Abstract: To what extent did the Habermasian ideal of the public sphere materialize in the culture of the late 17th and early 18th century London coffeehouse? This paper presents evidence which suggests that the normative public sphere, as first defined by Habermas, was not entirely actualized in every realm of coffeehouse culture. There is clear indication that certain elements of the normative public sphere were met in the coffeehouse, however my evidence also suggests that other elements were not. In particular, for example, there is clear indication that the coffeehouse was a center for scholarship and rational discussion, but there is a suggested exclusion of minority figures in these discussions. In this paper I will first define the concept of public sphere as described by Habermas in his 1980 publication. Next I will review my findings on the actual situations of various London coffeehouses during the period. Finally I will argue that in general, the Habermasian ideal was only partially present in the culture of the London coffeehouse.
Keywords: public sphere; coffeehouse; London; Habermas; public opinion; ideal; actual; 17th and 18th centuries.
The London Coffeehouse as Public Sphere
In 1962, Habermas argued that the public sphere first materialised in the West in the London coffeehouse. Late 17th and early 18th century London saw the gradual decline of royalty, and the subsequent rise of bourgeois culture. The predominance of this new culture was strengthened by particular institutions all serving the same social functions. Among those institutions was the London coffeehouse, which, during its golden age between 1680 and 1730, was the space that fostered establishment of the English public sphere, and, according to Habermas, was the first instance of the public sphere in the West.
To what extent did the public sphere, as Habermas first described it, materialize in the culture of the London coffeehouse during its golden age? This paper serves to investigate the actual presence of the public sphere in English coffeehouse culture -- the aspects of coffeehouse life which satisfy key elements of Habermas’s definition of the public sphere, and other aspects which do not.
I will examine two pamphlets published during Restoration London that raised hostile objections to the coffeehouse and the new coffee drink. Afterwards, I will give attention to a particular space of coffeehouse culture, the scientific coffeehouse of the 1670s, on account of Robert Hooke’s diary. Then, I will present Cesar de Saussure’s account of the coffeehouse as given to us in his letters that were written during early 18th century Georgian London. Lastly I will consider the observations of coffeehouse life recorded by Joseph Addison and Richard Steele in The Spectator, their 1711-1712 periodical.
De Saussure’s letters and The Spectator will serve to illustrate the general life of the coffeehouse, which will provide further insight into my more specific inquiries of the scientific coffeehouse and the situations of particular coffeehouse attendees. Providing a more nuanced view of coffeehouse culture, the analysis of the scientific coffeehouse and the situations of particular coffeehouse attendees will serve to further inform to what extent the public sphere materialized.
Before giving consideration to these findings, I will survey Habermas’s concept of public sphere as the normative ideal to which he claims the golden age of the London coffeehouse in fact corresponds.
Normative Public Sphere
Habermas defines the public sphere as a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed. He describes it as “a sphere which mediates between society and state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion.” Habermas proposes eight necessary conditions that must be met in order for a public sphere to be present. I will consider each separately.
Habermas firstly asserts that the public sphere is necessarily separated from government. He writes that “although state authority is, so to speak, the executor of the political public sphere, it is not a part of it.” State authority, as mere executor, is only tasked with the caring for and wellbeing of its citizens.
In the political public sphere, access is guaranteed to all citizens regardless of social class, gender, race, age, etc. Along similar lines, freedom of expressing opinion is tolerated and often encouraged. By definition, the public sphere presupposes 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.”
In order for a social sphere to be considered a public sphere, it is necessary for private interests to be bracketed. Habermas states that “a portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body." In setting aside private interests and forming a public body, such gathered individuals “behave neither like business people or professional people transacting private affairs.”
The common ground that remains after the bracketing of private interests is a condition for the possibility of rational debate. Hence, public rationality is a consequence of successful communication, i.e. the identification of a common ground. Habermas maintains that “public opinion can by definition only come into existence when a reasoning public is presupposed.”
In the public sphere, the public is the “bearer of public opinion,” bearer of the tasks of criticism and control which a public body exercises vis-a-vis the ruling structure of the state. Additionally, Habermas contends that government is transparent and willing to provide information on affairs of state. 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." That is, when political control is in the hands of the public, the public has influence over the government.
Habermas notes that in a large public body, communication requires specific means for transmitting information and influencing those who receive it. Access to information is thus granted in several forms of media communication. Common contemporary means, according to the Habermas, include newspapers and magazines, but also radio and television.
