This book concerns 243 private letters or letters that originate from non-institutional archives, from the seventh–fourth centuries bce. One third of these are published here for the first time (80), and another 58 had been previously published but only in hand copy.

The book is extremely impressive in the multi-faceted approach it takes to making the corpus available and historically relevant. After a short introduction (chapter 1) in which the corpus is defined and the problem of contextualization addressed, it examines the formal, structural and stylistic characteristics of the letters and their archival classification (chapter 2), explores the information they communicate and the types of social relationships that prevailed in the private lives of Babylonian society in the late period (chapter 3), gives a full edition of the texts (chapter 4), and provides a detailed glossary (chapter 5) and bibliography (chapter 6). Detailed indices and hand copies of the newly published letters are also provided.

The introduction to the second chapter sets the theoretical background and interpretative framework for much of the book. The epistolary models of White (for Hellenistic Greek letters on papyri) and Sallaberger (for cuneiform letters from the Old Babylonian period) and the classic-European model that is used for the medieval and early renaissance letter corpus are brought forward as potential heuristic models and eventually combined into one model for the present study. Accordingly, the cuneiform private letters from the late period are analysed according to four functional categories: the maintenance of contact, the transmission of information, reporting on the writer's activity, and making a request to the addressee. The book also heavily relies on the theory of politeness (Höflichkeitstheorie) of Brown and Levinson as the starting point for disclosing the social contexts in which private Babylonians wrote their letters. According to this theory a successful communication is established between letter writer and addressee if the former respects the level of familiarity with the latter, possible power relations, and the existing social code of conduct.

Much attention is paid to understanding the literary conventions concerning the openings of Babylonian letters. Schmidl gives a very detailed description of the formal and stylistic characteristics of salutations, greetings and blessings (chapter 2.2), analysing them in terms of politeness to individuals and convincingly showing how Babylonian letter writers communicated their understanding of their own position in society and that of the addressee in their choice of language. The use of direct versus indirect forms of address and of kinship-based appelatives are further reliable parameters for determining the relation between writer and recipient (chapter 2.3). The social distance between them is greater when the former addresses the latter indirectly, calling him for instance “lord” rather than “my lord”, or asking him politely to do something in “precative” verbal forms rather than giving direct orders in “imperative” verbal forms.

As regards the structure of letters, the focus is on recurrent grammatical and stylistic elements positioned at crucial points in the letter to help define its inner organization and function (chapter 2.4). It includes transitional discourse conjuncts that structure the letter in different parts and announce for instance new themes (2.4.1), and a long series of stock phrases and devices that are instrumental in putting across the letter's message, determining its degree of politeness and its rhetorical and persuasive force (2.4.2).

After reading the first fifty pages one can only conclude that Babylonian letter writers, men and women alike, were much concerned with correct social practice, and its theoretical formulation, in conveying their message. Persuading the other to do something, however, was not the only concern of the writers. In my opinion, the letters are equally concerned with building trust and credibility, and some phrases such as the blessing phrase (Segensformel) and the phrases “allow me to remind you” (lu idātu) and “lord, believe me” (bēlu lū īde/lū tīde) should be seen in this light. In fact, the letters, in particular those between business partners (e.g. no. 78), and slave and masters (e.g. no. 39) abound with trust-building strategies which will need further attention.

Next, the book tackles the problem of identification of the protagonists, which is particularly difficult as affiliation is almost always lacking (chapter 2.6). It embarks upon a prosopographic and museum-archaeological study of the scope only a scholar like Michael Jursa, with his unmatched knowledge of ancient archives and the structure of modern museum collections, could accomplish. As a result the identity of most letter writers and addressees is disclosed and the letters are linked to the family archive to which they originally belonged.

The third chapter digs into the protagonists' mindsets and concerns: the management of family wealth, the smooth conduct of private economic transactions, and the state's infringements on personal status and resources. The letters show this in a more spontaneous manner than the legal–economic documents, turning a spotlight on specific needs or temporary circumstances rather than reflecting upon the general underlying principles, and they do so in a direct way by means of explicit statements. Thus they tell us how private Babylonians succeeded in approaching the king or how they felt wrongly treated by tax collectors. They reveal the people's sense of identity, their attitude towards religion, their take on personal and family-related issues such as health, marriage, parenthood, and their way of expressing emotions such as love towards a spouse or a child. This is what makes these letters unique, and distinguishes them from other types of texts found in the family archives.

The study is a major contribution to the social history of Babylonia in the late period. It clearly demonstrates that the letters, even when studied as a separate text group, should be viewed as an integral part of an archive and understood within the context of Babylonian private households, their structure and characteristic social relationships. The activities associated with the household generated the letters, and the set of social relations that were central to the Babylonian household culture are reflected in them. This understanding apparently led the authors to group the letters according to provenance and archive, not according to type or genre. Thus a picture emerges of a society in which each individual knew his position in the family, the household and community, and the obligations and rights that resulted from it. The margin for manoeuvre was very small, and the freedom to act limited. Interaction was determined by consanguinity and paternal kinship ties in the first instance, and further also by social status (free, client, slave), age, gender, intimacy, or economic dependency.

Thanks to the combined efforts of the Vienna team under the direction of Michael Jursa we now have a reliable edition of almost 300 private letters from the last stage of Babylonian culture, a useful theoretical framework for their analysis, and a major contribution to the social history of Babylonia in the late period.