Words, words, words: The remarkable perseverance of Magna Carta

Magna Carta poses the question of how a document (mere “parchment,” in the classic dismissive phrase) actually has an impact, 800 years after its adoption, on protection of rights and limitation of government. This argument competes with a quite different narrative, in which particular configurations of social forces are essential to any serious progress in either of these realms. (See, e.g., Olson, 1993). My tentative hypothesis is that although the modern force of the document is purely rhetorical it is nonetheless real, and derives in significant part from: (1) its arising at least in part from the sort of pressure contemplated by Olson; (2) its having considerable concrete applicability in the short run (so that it can get “practice” that is recognized as such); (3) its having in some clauses a degree of generality and aspiration (rhetorical appeal), so that citizens can deploy it for realization of broader, not immediately realizable goals; and (4) its being attached to some kind of institutional framework for its realization. These characteristics made possible the gradual (though to be sure uneven) accretion of a reputation, which, coupled with the drama of its origin, account for its modern substance as persuasive rhetoric.