# The Brothers Karamazov, The Devil. Ivan's Nightmare

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book XI — Ivan

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b11-c9. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b11-c9.json.


Я не доктор, а между тем чувствую, что пришла минута, когда мне решительно необходимо объяснить хоть что-нибудь в свойстве болезни Ивана Федоровича читателю.  
I am no physician, and yet I feel that the moment has come when it is absolutely necessary for me to explain to the reader at least something of the nature of Ivan Fyodorovich's illness.
> The contrastive «а»: The narrator opens with «Я не доктор, а между тем…» — «I am no doctor, and yet…». Here «а» is the mild adversative conjunction that pivots topic against topic, fused with the idiom «между тем» (meanwhile / and yet) to soften into a concessive.
> Dative-of-necessity construction: There is no nominative subject here: the experiencer «мне» (to me) stands in the dative and the predicate is the impersonal «необходимо» (it is necessary) plus an infinitive. This dative-experiencer frame is the native Russian way to say «I must».
> Indefinite «что-нибудь»: The particle «-нибудь» makes «что» a non-specific «anything at all» — explaining «at least something, no matter what» of the illness's nature. Contrast «что-то», which would mean a specific but unnamed thing.

Забегая вперед, скажу лишь одно: он был теперь, в этот вечер, именно как раз накануне белой горячки, которая наконец уже вполне овладела его издавна расстроенным, но упорно сопротивлявшимся болезни организмом.  
Running ahead of myself, I will say only this: he was now, that evening, precisely on the very eve of brain fever, which had at last taken full possession of an organism long disordered yet stubbornly resisting the disease.
> Present gerund «забегая»: «Забегая» is an imperfective present деепричастие («running ahead»), an indeclinable verb-adverb naming an action simultaneous with and sharing the subject of the main clause «скажу». It opens the sentence with a literary, attendant-circumstance flourish.
> Past active participle in the instrumental: «сопротивлявшимся» is a past active participle («which was resisting»), built on the -вш- suffix and here declined into the instrumental to agree with «организмом» (governed by «овладела», which takes the instrumental). It packs a whole который-clause into one modifier.
> «Овладеть» governs the instrumental: The verb «овладеть» (to take possession of) governs its object in the instrumental, not the accusative — hence «организмом». The whole noun phrase, with its participle and adjectives, agrees in that case.

Не зная ничего в медицине, рискну высказать предположение, что действительно, может быть, ужасным напряжением воли своей он успел на время отдалить болезнь, мечтая, разумеется, совсем преодолеть ее.  
Knowing nothing of medicine, I will venture the supposition that perhaps, by a fearful straining of his will, he had indeed managed to hold the illness off for a time, dreaming, naturally, of overcoming it altogether.
> Negated gerund with double negation: «Не зная» is a negated present gerund («knowing nothing»), and «ничего» supplies negative concord: Russian keeps «не» on the verb-adverb even with the negative pronoun «ничего», so two negatives make one meaning.
> Perfective future «рискну»: «Рискну» is the perfective verb «рискнуть» conjugated like a present but meaning a single future act — «I will venture». The future sits in the ending alone, with no auxiliary, the classic perfective-future pattern.
> Reflexive possessive «своей»: «Воли своей» — «of his own will» — uses the reflexive possessive «свой», pointing back to the clause's subject (he). His own will, no one else's; «его воли» would risk pointing elsewhere. The postposed order «воли своей» is a bookish inversion.
> Simultaneous gerund «мечтая»: Another present деепричастие, «dreaming», stacking a second attendant action onto the main verb — a hallmark of Dostoevsky's long, participle-laden sentences.

Он знал, что нездоров, но ему с отвращением не хотелось быть больным в это время, в эти наступающие роковые минуты его жизни, когда надо было быть налицо, высказать свое слово смело и решительно и самому «оправдать себя пред собою».  
He knew he was unwell, but it was with revulsion that he refused to be ill at this time, in these approaching, fateful minutes of his life, when he had to be present, to speak his word boldly and resolutely, and to "justify himself before himself".
> Dative-subject impersonal «не хотелось»: «Ему не хотелось» is the impersonal-feeling construction: the experiencer «ему» in the dative, the reflexive verb «хотелось» in invariable neuter — «he did not feel like». This frame renders an inner state as something happening to him, not chosen by him.
> Predicate instrumental «больным»: After the infinitive «быть» the predicate adjective takes the instrumental, «больным» — «to be ill». With «быть» in infinitive, past, or future, the predicate role is framed as a state one occupies, marked by the instrumental rather than the nominative.
> Impersonal «надо было»: «Надо было быть» — «one had to be present»: the invariable modal «надо» with neuter past «было» and an infinitive, a subjectless necessity construction. The implied person is again the dative experiencer carried over from the clause.
> «Роковой» — fateful, fatal: «Роковой» derives from «рок» (fate, doom) and means «fateful, fraught with destiny», far weightier than English «fatal». It marks these as the decisive, doom-laden hours of Ivan's life.
> Reflexive «себя» / «собою» and archaic «пред»: «Себя» (object) and «собою» (instrumental after «пред») both point back to the subject — «to justify himself before himself». «Пред» is the elevated, bookish variant of «перед», governing the instrumental; the doubled reflexive sharpens the self-trial.

Он, впрочем, сходил однажды к новому, прибывшему из Москвы доктору, выписанному Катериной Ивановной вследствие одной ее фантазии, о которой я уже упоминал выше.  
He had, however, gone once to the new doctor newly arrived from Moscow, summoned by Katerina Ivanovna on account of a certain fancy of hers that I have already mentioned above.
> Prefixed motion verb «сходил»: «Сходил» (perfective of «ходить» with «с-») denotes a completed round trip — «went and came back». The prefix «с-…» on a multidirectional motion verb gives precisely the «there-and-back» errand sense, distinct from a one-way «пошёл».
> Passive participle with instrumental agent: «Выписанному» is a past passive participle (here «summoned, sent for»), declined to agree with «доктору» in the dative. Its agent stands in the instrumental, «Катериной Ивановной» — the standard way Russian names who performed a passive action.
> Relative «которой» in the prepositional: «О которой» — «of which» — shows «который» agreeing in gender/number with «фантазии» but taking the prepositional case its own clause demands (after «о»). The relative pronoun's case is set by its role inside the relative clause, not by the antecedent.

Доктор, выслушав и осмотрев его, заключил, что у него вроде даже как бы расстройства в мозгу, и нисколько не удивился некоторому признанию, которое тот с отвращением, однако, сделал ему.  
Having listened to him and examined him, the doctor concluded that he was suffering from something like a disorder of the brain, and was not in the least surprised by a certain admission that Ivan made to him, though with revulsion.
> Perfective past gerunds «выслушав, осмотрев»: Two perfective past деепричастия in -в («having listened to and examined»), expressing actions completed before the main verb «заключил». The -в form marks priority; both share the subject «доктор».
> «У него» possession plus hedging particles: Possession is framed with «у + genitive» («он» → «у него»), the standard Russian «have». The piled-up hedges «вроде даже как бы» («something like even as it were») mimic the doctor's cautious diagnosis. Note «в мозгу» — the stressed locative «-у́» after «в».
> «Удивиться» governs the dative: The reflexive verb «удивиться» (to be surprised) takes its object in the dative — «признанию» (at the admission). «Нисколько не» («not in the least») reinforces the negation.
> Correlative «тот» for «he, the other»: Here «тот» is used pronominally to mean «the latter / that man» (Ivan), distinguishing him from «доктор» without repeating the name. This topic-tracking use of the demonstrative is constant in Russian narrative.

«Галлюцинации в вашем состоянии очень возможны, — решил доктор, — хотя надо бы их и проверить… вообще же необходимо начать лечение серьезно, не теряя ни минуты, не то будет плохо». Но Иван Федорович, выйдя от него, благоразумного совета не исполнил и лечь лечиться пренебрег: «Хожу ведь, силы есть пока, свалюсь — дело другое, тогда пусть лечит кто хочет», — решил он, махнув рукой.  
"Hallucinations in your condition are quite possible," the doctor decided, "though they ought to be verified… in general, treatment must be begun in earnest, without losing a minute, or things will go badly." But Ivan Fyodorovich, on leaving him, did not follow the sensible advice and scorned the idea of taking to his bed for a cure: "I can still walk about, I have my strength for now — once I collapse, that's another matter, and then let whoever wants to treat me," he decided, with a wave of his hand.
> Conditional softening with «бы»: «Надо бы» = «надо» + the particle «бы», softening the necessity to «they ought really to be verified». «Бы» turns a blunt statement into the tentative, polite irrealis so typical of careful speech.
> Negated gerund with «ни»: «Не теряя ни минуты» — «losing not a single minute» — pairs a negated present gerund with the intensifying «ни», whose job is to push a negation to «not even one». Negative concord keeps «не» on the verb-adverb.
> Perfective gerund «выйдя»: «Выйдя» is the irregular perfective past gerund of «выйти» («having left»), a prefixed motion verb. It sets the prior action — Ivan leaves — before the main clause's «не исполнил».
> Multidirectional «хожу» and the particle «ведь»: «Хожу» (multidirectional «ходить») means «I get about / walk around» in general, not toward one goal. «Ведь» is the appealing modal particle — «I'm still walking about, after all» — inviting the listener to grant the obvious.
> Third-person imperative with «пусть»: «Пусть лечит» — «let him treat» — forms a third-person command with «пусть» plus a present-form verb, here followed by «кто хочет» (whoever wants). It expresses Ivan's careless «then let anyone who likes treat me».
> Idiomatic gerund «махнув рукой»: Literally «having waved a hand», this perfective gerund is an idiom for giving something up as hopeless — a dismissive shrug. «Рукой» is the instrumental (the means of the gesture).

Итак, он сидел теперь, почти сознавая сам, что в бреду, и, как уже и сказал я, упорно приглядывался к какому-то предмету у противоположной стены на диване.  
And so he sat there now, almost aware himself that he was delirious, and, as I have already said, stared stubbornly at some object on the sofa by the opposite wall.
> Present gerund «сознавая»: «Сознавая» («half-aware») is a present gerund of attendant circumstance. The clause «что в бреду» drops the copula — «that [he was] in a delirium» — the zero-copula present that Russian uses for «to be».
> Reflexive «приглядывался» + dative: «Приглядываться» is a -ся verb (peer at, scrutinize) whose object follows «к» in the dative — «к предмету». «Какому-то» («some, unidentified») uses «-то» for a specific-but-unknown thing.

Там вдруг оказался сидящим некто, бог знает как вошедший, потому что его еще не было в комнате, когда Иван Федорович, возвратясь от Смердякова, вступил в нее.  
There, all at once, someone turned out to be sitting, God knows how he had gotten in, for he had not yet been in the room when Ivan Fyodorovich, on returning from Smerdyakov, had walked into it.
> «Оказаться» + instrumental participle: «Оказался сидящим» — «turned out to be sitting»: «оказаться» takes a predicate in the instrumental, here the present active participle «сидящим». The subject «некто» («someone») is an indeclinable, deliberately vague nominative.
> Past active participle «вошедший»: «Вошедший» («who had come in») is a past active participle of «войти», modifying «некто». The frozen phrase «бог знает как» («God knows how») wedges into the participial phrase as an adverbial.
> Genitive of negation in existence: «Его не было» — «he was not [there]»: the negated existential «не было» forces its subject into the genitive «его», with the verb fixed in neuter «было». This is the obligatory genitive-of-negation for absence.
> Gerund «возвратясь» plus motion verb: «Возвратясь» is a perfective gerund («having returned»; the -сь variant after a vowel), prior to «вступил» («stepped into»). «От Смердякова» uses «от + genitive» for «away from a person»; «в нее» (into it) is accusative of motion.

Это был какой-то господин или, лучше сказать, известного сорта русский джентльмен, лет уже не молодых, «qui frisait la cinquantaine», как говорят французы, с не очень сильною проседью в темных, довольно длинных и густых еще волосах и в стриженой бородке клином.  
This was some sort of gentleman or, better to say, a Russian gentleman of a particular type, no longer young, "qui frisait la cinquantaine", as the French say, with not much gray in his dark, fairly long and still thick hair, and in a trimmed, wedge-shaped little beard.
> «Джентльмен» — an English borrowing: Dostoevsky reaches for the anglicism «джентльмен» rather than «господин» to brand the devil as a shabby cosmopolitan poseur. «Известного сорта» («of a known sort») drips with the narrator's irony.
> Genitive of approximate age: «Лет… не молодых» uses the genitive plural «лет» with a genitive adjective phrase to express «of no longer young years» — a descriptive genitive of quality. «Лет» is the suppletive genitive plural of «год».
> «Бородка клином» — a wedge-shaped little beard: «Бородка» is the diminutive of «борода» (beard); «клином» is the instrumental of «клин» (wedge) used adverbially — «in a wedge». The diminutive lends a faintly dandyish, trimmed quality to the beard.

Одет он был в какой-то коричневый пиджак, очевидно от лучшего портного, но уже поношенный, сшитый примерно еще третьего года и совершенно уже вышедший из моды, так что из светских достаточных людей таких уже два года никто не носил.  
He was dressed in a kind of brown jacket, evidently from the best of tailors, but already worn, cut roughly three years ago and by now wholly out of fashion, so that for two years already nobody among well-to-do society people had worn such a thing.
> Chained participles, passive and active: Two participles modify «пиджак»: «сшитый» (past passive, «sewn/cut») and «вышедший» (past active, «having gone out [of fashion]»). Russian threads such participles together to compress several relative clauses into one descriptive sweep.
> Genitive object under negation: «Таких… никто не носил» — «nobody wore such [coats]»: the negated verb pulls its object «таких» into the genitive plural, and «никто… не» supplies negative concord. «Два года» is an accusative-of-duration.
> «Портной» — a substantivized adjective: «Портной» (tailor) is an adjective in form that functions as a noun, so it declines like an adjective: «от лучшего портного» (from the best tailor), genitive after «от». A small but recurring class of such adjective-nouns.

Белье, длинный галстук в виде шарфа, всё было так, как и у всех шиковатых джентльменов, но белье, если вглядеться ближе, было грязновато, а широкий шарф очень потерт.  
His linen, his long scarf-like cravat — everything was just as it is with all stylish gentlemen, but the linen, if you looked closer, was rather dirty, and the broad scarf badly frayed.
> Infinitive conditional + comparative «ближе»: «Если вглядеться ближе» — «if one looked closer»: a generalized condition with a bare infinitive and no subject. «Ближе» is the suppletive-style comparative of «близко» (closer), an invariable predicative form.
> Attenuative «грязновато» — rather dirty: The suffix «-оват-» softens an adjective to «somewhat, rather»: «грязноватый» = «a bit dirty» from «грязный». Here the short/adverbial «грязновато» understates the linen's grubbiness with a knowing precision.
> Short-form adjectives as predicates: «Грязновато» and «потерт» (frayed, worn) are short-form adjectives, used only predicatively and agreeing in gender/number alone. The short form lends the bookish, almost clinical tone of an inventory of the guest's shabbiness.

Клетчатые панталоны гостя сидели превосходно, но были опять-таки слишком светлы и как-то слишком узки, как теперь уже перестали носить, равно как и мягкая белая пуховая шляпа, которую уже слишком не по сезону притащил с собою гость.  
The guest's checked trousers fit superbly, but were again altogether too light and somehow too narrow, of a sort people had now stopped wearing, as was the soft white felt hat, far too out of season, that the guest had dragged along with him.
> «Панталоны» — period word for trousers: «Панталоны» (from French «pantalon») is the mid-19th-century word for men's trousers, more dated and genteel than modern «брюки». It suits the guest's out-of-fashion, would-be-elegant wardrobe.
> Impersonal «перестали носить»: «Перестали носить» («[people] had stopped wearing») uses a third-person-plural verb with no stated subject — the indefinite «they / people», a common Russian impersonal. «Перестать + imperfective infinitive» expresses ceasing an activity.
> Relative «которую» in the accusative: «Которую» agrees with «шляпа» (feminine) but takes the accusative as the direct object of «притащил» inside its own clause. «С собою» is the reflexive pronoun «себя» in the instrumental after «с» — «along with himself».
> «Притащить» — to lug, drag along: «Притащить» (perfective, with «при-» = arrival) means to drag or haul something heavy to a place. Applied to a hat it is comically heavy-handed, hinting the guest «lugged» an absurdly seasonless thing along.

Словом, был вид порядочности при весьма слабых карманных средствах.  
In a word, there was the appearance of respectability sustained on exceedingly slender pocket means.
> «Словом» — «in a word»: The instrumental of «слово» (word) frozen into a summarizing discourse marker, «in short, in a word». It signals the narrator is gathering the catalogue of details into a single verdict.
> «При» + prepositional for circumstance: «При… средствах» uses «при» with the prepositional to mean «with, given, in the presence of» — «with very slender pocket means». «При» framing attendant circumstances is a bookish, slightly formal turn.

Похоже было на то, что джентльмен принадлежит к разряду бывших белоручек-помещиков, процветавших еще при крепостном праве; очевидно, видавший свет и порядочное общество, имевший когда-то связи и сохранивший их, пожалуй, и до сих пор, но мало-помалу с обеднением после веселой жизни в молодости и недавней отмены крепостного права обратившийся вроде как бы в приживальщика хорошего тона, скитающегося по добрым старым знакомым, которые принимают его за уживчивый складный характер, да еще и ввиду того, что всё же порядочный человек, которого даже и при ком угодно можно посадить у себя за стол, хотя, конечно, на скромное место.  
It looked as though the gentleman belonged to the category of former idle-handed landowners who had flourished back under serfdom; one who had evidently seen the world and decent society, who had once had connections and had perhaps kept them even to this day, but who, little by little, with impoverishment after a merry youth and the recent abolition of serfdom, had turned into something like a hanger-on of good tone, drifting from one kindly old acquaintance to another, who receive him for his easygoing, accommodating character, and on the further ground that he is, after all, a respectable man whom one may seat at one's table in any company, though, of course, in a modest place.
> «Белоручка» — an idler with «white hands»: «Белоручка» (literally «white-hand») is a contemptuous term for someone who shirks rough work, a pampered idler; here yoked to «помещик» (landowner). The compound paints the class of leisured, serf-supported gentry.
> «Приживальщик» — the dependent hanger-on: «Приживальщик» is a key word of the chapter: a poor relation or gentleman-sponger who lives off others' hospitality, drifting between households. «Хорошего тона» («of good tone») marks him a presentable, well-mannered specimen. The devil casts himself in exactly this role.
> A cascade of active participles: This vast sentence hangs a chain of past active participles off the gentleman — «процветавших» (who flourished), «видавший» (having seen), «имевший» (having had), «сохранивший» (having kept), «обратившийся» (turned into). Such participial chaining is the signature of 19th-century literary syntax.
> Present active participle «скитающегося»: «Скитающегося» (present active, «wandering, drifting») modifies the hanger-on, declined to agree with him. «По + dative» («по знакомым») gives the «from one acquaintance to another» distributive sense of his roaming.
> «При ком угодно» — «in anyone's company at all»: «Кто угодно» («anyone you please») here in the prepositional «при ком угодно» means «in any company whatever». «Угодно» after an interrogative builds a free-choice indefinite. «Которого… можно посадить» is an impersonal possibility with «можно».

Такие приживальщики, складного характера джентльмены, умеющие порассказать, составить партию в карты и решительно не любящие никаких поручений, если их им навязывают, — обыкновенно одиноки, или холостяки, или вдовцы, может быть и имеющие детей, но дети их воспитываются всегда где-то далеко, у каких-нибудь теток, о которых джентльмен никогда почти не упоминает в порядочном обществе, как бы несколько стыдясь такого родства.  
Such hangers-on, gentlemen of accommodating character, who can tell a good story, make up a hand at cards, and are decidedly fond of no errands whatever should any be foisted on them, are commonly solitary creatures — either bachelors or widowers, perhaps even with children, but their children are always being brought up somewhere far away, at the homes of some aunt or other, of whom the gentleman almost never speaks in decent society, as though somewhat ashamed of such kinship.
> Present active participle «умеющие»: «Умеющие» (present active, «who know how to») governs a string of infinitives — «tell a story, make up a hand». The participle replaces a который-clause and agrees with «джентльмены» in the nominative plural.
> Genitive object of a negated participle: «Не любящие… поручений» — the negated participle «любящий» (loving) takes its object in the genitive «поручений», reinforced by «никаких» (no… at all). The genitive-of-negation reaches even inside participial phrases.
> Gerund «стыдясь» + genitive: «Стыдясь» is a present gerund of the -ся verb «стыдиться» (to be ashamed), which governs the genitive «родства» (of such kinship). «Как бы несколько» («as though somewhat») hedges the emotion in the narrator's wry manner.

От детей же отвыкает мало-помалу совсем, изредка получая от них к своим именинам и к рождеству поздравительные письма и иногда даже отвечая на них.  
From his children, too, he gradually grows quite estranged, now and then receiving from them, for his name-day and for Christmas, letters of congratulation, and occasionally even answering them.
> Fronting + the particle «же»: The object «от детей» is fronted as topic, and «же» marks the shift to a new aspect of the portrait — «As for his children, too…». «Отвыкать от + genitive» means «grow unaccustomed to, get weaned off».
> Paired present gerunds: «Получая» and «отвечая» are imperfective present gerunds describing habitual, simultaneous actions — «now and then receiving… and occasionally answering». Imperfective gerunds suit this iterative, characterizing description.

Физиономия неожиданного гостя была не то чтобы добродушная, а опять-таки складная и готовая, судя по обстоятельствам, на всякое любезное выражение.  
The unexpected guest's countenance was not exactly good-natured, but again accommodating, and ready, as circumstances might require, for any obliging expression.
> «Физиономия» — countenance, mug: «Физиономия» (from Greek via French) means «face, countenance», but with a faintly ironic or appraising tinge in Russian — apt for the narrator sizing up the devil's bland, ready-for-anything face.
> «Не то чтобы…, а…» construction: «Не то чтобы X, а Y» means «not exactly X, but rather Y» — a hedged correction. The contrastive «а» pivots from the rejected description «добродушная» (good-natured) to the truer «складная» (accommodating).

Часов на нем не было, но был черепаховый лорнет на черной ленте.  
He had no watch on him, but he did have a tortoiseshell lorgnette on a black ribbon.
> Genitive of negation (plural noun): «Часов… не было» — «there was no watch»: the negated existential «не было» puts its subject into the genitive, here «часов» (genitive plural of «часы», which is plural-only for «watch/clock»). Contrast the affirmative «был… лорнет».
> «Лорнет» — a tortoiseshell lorgnette: A «лорнет» is a pair of eyeglasses on a handle, held up to the eye — a foppish accessory of fashionable society. «Черепаховый» means «tortoiseshell». The detail completes the devil's seedy-genteel toilette.

На среднем пальце правой руки красовался массивный золотой перстень с недорогим опалом.  
On the middle finger of his right hand there flaunted a massive gold ring set with an inexpensive opal.
> Reflexive «красоваться» and inverted order: «Красовался» is a -ся verb meaning «showed off, flaunted itself». The subject «перстень» follows the verb — comment before topic — throwing the new, ostentatious detail into relief, a typical Russian word-order effect.
> «Перстень» — a (signet) ring: «Перстень» is a substantial, often jewelled or signet ring (more than a plain «кольцо»). The «недорогой опал» (cheap opal) deflates the «massive gold» — pretension undercut by a tawdry stone.

Иван Федорович злобно молчал и не хотел заговаривать.  
Ivan Fyodorovich kept a malicious silence and would not begin to speak.
> Inceptive imperfective «заговаривать»: «Заговаривать» (imperfective with «за-» = beginning) means «to start talking, strike up». Under «не хотел» the imperfective infinitive is natural — refusing the activity as a whole. «Злобно молчал» pairs adverb with imperfective for sustained, sullen silence.

Гость ждал и именно сидел как приживальщик, только что сошедший сверху из отведенной ему комнаты вниз к чаю составить хозяину компанию, но смирно молчавший ввиду того, что хозяин занят и об чем-то нахмуренно думает; готовый, однако, ко всякому любезному разговору, только лишь хозяин начнет его.  
The guest waited, and sat there exactly like a hanger-on who has just come down from the room assigned to him upstairs to keep his host company at tea, but who keeps a meek silence in view of the fact that the host is occupied and brooding frowningly over something; ready, however, for any obliging conversation, the moment the host should begin it.
> Stacked participles characterizing the guest: The simile hangs two past active participles on the hanger-on — «сошедший» (having come down) and «молчавший» (keeping silent) — plus the long-form deverbal adjective «готовый» ('ready'), whose short form would be «готов». The pile-up paints a whole posture in one breath.
> Perfective future «начнет» in a temporal clause: «Начнет» is the perfective future of «начать» — «the moment the host begins it». In «only as soon as…» clauses Russian uses the perfective future for the awaited completed event, where English may use a present.

Вдруг лицо его выразило как бы некоторую внезапную озабоченность.  
Suddenly his face expressed something like a sudden disquiet.
> Perfective «выразило» and hedging «как бы»: «Выразило» (perfective past, neuter agreeing with «лицо») marks the single completed event — the face «expressed» a flicker of concern. «Как бы» («as if, something like») softens it to a half-seen impression, very characteristic of the narrator's tentative reportage.

— Послушай, — начал он Ивану Федоровичу, — ты извини, я только чтобы напомнить: ты ведь к Смердякову пошел с тем, чтоб узнать про Катерину Ивановну, а ушел ничего об ней не узнав, верно забыл… — Ах да!  
— Listen, — he began to Ivan Fyodorovich, — forgive me, I only want to remind you: you did go to Smerdyakov, you know, in order to find out about Katerina Ivanovna, and you came away without learning anything about her, you must have forgotten… — Ah yes!
> Dative addressee «Ивану Федоровичу»: «Начал… Ивану Федоровичу» uses the dative for the person addressed — «began [speaking] to Ivan». Both the name and patronymic decline (dative -у / -у).
> «С тем, чтоб» — purpose with «чтобы»: «С тем, чтоб узнать» means «in order to find out»: the correlative «с тем» points forward to the purpose clause «чтоб(ы) + infinitive». «Ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — «you did go, you know».
> Negated gerund «не узнав» + negative concord: «Ничего… не узнав» — «having learned nothing»: a perfective past gerund («узнав») negated, with «ничего… не» giving double negation. «Об ней» is a colloquial/older variant of «о ней».

— вырвалось вдруг у Ивана, и лицо его омрачилось заботой, — да, я забыл…  
— burst suddenly from Ivan, and his face clouded over with care, — yes, I forgot…
> Reflexive «вырвалось» — it burst out: «Вырвалось» is a -ся verb in its middle/spontaneous sense — the exclamation «burst out» of its own accord, the speaker scarcely its agent. «У Ивана» (from Ivan) uses «у + genitive» for the source.
> «Омрачиться» + instrumental of cause: «Омрачилось заботой» — «clouded over with care»: the -ся verb «омрачиться» (grow dark) takes the instrumental «заботой» for what it is darkened by. The instrumental marks the cause/agent of the change of state.

Впрочем, теперь всё равно, всё до завтра, — пробормотал он про себя. — А ты, — раздражительно обратился он к гостю, — это я сам сейчас должен был вспомнить, потому что именно об этом томило тоской!  
Still, it makes no difference now, it can all wait till tomorrow, — he muttered to himself. — And as for you, — he turned to the guest irritably, — I ought to have remembered that myself just now, for that is the very thing that was tormenting me with anguish!
> «Про себя» — to oneself: «Про себя» (literally «to himself», with the reflexive «себя» after «про») is the idiom for muttering inwardly or silently. «Про» normally takes the accusative, and «себя» is the reflexive object.
> Impersonal «томило» with instrumental: «Об этом томило тоской» is impersonal — no nominative subject, the verb fixed in neuter «томило» («[something] tormented [me]»), with «тоской» (anguish) in the instrumental as the means. A quintessential Dostoevskian rendering of inner torment as an agentless force.
> Topic «А ты» + reflexive «обратился к»: «А ты» fronts the guest as a new topic with the contrastive «а». «Обратиться к + dative» («к гостю») is the -ся verb for «to turn/address oneself to» someone.

Что ты выскочил, так я тебе и поверю, что это ты подсказал, а не я сам вспомнил?  
Just because you piped up, am I to believe that it was you who prompted me, and not I who remembered it myself?
> Ironic «так… и» + dative «тебе»: «Так я тебе и поверю» is a sarcastic idiom — «as if I'll believe you!», the «так… и» framing flat disbelief. «Поверить» takes the dative of the person believed, «тебе».
> Cleft emphasis with «это» and «сам»: Russian clefts with «это» plus a fronted pronoun to spotlight the agent — «it was you who prompted… not I myself who remembered». «Сам» is the intensifier «-self», agreeing with «я»; «а не» draws the sharp contrast.

— А не верь, — ласково усмехнулся джентльмен.  
— Then don't believe it, — the gentleman smiled affably.
> Negative imperative «не верь»: «Не верь» is the negative imperative of «верить» («don't believe»), the bare 2nd-person singular command. With negative imperatives Russian normally uses the imperfective, as here. «А» opens the retort lightly — «Then don't».
> «Усмехнуться» — to give a smirk/half-smile: «Усмехнуться» (perfective -ся, a single act) is a wry, knowing smile or smirk, distinct from the open «улыбнуться». «Ласково» («affably, gently») gives the devil's smirk its disarming softness.

— Что за вера насилием?  
— What is faith got by force?
> «Что за…?» — «What sort of…?»: «Что за вера?» is the exclamatory-interrogative «What kind of faith [is that]?». «Насилием» is the instrumental of «насилие» (force) used as «by force» — «faith [got] by force».

Притом же в вере никакие доказательства не помогают, особенно материальные.  
Besides, in matters of faith no proofs are of any help, especially material ones.
> «Никакие… не» negative concord: «Никакие доказательства не помогают» — «no proofs help»: «никакие» (no… whatever) pairs with «не» on the verb in obligatory negative concord. «Помогать» is imperfective for the general truth.
> «Притом же» — «besides, moreover»: «Притом» means «besides, what's more», and the particle «же» reinforces the additive turn. A bookish connective the devil uses to layer his sophistry.

Фома поверил не потому, что увидел воскресшего Христа, а потому, что еще прежде желал поверить.  
Thomas believed not because he saw the risen Christ, but because even before that he had wished to believe.
> «Не потому…, а потому…» causal contrast: The frame «не потому что X, а потому что Y» — «not because X, but because Y» — sets two causal clauses against each other with «потому что» (because) and the contrastive «а». A favorite rhetorical hinge of Dostoevsky's reasoners.

Вот, например, спириты… я их очень люблю… вообрази, они полагают, что полезны для веры, потому что им черти с того света рожки показывают.  
Take the spiritualists, for instance… I am very fond of them… imagine, they suppose they are useful to faith, because devils from the other world show them their little horns.
> Imperative «вообрази»: «Вообрази» is the singular imperative of perfective «вообразить» — «imagine!, just fancy!». The perfective imperative fits a one-off invitation to picture a single scene.
> «Рожки» — little horns: «Рожки» is the diminutive plural of «рог» (horn). The devils «show their little horns» — the diminutive turns the demonic into something almost cute and parlor-trick trivial, mocking the spiritualists' evidence.

«Это, дескать, доказательство уже, так сказать, материальное, что есть тот свет».  
"This, you see, is by now, so to speak, a material proof that the other world exists."
> «Дескать» — reported-speech marker: «Дескать» flags that the words are quoted or imputed to someone else — «[they say], you see». It lets the devil ventriloquize the spiritualists' self-justification with sneering distance. «Так сказать» = «so to speak».
> Existential «есть»: «Что есть тот свет» — «that the other world exists». «Есть» here is the rare overt present of «быть», used for emphatic assertion of existence (vs. the usual zero copula). «Тот свет» — «that [other] world», the beyond.

Тот свет и материальные доказательства, ай-люли!  
The other world and material proofs, fiddle-de-dee!
> «Ай-люли» — a nonsense refrain: «Ай-люли» is a meaningless sing-song refrain from Russian folk songs, here flung out as a mocking «fiddle-de-dee!» The devil deflates the whole metaphysical debate into a bit of folk doggerel.

И наконец, если доказан черт, то еще неизвестно, доказан ли бог?  
And after all, if the devil is proven, is it yet known whether God is proven?
> Short passive participle «доказан»: «Доказан» is the short form of the past passive participle «доказанный» («proven»), used predicatively — «if the devil is proven». The short passive participle plus (implied) «быть» states a result, agreeing in gender/number only.
> Embedded «ли» — «whether»: «Доказан ли бог» uses the particle «ли» for an indirect yes/no question — «whether God is proven». «Ли» follows the focused word and turns the embedded clause into a «whether»-question after «неизвестно» (it is unknown).

Я хочу в идеалистическое общество записаться, оппозицию у них буду делать: «дескать реалист, а не материалист, хе-хе!»  
I want to enroll in an idealist society, I'll set up an opposition among them: "I'm a realist, you see, and not a materialist, heh-heh!"
> Reflexive «записаться» + accusative of goal: «Записаться» is the -ся verb «to enroll, sign oneself up»; «в общество» (into the society) is accusative of motion/goal after «в». The -ся conveys the self-directed action of putting one's own name down.
> Compound future «буду делать»: «Буду делать» is the imperfective compound future — «I will be making/setting up [an opposition]» — built from the future of «быть» plus an imperfective infinitive. It names an ongoing future activity, fitting the devil's playful scheme.

— Слушай, — встал вдруг из-за стола Иван Федорович.  
— Listen, — Ivan Fyodorovich suddenly rose from the table.
> Verb-first order + compound preposition «из-за»: The verb «встал» leads, with the subject «Иван Федорович» postponed — a dramatic, action-first inversion. «Из-за стола» («up from the table») uses the compound preposition «из-за» + genitive for rising from behind something.

— Я теперь точно в бреду… и, уж конечно, в бреду… ври что хочешь, мне всё равно!  
— I am now exactly as if in a delirium… and, of course, I am in a delirium… lie all you want, it makes no difference to me!
> Imperative «ври» + free relative: «Ври» is the imperative of «врать» (to lie, fib); «что хочешь» («whatever you like») is a headless free relative. «Lie whatever you want» — Ivan's contemptuous license to the apparition.
> «Мне всё равно» — dative of indifference: «Мне всё равно» — «it's all the same to me, I don't care»: the experiencer in the dative «мне» with the fixed phrase «всё равно». A pure dative-experiencer idiom for indifference.

Ты меня не приведешь в исступление, как в прошлый раз.  
You will not work me up into a frenzy, as you did the last time.
> Perfective future «не приведешь»: «Не приведешь» is the perfective future of «привести» — «you will not bring [me] into a frenzy». The perfective frames a single, would-be-completed act, which Ivan defiantly denies will happen.
> «Исступление» — frenzy, ecstasy of rage: «Исступление» is a bookish word for a state of being beside oneself — frenzy, distraction, raving. A loaded Dostoevskian term for the overwrought psychological extremity his characters are forever tipping into.

Мне только чего-то стыдно…  
It is only that I am somehow ashamed…
> Dative-subject «мне… стыдно»: «Мне стыдно» — «I am ashamed»: the impersonal-feeling construction, experiencer «мне» in the dative, predicate the invariable «стыдно». «Чего-то» («somehow, of something») uses «-то» for a vague, unidentified cause.

Я хочу ходить по комнате…  
I want to pace about the room…
> Multidirectional «ходить» + «по» distributive: «Ходить по комнате» — «to pace about the room»: the multidirectional «ходить» for to-and-fro motion, with «по + dative» giving the «around/over» sense across a surface. A precise contrast to a one-way «идти».

Я тебя иногда не вижу и голоса твоего даже не слышу, как в прошлый раз, но всегда угадываю то, что ты мелешь, потому что ''это я, я сам говорю, а не ты!'' Не знаю только, спал ли я в прошлый раз или видел тебя наяву?  
Sometimes I do not see you and do not even hear your voice, as last time, and yet I always guess what you are babbling, because ''it is I, I myself, who am speaking, and not you!'' Only I do not know whether I was asleep last time, or saw you while awake.
> Genitive object under negation: «Голоса… не слышу» — «I don't hear your voice»: the negated «слышу» pulls its object into the genitive «голоса». The genitive-of-negation is especially natural with non-specific or partial perception.
> «Молоть» — to talk rubbish: «Мелешь» is from «молоть» (to grind, mill), but the idiom «молоть [вздор, чепуху]» means «to babble, talk nonsense». Ivan says he always guesses «what you are babbling» — the devil's talk is so much grinding of chaff.
> Indirect question with «ли»: «Не знаю… спал ли я… или видел» uses «ли» to form an embedded «whether… or» question after «не знаю». «Ли» attaches to the fronted focus «спал». «Наяву» means «while awake, in waking life».

