Re: The Magna Carta (1215)
This was my first time reading the Magna Carta. Although I’ve been aware of the document since my childhood, I never really cared to learn what it entailed and had no idea about the historical context out which it came. So I approached the text “knowing” that it had to do with what we today understand as human rights, and that it was one of the key historical documents in the shaping of our societies into more egalitarian and responsible societies. As far as wording and layout of the document, I imagined it to be closer in language and format to the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789).
Upon reading say, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, or the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States, I could see the direct influence (or even continuation) of several of the statements/laws presented in the Magna Carta. The similarities are attested by the fact that they, as historical documents are grouped together. I was struck, however, by a difference between the Magna Carta and the latter documents: The U.S. Constitution speaks on behalf of “We the People” and the French Declaration is put forth by “the representatives of the French people”. Both imply the declarations as
stemming from an understanding of “the people” as the common citizenry. The Magna Carta, on the other hand, is striking in its introduction, so convoluted with titles of royalty and ecclesiastical top brass.
The Magna Carta seemed to be a document for and by the elite of the time rather than for the common understanding of “the people”. Although the liberties that are first granted to the Church and the royals are extended to all “freemen”, my understanding of that term in the historical context is not sufficient to determine who inclusive the document really is, although I have an inkling that the answer is “not very”.
This difference between who is declaring and what they are declaring is very interesting to me. While the American Bill of Rights and the French Declaration are both known to be exclusive as well in their definitions of who exactly counts as possessor of the rights declared (through exclusions like property-ownership, gender, age, etc), they seem to assert the rights of the populace directly, as the main point of the document. The Magna Carta, contrasts in my opinion in that it grants rights to the general population more as an outcome of the rules of conduct set for the elites, than as the general purpose of the document. For example point 15 seems to be a precursor to tenant’s rights but is phrased directed towards the conduct of landowners.
I found of interest (and surprising as well) the document’s calls for what I interpreted as labor rights (point 23), separation of the judiciary from law enforcement (point 24), rent control (point 25). I found of sociological/historical interest the explicit racism of the law in the distinct treatment of debts owed to Jews (point 11). And I also found of interest the idea that the ‘liberties’ seemed more to be held by institutions/places (point 1, point 13) than by individuals.
I was more familiar with several of the more recent documents and declarations of rights, and I expected the Magna Carta to have been no different to those. It was an interesting text to read and I am still fitting my interpretation of it into my understanding of “human rights” and their history as a concept.
Peace
Peace
