# The Brothers Karamazov, The Speech for the Defence. An Argument that Cuts Both Ways

Братья Карамазовы · Fyodor Dostoevsky · Book XII — A Judicial Error

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c10. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c10.json.


Всё затихло, когда раздались первые слова знаменитого оратора.  
Everything fell silent the moment the first words of the celebrated orator rang out.
> Two perfectives mark two events: Both verbs are perfective past: «затихло» (everything grew still) and «раздались» (rang out). The perfective frames each as a single completed event rather than a process, and the «когда» clause pins them as simultaneous — the silence falls at the instant the words sound.
> Genitive of 'of': «первые слова знаменитого оратора» — the words OF the famous orator. The phrase «знаменитого оратора» is genitive, marking possession/source; the adjective «знаменитого» agrees with its noun in the genitive masculine singular.

Вся зала впилась в него глазами.  
The whole courtroom fastened its eyes upon him.
> "Fastened its eyes" — a vivid idiom: «впиться» means to dig or bore in, like a thorn or a leech; «впиться глазами в кого-то» is to fix one's eyes on someone hungrily, to stare them down. The reflexive «-ся» here is intransitive-middle. We render the bodily intensity as the courtroom "fastened its eyes upon him."
> Instrumental of means: «глазами» (with the eyes) is instrumental plural, naming the instrument with which the hall fixes on him. The bare instrumental, with no preposition, is the workhorse "by means of" case.

Начал он чрезвычайно прямо, просто и убежденно, но без малейшей заносчивости.  
He began with the utmost directness, plainly and with conviction, yet without the least trace of conceit.
> A chain of manner adverbs: «прямо, просто, убежденно» are short adverbs in -о describing HOW he began — directly, simply, with conviction. «убежденно» is built on the past passive participle «убеждённый» (convinced), the adverb of a settled inner state.
> Genitive after «без»: «без» (without) always governs the genitive, so «малейшей заносчивости» is genitive feminine — "without the least arrogance." «малейшей» is a superlative ("the very least"), agreeing in case with its noun.
> «заносчивость» — conceit, arrogance: «заносчивость» is haughtiness or cockiness, the air of someone who carries himself above others (root «занос-», to be carried up/away). Its absence is the point: the famous lawyer disarms by seeming plain.

Ни малейшей попытки на красноречие, на патетические нотки, на звенящие чувством словечки.  
Not the slightest bid for eloquence, for pathetic notes, for little words that ring with feeling.
> A verbless genitive of absence: The sentence has no verb: an implied «не было» (there was none) governs the genitive «ни малейшей попытки» — "not the slightest attempt." «ни» intensifies the negation (not even the least), and the negated-existential subject stands obligatorily in the genitive.
> «словечки» — little words, with a sneer: «словечко» is the diminutive of «слово» (word), but here the affectionate suffix turns slightly contemptuous — "cute little words," the cheap verbal trinkets of an orator angling for effect. The diminutive carries the narrator's irony toward stagey eloquence.

Это был человек, заговоривший в интимном кругу сочувствующих людей.  
This was a man who had begun to speak within an intimate circle of sympathetic listeners.
> Past active participle: "who had begun to speak": «заговоривший» is a past active participle (suffix -вш-) from perfective «заговорить» (to start speaking). It compresses a whole relative clause — "a man who had begun to speak" — into one adjective agreeing with «человек».
> Present active participle of «сочувствовать»: «сочувствующих» is a present active participle (suffix -ющ-) meaning "sympathizing," here genitive plural agreeing with «людей» — an intimate circle of people who feel WITH him. Such participial chains are a hallmark of literary register.

Голос у него был прекрасный, громкий и симпатичный, и даже в самом голосе этом как будто заслышалось уже нечто искреннее и простодушное.  
His voice was a fine one, loud and engaging, and even in that very voice there seemed already to be audible something sincere and guileless.
> Possession with «у» + genitive: Russian says "the voice by him was excellent": «у него» (by/at him, genitive) is the standard way to express "he has." The thing possessed, «голос», stays nominative as the grammatical subject.
> Impersonal reflexive: "there seemed to be heard": «заслышалось» is a reflexive perfective used impersonally — there is no nominative agent; something "made itself heard." The «-ся» here gives a passive/middle sense, and the neuter form matches the impersonal frame.
> «простодушный» — guileless, simple-hearted: A transparent compound: «прост-» (simple) + «душа» (soul) — literally "simple-souled," hence open, ingenuous, without cunning. It pairs here with «искреннее» (sincere) to set the lawyer's studied air of plain honesty.

Но всем тотчас же стало понятно, что оратор может вдруг подняться до истинно патетического — и «ударить по сердцам с неведомою силой».  
But everyone understood at once that the orator might suddenly rise to the truly pathetic — and "strike hearts with a power unknown".
> Dative-experiencer impersonal: "It became clear TO everyone": «всем» is dative (the experiencers), and «стало понятно» is an impersonal predicate with no nominative subject — the «что»-clause supplies the content. This dative-first framing is everywhere in Dostoevsky's reporting of collective feeling.
> Archaic instrumental ending -ою: «неведомою силой» is instrumental ("with an unknown power"), but the feminine adjective takes the old long ending -ою instead of modern -ой. This -ою is a poetic/19th-century variant, fitting because the line is lifted from Pushkin's verse.

Говорил он, может быть, неправильнее Ипполита Кирилловича, но без длинных фраз и даже точнее.  
He spoke, perhaps, less correctly than Ippolit Kirillovitch, but without long phrases, and even more precisely.
> Comparatives in -ее: «неправильнее» (less correctly) and «точнее» (more precisely) are predicative comparatives in -ее, the invariable form that simply replaces "more/less" + adverb. The genitive of comparison is implied: less correctly THAN Ippolit Kirillovitch.

Одно не понравилось было дамам: он всё как-то изгибался спиной, особенно в начале речи, не то что кланяясь, а как бы стремясь и летя к своим слушателям, причем нагибался именно как бы половиной своей длинной спины, как будто в середине этой длинной и тонкой спины его был устроен такой шалнер, так что она могла сгибаться чуть не под прямым углом.  
One thing alone had not pleased the ladies: he kept somehow arching his back, especially at the start of his speech — not exactly bowing, but as if straining and flying toward his listeners, and bending precisely as though by one half of his long back, as if a sort of hinge had been fitted into the middle of that long, thin spine, so that it could fold nearly at a right angle.
> Dative + the rare "superpluperfect" «было»: «дамам» is dative — the ladies are the ones to whom something was displeasing («не понравилось»). The detached particle «было» after a perfective past marks an action that took hold but was then qualified or undone — an archaic nuance, roughly "had [at first] displeased."
> A trio of gerunds: «кланяясь», «стремясь», «летя» are imperfective present gerunds (деепричастия) describing the manner of his bending — not bowing, but as if straining and flying toward his hearers. All share the subject of the main clause and run simultaneously with it.
> An old spelling of "hinge": «шалнер» is an archaic, French-derived spelling of what is now «шарнир» (hinge or pivot). Dostoevsky keeps the period spelling, and the image is mechanical: the lawyer's spine bends as if jointed in the middle. We render it as a literal «hinge» that lets him fold at a right angle, preserving that machine-like image.
> Reflexive intransitive «сгибаться»: «сгибаться» (to bend, of itself) is the intransitive «-ся» partner of transitive «сгибать» (to bend something). The clitic turns the verb inward: the spine bends, with no external object — the same machine bending at the hinge.

