Abstract
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the London Coffeehouse became a meeting grounds for groups of Londoners to access news, literature, and participate in debate. I will work analyze the extent to which the qualities of the Coffeehouse align with the Habermasian theory that the public sphere first originated in these establishments. Through literature and discussion, the public of seventeenth-and eighteenth-century London gained the knowledge that allowed them to work towards impacting government and society. To what extent did the characteristics of the public sphere actually appear in these establishments? What aspects of the London Coffeehouse hindered the Habermasian Ideal from fully presenting itself?
I will be analyzing documents from the 1700s and early 1800s in order to conclude whether Habermas’s idea of the public sphere being present is correct. By using sources from the Restoration Era, such as the diary of Samuel Pepys, accurate detailing of the role that coffeehouses play in society can be shown. Furthermore, pamphlets such as Pasqua Roseé’s “Virtue of the Coffee Drinke" will give insight into the role of a coffeehouse on London. "The Royal Proclamation Against Coffeehouses" (1675) as well as newspapers such as The Spectator give portrayals of the coffeehouse owners, members, and public opinion on matters of the government and business. This will lastly allow me to determine the extent of which the normative ideal is present in the London Coffeehouse culture.
Keywords
Public sphere; coffeehouse; Habermas; London Charles II; Samuel Pepys; Pasqua Rosée; The Spectator; social reality; public opinion
Introduction
To what extent did the public sphere appear in the London Coffeehouse during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? This analysis will compile newspapers, personal diaries, pamphlets and other pieces of literature that will illustrate the true nature of coffeehouse culture. I will consider entries from Samuel Pepys’ Diary written during 17th century London as included in Markman Ellis’ text. Next, I will consider the 1675 Royal Proclamation demanding a suppression of Coffeehouses and other literature that raised objections to the coffeehouse. The second objection is a pamphlet titled, “Women’s Petition Against Coffee”. Lastly, I will use The Spectator written by Joseph Addison and Richard Steele to explain how coffeehouse attendees utilized the coffeehouse in their lives. This all will allow for a conclusion, determining if the public sphere was authentically expressed in the Coffeehouse culture of London.
Habermasian Public Sphere
Habermas (1989) argues that the public sphere emerged in London during the Golden Age of Coffeehouse culture from 1680 to 1730 (p. 32). The elements that are essential to his theory provide the basis for analysis into whether the London Coffeehouses, the location Habermas proposes is the basis of the public sphere, actually acted as the start of social and public life in London.
Habermas (1980) defines the public sphere as “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed. When the interaction of state and society are organized successfully enough to allow for the public’s bearing of public opinion (p. 198). He outlines eight prerequisites that constitute the public sphere, the first one being that the public sphere was separate from the realm of government.“Although state authority is so to speak, the executor of the political public sphere it is not a part of it,” the author claimed (198). Ultimately if the government uses coffeehouse discussion to further politics, then a better-informed public would end up benefiting society.
The second essential aspect of the public sphere constructed by Habermas (1980), required that coffeehouse discussion be accessible to all,regardless of social class, gender, race, age, religious belief. “Access is guaranteed to all citizens,” the author claimed (p. 198). A requirement for inclusion led to the third aspect of the public sphere where interactions between coffeehouse goers fostered rational debate. This essential aspect of the public sphere presupposed that the debates in the public context such as a Coffeehouse were in all ways conducted rationally and civilly. Public opinion can by definition only come into existence when a reasoning public is presupposed,”Habermas (1980) claimed (p. 198). The author believed that it was in the best interest of the public in London that the debates were conducted in a civil manner.
According to Habermas (1980), the definition of the public sphere presupposes that where persons assembled put aside and leave behind their private interests, society is better equipped to handle conflict and rational discussion. The fourth aspect of the public sphere is the condition that public discussion is separate from the interests of individuals for the benefit of the society as a whole. “A portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body,” the author asserts (p. 198). Habermas (1980) believes the only way to make contributions to society as a whole is if discussion is not impacted by the greed and interests of individuals and that they should “behave neither like business or professional people transacting private affairs nor like members of a constitutional order subject to the legal constraints of a state bureaucracy,” (p. 198).
