# The Brothers Karamazov, "It Was He Who Said That"

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book XI — Ivan

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b11-c10. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b11-c10.json.


Алеша, войдя, сообщил Ивану Федоровичу, что час с небольшим назад прибежала к нему на квартиру Марья Кондратьевна и объявила, что Смердяков лишил себя жизни.  
Alyosha, on entering, told Ivan Fyodorovich that a little over an hour ago Marya Kondratyevna had come running to his lodgings and announced that Smerdyakov had taken his own life.
> Perfective gerund «войдя»: «Войдя» is the perfective adverbial participle («деепричастие») of «войти» — "having entered / on entering." It names a completed action prior to the main verb «сообщил» and must share its subject (Alyosha), compressing "when he came in, he told" into one tight clause typical of literary narration.
> Dative addressee + reported clause: «Сообщить» takes the person informed in the dative («Ивану Федоровичу» — to Ivan Fyodorovich) and the content in a «что»-clause. The что simply reports a fact, opening the chain of indirect speech that fills the whole sentence.
> Perfective past moves the story: The string of perfectives «прибежала… объявила» (and later «лишил») reports discrete completed events one after another — Marya ran up, then announced — against which the imperfective background falls away. This event-by-event perfective chain is how Russian narration advances.
> «лишить себя жизни» — to take one's own life: A formal, almost legal idiom: «лишить кого-то жизни» is "to deprive someone of life," so with the reflexive «себя» it means "to take one's own life," the decorous register Alyosha would use in reporting a suicide. Note the genitive «жизни» governed by «лишить» (to deprive of).

«Вхожу этта к нему самовар прибрать, а он у стенки на гвоздочке висит».  
"I go in there to clear away his samovar, and there he is, hanging on a little peg by the wall."
> Colloquial «этта»: «Этта» is a dialectal, lower-class variant of «этот / вот тут» ("just now / right here"), which Dostoevsky uses to mark Marya Kondratyevna's uneducated peasant speech. We keep that texture by rendering her line as casual, present-tense narration ("I go in there..."), since a smooth literary "I went in" would erase the social-class colour the Russian carries.
> Vivid narrative present: Both verbs are imperfective present — «вхожу» (I'm going in), «висит» (he's hanging) — used to narrate a past discovery as if it is unfolding now. This "historic present" makes the gruesome moment immediate; the «а» that joins the clauses is the contrastive "and then there…" hinge.
> Diminutive «гвоздочек»: «Гвоздочек» is the diminutive of «гвоздь» (nail/peg). In Marya's mouth the affectionate diminutive — "a little peg" — is not tenderness toward the object but the homely, folksy texture of peasant speech, where everyday things routinely take the -ок/-очек suffix.

На вопрос Алеши: «Заявила ль она кому следует?» — ответила, что никому не заявляла, а «прямо бросилась к вам к первому и всю дорогу бежала бегом».  
To Alyosha's question — "Has she reported it to the proper authorities?" — she answered that she had reported it to no one, but had "run straight to you first of all, and run the whole way at a dead run."
> Interrogative particle «ль»: «Ль» is the reduced enclitic form of «ли», the yes/no question particle: it follows the focused word «заявила» and turns the statement into a neutral question — "Has she reported it?" This bookish device is more formal than mere question intonation.
> «кому следует» — to the proper authorities: A set phrase: «кому следует» literally "to whom it is due/proper," i.e. "to the appropriate persons / the authorities." «Следует» here is the impersonal "it is fitting," governing the dative «кому». It is the idiomatic, slightly officialese way of asking whether the case was reported to those who ought to handle it.
> Negative concord with «никому»: "She reported to no one" is built with double negation: the negative pronoun «никому» (to nobody, dative) still requires «не» on the verb. Russian demands this negative concord — the two negatives reinforce rather than cancel.
> Intensifying cognate «бежала бегом»: «Бегом» is the instrumental of «бег» (running) used adverbially with the verb «бежать» — a cognate intensifier, "ran at a run / at a dead run." The redundancy is expressive, conveying breathless haste, and again belongs to Marya's vivid colloquial register.

Она была как помешанная, передавал Алеша, и вся дрожала как лист.  
She was like a woman out of her mind, Alyosha related, and trembled all over like a leaf.
> «помешанная» — out of her mind: «Помешанная» is a participial adjective meaning "deranged/crazed [woman]" (lexicalized, not a regular passive participle: «помешаться» is an intransitive reflexive verb and forms none). The feminine ending agrees with the implied «она»; «как помешанная» = "like one out of her mind."
> Imperfective «передавал» frames the report: The narration switches to the imperfective past «передавал» (Alyosha was relating / went on relating) to frame his ongoing act of telling, inside which the described facts sit. The choice marks reported speech in progress rather than a single completed statement.
> «дрожать как лист» — trembling like a leaf: A fixed simile, exactly matching the English "to tremble like a leaf." «Вся дрожала» — "trembled all over" — uses «вся» (the whole of her) intensively. The cliché is deliberate, lending Alyosha's account the plain, heartfelt directness of common speech.

Когда же Алеша прибежал вместе с ней в их избу, то застал Смердякова всё еще висевшим.  
And when Alyosha had run with her to their cottage, he found Smerdyakov still hanging there.
> «когда… то» correlative: «Когда… то…» is a correlative pair: the «когда»-clause sets the time, and «то» resumes the main clause ("when… then…"). The «же» on «когда» is a mild connective particle giving "and when," smoothing the transition from Marya's words back to narration.
> Past active participle in the instrumental: «Застать кого-то висевшим» — "to find someone hanging." «Висевшим» is the past active participle of «висеть» (to hang, intransitive), in the instrumental because «застать» frames the object's state with an instrumental predicate: he found Smerdyakov [in the state of] still hanging.
> «изба» — peasant cottage: An «изба» is a traditional Russian log-built peasant house. Calling Marya and her mother's dwelling an «изба» fixes their humble rural class; "cottage" is our nearest English rendering, though it loses the specifically Russian log-hut connotation.

На столе лежала записка: «Истребляю свою жизнь своею собственною волей и охотой, чтобы никого не винить».  
On the table lay a note: "I destroy my life of my own free will and inclination, so as to blame no one."
> Locative-first word order: The sentence opens with the location «На столе» (on the table) and ends with the new information «записка» (a note), the verb «лежала» between. This topic-comment ordering — given setting first, new subject last — is Russian's idiomatic way of "there lay a note on the table," letting the case endings carry the grammar.
> «истреблять» — to destroy / exterminate: «Истреблять» is a strong, elevated verb meaning to annihilate or exterminate (usually of enemies, pests, whole things). Smerdyakov's choice of so formal and total a word — "I exterminate my life" — over a plainer «убиваю» reveals his self-taught, would-be-literary pretension even in his suicide note.
> Archaic instrumental endings «-ою»: «Своею собственною… волей… охотой» is the instrumental of means — "by my own will and inclination." The long feminine instrumental forms «своею собственною» (modern «своей собственной») are the bookish, slightly archaic -ою/-ею endings, lending the note a stiff, formal solemnity.
> Purpose clause «чтобы»: «Чтобы» plus the infinitive «винить» expresses purpose — "so as to blame no one." Note the negative concord «никого не винить» (to blame nobody). The whole clause is the crux of Smerdyakov's note: a deliberate attempt to clear Dmitri by claiming sole, willed responsibility.

Алеша так и оставил эту записку на столе и пошел прямо к исправнику, у него обо всем заявил, «а оттуда прямо к тебе», — заключил Алеша, пристально вглядываясь в лицо Ивана.  
Alyosha left the note just so on the table and went straight to the district police chief, reported everything to him, "and from there straight to you," Alyosha concluded, gazing intently into Ivan's face.
> Emphatic «так и»: «Так и оставил» — "left it just so / just as it was." The particle pairing «так и» emphasises that the action was carried out exactly thus, untouched; here, that Alyosha deliberately left the note in place as evidence rather than removing it.
> Imperfective gerund «вглядываясь»: «Вглядываясь» is the imperfective adverbial participle of «вглядываться» (to peer/gaze intently into) — "gazing intently," an action simultaneous with the main «заключил». The -ся verb is reflexive-middle, and the gerund shares Alyosha's subject, painting his searching look as he speaks.

И всё время, пока он рассказывал, он не отводил от него глаз, как бы чем-то очень пораженный в выражении его лица.  
And the whole time, as he was telling it, he never took his eyes off Ivan, as though something in the expression of his face had struck him deeply.
> Genitive of negation «глаз»: «Не отводил… глаз» — "did not take his eyes off him." Under the negated «не отводил», the object «глаза» (eyes) shifts to the genitive plural «глаз», the genitive of negation. The imperfective «отводил» conveys the continuous "the whole time… never took his eyes off."
> «как бы» + short participle «поражённый»: «Как бы» softens to "as though / as if," a hedge Dostoevsky loves. «Пораженный» is the past passive participle of «поразить» (to strike), here as a predicate — "as though struck by something." The means is in the instrumental «чем-то» (by something), with the indefinite particle -то marking a specific but unnamed thing.

— Брат, — вскричал он вдруг, — ты, верно, ужасно болен!  
"Brother," he cried out suddenly, "you must be terribly ill!
> Perfective «вскричал» — burst out: «Вскричать» is a perfective verb with the prefix вс- meaning a sudden onset — "to cry out, to exclaim." The single completed burst suits the abrupt «вдруг» (suddenly); Dostoevsky uses such momentary perfectives to mark the spikes of feeling in dialogue.
> Short adjective «болен»: «Болен» is the short (predicative) form of «больной» (ill). Short adjectives appear only as predicates and often carry a sense of a present, particular state — exactly "you are [now] terribly ill." The parenthetical «верно» here means "surely / you must be," not "correctly."

Ты смотришь и как будто не понимаешь, что я говорю.  
You look at me and it is as if you don't understand what I'm saying."
> «как будто» — as if: «Как будто» introduces an unreal comparison — "as though you don't understand." The present imperfective «понимаешь» states the ongoing (non-)comprehension; the subject «ты» is dropped because the -ешь ending already marks second-person singular.

— Это хорошо, что ты пришел, — проговорил как бы задумчиво Иван и как бы вовсе не слыхав восклицания Алеши. — А ведь я знал, что он повесился.  
"It's a good thing you've come," Ivan said, as though musing, and as though he had not heard Alyosha's exclamation at all. "And yet I knew that he had hanged himself."
> «как бы» + anterior gerund «слыхав»: Twice «как бы» hedges Ivan's manner — "as though" musing, "as though" not having heard. «Слыхав» is the anterior gerund (-в form) of the colloquial imperfective «слыхать» (to hear; perfective partner «услыхать»), negated: "as if not having heard at all." The -в marks anteriority/relative past, not perfective aspect. The gerund shares Ivan's subject and frames the prior non-event.
> Particles «а» and «ведь»: The opening «А ведь» bundles two particles: the contrastive «а» (and yet) and «ведь», which appeals to shared knowledge — "and yet, you know, I knew." Together they give Ivan's line its eerie, confiding undertone of an already-possessed certainty.
> Reflexive «повеситься» — to hang oneself: «Повеситься» = «повесить» (to hang [something]) + the reflexive -ся turning the action back on the subject: "to hang oneself." The -ся here is the true reflexive, the agent acting upon himself — the grim, idiomatic Russian word for suicide by hanging.

— От кого же?  
"From whom, then?"
> Genitive after «от» + insistent «же»: «От кого» is the genitive of «кто» governed by «от» (from) — "from whom?" The particle «же» here insists and presses: "From whom, then?" Alyosha catches the strangeness of Ivan saying he "knew" and demands his source.

— Не знаю от кого.  
"I don't know from whom.
> Embedded question after negation: An elliptical reply — "[I] don't know from whom." The subject «я» is dropped, and «от кого» is the same genitive-after-«от» echoed from Alyosha's question, now embedded under «не знаю». Ivan's fractured short answers mirror his disordered mind.

Но я знал.  
But I knew it.
> Imperfective «знал» as a state: «Знал» is imperfective past — the state of "I knew / I had the knowledge," not a single event. Knowing has no completed perfective; the imperfective is the natural aspect for a continuing mental state, here charged with Ivan's torment.

Знал ли я?  
Did I know it?
> Self-question with «ли»: Ivan immediately turns his own assertion into a yes/no question: «Знал ли я?» — "Did I [really] know?" The particle «ли» follows the fronted, focused verb «знал». The instant reversal dramatises his unravelling grip on what is real.

Да, он мне сказал.  
Yes, he told me.
> Dative addressee «мне»: «Сказать» takes the hearer in the dative: «мне» — "he told me." The perfective «сказал» reports a single completed act of telling. Who "he" is remains ominously unspecified — the hallucinated devil whom Ivan keeps half-naming.

Он сейчас еще мне говорил…  
He was telling me only just now..."
> Imperfective «говорил» — was telling: Now the imperfective «говорил» (was speaking/telling), against the perfective «сказал» a line earlier: Ivan shifts from the finished fact to the lingering process — "he was telling me only just now." «Сейчас еще» ("just now still") fixes it as a moment barely past, blurring into the present.

