Shedding Light on the Shadows: The French Passages of Tolstoy’s War and Peace in English Translation

by

Caitlin Towers

Timothy Portice, Advisor Julien Weber, Second Reader

Comparative Literature Thesis

Middlebury College

Middlebury, VT

February 8, 2016

1 Introduction

Lev Tolstoy first published the entirety of his novel War and Peace in 1869.1 It did not take long for his work to reach a foreign audience, and the first translation of War and Peace into

English was completed between 1885 and 1886. Over the past century and a half since its publication there have been twelve major English translations of the novel.

Archdeacon Farrar, who was a 19th century cleric and author, said “If Count Tolstoï’s books have appeared in edition after edition, and translation after translation, the reason is because the world learns from him to see life as it is” (Dole, iii) Each translation of a novel speaks to a different generation and different audience, and helps decades of readers learn “to see life as it is” in ways specific to their times. With each new translation Tolstoy’s novel becomes accessible to and relatable for new audiences, ranging from a British audience at the turn of the century to an American audience in the middle of the Cold War.

Although all of these American and British translations vary in ways that are fascinating culturally, politically and historically, this study focuses specifically on one aspect of the translation of War and Peace: the different ways in which the many passages of the novel originally written in French are translated. The manner in which translators choose to represent these specific passages varies widely in different English translations. In my thesis, I propose to answer this question: How do the different ways in which the translators of War and Peace interpret Tolstoy’s French passages bring to light the complexity and significance of Tolstoy’s artistic and linguistic choices which prove so challenging and divisive for his translators and their audiences? At the root of this question lie three more: can the same information be imparted

1 There were six major editions of the novel published during Tolstoy’s lifetime. Translators most often use the fifth edition.

2 to readers through both domesticating and foreignizing methods of translation?2 In which cases does retaining the French make the novel more clear, and in which cases can removing it create smoothness and clarity for a reader? Lastly, what linguistic implications regarding the historical, cultural, and political background of the novel are lost in translation, and which ones can perhaps afford to be lost?

The first edition of War and Peace was published in 1869, but it is debated to this day which of the first six editions of War and Peace published during Tolstoy’s lifetime should be seen as the definitive version. Unlike the first and second, the third and fourth editions of the novel, published in 1873 and 1880 respectively, translated the French passages into Russian. The fifth and sixth editions, however, restored the French to the novel. The fifth edition was most widely used by translators in the 20th century. Because there were editions of War and Peace published in Tolstoy’s lifetime without the major digressions into French that were present in the first and second editions, there was much debate as to whether Tolstoy really wanted these

French passages in the novel at all. In his book Tolstoy’s War and Peace, a Study, R. F. Christian writes:

As the writing of the novel progressed, there is evidence that Tolstoy began to doubt the wisdom of his use of foreign words in a Russian novel…Eventually in 1873, when Tolstoy drastically revised the published novel, all the French words were cut out. Writing later in the same year to Strakhov he confessed: ‘I was sometimes sorry about doing away with the French, but on the whole I think it is better without it.’ Although Tolstoy veered round to this conclusion in the 1870s, the fact remains that the French words were later restored in the definitive edition, and had presumably been introduced originally for some definite reason. (158-9)

This passage shows that Tolstoy himself weighed the cons of his inclusion of French passages above the pros at times, but they are ultimately restored in later editions of the novel.

2 Domesticating methods of translation seek to conform the source text to the target culture, while foreignizing methods of translation retain aspects of the source text even when they do not conform to the conventions, writing or otherwise, of the target culture.

3 For this study, I chose to focus on nine different translations. The first, which is Clara

Bell’s 1886 translation, uses the 1884 French translation of the novel by “Une belle russe” as a source text.3 Bell’s version is only 366 pages in total, whereas most translations are at least three times as long. In her translation, Clara Bell cuts and paraphrases many sections of the book.

Although important elements of plot are retained, it is more of an interpretation of the novel than a true translation. Rather than trying to recreate Tolstoy’s novel, Bell uses material from War and Peace to create her own French work.

In 1898, Nathan Haskell Dole published the first English translation of War and Peace that used Tolstoy’s Russian as its source text. Dole keeps some amount of French in his translation, but he chooses to translate most of the larger sections of French. The French words and phrases that he keeps are those that would most likely be familiar to an educated American reader at the turn of the 19th century. He does, however, include a footnote right at the beginning explaining that many conversations were held in a mixture of French and English, which many later translators did not do. These linguistic choices suggest that his target audience would recognize French phrases, or at least appreciate having them in the text. Dole is also the first translator into English who directly addresses Tolstoy’s use of French in the novel, which suggests that he considered the retention of some amount of French to be important to translating

Tolstoy.

3 This 1884 French translation is one of four different French translations of the novel that were used for reference throughout this research. These French translations were the 1884 translation by ‘Une Russe’, the 1945 translation by Henri Mongault, the 1960 Boris de Schlozer translation, and the 2010 translation by Élisabeth Guertik. They all left the French passages roughly as they were and noted the difference between what was originally in French and that which was translated with footnotes or italics.

4 The two most well known English translations of War and Peace from the first half of the

20th century are that of Constance Garnett in 1904 and Louise and Aylmer Maude in 1922. 4 Both

Garnett and the Maudes lived in England and knew Lev Tolstoy personally. In Aylmer Maude’s biography, The Life of Tolstoy, he writes that at one point Tolstoy “commended some recent

English versions, including work done by Mrs. Garnett and by my wife.” (440) Both Garnett and the Maudes translate most of the novel into English without distinguishing between languages.

Garnett’s remains one of the most widely read translations of the novel even today. She also began a long line of female translators of War and Peace into English. In The New York

Review of Books Orlando Figes writes of Garnett, “No one did more to introduce the English- speaking world to Russian literature than Constance Garnett”. The Encyclopedia of Literary

Translation into English, which was published in 2000, praises the Maudes’ translation above any of the other early English editions of War and Peace: “The Maude translations of Tolstoi boast an unimpeachable pedigree.” (1405) These two acclaimed British translations began a trend that continued for the rest of the 20th century of translating most of Tolstoy’s French into

English.

Princess Alexandra Kropotkin’s 1949 translation, unlike that of Garnett or the Maudes, explains her decision to translate most of the French passages in her preface. She writes,

In families of the Russian nobility, French was a second language […] In War and Peace, this accounts for the many conversations written originally in French […] but even before Russia’s war with Napoleon, the noble families of Russia spoke French so currently that several of Tolstoy’s characters in War and Peace find it difficult to express themselves in Russian. All these French conversations have now been translated into English, to make the reading of this great novel easier for all. (vii-viii)

4 Leo Wiener also published a translation of the novel in 1904. Garnett’s translation is still frequently published, and because of this, it is Garnett’s and not Wiener’s that will be included in this study. Unlike Wiener’s translation, which retained Tolstoy’s French, Garnett removed almost all of the French passages.

5 Kropotkin makes explicit from the beginning of her text that she uses a domesticating method of translation regarding the French words and phrases.

Her translation is abridged; it shortens many of the battle scenes and cuts the novel down to 741 pages, whereas most English translations are over 1000 pages long. Sections of Tolstoy’s historical commentaries are also cut out, and Kropotkin rearranges some dialogue in the novel.

She had the approval of Countess Alexandra Tolstoy, Tolstoy’s daughter, in many of her choices that departed from previous translations of the novel. One of the most notable of these was her choice to remove all diminutives in the novel, which domesticates the text by removing what she calls a “peculiarly Russian way of speaking” (vii) for the ease of the reader. Like her choice to translate most of the French passages, Kropotkin explains this domesticating translation decision explicitly in her preface.

Rosemary Edmonds explains different reasons for translating most of the French text of

War and Peace into English in the preface to her 1957 translation.

In several of the various versions of War and Peace long passages appeared in French, but when Tolstoy undertook some revision in connexion [sic] with an edition of his collected works early in 1873 he excluded the French language. As there is no final, definitive, ‘canonical’ text of the novel, all but short remarks have been translated, though I have indicated where the original reads in French. (xi)

In intentionally citing the 1873 revision, Edmonds justifies her choice to translate the French phrases into English in a different way than Kropotkin does. Unlike Kropotkin, who endeavors

“to make the reading of this great novel easier for all” but who does not cite Tolstoy’s revisions,

Edmonds bases her reasoning on the fact that there is no one ‘definitive’ version of War and

Peace. Edmonds’ later revisions, however, do not include any indication of where the text was originally in French. She leaves more French words and phrases in the text than do previous 20th century translators.

6 Like Edmonds, Ann Dunnigan retains more French than most previous translators in her

1968 translation and she explains in detail the differences between the various editions in her preface. Dunnigan was the only American to publish a translation of War and Peace in the 20th century.

The three complete translations of War and Peace published in the first decade of the 21st century exemplify two drastically different ways of translating Tolstoy’s French passages: that of translating them all into English, and that of leaving all of the French untouched. Anthony

Briggs’ 2005 translation of War and Peace takes the second approach; his translation is almost completely in English. He chooses, in a few instances, to add phrases such as “Since Pierre was speaking French at the time he” (1406) when the language shift is deemed significant. His translation is often noted for being completely in English, but a few French words and phrases do remain in the Briggs as they do in the Kropotkin.

