Abstract: Coffeehouses played an important role within the population of London’s social sphere. Although only a few were constructed in the early sixteen hundred, they became very popular for the distribution of news and information. Coffeehouses varied from ale houses, that were also present during this time, because coffee acted as a stimulus and enacted debates and discussions on public affairs and opinions. Coffeehouses became very popular and there were quickly hundreds of coffeehouses within London. Throughout this paper I will be discussing how women, the spectator, merchants, and trade affected the public opinion and public sphere within coffeehouses present in London through the 16th and 17th century.
Keywords: London; women; coffeehouses; public sphere; Pepy’s; Rosee; suppression; triennal act.
Introduction
The first coffeehouse was opened in 1652 by Pasqua Rosée who brought coffee from Turkey. It was located in St. Michael's Alley which gained a lot of attention from the population of London. Soon coffeehouses populated most of London’s streets and were the center of public sphere and public opinion. Coffeehouses subjected news and information to the public of London while also giving men a sociable place to hold debates and discussions. However, London coffeehouses did not welcome women unless they were there for work and The King soon wanted to suppress the coffeehouses for spreading of parliament information.
Habermas’s Definition of the Public Sphere
According to Habermas (1980), the public sphere is defined as “realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed” (Habermas 198). The author claims that it is “a sphere which mediates between society and the state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion” (Habermas 198). By using coffeehouses which are the center of distribution of news, Habermas can politized the public in pursuit of freedom in the social life.
As the notion to unify the public within public interests, the author points out that the public sphere is separated from the government, “that “although state authority is so to speak the executor of the political public sphere, it is not a part of it” (Habermas 198). The government still holds power within the public opinion, even though the public sphere is supposed to be separate.
Another prerequisite is that the definition of the public sphere presupposes also fostering
rational debate, “public opinion can by definition only come into existence when a reasoning public can be presupposed” (Habermas 198). Social men can discuss different views on abstract concepts that they were not able to do before the freedom of sociability. Another precondition is that there are no boundaries and there is universal access guaranteed to all, regardless of social class, gender, race, age, religious belief, “Access is guaranteed to all citizens” (Habermas 198).
Habermas states that the public sphere is where public opinion can be created. “By ‘the public sphere’ we mean first of all a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed,” the author claims (198). The people are allowed to create their own thoughts and opinions and debate the reasoning behind them which wasn’t allowed before the public sphere in coffeehouses.
The author points out that the public sphere is where persons assembled put aside/leave behind their private interests. Habermas states that “the public sphere as a sphere which mediates between society and state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion, accords with the principle of the public sphere” (198). When gentlemen enter the coffeehouses, they focus on the debate occurring in the present and they do not bring in their own private interests or opinions.
For the social sphere to perform at optimal function, transparent government must be willing to provide information about affairs of state. The author mentions that “to be sure, state authority is usually considered "public" authority, but it derives its task of caring for the wellbeing of all citizens primarily from this aspect of the public sphere” (Habermas 198). The public is not influenced over the power of the government, “the democratic demand that information be accessible to the public, does the political public sphere win an institutionalized influence over the government” (Habermas 198).
With the public sphere containing freedom of the press, persons may gain information through media like the newspapers and the radio. Habermas points out that “today newspapers and magazines, radio and television are the media of the public sphere” (Habermas 198). The media helps the people gain information in order for them to make a proper public opinion.
Coffeehouses are the center of rational debate, freedom of expressing an opinion is tolerated and encouraged. Habermas explains that “citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion --' that is, with the guarantee of freedom of assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions” (Habermas 198). By giving the public the freedom to express their opinions it allowed them to expand their knowledge because they were able to come together and discuss and debate rational ideas.
The public sphere and public opinion materialize through coffeehouses in London during the Golden Age. Habermas’ ideals of the public sphere somewhat fit the reality of the coffeehouses due to incorporating rational debates, media and freedom of press.
Samuel Pepys perspective on London coffeehouses
In the early 1600s, an English diarist Samuel Pepys visited and wrote about the culture of London coffeehouses. Pepys observed a variety of businessmen and merchants who gathered within the coffeehouses. On Saturday, 14 January 1659, Pepys discussed within his journal that the coffeehouses he was attending he, “heard very good discourse” (Pepys). Different professional men can gather and discourse within coffeehouses without feeling segregation within the social classes, “uncontrolled and open quality” were given to all the men, by coffee-house owners, who entered the door (Ellis, 59).
In the coffeehouses Pepys is attending there was much talk about the parliament and government surrounding the culture of coffeehouses. Pepys saw that there was a struggle between parliament and the army for control over the people of London (Pepys). This political conflict in coffeehouses lead to a restoration and revolution of the monarchy in charge of London. The chaos exhibited within coffeehouses, brought many different opinions and political views into play and even lead some of the London population in support of King Cromwell.