Вот я обмочу полотенце холодною водой и приложу к голове, и авось ты испаришься.  
I'll just wet a towel with cold water and press it to my head, and perhaps you will evaporate.
> Perfective futures «обмочу», «приложу»: Both verbs are perfective futures — «I'll wet… and press» — single completed acts conjugated like a present. Aspect, not an auxiliary, carries the future of these momentary actions.
> «Авось» + perfective future «испаришься»: «Авось» is the untranslatable particle of hopeful chance — «maybe, with luck». «Испаришься» (perfective future of the -ся verb «испариться», «to evaporate») expresses the wished-for vanishing of the phantom.

Иван Федорович прошел в угол, взял полотенце, исполнил, как сказал, и с мокрым полотенцем на голове стал ходить взад и вперед по комнате.  
Ivan Fyodorovich went into the corner, took a towel, did as he had said, and, with the wet towel on his head, began to pace back and forth across the room.
> Chain of perfectives advancing the action: A string of perfective past verbs — «прошел, взял, исполнил, стал» — moves the narration event by event, each a completed step. «Стал ходить» (began to pace) launches an imperfective infinitive, opening into ongoing motion.
> Comparative «как» clause: «Исполнил, как сказал» — «did as he had said»: «как» introduces a clause of manner/comparison, here referring back to Ivan's stated plan. A compact, common subordinator.

— Мне нравится, что мы с тобой прямо стали на ''ты'', — начал было гость.  
— I like it that we have gone straight to addressing each other as ''thou,'' — the guest began.
> «Мы с тобой» — inclusive «you and I»: «Мы с тобой» (literally «we with you») is the idiomatic Russian for «you and I» — a plural «we» plus «с + instrumental» naming the companion. «Начал было» uses the particle «было» for an action just begun.

— Дурак, — засмеялся Иван, — что ж я ''вы'', что ли, стану тебе говорить.  
— Fool, — Ivan laughed, — as if I'm going to address you as ''you,'' am I?
> Compound future «стану говорить» + «же»: «Стану говорить» is a compound future (the future of «стать» plus imperfective infinitive) — «am I going to address [you as ''вы'']?». The particle «ж» (= «же») charges the rhetorical question with scorn — «as if I would!».
> «Дурак» — fool: «Дурак» is the blunt, common word for «fool, idiot». Hurled at the apparition with a laugh, it shows Ivan's mix of contempt and oddly familiar banter with his own hallucination.

Я теперь весел, только в виске болит… и темя… только, пожалуйста, не философствуй, как в прошлый раз.  
I'm cheerful now, only there's a pain in my temple… and the crown of my head… only, please, don't philosophize, as you did the last time.
> Impersonal «болит» of bodily pain: «В виске болит» — «there's a pain in [my] temple»: an impersonal-leaning construction where the aching part is located («в виске», prepositional) and «болит» runs in the third person. «Темя» (crown of the head) is a neuter -мя noun.
> Negative imperative «не философствуй»: «Не философствуй» is the negative imperative of the imperfective «философствовать» (to philosophize) — «don't [keep] philosophizing». Negative commands take the imperfective, fitting the «stop/don't do this activity» sense.

Если не можешь убраться, то ври что-нибудь веселое.  
If you can't clear off, then lie about something cheerful.
> «Что-нibудь» — anything at all: «Что-нибудь веселое» — «something cheerful, anything»: «-нибудь» marks a non-specific referent, leaving the content open. Ivan doesn't care what, so long as it's cheerful. Contrast «что-то», a specific thing.
> «Убраться» — to clear off: «Убраться» (perfective -ся) is a colloquial, dismissive «to clear out, get lost, take oneself off». Ivan tells the phantom: if you can't «убраться», at least be amusing.

Сплетничай, ведь ты приживальщик, так сплетничай.  
Gossip — you're a hanger-on, after all, so gossip.
> «Ведь» appeal + «так» consequence: «Ведь» appeals to the shared premise — «you're a hanger-on, after all» — and «так» draws the consequence, «so gossip». «Сплетничай» is the imperfective imperative of «сплетничать» (to gossip), fitting a call to a general activity.

Навяжется же такой кошмар!  
What a nightmare to fasten itself on a man!
> Exclamatory perfective future + «же»: «Навяжется» is the perfective future of the -ся verb «навязаться» («to foist/fasten itself on»), used here exclamatorily — «What a nightmare to fasten itself [on one]!». «Же» heightens the rueful astonishment.

Но я не боюсь тебя.  
But I am not afraid of you.
> «Бояться» + genitive object: «Боюсь тебя» — «I fear you»: «бояться» is a verb that exists only in the -ся form and governs its object in the genitive. «Тебя» is genitive (here syncretic with accusative). A core -ся verb of emotion.

Я тебя преодолею.  
I will get the better of you.
> Perfective future «преодолею»: «Преодолею» is the perfective future of «преодолеть» — «I will overcome [you]», a single decisive victory. The momentary perfective suits Ivan's resolve to master the phantom once and for all.

Не свезут в сумасшедший дом!  
They won't cart me off to the madhouse!
> Impersonal «они»-less «свезут»: «Не свезут» is a 3rd-person-plural perfective future with no subject — the indefinite «they»: «they won't cart [me] off». Russian uses this subjectless plural for unspecified agents, an everyday impersonal.
> «Сумасшедший дом» — madhouse: Literally «mad house» (from «сошедший с ума», «out of one's mind»), the 19th-century term for an insane asylum. Ivan's dread of being committed haunts the whole delirium scene.

— C’est charmant, приживальщик.  
— C’est charmant, a hanger-on.

Да я именно в своем виде.  
Yes, I am precisely in my own character.
> «Свой» — in my own character: «В своем виде» — «in my own [true] shape/character»: the reflexive possessive «свой» points to the subject (I), and «именно» («precisely») drives the claim home. The devil owns the role of hanger-on as his very nature.

Кто ж я на земле, как не приживальщик?  
What am I on earth, if not a hanger-on?
> Rhetorical «кто… как не» + «ж»: «Кто… как не приживальщик?» — «who am I… if not a hanger-on?»: the frame «кто, как не X» poses a rhetorical question expecting «no one else». «Ж» (= «же») sharpens the self-deprecating insistence.

Кстати, я ведь слушаю тебя и немножко дивлюсь: ей-богу, ты меня как будто уже начинаешь помаленьку принимать за нечто и в самом деле, а не за твою только фантазию, как стоял на том в прошлый раз…  
By the way, I am listening to you, you know, and marveling a little: by God, you seem to be starting, little by little, to take me for something actually real, and not merely for your own fancy, as you insisted last time…
> «Принимать за» + accusative: «Принимать кого за что» — «to take someone for something»: «за нечто» (for something [real]) uses «за + accusative». «Нечто» is the indeclinable «something». «Помаленьку» is a colloquial diminutive-flavored «little by little».
> «Ей-богу» — by God: «Ей-богу» is a fossilized oath, «by God, honestly», containing an old dative «богу». The colloquial asseveration colors the devil's chatty, confiding tone.
> The appealing particle «ведь»: «Ведь» opens the devil's remark with an appeal to Ivan's awareness — «I am, you know, listening to you». It presumes shared ground, the very texture of Dostoevskian dialogue.

— Ни одной минуты не принимаю тебя за реальную правду, — как-то яростно даже вскричал Иван.  
— Not for one minute do I take you for real truth, — Ivan cried out, even somehow furiously.
> Fronted «ни одной… не» emphasis: «Ни одной минуты не принимаю» — «not for a single minute do I take»: «ни одной» (not one) intensifies the negation, fronted for emphasis, with «не» still on the verb in negative concord. The fronting throws all weight onto Ivan's total refusal.
> Indefinite «как-то» + perfective «вскричал»: «Как-то» («somehow») softens the adverb «яростно» (furiously). «Вскричал» is a perfective with «вс-» marking the sudden onset of crying out — a single burst, not a process.

— Ты ложь, ты болезнь моя, ты призрак.  
— You are a lie, you are my illness, you are a phantom.
> Zero-copula nominative predicates: Three present-tense equations with no verb «to be»: «ты ложь… болезнь… призрак» — «you [are] a lie… my illness… a phantom». In the present Russian omits the copula and leaves the predicate noun in the nominative.

Я только не знаю, чем тебя истребить, и вижу, что некоторое время надобно прострадать.  
Only I do not know how to destroy you, and I see that for some time I shall have to suffer through it.
> Instrumental «чем» of means: «Чем тебя истребить» — «with what to destroy you»: «чем» is the instrumental of «что», asking by what means. The embedded infinitive question after «не знаю» names Ivan's helplessness — he lacks the instrument to annihilate the vision.
> Impersonal «надобно» + perfective «прострадать»: «Надобно прострадать» — «one must suffer through»: «надобно» is the archaic-flavored variant of «надо» (it is necessary), an impersonal modal with infinitive. «Прострадать» (perfective with «про-») means to endure suffering through a whole span — «некоторое время» (for some time).

Ты моя галлюцинация.  
You are my hallucination.
> Zero copula in the present: Russian uses no verb «есть» (to be) in the present, so the predicate noun «галлюцинация» stands in the bare nominative: «Ты [—] моя галлюцинация», literally 'You — my hallucination.' The possessive «моя» agrees in the feminine to match.
> A clinical loanword: «Галлюцинация» is a 19th-century borrowing from the new medical-psychiatric vocabulary; Ivan reaches for the doctor's word to keep the devil at arm's length, insisting his visitor is a mere symptom of brain fever.

Ты воплощение меня самого, только одной, впрочем, моей стороны… моих мыслей и чувств, только самых гадких и глупых.  
You are the embodiment of myself, though of only one side of me… of my thoughts and feelings, but only the most vile and stupid of them.
> «воплощение» — incarnation made flesh: A bookish noun in -ение built on «плоть» (flesh): 'embodiment, incarnation.' The root threads through the whole chapter — the devil's stated dream is «воплотиться», to become incarnate — so Ivan's word already carries the theological charge of the Word made flesh.
> Intensive «сам» agreeing in the genitive: «меня самого» pairs the genitive of «я» with the intensifier «сам» ('myself'), both in the genitive after «воплощение … меня». «сам» declines like an adjective and here underlines that the devil embodies Ivan's very own self, not merely 'a' self.
> Superlative «самый» selecting the worst: «самых гадких и глупых» uses «самый» ('most') to form the superlative, here in the genitive plural agreeing with «мыслей и чувств» — 'the most vile and stupid of my thoughts and feelings.' «самый» declines together with its adjectives.

С этой стороны ты мог бы быть даже мне любопытен, если бы только мне было время с тобой возиться…  
From that angle you might even be of some interest to me, if only I had the time to bother with you…
> A full conditional with «бы» twice over: Both halves are irrealis: «мог бы быть» (could be) and «если бы … было время» (if only there were time) each pair a past-tense form with «бы». The repeated particle ties the contrary-to-fact apodosis to its protasis — a textbook conditional.
> Dative experiencer of having time: 'Having time' is framed impersonally: «мне … было время», literally 'to-me there was time,' with the person in the dative «мне» and no nominative subject. It is the same dative-first pattern as «мне холодно».
> «возиться» — to bother, fuss with: A colloquial -ся verb meaning to fuss or busy oneself tiresomely with someone (here «с тобой»). It carries a faint note of condescension — dealing with the devil as one would with a troublesome child.

— Позволь, позволь, я тебя уличу: давеча у фонаря, когда ты вскинулся на Алешу и закричал ему: «Ты от ''него'' узнал!  
— Allow me, allow me, I'll catch you out: just now by the streetlamp, when you flew at Alyosha and shouted at him: "You learned it from ''him''!
> Imperative «Позволь» — 'allow, permit': The familiar singular imperative of perfective «позволить»; doubled «Позволь, позволь» it works as a conversational 'wait, wait — let me…', a courteous bid to interrupt before pressing a point.
> «уличить» — to catch someone out: «я тебя уличу» is the perfective future of «уличить», to convict or expose someone in a fault or contradiction. Ivan is about to trap the devil in proof that he is only Ivan's own thought.
> «давеча» — 'a little while ago': A homely, slightly archaic colloquialism for 'recently, just now, earlier today.' It belongs to the spoken, old-fashioned register and recurs through the chapter, lending the dialogue its lived-in 19th-century texture.
> «вскинуться на» + accusative — to fly at: The perfective -ся verb «вскинуться» ('to fling oneself up') governs «на» plus the accusative «Алешу» to mean 'rounded on, flew at' Alyosha. The -ся turns the throwing motion inward onto the subject.

Почему ты узнал, что ''он'' ко мне ходит?» Это ведь ты про меня вспоминал.  
How did you know that ''he'' comes to me?" It was me you were thinking of then, you know.
> Multidirectional «ходить» for habitual visiting: «ходит» is the multidirectional motion verb «ходить», used here for repeated, habitual coming-and-going: not 'is on his way now' but 'visits me, keeps coming to me.' That habitual sense is exactly why it unsettles Ivan.
> The particle «ведь» — 'you see, after all': «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge, nudging Ivan to admit what he already half-knows: 'it was me you were thinking of, you see.' English can only render it with intonation or a tag like 'you know.'
> «про» + accusative — 'about me': The preposition «про» governs the accusative «меня» and means 'about, concerning,' a slightly more colloquial counterpart to «о» + prepositional. It suits the devil's chatty, informal needling.

Стало быть, одно маленькое мгновеньице ведь верил же, верил, что я действительно есмь, — мягко засмеялся джентльмен.  
So you did believe, then, for one tiny instant, you believed that I really exist, — the gentleman laughed softly.
> «Стало быть» — 'so then, ergo': A frozen idiom (literally 'it has come to be') meaning 'consequently, so then.' It opens a triumphant inference: the devil pounces on Ivan's momentary belief as proof of his own reality.
> Diminutive «мгновеньице» — a tiny instant: The diminutive of «мгновение» (instant), with the affectionate/belittling suffix -ице. Paired with «маленькое», it doubly shrinks the moment, the devil cooing over how brief Ivan's lapse of belief was.
> Two particles plus emphatic repetition: The devil stacks «ведь» (after all) and «же» (insistent) around «верил», then repeats the verb: 'you did so believe, you did believe.' The clustered particles and reduplication mark the gloating, coaxing tone of his speech.
> «есмь» — the archaic 'I am': «я действительно есмь» uses «есмь», the 1st-person-singular of the old verb 'to be,' long dead in living speech and surviving only in Church-Slavonic and Scripture (cf. God's 'I AM'). The devil's mock-solemn flourish parodies divine self-assertion: 'that I truly AM.'
> «джентльмен» — the devil as English gentleman: The narrator and the devil himself favor the English loanword «джентльмен» over Russian «господин». It frames the visitor as a shabby-genteel European man-about-town — the petty, déclassé bourgeois devil Dostoevsky deliberately conjures instead of a Gothic fiend.

— Да, это была слабость природы… но я не мог тебе верить.  
— Yes, that was a weakness of nature… but I could not believe in you.
> Past «была» agreeing with the feminine predicate: With «это была слабость» the verb «была» takes feminine singular to agree with «слабость» (weakness, fem.). In the past tense Russian's copula reappears and inflects for gender — invisible in the zero-copula present of «это слабость».
> «верить» + dative — to believe someone: «верить» governs the dative: «тебе верить» means 'to believe you / put faith in you,' not merely to believe a statement. The dative «тебе» marks the person trusted, sharpening Ivan's refusal to grant the devil credence.

Я не знаю, спал ли я или ходил прошлый раз.  
I do not know whether I was asleep or walking about last time.
> Indirect «ли» — 'whether': Embedded in «не знаю, спал ли я или ходил», the particle «ли» means 'whether': 'I don't know whether I slept or walked about.' «ли» follows the focused verb «спал» and sets up the alternative with «или».
> Imperfective verbs for an unresolved state: Both «спал» and «ходил» are imperfective past, naming states/processes rather than completed events — fitting, since Ivan cannot pin down whether he was asleep or wandering. «ходил» (multidirectional) suggests aimless moving-about, not a single trip.

Я, может быть, тогда тебя только во сне видел, а вовсе не наяву…  
Perhaps I only saw you in a dream then, and not at all while awake…
> «наяву» — 'in waking life': An adverb meaning 'while awake, in reality,' the direct opposite of «во сне» (in a dream). The pair «во сне … наяву» frames the chapter's central uncertainty: is the devil a dream or a waking apparition?
> «во сне» — locative «в» + prepositional: «во сне» is «в» + the prepositional «сне» (from «сон», dream), expressing location 'in a dream.' The vowel-padded «во» appears before the consonant cluster сн-, a regular phonetic variant of «в».

— А зачем ты давеча с ним так сурово, с Алешей-то?  
— And why were you so harsh with him just now, with Alyosha?
> The topic clitic «-то» on «Алешей»: «Алешей-то» tacks the emphatic clitic «-то» onto an afterthought that pins down the already-mentioned «ним»: 'so harsh with him — with Alyosha, I mean.' This «-то» highlights a known topic, distinct from the indefinite «кто-то».
> «сурово» — sternly, severely: An adverb from «суровый» (stern, austere) — a weightier, more morally colored word than plain 'harsh,' evoking grim severity. The devil reproaches Ivan for it as one might reproach excessive sternness toward an innocent.

Он милый; я пред ним за старца Зосиму виноват.  
He is a dear boy; I am to blame before him over the elder Zosima.
> Long-form adjective as predicate: «Он милый» uses the long (full) form «милый» predicatively with zero copula — 'he is dear/sweet.' The long form here gives a settled, characterizing sense ('he's a dear boy'), where a short form would feel more clinical.
> Archaic «пред» for «перед» + instrumental: «пред ним» is the bookish, reduced form of «перед» ('before, in front of'), governing the instrumental «ним». «виноват пред кем-то» = to be guilty before/toward someone. The clipped «пред» raises the register a notch.

— Молчи про Алешу!  
— Silence about Alyosha!
> Imperative «Молчи!» — 'Be silent!': The familiar singular imperative of imperfective «молчать» (to keep silent). The imperfective imperative here is a blunt, ongoing command — 'shut up, stay silent about it' — fiercer than the perfective «замолчи» would be.
> «про» + accusative — 'about Alyosha': «молчать про кого-то» uses colloquial «про» + accusative «Алешу»: 'be silent about Alyosha.' The diminutive name «Алеша» (for Алексей) keeps the brother tender even as Ivan forbids the subject.

Как ты смеешь, лакей!  
How dare you, lackey!
> «сметь» + infinitive — 'how dare you': «Как ты смеешь» is the present of «сметь» (to dare), which takes a bare infinitive (here understood from context). The set exclamation «Как ты смеешь!» is the Russian 'How dare you!'
> «лакей» — lackey, footman: A «лакей» was a liveried male servant; as an insult it means a servile, contemptible toady. The word is loaded here: Smerdyakov, Ivan's half-brother and the actual murderer, was a lackey — so hurling «лакей!» at the devil is Ivan recoiling from his own complicity.

— опять засмеялся Иван.  
— Ivan laughed again.
> Verb-first word order in a dialogue tag: The attribution inverts to verb-then-subject, «засмеялся Иван» ('laughed Ivan'), the standard Russian order for speech tags. «засмеялся» is perfective (за- inceptive), marking the single onset of laughter — 'broke into a laugh.'

— Бранишься, а сам смеешься — хороший знак.  
— You curse me, yet you laugh — a good sign.
> Contrastive «а» — 'yet, while': «а» here is the mild adversative that pivots between two simultaneous facts: 'you curse, yet you laugh.' It is not strong 'but' («но») but the topic-shifting 'and/while' that pervades Russian dialogue.
> «браниться» — to curse, scold: A reflexive verb «браниться», to swear at or rail against someone — somewhat old-fashioned and homely beside cruder modern equivalents. It recurs throughout the scene as the devil's gentle name for Ivan's abuse.

Ты, впрочем, сегодня гораздо со мной любезнее, чем в прошлый раз, и я понимаю отчего: это великое решение…  
You are, by the way, far more amiable with me today than last time, and I understand why: it's that great resolution…
> Comparative «любезнее» with «гораздо»: «любезнее» is the predicative comparative of «любезный» (amiable, courteous), intensified by «гораздо» ('far, much') and completed by «чем» (than): 'far more amiable than last time.' The single -ее form does all the comparative work.
> Interrogative «отчего» as 'why': «отчего» (literally 'from what') is an interrogative adverb 'why, for what reason,' here heading an embedded question after «понимаю»: 'I understand why.' It is slightly more reflective than plain «почему».

— Молчи про решение! — свирепо вскричал Иван.  
— Silence about the resolution! — Ivan cried out ferociously.
> «свирепо» + «вскричать» — a ferocious cry: «свирепо» (ferociously, savagely) modifies the perfective «вскричал» ('cried out,' с inceptive «вс-»), capturing the sudden violence of Ivan's outburst. The expressive verb of speech is typical of Dostoevsky's heated dialogue tags.

— Понимаю, понимаю, c’est noble, c’est charmant, ты идешь защищать завтра брата и приносишь себя в жертву… c’est chevaleresque.  
— I understand, I understand, c’est noble, c’est charmant, you are going to defend your brother tomorrow and to offer yourself up in sacrifice… c’est chevaleresque.
> Idiom «приносить себя в жертву» with reflexive «себя»: The set phrase «приносить в жертву» ('to offer up as a sacrifice') takes the reflexive object «себя» ('oneself') referring back to Ivan, the subject: 'you offer yourself up in sacrifice.' «себя» has no nominative and points to whoever the clause's subject is.

— Молчи, я тебе пинков надаю!  
— Silence, or I'll give you a kicking!
> «надавать пинков» — to deal out kicks: «пинок» is a kick; the genitive plural «пинков» follows «надаю» (perfective future of «надавать», to give a quantity of). «надавать пинков» is a colloquial threat, 'I'll give you a good kicking.' The phantom-vs-kick motif runs into the next lines.

— Отчасти буду рад, ибо тогда моя цель достигнута: коли пинки, значит, веришь в мой реализм, потому что призраку не дают пинков.  
— In part I'd be glad of it, for then my aim is attained: if there are kicks, it means you believe in my reality, since one does not give kicks to a phantom.
> «ибо» — bookish 'for, because': «ибо» is an archaic, elevated conjunction meaning 'for, because,' belonging to Scripture and high literary style. In the devil's mouth it mock-elevates his petty logic — a flash of pulpit diction over the squabble about kicks.
> «коли» — folksy 'if': «коли пинки, значит, веришь» uses «коли», a homely, archaic-colloquial variant of «если» (if). It pitches the devil's reasoning in plain peasant idiom, a register he slips into and out of throughout.
> Impersonal «дают» plus genitive of negation: «не дают» is the impersonal 3rd-plural ('one does not give'), with no stated subject; under negation the object «пинки» shifts to genitive «пинков», and the recipient «призрак» goes dative «призраку». A neat pile-up of three cases: 'one gives no kicks to a phantom.'

Шутки в сторону: мне ведь всё равно, бранись, коли хочешь, но всё же лучше быть хоть каплю повежливее, хотя бы даже со мной.  
Joking aside: it's all the same to me, you know — curse if you like, but it would still be better to be at least a drop more courteous, even with me.
> «Шутки в сторону» — 'joking aside': A fixed idiom, literally 'jokes to the side,' meaning 'all joking aside, seriously now.' The devil uses it to drop his banter and angle for genuine courtesy from Ivan.
> «мне всё равно» — dative of indifference: «всё равно» ('it's all the same') is an impersonal predicate; the person who is indifferent stands in the dative «мне» — 'it's all the same to me.' With «ведь» softening it, the devil shrugs: 'I don't really mind, you know.'
> Comparative «повежливее» softened with «по-»: «повежливее» adds the prefix «по-» to the comparative «вежливее» (more polite) to mean 'a touch more polite, somewhat politer.' With «хоть каплю» ('at least a drop') and concessive «хотя бы» ('even if only'), the devil pleads for the merest scrap of civility.

А то дурак да лакей, ну что за слова!  
Fool and lackey — well, what kind of words are those!
> «А то» and folksy «да» for 'and': «А то» means 'otherwise, or else / as it is,' introducing a complaint; «дурак да лакей» links the two insults with «да», the homespun coordinator for «и» ('and'). The plain, peasant-flavored connectives mark the devil's reproachful, down-to-earth tone.
> Exclamatory «что за» — 'what a…': «что за слова!» is the exclamatory «что за» + nominative, 'what kind of words are those!' (a calque-shaped construction shared with German 'was für'). With opening «ну» it carries weary exasperation.

— Браня тебя, себя браню!  
— In cursing you, I curse myself!
> Gerund «браня» — 'in cursing': «Браня» is the imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») of «бранить»: 'while/in cursing.' It compresses a whole subordinate clause into one adverbial word and must share the main subject — Ivan curses himself in the very act of cursing the devil.
> Reflexive object «себя» fronted for stress: «себя браню» puts the reflexive pronoun «себя» ('myself') before the verb — emphatic word order driving home the paradox: it is myself I curse. «себя» refers back to the implied 'I,' the clause's subject.

— опять засмеялся Иван, — ты — я, сам я, только с другою рожей.  
— Ivan laughed again, — you are I, my own self, only with a different mug.
> Zero-copula identity with intensive «сам»: «ты — я, сам я» equates two nominatives with no verb: 'you [are] I, my own self.' The intensifier «сам» ('the very self') drives home the doubling at the heart of the chapter — the devil as Ivan's projected second self.
> Archaic instrumental ending «-ою»: «с другою рожей» uses «-ою», the older, bookish variant of the feminine instrumental ending «-ой» (modern «другой»). The longer form is a period flavor common in 19th-century prose; «с» + instrumental means 'with.'
> «рожа» — an ugly 'mug': «рожа» is a coarse, contemptuous word for a face — 'mug, ugly puss.' Set against the neutral «лицо», it lets Ivan spit on the devil's likeness even while admitting it is his own: 'myself, only with a different mug.'

Ты именно говоришь то, что я уже мыслю… и ничего не в силах сказать мне нового!  
You say precisely what I am already thinking… and you are incapable of telling me anything new!
> Correlative «то, что» — 'that which': «то, что я … мыслю» is the correlative pair «то … что» ('the thing which / precisely what'): «то» is the demonstrative head, «что» the relative filling it. The devil voices 'exactly what I am already thinking.'
> Genitive «ничего» under negation: «ничего … нового» stands in the genitive, the object of a negated ability «не в силах» ('not in [the] strength to'): negation pulls the object out of the accusative. Note the negative concord — «ничего» and «не» both negate, one meaning.
> «мыслить» — to think, in the elevated sense: «мыслю» (from «мыслить») is loftier and more abstract than everyday «думать» — 'to cogitate, conceive in thought.' It suits Ivan the philosopher, framing his torment as a matter of cold intellect.

— Если я схожусь с тобою в мыслях, то это делает мне только честь, — с деликатностью и достоинством проговорил джентльмен.  
— If I happen to agree with you in my thoughts, that does me nothing but honor, — the gentleman pronounced with delicacy and dignity.
> Real conditional «если … то»: Unlike the «если бы» hypotheticals earlier, this is a real-world conditional: «Если … то» with indicative verbs, 'if I happen to agree …, then that does me honor.' The correlative «то» ('then') marks the apodosis. No «бы», so no irrealis.
> «сходиться в мыслях» — to see eye to eye: «схожусь» (from reflexive «сходиться») with «в мыслях» means 'to converge, agree in one's thinking.' The -ся verb expresses two parties meeting on common ground; with «с тобою» (archaic instrumental) it is mock-modest: 'if I chance to agree with you.'

— Только всё скверные мои мысли берешь, а главное — глупые.  
— Only you take all my nasty thoughts, and above all the stupid ones.
> Imperfective «берешь» for a habit of taking: «берешь» (imperfective present of «брать') frames the devil's selection as a standing habit — 'you keep taking only my nasty thoughts,' not a one-off. The fronted «Только всё» ('only ever') stresses the relentlessness of it.
> «скверный» — foul, wretched: «скверный» means nasty, vile, wretched, with an undertone of moral filth (it shares a root with «сквернословие», foul language). Stronger and more disgusted than 'bad,' it names the basest layer of Ivan's mind.

Ты глуп и пошл.  
You are stupid and vulgar.
> Short-form adjectives «глуп», «пошл»: «глуп» and «пошл» are the short (predicative) forms of «глупый» and «пошлый», used after the zero copula. The short form delivers a curt, absolute verdict — 'you are stupid and vulgar' — sharper and more final than the long forms would be.
> «пошлый» — vulgar, banal: «пошлый» is the famously untranslatable Russian word for the smugly trivial, the tasteless and platitudinous — moral and aesthetic vulgarity at once. It is Dostoevsky's precise charge against this devil: not grand evil but suffocating banality.

Ты ужасно глуп.  
You are terribly stupid.
> «ужасно» as an intensifier: «ужасно» literally means 'terribly, frightfully' but here is bleached to a mere intensifier of the short adjective «глуп»: 'terribly stupid' = 'extremely stupid.' Such drained-out intensifiers are a colloquial staple.

Нет, я тебя не вынесу!  
No, I cannot endure you!
> «вынести» — to endure, bear: «я тебя не вынесу» uses «вынести» (perfective; literally 'to carry out') in its figurative sense 'to endure, stand, bear.' The perfective future under negation reads as 'I shall not be able to endure you.'

Что мне делать, что мне делать!  
What am I to do, what am I to do!
> Dative + infinitive — 'what am I to do': «Что мне делать» is the classic dative-plus-infinitive of obligation/perplexity: the person stands in the dative «мне», the predicate is the bare infinitive «делать», and there is no nominative subject — 'what am I to do?' Repeated, it conveys helpless anguish.

— проскрежетал Иван. — Друг мой, я все-таки хочу быть джентльменом и чтобы меня так и принимали, — в припадке некоторой чисто приживальщицкой и уже вперед уступчивой и добродушной амбиции начал гость.  
— Ivan ground out. — My friend, I want to be a gentleman all the same, and to be received as such, — the guest began, in a fit of a certain purely hanger-on's ambition, ingratiating and good-natured and already yielding in advance.
> «проскрежетать» — to grind out (through teeth): «проскрежетал» (perfective of «скрежетать», to gnash/grate) is an onomatopoeic verb of speech: Ivan grinds the words out through clenched teeth. Dostoevsky favors such physically vivid speech tags to register raw emotion.
> «чтобы» + past form for a wished-for state: After «хочу … и чтобы», the conjunction «чтобы» takes the past-form verb «принимали» (irrealis) to express the desired outcome: 'I want … and [want] that I be received as such.' «чтобы» fuses «что» + «бы», hence the past form.
> «приживальщик» — the parasitic hanger-on: The adjective «приживальщицкая» derives from «приживальщик», a hanger-on or sponger who lives at another's house and table in exchange for fawning company — a stock figure of Russian gentry life. It is Dostoevsky's exact word for this devil: not a tempter but a shabby parasite of the soul.
> Adjectives agreeing in the genitive of «амбиция»: The string «чисто приживальщицкой и уже вперед уступчивой и добродушной» all agrees in the feminine genitive with «амбиции» (after «в припадке … амбиции»). The piled-up modifiers — fawning, yielding-in-advance, good-natured — show Russian's love of dense adjective chains.

— Я беден, но… не скажу, что очень честен, но… обыкновенно в обществе принято за аксиому, что я падший ангел.  
— I am poor, but… I won't say that I am very honest, but… it is commonly accepted in society as an axiom that I am a fallen angel.
> Short-form adjectives «беден», «честен»: «беден» and «честен» are short predicative forms of «бедный» and «честный» — 'I am poor … honest.' Note the inserted fleeting vowel (бедн- → беден, честн- → честен) that breaks the final consonant cluster in the masculine short form.
> Short passive participle «принято»: «принято» is the neuter short form of the past passive participle of «принять» ('accepted'), used impersonally: 'it is accepted [as an axiom] that…' The short passive participle is the standard way Russian builds such impersonal, agentless statements.

Ей-богу, не могу представить, каким образом я мог быть когда-нибудь ангелом.  
By God, I cannot imagine how I could ever have been an angel.
> «Ей-богу» — 'by God, honestly': A worn-down oath, originally «ей, богу» (an old dative-of-asseveration calling God to witness), now simply 'honestly, I swear, by God.' From the devil's mouth it is delicious irony — Satan swearing by God that he can't recall ever being an angel.
> Instrumental predicate «ангелом» after «быть»: «быть … ангелом» puts the predicate noun in the instrumental «ангелом», the rule after «быть» in the past, future, and infinitive. The instrumental frames the role as a former, assumed state — fitting for an identity the devil has long since shed.

Если и был когда, то так давно, что не грешно и забыть.  
If I ever was, it was so long ago that it's no sin to have forgotten it.
> Concessive «и» inside the conditional: «Если и был» uses «и» not as 'and' but as a concessive particle 'even': 'if I even was [one] at all.' The correlative «то» then opens the main clause. A compact, idiomatic way to grant a doubtful point.
> Impersonal «грешно» — 'it is no sin': «не грешно … забыть» is an impersonal predicative («грешно», 'sinful') plus infinitive: 'it's no sin to forget.' The understood experiencer would stand in the dative; the construction is the same subjectless pattern as «можно», «нельзя», «стыдно».

Теперь я дорожу лишь репутацией порядочного человека и живу как придется, стараясь быть приятным.  
Now I prize only my reputation as a respectable man, and I live as best I can, trying to be agreeable.
> «дорожить» + instrumental — to prize: «дорожить» ('to value, prize, hold dear') governs the instrumental: «дорожу … репутацией» = 'I prize my reputation.' A small class of verbs (also «гордиться», «владеть») takes the instrumental for the thing valued or possessed.
> «как придется» — 'as it happens, anyhow': «как придется» is a fixed idiom (with impersonal future of «прийтись») meaning 'however it turns out, as best one can, haphazardly.' The devil lives 'just anyhow,' trying merely to be agreeable.
> Gerund «стараясь» — 'trying to': «стараясь» is the imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») of «стараться»: a simultaneous adverbial, 'while trying.' It hangs off «живу» and shares its subject. Note «быть приятным» — instrumental predicate after «быть».

Я людей люблю искренно — о, меня во многом оклеветали!  
I love people sincerely — oh, I have been slandered in many things!
> Subjectless 3rd-plural — 'people have slandered me': «оклеветали» stands with no subject in the 3rd-person plural, the Russian way of saying 'they/people slandered me' — an agentless passive sense. «во многом» ('in much') is «в» + prepositional «многом».
> «оклеветать» — to slander: «оклеветать» (perfective; from «клевета», slander) means to defame, calumniate. The devil's self-pity is theologically pointed — Satan complaining that he has been libeled, longing to be loved as a sincere lover of mankind.

Здесь, когда временами я к вам переселяюсь, моя жизнь протекает вроде чего-то как бы и в самом деле, и это мне более всего нравится.  
Here, when from time to time I cross over to stay among you, my life flows along as though it were something actually real, and that is what I like best of all.
> «к» + dative «вам» — motion toward you: «к вам переселяюсь» uses «к» + dative «вам» for 'over to you (your world).' «переселяюсь» (reflexive «переселяться», to migrate/relocate) in the imperfective with «временами» ('from time to time') frames the crossing-over as a recurrent event.
> Hedging particles «вроде … как бы»: The devil heaps up hedges — «вроде» ('something like'), «чего-то» ('some sort of'), «как бы» ('as if'), «как бы и в самом деле» ('as if it were even real') — to describe his half-existence. The unstable cluster of qualifiers enacts his own ontological fuzziness.

Ведь я и сам, как и ты же, страдаю от фантастического, а потому и люблю ваш земной реализм.  
For I myself, just like you, suffer from the fantastical, and so I love your earthly realism.
> «как … же» — 'just as you do': «как и ты же» layers comparison «как» ('as'), additive «и» ('also'), and emphatic «же» to mean 'exactly as you yourself do.' The clustered particles insist on the kinship of devil and Ivan, both 'suffering from the fantastical.'
> Substantivized adjective «фантастическое»: «фантастического» is an adjective used as a neuter noun, 'the fantastical,' governed by «страдать от» (to suffer from) + genitive. Russian freely turns adjectives into abstract nouns this way; «земной реализм» ('earthly realism') is its named opposite.

