Chion of Heraclea : a novel in letters

127 Pages·1951·6.32 MB·English

by  Ingemar Düring, Chion

ACTA UNIVERSITATIS GOTOBURGENSIS
GOTEBORGS HOGSKOLAS ARSSKRIFT LVII
1951:5
CHION OF HERACLEA
A NOVEL IN LETTERS
EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY
INGEMAR DURING
g Ot e b o r g
WETTERCREN & KERBERS FOKLAG
Prls Kr. 15: —
>
AC TA UNIVERSITATIS GOTOBURGENSIS
GOTEBORGS HOGSKOLAS ARSSKRIFT LVII
1951:5
L & A. iu
CHION OF HERACLEA
A NOVEL IN LETTERS
EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY
INGEMAR DURING
GflTEBORG
WETTERCREN & KERBERS FORLAC
1951
. I
·/
This book is printed with a grant-in-aid from
Humanistiska Fonden
G0 TEBORG
ELANDERS BOKTRYCKERI AKTIEBOLAG
1951
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
E d i t i o Aldina.
Epistolae Basilii magni, Libanii rhetoris, Cilionis Platonici, Aeschinis
et Isocratis oratorum, Phalaridis tyranni, Bruti Romani, Apollonii Tyanensis,
Iuliani Apostatae. Accedit Epistolarum congregatio virorum doctorum.
Venice 1499. The edition was edited by Marcus Musurus.
E d i t i o Caseliana.
Xenophontis Cyri Paediae liber IV. Ioamie Caselio interprete. Chionis
Platonici epistolae ab eodem latine redditae. Rostochii Stephanus Myliander
excudebat. 1584. According to Fabricius-Harles I 677 »separatim- quoque
edidit epistolas Chionis Ioamies Caselius graece, Rostochii 1583.» Probably
a reprint of the Aldina. I have not seen this edition.
E d i t i o C u i a c ia n a (J. Cujas).
ET11ZTOAAI EAAHNIKAI AMOIBAIAL Hoc est epistolae Graecani­
cae mutuae antiquorum rhetorum, oratorum, philosophorum, medicorum,
theologorum, regum ac imperatorum aliorumque praestantissimorum viro­
rum. A Iacobo Cuiacio clarissimo J. C. magnam partem Latinitate donatae.
Aureliae Allobrogum 1606. In Chion a faithful reprint of the Aldina.
E d i t i o Coberiana.
Chionis epistolae. Graece ad codd. Mediceos recensuit, castigavit, notas
et indicem adiecit J.T. Coberus, A. M. gymnasii Budissensis conrector.
Dresdae et Lipsiae 1785.
Prolegomena ad Chionis epistolarum graecarum futuram editionem,
conscripta ab A.G. Hoffmanmts. Commentarii Societatis philologicae
Lipsiensis 3 (1803), p. 234-273.
Memnonis Historiarum Heracleae Ponti excerpta servata a Photio.
Accedunt . . . Chionis Heracleotae quae feruntur epistolae. Jo. Conradus
Orellius. Lipsiae 1816.
p. 129-162 A. G. Hoffmanni prolegomena,
p. 163-183 Chionis Heracleotae qu. f. epistolae graece.
p. 184-190 Chionis ep. 3, 15, 17 latine.
p. 258-264 Theophili Coberi praefatio ad Chionis ep.
p. 265-301 Theophili Coberi, A. Hoffmanni aliorumque et editoris annota­
tiones et emendationes in Chionis epistolas,
p. 302-322 Epistolarum Chionis Platonici interpretatio Caseliana.
Epistolographi Graeci. Recensuit recognovit, adnotatione critica et
indicibus instruxit Rudolphus Hercher. Paris, Didot, 1871. For the edition
of Chion Hercher used A. Westermann’s collation of cod. Mazarineus 611.
4 INGEMAR dCRIXG
LITERATURE ON CHION'S LETTERS.
C. Bxirk, De Chionis epistulis. Diss. Giessen 1912.
J . Goertz, De Chionis quae feruntur epistulis. Diss. Strassburg, Leipzig 1912.
H. 71/. Howe, The authenticity of the letters of Chio. In: Trans, and
Proceedings of the Am. Phil. Ass. 73(1942), p. XXIX.