With all things considered, it might be said that the public sphere is a mode of social being in which communication may occur between all persons. The concept of public sphere has eight general conditions described by Habermas, and we will soon see to what extent these conditions were met in the social reality of the London coffeehouse. Did the life of the coffeehouse lie in contrast to Habermas’s normative ideal?
Hate for Coffee
It goes without saying that people of many different walks of life frequented the coffeehouse, but to what extent were all persons attending included in public discussion? The first coffeehouse owner for instance, Pasqua Rosee, was of Turkish origin. Merchant Daniel Edwards brought Rosee to London with him from Smyrna, and eventually sponsored the establishment of Rosee’s coffee business. Established in 1652, Rosee’s coffeehouse was the first in London.
The predominance of the coffeehouse coincided with the rise of republicanism in London during the Interregnum. Some writers during the period argued that the coffeehouse was one of the first signs of the ‘depravity’ of republican London. The critical discussion oriented format of the establishment made the coffeehouse an important center for royal opposition, and this, supplemented with a new Puritan rule and the consequent decline of taverns and ale-houses, caused the popularity of the coffeehouse to boom.
Nevertheless, Rosee and his new drink faced harsh criticism and hostility from some, which was likely rooted in a long-standing political fear of the Ottoman Empire. This Turkish abhorrence is vividly expressed in the broadside ballad against coffee, known as Marriage of the Turk. In the 1672 poem, the English fear of the Turk is revealed through a fear of coffee, which is thoroughly expressed through the poem’s hostile language and demeaning metaphor.
The drink’s presence in Christendom threatened to undermine English Christianity and the integrity of its culture -- coffee became impure, irreligious, and unholy. The fairness and purity of water was to the English as the darkness of coffee was to the Turkish -- they were irreconcilable substances. “Coffee, a kind of Turkish Renegade, Has late a match with Christian water made,” expresses the author. The growing social potency of the new beverage made writers worried that its imbibers would ‘turn Turk.’ The union of English and Turkish culture was unwelcome, and by that so was their coffee drink.
The language of the poem positions coffee as a fundamental threat to English identity. “Too swarthy for a Nymph so fair,” writes the author describing coffee as it stands to the innocent English nymph. Coffee was too dark of a substance for the fair skin of the nymph, alternatively, for the purity of English water.
The difficult task of dissolving the coffee bean in water symbolically expresses the unwanted union of Turkish and English culture. While the “melting Nymph distills herself to do’t, the Slave Coffee must be beaten to’t.” The ‘slave coffee’ must be beaten and ground with force in order to dissolve successfully into the fine and easily distilling water.
The author later uses a language of explicit distaste for the Turkish. “Which for a truth, and not a story tells, No Faith is to be kept with Infidels,” the author exclaims. The author is working to persuade the reader that since unbelievers should not be associated with, and coffee was indeed brought to the land by those very unbelievers, coffee should not be consumed.
The author continues, recording the accented speech of the Turkish coffeeman, so as to demean his character. “Ver boon for de stoamch, de Cough, de Physick,” and “Me no good Engalash!” writes the author, mocking the coffeeman’s manner of speech. The poem makes the attempt to present the Turkish coffeeman in a discrediting light in order to discredit his coffee altogether.
The poem presents the merging of English waters with Turkish coffee as an impossibility, or an undesirability at least. It is an objection to the marriage of English water with Turkish coffee, and, more fundamentally, a fervent disavowing of the Turkish person and his culture. It is a ballad against coffee on account of deeper cultural and political antagonisms.
Some accounts suggest that these oppositions were directed specifically at Pasqua Rosee mocking his demeanor and expressing disapproval of his Turkish origin. In any case, the poem illustrates a vivid picture of the position of the Turkish man in coffeehouse culture.
Turkish persons were not the only group with an identifiable presence in the coffeehouse. There were also certainly women in the coffeehouse, made clear by the fact that some women were even their proprietors. However, it is written by some authors that there are no reliable records of women participating in a public coffeehouse discussion in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The situation of women has elsewhere been described as more or less welcoming, and claims have been made that the surviving records provide evidence that, as noted, women owned and ran coffeehouses in London, Yarmouth, Dorchester, and Oxford. The accounts, it appears, are mixed.
The Women’s Petition Against coffee was a pamphlet published in London during the early years of the Restoration, nearly a decade after the first coffeehouse was established. Apparently the pamphlet was written by or on behalf of women, but many authorities agree it is quite possible that it was intended only as a political device against the coffeehouse. The pamphlet does voice complaints against coffee and the coffeehouse, but there is a lack of evidence that it was written by or representative of women at all.
A prevailing scientific theory of the time, and a well respected one at that, suggested that coffee might have adverse effects on the virility of men. The pamphlet rests its exaggerated claims on this conclusion.
The subtitle of the pamphlet, “Representing to Public Consideration the Grand Inconvenienies Accuring to their Sex from the Excessive Use of that drying, Enfeebling Liquor,” introduces its position quite well. The purpose of the pamphlet was to argue against the coffeehouse and consumption of the coffee drink on account of its presumed effects on men and the consequent inconveniences to the lives and marriages of women.
Before the coffeehouse was established, the author contends, city-wives were satisfied in their marital and sexual lives, but its new presence has caused them personal concerns. “The fame in our Apprehensions can consist in nothing more than the brisk Activity of our men, who in former Ages were justly esteemed the Ablest Performers in Christendom; But to our unspeakable Grief, we find of late a very sensible Decay of that true Old English Vigor,” the pamphlet exclaims. The author speaks on behalf of women, who, as it seems, were disappointed at the impotence of their husbands which, presumably, came about around the same time their husbands began spending more time in the coffeehouse.
The cause of this impotence, indeed, was the new coffee drink, according to the author. “The Occasion of which [...] we can Attribute to nothing more than the Excessive use of that Newfangled, Abominable, Heathenish Liquor called COFFEE,” the pamphlet contends. On the author’s account, it is coffee that has driven men to be unfruitful, and coffee that is to be thereby condemned.
In addition, the pamphlet maintains that, not only has coffee conditioned men to underperform in their sex lives, it has caused them to gossip and chatter like never before. “Men, by frequenting these Stygian Tap-houses, will usurp on our Prerogative of tattling, and soon learn to exceed us in Talkativeness, [...] For here like so many Frogs in a puddle, they sup muddy water, and murmur insignificant notes till half a dozen of them out-babble an equal number of us at a Gossipping,” the author argues. Coffee has built in men the habit of “talking all at once in Confusion, and running from point to point.”
The pamphlet follows with a rather hostile illustration of the appalling and fowl drink. Men’s palettes must have degenerated along with the rest of their being, else it would not be possible for such a drink to entice them away from their old ale-drinking habits, according to the author. Men are criticized by the author for spending their time and money on this “little base, black, thick, nasty, bitter, stinking, nauseous Puddle-water.” Poor as they might be, the author claims, “those that have scarce Twopence to buy their Children Bread, must spend a penny each evening on this Insipid Stuff.”
With these troubles considered, the author then petitions for political intervention. “We Humbly Pray, That you our Trusty Patrons would improve your Interest, that henceforth the Drinking COFFEE may on severe penalties be forbidden to all Persons under the Age of Threescore,” demands the author. The expressive pamphlet hopes to bring men out of the coffeehouse and back into the home, as, in the view of the wives, effective and responsible husbands.
Regardless of what these two pamphlets reveal about the accessibility of the English public sphere, it would be useful to develop an idea of the content of coffeehouse discussion, which was certainly present nonetheless. The Diary of Robert Hooke reveals detail about life in the scientific coffeehouse in particular.
Hooke and the Royal Society: The Scientific Coffeehouse
A memorial portrait of Hooke presented to the Department of Engineering Science at Oxford University in 2009.
Some London coffeehouses during Restoration London were central to scholarly activity, particularly in the sciences. Several scientific societies were “either formed in, or run from, coffee-houses.” Hooke’s diary indeed testifies to the centrality of the coffeehouse to English social life during the period.
Robert Hooke (1635-1703), Curator of Experiments for the Royal Society, was a crucial figure in the early days of the Royal Society. His diary reveals the importance of the coffeehouse to the newly developing scientific enterprise. Hooke went to a coffeehouse nearly every day, frequently visiting two or three in a day, and sometimes spending the whole day traipsing between several. Hooke was such a frequent visitor of the coffeehouse that between 1672 and 1680, it is written that he visited more than sixty. According to historian Markman Ellis, what drew Hooke to the establishment most was the company of like-minded men and the information they disseminated.