В начале речи говорил как-то раскидчиво, как будто без системы, схватывая факты наразбив, а в конце концов вышло целое.  
At the beginning of his speech he spoke in a somehow scattered way, as if without system, snatching up facts at random — yet in the end the whole came together.
> Two rare "scattered" words: «раскидчиво» (sprawlingly, loosely, as if throwing things about) and «наразбив» (helter-skelter, every-which-way) are colloquial, expressive adverbs picturing speech without order — facts "snatched up at random." Both are uncommon, period-flavoured coinages.
> Gerund of attendant action: «схватывая» (snatching up) is an imperfective present gerund, attaching the manner of grabbing facts to the main verb «говорил». It runs alongside the speaking, painting how he talked rather than narrating a separate event.

Речь его можно было бы разделить на две половины: первая половина — это критика, это опровержение обвинения, иногда злое и саркастическое.  
His speech might be divided into two halves: the first half was criticism, a refutation of the charge, at times malicious and sarcastic.
> Conditional «бы» — "might be divided": «можно было бы разделить» pairs the impersonal modal «можно» (one can/may) with the past «было» + the irrealis particle «бы»: a hypothetical, "one might divide." The particle bleeds the statement from fact into possibility.
> Legal lexis: «опровержение», «обвинение»: «опровержение» is a refutation/rebuttal and «обвинение» the charge or prosecution case; both are abstract -ение nouns built from verbs («опровергнуть», «обвинить»). Such bookish verbal nouns thicken the courtroom register of this whole chapter.

Но во второй половине речи как бы вдруг изменил и тон и даже прием свой и разом возвысился до патетического, а зала как будто ждала того и вся затрепетала от восторга.  
But in the second half of the speech he seemed all at once to change both his tone and even his method, and in a single stroke rose to the pathetic — and the courtroom, as if it had been waiting for just this, all quivered with delight.
> Perfectives drive the turn: The two perfectives «изменил» (changed) and «возвысился» (rose) move the narrative forward as sudden, single events — the abrupt shift to the pathetic. «возвыситься» is reflexive-intransitive: he raised himself.
> «от» + genitive for cause: «от восторга» — "from/out of rapture" — uses «от» + genitive to give the cause of the trembling. The whole hall «затрепетала» (perfective, began to quiver) because of, not merely with, delight.

Он прямо подошел к делу и начал с того, что хотя поприще его и в Петербурге, но он уже не первый раз посещает города России для защиты подсудимых, но таких, в невинности которых он или убежден, или предчувствует ее заранее.  
He went straight to the matter and began by saying that, although his field of work was in Petersburg, it was not the first time he had travelled to the towns of Russia to defend the accused — but only such accused as he was either convinced were innocent, or whose innocence he sensed beforehand.
> «поприще» — one's field, arena of work: «поприще» is an elevated, slightly bookish word for one's sphere of activity, walk of life, or arena (originally a measure of distance, then the racecourse). The lawyer means his professional field lies in Petersburg.
> Relative «который» in the genitive: «в невинности которых он… убежден» — "in whose innocence he is convinced." «которых» agrees with its antecedent ("the accused") in number but takes the case its own clause demands — here genitive after «невинность», all governed by «в». A textbook split of agreement vs. clause-internal case.

«То же самое произошло со мной и в настоящем случае, — объяснил он. — Даже только из одних первоначальных газетных корреспонденции мне уже мелькнуло нечто, чрезвычайно меня поразившее в пользу подсудимого.  
"The very same thing has happened to me in the present case," he explained. "From the earliest newspaper reports alone something already flashed before me that struck me extraordinarily in the prisoner's favour.
> Dative + impersonal "flashed": "Something flashed TO me": «мне» is dative-experiencer, «нечто» (something) the subject, and «мелькнуло» neuter to agree with it. The dative frames the lawyer as the one to whom an impression occurred, not its active maker.
> Past active participle modifying «нечто»: «поразившее» (which struck) is a past active participle from perfective «поразить», neuter to agree with «нечто». It folds "that struck me extraordinarily" into a single modifier — the dense, clause-packing style of formal speech.

Одним словом, меня прежде всего заинтересовал некоторый юридический факт, хотя и часто повторяющийся в судебной практике, но никогда, мне кажется, в такой полноте и с такими характерными особенностями, как в настоящем деле.  
In a word, what first of all engaged my interest was a certain juridical fact — one that, though often recurring in court practice, has never, it seems to me, appeared in such completeness and with such characteristic peculiarities as in the present case.
> Object-first word order: The object «меня» (me) opens the sentence ahead of its subject «факт», throwing the weight onto what is new — "what engaged ME was a certain fact." Case endings keep roles clear, so word order is free to manage focus.
> Present active participle: "recurring": «повторяющийся» is a present active participle of reflexive «повторяться» (to recur), agreeing with «факт». Note the participle keeps the verb's «-ся» — a recurring fact, one that repeats itself in practice.

Факт этот надо бы мне формулировать лишь в финале моей речи, когда я закончу мое слово, но, однако, я выскажу мою мысль и в самом начале, ибо имею слабость приступать прямо к предмету, не припрятывая эффектов и не экономизируя впечатлений.  
I ought really to formulate this fact only in the finale of my speech, when I bring my address to a close, yet I will state my thought even at the very beginning, for I have the weakness of going straight to the point, without hoarding my effects and economizing my impressions.
> Dative obligation softened by «бы»: «надо… мне» is the impersonal-necessity pattern ("I ought"), with «мне» dative. The added «бы» softens the obligation into a polite, contrary-to-fact "I really ought to…" before he overrides it.
> «ибо» — bookish "for, because": «ибо» is an archaic, elevated causal conjunction ("for, inasmuch as") that a 19th-century speaker reaches for in solemn or rhetorical registers where modern Russian would say «потому что». It flavours the lawyer's address as deliberately literary.
> Negated gerunds, one a fancy loanword: Both are imperfective gerunds under negation: «не припрятывая» (not hoarding/stashing) and «не экономизируя» (not economizing). «экономизировать» is a self-consciously learned Gallicism — the lawyer's polish showing through even as he claims plain directness.