Briggs acknowledges in his ‘notes on the text’ that translating everything into English comes at a small price, but he believes that it is the right choice for his intended audience who

“do not have a sound knowledge of French.” (1406) He writes of this decision that “certain characters – Biblin, for example – lose some of their finesse because of this treatment, but there seems to be an overall gain in following the lead established by Tolstoy (and the Maudes with his blessing) by making the text more directly accessible.” (1406-7) Previous translators have explained their reasons for translating many of the French passages into English, but none have removed quite as much French from the novel as did Briggs. His translation is intentionally domesticating and stands in stark contrast to Pevear and Volokhonsky’s more foreignizing 2007 translation. 5

5 Two new translations of War and Peace appeared just two years after Briggs’ publication. The first is that of Andrew Bromfield, who like Kropotkin cut large sections of the novel and published a translation that was roughly

7 Both of these translations are based on explicit decisions to deal with the French passages in distinct ways, but these choices took the translators in two different directions. Rather than translating all of the French passages, Pevear and Volokhonsky choose to keep all of them in the body of their text.6 They were the first translators after Wiener to include all of Tolstoy’s French in the novel, and like Tolstoy, they put translations in footnotes at the bottom of each page. They write in their preface, “We have kept all the French and German as Tolstoy had it, as well as the mixed voicings, the Gallicisms, Germanisms and implied foreign accents, as they play throughout the book. We have tried to be true to Tolstoy’s rhetorical power, his sharp irony, and his astonishing delicacy.” (xvi) Pevear and Volokhonsky also argue that Tolstoy’s French contributes to important elements of plot and character that can be lost when translated into

English. Pevear and Volokhonsky wrote in a letter to David Remnick, a writer for the New

Yorker, that

Tolstoy used French for a reason, or for several reasons: to give the tone of the period; to play on the ironies of a French-speaking Russian aristocracy suddenly finding itself thrown into war with France; to suggest a certain frivolity and uprootedness in characters like Prince Vassily and the witty Bilibin. (As cited in ‘The Translation Wars’, The New Yorker)

Rather than choosing to emphasize the difficulty that comes with reading a bilingual text or the reality that Tolstoy himself debated the effectiveness of his use of the French language like other translators, Pevear and Volokhonsky discuss the reasons why Tolstoy used French in the first place.

Steve Donoghue wrote a review of Pevear and Volokhonsky’s translation that heavily criticizes their retention of the French. He argues that Tolstoy’s inclusion of French is arbitrary

400 pages shorter than most others. His translation has been largely overshadowed by other translations from this decade, namely that of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky which was published in the same year. I chose to focus on their translation rather than on Bromfield’s in my analysis. 6 Larissa Volokhonsky works from the Russian, creating an English manuscript that Richard Pevear then edits and polishes.

8 and outdated, and that to keep it in an English translation is a decision based more on principles than on the needs of readers. He writes, “what personal style, one is compelled to ask, is validated by having Napoleon lapse into French at the damnedest moments?” (“War and Peace”)

Pevear and Volokhonsky’s foreignizing approach, like the domesticating approach of Briggs, comes at a price: Tolstoy’s French phrases may be retained, but the inclusion of French lines “at the damnest moments” can make reading and understanding the novel more difficult.7 Any

English speaker who does not speak French is forced to read footnotes rather than continue through the novel seamlessly.

The last version of War and Peace that will be discussed in this study offers an alternative to the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation for readers who wish to read the novel with its original French. It is a 2010 revised and edited version of the Maudes’ 1922 translation.8

Amy Mandelker, who is responsible for these revisions and edits, restores all of the French passages to the novel and removes some aspects of the original translation that were considered to be domesticating, such as the anglicization of Russian names. Both Pevear and Volokhonsky’s translation and this revision are foreignizing, but the Maudes’ translation has the benefit of having been approved by Tolstoy himself. This revision also adds a detailed introduction by the editor that, like that of Pevear and Volokhonsky, explains the complex role of French in the novel.

Each translator presents Tolstoy’s French to their readers in a particular light, whether that is by discussing his or her reasons for using the French language in a preface or footnote or simply by deciding which passages and phrases of Tolstoy’s French to retain. Although some translators choose to remove most of the French from the text, they all do so knowingly and

7 This translation provoked a strong dialogue about the merits and setbacks of including other languages in the text, and also about the ‘fidelity’ of other translators who chose to translate both French and Russian into English. 8 Hereafter referred to as ‘Maude Revised’

9 thoughtfully. The following passages exemplify a range of foreignizing and domesticating methods of translation, all of which intend to impart to the reader the historical, cultural and political implications and clues behind Tolstoy’s words in different ways and to different extents.

Passage Analyses

This study will focus on seven different passages from the text that have sections written originally in French. The first of these sections is the very first paragraph of War and Peace. The beginning of any novel is critical in setting the stage for what is to come, and Tolstoy’s first paragraph does just this. It would have immediately let his readers know that they were beginning a bilingual work with characters from a Franco-Russian world. War and Peace takes place during the Napoleonic wars; it begins in 1805, at which point the French were not on

Russian soil, and ends in 1812, which was the year of Napoleon’s invasion. Over the course of the novel, the French language transitions from being the language of the educated aristocracy to the language of the enemy. In associating numerous characters with the French language throughout the novel, Tolstoy distances them both from the Russian language and from Russia itself. Tolstoy’s original first paragraph reads:

Eh bien, mon prince. Gênes et Lucques ne sont plus que des apanages, des поместья, de la famille Buonaparte. Non, je vous préviens que si vous ne me dites pas que nous avons la guerre, si vous vous permettez encore de pallier toutes les infamies, toutes les atrocités de cet Antichrist (ma parole, j’y crois)—je ne vous connais plus, vous n’êtes plus mon ami vous n’êtes plus мой верный раб, comme vous dites. Ну, здравствуйте, здравствуйте. Je vois qeu [sic] je vous fais peur, садитесь и рассказывайте. (Том 1, 1)

Upon reading this first paragraph, a few things would be immediately apparently to the reader.

The first of these is the fact that some characters in this Russian novel speak both Russian and

French. Secondly, this paragraph makes clear that the two languages need not always be

10 separated; the speaker lapses into Russian and back into French three times in this passage. Here,

Russian is used for greetings (здравствуйте, здравствуйте) and for emphasis.

These small linguistic details are all critical in letting readers know what to expect from

Tolstoy’s novel set in a French-speaking Russian world. They give context both to the historical period in which the novel takes place and to the social classes of its characters. This first paragraph does much more than tell the reader that these characters are speaking French; it contextualizes them socially, culturally, and historically. For example, Anna Pavlovna, who is speaking in the first paragraph, begins the novel by conversing with a certain Prince Vassily who

“spoke that refined French in which our grandparents not only spoke but thought” (Pevear and

Volokhonsky, 3). Throughout the novel, Prince Vassily’s family remains one of the most manipulative, false and fickle in the novel, his daughter Hélène most of all. Hélène, who speaks

French far better than she speaks Russian, continues to use the French language throughout the novel even when it becomes the language of the enemy.

Prince Vassily Sergeevich and his family, like Anna Pavlovna, are contextualized socially because they are at a predominantly French-speaking soirée and are a part of an upper class that would be proficient in this language. The Sergeevich’s are also contextualized culturally because the book makes clear that Prince Vassily comes from a family that has spoken

“refined French” for generations. This “refined French” is portrayed not only as the language of the educated, but as the language of more refined thought. Lastly, this first passage contextualizes the novel historically; Russia is on the brink of war, but the Russian aristocracy’s ties with French language and culture remain strong.

The multilingual nature of this passage poses a challenge to English translators. Most nineteenth century Russian readers would have understood why a Russian woman might be

11 speaking French at a salon in 1805, but an English reader might not have. The English translator, therefore, has the challenge not only of translating a passage written in two different languages, but also of conveying a historical and cultural context to readers.

The translators of War and Peace that I examined in this study all take one of three approaches to this challenge. The first is simply to translate both French and Russian into

English, often with no indication that the original passage consisted of two different languages.

Some translators include a footnote or a note in the introduction explaining that some of the novel was originally in French, but others choose to remove this aspect of the novel completely.

The second approach is to use a few French words and phrases in the first paragraph to suggest that some French is being spoken. This lets the reader know that the characters exist in a historical and cultural context in which people speak both French and Russian, but it is not necessarily made clear to what extent this bilingualism is a part of their lives. The third and last approach is to keep all of the French and translate only the Russian into English, leaving translations of the French at the bottom of the page. Although this approach retains Tolstoy’s original distinctions between that which was French and that which was Russian, none of these approaches in and of themselves can show a reader why these characters may have been speaking in French in the first place. The prefaces and introductions that some translators included in their publications serve this purpose.

Understanding the implications of the different approaches employed by translators requires close reading. The Clara Bell translation does not include this passage, nor does it include most of the later ones. Dole’s 1898 translation,9 however, translates both the French and

9 “Well, prince, Genoa and Lucca are now nothing more than the apanages, than the private property of the Bonaparte family. I warn you that if you do not tell me we are going to have war, if you still allow yourself to condone all the infamies, all the atrocities of this Antichrist—on my word I believe he is Antichrist—that is the end of our acquaintance; you are no longer my friend, you are no longer my faithful slave, as you call yourself.* Now,

12 the Russian into English, but he adds a footnote explaining that “In the fifth edition of Count Leo

Tolstoï's works, this conversation is in a mixture of French and Russian. In the seventh (1887) the Russian entirely replaces the French.” Dole is the only one of the translators in this study who includes a note of this type at the beginning of the novel. The next three translators,

Garnett10 (1904), the Maudes11 (1922), and Kropotkin12 (1949) do not include any French in this beginning paragraph, nor do they indicate that there is any in the original. Kropotkin does mention the inclusion of French in the novel in her preface, but does not specify where in the novel the French passages were originally written. The Maudes and Garnett include no such preface or notes, so an English reader would have no way of knowing from the novel itself that any of the characters were speaking French. For an English speaker who would not understand the historical or cultural context for a French-speaking Russian in the nineteenth century, the choice to remove French from the first paragraph could avoid a possible area of confusion for the reader. These translators actively choose to let the linguistic distinction between French and

