To answer questions about
War and Peace,
please sign up.
Roshan Marlon
Richard Pevear Larissa Volokhonsky ( Translation Date-2007) (Vintage Classics)
Anthony Briggs ( Translation Date-2005) (Penguin Classics)
Rosemary Edmonds (Translation Date-1957)
Aylmer and Louise Maude (Translation Date-1922)
Constance Garnett (Translation Date-1904)
These are the common translations you can find. I have tried chapter comparisons and actually read the book, and found Anthony Briggs one is the excellent version when it comes to the beauty of the language. Penguin used Rosemary Edmonds translation for almost 50 years and switched to Anthony Briggs one. P&L one is alright, but I felt its kind of flat, but sentence flow is good. Aylmer and Louise one is easy to read. Constance Garnett and Aylmer Louise translations are in public domain now. Garnett one is very readable but has some minimal errors here and there.
People often talk about faithfulness to the original Russian. But if a sentence is capable of reproducing 100% of the original meaning, that's what matters. When Tolstoy was trying to make a joke, translation should give us an appropriate joke.
So if I rate these translations, number one for me is Anthony Briggs one. Second Aylmer and Louise Maude, third Richard Pevear Larissa Volokhonsky.
Anthony Briggs ( Translation Date-2005) (Penguin Classics)
Rosemary Edmonds (Translation Date-1957)
Aylmer and Louise Maude (Translation Date-1922)
Constance Garnett (Translation Date-1904)
These are the common translations you can find. I have tried chapter comparisons and actually read the book, and found Anthony Briggs one is the excellent version when it comes to the beauty of the language. Penguin used Rosemary Edmonds translation for almost 50 years and switched to Anthony Briggs one. P&L one is alright, but I felt its kind of flat, but sentence flow is good. Aylmer and Louise one is easy to read. Constance Garnett and Aylmer Louise translations are in public domain now. Garnett one is very readable but has some minimal errors here and there.
People often talk about faithfulness to the original Russian. But if a sentence is capable of reproducing 100% of the original meaning, that's what matters. When Tolstoy was trying to make a joke, translation should give us an appropriate joke.
So if I rate these translations, number one for me is Anthony Briggs one. Second Aylmer and Louise Maude, third Richard Pevear Larissa Volokhonsky.
Rey
This might help you narrow down a translation.
LB
I read the book in print, not on Kindle, so I don't really know about Kindle, but in print, I read part of P&V and part of Maude (the book is so long, I couldn't keep one copy for a long time, had to switch). I didn't read any others. In my opinion, neither is really good, they're both so-so, but Maude is the better one. I am bi-lingual, English-Russian, and I could see the problems in both. The biggest problem I found in the Maude translation is the translation of the names. It translates the names into English (Andrew, Nicolas, Mary, etc), yet the patronymics are not translated, and these combinations look pretty ridiculous to me. I guess patronymics can't be translated at all, so I think the translators should've kept the original Russian names (Andrey, Nikolay, Maria, etc), so they would go better with the patronymics. Another problem w/those anglicized names is that it seems like the writer's intention was to give his favorite characters Russian names while the least favorite ones got foreign ones. Once all the names are translated, this distinction is lost. The P&V version doesn't have this problem but it has many others. Most Russian idioms are translated word for word, no comparable English idioms are used though those exist. I think that if I weren't able to trace those translations back to the original, I wouldn't have understood them at all. Also, many single Russian words are not translated, just transliterated, and while some have footnote translations/explanations, others don't. Not high quality work, if you ask me.
anidiot
Aylmer and Louise Maude's translation is the best, both of War and Peace and of Anna Karenina
Bethwareham
The Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation that Knopf published in 2007 is the clearest version I've ever seen. They figured a way to make the names much easier to remember.
John Fredrick
As it's (with Nabokov's Pale Fire) my favorite book, I have read them all. P and V are far and away the most klutzy--I detest their rendering of Anna Karenina as well; it's as though they've aimed for the reader who's looking for the "easiest to read" version and not the most beautiful. Briggs rocks, but so does, for my money, Rosemary Edmonds. The Maude and Garnett translations work well enough. So there you have it.
Cynthia A.
I am reading the Pavear translation, which is infinitely more readable than the Garnett translation. Because it was so highly touted, I do plan on reading the Maude translation next, but on an initial look, they look very similar.
Janet Argentiero
I've read a few translations but liked Pevear and Volohonsky best except for the French translations being in the footnotes. This is especially annoying in the kindle version but not so bad in book form.
David Moran
Be aware that in the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation the French dialog is in the footnotes. In the Rosemary Edmunds version it's incorporated into the main text which makes it a lot easier to read because there's a lot of it!
James Lawrence
This is the best translation I've seen (Pevear and Volokhonsky).
By now I suspect you've already read whatever translation you had. But for others new to the task, the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation is alive, faithful to the original (faith to the original versions is something other translators have transgressed against, often with unhappy results) and fascinating.
The Kindle Edition of Dec. 2008 is in particular a joy as it removes all the page flipping back and forth to footnote pages: just tap the note at the end, say, of a passage in French (2% of the manuscript, mostly in the beginning stages of the story, is in French) and you're rewarded with a popup translation or a page with the translation, from which another quick tap takes you right back to where you left off.
Amazing.
Ditto with historical footnotes which are usually brief and helpful for context. And with unknown words, which Kindle serves up a translation for quick as a flash.
This is Kindle, and translating, done right.
The previous version I started with, and abandoned, was the Maude. It's accomplished for its time (1920s I believe) but Tolstoy's voice, the deliberate use of repetitive words in passages, the French most of all, are adulterated, modified or even cut. How is this defensible translation if it changes the voice of an author merely to make modern readers more comfortable?
