Index    Editorial Preface    Main Text    Bibliography

Introduction

I. On Edward Whitaker

It is uncertain whether Edward Whitaker, author of the Directions for Brewing, is the Edward Whitaker who wrote myriad political tracts and was strongly opposed to the government of Charles II. Certainly a brewing manual seems out of place amongst the other works, though the pseudonym appearing on the cover of Directions, "A Countrey Gentleman," is the same used by the Edward Whitaker who wrote these political documents. Publication dates also coordinate with this Edward Whitaker, who stopped publishing after 1683 when it is believed that he fled the country, or perhaps merely fled London to the north, though he returned to the capital after the Glorious Revolution. This is when Directions for Brewing (1700) was published, with a reprint in 1703; "A Countrey Gentlemen" stopped publishing in that same year. Whitaker is known to have fled England again in 1704, which suggests that there is just one late seventeenth century writer named Edward Whitaker.

Whitaker was a prolific writer, yet little is known of his life. He was trained as a solicitor and what information there is on Edward Whitaker revolves mostly around several series of court cases and trials, most of which feature him as the defendant. He was a known rebel who opposed the government and the possibility of a Catholic king. Eighteenth century historian Roger North describes Whitaker as a "most virulent and implacable spirit against the Government" (296). Whitaker's "virulent spirit" and his contempt for the government was the force that led him into increasing trouble.

Edward Whitaker first gained notoriety after the House of Lords committed him to Newgate Prison on December 14, 1678 for "scandalous Words uttered by him at Worcester against the Lords of the Bishops Bench" ("House of Lords"). Sources say that Whitaker accused the House of Lords of only having five protestant bishops (Muddiman 417). This is significant because, though England was a protestant country, Whitaker's accusation would have greatly antagonized the King as a supposed sympathizer of Catholic France. Whitaker was released 10 days later, after he officially begged the pardon of the entire House ("House of Lords"). This episode drew the attention of the Earls of Shaftesbury and Buckingham and Whitaker went on to become their solicitor. Whitaker did not learn to hold his tongue from this experience, however, as four years later he again was indicted, this time at the King's-Bench Bar, for "seditious words spoken at Bath" (Clark 148). He was again found guilty and on November 16, 1686 he was fined for justifying the Rebellion of 1641 and the execution of King Charles I.

The Earl of Shaftesbury was the leader of the opposition against King Charles II's reign. The opposition to Charles II was spawned by rumours emerged as a result of the King's close relations with the King Louis XIV of France. These rumours were later validated when it was revealed that James, the King's younger brother and heir to the throne, had converted to Catholicism. Shortly after this discovery many conspiracies and plots were crafted against the King and his brother to prevent James from succeeding to the throne. Whitaker was strongly opposed to Catholic influence in England. It is possible that, while he was the solicitor for Shaftesbury, he would have been more closely involved in the plots against the Catholic ascension.

Whitaker was certainly involved in one of the more famous plots, the Rye House Plot, which was a plot to kill the King and his brother on April 1, 1683. They were supposed to be returning to London from the horse races in Newmarket, and as they passed by a manor house called Rye House, one hundred concealed men were supposed to ambush them (Hinds 6). The plot was foiled when a large fire in Newmarket led to the races being cancelled, and it was discovered in June 1683 (Hinds 3). The most fanatical supporters of the Rye House Plot called themselves the "True Protestants," and many of them referred to themselves as dissenters, opposed to the current government. The "worst of them all was Edward Whitaker, the ‘Protestant solicitor,' of whom there is no life in the [Dictionary of National Biography]" (Muddiman 417). Whitaker probably earned this title from his vociferous loyalty to the Protestant party and from his career aiding the party through court cases.

One court case in which Whitaker was involved inwas the 1681 treason hearing of Edward Fitzharris. Whitaker was the solicitor for Edward Fitzharris' trial, later referred to as the Fitzharris sham-plot. This case is described in more detail in Roger North's Examen where he describes Whitaker as a man who "was at the bottom of all factious Plot-Work, and never appeared, but as an ill Omen, when some egregious Mischief was in the Wind" (North 294). As the trial is described by North, Fitzharris requested that his wife and Whitaker help defend him. However, as solicitors were not allowed to take part in cases of treason, only Fitzharris' wife was permitted to stand next to him. North describes Whitaker as constantly coaching Fitzharris' wife and together, she and Whitaker almost convince the jury to let Fitzharris go. However, a staunch member of the jury convinced the rest to vote "guilty," and Fitzharris was eventually executed (North 297). During this time Whitaker, as a writer, was at the peak of his output, publishing seven of the thirteen tracts still extant.

