# The Brothers Karamazov, There Was No Money. There Was No Robbery

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c11. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c11.json.


Был один пункт, даже всех поразивший в речи защитника, а именно полное отрицание существования этих роковых трех тысяч рублей, а стало быть, и возможности их грабежа.  
There was one point in the defense counsel's speech that struck absolutely everyone, namely his outright denial that those fateful three thousand roubles had ever existed at all, and therefore that any robbery of them had been possible.
> Past active participle compressing a clause: «поразивший» is a past active participle from «поразить» (to strike, astonish), agreeing with «пункт» (a point that struck...). It packs a whole «который»-clause into one word — «пункт, который поразил всех» — and is a hallmark of Dostoevsky's literary syntax.
> A chain of genitives: Bookish prose stacks genitives: «отрицание существования» (denial of the existence) of «этих... трех тысяч рублей». «существования» depends on «отрицание», and the whole sum sits in the genitive as the thing whose existence is denied — the workhorse case strung into a noun-chain.
> «роковой» — fateful, fatal: «роковой» means 'fateful, fated, fatal', from «рок» (fate, doom). It is a charged, ominous word — these are not merely three thousand roubles but the fateful three thousand around which the whole tragedy turns.

«Господа присяжные заседатели, — приступил защитник, — в настоящем деле всякого свежего и непредубежденного человека поражает одна характернейшая особенность, а именно: обвинение в грабеже и в то же время совершенная невозможность фактически указать на то: что именно было ограблено?  
"Gentlemen of the jury," the counsel began, "in the present case one most characteristic feature strikes any fresh and unprejudiced observer, namely this: a charge of robbery, and at the very same time a complete impossibility of pointing, as a matter of fact, to precisely what was robbed.
> Inverted verb–subject in a dialogue tag: The narrator's tag puts verb before subject — «приступил защитник» (began the counsel) rather than «защитник приступил». This verb-first inversion is the standard, almost invisible word order for speech attributions; case endings keep the roles clear, so position is free for rhythm.
> Bookish superlative in -ейший: «характернейшая» is the synthetic superlative of «характерный» built with the suffix -ейш- ('most characteristic'), rather than the everyday «самый характерный». This one-word superlative is markedly bookish and rhetorical, fitting an orator's flourish.
> «непредубеждённый» — unprejudiced: A negated past passive participle turned adjective: «не-» + «предубеждённый» (prejudiced, from «предубедить»). 'Any fresh and unprejudiced person' — the lawyer flatters his listeners as exactly the impartial minds he needs.

Ограблены, дескать, деньги, именно три тысячи — а существовали ли они в самом деле — этого никто не знает.  
Money was robbed, we are told — exactly three thousand — but whether it actually existed, that no one knows.
> «дескать» — 'so they say': «дескать» is a reportative particle marking words as someone else's claim, with a faint note of doubt or mockery: 'we are told, supposedly, as the story goes.' Fetyukovich uses it to hold the prosecution's assertion at arm's length.
> Embedded «ли» — 'whether': The enclitic «ли» follows the fronted, focused verb «существовали» to mean 'whether they existed' — a literary alternative to plain question intonation, and the standard way to embed an indirect yes/no question.
> Negative concord and topic-fronting: «никто... не знает» shows Russian's obligatory negative concord: the «ни»-pronoun «никто» still requires «не» on the verb. The genitive «этого» is fronted as the topic ('that — no one knows it'), throwing weight onto the negation.

Рассудите: во-первых, как мы узнали, что были три тысячи, и кто их видел?  
Consider: in the first place, how did we come to learn that there were three thousand, and who saw it?
> Polite plural imperative: «Рассудите» (consider, judge for yourselves) is the perfective imperative of «рассудить» with the plural/polite ending -те, addressing the jury formally. Perfective here urges a single act of judgment, not an ongoing one.

Видел их и указал на то, что они были уложены в пакет с надписью, один только слуга Смердяков.  
Only one man saw it and testified that it had been put up in a packet bearing an inscription — the servant Smerdyakov, and he alone.
> Periphrastic passive with a short participle: «были уложены» is the past passive: «быть» plus the short-form past passive participle «уложены» (were packed/put up) from perfective «уложить». The short participle states a result and joins «было/были» to build Russian's analytic passive.
> «слуга» — manservant: «слуга» is a (grammatically masculine, declined like a feminine -а noun) word for a male servant. Calling Smerdyakov «один только... слуга» underlines his low station — and that the entire existence of the money rests on the word of a mere lackey.

Он же сообщил о сем сведении еще до катастрофы подсудимому и его брату Ивану Федоровичу.  
It was likewise he who passed this information, before the catastrophe, to the defendant and to his brother Ivan Fyodorovich.
> Emphatic particle «же»: Here «же» attaches to «он» to mean 'he, the very same one' — it insists on identity and continuity ('it was likewise he who...'). This tiny particle, untranslatable except by stress, knits the argument's emphasis together.
> Archaic «сей» — 'this': «о сем» is the prepositional of «сей» ('this'), an archaic, bookish demonstrative the lawyer favours for elevated, legalistic effect where modern speech says «об этом». «сведение» is a piece of information, intelligence.

Дано было тоже знать госпоже Светловой.  
Word of it was given to Madame Svetlova as well.
> Impersonal passive: «Дано было... знать» is a subjectless impersonal construction: the neuter short participle «дано» ('it was given') with no nominative subject, plus the infinitive «знать» — 'word was given/made known'. Russian readily frames such reports with no named agent.
> Dative as recipient: «госпоже Светловой» stands in the dative as the one to whom word was given — the indirect object of 'making known'. Both noun and surname take the feminine dative ending -е/-ой.

Но все эти три лица сами этих денег, однако, не видали, видел опять-таки лишь Смердяков, но тут сам собою вопрос: если и правда, что они были и что видел их Смердяков, то когда он их видел в последний раз?  
But none of these three persons ever actually saw the money themselves; again, only Smerdyakov saw it — and here a question arises of its own accord: if it is even true that the money existed and that Smerdyakov saw it, then when did he see it last?
> Imperfective negation of seeing: «не видали» is the imperfective past of «видеть» (older plural form «видали»), negated. The imperfective under negation denies that the act of seeing ever took place at all — 'never actually saw' — broader and flatter than a perfective would be.
> Reflexive «себя» in the set phrase «сам собою»: «сам собою» ('of its own accord, by itself') uses the instrumental «собою» of the reflexive pronoun «себя», which has no nominative. The question 'arises of its own accord' — the lawyer presents his doubt as inevitable, not contrived.
> Concessive «если и» — 'even if': «если и правда, что...» is a concessive conditional: 'even granting it is true that...'. The added «и» after «если» concedes the point for the sake of argument before pivoting to the real question, «когда».

А что, если барин эти деньги из-под постели вынул и опять положил в шкатулку, ему не сказавши?  
And what if the master had taken this money out from under the mattress and put it back into his strongbox without telling him?
> «барин» — the master: «барин» is the master of the house as seen from below — the lord, the gentleman one serves. The word carries the whole hierarchy of master and servant; from Smerdyakov's mouth (and the lawyer's ventriloquism of it) it frames Fyodor Pavlovich as the man with the power to move his own money unannounced.
> Perfective gerund «сказавши»: «сказавши» is a perfective past gerund ('having said' / here negated, 'without telling'), an older variant of «сказав». Negated and dative-governing «ему», it adds an attendant circumstance to the main verb: he put the money back 'without telling him'.
> Hypothetical opener «а что, если»: «А что, если...» ('And what if...') launches a suppositional scenario — the lawyer's favourite rhetorical move throughout this speech. The «а» is the soft contrastive conjunction pivoting to a new possibility.

Заметьте, по словам Смердякова, деньги лежали под постелью, под тюфяком; подсудимый должен был их вырвать из-под тюфяка, и однако же, постель была ничуть не помята, и об этом старательно записано в протокол.  
Observe: according to Smerdyakov, the money lay beneath the bedding, under the mattress; the defendant would have had to wrench it out from under the mattress, and yet the bed was not in the least disturbed — and this is carefully recorded in the report.
> «должен был» — would have had to: «должен был» (was obliged to / would have had to) + perfective infinitive «вырвать» states a logically necessary action within the hypothesis: to get the money the defendant must have wrenched it out — yet the bed is undisturbed, and the contradiction is the point.
> Short passive participle as predicate: «была... не помята» is the negated short-form past passive participle of «помять» (to crumple), agreeing feminine with «постель». 'The bed was not in the least crumpled' — a result-state predicate, the natural way to describe a thing's condition.
> «тюфяк» — pallet, mattress: «тюфяк» is a thin straw- or wool-stuffed mattress, humbler than a modern «матрас». The money lay «под тюфяком» — under the pallet — a homely, concrete detail that anchors the forensic argument.

Как мог подсудимый совсем-таки ничего не помять в постели и вдобавок с окровавленными еще руками не замарать свежейшего, тонкого постельного белья, которое нарочно на этот раз было постлано?  
How could the defendant have left the bed entirely undisturbed and, on top of that, with hands still bloodied, not soiled the freshest, finest bed linen, which had been laid out specially for that very occasion?
> Rhetorical «как мог...?»: «Как мог... не помять?» ('How could he have failed to crumple?') is an incredulous rhetorical question — «мог» (could) + perfective infinitive, with negation built in. The form expects the answer 'he couldn't have'.
> Genitive of negation + superlative: After negated «не замарать» (not to soil), the object «белья» (linen) stands in the genitive — the genitive of negation. The piled-up modifier «свежейшего» is again a one-word superlative ('the freshest'), heightening the absurdity of leaving it spotless.
> «который»-clause with periphrastic passive: «которое... было постлано» is a relative clause: «которое» agrees neuter with «бельё» but takes nominative as the subject of its own clause; «было постлано» is the past passive ('had been laid out') from «постлать».

Но скажут нам: а пакет-то на полу?  
But we shall be told: and what of the packet on the floor?
> Topic-marking clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «пакет» highlights it as the known topic now under discussion ('the packet, mind you'). Distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то», this clitic flags given information and a touch of insistence.
> Subjectless 'they will say': «скажут нам» is a 3rd-person-plural verb with no stated subject — the impersonal 'one will tell us / it will be objected'. Russian uses this bare plural constantly to voice an anticipated counter-argument; the lawyer stages the prosecution's reply to knock it down.

Вот об этом-то пакете и стоит поговорить.  
It is precisely this packet that is worth discussing.
> Emphatic «-то» plus fronting: «Вот об этом-то пакете и стоит поговорить» fronts the prepositional phrase and tags it with «-то» and the focusing «вот... и» frame ('it is precisely this packet that...'). Word order and particles together pin the spotlight on the packet.
> Impersonal «стоит» + infinitive: «стоит поговорить» is an impersonal predicate ('it is worth talking') with no nominative subject and a perfective infinitive «поговорить» ('to have a talk', the prefix по- giving a measured, delimited sense).

