Artifacts of Capitalism - User contributions [en]

All is not gould that glisters;

2025-10-19T15:26:37Z

Vmennella: /* All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money */

= ''All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money'' =
; Contributor(s): Vincent Mennella
; Date/Place: 1648

A 1648 pamphlet attributed the David Jenkins, ''All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money'', provides an apology for the ship-money tax levied by King Charles I of England. Jenkins concludes that the “Tax was levied for no other end, but for the honour and safetie of the Kingdome,” defending the tax on the grounds that Charles was left empty coffers by his father, King James I of England(A4v). Justifying the Crown’s ability to levy taxes after it falls into debt is an important but not a unique feature of this document.

The pamphlet’s argument in defense of Charles’s ship-money tax depends upon its analyses of a number of metaphors, which call into question the metaphorical nature of monetary objects. Jenkins begins by stating, “IF all were Gold that glisters, a filly Glo-Worme were pure mettle, and Ignis fatuis, the Moone-shine in the water, or a Blazing-Star would be made into ingots and wedges, and consequently translated into Coyne by out most earned Astronomicall Star-gazer” (A1v). Whereas proverb, “Not all that glisters is gold,” often serves as a metaphor to be wary of how things appear and undermines the connection between material and moral values, Jenkins grounds value in materiality, implying that the coin ought to derive its value from its metal.

The relationship between the pamphlet’s interrogation of its principal metaphor, “Not all that glisters is gold,” and its argument in defense of Charles’s ship-money tax appears rather tenuous. Throughout the tract, the possibility of a false promise causes Jenkins significant anxiety. Regarding a range of deceptions Biblical and contemporary, the pamphlet states, “Those Golden Promises did glister to us; for which, our Golden Treasure shined on them abundantly, foolishly, knavishly” (A2v). Jenkins ultimately turns these analyses back to the topic of Charles’s ship-money by questioning what it means for a people to deceive and betray their kings. Because Jenkins argues that “The Crownes, Scepters, Thrones, and anoyntings of Kings, are Gods peculiar Rights; and God is Master of the Substance, whosoever is Master of the Ceramonie,” the King’s power, a representation of God’s power on earth, turns out to be materially grounded (A4r).
The pamphlet conflicts with principles of capitalism insofar as modern economies are no longer based on the strength of a material measure, such as the gold standard. Jenkins would oppose weighing the strength of an economy without a material measure, so his pamphlet defines an idea of capitalism while arguing against it. If the very idea of capitalism contradicts monetary objects deriving their value from materials, then this pamphlet poses seventeenth-century English royalism and capitalism as antithetical to each other.

== Curation ==
<div style="border:1px solid #ddd; padding:.75rem; background:#fafafa;">
'''Curation area:''' Interregnum • '''Curator:''' [[User:Abrano|Vincent Mennella]]
</div>

[[Category:Queue/Interregnum]]

All is not gould that glisters;

2025-10-19T15:25:26Z

Vmennella: /* All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money */

= ''All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money'' =
; Contributor(s): Vincent Mennella
; Date/Place: 1648

A 1648 pamphlet attributed the David Jenkins, ''All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money'', provides an apology for the ship-money tax levied by King Charles I of England. Jenkins concludes that the “Tax was levied for no other end, but for the honour and safetie of the Kingdome,” defending the tax on the grounds that Charles was left empty coffers by his father, King James I of England(A4v). Justifying the Crown’s ability to levy taxes after it falls into debt is an important but not a unique feature of this document.

The pamphlet’s argument in defense of Charles’s ship-money tax depends upon its analyses of a number of metaphors, which call into question the metaphorical nature of monetary objects. Jenkins begins by stating, “IF all were Gold that glisters, a filly Glo-Worme were pure mettle, and Ignis fatuis, the Moone-shine in the water, or a Blazing-Star would be made into ingots and wedges, and consequently translated into Coyne by out most earned Astronomicall Star-gazer” (A1v). Whereas proverb, “Not all that glisters is gold,” often serves as a metaphor to be wary of how things appear and undermines the connection between material and moral values, Jenkins grounds value in materiality, implying that the coin ought to derive its value from its metal.

