Document Deep Dive: What Does the Magna Carta Really Say?
A curator from the National Archives takes us through what the governing charter means
- By Megan Gambino
- Smithsonian magazine, March 2012, Subscribe
Last month, the 1297 Magna Carta, a prized artifact at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., returned to view after ten months of conservation work. With funds from the document’s owner David M. Rubenstein, conservators at the archives used ultra-violet photography to reveal text that was lost to the naked eye due to water damage. They also removed old repairs and adhesives that were causing the document to contract, humidified and flattened the parchment and placed it in a high-tech case filled with inert argon gas, all to ensure that it is preserved long into the future. “We have every reason to believe that 800 years from now it will be in fabulous shape,” said Kitty Nicholson, deputy director of the National Archives Conservation Lab.
Here, Alice Kamps, a curator at the National Archives, annotates a translation of the 1297 Magna Carta, providing context for specific parts and drawing connections to America’s Charters of Freedom. Click on the yellow tabs to read her comments.
It was nearly 800 years ago, after all, on June 15, 1215, that a group of noblemen presented the first version of Magna Carta to King John at Runnymede, just over 20 miles west of London on the River Thames. In the charter, the barons of England’s feudal system listed demands that would protect their rights and prevent tyranny. King John, who had been abusing his power, at first agreed to the stipulations set forth in the document. But weeks later, when the agreement was annulled, civil war broke out, a war that ultimately claimed the king’s life.
During the reigns of King John, his son Henry III and grandson Edward I, the charter was revised several times. Today, 17 original versions of Magna Carta, penned from 1215 to 1297, survive. Rubenstein, co-founder of the Carlyle Group, purchased one of four existing originals of the 1297 Magna Carta at auction in 2007 for $21.3 million.
“This is the one that is really the law of the land of England,” said Rubenstein at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. this February. Whereas the 1215 Magna Carta was abrogated, King Edward I accepted the 1297 version and made it law by adding it to the Statute Rolls of England. This particular document also has the distinction of being the only Magna Carta that is privately owned and that resides in the United States. Rubenstein has permanently loaned it to the National Archives. Texas billionaire Ross Perot, its previous owner, had bought the charter in 1984 from the Brudenells, an English family who possessed it for centuries.
The newly encased Magna Carta is presented in a way that makes the document more accessible to the public. For the first time, visitors to the National Archives can read the charter in English on touch-screen monitors installed on either side of it. (The original is in Latin.) They can navigate the document and read about what was going on at the time in England to prompt the noblemen’s petitions. The tool also highlights the ways in which Magna Carta influenced the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, displayed in an adjoining rotunda.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Comments (10)
What does it say
Posted by Faith on December 14,2012 | 01:53 PM
"Corn" in England refers to wheat. The tips of the stalk where the grains are is the corn.
Posted by Megan on April 12,2012 | 08:21 AM
to Alan, Clause 1 is not meant to be Freedom of Religion but rather the Seperation of Church and State. At that time very little of the practice of religion was "free" in most regards.
Posted by Rachael on April 7,2012 | 03:18 PM
Alan is right. Clause 1 is simply saying that the King is yielding his command over the Church.
Posted by Milt on April 7,2012 | 01:46 PM
Pleased to learn a little more history.
Posted by John Washburn on April 6,2012 | 10:08 PM
Very pleased to receive Megan's article. John W
Posted by John Washburn on April 6,2012 | 10:05 PM
"Corn" means only maize in the USA, but in much of the rest of the English speaking world today, and definitely at the time of the Magna Carta, "corn" is/was a generic term for all cereal grains, including wheat and oats and barley. It's the wprd I grew up with in post-WWII England to describe all grain crops. The countryside was full of 'cornfields', then.
Posted by Peter B on April 5,2012 | 08:38 PM
The use of the noun "corn" confuses me. At this point in history wasn't "corn" (maize) an exclusively Western Hemisphere product??
Posted by jack wilhite on April 5,2012 | 02:52 PM
I would have also enjoyed the option of seeing it in its original UNtranslated tongue.
Posted by Dana on March 29,2012 | 09:09 PM
Sorry, Clause (1) has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It guarantees the privileged position of the Catholic church in medieval law, which included extensive feudal privileges over quite a lot of the population, those who lived on lands owned by the church. It also included the church's right to try heretics and non-Christians who were, after conviction, rendered to the Crown for punishment. 'liberty' at that time was an alternate word for fief. The 'liberties' of the church were feudal privileges exercisable by bishops and abbots rather than freedoms.
Posted by Alan on March 29,2012 | 12:04 PM