# The Brothers Karamazov, The Injured Foot

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book XI — Ivan

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b11-c2. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b11-c2.json.


Первое из этих дел было в доме госпожи Хохлаковой, и он поспешил туда, чтобы покончить там поскорее и не опоздать к Мите.  
The first of these errands was at Madame Hohlakov's house, and he hurried there to finish quickly and not be late to Mitya.
> «чтобы» + infinitive of purpose: «чтобы» introduces a purpose clause; because the subject is the same as the main clause, it governs the bare infinitives «покончить… и не опоздать» rather than a past-form verb. This is the willed-outcome conjunction, distinct from plain reported «что».
> Perfective «поспешил» moving the narrative: The perfective past «поспешил» (from «поспешить») reports a single completed event that advances the action — he hurried off — against the imperfective background of the surrounding description.
> «поскорее» — get it done sooner: A comparative «скорее» (sooner/faster) softened by the prefix «по-», meaning 'as quickly as possible, the sooner the better'. The «по-» lends a colloquial, urging tone common in spoken Russian.

Госпожа Хохлакова уже три недели как прихварывала: у ней отчего-то вспухла нога, и она хоть не лежала в постели, но всё равно, днем, в привлекательном, по пристойном дезабилье полулежала у себя в будуаре на кушетке.  
For three weeks now Madame Hohlakov had been ailing: her foot had swollen for some reason, and though she did not keep to her bed, she nonetheless spent her days reclining in her boudoir on a couch, in a fetching but decorous dishabille.
> Imperfective for an ongoing state: The imperfective past «прихварывала» frames an illness still in progress («уже три недели» — for three weeks now), a duration up to the present moment. The «как» here is the colloquial 'it's been three weeks that…' construction.
> «прихварывать» — to be poorly: An imperfective of «хворать» (to be ill) with the attenuating prefix «при-»: not gravely sick but ailing, a bit under the weather. The word is homely and slightly old-fashioned.
> «у ней» — older form of «у неё»: «ней» as a genitive of «она» (for modern «неё») is a 19th-century and dialectal variant. After the preposition «у» it gives the standard 'have' construction — literally 'by her [there] swelled a foot'.
> «дезабилье» — dishabille: A French loan (déshabillé) for elegant undress, a loose at-home wrap. The borrowed word itself signals the boudoir-novel register Dostoevsky gently mocks in Madame Hohlakov.

Алеша как-то раз заметил про себя с невинною усмешкой, что госпожа Хохлакова, несмотря на болезнь свою, стала почти щеголять: явились какие-то наколочки, бантики, распашоночки, и он смекал, почему это так, хотя и гнал эти мысли как праздные.  
Alyosha had once remarked to himself, with an innocent smile, that Madame Hohlakov, despite her illness, had taken to dressing almost coquettishly: little caps and bows and frilled wrappers had appeared, and he had a notion why this was so, though he drove such thoughts off as idle.
> «про себя» with the reflexive pronoun: The reflexive pronoun «себя» (no nominative) after «про» means 'to himself, inwardly'. It points back to the clause subject Alyosha, marking the thought as private and unspoken.
> A cascade of diminutives: Three diminutives in a row — little caps, little bows, little frilled wrappers — heap up affectionate-belittling -очк-/-ик suffixes. The pile-up itself mocks the frilly excess of Hohlakov's new finery.
> «щеголять» — to show off one's dress: To dress dashingly and parade one's finery, to be a dandy («щёголь»). 'Began almost to show off' captures the new coquettishness Alyosha notices in his ailing hostess.
> «смекать» — to have an inkling: A colloquial verb for shrewdly guessing or figuring out. Imperfective «смекал» suggests Alyosha was half-sensing the reason (Perhotin's courtship) rather than reaching a firm conclusion.
> Reflexive possessive «свою»: «свой» means 'one's own', referring back to the clause's subject Hohlakov — her own illness. Using «её» instead would have pointed to some other woman's illness; «свой» keeps the possession self-referential.

В последние два месяца госпожу Хохлакову стал посещать, между прочими ее гостями, молодой человек Перхотин.  
In the last two months a young man named Perhotin had begun to call on Madame Hohlakov, among her other guests.
> Object-first word order: The accusative object «госпожу Хохлакову» is fronted while the nominative subject «молодой человек Перхотин» lands at the end. Cases keep the roles clear, so the new information — the young man — gets the stressed final position.
> «стать» + imperfective infinitive (began to): «стал» (perfective of «стать») plus the imperfective infinitive «посещать» is the standard phrasal inceptive: 'began to call on'. The perfective marks the onset, the imperfective the ongoing, repeated visiting.
> «между прочими» — among the others: Here literally 'among her other [guests]', with «прочими» (instrumental plural of «прочий», 'other, the rest') governed by «между». Not to be confused with the fixed adverb «между прочим», 'by the way'.

Алеша не заходил уже дня четыре и, войдя в дом, поспешил было прямо пройти к Лизе, ибо у ней и было его дело, так как Лиза еще вчера прислала к нему девушку с настоятельною просьбой немедленно к ней прийти «по очень важному обстоятельству», что, по некоторым причинам, заинтересовало Алешу.  
Alyosha had not been by for some four days, and on entering the house he meant to go straight to Lise, for his business was with her, since only yesterday Lise had sent a maid to him with an urgent plea that he come to her at once "on a very important matter" — which, for certain reasons, had caught Alyosha's interest.
> Perfective gerund «войдя»: «войдя» is the perfective adverbial participle («деепричастие») of «войти»: 'having entered'. It packs a prior, completed action sharing Alyosha's subject into a single word before the main clause — a hallmark of literary narration.
> The particle «было» of the cancelled action: «было» after a perfective verb marks an action begun or intended but then thwarted: he made to go straight in — but didn't. It signals to the reader that the move was interrupted, here by Hohlakov's summons.
> «ибо» — for, because (bookish): An archaic-elevated causal conjunction, 'for', stiffer and more literary than «потому что». Its repeated use here gives the narration a deliberately bookish, almost scriptural texture.
> Instrumental of accompaniment with «с»: «с настоятельною просьбой» — 'with an urgent plea' — uses the instrumental after «с» to show what the maid was sent with. Note the older long ending «-ою» (for modern «-ой»), frequent in 19th-c. prose.
> «обстоятельство» — circumstance, matter: A bookish noun in -ство, 'circumstance, matter'. Lise's formal phrasing 'on a very important matter' (the quotation marks mark her own words) is comically grave for a young girl, which is why it intrigues Alyosha.

Но пока девушка ходила к Лизе докладывать, госпожа Хохлакова уже узнала от кого-то о его прибытии и немедленно прислала попросить его к себе «на одну только минутку».  
But while the maid had gone to announce him to Lise, Madame Hohlakov had already learned somehow of his arrival and at once sent word begging him to come to her "for just one little minute."
> Multidirectional «ходила» for a round trip: «ходила» (multidirectional «ходить») fits the there-and-back errand: the maid went off to announce him and would return. With «пока» it sets the imperfective background against which Hohlakov's perfective intervention happens.
> Indefinite «кто-то» — someone in particular: «-то» on «кто» marks a specific but unidentified person: she heard from somebody (definite to the world, unknown to us). Contrast «кто-нибудь», which would mean 'anyone at all'.
> «минутку» — just one little minute: The diminutive «минутка» softens and wheedles — 'just one teeny minute' — the polite fiction of a brief intrusion. Hohlakov's own coaxing words are flagged by the quotation marks.

Алеша рассудил, что лучше уж удовлетворить сперва просьбу мамаши, ибо та будет поминутно посылать к Лизе, пока он будет у той сидеть.  
Alyosha reasoned that it would be better to satisfy the mother's request first, for otherwise she would keep sending to Lise every minute while he sat there.
> Impersonal evaluative «лучше» + infinitive: A subjectless construction: the comparative adverb «лучше» ('better') governs the infinitive «удовлетворить» with no nominative subject — 'it would be better to satisfy first'. Such impersonal weighings are typical of inner reasoning.
> Compound imperfective future: «будет посылать» is the analytic imperfective future (быть + imperfective infinitive), naming a repeated future action — she'll keep sending, again and again — which the adverb «поминутно» ('every minute') reinforces.
> «мамаша» — mamma: A familiar, slightly homely word for mother; in the third person it can also be a faintly ironic way of referring to 'the mamma'. Here it names Hohlakov as Lise's mother with a touch of warm comedy.

Госпожа Хохлакова лежала на кушетке, как-то особенно празднично одетая и видимо в чрезвычайном нервическом возбуждении.  
Madame Hohlakov lay on her couch, dressed up somehow with a peculiar festivity and plainly in a state of extraordinary nervous excitement.
> Past passive participle «одетая»: «одетая» is the past passive participle of «одеть» ('dressed'), agreeing feminine with Hohlakov and serving as a predicative adjective: 'dressed up'. The adverb «празднично» ('festively') modifies it.
> Prepositional of state after «в»: «в… возбуждении» uses the prepositional after «в» to describe a state one is 'in' — extreme nervous excitement. The agreeing adjectives «чрезвычайном нервическом» make the case visible on every word.
> «нервический» — nervous (period form): A 19th-century adjective for 'nervous, of the nerves', where modern Russian would say «нервном». The dated suffix -ическ- gives a clinical, fashionable-malady flavour fitting Hohlakov's self-dramatising.

Алешу встретила криками восторга.  
She met Alyosha with cries of delight.
> Object-first, dropped subject, instrumental of manner: The accusative «Алешу» opens the clause, the subject 'she' is dropped (clear from «встретила»), and «криками восторга» is the instrumental of means — she met him 'with cries of delight'. A compact, vivid Russian word order.

— Века, века, целые века не видала вас!  
"Ages, ages, whole ages it has been since I saw you!
> Genitive vs accusative under negation: With the negated «не видала», the object «вас» stays accusative, but the construction is the genitive-of-negation type. Note also «века» — accusative plural of duration ('for whole ages'), Hohlakov's hyperbole.
> «век» — an age, an eternity: «век» means a century or age; the tripled, escalating repetition ('ages, ages, whole ages') is pure Hohlakov rhetoric, inflating four days into eternities. The plural «века» heightens the hyperbole.

Целую неделю, помилуйте, ах, впрочем вы были всего четыре дня назад, в среду.  
A whole week, mercy on me — ah, though in fact you were here only four days ago, on Wednesday.
> «помилуйте» — 'mercy on me!', 'come now!': Literally an imperative 'have mercy', but used as an exclamation of protest or remonstrance — 'good gracious!', 'come now!'. It is a stock interjection of flustered, genteel speech, exactly Hohlakov's idiom.
> «впрочем» — 'though, on second thought': A discourse word marking a self-correction or qualification, 'however, then again'. It punctuates Hohlakov's scatter-brained back-and-forth as she contradicts her own 'whole week' with 'only four days ago'.

Вы к Lise, я уверена, что вы хотели пройти к ней прямо на цыпочках, чтоб я не слыхала.  
You have come to Lise, I am certain you meant to slip straight to her on tiptoe so that I should not hear.
> «чтоб» + past form for purpose: Negative purpose 'so that I should not hear' uses «чтоб» (a clipped «чтобы») with the past-form verb «слыхала», the irrealis required after «чтобы» when the subject differs from the main clause.
> «на цыпочках» — on tiptoe: A fixed phrase 'on tiptoe', from «цыпочки». The image of Alyosha sneaking past her on tiptoe feeds Hohlakov's playful mock-accusation.

Милый, милый Алексей Федорович, если б вы знали, как она меня беспокоит!  
Dear, dear Alexei Fyodorovich, if you only knew how she worries me!
> Unreal wish with «если б»: «если б» (clipped «если бы») plus the past form «знали» builds an unreal/wished-for conditional — 'if only you knew'. The particle «бы/б» is the engine of Russia's single irrealis mood.

Но это потом.  
But that comes later.
> Zero-copula nominal sentence: A verbless sentence — 'but this [is] for later'. Russian uses no present-tense copula, so «это» plus the adverb «потом» stands as a complete utterance, clipped and breathless in Hohlakov's mouth.

Это хоть и самое главное, но это потом.  
Even though it is the most important thing, it comes later.
> Concessive «хоть… но»: «хоть (и)… но» pairs a concession with its rebuttal: 'even though [it's] the most important thing, still [it's] for later'. «хоть» here is the concessive 'although', not the indefinite 'at least'.
> Superlative with «самый»: «самое главное» is the periphrastic superlative — «самый» ('most') agreeing with the neuter adjective «главное» ('the chief, the most important thing'). «главное» substantivised becomes Hohlakov's running refrain.

Милый Алексей Федорович, я вам доверяю мою Лизу вполне.  
Dear Alexei Fyodorovich, I entrust my Lise to you entirely.
> Dative recipient with «доверять»: «доверять» governs the dative of the person trusted — «вам» ('to you') — and the accusative of the thing entrusted — «мою Лизу». A clean ditransitive: I entrust Lise (acc.) to you (dat.).
> «вполне» — entirely, fully: An adverb meaning 'completely, wholly'. Placed at the very end for weight, it makes the entrusting absolute — she gives Lise over to Alyosha utterly.

После смерти старца Зосимы — упокой господи его душу!  
Since the death of the elder Zosima — God rest his soul!
> «упокой, Господи, его душу» — God rest his soul: A fixed Orthodox prayer-formula spoken at the mention of the dead: «упокой» is the imperative of «упокоить» ('give rest'), addressed to the Lord. The bare imperative + «Господи» is liturgical idiom.

(Она перекрестилась), — после него я смотрю на вас как на схимника, хотя вы и премило носите ваш новый костюм.  
(She crossed herself.) — since his death I look upon you as a monk under vows, though you do wear your new suit so very charmingly.
> «премило» — ever so charmingly: The intensifying prefix «пре-» ('very, most') on «мило' ('nicely, charmingly') yields 'ever so charmingly'. The gushing intensifier is pure Hohlakov, undercutting the monk-talk with a compliment on his tailoring.

Где это вы достали здесь такого портного?  
Wherever did you find such a tailor here?
> Animate accusative = genitive: «портного» is accusative of the animate masculine «портной» ('tailor'), which borrows the genitive ending — as does the agreeing «такого». Animacy is why 'such a tailor' as object looks genitive.
> Emphatic «это» in a question: «это» wedged into the question ('wherever did you…') is not the pronoun but an emphatic particle adding wondering surprise. Russian sprinkles such little focus-words to colour the speaker's astonishment.

Но нет, нет, это не главное, это потом.  
But no, no, that is not the important thing, that comes later.
> Negating the predicate with «не»: «не» before «главное» negates the nominal predicate: 'this [is] not the important thing'. With the zero present-tense copula, «не» simply stands before the word it denies.

Простите, что я вас называю иногда Алешей, я старуха, мне всё позволено, — кокетливо улыбнулась она, — но это тоже потом.  
Forgive me for calling you Alyosha sometimes — I am an old woman, everything is permitted me," she smiled coquettishly, "but that too comes later.
> Dative subject + short passive participle: An impersonal construction: the experiencer «мне» stands in the dative, and «позволено» is the neuter short passive participle ('is permitted'). 'To me everything is permitted' — no nominative subject at all.
> Reflexive «-ся» and verb-first inversion: «улыбнулась» carries the reflexive «-ся» (here a verb that simply exists in the -ся form, 'to smile'), and the subject «она» follows the verb in narrator's inversion — the standard pattern for inserted speech tags.
> «старуха» — old woman: A plain, slightly self-deprecating word for an old woman. Hohlakov plays the 'I'm just an old woman' card to license calling Alyosha by the intimate «Алёша» — coquettish self-aging.

Главное, мне бы не забыть про главное.  
The important thing — I must not forget the important thing.
> Dative + «бы» + infinitive: anxious wish: A dative experiencer «мне» with the particle «бы» and an infinitive «не забыть» expresses an anxious self-directed wish — 'I really mustn't forget'. The irrealis «бы» softens it into a fretful hope.

Пожалуйста, напомните мне сами, чуть я заговорюсь, а вы скажите: «А главное?»  
Please, remind me yourself the moment I ramble off, just say to me: 'And the important thing?'
> Polite imperative + intensifier «сами»: «напомните» is the plural/polite imperative ('remind'), and «сами» ('yourself, of your own accord') intensifies the addressee. She begs Alyosha himself to do the reminding.
> «заговориться» — to rattle on, lose the thread: The prefix «за-» plus «-ся» gives 'to get carried away talking, to ramble off the point'. The perfective future «заговорюсь» here means 'the moment I ramble on'. Aptly self-aware of Hohlakov.

Ах, почему я знаю, что теперь главное!  
Ah, how am I to know what the important thing is now!
> Rhetorical «почему я знаю» — how should I know?: Here a rhetorical exclamation, 'how am I to know!', expressing helpless bewilderment rather than a real question. «почему» ('why/how') with the present «знаю» frames it as an outburst, not an inquiry.

С тех пор как Lise взяла у вас назад свое обещание, — свое детское обещание, Алексей Федорович, — выйти за вас замуж, то вы, конечно, поняли, что всё это была лишь детская игривая фантазия больной девочки, долго просидевшей в креслах, — слава богу, она теперь уже ходит.  
Ever since Lise took back the promise she gave you — her childish promise, Alexei Fyodorovich — to marry you, you of course understood that all of it was merely the playful childish fancy of a sick little girl who had sat so long in her wheeled chair — thank God, she now walks already.
> «с тех пор как» — ever since: A temporal subordinator 'ever since', launching a long since-clause. «взяла… назад… своё обещание» — 'took back her own promise' — uses reflexive «своё», keeping the promise Lise's own.
> Past active participle «просидевшей»: «просидевшей» is the past active participle of «просидеть» ('to sit through'), declined to agree with «девочки» in the genitive — 'of a little girl who had sat so long'. A whole который-clause compressed into one bookish modifier.
> «девочка» — diminutive of «дева/девушка»: A diminutive for a little girl, here tinged with the pity of a 'sick little girl'. The suffix carries tenderness, framing Lise's marriage-promise as the harmless fancy of a child.

Этот новый доктор, которого Катя выписала из Москвы для этого несчастного вашего брата, которого завтра…  
That new doctor whom Katya sent for from Moscow for that unhappy brother of yours, the one who tomorrow…
> Relative «который» in the accusative: «которого» agrees with its antecedent «доктор» in gender/number but takes the accusative its own clause demands (object of «выписала») — and being animate, looks genitive. 'whom Katya sent for'.
> «выписать» — to send for, summon from afar: Beyond 'to write out', «выписать» means to order or summon someone/something from elsewhere — here a doctor 'fetched' from Moscow. A society lady's word for importing a metropolitan specialist.

Ну что об завтрашнем!  
Well, what of tomorrow!
> Substantivised «завтрашнем» after «об»: «завтрашнем» (from «завтрашний», 'tomorrow's') is used as a noun in the prepositional after «об» — 'about the tomorrow [thing]'. The rhetorical «ну что…!» dismisses it: 'well, what of tomorrow!'.