On Thursday, 2 February 1659 Even Pepys was in support of Cromwell referring to him as “my lord” (Pepys’) and Cromwell’s ideas of a new monarchy. Many political debates like this were held within the coffeehouse, especially when discussing Cromwell’s monarchy. Most of the public were becoming distant from the use of CommonWell that Cromwell created. By using the coffeehouse’s the people of London were able to hold discussions determining alternative options for the monarchy. However, discussions about the parliament and the King within coffeehouses soon led to the King wanting to suppress them.
Women’s Complaint Against Coffee-houses
The coffeehouse was used as an institution of trade and business for the public and eventually became an institution of public life. Ellis states that, “in the 1660s and 1670s, all of those involved in producing the coffeehouse experience coordinate a campaign to secure the cultural position of the coffee-house" (106). Those who were involved within the coffeehouse system had to define cultural position in the 1660s public life of London and follow certain orders.
Women in the coffeehouse did not receive equal access. It was thought though if women were coffee-house owners, they had their own vendetta and were promoting prostitution with “women’s transgressive qualities” (Ellis 112). There were many pamphlets surrounding how women felt about coffeehouses and their husbands constantly in attendance. In the pamphlet, The Maidens Complaint Against Coffee, Women believed that coffee caused their husbands brain’s to dry.
The complaints against coffeehouses from women were due to influences coffeehouses had on the behaviors of their husbands. While attending coffeehouses, men were said to exhibit the behaviors of women when it came to gossiping. Coffee was actually seen as beneficial to the health of people and could cause miraculous cures. Rosee stated “if you hold your head over it, and take in the steam that way” coffee was able to restore hydrations to the face and eyes, prevent illnesses like gout and restlessness (Rosee 1). Coffee also benefitted women by helping them with their pregnancy. Due to women not being guaranteed the right to speak their opinion on public matters within coffeehouse discussions counteracts Habermas’ ideal of the public sphere in the coffeehouse.
The suppression of coffeehouses by the King
Due to coffeehouses being the sole place of information and rational debate many people had varying opinions of parliament and the monarchy within London. The king did not like that the public had opinions that went against what he wanted so the king stated that, “Coffee-houses be Put down and suppressed” (Charles II). However, if the king were to do this the people of London would lose their center of public opinion and expression.
Although the king didn’t like coffeehouse’s because he thought that they spread unfaithful gossip, he decided to tell the public the coffeehouses, “produced very evil and dangerous effects” (Charles II). Thus, the only way to stop this was to shut down all of the coffeehouses which came forth through the king’s proclamation. This of course did not sit well with coffeehouse owners since this was the way they were financially living and providing for themselves and their families. By following the proclamation set by the King, there would be reduced tax revenue on the coffee being sold within coffeehouses. Since the government profited off of the tax of coffeehouses, they would not be making as much revenue as they were, which contributed to the failure of the Kings proclamation.
Coffeehouse owners made a proclamation back to the King on reasons why their coffeehouses should stay open. The only way that the coffeehouses wouldn’t be suppressed was if the owners told the King of any talks that occurred within the coffeehouses that pertained the monarchy and parliament, which would then end in punishment of the individual who spoke badly of the government. The owners now acted as spies for the government, but rarely did they act upon reporting these instances due to them fighting for public opinion and freedom of press. Thus, there were several reasons that the Kings proclamation failed in the end, the government being unable to control the public opinion happening within the coffeehouses, the spies the government were using to benefit themselves actually allowed the coffeehouse owners be in control, and reduced tax revenue.
The Spectator
After the Glorious Revolution that occurred in 1688, coffeehouses began retaining lots of power within the public. After the triennial act, general elections were to take place for the public to vote upon power and they were able to withdraw their power from authority for the first time within history (Downie 1). Men were able to attend coffeehouses to hear information and opinions on political issues occurring within London. However, the rational debates occurring were being influenced by authority figures and politicians. Robert Harley one of the first politicians in London was trying to influence the press through propaganda and public opinion. Without Harley the freedom of press would have been eradicated instead of being reintroduced with some restrictions, thus Harley was “crucial to the rise of a free press in Great Britain” (Downie 3).
The Spectator was a journal that was publishing news after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 focusing on the social reformation of society. Since coffeehouses were flourishing many people attended them to receive the daily news. The writers of The Spectator Addison and Steele wrote about the variety of groups of people who were reading The Spectator.