After the discovery of the Rye House Plot, it is believed Whitaker may have escaped to Holland to avoid execution, which was fate of many of his co-conspirators. After Protestant William III gained power in the Glorious Revolution (1689), Whitaker returned to London near the end of the seventeenth century and was appointed Solicitor to the Exchequer. This gave him access to a lot of funds, and it was soon evident that there were issues with Whitaker's accounting of the money spent. After an inquiry in 1701, Whitaker was accused of having misappropriated £30,000. Whitaker was released from his position as Solicitor to the Exchequer and was told to repay the money, but fled abroad again and died before doing so.

Whitaker authored many texts, yet few of his works are actually signed "Edward Whitaker." He commonly published under pseudonyms in place of his own name as author. For example, one of his first publications, The Ignoramus Justices, is published using the anagram "Drawde Kekatihw." A pseudonym would have been necessary for this tract as it criticizes the Acts passed by the government against the "Protestant Dissenters." An attack on these Acts would have been seen as treason, and the fear of conspiracy meant that officials were constantly watching for suspicious activity. Whitaker would also use the initials E.W. to sign works; though most commonly he used "A Countrey Gentleman," the same name used for authorship of Directions for Brewing.

Directions for Brewing is unlike any of Whitaker's other publications. Apart from the "Satyr Upon Brandy," it contains very little in the way of overt political comment and nothing indicates that it was a comment on Protestant/Catholic tension. It is possible that the handbook was written solely for Whitaker to make money. Indeed, Whitaker says, "in most (if not all) of the Northern Counties there are few or no Common Brewers" (20), and so there was a definate market to sell Directions to northerners wishing to become brewers. Whitaker's discussion on on malts from the north, that is Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, and Cheshire, come from areas near Hertfordshire where Whitaker was involved in the Rye House Plot. He may have observed this country during his time involved in the plot, or it is possible that, when Whitaker fled, he relocated somewhere in the north-west region of England instead of abroad, possibly even becomming a brewer himself to earn funds during this time. The first edition of Directions for Brewing, however, was published one year prior to the inquiry into Whitaker's handling of finances. If Whitaker really did steal £25,000 - £30,000, it is unlikely he would need extra funds. However, if Whitaker really was "the most infernal bloody party man of the whole pack" (North 294), then he may have been siphoning the funds back towards his party to ensure its continued strength.

It is also be possible that Whitaker wrote Directions for Brewing as a larger social comment, relating the brewing of beer to the brewing discontent of Protestant England. For example, when he discusses the upper classes distilling the strongest beer and the left over oats being used by the poor, he could be discussing the fact that the strongest contributors to the protestant rebellions were the protestant Lords. The same level of fervour did not exist among the commoners as it did for the Lords during the revolts prior to the Glorious Revolution and the threat of a future Catholic king. Further, Whitaker's assertion that "Ale or Strong Beer … was the English Beverage Celebrated by our Poets" (1) indicates he would be in strong opposition to foreign beverages, such as French (a Catholic country) brandy. There is further discussion on this later. None of Whitaker's other texts have any hidden or satirical content, but a possible argument supporting the possible controversial content is that Whitaker still published the tract under "A Countrey Gentleman," which he otherwise reserved only for his tracts against the government.

The areas of Edward Whitaker's life that were recorded were full of tension and confrontation. His rashness and candour caused Whitaker the lawyer to end up on the other side of the court system as Whitaker the accused. Much of his life revolves around the year 1681, where he represented Fitzharris in the Fitzharris sham-plot, was convicted of slander and imprisoned for ten days, and published over half of his works. Little is known of Whitaker prior to this year, and the records of his life grow increasingly sparse after 1681. Whitaker was known as an anarchist as a larcener and in his contempt for the monarchy. While his reasons for publishing Directions for Brewing are unknown, what is known is that England was a place where it would sell very well, as "the English Beverage Celebrated by our Poets."