Regarding the government, the fifth quality that must be upheld to facilitate the public sphere is that the government must be willing to provide information about affairs of state. He believes that if society is functioning well and public opinion is considered then transparency is essential. Habermas (1980) stated that political control is,“effectively subordinated to the democratic demand that information be accessible to the public, does political public sphere win an institutionalized influence over the government through the instrument of law-making bodies,” (p. 198). Habermas believes that a transparent government will allow for public discussion to in turn assist society and government in bettering itself.
As stated by Habermas (1980), in a large public body one may gain information through media through several forms. Another requirement is that “newspapers and magazines, radio and televisions are the media of the public sphere,” (p. 198). A staple for the Golden Age of Coffeehouses across London was the newfound popularity of newspapers and a public interest in obtaining new information about the monarchy, foreign nations, and scientific thought.
The public sphere, according to Habermas (1980), must also uphold the ideal that freedom of expressing an opinion is tolerated and encouraged. Freedom given to the public to express opinion that dissented from monarchical views was rare before the Golden Age of Coffeehouses from 1680 to 1730. Post-Civil War London fraught with chaos in the government, gave coffeehouses the opportunity to gain traction as individuals began to express discontent with the monarchy. The definition of the public sphere also presupposes that “freedom of assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions about matters of general interest,” Habermas (1980) argues (p. 198). Essentially, all English citizens and writers should be allowed to publish their opinions without facing punishment.
Pepys' Diary
The nature of the London coffeehouse is described in the diary of Samuel Pepys from 1660 to 1669. These years were during the Restoration Era as explained by Ellis (2004), a time in London characterized by the turbulence of Oliver Cromwell’s dictatorship, and its transitioning back into monarchical rule with King Charles II in 1660 (p. 42). The political chaos of the Interregnum gave the republican nature of the English Coffeehouse a chance at success.
During that time, Pepys created a diary about his visits to ninety-nine coffeehouses. After reading Pepys’ diary, Markman Ellis argues that the popularity of coffeehouses was not a result of the drink itself but the social aspect of coffeehouses. Ellis (2004) notes that “attraction of the place was never simply the coffee, which Pepys did not seem to like much, but rather the potential he found there for social intercourse and companionship with one’s fellows” (p. 56). Pepys himself remarks that he went to,“the Coffee club and heard very good discourse; it was in answer to Mr. Harrington's answer, who said that the state of the Roman government was not a settled government” (p. 50). Essentially, Ellis’ inclusion of Pepys’ entry on this coffeehouse discussion shows how the potential of debate attracted many members that would pay to join coffeehouses or purchase newspapers.
A more political tone was adopted in coffeehouses in post-Civil War England, when members started debates like Mr. Harrington’s seen above. Habermas (1989) explains that “critical debate ignited by works of literature and art was soon extended to include economic and political disputes” (p. 33). However, Pepys’ account included in Ellis’ (2004) text tells readers he “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” (p. 57). So, while discussion grew to include politics and literature, there still was debate that is not rational in coffeehouses visited by Pepys, a chief example being Harrington’s Rota Club. Taking everything into account, the contrasting views of rational debate in coffeehouse culture show how the Habermasian Ideal of the public sphere was not entirely upheld for the fourth prerequisite.
Figure 3: Plaque commemorating the site of the first Coffeehouse located in St Michael's Alley and ran by Pasqua Rosée,1652.
