Vanity and Virtue: Dutch Cultural Change in the Age of Tulipmania
David S. Hickey
The Stony Brook School
Stony Brook, NY
NEH Seminar For School Teachers, 2015, London and Leiden
The Dutch Republic and Britain
National Endowment for the Humanities
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Double Portrait of Husband and Wife with Tulip, Bulb, and Shells
Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt
1
During the seventeenth-century Dutch Golden Age, society in the United Provinces was
marked by a unique marriage of religious-inspired idealism with a pursuit of wealth through
commercial prosperity. The people of the United Provinces had an international reputation as
exemplars of virtue and hard work, unconcerned with material or prideful vanity. These
characteristics were inextricably linked to Reformed theology, which dominated the state as the
established church and which was nurtured in the cornerstone institution of the Dutch home.
Here society was characterized by a certain restraint grounded in faith and rationality. However,
it was in this same climate of Dutch virtue that spawned one of the most notorious economic
bubbles in modern history. During the 1630s, the Dutch economy was defined by intense
volatility with a feverish speculation raising prices to extraordinary levels on items such as East
India Company shares and houses in Amsterdam.1 The main culprit of the collapse was no less
stunning. It was not the luxury goods of fine Chinese porcelain or spices from the eastern trades
that set off a speculative craze, but rather the appeal of a remarkably understated flower, the
tulip. The tulip was a novel immigrant to western soil, whose exoticism stirred a bulb buying
and selling frenzy commonly referred to as “tulipmania.”
Around 1593, the Turkish tulip was first introduced to western Europe by the Dutch
botanist, Carolus Clusius. Since then, the flower gained notable status for its novelty, its ability
to be replicated continually, and its variable shapes and colors. Its rare forms quickly spawned
collection status among the merchant elites, while more common tulips eventually were
accessible to ranks below the merchant class. In 1636-37, the tulip bubble climaxed with
speculations of tulip futures while tulip bulbs were still in the ground during the winter. Money
and paper purchases changed hands quickly as they were resold for higher and higher profits,
1
Jonathan I. Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806 (New York: Oxford
2
some specimens such as the variegated red on white semper augustus commanded prices into the
thousands of guilders. Tulip sellers also erred by overselling the expected supply of tulip bulbs
and buyers by paying in kind and by credit large deposits while still unable to finance the
completion of the purchase upon expected receipt of the bulbs after the winter season. The
bubble burst on the market, which largely affected the fortunes of some elite speculators without
affecting the state of the broader economy. This episode during the Golden Age serves as the
chief example of Dutch vanity and shame.
Though much has been written on the topic of tulipmania in Dutch history and as the first
modern speculative market crash, a driving question that still remains is how to reconcile this
phenomenon with a society that was in thought and largely in practice one of distinctly
principled temperance and prudence. What was it about these simple flowers that cast a spell
and tested the rational inhibitions of the Dutch people? This paper will suggest that the events in
the years leading up to the crash of 1636-37 were illustrative of a broader cultural tension
between heaven-minded domestic ideals and new worldly, commercial and societal realities.
