Tamás Karáth's monograph Richard Rolle analyzes the fifteenth-century translations of the full works of Richard Rolle with the aim of tracing changes in the authority with which Rolle was endowed, as well as transformation of the representation of Rollean mysticism between Rolle's original works and the renditions. The study is thus one “in intellectual and cultural history” (12), the focus of which lies in changes of devotional attitudes and mystical discourse. The scope of the work is ambitious, but Karáth manages to attain his objectives.

Karáth begins the work by providing the reader with ample information on the topic of Rolle's life and by introducing Rollean mysticism along with the terms central to its understanding. This account is followed by a discussion on the contemporary reception and criticism of Rolle, especially regarding the sensory nature of his mysticism, and a presentation of Rolle in the context of translation in its manifold senses—that is, verbalizing his experience as a mystic and transposing others by providing them with tools to such a state; his rendition of the Psalter into English; renderings of his works into other languages for different purposes and audiences.

The remainder of the book is devoted to a discussion of the various translations of Rolle's works. The major problem with the analysis is that the exact source texts of the translations remain unknown. Karáth is fully aware of the fact and instead uses—where available—critical editions of the original language versions of the text, and where not available, editions of some version of the original text. On the basis of the analysis of two renditions of Rolle's works into Latin—Ego Dormio and The Form of Living—Karáth argues that the translator of the former altered the genre of the text from an epistle to a dialoguing tract and rendered it for a very different context of use, that of a cloister. Moreover, Rolle's authority, Karáth postulates, is not in doubt and is employed in the translation to argue against contemporary heterodox beliefs.

Chapter 3 is preoccupied with Richard Misyn's rendition of Incendium Amoris (Fire of Love), where Karáth investigates Misyn's interventions whose probable aim was to align the text with the needs of a new audience. Karáth also traces two instances of theological censorship that might point to Misyn's still feeling uncomfortable with some aspects of the work.

By far the most complex analysis is provided in chapter 4, where seven independent translations of Emendatio Vite are discussed. They are considered from a variety of angles, and Karáth demonstrates how different uses and audiences of the renditions influenced translators’ strategies, drawing attention to their idiosyncratic features. Karáth traces various theological speculations within the renditions, proving that the unrest felt by Rolle's contemporaries toward some elements of his mysticism was no longer palpable in the fifteenth century, and that some other issues seem to have attracted translators’ attention instead, such as the full vision of God before death, deification, and the vision of final judgment and human participation in it. The last section of the book includes seven appendices, spanning over a hundred pages, which provide invaluable textual and lexical data.

As mentioned above, the scope of the work is immense, and the amount of the data Karáth analyzed is overwhelming. Unfortunately, the latter is felt by the reader. While researchers interested in cultural or intellectual history will no doubt find the book well researched and will appreciate the inclusion of all the renditions of Rolle's full works in the analysis, the other addressee of the monograph, such as scholars interested in translation studies, might find it baffling. In fact, one feels tempted to ask why Karáth decided to discuss all of the renditions in a single book, despite the fact that the material gathered clearly exceeds its scope. This results in a few difficulties for the reader.

Firstly, the book is unbalanced in some places. In chapter 2, thirty-seven (of forty) pages are devoted to the discussion on Ego Dormio, and the space dedicated to The Form of Living amounts to two and a half pages, of which one is given over to footnotes. This is much less than the space allotted to the discussion of the Carmelites appointed to the see of Dromore (over five pages in chapter 3).

Furthermore, even though one cannot deny that Karáth conducted an in-depth analysis of the renditions, its value is hard to appreciate due to the manner in which it is presented. While literary discussion is accorded its due place in the main text, linguistic considerations are given only limited space in the body of the text, and the data supporting Karáth's claims are instead dispersed among footnotes, appendices, and—at times—the main text. One can only wonder what principles guided the decisions, as the elements that for some of the translations are presented within the chapter, for others are given in the appendices, and for some only a selection are given in footnotes. Constant consultation of the three places makes for a tiresome experience.

Finally, even though it is obvious that each of the renditions is a different text, the discussion would still benefit from the introduction of a consistent set of parameters to gauge some aspects of the translations. Their lack is especially visible in chapter 4, where different versions of Emendatio Vite are discussed independently from a variety of angles, with few constant points of comparison between the translations. More consistency would also be welcome with respect to providing translations of some Latin or French quotations (for example, at 218 and 232).