BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 The Date of Julian's Letter to Themistius Scott Bradbury EARLIER IN THIS century the date and context of Julian's Letter to Themistius were matters of considerable disagreement. Otto Seeck, Rudolf Asmus, and Augusto Rostagni argued that the letter was written after Julian's elevation to the rank of caesar on 6 November 355} Johannes Geffcken and Joseph Bidez, on the other hand, preferred a date in 361, after the announcement of Constant ius' death on 3 November 361 and before Julian's entry into Constan­ tinople on 11 December.2 The arguments of Bidez carried the day, and subsequent writers on Julian have accepted the later date. More recently T. J. Barnes and J. Vander Spoel, in an attempt to reconcile both dates, have proposed a new solution to the problem:3 on the basis of evidence to be discussed below, they offered the hypothesis that Julian had originally composed the bulk of the letter in 356, but that the last two paragraphs were appended and the letter dispatched several years later, sometime after the Paris uprising in February 360 and before the news of Constantius' death in November 361. Barnes and Vander Spoel were correct in finding the tone and contents of this important letter appropriate to 355/6, but their hypothesis that it was not sent until 360 or 361 is, in my view, inherently implausible and depends upon a questionable reading of Julian's text.4 I believe it can I O. SEEeK, Die Briefe des Libanius (Leipzig 1906 [hereafter BriefeD 296, and Ge­ schichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt IV (Berlin 1911 [hereafter Geschichte)) 470; R. Asmus, WKP 31 (1914) 522; A. ROSTAGNI, Giuliano l'apostata: saggio critico (Turin 1920 [hereafter 'Rostagni']) 371-85. 2 J. Geffcken, Kaiser Iulianus (Leipzig 1914) 147f, and Der Ausgang des griechisch­ romischen Heidentums (Heidelberg 1920) 287ff; J. BIDEZ, La tradition manuscrite et les editions des Discours de I'Empereur Julien (Ghent/Paris 1929 [hereafter Tradi­ tion]) 133-41, and La vie de I'Empereur Julien (Paris 1930 [hereafter VieD 204-07. 3 "Julian and Themistius," GRBS 22 (1981) 187-89. 4 U. Criscuolo, "Sun' epistola di Giuliano imperatore aI 6.losofo Temistio," Koi­ nonia 7 (1983) 91 n.IO, remains unpersuaded by their attempt to reconcile the earlier and later dates: "Codesta soluzione conciliativa nulla toglie aIle articolate argomen­ tazioni di Bidez." Similarly C. Prato and A. Fomaro, edd., Giuliano Imperatore, Epis­ tola a Temistio (=Studi e testi latini e greci 2 [Leece 1984]) viii-xii, without reviewing 235 BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 236 JULIAN'S LETTER TO THEMISTIUS be demonstrated that Julian wrote the Letter to Themistius not in 361, as has been assumed, but in 355/6, as Seeck and Rostagni maintained. First, a few preliminaries. It emerges from Julian's letter that he had once studied with Themistius and that the two had remained cor­ respondents. 5 Further, it is apparent that the philosopher had recently written from Constantinople to congratulate the young prince on his political advancement and to urge him along the path to good rule. Themistius had reminded Julian that he has now abandoned the "phi­ losophy of the portico for the philosophy of the open air," that is, for the active political life (262D: IJ.€Ta/3.qvaL ... E/c T.qS v7TocrTEYOV LAOcro­ las 7TPOS T~V v7Tal8pLov). He had expressed approval of the superiority of the latter, citing Aristotle's definition of happiness as virtuous ac­ tivity, and included for good measure an abusive comment on Epi­ curus' dictum (fr.551) AQ.{h /3Lwcras (255B). In panegyrical fashion The­ mistius had compared Julian to Dionysus and Heracles, who were at once philosophers and kings (LAocrOOVVT€S OIJ.OV /Cal. /3acrLA€VOVUS) and had purged nearly all the earth and sea of the evils that infested them (253c). He had cited the names of philosophers famous for their success in combining the contemplative and the active lives (265c) and, finally, had invoked the names of the lawgivers Solon, Pittacus, and Lycurgus, claiming that men had a right to expect even greater things from Julian (262D). Seeck reasonably characterized the lost letter of Themistius as a protrepticus to the new caesar. As he and Rostagni noted, the observa­ tion that Julian has left the "philosophy of the portico for the philoso­ phy of the open air" makes no sense if the letter was composed in 361. Julian had by then spent nearly six years in Gaul. He had crossed the Rhine in three campaigning seasons, won major battles in the field, and had restored peace and order to a province that lay in ruins on his arrival. It would be inappropriate, if not offensive, for Themistius to refer in 361 to these conspicuous achievements as the "philosophy of the portico" and to imply that Julian is only now about to embark on the active life. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for Themis­ tius to write in this way in 355/6, during the period when Julian was recalled to Milan from his studies in Athens; for until his elevation to the arguments for the earlier date, reject BarnesN ander Spoel and maintain that Julian wrote the letter at the beginning of his reign as sole augustus, in late 361 or early 362. SAt 2570 Julian quotes from Plato's Laws, which he claims to have studied with Themistius; at 259c he alludes to the time when he began his education at Constanti­ nople: 8Tf Tfis 'Trap' VP.LV .qPXOP.71V 'Tra&aflas; and at 260A he refers to letters that he had sent to Themistius in the past. BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 SCOTT BRADBURY 237 caesar he had been a mere student with little expectation of a share in imperial power. 