When Jasper Hopkins published Nicholas of Cusa's Dialectical Mysticism (1988), he included as an appendix a translation of part of Hugh of Balma's Viae Sion Lugent. The presence of Hugh's text was meant to complement both Cusa's treatise and Professor Hopkins's extensive introduction, which situated the De Visione Dei in the context of the "Tegernsee Controversy" over the respective roles of the intellect and affect in mystical theology. Hugh of Balma on Mystical Theology (HBMT), a complete translation of the Viae Sion Lugent, is in certain respects, then, the completion of a project signaled in that older volume.
Unfortunately, however, the intervening publication of Dennis Martin's Classics of Western Spirituality volume, Carthusian Spirituality, forces us to consider HBMT relative to the translation and supporting material supplied by Martin. Hopkins is clearly aware of Martin's translation, as he lists it in his bibliography, but he declines to explain what he hopes to do additionally or differently. I am not arguing for one of those introductions that builds up one's own work on the literary corpses of preceding scholarship, but to address the question might have provided some insight into Hopkins's objectives, and thereby some hints as to how to read the book.
In the final analysis, Hugh of Balma on Mystical Theology seems confused regarding its intended readership. Its contribution--an important one for scholars--may be said to lie primarily in Hopkins's painstaking correction of the Ruello edition of the Latin text, even this being mitigated somewhat by the apparatus used to present the textual corrections. The translation clings tightly to the Latin in ways that are understandable but nevertheless result in confusing and awkward phrasings. I will compare several passages, below, concerning which readers may make their own judgments, but I am inclined to recommend Hopkins's book primarily for scholars and students working closely with the Latin text of the Viae Sion Lugent. Those for whom such textual-critical considerations do not figure prominently in their engagement with the text may prefer to rely on Martin's less literal, more fluid CWS translation and introduction.
Hugh of Balma on Mystical Theology includes a short introduction addressing historical, thematic, and translation issues; a brief summary of the argument of the Viae Sion Lugent; an annotated translation of the complete text of the Viae Sion Lugent; an appendix comprised of a partial translation of Nicholas Kempf's Tractatus de Mystica Theologia; and, as a second appendix, a reprint of Hopkins's introduction from the older Cusanus book, mentioned above.
The authorial-biographical section of the introduction summarizes the current state of the question on the identity of Hugh of Balma. Likewise, the summary of Hugh's treatise is highly condensed, probably too condensed for a non-specialist reader looking for assistance understanding what Hugh is saying and why he is saying it. The primary value of the former is to situate the text somewhat, while the latter does at least provide a high-level overview of the argument of the treatise.
Those sections of the introduction covering major thematic questions--mystical theology, deification, etc.-- are concise but good. Hopkins's discussion of the translation of certain Latin terms is for the most part quite reasonable, and at points even precisely the sort of thing that might be helpful for younger students of Latin or those less familiar with the technical vocabulary of Medieval mystical theology.
It must be said that the rather workmanlike translation is a tad disappointing. Having wrestled with some of Jean Gerson's more technical efforts, I can appreciate the difficulty of balancing faithfulness to the text with a clear or even felicitous rendering. Hopkins's translation is not a bad translation, but I am afraid that he meets with more success in the former goal than the latter.
To begin with, adhering too closely to the Latin vocabulary and its English cognates results in a profusion of odd, archaic, and even non-existent words (e.g., "encaptivating," "laical," as well as unnecessarily wordy or round-about phrasings. These choices combine with puzzling stylistic decisions to weigh the text down considerably. For example, why must "seat of wisdom" (sedes sapientiae) be rendered, "seat-of-wisdom", or "fount of all things," "Fount-of-all-things"? And yet these superfluous and even distracting hyphenations are sprinkled liberally throughout the text, including the introductory material. Hopkins also insists on using "viz.," rather than simply saying, "that is" or "namely" or even translating around it (see, e.g., p. 108: "And here is why: viz., because mind more divinely and more eminently attains").
Moreover, Hopkins's virtue of fidelity to the text triggers a further vice, in this reviewer's opinion, namely, the unnecessary use of brackets to indicate terms introduced by the translator as part of the translation process. We shall see examples of this below. Hopkins's "interpolations" are judicious and nearly always necessary for clarity. Enclosing every such instance in brackets only neutralizes their otherwise salutary effect. Those readers most likely to care if the bracketed word is actually in the text are probably working with the Latin and ought to be checking it themselves.