Я умираю от одной мысли об завтрашнем!  
I am dying at the mere thought of tomorrow!
> Causal «от» + genitive: «от» governs the genitive «мысли» to give cause — 'dying from the mere thought'. «одной» here means 'the mere, the very' rather than 'one'. The «от»-of-cause is the idiom for swooning from an emotion.

Главное же, от любопытства…  
Chiefly out of curiosity…
> Particle «же» of insistence: «же» here adds emphatic insistence to «главное» — 'but the chief thing [is]…'. This tiny modal particle, untranslatable directly, presses the point and re-launches her scattered train of thought.

Одним словом, этот доктор вчера был у нас и видел Lise…  
In a word, that doctor was here with us yesterday and saw Lise…
> «одним словом» — in a word, in short: A fixed instrumental phrase, 'in a word, to sum up'. Hohlakov uses it to pretend she is coming to the point — just before wandering off again.
> Imperfective «видел» for the simple fact: «видел» (imperfective «видеть») states a plain past fact — 'saw Lise' — rather than a pointed result. Paired with «был у нас» ('was at our place'), it just records that the visit happened.

Я ему пятьдесят рублей за визит заплатила.  
I paid him fifty roubles for the visit.
> Genitive plural after a numeral ≥ 5: After «пятьдесят» (fifty) the counted noun takes the genitive plural: «рублей». Numbers five and above (and compounds ending in them) govern the genitive plural — hence «рублей», not «рубли».

Но это всё не то, опять не то…  
But that is all beside the point, beside the point again…
> «не то» — not the thing, beside the point: «то» (neuter of «тот») as 'the [right] thing'; negated «не то» means 'not it, beside the point'. The repeated «не то… опять не то» enacts her flailing inability to reach what she means.

Видите, я уж совсем теперь сбилась.  
You see, I have lost the thread entirely now.
> «сбиться» — to lose the thread, get muddled: «сбиться» (with «-ся») means to go astray, get confused, lose one's place. Perfective «сбилась» — 'I've gotten completely muddled now'. The perfective marks the confusion as an accomplished fact.

Я тороплюсь.  
I am in a hurry.
> Reflexive «торопиться» — to hurry: «торопиться» exists only in the «-ся» form: an intransitive middle verb, 'to be in a hurry'. «тороплюсь» is first-person present — 'I'm hurrying'.

Почему я тороплюсь?  
Why am I in a hurry?

Я не знаю.  
I do not know.

Я ужасно перестаю теперь знать.  
I am ceasing dreadfully now to know anything.
> «переставать» + imperfective infinitive: «перестаю» (imperfective «переставать», 'to cease') takes an imperfective infinitive «знать» — 'I'm ceasing to know'. The ongoing present and the imperfective complement together render a process of unravelling.

Для меня всё смешалось в какой-то комок.  
Everything has muddled itself for me into a kind of lump.
> Middle «-ся»: «смешаться» — to get mixed up: «смешалось» with «-ся» is the intransitive/middle 'got muddled, ran together' (vs transitive «смешать», 'to mix'). The «-ся» turns the action inward: everything has blurred of itself into a lump.
> Indefinite «какой-то» — some kind of: «какой-то» ('some sort of, a kind of') is the adjectival indefinite from «какой» + «-то», marking the lump as real but vague. It mirrors Hohlakov's groping, unfocused state of mind.

Я боюсь, что вы возьмете и выпрыгнете от меня от скуки, и я вас только и видела.  
I am afraid you will up and bolt away from me out of boredom, and that will be the last I see of you.
> «взять и» + verb — to up and do something: The idiom «взять и» + a second verb expresses a sudden, willful act — 'you'll up and bolt'. Both verbs are perfective futures («возьмёте», «выпрыгнете»), naming the abrupt single action she dreads.
> Doubled «от» — away from me, out of boredom: Two «от»-phrases, each genitive: «от меня» (away from me, source of motion) and «от скуки» (out of boredom, cause). The same preposition does two jobs in one breathless clause.
> «только и видела» — that's the last I'll see of you: A set colloquial turn, 'and that will be the last I see of you / you'll be gone in a flash'. The «только и» frames the seeing as fleeting — gone before grasped.

Ах, боже мой!  
Ah, good heavens!
> «Боже мой!» — vocative «Боже»: «Боже» is the surviving Church-Slavonic vocative of «Бог» ('O God'); «Боже мой!» is the everyday exclamation 'my God! good heavens!'. The old vocative lives on chiefly in such fixed pious cries.

Что же мы сидим, и во-первых — кофе, Юлия, Глафира, кофе!  
Why are we just sitting here — first of all, coffee! Yulia, Glafira, coffee!"
> Particle «же» in a self-rebuke: «же» here pushes the question into mild self-reproach — 'why on earth are we just sitting?'. The particle gives the rhetorical exasperation that English carries only by stress.

Алеша поспешно поблагодарил и объявил, что он сейчас только пил кофе.  
Alyosha hastily thanked her and declared that he had only just had coffee.
> Imperfective «пил» for the recent fact: «пил» (imperfective «пить») here states the recent fact 'had just had coffee' — Russian often uses the imperfective past for an action whose mere occurrence is at issue, not its completion. «сейчас только» = 'just now'.

— У кого?  
"With whom?"
> «у» + genitive interrogative: «кого» is the genitive of «кто», governed by «у» — 'at whose [place]?'. The «у» + genitive construction here asks where (at whose home) Alyosha had his coffee.

— У Аграфены Александровны.  
"With Agrafena Alexandrovna."

— Это… это у этой женщины!  
"It… it is with that woman!
> Demonstrative «этой» dripping with scorn: «у этой женщины» — 'with THAT woman' — uses the near demonstrative «эта» (genitive «этой») not to point but to disdain. Russian, like English, can load a plain 'this/that' with contempt.

Ах, это она всех погубила, а впрочем, я не знаю, говорят, она стала святая, хотя и поздно.  
Ah, she has ruined everyone — though, for that matter, I do not know, they say she has become a saint, even if it is late.
> Cleft emphasis with «это… она»: «это она» fronts and highlights the culprit — 'it is she who ruined everyone'. «всех» is the genitive/accusative of «все» ('everyone'), animate object of perfective «погубила'.
> Predicate after «стать»: nominative «святая»: Predicate nouns/adjectives after «стать» usually take the instrumental, yet here colloquial speech keeps the nominative «святая» ('a saint') — a common spoken-Russian relaxing of the predicate-instrumental rule.

Лучше бы прежде, когда надо было, а теперь что ж, какая же польза?  
Better before, when it was needed, but now, what of it, what use is it?
> «лучше бы» — would have been better: «лучше бы» with the irrealis «бы» voices a regret about the unreal past — 'it would have been better earlier'. The verb is gapped, leaving the bare comparative + «бы» to carry the counterfactual wish.
> Particle «же/ж» of rhetorical resignation: Both «что ж» (clipped «же») and «какая же польза» carry the resigned-rhetorical «же»: 'well, what of it… what use is it, then?'. The particle gives the shrug English supplies with 'then/after all'.

Молчите, молчите, Алексей Федорович, потому что я столько хочу сказать, что, кажется, так ничего и не скажу.  
Hush, hush, Alexei Fyodorovich, because I have so much to say that I shall, it seems, end up saying nothing at all.
> Imperative «молчите» (be quiet): «молчите» is the polite/plural imperative of «молчать» ('to be silent') — 'hush!'. The doubling intensifies the command, comic since it is she, not Alyosha, who will not stop talking.
> Negative concord: «ничего… не»: «ничего… не скажу» pairs the negative pronoun «ничего» (genitive of «ничто») with the negated verb — Russian's obligatory double negation: literally 'I'll say nothing not'. The «так… и» adds 'end up [saying] nothing at all'.

Этот ужасный процесс… я непременно поеду, я готовлюсь, меня внесут в креслах, и притом я могу сидеть, со мной будут люди, и вы знаете ведь, я в свидетелях.  
This dreadful trial… I shall certainly go, I am preparing for it, they will carry me in in my chair, and besides I am able to sit, people will be with me, and you do know, after all, that I am among the witnesses.
> Indefinite-personal 3rd-plural «внесут»: «внесут» (they will carry in) is a subjectless 3rd-person-plural — 'they'll carry me in', i.e. one will be carried in. Russian uses this agentless plural where English reaches for a passive.
> Particle «ведь» appealing to shared knowledge: «ведь» invokes what the hearer already knows — 'you do know, after all'. It is the quintessential appeal-particle, pulling Alyosha into complicity with her self-importance.

Как я буду говорить, как я буду говорить!  
How shall I speak, how shall I speak!
> Compound future + exclamatory «как»: «буду говорить» is the imperfective compound future (быть + infinitive), 'I shall be speaking'; the exclamatory «как» turns it into anxious wonder — 'how I shall speak!'. The repetition heightens her stage-fright.

Я не знаю, что я буду говорить.  
I do not know what I shall say.
> «что» as indirect-question object: Here «что» ('what') is the interrogative pronoun heading an embedded question — 'I don't know what I shall say' — object of «знаю». Distinguish it from the conjunction «что» ('that').

Надо ведь присягу принять, ведь так, так?  
One has to take an oath, you know, is that not so, is it not?"
> Impersonal «надо» + infinitive: «надо» ('one must') is an impersonal predicative governing the infinitive «принять» with no nominative subject — 'one has to take [an oath]'. «ведь» again appeals for agreement: 'you have to, you know'.

— Так, но не думаю, чтобы вам можно было явиться.  
"Yes, but I do not think you will be allowed to appear."
> «чтобы» after a negated «думать»: A doubting main clause «не думаю» triggers «чтобы» + past-form in the complement — the irrealis of doubt, 'I don't think that you would be allowed'. Inside, «вам можно было» is a dative-subject impersonal ('it would be possible for you').

— Я могу сидеть; ах, вы меня сбиваете!  
"I am able to sit; ah, you are throwing me off!
> «сбивать» — to throw off, confuse: Imperfective «сбивать» ('to knock down; to throw off the track') — 'you're throwing me off!'. It pairs with the earlier perfective «сбилась» (s33): he keeps confusing her, and she keeps losing the thread.

Этот процесс, этот дикий поступок, и потом все идут в Сибирь, другие женятся, и всё это быстро, быстро, и всё меняется, и, наконец, ничего, все старики и в гроб смотрят.  
This trial, this savage deed, and then everyone goes off to Siberia, others marry, and all of it so fast, so fast, and everything changes, and at last there is nothing, everyone grows old and stares into the grave.
> Generalising imperfective present: A string of imperfective presents — «идут», «женятся», «меняется» — paints a sweeping, habitual picture: everyone goes off, others marry, all changes. «-ся» on «женятся/меняется» marks the reciprocal/middle voice.
> «в гроб смотрят» — staring into the grave: A vivid idiom: «смотреть в гроб» / 'to have one foot in the grave', be near death. The «в гроб» (accusative of direction, 'into the coffin') gives the bleak image closing her tumble of thoughts.

Ну и пусть, я устала.  
Well, so be it, I am tired.
> «пусть» — let it be, so be it: «пусть» is the third-person imperative/concessive particle, here a resigned 'let it be, so be it'. With «ну и» it forms a weary shrug — she gives up the struggle for the moment.

Эта Катя — cette charmante personne, она разбила все мои надежды, теперь она пойдет за одним вашим братом в Сибирь, а другой ваш брат поедет за ней и будет жить в соседнем городе, и все будут мучить друг друга.  
That Katya — cette charmante personne — she has shattered all my hopes; now she will follow one of your brothers to Siberia, while your other brother will go after her and live in the neighboring town, and they will all torment one another.
> Contrastive «а» pivoting two brothers: «а» hinges the two clauses in gentle contrast — one brother this way, the other brother that — without true opposition. Note the perfective unidirectional motion verbs «пойдёт»/«поедет», each a single future trajectory.
> «за» + instrumental: 'after, following': «за» with the instrumental («за братом», «за ней») means 'after, in pursuit of' — to follow someone. Hence Katya 'will follow' one brother and the other 'will go after her'.

Меня это с ума сводит, а главное, эта огласка: во всех газетах в Петербурге и в Москве миллион раз писали.  
It drives me out of my mind, and above all this notoriety: in every newspaper in Petersburg and Moscow they have written of it a million times.
> «сводить с ума» — to drive mad: An idiom 'to drive [someone] out of [their] mind': accusative «меня» as object, «с ума» ('off one's mind', genitive after «с'). The neuter «это» is the subject — 'this drives me mad'.
> Indefinite-personal «писали»: Subjectless 3rd-plural «писали» — 'they wrote / it was written' a million times, an agentless 'people wrote'. The hyperbolic «миллион раз» is Hohlakov's measure of the scandal's reach.
> «огласка» — publicity, exposure: «огласка» is unwanted public exposure, the spreading of a private matter into the open — 'notoriety, the talk of it'. The word fixes Hohlakov's real terror: not the crime but being talked about.

Ах да, представьте себе, и про меня написали, что я была «милым другом» вашего брата, я не хочу проговорить гадкое слово, представьте себе, ну представьте себе!  
Ah yes, just imagine, they wrote about me too, that I had been your brother's "dear friend" — I will not utter the vile word — just imagine, well, just imagine it!"
> Imperative idiom «представьте себе»: «представьте себе» — literally 'imagine to yourself' — is the imperative «представьте» plus reflexive dative «себе», a fixed exclamation 'just imagine!'. Its threefold repetition conveys her breathless indignation.
> «гадкий» — vile, nasty: «гадкий» means foul, repugnant, nasty — a strong word of disgust. She coyly refuses to 'utter the vile word' (the insinuation that she was the brother's «милый друг»), while making sure Alyosha grasps it.
> Instrumental predicate after past «была»: After «была» the predicate «милым другом» stands in the instrumental — the standard rule that predicate nouns with быть in the past take the instrumental, framing the role as one she 'was [cast as]'.

— Этого быть не может!  
"That cannot be!
> Genitive subject under negated existence: «этого… не может» puts the logical subject in the genitive under negation — 'of this there cannot be', i.e. 'that cannot be!'. The genitive of negation governs even this abstract «этого».

Где же и как написали?  
Where and how was it written?"
> The particle «же» sharpening a question: «же» here adds urgency and slight impatience to the question word «Где» — 'But where on earth, and how, was it written?' It is one of Russian's small modal particles that English renders only by stress or an added phrase ('on earth', 'then'), so common in Dostoevsky's eager dialogue.
> Impersonal third-person plural, perfective: «написали» ('they wrote') is a subjectless plural — no 'they' is named — a standard Russian way of saying 'it was written / one wrote'. The perfective past views the writing as a single completed act.

— Сейчас покажу.  
"I will show you at once.
> Perfective present = simple future: «покажу» is the perfective verb «показать» conjugated with present-tense endings, which yields future meaning: 'I will show'. There is no auxiliary — the future sits in the ending, and «Сейчас» ('right now / in a moment') pins it to the immediate.

Вчера получила — вчера и прочла.  
I received it yesterday — and read it yesterday too.
> Dropped subject and the focusing «и»: Both verbs are first-person past with the subject 'I' dropped, recoverable from context; «получила»/«прочла» are feminine -л forms, marking the speaker (Madame Hohlakov) as a woman. The «и» before «прочла» is not 'and' but a focusing particle — 'yesterday too', 'that very same yesterday' — underscoring how fast it all happened.
> «прочла» — the contracted feminine past of «прочесть»: «прочла» is the feminine past of «прочесть» ('to read through', perfective), a slightly bookish synonym of «прочитать». Its consonant-stem past gives the short forms прочёл / прочла rather than a -л on the full infinitive stem.

Вот здесь в газете «Слухи», в петербургской.  
Here, in the newspaper Rumors, the Petersburg one.
> Trailing adjective in the prepositional: «в петербургской» ('in the Petersburg one') is a detached adjective agreeing with the dropped «газете», both in the prepositional after «в». Russian comfortably leaves the adjective to stand for the whole noun phrase, a colloquial afterthought tacked on for clarity.

Эти «Слухи» стали издаваться с нынешнего года, я ужасно люблю слухи, и подписалась, и вот себе на голову: вот они какие оказались слухи.  
This Rumors has begun coming out only this year; I am dreadfully fond of rumors, and I subscribed, and now here it is on my own head: here is the sort of rumors they turned out to be.
> Passive «-ся» under a phase verb: «издаваться» ('to be published / come out') is the reflexive «-ся» form giving an imperfective passive sense, governed by «стали» ('began'). Together they mean 'began to be issued', the -ся carrying the passive while «стать» marks the onset of the process.
> «с» + genitive: 'starting from': «с нынешнего года» ('since / from this year') shows the preposition «с» governing the genitive to mean a starting point in time. «нынешний» ('present, current') is a slightly old-fashioned, homely word for 'this'.
> Idiom: «(вот) себе на голову»: «себе на голову» literally 'onto one's own head' is an idiom for bringing trouble down on oneself — 'to my own cost / and look what I brought on myself'. The reflexive «себе» points the misfortune squarely back at the speaker.
> Expressive word order with «вот… какие»: The scrambled order — «вот они какие оказались слухи» — is pure spoken emphasis: 'here is what sort of rumors they turned out to be'. Fronting «вот они какие» throws all the weight onto her dismayed evaluation, with the noun «слухи» trailing as an afterthought.

Вот здесь, вот в этом месте, читайте.  
Here, right here, in this spot, read it."
> Polite/plural imperative «читайте»: «читайте» is the imperative of imperfective «читать» with the polite/plural -те. The imperfective imperative invites the action as a process — 'go ahead and read' — rather than commanding a single completed result.

И она протянула Алеше газетный листок, лежавший у ней под подушкой.  
And she held out to Alyosha a sheet of newspaper that had been lying under her pillow.
> Past active participle replacing a «который»-clause: «лежавший» ('that had been lying') is the past active participle of «лежать», agreeing with «листок» (masc. acc.) and condensing a relative clause 'which was lying' into one modifier — a hallmark of literary narration.
> «у ней» — colloquial for «у неё»: «у ней» is a colloquial / 19th-century variant of «у неё» ('at her / hers'). The narrator slips into it (and again below) to keep the texture conversational, even in third-person narration.
> Dative recipient with «протянуть»: 'Held out the sheet to Alyosha': «Алеше» is the dative of the indirect object (the recipient), «листок» the accusative direct object. The dative quietly does the work English needs 'to' for.

Она не то что была расстроена, она была как-то вся разбита, и действительно, может быть, у ней всё в голове свернулось в комок.  
It was not so much that she was upset; rather she was somehow utterly shattered, and indeed it may be that everything in her head had truly tangled itself into a lump.
> Concessive frame «не то что… »: «не то что X, …» ('it was not so much that X, rather…') is a graded-negation construction that corrects one description in favour of a stronger one. Here it builds toward «вся разбита» — not merely 'upset' but 'utterly shattered'.
> Short passive participle as predicate: «разбита» is the short (predicative) form of the past passive participle «разбитый» ('broken, smashed'), feminine to agree with the subject — 'she was [completely] shattered'. The intensifier «вся» ('all of her') heightens it. Short forms are the bookish, result-stating predicate.
> Middle «-ся»: 'tangled itself into a lump': «свернулось» (neuter, agreeing with «всё») is a middle/change-of-state «-ся» verb: everything in her head 'curled / tangled itself up' of its own accord. The -ся makes the process intransitive, with no outside agent.

