tulip mania

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

Tulip mania (also known as tulipomania , tulip madness , tulip bubbles , tulip fever or tulip hysteria ; Dutch tulpenwoede , tulpengekte or bollengekte ) is a period in the Dutch Golden Age when tulip bulbs became an object of speculation .

Tulips have been a collector's 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 scholars and the aristocracy. To the bartering relationships of these lovers came the commercial trade in tulips at the end of the 16th century. In the 1630s, tulip bulb prices rose to comparatively extremely high levels before the market collapsed abruptly in early February 1637.

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 cause, the course and the social and economic consequences of tulip mania differ. For the traditional reading of the events and effects, which can already be found in contemporary criticism and was taken up by later interpretations, large sections 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 of those involved and caused serious damage to the Dutch economy as a whole. Other readings try not to present the rise and fall in price of tulips as an irrational and singular mania in the light of the market efficiency hypothesis , emphasize institutional causes for the bubble and relativize the macroeconomic relevance.

conditions

Tulip hobby in the Netherlands

The center of biodiversity of the plant genus Tulip ( Tulipa ) is in the south-eastern Mediterranean region . The Turks took over the cultivation of tulips from the Persians in the 15th century. In the Ottoman Empire , it was considered one of the noblest flowers and was planted in large quantities in the Sultan's gardens by the 18th century at the latest . From the Ottoman Empire, tulips made their way to Vienna via Constantinople (now Istanbul ) around 1555–60 . Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq , a Flemish nobleman and ambassador of Emperor Ferdinand I at the court of Süleyman I , was probably the first to import tulip seeds and bulbs. From him one of the earliest, possibly even the first written description of a western European of a tulip has survived. In a letter dated September 1, 1555, he gave her the name 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 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 , since 1573 prefect of the Imperial Garden of Medicinal Herbs ( Hortus botanicus medicinae ) in Vienna, cultivated tulips from 1574 on a large scale. He had onions and seeds planted or sown in Maximilian II 's garden . In the years that followed, flowering tulips were independently described in Brussels (1577), in Leiden (1590), in Breslau (1594) and in Montpellier (1598). After a period 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 an important point in a network of flower lovers, the liefhebbers , in Leiden . They were linked by 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. Among the flower lovers were scholars, educated and wealthy citizens (pharmacists, doctors, notaries, traders, lawyers) as well as nobles, for all of whom dealing with plants was not farming but a hobby .

Tulips have been prized for several properties. They were new, exotic, exclusive, decorative and sophisticated. To cultivate their enthusiasm for floriculture and liefhebberij , amateurs created private gardens and visited each other in these to exchange views on the cultivation of the new varieties and to inspect the respective specimens. The creation of private gardens was encouraged by the growth of the Dutch cities beyond the city walls. For example, the houses built along Amsterdam's Herengracht , Keizersgracht and Prinsengracht canals in the first half of the 17th century were designed with gardens at the back. In other cities, such as Haarlem , gardens were laid out outside the city walls. Not only medicinal and useful herbs were grown in these gardens , but the gardens were also used to cultivate new plant species such as tulips. At Clusius' death, for example, 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 effects. Some flower lovers specialized in collecting and cultivating tulips, which grew individually in the beds at a generous distance from each other.

The increased appreciation and awareness of flowers found expression in the still lifes , such as those created by Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder in this period. Ä. , Balthasar van der Ast and Roelant Savery . 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 fact that the plants wither away quickly after flowering make the tulips, according to 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 objects and man-made objects have been collected and exhibited together. For example, the Hortus botanicus in Leiden also included a gallery (the Ambulacrum ), in which the rarity collection of Barent ten Broecke the Elder was on display. Ä. (Bernardus Paludanus) was housed. Tulip bulbs and pictures of tulips were found in these art and natural history cabinets alongside works of art and other rare and valuable items such as ostrich eggs, narwhal horns, rare minerals and shells. Some authors, such as the Sieur de La Chesnée Monstereul, went so far as to classify the tulip as an artificialia and not as a naturalia , because natural and human factors came together in tulip breeding.

The collecting of tulips and other rarities was already viewed critically in the Netherlands at the beginning of the 17th century. In his polemical collection of emblems Sinnepoppen ('Sayings', Amsterdam 1614), published in 1614, Roemer Visscher compares the zeal of collectors of shells with that of collectors of tulips. In two consecutive sheets he shows exotic shells under the title Tis misselijck waer een geck zijn gelt aen leijt ("It's crazy what a fool spends his money on") and tulips under the heading Een dwaes en zijn gelt zijn haest ghescheijden (“A fool and his money are hastily parted”).

