A Russian Text Version of War and Peace: http://ilibrary.ru/text/11/p.1/index.html
Multiple Translator of the Russian Language: https://www.lexilogos.com/english/russian_dictionary.htm#
This link contains a good simple rundown of the different translations: http://ospidillo-blog.blogspot.com/2011/02/which-translation-of-war-and-peace.html
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Peace#Full_translations_into_English
Clara Bell: Google Books
Before Tilsit: 1805-1807 Two Volumes-Vol 1
Book 1: Chapter 1-Book 2 in entirety
Before Tilsit: Vol 2
Book 3-Book 5 Chapter 21
The Invasion: Book 5 Chapter 22-Book 10 Chapter 18
War and Peace Borodino, the French at Moscow-Epilogue 1812-1820:
Volume 1: Book 10: Chapter 19 - Book 12: Chapter 3
Volume 2: Book 12: Chapter 4- The end
Leo Wiener: Google Books through Babel.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000006910287;view=1up;seq=522
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000006910287;view=1up;seq=522
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/inu.32000006910253
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31175009571681;view=1up;seq=23
This link contains all the volumes of Wiener’s Tolstoy work: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008561655
Nathan Haskell Dole: Google Books through Archive
https://archive.org/stream/warandpeace01dolegoog/warandpeace01dolegoog_djvu.txt
compare with Anna Karenina version here:
https://archive.org/stream/annakareninatols00tolsiala/annakareninatols00tolsiala_djvu.txt
Constance Garnett: I am using the Barnes and Noble Classics edition, published in 2005, New York, New York. The notes are by Lena Lencek, but I will often, for ease, refer to them as by Garnett (her translation appeared in 1904).
Louise and Aylmer Maude: I am using the Wordsworth Edition published 1993 with the introduction in 2001, Ware, Hertfordshire. Instead of saying "Maude and Maude," I will just use "Maude" as a singular when referring to this translation, which first appeared in 1922.
An online version of the translation through Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2600/2600-h/2600-h.htm
The Norton Critical Edition, edited and revised by George Gibian (I am using the second edition, 1996, New York, New York) also uses the Maude translation.
Rosemary Edmonds: Penguins Classics first published in 1957 (I am using the one volume 1982 version, Harmondsworth, Middlesex). The copyright spells her name as Edmunds, but the cover spells it "Edmonds," which is what I use.
Ann Dunnigan: Signet Classics, originally published in 1968, republished 2007 (the version I have), New York, New York.
Anthony Briggs: Penguin Classics, London England 2006 (hardback), 2007 (the version I have).
Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky: (henceforth known as Pevear and Volokhonsky and if you ever see them referred to as Pev and Vol, this is what I use before editing for ease so just let me know that I need to go back and change it) Vintage Classics, Random House, New York, New York, 2008.
Amy Mandelker: technically a revision and edit of the Maude translation. Oxford’s World Classics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2010.
Manuel Komroff: an abridgment and edit of the Garnett translation. Bantham Classics, Bantham Books, Grosset and Dunlap, Inc., New York, New York 1956, 1965 (the version I have).
Edmund Fuller: abridgment of the Garnett translation. Scholastic Magazines, Scholastic Book Services, New York, New York, 1955, 1968 (version I have).
Alexandria Kropotkin: abridgment and translation. My version is the 1992 Barnes and Noble Books, Marboro Books Corp, New York, New York. Strangely, Barnes and Noble does not put her name on it.
Andrew Bromfield: "Original Version" using the "Original Russian text" published in 2000 by Zakharov Publishers. Bromfield's 2007 version published by Harpercollins Publishers, New York, New York.
Some candid thoughts from Briggs:
On Bromfield's Version (in a footnote placed at the end of the introduction):
"A short 'early version' of War and Peace was published in Moscow (2000) based on published material, odd pages and extracts from notebooks up to 1866. This was immediately rejected and transcended; it is now of interest only to a few scholars. The recent English translation of this abandoned draft, which omits valuable material from the novel and radically alters the ending, should be ignored."
The condescension and dismissal (not even mentioning Bromfield's name just seems petty) aside, I will personally say that the wording and phrasing of Bromfield's version makes it easy and enjoyable to read and the differences between the "Original Version" and the latter more received version will be noted in the chapter breakdowns so readers will be encouraged to make their own judgments on the merits of the "should be ignored" version.
