# The Brothers Karamazov, The First Interview with Smerdyakov

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book XI — Ivan

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b11-c6. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b11-c6.json.


Это уже в третий раз шел Иван Федорович говорить со Смердяковым по возвращении своем из Москвы.  
This was already the third time that Ivan Fyodorovich had gone to speak with Smerdyakov since his return from Moscow.
> Fronted adverbial, inverted subject: The sentence opens not with the subject but with «Это уже в третий раз» (this already for the third time), pushing «Иван Федорович» after the verb «шел». This topic-first ordering foregrounds the count of the visits — the news — before naming the familiar character. The free word order is licensed by the case endings.
> Imperfective «шел» of a habitual journey: «Шел» is the imperfective past of «идти» (to go on foot, one direction), here naming the recurring act of setting out — "was going / would go." Pairing the motion verb with the infinitive of purpose «говорить» gives "was going to speak with." The imperfective suits the framing of a repeated errand.
> «По» + prepositional = 'upon, after': «По возвращении» means "upon returning / after his return" — a bookish use of «по» governing the prepositional case of the verbal noun «возвращение». The reflexive possessive «своем» ("his own") points back to the subject Ivan. This temporal «по» is characteristic of formal 19th-century narration.

В первый раз после катастрофы он видел его и говорил с ним сейчас же в первый день своего приезда, затем посетил его еще раз две недели спустя.  
The first time after the catastrophe he had seen him and spoken with him at once, on the very first day of his arrival; then he had visited him a second time, two weeks later.
> Imperfective verbs for the scene itself: Both «видел» and «говорил» are imperfective past — the narrator dwells on the seeing and the talking as filled stretches of that first day, not as instantaneous events. Against them the later «посетил» (perfective) ticks off a single completed visit.
> «Спустя» — 'later, after the lapse of': «Спустя» is a postposed temporal marker meaning "later, after": «две недели спустя» = "two weeks later." Originally the gerund of «спустить» (to let down), it has frozen into a quasi-preposition; placing it after the time phrase is the bookish, literary order.

Но после этого второго раза свидания свои со Смердяковым прекратил, так что теперь с лишком месяц, как он уже не видал его и почти ничего не слыхал о нем.  
But after that second time he broke off his meetings with Smerdyakov, so that now it was more than a month since he had last seen him and had heard almost nothing of him.
> Object fronted before the verb: The direct object «свидания свои со Смердяковым» (his meetings with Smerdyakov) stands before the verb «прекратил» (broke off, perfective). This object-first order, with the verb landing last, marks the meetings as the established topic and throws emphasis onto the decisive act of ending them.
> «Как» = 'since' after a time span: Here «как» does not mean "how" but introduces a span: «теперь с лишком месяц, как…» = "now it is more than a month since…". «С лишком» means "and more, odd" (a month-plus). «Не видал», the imperfective negated past, conveys "had not been seeing / had not seen" over that whole stretch.
> Negative concord: «ничего … не»: «Ничего … не слыхал» pairs the negative pronoun «ничего» (in the genitive of negation) with the obligatory verbal «не» — Russian's double negation, where two negatives make one. «Слыхал» is a colloquial, iterative-flavoured by-form of «слышал» (had heard).

Воротился же тогда Иван Федорович из Москвы уже на пятый только день после смерти родителя, так что не застал и гроба его: погребение совершилось как раз накануне его приезда.  
Ivan Fyodorovich had returned from Moscow only on the fifth day after his father's death, so that he did not even find the coffin: the burial had taken place on the very eve of his arrival.
> Verb-first narration with «же»: The clause opens on the verb «Воротился» (returned, perfective of «воротиться», a homely synonym of «вернуться»), with subject after it — a backtracking move that fills in earlier circumstance. The particle «же» here is lightly contrastive/resumptive, "now, as for": it re-anchors the narrative to Ivan's return.
> Genitive of negation: «не застал … гроба»: Under negation the direct object slips into the genitive: «не застал … гроба» (did not find the coffin), not the accusative «гроб». The added «и» means "even" — "did not even find the coffin." «Застать» is to catch / find something still present.
> «Погребение» / «совершилось» — solemn register: «Погребение» is the elevated, ecclesiastically tinged word for burial (over plain «похороны»), and «совершилось» ("was accomplished, came to pass") is a bookish reflexive verb often used of ceremonies and momentous events. Together they lend the funeral a churchly gravity.

Причина замедления Ивана Федоровича заключалась в том, что Алеша, не зная в точности его московского адреса, прибегнул, для посылки телеграммы, к Катерине Ивановне, а та, тоже в неведении настоящего адреса, телеграфировала к своей сестре и тетке, рассчитывая, что Иван Федорович сейчас же по прибытии в Москву к ним зайдет.  
The cause of Ivan Fyodorovich's delay lay in this: that Alyosha, not knowing his Moscow address exactly, had turned, in order to send the telegram, to Katerina Ivanovna, who, likewise ignorant of his actual address, had wired her own sister and aunt, reckoning that Ivan Fyodorovich would call on them at once upon reaching Moscow.
> «В том, что» — cataphoric 'in this: that': «Заключалась в том, что…» literally "consisted in that, that…", uses the correlative «то» in the prepositional («в том») to point forward to the «что»-clause that names the cause. This «(в) том, что» frame is the standard Russian way to set up an explanatory subordinate clause.
> Present gerund «не зная»: «Не зная» is the imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) of «знать»: "not knowing," an attendant circumstance that shares Alyosha's subject. The whole sentence is built from such non-finite chains — «не зная … рассчитывая» — a hallmark of dense literary narration.
> «Прибегнуть к» + dative = 'resort to': «Прибегнул … к Катерине Ивановне» — "had recourse to Katerina Ivanovna." «Прибегнуть к» (perfective) governs «к» + dative and means to turn to someone for help. The doubled name plus patronymic is the standard respectful mode of reference.
> Perfective future «зайдет» inside a reckoning: «Рассчитывая, что … зайдет» — "reckoning that he would call on them." «Зайдет» is the perfective (simple) future of «зайти», a prefixed motion verb meaning to drop in. Reported from the past, the Russian future form reads as English "would."

Но он к ним зашел лишь на четвертый день по приезде и, прочтя телеграмму, тотчас же, конечно, сломя голову полетел к нам.  
But he called on them only on the fourth day after his arrival and, having read the telegram, of course flew to us at once, headlong.
> «По приезде» — 'after arrival': Again the temporal «по» + prepositional: «на четвертый день по приезде» = "on the fourth day after his arrival." Note the prepositional ending «-е» on «приезд», the marker that distinguishes this 'after' sense from other uses of «по».
> Perfective past gerund «прочтя»: «Прочтя» is the perfective past gerund of «прочесть/прочитать» ("having read"), marking an action completed before the main verb «полетел». Its irregular -я form (rather than -в) is bookish; it neatly times the reading before the rushing-off.
> «Сломя голову» — headlong: «Сломя голову» (literally "having broken one's head") is a fixed idiom meaning "headlong, at breakneck speed." It contains a frozen archaic gerund «сломя». Paired with «полетел» ("flew," figurative for rushed), it renders Ivan's frantic dash "to us."

У нас первого встретил Алешу, но, переговорив с ним, был очень изумлен, что тот даже и подозревать не хочет Митю, а прямо указывает на Смердякова как на убийцу, что было вразрез всем другим мнениям в нашем городе.  
The first person he met among us was Alyosha, but on talking with him he was greatly astonished that his brother would not so much as suspect Mitya, and pointed straight at Smerdyakov as the murderer — which ran contrary to every other opinion in our town.
> Gerund «переговорив» — 'having talked over': «Переговорив» is the perfective past gerund of «переговорить» (to talk things over, have a conversation with). The prefix «пере-» here gives the sense of talking through a matter to its end. As a gerund it sets the prior action before «был очень изумлен».
> Contrastive «а» pivoting the two reactions: «…даже и подозревать не хочет Митю, а прямо указывает на Смердякова» — the conjunction «а» hinges the two halves: not "but" in opposition so much as "and instead." It is the untranslatable contrastive hinge that sets Alyosha's refusal to suspect against his pointing elsewhere.
> «Тот» tracking the third party: «Тот» ("the latter, that one") refers back to Alyosha as distinct from Ivan, keeping the two brothers straight without repeating the name. This topic-tracking use of the demonstrative «тот» is essential to Russian's free word order.

Повидав затем исправника, прокурора, узнав подробности обвинения и ареста, он еще более удивился на Алешу и приписал его мнение лишь возбужденному до последней степени братскому чувству и состраданию его к Мите, которого Алеша, как и знал это Иван, очень любил.  
Having then seen the police captain and the prosecutor, and learned the particulars of the accusation and the arrest, he wondered all the more at Alyosha, and ascribed his view solely to a brotherly feeling and compassion for Mitya excited to the last degree — Mitya whom Alyosha, as Ivan well knew, loved dearly.
> Stacked perfective gerunds: The sentence front-loads two perfective past gerunds, «Повидав» (having seen) and «узнав» (having learned), both completed before the main «удивился». Such gerund chains compress several prior actions into adverbial phrases — the signature texture of 19th-century literary syntax.
> «Приписать» + dative = 'ascribe to': «Приписал его мнение … чувству и состраданию» — "ascribed his opinion to a brotherly feeling and compassion." «Приписать» governs the dative of what the thing is attributed to («чувству», «состраданию»), while «мнение» stays accusative as the direct object.
> Past passive participle as modifier: «Возбужденному … чувству» uses the past passive participle «возбуждённый» (excited, roused) in the dative to agree with «чувству». «До последней степени» means "to the last degree." The participle does the work of a relative clause — "a feeling that had been excited to the utmost."

Кстати, промолвим лишь два слова раз навсегда о чувствах Ивана к брату Дмитрию Федоровичу: он его решительно не любил и много-много что чувствовал к нему иногда сострадание, но и то смешанное с большим презрением, доходившим до гадливости.  
Incidentally, let us say just two words once and for all about Ivan's feelings toward his brother Dmitri Fyodorovich: he decidedly did not love him, and at most felt for him, on occasion, a certain compassion — and even that was mixed with great contempt, reaching as far as disgust.
> First-person plural «промолвим» — the narrator's 'we': «Промолвим» is the perfective future/hortative "let us say" (1st pl. of «промолвить»). The novel's chronicling narrator constantly steps forward in this collective "we" («у нас», «к нам»), addressing the reader as a fellow townsman. It is a device of intimate, gossiping authority.
> Imperfective «не любил» of a settled state: «Решительно не любил» — "decidedly did not love." The imperfective past «любил» under negation describes an enduring condition of feeling, not an event. «Решительно» ("decidedly, flatly") sharpens the verdict on Ivan's coldness toward Dmitri.
> «Много-много что» — 'at the very most': The reduplicated «много-много что» is a colloquial idiom meaning "at most, at the very most." The doubling intensifies the limiting sense: at most Ivan felt only an occasional compassion. Such expressive reduplication is typical of the narrator's spoken-flavoured prose.
> «Гадливость» — physical disgust: «Гадливость» is loathing of a visceral, almost nauseated kind — the squeamish revulsion you feel toward something «гадкий» (foul, vile). Stronger and more bodily than «презрение» (contempt), it marks how Ivan's disdain for Mitya shades into physical aversion.

Митя весь, даже всею своею фигурой, был ему крайне несимпатичен.  
Mitya, the whole of him, down to his very figure, was profoundly distasteful to him.
> Instrumental of respect: «всею … фигурой»: «Даже всею своею фигурой» — "even by his whole figure" — uses the instrumental to specify in what respect Mitya was distasteful. The endings «-ею» on «всею своею» are the bookish/archaic instrumental feminine forms (modern «всей своей»), lending a period flavour.
> Dative experiencer + short adjective: «Был ему … несимпатичен» frames the distaste impersonally: the person to whom Mitya is repugnant stands in the dative «ему», and the predicate is the short-form adjective «несимпатичен» (disagreeable). The short adjective is the bookish, predicate-only form.

На любовь к нему Катерины Ивановны Иван смотрел с негодованием.  
On Katerina Ivanovna's love for him Ivan looked with indignation.
> Object phrase fronted for emphasis: The whole prepositional object «На любовь к нему Катерины Ивановны» is hoisted to the front, before subject and verb «Иван смотрел». This inversion makes Katerina's love the topic and lands stress on Ivan's indignant gaze. «Смотреть на» (to look at/upon) + accusative governs the phrase.

С подсудимым Митей он, однако же, увиделся тоже в первый день своего прибытия, и это свидание не только не ослабило в нем убеждения в его виновности, а даже усилило его.  
With the accused Mitya, however, he had also met on the first day of his arrival, and that interview not only did not weaken his conviction of Mitya's guilt but even strengthened it.
> Correlative «не только … а даже»: «Не только не ослабило … а даже усилило» — "not only did not weaken … but even strengthened." The paired construction «не только (не) … а (и)» builds a rising contrast, with «а» (not «но») as the hinge and «даже» ("even") capping the climax. Both verbs are perfective, marking the interview's two decisive effects.
> «Подсудимый» — the defendant: «Подсудимый» is the legal term for the accused on trial, literally "the one under judgment" (from «суд», court). Applied to Mitya it quietly fixes his new status awaiting the assize. It is a substantivized adjective and here stands in the instrumental after «с».

Брата он нашел тогда в беспокойстве, в болезненном волнении.  
He had found his brother then in agitation, in a sickly distress.
> «В» + prepositional for a state: «Нашел … в беспокойстве, в болезненном волнении» — found him "in agitation, in a sickly distress." The preposition «в» + prepositional case here marks the inner state someone is found in. «Болезненном» (morbid, sickly) agrees with «волнении» in the prepositional.

Митя был многоречив, но рассеян и раскидчив, говорил очень резко, обвинял Смердякова и страшно путался.  
Mitya was talkative, but scattered and rambling; he spoke very sharply, accused Smerdyakov, and got himself terribly muddled.
> Chain of short adjectives: «Многоречив … рассеян … раскидчив» are all short-form adjectives serving as predicates after «был» — the bookish, characterizing form. They string Mitya's qualities together economically. «Раскидчив» (scattered, given to spreading himself thin) is a rare, expressive coinage.
> Imperfective verbs painting the manner: The run of imperfective past verbs — «говорил», «обвинял», «путался» — describes how Mitya behaved throughout the scene rather than narrating discrete events. The reflexive «путался» ("got himself tangled/muddled") uses -ся in its middle sense of an action turning back on the doer.

Более всего говорил всё про те же три тысячи, которые «украл» у него покойник.  
Most of all he kept going on about those same three thousand that the dead man had "stolen" from him.
> «Всё … те же» + relative «которые»: «Всё» here is the adverbial "all the time, kept," «те же» means "those same," and the relative «которые» opens a clause about the money. «Три тысячи» triggers... the numeral phrase reads as the long-running obsession. The scare-quoted «украл» (stole) flags it as Mitya's loaded word.

«Деньги мои, они были мои, — твердил Митя, — если б я даже украл их, то был бы прав».  
"The money was mine, it was mine," Mitya kept repeating, "and even if I had stolen it, I would have been in the right."
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы»: «Если б я … украл … то был бы прав» is an irrealis conditional: past-tense verbs plus the particle «бы» (here clipped to «б») in both clauses — "even if I had stolen it, I would have been right." «Прав» is the short-form predicate adjective "in the right."
> Zero copula then «были» — nominative predicate: «Деньги мои» has no verb at all — the present-tense "to be" is simply absent, with «мои» (mine) as a nominative predicate. The echo «они были мои» supplies the past «были», yet keeps the predicate possessive nominative. Mitya's stammering repetition drives home his claim.
> «Твердил» — kept repeating insistently: «Твердить» (imperfective) is to say the same thing over and over, to harp on it. «Твердил Митя» captures Mitya drilling his refrain into Ivan. The imperfective is essential: it is the repetition itself that is being reported.