6 Moreover, as Rostagni noted (381), Julian alludes in his own letter to no event after 355/6. Julian takes Themistius to task at consider­ able length for encouraging a life of action for which he considers himself unfit. He emphatically denies, however, that he desires to avoid this life out oflaziness, and in proof of this recounts a list of the labors (7r6VOl) he has performed in preference to the "disengagement of Epicurus, the gardens, suburbs, and myrtles of Athens, and the humble house of Socrates."7 Julian's 7rOVO, consist of private social duties, all of which appear to belong to his youth in Asia Minor. He had come to the aid of a foreign sophist he hardly knew against a kinsman and friend (presumably Gallus). He had travelled out of the country for the sake of his friends. He had interceded with Araxius (who was probably vicarius Asiae at the time) on behalf of a man called Carterius. He had journeyed to Phrygia at a time when he was quite ill to assist a woman called Arete, who was suffering wrongs from her neighbors.s Finally (TO TfAEvTa'iov) he alludes to his summons to Milan in 354, where he was kept in suspense for six months while Constantius debated what to do with him, until the empress Eusebia successfully interceded on his behalf and he was allowed to return to Athens to study (2590-260A). If the letter was composed in 361 after he had become sole ruler of the empire, it is strange indeed that he makes no mention of his intervening achievements, such as the battle of Strasbourg, the restoration of Gallic cities, the sequence of victories over the Germans, the punitive expeditions across the Rhine, and finally the swift march from Paris to Sirmium. Julian's allusions to Themistius' professional status also favor the earlier date. In arguing for the superiority of the contemplative life to political affairs, Julian asks: And you yourself, may I ask, are you a 'do-nothing' because you are neither a general nor a public orator and because you do not rule 6 Geffcken, Kaiser 147, attempted to counter this argument with the ingenious but implausible suggestion that for philosophy we must understand "Glaubensbekennt­ nis." The real point of Themistius' remark, according to Geffcken, was that Julian now no longer had to worship the gods secretly (V'lT6un')'os q,tAouoq,la) but could proclaim and practice his faith in a public and practical manner (v'lTai8pLos cpLAO­ uoq,{a). The entire letter, however, is quite explicitly concerned with the relation between the 8EwPl1p.aTLlcos {lios (V'lT60"TE,),OS CPLAoO"oq,la) and the 'lTpa/cTLlcos {llos (v'lTal8pLOS CPLAoO"ocpla). 7 2598: T~V ' E'lTL/cOVPELOV • . . a'lTpa')'p.oO"vv7JV /CaL TOVs /C~'lTOVS /CaL TO 'lTpOaUnLOV TWV , A811vWV /CaL TaS p.vpplvas /CaL TO I.w/CpaTovs owp.aTLov. 8 2598-D. On Araxius, Carterius, and Arete see PLRE I s. vv. BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 238 JULIAN'S LETTER TO THEMISTIUS over a province or city? No man of sense would say so. For it is in your power, by producing many philosophers (or, if not many, three or four), to confer more benefit on the lives of men than many kings put together.9 Julian addresses Themistius as if the latter were a philosopher tout court and therefore uninvolved in political life. Seeck and Rostagni rightly took this as an indication that the letter could not have been written in 361, because Themistius had held the post of proconsul of Constantinople under Constantius in 358/9.10 For Julian to have dis­ missed Themistius' important political activity in this way would be unthinkable in 361. Among Rostagni's further arguments, two deserve particular men­ tion. Julian's reference throughout the letter to () 8fOS, never to 0& 8fO', also favors the early date, for it is well-known that Julian began to fly his pagan colors openly on receiving the news of Constant ius' death.11 If the letter had been composed after Julian had become sole emperor, we should expect to find open declaration of pagan belief. In cor­ respondence clearly dated to November 361, Julian expresses trium­ phant exultation and unambiguously credits the gods with the unex­ pected tum of events. This immediate and emphatic reaction is clear in a letter to Maximus: We worship the gods openly, and the majority of the army that has followed me is god-fearing. We sacrifice oxen in pUblic. We have repaid the gods with many hecatombs as thank-offerings. The gods command me to purify everything insofar as I am able, and indeed I obey them eagerly. 12 In the Letter to Themistius, on the other hand, he studiously refers to a vague Supreme Diety. Rostagni also pointed out (380) that Athens, where Julian was studying before his elevation to the rank of caesar, serves in the letter 9 266A: CTV ~E aUTOS .qp.'iv Cl.1TpaICTOS Et, P.~TE CTTpanrywv P.~TE ~1Jp.1JYOPWv P.~TE 18vovs 7j 1TOAECI)S Cl.pxCl)V; Q.AA' OUIC av 4>al1J vovv IxCl)v Q.v~p. I!ECTTl yap CTO' 4>'AOCT04>OVS 1TOAAOVS Q.1To4>~vaVTl, El ~E p.~, TPE'S 7j TfTTapas p.E'i(ova TOV fjlov EUEPYETfjCTa, TWV Q.V8P~1TCI)V 1TOAAwv op.ov fjaCT,AfCl)v. 10 Seeck, Brie/e 298f, Geschichte 470; Rostagni 379. II Rostagni 377. For allusions to the gods in several letters written before 361 see J. Bidez, ed., L'Empereur Julien: Lettres 1.2 (Paris 1924) lOf. When the letters express genuine religious conviction, we must assume that they were carried by trusted couriers. 12 Ep. 26.415c-D: 8P1JCTlCEtJOP.EV TOVS 8EOVS Q.va4>av~ov, lCat TO 1TAfj80s TOV CTVY­ lCaTEA8oVTOS p.o, CTTpaT01Tf~OV 8EOCTEfjfS fCTTlV . .qP.E'S 4>avEpws fjOV8VTOVp.EV. Q.1TE~~lCap.EV TO'S 8EO'S xaplCTT~p,a flCaTop.fjas 1TOAAaS. fP.E ICEAEtJOVCTlV 0' 8Eot Ta 1TaVTa aYVEVElV Els ~vvap.lV, lCat 1TEl80p.al yE lCat 1Tp08vp.CI)S aUTO'S. For similar sentiments cj Epp. 28 (to his uncle Julian) and 29 (to Eutherius). BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 SCOTT BRADBURY 239 as an important point of reference both intellectually and chrono­ logically. The active political life of the present is contrasted with a philosophical life in Athens that appears to lie in the recent past. At 253c Julian speaks of remembering fondly his "Attic conversations" (rwv ' ArTlKWV ot11''Y1JJLarwv). The joy with which he returned to Athens in 355 to pursue his studies is contrasted with his discomfort at the pomp «()'YKO~) that presently surrounds him (260B). Bidez never faced squarely the arguments of Seeck and Rostagni. For example, he evades the implications of Themistius' reference to leaving the "philosophy of the portico for the philosophy of the open air" by observing merely: "Quant a l'objection principale de Rostagni et de Seeck, qui pretendent que l' Epitre a Themistius ne put etre ecrite qu'au moment on Julien entrait dans la vie publique en qualite de Cesar, elle est tiree d'une interpretation