Это, может быть, с моей стороны нерасчетливо, но зато искренно.  
This may be imprudent on my part, but at least it is sincere.
> Short-form predicate adverbs and «зато»: «нерасчетливо» (imprudent) and «искренно» (sincere) are predicative -о forms balanced by «зато» ("but on the other hand, to make up for it"). «зато» concedes a drawback only to claim a compensating virtue — a favourite rhetorical hinge.

Эта мысль моя, формула моя — следующая: подавляющая совокупность фактов против подсудимого и в то же время ни одного факта, выдерживающего критику, если рассматривать его единично, самого по себе!  
This thought of mine, my formula, is as follows: an overwhelming aggregate of facts against the prisoner, and at the same time not a single fact that withstands criticism if it is examined singly, in itself!
> «ни» + genitive of absence: "Not a single fact that withstands criticism": «ни одного факта» is genitive after the intensifying negator «ни» (not one), and the participle «выдерживающего» agrees with it in the genitive. The whole rests on an implied "there is none."
> Participle in the genitive: «выдерживающего» is a present active participle ("withstanding") from «выдерживать», declined into the genitive to match «факта». It is the participle's case-agreement, not the verb meaning, that ties it to the negated noun.
> «сам по себе» — in itself, on its own: «сам по себе» is a fixed phrase meaning "by itself, taken alone, in isolation" — here each fact "examined singly, in itself." «сам» is the intensifier "itself," declined to match the fact under scrutiny.

Следя далее по слухам и по газетам, я утверждался в моей мысли всё более и более, и вдруг я получил от родных подсудимого приглашение защищать его.  
Following the matter further by hearsay and by the papers, I grew more and more confirmed in my thought, and suddenly I received from the prisoner's relatives an invitation to defend him.
> Opening gerund «следя»: «следя» (following, tracking) is an imperfective present gerund from «следить», setting the attendant circumstance for the main clause: as he kept following the case, he grew more convinced. It shares the subject "I."
> «всё» + comparative = progressive intensification: «всё более и более» literally "ever more and more" — the adverb «всё» before a comparative signals a steadily increasing degree. He grew "more and more" confirmed; the doubling heightens the build.

Я тотчас же поспешил сюда и здесь уже окончательно убедился.  
I hastened here at once, and here I became finally and conclusively convinced.
> Reflexive perfectives of resolve: «поспешил» (hastened) and «убедился» (became convinced) are perfective, the second reflexive — «убедиться» is the intransitive "convince oneself / become sure," against transitive «убедить» (to convince someone). The «-ся» turns the persuading inward.

Вот чтобы разбить эту страшную совокупность фактов и выставить недоказанность и фантастичность каждого обвиняющего факта в отдельности, я и взялся защищать это дело».  
It was in order to shatter this terrible aggregate of facts, and to expose the unproven and fantastic nature of each accusing fact taken separately, that I undertook to defend this case."
> Purpose «чтобы» + infinitive: «чтобы» introduces purpose — "in order to shatter… and expose" — taking bare infinitives «разбить» and «выставить» because the subject is the same as the main clause ("I undertook…"). When subjects differ, «чтобы» instead takes a past-form verb.
> Emphatic «и» before the verb: In «я и взялся», the «и» is not "and" but an emphatic particle picking out the verb: "it was for this that I DID undertake." Russian uses «и» this way to underscore the very action the preceding purpose clause was building toward.

Так начал защитник и вдруг возгласил:  
So the counsel for the defence began, and suddenly he proclaimed:
> «возгласить» — to proclaim, exclaim: «возгласить» is a solemn, elevated verb for crying out or proclaiming aloud, with a churchly ring (the «возглас» is a priest's liturgical exclamation). Its loftiness colours the lawyer's pivot into oratory with faint pomp.

«Господа присяжные заседатели, я здесь человек свежий.  
"Gentlemen of the jury, I am a fresh man here.
> Zero copula: "I am a fresh man": "I [am] here a fresh man" — present-tense "to be" is simply absent; «я» (nominative) and the predicate noun «человек свежий» (also nominative) stand side by side with no verb. The bare nominative complement is the rule in the present.

Все впечатления легли на меня непредвзято.  
All my impressions came upon me free of prejudice.
> Perfective «легли» — impressions "settled": «легли» is the perfective past of «лечь» (to lie down), here figurative: the impressions "came to rest" upon him as a single settling. The image is physical — impressions laid on him cleanly, without bias.

Подсудимый, буйный характером и разнузданный, не обидел меня предварительно, как сотню, может быть, лиц в этом городе, отчего многие и предупреждены против него заранее.  
The prisoner, turbulent in character and unbridled, had not offended me beforehand, as he had offended, perhaps, a hundred persons in this town, which is why many are prejudiced against him in advance.
> Negated perfective + accusative object: «не обидел меня» — "did not offend me." The object «меня» stays accusative even under negation (it is a definite, specific person), so the genitive-of-negation shift does NOT apply here; with concrete personal pronouns the accusative typically holds.
> "Turbulent and unbridled": «буйный» is wild, unruly, violent-tempered; «разнузданный» (from «узда», a bridle — literally "un-bridled") is unrestrained, dissolute. The pair brands Mitya's character with the imagery of an animal off its rein — a charge the lawyer will concede only to neutralize.

Конечно, и я сознаюсь, что нравственное чувство здешнего общества возбуждено справедливо: подсудимый буен и необуздан.  
Of course, I too admit that the moral feeling of local society has been aroused with justice: the prisoner is turbulent and unrestrained.
> Short-form adjectives as predicate: «буен» and «необуздан» are short (predicative) adjectives — the bookish form that can only follow the subject as a predicate, here stating his nature flatly: "the prisoner is turbulent and unrestrained." The short form lends a categorical, formal ring.
> Reflexive-only «сознаться»: «сознаюсь» (I confess/admit) is a verb that lives only in the «-ся» form — there is no «сознать». Such inherently reflexive verbs must be learned as units; here it marks the lawyer's tactical concession.

В здешнем обществе его, однако же, принимали, даже в семействе высокоталантливого обвинителя он был обласкан.  
Nonetheless he was received in local society — even in the family of the highly talented prosecutor he was made much of.
> Subjectless "they received him": «принимали» is an imperfective past with no stated subject — an indefinite-personal "they received / one received him." Russian often drops the agent this way to mean "people in general": he was received in society.
> «обласкать» — to make much of, treat kindly: «обласкать» (root «ласка», caress/affection) means to treat someone warmly, fuss over, make a pet of. The short passive participle «обласкан» here states the result: even in the prosecutor's own household Mitya was made much of — a barbed point.
> Periphrastic passive: «был» + short participle: «был обласкан» is the analytic passive — past «был» plus the short past passive participle «обласкан». It states a result done TO him; if named, the agent would stand in the instrumental.

