The Development of the Coffeehouse
The first coffeehouse in London was established in 1652 by "Pasqua Rosee in St Michael's Alley, Cornhill London" (Satin 167). Rosee was a native of Turkey and was familiar with brewing coffee. Accounts of his move to London and how he set up his coffeehouse are varied, but what is certain is that he created the first coffeehouse in London and most likely the first in all of England. Some accounts claim an earlier coffeehouse in Oxford, but others declare this a false lead and that it is more likely coffee was consumed by some at home in Oxford (Ellis 30, Satin 164). From this auspicious beginning, hundreds of coffeehouses sprung up all over London and, eventually, all of the British Isles.
Initiating a new form of public institution requires a great deal of innovation or a previous example on which to adapt. Coffeehouses opted for the second situation. "Coffeehouses did not look much different from taverns or alehouses on the outside, or even on the inside" (Cowan 79). An atmosphere similar to one that was well established allowed coffeehouse visitors to feel immediately comfortable in spite of the very different drink being served. "In contrast to their role in Ottoman life, the coffeehouse of England could make no claim to be the first secular public meeting places for taverns had been around for hundreds of years; the difference was that they were sober establishments, where men of reputation and high social standing could meet others from all walks of life" (Wild 86). This distinction of the coffeehouse as a sober establishment made it a much more productive environment for scientific and political discussions that would not be impassioned by alcohol, but merely righteous intellectual passion.
Tracking the number of coffeehouses in London is a challenge because of the sheer number along with those that changed name, owner or location often. "One certain figure is the eighty-two coffeehouse keepers discovered by the City of London magistrates in 1663" (Ellis 172). A problem with this statistic is that it only covers the one square mile of the City of London and excludes Southwark, Westminster, and other neighborhoods that made up the greater London area. "By 1700 there were five hundred whose names are known, perhaps nearly as many as taverns" (Sommerville 77). Regardless of the exact number, it is obvious that coffee was widely pervasive in London during this time. Beyond the numbers are the wide variety of types of coffeehouses that existed. "Coffeehouses became associated with specific trades..[those] catering to a particular clientele, or dedicated to a given subject, were often clustered together in the same neighborhood" (Standage 152). The wide variety allowed many men to open their own businesses as coffeehouse keepers and offered a wide variety from which men could select the coffeehouse that fit their social, political and academic aspirations on any given day.
The Functions of the Coffeehouse
The coffeehouse was run by a coffeehouse keeper who acted as the general host for the establishment. The host's duties were basically to manage the coffeehouse and the many apprentices who worked there in addition to making the coffee. "Among the coffee-man's primary duties was roasting coffee beans, for it was this above all else that gave his coffee its character" (Ellis 118). Coffee beans were brought dried, but not roasted, which allowed each coffeehouse keeper to put their individual stamp on the drink. Different techniques of roasting beans no doubt created different flavors. Attempting to track this type of information is nearly impossible. For these early European coffee drinkers, it would be difficult to distinguish variations in a drink they did not know. Nevertheless, each individual coffeehouse had the opportunity to create their own unique blend, quite similar to today's major coffee franchises.
The coffeehouse became so widespread in London that the coffee-boys who worked there were officially registered as apprentices with their City guild. They were the lowest employees of the coffeehouse and, as such, bore the greatest number of responsibilities beyond simply refilling cups of coffee. "Their work extended further, however, to include many other duties for the master of the house, such as preparing coffee under his orders, cleaning and carrying, and for the customers, fetching pipes and newspapers, taking messages and running errands around the neighborhood" (Ellis 112). Not much is written about whether any of these coffee-boys went on to own their own coffeehouse, but they existence was crucial to the success of the coffeehouse.
Outside of the physical coffeehouse, an important factor in the daily functions of the coffeehouse was the interactions with the government. "Coffeehouses were regulated through the same system of licensing used for public houses that specialized in the sale of alcoholic drinks, such as alehouses and taverns" (Cowan 184). Licensing was an integral step in making coffeehouses official and recognized by the presiding government. It was because of these licenses that Charles II was unable to close the coffeehouses in 1675, in spite of his best efforts. Coffeehouses had become so integrated to everyday life that they could not be removed without a fight by the general population. In spite of the association with taverns through licensing, coffeehouses had their own identity. "To add the qualifier 'coffeehouse' to the name of a new public house was to almost instantly identify that place with the new urban civility" (Cowan 145). New coffeehouses were imbibed with expectations based on previous successful coffeehouses. Licenses were important for the security they provided coffeehouse keepers and the acceptance by the general public as an official and approved institution.
Social and Political Significance
Coffeehouses were immediately significant for the magnetic pull they had on customers. "A major advantage to coffeehouse sociability was its relative ease, cheapness, and frequency. One could visit a coffeehouse, or several of them, either daily as a part of a regularized routine or spontaneously without much forethought or effort" (Cowan 104). This ease was felt by many intelligent and influential men of the time who made a particular coffeehouse their home away from home. "Businessmen met with other businessmen and academics met with other academics" (Satin 164). At the coffeehouses around the Royal Exchange, many businessmen were known to keep regular hours at particular coffeehouses. In the time before private offices were established, coffeehouses filled the needs of these men. They could have messages sent out from the coffeehouse, letters delivered to them there and conduct their daily business all while enjoying a dish of coffee.
While they may have initially visited to try the newest hot beverage, the sober environment of the coffeehouse kept the academically minded returning. "Coffeehouses were centers of self-education, literary and philosophical speculation, commercial innovation, and, in some cases, political fermentation" (Standage 157). Men with learning in varying fields of science could come together and discuss their impressions with someone's latest experiment or the development of a particular theory. A wise bystander could simply listen and receive the equivalent of a university lecture. "The sociability of the coffeehouse proved attractive to natural philosophers and other scientists too. Meeting there, they found, was a fruitful way to transact their research, discover new facts and test hypotheses Coffeehouses, in short, were a tool of the experimental method." (Ellis 157). By transacting their research and utilizing the coffeehouse as a step in their experiments, the natural philosophers of the day created a reputation for the coffeehouse as a place ripe with the opportunity to learn. The coffeehouse is responsible for some important political concepts as well. "The idea of the secret ballot, the one-man-one-vote concept that lies at the heart of democracy" and others were embraced by the patrons of London's coffeehouses.
All this is not to say that coffeehouses were always centers of perfect civility. Naturally, when strong opinions were exchanged, tempers could easily become heated. "Discourse was often disrupted by destructive and uncongenial tendencies" (Ellis 62). This was especially true of the coffeehouses with political orientations. Rules were often accepted as implicit and rules governing personal conduct were not always followed by patrons. In 1674, an ironic poem by Paul Greenwood, entitled 'The Rules and Orders of the Coffeehouse'. "Greenwood's poem drily mocked the social practices in the coffeehouse" (Ellis 60). This broadside has been taken by some as a true example of their rules, but the heavy satire in the poem clearly indicates its humorous nature. This is important only because of expectations for coffeehouses. Patrons expected particular qualities from the coffeehouse, and the coffeehouse keeper expected particular behaviors from his patrons. This mutual social agreement was an important development in the history of public houses.
Coffeehouses were a challenge for the presiding government. While they were submissive in the sense that they paid for licenses, the daily occurrences and the discussions of patrons were beyond the control of the coffeehouse keeper and the government. "In countries ruled by monarchies or dictators, coffeehouses always came under the state's scrutiny because of the fear that group gatherings might generate new, revolutionary ideas that could threaten the state's stability or existence" (Satin 163). These ideas would occur regardless of the existence coffeehouse, but the government picked up on the fact that intoxicated men may talk of action, but little ever comes of it, whereas intelligent, sober men are capable of a great deal. The reoccurring negative opinion of coffeehouses held by the government are somewhat ironic because of the service they provided for the state. "The office of the Secretary of State had well-established networks of correspondents who functioned as domestic spies, reporting on the state of popular opinion" (Ellis 89). Where better to gather a variety of public opinions than in the coffeehouse? If problematic individuals could be identified, the government could work on the offensive rather than defensive. While this completely contradicts the belief of the coffeehouse as a free and equal place for the discussion of ideas, theories, and news, it was an aspect surely utilized by the government of the time.
All this is not to say that coffeehouses were always centers of perfect civility. Naturally, when strong opinions were exchanged, tempers could easily become heated. "Discourse was often disrupted by destructive and uncongenial tendencies" (Ellis 62). This was especially true of the coffeehouses with political orientations. Rules were often accepted as implicit and rules governing personal conduct were not always followed by patrons. In 1674, an ironic poem by Paul Greenwood, entitled 'The Rules and Orders of the Coffeehouse'. "Greenwood's poem drily mocked the social practices in the coffeehouse" (Ellis 60). This broadside has been taken by some as a true example of their rules, but the heavy satire in the poem clearly indicates its humorous nature. This is important only because of expectations for coffeehouses. Patrons expected particular qualities from the coffeehouse, and the coffeehouse keeper expected particular behaviors from his patrons. This mutual social agreement was an important development in the history of public houses.
