# The Brothers Karamazov, A Hymn and a Secret

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book XI — Ivan

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b11-c4. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b11-c4.json.


Было уже совсем поздно (да и велик ли ноябрьский день), когда Алеша позвонил у ворот острога.  
It was already quite late — and how long, after all, is a November day — when Alyosha rang at the gates of the prison.
> Short adjective with «ли»: «Велик» is the short (predicative) form of «великий/большой» — 'how big/long is it', here rhetorical. The enclitic «ли» turns it into a wondering yes/no question fused into the narration: 'and how long, after all, is a November day?'
> Impersonal 'it was late': A subjectless construction: the neuter «было» plus the adverb «поздно», with no nominative. Russian states such conditions of time and weather impersonally, where English supplies a dummy 'it'.

Начинало даже смеркаться.  
Dusk was even beginning to fall.
> Impersonal 'it was getting dark': «Смеркаться» (to grow dusk) is a subjectless reflexive verb of nature; the auxiliary «начинало» stands in the neuter with no subject at all. The reflexive «-ся» here marks an event happening of itself, not a true reflexive.

Но Алеша знал, что его пропустят к Мите беспрепятственно.  
But Alyosha knew he would be let through to Mitya without any obstacle.
> Perfective future as confident prediction: «Пропустят» is the perfective future (they-form) conjugated with present endings — a single completed future act, 'they will let [him] through'. The impersonal 'they' (no stated subject) is Russian's everyday passive substitute.
> «беспрепятственно» — without hindrance: A bookish adverb built from без- ('without') + препятствие ('obstacle'): 'unobstructedly, freely'. The long, prefix-stacked word lends a faintly bureaucratic, formal weight.

Всё это у нас, в нашем городке, как и везде.  
With us, in our little town, all this goes much as it does everywhere.
> «городок» — our little town: The diminutive of «город» with the suffix -ок: here not literally 'small' but warmly familiar — 'our little town', the narrator folding the reader into the place.
> Verbless equational sentence: No verb at all: «всё это… как и везде» ('all this [is] as everywhere'). Russian omits the present-tense copula 'to be', so the locatives «у нас», «в нашем городке» (prepositional after «в») simply frame a bare assertion.

Сначала, конечно, по заключении всего предварительного следствия, доступ к Мите для свидания с родственниками и с некоторыми другими лицами всё же был обставлен некоторыми необходимыми формальностями, но впоследствии формальности не то что ослабели, но для иных лиц, по крайней мере приходивших к Мите, как-то сами собой установились некоторые исключения.  
At first, of course, once the whole preliminary inquiry had been concluded, access to Mitya for visits from relatives and certain other persons was still hedged about with a number of necessary formalities; but later the formalities did not so much relax as, of their own accord, give way to certain exceptions for some of the visitors — at least for those who came to Mitya.
> Bookish «по» + prepositional = 'upon': Here «по» governs the prepositional «заключении» in its rarer, formal temporal sense 'upon / after the conclusion of'. This is legal-administrative register, distinct from everyday «по» + dative.
> Periphrastic passive with short participle: «Обставлен» is the short past passive participle of «обставить» joined to «был» — 'was hedged about / surrounded'. The short form + «быть» is Russian's standard way to state a completed passive result.
> «сами собой» + reflexive 'of their own accord': The set phrase «сам собой» ('by itself, spontaneously') reinforces the middle reflexive «установились» ('established themselves'): the exceptions arose with no one arranging them. «Собой» is the instrumental of the reflexive «себя».
> Past active participle compressing a clause: «Приходивших» (-вш- past active participle of «приходить»), agreeing with «лиц» in the genitive plural, packs 'who came to Mitya' into one word — the bookish alternative to a «который»-clause.

До того что иной раз даже и свидания с заключенным в назначенной для того комнате происходили почти между четырех глаз.  
So much so that now and then a visit with the prisoner, in the room set aside for the purpose, took place almost privately, face to face.
> «между четырёх глаз» — face to face: Literally 'between four eyes' (cf. «с глазу на глаз»): an idiom for a private, one-on-one meeting with no third party present. Note the genitive plural «глаз» (zero ending) governed by «между».
> Past passive participle as attribute: «Назначенной» is the long past passive participle of «назначить» ('appointed, set aside'), declined to agree with «комнате» (dative/prepositional fem.). Such participles work like adjectives before the noun.

Впрочем, таких лиц было очень немного: всего только Грушенька, Алеша и Ракитин.  
There were, however, very few such people: only Grushenka, Alyosha, and Rakitin.
> Genitive with a quantity word: «Немного» ('few, not many') governs the genitive plural «таких лиц», and the verb stands neuter «было». A quantified group takes neuter agreement and throws its noun into the genitive.

Но к Грушеньке очень благоволил сам исправник Михаил Макарович.  
But toward Grushenka the police captain Mikhail Makarovich himself was very well disposed.
> «благоволить» — to be well disposed: A bookish, slightly elevated verb ('to favour, look kindly upon'), built on the Slavonic root благо- ('good'). It governs the dative «к Грушеньке» and sets a formal tone fitting an official's regard.
> Intensive «сам» — 'himself': «Сам» here intensifies the subject: 'the police captain himself', stressing that even so senior a figure favoured her. It agrees in gender/number with what it emphasises.

У старика лежал на сердце его окрик на нее в Мокром.  
The old man had it weighing on his heart, the way he had shouted at her in Mokroye.
> «лежать на сердце» — to weigh on one's heart: An idiom: something 'lies on the heart' when it troubles the conscience and won't let go. Here the captain's earlier «окрик» (sharp shout) at Grushenka still gnaws at him.
> «У» + genitive of the possessor: Russian frames having/experiencing with «у» + genitive («у старика», 'on the old man's part'). The grammatical subject is «окрик»; the experiencer is pushed to the «у»-phrase — a hallmark of Russian's experiencer-centred syntax.

Потом, узнав всю суть, он изменил совсем о ней свои мысли.  
Afterward, having learned the whole truth of it, he changed his opinion of her entirely.
> Perfective gerund 'having learned': «Узнав» is the perfective past gerund (деепричастие) of «узнать»: a prior completed act sharing the main subject — 'having learned the whole truth, he changed…'. The -в ending is the signature of the completed adverbial participle.
> «суть» — the essence: A feminine soft-sign noun meaning 'the essence, the gist, the heart of the matter'. «Узнать всю суть» = 'to learn the whole truth/crux of it', weightier than mere facts.

И странное дело: хотя был твердо убежден в преступлении Мити, но со времени заключения его всё как-то более и более смотрел на него мягче: «С хорошею, может быть, душой был человек, а вот пропал, как швед, от пьянства и беспорядка!»  
And a strange thing: though he was firmly convinced of Mitya's guilt, ever since the man's imprisonment he had somehow come to look on him more and more gently. "A man with a good soul, perhaps, and look how he came to ruin, gone like a Swede, through drink and disorder!"
> Short participle + concessive «хотя»: «Убеждён» is the short past passive participle ('convinced'), here a predicate of state, introduced by the concessive «хотя» ('although'). The pre-reform/literary stress «убеждён в преступлении» governs «в» + prepositional.
> Comparative «мягче»: «Мягче» is the predicative comparative of «мягкий» ('softer, more gently'); paired with «более и более» it builds 'more and more gently'. The consonant-mutating -е comparative is irregular and worth memorising.

Прежний ужас сменился в сердце его какою-то жалостью.  
The earlier horror had given way, in his heart, to a kind of pity.
> Reflexive + instrumental of replacement: «Сменился» (middle reflexive of «сменить», 'gave way') takes the instrumental «жалостью» to name what replaced the horror. The archaic/literary instrumental ending «-ою» (for «какою-то») is the bookish 19th-century variant of «-ой».

Что же до Алеши, то исправник очень любил его и давно уже был с ним знаком, а Ракитин, повадившийся впоследствии приходить очень часто к заключенному, был одним из самых близких знакомых «исправничьих барышень», как он называл их, и ежедневно терся в их доме.  
As for Alyosha, the police captain was very fond of him and had long been acquainted with him; and Rakitin, who had taken to coming very often to the prisoner of late, was one of the closest acquaintances of the "police captain's young ladies," as he called them, and was forever hanging about their house.
> Correlative «что до… то» — 'as for': A fixed bookish frame: «что (же) до X, то…» = 'as for X, …', here reinforced by the emphatic particle «же». «До Алеши» is genitive after «до».
> Past active participle 'who had taken to': «Повадившийся» is the reflexive past active participle of «повадиться» ('to get into the habit of'), agreeing with «Ракитин» and governing the infinitive «приходить» — 'who had taken to coming', condensing a relative clause.
> «тереться» — to hang about: Literally 'to rub oneself' (reflexive «тереть»), colloquially 'to hang around, be forever underfoot'. The slightly contemptuous image fits the narrator's dim view of the sponging Rakitin.
> «барышня» / «исправничьи барышни»: «Барышня» is the genteel pre-revolutionary term for an unmarried young lady of the gentry. «Исправничьи» is a possessive adjective ('the police-captain's'); the captain's daughters are the 'police captain's young ladies'.

У смотрителя же острога, благодушного старика, хотя и крепкого служаки, он давал в доме уроки.  
And at the house of the prison warden — a good-natured old fellow, though a stickler in his duties — he gave lessons.
> «служака» — a stickler in service: «Служака» is a colloquial, slightly ironic word for a zealous old hand in the service, a by-the-book careerist of duty. «Крепкий» here = 'staunch, firm'. The masculine «-а» noun still declines like a feminine.

Алеша же опять-таки был особенный и стародавний знакомый и смотрителя, любившего говорить с ним вообще о «премудрости».  
Alyosha, again, was an old and particular acquaintance of the warden too, who loved to talk with him about "higher wisdom" in general.
> «стародавний» — of long standing: A bookish compound (старо- 'old' + давний 'long-ago') meaning 'long-standing, of old', faintly archaic. Pairing it with «особенный» elevates Alyosha's acquaintance with the warden.
> Past active participle + infinitive: «Любившего» (past active participle of «любить») agrees in the genitive with «смотрителя» and governs «говорить»: 'who loved to talk'. Another participle standing in for a «который»-clause.
> «премудрость» — higher wisdom: A Church-Slavonic-flavoured word (пре- intensive + мудрость) for divine or lofty wisdom, as in 'the Wisdom of God'. The quotation marks gently mock the warden's homespun theologizing.

Ивана Федоровича, например, смотритель не то что уважал, а даже боялся, главное, его суждений, хотя сам был большим философом, разумеется «своим умом дойдя».  
Ivan Fyodorovich, for instance, the warden did not so much respect as positively fear — chiefly his judgments — though the warden was himself a great philosopher, having "reached it by his own wits," of course.
> «не то что… а» — 'not so much… as': A common correlative construction qualifying a statement: 'did not so much respect as positively fear'. «А» here is the contrastive 'but/rather' that pivots to the truer term. This frame recurs throughout the chapter (cf. «не то что ослабели», «не то что ждал»).
> Genitive object of «бояться»: «Бояться» ('to fear') is an inherently reflexive verb that governs the genitive, hence «его суждений» ('his judgments', gen. pl.). Fear, like absence, pulls its object into the genitive.
> Perfective gerund «дойдя» + instrumental of means: «Дойдя» is the perfective gerund of «дойти» ('having reached/arrived [at it]'); «своим умом» is the instrumental of means, 'by his own wits'. The phrase, in quotes, mimics the warden's self-satisfied claim to self-taught philosophy.

Но к Алеше в нем была какая-то непобедимая симпатия.  
But for Alyosha he felt a kind of unconquerable affection.
> Existential «была» with «у/в нём»: An experiencer construction: the feeling «симпатия» is the subject, while the one feeling it sits in «в нём» ('in him') — Russian locates emotions inside a person rather than making him their subject. «К Алеше» (dative) names its object.
> Indefinite «какой-то»: «Какой-то» ('some kind of, a certain') with the clitic -то marks the affection as real but hard to pin down. Dostoevsky's narration leans constantly on this softening 'some sort of'.

В последний год старик как раз засел за апокрифические евангелия и поминутно сообщал о своих впечатлениях своему молодому другу.  
In the past year the old man had taken to poring over the apocryphal gospels, and was constantly reporting his impressions to his young friend.
> «засесть за» — to settle down to: «Засесть за» + accusative = 'to buckle down to, immerse oneself in' a task. The за- prefix gives the sense of getting absorbed; here the old man has 'buried himself in' the apocryphal gospels.
> «поминутно» — every minute: An adverb (по- + минута) meaning 'constantly, every other minute, incessantly'. It paints the old man's eager, button-holing habit of reporting each new impression.

Прежде даже заходил к нему в монастырь и толковал с ним и с иеромонахами по целым часам.  
Before, he had even gone to see Alyosha at the monastery and talked for hours on end with him and with the hieromonks.
> Imperfective of habit + iterative «по»: «Заходил» and «толковал» are imperfective pasts of repeated, habitual action ('used to drop in… would talk'). «По целым часам» ('for hours on end') uses distributive «по» + dative to stress the drawn-out repetition.

Словом, Алеше, если бы даже он и запоздал в острог, стоило пройти к смотрителю, и дело всегда улаживалось.  
In a word, even if Alyosha arrived at the prison late, he had only to go up to the warden, and the matter always got smoothed over.
> Conditional «если бы» with «бы»: The irrealis: «если бы» + past-form verb «запоздал» plus mobile «бы» builds the hypothetical 'even if he were to arrive late'. The added «даже… и» ('even') heightens the concession.
> Impersonal «стоило… и» — 'one had only to': «Стоило» + infinitive (impersonal, no subject) means 'one need only / he had only to': 'he had only to go up to the warden, and the matter got settled'. «Улаживалось» is the reflexive-middle 'sorted itself out'.

К тому же к Алеше все до последнего сторожа в остроге привыкли.  
Besides, everyone at the prison, down to the lowest watchman, had grown used to Alyosha.
> «привыкнуть к» + dative: «Привыкнуть» ('to grow used to') governs «к» + dative «к Алеше». The perfective past «привыкли» states the settled result: everyone had become accustomed to him.
> «до» — 'down to the last': «До последнего сторожа» (genitive after «до») = 'down to the lowest watchman', i.e. everyone without exception. A common intensifying idiom of inclusion.

Караул же, конечно, не стеснял, было бы лишь дозволение начальства.  
The guard, of course, raised no difficulty, so long as there was permission from the authorities.
> «бы» — 'so long as there were': A clause of sufficient condition built on «бы» + past «было»: 'provided only there were permission'. «Лишь» ('only, just') marks the single condition required; «дозволение начальства» is genitive of source.
> «дозволение», «начальство»: «Дозволение» is the formal, slightly archaic word for 'permission, leave' (vs. plain «разрешение»). «Начальство» is the collective 'the authorities / the bosses' — the abstract neuter noun standing for whoever is in charge.

Митя из своей каморки, когда вызывали его, сходил всегда вниз в место, назначенное для свиданий.  
Mitya, when he was summoned from his cell, always came down to the place appointed for visits.
> «каморка» — little cell: A diminutive of «камора» (chamber): a cramped little room or cell. The suffix shrinks and colours it — Mitya's mean, narrow confinement.
> Paired imperfectives of repetition: Both «вызывали» ('they would summon') and «сходил» ('he would come down') are imperfective pasts of habitual action with «всегда» — recounting a recurring routine, not a single event.

Войдя в комнату, Алеша как раз столкнулся с Ракитиным, уже уходившим от Мити.  
On entering the room, Alyosha ran straight into Rakitin, who was already leaving Mitya.
> Perfective gerund 'on entering': «Войдя» is the perfective gerund of «войти»: a completed prior act sharing Alyosha's subject — 'having entered / on entering the room'. The form is the irregular gerund of a prefixed motion verb.
> Past active participle in the instrumental: «Уходившим» (imperfective past active participle of «уходить») agrees with «Ракитиным» in the instrumental governed by «столкнулся с» — 'ran into Rakitin, who was already leaving'. The imperfective marks the leaving as in progress.

Оба они громко говорили.  
Both of them were talking loudly.
> Imperfective of ongoing background: «Говорили» is imperfective past — an ongoing state Alyosha walks in on, not a completed act. «Оба» ('both', masc.) agrees with «они» and is the special paucal numeral for two.

Митя, провожая его, чему-то очень смеялся, а Ракитин как будто ворчал.  
Mitya, seeing him off, was laughing hard at something, while Rakitin seemed to be grumbling.
> Imperfective gerund + dative of «смеяться»: «Провожая» (imperfective present gerund, 'while seeing off') sets a simultaneous backdrop. «Смеяться» governs «чему-то» in the dative ('laughing at something'), the indefinite -то marking a vague trigger.
> Contrastive «а» + 'as if': «А» pivots between the two men's moods — Mitya laughing, Rakitin grumbling — the mild adversative 'while/whereas'. «Как будто» ('as if, seemingly') hedges the observation.

Ракитин, особенно в последнее время, не любил встречаться с Алешей, почти не говорил с ним, даже и раскланивался с натугой.  
Rakitin, especially of late, did not like meeting Alyosha; he scarcely spoke to him, and even bowed to him grudgingly.
> Chain of imperfectives of habit: All three verbs are imperfective pasts describing Rakitin's settled recent manner — disliking, scarcely speaking, bowing grudgingly. The negation «почти не» ('hardly') and «даже» build the picture of cooling.
> «раскланиваться», «с натугой»: «Раскланиваться» is to exchange formal bows in greeting/parting; «с натугой» = 'with effort, with a strain', grudgingly. Together they sketch Rakitin's stiff, forced courtesy.

Завидя теперь входящего Алешу, он особенно нахмурил брови и отвел глаза в сторону, как бы весь занятый застегиванием своего большого теплого с меховым воротником пальто.  
Catching sight now of Alyosha coming in, he knit his brows pointedly and turned his eyes aside, as though wholly taken up with buttoning his big warm overcoat with the fur collar.
> Gerund «завидя» + present active participle: «Завидя» is a perfective gerund ('catching sight of'); «входящего» is the present active participle of «входить» ('coming in'), in the accusative agreeing with «Алешу». Two non-finite forms stacked — dense literary narration.
> «как бы» + short participle + instrumental: «Занятый» (short past passive participle, 'occupied') takes the instrumental «застегиванием» ('with buttoning'). «Как бы» ('as though') frames it as a pretence. «Весь» = 'wholly, entirely absorbed'.
> Stacked genitive modifiers; indeclinable «пальто»: A pile-up of agreeing genitive adjectives around the loanword «пальто», which never declines (its case is shown only by the modifiers «большого тёплого»). The buried «с меховым воротником» ('with a fur collar') is instrumental after «с».

Потом тотчас же принялся искать свой зонтик.  
Then at once he set about hunting for his umbrella.
> «приняться» + imperfective infinitive: «Приняться» ('to set about, begin') is a phasal verb that requires an imperfective infinitive — «искать», not the perfective. «Тотчас же» ('at once') with the emphatic «же» speeds the gesture.

— Своего бы не забыть чего, — пробормотал он, единственно чтобы что-нибудь сказать.  
"Mustn't forget anything of my own," he muttered, merely for the sake of saying something.
> «бы» + infinitive as anxious wish: An infinitive softened by «бы» expresses a hovering self-directed worry: 'I mustn't forget anything of my own'. «Своего… чего» is the genitive of negation under «не забыть»; «своего» is the reflexive possessive 'one's own'.
> «чтобы» of purpose + «-нибудь»: «Чтобы» + infinitive «сказать» gives purpose ('merely in order to say something'). «Что-нибудь» with -нибудь marks a non-specific 'anything at all' — he speaks just to fill the silence.

— Ты чужого-то чего не забудь! — сострил Митя и тотчас же сам расхохотался своей остроте.  
"Mind you don't forget anything of someone else's!" Mitya quipped, and burst out laughing at his own joke.
> Imperative + emphatic «-то» + genitive of negation: Mitya volleys back the joke: «не забудь» is a negated perfective imperative ('don't forget'), with «чужого… чего» in the genitive of negation — 'anything of someone else's'. The clitic «-то» pins the topic «чужое» pointedly against Rakitin's «своё».
> «сострить», «расхохотаться»: «Сострить» = 'to crack a witticism' (from «острый», sharp). «Расхохотаться» is the perfective 'to burst out laughing' — the prefix рас- giving a sudden, explosive onset to «хохотать».

Ракитин мигом вспылил.  
Rakitin flared up in an instant.
> «мигом», «вспылить»: «Мигом» ('in a flash', instrumental of «миг», a moment) used adverbially. «Вспылить» is the perfective 'to flare up, lose one's temper suddenly' — the вс- prefix marking the flash of anger.

— Ты это своим Карамазовым рекомендуй, крепостничье ваше отродье, а не Ракитину! — крикнул он вдруг, так и затрясшись от злости.  
"You go recommend that to your Karamazovs, you serf-bred brood, not to a Rakitin!" he shouted all at once, fairly shaking with rage.
> Imperative with dative object: «Рекомендуй» is the imperative of «рекомендовать»; «своим Карамазовым» is its dative recipient ('recommend it to your Karamazovs'). The reflexive possessive «своим» = 'your own kind'.
> Perfective gerund «затрясшись» + «от»: «Затрясшись» is the reflexive perfective gerund of «затрястись» ('having begun to shake'). «От злости» (genitive after «от») gives the cause, 'from rage'; «так и» dramatizes 'fairly, just'.

— Чего ты? Я пошутил! — вскрикнул Митя, — фу, черт!  
"What's the matter with you? I was joking!" Mitya cried. "Ugh, devil take it!
> Elliptical «чего ты?» — 'what's with you?': A clipped colloquial question: «чего» (the genitive of «что», common in speech for nominative) with the verb dropped — 'what's the matter with you?'. The spoken genitive «чего» for «что» is a marker of casual register.

Вот они все таковы, — обратился он к Алеше, кивая на быстро уходившего Ракитина, — то всё сидел, смеялся и весел был, а тут вдруг и вскипел!  
There, they're all like that," he said, turning to Alyosha and nodding after the swiftly departing Rakitin. "He was sitting here laughing, in good spirits, and then all at once he boils over!
> Archaic «таков» — 'such': «Таковы» is the short/predicative form of «таков» ('such, like that'), a bookish predicate of quality — 'they're all like that'. It survives mainly in fixed and literary turns.
> Gerund + past active participle: «Кивая» (imperfective gerund, 'nodding') frames the action; «уходившего» (imperfective past active participle) agrees with «Ракитина» in the accusative — 'at the swiftly departing Rakitin'.
> Imperfective background vs perfective burst: The aspectual contrast in miniature: «сидел… был» (imperfective, the standing state of good humour) against «вскипел» (perfective, the sudden 'boiled over'). «А тут вдруг» marks the abrupt switch.

Тебе даже и головой не кивнул, совсем, что ли, вы рассорились?  
He didn't even give you a nod — have the two of you fallen out altogether, or what?
> Dative recipient + instrumental of means: «Кивнуть» takes the dative of the person greeted («тебе», 'to you') and the instrumental of the body part «головой» ('with his head') — 'he didn't even give you a nod'. «Даже и» heightens the slight.
> Tag particle «что ли» + reciprocal «-ся»: «Что ли» is a colloquial dubitative tag ('or what?, eh?'). «Рассорились» is the reciprocal reflexive of «рассорить» — 'have you (two) quarrelled with each other / fallen out?', the «-ся» marking mutual action.

Что ты так поздно?  
Why are you so late?
> Verbless 'why so late?': A bare colloquial question with the verb («пришёл/явился») dropped: «что» here = 'why, how come', plus the adverb «поздно». Spoken Russian routinely omits an understood verb.

Я тебя не то что ждал, а жаждал всё утро.  
I didn't just wait for you — I've thirsted for you all morning.
> «не то что… а» heightening the verb: The same corrective frame as earlier, now intensifying: 'I didn't just wait — I thirsted'. «А» pivots from the weaker «ждал» to the stronger «жаждал», a near-rhyme Dostoevsky exploits.
> «жаждать» — to thirst, to crave: A high, almost biblical verb ('to thirst, hunger after'), from «жажда» (thirst); set against the plain «ждать» it lifts Mitya's longing to a spiritual pitch. Note the wordplay «ждал / жаждал».

Ну да ничего! Наверстаем.  
Well, never mind! We'll make up for it."
> Perfective future 'we'll make up': «Наверстаем» is the perfective future (we-form) of «наверстать» ('to make up for, recoup [lost time]') — a single completed future act, no auxiliary. «Да ничего» = 'but never mind'.

— Что он к тебе так часто повадился? Подружился ты с ним, что ли? — спросил Алеша, кивая тоже на дверь, в которую убрался Ракитин.  
"Why has he taken to coming to you so often? Have you made friends with him, or what?" Alyosha asked, nodding too at the door through which Rakitin had cleared off.
> «повадиться» — to take to (a habit): A colloquial reflexive verb 'to get into the (often unwelcome) habit of coming/doing'. Mitya echoes the narrator's earlier «повадившийся» about Rakitin's too-frequent visits.
> Relative «который» taking its own case: «В которую» — «который» agrees with «дверь» (fem. sing.) but takes the accusative demanded by «в» (motion through), 'through which'. «Убрался» is colloquial perfective 'cleared off, made himself scarce'.

— С Михаилом-то подружился? Нет, не то чтоб.  
"Friends with Mikhail? No, not exactly.
> Topic-marking clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» here singles out and lightly stresses the topic 'Mikhail' ('Friends with Mikhail, you mean?'), distinct from the indefinite «-то». «Подружиться с» governs «с» + instrumental.
> Clipped «не то чтоб» — 'not exactly': A truncated colloquial form of «не то чтобы» ('not that, not exactly'), trailing off. The dropped final vowel of «чтоб(ы)» is typical of casual speech.

Да и чего, свинья!  
And why should I — the swine!
> Elliptical «чего» = 'why': «Да и чего» = 'and why [should I]', the spoken genitive «чего» standing in for a fuller 'why would I'. «Свинья» ('pig, swine') is flung at Rakitin as a contemptuous aside.

Считает, что я… подлец.  
He reckons I'm... a scoundrel.
> «подлец» — scoundrel: A strong term of moral condemnation ('villain, base wretch'), a key word in Dostoevsky's ethical vocabulary. Mitya's halting «что я… подлец» (he reckons I'm... a scoundrel) anticipates the chapter's turn to conscience.

Шутки тоже не понимают — вот что в них главное.  
They don't understand a joke, either — that's the main thing about them.
> Genitive of negation; generic plural 'they': Under negation the object «шутку» shifts to genitive «шутки» ('don't understand a joke'). The unspecified plural «не понимают» ('they don't get it') generalises from Rakitin to his whole type.

Никогда не поймут шутки.  
They never will catch a joke.
> Negative concord «никогда… не»: «Никогда» ('never') still requires the verbal negation «не» — Russian's obligatory double negation. «Поймут» is perfective future and «шутки» again the genitive of negation: 'they'll never catch a joke'.

Да и сухо у них в душе, плоско и сухо, точно как я тогда к острогу подъезжал и на острожные стены смотрел.  
And their souls are dry — flat and dry, just as it was when I drove up to the prison that time and looked at the prison walls.
> Impersonal predicate + «у них»: An impersonal state with the adverb «сухо» ('it is dry') and the experiencer in «у них в душе» ('in their soul'). Russian renders inner emptiness as a condition befalling a person, not an attribute they possess.
> Imperfective + prefixed motion «подъезжать»: «Точно как» ('just as') opens a simile. «Подъезжал» is the imperfective prefixed motion verb (под- + ездить) for an approach in progress, 'was driving up to'; «к острогу» is the dative of goal after «к».

Но умный человек, умный.  
But he's a clever man, clever.
> Zero copula + emphatic repetition: A verbless present equational sentence ('[he's] a clever man'), with «умный» repeated for insistence. The doubling, common in Mitya's speech, does the work English gives to stress.

Ну, Алексей, пропала теперь моя голова!  
Well, Alexei, it's all up with me now!"
> «пропала моя голова» — I'm done for: An idiom of doom: literally 'my head has perished', i.e. 'I'm finished, it's all up with me'. Mitya will pun on it in s54, splitting «голова» (head) from what was 'in' it.

Он сел на скамейку и посадил с собою рядом Алешу  
He sat down on the bench and made Alyosha sit beside him.
> Causative «посадить» + reflexive «собою»: «Посадить» ('to make/seat someone') is the perfective causative beside intransitive «сесть» ('sit down', s49's «сел»). «С собою рядом» ('beside himself') uses the instrumental of the reflexive «себя» in its literary «-ою» form.

— Да, завтра суд. Что ж, неужели же ты так совсем не надеешься, брат? — с робким чувством проговорил Алеша.  
"Yes, the trial's tomorrow. Surely you haven't given up all hope, brother?" Alyosha said with a timid feeling.
> «неужели же» — incredulous question: «Неужели» ('surely not?, can it be?') voices disbelief, reinforced by the emphatic «же». «Надеешься» is the present of reflexive-only «надеяться» ('to hope'); «совсем не» = 'not at all'.
> Instrumental of manner «с… чувством»: «С робким чувством» ('with a timid feeling') is «с» + instrumental describing the manner of «проговорил» — the perfective 'said, brought out'. The prefix про- suggests speaking the words through.

— Ты это про что? — как-то неопределенно глянул на него Митя, — ах, ты про суд!  
"What are you talking about?" Mitya glanced at him somewhat vaguely. "Ah, you mean the trial!
> Colloquial «про что» — 'about what?': «Про» + accusative «что» ('about what') is the everyday, slightly informal alternative to «о чём». The «это» is a filler reinforcing the question: 'what are you on about?'
> Semelfactive «глянуть»: «Глянуть» is the perfective of a single glance (vs. iterative «глядеть»). Its position after the adverb «неопределённо» ('vaguely') inverts the usual order for rhythmic weight in the dialogue tag.

Ну, черт!  
Well, the devil!