Иван стоял среди комнаты и говорил всё так же задумчиво и смотря в землю.  
Ivan stood in the middle of the room and spoke in that same musing way, looking at the floor.
> Imperfective verbs + gerund «смотря»: The narration runs on imperfective verbs of state and process — «стоял» (was standing), «говорил» (kept speaking) — joined to the simultaneous gerund «смотря» (looking) of «смотреть». The slight asymmetry (two finite verbs then a gerund) is normal in Russian, all describing Ivan's continuous, abstracted posture.
> «в землю» — at the floor/ground: Literally "looking into the earth/ground," «в землю» here means down at the floor. The word «земля» does double duty as earth, ground, and floor; the image of a man staring fixedly at the ground reinforces his withdrawn, trance-like state.

— Кто ''он?'' — спросил Алеша, невольно оглядевшись кругом.  
"Who is ''he''?" Alyosha asked, glancing about him in spite of himself.
> Stressed pronoun «он»: The italicised «он» (he) is emphatic: Alyosha presses on the unnamed figure — "Who is HE?" Without a copula in the present, «Кто он?» is simply "who [is] he?" The interrogative «кто» always takes masculine agreement.
> Perfective gerund «оглядевшись»: «Оглядевшись» is the perfective past gerund of «оглядеться» (to look around oneself) with the reflexive -ся — "having glanced about him." «Невольно» (involuntarily, in spite of himself) shows Alyosha's instinctive, uneasy reaction to Ivan's talk of an unseen "he."

— Он улизнул.  
"He slipped away.
> «улизнуть» — to slip away: «Улизнуть» is a colloquial perfective meaning to sneak off, slip away unnoticed, give someone the slip — with a tinge of the furtive or cowardly. Ivan uses it of the devil, who "slipped off" at Alyosha's knock; the slangy verb makes the apparition almost contemptibly real.

Иван поднял голову и тихо улыбнулся:  
Ivan raised his head and smiled quietly:
> Perfective pair of actions: Two perfectives report two quick completed gestures: «поднял» (raised) his head and «улыбнулся» (smiled). «Улыбнуться» exists only with -ся (to give a smile); «тихо» (quietly/softly) colours the smile as gentle and unsettling against the horror of his words.

— Он тебя испугался, тебя, голубя.  
"He was afraid of you — of you, my dove.
> «испугаться» + genitive object: «Испугаться кого-то» — "to take fright at / be frightened of someone." The -ся verb governs its object in the genitive, so «тебя» is genitive, not accusative — "he got frightened of you." The repeated «тебя, голубя» drives the point home affectionately.
> «голубь» — dove, as endearment: «Голубь» (dove) is a tender term of endearment, like "my dove / dear soul"; here in the genitive «голубя», apposed to «тебя». The dove's gentleness and its Christian associations of the Holy Spirit fit Alyosha precisely, and feed Ivan's stream of angelic imagery in the next lines.

Ты «чистый херувим».  
You are a 'pure cherub.'
> «чистый херувим» — pure cherub: «Чистый» means pure, clean, unmixed; «чистый херувим» = "a pure cherub," set in quotation marks as a fixed epithet Ivan throws at Alyosha. The phrase carries Ivan's mix of real tenderness and feverish mockery.

Тебя Дмитрий херувимом зовет.  
Dmitri calls you a cherub.
> «звать кого-то кем-то» — instrumental complement: «Звать кого-то кем-то» — "to call someone something" — puts the object in the accusative («тебя») and the name in the instrumental («херувимом»). The fronting of «Тебя» topicalises Alyosha: "You — Dmitri calls you a cherub."

Херувим… Громовый вопль восторга серафимов!  
A cherub... The thunderous cry of rapture of the seraphim!
> «вопль восторга» — the cry of rapture: «Вопль» is a loud cry or wail, «восторг» ecstatic rapture; «громовый» means thunderous. The grandiose, almost liturgical phrase "the thunderous cry of rapture of the seraphim" shows Ivan's mind sliding from address into delirious cosmic rhetoric. «Серафимов» is the genitive plural "of the seraphim."

Что такое серафим?  
What is a seraph?
> «что такое» — what is…?: «Что такое X?» is the standard idiom for "what is X? / what does X even mean?", asking for a definition rather than a thing. With no copula in the present, the bare nominatives «что» and «серафим» suffice — "What [is] a seraph?" Ivan's question turns from rapture to unhinged speculation.

Может быть, целое созвездие.  
Perhaps a whole constellation.
> «может быть» — perhaps: «Может быть» ("it may be") is the frozen adverbial "perhaps, maybe." «Целое созвездие» — "a whole constellation." Ivan's leap from angel to constellation begins the dizzying chain in which the spiritual and the astronomical collapse into one another.

А может быть, всё-то созвездие есть всего только какая-нибудь химическая молекула…  
And perhaps that whole constellation is nothing more than some chemical molecule...
> Bookish copula «есть» + emphatic «-то»: Russian normally drops the present "to be," but here Ivan keeps the bookish copula «есть» — "that whole constellation IS only…" — for definitional weight. The clitic «-то» on «всё-то» emphasises the known topic ("that very whole constellation"), and «всего только» means "nothing more than."

Есть созвездие Льва и Солнца, не знаешь ли?  
Is there a constellation of the Lion and the Sun — don't you know?"
> Tentative question «не знаешь ли»: Tacking «не знаешь ли?» onto the end — "don't you know? / do you happen to know?" — uses the particle «ли» after the negated verb to soften the question into a tentative appeal, a more polite and literary turn than a blunt «знаешь?»

— Брат, сядь! — проговорил Алеша в испуге, — сядь, ради бога, на диван.  
"Brother, sit down!" said Alyosha in alarm. "Sit down, for God's sake, on the sofa.
> Imperative «сядь»: «Сядь!» is the perfective imperative of «сесть» (to sit down), addressed familiarly to Ivan — "sit down!" The perfective imperative urges a single completed action now; repeated «сядь… сядь» conveys Alyosha's alarmed insistence.
> «ради бога» — for God's sake: «Ради бога» (literally "for the sake of God") is the everyday entreaty "for God's sake / please." «Ради» governs the genitive «бога». The phrase is so worn it carries no real piety, only urgent pleading.

Ты в бреду, приляг на подушку, вот так.  
You are delirious; lie down on the pillow, like this.
> Imperative «приляг»: «Приляг» is the imperative of «прилечь» (to lie down for a while). The irregular imperative «приляг» (rather than expected *приляжь) is worth noting. The prefix при- softens it to "lie down a bit"; «на подушку» is accusative-of-motion after «на» — onto the pillow.
> «в бреду» — locative -у́: «В бреду» — "in delirium / delirious." «Бред» (delirium, raving) takes the special stressed locative ending -у́ after «в» (в бреду, not *в бреде), one of a small set of masculine nouns with this old second-locative form. Alyosha's diagnosis names exactly Ivan's state — brain fever setting in.

Хочешь полотенце мокрое к голове?  
Do you want a wet towel for your head?
> Elliptical offer + accusative object: An elliptical question — "[Do you] want a wet towel to [your] head?" — with the verb of giving understood. «Полотенце мокрое» (inanimate neuter) is accusative = nominative; the postposed adjective «мокрое» (wet) is colloquially placed after its noun. «К голове» (to the head) takes the dative after «к».

Может, лучше станет?  
Perhaps it would make you feel better?"
> Impersonal «станет лучше» + comparative: «Станет лучше» is impersonal — "it will become better," i.e. you'll feel better — with no nominative subject; «лучше» is the suppletive comparative of «хорошо/хороший». «Может» is a clipped «может быть» (perhaps). A dative "you" («тебе») is understood as the experiencer.

— Дай полотенце, вот тут на стуле, я давеча сюда бросил.  
"Give me the towel — it's there on the chair, I threw it down here a little while ago."
> Imperative «дай»: «Дай» is the imperative of «дать» (to give) — "give [me] the towel." The irregular short imperative «дай» is one of the commonest in spoken Russian. Ivan's terse command marks the moment his attention snaps back to the physical room.
> «давеча» — a little while ago: «Давеча» is a colloquial, now archaic adverb meaning "a short while ago, earlier today." Common in 19th-century and rustic speech, it situates the towel-throwing in the recent past — and becomes the hinge of the uncanny detail Ivan is about to fixate on.

— Тут нет его.  
"It isn't here.
> Genitive of negation with «нет»: «Нет его» — "it isn't here / there is none of it." The existential negative «нет» obligatorily takes its logical subject in the genitive: «его» is genitive ("of it"), not accusative. This is the core construction of Russian absence.

Не беспокойся, я знаю, где лежит; вот оно, — сказал Алеша, сыскав в другом углу комнаты, у туалетного столика Ивана, чистое, еще сложенное и не употребленное полотенце.  
Don't worry, I know where it is; here it is," said Alyosha, having found, in another corner of the room, by Ivan's dressing table, a clean towel, still folded and unused.
> Subject-drop in «где лежит»: "I know where [it] lies." The subject «оно» (the towel) is dropped in the embedded clause «где лежит», recoverable from context and the 3rd-sg ending. «Лежать» (to lie) is the natural verb for a flat object's position — Russian distinguishes lying, standing, and sitting objects.
> Perfective gerund «сыскав»: «Сыскав» is the perfective past gerund of the bookish/colloquial «сыскать» (to find, hunt out) — "having found." It packs the prior completed action under the main «сказал», sharing Alyosha's subject. «Сыскать» is a slightly old-fashioned synonym of «найти».
> Past passive participles as modifiers: Two past passive participles modify «полотенце»: «сложенное» (folded, from «сложить») and «не употребленное» (unused, from «употребить»). Both are full long forms agreeing with neuter «полотенце» — a literary participle chain making vivid that this towel is dry, clean, untouched.

Иван странно посмотрел на полотенце; память как бы вмиг воротилась к нему.  
Ivan looked at the towel strangely; his memory seemed to come back to him in an instant.
> Archaic reflexive «воротилась»: «Воротиться» is an older, folksier reflexive variant of «вернуться» (to return), with -ся as the middle/change-of-state marker: "his memory came back to him." «К нему» (to him) takes the dative after «к». «Вмиг» = in an instant; «как бы» again hedges ("as it were").

— Постой, — привстал он с дивана, — я давеча, час назад, это самое полотенце взял оттуда же и смочил водой.  
"Wait," he said, half rising from the sofa, "a little while ago, an hour ago, I took this very towel from there too and wetted it with water.
> Imperative «постой» — wait: «Постой» is the perfective imperative of «постоять» (to stand/stay a moment), idiomatically "wait! hold on!" The prefix по- gives a brief, delimited action. Ivan throws it out as his memory suddenly snags on the towel.
> Perfective pair «взял… смочил»: Two perfectives report the completed past actions "I took… and wetted": «взял» (took) and «смочил» (moistened, from «смочить»). «Это самое полотенце» — "this very same towel" — with «самое» intensifying the identification that so disturbs him.

Я прикладывал к голове и бросил сюда… как же оно сухое?  
I held it to my head and threw it down here... how can it be dry?
> Bewildered «как же»: «Как же оно сухое?» — "how can it be dry, then?" The particle «же» here intensifies the bafflement ("how on earth…"). With no copula, «оно сухое» is simply "it [is] dry"; «оно» refers to neuter «полотенце». The dry towel is the loose thread that begins to unravel Ivan's certainty about the devil's reality.

Другого не было.  
There was no other."
> Genitive of negation with «не было»: «Другого не было» — "there was no other one." The negated past existential «не было» (always neuter, invariable) takes its subject in the genitive: «другого» is genitive ("of another"). This pairs with «нет его» above as the past-tense form of the same absence construction.

— Ты прикладывал это полотенце к голове? — спросил Алеша.  
"You held this towel to your head?" Alyosha asked.
> Imperfective «прикладывал» as a question: Alyosha repeats Ivan's claim as a question, keeping the imperfective «прикладывал» (were you holding / did you keep holding) of «прикладывать». The imperfective here probes the process, gently testing a memory Alyosha already doubts. «К голове» — dative after «к».

— Да, и ходил по комнате, час назад… Почему так свечки сгорели?  
"Yes, and I walked about the room, an hour ago... Why have the candles burned down so?
> Perfective «сгорели» — burned down: «Сгорели» is the perfective of «сгореть» (to burn up/down completely), reporting the finished result Ivan now notices: the candles have burned right down. «Свечки» is the diminutive plural of «свеча». His sudden fixation on the burnt candles marks how much time has slipped past unnoticed.
> Diminutive «свечки»: «Свечка» is the everyday diminutive of «свеча» (candle) — "little candle," but here simply the ordinary colloquial word for a candle, the diminutive long since neutralised. The detail roots the delirium scene in the dim, guttering light of a 19th-c room.

