By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Harvard Law School’s online collection unexpectedly revealed a 1300 Magna Carta, originally misidentified as a later copy. Through rigorous testing, Professors Carpenter and Vincent confirmed its authenticity as one of only seven surviving originals issued by Edward I. This discovery highlights the document’s immense historical significance, solidifying its place as a foundational text for Western legal traditions and democracy. The document, acquired by Harvard in 1946 for a mere $27.50, possesses a remarkable provenance, passing through the hands of abolitionists and military figures before finding its home in the library.
Read the original article here
Harvard’s seemingly insignificant “unofficial copy” of the Magna Carta is, in reality, a genuine original, experts now claim. This isn’t just any copy; we’re talking about a historically significant document, a second printing, perhaps, but still an original version issued much later than the iconic 1215 charter. The initial confusion stems from the document’s unofficial status within Harvard’s collection, leading to a misidentification as a mere copy.
The truth is far more compelling. This particular Magna Carta wasn’t produced in 1215, the year of King John’s infamous signing. It dates back to around 1300, under the reign of Edward I. This isn’t a forgery or a later reproduction, but an official, albeit amended, edition. This official issue, approximately 75 years after the initial signing, represents a significant amendment to the original charter. The amendments are crucial; they essentially reflect the ongoing evolution of the document’s legal significance, a testament to its long and complex history.
The initial assessment of this document as a simple “copy” highlights a common misconception surrounding historical documents. The word “copy,” in this context, is insufficient. It overlooks the nuances of medieval record-keeping. We’re not talking about a modern photocopy or a printed replica; these were meticulously handwritten versions, officially issued by the crown. A more accurate term would be “exemplification,” signifying an official copy issued to confirm the king’s adherence to the laws set forth in the Magna Carta. The use of the word “facsimile” also falls short, as it implies a later reproduction, a much different notion than an officially issued exemplification in the 14th century.
This revised understanding elevates the significance of Harvard’s holding beyond measure. It wasn’t just acquired for a paltry sum under the mistaken belief of its inauthenticity; it is a legitimate and historically important piece of the Magna Carta’s complex legacy. It’s a tangible connection to the evolution of English law and the ongoing struggle for individual rights that played out through its continual amendments and re-issuances. The fact that such a significant piece of history was initially underestimated speaks volumes about the challenges of authentication and the ongoing reinterpretations of historical artifacts.
The initial misidentification highlights a larger issue in the historical scholarship of medieval documents. Even experts can misinterpret the nature of a document due to the complexities of medieval record-keeping practices and the lack of clear modern equivalents. The language of “copies” and “facsimiles” isn’t as straightforward as in the modern printing age. The focus should be on whether the document is an official issue by the crown, and in this case, it is.
The discovery also highlights the broader importance of the Magna Carta as more than just a symbol of aristocratic privilege. While initially ensuring rights for the wealthy, it undeniably contributed to major advances in the broader pursuit of democracy, however gradually and imperfectly that progression unfolded. The document’s history is one of ongoing negotiation and adaptation, and this particular exemplar shows just how dynamic that process truly was. The discovery underscores the significance of preserving and reinterpreting historical documents in light of evolving historical understanding.
Ultimately, this “unofficial copy” is anything but. It’s a vital piece of the Magna Carta puzzle, a genuine document illustrating the fluid evolution of this crucial legal text throughout the medieval period. It is a reminder that the past isn’t static and that continuous research and re-evaluation are crucial to understanding its complexities and significance. The tale of Harvard’s Magna Carta serves as a cautionary tale about the assumptions we make, even in the world of academia, and a testament to the enduring relevance of one of history’s most enduring documents.