II. Social Aspects of Brewing in Restoration England

Several key aspects of the brewing process changed dramatically in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. The addition of hops revolutionized not only the brewing process but also the social dynamics surrounding drinking in general. The Reformation, which ran through 16th century and completed in the early 17th century, drastically reduced the Church’s role as integral to the community, encouraging the emergence of the alehouse as a popular meeting place. Finally, the rules dictated by the Puritans had their own adverse effects on brewing and socialization. These factors greatly influenced the practice of beer brewing in England. To some, such as Whitaker, this influence was not entirely positive.

Before the 16th century, the common product of the brewing process was ale, or unhopped beer. The introduction of hops, already in wide use on the Continent and in Scandinavian countries, transformed English drinking patterns. Beer, as the product with added hops was called, had already begun to replace ale as the English drink of choice by the year 1500 (Holt 1). Beer had a more bitter taste than ale but was often higher in alcoholic content and could be stored for months, unlike ale. The process of making beer was quite different from ale, and required specialized equipment and knowledge, shifting the brewing location from homes into larger settings and resulting in the alehouse.

The ease of storage encouraged the emergence of the common brewer, and thus alehouses became more popular, creating a new space for socialization. From the late 1500s to the mid 1600s, alehouse owners were reluctant to sell beer off-premises. Higher prices could be charged inside and there was a better chance of the patron buying food or more drink if they were inside (Clark 94). There were also high levels of competition between alehouse keepers. Alehouses strived to sell stronger beer than their competitors, as strong beer was seen as better.

There were three common strengths of beer. Double beer was the strongest and most expensive. Middle beer was an acceptable alehouse product, though not as strong as double beer. Small beer was the daily liquor of servants and the poorest class and was mostly sold off-premises. Whitaker suggests that a home brewer’s first wort would usually yield around 55 gallons of middle beer, "[s]trong as the common Ale-house Drink in London" and a similar amount of small beer on the third use of the wort (Whitaker 8). 

The rise of the common brewer is another notable aspect of this era of the brewing trade. During the last decades of the 16th century the majority of London brewers were aliens, immigrants to England. By the 17th century, alehouses could purchase their beer from a commercial brewer, sparing themselves the work and knowledge required to brew. Of course, many alehouses still produced their own beer, particularly in the North and West of England, but with a marked increase in alehouse patronage it was often difficult for the private brewer to produce enough beer to meet demand. Clark states that where the private brewers often had an inconsistent supply, common brewers were much steadier and often delivered directly to the alehouse (103). In his book, however, Whitaker derides these common brewers, for making an inferior product compared to what could be brewed in the home. Because these brewers tried to make too much beer at once, they were unable to properly wash equipment or give their worts proper time to ferment, leaving them with beer that was weaker and more polluted than home brew (Whitaker 22). He likens the practice of these brewers to the Melibeus the Mantuan Shepard (Whitaker 23), showing his view that commercial brewers trying to overtax their breweries were likely to end up with poor product. Thus brewing should be a private, rather than commercial practice.

The popularity of the alehouse rose dramatically after the Reformation and continued to rise into the 17th century. Before the Reformation, the Church was associated with community gatherings. Holt notes that "[w]hereas in the sixteenth century so much of the social life of the community centred around the parish church—the feasts and celebrations following baptisms and weddings being the most obvious examples—by the seventeenth century most of these rituals of sociability had shifted to the alehouse" (5). Thus the alehouse became an alternative meeting place during the 17th century.

Of course, all this added popularity of alehouses did have some detrimental effects. Puritan critics attacked alehouses as dens of iniquity and sin. According to them, drunkenness led to violence, crime and promiscuity, and was centred in the alehouse. Clark comments that actual statistics regarding this supposed increase in crime and other deviant behaviours are rare (109) and it was generally Puritan propaganda that warned of the dangers of drunkenness.

Similar to the Puritans, Whitaker makes a number of subtle attacks on the alehouse culture, likening the differences between commercial and private brewers to the differences between the city and the country.  His distinctions describe aspects of country brewing as pure and clear, whereas he describes the city as polluted, corrupt and complicated.  The fact that the majority of the city’s brewers were immigrants accentuates this point, as Whitaker stresses that beer from the country is untainted, and beer from common brewers is polluted with various detritus.  The North Country, which he says is devoid of alehouses, produces the strongest, cleanest and best beer in all of England, a statement that shows thinly veiled nationalism on the part of this "Countrey Gentleman."  The desire for home-brewed, pure beer echoes the desire of his party for a country free of corruption and sin, whether from their monarchy or their alehouses. 