This is a short abstract of a typewritten thesis. Mr. Howe kindly sent
111c a copy of his paper.
J.F. Marchs, Symbola critica ad epistolographos Graecos. Diss. Bonn 1883.
A. Sabatucci, Alcune note suile epistole di Chione. In: Studi it. di fil. class.
14(1906), p. 374-414·
5. J. Warren, Chion, Coberus et Cobetus. In: Sertum Nabericum 1908,
p. 457-460.
Nonsensical.
OTHER LITERATURE ON THE EPISTOLOGRAPHERS, QUOTED
IN THE INTRODUCTION OR IN THE COMMENTARY.
J. Bernays, Die Heraklitischen Briefe. Berlin 1869.
W. Capelle, De cynicorum epistulis. Diss. Gottingen 1896.
R, Drcrup, Aeschinis quae feruntur epistolae. Leipzig 1904.
K. v. Fritz, Quellenuntersuchungen zu Leben u. Philosophic des Diogenes
v. Sinope. Philol. Suppi. B. 18(1926), p. 63 ff.
A. Gudeman, Literary Frauds among the Greeks. In: Classical studies in
honour of H. Drisler. New York 1894, p. 52-74.
K. Miinscher, Xenophon in der griech.-rom. Literatur. Philol. Suppl.
B. 13: 2 (1920), p. 154.
W. Niessing, De Themistoclis epistulis. Diss. Freiburg 1929.
W. Obens, Qua aetate Socratis et Socraticorum epistulae quae dicuntur
scriptae sint. Diss. Miinster 1912.
R. PJiilippsson, Verfasser und Abfassungszeit der sogen. Hippokratesbriefe.
In: Rhein. Mus. 77(1928), 293-328.
H. Schafstaedt, De Diogenis epistulis. Diss. Gottingen 1892.
/. Sykutris, Epistolographie. In: RE Suppi. V (1931), 185-220.
L. O. Tk. Tudeer, The Epistles of Phalaris. Preliminary investigation of
the manuscripts. Helsinki 1931.
V. Weichert, Demetrii et Libanii qui feruntur τύποι επιστολικοί et έπιστο-
λιμαϊοι χαρακτήρες. Leipzig 1910.
A . Westermann, De epistolarum scriptoribus Graecis commentationes I—
VIII. Progr. Leipzig 1851— 1858.
INTRODUCTION

In epistolary literature the letters of Chion of Heraclea hold a unique
position as the only extant example of a novel in letters. The
seventeen letters of this collection form together a coherent whole,
well thought-out and carefully elaborated. The story is composed not
unskilfully like a drama, with exposition, retardation, peripeteia and
a moving exodus, and it is well told. The tendency is quite clear:
the author presents a young nobleman who, inspired by the study of |
Plato’s philosophy, becomes an ardent defender of political freedom
and sacrifices his life in the fight against tyranny. Considering the
limited compass there is an abundance of attractive features and
pleasant narratives. The philosophic motivation of the hero’s conduct
has a personal touch and does not lack merits. Although the thought-
content is by no means original, the presentation is excellent. Language
and style are unusually good for a late work of this kind. These
letters will never be reckoned among the great works of literature,
but they are not unworthy of attention.
Ever since Bentley published his famous Dissertations upon the
Epistles of Phalaris and other epistolographers, epistolary literature
has enjoyed a constantly bad reputation. All these letters were
considered spurious and that was the end of it. Only slowly scholars
began to work in the field. One after another of the half-forgotten
epistolographers was subjected to renewed study. It is nowadays
generally admitted that these collections of letters of various dates,
mostly labelled with famous names, cannot be treated indiscriminately.
There are widely different types of letters, and behind the various
collections lurk motives of quite different character. Each collection
must be treated as a separate problem, though of course its connection
with the epistolary literature as a whole must not be set aside. In
a brilliant survey of the whole field, published in 1931, J. Sykutris1)
gave an account of what had been achieved up to that date and
stated lucidly some of the main problems still open to discussion. It
is to be deeply regretted that death prevented him from carrying out
J) See the bibliography p. 3.
s INGEMAR DÜRING
his ambitious plan to write a comprehensive history of epistolary
literature.