Russian become lost in translation, but later translators include more and more French in this first paragraph of War and Peace.

be of good courage, I see I frighten you. Come, sit down and tell me all about it.” *In the fifth edition of Count Leo Tolstoï's works, this conversation is in a mixture of French and Russian. In the seventh (1887) the Russian entirely replaces the French. (Volume 1, 1) 10 “Well, Prince, Genoa and Lucca are now no more than private estates of the Bonaparte family. No, I warn you, that if you do not tell me we are at war, if you again allow yourself to palliate all the infamies and atrocities of this Antichrist (upon my word, I believe he is), I don't know you in future, you are no longer my frined, no longer my faithful slave, as you say. There, how do you do, how do you do? I see I'm scaring you, sit down and talk to me.” (1) 11 “Well, Prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now just family estates of the Buonapartes. But I warn you, if you don't tell me that this means war, if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist—I really believe he is Antichrist—I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend, no longer my 'faithful slave,' as you call yourself! But how do you do? I see I have frightened you—sit down and tell me all the news.” (9) 12 “Well, Prince, Genoa and Lucca are now nothing more than estates of the Bonaparte family. I warn you that if you do not condone all the infamies, all the atrocities, of this Antichrist—on my word I believe he is Antichrist—I will not recognize you; that is the end of our friendship; you shall no longer be my faithful slave, as you call yourself. There now, cheer up, cheer up, I see I frighten you. Come, sit down and tell me about it.” (2)

13 Edmonds13 and Dunnigan,14 the two translators from the second half of the 20th century, take a different approach than the earlier translators. Although they do not include all of the

French text, they keep ‘Eh bien, mon prince’ to suggest that the speaker is using some amount of

French, although it is fairly ambiguous exactly how much French is being spoken. In the introduction to Ann Dunnigan’s translation, John Bailey explains the inclusion of French in the original, the historical context for this bilingualism, and the translator’s decision to retain some amount of French text in the novel.

Edmonds also includes a note at the beginning of her text explaining the role of French in the original and her reasons for translating parts of it in the way that she does. The choices of these two translators to include both a French phrase at the very beginning of the novel and an explanation of Tolstoy’s inclusion of French in their introductions are significant because they inform the reader of the historical context for the novel and of the small but significant role that

French will play in conversation throughout War and Peace.

Briggs’ 2005 translation15 removes all traces of French and of a bilingual world from the first chapter of the novel, and he does not include an introduction explaining that there was any

French in the original text nor why he chose to remove it. Like Garnett, the Maudes and

Kropotkin, he chooses to begin the novel with a passage that any English speaker can understand

13 “Eh bien, mon prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now no more than private estates of the Bonaparte family. No, I warn you – if you are not telling me that this means war, if you again allow youself to condone all the infamies and atrocities perpetrated by the Antichrist (upon my word I believe he is Antichrist), I don’t know you in future. You will no longer be a friend of mine, or my ‘faithful slave’, as you call yourself! But how do you do, how do you do? I see I’m scaring you. Sit down and talk to me.” (3) 14 “Eh bien, mon prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now no more than family estates of the Bonapartes. No, I warn you, if you don't say that this means war, if you still permit yourself to condone all the infamies, all the atrocities, of this Antichrist—and that’s what I really believe he is—I will have nothing more to do with you, you are no longer my friend, my faithful slave, as you say. But how do you do, how do you do? I see that I am frightening you. Sit down and tell me all about it.” (29) 15 “Well, Prince, Genoa and Lucca are now nothing more than estates taken over by the Buonaparte family. No, I give you fair warning. If you won’t say this means war, if you will allow yourself to condone all the ghastly atrocities perpetrated by that Antichrist—yes, that’s what I think he is—I shall disown you. You’re no friend of mine—not the “faithful slave” you claim to be…But how are you? How are you keeping? I can see I’m intimidating you. Do sit down and talk to me.” (1)

14 without any knowledge of French without having to skip between the body of the text and footnotes. However, some amount of historical and cultural context is lost.

Pevear and Volokhonsky16 did quite the opposite in 2007; they were the first translators to keep all of Tolstoy’s original French passages in their English translation. Their introduction explains Tolstoy’s inclusion of French and their reasoning for keeping it in detail, and they include translations of the French in footnotes just as Tolstoy does. The 2010 Revision of the

Maudes’ translation17 by Amy Mandelker follows in their footsteps in retaining all of the French.

The first paragraphs of their translations immediately signal to their readers both that this is a bilingual text and that a non-French speaking reader will be going back and forth from text to footnotes for the length of the translations.

With each of these three approaches, the reader begins the book with a slightly different understanding of the role of languages in War and Peace. To translate both the French and the

Russian into English, which was the approach of Dole, Garnett, the Maudes, Kropotkin, and

Briggs, makes for a more readable War and Peace for an English speaker who does not necessarily have extensive knowledge of Russian history or of the French language. However, some amount of the historical and cultural context given by Tolstoy in this first passage is lost.

Dole and Kropotkin were the only translators of these five to indicate at the start of the novel that

16 “Eh bien, mon prince, Gênes et Lucques ne sont plus que des apanages, des estates, de la famille Buonaparte. Non, je vous préviens, que si vous ne me dites pas que nous avons la guerre, si vous vous permettez encore de pallier toutes les infamies, toutes les atrocités de cet Antichrist (ma parole, j’y crois)—je ne vous connais plus, vous n’êtes plus mon ami, vous n’êtes plus my faithful slave, comme vous dites. Well, good evening, good evening. Je vois que je vous fais peur, sit down and tell me about it.” (3) 17 “Eh bien, mon prince, Gênes et Lucques ne sont plus que des apanages, des family estates, de la famille Buonaparte. Non, je vous préviens, que si vous ne me dites pas, que nous avons la guerre, si vous vous permettez encore de pallier toutes les infamies, toutes les atrocités de cet Antichrist (ma parole, j’y crois)—je ne vous connais plus, vous n’êtes plus mon ami, vous n’êtes plus my faithful slave, comme vous dites. Well, how do you do? How do you do? Je vois que je vous fais peur, sit down and tell me all the news.” (3)

15 any French was used; although they acknowledge the role that French plays in the novel, they choose not to make it a central part of their translations.

The second approach is that of Dunnigan and Edmonds, who translate almost all of the text into English but use a few choice French words with which an English-speaker would most likely be acquainted. Although the amount of French that these Russian characters are speaking is kept ambiguous, this ambiguity and the seamless transition from ‘Eh bien, mon prince’ to the

English translation implies a fluidity between the two languages. The implication that characters can transition fluidly between French and Russian gives the reader context for the multilingual society around which the book is based in a way that the first approach of translating everything into English does not.

The last approach of Pevear and Volokhonsky and Maude Revised, who include all of the original French in the text with translations in footnotes at the bottom of the page, gives the reader a different understanding of the role that languages will play in the novel. From the beginning the reader understands that French is included in the translation both to give historical and cultural context to the novel and to make specific distinctions between different characters and their social circles. The reader, if a non-French speaker, is also informed from the start of the novel that there will be sections of the book in which they will be going back and forth between the body of the text and the footnotes. The clear distinctions between the choices of these three groups of authors suggest that their treatments of the French text and the way that they use it to give context to upper class nineteenth century Russian culture will remain consistent throughout the novel. However, later passages show that this is not always the case.

16 The second passage analysis is also from a salon scene; these tend to be the sections of the novel in which Tolstoy uses French most often. This passage in particular comes from

Volume 3, Part 2, Section 6 of the novel. The original reads:

9-го августа князь Василий встретился опять у Анны Павловны с l’homme de beaucoup de mérite. L’homme de beaucoup de mérite ухаживал за Анной Павловной по случаю желания назначения попечителем женского учебного заведения императрицы Марии Федоровны. Князь Василий вошел в комнату с видом счастливого поведителя, человека, достигшего цели своих желаний. —Eh bien, vous savez la grande nouvelle? Le prince Koutouzoff est maréchal. Все разногласия кончены. Я так счастлив, так рад!—говорил князь Василий. —Enfin voilà un homme—проговорил он, значительно и строго оглядывая всех находившихся в гостиной. L’homme de beaucoup de mérite, несмотря на свое желание получить место, не мог удержаться, чтобы не напомнить князю Василью его прежнее суждение. (Том 2, 107-8)

This passage highlights two important aspects of Tolstoy’s style: the inclusion of French words and phrases in a conversation that is held predominantly in Russian and Tolstoy’s use of repetition. ‘L’homme de beaucoup de mérite’ is repeated in this passage three separate times.

The ‘homme de beaucoup de mérite’ is otherwise nameless in this chapter, so he is identified solely by this phrase. Aside from speaking predominantly French throughout the chapter, he is described as tactless, manipulative and conceited, making his epithet somewhat ironic. Describing such a man with a French phrase associates him both with the French language and with the insincerity, fickleness and petty politics that Tolstoy associates with the

French. It is clear from this chapter that this is not a ‘man of great merit’; the chapter juxtaposes a character who is tactless and petty with French ‘mérite’. Even a reader that is not familiar with this specific vocabulary would recognize that this character is portrayed in a negative light and associated with the French.

