# The Brothers Karamazov, The Second Visit to Smerdyakov

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book XI — Ivan

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b11-c7. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b11-c7.json.


Смердяков к тому времени уже выписался из больницы.  
By that time Smerdyakov had already been discharged from the hospital.
> Reflexive «-ся» as a middle voice: «выписаться» (perfective) means 'to get oneself discharged / signed out'. The «-ся» turns the transitive «выписать» (to discharge someone) into an intransitive event happening to the subject — Smerdyakov is both the one acting and the one affected.
> Perfective past for a completed prior event: The perfective «выписался» fixes the discharge as a single completed fact already in place 'by that time' («к тому времени»), giving English's pluperfect 'had been discharged'. Aspect, not a separate tense, carries this 'already-done' sense.

Иван Федорович знал его новую квартиру: именно в этом перекосившемся бревенчатом маленьком домишке в две избы, разделенные сенями.  
Ivan Fyodorovich knew his new lodgings: precisely this lopsided little log house, two cottages under one roof, separated by an entry hall.
> The pejorative suffix «-ишк-»: «домишко» is «дом» (house) plus the belittling «-ишк-»: not a neutral 'little house' but a wretched, paltry one. Stacked here with «маленьком» and «перекосившемся» (lopsided), it paints the squalor of Smerdyakov's lodgings before we even enter.
> Past active participle as adjective: «перекосившемся» is the past active participle of «перекоситься» ('to go askew'), declined here in the prepositional to agree with «домишке». It packs a whole который-clause ('that had warped out of true') into one bookish modifier.

В одной избе поместилась Марья Кондратьевна с матерью, а в другой Смердяков, особливо.  
In one cottage Marya Kondratyevna had settled with her mother, and in the other Smerdyakov, on his own.
> The contrastive «а»: «а» is the mild contrastive conjunction that pivots from one topic to a parallel one — here from one cottage to the other. It is not the strong 'but' of «но» but a balancing 'and/while', the constant hinge of Russian description.
> Archaic «особливо» for «особо»: «особливо» is a bookish, dated variant of «особо» / «отдельно» ('separately, apart'). The period flavour underlines Smerdyakov's deliberate seclusion — he lives 'on his own', set apart from the women.
> Reflexive «-ся»: to settle oneself: «поместиться» (perfective reflexive) is intransitive 'to find room, settle in'. The «-ся» again converts the transitive «поместить» (to place something) into a change of state undergone by the subject — Marya 'got herself installed'.

Бог знает на каких основаниях он у них поселился, даром ли проживал или за деньги?  
God knows on what terms he had taken up residence with them, whether he lived there for free or paid them money.
> The particle «ли» as embedded 'whether': The enclitic «ли» follows the fronted, focused word «даром» to pose an indirect either/or question: 'whether he lived for free… or for money'. It is the literary alternative to mere question intonation, and Dostoevsky uses it constantly in narration.
> «даром» — for free, in vain: «даром» (an old instrumental of «дар», 'gift') means 'gratis, for nothing'. In other contexts it shades into 'in vain' (не даром — not for nothing), but here it is plainly 'without paying'.

Впоследствии полагали, что поселился он у них в качестве жениха Марьи Кондратьевны и проживал пока даром.  
Afterward people supposed that he had settled in with them as Marya Kondratyevna's betrothed and was living there, for the time being, for free.
> Predicate role with «в качестве» + genitive: «в качестве» ('in the capacity of') governs the genitive «жениха» to assign a role — 'as betrothed'. It is a more formal cousin of the predicate instrumental, framing the status Smerdyakov is supposed to occupy.
> «впоследствии» — afterward: A bookish single-word adverb meaning 'subsequently, later on'. It signals the narrator stepping briefly out of the scene's present to report what the town came to believe.

И мать и дочь его очень уважали и смотрели на него как на высшего пред ними человека.  
Both mother and daughter held him in great esteem and looked upon him as a man superior to themselves.
> «смотреть на… как на…» + accusative: The frame «смотреть на кого как на кого» ('to regard X as Y') keeps both halves in the accusative after «на». «высшего… человека» is animate-masculine accusative borrowing the genitive form, marking Smerdyakov as the object of their esteem.
> Archaic «пред» for «перед»: «пред» is the shortened, elevated form of the preposition «перед» ('before, in front of'), here governing the instrumental «ними». The clipped form lends a faintly bookish, old-fashioned ring.

Достучавшись, Иван Федорович вступил в сени и, по указанию Марьи Кондратьевны, прошел прямо налево в «белую избу», занимаемую Смердяковым.  
Having knocked until he was let in, Ivan Fyodorovich stepped into the entry hall and, following Marya Kondratyevna's directions, went straight on to the left into the "white cottage" that Smerdyakov occupied.
> Perfective gerund «деепричастие»: «Достучавшись» is the perfective past gerund of «достучаться» ('to knock until answered'). Indeclinable and sharing Ivan's subject, it states the prior, completed action — 'having knocked his way in' — before the main verb «вступил».
> Passive participle + instrumental agent: «занимаемую» is the present passive participle of «занимать» ('to occupy'), declined to agree with «избу». Its agent stands in the instrumental, «Смердяковым» — literally 'the cottage occupied by Smerdyakov', a compact bookish relative clause.

В этой избе печь стояла изразцовая и была сильно натоплена.  
In this cottage stood a tiled stove, and the room had been heated to a stifling warmth.
> Word order: split noun phrase for emphasis: Neutral order would be «стояла изразцовая печь»; placing «изразцовая» (tiled) after the verb, detached from «печь», throws rhetorical weight onto the adjective — the tiled stove is the noticeable, slightly grand thing in a poor room. Free word order lets Russian foreground new information this way.
> «натопить» — to heat thoroughly: The prefix «на-» on «топить» (to stoke a stove) adds the sense of doing so to the full, to saturation — hence the short passive participle «натоплена» yields a room heated to a stifling, over-warm degree.

По стенам красовались голубые обои, правда все изодранные, а под ними в трещинах копошились тараканы-прусаки в страшном количестве, так что стоял неумолкаемый шорох.  
Pale-blue wallpaper showed off along the walls, though it was all tattered, and beneath it, in the cracks, cockroaches teemed in dreadful numbers, so that there rose an unceasing rustle.
> «прусаки» — the 'Prussian' cockroaches: «прусак» is the small reddish-brown household cockroach (Blattella germanica), nicknamed 'the Prussian'. The folk name — as if blaming the pest on a foreign neighbour — adds a wry, vernacular colour to the catalogue of squalor.
> «копошиться» — to teem, swarm: An expressive, slightly onomatopoeic verb for the restless creeping and swarming of small creatures. Paired with «неумолкаемый шорох» ('unceasing rustle'), it makes the walls themselves seem to crawl.
> Result clause with «так что»: «так что» ('so that, with the result that') opens a subordinate clause of consequence, set off by a comma. It draws the logical result — a ceaseless rustling — out of the swarming just described.

Мебель была ничтожная: две скамьи по обеим стенам и два стула подле стола.  
The furniture was paltry: two benches along either wall and two chairs beside the table.
> Zero-copula past with predicate adjective: In the past, «быть» surfaces as «была», and the predicate adjective «ничтожная» stays in the nominative, agreeing with feminine «мебель». Contrast the predicate noun, which would take the instrumental — adjectives keep the nominative here.
> «ничтожный» — paltry, negligible: From the root of «ничто» ('nothing'), «ничтожный» means 'amounting to nothing, trifling'. Applied to people it sharpens into 'worthless, contemptible'; here it dismisses the furniture as next to nothing.

Стол же, хоть и просто деревянный, был накрыт, однако, скатертью с розовыми разводами.  
The table, however, plain wood though it was, had nonetheless been covered with a cloth patterned in pink swirls.
> The contrastive particle «же»: Here «же» is not emphatic 'after all' but the topic-shifting particle attaching to «стол»: 'As for the table…'. It marks a turn to a new item set against what precedes, reinforced by «однако» ('however').
> Concessive «хоть и… однако»: «хоть и» ('though, even if') concedes a point — the table is only plain wood — which «однако» ('however, nonetheless') then offsets: yet it was covered with a cloth. The paired construction stages a small reversal of expectation.

На двух маленьких окошках помещалось на каждом по горшку с геранями.  
On each of the two little windows stood a pot of geraniums.
> Distributive «по» + dative: «по» with the dative «горшку» distributes the item across each window: 'a pot apiece, one to each'. Reinforced by «на каждом» ('on each one'), this distributive «по» is the idiomatic way Russian says 'X each'.
> Diminutive «окошко»: «окошко» is the affectionate diminutive of «окно» (window). With «маленьких» it doubles the smallness, evoking the cramped, homely scale of the room rather than any literal measurement.

В углу киот с образами.  
In the corner, an icon case with holy images.
> Verbless existential sentence: The sentence has no verb at all: in the present, Russian omits the copula 'to be', so a bare locative phrase plus noun suffices — 'In the corner, an icon case'. The clipped, verbless line mimics a roving eye cataloguing the room.

На столе стоял небольшой, сильно помятый медный самоварчик и поднос с двумя чашками.  
On the table stood a small, badly dented copper samovar and a tray with two cups.
> Diminutive «самоварчик»: «самоварчик» is «самовар» plus the diminutive «-чик»: a small samovar, the tinge of '-чик' lending a slightly homely, even faintly pitying note. With «помятый» (dented) it sketches a meagre but lived-in domesticity.

Но чай Смердяков уже отпил, и самовар погас…  
But Smerdyakov had already finished his tea, and the samovar had gone cold…
> Fronted object for topic-comment: The object «чай» heads the sentence and the verb «отпил» comes last, while the case ending keeps the roles clear. This topicalises 'the tea' (as for the tea — it was already drunk up), the natural Russian way to weight given against new information.
> Perfective verbs moving the scene forward: Both «отпил» (finished drinking) and «погас» (went out) are perfective pasts, each naming a single completed result. The «от-» on «пить» adds the sense of drinking one's portion to the end; together the two perfectives close off the tea-scene.

Сам он сидел за столом на лавке и, смотря в тетрадь, что-то чертил пером.  
He himself sat at the table on the bench and, peering into a notebook, was tracing something out with a pen.
> The intensifier «сам»: «сам» ('himself, in person') emphasises the subject in contrast to the surroundings just described — the room and its objects, and then the man himself. It declines like an adjective and is distinct from the reflexive «себя».
> Imperfective present gerund «смотря»: «смотря» is the imperfective present gerund of «смотреть» ('looking'), expressing an action simultaneous with the main verb «чертил»: he traced 'while peering into a notebook'. Sharing the subject, it folds two actions into one image.
> Imperfective «чертил» + instrument in the instrumental: Imperfective «чертил» frames the act as ongoing process ('was tracing'), while the means of the action, «пером», takes the instrumental — the case of the instrument, literally 'with a pen'.

Пузырек с чернилами находился подле, равно как и чугунный низенький подсвечник со стеариновою, впрочем, свечкой.  
A little vial of ink stood beside him, and likewise a low cast-iron candlestick with — a stearin candle, as it happened.
> Diminutive «пузырёк»: «пузырёк» is the diminutive of «пузырь» ('bubble, bladder'), here meaning a little glass vial or phial — a small bottle of ink. The «-ёк» marks its smallness within the cluttered tabletop still life.
> Bookish connector «равно как и»: «равно как и» ('as well as, likewise') is a formal, literary way to add a second item — 'and likewise a candlestick'. Its measured, almost legalistic register sits oddly against the humble objects, part of the narrator's faintly ironic precision.
> Archaic instrumental ending «-ою»: «стеариновою» is the feminine instrumental in the older long form «-ою» rather than modern «-ой». This poetic/bookish variant is common in 19th-century prose and lends a measured, literary cadence.

Иван Федорович тотчас заключил по лицу Смердякова, что оправился он от болезни вполне.  
Ivan Fyodorovich concluded at once, from Smerdyakov's face, that he had fully recovered from his illness.
> Reported fact with «что»: The subordinator «что» ('that') introduces a plain reported fact after «заключил» ('concluded') — distinct from «чтобы», which would signal a willed or hypothetical outcome. Note the inverted «оправился он» inside the clause, weighting the verb.
> Reflexive «оправиться» — to recover: «оправиться от болезни» ('to recover from illness') uses the «-ся» middle: the subject undergoes the return to health. The governing preposition «от» ('from') takes the genitive «болезни».

Лицо его было свежее, полнее, хохолок взбит, височки примазаны.  
His face was fresher, fuller, the forelock fluffed up, the side-locks slicked down.
> Comparatives in «-ее»: «свежее» and «полнее» are the invariable predicative comparatives of «свежий» (fresh) and «полный» (full): 'fresher, fuller'. The single suffix «-ее» does the work of English 'more', stating that the face had improved since Ivan last saw it.
> Diminutives «хохолок», «височки»: «хохолок» (a little tuft/forelock, dim. of «хохол») and «височки» (dim. of «виски», the temples/side-locks) reduce Smerdyakov's grooming to fussy, almost contemptible little details. The diminutives carry the narrator's faint sneer at his vanity.
> Short passive participles as predicate: «взбит» (fluffed up) and «примазаны» (slicked down) are short-form past passive participles standing as predicates — 'the forelock [is] fluffed, the side-locks [are] plastered'. The verbless, clipped result-statements mimic a quick once-over of his appearance.

Сидел он в пестром ватном халате, очень, однако, затасканном и порядочно истрепанном.  
He sat in a gaudy quilted dressing gown, very threadbare, however, and decidedly worn to rags.
> «затасканный», «истрёпанный» — worn to rags: Both are past passive participles turned adjectives: «затасканный» (dragged about, shabby from use) and «истрёпанный» (frayed, tattered). The intensifying prefixes «за-» and «ис-» push each to the extreme of wear, doubled by «очень» and «порядочно».

На носу его были очки, которых Иван Федорович не видывал у него прежде.  
On his nose were spectacles that Ivan Fyodorovich had never before seen on him.
> Genitive of negation under «который»: The relative «которых» stands in the genitive because the negated verb «не видывал» pulls its object into the genitive of negation — Ivan 'had not seen' those spectacles. The relative agrees with «очки» in number but takes its own case from its role in the clause.
> Iterative «видывать» — never used to see: «видывал» is an iterative/frequentative of «видеть», marked by «-ыва-» and almost always negated or in the past: 'had ever seen, used to see'. «не видывал прежде» means he had never once seen them before — a more emphatic, slightly folksy 'never'.

Это пустейшее обстоятельство вдруг как бы вдвое даже озлило Ивана Федоровича: «Этакая тварь, да еще в очках!»  
This utterly trifling detail suddenly redoubled, as it were, Ivan Fyodorovich's anger: "A creature like that, and in spectacles, no less!"
> Superlative suffix «-ейш-»: «пустейшее» is the bookish superlative of «пустой» ('empty, trifling') in «-ейш-»: 'utterly trivial, the emptiest possible'. This synthetic superlative is more emphatic and literary than the everyday «самый пустой».
> Hedging «как бы»: «как бы» ('as it were, sort of') softens and qualifies the claim — the trifle 'somehow' redoubled his anger — characteristic of Dostoevsky's hesitant, self-correcting narration. «даже» ('even') then pushes back against the hedge for emphasis.
> «тварь» — creature / contemptible wretch: «тварь» originally means 'a created being, creature' (from «творить», to create), with a Church-Slavonic colouring. In abuse it becomes 'vile creature, scum' — Ivan's furious inner curse. «Этакая» ('such a, a creature like that') sharpens the contempt.

Смердяков медленно поднял голову и пристально посмотрел в очки на вошедшего; затем тихо их снял и сам приподнялся на лавке, но как-то совсем не столь почтительно, как-то даже лениво, единственно чтобы соблюсти только лишь самую необходимейшую учтивость, без которой уже нельзя почти обойтись.  
Smerdyakov slowly raised his head and stared fixedly through the spectacles at the man who had come in; then he quietly took them off and half-rose from the bench himself, but somehow not at all so respectfully — somehow even lazily, solely to observe the barest minimum of courtesy that one can scarcely do without.
> A chain of perfective verbs: The four perfective pasts each mark a discrete completed gesture, advancing the action step by step: raised, stared, took off, half-rose. Against any imperfective background, this is how Russian narrates a sequence of events.
> Purpose clause with «чтобы» + double superlative: «чтобы» plus the perfective infinitive «соблюсти» states purpose — he rose 'in order to observe' the courtesy. «самую необходимейшую» piles «самый» onto the synthetic superlative «необходимейшую» — an emphatic, almost ironic 'the very barest minimum'.
> Impersonal «нельзя» + genitive relative: «нельзя обойтись без чего» ('one cannot do without something') is an impersonal, subjectless construction — «нельзя» is invariable and takes no nominative. The preposition «без» governs the genitive relative «которой», pointing back to «учтивость».

Всё это мигом мелькнуло Ивану, и всё это он сразу обхватил и заметил, а главное — взгляд Смердякова, решительно злобный, неприветливый и даже надменный: «чего, дескать, шляешься, обо всем ведь тогда сговорились, зачем же опять пришел?»  
All this flashed through Ivan's mind in an instant, and all of it he took in and noticed at once, but above all — Smerdyakov's gaze, decidedly malicious, unwelcoming, and even haughty: "What are you loitering about for? We settled everything between us back then, so why have you come again?"
> Dative experiencer with «мелькнуло»: «всё это мигом мелькнуло Ивану» frames Ivan as a dative experiencer — the perception 'flashed to/through' him, with «всё это» as grammatical subject and Ivan undergoing it. This dative-of-the-affected pattern pervades Dostoevsky's rendering of inner life.
> Reportative particle «дескать»: «дескать» flags the words that follow as someone else's imagined or quoted speech — here Ivan's reading of Smerdyakov's contemptuous look: 'as if to say…'. It lets the narrator voice an unspoken thought without committing to it.
> «шляться» — to loaf, loiter about: «шляться» is a coarse, dismissive verb for aimless wandering or hanging about — 'gadding, traipsing'. Put into Smerdyakov's imagined inner voice, it betrays the contempt under his outward servility.

Иван Федорович едва сдержал себя:  
Ivan Fyodorovich could barely contain himself:
> Reflexive pronoun «себя»: «себя» is the full reflexive object pronoun, referring back to the subject Ivan: 'restrained himself'. Unlike the bound clitic «-ся», «себя» is an independent word and has no nominative form.

— Жарко у тебя, — сказал он, еще стоя, и расстегнул пальто.  
"It's hot in here," he said, still standing, and unbuttoned his overcoat.
> Impersonal «жарко» + «у тебя»: «Жарко» is an invariable impersonal predicate ('[it is] hot'), with no subject; «у тебя» ('at your place') locates the state. The construction is the natural Russian way to say 'it's hot in here / at yours', sidestepping any 'it'.
> Gerund «стоя» — still standing: «стоя» is the imperfective present gerund of «стоять» ('standing'), here an adverbial of attendant circumstance: he spoke 'while still on his feet'. With «еще» it stresses that he had not yet sat down.

