The Magna Carta Myth - Some Thoughts
The celebratory and triumphalist language of “Magna Carta 800” inevitably
provokes a few doubts. Did its signing in 1215 really light the flame of our modern
age of democracy, freedoms, parliaments, human rights, written constitiutions? A
cursory reading reveals an overwhelmingly feudal document, which is perhaps
why even the Magna Carta industry never suggests that anybody should actually
read it: brief, selective, out-of-context quotes suffice. Even brief reflection must
raise doubts on “Magna Carta-ism”. The barons did not rebel on behalf of
parliament, which did not yet exist in 1215, and only became democratic seven
centuries later. The barons’ constitutional proposal was to nominate a permanent
committee of 25 of their number to vet King John’s actions, an absurd suggestion
which rapidly became a dead letter. If the Charter committed the king to the “rule
of law”, it was of course feudal law the barons had in mind. “Trial by peers”
obviously excluded the peasant majority. Needless to say 1215 did not exactly
usher in a golden age of liberal government. In fact by the 16th century Magna
Carta was all but forgotten. Shakespeare’s King John doesn’t mention it. Far from
being central to British history it had been consigned to the lumber room.
Why didn’t it stay there? The short answer is Sir Edward Coke, lawyer, MP and
fighter for the rights of parliament against James I. Desperate to find in Magna
Carta precedents to bolster the claims of parliament against the king Coke
resorted to a radical strategy: he made them up. So successful was he that the
American colonists adopted his version straight into their new colonial
constitutions. By this bizarre route Coke’s myth-making eventually made its way
into the American Constitution, then the Australian. Magna Carta became an
incantation used by every rebel and reformer seeking both to strengthen their
claims and cover their backs. Coke’s great contribution was to save everybody the
bother of actually reading it, let alone understanding it. Everyone accepted his
version, especially historians. (In the way of things other historians then believed
these historians.) Coke is the true architect of “Magna Carta-ism” in which the
Charter’s medieval provenance is air-brushed away. King John’s role in this airbrushing is crucial. His alleged “tyranny” transforms the barons into freedom
fighters. No matter that “Bad King John” is a creation of universally biased clerical
chroniclers (reinforced by later Robin Hood legends), nor that the barons were
self-interested feudal magnates. The mythical version allowed future protesters
to cite Magna Carta in the full confidence that it broadly justified their cause.
John was a victim of deeper issues. The medieval monarchy as established by
William the Conqueror depended on holding on to continental territories which
was becoming an increasingly unviable proposition. John’s “loss of Normandy”,
cited as more evidence of his “badness” as a king, was in reality a foretaste of
what was to come. After decades of struggle the 15th century saw the ending of
England’s continental ambitions. Unsurprisingly this was followed by a further
bout of aristocratic rebellion: the so-called Wars of the Roses. The English
monarchy was a tribute-taking state running out of lands from which tribute
could be taken. The solution was the late Tudor transformation of the nation into
a wealth-creating state, united in new commercial and imperial ambitions.
To bring the significance of Magna Carta into clearer focus perhaps we need to
step outside our own history and compare it with another “iconic” but
misunderstood statement of rights and freedoms: the American Declaration of
Independence. There are striking similarities. Like Magna Carta it contains
grievances that are highly specific to its time. Few now read or know the entire
document. A few stirring phrases resonate and survive. Even these are not
applied to everybody; slaves for example are excluded. Like Magna Carta it was
quickly forgotten, then revived by later protest movements who freely amended
it to expand its intent and justify their particular cause. In The American Dream
historian Jim Cullen says of the Declaration, “Ultimately it was it was the fact of
the Declaration itself – the hardware, to use a twentieth century metaphor – that
proved far more important than the imperfect and perishable “software” of their
particular republican dream. Its ongoing vitality and legitimacy would ultimately
rest with others who inherited a machine whose circuitry would be repeatedly
reconfigured and replaced for centuries to come.” With some allowance for
obvious differences could this not apply to Magna Carta?
There is nothing wrong with national myth-making; indeed nation-building
requires it. As Ernest Renan said “Forgetfulness and even historical error are
essential in the creation of a nation.” A powerful British myth is that radical
political change must be presented as restoring ancient rights. But even so surely
in reality our freedom was not won by barons however selfless, nor is it
guaranteed by one charter however great. Let’s try to differentiate myth from
history, particularly as myth is so much more compelling. As Tony Hancock put it,
“Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?” Let’s hope not.