Hooke frequented several coffeehouses, including Man’s Coffeehouse in Chancery Lane, which was conveniently situated near the College of Physicians for doctors and medical men, and Child’s Coffeehouse in Warwick Lane. Among all of the coffeehouses, he most frequently visited Garraway’s and Jonathan’s, located near his dwelling in Gresham College, and not far from the Royal Exchange, in Exchange Alley.
According to his diary, at Gresham College, Hooke and the Royal Society held public lectures dedicated to presentations of scientific discoveries and experiments, but large audiences were rare, and he even emphasized that sometimes there was no audience at all. Ellis tells us that scientific discussion in the coffeehouse was popular, but noisy and exciting experiments attracted audiences like nothing else. Performing experiments in the coffeehouse afforded Hooke and the Royal Society the ability to demonstrate their empirical method to, and engage with, a wider audience.
Hooke used Garraway’s for meetings with fellows and officers of the Royal Society more often than anywhere else. At Garraway’s Hooke and other members of the Royal Society, such as its treasurer, Mr. Hill, and the mathematician John Collins conducted numerous experiments. “At Garraway’s I shewd Collins and Mr. Hill my way to trace the way of a Bullet by the help of a transparent glasse plate or Rete,” wrote Hooke in his diary on Thursday, 11, June 1674. On Thursday, 28 August 1679, Hooke wrote that John Beaumont, a geologist and later fellow of the Royal Society, “shewd his starr stones’ to a group of onlookers.”
Hooke also wrote of other eye-catching demonstrations. On Friday, 14 November 1679, for example, Hooke and another fellow of the society, John Houghton, found a dead porpoise in the city and informed fellow scientists, including Nehmiah Grew and Edward Tyson. The next day they purchased the porpoise and brought it to Garraway’s to carry out a dissection. “Opend fish at 3, fat skin, etc. drew figure," noted Hooke in his diary that day. After further study of the porpoise, Tyson published a noteworthy paper on the animal a year later.
Experiments like this were conducted daily at Garraway’s. Later, in 1675, Jonathan’s Coffeehouse opened across the alley, and Royal Society meetings began to take place there as well.
Hooke found that the atmosphere of the coffeehouse was much unlike what he was used to at Gresham College. Unlike the “intense atmosphere of austerity and hierarchy at Gresham College, Hooke discovered that coffee-houses “allowed business and pleasure to be conducted under the same roof.” For Hooke, the coffeehouses proved to be a crucial social space where the business of the Royal Society, and by that extenson the new experimental science, could be conducted. The coffeehouses allowed Hooke to interact and exchange with persons of all trades, including ordinary men, which showed to be critical to his scholarship, and to the early development of the Royal Society at large.
However, Hooke was often criticized for being excessively arrogant and aggressive in his exchanges. Astronomer John Flamsteed, for example, complained that “it is his nature to make contractions at random, and with little judgement, and to defend them with unproved assertions.” Despite the tremendously collaborative aspect of Hooke’s scholarship, his vanity often put him in tension with his collaborators.
It also goes unsaid by Hooke to what extent coffeehouse culture was inclusive to all persons. Hooke’s diary validates the existence of scholarly discourse in the coffeehouse, but there lacks clear indication of who was involved. A look at two eye-witness accounts might help to develop a more nuanced picture of coffeehouse life and reveal more on that end.
De Saussure and Mr. Spectator
Swiss traveler César de Saussure (1705-1783) painted a detailed view of London and the culture of its coffeehouses in letters he wrote to his family between 1725 and 1730. De Saussure gives an honest image of the coffeehouse, which in some cases corresponds to the haven of scholarship it often appears to be, and in other cases does not.
According to de Saussure, in London, there were a great number of coffeehouses. Most of the coffeehouses, he describes, were not “overly clean or well furnished,” due to the huge quantity of visitors frequenting daily, and “because of the smoke, which would quickly destroy good furniture.” De Saussure’s account suggests that the coffeehouse was a prominent institution in English life, and apparently not the cleanest.
De Saussure’s descriptions of patterns of behavior in the coffeehouse tell us more about its character. He writes that Englishmen, who were quite fond of drinking in general, found a likeness in the coffeehouse due to the many beverages it offered, which included “chocolate, tea, or coffee, and all sorts of liquors, served hot.” In many places, you could even have alcohol, such as wine, punch, or ale.