Тут у вас всё очерчено, тут формула, тут геометрия, а у нас всё какие-то неопределенные уравнения!  
Here with you everything is laid out in clear lines, here there is a formula, here there is geometry, whereas with us it's all some sort of indeterminate equations!
> Short passive participle «очерчено»: «очерчено» is the neuter short past passive participle of «очертить» ('to outline'): 'everything is drawn in clear outline.' Used predicatively with zero copula, it states a result — the orderliness of the human world the devil envies.
> Contrastive «а» across two worlds: The anaphoric «тут … тут … тут» (here, with you) is set against «а у нас» (whereas with us), the mild adversative «а» pivoting between the human and the demonic realms. «у вас / у нас» = 'in your/our domain' (у + genitive).

Я здесь хожу и мечтаю, Я люблю мечтать.  
Here I walk about and dream. I love to dream.
> Imperfectives of habit and process: «хожу» (multidirectional 'walk about'), «мечтаю» and «мечтать» ('dream, daydream') are all imperfective, painting an ongoing, habitual state rather than events. «люблю» + infinitive «мечтать» — 'I love to dream' — needs the imperfective for the open-ended activity.
> «мечтать» — to dream, daydream: «мечтать» is to dream while awake — to fantasize, muse, long for — as opposed to «видеть сон» (to dream in sleep). The devil's fond «люблю мечтать» casts him as an idle dreamer, a Romantic posture undercut by his vulgarity.

К тому же на земле я становлюсь суеверен — не смейся, пожалуйста: мне именно это-то и нравится, что я становлюсь суеверен.  
Moreover, on earth I become superstitious — don't laugh, please: it's precisely this that I like, that I become superstitious.
> Short adjective «суеверен» after «становиться»: «становлюсь суеверен» pairs the reflexive «становиться» ('to become') with the short-form adjective «суеверен» ('superstitious') as predicate — a common pattern where a change-of-state verb takes a short adjective for the resulting quality.
> Emphatic «-то» plus dative «нравится»: «мне именно это-то и нравится» piles up emphasis: «именно» ('precisely'), the clitic «-то» pinning the topic «это», and «и» ('it is just this that…'). «нравиться» takes a dative experiencer «мне» — 'it is precisely this that I like.'
> «суеверный» — superstitious: «суеверие» ('superstition,' literally 'vain/empty belief,' from «суе-» + «вера») is what the devil claims to relish acquiring on earth. The joke is theological: the spirit of negation finding charm in irrational human faith.

Я здесь все ваши привычки принимаю: я в баню торговую полюбил ходить, можешь ты это представить, и люблю с купцами и попами париться.  
Here I take up all your habits: I've grown fond of going to the public baths, can you picture that, and I love to steam myself alongside the merchants and the priests.
> «поп» — parish priest (colloquial): «поп» is the everyday, slightly familiar word for a secular Orthodox parish priest (vs. monastic clergy). «с купцами и попами» — 'with merchants and priests' — sketches the homely cross-section of provincial Russia the devil loves to mingle with.
> «париться» — to steam (in the banya): A reflexive verb for the central ritual of the bathhouse: to sit in the steam and beat oneself with a birch besom. «люблю … париться» plants the devil squarely in the most intimate Russian folk pleasure.

Моя мечта это — воплотиться, но чтоб уж окончательно, безвозвратно, в какую-нибудь толстую семипудовую купчиху и всему поверить, во что она верит.  
My dream is to become incarnate — but to do it finally and irrevocably, in some fat merchant's wife weighing seven poods, and to believe in everything she believes in.
> Purpose «чтоб» with adverbs of finality: «чтоб» (reduced «чтобы») here marks the manner/condition of the wished-for incarnation, reinforced by «уж» (emphatic) and the adverbs «окончательно, безвозвратно» ('finally, irrevocably'). The devil craves an incarnation with no way back.
> «верить» splitting dative and «в» + accusative: Russian distinguishes «верить» + dative ('to trust/believe a person or thing,' here «всему», dative of «всё') from «верить в» + accusative ('to believe in,' «во что … верит»). Both appear in one breath: to believe everything, and to believe in whatever she believes in.

Мой идеал — войти в церковь и поставить свечку от чистого сердца, ей-богу так.  
My ideal is to walk into a church and set up a candle from a pure heart, by God it is.
> Diminutive «свечка»: «свечка» is the affectionate diminutive of «свеча» (candle), the ordinary word for the small church taper. The homely diminutive suits the touching modesty of the devil's longed-for gesture.

Тогда предел моим страданиям.  
Then there would be a limit to my sufferings.
> Verbless clause with dative «страданиям»: A nominal sentence with no verb: «Тогда [был бы] предел моим страданиям» — 'then [there would be] a limit to my sufferings.' «предел» governs the dative «страданиям» ('a limit to…'), and the copula is simply omitted, as Russian readily allows.

Вот тоже лечиться у вас полюбил: весной оспа пошла, я пошел и в воспитательном доме себе оспу привил — если б ты знал, как я был в тот день доволен: на братьев славян десять рублей пожертвовал!..  
And here's another thing I've grown fond of among you — getting medical treatment: in the spring smallpox went around, and I went and had myself inoculated against smallpox at a foundling home — if only you knew how pleased I was that day: I donated ten rubles for the Slavic brothers!..
> Reduced «если б» — 'if only you knew': «если б» is «если бы» with the particle clipped to «б», the irrealis conditional: 'if only you knew.' Such reductions («б» for «бы», «чтоб» for «чтобы») are everywhere in spoken-flavored 19th-century dialogue.
> Short adjective «доволен» — 'pleased': «доволен» is the short predicative form of «довольный» (content, pleased), normal after «был»: 'how pleased I was.' The short form is the usual choice for a passing emotional state, and «доволен» governs the instrumental for the thing one is pleased with.

Да ты не слушаешь.  
But you're not listening.
> Sentence-initial «Да» as a particle: Here «Да» is not 'yes' but an opening particle of mild remonstrance — 'but, why, come now' — softening the complaint «ты не слушаешь» ('you're not listening'). The imperfective «слушаешь» names the ongoing inattention.

Знаешь, ты что-то очень сегодня не по себе, — помолчал немного джентльмен.  
You know, you're somehow very much out of sorts today, — the gentleman fell silent a while.
> «не по себе» — out of sorts: «тебе … не по себе» is an idiom meaning 'you feel uneasy, off-color, not yourself.' The experiencer stands in the dative «тебе»; literally 'not according to oneself.' A staple impersonal expression of vague malaise.
> Perfective «помолчать» — to fall silent a while: «помолчал» (perfective, with delimiting prefix «по-») means 'was silent for a little while.' The «по-…» prefix bounds an imperfective action to a short stretch — a single completed spell of silence, hence the perfective.

— Я знаю, ты ходил вчера к тому доктору… ну, как твое здоровье?  
— I know you went yesterday to that doctor… well, how is your health?
> Multidirectional «ходил» for a there-and-back trip: «ходил … к тому доктору» uses the multidirectional «ходить» in the past to mean a completed round-trip — 'you went to that doctor [and came back].' «к» + dative «тому доктору» marks the destination; «тому» is the distal demonstrative «тот».
> «твоё здоровье» — possessive agreement: «твоё здоровье» pairs the possessive «твой» (declined neuter «твоё») with neuter «здоровье» (health). First/second-person possessives agree with the thing possessed in gender, number, and case — here neuter nominative.

Что тебе доктор сказал?  
What did the doctor tell you?
> Dative recipient «тебе» with «сказать»: «сказать» takes the addressee in the dative: «тебе … сказал» = 'told you.' The word order «Что тебе доктор сказал» fronts the questioned object «что», a natural information-structuring move.

— Дурак!  
— Fool!
> «дурак» — fool: «дурак» is the blunt, common Russian for 'fool, idiot' — Ivan's recurring one-word verdict on the devil. Curt and contemptuous, it becomes almost a refrain across the exchange.

— отрезал Иван.  
— Ivan snapped.
> «отрезать» — to snap, cut off: Literally 'to cut off,' «отрезал» is a vivid verb of speech meaning to say something sharply and finally, as if slicing the conversation shut. A favorite Dostoevsky tag for a curt, decisive retort.

— Зато ты-то как умен.  
— And you, by contrast, how clever you are.
> «Зато» and the topic clitic «ты-то»: «Зато» ('on the other hand, to make up for it') opens an ironic riposte, and «ты-то» pins the clitic «-то» onto «ты» for pointed contrast — 'whereas you, for your part…' The short adjective «умен» ('clever') completes the sarcasm.
> Exclamatory «как» + short adjective: «как умен» is the exclamatory «как» ('how') with the short-form adjective «умён»: 'how clever [you are]!' — here heavily ironic. Short adjectives are standard in such «как…!» exclamations.

Ты опять бранишься?  
Cursing me again?
> Reflexive «браниться» again: «бранишься» is the 2nd-person present of reflexive «браниться» (to curse, scold). The -ся here gives an intransitive, activity sense — 'you're cursing/swearing away again' — without a stated object.

Я ведь не то чтоб из участия, а так.  
It's not really out of sympathy, you know, but just so.
> Cluster «ведь … не то чтоб … а так»: A dense knot of colloquial connectives: «ведь» (after all), «не то чтоб» ('it's not exactly that…'), the contrastive «а», and the vague «так» ('just so, for no special reason'). Together: 'it's not really out of sympathy, you know — just so.' «из участия» = «из» + genitive, 'out of sympathy.'
> «участие» — sympathy, fellow-feeling: Beyond 'participation,' «участие» means warm concern or sympathy for another's plight (cf. «принять участие в ком-то», to take a kindly interest in someone). The devil disclaims acting «из участия» — out of any real fellow-feeling.

Пожалуй, не отвечай.  
Don't answer if you'd rather not.
> Negated imperfective imperative «не отвечай»: A prohibition uses «не» + the imperfective imperative «отвечай» (from «отвечать»): 'don't answer.' Russian almost always pairs «не» with the imperfective imperative for a simple 'don't do it.' «Пожалуй» here means 'perhaps / if you like, you needn't.'

Теперь вот ревматизмы опять пошли…  
Here now the rheumatisms have come on again…
> Perfective «пошли» — 'have set in': «пошли» (perfective past plural of «пойти») here means not 'went' but 'started, set in' — the inceptive sense of «пойти», 'the rheumatisms have come on again.' The same verb later means smallpox «пошла», 'went around.'
> Plural «ревматизмы» — aches and pains: Normally uncountable, «ревматизм» is here pluralized — «ревматизмы» — a homely, almost folk way of speaking of recurrent rheumatic aches as so many separate visitations. The devil's complaints of bodily ailment underline his claimed flesh-and-blood reality.

— Дурак, — повторил опять Иван.  
— Fool, — Ivan repeated once more.
> Perfective «повторил» for a single repetition: «повторил» (perfective of «повторить») names one completed act of repeating — Ivan says «Дурак» once more. With «опять» ('again') it underscores the second, finished utterance against the flow of the devil's chatter.

— Ты всё свое, а я вот такой ревматизм прошлого года схватил, что до сих пор вспоминаю.  
— You harp on the same thing, while I caught such a rheumatism last year that I remember it to this day.
> Elliptical «всё своё» with contrastive «а»: «Ты всё своё» is an idiom with the verb left out — 'you [keep harping on] your own [thing]' — using the reflexive possessive «своё» ('one's own'). The contrastive «а я вот» then pivots to the devil's counter-topic: 'whereas I, look…'
> Resultative «такой … что» clause: «такой … что» sets up a result clause — 'such a rheumatism that I remember it to this day.' «такой» ('such') intensifies the noun and «что» ('that') opens the consequence, the imperfective «вспоминаю» marking ongoing recollection.
> «схватить» ревматизм — to catch (an illness): «схватить» literally 'to grab, seize'; colloquially 'to catch' an illness, as English 'I caught such a cold.' «такой ревматизм … схватил» — the devil 'caught' a rheumatism so bad he recalls it still.

— У черта ревматизм?  
"The devil has rheumatism?"
> «У» + genitive for possession: Russian expresses 'X has Y' with «у» + genitive of the possessor and the possessed in the nominative: literally 'at the devil [there is] rheumatism'. «черта» is the genitive of «чёрт»; the rising intonation alone turns the statement into an incredulous question.
> «чёрт» — the devil, folk register: «чёрт» is the homely, folkloric word for a devil (vs. the theological «дьявол» or «сатана»). Dostoevsky's visitor is precisely this petty, shabby «чёрт» — a provincial sponger, not Lucifer — which the whole chapter exploits for its bathos.

— Почему же и нет, если я иногда воплощаюсь.  
"Why not, if I sometimes take on flesh?"
> Emphatic «же» and elliptical «почему же и нет»: The particle «же» here adds insistent, slightly indignant emphasis — 'why, of course / why on earth not'. The whole phrase is elliptical ('why too not [should I have it]'), the conversational shorthand of a being defending his bodily aches.
> Reflexive «-ся» as a middle/change-of-state verb: «воплощаюсь» ('I become incarnate, take on flesh') is the reflexive «воплощаться»; the «-сь» (after a vowel) marks a middle voice — the subject undergoes the change, not acts on an object. The imperfective present «иногда воплощаюсь» reads as a recurring habit: 'I sometimes take on flesh'.

Воплощаюсь, так и принимаю последствия.  
I take on flesh, so I take on the consequences.
> Conclusive «так и» — 'so accordingly': Fronting the verb «Воплощаюсь» as a bare condition and answering it with «так и принимаю» ('so I do indeed accept') is colloquial cause-and-consequence: 'I take on flesh, [and] so I accept the consequences too'. The «и» reinforces that the result follows inevitably.

Сатана sum et nihil humanum a me alienum puto.  
Satan sum et nihil humanum a me alienum puto.

— Как, как? Сатана sum et nihil humanum… это неглупо для черта!  
"What, what? Satan sum et nihil humanum… not bad for a devil!"
> «неглупо» — litotes, 'not stupid' = clever: «неглупо» ('not unclever') is understatement by negation, a favourite Russian device: 'not bad at all, rather clever'. The adverbial neuter short form modifies the unspoken 'that was [said]'. Ivan grudgingly compliments his own hallucination.
> «для» + genitive — 'for a devil': «для» always governs the genitive («черта»), here in the concessive sense 'considering it's a devil / for a devil'. The construction measures the wit against low expectations.

— Рад, что наконец угодил.  
"Glad to have pleased you at last."
> Short adjective «рад» + perfective «угодил»: «рад» ('glad') exists only as a short, predicative adjective — there is no long form — and so is always a predicate: '[I am] glad'. The perfective past «угодил» ('have succeeded in pleasing') views the pleasing as a single accomplished hit, with «что» introducing the reason.

— А ведь это ты взял не у меня, — остановился вдруг Иван как бы пораженный, — это мне никогда в голову не приходило, это странно…  
"But you didn't take that one from me," Ivan said, suddenly stopping short, as though struck, "that never once entered my head — it's strange…"
> «А ведь» — concessive appeal to the obvious: The opening «А ведь» pairs the mild contrastive «а» with «ведь» ('after all, you know'): Ivan concedes a point that strikes him as he speaks — 'But you know, this you took NOT from me'. «ведь» appeals to a shared realisation; the negation «не у меня» is fronted for contrast.
> «как бы» softening + past passive participle: «как бы пораженный» means 'as though struck'. «как бы» ('as if, sort of') hedges the comparison, while «пораженный» is the past passive participle of «поразить» ('to strike, astonish') used adjectivally — a compact, bookish way to render 'as if [he had been] struck'.
> Dative experiencer + negative concord idiom: «приходить в голову» ('to come into [one's] head' = to occur to someone) takes the person in the dative: «мне» = 'to me'. Note the negative concord — «никогда… не приходило» literally 'never… didn't come' — Russian requires «не» on the verb even with «никогда».

— C’est du nouveau n’est ce pas?  
"C'est du nouveau n'est-ce pas?

На этот раз я поступлю честно и объясню тебе.  
This time I'll play fair and explain it to you.
> Two perfective futures — completed promises: «поступлю» and «объясню» are perfective verbs conjugated like a present, which yields the simple future: 'I will act / I will explain [and finish]'. Aspect frames each as a single bounded act — fair play this once, a full explanation — against the imperfective's open-ended sense.

Слушай: в снах, и особенно в кошмарах, ну, там от расстройства желудка или чего-нибудь, иногда видит человек такие художественные сны, такую сложную и реальную действительность, такие события или даже целый мир событий, связанный такою интригой, с такими неожиданными подробностями, начиная с высших ваших проявлений до последней пуговицы на манишке, что, клянусь тебе, Лев Толстой не сочинит, а между тем видят такие сны иной раз вовсе не сочинители, совсем самые заурядные люди, чиновники, фельетонисты, попы…  
Listen: in dreams, and especially in nightmares — say, from some disorder of the stomach or whatever it is — a person sometimes sees such artful dreams, such an intricate and lifelike reality, such happenings, even a whole world of happenings, bound together by a plot so cunning, with details so unexpected, ranging from your loftiest manifestations down to the last button on a shirtfront, that I swear to you, Leo Tolstoy himself could not invent the like; and yet such dreams come, now and then, to people who are no inventors at all, the most utterly ordinary people — clerks, columnists, priests…
> Inverted word order: verb before generic subject: Standard order would be «человек иногда видит»; placing «видит» before «человек» throws the weight onto the generic 'a person' as new information and gives the sentence its oratorical launch. This topic-comment reordering is the engine of the devil's rolling, essayistic monologue.
> Past passive participle + instrumental of means; archaic «такою»: «связанный… интригой» ('bound together by a plot') is a past passive participle whose agent/means stands in the instrumental — «интригой». Note also «такою» and «такими»: «такою» is the old bookish instrumental ending «-ою» (modern «-ой»), part of the elevated 19th-c. texture.
> Gerund «начиная» — 'starting from': «начиная» is the imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») of «начинать», frozen here into the quasi-prepositional 'beginning with / ranging from'. It governs «с» + genitive («с… проявлений»), spanning the comic arc 'from your loftiest manifestations down to the last button'.
> «манишка» — a dress shirtfront: «манишка» is the detachable false shirtfront worn under a tailcoat — a cheap way to look formally dressed. 'The last button on a shirtfront' caps the descent from cosmic grandeur to trivial detail, and slyly anticipates the devil's own threadbare gentility.
> «фельетонист» — the feuilleton-writer: A «фельетонист» wrote the «фельетон», the light, gossipy newspaper column 'below the line'. Listed beside clerks and priests as one of the 'most ordinary people', the word fixes the devil's world as petty, journalistic, contemporary Russia — the same press that later won't print his 'thank-you'.

Насчет этого даже целая задача: один министр так даже мне сам признавался, что все лучшие идеи его приходят к нему, когда он спит.  
On this score there's even a whole puzzle: one minister actually confessed to me himself that all his best ideas come to him while he sleeps.
> Reflexive «-ся» and the emphatic «сам»: «признавался» ('confessed') is the «-ся» verb «признаваться»; the imperfective past suggests the confiding was drawn out or characteristic. «сам» ('himself, in person') intensifies the subject, stressing that a minister condescended to confess this to the devil.
> Imperfective present «спит» for habitual truth: «спит» ('sleeps') is imperfective present, here a general, repeated truth: the ideas come 'whenever he sleeps'. Russian uses the plain present for such timeless habit where English might add 'while' or 'when'.

Ну вот так и теперь.  
Well, so it is now.
> «Ну вот» — colloquial discourse filler: «Ну вот так и теперь» ('well, so it is now too') is almost pure conversational glue — «ну» ('well'), «вот» ('there, so'), «так» ('thus'), «и… теперь» ('now too'). The clustering of particles mimics relaxed speech and lets the devil casually apply his dream-theory to the present scene.

Я хоть и твоя галлюцинация, но, как и в кошмаре, я говорю вещи оригинальные, какие тебе до сих пор в голову не приходили, так что уже вовсе не повторяю твоих мыслей, а между тем я только твой кошмар, и больше ничего.  
Though I'm your hallucination, still, as in a nightmare, I say things that are original, things that have never until now entered your head, so that I'm not in the least repeating your own thoughts — and yet for all that I'm only your nightmare and nothing more.
> Concessive «хоть и… но» — 'though… yet': «хоть и… но» frames a concession: 'though I am your hallucination, [yet]…'. The «и» after «хоть» reinforces the concessive ('even though'), and «но» picks up the contrast. This paired construction is the backbone of the devil's paradox in this sentence.
> Relative «какие» agreeing with «вещи»: «какие» here functions as a relative pronoun referring back to «вещи оригинальные» ('original things'), nominative plural to match its role as subject of «не приходили». Russian can use «какой» (rather than «который») as a relative meaning 'such as, of the kind that'.
> Zero copula + concessive «а между тем»: «я только твой кошмар» has no verb 'to be' — the present-tense copula is simply absent, as always in Russian: 'I [am] only your nightmare'. «а между тем» ('and yet, all the while') marks the adversative turn back to the devil's self-deflation.

— Лжешь.  
"You're lying."
> Zero-subject 2nd-person «лжёшь»: The single word «Лжёшь» ('[you] lie') needs no pronoun: the «-ешь» ending already marks 2nd-person singular present. From the archaic-tinged «лгать» (cf. «ложь» 'a lie'), it is curter and more accusatory than a fuller sentence — Ivan's flat rebuttal.

Твоя цель именно уверить, что ты сам по себе, а не мой кошмар, и вот ты теперь подтверждаешь сам, что ты сон.  
Your very aim is to persuade me that you exist on your own and aren't my nightmare, and now here you are confirming yourself that you're a dream.
> «сам по себе» — 'on one's own, independent': The idiom «сам по себе» means 'of/by oneself, in one's own right, autonomous'. «сам» is the intensifier, «по себе» = «по» + the dative of the reflexive «себя». Ivan accuses the devil of trying to prove he exists independently rather than as a projection.
> Imperfective present «подтверждаешь» — caught in the act: «подтверждаешь» ('you are confirming') is imperfective present, catching the action as it unfolds: 'here you now are, confirming…'. «и вот» ('and there / so now') dramatises the moment of self-betrayal, and «сам» throws it back on the devil — 'you yourself'.

— Друг мой, сегодня я взял особую методу, я потом тебе растолкую.  
"My friend, today I've adopted a special method; I'll explain it to you later."
> «метода» — archaic feminine 'method': «методу» is the accusative of «метода», a 19th-century feminine variant of the modern masculine «метод» ('method'). The dated form (from French «méthode») gives the devil's speech a slightly old-fashioned, pretentious ring, in keeping with his Frenchified manner.
> Perfective future «растолкую» — 'I'll spell it out': «растолкую» is the perfective future of «растолковать» ('to explain in full'); the prefix «рас-» adds the sense of explaining thoroughly. Conjugated like a present but pointing forward, it promises one complete future act.

Постой, где же я остановился?  
Wait, where did I leave off?
> Particle «же» in a question + reflexive «остановился»: «где же» adds mild exasperated emphasis to the question — 'now where was it I left off?'. «остановился» is the «-ся» verb «остановиться» ('to stop, halt'), perfective past, here meaning 'stopped [in my account]', i.e. left off.

Да, вот я тогда простудился, только не у вас, а еще там…  
Yes — so I caught cold that time, only not here at your place, but back there still…
> Corrective «не… а» — 'not X but Y': «не у вас, а еще там» uses the corrective conjunction pair «не… а» ('not… but rather'): not at your place, but back there. This «а» is the contrastive 'but' that replaces a wrong term with the right one — distinct from «но».
> Reflexive «простудиться» — to catch cold: «простудился» ('caught cold') is the «-ся» verb «простудиться»: the «-ся» here marks a change of state befalling the subject, not a true reflexive action. Perfective past frames it as the single completed event that the devil keeps circling back to.

— Где там?  
"Where, there?
> Elliptical echo question: Ivan picks up the devil's vague «там» ('there') and throws it back as a two-word question, 'Where, there?'. Such elliptical, context-bound exchanges — meaning recoverable only from the prior line — are typical of Dostoevsky's rapid dialogue.

Скажи, долго ли ты у меня пробудешь, не можешь уйти?  
Tell me, how long will you stay with me — can't you go away?"
> Interrogative particle «ли»: The enclitic «ли» fronts the focused word «долго» and turns the clause into a question of degree: 'will you stay long?'. «ли» is more literary and formal than mere question intonation, and frequent in Dostoevsky's anxious, searching speech.
> Perfective-future «пробудешь» — 'will you stay [a while]': «пробудешь» is the perfective future of «пробыть» ('to spend a period of time'); the prefix «про-» measures out a stretch of duration. It looks like the future of «быть» but is its own perfective verb: 'how long will you remain?'.

— почти в отчаянии воскликнул Иван.  
Ivan cried out, almost in despair.
> Verb-before-subject in the speech tag: The narrative attribution inverts to «воскликнул Иван» ('cried Ivan'), verb before subject — the conventional Russian order for dialogue tags. «в отчаянии» ('in despair') is «в» + prepositional, naming the state.

Он оставил ходить, сел на диван, опять облокотился на стол и стиснул обеими руками голову.  
He stopped pacing, sat down on the sofa, leaned his elbows on the table again, and gripped his head in both hands.
> Chain of perfectives — sequential narrative: «сел… облокотился… стиснул» are perfective pasts strung in sequence, each a discrete completed action moving the scene forward step by step. Against them «ходить» (imperfective infinitive after «оставил») names the open-ended pacing he breaks off.
> Reflexive «облокотиться» — to lean on one's elbows: «облокотился» is the «-ся» verb «облокотиться» ('to prop oneself on the elbows'); the «-ся» marks the action as done to oneself, a self-directed posture. It governs «на стол» ('on the table') with «на» + accusative.
> Instrumental of means: «обеими руками»: «обеими руками» ('with both hands') is the instrumental, naming the bodily instrument of «стиснул» ('gripped'). «обеими» is the feminine form of the 'both' numeral «оба/обе», which governs and agrees with «руками».

Он сорвал с себя мокрое полотенце и с досадой отбросил его: очевидно, не помогало.  
He tore the wet towel from his head and flung it down in vexation: clearly it was doing no good.
> Reflexive «с себя» — off himself: «с себя» ('off oneself') uses «с» + genitive of the reflexive pronoun «себя», pointing back to the subject Ivan: he tore the towel from his own person. Pairing «сорвал» and «отбросил» (both perfective) gives two sharp, finished motions of frustration.
> Instrumental of manner with «с»: «с досадой» ('with vexation') is «с» + instrumental, here expressing manner/accompanying emotion rather than a physical instrument — 'flung it down vexedly'. «досада» is annoyed irritation, frustration at something not working.
> Imperfective past in a subjectless statement: «не помогало» ('it was not helping / did no good') is imperfective past, viewing the towel's failure as an ongoing, repeated non-effect rather than a single event. The neuter «-о» and absent subject make it an impersonal summary: 'clearly, [it] wasn't helping'.

— У тебя расстроены нервы, — заметил джентльмен с развязно-небрежным, но совершенно дружелюбным, однако, видом, — ты сердишься на меня даже за то, что я мог простудиться, а между тем произошло оно самым естественным образом.  
"Your nerves are frayed," remarked the gentleman with an air at once free-and-easy, careless, and yet perfectly amiable, "you're cross with me even for being able to catch cold, and yet it came about in the most natural way."
> Short passive participle as predicate: «расстроены» is the short-form past passive participle of «расстроить» ('to upset, derange'), agreeing with plural «нервы»: 'your nerves are frayed/upset'. The short participle + the «у тебя» possessive construction together state a present resultant condition.
> Reflexive «сердиться» + correlative «за то, что»: «сердишься» ('you are angry') is the «-ся» verb «сердиться», governing «на» + accusative for the object of anger («на меня»). «за то, что…» is the correlative 'for the fact that…', linking the anger to its cause.
> Instrumental of manner: «самым естественным образом»: «самым естественным образом» ('in the most natural way') is a set instrumental-of-manner phrase; «образом» ('manner, way') in the instrumental forms countless adverbials. The whole adjective phrase «самым естественным» agrees with «образом» in the instrumental.

Я тогда поспешал на один дипломатический вечер к одной высшей петербургской даме, которая метила в министры.  
I was hurrying just then to a diplomatic soirée at the house of a certain great Petersburg lady who was angling for a ministry for her husband.
> «поспешал» — bookish/archaic 'was hurrying': «поспешал» (imperfective «поспешать») is a dated, elevated synonym of «спешил» 'was hurrying'. The choice lends the devil's recollection a mock-grand, old-fashioned flourish, fitting his pretensions to high society.
> Relative «которая» + the «в» + nominative-plural idiom: «которая» ('who', f.) introduces a relative clause modifying «даме». «метила в министры» means 'was aiming at [a] ministry' — the idiom «в» + a bare nominative-form plural («в министры») denotes aspiring to a role or rank, a special construction distinct from the ordinary accusative.

Ну, фрак, белый галстук, перчатки, и, однако, я был еще бог знает где, и, чтобы попасть к вам на землю, предстояло еще перелететь пространство… конечно, это один только миг, но ведь и луч света от солнца идет целых восемь минут, а тут, представь, во фраке и в открытом жилете.  
Well — tailcoat, white tie, gloves — and yet I was still goodness knows where, and to reach you here on earth I had a whole expanse of space to fly across… of course it's only an instant, but a ray of light from the sun takes a full eight minutes, and there I was, picture it, in a tailcoat and an open waistcoat.
> «чтобы» + infinitive of purpose; impersonal «предстояло»: «чтобы попасть» is purpose ('in order to reach'), «чтобы» + perfective infinitive when the subject is the same. «предстояло… перелететь» is impersonal — 'there remained [for me] to fly across' — a subjectless construction with a neuter past verb and a dependent infinitive.
> «ведь» appealing to common knowledge: «ведь» ('after all, you know') invokes a fact the listener can be assumed to share — that light takes eight minutes from the sun — to make the devil's cosmic excuse sound reasonable. «целых восемь минут» = 'a whole eight minutes', «целых» (gen. pl.) emphasising the surprising length.

Ду́хи не замерзают, но уж когда воплотился, то… словом, светренничал, и пустился, а ведь в пространствах-то этих, в эфире-то, в воде-то этой, яже бе над твердию, — ведь это такой мороз… то есть какое мороз — это уж и морозом назвать нельзя, можешь представить: сто пятьдесят градусов ниже нуля!  
Spirits don't freeze, but once I'd taken flesh, then… in a word, I was reckless and set off, and out there in those spaces — in the ether, in the waters that are above the firmament — why, it's such a frost… or rather, what frost — you can't even call it frost any longer, just imagine: a hundred and fifty degrees below zero!
> «ду́хи» — spirits (stress-distinguished from 'perfume'): «ду́хи», stressed on the first syllable, is the plural of «дух» 'spirit/spirits'. Stressed on the second, «духи́» means 'perfume' — a notorious minimal pair. Dostoevsky marks the stress here to forestall the comic misreading: 'Spirits do not freeze.'
> Church-Slavonic relative «яже» and imperfect «бе»: «яже бе над твердию» ('which were above the firmament') is pure Church Slavonic from Genesis: «яже» is the Slavonic relative pronoun (= «которые»), «бе» the old imperfect of 'to be' (= «была/были»), «твердию» the Slavonic instrumental of «твердь» (the firmament). The devil suddenly quotes Scripture, jarringly grafting the sacred onto his frostbite tale.
> «светренничал» — 'I acted flighty/reckless': A colloquial verb from «ветреный» ('frivolous, flighty', lit. 'windy'): 'I behaved frivolously, was reckless'. The folksy, self-deprecating coinage clashes deliberately with the cosmic ether and the Slavonic Scripture around it — the devil's register lurches by the sentence.
> Emphatic clitic «-то» tagging the topic: The repeated «-то» («пространствах-то», «эфире-то», «воде-то») is the topic-marking clitic, lightly stressing each already-known place: 'out in those spaces, in the ether, in that water…'. It lends a buttonholing, colloquial insistence, very characteristic of the devil's chatter.

Известна ''забава'' деревенских девок: на тридцатиградусном морозе предлагают новичку лизнуть топор; язык мгновенно примерзает, и олух в кровь сдирает с него кожу; так ведь это только на тридцати градусах, а на ста-то пятидесяти, да тут только палец, я думаю, приложить к топору, и его как не бывало, если бы… только там мог случиться топор… — А там может случиться топор?  
You know the 'amusement' country girls have: in a thirty-degree frost they coax a greenhorn into licking an axe; his tongue instantly freezes fast, and the dolt tears the skin off it bloody; and that's only at thirty degrees, but at a hundred and fifty, why, I think you'd need only lay a finger on the axe and it would be gone — if only… there could be an axe out there… — "And can there be an axe out there?"
> «забава» and «девки» — a coarse country amusement: «забава» is 'amusement, sport', and «девки» (genitive «девок») is the plain, rustic word for village girls — earthier than «девушки». The phrase frames the cruel game in folk-low register, suiting the brutal little anecdote of the licked axe.
> «олух» — a blockhead, dolt: «олух» is an expressive, contemptuous word for a fool or simpleton ('dolt, dunce'), the «новичок» ('greenhorn') duped into licking the frozen axe. Such colourful pejoratives stud the devil's speech, marking its low, vernacular comedy.
> Idiom «как не бывало» — 'as if it never was': «его как не бывало» is a fixed idiom: 'it was gone as if it had never been'. «бывало» is the iterative-past of «бывать», and the object «его» stands in the genitive — the genitive of negation/absence demanded by this construction of vanishing.
> Conditional with «бы» — the unreal axe: «если бы… мог случиться» is the irrealis conditional: past-form verb + «бы» = 'if only an axe could happen to be there'. The whole flight of fancy hangs on this contrary-to-fact 'if', which Ivan then seizes on with his question.

— рассеянно и гадливо перебил вдруг Иван Федорович.  
Ivan Fyodorovich suddenly broke in, absently and with disgust.
> «гадливо» — with revulsion: «гадливо» ('with loathing, squeamish disgust', from «гадкий» 'vile') describes how Ivan interrupts. The adverb captures his physical recoil from the hallucination — disgust, not mere annoyance — a key note in his struggle not to take the devil seriously.
> Perfective «перебил» — a single cutting-in: «перебил» (perfective of «перебивать», 'to interrupt') views the interruption as one abrupt completed act, reinforced by «вдруг» ('suddenly'). Inverted verb-subject order is again the norm for the dialogue tag.

Он сопротивлялся изо всех сил, чтобы не поверить своему бреду и не впасть в безумие окончательно.  
He was resisting with all his might, so as not to believe his own delirium and not to sink finally into madness.
> Imperfective «сопротивлялся» + idiom «изо всех сил»: «сопротивлялся» ('was resisting') is imperfective past, picturing a sustained, ongoing struggle. «изо всех сил» ('with all one's might') is a fixed phrase: «из» (here «изо» before a consonant cluster) + genitive plural «сил» 'of [his] strengths'.
> Negative purpose with «чтобы не» + «свой»: «чтобы не поверить… не впасть» is purpose in the negative: 'so as NOT to believe… not to sink'. «своему бреду» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» (dative, with «поверить») — 'his own delirium', referring back to the subject Ivan.

— Топор? — переспросил гость в удивлении.  
"An axe?" the guest queried in astonishment.
> «пере-» of repetition: «переспросил»: «переспросил» ('asked again, queried back') shows the prefix «пере-» in its 're-/again' sense: the guest echoes Ivan's word in surprise. «в удивлении» ('in astonishment') is «в» + prepositional naming the state.

— Ну да, что станется там с топором? — с каким-то свирепым и настойчивым упорством вдруг вскричал Иван Федорович.  
"Well yes — what would become of an axe out there?" Ivan Fyodorovich shouted all at once, with a kind of savage and dogged insistence.
> Reflexive «статься» — 'what will become of': «станется» is the perfective future of the «-ся» verb «статься» ('to happen, become of'), used impersonally with «с» + instrumental of the thing affected: 'what will become of the axe?'. The construction is fixed and faintly archaic, suiting the fevered solemnity of Ivan's outburst.
> Indefinite «какой-то» + instrumental of manner: «с каким-то… упорством» ('with a kind of… persistence') is «с» + instrumental of manner. «какой-то» ('some sort of') uses the «-то» suffix to mark a real but ill-defined quality — the narrator senses something fierce in Ivan's tone but won't pin it down.