The original includes “l’homme de beaucoup de mérite” three separate times, the second immediately following the first. The repetition of this phrase three times in the same short

17 passage underlines the significance of the phrase in the context of the scene. A strong connection is implied between this ‘man of great merit’ and the French language. There are two aspects of this passage that the translator can choose to either retain or remove: the first is the French language and the second is the three repetitions. Garnett18 and the Maudes19 both keep everything in English and remove the second repetition. This both removes the character’s association with French language and culture and lessens the emphasis on the phrase used to describe him because it appears twice instead of thrice in this passage. Kropotkin20 and Briggs,21 although they also keep the passage entirely in English, retain all three repetitions. The

18 On the 9th of August Prince Vassily once more met the ‘man of great abilities’ at Anna Pavlovna’s. The latter gentleman was assiduous in his attendance at Anna Pavlovna’s, in the hope of receiving, through her influence, an appointment on one of the institutions of female education. Prince Vassily strode into the room with an air of a victorious general, of a man who has succeeded in attaining the object of his desires. “Well, you know the great news! Prince Kutuzov is marshal! All differences of opinion are at an end. I am so glad, so delighted!” said Prince Vassily. “At last here is a man!” he declared, looking sternly and significantly at all the company. In spite of his desire to secure the post he coveted, the ‘man of great abilities’ could not refrain from reminding Prince Vassily of the view he had expressed shortly before. (808) 19 On the 9th of August Prince Vasíli at Anna Pávlovna’s again met the ‘man of great merit’. The latter was very attentive to Anna Pávlovna because he wanted to be appointed director of one of the educational establishments for young ladies. Prince Vasíli entered the room with the air of a happy conqueror who has attained the object of his desires. “Well, have you heard the great news? Prince Kutúzov is field marshal! All dissensions are at an end! I am so glad, so delighted! At last we have a man!” said he, glancing sternly and significantly round at everyone in the drawing room. The ‘man of great merit’, despite his desire to obtain the post of director, could not refrain from reminding Prince Vasíli of his former opinion. (631) 20 On the twenty-first Prince Vasili and ‘the man of great merit’ met again at Anna Pavlovna’s. ‘The man of great merit’ was dancing attendance on Anna Pavlovna with the hope of securing the appointment of trustee to a woman’s educational institute. Prince Vasili entered the drawing-room with the air of a rejoicing conqueror who had reached the goal of all his ambitions. “Well, you know the great news: Prince Kutuzof is appointed field marshal. All discords are at an end! I am so happy, so very happy!” exclaimed Prince Vasili. “There’s a man for you!” he added, with significant emphasis, surveying all in the room with a stern glance. ‘The man of great merit,’ in spite of his anxiety to obtain a fine position, could not refrain from reminding Prince Vasili of his former criticism. (447) 21 On the 8th of August Prince Vasily came across the ‘man of real ability’ once again at Anna Pavlovna’s. The ‘man of real ability’ was making a great fuss of Anna Pavlovna herself, with a view to using her influence to get himself appointed as chief administrator in one of the Empress Maria’s institutions of female education. Prince Vasily strode into the room with the air of a conquering hero, a man who has just achieved his life’s ambition. “Well, have you heard the great news? Prince Kutuzov is our field-marshal! No more dissension. I am so pleased, absolutely delighted!” said Prince Vasily. “A real man at last!” he declared with a knowing look and a forbidding glare at everyone in the room. For all his desire to secure the job, the ‘man of real ability’ could not resist the impulse to remind Prince Vasily about his earlier judgment. (785)

18 character’s French associations may be lost, but the rapid repetition of the phrase used to describe him emphasizes the fact that he is identifiable by this phrase and by this phrase only.

Dole22 begins with “man of great merit”, but uses the French for the next two repetitions. He includes French in this passage even though he removes all of it in the first paragraph; the first of the three repetitions is an English translation, and the next two preserve the original French. This both includes Tolstoy’s French and provides a translation of it within the text itself; the associations of this character with the Francophone world are not lost, and neither is the reader’s understanding of what the phrase actually means.

Unlike Dole, who keeps all three repetitions, Dunnigan23 and Maude Revised24 take away the second and kept the first and the third in French. Although Amy Mandelker’s revision of the

Maude’s translation makes clear that it intentionally preserves all of Tolstoy’s original French, in

22 On the twenty-first, Prince Vasili and the ‘man of great merit’ met again at Anna Pavlovna’s. “L’homme de beaucoup de mérite” was dancing attendance on Anna Pavlovna, with the hope of securing the appointment of trustee to a women’s educational institute. Prince Vasili entered the drawing-room with the air of a rejoicing conqueror who had reached the goal of all his ambitions. “Well, you know the great news: Prince Kutuzof is appointed field-marshal. * All discords are at an end! I am so happy, so glad!” exclaimed Prince Vasili. “There’s a man for you!—enfin voilá un homme!” he added with significant emphasis, surveying all in the room with a stern glance. ‘L’homme de beaucoup de mérite,’ in spite of his anxiety to obtain a place, could not refrain from reminding Prince Vasili of his former criticism. (Volume 2, 138-9) * Eh bien, vous savez la grande nouvelle! Le Prince Koutouzoff est marchéral! 23 On the ninth of August, Prince Vasily again met l’homme de beaucoup de mérite at Anna Pavlovna’s. This gentleman entertained the hope of being appointed a trustee of one of the educational institutions under the patronage of the Dowager Empress, and as a consequence was very attentive to Anna Pavlovna. Prince Vasily entered the room with the jubilant air of a conqueror, a man who has attained the object of his desires. “Well, have you heard the great news? Prince Kutuzov is Commander in Chief! All dissensions are at an end! I am so pleased, so delighted!” said Prince Vasily. “Now, there at last is a man!” he declared, surveying the entire company with a stern, significant look. Despite his desire to obtain the coveted post, l’homme de beaucoup de mérite could not refrain from reminding Prince Vasily of his former opinion. (852-3) 24 On the 9th of August Prince Vasili at Anna Pavlovna’s again met l’homme de beaucoup de mérite. The latter was very attentive to Anna Pavlovna because he wanted to be appointed director of one of the educational establishments for young ladies. Prince Vasili entered the room with the air of a happy conqueror who has attained the object of his desires. “Eh bien! Vous savez la grande nouvelle? Le prince Koutouzoff est Maréchal! Enfin voilà un homme!” said he, glancing sternly and significantly round at everyone in the drawing room. L’homme de beaucoup de mérite, despite his desire to obtain the post of director, could not refrain from reminding Prince Vasili of his former opinion. (760)

19 this passage the editor stays more true to the Maudes’ original stylistic choice to remove the second repetition than to the ideal of preserving all of the linguistic variance of the original.

Edmonds25 and Pevear and Volokhonsky26 are the only translators to keep the phrase in French while also preserving all three repetitions. Only Dole strays from his association with one of the three methods of translating the French passages described in the analysis of the first paragraph by choosing to keep some of Tolstoy’s French. The Maudes, Garnett, Kropotkin, and Briggs translate everything into English, while Dunnigan and Edmonds use a mixture of French and

English. Pevear and Volokhonsky and Maude Revised are again the only translators who choose not to translate any of the French phrases into English. They all take different approaches to the three repetitions, but the translation of the repetition itself is both a linguistic choice and an aesthetic one: many of Tolstoy’s repetitions are removed by his translators. Although the repetition of this phrase emphasizes the irony of the character’s epithet, most domesticating translations would remove these repetitions in order to make the text flow more smoothly in

English.

The sentence in the middle of the passage, ‘Eh bien! Vous savez la grande nouvelle? Le prince Koutouzoff est maréchal...Enfin voilà un homme” is preserved only by Pevear and

25 On the 9th of August Prince Vasili once more met the man ‘de beaucoup de mérite’. The man ‘de beaucoup de mérite’ was very attentive to Anna Pavlovna, in the hope of getting himself appointed director of one of the Empress Maria Feodorovna’s educational establishments for young ladies. Prince Vasili strode into the room with an air of happy triumph, like a man who has attained the object of his desires. “Well, have you heard the great news? Prince Kutuzov is field-marshal! All differences are settled. I am so glad, so delighted! At last we have a man!” said he, glancing sternly and significantly round at the whole company. L’homme de beaucoup de mérite, in spite of his anxiety to obtain the post he coveted, could not refrain from reminding Prince Vasili of his former opinion. (841) 26 On the ninth of August, Prince Vassily again met l’homme de beaucoup de mérite at Anna Pavlovna’s. L’homme de beaucoup de mérite was paying court to Anna Pavlovna on the occasion of his wish to be appointed a trustee of the empress Maria Feodorovna’s institute for girls. Prince Vassily came into the room with the air of a happy victor, of a man who has achieved the aim of his desires. “Eh bien, vous savez la grande nouvelle? Le prince Koutouzoff est maréchal. All the disagreements are over. I’m so happy, so glad!” Prince Vassily was saying. “Enfin voilà un homme,” he said, casting a significant and stern glance at everyone in the drawing room. L’homme de beaucoup de mérite, despite his wish to obtain a post, could not help reminding Prince Vassily of his former opinion. (707-8)

20 Volokhonksy and Maude Revised. This suggests that Dole, Dunnigan and Edmonds, who all include the repetition in French, saw “l’homme de beaucoup de mérite” as being a more contextually significant phrase than the other French phrase found in the passage.

This second passage uses French to identify a specific character in the novel, but the next exemplifies a different usage of French. Instead of identifying a character with one repeated

French phrase, in this section French phrases are markers both of a particular social circle and of a character’s inability to properly speak Russian. This passage, like the previous two, is from a soirée.

Безухов est ridicule, но он так добр, так мил. Что за удовольствие быть так caustique? —Штраф!—сказал молодой человек в ополченском мундире, которого Жюли называла ‘mon chevalier’ и который с него вместе ехал в Нижний. В обществе Жюли, как и во многих обществах Москвы, было положено говорить только по-русски, и те, которые ошибались, говоря французские слова, платили штраф в пользу комитета по-жертвований. (Том 2, 145-6)

This passage comes from a soirée scene in which Julie's circle, due to the political climate at the time, has decided to speak only Russian. Anyone who speaks any words in French has to then pay a fine to the donation committee. Even Julie's Russian has very French syntax; it is clear that she is not accustomed to speaking in her country's mother tongue. This is the point in the novel at which speaking French becomes not only a mark of class, but a mark of political affiliation.

