“For this, judges, Source is not a written but an inborn law, which we have not learned, received, or read, but which we have drawn from nature herself; a law to which we were not trained but created, not instructed but imbued; that if our life should fall into any ambush or attack, every honorable means of securing our safety would be justified.”
This powerful declaration comes from Marcus Tullius Cicero. Pro Milone – Perseus Digital Library He delivered it during his defense of Titus Annius Milo in 52 BCE. The statement lays a philosophical foundation for self-defense. It argues that the right to protect oneself is not granted by governments or laws. Instead, it is a fundamental, natural instinct. This concept, the lex nata or “inborn law,” has echoed through centuries of legal thought. It continues to shape our modern understanding of justice and human rights.
This article explores Cicero’s argument. We will analyze its roots in Roman legal tradition. Furthermore, we will examine its context within a chaotic period of Roman history. Finally, we will trace its enduring legacy on the principle of self-defense.
The Violent backdrop: Cicero’s Defense of Milo
The late Roman Republic was a time of intense political turmoil. Street violence between rival gangs was common. Ambitious politicians used these gangs to intimidate opponents and influence elections. Two of the most prominent figures in this chaos were Titus Annius Milo and Publius Clodius Pulcher. They were bitter rivals, each commanding a formidable armed following. Their feud represented the breakdown of law and order in Rome.
In January 52 BCE, their conflict reached a bloody climax. Milo and Clodius, along with their armed entourages, crossed paths on the Appian Way. A brawl erupted, and Clodius was killed. Milo was subsequently charged with murder. Cicero, Rome’s most celebrated orator, took up his defense. The trial was incredibly high-profile. It took place under the watchful eyes of soldiers deployed to maintain order in the city.
Cicero faced a difficult task. He could not deny that Milo’s men killed Clodius. Therefore, he built his entire case on the justification of self-defense. He argued that Clodius had set an ambush for Milo. Consequently, Milo’s actions were a necessary response to a direct threat on his life. This specific legal strategy required a powerful, persuasive foundation. Cicero provided this by appealing to a law higher than any written statute: the law of nature itself.
Unpacking the “Inborn Law” of Self-Preservation
Cicero’s argument was a masterstroke of rhetoric and legal philosophy. He shifted the debate from the specific facts of the case to a universal principle. By calling the right to self-defense an “inborn law,” he elevated it above the civil laws of Rome. He claimed this law did not come from books or teachers. Instead, nature herself instilled it in every human being. This was a law you felt, not one you read.
This concept is an early articulation of what philosophers call Natural Law (ius naturale). Natural Law theory proposes that certain rights and moral values are inherent in human nature. They are universal and can be understood through reason. Cicero brilliantly took this abstract philosophical idea and applied it to a real-world criminal trial. He essentially told the jury that even if a written law forbade Milo’s actions, a more fundamental law of nature permitted them.
Natural Law in a Roman Courtroom
Cicero’s defense was designed to resonate deeply with the jury. He argued that the instinct to survive is primal. When faced with violence, the immediate and natural reaction is to defend oneself. This impulse, he claimed, predates all courts, all laws, and all states. It is a biological and moral imperative. Therefore, any “honorable means” used to save one’s life in such a situation is inherently just. He was asking the court to recognize a truth they already knew in their hearts. This was not just a legal loophole; it was a fundamental human right.
By framing the argument this way, Cicero aimed to make Milo’s actions seem not just legal, but righteous. Milo was not a common murderer. Instead, he was any person fighting for their life against a predator. This appeal to a universal, shared human experience was designed to create empathy and sidestep the messy political details of the feud. It was a bold attempt to ground a legal defense in the very fabric of human existence.
Self-Defense in Roman Legal Tradition
Cicero did not invent the concept of self-defense in Roman law. Source The principle was already well-established. An ancient provision in the Law of the Twelve Tables, Rome’s earliest legal code, permitted killing a thief who came by night. . This shows that Roman law had long recognized circumstances where lethal force was justifiable. The legal maxim vim vi repellere licet (“it is permitted to repel force with force”) was also a core tenet of Roman jurisprudence.
However, these existing laws were specific and procedural. They were written rules that outlined what was permissible. Cicero’s argument was different. He was not just pointing to a statute. He was providing a profound philosophical justification for the entire principle of self-defense. He argued that written laws merely reflected a pre-existing, natural right. The law did not grant the right to self-defense; it simply acknowledged a right that already existed.
This distinction is crucial. Cicero’s contribution was to infuse the practical Roman legal doctrine with the moral weight of Greek philosophy. He provided the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’. This made the defense more compelling and universal. His argument suggested that self-defense was not a legal exception but the most fundamental rule of all.
The Legacy of Cicero’s Argument
Ironically, Cicero’s brilliant speech failed to win the case. The political pressure was immense, and the presence of soldiers intimidated the jury. They ultimately convicted Milo, who was forced into exile. Despite the loss in court, the speech itself, Pro Milone, survived. It became one of the most studied and admired works of oratory and legal reasoning in Western history.
Its influence on the concept of self-defense is immense. Source Cicero’s formulation of an “inborn” right to self-preservation became a cornerstone of Western legal thought. Later Roman jurists, like Ulpian, would echo this idea, defining natural law as that which nature has taught to all animals. This concept passed from Roman law into the legal traditions of Europe. It heavily influenced the development of English Common Law, which, in turn, formed the basis for the legal systems in the United States and many other countries. .
Today, the idea that self-defense is an inherent right is a globally recognized principle. It is enshrined in the legal codes of virtually every nation. While the specific rules vary, the core idea remains the same. People have a fundamental right to protect themselves from harm. This enduring principle owes a great deal to Cicero’s powerful defense of a Roman politician on a dusty road over two thousand years ago.
Conclusion
Cicero’s speech for Milo is much more than a historical artifact. It is a timeless argument for a fundamental human right. By framing self-defense as an “inborn law,” he grounded a practical legal need in the universal philosophy of natural law. He argued that the right to protect one’s life is not a gift from the state but a part of our very nature. Although he lost the trial, his words won the long course of history. The principles he articulated continue to provide the moral and philosophical foundation for the right to self-defense in legal systems around the world.