Мы до сих пор всё с тобой о пустяках говорили, вот всё про этот суд, а я об самом главном с тобою молчал.  
Up to now you and I have kept talking of trifles, all about this trial of mine, and I've been silent with you about the chief thing.
> Imperfective of drawn-out process: «Говорили» (imperfective) with «до сих пор» and «всё» ('all this while, kept on') stresses a prolonged, unfinished activity — talking and talking of trifles. «Всё» as an adverb here = 'continually'.
> Substantivized superlative «самое главное»: «О самом главном» ('about the chief thing') is the neuter adjective «главное» used as a noun, with «самый» forming the superlative; «об» governs the prepositional. «Молчал» ('kept silent') sets the silence against the chatter.

Да, завтра суд, только я не про суд сказал, что пропала моя голова. Голова не пропала, а то, что в голове сидело, то пропало.  
Yes, the trial's tomorrow, only it wasn't the trial I meant when I said it's all up with me. My head isn't done for — what was in my head, that's what's done for.
> Correlative «то, что… то»: A bookish correlative: the neuter «то» sets up a headless relative «что в голове сидело» ('what sat in my head'), resumed by «то пропало». Mitya's pun turns on splitting his literal head from its contents.
> Restrictive «только» + «про» + accusative: «Только» ('only, it was just that') narrows the claim; «не про суд» ('not about the trial', «про» + accusative) corrects the misunderstanding. Repetition of «суд / голова / пропала» knots the passage rhetorically.

Что ты на меня с такою критикой в лице смотришь?  
Why do you look at me with such criticism in your face?"
> Instrumental «с… критикой» + literary «-ою»: «С такою критикой» ('with such criticism') is «с» + instrumental of manner; «такою» shows the elevated 19th-century ending «-ою» for «-ой». «В лице» = 'in your face/expression'.

— Про что ты это, Митя?  
"What do you mean, Mitya?"
> Echoed colloquial «про что»: Alyosha mirrors Mitya's own «про что» ('what do you mean?'), «про» + accusative «что», the verb again dropped. The reciprocal echo binds the brothers' exchange.

— Идеи, идеи, вот что! Эфика. Это что такое эфика?  
"Ideas, ideas, that's what! Ethics. What is this thing, ethics?"
> «Эфика» — Mitya's mangled 'ethics': Mitya garbles «этика» ('ethics') as «эфика», a comic malapropism betraying his half-grasp of the lofty 'ideas' Rakitin has been feeding him. Dostoevsky lets the misspelling stand to characterise his earnest, unschooled mind.
> «что такое» — 'what is…?': «Что такое X?» is the set frame for asking a definition ('what is X?'), with no copula. The doubled «это… такое» is colloquial emphasis, like 'what on earth is this ethics?'

— Эфика? — удивился Алеша.  
"Ethics?" Alyosha said, surprised.
> Reflexive «удивиться» as inversion tag: «Удивиться» ('to be surprised') is a reflexive-only verb; here the perfective past stands before its subject «Алеша» in the dialogue tag — a stylistic inversion regular in narration of speech.

— Да, наука, что ли, какая?  
"Yes — some sort of science, is it?"
> Hedging «что ли» + «какая»: «Что ли» tags the guess with uncertainty ('some sort of science, is it?'); the postposed «какая» ('some kind of') further hedges. The whole is verbless, leaning on the question intonation.

— Да, есть такая наука… только… я, признаюсь, не могу тебе объяснить, какая наука.  
"Yes, there is such a science... only... I confess, I can't explain to you just what sort of science it is."
> Existential «есть»: «Есть» ('there is/exists') is the one surviving present form of «быть», used precisely to assert existence: 'there is such a science'. Elsewhere the present copula stays unspoken.
> Reflexive «признаюсь» + embedded question: «Признаюсь» ('I confess') is a reflexive-only verb used parenthetically. «Не могу объяснить, какая наука» embeds an indirect question ('what sort of science it is'), the interrogative «какая» introducing the clause.

— Ракитин знает. Много знает Ракитин, черт его дери!  
"Rakitin knows. Rakitin knows a great deal, devil take him!
> Verb fronted for emphasis: Default order would be «Ракитин много знает»; pulling «много знает» to the front throws the weight onto how much Rakitin knows. Russian's case-marked freedom lets the comment lead the topic for this kind of agitated, emphatic repetition.
> «devil take him»: A coarse, idiomatic curse — literally «may the devil flay/tear him». «дери» is an imperative of «драть» (to tear, flog); the phrase recurs as Mitya's verbal tic throughout this scene, a marker of his rough, excitable speech.

В монахи не пойдет.  
He won't go in for the monastery.
> Accusative-plural «в монахи» of role: «пойти в монахи» means to become a monk; the bare plural «в монахи» (formally accusative, identical to nominative here) is the special construction for entering a profession or estate, as in «пойти в солдаты». Without the prefixed «в + monks» idiom it would simply read 'walk into monks'.

В Петербург собирается.  
He's getting ready for Petersburg.
> Reflexive «-ся» as 'getting ready': «собираться» (here «собирается», he is preparing/intending) is a reflexive verb whose «-ся» turns 'gather' into 'gather oneself, set about, intend to'. The imperfective present conveys an ongoing plan, not a completed one.

Там, говорит, в отделение критики, но с благородством направления.  
There, he says, in the section for criticism — but with a high-minded tendency.
> Parenthetical «говорит» — 'he says': «говорит» dropped into the middle of the clause is the standard Russian way of flagging reported speech, like English 'he says'. Mitya scatters it through his retelling of Rakitin's words, blurring quotation and paraphrase.

Что ж, может пользу принесть и карьеру устроить.  
Well, he may do some good and make himself a career.
> Modal «может» + two perfective infinitives: «может» (can/may) governs the perfectives «принесть» and «устроить», each naming a single achieved outcome — do some good, set up a career. The perfective infinitives view the acts as accomplished wholes rather than processes.
> Colloquial «принесть» for «принести»: «принесть» is a folksy, old-fashioned variant of the infinitive «принести» (to bring). The clipped form belongs to Mitya's earthy, spoken register, alongside «али» and «дери» elsewhere in the passage.
> «Что ж» — 'well, then': A discourse opener softened by the particle «же» (here clipped to «ж»): roughly 'well', 'so what', a resigned or conceding 'all right then'. It launches many of Mitya's sentences in this tumbling monologue.

Ух, карьеру они мастера!  
Ugh, they're masters at making careers!
> Emphatic fronting and zero copula: «карьеру» (career, accusative) is hurled to the front for emphasis, and there is no verb 'to be' — «они мастера» ('they [are] masters') uses the bare nominative predicate typical of the present tense. Read it as 'careers — they're past masters at!'

Черт с эфикой! Я-то пропал, Алексей, я-то, божий ты человек!  
To the devil with ethics! As for me, I'm done for, Alexei, I am, you man of God!
> Emphatic clitic «-то» on «я»: The hyphenated «-то» here is not the indefinite suffix but the topic-emphasizing clitic: «я-то» means 'as for me, I for one'. Mitya twice stresses «я-то», setting his own ruin against the careerists he has just mocked.
> «пропал» — 'I'm done for, lost': Perfective of «пропадать»; literally 'I have perished/vanished', idiomatically 'I'm done for, ruined'. It becomes the keyword of the whole exchange — Alyosha will press him on why exactly he is «пропал».
> «божий человек» — 'man of God': An affectionate, slightly folk-religious epithet for the saintly Alyosha — a «божий человек» is a holy innocent, one of God's own. The inserted «ты» ('you') makes it a warm direct address: 'you man of God, you'. «эфика» just before is Mitya's mangled spelling of 'ethics' (эфика for этика).

Я тебя больше всех люблю.  
I love you more than anyone.
> Comparative «больше» + genitive «всех»: «больше всех» ('more than anyone') is the standard way Russian builds a superlative out of a comparative: the invariable comparative «больше» plus the genitive «всех» ('of all'). Literally 'I love you more than all'.

Сотрясается у меня сердце на тебя, вот что.  
My heart trembles for you, that's what.
> Reflexive verb fronted, possessor in «у меня»: «сотрясается» (shakes, trembles) is a reflexive intransitive; fronting the verb before its subject «сердце» gives the surge of feeling. Possession is expressed not by a possessive adjective but by «у меня» ('at me') — 'the heart trembles in me', a very Russian way to say 'my heart trembles'.
> «сердце сотрясается на тебя»: The preposition «на» + accusative here marks the object of emotional anxiety — 'my heart shakes over you, for your sake'. The construction is colloquial and intense, conveying Mitya's protective dread for his brother.

Какой там был Карл Бернар?  
Who was that Karl Bernard?"
> «какой» + dismissive «там»: «какой» asks 'which / what sort of', and the filler «там» ('there') here is dismissive-vague — 'who on earth was that Karl Bernard?'. The past-tense «был» agrees masculine with the name.

— Карл Бернар? — удивился опять Алеша.  
"Karl Bernard?" Alyosha said, surprised again.
> Reflexive «удивился» — got surprised: «удивиться» (perfective, with «-ся») is a change-of-state reflexive: not 'surprised someone' but 'became surprised'. The perfective past marks a single momentary reaction, here repeated, as «опять» ('again') notes.

— Нет, не Карл, постой, соврал: Клод Бернар.  
"No, not Karl — wait, I got it wrong: Claude Bernard.
> «соврал» — 'I lied / got it wrong': Perfective of «врать» (to lie, to talk nonsense). In casual speech it softens from 'lied' to 'misspoke, got it wrong' — Mitya is correcting his own slip, not confessing a falsehood.

Это что такое? Химия, что ли?  
What is that? Chemistry, is it?"
> Tag question with «что ли»: «что ли» is a colloquial tag — 'or what?', 'is it?' — that turns a guess into a tentative question. It carries the interrogative particle «ли» and lends Mitya's groping after the name a baffled, offhand tone.

— Это, должно быть, ученый один, — ответил Алеша, — только, признаюсь тебе, и о нем много не сумею сказать.  
"He must be some scholar," Alyosha answered, "only, I confess to you, I can't say much about him either.
> Impersonal «должно быть» — 'must be': «должно быть» is a fixed impersonal phrase of supposition, 'probably, must be' — built on the neuter short form «должно» with no nominative subject. It frames Alyosha's careful guess that Bernard 'must be some scholar'.
> Perfective future «сумею» under negation: «сумею» is the simple (perfective) future of «суметь» (to manage, be able): 'I won't manage to say'. The perfective future without an auxiliary expresses a single anticipated act — here, negated, an admission of inability.
> «признаюсь» — 'I confess': Reflexive «признаться» (to confess, admit), here softening Alyosha's admission of ignorance. Used parenthetically with «тебе» ('to you'), it has the courteous, confiding warmth typical of his speech.

Слышал только, ученый, а какой, не знаю.  
I've only heard he's a scholar, but what sort, I don't know."
> Dropped subject «я»: The subject pronoun «я» is omitted — the masculine past «слышал» already tells us who heard. Russian freely drops the pronoun when the verb form makes the person clear, and Alyosha's clipped 'only heard...' has the texture of relaxed speech.
> Contrastive «а» and elliptical «какой»: «а» here is the mild contrastive 'and/but' that pivots to a new sub-topic, and «какой» ('what sort') stands alone for an understood 'what sort of scholar'. The compressed 'but what sort, I don't know' mirrors spoken rhythm.

— Ну и черт его дери, и я не знаю, — обругался Митя.  
"Well, the devil take him, I don't know either," Mitya swore.
> «обругался» — 'swore, let out a curse': From «ругаться» (to curse, swear), the prefixed perfective «обругаться» means he came out with abuse. Dostoevsky uses it as the speech tag for «черт его дери», marking Mitya's habitual cursing as itself the act of speaking.

— Подлец какой-нибудь, всего вероятнее, да и все подлецы.  
"Some scoundrel, most likely — and anyway they're all scoundrels.
> Indefinite «какой-нибудь» — 'some... or other': «-нибудь» marks a non-specific 'any/some at all': «подлец какой-нибудь» is 'some scoundrel or other', a dismissive guess rather than a particular man. Contrast «какой-то», which would name a specific but unidentified one.
> Comparative «вероятнее» + genitive «всего»: Like «больше всех» earlier, «всего вероятнее» builds a superlative from the comparative «вероятнее» ('more probable') plus genitive «всего» ('than anything') — i.e. 'most likely of all'.
> «подлец» — 'scoundrel, base wretch': A strong word for a morally low, contemptible person — 'scoundrel, blackguard'. It is a favourite Dostoevskian term of self- and other-accusation, weightier than 'rascal'; the plural «подлецы» follows immediately.

А Ракитин пролезет, Ракитин в щелку пролезет, тоже Бернар.  
And Rakitin will wriggle through; Rakitin will squeeze through any crack — he's a Bernard too.
> Insistent repetition with perfective future: «пролезет» is the perfective future of «пролезть» (to squeeze/wriggle through), naming the act as a sure single accomplishment. Repeating subject and verb — «Ракитин… Ракитин…» — gives the prophecy a hammering, contemptuous certainty.
> «щелку» — diminutive 'little crack': «щелка» is the diminutive of «щель» (crack, chink, slit). The image is of Rakitin slithering through the narrowest gap — opportunism made physical. The little-suffix sharpens the contempt rather than softening it.

Ух, Бернары! Много их расплодилось!  
Ugh, these Bernards! They've bred no end of them!"
> Genitive «их» with «много» and reflexive verb: After «много» ('many') the counted noun stands in the genitive — here the genitive pronoun «их» ('of them'). The reflexive «расплодилось» (bred, multiplied) is neuter-singular, the impersonal default with a quantifier subject: 'a great many of them have bred'.
> «расплодиться» — 'breed, multiply (like vermin)': Reflexive perfective of «плодить» (to breed). Applied to people it is dismissive, even disgusted — they have 'spawned, proliferated' like pests. Mitya brands the 'Bernards' (materialist careerists) as an infestation.

— Да что с тобою? — настойчиво спросил Алеша.  
"But what is the matter with you?" Alyosha asked insistently.
> Idiom «что с тобою» + opening «да»: «что с тобою?» (lit. 'what [is] with you?') is the set phrase 'what's the matter with you?', using «с» + instrumental «тобою» with no verb. The opener «да» is an insistent particle, 'but really —', matching the adverb «настойчиво» ('insistently').

— Хочет он обо мне, об моем деле статью написать, и тем в литературе свою роль начать, с тем и ходит, сам объяснял.  
"He wants to write an article about me, about my case, and so launch his own role in literature — that's why he comes, he explained it himself.
> Instrumental «тем» of means + reflexive «свою»: «тем» is the instrumental of «то» ('by that, thereby') marking the means: 'and thereby begin his role'. «свою» is the reflexive possessive — 'his own' role, referring back to Rakitin as the clause's implied subject, not someone else's.
> Perfective infinitive «написать» of intent: «хочет… написать» pairs the modal 'wants' with the perfective «написать» (to write [and finish]), viewing the article as a single completed product. The imperfective «писать» would stress the act of writing rather than the finished piece.

С направлением что-то хочет: «дескать, нельзя было ему не убить, заеден средой», и проч., объяснял мне.  
He wants to give it some sort of slant: 'You see, he couldn't help killing, he was eaten up by his environment,' and so on — he explained it to me.
> «дескать» — quotative 'you see / supposedly': «дескать» is a quotative particle flagging reported, often skeptical, speech — 'as he puts it', 'supposedly'. It opens Rakitin's would-be excuse, letting Mitya mimic the argument while distancing himself from it.
> Impersonal «нельзя» with dative «ему» and double negation: «нельзя было ему не убить» is doubly impersonal: «нельзя» ('it was impossible') governs the dative experiencer «ему» ('for him'), and «не убить» negates the infinitive — 'it was impossible for him not to kill', i.e. he couldn't help killing. The dative-subject + «нельзя» pattern strips away agency, which is exactly the deterministic point.

С оттенком социализма, говорит, будет.  
It will have a tinge of socialism, he says.
> «оттенок» — 'shade, tinge, nuance': «оттенок» (instrumental «оттенком», after «с») is a shade or tint of colour, used figuratively for an ideological 'tinge'. «с оттенком социализма» — 'with a tinge of socialism' — captures how a flavour of radicalism was added like a colour wash to give a piece marketable currency.

Ну и черт его дери, с оттенком так с оттенком, мне всё равно.  
Well, the devil take him — a tinge, then a tinge, it's all the same to me.
> Concessive «X так X» — 'a tinge then, fine': Repeating a phrase around «так» — «с оттенком так с оттенком» — is an idiomatic shrug of concession: 'a tinge? a tinge then, fine'. It conveys weary acceptance, reinforced by «мне всё равно» ('it's all the same to me').
> Dative «мне» + «всё равно» — 'I don't care': «мне всё равно» is a textbook dative-experiencer idiom: the person stands in the dative «мне», and the impersonal predicate «всё равно» ('all the same') has no nominative subject — 'to me it's all one'.

Брата Ивана не любит, ненавидит, тебя тоже не жалует.  
He doesn't like brother Ivan, he hates him, and he doesn't think much of you either.
> Animate accusative = genitive «Брата Ивана»: «брата Ивана» is accusative direct object, but because both nouns are animate masculine they take genitive-shaped endings (-а), identical to «нет брата». Russian marks animate objects this way so subject and object stay distinct under free word order — and here the subject «он» (Rakitin) is dropped entirely.
> «не жаловать» — 'to think little of': «жаловать» is an old-fashioned, slightly grand verb meaning to favour or hold in esteem (originally 'to grant, bestow'); negated, «не жалует» means 'doesn't favour, has no use for'. The archaic verb gives Mitya's report a faintly ironic, courtly tinge.

Ну, а я его не гоню, потому что человек умный.  
Well, but I don't drive him off, because the man is clever.
> Causal «потому что» + zero-copula clause: «потому что» ('because') opens a subordinate clause of cause, and inside it the predicate runs with no verb 'to be': «человек умный» — '[he is] a clever man', the bare nominative pattern of the present tense.

Возносится очень, однако.  
Gives himself airs, though, the way he does.
> Reflexive «возносится» and adversative «однако»: «возноситься» (reflexive, 'to exalt oneself, give oneself airs') describes Rakitin's vanity. «однако» ('however, though') sits at the clause end as a sentence adverb, a literary placement that lands the qualification with extra weight.
> «возноситься» — 'to be puffed up': Literally 'to be raised up / lifted', the verb carries a near-biblical flavour of pride before a fall (cf. 'whoever exalts himself will be humbled'). Applied to Rakitin it brands his self-importance as a spiritual fault, not just a social one.

Я ему сейчас вот говорил: «Карамазовы не подлецы, а философы, потому что все настоящие русские люди философы, а ты хоть и учился, а не философ, ты смерд».  
I said to him just now: 'The Karamazovs aren't scoundrels, they're philosophers, because all genuine Russians are philosophers, but you, though you've studied, are no philosopher — you're a boor.'
> Concessive «хоть и… а…»: The paired «хоть и… а…» ('though... yet...') frames a concession against a contrast: 'though you did study, yet [you are] no philosopher'. The «а» is the contrastive coordinator, and the predicate «не философ» again runs without a copula.
> «смерд» — a medieval serf, hence 'boor, churl': «смерд» was the lowest free peasant of Kievan Rus', a term that became a class insult meaning 'low-born lout, churl'. By calling the seminarian Rakitin a «смерд», Mitya answers Rakitin's intellectual snobbery with an aristocratic contempt of his own — a charged, archaic put-down.

Смеется, злобно так.  
He laughs, spitefully too.
> Dropped subject, postposed «злобно так»: Subjectless «смеется» ('[he] laughs') with the adverb «злобно» ('spitefully') trailing after, tagged by the colloquial «так» ('— like that, too'). The afterthought placement mimics speech, dropping the manner in as a sour aside.

А я ему: де мыслибус non est disputandum, хороша острота?  
And I to him: de myslibus non est disputandum — a fine bit of wit, eh?
> «острота» — 'witticism, sharp jest': «острота» (from «острый», sharp) is a witticism or bon mot. «хороша острота?» — 'a fine bit of wit, eh?' — uses the short-form adjective «хороша» predicatively. Mitya is fishing for praise for his mangled Latin.

По крайней мере и я в классицизм вступил, — захохотал вдруг Митя.  
At least I've stepped into classicism too," Mitya suddenly roared with laughter.
> Perfective «вступил» + «в» + accusative: «вступить в» + accusative ('to step into, enter') with the perfective past «вступил» views the entry as a single accomplished act — 'I've now stepped into classicism'. The prefix «в-» pairs with the preposition «в» for motion-into.
> «захохотал» — 'burst out laughing': The prefix «за-» on «хохотать» (to guffaw) marks the sudden onset of the action — 'he broke into a roar of laughter'. This inceptive «за-» is common with verbs of sound and emotion in narrative.

— Отчего ты пропал-то? Вот ты сейчас сказал? — перебил Алеша.  
"Why are you done for? You just said it," Alyosha broke in.
> Emphatic «-то» on the verb: The clitic «-то» here latches onto the verb «пропал» to spotlight the very word Mitya used — 'why are you done for, this 'done for' of yours?'. It picks up and presses the topic Mitya raised in s67.
> «перебил» — 'broke in, interrupted': Perfective of «перебивать» (to interrupt), the prefix «пере-» giving the sense of cutting across someone's speech. It marks Alyosha's single decisive move to steer Mitya back to what matters.

— Отчего пропал? Гм! В сущности… если всё целое взять — бога жалко, вот отчего!  
"Why am I done for? Hm! In essence... if you take the whole of it — it's God I'm sorry for, that's why!"
> Conditional «если» with infinitive «взять»: «если… взять» uses the bare perfective infinitive «взять» ('to take') in a generalizing conditional — 'if one takes the whole thing'. This impersonal, subjectless 'if you take it all' frames Mitya's sweeping summation.
> Impersonal «жалко» + genitive object «бога»: «жалко» is an impersonal predicative ('[it is] a pity'); the one pitied stands in the genitive — «бога жалко», 'God I'm sorry for'. There is no nominative subject at all, the heart of this subjectless construction that runs through Mitya's whole confession.

— Как бога жалко?  
"How do you mean, sorry for God?"
> Genitive «бога» again under «жалко»: Alyosha echoes the impersonal «бога жалко» construction, with «бога» genitive as the object of pity and «как» asking 'how do you mean?'. The whole exchange turns on this one untranslatable Russian idiom of feeling sorry-for.

— Вообрази себе: это там в нервах, в голове, то есть там в мозгу эти нервы (ну черт их возьми!)… есть такие этакие хвостики, у нервов этих хвостики, ну, и как только они там задрожат… то есть видишь, я посмотрю на что-нибудь глазами, вот так, и они задрожат, хвостики-то… а как задрожат, то и является образ, и не сейчас является, а там какое-то мгновение, секунда такая пройдет, и является такой будто бы момент, то есть не момент, — черт его дери момент, — а образ, то есть предмет али происшествие, ну там черт дери — вот почему я и созерцаю, а потом мыслю… потому что хвостики, а вовсе не потому, что у меня душа и что я там какой-то образ и подобие, всё это глупости.  
"Just imagine: it's all there in the nerves, in the head — that is, there are these nerves in the brain (oh, the devil take them!)... there are little sorts of tails, these nerves have little tails, and the moment they go quivering there... that is, you see, I look at something with my eyes, like this, and they quiver, the little tails... and once they quiver, an image appears — not at once, but after a moment, a second goes by, and there appears a kind of, as it were, moment — that is, not a moment, devil take the moment — but an image, that is, an object or an occurrence, well, devil take it — and that's why I contemplate, and then I think... because of the little tails, and not at all because I have a soul or because I'm some image and likeness — all that's nonsense.
> Imperative «вообрази» + reflexive «себе»: «вообрази» is the singular imperative of «вообразить» (to imagine), with the dative reflexive «себе» — 'imagine [to yourself]', i.e. 'just picture this'. The «-и» imperative ending follows a consonant-final stressed stem.
> «хвостики» — 'little tails' (nerve-endings): Diminutive of «хвост» (tail). Mitya's homely word for nerve filaments/endings — 'little tails' that quiver. The diminutive conveys his groping, childlike wonder at the physiology Rakitin has fed him, and recurs as the comic refrain «хвостики-то».
> Perfective future in a temporal clause: «как только… задрожат» ('as soon as they begin to quiver') uses the perfective future «задрожат» — with the inceptive «за-» — to mark the instant the action sets in. Russian regularly uses the perfective future, not a present, after «как только» for a repeated triggering event.
> «али» — folk variant of «или» ('or'): «али» is a colloquial, rustic «или» ('or'), here in «предмет али происшествие» ('an object or an occurrence'). It belongs to Mitya's earthy, folk-flavoured speech and to old narrative diction generally.

Это, брат, мне Михаил еще вчера объяснял, и меня точно обожгло.  
This, brother, Mikhail explained to me just yesterday, and it fairly scorched me.
> Impersonal «обожгло» with accusative «меня»: A vivid impersonal construction: neuter «обожгло» ('it scorched') with no nominative subject and the experiencer in the accusative «меня» — 'it fairly burned me'. «точно» ('as if, just') intensifies the figurative scorching of the new idea.

Великолепна, Алеша, эта наука!  
It's magnificent, Alyosha, this science!
> Short-form adjective «великолепна» fronted: «великолепна» is the feminine short-form adjective ('[is] magnificent'), used predicatively and hurled to the front for exclamatory force — 'Magnificent, Alyosha, this science!'. Short forms like this carry a bookish, heightened ring well suited to Mitya's rapture.

Новый человек пойдет, это-то я понимаю… А все-таки бога жалко!  
A new man will come — that much I do understand... And yet I'm sorry for God!"
> Emphatic «-то» and adversative «а все-таки»: «это-то» spotlights the object — 'that much I do understand'; then «а все-таки» ('and yet, all the same') pivots back to his real feeling, «бога жалко». The two clitics «-то» and «-таки» do the emotional turning that English needs whole phrases for.

— Ну и то хорошо, — сказал Алеша.  
"Well, that's a good thing too," said Alyosha.
> «то» as 'that' + short-form «хорошо»: «и то хорошо» ('that too is good / well, that's something') uses the demonstrative «то» ('that') as subject of a zero-copula clause with the neuter short-form «хорошо». A gently encouraging idiom — Alyosha takes Mitya's pity for God as itself a hopeful sign.

— Что бога-то жалко? Химия, брат, химия!  
"That I'm sorry for God? It's chemistry, brother, chemistry!
> Clitic «-то» on «бога», impersonal «жалко»: Mitya repeats the «бога жалко» idiom (impersonal «жалко» + genitive «бога»), now with the emphasizing «-то» glued to «бога» to echo Alyosha's phrase mockingly — 'That it's *God* I'm sorry for?'.
> «химия» as a one-word creed of materialism: Repeating «химия» ('chemistry') turns the word into a slogan for the reductive, materialist worldview — feeling, God, the soul, all reducible to chemistry. «брат» ('brother') is Mitya's warm filler address to Alyosha, not literal kinship-marking here.

Нечего делать, ваше преподобие, подвиньтесь немножко, химия идет!  
Nothing to be done, your reverence, move aside a little — chemistry's coming through!
> Polite/plural imperative «подвиньтесь»: «подвиньтесь» is the reflexive imperative of «подвинуться» (to move aside) with the polite/plural «-те» — 'move aside a little'. Mitya mock-courteously orders the cleric to step out of chemistry's way.

А не любит бога Ракитин, ух не любит!  
And Rakitin doesn't love God, ugh, how he doesn't!
> Fronted negated verb, trailing subject: Word order is rearranged for emphasis: «не любит» (negated verb) and object «бога» come first, subject «Ракитин» last — 'And love God Rakitin does not'. The contrastive opener «а» and the rhetorical inversion stress the indictment.

Это у них самое больное место у всех!  
That's the sorest spot in the whole lot of them!
> Possessive «у» + redundant «у всех»: Possession runs through «у» + genitive: «у них… у всех» ('with them... with all of them'), doubling the possessor for colloquial emphasis. «самое больное место» ('the very sorest spot') uses the superlative «самое» agreeing with neuter «место».

Но скрывают. Лгут. Представляются.  
But they hide it. They lie. They put on a show.
> Three subjectless imperfective verbs: Three bare third-plural imperfectives with «они» dropped — «скрывают» (hide), «лгут» (lie), «представляются» (put on a show) — staccato present-tense habituals. The reflexive «представляются» means 'pretend, feign'. Clipped to single words, they hammer the accusation home.

«Что же, будешь это проводить в отделении критики?» — спрашиваю.  
'So then, will you be putting this across in the criticism section?' I ask.
> Compound imperfective future «будешь проводить»: «будешь проводить» is the imperfective future: conjugated «быть» («будешь») + imperfective infinitive «проводить» ('to put across, promote'). It frames the act as ongoing or repeated — 'will you keep putting this across?' — not a one-off, which a perfective future would imply.
> Particle «же» in «Что же»: «же» here intensifies the question, lending it a challenging 'well then, so —' tone: «что же» = 'so what, then?'. It is the same emphatic particle that colours so much of Dostoevsky's dialogue.

«Ну, явно-то не дадут», — говорит, смеется.  
'Well, openly they won't let me,' he says, and laughs.
> Emphatic «-то» + impersonal third-plural «не дадут»: «явно-то» ('openly, that is') carries the contrastive clitic «-то». «не дадут» is the impersonal 'they-won't-let' (third-plural without a stated subject, a common way to say 'one won't be allowed') — the perfective future of «дать» here meaning 'permit'.

«Только как же, спрашиваю, после того человек-то? Без бога-то и без будущей жизни? Ведь это, стало быть, теперь всё позволено, всё можно делать?»  
'Only how is it,' I ask, 'with a man after that? Without God and without a future life? Why, that means everything is permitted now, one may do anything?'
> «без» + genitive, with emphatic «-то»: The preposition «без» ('without') governs the genitive throughout: «без бога… без будущей жизни» ('without God, without a future life'), with «будущей» the genitive feminine of the adjective agreeing with «жизни». The clitic «-то» on «бога» foregrounds the dreadful condition being weighed.
> Particle «ведь» + impersonal «всё позволено»: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'why, after all'. «всё позволено» ('everything is permitted') uses the short passive participle «позволено» predicatively, subjectless and impersonal — the famous formula that haunts the whole novel.

«А ты и не знал?» — говорит. Смеется.  
'You didn't know that?' he says. And laughs.
> Particle «и» as 'even / actually': In «ты и не знал?» the «и» is not 'and' but an emphatic particle — 'so you actually/even didn't know?'. With the imperfective past «не знал» it conveys Rakitin's mocking surprise that Mitya hadn't grasped so obvious a 'truth'.

«Умному, говорит, человеку всё можно, умный человек умеет раков ловить, ну а вот ты, говорит, убил и влопался и в тюрьме гниешь!»  
'For a clever man,' he says, 'everything is permitted; a clever man knows how to catch his crayfish, but you, look, you've killed a man and landed yourself in it and you're rotting in prison!'
> Dative «умному человеку» + «можно»: A pure dative-experiencer impersonal: «умному человеку» ('to a clever man', dative) + «всё можно» ('everything [is] permissible'). No nominative subject — the clever man is the one *for whom* all is allowed. This is the grammatical twin of «всё позволено».
> «раков ловить» — 'to catch crayfish': «рак» is a crayfish (genitive plural «раков»). 'A clever man knows how to catch his crayfish' is a colloquial image of slyly looking after one's own interests, getting the good things while the fool lands in trouble — the cynic's practical wisdom Rakitin preaches.
> «влопаться» — 'to land oneself in it': A slangy reflexive perfective, «влопаться» — 'to get caught, get into a fix, drop oneself in it'. Crude and vivid, it belongs to Rakitin's contemptuous needling of the imprisoned Mitya, paired with «гниешь в тюрьме» ('you're rotting in prison').

Это он мне-то говорит.  
That's what he says — to me, of all people.
> Indignant clitic «-то» on «мне»: «мне-то» glues the emphatic «-то» to the dative «мне» ('to me') for outraged stress — 'and that's what he says to *me*, of all people'. Mitya is the very man rotting in prison; the clitic carries the whole bitter irony.

Свинья естественная!  
A born swine!
> «свинья естественная» — 'a born swine': «свинья» ('pig, swine') is a stock Russian insult for a coarse or treacherous person; «естественная» ('natural, born') intensifies it to 'a swine to the core, a born pig'. The postposed adjective gives an exclamatory, spat-out emphasis.

Я этаких прежде вон вышвыривал, ну а теперь слушаю.  
Once I'd have flung the likes of him out the door, but now I listen.
> Imperfective «вышвыривал» of past habit: «вышвыривал» (imperfective past of «вышвыривать», to fling out) names a former habit — 'I used to throw such people out'. The contrast «прежде… а теперь» ('formerly... but now') sets the old Mitya against the changed man who now listens.
> «этакий» — colloquial 'such a one, the likes of': «этакий» is an expressive, folksy variant of «такой» ('such'), here genitive-accusative plural «этаких» — 'the likes of him, such fellows'. It belongs to the spoken, slightly dismissive register Mitya favours.

Много ведь и дельного говорит.  
He does say a good deal that's sensible, you know.
> Particle «ведь» + genitive «дельного» after «много»: «ведь» appeals to Alyosha's understanding ('he does, you know'). After «много» ('much') the noun-adjective stands in the genitive: «дельного» ('of sensible [stuff]'), the neuter genitive of «дельный». So: 'he says much that is sensible, after all'.

Умно тоже пишет.  
He writes cleverly too.
> Adverb «умно» + dropped subject: «умно» is the adverb 'cleverly' (from «умный»), modifying «пишет» ('[he] writes'), subject «он» dropped. Fronting the adverb — 'Cleverly, too, he writes' — lands the grudging compliment first.

Он мне с неделю назад статью одну начал читать, я там три строки тогда нарочно выписал, вот постой, вот здесь.  
About a week ago he started reading me an article of his — I copied out three lines from it on purpose then; here, wait, here it is."
> Phasal «начал» + imperfective «читать»: Verbs of beginning/continuing/finishing («начать, продолжать, кончить») require an imperfective infinitive; hence «начал читать» ('began to read'), never the perfective. «статью одну» fronts the object with «одну» ('a certain') marking it as a specific article.
> «нарочно» + «выписать» — 'copied out on purpose': «нарочно» means 'on purpose, deliberately'; «выписать» (perfective) here is 'to copy out, extract' (lines from a text). Mitya deliberately transcribed three lines of Rakitin's prose to savour its absurdity — and now hunts for the scrap.

Митя, спеша, вынул из жилетного кармана бумажку и прочел:  
Mitya, in haste, drew a scrap of paper from his waistcoat pocket and read:
> Gerund «спеша» — 'hurrying': «спеша» is the imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») of «спешить» (to hurry), expressing an action simultaneous with the main verb: 'Mitya, hurrying, drew out...'. It shares the subject of «вынул» and lends the narration its literary compression.
> «из» + genitive of source: «вынул» (perfective, drew out) governs «из» + genitive «жилетного кармана» ('from the waistcoat pocket') marking the source of motion. The single completed action moves the narration forward against the descriptive background.

— «Чтоб разрешить этот вопрос, необходимо прежде всего поставить свою личность в разрез со своею действительностью». Понимаешь иль нет?  
"'In order to resolve this question, it is necessary first of all to set one's personality in opposition to one's reality.' Do you understand that or not?"
> Purpose «чтоб» + perfective infinitive: «чтоб» (clipped «чтобы») + infinitive «разрешить» ('to resolve') expresses purpose: 'in order to resolve this question'. With a shared subject Russian uses the infinitive after «чтобы», not a finite clause — the bookish opening of Rakitin's pompous sentence.
> Reflexive «своею» + instrumental after «в разрез со»: «в разрез с» ('in opposition/contradiction to') governs the instrumental «своею действительностью» ('with one's own reality'); «своею» is the reflexive possessive, archaically spelled «-ею». The whole clotted abstraction parodies radical-critical jargon.
> Folk «иль» for «или»: «иль» is a poetic/colloquial contraction of «или» ('or'), here in the tag «понимаешь иль нет?» — 'd'you understand, or not?'. It keeps Mitya's spoken register against the bookish quotation he has just read out.

— Нет, не понимаю, — сказал Алеша.  
"No, I don't understand," said Alyosha.
> Dropped «я» with «не понимаю»: «не понимаю» ('[I] don't understand') drops the subject pronoun «я», since the first-person ending «-ю» already marks it. Alyosha's bare negation answers the just-posed «понимаешь иль нет?».

Он с любопытством приглядывался к Мите и слушал его.  
He was watching Mitya with curiosity and listening to him.
> Two imperfective pasts of attendant observation: «приглядывался» (reflexive, 'was peering, watching closely') and «слушал» ('was listening') are both imperfective pasts setting an ongoing background — Alyosha steadily watching and listening while Mitya talks. Imperfective is the natural aspect for such durative description.
> «с» + instrumental of manner: «с любопытством» ('with curiosity') uses «с» + instrumental to express manner — how he watched. This adverbial-instrumental phrasing is a common, economical Russian alternative to an adverb.

— И я не понимаю. Темно и неясно, зато умно.  
"I don't understand it either. Dark and murky — but clever."
> Short-form adverbials + «зато»: «темно… неясно… умно» are neuter short forms used impersonally ('[it's] dark... unclear... clever'), with no subject. «зато» ('but on the other hand, to make up for it') sets the compensating virtue against the faults — 'murky, but clever'.

«Все, говорит, так теперь пишут, потому что такая уж среда»… Среды боятся.  
'Everyone writes like this nowadays,' he says, 'because such is the milieu'… They are afraid of the milieu.
> «среда» — the milieu: «среда» literally means 'environment, surroundings'; here it is the radical-progressive catchword 'milieu' — the idea, then fashionable, that environment (not the will) shapes a person and so excuses crime. Mitya mocks the buzzword: «Среды боятся» — 'they're afraid of the milieu', i.e. they hide behind it.
> «бояться» governs the genitive: The reflexive verb «бояться» ('to fear') takes its object in the genitive, so «среда» surfaces as «среды». The subjectless «боятся» ('they fear') leaves the agent unnamed — a generic 'they', the progressives Mitya is sneering at.
> The particle «уж»: «уж» (a worn-down «уже») is here an intensifying modal particle, not 'already': it lends a resigned, insistent 'that's just how it is' to «такая уж среда» — 'such, you see, is the milieu'. These tiny particles carry the speaker's attitude that English marks only by intonation.

Стихи тоже пишет, подлец, Хохлаковой ножку воспел, ха-ха-ха!  
He writes verses too, the scoundrel, he sang an ode to Madame Khokhlakova's little foot — ha-ha-ha!
> «подлец» — scoundrel: A strong term of abuse, 'base wretch, scoundrel', from «подлый» ('vile, ignoble'). Tossed in apposition mid-sentence, it is pure expressive venting — a hallmark of Mitya's heated, broken speech.
> «воспеть» — to sing the praises of: «воспеть» (perfective; «воспевать» imperfective) is an elevated, poetic verb, 'to celebrate in song, hymn'. Applied to «ножку» ('a little foot') it is mock-grand — exactly the bathos Mitya is laughing at.
> Diminutive «ножка»: «ножка» is the diminutive of «нога» ('foot, leg'), here both literal (a small foot) and tinged with the cloying tenderness of bad love-poetry. The whole chapter plays on these caressing -к- diminutives.

— Я слышал, — сказал Алеша.  
— I heard about it, — said Alyosha.
> Perfective past «сказал»: «сказал» is the perfective past of the speech pair «говорить/сказать»: a single, completed utterance that moves the dialogue forward, against the imperfective «говорить» used for ongoing or habitual talking.

— Слышал? А стишонки слышал?  
— You heard? And have you heard the verses themselves?
> Pejorative «стишонки»: «стишонки» carries the contemptuous suffix -онк-: not just 'little verses' but 'wretched, trashy little verses'. The suffix belittles rather than endears — the opposite emotional charge to a fond diminutive — and recurs through the chapter (s137, s143).
> Topic-fronting word order: The object «стишонки» is pulled to the front, before the verb «слышал», to set it as the topic of the new question: 'And the verses — did you hear them?' Free case-marked word order lets Russian foreground what is at issue.

— Нет.  
— No.

— У меня они есть, вот, я прочту.  
— I have them here, look, I'll read them to you.
> Perfective future «прочту»: «прочту» is the simple future of perfective «прочесть» ('to read through [to the end]'), conjugated with present-tense endings but meaning 'I'll read it [all out]'. The perfective frames the reading as a single complete act, not the ongoing «читать».
> «есть» for existence/possession: «У меня они есть» — literally 'at me they are', the standard Russian way to say 'I have them'. Possession is built on «у» + genitive plus the existential «есть», not a verb 'to have'.

Ты не знаешь, я тебе не рассказывал, тут целая история.  
You don't know it, I never told you — there's a whole story behind it.
> Imperfective past under negation: «не рассказывал» is imperfective: 'I never (used to / got round to) tell you' — denying that the action ever took place at all, where a perfective «не рассказал» would deny one specific completed telling. Negated imperfectives like this typically mean 'never did it'.

Шельма!  
The rogue!
> «шельма» — rogue: A colourful loan (ultimately from German Schelm), 'rogue, rascal, sly trickster'. Half-abusive, half-admiring — Mitya is appalled and amused at once. Standing alone as a one-word exclamation, it is pure outburst.

Три недели назад меня дразнить вздумал: «Ты вот, говорит, влопался как дурак из-за трех тысяч, а я полтораста их тяпну, на вдовице одной женюсь и каменный дом в Петербурге куплю».  
Three weeks ago he took it into his head to taunt me: 'You,' he says, 'went and landed yourself in it like a fool over three thousand, but I'll snatch a hundred and fifty thousand, marry a certain widow, and buy myself a stone house in Petersburg.'
> «вздумать» + infinitive: «вздумал дразнить» — 'took it into his head to taunt'. The perfective «вздумать» ('to take a sudden notion') governs an imperfective infinitive «дразнить» and conveys a whimsical, ill-advised impulse; the infinitive is fronted for emphasis.
> «влопаться» — to land oneself in it: Low, colloquial: 'to get caught, land in a mess, blunder into trouble'. The reflexive -ся and slangy root give it a self-inflicted, hapless ring — 'you went and got yourself into it like a fool'.
> «тяпнуть» — to snatch / knock off: Coarse slang, here 'to grab, snatch, knock off (a sum)'. The semelfactive -ну- suffix marks a single quick grab. «полтораста» is the old single word for '150', so «полтораста их тяпну» = 'I'll snatch a hundred and fifty thousand of them'.
> «жениться на» + prepositional: For a man, 'to marry' is «жениться на» + prepositional case: «женюсь на вдовице» — 'I'll marry a (certain) widow'. «одной» here is the colloquial 'a certain', not the numeral 'one'. «вдовице» is a slightly archaic/folk form of «вдова».

И рассказал мне, что строит куры Хохлаковой, а та и смолоду умна не была, а в сорок-то лет и совсем ума решилась.  
And he told me he was courting Madame Khokhlakova, who even in her youth was no great wit, and at forty has lost her reason altogether.
> Idiom «строить куры»: An archaic idiom (from French faire la cour) meaning 'to pay court, flirt, woo' — nothing to do with «куры» 'hens'. By Dostoevsky's day already old-fashioned and faintly comic, fitting the seedy seduction described.
> Short adjective «умна»: «умна» is the predicative short form of «умный» ('clever'), feminine: 'she was not clever'. Short adjectives serve only as predicates and carry a slightly bookish, categorical flavour typical of 19th-century prose.
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «сорок» highlights the known topic with a nudge: 'and at forty, mind you…'. This is the topic-emphasising «-то», distinct from the indefinite «-то» that makes «кто-то» 'someone'.
> Idiom «решиться ума»: «решиться» here is the older sense 'to lose, be deprived of', governing the genitive «ума» ('mind'): 'lost her reason'. The folk-archaic construction colours Mitya's tirade with peasant idiom.

«Да чувствительна, говорит, уж очень, вот я ее на том и добью. Женюсь, в Петербург ее отвезу, а там газету издавать начну».  
'But she's very sentimental,' he says, 'and that's just how I'll finish her off. I'll marry her, take her to Petersburg, and there I'll start up a newspaper.'
> Short adjective «чувствительна»: «чувствительна» is the feminine short form of «чувствительный» ('sensitive, sentimental'), predicating a state: 'she's [very] sentimental'. Opening «Да» here is the colloquial concessive 'but, well — only'.
> «добить» — to finish off: «добить» literally 'to finish off, deal the death-blow'; here cynically 'that's how I'll clinch / get the better of her'. The prefix до- adds the sense of carrying an action through to its final result.
> Phasal «начать» + imperfective infinitive: «начну издавать» — 'I'll begin to publish'. Phasal verbs «начать/начинать», «стать», «продолжать» take only an imperfective infinitive (here «издавать»), since beginning or continuing is about process, not completion. Word order inverts infinitive and verb for rhythm.

И такая у него скверная сладострастная слюна на губах, — не на Хохлакову слюна, а на полтораста эти тысяч.  
And he had such a foul, lustful slaver on his lips — slaver not for Khokhlakova, but for those hundred and fifty thousand.
> «сладострастный» and «слюна»: «сладострастный» ('voluptuous, lustful', literally 'sweet-passion'-bearing) is a key Karamazov word for sensual greed; «слюна» is 'spittle, slaver'. The pairing — lustful drool — fuses lust and money-hunger, the chapter's theme.
> Contrastive «не… а…»: The frame «не X, а Y» ('not X but Y') corrects and contrasts: the slaver is 'not for Khokhlakova but for the hundred and fifty thousand'. «а» is the mild contrastive conjunction that pivots between the two, sharper here under negation.

И уверил меня, уверил; всё ко мне ходит, каждый день: поддается, говорит.  
And he assured me, kept assuring me; he was always coming to see me, every day: she's giving in, he'd say.
> Repetition for emphasis: «уверил» (perfective, 'convinced/assured') is repeated outside the clause for emotional emphasis — a gestural doubling typical of excited speech, like 'he assured me, he did'. Russian freely strands such echoes.
> Multidirectional «ходить» for habit: «ходит» is the multidirectional motion verb «ходить» — repeated, round-trip going — paired with «всё» ('all the time') and «каждый день': 'he kept coming, every day'. The unidirectional «идёт» would name one trip in progress instead.
> «поддаваться» — to yield: «поддаётся» (imperfective «поддаваться») — 'she's giving in, yielding'. The present tense inside reported speech keeps the lover's own words live: 'she's coming round', he'd report.

Радостью сиял.  
He fairly beamed with joy.
> Instrumental of manner/cause: «сиял радостью» — 'beamed with joy': «радостью» is the instrumental, here naming what he shone with. Fronting it before the verb gives the terse, vivid two-word sentence its punch.

А тут вдруг его и выгнали: Перхотин Петр Ильич взял верх, молодец!  
And then all at once they threw him out: Pyotr Ilyich Perkhotin got the upper hand — good for him!
> Subjectless 'they' + emphatic «и»: «выгнали» ('they drove [him] out') is a 3rd-plural verb with no subject — the impersonal 'they' for an unnamed agent. The particle «и» before the verb ('and then they actually…') marks the sudden reversal: 'and then all at once out he went'.

То есть так бы и расцеловал эту дурищу за то, что его прогнала!  
I could have kissed that silly woman for driving him off!
> Conditional «бы» + emphatic «так и»: «расцеловал бы» is the conditional (past form + «бы»): 'I could have / would just kiss…'. The frame «так бы и» ('I would just go and…') intensifies the impulse. «расцеловать» — perfective, 'to kiss all over, smother with kisses'.
> Augmentative-pejorative «дурища»: From «дура» ('fool, f.') with the augmentative-contemptuous suffix -ищ-: 'great big fool, silly cow'. The suffix enlarges and disparages, the mirror image of an affectionate diminutive.

Вот он как ходил-то ко мне, тогда и сочинил эти стишонки.  
It was while he was coming round to me like that, back then, that he composed these little verses.
> Imperfective «ходил» + topic «-то»: «ходил» (multidirectional, imperfective past) sets up the ongoing background — 'while he was coming round to me' — against which the perfective «сочинил» ('composed') marks the single event. The clitic «-то» nudges the verb as topic; «как… -то» colours it with wonder.

«В первый раз, говорит, руки мараю, стихи пишу, для обольщения значит, для полезного дела. Забрав капитал у дурищи, гражданскую пользу потом принести могу».  
'For the first time,' he says, 'I'm dirtying my hands, writing verse — for the sake of seduction, that is, for a useful cause. Once I've grabbed the silly woman's capital, I can do some civic good afterward.'
> Idiom «марать руки»: «марать руки» — 'to dirty / soil one's hands', i.e. stoop to something beneath one. The braggart casts even his crude verse as a distasteful descent — bitter irony, given he is mercenary to the core.
> Perfective gerund «забрав»: «забрав» is the perfective past gerund («деепричастие») of «забрать» ('to take, seize'): 'having grabbed the capital'. It compresses a prior, completed action onto the main clause and must share its subject — a bookish hallmark of literary narration.
> «гражданская польза» — civic good: 'Civic benefit', part of the era's progressive vocabulary of social usefulness. The seducer dresses naked greed in the language of public-spirited service — the satire Mitya keeps hammering (cf. «гражданскую скорбь», s140; «гражданское оправдание», s139).

У них ведь всякой мерзости гражданское оправдание есть!  
They have a civic justification for every kind of vileness, you know!
> Possessive «у» + appeal particle «ведь»: «У них… есть» — 'they have' (literally 'at them there is'). «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'they have, you see / after all, a civic justification for every vileness' — drawing Alyosha into Mitya's indignation.
> «мерзость» — vileness: «мерзость» ('abomination, foulness'), genitive «мерзости» after «всякой»: 'every kind of vileness'. A strongly moral-disgust word, of a piece with «мерзавец» ('villain', s140) — the chapter's lexicon of revulsion.

«А все-таки, говорит, лучше твоего Пушкина написал, потому что и в шутовской стишок сумел гражданскую скорбь всучить».  
'All the same,' he says, 'I wrote it better than your Pushkin, because I managed to slip civic grief even into a buffoon's little rhyme.'
> Comparative «лучше» + genitive of comparison: «лучше» is the suppletive comparative of «хороший/хорошо» ('better'); the thing compared takes the bare genitive, «твоего Пушкина» — 'better than your Pushkin'. This genitive-of-comparison is an alternative to «чем» + nominative.
> «всучить» — to foist / slip in: «всучить» — 'to palm off, foist, sneak in (something unwanted)'. Applied to «гражданскую скорбь» ('civic grief'), it makes the fashionable progressive pathos sound like contraband smuggled into a piece of doggerel.

Это что про Пушкина-то — я понимаю.  
What he means about Pushkin — that I understand.
> Topic «про» + clitic «-то»: «про» + accusative means 'about, concerning' (more colloquial than «о»): 'as for [what he said] about Pushkin'. The clitic «-то» marks Pushkin as the established topic being singled out: 'that bit about Pushkin — I get it'.

Что же, если в самом деле способный был человек, а только ножки описывал!  
After all, if he really was a gifted man, and yet only went describing little feet!
> Discourse «что же» + «если»: «Что же» here is not a question but a concessive discourse opener — 'well, after all…'; the particle «же» softens it into musing. «если… а только…» sets up a 'if he really was gifted, yet only…' contrast, the «а» pivoting to the disappointing reality.
> Inverted predicate word order: «способный был человек» reorders the neutral «был способный человек» ('was a gifted man'), throwing weight onto «способный'. Free word order lets Russian foreground the quality being conceded.

Да ведь гордился-то стишонками как!  
But how proud he was of those wretched verses!
> Particle stack «да ведь… -то… как!»: Three particles pile up: «да» ('but, why'), «ведь» (appeal to shared knowledge), and topic «-то», framing an exclamatory «как!» ('how [proud he was]!'). This dense particle-texture is the very sound of Dostoevsky's excited dialogue.
> «гордиться» + instrumental: The reflexive «гордиться» ('to be proud of') governs the instrumental: «гордился стишонками» — 'was proud of the wretched little verses'. The pejorative «стишонки» keeps Mitya's contempt audible even as he reports the man's pride.

Самолюбие-то у них, самолюбие!  
The vanity in them, the vanity!
> «самолюбие» — vanity / self-love: «самолюбие» (literally 'self-love') is a central Dostoevskian word — touchy pride, amour-propre, wounded vanity. Repeated as an exclamation with topic «-то», it diagnoses the whole type: «Самолюбие-то у них, самолюбие!» — 'the vanity in them, the vanity!'

«На выздоровление больной ножки моего предмета» — это он такое заглавие придумал — резвый человек!  
'On the recovery of the ailing little foot of my beloved object' — that's the title he dreamed up — a frisky fellow!
> «предмет» — object of one's affections: «предмет» literally 'object', but in sentimental/period diction «предмет» = 'the object of one's love, one's beloved'. The mock-poetic title — 'On the recovery of the ailing little foot of my object' — flaunts this dated romantic cliché.
> Perfective «придумать»: «придумал» (perfective, 'thought up, invented') names the single completed act of devising the title — against the imperfective «придумывать» ('to be inventing'). «резвый человек!» — 'a frisky fellow!' — is Mitya's amused tag.

Уж какая ж эта ножка, Ножка, вспухшая немножко! Доктора к ней ездят, лечат, И бинтуют, и калечат.  
Ah, what a foot, what a foot, / A foot a little swollen up! / The doctors come and treat the thing, / They bind it tight and bungle it.
> Past active participle «вспухшая»: «вспухшая» is the past active participle of «вспухнуть» ('to swell up'), agreeing with feminine «ножка»: 'a little foot [that has] swollen a little'. The participle condenses a relative clause into one adjective — comic here in the jingle of «ножка / немножко».
> Imperfective present series: «ездят… лечат… бинтуют… калечат» are all imperfective present, painting a repeated, ongoing scene: the doctors keep coming, treating, bandaging — and (the punchline rhyme) «калечат», 'crippling' it. «лечат… калечат» chimes for sardonic effect.

Не по ножкам я тоскую, — Пусть их Пушкин воспевает: По головке я тоскую, Что идей не понимает.  
It's not the feet for which I pine — / Let Pushkin sing of them: / It's for the little head I pine, / The one that grasps no ideas.
> «тосковать по» + dative/prepositional: «тосковать по» ('to pine, yearn for') governs «по» + dative (here plural «ножкам»). The negated, fronted «Не по ножкам» throws the contrast forward: 'it's not the feet I pine for' — answered by «По головке я тоскую'.
> Third-person imperative «пусть»: «пусть» + present verb forms the 3rd-person imperative/hortative: «Пусть Пушкин воспевает» — 'let Pushkin sing of them'. «их» is the object 'them' (the feet). This «пусть» construction recurs across the poem (s148: «Пусть же вылечится…»).
> Diminutive «головка» + genitive object under negation: «головка» ('little head', endearing diminutive of «голова») is mock-tender. The relative «что… не понимает» ('that grasps no ideas') puts its object «идей» in the genitive — the genitive of negation, regular with abstract objects under «не».

Понимала уж немножко, Да вот ножка помешала! Пусть же вылечится ножка, Чтоб головка понимала.  
It had begun to grasp a little, / But then the foot got in the way! / So let the little foot be cured, / That so the little head may grasp.
> Hortative «пусть» + reflexive «вылечится»: «Пусть же вылечится» — 'so let the little foot be cured', 3rd-person imperative with insistent «же». «вылечится» is the perfective reflexive of «вылечить»: the -ся gives the intransitive 'get cured' from transitive 'cure'.
> Purpose «чтоб» + past/irrealis verb: «Чтоб» (colloquial «чтобы») 'so that' introduces a purpose clause and requires the irrealis — here the imperfective «понимала» reads as subjunctive: 'that the little head may grasp'. «чтобы» fuses the conjunction «что» with the particle «бы».

Свинья, чистая свинья, а игриво у мерзавца вышло!  
A swine, an utter swine, yet the rascal brought it off with a certain playfulness!
> Impersonal «вышло» + «у» of the doer: «вышло» ('it came out, turned out') is used impersonally, with the agent in «у» + genitive «у мерзавца» ('it turned out — for the rascal — playfully'). This «у кого вышло» frame credits the result to a person without making him grammatical subject.
> «чистая свинья» — an utter swine: «свинья» 'pig, swine' as abuse; «чистая» here is intensifying, 'a pure / out-and-out swine'. The grudging «а игриво… вышло» ('yet it came off playfully') sets the insult against reluctant admiration — Mitya's whole ambivalence in one line.

И действительно «гражданскую»-то всучил.  
And he really did slip in his 'civic' note.
> Quotation as noun + topic «-то»: The adjective «гражданскую» ('civic') stands quoted in scare-quotes as a noun (sc. «скорбь», 'grief'), with topic «-то» singling it out: 'the "civic" bit — he really did smuggle it in'. «всучил» (perfective) caps the joke begun at s140.

А как рассердился, когда его выгнали. Скрежетал!  
And how furious he was when they threw him out. He gnashed his teeth!
> Perfective pair across «когда»: «рассердился» ('got angry', perfective inceptive) and «выгнали» ('they threw out', perfective) are two completed events linked by «когда»: the second triggers the first. «как рассердился!» is exclamatory — 'how furious he got!'.
> «скрежетать» — to gnash: «скрежетать (зубами)» — 'to gnash the teeth, grind', with a biblical resonance ('weeping and gnashing of teeth'). Standing alone as a one-word imperfective past, it vividly prolongs the image of impotent rage.

— Он уже отмстил, — сказал Алеша. — Он про Хохлакову корреспонденцию написал.  
— He has already taken his revenge, — said Alyosha. — He's written up a piece about Khokhlakova.
> Archaic «отмстить»: «отмстил» is the bookish, non-pleophonic form of «отомстил» ('took revenge'), without the inserted vowel — a Church-Slavonic-flavoured doublet that lends Alyosha's line a slightly elevated tone.

И Алеша рассказал ему наскоро о корреспонденции в газете «Слухи».  
And Alyosha hurriedly told him about the article in the newspaper Rumors.
> Perfective «рассказал» + «наскоро»: «рассказал» (perfective, 'told [the whole thing]') with the adverb «наскоро» ('hastily, in a rush') frames the telling as one quick completed act. «наскоро» is built on «скоро» ('quick') with the prefix на-.

— Это он, он! — подтвердил Митя нахмурившись, — это он!  
— It's him, it's him! — Mitya confirmed, scowling, — it's him!
> Perfective gerund «нахмурившись»: «нахмурившись» is the perfective past gerund of the reflexive «нахмуриться» ('to frown, scowl'): 'having frowned / with a scowl'. It attaches the manner of his confirming to the main verb «подтвердил», sharing its subject — the -вши form is the more old-fashioned gerund ending.

Эти корреспонденции… я ведь знаю… то есть сколько низостей было уже написано, про Грушу, например!..  
These articles… I know all about them… I mean, how many vile things have already been written, about Grusha, for instance!..
> Passive participle «написано» + genitive of quantity: «было написано» is the periphrastic passive: «было» + short past passive participle «написано» ('was written'). «сколько низостей» ('how many vile things') puts the counted noun in the genitive plural; the neuter «написано» agrees impersonally with the quantity, not a subject.
> «Груша» — Grushenka's nickname: «Груша» (also «Грушенька») is the intimate diminutive of Agrafena/Grushenka, the woman over whom Mitya and his father are rivals. «про Грушу» ('about Grusha') — the press's slander touches the woman he loves, hence his agitation.
> Appeal particle «ведь»: «ведь» again appeals to common ground: «я ведь знаю» — 'I do know, you see'. Mitya leans on the shared understanding between brothers as he broaches the painful subject.

И про ту тоже, про Катю… Гм!  
And about the other one too, about Katya… Hm!
> Demonstrative «та» as 'the other one': «про ту тоже» — 'about that one too', where «ту» (accusative of «та», far demonstrative) distances and names without naming. It is then specified: «про Катю» — Katya (Katerina Ivanovna), Mitya's wronged fiancée. «Гм!» voices his discomfort.

Он озабоченно прошелся по комнате.  
He paced the room, lost in worry.
> «пройтись» — to take a turn: «прошёлся» is the perfective reflexive of «пройтись» ('to take a stroll, walk up and down'), with «по» + dative «по комнате» ('about the room'). The -ся here gives the leisurely, self-contained sense 'to take a turn'. «озабоченно» — 'worriedly'.