Building Support for Coffeehouses
During the Restoration (1660-1688), Londoners several arguments for and against the uses of coffee. Ellis (2004) explains that in order to raise interest around coffee-houses, owners “coordinated a campaign to secure the cultural positioning of their coffee-houses” (p.106).The first known coffeehouse was established in 1652 by Pasqua Rosée, the servant of a London Levantine merchant Daniel Edwards. His simple wooden shack was in St. Michael’s Alley, off of Cornhill. Furthermore, one of the earliest handbills promoting the use of coffee was issued by Rosée himself in 1652. “The Virtue of the Coffee Drinke” (1652) claimed that it was a useful cure for “consumption and coughs, headaches, gout, scurvy, and miscarriages,” and was “a most excellent remedy against the spleen, hypochondriack winds, or the like” (p.1). Rosée believed that promoting coffee to the public would increase membership to his coffeehouse.
Juxtaposing Rosée’s support for coffee, several pamphlets were published countering the unique medicinal qualities advertised by many coffeehouse owners. “The Women’s Petition Against Coffee” written in 1674 as well as the anonymous, “A Broadside Against Coffee” circulated around London and gave contrasting views on coffee while claiming there are more negative aspects of it than beneficial. Regardless, patronage to coffeehouses across London was not lacking and would continue to grow regardless of efforts by the government to suppress its success, this is seen in the next section of my analysis.
Opposition to Coffeehouses
Figure 4: Portrait of King Charles II attributed to Thomas Hawker,1680.
Charles II’s ascendency to the throne of England in 1660 marked the period of Restoration. Known for his efforts to tighten restrictions on press and free speech occurring inside the coffeehouses, this period was full of conflict with Charles II. First, the Excise Act of 1660 was passed to limit coffee consumption by placing a tax on items such as beer, cider and liquors (Ellis, 2004, p. 87). Further actions were taken when a Royal Proclamation (1675) was released, demanding that the establishments of coffeehouses disturbed the peace of England.
The Proclamation (1675), published in The London Gazette states, “coffeehouses of late years let up and kept within this kingdom the Dominion of Wales, and the town of Berwick Upon Tweed and the great resort of Idle and disaffected persons’ and as such have ‘produced very evil and dangerous effects” (p. 1). King Charles II considered the discussions inside the coffeehouses malicious and feared any scandalous reports spoken of would spread abroad. Both the livelihood of the Coffeeman and the freedom that came from gathering were threatened. Markman Ellis (2004) describes the varying discussions in the coffeehouse; he states that patrons talked about “matters of public interest, whether they were scientific experiments, spectacular murders, or political rumors” (p. 69). These efforts to eliminate coffeehouses proved insufficient as coffeehouses became the primary source of news for Londoners well after Charles’ time.
Regardless, Royal opposition to Coffeehouse culture diverges from Habermas’s conditions for a public sphere. Regarding the government, Habermas (1980) explains that the fifth quality that must be upheld to facilitate the public sphere is that the government must be willing to provide information about affairs of state (p. 198). If the government itself opposes the entirety of the Coffeehouse establishment, it is impossible for transparency to be present in London during this time. Habermas recognizes the power of speech and expression, an aspect of London coffeehouses that was often countered by public decrees and efforts by the Crown to diminish. Therefore, the last element of the public sphere could not be fully materialized in the seventeenth and early eighteenth-century London Coffeehouses. The extent to which freedom of expression occurred in Coffeehouses is not explicit in these accounts and is a complex aspect of England’s history.
Role of Women in Coffeehouse Culture
Figure 5: Title page for "Women's Petition Against Coffee", an anonymous pamphlet published London,1674.
Figure 6: Portrait of Moll King by anonymous artist, sold in May's Buildings in Covent Garden, 1738.
Pamphlets such as “The Women’s Petition Against Coffee” and the anonymous, “A Broadside Against Coffee” circulated around London and offered contrasting views on coffee and the coffeehouse. Ellis (2004) concludes in his discussion on the “Women’s Petition” that the “satirist accuses coffee-house habitués of being 'effeminate' because they spend their time talking, reading and pursuing their business, rather than carousing, drinking and whoring” (p. 137). All in all, this was published because the anonymous writer, though thought not to have been female, was opposed to the social conviviality of coffeehouses and jabbed at the discussion that occurred inside. Nonetheless, the topic of women connects back to the Habermasian social sphere where the second prerequisite requires an inclusion of all people and genders, an aspect that seems to be lacking in regards to inclusion.
