From what I saw, I think it would be best organized by what type of correspondence it is. Though some of what I pulled was personal correspondence, a lot of what I found was more related to official correspondence with review boards, committees, and other institutions. If I were a historian looking into Hane’s personal life, for example, I wouldn’t want to have to sift through dozens upon dozens of letters of recommendation because the collection was ordered simply chronologically. Similarly, I wouldn’t want to have to pick out correspondence about his translations from a sheaf of letters about grant committees he served on. That said, I also think it could be usefully divided by the correspondent, then chronologically in some cases. Historians looking into specific relationships between Hane and a particular person or institution would be better served by some organization by recipient than simple chronological order, and a historian trying to examine a category more broadly would have less trouble simply ordering the category chronologically afterward. This would be more important for personal correspondence than for correspondence with institutions, though, as separating distinct personal relationships is more useful than separating out Hane’s more uniform professional relations.