# The Brothers Karamazov, An Adulterer of Thought

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c13. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c13.json.


«Не совокупность только фактов губит моего клиента, господа присяжные заседатели, — возгласил он, — нет, моего клиента губит, по-настоящему, один лишь факт: это — труп старика отца!  
"It is not the sum of the facts that ruins my client, gentlemen of the jury," he proclaimed, "no — what ruins my client, truly, is a single fact alone: the corpse of the old father!
> Topicalized object, fronted: The new, stressed information — «один лишь факт» — is held back to the end, while the verb «губит» (ruins) and object «моего клиента» come first as the known topic. Free word order, made possible by case endings, lets Fetyukovich build to his rhetorical climax.
> "he proclaimed": «Возгласить» is a bookish, elevated verb for crying out or proclaiming, drawn from the same Church-Slavonic «глас» (voice) family as «глашатай» (herald). The narrator chooses it over plain «сказал» to mark the orator's grand declamatory manner.

Будь простое убийство, и вы при ничтожности, при бездоказательности, при фантастичности фактов, если рассматривать каждый из них в отдельности, а не в совокупности, — отвергли бы обвинение, по крайней мере усумнились бы губить судьбу человека по одному лишь предубеждению против него, которое, увы, он так заслужил!  
Were this a simple murder, then you — given the triviality, the want of proof, the fantastical character of the facts, if each is weighed on its own rather than all together — you would have rejected the charge, or would at the very least have hesitated to wreck a man's life merely on the strength of a prejudice against him, a prejudice that, alas, he has so richly earned!
> Inverted conditional with imperative: «Будь…» here is the imperative of «быть» used to open a hypothetical condition — "were this a simple murder." Russian can replace «если бы было» with this bare inverted imperative, a crisp, slightly elevated way of framing an unreal supposition.
> Conditional with particle бы: The main clause runs in the irrealis: past-tense verbs «отвергли», «усумнились» plus the particle «бы» give the counterfactual "you would have rejected … would have hesitated." This is the apodosis answering the inverted «будь…» condition.
> Anaphoric «при» + prepositional: The preposition «при» governs the prepositional case and here means "given, in view of." Its threefold repetition with abstract nouns in -ость builds a rhetorical crescendo — a hallmark of the courtroom oration.
> "would have hesitated/doubted": «Усумниться» (here in older spelling with -ум-) is a perfective of «сомневаться», to come to doubt or hesitate. The bookish prefixed form fits the lawyer's formal register; modern Russian would more often write «усомнились бы».

Но тут не простое убийство, а отцеубийство!  
But here it is no simple murder — it is parricide!
> Contrastive «а» after negation: The pattern «не X, а Y» ("not X but rather Y") uses the contrastive conjunction «а» to correct and replace, not merely add. It throws the full weight onto «отцеубийство», the word the whole speech turns on.
> "parricide": A compound of «отец» (father) + «убийство» (killing/murder), literally "father-murder." It is the gravest of crimes in the moral world of the novel, and the chapter title «Прелюбодей мысли» plays on this whole register of sin and judgment.

Это импонирует, и до такой степени, что даже самая ничтожность и бездоказательность обвиняющих фактов становится уже не столь ничтожною и не столь бездоказательною, и это в самом непредубежденном даже уме.  
That impresses, and to such a degree that even the very triviality and groundlessness of the incriminating facts ceases to seem so trivial and so groundless — and this in even the least prejudiced mind.
> Predicate instrumental absent; long-form adjective: «Становится» (becomes) governs an instrumental predicate, but here the predicate is the comparative phrase «не столь ничтожною», kept in long-form instrumental feminine «-ою» — the older, more literary variant of «-ой». The verb of becoming frames triviality as a state being entered into.
> "impresses, commands respect": «Импонировать» (from French/German) means to impress, to carry weight with someone. A fashionable foreign borrowing in 19th-century educated speech — slightly showy in the mouth of the polished Petersburg advocate.

Ну как оправдать такого подсудимого?  
Well, how is one to acquit such a defendant?
> Dative-less infinitive of deliberation: «Как оправдать?» — "how is one to acquit?" — uses a bare infinitive to pose a deliberative question with no stated subject, an impersonal construction where English supplies "one." «Оправдать» is perfective: the question is about achieving the single act of acquittal.

А ну как он убил и уйдет ненаказанным — вот что чувствует каждый в сердце своем почти невольно, инстинктивно.  
But what if he killed and walks away unpunished? — that is what each of us feels in his heart, almost involuntarily, by instinct.
> «А ну как» — colloquial "what if": «А ну как…» is an idiomatic colloquial frame for an anxious supposition, "but what if…". Note the aspect shift: perfective past «убил» (he killed — a completed deed) into perfective present «уйдёт», which carries future meaning ("and will walk away").
> Reflexive possessive «свой»: «Своём» (one's own) refers back to the clause's own subject «каждый» — each in *his own* heart. Using «его» instead would point to someone else's heart; «свой» keeps the possession anchored to the subject.

Да, страшная вещь пролить кровь отца, — кровь родившего, кровь любившего, кровь жизни своей для меня не жалевшего, с детских лет моих моими болезнями болевшего, всю жизнь за мое счастье страдавшего и лишь моими радостями, моими успехами жившего!  
Yes, it is a fearful thing to spill a father's blood — the blood of the man who begot him, who loved him, who did not begrudge his own life for his sake, who from my earliest years ached with my every illness, who suffered his whole life long for my happiness and lived only by my joys, my successes!
> Chain of past active participles: Six past active participles in «-вшего» (genitive masculine), each replacing a «который»-clause: "the one who begot, who loved, who did not begrudge…". This dense participial chain, all modifying «кровь… отца», is pure literary high style — a cascade of relative clauses compressed into single words.
> Anaphora and genitive of "of": The fourfold repetition of «кровь» followed by genitive phrases («кровь родившего» = blood *of the one who begot*) is rhetorical anaphora. Each genitive expands what "a father's blood" means, building emotional pressure through grammatical accumulation.
> Instrumental of cause/means with «болеть»: «Болеть» here takes the instrumental «болезнями моими» — "ached *with* my illnesses," the instrumental naming what he suffered by. The figura etymologica «болезнями болевшего» (illnesses + the one who ached) is a deliberate poetic echo.

О, убить такого отца — да это невозможно и помыслить!  
Oh, to kill such a father — why, the very thought of it is impossible!
> Impersonal «невозможно» + infinitive: «Невозможно помыслить» is an impersonal predicative: an invariable «-о» word plus an infinitive, with no nominative subject — "it is impossible even to conceive." The particle «да» here is exclamatory ("why, …!"), and «и» before the infinitive means "even."
> "to conceive, to so much as think": «Помыслить» is a perfective, bookish-archaic verb for "to conceive a thought," loftier than plain «подумать». It belongs to the elevated, almost homiletic register the lawyer adopts when speaking of the sacred bond of fatherhood.

Господа присяжные, что такое отец, настоящий отец, что это за слово такое великое, какая страшно великая идея в наименовании этом?  
Gentlemen of the jury, what is a father, a true father — what is this word, so great, what fearfully great idea lies in that very name?
> «что за» — "what kind of": «Что за слово!» is a fixed exclamatory/interrogative idiom (modelled on German *was für*) meaning "what a word!" or "what kind of word." The added «такое» and trailing «великое» intensify the wonder — a stacking of emphatic markers typical of impassioned speech.
> Postposed demonstrative for emphasis: Placing «этом» *after* its noun «наименовании» (rather than the usual «в этом наименовании») is a marked, rhetorical word order — "in that very name." The inversion lends solemn weight, a frequent device in elevated 19th-century oratory.

Мы сейчас только указали отчасти, что такое и чем должен быть истинный отец.  
We have just now indicated, in part, what a true father is and what he ought to be.
> Instrumental predicate after «быть»: The indirect question «чем должен быть … отец» uses the instrumental interrogative «чем» as predicate of the infinitive «быть» — "what [a father] ought to be." After «быть», «стать» and the like, the predicate noun or pronoun stands in the instrumental, not the nominative.

В настоящем же деле, которым мы так все теперь заняты, которым болят наши души, — в настоящем деле отец, покойный Федор Павлович Карамазов, нисколько не подходил под то понятие об отце, которое сейчас сказалось нашему сердцу.  
But in the present case, the case that so engrosses us all now, the case that makes our souls ache — in the present case the father, the late Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, in no way answered to that conception of a father which has just now spoken itself to our hearts.
> Relative «который» in two cases: Two parallel «который»-clauses both take the instrumental form «которым», but for different reasons: «заняты которым» (occupied *with* which — instrumental governed by the short adjective) and «болят души которым» here works as an instrumental of cause. The relative agrees in gender/number with «дело» but takes the case its own clause demands.
> Correlative «то … которое» and reflexive «-ся»: «То понятие, которое сказалось» sets up a correlative demonstrative «то» pointing forward to its relative clause. «Сказалось» is the reflexive-middle of «сказать» — "spoke itself, made itself felt" — using «-ся» to render an intransitive, almost spontaneous event.

Это беда.  
That is a calamity.
> Zero copula in the present: "That is a calamity" — Russian uses no verb "to be" in the present, so subject «это» and predicate nominative «беда» simply stand side by side. The blunt, copula-less sentence lands like a verdict.

Да, действительно, иной отец похож на беду.  
Yes, indeed, a certain kind of father is very like a calamity.
> «иной» — "a certain kind of": «Иной» here does not mean "another" but "a certain sort of, this or that" — "a certain kind of father." It generalizes without specifying, a slightly bookish flavor of "some fathers there are who…".
> Short adjective «похож» + «на» + accusative: «Похож» is the short (predicative) form of «похожий» (similar), and it governs «на» plus the accusative «беду»: "is like a calamity." Short adjectives serve only as predicates and are especially common in this terse, sententious register.

