Law Before Statute
Can a ruler make a law simply by declaring it? Cicero stakes political obedience on a prior standard: if enacted rules violate reason shared by gods and human beings, they lose the name of law.
Written while Rome struggled to recover from a killing on the Appian Way, the treatise grounds law in reason shared by gods and human beings, not in a sovereign’s command. Cicero therefore treats a statute that contradicts this common order as no law at all, opposing the view that enactment alone creates legality. He then turns principle into clauses for worship, magistrates, and voting. The argument stops before the consul’s powers are settled. Its unfinished form leaves the proposed constitution without a final test.
- nature
- ethics
- truth
- human nature
- logic
- natural law
Enter a dialogue
- When Sextus Tarquinius, the king's son, assaulted the noblewoman Lucretia, Rome had no written law against it. In what sense did he still break a law?
- Someone honest only for fear of a witness meets a defenceless traveller with money on a lonely road. Why call him cunning rather than good?
- A quack's recipe that poisons is no physician's prescription, you say, and a harmful statute is no law. Who decides which statutes are poison?
- Your brother Quintus says the people's tribunes breed endless unrest, and Clodius abused the office against you. Why does your code still give ten of them immunity?
- Secret voting, you argue, took authority from Rome's leading men and gave the people a mask. Does a hidden vote not free a citizen from powerful patrons?