Tulip lovers maintained their relationships by bartering , not selling , tulips. Their reputation was based on knowledge, honesty, reliability and willingness to exchange knowledge and goods willingly. However, the high esteem and rarity of tulips also meant that they became a financially valuable commodity. This is evident, for example, in the thefts of tulip bulbs. In 1569 alone, Clusius was robbed twice and over 100 tulips were stolen from him. The culture of flower lovers was followed by the commercial trade in flowers. Rare plants and flowers have been traded since at least the mid-1570s. Clusius reports, for example, about dealers who sold snow roses in Vienna in 1576. To the established amateurs and their bartering came new players who traded flowers commercially ( rhizotomi 'root cutters', as Clusius called them). However, there is also evidence that the liefhebbers themselves, and not just new dealers, took an active part in the commodification of tulips and both bought and sold tulips.

tulip growing

The rarity of tulips was not only due to their climate-related susceptibility to disease and rot. The preferred method of propagation also set limits to mass distribution: Although tulips can be distributed via seeds, it takes seven to ten years for a flowering plant to grow in this form. Therefore, the propagation was vegetative by means of daughter bulbs. As geophytes , tulips form sheltered bulbs in the ground to survive the winter and sprout again the following spring. After flowering, daughter bulbs grow on the mother bulbs in spring to summer , which can be "cleared" after flowering. They then exist as independent flowering specimens. After flowering, the mother bulbs are taken out of the ground with the daughter bulbs that have formed and are not planted again until September or October, where they overwinter until the next flowering.

Painting "Spring" by Brueghel
Spring (detail), Pieter Brueghel the Younger J. , 1635, private collection. Shown are gardening at the time of tulip mania. In the beds you can see the blooming tulips.

In the Netherlands, breeders and collectors not only increased the quantity of tulips, but also promoted the breeding of different varieties . The knowledge of the correct ordering and care of the plants was found in treatises by botanists such as Rembert Dodoens and Matthias de L'Obel as well as in popular writings such as Emmanuel Sweert's Florilegium or Crispijn van de Passes d. Ä. Hortus Floridus widespread. Tulips were prized for their spontaneous color and shape changes and the countless varieties that this created. In the period between 1630 and 1650, around 800 different tulip varieties were known.

The cultivars resulting from breeding were classified into groups: the Couleren included, for example, all single-colored red, yellow and white tulips, the Rozen showed a violet or lilac color on a white background, while all tulips with a red background were classified as bizarre , brown or violet in color on a yellow background. The patterned petals ('the breaking') are a result of the tulip mosaic virus , which is carried by aphids and can be passed on to infected daughter bulbs. Accordingly, successful breeding lines were unpredictable and rare, especially because the reason for the sudden color change was unknown to the breeders of the time - it was only found in 1924 - and because the broken tulips were weaker and more vulnerable and less constant in their color pattern than healthy tulips. Although the reason for the color variations was unknown to the growers, they looked for ways to deliberately break tulips. For example, two halves of different bulbs were tied together, tulip bulbs were soaked in ink, or pigeon dung was burned on the garden floor.

The appreciation for tulips in the Netherlands is expressed in their naming. 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 of the breeder Francesco Gomes da Costa was called Admirael da Costa , or the varieties Admirael van Enkhuizen and Generael of the Generaels van Gouda came from Enkhuizen and Gouda , respectively . There were also allusions to precious materials (e.g. Goude Laecken 's 'Goldstoff ') or well-known figures from classical antiquity (e.g. Schoone Helena 'Beautiful Helena'). Also, to designate tulip varieties, borrowings were often made from other objects shown in the cabinets of curiosities. There are references to varieties with the French or Dutch names Agaat ( agate ), Morillon (uncut 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 business of tulip mania. Most of these varieties are now extinct. For example, no specimen of the then most valuable tulip, Semper Augustus ('the always sublime'), has survived, because plants infected with the tulip mosaic virus more recently are destroyed by the growers so that they do not infect the entire stock.

Organization of the Dutch tulip trade

Onions were traded during the planting season in the summer months. The cleared onions were sold in spot markets . The tulip trade was not limited to this brief period. Traders began to buy and sell bulbs that were still in the ground and could only be dug up later, after flowering. The exchange or futures contracts made in these transactions could be notarized or were recorded unofficially on paper slips ( coopcedulle ). Occasionally the two trading parties would use an intermediary ( seghsman ) to negotiate the terms of purchase. Payment for the tulips was usually due when the bulbs were taken out of the ground and handed over after flowering. As a consequence, the tulip trade became a speculative business , as no one was able to make any binding statements about what the traded tulips would look like, nor whether they would bloom at all in the new season. Due to this unclear trading basis, the business with tulips was also referred to as wind trading .

In order to illustrate the expected appearance of a tulip, the breeders and dealers commissioned copper engravings , watercolors and gouaches of tulip varieties and collected them in trade or auction catalogues, so-called tulip books . A total of 45 of them have survived from the beginning of the 21st century. The special feature of these tulip books is that, in addition to the illustrations themselves, the names and occasionally the weight and prices of the varieties shown are also listed on the edge of the leaves.

