraordinary Passions It Aroused . Gollancz, London 1999, pp. 59-60.
  17. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 55. The social stratification of theiebbers differs between the northern part of the Netherlands and the southern Spanish Netherlands . While nobles in the south also belonged to the circle, in the north the aristocracy was replaced by a wealthy bourgeois class, which took on both their political and cultural functions.
  18. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 38-39.
  19. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 29.
  20. The example of Justus Lipsius shows that the passion for tulips was also viewed critically among theiebbers . This was in contact with Clusius and collected tulip bulbs himself, but at the same time he left a satire on the activities of flower lovers in De Constantia ('Von der Sthaftigkeit', Book II, Leiden 1584) .
  21. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 80-82 and 97.
  22. La Chesnée Monstereul: Le Floriste François, Traittant de l'origine des Tulipes , Caen 1654. Cf. Anne Goldgar: Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 117.
  23. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 57.
  24. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 59-60.
  25. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 60-61 and 128-130.
  26. ^ Peter M. Garber: Famous First Bubbles: The Fundaments of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000, pp. 39-40.
  27. ^ Rembert Dodoens: Florum, et coronarium odoratarumque nonnullarum herbarum historia , Antwerp 1568 and the Cruydt-Boeck , Leiden 1608; Matthias de L'Obel: Plantarum seu Stirpium Historia , Antwerp 1576 and his Kryudtboeck often Beschrijvinghe van allerleye Ghewassen, Kruyderen, Hesteren, ende Gheboomten , Antwerp 1581; Emmanuel Sweerts: Florilegium , Frankfurt am Main 1612; Crispijn van de Passe the Elder El .: Hortus Floridus in quo rariorum & minus vulgarium florum Icones ad vivam veramq [ue] formam accuratissime delineatae , Arnheim 1614. Cf. Anne Goldgar: Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 44-50.
  28. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 40.
  29. Sam Segal: The botany of the tulip . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 31. Segal also points out that it is difficult to determine to what extent the tulip types grown at the time were genetically different because the assignment of new varieties did not follow a fixed catalog of characteristics.
  30. Mike Dash: Tulipomania: The Story of the World's Most Coveted Flower and the Extraordinary Passions It Aroused . Gollancz, London 1999, p. 66.
  31. Sam Segal: The botany of the tulip . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 33.
  32. Anna Pavord: The Tulip . Paperback edition. Bloomsbury, London 2004, pp. 7-13. Some contemporary authors such as John Parkinson ( Paradisi in Sole Paradisus Terrestris , London 1629) or La Chesnée Monstereul ( Le Floriste François , Caen 1654) speculate that vomiting could be a disease, but this premonition is only finding its biological evidence in the 20th century.
  33. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 116.
  34. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 110.
  35. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 83-89.
  36. ^ A b Anne Goldgar: Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 137.
  37. Peter M. Garber: Tulip Mania . In: Journal of Political Economy . Volume 97, No. 3, 1989, pp. 541-542.
  38. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 322.
  39. Sam Segal: The botany of the tulip . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 31. Anne Goldgar ( Tulipmania , p. 100) points out, however, that the purpose of this kind of tulip portraits is not fully known. Although the depictions of the tulips shown individually against a white background differed greatly from the usual practice of depicting flower still lifes, some of the pictures were executed on vellum and made by important artists such as Judith Leyster or Jacob Marrel . So they were less suitable for sales catalogs, but rather intended as a permanent representation of the respective tulip for tulip lovers. Also, the price that was added to the illustrations in some tulip books does not correspond to the retailer's sales prices, but rather the maximum prices achieved at the Weeskamer auction in Alkmaar on February 5, 1637 and were entered retrospectively.
  40. Pieter Biesboer: Tulipomania - Tulip cultivation and tulip trade in the Netherlands . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 50.
  41. ^ Peter M. Garber (1989): Tulipmania . In: Journal of Political Economy . Volume 97, No. 3, 1989, p. 543.
  42. ^ Peter M. Garber: Famous First Bubbles: The Fundamentals of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000, pp. 33-36.