Все улики, стоявшие против него, почти не оспаривал и если толковал факты в свою пользу, то опять-таки очень сбивчиво и нелепо — вообще как будто даже и не желая оправдываться вовсе пред Иваном или кем-нибудь, напротив, сердился, гордо пренебрегал обвинениями, бранился и кипятился.  
He scarcely disputed any of the evidence ranged against him, and when he did interpret the facts in his own favor, it was again very confusedly and absurdly — in general as though he had no wish whatever to justify himself before Ivan or anyone else; on the contrary, he grew angry, proudly scorned the charges, swore, and flew into a passion.
> Past active participle «стоявшие»: «Стоявшие против него» is the past active participle of «стоять», agreeing with «улики» (the pieces of evidence) — "the evidence that stood / was ranged against him." The participle condenses a «которые стояли» clause into one adjectival phrase, a bookish economy.
> Gerund «не желая» + reflexive «оправдываться»: «Не желая оправдываться» pairs the present gerund «желая» (wishing) with the reflexive infinitive «оправдываться» (to justify oneself), whose -ся turns the action back on the subject. «Как будто» ("as though") frames it as the narrator's inference about Mitya's air.
> «Бранился» / «кипятился» — swore and boiled over: Two vivid imperfective reflexives close the sentence: «бранился» (cursed, railed) and «кипятился» — literally "got himself boiling," i.e. flew into a heated passion (from «кипеть», to boil). The metaphor of boiling for hot temper is idiomatic and richly physical.

Над свидетельством Григория об отворенной двери лишь презрительно смеялся и уверял, что это «черт отворил».  
At Grigory's testimony about the open door he merely laughed contemptuously and insisted that it was "the devil who opened it."
> «Смеяться над» + instrumental: «Смеялся над свидетельством» — "laughed at the testimony." The verb «смеяться над» governs «над» + instrumental («свидетельством») to mean mock or laugh at. The phrase is fronted, foregrounding what Mitya derided. «Лишь» = "merely."
> Past passive participle «отворенной»: «Отворенной двери» (the opened door) shows the past passive participle «отворённый» from perfective «отворить» (to open), agreeing with «двери» in the prepositional after «об». «Отворить» is the somewhat literary, old-fashioned verb for opening a door, beside everyday «открыть».

Но никаких связных объяснений этому факту не мог представить.  
But he could offer no coherent explanation of this fact.
> «Никаких … не» with genitive of negation: «Никаких связных объяснений … не мог представить» — the negative determiner «никаких» plus the obligatory «не» (negative concord), with the object «объяснений» in the genitive of negation. The piled negation drives home that Mitya could give no coherent account at all.

Он даже успел оскорбить в это первое свидание Ивана Федоровича, резко сказав ему, что не тем его подозревать и допрашивать, которые сами утверждают, что «всё позволено».  
He even managed, at this first interview, to insult Ivan Fyodorovich, telling him sharply that it was not for those who themselves maintain that "everything is lawful" to suspect and interrogate him.
> «Успел» + infinitive; gerund «сказав»: «Успел оскорбить» means "managed to / found time to insult" — «успеть» + perfective infinitive. The manner is added by the perfective gerund «сказав» (having said / by saying). The construction wryly notes that Mitya even "managed" to give offence.
> Correlative «тем, которые» (dative): «Не тем … подозревать … которые сами утверждают» — "it is not for those … to suspect … who themselves maintain." The demonstrative «тем» (dative plural) sets up the antecedent that the relative «которые» picks up, an emphatic "those very ones who." The dative «тем» marks the people to whom the act is not fitting.

Вообще на этот раз с Иваном Федоровичем был очень недружелюбен.  
On the whole he was very unfriendly toward Ivan Fyodorovich this time.
> «С» + instrumental for the person: «С Иваном Федоровичем … был … недружелюбен» — "was very unfriendly toward Ivan." The preposition «с» (with) + instrumental names the person one is so disposed toward, and «недружелюбен» is again a short-form predicate adjective. The subject Mitya is dropped, recoverable from context.

Сейчас после этого свидания с Митей Иван Федорович и направился тогда к Смердякову.  
It was right after this meeting with Mitya that Ivan Fyodorovich set off, that same day, to Smerdyakov.
> Emphatic «и» before the verb: Here «и» is not "and" joining clauses but an intensifying particle hugging the verb: «Иван Федорович и направился» = "it was Ivan who then set off / Ivan did set off." Combined with fronted «Сейчас после этого свидания», it stresses the immediacy of his going to Smerdyakov. «Направился» is the perfective reflexive "set off, headed."

Еще в вагоне, летя из Москвы, он всё думал про Смердякова и про последний свой разговор с ним вечером накануне отъезда.  
Already in the railway car, flying from Moscow, he had kept thinking about Smerdyakov and about his last conversation with him, on the evening before his departure.
> Present gerund «летя» of motion: «Летя» is the imperfective present gerund of «лететь» (to fly, unidirectional), used figuratively for the speeding train — "as he flew from Moscow." The gerund sets the simultaneous circumstance for «он всё думал». «Из Москвы» uses «из» + genitive for motion out of.
> Adverbial «всё» + imperfective «думал»: «Всё думал» — "kept thinking, thought and thought." The adverb «всё» (here "all the while, continually") reinforces the imperfective «думал», stressing the unbroken brooding. «Про» + accusative is a colloquial alternative to «о» for "about."
> «Вагон» — railway carriage: «Вагон» (a borrowing from French/German wagon) is specifically a railway carriage. "In the вагон, flying from Moscow" sets Ivan on the train — the modern railway being, by the 1860s–70s, the swift link between Moscow and the provincial towns of the novel.

Многое смущало его, многое казалось подозрительным.  
Much in it troubled him, much seemed suspicious.
> Parallel clauses; instrumental «подозрительным»: Two balanced clauses both open on «многое» ("much, many a thing," a neuter substantivized adjective as subject). «Казалось подозрительным» — "seemed suspicious" — puts the predicate adjective in the instrumental after «казаться», the case linking verbs of seeming require.

Но давая свои показания судебному следователю, Иван Федорович до времени умолчал о том разговоре.  
But in giving his evidence to the examining magistrate, Ivan Fyodorovich for the time being said nothing of that conversation.
> Imperfective gerund «давая» vs perfective «умолчал»: «Давая свои показания» is the imperfective present gerund ("while giving his evidence"), the ongoing frame; against it the main verb «умолчал» is perfective — the single act of "keeping silent about, withholding" that conversation. «Умолчать о» + prepositional means to pass over in silence.

Всё отложил до свидания со Смердяковым.  
He put it all off until he could meet with Smerdyakov.
> Object-first «Всё отложил»; «до» + genitive: The clipped sentence drops the subject and fronts the object «Всё» (everything): "He put it all off." «Отложил» is perfective (set aside), and «до свидания» ("until the meeting") uses «до» + genitive for the time-limit. Terseness mirrors Ivan's resolve.

Тот находился тогда в городской больнице.  
The latter was then in the town hospital.
> «Тот» as 'the latter': «Тот» opens the sentence meaning "the latter, that one" — Smerdyakov, just named — a neat way to keep him the topic without repeating the name. «Находился» (imperfective reflexive, "was situated / was") with «в … больнице» in the prepositional locates him.

Доктор Герценштубе и встретившийся Ивану Федоровичу в больнице врач Варвинский на настойчивые вопросы Ивана Федоровича твердо отвечали, что падучая болезнь Смердякова несомненна, и даже удивились вопросу: «Не притворялся ли он в день катастрофы?»  
Doctor Herzenstube, and the physician Varvinsky, whom Ivan Fyodorovich met at the hospital, both firmly answered his insistent questions that Smerdyakov's falling sickness was beyond doubt, and were even surprised at the question, "Was he not perhaps shamming on the day of the catastrophe?"
> Past active participle «встретившийся»: «Встретившийся Ивану Федоровичу в больнице врач Варвинский» — "the physician Varvinsky, who had met / fallen in with Ivan at the hospital." The participle is from the reflexive perfective «встретиться» and takes a dative «Ивану Федоровичу» (the person met). It packs a whole который-clause before the noun «врач».
> Interrogative particle «ли»: «Не притворялся ли он …?» — "Was he not perhaps shamming?" The enclitic «ли» fronts the focused word («притворялся») and turns the statement into a deliberative yes/no question, more formal than mere intonation. The negative «не» softens it into the tentative "was he not perhaps."

Они дали ему понять, что припадок этот был даже необыкновенный, продолжался и повторялся несколько дней, так что жизнь пациента была в решительной опасности, и что только теперь, после принятых мер, можно уже сказать утвердительно, что больной останется в живых, хотя очень возможно (прибавил доктор Герценштубе), что рассудок его останется отчасти расстроен «если не на всю жизнь, то на довольно продолжительное время».  
They gave him to understand that this fit had been an extraordinary one — it had gone on and recurred over several days, so that the patient's life had been in decided danger, and only now, after the measures taken, could one say with assurance that the sick man would survive, though it was very possible (the doctor Herzenstube added) that his reason would remain partly disordered "if not for the whole of his life, then for a fairly long time."
> «Дать понять» + «что»-clause: «Дали ему понять, что…» is the idiom "gave him to understand that," «дать» + infinitive «понять» + dative «ему». The reported content runs in a «что»-clause. «Необыкновенный» (extraordinary) is the long-form adjective in predicate position with «был».
> Reflexive verbs of process: «Продолжался и повторялся» — "went on and recurred." Both are imperfective -ся verbs in their middle/intransitive sense: the fit continued and repeated itself, with no external agent. The -ся here marks the process as self-contained, happening to the subject.
> Short passive participle «расстроен»: «Останется … расстроен» couples «остаться» (to remain) with the short-form past passive participle «расстроен» (deranged, disordered, from «расстроить»). The short passive form states a resultant condition — his reason "would remain disordered" — exactly as «было написано» states a result.
> Correlative «если не … то»: «Если не … то …» here is not a real conditional but a concessive correlative: "if not X, then (at least) Y" — "if not for the whole of his life, then for a fairly long time." «На» + accusative measures the span of time («на всю жизнь», «на … время»).

На нетерпеливый спрос Ивана Федоровича, что, «стало быть, он теперь сумасшедший?», ему ответили, что «этого в полном смысле еще нет, но что замечаются некоторые ненормальности».  
To Ivan Fyodorovich's impatient demand — "So then, he is now mad?" — they answered that "in the full sense this is not yet so, but that certain abnormalities are observable."
> Zero copula in «он … сумасшедший»: «Он теперь сумасшедший?» needs no verb — present-tense "is" is unexpressed, with «сумасшедший» (mad) as a nominative predicate. «Стало быть» is a conversational "so then, that is to say," pressing the doctors for a verdict.
> Reflexive passive «замечаются»: «Замечаются некоторые ненормальности» — "certain abnormalities are observed/observable." The imperfective -ся on «замечаться» builds an agentless passive: the abnormalities are noticed, with no one named as noticer. This is the standard Russian impersonal-passive of process.

Иван Федорович положил сам узнать, какие это ненормальности.  
Ivan Fyodorovich resolved to find out for himself what these abnormalities were.
> «Положил» = 'resolved'; indirect question «какие»: «Положил … узнать» uses «положить» in its older sense "to resolve, determine" + perfective infinitive. «Сам» (himself) emphasizes Ivan's own initiative. The embedded question «какие это ненормальности» ("what these abnormalities were") uses interrogative «какие» agreeing with the noun.

В больнице его тотчас же допустили к свиданию.  
At the hospital he was admitted to the interview at once.
> Impersonal 3rd-plural 'they': «Допустили» is a bare 3rd-person-plural with no stated subject — the agentless "they admitted him / he was admitted," Russian's common way to leave the actor (the hospital staff) unspecified. «Допустить к» + dative «свиданию» means to admit to the interview.

Смердяков находился в отдельном помещении и лежал на койке.  
Smerdyakov lay in a separate room, on a cot.
> Location in the prepositional: Two prepositional-case phrases set the scene: «в отдельном помещении» (in a separate room) after «в», and «на койке» (on a cot) after «на». Both verbs «находился» and «лежал» are imperfective, holding the still tableau of Smerdyakov lying there.

Тут же подле него была еще койка, которую занимал один расслабленный городской мещанин, весь распухший от водяной, видимо готовый завтра или послезавтра умереть; разговору он помешать не мог.  
Beside him there was another cot, occupied by an enfeebled townsman, a tradesman, all swollen with dropsy and plainly ready to die the next day or the day after; he could be no hindrance to their conversation.
> Relative «которую» in the accusative: «Койка, которую занимал … мещанин» — "a cot, which a townsman occupied." The relative «которую» takes the accusative because it is the object of «занимал» within its clause, while it agrees in gender/number (fem. sg.) with «койка». «Один» here means "a certain."
> «Мещанин» / «водяная» — townsman and dropsy: «Мещанин» is a member of the lowest urban estate, a petty townsman or tradesman — a fixed social-legal category in imperial Russia. «Водяная» (short for «водяная болезнь») is dropsy, the old name for the swelling of oedema. «Распухший» is the past active participle "swollen up."
> «Помешать» + dative «разговору»: «Разговору … помешать не мог» — "could not hinder the conversation." «Помешать» governs the dative of what is hindered («разговору»). Fronting «разговору» before subject and verb makes the dying man's harmlessness to their talk the point.

Смердяков осклабился недоверчиво, завидев Ивана Федоровича, и в первое мгновение как будто даже сробел.  
Smerdyakov gave a distrustful grin on catching sight of Ivan Fyodorovich, and for the first instant seemed even to take fright.
> Perfective gerund «завидев»: «Завидев» is the perfective past gerund of «завидеть» (to catch sight of), marking the instant of seeing that prompts the grin. The prefix «за-» gives the inceptive sense "to spot, glimpse." Animate accusative «Ивана Федоровича» = genitive form, since the name is animate.
> «Осклабиться» / «сробеть» — grin and quail: «Осклабиться» is to grin or bare the teeth, often unpleasantly — a sneering, ambiguous smile, here «недоверчиво» (distrustfully). «Сробеть» (perfective of «робеть») is to lose nerve, take fright, grow timid. Both are vivid, marked verbs that catch Smerdyakov's flicker of fear behind the grin.

Так по крайней мере мелькнуло у Ивана Федоровича.  
So, at least, it flashed upon Ivan Fyodorovich.
> «У» + genitive for the experiencer: «Мелькнуло у Ивана Федоровича» — "it flashed (through the mind) of Ivan." The impersonal perfective «мелькнуло» (neuter, no subject) with «у» + genitive locates the fleeting impression in Ivan. The construction frames perception as something that happens to a person.

Но это было лишь мгновение, напротив, во всё остальное время Смердяков почти поразил его своим спокойствием.  
But it was only an instant; on the contrary, throughout the rest of the time Smerdyakov almost astounded him by his composure.
> Instrumental of means: «спокойствием»: «Поразил его своим спокойствием» — "struck/astounded him by his composure." The instrumental «спокойствием» names that with which Smerdyakov astonished Ivan — the means or cause of the effect. «Своим» is the reflexive possessive pointing to Smerdyakov.

С самого первого взгляда на него Иван Федорович несомненно убедился в полном и чрезвычайном болезненном его состоянии: он был очень слаб, говорил медленно и как бы с трудом ворочая языком: очень похудел и пожелтел.  
From the very first glance at him Ivan Fyodorovich was convinced beyond doubt of his thoroughly and exceedingly sick condition: he was very weak, spoke slowly and as though turning his tongue with difficulty; he had grown very thin and sallow.
> «Убедиться в» + prepositional: «Убедился в … состоянии» — "became convinced of his condition." The reflexive «убедиться» governs «в» + prepositional for what one is persuaded of. The adjectives «полном … болезненном» and «его» all agree with «состоянии» in the prepositional.
> Present gerund «ворочая»: «Ворочая языком» is the imperfective present gerund of «ворочать» (to turn, shift heavily) — "turning his tongue with difficulty," describing the laboured slowness of his speech as a simultaneous manner. «Как бы» ("as though") flags it as the narrator's impression.
> Inceptive «по-» verbs of change: «Похудел» (grew thin) and «пожелтел» (turned yellow/sallow) are perfectives in «по-» that name a completed change of state reached. The pair compactly registers the physical ravage of Smerdyakov's illness — he has "become" thin and yellowed.

Во все минут двадцать свидания жаловался на головную боль и на лом во всех членах.  
Throughout the whole twenty minutes of the interview he complained of a headache and of aching in all his limbs.
> Approximative inversion «минут двадцать»: «Минут двадцать» inverts numeral and noun to mean "about twenty minutes" — putting the genitive-plural noun «минут» before the numeral signals approximation. The whole phrase «во все … двадцать» ("throughout the whole twenty") frames the span of the interview.
> «Жаловаться на» + accusative: «Жаловался на … боль и на лом» — "complained of a headache and of aching." The reflexive «жаловаться» takes «на» + accusative for what one complains about. The subject (Smerdyakov) is dropped, recoverable from context. «Лом во всех членах» is aching in all the limbs.