(Nota bene. При этих словах в публике раздались два-три смешка, хотя и быстро подавленные, но всеми замеченные.  
(Nota bene. At these words two or three laughs ran through the audience — quickly suppressed, but noticed by all.
> Concessive «хотя… но» with participles: «хотя и… но» frames a concession ("though quickly suppressed, yet noticed by all"), and both predicates are past passive participles — «подавленные» (suppressed) and «замеченные» (noticed) — agreeing with «смешки». «всеми» is the instrumental agent: noticed BY everyone.

Всем у нас было известно, что прокурор допускал к себе Митю против воли, потому единственно, что его почему-то находила любопытным прокурорша — дама в высшей степени добродетельная и почтенная, но фантастическая и своенравная и любившая в некоторых случаях, преимущественно в мелочах, оппонировать своему супругу.  
We all knew that the prosecutor admitted Mitya to his house against his own will, solely because his wife — the prosecutor's lady, a person in the highest degree virtuous and respectable, yet fanciful and self-willed, and fond in certain cases, chiefly in trifles, of opposing her husband — found him for some reason interesting.
> «прокурорша» — the prosecutor's wife: The suffix «-ша» forms "the wife of" (or, in some words, a female practitioner) — «прокурорша» is the prosecutor's lady. The suffix is colloquial and faintly dismissive, fitting the gossipy register of this parenthetical aside.
> Past participle + dative-governing verb: «любившая» is a past active participle ("who was fond of") agreeing with the wife; the verb it governs, «оппонировать» (to oppose), takes the dative «своему супругу» — opposing TO her husband. «свой» marks the husband as her own.
> «своенравный» — self-willed, wayward: A transparent compound: «своё» (one's own) + «нрав» (disposition, temper) — "of one's own temper," hence headstrong, capricious, self-willed. It pairs with «фантастическая» to sketch the prosecutor's wife as a woman who contradicts for sport.

Митя, впрочем, посещал их дом довольно редко).  
Mitya, however, visited their house rather seldom.)
> «впрочем» — "however, then again": «впрочем» is a discourse particle that walks back or qualifies what was just said — "though, mind you / then again." Here it deflates the implication of the previous sentence: Mitya was admitted, then again he rarely came.

Тем не менее я осмелюсь допустить, — продолжал защитник, — что даже и в таком независимом уме и справедливом характере, как у моего оппонента, могло составиться против моего несчастного клиента некоторое ошибочное предубеждение.  
Nevertheless, I shall venture to suppose," the counsel went on, "that even in a mind as independent and a character as just as my opponent's, a certain mistaken prejudice against my unhappy client may have formed.
> Perfective future of «осмелиться»: «осмелюсь» is the perfective future ("I shall venture / dare") of reflexive-only «осмелиться», conjugated with present-tense endings to give future meaning. It is a polite formula for floating a bold suggestion.
> Reflexive «составиться» — a prejudice "forms itself": «составиться» is the intransitive «-ся» of «составить» (to compose): a prejudice that "forms itself" with no stated agent — softening the charge, since nobody is said to have done it deliberately. «могло» is neuter to agree with «предубеждение».

О, это так натурально: несчастный слишком заслужил, чтобы к нему относились даже с предубеждением.  
Oh, that is so natural: the unfortunate man has done all too much to be regarded even with prejudice.
> «чтобы» + past form for warranted result: After «заслужил» (deserved), «чтобы относились» takes the past-form verb «относились» — the irrealis/willed construction with «чтобы»: he has done enough "that he should be regarded" thus. The past form, not an infinitive, appears because the subject shifts.
> «несчастный» — the unfortunate man: Here the adjective «несчастный» (unhappy, wretched) is used as a noun — "the unfortunate one." Russian freely nominalizes adjectives, and this one becomes the lawyer's pitying epithet for his client throughout the plea.

Оскорбленное же нравственное и, еще пуще того, эстетическое чувство иногда бывает неумолимо.  
An offended moral feeling — and, still more, an offended aesthetic one — can at times be implacable.
> Emphatic «же» on a fronted phrase: The particle «же» here leans on the fronted subject «оскорблённое… чувство», nudging it as the contrastive topic — "as for offended feeling…" It adds insistence and a slight turn against the prior thought, untranslatable except by stress.
> «неумолимый» — implacable, that cannot be entreated: «неумолимый» is "un-pray-able": «не-» + the root of «молить» (to beseech) — admitting no entreaty, relentless. Used predicatively («бывает неумолимо»), it says offended feeling can at times be impossible to soften.

Конечно, в высокоталантливой обвинительной речи мы услышали все строгий анализ характера и поступков подсудимого, строгое критическое отношение к делу, а главное, выставлены были такие психологические глубины для объяснения нам сути дела, что проникновение в эти глубины не могло бы вовсе состояться при сколько-нибудь намеренно и злостно предубежденном отношении к личности подсудимого.  
Of course, in that highly talented speech for the prosecution we all heard a rigorous analysis of the prisoner's character and conduct, a stern critical attitude toward the case, and, above all, such psychological depths were displayed in explaining the heart of the matter to us that no penetration into those depths could possibly have occurred had there been even the slightest deliberately and maliciously prejudiced attitude toward the person of the prisoner.
> Periphrastic passive, words inverted: «выставлены были» is the short passive participle «выставлены» + «были» — "were displayed" — with the participle thrown to the front for rhetorical weight. The subject «глубины» follows, so the case-marked passive lets the order serve emphasis.
> Counterfactual with «бы»: «не могло бы… состояться» — "could not possibly have occurred" — is a past-form verb plus «бы», the conditional/counterfactual: penetration into such depths could NOT have happened HAD there been any prejudice. It sets up the lawyer's compliment-as-trap.

Но ведь есть вещи, которые даже хуже, даже гибельнее в подобных случаях, чем самое злостное и преднамеренное отношение к делу.  
But then there are things that are even worse, even more ruinous in such cases, than the most malicious and premeditated attitude toward the matter.
> «ведь» appeals to shared sense: «ведь» invokes common knowledge — "but after all there are things…" — drawing the jury into agreement before the argument is even made. It is the conversational glue of persuasion, rendered in English only by tone or "you know."
> Comparatives, one suppletive: «хуже» is the suppletive comparative of «плохой» (bad → worse), and «гибельнее» the regular -ее comparative of «гибельный» (ruinous → more ruinous). Together they escalate: even worse, even more ruinous than open malice.

Именно, если нас, например, обуяет некоторая, так сказать, художественная игра, потребность художественного творчества, так сказать, создания романа, особенно при богатстве психологических даров, которыми бог оделил наши способности.  
Namely, if we are seized, for instance, by a certain, so to speak, artistic play, the need for artistic creation — so to speak, the composing of a novel — especially given the wealth of psychological gifts with which God has endowed our faculties.
> Perfective future in an «если» clause: «обуяет» is the perfective future of «обуять» (to seize, grip) — "if a certain artistic play SEIZES us." In conditions about the future, Russian uses the perfective future where English keeps a present "if we are seized."
> Relative «которыми» in the instrumental: «которыми… оделил» — "with which God endowed." «оделить кого чем» governs the instrumental for the thing bestowed, so «которыми» takes the instrumental plural while still agreeing in number with its antecedent «даров» (gifts).