Dutch Domestic Virtue
During the early modern period, the Dutch people gained a reputation as a model of
Protestant virtue. With the establishment of the Dutch Reformed denomination as the state
religion, Reformed theology pervaded aspects of culture, which included an emphasis on selfdenial and a rejection of all things remotely “popish” or ostentatious. Central to their core of
belief was a fixed focus on heaven and a suspicion of worldliness. Grandness in fashion, art, and
architecture were largely relegated to simplicity and utility. In his Institutes of the Christian
Religion, John Calvin devoted chapter 7 of book 3 on the importance of self-denial in the
Christian life. He wrote in section 9, “Therefore, if we believe that all prosperous and desirable
3
success depends entirely on the blessing of God, and that when it is wanting all kinds of misery
and calamity await us, it follows that we should not eagerly contend for riches and honours,
trusting to our own dexterity and assiduity, or leaning on the favour of men, or confiding in any
empty imagination of fortune; but should always have respect to the Lord, that under his auspices
we may be conducted to whatever lot he has provided for us.”2 Calvin largely warned against
luxury without condemning it; instead, he advocated for keeping material wealth in the
perspective of God’s providential blessing, should you be destined to have it and not rely on
one’s own vainglory. Historian Jan de Vries supported this cultural idea, stating that luxury was
associated with power but was “universally understood to be fraught with moral danger” since
most of the seven deadly sins were rooted in it, which could lead to ruin.3
In his travelogue of the Dutch Republic, English statesman Sir William Temple recorded
his observations, among other things, on Dutch frugality, particularly among men such as the
national naval hero, De Ruiter, and the influential politician, De Witt. He wrote:
The other circumstance I mentioned as an occasion of their greatness, was the simplicity
and modesty of their Magistrates in their way of living, which is so general, that I never
knew one among them exceed the common frugal popular air: and so great, that, of the
two chief officers in my time, Vice-Admiral De Ruiter and the Pensioner De Witt . . . I
never saw the first in clothes better than the commonest sea-captain, nor with above one
man following him, nor in a coach; and, in his own house, neither was the size, building,
furniture, or entertainment, at all exceeding the use of every common merchant and
tradesman in his own.4
2
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Christian Classics Ethereal Library,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.viii.html (accessed July 28, 2015).
3
Jan de Vries, “Luxury and Calvinism/ Luxury and Capitalism: Supply and Demand for Luxury
Goods in the Seventeenth-Century Dutch Republic,” The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 57 (1999): 73.
4
Sir William Temple The Works of Sir William Temple, New Edition. 4 Volumes (London 1814)
In The Low Countries in Early Modern Times, edited by Herbert H. Rowen (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), 217.
4
Temple continued to illustrate the cultural restraint of the Dutch people and the differences he
observed between the classes, stating that the wealthy classes invested in their children so that
they could marry well and enter careers as magistrates interested in serving the nation. By
comparison, he asserted that the mariner classes were less interested in serving the nation and
more interested in material gain, after having witnessed the exotic goods and societies abroad.
Vocation took on a broader meaning than one purely of religious calling to holy orders.
Protestant families embraced the notion of work as vocation and worship, citing passages in
Scripture such as Colossians 3:23, “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for
men.” Particularly among women, domestic housework and child rearing took on dimensions of
honor. It was the Dutch who most likely gave rise to the adage “Cleanliness is next to
Godliness.” Cleanliness and orderliness of the home was an outward symbol representing a
larger allegory of the absence of vice from society and the orderliness and good governance of
the state. Keeping the area around one’s home clean was also a civic duty that was meant to
ward off vermin, dirt, and disease. Observers described thorough daily and weekly cleaning
regimens of Dutch women that would be viewed today as obsessive, from washing the exterior
area of the house every day and scrubbing floors and windows, to putting slippers on visitors
wearing boots. The art of the Dutch masters aided in conveying these popular ideals. The works
of Jan Vermeer and Pieter De Hooch in particular, portrayed the peace and order of the home. In
every scene, floors are shiny, beds are made, items are put away, and children are nurtured. The
painters succeeded in depicting a haven amid the busy chaos of the world outside the windows,
its own Edenic microcosm reminiscent of the orderliness of Creation.
In his highly regarded work The Embarrassment of Riches, Simon Schama perceptively
stated, “When properly established and run, the family household was the saving grace of Dutch
5
culture that otherwise would have been indelibly soiled by materialism. It was the crucible
through which rude matter and beastly appetite could be transubstantiated into redeeming
wholesomeness. When food, lust, sloth, indolence and vain luxury were subdued by the
domestic virtues—sobriety, frugality, piety, humility, aptitude and loyalty – they were deprived
of their dirt, which is to say, their capacity for inflicting harm or jeopardizing the soul.”5
It was in this home life and in business that the Dutch gained a reputation as hard workers. Some
historians, such as Max Weber, notably went so far as to hypothesize a link between this
distinctive “Protestant work ethic” with the ensuing wealth of the emerging Dutch nation. The
home was indeed the cultural foundation of the Dutch people. Such was the cultural mystique of
the Dutch Republic that its seemingly utopian society would be immune to the frivolities more
capable of affecting its surrounding neighbors. What was it that may have altered its collective
DNA?