Скопческое, сухое лицо его стало как будто таким маленьким, височки были всклочены, вместо хохолка торчала вверх одна только тоненькая прядка волосиков.  
His dry, eunuch-like face seemed to have grown somehow so small; his temple-locks were tousled, and in place of his tuft of hair a single thin little wisp stuck up.
> «Скопческое» — eunuch-like: «Скопческий» means "of a скопец," a castrate — referring to the Skoptsy, a Russian religious sect whose members practised self-castration. Applied to Smerdyakov's «сухое лицо» (dry face) it suggests a beardless, sexless, sickly look. The word carries an uncanny, faintly sinister charge that colours his whole figure.
> Pile-up of diminutives: «Височки» (little temples), «хохолок» (little tuft), «прядка» (little wisp), «волосиков» (little hairs) — a cluster of diminutive suffixes. Here they are not affectionate but diminishing and pitiful, shrinking Smerdyakov's wasted features into something small and faintly contemptible.
> Instrumental predicate «таким маленьким»: «Стало … таким маленьким» — after «стать» (to become) the predicate goes in the instrumental: «таким маленьким» (so small). «Были всклочены» uses the short passive participle «всклочены» (tousled, dishevelled) with «были» to state a result.

Но прищуренный и как бы на что-то намекающий левый глазок выдавал прежнего Смердякова.  
But the screwed-up left eye, as though hinting at something, gave away the old Smerdyakov.
> Present active participle «намекающий»: «Намекающий … левый глазок» — "the left eye, as though hinting at something." «Намекающий» is the present active participle of «намекать» (to hint), agreeing with «глазок» and governing «на что-то» ("at something," the indefinite «-то» pronoun). It condenses a «который намекал» clause into one image.
> «Глазок» — the knowing little eye: «Глазок» is the diminutive of «глаз» (eye). Set against the wasted face, the narrowed, hinting «глазок» is the one feature that "gave away the old Smerdyakov" — the diminutive lending it a sly, beady, sentient quality. Note how it picks up the diminutive run of the previous sentence.

«С умным человеком и поговорить любопытно», — тотчас же вспомнилось Ивану Федоровичу.  
"It is interesting to talk even with a clever man," flashed at once into Ivan Fyodorovich's mind.
> Reflexive «вспомнилось» + dative experiencer: «Вспомнилось Ивану Федоровичу» — "it came back to Ivan's memory." The reflexive «вспомниться» with a dative experiencer frames the remembering as involuntary: the phrase recalls itself to him, rather than he recalling it. A characteristic Dostoevskian rendering of the half-controlled inner life.

Он уселся у него в ногах на табурете.  
He sat down on the stool at the foot of the bed.
> «У него в ногах» — at the foot of the bed: «У него в ногах» literally "at his feet/legs" is the idiom for the foot of a sick person's bed (as «в головах» is the head of it). «Уселся» is the perfective reflexive of «усесться» (to settle oneself down). «На табурете» (on a stool) is prepositional.

Смердяков со страданием пошевельнулся всем телом на постели, но не заговорил первый, молчал, да и глядел уже как бы не очень любопытно.  
With an effort of pain Smerdyakov shifted his whole body on the bed, but did not speak first; he kept silent, and indeed looked now as if not very curious.
> Aspect contrast «заговорил» vs «молчал»: «Заговорил» is the perfective "began to speak" (the inceptive «за-»), here negated: he did not start speaking. Against it stands imperfective «молчал» — "kept silent," an ongoing state. The pairing precisely opposes the non-event to the prolonged silence.
> Connective «да и» — 'and indeed': «Да и глядел…» uses «да и» as an additive connective, "and besides / and indeed," piling on a further observation. «Как бы … не очень любопытно» ("as if not very curiously") hedges the description as the narrator's guarded impression.

— Можешь со мной говорить? — спросил Иван Федорович, — очень не утомлю.  
"Can you talk with me?" asked Ivan Fyodorovich. "I won't tire you much."
> Familiar «ты» and dropped pronoun: «Можешь … говорить?» drops the subject pronoun — the 2nd-singular ending «-ешь» on «можешь» already marks "you (can)." The «ты» form (against polite «вы») signals Ivan's superior, intimate-cum-condescending footing with the servant Smerdyakov. «Очень не утомлю» = "I won't tire you much" (perfective future).

— Очень могу-с, — промямлил Смердяков слабым голосом. — Давно приехать изволили? — прибавил он снисходительно, как бы поощряя сконфузившегося посетителя.  
"I can well enough, sir," Smerdyakov mumbled in a weak voice. "Have you long been pleased to arrive?" he added condescendingly, as though encouraging an abashed visitor.
> «Изволили» — obsequious 'were pleased to': «Приехать изволили» — "were you pleased to arrive," using «изволить» + infinitive, a deferential servant's formula that flatters the addressee's every act as a gracious condescension. Combined with the «-с» particle, it is Smerdyakov's whole sycophantic register — outwardly humble, inwardly mocking.
> The deferential particle «-с»: The little «-с» tacked onto words («могу-с», «да-с», «нет-с») is the "word-erik" particle, a contraction of «сударь» ("sir"). It signals deference or servility toward a social superior. Smerdyakov, a servant, sprinkles it through his speech. Russian has no English equivalent, so we convey the obsequious tone with an occasional "sir" rather than marking each one.
> Gerund «поощряя» of attendant manner: «Как бы поощряя сконфузившегося посетителя» — "as though encouraging an abashed visitor." «Поощряя» is the imperfective present gerund (encouraging) describing the manner of his adding the remark. «Сконфузившегося» is a past active participle modifying «посетителя» (the visitor who had grown embarrassed).

— Да вот только сегодня… Кашу вашу здешнюю расхлебывать.  
"Just today… come to sup up the mess you've brewed here."
> «Расхлёбывать кашу» — to clean up the mess: «Расхлёбывать кашу» (literally "to sup/slurp up the porridge") is an idiom for sorting out a mess someone has made, from «заварить кашу» — "to brew the porridge," i.e. start the trouble. Ivan bitterly tells Smerdyakov he has come to eat the «кашу» Smerdyakov cooked up. The infinitive stands alone as a clipped, grim answer.

Смердяков вздохнул.  
Smerdyakov sighed.

— Чего вздыхаешь, ведь ты знал? — прямо брякнул Иван Федорович.  
"What are you sighing for — you knew, didn't you?" Ivan Fyodorovich blurted out straight.
> Particle «ведь» appealing to shared knowledge: «Ведь ты знал?» — «ведь» appeals to what both already know: "you knew, didn't you / after all you knew." It is the texture of pressing, intimate dialogue. «Чего вздыхаешь» uses colloquial genitive «чего» for «что» ("what / why are you sighing for").
> «Брякнул» — blurted out bluntly: «Брякнуть» (perfective) is to blurt out or come out with something abruptly and tactlessly — originally to make a clattering noise. «Прямо брякнул» ("blurted straight out") catches Ivan's blunt, unguarded directness with the servant.

Смердяков солидно помолчал.  
Smerdyakov kept a dignified silence.
> «По-» of a brief bounded silence: «Помолчал» (perfective, «по-» + «молчать») means "was silent for a while, kept silence a moment" — the «по-» bounds the silence as a short, completed stretch. «Солидно» (gravely, with weight) lends Smerdyakov's pause a self-important dignity.

— Как же это было не знать-с? Наперед ясно было. Только как же было и знать-с, что так поведут?  
"How was one not to know, sir? It was clear beforehand. Only how was one to know, sir, that it would turn out this way?"
> Impersonal infinitive + «было»; «же»: «Как же … было не знать?» is an impersonal construction — neuter «было» plus infinitive «знать», with no nominative subject — "how was one not to know?" The particle «же» adds insistent, rhetorical force. «Знать-с» carries the deferential «-с».
> Impersonal 3rd-plural «поведут»: «Что так поведут?» — "that they would carry it on this way." «Поведут» is the perfective future, 3rd person plural with no named subject, the agentless "they" (the authorities, events). Smerdyakov balances knowing the thing was coming against not foreseeing how it would unfold.

— Что поведут? Ты не виляй! Ведь вот ты же предсказал, что с тобой падучая будет тотчас, как в погреб полезешь? Прямо так на погреб и указал.  
"Turn out what way? Don't dodge! Why, you yourself foretold that the fit would come over you the moment you climbed down into the cellar. You pointed straight at the cellar."
> Stacked particles «ведь … же»: «Ведь вот ты же предсказал» piles three emphatic particles — «ведь» (after all), «вот» (here, look), «же» (it was you who) — to press the accusation home. Such particle clusters are the very signature of Dostoevsky's spoken, badgering dialogue.
> Perfective future «полезешь» = 'the moment you climb down': «Как в погреб полезешь» — "as soon as you climb down into the cellar." «Полезешь» is the perfective future of «полезть» (to start climbing/clambering), and «как» here is temporal "the moment that." «В погреб» (accusative) marks motion into.
> «Вилять» — to dodge, equivocate: «Вилять» literally is to wag (the tail) or swerve; figuratively, to dodge, prevaricate, wriggle out of a straight answer. The negated imperative «не виляй!» — "don't dodge!" — recurs as Ivan's blunt demand for straightness. The imperfective imperative fits a blanket prohibition.

— Вы это уже в допросе показали? — спокойно полюбопытствовал Смердяков.  
"Have you already stated that in the deposition?" Smerdyakov inquired calmly.
> Smerdyakov's polite «вы»: Smerdyakov answers with «вы» (polite/formal you: «показали») while Ivan addresses him with familiar «ты» — the asymmetry marks the master–servant gap. «Показать» here is the legal sense "to depose, state in evidence." «В допросе» (in the interrogation) is prepositional.
> «Полюбопытствовать» — to inquire with curiosity: «Полюбопытствовать» is a faintly bookish, polite verb meaning to ask out of curiosity, to make a curious inquiry. Said of Smerdyakov «спокойно» (calmly), it underlines his unsettling composure — he "inquired" rather than answered, quietly turning the questioning around.

Иван Федорович вдруг рассердился.  
Ivan Fyodorovich suddenly grew angry.
> Inceptive perfective «рассердился»: «Рассердился» is the perfective reflexive "grew angry, got cross" — the prefix «рас-» and -ся mark the entry into the state of anger as a single completed change. «Вдруг» (suddenly) underlines the abruptness of Ivan's flare-up.

— Нет, еще не показал, но покажу непременно. Ты мне, брат, многое разъяснить сейчас должен, и знай, голубчик, что я с собою играть не позволю!  
"No, I haven't stated it yet, but I shall state it without fail. You, brother, must explain a good deal to me now, and mark this, my fine fellow, that I will not let myself be toyed with!"
> Imperative «знай»; reflexive «с собою»: «Знай» is the imperative "know, mark this." «С собою играть не позволю» — "I will not allow [anyone] to play with me": «с собою» is the instrumental of the reflexive pronoun «себя», pointing back to the speaker Ivan. The clipped «собою» is the bookish instrumental (modern «собой»).
> «Голубчик» — 'my dear fellow' (here ironic): «Голубчик» ("little dove," diminutive of «голубь») is normally a warm endearment. In Ivan's mouth, hurled at the servant he is threatening, it turns curdled and menacing — "my fine fellow." The affectionate diminutive carrying a threat is a sharp Dostoevskian effect.

— А зачем бы мне такая игра-с, когда на вас всё мое упование, единственно как на господа бога-с! — проговорил Смердяков, всё так же совсем спокойно и только на минутку закрыв глазки.  
"And why should I play any such game, sir, when all my hope is in you alone, as in the Lord God Himself, sir!" said Smerdyakov, all the while just as perfectly calm, only for a moment closing his little eyes.
> Conditional «бы» in a rhetorical question: «А зачем бы мне такая игра?» — "and why should I want such a game?" The particle «бы» casts the question as hypothetical/deliberative, softening it to "would there be any reason." «Мне» is the dative experiencer ("to me, for me"); the verb "to be" is unexpressed.
> Gerund «закрыв»; diminutives: «Закрыв глазки» is the perfective past gerund of «закрыть» (having closed), an attendant action — closing his eyes "for a little minute" («минутку», diminutive). «Глазки» (little eyes) keeps up the diminutive treatment of Smerdyakov, lending his gesture something feline and sly.

— Во-первых, — приступил Иван Федорович, — я знаю, что падучую нельзя наперед предсказать. Я справлялся, ты не виляй. День и час нельзя предсказать. Как же ты мне тогда предсказал и день и час, да еще и с погребом? Как ты мог наперед узнать, что провалишься именно в этот погреб в припадке, если не притворился в падучей нарочно?  
"In the first place," Ivan Fyodorovich began, "I know that a fit of the falling sickness cannot be foretold in advance. I have inquired about it — don't dodge. The day and the hour cannot be foretold. How, then, did you foretell me both the day and the hour at the time, and the cellar besides? How could you know beforehand that you would fall down into that very cellar in a fit, unless you shammed the fit on purpose?"
> Impersonal «нельзя» + infinitive: «Нельзя … предсказать» is the impersonal modal "one cannot / it is impossible to foretell," «нельзя» + infinitive, with no subject. The object «падучую» is accusative. «Наперёд» (beforehand) is a folksy synonym of «заранее». A textbook subjectless construction.
> «Если не» + perfective past — real condition: «Если не притворился … нарочно» is a real (indicative) conditional: «если» + the perfective past «притворился» — "unless you shammed the fit on purpose." No «бы» here, so it is a genuine open condition, not a counterfactual. «Притвориться в» + prepositional = to feign (the illness).
> Perfective future «провалишься»: «Что провалишься … в этот погреб» — "that you would fall down into this very cellar." «Провалишься» is the perfective future of «провалиться» (to fall through, tumble down). «Именно» ("precisely, that very") and «в … погреб» (accusative of motion) sharpen Ivan's incredulous point.

— В погреб надлежало и без того идти-с, в день по нескольку даже раз-с, — не спеша протянул Смердяков. — Так точно год тому назад я с чердака полетел-с. Беспременно так, что падучую нельзя предсказать вперед днем и часом, но предчувствие всегда можно иметь.  
"I had to go down into the cellar anyway, sir, several times a day even, sir," Smerdyakov drawled unhurriedly. "Just so, a year ago, I fell from the loft, sir. It's quite certain that the falling sickness cannot be foretold ahead by day and hour, but a foreboding of it one can always have."
> Impersonal «надлежало» = 'one had to': «Надлежало … идти» is an impersonal, bookish modal of obligation — neuter «надлежало» + infinitive, "it was incumbent / one had to go." «Надлежать» is a formal, slightly archaic verb, oddly elevated in the servant's mouth (with «-с» appended). No subject is named.
> «Год тому назад»; «с» + genitive of source: «Год тому назад» is the set phrase "a year ago" (with the archaic-flavoured «тому»). «С чердака полетел» — "fell from the loft": «с» + genitive «чердака» marks motion off/down from a surface. «Полетел» (perfective, "went flying, took a fall") is vivid for a tumble.
> «Беспременно» — sub-standard 'certainly': «Беспременно» is a colloquial, semi-illiterate folk variant of «непременно» ("without fail, certainly"). Smerdyakov's speech mixes such peasant forms with affected bookishness — a calculated, slippery idiolect. «Предчувствие … иметь» (to have a foreboding) softens his claim to a mere presentiment.

— А ты предсказал день и час!  
"But you foretold the day and the hour!"
> Contrastive «а» opening the retort: «А ты предсказал…!» opens with the hinge «а» — here adversative, "but / and yet you," snapping back against Smerdyakov's evasion. «Предсказал» is perfective: the single completed act of foretelling. The whole exchange turns on this one fact Ivan keeps hammering.

