STELLUNGNAHME ZU

Tobias Hirsch: Rezension von: Andrea Beghini: [Chione], Lettere. Saggio introduttivo, edizione critica, traduzione e commento, Baden-Baden: Verlag Karl Alber 2025, in: sehepunkte 26 (2026), Nr. 9 [15.09.2026], in: sehepunkte 26 (2026), Nr. 9 [15.09.2026], URL: https://www.sehepunkte.de/2026/09/41289.html

Von Andrea Beghini

I would like to thank Tobias Hirsch (hereinafter T.H.) for the praise he has bestowed upon my book. In theory, I should also thank him for his criticisms, which, in principle, are always useful. In this specific case, however, I find that T.H.'s criticisms contain too many problems for me not to respond (for reasons of space, I had to make a selection).

1) T.H. asserts that the first chapter of the introductory essay, dedicated to the history of the reception of the Letters, has a confusing structure, as it jumps from 1857 to 1826, then from 1826 to 1816, and finally from 1816 to the Renaissance, after which the narrative proceeds in order up to the present day. Undoubtedly, this is the structure of the chapter. However, this was a deliberate choice, certainly not an oversight or a lapse in attention. My intention was to begin the chapter with a structure that was a bit less conventional and, perhaps for that very reason, more engaging. I didn't think that any reader would ever, in all seriousness, find this choice confusing. After all, the reversal affects only the first 5 pages of a 34-page chapter, which otherwise follows a very conventional chronological order.

2) T.H. finds it strange that, in the history of reception, I devote eight pages to Henri Estienne's editions (pp. 17-24). In his view, this section is marginal to the interpretation of the Letters. In truth, it does not seem marginal to me at all, neither from a historical nor an interpretive standpoint, as I explained very clearly on pp. 23-24 and pp. 45-46. But my arguments were completely ignored by T.H.

3) T.H. takes up a statement of mine contained in note 235 on p. 88 and observes that, in order to make this statement, one would have expected "eine aus den Briefen selbst entwickelte Darstellung ihrer Funktionsweise als zusammenhängende, sequenzielle Erzählung." I would like to emphasise that this is a statement contained in a footnote and not a central argument of the book. In any case, the type of analysis, which T.H. refers to, has already been extensively conducted by scholars who came before me (especially Holzberg, Rosenmeyer and Stenger), whose findings I have consistently and repeatedly used in the introductory essay and in the commentary (see, for example, my remarks on p. 79 and n. 206; p. 268; pp. 270-272; pp. 315-316; p. 324). I didn't feel it was necessary to say anything further on this point, apart from a few similarities with ancient novels, which had not been noticed until now (pp. 79-88).

4) T.H. states: "So lässt sich das in Brief 3,1 nach οὗτος γάρ getilgte ὁ Ξενοφῶν (210; 274) aus der Erzählsituation erklären." From these words, the reader understands that in my edition I delete ὁ Ξενοφῶν in Ep. 3.1. But I do not delete these words. I have merely expressed (both in the critical apparatus and in the commentary) the suspicion that these words should be deleted. There is a great difference between a suspicion and an emendation.

5) Contrary to the idea (mine, but also Stenger's) that the collection of letters appears to have been published by a fictional editor, T.H. hypothesizes that the fictional Chion himself prepared his own archive for publication, which would be consistent with the exaltation of his posthumous fame in Ep. 17.2-3. It does not seem to me that this hypothesis can be taken very seriously. Chion has far more important things to do than prepare his own correspondence for publication (plotting a tyrannicide, for example). And if, by chance, he had done such a thing, one would have expected this to be stated explicitly.

6) Against my hypothesis that, rather than after 12 years as in historical reality, Clearchus is killed by Chion after about a year, T.H. observes that the expression πολιτευσάμενος ἐκ πολλοῦ ἀνύποπτος αὐτῷ γενέσθαι in Ep. 17.1 would suggest several years. But this interpretation is entirely arbitrary. It is not clear why the words of Ep. 17.1 should be interpreted as referring to several years rather than a few months (see also p. 416 of my commentary). In truth, upon reading letters 12-17, the unbiased reader gains the impression that no years pass at all, but only a few months (see, for example, J. Stenger, "Eine Aufforderung zum Tyrannenmord? Die Doppelbödigkeit der Briefe des Chion, "Antike und Abendland" 51 (2005), p. 126). Furthermore, it would be strange if Chion, having observed in Ep. 14.1 that tyranny must be overthrown immediately, were then to allow several years to pass without any justification.

7) T.H. states that the meaning of the various anachronisms should be examined in depth, as if I hadn't done it. I have done so extensively in the commentary and in the introductory essay (see p. 29; p. 32; pp. 78-79; p. 82; p. 90 and n. 244; p. 123; p. 132 and n. 385; p. 135 and n. 394; p. 274; p. 401). My interpretation of the Letters as a counterfactual narrative is based precisely on this approach, namely on the interpretation of the narrative function of an anachronism (see point 6 above), the only anachronism which, pace T.H., I believe allows for a truly in-depth understanding of this text.

Anmerkung der Redaktion:
Tobias Hirsch hat auf eine Replik verzichtet.

issn 1618-6168 / www.sehepunkte.de