Который час.  
What time is it?"
> «который час» — what time is it: «Который час?» is the fixed idiom for "what time is it?" — literally "which hour [is it]?" «Который» is the interrogative/relative adjective "which," agreeing with masculine «час». Printed here without the question mark, as Ivan's flat, half-absent muttering.

— Скоро двенадцать.  
"Nearly twelve."
> «скоро» — soon / nearly: «Скоро двенадцать» — "[it is] nearly twelve." With no verb, «скоро» (soon, almost) plus the bare numeral makes the time. Midnight looms — the symbolically charged hour on the eve of the trial, framing this whole hallucinatory scene.

— Нет, нет, нет! — вскричал вдруг Иван, — это был не сон!  
"No, no, no!" Ivan cried out suddenly. "It was not a dream!
> Negation «не» before the predicate: «Это был не сон» — "it was not a dream." «Не» negates the predicate noun «сон» directly (not the verb), so «был» agrees with masculine «сон». The threefold «Нет, нет, нет!» and the emphatic denial mark Ivan's desperate insistence on the reality of his visitor.

Он был, он тут сидел, вон на том диване.  
He was here, he sat here, there on that sofa.
> Demonstratives «тут / вон / тот»: Ivan piles up deixis to fix the phantom in space: «тут» (here), «вон» (over there, pointing), «на том диване» (on THAT sofa). «Том» is the prepositional of the far demonstrative «тот», agreeing with «диване». The repeated «был… сидел» — was, was sitting — insists on bodily presence.

Когда ты стучал в окно, я бросил в него стакан… вот этот…  
When you knocked at the window, I threw a glass at him... this one here...
> Imperfective backdrop + perfective event: Classic aspect contrast: the imperfective «стучал» (you were knocking) sets the ongoing background, and into it falls the single perfective «бросил» (I threw). «В него» (at him) takes the accusative-of-motion after «в». Ivan reconstructs the moment Alyosha's knock coincided with his hurling a glass.

Постой, я и прежде спал, но этот сон не сон.  
Wait, I had been asleep before too, but this dream is no dream.
> Particle «и» as 'also/even': Here «и» is not the conjunction "and" but the emphatic particle "also/even" — «я и прежде спал» = "I had slept before too." The paradox «этот сон не сон» ("this dream [is] not a dream") condenses Ivan's whole crisis: a waking dream he cannot dismiss as sleep.

И прежде было.  
It has happened before.
> Impersonal «было»: An elliptical, subjectless "[it] had happened before." The neuter «было» stands alone, its subject (the experience) unstated — a vague impersonal that mirrors Ivan's groping toward something he cannot name. «Прежде» = before, formerly.

У меня, Алеша, теперь бывают сны… но они не сны, а наяву: я хожу, говорю и вижу… а сплю.  
I have dreams now, Alyosha... but they are not dreams, they are real: I walk, I speak, I see... and yet I am asleep.
> «у меня» + iterative «бывают»: Possession is framed with «у меня» (literally "at me" + genitive) — "I have." The verb «бывают» is the iterative of «быть», meaning "there are [now and then], they happen repeatedly" — Ivan describes a recurring condition, not one event.
> Imperfective present + contrastive «а»: A run of imperfective presents — «хожу, говорю, вижу» (I walk, speak, see) — describes the waking-dream as continuous activity, capped by the contrastive «а сплю» ("and yet I'm asleep"). The «а» here means "and yet, whereas," pointing the uncanny contradiction.

Но он тут сидел, он был, вот на этом диване… Он ужасно глуп, Алеша, ужасно глуп, — засмеялся вдруг Иван и принялся шагать по комнате.  
But he sat here, he was here, right on this sofa... He is terribly stupid, Alyosha, terribly stupid," Ivan said with a sudden laugh, and began to pace the room.
> Short adjective «глуп»: «Глуп» is the short predicative form of «глупый» (stupid) — "he is stupid." The short form, predicate-only and a touch bookish, states the quality as a flat verdict; intensified by «ужасно» (terribly) and repeated, it turns Ivan's devil into something contemptibly petty.
> Perfective «принялся» + infinitive: «Принялся шагать» — "he set to pacing / began to pace." «Приняться» (perfective, with -ся) means to set about doing something and takes an imperfective infinitive «шагать» (to stride/pace). Paired with the sudden «засмеялся» (burst out laughing), it captures Ivan's abrupt shift into restless, laughing agitation.

— Кто глуп?  
"Who is stupid?
> «кто» + short adjective: "Who [is] stupid?" — no copula in the present, the interrogative «кто» (always masculine) standing as subject, with the short predicative «глуп». Alyosha echoes Ivan's word back as a frightened question, trying to follow whom his brother means.

Про кого ты говоришь, брат? — опять тоскливо спросил Алеша.  
Of whom are you speaking, brother?" Alyosha asked again, in anguish.
> «про» + accusative: «Про кого» — "about whom?" The preposition «про» (about, concerning) governs the accusative «кого». «Про» is the more colloquial counterpart of «о» (+ prepositional); both mean "about," and Alyosha's choice keeps the anxious, plain register of the exchange.
> «тоскливо» — with anguish/yearning: «Тоскливо» is the adverb of «тоска», that untranslatable Russian word for aching melancholy, dread, and yearning. "Asked again in anguish" only approximates it; Alyosha's question carries grief and helpless love for his unravelling brother.

— Черт!  
"The devil!

Он ко мне повадился.  
He has taken to coming to me.
> «повадиться» — to get into the habit: «Повадиться» (perfective, -ся) is a colloquial, faintly disapproving verb: to take to doing something, to get into the (unwelcome) habit of coming. «Он ко мне повадился» — "he's taken to coming to me," as one might say of a pest. It belittles the devil with everyday domestic annoyance.

Два раза был, даже почти три.  
Twice he has come, almost three times.
> «два раза» — genitive after the numeral: «Два раза» — "twice." The numeral «два» governs the genitive singular «раза» (of «раз»), the rule that 2–4 take the genitive singular. «Даже почти три» ("even almost three") trails off, the count itself blurred by Ivan's uncertainty about how real the visits were.

Он дразнил меня тем, будто я сержусь, что он просто черт, а не сатана с опаленными крыльями, в громе и блеске.  
He taunted me with the notion that I was angry at his being merely a devil, and not Satan with scorched wings, in thunder and splendor.
> Correlative «тем, будто…»: «Дразнить кого-то чем-то» (to taunt someone with something) sets up «тем» (instrumental of «то») as a correlative resumed by the «будто» clause: "taunted me with [the notion] that…". «Будто» here introduces a reported supposition Ivan rejects — "as if I were angry." «Сержусь» is the reflexive «сердиться» (to be angry).
> «опалённые крылья» — scorched wings: «Опалённые» is the past passive participle of «опалить» (to singe/scorch); «в громе и блеске» — "in thunder and splendour." The grand Miltonic-Romantic image of a fallen Satan with scorched wings amid thunder is exactly the majesty Ivan's shabby little devil mockingly lacks.

Но он не сатана, это он лжет.  
But he is no Satan — that is his lie.
> Topicalising «это» + «лгать»: «Это он лжет» — "that's a lie of his / that he's lying." The fronted «это» topicalises the previous claim, then «он лжет» comments on it. «Лжёт» is the present of «лгать» (to lie, tell falsehoods), a more bookish verb than «врать». Ivan denies his devil even the dignity of being Satan.

Он самозванец.  
He is an impostor.
> «самозванец» — impostor / pretender: «Самозванец» (literally "self-named one") is the loaded Russian word for a pretender to the throne — most famously the False Dmitris of the Time of Troubles. Calling the devil a «самозванец» casts him as a fraud claiming a rank (Satan's) he has no right to — a deeply Russian historical resonance.

Он просто черт, дрянной, мелкий черт.  
He is simply a devil, a paltry, petty little devil.
> «дрянной» / «мелкий» — paltry, petty: «Дрянной» (from «дрянь», trash/rubbish) means worthless, paltry, no-good; «мелкий» literally "small, fine, shallow," here "petty, mean." Heaped on «чёрт», they reduce the devil to a shabby, third-rate imp — the famous deflation that makes Dostoevsky's devil so unsettlingly ordinary.
> Zero copula + «просто»: «Он просто чёрт» — "he is simply a devil," the present "to be" left unexpressed, so two bare nominatives sit side by side. «Просто» (simply, merely) dismisses any grandeur. The flat nominative-on-nominative construction is the everyday Russian way of equating subject and predicate in the present.

Он в баню ходит.  
He goes to the bathhouse.
> «ходить» — habitual, round-trip motion: «ходит» is the multidirectional motion verb «ходить», chosen here precisely for the habit: 'he goes (regularly, back and forth) to the bathhouse', not a single trip — that would be «идёт». «в баню» is accusative after «в» because it expresses motion toward.

Раздень его и наверно отыщешь хвост, длинный, гладкий, как у датской собаки, в аршин длиной, бурый…  
Strip him and you will surely find a tail, long and smooth, like a Great Dane's, a yard long, a dun color...
> Imperative + perfective future: «Раздень» is the imperative of perfective «раздеть» (strip, undress), and «отыщешь» is a perfective verb conjugated like a present — so it carries future meaning: 'strip him and you will find'. The pairing imperative-then-future is a vivid conditional ('do X and you'll get Y').
> «датская собака» — a Great Dane: Literally 'like a Danish dog' — the 19th-century name for the breed we call the Great Dane. «у» + genitive here means 'a Dane's (tail)', the possessor construction.

Алеша, ты озяб, ты в снегу был, хочешь чаю?  
Alyosha, you're chilled, you've been out in the snow, do you want tea?
> Prepositional «в снегу» for location: «в снегу» is the prepositional case after «в» expressing where Alyosha has been ('in the snow'). «снег» takes the special stressed locative ending -у́ here (в снегу́), one of a small set of masculine nouns that keep this old form.
> «озябнуть» — to grow chilled through: «озяб» is the past of «озябнуть», a slightly homely word for getting thoroughly cold, especially the hands and feet. Warmer and more bodily than the neutral «замёрз».

Что? холодный?  
What? Is it cold?
> Short question with zero copula: A one-word question with no verb: in the present Russian needs no 'is/are', so «холодный?» alone carries 'is it cold?'. The adjective is the full (long) form agreeing with an understood masculine noun (the tea, «чай»).

Хочешь, велю поставить?  
Shall I have some put on?
> Two perfective futures, no conjunction: «велю» ('I'll order/have it done') and the bare clause structure: «Хочешь, велю поставить?» = 'Do you want — shall I have it put on?'. «велю» is the perfective future of «велеть» governing the infinitive «поставить» (to put on [the samovar]); the asyndeton (no 'that/if') is conversational.

C’est à ne pas mettre un chien dehors.  
C'est à ne pas mettre un chien dehors."

Алеша быстро сбегал к рукомойнику, намочил полотенце, уговорил Ивана опять сесть и обложил ему мокрым полотенцем голову.  
Alyosha ran quickly to the washstand, wetted the towel, persuaded Ivan to sit down again, and laid the wet towel around his head.
> A chain of perfective pasts: Four perfective past verbs in a row — «сбегал, намочил, уговорил, обложил» — march the action forward event by event: ran, wetted, persuaded, laid. This is the perfective's narrative job, each verb a completed step against which no background lingers.
> Dative «ему» + instrumental «полотенцем»: «ему» is dative ('for/around him', the affected person), «голову» accusative (the thing wrapped), and «мокрым полотенцем» instrumental — the means, 'with a wet towel'. Three cases neatly distribute the roles in one clause.
> «рукомойник» — the hand-washstand: A «рукомойник» is an old-style hanging washstand with a tipping spout for rinsing the hands — a period domestic detail. Literally 'hand-washer'.

Сам сел подле него.  
He himself sat down beside him.
> Intensifier «сам» and archaic «подле»: «Сам» ('himself', emphatic) opens the clause with the subject dropped — the verb «сел» supplies it. «подле» is a bookish, slightly archaic preposition for 'beside, next to', governing the genitive «него».

— Что ты мне давеча говорил про Лизу? — начал опять Иван.  
"What were you telling me a little while ago about Liza?" Ivan began again.
> Imperfective «говорил» for the recalled telling: «говорил» is imperfective past — 'were telling / kept telling' — viewing the earlier conversation as an open process rather than a single fact; a perfective «сказал» would point to one finished utterance. «мне» is dative (to me), «про Лизу» 'about Liza' with «про» + accusative.
> «давеча» — 'a little while ago': A colloquial, slightly old-fashioned adverb meaning 'recently, the other day, just now'. It gives Ivan's speech an unbuttoned, everyday warmth amid the delirium.