Еще в Петербурге, еще только собираясь сюда, я был предварен — да и сам знал безо всякого предварения, что встречу здесь оппонентом глубокого и тончайшего психолога, давно уже заслужившего этим качеством своим некоторую особливую славу в нашем молодом еще юридическом мире.  
Even in Petersburg, even while only preparing to come here, I had been forewarned — and indeed I knew it without any forewarning — that I should meet here, as my opponent, a profound and most subtle psychologist, who has long since earned by this very quality a particular and singular renown in our still-young juridical world.
> Passive with an archaic participle: «был предварен» is the periphrastic passive — «был» + short past passive participle «предварен» ("was forewarned"), from the bookish «предварить» (to warn beforehand). The flourish, then disowned in the same breath, is pure orator's modesty-display.
> Gerund «собираясь» — "while preparing": «собираясь» is an imperfective present gerund from «собираться» (to be about to, to get ready), giving simultaneous background: "even while only getting ready to come here." It shares the subject "I."
> «особливый» — archaic "особенный": «особливый» is an older, bookish variant of «особенный» (special, particular). Dostoevsky's lawyer reaches for the dated form to gild his praise of the prosecutor's "singular renown," tinting the speech with period elevation.

Но ведь психология, господа, хоть и глубокая вещь, а все-таки похожа на палку о двух концах (смешок в публике).  
But psychology, gentlemen, though a profound thing, is all the same like a stick with two ends (a laugh from the audience).
> Concessive «хоть… а» with a short adjective: «хоть и… а всё-таки» frames "though a deep thing, still it is like…" — «а» here is the concessive-contrastive hinge. The predicate «похожа» is a short-form adjective agreeing with «психология» (feminine): "is similar to."
> "A stick with two ends": «палка о двух концах» literally means "a stick with two ends" — a double-edged thing that can wound the one who wields it. It is the idiom that gives the chapter its title. We keep the Russian object intact and render it «a stick with two ends» rather than swapping it for the familiar English "knife that cuts both ways," so the image stays as Dostoevsky wrote it.

О, вы, конечно, простите мне тривиальное сравнение мое; я слишком красноречиво говорить не мастер.  
Oh, you will of course forgive me my trivial comparison; I am no great master at speaking too eloquently.
> Possessive after the noun: «сравнение мое» places the possessive «мое» AFTER its noun — "comparison of mine." Russian allows the possessive either side; trailing it slightly de-emphasizes ownership and gives a more casual, spoken rhythm.
> «не мастер» — "no great hand at": «мастер» (master, craftsman) in «я… говорить не мастер» becomes an idiom for skill: "I'm no master at speaking too eloquently," i.e. not good at it. The mock-humility is itself a rhetorical move.

Но вот, однако же, пример — беру первый попавшийся из речи обвинителя.  
But here, then, is an example — I take the first that comes to hand from the prosecutor's speech.
> «первый попавшийся» — "the first that comes to hand": «попавшийся» is a past active participle of «попасться» (to turn up, get caught), and «первый попавшийся» is a set phrase: the first one to crop up, any random instance. The lawyer affects to grab his example at random.

Подсудимый, ночью, в саду, убегая перелезает через забор и повергает медным пестом вцепившегося в его ногу лакея.  
The prisoner, at night, in the garden, climbs over the fence as he flees, and with a brass pestle strikes down the servant who has clutched at his leg.
> Present tense for vivid narration: The verbs «перелезает» and «повергает» are imperfective present, used as a "historical present" to dramatize the reconstructed crime as if unfolding now. The gerund «убегая» (fleeing) layers a simultaneous action onto the climbing.
> Participle embracing its object: «вцепившегося… лакея» is a past active participle ("the servant who had clutched") in the accusative, with its own complement «в его ногу» tucked before the head noun — a dense, distinctively Russian word-bracket. «вцепиться в» (to clutch at) governs «в» + accusative.

Затем тотчас же соскакивает обратно в сад и целых пять минут хлопочет над поверженным, стараясь угадать: убил он его или нет?  
Then at once he jumps back down into the garden and busies himself over the fallen man for a full five minutes, trying to make out whether he has killed him or not.
> Present-tense narration with a gerund: The historical present continues — «соскакивает» (jumps), «хлопочет» (fusses) — with the gerund «стараясь» (trying) attaching aim to the fussing. The whole reconstruction is staged in the present for immediacy.
> «пять» governs the genitive plural: «пять минут» — five and above take the genitive plural of the counted noun, hence «минут» (gen. pl. of «минута»). «целых» (whole) also goes genitive plural to agree: "a full five minutes."

И вот обвинитель ни за что не хочет поверить в справедливость показания подсудимого, что соскочил он к старику Григорию из жалости.  
And yet the prosecutor will on no account believe in the truth of the prisoner's testimony — that he jumped down to old Grigory out of pity.
> Emphatic «ни за что» + negation: «ни за что не…» is "on no account, not for anything," an «ни»-phrase that reinforces the verbal negation «не хочет» — negative concord, where both «ни» and «не» stack to one emphatic refusal: he will by no means believe.

„Нет, дескать, может ли быть такая чувствительность в такую минуту; это-де неестественно, а соскочил он именно для того, чтоб убедиться: жив или убит единственный свидетель его злодеяния, а стало быть, тем и засвидетельствовал, что он совершил это злодеяние, так как не мог соскочить в сад по какому-нибудь другому поводу, влечению или чувству“.  
"No," says he, "how can there be such tenderness at such a moment; this is unnatural, and he jumped down precisely in order to make sure whether the sole witness to his crime was alive or killed, and so by this very act he bore witness that he had committed that crime, since he could have had no other motive, impulse, or feeling for jumping into the garden."
> Reportative particles «дескать» and «-де»: «дескать» and the enclitic «-де» (as in «это-де») are quotative particles flagging reported speech — "he says, supposedly, so they claim." The lawyer uses them to voice the prosecutor's reasoning with audible irony, distancing himself from it.
> Interrogative «ли»: «может ли быть» fronts the verb and adds «ли» to form a rhetorical yes/no question — "can there be such tenderness?" The «ли» is more literary and pointed than mere question intonation, sharpening the prosecutor's incredulity.
> «злодеяние» — an evil deed, villainy: «злодеяние» («зло», evil + «деяние», deed) is a heavy, bookish word for a wicked act, a crime of villainy — far weightier than plain «преступление». Its solemnity belongs to the prosecutor's moralizing voice the lawyer is mimicking.

