Literature Network » Leo Tolstoy » War and Peace

War and Peace


Advanced Search

Translated by Louise and Aylmer Maude.


Epic historical novel by Leo Tolstoy, originally published as Voyna i mir in 1865-69. This panoramic study of early 19th-century Russian society, noted for its mastery of realistic detail and variety of psychological analysis, is generally regarded as one of the world's greatest novels. War and Peace is primarily concerned with the histories of five aristocratic families--particularly the Bezukhovs, the Bolkonskys, and the Rostovs--the members of which are portrayed against a vivid background of Russian social life during the war against Napoleon (1805-14). The theme of war, however, is subordinate to the story of family existence, which involves Tolstoy's optimistic belief in the life-asserting pattern of human existence. The novel also sets forth a theory of history, concluding that there is a minimum of free choice; all is ruled by an inexorable historical determinism.



I read War and Peace as I travelled on the Trans-Siberian Express five years ago. Totally appropriate to read while passing through areas to which Moscow dissidents fled and who are mentioned by Tolstoy.--Submitted by Anonymous



Fan of this book? Help us introduce it to others by writing a better introduction for it. It's quick and easy, click here.

  • Related Links:

      • Quizzes on War and Peace

        No quizzes available to take yet.

      Please submit a quiz here.

Recent Forum Posts on War and Peace

Finally starting War and Peace films/book project

Nearly two years after announcing my intent, I'm finally having a go at War and Peace. To sum up, I'm first watching three filmed versions in order of increasing length: The 1956 American/Italian version (3 1/2 hours), the classic 1966-67 four-part Russian version (7 hours), and the 20-part BBC-TV serial from 1972-73 (15 hours). I'm hoping this three-stage introduction will help me remember who is who and doing what during the actual read without constantly having to stop and look people up. First, the 1956 version, starring noted Russian actors Henry Fonda, Audrey Hepburn, and Mel Ferrer. I joke, but looking up the main cast in IMDB, I see American, English, Dutch, Italian, Czech, Austrian, and Swedish, but no Russian. Scanning the secondary cast listing, I finally find a Russian-sounding name: Dimitri Konstantinov, with the promising credit "Young Officer at Orgy" (though this being a 1950s major studio release, and PG-rated to boot, I probably shouldn't get my hopes up). Further down, I find one more: Savo Raskovitch as Czar Alexander I. That looks to be about it for authenticity, though. From what I've read, this version seems to be the runt of the litter, especially when compared to the revered Russian version. Since I'm going into this with no preconceptions, and minimal knowledge of the original story (I only know it involves a love triangle between two men named Pierre and Andrei and a woman named Natasha, with Napoleon's invasion as a backdrop), let's see how this movie works on its own merits. *time jump* Having watched the film in three parts over the last three days, I can say that this may be the most un-epic epic I've ever seen. Most of the cast emoted professionally enough but it was all very stage-actey and artificial (though Herbert Lom as Napoleon was a definite win). This seemed to be a deliberate style decision, but it resulted in none of the characters feeling real, so I was never able to get really involved. There was also little sense of forward propulsion in the story, just coasting and looking at people doing their thing. I never felt any kind of build toward a climax. And the love triangle itself wasn't even much of one, since not much time was spent on the main three characters together. I can't say how much of the lack of life was due to trims to the source material, but that shouldn't be an excuse anyway; Gone with the Wind was a pretty huge novel, and that movie still beats this one in pretty much every way. Just compare the scenes in the two movies involving the heroines dealing with the wounded. My rating on this one: 6/10 Still, it did its job. Now I know the main characters and the basic story. Next up: The Russians liked this movie but thought they could do better. I hope so.