du document qui n'est point du tout certaine. Avant d'en examiner la vraisemblance, il est prudent de voir si la lettre n'est datee par des temoignages assez surs" (Tradi­ tion 136). But there is in Bidez's Appendix no further consideration of the views of Seeck and Rostagni; perhaps he deemed his own "te­ moignages assez surs" sufficient to establish the case for the later date. Bidez says little about the absence of any allusion to events after 355 on the grounds that Geffcken had adequately dealt with the problem. Geffcken could not explain why Julian failed to enumerate his Gallic labors but thought he detected a reference to the years in Gaul in a passage at the beginning of the letter in which Julian describes himself as a man unfit for political life and "merely a lover of philosophy" (CP'AoCTocpla!i EpaCT6EVTl JLovov), continuing: "I remain silent about the fates that intervened and have kept this love of mine so far unfulfilled." 13 Geffcken asked what rvxa, had frustrated Julian's study of philosophy if he wrote the letter just before or after his elevation to the rank of caesar. None, he concluded. Only the Gallic campaign had kept Julian from philosophy; consequently, the Letter to Themistius must have been composed after iU4 On Geffcken's interpretation, all the events of the last six years are concentrated in the single word rvxa,. Julian's remark, however, is merely one of a number of expressions of philosophical humility that are a prominent feature of his self-presentation. In the panegyric on the empress Eusebia, for example, he also describes himself as a lover of philoso­ phy who has somehow fallen short of it.I5 Similarly in the Contra 13 2548: TaS yap EV P.fCTqJ CTtyW TlJXas, at' P.Ot TOV {pwTa TOVTOV aTE>.ij TfWS E4>v>.afav. The phrase echoes Eur. Or. 16. 14 Kaiser 147. 15 Or. 2.120B-c. For other assertions of philosophical humility see Ep. ad Them. BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 240 JULIAN'S LETTER TO THEMISTIUS Heracleium (235c-D) Julian speaks of his lack of progress in philoso­ phy because of the external affairs that have engrossed him. These and other expressions bear witness to Julian's deep reverence for philoso­ phy; but in his letter to Themistius he cannot mean to imply (as Geffcken's argument requires) that he would have mastered phi­ losophy if only he had been given a little more time. As to the argument that Julian composed the letter before Themis­ tius filled the office of proconsul of Constantinople in 358/9, Geffcken simply comments (Kaiser 147): "Ferner durfte Julian dem Themistios wohl nicht mit Unrecht massgebende politische Tatigkeit absprechen, denn als Prokonsul von Konstantinopel hatte dieser doch, wenn er auch den Senat der Stadt auf 2000 Mitglieder erganzte, kein Yolk und keine Stadt im eigentlichen Sinne zu regieren." He does not explain why a proconsul of Constantinople did not rule the city "im eigent­ lichen Sinne. "16 Bidez is equally unpersuasive in arguing (Tradition 136) that since Constantius had transformed the proconsulship of Constantinople into a prefecture on 11 December 359, and since The­ mistius did not fill this appointment until 384 under Theodosius, he held no office in 361 and it was therefore technically correct that Julian should address him in 361/2 as a man p-~T£ CTTpaT7J"YC;w p-~T£ tJ7JP-7J"Yopwv P-~TE r8vov~ ~ ?T6AEW~ CLpXWV. This argument ignores the context and general purport of Julian's remark, which appears at the end of a long section in which he takes Themistius to task for his definition of the ?TpaKT"(O~ f3lo~. Themistius had expressed approval for the active life in comparison with the philosophical life and had cited in support of his position Aristotle's definition of happiness as virtuous activity (263c, T~V EVtJaLp-ovlav EV TC!> ?TpaTTELV E~). Julian responds that the ?TpaKTLKO~ f3lo~ should not be defined strictly as a life in politics and he rejects the presumption that a man is not 'doing' (?TpaTTELv) anything unless he is engaged in politics. According to Julian's reasoning, Socrates 'did' far more for mankind than Alexan­ der. Themistius had presented four men-Areius, Nicolaus of Damas­ cus, Thrasyllus, and Musonius-as examples of philosophers who pursued successful, active lives in politics. Julian flatly rejects The­ mistius' interpretation of their careers, claiming that all four owed their reputations strictly to their intellectual activities and either took no part in politics or encountered difficulties when they did. Julian 254B, 266D. Note also Ep. 12, in which Julian claims that Priscus has made him a complete initiate in the philosophy of Aristotle, or "at any rate a thyrsus-bearer." 16 Libanius took a quite different view of Themistius' position in 358/9 (Ep. 40): oj) O"Ot O"v)'xalpw JIoQ.AAOV TOV T~V 'lrelAW ll)'fW ~ Tfi 'irelAn TOV 'lrapallovva, 0"0' TQS ~vlar. BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 SCOTT BRADBURY 241 proceeds to challenge Themistius with the question (cited above): (Tt, ~ \ " t" " l' I "" ~ """ I "() '" uE aVTOS 1JIJ-tV a7rpaKTOS ft, IJ-1JTE (TTpaT1Ji'WV IJ-1JTE u1JIJ-1Ji'0PWV IJ-1JTE E VOVS 1J 7r6AEWS lJ.pxwv; It is implicit in his argument that Julian has a higher regard for Themistius' calling than does Themistius himself, for The­ mistius had praised the 7rpaKTtKOS /3[os (interpreted as political office) at the expense of the OEooP7Jf.LanKO!! {ilo!!. The context of the passage pre­ sumes that Themistius, like the other philosophers cited, is not en­ gaged in political life either through political office or concourse with the emperor. Themistius did, however, begin a distinguished political career pre­ cisely in the last years of Constantius' reign. Adlected to the senate in 355, he became in 357 or 358 proconsul of the eastern capital and thus governed the city and presided over its senate. 17 Some years later, in 384, Themistius defended his involvement in politics against opponents who attacked him for accepting the urban prefecture under Theodosius (Or. 34). In this speech he alluded to aspects of his early political career, beginning with his embassy to Rome in 357: I began to undertake this presidency [sc. of the senate?] from that time when you [senators of Constantinople] elected me to serve on an embassy to glorious Rome and dispatched me to the son of Con­ stantine. I began to show concern for the people from that time when I restored the annona. I began to take forethought for the senate from that time when I expanded the register of senators from barely 300 to 2,000. 