Therefore, the inclusion of French phrases in conversations such as this one becomes more significant because it gives the reader important information about the characters who are speaking.

There are three sections of French in this paragraph. The first, “est ridicule,” is a description of Pierre Bezukhov. The second is the word “caustique”, which is being used to describe a militaman. These are both negative words related to gossip, and Tolstoy's choice to

21 put them in French associates the more negative and scornful elements of this conversation with the French language. The last French phrase is a description of an otherwise nameless militiaman whom Julie refers to as “mon chevalier.” Had this phrase been translated into Russian it would not have had the same effect because the French cult of love, of knights and ladies, did not exist in Russia. In this case, the French language supplemented the Russian where a Russian equivalent did not exist. The first two phrases have a different effect; they are in place to further associate the gossip and critical nature of aristocratic society with the French language. The

French words in this passage are significant to the plot because they lead to a fine, but they also work to associate negative elements of Russian culture and society with the French.

“Ridicule” and “caustique” are both very similar to their English equivalents, so a translator could expect English-speaking readers to understand what they mean. “Chevalier” could also be recognizable to an English speaking audience. Furthermore, even if readers did not understand the vocabulary, they would still appreciate the existence of spoken French. It is significant in this passage not merely what words are spoken, but that French is spoken at all.

All of the translators in this study choose to use some amount of French in their translations. Kropotkin27 and Briggs28 are the only translators to retain only the ‘caustique’, which is the word that leads to the fine. Without it, the plot wouldn't make sense unless the

27 “Bezukhof is absurd, but he is so good, so kind! What is the pleasure of being so caustique?” “Fined!” exclaimed a young man in a militia uniform, whom Julie called ‘My knight,’ and who was going to accompany her to Nizhni. In Julie’s set, as in many other sets of Moscow society, it had been agreed to speak only in Russian, and those who forgot themselves and made use of French words in conversation had to pay a fine, which was turned over to the committee of public defense. (475) 28 “Bezukhov does look ridiculous, but he’s very nice, and his heart’s in the right place. How can you take pleasure to be so caustique?” “You’re fined!” said a young man in militiaman’s uniform, referred to by Julie as her knight in shining armour – he was going with her to Nizhny. In Julie’s circle, as in many others in Moscow, the unwritten rule was to speak nothing but Russian, and anybody who slipped up and spoke some French had to pay a fine into the coffers of the Committee for Voluntary Donations. (829)

22 translator were to add something explaining that Julie uses some French vocabulary. All seven of the other translations keep all three French phrases. However, this does break the pattern of

Garnett, the Maudes, Kropotkin and Briggs translating everything into English. ‘Mon chevalier,’ which is not as crucial to the plot at this moment as is the use of the French ‘caustique,’ is also preserved in these four translations. Briggs, for whom an important marketing point is that he removes all of the French from the novel, retains a French word in this passage because of its significance to the plot of the scene.

The next passage analysis focuses on two French phrases that are a part of one of

Tolstoy’s authorial digressions rather than one of his salon scenes. There are a number of moments in the novel where Tolstoy steps back from his plot and discusses the war as a whole or the nature of human existence. This passage is one of these moments; Tolstoy is criticizing the idea that any aspect of Napoleon’s life or singular order that he gave could affect the outcome of a war. He argues, rather, that no one man can change history, and that to believe that the actions of one man are more important than the individual actions of a thousand men is foolish.

Многие историки говорят, что Бородинское сражение не выиграно французами потому, что у Наполеона был насморк, что ежели бы у него не было насморка, то распоряжения его до и во время сражения были бы еще гениальнее, и Россия бы погибла, et la face du monde eut été changée. (Том 2, 181) “Все армия: французы, итальянцы, немцы, поляки—голодные, оборванные и измученные походом,—в виду армии, загораживавшей от них Москву, чувствовали, что le vin est tiré et qu’il faut le boire. Ежели бы Наполеон запретил им теперь драться с русскими, они бы его убили и пошли бы драться с русскими, потому что это было им необходимо. (Том 2, 182)

The quote “et la face du monde eut été changée” is related to a line from the Pensées of Blaise

Pascal, published in 1669, describing Cleopatra. It implies that if her nose had been just a little shorter, the entire face of the world would have been changed. Tolstoy suggests that to believe that Napoleon’s orders on one particular day changed the outcome of the war is as ridiculous as

23 to believe that the shape of Cleopatra’s nose changed the course of history in the ancient world.

In this passage, Tolstoy likens Napoleon’s commands and the resulting effects of the Battle of

Borodino to Cleopatra and the influence she had in her own time. By translating the phrase into

English, the connection that Tolstoy is making to Pascal and to Cleopatra is lost. However, ‘the face of the world would have been changed’ gives the reader a similar understanding of what

Tolstoy is trying to say, although the phrase is removed from its source. Some of Tolstoy’s irony is also lost, for he associates an idea that he feels to be foolish and ignorant both with the French language and with the French themselves. When the whole paragraph is in English, Tolstoy’s ironic use of the phrase becomes less apparent.

The line “le vin est tiré et qu’il faut le boire” is a French proverb. It is noted in the poet

Jean-Antoine de Baïf’s Les mimes, enseignements et proverbs, published in 1576, long before

War and Peace. Similar expressions exist in many languages, English included. The phrase suggests that no matter what Napoleon’s orders were at the battle of Borodino, the Russian soldiers would have fought anyways because ‘the wine is drawn, and it must be drunk’. To think that Napoleon’s orders alone could change the course of history and stop these men from fighting is mocked by Tolstoy in this passage, as it is earlier on in the chapter. Again, Tolstoy uses French to emphasize the philosophical foolishness of this idea. Creating a parallel between the effects of Napoleon’s wartime orders and those of Cleopatra’s beauty adds gravity to what

Tolstoy is trying to say, and both of these expressions add an artistic touch and give the reader a sense of the author’s beliefs.

Furthermore, since both of these phrases come from French literature and culture, they would be recognizable only to a Frenchman or to a foreigner very familiar with French language and culture. A translation into French would fall into the first category, and Tolstoy’s original

24 into the latter. All of the translations up until Pevear and Volokhonsky29 and Maude Revised30 translate these phrases into English with no indication that they are references to French literature or culture, aside from Dole.31 Although Dole does not keep “et la face du monde eut été changée,” he keeps “que le vin est tiré et qu’il faut le boire.” This would suggest that his audience, which was an 1898 American public, might recognize the phrase.

This passage is an example of French phrases that may have given context and meaning to Tolstoy’s own readers, but that were not contextually significant in terms of plot. Other than

Pevear and Volokhonsky and Maude Revised who make a point to retain all of the French, and

Dole who was the earliest English translator analyzed here and who may have had a different target audience than other English translators, these two French expressions are unanimously translated into English. A French speaking reader who recognized these as proverbial and literary phrases could have understood their significance. However, French speakers today may well

29 Many historians say that the battle of Borodino was not won by the French because Napoleon had a cold, and that if he had not had a cold, his instructions before and during the battle would have been of still greater genius, and Russia would have perished, et la face du monde eut été changée. (783) The whole army—the French, the Italians, the Germans, the Poles, hungry, ragged, and exhausted by the campaign—on seeing the army that blocked their way to Moscow, felt that ‘le vin est tiré et qu’il faut le boire. If Napoleon had now forbidden them to fight the Russians, they would have killed him and gone to fight the Russians, because it was necessary for them. (784) 30 Many historians say that the French did not win the battle of Borodino because Napoleon had a cold, and that if he had not had a cold the orders he gave before and during the battle would have been still more full of genius and Russia would have been lost and la face du monde eût été changée. (840) The whole army—French, Italian, German, Polish, and Dutch—hungry, ragged, and weary of the campaign, felt at the sight of an army blocking their road to Moscow, that le vin est tiré et qu’il faut le boire. Had Napoleon then forbidden them to fight the Russians, they would have killed him and have proceeded to fight the Russians because it was inevitable. (841) 31 A number of historians assert that the battle of Borodino was not gained by the French because Napoleon had a cold in the head, that if it had not been for this cold, his arrangements before and during the battle would have displayed still more genius, and Russia would have been conquered, and the face of the world would have been changed. (Volume 2, 236) The whole army, French, Italians, Germans, Polyaks, famished and in rags, worn out by the campaign, felt, at sight of the Russian army barring the road to Moscow, that the wine was uncorked, and they had only to drink—que le vin est tiré et qu’il faut le boire. If at this moment Napoleon had forbidden them to fight the Russians they would have killed him and fought with the Russians; for this was inevitable for them. (Volume 2, 238)

25 understand the literal meanings of these phrases, but not where they come from. In these instances, they are arguably more effective when translated into English.

The fifth passage analysis, like the third, focuses on a passage where the French language provides context for the scene. Hélène, who is the daughter of the aforementioned Prince Vassily from the first chapter and the manipulative wife of Pierre Bezukhov, is having a conversation with her mother predominantly in French. Despite the efforts of many other characters to conduct conversations in Russian, Hélène is continuously associated with the French language and the insincerity and fickleness that Tolstoy ties to it. Her mother is speaking in Russian, but

Hélène herself switches to French midway through the conversation because of her inability to fully and clearly express herself in Russian.

—Ah, maman, ne dites pas de bêtises. Vous ne comprenez rien. Dans ma position j’ai des devoirs,—заговорила Злен, переводя разговор на французский c русского языка, на котором ей всегда казалась какая-то неясность в ее деле. —Но, мой друг… —Ah, maman (Том 2, 236)

Hélène, who is trying to convince her mother that it is perfectly fine for her to arrange a marriage with another man while her husband is still living, is unable to win the argument without speaking French. This sort of mean manipulation of her current husband is impossible to rationalize while she is speaking in Russian— only in French can a plan this devious and contriving attempt to be justified. This suggests that the only way that she could win the argument would be by speaking in French.