— Насчет моей болезни падучей-с осведомьтесь всего лучше, сударь, у докторов здешних: истинная ли была со мной али не истинная, а мне и говорить вам больше на сей предмет нечего.  
"As to my illness, the falling sickness, sir, you would do best, sir, to make inquiry of the doctors here — whether it was a genuine one I had or not genuine; and I have nothing more to say to you on the subject."
> Polite imperative «осведомьтесь»; «у» + genitive: «Осведомьтесь … у докторов» — "make inquiry of the doctors," the polite plural imperative (-тесь) of the reflexive «осведомиться». «У докторов здешних» uses «у» + genitive for the source of information. The bookish verb plus «сударь» drips deferential formality even as Smerdyakov stonewalls.
> Indirect question with «ли … али»: «Истинная ли была … али не истинная» — "whether it was genuine or not genuine." The particle «ли» frames the embedded yes/no question, and «али» is a folksy, archaic variant of «или» ("or"), pairing the alternatives. «Истинная» agrees with the implied «падучая» (fem.).
> «Сей» / «на сей предмет» — bookish archaism: «Сей» is the archaic, bookish demonstrative "this" (modern «этот»), and «на сей предмет» is a stiff chancery formula, "on this subject/matter." Such officialese in Smerdyakov's mouth is mock-formal, a way of grandly closing the topic. «Нечего» = "there is nothing (to say)."

— А погреб? Погреб-то как ты предузнал?  
"But the cellar? How did you foreknow about the cellar?"
> The topic-marking clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» fastens onto «погреб» to single it out as the known topic now under interrogation — 'the cellar, that one'. It is the emphatic, topic-flagging «-то», distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то»; here it isolates the very word Ivan keeps returning to.
> «предузнать» — to foreknow: A bookish prefixed verb, «пред-» ('fore-') plus «узнать» ('to find out'), meaning to know in advance. The English 'foreknow' catches its slightly elevated, almost theological ring — apt as Ivan probes whether Smerdyakov had foreknowledge of the murder.

— Дался вам этот самый погреб! Я тогда, как в этот погреб полез, то в страхе был и в сумлении; потому больше в страхе, что был вас лишимшись и ни от кого уже защиты не ждал в целом мире. Лезу я тогда в этот самый погреб и думаю: «Вот сейчас придет, вот она ударит, провалюсь али нет?», и от самого этого сумления вдруг схватила меня в горле эта самая неминучая спазма-с… ну и полетел. Всё это самое и весь разговор наш предыдущий с вами-с, накануне того дня вечером у ворот-с, как я вам тогда мой страх сообщил и про погреб-с, — всё это я в подробности открыл господину доктору Герценштубе и следователю Николаю Парфеновичу, и всё они в протокол записали-с. А здешний доктор господин Варвинский так пред всеми ими особо настаивали, что так именно от думы оно и произошло, от самой то есть той мнительности, «что вот, дескать, упаду аль не упаду?» А она тут и подхватила. Так и записали-с, что беспременно этому так и надо было произойти, от единого то есть моего страху-с.  
"You will keep on about that cellar! When I climbed down into it then, I was in dread and in doubt — and the more in dread because I had lost you and had no protection to look for from anyone in the whole world. So I climb down into that very cellar and I think: 'Here it comes now, here it strikes; shall I fall or not?' — and from that very doubt the inevitable spasm suddenly gripped me by the throat, sir… well, and down I went. All of this, and our whole previous conversation with you, sir, by the gate on the evening before that day, sir — how I told you my dread then and about the cellar, sir — I disclosed it all in detail to Mr. Doctor Herzenstube and to the magistrate Nikolai Parfenovich, and they put it all down in the record, sir. And the doctor here, Mr. Varvinsky, before them all especially insisted that it came about precisely from the thought — from that very apprehension, that is, 'What if I fall or not?' And then it seized me. So they wrote it down, sir, that this was bound to come about just so, from my single fear alone, sir, that is."
> «дался вам…» — 'why do you keep harping on…': An idiom: the reflexive past «дался» plus a dative («вам») expresses exasperation at someone's fixation — 'you won't let go of that cellar!' Literally 'that very cellar has given itself to you', it is a stock colloquial reproach.
> «сумление» — peasant «сомнение»: «Сумление» is a substandard, dialectal deformation of «сомнение» ('doubt'). Dostoevsky uses it, like «сумление» and the «-с» endings throughout, to render Smerdyakov's half-educated servant's speech on the page.
> Non-standard gerund «лишимшись»: A deliberately illiterate perfective past gerund: standard Russian would say «лишившись вас» ('having lost you'). The clumsy «-мши» form, fused with «был» into a faux perfect, is a marker of low-register, uneducated speech that Dostoevsky plants in Smerdyakov's mouth.
> Negative concord with «ни… не»: The «ни»-phrase «ни от кого» ('from no one') obligatorily keeps the verbal «не» («не ждал») — Russian piles negatives that resolve to a single negation. Note too the genitive object «защиты» under negation: the expected accusative shifts to genitive.
> Historic present in narration: Smerdyakov switches mid-story to the imperfective present («лезу… думаю» — 'I climb… I think') though narrating the past. This vivid 'historic present' drags the listener into the moment; the imperfective foregrounds the action as ongoing process.
> «али» — folk 'or': «Али» is a colloquial, folksy variant of «или» ('or'), recurring in Smerdyakov's speech (and again as «аль» below). It belongs to the rustic, half-literate register Dostoevsky builds for him.
> «неминучий» — folk 'unavoidable': «Неминучий» is a colloquial doublet of bookish «неминуемый» ('inescapable, fated'). Paired with «спазма» (here feminine, the older gender of the loanword) it has a fatalistic, folk-superstitious colour — the fit as something destined.
> Honorific plural for one person: «Доктор… настаивали» and elsewhere «Дмитрий Федорович… не сделали» take plural verbs for a single, socially superior individual. This deferential 'respectful plural' is a servant's grammar — Smerdyakov elevates his betters by pluralising the verb agreeing with them.

Проговорив это, Смердяков, как бы измученный утомлением, глубоко перевел дыхание.  
Having said this, Smerdyakov, as though worn out with exhaustion, drew a deep breath.
> Perfective past gerund «проговорив»: A textbook «деепричастие»: the perfective gerund «проговорив» ('having said') names an action completed just before the main verb «перевел дыхание». It must share the main subject (Smerdyakov) and compresses 'when he had said this' into one word — the hallmark of literary narration.
> Short-stem participle + «как бы»: «Измученный» is a past passive participle ('worn out') used adjectivally, and «как бы» ('as if, as though') hedges the narrator's claim — a favourite Dostoevskian qualifier that keeps the inner state provisional, an appearance rather than a fact.

— Так ты уж это объявлял в показании? — спросил несколько опешенный Иван Федорович.  
"So you have already declared this in your evidence?" asked Ivan Fyodorovich, somewhat taken aback.
> The frustrative particle «было»: «Было» after a past-tense verb marks an action begun or intended but cut short or reversed — 'was about to / set out to'. Here «объявлял было»-type force gives 'he had meant to frighten him', an intention overtaken by events; it recurs as «хотел было вернуться» below.
> «опешить» — to be taken aback: «Опешить» means to be suddenly bewildered, knocked off balance; the participle «опешенный» renders Ivan momentarily stumped that Smerdyakov has pre-empted his threat. A vivid, slightly colloquial verb of sudden confusion.

Он именно хотел было пугнуть его тем, что объявит про их тогдашний разговор, а оказалось, что тот уж и сам всё объявил.  
He had meant precisely to frighten him with the threat of declaring their conversation of that time, and it turned out that the man had already declared it all himself.
> Correlative «тем, что…»: The instrumental demonstrative «тем» ('by that') sets up a correlative answered by the «что»-clause — 'frighten him by the [fact] that he would declare…'. This тот/то + что scaffolding lets Russian nominalise a whole clause and slot it into a case.
> Impersonal «оказалось» + «тот»: «Оказалось» ('it turned out') is a subjectless impersonal verb introducing a что-clause. Within it «тот» ('that one, the man') is used pronominally for Smerdyakov, the way Russian narrative tracks a referent already in focus.

— Чего мне бояться? Пускай всю правду истинную запишут, — твердо произнес Смердяков.  
"What have I to be afraid of? Let them write down the whole truth, the real truth," Smerdyakov pronounced firmly.
> Genitive object of «бояться» + dative subject: «Бояться» ('to fear') is an inherently reflexive «-ся» verb that governs the genitive, hence «чего» (gen. of «что») rather than accusative. The experiencer stands in the dative («мне») in this subjectless rhetorical question — 'what is there for me to fear?'
> Third-person imperative with «пускай»: «Пускай» (colloquial for «пусть») plus a third-person perfective («запишут») forms a let-them imperative — 'let them write down'. The perfective frames the writing as a single completed act, and «запишут» without a stated subject leaves the officials implicit.

— И про наш разговор с тобой у ворот всё до слова рассказал?  
"And our conversation by the gate — you recounted it all, word for word?"
> «до слова» — 'word for word': The idiom «до слова» ('down to the [last] word') means verbatim, exhaustively. The genitive after «до» is governed by the preposition; the phrase recurs in the next exchange as Smerdyakov qualifies how completely he confessed.

— Нет, не то чтобы всё до слова-с.  
"No, not quite word for word, sir."
> «не то чтобы» — hedged negation: «Не то чтобы…» ('not exactly / not that…') is a fixed concessive hedge that softens and qualifies a denial. Smerdyakov uses it to half-admit, half-deny — he told them, but 'not exactly word for word, sir'.

— А что представляться в падучей умеешь, как хвастался мне тогда, тоже сказал?  
"And that you can sham a fit, as you boasted to me then — did you tell them that too?"
> «падучая» — the falling-sickness: «Падучая» (from «падать», 'to fall') is the old folk name for epilepsy, literally 'the falling [болезнь]'. «Представляться в падучей» is to feign an epileptic fit — Smerdyakov's alleged trick, central to the question of his alibi.
> «хвастаться» — to boast: An imperfective «-ся» verb of vaunting oneself; the imperfective past «хвастался» frames the boasting as a remembered act of that earlier conversation. Echoed below by «похвалиться» ('to show off a little').

— Нет, этого тоже не сказал-с.  
"No, that I did not tell either, sir."

— Скажи ты мне теперь, для чего ты меня тогда в Чермашню посылал?  
"Tell me now: why did you send me off to Chermashnya that time?"
> «для чего» + imperfective of attempt: «Для чего» ('for what, to what end') asks purpose. The imperfective past «посылал» (vs. perfective «послал») frames the sending as a process or repeated urging — 'why were you sending / trying to send me' — fitting an action whose success Ivan is now questioning.

— Боялся, что в Москву уедете, в Чермашню всё же ближе-с.  
"I was afraid you'd go off to Moscow; Chermashnya is nearer, all the same, sir."
> Dropped subject + perfective future in «что»-clause: «Боялся» drops its subject (recoverable as 'I'), normal where the ending and context suffice. Inside the «что»-clause the perfective «уедете» ('you would go off [for good]') has future force — a feared single departure — and «уедете» is the respectful 2nd-pl. «вы».
> Bare comparative «ближе»: «Ближе» is the invariable predicative comparative of «близкий» ('near') — 'nearer'. The particle «всё же» ('all the same, still') concedes the point grudgingly; together a quiet, characteristic hedge.

— Врешь, ты сам приглашал меня уехать: уезжайте, говорил, от греха долой!  
"You're lying — you yourself urged me to leave: 'Go away,' you said, 'out of harm's way!'"
> «врать» — to lie / talk rot: «Врёшь!» ('you're lying!') is blunt, colloquial, and confrontational — sharper than the neutral «лгать». Ivan throws it at Smerdyakov repeatedly here, the verbal jab of a man who feels manipulated.
> «от греха долой» — out of harm's way: A set phrase, literally 'away from sin', meaning to remove oneself from trouble before it happens. «Долой» ('away with, off') is an emphatic adverb of riddance; the whole idiom recurs as «от греха» throughout the chapter, freighting Smerdyakov's advice with ominous double meaning.
> Reported speech as bare imperative: Ivan quotes Smerdyakov's words directly — the imperfective imperative «уезжайте» ('keep going away / go away') — framed only by the dropped-subject «говорил». Russian freely drops «я» and embeds raw quotation without 'that', giving dialogue its clipped immediacy.

— Это я тогда по единому к вам дружеству и по сердечной моей преданности, предчувствуя в доме беду-с, вас жалеючи. Только себя больше вашего сожалел-с. Потому и говорил: уезжайте от греха, чтобы вы поняли, что дома худо будет, и остались бы родителя защитить.  
"That I said then out of pure friendship for you and out of my heartfelt devotion, foreseeing trouble in the house, sir, out of pity for you. Only I pitied my own self more than you, sir. That is why I said: go away, out of harm's way — so that you would understand that ill would befall at home, and would stay to defend your parent."
> «единый» — bookish 'sole, pure': «Единый» ('one and only, sole') is an elevated, Church-Slavonic-flavoured word for ordinary «один»; «по единому дружеству» = 'out of pure friendship alone'. Smerdyakov sprinkles such pious-bookish touches («по сердечной преданности») to dress up his motives, and «единый» returns below in «от единого моего страху».
> Imperfective present gerund «предчувствуя»: «Предчувствуя» ('foreseeing, having a foreboding of') is an imperfective present «деепричастие» expressing an action simultaneous with the main verb. It opens a chain of gerunds typical of literary Russian and recurs across the chapter («жалеючи», «себя спасая», «знамши»).
> Folk gerund «жалеючи»: «Жалеючи» ('pitying') is a folksy, archaic present gerund in «-ючи» (vs. standard «жалея»). The old «-учи/-ючи» form survives in songs, proverbs, and peasant speech — Dostoevsky uses it to colour Smerdyakov's voice with rustic sentiment.
> Purpose «чтобы» with past-form irrealis: «Чтобы» here means 'so that' and obligatorily takes the past-form verb («поняли… остались») as its irrealis, not a present or future. The stray «бы» on «остались бы» merely reinforces the «чтобы» already containing it — a redundancy natural in spoken style.

— Так ты бы прямее сказал, дурак! — вспыхнул вдруг Иван Федорович.  
"Then you should have said it more plainly, you fool!" Ivan Fyodorovich suddenly flared up.
> Conditional «бы» as reproachful 'should have': Past-tense «сказал» plus «бы» yields the irrealis — but in this exclamatory frame it carries the sense 'you ought to have said it!'. Russian commonly uses the subjunctive for retrospective reproach; «прямее» is the bare comparative 'more plainly'.
> «вспыхнуть» — to flare up: Literally 'to blaze up, catch fire', «вспыхнуть» is used of a sudden flush of anger — Ivan 'flared up'. The perfective marks the instantaneous flash; it recurs as «вспыхнув» and underlies the chapter's portrait of Ivan's frayed nerves.

— Как же бы я мог тогда прямее сказать-с? Один лишь страх во мне говорил-с, да и вы могли осердиться. Я, конечно, опасаться мог, чтобы Дмитрий Федорович не сделали какого скандалу, и самые эти деньги не унесли, так как их всё равно что за свои почитали, а вот кто же знал, что таким убивством кончится? Думал, они просто только похитят эти три тысячи рублей, что у барина под тюфяком лежали-с, в пакете-с, а они вот убили-с. Где же и вам угадать было, сударь?  
"And how could I have said it more plainly then, sir? It was fear alone that spoke in me, sir, and besides, you might have taken offense. I might, of course, have feared that Dmitri Fyodorovich would make some scandal and carry off those very same notes — for he reckoned them his own all the same — but who could have known then that it would end in such a murder? I thought they'd simply make off with those three thousand rubles that lay under the master's mattress, sir, in the packet, sir; but instead they killed him, sir. How were you to guess it either, sir?"
> Conditional «мог бы» + insistent «же»: «Мог бы… сказать» is the past-conditional 'could I have said'. The modal particle «же» injects insistent, slightly indignant appeal — 'how on earth could I…?' — and «бы» leans onto the first stressed words, as it tends to.
> Fear-clause «чтобы… не» + genitive object: After «опасаться» ('to fear'), «чтобы… не» introduces the feared outcome with the past-form irrealis — 'lest D.F. make some scandal'. The honorific plural «не сделали» again exalts D.F., and «какого скандалу» shows the genitive of negation (note the old partitive «-у» in «скандалу»).
> «почитать за своё» — to reckon as one's own: «Почитать за…» (here imperfective «почитали») is a bookish idiom 'to consider / reckon as'. Dmitri 'reckoned the money his own' — «за свои» using the reflexive possessive «свой». The verb is loftier than plain «считать».
> «убивство» — folk «убийство»: «Убивство» is a colloquial/older form of «убийство» ('murder'). The substandard variant, like «сумление» and «оченно», stations Smerdyakov firmly in the half-literate servant class even as he reasons with disconcerting subtlety.
> «сударь» — the full honorific 'sir': «Сударь» is the polite address to a gentleman, the unclipped source of the clitic «-с». Smerdyakov ends his speech with the full «сударь?», a flourish of deference whose excess, given the matter, verges on the mocking.