— Снимите-с, — позволил Смердяков.  
"Take it off, sir," Smerdyakov permitted.
> Polite imperative in «-те»: «Снимите» is the perfective imperative of «снять» ('take off'), with the «-те» that makes it plural or polite — Smerdyakov keeps the formal «вы» footing even as the «-с» mocks it. The perfective imperative urges a single, complete action.
> The deferential particle «-с»: The suffix «-с» (a contraction of «сударь», 'sir') is tacked onto words to sound servile or obsequious. Smerdyakov sprinkles it through his speech («Снимите-с», «уме-с», «невинности») to feign humble politeness even while he is being insolent. It has no real English equivalent; we approximate it here by appending 'sir' where it falls most naturally, but elsewhere it simply cannot be carried across.

Иван Федорович снял пальто и бросил его на лавку, дрожащими руками взял стул, быстро придвинул его к столу и сел.  
Ivan Fyodorovich took off his overcoat and tossed it onto the bench, seized a chair with trembling hands, swiftly drew it up to the table, and sat down.
> Five perfectives in sequence: The volley of perfective pasts — took off, tossed, seized, drew up, sat — renders Ivan's jerky, agitated entry as a rapid chain of completed acts. The aspect itself conveys the staccato, nervous rhythm of his movements.
> Present active participle in the instrumental: «дрожащими» is the present active participle of «дрожать» ('to tremble'), declined to agree with the instrumental «руками» ('with trembling hands'). The instrumental marks the means, and the participle compresses 'hands that were trembling' into one word.

Смердяков успел опуститься на свою лавку раньше его.  
Smerdyakov had managed to lower himself onto his own bench before him.
> «успеть» — to manage in time: «успеть» (perfective) means 'to have time to, to manage to' do something before a deadline; with the perfective infinitive «опуститься» ('lower oneself') it means Smerdyakov got himself seated 'in time', before Ivan. «раньше его» ('before him') marks the genitive of comparison.
> Reflexive possessive «свой»: «свою» (acc. fem. of «свой») means 'his own', pointing back to the clause's subject Smerdyakov — his own bench, not someone else's. Using «его» instead would suggest a third party's bench; «свой» keeps the possession reflexive.

— Во-первых, одни ли мы? — строго и стремительно спросил Иван Федорович. — Не услышат нас оттуда?  
"First of all, are we alone?" Ivan Fyodorovich asked sternly and impetuously. "They won't overhear us from in there?"
> Yes/no question with «ли»: «ли» follows the fronted, focused word «одни» ('alone') to form a neutral yes/no question: 'Are we alone?'. This is the literary, slightly formal alternative to bare question intonation, fitting Ivan's clipped, interrogating manner.
> Perfective future as a worried question: «услышат» is the perfective (simple) future of «услышать» — conjugated like a present but meaning 'will [they] hear'. Negated and questioning, it voices Ivan's anxiety: 'They won't overhear us, will they?'

— Никто ничего не услышит-с.  
"No one will hear a thing, sir.
> Negative concord: «никто ничего не»: Russian stacks negatives in agreement, not cancellation: «никто» (nobody) + «ничего» (nothing) + «не» on the verb — three negatives for one meaning, 'no one will hear anything'. The verb must keep «не» even with the «ни»-words present.

Сами видели: сени.  
You saw for yourself: the entry hall."
> Dropped pronoun with «сами»: The subject «вы» is omitted — the verb ending and the intensifier «сами» ('[you] yourself') carry it: 'You saw for yourself'. Pronoun-drop is routine when the form is unambiguous, and «сами» throws the weight onto Ivan's own observation.

— Слушай, голубчик: что ты такое тогда сморозил, когда я уходил от тебя из больницы, что если я промолчу о том, что ты мастер представляться в падучей, то и ты-де не объявишь всего следователю о нашем разговоре с тобой у ворот?  
"Listen, my good fellow: what was it you blurted out back then, when I was leaving you at the hospital — that if I held my tongue about your being a master at feigning fits of the falling sickness, then you, for your part, would not reveal to the investigator the whole of our conversation at the gate?
> «голубчик» — my dear fellow: «голубчик» (lit. 'little dove', dim. of «голубь») is a tender, coaxing term of address — 'my dear, my good fellow'. In Ivan's mouth here, addressed to the man he loathes, it drips with menacing, false intimacy.
> «сморозить» — to blurt out nonsense: «сморозить (глупость)» is a slangy, colloquial verb for blurting out something foolish or absurd. Ivan uses it dismissively — 'what was that you came out with?' — to belittle Smerdyakov's earlier threat.
> Reportative clitic «-де»: «-де» is a reportative particle, like «дескать», marking the clause as reported speech — 'you, [he said,] would not reveal'. Ivan is paraphrasing Smerdyakov's own earlier words back to him, and «-де» flags them as quotation.

Что это такое ''всего?''  
What does it mean, this ''whole''?
> Emphatic «что это такое»: «что это такое» ('what on earth is this / what is this supposed to be') is an intensified demand for clarification, the «такое» adding pressure. Ivan seizes on the single word «всего» ('the whole / everything') and demands its meaning.

Что ты мог тогда разуметь?  
What could you have meant by it then?
> Modal «мочь» + imperfective infinitive: «мог… разуметь» pairs the past of «мочь» (could) with the imperfective infinitive «разуметь», asking what Ivan was capable of meaning. «что» here is the accusative object of «разуметь» — 'what could you have meant'.
> Archaic «разуметь» — to mean, understand: «разуметь» is an older, bookish verb for 'to understand / to have in mind' (modern «понимать», «иметь в виду»). Its slightly antique flavour recurs through this exchange («я разумел»), giving the duel a formal, weighed quality.

Угрожал ты мне, что ли?  
Were you threatening me, or what?
> The tag particle «что ли»: «что ли» is a colloquial sentence-final tag expressing doubt, surprise, or a challenge — 'or what?, were you?'. Tacked onto «угрожал ты мне», it turns the statement into an incredulous, half-aggressive question. «угрожать» governs the dative «мне».

Что я в союз, что ли, в какой с тобою вступал, боюсь тебя, что ли?  
Have I entered into some alliance with you, or what — am I afraid of you, or what?"
> Split phrase «в союз… в какой»: The phrase «в какой-нибудь союз» ('into some alliance') is torn apart — «в союз» fronted, «в какой» trailing after «что ли» — repeating the preposition «в» around the interjected tag. The fractured word order conveys Ivan's sputtering, incredulous anger.
> «вступить в союз» — to enter an alliance: «вступать/вступить в союз (с кем)» is the set phrase 'to enter into an alliance/league with'. The imperfective «вступал» here questions whether any such pact was ever in process — 'have I been entering into…?'

Иван Федорович проговорил это совсем в ярости, видимо и нарочно давая знать, что презирает всякий обиняк и всякий подход и играет в открытую.  
Ivan Fyodorovich said all this in a complete fury, plainly and deliberately making it known that he scorned every evasion and every roundabout approach and was playing his cards face up.
> Gerund «давая» + reported «что»: «давая знать» is the imperfective gerund of «давать» ('giving to understand'), simultaneous with «проговорил». It governs a «что»-clause of reported fact — making it known 'that he scorned'. The gerund layers his manner over his speech.
> «обиняк» — a roundabout hint: «обиняк» is an evasion, an oblique or roundabout way of speaking; «говорить обиняками» means 'to beat about the bush'. Ivan scorns «всякий обиняк и всякий подход» — every hint and indirect approach — preferring to 'play in the open'.
> Idiom «играть в открытую»: A card-playing metaphor — 'to play with one's cards face up', i.e. to act openly, hiding nothing. It frames the whole confrontation as a high-stakes game between the two men.

Глаза Смердякова злобно сверкнули, левый глазок замигал, и он тотчас же, хотя по обычаю своему сдержанно и мерно, дал и свой ответ: «Хочешь, дескать, начистоту, так вот тебе и эта самая чистота».  
Smerdyakov's eyes glinted malignly, his left eye twitched, and at once — though after his usual manner, restrained and measured — he too gave his answer: "You want it plain and straight? Very well, then, here is your plain truth for you."
> Diminutive «глазок»: «глазок» is the diminutive of «глаз» (eye); «левый глазок замигал» — 'his little left eye twitched'. The diminutive lends a creeping, faintly grotesque intimacy to the description of Smerdyakov's nervous tic.
> Conditional without «если»: Two clauses are juxtaposed with no «если» — 'You want it straight? then here it is' — a colloquial conditional where the first clause implies 'if'. «дескать» again flags this as Smerdyakov's imagined inner retort, reported by the narrator.
> «начистоту» — frankly, plainly: «начистоту» (adverb) means 'frankly, openly, plainly'; «говорить начистоту» is 'to speak straight out'. The narrator then plays on the root «чистота» ('cleanliness/purity') — 'here is that very cleanness for you'.

— А то самое я тогда разумел и для того я тогда это произносил, что вы, знамши наперед про это убивство родного родителя вашего, в жертву его тогда оставили, и чтобы не заключили после сего люди чего дурного об ваших чувствах, а может, и об чем ином прочем, — вот что тогда обещался я начальству не объявлять.  
"What I meant back then, and what I uttered it for, was this: that you, knowing beforehand about this murder of your own father, left him as a sacrifice at that time, and so that people should not afterward conclude something wicked about your feelings — and perhaps about something else besides — that is what I promised the authorities I would not reveal."
> Dialectal gerund «знамши»: «знамши» is a substandard, peasant-dialect gerund of «знать» (standard «зная»), a mark of Smerdyakov's half-educated, lower-class speech. Such non-standard «-мши» forms, scattered through his careful diction, betray the lackey beneath the would-be gentleman.
> Dialectal «убивство» for «убийство»: «убивство» is a colloquial/dialectal form of «убийство» ('murder'). Like «знамши» and «об ваших» (for «о ваших»), it stamps Smerdyakov's speech with a peasant non-standardness even as he reaches for legal solemnity.
> Purpose «чтобы» + past-form irrealis: «чтобы» of purpose takes the past-tense form «заключили» (not an infinitive, since the subject — «люди» — differs): 'so that people should not conclude'. This past-form-after-«чтобы» is the irrealis at work, the same logic as «бы».
> Archaic demonstrative «сей»: «сего» is the genitive of the bookish demonstrative «сей» ('this'), surviving in fixed legal-solemn phrases like «после сего» ('after this'). Smerdyakov reaches for this elevated, quasi-official register to dignify his testimony.

Проговорил Смердяков хоть и не спеша и обладая собою по-видимому, но уж в голосе его даже послышалось нечто твердое и настойчивое, злобное и нагло-вызывающее.  
Smerdyakov spoke without haste and seemingly in command of himself, but already there sounded in his voice something hard and insistent, malicious and brazenly defiant.
> Gerund «обладая» + instrumental: «обладая собою» is the imperfective gerund of «обладать» ('to possess'), which governs the instrumental — here the reflexive «собою» (older form of «собой»): 'in possession of himself, self-controlled'. The gerund describes the manner attending «проговорил».
> Reflexive «послышаться» + genitive-marked «нечто»: «послышалось» is the «-ся» middle of «слышать» — something 'made itself heard' in his voice, impersonally. «нечто» ('something') is modified by a string of adjectives «твердое и настойчивое, злобное и нагло-вызывающее», building the menace by accumulation.

Дерзко уставился он в Ивана Федоровича, а у того в первую минуту даже в глазах зарябило:  
He fixed his gaze insolently on Ivan Fyodorovich, who for the first moment even felt the room swim before his eyes:
> Impersonal «зарябило» with dative/«у» experiencer: «в глазах зарябило» is a subjectless impersonal — literally 'it began to ripple/dazzle in the eyes' — with the experiencer marked by «у того» ('the latter'). Russian routinely renders such bodily sensations with no nominative subject at all.
> Demonstrative «тот» as 'the latter': «у того» uses «тот» ('that one') to track a referent — here Ivan, 'the latter / the other man' — keeping subject and object distinct as the narration shifts between the two. «тот» is the standard device for this anaphoric tracking.

— Как? Что? Да ты в уме али нет?  
"What? What's that? Are you in your right mind or not?"
> Folk «али» for «или»: «али» is a rustic, archaic variant of «или» ('or'), common in peasant and folk speech. «в уме али нет» — 'in your right mind or not' — its dialect colour matching the rough heat of Ivan's outburst.
> Idiom «в уме» — in one's right mind: «быть в уме» means 'to be sane, in one's right mind'; «да ты в уме?» is 'are you out of your mind?'. The phrase recurs in the next line («в полном своем уме»), where Smerdyakov coolly throws the sanity question back.

— Совершенно в полном своем уме-с.  
"Entirely in my full and proper mind, sir."
> Reflexive «свой» + emphatic intensifiers: «своем» ('one's own') refers reflexively to Smerdyakov's own mind, while «совершенно», «полном» pile up to a flat, mock-precise 'entirely in my full and proper mind'. The appended «-с» (see note on s27) makes the whole reply oily and insolent at once.

— Да разве я ''знал'' тогда про убийство? — вскричал наконец Иван Федорович и крепко стукнул кулаком по столу. — Что значит: «об чем ином прочем»? — говори, подлец!  
"But did I really ''know'' about the murder then?" Ivan Fyodorovich cried out at last, and struck the table hard with his fist. "What does it mean, this 'something else besides'? Speak, you scoundrel!"
> «разве» — incredulous question: «разве» opens a rhetorical, disbelieving question expecting the answer 'no' — 'but surely I did not know?'. With the opening «Да» ('why, but') it conveys Ivan's outraged astonishment. «знал» is imperfective: did he 'know', as a state, at the time?
> «подлец» — scoundrel: «подлец» is a strong term of abuse — 'scoundrel, villain, base wretch' — from «подлый» ('base, mean'). It is one of the recurring insults Ivan hurls at Smerdyakov, escalating through this scene to «смердящая шельма».
> Instrumental of instrument + «по» of impact: «кулаком» ('with his fist') is the instrumental of means, while «по столу» (dative after «по») marks the surface struck. «стукнул» is the semelfactive perfective — a single sharp blow.

Смердяков молчал и всё тем же наглым взглядом продолжал осматривать Ивана Федоровича.  
Smerdyakov said nothing and went on surveying Ivan Fyodorovich with the same insolent stare.
> Imperfectives for sustained inaction: «молчал» (kept silent) and «продолжал осматривать» (went on examining) are imperfective, holding the moment open as a continuing state rather than an event. The aspect makes Smerdyakov's unbroken, insolent stare hang in the air.
> Instrumental of manner «взглядом»: «осматривать… взглядом» uses the instrumental «взглядом» as the means/manner of looking — 'survey with a gaze'. «всё тем же» ('still that same') stresses the unchanging insolence; «тем» is the instrumental of «тот».

— Говори, смердящая шельма, об чем «ином прочем»? — завопил тот.  
"Speak, you stinking knave, what is this 'something else besides'?" the other man bellowed.
> «смердящая шельма» — stinking knave: «шельма» (from German Schelm) is a rogue or knave; «смердящий» is the present active participle of «смердеть» ('to stink'). The phrase puns bitterly on the name Smerdyakov, which itself derives from «смердеть» — 'the stinking knave', the name made into the insult.
> «завопить» — to bellow, howl: «завопить» is the inceptive perfective of «вопить» ('to wail, yell'); the prefix «за-» marks the bursting-out of the cry. The escalating verbs of utterance — «вскричал», «завопил», «воскликнул» — chart Ivan's mounting frenzy.

— А об том «ином прочем» я сею минутой разумел, что вы, пожалуй, и сами очень желали тогда смерти родителя вашего.  
"By that 'something else besides' I meant, this very minute, that you yourself, very likely, also greatly desired your father's death at the time."
> Archaic «сею минутой» — this very minute: «сею» is the instrumental of the bookish demonstrative «сей» ('this'); «сею минутой» means 'at this very moment, just now'. Smerdyakov's reach for the elevated «сей» amid his dialect forms is part of his unsettling, half-learned register.
> «желать» + genitive object: «желать» governs the genitive, so its object «смерти» (death) stands in the genitive — 'desired the death'; «родителя вашего» is a further genitive of possession. Many verbs of wishing and striving take the genitive in this elevated register.

Иван Федорович вскочил и изо всей силы ударил его кулаком в плечо, так что тот откачнулся к стене.  
Ivan Fyodorovich leapt up and struck him on the shoulder with his fist, with all his might, so that the man lurched back against the wall.
> Perfective burst of action: «вскочил» (leapt up) and «ударил» (struck) are paired perfectives, the prefix «вс-» on «скочить» catching the upward jerk of his leap. The aspect renders the blow as one sudden, complete eruption of violence.
> Idiom «изо всей силы»: «изо всей силы» ('with all one's might') uses «из(о)» + genitive «всей силы». The variant «изо» (with the inserted vowel) appears before the consonant cluster «вс-». The phrase is the fixed way to say 'as hard as one can'.
> Result clause + «тот» tracking the object: «так что» introduces the consequence of the blow; «тот» ('that one') re-identifies Smerdyakov as he 'lurched back', keeping him distinct from Ivan. «откачнулся» is the «-ся» middle — the body swayed back of itself from the impact.

В один миг всё лицо его облилось слезами, и, проговорив: «Стыдно, сударь, слабого человека бить!», он вдруг закрыл глаза своим бумажным с синими клеточками и совершенно засморканным носовым платком и погрузился в тихий слезный плач.  
In an instant his whole face was bathed in tears, and saying, "It is shameful, sir, to strike a feeble man!" he suddenly covered his eyes with his blue-checked paper handkerchief, thoroughly soiled with blowing his nose, and sank into a quiet, tearful weeping.
> Reflexive «облиться» + instrumental: «облилось» is the «-ся» middle of «облить» ('to pour over') — his face 'bathed itself' in tears, with «слезами» in the instrumental as the medium. The reflexive turns a transitive drenching into something that happens to the face on its own.
> Perfective gerund «проговорив»: «проговорив» is the perfective past gerund of «проговорить» — 'having said', a prior completed act framing what follows. It sets Smerdyakov's reproach just before he covers his eyes, in the chain of gestures.
> Impersonal «стыдно» + dependent infinitive: «Стыдно… бить» is an impersonal evaluative ('[it is] shameful to strike') with the infinitive «бить» as its logical subject and no nominative. «слабого человека» is its animate-masculine accusative object — 'to strike a feeble man'.
> Diminutive «клеточки»: «клеточки» is the diminutive of «клетка» ('square, check'); 'with little blue checks'. The petty, almost tender precision about a snotty paper handkerchief sharpens the bathos of Smerdyakov's staged weeping.

Прошло с минуту.  
A minute or so passed.
> Approximative «с» + accusative: «с минуту» uses «с» with the accusative to mean 'about a minute, a minute or so' — the approximative «с», distinct from the comitative «с» + instrumental. «Прошло» is a neutral impersonal 'there passed', with no personal subject.