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

As the ornamental grew in popularity, new forms of tulip trade emerged and from the mid-1630s the price of tulips increased relative to other produce. Around 1634 at the latest, speculators entered the market, who not only bought tulips in the hope of planting them in their gardens at a later date, but also bought them in order to resell them at a profit when prices rose. Short selling was also common in other sectors of the Dutch economy. The Dutch East India Company sold its shipped goods before they could even be delivered. However, in 1610 the States- General banned this type of trade, and the ban was upheld in subsequent years, 1621, 1630, and 1636. This meant that corresponding contracts were not enforceable in court. However, the traders who operated such transactions were not explicitly persecuted either, so that forms of short selling were always used. Nor could these verdicts prevent warrants on shares in tulip bulbs 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 between the two weavers Gaergoedt ('Greed') and Waermondt ('Worship'). It was spread by Adriaen Roman from Haarlem shortly after the end of the speculative bubble in 1637 . If one follows the description there, 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 pubs. At the meetings of the colleges, tulips were traded, evaluated and knowledge about varieties and actors was exchanged. Tulip bulbs were sold partly as individual bulb specimens, partly by weight, specifically according to the goldsmith 's unit asen (one aes = 0.048 grams and one pound = 9,729 asen in Haarlem and 10,240 asen in Amsterdam respectively).

The seller had the option of an auction ( in het ootjen ) or both sides wrote their desired price on a piece of paper or board ( borden ) and two chosen negotiators ( seghsmannen ) agreed on a price ( met de borden ). Buyers were obliged to pay a fee of 2.5 percent of the sales price or up to three guilders (the so-called "wine money" or wijnkoop in Dutch guilders, i.e. in florins (Dfl) or guilders ), which was paid locally for Food, drinks and tips were given out. If you wanted to get out of sales negotiations that had already started, you had to pay a rouwkoop (fine). Sometimes the obligation to deliver an onion was further negotiated through middlemen. Tulips were also auctioned at official auctions, such as the auctions of a weeskamer ( orphanage ) when it was auctioning off the estate of a deceased for the benefit of his children.

data and history

Tulip Prices

No complete price data has been preserved for the period 1630-1637. It is therefore not possible to make precise statements about the price development and the extent of the depreciation of tulip bulbs. The majority of the data also come from the Sami Spraek . The list of the American economic historian Peter M. Garber , who collated the information on sales of 161 bulbs 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 various possible trading methods and trading locations. Tulips could be sold or purchased in the futures exchanges of the colleges , at auctions, on spot markets from the breeder and through notarized futures contracts.

Chart 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 sometimes possible to achieve very high prices for individual tulip varieties. The Semper Augustus tulip is an example of this . In 1637 it was traded as the most expensive tulip of all time. 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 Heemstede estate . 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 we have data on the sale of a Saeyblom van Coningh tulip for 30 guilders. The fact that the prices for tulip bulbs rose in the early 1630s can be seen from the varieties for which several price data are available in chronological order. For example, the price of a Groot Gepluymaseerde tulip doubled from 0.07 guilders per aes on December 28, 1636 to 0.15 guilders per aes on January 12, 1637. The price of the Switserts rose from 125 guilders in these two weeks 1,500 guilders for the pound, a 12-fold increase.

course

Tulip prices peaked at the Weeskamer auction on 3 February 1637 in Alkmaar . It was organized by the weesmesters (principals of the orphanage) for the descendants of Wouter Bartholomeusz Winckel. At the auction, a total of around 90,000 guilders was achieved for 99 lots of tulip bulbs. However, there is no reliable evidence either for the individual prices or for the buyers. A leaflet published shortly after the auction contained a price list, but did not state who is said to have bid these sums at the auction. The average price of the tulips auctioned was 793 guilders. In later discussions of the events, the greatest interest attracted the tulips, for which much higher prices were said to have been offered. A tulip of the variety 'Viceroy' went under the hammer for 4,203 guilders, 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 tavern auctions none of the offered tulips could be sold at the expected price. In the next few days, the tulip market collapsed throughout the Netherlands. The trading system only worked as long as traders expected 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 join the price spiral, the value of tulips fell by an estimated more than 95 percent. At the end of the speculative bubble, traders were found with commitments to buy tulip bulbs in the summer at a price well in excess of current market prices, while other market players had sold tulip bulbs at a fraction of the value they were being bought for.

leaflet
Lijste van eenighe Tulpaen boils away most-biedende. Flyer of the price list of the 99 lots of tulip bulbs auctioned at the Weeskamer auction 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 meeting. Traders from Amsterdam itself were also present, but they refused to sign the agreement that had been reached. The agreement provided for all sales contracts to be guaranteed validity. 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. However, because this agreement was not legally binding and Amsterdam, an important center of trade, refused to cooperate, the agreement was not complied with.

A second attempt to solve the crisis came from cities under pressure from influential florists. Thus, in Haarlem, it was proposed that the States of Holland and West Friesland should submit the idea of ​​canceling all transactions since the end of the last planting season ( planttijt ) at the end of September 1636 without paying any penalties. The Council of Elders ( vroedschap ) discussed this proposal on March 4, 1637 and decided that this matter should be taken before the States. The mayors ( burgemeesters ) also supported this decision , probably also 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 middle class and held various public offices in the city administration for decades. Just before the price fell, they got into the tulip business by buying 1,300 bulbs from the garden of bankrupt Amsterdam trader Anthony de Flory. They appear in the court files because they subsequently tried several times to get out of the contract in court.