18 Among his political activities, this last was without doubt the most significant, for it meant that Themistius was personally responsible for recruiting some 1,700 provincial aristocrats and honorati to the eastern senate. Although Themistius did not hold formal office in 360 and 361, his favor with the emperor Constantius continued unabated. An imperial rescript from 3 May 361 singled out Themistius for nom­ ination to a new senatorial college formed to select praetors. 19 The­ mistius' new career did not pass unnoticed by opponents, who 17 The denial of Themistius' proconsulship by G. Dagron, L'empire romain d'Orient au [Verne sii!Cle (=TravMem 3 [Paris 1968]) 213-17, has been refuted by L. J. Daly, "Themistius' Refusal ofa Magistracy," Byzantion 53 (1983) 171-89, who has put the traditional dating of the proconsulship (from 357 or 358 to late 359) on a firmer footing. 18 Or. 34.13: ~, ~/C€lvov TfjS 7TpoCTTaCTlas TaVTTJS ~7TT&JA-TJV, ~! liTO V JA-€ 7TP€CT{3EV€LV fis T~V "~ 'p I, ~ \ \ \ ~~, '\ \ \ K I, l' I aOLULJA-OV WJA-TJV €XELPOTOVELTE /CaL 7TpOS TOV 7TaLua ECTTEI\I\ETE TOV WVCTTaVTLVOV. E~ ElCELVOV ~ I ~ ~ I 'l " \ I \ ~, ~,\ I \ I 7TpOEICTJuOJA-TJV TOV UTJJA-OV, E~ OTOV TOV ICaral\o}'ov rwv OP.O}'EVWV aVTL P.OI\LS rpLaICOCTLWV (7TA~POVV ELS aLCTXLA{OVS. For an interpretation of this passage and a discussion of the political role of the proconSUl of Constantinople see Daly (supra n.1 7) 164-212, esp. 182-89. 19 Cod. Theod. 6.4.12. For an interpretation of the rescript see Daly (supra n.17) 179f. BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 242 JULIAN'S LETTER TO THEMISTIUS branded him a "sophist" and treated him as a "mercenary of philoso­ phy" who had compromised his philosophical purity by involving himself in high politics. In three extant speeches from 359 (Orr. 23, 26,29) Themistius answered these detractors.2o Julian's challenge to Themistius makes no sense if Themistius had only recently relinquished one of the most prestigious political offices in the eastern empire and was embroiled in controversy over the ap­ propriateness of his political involvement. In his letter Julian assumes that Themistius' role in society is to teach philosophy and to produce a small number of men molded by a deep philosophical training; there is no hint of Themistius' prominent political career. This is under­ standable if Julian wrote the letter in late 355 or early 356, when The­ mistius had recently become a senator at Constantinople but had not yet embarked on the activities outlined above. It is inexplicable if the letter was written in November-December 361. What evidence, then, did Bidez regard as so persuasive that he per­ mitted himself to dismiss such strong indications of an earlier date? First, he noted that Vossianus graecus 77, the most important of the manuscripts containing the Julianic corpus, distinguishes the works of the caesar Julian ClovA&avov lCatcrapos) from those of the emperor Julian ('IovA&avov aVTolCpaTopos). The Letter to Themistius appears in the Vossianus under the heading , IovA&avov aVTolCpaTopos 8EJJ.LcrTtc!> 4>&AOcr04>C!>, evidence Bidez considered significant because the titles in the MS. are apparently correct in every other case (Tradition 136f). It would be imprudent not to take seriously Bidez's opinion in such matters; but long familiarity with the manuscript tradition bred confi­ dence and strong conviction: Bidez maintained that no Byzantine editor could have invented such precise designations, that they were undoubtedly ancient, and that they may even have been used in the editio princeps of Julian's works.21 It remains debatable how far we should rely on the distinction in the Vossianus between the works of Julian as caesar and as emperor. A survey of the other principal manuscripts reveals many variations and confusions in these titles. The direct copy of Voss.gr. at Trinity College, Cambridge (0. 2.39=J), for example, preserves in its 7rtva<, 20 On the dating of these speeches see Dagron (supra n.17) 24f. 21 Tradition 3, 137. Bidez dated the Voss.gr. to the late twelfth or early thirteenth century (5-10); it and all subsequent MSS. including works of Julian derive from a lost tenth-century archetype. Because the textual tradition cannot be traced beyond the tenth century (102), Bidez conceded that it was impossible to say with certainty who had first collected and 'published' Julian's works, but he believed that Ammianus had an edition of the collected works (1-4). BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 SCOTT BRADBURY 243 or table of contents, the precise distinctions of the Vossianus but does not always repeat these in the titles of individual works.22 The Marci­ anus, the most important Julianic manuscript after the Vossianus and its copies, contains the Caesars, the three panegyrics written when Julian was caesar, and his consolatory letter on the departure of Salu­ tius; here the copyist or his exemplar was content to refer the first four works to the emperor Julian, thereby getting three out of four wrong.23 On the other hand, a number of MSS. incorrectly attribute the Hymn to King Helios to the caesar Julian, and a number give the Misopogon the title 'IovALavov aVToKpaTopos Ka[uapos aVTu~XLKOS ~ P.LU07rwywv.24 The list of such mistakes could easily be extended. The confusions in the descendants of Voss. gr. and in other impor­ tant manuscripts do not, of course, prove the titles in the Vossianus wrong, but the known vagaries of these late Byzantine copyists should make us wary of attaching undue importance to such precise distinc­ tions. Indeed, Bidez himself did not regard the Vossianus as a deriva­ tive of an edition of Julian's collected works, but as a late compilation collected and copied at random.25 The eight centuries separating Julian's death and the copying of the Vossianus offered ample oppor­ tunity for confusions of the sort that we can document in its descen­ dants. If the