Posted By Calidore at Wed 30 Jan 2013, 3:39 PM in War and Peace || 7 Replies

War and Peace: The Movie(1956) and the Novel

WAR AND PEACE: Leo Tolstoy and Me stoy Part 1: The 1956 release of War and Peace was the first English-language film version of the novel War and Peace by the Russian novelist and short-story writer, essayist and playwright Leo Tolstoy(1828-1910). This 1956 film was released into cinemas when I was 12, in grade 7, and responsible for the marquee at the Roxy Theatre in Burlington Ontario. I got into all the films that came into town---free---at least while I had that part-time job in my senior years of primary school. I don’t remember ever seeing War and Peace until it was televised this afternoon.(1) War and Peace won many awards; I leave it to readers here to find out which ones. I also leave it to readers to take-in, if their interests allow, the available summaries and analyses of both the novel and of the film, of Tolstoy’s life and of any other relevant Russian literary life and history that is of interest to them.-Ron Price with thanks to (1)ABC1 TV, 12:00-3:25 p.m., 22/12/’12. As a student and, then, teacher of English literature from the 1950s to the first years of the 21st century, I was blest with never having to either read this work or teach it as part of the curriculum. The book is one of the longest novels ever written, and one of the most famous---arguably---the most famous. I will also leave the reading of that novel to readers at some time in their lives as the internet publishing world, and the many publishing houses around the planet, pile on their reading matter for 21st century students and readers. As we all run-the-gauntlet of the print and image glut that faces us in this new and troubled age, Tolstoy requires hard yards for the KISS generations, the keep-it-simple-silly literary language of our times. Part 2: Tolstoy began his tertiary studies at the age of 16 in law and oriental languages at Kazan University. The year was 1844, the same year that Karl Marx published his first writings, and the year that the first message: "what hath God wrought?" went across a telegraph wire. Tolstoy was described by his teachers as "both unable and unwilling to learn". I won’t give you chapter and verse of this man’s fascinating life for that, too, you can read about at your leisure, if you have the interest. I will note here, though, one fact of interest to me, if not to you, about the dissolute university student who was Tolstoy and who, by his 40s, had transformed himself into a number of roles for which he acquired in the decades ahead---fame and renown. One of these roles was as an educator whose school, whose learning system, was a direct forerunner to A. S. Neill's Summerhill School, a man, a school, and an educational system which I will also leave to readers to google at their leisure this summer. If readers of this prose-poem of mine here at this Literature Network Forum live in the northern hemisphere, then, they can do their googling during this winter holiday. The school Tolstoy founded in his 40s can justifiably be claimed to be the first example of a coherent theory of democratic education.-Ron Price with thanks to Wikipedia, 22/12/’12. It helped having Audrey Hepburn and Henry Fonda in starring roles, but I’m glad I never had to either read or teach this immense, great, pastiche of a book, the 7th longest, as far as I know.…Working on it as(1) he was when Darwin’s Origin of the Species hit the public in 1859…... I’ve been working on this book for nearly 50 years; had it on my to-do list, but I’ve got lost in the world of print and image-glut. I’ve put novels down on the back-burner in a lesser category as far back as the 1950s, a half-century-of-life or more-ago, ago. You said, Leo, that there was a man in Akka who had found the key to it all.(2) I came across this idea over 50 years ago at the same time as a friend was reading your writing...immersed as I was in history and philosophy.....To read your War & Peace was impossible for me then and now, given my long reading lists then, my proclivities now, and the fact that these evenings of my life are coming at me faster than the speed of light, as I head into the last hours of my life-night before...dawn. (1) Tolstoy himself, somewhat enigmatically, said of War and Peace that it was "not a novel, even less is it a poem, and still less a historical chronicle”. He went on to elaborate that “the best Russian literature does not conform to standard norms” and, hence, he hesitated to call War and Peace a novel. The book is actually the seventh longest novel ever written in a Latin or Cyrillic-based alphabet. It is subdivided into four books or volumes, each with sub-parts containing many chapters. See War and Peace at Wikipedia. (2) See Leo Tolstoy and the Baha’i Faith, Luigi Stendardo, translated form the French by Jeremy Fox, George Ronald, Oxford, 1985, p.53. Ron Price 22/12/’12 (final draft)

Posted By Ron Price at Sat 22 Dec 2012, 3:24 PM in War and Peace || 4 Replies

Did Pierre Cheat on Natasha?

In the first epilogue, Pierre and Natasha discuss their former quarrels after Pierre returns from Petersburg. Pierre says he loves Natasha and even if they're at odds when they part, he develops a lot of love for her after they've been parted for a while. This makes Natasha a little queasy, and Pierre says, "No, I never stopped loving you, it's not that..." He doesn't finish the sentence. Natasha says their quarrels are silly and when Pierre mentions jealousy, she shuts him up, afraid to open a new can of worms. After a moment of silence, she asks him, "Did you see her?" Pierre says no. Does this interaction imply that Pierre cheated on Natasha at one point in their marriage or is my reading incorrect? I've searched Wikipedia, Sparknotes, and Cliffnotes, but to no avail :(

Posted By konish at Sun 12 Aug 2012, 10:39 PM in War and Peace || 0 Replies

A Novice and "War and Peace"

I'm about to begin War and Peace (Tolstoy of course) and having only read a dozen or so of his short stories, I got the bright idea I would consult you bright folks for tips. I've heard people keeping notebooks to track characters, things like that. Anything that might be helpful is welcome indeed. Thanks in advance.

Posted By ZTay at Mon 23 Jul 2012, 10:16 PM in War and Peace || 5 Replies

Russians Speaking French?