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

In Haarlem, this arbitral award was implemented in such a way that from May 1, 1637, disputes over the sale of tulips could no longer be brought to court. The florists had to come to an agreement among themselves. However, since many disputes remained unresolved in this way, the burgemeesters of Haarlem again appealed to the Hof van Holland in June 1637 with a request that the arbitral award be set aside. But because the court did not follow 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, according to 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 penalty of 3.5 percent of the original purchase price.

Explanations

There are different approaches to explain the rise and fall in price of tulips in the winter of 1636/37. While a critical interpretation of the events as irrational mania has traditionally prevailed, more recent works from market-rational, institutional and historical perspectives strive for more balanced interpretations. The tulip bulb craze of the 17th century is also often used to evaluate current market conditions.

traditional interpretations

The traditional interpretation of the rise and fall in the price of tulips sees these events as excessive financial speculation and reckless madness . Crucial to the spread of the idea of ​​a tulip mania was the book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds , published in London by Scottish journalist Charles Mackay in 1841. Mackay represented the thesis of irrational mass behavior and supported it with the examples of the South Sea Bubble and the scandal surrounding the Mississippi Company (both 1720).

Basic elements of his account, which were repeated many times in the subsequent arguments, are the assertion that tulip mania has gripped all sections of the population in the Netherlands and driven them into commercial speculation, and the assertion that it has ruined those involved and the Dutch economy as a whole inflicted heavy damage. Mackay's text also spread some anecdotes that could be found again and again afterwards, such as that of exchanging a very large shopping basket for a 'Viceroy' tulip or that of the mishap of a man who accidentally mistook one of the precious tulip bulbs for a simple vegetable bulb and ate it .

Goods allegedly bartered 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 wine 70 guilders
Four barrels 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 main source for his information and his critical reading of tulip mania is Johann Beckmann , who in turn relied on the Dutch botanist Abraham Munting . This 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 Samen-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 debate on tulip mania. Most of the criticism in these pamphlets and handbills, which were circulating in various cities in the spring of 1637, accuses the florists of having made tulips their idols and thereby offended God, that they have sought money through dishonest dealings, and that they have the social order endangered.

Mackay's image of tulip price rises and falls as an all-encompassing and destructive mania makes the historic event a prime example of market development misguided by mass hysteria . In this form, tulip mania finds its way into popular scientific observations 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). Tulip mania also appears in Oliver Stone 's film Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (2010). In it, speculator Gordon Gekko uses a historical account of the changing market value of tulips to explain and assess the financial crisis that began in 2007 .

Market rationale explanation

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

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

Using the price data he used for tulip sales in the winter of 1636/1637 and subsequent tulip transactions 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. Comparing the price of hyacinths in the 18th century, Garber argues that the claim that tulip mania was a one-off event cannot be sustained. Rather, the price curves would show clear parallels. Even with hyacinths, the prices for the most expensive varieties have fallen to one to two percent of the original value within three decades.

Douglas French's considerations follow on from Garber's market-rational explanation, based on the market efficiency hypothesis . He claims that tulip mania also became possible because the monetary policy of the Amsterdam exchange bank ( Wisselbank ) and the hijacking of the Spanish silver fleet by Piet Pieterszoon Heyn on September 17, 1628 led to more money being available, which could be used speculatively.

Institutional Statement

Garber's comparative argument is contradicted by American economist Earl A. Thompson . He points out that the fall in the price of tulips in the 1630s was not the claimed roughly 40 percent change, but 99.999 percent.

In the decree passed by the dealers' delegates in Amsterdam on February 24, Thompson explains that the dealers were willing 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 fall in prices at the beginning of February, but only the end of a longer project. The dealers had striven to be able to cancel the contracts without loss if necessary and had already entered into risky contracts in anticipation of confirmation of this request. In its interpretation, the decree opens an opt-out clause for purchase contracts. The buyer of tulip bulbs was free to withdraw from the contract and in this case to pay a contractual penalty of 3.5 percent of the commercial value. This possibility favored the price-driving speculation of dealers, who expected rising prices and resale profits, but could have exited the market if there was a risk of the price falling, losing only a fraction of the contract amount. In this sense, the mania is only an economic-rational answer to the change in the legal framework. The fall in prices, in turn, was caused by events in the Thirty Years' War . The advance of the Swedes after the Battle of Wittstock dampened the expectations of the Dutch traders that German princes would enter the tulip trade and buy up the overpriced tulips.

Historical explanation

American historian Anne Goldgar , in her study of the socio-economic context of tulip growing and trading in the Dutch Golden Age , reviews several popular claims about the circumstances and consequences of tulip mania. Her work is essentially based on the evaluation of historical sources, in particular the surviving 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 study of tulip mania, which has to deal with the fact that the documents on prices, transactions and the actors involved have only been preserved incompletely.