— Брат, мне нельзя долго оставаться, — сказал, помолчав, Алеша. — Завтра ужасный, великий день для тебя: божий суд над тобой совершится… и вот я удивляюсь, ходишь ты и вместо дела говоришь бог знает о чем.  
— Brother, I can't stay long, — said Alyosha after a silence. — Tomorrow is a dreadful, momentous day for you: God's judgment will be passed upon you… and here I am, amazed — you walk about and, instead of speaking to the point, you talk about God knows what.
> Dative-subject impersonal «мне нельзя»: «мне нельзя оставаться» — 'I can't / mustn't stay', a classic impersonal: the experiencer in the dative «мне», no nominative subject, the modal «нельзя» + imperfective infinitive. This dative-first framing of states pervades the brothers' speech.
> Perfective gerund «помолчав»: «помолчав» is the perfective past gerund of «помолчать» ('to keep silent a while'): 'after a [short] silence'. The prefix по- here delimits a brief stretch of the action; the gerund sets the pause before «сказал».
> Idiom «бог знает о чём»: «бог знает о чём» — 'God knows about what', i.e. 'about heaven knows what, nonsense'. The frozen «бог знает + question word» builds a dismissive indefinite; «о чём» is «о» + prepositional, the case of topic.

— Нет, не удивляйся, — горячо перебил Митя.  
— No, don't be amazed, — Mitya broke in hotly.
> Negated imperfective imperative: «не удивляйся» is the negative imperative of the reflexive «удивляться» ('to be surprised'). A negated command normally takes the imperfective — 'don't [be] surprised' — banning the action as a state, not its completion.
> «перебить» — to cut in: «перебил» (perfective «перебить») here means 'interrupted, broke in', the prefix пере- cutting across another's speech. «горячо» ('hotly, ardently', adverb of «горячий») captures Mitya's fervour.

— Что же мне о смердящем этом псе говорить, что ли? Об убийце?  
— What am I to talk about, that stinking cur, eh? About the murderer?
> Dative + infinitive deliberative + «что ли»: «Что же мне говорить?» is a deliberative impersonal — dative «мне» + infinitive, 'what am I to talk about?'. The tag «что ли?» (from the question particle «ли») adds an exasperated 'eh?, or what?'. «же» sharpens the rhetorical edge.
> Active participle «смердящий» as epithet: «смердящий» is the present active participle of the archaic «смердеть» ('to stink'), here an adjective: 'this stinking cur (пёс)'. It both insults Smerdyakov and puns on his name — see the wordplay made explicit in s162.

Довольно мы с тобой об этом переговорили.  
We've talked enough about that between us.
> Perfective «переговорить» (exhaustive по-): «переговорили» (perfective) here means 'we've talked [it all] over, talked enough', the prefix пере- conveying that the topic has been thoroughly covered. «Довольно» ('enough') reinforces the sense of a closed matter.

Не хочу больше о смердящем, сыне Смердящей!  
I don't want any more about the stinking one, the son of Stinking Lizaveta!
> Prepositional «сыне» in apposition: «сыне» here is the ordinary modern prepositional singular of «сын» (сын/сына/сыну/сыном/о сыне), in apposition to «смердящем» under the shared preposition «о» — 'about the stinking one, [about] the son of the Stinking woman.' It is not a vocative and carries no special archaic register here.

Его бог убьет, вот увидишь, молчи!  
God will strike him down, you'll see — say no more!
> Object-first word order + perfective future: «Его» ('him', accusative) leads the clause for emphasis, before subject «бог» and verb «убьёт» — 'him God will strike down'. «убьёт» is the perfective future ('will kill/strike'), naming a single decisive future act.
> Imperative «молчи»: «молчи» is the singular imperative of «молчать» ('to be silent'): 'be quiet! / say no more!'. Built on the consonant-final stem with stressed -и, it is a curt, urgent command sealing Mitya's outburst.

Он в волнении подошел к Алеше и вдруг поцеловал его. Глаза его загорелись.  
In his agitation he stepped over to Alyosha and suddenly kissed him. His eyes blazed.
> Prefixed motion «подойти» + «к»: «подошёл» is the perfective of «подходить/подойти' ('to approach, come up to'), the prefix под- giving 'up to'. It governs «к» + dative «к Алёше» — 'stepped up to Alyosha'. Then «поцеловал» (perfective) marks the single act of kissing.
> Inceptive «загореться»: «загорелись» is the perfective reflexive of «загореться' ('to catch fire, flare up'), the prefix за- marking the onset: 'his eyes blazed up'. The -ся gives the intransitive, spontaneous 'flared' from transitive 'kindle'.

— Ракитин этого не поймет, — начал он весь как бы в каком-то восторге, — а ты, ты всё поймешь.  
— Rakitin would never understand this, — he began, all caught up as if in some kind of rapture, — but you, you'll understand everything.
> Genitive of negation «этого»: «не поймёт этого» — 'won't understand this': under negation the object «это» shifts to the genitive «этого», the regular genitive-of-negation with an abstract object. «поймёт» is the perfective future of «понять'.
> Indefinite «какой-то» + hedging «как бы»: «в каком-то восторге» — 'in some kind of rapture': «какой-то» marks a real but unspecified state. «как бы» ('as if, sort of') hedges it further — Dostoevsky's narrator constantly softens psychological description with these approximating particles.

Оттого и жаждал тебя.  
That's why I've been longing for you.
> «жаждать» + genitive: «жаждал» (imperfective past of «жаждать», 'to thirst for, crave') is an elevated, almost biblical verb governing the genitive of its object — «тебя» ('for you'). The high register matches Mitya's exalted mood. «Оттого» — 'that's why'.

Видишь, я давно хотел тебе многое здесь, в этих облезлых стенах выразить, но молчал о главнейшем: время как будто всё еще не приходило.  
You see, I've long wanted to tell you a great deal here, within these peeling walls, but I kept silent about the most important thing: it was as if the time still hadn't come.
> Superlative «главнейшее» (suffix -ейш-): «главнейшем» is the bookish suffixal superlative of «главный» ('chief'), -ейш- giving 'the very most important [thing]', here a substantivised neuter in the prepositional after «о». This -ейший superlative is markedly literary.
> Imperfective «приходило» + «как будто»: «не приходило» (imperfective past of «приходить') — 'the time still hadn't [been] coming', a process repeatedly failing to arrive, softer than the perfective «не пришло'. «как будто» ('as if') frames it as the speaker's impression.

Дождался теперь последнего срока, чтобы тебе душу вылить.  
Now I've waited for the final hour, to pour out my soul to you.
> Purpose «чтобы» + infinitive: When the subject is the same as the main clause, «чтобы» takes the infinitive, not a past-form clause: «чтобы… вылить» — 'in order to pour out'. «душу вылить» (object before verb) — 'to pour out [my] soul'; «тебе» is the dative recipient.
> «срок» — the appointed term: «срок» means 'a set term, deadline, appointed time'. «Дождался последнего срока» — 'I waited for the final hour/term', genitive after «дождаться» ('to wait until [something] comes'). The word carries a fated, eleventh-hour weight.

Брат, я в себе в эти два последние месяца нового человека ощутил, воскрес во мне новый человек!  
Brother, in these last two months I've sensed a new man within me, a new man has risen up in me!
> «воскреснуть» — to rise from the dead: «воскрес» is the perfective past of «воскреснуть» ('to rise again, be resurrected'), an intransitive verb of profound religious charge. Word order delays the subject «новый человек» to the stressed end: 'a new man has risen in me' — the spiritual rebirth theme of the chapter.

Был заключен во мне, но никогда бы не явился, если бы не этот гром.  
He was shut up inside me, but he would never have appeared if it weren't for this thunderbolt.
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы»: A past-counterfactual: «никогда бы не явился, если бы не…» — 'would never have appeared if it weren't for…'. Both clauses use past-form verbs + «бы»; «если бы не» ('if not for') frames the indispensable cause. «никогда… не» is negative concord.
> Short passive participle «заключён»: «был заключён» is the periphrastic passive: «был» + short past passive participle «заключён» ('was shut up, confined'). The participle states a result — the new man 'was [kept] locked inside me'. «гром» ('thunder') stands for the catastrophe that broke him open.

Страшно!  
Terrifying!
> Impersonal predicative «страшно»: «Страшно!» as a one-word sentence is the impersonal predicative — 'it's terrifying / [I'm] frightened'. These neuter -о forms head subjectless states (мне страшно, страшно жить) and stand alone as exclamations of feeling.

И что мне в том, что в рудниках буду двадцать лет молотком руду выколачивать, не боюсь я этого вовсе, а другое мне страшно теперь: чтобы не отошел от меня воскресший человек!  
And what does it matter to me that I'll spend twenty years in the mines pounding ore out with a hammer — I'm not afraid of that at all; it's something else that terrifies me now: that the resurrected man might desert me!
> Dative impersonal «что мне в том»: «Что мне в том, что…» — 'what is it to me that…', an idiomatic impersonal: dative «мне» + «в том» (prepositional), 'what does it matter to me'. It dismisses the prospect of hard labour as nothing beside his real fear.
> «чтобы не…» of feared outcome + participle: After «страшно» ('[I'm] afraid'), «чтобы не отошёл» expresses the dreaded outcome: 'that the resurrected man not desert me' (past-form irrealis with «чтобы не»). «воскресший» is the past active participle of «воскреснуть» — 'the [one who has] risen'.

Можно найти и там, в рудниках, под землею, рядом с собой, в таком же каторжном и убийце человеческое сердце и сойтись с ним, потому что и там можно жить, и любить, и страдать!  
Even there, in the mines, under the earth, right beside you, in another convict and murderer, you can find a human heart and draw close to it, because there too you can live, and love, and suffer!
> Impersonal «можно» + infinitives: «Можно найти… и сойтись» — 'one can find… and grow close', the impersonal modal «можно' ('it is possible') + perfective infinitives, with no subject. «сойтись» is the perfective reflexive 'to come together, become close'. The whole sentence is a generalised, subjectless meditation.
> «каторжный» — convict: «каторжный» (here substantivised, 'a convict, hard-labour prisoner') derives from «каторга», penal servitude. Paired with «убийце» ('murderer', dative/prepositional), it names the lowest of fellow-sufferers in whom Mitya insists a «человеческое сердце» can be found.

Можно возродить и воскресить в этом каторжном человеке замершее сердце, можно ухаживать за ним годы и выбить наконец из вертепа на свет уже душу высокую, страдальческое сознание, возродить ангела, воскресить героя!  
You can revive and resurrect a frozen heart in that convict, you can tend to him for years and at last bring out of the den into the light a lofty soul, a consciousness ennobled by suffering, you can revive an angel, resurrect a hero!
> Chained infinitives under «можно»: A cascade of infinitives governed by «можно»: «возродить» ('revive'), «воскресить» ('resurrect'), «ухаживать» ('tend' — imperfective, for the long process), «выбить» ('strike out, bring out'). The mix of perfective acts and imperfective tending builds the visionary rhythm.
> Past active participle «замерший»: «замершее» is the past active participle of «замереть» ('to freeze, go numb, die down'), agreeing with neuter «сердце»: 'a heart that has frozen / gone dead'. The participle packs a whole relative clause into one image of a deadened heart.
> «вертеп» — den: «вертеп» means 'a den, lair (of vice)', and resonantly also 'the cave of the Nativity' in church usage. «выбить из вертепа на свет» — 'to bring out of the den into the light' — sets squalor against redemptive light, a charged Dostoevskian antithesis.

А их ведь много, их сотни, и все мы за них виноваты!  
And there are many of them, you know, hundreds of them, and we are all to blame for them!
> «много» + genitive plural «их»: «их много» — 'there are many of them': the quantity word «много» governs the genitive «их», in an existential 'there is/are' frame with no nominative subject. «ведь» again appeals to Alyosha's assent ('there are many, you know').
> «виноват» (short adj.) + «за»: «виноваты» is the short predicative form of «виноватый» ('guilty, to blame'); «за них» ('for them', «за» + accusative) names whom the guilt is for. This 'all are guilty for all' formula («все за всех виноваты», s180) is the novel's moral keynote.

Зачем мне тогда приснилось «дитё» в такую минуту?  
Why did I dream of the 'wee one' at such a moment?
> Dative-subject «приснилось»: «мне приснилось» — 'I dreamed', literally 'it dreamed itself to me': the dreamer is the dative «мне», the thing dreamed («дитё») the grammatical subject, the verb reflexive perfective. A textbook dative-experiencer construction.
> «дитё» — the 'wee one': «дитё» is the folk/colloquial form of «дитя» ('child, babe'). It echoes the weeping peasant baby of Mitya's dream — the «дитё» whose suffering crystallises his sense of universal guilt. The non-standard spelling marks the peasant register.

«Отчего бедно дитё?»  
'Why is the wee one poor?'
> «отчего» + short adjective «бедно»: «Отчего?» ('why, for what cause?') opens the dream's question; «бедно» is the neuter short adjective of «бедный» ('poor'), predicating the state of «дитё': 'why is the wee one poor?'. The bare, copula-less short form gives it the starkness of an oracle.

Это пророчество мне было в ту минуту!  
That was a prophecy to me in that moment!
> Dative of recipient + zero-copula past: «Это… мне было пророчество» — 'this was a prophecy to me': «мне» (dative) marks the one to whom it was given. «было» is the past of «быть»; in the present this 'X is Y' frame would use no copula at all.

За «дитё» и пойду.  
It's for the 'wee one' that I'll go.
> Fronted «за» + emphatic «и» + perfective future: «За "дитё"» ('for the wee one', «за» + accusative of cause) is fronted for emphasis; «и пойду» — the particle «и» ('precisely') plus the perfective future «пойду» ('I'll go [to prison]'). 'It's for the wee one that I'll go' — his suffering accepted as expiation.

Потому что все за всех виноваты.  
Because all are to blame for all.
> «все за всех» — all for all: «все за всех виноваты» — 'all are guilty for all', short adjective «виноваты» + «за» + accusative «всех». The chiastic «все… всех» distils Zosima's (and the novel's) doctrine of universal, shared responsibility. «Потому что» ('because') makes it the ground of Mitya's whole confession.

За всех «дитё», потому что есть малые дети и большие дети.  
For all the 'wee ones,' because there are little children and big children.
> «дитё» — the wee one: «дитё» is a colloquial, folk-tinged variant of the bookish «дитя» (child); the colloquial nominative «дитё» feels warm and rustic. It is the keyword of the whole passage — the suffering peasant child of Mitya's dream — which is why it sits in quotation marks each time.
> «потому что» — because: «потому что» (because) opens a subordinate clause of cause, always set off by the comma you see here. Mitya stacks these causal clauses across the speech, building his moral logic step by reasoned step.

Все — «дитё».  
All of them are the 'wee one.'
> The dash for a dropped 'are': Russian uses no present-tense copula, so 'all of them are the wee one' is just «Все — дитё», with a dash standing in for the missing 'are' between two nominatives. The bare juxtaposition gives the line its flat, oracular finality.

За всех и пойду, потому что надобно же кому-нибудь и за всех пойти.  
I'll go for all of them, because someone has to go for all the rest as well.
> «пойду» — I'll go (perfective future): «пойду» is the perfective verb «пойти» conjugated like a present, which yields a single, completed future action — 'I will go.' Mitya means one decisive act of going to Siberia, not an ongoing process, and the perfective makes that resolve audible.
> Impersonal «надобно» + dative + «же»: «надобно» (an archaic, folksy 'one must / it is needful') is an impersonal predicate with no nominative subject; the obligated person stands in the dative «кому-нибудь» ('someone'). The particle «же» insists — 'someone, after all, simply has to' — coloring the necessity with appeal.
> «-нибудь» — anyone at all: The clitic «-нибудь» on «кому» makes the referent non-specific: 'someone or other, anyone at all.' Mitya isn't naming a person — anybody must take the burden, and he volunteers.

Я не убил отца, но мне надо пойти. Принимаю!  
I didn't kill our father, but I must go. I accept it!
> Genitive of negation: «отца»: Under the negated verb «не убил», 'father' would naturally surface in the genitive — and «отца» is both accusative and genitive for this animate noun. The negation pulls the object out of the simple accusative frame: 'I did not kill (any) father.'
> Dative-subject obligation «мне надо»: «надо» (one must) is impersonal: the person who must act stands in the dative «мне», and there is no nominative 'I.' This experiencer-first framing — 'to me it is needful to go' — is the texture of Mitya's whole confession.
> «Принимаю!» — I accept it: The bare first-person present «Принимаю» drops the pronoun 'I' entirely — the ending alone carries the person. The imperfective present here is performative: in saying it, Mitya enacts his acceptance of the suffering.

Мне это здесь всё пришло… вот в этих облезлых стенах.  
All of this came to me here… here within these peeling walls.
> Dative of the experiencer with «пришло»: The thought 'came to' Mitya: the verb «пришло» (perfective, neuter past agreeing with «это») is impersonal-feeling, with Mitya in the dative «мне» as the one it happened to. The piling of «это… всё» ('this… all') around the dative is the inner-life syntax Dostoevsky loves.
> «облезлый» — peeling, shabby: «облезлый» means flaked, mangy, peeling — said of fur that has shed or paint that has come off. The prison cell's «облезлые стены» become a refrain (it returns in s196), the squalid walls in which Mitya's revelation is born.

А их ведь много, их там сотни, подземных-то, с молотками в руках.  
And there are many of them, you know, hundreds of them down there, underground, with hammers in their hands.
> Particle «ведь» — you know, after all: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge, nudging Alyosha to grant what Mitya says: 'there are many of them, you know.' English can only render it with intonation or a tag like 'after all.' Note too the genitive «их» governed by the quantifier «много» (many).
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «подземных» highlights a known topic — 'those underground ones, I mean' — singling them out with a colloquial, insistent finger-point. It is distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то»; here it just foregrounds.

О да, мы будем в цепях, и не будет воли, но тогда, в великом горе нашем, мы вновь воскреснем в радость, без которой человеку жить невозможно, а богу быть, ибо бог дает радость, это его привилегия, великая…  
Oh yes, we'll be in chains, and there will be no freedom, but then, in our great sorrow, we'll rise again into the joy without which a man cannot live, nor God exist, for God gives joy, it is His prerogative, a great one…
> Genitive subject of negated existence: With negated «не будет» (there will not be), the absent thing goes obligatorily into the genitive: «воли», not nominative «воля». This is the genitive of negation in its existential use — 'of freedom there will be none.'
> Relative «которой» in the genitive: «без которой» — 'without which' — shows «который» agreeing with its antecedent «радость» (feminine) but taking the genitive its own preposition «без» demands. The relative clause threads the joy back as the very condition of living.
> Dative subject across both halves: Both clauses are impersonal datives: 'for a man (человеку) to live is impossible, and for God (богу) to be.' The parallel datives bind man and God in a single grammatical breath — neither can do without joy — a fusion only the case can carry.
> «ибо» — for, because (bookish): «ибо» is the elevated, archaic-biblical conjunction for 'for / because,' at home in Scripture and sermon rather than speech. Mitya reaches for it as his rapture rises, lending the line a liturgical cadence.

Господи, истай человек в молитве!  
Lord, let a man melt away in prayer!
> Vocative «Господи» — O Lord: «Господи» is the surviving Church-Slavonic vocative of «Господь» (Lord), used only in direct address and prayer. Set off from the clause, it turns the exclamation into something between an oath and a supplication.
> «истай» — melt utterly away: «истай» is the imperative of «истаять», to melt or waste entirely away — the prefix «ис-» pushes the melting to completion. The wish 'let a man melt away in prayer' is mystical and self-annihilating, an image of the soul dissolving into God.
> Imperative as a wish: The bare imperative «истай» here is not an order to one listener but a generalizing wish — 'let a man melt away…' — a common Russian use of the imperative to express 'may it be so.' The location «в молитве» (in prayer) sits in the prepositional after «в».

Как я буду там под землей без бога?  
How will I get on down there underground without God?
> Compound future «буду» (imperfective): «буду» + the implied 'live / get on' is the imperfective compound future — an ongoing, drawn-out existence rather than a single act. «без бога» (without God) takes the genitive that «без» governs; the whole question fears a long life emptied of God.

Врет Ракитин: если бога с земли изгонят, мы под землей его сретим!  
Rakitin lies: if they drive God off the earth, we'll meet Him underground!
> Verb-first word order for emphasis: Putting the verb «врёт» (lies) before the subject «Ракитин» throws the weight onto the accusation itself — 'Lying, that Rakitin is.' Free word order lets Russian foreground the comment; the topic 'Rakitin' arrives second as old news.
> Real conditional with «если» + perfective future: This is a real (not hypothetical) condition: «если» plus the perfective future «изгонят» ('if they drive out') in the if-clause, answered by the perfective future «сретим» in the main clause. Both verbs name single completed acts — drive God off, meet Him below.
> «сретим» — we shall meet (Slavonic): «сретить» is the Church-Slavonic doublet of ordinary «встретить» (to meet) — the same root behind «Сретение», the Orthodox feast of the Meeting of the Lord. Its solemn, sacred coloring is exactly why Mitya chooses it over the everyday word.

Каторжному без бога быть невозможно, невозможнее даже, чем некаторжному!  
For a convict it's impossible to be without God, more impossible even than for a man who is not a convict!
> Dative subject «каторжному»: The impersonal frame again: 'for a convict (каторжному, dative) to be without God is impossible.' The substantivized adjective «каторжный» ('convict') declines like an adjective and stands as the dative experiencer of the impossibility.
> Comparative «невозможнее»: «невозможнее» is the predicative comparative in «-ее» — 'more impossible' — a deliberately paradoxical intensification of an absolute. The thing compared follows «чем» in the same dative case as the first term («некаторжному», 'a non-convict').
> «каторжный» and the coined «некаторжный»: A «каторжный» is a hard-labor convict, from «каторга» (penal servitude). Mitya playfully coins its negative «некаторжный», 'a non-convict,' a free man — the prefix «не-» minting an opposite that the language doesn't normally need.

И тогда мы, подземные человеки, запоем из недр земли трагический гимн богу, у которого радость!  
And then we, the men of the underground, will strike up out of the bowels of the earth a tragic hymn to God, in whom there is joy!
> «запоём» — strike up (inceptive perfective): «запоём» is the perfective future of «запеть», whose prefix «за-» marks the beginning of an action — 'we'll burst into / strike up' a song. The perfective makes it a single decisive onset, the convicts breaking into their hymn all at once.
> «недра» — the bowels of the earth: «недра» (a plural-only noun) means the womb, depths, or bowels of something — here «недра земли», the earth's interior, the mine's depths. The phrase fuses the literal underground of the penal mines with the figurative depths from which the hymn ascends.

Да здравствует бог и его радость! Люблю его!  
Long live God and His joy! I love Him!
> «Да здравствует» — long live: «Да здравствует» is the fixed acclamation 'long live…', literally 'may (he) be in health' — the «да» + third-person verb is an old optative ('let it be that…'). It is the cry of a toast or a proclamation, here turned godward.

Митя, произнося свою дикую речь, почти задыхался. Он побледнел, губы его вздрагивали, из глаз катились слезы.  
Mitya, as he delivered his wild speech, was almost choking. He had gone pale, his lips were trembling, and tears rolled from his eyes.
> Present gerund «произнося»: «произнося» is the imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) of «произносить» — 'while delivering.' It pins a simultaneous, ongoing action to the main verb «задыхался», all sharing Mitya as subject: as he was speaking, he was choking.
> Perfective onset against imperfective process: Aspect choreographs the moment: perfective «побледнел» ('went pale,' a single change of state) against imperfective «вздрагивали» and «катились» ('were trembling,' 'were rolling,' ongoing). One snap, then two sustained tremors — the verbs paint the body's collapse.
> Reflexive possessive «свою»: «свою» (his own) is the reflexive possessive, pointing back to the clause's subject, Mitya — 'his own wild speech.' Russian prefers «свой» over «его» here precisely to keep the speech his and not someone else's.

— Нет, жизнь полна, жизнь есть и под землею! — начал он опять.  
— No, life is full, there is life even under the earth! — he began again.
> Rare overt copula «есть»: Russian usually omits the present 'is,' but here the explicit «есть» ('there is') asserts bare existence emphatically — 'life there IS, even under the earth.' The particle «и» before «под землею» means 'even,' pushing the claim to its limit.
> Inverted speech tag «начал он»: The narrative tag puts verb before subject — «начал он» ('began he') — the conventional inversion after direct speech in 19th-century prose. «начал» is perfective: a single resumption of the speech.

— Ты не поверишь, Алексей, как я теперь жить хочу, какая жажда существовать и сознавать именно в этих облезлых стенах во мне зародилась!  
— You wouldn't believe it, Alexei, how I long to live now, what a thirst to exist and to be aware has been born in me, precisely within these peeling walls!
> Perfective future «поверишь»: «поверишь» is the perfective future of «поверить» (to believe) — 'you won't believe.' The perfective frames belief as a single act that won't manage to happen, a colloquial opener of astonishment.
> Reflexive «-ся»: a state born of itself: «зародилась» (от «зародиться») carries the reflexive «-ся» that makes it intransitive and middle: the thirst 'was conceived / came to birth' in him, with no external agent. The «-ся» lets the inner change arise on its own, as if from nowhere.
> Full name «Алексей» vs «Алёша»: Mitya here uses the full «Алексей» rather than the affectionate «Алёша» he so often calls his brother. The shift to the formal name lends the address a momentary solemnity, matching the gravity of his confession.

Ракитин этого не понимает, ему бы только дом выстроить да жильцов пустить, но я ждал тебя.  
Rakitin doesn't understand this — all he wants is to put up a house and take in lodgers — but I was waiting for you.
> «бы» of the merely-wished: «ему бы только… выstroить» uses the particle «бы» with a dative + infinitive to express what someone would just like to do — 'all he'd want is to build a house.' The construction frames Rakitin's whole soul as a small, self-interested wish.
> «пустить жильцов» — take in lodgers: «пустить жильцов» is to let in tenants/lodgers — a petty money-making scheme. Mitya throws it at Rakitin as the emblem of his small, mercenary mind: «жильцов» is animate genitive-accusative plural, the lodgers as objects.
> Folksy «да» for 'and': Here «да» joins two verbs as a colloquial, slightly disdainful 'and' — 'build a house AND take in lodgers.' This «да» (distinct from «да» 'yes') gives the catalog of Rakitin's ambitions a dismissive, folk ring.

Да и что такое страдание? Не боюсь его, хотя бы оно было бесчисленно.  
And anyway, what is suffering? I'm not afraid of it, even if it were beyond counting.
> «бояться» + genitive object «его»: «бояться» (to fear) is one of the verbs that exist only in the reflexive «-ся» form and governs the genitive: «его» here is genitive, not accusative — 'I am not afraid of it.' The dropped subject is recoverable from the ending.
> Concessive «хотя бы» + irrealis: «хотя бы… было» means 'even if it were' — the particle «бы» joins the past-form «было» to make a concessive hypothetical. The short neuter adjective «бесчисленно» ('beyond counting') predicates the imagined boundless suffering.

Теперь не боюсь, прежде боялся.  
Now I'm not afraid, though once I was.
> Present vs imperfective past: The line pivots on tense alone: present «не боюсь» ('now I'm not afraid') against imperfective past «боялся» ('before, I was afraid'). The imperfective past names a past habitual state, neatly setting 'then' against 'now' with no extra words.

Знаешь, я, может быть, не буду и отвечать на суде…  
You know, perhaps I won't even answer at the trial…
> Imperfective future «не буду отвечать»: «не буду отвечать» is the imperfective compound future — a refusal of an ongoing activity, 'I won't be answering / I won't answer at all.' The particle «и» ('even') stresses the surprising extent: perhaps I won't even respond.
> «может быть» — perhaps: «может быть» (literally 'it may be') is the frozen parenthetical for 'maybe, perhaps,' set off by commas. It softens the bold claim into a half-formed thought, typical of Mitya's reeling, tentative manner.

И, кажется, столько во мне этой силы теперь, что я всё поборю, все страдания, только чтобы сказать и говорить себе поминутно: я есмь!  
And it seems there is so much of this strength in me now that I'll overcome everything, all the sufferings, only to be able to say and to tell myself every minute: I am!
> Archaic 'I am': Modern Russian normally drops the present-tense verb 'to be': «я» alone means 'I am.' Here Mitya uses the archaic, Church-Slavonic form «есмь» (the old first-person of «быть»), which sounds solemn and biblical — we render it with the bare, emphatic 'I am' so the line keeps its declaratory, almost liturgical weight.
> Quantifier «столько» + genitive: «столько… силы» — 'so much strength' — puts the measured noun in the genitive after the quantity word «столько». The fronting of «столько во мне этой силы» before the «что»-clause builds the sense of overflow that the sentence is about.
> «что» of result, «чтобы» of purpose: Two subordinators carry the load: «что» introduces the consequence ('so much strength that I'll overcome…'), while «чтобы» + infinitive gives the purpose ('only in order to say'). The «что/чтобы» contrast — fact versus willed aim — is exactly visible here.

В тысяче мук — я есмь, в пытке корчусь — но есмь!  
In a thousand torments — I am; writhing under torture — but I am!
> Reflexive «корчусь» — I writhe: «корчусь» (от «корчиться») is a «-ся» verb of bodily middle action — to writhe, contort oneself — with no object, the suffering turned inward on the body. «в пытке» (in/under torture) sits in the prepositional after «в».
> «но есмь» — but I am: Mitya drops even the pronoun and leaves only the archaic «есмь» — 'but I am.' Stripped to the bare verb of being, the line becomes a defiant ontological cry against the torment named just before.

В столпе сижу, но и я существую, солнце вижу, а не вижу солнца, то знаю, что оно есть.  
Sitting on a pillar, still I exist, I see the sun; and if I can't see the sun, I know that it exists.
> Accusative vs genitive of negation: The pair turns on case: affirmed, the sun is accusative «солнце» («вижу солнце»); negated, it slips to genitive «солнца» («не вижу солнца»). The genitive of negation is doing precise work — 'I see the sun; and if I do not see (any) sun…'

А знать, что есть солнце, — это уже вся жизнь.  
And to know that the sun exists — that is already a whole life.
> Infinitive subject resumed by «это»: The infinitive «знать» ('to know') serves as the sentence's subject, then is gathered up by «это» before the predicate — 'to know… that is already a whole life.' The dash + «это» is the standard way Russian nominalizes and re-points an infinitive clause.

Алеша, херувим ты мой, меня убивают разные философии, черт их дери! Брат Иван…  
Alyosha, my cherub, all these philosophies are killing me, the devil take them! Brother Ivan…
> «херувим» — my cherub: «херувим» (cherub, from the Hebrew via Church Slavonic) is a tender epithet for the angelic Alyosha. The folk-affectionate word order «херувим ты мой» (cherub-you-mine) wraps the address in warmth — a caress in three words.
> «чёрт их дери» — the devil take them: «чёрт их дери» (literally 'may the devil tear them') is a stock mild curse, here aimed at the «философии». The jolt from cherub-tenderness to a peasant oath in one breath is pure Mitya — sacred and profane jammed together.
> Object-first word order: «меня убивают разные философии» fronts the object «меня» ('me') before the verb and subject — 'me they are killing, these various philosophies.' The accusative «меня» can lead precisely because case, not position, marks who suffers the action.

— Что брат Иван? — перебил было Алеша, но Митя не расслышал.  
— What about brother Ivan? — Alyosha tried to break in, but Mitya didn't hear him.
> The particle «было» — the action nipped: «перебил было» uses the special particle «было» after a perfective past to mark an action begun but immediately undone — 'Alyosha started to break in (but didn't get to).' It signals an interrupted or annulled attempt, and is itself an archaic touch.
> Perfective «расслышал» under negation: «расслышал» (perfective: to catch / make out by ear) negated means Mitya failed to catch the words — 'didn't (manage to) hear.' The prefix «рас-» here gives the sense of hearing-out distinctly, which negation then denies.

— Видишь, я прежде этих всех сомнений никаких не имел, но всё во мне это таилось.  
— You see, before, I never had any of these doubts, yet all of it was lying hidden in me.
> Negative concord: «никаких… не»: «никаких сомнений… не имел» stacks the ни-word «никаких» with the negated verb «не имел» — Russian's obligatory double negative, 'I had no doubts whatsoever.' The negated object «сомнений» sits in the genitive, doubly marking the absence.
> Reflexive «таилось» — lay hidden: «таилось» (от «таиться», a «-ся» verb) is the middle 'lay concealed, lurked' — the doubts hid themselves in him with no outer agent. The imperfective past stresses the long, latent concealment 'all the while.'

Именно, может, оттого, что идеи бушевали во мне неизвестные, я и пьянствовал, и дрался, и бесился.  
Perhaps it was precisely because unknown ideas were raging inside me that I went drinking, and brawling, and flying into a rage.
> Causal «оттого, что»: «оттого, что» ('because of the fact that') is a causal subordinator, the comma falling before «что». Paired with the resumptive «я и пьянствовал» in the main clause, it frames the whole sentence as 'it was precisely because… that I…'
> Imperfective triad of habit: Three imperfective past verbs in a row — «пьянствовал, дрался, бесился» — name not single events but Mitya's sustained, repeated way of living: he drank, brawled, raged, over and over. The repeated «и… и… и» drums the habituality.
> «беситься» — to rage, go berserk: «беситься» (a «-ся» verb) literally 'to be possessed by a demon (бес)' — to rage, fly into a frenzy, run wild. The word's demonic root suits Mitya's sense of being driven by forces he couldn't name.

Чтоб утолить в себе их, дрался, чтоб их усмирить, сдавить.  
I brawled to quell them in myself, to subdue them, to crush them down.
> Purpose clause «чтоб» + infinitive: «чтоб» (a contracted «чтобы») + the infinitives «утолить… усмирить, сдавить» gives the purpose of the brawling — 'in order to quell, to subdue, to crush them.' When subject and purpose share one actor, «чтобы» simply takes the infinitive.
> Reflexive «в себе» — within himself: «себе» is the reflexive pronoun pointing back to the subject — 'in myself.' It has no nominative and serves any person; here it locates the warring ideas «их» squarely inside Mitya's own breast.
> «усмирить» / «сдавить» — subdue, crush down: «усмирить» is to pacify or quell (as one quells a riot), «сдавить» to squeeze or compress hard. The escalating verbs — quench, subdue, crush — turn the inner ideas into something almost physical that must be violently mastered.

Брат Иван не Ракитин, он таит идею.  
Brother Ivan is not Rakitin — he hides his idea.
> Zero-copula contrast with «не»: With no verb 'is,' the negation «не» simply stands between two nominatives — «Брат Иван не Ракитин», 'Brother Ivan is not Rakitin.' Russian contrasts identities with a bare «не» and no copula at all.
> Present «таит» — he hides (transitive): «таит» (от «таить», to conceal) is the active transitive — Ivan hides the idea on purpose — beside its «-ся» twin «таиться» 'to lie hidden' from s207. The imperfective present gives a standing trait: Ivan is forever a concealer.

Брат Иван сфинкс и молчит, всё молчит.  
Brother Ivan is a sphinx and he keeps silent, always silent.
> «всё» as 'keeps on': The repeated «молчит, всё молчит» uses «всё» adverbially to mean 'keeps on, all the while' — 'he is silent, ever silent.' The imperfective «молчит» plus «всё» stretches the silence into a permanent, oppressive condition.

А меня бог мучит. Одно только это и мучит.  
But it's God who torments me. That alone torments me.
> Object-first «меня» + contrastive «а»: «А меня бог мучит» fronts the object «меня» under the contrastive «а» ('but as for me'), shifting from Ivan to Mitya — 'but me, it's God who torments.' The «а» marks the gentle pivot of topic so characteristic of Russian dialogue.

А что, как его нет?  
And what if He doesn't exist?
> Genitive «его» of non-existence: «его нет» — literally 'of Him there is none' — is the standard negated-existence frame: «нет» governs the genitive «его». The colloquial «что, как…?» ('and what if…?') sets up the dread that God may simply not be.

Что, если прав Ракитин, что это идея искусственная в человечестве?  
What if Rakitin is right, that it's an idea artificially made up within mankind?
> Short adjective «прав» — is right: «прав» is the predicative short form of «правый» — 'is right / correct,' a form used only as a predicate and carrying a sense of momentary truth. Word-order inversion «прав Ракитин» throws the stress onto being-right.
> Post-posed adjective «искусственная»: Placing «искусственная» after its noun — «идея искусственная» rather than «искусственная идея» — gives it predicative weight and rhetorical stress, 'an idea, and an artificial one at that.' Such inversion is a bookish, period-flavored move.

Тогда, если его нет, то человек шеф земли, мироздания.  
Then, if He doesn't exist, man is the chief of the earth, of all creation.
> Conditional with «то» + zero copula: «если… то…» pairs the condition with its consequence, the «то» resuming it — 'if He doesn't exist, then man is chief.' The main clause has no verb 'is': «человек шеф земли», two nominatives in apposition.
> «шеф» — the chief (a Gallicism): «шеф» (from French chef) means head, chief, patron — a slightly foreign, modish word. Its everyday, almost bureaucratic ring against the cosmic «мироздания» (creation) gives Mitya's claim a faintly absurd, overreaching color.

Великолепно!  
Splendid!

Только как он будет добродетелен без богато?  
Only how is he to be virtuous without God?
> Short adjective «добродетелен» in the future: «добродетелен» is the predicative short form of «добродетельный» (virtuous), joined to the future «будет» — 'how will he be virtuous?' Short adjectives are the natural predicate form, especially in this elevated, sententious key. (The «богато» here is a typo for «бога», genitive after «без».)

Вопрос!  
That's the question!

Я всё про это.  
I keep coming back to it.
> Elliptical «всё про это»: The verb is left out entirely — 'I'm all (about) this,' i.e. 'I keep coming back to it.' The adverbial «всё» ('continually') plus «про это» ('about this') carries the whole meaning, an elliptical, speech-like compression.

Ибо кого же он будет тогда любить, человек-то?  
For whom, then, is man going to feel love?
> Animate accusative «кого» + «же»: «кого» is the accusative/genitive of «кто», fronted as the object of «любить» — 'whom will he love?' The particle «же» adds insistent appeal ('whom, then, on earth…'), and «ибо» opens the question in bookish register.
> Topic-marking «-то» on «человек»: The clitic «-то» tags «человек» as the known topic now in question — 'man, that is.' Tacked on at the end after the verb, it gives the line its colloquial, button-holing rhythm.

Кому благодарен-то будет, кому гимн-то воспоет?  
To whom will he be grateful, to whom will he sing his hymn?
> Dative «кому» + short adjective «благодарен»: «благодарен» (short form: grateful) governs the dative of the one thanked — «кому будет благодарен», 'to whom will he be grateful?' The interrogative «кому» is the dative of «кто», and «-то» again marks the running topic.
> Perfective «воспоёт» — will sing forth: «воспоёт» (от «воспеть») is the perfective future — to sing out, to hymn in praise — its prefix «вос-» (Slavonic «воз-») lending a lofty, ceremonial 'sing up / extol.' To whom will man raise his hymn, if God is gone?

Ракитин смеется.  
Rakitin laughs.

Ракитин говорит, что можно любить человечество и без бога.  
Rakitin says you can love mankind even without God.
> Impersonal «можно» + infinitive: «можно любить» — 'one can love' — is the impersonal possibility predicate with an infinitive and no subject. The particle «и» before «без бога» means 'even': you can love mankind even without God, the very claim Mitya cannot swallow.

Ну это сморчок сопливый может только так утверждать, а я понять не могу.  
Well, only a sniveling little runt could assert such a thing, but I can't grasp it.
> «сморчок сопливый» — sniveling little runt: «сморчок» is literally a morel mushroom, used figuratively for a puny, shriveled little man; «сопливый» ('snotty, sniveling') heaps on contempt. The earthy double insult, aimed at Rakitin, is vintage Mitya invective.
> Modal «может» + infinitive: «может… утверждать» is the personal modal 'can assert,' with «только так» ('only thus, only like that') narrowing it to a contemptuous limit — only such a runt could claim such a thing. The infinitive completes the modal verb.

Легко жить Ракитину: «Ты, — говорит он мне сегодня, — о расширении гражданских прав человека хлопочи лучше али хоть о том, чтобы цена на говядину не возвысилась; этим проще и ближе человечеству любовь окажешь, чем философиями».  
Life's easy for Rakitin: 'You,' he tells me today, 'had better busy yourself with extending the civil rights of man, or at least with keeping the price of beef from going up; that way you'll show your love for mankind more simply and more directly than with any philosophies.'
> Imperative «хлопочи» + «о» + prepositional: «хлопочи» is the imperative of «хлопотать» (to bustle, busy oneself, lobby), governing «о» + the prepositional «о расширении… прав» — 'busy yourself about the extension of rights.' The fronting of the long object before the verb gives Rakitin's advice its lecturing rhythm.
> «чтобы… не» + irrealis past: «чтобы… не возвысилась» — 'so that the price not rise' — uses «чтобы» with a past-form verb (the obligatory irrealis after «чтобы») to express the negated purpose. The reflexive «возвыситься» means the price 'goes up' of itself.
> «али» — folk 'or': «али» is a rustic, dialectal variant of «или» (or). Dropped into Rakitin's quoted speech, it colors his tone as folksy and offhand, the seminarian talking down to earth.

Я ему на это и отмочил: «А ты, говорю, без богато, сам еще на говядину цену набьешь, коль под руку попадет, и наколотишь рубль на копейку».  
And I let him have it: 'And you,' I say, 'without God, will jack up the price of beef yourself, if you get the chance, and make a ruble out of a kopeck.'
> «отмочить» — to let fly (slang): «отмочил» is rough colloquial slang — to pull off some sharp or outrageous remark or stunt, 'I let him have it / I came back at him.' The earthy verb suits Mitya boasting of his retort.
> «рубль на копейку» — a ruble out of a kopeck: «наколотить рубль на копейку» is to profiteer wildly — to beat a whole ruble out of a single kopeck (a hundred to one). «набить цену» just before means to jack up the price; together they paint Rakitin as a closet money-grubber.
> Folk conditional «коль»: «коль» is an archaic, folksy short form of «если» (if): 'if it comes to hand.' «под руку попадёт» (perfective future) is the idiom 'should the chance turn up' — Mitya needling Rakitin in his own homespun register.

Рассердился.  
He got angry.
> Subjectless perfective «рассердился»: A one-word sentence: the perfective reflexive «рассердился» ('he got angry') with the subject dropped, recoverable as Rakitin from context. The prefix «рас-» plus «-ся» marks the sudden onset of the emotion — anger flaring up in a single stroke.

Ибо что такое добродетель? — отвечай ты мне, Алексей.  
For what is virtue? — answer me that, Alexei.
> Bookish «ибо» + «что такое»: «ибо» ('for, because') is the elevated literary conjunction, and «что такое X?» is the fixed frame for 'what is X (in its essence)?' Together they pitch Mitya's question — 'for what is virtue?' — in a deliberately philosophical, sermonizing key.
> Imperative «отвечай» + emphatic «ты»: «отвечай» is the imperfective imperative ('answer!'), and the usually-dropped «ты» is added for pointed emphasis — 'you answer me.' The dative «мне» marks the one addressed; the direct vocative use of «Алексей» drives the challenge home.

У меня одна добродетель, а у китайца другая — вещь, значит, относительная.  
I have one virtue, and a Chinaman has another — so it's a relative thing, then.
> Possession «у» + genitive, contrastive «а»: The Russian 'have' construction uses «у» + genitive: «у меня… у китайца» ('with me… with a Chinaman'). The contrastive «а» sets one person's virtue against another's — the elliptical «другая» ('another') needs no repeated noun.
> Parenthetical «значит» + short-flavored predicate: «значит» ('so, then, it means') is a parenthetical inference word, set off by commas — Mitya drawing his conclusion aloud. The predicate «относительная» (relative) is fronted after «вещь» for emphasis: 'a relative thing, then.'

Или нет? Или не относительная? Вопрос коварный!  
Or is it not? Or is it not relative? An insidious question!
> Elliptical disjunctive questions: Two clipped «или…?» questions ('or not? or not relative?') strip away everything but the disjunction and the negation «не». The terse back-and-forth dramatizes Mitya arguing with himself, the syntax as broken as his thought.
> «коварный» — insidious, treacherous: «коварный» means cunning, treacherous, insidious — a question that lies in wait to trip you. Applied to an abstract «вопрос», it personifies the riddle of moral relativism as a sly adversary.

Ты не засмеешься, если скажу, что я две ночи не спал от этого.  
You won't laugh if I tell you I lay awake two nights over this.
> Paired perfective futures: Both verbs are perfective futures — «не засмеёшься» ('you won't laugh,' a single burst of laughter denied) and «скажу» ('I tell,' a single act). The prefix «за-» on «засмеяться» marks the onset of laughing, exactly the sudden reaction Mitya fears.
> Genitive singular «ночи» after «две»: «две ночи» — 'two nights' — shows the numeral «два/две» taking the genitive singular «ночи», not the plural. With the negated imperfective «не спал» ('did not sleep'), it conveys two whole sleepless nights of brooding.

Я удивляюсь теперь только тому, как люди там живут и об этом ничего не думают.  
What amazes me now is only this: how people out there go on living and never give it a thought.
> «удивляться» + dative «тому»: «удивляться» (to be amazed) is a «-ся» verb governing the dative — «удивляюсь тому» ('I marvel at that'), with «тому» a correlative pointing forward to the «как»-clause. The construction sets up: what amazes me is precisely how people live.
> Negative concord «ничего… не»: «ничего не думают» pairs the ни-word «ничего» (genitive of «ничто») with negated «не думают» — the obligatory double negative, 'they think nothing about it.' «об этом» ('about this') sits in the prepositional after «о».

Суета!  
Vanity!
> «Суета!» — vanity, vain bustle: «суета» means fuss, bustle, empty commotion — and unmistakably echoes Ecclesiastes' «суета сует» ('vanity of vanities'). The single word condemns worldly busyness as hollow, in the biblical key that runs all through Mitya's outburst.

У Ивана бога нет. У него идея. Не в моих размерах.  
Ivan has no God. He has an idea. Not on my scale.
> Genitive of non-possession «бога нет»: «У Ивана… нет» is the 'have not' frame: «у» + genitive «Ивана» for the possessor, and «нет» governing the genitive «бога» for the thing lacking. Doubly genitive, it states flatly that Ivan has no God.
> «не в моих размерах» — not on my scale: «размер» is size, dimension, measure; «не в моих размерах» idiomatically means 'beyond my dimensions, not my size' — Ivan's idea is too vast (or too cold) for Mitya to fit himself into. A homely metaphor for an intellectual gulf.

Но он молчит. Я думаю, он масон.  
But he keeps silent. I think he's a Freemason.

Я его спрашивал — молчит.  
I've asked him — he says nothing.
> Imperfective past «спрашивал»: «спрашивал» is imperfective past — 'I kept asking / was asking,' a repeated, attempted action rather than one finished question. Set against the present «молчит» ('he stays silent'), it sketches a standing pattern: ask as he might, Ivan never answers.

В роднике у него хотел водицы испить — молчит.  
I wanted to drink a little water from his spring — he says nothing.
> «водицы испить» — to drink a little water: «водица» is the affectionate diminutive of «вода» (water), and «испить» is the folk-poetic, slightly archaic 'to drink (a little).' Both belong to fairy-tale and folk-song diction; the metaphor 'drink from his spring' casts Ivan's mind as a well Mitya hoped to taste.
> Partitive genitive «водицы»: «водицы» stands in the genitive, not accusative — the partitive genitive used for 'some water, a little water' as opposed to the whole. With «испить», it neatly means to take a sip, a draught of the water.

Один только раз одно словечко сказал.  
Only once did he let slip a single little word.
> «словечко» — a little word: «словечко» is the diminutive of «слово» (word), here carrying not 'smallness' but tenderness and significance — 'one precious little word.' The affectionate suffix makes Ivan's single utterance feel rare and weighted.
> Perfective «сказал» for the one event: Against all the imperfective 'kept silent / kept asking,' the perfective «сказал» ('said') marks the single completed exception — the one time Ivan spoke. Aspect itself underlines how exceptional that moment was.

— Что сказал? — поспешно подхватил Алеша.  
— What did he say? — Alyosha put in eagerly.
> Inverted tag «подхватил Алёша»: Verb-before-subject «подхватил Алёша» is the standard inversion of a speech tag. «подхватил» (perfective of «подхватить», 'to catch up') is idiomatic for quickly taking up another's words / interjecting — Alyosha eagerly cutting in, the adverb «поспешно» (hastily) catching his urgency.

— Я ему говорю: стало быть, всё позволено, коли так?  
— I say to him: so then everything is permitted, if that's how it is?
> Short passive participle «позволено»: «позволено» is the short (predicative) neuter passive participle of «позволить» (to permit) — 'it is permitted.' Impersonal and subjectless, it states a result as a standing condition: all is allowed. The agent, if there were one, would stand in the instrumental.
> «стало быть» — so then, ergo: «стало быть» is a fixed parenthetical meaning 'therefore, so then, it follows that' — a slightly folksy, deductive connector. Mitya uses it to draw the logical noose tight: so then, if so, everything is permitted.

Он нахмурился: «Федор Павлович, говорит, папенька наш, был поросенок, но мыслил он правильно».  
He frowned: 'Fyodor Pavlovich,' he says, 'our papa, was a swine, but he thought along the right lines.'
> «поросёнок» — piglet, hence 'swine': Literally a 'piglet' (the diminutive of «порось»), but as an insult it brands a man as a coarse, dirty, dishonourable creature. Calling Fyodor Pavlovich «поросёнок» is contemptuous yet almost affectionate in its earthiness — exactly Smerdyakov's mixed tone.
> «папенька» — old-fashioned 'papa': An affectionate, slightly archaic and genteel diminutive of «папа», built with the endearing suffix «-енька». In the mouth of a servant speaking of the master it carries a faintly mocking, old-world deference.
> «говорит» framing reported speech: Dropped into the middle of a quotation, the present-tense «говорит» ('he says') is a colloquial quotative tag, much like English 'he goes' or 'says he'. The imperfective present here narrates a past act of speaking vividly, as if replaying it.
> Zero copula in the past needs «был»: In the present Russian omits 'to be' entirely (он поросёнок), but the past requires the verb «быть»: «был поросёнок». Note the predicate noun stays nominative after «был» here — a common alternative to the predicate instrumental in characterising, permanent statements.

Вот ведь что отмочил. Только всего и сказал.  
That was the thing he came out with. That was the whole of what he said.
> «отмочить» — to pull off (something outrageous): A vivid colloquialism (literally 'to soak off') meaning to come out with or 'pull' an unexpected, often absurd or audacious remark or stunt. «Вот ведь что отмочил» ≈ 'Look what a thing he came out with!' — slangy and admiring of the cheek of it.
> Particles «вот» + «ведь»: Two stacked particles set the tone: «вот» points ('there now, look'), and «ведь» appeals to the listener's shared sense ('after all, you know'). Together they frame Mitya's amazement and invite Alyosha to marvel along with him.
> «только… и» — 'that's all he did': The frame «только… и + verb» limits the action to exactly that and no more: 'all he said was just that'. The «и» here is an emphasising particle, not 'and'; «всего» reinforces the 'only / the whole of it' sense.

Это уже почище Ракитина.  
That's even sharper than Rakitin.
> «почище» — colloquial comparative with «по-»: The comparative «чище» ('cleaner / sharper / better') takes the prefix «по-», which softens it to 'a bit / rather' or, ironically, intensifies: 'even sharper still'. Here «почище Ракитина» means 'goes one better than Rakitin', the genitive «Ракитина» being the standard of comparison.

— Да, — горько подтвердил Алеша. — Когда он у тебя был?  
"Yes," Alyosha confirmed bitterly. "When was he here with you?"
> Manner adverb «горько» before the verb: «горько» ('bitterly') is the neuter short/adverbial form of «горький», placed before «подтвердил» in the neutral Russian order adverb-then-verb. The perfective «подтвердил» reports a single completed act of confirming.
> «у тебя был» — 'was at your place': «у» + genitive «тебя» literally means 'by/at you'; with «был» it locates a visit: 'When was he at your place / with you?'. This «у + genitive» construction is Russian's normal way of saying both 'to have' and 'at someone's'.

— Об этом после, теперь другое.  
"About that later; for now, something else.
> Verbless 'about that later': A clipped, copula-less sentence typical of agitated speech: «об этом» (о + prepositional 'about that') governs no verb at all, with «после» ('later') doing the work. Russian readily drops a predictable verb in such brisk turns.

Я об Иване не говорил тебе до сих пор почти ничего. Откладывал до конца.  
Until now I've told you almost nothing about Ivan. I was saving it for the end.
> Negative concord: «не… ничего»: Russian piles up negatives that all point one way: the verb keeps «не» and the object is the ни-pronoun «ничего» — literally 'I did not say to you almost nothing'. English collapses this to a single negative ('told you almost nothing').
> Imperfective «откладывал» — 'kept saving it': The imperfective past «откладывал» (from «откладывать», to put off / save up) views the act as an ongoing policy over time — 'I was holding it back, saving it' — rather than the single completed «отложил».

Когда эта штука моя здесь кончится и скажут приговор, тогда тебе кое-что расскажу, всё расскажу.  
When this business of mine here is over and they pronounce the verdict, then I'll tell you a thing or two, I'll tell you everything.
> «штука» — 'this business of mine': «штука» literally means 'thing / item', but colloquially it covers any affair, trick, or predicament. «Эта штука моя» — 'this business of mine' — is Mitya's offhand, almost dismissive way of naming his own trial.
> Perfective futures chaining events: Three perfectives carry the future: «кончится» (will be over), «скажут» (they'll pronounce), «расскажу» (I'll tell) — each a single completed event, conjugated like a present but pointing forward. «Когда… тогда» ('when… then') links the condition to its result.

Страшное тут дело одно… А ты будешь мне судья в этом деле.  
There's a terrible matter at stake here… And you'll be my judge in this matter.
> Word order foregrounding «страшное»: The fronted adjective «страшное» ('terrible') and trailing «одно' ('one / a certain') scatter the phrase 'one terrible matter' for emphasis — the dread word comes first. Such loosened, emphatic order is the engine of Russian's spoken intensity.
> Compound future «будешь… судья»: «будешь» (future of «быть») here links to a predicate noun: 'you will be my judge'. Note the predicate «судья» stands in the nominative rather than the more usual instrumental «судьёй» — a colloquial, emphatic variant. «мне» is the dative, 'judge to/for me'.

А теперь и не начинай об этом, теперь молчок.  
But for now don't even start on it, for now not a word.
> Imperfective imperative «не начинай»: A negated command takes the imperfective: «не начинай» ('don't [even] start'). Russian uses the imperfective imperative for prohibitions, where a perfective «начни» would be a positive 'begin!'. The imperfective fits the sense 'don't get into it'.
> «молчок» — 'mum's the word': An interjection-like noun from «молчать» (to be silent): 'not a word!', 'keep mum'. Colloquial and emphatic, it stands alone as a one-word command to drop the subject.

Вот ты говоришь об завтрашнем, о суде, а веришь ли, я ничего не знаю.  
Here you are talking about tomorrow, about the trial, but would you believe it, I know nothing."
> «об завтрашнем» — adjective used as a noun: «завтрашний» ('tomorrow's') is here substantivised in the neuter — «об завтрашнем (дне)», 'about the morrow'. The variant «об» before a consonant (for euphony / older usage) instead of plain «о» is a period flavour.
> Interrogative particle «ли»: «веришь ли» fronts the verb and tags «ли» to make a rhetorical question, 'would you believe it?'. The enclitic «ли» lends a literary, heightened note compared with plain question intonation.
> Negative concord «ничего не знаю»: 'I know nothing' becomes a double negative in Russian: «ничего» ('nothing', genitive object under negation) plus the obligatory «не» on the verb. Both negatives are required; one without the other would be ungrammatical.

— Ты с этим адвокатом говорил?  
"Have you talked with that lawyer?"
> Instrumental after «с» — 'with the lawyer': «с» ('with', accompaniment) governs the instrumental: «с этим адвокатом». The demonstrative «этим» and noun «адвокатом» both carry instrumental endings, showing how the adjective makes the case visible.

— Что адвокат! Я ему про всё говорил.  
"What lawyer! I told him about everything.
> Dismissive «Что адвокат!»: An exclamatory «что» + bare nominative dismisses the topic: 'What lawyer! / Lawyer indeed!'. Russian uses «что» this way to wave a subject aside as beneath notice.
> «про» + accusative — 'about everything': «про» governs the accusative «всё» and means 'about / concerning', a more colloquial cousin of «о» + prepositional. «Я ему про всё говорил» — 'I told him about everything', with «ему» the dative addressee.

Мягкая шельма, столичная. Бернар!  
A smooth rogue, one from the capital. A Bernard!
> «шельма» — rogue, sly rascal: A borrowing (ultimately from German Schelm) for a cunning scoundrel or sly rogue, said half in reproach and half in grudging admiration. «Мягкая шельма» ('a smooth rogue') paints the polished metropolitan advocate as slippery.
> «столичный» — from the capital: The adjective from «столица» (capital city) — i.e. from Petersburg or Moscow, as against the provinces. It marks the lawyer as a sophisticated outsider, with the provincial's mix of awe and suspicion toward the big-city man.

Только не верит мне ни на сломанный грош.  
Only he doesn't believe me to the worth of a bent farthing.
> «ни на сломанный грош» — not a bent farthing's worth: An idiom of utter worthlessness: a «грош» was a tiny copper coin, and a «сломанный» (broken / bent) one is worth even less than nothing. 'He doesn't believe me to the value of a bent groat' — he gives my word no credit at all.
> Intensifying «ни» with negation: «ни» here intensifies the negated «не верит» to 'not in the slightest': «не верит… ни на сломанный грош». The particle «ни» does not negate by itself but reinforces the verb's «не», the hallmark of Russian negative concord.

Верит, что я убил, вообрази себе, — уж я вижу.  
He believes that I did the killing, just imagine — I can see it plainly.
> «что»-clause reporting a fact: «Верит, что я убил» uses the subordinating «что» ('that') to report what the lawyer holds true. The perfective «убил» ('killed', completed) names the single deed the advocate believes Mitya did.
> Imperative «вообрази себе»: A perfective imperative, 'just imagine!', with the dative-reflexive «себе» adding a colloquial 'for yourself' flavour — an interjected appeal to the listener. The «-и» ending marks the second-person singular command.

«Зачем же, спрашиваю, в таком случае вы меня защищать приехали?»  
'In that case,' I ask him, 'why have you come to defend me?'
> Quotative present «спрашиваю»: As with «говорит» earlier, the imperfective present «спрашиваю» ('I ask') is dropped mid-quotation to dramatise a past exchange in the present, replaying the scene vividly for Alyosha.
> Purpose infinitive «защищать приехали»: The imperfective infinitive «защищать» ('to defend') states the purpose of «приехали» ('you came'): 'why did you come to defend me?'. The infinitive of purpose follows verbs of motion without any conjunction.

Наплевать на них.  
To hell with the lot of them.
> «наплевать» — 'to hell with them': Literally 'to spit on', «наплевать на + accusative» is a crude, emphatic idiom of contempt: 'I don't give a damn about them'. The infinitive stands alone as an impersonal exclamation, 'spit on them!'.
> «на» + accusative of the disdained object: «наплевать» governs «на» + accusative «них» (3rd-person plural with the н- prefix obligatory after a preposition): the people spat upon are the grammatical target of the contempt.

Тоже доктора выписали, сумасшедшим хотят меня показать. Не позволю!  
They've sent for doctors too, they want to make me out a madman. I won't allow it!
> «выписать» — to send for / summon: «выписать» here means to summon or order in from elsewhere (as one 'writes off' for a subscription or specialist). «Доктора выписали» — 'they sent for doctors', i.e. brought in expert physicians, here to assess Mitya's sanity.
> Predicate instrumental «сумасшедшим»: «показать меня сумасшедшим» — 'to present me as a madman'. The predicate complement «сумасшедшим» stands in the instrumental, the case Russian uses for the role into which someone is cast.
> Perfective future as refusal: «Не позволю!» is the perfective future of «позволить» ('to allow'), conjugated like a present but meaning 'I will not allow it!'. The first-person perfective with «не» makes an emphatic vow.

Катерина Ивановна «свой долг» до конца исполнить хочет. С натуги! —  
Katerina Ivanovna means to do 'her duty' to the very end. By main force!"—
> «с натуги» — by straining / main force: «натуга» is the strain of forcing oneself; «с натуги» means 'by sheer effort / through gritted teeth'. Mitya jeers that Katerina Ivanovna will do 'her duty' not from the heart but by a painful act of will.
> Reflexive possessive «свой долг»: «свой» ('her own') points back to the clause's subject, Katerina Ivanovna: it is her own duty she means to discharge. Using «её» instead would mean someone else's duty — the choice is precise.

Митя горько усмехнулся.  
Mitya gave a bitter smile.
> Reflexive «усмехнуться» — gave a smirk: «усмехнулся» is the perfective of the -ся verb «усмехаться/усмехнуться», 'to give a wry smile, to smirk'. The «-ся» here marks an intransitive, self-contained act; «горько» colours it bitter.

— Кошка! Жестокое сердце!  
"A cat! A cruel heart!
> Bare nominative exclamations: Two verbless nominative exclamations hurled at Katerina Ivanovna: «Кошка!» ('A cat!') and «Жестокое сердце!» ('A cruel heart!'). Russian needs no copula or article — the nominative noun alone carries the whole charge.

А ведь она знает, что я про нее сказал тогда в Мокром, что она «великого гнева» женщина! Передали.  
And she knows, after all, what I said about her back then at Mokroye — that she's a woman of 'great wrath'! Somebody passed it on.
> «А ведь» — 'and yet, after all': The hinge «а» (mild contrastive 'and/but') plus the appealing particle «ведь» ('after all, you know') opens the thought with a knowing, confiding tone: 'And yet she does know, you see…'.
> «женщина великого гнева» — a woman of great wrath: A deliberately biblical-sounding turn: «великого гнева» is a genitive of quality ('of great wrath'), echoing Scripture's 'day of wrath'. Mitya's earlier mot brands Katerina Ivanovna with an almost apocalyptic capacity for vengeance.
> Subjectless «Передали» — 'word got passed on': A third-person plural verb with no stated subject is Russian's everyday impersonal 'they / someone': «Передали» = 'somebody passed it on / it got reported'. The agent is left vague on purpose.

Да, показания умножились, как песок морской!  
Yes, the testimonies have multiplied like the sand of the sea!
> Reflexive «умножиться» — multiplied: «умножились» is the perfective -ся form of «умножаться», 'to multiply / increase' (intransitive). The «-ся» turns the transitive 'multiply something' into 'grow in number of their own accord'.

Григорий стоит на своем.  
Grigory stands his ground.
> «стоять на своём» — to stand one's ground: An idiom: «стоять на своём» ('to stand on one's own [position]') means to insist, refuse to budge. «своём» is the reflexive possessive in the prepositional — 'his own [view]'. Grigory will not retract his damning testimony.

Григорий честен, но дурак.  
Grigory is honest, but a fool.
> Short adjective «честен»: «честен» is the predicative short form of «честный» ('honest'), used here as the predicate of a permanent quality — bookish and crisp, where a long form would be flatter. It stands beside the noun-predicate «дурак» ('a fool'), the «но» marking the contrast.

Много людей честных благодаря тому, что дураки. Это — мысль Ракитина.  
Many people are honest by virtue of being fools. That's a thought of Rakitin's.
> «благодаря тому, что» — 'by virtue of the fact that': «благодаря» ('thanks to') governs the dative «тому», which sets up the «что»-clause: 'thanks to the fact that they are fools'. A neat bookish frame for cause, here used with ironic bite.
> Genitive after «много»: Quantifiers like «много» ('many / much') take the genitive: «много людей» ('many people', genitive plural «людей»). The adjective «честных» agrees in the genitive plural, partitive in feel.

Григорий мне враг.  
Grigory is my enemy.
> Zero-copula with dative «мне»: A copula-less present: 'Grigory [is] an enemy to me'. «враг» is the bare nominative predicate, «мне» the dative 'to me'. Russian states such permanent relations without any verb at all.

Иного выгоднее иметь в числе врагов, чем друзей. Говорю это про Катерину Ивановну.  
There are some it's more profitable to count among your enemies than among your friends. I mean Katerina Ivanovna.
> Impersonal «выгоднее иметь»: An impersonal comparative construction: «выгоднее иметь» ('it is more profitable to have') with the infinitive and no subject. «Иного» ('a certain person / some') is the genitive-accusative animate object: 'some person it's more profitable to keep among one's enemies'.
> «в числе» + genitive; «чем» comparison: «в числе врагов» ('among the number of enemies') takes the genitive plural; «чем» ('than') introduces the second term «друзей», likewise genitive after the implied «в числе». The whole sets enemy against friend.

Боюсь, ох боюсь, что она на суде расскажет про земной поклон после четырех-то тысяч пятисот!  
I'm afraid, oh, I'm afraid she'll tell the court about that bow to the ground after the four thousand five hundred!
> «бояться» + «что» — fearing a fact: The -ся verb «боюсь» ('I fear', existing only in the reflexive form) takes a «что»-clause for the dreaded outcome. The doubled «боюсь, ох боюсь» renders Mitya's mounting agitation.
> Emphatic «-то» and numeral case: The clitic «-то» pins emphasis on a known sum ('those four-thousand-five-hundred'). The compound numeral declines: «четырёх тысяч пятисот» stands in the genitive after «после» ('after'), each part inflected.

До конца отплатит, последний кодрант.  
She'll pay it back to the last farthing.
> «кодрант» — the last farthing (Gospel quadrans): «кодрант» is the Church-Slavonic name for the Roman quadrans, the tiniest coin, from Matthew 5:26: 'thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing' (последний кодрант). Mitya casts Katerina's settling of accounts in this stern Gospel image of exacting the last penny.
> Perfective future «отплатит»: «отплатит» is the perfective future of «отплатить» ('to pay back, requite') — a single completed reckoning: 'she'll pay it back in full'. «До конца» ('to the end / utterly') reinforces the completeness.

Не хочу ее жертвы! Устыдят они меня на суде! Как-то вытерплю.  
I don't want her sacrifice! They'll shame me at the trial! Somehow I'll bear it.
> Genitive of negation «её жертвы»: Under the negated «не хочу» the object slips into the genitive: «её жертвы» rather than accusative «её жертву» — 'I don't want her sacrifice'. The genitive of negation is especially natural with abstract objects like «жертва».
> Perfective future «устыдят»: «устыдят» (perfective future of «устыдить», 'to put to shame') with fronted «они» for emphasis: 'They will shame me!'. The completed future names the single dreaded act of being shamed at the trial.
> «вытерпеть» — to endure to the end: «вытерплю» is the perfective future of «вытерпеть», 'to bear / endure right through'. The prefix «вы-» adds the sense of seeing the suffering through to its end; «как-то» ('somehow') is resigned. Mitya repeats «вытерплю» like a refrain of grim resolve.

Сходи к ней, Алеша, попроси ее, чтобы не говорила этого на суде. Аль нельзя?  
Go to her, Alyosha, ask her not to say this in court. Or can't it be done?
> Perfective imperatives «сходи», «попроси»: Two perfective commands ask for single, complete actions: «сходи» ('go [there and back]', from the motion verb «сходить») and «попроси» ('ask', perfective of «просить»). «к ней» is «к» + dative, 'to her'.
> «чтобы» + past form — willed request: After «попроси» the desired outcome is framed with «чтобы» + the past-form «говорила» (irrealis): 'ask her that she not say this'. «чтобы» plus a past-tense verb expresses a wished-for or commanded action, not a plain fact.
> «аль» — folk 'or, or maybe?': «аль» (a colloquial, folksy contraction of «али / или») means 'or? / or is it that?'. «Аль нельзя?» — 'Or can't it be done?'. The peasant flavour of «аль» suits Mitya's lapses into earthy, popular speech.

Да черт, всё равно, вытерплю!  
Oh, the devil, it makes no difference, I'll bear it!
> «всё равно» — 'it makes no difference': The fixed phrase «всё равно» means 'all the same, it doesn't matter, never mind'. Prefaced by the exasperated «да чёрт» ('oh, the devil'), it shows Mitya waving his own request away the moment he has made it.

А ее не жаль. Сама желает. Поделом вору мука.  
But I don't pity her. She wishes it herself. The thief gets the pain he's earned.
> Impersonal «жаль» + accusative: «жаль» ('it's a pity / one feels sorry') heads an impersonal, subjectless clause; the object of pity stands in the accusative «её»: 'her I don't pity'. There is no nominative subject — the feeling simply 'is'.
> Intensifier «сама» — 'she herself': «сама» (feminine of «сам») stresses that Katerina brings the suffering on of her own accord: 'she herself wishes it'. The intensifier underlines that no one forces her sacrifice.
> A proverb: the thief deserves his pain: «Поделом вору (и) мука» is a set proverb meaning roughly 'it serves the thief right' — one gets the punishment one deserves. «Поделом» = deservedly; «мука» = torment. Mitya turns it on himself, self-mockingly, in speaking of Katerina Ivanovna. We render it 'The thief gets the pain he's earned.'

Я, Алексей, свою речь скажу. —  
I, Alexei, will make my own speech."—
> Reflexive possessive «свою»: «свою речь» — 'my own speech', «свою» pointing back to the subject «я». Mitya means to deliver a speech that is his own, not the lawyer's. The perfective «скажу» casts it as a single decisive act.

Он опять горько усмехнулся.  
Again he gave a bitter smile.
> Repeated «опять… усмехнулся»: The narrator echoes s260 almost verbatim — «горько усмехнулся» — with «опять» ('again'), framing Mitya's bitterness as a recurring gesture. The perfective «усмехнулся» marks each smirk as a discrete event.

— Только… только Груша-то, Груша-то, господи! Она-то за что такую муку на себя теперь примет! — воскликнул он вдруг со слезами.  
"Only… only Grusha, oh Grusha, Lord! Why should she take such torment on herself now!" he suddenly exclaimed, with tears.
> «Груша» — Grushenka, the pet form: «Груша» is the intimate short form of «Грушенька», itself a diminutive of «Аграфена». (It also literally means 'pear'.) The doubled, breathless «Груша-то, Груша-то» pours out Mitya's anguished tenderness.
> Emphatic «-то» and «за что»: The clitic «-то» on «Она-то» throws the weight onto Grushenka ('she, of all people'), and «за что» ('for what / why on earth') protests her undeserved suffering. Together they voice grieved incomprehension.
> Reflexive «на себя» with «принять»: «примет» (perfective future of «принять», 'to take on') with «на себя» ('upon herself') — 'why should she take such torment upon herself?'. «себя» is the reflexive object pointing back to the subject «она».

Убивает меня Груша, мысль о ней убивает меня, убивает! Она давеча была у меня…  
Grusha is killing me, the thought of her is killing me, killing me! She was here with me a little while ago…"
> Word order: verb-first for emotion: The sentence leads with the verb «убивает» ('is killing'), pushing the subject «Груша» after it — a marked, emotive order that hurls the action forward. The threefold «убивает меня… убивает… убивает» hammers the obsession home.
> «у меня была» — 'she was at my place': «у меня» (у + genitive) plus «была» locates her visit: 'she was with me / at mine'. The archaic-colloquial adverb «давеча» ('a little while ago, just now') belongs to the older, folk-tinged register.
> «давеча» — 'a while ago' (archaic): A now-archaic colloquial adverb meaning 'recently, a little while ago, earlier today'. Common in 19th-century speech, it gives Mitya's words a homely, old-Russian colouring.

— Она мне рассказывала. Она очень была сегодня тобою огорчена.  
"She told me. She was very much grieved by you today."
> Short passive participle «огорчена» + instrumental agent: «огорчена» is the short-form past passive participle of «огорчить» ('to grieve, distress'), joined to «была» to state a result: 'she was grieved'. The agent stands in the instrumental — «тобою» ('by you'), the bookish variant of «тобой».

— Знаю. Черт меня дери за характер. Приревновал!  
"I know. Devil take me and my temper. I got jealous!
> «чёрт меня дери» — 'devil take me': An imprecation, literally 'may the devil flay/tear me' (imperative «дери» from «драть»). A vigorous self-curse of vexation, here aimed at his own «характер» ('temper, disposition').
> Perfective «приревновать» — got jealous: «Приревновал» is the perfective past of «приревновать», 'to be seized by a fit of jealousy'. The prefix «при-» gives a sudden, bounded onset — 'I got jealous (just then)' — a single completed flare-up.

Отпуская раскаялся, целовал ее. Прощенья не попросил.  
As I let her go I repented, I kissed her. I didn't ask her forgiveness.
> Gerund «отпуская» — 'while letting go': «отпуская» is the imperfective present деепричастие of «отпускать» ('to let go, release'), naming the attendant action simultaneous with the main verb «раскаялся» ('repented'): 'as I was letting her go, I repented'. The gerund shares the subject 'I'.
> Reflexive «раскаяться» — to repent: «раскаялся» is the perfective -ся verb «раскаяться», 'to repent, feel remorse' — one of the verbs that exist only with «-ся». The perfective marks a single inward turn of contrition.
> Genitive of negation «прощенья»: Under negation the object takes the genitive: «не попросил прощенья» (rather than accusative «прощенье») — 'I did not ask for forgiveness'. With «просить/попросить» the genitive of the thing requested is in any case usual.

— Почему не попросил? — воскликнул Алеша.  
"Why didn't you ask it?" exclaimed Alyosha.
> Past tense without a pronoun: The verb «попросил» alone carries the question; the subject 'you' is dropped because the masculine «-л» ending already implies it in context. Russian routinely omits a pronoun the verb form makes clear.

Митя вдруг почти весело рассмеялся.  
Mitya suddenly laughed, almost cheerfully.
> Inceptive reflexive «рассмеяться»: «рассмеялся» (perfective -ся of «рассмеяться») means 'burst out laughing' — the prefix «рас-» gives the sudden onset of laughter. The adverb «почти весело» ('almost cheerfully') sharpens the strange gaiety amid grief.

— Боже тебя сохрани, милого мальчика, когда-нибудь у любимой женщины за вину свою прощения просить!  
"God keep you, dear boy, from ever asking a woman you love to forgive you for your fault!
> «Боже сохрани» — God forbid / God keep you: «Боже» is the Church-Slavonic vocative of «Бог» ('O God'), surviving in set exclamations. «Боже тебя сохрани (от того, чтобы)…» means 'God keep / preserve you from…' — a warm, half-pious warning. We render it 'God keep you from ever…'.
> Genitive object of «просить»: «просить прощения» — 'to ask forgiveness' — takes the genitive «прощения» for the thing sought, with the person «у любимой женщины» in «у» + genitive. The whole infinitive phrase is what God is asked to spare Alyosha from.

У любимой особенно, особенно, как бы ни был ты пред ней виноват!  
A woman you love above all, above all — however much in the wrong you may be before her!
> Concessive «как бы ни» — 'however much': The frame «как бы ни + past/short adjective» means 'no matter how much…': «как бы ни был ты пред ней виноват» = 'however guilty you may be before her'. The «бы» plus «ни» builds a concessive irrealis; «виноват» is the short adjective 'guilty'.
> «пред» — bookish 'before': «пред» is the elevated, Slavonic-flavoured doublet of «перед» ('before, in front of'), governing the instrumental «ней». It lends the sentence a solemn, scriptural cadence fitting Mitya's mock-oracular tone.

Потому женщина — это, брат, черт знает что такое, уж в них-то я по крайней мере знаю толк!  
Because a woman, brother, is the devil knows what — there at least I do know a thing or two!
> «знать толк (в чём)» — to be a connoisseur: The idiom «знать толк в + prepositional» means 'to know one's stuff about, to be a good judge of'. «в них-то я знаю толк» — 'in them [women] I, at least, am an expert'. «толк» here is 'sense, the right understanding'.
> «чёрт знает что» — 'the devil knows what': The fixed phrase «чёрт знает что (такое)» means 'goodness knows what, an impossible thing'. The vocative-like address «брат» ('brother', man-to-man) and the appealing «-то» on «в них-то» give the line its intimate, confiding swagger.

Ну попробуй пред ней сознаться в вине, «виноват, дескать, прости, извини»: тут-то и пойдет град попреков!  
Just try owning your fault to her — 'I'm guilty, you see, forgive me, pardon me' — and a hailstorm of reproaches will come down at once!
> Imperative «попробуй» + reflexive infinitive: «попробуй» (perfective imperative, 'just try') takes the infinitive «сознаться» ('to confess', a -ся verb). «сознаться в вине» — 'to own up to one's guilt', «в» + prepositional «вине». The construction is hypothetical: 'just try confessing…'.
> «дескать» — reported-speech marker: «дескать» is a particle flagging that the words are a (often skeptical or mocking) quotation of what one would say: 'so to speak, you see, as if to say'. Here it frames the mock-apology «виноват, дескать, прости» as a hollow formula.
> «тут-то и» — 'that's exactly when': The combination «тут-то и + verb» means 'that's the very moment when…': 'and that's just when the hail of reproaches will start'. «-то» emphasises «тут», «и» heightens, and «пойдёт» (perfective future of «пойти») marks the sudden onset.

Ни за что не простит прямо и просто, а унизит тебя до тряпки, вычитает, чего даже не было, всё возьмет, ничего не забудет, своего прибавит, и тогда уж только простит.  
Not for anything will she forgive you straight and simple; she'll humble you to a rag first, she'll dredge up things that never even happened, she'll take it all in, forget nothing, throw in inventions of her own, and only then will she forgive.
> «ни за что» + «не» — emphatic refusal: «ни за что» ('not for anything, on no account') intensifies the negated «не простит» ('she won't forgive'), a perfective future. The «ни»-phrase and the verbal «не» work together in negative concord.
> Chain of perfective futures: A cascade of perfective futures lists the steps of revenge as discrete completed acts: «унизит» (will humble), «вычитает» (will dredge up), «возьмёт» (will take in), «забудет» (will forget — here negated «ничего не забудет»), «прибавит» (will add). The accumulation mimics the relentless tally.
> «до тряпки» — 'to a rag': «тряпка» is a rag or floor-cloth, figuratively a spineless, worthless person ('a doormat'). «унизит до тряпки» — 'will humiliate you down to a rag', reduce you to nothing. A vivid colloquial image of total abasement.
> Genitive «чего» after negation: «вычитает, чего даже не было» — 'she'll dredge up [things] of which there never even was [any]'. The relative «чего» stands in the genitive, governed by the negated existential «не было», a textbook genitive of negation.

И это еще лучшая, лучшая из них!  
And that's the best of them, the very best!
> Superlative «лучшая» + «из» + genitive: «лучшая» is the suppletive superlative/comparative of «хороший» ('good'), here the long feminine form, 'the best [one]'. The group it tops stands in «из» + genitive plural «них» ('of them'). The repetition «лучшая, лучшая» drives the bitter irony home.

Последние поскребки выскребет и всё тебе на голову сложит — такая, я тебе скажу, живодерность в них сидит, во всех до единой, в этих ангелах-то, без которых жить-то нам невозможно!  
She'll scrape out the last scrapings and pile the whole lot on your head — such, I tell you, is the butcher's cruelty that sits in them, in every last one, in these very angels, without whom there's no living for us!
> «поскрёбки выскрести» — scrape out the last scrapings: A homely figure of speech: «поскрёбки» are the last scrapings clinging to a pot, and «выскрести» is 'to scrape out'. The cognate noun-and-verb pairing ('scrape out the scrapings') intensifies the image of a woman who extracts the very last grievance.
> «живодёрность» — a coined 'butcher's cruelty': From «живодёр» (literally a knacker who flays live animals; figuratively a heartless extortioner), Mitya coins the abstract «живодёрность» — 'flaying cruelty, butcher-like ruthlessness'. The freshly minted noun in «-ность» captures his vehemence.
> «до единой» — 'down to the last one': «до единой» (genitive feminine of «единый», 'single') after «во всех» means 'in every last one of them, without exception'. The «до + genitive» frame marks the lower limit of an exhaustive set.
> Relative «которых» + dative «нам» impersonal: «без которых» ('without whom') is «без» + genitive plural relative «которых», and the main clause is impersonal: «нам невозможно жить» — 'for us it is impossible to live', with the dative «нам» as experiencer. The clitic «-то» on «жить-то» adds rueful emphasis.

Видишь, голубчик, я откровенно и просто скажу: всякий порядочный человек должен быть под башмаком хоть у какой-нибудь женщины.  
You see, my dear, I'll say it frankly and plainly: every decent man ought to be under the thumb of some woman or other.
> «голубчик» — 'my dear, dear fellow': A warm term of endearment, literally 'little dove' (the diminutive of «голубь»), used to address someone with affection: 'my dear, dear chap'. It softens Mitya's lecture into an intimate confidence to Alyosha.
> «под башмаком» — under the thumb / henpecked: The idiom «(быть) под башмаком (у кого-то)» — literally 'under the shoe' — means to be under someone's thumb, henpecked, ruled by a woman. «под башмаком хоть у какой-нибудь женщины» = 'under the thumb of some woman or other'.
> Indefinite «какой-нибудь» — 'some… or other': «какой-нибудь» marks a non-specific 'any / some… or other', as against the specific «какой-то». With «хоть» ('even, at least') it means 'of at least some woman, whoever she may be'. «у» + genitive locates the dominance.

Таково мое убеждение; не убеждение, а чувство.  
Such is my conviction; not a conviction, rather a feeling.
> Short/special form «таково»: «таково» is the neuter short predicative form of «таков» ('such'), a bookish way of saying 'such is…': «Таково моё убеждение» — 'Such is my conviction'. It typically opens an emphatic summarising statement.
> Corrective «не… а» — 'not X but Y': The pairing «не убеждение, а чувство» uses the contrastive «а» to correct: 'not a conviction, but rather a feeling'. This «не X, а Y» frame replaces one term with another, distinct from «но» ('but' of opposition).

Мужчина должен быть великодушен, и мужчину это не замарает.  
A man ought to be magnanimous, and it won't soil a man to be so.
> «должен» + infinitive + short adjective: «должен» ('ought, must') agrees with the masculine subject «мужчина» and takes the infinitive «быть»; the predicate «великодушен» is the short adjective ('magnanimous'), the bookish form natural after «быть».
> «замарать» — to soil, besmirch: «замарать» is colloquial for 'to dirty, stain, besmirch' (one's honour or name). «мужчину это не замарает» — 'it won't soil a man'. Note the accusative animate object «мужчину» fronted before the verb.

Героя даже на замарает, Цезаря не замарает!  
It won't soil even a hero, it won't soil a Caesar!
> Animate accusative «героя», «Цезаря»: Both objects are animate masculine, so their accusative borrows the genitive form: «героя» (a hero), «Цезаря» (a Caesar). Fronted before «не замарает», they ride the rising rhetorical crescendo. (The text's «на замарает» is a printer's slip for «не замарает».)

Ну, а прощения все-таки не проси, никогда и ни за что.  
Well, but all the same don't ask forgiveness, never and on no account.
> Imperfective imperative «не проси»: The prohibition uses the imperfective imperative «не проси» ('don't ask') with the genitive object «прощения». Russian's negative commands take the imperfective; «никогда и ни за что» ('never and on no account') piles on the negative concord.

Помни правило: преподал тебе его брат твой Митя, от женщин погибший.  
Remember the rule: your brother Mitya, ruined by women, has taught it to you.
> Imperfective imperative «помни»: «помни» (imperfective imperative of «помнить', 'to remember') commands an ongoing state — 'keep in mind, remember' — fitting an enduring rule rather than a one-off act. «правило» is the accusative object.
> Past active participle «погибший»: «погибший» is the past active participle of «погибнуть» ('to perish, be ruined'), agreeing with «Митя» — 'your brother Mitya, ruined/undone by women'. «от женщин» (от + genitive) names the cause. The participle compresses a whole «который»-clause into one self-mocking epithet.

Нет, уж я лучше без прощения Груше чем-нибудь заслужу.  
No, I'd rather earn my way back to Grusha by some deed than by forgiveness.
> «лучше» + perfective future: The comparative adverb «лучше» ('rather, better') plus the perfective future «заслужу» ('I'll earn / deserve') frames a preference: 'I'd rather earn [my way back] than [beg forgiveness]'. «без прощения» (без + genitive) marks the means he rejects.

Благоговею я пред ней, Алексей, благоговею!  
I stand in awe of her, Alexei, in awe!
> «благоговеть» — to revere, stand in awe: «благоговею» (from «благоговеть» before someone, «пред кем-то») is an elevated, almost devotional verb: 'I revere, I worship, I stand in holy awe'. Built on the Slavonic «благо-» ('good, blessed'), it lifts Mitya's love for Grushenka to the pitch of religious reverence.
> «благоговею пред ней» + instrumental: «благоговеть» governs «пред» ('before') + instrumental «ней». The bookish «пред» (for «перед») and the solemn verb together give the line a worshipful, liturgical cadence.

Не видит только она этого, нет, всё ей мало любви.  
Only she doesn't see it, no, all the love I give her is still too little for her.
> Impersonal «мало» + dative + genitive: «ей мало любви» is an impersonal experiencer construction: the dative «ей» ('to her') feels something, and «мало» ('too little') governs the genitive «любви» ('of love'). 'For her all the love is still too little.' No nominative subject at all.
> Genitive of negation «этого»: Under «не видит» the object goes genitive: «не видит… этого» ('she doesn't see this'). The fronted «не видит» and the «-то»-free «только она» ('only she') foreground that she alone fails to perceive his devotion.

И томит она меня, любовью томит.  
And she torments me, torments me with love.
> Instrumental of means «любовью»; emphatic repetition: «томит» ('torments, wears down') is repeated with the instrumental «любовью» ('with love') naming the means by which she torments him. The reordering — verb first, then 'with love, torments' — makes the paradox ('she torments me with love') ring like a refrain.

Что прежде!  
What was it before!
> Verbless exclamation: An elliptical exclamation with no verb at all — «Что прежде!» literally 'What [was] before!'. Russian freely omits the copula 'to be' in the present, and here even the implied past is left to the reader; the English supplies 'was it'.
> «прежде» — before, formerly: A bookish adverb meaning 'earlier, in former times', slightly more elevated than the everyday «раньше». Mitya uses it to set off his old self against the man he has now become.

Прежде меня только изгибы инфернальные томили, а теперь я всю ее душу в свою душу принял и через нее сам человеком стал!  
Before, only the infernal curves of her tormented me, but now I've taken her whole soul into my own soul, and through her I myself have become a man!
> «изгибы инфернальные» — infernal curves: «изгиб» is a 'bend, curve, twist'; here metaphorically the seductive 'curves' of Grushenka's nature. «инфернальный» (from Latin infernus) is a self-consciously literary, foreign word — Dostoevsky lets Mitya reach for an exotic flourish to dramatize his torment.
> Instrumental predicate after «стать»: «стал человеком» — 'became a man': after «стать» (to become) the predicate noun takes the instrumental, «человеком», not the nominative. The instrumental frames the new role as something arrived at, a transformation.
> Reflexive possessive «свою»: «свою душу» is contrasted with «всю ее душу» — he took her whole soul into his own (свою) soul. «свой» always points back to the clause's subject, here Mitya, keeping the two souls grammatically distinct.
> Imperfective past of habitual torment: «томили» (imperfective past, plural agreeing with «изгибы») renders an ongoing, repeated condition — the curves 'kept tormenting' him — against which the perfective «принял» and «стал» mark the single decisive change.

Повенчают ли нас? А без того я умру от ревности.  
Will they let us marry? Without that I'll die of jealousy.
> Yes/no question with «ли»: The enclitic «ли» turns the statement into a neutral yes/no question, fronting the focused verb «повенчают» — 'Will they marry us [or not]?'. This is more literary and pointed than a bare rising intonation.
> Impersonal 'they' subject: The bare 3rd-person plural «повенчают» with no stated subject is Russian's indefinite 'they' — 'will they (the authorities) marry us', i.e. 'will we be allowed to marry'. The perfective future names a single decisive act.
> Cause expressed with «от» + genitive: «от ревности» — 'from jealousy': the preposition «от» governs the genitive and here marks the cause of dying. «от» + genitive is the standard way to name what one perishes 'of'.

Так и снится что-нибудь каждый день… Что она тебе обо мне говорила?  
Every day I dream of something or other… What did she tell you about me?"
> Dative-experiencer «снится»: «снится» ('appears in a dream') is an impersonal-feeling verb: the dreamer stands in the dative (here implied 'мне') and what is dreamed is the grammatical subject. One does not 'dream' something actively — it 'dreams itself to one'.
> Non-specific «что-нибудь»: The particle «-нибудь» makes «что» a vague 'something or other, anything at all', fitting the random nightly dreams — as opposed to «что-то», which would point to one specific (if unnamed) thing.
> «о» → «обо» before «мне»: The preposition «о» ('about') takes the prepositional case and swells to «обо» before certain pronouns: «обо мне» — 'about me'. It governs «говорила», 'what did she say about me'.

Алеша повторил все давешние речи Грушеньки. Митя выслушал подробно, многое переспросил и остался доволен.  
Alyosha repeated all that Grushenka had said earlier. Mitya heard him out in detail, asked again about much of it, and was satisfied.
> «давешний» — earlier, of a little while ago: A colloquial, old-fashioned adjective meaning 'spoken/happening a short while ago today'. «давешние речи» = 'the words said earlier'; it has a homely, narrative flavor with no neat English equivalent.
> Prefix «пере-» = 'again, re-': «переспросить» layers the prefix «пере-» ('over, re-') onto «спросить» (to ask), giving 'to ask again, ask to have repeated'. The perfective «переспросил» fits the chain of one-off completed acts: heard out, re-asked, was satisfied.
> Short adjective predicate «доволен»: «доволен» is the short (predicative) form of «довольный» (satisfied), used after «остался» — 'remained satisfied'. Short adjectives can only predicate, and carry the bookish, state-describing flavor of 19th-century prose.

