War and Peace

Which translation of War and Peace should I read?

by Rosamund Bartlett, translator and author of Tolstoy: A Russian Life.

As with most of the Russian classics, there are several translations of Tolstoy’s immortal War and Peace for the anglophone reader to choose from. In fact, about a dozen translations have appeared since the novel’s first complete publication in Russian in 1869, but only a handful stand out. Two respected new translations made War and Peace widely available in paperback in the second half of the twentieth century, one by the British translator Rosemary Edmonds for Penguin Classics in 1957, and the other by the American Ann Dunnigan for Signet Classics in 1968. Neither, however, eclipsed the celebrated versions produced by Constance Garnett, and by the husband and wife team of Louise and Aylmer Maude, published earlier in the century. To a certain extent, this is also true of the two most recent translations, both of which aim for a more accurate rendition of Tolstoy’s singular literary style. The new Penguin Classics edition by Anthony Briggs, published in 2005, breathes new life into War and Peace, but not all have warmed to its contemporary colloquialisms and British idioms. The vivid translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, published by Vintage Classics in 2007, is even more faithful to Tolstoy’s idiosyncracies, but the resulting English prose can be highly un-idiomatic and thus somehow falls short of the majesty of the original.

There are many reasons why the translations by Constance Garnett and the Maudes have stood the test of time, and are now regarded as classics in their own right. Garnett, who published her translation in 1904, worked while Tolstoy was still alive, and even went to Russia to meet the author at his home. She brought an admirable educated and literary sensibility to her translations, but was largely self-taught, and worked without the arsenal of dictionaries and resources available in abundance today, not to mention the benefit of hindsight. Her translation of War and Peace is ultimately a little too Edwardian, and lacks precision. The Maudes both spent long years living in Moscow and spoke flawless Russian. Although neither came from a literary background, they knew Tolstoy well, and received his seal of approval as translators of his work. Knowing Tolstoy’s propensity to make changes to his texts even after they had been published, the Maudes took care to work with the most accurate version of War and Peace. The extensive passages in French in War and Peace, for example, were all summarily translated into Russian for the third edition, published in the 1870s, and corrections were made for its fifth edition. The Maudes’ very readable translation, first published in 1922, and later included in their 21-volume centenary Tolstoy edition, published by Oxford University Press between 1928 and 1937, justifiably became the benchmark, but their Anglicization of all the Russian names in the novel, and the decision to follow Tolstoy’s lead by rendering all the French passages into English detracted from its appeal.

With the publication by Oxford World’s Classics in 2010 of a carefully revised edition of the Maude translation, it is now possible to recommend it unequivocally. As well as re-inserting all the Russian names, the distinguished American Tolstoy scholar Amy Mandelker has restored the French passages of Tolstoy’s original text, updated outmoded expressions with sensitivity, and removed minor editorial interventions and errors introduced by the Maudes. Most of the current English editions of War and Peace include helpful notes, maps, and a glossary of fictional and historical characters, and this version is no exception. As well as an Introduction, Amy Mandelker has contributed a chronology, bibliography, and a brief commentary on the text and translation. A bonus is that the new paperback edition, which is printed on high-quality paper, is a joy to handle, and sports a highly attractive cover design which seems peculiarly apt for Tolstoy’s masterpiece.

Ultimately, the choice of translation is a matter of personal taste, best determined by a patient comparison of different versions, but those readers who cannot afford the luxury of such an exercise can safely be encouraged to trust the claim made by Oxford World’s Classics that its revised Maude version is “definitive” – at least for the forseeable future.