Talk:War and Peace

Discussion of whether the title of the book is translated properly and related issues

This section may need some reordering, as it combines several parallel discussions, all of it eventually resolved in the obvious direction of maintaining War and Peace as the title of Lev Tolstoy's famous novel. If you feel you must say more about it, this is the section to do so. --Levalley (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

This section really needs to be pared down, it interrupts the larger discussion.--Levalley (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

The "War and the World" idea is a ridiculous urban legend long postdating Tolstoy's time, and there is not a shred of evidence for it; if it is to be included in the article, it should be moved to the "Popular Culture" section and its legendary status made clear. Languagehat (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Third edition, decades before the Soviets

This is a popular urban legend in Russia, but it's too good to be true. The book was originally titled ВОЙНА И МИРЪ. It's true that the 'Ъ' was dropped, but the title was always a И and not an I. It's plausible because the word for society (or the people or, in some senses, the world) really did change into the same word as peace. It's just the book was never titled with that word. Here's another picture purportedly of a first edition binding[1]. --JayHenry (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think "secular society" is something of an overtranslation. Would you really say that "secular society" was the primary meaning of "міръ"? The meaning is "world," which may be used as a way of referring to secular society. This connection carries across into English. See for example [4] 5a, 5b, also many Bible verses [5] such as John 17.9. The adjective "worldly" illustrates the association of "world" with the secular part of humanity. This sense of the word "world" has come to English and Russian from the Greek "cosmos," which was used with the same range of meanings in the New Testament. Therefore, the English word "world" includes the meaning you're trying to get across for "мир." The current text is misleading, since it makes it appear that "міръ" exclusively meant "secular society." The primary meaning "world" is totally lost. --Reuben 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The topic of the section is confusion is between the two described meanings as it is described there. Any other meanings of the word "mir" are irrelevant. Your change was misinformed, based on general linguistic considerations, rather than on events, therefore it was reverted. On the other hand, the text is unreferenced, so I added the "fact" tag. `'mikka (t) 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"My change" was simply a revert of somebody else's edit, which had been made without comment or explanation. As a compromise, I suggest restoring "world" and making note of the fact that this word includes within its range of meaning "secular society" (as the English word "world" also does). The current text is quite misleading to anyone who doesn't already have some familiarity with these words. As for sources, I'm not sure what you think needs to be supported. From the placement of the "fact" tag, it looks like you want a source for the existence of the urban legend. However, it seems likely that you instead want something confirming that the urban legend is wrong. Please clarify this, and see the first link under "Other information." Do you find that inadequate? --Reuben 01:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found a reputable reference, which quite probably was the source of

I have just reverted an edit by User:Riphead removing the final hard mark from мир in the title, on the basis that Tolstoy himself spelled it миръ (it was the spelling reform of 1918 which abolished final hard marks). But I would like to enquire whether there's a general policy regarding spelling reforms (in any language, not just Russian). When (as in this case) a work, or indeed a person, predates a spelling reform, should we be giving their names using modern spelling conventions or using the spelling which prevailed at the time? I have come across this issue elsewhere, without ever finding out whether there is in fact a Wikipedia policy on this. Does anyone know? Vilĉjo 16:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find any policy on orthographic changes (in Cyrillic or elsewhere). However, since 1918, Russians have used the new orthography - although the pronunciation of words proceeded as it always does, with language passed on in language communities (and Moscow dialect and Petersburg dialect remaining, as usual, almost indistinguishable except to very discerning ears). Ultimately, it doesn't matter, sound-wise, which orthography is used - although it is possible that in the deep past, the word "Mir" was pronounced differently (indeed, it's very likely, sense sound changes are systematic). If anyone knows of a Wikipolicy on this, please advise. I'd assume that all modern languages get to have their own spellings, and that if Russians spell it without the hard sign, we should too (no different from changing theatre to theater).--Levalley (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

A Russian academic friend of mine has pointed out that the actual translation of Leo Tolsoy’s novel is not “War and Peace”, but rather – “War and Society”.