  43. Seed-Spraek tusschen Waermondt ende Gaergoedt, Nopende de opkomste ende ondergangh van Flora . The title of the dialogue can be translated as: "Dialogue between greed and truth-mouth". In addition to the title Samen-Spraek used here, the literature also contains the versions Samenspraeken , T'Samen-Spraek or Zamenspraeken .
  44. Anna Pavord: The Tulip . Paperback edition. Bloomsbury, London 2004, p. 163.
  45. ^ Peter M. Garber: Famous First Bubbles: The Fundamentals of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000, pp. 44-45. To compare purchasing power: According to the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam, in 2002 a guilder had purchasing power of the equivalent of 10.28 euros.
  46. ^ Peter M. Garber: Famous First Bubbles: The Fundamentals of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000, pp. 49-59.
  47. Earl A. Thompson The Tulip Mania: Fact or Artifact? In: Public Choice . Volume 130, No. 1/2, 2007, p. 101. Such kind of indices, as they are also by Peter M. Garber ( Famous First Bubbles: The Fundamentals of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000, p. 49– 64.), are incorrect because they are based on the partially incorrect compilation by Nicolaas Wilhelmus Posthumus ( The Tulip Mania in Holland in the Years 1636 and 1637. In: Journal of Economic and Business History . Volume 1, No. 3 , 1929, pp. 434-466.). Goldgar ( Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 329, note 9) found in her review of the original sources that Posthumus sometimes had gross errors undermined in the transcription of the prices (e.g. he changed “four hondert” (400) to 4,000 guilders).
  48. This information goes back to the advertising paper Historisch verhael alder ghedenk-weerdichste geschiedenissen by Nicolaes van Wassenaer. Anne Goldgar: Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 199-200. The Semper Augustus tulip itself has become a symbol of overheated trade, but it rarely appears in price lists. The Samen-Spraek itself admits that hardly anyone has seen it.
  49. Sam Segal: The botany of the tulip . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, pp. 34–35.
  50. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 210
  51. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 201-202.
  52. Lijstje van Eenighe Tulpaen cooks aan de meest-biedende op February 1637
  53. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 203.
  54. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 230.
  55. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 143.
  56. Anna Pavord: The Tulip . Paperback edition. Bloomsbury, London 2004, pp. 169-171.
  57. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 236.
  58. ^ Anne Goldgar: Art and Nature: Collecting lust and tulip trade in the Netherlands . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 61.
  59. See "Financial Market Authority warns of Bitcoin" in Der Standard from September 19, 2017.
  60. ^ Anne Goldgar: Art and Nature: Collecting lust and tulip trade in the Netherlands . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, pp. 56–57.
  61. Anna Pavord: The Tulip . Paperback edition. Bloomsbury, London 2004, p. 165. This basket of goods can be found in Mackay's paper on tulip mania, but the factuality of the process is disputed. For example, Peter M. Garber explains ( Famous First Bubbles: The Fundaments of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000, pp. 81-83) that these goods were never actually exchanged for a Viceroy , but the pamphlet indicating which one Mackay claims, using them only to illustrate the purchasing power of Dutch guilders.
  62. ^ Johann Beckmann: Contributions to the history of inventions , 5 volumes, Leipzig / Göttingen 1780–1805; Abraham Munting: Nauwkeurige Beschryving der Aard-Gewassen , Utrecht / Leiden 1696.
  63. ^ Lieuwe van Aitzema: Saken van Staet en Oorlogh, In, ende omtrent de Vereenigde Nederlanden , The Hague 1669; Adriaen Roman: Samen-Spraek tusschen Waermondt ende Gaegoedt , Haarlem 1637.
  64. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 253-279. Other contemporary pamphlets and depictions of the tulip mania are for example Jan Soet Dood-Rolle ende Groef-Maal van Floortie-Flooraas , o.O. 1637, Steven Theunisz van der Lust Troost voor de ghescheurde broederschap der rouw-dragende kap-broertjes, ofte Floraes Straet -Ioncker , o. O. 1637 ?, Theodorus Schrevelius Harlemias, ofte om beter te seggen, De eerste stichtinghe der Stadt Haarlem , Haarlem 1648 and Jean Nicolas de Parival Les Délices de la Hollande , Paris 1665.