Another great attraction was the newspapers. “All Englishmen are great newsmongers,” writes de Saussure, further noting that it was the habit of working men to begin their day by going to the coffeehouse to catch up on the latest news. Even those of lower economic statuses eagerly sought news and discussion of it. “I have often seen shoeblaks and other persons of that class club together to purchase a farthing paper,” observed de Saussure. He often found entertainment in hearing this class of people discuss politics and topics of interest concerning royalty.
De Saussure observed that in these often quite intellectual discussions of politics and other affairs, collective interest was generally given precedence over particular personal interests. “You often see an Englishman taking a treaty of peace more to heart than he does his own affairs,” the author notes.
There were about a dozen different papers in London and the content of news ranged from foreign affairs to more immediate affairs of London life. Concerning news about domestic life, de Saussure claims that the article dated from London is always most important. This article contained news about marriages and deaths, the lives of distinguished persons and those involved in civil, military, and ecclesiastical employments, and even such things as a “quack” who “will advertise that he will cure all ailments,” or a husband who warns the public “not to lend or sell his wife anything on credit.” De Saussure tells us that “by reading these papers you know of all the gossip and everything that has been said and done in this big town.” The content of newspapers clearly ranged widely, from the very serious affairs of state, to the other less-so serious things we’ve mentioned.
Some papers expressed disapproval of domestic practices of government. This is made clear by many London publications such as The Craftsman and the Mist-journal which always commenced with a satirical speech composed of harsh criticisms of state ministries and government.
De Saussure also describes women in a rather depreciating light -- as a part of the coffeehouse that presumably rational and sober men were often beguiled and distracted by. He writes that in the coffeehouses in the neighborhood of Covent Garden, “you are waited on by beautiful, neat, well-dressed, and amiable, but very dangerous nymphs.” Women were certainly present, but by de Saussure’s account, they were not of much consideration beyond their charming qualities.
De Saussure’s observations capture various aspects of life in the actual London coffeehouse. Some coffeehouses, De Saussure concludes, “are a resort for learned scholars and for wits; others are the resort of dandies or of politicians, or again of professional newsmongers; and many others are temples of Venus.”
News, as De Saussure makes the point, was a huge part of life in the coffeehouse. The period and surrounding contexts of when De Saussure traveled the streets of London was pivotal in the history of printing. For the first time, the severe restrictions on printing enforced by royal authority were lifted.
The lapse of the Licensing Act in 1695 in conjunction with the Triennial Act of 1694 produced ideal conditions for rapid growth in English political literature. The absence of restrictions permitted the publication of a wider range of political and religious subjects, and enabled such a growth in political literature to be possible. The heated political environment then present fueled this growth.
The Spectator, an undeniably popular London periodical, circulated quite prolifically in between 1711 and 1712. The publication made the argument that the instinctive sociability of man was the chief cause, and foremost effect of modern urban living. Modern life was in contrast to the isolated existence of the savage, or the strict obligations of feudal living; it consisted of highly civilized social relations among citizens built on trust and friendship, and the spaces of society where this sociability was seen most, Addison and Steele maintained, was the coffeehouse.
Addison and Steele used their fictional Mr. Spectator to depict life in the coffeehouse. Mr. Spectator went into the coffeehouse as early as six in the morning, and observed the bustling social life until midnight. He recorded his observations and then made speculations which would then be conveyed to the public in issues of the paper. Some authorities remark that The Spectator was at the forefront of efforts to reform society in its non-civil manners, and make it more like the refined and polite coffeehouse.
In the 49th issue of the publication, Mr. Spectator argues that the coffeehouse is indeed the place where man may delight in that convivial sociability that is so instinctive to him. He writes that “It is very natural for a man who is not turned for mirthful meetings of men, or assemblies of the fair sex, to delight in that sort of conversation which we find in coffee-houses.” Even if he was not to participate in conversation, “he can still be more agreeable in his company, as well as pleased in himself, in only being a hearer.”
According to The Spectator, in the coffeehouse, men of lower social classes delight in the same interests and passions as those in the higher ones. Mr. Spectator writes that “we are very curious to observe the behavior of great men and their clients; but the same passions and interests move men in lower spheres.” Mr. Spectator brings this point even further, so as to assert that, actually “men differ rather in the time of day in which they make a figure, than in any real greatness above one another.” Mr. Spectator continues with a description of a typical day in the coffeehouse, describing the particular men that attended.
Coffeehouse life began as early as six in the morning. Mr. Spectator writes that at this time, “my friend Beaver, the haberdasher, has a levee of more undissembled friends and admirers than most of the courtiers or generals of Great Britain.” All of these men are said to have newspaper in hand, but cannot draw their own conclusions about current affairs until Beaver has made his judgments.