The first group of people to read the newspaper would be the families, “I would, therefore, recommend these speculations to all well-regulated families” (Addison and Steele 129). Families were able to read about the news over breakfast and be able to discourse about the happenings in society.
The second group would be the fraternities of the spectator who were considered “good brothers and allies” (Addison and Steele 130). They benefit from reading the paper to develop characteristics and manners of a good gentlemen for society.
The third group of people who read the spectator were blanks of society. These men benefit from reading the paper from developing ideas from what the paper offers and coffeehouse debates, “altogether unfurnished with ideas, till the business and conversation of the day has supplied them” (Addison and Steele 130). The final group who reads The Spectator would be the women of society, The Spectator plans out women's lives for them. The paper offers jobs for women to occupy within society, “Their more serious occupations are sewing and embroider” (Addison and Steele 131).
Mr. Spectator outlined an enlightenment that if followed, would lead people to a civilized and rational way of life. However, The Spectator did not achieve reforming the social norm due to the inaccurate descriptions of the coffeehouses. The Spectator was fixed on the normative ideals of how men and women should behave and also about the culture and community of the coffeehouses. Ellis states, “The essays do not attempt a realistic description of the coffeehouse” (206). The coffeehouses were able to foster rational debate most of the time due to the chaotic nature. The public sphere also did not accustom to the new moral reform The Spectator was trying to project to the people reading the paper.
Final Analysis
In conclusion, Habermas’ ideal of public opinion and public sphere revolutionized the social sphere of London during the seventeenth and eighteenth century. These ideals brought upon by Habermas increased the gauge for public opinion to be created, which lead to new ideas and scientific discoveries.
Habermas and his ideas was partially right and partially wrong. He was wrong because the reality of coffeehouses didn’t always reflect and fit the components of public sphere. The public sphere by definition is an institution where the social life allows public opinion to be formed. Habermas relies on spectator which is a journal that focuses on the normative ideal not the reality of the coffeehouses. Although Pepys observation of equality between men agrees with the public sphere order of access is guaranteed to all, regardless of social class, gender, race, age, religious belief, the coffeehouse environment was very chaotic which disrupted the discussions of debate.
Between the men and their wives, coffeehouses brought much conflict within the family home. Women did not want their husbands constantly attending the coffeehouses because it was taking away spending time with their families. This was hard on women because they were not allowed to partake in the new social exchange that was occurring within the coffeehouses.
Allowing the public to choose their authoritative power with elections supports Habermas’ ideal of the public sphere fostering rational debate, “public opinion can by definition only come into existence when a reasoning public can be presupposed” (Habermas 198). However, the debates within the coffeehouses were not always intellectual conversations. On Friday, 14 December 1660, Pepys affirmed that some of the men only went to the coffeehouses to drink. Pepys declaimed that many men “turned back again to a coffee-house, and there drunk more till I was almost sick, and here much discourse, but little to be learned”.
Coffeehouses overall changed the social interaction of London within the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Coffeehouses allowed the expansion of news and information to take place. From the expansion, specialized coffeehouses were formed based on their geographic location. The specialization allowed doctors, lawyers, and business men to confide in one another for debates and discussions regarding a multitude of information. Although coffeehouses did change the social life and public sphere, they do not completely line up with the normative ideals Habermas had about the culture of coffeehouses and the public of London.
About The Author
Lexie Zeppos is a First-year student at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York. She is hoping to pursue a major in Psychology and a minor in Public Health. Lexie is a member of St. Lawrence's Advocates club and hopes to be more involved in the upcoming years at St. Lawrence.
Lexie is currently enrolled in London Coffeehouse Culture & Modernity. This class focuses on expanding students' ability for public presentations and speaking, along with focusing on research and proper writing techniques.
When Lexie is not on campus she lives in Arlington Heights, IL with her father Scott, one of her brothers, Drew, and her dog Skiba.
Bibliography
Addison, J., & Steele, R. The Spectator No. 49 Vol. 1. D. Appleton & Company. New York, 1711.
Anonymous. The Maidens Complaint Against Coffee or the Coffee-House. The Royal Exchange in Cornhill, London, 1663.
Charles II. By the King A Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee-Houses. Bill & Barker, 1675.
Downie, J. A. Robert Harley and the press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Ellis, Markman (2004). The Coffee House: A Cultural History. Weidenfield & Nicolson, pp. . London
Habermas, Jürgen. “The Public Sphere.” Communication and Class Struggle, edited by Armand Mattelart and Seth Sieglaub, International General, 1980, pp. 198-201
Rosee, Pasqua. The Vertue of the Coffee Drink. St. Michaels Alley in Cornhill, 1670.
Pepys, Samuel. “The Diary of Samuel Pepys.” 1660-1669.