The relationship between the pamphlet’s interrogation of its principal metaphor, “Not all that glisters is gold,” and its argument in defense of Charles’s ship-money tax appears rather tenuous. Throughout the tract, the possibility of a false promise causes Jenkins significant anxiety. Regarding a range of deceptions Biblical and contemporary, the pamphlet states, “Those Golden Promises did glister to us; for which, our Golden Treasure shined on them abundantly, foolishly, knavishly” (A2v). Jenkins ultimately turns these analyses back to the topic of Charles’s ship-money by questioning what it means for a people to deceive and betray their kings. Because Jenkins argues that “The Crownes, Scepters, Thrones, and anoyntings of Kings, are Gods peculiar Rights; and God is Master of the Substance, whosoever is Master of the Ceramonie,” The King’s power, a representation of God’s power on earth, turns out to be materially grounded (A4r).
The pamphlet conflicts with principles of capitalism insofar as modern economies are no longer based on the strength of a material measure, such as the gold standard. Jenkins would oppose weighing the strength of an economy without a material measure, so his pamphlet defines an idea of capitalism while arguing against it. If the very idea of capitalism contradicts monetary objects deriving their value from materials, then this pamphlet poses seventeenth-century English royalism and capitalism as antithetical to each other.

== Curation ==
<div style="border:1px solid #ddd; padding:.75rem; background:#fafafa;">
'''Curation area:''' Interregnum • '''Curator:''' [[User:Abrano|Vincent Mennella]]
</div>

[[Category:Queue/Interregnum]]

All is not gould that glisters;

2025-10-19T15:24:54Z

Vmennella: /* All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money */

= ''All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money'' =
; Contributor(s): Vincent Mennella
; Date/Place: 1648

A 1648 pamphlet attributed the David Jenkins, ''All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money'', provides an apology for the ship-money tax levied by King Charles I of England. Jenkins concludes that the “Tax was levied for no other end, but for the honour and safetie of the Kingdome,” defending the tax on the grounds that Charles was left empty coffers by his father, King James I of England(A4v). Justifying the Crown’s ability to levy taxes after it falls into debt is an important but not a unique feature of this document.

The pamphlet’s argument in defense of Charles’s ship-money tax depends upon its analyses of a number of metaphors, which call into question the metaphorical nature of monetary objects. Jenkins begins by stating, “IF all were Gold that glisters, a filly Glo-Worme were pure mettle, and Ignis fatuis, the Moone-shine in the water, or a Blazing-Star would be made into ingots and wedges, and consequently translated into Coyne by out most earned Astronomicall Star-gazer” (A1v). Whereas proverb, “Not all that glisters is gold,” often serves as a metaphor to be wary of how things appear and undermines the connection between material and moral values, Jenkins grounds value in materiality, implying that the coin ought to derive its value from its metal.

The relationship between the pamphlet’s interrogation of its principal metaphor, “Not all that glisters is gold,” and its argument in defense of Charles’s ship-money tax appears rather tenuous. Throughout the tract, the possibility of a false promise causes Jenkins significant anxiety. Regarding a range of deceptions Biblical and contemporary, the pamphlet states, “Those Golden Promises did glister to us; for which, our Golden Treasure shined on them abundantly, foolishly, knavishly” (A2v). Jenkins ultimately turns these analyses back to the topic of Charles’s ship-money by questioning what it means for a people to deceive and betray their kings. Because Jenkins argues that “The Crownes, Scepters, Thrones, and anoyntings of Kings, are Gods peculiar Rights; and God is Master of the Substance, whosoever is Master of the Ceramonie,” The King’s power, a representation of God’s power on earth, turns out to be materially grounded (A4r).
The pamphlet conflicts with principles of capitalism insofar as modern economies are no longer based on the strength of a material measure, such as the gold standard. Jenkins would oppose weighing the strength of an economy without a material measure, so his pamphlet defines an idea of capitalism while arguing against it. If the very idea of capitalism contradicts monetary objects deriving their value from materials, then this pamphlet poses seventeenth-century English royalism and capitalism as antithetical to each other.

Read the text at ''Early English Books Online'': www.proquest.com/books/all-is-not-gould-that-glisters-with-vindication/docview

== Curation ==
<div style="border:1px solid #ddd; padding:.75rem; background:#fafafa;">
'''Curation area:''' Interregnum • '''Curator:''' [[User:Abrano|Vincent Mennella]]
</div>

[[Category:Queue/Interregnum]]

All is not gould that glisters;

2025-10-19T15:23:57Z

Vmennella: /* All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money */

= ''All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money'' =
; Contributor(s): Vincent Mennella
; Date/Place: 1648

A 1648 pamphlet attributed the David Jenkins, ''All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money'', provides an apology for the ship-money tax levied by King Charles I of England. Jenkins concludes that the “Tax was levied for no other end, but for the honour and safetie of the Kingdome,” defending the tax on the grounds that Charles was left empty coffers by his father, King James I of England(A4v). Justifying the Crown’s ability to levy taxes after it falls into debt is an important but not a unique feature of this document.