(Он становился очень словоохотлив). — Мне нравится Лиза.  
(He was growing very talkative.) "I like Liza.
> Imperfective «становился» + short adjective predicate: «становился» (imperfective past of «становиться») renders a gradual change of state — 'he was growing / becoming'. Its predicate «словоохотлив» is a short-form adjective, the bookish predicative form naming a current state rather than a fixed quality.
> Dative experiencer with «нравиться»: Literally 'to me, Liza is pleasing': the grammatical subject is «Лиза» (nominative), while the person who likes her stands in the dative «мне». «нравиться» is one of Russian's experiencer verbs that flip the English subject onto the dative.
> «словоохотливый» — talkative: A vivid compound, literally 'word-eager' (слово 'word' + охота 'eagerness') — fond of talking, garrulous. The narrator's parenthesis flags Ivan's feverish loquacity.

Я сказал про нее тебе что-то скверное.  
I said something nasty about her to you.
> Perfective «сказал» + indefinite «что-то»: «сказал» (perfective) names the single completed utterance. «что-то скверное» is 'something nasty' — the particle -то marks a specific but unspecified thing the speaker has in mind, distinct from «что-нибудь» 'anything at all'.

Я солгал, мне она нравится…  
I lied — I do like her...
> Perfective «солгал» against present «нравится»: «солгал» (perfective past of «солгать») states the completed act, 'I lied'; «нравится» is present and ongoing, 'I do like her'. The aspect contrast pins the lie to a single past moment and the liking to the standing present.

Я боюсь завтра за Катю, больше всего боюсь.  
I am afraid for Katya tomorrow — afraid most of all.
> Reflexive «бояться» governing «за» + accusative: «боюсь» is from «бояться», a verb that exists only in the -ся (reflexive) form. With «за» + accusative («за Катю») it means 'I fear FOR Katya' — anxiety on her behalf — as opposed to «бояться» + genitive, 'to be afraid OF'.

За будущее.  
For the future.
> Substantivized adjective «будущее»: «будущее» ('the future') is an adjective used as a neuter noun — literally 'the being-to-come thing'. Here it follows «за» in the accusative, completing the previous line: 'I fear... for the future'.

Она завтра бросит меня и растопчет ногами.  
Tomorrow she will cast me off and trample me underfoot.
> Two perfective futures: «бросит» and «растопчет» are perfective verbs in present-tense form, so they read as completed future events: 'she will cast off and trample'. «ногами» is instrumental — the means, 'with her feet, underfoot'.
> «растоптать» — to trample to pieces: The prefix рас- intensifies «топтать» (to tread on), giving 'trample down, crush underfoot completely' — a violent, total image fitting Ivan's masochistic foreboding.

Она думает, что я из ревности к ней гублю Митю!  
She thinks that out of jealousy over her I am destroying Mitya!
> «из» + genitive of motive; present «гублю»: «из ревности» = 'out of jealousy', the «из» + genitive construction expressing cause/motive (cf. «из подлости», «от жажды» below). «гублю» is the present of «губить» (to ruin, destroy) — ongoing, 'I am destroying'.
> «Митя» — Dmitri's familiar name: «Митя» (accusative «Митю») is the affectionate short form of «Дмитрий», the brother formally tried for the murder. The diminutive register, even in a charged sentence, keeps the family intimacy alive.

Да, она это думает!  
Yes, that's what she thinks!
> Affirming particle «да» + fronted «это»: «Да» here is the affirming 'yes/indeed', not the conjunction. «это» ('that, this') is the object pronoun fronted before the verb for emphasis — 'yes, THAT is what she thinks' — typical of Russian's free, focus-driven word order.

Так вот нет же!  
Well, but it isn't so!
> A cluster of emphatic particles: «Так вот нет же!» piles three small words onto a flat 'no': «так вот» ('so there, well now') sets up a retort, and «же» drives the contradiction home — 'well, but it just isn't so!'. Such particle clusters are the very texture of Dostoevsky's spoken voice.

Завтра крест, но не виселица.  
Tomorrow there is the cross, but not the gallows.
> Verbless contrast with «но не»: No verb at all: 'Tomorrow [there is] the cross, but not the gallows'. The contrastive «но» opposes the two nouns, and «не» negates the second. The zero copula lets the bare nouns stand as stark emblems.

Нет, я не повешусь.  
No, I will not hang myself.
> Reflexive «повеситься» + perfective future: «повешусь» is the perfective future of «повеситься» (to hang oneself), with -ся giving a genuinely reflexive sense — the action turns back on the subject. Negated by «не»: 'I will not hang myself'.

Знаешь ли ты, что я никогда не могу лишить себя жизни, Алеша!  
Do you know, Alyosha, that I could never take my own life!
> Interrogative particle «ли»: «Знаешь ли ты…?» is the literary yes/no question: the focused verb «знаешь» is fronted and followed by the enclitic «ли». More formal and weighty than a plain intonation question, it lends Ivan's appeal a heightened, almost rhetorical gravity.
> Negative concord + reflexive «себя»: «никогда… не» is double negation (negative concord): the ни-word and «не» both negate, yielding one English negative, 'never'. «лишить себя жизни» = 'to deprive oneself of life'; «себя» is the reflexive object pronoun and «жизни» genitive after «лишить».

От подлости, что ли?  
Out of baseness, is it?
> «от» + genitive of cause; dubitative «что ли»: «От подлости» = 'out of baseness', cause expressed by «от» + genitive. «что ли» is a colloquial questioning tag meaning 'or what?, is it?' — Ivan voicing a guess and half-mocking himself.
> «подлость» — baseness, vileness: A key Dostoevskian word: moral lowness, meanness of soul. The whole family vocabulary of «подлый» / «подлость» recurs as Ivan anatomizes his own character.

Я не трус.  
I am no coward.
> Negated noun predicate, zero copula: 'I [am] not a coward': no verb, «не» negating the predicate noun «трус» (which stays nominative). Russian's present 'to be' is silent, so the negation falls straight on the noun.

От жажды жить!  
Out of a thirst to live!
> «от» + genitive of motive + infinitive: 'Out of a thirst to live!': «от жажды» again the «от» + genitive of cause, here completed by the infinitive «жить». «жажда» literally 'thirst' is used figuratively — a bodily craving for life itself.

Почему это я знал, что Смердяков повесился?  
How was it that I knew Smerdyakov had hanged himself?
> Imperfective «знал» vs perfective «повесился»: «знал» (imperfective) frames a state of knowing, while the «что»-clause reports a completed event with perfective «повесился» ('had hanged himself'). The little «это» after «почему» is an emphatic 'how on earth', intensifying the bewildered question.

Да, это ''он'' мне сказал…  
Yes, it was ''he'' who told me..."
> Emphatic «это» cleft + dative «мне»: «это… сказал» works like an English cleft, 'it was HE who told me'. «он» in quotation marks is the devil-hallucination; «мне» is the dative indirect object, the one told.

— И ты твердо уверен, что кто-то тут сидел? — спросил Алеша.  
"And you are firmly convinced that someone was sitting here?" Alyosha asked.
> Short adjective «уверен» + indefinite «кто-то»: «уверен» is the short predicative form of «уверенный» ('convinced'), the bookish predicate. «кто-то» = 'someone' (specific but unidentified, with -то); «сидел» is imperfective past, viewing the sitting as a lingering state.

— Вон на том диване, в углу.  
"There on that sofa, in the corner.
> Demonstrative «том» + locative «в углу»: «на том диване» is the prepositional case after «на» for location, with the demonstrative «тот» ('that, yonder') agreeing in case. «в углу» uses «угол»'s special stressed locative -у́ ('in the corner'). «Вон» is the pointing adverb 'over there'.

Ты бы его прогнал.  
You would have driven him off.
> Conditional with «бы»: Past-form verb «прогнал» + the particle «бы» makes the irrealis: 'you would have driven him off' (had you been here, etc.). «бы» leans on the pronoun «ты» rather than the verb — it is mobile, often attaching to the first stressed word.

Да ты же его и прогнал: он исчез, как ты явился.  
Indeed, it was you who drove him off: he vanished the moment you appeared.
> Stacked particles «да… же… и»: Three particles intensify a plain statement: «да» ('indeed'), «же» (insistent, 'it was precisely you'), and «и» here meaning 'in fact, even'. Together: 'and indeed it was YOU who drove him off'.
> Perfective «исчез/явился»; «как» = 'the moment': Both verbs are perfective past, two completed events: 'he vanished, as / the moment you appeared'. «как» here is temporal ('as soon as'), and «явился» (from «явиться») is the slightly elevated 'appeared, presented yourself'.

Я люблю твое лицо, Алеша.  
I love your face, Alyosha.
> Possessive «твоё» agreeing in case: «твоё лицо» is the direct object of «люблю»; «лицо» is neuter and inanimate, so its accusative looks like the nominative, and the possessive «твоё» agrees with it in gender, number, and case.

Знал ли ты, что я люблю твое лицо?  
Did you know that I love your face?
> «ли» question + embedded «что»-clause: «Знал ли ты…?» is the literary yes/no question with fronted «знал» + enclitic «ли». It frames a «что»-clause of reported fact; the imperfective past «знал» asks about a state of awareness.

А ''он'' — это я, Алеша, я сам.  
And ''he'' is me, Alyosha, my own self.
> Identity with «это» and intensifier «сам»: «это» links the two terms in an equation, 'he IS me'. «я сам» = 'I myself', the intensifier «сам» insisting that the devilish visitor is none other than Ivan's own self — the chapter's psychological hinge.

Всё мое низкое, всё мое подлое и презренное!  
Everything base in me, everything vile and contemptible!
> Substantivized neuter adjectives: «низкое», «подлое», «презренное» are adjectives turned into neuter nouns ('everything that is low / base / contemptible in me'), governed by «всё». The repeated «всё моё» hammers the confession that the devil is the sum of Ivan's worst self.
> «презренный» — contemptible: A bookish, weighty word from «презирать» (to despise) — 'despicable, contemptible'. Its elevated register sharpens the self-loathing of the line.

Да, я «романтик», он это подметил… хоть это и клевета.  
Yes, I am a 'romantic' — he noticed that... though it is a slander.
> Concessive «хоть… и»: «хоть… и» = 'even though, although': «хоть это и клевета» means 'though it is (indeed) a slander'. The «и» reinforces the concession. «клевета» is a zero-copula predicate noun in the nominative.
> «романтик» — the 'romantic' jibe: To call the rationalist Ivan a «романтик» is the devil's cutting taunt: a dreamer, a sentimentalist at heart. The quotation marks signal that Ivan is throwing the devil's own word back.

Он ужасно глуп, но он этим берет.  
He is terribly stupid, but that is how he gets the better of me.
> Instrumental of means «этим»: «берёт» (from «брать», to take) is used idiomatically — 'that is how he wins / gets the better'. «этим» is the instrumental of «это»: 'he takes [me] BY this means', the demonstrative naming the instrument.

Он хитер, животно хитер, он знал, чем взбесить меня.  
He is cunning, brutishly cunning; he knew how to drive me into a fury.
> Instrumental «чем» + infinitive of purpose: «чем» is the instrumental of «что» ('by what means'), governing the infinitive «взбесить»: 'he knew BY WHAT to enrage me' = 'how to drive me into a fury'. A compact, idiomatic 'knew how to'.
> «животно» — 'brutishly': An adverb from «животное» (animal): 'brutishly, with animal cunning'. Paired with the short adjective «хитёр» it makes the devil's slyness instinctive, sub-human rather than clever.

Он всё дразнил меня, что я в него верю, и тем заставил меня его слушать.  
He kept taunting me with believing in him, and so forced me to listen to him.
> Imperfective «дразнил» then perfective «заставил»: «всё дразнил» is imperfective ('kept taunting', the «всё» meaning 'continually'), the prolonged process; «заставил» (perfective) is its single completed result, 'and so forced me'. «тем» is the instrumental of «то», 'by that means'.
> «верить в» + accusative: «верить в» + accusative means 'to believe IN' (someone's existence/reality), as opposed to «верить» + dative ('to trust'). The taunt is precisely that Ivan, by believing in the devil, grants him reality.

Он надул меня, как мальчишку.  
He fooled me like a little boy.
> Perfective «надул» + pejorative diminutive: «надул» (perfective past of «надуть») is the single completed deception, 'he fooled me'. «мальчишку» is the expressive diminutive «мальчишка» (from «мальчик») — a 'mere boy', here carrying a dismissive, belittling tinge: fooled me like some greenhorn.

Он мне, впрочем, сказал про меня много правды.  
He told me, by the way, a great deal of truth about myself.
> Genitive «правды» after a quantifier: «много правды» = 'much truth': «много» governs the genitive, here «правды» (partitive genitive of quantity). «мне» is dative ('to me'), «про меня» 'about myself' with «про» + accusative.
> «впрочем» — 'however, by the way': A discourse word that introduces a qualification or afterthought, 'though, however, then again' — very characteristic of Dostoevsky's self-correcting, second-guessing narration.

Я бы никогда этого не сказал себе.  
I would never have said it to myself.
> Conditional «бы» + genitive of negation + «себе»: «бы» + past «сказал» gives the counterfactual 'I would never have said'. The negated object appears in the genitive — «этого» (genitive of negation, rather than accusative «это») — and «себе» is the reflexive dative, 'to myself'.