tone and contents of the Letter to Themistius were com­ patible with the title' IovALavov aVToKpaTopos, there would of course be no reason to question the title in the Vossianus. But if the tone and contents of the letter invariably support a date when Julian was caesar, it is unwise to reject this internal evidence in favor of the manuscript attribution. Bidez's other arguments present less serious difficulties for pro­ ponents of the earlier date. At 263B Julian has finished one section of his argument and continues: And, what is more, whether I have now judged correctly concerning these things or am partly in the wrong as to what is the appropriate course or am completely missing the mark, you will very soon in­ struct me.26 Bidez took the phrase aLa~(LS aVTlKa p./tAa in its most literal sense, that 22 Cf the Hymn to King Helios and the Letter to the Senate and People of Athens, which lack any chronological indication (Tradition 15f). 23 No title precedes the letter on Salutius; cf Tradition 29. 24 Tradition 54, 57f, 60-62. 25 Tradition 27: "c'est manifestement une serie de morceaux ajoutes l'un a I'autre au fur et mesure qu'on les decouvrait." 26 263B: Kat '1fEpt p.€v TOiJTIJ)v ErTf op8ws ~'YVfJJKa VVV frTf fV P.tPf' U<#>aAAop.a, TOV I "\ ~ I ~ I ~ 1>-' t ' / I, '1fPOCT7IKOVTOS E&Tf lCaL TOV 'lraVTOS uLap.apTaVw, uLu ..... ELS aVTLlCa p.al\a. BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 244 JULIAN'S LETTER TO THEMISTIUS is, as an indication that Julian was anticipating a meeting with The­ mistius; he drew the conclusion that Julian wrote the Letter to The­ mistius after receiving news of Constant ius' death in November and before his entry into Constantinople on 11 December 361.27 It is clear from several passages in the letter, however, that the two men have been in correspondence with one another in the recent past (253c, 260A, 266A). Julian is replying to arguments presented by Themistius in his protrepticus; the phrase a,a~ELS avrLlCa p.aAa does not allude to a meeting between the two men, but to the arguments that Themistius will make in his reply to Julian. Bidez made much of the tone of Themistius' remarks to Julian-in, for example, the references to the efforts of Dionysus and Heracles in ridding the world of evils, and to the beneficial activities of Solon, Pit­ tacus, and Lycurgus. He reasoned that Themistius was a prudent man who was able to watch emperors come and go because he steered clear of sensitive political areas and would not have spoken to Julian in this manner before the death of Constantius. Bidez questioned whether Themistius would be so imprudent as to treat Julian "comme un souverain absolument independant, appele a regenerer Ie monde et a renouveler l'oeuvre des reformateurs politiques du temps jadis" (Tra­ dition 138). In Bidez's view, far less was needed for the sycophants who surrounded the suspicious emperor to denounce an enemy to him. But to take Themistius' comments so seriously is to misconstrue the commonplaces of ancient panegyric. 28 Speeches in praise of Roman officials-governors, praetorian pre­ fects, and others-were a literary stock-in-trade during the empire.29 Because the surviving panegyrics praise emperors, we need not con­ clude that the topoi contained in them were reserved for the emperor alone. Many a provincial governor must have heard himself hailed as a new Solon or a new Lycurgus without fear that a jealous emperor would be offended. Menander Rhetor suggests comparisons of just this sort in his advice on how to praise Roman officials. In extolling a 27 Tradition 137: Bidez apparently never noticed the serious chronological com­ pression that his scenario involved. His theory presumes that after receiving news of Constantius' death on 3 November, Themistius wrote his protrepticus to Julian, who then wrote this long reply at Naissus before entering Constantinople on II December. P. Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism (Oxford 1981) 90 n.7, noted the difficulty and hypothesized that the letter must have been written after Julian's entry into Constantinople. 28 Rostagni (383) had already met a similar argument by Geffcken with the same observation: "Ragionare cosi significa dare troppo preciso valore ai luoghi comuni della retorica antica." 29 D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor (Oxford 1981) xvi-xvii. BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 SCOTT BRADBURY 245 provincial governor's wisdom, for example (7TpOCTcpWV1JTLK6S AOYOS), the orator will have occasion to mention Demosthenes, Nestor, and the best lawgivers (VOP.OBETWV aplCTTwv, 414.31ff). Now, who are the "best lawgivers" if not men like Solon and Lycurgus? In a speech of arrival «(7TLf3aT~pLos AOYOS) to a governor, the orator will laud the man's justice, claiming that he will "rival Minos, imitate Rhadamanthus, compete with Aeacus"-all three famous lawgivers and judges (380. 21f; cf 379.16-18). In panegyric, at least, Roman officials clearly kept good company. Their families are compared to the Heraclids or the Aeacids (380.11ff). For his justice the governor can expect to hear himself compared to Aristides, Phocion, and various famous Ro­ mans. The temperate governor will be compared to Hippolytus and Diomedes (who wounded Aphrodite, revealing that his passions were not under her sway!). The courageous governor will hear himself likened to the two Ajaxes, Pericles, and Alcibiades. (414.31 ff). Jul­ ian's elevation to the rank of caesar made him second only to Con­ stantius and, since Constantius had no sons, the heir-apparent. He was being dispatched to a province overrun by barbarians and in desperate need of restoration. It was perfectly appropriate for The­ mistius to conjure up the names of great lawgivers like Solon, Pitta­ cus, and Lycurgus and to invoke Heracles and Dionysus in the typi­ cally extravagant fashion of panegyric. As we indicated at the outset, Barnes and Vander Spoel attempted to resolve the issue of dating by accepting 355/6 as an appropriate context for the composition of Julian's Letter while suggesting, for two reasons, that it was in fact sent when he was sole emperor, not when he was caesar. 