Franz Anton Schiefner was undoubtedly one of the most outstanding scholars of the nineteenth century. Born in 1817 in Reval, the son of an immigrant from Bohemia, he studied jurisprudence in St Petersburg and classical languages and Sanskrit in Berlin. Back in St Petersburg, in 1852 he became a member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences and a director at its library; he was also in charge of the Ethnographical Museum and held a professorship in classical languages at the Catholic Spiritual Academy. When Schiefner died in 1879, he left many influential and pioneering contributions to several linguistic and philological disciplines – Tibetan, Indian, Finno-Ugric and Caucasian studies – and he studied myths and folklore as well. A list of his writings contains 185 items (cf. H. Walravens, “Anton Schiefner (1817–1879): Leben und Werk”, Zentralasiatische Studien 2007, pp. 131–69), most of them in German.

It goes without saying that an appraisal of such a man would be incomplete if it were merely based on his publications irrespective of their historical context. It is therefore highly desirable that Schiefner's letters to his colleagues and friends be published. For the volume under consideration the editors have collected Schiefner's letters addressed to four Sanskrit scholars, from the estates of Weber (State Library, Berlin), Roth (University Library, Tübingen), Whitney (Yale University Library) and Kuhn (University Library, Munich).

The major part of the book (pp. 21–281) contains 91 letters to Weber. As they were close friends, Schiefner not only discusses scholarly topics with Weber, but also wrote to him about his own life. Weber and Schiefner agreed with Böhtlingk in their joint rejection of Max Müller: “Indeed, the M.M. is a very peculiar plant’’ (“Ja, der M.M. ist eine ganz eigenthümliche Pflanze’’, March 2nd/14th, 1870, p. 68; cf. A. Stache-Weiske, “‘Da die Herren Sanskritisten zornige Leute sind …’: Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis von Otto Böhtlingk und Max Müller aus Briefen und anderen Quellen’’, in: 200 Jahre Indienforschung – Geschichte(n), Netzwerke, Diskurse, ed. H. Brückner and K. Steiner, Wiesbaden, 2012, pp. 65–95). Most interesting is Schiefner's conflict with Vassilij P. Vassiliev: when Schiefner had published Tāranātha's Rgya gar chos byung, Vassiliev accused him of having unduly used his own Russian translation. Schiefner's attempts to clarify the matter and restore peace with Vassiliev failed, and the communication between them came to an end (pp. 40 seqq., the editors also quote Vassiliev's accusation in footnote 106 in full). Schiefner summarizes: “In any case, he [i.e. Vassiliev] lacks civilised behaviour, and vanity has taken place in him instead” (“Auf jeden Fall fehlt ihm Civilisation und statt dieser hat die Eitelkeit in ihm Platz genommen’’, January 19th/31st, 1870, p. 63). From Schiefner's account we get an idea of how not only personal suspicions and disgrace, but also open conflicts arose between Russian scholars and their German-speaking colleagues, due to the increasing nationalism in St Petersburg. However, Schiefner did not show any nationalist attitudes. In 1870/71 he distanced himself from his warlike countrymen in St Petersburg (p. 96). Weber, on the other hand, was loyal to the Prussian rule. The political opinions of the two scholars were different, as were their religious beliefs – Schiefner was a Roman Catholic, Weber an active member of a Protestant parish in Berlin (p. 93). But, in Schiefner's eyes, such controversies could not have affected their friendship in any way: “Fortunately, we may join hands in Buddha, and I am glad that we shall not lock horns over that subject’’ (“Zum Glück dürfen wir uns aber in Buddha die Hand reichen und da freut es mich, daß wir auf diesem Gebiet einander nicht in die Haare kommen werden’’, May 7/19th 1877, p. 244). Whereas in Schiefner's letters to Weber scholarly and personal elements are often mixed, the personal component in the letters to Roth and Whitney is less prominent. With Kuhn, in particular, Schiefner had a lively exchange, especially for the comparative study legends, fairytales and folklore.

In the footnotes the editors most admirably have given short biographical sketches for all people who are mentioned in the letters. In addition, their names – approximately one thousand! – are collected in a most valuable index (pp. 439–54). However, the publication does not contain a subject index. For example, in 1873–74 Schiefner and Weber discussed the names for chess pieces and some other board games such as mig dmangs in Central Asia (pp. 162 seqq.), or in 1877 Schiefner told Weber about his research on the Udānavarga etc. (pp. 248 seqq.). Unfortunately one has to read the whole book in order to find such passages: the publication would have been more useful if also some other terms such as mythological names, titles of texts and scholarly subjects were presented in an index.

The volume is enriched by a collection of some small, little-known works by Schiefner (pp. 385–437), among them his German translation of Lönnrot's summary of the second edition of his Kalevala (pp. 391–427), a concise comparison of Kalevala and Kalewipoeg (pp. 429–31) etc. The editors also have included the “Tea Song’’ (“Theelied’’, pp. 381–4), Kuhn's funny ode to his Sanskrit fellows at Berlin, which he had written on the occasion of his own wedding party in 1858 – most probably one of the earliest compositions of a Westerner in the Sanskrit language that has survived.

Schiefner's distinguished expertise in many fields is well known. Readers of this book will indeed better understand the historical contexts of some of Schiefner's writings. They will get a good idea of how Schiefner – and other scholars – lived and worked one-and-a-half centuries ago. Particularly, they will be captivated by Schiefner's friendly style of writing, his humorous remarks and gentle irony. Thus they also will gain a vivid impression of his personality. H. Walravens and A. Stache-Weiske are to be thanked for this most carefully prepared edition, which they have annotated with admirable meticulousness. This publication shows once more the fascination of research in history of science and biographies of scholars.