Вот психология; но возьмем ту же самую психологию и приложим ее к делу, но только с другого конца, и выйдет совсем не менее правдоподобно.  
There is psychology for you; but let us take that very same psychology and apply it to the case, only from the other end, and it will come out no less plausible.
> Exhortative perfective futures: «возьмём» and «приложим» are first-person-plural perfective futures used as exhortations — "let us take… and apply…" — and «выйдет» (it will come out) is another perfective future stating the result. No «давайте» is needed; the bare form invites along.
> «тот же самый» — "the very same": «ту же самую» is the demonstrative «тот» reinforced by «же» and «самый» to mean "that very same" — all three declined to accusative feminine to match «психологию». The piling-up insists it is identical psychology, merely turned around.

Убийца соскакивает вниз из предосторожности, чтоб убедиться, жив или нет свидетель, а между тем только что оставил в кабинете убитого им отца своего, по свидетельству самого же обвинителя, колоссальную на себя улику в виде разорванного пакета, на котором было написано, что в нем лежали три тысячи.  
The murderer jumps down out of caution, to make sure whether the witness is alive or not — and yet at that very moment he has just left, in the study of the father he had murdered, by the prosecutor's own testimony, a colossal piece of evidence against himself, in the form of a torn-open packet on which was written that three thousand had lain inside it.
> Participle + instrumental agent + «свой»: «убитого им отца своего» packs three points: «убитого» is a past passive participle (the murdered father), «им» the instrumental agent ("by him"), and «своего» the reflexive possessive marking the father as the subject's own. "His own father, murdered by him."

„Ведь унеси он этот пакет с собою, то никто бы и не узнал в целом мире, что был и существовал пакет, а в нем деньги, и что, стало быть, деньги были ограблены подсудимым“.  
"For had he carried off this packet with him, then no one in the whole world would have known that the packet had existed at all, with money inside it, and that, consequently, the money had been robbed by the prisoner."
> Imperative-form conditional: "had he carried off": «унеси он» uses an imperative form («унеси») with a non-imperative meaning — a vivid colloquial conditional, "had he but carried it off." Russian can borrow the bare imperative to stage a hypothetical past condition, heightened here by «ведь» (after all).
> Counterfactual with negative concord: «никто бы… не узнал» — "no one would have known." «бы» + past makes it counterfactual, while «никто… не» stacks the negators in obligatory concord. The result clause completes the «унеси он» condition.

Это изречение самого обвинителя.  
These are the prosecutor's own words.
> «изречение» — a dictum, pronouncement: «изречение» is a weighty, slightly archaic word for a saying, maxim, or solemn pronouncement (root «речь», speech). Calling the prosecutor's sentence an «изречение» is faintly mocking — dressing a plain claim as an oracle.

Ну так на одно, видите ли, не хватило предосторожности, потерялся человек, испугался и убежал, оставив на полу улику, а как вот минуты две спустя ударил и убил другого человека, то тут сейчас же является самое бессердечное и расчетливое чувство предосторожности к нашим услугам.  
So, you see, in the one thing his caution failed him — the man lost his head, took fright, and ran off, leaving the evidence on the floor; yet some two minutes later, when he has struck and killed another man, the most heartless and calculating feeling of caution at once presents itself for our service.
> Chain of perfectives, two reflexive: Three perfective past events drive the action: «потерялся» (lost his head — reflexive «теряться»), «испугался» (took fright — reflexive «испугаться»), «убежал» (ran off). The «-ся» verbs are middle/intransitive states of panic; the run paints a single flustered flight.
> «видите ли» — "you see": «видите ли» fuses the verb «видеть» with the particle «ли» into a softening parenthetical address to the jury — "you see, mind you." It is a conversational buttonhole, drawing the listener into the speaker's reasoning.

Но пусть, пусть это так и было: в том-то де и тонкость психологии, что при таких обстоятельствах я сейчас же кровожаден и зорок, как кавказский орел, а в следующую минуту слеп и робок, как ничтожный крот.  
But let it be, let it be so: this, they say, is the very subtlety of psychology — that under such circumstances I am at one moment bloodthirsty and keen-sighted as a Caucasian eagle, and the next blind and timid as a wretched mole.
> Stacked particles «-то… де… и»: «в том-то… и» is the correlative "that is the very thing wherein…", with emphatic «-то» on «том» and «и» pointing to the noun, while «де» flags the whole as the prosecutor's reported claim. A thicket of tiny particles doing the work English does with stress.

Но если уж я так кровожаден и жестоко расчетлив, что, убив, соскочил лишь для того, чтобы посмотреть, жив ли на меня свидетель или нет, то к чему бы, кажется, возиться над этою новою жертвою моей целых пять минут, да еще нажить, пожалуй, новых свидетелей?  
But if I am so bloodthirsty and so cruelly calculating that, having killed, I jumped down only to see whether the witness was still alive to testify against me or not, then why, it would seem, should I fuss over this new victim of mine for a full five minutes, and risk acquiring, perhaps, fresh witnesses besides?
> Dative-purpose question with «бы»: «к чему бы… возиться» — "why on earth would one fuss?" «к чему» (to what end, dative of «что») plus «бы» frames a rhetorical, hypothetical purpose-question. The verb stays an infinitive: why bother to fuss.
> Perfective gerund «убив» — "having killed": «убив» is a perfective past gerund (suffix -в) of «убить» — a prior, completed action: "having killed." It sequences before the main verb, unlike the imperfective gerunds of simultaneity.

К чему мочить платок, обтирая кровь с головы поверженного, с тем чтобы платок этот послужил потом против меня же уликой?  
Why moisten my handkerchief, wiping the blood from the fallen man's head, so that this very handkerchief should afterward serve as evidence against me?
> Gerund «обтирая» — manner of the fussing: «обтирая» (wiping) is an imperfective present gerund attaching the wiping to the infinitive «мочить» — why moisten the handkerchief, wiping the blood. It expresses an accompanying action sharing the implied subject.
> Emphatic «же» on the pronoun: «против меня же» — "against me, of all people." The particle «же» fastens to «меня» to underline the self-defeating irony: evidence turned against the very man who made it. The reflexive logic is the heart of the "two-ended stick."