The pamphlet’s argument in defense of Charles’s ship-money tax depends upon its analyses of a number of metaphors, which call into question the metaphorical nature of monetary objects. Jenkins begins by stating, “IF all were Gold that glisters, a filly Glo-Worme were pure mettle, and Ignis fatuis, the Moone-shine in the water, or a Blazing-Star would be made into ingots and wedges, and consequently translated into Coyne by out most earned Astronomicall Star-gazer” (A1v). Whereas proverb, “Not all that glisters is gold,” often serves as a metaphor to be wary of how things appear and undermine the connection between material and moral values, Jenkins grounds value in materiality, implying that the coin ought to derive its value from its metal.

The relationship between the pamphlet’s interrogation of its principal metaphor, “Not all that glisters is gold,” and its argument in defense of Charles’s ship-money tax appears rather tenuous. Throughout the tract, the possibility of a false promise causes Jenkins significant anxiety. Regarding a range of deceptions Biblical and contemporary, the pamphlet states, “Those Golden Promises did glister to us; for which, our Golden Treasure shined on them abundantly, foolishly, knavishly” (A2v). Jenkins ultimately turns these analyses back to the topic of Charles’s ship-money by questioning what it means for a people to deceive and betray their kings. Because Jenkins argues that “The Crownes, Scepters, Thrones, and anoyntings of Kings, are Gods peculiar Rights; and God is Master of the Substance, whosoever is Master of the Ceramonie,” The King’s power, a representation of God’s power on earth, turns out to be materially grounded (A4r).
The pamphlet conflicts with principles of capitalism insofar as modern economies are no longer based on the strength of a material measure, such as the gold standard. Jenkins would oppose weighing the strength of an economy without a material measure, so his pamphlet defines an idea of capitalism while arguing against it. If the very idea of capitalism contradicts monetary objects deriving their value from materials, then this pamphlet poses seventeenth-century English royalism and capitalism as antithetical to each other.

Read the text at ''Early English Books Online'': www.proquest.com/books/all-is-not-gould-that-glisters-with-vindication/docview

== Curation ==
<div style="border:1px solid #ddd; padding:.75rem; background:#fafafa;">
'''Curation area:''' Interregnum • '''Curator:''' [[User:Abrano|Vincent Mennella]]
</div>

[[Category:Queue/Interregnum]]

All is not gould that glisters;

2025-10-19T15:23:06Z

Vmennella: /* All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money */

= ''All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money'' =
; Contributor(s): Vincent Mennella
; Date/Place: 1648

A 1648 pamphlet attributed the David Jenkins, ''All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money'', provides an apology for the ship-money tax levied by King Charles I. Jenkins concludes that the “Tax was levied for no other end, but for the honour and safetie of the Kingdome,” defending the tax on the grounds that Charles was left empty coffers by his father, King James I of England(A4v). Justifying the Crown’s ability to levy taxes after it falls into debt is an important but not a unique feature of this document.

The pamphlet’s argument in defense of Charles’s ship-money tax depends upon its analyses of a number of metaphors, which call into question the metaphorical nature of monetary objects. Jenkins begins by stating, “IF all were Gold that glisters, a filly Glo-Worme were pure mettle, and Ignis fatuis, the Moone-shine in the water, or a Blazing-Star would be made into ingots and wedges, and consequently translated into Coyne by out most earned Astronomicall Star-gazer” (A1v). Whereas proverb, “Not all that glisters is gold,” often serves as a metaphor to be wary of how things appear and undermine the connection between material and moral values, Jenkins grounds value in materiality, implying that the coin ought to derive its value from its metal.

The relationship between the pamphlet’s interrogation of its principal metaphor, “Not all that glisters is gold,” and its argument in defense of Charles’s ship-money tax appears rather tenuous. Throughout the tract, the possibility of a false promise causes Jenkins significant anxiety. Regarding a range of deceptions Biblical and contemporary, the pamphlet states, “Those Golden Promises did glister to us; for which, our Golden Treasure shined on them abundantly, foolishly, knavishly” (A2v). Jenkins ultimately turns these analyses back to the topic of Charles’s ship-money by questioning what it means for a people to deceive and betray their kings. Because Jenkins argues that “The Crownes, Scepters, Thrones, and anoyntings of Kings, are Gods peculiar Rights; and God is Master of the Substance, whosoever is Master of the Ceramonie,” The King’s power, a representation of God’s power on earth, turns out to be materially grounded (A4r).
The pamphlet conflicts with principles of capitalism insofar as modern economies are no longer based on the strength of a material measure, such as the gold standard. Jenkins would oppose weighing the strength of an economy without a material measure, so his pamphlet defines an idea of capitalism while arguing against it. If the very idea of capitalism contradicts monetary objects deriving their value from materials, then this pamphlet poses seventeenth-century English royalism and capitalism as antithetical to each other.