Газетное известие было весьма характерное и, конечно, должно было на нее очень щекотливо подействовать, но она, к своему счастью может быть, не способна была в сию минуту сосредоточиться на одном пункте, а потому чрез минуту могла забыть даже и о газете и перескочить совсем на другое.  
The newspaper item was very characteristic and was of course bound to affect her quite painfully, but, perhaps to her good fortune, she was incapable at that moment of fixing on a single point, and so within a minute she might forget even the newspaper and skip off to something else entirely.
> «должно было» + infinitive: 'was bound to': The neuter «должно было» plus a perfective infinitive «подействовать» expresses past obligation/likelihood — 'was bound to act on her'. The whole is impersonal; the news, not a person, is the implied force.
> Short adjective «способна» as predicate: «способна» is the short feminine form of «способный» ('capable'), used predicatively with «была» and an infinitive — 'was incapable of concentrating'. Short adjectives, more bookish, naturally take a following infinitive here.
> «сию» — the archaic demonstrative «сей»: «в сию минуту» ('at that very minute') uses «сей» ('this'), an archaic, bookish demonstrative already old-fashioned in Dostoevsky's day and now wholly literary. It lends the narration a faintly elevated, period flavour against the homely «чрез» beside it.
> «чрез» — the contracted, poetic «через»: «чрез» is the non-pleophonic, Church-Slavonic-flavoured doublet of «через» ('through, after'). In 'чрез минуту' ('within a minute') it is a bookish contraction common in 19th-century prose, where modern Russian would simply write «через».

Про то же, что повсеместно по всей России уже прошла слава об ужасном процессе, Алеша знал давно, и, боже, какие дикие известия и корреспонденции успел он прочесть за эти два месяца среди других, верных, известий о своем брате, о Карамазовых вообще и даже о себе самом.  
That the fame of the dreadful trial had already spread everywhere throughout all of Russia, Alyosha had known for a long time, and — good God — what wild reports and dispatches he had managed to read over these two months, among the other, truthful, accounts of his brother, of the Karamazovs in general, and even of himself.
> Fronted «про то, что…» clause as topic: The sentence opens with its object — «Про то… что повсеместно… прошла слава» ('As for the fact that fame had spread…') — held in suspense before the main clause «Алеша знал давно». This topic-first inversion, plus the insistent «же», is classic Dostoevskian emphasis: the thing already known is set up as background.
> Vocative «боже» — 'O God': «боже» is the surviving Church-Slavonic vocative of «бог» ('God'), used as an exclamation 'good God!'. The narrator drops it into the sentence as a burst of feeling, set off from the clause's grammar.
> «успеть» + perfective infinitive: 'managed to': «успел … прочесть» means 'managed / had time to read'. «успеть» typically pairs with a perfective infinitive to stress that the action was actually completed within the available time — here, all the wild reports he 'got through' in two months.
> Reflexive «себя» intensified by «сам»: «о себе самом» ('about himself') uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» (prepositional «себе») pointing back to Alyosha, with the intensifier «сам» agreeing — 'about his very self'. «себя» has no nominative and serves any person.

В одной газете даже сказано было, что он от страху после преступления брата посхимился и затворился; в другой это опровергали и писали, напротив, что он вместе со старцем своим Зосимой взломали монастырский ящик и «утекли из монастыря».  
In one newspaper it had even been stated that, out of terror after his brother's crime, he had taken monastic vows and shut himself away; in another this was refuted, and they wrote, on the contrary, that he and his elder Zosima had broken open the monastery strongbox and "absconded from the monastery."
> Old partitive/causal genitive «от страху»: «от страху» ('out of fear') shows «от» + genitive expressing cause, and the ending «-у» is the old masculine partitive/second genitive (alongside «страха»), a flavourful 19th-century form still alive in set phrases. The case marks fear as the source of the act.
> «посхимиться» — to take the schema (strictest vows): «посхимился» means he took the «схима», the highest and most austere grade of Orthodox monastic vows. The verb is built on the same root as «схимник» ('schema-monk') below; the newspaper's lurid claim is that Alyosha became a hermit-ascetic out of horror.
> Impersonal plural 'they refuted': «опровергали … писали» are subjectless imperfective plurals — 'they refuted… and wrote' — meaning the other paper's anonymous writers. Imperfective here paints the repeated, ongoing rumor-mongering rather than a single act.

Теперешнее же известие в газете «Слухи» озаглавлено было: «Из Скотопригоньевска (увы, так называется наш городок, я долго скрывал его имя), к процессу Карамазова».  
The present item in the newspaper Rumors was headed: "From Skotoprigonyevsk (alas, that is the name of our little town, which I long concealed), concerning the Karamazov trial."
> Short passive participle: 'was headed': «озаглавлено было» is the short neuter past passive participle of «озаглавить» ('to title') plus «было» — the periphrastic passive stating a result: the item 'was headed/titled'. The agent is unstated, as fits an anonymous press piece.
> Narrator's «я» and imperfective «скрывал»: The first-person «я … скрывал» ('I long concealed') is the chronicler-narrator stepping forward inside a parenthetical. The imperfective «скрывал» paints concealment as a sustained habit over the whole telling, not a single act.

Оно было коротенькое, и о госпоже Хохлаковой прямо ничего не упоминалось, да и вообще все имена были скрыты.  
It was a short one, and Madame Hohlakov was not mentioned outright at all; indeed, all the names were concealed altogether.
> Diminutive «коротенькое» — 'nice and short': «коротенькое» is the expressive diminutive of «короткий» ('short'), with the affectionate suffix «-еньк-». It softens the adjective to 'a short little (item)', a tone Madame Hohlakov and the narrator both reach for constantly.
> Negative concord with passive «-ся»: «ничего … не упоминалось» — 'nothing was mentioned' — shows Russian's obligatory double negation: the ни-word «ничего» (genitive) and the verbal «не» both stand. «упоминалось» is the «-ся» imperfective passive, neuter to match the dropped subject.
> Short passive participle, plural: «были скрыты» is «быть» plus the short plural past passive participle of «скрыть» ('to conceal') — 'were concealed'. A clean periphrastic passive stating the result, with «все имена» as nominative subject.

Извещалось лишь, что преступник, которого с таким треском собираются теперь судить, отставной армейский капитан, нахального пошиба, лентяй и крепостник, то и дело занимался амурами и особенно влиял на некоторых «скучающих в одиночестве дам».  
It was merely reported that the criminal whom they were now preparing to try with such a clamor was a retired army captain of an insolent stamp, an idler and a serf-owner, forever occupied with love affairs and particularly influential over certain "ladies pining away in their solitude."
> Relative «которого» in the accusative: «которого» agrees with its antecedent «преступник» in gender/number but takes the accusative its own clause demands — the object of «судить» ('to try'), with animacy giving the genitive-like accusative ending. The clause is set off by commas, as Russian relatives always are.
> «с треском» — 'with a great clamour': «с треском» literally 'with a crackling / crash', here figuratively 'with much noise and fanfare' — the trial is being mounted as a public spectacle. «нахального пошиба» nearby means 'of an insolent stamp/cut', «пошиб» a slightly contemptuous word for type or manner.
> Imperfective of habit, «занимался»: «занимался амурами» ('was forever busy with love affairs'), reinforced by «то и дело» ('time and again'), is the imperfective past of habit and repetition — the durative background to his character. «амуры» (from Amour/Cupid) is a playful, slightly mocking word for amours.

Одна-де такая дама из «скучающих вдовиц», молодящаяся, хотя уже имеющая взрослую дочь, до того им прельстилась, что всего только за два часа до преступления предлагала ему три тысячи рублей с тем, чтоб он тотчас же бежал с нею на золотые прииски.  
One such lady, it was said, one of the "pining widows," affecting youth though she already had a grown daughter, was so smitten with him that a mere two hours before the crime she had offered him three thousand roubles on the condition that he flee with her at once to the goldfields.
> The reportive particle «-де»: The clitic «-де» (here on «Одна-де») marks reported speech — 'so they say / allegedly' — distancing the narrator from the claim. It is an old, colloquial equivalent of «мол» or «дескать», common in 19th-century prose when relaying a rumor; English carries it with framing like 'it was said'.
> Present active participles describing the lady: «молодящаяся» ('making herself out young', from the «-ся» verb «молодиться») and «имеющая» ('having') are present active participles in -щ-, agreeing with «дама». They pack two whole который-clauses into adjectives — bookish, condensed description.
> «до того… что» + instrumental of «-ся» verb: «до того … что» is the correlative 'to such a degree… that'. «прельстилась им» ('was captivated by him') is a reflexive «-ся» verb governing the instrumental «им» — the means/object of her enchantment. The clause it launches gives the result.
> «с тем, чтобы» + past-form purpose clause: «с тем, чтоб он … бежал» ('on the condition / so that he flee') is a purpose clause where «чтоб(ы)» requires the past-tense form «бежал» as its irrealis — a willed, not-yet-real outcome. «три тысячи рублей» shows the genitive plural «рублей» governed by a numeral of five-and-above range.

Но злодей предпочел-де лучше убить отца и ограбить его именно на три же тысячи, рассчитывая сделать это безнаказанно, чем тащиться в Сибирь с сорокалетними прелестями своей скучающей дамы.  
But the villain, it was said, preferred to murder his father and rob him of those very three thousand, reckoning to do it with impunity, rather than drag himself off to Siberia with the forty-year-old charms of his pining lady.
> «предпочесть … чем» with the reportive «-де»: «предпочел … чем тащиться» — 'preferred to murder… rather than drag himself off' — frames a choice between two perfective/imperfective infinitives. The «-де» again flags the whole as the newspaper's allegation, and «лучше» reinforces 'sooner / rather'.
> Focusing «именно» and insistent «же»: «именно … три же тысячи» piles up two emphatic devices — «именно» ('precisely, those very') and the particle «же» ('the same') — to drive home the bitter irony: he killed for exactly the three thousand she had offered him.
> «тащиться» — to drag oneself wearily: «тащиться» is the «-ся» verb 'to trudge / drag oneself along', expressively conveying reluctant, burdensome movement. Set beside «прелести» ('charms') it makes the newspaper's sneer audible: Siberia with her 'forty-year-old charms' as a wearisome haul.
> Imperfective gerund «рассчитывая»: «рассчитывая» ('reckoning, calculating') is the present (imperfective) adverbial participle / деепричастие in -я, naming a simultaneous attendant action sharing the main subject — 'preferred… reckoning to do it with impunity'.

Игривая корреспонденция эта, как и следует, заканчивалась благородным негодованием насчет безнравственности отцеубийства и бывшего крепостного права.  
This playful piece of correspondence ended, as such things must, with a noble indignation over the immorality of parricide and of the former institution of serfdom.
> Postposed demonstrative «эта»: Putting «эта» after its noun — «корреспонденция эта» rather than «эта корреспонденция» — is a literary, slightly formal word order that lends weight and a summarizing, 'this aforementioned' tone, common in Dostoevsky's narratorial sentences.
> Instrumental of means with «-ся» verb: «заканчивалась … негодованием» — 'ended with indignation' — pairs the reflexive «-ся» intransitive «заканчиваться» with an instrumental «негодованием» naming what it ended with/by. The instrumental supplies the 'with'.

Прочтя с любопытством, Алеша свернул листок и передал его обратно госпоже Хохлаковой.  
Having read it with curiosity, Alyosha folded the sheet and handed it back to Madame Hohlakov.
> Perfective gerund «прочтя» — 'having read': «Прочтя» is the perfective past adverbial participle (деепричастие) of «прочесть», expressing a completed prior action sharing the main subject: 'having read [it], Alyosha folded…'. It is the standard literary way to chain two actions in sequence.
> Dative recipient of 'handing back': «госпоже Хохлаковой» is dative — the recipient to whom Alyosha hands the sheet back — while «его» (the листок) is the accusative object. The dative is the case of the person something is given to.

— Ну как же не я? — залепетала она опять, — ведь это я, я почти за час предлагала ему золотые прииски, и вдруг «сорокалетние прелести»!  
"Well, how can it not be me?" she began babbling again. "After all it is I, I who almost an hour beforehand offered him the goldfields — and suddenly 'forty-year-old charms'!
> Indignant «же» in a negated identity question: «Ну как же не я?» — 'Well, how can it not be me?' — uses «же» to charge the question with protest. Note the predicate pronoun stays nominative «я» under negation in this 'it is I' identity sense.
> «залепетать» — to start babbling: «залепетала» combines the inceptive prefix «за-» ('begin to') with «лепетать» ('to babble, prattle, lisp'), so 'she started babbling away'. The verb perfectly catches Madame Hohlakov's breathless, scattered speech.
> Appealing particle «ведь»: «ведь» appeals to shared, obvious knowledge — 'after all / why, it is I' — and the doubled «я, я» adds emotional insistence. «ведь» recurs throughout her speech as her signature plea for the listener's agreement.

Да разве я затем?  
Was that what I meant by it?
> «разве» — incredulous rhetorical question: «разве» introduces a question expecting the answer 'no', expressing disbelief or protest — 'Was that what I meant by it?? / Surely I didn't…'. The opening «Да» is an emphatic discourse 'why', and the verb is elided, leaving «затем» ('for that purpose') to carry the sense.

Это он нарочно!  
He did it on purpose!
> «нарочно» — 'on purpose, deliberately': «нарочно» means 'deliberately, on purpose, to spite'. «Это он нарочно!» ('He did it on purpose!') with the verb dropped is vividly spoken — the bare pronoun and adverb carry the whole accusation.

Прости ему вечный судья за сорокалетние прелести, как и я прощаю, но ведь это… ведь это знаете кто?  
May the eternal Judge forgive him the forty-year-old charms, as I forgive him too, but you know this is… this is — do you know who it is?
> Imperative «прости» with dative of the forgiven: «Прости ему … (за)» is the imperative 'forgive him', where «ему» (dative) is the person forgiven and «за сорокалетние прелести» names the offence. The subject «вечный судья» follows the verb, a solemn inversion fitting the near-liturgical wish.
> «ведь» plus interrogative «кто» in a teaser: «ведь это… знаете кто?» ('this is — you know who?') again uses «ведь» to draw the listener in, while «кто» (interrogative 'who') is dangled to build suspense before the name is revealed. The broken-off «это…» mimics her excited, halting delivery.

Это ваш друг Ракитин.  
It is your friend Rakitin."
> Zero-copula identity, nominative predicate: 'It is your friend Rakitin' — Russian uses no present-tense 'is', and «ваш друг Ракитин» stands in the bare nominative as the predicate of the implied copula. The pointing «Это» ('this/it') is invariable here.

— Может быть, — сказал Алеша, — хотя я ничего не слыхал.  
"Perhaps," said Alyosha, "though I have heard nothing of it."
> «слыхал» — colloquial iterative of «слышать»: «слыхал» is a folksy, iterative-flavoured variant of «слышал» ('heard'), implying 'I've not heard tell of it / never happened to hear'. Dostoevsky uses «слыхать/слыхал» repeatedly in this exchange to keep the speech informal.

— Он, он, а не «может быть»!  
"It is he, it is he, and no 'perhaps' about it!
> Contrastive «а» — 'and not': «а не» sets the emphatic «Он, он» against the quoted «может быть» — 'It is he, and no "perhaps" about it'. The mildly contrastive conjunction «а» marks the shift/correction, doing work English splits between 'but' and 'and'.

Ведь я его выгнала…  
For I turned him out…
> «ведь» + feminine perfective past «выгнала»: «Ведь я его выгнала» ('For I turned him out') opens with the appealing «ведь» and uses the perfective past «выгнала» (feminine -л-а) for the single decisive act of throwing him out. «выгнать» ('to drive/throw out') is blunt and forceful.

Ведь вы знаете всю эту историю?  
Surely you know the whole story?"
> Accusative of «весь этот» + feminine noun: «всю эту историю» is the feminine accusative of the phrase «вся эта история» — «всю» (all), «эту» (this), «историю» — all agreeing in case, the determiners making the noun's accusative visible. «Ведь» again seeks the listener's assent: 'Surely you know…'.

— Я знаю, что вы его пригласили не посещать вас впредь, но за что именно — этого я… от вас по крайней мере, не слыхал.  
"I know that you asked him not to call on you anymore, but for what reason exactly — that I have not heard, at least not from you."
> Negated infinitive after «пригласить»: a polite request: «пригласили не посещать» literally 'invited [you] not to visit' is a delicately euphemistic way of saying 'asked him not to call anymore' — «не» negates the infinitive «посещать» (imperfective, of repeated visiting), softened by the courteous «пригласить». «впредь» means 'henceforth'.
> Genitive of negation with «не слыхал»: Under negation the object shifts to genitive: «этого … не слыхал» ('I did not hear of that'), where «этого» is genitive rather than accusative «это». The dash and fronted «за что именно» ('for what exactly') topicalize the question before the negated verb.

— А стало быть, от него слышали!  
"So you have heard it from him, then!
> «стало быть» — 'so then, it follows': «стало быть» is a fixed inferential connective ('so then / consequently'), here pounced on triumphantly. The verb «слышали» is second-person plural with «вы» dropped — 'you heard it from him', and «от него» (genitive after «от») names the source.

Что ж он, бранит меня, очень бранит?  
Well, does he abuse me, abuse me a great deal?"
> Reduced «ж» (же) and repeated imperfective: «Что ж» is the clipped spoken form of «Что же» ('well, what about… / so'). The doubled imperfective present «бранит … очень бранит» ('abuses… abuses a great deal') dwells on the ongoing, habitual scolding rather than one instance.
> «бранить» — to scold, abuse, rail at: «бранить» means to scold, berate, or revile — stronger than mild criticism, the verb for tongue-lashing and verbal abuse. It recurs across the next lines as the keyword for Rakitin's habitual sniping.

— Да, он бранит, но ведь он всех бранит.  
"Yes, he abuses you, but then he abuses everyone.
> «ведь» softening a generalization: «ведь» here means 'but then / after all' — appealing to common knowledge to excuse Rakitin: he abuses everyone, so don't take it personally. «всех» is the animate accusative ('everyone') of «все», borrowing the genitive form per Russian animacy.

Но за что вы ему отказали — я и от него не слыхал.  
But why you refused him — that I have not heard from him either.
> Dative with «отказать» + focusing «и»: «отказать» ('to refuse') governs the dative «ему» — 'why you refused him'. In the second clause «и от него» means 'from him either', the «и» a focusing particle, and «не слыхал» continues the negative; one could expect genitive of the object, but the clause-object «за что» is questioned, not declined.