  65. ^ Charles P. Kindleberger, Robert Aliber: Manias, Panics, and Crashes. A History of Financial Crises . 5th edition. Wiley, Hoboken 2005, p. 16.
  66. ^ Peter M. Garber: Famous First Bubbles: The Fundaments of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000, pp. 37-38.
  67. ^ Peter M. Garber: Famous First Bubbles: The Fundamentals of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000, pp. 37-38.
  68. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 257.
  69. Peter M. Garber: Tulip Mania . In: Journal of Political Economy . Volume 97, No. 3, 1989, pp. 553-554.
  70. ^ Peter M. Garber: Famous First Bubbles: The Fundamentals of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000, p. 71.
  71. ^ Doug French: The Dutch Monetary Environment During Tulipmania . In: The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics . Volume 9, No. 1, 2006, pp. 3-14.
  72. ^ Earl A. Thompson: The Tulipmania: Fact or Artifact? In: Public Choice . Volume 130, No. 1/2, 2007, p. 100.
  73. ^ Earl A. Thompson: The Tulipmania: Fact or Artifact? In: Public Choice . Volume 130, No. 1/2, 2007, pp. 101-111.
  74. Goldgar ( Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 380, note 45), however, explains that Thompson's interpretation is based on incorrect and unprovable claims would lead back to the historical context.
  75. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 136-137.
  76. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 145 and 211.
  77. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 140-147.
  78. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 147-167.
  79. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 190-191.
  80. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 17.
  81. Willem Frijhoff and Marijke Spies: 1650: Hard-Won Unity . Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2005.
  82. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 221.
  83. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 224.
  84. ^ Anne Goldgar: Art and Nature: Collecting lust and tulip trade in the Netherlands . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 60.
  85. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 141.
  86. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 233.
  87. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 228.
  88. Pieter Biesboer: Tulipomania - Tulip cultivation and tulip trade in the Netherlands . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 51.
  89. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 248.
  90. ^ Jan de Vries and Ad van der Woude: The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500-1815 . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997.
  91. ^ Jan de Vries: The European Economy in an Age of Crisis 1600-1750 . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1976.
  92. Jonathan Israel: Dutch Primacy in World Trade 1585-1740. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989. After Israel (1989, pp. 532–533), the Dutch economy would even have grown in the second half of the 1630s, because before that, obstructive factors such as the blockade of the Ems and Scheldt by the Spaniards and the Polish would have been eliminated - Swedish war that made trade with the Baltic region difficult.
  93. Anne Goldgar: Tulip Mania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 291. Goldgar (2007, p. 7) therefore summarizes: “When we delve deeply into the history of tulipmania, instead of merely exclaiming at its excesses, we begin to distrust the stereotypes. Although it was a craze, although it was a wonder, although it was much talked of at the time and even after, most of what we have heard about it is not true. Not everyone was involved in the trade, and those who were connected to each other in specific ways. The prices of some varieties of tulips were briefly high, but many never increased greatly in value, and it remains to be seen whether or not it was insane for prices to reach the levels they did. Tulipmania did not destroy the economy, or even the livelihoods of most participants. "
  94. Christoph Driessen: History of the Netherlands, From the sea power to the trend country. Regensburg 2016, p. 101f.
  95. The motif of the car full of fools can already be found prominently in literature in Sebastian Brant's 1494 work Das Narrenschiff .
  96. ^ André van der Goes: De Mallewagen alias het valete der Bloemisten (catalog no . 84). In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 186.
  97. Pieter Biesboer: Flora's Malle car (. Catalog 83). In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 185.
  98. ^ André van der Goes: Floraes Gecks-Kap (catalog no . 86). In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, pp. 187–188.
  99. Pieter Biesboer: Tulipmania - growing tulips and tulips trade in the Netherlands . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomania. The tulip in the art of the 16th and 17th centuries . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 52.
  100. Olga Kronsteiner: Brueghel's Affenzirkus in Vienna (handelsblatt.com, November 16, 2011), accessed on January 23, 2012; Im Kinsky - 87th art auction on November 8, 2011 ( memento from January 26, 2013 in the web archive archive.today ), accessed on January 23, 2012.
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on March 7, 2011 in this version .