Давеча я был даже несколько удивлен: высокоталантливый обвинитель, заговорив об этом пакете, вдруг сам — слышите, господа, сам — заявил про него в своей речи, именно в том месте, где он указывает на нелепость предположения, что убил Смердяков: „Не было бы этого пакета, не останься он на полу как улика, унеси его грабитель с собою, то никто бы и не узнал в целом мире, что был пакет, а в нем деньги, и что, стало быть, деньги были ограблены подсудимым“.  
A little while ago I was even somewhat astonished: the highly talented prosecutor, once he had begun on this packet, suddenly himself — do you hear, gentlemen, himself — declared, at that very point in his speech where he is pointing out the absurdity of supposing that Smerdyakov was the killer: "Had there been no such packet, had it not been left lying on the floor as evidence, had the robber carried it off with him, then no one in the whole world would ever have known that there was a packet, and money inside it, and that the money, accordingly, had been robbed by the defendant."
> «давеча» — a little while ago: «давеча» is a colloquial, slightly old-fashioned adverb meaning 'earlier today, a little while back'. It lends the address a conversational, buttonholing ease amid the legal argument.
> Perfective gerund «заговорив»: «заговорив» is a perfective past gerund from «заговорить» (to begin speaking), the prefix за- marking the inception. It sets the prior circumstance: 'having once begun on this packet, he suddenly declared...'.
> Conditional without «если»: «бы» and a bare imperative: The quoted prosecutor stacks counterfactuals: «Не было бы...» uses «бы» on a past form for an unreal condition, then «не останься он» uses a bare perfective imperative form with conditional force ('had it not remained'). Both are vivid, «если»-less protases — a high rhetorical register.
> Conditional + negative concord in the apodosis: The result clause «никто бы... не узнал» combines the conditional particle «бы» with negative concord («никто... не»): 'no one would have learned'. The mobile «бы» leans on «никто», not the verb.

Итак, единственно только этот разорванный клочок бумаги с надписью, даже по признанию самого обвинителя, и послужил к обвинению подсудимого в грабеже, „иначе-де не узнал бы никто, что был грабеж, а может быть, что были и деньги“.  
And so, by the prosecutor's own admission, it was solely and only this torn scrap of paper with its inscription that served to convict the defendant of robbery — "otherwise no one would have known there had been a robbery, or perhaps that there had even been any money."
> «по» + dative — 'by/according to': «по признанию» ('by the admission') uses «по» governing the dative — here in its sense 'according to'. The lawyer scores a point by sourcing his claim to the prosecutor's own confession.
> Reportative clitic «-де»: «-де» is a reportative particle like «дескать», tagging the following words as a reported claim ('otherwise, so he says...'). It lets the lawyer quote the prosecutor's reasoning while signalling it is the prosecutor's, not his own.
> «клочок» — a scrap, shred: «клочок» is a torn little scrap (of paper, cloth), with the diminutive suffix -ок shrinking «клок» (a tuft, shred). Reducing the damning evidence to a mere «разорванный клочок бумаги» — a torn scrap — is itself part of the argument: how can a shred prove a robbery?

Но неужели одно то, что этот клочок валялся на полу, есть доказательство, что в нем были деньги и что деньги эти ограблены?  
But is the mere fact that this scrap was lying about on the floor really proof that money had been in it and that this money was robbed?
> Incredulous particle «неужели»: «неужели» opens a rhetorical question loaded with disbelief: 'is it really, can it possibly be that...?'. It signals the speaker leans hard toward 'no' — the lawyer doubts a scrap on the floor proves anything.
> «валяться» — to lie about: «валяться» (here past «валялся») means to lie around carelessly, sprawled and neglected. It is dismissive: the scrap didn't lie in evidence, it 'lay about' — diminishing the prosecution's prize exhibit to litter.

„Но, отвечают, ведь видел их в пакете Смердяков“, но когда, когда он их видел в последний раз, вот об чем я спрашиваю?  
"But," they answer, "Smerdyakov did see it in the packet" — yet when, when did he see it last, that is what I am asking?
> Appealing particle «ведь»: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge — 'but after all, Smerdyakov did see it'. The lawyer voices the objection in the opponents' mouth with «ведь», then immediately turns it back with his own «когда».
> Colloquial «об чём» for «о чём»: «вот об чём я спрашиваю» uses the spoken «об чём» where the book norm is «о чём». The familiar variant gives the orator's voice a buttonholing, live-speech immediacy.

Я говорил с Смердяковым, и он мне сказал, что видел их за два дня пред катастрофой!  
I spoke with Smerdyakov, and he told me that he had seen it two days before the catastrophe!
> «за... пред» — time before an event: «за два дня пред катастрофой» ('two days before the catastrophe') uses «за» + accusative span with the archaic «пред» (= «перед») governing the instrumental «катастрофой». «пред» is the bookish, elevated variant the lawyer favours.

Но почему же я не могу предположить, например, хоть такое обстоятельство, что старик Федор Павлович, запершись дома, в нетерпеливом истерическом ожидании своей возлюбленной вдруг вздумал бы, от нечего делать, вынуть пакет и его распечатать: „Что, дескать, пакет, еще, пожалуй, и не поверит, а как тридцать-то радужных в одной пачке ей покажу, небось сильнее подействует, потекут слюнки“, — и вот он разрывает конверт, вынимает деньги, а конверт бросает на пол властной рукой хозяина и уж, конечно, не боясь никакой улики.  
But why may I not suppose, for instance, some such circumstance as this: that old Fyodor Pavlovich, locked up at home, in impatient and hysterical expectation of his beloved, suddenly took it into his head, having nothing better to do, to draw out the packet and unseal it: "A packet, she might say, why, she perhaps won't even believe me, but if I show her thirty rainbow notes in a single bundle, that will surely have a stronger effect, it'll make her mouth water," — and so he tears open the envelope, takes out the money, and tosses the envelope to the floor with the masterful hand of a householder who has, of course, no fear of any evidence whatever.
> «же» reinforcing a rhetorical 'why': «почему же... не могу» — 'why on earth may I not suppose?'. The particle «же» presses the rhetorical question, daring the jury to deny him the right to his own hypothesis.
> Reflexive perfective gerund «запершись»: «запершись» is a perfective past gerund of the reflexive «запереться» (to lock oneself in), formed with -шись. The -ся/-сь reflexive turns 'lock' into 'lock oneself in', and the gerund sets the scene: 'locked up at home, he suddenly took it into his head...'.
> Conditional «бы» inside the supposition: «вздумал бы... вынуть» (would suddenly take it into his head to draw out) is the conditional: past-form «вздумал» + «бы» + perfective infinitive. It frames the whole vivid scene as the lawyer's hypothetical, not asserted fact.
> «потекут слюнки» — her mouth will water: «слюнки» is the affectionate diminutive of «слюна» (saliva); «потекут слюнки» literally 'the little spittle will start to flow' = 'her mouth will water'. The lawyer ventriloquises old Fyodor Pavlovich's coarse, gloating inner voice in earthy idiom.

Послушайте, господа присяжные, есть ли что возможнее такого предположения и такого факта?  
Listen, gentlemen of the jury, is there anything more possible than such a supposition and such a fact?
> Perfective imperative «послушайте»: «Послушайте» (listen, hear me) is the polite-plural perfective imperative of «послушать» (the prefix по- giving a brief, pointed 'do listen'). It directly buttonholes the jurors before a key rhetorical question.
> «ли» question + comparative: «есть ли что возможнее...?» ('is there anything more possible...?') pairs the interrogative particle «ли» with the predicative comparative «возможнее» (from «возможный»). It is a rhetorical question expecting 'no, nothing'.

Почему это невозможно?  
Why is this impossible?
> Short adjective «невозможно» as predicate: «невозможно» is the short neuter form of «невозможный», functioning as a predicate ('is impossible'). Short adjectives are confined to the predicate slot and lend a flat, categorical ring suited to courtroom assertion.

Но ведь если хоть что-нибудь подобное могло иметь место, то ведь тогда обвинение в грабеже само собою уничтожается: не было денег, не было, стало быть, и грабежа.  
But surely, if even anything of the sort could have taken place, then the charge of robbery collapses of itself: there was no money, and so, accordingly, there was no robbery.
> Non-specific «что-нибудь»: «что-нибудь подобное» ('anything of the sort') uses the non-specific indefinite «-нибудь» — any such thing at all, unidentified. Inside the conditional «если... могло иметь место», it concedes the bare possibility.
> Genitive of negation in existential denial: «не было денег... не было... грабежа» — with negated «не было» the absent things go obligatorily into the genitive: «денег», «грабежа». This is the genitive of negation in its existential use, and the chapter's very title echoes it.
> Reflexive «-ся» as middle voice: «уничтожается» (collapses, is annulled) carries the reflexive -ся giving a middle, intransitive sense: the charge 'destroys itself / falls of its own accord'. «само собою» ('by itself') reinforces it — no agent needed.

Если пакет лежал на полу как улика, что в нем были деньги, то почему я не могу утверждать обратное, а именно, что пакет валялся на полу именно потому, что в нем уже не было денег, взятых из него предварительно самим хозяином?  
If the packet lay on the floor as evidence that money had been in it, then why may I not assert the opposite — namely, that the packet was lying about on the floor precisely because there was no longer any money in it, the money having been taken out of it beforehand by the householder himself?
> Past passive participle + instrumental of agent: «взятых» is a past passive participle (from «взять») agreeing genitive with «денег» — 'the money taken out'. Its agent stands in the instrumental, «самим хозяином» ('by the householder himself') — the standard way Russian marks the doer of a passive.
> Imperfective infinitive of ongoing assertion: «могу утверждать» pairs «мочь» with the imperfective infinitive «утверждать» (to assert, maintain) — an ongoing stance rather than a single act. The lawyer claims the right to maintain the contrary reading.

„Да, но куда ж в таком случае делись деньги, если их выбрал из пакета сам Федор Павлович, в его доме при обыске не нашли?“  
"Yes, but in that case, where did the money go, if Fyodor Pavlovich himself emptied it out of the packet — it was not found in his house when it was searched?"
> Reflexive «деться» — 'to get to': «делись» is the past of reflexive «деться» (to get to, vanish to), a verb existing only with -ся. «Куда делись деньги?» = 'where did the money get to?'. The clipped «ж» (= «же») sharpens the challenge.
> Accusative object «их» under the conditional: «если их выбрал... сам Фёдор Павлович» — the intensifier «сам» ('himself') agrees nominative with the subject, while «их» is the accusative object of «выбрал» (picked/emptied out), merely syncretic with the genitive. «сам» insisting it was the master's own doing.
> Subjectless 'they didn't find': «не нашли» is a bare 3rd-plural with no subject — impersonal 'it was not found / they didn't find it'. «при обыске» ('during the search') uses «при» + prepositional for an accompanying circumstance.

