• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 248 0

weeks after selling six beds of tulips lying in his garden to a consortium of buyers comprising a local bookseller, Theunis Cas, and a second man named Jan Sael. The sale had been concluded on September 29, before bulb prices began their final catastrophic rise, and the consortium paid the bargain price of 312 guilders—plus an atlas from Cas’s shop—for the beds. Shortly afterward van Beresteyn sold the whole of his garden, excluding the bulbs, to a local bleacher named Nicolaes van der Berge. Van der Berge then approached Cas and Sael and agreed to buy the tulips for a total of 362 guilders. The agreement was that van der Berge would take on the consortium’s debt to van Beresteyn’s estate and pay them, in addition, a premium of fifty guilders. On February 6, the day after prices in Haarlem crashed, Cas and Sael went to a local notary to confirm their willingness to proceed with this transaction, stating that tulips remained highly prized elsewhere in Holland, and in the summer van der Berge took possession of the bulbs when they were lifted. He failed, however, to pay for them when settlement fell due, and eventually the van Beresteyn family took action, issuing proceedings against not only the bleacher but also Cas and Sael.

Why this case, of all cases, found its way before the Court of Holland remains unclear. But it contains several striking features. It shows how difficult it was to determine who owned the bulbs traded during the mania, even when the chain of ownership was relatively short and straightforward; evidently, even those who had owned tulips only temporarily could easily be caught up in the melee of claim and counterclaim. It also demonstrates that long after the tavern trade collapsed, there were some among the ranks of the richer traders and the connoisseurs who believed tulips were still a potentially good investment. Algeemen RijksArchief, The Hague, Civiele processtukken II B 44, records of the Court of Holland; Municipal Archives, Haarlem, Index to Heerenboek, p. 12; Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 82; Beresteyn and Hartman, Genealogie van het Geslacht, pp. 133–36, 219–22. Resolutions of the cities of Holland Posthumus, “Die Speculatie in Tulpen” (1927), p. 60.

Munting Munting, Naauwkeurige Beschryving, p. 911.

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

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

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

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

Abraham de Goyer Ibid., pp. 65–67.

Hans Baert Ibid., p. 76.

Admirael and de Hooge Ibid., p. 68.

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

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

De Clerq Ibid., pp. 77, 79.

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

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

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

Van Goyen’s insolvency It is not clear why van Goyen did not take advantage of the opportunity to settle his debts at 3.5 percent, which would have meant paying only thirty guilders.