Translator's Note (still from Briggs):
"Clara Bell('s)...version is surprisingly effective, though much of the original has been omitted and what survives is nearer to paraphrase than translation."
While Bell's version has some errors and occasional strange wording (along with her unique chapter breaks), it seems inaccurate to say "much of the original has been omitted."
Its wording might be considered loose enough (because of the double translation problem) to be considered a paraphrase though. I'd argue that it is more readable than the next two versions Briggs mentions:
"The early translations by N.H. Dole (1889) and Leo Wiener (1904) were more accurate, though they still contain plenty of small slips, and their American phrasing now has an archaic ring."
I think this is true. My biggest complaint about both would probably the amount of untranslated words included in their versions.
"Constance Garnett, the admirable early doyenne of Russian literature in English translation, produced a sensitive version in 1904; she had a delicate feel for language, though there are some errors...."
Briggs gives some latter reasoning that sheds more light on Garnett's version, but it is worth noting that according to the pedantic Vladimir Nabokov, "the Garnett translation (of Anna Karenina, and we can assume he also believes this of her version of War and Peace) is very poor." The Komroff introduction also makes a note of Garnett's Victorianism getting in the way on occasion. (For what it is worth, the version of Crime and Punishment I've read is Garnett's.)
"Maude....succeeded by Rosemary Edmonds's equally reliable (at times derivative) translation (1957), which Penguin has used for nearly half a century, (updated in 1978); and then by a sound American version, by Ann Dunnigan, in 1968." (see note on the quality of translations in the Wikipedia link above).
"There is one way in which all the existing versions fall short: from Constance Garnett onwards they have been produced by women of a particular social and cultural background (Louise having contributed more than Aylmer to the Maudes' version), with some resulting flatness and implausibility in the dialogue, especially that between soldiers, peasants and all the lower orders. A specialist critic puts it well, speaking of the Maudes, who are the most highly regarded translators: 'Their work can always be counted on for....negative virtues: sobriety, explicitness, a firm hold on the argument. However, their resources are limited in range of tone. They have little sense of colloquial idiom...'
"To take a specific example: Pierre, watching a cannonball crashes down into the Rayevsky redoubt and takes a man's leg off, hears another soldier call out in response: 'Ekh! Neskladnaya!' (III, II, 31). The English versions of this are: 'Ekh! You beastly thing!' (Dole); 'O, awkward one!' (Weiner); 'Hey, awkward hussy!' (Garnett); 'Awkward baggage!' (Maude); 'Oh you hussy!' (Edmonds); 'Ah, you're a bungler!' (Dunnigan). Curiously enough the best in terms of natural speech is Clara Bell's: 'Ah, you brute!' The original, with connotations of both awkwardness and femininity, is rather difficult to translate, but one thing is certain: no soldier in the heat of battle ever said anything like most of the phrases we have been offered so far."
"The previous translations of War and Peace have erred slightly too much on the puritan side, literal fidelity being set at a higher premium than writing naturally in English. It is now time to move somewhat in the other direction."
Tolstoy's literary style has its faults - such as undue repetition, grammatical inaccuracy and some sentences of excessive length - and many of them have to be faithfully reproduced in order to avoid falsification, but by and large he is an easy read for a Russian (and comparatively easy to translate)."
As I think you will see on occasion in the chapter breakdowns, Briggs's translation's biggest fault is when it errs too much on this side, jettisoning specificity for ease of reading (though, for many readers, this may be preferred).
"I have used a British English form of speech, without, I hope, making the text unnatural for non-British readers."
From Mandelker's NOTE ON THE TEXT AND TRANSLATION:
"Maudes' War and Peace....edition has drawn a certain amount of justifiable criticism: in particular, critics have noted the Anglicization of Russian names, the translation of the French passages into English, the insertion of narrative chapter headings composed entirely by the Maudes, and a tendency to elevate the level of discourse inappropriately and according to Victorian literary tastes."
"The transliteration system used is GOST (1971)"
Wikipedia link on GOST: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOST_16876-71
I believe a list of all the systems and their methodologies appear here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Russian
This Romanization problem is what drives a lot of the difference in names between the translations.
No comments:
Post a Comment