Only the Briggs32 eliminates French completely from the chapter, which makes up about

30% of the original. Kropotkin33 keeps only one word from the original, “mot,” but it comes

32 “Oh, Mamma, don’t be so silly. You don’t understand. In my position I have certain duties…’ Hélène began, switching form Russian to French, because in Russian she always felt her case lacked a certain clarity. “But, darling…” “Oh Mamma” (931-2)

26 from a different part of the chapter. Garnett34 keeps a few French words and phases in the chapter as well, but this particular passage is completely in English just like that of Briggs and

Kropotkin. Dole35 keeps some of the French and adds a line of English- “Ah, maman, ne dites pas de bêtises. Don’t talk nonsense. You do not understand at all”. Here, he keeps the first phrase, adds a translation of it, and then translates the second phrase into English. The final phrase is kept in French. This both makes the passage slightly more understandable for an

English reader and includes the French that makes the line ‘changing the conversation into

French’ make sense.

Although the 1993 edition cited here does not, some English publications of the Maudes’ translation36 include a translation of the French in brackets immediately following these lines.37

This was not an approach that the Maudes took extremely often in the novel, but it shows the significance of the role of the French language in the context of the scene. Aylmer and Louise

Maude, whose translation was approved by Tolstoy himself, generally shy away from retention of French, so their choice to include the French with a translation in brackets endorses and reaffirms Tolstoy’s decision to use French in this passage.

33 “Ah, mama, don't talk nonsense. You do not understand at all. In my position I have duties,” interrupted Helene, changing the conversation into French, since it always seemed to her that the Russian brought out a certain lack of definiteness in this transaction of hers. “But, my dear…” “Ah, mama!” (526) 34 “O mamma, don’t talk nonsense. You don’t understand. In my position I have duties…’ Ellen began, passing out of Russian into French, for in the former language she always felt a lack of clearness about her case. “But, my dear…” “O mamma” (958) 35 “Ah, maman, ne dites pas de bêtises. Don’t talk nonsense. You do not understand at all. Dans ma position j’ai des devoirs,” interrupted Ellen, changing the conversation into French, since it always seemed to her that the Russian brought out a certain lack of definiteness in this transaction of hers. “But, my dear”— “Ah, maman!” (Volume 2, 307) 36 “Ah maman, ne dites pas de bêtises. Vous ne comprenez rien. Dans ma position j’ai des devoirs,” said Hélène changing from Russian, in which language she always felt that her case did not sound quite clear, into French which suited it better. “But, my dear…” “Oh, Mamma” (683) 37 Tolstoy, Leo, and Aylmer & Louise Maude. War and Peace. New York: Norton, 1996. Print. (747)

27 Edmonds38 and Dunnigan39 both keep some French in this passage while also translating certain phrases into English, as they do throughout their translations. They both preserve

“maman” in both of its repetitions. However, they translate “переводя разговор на

французский c русского языка” to “speaking...in French,” which does not imply a switch from one language to another. They are the only two translators to change this detail; the rest all describe a switch from Russian to French, even if French is not included in the passage itself.

Because Tolstoy's narration describes a transition between languages, the inclusion of actual

French words is not necessary in order for the scene to make sense.

Pevear and Volokhonsky40 and Maude Revised41 are the only translators to keep all of the

French that is in the original Russian in this passage. This gives the chapter and the conversations within it more context, but Tolstoy’s narration helps readers to understand shifts between Russian and French without necessarily having to read full lines in two different languages.

Aside from the fourth, these previous five passage analyses all come from soirées and conversations in upper-class households. The last two come from Tolstoy’s descriptions of war

38 “Ah, maman, don’t talk nonsense. You don’t understand. In my position I have obligations,” began Hélène, speaking in French, which she felt suited her case better – Russian made it sound somehow dubious. “But my dear…” “Ah, maman” (995) 39 “Oh, maman, don’t talk nonsense. You don’t understand anything. In my position I have obligations,” said Ellen, speaking to her mother in French, which she felt was more suited to the situation, Russian always making it sound not quite clear. “But, my dear…” “Ah, maman” (1006) 40 “Ah, maman, ne dites pas de bêtises. Vous ne comprenez rien. Dans ma position j’ai des devoirs,” Hélène began, switching to French from Russian, in which it always seemed to her there was some lack of clarity in her case. “But, my friend…” “Ah, maman” (839) 41 “Ah, maman, ne dites pas de bêtises. Vous ne comprenez rien. Dans ma position j’ai des devoirs,” said Hélène, changing from Russian, in which language she always felt that her case did not sound quite clear, into French which suited it better. “But, my dear…” “Ah, maman” (901)

28 scenes. The role that French plays in soirées is amplified in war scenes; in soirées French mainly signifies class and political affiliation, but in war scenes, it signifies ranking and what side of the war one is fighting on. The sixth passage focuses on a scene where two Frenchmen, freezing and starving, arrive at a Russian camp. They are fed and taken care of, and the weaker of the two is carried into a tent to warm up. As he walks, he says to the men carrying him, “Oh, mes braves, oh, mes bons, mes bons amis! Voilà des hommes! oh, mes braves, mes bons amis!” (Том 2, 486)

The second Frenchman sits by the fire with the rest of the Russian soldiers, and he sings them a song:

Vive Henri Quatre, Vive ce roi vaillant ! пропел Морель, подмигивая глазом. Ce diable à quatre… […] Qui eut le triple talent, De boire, de battre, Et d’être un vert galant… (Том 2, 487)

This is a sixteenth century French song written about Henry the Fourth, and it was later used in a very popular French comedy opera in 1774. By 1814, the tune had become so well known that

French royalists used it for their own celebratory song. This French soldier, instead of singing a song praising the French conquests of which he is a part, is praising the overthrown French monarchy. Despite the fact that none of the Russian soldiers can understand the words, Морель sings this song and the Russians ask him to try to teach it to them. In the middle of a war started by Napoleon, a man who overthrew the French Directory with a coup d’état, these French and

Russian soldiers are all attempting to sing a song praising the monarchy.

None of the Russian or French soldiers in this chapter speak both languages, and therefore all of their interactions are based on the Russians’ understanding of the Frenchmen’s needs. Near the end of the chapter, one of the Russian soldiers notes that the French are “Тоже

29 люди” (Том 2, 487), roughly translating as ‘they're people too’. This scene focuses on the presence of camaraderie despite linguistic, political and cultural barriers, and language barriers are made clear through Tolstoy’s use of two separate languages. In this scene, the French and

Russian languages coexist in a different way than they do almost anywhere else in the book.

Instead of emphasizing differences between the two languages, Tolstoy uses the song to bring two separate armies together. It is in singing this song that the languages that these soldiers speak become less important than their humanity, as noted by the Russian soldier who says ‘Тоже

люди’.

Every single one of these translations preserves the French song. This passage serves as an example of a section of French in the novel that none of the translators felt would be better presented as an English translation. Other than Garnett and Dunnigan, all of these translators also include a translation of the text, whether that is in-text with brackets, as a footnote, or as an endnote. The passage itself is showing the way that non-French speaking Russians can appreciate a French song. By keeping the original French, English translators give their non-French speaking readers the same experience. This is also one of the few passages of the novel where the characters themselves do not understand the French language. Other than the French soldier who is singing, the Russian soldiers have no better idea of what the song is about than a 20th century English reader would. Including the French text of the song preserves both a sense of foreignness for the reader and the same language barrier that the Russian soldiers are facing. It is a political song about Henry the Fourth, but the meaning is never explained in the text itself. The

Russian soldiers try to imitate the sounds of the Frenchman as he sings, but there is no indication that they understand any of the words. Briggs, who most often excludes French from his

30 translation, has the song in English translation in an endnote. This passage is excluded from

Kropotkin’s translation, as are many other war scenes.

However, there is more variation in the translation of the line spoken by the first

Frenchman before the song. “Oh, mes braves, oh, mes bons, mes bons amis! Voilà des hommes! oh, mes braves, mes bons amis!” Dole, Dunnigan, Pevear and Volokhonsky and Maude Revised all keep this line in French. Dole and Dunnigan both include no translation of the line, while

Pevear and Volokhonsky and Maude Revised have translations in the footnotes. This line also includes a fair amount of repetition: “mes braves” is repeated twice, while “mes bons” is repeated three times. Even if an English speaker does not understand “mes bons,” they could understand “mes braves” and that the French soldier is thanking the Russian soldiers in some way. Garnett,42 the Maudes,43 Edmonds44 and Briggs45 all translate the line. Like in the second passage analysis that included three repetitions of “’homme de beaucoup de mérite”, the translators are faced with an issue of repetition in this passage. Garnett, the Maudes and

Edmonds include “kind” three times when translating Tolstoy’s three “bons”, while Briggs adds a little more variety to his word choice in translation. However, none of them use ‘brave’ more than once, whereas Tolstoy uses it twice.

The unanimous decision made by these translators to keep the French in order to give the reader a full understanding of the scene shows how important Tolstoy’s linguistic choices can be to his plot. At other times, the choice to translate a particular French phrase or include a repetition is less important than the translator’s ability to communicate the sense of the passage.

The war song and the Frenchman’s line are examples of both of these extremes, and they are

42 “O you good fellows! O my kind, kind friends. These are men! O my brave, kind friends” (1248) 43 “Oh, you fine fellows, my kind, kind friends! These are men! Oh, my brave, kind friends” (881) 44 “Oh you good fellows! Oh my kind, kind friends! Real decent fellows! Oh my brave, kind friends!” (1298) 45 “Oh, good boys! Oh you are my good, kind friends. Real men! Oh, my brave, kind friends!” (1220)

31 found only a few lines away from each other. This passage is a perfect example of the reality that

Tolstoy’s inclusion of French passages is, at times, critical to his novel’s plot. At others, although it may contribute to the plot, his inclusions of French passages and phrases are artistic decisions.