— Так если сам говоришь, что нельзя было угадать, как же я мог догадаться и остаться? Что ты путаешь? — вдумываясь, проговорил Иван Федорович.  
"Well, if you yourself say it could not be guessed, then how could I have guessed it and stayed? What are you muddling about?" said Ivan Fyodorovich, pondering.
> Modal «мог» + perfective infinitives: «Мог догадаться и остаться» ('could I have guessed and stayed') pairs «мочь» with two perfective infinitives, each naming a single completed act. The particle «же» again voices the exasperated rhetorical edge, while the conditional past force ('could have') is carried by «мог» alone.
> Present gerund «вдумываясь»: «Вдумываясь» ('pondering, thinking deeply into') is an imperfective present gerund tagging the manner of Ivan's speech — he speaks 'while pondering'. Such a gerund framing a speech verb is a standard Dostoevskian narrative move.

— А потому и могли догадаться, что я вас в Чермашню направляю вместо этой Москвы-с.  
"You might have guessed it from this, sir — that I was directing you to Chermashnya instead of that Moscow, sir."
> «потому… что» split for causal force: Smerdyakov opens with the consequence — «потому и могли догадаться» ('that is just why you could have guessed') — and the «что»-clause delivers the cause. The fronted «а потому» ('and that's why') gives a triumphant, clinching rhetoric; «направляю» is historic present.

— Да как тут догадаться!  
"How was one to guess from that!"
> Subjectless infinitive of impossibility: A bare infinitive «догадаться» with no subject expresses the impossibility of the act — 'how was one to guess!'. The opening «да» is an exasperated discourse particle ('come now, but') and «тут» ('here, from that') points back to Smerdyakov's hint.

Смердяков казался очень утомленным и опять помолчал с минуту.  
Smerdyakov seemed very tired and again kept silent for a minute.
> «по-» of brief duration + «с» of approximation: The prefix «по-» on «помолчать» ('to be silent for a while') makes a delimitative perfective — silence for a bounded little span. The preposition «с» plus accusative «с минуту» means 'about a minute', an approximative reading of «с».

— Тем самым-с догадаться могли-с, что коли я вас от Москвы в Чермашню отклоняю, то, значит, присутствия вашего здесь желаю ближайшего, потому что Москва далеко, а Дмитрий Федорович, знамши, что вы недалеко, не столь ободрены будут. Да и меня могли в большей скорости, в случае чего, приехать и защитить, ибо сам я вам на болезнь Григория Васильича к тому же указывал, да и то, что падучей боюсь. А объяснив вам про эти стуки, по которым к покойному можно было войти, и что они Дмитрию Федоровичу через меня все известны, думал, что вы уже сами тогда догадаетесь, что они что-нибудь непременно совершат, и не то что в Чермашню, а и вовсе останетесь.  
"You might have guessed from this very thing, sir — that if I'm turning you away from Moscow toward Chermashnya, it means I want your presence here closer at hand, sir, because Moscow is far off, whereas Dmitri Fyodorovich, knowing you are not far away, would be the less emboldened. And you could, in case of anything, come the quicker and defend me — for I myself had besides pointed out to you Grigory Vasilyich's illness, sir, and that I was afraid of a fit. And in explaining to you about those knocks, by which one could get in to the deceased, and that they were all known to Dmitri Fyodorovich through me, I thought you would by then guess for yourself that they would certainly do something — and not go off to Chermashnya at all, but stay altogether."
> Folk «коли… то» conditional: «Коли» is a colloquial/archaic 'if', answered by the resumptive «то» ('then') — 'if I'm turning you away…, then it means…'. The real-condition pair uses the indicative present «отклоняю», not «бы», and «коли» recurs throughout Smerdyakov's speech for «если».
> Short passive participle in the future: «Ободрены будут» joins the future of «быть» to the short past-passive participle «ободрены» ('emboldened') — the periphrastic passive in future tense. «Столь» ('so') is the bookish correlate of «так», heightening the register.
> Illiterate gerund «знамши»: «Знамши» is a substandard perfective-style gerund from «знать», where literate Russian would use the imperfective «зная» ('knowing'). The «-мши» ending is a strong marker of uneducated speech — Dostoevsky's repeated phonetic-grammatical brand on Smerdyakov.
> «ибо» — bookish 'for, because': «Ибо» is a high-register, archaic causal conjunction ('for, inasmuch as'), at home in Scripture, sermon, and 19th-c. prose. Its appearance in a servant's mouth is part of the strange mix of low dialect and lofty borrowed phrasing that makes Smerdyakov's speech so uncanny.
> Indefinite «что-нибудь» + perfective future: «Что-нибудь» marks a non-specific 'something, anything', the «-нибудь» series for an unknown-and-unfixed referent. The perfective future «совершат» ('they would do / carry out') names a single anticipated completed act — 'they would certainly do something'.

«Он очень связно говорит, — подумал Иван Федорович, — хоть и мямлит; про какое же Герценштубе говорил расстройство способностей?»  
"He talks very coherently," thought Ivan Fyodorovich, "for all his mumbling; what disorder of the faculties was Herzenstube speaking about?"
> «мямлить» — to mumble, drone: «Мямлить» is to speak slowly, indistinctly, hesitantly — to drawl and mumble. Ivan marvels that Smerdyakov reasons 'very coherently' («связно») 'for all his mumbling', a contrast that unsettles him.
> Internal monologue with «же»: Ivan's silent question carries the insistent «же» into free thought — 'what disorder of the faculties, then…?'. «Про» + accusative ('about') is the colloquial counterpart to bookish «о» + prepositional; «расстройство способностей» echoes Herzenstube's clinical diagnosis.

— Хитришь ты со мной, черт тебя дери! — воскликнул он, осердившись.  
"You're playing tricks on me, the devil take you!" he exclaimed, growing angry.
> «хитрить» — to be sly, scheme: «Хитрить» ('to play sly, use cunning') accuses Smerdyakov of crafty maneuvering. The fronted verb with post-posed «ты» («хитришь ты») throws the stress onto the action — 'you're scheming with me!' — typical emphatic word order in heated speech.
> «чёрт тебя дери» — 'the devil take you': A common curse, literally 'may the devil tear you'; «дери» is the imperative of «драть» in an optative malediction. Ivan flings it twice in the chapter — colloquial, hot-tempered, and, given the novel's diabolic undercurrents, quietly charged.
> Past gerund «осердившись»: «Осердившись» ('having grown angry') is a perfective past gerund framing the manner of his exclamation. The verb «осердиться» itself is an older/colloquial doublet of «рассердиться»; the gerund places the anger just prior to and attending the outburst.

— А я, признаться, тогда подумал, что вы уж совсем догадались, — с самым простодушным видом отпарировал Смердяков.  
"And I, I'll confess, thought then that you had altogether guessed it," Smerdyakov parried with the most ingenuous air.
> «отпарировать» — to parry (a thrust): A fencing metaphor borrowed into speech: «отпарировать» ('to parry, riposte') casts the dialogue as a duel. Smerdyakov 'parries' Ivan's accusation — the verb tells us this verbal fencing-match has a winner.
> «простодушный» — guileless, simple-hearted: «Простодушный» ('simple-souled, ingenuous') is the keyword of Smerdyakov's self-presentation in this chapter — he repeatedly pleads «простодушие». The superlative-flavoured «с самым… видом» ('with the most… air') underlines the studied innocence of the mask.

— Кабы догадался, так остался бы! — вскричал Иван Федорович, опять вспыхнув.  
"If I'd guessed it, I would have stayed!" cried Ivan Fyodorovich, flaring up again.
> Folk counterfactual «кабы… так… бы»: «Кабы» is a colloquial/folk fusion of «как бы / если бы» ('if [only]'), opening an unreal past condition; the apodosis «остался бы» supplies the «бы» + past-form subjunctive. 'Had I guessed, I'd have stayed' — a pure contrary-to-fact conditional in rustic dress.

— Ну-с, а я-то думал, что вы, обо всем догадамшись, скорее как можно уезжаете лишь от греха одного, чтобы только убежать куда-нибудь, себя спасая от страху-с.  
"Well now, sir, and I had thought that you, having guessed everything, were getting away as quick as ever you could, only out of harm's way — just to run off somewhere, saving yourself from fear, sir."
> Illiterate gerund «догадамшись»: Another «-мши» monstrosity: «догадамшись» for standard «догадавшись» ('having guessed'). The perfective past gerund names a prior completed act, but its deformed shape keeps Smerdyakov's diction conspicuously low even as he reconstructs Ivan's supposed reasoning.
> Reflexive «себя» + gerund + partitive «-у»: «Себя спасая» ('saving yourself') uses the reflexive object pronoun «себя» (no nominative form) with a present gerund. Note «от страху» with the old partitive/second-genitive «-у» ending instead of «-а» — an archaic-colloquial touch frequent in Smerdyakov's speech.
> The contrastive «а» + emphatic «я-то»: «А» opens a mild contrast/topic-shift ('well now, whereas I…'), and the clitic «-то» on «я» foregrounds the speaker against the other view — 'I, for my part, had thought'. Two tiny words load the line with insinuation.

— Ты думал, что все такие же трусы, как ты?  
"You thought everyone was as much a coward as you?"
> Comparison «такой же… как» + nominative predicate: «Такие же… как» ('just the same… as') sets up an equative comparison; «же» here reinforces sameness, not insistence. The predicate noun «трусы» ('cowards') stands in the nominative in the zero-copula present — 'everyone is as much a coward as you'.

— Простите-с, подумал, что и вы, как и я.  
"Forgive me, sir, I thought that you too were like myself."
> Elliptical predicate with twin «и… и»: The clause has no verb after «вы» — 'that you too, just like me [were a coward]' — Russian readily drops the recoverable predicate. The repeated additive «и… и» ('you too… as I') quietly levels Ivan with the self-confessed coward, the sting Smerdyakov intends.

— Конечно, надо было догадаться, — волновался Иван, — да я и догадывался об чем-нибудь мерзком с твоей стороны… Только ты врешь, опять врешь, — вскричал он, вдруг припомнив. — Помнишь, как ты к тарантасу тогда подошел и мне сказал: «С умным человеком и поговорить любопытно». Значит, рад был, что я уезжаю, коль похвалил?  
"Of course I ought to have guessed," Ivan said, agitated, "and indeed I did surmise some vileness on your part… Only you're lying, lying again," he cried, suddenly recalling. "Remember how you came up to the carriage that time and said to me: 'It is interesting to talk even with a clever man.' That means you were glad I was leaving, since you praised me for it?"
> Imperfective «догадывался» of repeated surmise: Against the perfective «догадаться» (a single act of guessing), the imperfective «догадывался» casts Ivan's suspicion as an ongoing, recurrent surmising — 'I did keep surmising'. The «и» before it is emphatic ('indeed I did'); «об чём-нибудь» again the non-specific «-нибудь».
> «мерзость» — vileness, baseness: «Мерзость» ('foulness, abomination') and its adjective «мерзкий» recur as Ivan's word for what he expected of Smerdyakov. It is a strong moral-disgust term, weightier than 'nastiness', and threads through Ivan's whole reckoning with his own complicity.
> «тарантас» — the springless travelling cart: A «тарантас» is a long, springless four-wheeled carriage on flexible wooden poles, the standard conveyance for rough Russian country roads. Smerdyakov came up to it as Ivan set off — a homely period detail anchoring the remembered scene.
> «коль» causal + short adjective «рад»: «Коль» (clipped «коли») here reads causally — 'since you praised'. «Рад» is a short-form adjective that exists only as a predicate ('glad'), and «значит» ('that means, so') threads Ivan's deduction. The imperfective «уезжаю» is historic present inside the quotation of feeling.

Смердяков еще и еще раз вздохнул.  
Smerdyakov sighed yet again and again.
> Iterative «ещё и ещё раз»: The doubled «ещё и ещё раз» ('again and yet again') stresses repetition, yet the verb is the perfective «вздохнул» ('sighed [once]') — each sigh a single completed act, the repetition carried by the adverbial, not by imperfective aspect.

В лице его как бы показалась краска.  
A flush seemed to come into his face.
> Locative-first word order + hedging «как бы»: The sentence opens with the place («в лице его» — 'in his face') and ends with the new information, the subject «краска» ('colour, a flush') — classic topic-comment flow. «Как бы» ('as it were') keeps the observation tentative, the narrator declining to vouch for it fully.

— Если был рад, — произнес он, несколько задыхаясь, — то тому единственно, что не в Москву, а в Чермашню согласились. Потому всё же ближе; а только я вам те самые слова не в похвалу тогда произнес, а в попрек-с. Не разобрали вы этого-с.  
"If I was glad," he pronounced, somewhat short of breath, "it was solely because you agreed to go not to Moscow but to Chermashnya. Because it is nearer, all the same; only those very words I uttered to you then not in praise but in reproach, sir. You didn't make out my meaning, sir."
> Present gerund «задыхаясь»: «Задыхаясь» ('gasping, short of breath') is an imperfective present gerund of attendant manner — he pronounced the words 'while gasping somewhat'. «Несколько» here is the adverb 'somewhat, a little', not the numeral 'several'.
> «в попрек» — by way of reproach: The paired «в похвалу… а в попрек» ('not in praise but in reproach') uses «в» + accusative to mark purpose/manner. «Попрёк» (reproach, a thrown-up grievance) is the key word: Smerdyakov insists his earlier compliment was a veiled rebuke Ivan failed to decode.
> «разобрать» — to make out, decipher: «Разобрать» ('to sort out, make sense of, decipher') with the negative governs the genitive «этого» — 'you did not make this out'. The verb implies Ivan failed to penetrate a hidden meaning, sharpening the chapter's theme of half-understood hints.

— В какой попрек?  
"What reproach?"

— А то, что, предчувствуя такую беду, собственного родителя оставляете-с и нас защитить не хотите, потому что меня за эти три тысячи всегда могли притянуть, что я их украл-с.  
"It was this — that, foreseeing such trouble, you were leaving your own parent, sir, and would not stay to defend us; because over those three thousand I could always be hauled in, on the charge that I had stolen them, sir."
> Fronted object + «собственный» emphasis: The object «собственного родителя» ('your own parent') stands before the verb «оставляете» for accusatory weight — animate masc. accusative borrowing the genitive form. «Собственный» ('one's own') drives home the reproach: it is your own father you abandon.
> «притянуть» — to haul in (to court): Colloquially «притянуть» ('to pull/drag in') means to drag someone into a legal case, to charge or implicate — 'I could always be hauled in'. The image of being physically dragged before the law fits Smerdyakov's fear of standing accused over the stolen money.

— Черт тебя дери! — опять обругался Иван. — Стой: ты про знаки, про стуки эти, следователю и прокурору объявил?  
"Devil take you!" Ivan cursed again. "Wait: did you declare those signals, those knocks, to the magistrate and the prosecutor?"
> Imperfective imperative «стой»: «Стой!» is the imperative of «стоять» ('to stand'), here idiomatic 'wait! hold on!' — Ivan halts the exchange. The imperfective imperative suits a command to stay in a state rather than complete an act.

— Всё как есть объявил-с.  
"I declared it all just as it was, sir."
> «всё как есть» — 'everything just as it is': «Как есть» is a fixed colloquial intensifier meaning 'just as it stands, the whole lot, exactly as it was'. «Всё как есть объявил» — 'I declared it all, every bit'. A flat, total admission, delivered with Smerdyakov's customary «-с».

Иван Федорович опять про себя удивился.  
Ivan Fyodorovich again wondered to himself.
> Reflexive «себя» in «про себя»: «Про себя» ('to oneself, inwardly') uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» (referring to the clause subject, Ivan) after «про». It contrasts with «вслух» ('aloud') — Ivan wonders silently, an inward reaction the narrator keeps tracking.

— Если я подумал тогда об чем, — начал он опять, — то это про мерзость какую-нибудь единственно с твоей стороны. Дмитрий мог убить, но что он украдет — я тогда не верил… А с твоей стороны всякой мерзости ждал. Сам же ты мне сказал, что притворяться в падучей умеешь, для чего ты это сказал?  
"If I thought of anything then," he began again, "it was solely of some vileness on your part. Dmitri might kill, but that he would steal — that I did not then believe… Whereas from you I expected any vileness whatever. You yourself told me that you can sham a fit; why did you say that?"
> Fronted clause + dash for contrast: The «что»-clause «что он украдет» ('that he would steal') is hoisted to the front and set off by a dash, ahead of the main «я не верил» — a marked, emphatic word order isolating the very idea Ivan rejected. «Украдёт» is perfective future ('would steal [and make off]').
> Genitive object of «ждать»: «Ждать» ('to expect, await') governs the genitive when its object is abstract or non-specific — hence «всякой мерзости» ('any vileness'), not accusative. The object precedes the verb for emphasis: from Smerdyakov, Ivan expected any baseness at all.

— По единому моему простодушию. Да и никогда я в жизни не представлялся в падучей нарочно, а так только, чтоб похвалиться пред вами, сказал. Одна глупость-с. Полюбил я вас тогда очень и был с вами по всей простоте.  
"Out of my simple-heartedness alone. And besides, I never in my life shammed a fit on purpose; I said it just so, only to boast a little before you. Mere foolishness, sir. I'd grown very fond of you then and was with you in all sincerity."
> «по простодушию» — 'out of simple-heartedness': «По» + dative of cause names the motive — 'out of my sheer simple-heartedness'. The bookish «единый» ('sole') again inflates the plea; «простодушие» is Smerdyakov's leitmotif self-defense, the innocence he keeps draping over himself.
> Emphatic «никогда… не» + «а так только»: «Никогда… не представлялся» is negative concord ('never did I feign'), reinforced by «в жизни» ('in [all my] life'). The pivot «а так только» ('but just so, for no real reason') is a colloquial dismissive — 'I just said it, that's all'.
> Inceptive «полюбить» — 'grew fond of': The prefix «по-» on «любить» gives an inceptive perfective «полюбить» — not 'loved' but 'came to love, grew fond of'. Smerdyakov's claim to have 'grown very fond' of Ivan, with the verb fronted for warmth, is part of the disarming mask.

— Брат прямо тебя обвиняет, что ты убил и что ты украл.  
"My brother accuses you outright of having killed and of having stolen."
> «обвинять» + «что»-clauses: «Обвинять» ('to accuse') here takes two parallel «что»-clauses reporting the charges as fact — 'accuses you that you killed and that you stole'. The perfectives «убил… украл» each name a single completed deed, the bare accusation in its starkest form.

— Да им что же больше остается? — горько осклабился Смердяков, — и кто же им поверит после всех тех улик? Дверь-то Григорий Васильевич отпертую видели-с, после этого как же-с. Да что уж, бог с ними! Себя спасая, дрожат…  
"And what else is left for them?" Smerdyakov grinned bitterly. "And who is going to believe them after all that evidence? Grigory Vasilyevich saw the door open, sir — after that, how could it be otherwise, sir? Well, never mind, God be with them! Saving themselves, they tremble…"
> Dative + impersonal «остаётся»: An impersonal construction: the dative «им» ('for them') is the experiencer and «остаётся» ('is left, remains') has no nominative subject in the usual sense — 'what else is left for them?'. The «же» sharpens the bitter rhetorical force.
> «осклабиться» — to grin (baring the teeth): «Осклабиться» is to grin, often unpleasantly, drawing back the lips — a sneering or bitter smile, not a warm one. «Горько осклабился» ('grinned bitterly') captures the venom under Smerdyakov's deference here.
> «улика» — a piece of incriminating evidence: «Улика» (gen. pl. «улик») is specifically evidence that incriminates, a damning proof — distinct from neutral «доказательство». The accumulating «улики» against Dmitri are the chapter's engine; the word recurs in «такую улику», «удручавшими уликами».

Он тихо помолчал и вдруг, как бы сообразив, прибавил:  
He fell quietly silent and then suddenly, as though having thought it through, added:
> «как бы» + perfective gerund «сообразив»: «Сообразив» ('having figured / thought it out') is a perfective past gerund of a prior completed act, hedged by «как бы» ('as if') — the narrator presents the inner reckoning as merely apparent. «Соображать/сообразить» is to grasp by quick reasoning.

— Ведь вот-с, опять это самое: они на меня свалить желают, что это моих рук дело-с, — это я уже слышал-с, — а вот хоть бы это самое, что я в падучей представляться мастер ну сказал ли бы я вам наперед, что представляться умею, если б у меня в самом деле какой замысел тогда был на родителя вашего? Коль такое убивство уж я замыслил, то можно ли быть столь дураком, чтобы вперед на себя такую улику сказать, да еще сыну родному помилуйте-с?! Похоже это на вероятие? Это, чтоб это могло быть-с, так, напротив, совсем никогда-с. Вот теперь этого нашего с вами разговору никто не слышит, кроме самого этого провидения-с, а если бы вы сообщили прокурору и Николаю Парфеновичу, так тем самым могли бы меня вконец защитить-с: ибо что за злодей за такой, коли заранее столь простодушен? Все это рассудить очень могут.  
"Look here, sir, this same thing again: they want to lay it on me, that it's the work of my hands, sir — I've already heard that, sir — but take this very point: that I'm a master at shamming a fit. Now would I have told you beforehand that I know how to sham, if I had really had any design then upon your parent? If I had plotted such a murder, could I be fool enough to give such evidence against myself in advance — and to a son of his own, no less, mercy on us, sir?! Is that anything like likely? That this could be so, sir — why, on the contrary, never in the world, sir. There now: this conversation of ours nobody is overhearing, sir, except this same Providence itself, sir; and if you had reported it to the prosecutor and to Nikolai Parfenovich, by that very thing you would have defended me completely, sir — for what sort of villain is that, who is so simple-hearted beforehand? They can very well reason all this out."
> Appealing particle «ведь»: «Ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'after all, you see, look here'. Combined with «вот» it launches the speech with an air of self-evidence, drawing Ivan into Smerdyakov's reasoning as though both already agree. A signature particle of the novel's persuasive dialogue.
> «моих рук дело» — 'the work of my hands': An idiom, «(чьих) рук дело» ('someone's handiwork, someone's doing'), here «моих рук дело» — 'my doing'. The genitive «моих рук» possesses «дело»; the phrase is the everyday way to assign guilt for a deed.
> Conditional «бы» + interrogative «ли»: A rare stacking: «ли» frames the rhetorical yes/no question and «бы» makes it counterfactual — 'would I really have told you beforehand…?'. The two enclitics cluster after the fronted verb «сказал», a markedly literary, argument-building turn.
> Unreal condition with «если б»: «Если б» (= «если бы») opens the contrary-to-fact protasis — 'if I had really had any design'. Possession is framed with «у меня… был» ('I had'), and «замысел» ('a scheme, design') sits in the nominative as the thing possessed.
> Predicate instrumental «дураком» after «быть»: After the infinitive «быть» the predicate noun goes in the instrumental — «быть… дураком» ('to be a fool'). «Можно ли быть столь дураком, чтобы…» ('could one be fool enough that…') ties an impersonal «можно» to a «чтобы»-result clause; «столь» is the bookish 'so'.
> «злодей» + folk doubled «за»: «Злодей» is a villain, an evil-doer — a strong moral word. The construction «что за злодей за такой» doubles the «за» in a folk-emphatic 'what sort of a villain is that', a colloquial intensifier idiomatic in lower-register speech.

— Слушай, — встал с места Иван Федорович, пораженный последним доводом Смердякова и прерывая разговор, — я тебя вовсе не подозреваю и даже считаю смешным обвинять… напротив, благодарен тебе, что ты меня успокоил. Теперь иду, но опять зайду. Пока прощай, выздоравливай. Не нуждаешься ли в чем?  
"Listen," said Ivan Fyodorovich, rising from his seat, struck by Smerdyakov's last argument and breaking off the conversation, "I don't suspect you at all, and I even think it absurd to accuse you… on the contrary, I am grateful to you for setting my mind at rest. I am going now, but I will come again. For now, good-bye, get well. Is there anything you need?"
> Participle + gerund framing one action: Two non-finite forms hang on Ivan: the past passive participle «поражённый» ('struck') describing his state, and the imperfective present gerund «прерывая» ('breaking off') describing simultaneous action. Stacking participle and gerund around a finite verb is the dense literary syntax the catalog flags as characteristic.
> Instrumental of cause/agent: «Поражённый… доводом» ('struck by [the] argument') puts the cause in the instrumental, the case of the means or agent that does the striking. «Довод» is a reasoned argument, a point in debate — it is Smerdyakov's last довод that disarms Ivan.
> «ли» question + «нуждаться в» + prepositional: The interrogative «ли» follows the fronted verb to form a polite yes/no question — 'do you need anything?'. «Нуждаться» governs «в» + prepositional («в чём»), and «чём» here is the indefinite 'anything'. A courteous, faintly formal close.

— Во всем благодарен-с. Марфа Игнатьевна не забывает меня-с и во всем способствует, коли что мне надо, по прежней своей доброте. Ежедневно навещают добрые люди.  
"I am grateful for everything, sir. Marfa Ignatyevna does not forget me, sir, and helps me in everything, whatever I need, out of her old kindness. Good people visit me daily."
> «коли что» + dative-need «надо»: «Коли что» is colloquial 'if anything, whenever there's need'. «Мне надо» is the dative-experiencer construction of necessity — 'I need', with the person in the dative and no nominative subject. «Способствует» ('assists, furthers') is a slightly bookish verb of helping.
> «навещать» — to visit (the sick): «Навещать» is specifically to call on, to visit someone (often the sick or shut-in). «Ежедневно» ('daily') is a bookish-flavoured time adverb. Note the verb-first order with the subject «добрые люди» last — the new information, that kind people come, falls at the end.

— До свидания. Я, впрочем, про то, что ты притвориться умеешь, не скажу… да и тебе советую не показывать, — проговорил вдруг почему-то Иван.  
"Good-bye. By the way, I will not tell anyone that you can sham… and I advise you not to let it be seen, either," Ivan said suddenly, for some reason.
> Correlative «про то, что…» + perfective future: The «про то» ('about that') anticipates the «что»-clause it governs — 'about the [fact] that you can sham, I won't tell'. The negated perfective future «не скажу» ('I will not tell') promises a single withheld act, and the whole object phrase is fronted for weight.
> Dative of the person advised + negated infinitive: «Советовать» takes the dative of the person counselled («тебе») plus an infinitive — 'I advise you not to show [it]'. The negated imperfective infinitive «не показывать» counsels a general abstention from ever letting the trick be seen.

— Оченно понимаю-с. А коли вы этого не покажете, то и я-с всего нашего с вами разговору тогда у ворот не объявлю…  
"I understand very well, sir. And if you don't let that be seen, then I, sir, won't declare that whole conversation of ours by the gate that time…"
> «оченно» — peasant «очень»: «Оченно» is a substandard, rustic deformation of «очень» ('very'). Like «сумление», «убивство», and the «-мши» gerunds, it stamps Smerdyakov's speech as that of a half-educated servant — the low surface beneath which his cold cunning works.
> «коли… то» bargain + paired perfective futures: A tit-for-tat real condition: «коли… не покажете, то… не объявлю» ('if you won't show it, then I won't declare it') links two negated perfective futures. The «и» before «я-с» means 'I too / for my part', sealing the unspoken pact — a quiet, menacing exchange of silences.

Тут случилось так, что Иван Федорович вдруг вышел и, только пройдя уже шагов десять по коридору, вдруг почувствовал, что в последней фразе Смердякова заключался какой-то обидный смысл.  
It then happened that Ivan Fyodorovich suddenly went out, and only after he had gone some ten paces down the corridor did he suddenly feel that there was some insulting sense contained in Smerdyakov's last phrase.
> Perfective gerund «пройдя» + approximative inversion: «Пройдя» ('having walked') is a perfective past gerund of prior action. «Шагов десять» (numeral after the noun) is the approximative inversion — 'some ten paces' rather than exactly ten; the genitive plural «шагов» is governed by the numeral.
> Reflexive «заключаться» + indefinite «какой-то»: «Заключаться в…» ('to be contained / lie in') is a «-ся» verb with middle, non-passive sense — the meaning 'lies within' the phrase. «Какой-то обидный смысл» ('some insulting sense') uses «-то» for a real but not-yet-grasped meaning; «обидный» = offensive, hurtful.

Он хотел было уже вернуться, но это только мелькнуло, и проговорив: «Глупости!» — он поскорее пошел из больницы.  
He was on the point of turning back, but it only flashed through him, and saying, "Nonsense!" he hurried out of the hospital the faster.
> Frustrative «было» again: «Хотел было вернуться» — 'he was on the point of turning back' — the particle «было» marks an impulse begun and at once abandoned, picked up by «но это только мелькнуло» ('it only flashed'). The same «было» appeared in segment 64.
> Prefixed motion «пошёл» + «по-» of haste: «Пошёл» is the perfective of «идти», a prefixed verb of motion marking the start of going. With «поскорее» ('the quicker') and «из больницы» ('out of the hospital', «из» + genitive of source) it renders Ivan's hurried exit; «проговорив» is a prior-action gerund.

Главное, он чувствовал, что действительно был успокоен, и именно тем обстоятельством, что виновен не Смердяков, а брат его Митя, хотя, казалось бы, должно было выйти напротив.  
The chief thing was that he felt he had really been set at ease — and precisely by the circumstance that the guilty one was not Smerdyakov but his brother Mitya, though it might seem the opposite ought to have followed.
> Instrumental cause + short adjective «виновен»: «Успокоен… тем обстоятельством, что…» puts the cause in the instrumental ('set at ease by the circumstance that…'). Inside, «виновен» is a short-form predicate adjective ('guilty'), the bookish predicative form, and the negation «не Смердяков, а брат» pivots on contrastive «а».
> Concessive «хотя» + impersonal «должно было»: «Хотя» ('although') opens a concession, and «должно было выйти» is an impersonal modal of obligation/expectation — 'it ought to have turned out' — with no nominative subject. «Казалось бы» ('one would think') adds the conditional «бы» of supposition; the whole captures Ivan's perverse, guilty relief.

Почему так было — он не хотел тогда разбирать, даже чувствовал отвращение копаться в своих ощущениях.  
Why this was so he did not want to examine then; he even felt a revulsion at rummaging through his own sensations.
> Negated «хотел» + imperfective infinitive: «Не хотел разбирать» ('did not want to examine') joins negated «хотеть» to the imperfective infinitive «разбирать» — the imperfective fits an activity he declines to undertake at all, a refusal of the whole process of self-scrutiny.
> «копаться» — to rummage, dig about: «Копаться в…» ('to dig about / rummage in') is used figuratively of probing one's own feelings — introspective picking-over. «В своих ощущениях» ('in his own sensations', reflexive «свой» + prepositional) makes the self-examination Ivan recoils from vividly physical.

Ему поскорее хотелось как бы что-то забыть.  
He wanted, the sooner the better, somehow to forget something.
> Dative-experiencer «хотелось» + «как бы»: «Ему хотелось» is the impersonal reflexive of desire — the wanter in the dative («ему»), the verb subjectless and reflexive: 'he felt a wish to…'. The hedging «как бы что-то забыть» ('somehow to forget something') keeps the very object of the wish vague, mirroring Ivan's evasion of himself.

Затем в следующие несколько дней он уже совсем убедился в виновности Мити, когда ближе и основательнее ознакомился со всеми удручавшими того уликами.  
Then, over the next few days, he became altogether convinced of Mitya's guilt, when he acquainted himself more closely and thoroughly with all the evidence weighing the man down.
> «убедиться в» + prepositional: The reflexive «убедиться» ('to become convinced') governs «в» + prepositional («в виновности» — 'of the guilt'). «Совсем убедился» ('became altogether convinced') uses the perfective for the completed shift into certainty; «виновность» is the abstract noun 'guilt'.
> Past active participle «удручавшими»: «Удручавшими» is an imperfective past active participle ('that were weighing down') from «удручать», declined to agree with «уликами» in the instrumental plural. It compresses a который-clause ('the evidence which weighed him down') into one modifier, with «того» ('the man, i.e. Mitya') as its object.

Были показания самых ничтожных людей, но почти потрясающие, например Фени и ее матери.  
There was testimony from the most insignificant of people, yet almost shattering — for instance, that of Fenya and her mother.
> Superlative «самых ничтожных» + genitive: «Самых ничтожных людей» ('of the most insignificant people') forms the superlative periphrastically with «самый», which declines with the adjective into the genitive plural. «Ничтожный» ('worthless, negligible') is morally tinged — these lowliest witnesses give 'almost shattering' testimony.

Про Перхотина, про трактир, про лавку Плотниковых, про свидетелей в Мокром и говорить было нечего.  
Of Perkhotin, of the tavern, of the Plotnikovs' shop, of the witnesses at Mokroye, there was no need to speak at all.
> Negative «нечего» + impersonal infinitive: «Нечего говорить» ('there is nothing to say / no need to speak') is a negative existential built on «нечего» (the «не»-pronoun of absence) plus infinitive; past «было» tenses it. The series of «про…» objects fronted before it heaps up the witnesses about whom there was 'nothing to add'.

Главное, удручали подробности.  
Most of all, it was the details that bore him down.
> Verb-first order + «главное» as discourse marker: «Главное» ('the main thing [is]') stands alone as a sentence-opening discourse marker. The verb «удручали» ('weighed down, oppressed') precedes its subject «подробности» ('the details') — verb-first inversion that throws the emphasis onto the oppressing action.

Известие о тайных «стуках» поразило следователя и прокурора почти в той же степени, как и показание Григория об отворенной двери.  
The report of the secret "knocks" struck the magistrate and the prosecutor almost as much as Grigory's testimony about the open door.
> Correlative «в той же степени, как» comparison: «В той же степени, как (и)…» ('to the same degree as…') is a correlative equative comparison: the secret knocks struck the officials as forcibly as Grigory's testimony did. «Той же» uses the demonstrative «тот» + «же» for sameness of measure.
> Past passive participle «отворённой»: «Отворённой» ('opened') is a past passive participle from perfective «отворить», declined to agree with «двери» in the prepositional after «об». It functions as an attributive adjective — 'the opened door' — the crucial detail of Grigory's evidence.

Жена Григория, Марфа Игнатьевна, на спрос Ивана Федоровича, прямо заявила ему, что Смердяков всю ночь лежал у них за перегородкой, «трех шагов от нашей постели не было», и что хоть и спала она сама крепко, но много раз пробуждалась, слыша, как он тут стонет: «Всё время стонал, беспрерывно стонал».  
Grigory's wife, Marfa Ignatyevna, in answer to Ivan Fyodorovich's questioning, told him outright that Smerdyakov had lain all night behind their partition, "not three paces from our bed," and that although she herself had slept soundly, she had woken many times, hearing him groaning there: "He groaned the whole time, groaned without ceasing."
> «на спрос» + verbal noun «спрос»: «Спрос» here is a verbal noun, 'questioning, inquiry' (от «спросить»); «на спрос» means 'in answer to the questioning'. The genitive «Ивана Фёдоровича» is the subjective genitive — Ivan's questioning. A compact, slightly bureaucratic-sounding nominalisation.
> Genitive of negated existence + numeral: «Трёх шагов… не было» — 'there were not [even] three paces' — is the genitive of a negated existential («не было» governs the genitive). «Трёх шагов» also shows the genitive demanded within the negated count; the whole quoted phrase stresses how close Smerdyakov lay.
> Concessive «хоть и… но» + imperfective iteration: «Хоть и… но» ('although… yet') frames the concession. The imperfective «пробуждалась» ('kept waking') with «много раз» ('many times') foregrounds repeated, habitual action, against which «слыша, как он стонет» ('hearing how he groaned') sets the gerund and present-tense reported perception.

Поговорив с Герценштубе и сообщив ему свое мнение о том, что Смердяков вовсе не кажется ему помешанным, а только слабым, он только вызвал у старика тоненькую улыбочку.  
Having talked with Herzenstube and told him his opinion that Smerdyakov did not seem to him deranged at all, but only weak, he merely drew from the old man a thin little smile.
> Two coordinated perfective gerunds: «Поговорив… и сообщив…» chains two perfective past gerunds ('having talked… and having told…'), both completed before the main verb «вызвал» and sharing its subject. The delimitative «поговорить» ('to have a talk') with «по-» bounds the conversation as a finished episode.
> Stacked diminutives «тоненькую улыбочку»: Both words are diminished: «тоненький» (from «тонкий», 'thin') with the «-еньк-» of smallness, and «улыбочка» (from «улыбка», 'smile') with «-очк-». The doubled diminution paints Herzenstube's faint, knowing little smile — expressive suffixes doing the work of a whole adverbial.

«А вы знаете, чем он теперь особенно занимается? — спросил он Ивана Федоровича, — французские вокабулы наизусть учит; у него под подушкой тетрадка лежит и французские слова русскими буквами кем-то записаны, хе-хе-хе!»  
"And do you know what he is now particularly occupying himself with?" the old man asked Ivan Fyodorovich. "He is learning French vocabulary by heart; he has a little notebook lying under his pillow, and the French words have been written down by someone in Russian letters, he-he-he!"
> Instrumental object of «заниматься»: «Заниматься» ('to occupy oneself with') is a «-ся» verb governing the instrumental, hence the interrogative «чем» (instr. of «что») — 'with what is he occupying himself?'. The answer, «французские вокабулы… учит», then shifts to a transitive verb with accusative.
> «вокабула» — a vocabulary-word: «Вокабула» (from Latin vocabula) is a slightly old-fashioned, schoolroom word for a foreign vocabulary-item to be memorised — the sort of term a 19th-c. tutor or pedant like Herzenstube would use. It frames Smerdyakov's odd self-improvement with faintly comic precision.
> Short passive participle + instrumental of agent: «Записаны» is the short past passive participle ('have been written down'), agreeing in plural with «слова»; the agent stands in the instrumental — «кем-то» ('by someone', the indefinite «-то»). «Русскими буквами» ('in Russian letters') is the instrumental of means.

Иван Федорович оставил наконец все сомнения.  
Ivan Fyodorovich had at last set aside all his doubts.
> Perfective past: a decisive break: «оставил» (from perfective «оставить») views the act as a single completed event — he set the doubts aside once and for all. The imperfective «оставлял» would have meant a recurring or attempted laying-aside; the perfective seals it.
> Accusative direct object: «все сомнения» is the accusative plural object of «оставил». For inanimate nouns the accusative matches the nominative, so the case is read from context and the verb's transitivity rather than a distinct ending.

О брате Дмитрии он уже и подумать не мог без омерзения.  
Of his brother Dmitri he could no longer even think without revulsion.
> Fronted prepositional topic: The sentence opens with «о брате Дмитрии» (prepositional after «о», 'about') rather than the verb, throwing the topic — the brother — to the front for emphasis. Both are in the prepositional case and agree, but they take different endings: «брате» ends in -е (брат → о брате), while «Дмитрии» (a name in -ий) ends in -и (о Дмитрии).
> Negated modal + infinitive: «не мог» negates the ability, and «подумать» (perfective infinitive) supplies the act 'to even think'; together: 'he could not so much as think.' The particle «уже и» piles on — 'no longer even.'
> «омерзение» — loathing: A strong, bookish word for physical-moral disgust, stronger than «отвращение». «без омерзения» (without loathing) uses the genitive demanded by «без». Dostoevsky reserves it for Ivan's visceral recoil from Dmitri.

Одно было все-таки странно: что Алеша упорно продолжал стоять на том, что убил не Дмитрий, а «по всей вероятности» Смердяков.  
One thing, however, remained strange: that Alyosha went on stubbornly insisting it was not Dmitri who had done the killing, but, "in all probability," Smerdyakov.
> Imperfective for stubborn duration: «продолжал стоять» (imperfective 'went on standing/insisting') pictures the insistence as ongoing and dogged. The idiom «стоять на том, что…» literally 'to stand on the fact that' means 'to insist that.'
> Contrastive «а»: not X but Y: The frame «не …, а …» corrects rather than merely adds: 'not Dmitri but Smerdyakov.' Here «а» is the sharp contrastive conjunction, pivoting from the denied option to the asserted one.
> «по всей вероятности» — in all probability: A set adverbial phrase, 'in all probability.' The quotation marks in the text flag it as Alyosha's own guarded wording, which Ivan finds maddeningly tentative.

Иван всегда чувствовал, что мнение Алеши для него высоко, а потому теперь очень недоумевал на него.  
Ivan had always felt that Alyosha's opinion carried great weight with him, and so now he was deeply perplexed at him.
> Short adjective as predicate: «высоко» here is the neuter short-form adjective ('stands high / is highly valued'), agreeing with the neuter «мнение». Short adjectives can only predicate, and lend a clipped, evaluative weight typical of the bookish register.
> «а потому» — and so, therefore: «а» links with a light contrastive-consequential shade, and «потому» supplies 'for that reason': the clause draws the inference 'and so now he was perplexed.' A characteristic Russian discourse hinge.
> «недоуме­вать» — to be at a loss: An imperfective verb meaning to be baffled, unable to make sense of something. «недоумевал на него» ('was perplexed at him') is slightly old-fashioned government; modern usage prefers «по поводу него».

Странно было и то, что Алеша не искал с ним разговоров о Мите и сам не начинал никогда, а лишь отвечал на вопросы Ивана.  
This too was strange: that Alyosha did not seek out conversations with him about Mitya, never began them himself, and only answered Ivan's questions.
> Imperfective habitual negation: The three imperfectives «не искал», «не начинал», «отвечал» frame Alyosha's standing habit: he never sought, never began, only answered. The imperfective is the natural aspect for negated repeated behaviour.
> Negative concord with «никогда»: Russian doubles its negatives: «не начинал никогда» = 'never began' with both «не» on the verb and «никогда». The verb must keep «не» even when a negative adverb is present.
> «Митя» — the diminutive of Dmitri: «Митя» (here dative «Мите») is the affectionate short form of «Дмитрий». Its presence in the narrator's voice marks intimacy; alongside formal «Дмитрий», the same brother is named two ways depending on the emotional distance.

Это тоже сильно заметил Иван Федорович.  
This, as well, Ivan Fyodorovich noted very keenly.
> Object-first word order: The object «Это» ('this') leads, the subject «Иван Федорович» trails to the end — the case-free flexibility of Russian lets the known topic come first and the agent land as the stressed new information.

Впрочем, в то время он очень был развлечен одним совсем посторонним обстоятельством: приехав из Москвы, он в первые же дни весь и бесповоротно отдался пламенной и безумной страсти своей к Катерине Ивановне.  
For that matter, at that time he was greatly distracted by something altogether unrelated: having arrived from Moscow, he had, in the very first days, given himself over wholly and irrevocably to his ardent and frenzied passion for Katerina Ivanovna.
> Perfective gerund: 'having arrived': «приехав» is a perfective adverbial participle (деепричастие) from «приехать»: it expresses a prior completed action sharing the main subject — 'having arrived from Moscow, he then gave himself over.' A hallmark of literary narration.
> Dative of surrender + reflexive verb: «отдаться» (reflexive «-ся», 'to give oneself over') governs the dative «страсти своей» — one surrenders *to* something. «своей» is the reflexive possessive, pointing the passion back to the subject.
> «бесповоротно» — irrevocably: An emphatic adverb, 'without turning back, beyond recall' (от «поворот», a turn). Paired with «весь» ('wholly'), it stresses the totality of Ivan's helpless plunge into passion.

Здесь не место начинать об этой новой страсти Ивана Федоровича, отразившейся потом на всей его жизни: это всё могло бы послужить канвой уже иного рассказа, другого романа, который и не знаю, предприму ли еще когда-нибудь.  
This is not the place to begin on this new passion of Ivan Fyodorovich's, which left its mark afterward upon his whole life: all of it might serve as the canvas of another tale, another novel, which I do not even know whether I shall ever undertake.
> Past active participle modifying 'passion': «отразившейся» is a past active participle from reflexive «отразиться» ('which left its mark'), in feminine genitive to agree with «страсти». It compresses a «который»-clause into one declined modifier.
> Conditional «бы»: hypothetical: «могло бы» = past-tense verb + particle «бы», the irrealis: 'might serve.' It frames the other novel as merely possible, never undertaken.
> Embedded «ли»: 'whether': In «не знаю, предприму ли … когда-нибудь», the enclitic «ли» after the fronted verb means 'whether' — 'I don't know whether I shall ever undertake it.' «предприму» is the perfective simple future.
> «канва» — canvas, framework: Literally the open-weave canvas for embroidery; figuratively the underlying outline of a story (here instrumental «канвой» after «послужить»). The narrator's metafictional aside — that this passion could have been 'another novel' — is one of Dostoevsky's signature direct addresses.

Но всё же не могу умолчать и теперь о том, что когда Иван Федорович, идя, как уже описал я, ночью с Алешей от Катерины Ивановны, сказал ему «Я-то до нее не охотник», — то страшно лгал в ту минуту: он безумно любил ее, хотя правда и то, что временами ненавидел ее до того, что мог даже убить.  
Yet even now I cannot pass over in silence the fact that when Ivan Fyodorovich, walking, as I have already described, at night with Alyosha from Katerina Ivanovna's, said to him, "I have no taste for her," he was lying horribly at that moment: he loved her madly, though it is also true that at times he hated her so much he could have killed her.
> Present gerund «идя»: simultaneous action: «идя» (imperfective gerund of «идти') sets the simultaneous frame — 'while walking … he said.' It shares the subject Ivan and is wedged in mid-sentence, a dense participial layering typical of the period style.
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: In «Я-то» the hyphenated «-то» stresses a known topic against an implied contrast — 'I, for my part, have no taste for her.' This is the emphatic «-то», distinct from the indefinite «кто-то».
> Imperfect-tense potentiality: «мог … убить» ('could have killed') uses the imperfective past of «мочь» plus a perfective infinitive to express unrealized capacity. Russian needs no separate 'could have' construction — the bare past of «мочь» carries it.
> «охотник» — one keen on, a fancier: Beyond 'hunter,' «охотник до» (+ genitive) idiomatically means a fan or eager taker of something. «не охотник до нее» = 'not one to fancy her' — Ivan's lie, casual and dismissive.

Тут сходилось много причин: вся потрясенная событием с Митей, она бросилась к возвратившемуся к ней опять Ивану Федоровичу как бы к какому своему спасителю.  
Many causes converged here: shaken to the core by what had happened with Mitya, she threw herself upon Ivan Fyodorovich—returned to her once more—as upon some sort of savior of hers.
> Past passive participle + instrumental agent: «потрясенная» (past passive participle, 'shaken') describes Katerina; the cause «событием» ('by the event') stands in the instrumental — the case of the agent/means with passives.
> Participle inside a prepositional phrase: «возвратившемуся» is a past active participle ('who had returned') in the dative to match «Ивану» after «к». The whole nested phrase 'to Ivan, who had returned to her again' is folded into a single case-marked block.
> «спаситель» — savior: 'Savior, rescuer' (dative «спасителю» after «к»). Capitalized it is Christ; here lower-case and softened by «как бы к какому своему» ('as upon some sort of'), the religious word ironically dresses her flight to Ivan.

Она была обижена, оскорблена, унижена в своих чувствах.  
She had been wronged, insulted, humiliated in her feelings.
> Short passive participles: the periphrastic passive: Three short-form past passive participles join «была» to state a result: 'she had been wronged, insulted, humiliated.' The piled short forms (each feminine to agree with her) give the line its hammered, rhetorical rhythm.

И вот явился опять человек, который ее и прежде так любил, — о, она слишком это знала, — и которого ум и сердце она всегда ставила столь высоко над собой.  
And here again appeared the man who had loved her so even before—oh, she knew this only too well—and whose mind and heart she had always set so high above her own.
> Relative «который» as subject: «который» here is masculine nominative, the subject of its own clause ('who had loved her'), agreeing in gender/number with «человек» but taking the case its role demands.
> Genitive «которого» = 'whose': In «которого ум и сердце … она ставила», «которого» is genitive — 'whose mind and heart.' The relative takes genitive to mark possession within the second clause, neatly distinct from the nominative «который» before it.
> Reflexive «собой»: «над собой» ('above herself') uses the reflexive pronoun «себя» in the instrumental after «над», pointing back to the clause subject Katerina. «столь» ('so, to such a degree') is the bookish counterpart of «так».

