In a book review published in 2003, Holt lamented that ‘Magna Carta seems no longer to be an active field of study’. The only exceptions he noticed were David Carpenter's proposed revision of Holt's dating of the document itself, and Richard Helmholz's attempt to demonstrate that contemporary Roman and canon law – the ius commune – had heavily influenced its drafting. Great works of historical scholarship can indeed have the unintended consequence of closing down debate, because they seem so self-evidently right that there appears to be nothing more to be said. But Holt's gloom was premature.

Justice and jurisdiction

In truth, a major stimulus for activity was Holt's Second Edition of his Magna Carta, which appeared in 1992. He had once considered a clauseby- clause commentary, but rejected the idea because ‘it soon became apparent that this would require almost encyclopaedic bulk’. Instead the thematic structure remained. There was some limited rewriting of the main text and also changes in the appendices. Some appendices remained unmodified, but others were extended, and others still were new. Several included forceful reassertion of Holt's earlier opinions, as criticisms were met not with solid defence but rather with characteristically pugnacious drives back past the bowler.

By far the most significant change, though, was the inclusion of a lengthy and very detailed new chapter entitled ‘Justice and jurisdiction’. The chapter's first sentence presents it as supplementing those on ‘Privilege and liberties’ and ‘Custom and law’: ‘These matters must now be set in a jurisdictional framework; for men wove their political theories from words first spun in legal contexts.’ The chapter therefore reinforces Holt's determination to explain Magna Carta and its contents through their context. The First Edition had already shown great and necessary concern with the royal provision of justice, especially but not exclusively in Chapter 4 on ‘Custom and law’. However, the new chapter displayed a marked change in emphasis.