Abstract
The economic behavior of the Romans, at least the members of the Roman elite, was conditioned by their social expectations. Reputation was as valuable as money. As far as the philosophers were concerned, a letter from Cicero to his friend Atticus, concerning the recovery of his debt, attests to this(Letters to Atticus, 16.15). This claim, however, was of a particular nature : it was the dowry offered to his former son-in-law, Dolabella, a frivolous, flippant and indebted tribune who had divorced his daughter just before her early death. After the divorce, due to Tullia's death, the dowry was to be returned to the father. But Dolabella failed in her obligation, while Cicero found himself in a complex financial situation. Despite this urgent need, and the anger aroused by the tribune's rallying to the camp of Marc Antony, his worst enemy to whom he was devoting the Philippics, the orator maintained a sense of moderation. In his letter to Atticus, he reveals the prudence he intends to use to recover this debt while meeting social expectations. In fact, creditors who try too hard to recover their property are blamed : they are seen as greedy. Unable to directly enjoin Dolabella's guarantors(sponsores) to pay without publicly calling into question his good faith, he saves appearances by turning to the agents ( procuratores) of his former son-in-law, charged with managing his interests in his absence. It's a risky calculation - he risks losing the money - but one that has the advantage of reconciling legal and moral constraints. A few lines from the treatise Des devoirs, written around the same time, reflect the full extent of his choice :
If it is proper to give with generosity, it is no less proper to ask without harshness, in every kind of contract [...] one must show oneself to be equitable and accommodating, [...] to have for lawsuits all the aversion they should inspire, and I believe even a little more.
Duties, 2.18
We don't know whether Cicero's plan failed or succeeded : he died the same year as Dolabella, in 43 BC, one year after this letter was written.
But in similar circumstances, if the philosopher's line is that of moral righteousness, what is that of the jurists ? One might expect them, on the contrary, to defend the rigor of the law. However, a reading of a fragment of Gaius (D. 47.10.19) shows that their views are similar : to go directly to the guarantors when the debtor is solvent is an offense and a crime(iniuriae).