Despite attacks from Puritans and other Protestants, however, alehouses saw a marked improvement in social status towards the end of the 1600s that lasted well into the 1700s. This was partly due to slight improvements in the economy and a common tendency to improve the alehouse’s visual appeal. The emergence of distilled liquors, most notably gin and brandy, also aided the alehouse’s popularity. Gin-shops became the sinful dens of the poor and drunk, beer was now perceived to be more healthful and more English. This is discussed more fully in relation to the "Satyr Upon Brandy." The addition of hops to the brewing process combined with the after-effects of the Reformation created a revolutionizing of the social dynamics surrounding brewing and drinking.

Whitaker’s "Directions for Brewing" includes detailed instructions regarding ingredients and the process for brewing beer, or what he terms "Malt Drinks" (1). The basic ingredients needed to brew beer are grain, water, hops and yeast.  Great care needs to be taken in the selection of quality ingredients in order to yield the best beer; Whitaker acknowledges this need for quality and gives suggestions for the brewers of his time. Although the process of brewing itself has not changed significantly since Whitaker’s time, attention should be given to the nature of these ingredients and the various ways in which they are employed.

Barley is the most common grain used in the brewing of beer. Although grains such as wheat and oats can be used, they are difficult to malt, and therefore not commonly used. Whitaker, writing as a "Countrey Gentleman," is addressing the brewing process in regards to those living on an estate or country landholding. The barley needed for brewing could be acquired one of two ways: grewing grains, as many estates did, and therefore had supplies at ready availability or purchasing grains at market, sometimes after the malting had already taken place. Whitaker indicates that he is of the latter group; that is, he purchased his barley after the malting process. Noting that the "North Country Malts are the best"(5), Whitaker discusses the varying fuels used in the drying of the malt and how the smoke adversely affects the taste of the beer. For Whitaker, the malt "ought to ly ground in the Sacks three or four days before it is used" (6). This is likely a personal preference, considering that the presence of moisture at this stage could be detrimental to the malt.

Also supporting the theory that Whitaker purchased his grains is the general overabundance of grain in England during the seventeenth century. Historian E.L. Jones states that "[u]ntil the 1760s the country exported more and more grain" (Industrial 97), indicating a surplus in England’s markets. Thirsk notes that "[a]fter 1650 grain prices fell remorselessly" (18). Whitaker (as a busy London lawyer) would find it easier to purchase these grains than to cultivate them himself. There was an "extreme scarcity of the 1690s [followed by] low prices of the first years…of the eighteenth century" (Jones Growth 158). The relatively steady supply of grains for brewing reflected the overall strength of the agricultural economy in England at the time. As more beer was brewed, more waste was produced that could be fed to cattle and pigs. Jones further reflects on this dual benefit of brewing, as "the waste grains became available in the cooler months, when the processes of brewing and distilling were carried out, precisely when feed for livestock was otherwise scarcest" (Industrial 98). Whitaker mentions this use of waste, as well as noting that if one is in town the "Poor will be gratified" (9) by running cold water through the spent grains for their own use.  

Water quality is an important aspect of brewing. Whitaker is without the modern technology that calculates calcium and pH levels; however, he is still quite aware of the comparative effects of using various waters. His ideal water is "that which is taken from a small clear Rivulet or Brook, undisturb’d by Navigation or Fording" (4). Whitaker also mentions the high-quality beer that is brewed using water from "The Devil’s Arss" (4) in Derbyshire. This water that "Owzes from a great Rock" (4) is likely that of an underground spring, which would carry no external pollution or contaminants. Whitaker does allow for the use of other water if necessary, even that of the Thames, "taken up about Greenwich…[which] has in it all the Fat and Sullage from this great City of London"(3). He comments that Thames water makes for very strong drink, but does not keep well and tends to spoil (4). Interestingly, Cavan notes that water with bacterial contamination will keep just as long as biologically clean water. Not surprisingly, this would indicate that Thames water contained more than mere bacteria, but particulate contamination; that is, the bodily wastes from the people of London.     