Commercial, Societal, and Consumer Transformation
The years leading up to the Dutch Golden Age of the seventeenth century had a
transformative effect on the traditional religious and domestic sensibilities which had governed
the Dutch people in the decades since the Reformation. Jonathan Israel traced this
transformation, which he argued began in the midst of the Dutch Revolt in the 1590s. During
this period, sometimes called the ‘economic miracle,’ there were a number of factors that
converged to jumpstart the economy of the United Provinces. In particular, in 1590, Philip II
lifted his five-year trade embargo between Dutch ships and the Iberian Peninsula, freeing up a
significant inhibitor of Dutch continental commerce. The war with the Spanish, which had been
raging in the Spanish Netherlands for eighteen years, was taking its toll on the population. A
5
Simon Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age
(New York: Vintage, 1997), 388.
6
massive number of immigrants sought refuge in the northern provinces, adding as much as ten
percent to the population of the United Provinces.6 The exodus from the south devastated the
chief cities of Flanders, such as Antwerp and Ghent. The significance of this population shift
cannot be understated. With this large influx of people came a great deal of knowledge of new
trades and industries, such as textile manufacture and sugar refinement, and a great deal of
capital available for investment and the development of so-called ‘rich trades.’
For much of their history, the northern provinces remained somewhat isolated and lacked
developmental attention by their overlords stationed in the cities of Flanders. Rulers were
contented to reside in the south and preside over rich urban economies, in much the same way as
the kings of England in relation to Scotland. Due to this fact and the active obstruction of
Flemish merchants wary of possible northern competition, the northern provinces established
their economy on inexpensive ‘bulk trades’ of fish and agriculture for subsistence and trade in
large volumes. With the immigration of southern refugees during the Dutch Revolt, the northern
economy very rapidly transformed from one of ‘bulk trades’ to ‘rich trades.’ The ensuing boom
in increased industry manufacturing, production, and commercial ventures led to a new
realization of prosperity in the northern Netherlands, formerly unknown in their economic
isolation. Israel wrote, “The explosive expansion of its commerce which followed transformed
the Republic into Europe’s chief emporium. . . . The impact of this on a small country was
overwhelming, even unparalleled in history, in terms of the pace, and scope of the socioeconomic transformation, the galvanization of an urban civilization which followed in its wake.
Dutch dominance of the ‘rich trades’ made possible not only a rapid increase in prosperity and
6
Israel, 307, 310.
7
resources but a massive, sustained expansion of the cities and proliferation of new skills and
industries.”7
In the span of a decade, this boom in trade and investment would aid in establishing the
first modern joint-stock company, the United East India Company (VOC) in 1602. This
company was made possible not only by investment by immigrants, but by the significant wealth
of the Dutch. Historians have traditionally thought that Dutch frugality, from a lack of spending
on material extravagances, enabled them to save large amounts of money that became significant
for capital investment during the period preceding the Golden Age. The Dutch had finally found
an appropriate vehicle for which to put their money that did not conflict with the cultural
abhorrence of spending for outward ostentation. As the Dutch provinces transitioned from a
humble, commercial economy of bulk goods to one of rich goods and as avenues for lucrative
international trade ventures expanded, it might be argued that culturally northern sensibilities
were adversely affected during this period by the wellspring of change and prosperity brought by
non-Calvinists from the south and wealth from abroad. The tastes of the southern immigrants,
who were accustomed to a rich economic heritage in textiles, art, and eastern goods, may have
had an appealing draw when contrasted against the stale simplicity of their northern brethren.