These brackets come on top of an already perplexing annotation apparatus, where two sets of superscript numbers--plain numbers and numbers preceded by an "n"--refer to two separate sets of end notes, one containing only textual corrections, the other noting references and providing occasional explanations. The two appendices also have each their own private footnote sections, so that the endnotes for the main part of the book come before the first appendix, and notes for the first appendix appear between the first and second appendices. I realize that this layout was very likely not Hopkins's decision, but his publisher has done him and his book a disservice with it.
All of this contributes to create the impression that the book is uncertain as to its audience. If, as it would seem, the book is intended for persons prepared to work with the Latin original, why not present the critical apparatus in footnotes, particularly when so much of the unique value in this book is precisely textual-critical? And why clutter the text with brackets and multiple notation formats? If, on the other hand, it is not meant for such readers, why further hinder non-specialist readability with brackets and a translation cleaving too tightly to the original?
A comparison of Martin's and Hopkins's translations, which is necessary if we are to consider which text to use in classes or to recommend to students, will provide a better sense of some of the issues. We will also find occasion to question a decision or two of Martin's, but the main purpose of the exercise is to give the reader a feel for Hopkins's translation and the differences between the two translations. Further, translation preferences are often a matter of taste or of different weightings of priorities. Textual references are to the Ruello edition, section, paragraph number, and lines.
(1) Prolog 2.4-8
Ruello: Non enim ad hoc animam creavit Deus ut, contra suam generositatem, in multitudine quaternorum ovinarum pellium repleretu, sed ad hoc ut esset sedes sapientiae in qua rex pacificus civitatis supernae, scilicet Altissimus, resideret.
Martin: For God did not intend that the soul he created should be stuffed so full of sheepskin copybooks that his goodness is pushed aside; rather, he intended the soul as the seat of wisdom where the heavenly city's king of peace, namely God the Most High, might reside.
Hopkins: For [God] did not create the soul to the end that, contrary to His generosity, it would be filled with multitudinous quires of parchment; rather, [He created it] to the end that it would be the seat-of-wisdom in which would reside the Heavenly City's peace-loving King, viz., the Most High [Son of God].
Here Hopkins's insistence on faithfulness to the text produces a much less readable, but not more accurate, translation. If anything, Martin's expresses the sense of the passage much more clearly, even if Hopkins is right about "Altissimus."
(2)
Ruello: Deinde conscendit anima ad multo eminentiorum gradum et statum in quo, quotiescumque vult, sine aliqua cogitatione praevia, immediate in deo adficitur, quod ad plenum non potest aliqua humana industria edoceri. (Prol. 6.20-24)
Martin: Then the soul steps up to a much higher level, in which, as often as she wishes, she is directly affected into God, something that cannot be taught by any sort of human effort.
Hopkins: Thereafter the soul ascends into a much more excellent stage and state, where the soul, as often as it will and apart from any guiding knowledge, is immediately touched by God--something which cannot be fully explained by any human effort.
Hopkins's understanding of "gradus" as "stage" is much preferable to Martin's transmutation of it into a verb, augmenting "conscendit." On the other hand, Martin's calling attention to the oddity of "in deo adficitur" seems to me more compelling than Hopkins's (in this case much less literal) rendering.
(3)
Ruello: Hanc ubique inclusam in sacra Pagina ostendendo, exemplum ponamus in uno, ut similiter et in aliis sacrae paginae locis illud idem verissime ostendatur. Et ne longius hoc protraham, exemplum primo subditur in Oratione dominica. (Ill. 13.1-5)
Martin: We shall show how this anagogy is contained everywhere in Scripture by giving an example of a single passage, from which one can truly proceed to discover similar examples elsewhere in Scripture. Without further delay, we shall begin with the example of the Lord's Prayer.
Hopkins: In order to show this [art] to be everywhere included in the Sacred Page, let us take an example with respect to one passage, so that, likewise, the same point may be exhibited most truly also with regard too other locations in the Sacred Page. And in order not to protract this discussion too long, I will take an example in regard to the Lord's Prayer.
This is an example of Hopkins's principle of faithfulness to the text turning on him, forcing his translation into awkward, unwieldy contortions. Martin's rendering here is just as faithful to the spirit and even to the letter of the text, but is much more felicitous.
All in all, the book is a useful one for library collections and for scholars working on Hugh of Balma. For general use, however, it seems unlikely to replace Dennis Martin's CWS volume.