Рассмотрим же эту беду поближе — ведь ничего не надо бояться, господа присяжные, ввиду важности предстоящего решения.  
Let us look at this calamity more closely, then — for there is nothing to fear, gentlemen of the jury, given the gravity of the decision before us.
> Imperative + insistent «же»: «Рассмотрим» is a first-person-plural perfective used as a hortative ("let us examine"); the particle «же» adds urging insistence ("let us, then, …"). «Поближе» is a softened comparative, "a bit closer."
> Impersonal «надо» + genitive of negation: «Надо бояться» is an impersonal modal ("one must fear"), and the verb «бояться» normally takes the genitive of its object; under negation, «ничего» (genitive of «ничто») gives "there is nothing to fear." Note the negative concord: «ничего … не».

Мы даже особенно не должны бояться теперь и, так сказать, отмахиваться от иной идеи, как дети или пугливые женщины, по счастливому выражению высокоталантливого обвинителя.  
We must not, just now, be especially afraid and, so to speak, wave off some idea like children or timid women — to borrow the felicitous phrase of the highly gifted prosecutor.
> Imperfective infinitive of habit: «Отмахиваться» is imperfective — to keep waving (something) off, a repeated, characteristic gesture, hence the comparison "like children or timid women." «От иной идеи» shows «от» governing the genitive ("away from some idea").
> "to use the felicitous phrase of": «По счастливому выражению (кого-то)» is a polished formula for crediting a turn of phrase to someone — "in the apt/felicitous phrase of." The advocate uses it to ironically echo the prosecutor's own words back at him.

Но в своей горячей речи уважаемый мой противник (и противник еще прежде, чем я произнес мое первое слово), мой противник несколько раз воскликнул: „Нет, я никому не дам защищать подсудимого, я не уступлю его защиту защитнику, приехавшему из Петербурга, — я обвинитель, я и защитник!“  
But in his fervent speech my esteemed adversary (and an adversary already before I had uttered my first word), my adversary cried out several times: 'No, I shall let no one else defend the accused; I will not yield his defense to a defender who has come up from Petersburg — I am the prosecutor, and I am the defender too!'
> Past active participle as modifier: «Приехавшему» is the past active participle of «приехать» (to arrive), agreeing in dative with «защитнику» — "to a defender who has come." The participle compresses a whole «который приехал» clause into one word, and «приехать» is a prefixed perfective verb of motion.
> Negative concord with «никому»: «Никому не дам» — "I shall give no one [the chance]," with the negative pronoun «никому» (dative) and the verb both negated: Russian requires the «не» even when an «ни»-word is present. «Дам» is perfective present = future.

Вот что он несколько раз воскликнул и, однако же, забыл упомянуть, что если страшный подсудимый целые двадцать три года столь благодарен был всего только за один фунт орехов, полученных от единственного человека, приласкавшего его ребенком в родительском доме, то, обратно, не мог же ведь такой человек и не помнить, все эти двадцать три года, как он бегал босой у отца „на заднем дворе, без сапожек, и в панталончиках на одной пуговке“, по выражению человеколюбивого доктора Герценштубе.  
That is what he cried out several times, and yet he forgot to mention that, if the fearful defendant was for fully twenty-three years so grateful for nothing more than a single pound of nuts received from the one and only person who had ever shown him kindness as a child in his father's house, then, conversely, such a man surely could not have failed to remember, all those twenty-three years, how he had run barefoot at his father's place 'in the back yard, without boots, in little trousers held by a single button' — to use the phrase of that lover of his fellow men, Dr. Herzenstube.
> Double negation = strong assertion: «Не мог … не помнить» is a litotes — "could not but remember," i.e. surely did remember. The piled particles «же» and «ведь» both press the appeal to shared sense ("surely, after all"), giving the clause its insistent, conversational charge.
> Stacked participles, genitive: Two participles modify nouns here: «полученных» (passive past, "received") agrees with «орехов» in genitive, and «приласкавшего» (active past, "who had shown affection") agrees with «человека». The agent of the receiving is marked by «от» + genitive.
> Pitying diminutives: «Сапожки» (little boots), «панталончики» (little trousers), «пуговка» (little button) pile on diminutive suffixes not to mean "small" but to evoke pathos — the neglected little boy. The cluster of -очк-/-еньк- forms tugs at the jury's pity.

О господа присяжные, зачем нам рассматривать ближе эту „беду“, повторять то, что все уже знают!  
Oh, gentlemen of the jury, why should we look more closely at this 'calamity,' why repeat what everyone already knows!
> Dative «нам» + infinitive: «Зачем нам рассматривать?» is a dative-subject impersonal: the experiencers «нам» stand in the dative and the predicate is the bare infinitive — "why [is it] for us to examine?" The two imperfective infinitives mark the action as drawn-out, distasteful repetition.

Что встретил мой клиент, приехав сюда к отцу? И зачем, зачем изображать моего клиента бесчувственным, эгоистом, чудовищем?  
What did my client meet with when he came here, to his father? And why, why must we paint my client as unfeeling, an egotist, a monster?
> Perfective gerund (деепричастие): «Приехав» is the perfective past gerund of «приехать» — "having arrived." It names an action completed just before the main verb «встретил» and shares its subject ("my client"); this terse non-finite form is a staple of literary narration. «Приехать» is itself a prefixed perfective motion verb.
> Instrumental of the predicate object: After «изображать (кого) кем» (to portray someone *as* something), the complements «бесчувственным, эгоистом, чудовищем» all stand in the instrumental — the case of the assumed or attributed role. Three instrumentals in a row hammer the unjust caricature.

Он безудержен, он дик и буен, вот мы теперь его судим за это, а кто виноват в судьбе его, кто виноват, что при хороших наклонностях, при благородном чувствительном сердце он получил такое нелепое воспитание?  
He is unrestrained, he is wild and headstrong — and here we are now judging him for it — but who is to blame for his fate, who is to blame that, for all his good inclinations, for all his noble and sensitive heart, he received so preposterous an upbringing?
> Short adjective «виноват» + «что»-clause: «Виноват» is the short predicative form of «виноватый» (guilty/to blame), used here in the recurring question «кто виноват?» — "who is to blame?". The second instance opens a «что»-clause naming the fault. The phrase famously echoes Herzen's title *Кто виноват?*
> Concessive «при» + prepositional: Here «при» again takes the prepositional and means "for all, despite" — "for all his good inclinations, his noble heart." Each adjective agrees in case with its noun, making the concession ring out twice.
> Short adjectives of temperament: «Безудержен» (unrestrained), «дик» (wild), «буен» (turbulent, riotous) are all short predicative forms, terse and absolute. «Буйный» especially is a key word for Mitya throughout — the untamed, headstrong Karamazov nature.

Учил ли его кто-нибудь уму-разуму, просвещен ли он в науках, любил ли кто его хоть сколько-нибудь в его детстве?  
Did anyone teach him sense and reason, was he given any schooling, did anyone love him even a little in his childhood?
> Yes/no questions with «ли»: Three parallel questions are formed with the enclitic particle «ли», each fronting the focused verb: «учил ли…», «просвещён ли…», «любил ли…» — "did anyone teach…, was he taught…, did anyone love…". «Ли» gives a formal, literary cadence to this triple interrogation.
> Short passive participle as predicate: «Просвещён» is the short form of the past passive participle «просвещённый» (enlightened/educated), forming a passive predicate — "was he educated." The short passive participle plus (implied) «быть» is the standard way to state a result or condition.
> «уму-разуму» — "sense and reason": A fixed reduplicative idiom, «учить уму-разуму» = to teach (someone) sense, to bring up properly. Both nouns are dative; the doubling «ум-разум» (mind-reason) is a folksy paired formula common in spoken and proverbial Russian.

Мой клиент рос покровительством божиим, то есть как дикий зверь.  
My client grew up under the protection of God — that is to say, like a wild beast.
> Instrumental of means: «Покровительством божиим» is instrumental — "grew up *by/under* God's protection," the instrumental naming the means (here bitterly ironic). «Божиим» is the older long instrumental of the possessive adjective «божий» (God's).
> Bitter gloss with «то есть»: «То есть» ("that is to say") normally clarifies; here it delivers a sardonic equation — "under God's protection — *that is*, like a wild beast." The lawyer's irony: divine providence as the only parenting Mitya got.

Он, может быть, жаждал увидеть отца после долголетней разлуки, он, может быть, тысячу раз перед тем, вспоминая как сквозь сон свое детство, отгонял отвратительные призраки, приснившиеся ему в его детстве, и всею душой жаждал оправдать и обнять отца своего!  
He may, perhaps, have longed to see his father after the long years of separation; perhaps a thousand times before that, recalling his childhood as though through a dream, he drove off the loathsome specters that had haunted his boyhood, and with his whole soul longed to forgive his father and embrace him!
> Imperfective gerund of simultaneity: «Вспоминая» is the imperfective present gerund of «вспоминать» — "while recalling," an action running at the same time as the main verb «отгонял». It shares the subject ("he") and adds attendant circumstance, as the деепричастие characteristically does.
> Past active participle of a «-ся» verb: «Приснившиеся» is the past active participle of the reflexive «присниться» (to be dreamt, to appear in a dream), agreeing with «призраки» — "the specters that had appeared to him in dreams." «Присниться» takes a dative experiencer «ему».
> Instrumental + reflexive possessive: «Всею душой» is instrumental of manner ("with his whole soul"), with the archaic long ending «-ею». «Отца своего» uses the reflexive possessive «свой», anchoring the father to the clause's subject — *his own* father.

И что ж?  
And what then?
> Reduced particle «ж» (= «же»): «Что ж?» — "And what then?" — uses «ж», the post-vowel short form of the emphatic particle «же». It marks an expectant, rhetorical pivot, inviting the listener to brace for the disappointing answer.