The quantity of water used in the process is also an important subject, due to the very large amounts used in the various steps of brewing. Whitaker notes that for one hogshead of beer, approximately 54 gallons, one must start with 90 gallons of water. Whitaker’s own recipe contains directions for three separate batches to be made from one grist (malt ground for brewing), with the last two batches using approximately 64 gallons of water each (8). The large amount of water used indicates the need for the brewer to have access either to a private well or a local stream or river.

The use of hops in brewing was a controversial issue for many brewers prior to the seventeenth century in England. Unger relates that "[r]esistance from public authorities delayed the adoption of hops in beer making in England" (99). This resistance was generated by the traditional ale brewers "who saw hopped beer and its brewers as threats to their livelihoods. English ale brewers feared, rightly, that the efficient brewers of beer would make inroads into their traditional market" (99).  Hopped beer was brought to England by foreigners, often Dutch, who had been using hops for flavouring for years. Bamforth states that the "British have always been a tad xenophobic, and thus for 150 years beer brewing was deemed the domain of ‘foreigners’ and ale brewers never passed up a chance to persecute them and rubbish their products" (30). Regardless of the controversy, Whitaker certainly uses hops and argues for its benefits. Calling hops "an useful and wholesome Vegetable" (11), Whitaker makes several comments regarding the advantages they offer. Not only do hops allow for beer that will keep much longer, he notes that before the use of hops it was "hard to Brew Drink, which wou’d be Fine before it was Eagar" (2).

Whitaker also mentions advantages to buying cheap and plentiful hops rather than worrying about expensive and top quality ones, although this may have been just an economic factor. As he says, "all Fruits are best when they are cheapest" (7). Whitaker suggests removing the hops at the half-way point of boiling, and replacing them with fresh ones, which would add to the economy of buying cheap hops (10). Hops were most successfully grown in England in the Kent area in the south-east. Thirsk discusses the growth of "special crops like hops…[f]armers could conveniently send their wares along the Thames to the London market" (45), where brewers would purchase them.  

Yeast is the key factor in the brewing of beer, as it breaks down and converts the sugars of the wort into ethyl alcohol (Bamforth 141). Yeast is the only ingredient that Whitaker does not go into detail about regarding the necessity for careful selection. This is because in his time, no one knew about the various types of yeasts, or what exactly yeast did to the beer. In Bamforth’s discussions of yeast, he mentions "the ‘mysterious’ properties of which in medieval times caused it to be known as ‘goddisgoode’" (141). Whitaker knew only that it was a necessary ingredient to the process.

According to Whitaker, although the water is better in March, October beer ages better, "having so many cold Months to digest in" (18). Depending on the type of beer brewed, it was ready to drink in a few days (17). Whitaker makes no mention of the size of the household he intends his recipe for, but keeping in mind the number of servants needed to run a country household, it is probable that the brewing process described would be undertaken on a one to two week basis (Cavan). At any time that there was a batch of March or October beer aging, it would have been necessary to be brewing beer that could be drunk almost immediately.

Home brewing is a subject of debate, as by 1700 London had seen a marked increase in commercial brewing. Yet, Whitaker comments that "In most (if not all) of the Northern Counties there are few or no Common Brewers" (20). In this area, it was necessary to brew for one’s own household. This topic is discussed in more detail later. Regardless, Whitaker shows proficiency in his brewing technique, paying careful attention to ingredients and particular details of the brewing process. His enjoyment of a carefully brewed beverage speaks even today to those who share his partiality to beer.   

IV. Upon the Satyr Upon Brandy

"A Satyr Upon Brandy," the poem that appears at the end of Whitaker’s brewing manual, was written by Joseph Haines, though Whitaker’s edition attributes it anonymously to "another hand."  The earliest known publishing date of the manuscript is 1683 by the Black-Bull publishing company in Cornhill; it was written under the name "A Satyr Against Brandy" and printed as a two-page poem for Joseph Hindmarsh.   Exactly why the poem is included by Whitaker (or his publisher) is not stated, though it can be surmised that Whitaker, as an Englishman, must have had a strong affinity for ales and beers.   The inclusion of the satire may have been a nationalistic jibe as brandy was primarily distilled in France.