The first claim she examined concerns the scale of trading activity. Contrary to the idea put forward in the early pamphlets and later by Mackay that tulip mania affected large parts of the population, Goldgar believes that the phenomenon only affected a small group of the population, mainly wealthy merchants and artisans. The relevant reports on delusional and mass trade, on the other hand, went back to contemporary propaganda and religiously motivated social criticism . In total, she was able to identify 285 people involved in the tulip trade in Haarlem at the beginning of the 17th century. In Amsterdam there were about 60, in Enkhuizen around 25. In this small group of bloemists and florists , neither members of the upper nor the lower social strata were represented. Buying and selling tulips was, she claims, an urban phenomenon, particularly in the densely populated province of Holland, where it was practiced particularly by merchants, notaries, doctors, silversmiths, master craftsmen, publicans, brewery owners and pharmacists. In some cases, mayors, schepen (' jurymen ') and members of the council of elders were also involved in the tulip business. Companies were also formed from the mid-1630s , in which several financial and executive partners acted together on the market. According to the tax registers (created in 1631 for Amsterdam and 1628, 1650 and 1653 for Haarlem), they all belonged to the class of wealthy citizens. Goldgar was unable to find any evidence of the participation of weavers and chimney sweeps, who are frequently mentioned in the pamphlets, or of the presence of nobles.

title page
Title page of the writing Samen-spraek tusschen Waermondt ende Gaergoedt , Adriaen Roman (Haarlem 1637 (reprint))

Goldgar argues that even during the tulip mania, the tulip trade was an upper-middle-class phenomenon. Accordingly, there is a continuity between the liefhebbers , who valued tulips particularly because of their beauty and rarity, and the bloemists , who also saw tulips as commodities and valuables. Like the tulip lovers, the tulip traders 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 organization of the tulip trade, but also a moral, if not legally binding, authority for the assessment of tulips and the valuation of transactions . Goldgar sees 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. Additionally, Goldgar claims that the traders were proficient in dealing with the risks of wind trading . In a Dutch economy based on maritime trade, speculative transactions were common. The Dutch East India Company sold its goods before they reached customers. Betting and lotteries also became very popular , and tulips were themselves made into wagers. Goldgar sees the plans of the States General in the summer of 1636 to tax transactions as proof of the seriousness and importance of the trade in tulips. The trade in tulips should be taxed in parallel with considerations of introducing taxes on other luxury goods such as the possession of servants , the consumption of tobacco or playing 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 discarded due to falling prices.

An important factor for the rapid fall in prices seems to have been the trust-based trade in "intangible" goods. It was not real tulip bulbs that were sold and bought, but the option of a future tulip that would bloom according to a specific pattern. Against this background, one cause of the fall in price could have been the rumor of overproduction as a result of the increase in demand, because the price was also measured by the rarity of the tulip variety.

Second, Goldgar denies that tulip mania has had any serious negative consequences for the Dutch economy and for individual tulip traders. The practice of the tulip trade provided that the purchase price was only due when the tulip bulbs were lifted out of the ground after flowering. Therefore, in the transactions in the winter of 1636/1637, neither real tulip bulbs nor money changed hands. If, as a result of the falling prices, the two trading parties agreed to cancel the purchase, no one suffered serious financial damage. The sellers could not sell their tulips for the hoped-for price, but in principle they only got into trouble if they had already used the expected income for purposes other than credit ahead of schedule . The buyers, in turn, could not hope to resell at a profit, but if a penalty was due, they walked out with a comparatively small loss. In the chains of buyers and sellers, only those who actually owned the tulip suffered losses. In the longest of these chains, in which a tulip bulb was resold in one planting season, Goldgar counts a total of five participants.

As for the alleged bankruptcy of numerous traders, Goldgar finds only a few references to such consequences. In the case of the painter Jan van Goyen , who lost 894 guilders on his tulip deals, Goldgar shows that he suffered more losses from speculating in real estate 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 documented brief 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. Illustrative evidence of this is that the famous doctor Nicolaes Tulp , who had previously named himself after the adored flower, removed the tulip painting from his home on Keizersgracht in Amsterdam after prices collapsed. For strict Calvinists like himself, the rush of tulips shockingly violated the humanist tradition of moderation.

Reception in art and literature

Engraving of a "Mallewagen"
De Mallewagen aka het valete der Bloemisten , engraving by Crispin van der Passe d. J. , 1637
Flora's Mallewagen painting
Flora's Mallewagen , painting by Hendrick Gerritsz. Pot , c. 1640, Frans Hals Museum in Haarlem
Engraving "Florae's Gecks-Kap"
Florae's Gecks-kap , engraving by Cornelis Danckerts after Pieter Nolpe, 1637
Painting "Periflage of Tulipomania"
Parody of Tulpomania , painting by Jan Brueghel the Elder J. , 2nd quarter of the 17th century, Frans Hals Museum in Haarlem