— Что станется в пространстве с топором?  
"What would become of an axe in space?
> Locative «в пространстве» (prepositional): «в пространстве» ('in space') is «в» + prepositional, marking static location — the axe's whereabouts, not motion toward. The near-repetition of the previous line, with «в пространстве» added, registers Ivan's obsessive fixation on the absurd question.

Quelle idée!  
Quelle idée!

Если куда попадет подальше, то примется, я думаю, летать вокруг Земли, сам не зная зачем, в виде спутника.  
If it landed somewhere far enough off, it would, I think, take to circling the Earth, not knowing why itself, in the manner of a satellite.
> Real conditional «если… то» + inchoative «примется»: «Если… попадёт…, то примется летать» is a real (open) future conditional: both verbs perfective-future, with «то» as the resumptive 'then'. «примется» ('will take to, set about') is the inchoative «приняться» + imperfective infinitive «летать», marking the start of habitual circling.
> Negated gerund «не зная» — 'not knowing': «не зная зачем» is the imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») of «знать», 'not knowing why', describing the axe's circling as a simultaneous attendant state. «сам» ('itself') stresses the comic self-ignorance of the orbiting axe.
> «спутник» — companion, then satellite: «спутник» literally means 'fellow-traveller, companion' (from «с-» + «путь» 'way'); «в виде спутника» = 'in the manner of a satellite'. The same word would later become the name of the first artificial satellite — but here it is the older, plain 'orbiting companion' of the axe.

Астрономы вычислят восхождение и захождение топора, Гатцук внесет в календарь, вот и всё.  
The astronomers would compute the rising and setting of the axe, Gatzuk would enter it in his almanac, and that would be that."
> Two perfective futures — the bureaucratic dénouement: «вычислят» and «внесёт» are perfective futures ('will compute', 'will enter'), each a single completed act that wraps up the fantasy with mock-administrative finality, capped by «вот и всё» ('and that's that').

— Ты глуп, ты ужасно глуп!  
"You're stupid, you're horribly stupid!"
> Short adjective «глуп» as predicate: «глуп» is the short (predicative) form of «глупый» ('stupid'): 'you ARE stupid'. The short form, more categorical and bookish than the long «глупый», states the quality as a flat verdict; «ужасно» ('terribly') intensifies it.

— строптиво сказал Иван, — ври умнее, а то я не буду слушать.  
Ivan said stubbornly, "lie more cleverly, or I won't listen."
> Imperative «ври» + comparative «умнее»: «ври» is the imperative of «врать» ('to lie, fib'), 'lie!'. «умнее» is the invariable comparative of «умный» ('cleverer'): 'lie more cleverly'. The pairing — an order to lie better — is bleakly comic and pure Ivan.
> «а то» (or else) + compound imperfective future: «а то» ('or else, otherwise') threatens a consequence. «не буду слушать» is the compound imperfective future — «буду» + the imperfective infinitive «слушать» — naming an ongoing future refusal: 'I won't [keep] listening'.
> «строптиво» — refractorily, defiantly: «строптиво» (from «строптивый», 'unruly, refractory') describes Ivan's tone — stubborn, contrary, willfully resistant. The literary, somewhat archaic adverb (cf. The Taming of the Shrew, «Укрощение строптивой») colours his defiance as obstinate temper.

Ты хочешь побороть меня реализмом, уверить меня, что ты есь, но я не хочу верить, что ты есь!  
You want to overpower me with realism, to convince me that you exist, but I refuse to believe that you exist!
> Archaic «есь» — the copula made explicit: «ты есь» revives an old/dialectal 2nd-person form of «быть» ('thou art'), normally omitted entirely in the present. Spelling out the copula — '[that] you ARE' — makes existence itself the point at issue: the devil wants to assert sheer being, and Ivan throws the archaic word back.
> Instrumental of means: «реализмом»: «реализмом» ('with realism') is the instrumental, naming the weapon: 'to overpower me by means of realism'. The verb «побороть» (perfective, 'to overcome, vanquish') governs the direct object «меня» and the instrumental of the means.

Не поверю!!  
I won't believe it!!
> Negated perfective future as flat refusal: «Не поверю» is «не» + the perfective future of «поверить» ('to come to believe'): 'I will not believe [it]'. The perfective stresses the refusal to ever arrive at belief — a one-word, subjectless cry of will, doubled exclamation marks underscoring Ivan's vehemence.

— Да я и не вру, всё правда; к сожалению, правда почти всегда бывает неостроумна.  
"But I'm not lying, it's all true; unfortunately, the truth is almost always rather unwitty."
> Affirmative «да» + emphatic «и» in negation: Here «Да» is not 'yes' but a conversational opener ('but, why'), and «и» before «не вру» emphasises the verb: 'but I'm not even lying'. The clustering of small words is the loose grammar of speech, mounting a casual defence.
> «неостроумна» — short adj., 'lacking wit': «неостроумна» is the short feminine form of «неостроумный» ('unwitty, not clever'), predicated of «правда» ('truth'): 'the truth is unwitty'. «остроумный» literally 'sharp-witted' (острый ум); the negated short form delivers the devil's rueful aphorism that truth is usually dull.

Ты, я вижу, решительно ждешь от меня чего-то великого, а может быть, и прекрасного.  
I see that you positively expect something grand of me, perhaps even something beautiful.
> Genitive after «ждать» + indefinite «чего-то»: «ждать» ('to expect, await') governs the genitive of an abstract/indefinite object: «чего-то великого» ('something grand'), gen. of «что-то». The «-то» marks it as a definite-but-unspecified something the devil senses Ivan is hoping for.

Это очень жаль, потому что я даю лишь то, что могу.  
That's a great pity, because I give only what I can.
> Correlative «то, что» — 'that which': «то, что могу» is the correlative construction 'that which I can [give]': «то» is the antecedent demonstrative, «что» the relative. «лишь» ('only') restricts it — the devil's resigned admission of his own limits.

— Не философствуй, осел!  
"Don't philosophize, you ass!"
> Negated imperfective imperative — 'stop / don't': «Не философствуй» is the negated imperative of imperfective «философствовать»: with negation Russian normally uses the imperfective imperative, meaning 'don't (carry on) philosophising'. The vocative-like insult «осёл!» ('ass, donkey') is hurled in direct address.

— Какая тут философия, когда вся правая сторона отнялась, кряхчу и мычу.  
"How can I philosophize, when my whole right side has gone dead and I'm groaning and bellowing?"
> Reflexive «отняться» — 'to go numb/dead': «отнялась» is the perfective past of the «-ся» verb «отняться», 'to become paralysed, go numb' (lit. 'be taken away from one'). The «-ся» makes it an involuntary change of state of the body part «сторона» ('side'), which is the grammatical subject.
> «кряхтеть» and «мычать» — to groan and to bellow: «кряхчу» (from «кряхтеть», 'to groan, grunt with effort or pain') and «мычу» (from «мычать», 'to low, moo, mumble') are vivid, onomatopoeic verbs of inarticulate suffering. The pairing reduces the devil's ailment to comically animal noises — groaning and mooing.

Был у всей медицины: распознать умеют отлично, всю болезнь расскажут тебе как по пальцам, ну а вылечить не умеют. Студентик тут один случился восторженный: если вы, говорит, и умрете, то зато будете вполне знать, от какой болезни умерли!  
I've been through the whole of medicine: they can diagnose splendidly, they'll lay out your entire illness for you as if on their fingers — but they can't cure you. There was one enthusiastic little student here: even if you die, says he, you'll at least know perfectly well what disease you died of!
> Inversion + «уметь» + infinitive contrast: «умеют» ('they know how to') takes a perfective infinitive: «распознать» (diagnose) vs «вылечить» (cure). Fronting the infinitives — «распознать умеют», «вылечить не умеют» — pits the two against each other for rhetorical bite: 'diagnose they can; cure they can't'.
> Idiom «как по пальцам» — 'as if on one's fingers': «рассказать как по пальцам» means to lay something out in perfect, item-by-item detail, 'as clearly as counting on one's fingers'. The devil mocks doctors who can describe an illness flawlessly yet not cure it.
> «студентик» — a diminutive, faintly mocking 'little student': «студентик» adds the diminutive «-ик» to «студент»; here it conveys not affection but a touch of condescension — a callow, over-eager 'little student'. «восторженный» ('rapturous, enthusiastic') sharpens the mockery of his blithe consolation.
> Concessive «если и… то зато» + two futures: «если… и умрёте, то зато будете знать» = 'even if you do die, then at least you'll know': «если и» concedes, «зато» ('but to make up for it') compensates. «умрёте» is perfective future ('will die'), «будете знать» the compound imperfective future ('will know').

Опять-таки эта их манера отсылать к специалистам: мы, дескать, только распознаем, а вот поезжайте к такому-то специалисту, он уже вылечит. Совсем, совсем, я тебе скажу, исчез прежний доктор, который ото всех болезней лечил, теперь только одни специалисты и всё в газетах публикуются.  
And then there's that manner of theirs of referring you to specialists: we, they say, only diagnose, but go off to such-and-such a specialist, he'll cure you. The old-fashioned doctor who used to treat every illness has vanished utterly, utterly, I tell you; now there are only specialists, and they all advertise in the newspapers.
> «дескать» — reportative particle, 'they say': «дескать» (and «мол») flags reported, second-hand speech with a tinge of the speaker's irony or scepticism: 'we, supposedly, only diagnose'. It lets the devil ventriloquise the doctors while keeping a mocking distance.
> Suppletive imperative «поезжайте» + «к» + dative: «поезжайте» is the (irregular, suppletive) polite imperative 'go [by vehicle]', from «поехать». It governs «к» + dative — «к специалисту» ('to a specialist') — the dative being the case of the goal-person after «к». «такому-то» = 'such-and-such'.
> Relative «который» + «от» of cause/ailment: «который… лечил» ('who used to treat') is a relative clause modifying «доктор». «ото всех болезней» ('for/of all illnesses') is «от» (here «ото» before a cluster) + genitive — the «от» that names what one is cured or treated FOR.

Заболи у тебя нос, тебя шлют в Париж: там, дескать, европейский специалист носы лечит.  
If your nose hurts, they pack you off to Paris: there, they say, is a European specialist who treats noses.
> Imperative form as a conditional 'if': «Заболи у тебя нос» uses an imperative form («заболи!») with conditional meaning — 'should your nose start to hurt' — a vivid colloquial idiom where the imperative substitutes for «если». The main clause «тебя шлют» (imperfective present) gives the habitual result: 'they pack you off to Paris'.

Приедешь в Париж, он осмотрит нос: я вам, скажет, только правую ноздрю могу вылечить, потому что левых ноздрей не лечу, это не моя специальность, а поезжайте после меня в Вену, там вам особый специалист левую ноздрю долечит.  
You come to Paris, he examines the nose: I can only cure your right nostril, says he, since I don't treat left nostrils, that's not my specialty; but after me go to Vienna, where a particular specialist will finish off the left nostril for you.
> Perfective present-future for a generalised 'whenever': «Приедешь… осмотрит» are perfective futures used in a generic, gnomic sense: 'you arrive… he examines' — describing any such visit, not one occasion. Russian often uses the perfective future this way for repeated, exemplary sequences.
> Genitive of negation: «левых ноздрей не лечу»: Under negation the object of «лечу» ('I treat') shifts to the genitive plural «левых ноздрей» ('left nostrils') instead of accusative — the genitive of negation, especially natural with a generic, non-specific object. The absurd over-specialisation is the satire's point.
> Prefix «до-»: «долечит» — finish curing: «долечит» is perfective future with the prefix «до-» meaning 'to complete, do to the end': 'will finish curing'. The hyper-specialist merely tops off the other's job — «до-» neatly captures the bureaucratic division of the single nose.

Что будешь делать?  
What's one to do?
> Rhetorical compound future — 'what's one to do?': «Что будешь делать?» literally 'what will you do?' is here a generalised, impersonal rhetorical sigh — 'what's one to do?'. «будешь делать» is the compound imperfective future, with the 2nd-person standing for anyone.

Прибегнул к народным средствам, один немец-доктор посоветовал в бане на полке медом с солью вытереться.  
I fell back on folk remedies; a German doctor advised me to rub myself all over with honey and salt on the shelf in a steam bath.
> «народные средства» — folk remedies: «народные средства» ('folk/popular remedies') sets traditional home cures against the satirised specialists. «прибегнуть к» ('to resort to') governs «к» + dative («средствам»), the idiom for falling back on a recourse.
> Reflexive «вытереться» — to rub oneself down: «вытереться» ('to rub/wipe oneself all over') is the «-ся» reflexive of «вытереть», the «-ся» showing the action is done to one's own body. The instrumental «мёдом с солью» names the substance rubbed on.

Я, единственно чтобы только в баню лишний раз сходить, пошел: выпачкался весь, и никакой пользы.  
Solely to get to the bathhouse one extra time, I went: I smeared myself all over, and no good came of it.
> Purpose «чтобы» + infinitive, heavily hedged: «чтобы… сходить» ('in order to go [there and back]') is purpose with «чтобы» + perfective infinitive. «сходить» is a round-trip motion verb ('pop to and back'). The piled-up restrictives «единственно… только… лишний раз» ('solely… just… one extra time') comically stress that the devil went only for the pleasure of the bath.
> Genitive of negation with «никакой»: «никакой пользы» ('no benefit at all') stands in the genitive — the genitive of absence/negation, reinforced by the «ни»-word «никакой». An implied «не было/не вышло» ('there was none') governs it; «польза» ('use, benefit') becomes «пользы'.

С отчаяния графу Маттеи в Милан написал; прислал книгу и капли, бог с ним.  
In desperation I wrote to Count Mattei in Milan; he sent a book and some drops — bless him.
> Idiom «бог с ним» — 'never mind him / bless him': «бог с ним» (lit. 'God [be] with him') is a set phrase of resigned dismissal or mild blessing — 'oh well, let him be / bless him'. Tossed in after the gift of book and drops, it shrugs off Count Mattei with offhand good humour.

И вообрази: мальц-экстракт Гоффа помог!  
And just imagine: Hoff's malt extract did the trick!
> Imperative «вообрази» — buttonholing the listener: «вообрази» ('imagine!') is the singular imperative of «вообразить», a conversational appeal pulling Ivan into the story. The devil scatters such imperatives — «вообрази», «представь», «можешь представить» — to dramatise his anecdotes.

Купил нечаянно, выпил полторы стклянки, и хоть танцевать, всё как рукой сняло.  
I bought it by chance, drank off a bottle and a half, and was fit to dance — the whole thing vanished as if by magic.
> «стклянка» — archaic spelling of «склянка» (a small bottle): «стклянка» is a 19th-century spelling/variant of «склянка», a little glass bottle or phial. «полторы стклянки» ('a bottle and a half') uses «полторы» (the feminine 'one and a half'), which takes the genitive singular. The old spelling adds period flavour.
> Idiom «как рукой сняло» — 'vanished as if by magic': «как рукой сняло» ('[it] was taken off as if by a hand') is a fixed impersonal idiom for an ailment instantly disappearing. «сняло» is neuter perfective past with no subject — the classic impersonal construction for something that 'just happened' of itself.
> «хоть» + infinitive — 'fit to dance': «хоть танцевать» means 'so well you could even dance', «хоть» here 'even / one might as well' + bare infinitive. It expresses an extreme to which the recovered state would suffice — colloquial and lively.

Непременно положил ему «спасибо» в газетах напечатать, чувство благодарности заговорило, и вот вообрази, тут уже другая история пошла: ни в одной-то редакции не принимают!  
I absolutely resolved to print a 'thank you' to him in the papers — gratitude had spoken up in me — and now just imagine, here another story began: not a single editorial office would take it!
> Inchoative prefix «за-»: «заговорило»: «заговорило» ('began to speak / spoke up') shows «за-» in its inchoative sense — the onset of an action. The grammatical subject is the abstract «чувство благодарности» ('feeling of gratitude'), neuter, which 'spoke up' in him: a small personification.
> Negative concord «ни… не» + emphatic «-то»: «ни в одной… не принимают» ('not in a single [office] do they accept') is negative concord: the «ни»-phrase «ни в одной» demands «не» on the verb. The clitic «-то» on «одной» lends rueful emphasis — 'not in even one of them'.
> «редакция» — editorial office: «редакция» is a newspaper's or journal's editorial office/board. The devil's failed attempt to place a printed 'thank you' in any «редакция» turns on the press's modern unbelief — none will run a notice that takes the devil seriously.

«Ретроградно очень будет, говорят, никто не поверит, le diable n’existe point.  
"It would be very retrograde, they say, no one will believe it, le diable n'existe point.
> «ретроградно» — 'reactionary, backward': «ретроградный» ('retrograde, reactionary') was a fashionable polemical word in 1860s–80s Russian intellectual life, branding anything out of step with progress. For the editors, printing a devil's thank-you would be embarrassingly «ретроградно» — backward, superstitious.

Вы, советуют, напечатайте анонимно».  
You'd better, they advise, print it anonymously."
> Imperative «напечатайте» + parenthetical «советуют»: «напечатайте» is the polite/plural imperative 'print!' (from perfective «напечатать»). «советуют» ('they advise') is dropped in parenthetically as a reportative aside — the editors' counsel embedded inside their own quoted command.

Ну какое же «спасибо», если анонимно.  
Well, what kind of 'thank you' is it if it's anonymous?
> Rhetorical «какое же» — zero-copula scorn: «Ну какое же „спасибо“» ('well, what kind of thank-you [is it]…') is a verbless rhetorical question; the present copula is absent, as always. «какое же» pairs the interrogative «какой» with emphatic «же» for indignant dismissal — there is no real thanks if it's anonymous.

Смеюсь с конторщиками: «Это в бога, говорю, в наш век ретроградно верить, а ведь я черт, в меня можно».  
I laughed with the clerks: 'It's retrograde, says I, to believe in God in our age — but I'm the devil, you may believe in me.'
> Reflexive «смеяться» + «с» + instrumental: «смеюсь» is the «-ся» verb «смеяться» ('to laugh'), which exists only in the reflexive form. «с конторщиками» ('with the clerks') is «с» + instrumental of accompaniment — laughing together with them.
> Impersonal predicate «ретроградно» + infinitive: «ретроградно верить» is an impersonal construction: a neuter predicate adverb «ретроградно» ('[it is] retrograde') + the infinitive «верить» ('to believe'), with «в бога» ('in God') as its object. No subject — a generalised judgement: 'to believe in God is backward in our age'.
> «ведь» + impersonal «можно»; the devil's punchline: «ведь» appeals to the supposedly obvious, and «в меня можно [верить]» is impersonal — «можно» ('it is permitted/possible') + the ellipted infinitive, with «в меня» ('in me'). The devil's blasphemous jest: believing in God is backward, but 'in me you may'.
> «конторщик» — an office clerk: A «конторщик» is a clerk in a «контора» (counting-house, business office) — a lowly white-collar functionary. The devil's joke-trading with such minor clerks keeps him firmly in the petty, modern, commercial Russia the whole monologue inhabits.

— «Понимаем, говорят, кто же в черта не верит, а все-таки нельзя, направлению повредить может.  
"'We understand, they say, who doesn't believe in the devil — but all the same it can't be done, it might harm our line.
> Rhetorical «кто же… не»: A rhetorical question dressed as a negative: literally «who, then, does NOT believe in the devil?», meaning 'everyone does'. The particle «же» sharpens it into an appeal, and the negation «не» before «верит» is what flips a question into the implied universal claim.
> «верить в» + accusative: «верить в» (to believe IN) governs the accusative, and «черта» is the animate-accusative form of «чёрт» — borrowing the genitive ending, as animate masculine nouns do. So 'believe in the devil', not the inanimate-looking «в чёрт».
> «повредить» + dative; fronted object: «повредить» (to harm) takes its object in the dative, hence «направлению» — 'it might harm the line/tendency'. The dative object stands first for emphasis, the verb «может» trailing at the end in the loose, speech-like order of the Devil's chatter.
> «направление» — editorial 'line': Here «направление» is journalistic cant for a periodical's ideological 'tendency' or 'line'. The Devil is recounting how a magazine editor refused his contribution lest it compromise the journal's progressive stance — a sly dig at the polemical press of the 1870s.

Разве в виде шутки?» Ну в шутку-то, подумал, будет неостроумно.  
Unless as a joke?' Well, as a joke, I thought, it would fall flat.
> «разве» — incredulous 'unless / surely not?': «разве» introduces a question coloured with doubt or surprise — here 'unless [perhaps] as a joke?'. It voices the editor's half-hearted concession, the speaker reporting another's tentative suggestion.
> Topic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» pins down the just-mentioned topic — 'as for joking…'. It is the emphatic topic particle, distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то», singling out «шутку» as the thing now under consideration.
> Impersonal predicate + perfective future: A subjectless, impersonal frame: «будет неостроумно» — 'it would be unwitty / fall flat', where «будет» is the simple future of «быть» carrying a neuter predicate. No nominative subject; the assessment hangs in the air.

Так и не напечатали.  
And so it never got printed.
> Subjectless «они» + «так и»: An agentless plural verb «напечатали» ('they didn't print [it]') with no stated subject — Russian's habitual way of saying 'it never got printed'. «так и» seals the outcome: 'and so, [just] like that, it wasn't printed after all'.

И веришь ли, у меня даже на сердце это осталось.  
And would you believe it, that even rankled in my heart.
> Interrogative «ли» — 'would you believe?': The enclitic «ли» turns «веришь» into a fronted yes/no question, the focused verb first. As a set conversational opener «веришь ли» means 'would you believe it' — buttonholing the listener.
> «у меня» possession-experiencer frame: The «у + genitive» construction («у меня») frames the speaker as the locus of a feeling that 'stayed on his heart'. «осталось» is neuter past agreeing with the neuter subject «это» — 'this remained / rankled'.

Самые лучшие чувства мои, как например благодарность, мне формально запрещены единственно социальным моим положением.  
My very best feelings — gratitude, for instance — are formally forbidden me, solely on account of my social position.
> Short passive participle + dative: «запрещены» is the short-form past passive participle of «запретить», agreeing in plural with «чувства» — 'are forbidden'. The person to whom they are forbidden stands in the dative, «мне». This periphrastic passive states a fixed result.
> Instrumental of cause/means: «социальным… положением» is instrumental — the means or cause by which the feelings are forbidden: 'solely BY my social position'. The instrumental answers 'by what?', here the agent-like cause of the prohibition.
> «социальное положение» — 'social position': The Devil parodies bureaucratic-sociological jargon: his 'social position' as the cosmic principle of negation forbids him even gratitude. The clinical phrase clashes comically with the metaphysical role he claims.

— Опять в философию въехал! — ненавистно проскрежетал Иван.  
"You've climbed into philosophy again!" Ivan ground out hatefully.
> Prefixed perfective «въехать», idiomatic: «въехать» (в- 'into' + «ехать» 'ride') literally means 'drove/rode into'; here figuratively 'launched into philosophy'. The directional prefix on a motion verb yields a perfective with a vivid spatial metaphor — Ivan accuses the Devil of veering off into abstraction again.
> «проскрежетать» — to grate out: From «скрежетать» (to gnash, grind one's teeth) with the perfective «про-» — Ivan 'ground / rasped out' the words. The verb's sonic harshness paints his physical revulsion; paired with the adverb «ненавистно» ('hatefully') it stages his loathing of the apparition.

— Боже меня убереги, но ведь нельзя же иногда не пожаловаться.  
"God preserve me, but one can't help complaining now and then, after all."
> Vocative «Боже» + perfective imperative: «Боже» is the old Church-Slavonic vocative of «Бог» — 'O God', surviving only in such exclamations and prayers. «убереги» is the perfective imperative of «уберечь» ('preserve, guard'): 'God preserve me!', a reflexive disavowal before the Devil complains anyway.
> Double negative «нельзя… не» = 'one can't help': «нельзя не + infinitive» is a litotes meaning 'one cannot but / can't help but' — here 'one can't help complaining'. The impersonal «нельзя» needs no subject, and «же» softens it into a confiding appeal.
> Reflexive-only «жаловаться» / «пожаловаться»: «жаловаться» (to complain) exists only in the «-ся» form — there is no «жаловать себя» here. The «-ся» marks an inherently reflexive verb; «пожаловаться» is its perfective, 'to lodge a single complaint'.

Я человек оклеветанный.  
I'm a slandered man.
> Zero copula + attributive past passive participle: No verb 'to be' in the present: «Я человек» — 'I [am] a man', nominative predicate. «оклеветанный» is the long-form past passive participle of «оклеветать» ('to slander'), agreeing as an adjective — 'a slandered man'.

Вот ты поминутно мне, что я глуп.  
Here you keep telling me every minute that I'm stupid.
> Verb-of-speaking elided after «мне»: A clipped colloquialism: a verb like «говоришь» ('you tell') is dropped after «мне» — 'here you [keep saying] to me every minute that…'. The «что»-clause reports the content. «глуп» is the short-form adjective, predicative only.
> «поминутно» — 'every minute': An adverb from «минута» — 'minute by minute, incessantly'. The Devil's reproachful 'you keep telling me every minute' — a faintly bookish, insistent word for ceaseless repetition.

Так и видно молодого человека.  
One can see the young man in that.
> Impersonal «видно» + genitive/accusative object: An impersonal construction: «видно» ('one can see, it's evident') with no subject, taking the animate object «молодого человека» — 'one can see the young man [in you]'. «так и» again adds 'just so, plainly'.

Друг мой, не в одном уме дело!  
My friend, it isn't all a matter of intellect!
> Vocative address + postposed possessive: Direct address with the possessive following the noun — «друг мой» rather than «мой друг» — a warm, slightly literary cadence, 'my friend'. The postposition of «мой» lends an intimate, oratorical lilt.
> «дело в…» + negation: The idiom «дело в (чём-то)» — 'the matter lies in / it's a question of' — here negated: «не в одном уме дело», 'it isn't only a matter of intellect'. «уме» is prepositional after «в»; «одном» means 'intellect alone'.

У меня от природы сердце доброе и веселое, «я ведь тоже разные водевильчики». Ты, кажется, решительно принимаешь меня за поседелого Хлестакова, и, однако, судьба моя гораздо серьезнее.  
By nature I have a kind and cheerful heart, 'I too can do all sorts of little vaudevilles.' You seem to take me decidedly for a grayed Khlestakov, and yet my fate is far more serious.
> «у меня» possession + zero copula: 'I have by nature a kind and cheerful heart' — built on «у меня» (genitive) for possession, with no verb 'to be'. «доброе и весёлое» are long-form adjectives agreeing with neuter «сердце».
> «водевильчик» — diminutive of vaudeville: The diminutive «-чик» on «водевиль» (vaudeville, a light comic playlet) gives a self-deprecating 'little vaudevilles'. The Devil quotes himself in quotation marks, casting himself as a maker of frivolous entertainments — the expressive suffix doing the work of mock-modesty.
> Comparative «серьезнее» + «гораздо»: «серьезнее» is the invariable predicative comparative of «серьёзный» ('more serious'), intensified by «гораздо» ('far, much'). Postposed «моя» again gives the rhetorical rhythm: 'my fate is far more serious'.

Каким-то там довременным назначением, которого я никогда разобрать не мог, я определен «отрицать», между тем я искренно добр и к отрицанию совсем не способен. Нет, ступай отрицать, без отрицания-де не будет критики, а какой же журнал, если нет «отделения критики»?  
By some pre-temporal decree, which I have never been able to make out, I am appointed 'to negate,' though in fact I am sincerely good and quite incapable of negation. No, go and negate, they say, for without negation there'd be no criticism, and what sort of journal would it be with no 'criticism section'?
> Relative «который» in genitive object: «которого» introduces a relative clause and takes the genitive as the negated object of «разобрать не мог» — 'which I could never make out'. The antecedent is «назначением»; «никогда… не» is the standard negative concord.
> «довременный» — pre-temporal: A bookish, quasi-theological coinage: «до-» ('before') + «время» ('time') — a 'pre-temporal' decree, made before time itself. It frames the Devil's appointment 'to negate' as an eternal, metaphysical assignment, parodying the language of predestination.
> Short passive «определён» + infinitive: «определён» is the short-form past passive participle of «определить» — 'I am appointed/assigned', joined to the infinitive «отрицать» ('to negate'). The construction states the Devil's fixed cosmic role.
> Reportative particle «-де» + genitive of negation: «-де» is the archaic reportative clitic, flagging quoted hearsay ('they say'). The negated future «не будет критики» puts the absent thing in the genitive — 'there'll be no criticism' — the genitive-of-negation rule under «не будет».

Без критики будет одна «осанна».  
Without criticism there'd be nothing but 'hosanna.'
> «осанна» — Hosanna: A Church-Slavonic liturgical loan from Hebrew via Greek, the cry of praise 'Hosanna' (Matthew 21:9). For the Devil it stands for unbroken, unexamined adoration — life as one endless act of worship — which he claims is insufficient without the testing fire of doubt.
> «без» + genitive; «один» as 'nothing but': «без» governs the genitive «критики». «одна» here is not the numeral 'one' but the limiting 'nothing but, only' — 'without criticism there'd be nothing but hosanna'. «будет» is the simple future of «быть».

Но для жизни мало одной «осанны», надо, чтоб «осанна»-то эта переходила через горнило сомнений, ну и так далее, в этом роде.  
But for life one 'hosanna' is too little; that 'hosanna' must pass through the crucible of doubt, and so on, and so forth, in that vein.
> Impersonal «мало» + genitive: Quantity word «мало» ('too little') takes the genitive «одной осанны» and frames an impersonal judgment — 'for life one hosanna is too little'. «для жизни» is the genitive of purpose after «для».
> «надо, чтобы» + past-form irrealis: «надо, чтобы» ('it is necessary that…') demands the irrealis: «чтоб… переходила» uses the past-tense form for a willed, non-factual outcome. The «-то» on «осанна» topicalizes it ('that hosanna of ours').
> «горнило» — crucible / furnace: «горнило» is an elevated, archaic-poetic word for a smith's forge or crucible, used figuratively for a trial that purifies. 'Through the crucible of doubts' is the Devil's famous formula — faith proven only by passing through doubt. The phrase recurs as a touchstone of the novel's theology.

Я, впрочем, во всё это не ввязываюсь, не я сотворял, не я и в ответе.  
I, however, don't mix myself up in any of it; I didn't create it, and I'm not answerable for it.
> Reflexive «ввязываться» + «не»: «ввязываться» ('to get mixed up in') is an inherently «-ся» verb; here negated, 'I don't get myself involved in any of it'. «во всё это» is accusative of the thing entered into.
> Contrastive negation of the subject: «не я» negates the subject pronoun itself — 'it wasn't I who created it'. The parallel «не я… не я и…» with the connective «и» drives home the disavowal. «сотворял» echoes the Slavonic verb of Creation.
> «сотворить» — to create (Slavonic): «сотворить / сотворять» is the elevated verb of divine Creation (cf. «Бог сотворил небо и землю»). The Devil borrows the Creator's own word to deny his authorship — 'I did not create it' — a theologically loaded disclaimer.

Ну и выбрали козла отпущения, заставили писать в отделении критики, и получилась жизнь.  
Well, so they picked a scapegoat, made him write in the criticism section, and out of it came life.
> «козёл отпущения» — scapegoat: The 'goat of sending-away', the Russian calque of the biblical scapegoat (Leviticus 16) driven into the wilderness bearing the people's sins. The Devil casts himself as the cosmic scapegoat, conscripted to write the 'criticism section' of existence.
> Chain of perfectives + agentless plural: A rapid sequence of perfective past verbs moves the little fable forward event by event: 'they picked… made him write… and there came life'. The subjectless plurals «выбрали, заставили» leave the agents vague; «получилась» is the reflexive 'turned out, resulted'.

Мы эту комедию понимаем: я, например, прямо и просто требую себе уничтожения.  
We understand this comedy: I, for one, plainly and simply demand my own annihilation.
> «требовать» + genitive; reflexive dative «себе»: «требовать» ('to demand') governs the genitive of the thing demanded, hence «уничтожения». «себе» is the dative of the reflexive pronoun — 'I demand annihilation FOR myself'. A typical genitive-object verb with a reflexive beneficiary.
> Paired adverbs «прямо и просто»: A near-formulaic adverbial doublet, 'plainly and simply / straight out'. Such balanced pairs of adverbs give the Devil's speech its glib, conversational fluency.

Нет, живи, говорят, потому что без тебя ничего не будет.  
No, live, they say, because without you there would be nothing.
> Imperative + reportative «говорят»: «живи» is the imperative of «жить» ('live!'), and «говорят» ('they say') marks it as quoted command from the cosmic powers — 'no, live, they say'. The bare 3rd-plural «говорят» is the standard impersonal 'they say'.
> «без» + genitive; genitive of negation in the future: «без тебя» — 'without you' (genitive after «без»). «ничего не будет» negates existence in the future, putting «ничего» (genitive) under «не будет»: 'nothing will be / there'll be nothing'. Negative concord plus genitive of negation.

Если бы на земле было всё благоразумно, то ничего бы и не произошло. Без тебя не будет никаких происшествий, а надо, чтобы были происшествия.  
If everything on earth were sensible, nothing would ever happen. Without you there would be no events at all, and there must be events.
> Counterfactual «если бы… бы»: A textbook contrary-to-fact conditional: «если бы» in the protasis and «бы» again in the apodosis, both verbs in the past form — 'if everything were sensible, nothing would happen'. The doubled «бы» is normal in full counterfactuals.
> Genitive of negation with «никаких»: «не будет никаких происшествий» — 'there'll be no events of any kind'. The negative «никаких» reinforces «не», and the absent subject «происшествий» stands in the genitive plural under «не будет».
> Contrastive «а» + «надо, чтобы»: The contrastive «а» pivots to the counter-statement, and «надо, чтобы были» again takes the past-form irrealis after «чтобы» — 'but there must be events'. «были» here is irrealis, not literal past.

Вот и служу скрепя сердце, чтобы были происшествия, и творю неразумное по приказу.  
So I serve through gritted teeth, that there may be events, and I work the irrational to order.
> «скрепя сердце» — through gritted teeth: A frozen idiom using «скрепя», an archaic gerund of «скрепить» ('to fasten, brace') — literally 'having braced one's heart', i.e. reluctantly, against one's will. A fossilized old participial form preserved only in this set phrase.
> Purpose «чтобы» + past-form irrealis: «чтобы были» expresses purpose with the obligatory past-form irrealis after «чтобы» — 'so that there may be events'. Russian never uses an infinitive of 'to be' here when the subject differs.
> Neuter adjective as noun + «по» + dative: «неразумное» is a neuter adjective used substantively — 'the irrational / the unreasonable thing'. «по приказу» ('to order, by command') is «по» + dative, the case that preposition governs.

Люди принимают всю эту комедию за нечто серьезное, даже при всем своем бесспорном уме. В этом их и трагедия.  
People take this whole comedy for something serious, even with all their indisputable intellect. Therein lies their tragedy.
> «принимать за» + accusative: The idiom «принимать (что-то) за (что-то)» — 'to take X for Y' — governs the accusative on both sides: «комедию… за нечто серьёзное». «нечто» is the bookish indefinite 'something'.
> Fronted «в этом» + zero copula: Verbless: 'in this [lies] their tragedy'. «в этом» (prepositional) is fronted for emphasis, «их» possessive, and «и» here is the emphatic 'precisely / just'. A compact topic-comment inversion.

Ну и страдают, конечно, но… всё же зато живут, живут реально, не фантастически; ибо страдание-то и есть жизнь.  
Well, they suffer, of course, but… still, in return they live, they live really, not fantastically; for suffering is precisely what life is.
> Adverbs «реально» / «фантастически»: Two manner adverbs in contrast — 'they live really, not fantastically'. The pairing is thematically loaded: real, embodied life versus the spectral, 'fantastic' non-existence the Devil laments for himself.
> Archaic «ибо» + emphatic «и есть»: «ибо» is the bookish, period conjunction 'for, because'. «страдание-то и есть жизнь» uses the rare overt present copula «есть» plus emphatic «и» — 'for suffering precisely IS life'. The «-то» topicalizes «страдание».