Historians agree that prior to the well-known consumer revolution of the eighteenth
century, there was indeed a transformation taking place in the Golden Age Dutch Republic. In
her article “In Pursuit of Luxury, economic historian Maxine Berg wrote about consumption, “It
was not consumption in general, however, which provided the incentive for major shifts in
productive resources, but a shift in tastes for novelties, fashion goods and luxuries. Jan de Vries
made this point in his concept of the ‘industrious revolution’. This is defined as a crucial phase
of reallocation of household labour and consumption towards the market; it was stimulated not
7
Israel, 307.
8
by the prospect of more of the same commodities, but by the desire for novelties and even
luxuries. De Vries’ theory is about the impact of luxury, not on the rich, but on modest and
ordinary consumers.”8 This astutely sums up the pervading impulses of the early Golden Age in
the Dutch Republic. The Dutch always had the means to consume goods based on the wealth
accumulated by their cultural frugality and simplicity; however, it was a changing in tastes and
dare one allege the temptation and pride to acquire the exotic, the novel, and the luxurious that
converted the Dutch economy from one of humility to hubris and virtue to vice.
Assessing the Consumer Mania
Tulipmania was the epitome of this existential crisis between traditional virtue and
contemporary vanity. When considering some of the factors for why tulips became the ideal
item for investment, Jonathan Israel assessed, “In an age in which investing in East and West
India Company shares, drainage schemes, and large houses required impressive sums, and were
reserved for the wealthy, tulip bulbs, powered by heavy demand and proliferation of varieties,
lent themselves to widespread local speculation and became the mania of small-town dealers,
tavern-keepers, and horticulturalists, what has aptly been described as a ‘pastiche form of
stockbrokering.’”9 In essence, tulip bulbs were the perfect blend of exotic luxury and consumer
affordability. This was the first item that due to its rare and common variations invited broader
participation outside of the patrician elite, who were previously the only class able to benefit
from the fruits of foreign trade and investment. Schama added that this event “touched a deep
8
Maxine Berg, “In pursuit of Luxury: Global History and British Consumer Goods in the Eighteenth
Century,” Past & Present 182, (Feb. 2004): 92.
9
Israel, 533.
9
well of consumer hunger in the Dutch.”10 In his painting of tulipmania, Jan Brueghel the
Younger depicted this irrational hunger by showing personified monkeys in a topsy-turvy world.
Hunger for the exotic has already been referenced as a dominant factor in the changes in
taste of the Golden Age. Tulips were a popular but by no means the only items of desire. The
Dutch merchant class sought to obtain anything so long as it met the criterion of rarity. With the
expansion of Dutch global trade during the turn of the seventeenth century, Dutch elites were
exposed to more of the exotic and began to assemble in specially made kunstkammers collections
of items ranging from rocks and pearls, to seashells and insects. Anne Goldgar in her definitive
work on tulipmania stated, “By creating a novel set of cultural values and potentially altering a
longstanding social framework, tulipmania rendered unstable the whole notion of how to assess
value.” Later, she cited the 1618 account of Joost van Ravelingen to illustrate the arbitrariness of
value, “‘Here in this country people value most the flamed, winged, speckled, jagged, shredded,
and the most variegated count for most . . . and the ones that are the most valued, are not the
most beautiful or the nicest, but the ones which are rarest to find; or which belong to one master,
who can keep them in high price or worth.’”11 Van Ravelingen’s statement wonderfully
encapsulated the folly of the Dutch elite. The practice of assigning great value to items of
otherwise potential worthlessness seems radically inconsistent with traditional Dutch virtue. In a
society that was widely regarded as the most bourgeois in Europe, where merchant and skilled
classes made up a considerable portion of the population and where wealth per capita was the
most widespread, it seemed to be these collections of the exotic that offered the opportunity of
10
Schama, 357.
11
Anne Goldgar, Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2007), 17,61.
10
exception for the social elites. It was these that fed the vanity of the privileged in seeking to
define a new niveau of social differentiation.
Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt’s portrait of the husband and wife with tulip wonderfully
encapsulates how Dutch identity became interwoven with material wealth. The great majority of
Dutch portraiture depicted the upper classes in their sober, though nevertheless, highly refined
black satin, silk, and lace garments and collars. This portrait shows a far more explicit link of
status with the inclusion of not only a fully-grown, variegated tulip, but also a tulip bulb, and
valuable seashells, possibly from the New World. This illustrates a notable departure from the
typical norm in its inherent increased tolerance for public displays of wealth.
These behaviors of vanity also existed in even more subtle forms than the tulip bubble
and kunstkammers. In his article “Beauty and Simplicity,” Jeroen Dekker analyzed the
significant role of moral education in Dutch genre art. He posited that a way for Dutch burghers
to satisfy their desires for fine art consumption without incurring an “embarrassment of riches”
was ironically by consuming genre art with Calvinist-inspired themes of domestic virtue. He
argued, “On the art market, producers and consumers in pursuit both of enjoying fine art and of
moral teaching and learning reconciled the apparent contradictions between beauty and frugality,
so overruling their feelings of embarrassment.”12 The popular works of Jan Steen, such as In
Luxury, Look Out, with his depiction of a bawdy and licentious household, would fit this
criterion well.
12
Jeroen J. H. Dekker, “Beauty and Simplicity: The Power of Fine Art in Moral Teaching on Education in
Seventeenth-Century Holland,” Journal of Family History 34, no. 2 (Apr. 2009): 167.
11
Conclusion
It should be noted that many of the primary accounts of Dutch society by foreigners, like
that of Sir William Temple, come from the latter half of the seventeenth century—well removed
from the immediate period surrounding the events of 1636-1637. Their accounts still uphold the
stereotypically Dutch persona of virtue. Reading the accounts, it would seem as if tulipmania
had never taken place. One cannot imagine how this society, where its leaders and magistrates
embraced such admirable self-denial, could be compatible with one of feckless abandon and vain
triviality. It is interesting to consider whether the fallout from tulipmania had a corrective effect
on the vices of the small nation’s newfound commercial wealth. Whether it was religious
rebuke or the chastening effect of lost investments is unclear. It appeared that Dutch virtue
permeated society to a large degree, yet ultimately was unable to permeate the ideals and
practices of the changing commercial realm. Here principles succumbed to pride and the vices
of avarice and gluttony corrupted the former virtues of temperance and prudence.
12
The Mother – Lacing Her Bodice with Cradle – Pieter De Hooch
Tulipmania – Jan Brueghel the Younger
13
In Luxury, Look Out – Jan Steen
14
Bibliography
Berg, Maxine. “In pursuit of Luxury: Global History and British Consumer Goods in the
Eighteenth Century.” Past & Present 182 (Feb. 2004): 85-142.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Christian Classics Ethereal Library,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.viii.html (accessed July 28, 2015).
Child, Josiah. “A New Discourse of Trade.” In Commerce, Culture, and Liberty: Readings on
Capitalism Before Adam Smith. Edited by Henry C. Clark. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty
Fund, 2003.
Dekker, Jeroen J. H. “Beauty and Simplicity: The Power of Fine Art in Moral Teaching on
Education in Seventeenth-Century Holland.” Journal of Family History 34 no. 2 (Apr. ):
166-188.
De Vries, Jan. “Luxury and Calvinism/ Luxury and Capitalism: Supply and Demand for Luxury
Goods in the Seventeenth-Century Dutch Republic.” The Journal of the Walters Art
Gallery 57 (1999): 73-85.
Goldgar, Anne. Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Israel, Jonathan I. The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806. New York:
Oxford Press, 1995.
Janssen, Geert H. “The Dutchness of the Dutch Golden Age.” The Historical Journal Cambridge
53, no. 3 (Sep. 2010): 805-817.
Schama, Simon. The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the
Golden Age. New York: Vintage, 1997.
Temple, Sir William. The Works of Sir William Temple. New Edition. 4 Volumes. London 1814.
In The Low Countries in Early Modern Times. Edited by Herbert H. Rowen. New York:
Harper & Row, 1972.
15