The tulip trade, which had gotten out of joint, was immediately processed artistically. The copper engraving De Mallewagen alias het valete der Bloemisten by Crispin van der Passe d. J. contains a moralizing critique that has contributed significantly to the interpretation of tulip mania as a phase of unrestrained speculation. The tulips, which the goddess Flora carries on a sailing chariot , are accompanied by names of tulip varieties that stand for the preciousness of the flowers traded: Semper Augustus , Generael Bol and Admirael van(n) Horn . The citizens running after the car shout: Wy willen mee vaeren ('We want to go with you'). A monkey clinging to the pole soils Flora, who has been dubbed Bloemenhoertje ('flower whore') in some diatribes . The chariot itself is heading for the laetus vloet , the tide of oblivion. On the beach, a farmer ( Santvorder Boer , a farmer from Zandvoort ) tries to point out the catastrophe to the schout , i.e. the mayor. The coats of arms on the wagon can possibly be associated with certain pubs, since the names given, such as Witte Wambuis or Bastart Pyp, were typical names for such places. Scenes from the tulip trade are shown in the four depictions in the corners of the engraving: top left a bed of tulips with a buyer, top right the Compariti of the Bloemists , bottom left another trading scene in the inn. The abrupt end of the speculation is illustrated at the bottom right. When is geschiet een Sotte daet soo wort gesocht een wysser raet ("When the deed of fools is done, wise advice is sought"). The traders sit and stand in confusion, while a craftsman on the right edge of the picture remarks: Wie hat dat memeent ("Who would have thought that").

Better known than the engraving by Crispin van der Passe d. J. is the satirical picture of Flora's fool 's wagon ( Flora's Mallewagen , Frans-Hals-Museum , Haarlem) painted on this template by Hendrik Gerritz Pot around 1640. A sailing chariot is also depicted here, in which Flora is seated with bouquets of tulips in her hands. At her feet you can see a drinking figure with a fool's cap, which is called Leckebaerd (Schleckmaul, Leckerbeck) and symbolizes gluttony . According to this pictorial pattern, the wagon gathers other vices . The man with the fool's cap decorated with tulips is called Liegwagen (the lying mouth), the older man with the stick purse and the watch is interpreted as Graegreich (Gernereich), the woman with the scales in her hand is the Vergaer al (heap of) and die The two-faced figure seated in front of the chariot is the Ydel Hope . She reaches out to a bird that flew away from Ydel Hope (Escaped Vain Hope). In the left background of the picture is Haarlem with the church of St. Bavo , while in the foreground a loom and a law book are being trampled on. In the background on the right you can already see the fate of the vehicle and its occupants: it has become unmanageable and falls into the sea.

The connection between foolishness and tulip speculation becomes even clearer in the engraving Florae's Gecks-kap by Cornelis Danckerts. It shows an oversized jester's cap in which an inn has found space in which a tulip auction is in progress. The scales on the table seem to be used to weigh the tulips. Behind the cap, Flora, sitting on a donkey, is being harassed by an angry crowd. In the foreground on the left and right, the faded tulips are thrown away. The laughing third party is the innkeeper who made money from the trading tulip lovers and speculators. The devil in the background on the left holds the 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 tulipomania (2nd quarter of the 17th century, Frans Hals Museum, Haarlem) depicts monkeys in human clothing in several individual narrative scenes. In their roles as tulip brokers and tulip buyers, they refer to the madness of the tulip trade. Thus the viewer sees a feast intended to amuse potential buyers, and the various stages of trading to the despair of the ruined buyers. The price list, which one of the monkeys in the foreground is studying, reads, among other things: "Price of / flowers / viceroy 300 / asen 1500" . The name of the Viceroy tulip variety , which fetched 4,600 guilders at an auction in 1637, can also be found on the inn's gable. There are also monkeys checking the weight of tulip bulbs; one monkey is beaten by his wife for wasting money on expensive tulip bulbs, another is attacked by highwaymen , robbed and killed. A second version from an Austrian private collection ( Allegory of the Tulipomania ) was sold in 2011 at the Im Kinsky auction house in Vienna for a total of 92,500 euros.

Rombach's book was filmed in 1966: Adrian the Tulip Thief was one of the first television films to be broadcast in color. The servant Adrian swindles his way through the tulip mania, becomes rich and destitute again. More recently, tulip mania has been used particularly as a historical background for narratives. Deborah Moggach's book Tulip Fever (2001) tells of the unhappy love between a painter and his model and a risky attempt to make wealth by acquiring a Semper Augustus (see also Tulip Fever (film) ). The time of tulip mania is also set by Enie van Aanthuis' novel The Tulip Queen (2007), in which an orphan is bequeathed tulip bulbs and uses this inheritance to become rich as a tulip trader, and Olivier Bleys' work Semper Augustus (2007) about the unscrupulous Machinations of a tulip trader.

literature

Popular Science Reviews

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, JSTOR 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.): Tulpomania. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . 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 over den Tulpenwindhandel uit de Verzameling-Meulman . In: Economic-Historical 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 Tulipenwindhandel 1636–1637 . Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague 1942.
  • Ernst H. Krelage: Drie Eeuwen Bloembollenexport . Rijksuitgeverij, The Hague 1946.
  • Nicolaas Wilhelmus Posthumus : De Speculatie in Tulpen in de Jaren 1636 en 1637 . In: Economic-Historical 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 .