— Довольно! Перестань! — повелительно сказал наконец Иван Федорович, садясь опять на стул. — Не выводи меня из последнего терпения.  
"Enough! Stop it!" Ivan Fyodorovich said at last, commandingly, sitting down again on the chair. "Don't drive me to the last of my patience."
> Imperatives: perfective command vs imperfective prohibition: «Перестань» is a perfective imperative — stop, once and for all. «Не выводи» pairs negation with the imperfective imperative, the normal pattern for a prohibition ('don't keep driving me…'); a negated perfective would instead warn against an accident.
> Gerund «садясь» of attendant action: «садясь» is the imperfective present gerund of «садиться» ('sitting down'), an action accompanying «сказал»: he spoke 'as he sat down again'. Sharing Ivan's subject, it stages speech and movement together.
> Idiom «вывести из терпения»: «вывести кого из терпения» means 'to exhaust someone's patience, drive them past endurance'. «из последнего терпения» intensifies it — 'out of the very last of my patience'. «из» governs the genitive «терпения».

Смердяков отнял от глаз свою тряпочку.  
Smerdyakov took the rag away from his eyes.
> Diminutive «тряпочка»: «тряпочка» is the diminutive of «тряпка» ('rag'); the narrator's word for the handkerchief shifts to this dismissive 'little rag', deflating Smerdyakov's grand show of grief into a snivel over a scrap of cloth.

Всякая черточка его сморщенного лица выражала только что перенесенную обиду.  
Every little line of his wrinkled face expressed the affront he had just suffered.
> Diminutive «черточка»: «черточка» is the diminutive of «черта» ('line, feature'); «всякая черточка» — 'every little line' of his wrinkled face. The diminutive draws the eye to the minute play of features registering the affront.
> Past passive participle as modifier: «перенесенную» is the past passive participle of «перенести» ('to endure, undergo'), declined to agree with the accusative «обиду»: 'the affront [just] suffered'. «только что» ('just now') fixes it as fresh — the insult of the blow seconds before.

— Так ты, подлец, подумал тогда, что я заодно с Дмитрием хочу отца убить?  
"So you, you scoundrel, thought back then that I wanted to kill my father in league with Dmitri?"
> «заодно (с)» — in league with: «заодно с кем» means 'in concert with, on the same side as' someone — here 'in league with Dmitri'. The phrase governs the instrumental «Дмитрием» (with «с»), framing the suspected conspiracy.
> Animate accusative «отца»: «отца» is the accusative of «отец» ('father'), which — being animate masculine — borrows the genitive form. It is the object of the infinitive «убить» ('to kill') governed by «хочу»: 'I want to kill [my] father'.

— Мыслей ваших тогдашних не знал-с, — обиженно проговорил Смердяков, — а потому и остановил вас тогда, как вы входили в ворота, чтобы вас на этом самом пункте испытать-с.  
"Your thoughts at the time I did not know, sir," Smerdyakov said in an injured tone, "and that is why I stopped you then, as you were coming in at the gate, in order to sound you out on that very point, sir."
> Genitive of negation, fronted: «мыслей… не знал» puts the object of negated «знать» into the genitive plural «мыслей» (from «мысль») — the genitive of negation — and fronts it for emphasis: 'your thoughts I did not know'. Word order and case together shape the topic.
> «тогдашний» — of that time: «тогдашний» is the relative adjective from «тогда» ('then') — 'belonging to that time, of-then'. «мыслей ваших тогдашних» is 'your thoughts of that time', a neat single-word way Russian turns adverbs of time into modifiers.
> Purpose «чтобы» + perfective infinitive: Here «чтобы» takes a bare infinitive «испытать» ('to test, sound out'), since subject is unchanged — 'in order to test you'. «вас» is the accusative object, and the appended «-с» keeps the whole answer servilely formal.

— Что испытать? Что?  
"Sound me out on what? What?"
> Clipped infinitive question: Ivan's two-word «Что испытать?» — interrogative «что» plus a bare infinitive — echoes Smerdyakov's «испытать» back at him, demanding its object. Such elliptical infinitive questions are a hallmark of clipped, agitated dialogue.

— А вот именно это самое обстоятельство: хочется иль не хочется вам, чтобы ваш родитель был поскорее убит?  
"Why, on this very circumstance: did you, or did you not, want your father to be killed the sooner?"
> Impersonal «хочется» + dative experiencer: «хочется вам» is the «-ся» impersonal of «хотеть»: 'is it wished by you', with the experiencer «вам» in the dative and no nominative subject. It softens raw 'do you want' into something more insinuating — 'do you happen to want…'.
> «чтобы» + short passive participle: The wish-clause «чтобы ваш родитель был… убит» pairs «чтобы» with «был убит» — the short past passive participle «убит» plus past «был» forming a periphrastic passive in the irrealis: 'that your father be killed'. «поскорее» urges 'the sooner'.

Всего более возмущал Ивана Федоровича этот настойчивый наглый тон, от которого упорно не хотел отступить Смердяков.  
What outraged Ivan Fyodorovich most of all was this insistent, insolent tone that Smerdyakov stubbornly refused to drop.
> Inverted word order with fronted comment: The superlative adverbial «всего более» ('most of all') and the verb «возмущал» open the sentence, with the true subject «этот настойчивый наглый тон» held to the end — a marked inversion that lands rhetorical weight on the tone that outraged him.
> Relative «который» with «от» + genitive: «от которого… отступить» — 'to retreat from which' — has the relative «которого» in the genitive after «от», agreeing in gender/number with «тон» but taking its case from the preposition. «отступить от тона» means 'to back off from the tone'.

— Это ты его убил! — воскликнул он вдруг.  
"It was you who killed him!" he exclaimed suddenly.
> Cleft emphasis with «это» + fronted «ты»: «Это ты… убил» is a cleft of identification — 'it was you who killed him' — with «это» presenting and «ты» (normally droppable) made explicit and fronted for accusatory stress. «его» is the animate accusative object.
> Perfective «воскликнул» closing the chapter: «воскликнул» (perfective, 'exclaimed') marks the single, decisive utterance that ends the exchange — the accusation that has been building through the whole scene. The post-verbal «он вдруг» keeps the manner ('suddenly') in final, climactic position.

Смердяков презрительно усмехнулся.  
Smerdyakov smiled contemptuously.
> Perfective -ну- of a single gesture: «усмехнуться» is a perfective semelfactive: the -ну- suffix names one momentary act — a single curl of the lip — and the reflexive -ся makes the whole gesture turn back on the smiler. Imperfective «усмехался» would have left him smirking on and on.
> «усмехнуться» — to smirk: Not a warm «улыбнуться» (to smile) but «усмехнуться», a sneer or smirk, here sharpened by «презрительно» (contemptuously). The verb already carries derision; the adverb only names its target.

— Что не я убил, это вы знаете сами доподлинно.  
"That it was not I who killed him, you know perfectly well yourself, for a certainty.
> Fronted что-clause, resumed by «это»: The reported clause «Что не я убил» is hoisted to the front as the topic, then picked up by the resumptive «это» before the verb «знаете». This topic-comment fronting throws the whole weight of the sentence onto the fact denied — and onto «не я», not I.
> «не» before the pronoun, not the verb: Negation is placed on «я», not on «убил»: not *I didn't kill* but *it was not I who killed*. Russian negates the very word it wants to deny, so «не я» pins the contrast onto the subject — someone killed, only not Smerdyakov.
> «доподлинно» — for a certainty: A bookish, emphatic adverb meaning 'authentically, beyond all doubt, for a certainty'. In Smerdyakov's mouth it lends a mock-solemn, almost legalistic ring to his insinuation that Ivan knows the truth perfectly well.

И думал я, что умному человеку и говорить о сем больше нечего.  
And I thought that to an intelligent man there was nothing more to be said about it."
> Dative experiencer + «нечего» + infinitive: An impersonal construction: «умному человеку» stands in the dative as the one to whom this applies, and the negative «нечего» plus infinitive «говорить» means 'there is nothing to say'. There is no nominative subject at all — a hallmark of Russian's experiencer-first syntax.
> «о сем» — archaic 'about this': «сем» is the prepositional of the bookish demonstrative «сей» ('this'), where ordinary speech would say «об этом». The archaic «сей/сия/сие» belongs to the elevated 19th-century register; Smerdyakov affects it to sound learned.

— Но почему, почему у тебя явилось тогда такое на меня подозрение?  
"But why, why did such a suspicion of me arise in you back then?"
> «у тебя» possessor + «явилось» of a feeling arising: Russian locates an emerging emotion not in the person as subject but 'at' them: «у тебя явилось подозрение» — literally 'with you a suspicion arose'. «подозрение» is the grammatical subject (neuter, matching «явилось»), while «у тебя» (genitive after «у») is the possessor in whom it appeared.
> Reduplication for insistence: Ivan doubles «почему, почему» — an emphatic repetition that English keeps ('why, why'). Such reduplication is a spoken-Russian intensifier, conveying his agitated, almost pleading demand for a reason.

— Как уж известно вам, от единого страху-с.  
"As you already know, sir, out of sheer fear alone.
> «от» + genitive of cause: Cause expressed by «от» plus the genitive: «от страху» = 'out of fear'. Note the old partitive-flavoured genitive «страху» (rather than «страха») — a folk/colloquial ending Dostoevsky keeps in Smerdyakov's speech.
> The lackey's «-с»: The clitic «-с» (a worn-down remnant of «сударь», 'sir') tacked onto «страху-с» is Smerdyakov's verbal signature: a servile, deferential particle stuck onto word after word throughout this scene. It marks his class and his oily obsequiousness toward the gentleman Ivan.
> «единый» — 'sole, sheer': «единый» is the elevated, near-biblical word for 'one/single/sole' (vs everyday «один»). «от единого страху» = 'from sheer fear alone' — another touch of Smerdyakov's borrowed bookishness.

Ибо в таком был тогда положении, что, в страхе сотрясаясь, всех подозревал.  
For I was in such a state at the time that, trembling with terror, I suspected everyone.
> Imperfective gerund «сотрясаясь»: «сотрясаясь» is an imperfective adverbial participle (деепричастие) in -ясь: 'trembling [while]'. It names an action going on simultaneously with the main verb «подозревал», and must share its subject — the same 'I' both trembles and suspects.
> «ибо» — bookish 'for, because': «ибо» is an archaic, scriptural conjunction for 'for / because', far more elevated than everyday «потому что». Smerdyakov uses it again and again here, mimicking sermon-like or legal solemnity — comic in so menial a man.
> Correlative «в таком… что»: «в таком положении, что…» sets up a result clause: 'in such a state that…'. The demonstrative «такой» (here prepositional «таком») anticipates the «что»-clause that explains what kind of state it was.

Вас тоже положил испытать-с, ибо если и вы, думаю, того же самого желаете, что и братец ваш, то и конец тогда всякому этому делу, а сам пропаду заодно, как муха.  
I resolved to sound you out too, sir, for if you, I thought, wanted the very same thing your brother did, then that would be the end of this whole business, and I myself would perish along with it, like a fly."
> Object «Вас» fronted before the verb: The object «Вас» (accusative of «вы») is thrown to the front for emphasis — 'You too I resolved to test'. With case marking the object, word order is free to put the new, pointed target first.
> «положил» — 'resolved, determined': Here «положил» does not mean 'put/laid' but 'resolved, made up my mind' (to do something) — an older, slightly bookish usage. «положил испытать» = 'I resolved to put [you] to the test'.
> «желать» governs the genitive: «желать» (to wish, desire) takes its object in the genitive: «того же самого желаете» = 'you desire the very same thing', where «того же самого» is the genitive of «то же самое». Verbs of wishing, fearing, and seeking typically govern the genitive of an abstract goal.
> «пропасть как муха» — perish like a fly: «пропаду» (perfective future of «пропасть», to perish/be done for) with the simile «как муха», 'like a fly' — to be swatted, worthless, snuffed out without a trace. The lowly image fits Smerdyakov's self-pitying sense of his own expendability.

— Слушай, ты две недели назад не то говорил.  
"Listen, two weeks ago you said something different."
> Imperfective «говорил» of what was said: «говорил» (imperfective past) reports the general content of an earlier conversation — 'you were saying / said something different' — rather than a single completed utterance. «не то» = 'not that [same] thing', i.e. something else.

— То же самое и в больнице, говоря с вами, разумел, а только полагал, что вы и без лишних слов поймете и прямого разговора не желаете сами, как самый умный человек-с.  
"The very same thing I meant in the hospital too, when I was speaking with you, only I supposed that you would understand even without any extra words and that you yourself, as the most intelligent of men, wanted no plain talk of it, sir."
> Gerund «говоря» framing the main verb: «говоря» is the imperfective gerund of «говорить»: 'while speaking [with you]'. It sets the simultaneous circumstance for the main verb «разумел» ('I meant'), both performed by the same speaker — a compact participial frame typical of literary Russian.
> Perfective future «поймёте»: «поймёте» is a perfective verb conjugated like a present — which yields future meaning: 'you will [come to] understand'. Smerdyakov reports his past supposition about a future grasp, betting on Ivan's single, completed act of comprehension «без лишних слов» (without superfluous words).
> «разуметь» — to mean, to apprehend: «разуметь» is an older, bookish verb for 'to understand / to mean by something' (modern «иметь в виду», «подразумевать»). It pairs naturally with «ум» (mind) — fitting in a scene obsessed with who is the «умный человек».
> Superlative with «самый»: «самый умный» forms the superlative periphrastically: «самый» ('most') declines together with the adjective to mean 'the most intelligent'. The recurring tag «умный человек» (intelligent man) is the scene's bitter refrain.

— Ишь ведь!  
"Just look at him!"
> «Ишь» — colloquial 'just look at him!': «Ишь» is an interjection of astonished, often indignant notice — 'just look at that! / would you believe it!' Reinforced by «ведь», it conveys Ivan's grim wonder at Smerdyakov's gall.
> The particle «ведь»: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'after all, you know, isn't it so'. It carries no dictionary meaning but colours the utterance with the speaker's sense that the point is self-evident; such modal particles are the very texture of Dostoevsky's dialogue.

Но отвечай, отвечай, я настаиваю: с чего именно, чем именно я мог вселить тогда в твою подлую душу такое низкое для меня подозрение?  
But answer me, answer — I insist: from what exactly, by what exactly, could I have planted such a base suspicion in your vile soul back then?"
> Imperfective imperative, doubled: «отвечай» is the imperfective imperative of «отвечать» (vs perfective «ответь»). The imperfective command urges Ivan to get on with answering, the process itself; the doubling makes it a goading, impatient demand.
> Instrumental «чем» of means: «чем» is the instrumental of «что», asking 'by what means': «чем… я мог вселить подозрение» = 'by what could I have instilled a suspicion'. The instrumental is the case of the instrument or cause through which something is done.
> «вселить» — to implant, instil: «вселить» literally means 'to settle/move [someone] into a dwelling'; figuratively, to implant a feeling 'into' someone's soul. The metaphor of a suspicion taking up residence «в душу» is vivid and faintly sinister — fitting Ivan's revulsion at «твою подлую душу» (your vile soul).

— Чтоб убить — это вы сами ни за что не могли-с, да и не хотели, а чтобы хотеть, чтобы другой кто убил, это вы хотели.  
"As for the killing itself — that you could never have done with your own hands, sir, nor did you want to; but as for wanting someone else to do the killing — that you did want."
> «ни за что» with negative concord: «ни за что» ('on no account, for anything') intensifies the negation, and Russian still keeps «не» on the verb: «ни за что не могли» — two negatives, one denial. This obligatory negative concord (an ни-word plus «не») is the rule, not a double-negative error.
> «чтобы» + past form for the willed outcome: After «хотеть», the embedded wish takes «чтобы» plus a past-tense form: «чтобы другой кто убил» = 'that someone else should kill'. «чтобы» (containing the irrealis «бы») governs the past form to express a willed, not-yet-real outcome — distinct from plain reported «что».
> Fronted «это» + emphatic word order: The chiastic structure — «убить… не могли… а чтобы хотеть… это вы хотели» — sets desire against deed by placing each topic first and stranding the verb «хотели» at the end for the damning final stress. Free word order lets Smerdyakov build to that one accusing verb.

— И как спокойно, как спокойно ведь говорит!  
"And how calmly, how calmly he says it!
> Exclamatory «как» + particle «ведь»: «как спокойно говорит» is an exclamation — 'how calmly he speaks!' — with «как» heading the marvelling. «ведь» injects appeal to the listener, and the whole is doubled («как спокойно, как спокойно») for stunned emphasis.

Да с чего мне хотеть, на кой ляд мне было хотеть?  
But why should I have wanted it — what the devil would I have wanted it for?"
> Dative «мне» + infinitive of incredulous question: «с чего мне хотеть?» = 'why on earth should I want [it]?' — a dative-experiencer construction with no nominative subject, the bare infinitive «хотеть» carrying the sense of obligation/reason. «с чего» (genitive after «с») asks 'from what grounds'.
> «на кой ляд» — 'what the devil for': A coarse, exasperated idiom: 'what the devil / why on earth for'. «ляд» is an old dialect word for an evil spirit or the devil, surviving almost only in this set phrase — Ivan's rough vernacular bursting through his refinement.

— Как это так на кой ляд-с? — А наследство-то-с? — ядовито и как-то даже отмстительно подхватил Смердяков. — Ведь вам тогда после родителя вашего на каждого из трех братцев без малого по сорока тысяч могло прийтись, а может, и того больше-с, а женись тогда Федор Павлович на этой самой госпоже-с, Аграфене Александровне, так уж та весь бы капитал тотчас же после венца на себя перевела, ибо они очень не глупые-с, так что вам всем троим братцам ни двух рублей не досталось бы после родителя.  
"What do you mean, what the devil for, sir? And what about the inheritance, then, sir?" Smerdyakov caught him up venomously and somehow even vindictively. "After your father, each of the three brothers stood to come into something close to forty thousand apiece, sir, and perhaps even more, sir; but had Fyodor Pavlovich married this very lady then, sir — Agrafena Alexandrovna — she would have signed over the whole capital to herself the moment after the wedding, for she is by no means a foolish woman, sir, so that you three brothers would not have been left even two rubles between you after your father."
> Distributive «по» + numeral case: «по» here is distributive — 'forty thousand apiece, to each'. With the numeral it pulls «сорока» into an oblique form, and «тысяч» stands in the genitive plural as numbers above four require. The impersonal «могло прийтись» (neuter) means 'there could have come [to fall to each]'.
> Imperative form «женись» as a conditional: «женись… Федор Павлович» uses an imperative form for a hypothetical condition: 'had Fyodor Pavlovich [but] married'. This idiomatic 'imperative-as-conditional' replaces «если бы он женился» and lends a brisk, folk-narrative immediacy to Smerdyakov's scenario.
> «ядовито» / «отмстительно» — venom and vengeance: «ядовито» ('venomously', from «яд», poison) and the archaic «отмстительно» ('vindictively', from «мстить», to avenge) paint Smerdyakov's tone. «подхватил» ('caught up [the words]') shows him pouncing on Ivan's question with relish.