Joseph Haines was an actor and a writer for many major acting companies in England, France, and Scotland.  His first confirmed performance was recorded in Samuel Pepys' diary, who notes Haines to be an excellent dancer.  Similar to Whitaker, Pepys also notes that Haines had acquired several large debts.  The majority of the information on Haines' life was published shortly after his death in 1701.  The Life of the Late Famous Comedian, Jo. Haynes provides a somewhat fanciful accounting of Haines' life but establishes his reputation as a comic satirist.  The biography was published by J.Nutt, the same publisher of Directions for Brewing.  Haines wrote several satiric pieces and incorporated satire into many of his acting roles.  In 1685 he performed in D’Urfey’s The Commonwealth of Women where he made satiric references to the Duke of Monmouth’s rebellion of 1685.  Monmouth was also a lead conspirator in the Rye House Plot and it is likely that Haines would be familiar with that plot as well.  Like Whitaker, Haines was also known for not censoring his speech.  He was denounced in 1675 by Edmund Windham who objected to his "ill and scandalous language and insolent carriage."  Haines was also arrested by the Lord Chamberlain in 1677 for an obscene epilogue (ODNB).    

Brandy, short for brandywine, comes from Dutch brandewijn, which means literally "burnt wine." This is a straightforward and apt name for the spirit as it is distilled from the fermented fruit juice. Most popular, both currently and in Whitaker’s time, was traditional grape brandy (just called "brandy." Non-grape brandy usually has a preceding adjective to describe it, i.e. "apple brandy"), which has its roots in antiquity, but became a major commodity by the Dutch. The Dutch navy drank distilled wine to make transportation and storage of the alcohol aboard ships easier, as it was more concentrated as a spirit than as a wine.  The distillation process itself has not changed all that much since the time of Whitaker's manual. Newer technologies have allowed for more precise and consistent distillations, but the principles and overall apparati have not changed drastically even into the modern period. Distillation occurs after the fermentation stage turning wine to brandy.

The distillation fires are the subject of many classical allusions in the "Satyr Upon Brandy."   The classical allusions fill the poem with the air of scholarship. Haines mentions Pindar, one of the nine lyric poets in ancient Greece.  Haines’ theatrical background would have given him the knowledge of Pindar, either through dramatic reference or through Plato who cited Pindar in several of his works.  The second classical allusion in the poem is "Thus like a sham Promethius we find, / Thou stol’st a Fire from Hell, to kill mankind" (50-51).  Haines may be referencing the theory that brandy, and other foreign imports, will kill "mankind," or British civilization.  He also references the plight of civilization because of brandy at the end of the poem:
     One caution more, now we are out of Hearing,
     Many have dy’d with drinking, some with swearing:
     If these two Pests should in conjunction meet,
     The Grass would quickly grow in e’ry Street:
     Save thou the Nation from that double blow,
     And keep thy fire from Salamanca T.O  (82-87).
There are also literary allusions to further the negative English view on brandy, such as the brandy-drinker wearing "Falstaff’s Heir-Apparent-Garters," (80) who, Austin notes, is 'full of indulgence for the Bacchic spirit' (197).  It is important to remember however, that because the work is a satire, Haines may be actually mocking the nationalism of people like Whitaker and others who plotted against the King.  Haines did not fear the French and actually danced in the court of Louis XIV in 1670 (ODNB).

Along with the classical allusions, there are decisive religious connotations as well.  Whitaker was Protestant, and France, as well as brandy, was heavily tied to the Catholic Louis XIV.  This made drinkers of brandy suspect to being deemed un-English or as Catholic supporters.  Haines’ satire frames brandy first as a punishment from God, and then secondly as the "Auxilliary Spirit" of the saints (53).  Haines compares brandy as the double wound of heaven and cites Sodom and Egypt as examples.  In both stories, God sent "kindled Rain and Hail" (26) down to destroy or to cleanse those who lived there.  Brandy is portrayed as all of God’s "past and future Anger" combined into one drink and also as a product of the "Black-Chymist," or the devil.  This passage would speak to many in seventeenth-century England, especially as religious based plots were constantly being formed and exposed.  Haines may also have used the alcoholic strength of the spirit and its burning sensation associated with drinking brandy to draw the connection between brandy and the fires of hell. Spirits (especially whiskey) are informally referred to as "fire-water;" and thus the descriptions of "firey Face" and "Liquid Flame."  This would also refer to the red face often present in those who drink excessive quantities of liquor. The apprehension that Haines creates with his first religious passage is completely undermined shortly after when he writes:
     But stay, least I the Saints dire Anger merit,
     By stinting their Auxilliary Spirit;
     I am inform’d, whate’re we wicked think,
     Brandy’s reform’d, and turn’d a godly Drink.
This passage is followed by several examples of how brandy had stopped fomenting the "Ale-House brawl" opting instead for the "more sober Riots of Guild-Hall."  This may be a reference to the local production of brandy.  As English production increased, a series of tariffs and bans on French imports were passed.  A 1668 proclamation by King Charles reads "we, with advice of the Lords of Our Privy Council, prohibit and discharge the importation of all Brandy-Wine into any port, haven, or Creek of this Our said Kingdom" (Scotland Privy Council). Much more malt was sold in England after the embargoes, notably increasing after 1689, the year King William announced war on France, on the first day of his ascendancy to the throne over James II. These embargoes increased grain production in England used to create alcohol and used to distil various spirits.