Да и вообще я очень редко с ним встречаюсь.  
And in any case I meet him very rarely.
> Reciprocal «-ся» with «с» + instrumental: «встречаюсь с ним» ('I meet with him') is the reciprocal «-ся» verb «встречаться» plus «с» governing the instrumental «ним» — the standard frame for mutual meeting. The imperfective present «встречаюсь» with «очень редко» states a habitual fact.

Мы не друзья.  
We are not friends."
> Negated zero-copula, nominative predicate: 'We are not friends' — no copula in the present, «не» simply negates, and the predicate «друзья» stays nominative plural (the genitive of negation applies to objects/existence, not to a predicate noun of identity).

— Ну, так я вам это всё открою и, нечего делать, покаюсь, потому что тут есть одна черта, в которой я, может быть, сама виновата.  
"Well, then I shall lay it all open to you and, there is nothing for it, confess, because there is one little point in it for which I myself may perhaps be to blame.
> Perfective future «открою» with dative listener: «открою» (perfective «открыть», here figuratively 'I shall lay open / reveal') in present-form endings = simple future. «вам» is the dative of the person told to, «это всё» the accusative thing revealed — a tidy give-to-someone frame.
> «нечего делать» and the confessional «покаюсь»: «нечего делать» is an idiom 'there's nothing to be done / no help for it'. «покаюсь» ('I shall confess / repent', perfective future) carries a religious colouring — она frames her gossip as a confession, foreshadowing the Zosima-as-confessor motif below.
> Relative «которой» (prepositional) + short adjective «виновата»: «в которой» is the relative «который» in the prepositional after «в», agreeing in feminine with «черта» ('trait/point'). «виновата» is the short feminine predicate adjective 'to blame/guilty', and «сама» ('myself') intensifies — 'for which I myself may be to blame'.

Только маленькая, маленькая черточка, самая маленькая, так что, может быть, ее и нет вовсе.  
Only a tiny, tiny little point, the very tiniest, so that perhaps it does not even exist at all.
> Diminutive cascade: «черта» → «черточка»: «черточка» is the diminutive of «черта» ('trait, point, little detail'), 'a tiny little point'. Repeating «маленькая, маленькая … самая маленькая» around the diminutive, Madame Hohlakov shrinks her own guilt to vanishing — a comic verbal tic of self-minimizing.
> Genitive of negation with «нет»: «ее … нет вовсе» ('it does not exist at all') is the negated existential «нет», which obligatorily puts its subject in the genitive — «ее» (genitive of «она», the черточка). The «и» here is emphatic ('even'), «вовсе» 'at all'.

Видите, голубчик мой, — госпожа Хохлакова вдруг приняла какой-то игривый вид, и на устах ее замелькала милая, хотя и загадочная улыбочка, — видите, я подозреваю… вы меня простите, Алеша, я вам как мать… о нет, нет, напротив, я к вам теперь как к моему отцу… потому что мать тут совсем не идет…  
You see, my dear boy," — Madame Hohlakov suddenly assumed a kind of playful air, and a sweet, if enigmatic, little smile flickered on her lips — "you see, I suspect… you will forgive me, Alyosha, I speak to you as a mother… oh no, no, on the contrary, I turn to you now as to my father… because a mother does not fit here at all…
> Affectionate vocative-style address «голубчик»: «голубчик» ('little dove, my dear') is a tender diminutive of «голубь» ('dove') used as an endearment in direct address. With possessive «мой» it warmly buttonholes Alyosha — the expressive, intimate register Madame Hohlakov slips into.
> Bookish «уста» and inverted subject: «уста» ('lips, mouth') is a Church-Slavonic/poetic word for the everyday «губы», lending solemnity to a comic moment. The verb «замелькала» precedes its subject «улыбочка» (itself a diminutive of «улыбка», 'a sweet little smile') — a literary inversion that puts the action first.
> «к» + dative in the 'as to' comparison: «к вам … как к моему отцу» ('to you… as to my father') uses «к» governing the dative twice, building an 'I turn to you the way I'd turn to…' figure. The elided verb ('turn / speak') is recoverable; Russian leaves it out in such parallel phrases.

Ну, всё равно как к старцу Зосиме на исповеди, и это самое верное, это очень подходит: назвала же я вас давеча схимником, — ну так вот этот бедный молодой человек, ваш друг Ракитин (о боже, я просто на него не могу сердиться!  
Well, it is all the same as confessing to the elder Zosima, and that is the truest of all, it suits perfectly: did I not just now call you a monk under vows — well then, this poor young man, your friend Rakitin (oh God, I simply cannot be angry with him!
> Predicate instrumental «схимником» after «назвать»: «назвала вас … схимником» ('called you a schema-monk') puts the predicate noun «схимником» in the instrumental, as «назвать кого кем» requires. The «же» is insistent ('why, didn't I just call you…'), and «давеча» is a homely word for 'a little while ago, just now'.
> «схимник» — a monk under the strictest vows: A «схимник» has taken the «схима», the most austere grade of Orthodox monasticism, bound to extreme asceticism. Calling lay novice Alyosha a «схимник» is fond exaggeration — and echoes the newspaper's claim above that he had «посхимился».
> Vocative «боже» and negated «-ся» verb: «о боже» is again the Church-Slavonic vocative ('O God') as exclamation. «сердиться на него» ('to be angry at him') is a «-ся» verb taking «на» + accusative for its target; «не могу сердиться» negates the modal, '[I] simply cannot be angry at him'.

Я сержусь и злюсь, но не очень), одним словом, этот легкомысленный молодой человек вдруг, представьте себе, кажется, вздумал в меня влюбиться.  
I am cross and vexed, but not very), in a word, this frivolous young man suddenly, just imagine, seems to have taken it into his head to fall in love with me.
> Paired «-ся» emotion verbs: «сержусь» (be angry) and «злюсь» (be cross/vexed) are both «-ся» verbs of inner state, lacking a non-reflexive counterpart in this meaning. Russian frames many emotions this way, the -ся turning the feeling inward upon the subject.
> «вздумать» + infinitive: 'took it into his head': «вздумал … влюбиться» means 'took it into his head to fall in love', the perfective «вздумать» conveying a sudden, slightly absurd whim. «влюбиться в меня» uses «-ся» plus «в» + accusative ('to fall in love with me'), and «представьте себе» ('just imagine') is an imperative parenthetical.
> «легкомысленный» — frivolous, light-minded: «легкомысленный» is a transparent compound — «легкий» ('light') + «мысль» ('thought') — 'light-minded, frivolous, flighty'. It is Madame Hohlakov's verdict on Rakitin, faintly indulgent even as it dismisses him.

Я это потом, потом только вдруг приметила, но вначале, то есть с месяц назад, он стал бывать у меня чаще, почти каждый день, хотя и прежде мы были знакомы.  
I noticed it only later, only suddenly later, but at first — that is, about a month ago — he began coming to me more often, almost every day, although we had been acquainted before as well.
> Iterative «бывать» + comparative «чаще»: «бывать» is the iterative/frequentative of «быть» — 'to frequent, be there habitually'. «стал бывать … чаще» ('began coming more often') pairs the onset verb «стать» with this habitual, and «чаще» is the comparative of «часто» ('often').
> Concessive «хотя» + short adjective «знакомы»: «хотя» ('although') opens a concessive clause, and «знакомы» is the short plural predicate adjective 'acquainted' (from «знакомый»). Short adjectives are the predicative norm with «быть» — 'we had been acquainted before too'.

Я ничего не знаю… и вот вдруг меня как бы озарило, и я начинаю, к удивлению, примечать.  
I knew nothing of it… and then suddenly something seemed to dawn on me, and to my astonishment I begin to notice.
> Impersonal construction: 'something dawned on me': «меня … озарило» is a classic impersonal/subjectless construction: the neuter verb has no nominative subject, and the experiencer «меня» stands in the accusative ('it lit me up / something dawned on me'). «как бы» softens it to 'as if'.
> Historical present «начинаю»: Amid past-tense narration she switches to the present «начинаю … примечать» ('I begin to notice') — the vivid 'historical present' that drops the listener into the moment. «примечать» is a slightly old-fashioned imperfective 'to notice, observe'.

Вы знаете, я уже два месяца тому назад начала принимать этого скромного, милого и достойного молодого человека, Петра Ильича Перхотина, который здесь служит.  
You know, two months ago now I began receiving this modest, dear, and worthy young man, Pyotr Ilyich Perhotin, who is in the service here.
> Animate accusative across the whole phrase: «этого скромного, милого и достойного молодого человека» is a long accusative noun phrase where every adjective and the determiner «этого» take the animate-masculine accusative (=genitive) ending to agree with «человека». «принимать» here means 'to receive (as a guest)'.

Вы столько раз его встречали сами.  
You have met him yourself so many times.
> Imperfective of repeated past + intensifier «сами»: «столько раз … встречали» ('met so many times') calls for the imperfective «встречать», which carries repetition. «сами» ('yourself', nominative plural agreeing with polite «вы») intensifies — 'you have met him yourself'.

И не правда ли, он достойный, серьезный.  
And is it not true, he is worthy and serious.
> Tag question «не правда ли» and the particle «ли»: «не правда ли?» ('is it not true? / isn't he?') is a fixed tag question seeking agreement, built on the interrogative particle «ли». The predicate adjectives «достойный, серьезный» are long forms used predicatively, a colloquial alternative to the short forms.

Приходит он в три дня раз, а не каждый день (хотя пусть бы и каждый день), и всегда так хорошо одет, и вообще я люблю молодежь, Алеша, талантливую, скромную, вот как вы, а у него почти государственный ум, он так мило говорит, и я непременно, непременно буду просить за него.  
He comes once every three days, and not every day (though let him come every day, by all means), and is always so well dressed, and in general I love young people, Alyosha — talented, modest ones, just like you — and he has almost a statesman's mind, he speaks so charmingly, and I shall certainly, certainly put in a word for him.
> Inverted historical present + «в … раз» frequency: «Приходит он» fronts the present-tense verb before the subject for liveliness, and «в три дня раз» is the idiom 'once every three days'. «приходить» is the imperfective (prefixed motion) of habitual arrival.
> Concessive «пусть бы» — 'even if / let it be': «(хотя) пусть бы и каждый день» ('though let him come every day, by all means') combines the optative «пусть» ('let') with the irrealis «бы» to wave away the limit she just stated — a hypothetical concession.
> Compound (imperfective) future «буду просить»: «буду просить» is the analytic imperfective future — «буду» plus imperfective infinitive — 'I will (keep) putting in a word for him'. The doubled «непременно, непременно» ('certainly, certainly') is her emphatic verbal habit. «государственный ум» means 'a statesman's mind'.

Это будущий дипломат.  
He is a future diplomat.
> Zero-copula with attributive «будущий»: 'He is a future diplomat' — present-tense identity with no copula, «будущий дипломат» a bare nominative predicate. «будущий» ('future') is the lexicalized present active participle of «быть» (root буд- + suffix -ущ-), which came to function as an adjective; Russian has no future active participle category. It modifies the noun attributively.

Он в тот ужасный день меня почти от смерти спас, придя ко мне ночью.  
On that dreadful day he all but saved me from death by coming to me in the night.
> Perfective gerund «придя» — 'by coming': «придя» is the perfective past adverbial participle of «прийти» ('to come, arrive'), a prefixed motion verb, expressing the prior/means action: 'all but saved me from death by coming to me in the night'. The deepening of the main clause through a trailing gerund is very literary.
> «от» + genitive of 'saving from': «спас от смерти» ('saved from death') uses «от» governing the genitive «смерти» to mark what one is rescued from. «почти от смерти» ('all but from death') is her habitual hyperbole.

Ну, а ваш друг Ракитин приходит всегда в таких сапогах и протянет их по ковру…  
Well, but your friend Rakitin always comes in such boots and trails them across the carpet…
> Vivid perfective present + «по» of motion over a surface: «протянет их по ковру» ('trails them across the carpet') uses a perfective-present form for a vivid, almost gnomic habitual picture, and «по ковру» — «по» + dative — expresses movement spread over a surface. «в таких сапогах» evokes his coarse, muddy boots.

одним словом, он начал мне даже что-то намекать, а вдруг один раз, уходя, пожал мне ужасно крепко руку.  
in a word, he had even begun to drop me hints, and then one time, suddenly, on leaving, he pressed my hand dreadfully hard.
> Imperfective gerund «уходя» framing the moment: «уходя» ('on leaving / as he was leaving') is the present (imperfective) gerund giving the simultaneous circumstance of «пожал … руку» ('pressed [my] hand'). Note the dative-of-possession «мне» — 'pressed the hand to-me', Russian's way of saying 'my hand'.
> Indefinite «что-то» — 'something or other': «что-то» ('something, a hint of something') marks a specific-but-unspecified referent, the -то particle signalling she knows there was something but can't pin it down. «намекать» ('to hint') takes the dative «мне» for the person hinted to.

Только что он мне пожал руку, как вдруг у меня разболелась нога.  
No sooner had he pressed my hand than my foot suddenly began to ache.
> «Только что… как» — 'no sooner… than': The correlative «Только что … как (вдруг)» frames two events as immediately consecutive — 'no sooner had he pressed my hand than my foot suddenly began to ache'. Both verbs are perfective («пожал», «разболелась»), marking sharp completed points.
> Inceptive «раз-» + «-ся»: 'began to ache badly': «разболелась» combines the intensive-inceptive prefix «раз-» with «болеть» and «-ся» — 'started really hurting'. «у меня … нога» frames it as 'my foot' via «у» + genitive, the body-part possessor construction.

Он и прежде встречал у меня Петра Ильича и, верите ли, всё шпыняет его, всё шпыняет, так и мычит на него за что-то.  
He had met Pyotr Ilyich at my house before, too, and, would you believe it, he keeps needling him, keeps needling, simply growls at him over something.
> «шпынять» and «мычать» — needling and growling: «шпынять» is colloquial 'to needle, jab at, keep picking on' someone; «мычать» literally 'to moo/low (like cattle)', here 'to mumble/growl resentfully'. The repeated «всё шпыняет, всё шпыняет» ('keeps needling, keeps needling') paints Rakitin's incessant sniping at Perhotin.
> «верите ли» — parenthetical with «ли»: «верите ли» ('would you believe it') is a parenthetical appeal using the interrogative particle «ли», a polite-literary way to flag astonishment. It punctuates her excited narration like a verbal nudge to the listener.

Я только смотрю на них обоих, как они сойдутся, а внутри смеюсь.  
I just watch the two of them whenever they come together, and inwardly I laugh.
> «как» + perfective future for 'whenever': «как они сойдутся» ('whenever the two of them come together') uses «как» with the perfective future «сойдутся» (from «сойтись», -ся, 'to converge/meet') to mean a recurring conditional 'each time they meet'. Russian commonly uses the perfective future this way for repeated hypothetical occasions.
> Contrastive «а» + «-ся» verb «смеюсь»: «а внутри смеюсь» ('while inwardly I laugh') hinges on the mild contrastive «а» ('while, and yet'). «смеяться» ('to laugh') is one of those verbs existing only in the «-ся» form.

Вот вдруг я сижу одна, то есть нет, я тогда уж лежала, вдруг я лежу одна, Михаил Иванович и приходит и, представьте, приносит свои стишки, самые коротенькие, на мою больную ногу, то есть описал в стихах мою больную ногу.  
Now then, suddenly I am sitting alone — that is, no, I was lying down by then — suddenly I am lying alone, and Mihail Ivanovich comes in and, just imagine, brings his little verses, the very shortest, on my ailing foot — that is, he described my ailing foot in verse.
> Self-correcting historical present and past: She lurches between the vivid present «я сижу одна» ('I am sitting alone') and a correcting past «я тогда уж лежала» ('I was already lying down by then'), then back to the present «вдруг я лежу одна». The tense-jumping mimics her flustered, real-time storytelling.
> Belittling diminutive «стишки»: «стишки» is the diminutive/pejorative of «стихи» ('verses') — 'little verses, doggerel', faintly mocking. Paired with «коротенькие» ('nice and short', also diminutive), it deflates Rakitin's poetic offering before she even quotes it.

Постойте, как это:  
Wait, how does it go:
> Imperative «постойте» — 'wait a moment': «Постойте» is the polite/plural imperative of «постоять», idiomatically 'wait / hold on' as she gropes for the lines. The perfective «постоять» gives the brief, momentary sense — 'pause just a second'.

Эта ножка, эта ножка / Разболелася немножко… —  
This little foot, this little foot / Has started aching just a bit… —
> Verse diminutives and the old form «разболелася»: The jingle leans entirely on diminutives — «ножка» (dear little foot), «немножко» (just a teeny bit) — for its cloying cuteness. «Разболелася» is the old/folk-poetic full ending «-ся» (for modern «разболелась»), padding the line to fit the meter; both diminutive and archaic form make the doggerel comic.

или как там, — вот никак не могу стихов запомнить, — у меня тут лежат, — ну я вам потом покажу, только прелесть, прелесть, и, знаете, не об одной только ножке, а и нравоучительное, с прелестною идеей, только я ее забыла, одним словом, прямо в альбом.  
or however it runs — there now, I simply cannot remember verses — I have it here somewhere — well, I shall show you later, only it is a delight, a delight, and you know, not about the little foot alone, but edifying as well, with a charming idea, only I have forgotten it — in a word, fit straight for an album.
> Genitive of negation + emphatic «никак»: «никак не могу … запомнить» ('simply can't manage to remember'), with «никак» ('no way at all') reinforcing the «не» in negative concord. The object «стихов» appears in the genitive of negation rather than accusative «стихи».
> «в альбом» — fit for a keepsake album: «прямо в альбом» means 'fit straight for an album' — the kind of pretty, sentimental verse a 19th-century lady would inscribe in her «альбом», a bound keepsake book passed round for poems and drawings. «нравоучительное» ('edifying, with a moral') marks the genre's expected uplift.

Ну, я, разумеется, поблагодарила, и он был видимо польщен.  
Well, of course I thanked him, and he was plainly flattered.
> Short passive participle «польщен»: «польщен» is the short masculine past passive participle of «польстить» ('to flatter') — 'he was flattered', a result-state predicate with «был». «видимо» here means 'visibly, evidently'.

Не успела поблагодарить, как вдруг входит и Петр Ильич, а Михаил Иванович вдруг насупился как ночь.  
I had scarcely finished thanking him when in walks Pyotr Ilyich, and Mihail Ivanovich suddenly turned as black as night.
> «не успела… как» with present-tense punch: «Не успела поблагодарить, как вдруг входит» — 'I had scarcely finished thanking when in walks…' — the «не успеть … как» frame plus a switch to the vivid present «входит» drops us into the scene. Subject «я» is dropped; «поблагодарить» is the perfective infinitive of completed thanks.
> «насупиться как ночь» — 'turned black as night': «насупиться» means 'to knit one's brows, scowl, grow sullen'. «насупился как ночь» ('scowled black as night') is a vivid simile for sudden glowering jealousy — Rakitin darkening the instant his rival appears.