Без страдания какое было бы в ней удовольствие — всё обратилось бы в один бесконечный молебен: оно свято, но скучновато.  
Without suffering, what pleasure would there be in it — everything would turn into one endless church service: it would be holy, but a bit of a bore.
> Counterfactual «было бы» in a question: A rhetorical conditional-question: «какое было бы… удовольствие» — 'what pleasure would there be?', with the irrealis «было бы». «без страдания» is genitive after «без»; «в ней» refers back to 'life'.
> Reflexive «обратиться» in the conditional: «обратилось бы» — perfective reflexive «обратиться» ('to turn into') in the conditional, 'everything would turn into…'. «в один… молебен» is accusative of result after «в».
> «скучновато» — 'a bit boring': The suffix «-оват-» attenuates: «скучный» ('boring') → «скучновато» ('rather/somewhat boring, a bit of a bore'). This softening, almost throwaway diminutive of degree is exactly the Devil's flippant register beside the solemn «свято» ('holy').

Ну а я?  
And I?
> Elliptical «ну а я?»: A bare, verbless question — 'Well, and I?' — pivoting the topic to himself with the contrastive «а» and the conversational filler «ну». Russian readily leaves the predicate to be inferred from context.

Я страдаю, а всё же не живу.  
I suffer, and yet I don't live.
> Contrastive «а всё же» + imperfectives: Both verbs are imperfective presents of state — «страдаю / живу» ('I suffer / I live'). «а всё же» ('and yet, all the same') sets the bitter contrast: he has the suffering but not the life it should buy.

Я икс в неопределенном уравнении.  
I'm the x in an indeterminate equation.
> Zero copula + prepositional location: Verbless equation: 'I [am] the x in an indeterminate equation'. «в… уравнении» is prepositional after «в» (location), and «неопределённом» agrees with it. A mathematician's metaphor for the Devil's undecidable existence.

Я какой-то призрак жизни, который потерял все концы и начала, и даже сам позабыл наконец, как и назвать себя.  
I'm some phantom of life that has lost all its ends and beginnings, and has even forgotten at last what to call itself.
> Relative «который» in nominative: «который» here is the subject of its own clause, so nominative masculine — 'a phantom… which has lost all ends and beginnings'. «потерял» is perfective past; «концы и начала» the accusative objects (inanimate plural = nominative form).
> Reflexive «себя» + intensifier «сам»: «сам» intensifies the subject ('even himself / on his own'), and «себя» is the reflexive object of «назвать» — 'forgot at last what even to call himself'. «позабыл» is an emphatic perfective of «забыть».

Ты смеешься… нет, ты не смеешься, ты опять сердишься.  
You're laughing… no, you're not laughing, you're angry again.
> Reflexive-only verbs «смеяться / сердиться»: Both «смеяться» ('to laugh') and «сердиться» ('to be angry') exist only in the «-ся» form. The present-tense self-correction — laughing, not laughing, angry — captures the Devil reading Ivan's twitching face.

Ты вечно сердишься, тебе бы всё только ума, а я опять-таки повторю тебе, что я отдал бы всю эту надзвездную жизнь, все чины и почести за то только, чтобы воплотиться в душу семипудовой купчихи и богу свечки ставить.  
You're forever angry, all you ever want is intellect; and I'll say it to you once more, I'd give up this whole supra-stellar existence, all my ranks and honors, for the one thing of being incarnated in the soul of a seven-pood merchant's wife and setting up candles to God.
> Dative «тебе» + «бы» = desiderative ellipsis: An elliptical desiderative: dative «тебе» plus «бы» and a verb of wanting elided — 'you'd want nothing but intellect'. «ума» is genitive (object of an implied «хотеть/подавай»). A vivid, very Russian subjectless wish-construction.
> Conditional «отдал бы»: «отдал бы» is the conditional — past form of perfective «отдать» plus «бы» — 'I would give up'. It launches the Devil's wistful hypothetical of trading cosmic rank for a humble human soul.
> «семипудовая купчиха» — seven-pood merchant's wife: A «пуд» is an old Russian weight of about 16.4 kg, so 'seven-pood' (~115 kg) paints a vast, comfortable merchant's wife. «купчиха» is the feminine of «купец» (merchant). The image — heavy, devout, candle-lighting — is the Devil's ideal of warm, unreflective faith.
> Reflexive «воплотиться» + «в» accusative: «воплотиться» ('to become incarnate') is a perfective reflexive; «в душу» is accusative of goal — 'to be incarnated INTO the soul of…'. The word carries strong theological weight (the Incarnation), here applied to the Devil's longed-for fleshly existence.

— Уж и ты в бога не веришь?  
"So you don't believe in God either?"
> Particle «уж и» + «верить в» negated: «уж и» heightens incredulity — 'so even YOU don't believe in God?'. «верить в бога» takes «в» + accusative; «бога» is the animate-accusative of «Бог». The «не» negates the verb.

— ненавистно усмехнулся Иван.  
Ivan sneered hatefully.
> «усмехнуться» — to smirk: A perfective reflexive, 'gave a [crooked, wry] smile, smirked' — narrower and more sardonic than 'smile' («улыбнуться»). With «ненавистно» ('hatefully'), it marks Ivan's bitter, hostile half-smile at the apparition.

— То есть как тебе это сказать, если ты только серьезно…  
"That is — how shall I put it to you, if you mean it seriously…"
> Dative «тебе» + infinitive = deliberative: A deliberative infinitive construction: «как тебе это сказать» — 'how [am I] to put it to you', with the dative «тебе» as the person addressed. Russian uses the bare infinitive for such 'how is one to…?' musings.
> Conditional «если» with elided verb: «если ты только серьёзно…» — 'if only you mean it seriously…', with the verb (e.g. «спрашиваешь») dropped and the sentence trailing off. «только» here means 'only/just', conditioning the whole hesitant reply.

— Есть бог или нет?  
"Is there a God or not?"
> Overt «есть» (existence) + «или нет»: Here «есть» is the existential 'there is' (not a copula) — «есть Бог?» 'is there a God?'. The terse «или нет» ('or not?') makes Ivan's demand brutally direct, the present existence-verb standing where the modern copula would be silent.

— опять со свирепою настойчивостью крикнул Иван.  
Ivan shouted again with savage insistence.
> Archaic instrumental ending «-ою»: «свирепою настойчивостью» shows the older literary instrumental ending «-ою» (modern «-ой») on the adjective — 'with savage insistence'. «с» + instrumental marks manner; the «-ою» form is a hallmark of 19th-century bookish style.

— А, так ты серьезно?  
"Ah, so you're serious?
> Discourse «а… так» + elided verb: «А, так ты серьёзно?» — 'Ah, so you're serious?', verbless, the predicate adverb «серьёзно» standing for 'mean it seriously'. «так» here is the inferential 'so, then', a frequent dialogue connective.

Голубчик мой, ей-богу, не знаю, вот великое слово сказал.  
My dear fellow, by God, I don't know — there, I've said a great word."
> «голубчик» — 'my dear fellow': An affectionate diminutive of «голубь» ('dove'): 'little dove, my dear'. A warm, slightly condescending term of endearment — the Devil's cajoling intimacy toward Ivan, the «-чик» suffix carrying the tenderness.
> «ей-богу» — 'by God, honestly': A fossilized oath, originally 'to God', now a colloquial 'honestly, I swear'. Ironically sworn by the Devil himself as he confesses, with mock solemnity, that he simply doesn't know whether God exists.

— Не знаешь, а бога видишь?  
"You don't know, but you see God?
> Contrastive «а» + animate accusative «бога»: «а» pivots between Ivan's jabs — 'you don't know, BUT you see God?'. «бога» is animate-accusative object of «видишь». The blunt present-tense parallelism sharpens Ivan's mockery of the Devil's evasion.

Нет, ты не сам по себе, ты — ''я'', ты есть ''я'' и более ничего!  
No, you're not on your own, you are 'I,' you are 'I' and nothing more!
> «сам по себе» + emphatic dash: «сам по себе» is the idiom 'on one's own, by oneself, independent'. The dash before «я» marks an emphatic zero-copula equation — 'you ARE "I"'. Ivan insists the Devil has no autonomous being.
> Overt copula «есть» + «более ничего»: The rare explicit copula «есть» is used for solemn insistence — 'you ARE "I"'. «более ничего» ('nothing more') closes with negation; «более» is the comparative 'more' fused into the set phrase.

Ты дрянь, ты моя фантазия!  
You're trash, you're my fancy!"
> «дрянь» — 'trash, rubbish': «дрянь» is a contemptuous noun, 'rubbish, worthless trash, a nasty thing'. Hurled at the Devil — 'you're trash, you're my fancy!' — it is Ivan's furious dismissal of the hallucination as his own diseased invention.
> Zero-copula predicate noun: 'You [are] my fancy' — present-tense identification with no verb 'to be', the possessive «моя» agreeing with feminine «фантазия». The clipped equational sentences hammer Ivan's claim that the Devil is merely a projection.

— То есть, если хочешь, я одной с тобой философии, вот это будет справедливо.  
"That is — if you like, I'm of one and the same philosophy as you; that would be the just way to put it."
> Genitive of characteristic «одной… философии»: A genitive-of-quality predicate: «я одной… философии» — 'I am of one [and the same] philosophy', literally 'of one philosophy with you'. «одной… философии» is genitive feminine; «с тобой» supplies 'with you'.
> Impersonal «будет справедливо»: Impersonal future assessment: «будет справедливо» — 'that would be the fair/just [way to put it]', neuter predicate with «будет» (future of «быть») and no nominative subject beyond the deictic «это».

Je pense donc je suis, это я знаю наверно, остальное же всё, что кругом меня, все эти миры, бог и даже сам сатана — всё это для меня не доказано, существует ли оно само по себе или есть только одна моя эманация, последовательное развитие моего ''я'', существующего довременно и единолично… словом, я быстро прерываю, потому что ты, кажется, сейчас драться вскочишь. — Лучше бы ты какой анекдот!  
Je pense donc je suis, that much I know for certain; but everything else around me, all these worlds, God, and even Satan himself — none of it is proven to me, whether it exists in itself or is only some emanation of mine, the consistent unfolding of my own 'I,' which exists pre-temporally and singly… in a word, I cut myself off quickly, because you look as though you'll spring up to fight in a moment. — "You'd do better to tell some anecdote!"
> Embedded «ли» = 'whether': In an indirect question «ли» means 'whether': «существует ли оно само по себе» — 'whether it exists in itself'. The verb is fronted before «ли», and «само по себе» is again the idiom 'in/by itself'.
> Present active participle «существующего»: «существующего» is the present active participle of «существовать» ('existing'), in the genitive agreeing with «я» — 'of my "I", existing pre-temporally'. It condenses a «которое существует» clause into one bookish modifier.
> Perfective future «вскочишь» + infinitive of purpose: «вскочишь» is the simple (perfective) future of «вскочить» ('to leap up') — 'you'll spring up'. The bare infinitive «драться» ('to fight', reflexive) expresses purpose: 'spring up to fight'. «сейчас» here means 'any moment now'.
> Optative «лучше бы» with elided verb: «лучше бы» + «бы» forms a wish — 'you'd do better to [tell] some anecdote!', the verb «рассказал» dropped. «какой» here is colloquial 'some [or other]'. A compact desiderative leaning on «бы».

— болезненно проговорил Иван.  
Ivan brought out painfully.
> «болезненно» / «проговорить»: «болезненно» ('painfully, with pain') modifies «проговорил» ('brought out, uttered', perfective with «про-»). The pairing conveys that Ivan forces the words out as if physically suffering — the nightmare wears on his nerves.

— Анекдот есть и именно на нашу тему, то есть это не анекдот, а так, легенда.  
"There is an anecdote, and precisely on our theme — that is, it's not an anecdote, but rather a legend."
> «на тему» + accusative; «именно»: «на нашу тему» — 'on our theme', «на» + accusative in the abstract sense 'on the topic of'. «именно» ('precisely, just') pins it down: 'and precisely on our theme'.
> «легенда» vs «анекдот»: The Devil corrects himself from «анекдот» (a brief amusing tale/anecdote) to «легенда» ('legend'), signalling that the story to come — the philosopher condemned to walk a quadrillion kilometres — has the weight of myth, not mere wit.

Ты вот укоряешь меня в неверии: «видишь-де, а не веришь».  
Here you reproach me with unbelief: 'you see, yet you don't believe,' you say.
> «укорять в» + prepositional: «укорять (кого) в (чём)» — 'to reproach someone WITH/FOR something' — governs «в» + prepositional, hence «в неверии» ('with unbelief'). A standard reproach-construction with «в».
> Reportative «-де» in quoted reproach: «-де» again flags reported speech — the Devil quotes Ivan's reproach: 'you see [it], they say, yet you don't believe'. The clitic lets him voice the accusation while keeping ironic distance from it.

Но, друг мой, ведь не я же один таков, у нас там все теперь помутились, и всё от ваших наук.  
But, my friend, I'm not the only one like that, after all; over there with us they've all gone muddled now, and all because of your sciences.
> Stacked particles «ведь… же» + «таков»: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge ('after all'), «же» insists, together softening the claim 'I'm not the only one like that'. «таков» is the predicative demonstrative 'such, like that', a bookish short form.
> «от» + genitive of cause: «от ваших наук» — 'all because of your sciences', «от» + genitive expressing cause. «всё» ('it's all') is the bare subject. The plural «наук» means the sciences collectively, blamed for the spiritual muddle.
> «помутиться» — to grow muddled: From «мутить» ('to make turbid, cloudy'); the perfective reflexive «помутиться» means 'to grow confused, cloud over [in mind]'. 'Over there with us they've all gone muddled' — the Devil drily reporting Hell's own crisis of faith.

Еще пока были атомы, пять чувств, ' четыре стихии, ну тогда всё кое-как клеилось.  
While there were still atoms, five senses, four elements, well, then everything held together after a fashion.
> Reflexive «клеиться» (impf.) + «кое-как»: «клеилось» is the imperfective reflexive of «клеить» ('to glue'), idiomatically 'things held together / hung together'. «кое-как» means 'somehow, after a fashion, any old way' — everything cohered, but barely.

Атомы-то и в древнем мире были.  
Atoms existed even in the ancient world.
> Topic «-то» + emphatic «и»: «Атомы-то» topicalizes 'atoms' ('as for atoms'), and «и» here is the emphatic 'even / already' — 'atoms existed even in the ancient world'. «были» is the existential past, subject «атомы» first.

А вот как узнали у нас, что вы там открыли у себя «химическую молекулу», да «протоплазму», да черт знает что еще — так у нас и поджали хвосты.  
But once it got out among us that you'd discovered over there your 'chemical molecule' and your 'protoplasm' and the devil knows what else — well, then we just tucked our tails between our legs.
> Temporal «как» + agentless «узнали»: «как» here is temporal 'once / when'; «узнали у нас» ('it became known among us') is an agentless plural. «открыли у себя» — 'you discovered at your own place', «у себя» the reflexive 'at one's own'.
> «поджать хвост» — to tuck one's tail: The idiom «поджать хвост(ы)» ('to tuck one's tail between the legs') means to lose nerve, become cowed. Hell itself 'tucked its tail' before modern discoveries like the 'chemical molecule' and 'protoplasm' — the Devil's comic capitulation to science.

Просто сумбур начался; главное — суеверие, сплетни; сплетен ведь и у нас столько же, сколько у вас, даже капельку больше, а, наконец, и доносы, у нас ведь тоже есть такое одно отделение, где принимают известные «сведения».  
Sheer confusion set in; the chief thing — superstition, gossip; for we have just as much gossip as you, even a touch more, and at last informers too, for we likewise have one such department where they take in certain 'intelligence.'
> «столько… сколько» + genitive after quantity: A quantity comparison: «столько же… сколько» ('just as much… as'). The measured noun «сплетен» stands in the genitive plural after «столько». «ведь» adds the confiding 'after all'.
> «капельку» — 'a tiny bit': The diminutive accusative of «капля» ('drop') used adverbially: «капельку больше» — 'a tiny droplet more'. The endearing little measure-word lightens the Devil's confession that Hell out-gossips earth.

Так вот эта дикая легенда, еще средних наших веков — не ваших, а наших — и никто-то ей не верит даже и у нас, кроме семипудовых купчих, то есть опять-таки не ваших, а наших купчих.  
Well, this wild legend dates from our Middle Ages — not yours, but ours — and not a soul believes it even among us, except the seven-pood merchants' wives, that is, again, not your merchants' wives but ours.
> Negative concord «никто… не» + «-то»: «никто… не верит» is obligatory negative concord — 'nobody believes'. The added «-то» on «никто» is the emphatic topic clitic ('not a soul'). «ей» (dative) is the object of «верить» ('believe IN it').
> Possessive contrast in genitive: «средних наших веков» — 'our Middle Ages' (genitive of time-origin, possessive «наших» postposed). The insistent «не ваших, а наших» plays on «а» (contrastive) to stress that Hell has its own history mirroring earth's.

Всё, что у вас есть, — есть и у нас, это я уж тебе по дружбе одну тайну нашу открываю, хоть и запрещено.  
Everything you have, we have too; this I'm letting you in on out of friendship, one secret of ours, though it's forbidden.
> «по» + dative; imperfective «открываю»: «по дружбе» — 'out of friendship', «по» + dative in its causal/manner sense. «открываю» is imperfective present, 'I am letting you in on / revealing'. «одну тайну» is the accusative object.
> Concessive «хоть» + short passive «запрещено»: «хоть и» introduces a concession, 'even though'. «запрещено» is the short-form neuter past passive participle of «запретить», used impersonally — '[it is] forbidden'. The Devil shares the secret in defiance of the rule.

Легенда-то эта об рае.  
This legend is about paradise.
> Topic «-то» + zero copula + «об» + prepositional: Verbless: 'this legend [is] about paradise'. «-то» topicalizes «легенда»; «об рае» is «о/об» + prepositional ('about'). «рай/рае» begins with the consonant р, so this is not the euphonic «об» used before vowels; «об рае» is a colloquial/older variant of «об» before a consonant (cf. об стену), the modern standard being «о рае». «рае» is the prepositional of «рай».

Был, дескать, здесь у вас на земле один такой мыслитель и философ, «всё отвергал, законы, совесть, веру», а главное — будущую жизнь.  
There was, they say, here on earth among you a certain thinker and philosopher who 'rejected everything — laws, conscience, faith' — and above all the life to come.
> Reportative «дескать» + existential «был»: «дескать» is the colloquial reportative 'they say, supposedly', framing the legend as hearsay. «был… один такой мыслитель» — 'there was a certain such thinker', «один» meaning 'a certain', «такой» 'such [a one]'.
> «будущая жизнь» — the life to come: «будущая жизнь» ('the future life') is the standard Russian term for the afterlife, life beyond death. The philosopher of the legend had above all rejected this — and is comically confronted with it the moment he dies.

Помер, думал, что прямо во мрак и смерть, ан перед ним — будущая жизнь.  
He died, thinking he was going straight into darkness and death, and lo, before him — the life to come.
> «помереть» — colloquial 'to die': «помер» (from «помереть») is the plain, folksy verb for 'died', earthier than the neutral «умер». It suits the Devil's chatty, story-telling register as he narrates the philosopher's comeuppance.
> «ан» — 'but lo / yet': «ан» is an archaic-colloquial particle of contradicted expectation: 'but no, and yet, lo and behold'. It marks the comic reversal — he expected oblivion, «ан» before him stands the afterlife he denied.

Изумился и вознегодовал: «Это, говорит, противоречит моим убеждениям».  
He was amazed and outraged: 'This,' says he, 'contradicts my convictions.'
> Perfective reflexive + «воз-» prefix: Two perfective past verbs move the action: «изумился» ('was amazed', reflexive) and «вознегодовал» ('grew indignant'). The «воз-» prefix is bookish-elevated, lending the philosopher's indignation a mock-lofty colour.
> «противоречить» + dative: «противоречить» ('to contradict') governs the dative, hence «моим убеждениям» — 'contradicts my convictions'. The dative names what is contradicted, in the philosopher's pompous protest.

Вот его за это и присудили… то есть, видишь, ты меня извини, я ведь передаю сам, что слышал, это только легенда… присудили, видишь, его, чтобы прошел во мраке квадриллион километров (у нас ведь теперь на километры), и когда кончит этот квадриллион, то тогда ему отворят райские двери и всё простят…  
So for that he was sentenced… that is, you see — forgive me, I'm only passing on what I heard myself, it's only a legend — he was sentenced, you see, to walk a quadrillion kilometers through the dark (we go by kilometers now, you know), and when he'd finished that quadrillion, then the gates of paradise would be opened to him and everything forgiven…
> Agentless «присудили» + «за» accusative: «присудили» ('they sentenced') is an agentless plural — 'he was sentenced'. «за это» ('for this', «за» + accusative) gives the ground of the sentence; «его» is the animate-accusative object, fronted.
> «чтобы» + past-form purpose; accusative of extent: «чтобы прошёл» uses the past form for the content of the sentence ('that he walk…'). «квадриллион километров» is the accusative of distance covered; «километров» is genitive plural governed by the large numeral.
> Agentless future + dative beneficiary: «отворят… простят» are agentless perfective futures ('they will open… forgive', i.e. 'will be opened/forgiven'). «ему» is the dative beneficiary; «всё» the accusative object of «простят». «отворят» («отворить») is the bookish 'to open [doors]'.

— А какие муки у вас на том свете, кроме-то квадриллиона?  
"And what torments do you have in the next world, besides the quadrillion?"
> «у вас» locative + «кроме» + genitive: «у вас на том свете» — 'with you in the next world', «у вас» locating the question in the Devil's realm. «кроме квадриллиона» is «кроме» ('besides') + genitive; the «-то» clitic on «кроме-то» adds insistent topic colour.
> «тот свет» — the other world: «тот свет» (literally 'that light/world') is the idiomatic 'the next world, the afterlife', opposed to «этот свет», the world of the living. Ivan's grim curiosity about its «муки» ('torments') drives him to press the Devil for more.

— с каким-то странным оживлением прервал Иван.  
Ivan broke in with a kind of strange animation.
> Indefinite «какой-то» + instrumental of manner: «каким-то странным оживлением» is instrumental of manner ('with a kind of strange animation'), and «какой-то» ('some kind of') flags the indefinite, hard-to-name quality. «прервал» is perfective 'broke in, interrupted'.

— Какие муки?  
"What torments?
> Interrogative «какой» as echo: «какой» ('what kind of, which') agrees with «муки» (feminine plural) — 'What torments?'. The Devil echoes Ivan's question back as he prepares to answer, the bare verbless phrase typical of clipped dialogue.

Ах, и не спрашивай: прежде было и так и сяк, а ныне всё больше нравственные пошли, «угрызения совести» и весь этот вздор.  
Ah, don't even ask: once it was this way and that, but nowadays it's mostly the moral kind that come — 'pangs of conscience' and all that rubbish.
> «и так и сяк» — this way and that: A fixed colloquial pairing meaning 'in all sorts of ways, now one way now another'. «сяк» survives almost only in this idiom and a few set phrases; it is the old correlative of «так».
> «ныне» — nowadays: An elevated, bookish-archaic word for 'now / today', felt as loftier than plain «теперь». The devil drops it in to give his chatter a faux-solemn, sermonising flavour.
> «пошли» as inceptive perfective: The perfective past «пошли» here means not 'walked' but 'started coming / set in', a common idiomatic use of «пойти» for the onset of a phenomenon ('the moral kind started cropping up'). The bare adjective «нравственные» stands in for «нравственные [угрызения]».
> «вздор» — nonsense, rubbish: A dismissive bookish noun for 'nonsense, twaddle'. It sharpens the devil's mocking tone toward the modern fashion of moral scruple.

Это тоже от вас завелось, от «смягчения ваших нравов».  
That too got started thanks to you, thanks to 'the softening of your manners.'
> Reflexive «-ся» as 'came into being': «завелось» (from «завестись») is a middle/inchoative reflexive: 'got started, sprang up' of its own accord, with no agent. The «-сь» turns the transitive «завести» (to start something) into an intransitive event.
> «от» + genitive for source/cause: Twice here «от» governs the genitive («от вас», «от смягчения») to name the origin or cause — 'thanks to you', 'from the softening'. The preposition «от» always takes the genitive.
> «смягчение нравов» — softening of manners: A period catchphrase of the Enlightenment and the era of the Great Reforms: the supposed civilising 'softening of morals/manners'. The devil quotes it ironically, blaming humanitarian progress for the new plague of conscience.

Ну и кто же выиграл, выиграли одни бессовестные, потому что ж ему за угрызения совести, когда и совести-то нет вовсе.  
Well, and who came out ahead? Only the unscrupulous came out ahead, because what are pangs of conscience to a man when he has no conscience at all?
> Particle «же» and emphatic word order: «же» leans on the question word «кто» to press it ('and who, pray, came out ahead?'); the answer then fronts the verb «выиграли» before its subject «одни бессовестные» for rhetorical weight. «одни» here means 'only, none but'.
> Genitive of negation with «нет»: «нет совести» puts the absent thing in the genitive — the obligatory genitive of a negated existential ('there is no conscience'). The clitic «-то» on «совести» topicalises it ('conscience, that is'), and «вовсе» reinforces 'not at all'.
> «бессовестный» — without conscience: A transparent compound, «без» (without) + «совесть» (conscience), used here as a substantivised adjective: 'the unscrupulous, the shameless'. It plays directly against «совесть» repeated through the passage.

Зато пострадали люди порядочные, у которых еще оставалась совесть и честь…  
Meanwhile it was the decent people who suffered, the ones who still had some conscience and honor left in them…
> Relative «который» + the «у + genitive» possessive: «у которых… оставалась» is the Russian way to say 'who still had': the relative «который» stands in the genitive after «у» to mark the possessor, while the thing possessed («совесть и честь») is the grammatical subject of «оставалась».
> «порядочные люди» — decent folk: «порядочный» means 'respectable, honest, of integrity' — a key 19th-century social value here set against «бессовестные». Substantivised, «люди порядочные» = 'the decent sort'.

То-то вот реформы-то на неприготовленную-то почву, да еще списанные с чужих учреждений, — один только вред!  
That's just it: reforms dropped onto unprepared ground, and copied besides from foreign institutions — nothing but harm comes of it!
> Repeated topicalising clitic «-то»: The devil sticks «-то» onto «реформы» and «почву» to needle the topic with a knowing, conversational nudge ('reforms, you see… onto unprepared ground, mind you'). Piling up «-то» is a hallmark of his folksy, insinuating register.
> Past passive participle «списанные»: «списанные» is a past passive participle ('copied, transcribed') agreeing with «реформы», with the source in «с + genitive». Such participial modifiers compress a whole который-clause ('reforms that were copied from…') into one bookish phrase.

Древний огонек-то лучше бы.  
The old-fashioned little fire would have been better.
> Particle «бы» for the counterfactual wish: «лучше бы» with the elided verb 'to be' makes a hypothetical/optative: 'would have been better'. The particle «бы» carries the whole irrealis force, no separate conjugated form needed.
> «огонёк» — the diminutive of «огонь»: «огонёк» is the affectionate diminutive 'little fire' (suffix «-ёк»). Coupled with «древний» ('ancient, old-time'), it cosily evokes the old hellfire — the devil missing the good old-fashioned torments before conscience came into fashion.

Ну, так вот этот осужденный на квадриллион постоял, посмотрел и лег поперек дороги: «Не хочу идти, из принципа не пойду!» Возьми душу русского просвещенного атеиста и смешай с душой пророка Ионы, будировавшего во чреве китове три дня и три ночи, — вот тебе характер этого улегшегося на дороге мыслителя.  
Well, so this fellow, sentenced to the quadrillion, stood there, looked around, and lay down crosswise in the road: 'I won't go, on principle I refuse to go!' Take the soul of an enlightened Russian atheist and mix it with the soul of the prophet Jonah, who sulked three days and three nights in the belly of the whale — there you have the character of this thinker stretched out across the road.
> A chain of perfective pasts: Three perfective verbs in a row move the little story forward event by event: he 'stood a while' (delimitative «по-»), 'glanced', and 'lay down'. The «по-» prefix on the first two bounds the action to a short spell.
> Perfective imperatives addressed to the reader: «Возьми» and «смешай» are singular imperatives ('take… and mix'), a recipe-like address to Ivan/the reader. Built from the perfective stems, they call for a single completed act.
> Past active participle + Church-Slavonic locative: «будировавшего» is a past active participle ('who sulked') agreeing with «пророка Ионы» in the genitive. The phrase «во чреве китове» is frozen Church Slavonic — note the old locative ending «-е» on «китове» (= modern «в чреве кита», 'in the whale's belly').
> «будировать» — to sulk (a Gallicism): From French 'bouder' (to sulk); in 19th-century Russian salon speech «будировать» meant 'to sulk, be in a huff'. Its learned, Frenchified ring is part of the devil's affected diction.
> Reflexive past active participle «улегшегося»: «улегшегося» is a past active participle of the reflexive «улечься» ('who had lain down / stretched out'), genitive to agree with «мыслителя». It packs the whole image of the recumbent thinker into a single modifier before its noun.

— На чем же он там улегся?  
— And what did he stretch out on there?
> «на чём» — prepositional of «что»: «на чём» is the prepositional of the interrogative «что» governed by «на» ('on what?'). «же» adds an insistent edge to the question, and «улёгся» is the perfective past 'lay/stretched himself out' (with the fleeting vowel «-ё-» of «улечься»).

— Ну, там, верно, было на чем. Ты не смеешься?  
— Well, there was surely something to lie on. You're not laughing?
> Impersonal «было на чём» — 'there was something to lie on': An idiomatic subjectless construction: «было на чём [лечь]» = 'there was something to lie on'. The infinitive is left understood; «на чём» functions as an indefinite 'on something', neutral neuter «было» supplying the existential 'there was'.
> Reflexive-only «смеяться»: «смеяться» (to laugh) exists only in the «-ся» form — there is no «*смеять». Such verbs (бояться, надеяться) wear «-ся» permanently rather than as a live reflexive marker.

— Молодец!  
— Splendid!
> «Молодец!» — well done, good for you: An exclamation of approval, 'good lad! / splendid!', literally 'fine young fellow'. Used freely to praise a clever turn, here Ivan applauding the devil's tale.

— крикнул Иван, всё в том же странном оживлении.  
— cried Ivan, still in that same strange animation.
> «в том же» — demonstrative + «же» 'the same': «тот же» means 'the very same'; here in the prepositional «в том же… оживлении» ('in that same animation'). «всё» as an adverb means 'still, all the while', stressing the continuity of Ivan's feverish state.

Теперь он слушал с каким-то неожиданным любопытством.  
Now he was listening with a kind of unexpected curiosity.
> «с» + instrumental of manner; indefinite «какой-то»: «с… любопытством» uses the instrumental after «с» to express the manner of listening ('with curiosity'). «какой-то» ('a kind of, some sort of') marks the quality as real but hard to pin down — a favourite Dostoevskian hedge.

— Ну что ж, и теперь лежит?  
— Well then, is he lying there still?
> Imperfective present «лежит» for an ongoing state: «лежит» is imperfective present — a continuing posture, 'is (still) lying'. The «и» here means 'even/still now?' and «что ж» (= «что же») is a softened conversational opener, 'well then'.

— То-то и есть, что нет.  
— That's exactly it — he isn't.
> «То-то и есть» — that's just the point: A set conversational formula meaning 'that's exactly it / there's the rub'. Followed by «что нет» it lands with a neat twist: 'that's just it — he isn't [lying there]'.

Он пролежал почти тысячу лет, а потом встал и пошел.  
He lay there nearly a thousand years, and then he got up and walked on.
> Delimitative «про-» then perfective sequence: «пролежал» (perfective with «про-») bounds a stretch of time — 'lay for a whole [thousand years]'. It then yields to two perfective events «встал и пошёл» ('got up and set off'), the imperfective duration giving way to perfective action.

— Вот осел-то!  
— What an ass!
> Exclamatory «вот… -то!»: «вот… -то!» frames an exclamation pointing at the absurd: 'what an ass!'. «вот» presents, the clitic «-то» on «осёл» underlines the verdict with relish.
> «осёл» — ass, fool: Literally 'donkey', figuratively 'fool, blockhead' — exactly as in English. A blunt insult flung at the stubborn thinker who lay there a thousand years for nothing.

— воскликнул Иван, нервно захохотав, всё как бы что-то усиленно соображая.  
— exclaimed Ivan, laughing nervously, still as though he were working something out with great effort.
> Two gerunds: perfective «-в» and imperfective «-я»: «захохотав» is a perfective past gerund ('having burst out laughing'), the «за-» marking the onset of laughter; «соображая» is an imperfective present gerund ('working out, all the while'). The pair fixes simultaneous attendant circumstances around «воскликнул».
> «соображать» — to figure out, reckon: 'To grasp, work out, put two and two together.' «усиленно соображая» = 'straining to figure something out' — Ivan groping toward the realisation that the anecdote is his own.

— Не всё ли равно, лежать ли вечно или идти квадриллион верст?  
— Isn't it all the same whether he lies there forever or walks the quadrillion versts?
> Interrogative «ли» (twice) and the «всё равно» idiom: «не всё ли равно» = 'isn't it all the same?', with «ли» fronting the focus into a rhetorical question. A second «ли» on «лежать ли… или идти» sets up the 'whether… or' alternative. Both verbs are imperfective infinitives naming open-ended processes.

Ведь это биллион лет ходу?  
Why, that's a billion years of walking, isn't it?
> Appealing particle «ведь» + genitive «ходу»: «ведь» appeals to shared sense — 'why, after all, that's…'. «лет» and «ходу» are genitives: «лет» as the genitive plural counted by «биллион», «ходу» a partitive-style genitive 'of walking'. The whole is a verbless rhetorical question.

— Даже гораздо больше, вот только нет карандашика и бумажки, а то бы рассчитать можно.  
— Far more than that, in fact; only there's no pencil and paper to hand, or it could be reckoned up.
> Genitive of negation + counterfactual «а то бы»: «нет карандашика и бумажки» negates existence, forcing both nouns into the genitive. «а то бы… можно» is an elliptical counterfactual ('otherwise it could be reckoned'), where «бы» alone signals the hypothetical, the verb 'to be' understood.
> Diminutives «карандашик», «бумажка»: Both are diminutives — 'a bit of pencil', 'a scrap of paper' (suffixes «-ик», «-ка»). The cosy, throwaway smallness suits the devil's chatty understatement about the cosmic arithmetic he can't quite do.

Да ведь он давно уже дошел, и тут-то и начинается анекдот.  
But the thing is he arrived long ago, and that's just where the anecdote begins.
> Stacked particles «да ведь» + perfective «дошёл»: «да ведь» combines the resumptive «да» ('but, and') with appealing «ведь» ('after all') to open with insistence. «дошёл» is the perfective of «доходить/дойти» — a completed arrival ('he got there'), the «до-» prefix giving 'reaching all the way'.
> «анекдот» — not 'anecdote' but a tale/story: A false friend: 19th-century «анекдот» means a curious or pointed little story, a 'piece, a yarn', not necessarily funny. Here it names the whole quadrillion parable.

— Как дошел!  
— What, he arrived!
> Echo-exclamation: fronted «как» + perfective «дошёл»: «Как дошёл!» is not a 'how' question but an astonished echo of the devil's word — 'What, he arrived?!'. The interrogative «как» is fronted for the incredulous repetition, and perfective «дошёл» picks up the completed 'arrived' just stated.

Да где ж он биллион лет взял?  
But where did he get a billion years from?
> «где же» + the «взять» idiom for 'come by': «где взял?» idiomatically means 'where did he get [them] from?'. «ж» (= «же») on «где» sharpens the challenge, and «биллион лет» pairs the numeral with its genitive-plural «лет».

— Да ведь ты думаешь всё про нашу теперешнюю землю!  
— You keep thinking about our present-day earth!
> Imperfective «думаешь всё» — keep on thinking: «думаешь… всё» pairs the imperfective present with adverbial «всё» ('all the while, keep on') to mean 'you keep thinking'. «про + accusative» ('about') is the colloquial counterpart of «о + prepositional».
> «теперешний» — present-day: A colloquial adjective built off «теперь» ('now') meaning 'present, current'. Slightly homely in flavour next to bookish «нынешний».