Во-первых, в шкатулке у него часть денег нашли, а во-вторых, он мог вынуть их еще утром, даже еще накануне, распорядиться ими иначе, выдать их, отослать, изменить, наконец, свою мысль, свой план действий в самом основании и при этом совсем даже не найдя нужным докладываться об этом предварительно Смердякову?  
In the first place, part of the money was found in his strongbox, and in the second place, he might have taken it out that very morning, or even the day before, disposed of it otherwise, paid it out, sent it off, or finally changed his whole intention, his entire plan of action at its very foundation — and all this without in the least finding it necessary to report the matter to Smerdyakov in advance?
> A chain of perfective infinitives: «мог» governs a cascade of perfective infinitives — «вынуть, распорядиться, выдать, отослать, изменить» — each a single completed alternative the master might have done. The perfectives pile up discrete possibilities, overwhelming the prosecution's single story.
> Negated gerund «не найдя»: «не найдя нужным» is a perfective gerund of «найти» ('not having found it necessary'), governing the reflexive infinitive «докладываться» (to report to). The gerund adds the attendant circumstance: he did all this 'without finding it necessary' to inform Smerdyakov.
> «докладываться» — to report to: «докладываться» (here imperfective) means to make a report, render an account to a superior — its very form casts the servant as someone to whom the master owes no explanation. The dative «Смердякову» is the one reported to. The verb's bureaucratic-deferential flavour underlines the social gulf.

А ведь если существует хотя бы даже только возможность такого предположения, то как же можно столь настойчиво и столь твердо обвинять подсудимого, что убийство совершено им для грабежа и что действительно существовал грабеж?  
And surely, if even the mere possibility of such a supposition exists, then how can one so insistently and so firmly accuse the defendant of having committed the murder for robbery, and that a robbery actually took place?
> Concessive «хотя бы» — 'even merely': «хотя бы даже только возможность» piles concessive particles ('if even merely the bare possibility') with «хотя бы» built on the irrealis «бы». The stacking strains every nerve to admit the smallest opening for doubt.
> Short passive participle + instrumental agent: «совершено им» — short neuter past passive participle «совершено» ('was committed') with the instrumental agent «им» ('by him'). A compact result-statement: the murder, committed by him, for robbery.

Ведь мы, таким образом, вступаем в область романов.  
For in this way we are entering the realm of romances.
> «ведь» + present of vivid generalisation: «Ведь... вступаем» opens with the appealing «ведь» ('for, you see') and uses the imperfective present «вступаем» ('we are entering') to draw the jury into a shared, ongoing realisation. «в область» takes the accusative of motion-toward.
> «роман» — novel / romance: «роман» means both 'novel' and 'romance / love-affair'. The lawyer's running gibe is that the prosecution has spun a «роман» — a work of fiction. We render it 'romances' to keep the dig at far-fetched Gothic storytelling (cf. the Udolpho jab below).

Ведь если утверждать, что такая-то вещь ограблена, то надобно указать эту вещь или по крайней мере доказать непреложно, что она существовала.  
For if one asserts that such-and-such a thing has been robbed, then one must point to that thing, or at the very least prove incontrovertibly that it existed.
> Placeholder «такая-то» — 'such-and-such': «такая-то вещь» uses the clitic «-то» to make a vague placeholder, 'such-and-such a thing'. It abstracts the argument to a general principle of proof before returning to the missing money.
> Impersonal «надобно» + infinitive: «надобно» is an archaic, bookish variant of «надо» ('one must, it is needful'), an impersonal predicate with no nominative subject, governing the perfective infinitives «указать» and «доказать». The dative experiencer is left unstated — a general necessity.
> «непреложно» — incontrovertibly: «непреложно» (from «непреложный», 'immutable, irrefragable') means 'beyond all dispute'. A weighty, bookish adverb suited to the lawyer's demand for absolute proof that the money ever existed.

А ее даже никто и не видал.  
And yet no one has so much as seen it.
> Genitive of negation + negative concord: «А её... никто и не видал» — the object «её» (the thing) is fronted as topic, «никто... не видал» supplies negative concord, and the imperfective «видал» under negation denies the act ever happened: 'no one has so much as seen it'. The «и» intensifies ('not even').

Недавно в Петербурге один молодой человек, почти мальчик, восемнадцати лет, мелкий разносчик с лотка, вошел среди бела дня с топором в меняльную лавку и с необычайною, типическою дерзостью убил хозяина лавки и унес с собою тысячу пятьсот рублей денег.  
Not long ago in Petersburg a young man, almost a boy, eighteen years old, a petty street-tray peddler, walked in broad daylight with an axe into a money-changer's shop and, with extraordinary, characteristic insolence, killed the proprietor and carried off fifteen hundred roubles in cash.
> «разносчик» — a street pedlar: «разносчик» is a hawker who 'carries around' (от «разносить») goods to sell; «с лотка» means he sold from a «лоток», a flat tray slung at the chest. A figure of the petty urban poor — 'almost a boy' driven to violence.
> «среди бела дня» — in broad daylight: A set phrase, «среди бела дня» ('in the middle of the white day'), preserving the old short-adjective genitive «бела» (= «белого»). It heightens the shock — the murder done openly, in full daylight.
> Case after the numeral: In «тысячу пятьсот рублей» the noun «рублей» stands in the genitive plural as governed by the compound numeral ending in «пятьсот» (5 and above take genitive plural). «тысячу» itself is the accusative object of «унёс».

Часов через пять он был арестован, на нем, кроме пятнадцати рублей, которые он уже успел истратить, нашли все эти полторы тысячи.  
Some five hours later he was arrested, and on him, apart from the fifteen roubles he had already managed to spend, the whole of that fifteen hundred was found.
> Periphrastic passive 'was arrested': «был арестован» = «быть» + short past passive participle «арестован» from «арестовать» — the standard analytic passive ('he was arrested'). The short participle agrees masculine singular with «он».
> «успеть» + perfective infinitive — 'manage to': «успел истратить» pairs «успеть» (to have time, manage) with the perfective «истратить» (to spend up) — 'had managed to spend'. The «который»-clause modifies «пятнадцати рублей».
> «полторы» — one and a half: «полторы» is the special feminine form of «полтора» ('one and a half'), used with feminine «тысячи». «Полторы тысячи» = fifteen hundred — the recurring sum that, in the lawyer's argument, both halves of the riddle hinge on.

Кроме того, воротившийся после убийства в лавку приказчик сообщил полиции не только об украденной сумме, но и из каких именно денег она состояла, то есть сколько было кредиток радужных, сколько синих, сколько красных, сколько золотых монет и каких именно, и вот на арестованном убийце именно такие же деньги и монеты и найдены.  
Moreover, the shop-clerk, returning to the shop after the murder, informed the police not only of the sum that had been stolen but of precisely what notes it had consisted of — that is, how many rainbow notes there had been, how many blue ones, how many red ones, how many gold coins and of exactly which kind — and lo, upon the arrested murderer those very same notes and coins were found.
> Past active participle as a heavy pre-modifier: «воротившийся... приказчик» front-loads a reflexive past active participle (from «воротиться», to return) before its noun, with the whole phrase 'returning to the shop after the murder' squeezed in attributively. This dense pre-noun participle is quintessential literary Russian.
> «приказчик» — shop-clerk, steward: A «приказчик» was a hired clerk or salesman who managed a merchant's shop or estate business — a trusted subordinate. Here it is the shop-clerk who could itemise exactly which notes were stolen.

Вдобавок ко всему последовало полное и чистосердечное признание убийцы в том, что он убил и унес с собою эти самые деньги.  
On top of all this, there followed the murderer's full and frank confession that he had killed and carried off these very sums.
> Verb-first with delayed subject: «последовало... признание» puts the verb «последовало» first and the heavy subject «признание» (with its adjectives) last — end-weight that lands the climactic noun, 'confession', at the close. Neuter agreement matches «признание».
> «чистосердечный» — frank, candid: «чистосердечный» literally 'pure-hearted' (чистое + сердце), means open and sincere. A «чистосердечное признание» — a free and candid confession — is, in legal idiom, the cleanest proof of guilt: precisely what the present case lacks.

Вот это, господа присяжные, я называю уликой!  
That, gentlemen of the jury, is what I call evidence!
> Instrumental of the predicate after «называть»: «называю уликой» ('I call [it] evidence') puts the predicate noun «улика» into the instrumental «уликой» — the case Russian uses for the second object of «называть», «считать», «быть» and the like. 'That is what I call evidence!'

Вот тут уж я знаю, вижу, осязаю деньги и не могу сказать, что их нет или не было.  
There I know, I see, I can touch the money, and I cannot say that it does not exist or never existed.
> Imperfective present triad: Three imperfective presents in a row — «знаю, вижу, осязаю» (I know, I see, I touch) — mount a crescendo of immediate, ongoing certainty. The imperfective present is the natural vehicle for this present-tense, sensory grasp of the money.
> Genitive of negation: «нет / не было»: «их нет... [их] не было» — with «нет» (present 'there is not') and «не было» (past 'there was not'), the thing absent stands in the genitive «их». Here the lawyer can NOT say it, precisely because he can see the money — the rhetorical inverse of his case against Mitya.

Так ли в настоящем случае?  
Is that how it stands in the present case?
> Terse «ли» question: «Так ли...?» ('Is that how it stands...?') is a clipped yes/no question with «ли» following the focused «так». Pithy and pointed, it pivots from the Petersburg model crime back to Mitya's.

А между тем ведь дело идет о жизни и смерти, о судьбе человека.  
And yet the matter at hand concerns life and death, the very fate of a man.
> Idiom «дело идёт о» + prepositional: «дело идёт о...» ('the matter concerns / it is a question of...') is a fixed idiom taking «о» + prepositional: «о жизни и смерти», «о судьбе человека». The present «идёт» gives it urgency — a man's life is at stake right now.
> «а между тем ведь» — and yet, after all: The string «а между тем ведь» layers the contrastive «а», the adverbial «между тем» ('meanwhile, and yet'), and the appealing «ведь» to swing hard from the clear Petersburg case to the gravity of this one. Particle-stacking like this is the texture of Dostoevsky's oratory.

„Так, скажут, но ведь он в ту же ночь кутил, сорил деньгами, у него обнаружено полторы тысячи рублей — откуда же он взял их?“  
"Very well," they will say, "but that same night he was on a spree, throwing money about, and fifteen hundred roubles were found on him — where, then, did he get them?"
> Challenging «откуда же»: «откуда же он взял их?» ('where, then, did he get them?') sharpens the question with «же». The lawyer again voices the prosecution's strongest point, the better to dismantle it next.
> «кутить» and «сорить деньгами»: «кутить» is to go on a riotous spree, carouse; «сорить деньгами» literally 'to litter with money' = to throw money about, squander it. The pair paints Mitya's notorious night of reckless splurging at Mokroye in vivid, censorious colours.
> Short passive participle, impersonal: «обнаружено» is the short neuter past passive participle of «обнаружить» (to discover), used impersonally — 'fifteen hundred were found [on him]'. The neuter default form ignores the plural sum, a common impersonal-passive pattern.