Я уж вижу, что Петр Ильич ему в чем-то помешал, потому что Михаил Иванович непременно что-то хотел сказать сейчас после стихов, я уж предчувствовала, а Петр Ильич и вошел.  
I could see at once that Pyotr Ilyich had got in the way of something for him, because Mihail Ivanovich had certainly meant to say something just then, right after the verses — I had had a foreboding of it — and in walked Pyotr Ilyich.
> «помешать» + dative; indefinite «в чём-то»: «помешать ему» ('got in his way / hindered him') governs the dative «ему». «в чём-то» ('in something') is the indefinite -то form, prepositional after «в» — a specific but unnamed something he interrupted.
> Imperfective of intention + «уж»: «хотел сказать» ('had meant to say') and «предчувствовала» ('had had a foreboding') are imperfective pasts giving the background of intention and premonition. The particle «уж» (reduced «уже») here means 'already / for my part' — colouring her sense of having foreseen it all.

Я вдруг Петру Ильичу стихи и показываю, да и не говорю, кто сочинил.  
All at once I show Pyotr Ilyich the verses too, and I do not say who composed them.
> Dative recipient + emphatic narrative «и»: «Петру Ильичу … стихи … показываю» — 'I show the verses to Pyotr Ilyich' — with the dative «Петру Ильичу» as recipient and «стихи» the accusative object. The «и» before «показываю» is the narrative emphatic 'and so I just up and show', and the present tense keeps it vivid.
> «да и» plus a negated reported clause: «да и не говорю» ('and I don't even say') uses the additive «да и» ('and besides / and indeed') with the present «не говорю». The embedded «кто сочинил» ('who composed [them]') is an indirect question introduced by interrogative «кто».

Но я уверена, я уверена, что он сейчас догадался, хотя и до сих пор не признается, а говорит, что не догадался; но это он нарочно.  
But I am certain, certain, that he understood at once — though even now he won't admit it and says he didn't catch on; only that is on purpose.
> Short-form adjective «уверена» as predicate: «Уверена» is the short feminine form of «уверенный» (sure, certain), used predicatively after the dropped copula: 'I [am] certain.' The short form, bookish and a touch emphatic, suits Madame Hohlakov's breathless insistence; the repetition heightens it. The feminine -а tells us the speaker is a woman.
> Concessive «хотя и …, а …»: «Хотя» (although) opens a concessive clause, here reinforced by the particle «и», and the contrast is then picked up by the mild adversative «а» ('but/while'). The pairing «although … and yet …» is a hallmark of spoken, run-on narration.
> Reflexive «-ся» and aspect in «признаётся / догадался»: «Признаётся» carries the reflexive clitic «-ся» (here in the sense 'to confess/admit'), in the imperfective present for an ongoing refusal. It is the reflexive counterpart of the non-reflexive «признавать/признать» ('to acknowledge, recognize') — both forms exist. «Догадался» is the perfective past — a single completed 'caught on,' the point he denies. The aspect switch tracks process versus completed event.

Петр Ильич тотчас захохотал и начал критиковать: дрянные, говорит, стишонки, какой-нибудь семинарист написал, — да, знаете, с таким азартом, с таким азартом!  
Pyotr Ilyich immediately burst out laughing and began to criticize: trashy little verses, he says, some seminarian must have scribbled them — and, you know, with such gusto, such gusto!
> «стишонки» — contemptuous 'wretched little verses': «Стишонки» is «стихи» (verses) plus the pejorative suffix «-онк-», which belittles rather than endears: 'trashy little doggerel.' The dismissive ring is the whole point of Pyotr Ilyich's mockery. Compare the neutral «стишки» (light verses) — the «-онк-» tips it into scorn.
> «дрянной» — trashy, worthless: «Дрянные» (from «дрянь», rubbish/trash) means 'good-for-nothing, shoddy.' A strong colloquial put-down, it caps the contempt of «дрянные стишонки» — 'trashy little verses.'
> «азарт» — fervour, gusto: «Азарт» (from French via Polish, ultimately Arabic az-zahr, 'dice') means passionate excitement, reckless ardour — the heat of a gambler or zealot. «С таким азартом» = 'with such gusto'; the doubling mimics her excited speech.
> Inserted «говорит» framing quoted speech: Throughout this monologue «говорит» ('he says,' lit. 3rd-sg present) is dropped in mid-sentence as a quotative tag, the way colloquial Russian threads reported speech without 'that.' It is parenthetical and unstressed; English needs 'he says' or quotation marks to carry the same flagging of someone else's words.

Тут ваш друг, вместо того чтобы рассмеяться, вдруг совсем и взбесился…  
And here your friend, instead of laughing, suddenly flew into a complete rage…
> «вместо того чтобы» + infinitive: «Вместо того чтобы» ('instead of') governs an infinitive: 'instead of laughing.' The «чтобы» here is the purpose/result conjunction fused into a set phrase; with a bare infinitive it stays non-finite rather than taking the past-form irrealis.
> Perfective «взбеситься» — flew into a rage: «Взбесился» is perfective past of «взбеситься» (to fly into a fury), the prefix «вз-» giving a sudden inceptive burst, reinforced by «вдруг» (suddenly). The «-ся» marks the change-of-state (middle) sense. It captures a single explosive moment.

Господи, я думала, они подерутся: «Это я, говорит, написал.  
Lord, I thought they would come to blows: 'It was I,' he says, 'who wrote it.'
> «Господи» — the Church-Slavonic vocative: «Господи» is the old vocative of «Господь» (Lord), surviving as an exclamation, 'Lord! / good heavens!' It is a frozen form of direct address with no nominative force here — pure interjection, very common in Dostoevsky's emotional speech.
> Perfective future «подерутся»: «Подерутся» is the perfective future of «подраться» (to come to blows, the «-ся» here reciprocal): a perfective verb conjugated like a present yields future meaning, 'they would come to blows.' Inside «я думала» it reads as anticipated future-in-the-past.
> Fronted «это я» for emphasis: Russian's free word order lets «это я написал» front the subject as the stressed comment — 'it was I who wrote it.' The cleft-like emphasis falls on «я», answering an implied 'who?'; English needs a cleft to match it.

Я, говорит, написал в шутку, потому что считаю за низость писать стихи…  
'I wrote it,' he says, 'as a joke, because I consider it beneath me to write verses…'
> Causal «потому что» + «считать за»: «Потому что» ('because') opens the causal clause. «Считать за низость» is the older idiom «считать за + accusative» ('to reckon as / regard as') — 'I consider it beneath me,' where modern Russian would prefer «считать низостью» with the instrumental.
> «низость» — baseness, a vile thing: «Низость» (from «низкий», low) is an abstract noun in «-ость», 'lowness, baseness' — a base or degrading act. Here the poet declares writing verse a «низость», something demeaning to a man of his pretensions.

Только стихи мои хороши.  
'Only my verses are good.'
> Short adjective «хороши» as predicate: «Хороши» is the short plural form of «хороший», predicating 'my verses are good.' The possessive «мои» follows its noun («стихи мои»), an inverted, slightly emphatic order — 'verses of mine, they are good.' The short adjective gives a crisp, assertive close.

Вашему Пушкину за женские ножки монумент хотят ставить, а у меня с направлением, а вы сами, говорит, крепостник; вы, говорит, никакой гуманности не имеете, вы никаких теперешних просвещенных чувств не чувствуете, вас не коснулось развитие, вы, говорит, чиновник и взятки берете!»  
'They want to put up a monument to your Pushkin for singing of women's little feet, while mine have a purpose; and you yourself,' he says, 'are a serf-driver; you,' he says, 'have no humanity in you, you feel none of the enlightened feelings of our day, progress has never so much as touched you, you,' he says, 'are a petty official and you take bribes!'
> «ножки» — diminutive 'little feet': «Ножки» is the affectionate diminutive of «ноги» (feet/legs). It echoes Pushkin's own coy «ножки» and chimes with the chapter title «Больная ножка» ('The Injured Foot'). The diminutive lends a teasing, salon-light tone to the dig.
> «с направлением» — 'with a tendency / purpose': «Направление» here is the period buzzword for ideological 'tendency' or progressive social commitment in art. «У меня с направлением» = my verses 'have a purpose,' i.e. serve the cause — the radical 1860s creed that art must be socially useful, against Pushkin's 'pure' poetry.
> Negative concord with «никакой» + genitive: «Никакой … не имеете», «никаких … чувств не чувствуете» show Russian's obligatory double negation: the «ни-» word and the verb's «не» together carry one negation ('you have no humanity at all'). Under negation the objects shift to the genitive («гуманности», «чувств») — the genitive of negation.
> «просвещение» / «развитие» — Enlightenment, progress: «Просвещённые чувства» ('enlightened feelings') and «развитие» ('development, intellectual progress') are the catchwords of the progressive intelligentsia. «Вас не коснулось развитие» — 'progress has never touched you' — mocks the official as a man left behind by the modern, enlightened age.

Тут уж я начала кричать и молить их.  
At that point I began to cry out and to beg them.
> Phasal «начать» + imperfective infinitives: «Начать» (to begin) requires imperfective infinitives — «кричать», «молить» — because one can only begin a process, not a completed whole. The perfective «начала» itself names the single onset; the verbs it governs stay imperfective by rule.

А Петр Ильич, вы знаете, такой не робкий, и вдруг принял самый благородный тон: смотрит на него насмешливо, слушает и извиняется: «Я, говорит, не знал.  
And Pyotr Ilyich, you know, is not the timid sort, and all at once he assumed the most gentlemanly tone: he looks at him mockingly, listens, and apologizes: 'I had no idea,' he says.
> Superlative with «самый»: «Самый благородный» forms the superlative analytically: «самый» ('most') declines with the adjective, 'the most gentlemanly tone.' «Принял … тон» is perfective past — a single, decisive assumption of manner.
> Historic present for vividness: Mid-narration she slips into the present — «смотрит», «слушает», «извиняется» — the 'historic present' that stages a past scene as if unfolding now. «Извиняется» carries reflexive «-ся» ('apologizes'). The string of imperfective presents paints simultaneous, ongoing behaviour.
> «насмешливо» — mockingly: Adverb from «насмешливый» (derisive, mocking), built on «насмешка» (a jibe). It signals the whole register of Pyotr Ilyich's performance: politeness worn as a mask for ridicule, the theme her next lines spell out.

Если б я знал, я бы не сказал, я бы, говорит, похвалил…  
'Had I known, I should not have said it; I should have praised it,' he says.
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы»: A textbook irrealis: past-tense verbs plus the particle «бы» («если б … знал … я бы … сказал … похвалил») give a contrary-to-fact conditional, 'had I known, I would not have said it, I would have praised it.' «Если б» is «если бы» clipped; «бы» is mobile, leaning here on «я».

Поэты, говорит, все так раздражительны…»  
'Poets,' he says, 'are all so irritable…'
> Short adjective «раздражительны»: «Раздражительны» is the short plural of «раздражительный» (irritable), predicating a general trait: 'poets are all so irritable.' The short form fits aphoristic, generalizing statements about an entire class.

Одним словом, такие насмешки под видом самого благородного тона.  
In a word, such mockery, all under the cover of the most gentlemanly tone.
> «одним словом» — 'in a word': A fixed instrumental phrase, «одним словом» ('with one word') = 'in a word, in short.' It is one of Madame Hohlakov's habitual fillers as she lurches to summarize her own digressions.
> «под видом» + genitive — 'under the guise of': «Под видом» ('under the guise/cover of') governs the genitive «самого благородного тона». The preposition-like «под видом» captures exactly the duplicity she means: mockery disguised as the most gentlemanly manner.

Это он мне сам потом объяснил, что это всё были насмешки, а я думала, он и в самом деле.  
He explained it to me himself afterward, that it had all been mockery, but I thought he was in earnest.
> Contrastive «а» and an unfinished clause: The mild adversative «а» ('but/while') pivots from his explanation to her own misreading. The sentence then trails off — «он и в самом деле [серьёзно]» ('he really meant it') — the verb left unsaid, a vivid trace of impulsive spoken syntax.
> «в самом деле» — 'really, in earnest': «В самом деле» (lit. 'in the very matter') means 'really, genuinely, in earnest.' Here it contrasts the sincere reading she took with the mockery he intended.

Только вдруг я лежу, как вот теперь пред вами, и думаю: будет или не будет благородно, если я Михаила Ивановича вдруг прогоню за то, что неприлично кричит у меня в доме на моего гостя?  
Only suddenly I am lying there, just as I am now before you, and I think: would it be the noble thing, or not, if I were to drive Mihail Ivanovich out at once for behaving so improperly, shouting at my guest in my own house?
> Impersonal predicate «благородно»: «Будет … благородно» is impersonal: the neuter short form «благородно» ('it [would be] noble') with no nominative subject, the deliberation framed as 'would it be the noble thing.' The «или не будет» tucks in the alternative — a courtroom-like weighing in her own head.
> Real conditional with perfective future «прогоню»: Here «если» introduces a real (not «бы») condition, and «прогоню» is the perfective future of «прогнать» (to drive out) — a conjugated perfective with future force, 'if I were to drive him out.' Real «если» + perfective future is the open, not counterfactual, conditional.
> Causal «за то, что» + imperfective present: «За то, что» ('for the fact that, because') names the ground for expelling him; the imperfective present «кричит» describes his ongoing, repeated shouting. «Неприлично» ('improperly') is the adverbial judgment that colours the whole indignant clause.

И вот верите ли: лежу, закрыла глаза и думаю: будет или не будет благородно, и не могу решить, и мучаюсь, мучаюсь, и сердце бьется: крикнуть аль не крикнуть?  
And, would you believe it: I lie there, I have closed my eyes, and I think — would it be noble or not — and I cannot decide, and I am in torment, in torment, and my heart is pounding: to cry out, or not to cry out?
> Interrogative particle «ли» in «верите ли»: The enclitic «ли» follows the fronted, focused verb «верите» to form the appeal 'would you believe it?' More literary than bare question intonation, «ли» is a favourite Dostoevskian tag for buttonholing the listener.
> Reflexive «-ся» middles for inner states: «Мучаюсь» (I am tormented) and «бьётся» (is pounding) both carry «-ся» as middle/intransitive markers of an inner, self-affecting process. The doubled «мучаюсь, мучаюсь» and the present tense render the live, ongoing agitation.
> «аль» — folksy 'or': «Аль» is a colloquial, rustic variant of «или / или же» ('or'). «Крикнуть аль не крикнуть?» ('to cry out, or not?') drops into a homely, almost peasant register at the climax of her dithering — a small but pointed shift of voice.

Один голос говорит: кричи, а другой говорит: нет, не кричи!  
One voice says: cry out, and another says: no, do not cry out!
> Correlative «один … другой» joined by «а»: «Один … а другой» ('one … and/while the other') sets two voices in balanced contrast, the hinge «а» marking the opposition without strong adversative force. The imperatives «кричи» / «не кричи» (cry out / don't) dramatize the inner split.

Только что этот другой голос сказал, я вдруг и закричала и вдруг упала в обморок.  
The instant that second voice had spoken, I suddenly cried out and suddenly fell down in a faint.
> «только что» + perfective past — 'the instant that': «Только что … сказал» here means 'the moment / as soon as he had said,' with «сказал» perfective for the completed cue, and the main «закричала» (perfective, 'I cried out') following at once. The «и» before «закричала» underlines immediacy: 'and at that I cried out.'
> «упасть в обморок» — to faint: The set phrase «упасть в обморок» = 'to fall into a faint, to swoon.' «Обморок» is a loss of consciousness; the perfective «упала» marks the single completed collapse — the theatrical climax she has been building toward.

Ну, тут, разумеется, шум.  
Well, then, of course, an uproar.
> Verbless nominal sentence: «Тут, разумеется, шум» has no verb at all — just 'then, of course, [an] uproar.' Russian freely drops the copula and even a verb of occurrence, leaving the bare nominative «шум» to register the event with breathless economy.

Я вдруг встаю и говорю Михаилу Ивановичу: мне горько вам объявить, но я не желаю вас более принимать в моем доме.  
I suddenly get up and say to Mihail Ivanovich: it grieves me to tell you so, but I no longer wish to receive you in my house.
> Dative addressee «Михаилу Ивановичу»: «Говорю» ('I say') takes its addressee in the dative — 'I say to Mihail Ivanovich.' Both the first name «Михаилу» and the patronymic «Ивановичу» decline together in the dative, the respectful name-plus-patronymic form of address.
> Dative-experiencer «мне горько»: «Мне горько … объявить» is an impersonal experiencer construction: the dative «мне» feels, the predicate «горько» ('[it is] bitter/grievous'), no nominative subject — 'it grieves me to tell you.' This dative-first framing of feeling pervades Dostoevsky's emotional speech.
> «принимать» — to receive (a guest): «Принимать» in this social sense means 'to receive, to admit as a visitor.' «Не желаю вас более принимать» = 'I no longer wish to receive you' — the formal language of cutting off a caller, fitting her grand 'scene.'

Так и выгнала.  
And so I turned him out.
> Resultative «так и» + perfective: «Так и выгнала» — 'and so I just turned him out.' The pairing «так и» before a perfective verb conveys 'and that's exactly what happened / so I went and did it,' a colloquial seal on a decisive completed act. «Выгнала» is perfective past of «выгнать» (to drive out, the prefix «вы-» = out).

Ах, Алексей Федорович!  
Ah, Alexei Fyodorovich!
> Name-plus-patronymic address «Алексей Фёдорович»: She addresses Alyosha with the full respectful name-plus-patronymic, «Алексей Фёдорович» ('son of Fyodor'). The patronymic «-ович» marks deference and warmth at once; she will also call him by the intimate diminutive «Алёша» elsewhere, the shift itself a measure of feeling.

Я сама знаю, что скверно сделала, я всё лгала, я вовсе на него не сердилась, но мне вдруг, главное вдруг, показалось, что это будет так хорошо, эта сцена…  
I know myself that I behaved badly, I was lying through it all, I was not in the least angry with him, but suddenly — chiefly suddenly — it seemed to me that it would be so fine, this scene…
> Emphatic negation «вовсе … не»: «Вовсе … не» intensifies the negation to 'not in the least, not at all': «вовсе на него не сердилась» = 'I was not in the slightest angry with him.' «Сердиться на + accusative» ('to be angry at') is reflexive «-ся»; «него» is the post-preposition «н-» form of «он».
> Impersonal «мне показалось» + future predicate: «Мне показалось» ('it seemed to me') is another dative-experiencer impersonal, here governing «что это будет так хорошо» — 'that this would be so fine,' with «будет» the future of быть inside reported thought. The repeated «вдруг» ('suddenly') stresses the impulse's abruptness.

Только верите ли, эта сцена все-таки была натуральна, потому что я даже расплакалась и несколько дней потом плакала, а потом вдруг после обеда всё и позабыла.  
Only, would you believe it, the scene turned out to be natural all the same, because I even burst into tears and went on weeping for several days afterward, and then suddenly, after dinner one day, I forgot the whole thing.
> «натуральный» — genuine, real: «Натуральна» (short fem. of «натуральный») here means 'natural, genuine, real' — the scene she had staged turned out to be sincere after all. The faintly fashionable foreign word suits her salon idiom.
> Inceptive «рас-» perfectives: «Расплакалась» (burst into tears) and «позабыла» (forgot) are perfectives marking single completed turns; the prefix «рас-» in «расплакаться» gives the sudden onset of weeping, «-ся» the middle sense. The run «расплакалась … плакала … позабыла» moves event–background–event in classic aspect alternation.

Вот он и перестал ходить уже две недели, я и думаю: да неужто ж он совсем не придет?  
And so he stopped coming, a whole two weeks now, and I keep thinking: can it be that he won't come at all?
> «перестать» + imperfective; multidirectional «ходить»: «Перестать» (to cease) takes an imperfective infinitive — «ходить», the multidirectional motion verb for habitual, repeated visiting ('to come round, frequent'), not a single trip. 'He stopped coming' = he broke off his regular visits.
> Particles «неужто» and «ж»: «Неужто» is a folksy, archaic variant of «неужели» ('can it really be that…?'), expressing incredulous doubt, and the clitic «ж» (= «же») adds insistence. Together with «да» they pile on the anxious, colloquial colour: 'can it really be he won't come at all?' «Придёт» is perfective future of «прийти».

Это еще вчера, а вдруг к вечеру приходят эти «Слухи».  
That was only yesterday, and then suddenly, toward evening, these 'Rumors' arrive.
> Prefixed motion «приходят» of an arriving object: «Приходят» (imperfective of «приходить/прийти», 'to arrive') has the directional prefix «при-» and is here used wittily of an arriving thing — the newspaper issues. The historic present keeps the scene live.

Прочла и ахнула, ну кто же написал, это он написал, пришел тогда домой, сел — и написал; послал — и напечатали.  
I read it and gasped — well, who else wrote it, he wrote it, he went home that time, sat down, and wrote it; he sent it off, and they printed it.
> Chain of perfectives driving the narrative: A rapid string of perfective pasts — «пришёл, сел, написал, послал, напечатали» (came, sat, wrote, sent, printed) — moves the story forward event by completed event, each a single bounded act. The breathless asyndeton mimics her excited reconstruction.
> Emphatic «же» with «кто»: «Ну кто же написал» ('well, who else could have written it') uses the particle «же» after the interrogative «кто» to press the rhetorical question — the answer is obvious to her. «Же» here means roughly 'on earth / else,' insisting on the self-evident.

Ведь это две недели как было.  
And that, you see, was two weeks ago.
> Appealing particle «ведь»: «Ведь» opens the sentence as an appeal to shared knowledge — 'you see / after all' — flagging the fact as something the listener should register with her. «Две недели как было» idiomatically = 'it was two weeks ago,' the «как» dating the event back.

Только, Алеша, ужас я что говорю, а вовсе не говорю, об чем надо?  
Only, Alyosha, heavens, what am I saying — and am I not talking about the wrong thing altogether, not about what I ought to?
> Archaic «об чем» and impersonal «надо»: «Об чём» is a colloquial/older variant of «о чём» ('about what'), with «об» kept before the consonant. «Надо» ('one ought, it is necessary') is an impersonal modal taking no nominative subject — 'about what one ought [to speak].' The whole is an anxious self-correction.
> «ужас» as an intensifying interjection: «Ужас» (horror, terror) is thrown in here as an exclamatory intensifier — 'heavens, what am I saying!' — not as a true noun in the clause. This loose, emphatic use of «ужас» (cf. «ужас как» = 'awfully') is a marker of agitated colloquial speech.

Ах, само говорится!  
Ah, it simply runs on of its own accord!
> Middle «-ся»: 'it speaks itself': «Само говорится» uses reflexive «-ся» in its impersonal/middle sense — 'it says itself, it runs on of its own accord' — with «само» ('itself') reinforcing the spontaneity. The construction lets the talk seem to flow without a willing speaker, a perfect image of her own unstoppable chatter.

— Мне сегодня ужасно как нужно поспеть вовремя к брату, — пролепетал было Алеша.  
"Today I am terribly anxious to reach my brother in good time," Alyosha managed to falter.
> Impersonal «нужно» + intensifier «ужасно как»: «Мне … нужно поспеть» is impersonal-modal: dative «мне» plus «нужно» ('I must / need to') and the perfective infinitive «поспеть» ('to get there in time'). «Ужасно как» ('terribly, awfully') is a colloquial intensifier — 'I'm dreadfully anxious to be in time.'
> Perfective past + «было» (the 'almost' marker): The particle «было» after a perfective past («пролепетал было») marks an action begun or attempted but cut short or undone — Alyosha 'started to falter out' his excuse before being interrupted. This «было» is a distinctive, near-untranslatable nuance of literary Russian.
> «пролепетать» — to falter out, babble: «Пролепетать» (perfective of «лепетать», to babble/lisp) means to bring out timidly, in a faltering murmur. It paints Alyosha as overwhelmed, barely able to get a word in against her flood — vivid characterization in a single verb.

— Именно, именно!  
"Just so, just so!

Вы мне всё напомнили!  
You've reminded me of everything!
> «напомнить» with dative person, accusative thing: «Напомнить» (to remind) takes the person in the dative («мне») and the thing in the accusative («всё») — 'you reminded me of everything.' The perfective marks a single completed jolt of memory.

Послушайте, что такое аффект?  
Listen, what is 'temporary insanity'?
> аффект — a legal/psychological term, not 'affection': «Аффект» is a false friend: it does NOT mean English 'affect/affection.' In Russian it is a psychological and legal term for a state of overwhelming passion or temporary loss of self-control — the basis of a diminished-responsibility defence («состояние аффекта»). Madame Hohlakov has just picked up this fashionable courtroom buzzword from the newly reformed law courts. We render it 'temporary insanity' / 'a state of passion' here, the nearest English legal equivalent; keep in mind the Russian word is the same clinical-sounding term throughout the chapter.
> Definitional «что такое…?»: «Что такое X?» is the fixed frame for asking a definition — 'what is X? / what does X mean?' — distinct from a plain «что?» Here it sets up her whole muddled lecture on legal «аффект».

— Какой аффект? — удивился Алеша.  
"What temporary insanity?" Alyosha was taken aback.
> Reflexive «удивиться» — to be astonished: «Удивился» (perfective, with reflexive «-ся») means 'was surprised, taken aback' — the «-ся» marks the inner change of state. A neat one-word stage direction for Alyosha's bafflement at her jargon.

— Судебный аффект.  
"Forensic insanity.
> «судебный» — forensic, of the courts: «Судебный» (from «суд», court) means 'judicial, forensic, of the law courts.' «Судебный аффект» is her garbled coinage — 'courtroom insanity,' the legally exculpatory passion. The adjective ties the fashionable term to the new judiciary she so admires.

Такой аффект, за который всё прощают.  
The kind of insanity for which one is forgiven everything.
> Relative «который» in the accusative + impersonal «прощают»: «За который» — «который» governed by «за» ('for which') — opens the relative clause, agreeing with «аффект» in gender/number but taking the case «за» demands. «Прощают» is a 3rd-plural 'they pardon' used impersonally ('one is forgiven'), a common subjectless device.

Что бы вы ни сделали — вас сейчас простят.  
Whatever you may have done — they pardon you at once.
> Concessive «что бы … ни» — 'whatever you may': «Что бы … ни» is the concessive-universal frame: interrogative «что» + «бы» + «ни» + past-form verb = 'whatever you may have done.' Note the «ни» (not «не») intensifying inside this construction, distinct from plain negation. «Простят» is perfective future, 'they will pardon.'

— Да вы про что это?  
"But what are you talking about?"
> Particle «да» + colloquial «про что»: Sentence-initial «да» here is not 'yes' but an emphatic, slightly impatient opener — 'but…, now…'. «Про что» ('about what') is the colloquial «про + accusative» for the topic of speech, looser than «о чём». The dangling «это» adds the spoken 'what is this you're on about?'

— А вот про что: эта Катя…  
"Why, about this: that Katya…
> Demonstrative «эта» + diminutive «Катя»: «Эта Катя» ('this Katya') uses the near demonstrative «этот» (fem. «эта») in its colloquial, topic-introducing sense — 'this Katya [of ours].' «Катя» is the familiar diminutive of «Екатерина», warm and intimate.

Ах, это милое, милое существо, только я никак не знаю, в кого она влюблена.  
Ah, what a sweet, sweet creature she is — only I can't for the life of me tell who it is she is in love with.
> «существо» — a 'creature, being': «Существо» (neuter, from «существовать», to exist) means 'a being, a creature,' used affectionately of a person — 'what a sweet creature.' The doubled endearment «милое, милое существо» is pure Hohlakov gush.
> «влюблён в + accusative» and short participle: «Влюблена» is the short passive participle of «влюбиться» used predicatively ('is in love'), governing «в + accusative» for the object of love — «в кого» ('with whom'). «Никак не знаю» piles emphatic «никак» ('in no way') onto the negation: 'I simply cannot tell.'

Недавно сидела у меня, и я ничего не могла выпытать.  
She sat with me not long ago, and I couldn't get a thing out of her.
> Genitive «ничего» under negation: «Ничего … не могла выпытать» combines the negative pronoun «ничего» (genitive of «ничто») with the verb's «не» in obligatory negative concord — 'I couldn't get anything out of her.' «Ничего» stands in the genitive as the negated object. «Выпытать» (perfective) = to extract by questioning.

Тем более что сама начинает со мною теперь так поверхностно, одним словом, всё об моем здоровье и ничего больше, и даже такой тон принимает, а я и сказала себе: ну и пусть, ну и бог с вами…  
All the more since she herself has begun to be so superficial with me now — in a word, nothing but my health and nothing more, and she even adopts a certain tone — so I said to myself: well, let her, well, God be with you…
> «тем более что» — 'all the more since': «Тем более что» is a fixed subordinating phrase introducing an added reason, 'especially as, all the more because.' «Тем более» (lit. 'by that much more') is itself an instrumental-of-degree idiom. It chains her grievances together.
> Archaic «со мною», «об моём»: «Со мною» (instrumental of «я» after «с») uses the longer, more bookish ending «-ою» beside modern «мной»; «об моём» again keeps «об» before a consonant for «о моём». Both are mildly old-fashioned, spoken-genteel forms typical of the period and of her fussy register.
> «бог с вами» — 'God be with you / never mind': «Бог с вами» (lit. 'God [be] with you') is a set phrase of resigned dismissal or letting-go — 'oh, very well; let it be; bless you.' Here, with «ну и пусть» ('well, let her'), it signals her wounded shrug at Katya's coolness.

Ах да, ну так вот этот аффект: этот доктор и приехал.  
Oh yes, well, so about this temporary insanity: that doctor has arrived.
> Emphatic «и» before the verb; «приехать»: The «и» in «этот доктор и приехал» is not 'and' but an emphatic particle, 'this very doctor did arrive / has indeed come.' «Приехал» is the perfective prefixed motion verb «приехать» (to arrive by vehicle), «при-» giving the sense of reaching a destination.

Вы знаете, что приехал доктор?  
Do you know that a doctor has come?

Ну как вам не знать, который узнает сумасшедших, вы же и выписали, то есть не вы, а Катя.  
Well, how could you not know — the one who diagnoses the insane, why, you were the very ones who sent for him — that is, not you, but Katya.
> «как вам не знать» — rhetorical dative + infinitive: «Как вам не знать» fuses a dative «вам» with an infinitive «знать» into a rhetorical exclamation — 'how could you not know! / of course you know.' The dative-plus-infinitive frames an obligation or self-evident expectation, here pressed home with affectionate insistence.
> Relative «который» as clause subject: «Который узнаёт сумасшедших» ('the one who recognizes/diagnoses the insane') has «который» as the nominative subject of its own clause, agreeing with the implied 'doctor.' «Сумасшедших» is genitive/accusative animate plural ('the mad'), an adjective used as a noun.
> «выписать» — to send for, summon: «Выписать» here means 'to send for, order in' (a specialist from elsewhere) — literally 'to write out [a request for].' «Вы же и выписали» = 'you were the very ones who sent for him,' the «же» insisting on her listener's own role.

Всё Катя!  
It is all Katya!

Ну так видите: сидит человек совсем не сумасшедший, только вдруг у него аффект.  
Well, so you see: a man sits there entirely sane, only all at once he is seized by this temporary insanity.
> Possessive «у + genitive» for a state: «У него аффект» ('he has [an attack of] insanity') uses the «у + genitive» possessive pattern — literally 'by him [there is] insanity' — Russian's normal way of saying 'someone has X,' here extended to a sudden mental state. «Него» is the post-preposition «н-» form.

Он и помнит себя и знает, что делает, а между тем он в аффекте.  
He is in possession of himself and knows what he is doing, and yet all the while he is in a state of insanity.
> Reflexive pronoun «себя» — 'is himself': «Помнит себя» (lit. 'remembers himself') is the idiom for being in possession of one's wits, fully conscious — the full object pronoun «себя» refers back to the subject and has no nominative. Contrast the bound clitic «-ся»: «себя» is a free word here.
> Adversative «а между тем» — 'and yet': «А между тем» ('and yet, and all the while') pairs the contrastive «а» with «между тем» ('meanwhile') to mark the paradox she relishes: he knows what he does, and yet is 'in a state of insanity.' It is the rhetorical pivot of her whole muddled argument.

Ну так вот и с Дмитрием Федоровичем, наверно, был аффект.  
Well, so it must have been with Dmitri Fyodorovich too — surely it was a state of insanity.
> Instrumental after «с»; name-plus-patronymic: «С Дмитрием Фёдоровичем» — «с» ('with') governs the instrumental, and both the name «Дмитрием» and patronymic «Фёдоровичем» take the instrumental ending «-ом/-ем» together. The full name-plus-patronymic gives Dmitri his formal, respectful designation even in her gossip.

Это как новые суды открыли, так сейчас и узнали про аффект.  
As soon as the new courts were opened, they learned all about temporary insanity.
> Correlative «как …, так … и» — 'as soon as': «Как … открыли, так … и узнали» is the 'no sooner … than / as soon as' correlative: «как» + perfective, answered by «так … и» + perfective, the «и» again emphatic. «Открыли» / «узнали» are impersonal 3rd-plural perfectives ('they opened / learned'), the subject left vague.

Это благодеяние новых судов.  
It is a blessing bestowed by the new courts.
> «благодеяние» — a benefaction, blessing: «Благодеяние» ('good deed, benefaction, boon') is a bookish, faintly elevated compound from «благо» (good) + «деяние» (deed) — the «благо-» element is a Church-Slavonic flavoured prefix common in lofty vocabulary. Her grand word for the reformed courts, slightly comic in her mouth.

Доктор этот был и расспрашивает меня про тот вечер, ну про золотые прииски: каков, дескать, он тогда был?  
That doctor came and questioned me about that evening — well, about the gold mines: what sort of state was he in then?
> Mixed past «был» and historic present «расспрашивает»: She shifts mid-sentence from past «был» ('came/was here') to the vivid historic present «расспрашивает» ('questions'), staging the interview as live. «Расспрашивать» (imperfective, «рас-» = thoroughly, all about) marks the drawn-out, probing questioning.
> «дескать» — reported-speech marker: «Дескать» is a particle flagging reported or second-hand speech and the speaker's slight detachment from it — 'so to say, supposedly, as if to ask.' Here it tints the doctor's question: 'what sort of state, he says, was he in?' A favourite tic of colloquial narration.

Как же не в аффекте — пришел и кричит: денег, денег, три тысячи, давайте три тысячи, а потом пошел и вдруг убил.  
How could he not have been in a state of insanity — he came in shouting: money, money, three thousand, give me three thousand, and then he went off and suddenly killed.
> Rhetorical «как же не…» with «же»: «Как же не в аффекте» ('how could he not be in a state of insanity!') is a rhetorical question with emphatic «же», expecting agreement — of course he was. «В аффекте» is the prepositional of state ('in [a state of] X'). The double negative-rhetoric drives her foregone conclusion.
> Perfective motion + perfective event chain: «Пришёл» (came, «при-») and «пошёл» (set off, «по-») are prefixed perfective motion verbs framing the action, capped by «убил» (killed). The bare succession of perfectives — arrival, departure, deed — and the stark «вдруг убил» ('and suddenly killed') give the murder its abrupt, dreadful finality.

Не хочу, говорит, не хочу убивать, и вдруг убил.  
I don't want to, he says, I don't want to kill — and suddenly he killed.
> Imperfective «убивать» vs perfective «убил»: The aspect contrast is the whole point: «не хочу убивать» uses the imperfective infinitive for the act-as-such he refuses ('I don't want to be killing / to do the killing'), while «убил» is perfective for the single completed deed. Russian sets the willed process against the accomplished fact in one breath.

Вот за это-то самое его и простят, что противился, а убил.  
It is for that very thing that they will pardon him: that he struggled against it, and yet killed.
> Emphatic clitic «-то» on «это»: «За это-то самое» foregrounds the cause with the topic-emphasizing clitic «-то» ('for that very thing, precisely that') plus «самое». Distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то», this «-то» underlines a known, stressed topic — the crux of her perverse logic.
> Reflexive imperfective «противился»: «Противился» is the imperfective past of «противиться» (to resist, oppose, a «-ся»-only verb governing the dative) — 'that he struggled against it.' The imperfective stresses the ongoing inner resistance, set against the perfective «убил» that follows. «Что» introduces the explanatory clause.

— Да ведь он же не убил, — немного резко прервал Алеша.  
"But he didn't kill anyone," Alyosha interrupted, rather sharply.
> Particle stack «да ведь … же»: Alyosha's protest piles three particles: «да» (but/now), «ведь» (after all, appealing to fact), and «же» (insisting) — 'but he didn't actually kill anyone, you know!' Such clustering of modal particles is the very texture of Dostoevskian dialogue, carrying emphasis English can only suggest by intonation.

Беспокойство и нетерпение одолевали его всё больше и больше.  
Unease and impatience were mastering him more and more.
> Inanimate subjects 'master' the object: «Беспокойство и нетерпение одолевали его» ('unease and impatience were overcoming him') makes the emotions the grammatical subject and the person the accusative object «его» — a characteristic Russian framing where feelings act upon a passive sufferer. «Одолевали» is imperfective for the mounting, ongoing pressure.
> «всё больше и больше» — 'more and more': «Всё больше и больше» uses «всё» as an intensifier with the doubled comparative «больше» to express steady increase — 'more and more.' The comparative «больше» is the suppletive form to «много/большой». It paints Alyosha's swelling agitation.

— Знаю, это убил тот старик Григорий…  
"I know — it was that old man Grigory who killed him…
> Fronted «это» + demonstrative «тот»: «Это убил тот старик Григорий» fronts «это» as the topic ('it was killed-by…') and uses the far demonstrative «тот» ('that') to single out 'that old man Grigory.' The free word order puts the climactic agent «Григорий» last, in focus position.

— Как Григорий? — вскричал Алеша.  
"How, Grigory?" Alyosha cried out.
> «вскричать» — to cry out, exclaim: «Вскричал» (perfective, prefix «вс-/вз-» giving a sudden upward burst) is the bookish narrative verb for a sharp exclamation — 'cried out, exclaimed.' Common in 19th-century prose for dialogue tags; it conveys Alyosha's startled outburst at her accusation.

— Он, он, это Григорий.  
"It was he, it was he, it was Grigory.
> Emphatic repetition and nominal «это Григорий»: The reduplicated pronoun «он, он» ('he, he') and the verbless «это Григорий» ('it [was] Grigory') show the copula dropped in the present and the subject hammered by repetition. The bare nominatives, with no verb, render her insistent, breathless certainty.

Дмитрий Федорович как ударил его, так он лежал, а потом встал, видит, дверь отворена, пошел и убил Федора Павловича.  
When Dmitri Fyodorovich struck him, he lay there, and then he got up, sees the door standing open, went in and killed Fyodor Pavlovich.
> Folk «как… так…» narration: This «как… так…» pairing ('the moment he struck him, so he lay…') is a colloquial, almost peasant storytelling rhythm, stringing events with paratactic conjunctions rather than subordination. It marks the unschooled, breathless register of the speaker (Madame Hohlakov reporting servant gossip).
> Vivid present amid past narration: The string of perfective pasts «лежал… встал… пошел и убил» suddenly drops into the present «видит» ('sees'), the historic present that makes the action immediate and breathless. The surrounding perfectives «встал», «пошел», «убил» each mark a single completed step of the story.
> Short passive participle as result: «отворена» is the short-form past passive participle of «отворить» (to open), here predicative: 'the door [stands] opened'. The short passive with an implied быть states a result reached and still in force — a hallmark of bookish and narrative Russian.

— Да зачем, зачем?  
"But why, why?"
> Initial «да» as a conversational hinge: This «да» is not 'yes' but a discourse particle launching an objection or eager interjection — 'but…', 'why…'. It is one of the most frequent texture-words of Dostoevskian dialogue, signalling that the speaker picks up and pushes against what was just said.

— А получил аффект.  
"He got a fit of temporary insanity.
> «аффект» — the new courtroom buzzword: A learned legal-medical loan (from Latin affectus) meaning a state of diminished responsibility, 'a fit of passion / temporary insanity'. Madame Hohlakov parrots it as the fashionable term of the reformed courts; its repetition throughout the scene satirizes how a piece of expert jargon has seeped into society chatter.
> Topic-shifting «а» plus perfective: The mild contrastive «а» opens the answer with a slight pivot ('well, he got…'). «получил» is perfective past — a single completed onset of the «аффект», treating the seizure as one bounded event.

Как Дмитрий Федорович ударил его по голове, он очнулся и получил аффект, пошел и убил.  
When Dmitri Fyodorovich hit him over the head, he came to and was seized by temporary insanity, went off and killed.
> «по» + dative for 'across/over' the body: To strike someone 'on a body part', Russian uses «по» + dative: «по голове» ('over the head'). The preposition «по» governs the dative and here conveys a blow distributed across a surface rather than to a point.
> Reflexive «-ся» of change of state: «очнуться» (perfective) means 'to come to, regain consciousness'. The bound «-ся» here marks an intransitive change of state happening to the subject, not a true reflexive — the man 'came round' rather than doing something to himself.

А что он говорит сам, что не убил, так этого он, может, и не помнит.  
And as for his saying himself that he didn't kill anyone — why, he simply may not remember it.
> Fronted «А что…» topicalization: The sentence hoists its topic to the front — 'And as for [the fact] that he says he didn't kill' — before delivering the comment ('he simply may not remember it'). This left-dislocation, restated by «так этого», is classic Russian topic–comment structuring of loose spoken syntax.
> Genitive object under negation: The negated verb «не помнит» pulls its object into the genitive: «этого» rather than accusative «это». The genitive of negation is near-automatic with abstract, non-specific objects like 'it/that'. The «и» here is the emphatic particle 'even/simply', not 'and'.

Только, знаете, лучше, гораздо лучше будет, если Дмитрий Федорович убил.  
Only, you know, it would be better, far better, if it were Dmitri Fyodorovich who had killed.
> «гораздо» + comparative; future of быть: «лучше» is the suppletive comparative of «хороший/хорошо» ('better'), intensified by «гораздо» ('far, much'). «будет» is the simple future of «быть» functioning as the copula — 'it will be far better'.
> Real conditional with «если»: A plain factual conditional with «если» plus indicative past «убил» (no «бы»): 'if it was Dmitri who killed'. This is the open, real-condition type — contrast the irrealis «если бы… убил» which would mean 'if he had killed (but he didn't)'.

Да это так и было, хоть я и говорю, что Григорий, но это наверно Дмитрий Федорович, и это гораздо, гораздо лучше!  
And so it really was, even though I do say it was Grigory; but no doubt it was Dmitri Fyodorovich, and that is far, far better!
> Concessive «хоть… и»: «хоть» (a clipped «хотя») plus the emphatic «и» forms a concessive: 'even though I do say…'. The «и» before the verb underlines the conceded point. This loose «хоть… но…» pairing is markedly colloquial.
> Zero copula in the present: There is no verb 'to be' here: «это наверно Дмитрий Федорович» = 'it [is] surely Dmitri Fyodorovich'. In the present tense Russian simply omits the copula, leaving the predicate noun in the nominative.

Ах, не потому лучше, что сын отца убил, я не хвалю, дети, напротив, должны почитать родителей, а только все-таки лучше, если это он, потому что вам тогда и плакать нечего, так как он убил, себя не помня или, лучше сказать, всё помня, но не зная, как это с ним сделалось.  
Ah, not better because a son killed his father — I do not praise it; children, on the contrary, ought to honor their parents — but still it is better if it was he, because then you would have nothing to weep over, since he killed without being himself, or, better to say, remembering everything, yet not knowing how it came over him.
> Dative subject with «нечего» + infinitive: An impersonal construction: the experiencer «вам» stands in the dative, and «нечего» ('there is nothing to') governs the infinitive «плакать» — 'you would have nothing to weep over'. These dative-experiencer, subjectless frames pervade Russian emotional speech.
> «не помня себя» — gerund + reflexive object: «помня» is the imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) of «помнить», naming an attendant circumstance: '[while] not remembering himself'. «себя» is the reflexive pronoun object pointing back to the subject; the whole idiom «не помня себя» means 'beside oneself, out of one's mind'.
> Gerund «зная» and the «-ся» of 'happening': Another imperfective gerund «зная» ('not knowing') frames the final clause. Inside it, «сделалось» is «делаться/сделаться» with «-ся» in its impersonal middle sense 'came about, happened to him' — the deed is depicted as something that befell him rather than something he did.

Нет, пусть они его простят; это так гуманно, и чтобы видели благодеяние новых судов, а я-то и не знала, а говорят, это уже давно, и как я вчера узнала, то меня это так поразило, что я тотчас же хотела за вами послать; и потом, коли его простят, то прямо его из суда ко мне обедать, а я созову знакомых, и мы выпьем за новые суды.  
No, let them pardon him; it is so humane, and then people would see the blessing of the new courts — and I knew nothing of it, and they say it has been so this long while, and when I learned of it yesterday it struck me so that I wanted to send for you that very minute; and then, if he is pardoned, let him come straight from the court to dine with me, and I shall invite my acquaintances, and we shall drink to the new courts.
> Third-person imperative with «пусть»: Russian forms a 'let them…' command with «пусть» plus a finite verb: «пусть простят» ('let them pardon'). It expresses a wish or concession directed at a third party, here urging the new courts to acquit.
> Purpose «чтобы» + past-form irrealis: «чтобы» introduces a purpose clause and requires the past-tense form «видели» (not an infinitive or present): 'so that [people] might see…'. The «чтобы» + past pattern is the standard way Russian expresses willed or intended outcomes.
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «я» («я-то») foregrounds the known topic with a contrastive emphasis: 'I, for my part, knew nothing'. This is the topic-marking «-то», distinct from the indefinite «-то» in «что-то».
> «коли» — folksy 'if': «коли» is a colloquial, slightly archaic equivalent of «если» ('if'). Sprinkled into Madame Hohlakov's torrent, it adds an old-fashioned, homely flavour beside her French phrases and legal jargon.

Я не думаю, чтоб он был опасен, притом я позову очень много гостей, так что его можно всегда вывести, если он что-нибудь, а потом он может где-нибудь в другом городе быть мировым судьей или чем-нибудь, потому что те, которые сами перенесли несчастие, всех лучше судят.  
I don't think he would be dangerous; besides, I shall invite a great many guests, so that he can always be led out if he does anything, and afterward he might become a justice of the peace somewhere in another town, or something of the kind, because those who have themselves suffered misfortune judge best of all.
> «чтобы» after a negated opinion verb: After the negated «не думаю», the subordinate clause takes «чтоб(ы)» + past «был» rather than «что» + present: this irrealis frame casts doubt on the proposition ('I don't think that he would be dangerous'). «опасен» is a short-form adjective in predicative use.
> Impersonal «можно» + perfective infinitive: «можно» ('it is possible / one can') heads a subjectless modal construction with the perfective infinitive «вывести» ('to lead out'): 'he can always be led out'. The patient «его» is the accusative object; there is no nominative subject at all.
> Indefinite «что-нибудь» and elided verb: «что-нибудь» is the non-specific indefinite pronoun 'anything (at all)', formed with the «-нибудь» suffix. The verb is comically left out — 'if he [does] anything' — mimicking flustered speech.
> Correlative «те, которые…»: «те» (those) is the demonstrative correlative anticipating the relative «которые» ('those who…'). «которые» agrees with «те» in number but takes nominative as the subject of its own clause. «сами» intensifies: 'who have themselves suffered'.

А главное, кто ж теперь не в аффекте, вы, я — все в аффекте, и сколько примеров: сидит человек, поет романс, вдруг ему что-нибудь не понравилось, взял пистолет и убил кого попало, а затем ему все прощают.  
And the main thing — who is not in a state of insanity nowadays? You, I — we are all in a state of insanity, and there are so many examples: a man sits singing a romance, suddenly something doesn't please him, he takes up a pistol and shoots whoever happens to be there, and then everyone forgives him.
> Rhetorical question with particle «ж»: «ж» (a reduced «же») adds insistent, exasperated emphasis to the rhetorical question: 'who, after all, is not in a state of insanity nowadays?' The answer is meant to be 'nobody'. Such modal particles supply the emotional colour English would carry by intonation alone.
> Historic present sliding into perfective past: The vignette opens in the vivid present («сидит», «поет») for an unfolding scene, then snaps to perfective pasts («взял», «убил») for the abrupt, completed deed. The aspect/tense switch dramatizes the suddenness of the violence.
> «кого попало» — 'just anyone': The idiom «кто/кого попало» means 'whoever happens to be there, just anybody at random', with a dismissive shade. «попало» is a frozen neuter past of «попасть»; the phrase signals utter indiscriminateness — he shoots no one in particular.

Я это недавно читала, и все доктора подтвердили.  
I read this only recently, and all the doctors confirmed it.
> Imperfective «читала» — the activity, not the result: «читала» is imperfective past: she reports the activity of reading ('I was reading / read about this'), with feminine «-ла» agreement marking the speaker as a woman. A perfective «прочитала» would stress finishing the whole text; here it is the experience that matters.

Доктора теперь подтверждают, всё подтверждают.  
The doctors confirm everything nowadays, they confirm it all.
> Imperfective present for a general truth: The imperfective present «подтверждают» states a habitual, general fact: 'the doctors confirm [everything] nowadays'. The repetition with «всё» ('everything') gives the satirical sense that medical authority now rubber-stamps any excuse.

Помилуйте, у меня Lise в аффекте, я еще вчера от нее плакала, третьего дня плакала, а сегодня и догадалась, что это у ней просто аффект.  
Mercy on us, my Lise is in a state of insanity — only yesterday I was weeping over her, and the day before too, and today I have realized that it is simply temporary insanity in her.
> «Помилуйте!» — 'Mercy on us! / Good heavens!': Literally an imperative 'have mercy (on me)' (polite plural), «помилуйте» has bleached into an exclamation of polite protest or astonishment — 'good heavens!', 'come now!'. It keeps a faint religious colouring from «помиловать», 'to show mercy'.
> «третьего дня» — 'the day before yesterday': A fixed genitive time-expression meaning 'two days ago, the day before yesterday' (literally 'of the third day'). It is slightly old-fashioned and bookish, common in 19th-century prose.
> «у ней» — the older third-person form: «у ней» is the 19th-century / colloquial variant of standard «у неё» ('in her'). Such pronoun forms pepper Dostoevsky's dialogue and mark period speech rather than error.

Ох, Lise меня так огорчает!  
Oh, Lise distresses me so!
> Object before verb for emphasis: The object «меня» sits before the verb «огорчает», throwing the weight onto the speaker's suffering: 'Lise distresses me so!'. Free word order lets Russian foreground the wounded 'me' without any special construction.

Я думаю, она совсем помешалась.  
I think she has gone quite out of her mind.
> «помешаться» — «-ся» change of state: «помешалась» (perfective, feminine past) is «помешаться» 'to go mad', where «-ся» marks an intransitive change of state befalling the subject. «совсем» ('quite, completely') intensifies — 'she has gone quite out of her mind'.

Зачем она вас позвала?  
Why did she summon you?
> Perfective «позвала» — a single summons: «позвала» is perfective past (feminine): one completed act of summoning, 'why did she call you?'. The perfective frames it as a discrete event, the trigger for Alyosha's visit.

Она вас позвала, или вы сами к ней пришли?  
Did she summon you, or did you come to her of your own accord?"
> Prefixed motion verb «прийти»: «пришли» is the perfective «прийти» ('to come, arrive'), a prefixed motion verb where «при-» supplies the direction (arrival) and makes the pair ordinary perfective/imperfective. «сами» ('yourself') stresses that he came of his own accord.

— Да, она звала, и я пойду сейчас к ней, — встал было решительно Алеша.  
"Yes, she sent for me, and I am going to her now," said Alyosha, getting up resolutely.
> The particle «было» — an interrupted action: «было» after a perfective past marks an action begun or about to happen but then checked or reversed: «встал было» = 'started to get up [but…]'. This special «было» (unstressed, invariable) is a subtle 19th-century narrative device showing a movement nipped in the bud.

— Ах, милый, милый Алексей Федорович, тут-то, может быть, и самое главное, — вскрикнула госпожа Хохлакова, вдруг заплакав.  
"Ah, dear, dear Alexei Fyodorovich, this — this perhaps is the very heart of the matter," Madame Hohlakov cried out, suddenly bursting into tears.
> Perfective gerund «заплакав»: «заплакав» is the perfective past gerund of «заплакать» ('to burst into tears'), naming a completed action attendant on the main verb: 'having suddenly burst into tears, [she] cried out'. The prefix «за-» gives the inceptive sense 'to start crying'.
> Emphatic «тут-то» — 'right here is…': The clitic «-то» attached to «тут» foregrounds the moment: 'this, precisely this, is the heart of the matter'. It is the topic-emphasizing «-то», pointing a spotlight rather than forming an indefinite.

— Бог видит, что я вам искренно доверяю Lise, и это ничего, что она вас тайком от матери позвала.  
"God sees that I entrust Lise to you in all sincerity, and it is nothing that she summoned you in secret from her mother.
> «тайком» — 'secretly, on the sly': An adverb meaning 'in secret, stealthily' (from «тайна», secret). «тайком от матери» = 'in secret from her mother'. The «-ком» is a frozen instrumental-style adverbial ending.

Но Ивану Федоровичу, вашему брату, простите меня, я не могу доверить дочь мою с такою легкостью, хотя и продолжаю считать его за самого рыцарского молодого человека.  
But to your brother Ivan Fyodorovich — forgive me — I cannot entrust my daughter so lightly, even though I continue to regard him as the most chivalrous of young men.
> Dative recipient with «доверить»: «доверить» ('to entrust') takes the thing in the accusative («дочь мою») and the recipient in the dative («Ивану Федоровичу»). The dative names the person to whom something is entrusted — its core 'to/for whom' role.
> «считать за» + accusative: «считать кого-то за кого-то» ('to regard someone as…') governs the accusative after «за». «самого рыцарского молодого человека» is animate masculine accusative (matching the genitive form «-ого»), agreeing throughout with «человека».
> «рыцарский» — chivalrous, knightly: From «рыцарь» ('knight', a Germanic loan via Polish), the adjective means 'knightly, chivalrous'. Calling Ivan 'the most chivalrous of young men' is high gentry flattery — and ironic, given his tormented role in the novel.

А представьте, он вдруг и был у Lise, a я этого ничего и не знала.  
And imagine, he suddenly visited Lise, and I knew nothing whatever of it.
> «представьте» — polite imperative as appeal: «представьте» is the polite/plural imperative of «представить» ('imagine!'), used as a conversational appeal to the listener — 'just imagine!'. Madame Hohlakov scatters these direct-address imperatives to keep Alyosha drawn into her account.
> Genitive of negation + emphatic «и»: Under «не знала», the object goes genitive: «этого ничего» ('nothing of this'). «ничего» is the negative pronoun requiring the verb's «не» (negative concord), and «и» before the verb adds 'not even'. The cluster heaps up negation for emotional force.

— Как? Что? Когда? — ужасно удивился Алеша.  
"How? What? When?" Alyosha was dreadfully astonished.
> Verb–subject inversion in attribution: The narrator places verb before subject («удивился Алеша») — the normal Russian pattern for speech-and-action tags. «ужасно» ('terribly') is the intensifying adverb, and «удивился» carries «-ся» as a change-of-state verb 'to become astonished'.

Он уж не садился и слушал стоя.  
He no longer sat down, but listened standing.
> Gerund «стоя» as manner: «стоя» is the imperfective present gerund of «стоять» ('standing'), here adverbial: 'listened [while] standing'. Such gerunds often function like English '-ing' manner adverbs, sharing the subject of the main verb «слушал».
> «уж» + imperfective for 'no longer': «уж» (a reduced «уже», 'already/now') with negated imperfective «не садился» yields 'no longer sat down'. The imperfective marks the absence of the repeated/habitual action of sitting.

— Я вам расскажу, я для этого-то, может быть, вас и позвала, потому что я уж и не знаю, для чего вас позвала.  
"I'll tell you — that is perhaps the very reason I called you, for by now I no longer know why I called you at all.
> Emphatic «-то» plus «и» of focus: «этого-то» foregrounds the reason with the topic-clitic «-то», and the «и» before «позвала» means 'precisely/exactly' — 'it is for this very reason that I called you'. Together they put heavy rhetorical stress on the cause.
> «для чего» — genitive after «для»: «для» governs the genitive, so the interrogative «что» appears as «чего»: «для чего» = 'for what, why'. The comic self-contradiction — 'I called you for this, for I no longer know why I called you' — captures her muddle.