А много ль тогда до венца-то оставалось?  
And how much was there left, back then, before the wedding?
> Enclitic «ль» and topic «-то»: «ль» is the shortened interrogative particle «ли», fused to «много» to mark a question — 'was there much left?'. The clitic «-то» on «венца-то» foregrounds 'the wedding' as the known topic under discussion. Both particles are the fine grain of spoken nuance.

Один волосок-с: стоило этой барыне вот так только мизинчиком пред ними сделать, и они бы тотчас в церковь за ними высуня язык побежали.  
A single hair, sir: that lady had only to crook her little finger at him, just so, and he would have run off to church after her at once, with his tongue hanging out."
> «стоило… и» — 'one had only to… and': The construction «стоило [кому] + infinitive, и…» means 'it would have been enough for X to do Y, and…'. The dative «этой барыне» is the one who acts; the result clause uses the conditional «они бы… побежали» — the whole a vivid 'she had only to crook a finger, and he'd have run'.
> Diminutive «мизинчик» — little finger: «мизинчик» is the affectionate diminutive of «мизинец» (little finger), the -чик suffix shrinking it tenderly. The image — a flick of her little finger and the old man would run to church — makes Fyodor Pavlovich's lust contemptibly slight.
> «высуня язык» — tongue hanging out: «высуня» is an archaic gerund (= modern «высунув», 'having stuck out') of «высунуть»; «высуня язык» is a fixed idiom for running headlong, eagerly, 'with one's tongue hanging out' — like a dog. It degrades Fyodor Pavlovich to a panting animal.
> «барыня» — lady, mistress: «барыня» is the gentry mistress of a household, the feminine of «барин». Applied by the servant Smerdyakov to Grushenka — herself no born lady — it is faintly ironic, half-deferential and half-mocking.

Иван Федорович со страданием сдержал себя.  
Ivan Fyodorovich restrained himself with anguish.
> Reflexive «себя» vs the -ся verb: «сдержал себя» ('restrained himself') uses the full object pronoun «себя», the reflexive that points back to the subject and has no nominative form. Note the contrast with verbal -ся: «себя» is a standalone object, here the very self Ivan must hold in check «со страданием» (with anguish).

— Хорошо, — проговорил он наконец, — ты видишь, я не вскочил, не избил тебя, не убил тебя.  
"Very well," he said at last, "you see, I haven't leapt up, I haven't beaten you, I haven't killed you.
> Triple perfective negation: Three negated perfectives in a row — «не вскочил, не избил, не убил» — each naming a single completed act that did not occur. The perfective + «не» states the non-happening of a discrete event; the mounting parallel triplet (leapt up / beat / killed) measures Ivan's restraint by the violence he withheld.

Говори дальше: стало быть, я, по-твоему, брата Дмитрия к тому и предназначал, на него и рассчитывал?  
Go on: so I, in your view, was marking out my brother Dmitri for the deed and counting on him?"
> «по-твоему» — 'in your view': The adverb «по-твоему» (по- + possessive + -ему) means 'in your opinion, the way you see it'. Built like «по-моему», «по-русски», it compactly attributes the whole proposition to Smerdyakov's reckoning.
> Animate accusative «брата» and imperfective intent: «брата Дмитрия» shows the animate accusative borrowing the genitive ending («брата», not «брат»). The imperfective verbs «предназначал» and «рассчитывал» describe a sustained design — 'was marking out… was counting on' — an ongoing scheme rather than a single act.
> «стало быть» — 'so, therefore': A conversational inferential connector, 'so then, it follows that, consequently'. It frames Ivan's bitter restatement of Smerdyakov's logic and recurs through the chapter as the men trace the chain of inference.

— Как же вам на них не рассчитывать было-с; ведь убей они, то тогда всех прав дворянства лишатся, чинов и имущества, и в ссылку пойдут-с.  
"How could you not have been counting on him, sir? Why, if he committed the murder, then he would be stripped of all the rights of the nobility, of his rank and his property, and would be sent into exile, sir.
> Dative «вам» + infinitive rhetorical question: «как же вам… не рассчитывать было?» is a dative-experiencer rhetorical question: 'how could you not have been counting?' The dative «вам» names the one who could not help it, the infinitive carries the action, and «же» sharpens the incredulity.
> Imperative «убей» as conditional + reflexive «лишатся»: «убей они» again uses the imperative form for a condition — 'were they to kill / if they killed'. The result «всех прав… лишатся» uses «лишиться», a -ся verb governing the genitive: 'they will be deprived of all rights' — «всех прав дворянства» in the genitive.

Так ведь тогда ихняя часть-с после родителя вам с братцем Алексеем Федоровичем останется, поровну-с, значит, уже не по сороку, а по шестидесяти тысяч вам пришлось бы каждому-с.  
So then his share, sir, after your father, would be left to you and your brother Alexei Fyodorovich, in equal parts, sir — meaning that each of you would have come into not forty thousand but sixty thousand, sir.
> «ихний» — substandard 'their': «ихняя» (here 'their share') is the non-standard, colloquial possessive «ихний» in place of the correct invariable «их». It is a marker of uneducated speech — Smerdyakov's lackey idiom showing through his pretensions to learning.
> Conditional «пришлось бы» + distributive «по»: «вам пришлось бы… каждому» is an impersonal conditional with dative experiencers — 'each of you would have come into'. «бы» plus past «пришлось» makes it hypothetical; distributive «по шестидесяти тысяч» again pulls the numeral oblique and keeps «тысяч» in the genitive plural.

Это вы на Дмитрия Федоровича беспременно тогда рассчитывали!  
It was on Dmitri Fyodorovich, beyond all doubt, that you were counting back then!"
> Cleft «это… вы» for the accusation: The cleft «Это вы… рассчитывали» throws the focus onto «вы» — 'it was YOU who were counting'. Fronting «это» and stranding the imperfective verb at the end builds the sentence to its accusing climax, with «беспременно» nailing it down.
> «беспременно» — substandard 'without fail': A colloquial, uneducated variant of «непременно» ('without fail, certainly') — the negative prefix «не-» reanalyzed and replaced by «без-/бес-» (a folk prefix substitution, not metathesis). It marks the word as folk speech — another flag of Smerdyakov's class beneath his bookish veneer.

— Ну терплю же я от тебя!  
"What I have to suffer from you!
> Particles «ну… же» of vexed exclamation: «Ну… же» frames an exasperated outburst — 'what I have to put up with from you!'. «ну» opens the lament, «же» drives the emphasis home; the present «терплю» ('I endure') with «от тебя' makes the suffering vividly ongoing.

Слушай, негодяй: если б я и рассчитывал тогда на кого-нибудь, так уж конечно бы на тебя, а не на Дмитрия, и, клянусь, предчувствовал даже от тебя какой-нибудь мерзости… тогда… я помню мое впечатление!  
Listen, you blackguard: if I had been counting on anyone at all back then, it would of course have been on you, and not on Dmitri, and I swear, I even had a foreboding of some vileness from you… back then… I remember my impression of it!"
> Counterfactual with «если б… бы»: A past-form conditional: «если б я и рассчитывал… так… бы на тебя» = 'if I had been counting on anyone, it would of course have been on you'. The particle «бы/б» appears in both clauses; «и» here is concessive ('even, at all').
> Indefinite «какой-нибудь» + genitive object: «какой-нибудь мерзости» is non-specific — 'some vileness or other', the -нибудь marking an 'any-at-all' referent. The genitive «мерзости» follows the foreboding verb «предчувствовал» (cf. fearing/expecting verbs that take the genitive of an abstract object).
> «негодяй» — scoundrel, good-for-nothing: A strong term of abuse — 'scoundrel, blackguard, villain' — from «не-годяй», one who is good for nothing (cf. «годиться», to be of use). It is harsher than «подлец» and pitched at someone beneath contempt.

— И я тоже подумал тогда, минутку одну, что и на меня тоже рассчитываете, — насмешливо осклабился Смердяков, — так что тем самым еще более тогда себя предо мной обличили, ибо если предчувствовали на меня и в то же самое время уезжали, значит, мне тем самым точно как бы сказали: это ты можешь убить родителя, а я не препятствую.  
"And I too thought, back then, for one little moment, that you were counting on me as well," Smerdyakov grinned derisively, "so that by that very thing you laid yourself bare before me all the more at the time, for if you had a foreboding about me and were going away at that very same moment, it meant that by that you were as good as telling me: you may kill my father, and I will not stand in your way."
> Instrumental «тем самым» — 'by that very thing': «тем самым» is the instrumental of «то самое», meaning 'by that very means / thereby'. It marks the instrument of self-exposure: by leaving, Ivan «себя… обличили» ('laid himself bare'), with «себя» the reflexive object.
> Stacked «ибо… если… значит» reasoning: Smerdyakov chains his logic: «ибо» (for) opens the ground, «если… в то же самое время уезжали» (if… you were leaving at the same time) sets two simultaneous imperfectives, and «значит» (it means) draws the conclusion. The imperfective «уезжали» frames the departure as an unfolding circumstance.
> Reported imagined speech, present tense: «как бы сказали» ('as if you said') introduces an imagined quotation kept vividly in the present: «ты можешь убить… а я не препятствую». The contrastive «а» pivots between the two voices, and the present tense makes the silent message immediate and damning.
> «осклабиться» — to grin, bare the teeth: «осклабиться» is to grin broadly, often baring the teeth — a leering, unpleasant smile. With «насмешливо» (derisively) it captures Smerdyakov's relish as he springs the trap of his reasoning.

— Подлец! Ты так понял!  
"You scoundrel! So that's how you understood it!"
> «подлец» — base wretch: «подлец» ('scoundrel, base creature', from «подлый», low/vile) is one of the novel's recurrent insults. Where «негодяй» stresses worthlessness, «подлец» stresses moral baseness — the very «подлая душа» Ivan named earlier.
> Perfective «понял» of a settled grasp: «понял» is the perfective past of «понять»: a single, completed act of understanding — 'so that is how you took it'. The adverb «так» ('thus, in that way') points to the specific damning interpretation Smerdyakov has just spelled out.

— А всё чрез эту самую Чермашню-с.  
"And it was all on account of this very Chermashnya business, sir.
> «чрез» — archaic 'through, on account of': «чрез» is the bookish, Church-Slavonic-flavoured form of «через» ('through, because of'). Smerdyakov's «всё чрез эту самую Чермашню» = 'it was all on account of this very Chermashnya' — the shortened form lending his speech its faux-solemn tone.

Помилосердуйте!  
Have mercy on me!
> «помилосердуйте» — 'have mercy!': An archaic, fawning imperative from «милосердовать» (to show mercy, from «милосердие», compassion). Used as a polite-pleading interjection — 'for pity's sake! / have mercy on me!' — it is part of Smerdyakov's unctuous, deacon-like manner.

Собираетесь в Москву и на все просьбы родителя ехать в Чермашню отказались-с!  
You were getting ready to go to Moscow and had refused all your father's pleas to go to Chermashnya, sir!
> Reflexive «отказаться» of refusal: «отказались» is the perfective past of «отказаться» ('to refuse, decline'), a -ся verb. The dependent infinitive «ехать» ('to go') names what was refused, despite «все просьбы родителя» (all the father's entreaties) in the accusative.
> «родитель» — formal 'father, parent': «родитель» (literally 'parent', from «родить», to give birth) is a stiff, formal word for one's father, recurrent in Smerdyakov's speech where «отец» would be neutral. Coming from the murdered man's own bastard servant, «ваш родитель» carries a chilling, ceremonious distance.

И по одному только глупому моему слову вдруг согласились-с!  
And then, on a single foolish word of mine, you suddenly agreed, sir!
> «по» + dative 'on a single word': «по… слову» uses «по» with the dative to mean 'on / according to a word': 'on a single foolish word of mine'. The bunching «по одному только глупому моему слову» stacks modifiers before «слову» for emphasis, and «вдруг» ('suddenly') stresses how abrupt the assent was.

И на что вам было тогда соглашаться на эту Чермашню?  
And what reason had you, back then, to agree to this Chermashnya at all?
> Dative «вам» + «было» + imperfective infinitive: «на что вам было… соглашаться?» is an impersonal past question — 'what reason had you to agree?'. The dative «вам» is the experiencer, the neuter «было» carries past tense, and the imperfective infinitive «соглашаться» frames the agreeing as a (pointless) ongoing act.

Коли не в Москву, а поехали в Чермашню без причины, по единому моему слову, то, стало быть, чего-либо от меня ожидали.  
If you went not to Moscow but to Chermashnya, with no reason, on my single word, then it stood to reason you were expecting something of me."
> «коли» if-clause + motion «поехали»: «Коли» is a folksy, archaic 'if' (= «если»). The contrast «не в Москву, а… в Чермашню» turns on «а» (the topic-shifting 'and/but'), and «поехали» is the prefixed perfective of motion (по-ехать) — 'set off [by vehicle]' on a single completed journey.
> «ожидать» + genitive «чего-либо»: «ожидать» (to expect, await) governs the genitive of an indefinite object: «чего-либо… ожидали» = 'you were expecting something'. The indefinite «чего-либо» (any-thing) keeps the object vague — Smerdyakov insinuates without naming what Ivan expected.

— Нет, клянусь, нет! — завопил, скрежеща зубами, Иван.  
"No, I swear, no!" Ivan bellowed, grinding his teeth.
> Gerund «скрежеща» of manner: «скрежеща» is the imperfective gerund of «скрежетать» (to gnash, grind): 'gnashing his teeth'. It runs simultaneously with «завопил» ('bellowed', perfective), painting the manner of Ivan's outburst. «зубами» stands in the instrumental — the teeth as the means of gnashing.

— Как же это нет-с?  
"What do you mean, no, sir?
> Incredulous «как же… нет»: «Как же это нет?» — 'what do you mean, no?' — uses «же» to mark astonished objection, with «это» pointing back at Ivan's denial. The whole, capped by the deferential «-с», is Smerdyakov mildly, mockingly refusing to accept the 'no'.

Следовало, напротив, за такие мои тогдашние слова вам, сыну родителя вашего, меня первым делом в часть представить и выдрать-с… по крайности по мордасам тут же на месте отколотить, а вы, помилуйте-с, напротив, нимало не рассердимшись, тотчас дружелюбно исполняете в точности по моему весьма глупому слову-с и едете, что было вовсе нелепо-с, ибо вам следовало оставаться, чтобы хранить жизнь родителя…  
On the contrary, for such words from me back then, you — your father's son — ought first of all to have hauled me off to the police station and had me flogged, sir… or at the very least to have thrashed me about the face right there on the spot; but instead, if you please, sir, you — far from being in the least put out — at once, in a friendly way, carried out my very foolish word to the letter, sir, and went off, which was utterly absurd, sir, for you ought to have stayed in order to guard your father's life…
> Impersonal «следовало» + dative of obligation: «следовало вам… представить и выдрать» is an impersonal obligation construction: 'you ought to have [done]'. The neuter «следовало» (it was fitting) takes the dative «вам» for the one obliged, with infinitives naming the duties unfulfilled.
> «рассердимшись» — substandard gerund: «рассердимшись» is a non-standard, dialect gerund for 'having got angry' (correct «рассердившись»), with «нимало не» ('not in the least') negating it: 'not in the least put out'. The malformed -мши ending is a vivid marker of Smerdyakov's uneducated speech surfacing through his pretension.
> «мордасы» — a smack in the chops: «морда» is a beast's muzzle, coarse for a human 'mug/face'; «по мордасам» means 'a smack across the chops'. The crude, demeaning register — repeated through this passage — fits the violence Smerdyakov says he deserved and the contempt the brothers feel for him.

Как же мне было не заключить?  
How was I not to draw my conclusion?"
> Dative «мне было» + negated infinitive: «Как же мне было не заключить?» — 'how was I not to conclude?' — is an impersonal dative-experiencer construction with past «было» and the negated perfective infinitive «не заключить». It is a rhetorical question asserting the conclusion was inescapable.

Иван сидел насупившись, конвульсивно опершись обоими кулаками в свои колена.  
Ivan sat scowling, his two fists pressed convulsively against his knees.
> Two perfective gerunds of posture: Two past gerunds set Ivan's frozen pose: «насупившись» ('having knit his brows / scowling') and «опершись» ('having propped himself'). Perfective -вши-/-шись forms name completed actions resulting in a held state, and «обоими кулаками» stands in the instrumental — the fists as the means of propping.

— Да, жаль, что не отколотил тебя по мордасам, — горько усмехнулся он. — В часть тогда тебя тащить нельзя было: кто ж бы мне поверил и на что я мог указать, ну а по мордасам… ух, жаль не догадался; хоть и запрещены мордасы, а сделал бы я из твоей хари кашу.  
"Yes, a pity I didn't thrash you about the face," he said with a bitter laugh. "To haul you off to the station was impossible at the time: who would have believed me, and what could I have pointed to? But to slap your face… ah, a pity it never occurred to me; box on the ear may be forbidden, but I'd have made a pulp of that mug of yours."
> Impersonal «нельзя было» + infinitive: «тащить… нельзя было» is the impersonal modal «нельзя» ('it was impossible / not allowed') with past «было» and an imperfective infinitive — 'it was impossible to haul you off'. No subject; the impossibility itself is predicated.
> Short passive participle + conditional «бы»: «запрещены» is the short-form past passive participle of «запретить» ('forbidden'), predicating a result. The concessive «хоть и… а» ('though… yet') pivots to the conditional «сделал бы я… кашу» — 'I would have made a pulp', the irrealis «бы» on a past-form verb.
> «харя» / «сделать кашу» — beat to a pulp: «харя» is a brutally contemptuous word for a face ('ugly mug'), even lower than «морда». «сделать кашу из…» literally 'to make porridge/mush out of' — i.e. to beat to a pulp. Ivan stoops to Smerdyakov's own gutter idiom in his fury.

Смердяков почти с наслаждением смотрел на него.  
Smerdyakov gazed at him almost with relish.
> «с наслаждением» — instrumental of manner after «с»: «с наслаждением» ('with relish, delight') is «с» + the instrumental «наслаждением», a common way to form an adverbial of manner. Smerdyakov watches Ivan «почти с наслаждением» — savouring his victim's torment.