Но ведь именно потому, что обнаружено было всего только полторы тысячи, а другой половины суммы ни за что не могли отыскать и обнаружить, именно тем и доказывается, что эти деньги могли быть совсем не те, совсем никогда не бывшие ни в каком пакете.  
But it is precisely because only fifteen hundred were found, while the other half of the sum could not, for all their efforts, be traced or uncovered, that this very thing proves that the money might not have been the same money at all — money that had never been in any packet whatsoever.
> Correlative «потому что... тем» with reflexive passive: The sentence yokes cause and consequence: «именно потому, что...» ('precisely because...') answered by «именно тем и доказывается» ('by that very thing it is proved'). «доказывается» is a reflexive-passive («-ся») — 'is proved', no agent named.
> Past active participle of «быть» + stacked negation: «не бывшие ни в каком пакете» uses «бывшие», the past active participle of «быть» ('having been'), negated, with «ни в каком» ('in no [packet] whatever') feeding the negative concord. A dense participial negation — money 'that had never been in any packet at all'.

По расчету времени (и уже строжайшему) дознано и доказано предварительным следствием, что подсудимый, выбежав от служанок к чиновнику Перхотину, домой не заходил, да и никуда не заходил, а затем всё время был на людях, а стало быть, не мог отделить от трех тысяч половины и куда-нибудь спрятать в городе.  
By a reckoning of time (and a most rigorous one at that) it was ascertained and proved by the preliminary investigation that the defendant, after running from the servant-girls to the official Perhotin, did not stop at home, nor indeed anywhere, and was thereafter the whole time among people, and so, accordingly, could not have separated half from the three thousand and hidden it somewhere in town.
> Perfective gerund of motion «выбежав»: «выбежав» is a perfective past gerund from the prefixed motion verb «выбежать» (to run out). The prefix вы- ('out') both fixes direction and perfectivises; the gerund sets the prior action — 'having run out from the servant-girls to Perhotin...'.
> Twin short passives + instrumental agent: «дознано и доказано» are short neuter past passive participles ('it was ascertained and proved'), and «предварительным следствием» is the instrumental agent ('by the preliminary investigation') — the case marking the doer of the passive.

Вот именно это соображение и было причиною предположения обвинителя, что деньги где-то спрятаны в расщелине в селе Мокром.  
It is precisely this consideration that gave rise to the prosecutor's supposition that the money is hidden somewhere in a crevice in the village of Mokroye.
> Instrumental predicate after past «было»: «было причиною» puts the predicate noun «причина» (cause) into the instrumental «причиною» (the archaic -ою for -ой) after past «было» — the case for predicate nouns with «быть» in the past. The «вот... и» frame spotlights «это соображение».

Да уж не в подвалах ли Удольфского замка, господа?  
Why not in the vaults of the castle of Udolpho, gentlemen?
> Sarcastic «не... ли?» with «уж»: «Да уж не... ли...?» is a heavily ironic question frame ('Why, surely not in...?') built on «ли»; the particles «да уж» drip with sarcasm. The lawyer mockingly asks whether the missing money is hidden in the vaults of Udolpho.

Ну не фантастическое ли, не романическое ли это предположение.  
Now is this not a fantastical, is it not a romantic supposition?
> Doubled rhetorical «не... ли»: Two parallel «не... ли» frames ('is it not fantastical, is it not romantic...') drive home the mockery with «ли». The repetition is pure oratorical rhythm, demanding the jury answer 'yes, it is'.
> «романический» — like a novel: «романический» means 'novelistic, the stuff of a romance' (from «роман»). Distinct from «романтический» (romantic in feeling), it brands the supposition as a contrived fiction — continuing the speech's central taunt.

И заметьте, ведь уничтожься только это одно предположение, то есть что спрятано в Мокром, — и всё обвинение в грабеже взлетает на воздух, ибо где же, куда же девались тогда эти полторы тысячи?  
And observe: let this one supposition alone be demolished — namely, that it is hidden at Mokroye — and the whole charge of robbery blows up into the air, for where, where then did this fifteen hundred get to?
> Imperative form with conditional force: «уничтожься... предположение» uses a 2nd-person imperative form («уничтожься», from reflexive «уничтожиться») with conditional meaning: 'let this one supposition be demolished'. This use of the bare imperative for a hypothetical condition is a vivid, bookish device.
> Archaic causal «ибо»: «ибо» ('for, because') is the bookish, elevated causal conjunction the lawyer reaches for in his perorations, where speech would use «потому что» or «так как». «взлетает на воздух» ('flies up into the air') = blows up, collapses.
> Reflexive «деваться» again: «девались» (past of reflexive «деваться», to get to / vanish) repeats the earlier challenge: 'where did the fifteen hundred get to?'. The reflexive -ся makes it intransitive — money simply 'going somewhere', no agent.

Каким чудом они могли исчезнуть, если доказано, что подсудимый никуда не заходил?  
By what miracle could it have vanished, if it has been proved that the defendant went nowhere at all?
> Instrumental of manner «каким чудом»: «Каким чудом?» ('By what miracle?') uses the instrumental of «какое чудо» to express means/manner — the instrumental's job of marking 'by what'. The perfective infinitive «исчезнуть» frames the vanishing as a single, impossible event.
> Short passive «доказано» + negative concord: «доказано» is the impersonal short passive ('it has been proved'), and the embedded clause shows negative concord: «никуда... не заходил» ('went nowhere'), the «ни»-adverb requiring «не» on the verb.

И такими-то романами мы готовы погубить жизнь человеческую!  
And with romances of this kind we are ready to destroy a human life!
> Instrumental of means + «-то»: «такими-то романами» ('with romances of this kind') is the instrumental of means/instrument — 'by means of such novels'. The «-то» adds a contemptuous wave at this sort of thing: with mere fictions we would destroy a life.
> Short adjective «готовы» + perfective infinitive: «готовы» is the short plural form of «готовый» (ready), a predicate-only form, governing the perfective infinitive «погубить» (to destroy, ruin utterly). 'We are ready to destroy a human life' — the exclamation's moral weight lands on «погубить».

Скажут: „Все-таки он не умел объяснить, где взял эти полторы тысячи, которые на нем обнаружены, кроме того, все знали, что до этой ночи у него не было денег“.  
They will say: "All the same, he was unable to explain where he got this fifteen hundred that was found on him, and besides, everyone knew that until that night he had no money."
> «уметь» + perfective infinitive: «не умел объяснить» — «уметь» (to be able, know how) with the perfective infinitive «объяснить». Inside, «где взял» is an indirect question with the verb-final, comma-free word order Russian permits. The prosecution's point: he couldn't account for the money.
> «у + genitive» possession, negated: «у него не было денег» is the standard Russian for 'he had no money': «у» + genitive «него» for the possessor, «не было» + genitive «денег» for the absent thing. Two genitives, one for ownership, one for the genitive of negation.

А кто же это знал?  
But who, exactly, knew this?
> Challenging «кто же»: «А кто же это знал?» ('But who, exactly, knew this?') turns the prosecution's confident 'everyone knew' into a pointed challenge with «же». The contrastive «а» pivots straight back at the claim.

Но подсудимый дал ясное и твердое показание о том, откуда взял деньги, и если хотите, господа присяжные заседатели, если хотите, — никогда ничего не могло и не может быть вероятнее этого показания и, кроме того, более совместного с характером и душой подсудимого.  
But the defendant gave a clear and firm account of where he got the money, and, if you please, gentlemen of the jury, if you please — nothing ever could be, or can be, more probable than this account, and, what is more, more consistent with the character and soul of the defendant.
> Comparative of «вероятный» + genitive of comparison: «вероятнее этого показания» ('more probable than this account') is the predicative comparative «вероятнее» governing a bare genitive «этого показания» — the genitive standard of comparison, an alternative to «чем». Negative concord («ничего не могло») heightens it: nothing could be more probable.
> Conditional softener «если хотите»: «если хотите» ('if you please / if you will'), repeated for emphasis, is a polite conditional aside softening the assertion that follows. The second-person plural «хотите» addresses the jury directly and deferentially.

Обвинению понравился собственный роман: человек с слабою волей, решившийся взять три тысячи, столь позорно ему предложенные невестой его, не мог, дескать, отделить половину и зашить ее в ладонку, напротив, если б и зашил, то расшивал бы каждые два дня и отколупывал бы по сотне и таким образом извел бы всё в один месяц.  
The prosecution has taken a liking to a novel of its own: a man of weak will who, having brought himself to take the three thousand so shamefully offered him by his betrothed, could not, supposedly, have set apart half of it and sewn it into a little amulet-bag; on the contrary, even had he sewn it up, he would have unstitched it every couple of days and picked out a hundred at a time, and in this way run through the whole of it within a single month.
> Reflexive past active participle: «решившийся» is a past active participle of reflexive «решиться» (to bring oneself to, resolve), agreeing with «человек» — 'a man who had brought himself to take...'. The -ся makes it 'steel oneself', not merely 'decide'. «с слабою волей» uses the archaic instrumental ending -ою.
> Past passive participle modifying «три тысячи»: «предложенные» (offered) is a past passive participle agreeing with «три тысячи», with its dative «ему» ('offered to him') and adverb «столь позорно» ('so shamefully'). A whole clause — 'so shamefully offered him by his betrothed' — folded into one participle.
> Counterfactual «если б» with imperfective iteratives: «если б и зашил, то расшивал бы... отколупывал бы» is a past counterfactual: «если б» ('even had he sewn it up') answered by conditional «бы» + imperfective «расшивал, отколупывал». The imperfectives stress habitual, repeated action — he'd keep unstitching and picking out money.
> «ладонка» — an amulet-bag: A «ладанка» (here «ладонка») is a small cloth pouch worn round the neck, originally for incense («ладан») or a holy relic, used to keep something precious next to the body. The prosecution's 'novel' has Mitya sewing his money into such a pouch — a homely, intimate detail the defence ridicules.

Вспомните, всё это было изложено тоном, не терпящим никаких возражений.  
Recall how all this was set forth in a tone that brooked no objection whatever.
> Perfective imperative «вспомните»: «Вспомните» (recall, call to mind) is the polite-plural perfective imperative of «вспомнить» — a single act of recollection urged on the jury before the killer line about the prosecutor's overbearing tone.
> Present active participle + instrumental of manner: «тоном, не терпящим...» — «тоном» is the instrumental of manner ('in a tone'), modified by the present active participle «терпящим» (from «терпеть», to tolerate) with negative concord «никаких возражений» (genitive of negation). 'A tone that brooked no objection.'

Ну а что, если дело происходило вовсе не так, а ну как вы создали роман, а в нем совсем другое лицо?  
But what if the affair did not happen so at all — what if you have constructed a novel, and in it an entirely different person?
> Imperfective past «происходило» in the hypothesis: «если дело происходило вовсе не так» uses the imperfective past «происходило» (was happening, unfolding) to question the whole course of events — 'what if the affair did not happen so at all'. The imperfective views the unfolding as a process, leaving room for a different one.
> Apprehensive «а ну как»: «а ну как...» ('but what if, suppose...') is a colloquial frame introducing a worrying possibility. The perfective «создали» ('you have constructed') treats the prosecution's novel as a finished, accomplished thing.

