It is doubtful to whom we owe the introduction of this article of luxury into Europe. The plant is a native of that part of Arabia called Yemen, but we find no mention made of it until the sixteenth century; and it is believed that Leonhart Rauwolf, a German physician, was the first writer who spoke of it, in a work published in 1573. The plant was also described by Prosper Alpinus, in his treatise on Egyptian plants, published in 1591 and 1592. Pietro della Valle wrote from Constantinople in 1615 that he would teach Europe the manner in which the Turks made their cahuÉ. This spelling was no doubt incorrect; for, in a pamphlet printed at Oxford in 1659, in Arabic and English, it is written kauhi, or coffee. Purchas, who was a contemporary of Della Valle, called it coffa; and Burton thus speaks of its use: “The Turks have a drink called coffa, so named of a berry as black as soot and as bitter, which they sip still of, and sup as warm as they can suffer. They spend much time in their coffa-houses, which are somewhat like our alehouses and taverns, and there they sit chatting and drinking to drive away the time and to be merry together, because they find by experience that kinde of drink so used helpeth digestion and procureth alacrity.”

The first coffee-house opened in London was in 1652. A Turkey merchant, of the name of Edwards, having brought with him from the Levant some coffee and a Greek servant, he allowed him to prepare and sell this beverage; when he established a house in St. Michael’s Alley, Cornhill, on the spot where the Virginia Coffee-house now stands. Garraway’s was the first coffee-house opened after the fire in 1666. It appears, however, that coffee was used in France in 1640; and a sale of it was opened at Marseilles in 1671.

The introduction of this berry was furiously opposed; and it appears that in its native land it was treated with no less severity, since, in an Arabian MS. in the King of France’s library, coffee-houses were suppressed in the East. In 1663 appeared a pamphlet against it, entitled “A Cup of Coffee, or Coffee in its Colours.” In 1672 the following lines were to be found in another publication, “A Broadside against Coffee, or the Marriage of the Turk:”

Confusion huddles all into one scene,
Like Noah’s ark, the clean and the unclean.
For now, alas! the drench has credit got,
And he’s no gentleman who drinks it not.

Then came “The Woman’s Petition against Coffee,” which appeared in 1674, in which we find the following complaint: “It made men as unfruitful as the deserts whence that unhappy berry is said to be brought, so much so, that the offspring of our mighty ancestors would dwindle into a succession of apes and pigmies; and on a domestic message a husband would stop by the way to drink a couple of cups of coffee.” It was then sold in convenient pennyworths;—hence coffee-houses where wits, quidnuncs, and idlers resorted, were called “penny universities.”

While it had adversaries, coffee was not left without eloquent advocates. Sir Henry Blount, in his Organon Salutis, 1659, thus speaks of it: “This coffa-drink has caused a great sobriety among all nations. Formerly apprentices, clerks, &c. used to take their morning-draughts in ale, beer, or wine, which often made them unfit for business. Now they play the good-fellows in this wakeful and civil drink. The worthy gentleman, Sir James Muddiford, who introduced the practice hereof in London, deserves much respect of the whole nation.”

It appears, however, that the jealousy with which the use of coffee was viewed, even by the government, arose more from the nature of the conversations that took place in coffee-houses during moments of public excitement, than from the apprehension of any injury that its consumption might have caused to the public health. In the reign of Charles II. coffee-houses were shut up by a proclamation, issued in 1675, as the retailing of coffee “nourished sedition, spread lies, scandalized great men, and might therefore be considered a common nuisance.” As a nuisance, its abolition was considered as not being an infringement of the constitution! Notwithstanding this Machiavellian torturing of the letter to serve the spirit, this arbitrary act occasioned loud and violent discontent; and permission was given to reopen coffee-houses, on condition that the landlords should not allow any scandalous papers containing scandalous reports against the government or great men to be read on their premises!

The use, or rather the abuse, of coffee is said to produce feverish heat, anxiety, palpitations, trembling, weakness of sight, and predisposition to apoplexy. Its effects in checking somnolence have been long known. However, the action of this berry differs according to its being roasted or raw. An infusion of torrefied coffee assists digestion, and frequently removes headaches resulting from derangement in the digestive functions. It also neutralizes the effect of narcotics, especially opium, and this power is increased by the addition of lemon juice. A similar mixture has been known to cure obstinate agues. Musgrave and Percival recommended its use in asthma: indeed, most persons who labour under this distressing malady seem to derive relief from its use.

Taking into consideration all that has been advanced in regard to the inconveniences that may attend the use of coffee and tea, they must be considered as overruled by the moral results that have arisen from the introduction of these beverages; and a late writer has observed, that it has “led to the most wonderful change that ever took place in the diet of civilized nations,—a change highly important both in a moral and physical point of view. These beverages have the admirable advantage of affording stimulus without producing intoxication.” Raynal observes, that the use of tea has contributed more to the sobriety of the Chinese than the severest laws, the most eloquent discourses, or the best treatises on morality.

The quality and effects of coffee differ according to the manner in which it is roasted. Bernier states that when he was at Cairo there were only two persons in that great city who knew how to prepare it to perfection. If it be underdone, its virtues will not be imparted, and its infusion will load and oppress the stomach; if it be overdone, its properties will be destroyed, and it will heat the body, and act as an astringent.

The best coffee is the Mocha, or that which is commonly called Turkey coffee. It should be chosen of a greenish, light, olive hue; the berries of a middling size, clean, and plump.

The bad effects of coffee may in all likelihood be attributed both to its powerful and stimulating aroma and to its pungent acidity. According to Cadet, this acid is the gallic; while Grindel considers it the kinic, and Pfaff terms it the caffeic acid. When strongly heated, it yields a pyro-caffeic acid, from which may be obtained a most pungent vinegar, that has recently been thrown into trade, but, I believe, with little or no success.

The principle of coffee is the caffein, discovered by Robiquet, in 1821; and it is to this active principle that its beneficial or baneful effects can be attributed. Recent experiments tend to show that it is possessed of powerful febrifuge virtues. To obtain this result, raw coffee has been used. It gives to water a greenish hue, and, thus saturated, it has been called the citrine coffee. Grindel has used this preparation in the treatment of intermittent fevers in the Russian hospital of Dorpat; he also administered the raw coffee in powder. In eighty cases of this fever scarcely any resisted the power of this medicine, given either in decoction, powder, or extract; but he seems to consider the latter form the most effectual. From this physician’s observations, coffee may become a valuable addition to our materia medica; and the homoeopathic practitioners maintain that they have employed it with great success in various maladies.