Нет, если мы уж так расчетливы и жестокосерды, то не лучше ли бы было, соскочив, просто огорошить поверженного слугу тем же самым пестом еще и еще раз по голове, чтоб уж убить его окончательно и, искоренив свидетеля, снять с сердца всякую заботу?  
No — if we are so calculating and hard-hearted, then would it not have been better, having jumped down, simply to stun the fallen servant with that same pestle once and again over the head, so as to kill him outright and, by rooting out the witness, lift every care from our heart?
> «ли» + «бы» — a hypothetical question: «не лучше ли бы было… огорошить» stacks the question particle «ли» with the conditional «бы»: "would it not have been better to stun…?" The infinitive «огорошить» supplies the action; the doubled particles cast it as both query and counterfactual.
> «огорошить» — to stun, catch off guard: «огорошить» colloquially means to dumbfound or take aback, but here it leans on its blunt physical edge — to lay someone out with a blow. The word's everyday lightness makes the murderous suggestion grimly ironic in the lawyer's mouth.
> Perfective gerund «искоренив»: «искоренив» (having rooted out, from «искоренить» — to extirpate, lit. "un-root") is a perfective past gerund marking a completed prior act: by first eliminating the witness, one could then lift every care. It shares the subject of «снять».

И наконец, я соскакиваю, чтобы проверить, жив или нет на меня свидетель, и тут же на дорожке оставляю другого свидетеля, именно этот самый пестик, который я захватил у двух женщин и которые обе всегда могут признать потом этот пестик за свой и засвидетельствовать, что это я у них его захватил.  
And finally, I jump down to verify whether the witness against me is alive or not, and there on the path I leave behind another witness — namely this very pestle, which I had snatched from two women, both of whom can always afterward recognize this pestle as theirs and testify that it was from them I snatched it.
> «два/две» governs the genitive singular: «у двух женщин» — note that the numeral «два/две» (and 2–4) takes the genitive SINGULAR of the noun in the base, but here «у» (genitive) re-declines the whole phrase: «двух женщин» is the genitive of «две женщины». Numerals control case, then re-bend under a preposition.
> «пестик» — diminutive of «пест» (pestle): The text shifts from «пест» (s41) to the diminutive «пестик» — a "little pestle." The affectionate-belittling suffix mockingly miniaturizes the murder weapon as the lawyer toys with it, a small verbal needle aimed at the prosecution's heavy reading.
> Relative «который» twice, two antecedents: The first «который» (accusative) refers to the pestle Mitya snatched; the second «которые обе» (nominative plural) jumps to the two women who can recognize it. Watching which antecedent each «который» agrees with — and what case its own clause assigns — is the reader's task.

И не то что забыл его на дорожке, обронил в рассеянности, в потерянности: нет, мы именно отбросили наше оружие, потому что нашли его шагах в пятнадцати от того места, где был повержен Григорий.  
And it is not that he forgot it on the path, dropped it in distraction, in his bewilderment: no, we deliberately flung away our weapon, for it was found some fifteen paces from the spot where Grigory had been struck down.
> Contrastive «не то что… а»: «не то что… а» sets up "it is not that… but rather…": not that he forgot it, but that we deliberately flung it. «а» is the gentle adversative pivoting from the rejected reading to the asserted one.
> Subjectless "they found" + locative idiom: «нашли» is an agentless past plural — "it was found / they found." «шагах в пятнадцати» inverts numeral and noun («в пятнадцати шагах», fifteen paces off) to mean "some fifteen paces," the inversion signalling approximation.

Спрашивается, для чего же мы так сделали?  
One asks: why, then, did we do this?
> Impersonal reflexive «спрашивается»: «спрашивается» is a reflexive used impersonally — "the question arises, one asks." There is no agent; the «-ся» turns "to ask" into a self-posing query. A common rhetorical opener for a pointed question.

А вот именно потому и сделали, что нам горько стало, что мы человека убили, старого слугу, а потому в досаде, с проклятием и отбросили пестик, как оружие убийства, иначе быть не могло, для чего же его было бросать с такого размаху?  
Why, precisely for this reason we did it — because it had become bitter to us that we had killed a man, an old servant; and so, in vexation, with a curse, we flung the pestle away, the weapon of the murder. It could not have been otherwise — for why else fling it with such a sweep?
> Dative-experiencer «нам горько»: "It became bitter TO us": «нам» is dative, «горько стало» an impersonal predicate of feeling with no nominative subject. This dative-of-the-sufferer is exactly the construction the catalog flags as central to Dostoevsky's inner life.
> Rhetorical «же» in a purpose-question: «для чего же… было бросать» — "why on earth fling it?" «же» intensifies the rhetorical "why," and «было бросать» (past «было» + infinitive) is the idiom "what was the point of throwing." The whole insists the act betrays feeling, not calculation.

Если же могли почувствовать боль и жалость, что человека убили, то, конечно, уж потому, что отца не убили: убив отца, не соскочили бы к другому поверженному из жалости, тогда уже было бы иное чувство, не до жалости бы было тогда, а до самоспасения, и это, конечно, так.  
And if we could feel pain and pity that we had killed a man, then it is of course because we had not killed our father: had we killed the father, we should not have jumped down to the other fallen man out of pity; then it would have been a different feeling, then there would have been no time for pity, but only for self-preservation — and that, of course, is so.
> Counterfactual: gerund condition + «бы»: The perfective gerund «убив отца» ("having killed the father") carries the condition, and «не соскочили бы» the counterfactual result with «бы» — had he killed the father, he would NOT have jumped down out of pity. Gerund-plus-«бы» is a compact way to stage the hypothetical.
> «не до» + genitive: "no time/place for": «не до жалости» is the idiom «не до» + genitive — "there's no room/time for pity, one can't be bothered with pity." With «бы было» it turns counterfactual: there would have been no place for pity. A purely impersonal, subjectless frame.

Напротив, повторяю, размозжили бы ему череп окончательно, а не возились бы с ним пять минут.  
On the contrary, I repeat, we should have smashed his skull outright, and not busied ourselves with him for five minutes.
> Parallel counterfactuals with «бы»: Both verbs carry «бы» for the counterfactual: «размозжили бы» (would have smashed) versus «не возились бы» (would not have fussed). «а» between them is the contrastive hinge — would have done this, and not that.
> «размозжить» — to smash, crush (the skull): «размозжить» is a violent, specific verb for crushing or smashing to pulp, collocating almost ritually with «череп» (skull) or «голову». Its brutality is the lawyer's rhetorical point: a true killer would have done THIS, not lingered in pity.

Явилось место жалости и доброму чувству именно потому, что была пред тем чиста совесть.  
There was room for pity and a kindly feeling precisely because the conscience before that had been clean.
> Subject-last word order: «Явилось место жалости» — "there appeared room for pity" — puts the verb first and the subject «место» after it, the existential pattern that presents new information last. «жалости» and «чувству» are datives: room FOR pity and a kindly feeling.
> Short adjective «чиста» + archaic «пред»: «чиста» is the short predicative form of «чистый» (clean), agreeing with «совесть» (feminine): "the conscience was clean." «пред» is the bookish/archaic variant of «перед» (before), suiting the speech's elevated close.