— В обыкновенных случаях жизни, — проговорил он тем самодовольно-доктринерским тоном, с которым спорил некогда с Григорием Васильевичем о вере и дразнил его, стоя за столом Федора Павловича, — в обыкновенных случаях жизни мордасы ноне действительно запрещены по закону, и все перестали бить-с, ну, а в отличительных случаях жизни, так не то что у нас, а и на всем свете, будь хоша бы самая полная французская республика, всё одно продолжают бить, как и при Адаме и Еве-с, да и никогда того не перестанут-с, а вы и в отличительном случае тогда не посмели-с.  
"In the ordinary cases of life," he said in that smugly doctrinaire tone with which he had once argued about the faith with Grigory Vasilyevich and teased him, standing at Fyodor Pavlovich's table, "in the ordinary cases of life, slaps to the face are indeed forbidden nowadays by law, and everyone has left off striking, sir; but in the exceptional cases of life — well, not just here among us, but throughout the whole world, even were it the fullest French republic, they go on striking all the same, just as in the days of Adam and Eve, sir, and never will they leave off, sir; while you, even in an exceptional case, did not dare to back then, sir."
> Relative «с которым» in its own case: «с которым спорил» is a который-relative: «который» agrees with its antecedent «тоном» (masculine), but takes the instrumental after «с» as its own role demands — 'the tone with which he argued'. The clause folds a whole remembered scene into a single modifier.
> Folk and malapropped diction: «ноне» ('nowadays', for «ныне/теперь») and «хоша» ('although') are peasant forms, while «отличительные случаи» misuses «отличительный» ('distinctive') for «исключительные» ('exceptional') — a malapropism. The blend of folk speech and bungled book-words is the comic-sinister signature of Smerdyakov's mind.

— Что это ты французские вокабулы учишь? — кивнул Иван на тетрадку, лежавшую на столе.  
"What's this, are you learning French vocabulary?" Ivan nodded toward the notebook lying on the table.
> Past active participle «лежавшую»: «лежавшую» is the past active participle of «лежать» ('which was lying'), agreeing with «тетрадку» in feminine accusative. It condenses a который-clause ('the notebook that was lying on the table') into one declined modifier — a bookish economy of literary narration.
> «вокабулы» — vocabulary words: «вокабулы» (from Latin vocabula) are 'vocabulary words' to be drilled — the kind copied into a «тетрадка» (little notebook). The faintly pedantic loan-word, and Smerdyakov's studying of French, mark his pathetic ambition to better himself for the «счастливые места Европы».

— А почему же бы мне их не учить-с, чтобы тем образованию моему способствовать, думая, что и самому мне когда в тех счастливых местах Европы, может, придется быть.  
"And why should I not learn it, sir, so as thereby to further my own education, thinking that I myself may one day have occasion to be in those happy regions of Europe."
> Dative «мне» + «бы» + negated infinitive: «почему же бы мне их не учить?» — 'and why should I not learn them?' — is a dative-experiencer rhetorical question softened by «бы». The particle «же» adds defensive emphasis, and the imperfective infinitive «учить» frames learning as an ongoing pursuit.
> Purpose «чтобы» + dative governed by «способствовать»: «чтобы… способствовать» states purpose ('so as to further'). The verb «способствовать» ('to further, contribute to') governs the dative «образованию моему» — 'to my education'. «тем» (instrumental, 'thereby') points back to the means.
> Impersonal «придётся» of fated necessity: «мне… придется быть» is impersonal: the dative «мне» plus perfective future «придётся» ('it will fall to me / I shall have occasion') and infinitive «быть» — 'I myself may have occasion to be [there]'. The construction casts the future as something that befalls the experiencer.

— Слушай, изверг, — засверкал глазами Иван и весь затрясся, — я не боюсь твоих обвинений, показывай на меня что хочешь, и если не избил тебя сейчас до смерти, то единственно потому, что подозреваю тебя в этом преступлении и притяну к суду.  
"Listen, you monster," Ivan's eyes blazed and his whole body began to shake, "I am not afraid of your accusations, testify against me whatever you please, and if I haven't beaten you to death this very moment, it is solely because I suspect you of this crime and will drag you before the court.
> «изверг» — monster, fiend: «изверг» is a person utterly cast out of humanity — 'monster, fiend, brute' (literally one 'thrown out', from из-вергнуть). It is among the gravest of insults, fitting Ivan's dawning horror that Smerdyakov is the real murderer.
> Imperfective imperative «показывай»: «показывай на меня» is the imperfective imperative of «показывать» — here in its legal sense 'to testify, give evidence against'. The imperfective licenses the open-ended 'testify whatever you please', and «на меня» marks the target of the accusation.
> Perfective future «притяну» of intent: «притяну к суду» ('I will drag [you] before the court') is a perfective future — a single, resolved future act. Paired with «подозреваю» (present, imperfective) it contrasts Ivan's standing suspicion with the decisive prosecution he now vows.

Я еще тебя обнаружу!  
I'll yet expose you!"
> Perfective future «обнаружу» + emphatic «еще»: «обнаружу» is the perfective future of «обнаружить» ('to expose, bring to light') — a single completed future act. The particle «еще» here means 'yet, still' — 'I'll yet expose you', a defiant promise hurled at the parting Smerdyakov.

— А по-моему, лучше молчите-с.  
"And in my opinion, you had better hold your tongue, sir.
> Comparative «лучше» + imperfective imperative: «лучше молчите» pairs the suppletive comparative «лучше» ('better', from «хороший») with the imperfective imperative «молчите» ('be silent') — 'you had better hold your tongue'. The imperfective command counsels an ongoing state of silence, and «по-моему» frames it as Smerdyakov's smooth advice.

Ибо что можете вы на меня объявить в моей совершенной невинности и кто вам поверит?  
For what can you testify against me, in my perfect innocence, and who would believe you?
> Modal «можете» + perfective infinitive: «что можете вы… объявить?» pairs «мочь» (can) with the perfective infinitive «объявить» ('to declare, denounce') — 'what can you declare against me?'. «в моей совершенной невинности» ('in my perfect innocence') is the prepositional after «в», naming the state from which he speaks.
> «поверить» + dative + perfective future: «поверить» (to believe someone) governs the dative: «кто вам поверит?» = 'who will believe YOU?' (dative «вам»). The perfective future «поверит» projects a single decisive act of belief — which Smerdyakov is certain will not come.

А только если начнете, то и я всё расскажу-с, ибо как же бы мне не защитить себя?  
But if you do start, then I shall tell everything too, sir, for how should I not defend myself?"
> Perfective futures in a real condition: A real (not hypothetical) condition: «если начнете… то… я всё расскажу» — both verbs perfective futures ('if you start… then I will tell everything'). With no «бы», this is a genuine threat about what will happen, not a counterfactual.
> Dative «мне» + «бы» + reflexive «себя»: «как же бы мне не защитить себя?» — 'how should I not defend myself?' — a dative-experiencer rhetorical question with softening «бы», negated perfective infinitive «не защитить», and the reflexive object «себя». Smerdyakov frames self-betrayal as mere self-defence.

— Ты думаешь, я тебя теперь боюсь?  
"Do you think I'm afraid of you now?"
> «бояться» + genitive, a -ся-only verb: «бояться» (to fear) exists only in the -ся form and governs the genitive of its object — here «тебя», the genitive/accusative of «ты». 'Do you think I'm afraid of you now?': Ivan throws Smerdyakov's own logic of fear back at him.

— Пусть этим всем моим словам, что вам теперь говорил, в суде не поверят-с, зато в публике поверят-с, и вам стыдно станет-с.  
"Suppose all these words of mine that I've just been telling you are not believed in court, sir — yet they will be believed by the public, sir, and you will be put to shame, sir."
> «пусть» concessive + contrastive «зато»: «Пусть… не поверят» uses «пусть» to grant a hypothesis — 'suppose / even if they don't believe', with perfective future «поверят». «зато» ('but on the other hand, to make up for it') pivots to the consoling counter-fact: the public will believe.
> Dative «вам» + «стыдно» + «станет»: «вам стыдно станет» is an impersonal feeling-construction: the dative «вам» is the experiencer, «стыдно» the invariable predicative ('shameful'), and «станет» ('will become') the perfective future — 'you will be put to shame'. The self is the one shame happens to, not the doer.

— Это значит опять-таки что: «с умным человеком и поговорить любопытно» — а? — проскрежетал Иван.  
"That means once again the same thing: 'with an intelligent man it's worth having a chat' — eh?" Ivan ground out.
> «с» + instrumental + impersonal «любопытно»: «с умным человеком… поговорить любопытно» is impersonal: «любопытно» ('it is interesting/worth it') predicates of the infinitive «поговорить», with «с умным человеком» (instrumental of accompaniment after «с») as the company. The perfective «поговорить» means 'to have a little chat'. This recurring tag is the scene's leitmotif.
> «проскрежетать» — to grind out: «проскрежетал» (perfective of «скрежетать», to gnash) means he 'ground out' the words through clenched teeth. The verb of teeth-grinding recurs as the physical sign of Ivan's barely-contained rage throughout this confrontation.

— В самую точку изволили-с.  
"You've hit the nail right on the head, sir.
> «в самую точку» / «изволили»: «в самую точку» is the idiom 'right on the mark / nail on the head'. «изволили» (from «изволить», 'to deign, be pleased to') is an ultra-deferential auxiliary — 'you were pleased to [hit the mark]'. Smerdyakov's servile courtliness drips with mockery.

Умным и будьте-с.  
An intelligent man you should be, sir."
> «будьте» + instrumental predicate: «Умным… будьте» is an imperative of «быть» with the predicate adjective in the instrumental: «умным» rather than nominative «умный». After «быть», «стать», and the like, the predicate goes instrumental — here a curt, taunting 'so be an intelligent man, then'.

Иван Федорович встал, весь дрожа от негодования, надел пальто и, не отвечая более Смердякову, даже не глядя на него, быстро вышел из избы.  
Ivan Fyodorovich rose, trembling all over with indignation, put on his overcoat, and, without answering Smerdyakov further, without so much as glancing at him, walked swiftly out of the cottage.
> Two imperfective gerunds + perfective «вышел»: «не отвечая» and «не глядя» are negated imperfective gerunds ('without answering… without glancing'), naming what Ivan refrained from while the main perfective «вышел» ('walked out', prefixed motion вы-йти) drives the action to its close. The participial frame holds the manner of his exit.
> «изба» — peasant cottage: «изба» is the traditional Russian peasant log cottage. That Smerdyakov, fallen ill, is lodged in an «изба» rather than the manor house quietly marks his place — a servant's dwelling — even as he lords his secret over the gentleman Ivan.

Свежий вечерний воздух освежил его.  
The fresh evening air refreshed him.
> Figura etymologica: «свежий… освежил»: The sentence chimes on one root: «свежий» (fresh) air «освежил» (freshened) him — adjective and verb sharing «свеж-». This deliberate etymological echo gives the line of release a brief, cooling music after the suffocating dialogue.

На небе ярко светила луна.  
Overhead the moon shone brightly in the sky.
> Inverted word order: «светила луна»: The subject «луна» follows its verb «светила», and the locative «на небе» opens the sentence: 'In the sky shone the moon'. This verb-before-subject inversion, with the new element «луна» landing last, is the natural Russian way to present a scene — the moon as the fresh, stressed information.

Страшный кошмар мыслей и ощущений кипел в его душе.  
A fearful nightmare of thoughts and sensations seethed in his soul.
> «кипеть» of seething emotion, prepositional «в душе»: «кипел» (imperfective of «кипеть», to boil/seethe) renders the inner turmoil as an ongoing boiling. «в его душе» ('in his soul') is the prepositional after «в» marking location — the soul as the vessel where the «страшный кошмар мыслей и ощущений» seethes.

«Идти объявить сейчас на Смердякова?  
"Go and inform on Smerdyakov this very moment?
> Bare infinitives of deliberation: Ivan's interior monologue opens with bare infinitives — «Идти объявить… на Смердякова?» ('To go and inform on Smerdyakov?'). The subjectless infinitive question is Russian's natural form for self-deliberation, weighing a course of action with no 'should I' spelled out.
> «объявить на» — to inform/denounce: «объявить на кого-то» (with «на» + accusative) is to denounce or lay information against someone — to go to the authorities. It carries the moral weight of informing, which Ivan's tormented conscience turns over in the next lines.

Но что же объявить: он все-таки невинен.  
But what is there to inform: he is innocent after all.
> Short adjective «невинен» as predicate: «невинен» is the short form of «невинный» ('innocent') used predicatively — 'he is innocent'. The short adjective, more bookish and absolute than the long «невинный», states a flat condition, here laced with bitter irony: legally innocent, since no proof exists.

Он, напротив, меня же обвинит.  
He would, on the contrary, only accuse me in turn.
> Emphatic «же» + perfective future «обвинит»: «меня же обвинит» — 'he would, on the contrary, accuse ME in turn'. The particle «же» stresses the reversal (it is Ivan who would stand accused), «напротив» marks the contrast, and the perfective future «обвинит» projects the single damning counter-accusation Ivan foresees.

В самом деле, для чего я тогда поехал в Чермашню?  
Truly, why did I set off for Chermashnya that day?
> «Для чего» — 'for what / why': The preposition «для» governs the genitive, and «что» here stands in its genitive form «чего». Literally 'for the sake of what', it is a slightly weightier, more searching 'why' than the bare «почему» — fitting Ivan's tormented self-interrogation.
> «Поехал» — perfective of a single trip: «Поехал» is the perfective of «ехать» (to go by vehicle), prefixed with «по-» to mark the single completed setting-off. With «в» + accusative «Чермашню» it names motion toward the place, a one-time departure rather than habitual travel.

Для чего, для чего? — спрашивал Иван Федорович.  
Why, why? — Ivan Fyodorovich kept asking.
> Imperfective «спрашивал» — kept asking: The imperfective past «спрашивал» (from «спрашивать») renders a repeated, ongoing action — Ivan asked this question again and again. A perfective «спросил» would mark one finished query; the imperfective captures the obsessive looping our 'kept asking' brings out.

— Да, конечно, я чего-то ожидал, и он прав…»  
"Yes, of course, I was waiting for something, and he is right…"
> «Чего-то» — a specific but unnamed something: The clitic «-то» on the genitive «чего» marks a definite but unidentified thing: Ivan was waiting for *something* he could not (or would not) name. «Ожидать» governs the genitive, so the object stands as «чего-то», not «что-то».
> Short adjective «прав» — 'he is right': «Прав» is the short (predicative) form of «правый». Short adjectives can only predicate, never attribute, and carry the bookish, categorical ring typical of 19th-century prose — 'he is right' as a flat verdict.

И ему опять в сотый раз припомнилось, как он в последнюю ночь у отца подслушивал к нему с лестницы, но с таким уже страданием теперь припомнилось, что он даже остановился на месте как пронзенный: «Да, я этого тогда ждал, это правда!  
And once again, for the hundredth time, he recalled how on that last night at his father's he had stood eavesdropping from the staircase, listening down toward him — but now he recalled it with such anguish that he even stopped where he stood, as though run through: "Yes, that is what I was waiting for then, it is the truth!
> Impersonal «припомнилось» — it came back to him: The reflexive «-ся/-сь» turns 'recall' into an impersonal middle: the memory 'recalled itself' to him, with «ему» (dative) as the experiencer rather than a nominative subject. Russian frames involuntary mental events this way, draining Ivan of agency over his own conscience.
> «Подслушивал» — eavesdropped: From «слушать» (to listen) with «под-» ('from under, stealthily'): «подслушивать» is to listen in secret, to eavesdrop. The imperfective stresses the drawn-out, furtive act of standing on the stairs straining to hear his father below.
> «Пронзенный» — past passive participle, 'as if run through': «Пронзённый» is the past passive participle of «пронзить» (to pierce, run through), used here predicatively after «как» ('as if'). The image — a man transfixed as by a blade — turns his physical stopping into the stab of conscience.
> «В сотый раз» — for the hundredth time: An idiomatic ordinal phrase, «в сотый раз» means 'for the hundredth time' — i.e. yet again, wearisomely repeated. It underscores how the memory torments Ivan over and over.

Я хотел, я именно хотел убийства!  
I wanted it, I deliberately wanted the murder!
> Genitive object «убийства» after «хотеть»: «Хотеть» characteristically takes a genitive object when the thing wanted is abstract or non-specific: 'I wanted *of* the murder'. The genitive «убийства» (not accusative «убийство») marks the killing as a desired abstraction — the very thing Ivan recoils from having craved.
> «Именно» — precisely, deliberately: «Именно» means 'exactly, precisely, namely'. Repeated here for force — «я именно хотел» — it sharpens the confession from a vague wish into a pointed, deliberate willing of the deed.

Хотел ли я убийства, хотел ли?..  
Did I want the murder, did I?..
> Interrogative particle «ли»: The enclitic «ли» fronts the focused word — the verb «хотел» — to form a literary yes/no question: 'Did I want it?' More formal than mere question intonation, its doubling here («хотел ли… хотел ли») dramatizes Ivan interrogating his own buried will.

Надо убить Смердякова!..  
Smerdyakov must be killed!..
> Impersonal «надо» + infinitive: «Надо» ('it is necessary') is an invariable impersonal predicate taking an infinitive; there is no nominative subject. The implied experiencer would stand in the dative («мне надо»). Here it bursts out subjectless, a compulsion seizing Ivan rather than a reasoned choice.
> Animate accusative «Смердякова»: Because Smerdyakov is animate and masculine, the accusative object borrows the genitive ending «-а»: «Смердякова». This is how Russian keeps subject and object distinct once word order is free.

Если я не смею теперь убить Смердякова, то не стоит и жить!..»  
If I dare not kill Smerdyakov now, then there is no point in living!.."
> «Если… то» conditional frame: The subordinating «если» ('if') paired with the resumptive «то' ('then') frames a real condition. Both clauses are negated, and the apodosis «не стоит и жить» ('it isn't even worth living') is impersonal, with «и» here meaning 'even'.
> «Сметь» — to dare: «Сметь» means 'to dare, to presume'; «не смею» is 'I dare not'. It is a more morally charged verb than mere ability — Ivan frames the killing as a test of nerve and right, not just possibility.

Иван Федорович, не заходя домой, прошел тогда прямо к Катерине Ивановне и испугал ее своим появлением: он был как безумный.  
Without going home, Ivan Fyodorovich went straight to Katerina Ivanovna then and frightened her by his appearance: he was like a man out of his mind.
> Negated gerund «не заходя»: «Заходя» is the imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») of «заходить» (to drop in). Negated, «не заходя домой» means 'without dropping in at home' — a backgrounded, simultaneous circumstance sharing Ivan's subject, compressing a whole clause into one verb-adverb.
> Instrumental of means «своим появлением»: «Своим появлением» ('by his appearance') is the instrumental of means, naming what frightened her. The reflexive possessive «свой» points back to the clause's own subject, Ivan, and the instrumental answers 'by what means'.

Он передал ей весь свой разговор со Смердяковым, весь до черточки.  
He related to her his whole conversation with Smerdyakov, every last detail of it.
> Dative recipient + «свой»: «Передал» (perfective 'related, conveyed') takes a dative indirect object «ей» ('to her') and an accusative direct object «весь свой разговор». «Свой» again binds the conversation to its possessor-subject, Ivan.
> «До черточки» — down to the last little stroke: «Чёрточка» is a diminutive of «черта» (a line, dash); «до черточки» idiomatically means 'down to the smallest detail', literally 'to the little stroke'. The diminutive lends an intimate, exhaustive precision.