Fiction works

web links

Wiktionary: Tulipmania  – explanations of meaning, word origin, synonyms, translations
Commons : Tulipomania  - Collection of images, videos and audio files

itemizations

  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.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . 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 Ottoman Turkish Art and Culture . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 9. According to Demirez, Ottoman enthusiasm for tulips peaked when it was already dying in Western Europe. Tulips only gained popularity during the reign of Ahmed III. and his Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha , who was given the designation Schukjufé Perwera ('tulip expert') by the Sultan, had "equally vital significance" (p. 10). This period was retrospectively referred to as Lâle Devri ('Tulip Time') by the Turkish historian Ahmet Refık. 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.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 18. The problem with these dates of Busbecq's descriptions and mailings is the unclear origin of the letters and thus also of the events witnessed in them. Although Busbecq provided each of his letters with the date and place, it cannot be said with certainty whether he wrote these letters in the corresponding situation or only 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 Persian terms tul-band or dulband (translation in Ottoman Turkish: tülbend or dülbend ) refer to the turban or turban fabric among the Ottomans, while the correct name for the tulip is lâle .
  10. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. 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.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 20.
  12. ↑ Clusius: Rariorum aliquot stirpium per Hispanias obseruatarum historia, libris duobus expressa , Antwerpen 1567. The illustration itself comes from the stock of images of the printer Christoffel Plantijn and was also used in a book by Rembert Dodoens ( Florum, et coronarium odoratarumque nonnullarum herbarum historia , Antwerpen 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.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . 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.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . 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, Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 55. The social stratification of the liefhebbers differs between the northern part of the Netherlands and the southern Spanish Netherlands . While in the south nobles also belonged to the circle, in the north the aristocracy was replaced by a wealthy middle class, which took over both their political and cultural functions.
  18. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 38-39.
  19. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. 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 the liefhebbers . The latter was in contact with Clusius and collected tulip bulbs himself, but at the same time he left behind a satire on the flower-lovers' activities in De Constantia ('Von der Steadfastigkeit', Book II, Leiden 1584) .
  21. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. 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, Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 57.
  24. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 59-60.
  25. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. 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 oft Beschrijvinghe van allerleye Ghewassen, Kruyderen, Hesteren, end Gheboomten , Antwerp 1581; Emmanuel Sweerts: Florilegium , Frankfurt am Main 1612; Crispijn van de Passe d. Ä.: Hortus Floridus in quo rariorum & minus vulgarium florum Icones ad vivam veramq[ue] formam accuratissime delineatae , Arnhem 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, Tulipmania. 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.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 31. Segal also points out that it is difficult to determine to what extent the tulip types grown at that time were genetically different varieties, 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.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . 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 suspicion only finds biological evidence in the 20th century.
  33. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 116.
  34. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 110.
  35. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. 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: Tulipmania . In: Journal of Political Economy . Vol. 97, No. 3, 1989, pp. 541-542.
  38. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: 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.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 31. However, Anne Goldgar ( Tulipmania , p. 100) points out that the purpose of this type of tulip portrait is not fully known. Although the representations of the tulips, shown individually against a white background, differed greatly from the usual practice of depicting floral 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 catalogues, but rather intended as a permanent illustration of the respective tulip for tulip lovers. Also, the price added to the illustrations in some tulip books does not correspond to dealers' selling prices, but they are the highest prices achieved at the Weeskamer auction in Alkmaar on February 5, 1637 and were entered subsequently.
  40. ↑ Pieter Biesboer: Tulipomania - tulip breeding and tulip trade in the Netherlands . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 50.
  41. ↑ Peter M Garber (1989): Tulipmania . In: Journal of Political Economy . Vol. 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. ↑ Samen-Spraek tusschen Waermondt end Gaergoedt, Nopende de opkomste end ondergangh van Flora . The title of the dialogue can be translated as: "Dialogue between greed and true mouth". In addition to the title Samen-Spraek used here, the literature also includes 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 one guilder had a purchasing power equivalent to EUR 10.28.
  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 Tulipmania: Fact or Artifact? In: Public Choice . Vol. 130, No. 1/2, 2007, p. 101. Indexes of this kind, as also used by Peter M. Garber ( Famous First Bubbles: The Fundamentals of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000, p. 49– 64.) are erroneous because they are based on the partly 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, n. 9) notes that Posthumus occasionally made gross errors when examining the original sources in the transcription of the prices (e.g. in one place he changed "vier hondert" (400) to 4,000 guilders).
