I frequently see the phrase ‘All that glitters is not gold’ and many variations of same floating around, and I’ve become curious as to its origin. The oldest ref I’ve found is Tolkien’s Fellowship of the Ring, which includes the phrase ‘All that does not glitter is gold’. I’m wondering if any of the Straight Dope cogniscenti happen to know where it really began…
Well, my WAG would be that the first time someone used Iron Pyrite ( “Fool’s Gold” ) in place of real gold dust, and got away with it, that phrase had significance. I would think that it pre-dates JRR Tolkien by centuries, but I don’t have the wherewithal to prove such.
If you want to kiss the sky, you’d better learn how to kneel.
The Dictioary of Phrase and Fable has three sources each older than th next:
Alanus de Insulis did most of his writing in the late 1100’s.
Tony Soprano: We’re the only country in the world where the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed in writing… Where’s my happiness then?
Dr. Melfi: It’s the pursuit that’s guaranteed.
Tony Soprano Yeah, always a fucking loophole.
Damn, that was quick. Thanks, folks.
We live to serve.
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen
I seem to recall it being from Don Quioxte(sp?) originally, but I really wouldn’t refute what the others said on this flimsy evidence.
Yep, Miguel said it, too. “All is not gold that glisters.” Don Quixote
Actually, the Shakespeare line uses “glisters” as well.
Btw, the Tolkien quote is:
“All that is gold does not glitter.
Not all those who wander are lost.”
Your brain-in-a-jar,
Myron
Imbibo, ergo sum.
Anybody else but me notice that the Tolkien quote actually says something completely different from the original, proverbial saying?
Original, Paraphrased: Some shiny things are worthless.
Tolkien, Paraphrased: Some very valuable things don’t look like much.
Y’see, it’s a play on words, son. Get it?
(I also liked zarkon’s original mis-remembering of the quote as “All that does not glitter is gold.” Hey, you know, my ass doesn’t glitter…)
I’m your only friend
I’m not your only friend
But I’m a little glowing friend
But really I’m not actually your friend
But I am
I think this whole thread shows how grammar has changed over the years. I read the Tolkein quote years ago and barely remembered it, because it never made sense to me. At some point I amended it mentally to say, “Not all that glitters is gold” and then it made sense. But I’m not sure that’s what Tolkein meant; he might have meant, “Not everything that is made of gold glitters.”
Anyway, I think it’s interesting that grammar has changed so much. The Don Quixote quote seems to make most sense in modern grammar, probably because the translation is much younger than the other quotes.
But to me, in modern (unprepared) grammar, “All that glitters is not gold” means “If something glitters, then it must not be gold” which clearly isn’t what Shakespeare meant.
The poem refers to Aragorn (Strider). Tolkien meant “You can’t judge a book by its cover.” Aragorn starts out scruffy and meanacing and ends up as the King of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms by the end of The Return of the King.
Aww, Myron, ya beat me to it. Dang server crash! It’s nice to know, though, that there’s another nitpicker on the board 
And Tolkien’s meaning was “some gold things don’t glitter”, Aragorn was gold but didn’t glitter (as KeithB said).
“There are only two things that are infinite: The Universe, and human stupidity-- and I’m not sure about the Universe”
–A. Einstein
I wonder why you had so much trouble with this; “Not everything that is made of gold glitters” is exactly what the quote says, in practically those words. Maybe you read it with the proverbial version in your head, and it didn’t quite track. But the sentence is very clear gramatically.
No, that’s not what the quote says at all. It doesn’t say that nothing that glitters is gold (which is what you seem to be taking it as), it says that not all that glitters is gold. See, there are glittering things that are gold, and there are glittering things that are not gold. “Gold,” in this context, is generally meant proverbialy to me “a thing of great worth.” I wonder why you’re having such trouble with what seems to me to be a perfectly plain English sentence? (This is not a flame, I’m genuinely interested.)
I’m your only friend
I’m not your only friend
But I’m a little glowing friend
But really I’m not actually your friend
But I am
The problem seems to be dividing the sentence as [all that glitters][is not gold]
[all that glitters] is taken as a unit that includes all glittering things
[is not gold] describes this unit as not being gold
Of course, that’s not the intended way to read it, but it does make sense.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith