Recently a number of world classics re-translations have been published, with each of them becoming a source of severe discussions both in printed mass media and on the Internet. However, we can find just a few re-translations of Swedish classics, especially recently published ones. The article considers the problem of necessity to re-translate already existing Russian translations and points out the reasons allowing to treat some re-translations as having strong and/or weak points. Swedish classics translations can be divided into three periods: 1) translations made before 1917 or just after; 2) translations of the Soviet period; and 3) translations of the Post-Soviet period. Selma Lagerlöf is one of the few authors whose books were translated in all the three periods, that is why her works are in the focus of our attention. Repeated addressing to the texts translated in the first period is, as a rule, necessary, as then the translations were often made from the intermediary language and turned out to be too literal, at the same time containing some inaccuracies and omissions. The translations of the second period are usually characterized by a high quality of the Russian language, but, in some cases, they have flaws due to the fact that the translator was not fully proficient in Swedish and, in addition, did not have access to the necessary cultural information. At the same time, the re-translations of this period, even those absolutely accurate, are sometimes doomed to failure because of the popularity of the talented Russian text created by the first translator. Since Swedish classics have not been fully translated into Russian, it may be better for modern translators to focus their efforts on the works that have not yet been translated.
