Jennifer V. Ebbeler advances the hypothesis that Augustine departed from the customary epistolary practice of late antiquity to develop a novel approach to letter writing in a Christian context. His goal was fraternal correction, which had three dominant characteristics: charitable, reciprocal, and public. Augustine sought out individuals with whom he could develop this type of epistolary relationship. His correction would always be charitable and friendly, and he would expect the same in return. Letters in classical and late antiquity were de facto public because the writer had no control over his letter once it was sent. The basis for Ebbeler's thesis of fraternal correction in the letters of Augustine is the encounter between Peter and Paul at Antioch recorded in Galatians 2:11–14, where Paul publicly reprimands Peter for hypocrisy regarding his insistence on the need for Gentile converts to Christianity to observe the Law of Moses. While Jerome interprets the passage figuratively, asserting that the incident never took place, Augustine takes a literal interpretation, holding that the Sacred Scriptures cannot lie. Indeed, Jerome's and Augustine's contrasting interpretations of Galatians 2:11–14 is the point of departure for Ebbeler's thesis. This in turn led her to analyze in detail the tumultuous correspondence between Augustine and Jerome that is the center of her book, intellectually as well as physically (chapter 3).

After her introduction to the theory and practice of letter writing in late antiquity, Ebbeler takes her reader through the beginnings of Augustine's corrective writing in the Confessions, where he criticizes himself for not understanding the importance of correction in friendship (chapter 1). Ideally a person should not need fraternal correction if self-correction is adequate. But unfortunately this is often not the case. Augustine attempts to develop this new epistolary relationship of mutual correction with Nebridius, Maximus of Madaura, Maximinus the Donatist, and Paulinus of Nola (chapter 2). Ebbeler's treatment of Jerome is extensive and detailed. She analyzes complicated correspondence between Augustine and Jerome involving eleven letters exchanged over a period of ten years (chapter 3). Next follows her treatment of the overtly corrective correspondence with the Donatists, where Augustine appears to be establishing a textual record that could be used as evidence against the Donatists at a later date. This is especially apparent regarding his responses to Petilianus, Parmenianus, and Cresconius (chapter 4). Finally, there is no evidence that Augustine pursued a corrective correspondence with Pelagius. Instead, one finds in De gestis Pelagii a retrospective reinterpretation of Augustine's earlier letter to Pelagius, which to the anger of Augustine was misinterpreted by Pelagius at the Synod of Diospolis in 415 (chapter 5). Each extensive correspondence—that is those with Jerome, the Donatists, and the Pelagians—is unique, which leads the reader to question the consistency of the author's thesis, since the exchange of letters takes a different form with each addressee. Nevertheless, Ebbeler has demonstrated control of the history of letter writing in classical and late antiquity as well as a grasp of the epistolary corpus of Augustine in its literary and historical context. Her conclusion is a very clear summary of her thesis and its development throughout the book. According to Ebbeler, Augustine ultimately failed in his attempt to adapt the traditional friendly letter exchange to the task of correcting error in the Christian community, quite simply because the individuals with whom he corresponded were unwilling to accept correction. One also wonders how willing Augustine, who took firm and unrelenting theological and political positions, would have been to accept correction from his adversaries.