Да ведь теперешняя земля, может, сама-то биллион раз повторялась; ну, отживала, леденела, трескалась, рассыпалась, разлагалась на составные начала, опять вода, яже бе над твердию, потом опять комета, опять солнце, опять из солнца земля — ведь это развитие, может, уже бесконечно раз повторяется, и всё в одном и том же виде, до черточки. Скучища неприличнейшая…  
But the present earth may itself have repeated a billion times; it lived out its span, froze over, cracked, crumbled to pieces, broke down into its constituent elements, then again the waters that were above the firmament, then again a comet, again a sun, again from the sun an earth — and this whole development may already have repeated an infinite number of times, and always in one and the same form, down to the last little dash. A tedium too unseemly for words…
> Intensive «сама» + clitic «-то»; imperfective «повторялась»: «сама» ('itself') intensifies «земля», with «-то» nudging it as the topic. The imperfective reflexive past «повторялась» ('used to repeat, kept recurring') frames the cosmic cycle as habitual, not a single event.
> A cascade of imperfective verbs: Five imperfective pasts in a row — 'lived out its span, froze, cracked, crumbled, decomposed' — paint the earth's death as a drawn-out, repeating process. Three carry «-ся/-сь» (intransitive change of state); the imperfective makes each a stage rather than a one-off.
> Church-Slavonic relic «яже бе над твердию»: A direct Church-Slavonic quotation (Genesis 1:7): «яже» is the Slavonic relative 'which', «бе» the old imperfect 'was' (modern «была»), and «над твердию» 'above the firmament', with the archaic instrumental «-ию». The sacred cosmology jars deliberately against the devil's nihilist cosmic recurrence.
> Augmentative «скучища» + superlative «-ейший»: «скучища» is an augmentative-pejorative of «скука» (suffix «-ища»): not just boredom but 'monstrous tedium'. «неприличнейшая» is the bookish superlative in «-ейший» ('most indecent/unseemly'). Together: 'a tedium too unseemly for words'.

— Ну-ну, что же вышло, когда дошел?  
— Come, come, what came of it when he arrived?
> Perfective «вышло» + «когда»-clause: «вышло» (perfective of «выходить/выйти») here means 'came of it, turned out'. The «когда»-clause with perfective «дошёл» pins the result to a single completed moment ('when he arrived'). «Ну-ну» is a coaxing 'come, come'.

— А только что ему отворили в рай, и он вступил, то, не пробыв еще двух секунд — и это по часам, по часам (хотя часы его, по-моему, давно должны были бы разложиться на составные элементы у него в кармане дорогой) , — не пробыв двух секунд, воскликнул, что за эти две секунды не только квадриллион, но квадриллион квадриллионов пройти можно, да еще возвысив в квадриллионную степень!  
— No sooner had they opened paradise to him and he had stepped in than, before he had been there even two seconds — and this is by the clock, by the clock (though his watch, to my mind, ought long since to have broken down into its constituent elements in his pocket on the way) — before two seconds were out, he cried that for these two seconds one could traverse not only a quadrillion but a quadrillion of quadrillions, raised besides to the quadrillionth power!
> «только что… то» — 'no sooner… than': The correlative «только что… то» frames 'no sooner had they opened… and he stepped in, than…'. «отворили» is an impersonal-style 3rd-person plural ('they opened' = 'paradise was opened to him'), with «ему» dative for the one to whom it opens.
> Perfective gerund «пробыв» + genitive of negation: «пробыв» is a perfective past gerund ('having stayed/been'); negated, «не пробыв… двух секунд» throws its object into the genitive ('not having spent even two seconds'). «двух секунд» is genitive after «два».
> Counterfactual «должны были бы»: «должны были бы разложиться» stacks the modal «должны» with past «были» and the particle «бы» for a counterfactual obligation: 'ought (by rights) to have broken down'. The «бы» turns plain duty into 'should have, but didn't'.
> Perfective gerund «возвысив» of result: «возвысив» ('having raised') is a perfective past gerund tacked on as an afterthought — 'and raised besides to the quadrillionth power'. «в… степень» (accusative) is the mathematical 'to the power'.

Словом, пропел «осанну», да и пересолил, так что иные там, с образом мыслей поблагороднее, так даже руки ему не хотели подать на первых порах: слишком-де уж стремительно в консерваторы перескочил.  
In short, he sang his 'hosanna,' and laid it on so thick that some there, those of a nobler cast of mind, would not even shake his hand at first: he had leapt over to the conservatives a shade too eagerly.
> Substantivised «иные» + softened comparative «поблагороднее»: «иные» ('some, certain others') stands as a noun. «поблагороднее» is a comparative ('nobler') with the «по-» prefix that softens it to 'somewhat nobler, a touch more noble' — a common colloquial mitigation.
> Genitive of negation: «руки… не хотели подать»: Under negation the object «руку» shifts to genitive «руки» ('would not give him their hand'), and «ему» is the dative recipient. The whole idiom «подать руку» means to shake hands / acknowledge socially.
> «пересолить» — to overdo it: Literally 'to over-salt'; figuratively 'to lay it on too thick, overdo it'. The atheist's hosanna was so excessive that the nobler spirits recoiled.
> Reportative particle «-де»: The clitic «-де» marks reported speech — 'he had, so they said, leapt over too eagerly', distancing the narrator from the claim (like «мол»). «уж» here is the intensifying particle, and «перескочил» is perfective 'jumped across'.

Русская натура.  
The Russian temperament.
> «натура» — temperament, nature: «натура» (a Latinate borrowing) here means inborn 'temperament, character'. «Русская натура» — 'the Russian temperament' — names the extremism the devil has just described: all-or-nothing, swinging from denial to zealotry.

Повторяю: легенда.  
I repeat: it's a legend.
> «легенда» — legend, tale: The devil insists the quadrillion story is merely a 'legend' he is passing on. The label half-disowns it, in keeping with his slippery refusal to be pinned down as a real being.

За что купил, за то и продал.  
I'm passing it on for what it cost me, no more.
> Proverb: «За что купил, за то и продал»: A folk proverb — 'I sell it for what I bought it for' — meaning 'I pass it on for what it's worth; don't blame me if it's untrue'. The «за что… за то» correlative («for which… for that») is the proverb's backbone.

Так вот еще какие там у нас обо всех этих предметах понятия ходят.  
So those are the sorts of notions that still circulate among us about all these matters.
> Figurative «ходить» — notions 'circulate': «понятия ходят» uses the multidirectional motion verb «ходить» figuratively: ideas 'go about, circulate'. «какие… понятия» ('what sorts of notions') frames it as an exclamatory marvel.
> «у нас» 'among us' + «о» + prepositional: «у нас» (lit. 'at us') means 'in our parts, among us' — here the other world the devil hails from. «о всех этих предметах» uses «о» + prepositional for 'about all these matters'.

— Я тебя поймал!  
— I've caught you out!
> Perfective «поймал» — a clinching catch: «поймал» (perfective of «ловить/поймать») marks a single decisive result: 'I've caught you (out)!'. Ivan seizes on the triumph of having traced the tale to himself.

— вскричал Иван с какою-то почти детскою радостью, как бы уже окончательно что-то припомнив, — этот анекдот о квадриллионе лет — это я сам сочинил!  
— cried Ivan with an almost childlike joy, as though something had finally come back to him for good, — this anecdote about the quadrillion of years — I made it up myself!
> Archaic instrumental ending «-ою»: «какою-то… детскою радостью» shows the older bookish feminine instrumental «-ою» (vs modern «-ой») — 'with an almost childlike joy'. Dostoevsky favours the fuller «-ою» for its 19th-century literary cadence.
> Perfective gerund «припомнив» + «как бы»: «припомнив» is a perfective past gerund ('having recalled') giving the prior circumstance of his cry. «как бы» ('as if, as though') hedges the certainty, a tic of Dostoevskian narration where inner states are never quite definite.
> Intensive «сам» — 'I myself made it up': «сам» ('-self') drives home the agent: not borrowed, but his own invention. The fronted «это… я сам» throws the whole stress onto Ivan's authorship — the crux of the scene's horror.

Мне было тогда семнадцать лет, я был в гимназии… я этот анекдот тогда сочинил и рассказал одному товарищу, фамилия его Коровкин, это было в Москве…  
I was seventeen at the time, I was at the gymnasium… I made up that anecdote then and told it to a schoolfellow, his name was Korovkin, it was in Moscow…
> Dative-subject age construction: Russian states age impersonally: «мне было… семнадцать лет» ('to me there were seventeen years'), the person in the dative, no nominative subject. «лет» is the genitive plural required after the numeral 17.

Анекдот этот так характерен, что я не мог его ниоткуда взять.  
The anecdote is so distinctive that I couldn't have taken it from anywhere.
> Negative concord: «не… ниоткуда»: «ниоткуда» ('from nowhere') is an «ни»-word that still requires «не» on the verb — the double negation 'I couldn't have taken it from anywhere'. Russian negative concord stacks «не» and «ни» to a single negative meaning.
> Short adjective «характерен»: «так характерен» uses the predicative short form ('so distinctive/telling') — 'so characteristic [of me] that…'. Short adjectives carry exactly this assertion of a defining quality.

Я его было забыл… но он мне припомнился теперь бессознательно — мне самому, а не ты рассказал!  
I had all but forgotten it… but it has come back to me now without my willing it — to me, myself, and not because you told it!
> The particle «было» of an interrupted action: «было» after a perfective past marks an action begun or all-but-completed, then reversed or undone: 'I had (just about) forgotten it [but…]'. This special «было» is a distinctly Russian nuance of a near-miss outcome.
> Reflexive «припомнился» + dative experiencer: «припомнился» (reflexive) makes the memory the subject and the rememberer the dative «мне»: 'it recalled itself to me' = 'it came back to me'. The «-ся» turns active recall into something happening to Ivan, underscoring his loss of control.

Как тысячи вещей припоминаются иногда бессознательно, даже когда казнить везут… во сне припомнился.  
Just as a thousand things come back to one unbidden, even when one is being carted off to execution… it came back to me in a dream.
> Impersonal 3rd-plural «везут» + infinitive of purpose: «казнить везут» = 'they are carting [one] off to execute' — an agentless 3rd-person plural ('they') for an impersonal action, with the bare infinitive «казнить» giving the purpose. No subject is named; it is the generic 'when one is being taken to be executed'.
> Reflexive «припоминаются» as middle/passive: «припоминаются» (imperfective reflexive) — 'come back to one, get recalled' — is a middle/passive use of «-ся»: the things are remembered rather than someone actively remembering them. «иногда» and the imperfective frame it as a recurring, involuntary phenomenon.

Вот ты и есть этот сон!  
And you are that very dream!
> Emphatic «вот… и есть»: «вот… и есть» is an emphatic identity construction — 'and so YOU are that very dream!'. The rare explicit present-tense «есть» (usually dropped) is retained for force, clinching Ivan's accusation.

Ты сон и не существуешь!  
You are a dream and you do not exist!
> Zero copula vs negated verb «не существуешь»: «Ты сон» needs no copula in the present ('you [are] a dream'), the nominative complement standing bare. The second clause then negates a full verb — «не существуешь» ('you do not exist'), with «не» directly before it.

— По азарту, с каким ты отвергаешь меня, — засмеялся джентльмен, — я убеждаюсь, что ты все-таки в меня веришь.  
— By the very fury with which you reject me, — the gentleman laughed, — I'm convinced that you do believe in me all the same.
> «по» + dative of inference; relative «с каким»: «по азарту» ('by/from the ardour') uses «по» + dative to mean 'judging by'. The relative «с каким» ('with which') agrees with «азарт» but takes instrumental case for its own role ('the fury with which you reject me').
> Reflexive «убеждаюсь» + «что»-clause: «убеждаюсь» (reflexive) — 'I become convinced' — introduces a reported «что»-clause of fact. «всё-таки» ('all the same, after all') concedes the paradox: Ivan's very vehemence proves his belief.
> «джентльмен» — the 'gentleman': The narrator's wry tag for the devil, an English borrowing carrying a whiff of shabby-genteel pretension. It fits his self-presentation as a down-at-heel, sponging Russian gentleman rather than a horned fiend.

— Нимало!  
— Not in the least!
> «нимало» — not in the least: An emphatic bookish negative adverb, 'not at all, not a whit', built on «ни» + «мало». A clipped, vehement refusal.

На сотую долю не верю!  
I don't believe in you by so much as a hundredth part!
> «на» + accusative of measure with negation: «на сотую долю не верю» = 'I don't believe by [even] a hundredth part', «на + accusative» giving the extent/measure of the (negated) belief. «сотую» is the ordinal 'hundredth' agreeing with «долю».

— Но на тысячную веришь.  
— But by a thousandth you do.
> Ellipsis and topic contrast with «но»: The devil answers in clipped ellipsis — «на тысячную [долю] веришь» ('by a thousandth you do [believe]'), the noun «долю» understood from before. «но» marks the gentle contrastive correction.

Гомеопатические-то доли ведь самые, может быть, сильные.  
Homeopathic doses, after all, are perhaps the very strongest.
> Clitic «-то», «ведь», and superlative «самые сильные»: «-то» topicalises «доли» ('homeopathic doses, those…'), «ведь» appeals to shared sense ('after all'), and «самые сильные» is the analytic superlative ('the very strongest', «самый» declining with the adjective). «может быть» softens to 'perhaps'.

Признайся, что веришь, ну на десятитысячную… — Ни одной минуты!  
Admit that you believe — well, by a ten-thousandth… — Not for one minute!
> Reflexive imperative «признайся» + «что»-clause: «признайся» is the imperative of the reflexive «признаться» ('confess, admit'), the «-ся» built into the verb. It governs a «что»-clause reporting what is to be admitted.
> Emphatic genitive «ни одной минуты»: «ни одной минуты» — 'not for a single minute' — uses «ни» + the genitive «одной минуты» as an absolute denial. The «ни… одной» pattern ('not even one') is the standard intensive negation, the «не верю» understood.

— яростно вскричал Иван.  
— Ivan cried furiously.
> «яростно» — furiously: 'Furiously, with rage' (from «ярость», 'fury'). The narrator marks Ivan's escalating vehemence — the very heat that, the devil claims, betrays his half-belief.

— Я, впрочем, желал бы в тебя поверить!  
— And yet I should like to believe in you!
> Conditional «желал бы» as a softened wish: «желал бы» (past «желал» + «бы») is the polite/wistful conditional — 'I should like, I would wish'. «впрочем» ('and yet, however') marks the sudden, telling reversal of Ivan's denial.

— странно вдруг прибавил он.  
— he suddenly added, strangely.
> Inverted dialogue tag «прибавил он»: In speech tags Russian routinely inverts verb before subject — «прибавил он» ('added he'). «прибавил» (perfective 'added [a word]') with adverbs «странно вдруг» fronted lends the addition its abrupt, uncanny quality.

— Эге!  
— Aha!
> «Эге!» — Aha! / Oho!: A colloquial interjection of dawning realisation or sly triumph, 'aha!, oho!'. The devil pounces on Ivan's slip into wishing to believe.

Вот, однако, признание!  
There's a confession for you!
> «вот… !» presentative + parenthetical «однако»: «вот… признание!» presents the prize triumphantly — 'there's a confession (for you)!'. «однако» wedged in as a parenthetical means 'though, after all', registering the devil's mock surprise at Ivan's admission.

Но я добр, я тебе и тут помогу.  
But I'm kind, I'll help you out here too.
> Short adjective «добр» as predicate: «добр» is the predicative short form of «добрый» ('I am kind'). The short adjective in the predicate is the bookish, assertive choice — 'I am kind [by nature]' — fitting the devil's smooth self-portrait.
> Perfective future «помогу» + dative «тебе»: «помогу» is the perfective future ('I will help [you out]'), conjugated like a present but with completed future sense. «тебе» is the dative object that «помогать/помочь» governs, and «и тут» means 'here too'.

Слушай: это я тебя поймал, а не ты меня!  
Listen: it's I who caught you, not you who caught me!
> Cleft emphasis «это я… а не ты» + contrastive «а»: The «это я… а не ты» cleft throws full stress onto the agent: 'it's I who caught you, not you [who caught] me'. The contrastive «а» («а не ты») pivots the opposition — the very hinge of the devil's reversal.

Я нарочно тебе твой же анекдот рассказал, который ты уже забыл, чтобы ты окончательно во мне разуверился.  
I told you your own anecdote on purpose — the one you'd already forgotten — so that you'd lose all faith in me for good.
> Possessive «твой же» + relative «который»: «твой же» ('your own, your very') uses «же» to insist on the possessor. «который» opens the relative clause ('which you'd already forgotten'), taking accusative as the object of «забыл» though agreeing in gender/number with «анекдот».
> Purpose clause «чтобы» + past-form irrealis: «чтобы ты… разуверился» is a purpose clause — «чтобы» plus the past-form verb (the obligatory irrealis after «чтобы»): 'so that you would lose all faith'. «разувериться во мне» ('to lose belief in me') is the reflexive of disillusionment.

— Лжешь!  
— You're lying!
> Imperfective present «лжёшь»: «лжёшь» (2nd sg. of «лгать», 'to lie') is a bald imperfective present — 'you're lying!'. Note the stem alternation «лг-» → «лж-» in this conjugation; the short, present-tense form lands as an accusation in the act.

Цель твоего появления уверить меня, что ты есь.  
The purpose of your appearing is to persuade me that you exist.
> Zero-copula equation + infinitive predicate: «цель… уверить» equates a noun subject with an infinitive predicate across an unspoken 'is' — 'the purpose… is to persuade'. «твоего появления» is the genitive of 'of your appearing'.
> Colloquial/archaic «есь» for «есть»: «ты есь» is a clipped, archaic-colloquial form of «ты есть» ('that you exist'). Retaining the present 'to be' at all is already emphatic; the worn-down «есь» gives it an old, almost folk-incantatory ring.

— Именно.  
— Precisely.
> «Именно» — precisely, exactly: An emphatic affirmative, 'precisely, just so'. The devil coolly concedes Ivan's charge, owning his aim to make Ivan believe in him.

Но колебания, но беспокойство, но борьба веры и неверия — это ведь такая иногда мука для совестливого человека, вот как ты, что лучше повеситься.  
But the wavering, the unrest, the struggle of belief and unbelief — that, you see, is sometimes such torment for a conscientious man like you that hanging oneself would be better.
> Anaphoric «но» — rhetorical accumulation: The repeated «но» before each noun ('but the wavering, but the unrest, but the struggle') is a rhetorical anaphora piling up the torments — a sermon-like cadence, not three separate contrasts.
> «такая… что» result + «ведь»: «такая мука… что лучше повеситься» is a 'such… that' result construction ('such torment that it'd be better to hang oneself'). «ведь» pleads shared understanding, and «повеситься» is the reflexive 'to hang oneself'.
> «совестливый» — conscientious, tender of conscience: From «совесть» (conscience): a person acutely governed by conscience, 'scrupulous, conscience-ridden'. The devil names exactly Ivan's affliction — too much conscience to rest in either faith or unbelief.

Я именно, зная, что ты капельку веришь в меня, подпустил тебе неверия уже окончательно, рассказав этот анекдот.  
Knowing that you believe in me a little, I deliberately instilled in you a final dose of unbelief by telling that anecdote.
> Imperfective gerund «зная» + genitive object «неверия»: «зная» is an imperfective present gerund ('knowing'), framing the simultaneous motive. «подпустил… неверия» takes a partitive genitive ('let in some unbelief'), and «капельку» ('a wee drop') is an adverbial diminutive.
> Perfective gerund «рассказав» of means: «рассказав» ('by telling') is a perfective past gerund expressing the means by which the devil instilled the unbelief — 'by having told that anecdote'. It shares the main subject and closes the sentence with the decisive act.

Я тебя вожу между верой и безверием попеременно, и тут у меня своя цель.  
I lead you to and fro between faith and unfaith, and in this I have a purpose of my own.
> Multidirectional «вожу» + «между» + instrumental: «вожу» is the multidirectional motion verb «водить» ('lead back and forth'), here figurative — leading Ivan to and fro. «между верой и безверием» uses «между» + instrumental for 'between faith and unfaith'.
> Reflexive possessive «своя» + «у меня»: «своя цель» ('a purpose of my own') uses the reflexive possessive «свой», pointing back to the clause's subject (the devil himself). «у меня… цель» is the «у + genitive» possessive, 'I have a purpose'.

Новая метода-с: ведь когда ты во мне совсем разуверишься, то тотчас меня же в глаза начнешь уверять, что я не сон, а есмь в самом деле, я тебя уж знаю; вот я тогда и достигну цели.  
A new method, sir: when you've lost all faith in me, you'll set at once to assuring me to my face that I'm no dream but truly am, in very fact — I know you by now; and that is when I'll attain my end.
> «метода» with the deferential -с: «метода» is an older feminine variant of «метод» (method), common in 19th-century speech. The clipped «-с» tacked on is the «словоерс» — a fossilized «сударь» (sir) that signals servile or mock-deferential politeness, exactly the devil's register here.
> Perfective futures chaining the conditional: «разуверишься» and «начнёшь» are perfective verbs conjugated like a present, but they carry future meaning — 'once you lose faith… you'll begin.' Russian uses this simple future to plot a sequence of completed events, here keyed by «когда… то…» ('when… then…').
> The appealing particle «ведь»: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'after all, you know' — drawing Ivan into the devil's reasoning as if it were obvious. It has no English word of its own; we hear it only as a coaxing tone.
> «есмь» — the archaic 'I am': «есмь» is the Church-Slavonic first-person form of «быть» (to be), long dead in ordinary Russian, which drops the present copula entirely. The devil uses it for solemn, almost scriptural weight: 'I am, in very fact' — a mocking echo of God's 'I AM.'

А цель моя благородная.  
And my end is a noble one.
> Zero copula and the contrastive «а»: There is no verb 'is' — the present-tense copula is simply absent, so «цель моя благородная» reads 'my end [is] a noble one.' The opening «а» is the mild contrastive conjunction, shifting topic with a faint 'and yet' rather than a real 'but.'

Я в тебя только крохотное семечко веры брошу, а из него вырастет дуб — да еще такой дуб, что ты, сидя на дубе-то, в «отцы пустынники и в жены непорочны» пожелаешь вступить; ибо тебе оченно, оченно того втайне хочется, акриды кушать будешь, спасаться в пустыню потащишься!  
I'll cast into you only a tiny seed of faith, and from it an oak will grow — and such an oak that, sitting up in it, you'll long to join 'the fathers of the desert and the blameless wives'; for you want it dreadfully, dreadfully, in your secret heart — you'll take to eating locusts, you'll go dragging yourself off into the wilderness to be saved!
> «крохотное семечко» — a tiny little seed: «семечко» is the diminutive of «семя» (seed), and «крохотное» ('teeny') doubles the smallness with affection. The phrase plants the Gospel parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13) in the devil's mouth.
> Gerund «сидя» + the topic clitic «-то»: «сидя» is an imperfective adverbial participle (деепричастие), 'while sitting,' describing Ivan's state simultaneously with the main verb. The clitic «-то» on «дубе» highlights the oak as the known topic — 'up in that oak, mind you' — a colloquial nudge.
> «оченно» — folksy 'very': «оченно» is a substandard, peasant-flavored form of «очень» (very). The devil drops into low colloquial speech, repeating it for comic emphasis: 'dreadfully, dreadfully.'
> «акриды» — locusts of the desert: «акриды» is the bookish Greek-derived word for the locusts John the Baptist ate in the wilderness (Mark 1:6); «кушать» is a genteel-folksy 'to eat.' The image evokes the hermit's diet Ivan is mockingly destined for.

— Так ты, негодяй, для спасения моей души стараешься?  
— So you, scoundrel, are laboring for the salvation of my soul?
> «негодяй» — scoundrel: A strong term of abuse, 'good-for-nothing, scoundrel,' from «не годиться» (to be unfit). Ivan flings it at the devil as a vocative-like insult set off from the clause.
> Genitive after «для» and the genitive of 'of': «для» governs the genitive — «спасения» — and that noun in turn governs another genitive, «моей души» ('of my soul'), stacking 'for the salvation of my soul.' This nesting of genitives is the workhorse way Russian builds such 'of' chains.

— Надо же хоть когда-нибудь доброе дело сделать.  
— One has to do a good deed at least once in a while.
> Impersonal «надо» + the indefinite «когда-нибудь»: «надо» is an impersonal predicate of necessity with no subject — 'one has to' — taking an infinitive «сделать». «когда-нибудь» uses the non-specific particle «-нибудь»: 'at some time or other, ever,' here 'once in a while.' The «же» adds resigned insistence.

Злишься-то ты, злишься, как я погляжу!  
How angry you are, though — how angry, as far as I can see!
> Reflexive «злиться» with emphatic «-то» and repetition: «злишься» is the reflexive verb «злиться» (to be angry), where «-ся» makes a stative middle, not a true reflexive. The clitic «-то» fronts and stresses the verb, and the repetition («злишься… злишься») is expressive: 'how angry you are, angry indeed.'
> Perfective «погляжу» as 'as I see': «погляжу» is the perfective future of «поглядеть» but here reads as a fixed conversational tag, 'as far as I can see / as I observe.' The «по-» prefix gives a brief, single look rather than ongoing watching.

— Шут!  
— Buffoon!
> «Шут» — buffoon, jester: A «шут» is a court fool or clown; as an insult it brands the devil a frivolous mountebank. The word also feeds «шут гороховый» (a pea-jester, a contemptible buffoon) and Dostoevsky's whole theme of the comic, undignified devil.

А искушал ты когда-нибудь вот этаких-то, вот что акриды-то едят, да по семнадцати лет в голой пустыне молятся, мохом обросли?  
And have you ever tempted the likes of those — the ones who eat locusts, you know, who pray seventeen years in the bare desert and have grown over with moss?
> Demonstrative «этакий» + insistent «вот… -то»: «этаких» is the colloquial demonstrative «этакий» ('such, the likes of these'), here in the animate accusative-genitive plural as object of «искушал». The piled-up «вот… вот… -то» is gesturing, button-holing speech: 'those very ones, you know, the ones that…'
> «по» + 'seventeen years' as distributive duration: «по семнадцати лет» uses «по» loosely for an extended span, 'for seventeen years at a stretch'; «лет» is the genitive plural that numerals above four demand. The old dative «семнадцати» is the bookish shape of the numeral.
> «мохом обросли» — grown over with moss: «обрасти» (to grow over, become overgrown) takes the instrumental «мохом» ('with moss') for the covering material. The image — desert hermits so still they sprout moss — is hyperbolic hagiography.

— Голубчик мой, только это и делал.  
— My dear fellow, it's the only thing I have done.
> «Голубчик» — 'my dear little dove': «голубчик» is the affectionate diminutive of «голубь» (dove/pigeon), a warm term of endearment between intimates, 'my dear fellow.' The devil's coziness is its own kind of menace.
> Emphatic «только… и» — 'did nothing but': The frame «только это и делал» means 'this was the only thing I did' — «только… и» before the verb is a fixed emphatic exclusive, restricting the action to one thing alone. The imperfective «делал» views it as the whole occupation of his existence.

Весь мир и миры забудешь, а к одному этакому прилепишься, потому что бриллиант-то уж очень драгоценен; одна ведь такая душа стоит иной раз целого созвездия — у нас ведь своя арифметика.  
You forget the whole world and all the worlds, and fasten on one such man, because the diamond is so very precious; one such soul is sometimes worth a whole constellation — for we have our own arithmetic.
> Perfective «прилепишься» + «к» governing the dative: «прилепиться» (to cling, fasten onto) is reflexive in «-ся» and governs «к» + dative, «к одному этакому» ('to one such [man]'). The future-perfective «прилепишься» here generalizes — 'you fasten on,' the way one would.
> «бриллиант» — the precious diamond soul: «бриллиант» is a cut diamond (as opposed to «алмаз», the raw stone). The devil's metaphor turns a single struggling soul into a brilliant worth a whole «созвездие» (constellation) — 'we have our own arithmetic,' a divine economy of value.
> «у нас» possession + reflexive «своя»: «у нас… своя арифметика» is the «у» + genitive possessive frame ('we have'), with «своя» — the reflexive possessive 'our own' — pointing back to the subject 'we.' «ведь» again appeals: 'for, you see, we have our own arithmetic.'

Победа-то драгоценна!  
The victory is precious!
> Short adjective «драгоценна» as predicate: «драгоценна» is the short (predicative) form of «драгоценный» (precious), agreeing in feminine singular with «победа». The short form, more bookish, states the quality as a verdict — 'the victory is precious!' — while «-то» marks 'the victory' as the point at issue.

А ведь иные из них, ей-богу, не ниже тебя по развитию, хоть ты этому и не поверишь: такие бездны веры и неверия могут созерцать в один и тот же момент, что, право, иной раз кажется, только бы еще один волосок — и полетит человек «вверх тормашки», как говорит актер Горбунов.  
And some of them, by God, are no lower than you in development, though you won't believe it: they can contemplate such abysses of belief and unbelief in one and the same moment that, truly, it sometimes seems a man needs only one more hair and he'll go 'head over heels,' as the actor Gorbunov says.
> Comparative «ниже» governing the genitive: «ниже» is the comparative of «низкий» (low); in this older, bookish construction it takes the genitive of comparison directly — «тебя» ('than you') — rather than «чем ты». 'No lower than you in development.'
> Concessive «хоть» + dative object of «поверить»: «хоть» here is concessive, 'though, even if'; «поверить» (to believe) governs the dative, «этому» ('this'). The «и» before «не поверишь» is an emphatic 'even,' and «не» negates — 'though you won't believe it for a moment.'
> «вверх тормашки» — head over heels: A frozen colloquial idiom meaning 'topsy-turvy, head over heels'; «тормашки» survives only here. The devil quotes it as a stage line, framing a man's plunge from faith to unbelief as slapstick.

— Ну и что ж, отходил с носом?  
— Well, and so — did he come away with his nose put out of joint?
> «остаться с носом» — to be left in the lurch: «с носом» here is the idiom «остаться/отойти с носом» — 'to come away empty-handed, be left holding the bag, be made a fool of' (the «нос» is an old word for a rejected bribe-offering). Ivan asks whether the devil's seduction failed — setting up the whole 'nose' pun that follows.

— Друг мой, — заметил сентенциозно гость, — с носом всё же лучше отойти, чем иногда совсем без носа, как недавно еще изрек один болящий маркиз (должно быть, специалист лечил) на исповеди своему духовному отцу-иезуиту.  
— My friend, — the guest observed sententiously, — it's still better to come away with one's nose put out than at times to come away without a nose at all, as a certain ailing marquis recently declared (a specialist must have been treating him) at confession to his Jesuit spiritual father.
> Inverted attribution, verb-first: The speech tag inverts to verb–adverb–subject, «заметил сентенциозно гость» ('observed sententiously the guest'), a literary attribution order. «сентенциозно» (sententiously, in a moralizing way) is a bookish Latinate adverb suiting the devil's pompous pose.
> «болящий» — the ailing one: «болящий» is an archaic/Church-Slavonic-flavored present active participle of «болеть» (to be ill), used as a noun, 'the sick man.' Its elevated tone clashes comically with the marquis's very unspiritual complaint.
> «изрёк» — 'pronounced, uttered': «изречь» is a bookish, solemn perfective 'to utter, pronounce' (related to «речь», speech), far loftier than «сказать». The mock-grand verb gilds a ridiculous confession.

Я присутствовал — просто прелесть.  
I was present — simply delightful.
> «просто прелесть» — 'simply delightful': «прелесть» means 'charm, delight'; the casual exclamation «просто прелесть» ('just delightful') is the devil relishing the scene. Note the religious irony: in Church Slavonic «прелесть» means spiritual delusion, the soul's seduction by evil.

«Возвратите мне, говорит, мой нос!» И бьет себя в грудь.  
'Give me back,' he says, 'my nose!' And he beats his breast.
> Perfective imperative «возвратите»: «возвратите» is the polite/plural imperative of perfective «возвратить» (to give back), demanding a single completed act — 'give me back!' «мне» is the dative recipient. The perfective fits an urgent one-off demand.
> «бить себя в грудь» — to beat one's breast: The reflexive pronoun «себя» ('himself') marks the marquis striking his own chest. «бить себя в грудь» is a set gesture of penitence or vehement protest — milked here for farce.

«Сын мой, — виляет патер, — по неисповедимым судьбам провидения всё восполняется и видимая беда влечет иногда за собою чрезвычайную, хотя и невидимую выгоду.  
'My son,' the priest hedges, 'by the inscrutable decrees of providence all things are made good, and a visible misfortune sometimes draws after it an extraordinary, if invisible, advantage.
> «вилять» — to dodge, equivocate: «вилять» literally means 'to wag (a tail), swerve'; figuratively 'to dodge, prevaricate.' The narrator's verb-first tag «виляет патер» ('the priest wriggles') exposes the casuist's evasion before he even speaks. «патер» is the Latin-derived word for a Catholic priest.
> «по» + dative; «неисповедимый» bookish: «по» governs the dative «судьбам» ('by the decrees of'). «неисповедимый» (inscrutable, unsearchable) is an elevated theological adjective — Romans 11:33, 'his ways past finding out' — lending the dodge a pulpit grandeur.
> Reflexive «за собою» — 'in its train': «влечь за собою» means 'to draw after itself, entail'; «собою» is the instrumental of the reflexive «себя», pointing back to the misfortune as subject. The idiom frames a hidden good following 'in the wake of' a visible evil.

Если строгая судьба лишила вас носа, то выгода ваша в том, что уже никто во всю вашу жизнь не осмелится вам сказать, что вы остались с носом».  
If a stern fate has deprived you of your nose, your advantage lies in this: that for the rest of your life no one will dare tell you that you've been left with a nose.'
> Conditional «если» + «лишить» governing genitive: «если» opens a real conditional (indicative, not «бы»). «лишить» (to deprive) takes the person in accusative «вас» and the thing in genitive «носа» ('of [a] nose') — a verb whose government leans on the genitive of what is taken away.
> Negative concord with «никто… не»: Russian requires double negation: the negative pronoun «никто» ('no one') must still be paired with «не» on the verb, «не осмелится» — two negatives, one meaning. «осмелиться» (to dare) governs the infinitive «сказать».

— «Отец святой, это не утешение! — восклицает отчаянный, — я был бы, напротив, в восторге всю жизнь каждый день оставаться с носом, только бы он был у меня на надлежащем месте!» — «Сын мой, — вздыхает патер, — всех благ нельзя требовать разом, и это уже ропот на провидение, которое даже и тут не забыло вас; ибо если вы вопиете, как возопили сейчас, что с радостью готовы бы всю жизнь оставаться с носом, то и тут уже косвенно исполнено желание ваше: ибо, потеряв нос, вы тем самым всё же как бы остались с носом…»  
— 'Holy father, that's no consolation!' the desperate man exclaims; 'on the contrary, I'd be delighted to go on without a nose every day of my life, if only it were in its proper place!' — 'My son,' the priest sighs, 'one cannot demand every blessing at once, and this is already a murmuring against providence, which even here has not forgotten you; for if you cry out, as you cried out just now, that you'd gladly go on without a nose all your life, then even here your wish is already obliquely fulfilled: for, having lost your nose, you have by that very fact, after a fashion, been left with a nose after all…'
> Conditional «бы» — 'I would be delighted': «был бы в восторге» is the irrealis: past-tense «был» plus the particle «бы» yields 'I would be delighted.' «бы» here leans on the first word; «оставаться с носом» (imperfective infinitive) names the ongoing hypothetical state.
> «только бы» — wishful 'if only': «только бы» plus a past-form verb expresses a bare wish, 'if only it were' — the «бы» without «если» carries the whole conditional force. «надлежащий» (proper, due) is a bookish present active participle turned adjective.
> «вопиять / возопить» — to cry aloud: «вопиять» (to cry out, clamor) and its perfective «возопить» are Church-Slavonic-flavored, the verb of biblical lamentation — 'the stones will cry out,' 'a voice crying in the wilderness.' The priest dresses the marquis's wail in scriptural solemnity.
> «тем самым» + softening «как бы»: «тем самым» ('by that very means') is an instrumental adverbial of result; «как бы» ('as it were, after a fashion') hedges the punning conclusion. The whole sentence turns on the double sense of «остаться с носом» — left with [a] nose / left in the lurch.

— Фу, как глупо!  
— Pah, how stupid!
> «Фу» — disgust interjection: «Фу» is an interjection of revulsion or contempt, 'ugh, pah.' Followed by the impersonal exclamation «как глупо» ('how stupid'), it is Ivan's curt verdict on the laboured nose-joke.

— крикнул Иван.  
— cried Ivan.
> Perfective «крикнул», verb-first tag: «крикнул» is the perfective of «кричать» (to shout) — «крик-ну-ть» with the «-ну-» suffix marking a single, momentary cry rather than continuous shouting. The inverted verb–subject order is standard for speech attributions.