В том-то и дело, что вы создали другое лицо!  
That is just the point — you have constructed a different person!
> Emphatic idiom «в том-то и дело»: «В том-то и дело, что...» ('That is just the point, that...') is a set emphatic construction: «-то» on «том» plus the focusing «и» drive home the crux. The lawyer seizes his own rhetorical question as the decisive point.

Возразят, пожалуй: „Есть свидетели, что он прокутил в селе Мокром все эти три тысячи, взятые у госпожи Верховцевой, за месяц перед катастрофой, разом, как одну копейку, стало быть, не мог отделить от них половину“.  
It will be objected, perhaps: "There are witnesses that he squandered at the village of Mokroye the whole of those three thousand he had taken from Madame Verhovtseva, a month before the catastrophe, all at once, like a single kopeck, and so could not have set aside half of them."
> Subjectless 'they will object': «Возразят» is a bare 3rd-plural perfective future with no subject — impersonal 'it will be objected'. Yet again the lawyer stages the opposing voice. «пожалуй» ('perhaps, I dare say') softens the prediction.
> Past passive participle + «у» of source: «взятые у госпожи Верховцевой» — past passive participle «взятые» (taken) agreeing with «три тысячи», plus «у» + genitive marking the person from whom ('taken from Madame Verhovtseva'). A compact relative-clause-in-a-word.
> «как одну копейку» — down to the last kopeck: «разом, как одну копейку» ('all at once, like a single kopeck') means he blew the whole sum in one go as carelessly as if it were a single coin. The «копейка», a hundredth of a rouble, is the proverbial smallest money — squandering thousands 'like one kopeck' marks reckless abandon.

Но кто же эти свидетели?  
But who are these witnesses?
> Zero-copula question with «же»: «Но кто же эти свидетели?» has no verb — the present tense of 'to be' is unexpressed, leaving subject and predicate noun in the bare nominative. The «же» turns it into a pointed challenge: 'but who ARE these witnesses?'

Степень достоверности этих свидетелей на суде уже обнаружилась.  
The degree of these witnesses' reliability has already shown itself here in court.
> Reflexive «обнаружиться» — to show itself: «обнаружилась» is the reflexive («-ся») of «обнаружить»: 'revealed itself, came to light'. The -ся gives a middle, agentless sense — the witnesses' reliability 'has already shown itself' in court, with no one made to do the showing.

Кроме того, в чужой руке ломоть всегда больше кажется.  
Besides, the slice in another man's hand always looks the bigger.
> Proverb: another man's slice looks bigger: A folk proverb: «в чужих руках ломоть велик» ('the hunk of bread in someone else's hands always seems bigger') = people overestimate what others have. «ломоть» is a thick-cut slice of bread. The lawyer drops a homely peasant saying to discredit the witnesses' eyeballed estimates of the cash.
> Suppletive comparative «больше»: «больше» ('bigger, more') is the irregular, suppletive comparative of «большой/много» — not formed by suffix but a separate root, like English good/better. Here predicative: the slice 'seems bigger'.

Наконец, никто из этих свидетелей денег этих сам не считал, а лишь судил на свой глаз.  
And finally, not one of these witnesses counted the money himself; each only judged it by eye.
> Negative concord + genitive object: «никто... сам не считал» shows negative concord («никто... не»), with «сам» insisting 'himself / in person'. The object «денег этих» sits in the genitive — partitive/under-negation — 'counted none of this money himself'.
> «на свой глаз» — by eye: «судить на свой глаз» (more usually «на глаз/глазок») means to judge by eye, by rough estimate rather than measurement. «свой» ('one's own') points the eye back to each witness — each merely guessed the amount.

Ведь показал же свидетель Максимов, что у подсудимого было в руках двадцать тысяч.  
Why, the witness Maximov testified that the defendant had twenty thousand in his hands.
> Double particle «ведь... же»: «Ведь показал же...» bookends the verb with two particles: «ведь» ('why, after all') appealing to shared knowledge and «же» insisting on the absurd example. Together they ridicule the testimony — 'why, the witness Maximov actually testified...!'
> Numeral phrase with «было»: «было... двадцать тысяч» — the impersonal «было» (neuter default) precedes the numeral subject «двадцать тысяч»; «тысяч» is genitive plural after «двадцать». The wild figure (twenty thousand!) proves the witnesses' eyeball estimates worthless.

Видите, господа присяжные, так как психология о двух концах, то уж позвольте мне и тут другой конец приложить, и посмотрим, то ли выйдет.  
You see, gentlemen of the jury, since psychology cuts both ways, permit me to apply the other end of it here too, and let us see whether it comes out the same.
> Causal «так как... то» + polite imperative: «так как..., то...» ('since..., then...') is a causal subordinator answered by a correlative «то». The apodosis «позвольте мне... приложить» is a polite plural imperative ('permit me to apply'), softened further by «уж».
> Embedded «ли» — 'whether the same': «посмотрим, то ли выйдет» — 'let us see whether the same comes out'. The fronted «то» ('that, the same') is followed by «ли» to form the indirect yes/no question. «посмотрим» is a hortative perfective future ('let us see').
> "A stick with two ends": The phrase «о двух концах» literally means "having two ends." It echoes the Russian saying «палка о двух концах» ("a stick with two ends" = something that can cut both ways). Fetyukovitch argues that psychological reasoning can be turned to support either side, so he proposes to apply «другой конец» ("the other end"). We render the image with the matching English idiom — psychology that "cuts both ways."

За месяц до катастрофы подсудимому были вверены для отсылки по почте три тысячи рублей госпожою Верховцевой, но вопрос: справедливо ли, что были вверены с таким позором и с таким унижением, как провозглашено было давеча?  
A month before the catastrophe the defendant was entrusted by Madame Verhovtseva with three thousand roubles to send off by post — but here is a question: is it true that they were entrusted to him with such disgrace and such humiliation as was proclaimed a little while ago?
> Periphrastic passive with a short participle: «были вверены» is the past passive of «вверить» (to entrust): the auxiliary «были» plus the short past passive participle «вверены». This is the bookish, legal register's way of saying the defendant 'was entrusted [with]'.
> Instrumental of the agent: In a passive, the doer goes in the instrumental: «госпожою Верховцевой» = 'by Madame Verhovtseva'. «госпожою» is the older instrumental ending -ою (modern -ой), a frequent 19th-century flavour.
> Embedded yes/no with «ли»: «справедливо ли, что…» fronts the focused word «справедливо» and follows it with the enclitic «ли» to pose a neutral question — 'is it true that…?'. This is the literary alternative to mere question intonation.
> «давеча» — 'a little while ago': A colloquial, now-archaic adverb meaning 'recently, earlier today, just now'. It belongs to an older spoken register and is common in Dostoevsky's courtroom and parlour speech.

В первом показании о том же предмете у госпожи Верховцевой выходило не так, совершенно не так; во втором же показании мы слышали лишь крики озлобления, отмщения, крики долго таившейся ненависти.  
In her first deposition on this same subject Madame Verhovtseva had it differently, quite differently; whereas in her second deposition we heard only cries of bitterness, of vengeance, cries of a long-concealed hatred.
> Emphatic particle «же»: The «же» here is not 'and' but the insistent modal particle, marking a sharp contrast with the first deposition: 'whereas in the *second* deposition…'. English carries the force only by stress.
> Genitive chain of 'cries of…': Each noun after «крики» stands in the genitive ('cries OF bitterness, OF vengeance, OF hatred'). The piled-up genitives are a rhetorical crescendo typical of the lawyer's oratory.
> Past active participle as modifier: «таившейся» is the past active participle of «таиться» (to lie hidden), in -вш- plus the reflexive -ся, agreeing in the genitive with «ненависти»: 'of a long-concealed hatred'. It packs a whole который-clause into one bookish word.
> «отмщение» — elevated 'vengeance': A bookish, Church-Slavonic-flavoured doublet of plain «месть» (revenge); the -ение abstract suffix and the consonant cluster lend it solemn, scriptural weight, sharpening the lawyer's portrait of Katerina's fury.

Но уж одно то, что свидетельница раз в первом показании своем показала неверно, дает право нам заключить, что и второе показание могло быть неверно.  
But the mere fact that the witness testified incorrectly the first time gives us the right to conclude that her second testimony, too, may have been incorrect.
> Correlative «то, что»: «одно то, что свидетельница… показала неверно» is a correlative noun clause: «то» is the grammatical object ('the mere fact'), unpacked by the «что»-clause that follows. This то/что framing lets Russian nominalise a whole proposition.
> Short adjective as predicate: «неверно» is the short (predicative) neuter form of «неверный», used after «могло быть» to mean 'could be incorrect'. Short adjectives appear only as predicates and carry a more absolute, bookish ring than the long form.

Обвинитель „не хочет, не смеет“ (его слова) дотрогиваться до этого романа.  
The prosecutor "does not wish, does not dare" (his own words) to touch upon this romance.
> Genitive object under negation: The verb «дотрогиваться до» (to touch upon) takes «до» + genitive: «до этого романа». The construction is imperfective, framing the prosecutor's refusal as a continuing stance — he 'does not wish, does not dare' to keep touching this subject.
> «роман» — 'love affair', not 'novel': A classic Russian double meaning: «роман» is both 'novel' and 'romance/love affair'. Here it is the affair between Mitya and Katerina; the word's literary sense is exploited ironically in the chapter's closing line («Уж не роман ли и это?»).

Ну и пусть, я тоже не стану дотрогиваться, но, однако, позволю себе лишь заметить, что если чистая и высоконравственная особа, какова бесспорно и есть высокоуважаемая госпожа Верховцева, если такая особа, говорю я, позволяет себе вдруг, разом, на суде, изменить первое свое показание, с прямою целью погубить подсудимого, то ясно и то, что это показание ее было сделано не беспристрастно, не хладнокровно.  
Well, let it be so — I too shall not touch upon it, but I will, however, permit myself merely to remark that if a pure and high-minded person, such as the highly esteemed Madame Verhovtseva indisputably is, if such a person, I say, permits herself suddenly, all at once, in court, to alter her first testimony with the express aim of destroying the defendant, then it is plain that this testimony of hers was given neither impartially nor in cold blood.
> «пусть» concessive + future of refusal: «ну и пусть» = 'well, let it be so', a concessive use of the imperative particle «пусть». «не стану дотрогиваться» is the compound future ('I shall not [begin to] touch'), here a polite-emphatic way of declining.
> Reflexive «себе» — 'permit oneself': «позволить себе» (to permit oneself) uses the dative of the reflexive pronoun «себя». The idiom recurs three times in the sentence, a rhetorical drumbeat: the lawyer 'permits himself' to remark, and the witness 'permits herself' to change her story.
> Infinitive of purpose after «с целью»: «с прямою целью погубить подсудимого» = 'with the express aim of destroying the defendant'; «погубить» (perfective) is a bare infinitive of purpose. Note again the archaic instrumental ending «прямою» (modern «прямой»).
> Doubled «не» negation: The predicate is negated twice in parallel — 'neither impartially nor in cold blood'. Each adverb takes its own «не», a balanced rhetorical negation rather than the concord of «ни».
> «хладнокровно» — 'coolly, in cold blood': Built on the Church-Slavonic root «хлад-» (cold; cf. modern «холод») plus «кровь» (blood) — literally 'cold-bloodedly'. The non-pleophonic «хлад» (vs. «холод») marks it as the elevated, bookish doublet.