Знаешь, Алеша, знаешь, — ужасно серьезно и как бы конфиденциально прибавил Иван, — я бы очень желал, чтоб он в самом деле был ''он'', а не я!  
You know, Alyosha, you know," Ivan added in a terribly earnest and, as it were, confidential tone, "I should very much like him really to be ''he,'' and not I!"
> «желать… чтоб» — wish + irrealis clause: «я бы… желал» is the polite conditional 'I should very much like', and it governs a «чтоб(ы)»-clause whose verb «был» takes the past form — the obligatory irrealis after «чтобы» for a wished-for, unreal outcome.
> «как бы» — 'as it were': «как бы» is a hedging discourse marker, 'as if, as it were, sort of', softening «конфиденциально» (confidentially). It signals the narrator's reserve about pinning down Ivan's exact tone.

— Он тебя измучил, — сказал Алеша, с состраданием смотря на брата.  
"He has worn you out," said Alyosha, looking at his brother with compassion.
> Present gerund «смотря»: «смотря» is the imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) of «смотреть» — 'looking', an attendant simultaneous action sharing Alyosha's subject: 'said Alyosha, [while] looking at his brother with compassion'. «с состраданием» is «с» + instrumental, manner.

— Дразнил меня!  
"He taunted me!
> Subjectless imperfective past: The subject «он» is dropped and the imperfective «дразнил» stands alone — 'kept taunting me!'. The imperfective renders the taunting as a drawn-out, repeated torment rather than one act.

И знаешь, ловко, ловко: «Совесть!  
And cleverly, you know, cleverly: 'Conscience!
> Reduplicated adverb «ловко»: «ловко» ('cleverly, deftly') is a short adverbial form repeated for emphasis — the doubling, common in excited speech, conveys grudging admiration: 'and cleverly, you know, cleverly'.

Что совесть?  
What is conscience?
> Verbless 'what is X?': «Что совесть?» — 'What [is] conscience?' — a bare nominal question with no copula, the devil's rhetorical challenge. The very form, stripped to two words, mimics his glib dismissiveness.

Я сам ее делаю.  
I make it myself.
> Intensifier «сам» + present «делаю»: «сам» ('myself') stresses the subject, «ее» (accusative «её», = conscience) the object: 'I myself make it'. The imperfective present «делаю» states a general claim — the devil's blasphemy that conscience is a human invention.

Зачем же я мучаюсь?  
Why, then, do I torment myself?
> Particle «же» + reflexive «мучаюсь»: «же» after «зачем» sharpens the question into exasperation, 'why ON EARTH do I torment myself?'. «мучаюсь» is the -ся form of «мучить», here middle/reflexive — 'I suffer / torment myself'.

По привычке.  
Out of habit.
> «по» + dative of cause: «по привычке» = 'out of habit', the «по» + dative construction expressing reason or motive. A one-phrase answer, the devil's bored explanation for human conscience.

По всемирной человеческой привычке за семь тысяч лет.  
Out of the universal human habit of seven thousand years.
> Numeral phrase «семь тысяч лет»: After «семь» (five and above) the counted noun goes to the genitive plural — «тысяч» — and «тысяч» in turn governs the genitive plural «лет» ('years'). The whole quantity phrase rides on «за» (over the span of). The adjectives «всемирной человеческой» agree with dative «привычке».

Так отвыкнем и будем боги».  
So let us break the habit and we shall be gods.'
> Perfective future exhortation + compound future: «отвыкнем» (perfective future of «отвыкнуть») works as a 1st-person exhortation, 'let us break the habit'; «будем боги» is the compound future of «быть» ('we shall be'). Note «боги» stays nominative plural — a bare nominal predicate where the instrumental might also appear.

Это он говорил, это он говорил!  
It was he who said that, it was he who said it!"
> Emphatic «это» cleft, imperfective «говорил»: The doubled «это он говорил» is a cleft, 'it was HE who said that', insisting on the devil's authorship of the blasphemy. «говорил» is imperfective — 'kept saying / was saying', the words still ringing in Ivan's ear.

— А не ты, не ты? — ясно смотря на брата, неудержимо вскричал Алеша. — Ну и пусть его, брось его и забудь о нем!  
"And not you, not you?" cried Alyosha irrepressibly, looking clearly at his brother. "Well, let him be, drop him and forget about him!
> Present gerund «смотря»: Again the present gerund «смотря» ('looking') sets the attendant circumstance of Alyosha's cry, sharing his subject. «ясно» ('clearly, steadily') is the manner adverb modifying his gaze.
> Hortative «пусть» + imperatives: «пусть его» is the 3rd-person hortative 'let him be'; «брось» and «забудь» are perfective imperatives ('drop, forget'). «забудь о нём» uses «о» + prepositional for the topic — 'forget ABOUT him'.

Пусть он унесет с собою всё, что ты теперь проклинаешь, и никогда не приходит!  
Let him carry away with him everything you now curse, and never come again!"
> «Пусть» + future and negated imperfective: «Пусть он унесёт» is the let-construction with perfective future ('let him carry away'), then «никогда не приходит» switches to the negated imperfective present ('never come again') — imperfective because it negates a repeated/ongoing action. «с собою» is the reflexive «себя» in the instrumental, 'with him(self)'.

— Да, но он зол.  
"Yes, but he is malicious.
> Short adjective «зол»: «зол» is the short predicative form of «злой» (malicious, wicked) — the bookish predicate form naming his state. With zero copula: 'but he [is] malicious'. «но» marks the contrast with Alyosha's plea.

Он надо мной смеялся.  
He laughed at me.
> Reflexive «смеяться над» + instrumental: «смеяться» exists only in the -ся form; with «над» + instrumental («надо мной») it means 'to laugh AT, mock'. «надо» is the form «над» takes before the cluster in «мной». Imperfective «смеялся» = 'kept laughing at me'.

Он был дерзок, Алеша, — с содроганием обиды проговорил Иван. — Но он клеветал на меня, он во многом клеветал.  
He was insolent, Alyosha," Ivan said with a shudder of offense. "But he slandered me, he slandered me in much.
> «с» + instrumental, genitive «обиды»: «с содроганием» is «с» + instrumental of manner ('with a shudder'), and «обиды» is the genitive 'of offense' modifying it — 'with a shudder of offense'. «проговорил» (perfective) is the single completed 'said/uttered'.
> «во многом» — prepositional of respect: «во многом» ('in much, in many respects') is «в» + the prepositional of the substantivized adjective «многое». «клеветал» (imperfective) renders the slandering as sustained: 'he slandered me in much'.

Лгал мне же на меня же в глаза.  
He lied to my face, about me to my very face.
> Repeated insistent «же»: The doubled «же» («мне же… меня же») hammers the bitter point: 'lied to ME, about ME, to my very face'. «лгал» is imperfective ('kept lying'); «в глаза» literally 'into the eyes' = 'to one's face'.

«О, ты идешь совершить подвиг добродетели, объявишь, что убил отца, что лакей по твоему наущению убил отца…»  
'Oh, you are going to perform a deed of virtue, you'll announce that you killed your father, that the lackey killed your father at your instigation...'"
> Unidirectional «идёшь» + perfective futures: «идёшь» is the unidirectional motion verb, here projecting an imminent single course of action ('you are going to'), followed by the purpose infinitive «совершить» and the perfective future «объявишь» ('you'll announce'). «убил отца» — «отца» is the animate-masculine accusative borrowing the genitive form.
> «наущение» — instigation: «по твоему наущению» = 'at your instigation/prompting', a bookish word for inciting someone to wrongdoing (from «наустить»). «по» + dative again carries the 'on the grounds of' sense.
> «лакей» — the lackey: «лакей» is a male house-servant, footman — here Smerdyakov, who served in Fyodor Pavlovich's household. The word also carries social contempt, 'lackey' in the pejorative sense, which sharpens the devil's taunt.

— Брат, — прервал Алеша, — удержись: не ты убил.  
"Brother," Alyosha interrupted, "restrain yourself: it was not you who killed him."
> Reflexive imperative + contrastive negation: «удержись» is the perfective imperative of «удержаться» (-ся reflexive), 'restrain/hold yourself back'. «не ты убил» negates the subject specifically — «не» before «ты» — 'it was not YOU who killed', the chapter's redemptive counter-assertion.

Это неправда!  
That isn't true!
> Zero copula and «неправда»: The present tense of «быть» (to be) is unexpressed: «Это неправда» is literally "This — untruth," with no word for "is." The noun «неправда» (un-truth, a falsehood) is the predicate complement standing in the bare nominative, as Russian always does in the zero-copula present.

— Это он говорит, он, а он это знает: «Ты идешь совершить подвиг добродетели, а в добродетель-то и не веришь — вот что тебя злит и мучит, вот отчего ты такой мстительный».  
It is he who says it, he, and he knows it: 'You are going off to perform a deed of virtue, yet in virtue itself you do not even believe — that is what enrages and torments you, that is why you are so vengeful.'
> Emphatic repetition and contrastive «а»: The doubled «он… он» and fronted «Это» hammer the topic — it is HE, not Ivan, who speaks. The hinge «а» here is the mild contrastive "and yet / while," pivoting to a new point (he knows it) without real opposition.
> Motion verb + infinitive of purpose: «идешь» is the unidirectional present of «идти» (going one way, now), here almost in a near-future sense "you are going off [to do]." The bare perfective infinitive «совершить» (to accomplish) states the purpose of the going — a common motion-verb-plus-infinitive idiom.
> Topic clitic «-то» and emphatic «и»: The clitic «-то» pins down the known topic — "in virtue itself, of all things" — while «и» before the verb intensifies ("you don't even believe"). The verb «верить» governs «в» + accusative («в добродетель»), "to believe in."
> «подвиг» — a feat, a heroic deed: «подвиг» is a weighty word for a heroic exploit or self-sacrificing feat, with strong spiritual overtones (a saint's «подвиг» of asceticism). "A подвиг of virtue" sounds almost sarcastically grand in the devil's mouth — Ivan's planned confession dressed up as heroism.
> Correlative «вот что…»: «вот что» — "this is what" — is a presentative correlative pointing forward, paired with the relative «что». The two present-tense verbs «злит» (angers) and «мучит» (torments) take «тебя» as their accusative object.

Это он мне про меня говорил, а он знает, что говорит…  
It was he who told me that about myself, and he knows what he is saying…
> «про» + accusative — "about": «про» governs the accusative and means "about, concerning," a slightly more colloquial twin of «о» + prepositional. «про меня» = "about me"; the play «он мне про меня говорил» (he told me about me) is deliberately uncanny.
> Imperfective for ongoing speech: Both «знает» and «говорит» are imperfective present, framing the devil's speech as a continuing process — "he knows what he is saying." The whole refrain recurs through the passage as Ivan's fixed idea.

— Это ты говоришь, а не он! — горестно воскликнул Алеша, — и говоришь в болезни, в бреду, себя мучая!  
"It is you saying it, not he!" Alyosha cried out in grief, "and you say it in your sickness, in delirium, torturing yourself!"
> Fronting and corrective «а не»: Alyosha mirrors Ivan's syntax to reverse it: «ты», not «он», is fronted as the news. «а не он» — "and not he" — uses contrastive «а» to set up an explicit correction.
> Present gerund «мучая»: «мучая» is the imperfective present деепричастие of «мучить» (to torment), naming a simultaneous attendant action: "[saying it]… torturing yourself." It shares Ivan as subject and takes the reflexive object «себя» (oneself).
> «бред» — delirium, raving: «бред» is feverish raving or delirium (the locative «в бреду» takes the stressed -у́ ending). Paired with «в болезни» (in sickness), it diagnoses Ivan's visitation as the speech of brain-fever, not a real apparition — the chapter's central ambiguity.

— Нет, он знает, что говорит.  
"No, he knows what he is saying.
> Free relative «что» — 'what': «что» here is the interrogative/relative pronoun "what," the direct object of transitive «говорит», heading a free relative clause: "he knows what he is saying." It is not the conjunction "that"; the construction is a free relative, not a что-conjunction reported clause.

Ты, говорит, из гордости идешь, ты станешь и скажешь: «Это я убил, и чего вы корчитесь от ужаса, вы лжете!  
You go out of pride, he says, you will stand up and declare: 'It was I who killed him, and why do you writhe in horror — you are lying!
> Inserted «говорит» — quotative: The bare «говорит» ("says he") wedged into the sentence is a quotative tag marking reported speech, like English "he says." «из гордости» uses «из» + genitive to give the motive — "out of pride."
> Pronoun for emphasis: «Это я убил»: The verb ending of «убил» already shows the subject, so the explicit «я» is added only for stress — "It was I who killed [him]." «убил» is the perfective masculine past of «убить», naming the single completed deed.
> «чего» = "why" and reflexive «корчитесь»: Colloquial «чего» (genitive of «что») here means "why / what for." «корчитесь» is the reflexive «корчиться» (to writhe, contort oneself); «от ужаса» — «от» + genitive — gives the cause, "from horror."
> «лгать» — to lie: «лжете» is the 2nd-person plural present of «лгать» (to lie, tell falsehoods), with the irregular stem alternation г→ж. A higher, more accusatory register than the colloquial «врать»; it returns as «солгал» below.