Его встречают одними циническими насмешками, подозрительностью и крючкотворством из-за спорных денег; он слышит лишь разговоры и житейские правила, от которых воротит сердце, ежедневно „за коньячком“, и, наконец, зрит отца, отбивающего у него, у сына, на его же сыновние деньги, любовницу, — о господа присяжные, это отвратительно и жестоко!  
He is met with nothing but cynical jeers, suspicion, and pettifogging quibbles over disputed money; daily, 'over the brandy,' he hears only talk and rules of living that turn the heart; and at last he beholds his father luring away his mistress — his, the son's — and with the son's own money: oh, gentlemen of the jury, it is loathsome and cruel!
> Indefinite-subject 3rd-pl + instrumental: «Встречают» (they meet) has no named subject — the third-person plural alone expresses an impersonal "he is met." «Одними насмешками» is instrumental of means ("with nothing but jeers"); «одними» here means "only, nothing but."
> Present active participle in a clause: «Отбивающего» is the present active participle of «отбивать» (to lure/win away), agreeing with «отца» in the accusative — "the father who is luring away." It compresses an ongoing «который отбивает» into one modifier inside the perception verb «зрит».
> «зрит» — "beholds": «Зрит» is the archaic/Church-Slavonic-flavored present of «зреть» (to see, behold), far loftier than «видит». The solemn verb heightens the horror of the climactic vision: the son *beholds* his father stealing his mistress.
> «крючкотворство» and the brandy diminutive: «Крючкотворство» is "pettifoggery, legal hair-splitting" (literally "hook-making"). «За коньячком» uses the affectionate-ironic diminutive of «коньяк» — Fyodor Pavlovich's cozy "over the little brandy," the genial setting of his cynical talk.

И этот же старик всем жалуется на непочтительность и жестокость сына, марает его в обществе, вредит ему, клевещет на него, скупает его долговые расписки, чтобы посадить его в тюрьму!  
And this same old man goes about complaining to everyone of his son's disrespect and cruelty, blackens his name in society, does him harm, slanders him, buys up his promissory notes so as to throw him into prison!
> Imperfective present of habit: A string of imperfective present verbs paints the old man's habitual, ongoing campaign of malice — "complains, blackens, harms, slanders, buys up." The imperfective makes these not single acts but a continuous course of conduct.
> Purpose clause with «чтобы»: «Чтобы посадить» introduces purpose — "so as to put him in prison." When the subject of «чтобы» is the same as the main clause, it takes an infinitive (here perfective «посадить»); only with a different subject would it require a past-form irrealis.

Господа присяжные, эти души, эти на вид жестокосердые, буйные и безудержные люди, как мой клиент, бывают, и это чаще всего, чрезвычайно нежны сердцем, только этого не выказывают.  
Gentlemen of the jury, these souls, these people who seem hard-hearted, turbulent, and unrestrained — like my client — are often, indeed most often, exceedingly tender at heart; they simply do not show it.
> Long-form adjectives in apposition: Here the qualities come as long-form attributive adjectives «жестокосердые, буйные, безудержные» modifying «люди» — contrast the short predicative forms «дик, буен» used earlier (s20). Long forms describe the type as a settled category, "people who are hard-hearted…".
> Short adjective + instrumental of respect: «Нежны» is the short predicative form of «нежный» (tender), and «сердцем» is an instrumental of respect — "tender *as to* the heart," i.e. tender-hearted. This instrumental "in what respect" is a neat, compact construction.

Не смейтесь, не смейтесь над моею идеей!  
Do not laugh, do not laugh at my idea!
> Negated imperative + reflexive verb: «Не смейтесь» is a negative imperative (plural/polite) of the reflexive «смеяться» (to laugh), which exists only in the «-ся» form. It governs «над» + instrumental «идеей» — to laugh *at* something. The doubling «не смейтесь, не смейтесь» is pleading repetition.

Талантливый обвинитель смеялся давеча над моим клиентом безжалостно, выставляя, что он любит Шиллера, любит „прекрасное и высокое“.  
The gifted prosecutor was mocking my client mercilessly a little while ago, holding up against him that he loves Schiller, that he loves 'the beautiful and the lofty.'
> Imperfective gerund + «что»-clause: «Выставляя» is the imperfective gerund of «выставлять» (to put forward, hold up) — a simultaneous action accompanying «смеялся». It then opens a «что»-clause reporting the charge ("that he loves Schiller").
> "a little while ago": «Давеча» is a colloquial, now archaic adverb meaning "a short time ago, earlier today." We render it "a little while ago." It recurs through the speech («давеча я сказал») to point back to earlier moments of the same trial.

Я бы не стал над этим смеяться на его месте, на месте обвинителя!  
I would not have laughed at that, were I in his place — in the prosecutor's place!
> Conditional «бы» with leading pronoun: The irrealis «я бы не стал смеяться» ("I would not have laughed") places «бы» right after the topic «я», as the mobile particle often does, leaning on the first stressed word. «На его месте» ("in his place") supplies the implicit condition.

Да, эти сердца — о, дайте мне защитить эти сердца, столь редко и столь несправедливо понимаемые, — эти сердца весьма часто жаждут нежного, прекрасного и справедливого, и именно как бы в контраст себе, своему буйству, своей жестокости, — жаждут бессознательно, и именно жаждут.  
Yes, these hearts — oh, let me defend these hearts, so rarely and so unjustly understood — these hearts very often thirst for the tender, the beautiful, the just, precisely as a kind of counterpoise to themselves, to their own turbulence, their own cruelty; they thirst unconsciously, and thirst they truly do.
> Present passive participle (rare, bookish): «Понимаемые» is the present passive participle of «понимать» — "[hearts] that are understood," agreeing with «сердца». This «-мый» passive is markedly literary and uncommon in speech, and its insertion mid-flow is pure rhetorical high style.
> Reflexive «себя»/«свой» + «как бы»: «Себе» (dative of the reflexive «себя») and «своему буйству» both point back to the subject «эти сердца» — a counterpoise *to themselves, to their own* turbulence. «Как бы» softens to "as it were, a kind of."
> Emphatic word order at the close: Ending on «жаждут бессознательно, и именно жаждут» repeats the verb in final, stressed position — the comment that is the real news. «Именно» ("precisely, truly") drives the rhetorical insistence home.

Страстные и жестокие снаружи, они до мучения способны полюбить, например, женщину, и непременно духовною и высшею любовью.  
Passionate and cruel on the surface, they are capable of loving — a woman, for instance — to the point of torment, and inevitably with a spiritual and exalted love.
> «до» + genitive of degree; perfective infinitive: «До мучения» — "to the point of torment" — uses «до» + genitive to mark extreme degree. «Полюбить» is the perfective "to fall in love / come to love," its prefix «по-» marking the onset of the state.
> Instrumental of manner + archaic ending: «Любовью» is instrumental naming the manner of loving ("with a spiritual and exalted love"); the modifiers carry the older long instrumental ending «-ою/-ею» (духовною, высшею), a literary archaism common in Dostoevsky.

Опять-таки не смейтесь надо мной: это именно так всего чаще бывает в этих натурах!  
Again, do not laugh at me: it is precisely this that happens most often in such natures!
> «опять-таки» — "once again, all the same": «Опять-таки» combines «опять» (again) with the emphatic clitic «-таки» ("after all, even so"), a conversational connective resuming a point — "again, I say." It keeps the spoken, button-holing rhythm of the address.
> Iterative «бывает»: «Бывает» (the imperfective of «быть» in its frequentative sense) means "it happens, it tends to be" — a habitual, recurring truth, not a single fact. «Всего чаще» ("most often of all") reinforces the generalization.

Они только не могут скрыть свою страстность, подчас очень грубую, — вот это и поражает, вот это и замечают, а внутри человека не видят.  
It is only that they cannot conceal their passion, often a very coarse one — and that is just what strikes the eye, that is just what people notice, while inside the man they do not see.
> Emphatic «вот … и» framing: The «вот это и + verb» construction spotlights the topic and asserts "that is *just* what strikes / what people notice." The presentative «вот» plus emphatic «и» is a vivid, oral device for pointing at the salient thing.
> Contrastive «а» + indefinite 3rd-pl: «А» here is the mild contrastive "while/whereas," pivoting from what people *do* notice to what they fail to see. «Не видят» again has an unnamed third-plural subject — "they don't see [inside]," i.e. "one doesn't see."

Напротив, все их страсти утоляются быстро, но около благородного, прекрасного существа, этот по-видимому грубый и жестокий человек ищет обновления, ищет возможности исправиться, стать лучшим, сделаться высоким и честным — „высоким и прекрасным“, как ни осмеяно это слово!  
On the contrary, all their passions are quickly stilled; but in the presence of a noble, beautiful being, this seemingly coarse and cruel man seeks renewal, seeks the chance to mend himself, to become better, to make himself lofty and honorable — 'lofty and beautiful,' however much that phrase has been ridiculed!
> Instrumental predicate after «стать/сделаться»: Both «стать» and the reflexive «сделаться» (to become) take an instrumental predicate: «лучшим», «высоким и честным» — "to become better, lofty and honorable." The instrumental marks the new role being assumed. «Сделаться» adds «-ся» for the change-of-state middle sense.
> Concessive «как ни» + short passive participle: «Как ни осмеяно» is a concessive — "however much … has been ridiculed." «Ни» here is not negation but the concessive intensifier paired with «как»; «осмеяно» is the short past passive participle of «осмеять» (to deride).

Давеча я сказал, что не позволю себе дотронуться до романа моего клиента с госпожою Верховцевой.  
A little while ago I said that I would not permit myself to touch upon my client's romance with Mademoiselle Verkhovtseva.
> Reflexive «себе» + «до» + genitive: «Не позволю себе» — "I shall not allow myself," with the dative reflexive «себе». «Дотронуться до» governs the genitive «романа» ("to touch upon the romance"); «дотронуться» is the perfective «-ся» verb of touching.

Но, однако, полслова-то можно сказать: мы слышали давеча не показание, а лишь крик исступленной и отмщающей женщины, и не ей, о, не ей укорять бы в измене, потому что она сама изменила!  
And yet a half-word may be said: what we heard a little while ago was not testimony but only the cry of a frenzied and avenging woman, and it is not for her — oh, not for her — to reproach anyone with betrayal, for she herself was the one who betrayed!
> Topic clitic «-то» + impersonal «можно»: The clitic «-то» on «полслова» emphasizes the known topic — "a *half-word*, at least, may be said." «Можно сказать» is an impersonal modal (no nominative subject). Distinguish this topic-marking «-то» from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то».
> Dative + «бы» + infinitive (it is not for her to…): «Не ей укорять» is a dative-of-the-doer construction — "it is not for her to reproach." The added «бы» softens to a reproachful conditional flavor. «Укорять в» governs «в» + prepositional «измене» (to reproach *with/for* betrayal).

Если б имела хоть сколько-нибудь времени, чтоб одуматься, не дала бы она такого свидетельства!  
Had she had even a little time to collect herself, she would never have given such evidence!
> Full conditional period with «бы»: A complete unreal conditional: protasis «если б имела … время» (the «б» = «бы»; subject «она» dropped) and apodosis «не дала бы она». Both verbs are past-tense plus «бы» — the standard irrealis pattern for "had she had …, she would never have given."
> Purpose «чтоб» + perfective infinitive: «Чтоб» (a reduced «чтобы») introduces purpose with the perfective infinitive «одуматься» — "to collect herself, think better of it." Same-subject purpose takes the infinitive; «одуматься» is the perfective «-ся» verb of coming to one's senses.

О, не верьте ей, нет, не „изверг“ клиент мой, как она его называла!  
Oh, do not believe her — no, my client is no 'fiend,' as she called him!
> Zero copula + fronted negated predicate: "My client is no fiend" — with no verb "to be," the negated predicate noun «не „изверг“» comes first for emphasis, the subject «клиент мой» (itself inverted) after. The whole order is rhetorically arranged around the rejected label.
> «изверг» — "monster, fiend": «Изверг» is a strong word for a monstrous, inhuman brute (literally "one cast out"). Set in quotation marks, it echoes Katerina Ivanovna's own epithet for Mitya, which the lawyer indignantly throws back.

Распятый человеколюбец, собираясь на крест свой, говорил: „Аз есмь пастырь добрый, пастырь добрый полагает душу свою за овцы, да ни одна не погибнет…“  
As he went up to his cross, the crucified lover of mankind said: 'I am the Good Shepherd; the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep, that not one of them should perish…'
> Imperfective gerund + reflexive «свой»: «Собираясь» is the imperfective gerund of «собираться» (to be about to, to make ready) — "as he was going up to." «Крест свой» uses the reflexive possessive «свой» — *his own* cross, anchored to the subject.
> Optative «да» + negative concord: «Да … не погибнет» uses «да» + perfective future as an optative/jussive — "that not one should perish." «Ни одна … не» is negative concord (the «ни»-word still requires «не» on the verb). «Овцы» here keeps the Slavonic accusative-plural form after «за».

Не погубим и мы души человеческой!  
Let us, too, not destroy a human soul!
> Hortative + genitive of negation: «Не погубим» is a first-plural perfective used as a hortative under negation — "let us not destroy." The object «души человеческой» stands in the genitive, the genitive of negation drawing the negated object out of the accusative; «и мы» = "we too."

Я спрашивал сейчас: что такое отец, и воскликнул, что это великое слово, драгоценное наименование.  
I asked just now: what is a father — and I exclaimed that it is a great word, a precious name.
> Imperfective vs perfective past: The pairing contrasts aspect: «спрашивал» (imperfective, the drawn-out asking "I was asking") against «воскликнул» (perfective, the single completed "I exclaimed"). The two aspects let one sentence hold both ongoing process and punctual event.

Но со словом, господа присяжные, надо обращаться честно, и я позволю назвать предмет собственным его словом, собственным наименованием: такой отец, как убитый старик Карамазов, не может и недостоин называться отцом.  
But a word, gentlemen of the jury, must be handled honestly, and I shall permit myself to call the thing by its own word, its own name: such a father as the murdered old man Karamazov neither can nor deserves to be called a father.
> Impersonal «надо» + imperfective infinitive: «Надо обращаться» is an impersonal obligation ("one must handle") with no nominative subject. «Обращаться» is imperfective — handling words is a continuous practice, not a single act; «обращаться с» governs the instrumental «словом».
> Instrumental predicate after «называться»: «Называться отцом» — "to be called a father" — takes the instrumental predicate «отцом» after the reflexive «называться». «Недостоин» is a short adjective ("is unworthy"); «и» before it links the two negated predicates emphatically.

Любовь к отцу, не оправданная отцом, есть нелепость, есть невозможность.  
Love for a father that the father has not earned is an absurdity, an impossibility.
> Past passive participle + instrumental agent: «Не оправданная» is the (long, attributive) past passive participle of «оправдать» (to justify/deserve), modifying «любовь» — "love not earned." The agent stands in the instrumental: «отцом» = *by the father*, the standard way Russian names a passive agent.
> Emphatic copula «есть»: Russian normally drops "to be" in the present, but here the explicit «есть» ("is") is retained for solemn, definitional force — "is an absurdity, is an impossibility." Its repetition gives the sentence an oracular, axiomatic ring.

Нельзя создать любовь из ничего, из ничего только бог творит.  
One cannot create love out of nothing; only God creates out of nothing.
> «из» + genitive; emphatic word order: «Из ничего» ("out of nothing") has «из» governing the genitive «ничего». The fronting of «из ничего» before the subject «бог» throws the contrast into relief: out of nothing — *only God* creates. «Творит» is the lofty verb for divine creation.

„Отцы, не огорчайте детей своих“, — пишет из пламенеющего любовью сердца своего апостол.  
'Fathers, provoke not your children,' the Apostle writes out of a heart blazing with love.
> Negated imperative + reflexive «свой»: «Не огорчайте» is the imperfective negative imperative — with negation, Russian prefers the imperfective for general prohibitions ("do not [ever] provoke"). «Детей своих» uses «свой» (your own children) and stands in accusative=genitive by animacy.

Не ради моего клиента привожу теперь эти святые слова, я для всех отцов вспоминаю их.  
It is not for my client's sake that I invoke these holy words now; I recall them for all fathers.
> Fronted «не ради …» for contrast: The negated purpose phrase «не ради моего клиента» ("not for my client's sake") is fronted, setting up the corrective "but for all fathers." «Ради» and «для» both govern the genitive; the parallel «ради … / для …» structures the antithesis.

Кто мне дал эту власть, чтоб учить отцов?  
Who gave me this authority, to instruct fathers?
> Dative recipient + purpose «чтоб»: «Мне дал» — "gave to me," with the dative recipient «мне.» «Чтоб учить отцов» is a purpose infinitive ("in order to instruct fathers"); «отцов» is genitive=accusative by animacy, object of «учить».

Никто.  
No one.
> Negative pronoun standing alone: «Никто» (no one) answers the rhetorical question as a one-word verdict. Normally it would demand «не» on a verb (negative concord), but here, with the verb elided, the negative pronoun delivers the whole negation by itself.

Но как человек и гражданин взываю — vivos voco!  
But as a man and a citizen I make my appeal — vivos voco!
> «как» + nominative of role: «Как человек и гражданин» — "as a man and a citizen" — uses «как» with the nominative to state the capacity in which one acts (unlike English, no case change). «Взываю» is the lofty, Slavonic-flavored "I appeal, I cry out."

Мы на земле недолго, мы делаем много дел дурных и говорим слов дурных.  
We are on this earth but a short while; we do many evil deeds and speak many evil words.
> Genitive plural after «много»: Quantity words like «много» govern the genitive plural: «много дел» (deeds), «много слов» (words), with the postposed adjective «дурных» (evil) agreeing in genitive plural. Note the zero-ending genitives «дел», «слов».
> Zero copula with adverbial predicate: "We are on this earth but a short while" has no verb — the present "to be" is unexpressed, leaving subject «мы» and the adverbial «недолго» to carry the sentence. A spare, aphoristic frame for the homiletic close.

А потому будем же все ловить удобную минуту совместного общения нашего, чтобы сказать друг другу и хорошее слово.  
And so let us all seize the convenient moment of our being together, to say a kind word to one another as well.
> Hortative «будем» + imperfective infinitive: «Будем ловить» is the compound imperfective future of «быть» + infinitive, here used as a hortative — "let us [all] seize." The insistent «же» urges; «ловить» (imperfective) frames the seizing as an ongoing practice. «Все» = "all of us."
> Purpose «чтобы» + reciprocal «друг другу»: «Чтобы сказать» gives purpose with a perfective infinitive (a single kind word). «Друг другу» is the fixed reciprocal phrase "to one another," with the second element declined to the case the verb requires — here dative.

Так и я: пока я на этом месте, я пользуюсь моею минутой.  
So it is with me: while I stand in this place, I make use of my moment.
> «пока» clause + instrumental object: «Пока» ("while, so long as") opens a temporal clause. «Пользоваться» governs the instrumental — «минутой» — so "I make use *of* my moment" puts the object in the instrumental, not the accusative; «моею» again shows the archaic long ending.

Недаром эта трибуна дарована нам высшею волей — с нее слышит нас вся Россия.  
Not for nothing has this tribune been granted to us by a higher will — from it all Russia hears us.
> Short passive participle + instrumental agent: «Дарована» is the short past passive participle of «даровать» (to grant), forming a passive predicate — "has been granted." The dative «нам» is the recipient, and «высшею волей» is the instrumental agent: granted *by* a higher will.

Не для здешних только отцов говорю, а ко всем отцам восклицаю: „Отцы, не огорчайте детей своих!“  
I speak not for the fathers here alone, but I cry out to all fathers: 'Fathers, provoke not your children!'
> Negation-correction with case shift: The «не … а …» frame again corrects: «не для … отцов» (genitive after «для») is overturned by «а ко всем отцам» (dative after «к»). Watch the prepositions drive different cases — «для» + genitive, «к» + dative.

Да исполним прежде сами завет Христов и тогда только разрешим себе спрашивать и с детей наших.  
Let us first fulfill the commandment of Christ ourselves, and only then permit ourselves to demand it of our children too.
> Optative «да» + 1st-pl perfective: «Да исполним» pairs the exhortative particle «да» with a first-plural perfective for a solemn "let us fulfill," loftier than a plain imperative. «Сами» ("ourselves") and «прежде» ("first") stress that the demand falls on the fathers first.
> «завет Христов» — "Christ's commandment/covenant": «Завет» is a weighty Slavonic word meaning covenant, testament, or commandment (as in «Ветхий/Новый Завет», the Old/New Testament). «Христов» is the possessive adjective "Christ's," an old short-form possessive — *the commandment of Christ*.

Иначе мы не отцы, а враги детям нашим, а они не дети наши, а враги нам, и мы сами себе сделали их врагами!  
Otherwise we are not fathers but enemies to our children, and they are not our children but enemies to us — and we ourselves have made them our enemies!
> Zero-copula antithesis with «не … а»: Four copula-less clauses in chiastic «не X, а Y» pattern — "we are not fathers but enemies; they are not children but enemies." With no verb "to be," the bare nominatives «отцы / враги / дети / враги» do all the work, and «а» pivots each contrast.
> Reflexive «себе» + predicate instrumental: «Сделали их врагами» — "made them enemies" — puts the resulting predicate «врагами» in the instrumental (made them *into* enemies). The dative reflexive «себе» ("for/to ourselves") and intensive «сами» drive home the self-indictment.

„В ню же меру мерите, возмерится и вам“ — это не я уже говорю, это Евангелие предписывает: мерить в ту меру, в которую и вам меряют.  
'With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again' — that is no longer I who speak; it is the Gospel that ordains it: to mete out in the same measure that is meted out to you.
> Impersonal reflexive in -ся: «Возмерится» (it shall be measured) is a reflexive verb in -ся used impersonally and passively — there is no stated subject doing the measuring. This Gospel line (Matthew 7:2) keeps the archaic Slavonic «в ню же» (= «в ту, в которую», "with what"), which Fetyukovich then restates in plain modern Russian.
> Church-Slavonic relative «в ню же»: «В ню же» is Church Slavonic for "into which / with what": «ню» is an old accusative-feminine pronoun (= modern «её/ту»), and «же» the relativizing particle. Modern Russian must paraphrase it «в ту меру, в которую» — exactly as the lawyer does in the same breath.

Как же винить детей, если они нам меряют в нашу меру?  
How, then, are we to blame our children, if they mete out to us in our own measure?
> Deliberative infinitive + «же»; conditional «если»: «Как же винить?» is a deliberative infinitive question ("how, then, are we to blame?") with insistent «же». The «если»-clause states a real condition (indicative «меряют»), not an unreal one — hence no «бы». «В нашу меру» = «в» + accusative for the measure meted.

Недавно в Финляндии одна девица, служанка, была заподозрена, что она тайно родила ребенка.  
Not long ago in Finland a certain young woman, a servant, was suspected of having secretly given birth to a child.
> Short passive participle + «что»-clause: «Была заподозрена» is a periphrastic passive: «была» + the short past passive participle of «заподозрить» (to suspect) — "was suspected." It is followed unusually by a «что»-clause spelling out the suspicion. «Родила» is perfective: the single completed act of giving birth.
> «девица» and «служанка»: «Девица» is an older, slightly formal word for an unmarried young woman/maiden; «одна» here means "a certain" (introducing a new figure), not "one." «Служанка» is a (female) servant or maid — her low station is central to the cautionary anecdote Fetyukovich is about to tell.

Стали следить за нею и на чердаке дома, в углу за кирпичами, нашли ее сундук, про который никто не знал, его отперли и вынули из него трупик новорожденного и убитого ею младенца.  
They began to watch her, and in the attic of the house, in a corner behind the bricks, they found her trunk, which no one had known of; they unlocked it and drew out the little corpse of a newborn infant she had killed.
> «стать» + imperfective infinitive = 'began to': The perfective past «стали» here is a phasal auxiliary: «стать» plus an imperfective infinitive («следить») means 'began / set about doing'. The whole sentence then chains perfective events — «нашли… отперли… вынули» — against this inceptive opening.
> «который» relative clause with negative concord: «который» agrees with «сундук» in gender/number but takes its own case as object of «про». Note the obligatory double negative «никто… не знал» — negative concord, where «не» on the verb is required even beside «никто».
> «трупик» — the diminutive of «труп»: «труп» is 'corpse'; the suffix -ик shrinks it to 'little corpse'. Here the diminutive is not cute but unbearably pitying — Dostoevsky uses it of the murdered newborn to wring the heart of the jury.
> Past passive participle + instrumental of agent: «убитого» is a long-form past passive participle ('killed'), declined to agree with «младенца» in the genitive. Its agent stands in the instrumental — «ею» ('by her') — the standard way Russian names who did the deed in a participial phrase.

В том же сундуке нашли два скелета уже рожденных прежде ею младенцев и ею же убитых в минуту рождения, в чем она и повинилась.  
In the same trunk they found the skeletons of two more infants she had borne earlier and likewise killed at the moment of birth, which she confessed to.
> Emphatic «же» pinning the agent: The particle «же» here is not the conjunction but an emphatic clitic glued to «ею» — 'by her, the very same one'. It insists that the same woman both bore and killed the infants, sharpening the horror Fetyukovich (the defence counsel) is conjuring for the jury.
> Stacked participial modifiers: «рожденных… убитых» are two coordinated past passive participles modifying «младенцев», all in the genitive plural. Packing two participial phrases onto one noun is a hallmark of bookish 19th-century syntax.
> Reflexive «-ся» verb of confession: «повиниться» ('to confess one's guilt') exists only in the «-ся» form. The «и» before it is the emphatic particle 'indeed', and «в чём» ('to which') links back to the whole crime as the object of the prepositional «в».

Господа присяжные, это ли мать детей своих?  
Gentlemen of the jury, is this a mother to her children?
> Rhetorical question with «ли»: The interrogative particle «ли» fronts the focused word «это» to form a rhetorical yes/no question — 'is THIS a mother?'. The reflexive possessive «своих» ('her own') ties the children back to the clause's implied subject.

Да, она их родила, но мать ли она им?  
Yes, she gave birth to them — but is she a mother to them?
> «ли» again, with dative «им»: A second «ли» question balances the first sentence. «им» is the dative — 'a mother TO them' — the dative of the person to whom a relation holds, contrasting the biological act «родила» with the relational claim.

Осмелится ли кто из нас произнести над ней священное имя матери?  
Would any one of us dare to pronounce over her the sacred name of mother?
> Perfective future + «ли» = 'would anyone dare': «осмелится» is the simple (perfective) future of «осмелиться» — conjugated like a present but future in sense — wrapped in a «ли» rhetorical question. «кто из нас» is the partitive 'who among us'.
> «произнести над» — to pronounce over: «произнести над кем-то» evokes the language of ritual — words spoken over a person, as in a blessing or sacrament. Paired with «священное имя матери» ('the sacred name of mother'), it lifts motherhood to something liturgical.

Будем смелы, господа присяжные, будем дерзки даже, мы даже обязаны быть таковыми в настоящую минуту и не бояться иных слов и идей, подобно московским купчихам, боящимся „металла“ и „жупела“.  
Let us be bold, gentlemen of the jury, let us be daring even — indeed we are bound to be so at this very moment, and not to fear certain words and ideas, like the Moscow merchants' wives who dread the 'metal' and the 'bugbear.'
> Hortatory compound future as exhortation: «будем» + short adjective is a first-person-plural call to action ('let us be bold'). «смелы» and «дерзки» are short-form adjectives — the predicative form that carries this absolute, declarative ring in elevated prose.
> Predicate instrumental «таковыми»: After «быть» the predicate stands in the instrumental: «таковыми» ('such') is the instrumental plural of the bookish demonstrative «таковой». The pattern names an assumed role or quality rather than a fixed identity.
> Present active participle of «бояться»: «боящимся» is the present active participle of the reflexive «бояться» ('to fear'), agreeing with «купчихам» in the dative plural and itself governing the genitive «металла» that fear demands. It compresses a «которые боятся» clause into one word.

Нет, докажем, напротив, что прогресс последних лет коснулся и нашего развития и скажем прямо: родивший не есть еще отец, а отец есть — родивший и заслуживший.  
No — let us prove, on the contrary, that the progress of recent years has touched our development too, and let us say plainly: the one who begets is not yet a father; a father is the one who begets and earns the name.
> Hortatory perfective + «что»-clause: «докажем» ('let us prove') is again a 1pl perfective future used as an exhortation, opening a «что»-clause of reported fact. «коснулся» governs the genitive «развития» — «коснуться» ('to touch upon') always takes the genitive.
> Substantivized participle + the copula «есть»: «родивший» ('the one who has begotten') is a past active participle used as a noun — the begetter. The overt present-tense copula «есть» ('is'), normally dropped in Russian, is retained here for aphoristic, almost legal solemnity: 'the begetter is not yet a father'.

О, конечно, есть и другое значение, другое толкование слова „отец“, требующее, чтоб отец мой, хотя бы и изверг, хотя бы и злодей своим детям, оставался бы все-таки моим отцом, потому только, что он родил меня.  
Oh, of course there is another meaning too, another reading of the word 'father,' one that demands that my father — though he be a fiend, though he be a villain to his children — should remain my father all the same, simply because he begot me.
> «чтобы» of demand with doubled «бы»: «требующее» (present active participle of «требовать») opens a «чтоб»-clause of demand, which takes the irrealis past-form verb. Note the redundant extra «бы» on «оставался бы» — a colloquial reinforcement of the «чтоб» that already contains «бы».
> Concessive «хотя бы» — 'even if': «хотя бы» with «и» builds a concessive 'though he be / even were he' — the «бы» making it hypothetical. The pair «изверг» / «злодей» ('monster' / 'villain') are bare predicate nouns in the nominative after an elided copula.
> «изверг» — a monster, a fiend: A strong word: literally 'one cast out (of nature)', «изверг» means a brute or fiend, someone outside humanity. It is the harshest of the chapter's escalating epithets for the unworthy father.

Но это значение уже, так сказать, мистическое, которое я не понимаю умом, а могу принять лишь верой, или, вернее сказать, на веру, подобно многому другому, чего не понимаю, но чему религия повелевает мне, однако же, верить.  
But this meaning is already, so to speak, a mystical one, which I cannot grasp with my reason but can accept only on faith, or, more exactly, take on trust — like much else that I do not understand, but that religion nonetheless commands me to believe.
> Instrumental of means «умом»… «верой»: «умом» ('with the reason') and «верой» ('by faith') are instrumentals of means — the faculty through which one apprehends. The contrastive «а» pivots between them: not by intellect but by faith.
> Genitive of negation and dative government: After negated «не понимаю», the object slides into the genitive «чего» (genitive of negation). Then «чему» is dative because «верить» ('to believe in') governs the dative, while «повелевает мне» also takes a dative — 'commands me'.
> «верой» vs «на веру»: A deliberate near-pun: «принять верой» is 'to accept by faith', while «принять на веру» is the idiom 'to take on trust', sight unseen. The speaker corrects himself to the more skeptical second phrasing.

Но в таком случае это пусть и останется вне области действительной жизни.  
But in that case let it stay outside the realm of actual life.
> «пусть» + perfective future as a concession: «пусть» plus a 3rd-person perfective future («останется») forms a third-person imperative / concession — 'let it remain'. «вне» governs the genitive «области действительной жизни» ('outside the realm of actual life').

В области же действительной жизни, которая имеет не только свои права, но и сама налагает великие обязанности, — в этой области мы, если хотим быть гуманными, христианами наконец, мы должны и обязаны проводить убеждения, лишь оправданные рассудком и опытом, проведенные чрез горнило анализа, словом, действовать разумно, а не безумно, как во сне и в бреду, чтобы не нанести вреда человеку, чтобы не измучить и не погубить человека.  
But in the realm of actual life — which has not only its rights, but itself imposes great obligations — in this realm we, if we wish to be humane, to be Christians at last, we must and are bound to be guided by convictions that have been justified by reason and experience, that have passed through the crucible of analysis: in a word, to act sensibly and not senselessly, as in a dream or a delirium, so as to do no harm to a human being, so as not to torment and destroy him.
> Topic fronting with resumptive repetition: The prepositional phrase «в области… действительной жизни» is fronted as the topic, then resumed by «в этой области» after a long parenthesis — a classic topic-comment structure that lets the heavy modifier breathe before the main clause arrives. The «же» marks the contrastive shift of topic.
> Chained past passive participles: Two past passive participles, «оправданные» ('justified') and «проведенные» ('passed through'), modify «убеждения» in parallel. This dense participial layering, plus the bookish «чрез» (for «через»), is high oratorical style.
> Purpose «чтобы» with genitive of negation: The «чтобы» purpose clauses take the perfective infinitive. Under the negated «не нанести», the object «вреда» appears in the genitive (genitive of negation), the natural case for a harm one seeks to avoid.
> «горнило» — the crucible / furnace: An elevated, almost Biblical word for a smith's furnace or refining crucible. «горнило анализа» — 'the crucible of analysis' — casts cold reason as a purifying fire, the rhetorical centerpiece of the sentence.

Вот, вот тогда это и будет настоящим христианским делом, не мистическим только, а разумным и уже истинно человеколюбивым делом…»  
There — there, then, will it be a truly Christian work, not merely a mystical one, but a reasonable and genuinely humane work…"
> Predicate instrumental after future «быть»: After the future «будет», the predicate noun phrase goes into the instrumental: «настоящим христианским делом» ('a truly Christian work'). This is the regular rule — a complement of «быть» in the future or past takes the instrumental, not the nominative.
> «человеколюбивый» — loving of mankind: A compound of «человек» (man) + «любить» (to love), 'philanthropic, humane'. The noun «человеколюбие» is itself faintly Church-Slavonic in shape and a key value-word in the novel's debate about Christian love.

В этом месте сорвались было сильные рукоплескания из многих концов залы, но Фетюкович даже замахал руками, как бы умоляя не прерывать и чтобы дали ему договорить.  
At this point loud applause broke out in many parts of the hall, but Fetyukovich even waved his hands, as though imploring them not to interrupt and to let him finish.
> The particle «было» of an interrupted action: «было» after a perfective past marks an action that started or nearly happened but was cut off — 'applause broke out (but was checked)'. It perfectly suits the scene: the clapping begins and Fetyukovich waves it down.
> Imperfective gerund «умоляя»: «умоляя» is the present (imperfective) gerund of «умолять» ('imploring'), expressing a simultaneous attendant action shared with the main subject Fetyukovich. The «как бы» ('as though') softens it to a semblance.

Всё тотчас затихло.  
Everything fell silent at once.
> Inceptive perfective «затихло»: The prefix за- on «затихнуть» gives the perfective sense of entering a state — 'fell silent / went quiet'. The neuter «всё… затихло» treats the whole hall as a single mass.

Оратор продолжал:  
The orator went on:
> «оратор» — the orator: Throughout the courtroom chapters Fetyukovich is repeatedly named «оратор» ('orator, speaker'), a word that frames his speech as a feat of rhetoric. The imperfective «продолжал» ('went on') suits resumed, ongoing speech.

«Думаете ли вы, господа присяжные, что такие вопросы могут миновать детей наших, положим, уже юношей, положим, уже начинающих рассуждать?  
"Do you suppose, gentlemen of the jury, that such questions can pass our children by — once they have grown, let us say, into youths, once they have begun, let us say, to reason?
> «ли» question opening a «что»-clause: «Думаете ли вы» is the polite, literary way to frame a yes/no question with «ли», here introducing an embedded «что»-clause. «миновать детей» — 'to pass the children by' — takes a direct object.
> «положим» as a parenthetical 'let us say': «положим» (1pl perfective future of «положить», used idiomatically) means 'let us suppose / say'. «начинающих рассуждать» is a present active participle modifying «юношей» ('youths who are beginning to reason'), in the accusative-of-animate matching «детей».

Нет, не могут, и не будем спрашивать от них невозможного воздержания!  
No, they cannot, and let us not demand of them an impossible abstinence!
> Negated imperfective future + genitive of negation: «не будем спрашивать» is the negated compound (imperfective) future — a 1pl exhortation 'let us not demand'. The negated abstract object «невозможного воздержания» takes the genitive (genitive of negation).

Вид отца недостойного, особенно сравнительно с отцами другими, достойными, у других детей, его сверстников, невольно подсказывает юноше вопросы мучительные.  
The sight of an unworthy father, especially by comparison with the worthy fathers of other children, his own peers, involuntarily prompts in the youth tormenting questions.
> Dative recipient «юноше»: «подсказывать» ('to prompt, suggest to') governs a dative of the person — «юноше» ('to the youth') — and an accusative of the thing prompted, «вопросы мучительные». The heavy subject «вид отца недостойного…» is fronted, with the verb arriving late.
> Postposed adjective for weight: Placing «мучительные» ('tormenting') after its noun «вопросы», rather than before, is a marked, literary inversion that gives the adjective rhetorical emphasis — the questions are, above all, tormenting.

Ему по-казенному отвечают на эти вопросы: „Он родил тебя, и ты кровь его, а потому ты и должен любить его“.  
To these questions he is given the stock official answer: 'He begot you, and you are his blood, and therefore you must love him.'
> Impersonal third-plural 'they answer': An unspecified-subject 3pl («отвечают») with the dative «ему» is Russian's way of saying 'he is answered / one answers him'. «по-казенному» is an adverb 'in an official, bureaucratic manner'.
> «казенный» — official, governmental, formulaic: From «казна» (the state treasury), «казенный» means 'belonging to the state' and, by extension, 'stock, rote, soullessly official'. The adverb «по-казенному» dismisses the pious answer as a hollow formula.

Юноша невольно задумывается: „Да разве он любил меня, когда рождал, — спрашивает он, удивляясь всё более и более, — разве для меня он родил меня: он не знал ни меня, ни даже пола моего в ту минуту, в минуту страсти, может быть разгоряченной вином, и только разве передал мне склонность к пьянству — вот все его благодеяния… Зачем же я должен любить его, за то только, что он родил меня, а потом всю жизнь не любил меня?“  
The youth involuntarily falls to thinking: 'But did he love me when he begot me,' he asks, wondering more and more, 'did he beget me for my sake? He knew neither me nor even my sex at that moment, the moment of passion, perhaps heated by wine, and he passed on to me only a leaning toward drink — that is the sum of his benefactions… Why, then, must I love him, merely because he begot me and then went his whole life without loving me?'
> «разве» of incredulous challenge + imperfective: «разве» introduces a question expecting the answer 'no' — 'did he REALLY love me?'. Both «любил» and «рождал» are imperfective pasts, viewing the loving and the begetting as states/processes, not points.
> Imperfective gerund «удивляясь»: The present gerund of «удивляться» ('wondering, growing astonished') describes an action running alongside «спрашивает». «всё более и более» ('more and more') is a stock intensifying comparative phrase.
> Correlative «ни… ни» with genitive of negation: «ни… ни» ('neither… nor') intensifies the negation «не знал», and its objects drop into the genitive: «ни меня, ни… пола моего» (genitive of negation). The double «ни» is negative concord par excellence.
> «благодеяния» — 'benefactions', bitterly ironic: «благодеяние» ('good deed, benefaction') is an elevated, almost ledger-of-virtues word; here it is savagely ironic — the only 'gift' the father passed down is «склонность к пьянству», a leaning to drink.

О, вам, может быть, представляются эти вопросы грубыми, жестокими, но не требуйте же от юного ума воздержания невозможного: „Гони природу в дверь, она влетит в окно“, — а главное, главное, не будем бояться „металла“ и „жупела“ и решим вопрос так, как предписывает разум и человеколюбие, а не так, как предписывают мистические понятия.  
Oh, these questions may strike you, perhaps, as coarse and cruel; but do not demand of a young mind an impossible abstinence: 'Drive nature out the door, and it will fly in at the window' — and above all, above all, let us not fear the 'metal' and the 'bugbear,' but settle the question as reason and love of mankind prescribe, and not as mystical notions prescribe.
> Dative experiencer + instrumental predicate: «представляться» ('to seem') takes a dative experiencer («вам», 'to you') while the quality seemed takes the instrumental: «грубыми, жестокими» ('coarse, cruel'). A neat double-case impersonal feel — they seem so TO you.
> Negative imperative with insistent «же»: «не требуйте» is the plural imperative of «требовать», and the negated object «воздержания невозможного» stands in the genitive (genitive of negation). The particle «же» adds urgent insistence — 'do NOT demand…'.
> A proverb of nature's return: 'Drive nature out the door and it flies in at the window' — a saying (ultimately from Destouches/Horace, widely current in Russian) meaning nature cannot be suppressed. «Гони» is the imperative of «гнать», «влетит» the perfective future 'will fly in'.

Как же решить его?  
How, then, is it to be settled?
> Infinitive question with modal «же»: A bare perfective infinitive «решить» in a question expresses deliberation — 'how is one to settle it?'. «же» colours it with rhetorical engagement, almost 'how on earth then…'.

А вот как: пусть сын станет пред отцом своим и осмысленно спросит его самого: „Отец, скажи мне: для чего я должен любить тебя?  
Why, like this: let the son stand before his father and ask him, with full understanding: 'Father, tell me — why must I love you?
> Third-person imperative «пусть» + perfective: «пусть» plus the perfective future «станет» forms the 3rd-person imperative 'let the son stand'. «пред» is the bookish/archaic form of «перед» ('before'), governing the instrumental «отцом своим».
> Intensive «сам» — 'him himself': «его самого» pairs the object pronoun with the intensifier «сам» in the accusative, 'ask him himself / the man himself'. The adverb «осмысленно» means 'with full understanding, knowingly'.

Отец, докажи мне, что я должен любить тебя?“ — и если этот отец в силах и в состоянии будет ответить и доказать ему, — то вот и настоящая нормальная семья, не на предрассудке лишь мистическом утверждающаяся, а на основаниях разумных, самоотчетных и строго гуманных.  
Father, prove to me that I must love you' — and if this father has it in his power and is able to answer and prove it to him, then there you have a real, normal family, resting not on mere mystical prejudice but on grounds that are reasonable, self-accountable, and strictly humane.
> Conditional «если» with split future: A real (not irrealis) condition with «если». The idioms «в силах» and «в состоянии» ('has the power / is able') take the future copula «будет» of «быть» ('will be able / in a position'); «ответить и доказать» are dependent perfective infinitives complementing the idiom, not a compound future (which would be «быть» + an imperfective infinitive).
> Contrastive «не… а» with prepositional: «не… а» ('not… but') sets the false ground against the true one, both in the prepositional after «на» («предрассудке» / «основаниях»). The reflexive participle «утверждающаяся» ('resting upon') governs «на».
> «самоотчетный» — self-accountable: A rare compound (само- 'self' + «отчет» 'account/report') meaning 'answerable to oneself, rationally self-justifying'. It belongs to the chapter's vocabulary of reason replacing inherited authority.

В противном случае, если не докажет отец, — конец тотчас же этой семье: он не отец ему, а сын получает свободу и право впредь считать отца своего за чужого себе и даже врагом своим.  
In the contrary case, if the father cannot prove it, that family is at an end on the instant: he is no father to him, and the son gains the freedom and the right henceforth to regard his father as a stranger to him, and even as his enemy.
> Negated zero-copula predicate + dative: With no copula in the present, «он не отец ему» negates the predicate noun directly — 'he is no father to him'. «ему» is the dative of relation: a father TO him.
> «считать за» vs «считать» + instrumental: Two ways to say 'regard as' sit side by side: «считать за чужого» (за + accusative) and «считать… врагом своим» (bare instrumental). Both express the predicate of «считать», a vivid display of its dual government.

Наша трибуна, господа присяжные, должна быть школой истины и здравых понятий!»  
Our tribune, gentlemen of the jury, must be a school of truth and of sound ideas!"
> Predicate instrumental after «быть»: After «должна быть» the predicate noun «школой» goes to the instrumental ('must be a school'), governing the genitives «истины и здравых понятий» that follow.

Здесь оратор был прерван рукоплесканиями неудержимыми, почти исступленными.  
Here the orator was cut short by applause that could not be held back, applause almost frenzied.
> Periphrastic passive + instrumental agent: «был прерван» is the past passive (short participle of «прервать» + «был») — 'was interrupted'. The agent / means stands in the instrumental: «рукоплесканиями» ('by applause').
> «исступленный» — frenzied, ecstatic: «исступление» is a state of being beside oneself — frenzy, rapture, ecstasy. The applause is «почти исступленными» ('almost frenzied'), a word Dostoevsky loves for crowds and souls pushed past control.

Конечно, аплодировала не вся зала, но половина-то залы все-таки аплодировала.  
Of course it was not the whole hall that applauded, but a good half of the hall applauded all the same.
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «половина» highlights a known topic — 'a good half, mind you, of the hall'. This is the topic-marking «-то», distinct from the indefinite «-то» of «кто-то».

Аплодировали отцы и матери.  
Fathers and mothers applauded.
> Verb-first word order for new information: Putting the imperfective «аплодировали» before its subject «отцы и матери» throws the weight onto WHO applauded — the new, telling information that fathers and mothers cheered the demolition of fatherhood.

Сверху, где сидели дамы, слышались визги и крики.  
From above, where the ladies were seated, came shrieks and cries.
> Reflexive «-ся» as impersonal/passive 'were heard': «слышаться» (the «-ся» form of «слышать») means 'to be heard, to be audible'. Here it is intransitive/middle: «слышались визги» — 'shrieks were heard / came', with the verb fronted before its subjects.

Махали платками.  
They waved their handkerchiefs.
> Subjectless imperfective + instrumental object: A bare 3pl «махали» with no subject ('they / people waved'). «махать» governs the instrumental of the thing waved — «платками» ('with handkerchiefs'), the instrumental of means.

Председатель изо всей силы начал звонить в колокольчик.  
The presiding judge began ringing his little bell with all his might.
> «начать» + imperfective infinitive; «звонить в»: «начал» (phasal 'began') requires the imperfective infinitive «звонить». «звонить в колокольчик» uses «в» + accusative — one rings INTO a bell. «изо всей силы» is the idiom 'with all one's might'.
> «колокольчик» — the little bell: A diminutive of «колокол» (bell): the small hand-bell the presiding judge rings for order. The diminutive «-чик» here simply marks the object's small size, not affection.

Он был видимо раздражен поведением залы, но «очистить» залу, как угрожал недавно, решительно не посмел: аплодировали и махали платками оратору даже сзади сидевшие на особых стульях сановные лица, старички со звездами на фраках, так что, когда угомонился шум, председатель удовольствовался лишь прежним строжайшим обещанием «очистить» залу, а торжествующий и взволнованный Фетюкович стал опять продолжать свою речь.  
He was plainly vexed by the conduct of the hall, but he simply did not dare to 'clear' it, as he had threatened to do not long before: applauding and waving their handkerchiefs at the orator were even the dignitaries of rank seated behind, in the special chairs — old men with stars on their dress coats — so that, when the noise had subsided, the presiding judge contented himself merely with his former most severe promise to 'clear' the hall, and Fetyukovich, triumphant and stirred, set about resuming his speech.
> Short passive participle + instrumental cause: «раздражен» is the short past passive participle ('vexed, irritated'), joined to «был» for a stative passive. The cause/agent takes the instrumental: «поведением залы» ('by the conduct of the hall').
> Perfective «посметь» under negation: «не посмел» is the negated perfective past of «посметь» ('to dare') — 'he simply did not dare'. The perfective frames it as a single, decisive non-act; «решительно» reinforces 'flatly, decidedly'.
> Past active participle «сидевшие»: «сидевшие» (past active participle of «сидеть») modifies «сановные лица» — 'the dignitaries who were sitting behind'. The participle, with its adverb «сзади», compresses a relative clause into the noun phrase.
> «угомониться» — to quiet down, settle: A colloquial perfective «-ся» verb meaning 'to calm down, grow still' (of noise or unruly people). «когда угомонился шум» — 'when the noise had settled down'.

«Господа присяжные заседатели, вы помните ту страшную ночь, о которой так много еще сегодня говорили, когда сын, через забор, проник в дом отца и стал наконец лицом к лицу с своим, родившим его, врагом и обидчиком.  
"Gentlemen of the jury, you remember that fearful night, of which so much has been said again today, when the son, climbing over the fence, made his way into his father's house and stood at last face to face with the man who had begotten him — his enemy and his offender.
> Past active participle inside an instrumental phrase: The whole phrase after «с» is instrumental (after «с» 'with'): «с… врагом», and embedded in it is the past active participle «родившим» ('who had begotten'), agreeing in the instrumental with «врагом». A dense, layered modifier typical of the oration.
> Prefixed perfective «проникнуть» of penetration: «проник» (perfective past of «проникнуть») 'made his way in, penetrated', here through «через забор» ('over the fence', «через» + accusative). The perfective marks the single completed entry into «дом отца».

Изо всех сил настаиваю — не за деньгами он прибежал в ту минуту: обвинение в грабеже есть нелепость, как я уже и изложил прежде.  
With all my strength I insist — it was not for money that he came running at that moment: the charge of robbery is an absurdity, as I have already set forth before.
> Fronted negation «не за деньгами»: The negation attaches not to the verb but to the phrase «за деньгами» ('for money', за + instrumental of purpose), fronted for contrast — 'it was NOT for money that he came running'. «прибежал» is prefixed perfective 'came running'.
> Retained copula «есть» in a definition: The overt «есть» ('is') in a present-tense equation is bookish and emphatic, lending the statement the weight of a thesis: 'the charge of robbery IS an absurdity'. «обвинение в грабеже» uses «в» + prepositional for the charge's content.

