All is not gould that glisters;
A 1648 pamphlet attributed to 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.