  48. ↑ This information goes back to the advertising journal Historisch behael alder ghedenk-weerdichste geschiedissen 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. Although the Semper Augustus tulip itself has become a symbol of overheated trade, it rarely appears in price lists. The Samen-Spraek himself admits that hardly anyone has seen them.
  49. ↑ Sam Segal: The Botany of the Tulip . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, pp. 34–35.
  50. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 210
  51. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. 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 verkocht aan de most-biedende op den Februarij 1637
  53. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 203.
  54. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 230.
  55. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. 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, Tulipmania. 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: Gathering and the Tulip Trade in the Netherlands . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 61.
  59. ↑ Anne Goldgar: Art and Nature: Gathering and the Tulip Trade in the Netherlands . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, pp. 56–57.
  60. ↑ Anna Pavord: The Tulip . paperback edition. Bloomsbury, London 2004, p. 165. This basket is found in Mackay's writing on tulip mania, but the factuality of the event is disputed. Peter M. Garber ( Famous First Bubbles: The Fundaments of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000, pp. 81-83) explains that these goods were never actually exchanged for a viceroy , but the pamphlet to which Mackay relies on using it only to illustrate the purchasing power of Dutch guilders.
  61. ↑ Johann Beckmann: Contributions to the history of inventions , 5 volumes, Leipzig/Göttingen 1780-1805; Abraham Munting: Nauwkeurige Description of the Aard-Gewassen , Utrecht/Leiden 1696.
  62. ↑ Lieuwe van Aitzema: Saken van Staet en Oorlogh, In, end omtrent de Vereenigde Nederlanden , The Hague 1669; Adriaen Roman: Samen-spraek tusschen Waermondt end Gaegoedt , Haarlem 1637.
  63. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: 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 tulip mania include 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.
  64. ↑ Charles P. Kindleberger, Robert Aliber: Manias, Panics, and Crashes. A History of Financial Crises . 5th edition. Wiley, Hoboken 2005, p. 16.
  65. ↑ Peter M. Garber, Famous First Bubbles: The Fundaments of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000, pp. 37-38.
  66. ↑ Peter M. Garber, Famous First Bubbles: The Fundamentals of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000, pp. 37-38.
  67. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania. Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 257.
  68. ↑ Peter M. Garber: Tulipmania . In: Journal of Political Economy . Vol. 97, No. 3, 1989, pp. 553-554.
  69. ↑ Peter M. Garber, Famous First Bubbles: The Fundamentals of Early Manias . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000, p. 71.
  70. ↑ Doug French: The Dutch Monetary Environment During Tulipmania . In: The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics . Vol. 9, No. 1, 2006, pp. 3–14.
  71. ↑ Earl A. Thompson: The Tulipmania: Fact or Artifact? In: Public Choice . Volume 130, No. 1/2, 2007, p. 100.
  72. ↑ Earl A. Thompson: The Tulipmania: Fact or Artifact? In: Public Choice . Vol. 130, No. 1/2, 2007, pp. 101-111.
  73. ↑ Goldgar ( Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 380, n. 45.) explains, however, that Thompson bases his interpretation on incorrect and unprovable claims would lead back to the historical context.
  74. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 136-137.
  75. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 145 and 211.
  76. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 140-147.
  77. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 147-167.
  78. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, pp. 190-191.
  79. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 17.
  80. ↑ Willem Frijhoff and Marijke Spies: 1650: Hard-Won Unity . Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2005.
  81. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 221.
  82. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 224.
  83. ↑ Anne Goldgar: Art and Nature: Gathering and the Tulip Trade in the Netherlands . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 60.
  84. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 141.
  85. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 233.
  86. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 228.
  87. ↑ Pieter Biesboer: Tulipomania - tulip breeding and tulip trade in the Netherlands . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 51.
  88. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age . The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London 2007, p. 248.
  89. ↑ 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.
  90. ↑ Jan de Vries, The European Economy in an Age of Crisis 1600-1750 . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1976.
  91. ↑ Jonathan Israel, Dutch Primacy in World Trade 1585-1740. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989. According to Israel (1989, pp. 532–533), the Dutch economy would even have grown in the second half of the 1630s because previously obstructive factors, such as the blockade of the Ems and Scheldt by the Spanish and the Polish -Swedish War , which made trade with the Baltic States more difficult.
  92. ↑ Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: 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 disturb 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.”
  93. ↑ Christoph Driessen: History of the Netherlands, from sea power to trend country. Regensburg 2016, pp. 101f.
  94. ↑ The motif of the chariot full of fools can already be found prominently in literature in Sebastian Brant's work The Ship of Fools, printed in 1494 .
  95. ↑ André van der Goes: De Mallewagen alias het valete der Bloemisten (Catalogue no. 84). In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 186.
  96. ↑ Pieter Biesboer: Flora's Mallewagen (Catalogue No. 83). In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 185.
  97. ↑ André van der Goes: Floraes Gecks-Kap (Catalogue No. 86). In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, pp. 187–188.
  98. ↑ Pieter Biesboer: Tulipomania - tulip breeding and tulip trade in the Netherlands . In: André van der Goes (ed.): Tulpomanie. The Tulip in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Art . Uitgeverij Waanders, Zwolle 2004, p. 52.
  99. ↑ Olga Kronsteiner: Brueghel's monkey circus in Vienna (handelsblatt.com, November 16, 2011), accessed on January 23, 2012; Im Kinsky – 87th art auction on November 8th , 2011 ( memento from January 26th, 2013 in the web archive archive.today ), accessed on January 23rd, 2012.