— Друг мой, я хотел только тебя рассмешить, но, клянусь, это настоящая иезуитская казуистика, и, клянусь, всё это случилось буква в букву, как я изложил тебе.  
— My friend, I only wanted to make you laugh, but I swear it's genuine Jesuit casuistry, and I swear it all happened to the letter, exactly as I've set it out for you.
> Causative «рассмешить» — 'to make laugh': «рассмешить» (perfective) is the causative 'to make [someone] laugh,' built from «смех» (laughter); «тебя» is its accusative object. «хотел… рассмешить» chains a wish-verb with an infinitive of purpose.
> «казуистика» — Jesuit casuistry: «казуистика» is moral reasoning by individual 'cases' (Latin casus), proverbially associated with Jesuit confessors and, in Russian usage, with sophistical hair-splitting. The devil prizes it as genuine art.
> «буква в букву» — to the letter: An idiom, literally 'letter into letter,' meaning 'exactly, word for word, to the letter.' The devil swears his absurd tale is reported with perfect fidelity.

Случай этот недавний и доставил мне много хлопот.  
The case is a recent one and gave me a great deal of trouble.
> «много» + genitive plural «хлопот»: «много хлопот» ('much trouble/bother') uses the quantifier «много», which governs the genitive plural — «хлопот», a plurale-tantum noun. «доставить хлопот кому-то» ('to give someone trouble') takes the affected person in the dative, «мне».

Несчастный молодой человек, возвратясь домой, в ту же ночь застрелился; я был при нем неотлучно до последнего момента…  
The unfortunate young man, returning home, shot himself that very night; I was at his side without leaving him until the last moment…
> Perfective gerund «возвратясь»: «возвратясь» is a perfective past adverbial participle (деепричастие) in «-сь», 'having returned home' — a prior, completed act framing the main verb «застрелился». It shares the subject 'the young man.' The «-я(сь)» shape is the bookish alternative to «-вши».
> Reflexive «застрелиться» — to shoot oneself: «застрелиться» is reflexive in «-ся»: the «-ся» is a true reflexive here, the action turned back on the agent — 'shot himself.' The perfective and «за-» mark the single fatal completed act.
> «неотлучно» — without leaving his side: «неотлучно» (from «не отлучаться», not to absent oneself) means 'constantly present, without ever leaving.' The devil's grimly tender vigil over the suicide is a chilling self-portrait.

Что же до исповедальных этих иезуитских будочек, то это воистину самое милое мое развлечение в грустные минуты жизни.  
As for those little Jesuit confessional booths, they are truly my dearest amusement in life's dreary hours.
> «что же до…» — 'as for…': «что (же) до» + genitive is a fixed framing phrase, 'as for, as regards' — «до» governs the genitive «будочек». The «же» adds a turn-of-topic emphasis. Note the bookish word order with the demonstrative «этих» tucked after the first adjective.
> «будочка» — little booth: «будочка» is the diminutive of «будка» (booth, sentry-box), here the confessional box; the genitive plural is «будочек». The dismissive little-suffix turns the sacrament's setting into a cozy toy theatre for the devil's amusement.

Вот тебе еще один случай, совсем уж на днях.  
Here's another case for you, only just the other day.
> Ethical dative «тебе» — 'here's one for you': «тебе» is an ethical/benefactive dative: not strictly required, it draws the listener in — 'here's another one for you.' «вот» presents the new item; the whole phrase is conversational scene-setting.

Приходит к старику патеру блондиночка, норманочка, лет двадцати, девушка.  
A little blonde comes to an old priest, a little Norman, a girl of about twenty.
> Historic present + verb-first staging: «Приходит» is the imperfective present used as a vivid 'historic present' to narrate a past anecdote as if unfolding now. The verb leads, the subject «блондиночка» trails — focus falls on the new arrival. «к старику патеру» is «к» + dative ('to the old priest').
> Diminutives «блондиночка», «норманочка»: «блондиночка» (a little blonde) and «норманочка» (a little Norman[dy] girl) pile «-очка» diminutives to ogle her smallness and youth. The leering tenderness is the devil's, savoring the scene to come.

Красота, телеса, натура — слюнки текут.  
Such beauty, such a figure, such a nature — the mouth waters.
> «телеса» — bodily flesh (archaic plural): «телеса» is an archaic, expressive plural of «тело» (body), meaning the fleshly, full figure — somewhat ironic-bookish. Stacked with «красота» (beauty) and «натура» (nature, physique), it builds the devil's appraising, lecherous list.
> «слюнки текут» — the mouth waters: «слюнки» is the diminutive of «слюна» (saliva); «слюнки текут» ('the spittle flows') is the idiom 'one's mouth waters.' The subjectless impersonal clause makes the appetite seem to belong to no one and everyone.

Нагнулась, шепчет патеру в дырочку свой грех.  
She leans down and whispers her sin to the priest through the little grille.
> Perfective then present; dative + reflexive «свой»: «Нагнулась» (perfective past, 'bent down') sets the completed posture; «шепчет» (present) then narrates the whispering vividly. «патеру» is the dative addressee, «свой грех» the object — «свой» ('her own') reflexively bound to the subject.
> «дырочка» — the little grille: «дырочка» is the diminutive of «дыра» (hole), the small opening of the confessional screen. The cozy little-suffix shrinks the sacred apparatus to something intimate and slightly comic.

«Что вы, дочь моя, неужели вы опять уже пали?..  
'What's this, my daughter, can you really have fallen again?..'
> Incredulous particle «неужели» + «уже»: «неужели» is the particle of astonished disbelief, 'can it really be that…?' Combined with «опять» ('again') and «уже» ('already'), it conveys the priest's weary shock. «пали» is the perfective past of «пасть» (to fall — here, into sin).
> «пасть» — to fall (into sin): «пасть» (perfective) is the solemn, bookish 'to fall,' used of moral or sexual lapse — a «падшая женщина» is a fallen woman. The lofty verb sets up the priest's own imminent fall as bitter irony.

— восклицает патер.  
— the priest exclaims.
> Historic present attribution «восклицает»: «восклицает» (imperfective present, 'exclaims') keeps the anecdote in the vivid historic present, verb before subject. «восклицать» is a bookish 'to exclaim,' loftier than «кричать».

— О Sancta Maria, что я слышу: уже не с тем.  
— 'O Sancta Maria, what do I hear: and not with the same man.'
> Ellipsis + «с» + instrumental «тем»: «с тем» is «с» (with) + instrumental of the demonstrative «тот», 'with that one [man].' The clause is elliptical — 'and [it's] no longer with the same one' — the verb 'fell' understood from before, a clipped spoken shorthand.

Но доколе же это продолжится, и как вам это не стыдно!» — «Ah mon père, — отвечает грешница, вся в покаянных слезах.  
But how long is this to go on, and aren't you ashamed of yourself!' — 'Ah mon père,' answers the sinful woman, all in tears of penitence.
> Archaic «доколе» — 'how long?': «доколе» is an archaic/Church-Slavonic interrogative, 'until when, how long?' — the diction of the Psalms ('how long, O Lord'). «продолжится» is the reflexive perfective future, 'will this go on.' The «же» sharpens the exasperation.
> Dative-subject «вам… стыдно»: «вам не стыдно» is a classic impersonal: the experiencer in the dative «вам» plus the neuter predicate «стыдно» ('[it is] shameful'), with no nominative subject — 'aren't you ashamed?' This dative-of-feeling pattern is everywhere in Dostoevsky.
> «грешница» — the sinful woman: «грешница» is the feminine of «грешник» (sinner), the «-ица» suffix marking the female. The word carries the full biblical weight of 'the sinful woman' (Luke 7), in heavy ironic contrast to her cheerful French excuse.

— Ça lui fait tant de plaisir et à moi si peu de peine!» Ну, представь себе такой ответ!  
— 'Ça lui fait tant de plaisir et à moi si peu de peine!' Now just imagine such an answer!
> Imperative «представь себе» — 'just imagine': «представь» is the imperative of «представить» (to imagine, picture); «себе» is the dative reflexive in the fixed phrase «представь себе» ('imagine to yourself, just fancy'). The devil turns to Ivan as confidant.

Тут уж и я отступился: это крик самой природы, это, если хочешь, лучше самой невинности!  
At that even I drew back: it's the cry of nature herself, it's — if you like — better than innocence itself!
> Reflexive «отступиться» + emphatic «уж… и»: «отступиться» (reflexive perfective, 'to draw back, give up on') marks the devil's own retreat. «уж» and «и» stack emphasis on «я» — 'even I, at that point, backed off.' The «-ся» here gives a middle 'desist' sense.
> Comparative «лучше» + genitive of comparison: «лучше» is the suppletive comparative of «хороший/хорошо» (good/well), governing the genitive «самой невинности» ('than innocence itself') without «чем». «самой» is the intensifier «сам» agreeing in the genitive.

Я тут же отпустил ей грех и повернулся было идти, но тотчас же принужден был и воротиться: слышу, патер в дырочку ей назначает вечером свидание, а ведь старик — кремень, и вот пал в одно мгновение!  
I absolved her of her sin on the spot and was about to turn to go, but at once I was forced to come back: I hear the priest, through the little grille, arranging a rendezvous with her for that evening — and the old man was flint, mind you, yet there he fell in a single instant!
> The particle «было» — 'was about to / started to': «было» after a perfective verb marks an action begun or intended but cut off — 'I had turned to go (but…).' Here «повернулся было идти» means 'was just about to turn away,' immediately reversed by «принужден был воротиться.' A subtle, very 19th-century device.
> Present «слышу» + dative «ей»: «слышу» drops into the present mid-narration for immediacy ('I hear…'). «назначает свидание ей» — «назначить свидание» ('to set up a rendezvous') gives the person in the dative, «ей» ('with her, for her').
> «кремень» — flint, an unyielding man: «кремень» is flint; calling the old priest «кремень» means he is hard, steadfast, unbreakable. The metaphor sets up the shock of «пал в одно мгновение» — even flint cracks in an instant.

Природа-то, правда-то природы взяла свое!  
Nature, the truth of nature, had its way!
> Topic «-то» + idiom «взять своё»: The clitic «-то» twice marks the topic emphatically — 'nature, mind you; the truth of nature.' «взять своё» ('to take what is one's own') is an idiom meaning 'to assert itself, win out, have its way.' «свое» is the reflexive possessive.

Что, опять воротишь нос, опять сердишься?  
What, turning up your nose again, angry again?
> «воротить нос» — to turn up one's nose: «воротить нос (от чего-то)» is the idiom 'to turn up one's nose, recoil in disdain.' The devil teases Ivan with it, keeping the running nose-motif alive. «воротишь» is the colloquial imperfective present.
> Reflexive «сердиться» — to be angry: «сердишься» is the «-ся» stative verb «сердиться» (to be/grow angry), built on «сердце» (heart). Like «злиться», the «-ся» gives an intransitive 'be in an emotional state' reading, not a true reflexive.

Не знаю уж, чем и угодить тебе… — Оставь меня, ты стучишь в моем мозгу как неотвязный кошмар, — болезненно простонал Иван, в бессилии пред своим видением, — мне скучно с тобою, невыносимо и мучительно!  
I really don't know how to please you anymore… — Leave me, you hammer in my brain like an inescapable nightmare, — Ivan groaned in anguish, powerless before his vision, — you bore me, you're unbearable, you're a torment!
> «чем угодить» — instrumental of means + dative: «угодить кому-то» ('to please someone') takes the dative «тебе»; «чем» is the instrumental of «что» asking 'by what means.' 'I don't even know how (with what) to please you.' The «и» adds 'even.'
> Perfective imperative «Оставь»: «Оставь» is the singular imperative of perfective «оставить» (to leave [alone]). The perfective demands one decisive act — 'leave me, be done with me' — Ivan's tormented command to his vision.
> Dative-subject «мне скучно»: «мне скучно с тобою» is the dative-experiencer pattern: «мне» (dative) + the neuter predicate «скучно» ('[it is] dull/wearisome') — 'I'm bored.' «с тобою» is «с» + instrumental ('with you'). No nominative subject at all.
> «неотвязный кошмар» — an inescapable nightmare: «неотвязный» (from «не отвязаться», not to be shaken off) means 'clinging, importunate, that won't let go'; «кошмар» is 'nightmare.' The phrase names the chapter itself — «Кошмар Ивана Фёдоровича».

Я бы много дал, если бы мог прогнать тебя!  
I'd give a great deal if I could drive you away!
> Doubled «бы» conditional: A textbook unreal conditional: the apodosis «я бы много дал» ('I'd give much') and the protasis «если бы мог» ('if I could') each carry «бы» with a past-form verb. «прогнать» (to drive away) is the perfective goal — a single decisive expulsion.

— Повторяю, умерь свои требования, не требуй от меня «всего великого и прекрасного» и увидишь, как мы дружно с тобой уживемся, — внушительно проговорил джентльмен.  
— I repeat, moderate your demands, don't ask of me 'all that is great and beautiful,' and you'll see how amicably we two shall get along, — the gentleman said impressively.
> Imperative aspect: perfective vs imperfective with «не»: «умерь» (perfective imperative, 'moderate') asks one decisive adjustment; «не требуй» (imperfective imperative) is the normal shape of a negative command, 'don't (keep) demanding.' Negated imperatives default to the imperfective.
> Reflexive «ужиться» — to get along: «ужиться (с кем-то)» is a «-ся» perfective, 'to settle in together, get on with someone'; «с тобой» is «с» + instrumental. «уживёмся» is the perfective future — a successful future outcome of cohabitation.

— Воистину ты злишься на меня за то, что я не явился тебе как-нибудь в красном сиянии, «гремя и блистая», с опаленными крыльями, а предстал в таком скромном виде.  
— You're truly angry with me because I didn't appear to you somehow in a red glow, 'with thunder and lightning,' my wings scorched, but presented myself instead in such a modest guise.
> «Воистину» — verily, truly: «воистину» is an archaic, churchly intensifier, 'truly, verily' — most famous in the Paschal greeting «Воистину воскресе!» ('Truly He is risen!'). The devil's solemn 'verily' is wryly blasphemous in his mouth.
> «за то, что» + reflexive «явиться» + dative: «за то, что» ('because, for the fact that') introduces a causal clause. «явиться» is the reflexive perfective 'to appear,' governing the dative of the one appeared-to, «тебе» — 'I did not appear to you.'

Ты оскорблен, во-первых, в эстетических чувствах твоих, а во-вторых, в гордости: как, дескать, к такому великому человеку мог войти такой пошлый черт?  
You're offended, first, in your aesthetic sensibilities, and secondly, in your pride: how, you think, could so vulgar a devil walk in on so great a man?
> Short passive participle «оскорблён»: «оскорблён» is the short-form past passive participle of «оскорбить» (to offend), forming a stative passive — 'you are offended.' The short participle, like a short adjective, predicates a resulting state; «в… чувствах» specifies in what respect.
> Reportive particle «дескать»: «дескать» flags reported or attributed thought — 'as if to say, you think.' Here the devil voices Ivan's inner protest. «к… человеку… войти» is «к» + dative of motion-toward; «пошлый» means 'vulgar, banal,' a key Dostoevskian word for the devil's triviality.

Нет, в тебе таки есть эта романтическая струйка, столь осмеянная еще Белинским.  
No, there's that romantic streak in you after all — the very one that Belinsky once mocked.
> «струйка» — a little streak: «струйка» is the diminutive of «струя» (stream, jet); figuratively 'a vein, streak, strain' — here a 'romantic streak' in Ivan. The little-suffix makes it a faintly mocking, residual trace. «таки» ('after all, despite everything') sharpens the dig.
> Past passive participle + instrumental agent: «осмеянная» is the long-form past passive participle of «осмеять» (to deride), agreeing with «струйка». The agent of the passive stands in the instrumental — «Белинским» ('by Belinsky') — Russian's regular way to name the doer of a passive.

Что делать, молодой человек.  
It can't be helped, young man.
> «Что делать» — 'what's to be done': «что делать» literally 'what to do,' here the resigned idiom 'it can't be helped, there's nothing for it.' (It is also the title of Chernyshevsky's 1863 radical novel — a phrase saturated with the era's debates.)

Я вот думал давеча, собираясь к тебе, для шутки предстать в виде отставного действительною статского советника, служившего на Кавказе, со звездой Льва и Солнца на фраке, но решительно побоялся, потому ты избил бы меня только за то, как я смел прицепить на фрак Льва и Солнце, а не прицепил по крайней мере Полярную звезду али Сириуса.  
Just now, as I was getting ready to come to you, I did think, for a joke, of presenting myself as a retired actual state councillor who had served in the Caucasus, with the Star of the Lion and the Sun on my dress coat, but I decidedly took fright, because you'd have thrashed me simply for daring to pin the Lion and the Sun to my coat instead of, at the very least, the Polar Star or Sirius.
> Gerund «собираясь» framing the main thought: «собираясь» is an imperfective present gerund (деепричастие), 'while getting ready (to come) to you,' simultaneous with «думал». It must share the subject 'I.' «предстать в виде» means 'to present oneself in the guise of.'
> «али» — folksy 'or': «али» is a dialectal, archaic variant of «или» (or), giving the line a peasant, fairy-tale lilt. The devil keeps slipping between high officialese and low folk speech.

И всё ты о том, что я глуп.  
And it's always the same with you — that I'm stupid.
> Elliptical «всё ты о том» + short adjective «глуп»: The verb of speaking is omitted — «всё ты о том» means 'you're forever on about that,' «всё» as 'always, again and again.' «глуп» is the short predicative form of «глупый» (stupid), the bookish way to assert the quality.

Но бог мой, я и претензий не имею равняться с тобой умом.  
But, good God, I make no pretension to rival you in intellect.
> Genitive of negation + instrumental of respect: Under negation the object «претензии» shifts to genitive «претензий» — the genitive of negation ('I have no pretension'). «равняться с тобой умом»: «с тобой» (instrumental of comparison via «с») and «умом» (instrumental of respect, 'in intellect').

Мефистофель, явившись к Фаусту, засвидетельствовал о себе, что он хочет зла, а делает лишь добро.  
Mephistopheles, when he appeared to Faust, testified of himself that he wills evil yet does only good.
> Perfective gerund «явившись» + reflexive «засвидетельствовать»: «явившись» is a perfective past gerund, 'having appeared (to Faust),' a prior act framing «засвидетельствовал». «засвидетельствовать о себе» ('to testify of oneself') uses «о» + prepositional reflexive «себе».

Ну, это как ему угодно, я же совершенно напротив.  
Well, that's as he pleases; I am the exact opposite.
> «как угодно» + dative; contrastive «же»: «как ему угодно» ('as he pleases') is a dative-experiencer idiom, «ему» the dative. The «же» on «я» is contrastive-emphatic — 'I, on the other hand,' setting Dostoevsky's devil against Goethe's.

Я, может быть, единственный человек во всей природе, который любит истину и искренно желает добра.  
I am perhaps the only man in all of nature who loves the truth and sincerely desires the good.
> Relative «который» in the nominative: «который» introduces the relative clause and stands in the nominative because it is the subject of «любит» within that clause — 'the only man who loves the truth.' It agrees in masculine singular with «человек».
> «желать добра» — genitive object: «желать» (to wish, desire) characteristically governs the genitive of the thing wished — «добра» ('the good'), not accusative. The devil's claim to 'desire the good' is the chapter's central, troubling paradox.

Я был при том, когда умершее на кресте Слово восходило в небо, неся на персях своих душу распятого одесную разбойника, я слышал радостные взвизги херувимов, поющих и вопиющих: «Осанна», и громовый вопль восторга серафимов, от которого потряслось небо и всё мироздание.  
I was present when the Word, having died on the cross, ascended into heaven, bearing on its breast the soul of the thief crucified at its right hand; I heard the joyful shrieks of the cherubim, singing and crying aloud, 'Hosanna,' and the thunderous cry of rapture from the seraphim, at which heaven and all creation shook.
> «одесную» — at the right hand: «одесную» is a Church-Slavonic adverb, 'at the right hand,' from «десница» (right hand) — the diction of the Creed, 'seated at the right hand of the Father.' Solemn, liturgical, and pointedly placed on the devil's tongue.
> «перси» — bosom (archaic): «перси» is an archaic, Church-Slavonic word for 'breast, bosom' (cf. modern «грудь»), with the reflexive possessive «своих» ('on its own breast'). The high diction lifts the image of the Word bearing the saved soul upward.
> Cherubim and seraphim: «херувим» and «серафим» are the two highest angelic orders; their joy is rendered with startling words — «взвизги» (shrill shrieks/squeals) and «вопль» (a wail/howl) — making heaven's rapture almost animal and overwhelming. «Осанна» (Hosanna) is the Hebrew cry of praise.

И вот, клянусь же всем, что есть свято, я хотел примкнуть к хору и крикнуть со всеми: «Осанна!» Уже слетало, уже рвалось из груди… я ведь, ты знаешь, очень чувствителен и художественно восприимчив.  
And then — I swear by all that is holy — I wanted to join the choir and cry out with the rest, 'Hosanna!' It was already flying from me, already bursting out of my breast… for I am, you know, very sensitive and artistically responsive.
> Reflexive «клясться» + instrumental + correlative «всем, что»: «клясться» (to swear) takes the instrumental of what one swears by — «всем» ('by all'). «всем, что есть свято» uses the correlative «то(всё)… что», 'all that is holy.' «свято» is the short neuter predicate of «святой».
> Imperfective past for the cresting impulse: «слетало» and «рвалось» are imperfective past (the latter reflexive «-ся»), picturing the 'Hosanna' as a process in mid-surge — 'it was already flying, already tearing out of my breast.' The imperfective holds the moment open before «здравый смысл» cuts it off.
> «восприимчив» — receptive, susceptible: «восприимчив» is the short adjective of «восприимчивый» (receptive, impressionable); with «художественно» ('artistically'), 'artistically responsive.' The devil flatters himself as an aesthete — vanity that helps make him so vivid.

Но здравый смысл — о, самое несчастное свойство моей природы — удержал меня и тут в должных границах, и я пропустил мгновение!  
But sound common sense — oh, the most wretched trait of my nature — held me here too within proper bounds, and I let the moment slip!
> «в границах» + «должный» bookish: «удержать в границах» ('to hold within bounds') uses «в» + prepositional «границах» for location/state. «должный» here means 'due, proper,' a bookish participle-adjective. «и тут» = 'here too,' linking to the earlier missed leap.
> Perfective «пропустил» — the missed instant: «пропустить» (perfective, 'to let slip, miss') views the lost chance as one completed, irreversible event — 'I let the moment slip.' Aspect makes the regret final, sealing the devil's eternal exclusion from the chorus.

Ибо что же, — подумал я в ту же минуту, — что же бы вышло после моей-то «осанны»?  
For what then, — I thought in that same instant, — what then would have come of my 'hosanna'?
> «Ибо» — bookish 'for, because': «ибо» is the elevated, archaic conjunction 'for, because' (cf. plain «потому что»), the diction of Scripture and high oratory. On the devil's lips it sustains his mock-homiletic grandeur. «что же» = 'what indeed.'
> Conditional «бы» in a rhetorical question + «-то»: «что бы вышло» is the conditional — past-form «вышло» (perfective of «выйти», 'come of') plus «бы» — 'what would have come of it?' The «-то» on «моей» stresses 'my hosanna in particular.' A hypothetical posed and answered in the same breath.

Тотчас бы всё угасло на свете и не стало бы случаться никаких происшествий.  
At once everything in the world would have gone out, and no more events would befall.
> Conditional «бы» continued: The apodosis continues from the prior question: «угасло бы» ('would go out') with «бы» on a past-form perfective verb. «угаснуть» (to be extinguished, die out) pictures the world's light snuffed if good triumphed outright.
> Genitive of negation under «не стало» + concord: «не стало бы случаться… происшествий»: the negated existential «не стало» forces its subject into the genitive — «никаких происшествий» ('no events'). «никаких» triggers negative concord with «не». 'No events would happen anymore.'

И вот единственно по долгу службы и по социальному моему положению я принужден был задавить в себе хороший момент и остаться при пакостях.  
And so, solely from a sense of duty and by virtue of my social position, I was forced to stifle the good moment in myself and stick to my dirty work.
> «по» + dative of cause/role: «по долгу службы» ('out of duty, in the line of duty') and «по… положению» ('by virtue of position') both use «по» + dative to express grounds or capacity. The bureaucratic phrasing casts cosmic evil as a civil servant's job description.
> «пакости» — dirty tricks, filth: «пакость» is a 'nasty/dirty deed, vile trick'; «остаться при пакостях» ('to stick to the dirty work'). The deflating low word — petty mischief, not grand evil — defines this devil's whole shabby vocation.

Честь добра кто-то берет всю себе, а мне оставлены в удел только пакости.  
Someone takes all the credit for the good to himself, while to me are allotted only the dirty tricks.
> Short passive participle «оставлены» + dative: «оставлены» is the short past passive participle of «оставить», forming a stative passive — 'are allotted/left'; the recipient is the dative «мне». «в удел» ('as one's lot, portion') is an archaic-flavored idiom of fate's apportioning.
> Indefinite «кто-то» + reflexive «себе»: «кто-то» ('someone' — specific but unnamed, the «-то» series) leaves the credit-taker pointedly anonymous; «себе» is the reflexive dative, 'takes to himself.' The fronted «честь добра» ('the honor of the good') is the topic, «всю» emphasizing 'all of it.'

Но я не завидую чести жить на шаромыжку, я не честолюбив.  
But I don't envy the honor of living as a sponger; I'm not ambitious.
> «на шаромыжку» — to sponge, freeload: «шаромыжка» is slang for a sponger or cadger; «жить на шаромыжку» ('to live off others, scrounge'). Folk etymology ties it to French «cher ami» begged by the retreating Grande Armée of 1812 — a vivid period word for a parasite's life.
> «завидовать» + dative; short adjective «честолюбив»: «завидовать» (to envy) governs the dative — «чести» ('the honor'). «честолюбив» is the short predicative form of «честолюбивый» (ambitious, lit. 'honor-loving') — 'I'm not ambitious,' a bookish flat statement of trait.

Почему изо всех существ в мире только я лишь один обречен на проклятия ото всех порядочных людей и даже на пинки сапогами, ибо, воплощаясь, должен принимать иной раз и такие последствия?  
Why, out of all the beings in the world, am I alone condemned to the curses of all decent people and even to kicks from their boots, since, taking on flesh, I must sometimes accept such consequences as well?
> Short passive «обречён» + «на» + accusative: «обречён» is the short past passive participle of «обречь» (to doom, condemn), a stative passive — 'I am doomed.' «обречь на» governs «на» + accusative of the fate: «на проклятия… на пинки» ('to curses… to kicks'). The stacked «только… лишь… один» triple-marks his uniqueness.
> «ибо» + reflexive gerund «воплощаясь»: «воплощаясь» is an imperfective present gerund of the «-ся» verb «воплощаться» (to become incarnate, take flesh), 'while incarnating' — simultaneous with the obligation «должен принимать». «ибо» again supplies the lofty 'for.' Even the devil suffers an incarnation, with its bodily indignities.
> «пинки сапогами» — kicks with boots: «пинок» (a kick, plural «пинки») with the instrumental «сапогами» ('with boots') — the means of the kicking. The bathos is the point: the incarnate devil is liable to literal boots, the lowest of bodily humiliations.

Я ведь знаю, тут есть секрет, но секрет мне ни за что не хотят открыть, потому что я, пожалуй, тогда, догадавшись в чем дело, рявкну «осанну», и тотчас исчезнет необходимый минус и начнется во всем мире благоразумие, а с ним, разумеется, и конец всему, даже газетам и журналам, потому что кто ж на них тогда станет подписываться.  
For I know there is a secret here, but they will on no account disclose the secret to me, because then, perhaps, having guessed what is afoot, I would roar out my 'hosanna,' and the necessary minus would vanish at once, and good sense would set in over all the world, and with it, of course, the end of everything, even of the newspapers and journals, for who would go on subscribing to them then.
> The particle «ведь»: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'after all', 'you know'. The Devil opens with it to draw Ivan into a confidence, a tiny word that frames the whole boast as something they both already understand.
> Perfective gerund «догадавшись»: The «деепричастие» in -вши/-вшись names a prior, completed action sharing the main subject: 'having guessed what was afoot'. Perfective aspect sets the realization before the main verb «рявкну».
> «рявкнуть» — to bark, roar out: «рявкнуть» is a coarse, animal verb (a dog's bark, a sergeant's bellow), comically yoked here to the sacred «осанна» (Hosanna). The clash of registers is the Devil's whole self-mocking joke.
> Emphatic «ж» and compound future: «ж» (a clipped «же») sharpens the rhetorical question — 'who on earth then?'. «станет подписываться» is the imperfective compound future of an ongoing action, here with «стать» rather than «быть».
> «минус» as cosmic necessity: The Devil casts himself as 'the necessary minus' — negation that the world's moral arithmetic requires. The mathematical metaphor (carried on into «квадриллион» below) is his signature register.

Я ведь знаю, в конце концов я помирюсь, дойду и я мой квадриллион и узнаю секрет.  
For I know that in the end I shall be reconciled, I too shall walk out my quadrillion and learn the secret.
> Perfective simple future: «помирюсь» and «дойду» are perfective verbs conjugated like presents but meaning a single completed future act — 'I shall be reconciled', 'I shall walk out'. The repeated «и я» ('I too') insists even the Devil is included in the final pardon.

Но пока это произойдет, будирую и скрепя сердце исполняю мое назначение: губить тысячи, чтобы спасся один.  
But until that comes to pass, I sulk and, with a heavy heart, carry out my appointed task: to ruin thousands so that one may be saved.
> «будировать» — to sulk (a Gallicism): A pretentious 19th-century borrowing from French 'bouder' (to sulk), used by educated Russians to mean 'sulk, hold aloof'. The Devil's slightly affected, salon-flavoured diction.
> Idiom «скрепя сердце»: A fixed idiom, 'with a heavy heart / reluctantly', literally 'having braced the heart'. The «скрепя» preserves an old gerund of «скрепить» — the phrase is frozen, so don't read it as live grammar.
> Purpose clause with «чтобы» + reflexive past: «чтобы» governs the irrealis past form «спасся» — 'in order that one may be saved'. «спасся» is the -ся (here -ся after a consonant) reflexive of «спасти», giving an intransitive 'be saved'.

Сколько, например, надо было погубить душ и опозорить честных репутаций, чтобы получить одного только праведного Иова, на котором меня так зло поддели во время о́но!  
How many souls, for instance, had to be ruined and how many honest reputations disgraced in order to obtain a single righteous Job — the one over whom I was so spitefully tripped up in the days of old!
> Impersonal «надо было» + infinitive: A subjectless necessity construction: invariable «надо» plus the neuter past «было» plus a perfective infinitive — 'it was necessary to ruin'. No nominative subject; the doer (the Devil) is left implicit.
> Church-Slavonic «во время оно»: A solemn Scriptural tag, 'in those days / in days of old', from the Gospel openings. «оно» here is the archaic demonstratine «оный» ('that aforesaid'), not the pronoun 'it'; the stress mark «о́но» preserves the old reading.

Нет, пока не открыт секрет, для меня существуют две правды: одна тамошняя, ихняя, мне пока совсем неизвестная, а другая моя.  
No, until the secret is disclosed, two truths exist for me: one over there, theirs, which is still wholly unknown to me, and the other my own.
> Short passive participle «открыт»: «открыт» is the predicative short form of the past passive participle «открытый» — 'is/has been disclosed'. With «пока не» it means 'until [it] is disclosed', a result-state passive without an explicit «быть» in the present.
> Colloquial «тамошний» and «ихний»: «тамошняя» ('the over-there one', from «там») is a real adjective; «ихняя» ('theirs') is a substandard, folksy possessive for «их». The Devil slips into low colloquial register to gesture vaguely at the other world.
> Word order: predicate before subject: The verb «существуют» precedes its subject «две правды», throwing the weight onto the new information — that two truths exist. Russian's free order lets the comment ('two truths') land last for emphasis.

И еще неизвестно, которая будет почище…  
And it is still unknown which of the two will turn out the cleaner…
> Comparative «почище» with «по-»: «почище» is the predicative comparative of «чистый» ('cleaner') softened by the prefix «по-» ('somewhat, a bit'). The whole phrase teases: which of the two truths will turn out the 'cleaner' — i.e. the better.

Ты заснул?  
Have you dozed off?
> Perfective past «заснул»: «заснул» is the perfective past of «заснуть» ('to fall asleep'), the «за-» marking the onset of the state — 'Have you dropped off?'. Perfective views the falling-asleep as a single completed event.

— Еще бы, — злобно простонал Иван, — всё, что ни есть глупого в природе моей, давно уже пережитого, перемолотого в уме моем, отброшенного, как падаль, — ты мне же подносишь как какую-то новость!  
"I should think so!" Ivan groaned spitefully, "everything stupid in my nature, long ago lived through, ground over in my mind, and cast off like carrion — you serve it back up to me as if it were some piece of news!"
> «что ни есть» + genitive of quality: «что ни есть глупого» is an emphatic 'everything whatsoever that is stupid'; the «ни» intensifies inside the negation-flavoured idiom, and «глупого» stands in the genitive as a partitive ('of the stupid sort').
> Chain of past passive participles: Three past passive participles in the genitive agree with «глупого»: 'long lived through, ground over, cast off'. Stacking participles into one breath is a hallmark of literary Russian and of Ivan's overheated mind.
> «падаль» — carrion: Carrion, rotting carcass — a deliberately disgusting word for what Ivan says he long ago discarded. The Devil's crime is serving it back up «как какую-то новость» ('as some piece of news').

— Не потрафил и тут!  
"I have not pleased you even there!"
> «потрафить» — to please, hit the mark: A colloquial, slightly low verb meaning 'to manage to please / suit someone', here negated: 'I have not pleased you'. «и тут» — 'even there / in this too' — adds the Devil's mock self-pity.

А я-то думал тебя даже литературным изложением прельстить: эта «осанна»-то в небе, право, недурно ведь у меня вышло?  
And here I thought to charm you even with the literary turn of it: that 'hosanna' up in the sky — really, it came off rather well with me, did it not?
> The emphatic clitic «-то»: Here «-то» is the topic-emphasis clitic, not the indefinite suffix: 'And I, for my part, thought…'. It throws the Devil's wounded self into relief, contrasting his good intentions with Ivan's contempt.
> Instrumental of means «изложением»: «изложением» ('with the literary turn / exposition') stands in the instrumental as the means by which he hoped to charm — 'to charm you by the very telling of it'.
> Litotes «недурно» and «у меня вышло»: «недурно» ('not badly' = quite well) is understated praise; «у меня вышло» is the idiomatic 'it came off for me / turned out', the doer marked by «у + genitive». «ведь» fishes for Ivan's agreement.

Затем сейчас этот саркастический тон à la Гейне, а, не правда ли?  
And then, just now, this sarcastic tone à la Heine — eh, is it not so?
> Tag question «не правда ли?»: The standard polite tag, 'is it not so?', inviting agreement. Together with the conversational «а» it keeps the Devil fishing for Ivan's approval, conversational rather than assertive.

— Нет, я никогда не был таким лакеем!  
"No, I was never such a lackey!"
> Negative concord + instrumental predicate: «никогда … не был» pairs the ни-adverb with «не» (double negation, one meaning). «таким лакеем» is the instrumental predicate after «был» — 'was never such a lackey'.
> «лакей» — lackey, footman: Literally a liveried servant, but as an insult it means a servile, second-rate flunkey of the soul. Ivan's deepest horror is that his nightmare-Devil is petty and vulgar — a 'lackey' — not a grand Miltonic Satan.

Почему же душа моя могла породить такого лакея, как ты?  
How could my soul have given birth to such a lackey as you?
> «могла» agreeing with «душа»: The past «могла» takes the feminine -ла because its subject «душа» is feminine — the past tense agrees in gender, not person. 'How could my soul have given birth…'

— Друг мой, я знаю одного прелестнейшего и милейшего русского барчонка: молодого мыслителя и большого любителя литературы и изящных вещей, автора поэмы, которая обещает, под названием: «Великий инквизитор»…  
"My friend, I know one most charming and most amiable young Russian gentleman: a youthful thinker and a great lover of literature and of elegant things, the author of a poem — a promising one — under the title 'The Grand Inquisitor'…"
> Superlative suffix «-ейший»: «прелестнейший» (most charming), «милейший» (most amiable) are bookish superlatives in -ейший, declined here into the genitive/accusative. The mannered superlatives drip with the Devil's mock-flattery of Ivan.
> «барчонок» — young master: An affectionate-belittling diminutive of «барин» (gentleman, master) via «барчук»: a pampered young gentleman's son, a privileged boy. The suffix carries faint condescension — exactly how the Devil frames Ivan.

