The period between the late 17th century and the early 18th century was simultaneously a period of multiple political upheavals and profound social evolution in England. During the mid 1600s, there were several English Civil Wars that took place in response to the tyranny of King Charles I. He would eventually be executed for “high treason and ‘other high crimes against the realm of England’” in 1649 (Maurice). Following his execution, the interregnum period would begin and Cromwell would later become the lord protector of England before the Monarchy would be restored upon the enthronement of Charles II in 1660 (Roseveare). Such a period was highly turbulent and proved to be an opportune period for the English people to regularly assemble freely and develop a free thinking and tyranny averse society that promoted Enlightenment ideals. London coffeehouses would become a vehicle for such a phenomenon during the Interregnum, Restoration, and Georgian periods. Although the year when the first coffeehouse emerged isn’t known for certain, it is likely that it was created in 1652 and certainly before 1654 (Ellis 29). It would take until the late 1600s, however, for the golden age of coffeehouses to start.
What is a Public Sphere?
Pictured above: The German philosopher/sociologist who created the public sphere theory
Jürgen Habermas is a German sociologist and philosopher who identified the key characteristics of what he calls a ‘public sphere’ in 1964. Habermas defines a public sphere as a “realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed”(Habermas 198). He postulated that there were 8 key characteristics of a public sphere and they were: separated from the government, access is guaranteed to all citizens, fosters rational debate, persons assembled left behind their private interests, public opinion can be created, transparent government is willing to provide information of affairs of state, persons may gain information through media, freedom of expression is tolerated and encouraged (Habermas 198). Habermas also elaborated on what each key component entails. According to Habermas, in public spheres, “access is guaranteed to all citizens”, meaning that anyone of any social class, gender, and race can access the features of a public sphere (Habermas 198). Public spheres must also foster rational debate since “…public opinion can by definition only come into existence when a reasoning public is presupposed” (Habermas 198). Persons assembled in public spheres also set aside their private interests and “they then 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.” (Habermas 198). The Public opinion of a society forms in a public sphere and Habermas defines “the 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.” (Habermas 198). A transparent government must be present in a society that has a public sphere and he claims that “Only when the exercise of political control is effectively subordinated to the democratic demand that information be accessible to the public, does the political public sphere win an institutionalized influence over the government through the instrument of law-making bodies.” (Habermas 198). He says that persons in a public sphere may gain information through media and that “in a large public body this kind of information requires specific means for transmitting information and influencing those who receive it” (Habermas 198). Finally, he asserts that in order for a public sphere to adhere to the principle of tolerating and the freedom of expressing an opinion, “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). While London Coffeehouses did to some extent fit the requirements of a public sphere, it did not fit the criteria for a public sphere as defined by Habermas. We will soon find out that the social reality of English society before and during the golden age of Coffeehouses contradicted some of Habermas’s claims.
The King’s Negative Attitudes Toward Coffeehouses
A photocopy of the Proclamation for the Supression of Coffee issued by King Charles II in 1675
While the turbulence and relative freedom characteristic of the interregnum period allowed for the establishment of coffeehouses, in the period that followed, King Charles II would attempt to suppress coffeehouses and their attendees’ ability to freely access domestic news. He did not like the fact that coffeehouses were promoting republican ideals like freedom of expression and opposition to tyranny. He issued a legislation that sought to control “the debauched drinking undertaken in his name” and “explained that he was 'ashamed' of those of his supporters 'who spend their time in Taverns, Tipling-houses, and Debauches, giving no other evidence of their Affection for us [the King], but in drinking our Health, and Inveighing against all others who are not of their own dissolute temper '” (Ellis 54).
As mentioned before, King Charles sought to stymie the flow of domestic news as it provided coffeehouse attendees with information that would make the King look bad. He’d take multiple actions to try to prevent coffeehouse attendees from accessing relevant domestic news and any form of information that allowed them to be politically literate. He continued the policy of allowing only two weekly newsbooks that consisted of “anodyne foreign news”, kept domestic reports to a minimum, appointed a Licenser of Press that granted a monopoly on publishing the newsbooks, and signed a legislation called the Licensing Act of 1662 that “established a system of censorship by a range of authorities (the church, the universities, the Lord Chancellor and the secretaries of state), enabled to license approved books before publication. Those who published unlicensed book s would be held accountable by the secretaries of state, with the help of a Surveyor of the Imprimery and a number of messengers.” (Ellis 71). The King would eventually issue a royal proclamation entitled, “A Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee-Houses” almost a decade after hearing of the idea from Lord Chancellor and Earl of Clarendon. After calling Clarendon to give him advice for dealing with the politically informed coffeehouse attendees, “Clarendon advised either a proclamation to suppress the coffee-houses, or the organisation of 'some Spies, who, being present in the Conversation, might be ready to charge and accuse the Persons who had talked with the most Licence in a Subject that would bear a Complaint'.” (Ellis 73).
In the royal proclamation, King Charles II explained his complaints about the coffeehouses and outlined what needed to be done by coffeehouse owners to comply to his demands. The King lamented that merchants wasted a lot of time and neglected their “Lawful Callings and Affairs” by attending to their coffeehouses (Bill and Barker). As a result, he further elaborated it would be “fit and necessary, That the said Coffee-houses be (for the future) Put Down and Suppressed” and that coffeehouse owners were demanded to stop all retailing of their “coffee, sherbet, and tea” by only 10 days from when the proclamation was issued (Bill and Barker). Up until the proclamation was issued, the only form of regulation imposed on the coffeehouse was when the Excise Act of 1660 was signed and “The Excise was a tax on articles of English manufacture or consumption” which included coffee (Ellis 87). It didn’t, however, prove to be effective as the “nature of the drink’s preparation made the Excise easy to evade” (Ellis 87). So in essence, it can’t be said that the public sphere requirement of a transparent government was fulfilled by London coffeehouses.
De Saussure’s Account of 18th Century English Society vs. Hooke’s Personal Experience with Coffeehouses
Cesar De Saussure’s outsider account of English society on his trip there illuminates some aspects of the social reality that somewhat contradicted the notion that coffeehouse attendees talked about relevant political matters and fostered rational debates. Particularly in Letter 6 of the several letters he wrote, he goes into detail about the manners and customs of the English people during this time. He says that they take heart to a lot of the information that’s in news articles, political news, and the like, and described them as newsmongers. He further clarifies that “a dozen different newspapers” appear in London and “In them you read news from foreign countries, generally copied from the Dutch gazette.” (De Saussure 163). Finally, he observed that the articles dated from London were the most important to these coffeehouse goers.
In such articles, “you read of marriages and deaths, of the doings of distinguished personages, of the advancement of others in civil, military, and ecclesiastical employments, and in fact of everything interesting, comical and tragical, that has occurred in this big city.” which is in stark contrast to the notion that coffeehouse attendees only engaged in rational and practical discourse (De Saussure 163). Indeed, such an occurrence has been documented by both satirists of the time and modern secondary sources such as Markman Ellis’s “The Coffee-House: A Cultural History”. Some satirists of coffeehouses highlighted the fact that “discourse was often disrupted by destructive and uncongenial tendencies.” and “Satirists identified four particular qualities of ruined discourse: gabbling, gossip, wheedling and idleness.” (Ellis 62). In satirist Starkey’s Character, debates occurring in coffeehouses didn’t always have substance and that “Coffee-house discussion was repeatedly represented as catastrophically heterodox and ill-disciplined, and given to pointless and intemperate debate, swapping' diverse Monster Opinions and Absurdities'.” (Ellis 63).
That is not to say that rational discussions did not take place, however. In coffeehouses that were more oriented toward scientific debates, “…men of science, learning and scholarship found they had unprecedented access to all kinds of knowledge: commercial, literary, mechanical, theological.” (Ellis 158). Ellis described these coffeehouses as open to all and that “ideas that could be proved true there could be proved anywhere.” (Ellis 158). Even Robert Hooke, an influential member of the scholarly Royal Society was seemingly impressed by the fact that coffeehouses could simultaneously allow “business and pleasure to be conducted under the same roof” (Haine). In particular, there was a coffeehouse called Garraway’s that often facilitated demonstrations and highly stimulating scientific discussions. One time, “…Hooke gave a demonstration at the coffee-house: At Garaways I shewd [John] Collins [the mathematician] and Mr. Hill [the treasurer] my way to trace the way of a Bullet by the help of a transparent glasse plate or Rete.’” (Ellis 159). Discussions like these occurred everyday—at least for a few years—at Garraway’s (Ellis 159). While it can certainly be said that rational and even intellectually stimulating discussions did take place in some coffeehouses, however, the same could not be said in all coffeehouses. It can even be said that discussions weren’t always productive and rational precisely because of the inclusive and accessible nature of the coffeehouses, since it meant that even those who were uneducated and/or ill-mannered could participate in coffeehouse discussions.