Read the text at ''Early English Books Online'': www.proquest.com/books/all-is-not-gould-that-glisters-with-vindication/docview

== Curation ==
<div style="border:1px solid #ddd; padding:.75rem; background:#fafafa;">
'''Curation area:''' Interregnum • '''Curator:''' [[User:Abrano|Vincent Mennella]]
</div>

[[Category:Queue/Interregnum]]

All is not gould that glisters;

2025-10-19T15:22:26Z

Vmennella: /* All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money */

= ''All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money'' =
; Contributor(s): Vincent Mennella
; Date/Place: 1648

A 1648 pamphlet attributed the David Jenkins, ''All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money'', provides an apology for the ship-money tax levied by King Charles I. Jenkins concludes that the “Tax was levied for no other end, but for the honour and safetie of the Kingdome,” defending the tax on the grounds that Charles was left empty coffers by his father, King James (A4v). Justifying the Crown’s ability to levy taxes after it falls into debt is an important but not a unique feature of this document.

The pamphlet’s argument in defense of Charles’s ship-money tax depends upon its analyses of a number of metaphors, which call into question the metaphorical nature of monetary objects. Jenkins begins by stating, “IF all were Gold that glisters, a filly Glo-Worme were pure mettle, and Ignis fatuis, the Moone-shine in the water, or a Blazing-Star would be made into ingots and wedges, and consequently translated into Coyne by out most earned Astronomicall Star-gazer” (A1v). Whereas proverb, “Not all that glisters is gold,” often serves as a metaphor to be wary of how things appear and undermine the connection between material and moral values, Jenkins grounds value in materiality, implying that the coin ought to derive its value from its metal.

The relationship between the pamphlet’s interrogation of its principal metaphor, “Not all that glisters is gold,” and its argument in defense of Charles’s ship-money tax appears rather tenuous. Throughout the tract, the possibility of a false promise causes Jenkins significant anxiety. Regarding a range of deceptions Biblical and contemporary, the pamphlet states, “Those Golden Promises did glister to us; for which, our Golden Treasure shined on them abundantly, foolishly, knavishly” (A2v). Jenkins ultimately turns these analyses back to the topic of Charles’s ship-money by questioning what it means for a people to deceive and betray their kings. Because Jenkins argues that “The Crownes, Scepters, Thrones, and anoyntings of Kings, are Gods peculiar Rights; and God is Master of the Substance, whosoever is Master of the Ceramonie,” The King’s power, a representation of God’s power on earth, turns out to be materially grounded (A4r).
The pamphlet conflicts with principles of capitalism insofar as modern economies are no longer based on the strength of a material measure, such as the gold standard. Jenkins would oppose weighing the strength of an economy without a material measure, so his pamphlet defines an idea of capitalism while arguing against it. If the very idea of capitalism contradicts monetary objects deriving their value from materials, then this pamphlet poses seventeenth-century English royalism and capitalism as antithetical to each other.

Read the text at ''Early English Books Online'': www.proquest.com/books/all-is-not-gould-that-glisters-with-vindication/docview

== Curation ==
<div style="border:1px solid #ddd; padding:.75rem; background:#fafafa;">
'''Curation area:''' Interregnum • '''Curator:''' [[User:Abrano|Vincent Mennella]]
</div>

[[Category:Queue/Interregnum]]

All is not gould that glisters;

2025-10-19T15:20:59Z

Vmennella: Created page with "= ''All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money'' = ; Contributor(s): Vincent Mennella ; Date/Place: 1648 A 1648 pamphlet attributed the David Jenkins, A''ll is not gould that glisters''; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money, provides an apology for the ship-money tax levied by King Charles I. Jenkins conclude..."

= ''All is not gould that glisters; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money'' =
; Contributor(s): Vincent Mennella
; Date/Place: 1648

A 1648 pamphlet attributed the David Jenkins, A''ll is not gould that glisters''; with a vindication of His Majestie from the scandalous aspersions concerning former taxes and ship-money, provides an apology for the ship-money tax levied by King Charles I. Jenkins concludes that the “Tax was levied for no other end, but for the honour and safetie of the Kingdome,” defending the tax on the grounds that Charles was left empty coffers by his father, King James (A4v). Justifying the Crown’s ability to levy taxes after it falls into debt is an important but not a unique feature of this document.