— Так не сердится, что ревную, — воскликнул он.  
"So she isn't angry that I'm jealous," he exclaimed.
> «что» introducing the cause: Here «что» opens a clause naming the reason — 'she isn't angry that I'm jealous'. The reflexive «сердится» (to be angry, from «сердиться») and the bare 1st-person «ревную» (I'm jealous) both carry person through their endings, so no pronouns are needed.

— Прямо женщина! «У меня у самой жестокое сердце».  
"Just like a woman! 'I have a cruel heart myself.'
> Possession with «у» + genitive: «У меня… сердце» is Russian's normal way to say 'I have a heart' — «у» + genitive of the possessor plus the thing in the nominative. The doubled «у самой» ('myself', feminine) intensifies: 'I myself have a cruel heart'.
> Intensifier «сам» in the feminine genitive: «самой» is «сама» ('[she] herself', the feminine intensifier) in the genitive after «у». Grushenka stresses that the cruelty is her own, inborn — 'I, of all people, have a cruel heart'.

Ух, люблю таких, жестоких-то, хотя и не терплю, когда меня ревнуют, не терплю! Драться будем.  
Ah, I love them like that, the cruel ones, though I can't stand when she's jealous of me, I can't stand it! We'll have our fights.
> Topic-marking clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «жестоких» ('the cruel ones — those') singles them out as the known topic he is dwelling on, a flavor English catches only with stress: 'the cruel ones, I mean'. Distinct from the indefinite «-то» in «что-то».
> Impersonal 'they' + accusative object: «меня ревнуют» — literally 'they are jealous of me', an unspecified-subject plural with «меня» as accusative object; idiomatically 'when I'm made the object of jealousy'. The English smooths it to 'being made jealous'.
> Compound future + word order: «будем драться» (here inverted to «Драться будем») is the imperfective future: «будем» + the imperfective reflexive infinitive «драться» (to fight, brawl). Fronting the infinitive throws the emphasis onto the fighting itself.

Но любить, — любить ее буду бесконечно.  
But to love — love her I shall, without end.
> Fronted infinitive for emphasis: The compound future «буду любить» is split and inverted — «любить… любить ее буду» — so the verb 'to love' rings out twice before the auxiliary. Russian's free word order lets the emotional core lead and the grammatical scaffolding trail behind.

Повенчают ли нас? Каторжных разве венчают? Вопрос.  
Will they let us marry? Do they let convicts marry? That's the question.
> Genitive-accusative of animate «каторжных»: «каторжных» is the accusative of animate «каторжные» (convicts) — for animate nouns the accusative borrows the genitive form. The fronted object plus impersonal 'they' venчают asks 'do they marry convicts [at all]?'.
> Doubting particle «разве»: «разве» injects incredulous doubt into a question — 'do they really marry convicts?', expecting the answer 'no'. It colors the line with Mitya's despair more than any neutral question word could.

А без нее я жить не могу…  
And without her I cannot live…"
> «без» + genitive of absence: «без нее» — 'without her': «без» governs the genitive, «нее» being the н-prefixed genitive of «она» used after a preposition. The whole formula 'without X I cannot live' recurs through this chapter as Mitya's refrain.

Митя нахмуренно прошелся по комнате. В комнате становилось почти темно. Он вдруг стал страшно озабочен.  
Mitya, frowning, walked up and down the room. It was growing almost dark in the room. He suddenly became dreadfully preoccupied.
> Adverb from a past passive participle: «нахмуренно» ('frowningly') is an adverb built on «нахмуренный», the past passive participle of «нахмурить» (to knit one's brows). «прошелся» — perfective of «пройтись», 'took a turn, paced' — adds the «-ся» middle sense of strolling about.
> Impersonal 'it was growing dark': «становилось темно» is a subjectless impersonal: neuter «становилось» (imperfective, 'was becoming') with the predicate adverb «темно». There is no 'it' — the darkening simply happens, a hallmark Russian way of describing weather and light.
> Short adjective after «стать»: «озабочен» is the short predicative form of «озабоченный» (preoccupied, anxious), here after «стал» — 'became preoccupied'. «страшно» ('frightfully') is used as a colloquial intensifier, 'dreadfully'.

— Так секрет, говорит, секрет? У меня, дескать, втроем против нее заговор, и «Катька», дескать, замешана?  
"A secret, she says, a secret? The three of us, she says, are in a plot against her, and 'Katka,' she says, is mixed up in it?
> «дескать» — quotative 'she says': «дескать» is a reportative particle flagging that the speaker is relaying someone else's words, often with a shade of skepticism — 'she says, supposedly, as she puts it'. Mitya scatters it as he mockingly ventriloquizes Grushenka.
> Collective numeral adverb «втроем»: «втроем» means 'as a threesome, the three [of us] together'. It is a collective-numeral adverb (from «трое») describing people acting as a group — 'the three of us are in a plot'.

Нет, брат Грушенька, это не то.  
No, brother Grushenka, that's not it.
> «не то» — 'not that, not the thing': «то» is the neuter demonstrative ('that one, the thing'); negated, «это не то» means 'that's not it, you've got the wrong thing'. Mitya tells the absent Grushenka she has guessed wrongly about the secret.
> «брат» as a familiar interjection: Mitya addresses Grushenka — a woman — as «брат», 'brother'. Here «брат» is a frozen buddy-ish vocative ('old chap, my dear fellow') used regardless of sex, an affectionate verbal tic of his excited speech.

Ты тут маху дала, своего глупенького женского маху!  
There you missed the mark, you made a silly little woman's blunder!
> Idiom «дать маху» — to miss the mark: «дать маху» is a set idiom meaning 'to blunder, to make a slip'. «маху» is an old genitive-of-quantity form locked into the phrase; «дала» is the feminine past, addressed to Grushenka.
> Diminutive «-еньк-» on «глупый»: «глупенький» softens «глупый» (silly) with the affectionate diminutive «-еньк-»: a 'sweet little silly' blunder, not a stupid one. The tenderness within the scolding is exactly the suffix's work.

Алеша, голубчик, эх, куда ни шло! Открою я тебе наш секрет!  
Alyosha, my dear, oh, come what may! I'll let you in on our secret!
> «голубчик» — 'little dove', my dear: Literally 'little pigeon/dove' (diminutive of «голубь»), «голубчик» is a warm term of endearment, 'my dear, darling fellow'. The «-чик» suffix carries the affection; it is one of Russian's most tender forms of address.
> Idiom «куда ни шло» — 'come what may': A fixed colloquial phrase meaning 'all right then, here goes, never mind the risk'. It marks the moment of reckless decision: Mitya throws caution aside and resolves to share the secret.
> Inverted perfective future: «Открою я тебе» fronts the perfective future verb «открою» ('I'll open/disclose') before the pronoun for emphasis — 'disclose it I will, to you'. The perfective names the single decisive act of revealing the secret.

Он оглянулся во все стороны, быстро вплоть подошел к стоявшему пред ним Алеше и зашептал ему с таинственным видом, хотя по-настоящему их никто не мог слышать: старик сторож дремал в углу на лавке, а до караульных солдат ни слова не долетало.  
He glanced about on every side, stepped quickly right up close to Alyosha, who stood before him, and began whispering to him with a mysterious air, although in truth no one could overhear them: the old watchman dozed in the corner on a bench, and not a word carried to the guard soldiers.
> «-ся» middle voice in «оглянуться»: «оглянулся» (perfective of «оглянуться», to look round) is a -ся verb where the clitic marks an action turned back on the doer — he 'glanced himself about'. Many such verbs of bodily motion and perception exist only in the -ся form.
> Past active participle as modifier: «стоявшему» is the past active participle of «стоять» (to stand), in the dative to agree with «Алеше» after «к» — 'to Alyosha, who was standing before him'. It compresses a whole который-clause into one declined word, the bookish texture of narration.
> «пред» — bookish 'before': «пред» is the elevated, shortened form of the preposition «перед» ('in front of'), governing the instrumental «ним». It lends a literary, slightly archaic ring to the otherwise plain action.
> Negative concord + genitive of negation: «ни слова… не долетало» stacks the intensifier «ни» ('not a single') with the verb's «не» — Russia's obligatory double negative — and puts «слова» in the genitive because the negated subject of an existential goes genitive: 'not a word reached them'.

— Я тебе всю нашу тайну открою! — зашептал спеша Митя.  
"I'll open up our whole secret to you!" Mitya whispered hurriedly.
> «тайна» vs «секрет»: Mitya shifts from the borrowed «секрет» to the native «тайна» (mystery, secret) — a weightier, more solemn word with overtones of the hidden and sacred, fitting the 'matter of conscience' he is about to confide.
> Gerund «спеша» — 'hurrying': «спеша» is the imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) of «спешить», naming an action simultaneous with the main verb: 'whispered, hurrying'. The inceptive prefix «за-» on «зашептал» means 'began to whisper'.

— Хотел потом открыть, потому что без тебя разве могу на что решиться? Ты у меня всё.  
"I meant to open it later, for how can I decide on anything without you? You are everything to me.
> Rhetorical «разве» + «-ся»: «разве могу… решиться?» is a rhetorical question expecting 'no' — 'as if I could decide on anything [without you]?'. «решиться» is the -ся form, 'to bring oneself to decide, resolve', distinct from plain «решить» (to decide a question).
> Zero copula + «у меня»: «Ты у меня всё» — 'You are everything to me', with no verb 'to be' (zero copula in the present) and the affectionate «у меня» ('in my world, to me'). The bare nominative «всё» is the predicate.

Я хоть и говорю, что Иван над нами высший, но ты у меня херувим.  
Though I say that Ivan is higher than the rest of us, you are my cherub.
> Comparative-as-adjective «высший»: «высший» is the bookish superlative/comparative of «высокий» ('higher, highest, superior'). Here it predicates with zero copula — 'Ivan is higher than us' — «над нами» ('above us') reinforcing the ranking.
> «херувим» — cherub: A Church-Slavonic / biblical word for an angelic being of the highest order. Calling Alyosha «херувим» casts him as a pure, near-celestial conscience — the spiritual counterweight to the worldly-clever Ivan.

Только твое решение решит.  
Only your decision will decide it.
> Figura etymologica + perfective future: «решение решит» pairs the noun «решение» (decision) with the perfective future «решит» (will decide) from the same root — 'your decision will decide it'. The perfective future names the single settling act.

Может, ты-то и есть высший человек, а не Иван.  
Maybe it's you who are the higher man, and not Ivan.
> Emphatic «-то» + «и есть»: «ты-то и есть» throws weight onto 'you' — 'it's you, of all people, who really are the higher man'. The clitic «-то» topicalizes «ты», and the rare retained copula «есть» with «и» ('precisely is') drives the identification home.

Видишь, тут дело совести, дело высшей совести — тайна столь важная, что я справиться сам не смогу и всё отложил до тебя.  
You see, here's a matter of conscience, a matter of the highest conscience — a secret so weighty that I can't manage it on my own, and I've put everything off until you.
> Genitive of 'a matter of': «дело совести» — 'a matter of conscience': the thing the matter concerns goes in the genitive, «совести». The repetition «дело высшей совести» ('of the highest conscience') escalates by piling on the agreeing adjective «высшей».
> Result clause «столь… что»: «столь… что» ('so… that') sets up a consequence: a secret 'so weighty that I can't manage it'. «столь» is the bookish equivalent of everyday «так», raising the register of Mitya's outpouring.
> «справиться» + intensifier «сам»: «справиться» (-ся, 'to cope, manage') takes its object with «с» + instrumental; here the object «с этим» is understood. «сам» ('[my]self') stresses 'on my own', and the genitive-of-negation is avoided since the object is left implicit.

А все-таки теперь рано решать, потому надо ждать приговора: приговор выйдет, тогда ты и решишь судьбу.  
And all the same it's too early to decide now, because we must wait for the verdict: once the verdict comes out, then you'll decide my fate.
> Impersonal 'it's too early to': «рано решать» is a subjectless predicate-adverb construction: «рано» ('early') plus the imperfective infinitive «решать» — 'it is too early to decide'. The imperfective views the deciding as a process not yet to be entered upon.
> Conditional-temporal без союза: Two perfective futures are juxtaposed with no 'if/when' — «приговор выйдет, тогда… решишь» — letting sequence carry the conditional sense: 'once the verdict comes out, then you'll decide'. «и» before «решишь» means 'precisely then'.

Теперь не решай; я тебе сейчас скажу, ты услышишь, но не решай.  
Don't decide now; I'll tell you in a moment, you'll hear it, but don't decide.
> Imperfective negative imperative: «не решай» is the negative imperative in the imperfective — the normal aspect for a prohibition, 'don't [start to] decide'. A perfective «не реши» would warn against an accidental slip; the imperfective simply forbids the action.
> Perfective future «услышишь»: «услышишь» is the perfective future of «услышать» ('will hear, will catch [it]'), a single completed perception, against the imperfective «слышать» which would mean ongoing hearing. He will tell, and Alyosha will hear it out.

Стой и молчи.  
Stand and be silent.
> Imperfective commands of state: Both «Стой» (from «стоять») and «молчи» (from «молчать») are imperfective imperatives, fitting because they command a continuing state — 'keep standing, keep silent' — rather than a single act.

Я тебе не всё открою. Я тебе только идею скажу, без подробностей, а ты молчи.  
I won't open it all to you. I'll only tell you the idea, without the particulars, and you keep silent.
> Negated «всё» as object: «не всё открою» — 'I won't disclose everything', with «всё» (the whole) as the object of perfective «открою». The negation scopes over 'all', not the verb: he will reveal something, just not all of it.
> «без» + genitive plural: «без подробностей» — 'without the details': «без» governs the genitive, here the genitive plural «подробностей» (from «подробность», a soft-stem feminine taking «-ей»). He gives the idea bare of its particulars.

Ни вопроса, ни движения, согласен?  
Not a question, not a movement — agreed?
> Correlative «ни… ни» with genitive: «Ни вопроса, ни движения» — 'neither a question nor a movement'. The repeated «ни» both negates and lists; the nouns stand in the genitive of negation (an implied «не [допускай]»), demanding utter stillness.

А впрочем, господи, куда я дену глаза твои? Боюсь, глаза твои скажут решение, хотя бы ты и молчал.  
And yet, Lord, where am I to put your eyes? I'm afraid your eyes will speak the decision, even if you stay silent.
> «господи» — vocative 'O Lord': «господи» is the surviving Church-Slavonic vocative of «Господь» (the Lord), used here as an everyday exclamation of distress, 'good Lord, oh God'. It keeps its old vocative ending where modern Russian otherwise has none.
> Dative-less impersonal worry + «куда»: «куда я дену…?» ('where am I to put…?') uses «куда» (whither) with the perfective future «дену» (from «деть», to stow, get rid of) — a near-helpless 'what am I to do with your eyes?'. Postposed «глаза твои» weights the possessive.
> Concessive «хотя бы» + conditional: «хотя бы… молчал» builds a concessive-hypothetical: «хотя» (although) + the irrealis particle «бы» on the past form «молчал» — 'even if you were to stay silent'. The «бы» turns it from fact into supposition.

Ух, боюсь! Алеша, слушай: брат Иван мне предлагает бежать.  
Oh, I'm afraid! Alyosha, listen: brother Ivan is proposing that I escape.
> Imperfective infinitive after «предлагать»: «предлагает бежать» — 'is proposing to flee': «предлагать» (imperfective, repeated urging) governs the bare infinitive «бежать». «бежать» here means not 'run' but 'escape, abscond', the unidirectional motion verb pressed into the sense of flight.

Подробностей не говорю: всё предупреждено, всё может устроиться.  
I won't go into the particulars: everything's been seen to, everything can be arranged.
> Short passive participle + «-ся» potential: «предупреждено» is the short past passive participle (neuter) of «предупредить» — 'everything has been seen to'. Paired with «может устроиться» (the -ся middle, 'can arrange itself, can be arranged'), it leaves the human arranger discreetly unnamed.

Молчи, не решай.  
Be silent, don't decide.
> Affirmative vs negative imperative: Two imperfective imperatives: positive «молчи» ('keep silent') and negative «не решай' ('don't decide'). The imperfective is the default for both an ongoing-state command and a plain prohibition.

В Америку с Грушей.  
To America, with Grusha.
> «в» + accusative for motion-toward: «В Америку» — 'to America': «в» takes the accusative when it expresses motion toward a destination (contrast «в Америке», prepositional, 'in America', which appears later). The bare phrase, verbless, lands like a blurted plan.
> «Груша» — diminutive of Grushenka: «Груша» (instrumental «Грушей» after «с») is the shorter pet form of «Грушенька», itself a diminutive of Agrafena. The bare «Груша» is the most intimate rung of the affectionate ladder — Mitya's tenderest name for her.

Ведь я без Груши жить не могу!  
For I can't live without Grusha!
> Appealing particle «ведь»: «ведь» opens the sentence with an appeal to shared understanding — 'why, after all, I can't live without Grusha, you know'. It does not translate as a word; it colors the whole line with insistent self-evidence.
> «без» + genitive of the name: «без Груши» — 'without Grusha': «без» governs the genitive, and the diminutive «Груша» declines to «Груши». The whole 'without her I can't live' refrain recurs verbatim throughout the chapter.

Ну как ее ко мне там не пустят? Каторжных разве венчают? Брат Иван говорит, что нет.  
Well, what if they won't let her come to me out there? Do they let convicts marry? Brother Ivan says no.
> «как… не» — 'what if they don't': The rhetorical «Ну как… не пустят?» voices a dreaded possibility — 'what if they won't let her [come] to me?'. «её» is the animate accusative object; «не пустят» is the impersonal 'they' perfective future with negation.
> Elliptical «что нет»: «говорит, что нет» — 'says that no [they don't]'. The reported clause is reduced to the bare negator «нет», answering the preceding question; «что» introduces the indirect statement.

А без Груши что я там под землей с молотком-то? Я себе только голову раздроблю этим молотком!  
And without Grusha, what am I to do out there underground with a hammer? I'd only smash my own head in with that hammer!
> Instrumental of tool + topic «-то»: «с молотком» here is the instrumental after «с» in the sense of accompaniment/having-with — 'with a hammer'. The clitic «-то» dwells bitterly on it as the known image: 'that hammer of mine, underground'.
> Perfective future «раздроблю»: «раздроблю» (perfective future of «раздробить», to smash to pieces) names a single violent completed act: 'I'd smash my own head'. The reflexive «себе» ('to/for myself') marks the harm as self-inflicted.

А с другой стороны, совесть-то? От страдания ведь убежал!  
And on the other hand — there's the conscience, isn't there? I'd be running away from suffering!
> Topic «-то» on a bare noun: «совесть-то?» isolates conscience as the nagging topic — 'and the conscience, though?'. The clitic «-то» plus the question mark turns the single word into a whole hanging worry.
> Prefixed motion verb «убежал» + «от»: «убежал» is the perfective of «убегать/убежать», the prefix «у-» giving 'flee away from'. It pairs naturally with «от страдания» ('from the suffering', «от» + genitive): 'I'd have run away from suffering!'. «ведь» adds the self-reproachful 'after all'.

Было указание — отверг указание, был путь очищения — поворотил налево кругом.  
There was a sign — I rejected the sign; there was a path of purification — I wheeled left about and turned away.
> Existential «было» + asyndeton: «Было указание» ('there was a sign') is an existential with neuter past «было»; the bare clauses, dashed together without conjunctions, drive a confessional rhythm — 'there was a sign — [I] rejected the sign'.
> «отвергнуть» — to reject, spurn: «отверг» is the perfective past of «отвергнуть», a solemn, elevated verb for spurning or repudiating (a sign, a path, a person). Its weight suits the religious register of rejecting an offered grace.
> «поворотить налево кругом» — to wheel about: «поворотить» is an old/colloquial variant of «повернуть» (to turn); «налево кругом» is a military command, 'left about face!'. The phrase paints abrupt desertion — he did an about-turn and marched away from the path of purification.
> «путь очищения» — the path of purification: «очищение» (purification, cleansing) is a religious-moral term: the redemptive suffering Mitya half-longs to embrace. The phrase frames Siberian exile not as punishment but as a path of spiritual cleansing he might be spurning.

Иван говорит, что в Америке «при добрых наклонностях» можно больше пользы принести, чем под землей.  
Ivan says that in America, 'given good inclinations,' one can do more good than underground.
> Impersonal «можно» + comparative: «можно принести» is the impersonal 'one can / it is possible to', with no subject; «в Америке» is prepositional (location). «больше пользы» pairs the comparative «больше' with the genitive «пользы» — 'more benefit'.
> «при добрых наклонностях» — given good inclinations: «при» + prepositional here means 'given, in the presence of' a condition. «наклонность» is an 'inclination, propensity'. The quotation marks flag this as Ivan's tidy phrase, which Mitya repeats with skeptical irony.

Ну, а гимн-то наш подземный где состоится?  
Well, and where is our underground hymn to take place, then?
> Topic «-то» + scrambled order: «гимн-то наш подземный где состоится?» foregrounds 'the hymn' with «-то», then strews the modifiers and the question word «где» freely — case and agreement keep it clear: 'and where, then, is our underground hymn to take place?'. «состоится» is the -ся perfective future 'will take place'.

Америка что, Америка опять суета!  
What is America — America is vanity all over again!
> «суета» — vanity, vain bustle: «суета» means empty fuss, worldly vanity — the «суета сует» ('vanity of vanities') of Ecclesiastes echoes behind it. Mitya dismisses America as just more of the same hollow striving.
> Dismissive «что» — 'what is X': «Америка что» is an elliptical, scornful 'America? what of it' — the bare «что» after a fronted topic dismisses it as nothing. The verbless, jabbing syntax conveys Mitya's contempt.

Да и мошенничества тоже, я думаю, много в Америке-то.  
And plenty of swindling too, I should think, there in America.
> Genitive of quantity after «много»: «много мошенничества» — 'a lot of swindling': «много» governs the genitive, here the genitive of the uncountable «мошенничество». «в Америке-то» adds the topic clitic, dwelling on America with a knowing nod.
> «мошенничество» — swindling, fraud: «мошенничество» (from «мошенник», a swindler) is cheating, con-artistry. Mitya's offhand jab at America as a land of fraud reflects a stock 19th-century Russian image of the brash, money-grubbing New World.

От распятья убежал!  
I ran away from the crucifixion!
> «от» + genitive with flight verb: «От распятья убежал» — 'ran away from the crucifixion': «от» + the genitive «распятья», the source fled from, with the prefixed «у-» motion verb «убежал». The verbless, subjectless cry indicts himself.

Потому ведь говорю тебе, Алексей, что ты один понять это можешь, а больше никто, для других это глупости, бред, вот всё то, что я тебе про гимн говорил.  
That's just why I tell you, Alexei, that you alone can understand this, and no one else can; to others it's all foolishness, raving — all that I've been telling you about the hymn.
> Contrastive «а» + negative concord: «а больше никто» ('and no one else') hinges on the soft contrastive «а», setting Alyosha against everyone else. «никто» with the implied «не может» is negative concord — 'nobody [can]'.
> Causal «потому» + «ведь»: «потому» here means 'for this reason, that's why', anticipating the «что»-clause; «ведь» appeals to the obvious — 'that's just why I tell you, you see'. The cluster of particles is the very texture of Mitya's pleading speech.

Скажут, с ума сошел аль дурак. А я не сошел с ума, да и не дурак.  
They'll say I've gone mad, or that I'm a fool. But I haven't gone mad, and I'm no fool either.
> «аль» — folksy 'or': «аль» is a colloquial, rustic variant of «или» / «али» ('or'). It lends Mitya's speech a popular, peasant flavor: 'gone mad, or [aль] a fool'.
> Idiom «сойти с ума» — to go mad: «сойти с ума» literally 'to come down off one's mind' — «с ума» is «с» + genitive «ума» (from «ум», mind). The perfective «сошёл» reports a completed lapse: 'has gone mad'. Mitya then denies it: «я не сошёл с ума».

Понимает про гимн и Иван, ух понимает, только на это не отвечает, молчит.  
Ivan understands about the hymn too — oh, he understands — only he gives no answer to it, he keeps silent.
> Inclusive «и» + fronted verb: «и Иван» here means 'Ivan too' — the «и» is the inclusive particle 'even/also', not 'and'. Fronting the verb «понимает» before the subject throws the stress onto the act of understanding: 'understand about the hymn, Ivan does too'.
> «отвечать на» + accusative: «отвечать на что» — 'to answer/respond to something' — governs «на» + accusative «это». Negated: 'he gives no answer to it'. «молчит» ('keeps silent') glosses the same refusal.

Гимну не верит.  
He doesn't believe in the hymn.
> «верить» + dative: «верить» ('to believe [in], trust') takes the dative: «гимну» is the dative of «гимн» — 'he doesn't believe the hymn / in the hymn'. Fronting the dative object gives it the weight: 'the hymn — he has no faith in it'.

Не говори, не говори: я ведь вижу, как ты смотришь: ты уж решил!  
Don't speak, don't speak: I can see, you know, by the way you're looking at me — you've already decided!
> «ведь» + «как» clause: «я ведь вижу» — 'I do see, you know' («ведь» appealing to the obvious) — governs the «как»-clause «как ты смотришь» ('how you're looking'). «как» introduces the manner of looking that betrays Alyosha's verdict.
> Particle «уж» + perfective past: «уж» (a clipped «уже», 'already') here intensifies as much as it times — 'you've already decided!'. The perfective past «решил» reports the decision as an accomplished fact Mitya reads in Alyosha's eyes.

Не решай, пощади меня, я без Груши жить не могу, подожди суда!  
Don't decide, spare me, I can't live without Grusha, wait for the trial!"
> Imperative «пощади»: «пощади» is the perfective imperative of «пощадить» (to spare, have mercy) — '-и' ending after a consonant with stressed ending. The perfective fits the single appeal: 'spare me [this once]'.
> «подождать» + genitive object: «подожди суда» — 'wait for the trial': verbs of waiting/expecting take the genitive of the awaited thing, so «суд» (court, trial) appears as genitive «суда». «подожди» is the perfective imperative, 'wait [until it comes]'.

Митя кончил как исступленный. Он держал Алешу обеими руками за плечи и так и впился в его глаза своим жаждущим, воспаленным взглядом.  
Mitya finished as if beside himself. He held Alyosha by the shoulders with both hands and fastened on his eyes with a thirsting, inflamed gaze.
> «исступлённый» — frenzied, beside oneself: «исступлённый» (from «исступление», frenzy, ecstasy) describes one carried out of his senses by passion. «кончил как исступленный» — 'finished as if beside himself' — captures Mitya's feverish pitch.
> Instrumental of means «обеими руками»: «обеими руками» ('with both hands') is the instrumental of means; «обеими» is the feminine instrumental of the collective «оба/обе» (both). «за плечи» — «за» + accusative — marks grasping 'by the shoulders'.
> Present active participle + instrumental: «жаждущим» is the present active participle of «жаждать» (to thirst, crave), agreeing with «взглядом» — 'a thirsting gaze'. The whole phrase is instrumental of means after «впился» ('fastened/bored into'): he fixed Alyosha with that inflamed look.

— Каторжных разве венчают? — повторил он в третий раз, молящим голосом.  
"Do they let convicts marry?" he repeated for the third time, in an imploring voice.
> Ordinal in «в… раз»: «в третий раз» — 'for the third time': the ordinal «третий» agrees with «раз» in the accusative after «в» (a fixed adverbial of frequency). The repetition marks how the question «каторжных разве венчают?» has become Mitya's anguished refrain.
> Participle «молящим» in the instrumental: «молящим» is the present active participle of «молить» (to implore), agreeing with «голосом» — 'in an imploring voice'. The instrumental «голосом» marks the manner of speaking.

Алеша слушал с чрезвычайным удивлением и глубоко был потрясен.  
Alyosha listened with extraordinary astonishment and was deeply shaken.
> Short passive participle predicate: «потрясён» is the short past passive participle (masc.) of «потрясти» (to shake, shock), joined to «был» to state a result — 'was deeply shaken'. The short form plus «был» is the standard periphrastic passive; «глубоко» ('deeply') modifies it.
> «с» + instrumental of manner: «с чрезвычайным удивлением» — 'with extraordinary astonishment': «с» + instrumental forms an adverbial of manner. The adjective «чрезвычайным» agrees with «удивлением» in the instrumental.

— Скажи мне одно, — проговорил он, — Иван очень настаивает, и кто это выдумал первый?  
"Tell me one thing," he said, "does Ivan insist on it very much, and who was the first to think of it?"
> Prefix «про-» of completion: «проговорил» (perfective of «проговорить») uses «про-» to mark an utterance carried through to its end — 'he said, brought out [the words]'. It is a favored narrative verb for a measured, completed bit of speech.
> Interrogative «кто» + predicate «первый»: «кто… выдумал первый?» — 'who thought it up first?'. «кто» always takes masculine singular agreement, and «первый' here functions adverbially/predicatively, 'as the first one'. «выдумал» is perfective, the single act of invention.

— Он, он выдумал, он настаивает!  
"He did, he thought of it, he insists on it!
> Emphatic pronoun repetition: The thrice-repeated «он» drives the answer home — 'he, he thought of it, he insists!'. Russian normally drops subject pronouns; their insistent presence here is pure emphasis, pinning the blame on Ivan.

Он ко мне всё не ходил и вдруг пришел неделю назад и прямо с этого начал.  
He'd kept away from me all this time, and then suddenly came a week ago and started straight in on this.
> Multidirectional «ходил» + «всё»: «не ходил» uses the multidirectional motion verb «ходить» (habitual/round-trip going), with «всё» here meaning 'all along, the whole time' — 'he kept not coming to me'. The imperfective paints a long stretch of staying away, against the sudden «пришёл».
> Prefixed perfective «пришёл»: «пришёл» is the perfective of «приходить/прийти» (to arrive); the prefix «при-» turns the motion pair into an ordinary aspect pair. After the drawn-out «не ходил», the perfective «вдруг пришёл» snaps the narrative to a single arrival.