Coffeehouses were a challenge for the presiding government. While they were submissive in the sense that they paid for licenses, the daily occurrences and the discussions of patrons were beyond the control of the coffeehouse keeper and the government. "In countries ruled by monarchies or dictators, coffeehouses always came under the state's scrutiny because of the fear that group gatherings might generate new, revolutionary ideas that could threaten the state's stability or existence" (Satin 163). These ideas would occur regardless of the existence coffeehouse, but the government picked up on the fact that intoxicated men may talk of action, but little ever comes of it, whereas intelligent, sober men are capable of a great deal. The reoccurring negative opinion of coffeehouses held by the government are somewhat ironic because of the service they provided for the state. "The office of the Secretary of State had well-established networks of correspondents who functioned as domestic spies, reporting on the state of popular opinion" (Ellis 89). Where better to gather a variety of public opinions than in the coffeehouse? If problematic individuals could be identified, the government could work on the offensive rather than defensive. While this completely contradicts the belief of the coffeehouse as a free and equal place for the discussion of ideas, theories, and news, it was an aspect surely utilized by the government of the time.
The Role of Women in Coffeehouse Culture
Like the majority of
aspects of history, there very differing opinions held by historians as to the
role of women in the coffeehouse. While there are renowned female coffeehouse
keepers, the coffeehouse, in the intellectual and social sense, was primarily
male-oriented. Some records survive of exceptional instances when women got
together to discuss politics, philosophy and other such subjects, which were
called women’s coffeehouses. “Had women been considered a familiar part of the
usual coffeehouse milieu, there would have been little point in remarking upon
the existence of a special coffeehouse for ladies” (Cowan 229). The women who
were accepted as part of the coffeehouse scene were often looked upon with
suspicion. “Many depictions of the coffeehouse show the coffee-woman surrounded
by male admirers, as if she was placed there simply to entice customers into
staying longer. Others saw her presence as a threat to moral order, arguing
that her seductive charms were a threat to lead the coffee drinkers into vice”
(Ellis 110). The association of female coffeehouse workers with questionable
moral activities further suggests the primarily male orientation of the
establishment. While it is true that some coffeehouses were given over to
prostitution in both England and the Near East before that, the majority of the
records that survive present a more respectable institution. Nevertheless, one
particularly devoid of females.
The criticisms of coffeehouses go hand in hand with the criticisms of coffee. Coffee was considered suspect, as previously established, because of the novelty of a hot beverage and the obviously pronounced physical effects. By primarily serving this drink, coffeehouses were disapproved of by some. Men who frequented coffeehouses were accused of being lazy and unproductive. "It was not an expensive habit except in terms of time spent; one could stay two or three hours for no more than a penny for the first "dish" of coffee" (Sommerville 77). This contrast of monetary cost versus time cost demonstrates the changing opinions of the value of time. Sitting at the coffeehouse reading newspapers, drinking a possibly unhealthy drink, and talking with strangers was not looked upon as a productive daily activity.
Women famously complained against coffeehouses for keeping their husbands away from the house for such long hours. The 'Women's Petition against Coffee' was a broadside published in 1674 which, among other things, accused coffeehouses of making their husbands impotent (Wild 90). This resulted in a flurry of broadsides exchanged by "women" and "men" accusing and defending the consumption of coffee. An important point on the side of the women was the note that coffee did little to help after hours spent at the tavern.
Criticisms of Coffeehouses
The criticisms of coffeehouses go hand in hand with the criticisms of coffee. Coffee was considered suspect, as previously established, because of the novelty of a hot beverage and the obviously pronounced physical effects. By primarily serving this drink, coffeehouses were disapproved of by some. Men who frequented coffeehouses were accused of being lazy and unproductive. "It was not an expensive habit except in terms of time spent; one could stay two or three hours for no more than a penny for the first "dish" of coffee" (Sommerville 77). This contrast of monetary cost versus time cost demonstrates the changing opinions of the value of time. Sitting at the coffeehouse reading newspapers, drinking a possibly unhealthy drink, and talking with strangers was not looked upon as a productive daily activity.
Women famously complained against coffeehouses for keeping their husbands away from the house for such long hours. The 'Women's Petition against Coffee' was a broadside published in 1674 which, among other things, accused coffeehouses of making their husbands impotent (Wild 90). This resulted in a flurry of broadsides exchanged by "women" and "men" accusing and defending the consumption of coffee. An important point on the side of the women was the note that coffee did little to help after hours spent at the tavern.
Coffeehouses also faced somewhat harsh comparisons to taverns. "The tavern was thought of as a place where one came to find companionship, conviviality, approval; one went to the coffeehouse for stimulation and debate. Tavern politics was a matter of drinking healths to one's leaders, while the coffeehouse was a forum for political criticism" (Sommerville 76). Naturally, as the physical setup of the coffeehouse was based on that of the tavern, the similarities would be drawn. Another difference between the two institutions was that you may get in a fist fight at a tavern, but you may create a plot to depose the king at a coffeehouse. None of these criticisms seemed to deter the population from patronizing coffeehouses. Or at least it did not deter enough of the population to make a difference in their success.