Вот, стало быть, другая уж психология.  
Here, then, you have a different psychology already.
> A verbless equational sentence: There is no copula: «другая уж психология» (a different psychology already) is a bare nominative predicate, since Russian uses no present-tense 'is'. The opener «вот» ('here you have…') points to the thing just demonstrated.
> «стало быть» — 'so then, therefore': A fixed discourse marker meaning 'consequently, it follows that' — slightly colloquial and characteristic of spoken reasoning. Literally 'it became to be', it is frozen and does not inflect.
> The particle «уж»: Here «уж» is the colloquial, emphatic clipping of «уже» ('already'), tightening the irony — 'a wholly different psychology, you see'. It belongs to the family of modal particles that colour an utterance with the speaker's attitude.

Я ведь нарочно, господа присяжные, прибегнул теперь сам к психологии, чтобы наглядно показать, что из нее можно вывесть всё что угодно.  
I have, after all, on purpose, gentlemen of the jury, resorted now to psychology myself, in order to show plainly that one can deduce from it whatever one pleases.
> «ведь» appealing to the jury: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'after all, as you can see' — drawing the jurors into the defence counsel's reasoning. Russian leans on such particles where English would use stress or intonation.
> Perfective past + dative-governing «к»: «прибегнул» is the perfective past of «прибегнуть» ('to resort to'), naming a single completed act. The verb governs «к» + dative («к психологии»), one of the small set of constructions where 'to' is rendered by «к».
> Purpose clause with «чтобы»: «чтобы» + infinitive («показать») expresses purpose — 'in order to show'. The embedded «что»-clause then reports the point being shown, so two subordinators stack: willed purpose, then plain reported fact.
> Impersonal «можно» + infinitive: «можно вывесть» is the impersonal 'one can deduce', with no nominative subject — the generic 'you/one' lives in the modal «можно» plus a bare infinitive. «из нее» is genitive after «из» ('out of it').
> «вывесть» — an older infinitive of «вывести»: «вывесть» (to deduce, derive) is the 19th-century literary infinitive beside the modern «вывести». The retained -сть ending is one of the period flavours of Dostoevsky's prose.
> «всё что угодно» — 'absolutely anything': A set phrase, literally 'everything that is pleasing', meaning 'anything you like, whatever you please' — here the cynical punch line: psychology can be made to prove anything at all.

Всё дело, в каких она руках.  
It is all a matter of whose hands it is in.
> Elliptical 'it all depends': «Всё дело (в том)…» is an idiom — 'the whole point / the whole matter is…' — with the correlative «в том» elided before the indirect question. The verbless main clause again shows Russian's zero present-tense copula.
> «в каких … руках» — prepositional of location: «в … руках» ('in whose hands') sits in the prepositional case after locative «в», and the interrogative-relative «каких» agrees with «руках» in case and number. The idiom 'in whose hands it is' carries the speech's whole argument.

Психология подзывает на роман даже самых серьезных людей, и это совершенно невольно.  
Psychology lures even the most serious men into novel-writing, and this is quite involuntary.
> Animate accusative «самых серьезных людей»: The object 'the most serious men' takes a genitive-shaped accusative because the noun is animate plural: «самых серьезных людей», not the nominative «люди». This borrowing of the genitive keeps object distinct from subject.
> Superlative with «самый»: «самых серьезных» is the periphrastic superlative — «самый» ('the most') declining together with the adjective and noun ('the most serious'). Here both stand in the accusative plural, agreeing throughout.
> «подзывать на роман» — 'lures into novel-writing': «подзывать» normally means 'to beckon, call over'; here, with «на роман», it is figurative — psychology 'tempts even serious men into spinning a novel'. «роман» means both 'novel' and, by extension, a fanciful, romance-like fabrication — the exact charge the defence levels at the prosecutor's reconstruction.
> Short-adjective predicate «невольно»: «невольно» functions as an invariable adverb/short predicate — 'quite involuntarily / it cannot be helped' — modifying the implied 'it happens'. Such crisp predicative forms give the sentence its aphoristic snap.

Я говорю про излишнюю психологию, господа присяжные, про некоторое злоупотребление ею».  
I am speaking of excessive psychology, gentlemen of the jury, of a certain abuse of it."
> «про» + accusative: «про» ('about, concerning') governs the accusative: «про излишнюю психологию», «про … злоупотребление». It is the more colloquial counterpart of «о» + prepositional, fitting the lawyer's spoken address.
> Instrumental complement «ею»: The noun «злоупотребление» ('abuse, misuse') takes its complement in the instrumental — «ею» ('of it', i.e. of psychology), the bare instrumental of «она». Russian verbs and nouns of using/abusing govern the instrumental directly, with no preposition.
> «злоупотребление» — a bookish abstract noun: Built on «зло» (evil) + «употребление» (use), 'abuse, misuse'. The -ение suffix marks the elevated, abstract register the advocate adopts to scold his opponent's excess.

Здесь опять послышались одобрительные смешки в публике, и всё по адресу прокурора.  
Here again approving laughs were heard from the audience, all at the prosecutor's expense.
> Reflexive «послышались» + subject-last order: «послышались» ('were heard') is a perfective -ся verb with middle/passive sense — the laughs 'made themselves heard'. The grammatical subject «смешки» comes after the verb, the natural Russian flow that places the new information late.
> «смешки» — suppressed little laughs: A diminutive plural of «смех» (laughter): «смешки» are small, half-stifled snickers — knowing, faintly mocking. The expressive suffix conveys the courtroom's quiet ridicule better than a neutral 'laughter' would.
> «по адресу» — 'aimed at, at the expense of': The idiom «по адресу (кого-л.)» means 'directed at someone' — the snickers were all 'at the prosecutor's expense'. «по» + dative «адресу» here is figurative, not a literal address.

Не буду приводить всей речи защитника в подробности, возьму только некоторые из нее места, некоторые главнейшие пункты.  
I shall not reproduce the whole of the counsel's speech in detail; I shall take only certain passages from it, certain of the principal points.
> Compound future + genitive of negation: «не буду приводить» is the imperfective compound future ('I shall not reproduce'), and under negation the object slides into the genitive: «всей речи защитника», not the accusative «всю речь». This genitive of negation is the default with a negated verb.
> Perfective future «возьму»: «возьму» is the simple (perfective) future of «взять» — a verb conjugated like a present but meaning 'I shall take'. It sets the completed, decisive 'I'll pick out just a few passages' against the preceding imperfective 'I shall not reproduce'.
> Asyndeton and superlative «главнейшие»: The two object phrases sit side by side without a conjunction (asyndeton), the second restating the first — a rhetorical narrowing. «главнейшие» is the bookish suffixal superlative in -ейш- ('the principal-most'), more literary than a «самый»-phrase.
> «защитник» — defence counsel: Literally 'defender, protector', «защитник» is the courtroom term for defence attorney (here Fetyukovich). The narrator's choice of the plain Russian word, rather than a Latinate loan, keeps the legal drama rooted in everyday speech.
---

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.