The Spectator Promoted an Unrealistic Normative Ideal
The Spectator was a periodical paper produced by writers Joseph Addison and Richard Steele that promoted the notion that men are social animals and their sociable instinct “was both the first cause and the greatest effect of modern city life.” (Ellis 185). They argued that men can’t help but form themselves “into those little nocturnal assemblies, which are commonly known by the name of clubs.” (Addison and Steele 123). Addison and Steele also lauded the sociable nature of modern men and came to the conclusion that “Rather than the isolated and solitary existence experienced by the savage, or the bonds of domination and obligation in feudal society, modern urban life was comprised of civilised and refined social relations with fellow citizens, united as equals under the ties of trust, credit and friendship.” (Ellis 185). Coffeehouses and clubs, Addison and Steele argued, were prime examples of man’s instinctual desire to associate with others that possessed similar interests. Ellis however, contends it was clear that “All around them, however, the crowded and bustling life of the city gave evidence that the society they lived in was not harmonious and balanced” (Ellis 185). In other words, Ellis is contending that Addison, Steele, and the Spectator sort of fantasized about a normative ideal rather than provide realistic observations and conclusions that accounted for common human qualities that contradicted their claims.
In volume 49 of the Spectator, Steele describes the refined behaviors characteristic of the ideal type of man he holds a lot of regard for. He claims that such men are the type of men who would assemble with other men in coffeehouses either to “transact affairs or enjoy civil discussion” (Addison and Steele 316). According to him, “Their entertainments are derived rather from reason than imagination; which is the cause that there is no impatience or instability in their speech or action.” (Addison and Steele 316). However, as mentioned before, those specializing in satire back in the 17th and 18th centuries proved that men who went to coffeehouses would engage in empty discussions that gratified their hedonistic desires. Furthermore, Habermas’s requirement that persons who assemble in a public sphere set aside their private interest isn’t fulfilled by London Coffeehouses if “…they give place to men who have business or good sense in their faces” (Addison and Steele 316).
Ellis argues that by describing these men as, “the worthier part of mankind” and that they are “are all good Fathers, generous Brothers, sincere Friends, and faithful Subjects.”, Steele consciously revises the coffee-house sociability in his own reformative image (Ellis 195).
The Verdict
While it is certainly evident that English society had gone through a tremendous transformation between the 17th Century and 18th centuries, if we strictly adhere to the Habermasian definition of a public sphere, the 17th/18th Century London coffeehouse was technically not a public sphere. Certainly, access to information about political affairs and scientific concepts not previously available to the wider public was a characteristic feature of London coffeehouses. English society was surely exceptional in this regard, and coffeehouses played a tremendously major role in modernizing England and conceiving democratic ideals that those in the free world cherish today. However, it is simply the case that this particular period in English history hadn’t yet produced a bona-fide public sphere but instead produced a prototype of what we now know as a public sphere.
Bibliography
Addison Joseph, and Steele, Richard. The Spectator; A New Edition, Carefully Revised, In Six Volumes; With Prefaces Historical and Biographical, vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Chalmers. D. Appleton & Company, New York 200 Broadway, 1853
Bill, J and Barker, C. A proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee-Houses. London, 1675
De Saussure, César. A Foreign View of England in 1725-1729. London, John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1902.
Ellis, Markman. The Coffee-House: A Cultural History. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2004.
Habermas, Jürgen. “The Public Sphere”. Edited by A. Mattelart, and S. Sieglaub, Communication and Class Struggle (pp. 198 – 201). International General, NY, 1980.
Maurice, Ashley. “Charles I, King of Great Britain and Ireland.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 26th Jan. 2020, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-I-king-of-Great-Britain-and-Ireland/Civil-War Accessed May 9, 2020.
Roseveare, Henry. “Charles II, King of Great Britain and Ireland.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 2 Feb. 2020, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-II-king-of-Great-Britain-and-Ireland Accessed May 9, 2020.
W Scott Haine, "'Cafe Friend": Friendship and Fraternity in Parisian Working-Class Cafes, 1850-1914', Journal of Contemporary History. 27: 4 (1992), pp. 607-26, p. 608.
About the Author
My name is Arashi Bamberg and I'm a first year student planning to major in Economics. Although I have a huge interest in finance related topics, I'm also pretty interested in psychology. Recently, I've been obssessing over the Myers-Briggs type indicator and the archetypes associated with my personality type. I still haven't taken the time to study the 8 cognitive functions that help to determine a person's personality type, but it's nonetheless all so fascinating to me.
I'm also somehow deeply interested in England, its history, and most importantly, English accents. I've always admired their historical aversion to tyranny (save a few events involving America and a few other countries) and the fact that they developed the concept of common law so early. I also find it really intriguing that out of all things, London coffeehouse culture enabled English people to embrace Enlightenment ideals and become even more deeply entrenched in their free-thinking ways.
Some of my hobbies include: Soccer, video games, learning more about my Myers-Briggs type (no seriously, I'm that obsessed), and recording gameplay footage for my youtube channel.