Неужели же у нас отнимут право заключить, что отомщавшая женщина могла многое преувеличить?  
Are we, then, to be denied the right to conclude that a woman bent on revenge might have exaggerated a great deal?
> Indignant «неужели… же»: «неужели» introduces an incredulous rhetorical question ('surely not… ?', 'are we really… ?'), reinforced by «же». The verb «отнимут» is an impersonal 3rd-person plural ('they will take away'), with no named subject — a common Russian way to say 'one will deny us'.
> Past active participle 'a woman bent on revenge': «отомщавшая» is the past active participle of «отомщать» (to avenge), agreeing with «женщина»: literally 'a woman who was avenging'. The participle condenses the whole motive into a single adjective-like modifier.

Да, именно преувеличить тот стыд и позор, с которым были ею предложены деньги.  
Yes, exaggerated precisely that shame and disgrace with which the money was offered by her.
> Relative «который» + instrumental agent: «с которым» ('with which') takes the instrumental because of «с», while «ею» ('by her') is the instrumental agent of the passive «были предложены». Two instrumentals in one breath — the case carries both 'with' and the doer.
> «стыд и позор» — paired 'shame and disgrace': A near-formulaic doublet: «стыд» is inner shame, «позор» is public disgrace/dishonour. Together they intensify, and Dostoevsky's lawyers love such rhetorical pairs.

Напротив, они были предложены именно так, что их еще можно было принять, особенно такому легкомысленному человеку, как наш подсудимый.  
On the contrary, it was offered in just such a way that it could still be accepted, especially by so light-minded a man as our defendant.
> Result clause «так, что»: «так… что» sets up a manner-result construction: 'in such a way that it could still be accepted'. «можно было принять» is the impersonal modal «можно» + perfective infinitive, with no nominative subject.
> Dative after «особенно»: «особенно такому… человеку» stands in the dative ('especially TO such a man') because «принять» supplies an implicit indirect object — the money 'could be accepted by' him. Adjective «легкомысленному» agrees fully in the dative.
> «легкомысленный» — 'light-minded, frivolous': A transparent compound, «лёгкий» (light) + «мысль» (thought): one whose thoughts are light, hence careless or rash. It is a key word in the defence's portrait of Mitya, recurring as adjective, adverb, and noun (легкомыслие).

Главное, он имел тогда в виду скорое получение от отца этих должных ему по расчету трех тысяч.  
The main thing is that he had in view at the time the speedy receipt from his father of those three thousand owed to him by his own reckoning.
> Idiom «иметь в виду»: «иметь в виду» = 'to have in mind / in view, to count on'. «в виду» is a frozen prepositional phrase (the genitive «вид» governed by «в» in an older fixed sense). Here: he was counting on soon receiving the money.
> Genitive of the thing 'received': After «получение» (receipt of) everything stands in the genitive: «этих… трёх тысяч». «должных ему» = 'owed to him' (short-sense adjective + dative «ему»), and «по расчёту» = 'by his reckoning' — a dense pre-posed modifier stack around the noun.

Это легкомысленно, но именно по легкомыслию своему он и был твердо уверен, что тот их выдаст ему, что он их получит и, стало быть, всегда может отправить вверенные ему госпожою Верховцевой деньги по почте и расквитаться с долгом.  
This is light-minded, but it was precisely out of his own light-mindedness that he remained firmly convinced his father would hand them over to him, that he would receive them, and so, accordingly, could at any time send off the money entrusted to him by Madame Verhovtseva by post and settle his debt.
> «тот» tracking the father: «тот» (that one, the farther) refers to Fyodor Pavlovich while «он/ему» tracks Mitya, letting Russian keep two male referents apart without naming them. «выдаст» is a perfective future — 'will hand over (and be done)'.
> Passive participle as attribute: «вверенные» is the past passive participle of «вверить», agreeing with «деньги»: 'the money entrusted to him'. Its agent is again the instrumental «госпожою Верховцевой» and its recipient the dative «ему» — a participle carrying a whole clause.
> «стало быть» — discourse 'accordingly': A fossilised phrase (literally 'it became to be') meaning 'therefore, so, consequently'. It is a favourite logical connective in the lawyers' speeches, stitching their syllogisms together.
> «расквитаться» — 'to settle up, get even': A perfective -ся verb from «квит» (quits, even), with «с» + instrumental «с долгом» (with the debt): to clear a debt, to be square. Colloquial and vivid — Mitya thinks he can square things 'at any time'.

Но обвинитель ни за что не хочет допустить, что он мог в тот же день, в день обвинения, отделить из полученных денег половину и зашить в ладонку: „не таков, дескать, это характер, не мог иметь таких чувств“.  
But the prosecutor will on no account admit that on that very day, the day of the accusation, the defendant could have set apart half of the money he had received and sewn it into the little amulet-bag: "His character is not of that sort, supposedly; he could not have had such feelings."
> Negative concord with «ни за что»: «ни за что» ('on no account, not for anything') is an «ни»-phrase that still requires the verbal «не»: «ни за что НЕ хочет». Russian piles negatives that English collapses into one — here, the prosecutor flatly refuses to admit.
> Reportative particle «дескать»: «дескать» (and «-де» in the next segment) flags reported, second-hand speech with a tinge of scepticism — 'supposedly, so they say'. The lawyer uses it to quote the prosecution's reasoning while distancing himself from it.
> «ладонка» — the little amulet-bag: A diminutive of «ладанка», a small cloth pouch or amulet (originally for «ладан», incense, or a relic) worn on a cord round the neck. Mitya sews his banknotes into one; the word's pious, talisman-like overtones colour the whole scene of the hidden 1,500 roubles.

Но ведь сами же вы кричали, что широк Карамазов, сами же вы кричали про две крайние бездны, которые может созерцать Карамазов.  
But you yourselves cried out that a Karamazov is broad; you yourselves cried out about the two extreme abysses that a Karamazov can contemplate.
> Appeal-particle «ведь» + intensifier «сами же»: «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge ('but after all, you yourselves…'), and «сами же» piles the intensive pronoun «сами» onto the insistent «же» — 'you of all people'. This is the texture of impassioned courtroom address.
> Short adjective «широк» fronted: «широк» is the predicative short form of «широкий» (broad), placed before its subject «Карамазов» for emphasis. The short form gives an aphoristic, quasi-proverbial ring: 'a Karamazov is broad'.

Карамазов именно такая натура о двух сторонах, о двух безднах, что при самой безудержной потребности кутежа может остановиться, если что-нибудь его поразит с другой стороны.  
A Karamazov is precisely such a nature, with two sides, with two abysses, that in the very midst of the most unbridled craving for revelry he can stop short, if something strikes him from the other side.
> Archaic «о» + prepositional = 'having': «о двух сторонах» here means 'with/of two sides', an older idiom where «о» + prepositional describes the parts something is made of (cf. «стол о трёх ножках», a three-legged table). It reads as bookish and slightly antique.
> Non-specific «что-нибудь»: «что-нибудь» marks a non-specific 'anything at all' — 'if SOMEthing, no matter what, strikes him'. The contrast with specific «что-то» is exactly the open, unpredictable trigger the defence wants to suggest.
> «безудержный» and «кутёж»: «безудержный» = 'unrestrainable, unbridled' (без- 'without' + «удержать» 'to hold back'); «кутёж» (gen. «кутежа») is a riotous spree of drinking and carousing. Together they name Mitya's signature vice — the 'unbridled craving for revelry'.

А ведь другая-то сторона — любовь, именно вот эта новая загоревшаяся тогда как порох любовь, а на эту любовь нужны деньги, и нужнее, о! гораздо нужнее, чем даже на кутеж с этою самою возлюбленною.  
And that other side is love — precisely this new love that had then flared up like gunpowder, and for that love money is needed, and needed more, oh! far more, than even for revelry with that selfsame beloved.
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «другая-то» emphasises a known, contrasting topic: 'but the OTHER side, now…'. It is the topic-highlighting «-то», distinct from the indefinite suffix in «что-то».
> Participle embedded inside the noun phrase: «загоревшаяся» is the past active participle of «загореться» (to catch fire, flare up), reflexive -ся, agreeing with «любовь». Note the bookish word order: a whole phrase ('flared up then like gunpowder') is wedged between modifiers and the noun.
> «нужны» + dative-less need: «нужны деньги» = 'money is needed', with the short plural adjective «нужны» agreeing with «деньги»; «на эту любовь» ('for this love') names the purpose. The comparative «нужнее» then heightens it — 'needed more'.

Скажет она ему: „Твоя, не хочу Федора Павловича“, и он схватит ее и увезет — так было бы на что увезти.  
Should she say to him, "I am yours, I do not want Fyodor Pavlovich," then he would seize her and carry her off — and so there would have to be the means to carry her off.
> Perfective future in a vivid hypothesis: «скажет», «схватит», «увезёт» are all perfective futures used to stage a hypothetical scene as if certain: 'should she say… he will seize… and carry off'. The fronted verb «скажет она» heightens the conditional, almost cinematic feel.
> Conditional «бы» with «на что»: «было бы на что увезти» uses the irrealis «бы» ('there would have to be something with which to carry her off'). «на что» is an idiomatic 'the means/wherewithal', and the whole is impersonal — no nominative subject of having.

Это ведь важнее кутежа.  
That, after all, is more important than revelry.
> Comparative «важнее» + genitive of comparison: «важнее кутежа» = 'more important than revelry': the comparative «важнее» governs a bare genitive «кутежа» for the standard of comparison (no «чем» needed). «ведь» again appeals to the jury's agreement.

Карамазову ль этого не понять?  
Could a Karamazov fail to understand this?
> Dative subject of a modal infinitive: «Карамазову… не понять?» is an impersonal dative-plus-infinitive: 'is a Karamazov [the one] not to understand?'. The dative «Карамазову» is the would-be experiencer, «понять» a bare perfective infinitive, and the whole a rhetorical question of capability.
> Reduced question particle «ль»: «ль» is the contracted form of the interrogative «ли», common after a vowel and in verse-like rhythm. It turns the dative-infinitive into a pointed yes/no challenge.

Да он именно этим и болен был, этою заботой, — что ж невероятного, что он отделил эти деньги и припрятал на всякий случай?  
Why, this was the very thing that ailed him, this very care — what is so improbable in his having set this money apart and tucked it away for any eventuality?
> Instrumental with «болен»: «болен» (short form of «больной», ill) governs the instrumental of what one is sick with: «болен этою заботой» = 'sick with this care'. «этою» is again the archaic instrumental ending -ою.
> Genitive after «что» + «же»: «что ж невероятного» = 'what is so improbable [in it]?': the partitive-style genitive «невероятного» after «что» asks 'what (of the) improbable'. «ж» is the reduced «же», adding exasperated insistence.
> «припрятать» and «на всякий случай»: «припрятать» is a perfective 'to stow/tuck away' (the prefix при- adds a sense of squirreling aside); «на всякий случай» is the set phrase 'just in case, for any eventuality'. Both are colloquial and concrete, grounding the lawyer's hypothesis in everyday prudence.