Я его только и имел в виду!  
He is the only one I had in mind!
> Restrictive «только и»: «только и … имел в виду» — 'had in mind none but him', the «и» reinforcing «только» to mean 'precisely and exclusively'. «иметь в виду» is the fixed idiom 'to have in mind'.

— Я тебе запрещаю говорить о «Великом инквизиторе», — воскликнул Иван, весь покраснев от стыда.  
"I forbid you to speak of 'The Grand Inquisitor,'" Ivan cried out, flushing all over with shame.
> Dative «тебе» of the person forbidden: «запрещать» takes a dative of the person and an infinitive of the act — 'I forbid you to speak'. The dative marks the one to whom the prohibition is addressed.
> Perfective gerund «покраснев»: «покраснев» is the perfective past gerund, 'having flushed all over with shame'. «от стыда» uses «от» + genitive for cause ('from shame'); «весь» intensifies — flushing entirely.

— Ну, а «Геологический-то переворот»?  
"And what of the 'Geological Cataclysm,' then?"
> Emphatic «-то» on a title: The clitic «-то» attaches to the adjective to needle Ivan — 'and that Geological Cataclysm of yours, then?'. It singles the title out as the pointed new topic.

Помнишь?  
Remember it?

Вот это так уж поэмка!  
Now there was a little poem!
> Diminutive «поэмка»: The diminutive of «поэма» ('long poem / prose-poem'): a 'little poem'. In the Devil's mouth it is half-fond, half-mocking — patronizing Ivan's grand composition as a charming trifle.
> Stacked emphatic particles: A pile-up of intensifiers — «вот», «это», «так», «уж» — that English can only render with stress: 'Now THERE was a poem!'. Such particle clusters carry the spoken voice's whole attitude.

— Молчи, или я убью тебя!  
"Be quiet, or I will kill you!"
> Imperative «молчи» + perfective future threat: «молчи» is the imperative of «молчать» ('be silent'); «убью» is the perfective simple future of «убить» — a single, completed 'I will kill'. The «или» links command and consequence.

— Это меня-то убьешь?  
"Kill me, will you?"
> Mocking «-то» echo: The Devil throws Ivan's threat back with «меня-то» ('ME, will you?'), the clitic «-то» dripping irony. Fronting «это … меня» turns the words into a sneering rhetorical echo.

Нет, уж извини, выскажу.  
No, forgive me, but I shall have my say.
> Particle «уж» + perfective future: «уж» softens-but-insists ('well now, no — excuse me, but…'); «выскажу» is the perfective future of «высказать(ся)» — 'I shall speak my mind out [in full]'. The «вы-» marks completing the utterance.

Я и пришел, чтоб угостить себя этим удовольствием.  
I came precisely to treat myself to that pleasure.
> Purpose «чтоб» + reflexive «себя»: «чтоб» (clipped «чтобы») + infinitive gives purpose, 'in order to treat'; «себя» is the reflexive pronoun pointing back to the subject — 'to treat myself'. Note «себя» (full pronoun), not the verbal -ся.

О, я люблю мечты пылких, молодых, трепещущих жаждой жизни друзей моих! «Там новые люди, — решил ты еще прошлою весной, сюда собираясь, — они полагают разрушить всё и начать с антропофагии.  
Oh, I love the daydreams of my fervent, youthful friends, all aquiver with the thirst for life! 'There, new men,' you decided just this past spring, as you were making ready to come here, 'they propose to demolish everything and to begin with cannibalism.'
> Present active participle «трепещущих»: «трепещущих» is the present active participle of «трепетать» ('quiver'), declined into the genitive to agree with «друзей»: 'friends all aquiver with the thirst for life'. «жаждой» is the instrumental of cause/means.
> Present gerund «собираясь»: The imperfective present gerund 'as you were making ready', simultaneous with the framed decision «решил». «собираться сюда» is 'to be getting ready to come here'.
> «антропофагия» — cannibalism: A bookish Graeco-Latin term for cannibalism (anthropophagy), pointedly learned where a plain «людоедство» would do. The clinical word makes the new men's program sound like a philosophical thesis.

Глупцы, меня не спросились!  
The fools, they never asked me!
> Reflexive «спроситься» + genitive of negation: «спроситься» (-ся reflexive of «спросить») means 'to ask permission'; «меня не спросились» — 'they didn't ask me [for leave]', the negated object «меня» drawn into the genitive form.
> «глупец» — fool: A bookish, scornful word for 'fool' (loftier than «дурак»). Set as a bare exclamation, it lets the Devil sneer down at the would-be world-remakers from above.

По-моему, и разрушать ничего не надо, а надо всего только разрушить в человечестве идею о боге, вот с чего надо приняться за дело!  
To my mind, there is no need to demolish anything at all; one need only demolish the idea of God in mankind — that is where one must set to work!
> Aspect contrast разрушать / разрушить: The imperfective «разрушать» (the general activity of demolishing) versus the perfective «разрушить» (one decisive act). 'No need to go demolishing anything — one need only demolish [outright] the idea of God.'
> Impersonal «надо» + negative concord: Subjectless «надо» ('one must / needs') with double negation «ничего … не»: 'there is no need to demolish anything'. The contrastive «а» then pivots to what one MUST do.

С этого, с этого надобно начинать — о слепцы, ничего не понимающие!  
With that, with that one must begin — oh, you blind men who understand nothing!
> Negated present active participle: «понимающие» is the present active participle of «понимать», nominative plural to agree with «слепцы»: 'who understand nothing', with «ничего … не» negative concord built into the participle.
> «слепцы» — blind men (prophetic «о»): «слепец» is the elevated word for a blind man (vs neutral «слепой»), and the interjection «о» before it strikes a biblical-prophetic note — echoing Christ's 'blind guides'. Mock-scripture in the Devil's mouth.

Раз человечество отречется поголовно от бога (а я верю, что этот период — параллель геологическим периодам — совершится), то само собою, без антропофагии, падет всё прежнее мировоззрение и, главное, вся прежняя нравственность, и наступит всё новое.  
Once mankind, every last man, renounces God (and I believe that this period — a parallel to the geological epochs — will come to pass), then of itself, without cannibalism, the whole former worldview will fall, and above all the whole former morality, and everything will begin anew.
> «Раз» = 'once / if' + perfective future: «раз» here is a conditional-temporal conjunction, 'once / as soon as / given that'. «отречется» is the perfective future of «отречься» ('renounce'), governing «от + genitive»: 'renounce God'.
> «само собою» + perfective future «падет»: «само собою» — 'of itself, automatically' (instrumental of the reflexive «сам»). «падет» is the bookish perfective future of «пасть» ('fall'), loftier than «упадёт» — 'will fall, will collapse'.
> «мировоззрение» — worldview: A weighty philosophical compound, 'world-view / Weltanschauung' (lit. 'world-beholding'), a 19th-century coinage for a whole system of belief. Its abstract heft suits the cosmic scale of the Devil's prophecy.

Люди совокупятся, чтобы взять от жизни всё, что она может дать, но непременно для счастия и радости в одном только здешнем мире.  
Men will join together to take from life everything it can give, but solely for the sake of happiness and joy in this present world alone.
> Perfective future + purpose «чтобы»: «совокупятся» (perfective future of reflexive «совокупиться», 'join together') plus a «чтобы»-purpose infinitive «взять» — 'will join together in order to take'. The reflexive -ся gives the reciprocal 'unite'.
> «здешний» — of this world, here-and-now: The adjective from «здесь» ('here'): 'the here-world', this present earthly life, set against the heavenly beyond. Its plainness underlines the new creed's confinement to the merely temporal.

Человек возвеличится духом божеской, титанической гордости и явится человеко-бог.  
Man will be exalted in spirit with a divine, titanic pride, and the man-god will appear.
> Instrumental of means «духом»: «возвеличится» (perfective future reflexive, 'will be exalted') is filled out by instrumentals: «духом … гордости», 'in / by the spirit of … pride'. The instrumental answers 'exalted by what'.

Ежечасно побеждая уже без границ природу, волею своею и наукой, человек тем самым ежечасно будет ощущать наслаждение столь высокое, что оно заменит ему все прежние упования наслаждений небесных.  
Conquering nature hourly, now without limit, by his will and by science, man will thereby feel hourly a delight so lofty that it will replace for him all the former hopes of heavenly delights.
> Present gerund «побеждая»: The imperfective present gerund 'conquering [hourly]', a circumstance running alongside the main «будет ощущать». The fronted gerund clause is the bookish, weighty opening typical of this oration.
> Imperfective compound future: «будет ощущать» = future of «быть» + imperfective infinitive: an ongoing, repeated 'will keep feeling'. The imperfective fits the «ежечасно» ('hourly') of perpetual sensation.
> Result clause «столь … что»: «столь высокое, что…» — 'so lofty that…', the bookish «столь» (for «так») introducing a result clause with perfective future «заменит» ('will replace'). The register is markedly literary-archaic.

Всякий узнает, что он смертен весь, без воскресения, и примет смерть гордо и спокойно, как бог.  
Each man will know that he is wholly mortal, with no resurrection, and will accept death proudly and calmly, like a god.
> Short adjective «смертен»: «смертен» is the predicative short form of «смертный» ('mortal'): 'he is mortal'. The short form states an absolute condition, and «весь» ('wholly') drives home the materialist claim — mortal through and through.
> Perfective future «примет»: «примет» is the perfective future of «принять» ('accept') — a single resolute act, 'will accept death proudly'. «как бог» ('like a god') seals the man-god theme.

Он из гордости поймет, что ему нечего роптать за то, что жизнь есть мгновение, и возлюбит брата своего уже безо всякой мзды.  
Out of pride he will understand that he has nothing to complain of in life being but a moment, and he will love his brother with no need of any reward.
> Impersonal «нечего» + dative + infinitive: «нечего» ('there is nothing to') governs a dative experiencer «ему» and an infinitive «роптать»: 'he has nothing to complain about'. A classic subjectless dative construction.
> Reflexive possessive «свой» + «возлюбить»: «свой» ('his own') refers to the clause's subject — he will love HIS OWN brother. «возлюбить» is an elevated, Slavonic-tinged perfective of «любить» ('to come to love'), echoing the Gospel command.
> «мзда» — reward, hire (archaic): «мзда» is an old, bookish-Slavonic word for 'reward, recompense, bribe', familiar from Scripture. 'Without any reward' means man will love disinterestedly — and «безо» is the expanded form of «без» before a cluster.

Любовь будет удовлетворять лишь мгновению жизни, но одно уже сознание ее мгновенности усилит огонь ее настолько, насколько прежде расплывалась она в упованиях на любовь загробную и бесконечную»… ну и прочее, и прочее в том же роде.  
Love will satisfy only the moment of life, yet the very awareness of its fleetingness will fan its fire so much the stronger, in proportion as it once spread itself thin in hopes of a love beyond the grave and without end'… well, and so on, and so forth in the same vein.
> Subject-heavy clause + perfective future: The long subject 'the very awareness of its fleetingness' fronts the perfective future «усилит» ('will intensify'). «ее мгновенности» chains genitives — 'awareness of its momentariness'.
> Imperfective past «расплывалась» + inversion: «расплывалась» (imperfective past, 'used to spread itself thin / dissipate') describes the old habitual diffusion of love into otherworldly hopes; «расплываться» is a -ся middle verb. Subject «она» follows the verb for rhythm.
> «загробный» — beyond the grave: «загробный» literally 'beyond-the-coffin' (за + гроб): pertaining to the afterlife. 'A love beyond the grave and endless' is exactly the heavenly hope the new man is to renounce for the burning of the moment.

Премило!  
Charming!
> Intensifying prefix «пре-»: «пре-» raises an adjective/adverb to a high degree — «премило» = 'most charming, ever so sweet'. As a one-word exclamation it lets the Devil purr ironic approval of his own recital.

Иван сидел, зажав себе уши руками и смотря в землю, но начал дрожать всем телом.  
Ivan sat with his hands clapped over his ears and his eyes fixed on the ground, but he had begun to tremble all over.
> Two gerunds: perfective «зажав» + imperfective «смотря»: «зажав» (perfective past gerund, 'having clamped') gives the completed posture; «смотря» (imperfective present gerund, 'gazing') the simultaneous one. «себе … руками» — dative of the body part plus instrumental of means.
> Phasal «начал» + instrumental «всем телом»: «начал дрожать» — the phasal verb «начать» takes an imperfective infinitive ('began to tremble'). «всем телом» is the instrumental of manner/extent: 'with his whole body, all over'.

Голос продолжал:  
The voice went on:
> Imperfective past «продолжал»: «продолжал» (imperfective past of «продолжать») holds the scene open as background — 'the voice went on, kept going'. The imperfective is the standing backdrop against which Ivan's outburst will erupt.

— Вопрос теперь в том, думал мой юный мыслитель: возможно ли, чтобы такой период наступил когда-нибудь или нет?  
"The question now is this, thought my young thinker: is it possible for such a period ever to arrive or not?"
> «ли» question + «чтобы» + irrealis past: «возможно ли» frames a yes/no question with the particle «ли»; «чтобы … наступил» uses the past-form irrealis after «чтобы» to express the merely possible event — 'is it possible that such a period should arrive?'

Если наступит, то всё решено, и человечество устроится окончательно.  
If it arrives, then all is settled, and mankind will be ordered once and for all.
> Short passive participle «решено»: «решено» is the neuter short past passive participle of «решить» — an impersonal result state, 'all is settled / decided'. No «быть» surfaces in the present.
> Reflexive «устроится» (middle): «устроится» (perfective future of «устроиться») is a middle -ся verb: mankind 'will get itself ordered / arrange itself' once and for all. The -ся makes the verb intransitive, no external agent.

Но так как, ввиду закоренелой глупости человеческой, это, пожалуй, еще и в тысячу лет не. устроится, то всякому, сознающему уже и теперь истину, позволительно устроиться совершенно как ему угодно, на новых началах.  
But since, in view of the ingrained stupidity of mankind, it may well not be ordered even in a thousand years, then anyone who already now recognizes the truth is permitted to order his life entirely as he pleases, on the new foundations.
> Causal «так как» + «ввиду» + genitive: «так как» ('since, because') opens the causal clause; «ввиду» ('in view of') is a compound preposition governing the genitive «глупости человеческой» — 'in view of mankind's stupidity'.
> Dative «всякому» + participle + impersonal predicate: Impersonal «позволительно» ('it is permitted') takes a dative experiencer «всякому», expanded by the present active participle «сознающему» ('who recognizes'), and an infinitive «устроиться». A dense dative-subject construction.
> Idiom «как угодно» + dative: «как ему угодно» — 'however it pleases him', the old predicative «угодно» governing a dative. A fixed, slightly formal way to say 'as one likes'.

В этом смысле ему «всё позволено».  
In that sense, for him 'everything is permitted.'

Мало того: если даже период этот и никогда не наступит, но так как бога и бессмертия все-таки нет, то новому человеку позволительно стать человеко-богом, даже хотя бы одному в целом мире, и, уж конечно, в новом чине, с легким сердцем перескочить всякую прежнюю нравственную преграду прежнего раба-человека, если оно понадобится.  
More than that: even if this period should never arrive at all, then, since there is no God and no immortality anyway, the new man is permitted to become a man-god — even if he be the only one in the whole world — and, of course, in his new rank, to leap lightheartedly over any former moral barrier of the former man-slave, should the need arise.
> Concessive «если даже … и»: «если даже … и» builds a concessive 'even if … should never arrive', with «и» reinforcing «даже». «не наступит» is the negated perfective future.
> Instrumental predicate after «стать»: «стать» takes its predicate noun in the instrumental: «стать человеко-богом» — 'to become a man-god'. The instrumental frames the assumed new role.
> «раб-человек» — the man-slave: Coined as the foil to «человеко-бог»: «раб» is 'slave / bondman', with deep biblical resonance ('servant of God'). The new man is to leap over the moral barriers of the old 'man-slave' who cowered before God.

Для бога не существует закона!  
For God there exists no law!
> Genitive of negation «закона»: The subject of the negated existential «не существует» drops into the genitive: «закона» ('no law exists'). «для бога» ('for God') is «для» + genitive. The whole proposition denies the very existence of a law over God.

Где станет бог — там уже место божие!  
Where God stands — there is the place of God!
> Correlative «где … там»: The correlative pair «где … там» ('wherever … there') links place to consequence, with «станет» the perfective future of «стать» ('take one's stand'). The clipped, parallel syntax gives the line a slogan's force.
> «божий» — God's, divine: «божий» is the possessive adjective 'God's' (here neuter «божие», with the bookish full ending). 'The place of God' — wherever God stands becomes holy ground; the next line blasphemously swaps in 'I'.

Где стану я, там сейчас же будет первое место…  
Where I take my stand, there at once will be the first place…
> Parallel correlative with «я»: The exact structure of the previous line is reused with «я» swapped for «бог» — the man-god usurps God's place. «стану» (perfective future of «стать») and «будет» (future of «быть») mirror the divine sentence.

«всё дозволено», и шабаш!  
'everything is permitted,' and that is the end of it!
> «шабаш» — and that's that!: From Hebrew 'sabbath' via workmen's slang, «шабаш!» means 'knock off, finished, that's the end of it'. The earthy, low exclamation deflates the grand blasphemy of «всё дозволено» into a shrug.
> «дозволено» vs «позволено»: «дозволено» is the slightly more formal,官-flavoured synonym of «позволено» ('permitted, allowed') — both render 'everything is permitted'. The shift in prefix gives the motto an official, edict-like ring.

Всё это очень мило; только если захотел мошенничать, зачем бы еще, кажется, санкция истины?  
All this is very fine; only, if one has set out to be a scoundrel, why, it would seem, does one still need the sanction of truth?
> Conditional «бы» in a rhetorical question: The mobile particle «бы» makes the question hypothetical-rhetorical: 'why, it would seem, would one still need…?'. «захотел … мошенничать» — perfective «захотеть» ('came to want') + imperfective infinitive ('to cheat').
> «санкция» — sanction, warrant: A learned borrowing, 'sanction / authorization'. The Devil's barb: why, if you've decided to be a scoundrel, do you still crave 'the sanction of truth' to license it? — skewering the intellectual's need to justify his sin.

Но уж таков наш русский современный человечек: без санкции и смошенничать не решится, до того уж истину возлюбил…  
But such is our modern little Russian man: without a sanction he will not even bring himself to cheat, so deeply has he come to love the truth…
> Diminutive «человечек»: «человечек» ('little man') is the diminutive of «человек», dripping with the Devil's condescension toward the puffed-up modern Russian intellectual — a small soul with vast pretensions.
> Negated perfective future + emphatic «и»: «не решится» (perfective future reflexive of «решиться», 'bring oneself to') is sharpened by «и» ('not even'): 'he won't even bring himself to cheat'. The -ся gives 'dare / resolve oneself'.
> «до того … что»-type intensifier: «до того … возлюбил» — 'so [much] has he come to love [the truth]', «до того» marking degree. «возлюбил» again borrows the Slavonic-elevated perfective of «любить», heavy with ironic piety.

Гость говорил, очевидно увлекаясь своим красноречием, всё более и более возвышая голос и насмешливо поглядывая на хозяина; но ему не удалось докончить: Иван вдруг схватил со стола стакан и с размаху пустил в оратора.  
The guest spoke on, plainly carried away by his own eloquence, raising his voice higher and higher and glancing mockingly at his host; but he was not allowed to finish: Ivan suddenly snatched a glass from the table and flung it with all his might at the orator.
> Two imperfective present gerunds: «увлекаясь» ('being carried away') and «поглядывая» ('glancing now and then') are imperfective present gerunds describing the guest's manner while he speaks. «поглядывать» adds the iterative 'every so often' nuance.
> Impersonal «не удалось» + dative: «удаться» works impersonally with a dative experiencer: «ему не удалось докончить» — 'he did not manage to finish'. The dative «ему» is the one to whom success failed to come.
> Chain of perfective pasts: «схватил» and «пустил» (perfective pasts) move the action forward event by event — snatched, then flung — against the imperfective background of the guest's talk. «пустить в кого-то» = 'to hurl at'.

— Ah, mais c’est bête enfin!  
"Ah, mais c'est bête enfin!"

— воскликнул тот, вскакивая с дивана и смахивая пальцами с себя брызги чаю, — вспомнил Лютерову чернильницу!  
the other cried out, springing up from the sofa and flicking the spatters of tea off himself with his fingers, "he has remembered Luther's inkwell!"
> Simultaneous present gerunds: «вскакивая» ('springing up') and «смахивая» ('flicking off') are imperfective present gerunds giving the actions accompanying «воскликнул» — he cried out while leaping up and brushing himself. «с себя» — 'off himself'.

Сам же меня считает за сон и кидается стаканами в сон!  
He takes me for a dream himself, and yet throws glasses at a dream!
> Intensifier «сам» + particle «же»: «сам» ('he himself') plus the insistent «же» drives the contradiction home: 'he himself takes me for a dream, and yet…'. «считать за сон» = 'reckon as a dream'.
> Instrumental with «кидаться»: «кидаться» ('to throw [things]') governs the instrumental of what is thrown — «кидается стаканами», 'throws glasses about'. The imperfective and the instrumental together give a habitual, scattershot 'flinging'.

Это по-женски!  
That is just like a woman!
> Adverb «по-женски»: The «по-…-ски» pattern forms manner adverbs: «по-женски» = 'in a womanish way, like a woman' (cf. «по-русски» 'in Russian'). The Devil's sneer that throwing things is a feminine loss of self-control.

А ведь я так и подозревал, что ты делал только вид, что заткнул свои уши, а ты слушал…  
And I suspected as much, that you were only pretending to have stopped up your ears, while in fact you were listening…
> «ведь» + «так и» of confirmed expectation: «ведь» appeals to the shared truth now revealed; «так и подозревал» — 'suspected exactly as much, just so'. The «так и» idiom signals a guess that proved right.
> Aspect: «делал», «заткнул», «слушал»: «делал вид» (imperfective, 'was pretending') and «слушал» (imperfective, 'were listening') frame ongoing states, while «заткнул» (perfective, 'had stopped up') is the completed act feigned. «делать вид, что» = 'to pretend that'.

В раму окна вдруг раздался со двора твердый и настойчивый стук.  
At the window frame, a firm and insistent knocking suddenly sounded from the yard.
> Verb-first presentational order: The clause delays its subject «стук» ('a knock') to the very end, after the verb «раздался» and the locative phrase — the standard Russian way to introduce brand-new information: 'there suddenly sounded… a knock'.
> Reflexive «раздаться»: «раздался» is the perfective past of the -ся verb «раздаться» ('to ring out, resound'). The -ся makes it intransitive — a sound that arises of itself, with no stated agent.

Иван Федорович вскочил с дивана.  
Ivan Fyodorovich leapt up from the sofa.

— Слышишь, лучше отвори, — вскричал гость, — это брат твой Алеша с самым неожиданным и любопытным известием, уж я тебе отвечаю!  
"Listen, better open up," cried the guest, "it is your brother Alyosha with the most unexpected and curious piece of news — I give you my word!"
> Imperative «отвори» + advisory «лучше»: «отвори» is the imperative of «отворить» ('open [a door]'), a slightly archaic-literary verb beside everyday «открой». «лучше» softens it to advice: 'better open up'.
> «отвечать за» = vouch + dative «тебе»: Here «отвечать» means 'to answer for, vouch / give one's word', the dative «тебе» the one assured. «уж» adds emphatic certainty: 'I give you my word, depend on it'.

— Молчи, обманщик, я прежде тебя знал, что это Алеша, я его предчувствовал, и, уж конечно, он недаром, конечно с «известием»!.. — воскликнул исступленно Иван.  
"Be silent, deceiver, I knew before you that it was Alyosha, I had a presentiment of him, and of course he has not come for nothing, of course with 'news'!.." Ivan cried out in a frenzy.
> «прежде» + genitive «тебя»: «прежде» ('before, earlier than') governs the genitive «тебя»: 'I knew before you [did]'. A compact comparative-of-time construction.
> «обманщик» — deceiver: Agent noun from «обмануть» ('to deceive'): 'deceiver, cheat'. Ivan hurls it at the Devil — and at himself, since the Devil is his own mind insisting it knows things Ivan won't admit.
> Adverb «исступлённо»: «исступлённо» ('frenziedly, in a transport'), from «исступление» (frenzy, ecstatic derangement), pins the pitch of Ivan's cry. A markedly literary, emotionally charged adverb.

— Отопри же, отопри ему.  
"Unlock it, then, unlock it for him."
> Imperative «отопри» + insistent «же» + dative: «отопри» is the imperative of «отпереть» ('to unlock'), repeated for urgency, with «же» pushing — 'unlock it, do!'. «ему» is the dative beneficiary: 'unlock it for him'.

На дворе метель, а он брат твой.  
There is a blizzard out in the yard, and he is your brother.
> Zero copula + contrastive «а»: Two verbless present-tense clauses — 'there's a blizzard out in the yard' and 'he is your brother' — joined by the mild contrastive «а». Russian needs no 'is'; «а» pivots from the cold outside to the claim of kinship.
> «метель» — snowstorm, blizzard: A whirling snowstorm (feminine soft-sign noun). The blizzard at the window, recurring through Dostoevsky, mirrors the storm in Ivan's mind as Alyosha arrives with the news of Smerdyakov's death.

Monsieur, sait-il le temps qu’il fait?  
Monsieur, sait-il le temps qu'il fait?
> Mock-deferential third person: Addressing "Monsieur" but speaking of him in the third person («sait-il» — 'does he know') is an exaggeratedly servile, lackey-like French politeness — the devil playing the obsequious flunkey.

C’est à ne pas mettre un chien dehors…  
C'est à ne pas mettre un chien dehors…
> "Not fit to put a dog out": A stock French idiom for foul weather — literally 'one wouldn't put a dog out in it'. The English equivalent is "not fit weather for a dog." The devil reaches for a worn cliché, fitting his second-rate sophistication.

Стук продолжался.  
The knocking went on.
> Imperfective for the ongoing knock: «продолжался» (imperfective past of «продолжаться», with reflexive -ся) frames the knocking as a continuing process, not a single event — the very meaning of the imperfective. The reflexive -ся here makes the verb intransitive: the knocking 'continues itself'.

Иван хотел было кинуться к окну; но что-то как бы вдруг связало ему ноги и руки.  
Ivan made to throw himself at the window; but something seemed all at once to bind his legs and arms.
> The particle «было» — an action begun and arrested: «было» after a past-tense verb marks an action that was set in motion but immediately checked or undone: Ivan was on the point of throwing himself at the window — and didn't. This frozen particle (always invariable «было») is a characteristic 19th-century narrative touch for the interrupted impulse.
> Indefinite «что-то» — a 'something' unknown: «что-то» ('something') is «что» plus the clitic -то, marking a specific but unidentified force. The vagueness is the point: an unnamed something binds him, keeping the dream-logic of the nightmare alive.
> Dative «ему» of the affected person: Russian says 'bound the legs and arms to him' — «ему» is dative, naming the person to whom the bound limbs belong, rather than a possessive 'his'. This dative of the affected party is idiomatic for parts of the body and the experiencer of an action.

Изо всех сил он напрягался как бы порвать свои путы, но тщетно.  
With all his strength he strained as if to tear his bonds apart, but in vain.
> «изо всех сил» — with all one's might: A fixed adverbial phrase, 'out of all (one's) strengths'. «изо» is the variant of «из» (+ genitive) used before a consonant cluster, and «сил» is genitive plural of «сила». The whole idiom means straining with every ounce of force.
> «как бы» + infinitive — 'as if to': «как бы» ('as it were, as if') softens and hypothesizes: he strained 'as if to tear' his bonds. «свои» is the reflexive possessive «свой» — the bonds binding the subject himself — and «бы» here is fused into «как бы» rather than forming a full conditional.
> «путы» — fetters, bonds: «путы» (plurale tantum) are shackles or hobbles, originally the cord tying a horse's legs. The word carries a heavier, more archaic-poetic charge than a plain 'rope', suiting the nightmare's mythic feel. «тщетно» ('in vain') that closes the sentence is likewise bookish.

Стук в окно усиливался всё больше и громче.  
The knocking at the window grew ever louder and stronger.
> Imperfective of mounting intensity: «усиливался» (imperfective, reflexive -ся) paints the knocking as steadily intensifying. «всё больше» ('more and more') with a comparative is the standard way to express a gradient process — the «всё» pushing the comparatives «больше» and «громче» toward an ever-rising scale.

Наконец вдруг порвались путы, и Иван Федорович вскочил на диване.  
At last the bonds suddenly snapped, and Ivan Fyodorovich sprang up on the sofa.
> Perfective snap, with topic-comment inversion: «порвались» (perfective, -ся) marks the single completed event — the bonds snap, all at once. The verb precedes its subject «путы», throwing the new, decisive action to the front after «вдруг» ('suddenly'); the released subject «путы» lands last.
> Prepositional «на диване» — location, not motion: «на диване» is prepositional (location) — Ivan springs up while on the sofa, sitting bolt upright, rather than jumping onto it (which would take the accusative «на диван»). The «в-» prefix on «вскочил» gives the abrupt upward jerk.

Он дико осмотрелся.  
He looked wildly about him.
> Reflexive «-ся»: looked about him: «осмотреться» (perfective, with -ся) means to look round oneself, take in one's surroundings — the -ся turning the act of looking back upon the looker. «дико» ('wildly') colours the verb, registering Ivan's disordered state.

Обе свечки почти догорели, стакан, который он только что бросил в своего гостя, стоял пред ним на столе, а на противоположном диване никого не было.  
Both candles had nearly burned down, the glass he had just thrown at his guest stood before him on the table, and on the sofa opposite there was no one.
> Relative «который» in the accusative: «который» agrees with its antecedent «стакан» (masc. sing.) but takes the case its own clause demands — here accusative as the object of «бросил» ('which he had just thrown'). «своего гостя» is reflexive possessive «свой» + animate accusative = genitive on «гостя».
> Genitive of negation in an existential: 'There was no one' — «никого» is the genitive of «никто», obligatory with the negated existential «не было», which is invariable neuter. Note the negative concord: the ни-pronoun «никого» still requires «не» on the verb.
> «пред» — the bookish «перед»: «пред» ('before, in front of', + instrumental «ним») is the elevated, shortened literary variant of «перед». The non-pleophonic short form belongs to the high written register of 19th-century prose.

Стук в оконную раму хотя и продолжался настойчиво, но совсем не так громко, как сейчас только мерещилось ему во сне, напротив, очень сдержанно.  
The knocking at the window frame, though it did go on insistently, was not nearly so loud as it had seemed to him just now in his dream — on the contrary, it was quite restrained.
> Concessive «хотя… но» frame: «хотя (и)… но» ('although… yet') is a paired concessive–adversative construction: the knocking did go on, but not loudly. The «и» reinforces the concession, and «но» picks up the contrast — a tidy bookish balancing of the clause.
> Impersonal «мерещилось ему» — it seemed to him: «мерещиться» ('to seem, to appear hazily') is an impersonal verb with a dative experiencer: «ему» ('to him') is the one to whom it appeared, with no nominative subject. This dative-experiencer frame is the grammar of Dostoevsky's dissolving boundary between dream and waking.
> «мерещиться» — to seem, to be imagined: A verb for things half-seen, conjured by the mind — phantoms, hallucinations, dream-images. It is exactly the right word as Ivan tries to sort the real knock from the one «во сне» ('in the dream'). «сдержанно' ('restrainedly') closes the sentence on the real, muted sound.

— Это не сон!  
"It is not a dream!"
> Zero copula with «не»: 'This [is] not a dream!' — the present tense needs no verb 'to be'; «это» plus the negated predicate noun «не сон» suffices. The bare nominative «сон» stands as predicate because there is no copula to push it into another case.

Нет, клянусь, это был не сон, это всё сейчас было!  
No, I swear it was not a dream, all of it happened just now!
> Past copula «был» with predicate nominative: In the past Russian does supply the copula «был» (agreeing masculine with «сон»). Here the predicate noun «сон» stays nominative after negated «был не», where a positive identity statement might also allow it — contrast the instrumental that «быть» often takes for assumed roles.
> «клянусь» — I swear: «клясться» ('to swear, vow') is a -ся verb with no non-reflexive counterpart. The first-person «клянусь» is Ivan's desperate oath that the apparition was real — a small grammatical sign of how much is at stake for his sanity.

— вскричал Иван Федорович, бросился к окну и отворил форточку.  
Ivan Fyodorovich cried out, rushing to the window and opening the little ventilation pane.
> Two perfectives drive the narrative forward: «бросился» and «отворил» are both perfective past — two completed, sequential events that move the action one step at a time, against the imperfective background of the preceding description. «к окну» is dative after «к» ('toward').

— Алеша, я ведь не велел приходить! — свирепо крикнул он брату.  
"Alyosha, I told you not to come!" he shouted ferociously at his brother.
> The appealing particle «ведь»: «ведь» ('after all, you know') appeals to shared knowledge — 'but I told you not to come, didn't I'. It carries no translatable word, only the speaker's insistence that Alyosha already knows this. Such particles are the texture of Dostoevsky's speech.
> «велеть» + imperfective infinitive under negation: «велеть» ('to order, bid') takes a bare infinitive. Under negation the imperfective «приходить» (not perfective «прийти») is idiomatic: forbidding the action as such — 'I bade you not to come (at all)'.
> Dative «брату» of the addressee: 'He shouted to his brother' — «брату» is dative, the person addressed by the shouting. «свирепо» ('ferociously') is an adverb of manner; placing «он» after the verb is the neutral order for a quotative tag.

— В двух словах: чего тебе надо?  
"In two words: what do you want?"
> Impersonal «надо» with dative and genitive: A doubly oblique impersonal construction: «тебе» (dative) is the one in need, «чего» (genitive of «что») is what is needed, and «надо» ('is needed') is the invariable predicative. Literally 'what is needed to you?' — a quintessentially Russian subjectless frame.
> «в двух словах» — in two words, briefly: A set phrase meaning 'in a nutshell, briefly'. «двух» governs the genitive «словах»? — in fact «два» here is locked inside the prepositional phrase «в двух словах», where the numeral and noun both take prepositional plural after «в». Ivan's curt demand for brevity.

В двух словах, слышишь?  
In two words, do you hear?
> Bare second-person present, pronoun dropped: «слышишь» ('do you hear?') needs no «ты»: the second-person singular ending -ишь already names the subject, so the pronoun is dropped. The repetition of «В двух словах» plus this clipped tag conveys Ivan's frayed, peremptory state.

— Час тому назад повесился Смердяков, — ответил со двора Алеша.  
"An hour ago Smerdyakov hanged himself," Alyosha answered from the yard.
> Comment-first inversion delivers the blow: The new, shattering information «повесился Смердяков» is held until after the time-phrase «Час тому назад» ('an hour ago'), and the verb precedes the subject — the standard order for announcing an event, landing the name «Смердяков» as the final shock.
> Reflexive «-ся»: hanged himself: «повеситься» (perfective, -ся) is the true reflexive — the action turns back on the doer, 'hanged himself'. Without -ся, «повесить» means to hang something (a picture, another person); the clitic is what makes it suicide.
> «со двора» — from the yard: «со» is «с» ('from', + genitive «двора») in its pre-consonant-cluster form. Alyosha answers from outside, in the «двор» — the courtyard of the house. Russian distinguishes «с» (off/from a surface) from «из» (out of an enclosure).

— Пройди на крыльцо, сейчас отворю тебе, — сказал Иван и пошел отворять Алеше.  
"Come round to the porch, I will open up for you at once," said Ivan, and he went to let Alyosha in.
> Perfective imperative «пройди»: «пройди» is the imperative of perfective «пройти» ('come through, step round'), stem-stress giving the -и ending. The perfective imperative asks for a single, specific completed move — 'come round (to the porch)' — as against an imperfective invitation to general action.
> Perfective present-form = future: «отворю» is the conjugated form of perfective «отворить», and a perfective so conjugated means the future: 'I'll open up (for you) at once'. «тебе» is the dative beneficiary. No auxiliary is needed — the future sits in the ending.
> «крыльцо» — the porch / front steps: The «крыльцо» is the covered entrance-porch and steps of a Russian house — the threshold space where one is received before being let inside. Ivan directs Alyosha there to open the door for him.
---

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.