Он не мог успокоиться, сколько та ни уговаривала его, всё ходил по комнате и говорил отрывисто, странно.  
He could not calm himself, however much she tried to soothe him; he kept pacing the room and speaking in broken, strange phrases.
> Concessive «сколько… ни» — however much: The pattern «сколько… ни» + verb means 'however much (one) did X'; the «ни» here is concessive, not a second negator. «Та» is the demonstrative «тот» used pronominally for 'she (the other one)', tracking Katerina Ivanovna as a distinct referent.
> Multidirectional «ходил» — pacing: «Ходить» is the multidirectional motion verb (going to and fro, not one straight trajectory), perfect for pacing; «по комнате» (dative after «по») means 'about the room'. The particle «всё» here means 'kept on', stressing the restless repetition.

Наконец сел, облокотился на стол, упер голову в обе руки и вымолвил странный афоризм:  
At last he sat down, set his elbows on the table, propped his head in both hands, and uttered a strange aphorism:
> Chain of perfectives — staged actions: A string of perfective past verbs («сел, облокотился, упёр, вымолвил») moves the scene forward step by step: each is a single completed act laid end to end, the perfective's narrative job against any imperfective background.
> «Вымолвить» — to utter, get out (a word): «Вымолвить» is a bookish, somewhat solemn perfective meaning to manage to say or pronounce — often a single weighty word. It dignifies the 'strange aphorism' Ivan is about to deliver.

— Если б убил не Дмитрий, а Смердяков, то, конечно, я тогда с ним солидарен, ибо я подбивал его.  
— If it was not Dmitri who did the killing but Smerdyakov, then, of course, I am in league with him, for I egged him on.
> Conditional «если б» + contrastive «не… а»: «Если б» is «если бы», the irrealis particle «бы» making a hypothetical condition with the past-form verb «убил». «Не Дмитрий, а Смердяков» is the corrective «not X but Y» construction — the contrastive «а» replacing one agent with the other.
> «Ибо» — for, because (archaic): «Ибо» is a bookish, period-elevated conjunction for 'for, because', already archaic in Dostoevsky's day and steeped in Scriptural and legalistic gravity. It lends Ivan's confession the cadence of a formal proposition.
> «Подбивать» — to put up to, egg on: «Подбивать (на что-то)» means to incite or egg someone on to a deed, with a colloquial tang of secret instigation. It is Ivan's word for his own moral complicity in the murder.

Подбивал ли я его — еще не знаю.  
Whether I egged him on — that I still do not know.
> «Ли» fronting the verb again: Ivan reopens his own question with the interrogative «ли» after the fronted verb «подбивал»: 'Whether I egged him on'. The same particle that asks a yes/no question also means 'whether' in an embedded clause — here hovering between the two.

Но если только он убил, а не Дмитрий, то, конечно, убийца и я.  
But if it was indeed he who killed, and not Dmitri, then, of course, I too am the murderer.
> «Если только» — if indeed: «Если только» intensifies the condition to 'if only / if indeed', focusing the whole weight on whether *he* (Smerdyakov) did it. Word order puts «он» before the verb for emphasis, set against «не Дмитрий».
> Zero copula + «и я» — 'I too am the murderer': There is no verb 'to be' in the present: «убийца и я» is a bare nominative predicate, 'the murderer is also I'. The particle «и» before «я» means 'too, also', folding Ivan into the guilt, and word order throws «я» last for full stress.

Выслушав это, Катерина Ивановна молча встала с места, пошла к своему письменному столу, отперла стоявшую на нем шкатулку, вынула какую-то бумажку и положила ее пред Иваном.  
Having heard this out, Katerina Ivanovna rose from her seat without a word, went over to her writing desk, unlocked a small casket that stood upon it, took out a scrap of paper, and laid it before Ivan.
> Perfective gerund «выслушав» — having heard out: «Выслушав» is the perfective past gerund of «выслушать» (to hear out fully). It marks a prior completed action — 'having heard this' — before the main chain of verbs, and shares the subject Katerina Ivanovna.
> Past active participle «стоявшую»: «Стоявшую» is the past active participle of «стоять» (to stand), agreeing in the feminine accusative with «шкатулку»: 'the casket that was standing on it'. The participle condenses a «который»-clause into a single modifier — a hallmark of literary narration.
> «Шкатулка» — a small casket / jewel-box: A «шкатулка» is a small ornamental box or casket, often for valuables, letters, or jewelry. That Katerina keeps the damning letter locked in one underscores how precious — and dangerous — she has held this evidence.
> «Пред» — archaic 'before': «Пред» is the elevated, shortened form of «перед» ('before, in front of'), governing the instrumental. It carries a bookish, slightly solemn register, recurring through Mitya's letter as well («пред тобой подлец»).

Эта бумажка была тот самый документ, о котором Иван Федорович потом объявил Алеше как о «математическом доказательстве», что убил отца брат Дмитрий.  
This scrap of paper was that very document of which Ivan Fyodorovich later spoke to Alyosha as the "mathematical proof" that it was his brother Dmitri who had killed their father.
> «Тот самый» + relative «который»: «Тот самый» means 'that very, the selfsame'. The relative «который» here takes the prepositional case after «о» ('about which'), while agreeing in gender and number with «документ» — the case set by its own role in the clause, not the antecedent's.

Это было письмо, написанное Митей в пьяном виде к Катерине Ивановне, в тот самый вечер, когда он встретился в поле с Алешей, уходившим в монастырь, после сцены в доме Катерины Ивановны, когда ее оскорбила Грушенька.  
It was a letter Mitya had written while drunk to Katerina Ivanovna, on the very evening he met Alyosha in the field as Alyosha was on his way to the monastery, after the scene at Katerina Ivanovna's house when Grushenka had insulted her.
> Passive participle + instrumental agent: «Написанное» is the past passive participle of «написать», agreeing with neuter «письмо». Its agent — the one who wrote it — stands in the instrumental, «Митей»: 'a letter written by Mitya'. This is the standard way Russian names the doer of a passive.
> Participle «уходившим» agreeing with Alyosha: «Уходившим» is the past active participle of «уходить» (to be leaving), in the instrumental to agree with «Алёшей»: 'Alyosha, who was on his way to the monastery'. The imperfective stem keeps the leaving in progress.

Тогда, расставшись с Алешей, Митя бросился было к Грушеньке; неизвестно, видел ли ее, но к ночи очутился в трактире «Столичный город», где как следует и напился.  
That evening, having parted from Alyosha, Mitya had rushed off, it seems, to Grushenka's; it is not known whether he saw her, but by nightfall he had landed at the tavern "The Capital City," where he duly got drunk.
> Perfective gerund «расставшись»: «Расставшись» is the perfective past gerund of the reflexive «расстаться» (to part). The «-вшись» ending marks a prior completed action sharing the subject — 'having parted from Alyosha' — and «с» governs the instrumental «Алёшей».
> Particle «было» — an action begun but cut short: The particle «было» after a perfective past marks an action that was started or about to happen but did not fully come off: «бросился было к Грушеньке» — 'set off / made to dash to Grushenka's' (but it came to nothing certain). It is a fine, hard-to-translate nuance of arrested intention.
> Embedded «ли» — 'whether he saw her': After «неизвестно» ('it is not known'), «видел ли её» is an indirect yes/no question: «ли» means 'whether'. The fronted verb «видел» carries the focus of the uncertainty.
> «Трактир» — a tavern / inn: A «трактир» was a Russian tavern or eating-house serving food and drink, often with rooms, a step rougher and more public than a private home. «Столичный город» ('Capital City') is the establishment's grandiose name.

Пьяный, он потребовал перо и бумагу и начертал важный на себя документ.  
Drunk, he called for pen and paper and drew up this document so damning to himself.
> «Начертать» — to inscribe (lofty): «Начертать» is an elevated, archaic-flavored perfective for 'to write, trace, inscribe', the verb of inscriptions and solemn pronouncements. Applied to a drunken scrawl it carries a deliberate ironic grandeur.
> Reflexive «себя» — damning to himself: «На себя» uses the reflexive pronoun «себя», which always points back to the clause's subject (Mitya): the document is weighty/incriminating 'against himself'. «Себя» has no nominative and serves any person.

Это было исступленное, многоречивое и бессвязное письмо, именно «пьяное».  
It was a frenzied, rambling, and incoherent letter — "drunken" indeed.
> «Исступлённый» — frenzied, beside oneself: «Исступлённый» means frenzied, frantic, in a state of «исступление» — a loss of self-possession through extreme passion. It is a key Dostoevskian register-word for emotional extremity, here describing the letter's whole pitch.
> «Многоречивый» — verbose, many-worded: A compound of «много» (much) + «речь» (speech), «многоречивый» means 'verbose, long-winded'. The bookish compound mirrors the rambling letter it names.

Похоже было на то, когда пьяный человек, воротясь домой, начинает с необычайным жаром рассказывать жене или кому из домашних, как его сейчас оскорбили, какой подлец его оскорбитель, какой он сам, напротив, прекрасный человек и как он тому подлецу задаст, — и всё это длинно-длинно, бессвязно и возбужденно, со стуком кулаками по столу, с пьяными слезами.  
It was like the way a drunken man, on coming home, begins to tell his wife or whoever else of the household, with extraordinary heat, how he has just been insulted, what a scoundrel the man who insulted him is, what a fine fellow he himself is on the contrary, and how he will pay that scoundrel back — and all of it long, long-winded, incoherent, and overwrought, with fists pounding on the table and drunken tears.
> Archaic gerund «воротясь»: «Воротясь» is the perfective past gerund of the colloquial-archaic «воротиться» (to return) — a folk doublet of «возвратиться». The «-ясь» form marks a prior action, 'having come home', sharing the drunken man's subject.
> Subjectless 3rd-plural — 'how he was just insulted': The bare third-person-plural verb «оскорбили», with no stated subject, is Russian's regular impersonal-passive way of saying 'they insulted him / he was insulted' without naming an agent. «Сейчас» here means 'just now'.
> Perfective future «задаст» + dative: «Задаст» is the simple (perfective) future of «задать» — here in the idiom «задать кому-то» ('to give it to someone, let them have it'), with «тому подлецу» in the dative. The conjugated perfective form carries future meaning with no auxiliary.
> «Подлец» — scoundrel, blackguard: «Подлец» is a strong term of moral contempt — a base, vile man, 'scoundrel' or 'blackguard'. It runs as a refrain through Mitya's letter, where he hurls it at his rival and, with anguished honesty, at himself.

Бумага для письма, которую ему подали в трактире, была грязненький клочок обыкновенной письменной бумаги, плохого сорта и на обратной стороне которого был написан какой-то счет.  
The writing paper they handed him at the tavern was a grubby scrap of ordinary letter paper of poor quality, with some sort of bill written out on the reverse side.
> Relative «которую» + subjectless «подали»: «Которую» is the relative pronoun in the feminine accusative, its case fixed by being the object of «подали» ('which they handed him'). The third-plural «подали» again names no agent — 'they handed', i.e. it was handed to him.
> «Грязненький клочок» — a grubby little scrap: «Грязненький» is the diminutive-expressive of «грязный» (dirty), and «клочок» a diminutive of «клок» (a tuft, scrap). The piled-up diminutives convey a contemptuous, pitying smallness — a wretched little grubby scrap of paper.

Пьяному многоречию, очевидно, недостало места, и Митя уписал не только все поля, но даже последние строчки были написаны накрест уже по написанному.  
His drunken loquacity, evidently, had run short of room, and Mitya had covered not only every margin but had even written the last lines crosswise over what was already written.
> Genitive of negation: «недостало места»: «Недостать» ('to be insufficient, run short') is impersonal and takes a genitive of what is lacking: «места» (genitive of «место', 'room'). The experiencer-thing «пьяному многоречию» stands in the dative. No nominative subject — the room itself 'was not enough'.
> Substantivized participle «по написанному»: «Написанному» is the past passive participle of «написать» used as a noun in the dative after «по»: 'over what had already been written'. Russian freely turns participles into nouns this way. «Накрест» means 'crosswise'.
> «Уписать» — to cover with writing: Here «уписать» (perfective) means to fill up a surface completely with writing — Mitya 'wrote over' every margin. The «у-» prefix conveys exhaustive covering of the whole space.

Письмо было следующего содержания: «Роковая Катя!  
The letter ran as follows: "Fateful Katya!
> Genitive of description: «следующего содержания»: «Следующего содержания» ('of the following content') is a genitive of quality describing the letter — a bookish formula meaning 'ran as follows'. The adjective and noun agree in the genitive singular.
> «Роковая» — fateful, fatal: «Роковой» derives from «рок» (fate, doom) and means 'fateful, fatal, ill-starred'. Pairing it with the affectionate diminutive «Катя» (for Katerina) captures Mitya's whole torn feeling — she is at once his doom and his darling.

Завтра достану деньги и отдам тебе твои три тысячи, и прощай — великого гнева женщина, но прощай и любовь моя!  
Tomorrow I will get the money and pay you back your three thousand, and farewell — woman of mighty wrath, but farewell too, my love!
> Perfective futures — single completed promises: «Достану» (I'll get) and «отдам» (I'll give back) are perfective verbs conjugated as simple futures: each names one completed future act, with no auxiliary. The aspect makes them vows of a single finished deed, not ongoing effort.
> «Великого гнева женщина» — woman of mighty wrath: A genitive-of-quality phrase, «женщина великого гнева» (here inverted for rhetorical weight), 'woman of great wrath'. The elevated, almost Biblical cadence dignifies Katerina's anger — Mitya's drunken grandeur reaching for Scripture.

Кончим!  
Let us make an end of it!
> Hortative «кончим» — let us make an end: «Кончим» is the perfective 1st-person plural future of «кончить», used hortatively: 'let us finish / make an end of it'. Russian regularly uses the bare perfective future-form as a 'let's…' exhortation without «давайте».

Завтра буду доставать у всех людей, а не достану у людей, то даю тебе честное слово, пойду к отцу и проломлю ему голову и возьму у него под подушкой, только бы уехал Иван.  
Tomorrow I will try to raise it from everyone, and if I cannot raise it from people, then I give you my word of honor, I will go to my father and break his head open and take it from under his pillow, only let Ivan be gone.
> Compound future «буду доставать» vs perfective: «Буду доставать» is the imperfective compound future — «буду» + imperfective infinitive — naming ongoing, repeated effort ('I'll keep trying to raise it'). It contrasts deliberately with the perfective «не достану» ('if I don't [manage to] get it'), process versus result.
> «Только бы» + past form — 'if only Ivan would be gone': «Только бы» with the past-tense verb «уехал» is the wish/irrealis construction built on the particle «бы»: 'if only Ivan would leave / let Ivan only be gone'. It voices Mitya's chilling condition for the crime.
> «Проломить голову» — to break someone's head open: «Проломить» (perfective) is to smash or break through; «проломлю ему голову» — 'I'll crack his skull open', with «ему» dative of the possessor. The brutal physical promise is exactly what later damns Mitya as the «mathematical proof».

В каторгу пойду, а три тысячи отдам.  
I will go to penal servitude, but I will pay back the three thousand.
> Contrastive «а» + fronted goal: The hinge «а» here is the mild adversative 'and yet / but', setting the ruin of «в каторгу пойду» against the vow «три тысячи отдам». Both clauses front their key phrase before a perfective future verb, throwing emphasis onto the penance and the repayment.
> Каторга — penal servitude: «Каторга» was hard-labour penal exile, typically in Siberia, the standard punishment for serious crimes in tsarist Russia. Because каторга convicts were sent to Siberia, the phrase «в каторгу пойду» is sometimes loosely rendered 'I will go to Siberia,' but the word names the sentence itself — hard labour — so we render it 'I will go to penal servitude.'

А сама прощай.  
And to you yourself, farewell.
> «Сама» — you yourself: «Сама» is the feminine intensifier 'oneself, herself', here addressed to Katerina: 'and you yourself, farewell'. It singles her out personally against the things and people just listed.

Кланяюсь до земли, ибо пред тобой подлец.  
I bow down to the ground, for before you I am a scoundrel.
> Reflexive «кланяться» — to bow: «Кланяюсь» is the 1st-person present of the reflexive verb «кланяться» (to bow). The «-ся/-сь» here marks an intransitive, self-directed action; the verb exists only in this reflexive form.

Прости меня.  
Forgive me.
> Imperative «прости» — forgive me: «Прости» is the singular imperative of the perfective «простить» (to forgive), formed with stressed «-и» on a consonant stem. The perfective asks for one decisive act of forgiveness; «меня» is the accusative object.

Нет, лучше не прощай: легче и мне и тебе!  
No — better do not forgive: it will be easier both for me and for you!
> Dative experiencers + comparative «легче»: «Легче» is the comparative of «легко' ('easy, light'), used impersonally; the people for whom it will be easier stand in the dative, «мне» and «тебе», with no nominative subject. «И… и…» means 'both… and…'. A classic Dostoevskian inner-state construction.

Лучше в каторгу, чем твоя любовь, ибо другую люблю, а ее слишком сегодня узнала, как же ты можешь простить?  
Better penal servitude than your love, for I love another, and her you have come to know all too well today, so how can you forgive?
> Comparative «лучше… чем» — better X than Y: «Лучше… чем…» ('better… than…') is the suppletive comparative of «хороший/хорошо» governing a «чем»-clause of comparison. Mitya weighs penal servitude against Katerina's love and chooses the chains.
> Substantivized «другую» — 'another (woman)': «Другую» is the feminine accusative of «другая» ('another, a different one'), here used as a noun for 'another woman' — Grushenka. Russian readily drops the noun and lets the agreeing adjective carry it. «Ибо» again gives a bookish 'for'.
> Emphatic particle «же»: «Же» after «как» intensifies the rhetorical question: 'how *can* you possibly forgive?'. These tiny modal particles carry the speaker's emotional pressure that English renders only with stress.

Убью вора моего!  
I will kill the man who robbed me!
> Animate accusative «вора» + fronted verb: «Вора» is the animate-accusative of «вор» (thief), borrowing the genitive ending «-а». The verb «убью» (perfective future, 'I'll kill') is thrown to the front for vehement emphasis, the object trailing after — a sentence built for a shout.
> «Вор» — the thief who robbed me: By «вор моего» / «вора моего» Mitya means old Fyodor, whom he sees as having robbed him of his inheritance and his Grushenka. The whole letter turns on his insistence that he is «не вор, а убийца» — not a thief, but (would-be) killer.

От всех вас уйду на Восток, чтоб никого не знать.  
I will go away from you all, to the East, so as to know no one.
> Purpose «чтоб» + negative concord: «Чтоб» (= «чтобы») introduces a purpose clause with the infinitive «знать»: 'so as to know no one'. The negative pronoun «никого» still requires «не» on the verb — Russian's obligatory negative concord, two negatives for one meaning.