Мнение ваше презираю, ужас ваш презираю».  
Your opinion I despise, your horror I despise.'
> Object-first word order for scorn: Both clauses front the accusative object («Мнение ваше…», «ужас ваш…») before the verb «презираю», throwing rhetorical weight onto what is despised. The parallel inversion gives the line its lashing, contemptuous rhythm.
> «презирать» — to despise: «презирать» is to scorn or hold in contempt — a key verb of this whole passage, recurring as Katya and Liza «презирают» Ivan. The repetition makes contempt the air Ivan breathes.

Это он про меня говорит, и вдруг говорит: «А знаешь, тебе хочется, чтоб они тебя похвалили: преступник, дескать, убийца, но какие у него великодушные чувства, брата спасти захотел и признался!»  
That is what he says about me, and then suddenly he says: 'And you know, you want them to praise you: a criminal, they'll say, a murderer, but what magnanimous feelings he has, he wanted to save his brother and confessed!'
> Impersonal «тебе хочется» + «чтоб»-clause: «хочется» is a reflexive impersonal: the wanter stands in the dative («тебе») with no nominative subject — "you feel an urge." It takes a «чтоб(ы)»-clause whose verb «похвалили» is in the past form, the irrealis required after «чтобы».
> Reportive particle «дескать»: «дескать» is a quotative particle flagging that the speaker is relaying someone else's words, often with skepticism — "so they'll say." It colours the imagined praise as hollow gossip Ivan both craves and despises.
> Object-first with «захотел» + infinitive: «брата» (animate masculine accusative, borrowing the genitive form) is fronted before its infinitive «спасти» (to save), which in turn precedes «захотел» (wanted) — a tight, emphatic inversion. «захотел» is perfective, "conceived the wish."
> «великодушный» — magnanimous: «великодушный» (literally "great-souled," a calque of Greek megalopsychos) means magnanimous, generous of spirit. In the devil's mouth it is poisoned praise: the very nobility Ivan secretly longs to be credited with.

Вот это так уж ложь, Алеша! — вскричал вдруг Иван, засверкав глазами. — Я не хочу, чтобы меня смерды хвалили!  
Now that, that really is a lie, Alyosha!" Ivan cried out all at once, his eyes flashing. "I do not want the rabble to praise me!
> Stacked particles «так уж»: A pile-up of emphatics — «Вот это» (now THIS), «так» (so, truly), «уж» (the intensifying particle) — all converging on «ложь» (a lie): "Now that, that really and truly is a lie." Such clustered particles are the texture of Dostoevsky's spoken Russian.
> Perfective past gerund «засверкав»: «засверкав» is the perfective past деепричастие of «засверкать» (to start flashing); the prefix «за-» marks the sudden onset ("flashed up"). «глазами» is the instrumental of means — flashing WITH his eyes. The gerund compresses a second action into Ivan's outburst.
> «смерд» — a serf, the rabble: «смерд» was the medieval term for a peasant or villein; by the 19th century it survives only as a contemptuous "churl, base rabble." Ivan's choice of this archaic, lordly insult betrays the gentry pride the devil has just accused him of.

Это он солгал, Алеша, солгал, клянусь тебе!  
He lied about that, Alyosha, he lied, I swear it to you!
> Perfective «солгал» and 1st-person «клянусь»: «солгал» is the perfective past of «лгать» (to lie) — a single completed act of lying, repeated for vehemence. «клянусь» is the reflexive «клясться» (to swear, vow), taking the dative «тебе» of the one sworn to.

Я бросил в него за это стаканом, и он расшибся об его морду.  
I threw a glass at him for it, and it smashed against his ugly mug.
> Instrumental object of «бросить»: «бросить» (to throw) takes the thing thrown in the instrumental — «стаканом», "with a glass." The target goes with «в» + accusative («в него», at him), and «за это» («за» + accusative) gives the cause, "for it."
> Reflexive «расшибся» + «об» + accusative: «расшибся» is the reflexive past of «расшибиться» (to smash, get smashed) — middle/change-of-state -ся, "it shattered." «об его морду» uses «об» + accusative for impact against a surface.
> «морда» — muzzle, ugly mug: «морда» is properly an animal's snout or muzzle; used of a person it is crude and contemptuous, "ugly mug." Applied to the devil it both degrades the apparition and underscores how vividly bodily Ivan's hallucination is.

— Брат, успокойся, перестань! — упрашивал Алеша.  
"Brother, calm yourself, stop!" Alyosha pleaded.
> Two reflexive/perfective imperatives: «успокойся» (calm yourself — reflexive «успокоиться», stem in -й plus -ся→-сь→-ся) and «перестань» (stop — perfective «перестать») are both commands. Perfective imperatives like these urge a single decisive act, fitting Alyosha's plea.
> «упрашивать» — to entreat, beg: «упрашивать» (imperfective) is to coax or beseech insistently, stronger and more pleading than «просить». The imperfective stresses Alyosha's repeated, sustained pleading against Ivan's unstoppable raving.

— Нет, он умеет мучить, он жесток, — продолжал, не слушая, Иван. — Я всегда предчувствовал, зачем он приходит.  
"No, he knows how to torment, he is cruel," Ivan went on, not listening. "I always had a presentiment of why he comes.
> Short adjective «жесток» as predicate: «жесток» is the short (predicative) form of «жестокий» (cruel), used here as the predicate "he is cruel." Short adjectives, more bookish, state a defining or absolute quality — exactly the verdict Ivan pronounces on the devil.
> Present gerund «не слушая»: «не слушая» is the negated imperfective present деепричастие of «слушать» — "not listening." It modifies «продолжал», setting the simultaneous circumstance: Ivan goes on, deaf to Alyosha.
> Imperfective habit + «приходить»: «предчувствовал» (imperfective past with «всегда») denotes an enduring, habitual foreboding. «приходит» is the imperfective «приходить» (to come/arrive, prefixed multidirectional), for the devil's repeated visits.

«Пусть, говорит, ты шел из гордости, но ведь всё же была и надежда, что уличат Смердякова и сошлют в каторгу, что Митю оправдают, а тебя осудят лишь ''нравственно'' (слышишь, он тут смеялся!), а другие так и похвалят.  
'Granted,' he says, 'you went out of pride; but still there was also the hope that Smerdyakov would be convicted and sent to hard labor, that Mitya would be acquitted, while you would be condemned only "morally" (do you hear, here he laughed!), and others would even praise you.
> Concessive «пусть» — "granted": «пусть» normally forms a 3rd-person imperative ("let him…"), but here it concedes a point — "granted, suppose that you went out of pride." «шел» is the imperfective past of «идти», viewing the going as the standing fact under discussion.
> Indefinite 3rd-plural for the impersonal: «уличат» (will convict) and «сошлют» (will exile) are perfective futures with no stated subject — the bare 3rd-person plural used impersonally, "they would convict… they would send," i.e. one would. Russian often expresses the indefinite agent this way.
> Adverb «нравственно» in scare-quotes: «нравственно» is the adverb "morally" (from «нравственный»). The original sets it off in quotation marks because the devil is mocking the phrase — Ivan would be condemned only "morally," not legally. The aside «слышишь, он тут смеялся!» captures the devil's sneer.

Но вот умер Смердяков, повесился — ну и кто ж тебе там на суде теперь-то одному поверит?  
But now Smerdyakov is dead, he has hanged himself — and so who there in court will believe you now, you alone?
> Perfective past for completed events: «умер» (died) and the reflexive «повесился» (hanged himself) are perfective pasts, each a single accomplished fact that changes the situation — exactly what kills Ivan's hope. «вот» presents the new development: "but now, see."
> Particle «ж», clitic «-то», and dative «одному»: «ж» (reduced «же») sharpens the rhetorical question; «теперь-то» stresses the changed "now"; «поверить» governs the dative, so «тебе… одному» is "believe you, you alone." The dense particles convey the devil's needling tone.

А ведь ты идешь, идешь, ты все-таки пойдешь, ты решил, что пойдешь.  
And yet you go, you go, you will go all the same, you have resolved to go.
> Imperfective present vs perfective future of «идти»: The repeated imperfective present «идешь» (you are going / on your way) shifts to the perfective future «пойдешь» (you will go [and arrive]) — the same root, the aspect carrying the whole tense logic. «все-таки» means "all the same, after all."
> Perfective «решил» + reported «что»: «решил» is the perfective past of «решить» (to decide), a single resolved act. The «что»-clause reports the content of the decision; its verb «пойдешь» is the perfective future — "you have decided that you will go."

Для чего же ты идешь после этого?»  
Why is it, after all this, that you go?'
> «Для чего же» — "why on earth": «Для чего» (literally "for what") asks purpose, "why / what for"; the inserted «же» turns it into an insistent, almost exasperated challenge. «после этого» — «после» + genitive — "after this / all this."

Это страшно, Алеша, я не могу выносить таких вопросов.  
It is terrible, Alyosha, I cannot bear such questions.
> Impersonal predicate «страшно»: «страшно» is the neuter impersonal predicative, "it is terrible / frightening." With no nominative subject it states a condition of the situation itself — the same -о form that elsewhere takes a dative experiencer («мне страшно»).
> Genitive of negation: «таких вопросов»: Under the negated «не могу выносить» the object "such questions" slides into the genitive plural «таких вопросов» rather than the accusative — the genitive of negation, common with abstract or non-specific objects.

Кто смеет мне задавать такие вопросы!  
Who dares put such questions to me!
> «сметь» + dative «мне»: «смеет» (dares) is the present of «сметь», taking an infinitive «задавать» (to put / pose, of questions). «мне» is the dative "to me" of the indirect object. The rhetorical «кто» (who) demands no answer — pure outrage.

— Брат, — прервал Алеша, замирая от страха, но всё еще как бы надеясь образумить Ивана, — как же мог он говорить тебе про смерть Смердякова до моего прихода, когда еще никто и не знал о ней, да и времени не было никому узнать?  
"Brother," Alyosha broke in, dying of dread yet still hoping somehow to bring Ivan to his senses, "how could he have told you of Smerdyakov's death before I arrived, when no one yet even knew of it, and there had been no time for anyone to find out?"
> Present gerund «замирая»: «замирая» is the imperfective present деепричастие of «замирать» (to freeze, grow numb, "die" with fear), an attendant circumstance describing Alyosha as he breaks in. «от страха» («от» + genitive) gives the cause, "from fear."
> «как бы» + present gerund «надеясь»: «как бы» softens to "as if, somehow," hedging the hope. «надеясь» is the present gerund of «надеяться» (to hope, a -ся verb), taking the perfective infinitive «образумить» (to bring to one's senses) — a single hoped-for outcome.
> Word-order inversion «мог он»: The verb «мог» precedes the subject «он» — an inversion common after the interrogative «как же», throwing emphasis onto the impossibility. «говорить тебе про смерть» pairs the dative listener with «про» + accusative for the topic.
> Negative concord: «никто… не знал»: The negative pronoun «никто» (nobody) still requires «не» on the verb — Russian's obligatory double negative. «и» before «не» adds "not even," and «о ней» is «о» + prepositional, "about it [the death]."
> Genitive of negation + dative subject: «времени не было» is the negated existential: the subject "time" stands obligatorily in the genitive («времени») with «не было». «никому» is the dative experiencer (no one), and «узнать» the perfective infinitive — "there had been no time for anyone to find out."

— Он говорил, — твердо произнес Иван, не допуская и сомнения. — Он только про это и говорил, если хочешь.  
"He told me," Ivan pronounced firmly, admitting not a shadow of doubt. "That was the only thing he talked about, if you like.
> Gerund + genitive of negation: «произнес» is the perfective past "pronounced." «не допуская» is a negated present gerund ("not admitting"), and its object «сомнения» (doubt) stands in the genitive of negation, reinforced by «и» ("not even a doubt").
> Frame «только… и» and «если хочешь»: The «только… и» construction means "that was the ONLY thing he talked about" — «и» before the verb locks in the exclusivity. «если хочешь» ("if you like") is a conversational hedge, the conditional «если» without «бы».

«И добро бы ты, говорит, в добродетель верил: пусть не поверят мне, для принципа иду.  
'And it would be well enough,' he says, 'if you believed in virtue: let them not believe me, I go for the sake of principle.
> «добро бы» — "it would be all right if": «добро бы» is an idiomatic concessive-conditional built on the particle «бы»: "it would be well enough if…" The verb «верил» is the past form demanded by the irrealis «бы» — "if [only] you believed in virtue."
> Concessive «пусть» + perfective future: «пусть не поверят» — "let them not believe" — uses «пусть» plus the perfective future «поверят» (governing dative «мне») to grant a hypothetical. «для принципа» («для» + genitive) gives the motive, "for principle's sake."