Но строгая девушка не отдала себя в жертву всю, несмотря на весь карамазовский безудерж желаний своего влюбленного и на всё обаяние его на нее.  
But the stern girl did not surrender herself wholly in sacrifice, in spite of all the Karamazov unbridledness of her lover's desires and the whole spell he cast over her.
> Reflexive pronoun «себя» as object: Here it is the full pronoun «себя» ('herself'), the accusative object of «не отдала» — contrast the bound clitic «-ся». «не отдала … в жертву» = 'did not give herself up as a sacrifice.'
> «несмотря на» + accusative: The concessive preposition «несмотря на» ('in spite of') governs the accusative, here the long phrase «весь карамазовский безудерж желаний». It frames her restraint against the Karamazov force she resists.
> «безудерж» — unbridledness: A rare, forceful noun (от «удержать», to hold back) meaning total lack of restraint. «карамазовский безудерж» — 'the Karamazov unbridledness' — coins the family name into an adjective, naming the dynastic appetite that runs through all the brothers.

В то же время мучилась беспрерывно раскаянием, что изменила Мите, и в грозные, ссорные минуты с Иваном (а их было много) прямо высказывала это ему.  
At the same time she tormented herself unceasingly with remorse at having betrayed Mitya, and in the menacing, quarrelsome moments with Ivan (and there were many of these) she said as much to him outright.
> Reflexive verb + instrumental of cause: «мучилась» (reflexive «мучиться», 'tormented herself') takes the instrumental «раскаянием» ('with remorse') to name what the torment is *by/with*. The «-ся» turns the transitive 'torment' inward.
> Dative object of «изменить»: «изменить» in the sense 'to betray / be unfaithful' governs the dative: «изменила Мите» = 'betrayed Mitya.' The «что»-clause reports the content of her remorse.
> «ссорный» — quarrel-laden: An expressive adjective from «ссора» (a quarrel): 'quarrelsome, marked by rows.' Paired with «грозные» ('menacing'), it colours the «минуты» with Ivan and Katerina as charged and stormy.

Это-то и назвал он, говоря с Алешей, «ложью на лжи».  
This was precisely what he, speaking with Alyosha, had called "a lie upon a lie."
> Emphatic «-то» + reinforcing «и»: «Это-то и назвал» front-loads and double-stresses the object: '*This* was precisely what he called…' The clitic «-то» pins the topic and «и» ('exactly, indeed') reinforces it — the subject «он» drops to the end.
> «ложь на лжи» — a lie upon a lie: Both nouns are forms of «ложь» (a lie): instrumental «ложью» + prepositional «лжи» after «на». The phrase, set in quotes as Ivan's coinage, evokes the biblical 'line upon line' cadence — falsehood heaped on falsehood.

Тут, конечно, было и в самом деле много лжи, и это всего более раздражало Ивана Федоровича… но всё это потом.  
There was, of course, a great deal of real lying in it, and this above all irritated Ivan Fyodorovich… but all of that comes later.
> «в самом деле» — really, in fact: A fixed adverbial, 'indeed, in actual fact,' often paired (as here, «и в самом деле») to concede a point. «было … много лжи» is a quantity construction: «много» governs the genitive «лжи».
> Superlative «всего более»: «всего более» ('most of all, above all') is a bookish superlative of «более», intensifying 'irritated.' The neuter «это» is subject; «Ивана Федоровича» the accusative object of the impersonal-feeling verb «раздражало».

Словом, он на время почти забыл о Смердякове.  
In a word, for a time he all but forgot about Smerdyakov.
> Perfective «забыл» + prepositional: «забыл» (perfective, 'forgot' as a completed shift) governs «о Смердякове» in the prepositional — Russian 'forgets *about*' something. «на время» ('for a time') and «почти» soften it.

И, однако, две недели спустя после первого к нему посещения начали его опять мучить всё те же странные мысли, как и прежде.  
And yet, two weeks after his first visit to him, the same strange thoughts as before began to torment him once again.
> «две недели» — genitive singular after 2: After «две», the noun stands in the genitive singular: «две недели» ('two weeks'). «спустя' ('later, after') is a postposed quasi-preposition. Five or more would force genitive plural («пять недель»).
> Phase verb + imperfective infinitive: «начать» ('to begin') requires an imperfective infinitive, here «мучить» — Russian cannot begin a perfective. The subject is «мысли», the object the accusative «его».

Довольно сказать, что он беспрерывно стал себя спрашивать: для чего он тогда, в последнюю свою ночь, в доме Федора Павловича, пред отъездом своим, сходил тихонько, как вор, на лестницу и прислушивался, что делает внизу отец?  
Suffice it to say that he kept asking himself, without cease: why was it that on that last night of his, in Fyodor Pavlovich's house, before his departure, he had crept down softly, like a thief, onto the staircase, and listened to what his father was doing below?
> «стать» + imperfective infinitive; reflexive «себя»: «стал … спрашивать» ('began to ask') pairs the inceptive «стать» with an imperfective infinitive. «себя» is the reflexive object — 'to ask himself.'
> Imperfective for the puzzling repeated act: Both «сходил» (multidirectional, here 'went down [and back]') and «прислушивался» are imperfective, dwelling on the act Ivan now keeps replaying. «для чего» ('for what, why') opens the embedded question.
> «тихонько» — ever so softly: The diminutive-expressive adverb «тихонько» (from «тихо») softens to 'quietly, on the sly.' With «как вор» ('like a thief') it conveys Ivan's furtive shame on that decisive night.

Почему с отвращением вспоминал это потом, почему на другой день утром в дороге так вдруг затосковал, а въезжая в Москву, сказал себе: «Я подлец!»  
Why had he recalled it afterward with disgust; why, the next morning on the road, had he so suddenly fallen into anguish, and, as he was driving into Moscow, said to himself, "I am a scoundrel!"
> Gerund «въезжая» framing the utterance: «въезжая» is the imperfective gerund of «въезжать» ('while driving into'), giving the simultaneous setting for the perfective «сказал» — the self-accusation lands as a sudden completed act mid-journey.
> «затосковать» — to be seized by anguish: The prefix «за-» marks the sudden onset of a state: «затосковал» = 'fell into / was gripped by «тоска»,' that untranslatable Russian ache of yearning dread. The verb concentrates Ivan's abrupt inner collapse.
> «подлец» — scoundrel, base wretch: A heavy term of moral self-contempt: not a mere rogue but one capable of vileness. Ivan's «Я подлец!» is a verdict on his own complicity, central to his guilt in this book.

И вот теперь ему однажды подумалось, что из-за всех этих мучительных мыслей он, пожалуй, готов забыть даже и Катерину Ивановну, до того они сильно им вдруг опять овладели!  
And now it occurred to him one day that, on account of all these tormenting thoughts, he might even be ready to forget Katerina Ivanovna herself, so powerfully had they all at once taken hold of him again!
> Impersonal reflexive: dative experiencer: «подумалось» is an impersonal «-ся» verb with the experiencer in the dative «ему» — 'it occurred to him,' as if the thought arrives unbidden. This dative-subject framing pervades the inner life of Dostoevsky's characters.
> «до того … что» result clause + instrumental: «до того … что» means 'to such a degree that.' «овладеть» ('to take hold of') governs the instrumental — here «им» ('him') — so the thoughts 'took hold of him.' «пожалуй» softens to 'perhaps, I dare say.'

Как раз, подумав это, он встретил Алешу на улице.  
Just as he was thinking this, he met Alyosha in the street.
> Perfective gerund of prior action: «подумав» (perfective past gerund of «подумать') marks a completed prior act sharing the subject: 'having thought this, he met…' «Как раз» ('just then') pins the coincidence.
> First-declension accusative «Алешу»: «Алешу» is the regular first-declension accusative singular in -у (like книгу) of «Алеша»; it is distinct from the genitive «Алеши». Animacy does not affect the accusative of -а/-я nouns, so this is not the acc=gen syncretism.

Он тотчас остановил его и вдруг задал ему вопрос:  
He stopped him at once and suddenly put a question to him:
> Chain of perfectives advancing the action: «остановил» and «задал» are perfectives moving the scene forward event by event — stopped, then put a question. «ему вопрос» pairs a dative recipient with an accusative object: 'put a question to him.'

— Помнишь ты, когда после обеда Дмитрий ворвался в дом и избил отца, и я потом сказал тебе на дворе, что «право желаний» оставляю за собой, — скажи, подумал ты тогда, что я желаю смерти отца, или нет?  
"Do you remember, when Dmitri burst into the house after dinner and beat father, and I afterward told you in the yard that I reserved to myself 'the right to wish'—tell me, did you think then that I wished for father's death, or not?"
> Perfective «в-» / «из-»: sudden, complete acts: «ворвался» ('burst in', «в-» = into) and «избил» ('beat up thoroughly', «из-» exhaustive) are vivid perfectives, each a single completed blow of the narrative. The prefixes carry the violence's direction and totality.
> Idiom «оставлять за собой» + reflexive: «оставляю за собой» literally 'I leave behind myself' = 'I reserve for myself.' «за собой» is the reflexive «себя» in the instrumental after «за», pointing the reserved 'right' back to Ivan.
> «право желаний» — the right to wish: Ivan's chilling self-quoted formula: he grants himself 'the right of desires' — to wish his father dead without acting. The genitive «желаний» ('of wishes') is the abstract crux of his moral self-deception.

— Подумал, — тихо ответил Алеша.  
"I did," Alyosha answered quietly.
> Bare past-tense answer: Alyosha's whole reply is one perfective past verb, «Подумал» ('[I] did think'), the pronoun «я» dropped because the gendered -л ending already implies the masculine first person. Russian answers an echo-question by simply repeating the verb.

— Оно, впрочем, так и было, тут и угадывать было нечего. Но не подумалось ли тебе тогда и то, что я именно желаю, чтоб «один гад съел другую гадину», то есть чтоб именно Дмитрий отца убил, да еще поскорее… и что и сам я поспособствовать даже не прочь?  
"That, by the way, was just how it was; there was nothing to guess at there. But did it not also occur to you then that what I wished, precisely, was for 'one reptile to devour the other'—that is, that Dmitri, precisely, should kill father, and the sooner the better… and that I myself would not even be averse to lending a hand?"
> Impersonal «-ся» + «ли» question + dative: «не подумалось ли тебе» stacks three features: the impersonal reflexive «подумалось», the yes/no particle «ли», and the dative experiencer «тебе» — 'did it not occur to you?' The thought is framed as happening *to* Alyosha.
> «чтоб» + past form: willed outcome: «чтоб» (colloquial «чтобы») introduces a desired result and takes the past-tense irrealis form: «съел», «убил». 'I wished that one reptile *should* devour the other.' The construction fuses «что» with the particle «бы».
> «гад / гадина» — reptile, vermin: «гад» (m.) and «гадина» (f.) are words for a loathsome creeping creature, used of people as 'vile reptile.' The expressive feminine «гадину» and the proverb-like image cast Dmitri and the father as two vermin — Ivan's monstrous wish, self-quoted.
> «не прочь» — not averse: An idiom: «не прочь» (+ infinitive) = 'wouldn't mind, am not against.' «поспособствовать … не прочь» — 'not even averse to lending a hand' — understates Ivan's complicity with chilling casualness.

Алеша слегка побледнел и молча смотрел в глаза брату.  
Alyosha grew slightly pale and looked silently into his brother's eyes.
> «по-» inceptive perfective: «побледнел» (perfective, from «бледный», pale) marks the completed onset of a state: 'grew pale.' The prefix «по-» often signals the beginning or a measured degree of a change.
> Dative «брату» with «смотреть в глаза»: The idiom «смотреть в глаза» ('to look into the eyes') puts the person in the dative: «в глаза брату» = 'into his brother's eyes.' «брату» is animate dative; «смотрел» imperfective, dwelling on the silent gaze.

— Говори же! — воскликнул Иван. — Я изо всей силы хочу знать, что ты тогда подумал. Мне надо; правду, правду!  
"Speak, then!" cried Ivan. "I want with all my might to know what you thought then. I must have it; the truth, the truth!"
> Imperative + insistent «же»: «Говори» is the imperfective imperative ('speak!', durative, urging him on); «же» is the insistent modal particle — 'speak, then! / out with it!' The particle injects Ivan's pressing impatience.
> Dative-subject necessity: «Мне надо» ('I must have it') is the classic impersonal: no nominative subject, the person in the dative «мне», the predicate the invariable «надо». Necessity is framed as bearing down *on* Ivan.

— Он тяжело перевел дух, уже заранее с какою-то злобой смотря на Алешу.  
He drew his breath heavily, already looking at Alyosha beforehand with a kind of malice.
> Gerund «смотря»: attendant manner: «смотря» is the imperfective gerund of «смотреть», giving the simultaneous manner — 'looking at Alyosha … with malice.' «уже заранее» ('already beforehand') heightens the foreboding.
> Indefinite «какой-то» + archaic ending: «какою-то» = 'with a kind of' (instrumental after «с») — «-то» makes it a specific-but-unnamed sort of malice. The instrumental ending «-ою» (for «-ой») is the bookish/19th-century variant common in Dostoevsky.

— Прости меня, я и это тогда подумал, — прошептал Алеша и замолчал, не прибавив ни одного «облегчающего обстоятельства».  
"Forgive me, I did think that too then," Alyosha whispered, and fell silent, adding not a single "extenuating circumstance."
> Imperative «прости»: «Прости» is the perfective imperative ('forgive [once, now]'), with «меня» the accusative object. Alyosha opens his admission with the language of confession — fitting his monastic formation.
> Negative gerund + «ни одного»: «не прибавив» is a perfective gerund ('not having added'); «ни одного» intensifies the negation to 'not a single' — negative concord keeps «не» on the participle even with «ни».
> «облегчающее обстоятельство» — extenuating circumstance: A legal phrase (a circumstance that 'lightens' guilt), set in quotes with faint irony: Alyosha refuses to soften his confession with any plea. The participle «облегчающее» is a present active participle, 'mitigating.'

— Спасибо! — отрезал Иван и, бросив Алешу, быстро пошел своею дорогой.  
"Thank you!" Ivan snapped, and, leaving Alyosha, walked off quickly on his way.
> Perfective gerund + perfective main verb: «бросив» ('having left/abandoned', perfective gerund) precedes «пошел» ('set off') — two completed acts, one prior, one main, both Ivan's. The clipped sequence mirrors his abrupt exit.
> Reflexive possessive «свой» + archaic «-ою»: «своею дорогой» = 'on his own way' (instrumental of path). «своею» is the reflexive possessive «свой» pointing back to Ivan, in the older «-ою» ending — period-bookish for «своей».
> «отрезать» — to snap (a retort): Literally 'to cut off,' «отрезал» idiomatically means to say something curtly and finally, to snap it out. Ivan's «Спасибо!» is bitten off, the gratitude turned to a slap.

С тех пор Алеша заметил, что брат Иван как-то резко начал от него отдаляться и даже как бы невзлюбил его, так что потом и сам он уже перестал ходить к нему.  
From that time on Alyosha noticed that his brother Ivan had begun somehow sharply to draw away from him, and even, as it were, to dislike him, so that afterward he himself gave up going to see him.
> Mixed aspect: process then result: «начал … отдаляться» pictures a gradual drawing-away (imperfective infinitive after «начал»), while perfective «невзлюбил» ('came to dislike') marks the completed turn of feeling. The pairing shows aspect tracking the shift from process to settled state.
> Result clause «так что» + «перестать» + imperfective: «так что» ('so that, with the result that') opens a consequence clause. «перестать» ('to stop'), like «начать», demands an imperfective infinitive — «ходить» (multidirectional 'to go [habitually]').

Но в ту минуту, сейчас после той с ним встречи, Иван Федорович, не заходя домой, вдруг направился опять к Смердякову.  
But at that moment, right after that encounter with him, Ivan Fyodorovich, without stopping at home, suddenly set off again to Smerdyakov's.
> Negated imperfective gerund: «не заходя домой» ('without stopping in at home') is a negated imperfective gerund of «заходить» — Russian renders 'without doing' simply by negating the gerund. It shares Ivan's subject.
> Perfective «направиться» + dative goal: «направился» (perfective reflexive, 'set off, headed') governs «к Смердякову» — «к» + dative marks the destination/person aimed for. The «-ся» makes the verb intransitive ('directed himself').
---

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.