''Ее'' тоже, ибо не ты одна мучительница, а и она.  
''Her'' too, for it is not you alone who torment me, but she as well.
> «Не… а и…» — not you alone, but she too: «Не ты одна… а и она» plays the contrastive «а» against an additive «и» ('also'): 'not you alone are my tormentor, but she too'. The zero-copula predicate «мучительница» stands in the nominative with no verb 'to be'.
> «Мучительница» — tormentress: «Мучительница» is the feminine of «мучитель» (tormentor), from «мучить» (to torment). The «-ница» suffix names a female agent. It belongs to the heightened lexicon of love-as-suffering that pervades Mitya's and Dostoevsky's emotional world.

Прощай!  
Farewell!

P. S. Проклятие пишу, а тебя обожаю!  
P. S. I write a curse, and yet I adore you!
> Contrastive «а» — curse and adoration: The adversative «а» yokes the two opposed clauses: 'I write a curse, *and yet* I adore you'. «Проклятие» (object) is fronted before «пишу» for stress, the typical topic-first ordering, while «тебя» is the accusative object of «обожаю».

Слышу в груди моей.  
I hear it in my breast.
> Locative «в груди» + dropped subject: The subject pronoun «я» is dropped — the ending of «слышу» already shows 1st-person singular. «В груди» is the prepositional of «грудь' (breast), a feminine soft-sign noun, marking location after «в».

Осталась струна и звенит.  
A string is left, and it rings.
> Reflexive «остаться» + word order: «Осталась» is the perfective past of the reflexive «остаться» (to remain), feminine to agree with «струна' (string). Verb-first order — «Осталась струна» rather than «струна осталась» — lends the line its abrupt, lyric weight: 'there is left a string'.
> «Струна» — a (musical) string: «Струна» is the string of an instrument; «звенит» is 'rings, vibrates'. The image of one surviving string still sounding in the breast is a Romantic figure for the last living note of feeling — Mitya at his most lyrical and self-pitying.

Лучше сердце пополам!  
Better my heart in two!
> Elliptical comparative «лучше»: «Лучше» ('better') heads a verbless exclamation — 'better [to have] my heart in two!' Russian readily drops the verb in such heightened, elliptical cries, leaving the comparative to carry the whole emotional charge.

Убью себя, а сначала все-таки пса.  
I will kill myself, but first of all the dog all the same.
> Reflexive «себя» + contrastive «а»: «Себя» is the reflexive object of «убью' ('I'll kill myself'), pointing back to the subject Mitya. The «а» then pivots — 'but first of all the dog' — with «всё-таки» ('all the same') marking grim resolve.
> «Пёс» — the dog (i.e. his father): «Пса» is the animate accusative of «пёс» (dog, cur). Throughout the letter Mitya calls old Fyodor «пёс» — a savage insult, the father reduced to a beast. The contempt foreshadows the murder and Mitya's later cry that he is no thief but stands ready to kill the 'dog'.

Вырву у него три и брошу тебе.  
I will tear the three thousand out of him and fling it to you.
> Perfective futures + «у него» / «тебе»: Two perfective futures drive the vow: «вырву» ('I'll tear out') with «у него» (genitive after «у», 'from him'), and «брошу» ('I'll fling') with the dative «тебе» ('to you'). The case-marked phrases show the money's path from father to Katerina.

Хоть подлец пред тобой, а не вор!  
Before you I may be a scoundrel, but I am no thief!
> Concessive «хоть… а» — though X, yet not Y: «Хоть» here is the concessive 'though, even if', answered by «а' ('yet, but'): 'though a scoundrel before you, yet no thief'. Both predicate nouns stand in the bare nominative with no copula. «Пред» is the archaic 'before'.

Жди трех тысяч.  
Expect the three thousand.
> Imperative «жди» + genitive object: «Жди» is the imperative of «ждать» (to wait/expect), which governs the genitive of the thing awaited: «трёх тысяч» (genitive of «три тысячи»). After numerals the noun «тысяч» itself takes the genitive plural — 'expect the three thousand'.

У пса под тюфяком, розовая ленточка.  
It is at the dog's, under his mattress, tied with a pink ribbon.
> Instrumental «под тюфяком» — location: «Под» governing the instrumental «тюфяком» marks static location: 'under the mattress'. (With the accusative «под» would mean motion *under*.) This is the preposition's two-case split at work.
> «Ленточка» — the little pink ribbon: «Ленточка» is the diminutive of «лента» (ribbon). The tender diminutive for the ribbon binding the cursed money («розовая ленточка») gives a strange, almost loving particularity to the object that fuels the whole plot — the 3,000 roubles.

Не я вор, а вора моего убью.  
It is not I who am the thief — I will kill the one who robbed me.
> Contrastive «не… а» — not I the thief: The corrective «не… а» first denies and then asserts: 'not I am the thief, but the thief himself I'll kill'. «Не я вор» is a zero-copula nominative predicate; the second clause fronts «вора моего» (animate accusative) before «убью» for the hammering emphasis of Mitya's refrain.

Катя, не гляди презрительно: Димитрий не вор, а убийца!  
Katya, do not look on me with scorn: Dmitri is no thief, but a murderer!
> Negated imperfective imperative «не гляди»: A negated command in Russian normally takes the imperfective imperative: «не гляди» ('do not look'), from «глядеть». Imperfective is the regular aspect for prohibitions, where a perfective negative imperative would instead warn against an accidental act.
> «Не вор, а убийца» — the central antithesis: Two bare nominative predicates joined by corrective «а»: 'Dmitri is no thief, but a murderer'. This zero-copula antithesis is the letter's, and Mitya's, whole moral self-definition — and the very line Ivan reads as a 'mathematical proof'.

Отца убил и себя погубил, чтобы стоять и гордости твоей не выносить.  
He has killed his father and ruined himself, so as to stand firm and not endure your pride.
> Purpose «чтобы» + infinitives: «Чтобы» here governs infinitives («стоять… не выносить») to express purpose: 'so as to stand firm and not endure'. With a same-subject purpose, Russian uses the infinitive after «чтобы» rather than the past-form irrealis.
> Genitive of negation: «гордости… не выносить»: Under negation the object of «выносить» (to endure) shifts from accusative to genitive: «гордости твоей не выносить» — 'not to endure your pride'. The genitive of negation is especially regular with abstract objects like 'pride'.

И тебя не любить.  
And so as not to love you.
> Negated infinitive of purpose: An elliptical continuation of the «чтобы» chain: '[so as] not to love you'. The negated infinitive «не любить» hangs on the same purpose clause; «тебя» is its accusative object, kept (not shifted to genitive) for the personal pronoun.

PP. S. Ноги твои целую, прощай!  
PP. S. I kiss your feet, farewell!
> Object-first order: «ноги твои целую»: The accusative object «ноги твои» ('your feet') is fronted before the verb «целую' ('I kiss'), the dropped subject «я» recoverable from the ending. The topic-first order throws the emotional weight onto the feet he kisses — a gesture of utter abasement.

PP. SS. Катя, моли бога, чтобы дали люди деньги.  
PP. SS. Katya, pray to God that people give me the money.
> Imperative «моли» + «чтобы» + past-form: «Моли» is the imperative of «молить» (to pray, entreat). The «чтобы»-clause of indirect command takes the past-form verb «дали» (the irrealis required after «чтобы»): 'pray that people *should* give the money'.

Тогда не буду в крови, а не дадут — в крови!  
Then I shall not be in blood, but if they do not give it — in blood!
> Compound future «не буду» + elliptical condition: «Не буду в крови» is the imperfective compound future of «быть» ('I shall not be in blood'). The second clause is a bare conditional — «а не дадут — в крови» ('but [if] they don't give it — in blood') — with both the 'if' and the verb 'be' left to the reader.

Убей меня!  
Kill me!
> Imperative «убей» — kill me: «Убей» is the singular imperative of the perfective «убить' (to kill), the «-й» ending following the stem. The perfective demands one decisive act — Mitya's anguished plea flipped from killer to victim.

Раб и враг ''Д. Карамазов».''  
Your slave and enemy, ''D. Karamazov.''
> Appositive nominatives — 'slave and enemy': Mitya signs himself with two bare nominatives in apposition, «раб и враг» ('slave and enemy'), before the name. The zero-copula nominative epithet is a flourish of self-dramatizing signature, fusing devotion and defiance.

Когда Иван прочел «документ», то встал убежденный.  
When Ivan had read the "document" through, he rose convinced.
> Participle «убеждённый» as predicate complement: «Убеждённый» is the past passive participle of «убедить' (to convince), here standing as a predicate complement to the verb «встал»: 'he rose [as a] convinced [man]'. The participle agrees in the nominative masculine with the implied subject, Ivan.

Значит, убил брат, а не Смердяков.  
So it was his brother who had killed, and not Smerdyakov.
> Verb-first «убил брат» + corrective «а не»: «Убил брат» fronts the verb before the subject «брат», throwing focus onto the act, then «а не Смердяков» corrects who did it. «Значит» ('so, it means') opens the sentence as Ivan's chilling deduction.

Не Смердяков, то, стало быть, и не он, Иван.  
If not Smerdyakov, then it followed that he, Ivan, had not done it either.
> Resumptive «то» + «стало быть»: The conditional is compressed: '[if] not Smerdyakov, then it follows it was not he either'. «То» resumes the missing 'if'-clause, «стало быть» ('hence, it follows') marks the inference, and «и… не» means 'not… either'. Ivan's logic-chain laid out in clipped clauses.

Письмо это вдруг получило в глазах его смысл математический.  
This letter suddenly took on, in his eyes, a mathematical meaning.
> Inverted adjective «смысл математический»: Putting the adjective after its noun — «смысл математический» rather than «математический смысл» — is a marked, rhetorically weighted order that throws stress onto 'mathematical'. The perfective «получило» ('took on, acquired') marks the sudden, single change.
> «В глазах его» — in his eyes (figurative): «В глазах» (prepositional after «в») plus the frozen genitive possessive «его» means 'in his eyes' in the figurative sense of 'in his estimation'. Word order «глазах его» (rather than «его глазах») gives the bookish, slightly archaic cadence.

Никаких сомнений в виновности Мити быть для него не могло уже более.  
There could no longer be any doubt for him of Mitya's guilt.
> Genitive of negation: With the negated existential «не могло… быть» the subject «сомнений» (doubts) stands in the genitive plural rather than the nominative, and «никаких» agrees with it. Russian frames 'there could be no doubt' as 'of no doubts there could be'.
> Prepositional «в» + genitive «Мити»: «в виновности» is prepositional (location/respect after «в»), while «Мити» is genitive — 'of Mitya's guilt'. The diminutive «Митя» (for Дмитрий) declines like a feminine -я noun, so its genitive is «Мити».
> «уже… более» — no longer: «уже… не… более» wraps the negated verb to mean 'no longer, not any more'. «более» is the bookish comparative of «много», here adverbial; spoken Russian would more often say «больше».

Кстати, подозрения о том, что Митя мог убить вместе со Смердяковым, у Ивана никогда не было, да это не вязалось и с фактами.  
Incidentally, the suspicion that Mitya might have killed together with Smerdyakov had never occurred to Ivan, and besides it did not square with the facts.
> «Кстати» — incidentally: A discourse adverb meaning 'by the way, incidentally', literally 'to the place/point'. Dostoevsky's narrator uses it to slot in a parenthetical clarification, exactly as the English 'incidentally' does here.
> Possessive «у» + genitive of absence: Russian has no verb 'to have': possession is «у кого-то есть/было что-то». Negated, the thing possessed goes genitive and the verb is the invariable neuter «не было» — here «подозрения… не было», 'Ivan never had the suspicion'.
> «вязаться» — to square with: From «вязать» (to tie/knit) plus reflexive -ся; «не вязалось с фактами» means 'did not tie up / did not square with the facts'. A vivid, slightly colloquial metaphor of things failing to knit together.

Иван был вполне успокоен.  
Ivan was wholly set at ease.
> Short passive participle as predicate: «успокоен» is the short-form past passive participle of «успокоить» (to set at ease), joined to «был» to state a result — 'was set at ease'. The short form predicates only; the long form «успокоенный» would attribute.
> «вполне» — fully, wholly: A bookish adverb of completeness, 'entirely, perfectly'. It recurs as one of Ivan's keynotes in this passage (cf. «вполне» in s197), marking the deceptive completeness of his calm.

На другое утро он лишь с презрением вспоминал о Смердякове и о насмешках его.  
The next morning he thought of Smerdyakov and his sneers only with contempt.
> Instrumental of manner; imperfective recall: «с презрением» (with contempt) is «с» + instrumental, the standard way to form an adverbial of manner. The imperfective «вспоминал» views the remembering as a recurring state over that morning, not a single act.
> «насмешка» — a sneer, gibe: From «насмехаться» (to mock); a 'mockery, jibe, sneer'. The plural «насмешки его» captures Smerdyakov's repeated needling, the very thing Ivan now affects to dismiss.

Чрез несколько дней даже удивлялся, как мог он так мучительно обидеться его подозрениями.  
Within a few days he even wondered how he could have taken such painful offense at the man's suspicions.
> «Чрез» — archaic «через»: «Чрез» is the older, non-pleophonic (Church-Slavonic-flavoured) form of «через» ('through, after [a span of time]'). Dostoevsky keeps it for its slightly elevated, literary ring; modern Russian writes «через».
> Past potential + perfective «обидеться»: «как мог он… обидеться» is 'how he could have taken offense', the modal «мог» (past of «мочь») plus a perfective reflexive infinitive naming the single completed reaction. The -ся makes «обидеть» (to offend someone) into «обидеться» (to take offense).
> Instrumental of cause after «обидеться»: «обидеться» governs the instrumental for the thing one is offended by: «обидеться его подозрениями» — 'to take offense at his suspicions'. The instrumental here names the cause/stimulus, not an instrument.

Он решился презреть его и забыть.  
He resolved to despise him and to forget him.
> Perfective resolve + paired infinitives: «решился» (perfective reflexive, 'he resolved') governs two perfective infinitives «презреть… и забыть» — a single firm decision to despise and forget. The pair of perfectives frames each as a clean, completed intention.
> «презреть» — to despise (bookish): The perfective of «презирать», 'to scorn, hold in contempt'. It is markedly literary and elevated next to plainer synonyms, fitting Ivan's haughty, willed dismissal of Smerdyakov.

Так прошел месяц.  
So a month went by.
> Verb-first narration; «прошёл» perfective: Inverting to verb-subject order («прошёл месяц», not «месяц прошёл») throws the new information — the month's passing — into relief and gives the line a closing, summarizing rhythm. The perfective «прошёл» marks the whole month as one completed span.

О Смердякове он не расспрашивал больше ни у кого, но слышал мельком, раза два, что тот очень болен и не в своем рассудке.  
About Smerdyakov he asked no one anything further, but he heard in passing, once or twice, that the man was very ill and out of his mind.
> Negative concord with «ни… не»: «ни у кого… не расспрашивал» stacks the ни-pronoun with the verbal «не» — 'he asked no one'. Russian requires this negative concord: the «не» stays even when «ни у кого» already negates. «у кого» is genitive after «у».
> «мельком» — in passing, fleetingly: An adverb meaning 'in passing, with a fleeting glance/ear'. Here it conveys that Ivan caught the news only half-attentively — 'he heard in passing'.
> «не в своём рассудке» — out of one's mind: Idiom: literally 'not in one's reason', i.e. mad, deranged. «рассудок» is the faculty of reason; the phrase foreshadows Smerdyakov's coming collapse and 'madness' (cf. «сумасшествием» next).

«Кончит сумасшествием», — сказал раз про него молодой врач Варвинский, и Иван это запомнил.  
"He will end in madness," the young doctor Varvinsky said of him once, and Ivan remembered it.
> Perfective future + instrumental: «Кончит» is the perfective future of «кончить» ('he will end / finish'), and «сумасшествием» is the instrumental — 'will end in/with madness'. The instrumental names the outcome the action ends in.
> Quotative inversion; «про» + accusative: After the quoted speech the order is verb–subject («сказал… молодой врач Варвинский»), the normal pattern for attribution. «про него» ('about him') uses «про» + accusative, a more colloquial alternative to «о нём».

В последнюю неделю этого месяца Иван сам начал чувствовать себя очень худо.  
In the last week of that month Ivan himself began to feel very unwell.
> Intensifier «сам» + reflexive «себя»: «сам» ('himself, of his own') intensifies the subject, while «чувствовать себя» ('to feel [a certain way]') takes the reflexive object pronoun «себя». «начал чувствовать» pairs an ingressive perfective with an imperfective infinitive — 'began to feel'.
> «худо» — unwell, badly (archaic): An old adverb for 'badly, ill', here 'to feel very unwell'. Modern Russian prefers «плохо»; «худо» survives in set phrases and lends a 19th-century, folk colouring.

С приехавшим пред самым судом доктором из Москвы, которого выписала Катерина Ивановна, он уже ходил советоваться.  
He had already gone to consult the doctor from Moscow, summoned by Katerina Ivanovna, who had arrived just before the trial.
> Past active participle modifying the doctor: «приехавшим» is the past active participle of «приехать» ('having arrived'), agreeing with «доктором» in instrumental after «с». The participial phrase «приехавшим пред самым судом» packs a whole который-clause ('who had arrived just before the trial') into one modifier.
> Relative «которого» in the accusative: «которого» agrees with «доктором» in masculine gender but takes the accusative its own clause needs as object of «выписала» — 'whom Katerina Ivanovna summoned'. «выписать» here is 'to send for / summon (a specialist)'.
> «пред» + «самым» — just before: «пред» is the bookish/archaic form of «перед» ('before'), here + instrumental «судом». «самым» ('the very') intensifies: 'right before the trial'. «суд» is the upcoming court trial that dominates this book.

И именно в это же время отношения его к Катерине Ивановне обострились до крайней степени.  
And it was at this very time that his relations with Katerina Ivanovna grew strained to the utmost degree.
> Emphatic particle «же»: «же» here fastens onto «это» to insist on the coincidence — 'at this very same time'. The particle adds an emphatic 'precisely this' that English must render with stress or an added word.
> Reflexive «обостриться» (intransitive): «обострились» (perfective reflexive past, plural agreeing with «отношения») is the middle/intransitive 'grew acute, became strained'. The -ся turns transitive «обострить» (to sharpen) into 'to sharpen of itself'.

Это были какие-то два влюбленные друг в друга врага.  
They were two enemies somehow in love with each other.
> «два» + genitive singular «врага»: After «два» the counted noun takes the genitive singular: «два… врага» ('two enemies'). The participle «влюблённые» ('in love') keeps a plural attributive ending, a 19th-century usage where modern Russian would say «влюблённых».
> «друг в друга» — into each other: The reciprocal expression «друг друга» ('one another') splits to take a preposition: «друг в друга» — 'in love with one another'. The first «друг» is frozen; only the second part declines/governs the case.