Вот что: Иван Федорович был у меня всего два раза по возвращении своем из Москвы, первый раз пришел как знакомый сделать визит, а в другой раз, это уже недавно, Катя у меня сидела, он и зашел, узнав, что она у меня.  
It is this: Ivan Fyodorovich has been to see me only twice since his return from Moscow — the first time he came to pay a call, as an acquaintance, and the other time, that was quite recently, Katya was sitting with me, and he dropped in on learning that she was here.
> «по» + prepositional for 'after': Here «по» governs the prepositional «возвращении» in its temporal sense 'upon, after' — 'after his return'. «своем» is the reflexive possessive «свой», pointing back to the subject Ivan ('his own return'). This «по» + prepositional 'after' is a bookish, formal turn.
> Perfective gerund «узнав»: «узнав» is the perfective past gerund of «узнать» ('to find out, learn'), expressing a prior completed action: 'having learned that she was here, he dropped in'. The gerund neatly subordinates the cause to the main verb «зашел».
> Emphatic «и» before the verb: The «и» between subject and verb («он и зашел») is not 'and' but an emphatic particle 'so/indeed' — 'so he just dropped in'. «зашел» is prefixed «зайти», 'to drop by, stop in', the «за-» giving the sense of a brief incidental visit.

Я, разумеется, и не претендовала на его частые визиты, зная, сколько у него теперь и без того хлопот, — vous comprenez, cette affaire et la mort terrible de votre papa, — только вдруг узнаю, что он был опять, только не у меня, а у Lise, это уже дней шесть тому, пришел, просидел пять минут и ушел.  
I, of course, made no claim upon his frequent visits, knowing how much he has on his hands as it is — vous comprenez, cette affaire et la mort terrible de votre papa — only suddenly I learn that he had been again, but not to see me, rather to see Lise, that was some six days ago now: he came, sat for five minutes, and left.
> Gerund «зная» + genitive of quantity: The imperfective gerund «зная» ('knowing') frames her concession. After «сколько» the noun «хлопот» ('troubles, bother') stands in the genitive plural — quantity words govern the genitive of what is measured.
> «и без того» — 'as it is, even without that': A common idiom meaning 'as it is already, anyway' — «сколько у него и без того хлопот» = 'how much he has on his hands as it is'. It concedes that the burden exists independently of any further demand.

А узнала я про это целых три дня спустя от Глафиры, так что это меня вдруг фраппировало.  
And I learned of it a full three days later from Glafira, so that it quite shocked me.
> «три дня» — genitive singular after «три»: After «два/три/четыре» the counted noun takes the genitive singular: «три дня» ('three days'). «целых» ('a whole', genitive plural agreeing with the numeral phrase) intensifies the delay. «спустя» is a postposed adverb 'later'.
> «фраппировать» — a Frenchified 'to shock': From French frapper ('to strike'), this Gallicism means 'to shock, startle'. It is exactly the kind of half-digested foreign word a status-conscious lady would use; Dostoevsky lets such loanwords expose Madame Hohlakov's affected, salon-bred speech.

Тотчас призываю Lise, a она смеется: он, дескать, думал, что вы спите, и зашел ко мне спросить о вашем здоровье.  
I summon Lise at once, and she only laughs: he thought, she says, that you were asleep, and dropped in on me to ask after your health.
> Historic present in lively narration: Both verbs are imperfective present («призываю», «смеется») used as a vivid historic present to relive the scene: 'I summon Lise at once, and she laughs'. The contrastive «а» pivots from the speaker's action to Lise's mocking response.
> «дескать» — quotative 'so she says': «дескать» is a reportative particle flagging that the following words are someone else's claim, often with a sceptical or distancing tinge: 'he thought, [she says / supposedly], that you were asleep'. It is the spoken language's marker of secondhand, not-quite-vouched-for speech.

Конечно, оно так и было.  
Of course, that was just how it was.
> Neuter «оно» + emphatic «так и»: The bleached neuter «оно» ('it') plus «так и было» ('was indeed just so') is a fixed affirmative: 'that's exactly how it was'. The «так и» pairing asserts that reality matched the account precisely.

Только Lise, Lise, о боже, как она меня огорчает!  
Only Lise, Lise, oh God, how she distresses me!

Вообразите, вдруг с ней в одну ночь — это четыре дня тому, сейчас после того, как вы в последний раз были и ушли, — вдруг с ней ночью припадок, крик, визг, истерика!  
Just imagine, suddenly one night — that was four days ago, right after you had been here the last time and gone — suddenly in the night she had a fit, screaming, shrieking, hysterics!
> Verbless nominal sentence: There is no verb at all: «вдруг с ней ночью припадок» = 'suddenly, in the night, a fit [came] upon her'. The bare nominative «припадок» plus «с ней» ('with/to her') gives a clipped, breathless onset — the syntax itself enacts the shock.
> Asyndetic crescendo of nouns: Three nominative nouns piled without conjunctions — «крик, визг, истерика» ('screaming, shrieking, hysterics') — mount in intensity. «визг» (a shrill shriek) is harsher than «крик» (a cry); the bare list mimics the rising fit.

Отчего у меня никогда не бывает истерики?  
Why do I never have hysterics?
> «у меня… не бывает» + genitive: The «у меня» possessive-existential frame, negated with «не бывает» (the iterative of «быть», 'does not happen / is never had'), throws the subject «истерики» into the genitive of negation. «никогда… не» is negative concord: 'I never have hysterics'.

Затем на другой день припадок, а потом и на третий день, и вчера, и вот вчера этот аффект.  
Then the next day another fit, and the day after that a third, and yesterday too, and then yesterday this temporary insanity.
> «на другой день» — 'the next day': «другой» here means 'next, following' rather than 'other': «на другой день» = 'on the next day'. Russian «другой» spans both 'another' and 'the next' depending on context — a small false-friend trap.

А она мне вдруг кричит: «Я ненавижу Ивана Федоровича, я требую, чтобы вы его не принимали, чтобы вы ему отказали от дома!»  
And all at once she cries out to me: 'I hate Ivan Fyodorovich, I insist that you stop receiving him, that you forbid him the house!'
> «требовать, чтобы» + past-form irrealis: Verbs of demanding take «чтобы» plus the past-tense form for the willed content: «чтобы вы… не принимали» ('that you should not receive him'). This is the irrealis «чтобы» of indirect command — the demand of an outcome, not a report of fact.
> «отказать от дома» — to forbid the house: «отказать кому-то от дома» is the period idiom 'to bar someone from one's house, refuse to receive them anymore' — a social cutting-off. «отказать» governs the dative of the person («ему») and «от дома» ('from the house').

Я обомлела при такой неожиданности и возражаю ей: с какой же стати буду я отказывать такому достойному молодому человеку и притом с такими познаниями и с таким несчастьем, потому что все-таки все эти истории — ведь это несчастье, а не счастие, не правда ли?  
I was struck dumb at such unexpectedness and object to her: on what grounds am I to refuse so worthy a young man, one of such learning besides, and with such a misfortune upon him — for after all these stories are surely a misfortune and not good fortune, isn't that so?
> «обомлеть» — to be struck dumb: «обомлела» (perfective past, fem.) means 'I went numb / was stunned, struck dumb' with shock. The verb is expressive and somewhat literary, conveying a momentary paralysis of astonishment.
> «с какой стати» — 'on what grounds, why on earth': An idiomatic indignant question, 'why on earth, by what right'. «стать» here is a frozen noun ('cause, reason'); the inserted «же» sharpens the indignation — 'why ever should I refuse so worthy a young man?'
> «ведь» and the tag «не правда ли?»: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge ('after all, surely'), and «не правда ли?» ('isn't that so?') is the bookish question tag seeking agreement. Together they pull the listener into endorsing her view — the texture of Dostoevskian persuasion.

Она вдруг расхохоталась над моими словами и так, знаете, — оскорбительно.  
She suddenly burst out laughing at my words, and so, you know — insultingly.
> Inceptive «рас-» + «-ся»; «над» + instrumental: «расхохоталась» = «рас-» (sudden, full onset) + «хохотать» + «-ся»: 'burst out laughing'. «над» governs the instrumental «моими словами» ('at/over my words'), the standard way to say one laughs 'at' something.

Ну я рада, думаю, что рассмешила ее, и припадки теперь пройдут, тем более что я сама хотела отказать Ивану Федоровичу за странные визиты без моего согласия и потребовать объяснения.  
Well, I am glad, I think, that I have made her laugh, and now the fits will pass — all the more since I myself had meant to refuse Ivan Fyodorovich for his strange visits without my consent and to demand an explanation.
> Short adjective «рада» as predicate: «рада» is the short-form feminine of «рад» ('glad'), which exists only as a predicate — one cannot say «радая». Short «рад/рада/рады» is the normal way to say 'glad', a fossilized predicative adjective.
> «тем более что» — 'all the more since': A compound subordinator meaning 'especially as, all the more so because'. «тем» is the instrumental of «то» locking with «более» ('the more'); the clause gives a reinforcing reason — here, that she had her own grounds to refuse Ivan.

Только вдруг сегодня утром Лиза проснулась и рассердилась на Юлию и, представьте, ударила ее рукой по лицу.  
Only suddenly this morning Liza woke and grew angry with Yulia and, just imagine, struck her across the face with her hand.
> «сердиться на» + accusative: «рассердиться на кого-то» ('to get angry at') governs «на» + accusative: «на Юлию». The «-ся» verb is a change of state ('grew angry'), and «на» here marks the target of the emotion rather than location.
> Yulia the maid: Yulia (here «Юлию», accusative) is one of Madame Hohlakov's serving-girls (a «горничная»). The casual mention of striking and then kissing a maid's feet sets up the next line's shock at violating the household's egalitarian pretensions.

Но ведь это монструозно, я с моими девушками на ''вы''.  
But that is monstrous — I address my maids with the formal 'you.'
> «монструозно» — a salon Gallicism: From French monstrueux, 'monstrous, outrageous'. Like «фраппировало», it is a fashionable foreign coinage flagging Madame Hohlakov's affected, French-flecked speech rather than ordinary Russian («чудовищно» would be the native word).

И вдруг чрез час она обнимает и целует у Юлии ноги.  
And then suddenly, within the hour, she is embracing Yulia and kissing her feet.
> «чрез» — archaic «через»: «чрез» is the bookish/older form of «через» ('within, after [a span of time]'). «чрез час» = 'within an hour'. The clipped «чрез» is a literary-archaic flavouring common in 19th-century prose.
> Historic present + «у» of the possessor: Present-tense «обнимает», «целует» relive the scene vividly. «у Юлии ноги» uses «у» + genitive to mark the body's owner — literally 'kisses the feet at Yulia', i.e. 'kisses Yulia's feet'; Russian often expresses inalienable possession this way.

Ко мне же прислала сказать, что не придет ко мне вовсе и впредь никогда не хочет ходить, а когда я сама к ней потащилась, то бросилась меня целовать и плакать и, целуя, так и выпихнула вон, ни слова не говоря, так что я так ничего и не узнала.  
She sent word to me that she would not come to me at all and never wishes to come to me again, and when I dragged myself to her, she flung herself upon me, kissing me and weeping, and, even as she kissed me, simply pushed me out the door without a word, so that I learned nothing at all.
> Gerund «целуя» + emphatic «так и»: «целуя» is the imperfective present gerund ('[while] kissing'), simultaneous with the main perfective «выпихнула» ('shoved out'). «так и» emphasizes the abruptness — 'even as she kissed me, she simply shoved me out'. «вон» means 'out (away)'.
> «ни… не» negation with a gerund: «ни слова не говоря» = 'not saying a single word'. «ни» intensifies the negation ('not even one'), «слова» is genitive of negation after the negated «говоря» (the gerund of «говорить»), and the construction shows the obligatory «не» of negative concord.
> Stacked emphatic «так… и не»: «так… и не узнала» conveys 'I never did find out (despite everything)', the «так и не» pattern marking an outcome that frustratingly failed to come about. With «ничего» it piles negation: 'I learned nothing at all'.

Теперь, милый Алексей Федорович, на вас все мои надежды, и, конечно, судьба всей моей жизни в ваших руках.  
Now, dear Alexei Fyodorovich, all my hopes rest on you, and, of course, the fate of my whole life is in your hands.
> Verbless sentence with fronted «на вас»: No verb: «на вас все мои надежды» = '[all] my hopes [rest] on you'. The fronted «на вас» throws the whole emotional weight onto Alyosha. The implied copula is simply omitted in the present.
> «в» + prepositional for location: «в ваших руках» ('in your hands') uses «в» + prepositional for a static location (contrast «в руки» with accusative for motion 'into the hands'). The idiom means 'in your power, dependent on you'.

Я вас просто прошу пойти к Lise, разузнать у ней всё, как вы только один умеете это сделать, и прийти рассказать мне, — мне, матери, потому что, вы понимаете, я умру, я просто умру, если всё это будет продолжаться, или убегу из дома.  
I simply beg you to go to Lise, to find out everything from her, as you alone know how to do, and to come and tell me — me, her mother — because, you understand, I shall die, I shall simply die, if all this goes on, or I shall run away from home.
> Chain of perfective infinitives: «прошу» governs a string of perfective infinitives — «пойти… разузнать… прийти рассказать» — each naming a single intended completed act. The perfectives frame the requested errand as a sequence of discrete results she wants achieved.
> «один» as 'alone, only you': «вы… один» here means 'you alone, you the only one' (not the numeral 'one'): 'as you alone know how to do it'. «один» can carry this 'sole, by oneself' sense, flattering Alyosha as uniquely able.
> Perfective future «умру»: «умру» is the simple (perfective) future of «умереть» ('I shall die') — a perfective verb conjugated with present-type endings to give future meaning. The doubling «я умру, я просто умру» is Madame Hohlakov's hallmark hyperbole.

Я больше не могу, у меня есть терпение, но я могу его лишиться, и тогда… и тогда будут ужасы.  
I can bear no more; I have patience, but I may lose it, and then… and then there will be horrors.
> «лишиться» + genitive: «лишиться» ('to lose, be deprived of') governs the genitive: «его» here is the genitive of «оно» (referring to «терпение», patience) — 'I may lose it'. Verbs of deprivation and absence regularly take the genitive of the thing lost.

Ах, боже мой, наконец-то Петр Ильич! — вскрикнула, вся вдруг просияв, госпожа Хохлакова, завидя входящего Петра Ильича Перхотина.  
Ah, my God, Pyotr Ilyich at last!" cried Madame Hohlakov, suddenly all aglow, catching sight of Pyotr Ilyich Perhotin coming in.
> Perfective gerund «просияв»: «просияв» is the perfective past gerund of «просиять» ('to beam, light up all over'), an attendant completed action: '[having] suddenly beamed all over, she cried out'. «вся» ('all of her') agrees with the implied feminine subject.
> Gerund «завидя» + present active participle: «завидя» is a gerund ('catching sight of'), and «входящего» is the present active participle of «входить» ('coming/entering in'), declined to accusative animate to agree with «Петра Ильича». Two non-finite verb forms stack to compress the action — a hallmark of literary narration.

— Опоздали, опоздали!  
"You're late, you're late!
> Subjectless perfective past as greeting: «опоздали» (perfective past, 2nd-pl./polite) drops the pronoun «вы»: 'you're late!'. The verb ending alone carries person, and the doubling conveys Madame Hohlakov's breathless reproach. «опоздать» is perfective — a single completed 'being late'.

Ну что, садитесь, говорите, решайте судьбу, ну что ж этот адвокат?  
Well then, sit down, speak, decide the matter — well, what about this lawyer?
> String of imperatives: A volley of polite-plural imperatives: «садитесь» ('sit down', from reflexive «садиться»), «говорите» ('speak'), «решайте» ('decide'). The imperfective imperatives invite the action generally; their pile-up conveys her impatient command of the room.

Куда же вы, Алексей Федорович?  
Where are you off to, Alexei Fyodorovich?"
> «куда» (whither) + particle «же»: «куда» asks direction toward a goal ('where to, whither'), as opposed to «где» ('where at'). The «же» adds surprised insistence: 'where on earth are you off to?' The verb of motion is left implied in lively speech.

— Я к Lise.  
"To Lise."
> Verb of motion elided; «к» + dative: The motion verb is dropped — «Я к Lise» = 'I [am going] to Lise'. «к» governs the dative to mark motion toward a person. Russian readily omits an obvious verb of motion in brisk dialogue.

— Ах, да!  
"Ah, yes!

Так вы не забудете, не забудете, о чем я вас просила?  
Then you won't forget, you won't forget what I asked of you?
> «просить о» + prepositional: «просить о чём-то» ('to ask about/for something') takes «о» + prepositional: «о чем» ('about what'). «просила» is imperfective past feminine, viewing the request as the ongoing thing she had been asking of him.
> Perfective future as anxious appeal: «забудете» is the simple future of perfective «забыть» ('you will [not] forget'). The repetition turns a future statement into an imploring near-command — Madame Hohlakov's characteristic doubling for emotional pressure.

Тут судьба, судьба!  
It is a matter of fate, of fate!"
> «судьба» — fate, destiny: «судьба» means 'fate, destiny, fortune', a heavily weighted word in Dostoevsky. Its breathless repetition («Тут судьба, судьба!») gives Madame Hohlakov's trivial domestic worry a melodramatic cosmic frame — comic in her mouth, but echoing the novel's grave preoccupation with fate and free will.

— Конечно, не забуду, если только можно… но я так опоздал, — пробормотал, поскорее ретируясь Алеша.  
"Of course, I won't forget — if only it's possible… but I am so late," Alyosha muttered, beating a hasty retreat.
> «если только» — 'if only / provided that': «если только» qualifies a promise: 'if only it's possible, provided it can be done'. The «только» narrows the condition, hedging Alyosha's commitment — a hesitation Madame Hohlakov will pounce on in the next line.
> Gerund «ретируясь» + «по-» comparative: «ретируясь» is the imperfective present gerund of the Gallicism «ретироваться» ('to retreat'), simultaneous with «пробормотал»: 'muttered while beating a retreat'. «поскорее» is the comparative «скорее» with «по-» softening it to 'as fast as he could'.

— Нет, наверно, наверно заходите, а не «если можно», иначе я умру! — прокричала вслед ему госпожа Хохлакова, но Алеша уже вышел из комнаты.  
"No — for certain, for certain you must come, not 'if it's possible,' or else I shall die!" Madame Hohlakov cried after him, but Alyosha had already left the room.
> Imperfective imperative «заходите»: «заходите» is the imperfective imperative of «заходить» ('come / drop by'), used for an open invitation. The «а не» pointedly rejects his hedge — 'for certain come, not "if it's possible"' — a near-comic insistence.
> «вслед» + dative: «вслед ему» ('after him') uses «вслед» governing the dative to mean calling out in the direction of a departing person. «прокричала» (perfective, fem.) marks one completed shout flung after Alyosha as he leaves.
> Prefixed motion «выйти» + «из» + genitive: «вышел» is perfective «выйти» ('went out'), the prefix «вы-» giving 'exit'; it pairs with «из» + genitive «из комнаты» ('out of the room'). «уже» ('already') marks the completed departure that closes the scene.
---

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.