In England, many other fruit juices were distilled into brandy, including raisins, currants, figs, dates, prunes and others. The English brandies were often false brandy, distilled (fully or partially) from beer or corn, and for this reason topped up with molasses or wine to hide the poor quality of production. 

Brandy manufacturing in the United Kingdom, especially after legislation limited French import, was not to the degree of sophistication or quantity as it was in France. For example, "Brandy, little inferiour to French Brandy," an anonymous text, reads "...we cannot afford to make any quantity of Brandy … as in France, unless at an extraordinary rate, they being refined and put to other uses more advantageous" (England’s Happiness Improved). There are a few of these manuals from seventeenth and eighteenth century England still available, much like Whitaker’s, explaining how one might make brandy as an aqua vitæ, literally "water of life," the common term for spirits of the time, though the word "brandy" could also mean any spirit, not just that distilled specifically from wine.      

The "Satyr Upon Brandy" could have been included to combat trends pointing towards English people drinking more spirits and less malted beverages in the later parts of the seventeenth century, which would have worried Whitaker as a "true" Englishman. Beer consumption drops from 104 gallons per capita in 1689 to 75 gallons in 1700, partially perhaps due to increased duties on beer to finance the war and Dr. Thomas Tryon notes in 1682 that brandy, and other spirits, have "become common drinks amongst many as Beere and Ale" (Austin 196).  Tyron also notes that brandy was used medicinally, though this was considered a health threat (along with things such as red meat) to Englishman.  Whitaker, as Solicitor to the Exchequer, would possibly have been aware of these trends and the economics behind them, and the harm it would do to the economic health of the nation if no one drank (and hence brewed) beer and ale.  Haines may also have been aware of this trend, but his investment in the nation’s wealth would have been significantly distant compared to Whitaker.  However, lines fifty-six and following would suggest that many of the upper class households were drinking brandy and other spirits instead of ale and beer. 

The increased grain production in England and its push to locally produced brandy, as opposed to importing it from France, was a common trend in European economics at the time. Mercantilism was the norm, and this economic agenda posited national wealth upon self-sufficiency; it stressed exporting and sought to minimize imports. This was characteristic of imperialist nations, of which England and France were two of the leaders, especially the ambitious Louis XIV, whose power was growing in the 1680s when William of Orange, stadtholder of Netherlands, was asked by the largely protestant English parliament to come to England and dethrone James II (who was Catholic) after he begat a son and possible heir.  Whitaker also returned to England under William’s reign and it was during this period that he published Directions for Brewing.

Legitimate commerce between England and France was virtually negligible after 1689 when William III declared war on France. Brandy would have been seen as a very French product and, as a possible politically motivated (not necessarily as propagandistic, but as a matter of national pride) inclusion, the "Satyr Upon Brandy" could have been directed at brandy drinkers, meaning the French or those who could be thus seen as French supporters. 

The overall social climate in England was one of beer and ale drinkers and Whitaker’s manual exhibits this well. The inclusion of the poem shows the attitude toward the consumption of spirits as it contrasts with the more popular social tradition of ale and beer drinking; the "Satyr" shows an overall stigma against brandy, a drink in its infancy that would mature into a popular drink for gentlemen in the eighteenth century, when Samuel Johnson said, "claret is the liquor for boys; port, for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy." Whitaker, and the overwhelming majority of the population of late seventeenth century England, would have disagreed.