Но вот, однако, время уходит, а Федор Павлович трех тысяч подсудимому не выдает, напротив, слышно, что определил их именно на то, чтобы сманить ими его же возлюбленную.  
But now, however, time passes, and Fyodor Pavlovich does not hand the three thousand over to the defendant; on the contrary, word goes round that he has earmarked it precisely to lure away the defendant's own beloved.
> Genitive of negation: Under the negated verb «не выдаёт», the object slips into the genitive: «трёх тысяч» rather than accusative «три тысячи». This genitive of negation is automatic with a non-specific or quantified object.
> Purpose «чтобы» + instrumental of means: «чтобы сманить» ('in order to lure away') is the purpose conjunction with a perfective infinitive; «ими» (instrumental, 'with them' = the money) is the means. «его же возлюбленную» — 'his very own beloved', with insistent «же».
> «сманить» — 'to entice away': Perfective of «сманивать», 'to lure, entice, seduce someone away' (from «манить», to beckon). The word makes Fyodor Pavlovich's three thousand a bait to steal Grushenka from his own son — the heart of the rivalry.

„Если не отдаст Федор Павлович, — думает он, — то ведь я перед Катериной Ивановной выйду вором“.  
"If Fyodor Pavlovich will not give it up," he thinks, "then in Katerina Ivanovna's eyes I shall come out a thief."
> Conditional «если… то» + instrumental predicate: A real conditional with perfective futures: «не отдаст… выйду». «выйду вором» uses «выйти» ('to come out as') with the predicate instrumental «вором» — to 'turn out / come out a thief'. The instrumental frames the role as an outcome.

И вот у него рождается мысль, что эти же полторы тысячи, которые он продолжает носить на себе в этой ладонке, он придет, положит пред госпожою Верховцевой и скажет ей: „Я подлец, но не вор“.  
And so there is born in him the thought that this very fifteen hundred, which he keeps on carrying about with him in that little bag, he will bring and lay down before Madame Verhovtseva and say to her: "I am a scoundrel, but not a thief."
> «у + genitive» of the experiencer: «у него рождается мысль» = literally 'at him a thought is born' — the «у» + genitive construction locating an inner event in a person without making them the grammatical subject. The reflexive «рождается» (is born) reinforces the sense of a thought arising of itself.
> Relative «которые» + «на себе»: «которые» (accusative plural) relativises «полторы тысячи»; «носить на себе» means 'to carry on one's person', with the reflexive «себе». The imperfective «носит/продолжает носить» stresses the ongoing habit of carrying it everywhere.
> «полторы» — 'one and a half': «полторы тысячи» = 1,500 (полторы, fem., from «пол-» + «второй», 'half of the second'). Mitya kept half of Katerina's 3,000 sewn in the amulet — the 1,500 that the whole forensic dispute turns on.
> «подлец» vs «вор»: «подлец» is a scoundrel, a base or contemptible man — a moral self-condemnation; «вор» is a thief, a legal crime. Mitya's whole defence of his honour hinges on this distinction: he will own being a scoundrel but not a thief.

И вот, стало быть, уже двойная причина хранить эти полторы тысячи как зеницу ока, отнюдь не расшивать ладонку и не отколупывать по сту рублей.  
And so, accordingly, there is now a double reason to guard this fifteen hundred like the apple of his eye, on no account to unstitch the little bag or to pick out a hundred roubles at a time.
> Parallel infinitives after «причина»: Three imperfective infinitives depend on «причина» (reason): «хранить… не расшивать… не отколупывать». The imperfective fits the sense of an ongoing policy — to keep guarding, to keep refraining. «отнюдь не» is an emphatic 'by no means'.
> «отколупывать» + distributive «по»: «отколупывать» is a homely, almost grubby verb — 'to pick/chip off bit by bit'. «по сту рублей» is the distributive «по» + the old dative «сту» (modern «ста»): 'a hundred roubles at a time'. The earthy diction makes the temptation tangible.
> Idiom: 'like the apple of one's eye': «хранить как зеницу ока» = to guard with utmost care. «зеница» is an archaic, Church-Slavonic word for the pupil; «ока» is the archaic genitive of «око» (eye). The image is biblical (Deuteronomy 32:10, Psalm 17:8) and we render it with the matching English idiom.

Отчего откажете вы подсудимому в чувстве чести?  
Why do you deny the defendant a sense of honor?
> «отказать кому в чём» — dative + «в» + prepositional: «отказать» governs the dative of the person and «в» + prepositional of the thing refused: «откажете подсудимому в чувстве чести» = 'deny the defendant a sense of honour'. The fronted «вы» after the verb is rhetorical emphasis.

Нет, чувство чести в нем есть, положим неправильное, положим весьма часто ошибочное, но оно есть, есть до страсти, и он доказал это.  
No, a sense of honor is in him — granted it is misguided, granted it is very often mistaken, but it exists, exists to the point of passion, and he has proved it.
> Existential «есть» repeated for force: «есть» here is the rare overt present of 'to be', meaning 'it exists / there is'. Its insistent repetition ('it exists, exists to the point of passion') hammers the point home — Russian normally drops the copula, so spelling it out is itself emphatic.
> Concessive «положим»: «положим» (imperative of «положить», literally 'let us put') works as a concessive particle — 'granted, let us say, suppose'. Repeated, it concedes flaws ('granted misguided, granted mistaken') before reaffirming the core claim.

Но вот, однако же, дело усложняется, мучения ревности достигают высшей степени, и всё те же, всё прежние два вопроса обрисовываются всё мучительнее и мучительнее в воспаленном мозгу подсудимого: „Отдам Катерине Ивановне: на какие же средства увезу я Грушеньку?“  
But now, however, the affair grows more complicated, the torments of jealousy reach their highest pitch, and the same two questions as before take shape ever more agonizingly in the defendant's inflamed brain: "If I give it back to Katerina Ivanovna, then with what means am I to carry off Grushenka?"
> Doubled comparative for intensification: «всё мучительнее и мучительнее» = 'ever more and more agonizing': the comparative «мучительнее» repeated with «всё» expresses a steadily growing intensity. This 'всё + comparative' pattern is the standard Russian way to say 'more and more'.
> Reflexive middle «обрисовываются»: «обрисовываться» (-ся) is a middle/intransitive 'to take shape, become outlined' — the questions seem to outline themselves in his mind. The -ся removes any external agent, suiting the involuntary welling-up of obsession.
> Perfective futures voicing the dilemma: «отдам… увезу» are perfective futures dramatising Mitya's inner question. «на какие средства» = 'with what means' (на + accusative of purpose); «же» sharpens the despairing 'then with WHAT… ?'.
> «Грушенька» — diminutive of Agrafena: An affectionate diminutive (from Аграфена via Груша, 'pear'), with the endearing -енька suffix. In Mitya's anguished interior monologue the tender form lays bare how the whole crisis is driven by his love for her.

Если он безумствовал так, и напивался, и бушевал по трактирам во весь этот месяц, то это именно, может быть, потому, что самому было горько, невмочь переносить.  
If he was raging so, and drinking, and storming through the taverns all that month, it was precisely, perhaps, because it was bitter to him, because he could not bear it.
> Imperfective past for habitual rampage: Three imperfective past verbs in a row («безумствовал, напивался, бушевал») paint a whole month of repeated, ongoing behaviour — raging, getting drunk, storming about. The imperfective is exactly the aspect for such habitual background.
> Dative-experiencer impersonal: «самому было горько» = 'it was bitter to him himself' — the dative «самому» as experiencer, with the neuter predicate «горько» and no nominative subject. «невмочь переносить» ('unbearable to endure') continues the impersonal frame.
> «невмочь» — 'past bearing': A folksy predicative adverb (from «не в мочь», 'not within one's strength') meaning 'unbearable, beyond endurance'. It belongs to colloquial, even peasant register, and the lawyer reaches for it to convey raw, inarticulate suffering.

Эти два вопроса до того наконец обострились, что довели его наконец до отчаяния.  
These two questions grew so acute at last that they finally drove him to despair.
> Degree «до того… что»: «до того… что» = 'to such a degree that': the questions grew so acute that they drove him to despair. «обострились» and «довели» are perfective pasts marking the completed escalation and its result.

Он послал было своего младшего брата к отцу просить у него эти три тысячи в последний раз, но, не дождавшись ответа, ворвался сам и кончил тем, что избил старика при свидетелях.  
He had sent his younger brother to their father to ask him for these three thousand one last time, but, not waiting for an answer, he burst in himself and ended by beating the old man before witnesses.
> Frustrative particle «было»: «послал было» uses the special particle «было» after a perfective past to mark an action begun but cut off or reversed — 'he had sent (but)…'. It captures Mitya's aborted attempt before he bursts in himself.
> Perfective gerund «не дождавшись»: «дождавшись» is the perfective past gerund («деепричастие») of «дождаться» (to wait until one gets); negated, 'not having waited for an answer'. The gerund packs a prior, completed action sharing Mitya's subject into a single adverbial phrase.
> Idiom «кончить тем, что»: «кончить тем, что…» = 'to end by [doing]': the correlative «тем» (instrumental of «то») points forward to the «что»-clause. Here it caps the crescendo — he ended by beating the old man.

После этого получить, значит, уже не у кого, избитый отец не даст.  
After this, then, there was no one left to get it from; the beaten father would not give it.
> Negative «не у кого» + infinitive: «не у кого получить» is the negative-existential infinitive construction: «не + у + кого» means 'there is no one from whom to get it'. The stress falls on «не́ у кого», and the pattern (не́кого, не́где, не́ от кого…) expresses absence of a possible participant.
> Passive participle as adjective «избитый»: «избитый» is the past passive participle of «избить» (to beat up), used attributively: 'the beaten father'. From a perfective verb, it states a completed result now characterising the father.

В тот же день вечером он бьет себя по груди, именно по верхней части груди, где эта ладонка, и клянется брату, что у него есть средство не быть подлецом, но что все-таки он останется подлецом, ибо предвидит, что не воспользуется средством, не хватит силы душевной, не хватит характера.  
That same day, in the evening, he beats himself upon the breast, precisely upon the upper part of the breast, where that little bag is, and swears to his brother that he has the means not to be a scoundrel, but that all the same he will remain a scoundrel, for he foresees that he will not make use of the means, that he will lack the strength of soul, will lack the character.
> Impersonal «хватит» + genitive: «хватить» ('to suffice') is impersonal and governs the genitive of what is lacking: «не хватит силы… характера» = 'there will not be enough strength… character'. The person who lacks it would stand in the genitive with «у». Note the genitive of negation throughout.
> Bookish causal «ибо»: «ибо» is the archaic, literary conjunction 'for, because', loftier than «потому что». It marks the elevated register of the lawyer's peroration. «предвидит» (foresees) is imperfective present, vividly framing Mitya's self-knowledge.
> «подлец» in the instrumental: Both «быть подлецом» and «остаться подлецом» take the predicate instrumental «подлецом» (scoundrel). The repeated word frames Mitya's tragic self-judgement: he has the means not to be a scoundrel, yet foresees he will remain one.

