Translations
Translations of Anna Karenina
20 translations are recorded in our catalogue.
These are the translated editions we hold records for. A translation we have not catalogued is missing from this list, not from the world.
This book in English
What we found when we looked into it
Written by a person, from the sources listed at the end. Where critics disagree, this says so rather than picking a winner. It is not a catalogue record and does not claim the same authority as the table above.
Researched 2026-08-18. PD rule of thumb as in the War and Peace dossier: US-published translations before 1931 are public domain as of 2026.
Translations
| Translator | Year | Publisher/Imprint | Copyright status | In print? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nathan Haskell Dole | 1887 | Thomas Y. Crowell (via French intermediary) | PD (US) | No |
| Constance Garnett | 1901 | Multiple | PD (US) | Yes — continuously reprinted |
| Leo Wiener | 1904 | Dana Estes | PD (US) | No |
| Louise & Aylmer Maude | 1918 | Oxford University Press | PD (US) | Yes — Oxford World's Classics |
| Rosemary Edmonds | 1954 | Penguin Classics | In copyright | Not independently verified |
| David Magarshack | 1961 | Signet Classics | In copyright | Not independently verified |
| Richard Pevear & Larissa Volokhonsky | 2000 | Penguin Classics | In copyright | Yes — chosen for Oprah's Book Club, 2004 |
| Kyril Zinovieff & Jenny Hughes | 2008 | Alma Classics | In copyright | Yes |
| Rosamund Bartlett | 2014 | Oxford World's Classics | In copyright | Yes |
| Marian Schwartz | 2015 | Yale University Press | In copyright | Yes |
Reception
- Summary per welovetranslations.com (independent translation-comparison site; author Lucy Day Werts, no publisher affiliation), accessed 2026-08-18: Dole's 1887 version is "pioneering but wholly inadequate" (translated via French, not Russian); Garnett is "groundbreaking but... dry and flat"; Maude is Tolstoy-approved and readable but has "discrepancies with original text"; Zinovieff & Hughes "surpasses even the most recent version" with natural English word order; Bartlett is "classically elegant" and praised for "idiomatic, readable prose"; Schwartz is the "least smooth-talking," criticized for "obtrusive literalism" though it retains Tolstoy's repetitions on purpose; Pevear & Volokhonsky is called out as the most divisive entry — "praised for authenticity or criticized as 'awkward and unsightly muddles.'"
- On the P&V divide specifically: praise from Michael Henry Heim (LA Times) for capturing "differentiated... characters' many voices," and criticism from Gary Saul Morson (Slavic scholar, Commentary) that their work can be "awkward and unsightly muddles" — both cited on Wikipedia's Pevear & Volokhonsky page, accessed 2026-08-18. This is the same critical fault line as War and Peace — the same translating pair, judged inconsistently by different named critics across their catalogue.
- Reception for this title is concentrated in enthusiast comparison sites rather than major newspaper book-review cycles (no NYT/Guardian head-to-head review of Anna Karenina translations specifically was found in this pass) — flag this as thinner than the Homer/Camus reception below.
Parallel excerpt
Only the Garnett translation was independently verified against primary text. Maude's 1918 Anna Karenina text was searched for but not located at a confirmed Project Gutenberg ID in this session — do not attribute a specific quote to it without direct verification.
Constance Garnett (1901), public domain, US — source: Project Gutenberg #1399 (gutenberg.org/files/1399/1399-h/1399-h.htm), verified by direct fetch 2026-08-18. Part One, Chapter I, opening:
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Everything was in confusion in the Oblonskys' house. The wife had discovered that the husband was carrying on an intrigue with a French girl, who had been a governess in their family, and she had announced to her husband that she could not go on living in the same house with him."
Licensing: Public domain in the US (Project Gutenberg), free to quote/reuse.
Decision guide
The one point every source agrees on: Pevear & Volokhonsky is the most argued-over modern choice — praised by some critics for authenticity, condemned by others (Morson explicitly, by name) as awkward. That disagreement should be shown to the reader, not resolved. Beyond that: Bartlett's Oxford edition is the closest thing to a broad consensus "elegant, readable, modern" pick in the sourced material. Garnett remains the free/PD default, at the cost of being "dry and flat" by the same source's own account. Schwartz is positioned as the deliberately literal option for readers who specifically want Tolstoy's repetitions preserved rather than smoothed. Caveat to publish honestly: this title's reception is thinner and more single-sourced (mostly one comparison blog) than Homer or Camus below — say so if the page needs to justify its confidence level.