The first serious study of Chion’s letters is Hoffmann's prolegomena
(1803). Like Coberus he praised »linguae facilitatem ac venustatem
virtutumque Chioni tributarum mirificam expositionem». He came to
the conclusion that the author was a Neoplatonic philosopher of the
4th century who wrote the letters »ut scholae suae décréta defenderet».
In the middle of the century Westermann published his useful com­
ments on the epistolographers. He accepted Hoffmann’s opinion
concerning Chion’s letters. His collation of cod. Mazarineus 4454 gave
Hercher a better foundation for his text. A completely new theory
was advanced by J. F. Marcks in his Symbola critica (1883), a brief
but very able study of essential problems concerning the epistolary
literature. Marcks devoted three pages to Chion. He found that the
philosophy expounded, particularly in the 16th letter, was Stoic and
concluded that the author of the collection was a Stoic philosopher
of the first century A. D. In the big histories of Greek literature by
Christ, Croiset and Susemihl, published in the 90’s, the epistolographers
were hardly more than mentioned. After this the wind veered. It is
symptomatic of the awakening of new interest in this literature at the
beginning of our century that three scholars published studies on
Chion’s letters at about the same time and without knowledge of each
other's work: the Italian Sabatucci and the Germans Burk and Goertz.
Sabatucci’s paper is a very solid contribution. He compiled a list of
the MSS. and described and collated five MSS. in the Vatican library.
His collation is generally though not always reliable, and he saw the
difference between the two lines of MS.-tradition represented by Vati-
canus 1461 (A) and 1309 (B). His stemma is in principle confirmed
by the present study of the entire MS.-tradition. His chapters on
language are excellent and far superior to the surveys independently
compiled by Burk and Goertz. There are also some useful notes on
sources and parentage. Really surprising is however his final conclu­
sion, probably because he was more concerned with the formal aspects
of transmission and language than with the contents of the letters.
Apparently he did not know Marcks’ Symbola, and he therefore
accepted Hoffmann’s and Westermann’s opinion that the letters were
a 4th century product of the Neoplatonic school.
The two dissertations by Burk and Goertz, published in 1912, are
CHION OI<' HERACLEA 9
very similar in structure. Both contain tedious lists of words, compiled
in the mechanical way which was modern in German doctoral dis­
sertations at that time, mostly excerpts from dictionaries now entirely
superseded by the new L,iddell-Scott-Jones and from Schmid’s Atti-
cismus. Much of the material collected is, although sometimes inter­
esting in itself, of little value for a study of Chion’s letters. But
among this there are of course also some really useful notes and
remarks. Burk concluded that the author of Chion’s letters was an
atticist (but he does not define what this means), who must have
written the letters before Memnon published his history, since Memnon
mentions Clearchus as a disciple of Plato and this fact was unknown
to the author of Chion’s letters. Now Memnon is a contemporary of
Plutarch, and consequently Chion’s letters are somewhat anterior to
Plutarch. Curiously enough Goertz argues exactly the opposite way.
He concludes that our author was inspired by Memnon. None of
these arguments is valid (but, as we shall see, the dating is probably
correct). Memnon as a historian could completely leave out of con­
sideration all literature of the kind that Chion’s letters represent. The
author of these letters was completely free in selecting from his sources
such material as suited his purpose and suppressing details that did
not fit into his scheme. Both Burk and Goertz adhered to the opinion
expressed by Marcks and added further material in support of his
view that the letters were written by an adherent of Stoic philosophy
towards the end of the first century A. D.
In a paper on the authenticity of the letters of Chion of Heraclea
(1942) Η. M. Howe defended the view that the letters are »an edited
version of real letters, written in the middle of the fourth century
B. C.» His arguments are unconvincing, and in a personal letter to
the present writer he asks me not to attach too much importance to
his paper, a request to which I am very pleased to accede.
T αν τα μεν δη ταντα. We shall now proceed to a fresh survey of the
problems connected with Chion’s letters and try to summarize briefly
what can be said with some certainty about this collection.
i. The external evidence is considerable.
Isocrates, ep. 7. Κλέαρχον δε κατά μεν εκείνον τον χρόνον, δτ ην
παρ ήμϊν, ώμολόγονν δσοιπερ ενετνχον ελενθεριώτατον είναι και