I'm reading a newer translation of War and Peace, one that claims to be truer to the original than the standard Maude translation (I don't know if it is; I don't read Russian), and one of the ways in which it does this is keep the original French text. While I'm reading, I keep wondering why the Russians speak so much French, when they're fighting the French. Even the emperor speaks French. What's the deal with that?

Posted By Mutatis-Mutandis at Thu 14 Jun 2012, 3:34 PM in War and Peace || 4 Replies

War and Peace comic

hi - i recently drew a comic book version of war and peace. it's here: warandpeacecomic.blogspot.com i'm told it takes about 20 minutes to read. it's intended to be a fun, easy read. (as you would expect, it's a bare-bones version of the story.) i would love to get feedback from some of you who have read or are reading tolstoy's novel. at this point, i'm happy to get any type of feedback, positive/negative or whatever comes into your mind. 1000 thanks!

Posted By erik nebel at Mon 5 Dec 2011, 10:45 PM in War and Peace || 0 Replies

Favorite quotes in "War and Peace"?

I'm midway through the book and, so far, coming across many, many passages worth quoting (from the Constance Garnett translation). I'm tied between two of the following quotes (both from Part Nine, Chapter I): 1. "History--that is the unconscious life of humanity in the swarm, in the community--makes every minute of the life of kings its own, as an instrument for attaining its ends." 2. "Every action of theirs, that seems to them an act of their own freewill, is in an historical sense not free at all, but in bondage to the whole course of previous history, and predestined from all eternity." (i.e.: Freedom isn't free, and every action you do is forever documented in even your own personal history and the histories of those around you whether you know them or not and whether it was your own choice or not... also could mean that our perception of freedom is, in a way, scripted) Anyone have some quotes that stand out in War and Peace?

Posted By TheChilly at Sun 4 Sep 2011, 3:18 PM in War and Peace || 3 Replies

War and Peace

Has anyone out there ever tried to read War and Peace and stopped? Unable to get through it? I have read it, and in retrospect liked it. I had to treat it more like poetry as literary style weighed as heavy as content. Anyway, with that sort of approach I enjoyed it alot more.

Posted By tonywalt at Mon 8 Aug 2011, 3:36 PM in War and Peace || 9 Replies

Movies, BBC serial, and novel -- recommended order?

Must have screwed something up the first time I tried this, so let's have another go.... I know it's generally sacrilege to see the movie before reading the book, and I try to do it the right way whenever possible. But, for example, after a half-dozen failed attempts at reading Lord of the Rings over 15-20 years (unfortunately, it reads like what it is, a world-building exercise by a college professor) I was only able to finish it after watching the first film. Once that had set the characters and initial events in my mind, the books were smooth sailing. That's by way of intro. I'm currently looking to try War and Peace, which I'm told is pretty good for a classic; however, I've heard a lot about about the numerous characters and plotlines, and I know I'm going to have trouble keeping track of everything while reading it in bits and pieces on the bus or before bed. I have access to all of the 1956 Hollywood, 1965-7 Russian, and 1972 BBC adaptations, and I'm thinking that the best way to pave my mental trails for the novel is to watch the movie and TV versions shortest to longest, with each introducing more of the characters and storylines, before tackling the Big One (which I have in the Norton Critical (second) Edition, BTW). Can anyone out there who has read the novels and seen many of the filmed versions tell me if this is a good approach for this work (religious convictions on book-movie order aside)? I'm especially interested in whether any of the filmings are actually harder to follow without having read the novel due to what's omitted, and thus would be a bad choice as a lead-in. Thanks!

Posted By Calidore at Wed 23 Mar 2011, 11:56 PM in War and Peace || 7 Replies

Pierre's conversation with vicomte

"He could not do that. The people only gave him power that he might rid them of the Bourbons and because they saw that he was a great man. The Revolution was a grand thing!" continued Monsieur Pierre, betraying by this desperate and provocative proposition his extreme youth and his wish to express all that was in his mind. The above quote. This is the conversation that Pierre has with the vicomte at Anna Pavlovna's soiree where he says that Napoleon was a great man. Can someone help me out by explaining how Pierre is betraying his extreme youth and his wish to express all that was in his mind? What does this mean? I would greatly appreciate anyone who could explain this for me. Thank you and have a nice day.

Posted By lumpkch at Mon 27 Dec 2010, 3:51 PM in War and Peace || 1 Reply

Post a New Comment/Question on War and Peace



Art of Worldly Wisdom Daily
In the 1600s, Balthasar Gracian, a jesuit priest wrote 300 aphorisms on living life called "The Art of Worldly Wisdom." Join our newsletter below and read them all, one at a time.
Email:
Sonnet-a-Day Newsletter
Shakespeare wrote over 150 sonnets! Join our Sonnet-A-Day Newsletter and read them all, one at a time.
Email: