# The Brothers Karamazov, And There Was No Murder Either

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c12. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c12.json.


«Позвольте, господа присяжные, тут жизнь человеческая, и надо быть осторожнее.  
"Allow me, gentlemen of the jury — a human life hangs in the balance here, and we must be more careful.
> «Позвольте» — 'permit me': A polite imperative from «позволить» ('to permit'), here a courtroom flourish: 'allow me [to say].' It softens the interruption and opens the defense counsel's speech with deference, the verbal equivalent of a raised hand.
> Impersonal «надо» + comparative: «надо быть осторожнее» ('one must be more careful') is a subjectless impersonal: «надо» states a necessity with no nominative subject. «осторожнее» is the invariable predicative comparative of «осторожный», formed with -ее.

Мы слышали, как обвинение само засвидетельствовало, что до самого последнего дня, до сегодня, до дня суда, колебалось обвинить подсудимого в полной и совершенной преднамеренности убийства, колебалось до самого этого рокового „пьяного“ письма, представленного сегодня суду.  
We have heard how the prosecution itself testified that until the very last day, until today, until the day of the trial, it hesitated to charge the accused with a full and complete premeditation of the murder — hesitated right up to that fateful 'drunken' letter laid before the court today.
> Imperfective «колебалось» — repeated hesitation: The imperfective past «колебалось» ('it kept hesitating, wavered') views the prosecution's doubt as an ongoing process drawn out over days, exactly the protracted state the triple «до самого… до сегодня… до дня суда» insists on. A perfective would have collapsed it into one finished act.
> «до» + genitive, anaphoric climax: The preposition «до» ('up to, until') governs the genitive throughout this chain — «до… дня», «до… письма» — and the repetition builds a rhetorical crescendo. «самого» intensifies: 'the very last day.'
> «преднамеренность» — premeditation: A bookish abstract noun in -ость from «преднамеренный» ('premeditated, deliberate'), itself built on «намерение» ('intention') with the prefix «пред-» ('fore-'). It is a legal-register word, the very charge the speech contests.
> Past passive participle modifying «письма»: «представленного» is a past passive participle ('presented, submitted') from perfective «представить», agreeing with «письма» in the genitive. It compresses a whole relative clause ('which was presented to the court today') into one declined word, a hallmark of this dense legal prose.

„Совершилось как по писаному!“  
'It came to pass exactly as it was written!'
> Idiom: «как по писаному»: Literally 'as if by the written [text],' i.e. smoothly, exactly to plan, by the book. «писаному» is the dative of a substantivized past passive participle ('the written thing'). The phrase, recurring through the chapter, mocks the prosecution's claim that the crime unfolded as if scripted.
> Reflexive «-ся»: an event 'came to pass': «совершилось» (perfective «совершиться») uses the middle «-ся» to present the deed as something that happened of itself, with no named agent — 'it was accomplished, came to pass.' The faint biblical solemnity sharpens the sarcasm.

Но опять-таки повторяю: он побежал к ней, за ней, единственно только узнать, где она.  
But again I repeat: he ran to her, after her, solely and only to find out where she was.
> Two prepositions, two cases on one verb: «побежал» (perfective, prefix «по-» = setting off) takes «к ней» (dative, 'toward her') and «за ней» (instrumental, 'after her, in pursuit'). The same pronoun appears in two cases governed by two prepositions, packing direction and purpose tightly together.
> «опять-таки» — 'once again, I say': A reinforced «опять» ('again') with the emphatic clitic «-таки» ('after all, nonetheless'). It is a rhetorical tic of the speaker, marking insistent repetition of a point he refuses to let drop.
> Purpose infinitive after a motion verb: The bare infinitive «узнать» ('to find out') states the purpose of running, doubly hedged by «единственно только» ('solely and only'). Russian uses a plain infinitive of purpose after verbs of motion without any «чтобы».

Ведь это факт непреложный.  
This, after all, is an incontrovertible fact.
> Appeal particle «ведь» + zero copula: «ведь» ('after all, you know') appeals to shared knowledge, taking the jury as already agreeing. The sentence has no verb 'to be': the present-tense copula is simply absent, so «это факт непреложный» is 'this [is] an incontrovertible fact.'
> «непреложный» — immutable, incontrovertible: A bookish, elevated adjective ('not to be transgressed, unalterable'), from the Church-Slavonic-flavored root «-лож-» (compare «положить»). It lends the lawyer's claim a tone of solemn certainty.

Случись она дома, он никуда бы не побежал, а остался при ней и не сдержал бы того, что в письме обещал.  
Had she happened to be at home, he would not have run off anywhere, but would have stayed with her and would not have made good on what he promised in the letter.
> Inversion as a conditional: «Случись она дома» literally means 'should she chance to be at home.' Russian can form a hypothetical condition by putting a bare, imperative-looking verb («случись») first, with no «если» ('if'). This inverted construction is more vivid and literary than the plain «если бы она была дома», and signals an unreal, counterfactual situation — which is why we render it 'Had she happened to be at home.'
> Counterfactual «бы» across the apodosis: The main clause runs in the irrealis: past-tense verbs plus the particle «бы» («не побежал бы», «не сдержал бы») state what would not have happened. «бы» is mobile and need not repeat on every verb, but its presence marks the whole as contrary to fact.
> Genitive of negation: «не сдержал бы того»: Under negation the object «того» ('that [which]') stands in the genitive rather than the accusative — the genitive of negation. «того, что…» is the correlative pairing of demonstrative «то» with relative «что», 'that which.'

Он побежал нечаянно и внезапно, а о „пьяном“ письме своем он, может быть, вовсе тогда и не помнил.  
He ran off by accident and on a sudden impulse, and as for his 'drunken' letter, he very likely did not even remember it at the time.
> «нечаянно» — unintentionally, by accident: 'Inadvertently, without meaning to,' paired here with «внезапно» ('suddenly') to stress that the flight was an unplanned impulse. The word is central to the defense: an accidental act undercuts premeditation.
> Imperfective «помнил» under emphatic negation: «вовсе… не помнил» ('did not remember at all') uses the imperfective past for an ongoing mental state, intensified by «вовсе» ('utterly') and the additive «и» ('not even'). The state of not-remembering, not a single act, is what the defense needs.

„Захватил, дескать, пестик“ — и помните, как из этого одного пестика нам вывели целую психологию: почему-де он должен был принять этот пестик за оружие, схватить его как оружие, и проч., и проч.  
'He snatched up the pestle, you see' — and you recall how out of that one pestle alone they spun us a whole psychology: why, supposedly, he had to take that pestle for a weapon, seize it as a weapon, and so on, and so on.
> Reportative particles: «дескать» and the clitic «-де» (as in «почему-де») are reportative particles that flag the words as someone else's claim, like English 'they say' or 'supposedly.' The lawyer uses them to quote the prosecution sarcastically, distancing himself from the assertion. They have no direct English equivalent, so we render them with 'you see' / 'supposedly' and by setting the borrowed words in quotation marks.
> «пестик» — the pestle: A pestle, the heavy tool for grinding in a mortar. The diminutive-looking -ик suffix here is just the ordinary noun, but the word becomes a near-comic refrain of the chapter, the humble household object the prosecution has built 'a whole psychology' around.
> Dative «нам» of the affected party: «нам вывели» ('they spun for us / on us a whole psychology') uses the dative «нам» to mark the people to whom this construction was delivered — the ethical dative of involvement, faintly indignant: 'they served us up a whole psychology.'

Тут мне приходит в голову одна самая обыкновенная мысль: ну что, если б этот пестик лежал не на виду, не на полке, с которой схватил его подсудимый, а был прибран в шкаф? — ведь подсудимому не мелькнул бы он тогда в глаза, и он бы убежал без оружия, с пустыми руками, и вот, может быть, никого бы тогда и не убил.  
Here a most ordinary thought comes into my head: well, what if this pestle had not been lying in plain view, not on the shelf from which the accused snatched it, but had been tidied away into a cupboard? — then surely it would not have caught the accused's eye at that moment, and he would have run off without a weapon, empty-handed, and so, perhaps, he would then have killed no one at all.
> «если бы» counterfactual with contrasting «а»: The whole hypothesis hangs on «если б» ('if [only]') plus past-tense verbs — the irrealis. The contrastive «а» ('but rather') pivots between the real placement («лежал… на полке») and the imagined one («был прибран в шкаф», a passive-participle predicate, 'had been tidied away').
> Chain of «бы» consequences: The apodosis stacks three counterfactual outcomes, each carrying «бы»: it 'would not have caught his eye,' he 'would have run off,' he 'would have killed no one.' «никого… не убил» shows negative concord — «никого» (genitive of «никто») plus the obligatory «не».
> Idiom «на виду» — in plain view: «на виду» means 'in sight, openly displayed'; «не на виду» is 'out of sight, not on show.' The phrase, echoed by «на полке» ('on the shelf'), sets up the accidental, ready-to-hand availability of the weapon that the defense leans on.

Каким же образом я могу заключать о пестике как о доказательстве вооружения и преднамерения?  
By what reasoning, then, can I take the pestle as proof of his having armed himself and of premeditation?
> «каким образом» + insistent «же»: «каким образом» ('by what means, how') is an instrumental set phrase; the inserted particle «же» sharpens the rhetorical question into a challenge — 'how on earth, then, can I…?' «заключать» is imperfective, framing the inference as a general line of reasoning.
> «заключать о…» + «как о…»: «заключать о чём» ('to draw a conclusion about something') governs the prepositional with «о», and «как о доказательстве» ('as about proof') keeps the same case in the comparison: to infer the pestle 'as proof.' Both objects ride the preposition «о» + prepositional.

Да, но он кричал по трактирам, что убьет отца, а за два дня, в тот вечер, когда написал свое пьяное письмо, был тих и поссорился в трактире лишь с одним только купеческим приказчиком, „потому-де, что Карамазов не мог не поссориться“.  
Yes, but he shouted in the taverns that he would kill his father — and yet two days before, on the very evening when he wrote his drunken letter, he was quiet and quarreled in the tavern with only a single merchant's clerk, 'because, supposedly, a Karamazov could not help quarreling.'
> «что» reporting a future threat: «кричал, что убьёт отца» reports speech with «что» ('that'); «убьёт» is the perfective simple future ('he will kill') embedded inside past narration. Russian keeps the original tense of the reported words rather than shifting it back as English does.
> Double negation «не мог не» — could not but: «не мог не поссориться» literally 'could not not quarrel,' i.e. 'could not help quarreling.' Two negations cancel into an emphatic positive necessity — a standard, idiomatic Russian way to say something was inevitable.

А я отвечу на это, что уж если замыслил такое убийство, да еще по плану, по написанному, то уж наверно бы не поссорился и с приказчиком, да, может быть, и в трактир не зашел бы вовсе, потому что душа, замыслившая такое дело, ищет тишины и стушевки, ищет исчезновения, чтобы не видали, чтобы не слыхали: „Забудьте-де обо мне, если можете“, и это не по расчету только, а по инстинкту.  
And to this I answer that if a man had indeed plotted such a murder, and by a plan at that, in writing, then he most certainly would not have quarreled with the clerk, and perhaps would not even have set foot in the tavern at all, for a soul that has conceived such a deed seeks quiet and concealment, seeks to vanish, so as not to be seen, not to be heard: 'Forget me, if you can,' it says — and this is not by calculation alone, but by instinct.
> Conditional with «уж» and «бы»: A counterfactual: «если замыслил… то… бы не поссорился» ('if he had plotted… then he would not have quarreled'). The particle «уж» (a worn form of «уже») twice adds insistence — 'if he really had…', 'then surely…' — coloring the logic with the speaker's conviction.
> Past active participle «замыслившая»: «замыслившая» ('that had conceived') is a past active participle from perfective «замыслить», agreeing with «душа» in the feminine nominative. It condenses 'a soul which has conceived such a deed' into one bookish modifier, typical of this elevated rhetoric.
> «стушёвка» — a self-effacing fade-out: From «стушеваться» ('to slink off, efface oneself, fade like a shading-pencil tone') — a verb Dostoevsky himself claimed to have coined. «стушёвка» is the noun: a vanishing into the background, paired here with «исчезновение» ('disappearance'). The choice is pointedly Dostoevskian.
> Purpose «чтобы» + irrealis past: «чтобы не видали… не слыхали» ('so that [people] might not see, not hear') is the purpose conjunction «чтобы» governing the past-tense (irrealis) form. The bare third-person plural «видали/слыхали» is an impersonal 'they/one,' with no subject named.

Господа присяжные, психология о двух концах, и мы тоже умеем понимать психологию.  
Gentlemen of the jury, psychology cuts both ways, and we too know how to understand psychology.
> Idiom «о двух концах» — cuts both ways: «палка о двух концах» ('a stick with two ends') is the proverb behind this; «психология о двух концах» means psychology that can be turned either way. The archaic «о» + numeral construction ('having two ends') is itself a fixed, slightly bookish idiom.
> Emphatic «мы» and «тоже»: Russian normally drops subject pronouns, so the explicit «мы тоже» ('we too') is emphatic and combative: the defense claims the prosecution's own weapon. «умеем понимать» pairs the modal «уметь» ('to know how') with an imperfective infinitive.

Что же до всех этих трактирных криков во весь этот месяц, то мало ли раз кричат дети али пьяные гуляки, выходя из кабаков и ссорясь друг с другом: „Я убью тебя“, но ведь не убивают же.  
As for all these tavern outcries throughout this whole month — why, how many times do children or drunken revelers, coming out of the alehouses and quarreling with one another, shout 'I'll kill you!' — yet they do not actually kill.
> Idiom «что до… то» — 'as for': «что (же) до X, то…» ('as for X, then…') is a topic-fronting frame; «до» governs the genitive «всех этих… криков». The «же» adds a dismissive shrug. It sets the noisy threats aside as a topic before the comment lands.
> «али» — folksy 'or': «али» is a colloquial, dialectal variant of «или» ('or'), marking the relaxed, common-speech register of the example («дети али пьяные гуляки»). Dostoevsky drops it in to evoke the voice of the tavern crowd.
> «гуляка» — a reveler, carouser: A «гуляка» is someone given to drinking and merry-making, a carouser — masculine in meaning but ending in -а like a feminine noun (a common type for persons). «кабак» ('alehouse, pothouse'), from which they stagger, is the cheap drinking den of the period.
> «же» reinforcing the contrast: «но ведь не убивают же» — «ведь» appeals to common sense and «же» drives the point home: 'yet they don't actually kill, do they.' The imperfective present «убивают» states a general truth about how such people behave, not a single act.

Да и самое это роковое письмо — ну не пьяное ли оно раздражение тоже, не крик ли из кабака выходящего: убью, дескать, всех вас убью!  
And this fateful letter itself — well, is it not a drunken outburst too, is it not the cry of a man coming out of the alehouse: I'll kill, you hear, I'll kill the lot of you!
> Rhetorical «не… ли» question: «не пьяное ли оно раздражение?» fronts the focus «пьяное» and tags «ли» onto it: 'is it not a drunken outburst?' The «не… ли» frame is a loaded question expecting agreement, a favorite device of this courtroom rhetoric.
> Substantivized present active participle: «выходящего» is a present active participle ('[of one] coming out') in the genitive, standing in for a whole person — 'the cry of a man coming out of the alehouse.' Russian readily turns such participles into nouns, condensing a relative clause to a single word.

Почему не так, почему не могло быть так?  
Why not so? Why could it not have been so?
> Impersonal «не могло быть»: «не могло быть так» is impersonal — neuter «могло» with no subject: 'why could it not have been so?' The terse double question «почему не так, почему не могло быть так» builds the insistent, hammering rhythm of the appeal.

Почему это письмо роковое, почему, напротив, оно не смешное?  
Why is this letter fateful — why, on the contrary, is it not laughable?
> Predicate adjective contrast «роковое / смешное»: The long-form adjectives «роковое» ('fateful') and «смешное» ('laughable, ridiculous') serve as predicates after the zero copula, agreeing with neuter «письмо/оно». «напротив» ('on the contrary') pivots the rhetorical question.

А вот именно потому, что найден труп убитого отца, потому что свидетель видел подсудимого в саду, вооруженного и убегающего, и сам был повержен им, стало быть, и совершилось всё по написанному, а потому и письмо не смешное, а роковое.  
Precisely because the murdered father's body was found, because a witness saw the accused in the garden, armed and fleeing, and was himself struck down by him — and so it follows that everything came to pass just as it was written, and therefore the letter is not laughable but fateful.
> Two participles describing «подсудимого»: The witness saw the accused «вооружённого» (past passive participle, 'armed') «и убегающего» (present active participle, 'fleeing'), both in the animate accusative agreeing with «подсудимого». The pairing freezes a single vivid image — armed, in mid-flight.
> Periphrastic passive «был повержен» + instrumental agent: «был повержен им» ('was struck down by him') is the past passive: short participle «повержен» plus «был», with the agent «им» in the instrumental. «повержен» (from «повергнуть») is a markedly bookish, elevated verb — 'cast down, laid low.'
> «стало быть» — 'therefore, it follows': A fossilized inferential phrase ('it has come to be [so]'), meaning 'consequently, hence.' It recurs throughout the chapter as the connective of syllogistic reasoning, often mockingly, as the lawyer parodies the prosecution's chain of 'and so… and so.'

Слава богу, мы дошли до точки: „коли был в саду, значит, он и убил“.  
Thank God, we have come to the crux of it: 'if he was in the garden, then he must be the one who killed.'
> Folksy «коли» + emphatic «и»: «коли» is a colloquial, archaic 'if' (vs. neutral «если»), here voicing the prosecution's crude syllogism. The particle «и» before «убил» is emphatic ('then he is the very one who killed'), not the conjunction 'and.'

Этими двумя словечками: коли был, так уж непременно и значит, всё исчерпывается, всё обвинение — „был, так и значит“.  
On these two little words — if he was, then it inevitably means — everything rests, the whole prosecution: 'he was there, so it follows.'
> Diminutive «словечки» — 'these little words': «словечко» is the diminutive of «слово» ('word'), instrumental plural «словечками». The diminutive is dismissive here — 'these two little words' — belittling the flimsy verbal pivot on which the whole prosecution is said to rest.
> Instrumental of means + reflexive passive: «этими двумя словечками… всё исчерпывается» — the instrumental «словечками» names the means, and «исчерпывается» (reflexive «-ся», imperfective passive) means 'everything is exhausted / is summed up by them.' Note the numeral «двумя» also takes the instrumental.

А если не значит, хотя бы и был?  
And what if it does not follow, even though he was there?
> Concessive «хотя бы» — 'even if': «хотя бы и был» means 'even though / even if he was there.' «хотя» ('although') reinforced by the irrealis «бы» and emphatic «и» yields a concessive: granting the premise only to deny that the conclusion follows.

О, я согласен, что совокупность фактов, совпадение фактов действительно довольно красноречивы.  
Oh, I grant that the sum of the facts, the convergence of the facts, really is quite eloquent.
> Short-form predicate «красноречивы»: «красноречивы» is the short (predicative) form of «красноречивый» ('eloquent'), plural to agree with the paired subjects «совокупность… совпадение». Short adjectives, bookish and assertive, are the natural predicate form in this elevated register.
> «совокупность» — the sum, the aggregate: A formal abstract noun ('totality, aggregate'), key to the speech's argument: the prosecution's case rests on the cumulative weight of facts, which the defense will pull apart «отдельно» ('separately'). Paired with «совпадение» ('coincidence, convergence').

Но рассмотрите, однако, все эти факты отдельно, не внушаясь их совокупностью: почему, например, обвинение ни за что не хочет допустить правдивости показания подсудимого, что он убежал от отцова окошка?  
But examine, however, all these facts separately, without letting yourselves be swayed by their accumulation: why, for instance, will the prosecution on no account allow the truthfulness of the accused's own testimony that he fled from his father's window?
> Negated gerund «не внушаясь» + instrumental: «не внушаясь их совокупностью» is a present gerund («деепричастие») from reflexive «внушаться», 'not letting yourselves be swayed by their accumulation.' The cause/means stands in the instrumental «совокупностью», and the gerund attaches its action to the imperative «рассмотрите».
> Emphatic negation «ни за что»: «ни за что» ('on no account, not for anything') is a fixed «ни»-phrase intensifying the negation «не хочет» — negative concord again. It paints the prosecution as stubbornly refusing to admit the testimony.

Вспомните даже сарказмы, в которые пускается здесь обвинение насчет почтительности и „благочестивых“ чувств, вдруг обуявших убийцу.  
Recall even the sarcasms in which the prosecution here indulges concerning the filial respect and 'devout' feelings that supposedly seized the murderer all at once.
> Relative «который» governed by «в»: «в которые пускается обвинение» ('into which the prosecution launches itself') is a relative clause where «которые» agrees with «сарказмы» in number but takes the accusative demanded by «в» (motion). «пускается» is reflexive, 'sets off into, indulges in.'
> Past active participle «обуявших»: «обуявших» ('that had seized') is a past active participle from the archaic «обуять» ('to grip, possess'), genitive plural agreeing with «чувств». The bookish verb and the participle together give the prosecutor's sarcasm a mock-solemn ring.

А что, если и в самом деле тут было нечто подобное, то есть хоть не почтительность чувств, но благочестивость чувств?  
And what if there really was something of the sort here — that is, if not respectful feeling, then at least devout feeling?
> Hypothetical «что, если» + «нечто»: «что, если…» ('what if…') floats a possibility; «было нечто подобное» ('there was something of the sort') uses the bookish indefinite «нечто» ('something'), which, unlike «что-то», is unstressed-neutral and stands only in nominative/accusative.
> «почтительность» vs «благочестивость»: The lawyer draws a fine distinction: «почтительность» is deferential 'respect' toward a person, «благочестивость» is religious 'devoutness.' He concedes the latter while denying the former — a piece of moral hair-splitting in the accused's favor.

„Должно быть, мать за меня замолила в эту минуту“, — показывает на следствии подсудимый, и вот он убежал, чуть лишь уверился, что Светловой у отца в доме нет.  
'My mother must have been praying for me at that moment,' the accused states in the preliminary inquiry — and there it is, he ran off the instant he grew sure that Svetlova was not in his father's house.
> «чуть лишь» + genitive of absence: «чуть лишь уверился» ('the very instant he grew sure') marks an immediate trigger. The subordinate «Светловой… нет» is a negated existential: the absent person stands in the genitive «Светловой» with «нет» — the genitive of negation.

„Но он не мог увериться чрез окно“, — возражает нам обвинение.  
'But he could not have made sure through the window,' the prosecution objects to us.
> Archaic «чрез» for «через»: «чрез» is the Church-Slavonic/bookish doublet of «через» ('through, by means of'), shorter by its missing full vowel. It governs the accusative «окно». The clipped form lends the prosecution's quoted objection a period-formal ring.

А почему же не мог?  
And why could he not?
> Elliptical retort with «же»: A clipped rejoinder: «а почему же не мог?» ('and why then could he not?'). The subject and infinitive («он… увериться») are simply dropped, recoverable from the prior line — and «же» gives the comeback its bite.

Ведь окно отворилось же на поданные подсудимым знаки.  
After all, the window did open in answer to the signals the accused gave.
> Reflexive «отворилось» + «ведь»-like «же»: «отворилось» (reflexive «-ся») is the intransitive 'opened (of itself)' — the window opened. The particle «же» here works like «ведь», appealing to an agreed fact: 'after all, the window did open.' «поданные… знаки» = signals 'given' (past passive participle).

Тут могло быть произнесено одно какое-нибудь такое слово Федором Павловичем, мог вырваться какой-нибудь такой крик — и подсудимый мог вдруг удостовериться, что Светловой тут нет.  
Some single word or other might have been uttered there by Fyodor Pavlovich, some such cry might have broken from him — and the accused might suddenly have made certain that Svetlova was not there.
> Passive participle + instrumental agent, fronted: «могло быть произнесено… слово Фёдором Павловичем» = 'some word might have been uttered by Fyodor Pavlovich.' The short passive participle «произнесено» joins «могло быть», the agent «Фёдором Павловичем» stands in the instrumental, and the verb is fronted for suspense before the subject «слово».
> Reflexive «вырваться» + indefinite «какой-нибудь»: «мог вырваться… крик» — reflexive «вырваться» ('to burst out, escape [of a cry]'). «какой-нибудь» is the non-specific indefinite ('some… or other'), the «-нибудь» series marking 'any cry at all,' as the lawyer multiplies unverifiable possibilities.

Почему непременно предполагать так, как мы воображаем, как предположили воображать?  
Why must we necessarily suppose it to be as we imagine, as we have presumed to imagine it?
> Bare infinitive «предполагать» as a deliberative: The subjectless infinitive «предполагать» ('to suppose') frames a deliberative question — 'why [must one] necessarily suppose…' The dative experiencer ('for us') is left implicit, as Russian often does in such impersonal musings.
> Perfective «предположили» of completed presumption: «предположили воображать» ('have presumed to imagine') pairs the perfective past «предположили» (a completed act of presuming) with the imperfective infinitive «воображать» (ongoing imagining). The slight tautology with «воображаем» mocks the circularity of the prosecution's reasoning.

В действительности может мелькнуть тысяча вещей, ускользающих от наблюдения самого тонкого романиста.  
In reality a thousand things may flash by that would slip past the observation of even the most subtle novelist.
> Present active participle «ускользающих»: «ускользающих от наблюдения» ('slipping away from observation') is a present active participle, genitive plural agreeing with «вещей». It replaces a «которые ускользают» clause and governs «от» + genitive, condensing the relative into one elegant modifier.
> Superlative «самого тонкого»: «самого тонкого» is the periphrastic superlative, «самый» ('most') declining with the adjective «тонкий» ('subtle, fine'), here animate genitive after «от наблюдения». «романист» ('novelist') quietly winks at Dostoevsky himself, the supreme observer being outdone by reality.

„Да, но Григорий видел дверь отворенною, а стало быть, подсудимый был в доме наверно, а стало быть, и убил“.  
'Yes, but Grigory saw the door standing open, and so the accused was certainly in the house, and so he killed.'
> Instrumental of the depictive «отворенною»: «видел дверь отворённою» ('saw the door [as] open') puts the participle «отворённою» in the instrumental — a predicative/depictive instrumental describing the state of the object as seen. The long -ою ending is the older, bookish instrumental feminine (modern -ой).

Об этой двери, господа присяжные… Видите ли, об отворенной этой двери свидетельствует лишь одно лицо, бывшее, однако, в то время в таком состоянии само, что… Но пусть, пусть была дверь отворена, пусть подсудимый отперся, солгал из чувства самозащиты, столь понятного в его положении, пусть, пусть он проник в дом, был в доме — ну и что же, почему же непременно коли был, то и убил?  
About that door, gentlemen of the jury… You see, only a single person testifies to this open door — a person who at that very time was himself in such a state that… But let it pass, let it pass; let the door have been open, let the accused deny it, let him have lied out of a feeling of self-defense so understandable in his position — let it be, let it be that he got into the house, was in the house — well, and what of it? Why must it necessarily follow that if he was there, then he killed?
> Concessive «пусть» — 'let it be that': The hammering «пусть… пусть…» is the concessive particle 'let it be (granted) that': the lawyer concedes every point for argument's sake. «была отворена» is a periphrastic passive ('was open'), «проник» perfective ('got in') — each conceded only to deny the inference.
> Reflexive «отпереться» — to deny, disavow: «отпереться» (reflexive «-ся», from «отпереть» 'to unlock') here means 'to deny, disown a charge.' Paired with perfective «солгал» ('lied'), the two completed actions advance the conceded scenario. «из чувства самозащиты» (genitive after «из») gives the motive.
> Mocking echo of the prosecution's syllogism: The lawyer parrots the crude logic «коли был, то и убил» ('if he was there, then he killed') inside his own question, «почему же непременно…?». The folksy «коли» and emphatic «и» mark it as a quoted formula he holds up to ridicule.

Он мог ворваться, пробежать по комнатам, мог оттолкнуть отца, мог даже ударить отца, но, удостоверившись, что Светловой нет у него, убежал, радуясь, что ее нет и что убежал, отца не убив.  
He might have burst in, run through the rooms, might have shoved his father aside, might even have struck his father — but, having made certain that Svetlova was not with him, he ran off, rejoicing that she was not there and that he had run off without killing his father.
> Anaphoric «мог» + perfective infinitives: A rising series of «мог» ('he might have') plus perfective infinitives — «ворваться» (burst in), «оттолкнуть» (shove away), «ударить» (strike) — each a single bounded act. The repetition builds a hypothetical sequence of escalating but non-fatal violence.
> Perfective gerund «удостоверившись»: «удостоверившись» is a past («деепричастие») gerund ('having made certain'), marking the prior, completed act before «убежал». It shares the subject of the main verb and again embeds a genitive-of-negation existential, «Светловой нет».

Именно потому, может быть, и соскочил через минуту с забора к поверженному им в азарте Григорию, что в состоянии был ощущать чувство чистое, чувство сострадания и жалости, потому что убежал от искушения убить отца, потому что ощущал в себе сердце чистое и радость, что не убил отца.  
And precisely for that reason, perhaps, a minute later he jumped down from the fence to Grigory, whom he had knocked down in his frenzy — because he was in a state to feel a pure feeling, a feeling of compassion and pity, because he had fled from the temptation to kill his father, because he felt within himself a pure heart and a joy that he had not killed his father.
> Anaphora of «потому что»: The sentence chains three subordinate «потому что» ('because') clauses, a deliberate rhetorical anaphora piling up motives for Mitya's pity. The repeated subordinator gives the passage its surging, emotional, sermon-like cadence.
> Past passive participle + instrumental agent inside a phrase: «к поверженному им… Григорию» ('to Grigory, struck down by him') embeds a whole participial phrase before the noun: dative «Григорию» (governed by «к»), modified by the past passive participle «поверженному», with the agent «им» in the instrumental — a tightly packed bookish construction.
> «азарт» — heat, frenzy, reckless passion: «азарт» (from French/gambling vocabulary) is a fervor or reckless excitement; «в азарте» = 'in his frenzy, in the heat of it.' It frames the blow as impulsive passion, not cold intent — the defense's whole thesis in a word.

Красноречиво до ужаса описывает нам обвинитель страшное состояние подсудимого в селе Мокром, когда любовь вновь открылась ему, зовя его в новую жизнь, и когда ему уже нельзя было любить, потому что сзади был окровавленный труп отца его, а за трупом казнь.  
With a terrible eloquence the prosecutor describes for us the dreadful state of the accused in the village of Mokroye, when love opened itself to him anew, calling him to a new life, and when he could no longer love, because behind him lay his father's bloodied corpse, and beyond the corpse, the scaffold.
> Fronted adverb + inverted word order: The adverb «красноречиво до ужаса» ('eloquently, to the point of horror') is thrown to the front, before verb «описывает» and subject «обвинитель», for rhetorical weight. Russian's case-marking frees this topic-first reordering; the new information lands where the speaker wills it.
> Present gerund «зовя»: «зовя» is the imperfective present gerund of «звать» ('calling'), a simultaneous attendant action: love 'opened to him, calling him to a new life.' This «деепричастие», sharing the subject «любовь», layers the actions into one flowing clause.
> «казнь» — execution, capital punishment: «казнь» is execution or, by extension, the death-penalty fate awaiting a convicted murderer (rendered 'the scaffold'). The word recurs as the dark horizon «за трупом» ('beyond the corpse') — the future the accused would face if guilty.

И однако же, обвинитель все-таки допустил любовь, которую и объяснил по своей психологии: „Пьяное, дескать, состояние, преступника везут на казнь, еще долго ждать, и проч., и проч.“.  
And yet the prosecutor nonetheless conceded the love, which he explained after his own psychology: 'A drunken state, you see; the criminal is being carried off to execution, there is still a long time to wait, and so on, and so on.'
> Stacked concessives «однако же… всё-таки»: «однако же» ('and yet') and «всё-таки» ('nonetheless') pile up to mark a strong adversative turn: despite his own dark picture, the prosecutor still conceded the love. The «же» on «однако» adds insistence to the contrast.
> Relative «которую» (accusative) + reflexive «свой»: «которую… объяснил» — «которую» is the feminine accusative relative tied to «любовь». «по своей психологии» ('after his own psychology') uses the reflexive possessive «своей», pointing back to the clause's subject, the prosecutor — his own theory, not someone else's.

Но не другое ли вы создали лицо, господин обвинитель, опять-таки спрашиваю?  
But have you not invented another person, Mr. Prosecutor — I ask you yet again?
> «не… ли» question + split noun phrase: «не другое ли… лицо вы создали?» ('have you not invented another person?') uses the «не… ли» rhetorical question, with the modifier «другое» split from its noun «лицо» by «ли вы создали» — a fronting that throws the stress onto 'another.'
> «лицо» — 'person, character': Beyond 'face,' «лицо» means a person, a personage, or a dramatis persona. The lawyer's jab — 'have you not invented another person?' — accuses the prosecutor of constructing a fictional character rather than describing the real defendant.

Так ли, так ли груб и бездушен подсудимый, что мог еще думать в тот момент о любви и о вилянии пред судом, если бы действительно на нем была кровь отца?  
Is the accused really so coarse and so soulless that at that moment he could still think of love and of wriggling out before the court, if his father's blood had truly been on him?
> Doubled «так ли» + short adjectives: «так ли… груб и бездушен» — the «ли» question, doubled for intensity, with the short-form predicate adjectives «груб» ('coarse') and «бездушен» ('soulless'). The short forms, bookish and categorical, fit the absolute moral judgment being weighed and rejected.
> Counterfactual «если бы… была»: «если бы… на нём была кровь отца» ('if his father's blood had truly been on him') is the irrealis condition, past «была» + «бы». The idiom «на нём кровь» ('blood is on him') means moral guilt, with «на ком» (prepositional) marking the bearer of the stain.
> «виляние» — wriggling, dodging: «виляние» (from «вилять», 'to wag, swerve, dodge') is evasive maneuvering, 'wriggling out.' The image — a dog wagging or a road swerving — paints the kind of cowardly evasion before the court that the lawyer says is alien to Mitya's open nature.

Нет, нет и нет!  
No, no, and no!
> Emphatic triple «нет»: The bare «нет» ('no / there is not'), tripled with «и» before the last, is pure rhetorical climax — an absolute, threefold denial. Its terseness, after the long preceding period, lands like a hammer-blow.

Только что открылось, что она его любит, зовет с собою, сулит ему новое счастье, — о, клянусь, он должен был тогда почувствовать двойную, тройную потребность убить себя и убил бы себя непременно, если бы сзади его лежал труп отца!  
No sooner had it come out that she loved him, was calling him to her side, promising him a new happiness — oh, I swear, he must then have felt a double, a triple need to kill himself, and he would most certainly have killed himself, if his father's corpse had been lying behind him!
> «только что» + reflexive «открылось»: «только что открылось» ('no sooner had it come out / just as it became clear') sets a fresh temporal anchor; «открылось» is reflexive ('it revealed itself'). The dependent «что она его любит» reports a present-tense fact within past narration.
> Modal past + counterfactual «бы»: «должен был почувствовать» ('must have felt') is the past of obligation/inference; «убил бы себя… если бы… лежал труп» is the full counterfactual conditional, both clauses carrying «бы». «себя» is the reflexive object pronoun — 'kill himself.'

О нет, не забыл бы, где лежат его пистолеты!  
Oh no, he would not have forgotten where his pistols lay!
> Counterfactual «не забыл бы»: «не забыл бы» ('he would not have forgotten') continues the irrealis from the previous sentence without restating the «если бы»-clause. «где лежат его пистолеты» is an embedded indirect question, «лежат» (imperfective present) describing where the pistols habitually lay.

Я знаю подсудимого: дикая, деревянная бессердечность, взведенная на него обвинением, несовместна с его характером.  
I know the accused: the wild, wooden heartlessness laid to his charge by the prosecution is incompatible with his character.
> «деревянный» — 'wooden', i.e. unfeeling: «деревянная бессердечность» ('wooden heartlessness') uses «деревянный» metaphorically for dull, insensate rigidity. Paired with «дикая» ('wild, savage'), it caricatures the brutish nature the prosecution attributes to the accused — a portrait the lawyer calls untrue to his character.
> Past passive participle + instrumental agent: «взведённая на него обвинением» ('laid to his charge by the prosecution') is a past passive participle agreeing with «бессердечность» (fem.), with agent «обвинением» in the instrumental. «взвести [вину] на кого» is the legal idiom 'to impute guilt to someone.'
> Short adjective «несовместна» + instrumental «с»: «несовместна» is the short predicative form of «несовместный» ('incompatible'), agreeing with «бессердечность». It governs «с его характером» — «с» ('with') + instrumental, the standard frame for 'incompatible with.'

Он бы убил себя, это наверно; он не убил себя именно потому, что „мать замолила о нем“, и сердце его было неповинно в крови отца.  
He would have killed himself, of that I am sure; he did not kill himself precisely because 'his mother was praying for him,' and his heart was guiltless of his father's blood.
> Focusing «именно потому, что»: «именно потому, что…» ('precisely because…') is an emphatic causal frame, «именно» pinning down the exact reason. The reflexive object «себя» recurs — 'did not kill himself' — tying back to the suicide motif.
> Short adjective «неповинно» + «в» of guilt: «неповинно в крови» ('guiltless of the blood') is the short predicative «неповинно» (neuter, agreeing with «сердце»), governing «в» + prepositional «в крови» — the construction «повинен/неповинен в чём» ('guilty/innocent of'). A solemn, bookish turn fitting the moral verdict.

Он мучился, он горевал в ту ночь в Мокром лишь о поверженном старике Григории и молил про себя бога, чтобы старик встал и очнулся, чтоб удар его был несмертелен и миновала бы казнь за него.  
He suffered, he grieved that night in Mokroye only over the stricken old Grigory, and prayed to God within himself that the old man might rise and come round, that his blow might not be mortal and the punishment for it might pass him by.
> Imperfective pair «мучился… горевал»: Both verbs are imperfective past, presenting Mitya's suffering as a continuous, drawn-out state through the night — «мучился» (reflexive, 'tormented himself, agonized') and «горевал» ('grieved'). The aspect dwells on the duration, not on any single moment.
> «чтобы» of entreaty + irrealis: After «молил бога» ('prayed to God'), the «чтобы»-clauses express the content of the prayer in the irrealis past: 'that the old man might rise,' 'that the blow might not be mortal.' The mobile «бы» surfaces explicitly in «миновала бы казнь». «несмертелен» is a short adjective.

Почему не принять такое толкование событий?  
Why not accept such a reading of the events?
> Deliberative infinitive «не принять»: «почему не принять…?» ('why not accept…?') is a subjectless deliberative question built on the bare perfective infinitive «принять». The construction proposes an action while leaving the agent ('we, one') implicit — a recurring rhetorical move in the speech.

Какое мы имеем твердое доказательство, что подсудимый нам лжет?  
What firm proof do we have that the accused is lying to us?
> Fronted «какое… доказательство»: The interrogative «какое» ('what kind of') agrees with «доказательство» (neuter accusative) but is fronted across «мы имеем» for emphasis. «имеем» ('we have') is the more formal, bookish 'have' beside the everyday «у нас есть».
> «лгать» + dative «нам»: «лжёт нам» ('is lying to us') — the verb «лгать» takes the dative of the person lied to, «нам». «лгать» is the imperfective present here, framing the alleged lying as an ongoing posture, not a single utterance.

А вот труп-то отца, укажут нам тотчас же снова: он выбежал, он не убил, ну так кто же убил старика?  
Ah, but there is the father's corpse, they will at once point out to us again: he ran off, he did not kill — well then, who did kill the old man?
> Topic-marking clitic «-то»: «труп-то отца» uses the emphatic clitic «-то» to spotlight a known topic — 'ah, but the corpse, now that…' This «-то» (distinct from the indefinite «кто-то») foregrounds the very fact the opponents keep returning to.
> Perfective future «укажут» of the imagined retort: «укажут» is the perfective simple future ('they will point out'), the impersonal 'they' of the prosecution; the future projects the objection the lawyer anticipates. The dialogic 'they will say… and I answer' structure runs through the whole chapter.

Повторяю, тут вся логика обвинения: кто же убил, как не он?  
I repeat, here is the whole logic of the prosecution: who else killed him, if not he?
> «кто же… как не он» — who else if not he: «кто же убил, как не он?» ('who else killed, if not he?') — «кто же» with the insistent «же», and «как не он» ('if not he') in the nominative as the expected answer. This compressed idiom is the prosecution's whole logic, which the lawyer is about to overturn.

Некого, дескать, поставить вместо него.  
There is no one, they say, to put in his place.
> Negative «некого» + infinitive: «некого поставить» ('there is no one to put') uses the negative pronoun «некого» (from «не́кого», genitive/accusative) in the impersonal 'there-is-no-one-to-VERB' construction with a bare infinitive and an implied dative agent. «дескать» again flags the words as the prosecution's reported claim.

Господа присяжные заседатели, так ли это?  
Gentlemen of the jury, is that so?
> Minimal «так ли это» question: «так ли это?» ('is that so?') is the bare «ли» yes/no question, «так» ('so') as the focus. Its terseness, following the formal address, turns the appeal directly back on the jury.

Впрямь ли, действительно ли уж так-таки совсем некого поставить?  
Is it truly, is it really so utterly impossible to put anyone in his place?
> Piled-up intensifiers + «ли»: A cascade of reinforcers — «впрямь ли» ('truly?'), «действительно ли» ('really?'), «уж так-таки совсем» ('so utterly, after all') — all bearing on «некого поставить» from s51. The accumulation is pure rhetorical pressure, daring the jury to doubt.

Мы слышали, как обвинение перечло по пальцам всех бывших и всех перебывавших в ту ночь в этом доме.  
We have heard the prosecution count off on its fingers everyone who was, and everyone who came and went, in that house on that night.
> Idiom «перечесть по пальцам»: «перечесть по пальцам» ('to count off on one's fingers') means to enumerate, item by item — implying the list is short enough to tally on the hand. «перечло» is the neuter perfective past agreeing with «обвинение».
> Substantivized participles «бывших / перебывавших»: Two past active participles used as nouns: «бывших» ('those who were [present]') and «перебывавших» ('those who came and went, passed through' — the prefix «пере-» adds 'all in succession'). Both stand in the animate genitive/accusative as the objects counted.

Нашлось пять человек.  
Five people were found.
> Numeral subject + genitive plural + neuter verb: «пять человек» triggers the genitive plural «человек» (a zero-ending genitive plural, irregular for 'people' after numerals), and the quantified subject takes a neuter singular verb «нашлось» (reflexive 'were found, turned out'). Numerals above four govern this pattern.

Трое из них, я согласен, вполне невменяемы: это сам убитый, старик Григорий и жена его.  
Three of them, I grant, are entirely beyond suspicion: the murdered man himself, old Grigory, and his wife.
> Collective numeral «трое» + short adjective: «трое» is the collective numeral for a small group of persons (used instead of «три» here), governing «из них» (genitive). «невменяемы» is the short predicative form — literally 'not accountable,' here 'beyond suspicion.'
> «невменяемый» — not to be charged: A legal term: «вменять» is 'to impute, charge'; «невменяемый» means someone to whom a deed cannot be imputed — usually the insane, but here stretched to 'beyond suspicion.' The lawyer uses the courtroom word ironically of the victim and the wounded servants.

Остаются, стало быть, подсудимый и Смердяков, и вот обвинитель с пафосом восклицает, что подсудимый потому указывает на Смердякова, что не на кого больше ему указать, что будь тут кто-нибудь шестой, даже призрак какого-либо шестого, то подсудимый сам бы тотчас бросил обвинять Смердякова, устыдившись сего, а показал бы на этого шестого.  
There remain, then, the accused and Smerdyakov, and here the prosecutor exclaims with pathos that the accused points to Smerdyakov only because there is no one else for him to point to — that were there some sixth person here, even the phantom of some sixth person, the accused would himself at once stop accusing Smerdyakov, ashamed to do so, and would point instead to this sixth man.
> Imperfective «остаются» as a logical residue: «остаются» (imperfective present, reflexive «-ся», 'there remain') states the standing result of the elimination — a present tense of logical fact. «стало быть» ('thus') frames it as the conclusion of the count.
> Inverted conditional «будь» + irrealis main clause: «будь тут кто-нибудь шестой» ('were there some sixth person here') is the bare imperative-form conditional of «быть», equivalent to «если бы был». The apodosis «бросил бы… показал бы» carries «бы», completing a counterfactual the prosecutor allegedly imagines.
> Perfective gerund «устыдившись» + archaic «сего»: «устыдившись сего» ('ashamed of this, having grown ashamed') is a perfective past gerund from reflexive «устыдиться», governing the genitive «сего» — the archaic, bookish demonstrative «сей» ('this'). The whole turn is markedly literary-elevated.

Но, господа присяжные, почему бы я не мог заключить совершенно обратно?  
But, gentlemen of the jury, why could I not conclude exactly the opposite?
> Polite-rhetorical «почему бы… не мог»: «почему бы я не мог…?» ('why could I not…?') softens the challenge with the irrealis «бы» on «не мог», a deliberative-hypothetical. «заключить обратно» = 'conclude the opposite' — the lawyer turns the prosecution's own inference inside out.

Стоят двое: подсудимый и Смердяков — почему же мне не сказать, что вы обвиняете моего клиента единственно потому, что вам некого обвинять?  
Two men stand here: the accused and Smerdyakov — why may I not say that you accuse my client solely because you have no one else to accuse?
> Dative «мне» + infinitive deliberative: «почему же мне не сказать…?» ('why should I not say…?') is the dative-subject deliberative: the agent «мне» stands in the dative, the act is a bare infinitive «сказать», and «же» sharpens the challenge. This is the canonical Russian 'why should I not…?' frame.
> «клиент» — the lawyer's client: «клиент» here is the defense counsel's client, the accused Mitya. The term, with «моего» ('my'), underscores the adversarial, advocate's posture of the new post-reform bar — Fetyukovich speaking explicitly as a hired defender.

А некого лишь потому, что вы совершенно предвзято заранее исключили Смердякова из всякого подозрения.  
And you have no one else only because you have, with complete prejudice, excluded Smerdyakov in advance from any suspicion whatever.
> Perfective «исключили» of a settled act: «исключили» (perfective past, 'have excluded') presents the exclusion as a single completed, decisive act — done «заранее» ('in advance') and «предвзято» ('with prejudice'). The accusation lands precisely because the deed is framed as finished and irreversible.
> «из» + genitive «всякого подозрения»: «исключили из… подозрения» ('excluded from suspicion') — «из» governs the genitive, here «всякого подозрения» ('any suspicion whatever'), with «всякий» stressing the totality. The genitive after «из» is fixed by the preposition.

Да, правда, на Смердякова показывают лишь сам подсудимый, два брата его, Светлова, и только.  
Yes, it is true, the only ones who point to Smerdyakov are the accused himself, his two brothers, and Svetlova — and that is all.
> «показывать на» — to point the finger: Here the imperfective «показывают» is not 'to show' but the legal idiom «показывать на кого-нибудь», 'to give evidence against / point to' someone. The present-tense imperfective frames it as the standing state of the testimony so far.
> «и только» — 'and that is all': The clipped «и только» closes the list with a dismissive finality, 'and that's the lot of them.' It is a colloquial summing-up particle phrase, set off here to deflate the weight of the witnesses just named.

Но ведь есть же и еще кое-кто из показывающих: это некоторое, хотя и неясное брожение в обществе какого-то вопроса, какого-то подозрения, слышен какой-то неясный слух, чувствуется, что существует какое-то ожидание.  
But there are, after all, still others who point to him: a certain ferment, however vague, of some question, some suspicion, in society — a certain indistinct rumor is heard, one senses that there exists a kind of expectancy.
> «ведь» and «же» stacked for appeal: Two modal particles pile up: «ведь» appeals to what the jury already half-knows ('but after all there are…'), and «же» insists on it. Together they give the orator's coaxing, buttonholing tone — pure spoken texture that English can only carry with stress.
> «-то» indefinites: a 'certain something': The drumbeat of «какой-то» ('some sort of') uses the «-то» particle to mark a referent that is real but unidentified — a vague question, suspicion, rumor, expectancy. The repetition builds the atmosphere of an undefined unease the lawyer wants the jury to feel.
> Impersonal «слышен» and «чувствуется»: «слышен» is a short-form predicate adjective ('is heard'), and «чувствуется» an impersonal reflexive ('it is sensed'). Both drop any agent: the rumor and the foreboding seem to arise of themselves, with no one responsible — a deliberately ownerless atmosphere.
> «брожение» — ferment: «брожение» literally names the fermenting of wine or dough, used figuratively for a restless stirring in society. The metaphor casts public suspicion as something bubbling up of its own chemistry.

Наконец, свидетельствует и некоторое сопоставление фактов, весьма характерное, хотя, признаюсь, и неопределенное: во-первых, этот припадок падучей болезни именно в день катастрофы, припадок, который так старательно принужден был почему-то защищать и отстаивать обвинитель.  
Finally, there testifies a certain juxtaposition of facts, highly characteristic, though, I admit, indefinite: in the first place, this fit of the falling sickness precisely on the day of the catastrophe — a fit which the prosecutor was for some reason so painstakingly compelled to defend and uphold.
> «признаюсь» — parenthetical 'I admit': The reflexive verb «признаться» ('to confess, admit') drops into the sentence as a parenthetical aside, 'I confess.' Such first-person interjections are a hallmark of the orator's intimate, confiding manner throughout the speech.
> Short passive participle «принужден был»: «принужден» is the short-form past passive participle of «принудить» ('to compel'), joined to «был» to form a past passive: 'was compelled.' The agent, the prosecutor, surfaces in the nominative as the real subject — a bookish, somewhat ironic construction.
> «сопоставление» — juxtaposition: «сопоставление» is the bookish noun 'a setting side by side, comparison,' built on «ставить» ('to place'). It belongs to the lawyer's measured, analytic vocabulary as he lines up his circumstantial evidence.

Затем это внезапное самоубийство Смердякова накануне суда.  
Then there is this sudden suicide of Smerdyakov on the eve of the trial.
> Verbless naming sentence: There is no verb: «Затем это внезапное самоубийство…» is a bare nominative phrase, 'Then [there is] this sudden suicide.' Russian freely drops the present-tense 'to be,' so the noun stands alone as its own statement, ticking off the next item in the list.
> «накануне» — on the eve of: «накануне» (+ genitive) means 'on the eve of, the day before,' literally tied to «канун», the eve of a feast. The word quietly underlines the ominous timing — the suicide falling exactly the day before the trial.

Затем не менее внезапное показание старшего брата подсудимого, сегодня на суде, до сих пор верившего в виновность брата и вдруг приносящего деньги и тоже провозгласившего опять-таки имя Смердякова как убийцы!  
Then there is the no less sudden testimony of the accused's elder brother, today in court — who until now had believed in his brother's guilt and who suddenly brings money and likewise proclaims, yet again, the name of Smerdyakov as the murderer!
> A chain of active participles: Three active participles modify «брата»: past «верившего» ('who had believed'), present «приносящего» ('bringing'), and past «провозгласившего» ('who proclaimed'). Compressing three который-clauses into adjectives, this stacked participial chain is the dense bookish syntax typical of 19th-century oratory.
> «опять-таки» — 'yet again': «опять-таки» couples «опять» ('again') with the emphatic «-таки» ('after all, nonetheless'), so it means 'once again, for all that.' It marks the recurrence of Smerdyakov's name as something that keeps stubbornly returning.
> «как» + genitive in apposition: «как убийцы» ('as [the] murderer') stands in the genitive to agree with «Смердякова», the genitive of «имя Смердякова». The animate noun «убийца» takes a genitive that doubles as accusative, a reminder of how animacy shapes the case.

О, я вполне убежден вместе с судом и с прокуратурой, что Иван Карамазов — больной и в горячке, что показание его действительно могло быть отчаянною попыткой, замышленною притом же в бреду, спасти брата, свалив на умершего.  
Oh, I am entirely convinced, together with the court and the prosecution, that Ivan Karamazov is sick and in a fever — that his testimony might indeed have been a desperate attempt, conceived moreover in delirium, to save his brother by laying the blame on the dead man.
> Short adjective «больной»? — no, the noun stands predicate: Here «больной» works as the predicate 'sick' for Ivan, paired with the prepositional «в горячке» ('in a fever'). Russian needs no copula in the present, so 'Ivan Karamazov [is] sick and in a fever' runs verbless, the two states simply juxtaposed.
> Predicate instrumental «попыткой»: After «могло быть» ('could have been') the predicate noun «попытка» goes into the instrumental, «попыткой» ('an attempt'). This is the regular rule: complements of «быть» in the past and infinitive take the instrumental, framing the role rather than identifying.
> Instrumental-feminine «замышленною»: «замышленною» is the past passive participle 'conceived, plotted,' in the old long instrumental feminine ending «-ою» (modern «-ой»), agreeing with «попыткой». Dostoevsky's «-ою»/«-ою» endings are a period flavor — bookish and slightly archaic to a modern ear.
> «свалить на» — to pin the blame: The perfective gerund «свалив» (from «свалить», literally 'to topple, dump') here means 'having dumped [the blame] onto.' «свалить на кого-нибудь» is the colloquial idiom for shifting guilt onto another — onto «умершего», 'the dead man,' Smerdyakov.

Но, однако же, все-таки произнесено имя Смердякова, опять-таки как будто слышится что-то загадочное.  
But, even so, the name of Smerdyakov has nonetheless been spoken — and again it is as though something enigmatic can be heard.
> Short passive «произнесено»: «произнесено» is the short-form neuter past passive participle, 'has been uttered,' agreeing with «имя» (neuter). With the auxiliary 'to be' suppressed in the present, the bare participle states a result: the name stands spoken.
> Impersonal reflexive «слышится»: «слышится» is the reflexive 'is heard / makes itself heard,' with «что-то загадочное» ('something enigmatic') as its grammatical subject. The «-ся» middle voice makes the enigma seem to sound of its own accord, agentless.

Что-то как будто тут не договорено, господа присяжные, и не покончено.  
Something, it seems, has been left unsaid here, gentlemen of the jury, and unfinished.
> Short passive participles under negation: «договорено» and «покончено» are short neuter past passive participles, 'said out [fully]' and 'finished,' both negated: 'has not been said out and not been finished.' The impersonal passive leaves it open who has left things unsaid.

И может быть, еще договорится.  
And perhaps it will yet be said.
> Perfective future «договорится»: «договорится» is a perfective verb in present-form endings, which yields a single completed future: 'it will [yet] get said out in full.' The reflexive «-ся» here is impersonal-passive ('it will be said'), picking up «не договорено» from the previous line.

Но об этом пока оставим, это еще впереди.  
But let us set this aside for now; it still lies ahead.
> First-person plural as exhortation: «оставим» is the perfective first-person plural 'we shall leave / let us leave [aside].' Russian can use the bare future first-person plural as a hortative 'let us…' without «давайте», a slightly formal, oratorical 'let us set this aside.'

Суд решил давеча продолжать заседание, но теперь пока, в ожидании, я бы мог кое-что, однако, заметить, например, по поводу характеристики покойного Смердякова, столь тонко и столь талантливо очерченной обвинителем.  
The court resolved a little while ago to continue the session, but now, in the meantime, while we wait, I might nonetheless remark upon a few things — for example, on the characterization of the late Smerdyakov, drawn for us by the prosecutor so subtly and so talentedly.
> Conditional «бы мог» — polite softening: Past «мог» plus the particle «бы» makes the conditional, 'I might / I could,' softening the assertion into a courteous 'I might venture to remark.' The «бы» leans on the first stressed words rather than the verb — a hallmark of polished oratory.
> Past passive participle in instrumental, «очерченной»: «очерченной» ('sketched, drawn') is the past passive participle agreeing with «характеристики» in the genitive-feminine. The adverbs «столь… столь…» ('so… so…') are the bookish, archaic equivalents of «так… так…», period-elevated diction.
> «давеча» — 'a little while ago': «давеча» is a colloquial, now archaic adverb meaning 'a little while back, earlier today.' It recurs through the speech, locating the prosecutor's remarks in the immediate past of the same court session.
> «покойный» — the late: «покойный Смердяков» is 'the late Smerdyakov,' the standard respectful term for the deceased, from «покой» ('rest, repose'). It quietly registers that Smerdyakov is now dead and beyond the court's reach.

Но, удивляясь таланту, не могу, однако же, вполне согласиться с сущностью характеристики.  
But, while admiring the talent, I cannot, however, fully agree with the substance of that characterization.
> Gerund «удивляясь» + dative object: «удивляясь» is the imperfective present gerund 'while marveling,' an adverbial sharing the main subject ('I'). The verb «удивляться» governs the dative, hence «таланту» ('at the talent') — a verb whose object stands not in the accusative but the dative.

Я был у Смердякова, я видел его и говорил с ним, он произвел на меня впечатление совсем иное.  
I called on Smerdyakov, I saw him and spoke with him, and he made on me an altogether different impression.
> Aspect contrast across the verbs: «был», «видел», «говорил» run imperfective — a series of states and durative encounters ('I was at his place, I saw him, I spoke with him') — against the single perfective «произвёл» ('made [an impression]'), which delivers the one resulting event. The imperfectives set the scene; the perfective lands the point.
> «иное» — bookish 'other': «иной» ('other, different') is the more literary, weightier synonym of «другой»; «впечатление совсем иное» means 'an altogether different impression.' Postposing the adjective after its noun gives an emphatic, oratorical rhythm.

Здоровьем он был слаб, это правда, но характером, но сердцем — о нет, это вовсе не столь слабый был человек, как заключило о нем обвинение.  
In health he was weak, that is true, but in character, in heart — oh no, this was by no means so weak a man as the prosecution concluded him to be.
> Instrumental of respect — 'weak in...': «здоровьем», «характером», «сердцем» are instrumentals of respect: 'in health,' 'in character,' 'in heart' — the instrumental naming the dimension in which someone is weak or strong. Fronting them gives the antithesis its rhetorical balance: weak in body, by no means weak in spirit.
> «не столь… как» comparative with inverted order: «не столь слабый… как» ('not so weak a man as') is the bookish comparative frame, with «столь» for «так». The clause inverts subject and verb — «заключило… обвинение» — letting the new information, the prosecution's verdict, fall at the stressed end.

Особенно не нашел я в нем робости, той робости, которую так характерно описывал нам обвинитель.  
In particular, I found in him none of that timidity, that timidity which the prosecutor so vividly described to us.
> Genitive of negation: «робости»: Under the negated «не нашёл» ('I did not find'), the object «робость» shifts to the genitive «робости» — the genitive of negation. The repetition «той робости, которую…» ('that timidity which…') then resumes it with a demonstrative and a relative clause.
> Relative «которую» in the accusative: «которую» agrees with «робость» in gender and number (feminine singular) but takes the accusative for its own role as object of «описывал» within the relative clause. This split — antecedent's gender, clause's case — is the heart of how «который» works.

Простодушия же в нем не было вовсе, напротив, я нашел страшную недоверчивость, прячущуюся под наивностью, и ум, способный весьма многое созерцать.  
Simplicity of heart there was none in him at all — on the contrary, I found a fearful mistrustfulness, hiding itself beneath an air of naïveté, and a mind capable of contemplating a great deal indeed.
> Genitive subject of «не было»: With negated existential «не было» the subject goes obligatorily into the genitive: «простодушия… не было» — 'of simple-heartedness there was none.' Fronting the genitive noun and adding «же» ('as for…, indeed') gives a strong contrastive emphasis.
> Present active participle «прячущуюся»: «прячущуюся» is the present active participle of reflexive «прятаться» ('to hide oneself'), accusative-feminine, agreeing with «недоверчивость»: 'a mistrustfulness hiding itself.' It keeps both the «-ся» middle voice and the participial «-щ-» suffix — densely bookish.
> «простодушие» — simplicity of heart: «простодушие», 'simple-heartedness, guilelessness' (from «простой» + «душа», 'simple-souled'), is the naïve openness the prosecutor ascribed to Smerdyakov. The lawyer flatly denies it — «не было вовсе» — to recast him as cunning.

О! обвинение слишком простодушно почло его слабоумным.  
Oh! the prosecution was far too simple-minded in deeming him feeble of mind.
> Archaic «почло» + double object in instrumental: «почло» is an archaic perfective of «почесть» ('to deem, account'), with «обвинение» as neuter subject. The construction «почесть кого-нибудь кем-нибудь» takes a predicate instrumental — «его слабоумным», 'deemed him feeble-minded' — the instrumental marking the assigned quality.
> «слабоумный» — feeble-minded: «слабоумный» compounds «слабый» ('weak') and «ум» ('mind'): 'weak of mind, feeble-minded.' The lawyer throws the prosecution's own diagnosis back as a mistake — Smerdyakov, he argues, was anything but simple.

На меня он произвел впечатление совершенно определенное: я ушел с убеждением, что существо это решительно злобное, непомерно честолюбивое, мстительное и знойно завистливое.  
On me he made an entirely definite impression: I came away convinced that this was a creature decidedly malicious, immeasurably ambitious, vindictive, and burning with envy.
> Predicate adjectives with no copula: After «я ушёл с убеждением, что…» ('I came away convinced that…'), the clause «существо это… злобное… завистливое» runs verbless: 'this creature [is] malicious… envious.' A chain of long-form adjectives stands predicate to «существо» with the present 'to be' simply absent.
> «знойно завистливое» — burning with envy: «знойный» means 'sultry, scorching' (of heat); used adverbially «знойно завистливое» gives 'searingly, torridly envious.' The unexpected heat-metaphor is vivid, expressive diction — envy as a physical, scorching passion.

Я собрал кой-какие сведения: он ненавидел происхождение свое, стыдился его и со скрежетом зубов припоминал, что „от Смердящей произошел“.  
I gathered a few pieces of information: he hated his own origin, was ashamed of it, and with gnashing teeth would recall that he 'came from Stinking Lizaveta.'
> Imperfective past for settled disposition: Three imperfective pasts — «ненавидел» ('hated'), «стыдился» ('was ashamed'), «припоминал» ('would recall') — paint not single events but a lasting habit of mind. «припоминал» especially reads as iterative: 'would keep recalling.'
> «стыдиться» + genitive: The reflexive «стыдиться» ('to be ashamed of') governs the genitive, hence «его» ('of it') — his origin. A small but recurring pattern: many «-ся» verbs of feeling take genitive objects.

К слуге Григорию и к жене его, бывшим благодетелями его детства, он был непочтителен.  
Toward the servant Grigory and his wife, who had been the benefactors of his childhood, he was disrespectful.
> Past participle «бывшим» + predicate instrumental: «бывшим» is the past active participle of «быть» ('having been'), dative-plural agreeing with «слуге Григорию и… жене». Its complement «благодетелями» stands in the instrumental — the predicate-of-быть rule — 'who had been the benefactors of his childhood.'
> Dative governed by «к», fronted: The preposition «к» takes the dative — «к слуге Григорию… к жене» ('toward the servant Grigory… toward his wife') — and the whole phrase is fronted before the subject for emphasis. The short adjective «непочтителен» ('disrespectful') predicates a settled trait.
> «благодетель» — benefactor: «благодетель» (from «благо» 'good' + «деять» 'to do') is the elevated word for 'benefactor, one who does good.' It frames Grigory and his wife as the dutiful guardians who raised the foundling Smerdyakov — making his contempt the sharper.

Россию проклинал и над нею смеялся.  
He cursed Russia and laughed at it.
> Object-first word order; «над нею»: «Россию» (accusative) leads the sentence as topic before its verb «проклинал» — free word order foregrounding what he cursed. «над нею» is the older instrumental form of «над ней» ('at it'), governed by «над» after «смеяться над» ('to laugh at'); «нею» is a period variant.

Он мечтал уехать во Францию, с тем чтобы переделаться во француза.  
He dreamed of going off to France, in order to remake himself into a Frenchman.
> Purpose clause «с тем чтобы»: «с тем чтобы» ('with the [aim] that, in order to') is the bookish purpose conjunction; with an infinitive it means 'so as to.' «переделаться во француза» uses «во» + accusative for transformation 'into a Frenchman,' and reflexive «-ся» for the change of state, 'to remake himself.'

Он много и часто толковал еще прежде, что на это недостает ему средств.  
He had often, and at length, declared even before this that he lacked the means for it.
> Impersonal «недостаёт» + dative + genitive: «недостаёт» is impersonal: 'there is lacking.' The person who lacks goes in the dative («ему», 'to him'), and what is lacking in the genitive («средств», 'of means'). A classic experiencer-first, subjectless construction — no nominative anywhere.
> «толковать» — to hold forth: «толковать» here means 'to talk on about, expound, keep saying,' a slightly disparaging imperfective: Smerdyakov would go on and on that he hadn't the money. Elsewhere «толковать» can mean 'to interpret,' but in colloquial use it is 'to jaw, harp on.'

Мне кажется, он никого не любил, кроме себя, уважал же себя до странности высоко.  
It seems to me that he loved no one but himself, yet esteemed himself to a strange degree.
> Dative-experiencer «мне кажется»: «мне кажется» ('it seems to me') is a textbook impersonal with a dative experiencer and no nominative subject — the affected person in the dative, the predicate impersonal. It frames the lawyer's claim as personal impression rather than fact.
> Negative concord + reflexive «себя»: «никого… не любил» is negative concord — the «ни-» word «никого» demands a second «не» on the verb, two negatives for one meaning. «кроме себя» ('except himself') uses the reflexive pronoun «себя», which points back to the subject and has no nominative form.
> Contrastive «же»: Here «же» is the lightly adversative 'yet, but, as for that': «уважал же себя…» pivots against the previous clause — he loved no one, yet esteemed himself. Sentence-internal «же» hinges two halves of a contrast.

Просвещение видел в хорошем платье, в чистых манишках и в вычищенных сапогах.  
Enlightenment, in his eyes, lay in a fine coat, in clean shirt-fronts, and in well-polished boots.
> Object-fronting and «видеть в» + prepositional: «Просвещение» (accusative) is fronted as topic before the verb «видел», 'Enlightenment he saw in…'. The idiom «видеть в чём-нибудь» ('to see [something] as residing in') governs «в» + the prepositional: «в… платье, в… манишках, в… сапогах».
> «манишка» — shirt-front, dickey: «манишка» is a false shirt-front, a detachable bib of starched linen worn to look well-dressed without a full clean shirt. The detail is sharply satirical: Smerdyakov's whole idea of 'enlightenment' is a clean dickey and polished boots — surface gentility.

Считая себя сам (и на это есть факты) незаконным сыном Федора Павловича, он мог ненавидеть свое положение сравнительно с законными детьми своего господина: им, дескать, всё, а ему ничего, им все права, им наследство, а он только повар.  
Considering himself (and there are facts for this) the illegitimate son of Fyodor Pavlovich, he might well have hated his own position compared with that of his master's lawful children: to them, supposedly, everything, and to him nothing — to them all the rights, to them the inheritance, while he was only the cook.
> Gerund «считая» + predicate instrumental: «считая» is the imperfective present gerund 'considering,' sharing the subject 'he.' «считать кого-нибудь кем-нибудь» takes a predicate instrumental, so «себя… незаконным сыном» — 'considering himself the illegitimate son,' the reflexive object plus instrumental complement.
> Reportive «дескать» and bare dative antithesis: «дескать» is a reportive particle, 'supposedly, as he'd say,' marking the thought as Smerdyakov's own grievance quoted at a distance. The verbless datives «им… всё, а ему ничего» ('to them everything, to him nothing') stage the resentment in clipped, balanced phrases, hinged by contrastive «а».

Он поведал мне, что сам вместе с Федором Павловичем укладывал деньги в пакет.  
He confided to me that he himself, together with Fyodor Pavlovich, had packed the money into the envelope.
> Intensive «сам» + «с» instrumental: «сам» ('himself, in person') intensifies the subject, stressing that Smerdyakov personally did it. «вместе с Фёдором Павловичем» uses «с» + instrumental for accompaniment, 'together with Fyodor Pavlovich' — the instrumental of joint action.

Назначение этой суммы, — суммы, которая могла бы составить его карьеру, — было, конечно, ему ненавистно.  
The purpose of that sum — a sum that could have made his career — was, of course, hateful to him.
> Relative «которая» with conditional «могла бы»: «которая» agrees with «сумма» (feminine) but takes nominative for its subject role in the relative clause. The conditional «могла бы составить» ('could have made') uses past «могла» + «бы» for the unrealized possibility — a sum that might have, but did not, make his fortune.
> Dative + predicate «ненавистно»: «ему ненавистно» ('hateful to him') pairs a dative experiencer with the short-form predicate «ненавистно» — the thing is odious to the person in the dative. This experiencer-in-the-dative pattern recurs all through the speech's reconstruction of Smerdyakov's inner life.

К тому же он увидал три тысячи рублей в светленьких радужных кредитках (я об этом нарочно спросил его).  
What is more, he had seen three thousand rubles in bright, rainbow-hued banknotes (I asked him about this on purpose).
> Diminutive «светленьких»: «светленьких» is the affectionate-diminutive «-еньк-» form of «светлый» ('bright'): 'pretty little bright [notes].' The diminutive lends a coaxing, almost caressing tone to the banknotes — exactly the seductive glitter the lawyer wants the jury to imagine before Smerdyakov's eyes.

О, не показывайте никогда завистливому и самолюбивому человеку больших денег разом, а он в первый раз увидал такую сумму в одной руке.  
Oh, never show an envious and self-loving man a great deal of money all at once — and he saw such a sum in a single hand for the first time.
> Negative imperative + genitive of negation: «не показывайте» is the negated imperative ('never show'), reinforced by «никогда» in negative concord. Under the negation the object «большие деньги» shifts to genitive «больших денег» — the genitive of negation operating on a direct object.
> «разом» — all at once: «разом» is the adverb 'in one go, all at once,' an instrumental-derived form of «раз». It stresses the shock of seeing so much money in a single glimpse — the lawyer's whole psychological wedge.

Впечатление радужной пачки могло болезненно отразиться в его воображении, на первый раз пока безо всяких последствий.  
The impression of that rainbow-hued bundle might have left a morbid imprint on his imagination, though for the first time without any consequences.
> Conditional-of-possibility «могло… отразиться»: «могло… отразиться» ('might have left an imprint / been reflected') runs through the chapter as the lawyer's signature move: «мог/могло» + perfective infinitive to spin hypotheticals. The reflexive «отразиться» here is the middle 'to be reflected, leave its mark.'
> «пачка» — a wad, bundle: «пачка» is a 'pack, wad, bundle' — here «радужной пачки», the bundle of rainbow notes. The word's everyday concreteness (a packet, a deck) makes the temptation tangible: a fat wad of cash in one hand.

Высокоталантливый обвинитель с необыкновенною тонкостью очертил нам все pro и contra предположения о возможности обвинить Смердякова в убийстве и особенно спрашивал: для чего тому было притворяться в падучей?  
The highly talented prosecutor, with extraordinary subtlety, sketched out for us all the pro and contra of the supposition that Smerdyakov could be charged with the murder, and asked in particular: why should the man have feigned a fit of the falling sickness?
> Instrumental of manner; archaic «-ою»: «с необыкновенною тонкостью» ('with extraordinary subtlety') is an instrumental-of-manner phrase under «с». The adjective ending «-ою» (modern «-ой») is the older long-form instrumental feminine, a period spelling that pervades Dostoevsky's prose.
> Dative «тому» + impersonal 'why was he to...': «тому» is the demonstrative «тот» in the dative, standing for Smerdyakov ('to that man, for him'). With «было… притворяться» it forms an impersonal 'why was there for him to feign' — a dative-subject construction asking what reason he had to pretend.

Да, но ведь он мог и не притворяться вовсе, припадок мог прийти совсем натурально, но ведь мог же и пройти совсем натурально, и больной мог очнуться.  
Yes, but then he need not have feigned it at all — the fit could have come on quite naturally, but then it could also have passed off quite naturally, and the sick man could have come round.
> «мог… мог же» — balancing the hypotheticals: The lawyer mirrors his clauses with «мог» ('could/might'): the fit could have come naturally, and «мог же и пройти» — 'could also have passed off' naturally. «же» here insists on the symmetry ('but equally it could…'), turning possibility against the prosecution.
> Perfective infinitives of single events: «прийти», «пройти», «очнуться» are all perfective infinitives naming single complete events — the fit came on, passed off, the sick man came round. Strung after «мог», they sketch a chain of discrete possibilities, each a self-contained 'might have happened.'

Положим, не вылечиться, но всё же когда-нибудь прийти в себя и очнуться, как и бывает в падучей.  
Granted he did not recover, yet still he might at some point have come to himself and roused, as does happen with the falling sickness.
> «Положим» — 'let us grant': «Положим» is the imperative/hortative of «положить» used as a concessive discourse marker, 'let's suppose, granted.' It concedes a point before pivoting — 'granted he did not recover, yet still…' — a favorite of the lawyer's give-and-take rhetoric.
> Iterative «бывает» — 'as does happen': «бывает» is the frequentative of «быть», 'happens [from time to time], is the case.' «как и бывает в падучей» ('as does happen with the falling sickness') generalizes from this case to the typical course of epilepsy — the imperfective stating a recurring fact.

Обвинение спрашивает: где момент совершения Смердяковым убийства?  
The prosecution asks: where is the moment of Smerdyakov's committing the murder?
> Verbal noun with instrumental agent and genitive object: «совершение» is a verbal noun ('the committing'); it takes its agent in the instrumental («Смердяковым», 'by Smerdyakov') and its object in the genitive («убийства», 'of the murder'). Such dense noun-chains — agent and object both packed around a deverbal noun — are the heavy bureaucratic-legal style.

Но указать этот момент чрезвычайно легко.  
But to point out that moment is exceedingly easy.
> Impersonal predicate «легко» + infinitive: «указать… легко» is the impersonal 'it is easy to point out,' an invariable predicate-adverb «легко» governing a perfective infinitive. No subject at all — a typical subjectless 'it is X to do Y' frame, here brushing aside the prosecution's question.

Он мог очнуться и встать от глубокого сна (ибо он был только во сне: после припадков падучей болезни всегда нападает глубокий сон) именно в то мгновение, когда старик Григорий, схватив за ногу на заборе убегающего подсудимого, завопил на всю окрестность: „Отцеубивец!“  
He might have come round and risen from a deep sleep (for he was only asleep: after fits of the falling sickness a deep sleep always sets in) precisely at the instant when old Grigory, having seized by the leg the accused as he fled along the fence, screamed out for the whole neighborhood to hear: 'Parricide!'
> Perfective gerund «схватив» framing a present participle: «схватив» is the perfective past gerund 'having seized,' sharing Grigory's subject and marking the prior act. Its object «убегающего подсудимого» carries the present active participle «убегающий» ('fleeing'), accusative-animate — a gerund and a participle braided into one clause.
> Habitual present «нападает»: Inside the parenthesis, «всегда нападает глубокий сон» ('a deep sleep always sets in') uses the imperfective present for a general truth about the disease. «нападать» literally 'to attack, fall upon' — the sleep 'falls on' the patient, vivid for an exhausting after-fit slumber.

Крик-то этот необычайный, в тиши и во мраке, и мог разбудить Смердякова, сон которого к тому времени мог быть и не очень крепок: он, естественно, мог уже час тому как начать просыпаться.  
This extraordinary cry, in the hush and the dark, might well have woken Smerdyakov, whose sleep by that time might not have been very sound: he might, naturally, have begun rousing an hour before.
> Emphatic clitic «-то» on «крик»: The hyphenated «-то» on «крик» ('this cry, now') is the topic-emphasizing clitic — singling out the cry as the known thing under discussion, 'this cry, you see.' Distinct from the indefinite «-то», it foregrounds an already-given referent.
> Relative «которого» as possessor: «сон которого» is 'whose sleep,' the relative «которого» in the genitive expressing possession back to Smerdyakov. The predicate uses the short adjective «крепок» ('sound, firm') with «мог быть» — 'might not have been very sound.'

Встав с постели, он отправляется почти бессознательно и безо всякого намерения на крик, посмотреть, что такое.  
Rising from his bed, he sets off almost unconsciously and with no intention whatever toward the cry, to see what it was.
> Gerund + historical present: «Встав» is the perfective gerund 'having risen,' setting the prior act; the main verb «отправляется» is an imperfective present used as a vivid historical present — 'he sets off' — pulling the past reconstruction into the immediate present before the jury's eyes.
> «безо» + genitive; «всякого»: «безо» is the variant of «без» ('without') used before consonant clusters, governing the genitive: «безо всякого намерения» ('without any intention whatever'). «всякий» ('any, every') here intensifies the negation of purpose.

В его голове болезненный чад, соображение еще дремлет, но вот он в саду, подходит к освещенным окнам и слышит страшную весть от барина, который, конечно, ему обрадовался.  
In his head a sickly fog, his wits still drowsing — but there he is in the garden, approaches the lit windows, and hears the terrible news from the master, who, of course, was glad to see him.
> Verbless clause beside historical present: The first clause «в его голове болезненный чад» is verbless ('in his head [is] a sickly fog'), zero-copula present; beside it «соображение… дремлет» ('his wits drowse') runs in the historical present. The tense-light, present-tense montage keeps the reconstruction immediate and dreamlike.
> «чад» — fumes, sickly fog: «чад» literally is the acrid smoke or fumes of burning fat or a smoldering stove; figuratively a fug, a daze. «болезненный чад в голове» pictures Smerdyakov's post-seizure mind as smoke-fogged, his reason clouded over.
> «барин» — the master: «барин» is the (house)master, the lord of the estate — here Fyodor Pavlovich as Smerdyakov's employer. The word marks the rigid master-servant gulf the cook so resents; the diminutive «барчонок» ('young master') for Dmitri appears just below.

Соображение разом загорается в голове его.  
His wits flare up all at once in his head.
> Reflexive «загорается» — flares up: «загорается» is the imperfective present of reflexive «загораться» ('to catch fire, flare up'), middle voice — his understanding 'kindles' of itself. With «разом» ('all at once'), the metaphor lights up the sudden return of his wits.

От испуганного барина он узнает все подробности.  
From the frightened master he learns all the particulars.
> «от» + genitive source; historical present: «От испуганного барина» ('from the frightened master') is «от» + genitive marking the source, and «узнаёт» ('learns') continues the historical present. «испуганного» is a past passive participle turned attributive adjective, 'frightened.'

И вот постепенно, в расстроенном и больном мозгу его созидается мысль — страшная, но соблазнительная и неотразимо логическая: убить, взять три тысячи денег и свалить всё потом на барчонка: на кого же и подумают теперь, как не на барчонка, кого же могут обвинить, как не барчонка, все улики, он тут был?  
And so, little by little, in his disordered and ailing brain a thought takes shape — terrible, but tempting and irresistibly logical: to kill, to take the three thousand rubles, and then to lay it all on the young master: whom else would they suspect now, if not the young master, whom else could they accuse, if not the young master — all the evidence is against him, for he was here?
> Reflexive «созидается» — takes shape: «созидается» is the imperfective present middle of «созидать(ся)» ('to be built up, take shape'), an elevated, almost biblical verb for the thought forming itself in his brain. The «-ся» makes the idea seem to construct itself, with no willing author.
> Infinitives as the content of the thought: The bare perfective infinitives «убить… взять… свалить» ('to kill, to take, to dump on') spell out the thought's content as a plan of completed acts. «свалить на барчонка» reuses the 'pin the blame on' idiom, now aimed at the young master, Dmitri.
> «барчонок» — the young master: «барчонок» is the diminutive of «барич/барчук», 'the master's young son' — and in a servant's mouth it drips with mocking, resentful condescension. Applied to Dmitri, it is Smerdyakov's contempt for the legitimate heir he means to frame.
> Rhetorical «кого… как не» with «же»: «на кого же… подумают, как не на барчонка» ('whom would they suspect, if not the young master') is a rhetorical question with «же» driving the appeal and «как не» ('if not, who else but') sealing the only possible answer. The lawyer voices Smerdyakov's reasoning as self-evident.

Страшная жажда денег, добычи, могла захватить ему дух, вместе с соображением о безнаказанности.  
A terrible craving for the money, for the spoils, might have caught at his breath, together with the thought of going unpunished.
> Dative «ему» with «захватить дух»: «захватить дух» ('to take the breath away') here takes a dative of the person affected, «ему» — 'might have caught at his breath.' It is the experiencer-in-the-dative pattern even inside an idiom, the breath seized from him.
> «добыча» — spoils, prey: «добыча» means 'booty, prey, what is got by hunting or seizing.' «жажда денег, добычи» ('a craving for the money, for the spoils') casts the theft in predatory terms — Smerdyakov as a hunter scenting his catch.

О, эти внезапные и неотразимые порывы так часто приходят при случае и, главное, приходят внезапно таким убийцам, которые еще за минуту не знали, что захотят убить!  
Oh, these sudden and irresistible impulses so often come upon a man at such a moment, and, above all, come suddenly upon such murderers as did not even know, a minute beforehand, that they would want to kill!
> Generalizing imperfective present: «приходят… приходят» (imperfective present, repeated for emphasis) states a general law about human nature — such impulses 'come, so often come suddenly.' The repetition is rhetorical anaphora, the present tense lifting a single case to a universal truth.
> Relative clause + perfective future «захотят»: «которые… не знали» ('who did not know') modifies «убийцам». Inside, «захотят убить» is a perfective future ('would [come to] want to kill') in indirect speech — they didn't know, a minute before, that they would conceive the wish.

И вот Смердяков мог войти к барину и исполнить свой план, чем, каким оружием, — а первым камнем, который он поднял в саду.  
And so Smerdyakov might have gone in to the master and carried out his plan — with what, with what weapon? — why, with the first stone he had picked up in the garden.
> Instrumental of instrument: «чем» ('with what') and «каким оружием» ('with what weapon') are the instrumental of means — the case that names the tool of an action. The answer comes in the same case: «первым камнем» ('with the first stone'), instrument all the way through.
> Relative «который» in the accusative: «который» agrees with «камень» (masculine inanimate) and takes accusative for its object role in «он поднял» ('which he had picked up'). Being inanimate, its accusative equals the nominative form — no animacy shift here.

Но для чего же, с какою же целью?  
But for what, with what aim?
> Instrumental of purpose; archaic «какою»: «с какою целью» ('with what aim') is the instrumental-of-purpose phrase under «с»; «какою» is the older long instrumental feminine for «какой». «же» sharpens the rhetorical question — 'but to what end, then?' The lawyer poses the prosecutor's own objection to himself.

А три-то тысячи, ведь это карьера.  
Why, the three thousand — that, after all, is a career.
> «-то» + «ведь» — colloquial insistence: The clitic «-то» on «три тысячи» foregrounds the sum ('the three thousand, you see'), and «ведь» appeals to the jury's shared sense ('after all, that is a career'). Two particles plus the contrastive «А» give a wholly spoken, buttonholing texture.

О! я не противоречу себе: деньги могли быть и существовать.  
Oh! I do not contradict myself: the money may well have existed and been real.
> «противоречить» + dative «себе»: «противоречить» ('to contradict') governs the dative, so 'I do not contradict myself' is «не противоречу себе», the reflexive pronoun «себе» in the dative pointing back to the speaker. A verb whose object is dative, not accusative.
> «могли» + imperfective infinitives: «могли быть и существовать» ('may well have existed and been real') strings two imperfective infinitives after «могли» — being and existing as states, not events. The imperfective fits the durative sense: the money was there, ongoing, real.

И даже, может быть, Смердяков-то один и знал, где их найти, где именно они лежат у барина.  
And it may even be that Smerdyakov alone knew where to find it, where exactly it lay at the master's.
> «-то» + «и» for exclusive emphasis: «Смердяков-то один и знал» stacks the topic-clitic «-то», «один» ('alone'), and emphatic «и» to mean 'Smerdyakov, of all people, was the one who alone knew.' The particles converge to single him out as the sole person in the know.
> Indirect questions with «где»: Two embedded «где»-clauses depend on «знал»: «где их найти» ('where to find it,' infinitive of deliberation) and «где именно они лежат» ('where exactly it lay,' imperfective of location). «именно» ('precisely') pins the spot.

„Ну, а обложка денег, а разорванный на полу пакет?“  
'Well, but what of the money's wrapper, the envelope torn open on the floor?'
> Past passive participle attributive «разорванный»: «разорванный» ('torn open') is the past passive participle of «разорвать» used attributively before «пакет»: 'the envelope torn open on the floor.' The contrastive «а» introduces it as the objection the lawyer now ventriloquizes — 'but what of…?'
> «обложка» — the wrapper: «обложка» is a 'cover, wrapper, sleeve'; «обложка денег» is the paper band or envelope the money was wrapped in. The torn wrapper left on the floor is a crucial piece of evidence the lawyer is about to reinterpret.

Давеча, когда обвинитель, говоря об этом пакете, изложил чрезвычайно тонкое соображение свое о том, что оставить его на полу мог именно вор непривычный, именно такой, как Карамазов, а совсем уже не Смердяков, который бы ни за что не оставил на себя такую улику, — давеча, господа присяжные, я, слушая, вдруг почувствовал, что слышу что-то чрезвычайно знакомое.  
A little while ago, when the prosecutor, speaking of this envelope, set forth his exceedingly subtle reasoning that it could only have been left on the floor by an unpracticed thief — precisely one such as Karamazov, and by no means Smerdyakov, who would on no account have left such evidence against himself — a little while ago, gentlemen of the jury, listening to it, I suddenly felt that I was hearing something exceedingly familiar.
> Conditional «который бы… не оставил»: Inside the prosecutor's reasoning the relative clause «который бы ни за что не оставил» uses «бы» + past «оставил» for the counterfactual — Smerdyakov 'who would on no account have left' such evidence. «ни за что» ('not for anything') intensifies the negation.
> Gerund «слушая» + perfective «почувствовал»: The imperfective gerund «слушая» ('while listening') frames the simultaneous background; the perfective «почувствовал» ('I suddenly felt') delivers the single realization. The aspect contrast stages the sudden recognition against the ongoing act of listening.
> «непривычный вор» — an unpracticed thief: «непривычный» ('unaccustomed, unpracticed') postposed after «вор» gives 'a thief not used to the work, a novice.' The prosecutor's argument hangs on it: only a clumsy amateur like Dmitri would leave the torn wrapper, not the careful Smerdyakov.

И представьте себе, именно это самое соображение, эту догадку о том, как бы мог поступить Карамазов с пакетом, я уже слышал ровно за два дня до того от самого Смердякова, мало того, он даже тем поразил меня: мне именно показалось, что он фальшиво наивничает, забегает вперед, навязывает эту мысль мне, чтоб я сам вывел это самое соображение и мне его как будто подсказывает.  
And imagine — this very same reasoning, this very surmise as to how Karamazov might have dealt with the envelope, I had already heard exactly two days before, from Smerdyakov himself; more than that, he even astonished me by it: it seemed to me precisely that he was feigning naïveté, running on ahead, foisting this idea upon me, so that I myself should draw this very inference, while he, as it were, prompts it to me.
> String of historical-present imperfectives: Four imperfective presents — «наивничает», «забегает», «навязывает», «подсказывает» — render Smerdyakov's behavior as a vivid, ongoing scene: feigning naïveté, running ahead, foisting the idea, prompting it. The present tense makes the remembered conversation play out live.
> Purpose «чтоб» + past-form irrealis «вывел»: «чтоб» (clipped «чтобы») introduces purpose and requires the past-form irrealis: «чтоб я… вывел» ('so that I myself should draw'). This is the «чтобы» + «-л» construction — purpose and willed outcome expressed not by an infinitive but by a past-tense subjunctive.
> «наивничать» — to play the innocent: «наивничать» is a denominal verb from «наивный» ('naïve'): 'to put on naïveté, act the simpleton.' «фальшиво наивничает» ('falsely plays the innocent') captures exactly the lawyer's suspicion — that Smerdyakov's guilelessness was a performance.

Не подсказал ли он это соображение и следствию?  
Did he not prompt this same reasoning to the investigation as well?
> Negative rhetorical question with «ли»: «Не подсказал ли он…?» fronts the negated verb and adds the interrogative particle «ли» to form a leading question — 'Did he not prompt…?' The «не… ли» frame expects the answer 'yes, he did,' a favorite insinuating device of courtroom rhetoric.

Не навязал ли его и высокоталантливому обвинителю?  
Did he not foist it on the highly talented prosecutor too?
> Parallel «не… ли» with dative object: Echoing the previous line, «Не навязал ли…?» repeats the «не… ли» rhetorical question. «навязать» ('to foist on') governs a dative: «высокоталантливому обвинителю» ('on the highly talented prosecutor'). The dative names the one on whom the idea was thrust.

Скажут: а старуха, жена Григория?  
They will say: but what of the old woman, Grigory's wife?
> Impersonal «скажут» + objection with «а»: «Скажут» is a third-person plural used impersonally, 'they will say / people will say' — the lawyer raises the anticipated objection. The contrastive «а» then floats the bare-noun counter ('but what of the old woman?'), staging dialogue with an imagined opponent.
> «старуха» — old woman: «старуха» is the plain, slightly rough word for an old woman (vs. the politer «старушка»). Here it is Marfa Ignatyevna, Grigory's wife, who slept beside the groaning Smerdyakov — the witness the lawyer must now neutralize.

Ведь она же слышала, как больной подле нее стонал во всю ночь.  
After all, she heard the sick man groaning beside her the whole night through.
> «ведь» + «же» voicing the objection: «Ведь она же слышала» ('after all, she did hear') stacks «ведь» (appeal to the obvious) and «же» (insistence) to give the imagined objector's emphatic tone. The lawyer first states the objection at full strength before dismantling it.
> «подле» + genitive; «во всю ночь»: «подле» ('beside') is an archaic-bookish preposition governing the genitive, «подле неё» ('beside her'). «во всю ночь» ('the whole night through') is the accusative-of-duration with «во» — across the entire span of the night.

Так, слышала, но ведь соображение это чрезвычайно шаткое.  
True, she heard it — but this argument is exceedingly shaky.
> Concessive «так» + verbless predicate: «Так, слышала» ('true, she heard') concedes the point with bare «так» ('so, granted') before the «но ведь» pivot. The verdict «соображение это… шаткое» ('this argument [is] shaky') runs verbless, the long adjective predicating with no copula.
> «шаткий» — shaky, wobbly: «шаткий» literally describes a wobbly chair or unsteady footing, from «шатать» ('to rock, shake'). Applied to a «соображение» (an argument), «чрезвычайно шаткое» means 'highly unsteady, ill-founded' — the lawyer's dismissive verdict on the old woman's testimony.

Я знал одну даму, которая горько жаловалась, что ее всю ночь будила на дворе шавка и не давала ей спать.  
I knew a certain lady who complained bitterly that all night long a little mongrel in the yard had kept her awake and would not let her sleep.
> Relative «которая» + reported imperfectives: «которая… жаловалась» ('who complained') opens a relative clause; within the «что»-report the imperfective pasts «будила» ('kept waking') and «не давала спать» ('would not let [her] sleep') describe the repeated nightly nuisance. «давать спать» + dative «ей» is the idiom 'to let someone sleep.'
> «шавка» — a yappy little cur: «шавка» is a small, scruffy, yapping mongrel — a contemptuous-affectionate word for a worthless little dog. The lawyer's homely anecdote turns on it: the lady was sure a «шавка» kept her up all night.

И однако, бедная собачонка, как известно стало, тявкнула всего только раза два-три во всю ночь.  
And yet the poor little dog, as it came to light, had yapped only two or three times in all the whole night.
> Semelfactive perfective «тявкнула»: «тявкнуть» is a semelfactive perfective in «-ну-», naming one quick instance of yapping; the past «тявкнула» with «раза два-три» ('two or three times') counts discrete bursts. The «-ну-» suffix isolates each single yap against the lady's imagined all-night din.
> «собачонка» — poor little dog: «собачонка» is the pitying-diminutive of «собака»: 'the poor little dog.' Paired with «бедная», it shifts sympathy to the maligned animal — and clinches the lawyer's point that a witness can imagine a whole night's disturbance from almost nothing.
> Impersonal «стало известно»: «как известно стало» ('as it came to light') is impersonal: «известно» ('[it is] known') as a predicate adverb with «стало» ('became') — 'as became known.' No subject; the fact simply 'became known,' the inversion lending a wry, summing-up tone.

И это естественно; человек спит и вдруг слышит стон, он просыпается в досаде, что его разбудили, но засыпает мгновенно снова.  
And this is only natural: a man sleeps, suddenly hears a groan, wakes up annoyed at being disturbed, and instantly falls asleep again.
> Imperfective present for a general truth: The whole sentence runs on imperfective present-tense verbs («спит», «слышит», «просыпается», «засыпает»), which is exactly how Russian states a general, recurring fact rather than a one-time event. Fetyukovich is describing what habitually happens, so the imperfective gives the picture a timeless, illustrative feel.
> Agentless 3rd-plural «разбудили» (they woke him): «разбудили» is a third-person-plural perfective past with no stated subject — Russian's agentless 'they' construction, neatly rendered by an English passive ('at being disturbed'). The accusative «его» is the one woken.
> «досада» — vexation: «досада» is annoyed irritation or chagrin — petty vexation rather than real anger. The phrase «в досаде» ('in vexation') is an adverbial of state, here capturing the sleeper's testy half-waking mood.

Часа через два опять стон, опять просыпается и опять засыпает, наконец, еще раз стон, и опять через два часа, всего в ночь раза три.  
Two hours later, another groan; again he wakes and again falls asleep; at last, one more groan, again after two hours — three times in all over the course of the night.
> Inverted numeral = approximation: Putting the noun before the numeral — «часа через два» instead of «через два часа» — is Russian's idiom for 'about', 'roughly two hours'. The genitive singular «часа» after «два» follows the rule that 2–4 govern the genitive singular.
> Anaphoric «опять» and verbless rhythm: The hammering repetition of «опять» ('again') and the dropped verbs («опять стон» — 'again a groan', with 'there is' understood) compress the night into a clipped, insistent rhythm. Russian freely omits the copula, letting the bare noun stand as a whole clause.
> «раза три» — 'some three times': Again the noun-first inversion «раза три» (rather than «три раза») signals approximation, 'three times or so'. «раза» is genitive singular governed by «три».

Наутро спящий встает и жалуется, что кто-то всю ночь стонал и его беспрерывно будил.  
In the morning the sleeper rises and complains that someone groaned all night long and kept rousing him without pause.
> Present active participle as a noun: «спящий» ('the sleeping [one]') is a present active participle of «спать», used substantively as 'the sleeper'. The suffix -ящ- plus adjective endings turns the verb into a noun-like modifier — a compact, bookish device very common in literary Russian.
> Indefinite «кто-то» — a specific unknown someone: The particle «-то» attached to «кто» yields 'someone' who is real but unidentified — exactly the sleeper's vague conviction that some particular person groaned. This contrasts with «кто-нибудь», which would mean 'anyone at all'.
> «беспрерывно» — without pause: «беспрерывно» ('uninterruptedly, ceaselessly') is built on «прерывать» ('to interrupt') with the negating prefix без-. The imperfective «будил» ('kept rousing') stresses the repeated, drawn-out nuisance the sleeper imagines.

Но непременно так и должно ему показаться; промежутки сна, по два часа каждый, он проспал и не помнит, а запомнил лишь минуты своего пробуждения, вот ему и кажется, что его будили всю ночь.  
But it inevitably must seem so to him: the intervals of sleep, two hours each, he slept through and does not remember, and he recalls only the moments of his waking — and so it seems to him that he was being roused all night.
> Dative experiencer «ему … показаться»: This is a classic impersonal construction: there is no nominative subject, and the person to whom it 'must seem' stands in the dative «ему». The neuter «должно» plus infinitive «показаться» frames the whole as an inevitability happening to him — a pattern Dostoevsky leans on to render inner states.
> Perfective vs imperfective in tight contrast: Note the aspectual interplay: perfective «проспал» ('slept through, as a completed block') and «запомнил» ('fixed in memory') against imperfective «не помнит» ('does not [now] remember'). The perfectives report finished events; the imperfective reports the present, lingering state of memory.
> Imperfective «будили» — durative 'was being roused': The imperfective past «будили» with «всю ночь» ('all night') paints a continuous, repeated action, which English renders as a progressive passive ('he was being roused'). The agentless 3rd-plural again hides any specific waker.
> «вот … и» — 'and so, that's why': The frame «вот … и» draws a conclusion: 'and so it seems to him'. «вот» points to the upshot and the «и» is an emphatic 'precisely', a colloquial-rhetorical hinge that ties cause to consequence.

Но почему, почему, восклицает обвинение, Смердяков не признался в посмертной записке?  
But why, why — exclaims the prosecution — did Smerdyakov not confess in his suicide note?
> Reflexive «признаться» — to confess: «признаться» ('to confess, own up') is a -ся verb whose reflexive marker no longer feels literally reflexive; it lexically means to admit something about oneself. Here in the perfective past «признался» it names the single act of confession that did not happen.
> Inverted word order for the interjected speaker: «восклицает обвинение» ('exclaims the prosecution') inverts verb before subject — the normal Russian pattern for an inserted attribution, like English 'says he'. «обвинение» here is an abstract noun standing for the prosecuting side.

„На одно-де хватило совести, а на другое нет“.  
“For the one thing his conscience sufficed, but for the other it did not.”
> Reportative particle «-де»: «хватило-де» — the enclitic «-де» is an old reportative particle meaning roughly 'so they say', flagging that the speaker is quoting someone else's words (here the prosecution's reasoning), often with a tinge of irony. Fetyukovich mimics the prosecutor's voice.
> Genitive with «хватило» and contrastive «а»: «хватило совести» is an impersonal 'enough conscience sufficed', where «хватить» governs the genitive «совести» of the thing there is enough of. The hinge «а» ('but, whereas') sets the two halves in gentle contrast — 'for one, yes; for the other, no'.

Но позвольте: совесть — это уже раскаяние, но раскаяния могло и не быть у самоубийцы, а было лишь отчаяние.  
But permit me: conscience — that already means repentance, and a suicide may well have felt no repentance, but only despair.
> Genitive of negation with «не быть»: «раскаяния могло и не быть» — the absent subject of a negated existential goes obligatorily into the genitive: «раскаяния» ('of repentance'), with neuter «могло» as the impersonal head. Literally 'of repentance there could even not have been'.
> «Но позвольте» — 'but allow me': «позвольте» (polite imperative of «позволить», 'to permit') is a courtroom-and-drawing-room formula for politely raising an objection, 'permit me / hold on a moment'. It marks the orator turning to rebut a point.
> «самоубийца» — the suicide: «самоубийца» ('one who kills himself', from «сам» + «убить») denotes the person, a suicide; the act is «самоубийство». A grammatically masculine-ending noun in -а, it declines like a feminine first-declension noun but can refer to either sex.

Отчаяние и раскаяние — две вещи совершенно различные.  
Despair and repentance are two entirely distinct things.
> Genitive singular «вещи» after «две»: «две вещи» shows the numeral 2 governing the genitive singular «вещи» (not the plural). The predicate adjective «различные» stands in the nominative plural, agreeing with the sense of plurality — a small but characteristic clash the numeral system produces.
> Zero copula in the present: There is no verb 'are' here: Russian links subject and predicate in the present tense by a dash and nothing more («Отчаяние и раскаяние — две вещи»). The dash itself does the work of the missing copula «есть».

Отчаяние может быть злобное и непримиримое, и самоубийца, накладывая на себя руки, в этот момент мог вдвойне ненавидеть тех, кому всю жизнь завидовал.  
Despair may be malicious and irreconcilable, and the suicide, in the very moment of laying hands upon himself, may have hated doubly those whom he had envied all his life.
> Gerund «накладывая» — 'in laying hands on himself': «накладывая» is an imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») expressing the action simultaneous with the main verb: 'while laying hands upon himself'. It must share the subject of the clause — the «самоубийца» — and lends the sentence its literary, layered texture.
> «наложить на себя руки» — to lay hands on oneself: «наложить (накладывать) на себя руки» is a fixed, somewhat elevated idiom for committing suicide, literally 'to lay hands upon oneself'. The reflexive «на себя» points the violence back at the doer.
> Correlative «тех, кому…» with dative «завидовать»: «тех, кому…» is the bookish correlative 'those whom…', with «тех» (genitive/accusative of «те») picked up by the relative «кому». The dative «кому» is required because «завидовать» ('to envy') governs the dative — you envy 'to' someone in Russian.

Господа присяжные заседатели, поберегитесь судебной ошибки!  
Gentlemen of the jury, beware a miscarriage of justice!
> Reflexive imperative «поберегитесь»: «поберегитесь» is the plural/polite imperative of the reflexive perfective «поберечься» ('to take care, beware'), formed with the -сь ending after the vowel. The -ся/-сь here turns 'guard' into 'guard yourselves'.
> «судебная ошибка» — a miscarriage of justice: «судебная ошибка» (literally 'a judicial error') is the set legal phrase for a wrongful conviction, a miscarriage of justice — the very thing Fetyukovich warns the jury they are about to commit.

Чем, чем неправдоподобно всё то, что я вам сейчас представил и изобразил?  
In what, in what is everything I have just laid before you and depicted improbable?
> Instrumental «чем» — 'in what respect': «чем» is the instrumental of «что», here meaning 'in what way / by what'. The doubled, emphatic «Чем, чем» opens a rhetorical question: 'In what, in what is it improbable?' — the instrumental marking the respect in which something is judged.
> Relative «то, что» with paired perfectives: «всё то, что…» is the correlative 'everything that…', the antecedent «то» picked up by the relative «что». The two perfective verbs «представил» ('laid before') and «изобразил» ('depicted') name completed acts of the speaker's argument.
> «неправдоподобный» — implausible: «правдоподобный» is 'truth-resembling' (правда 'truth' + подобный 'like'), i.e. 'plausible'; with the negating «не-» it becomes 'implausible'. The orator returns to «правдоподобие» repeatedly — plausibility is the whole battleground of his defense.

Найдите ошибку в моем изложении, найдите невозможность, абсурд?  
Find me an error in my account, find me an impossibility, an absurdity?
> Imperative «найдите» — challenge to the jury: «Найдите» is the plural/polite imperative of perfective «найти» ('to find'), repeated as a rhetorical dare: 'find me an error… find me an impossibility'. The perfective imperative demands the single, decisive act of finding.
> «изложение» — exposition, account: «изложение» is a bookish noun in -ение ('exposition, statement of a case', from «изложить», 'to set forth'). Such -ение/-ие abstract nouns lend the lawyer's speech its formal, intellectual register.

Но если есть хотя тень возможности, хотя тень правдоподобия в моих предположениях — удержитесь от приговора.  
But if there is even the shadow of a possibility, even the shadow of plausibility in my suppositions — then hold back from a conviction.
> «хотя» here = 'even', 'so much as': «хотя» normally means 'although', but in «хотя тень» it functions as 'even / so much as a shadow' (a shortened «хотя бы»). The repeated «хотя тень… хотя тень» builds the orator's plea: even the faintest shadow of doubt should stay the verdict.
> Reflexive imperative + genitive after «от»: «удержитесь» is the reflexive imperative of «удержаться» ('to hold oneself back, refrain'); it governs «от» plus the genitive «приговора» ('from a verdict'). The -сь and the preposition «от» together give 'restrain yourselves from'.

А тут разве тень только?  
And is it really only a shadow here?
> Particle «разве» — 'surely not?': «разве» opens a rhetorical question expecting the answer 'no': 'And is it really only a shadow here?' — i.e. it is far more than a shadow. It is a close cousin of «неужели», colouring the question with the speaker's incredulity.

Клянусь всем священным, я вполне верю в мое, в представленное вам сейчас, толкование об убийстве.  
I swear by all that is holy, I fully believe in my interpretation of the murder, the one I have just presented to you.
> Reflexive «клясться» + instrumental of the thing sworn by: «клянусь» (1st sg. of the -ся verb «клясться», 'to swear an oath') takes the instrumental for what one swears by: «всем священным» ('by all that is holy'). The substantivized neuter adjective «священное» ('the holy') stands in the instrumental.
> Past passive participle «представленное»: «представленное» is a past passive participle of «представить» ('presented'), agreeing with neuter «толкование» — 'the interpretation [that was] presented to you'. Such -нн- participles compress a relative clause into a single modifier, a hallmark of the lawyer's polished prose.
> «толкование» — interpretation, reading: «толкование» ('interpretation, exegesis', from «толковать', 'to interpret') is the word used for construing a text, a dream, or here a crime. It frames Fetyukovich's reconstruction of the murder as one reading among possible others.

А главное, главное, меня смущает и выводит из себя всё та же мысль, что изо всей массы фактов, нагроможденных обвинением на подсудимого, нет ни единого, хоть сколько-нибудь точного и неотразимого, а что гибнет несчастный единственно по совокупности этих фактов.  
And above all, above all, what troubles me and drives me beside myself is that selfsame thought — that out of the whole mass of facts the prosecution has piled upon the accused, there is not a single one that is in any degree precise and incontrovertible, and that the unfortunate man is being destroyed solely by the sum total of these facts.
> Accusative experiencer «меня»: Here the person affected is the accusative object «меня» of the verbs «смущает» ('troubles') and «выводит из себя' ('drives beside himself'): literally 'the thought troubles me and leads me out of myself'. The idiom «выводить из себя» means to infuriate or unhinge.
> Past passive participle + instrumental agent: «нагроможденных» ('heaped up') is a past passive participle modifying «фактов»; its agent stands in the instrumental, «обвинением» ('by the prosecution'). This is the standard way Russian names the doer of a passive — agent in the instrumental.
> Genitive of negation with «нет» and intensifying «ни»: «нет ни единого» — the existential negator «нет» forces the genitive «ни единого» ('not a single one'), and «ни» intensifies the negation to 'not even one'. This is negative concord at full strength: 'there is not a single one'.
> «гибнуть» — to perish; «несчастный» as a noun: «гибнет» (imperfective «гибнуть», 'to perish, be destroyed') is a heightened, almost tragic verb for the accused's ruin. «несчастный» ('the unfortunate [one]') is an adjective used as a noun — a recurring, pitying epithet for the defendant Mitya.

Да, эта совокупность ужасна; эта кровь, эта с пальцев текущая кровь, белье в крови, эта темная ночь, оглашаемая воплем „отцеубивец!“, и кричащий, падающий с проломленною головой, а затем эта масса изречений, показаний, жестов, криков — о, это так влияет, так может подкупить убеждение, но ваше ли, господа присяжные заседатели, ваше ли убеждение подкупить может?  
Yes, this aggregate is dreadful; this blood, this blood streaming from his fingers, the linen soaked in blood, this dark night ringing with the cry of “parricide!”, and the man crying out as he fell with his skull staved in, and then this mass of utterances, depositions, gestures, shouts — oh, all this has such an effect, it can so easily suborn one's conviction; but yours, gentlemen of the jury, can your conviction be suborned?
> Present passive participle «оглашаемая»: «оглашаемая» is a rare present passive participle in -емый/-аемый ('being made to resound'), modifying «ночь» and taking its agent «воплем» ('by the cry') in the instrumental. The present-passive form is markedly bookish — the orator reaches for it to heighten the scene.
> Archaic instrumental ending «-ою»: «проломленною головой» uses the older long-form instrumental ending «-ою» (vs. modern «-ой»), a 19th-century literary variant favoured for rhythm and solemnity. «проломленною» is itself a past passive participle, 'staved-in'.
> «отцеубивец» — parricide (the killer): «отцеубивец» ('father-killer', отец + убить) is the agent noun shouted in the night; the crime itself is «отцеубийство» ('parricide'). The whole novel circles this word — the killing of the father — both literal and symbolic.
> Question particle «ли» fronting the focus: «ваше ли убеждение…?» — the enclitic «ли» follows the focused phrase «ваше» ('yours'), turning the clause into a pointed yes/no question: 'is it yours, gentlemen, that can be suborned?' The repetition «ваше ли… ваше ли» sharpens the rhetorical thrust.
> «подкупить» — to bribe / suborn: «подкупить» literally means 'to bribe', but applied to «убеждение» ('conviction, the inner sense of certainty') it means to win over or suborn one's judgement by emotional effect rather than money — a vivid metaphor for swaying the jury.

Вспомните, вам дана необъятная власть, власть вязать и решить.  
Remember: you have been given an immense power, the power to bind and to loose.
> Short passive participle «дана» — result state: «дана» is the short-form past passive participle of «дать» ('given'), agreeing with feminine «власть»: 'power has been given to you'. The short passive participle plus dative «вам» states a resulting condition — the standard Russian periphrastic passive.
> «необъятный» — boundless: «необъятный» (literally 'un-embraceable', from «объять», 'to encompass') means immeasurably vast, boundless. It elevates «власть» to something almost cosmic, fitting the scriptural weight of the next clause.

Но чем сильнее власть, тем страшнее ее приложение!  
But the stronger the power, the more terrible its exercise!
> The «чем… тем…» correlative of comparatives: «Чем сильнее власть, тем страшнее её приложение» is the fixed correlative 'the more X, the more Y', built on two comparatives «сильнее» ('stronger') and «страшнее» ('more terrible'). «чем» takes the first comparative, «тем» the second — a tight, aphoristic structure.
> «приложение» — application, exercise: «приложение» here means the 'application' or exercise of power (from «приложить», 'to apply'), not the modern sense of 'appendix' or 'app'. The orator warns that the greater the power, the more dreadful its use.

Я ни на йоту не отступаю от сказанного мною сейчас, но уж пусть, так и быть, пусть на минуту и я соглашусь с обвинением, что несчастный клиент мой обагрил свои руки в крови отца.  
I do not retreat one iota from what I have just said, but very well, so be it — let me, just for a moment, agree with the prosecution that my unhappy client did steep his hands in his father's blood.
> Double negation «ни… не»: «ни на йоту не отступаю» ('I do not retreat one iota') is negative concord: the intensifier «ни» ('not even') co-occurs with the verbal negator «не», both required. Russian piles negatives where English uses only one.
> «так и быть» and concessive «пусть»: «так и быть» is a set concessive idiom, 'so be it, very well'; «пусть» ('let, may') introduces a grudging hypothetical permission ('let me agree for a moment'). Together they stage the orator's rhetorical concession to the prosecution.
> «обагрить руки» — to steep one's hands in blood: «обагрить» ('to dye crimson', from «багряный», 'scarlet') with «руки в крови» is an elevated, bloody idiom for committing murder. «свои» is the reflexive possessive — his own hands, in his own father's blood, sharpening the horror of parricide.

Это только предположение, повторяю, я ни на миг не сомневаюсь в его невинности, но уж так и быть, предположу, что мой подсудимый виновен в отцеубийстве, но выслушайте, однако, мое слово, если бы даже я и допустил такое предположение.  
This is only a supposition, I repeat — for one instant I do not doubt his innocence — but so be it, let me suppose that my defendant is guilty of parricide; and yet hear my word, even were I to grant such a supposition.
> Conditional «если бы… допустил»: «если бы… допустил» is the irrealis conditional: «если бы» plus the past-form verb «допустил» builds a hypothetical 'even were I to grant'. The mobile particle «бы» fuses with «если» to mark the whole clause as contrary-to-fact.
> Imperative «выслушайте» + adversative «однако»: «выслушайте» is the polite imperative of perfective «выслушать» ('to hear out, all the way through' — the prefix вы- gives completeness), and the inserted «однако» ('however, yet') marks a turn against what was just conceded.
> Short adjective «виновен» + «в» of the charge: «виновен» is the short (predicative) form of «виновный», 'guilty', and it governs «в» plus the prepositional «отцеубийстве» — guilty 'in / of' the crime. The short form is the idiomatic, legal way to state guilt.

У меня лежит на сердце высказать вам еще нечто, ибо я предчувствую и в ваших сердцах и умах большую борьбу… Простите мне это слово, господа присяжные заседатели, о ваших сердцах и умах.  
It lies upon my heart to tell you something more, for I sense a great struggle in your hearts and minds as well… Forgive me that word, gentlemen of the jury, about your hearts and minds.
> «у меня лежит на сердце» — it lies on my heart: «У меня лежит на сердце высказать…» frames an inner urge with «у» plus genitive «меня' and the image of something 'lying on the heart' — a body-and-soul construction typical of Dostoevsky. The infinitive «высказать» names what presses to be said.
> Archaic conjunction «ибо» — 'for': «ибо» ('for, because') is a bookish, faintly biblical conjunction, more elevated than «потому что». It signals the orator's deliberately solemn, sermon-like register as he turns from argument to appeal.
> «предчувствовать» — to have a presentiment: «предчувствовать» ('to foresense, have a foreboding', пред- 'before' + чувствовать 'to feel') is a charged Dostoevskian verb — his characters constantly 'sense in advance' coming crises, here the 'great struggle' in the jurors' hearts.

Но я хочу быть правдивым и искренним до конца.  
But I wish to be truthful and sincere to the very end.
> Instrumental predicate after «быть»: After the infinitive «быть» the predicate adjectives go into the instrumental: «правдивым и искренним» ('truthful and sincere'). With «быть»/«стать» in the infinitive, future, or past, Russian prefers the instrumental over the nominative for the complement.

Будем же все искренни!..»  
Let us all be sincere!..”
> Hortative «будем» + particle «же» + short adjective: «Будем… искренни» uses the 1st-plural future of «быть» as a hortative, 'let us be', and the emphatic particle «же» urges the appeal home. «искренни» is the short-form (predicative) plural of «искренний», the idiomatic complement of «быть».

В этом месте защитника прервал довольно сильный аплодисмент.  
At this point a fairly strong burst of applause interrupted the defense counsel.
> Object-first word order: «защитника прервал… аплодисмент» fronts the accusative object «защитника» ('the defense counsel') before the verb and the nominative subject «аплодисмент' ('applause'). The case endings keep roles clear, so Russian can lead with the topic (the lawyer) and end on the new event (the applause).
> «защитник» — defense counsel: «защитник» ('defender, protector', from «защищать», 'to defend') is the term for the defense advocate — here Fetyukovich. It pairs with «обвинение / обвинитель» (the prosecution) used earlier in the chapter.

В самом деле, последние слова свои он произнес с такою искренне прозвучавшею нотой, что все почувствовали, что, может быть, действительно ему есть что сказать и что то, что он скажет сейчас, есть и самое важное.  
Indeed, he had uttered his last words in a tone that rang so sincerely that everyone felt that perhaps he really did have something to say, and that what he was about to say now would be the most important thing of all.
> Past active participle in archaic «-ою»: «прозвучавшею» is a past active participle of «прозвучать» ('having rung out'), modifying «нотой» and carrying the old long instrumental ending «-ею» (modern «-ей»). The chain «такою… прозвучавшею нотой» ('a note that rang so sincerely') is dense, elevated narration.
> «ему есть что сказать» — dative + 'there is what to say': This idiom pairs a dative experiencer «ему» with «есть» ('there is') and an infinitive: 'he has something to say' (literally 'to him there is what to say'). Its negative twin would be «ему нечего сказать» — a characteristic impersonal pattern.
> Perfective future «скажет» for an imminent act: «скажет» is the perfective future of «сказать» — a perfective verb conjugated like a present, here meaning 'what he is about to say (and finish saying)'. The perfective frames the coming utterance as a single, complete event.

Но председатель, заслышав аплодисмент, громко пригрозил «очистить» залу суда, если еще раз повторится «подобный случай».  
But the presiding judge, hearing the applause, loudly threatened to “clear” the courtroom should “such an incident” occur again.
> Perfective gerund «заслышав»: «заслышав» is a perfective past gerund of «заслышать' ('to catch the sound of'), expressing a prior completed action: 'having heard the applause, [he] threatened…'. The gerund shares the main subject «председатель» and compresses two clauses into one.
> Reflexive «повторится» in a real condition: «повторится» is the perfective future of the -ся verb «повториться» ('to recur, happen again'); with «если» it forms a real (open) condition — 'should such an incident occur again'. The -ся makes the verb intransitive: the incident repeats itself.

Всё затихло, и Фетюкович начал каким-то новым, проникновенным голосом, совсем не тем, которым говорил до сих пор.  
Everything fell silent, and Fetyukovich began in some new, penetrating voice, quite unlike the one in which he had spoken until then.
> Instrumental relative «которым» — 'in which he spoke': «голосом… совсем не тем, которым говорил» uses the correlative «тем» and relative «которым», both in the instrumental: 'a voice quite unlike the one in which he had spoken'. «говорить» takes the instrumental for the voice or tone one speaks 'with'.
> «проникновенный» — heartfelt, penetrating: «проникновенный» (from «проникнуть», 'to penetrate') describes a voice or tone that pierces to the heart — earnest, deeply felt, moving. It signals the shift into Fetyukovich's final, most emotional appeal.
---

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.