The pamphlet’s argument in defense of Charles’s ship-money tax depends upon its analyses of a number of metaphors, which call into question the metaphorical nature of monetary objects. Jenkins begins by stating, “IF all were Gold that glisters, a filly Glo-Worme were pure mettle, and Ignis fatuis, the Moone-shine in the water, or a Blazing-Star would be made into ingots and wedges, and consequently translated into Coyne by out most earned Astronomicall Star-gazer” (A1v). Whereas proverb, “Not all that glisters is gold,” often serves as a metaphor to be wary of how things appear and undermine the connection between material and moral values, Jenkins grounds value in materiality, implying that the coin ought to derive its value from its metal.

The relationship between the pamphlet’s interrogation of its principal metaphor, “Not all that glisters is gold,” and its argument in defense of Charles’s ship-money tax appears rather tenuous. Throughout the tract, the possibility of a false promise causes Jenkins significant anxiety. Regarding a range of deceptions Biblical and contemporary, the pamphlet states, “Those Golden Promises did glister to us; for which, our Golden Treasure shined on them abundantly, foolishly, knavishly” (A2v). Jenkins ultimately turns these analyses back to the topic of Charles’s ship-money by questioning what it means for a people to deceive and betray their kings. Because Jenkins argues that “The Crownes, Scepters, Thrones, and anoyntings of Kings, are Gods peculiar Rights; and God is Master of the Substance, whosoever is Master of the Ceramonie,” The King’s power, a representation of God’s power on earth, turns out to be materially grounded (A4r).
The pamphlet conflicts with principles of capitalism insofar as modern economies are no longer based on the strength of a material measure, such as the gold standard. Jenkins would oppose weighing the strength of an economy without a material measure, so his pamphlet defines an idea of capitalism while arguing against it. If the very idea of capitalism contradicts monetary objects deriving their value from materials, then this pamphlet poses seventeenth-century English royalism and capitalism as antithetical to each other.

Read the text at ''Early English Books Online'': www.proquest.com/books/all-is-not-gould-that-glisters-with-vindication/docview

== Curation ==
<div style="border:1px solid #ddd; padding:.75rem; background:#fafafa;">
'''Curation area:''' Interregnum • '''Curator:''' [[User:Abrano|Vincent Mennella]]
</div>

[[Category:Queue/Interregnum]]

File:Title page of "All is not gould that glisters".jpg

2025-10-19T15:14:34Z

Vmennella:

Title page of 1648 pamhlet.

Timon's Bills

2025-09-17T17:17:01Z

Vmennella: Created page with "In the second act of William Shakespeare’s ''Timon of Athens'', servants of Timon’s creditors confront him, and Flavius enters the scene “with many bills in his hand” (2.2.1). Caphis hands to Timon “A note of certain dues” (2.2.22). As Timon and Flavius withdraw from the dinner to discuss the details of the debts, Flavius claims, “At many times I brought in my accounts, / Laid them before you. You would throw them off / And say you found them in mine hones..."

In the second act of William Shakespeare’s ''Timon of Athens'', servants of Timon’s creditors confront him, and Flavius enters the scene “with many bills in his hand” (2.2.1). Caphis hands to Timon “A note of certain dues” (2.2.22). As Timon and Flavius withdraw from the dinner to discuss the details of the debts, Flavius claims, “At many times I brought in my accounts, / Laid them before you. You would throw them off / And say you found them in mine honesty / … And your great flow of debts. My loved lord, / Though you hear now too late, yet now’s a time. / The great of your having lacks a half / To pay your present debts” (2.2.150–162).

The amount of Timon’s debt and his ability to live on credit allude to the practices of lending, investment, expenditure, and collection. Although lending and debt alone do not alone constitute a capitalist economy, the ability of Timon’s creditors to seek a repayment no amount of material money could seem to cover portrays usury, a practice either forbidden or denounced throughout much of medieval and early modern Europe, as generative of early capitalism. To settle the debt, Timon proposes, “Let all my land be sold,” but Flavius asserts that “’tis all engaged, some forfeited and gone, / And what remains will hardly stop the mouth / Of present dues. The future comes apace.” (2.2.163–166). Whole fortunes could be lost before capitalism, especially as a result of gambling debts, but the debts portrayed in ''Timon of Athens'', particularly Timon’s ability to postpone repayment for a time to multiple creditors, anticipate modern lending practices under capitalism.