Но ведь ты поросенок, как Федор Павлович, и что тебе добродетель?  
But the fact is you are a little pig, like Fyodor Pavlovich, and what is virtue to you?
> Dative of relation: «что тебе…»: «что тебе добродетель?» — literally "what [is] virtue to you?" — uses a bare dative «тебе» with zero copula to mean "what does virtue matter to you, what use is it to you?" A compact idiom of dismissive challenge.
> «поросёнок» — a piglet: «поросёнок» is a piglet (diminutive of «порося»); as an insult it brands someone a dirty, base little creature. Likening Ivan to «Федор Павлович» — his loathed father — is the devil's cruelest cut: the Karamazov "piggishness" Ivan dreads is in him too.

Для чего же ты туда потащишься, если жертва твоя ни к чему не послужит?  
Why, then, will you drag yourself off there, if your sacrifice will serve no purpose?
> Perfective future «потащишься»: «потащишься» is the reflexive perfective future of «потащиться» (to drag oneself off) — single completed future motion, scornfully picturing Ivan's reluctant journey. «туда» = "thither, to there."
> Negative concord with «ни к чему»: «ни к чему… не послужит» piles the «ни»-phrase onto the obligatory «не»: "will serve no purpose at all / be of no use whatever." «послужить» governs «к» + dative («к чему», to what end). The «ни»-word and «не» together carry a single negation.
> «жертва» — sacrifice / victim: «жертва» means both "sacrifice" (the offering) and "victim." The devil mockingly calls Ivan's planned self-incrimination his «жертва» — a sacrifice the dead Smerdyakov has rendered pointless. The double sense quietly implicates Ivan as victim too.

А потому что ты сам не знаешь, для чего идешь!  
Precisely because you yourself do not know why you go!
> Intensive «сам» and indirect «для чего»: «сам» (here nominative, agreeing with «ты») intensifies the subject — "you yourself don't know." «для чего идешь» is an embedded indirect question, "for what / why you are going."

О, ты бы много дал, чтоб узнать самому, для чего идешь!  
Oh, you would give a great deal to know for yourself why you go!
> Conditional «бы дал» + purpose «чтоб»: «ты бы… дал» is the conditional (past form «дал» + «бы»): "you would give a great deal." The «чтоб»-clause gives purpose with the perfective infinitive «узнать» (to find out); «самому» is the dative of «сам» agreeing with the implied subject of the infinitive.

И будто ты решился?  
And do you suppose you have made up your mind?
> Particle «будто» — "as if, you suppose": «будто» normally means "as though," but here introduces an incredulous question — "and you suppose / as if you've made up your mind?" «решился» is the reflexive perfective past of «решиться» (to resolve, bring oneself to decide).

Ты еще не решился.  
You have not yet made up your mind.
> Negated perfective: "not yet decided": «еще не решился» — "you have not yet resolved" — negates the perfective past «решился». With perfectives, «еще не» characteristically means "not yet (but expected)": the decision is still pending.

Ты всю ночь будешь сидеть и решать: идти или нет?  
All night long you will sit and deliberate: to go or not to go?
> Compound future for drawn-out process: «будешь сидеть и решать» is the imperfective compound future («будешь» + two imperfective infinitives), naming a prolonged, ongoing future activity — all night long. Imperfective, not perfective, precisely because the deliberating goes on and on.
> Infinitive dilemma «идти или нет»: The bare infinitive «идти» in a deliberative question — "to go or not?" — is the standard Russian way of framing an open choice, with «или нет» ("or not") closing the alternative.

Но ты все-таки пойдешь и знаешь, что пойдешь, сам знаешь, что как бы ты ни решался, а решение уж не от тебя зависит.  
But you will go all the same, and you know that you will go; you yourself know that however much you may deliberate, the decision no longer depends on you.
> Concessive «как бы… ни» — "however much": The frame «как бы… ни» + past-form verb means "however / no matter how much you may deliberate." It pairs «бы» (irrealis) with the intensifying «ни» of universal concession — a high-frequency literary construction.
> «зависеть от» + genitive: «зависеть» (to depend) governs «от» + genitive: «от тебя» — "on you." Negated with «не» and stressed by «уж» ("no longer"), the line states that the decision no longer depends on Ivan's will — the devil's deterministic taunt.

Пойдешь, потому что не смеешь не пойти.  
You will go, because you do not dare not to go.
> Double negative «не смеешь не пойти»: Two stacked «не» yield a strong positive: "you do not dare not to go" = you are compelled to go. «смеешь» (dare) takes the negated perfective infinitive «не пойти»; the structure is a hallmark of Dostoevsky's vise-like logic.

Почему не смеешь, — это уж сам угадай, вот тебе загадка!»  
Why you do not dare — that you must work out for yourself; there is a riddle for you!'
> Imperative «угадай» + intensive «сам»: «угадай» is the perfective imperative of «угадать» (to guess, work out). «сам» (yourself) and «уж» throw it back as a challenge — "that you must figure out for yourself." The fronted «это» is the object placed first as topic.
> «загадка» — riddle: «загадка» is a riddle or enigma — "вот тебе загадка" = "there's a riddle for you." It sets up the French «Le mot de l'énigme» a few lines on: the devil leaves Ivan a riddle whose answer is his own cowardice.

Встал и ушел.  
He got up and left.
> Two perfective pasts, dropped subject: «Встал» (got up) and «ушел» (left, prefixed perfective of «уходить/уйти») are perfective pasts driving the narrative forward event by event. The subject «он» is dropped — fully recoverable from the ending and context.

Ты пришел, а он ушел.  
You came, and he went.
> Contrastive «а» with antonymic prefixes: The contrast turns on the directional prefixes: «при-шел» (came TO, arrived) versus «у-шел» (went AWAY, departed), both perfective pasts of «идти». «а» links them as a neat antithesis — "you came, and he went."

Он меня трусом назвал, Алеша!  
He called me a coward, Alyosha!
> Instrumental of the predicate after «назвать»: «назвать» (to call, name) takes the thing called in the instrumental: «трусом» — "called me a coward." This double-object pattern (accusative «меня» + instrumental «трусом») is the rule with verbs of naming and considering.
> «трус» — coward: «трус» (a coward) is the word that crystallizes Ivan's self-knowledge in this chapter. The devil's whole "riddle" resolves into it: «что я трус» — that I am a coward.

Le mot de l'énigme,<ref>Отгадка в том (франц.).</ref> что я трус!  
Le mot de l'énigme,<ref>The answer lies in this (French).</ref> that I am a coward!
> French in Ivan's speech: "Le mot de l'énigme" is French for "the answer/key to the riddle." The Russian text glosses it in a footnote ("Отгадка в том"). Sprinkling French was a mark of the educated Russian gentry; here it underlines Ivan's intellectual, "western" cast of mind even in delirium.
> Zero copula in «что я трус»: «что я трус» — "that I [am] a coward" — is a «что»-clause with no copula and a bare nominative predicate «трус». It supplies the "answer" to the énigme: the riddle's solution stated as a flat present-tense identity.

«Не таким орлам воспарять над землей!»  
'It is not for such eagles to soar above the earth!'
> Dative + infinitive of (im)possibility: «Не таким орлам воспарять» is a dative-plus-infinitive construction denying possibility: "it is not for such eagles to soar." The dative «орлам» names those it is "not for," the bare infinitive the action denied — a terse, fatalistic idiom.
> «воспарять» — to soar aloft (elevated): «воспарять» (to soar up, take wing) is a lofty, bookish verb with the elevated prefix «вос-» (a Church-Slavonic colouring of «вз-»). The mock-grand image of "eagles soaring above the earth" is the devil's sarcasm at Ivan's pretensions to greatness.

Это он прибавил, это он прибавил!  
That he added, he added that!
> Fronting and repetition for insistence: The object «Это» is fronted and the clause repeated verbatim, with «он» emphatic — "THAT he added, he added that." «прибавил» is the perfective past of «прибавить» (to add [a remark]). The doubling conveys Ivan's feverish, fixated insistence.

И Смердяков это же говорил.  
And Smerdyakov said the very same thing.
> Identifying «же» — "the very same": Here «же» attaches to «это» to mean "the very same thing" (это же = "this same"), an identifying use distinct from emphatic «же». «говорил» is imperfective: Smerdyakov "used to say" the same thing, linking the devil's voice to Smerdyakov's.

Его надо убить!  
He must be killed!
> Impersonal «надо» + infinitive: «надо убить» is an impersonal necessity construction: «надо» (one must) plus the perfective infinitive «убить», with no nominative subject. «Его» is the accusative object — "he must be killed / one must kill him." The dative agent is left unstated.

Катя меня презирает, я уже месяц это вижу, да и Лиза презирать начнет!  
Katya despises me, I have seen it this whole month, and Liza too will begin to despise me!
> Accusative of duration «месяц»: «месяц» stands in the bare accusative to express duration — "for a month [now]." With the imperfective «вижу» and «уже», it means an ongoing perception persisting up to now: "I have been seeing this for a month."
> «начать» + imperfective infinitive: «начнет презирать» — "will begin to despise" — pairs the perfective future «начнет» (begin) with the imperfective infinitive «презирать». Phase verbs like «начать», «продолжать», «перестать» always take the imperfective, since beginning/continuing implies a process.

«Идешь, чтоб тебя похвалили» — это зверская ложь!  
'You go in order to be praised' — that is a beastly lie!
> Purpose «чтоб» + past-form verb: «чтоб(ы) тебя похвалили» expresses purpose — "in order that they praise you / to be praised." After «чтобы» the verb «похвалили» takes the irrealis past form, and the subjectless 3rd-plural makes it impersonal "they."
> «зверский» — beastly, brutal: «зверский» (from «зверь», a wild beast) means brutish, savage, monstrous. "A зверская lie" — a beastly, vicious lie — gives the falsehood an almost physical violence, matching Ivan's mounting frenzy.

И ты тоже презираешь меня, Алеша.  
And you too despise me, Alyosha.
> «тоже» — "too, also": «тоже» adds Alyosha to the list of those who scorn Ivan — "you too despise me." Placed between subject and verb, it scopes over «ты»: you, as well as the others.

Теперь я тебя опять возненавижу.  
Now I shall hate you once again.
> Inceptive perfective «возненавижу»: «возненавижу» is the perfective future of «возненавидеть» — the prefix «воз-» adds an inceptive sense, "to conceive hatred, come to hate." It is the perfective counterpart to the stative «ненавидеть» (to hate): "now I shall start hating you again."

И изверга ненавижу, и изверга ненавижу!  
And I hate the monster, and I hate the monster!
> Animate accusative «изверга», doubled «и… и»: «изверга» is the animate masculine accusative (borrowing the genitive form) of «изверг». The correlative «и… и» ("both… and / and… and") repeats the clause for raving emphasis — Ivan circling the same fury.
> «изверг» — monster, fiend: «изверг» literally means one "cast out" (from «извергнуть», to expel), hence a monster, a fiend, a brute beyond the human pale. Ivan flings it at Mitya, the brother he means to save yet now wishes to abandon to «каторга».

Не хочу спасать изверга, пусть сгниет в каторге!  
I do not want to save the monster, let him rot in penal servitude!
> Third-person imperative «пусть сгниет»: «пусть» + perfective future «сгниет» forms a 3rd-person command/wish — "let him rot." «сгнить» (to rot through, perfective) with «в каторге» (prepositional of location) hurls a curse: "let him rot in penal servitude."

Гимн запел!  
He has struck up a hymn!
> Inceptive «за-» in «запел»: «запел» is the perfective past of «запеть»; the prefix «за-» marks the inception, "struck up / began to sing." «Гимн» (a hymn) is the fronted accusative object. The sarcastic line mocks Ivan's noble resolve as mere hymn-singing.

О, завтра я пойду, стану пред ними и плюну им всем в глаза!  
Oh, tomorrow I shall go, I shall stand before them all and spit in every one of their faces!
> Chain of perfective futures: Three perfective futures march the resolve forward: «пойду» (I'll go), «стану» (I'll stand), «плюну» (I'll spit). «плюнуть» governs the dative of the person («им всем») plus «в» + accusative for the target («в глаза», in the face).
> «пред» — archaic «перед»: «пред» is the elevated, shortened form of the preposition «перед» ("before, in front of"), governing the instrumental «ними». The clipped form lends the vow of public defiance a solemn, almost biblical ring.

Он вскочил в исступлении, сбросил с себя полотенце и принялся снова шагать по комнате.  
He sprang up in a frenzy, flung the towel from himself, and set to pacing the room once more.
> Narrative chain of perfectives: Three perfective pasts — «вскочил» (sprang up), «сбросил» (flung off), «принялся» (set about) — move the action point by point. «принялся» (reflexive «приняться») governs the imperfective infinitive «шагать» (to pace), since the pacing is an open-ended process.
> «исступление» — frenzy, ecstasy of rage: «исступление» is a state of frenzied transport — a person beside himself with rage, passion, or religious ecstasy. A favourite Dostoevskian word for the soul pushed past its limits, it diagnoses Ivan at the brink of full brain-fever.

