To answer questions about
Resurrection,
please sign up.
Brittany
The Maude translation is the best for any Tolstoy work; not only are they both (Louise and Aylmer Maude were husband and wife) brilliant with the languages, they knew Tolstoy personally and he himself was a proponent of their translations. The Mauds seem to capture the essence or spirit of Tolstoy's writing better than any other translator.
Henzin
I keep running into those plaudits about the Maude translations of Tolstoy works, and especially the bit about how Tolstoy himself rated the translation, and let's just say I've got some doubts.
First of all, there's the problem of time. Tolstoy died in 1910. The Maude translation of Anna Karenina was completed in 1918, and their translation of War and Peace was completed in 1923. How could Tolstoy recommend that?
And even if they completed it before Tolstoy's death and for some strange reason sat on it for a couple of decades, what could Tolstoy recommend it in comparison with?
Well, a handful of forgettable translations, the best of which was Constance Garnett, who taught herself Russian and was known for her habit of omitting passages she didn't quite understand well. That's the yardstick for Tolstoy translations at the time of Tolstoy's death. One-eyed king of the blind...
So, even if he somehow read the Maude translation and recommended it, it can't be used as an argument vs. the more modern translations, such as Briggs, P&V, Bartlett, Zinovieff+Hughes, etc.
Gibian and Mandelker revisited some of the Maude translations of War and Peace, and Anna Karenina, and corrected factual errors there, so if they (or someone else) did the same for the Resurrection, it would definitely be better, than the original Maudes. Otherwise I'd go with Briggs.
First of all, there's the problem of time. Tolstoy died in 1910. The Maude translation of Anna Karenina was completed in 1918, and their translation of War and Peace was completed in 1923. How could Tolstoy recommend that?
And even if they completed it before Tolstoy's death and for some strange reason sat on it for a couple of decades, what could Tolstoy recommend it in comparison with?
Well, a handful of forgettable translations, the best of which was Constance Garnett, who taught herself Russian and was known for her habit of omitting passages she didn't quite understand well. That's the yardstick for Tolstoy translations at the time of Tolstoy's death. One-eyed king of the blind...
So, even if he somehow read the Maude translation and recommended it, it can't be used as an argument vs. the more modern translations, such as Briggs, P&V, Bartlett, Zinovieff+Hughes, etc.
Gibian and Mandelker revisited some of the Maude translations of War and Peace, and Anna Karenina, and corrected factual errors there, so if they (or someone else) did the same for the Resurrection, it would definitely be better, than the original Maudes. Otherwise I'd go with Briggs.
Valus Markel
Vera Traill, hands down
RiffRaffReads
did pevear and volokhonsky do atranslation of Tolstoys Resurrection?
Josh
I am reading the Anthony Briggs translation (Penguin Classics) and can attest to it's quality
Mike
I am reading Maude now. It is decidedly British; especially for the commoner vernacular and slang. I feel like I am reading Dickens not Tolstoy. I know “faggot” means cigarette in this context, but I still would prefer a more modern and American transition. I guess I am not to “ducky” on Maude’s version.
Steven Eldredge
Anthony Briggs for Penguin Classics.
Eden
which is the best translation
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more