The seventh and final passage analysis exemplifies this fact. It comes from a conversation held between Napoleon and a Russian soldier sent to give him a message.

—Уверьте от моего имени императора Александра,—сказал он, взяв шляпу, —что я ему предан по-прежнему: я знаю его совершенно и весьма высоко ценю высокие его качества. Je ne vous retiens plus, général, vous recevrez ma lettre à l’Empereur. (Том 2, 26)

Midway through the phrase, Napoleon switches from Russian to French. Napoleon did not speak

Russian, and all war negotiations and conversations would therefore have taken place in French.

The reader is not supposed to believe that Napoleon is actually switching from one language to another; Tolstoy keeps the body of the conversation in Russian, which his readers would be able to read freely, and puts only the last line in French.46

Dole, Pevear and Volokhonsky, and Maude Revised are the only translators that preserve the French in this passage. The rest keep the last line of Napoleon’s conversation in English. This leads the reader to believe that the entire conversation is held in the same language, which, in reality, it would have been. This poses the question of why it is significant that Napoleon ends his speech with a French phrase in Tolstoy’s original at all. Perhaps it is a decision that is more artistic than it is based on plot. Ultimately, it is not Tolstoy’s choice to write this line in French that is significant, but the implications that it would have had on his readers. Putting the last line in French distances Napoleon from the rest of the characters in the army who are speaking

46 Tolstoy defends Napoleon’s switch from Russian to French in instances such as this one in his appendix to the novel, found on pages 33-34 of this paper.

32 predominantly in Russian, and also reminds readers that the conversation would have been held in French.

However, the letter delivered by this Russian soldier that is cited in Napoleon’s last line in French was “Napoleon’s last letter to Alexander…and [after that] the war began” (Pevear and

Volokhonsky, 627). Napoleon’s ‘lettre á l’Empereur’, therefore, is directly associated with the war. The war, which was waged by the French, is begun after the delivery of a letter that

Napoleon describes in French. Again, the French language is associated with that which is negative: the invasion of Russia.

Earlier in the chapter, Napoleon is explaining to the soldier that he already knows how many troops Alexander has and that he himself has three times that number. “Даю вам честное

слово,—сказал Наполеон, забывая, что это его честное слово никак не могло иметь

значения,—даю вам47 ma parole d’honneur que j’ai cinq cent trente mille hommes de ce côté de la Victule.” (Том 2, 25) All of the dialogue surrounding this line is in Russian in Tolstoy’s original, but Napoleon’s meaningless word of honor is in French. This further emphasizes the fickleness, falsity and deception of the French language that Tolstoy has associated with certain characters throughout the novel. Even in a passage in which it seems as though Tolstoy is using

French simply to suggest a historical reality, the specific phrases that he chooses show that this may not necessarily be the case.

Conclusion

These seven passages all pose important questions about Tolstoy’s intentions and objectives when choosing to use the French language. It is critical to examine both Tolstoy’s

47 “I give you my word of honor,—said Napoleon, remembering that his word of honor was meaningless,—give you…”

33 linguistic choices and his own words regarding his use of French in War and Peace. In his appendix to the novel, which was published in The Russian Archive in 1868, Tolstoy discusses his use of the French passages:

Употребление французского языка в русском сочинении. Для чего в моем сочинении говорят, не только русские, но и французы, частью по-русски, частью по-французски? Упрек в том, что лица говорят и пишут по- французски в русской книге, подобен тому упреку, который бы сделал человек, глядя на картину и заметив в ней черные пятна (тени), которых нет в действительности. Живописец неповинен в том, что некоторым — тень, сделанная им на лице картины, представляется черным пятном, которого не бывает в действительности; но живописец повинен только в том, ежели тени эти положены неверно и грубо. Занимаясь эпохой начала нынешнего века изображая лица русские известного общества, и Наполеона, и французов, имевших такое прямое участие в жизни того времени, я невольно увлекся формой выражения того французского склада мысли больше, чем это было нужно. И потому, не отрицая того, что положенные мною тени вероятно, неверны и грубы, я желал бы только, чтобы те, которым покажется очень смешно, как Наполеон говорит то по-русски, то по-французски, знали бы, что это им кажется только оттого, что они, как человек, смотрящий на портрет, видят не лицо с светом и тенями, а черное пятно под носом. (357- 58)48

This quote brings to light the important point that Tolstoy saw himself as being, like a painter,

“carried away more than necessary by the form of expression of that French way of thinking”, which he describes as “involuntary”. He advises his readers to see the French passages as artistic attributes of a larger, more important picture. Furthermore, this note by Tolstoy accuses the critics and readers who seek out and analyze “black spots” of being unable to understand the

48 The use of French in a Russian work. Why is it that in my work not only the Russians but also the French speak partly in Russian, partly in French? The reproach that people speak and write in French in a Russian book is similar to the reproach made by a man who, looking at a painting, notices black spots in it (shadows) that are not found in reality. The painter is not to blame if the shadow he has made on the face in the painting looks to some like a black spot that does not exist in reality, but is to blame only if those shadows are laid on incorrectly and crudely. Studying the period of the beginning of the present century, portraying Russian figures of a certain society, and Napoleon, and the French, who took such a direct part in the life of that time, I was involuntarily carried away more than necessary by the form of expression of that French way of thinking. And therefore, without denying that the shadows I laid on are probably incorrect and crude, I wish only that those to whom it seems very funny that Napoleon speaks now in Russian, now in French, should know that it seems so to them because, like the man looking at the portrait, they see not a face with light and shadow, but only a black spot under its nose. (Pevear and Volokhonsky Translation, 1218)

34 novel artistically. Attempting to pick the novel apart makes them unable to see the ways in which all of Tolstoy’s shadows contribute to the novel as a whole.

Translating Tolstoy is a careful balancing act. Both Tolstoy’s intentions in choosing to write specific passages in French and the effects that these passages can have on the reader must be taken into account. The choices that translators make regarding French words and phrases give their intended audiences different impressions and interpretations of the passages in question. Even translators that choose to remove the French from their publications, such as

Briggs, say that some element of the story is lost due to this decision to translate most of the

French passages into English.49 These narrative elements can be historical, cultural, and political; in choosing which characters speak French, Tolstoy not only associates figures with a falsity and fickleness of character but also suggests that their worlds struggle to exist when French language and culture are removed from them. Hélène’s transition from Russian to French in conversation and Julie’s French syntax are both examples of this fact. In decreasing the amount of French that he uses throughout the course of the novel, Tolstoy shows the reader, without ever having to explicitly tell them, that the ways of the aristocracy are changing due to the war. However, these

French passages make up only about two percent of the novel; Tolstoy’s messages are not completely lost without them. The passages that translators choose to keep in French are reflective of the historical, cultural and political narrative elements that they choose to make most explicit.

The translations of the first paragraph of War and Peace suggest that translators choose to take one of three approaches when translating these French passages. Some translate both

Russian and French into English, whereas others retain all of the original French. Many translators, however, retain a fraction of Tolstoy’s original French in translation, but also choose

49 Briggs pages 1406-1407

35 to translate much of it into English. The approach of translating all of the French into English is founded on the idea that the text should flow smoothly for the reader; these translations are often referred to as domesticating rather than foreignizing because they tend to remove or alter the aspects of a text that might remind the reader that they are, in fact, reading a foreign work.

Briggs and Kropotkin are examples of this; Briggs writes in his “Note on the Text” that one must try “to imagine how the average Russian reads War and Peace and to try to recapture something similar in the translated text” (1406). The goal is not to give the reader a novel with content that is identical to the original; it is to give the reader the same reading experience that a Russian in

Tolstoy’s time may have had.

This approach would suggest that a translator should put the French portions of the text in a language that a modern reader could understand with the same ease as an aristocratic Russian who has a knowledge of French. However, there is no language that equates French in our society that could be used in translations. If there were, translating the French passages into this secondary language could give English speaking readers a similar experience to that of Russians speakers who were familiar with French. Since this is not possible, the alternative is to translate all of the text into English. Giving the reader this smooth reading experience comes at a price; both the dynamic between the French and Russian languages in 20th century Russia and the significance of the specific French passages that Tolstoy chooses to use are lost.

This domesticating approach exemplified by Briggs and Kropotkin stands in stark contrast to the more foreignizing approach of Pevear and Volokhonsky and Maude Revised.

These translators choose to retain all of the French text in an effort to give the reader the most

‘authentic’ reading experience. Pevear and Volokhonsky’s introduction defends their reasons for retaining French. They write, “it is often said that a good translation is one that ‘does not feel like

36 a translation,’ one that reads ‘smoothly’ and in ‘idiomatic English” (xiv), but that this approach ultimately “betrays both English and Tolstoy.” (xiv) In directly criticizing a domesticating method of translation that seeks to give their reader a ‘smooth’ reading experience, they praise their own foreignizing method of translation. This method retains aspects of the original text even when they may make the novel flow less smoothly for the reader or when the reader may not understand the context so as to give them the most genuine, authentic reading experience possible. Attempting to produce a truly ‘authentic’ translation of Tolstoy can result in passages with strange syntax, a confusing overlap of languages, and repetitions that sound unnatural to an

English reader. The foreignizing approach is based on the idea that to ‘feel like a translation’ is not necessarily negative if it makes for a more ‘authentic’ text.