In older Russian language, before the reform of 1918, there were two types of “I”;

1). Hard “I”, in Russian - МИР (sounds “MIR”), meaning “peace”.

2). Soft “I”, in Russian - МIР (sounds “MIR” but somewhat softer), a different word, meaning “society”.

A little bombshell, perhaps? Rif Winfield (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That's an urban legend, see comments above or an article in Russian. I really think there should be a special section in main article (something like "disputes on title"), because the legend seems to persist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.30.144 (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, current version of the page contained “(War and Society)” remark after pre-reform title. I’ve removed it, and I hope it won’t appear again, as the previous discussion clearly states it’s a complete myth. (BTW, unrelated to the article, the difference in pronunciation between і and и is also a myth, and these almost surely were never called “hard” and “soft” in Russian.) 77.79.176.14 (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, if not mentioned before, a Wiktionary link: [[2]]. 77.79.176.14 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, “War and Society”. Роман о состоянии общества (мира) во время войны за будущее русской культурно-исторической общности (мира), а мирного времени там мало.

1. МИР = WORLD (мировой, всемирный, миры Клиффорда Саймака)

2. МИР = PEACE (миру МИР)

3. МИР = MANKIND (МИРУ мир)

4. МИР = SOCIETY (Миром господу помолимся, всем миром навалимся, на миру и смерть красна) Rotorol (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• To clarify, Rotorol said (italics are my own commentary): Yes, "War and Society". The novel is about the state of society (мира - one of the meanings) during time of war for the future of Russian historical-cultural commonality (мира - another meaning); there is little peaceful time there (in the novel). (мир - a third meaning)

1. МИР = WORLD (examples: global, worldwide, the worlds of Clifford Simak)

2. МИР = PEACE (examples: PEACE to mankind)

3. МИР = MANKIND (examples: peace to MANKIND)

4. МИР = SOCIETY /everyone/ etc. (examples: "society prays to the lord", "to chip in alongside the whole of society", "when everyone knows about it, even death becomes bearable" (sorry, these are expressions, I can't translate them very well))92.114.148.141 (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War and Peace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114084620/http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=20051206 to http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=20051206

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Does it contain German?

Rather than endless reversions, perhaps someone who knows or who can search an electronic text can give an example of where German language (not including just names like Berg) occurs in the novel?Sbishop (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There isn't nearly as much German as there is French, but there are a few phrases and a sentence in German on this page [3] and a longer paragraph here [4]. — Johan Brahm (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Novel or not?

The article is clear that Tolstoy did not call the work a novel, but that is not necessarily what the article must call it (a case in point is LotR, which is referred to as a novel throughout despite a note that Tolkien did not use the term himself.) The article is currently inconsistent in its application of the term. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Kymothoë (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It is a novel, but I think it's OK if the article uses "book", "work", or other near-synonyms.--MattMauler (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

"Classic"

"It is regarded, with Anna Karenina, as Tolstoy's finest literary achievement and remains an internationally praised classic of world literature."

Is it ok to call something a "classic" as a factual statement? Even with something like "War and Peace" it seems like a subjective thing to me, rather than saying "it is widely regarded as a classic". I'm asking out of curiosity. Dornwald (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It does already say "is regarded" rather than simply declaring it in wiki-voice. I think with the number of sources that "regard" it this way, it makes sense to say it passively like this instead of attributing specific critics or anything like that. I think it's easier to say "classic" than the superlative "finest," however.--MattMauler (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oops. I now see that "regarded" is attached to "finest," but not to the "classic" part, which is just declared in wiki-voice. So your question is a very good one! I still think there is enough of a critical consensus to justify it, but would be open to discussion. ... Just taking off the word "remains" would make the slightly-more-subjective "regard" encompass both descriptors, I suppose.--MattMauler (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

User:MattMauler I agree. "It is regarded as an internationally praised classic" doesn't seem to make sense though. Should be "It is regarded, with Anna Karenina, as Tolstoy's finest literary achievement and is to this day internationally praised as a classic of world literature."

Sounds good? Dornwald (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)