30 First, they accepted the importance attached by Bidez to the title 'lovALavov aVToKpciTopos in the Vossianus. Second, they interpreted a sentence in Julian's penultimate paragraph as an explicit statement that the last two paragraphs were composed long after the rest of the letter. On the other hand they recognized the importance of the ambiguous references to 0 BEOS in the final two paragraphs, reasoning that if the letter had been written after Con­ stantius' death, we could expect Julian to refer openly to the gods. They theorized that Julian wrote the letter in 356 but did not send it; sometime after the uprising in Paris in February 360, and before receiving news of Constantius' death in November 361, Julian ap­ pended the last two paragraphs and dispatched the letter in an effort to enlist the aid of an influential pagan philosopher in the East. It re­ mains questionable, however, that after a five-year silence Julian 30 BarnesNander Spoel (supra n.3) 187. BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 246 JULIAN'S LETTER TO THEMISTIUS would resuscitate an old letter, append a paragraph recapitulating the main points, add a final paragraph containing a prayer for the future, then dispatch the letter with no other explanation-all at a time (be­ tween the usurpation and Constantius' death) when Julian's commu­ nications with the East were apparently interrupted (cf Ep. 26.415A­ B). Far from attempting to enlist anyone's aid, Julian proclaims unam­ biguously throughout the letter his own lack of fitness to rule and consistently argues against Themistius' opinions. In support of their argument, Barnes and Vander Spoel emphasized Julian's penultimate paragraph, in which he recapitulates his letter: But I must go back and conclude this letter, since it is perhaps longer than is called for. The main point in it is that I am not averse to a life in politics because I am avoiding work, or because I am pursuing pleasure, or because I am enamored with idleness and inactivity. On the contrary, just as I said from the beginning, since I am conscious of having neither sufficient training nor a superior nature, and moreover since I fear that I may bring reproach on philosophy, which, despite my love for it, I have not attained, and which in fact enjoys no good reputation in other respects among men nowadays, I wrote those things down 1I'aAaL, and now (vvv) I have freed myself from your reproaches insofar as I can.3 ! Although Barnes and Vander Spoel do not translate the passage, they clearly assume from the '1TclAaL ... Kat vi/v construction that the letter had been written "long ago" and that the last two paragraphs were a recent addition. Hence their conclusion that Julian composed the bulk of the letter in the winter of 355/6 and added these paragraphs years later. There is no break, however, between the last paragraphs and the rest of the letter. Further, if Julian is responding to a letter sent (on this interpretation) some five to six years earlier, would not the answer seem a bit outdated, assuming that Themistius could discern the purpose of Julian's rambling, tendentious argument? Part of the problem lies with the meaning of'1TclAaL. Although it does mean 'long ago' in the sense of 'many years ago' or 'many generations ago', '1TclAaL is a flexible adverb that can refer to any time in the past; it can mean 'recently' or 'just now' (cf LSJ s. v. '1TclAaL II). For example, to 31 266C-D: Q,AA' f7raV'T'Ov fls Q,PX~V Kat UVIJ.7rfpaVT'ov T~V f7r'UTOA~V IJ.fl(ova ruCIlS otuav TOV ~'OVTOS. tun ~E fV aVTfj TO Kfq,aAa,ov, lIn IJ.r1TE TOV 7rOVOV q,f15YCllV IJ.r1Tf T~V ~~o,n,v 8TJPfVCIlV IJ.r1TE Q,7rpayp.ouVVTJS Kat Pf1.uTfkvTJS fPWV TOV fV Tfj 7rOA,TElf1. ~vuXfpalVCIl Q' , ",,, "'" ,~, ft" ,," ft ,,\ , "",' ,.,'OV· al\l\, 07rfP f."TJV f" aPXTJS, OVTf 7ra'uf,av flJ.aVTtp UVVfluCllS' TouaVTTJV OVTf ."VUfCllS • , \ '" ,,' \ "" ",' :f' ft , '",' , \ ft V7rfPOXTJV, Ka, 7rPOUfT' ufu'CIlS, IJ.TJ ."'I\ouo.,,,av, 'IS' fpCIlV OVK f.,,'K0IJ.TJV, flS TOVS' VVV Q,v8pck7rovS' OV~E l1.AACIlS' fV~OK'IJ.OVUaV ~,af3aAACIl, 7raAa, Tf typaq,ov fKliva Kat VVV Tas 7rap' VIJ.WV f7r'T'lJ-r1UflS Q,7rfAvuap.TJV fls ~15valJ.'v. BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 SCOTT BRADBURY 247 Protagoras' suggestion that they continue their conversation another time, Socrates replies (Prt. 362A): aAA', ~v S' €yw, O{;TC., xp~ 1TOt€LV, €r (TOt ~ .... \ \ , \ 'P """ ' , , \. ., , \. \. \ K \. \. ' .... \. .... uOKH. Kat yap €fl.OL Ot1T€P €'f'1JV L€VaL 1Tal\at oopa, al\l\a al\I\L~ TCf> Kal\Cf> XapL(OP.€VOS 1TapEp.Hva ("So be it, if that is what seems best to you. Indeed it was long ago time for me to keep the appointment I men­ tioned, but I stayed as a favor to the handsome Callias"). "Long ago" clearly means here an hour or two ago, not years ago. In other in­ stances 1Tcl.AaL means 'for a long time' in a figurative sense. In the Phaedrus, for example, after Socrates has finished his second speech on the nature of love, Phaedrus exclaims (257c): Thv AOYOV al uov 1 \. () 1 " ., \. \. ' .... 1 , '("I h &: 1Tal\aL aVfl.auas €XOO, oucf> Kal\l\LOO TOV 1Tponpov a1T1Jpyauoo ave lor a long time been marvelling at your speech, at how much more beauti­ ful you made it than the previous one"). The time frame of 1Td.AaL here clearly does not extend beyond the very speech that Socrates has just delivered. In classicizing authors of the fourth century, 1Tcl.AaL retains this tem­ poral flexibility. Julian uses 1Tcl.AaL when referring to events of the mythological past, or the early empire, or a few years back.32 I find no instance in which Julian's time frame is a mere hour or two, but Libanius offers an apt parallel to the passage from the Phaedrus cited above. Some two-thirds through the Epitaphius on Julian (Or. 18.204), Libanius concedes that his audience appears eager to hear an account of the fateful Persian expedition. He continues, "Nor is it any wonder that for a long time you have been waiting open-mouthed for this part, for although you know the plain fact that he fell in the hour of victory, some of the details you have never heard, and others you h h d &: I I" ( \ () \, ~\ , '\. \ , \ ave ear la se y KaL aVfl.aUTOV OVu€V H 1Tal\aL 1TpOS TaVT1JV T1JV I~ , \ \ "" ' \. ' ~ , • ....,' .... ~ \, , fI.€ptua KEX1JvaTE TO fI.€V K€'f'al\atOV HuOTES OOS VLKOOV €1Tt1TT€, TOOV uE €V fl.EpH \ \ , ~\, 1 \ ~, , • " ) Th fi t' I d' h Ta fI.€V OVuE aKovuaVTH, Ta u OVX OOS EXH • e c lona au lence as been waiting "for a long time," that is, since the beginning of Li­ banius' oration. In short, 1Tcl.AaL in the Letter to Themistius need not mean 'long ago' in the sense of 'years ago'. Since it can refer to any time in the past, its meaning must be inferred from the context. To what, then, does 1Tcl.Aat n E'ypacpov €1C€LVa Ka, VVV TClS 1Tap' Vfl.WV €1TLnp.~uHs a1TEAVud.fl.1JV €LS S.vvap.Lv allude? There are two possible 32 Ep. 111.4338, the Jews living in bondage ?Taha& in Egypt; 88.450D, oracles of Apollo delivered Wahal; 88.451c, the ancients accustomed Waha& to reading and writing down curses from the gods; 198.408c, tax remissions granted earlier in the empire (Waha&) vs the present policy (vvv); 82.4448, the distinction between a man's former cowardice (Waha&) and his present courage (vvv); 8, the old-time zeal (~ Waha& ?Tpo8vfLLa) of two former school companions whom Julian has not seen for three years and three months. BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 248 JULIAN'S LETTER TO THEMISTIUS explanations. First, the reference may be to this letter alone. If he were looking back on the process of writing out the arguments of the letter, Julian might use the imperfect where English would naturally use the perfect.33 One could translate: "I have been writing [lit. 'I was writing'] those things for a long time and now I have freed myself in­ sofar as I can from your charges." The verb tenses would stress aspect, not tense. It can be objected, however, that the 1Td.AaL Tf ••• Kat vvv construction normally offers a neat contrast between past and present. It strains the normal use of the construction to translate it 'for a long time ... and now'.34 Furthermore, if Julian had meant 1Td.AaL Tf E'l'paov £KftVa to refer to the arguments contained in this present letter, he would probably have written TavTa, not £KftVa. Another and, to my mind, preferable interpretation lies ready to hand. In a footnote to his translation of this letter, Rostagni con­ nected the phrase 1Td.AaL Tf E'l'paov £KftVa with an occurrence of 1Td.AaL at the beginning of the letter. At 253A-B Julian writes: Even before (7I'clAaL) when I pondered that I ought to try to rival Alexander and Marcus and anyone else who has excelled in virtue, a kind of shudder would seize me and an awesome dread that I might seem to fall completely short of the valor of the former and that I might not achieve even a little of the consummate virtue of the latter. As I contemplated these things I persuaded myself to praise the contemplative life (I1XOA~V), and I gladly recalled those Attic conversations and I resolved to direct my song to you, my friends [i.e., live a contemplative life with you philosophers] .... But now by your recent letter you have 'made my fear greater and you have shown the contest to be in every way more difficult .... Rostagni assumed (11 7) that 1Td.AaL in this pasage and 7Td.AaL in 1Td.AaL Tf E'l'paov £KftVa both referred to a previous letter written by Julian to which Themistius' protrepticus was a response. \Vhether Julian is ac­ tually alluding to a letter here remains unclear, but Rostagni's instinct was fundamentally correct. His assumption, which he himself did not argue in detail, deserves to be elaborated. It is apparent from several references in the letter that Themistius and Julian had been correspondents in the past. Julian refers to The­ mistius' protrepticus as "your recent letter" (253c, T-ij~ E'vaI'Xo~ J7TLCTTO- 33 Prato/Fomaro (supra n.4) 58 ad 30.17 point out that the epistolary expression TaVTa fypa.pov or one of its variants closes many of Julian's letters. The tense is nor­ mally, however, the aorist or the perfect. For examples of the imperfect see Ep. 11.425c; for the aorist, 32, 82.446B, 85, 96.374D; the perfect, 4.428B, 198.411B. 34 Cf Ep. 33 (to Hermogenes): 6dJ.uau6al ya.p U£ ?ra.hal T£ 71vxoP.T/V v~ TOVS 8£ots Kat vvv, aup.£vEuTaTa 8n al£uw8£lS aK7IKwS, #K£lV ?rapaK£h£vop.al. BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 SCOTT BRADBURY 249 AfjS). At 260A he asks Themistius to recall now the sorts of letters he had written to him from court in Milan in 354. At 266A Julian speaks of having freed himself insofar as he could from Themistius' re­ proaches «(7ftTtfJ-~CT(ts)-reproaches clearly made in response to state­ ments contained in a previous letter or letters of Julian. The most likely explanation for 7fCIAaL T£ ~ypatpov (K(LVa Kat vvv ras 7fap' vp.wv £7fLTtfJ-.,JCT£tS a7f(AVCTd.fJ-1JV £ls a-6vafJ-LV is that Julian had previously writ­ ten to Themistius a letter or letters in which he expressed his reserva­ tions about being made a caesar. We need not imagine that these communications were anywhere near the length of the present one. Many of the letters in the corpus are brief salutations and exchanges of literary pleasantries. Themistius responded with the protrepticus, in which he praised the superiority of the active life and exhorted Julian to shake off all thought of the contemplative life, which he implicitly equated with inactivity and leisure. Julian responded in tum with this long and detailed letter in which he both defends the contemplative life and emphatically rejects the implication that his preference for it has anything to do with a desire for leisure. He sums up in the penultimate paragraph the purpose of this letter and ex­ plains why he had written certain things in a previous letter or letters: But I must go back and conclude this letter .... The main point in it is that I am not averse to a life in politics .... On the contrary, just as I said from the beginning, since I am [and have been] conscious ... and moreover since I fear [and have been afraid] that I may bring reproach on philosophy .... I wrote those things down pre­ viously [i.e., in my previous letter or letters] and now [by the de­ tailed argument in this letter] I have freed myself insofar as I can from your charges [in the recent protrepticus]. This interpretation removes the difficulties in the hypothesis of Barnes and Vander Spoel, who assume that "1 wrote those things down long ago" refers to the bulk of this present letter and that "and now 1 have freed myself .... " refers to the last two paragraphs, al­ legedly added years later. On Rostagni's hypothesis, the 7f~Aa, T£ clause refers to a letter sent in the past, probably some months ago; the Kat vvv clause refers to the present letter. Julian uses (K(LVa because he is referring to statements made in previous correspondence, state­ ments that are further away in time and importance than the detailed arguments of this present letter. The variations in verb tenses in the final clause stress aspect more than tense. The imperfect ~)'pacf)Qv emphasizes the continuous process of writing out the previous let­ ter(s); the aorist a7f(AVCT~fJ-1JV stresses that Julian has once and for all freed himself from Themistius' reproaches. All these matters would BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 250 JULIAN'S LETTER TO THEMISTIUS presumably be as obvious to Themistius as they are obscure to us. In any event, interpretations based on reference to two letters or only one provide an adequate alternative to the hypothesis of Barnes and Vander Spoel. There remains one important piece of evidence, previously unno­ ticed, that offers a precise context for the Letter to Themistius and confirms the arguments for the earlier date. Julian makes two main points in his reply to Themistius' protrepticus: first, that a ruler must be superior to his fellow men both in his habits and in his nature, and Julian feels superior in neither respect; second, that the philosophical or contemplative life is superior to the active life. These repeated expressions of anxiety should be taken at face value. They reflect the genuine misgivings of a young prince who has been intentionally shielded from any experience of high politics but has now been made the immediate subordinate of the emperor whom he held responsible for the murder of all his male kin. The entire argument of the Letter is an intellectual exercise justifying withdrawal from political life in favor of the contemplative life, that is, disengagement from the labors that now face him as caesar and a retreat to the life that he had known in Asia Minor and Athens between 348 and 355. Even Julian himself would later look back with bemusement at his fears at the time of his elevation. In the panegyric to the empress Eusebia composed sometime after the empress' visit to Rome in 357, Julian reviewed the events of355 and 356 (Or. 2.12IB-123A): When a good opinion of me was established in the emperor's mind, she rejoiced exceedingly and . . . bade me take courage, and not to deny the greatness of what was being given to me [the title of caesar] out of fear, and not to slight the urgent request of the man who was bestowing such great favors on me by using boorish and arrogant frankness. I obeyed, although it was in no way agreeable to me to support this burden, and besides I knew that it was very difficult to refuse .... Now when I consented, I had to change my mode of dress, and my attendants, and my habitual pursuits, and my very house and way of life for what seemed full of pomp (8y/Cos) and ceremony to one whose past had naturally been so modest and humble, and my mind was confused by the strangeness, though it was certainly not dazzled by the magnitude, of the favors that were now mine. For in my ignorance (V1TO ap.a8las) I hardly regarded them as great blessings, but rather as powers of the greatest benefit for those who used them properly, but as harmful powers and the causes of countless disasters for many houses and cities when men used them badly. So I felt like a man who is altogether unskilled in driving a chariot, and is not at all inclined to acquire the art, and BRADBURY, SCOTT, The Date of Julian's "Letter to Themistius" , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28:2 (1987:Summer) p.235 SCOTT BRADBURY then is compelled to manage a car that belongs to a noble and talented charioteer .... On all this then I reflected, taking counsel with myself by night, and in the daytime pondering it, and I was continually thoughtful and gloomy. Then the noble and truly god­ like emperor lessened my torment in every way, and showed me honor and favor both in deed and word. 251 Here we have confirmation from Julian's own pen for the date of the Letter. In 355 Julian clearly dreaded his political elevation; insecure in the strange surroundings of the court and fearing for his physical safety, he yearned for an escape. In the Letter, as in Oration 2, he expresses apprehension at the disasters that routinely befell unworthy men who acceded to great power (257B-C). He complains in the Letter of the 0YKOS that presently surrounds him and contrasts with it his joy at returning to Athens in 355. Oration 2 also describes his discomfort at the pomp of Constantius' court in the winter of 355/6 before he set out for Gaul. I have not quoted in full the analogy of the unskilled charioteer, which Julian develops at great length, but it clearly recalls the two analogies used in the Letter, where Julian likens himself to a man who has been having trouble enough navigating in the Propontis, but is told that he will have to set sail in the Aegean and Ionian Seas and then the Ocean itself (254c-255c). Later, at 262A, he compares himself to a man who has had trouble enough exercising at home simply for the sake of his health, then suddenly finds that he must compete in the stadium of Zeus at Olympia! To summarize: we have seen that among Bidez's arguments, only one, the title in the Vossianus, cannot easily be explained away. But against the precise title ' IovALavov aVToKpaTopos in the Voss. gr. , we may set our conclusions drawn from the tone of the Letter, its general argument, and its disputed passages, all of which favor the earlier date. The autobiographical evidence of Oration 2 confirms the cumu­ lative internal evidence of the letter and strongly supports the conclu­ sion that Julian composed the Letter to Themistius soon after his elevation to the rank of caesar on 6 November 355, either in late 355 orin early 356.35 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO August, 1986 35 I would like to thank the editors of GRBS for helpful advice in the preparation of this article.