At quarter of eight, Beaver begins to lose the attention of his audience, and at this time his presence is succeeded by students from the inns of court. Some of these students, Mr. Spectator says, come “ready dressed for Westminster,” while others come in their night-gowns. These assemblies could be found at coffeehouses adjacent to law offices located in the vicinity of Fleet Street, such as the Grecian, Squire’s, and Searle’s.
Later in the day came businessmen to transact affairs, and others who just fancied a good conversation with their fellow citizens. Mr. Spectator holds high regard for the later sort of men who “have no spirits too active to be happy, and well pleased in a private condition; nor complexions too warm to make them neglect the duties and relations of life. Of this sort are “all good fathers, generous brothers, sincere friends, and faithful subjects,” whose entertainments “are derived rather from reason than imagination.” Mr. Spectator argues that these men prefer not to gratify the moments they have in the coffeehouse with any particular passions or designs of their own -- their interests lie in the common.
Among the men of the coffeehouse is one Mr. Spectator named Eubulus, a culminating figure, representative of and embodying the most important virtues of coffeehouse civility. Eubulus “presides over the middle hours of the day, when this assembly of men meet together,” and exerts his noble qualities. Men of the coffeehouse held great veneration for his moral authority, so much that they spoke and acted after him even when not in his presence.
Coffeehouse life ceased between eleven and twelve at night. Mr. Spectator writes that Tom the Tyrant, the waiter of the particular coffeehouse he observes, pressures those remaining to leave, and gives orders to his servants to begin cleaning up for the night. This act concludes the day of the lively coffeehouse.
The Spectator held firmly that an important function of coffeehouse was to polish the manners of English society, and many writers tend to agree. After the civil distress felt during the 17th century during the English Civil War and the political instability that followed, the convivial manner of life found in the coffeehouse was one that many desired to be spread far and wide.
Final Analysis
The life of the coffeehouse has been examined through two anonymous pamphlets voicing criticisms against the institution, the eyes of Hooke, de Saussure, and Addison and Steele in The Spectator. Just what does this reveal in light of Habermas’ claims? To what extent did the public sphere, as first described by Habermas, materialize in the golden age of the London coffeehouse?
Newspapers appear to have been the foremost means of media communication during the time, and they were especially prominent in the coffeehouse. The Spectator is one example of a publication that was well circulated, this paper particularly between the years of 1711 and 1712. De Saussure also tells us that news was one of the predominant attractions of the coffeehouse, and that Englishmen were fierce newsmongers.
De Saussure’s letters in addition indicate that the coffeehouse was disjoint from any kind of government affairs. His description of certain notable publications of the time, such as the Mist-journal and The Craftsman which voiced criticisms against government and ministries in the form of satire, make this clear. These papers were provided to the public to read via the coffeehouse, like most newspapers were, revealing that state authority existed exteriorly to the institution.
Despite these considerations, none of my particular findings tell whether government communication was essentially transparent or not. De Saussure’s account of the content of news says nothing about domestic affairs of state, for example. News on affairs of state was limited to foreign issues, likely due to the king’s frequent efforts to suppress critical discussion of royal rule.
Regarding the presence of rationality and sobriety in the coffeehouse, our findings convey mixed accounts, but in general lean toward their presence. The heightened scientific discourse described by Hooke and the haven of civility illuminated by Mr. Spectator, for example, suggest a profound respectability and rationality to have been present in coffeehouse discussion. On the other hand, de Saussure tells us of coffeehouses that offer alcoholic beverages, The Women’s Petition Against Coffee propounds that men were excessive gossipers in the coffeehouse, and Hooke is noted for oftentimes acting in a considerably irrational manner.
Nonetheless, it is more or less certain, on the account of, for instance, the presence of opinionated publications like The Spectator, and Hooke’s description of his more fruitful interactions with a variety of men and and their ideas, that freedom of opinion was tolerated, and in most cases encouraged. Such made possible the development of public opinion, as exemplified by, once again, newspapers like the Mist-journal and The Craftsman, which, I reiterate, consisted of satirical criticisms of state. The extent of power of public opinion is not clear through our findings.
A recurrent theme in the sources examined is that private interests were most often successfully bracketed. De Saussure and The Spectator, for example, illustrate the coffeehouse as a place where the common good is the only good -- where particular passions are left behind with the aim of only general social improvement. Clearly however, there must be room left for the possibility that this was not always in every case true, but our findings don’t make this immediate.
