Magna Carta: the heritage of liberty

by Anne Pallister

Easton Press books. This is a magnificent leather hardback edition with accented 22K gold edging.

Genres: History

Hardcover

Published January 1, 1971

Reviews

[David Trawinski · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very dry. How could something so interesting as the Magna Carta be made so arrid?

[John Mccullough · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a book which either describes or explains the Magna Carta (MC). It is a book which describes how the MC was viewed ver the 750 years after its writing/signing at Runnymede on 15 June 1215. The author is an English historian so the book is well-written. It is profusely littered with citations, alas, many of which are not readily available on this side of the pond, but the scholarship is exemplary nonetheless. The book consists of 7 chapter in 107 pages, plus the 1297 version of the MC who has been reduced from 63 to less than 40 sections or articles. Only a few remain in force today as most do deal with problems inherent in Medieval society rather than our own. In a sense it is a terribly boring book, filled mostly with unfamiliar names, undefined Medieval terms (here I display my abject ignorance), and problems solved hundreds of years ago. Still, the book in a larger sense shows that in politics there is nothing new. Over the 750+ years, the MC has been awarded the politicians a sainthood, then case aside as a worthless historical curiosity. Progressives demand changes to the MC, conservatives demand stasis. There was reference to "natural law," God's Law," Practical Law," and so on. There were moderates and radicals (both progressive and conservative), debates on the tyranny of the crown, of Parliament, of the Judiciary, of the abhorrence of allowing commoners to have the same rights as freemen, of what to do to Jews, merchants, knights, widows, the underaged, the church and the clergy. In other words - very much like today. I did learn a number of things. That the MC is often referred to as the English Constitution, that the English had a Bill of Rights written some centuries before our own, that names like Locke and Hobbes and North and John Wilkes were very much in the fight for change, no change, lateral shifts (no change but accumulate or organisation of existing laws), that emotions ran very high at times. All in all, it was worth reading although I was expecting something different (see first few sentences). Eventually I had to laugh about the see-saw of opinion, of how our US situation today is so similar to various periods of English history and the imbecility of the situation. But I did get to read the MC, both in the 1297 and the 1215 version (another publication). As a school kid in New Jersey we had to meticulously analyse the US Constitution so I feel I am doing part of my part as an informed citizen. Now that we celebrate the 800 years of such advances as Habaeus corpus it is imperative to preserve these rights. Also, I suggest that anyone interested in bringing forth "natural law" that they seriously consult an evolutionary ecologist for good information. 'Nuf said!

[RK Byers · Rating 3 out of 5]

I doubt the king was impressed.