Ellis (2004) addresses the unwritten rules in the Coffeehouse, he says that “while there were no explicit rules governing behavior in coffee-houses, the implicit rules were still powerful” (p. 66). He furthers this by saying it was assumed that no woman who wished to be considered virtuous and proper would want to be seen in a coffee-house (p. 66). Ellis (2004) backs his reasoning up by including discussion on The Velvet Coffee-Woman, a novel that records the life of Anne Rochford, a Londoner forced to become a proprietor of a coffee-house and a prostitute (p. 111). This account is similar to Moll King’s a female Coffeehouse proprietor also described by Ellis (2004). King was the proprietor of King’s Coffeehouse in Covent Garden, who ran an establishment characterized as “bawdy and vulgar”. Further descriptions compare this to a brother and this type of sociability in coffeehouse establishments is against the aspect of Habermas’s public sphere concerning accessibility (p. 112). Largely the role of women in coffeehouses was not sufficient to fulfill Habermas’s expectation of the public sphere because they were never included as equals in these establishments.
Prominent Writers Respond
Figure 7: The Spectator published by Joseph Addison and Richard Steele, 1711.
The time period following the Glorious Revolution was transformative for the advancement of coffeehouses. The passing of the Triennial Act and the establishment of the free press allowed for novel ideas and literature to circulate much quicker throughout London. Through the newly popular newspapers, coffeehouses attracted different types of Londoners to convene at specialized locations. The wits served as the literate part of coffeehouse culture; often men invested in writings, plays, and poems converged at Will’s, Tom’s, and Button’s coffeehouses. While wits convened at Will’s Tom’s and Button’s, De Saussure (1995) catalogs his experiences at coffeehouses between 1725-1729 and reports on working class citizens: "I have often seen shoeblacks and other persons of that class club together to purchase a farthing paper," writes the author (p. 86). De Saussure revealed that not just highly educated or wealthy individuals paid to read, but normal citizens would pay to stay informed, showing a transformative shift in the democratic ideals of many Londoners. Accessibility to all people was demonstrated in this aspect of Coffeehouse culture. While newspapers were expensive, they were not difficult to access in Coffeehouses and poor working Londoners ensured they could participate in public discussion by pooling money.
Some of the newspapers read and created in coffeehouses post Glorious Revolution included The Spectator, The Tattler and later The Guardian published from March to October 1713 (Ellis, 2004, p. 192). They differed from regular newspapers because they were written with the hopes to reform the manners and behaviors of Londoners in the early eighteenth century. Addison (1965) claimed his plan was to urbanize philosophy. Addison justifies these newspapers by referencing past philosophers. He speaks of Socrates and says that “he brought Philosophy down from Heaven, to inhabit among Men, and I shall be ambitious to have it said of me, that I have brought Philosophy out of Closets and Libraries, Schools, and Colleges, to dwell in Clubs and Assemblies, at Tea-Tables and in Coffee-houses,'' writes the author (p. 129). Addison and Steele (1965) believed that the reformation of the man would come about by reflecting the positive characteristics of coffeehouse goers. “I have been taken for a merchant upon the Exchange for above ten years, and sometimes pass Jonathan’s Coffee House.” (p. 84). Addison’s experience happened at Jonathan’s in Exchange Alley in Cornhill showing the specialization of coffeehouses has allowed for merchants and businessmen to establish themselves in English social circles.
Exchange Alley served as a location for a variety of merchants and traders hoping to grow their profits. Ellis remarks on Pepys experience saying that, “with the commercial knowledge he learnt from them Pepys transformed his job as 'Clerk of the Acts' to the Navy Board” (p. 58). All in all, with evidence from The Spectator and Pepys’ diary, it can said that fourth aspect of the public sphere is not fully materialized in the London Coffeehouse. Habermas (1980) believes that people should “behave neither like business or professional people,” and authentic discussion did in fact include business and personal matters (p. 198). The condition that public discussion is separate from the interests of individuals for the benefit of the large public body is not seen in the entirety of London coffeehouses.
Figure 8: Drawing depicting the busy Coffeehouse in London by unknown painter, 1690s-1700 London.
Final Analysis
By considering the initial review of requirements for the public sphere presented by Jurgen Habermas, I transition into an analysis of documents from the seventeenth and early eighteenth century London and conclude my findings of whether or not the public sphere was established in London’s early Coffeehouses as Habermas argues. As democratic sentiment floods the Western world during this period of growth, the London Coffeehouses serve as meeting grounds for Londoners to discuss practically all topics imaginable.
Samuel Pepys’ Diary paints a picture of what occurs in Coffeehouses like that of James Harrington and shows us that while many topics are rational such as literature, government and business, not all of the discussion was rational or educated. In order to conclude if the Normative Ideal of Habermas is fully present, the lack of rational debate much be considered.
Furthermore, pamphlets for and against the use of Coffee such as “The Virtue of the Coffee Drink” and the contrasting “Women’s Petition Against Coffee” show how the public’s view of Coffeehouses is polarized. Another important topic brought up from these documents was the role of women in the Coffeehouse. Documents helped provide evidence that suggests women were not fully welcomed into Coffeehouse roles that would promote equality. Therefore, the second aspect of the public sphere, equality and equal access as described by Habermas (1980), is not upheld in all aspects of London Coffeehouse culture.
Lastly, a key characteristic of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century London was the growth of the newspaper. The public’s access to news was essential for fostering the community that Coffeehouse owners hoped to establish in their businesses. The Spectator provides inside in the workings of Coffeehouses in Exchange Alley and concludes like Ellis after reading Pepys’ Diary that business ventures became a frequent topic in Coffeehouses. The requirement for the public sphere to have personal interest separate from public discussion is not immediately visible from these documents. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the Habermasian Ideal was fully present in early London Coffeehouses due to the fact that representation of women was clearly lacking and several of the preconditions mentioned by Habermas (1980) such as government transparency were non-existent or unclear. However, many essential aspects of the social sphere were exhibited especially in coffeehouses that displayed news accessible to all citizens and in the rational debate that was expressed by Coffeehouses goers with firsthand accounts by The Spectator.
Coffee Houses: A Brief History of Fun
Bibliography
Addison, J. (1965). The Spectator, No. 10 in 1710 (Vol. 1) In Bond, D, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bill, J & Barker, C. (1675). A Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee-Houses’. London.
De Saussure, C. (1995). A Foreign View of England in 1725-1729: the letters of monsieur Cesar de Saussure to his family. In Muyden, M. van. (Ed.), London: Caliban books.
Habermas, J. (1980). The Public Sphere. In A. Mattelart & S. Sieglaub (Eds.), Communication and Class Struggle (pp. 198-201). International General.
Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (pp. 32-33).
Markman, E. (2004). The Coffee House: A Cultural History. Weidenfield & Nicolson.
Rosée, P. (1662). “The Virtue of the Coffee Drink”. London.
About the Author
Sarah Hentschke is a first-year student at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York. She plans on majoring in both Psychology and History with an interest in German studies. On campus, she is a member of the women's varsity rowing ream and hopes to study abroad in Copenhagen, Denmark her junior year!
Sarah is currently enrolled in the first year seminar London Coffeehouse Culture & Modernity. This class utilizes historical documents and research techniques to analyze the 17th and 18th century London Coffeehouses. Her class will finish the semester by creating this website to display the culmination of research on the unique properties of historic London.
When not at school, Sarah lives in Rochester, NY with her parents, older sister Abby and dog Kaya. She loves travelling and has done biking tours with her family across four different European countries. Her favorite trip was when she did an exchange in Graz, Austria during her junior year of high school.