Popular Works Addressing Coffeehouses
 |
| A Coffee-House Dialogue, 1679 |
The history of this pamphlet is somewhat mysterious. The actual author is unknown, it has been attributed to the wrong author, along with the responding pamphlet, and does not even have a known date. However, this pamphlet is unique in the minimal effort required to set the stage for the following debate. Simply by calling it A Coffee-House Dialogue, the reader is immediately able to picture the scene unfolding before them. This work is an imaginary conversation between a Captain and a young lawyer regarding a recently passed bill. While the writing is clear enough to understand, it is not extremely useful without the context, such as the exact issues addressed by the bill. The men refer to a great number of people and writings that, no doubt, were very important for this timely pamphlet. The most important connection to coffeehouses is the way in which it is used to create the environment for the content of this work.
 |
| London Spy, Edward Ward, 1698 |
The London Spy was an eccentric anecdotal account of the "low tavern life of London" (Von Huenersdorff 1591). Edward "Ned" Ward was a prolific humorist and satirist. "He had found his talent to lie in the description of low life in London and specialized in character sketches" (Sommerville 146). While not exclusive to coffeehouses, the Spy contains amusing depictions of several coffeehouses. In fact, the first and second issues visited coffeehouses and "Ward soon found that there was no better microcosm of the bustling metropolis" (Sommerville 149). It is also a contemporary source that suggested that women who visit coffeehouses were mainly prostitutes (Cowan 252). A number of issues make up the two, large, bound volumes which were all intended to go together. Ward was the host of the King's Head Tavern and, as such, was intimately familiar with the public houses of London. He was known to "oscillate back and forth between alehouse and coffeehouse" (Waller 207). This is an important contemporary work for the details it provides about daily life of these locales. This borderline satire provides valuable insight into areas about which not much is written.
Prominent Coffeehouse Clients
The hundreds of coffeehouses that spread throughout London in the second-half of the seventeenth century drew thousands of men on a daily basis. These men ranged from merchants to Lords and all manner in between. The great draws, including news, discussion, and coffee, managed to bring together many intelligent and influential men. The three examples here include Samuel Pepys, James Harrington, and John Dryden. All three of these men were highly involved in their individual coffeehouses as well as the social and political climate of the time.
 |
| The Diary of Samuel Pepys, 1893 |
 |
| Engraving of Samuel Pepys |
 |
| A Discourse... |
 |
| Harrington, A Discourse... |
 |
| Absalom and Achitophel |
 |
| A Poem by Dryden |
John Dryden was particularly influential within the circle of literary coffeehouses. He was the most famous patron of his day of "Will's coffeehouse in Covent Garden, where for three decades the poet John Dryden and his circle reviewed and discussed the latest poems and plays" (Standage 153). This particular work was a well-known satire. It is easy to imagine him at Will's writing his latest work, "sitting on the balcony in the summer and in his favorite chair by the fire in the winter months" (Waller 198). This work was chosen as an example of a famous work by a popular poet who was important for the popularity of a particular coffeehouse. Because of Dryden's fame, his seal of approval carried a great deal of weight which made Will's quite popular.
Coffeehouse Catalogs
 |
| A Catalogue of Books |
As an extension of the services offered at particular coffeehouses, auctions, particularly of books, would take place. "The coffeehouse became one of the premier sites for the emergence of the English auction...in 1676 the first auction of books was held in London" (Cowan 134). The list of this particular auction includes 31 books. In this instance, the long titles are a benefit because they provide a description of the work without having to write separate annotations. This a very brief, 6 page list of books to be sold. It seems rather ordinary, which is extraordinary because it was saved. Ephemeral works such as this, which could have seemed useless after the auction, are all the more exciting today that they survived. The catalogue of this auction, just 17 years after the first auction of books, presents insight into the books held as important by the members of this coffeehouse.
 |
| A Catalogue of Rarities |
 |
| First page of A Catalogue of Rarities |
Don Saltero's Coffeehouse was owned by James Salter. His coffee house was "home to a collection of curiosities displayed in seventeen glass-fronted cases" (Wild 92). The items included in this catalogue are incredibly diverse. 293 items are listed, ranging from "A Whale's Tooth" to "A Nun's Whip". The majority of the items come from the natural world, or at least the natural world as they wanted to believe existed. Like saints relics, many of the 'rarities' were most likely faked and present only to garner attention for a unique collection. Salter also utilized his space to offer services as a barber's shop. Following his death in 1728, his daughter expanded the collection of rarities to turn it into something of a museum. This particular copy is the fourth edition of this list, which had no doubt expanded since the first catalogue. This serves as a reminder for other types of services that coffeehouses introduced to make themselves unique and draw customers.