Возвраты Катерины Ивановны к Мите, мгновенные, но сильные, уже приводили Ивана в совершенное исступление.  
Katerina Ivanovna's returns toward Mitya — momentary, but intense — drove Ivan into a state of utter frenzy.
> Idiom «приводить в» + accusative state: «приводить кого-то в [что-то]» means 'to bring/drive someone into a state' — here «в исступление» (accusative) 'into a frenzy'. The imperfective «приводили» marks these episodes as recurrent.
> «исступление» — frenzy, transport: A strong, literary word for a state of being beside oneself — rapture, fury, or delirium. It is one of Dostoevsky's signature emotional registers, the pitch at which his characters lose self-command.
> «возвраты» — 'returns' (here in scare-quotes): Literally 'returns, reversions'; Dostoevsky uses it for Katerina Ivanovna's recurrent lurches of feeling back toward Mitya. The narrator flags it as a special, almost technical coinage by later putting it in quotation marks («возвраты», s195, s196).

Странно, что до самой последней сцены, описанной нами у Катерины Ивановны, когда пришел к ней от Мити Алеша, он, Иван, не слыхал от нее ни разу во весь месяц сомнений в виновности Мити, несмотря на все ее «возвраты» к нему, которые он так ненавидел.  
Strangely, up to the very last scene we have described at Katerina Ivanovna's, when Alyosha came to her from Mitya, he, Ivan, had not heard her express even once in the whole month any doubt of Mitya's guilt, in spite of all those "returns" of hers toward him, which he so hated.
> Past passive participle + instrumental agent: «описанной» is the past passive participle of «описать», agreeing with «сцены» (feminine genitive), and «нами» is the instrumental of the agent — 'the scene described by us'. The instrumental is the standard way Russian names the doer in a passive.
> Genitive object under negation: Negated «не слыхал» takes its object «сомнений» in the genitive plural ('did not hear any doubt'), reinforced by «ни разу» ('not once'). The whole sentence chains negation, partitive genitive, and the ни-intensifier.
> «слыхал» — colloquial 'heard': An iterative/colloquial variant of «слышал», suggesting 'used to hear, ever heard'. The form lends the narrator's voice an oral, conversational tinge appropriate to recounting hearsay over a month.
> Relative «которые» picking up «возвраты»: «которые» is accusative plural, agreeing with its antecedent «возвраты» in number but taking the case of its object role under «ненавидел». It closes the long sentence by looping back to Ivan's hatred of those 'returns'.

Замечательно еще и то, что он, чувствуя, что ненавидит Митю с каждым днем всё больше и больше, понимал в то же время, что не за «возвраты» к нему Кати ненавидел его, а именно ''за то, что он убил отца!''  
It is also remarkable that, while feeling he hated Mitya more and more with each passing day, he understood at the same time that it was not for Katya's "returns" toward him that he hated him, but precisely ''for having killed their father!''
> Imperfective present gerund «чувствуя»: «чувствуя» is the imperfective present gerund (деепричастие) of «чувствовать», 'feeling / while feeling', sharing Ivan as subject with the main verb. It compresses a simultaneous inner state into a single adverbial form — a hallmark of literary narration.
> «всё больше и больше» — more and more: The intensifier «всё» before a doubled comparative «больше и больше» expresses steadily increasing degree. It is the idiomatic Russian for an action mounting with time — here Ivan's swelling hatred 'with each passing day'.
> Contrastive «не… а» with «за» + accusative: «не за X, а за Y» ('not for X, but for Y') uses «а» — the contrastive 'but/while' — to correct, and «за» + accusative gives the cause/reason one is hated 'for'. «именно» ('precisely') sharpens the corrected term to its emotional climax.

Он чувствовал и сознавал это сам вполне.  
He felt this and was fully aware of it himself.
> Paired imperfectives + intensifier «сам»: Two imperfectives «чувствовал и сознавал» ('felt and was aware') describe a sustained dual state, and «сам… вполне» ('he himself… fully') drives home that Ivan owned this knowledge consciously. The doubling of near-synonyms is a Dostoevskian insistence.

Тем не менее дней за десять пред судом он ходил к Мите и предложил ему план бегства, — план, очевидно, еще задолго задуманный.  
Nevertheless, some ten days before the trial he had gone to Mitya and proposed to him a plan of escape — a plan, evidently, conceived long beforehand.
> «Тем не менее» — nevertheless: A fixed concessive connector, literally 'by that no less', i.e. 'nonetheless, all the same'. It pivots the narration from Ivan's hatred to the contradictory fact that he still tried to save Mitya.
> Approximation by inversion «дней за десять»: Putting the noun before the numeral («дней за десять» instead of «за десять дней») turns a precise count into an approximation — 'some ten days or so'. «за… пред судом» = 'about ten days before the trial'.
> Past passive participle «задуманный»: «задуманный» is the past passive participle of «задумать» ('conceived, planned'), here in the long attributive form modifying the dashed-off «план» — 'a plan… conceived long beforehand'. «задолго» means 'long in advance'.

Тут, кроме главной причины, побудившей его к такому шагу, виновата была и некоторая незаживавшая в сердце его царапина от одного словечка Смердякова, что будто бы ему, Ивану, выгодно, чтоб обвинили брата, ибо сумма по наследству от отца возвысится тогда для него с Алешей с сорока на шестьдесят тысяч.  
Here, apart from the chief reason that had prompted him to such a step, there was also at fault a certain scratch in his heart that would not heal, left by a little word of Smerdyakov's — that it would supposedly be to his, Ivan's, advantage that the brother be convicted, since the sum inherited from their father would then rise, for him and Alyosha, from forty to sixty thousand.
> Short adjective predicate «виновата»: «виновата» is the short-form feminine adjective ('was at fault'), agreeing with «царапина» and joined to «была» as predicate. The short form is the bookish, predicative norm here — 'a certain scratch was also to blame'.
> Past active participle «незаживавшая»: «незаживавшая» is a negated imperfective past active participle of «заживать» ('that would not heal'), declined to agree with «царапина». The imperfective stem gives an ongoing, unhealing quality — a wound still open.
> «словечко» — a little word (diminutive): The diminutive of «слово», here in the genitive after «от». Far from meaning 'small', it conveys how a mere 'little word' of Smerdyakov's could lodge and fester — affection's suffix turned to barb.
> Reported irrealis: «будто бы» + «чтоб» + past: «будто бы» ('supposedly, as if') flags reported, doubted speech; the impersonal «ему выгодно» ('it is to his advantage') is a dative-experiencer construction; and «чтоб обвинили» uses «чтоб(ы)» + past-form verb for the willed/hypothetical outcome — 'that the brother be convicted'.
> «ибо» — for, because (bookish): A solemn, archaic causal conjunction, 'for, since', much weightier than plain «потому что». It belongs to the elevated, almost scriptural register Dostoevsky reaches for in legal and moral reasoning.

Он решился пожертвовать тридцатью тысячами с одной своей стороны, чтоб устроить побег Мити.  
He resolved to sacrifice thirty thousand out of his own share to arrange Mitya's escape.
> «пожертвовать» + instrumental: The verb «пожертвовать» ('to sacrifice, give up') governs the instrumental of what is sacrificed: «тридцатью тысячами» — 'to sacrifice thirty thousand'. The numeral and noun both decline into the instrumental.
> Purpose clause «чтоб» + infinitive: When the purpose clause shares the main subject, «чтоб(ы)» takes a bare infinitive rather than a past-form verb: «чтоб устроить побег» — 'in order to arrange the escape'. «чтоб» is the colloquially clipped «чтобы».

Возвращаясь тогда от него, он был страшно грустен и смущен: ему вдруг начало чувствоваться, что он хочет побега не для того только, чтобы пожертвовать на это тридцать тысяч и заживить царапину, а и почему-то другому.  
Returning from him that time, he was dreadfully downcast and troubled: it suddenly began to seem to him that he wanted the escape not only in order to sacrifice the thirty thousand to it and heal the scratch, but for some other reason as well.
> Present gerund of attendant circumstance: «Возвращаясь» is the imperfective present gerund of «возвращаться» ('returning, while returning'), setting the temporal frame for the main clause and sharing Ivan as subject. «от него» ('from him', i.e. Mitya) uses «от» + genitive.
> Impersonal reflexive: dative experiencer: «ему… начало чувствоваться» is a subjectless, dative-experiencer construction: the neuter «начало» plus the reflexive «чувствоваться» ('it began to seem/feel to him'). Ivan is not the grammatical subject but the dative one feels happen to him — a hallmark of Dostoevsky's inner life.
> Correlative purpose «не для того… чтобы… а»: «не для того… чтобы» ('not for the purpose of… that') sets up a purpose that «а» then contrasts and supplements — 'but also for some other reason'. The «-то» on «почему-то» marks a specific but unidentified reason Ivan cannot name.

«Потому ли, что в душе и я такой же убийца?» — спросил было он себя.  
"Is it because at heart I too am just such a murderer?" he asked himself.
> Interrogative particle «ли»: «Потому ли, что…» fronts the focused «потому» and follows it with the enclitic «ли» to form the question — 'Is it because…?'. «такой же» means 'just such a, the same kind of': Ivan asks if he is a murderer of the very same kind.
> The particle «было»: «было» after a perfective past marks an action begun or done but then checked or reversed — 'he started to ask himself'. This subtle 'было' suggests Ivan put the terrible question to himself and recoiled from it.

Что-то отдаленное, но жгучее язвило его душу.  
Something distant, but burning, was gnawing at his soul.
> Indefinite «что-то» with neuter agreement: «что-то» ('something', specific but unidentified) takes neuter adjective agreement: «отдалённое… жгучее». The «-то» marks a real but unnamed thing gnawing at Ivan, mirroring the «почему-то» of the previous sentence.
> «язвить» — to sting, gnaw: From «язва» (ulcer, sore); «язвило его душу» means 'was stinging/gnawing at his soul'. A vivid, bookish verb of wounding that keeps alive the earlier image of the unhealing 'scratch' («царапина»).

Главное же, во весь этот месяц страшно страдала его гордость, но об этом потом…  
Above all, throughout that whole month his pride had suffered terribly — but of that, later…
> «Главное же» — but the main thing: «Главное» ('the main thing') as a sentence adverb is given extra weight by the emphatic particle «же», marking the decisive point. The pairing means roughly 'and the chief thing of all'.
> Verb-subject inversion; «страшно» as intensifier: Placing «страдала» before «его гордость» foregrounds the suffering itself; «страшно» ('terribly') is a colloquial intensifier rather than 'frighteningly'. The narrator's 'но об этом потом…' ('but of that, later') is a teasing forward reference.

Взявшись за звонок своей квартиры после разговора с Алешей и порешив вдруг идти к Смердякову, Иван Федорович повиновался одному особливому, внезапно вскипевшему в груди его негодованию.  
When Ivan Fyodorovich had taken hold of the bell-pull of his lodgings after the conversation with Alyosha and, deciding suddenly to go to Smerdyakov, he was obeying a peculiar indignation that had flared up all at once in his breast.
> Two perfective past gerunds in a chain: «Взявшись» and «порешив» are perfective past gerunds (деепричастия) of «взяться» and «порешить», naming prior, completed acts ('having taken hold of… and having decided…') before the main clause. Chaining gerunds to set the scene is classic 19th-century literary syntax.
> «повиноваться» + dative: The verb «повиноваться» ('to obey, yield to') governs the dative: «повиновался… негодованию» — 'he obeyed an indignation'. Here Ivan is grammatically subordinate to his own surging feeling.
> «особливый» — archaic «особый»: An old-fashioned variant of «особый» ('special, peculiar'), inflected in the dative to agree with «негодованию». It gives the sentence a period flavour, marking the indignation as singular and uncanny.
> Past active participle «вскипевшему»: «вскипевшему» is the past active participle of «вскипеть» ('having boiled up'), agreeing in dative with «негодованию». The metaphor — indignation that 'boiled up suddenly in his breast' — condenses a который-clause into one charged modifier.

Он вдруг вспомнил, как Катерина Ивановна сейчас только воскликнула ему при Алеше: «Это ты, только ты один уверил меня, что он (то есть Митя) убийца!»  
He suddenly remembered how Katerina Ivanovna had just exclaimed to him in front of Alyosha: "It was you, you alone, who convinced me that he" (that is, Mitya) "is the murderer!"
> «сейчас только» — only just now: «сейчас только» ('just now, only a moment ago') pins the perfective «воскликнула» ('exclaimed') to the immediate past. Russian relies on such adverbs to locate a perfective event in time relative to the narrative present.
> Emphatic «это ты… ты один»: Cleft-like emphasis: «Это ты… ты один» ('It was you… you alone') isolates and accuses. Repeating the pronoun «ты» with «только… один» heaps the whole blame on Ivan — the grammar dramatizes Katerina's outburst.
> «при» + prepositional — in the presence of: «при Алёше» means 'in Alyosha's presence', «при» governing the prepositional. The detail underlines Katerina's public, witnessed accusation, which is what so stings Ivan's pride.

Вспомнив это, Иван даже остолбенел: никогда в жизни не уверял он ее, что убийца Митя, напротив, еще себя подозревал тогда пред нею, когда воротился от Смердякова.  
Recalling this, Ivan was positively dumbfounded: never in his life had he assured her that Mitya was the murderer; on the contrary, he had still suspected himself before her then, when he returned from Smerdyakov.
> Perfective past gerund «Вспомнив»: «Вспомнив» ('having recalled') is the perfective past gerund of «вспомнить», marking the completed act that triggers the main clause — 'recalling this, Ivan was dumbfounded'. It shares Ivan as subject with «остолбенел».
> Negative concord + emphatic fronting: «никогда… не уверял» stacks the ни-adverb with «не» ('never… did he assure'), and fronting «никогда в жизни» before the verb gives it heavy emphasis. The inversion «уверял он» is the literary norm after a fronted adverbial.
> «остолбенеть» — to be dumbfounded: Literally 'to turn into a pillar/post' (from «столб», a post), 'to be petrified, struck dumb'. A vivid perfective of sudden, frozen astonishment fitting Ivan's shock.
> «воротиться» — archaic 'to return': An older, folk-tinged variant of «возвратиться/вернуться» ('to come back'). Dostoevsky favours it for its homely, period ring; here 'when he returned from Smerdyakov'.

Напротив, это ''она'', она ему выложила тогда «документ» и доказала виновность брата!  
On the contrary, it was ''she,'' she who had laid the "document" before him then and proved his brother's guilt!
> Emphatic repetition + perfective pair: The doubled «она, она» drives the accusatory emphasis ('it was she, she who…'), and the perfective pair «выложила… и доказала» ('laid out… and proved') narrates two completed, decisive acts. The repetition mirrors Ivan's stunned recoil.
> «выложить» — to lay out, produce: «выложить» means 'to lay out, set down (decisively)' — here to produce the incriminating «документ» (Mitya's drunken letter). The verb has a blunt, conclusive force, and the quotation marks flag «документ» as a loaded courtroom term.

И вдруг она же теперь восклицает: «Я сама была у Смердякова!»  
And now suddenly that very woman exclaims: "I have been to Smerdyakov's myself!"
> Particle «же» of indignant contrast: Here «же» on «она» («она же») carries an exasperated 'and yet she…!' — pointing to the contradiction between her earlier proof and her present words. «восклицает» is a vivid historic present for the remembered outburst.
> «сама» + «у» + genitive: «сама» ('myself', feminine intensifier) stresses that Katerina went in person; «у Смердякова» ('at Smerdyakov's place') uses «у» + genitive of the surname. The ellipsis of 'place' is normal — «быть у кого-то» = to have been at someone's.

Когда была?  
When had she been?
> Elliptical question; gendered past: A clipped free-indirect question — subject «она» dropped, the feminine «была» alone carrying it ('When had she been?'). The -ла ending shows gender and number, not person, a relic of the old participial past.

Иван ничего не знал об этом.  
Ivan had known nothing of this.
> Negative concord «ничего… не»: «ничего не знал» ('knew nothing') pairs the negative pronoun «ничего» (genitive of «ничто») with the obligatory «не». «об этом» ('about this') is «о» → «об» before a vowel + prepositional.

Значит, она совсем не так уверена в виновности Мити!  
So she was not nearly so certain of Mitya's guilt after all!
> Short adjective «уверена» under negation: «уверена» is the short-form feminine of «уверенный» ('certain'), predicating a state — 'she is not so certain'. «совсем не так» ('not nearly so') modulates the degree of her conviction.
> «Значит» — so, it means: A discourse word, 'so then, that means', drawing an inference. It marks Ivan's free-indirect reasoning as he deduces Katerina's wavering certainty — the narration slips inside his head.

И что мог ей сказать Смердяков?  
And what could Smerdyakov have told her?
> Modal «мог» + perfective; dative «ей»: «что мог… сказать» ('what could he have told') uses past «мог» + perfective infinitive for a completed possibility, and «ей» is the dative indirect object ('to her'). The verb-final inversion suits the anxious question.

Что, что именно он ей сказал?  
What, what exactly had he told her?
> Repetition + «именно» for urgency: The stammered repetition «Что, что…» and the intensifier «именно» ('exactly') render Ivan's mounting agitation. «именно» pins the question to the precise content of Smerdyakov's words.

Страшный гнев загорелся в его сердце.  
A terrible rage kindled in his heart.
> Reflexive «загореться» (inchoative): «загорелся» (perfective reflexive of «загореться», 'to catch fire, flare up') is intransitive/middle — the rage 'kindled of itself'. The -ся here marks a change of state, not a true reflexive. Note the metaphor of fire, picked up again as «вскипевшему» earlier.

Он не понимал, как мог он полчаса назад пропустить ей эти слова и не закричать тогда же.  
He could not understand how, half an hour earlier, he had let those words of hers pass and not cried out at her then and there.
> Modal «мог» + paired perfective infinitives: «как мог он… пропустить… и не закричать» asks 'how could he have let pass… and not cried out', the past «мог» governing two perfective infinitives, one positive one negated. «ей эти слова» — 'these words of hers', dative «ей» of the source.
> «тогда же» — then and there: The particle «же» on «тогда» ('then') tightens it to 'at that very moment, then and there'. It sharpens Ivan's self-reproach at not having reacted instantly.

Он бросил звонок и пустился к Смердякову.  
He let go of the bell-pull and set off for Smerdyakov's.
> Perfective pair driving the action forward: Two perfectives «бросил… и пустился» ('let go… and set off') narrate consecutive completed events, advancing the story sharply. «пуститься» ('to dash, set off') governs «к» + dative for direction — 'toward Smerdyakov's'.

«Я убью его, может быть, в этот раз», — подумал он дорогой.  
"I will kill him, perhaps, this time," he thought along the way.
> Perfective future «убью»: «убью» is the perfective future of «убить» — a conjugated form with present endings but future, completed meaning: 'I will kill (and finish) him'. The chilling resolve is carried entirely by the aspect.
> «дорогой» — 'along the way' (instrumental): Here «дорогой» is not 'dear' but the instrumental of «дорога» (road) used adverbially: 'on the way, as he went'. The instrumental of route/path is a common 19th-century turn — 'he thought along the way'.
---

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.