Почему, почему обвинение не верит показанию Алексея Карамазова, данному так чисто, так искренно, неподготовленно и правдоподобно?  
Why, why does the prosecution not believe the testimony of Alexei Karamazov, given so purely, so sincerely, unprompted and plausibly?
> Passive participle in the dative «данному»: «данному» is the past passive participle of «дать» (to give), agreeing in the dative with «показанию» (testimony, object of «не верит»): 'the testimony given so purely'. The adverbs «чисто, искренно…» modify the participle, condensing a whole clause.
> Dative object of «верить»: «верить» governs the dative of what or whom one believes: «не верит показанию» = 'does not believe the testimony'. A common pattern where English uses a direct object but Russian uses the dative.

Почему, напротив, заставляет меня верить деньгам в какой-то расщелине, в подвалах Удольфского замка?  
Why, on the contrary, does it compel me to believe in money in some crevice or other, in the vaults of the castle of Udolpho?
> «заставлять» + infinitive; dative of «верить»: «заставляет меня верить» = 'compels me to believe' (causative «заставлять» + infinitive). «верить деньгам» again takes the dative — believe IN the money — extending the same government as in the previous segment.

В тот же вечер, после разговора с братом, подсудимый пишет это роковое письмо, и вот это-то письмо и есть самое главное, самое колоссальное уличение подсудимого в грабеже!  
That same evening, after the conversation with his brother, the defendant writes that fateful letter, and it is this very letter that is the chief, the most colossal incriminating proof of the defendant's robbery!
> Emphatic «это-то… и есть»: «вот это-то письмо и есть самое главное» stacks emphasis: deictic «вот», the topic-clitic «-то», and the focusing «и есть» ('is the very thing that is'). The pile-up singles the letter out as the crux of the case.
> «роковой» — 'fateful, fatal': «роковой» derives from «рок» (fate, doom), so 'fateful' in the strong sense of fate-laden, ominous. The 'fateful letter' is Mitya's drunken note threatening to kill his father — the document the prosecution treats as a confession in advance.

„Буду просить у всех людей, а не дадут люди, убью отца и возьму у него под тюфяком, в пакете с розовою ленточкой, только бы уехал Иван“ — полная-де программа убийства, как же не он?  
"I will beg of everybody, and if people will not give it, I will kill my father and take it from under his mattress, in the packet with the pink ribbon, only let Ivan be gone" — a complete program of the murder, they say, so how can it not be he?
> Wish with «только бы»: «только бы уехал Иван» is an optative use of «бы» with a past-form verb: 'if only Ivan would leave / let Ivan only be gone'. «только бы» + past expresses an urgent wish or condition — the one thing Mitya craves.
> Reportative «-де»: The clitic «-де» (kin to «дескать») flags the words as the prosecution's claim, quoted with a sceptical edge: 'a complete program of the murder, they say'. The lawyer voices the charge in order to dismantle it.
> «ленточка» — diminutive 'little ribbon': «ленточка» is the diminutive of «лента» (ribbon), with the -очка suffix lending a small, almost tender note. The pink-ribboned packet of money under the mattress becomes a fixed, vivid detail throughout the trial. «розовою» shows the old instrumental -ою.

„Совершилось по написанному!“ — восклицает обвинение.  
"It was accomplished according to what was written!" exclaims the prosecution.
> Substantivised participle «по написанному»: «по написанному» is the past passive participle «написанное» ('what was written') used as a neuter noun in the dative after «по»: 'according to what was written'. «совершилось» (reflexive perfective, 'it came to pass') gives the line a scriptural, fated ring.

Но, во-первых, письмо пьяное и написано в страшном раздражении; во-вторых, опять-таки о пакете он пишет со слов Смердякова, потому что сам пакета не видал, а в-третьих, написано-то оно написано, но совершилось ли по написанному, это чем доказать?  
But, in the first place, the letter is a drunken one and written in dreadful exasperation; in the second place, here again he writes of the packet on Smerdyakov's word, because he had not seen the packet himself; and in the third place, the thing was indeed written, but whether it was accomplished according to what was written, how is that to be proved?
> Enumerative 'firstly, secondly, thirdly': «во-первых, во-вторых, в-третьих» are the standard ordinal discourse markers (от «первый, второй, третий» with «во-/в-»). They lay out the defence's three-point rebuttal with lawyerly orderliness.
> Concessive doubling «написано-то… написано»: Repeating the predicate with «-то» between is a concessive idiom: 'written it was indeed written, but…'. It grants the point only to challenge what follows — here, whether the deed matched the writing, posed with «ли».
> Idiom «со слов» + genitive: «со слов Смердякова» = 'on Smerdyakov's word, from what Smerdyakov said': «со слов» + genitive of the source. It marks the packet as hearsay Mitya never verified — «сам пакета не видал», with genitive of negation «пакета».
> «видал» — colloquial past of «видеть»: «видал» (rather than «видел») is a colloquial/iterative past, frequent in 19th-century speech and in negated 'never set eyes on'. It lends the lawyer's argument a spoken, buttonholing immediacy.

Достал ли подсудимый пакет под подушкой, нашел ли деньги, существовали ли они даже?  
Did the defendant get the packet from under the pillow, did he find the money, did it even exist at all?
> Stacked «ли» questions: Three quick yes/no questions, each fronting the verb plus «ли»: 'Did he get…? Did he find…? Did it even exist…?'. The hammering «ли» dramatises the chain of doubts the prosecution never closed.
> Perfective vs imperfective in the series: Note the aspect shift: «достал, нашёл» are perfective (single completed acts — got, found), but «существовали» is imperfective (a state — did it exist at all). Russian chooses aspect by how the action is viewed, not by tense alone.

Да и за деньгами ли подсудимый побежал, припомните, припомните!  
And was it for money that the defendant ran off, recall it, recall it!
> Purpose «за» + instrumental: «побежать за деньгами» = 'to run for / after money', with «за» + instrumental expressing the goal one goes to fetch. The «ли» fronts «за деньгами» as the focus of the question: was it really for money?
> Repeated imperative «припомните»: «припомните» is the perfective imperative of «припомнить» (to recall, call to mind), the polite/plural -те form addressed to the jury. Its urgent repetition is pure courtroom rhetoric — 'recall it, recall it!'.

Он побежал сломя голову не грабить, а лишь узнать, где она, эта женщина, его сокрушившая, — не по программе, стало быть, не по написанному он побежал, то есть не для обдуманного грабежа, а побежал внезапно, нечаянно, в ревнивом бешенстве!  
He ran headlong not to rob, but only to find out where she was, that woman who had shattered him — so, accordingly, it was not according to a program, not according to what was written, that he ran, that is, not for a premeditated robbery, but he ran suddenly, unexpectedly, in a jealous frenzy!
> Frozen gerund idiom «сломя голову»: «сломя голову» ('headlong, at breakneck speed') is a fossilised gerund («сломя» from «сломить», to break) surviving only in this idiom — literally 'having broken one's head'. Such petrified деепричастия live on as set adverbials.
> Corrective «не… а»: «не грабить, а узнать» = 'not to rob, but [merely] to find out' — the corrective conjunction «а» substitutes the true aim for the false one. The aspect pairs the imperfective «грабить» (the activity) against perfective «узнать» (the single goal).
> Postposed past active participle: «его сокрушившая» is the past active participle of «сокрушить» (to crush, shatter), agreeing with «женщина» and placed after it for weight: 'that woman who had shattered him'. «его» is the accusative object inside the participial phrase.

„Да, скажут, но все-таки, прибежав и убив, захватил и деньги“.  
"Yes," they will say, "but all the same, having run there and killed him, he did seize the money too."
> Paired perfective gerunds: «прибежав и убив» are two perfective past gerunds ('having run there and having killed') sharing the subject of «захватил»: prior, completed actions feeding into the main verb. The defence voices the prosecution's own chained reasoning.
> Additive «и» = 'too': Here «и» before «деньги» is not 'and' but the additive 'also, even' — 'he seized the money TOO'. Context, not form, distinguishes this emphatic «и» from the conjunction.

Да, наконец, убил ли он еще или нет?  
Yes, but, after all, did he even kill him or not?
> «ли… или нет» yes/no with «ещё»: «убил ли он… или нет» frames a full yes/no question — 'did he kill… or not?'. The little «ещё» here means 'even, after all' (was there even a killing at all?), throwing doubt back to the most basic fact.

Обвинение в грабеже я отвергаю с негодованием: нельзя обвинять в грабеже, если нельзя указать с точностью, что именно ограблено, это аксиома!  
The charge of robbery I reject with indignation: one cannot accuse a man of robbery if one cannot point with precision to what exactly was robbed — that is an axiom!
> Impersonal modal «нельзя» + infinitive: «нельзя обвинять… нельзя указать» uses the impersonal predicative «нельзя» ('one cannot, it is impossible') with infinitives and no nominative subject — the classic subjectless modal frame. «обвинять» is imperfective, fitting the general, rule-stating sense; «указать», though, is perfective (impf. «указывать»).
> Short passive participle «ограблено»: «ограблено» is the short neuter past passive participle of «ограбить» (to rob): 'what exactly has been robbed/stolen'. The short form is the predicative one, stating the result — central to the lawyer's 'axiom'.

Но убил ли еще он, без грабежа-то убил ли?  
But did he even kill him — without the robbery, did he kill him?
> Topic-clitic «-то» + «ли»: «без грабежа-то» fronts and highlights the topic ('the robbery aside, now…') with «-то», then «убил ли» poses the question. «без грабежа» is «без» + genitive. The combination keeps the focus on the bare question of murder.

Это-то доказано ли?  
Is even that proved?
> Short passive «доказано» + «ли»: «доказано» is the short neuter past passive participle of «доказать» (to prove): 'is it proved?'. With the topic «это-то» and the question particle «ли», the lawyer reduces his whole case to one terse demand for proof.
> Idiom: "as the apple of one's eye": In segment s82 the lawyer says Mitya guarded the money «как зеницу ока». Зеница is an archaic, Church-Slavonic word for the pupil of the eye; the whole phrase means to guard something with extreme care. We render it with the matching English idiom, "like the apple of his eye." Both expressions descend from the same biblical image (Deuteronomy 32:10, Psalm 17:8).

Уж не роман ли и это?»  
Is this too, perhaps, only a romance?"
> Suggestive «уж не… ли»: «уж не… ли?» is a softening, suggestive question frame — 'might this too perhaps be… ?'. «уж» adds a knowing, ironic shade. The defence ends by turning the prosecutor's word «роман» (romance / novel) back on him: is the robbery itself just another invented story?
---

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.