Страшно настаивает. Не просит, а велит.  
He insists dreadfully. He doesn't ask, he commands.
> Contrastive «а» between verbs: «Не просит, а велит» — 'he doesn't ask, but commands': the «не… а…» frame corrects one term for another, and «а» (not «но») marks the substitution. «велит» (from «велеть», to order) governs a dative person and is markedly authoritative.

В послушании не сомневается, хотя я ему всё мое сердце, как тебе, вывернул и про гимн говорил.  
He has no doubt of my obedience, though I laid my whole heart bare to him, as I did to you, and told him about the hymn.
> «сомневаться в» + prepositional: «сомневаться в чём» — 'to doubt [in] something' — governs «в» + prepositional «послушании». Negated: 'he has no doubt of my obedience'. «сомневается» is a -ся verb of mental state.
> «послушание» — obedience (with a monastic ring): «послушание» means obedience or submission; in the monastery it is also a 'novice's appointed task/obedience'. The word carries a faint spiritual overtone here, as Ivan demands of Mitya the submission an elder might require of a novice.
> Vivid perfective «вывернул»: «вывернул» (perfective of «вывернуть», to turn inside out) is used figuratively — 'I turned my whole heart inside out [bared it] to him'. The graphic verb conveys total, helpless self-disclosure.

Он мне рассказал, как и устроит, все сведения собрал, но это потом.  
He told me how he'd even arrange it, he's gathered all the information, but that's for later.
> «как» clause + inclusive «и»: «как и устроит» — 'how he'd even arrange it': «как» opens the indirect question, and «и» here is the inclusive 'even, also'. «устроит» is the perfective future inside reported speech, 'will arrange'.
> Perfective result «собрал»: «собрал» (perfective of «собрать», to gather) names the completed accumulation — 'he's gathered all the information'. «сведения» ('intelligence, information') is a plural-only neuter here as direct object.

До истерики хочет.  
He's set on it to the point of frenzy.
> «до» + genitive = 'to the point of': «до истерики» — 'to the point of hysterics': «до» + genitive «истерики» marks the extreme limit of an intensity. The verbless, clipped «хочет» ('he wants [it]') leaves the object understood from context.

Главное деньги: десять тысяч, говорит, тебе на побег, а двадцать тысяч на Америку, а на десять тысяч, говорит, мы великолепный побег устроим.  
The main thing is the money: ten thousand, he says, for you to escape, and twenty thousand for America, and with the ten thousand, he says, we'll arrange a magnificent escape.
> Genitive plural after high numerals: «десять тысяч», «двадцать тысяч» — numerals of five and above (and 'ten', 'twenty') govern the genitive plural, here «тысяч» (zero-ending genitive plural of «тысяча»). The sums tick off as Ivan's escape budget.
> «главное» as sentence-topic: «Главное деньги» — 'the main thing is the money', with the neuter adjective «главное' ('the main thing') as a verbless topic and «деньги» the predicate. «деньги» is a plurale tantum, existing only in the plural.
> Purposive «на» + accusative: «на побег», «на Америку» use «на» + accusative in the sense of 'for, toward [a purpose]' — money 'for the escape', 'for America'. «побег» ('escape, flight', from «бежать') is the noun at the heart of Ivan's whole scheme.

— И мне отнюдь не велел передавать? — переспросил снова Алеша.  
"And he absolutely forbade you to pass it on?" Alyosha asked once more.
> «отнюдь не» — by no means: «отнюдь» is an emphatic, somewhat bookish negator: «отнюдь не велел» = 'by no means / absolutely did not tell [you] to'. It reinforces the «не» rather than replacing it, sharpening the denial.
> «велел» + imperfective infinitive: After verbs of ordering and forbidding Russian favours the imperfective infinitive for the general activity: «велел передавать» = 'told [you] to pass on'. The imperfective frames it as a standing instruction, not one completed act.
> «переспросить» — to ask again: The prefix «пере-» here adds the sense of repetition/checking: «переспросить» = to ask once more, to ask back for confirmation, matching the «снова» ('again') beside it.

— Отнюдь, никому, а главное, тебе: тебе ни за что!  
"Absolutely — to no one, and to you above all: to you on no account!"
> «ни за что» — on no account: An idiom of absolute refusal, 'not for anything / on no account'. Built on intensifying «ни» (literally 'for nothing'), it caps the rising emphasis: никому → а главное тебе → тебе ни за что.
> Datives of the addressee: The whole clipped line runs on datives naming who is forbidden the secret: «никому» (to no one) and «тебе» (to you), the indirect objects of the understood 'pass it on to'.

Боится, верно, что ты как совесть предо мной станешь.  
"He's afraid, no doubt, that you'd stand before me like a conscience."
> «станешь» — perfective future: «станешь» is the conjugated form of perfective «стать»; with present-tense endings it carries future meaning, 'you would [come to] stand'. After the verb of fearing it reads as the dreaded outcome.
> «предо мной» — archaic preposition form: «предо» is the elevated/old variant of «перед» ('before'), governing the instrumental «мной». The fuller form «предо» appears before certain pronouns and lends a solemn, biblical colour — apt for 'stand before me like a conscience'.
> «верно» — 'no doubt, probably': Here «верно» is not 'correctly' but a modal parenthetical, 'I suppose / no doubt / most likely' — Mitya guessing at Ivan's motive.

Не говори ему, что я тебе передал. Ух, не говори!  
"Don't tell him I passed it on to you. Oh, don't tell him!"
> Negated imperfective imperative: «Не говори» — a negative command in the imperfective. Russian prohibitions almost always take the imperfective imperative, so 'don't tell' is «не говори», not the perfective «не скажи».
> «Ух» — interjection of feeling: An expressive exclamation of strong emotion (relief, dread, urgency). Here it conveys Mitya's near-physical anxiety as he repeats the plea: 'Oh, don't tell him!'

— Ты прав, — решил Алеша, — решить невозможно раньше приговора суда. После суда сам и решишь; тогда сам в себе нового человека найдешь, он и решит.  
"You're right," Alyosha decided, "there's no deciding it before the court's verdict. After the trial you'll decide for yourself; then you'll find a new man within you, and he will decide."
> Impersonal «невозможно» + infinitive: A subjectless construction: «решить невозможно» = 'it is impossible to decide'. The invariable predicate «невозможно» plus a bare infinitive states necessity/possibility with no nominative subject — a hallmark of Russian's impersonal frame.
> Emphatic «и» before the verb: The little «и» here is not 'and' but an emphatic particle, 'precisely / it is exactly … that': «сам и решишь» = 'you yourself will be the one to decide', «он и решит» = 'and it is he who will decide'. It spotlights the agent.
> «себе» — reflexive pronoun: «в себе» ('within oneself') uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» in the prepositional, pointing back to the clause subject 'you'. «нового человека» is the animate accusative object of «найдёшь» (looking like the genitive, as animates do).

— Нового человека аль Бернара, тот и решит по-бернаровски! Потому, кажется, я и сам Бернар презренный! — горько осклабился Митя.  
"A new man — or a Bernard, and he'll decide it Bernard-fashion! Because it seems I myself am a contemptible Bernard!" Mitya grinned bitterly.
> «аль» — folk/colloquial 'or': «аль» is a dialectal, folksy variant of «или» / «али» ('or'). It flavours Mitya's speech with rough, popular Russian: 'A new man — or a Bernard?'
> «осклабиться» — to grin/bare the teeth: An expressive, somewhat low verb for a wide, unpleasant grin — a baring of the teeth rather than a warm smile. With «горько» ('bitterly') it paints Mitya's self-mocking grimace.
> «презренный» — despicable: A bookish adjective from «презирать» ('to despise'): 'contemptible, despised'. Originally a passive participle in form, it carries a moralising, elevated weight here — Mitya condemning himself.

— Но неужели, неужели, брат, ты так уж совсем не надеешься оправдаться?  
"But really, brother, really — have you so utterly no hope of being acquitted?"
> «неужели» — incredulous 'really?': A particle of astonished disbelief, 'can it really be that…?'. Doubled and paired with «так уж совсем», it conveys Alyosha's anguished hope against hope that Mitya might still be acquitted.
> «оправдаться» — reflexive -ся: The «-ся» on «оправдать → оправдаться» makes it intransitive/self-directed: 'to clear oneself, be acquitted'. After negated «не надеешься» the infinitive names the hope being denied.

Митя судорожно вскинул вверх плечами и отрицательно покачал головой.  
Mitya gave a convulsive shrug of the shoulders and shook his head in denial.
> Instrumental of the body part: Gestures take the instrumental of the moving part: «вскинул плечами» ('jerked his shoulders'), «покачал головой» ('shook his head'). The instrumental marks the means by which the gesture is made.
> «судорожно» — convulsively: From «судорога» ('a cramp, convulsion'): 'spasmodically, convulsively'. Dostoevsky reaches for it constantly to render the jerky, involuntary bodily life of overwrought characters.

— Алеша, голубчик, тебе пора! — вдруг заспешил он.  
"Alyosha, my dear, it's time for you to go!" he suddenly began to hurry.
> «тебе пора» — dative subject: A classic impersonal construction: 'it's time for you [to go]'. The experiencer «тебе» stands in the dative, «пора» is the invariable predicate, and the verb of going is left understood.
> «голубчик» — 'my dear' (lit. 'little dove'): An affectionate diminutive of «голубь» ('dove'), used as a tender form of address, 'my dear, my dear fellow'. It signals warm intimacy — Mitya clinging to Alyosha in his last moments together.
> «заспешить» — inceptive «за-»: The prefix «за-» marks the onset of an action: «заспешил» = 'began to hurry, grew agitated and rushed'. Dostoevsky loves these inceptive verbs to catch a sudden change of state.

— Смотритель закричал на дворе, сейчас сюда будет. Нам поздно, беспорядок.  
"The warder shouted out in the yard, he'll be in here any moment. It's late for us, against the rules."
> Elliptical future of «быть»: «сейчас сюда будет» drops the verb of motion: 'he'll be here in a moment'. «будет» is the simple future of «быть», and the implied 'come' is supplied by «сюда» ('to here'). Such ellipsis is typical of agitated speech.
> «беспорядок» — 'disorder / against the rules': Literally 'disorder' (без- 'without' + порядок 'order'). In context it means a breach of regulations: their lingering is irregular, not allowed — 'it's against the rules'.

Обними меня поскорей, поцелуй, перекрести меня, голубчик, перекрести на завтрашний крест…  
"Embrace me, quick, kiss me, make the sign of the cross over me, my dear, cross me for tomorrow's cross…"
> Chain of perfective imperatives: A rush of perfective commands — «обними» (embrace), «поцелуй» (kiss), «перекрести» (cross) — each demanding one swift, completed act. The perfective imperative suits urgent, one-off requests, against the imperfective used for prohibitions.
> «крест» — the figurative cross: The pun is deliberate: «перекрести … на … крест» links the sign of the cross with «крест» as the Christian image of suffering to be borne. 'Cross me for tomorrow's cross' = bless me for the ordeal ahead.
> «поскорей» — 'quick, hurry': Colloquial comparative «поскорей» (= «поскорее») from «скоро», urging speed: 'quickly, the sooner the better'. The «-ей» ending is the everyday spoken variant of «-ее».

Они обнялись и поцеловались.  
They embraced and kissed.
> Reciprocal «-ся»: Both verbs carry reciprocal «-ся»: «обнялись» ('embraced each other'), «поцеловались» ('kissed each other'). The clitic here means the action passes mutually between the two subjects.

— А Иван-то, — проговорил вдруг Митя, — бежать-то предложил, а сам ведь верит, что я убил!  
"But Ivan, now," Mitya suddenly said, "he proposed I escape — yet he himself believes I did the killing!"
> The topic-marking clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» here emphasises a known topic, not an indefinite: «Иван-то» = 'Ivan, now / as for Ivan', «бежать-то» = 'escape, mind you'. It foregrounds each item before the surprising twist that follows.
> «ведь» — appeal to shared knowledge: «ведь» nudges the listener toward something they should grant: 'and yet, you know, he himself believes…'. Paired with contrastive «а» and intensive «сам», it sharpens the painful contradiction in Ivan.
> Object «что»-clause after «верит»: «верит, что я убил» = 'believes that I killed [him]'. The subordinator «что» reports a plain fact believed; the object of «убил» is left unspoken but understood (the father).

Грустная усмешка выдавилась на его губах.  
A mournful smile forced itself onto his lips.
> «выдавилась» — middle «-ся»: «выдавиться» (from «выдавить», 'to squeeze out') with «-ся» becomes intransitive/self-acting: the smile 'forced itself out / was forced onto his lips' as if against his will — a vivid middle voice.
> «усмешка» vs «улыбка»: Not a warm «улыбка» but an «усмешка» — a wry, ironic, often bitter half-smile or smirk. With «грустная» ('sad'), it captures Mitya's mournful self-irony.

— Ты спрашивал его: верит он или нет? — спросил Алеша.  
"Did you ask him: does he believe it or not?" Alyosha asked.
> Embedded yes/no question: «верит он или нет» is an indirect question, 'whether he believes or not'. Russian can mark it with inversion («верит он») and the «… или нет» frame instead of the more formal «ли»; the literary «ли» variant returns at s377.

— Нет, не спрашивал. Хотел спросить, да не смог, силы не хватило.  
"No, I didn't ask. I meant to, but I couldn't — I hadn't the strength.
> Adversative «да» = 'but': Here «да» is not 'yes' but a folksy coordinating conjunction meaning 'but / and yet': 'I meant to ask, but I couldn't'. It is warmer and more colloquial than «но».
> Genitive with «не хватило»: «силы не хватило» = 'strength was not enough / I lacked the strength'. The negated impersonal «хватило» takes its noun in the genitive («силы», genitive of «сила»), a partitive-of-absence pattern.

Да всё равно, я ведь по глазам вижу. Ну, прощай!  
But it makes no difference, I can see it in his eyes. Well, goodbye!"
> «ведь» + «по глазам вижу»: «ведь» again appeals to the obvious ('after all'). «по глазам» uses «по» + dative for the basis of perception: 'I can tell by his eyes'. «по» governs the dative plural «глазам».
> «всё равно» — 'it makes no difference': A fixed phrase, 'all the same, it doesn't matter, anyway'. Mitya waves away the unasked question: he reads Ivan's belief in his eyes regardless.

Еще раз поцеловались наскоро, и Алеша уже было вышел, как вдруг Митя кликнул его опять:  
They kissed once more, hurriedly, and Alyosha had all but gone out when Mitya suddenly called to him again:
> «было» — the cancelled action: The particle «было» after a perfective past marks an action begun or about to happen but then interrupted/undone: «уже было вышел» = 'had all but gone out / was on the point of leaving' — when «как вдруг» ('when suddenly') cut it short.
> «кликнуть» — to call out (folksy): A colloquial, slightly folk-toned verb for calling someone, 'hailed, called out to'. Its semelfactive «-ну-» gives a single sharp call: Mitya 'called to him' once more.

— Становись предо мной, вот так.  
"Stand before me, just like this."
> Imperfective imperative «становись»: «становись» is the imperfective imperative of «становиться» ('to take up a position, stand'). The imperfective here calls for entering and holding the posture — 'take your stand, stay there' — rather than a single completed move.
> «предо мной» — solemn 'before me': Again the elevated «предо» (for «передо/перед») + instrumental «мной». Repeated from s363, it ritualises the moment Mitya stages between them, charging the demand for truth with gravity.

И он опять крепко схватил Алешу обеими руками за плечи.  
And again he gripped Alyosha hard by the shoulders with both hands.
> «схватить за плечи» — grab by the…: Seizing 'by' a body part takes «за» + accusative: «схватил за плечи» = 'grabbed by the shoulders'. The instrument of grabbing, «обеими руками» ('with both hands'), is in the instrumental.
> «оба/обе» — 'both': «обеими» is the feminine instrumental of «обе» ('both'), agreeing with «руками». «оба» (m./n.) and «обе» (f.) are a small two-gender numeral pair that fully declines.

Лицо его стало вдруг совсем бледно, так что почти в темноте это было страшно заметно.  
His face had suddenly gone quite pale, so that even in the near-darkness it showed dreadfully plain.
> «стать» + short adjective: «Лицо стало бледно» = 'his face became pale'. After «стать» the predicate adjective appears in the short form «бледно», agreeing in gender/number with «лицо» (neuter). The short form here states the resulting condition.
> «так что» — result clause: «так что» introduces a clause of result: 'so that…'. It links the pallor to its consequence — that the whiteness showed «страшно заметно» even in the half-dark.

Губы перекосились, взгляд впился в Алешу.  
His lips twisted awry, his gaze fastened on Alyosha.
> «перекосились» — middle «-ся»: «перекоситься» ('to become twisted/awry'), with «-ся», is an intransitive change of state: his lips 'twisted, went crooked' of themselves. A spasm of feeling, not a willed act.
> «впиться» — to fasten/bore into: «впиться (в кого-то)» literally means to dig or sink in (as teeth or claws). Of a gaze it is intensely physical: his look 'fastened on / bored into' Alyosha, governing «в Алешу» (в + accusative).

— Алеша, говори мне полную правду, как пред господом богом: веришь ты, что я убил, или не веришь?  
"Alyosha, tell me the whole truth, as before the Lord God: do you believe that I did the killing, or do you not?
> Imperfective imperative for solemn demand: «говори» (imperfective imperative of «говорить») demands the act of telling itself, drawn out and absolute: 'tell me the whole truth'. «полную правду» is the accusative direct object.
> Balanced yes/no question: The question is framed by the «… или не …» antithesis: 'do you believe … or do you not believe'. Repeating the verb in negated form gives the demand its hammering, either/or force.

Ты-то, сам-то ты, веришь или нет?  
You, you yourself — do you believe it or not?
> Stacked emphatic «-то» + «сам»: «Ты-то … сам-то ты» piles the topic-clitic «-то» onto pronoun and intensifier: 'You — you yourself, of all people'. The redundancy is rhetorical, isolating Alyosha as the one witness whose verdict Mitya truly needs.

Полную правду, не лги! — крикнул он ему исступленно.  
The whole truth, don't lie!" he cried out to him frenziedly.
> «не лги» — negated imperative: «лги» is the imperative of «лгать» ('to lie'); negated, «не лги» = 'don't lie'. The prohibition takes the imperfective, as Russian commands against an action regularly do.
> «исступлённо» — frenziedly: From «исступление» ('frenzy, ecstasy of feeling'): 'in a frenzy, beside oneself'. A favourite Dostoevskian register for emotion pushed past control — Mitya's cry is wild, near-delirious.

Алешу как бы всего покачнуло, а в сердце его, он слышал это, как бы прошло что-то острое.  
It was as if something rocked Alyosha through and through, and through his heart — he felt it — something sharp seemed to pass.
> Impersonal «покачнуло» + accusative: A subjectless construction of involuntary movement: «Алешу … покачнуло» = 'something rocked Alyosha / Alyosha was made to sway'. The person affected is in the accusative «Алешу», the verb neuter and agentless — a force seizing him from outside.
> «как бы» — 'as if, as it were': «как бы» softens and hedges, 'as if, somehow': the rocking and the sharp something passing through his heart are felt impressions, not literal events. «что-то острое» = 'something sharp', indefinite «-то».

— Полно, что ты… — пролепетал было он как потерянный.  
"Stop it, what are you saying…" he stammered out, like a man at a loss.
> «Полно!» — 'Enough! Stop it!': An old interjectional imperative, literally 'it is full', used to check or soothe: 'enough now, stop that, come now'. Alyosha tries to calm Mitya's frantic insistence.
> «было» again — faltering start: «пролепетал было» reuses cancelled-action «было»: Alyosha 'started to stammer out' but the protest trails off, undone. «как потерянный» = 'like one lost / at a loss'.
> «пролепетать» — to babble/stammer: From «лепетать» (a child's or a flustered person's babbling). The prefix «про-» gives a brief completed stammer: Alyosha 'mumbled out' a half-formed phrase, overwhelmed.

— Всю правду, всю, не лги! — повторил Митя.  
"The whole truth, all of it, don't lie!" Mitya repeated.
> Accusative «всю правду» fronted: «Всю правду, всю» — the object 'the whole truth' thrown to the front and echoed for force. «всю» is the feminine accusative of «весь» ('all'), agreeing with «правду».

— Ни единой минуты не верил, что ты убийца, — вдруг вырвалось дрожащим голосом из груди Алеши, и он поднял правую руку вверх, как бы призывая бога в свидетели своих слов.  
"Not for a single minute have I believed that you were the murderer," burst suddenly in a trembling voice from Alyosha's breast, and he raised his right hand aloft, as if calling God to witness his words.
> Genitive of time under negation: «Ни единой минуты не верил» = 'not for a single minute did I believe'. «ни единой минуты» is a genitive of negated duration, intensified by «ни … единой» ('not one'), with «не» on the verb — negative concord.
> «вырвалось» — middle «-ся» + genitive source: «вырваться» ('to burst out, break free') with «-ся» is intransitive: the words 'burst from' him on their own. «из груди» = «из» + genitive marks the source, 'out of [his] breast'.
> «призывая» — present gerund: «призывая» is the imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) of «призывать», 'while calling / as if calling'. It expresses an action attendant on raising his hand, sharing the subject 'he'. «в свидетели» uses the special accusative-of-role plural.

Блаженство озарило мгновенно всё лицо Мити.  
In an instant a look of bliss lit up Mitya's whole face.
> Topic-comment inversion: The subject «блаженство» ('bliss') leads, the object «всё лицо» ('his whole face') closes the clause: word order foregrounds the new, transfiguring emotion. «озарило» (perfective) marks the instantaneous lighting-up.
> «блаженство», «озарить» — sacred light: Both words carry a spiritual glow: «блаженство» is 'bliss, beatitude' (cf. «блаженный», the holy fool/the blessed), and «озарить» is 'to illumine, light up' as with radiance. The pair lends Mitya's relief an almost religious transfiguration.

— Спасибо тебе! — выговорил он протяжно, точно испуская вздох после обморока.  
"Thank you!" he brought out, drawn-out and slow, as though letting go a sigh after a fainting fit.
> «испуская» — present gerund with «точно»: «испуская вздох» is a present gerund (деепричастие), 'letting out a sigh', describing how he spoke. «точно» here = 'as if, as though', introducing the simile of a sigh after a faint.
> «протяжно» — drawn-out: 'In a drawn-out, lingering way'. The word stretches the single «Спасибо» into a long exhalation, reinforced by the simile of release after «обморок» ('a fainting fit').

— Теперь ты меня возродил… Веришь ли: до сих пор боялся спросить тебя, это тебя-то, тебя!  
"Now you've brought me back to life… Would you believe it: until now I was afraid to ask you — you, of all people, you!
> «возродить» — to revive, bring back to life: A weighty, bookish verb, 'to resurrect, regenerate, bring back to life' (cf. «возрождение», 'rebirth/Renaissance'). Mitya casts Alyosha's faith in him as a spiritual resurrection.
> «ли» — the literary question particle: «Веришь ли» fronts the verb and follows it with enclitic «ли», 'would you believe…?'. More formal and literary than plain rising intonation, it lends emphasis to the confession that follows.
> Emphatic doubling with «-то»: «это тебя-то, тебя!» heaps emphasis on the object: 'you — you of all people'. «это» points, «-то» foregrounds the topic, and the bare repeat «тебя» drives it home — the very person he most feared to ask.

Ну иди, иди! Укрепил ты меня на завтра, благослови тебя бог!  
Well, go now, go! You've made me strong for tomorrow, God bless you!
> Imperfective imperative «иди»: «иди» is the imperative of unidirectional «идти», 'go (off now)'. Doubled for urgency, it sends Alyosha on his single way out; the imperative «ступай» (from the unprefixed, folksy «ступать», an archaic synonym of «идти») follows in the next line.
> «укрепить» — to strengthen/fortify: 'You have strengthened / fortified me'. Often used spiritually (укрепить в вере, 'strengthen in faith'); here Alyosha's belief has steeled Mitya «на завтра», for the trial to come.

Ну, ступай, люби Ивана! — вырвалось последним словом у Мити.  
Well, off you go, and love Ivan!" burst from Mitya as his parting word.
> «ступай» — 'off you go' (folksy): An archaic/folksy imperative meaning 'go, be off', warmer and more old-fashioned than «иди». It gives Mitya's send-off a homely, almost paternal tenderness.
> «люби» — imperfective imperative: «люби» (imperfective imperative of «любить») commands an ongoing, abiding state, not a single act: 'love Ivan [from now on]'. As his parting word it becomes a charge laid on Alyosha — and the chapter's pivot toward Ivan.
> «последним словом» — instrumental of manner: «вырвалось последним словом» = 'burst out as [his] last word'. The instrumental «последним словом» frames the manner/role in which the utterance came — a recurring Russian way of saying 'by way of / in the form of'.

Алеша вышел весь в слезах.  
Alyosha went out all in tears.
> «весь в слезах» — 'all in tears': «весь» ('all, whole') intensifies the state: «в слезах» (в + prepositional) = 'in tears'. The whole phrase means he went out utterly tearful, the «весь» stressing total immersion in the feeling.

Такая степень мнительности Мити, такая степень недоверия его даже к нему, к Алеше, — всё это вдруг раскрыло пред Алешей такую бездну безвыходного горя и отчаяния в душе его несчастного брата, какой он и не подозревал прежде.  
Such a degree of suspiciousness in Mitya, such a degree of distrust even toward him, toward Alyosha — all of this suddenly laid open before Alyosha an abyss of inescapable grief and despair in the soul of his unhappy brother, an abyss he had never suspected before.
> Anaphoric «такая степень»: The long sentence opens with twinned subjects «Такая степень мнительности … такая степень недоверия», both feminine nominatives suspended before the verb «раскрыло» — a deliberately heavy, accumulating period in Dostoevsky's narrating voice.
> «пред» + instrumental, «такую … какой»: «пред Алешей» (elevated «пред» + instrumental) = 'before Alyosha'. The correlative «такую бездну … какой он не подозревал» pairs «такой» ('such a') with relative «какой» ('as / which'), the relative in genitive after negated «не подозревал».
> «мнительность» — morbid suspiciousness: «мнительность» is anxious, brooding suspiciousness — a tendency to imagine slights and ills (from «мнить», 'to imagine, suppose'). It names the very disease of self-doubt Dostoevsky anatomises in Mitya here.
> «бездна», «безвыходный» — abyss with no way out: «бездна» = 'abyss, chasm'; «безвыходный» (без- 'without' + выход 'exit') = 'inescapable, with no way out'. The pairing — an abyss of 'exitless' grief — is pure Dostoevskian metaphysical despair.

Глубокое, бесконечное сострадание вдруг охватило и измучило его мгновенно.  
A deep, boundless compassion suddenly seized him and tormented him in an instant.
> Paired perfectives «охватило / измучило»: Two perfective past verbs, «охватило» ('seized, swept over') and «измучило» ('tormented, wore out'), present the compassion as a single sudden, completed onslaught — reinforced by «вдруг … мгновенно» ('suddenly … in an instant').
> «сострадание» — com-passion: «сострадание» is literally 'co-suffering' (со- 'with' + страдание 'suffering'), the exact calque of Latin com-passio. It is the cardinal Karamazovian virtue, and the word's structure embodies Alyosha suffering alongside his brother.

Пронзенное сердце его страшно болело.  
His pierced heart ached terribly.
> «пронзённое» — past passive participle: «пронзённое» is the past passive participle of «пронзить» ('to pierce'), declined as an attributive adjective agreeing with neuter «сердце»: 'pierced heart'. The image recalls the sword piercing Mary's soul — a quietly liturgical note.

«Люби Ивана!» — вспомнились ему вдруг сейчашние слова Мити.  
"Love Ivan!" — Mitya's just-spoken words came back to him all at once.
> «вспомнились» — middle «-ся» + dative: «вспомниться» (with «-ся») is the involuntary counterpart of «вспомнить»: not 'he recalled' but 'came back to him', the words «слова» as grammatical subject and the experiencer «ему» in the dative. The memory arrives unbidden.
> «сейчашний» — colloquial 'just-now': A colloquial adjective from «сейчас» ('now'): «сейчашние слова» = 'the words [spoken] just now'. The everyday formation contrasts with the elevated diction elsewhere, grounding the memory in the immediate moment.

Да он и шел к Ивану.  
And in fact he was on his way to Ivan.
> «да … и» — confirming 'in fact': Sentence-initial «да» here means 'and indeed / why, …', and the emphatic «и» before the verb stresses that the very thing just urged was already true: 'and in fact he was [already] on his way to Ivan'. «шёл» is the unidirectional motion verb, a single trajectory.

Ему еще утром страшно надо было видеть Ивана.  
Ever since the morning he had felt a terrible need to see Ivan.
> «ему надо было» — dative of necessity: An impersonal necessity construction: «ему надо было видеть» = 'he needed to see'. The experiencer «ему» is dative, «надо» the invariable predicate, «было» the neuter past — no nominative subject at all.
> «страшно» as intensifier: Colloquially «страшно» ('terribly, frightfully') simply intensifies, like English 'awfully': «страшно надо» = 'he badly/desperately needed'. The literal sense of dread still tints it, fitting Alyosha's foreboding.

Не менее, как Митя, его мучил Иван, а теперь, после свидания с братом, более чем когда-нибудь.  
Ivan tormented him no less than Mitya did, and now, after the meeting with his brother, more than ever before.
> Inversion: object first, subject last: «его мучил Иван» places the object «его» ('him') first and the subject «Иван» last — topic-comment order making Ivan the new, weighted information. The cases keep roles clear despite the reordering.
> Comparative «более … чем»: «не менее, как» ('no less than') and «более чем когда-нибудь» ('more than ever') frame the comparison. «когда-нибудь» uses non-specific «-нибудь» ('ever, at any time'), here under the comparative meaning 'than at any time before'.
---

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.