There is so much to admire about Cicero. His sheer eloquence and intelligence shine through the centuries. As an orator and advocate he would put most in our modern world to shame. He was a self-made man, novi homines as it were, who advanced himself through pure ability rather than through the inherited wealth and connections of most of his contemporaries. He was among the first rank of Roman philosophers. At some points earlier in his career he may actually have been brave and resolute, such as during the Catilinarian conspiracy. Unfortunately, when Rome could have used him most he lacked the courage to adhere to a set of principles or to take his postion at the front of the debate. I think there was a golden moment in about 50 BCE where he (maybe)could have avoided the civil war. He commanded a large amount of credibility in both camps, more than any other single man. Although it can also be said that the sickness afflicting the Republic was beyond correction at that point, still it is interesting to speculate on what might have occurred had Cicero placed himself in the forefront of the struggle between opimates and Caesarian populares. I think there is a possiblility that if Cicero had used his still considerable credibility to diffuse the situation, Caesar might have felt it safe to return to Rome for elections without his legions. From his letters to Atticus, instead, we see a middle-aged man of wealth with too much to lose who seemed more interested in finding the safe course rather than in saving the Republic in its death throes. It is for opportunities lost that I fault Cicero; sometimes it is not enough to be brilliant, courage is also needed.