The scientific coffeehouse appears most peculiar among those considered. Scientific circles were largely collaborative, and collective efforts were at their forefront. The aim was a development of scientific knowledge and innovation which made for a high tolerance of ideas. Many scientific societies were formed in or run from coffeehouses, including but not limited to the Royal Society. The ubiquity and collaborative strength of these societies suggests that the scientific enterprise as a whole had strong and unified efforts in its early days. This would not have been the case without the possibilities afforded through the presence of a public sphere.
On a contrary note, the two pamphlets we examined reveal something about the situations of minority figures in the coffeehouse. For one, A Broadside Against Coffee, clearly expresses a sort of hostility against Turkish persons, Pasqua Rosee in particular. Such being the case, it is not clear that ethinic or religious groups outside of Anglican Christianity had equal access to the English public sphere.
If The Women’s Petition Against Coffee was in fact written by women, or accurately representative of the attitude of women, then it might suggest that women were not very involved in coffeehouse discussion, on account of the spite it holds against the establishment. However, since it is not clear that the pamphlet was written by or representative of women at all, and quite the opposite, we cannot come to this conclusion. Thus, the situation of women, by my sources, remains more or less unclear.
In general, the Habermasian ideal of the public sphere may have not been properly materialized in the culture of the late 17th and early 18th century London coffeehouse, on account of, in particular, the suggested lack of inclusion of minority figures, and the uncertainty of whether the rest of Habermas’ rigid preconditions were met to their entire potential. The exact situation of women in particular remains unclear due to mixed suggestions. Nonetheless, many elements of the public sphere were instantiated, especially in coffeehouses frequented by scientific circles, and such was an important precondition for the early development of the modern empirical scientific enterprise.
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. New-York: D. Appleton & Company, 200 Broadway, 1853.
Anonymous. “A Broad-side Against Coffee; Or, the Marriage of the Turk.” London, 1672.
Anonymous. “The Women’s Petition Against Coffee.” London, 1674.
Armytage, WH. Coffee-Houses and Science. BMJ Publishing Group, 1960.
Cambridge University Library, Royal Greenwich Observatory, Ms. 1.50 (K). In Iliffe.
Charles II of England. “An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses,” Statutes of the Realm: Volume 5, 1628-80. Edited by John Raithby. Great Britain Record Commission, 1819.
De Saussure, César. A Foreign View of England in 1725-1729. London, John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1902.
Downie, J. A. Robert Harley and the Press: Propaganda and Public Opinion in the Age of Swift and Defoe. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1979.
Ellis, Markman. The Coffee-House: A Cultural History. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2004.
Habermas, Jürgen. The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. 1989.
Habermas, Jürgen. “The public sphere.” In A. Mattelart, & S. Sieglaub (Eds.), Communication and class struggle. International General, 1980.
Hooke, Robert. The Diary of Robert Hooke, 1672-1680. Edited by Henry W. Robinson and Walter Adams. London: Taylor and Francis, 1935.
Iliffe, Rob. “Material doubts: Hooke: Artisan Culture and the Exchange of Information in 1670s London.” British Journal for the History of Science, 28: 3: 98. September 1995.
Pincus, Steve. “Coffee Politicians Does Create: Coffeehouses and Restoration Political Culture.” The Journal of Modern History 67, no. 4. 1995.
Sue Sisneros, Katie. “The Abhorred Name of Turk: Muslims and the Politics of Identity in Seventeenth Century English Broadside Ballads.” Doctoral thesis, University of Minnesota, 2016.
Tyson, Edward. Phocaena, or The Anatomy of a Porpesse, dissected at Gresham College: with a Preliminary Discourse concerning Anatomy, and a Natural History of Animals. London: Benjamin Tooke, 1680.
About the Author
I am a second year transfer student at St. Lawrence studying philosophy and mathematics. I chose to enroll in London Coffeehouses because I was interested in reading about a specific context within which the philosophers writing during the modern period were a part of. I have also read a bit about the history of the coffeehouse in the west before, and I've always found it to be such an intriguing topic. This seminar made me a better writer and was very rewarding in so many other respects.
When I'm not studying, I like to read books, write, or play the piano. In addition, of course, I always enjoy indulging in a very large cup of that steaming black mud-water called coffee.