Алеша вспомнил давешние слова его: «Как будто я сплю наяву… Хожу, говорю и вижу, а сплю» Именно как будто это совершалось теперь Алеша не отходил от него.  
Alyosha recalled his earlier words: "It is as though I were asleep while awake… I walk, I speak, and I see, yet I am asleep," and it was precisely as though that were taking place now; Alyosha did not leave his side.
> «как будто» — "as if": «как будто» ("as though, as if") frames the unreal comparison. «сплю наяву» yokes opposites — «сплю» (I sleep, imperfective present) and «наяву» (in waking reality) — "I am asleep while awake," Ivan's image of his own dissociated state.
> Multidirectional «хожу» and contrastive «а»: «хожу» is the multidirectional imperfective of «ходить» (to walk about, generally), against the unidirectional «идти». The string «хожу, говорю и вижу» of habitual presents is then undercut by contrastive «а сплю» — "…and yet I'm asleep."
> Imperfective «не отходил от» + genitive: «отходить от» (to step away from) governs «от» + genitive («от него»). The imperfective past «не отходил» negates a continuous state — "did not [keep] leaving his side," i.e. stayed by him throughout.

Мелькнула было у него мысль бежать к доктору и привесть того, но он побоялся оставить брата одного: поручить его совсем некому было.  
The thought had flashed through him of running for the doctor and fetching him, but he was afraid to leave his brother alone: there was no one at all to whom he could entrust him.
> The particle «было» of cancelled action: «было» after a perfective verb marks an action begun or impending but not carried through — "the thought had flashed up [but came to nothing]." «Мелькнула» is the perfective past of «мелькнуть» (to flash by); «мысль бежать» links the noun to a bare infinitive of intention.
> «побояться» + infinitive; animate object: «побоялся» (reflexive perfective "was afraid, took fright") governs the infinitive «оставить» (to leave). «брата» is the animate accusative (genitive-shaped), and «одного» agrees with it — "to leave his brother alone."
> Negative «некому» + dative-infinitive: «некому» is the negative dative pronoun "there is no one to (whom)." With the past «было» and the perfective infinitive «поручить» (to entrust), it forms the impersonal "there was no one at all to entrust him to." «его» is the accusative object.

Наконец Иван мало-помалу стал совсем лишаться памяти.  
At last, little by little, Ivan began to lose consciousness altogether.
> «стать» + imperfective + genitive after «лишаться»: «стал лишаться» pairs phase verb «стать» (began) with the imperfective infinitive «лишаться» (to lose, be deprived of), which governs the genitive «памяти» (of memory/consciousness). Losing-and-lacking verbs regularly take the genitive.
> «мало-помалу» — little by little: «мало-помалу» is a fixed reduplicative adverb meaning "little by little, gradually." Its slow, lulling rhythm mirrors Ivan's sinking — fitting the imperfective «лишаться» of a fading process.

Он всё продолжал говорить, говорил не умолкая, но уже совсем нескладно.  
He kept on talking still, talked without falling silent, but now altogether incoherently.
> Imperfective duration + gerund «не умолкая»: «продолжал» (continued) and «говорил» are imperfective, stressing unbroken duration. «не умолкая» is the negated present gerund of «умолкать» (to fall silent) — "without falling silent," an attendant manner.
> «нескладно» — incoherently: «нескладно» (adverb of «нескладный») means disjointedly, awkwardly, without coherence — speech that won't hang together. It marks the slide from Ivan's lucid raving into mere disordered muttering.

Даже плохо выговаривал слова и вдруг сильно покачнулся на месте.  
He even pronounced his words badly, and suddenly swayed violently where he stood.
> Imperfective process vs perfective event: «выговаривал» (imperfective, was pronouncing badly) describes the ongoing impairment; then the perfective «покачнулся» (reflexive, "swayed") punctuates it with a single sudden event, signalled by «вдруг». The aspect switch enacts the lurch.

Но Алеша успел поддержать его.  
But Alyosha managed to catch hold of him in time.
> «успеть» + perfective infinitive — "in time": «успел» (perfective past of «успеть», to manage / have time) takes the perfective infinitive «поддержать» (to catch, hold up). The pairing means "managed to catch hold of him in time" — the nick-of-time rescue captured in one verb.

Иван дал себя довести до постели, Алеша кое-как раздел его и уложил.  
Ivan let himself be led to the bed, and Alyosha somehow undressed him and put him down to sleep.
> «дать себя» + infinitive — permissive passive: «дал себя довести» is the idiom "let himself be led": «дать» (to allow) + the reflexive «себя» + perfective infinitive «довести» (to lead all the way). «до постели» («до» + genitive) gives the goal — "to the bed."
> «кое-как» — somehow, anyhow: «кое-как» means "somehow, after a fashion, with difficulty" — getting a thing done clumsily or barely. It conveys Alyosha's awkward labour of undressing the half-conscious Ivan «кое-как раздел его».

Сам просидел над ним еще часа два.  
He himself sat over him for another two hours or so.
> Intensive «сам» and «часа два» of approximation: «Сам» (he himself) opens the sentence with the subject dropped — recoverable as Alyosha. «часа два» inverts numeral and noun to express approximation, "a couple of hours or so"; «два» governs the genitive singular «часа».
> Durative prefix «про-» + «над» + instrumental: «просидел» (perfective of «просидеть») uses the prefix «про-» of spent duration — "sat through [a span of time]." «над ним» («над» + instrumental) is "over him," the watcher hovering above the sleeper.

Больной спал крепко, без движения, тихо и ровно дыша.  
The sick man slept soundly, without stirring, breathing quietly and evenly.
> Present gerund «дыша» of manner: «дыша» is the imperfective present деепричастие of «дышать» (to breathe), here an adverbial of manner attending «спал» — "slept… breathing quietly and evenly." The gerund gathers the picture of calm sleep into the main clause.
> «больной» — the sick man (substantivized adjective): «Больной» ("sick, ill") is here a substantivized adjective serving as a noun, "the sick man," still declining like an adjective. Such adjective-nouns (раненый — the wounded, прохожий — a passer-by) are common; the cool clinical label distances the raving Ivan into a patient.

Алеша взял подушку и лег на диване не раздеваясь.  
Alyosha took a pillow and lay down on the sofa without undressing.
> Negated present gerund «не раздеваясь»: «не раздеваясь» is the negated present gerund of the reflexive «раздеваться» (to undress) — "without undressing," an attendant circumstance. «лег» is the perfective past of «лечь» (to lie down).

Засыпая, помолился о Мите и об Иване.  
As he fell asleep, he prayed for Mitya and for Ivan.
> Present gerund «засыпая» + perfective «помолился»: «Засыпая» is the present gerund of «засыпать» (to be falling asleep) — the ongoing frame within which the single perfective act «помолился» (prayed, reflexive «помолиться») occurs. «о Мите… об Иване» is «о/об» + prepositional, the persons prayed for.

Ему становилась понятною болезнь Ивана: «Муки гордого решения, глубокая совесть!»  
Ivan's illness was becoming comprehensible to him: "The torments of a proud resolve, a profound conscience!"
> Imperfective «становилась» — a state coming on: The imperfective past «становилась» (was becoming) frames Ivan's illness as gradually dawning on Alyosha, a process rather than a finished realization. Paired with its perfective «стать», the imperfective is exactly what narration reaches for to hold an unfolding inner change in view.
> Instrumental predicate «понятною»: After «становиться» (to become) the predicate adjective stands in the instrumental, «понятною» rather than nominative «понятная» — the case that frames a role or state as assumed or coming-into-being. The long ending «-ою» (for «-ой») is a bookish 19th-century variant.
> Dative experiencer «Ему»: There is no nominative subject feeling the change; the person to whom the illness becomes clear stands in the dative «ему» (to him). This experiencer-first framing — the world acting upon a passive inner self — pervades Dostoevsky's rendering of consciousness.
> «муки» — torments, throes: «муки» (singular «мука») are agonies or torments, a heavy, often spiritual word — the same root gives «мученик», a martyr. Here «муки гордого решения», the torments of a proud resolve, names the cost of Ivan's prideful decision to confess.

Бог, которому он не верил, и правда его одолевали сердце, всё еще не хотевшее подчиниться.  
God, in whom he did not believe, and His truth were overmastering the heart that still would not submit.
> Relative «которому» in the dative: The relative pronoun «который» agrees with its antecedent «Бог» in gender and number (masculine singular) but takes the case its own clause demands: «верить» governs the dative, so «которому» (in whom he believed). A clean illustration of how «который» borrows its case from inside the relative clause.
> Past active participle «не хотевшее»: «хотевшее» is a past active participle in «-вш-» from «хотеть», agreeing with neuter «сердце» — literally 'the heart that still did not want'. It condenses a «которое не хотело»-clause into a single trailing modifier, the bookish participial weight Dostoevsky favours for a charged final image.
> Reflexive «подчиниться» — to submit: The «-ся» here gives a middle, change-of-state sense: «подчиниться» means to submit oneself, to yield, intransitively. The heart 'would not submit' — the verb's reflexivity makes the surrender something the heart does to itself.
> Word order: «сердце» as the stressed comment: The compound subject «Бог… и правда его» leads, the verb «одолевали» (plural, agreeing with both) sits mid-clause, and the object «сердце» with its long participial tail is held to the end — the topic-comment flow that lets Russian land its weight on the unyielding heart.
> «одолевать» — to overpower, get the better of: «одолевать/одолеть» means to overcome, vanquish, or get the upper hand over — God and His truth «одолевали сердце», were overmastering the heart. A vigorous, almost martial verb for an inward conquest.

«Да, неслось в голове Алеши, уже лежавшей на подушке, — да, коль Смердяков умер, то показанию Ивана никто уже не поверит; но он пойдет и покажет! — Алеша тихо улыбнулся: — Бог победит! — подумал он. — Или восстанет в свете правды, или… погибнет в ненависти, мстя себе и всем за то, что послужил тому, во что не верит», — горько прибавил Алеша и опять помолился за Ивана.  
"Yes," it rushed through Alyosha's head as it lay already on the pillow, "yes, if Smerdyakov is dead, then no one will believe Ivan's testimony now; but he will go and give it!" Alyosha smiled quietly: "God will conquer!" he thought. "Either he will rise up in the light of truth, or… he will perish in hatred, avenging upon himself and upon everyone the fact that he served what he does not believe in," Alyosha added bitterly, and he prayed once more for Ivan.
> Past active participle agreeing with «голове»: «лежавшей» is a past active participle of «лежать», in the feminine prepositional to agree with «в голове Алеши» — 'the head, already lying on the pillow'. Russian quietly attaches the resting posture to the very head that the thought rushes through.
> Conditional «коль… то» and perfective future: «коль» is an archaic, folksy 'if' (for «если»), answered by correlative «то» (then). The consequence runs in the perfective simple future «не поверит» — a perfective verb conjugated like a present yields completed future meaning: 'no one will [come to] believe'.
> «верить» + dative, with negative concord: «поверить» governs the dative, so its object is «показанию» (Ivan's testimony), not an accusative. Note the double negation «никто… не поверит» — Russian negative concord keeps «не» on the verb even with the negative pronoun «никто».
> «показание» / «показать» — legal testimony: Here «показание» is courtroom testimony, evidence given, and «покажет» means he will testify, give evidence — not the everyday 'show'. The same root «каз-» runs through both; the legal sense dominates this whole strand of the novel as Ivan resolves to confess at the trial.
> Perfective future «победит» — God will conquer: «победит» is the perfective simple future of «победить» (to conquer, win): a single, decisive completed outcome, not a process. The bare, ending-borne future gives Alyosha's hope its ringing finality — 'God will conquer'.
> Correlative «или… или» with perfective futures: The paired «или… или» (either… or) frames Ivan's two fates, both in the perfective future: «восстанет» (will rise up) and «погибнет» (will perish) — each a single, sealed event. The aspect makes the alternatives absolute, with no middle ground.
> Gerund «мстя» — avenging as he perishes: «мстя» is the imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») of «мстить», an indeclinable verb-adverb sharing the subject of «погибнет»: he will perish 'avenging upon himself and everyone'. The reflexive «себе» (dative of «себя») points the vengeance back at the very subject who acts.
> Correlative «то, что» / «тому, во что»: Bookish correlatives carry the syntax: «за то, что» (for the fact that) and «тому, во что не верит» (that which he does not believe in), where «послужить» takes the dative «тому» and the relative «во что» takes accusative after «в». Pronoun cases here track each verb's government precisely.
---

Source text: public domain (Fyodor Dostoevsky, d. 1881; Russian from the Nauka academic edition via ru.wikisource). English translation: original, © 1732 Studios (2026); rendered freshly from the public-domain Russian, not derived from any prior English translation. Sentence-aligned by 1732 Studios.