Brewed coffee came to Europe at the beginning of the 16th century, primarily through Egypt and Turkey.  Neither country had success cultivating coffee within their territory (la Roque, 1732; Douglas, 1727).  By the mid-17th century European countries, including England, Italy, The Netherlands and Portugal, started cutting out the middlemen by sourcing their coffee directly from Yemen[1].  This naturally made Europeans unpopular with the Ottoman empire as this transformed them from business partners into direct competitors. 

While the Yemenis freely admitted that coffee originated from Ethiopia[2] (la Roque, 1732[3]), early Europeans who ventured to Ethiopia failed to make any mention, and possibly didn’t encounter coffee, leading many to believe that the crop originated from Yemen.  Coffee may not have originally come from Yemen, but they were undoubtedly the first to actively cultivate it, with so much success that it would develop into a booming trade for them until the 18th century.

Interestingly enough, shortly after becoming direct trading partners with the Yemenis, the Europeans attempted to cultivate coffee abroad.  The English are attributed with cultivating coffee in Madraspatnam, today’s Madras in India in the mid-17th century[4]; while the Dutch introduced the cultivation of coffee around the same time to their colony in Batavia, modern day Java, in Indonesia (la Roque, 1732).  Although the Dutch were thought to have fared better than the English - as it was believed that the English had abandoned[5] their plants altogether by the 18th century - neither attempt was considered a success as both countries continued to rely on Yemen for meeting the growing demand for coffee at home[6] (la Roque, 1732).  

The universal lack of success in cultivating coffee abroad bred an interesting bout of paranoia.  It was believed, by some, that the “Arabians” were destroying the germinative properties of the seed before exporting the product, to deprive all other countries of growing the commodity.  Douglas (1727a) quite obviously did not believe these accusation, using sarcasm to point out that removing the husk was done not to sterilize the coffee, but rather to sell the coffee for a better price.  Others believed that the two beans within the shell were not two, but in fact a single seed split in two and that by separating the halves made it impossible for the seed to sprout.  Even if these accusations were true, la Roque (1732) and Douglas (1727a) point out that complete coffee cherries had been exported to Europe, directly refuting such assertions towards the “Arabians”.  Douglas (1727a) provides extensive retorts against these allegations – this issue or perhaps the authors who propagated it must have rubbed him the wrong way- with several examples, including his own experience in sprouting exported beans.  Amongst all the explanations given I enjoyed Mr. du Mont’s perspective the most:

Mr. du Mont was not alone in this opinion as many in Yemen were devoutly religious according to la Roque’s (1932) writings, giving one the impression that there was a general feeling that their faith safeguarded them and their trade.  

In a way nature did protect the Yemenis’ coffee monopoly for quite some time, as the Europeans needed to ship their goods around the southern tip of Africa.  This meant that coffee took several months, up to a year, to reach their European destinations, depending upon the events, e.g. sickness and repairs, and weather encountered underway.  

We know now that prolonged storage times can significantly influence not only a bean’s organoleptic quality, but also its viability.  The deteriorative effects of time were likely compounded by undesirable storage conditions encountered on merchant ships.  While I have yet to encounter firsthand accounts of these conditions, one can well imagine that travelling through equatorial climates would be quite warm and at sea quite humid.  These processing conditions are now employed in the making of monsooned coffee, where the absorption of moisture swells the beans, bestowing on them a larger paler, whitish appearance, as well as an earthen sensorial profile.  

The differences in appearance and sensory quality did not go unnoticed by the early European coffee community as seen by the statement given M. de Blegny:

As well as preferences expressed by de Jussieu:

These excerpts not only clearly demonstrate the preference for fresh coffee within Europe in the 18th century, but also the association of quality with the length of the trade routes.  Unfortunately, I have yet to encounter (in either historic or modern texts) how this mode of processing influences the beans’ germination potential.  Nevertheless, history strongly suggests that monsooning coffee significantly damages its ability to germinate, which along with coffee’s growing region, i.e. the coffee belt (±25° latitude), certainly contributed to the lore that the “Arabians” were sabotaging coffee’s viability for sprouting.  

As the beans were falsely believed to be sterile, many thought that the only way to cultivate coffee abroad was through a plant.  Although the Yemenis traded millions of coffee beans, they strictly forbade the export of any coffee plants (Douglas, 1727b).  This may seem strange, but such provisions were not uncommon at the time and were an attempt to protect local economies.  As exporting a coffee plant was seen as a serious offense, Douglas (1727b) mentions that it was accompanied by an equally harsh punishment[9], without specifying the nature. 

This makes it quite a contentious issue for some historic accounts to portray the Dutch as making off with one of Yemen’s coffee plants [10].  Douglas (1727b) suggests that this version of events is untrue and is mainly meant to historically smear the Dutch by portraying them as criminals.  While colonial practices are rarely considered ethical, there are several pieces of historical literature that suggest that the Dutch did not betray their Yemenis’ trading partners by exporting such a plant:

•  Mr. la Roque (1732) when he arrived in Moka in 1709 found that the Dutch had a factory within the city, suggesting that they had a good and a long-standing relationship with the local Yemeni government [13].

While it is not unlikely that someone at some point smuggled a coffee plant out of Yemen, it was completely unnecessary.  We know that the Dutch knew this, since they would send coffee beans to their colony in Surinam, whereas the French made multiple attempts with coffee plants.  Likely unaware that the beans could be transported.