And I thought the Maude version was relatively boring and lacking in color. I read three chapters and sought out another, and happy to have found Pevear and V.
Also, an excellent introduction by Pevear gives you deep insight into the commitment the translators made to preserving in every instance the nuance, power and sheer life force of Tolstoy's literary voice.
I'm still reading it...and loving it.
By now I suspect you've already read whatever translation you had. But for others new to the task, the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation is alive, faithful to the original (faith to the original versions is something other translators have transgressed against, often with unhappy results) and fascinating.
The Kindle Edition of Dec. 2008 is in particular a joy as it removes all the page flipping back and forth to footnote pages: just tap the note at the end, say, of a passage in French (2% of the manuscript, mostly in the beginning stages of the story, is in French) and you're rewarded with a popup translation or a page with the translation, from which another quick tap takes you right back to where you left off.
Amazing.
Ditto with historical footnotes which are usually brief and helpful for context. And with unknown words, which Kindle serves up a translation for quick as a flash.
This is Kindle, and translating, done right.
The previous version I started with, and abandoned, was the Maude. It's accomplished for its time (1920s I believe) but Tolstoy's voice, the deliberate use of repetitive words in passages, the French most of all, are adulterated, modified or even cut. How is this defensible translation if it changes the voice of an author merely to make modern readers more comfortable?
And I thought the Maude version was relatively boring and lacking in color. I read three chapters and sought out another, and happy to have found Pevear and V.
Also, an excellent introduction by Pevear gives you deep insight into the commitment the translators made to preserving in every instance the nuance, power and sheer life force of Tolstoy's literary voice.
I'm still reading it...and loving it.
Ashley Doutt
I'm reading the Briggs's translation and it's wonderful. I friend recommended his translation.
Phil
Hands down Constance Garnett, the Goddess of Russian Lit in English no matter what anyone says. Close second ... Anthony Briggs. I've read W+P multiple times in different translations and Garnett is the best, P/V the worst ... their translations are awful.
Utsab Nath
A few years ago, I read a piece in The New Yorker by David Remnick () in which he asserted that the couple, Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, had emerged as the definitive translators of Russian classics from Gogol to Tolstoy because of their precise interpretation of original syntax.
Although, just awhile ago, I read a piece in Commentary by Gary Morsen () which totally rubbished the couple's translation work as inert and entirely lacking in critical and literary sensitivity and attributed much of their acclaim to an organised marketing campaign in the publishing world.
I am currently on Constance Garnett's translation of War and Peace, and will probably head to the Pevear-Volokhonsky translation of Demons after this.
Since I am a little confused about the merits of either translator, anyone cares to weigh in?
Although, just awhile ago, I read a piece in Commentary by Gary Morsen () which totally rubbished the couple's translation work as inert and entirely lacking in critical and literary sensitivity and attributed much of their acclaim to an organised marketing campaign in the publishing world.
I am currently on Constance Garnett's translation of War and Peace, and will probably head to the Pevear-Volokhonsky translation of Demons after this.
Since I am a little confused about the merits of either translator, anyone cares to weigh in?
João Nunes
I'm still reading the kindle War and Peace version from Henry Gifford (Editor) and Aylmer Maude (Translator), Louise Maude (Translator) and I'm enjoying it a lot. It's very clear and easy to read, with lots of historical footnotes from the translators, and includes all the french phrases used by the characters, together with their translations.
DavidEzell
"Best" is subjective; I'm reading two translations together. The venerated Maude version and the Peaver & Volokhonsky version (on Kindle) which translates the French with great care and has detailed footnotes.
Wendy
I agree that Aylmer and Louise Maude's translation is wonderful and the Kindle recently (Spring 2017) had an update which made pulling up the MANY footnotes (including all of the French translations) dramatically easier. It was a drastic change for the better in the middle of my reading the book. Overall, I think there's a strong argument for reading such a footnote-heavy book on a kindle vs. hard-copy.
Braj
All your classics for free to download for any e-reader.
Sarah
The Pevear and Volokhonsky translation is good; so is Aylmer & Louise Maude's - although certainly more dated - and it has the virtue of being either free or very cheap. The one I would avoid is Rosemary Edmonds' (Penguin), which is very stilted and at times inaccurate.
Arielle
Briggs translation, definitely.
Lucy Day Werts
There are free ebooks of the old Maude translation. The 2010 Maude/Mandelker translation published by Oxford (the one I'd choose) and the 1968 Dunnigan translation published by Signet are both available as ebooks for purchase. It seems the 2005 Briggs and the 2007 Pevear and Volokhonsky translations are not available as ebooks.
For links and to find out more about the various editions available, visit We Love Translations: World Literature in English, at:
For links and to find out more about the various editions available, visit We Love Translations: World Literature in English, at:
Kumari de Silva
so did you chose one and did you like War and Peace? Curious which translation you ended up reading
Sarah
Rosemary Edmonds
Barb LaPierre
I really like Aylmer and Louise Maude's translation of War and Peace for my Kindle
Francis T. Villante
War and Peace by Andrew d. Kaufman
Steve Garriott
I'm enjoying the Maude translation but really haven't compared it with any others
Charbeli Ramos
I am reading Aylmer and Louse Maude's translation, which is the one available at Gutenberg.org. So far so good.
Sasha
Pevear & Volokhonsky are reliable default translators for basically the entire Russian canon. Briggs' translation of W&P will also do you right, although I like P&V just a tiny bit better. (Briggs has Denisov talk like Barbara Walters; it's distracting.)
About Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