Ultimately, all nine of these translations fall on a spectrum that bridges total domestication and total foreignization of texts, and their readers are all given different representations of Tolstoy’s shadows as a result. The inclusion of anglicized Russian names and the retention of Tolstoy’s repetition are also factors in this. In actively choosing to domesticate or foreignize aspects of the novel, the artists behind each of these nine translations recreate

Tolstoy’s portrait in a different way. In his book Is That a Fish in Your Ear, David Bellos writes,

“A translation can’t be right or wrong in the manner of a school quiz or a bank statement. A translation is more like a portrait in oils. The artist may add a pearl earring, give an extra flush to the cheek, or miss out on the gray hairs in the sideburns—and still give us a good likeness.”

(318) Bellos’ description of translation is very similar to that of Tolstoy for his writing; they both argue that the choices made by the writer and the translator are not intrinsically historical or factual. They are artistic decisions, and to see one representation of an event or a passage as more correct than another is to misunderstand the roles of the writer and of the translator as

37 ‘painters’. Every choice that the translators make places emphasis on different elements of the text and influences the individual paintings that they work to create. To say that one translation is superior to all others would be to disregard both the reality that every translation speaks to a different audience and Tolstoy’s own view that literary choices are artistic decisions. The moments when these translators align in their decisions are reflective of the French passages that are and are not necessary in giving translations “a good likeness” to Tolstoy’s original.

There are some moments when translators unanimously choose to keep Tolstoy’s original

‘shadows’ just as they are written; an example of this is the royalist song sung by Morel. The ability to appreciate music can bring unity and beauty to groups of people despite the fact that they may not all understand its words. The song plays an important role in showing that beauty can be found in a language that one does not understand; the soldiers who realize that the French are “тоже люди” illustrate the ways in which language does not only divide peoples, but also connects them in a moment of musicality. In a novel in which the catty French language spoken in salons is often used to underline that which is fickle and false, Morel’s song shows the reader that there is still beauty in a musical expression of the language. This passage is also located at a point in the novel when French is predominantly spoken by manipulative Russian characters and by French soldiers, and in portraying the song so positively, Tolstoy reminds the reader that there is still value in a musical and artistic side of the French language. The translators’ unanimous choice to retain this artistic shadow of Tolstoy’s shows that the inclusion of Morel’s song is necessary in preserving a “good likeness” of the original. This French song is unlike any of the other French passages in the novel; music gives the French language meaning and beauty that words alone cannot.

38 Although all of the translators choose to keep Morel’s song in French, most of the other

French passages are not consistently translated. The Maudes, Garnett, Edmonds, and Dunnigan are all examples of translators who include some of Tolstoy’s French but who also eliminate a great deal of it. Edmonds and Dunnigan, for example, begin their novels with a French phrase but remove the French from the rest of the passage. The other translators choose either to completely eliminate the French from the first paragraph or to retain all of it, but Edmonds and

Dunnigan used a small amount of French to give the reader context. They may not make it clear how much French Anna Pavlovna is really speaking, but the phrase contextualizes the novel historically and makes it clear that she is a part of a social class in which some amount of French is spoken.

Caustique is an example of a French word that must be retained in order for the scene of which it is a part to make sense. The unanimous choice by all of the translators in this study to retain this French vocabulary shows that there are times at which French is integral to War and

Peace and at which no translation is an adequate substitute for the original.

When translating War and Peace, some underlying historical, cultural and political details are lost and others can be retained. The first line of the novel in Dunnigan’s and

Edmonds’ translations is an example of this; they use a French phrase to retain the implications given by Tolstoy’s original that Anna Pavlovna is a part both of a time period and of a social circle in which French is spoken. Both foreignizing and domesticating approaches can be taken in attempting to retain the implied meanings behind Tolstoy’s narrational and linguistic clues.

Dole’s translation is foreignizing in that it retains French passages that would be welcome and familiar to his American audience at the turn of the 20th century and that emphasize the bilingual nature of aristocratic Russian society. Translators such as Pevear and Volokhonsky and Maude

39 Revised are foreignizing in a different way; their choices to retain French words and phrases are based more on a philosophy of translation and of what makes an English version of War and

Peace ‘authentic’ than on the effects that their artistic choices may have on different readers. In removing French from their publications, more domesticating translators such as Briggs and

Kropotkin sacrifice the underlying historical, cultural and political meanings found in the French passages in an effort to make the novel more readable and understandable as a whole. For a reader who would get too caught up in the significance of every French word and phrase, the implied meanings behind Tolstoy’s narrational and linguistic clues may be easier to understand in a domesticating translation. All of the translators choose to retain words and phrases that help them to reinforce different historical, cultural and political elements of Tolstoy’s original work that are most suited to their target audiences. In some cases, the foreignizing approach of retaining Tolstoy’s French gives readers a lens with which to understand different characters and passages. In others, domesticating passages allow translators to make parts of the novel easier to read and more understandable for their audience. By carefully choosing which French passages to retain, translators are able to underscore specific elements of Tolstoy’s original text that best create a work with a ‘good likeness’ to the original and that cater to their target audience.

To say that War and Peace would be the same without these underlying messages is to say that a painting would be the same without an artist’s shadows. To see the French passages as

“black spots” is to forget that even when an artist becomes “carried away more than necessary” by an angle or “form of expression”, no shadow is truly arbitrary. To say that one translator’s interpretation of these shadows is more correct than the next is to misunderstand their role; the shadows do not exist in order to tell the reader what they must see and understand, but to help them further appreciate the greater picture. Translators ultimately give us a ‘good likeness’ of the

40 original not only by preserving historical, cultural and political details, but by artistically representing Tolstoy’s shadows in their own work. It is not critical that every detail be preserved by using the French language—rather, it is critical that both the translator and the reader understand that behind every historic account there is an artistic touch, and behind every word and phrase in the French language, there is reason and intent. It is by shedding light on Tolstoy’s linguistic shadows that it becomes clear not only that each and every dark spot plays a role, but also that it is not important whether or not these shadows are based on reality. What is important is what they allow the reader to see.

41 Bibliography

Bartlett, Rosamund. “Tolstoy Translated.” Financial Times. 8 Aug. 2014. Financial Times. Web. 2 Nov. 2015. Bassnett, Susan (1991) Translation Studies/ New Accents. London and New York: Routledge, 1991. Print. Bellos, David. Is That a Fish in Your Ear?: Translation and the Meaning of Everything. New York: Faber and Faber, 2011. Print. Christian, Reginald F, and Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy's "War and Peace": A Study. Oxford England: Clarendon Press, 1962. Print. Christian, Reginald F. Tolstoy: a Critical Introduction. London: Cambridge U.P, 1969. Print. Classe, O. Encyclopedia of Literary Translation into English. Chicago; London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2000. Print. Donoghue, Steve. “Book Review - War and Peace, Trans. Richard Pevear & Larissa Volokhonsky | Open Letters Monthly - an Arts and Literature Review.” 1 February 2015. Web. 2 Nov. 2015. Figes, Orlando. Tolstoy's Real Hero. 54 Vol. New York: New York Review, 2007. Print. Gayle, J. K. “Bellos on ‘War and Peace’ as Russian (and French) in English.” BLT. 26 October 2011. Web. 2 Nov. 2015. Katz, Michael R. “War and Peace in Our Time. ” The New England Review 29(4). 2008. Web. 2 November 2015. Lewanski, Richard Casimir. The Slavic Literatures, Volume 2:2. New York: New York Public Library, and F. Ungar Publishing Company, 1967. Print. Maude, Aylmer. The Life of Tolstoy. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1910. Print. Мотылевы, Т. Война и Мир’ за Рубежом: Переводе, Критика, Влиание. Москва: Советский писатель, 1978. Print. Remnick, David. “The Translation Wars.” The New Yorker. 7 Nov. 2005. The New Yorker. Web. 2 Nov. 2015. Толстой, Лев. Война и Мир. Москва: Государственные изд во кудоз литературу, 1944. Print. Толстой, Лев. Война и Мир. Москва: Государственные изд во кудоз литературу, 1978. Print. Tolstoï, Léon et “Une Russe”. La Guerre et la Paix. Paris: Librairie Hachette et Co., 1884. Print. Tolstoï, Léon et Henri Mongault. La Guerre et la Paix. Paris: Gallimard, 1945. Print. Tolstoï, Léon et Boris de Schloezer. La Guerre et la Paix. Paris: Gallimard, 1960. Print. Tolstoï, Léon et Élisabeth Guertik. La Guerre et la Paix. Paris: Librairie Générale Française, 2010. Print. Tolstoy, Leo and Clara Bell. War and Peace. New York: William S. Gottsburger, Publisher, 1886. Print. Tolstoy, Leo and Nathan Haskell Dole. War and Peace. New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co., 1889. Print. Tolstoy, Leo, and W S. Maugham. War and Peace. Philadelphia: Winston, 1949. Print. Tolstoy, Leo, and Rosemary Edmonds. War and Peace. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1957. Print. Tolstoy, Leo, and George Gibian. War and Peace. New York: W.W. Norton, 1966. Print.

42 Tolstoy, Leo, and Ann Dunnigan. War and Peace. New York: New American Library, 1980. Print. Tolstoy, Leo and Constance Garnett. War and Peace. CITY: Modern Library, 1994. Print. Tolstoy, Leo, and Aylmer & Louise Maude. War and Peace. Ware: Wordsworth Edition, 1993. Print. Tolstoy, Leo, graf, 1828-1910, et al. War and Peace: The Maude Translation, Backgrounds and Sources, Criticism. New York: Norton, 1996. Print. Tolstoy, Leo, Anthony Briggs. War and Peace. CITY: Penguin Classics, 2005. Print. Tolstoy, Leo, Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. War and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007. Print. Tolstoy, Leo, Aylmer & Louise Maude, and Amy Mandelker. War and Peace. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.

43