И не убить, о нет, вломился он к нему; если б имел преднамеренно этот умысел, то озаботился бы по крайней мере заранее хоть оружием, а медный пест он схватил инстинктивно, сам не зная зачем.  
Nor was it to kill — oh no — that he broke in upon him; had he harbored this design beforehand, he would at the least have seen to a weapon in advance, but the brass pestle he snatched up by instinct, without himself knowing why.
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы»: An irrealis 'if… then' built on past-tense forms plus «бы» (here clipped to «б»): «если б имел… то озаботился бы» — 'had he had the design, he would have seen to…'. This is the standard contrary-to-fact construction.
> Negated imperfective gerund «не зная»: «не зная» is the present gerund of «знать» under negation — 'not knowing', a simultaneous circumstance of «схватил». «сам» intensifies: 'he himself not knowing why'.
> «пест» — the brass pestle: «пест» is a pestle, the heavy club for a mortar («ступа»); «медный» 'made of copper/brass'. This «роковой пест» (fatal pestle) is the murder weapon, a recurring object in the trial chapters.

Пусть он обманул отца знаками, пусть он проник к нему — я сказал уже, что ни на одну минуту не верю этой легенде, но пусть, так и быть, предположим ее на одну минуту!  
Let us grant that he deceived his father with the signals, let us grant that he made his way in to him — I have already said that I do not for a single moment believe this legend, but let it be, so be it, let us suppose it for one moment!
> Concessive «пусть» with the past tense: «пусть» plus a past-tense verb concedes a point for argument — 'granted that he deceived… granted that he made his way in'. It is the rhetorical 'let us suppose', not a command here.
> Hortative perfective «предположим»: «предположим» (1pl perfective future of «предположить») works as 'let us suppose'. The fixed phrase «так и быть» means 'so be it, very well then', conceding grudgingly.

Господа присяжные, клянусь вам всем, что есть свято, будь это не отец ему, а посторонний обидчик, он, пробежав по комнатам и удостоверясь, что этой женщины нет в этом доме, он убежал бы стремглав, не сделав сопернику своему никакого вреда, ударил бы, толкнул его, может быть, но и только, ибо ему было не до того, ему было некогда, ему надо было знать, где она.  
Gentlemen of the jury, I swear to you by all that is holy: had this been no father to him but some stranger who had wronged him, then, having run through the rooms and made sure that the woman was not in that house, he would have rushed away headlong, doing his rival no harm whatever; he might have struck him, shoved him, perhaps — but no more, for he had no thought to spare for it, no time; what he needed was to know where she was.
> Reflexive «клясться» + instrumental of oath: «клянусь» (1sg of the «-ся» verb «клясться» 'to swear') governs the instrumental of what one swears by: «всем, что есть свято» ('by all that is holy'). The dative «вам» names the addressee.
> «будь» — imperative-as-conditional: The bare imperative «будь» ('were it') stands in for «если бы это был» — an idiomatic conditional, 'had this been not his father but some stranger'. The «не… а» contrast pivots between father and outsider.
> Chained perfective gerunds before a conditional: Two perfective past gerunds, «пробежав» ('having run through') and «удостоверясь» ('having made sure'), stack up the prior actions before the main «убежал бы» (conditional 'would have fled'). «удостоверясь» governs «что»-clause content.
> Dative-subject impersonals «было не до того», «некогда»: Two subjectless impersonals with the dative experiencer «ему»: «не до того» ('he had no thought to spare for it') and «некогда» ('there was no time'). Both frame Mitya's state with no nominative subject — the dative bears the feeling.

Но отец, отец — о, всё сделал лишь вид отца, его ненавистника с детства, его врага, его обидчика, а теперь — чудовищного соперника!  
But the father, the father — oh, the mere sight of the father did it all: the father who had hated him from childhood, his enemy, his offender, and now — his monstrous rival!
> Appositive chain in the nominative: «вид отца» ('the sight of the father') is the subject of «сделал» ('did it all'), then expanded by a trailing appositive chain — «его ненавистника… его врага… соперника» — each phrase reframing the father with rising fury.
> «ненавистник» — one who hates: From «ненавидеть» ('to hate'), «ненавистник» is the agent noun 'a hater'. «его ненавистника с детства» — 'his hater from childhood' — the father is cast not merely as hated but as the active hater.

Ненавистное чувство охватило его невольно, неудержимо, рассуждать нельзя было: всё поднялось в одну минуту!  
A feeling of hatred seized him involuntarily, irresistibly; there was no reasoning to be done: everything rose up in a single moment!
> Impersonal «нельзя» + infinitive: «нельзя было» plus the imperfective infinitive «рассуждать» is the impersonal 'there was no reasoning to be done / one could not reason'. No subject — the impossibility is stated of the moment itself.
> Reflexive «подняться» of surging emotion: «поднялось» (perfective past of the «-ся» verb «подняться») is the middle 'rose up, surged'. «всё» as a neuter mass subject — 'everything rose up at once' — captures the instantaneous flood.

Это был аффект безумства и помешательства, но и аффект природы, мстящей за свои вечные законы безудержно и бессознательно, как и всё в природе.  
It was the seizure of madness and derangement, but also the seizure of nature, avenging its eternal laws unrestrainedly and unconsciously, as all things do in nature.
> Present active participle «мстящей»: «мстящей» (present active participle of «мстить» 'to avenge') agrees with «природы» in the genitive — 'nature avenging its eternal laws'. «мстить за» takes «за» + accusative for what is avenged. «свои» is the reflexive possessive, nature's own laws.

Но убийца и тут не убил — я утверждаю это, я кричу про это — нет, он лишь махнул пестом в омерзительном негодовании, не желая убить, не зная, что убьет.  
But even then the killer did not kill — I assert this, I cry it aloud — no, he merely swung the pestle in his sickened indignation, not wishing to kill, not knowing that he would kill.
> Paradoxical cognate negation: «убийца… не убил» — 'the killer did not kill' — yokes the agent noun «убийца» (from «убить») to its own negated verb, a deliberate paradox. The «и тут» means 'even here, even then'.
> Parallel negated gerunds + perfective future: Two present gerunds, «не желая» and «не зная», describe attendant states of «махнул». The embedded «что убьет» uses the perfective future («убьет», 'that he would kill') for a single completed future-in-the-past event.

Не будь этого рокового песта в руках его, и он бы только избил отца, может быть, но не убил бы его.  
Had that fatal pestle not been in his hand, he would only have beaten his father, perhaps, but he would not have killed him.
> Negated «будь» as counterfactual condition: «не будь» + genitive «этого рокового песта» means 'had this fatal pestle not been (there)' — a counterfactual condition (with genitive of negation for the absent thing). The result clause «он бы… избил» uses «бы» for the unrealized outcome.

Убежав, он не знал, убит ли поверженный им старик.  
As he fled, he did not know whether the old man he had struck down was dead.
> Perfective gerund + embedded «ли»: «Убежав» (perfective gerund, 'having fled') opens the sentence with a prior action. The embedded indirect question uses «ли» for 'whether': «убит ли… старик» — 'whether the old man was killed', with short passive participle «убит».
> Past passive participle «поверженный»: «поверженный» ('struck down, laid low', a bookish participle of «повергнуть») modifies «старик», with its agent «им» in the instrumental — 'the old man struck down BY him'.

Такое убийство не есть убийство.  
Such a killing is no murder.
> Negated copula «не есть» in a maxim: The overt negated present copula «не есть» gives a defiant, definitional ring: 'such a killing IS not a killing'. The retained «есть» (normally omitted) makes this one of three drum-beat sentences (s105–107) pronouncing a thesis.

Такое убийство не есть и отцеубийство.  
Such a killing is no parricide either.
> «отцеубийство» — parricide: A compound of «отец» (father) + «убить» (to kill): the killing of one's father, the gravest crime at the novel's center. The whole speech labors to deny that this word can attach to Mitya's act.

Нет, убийство такого отца не может быть названо отцеубийством.  
No, the killing of such a father cannot be called parricide.
> Passive infinitive + predicate instrumental: «не может быть названо» is a passive ('cannot be called', short participle «названо» + «быть»), and what it is called takes the instrumental: «отцеубийством». Combine modal «не может», passive, and the predicate-instrumental rule in one phrase.

Такое убийство может быть причтено к отцеубийству лишь по предрассудку!  
Such a killing can be reckoned parricide only by prejudice!
> Passive «причтено» + dative «к»; «по предрассудку»: «причтено» (short past passive of «причесть» 'to reckon, count') joins «быть» in a passive; «к отцеубийству» uses «к» + dative for 'reckoned TO parricide'. «по предрассудку» ('out of prejudice') uses «по» + dative of cause.
> «причесть» — to reckon, to count among: A bookish, slightly archaic verb «причесть/причитать к» ('to count toward, ascribe to'). Its formal weight suits the oratorical register, casting parricide as a mere bookkeeping label imposed «по предрассудку».

Но было ли, было ли это убийство в самом деле, взываю я к вам снова и снова из глубины души моей!  
But was there — was there really a murder at all? — I appeal to you again and again, from the depths of my soul!
> Reduplicated «было ли» of urgent doubt: The yes/no «ли» question is doubled — «было ли, было ли» — for emotional insistence, 'was there, was there really…'. Repetition under «ли» is a favorite device of Fetyukovich's pleading.
> «взывать к» + dative; genitive after «из»: «взываю к вам» ('I appeal to you') governs «к» + dative. «из глубины души моей» nests genitives after «из» ('from the depths of my soul'). Inverting «взываю я» (verb before pronoun) heightens the rhetorical pitch.

Господа присяжные, вот мы осудим его, и он скажет себе: „Эти люди ничего не сделали для судьбы моей, для воспитания, для образования моего, чтобы сделать меня лучшим, чтобы сделать меня человеком.  
Gentlemen of the jury, here we shall condemn him, and he will say to himself: 'These people did nothing for my fate, for my rearing, for my education, to make me better, to make me a man.
> Perfective futures with reflexive «себе»: Both «осудим» ('we shall condemn') and «скажет» ('he will say') are perfective futures of single completed acts. «скажет себе» uses the reflexive dative «себе» ('to himself'), the subject's own person.
> Purpose «чтобы» + predicate instrumental: «чтобы сделать» (purpose + perfective infinitive) is followed by predicate instrumentals on the object: «сделать меня лучшим… человеком» — 'to make me better… a man'. After «сделать кого кем», the resulting quality goes to the instrumental.

Эти люди не накормили и не напоили меня, и в темнице нагого не посетили, и вот они же сослали меня в каторгу.  
These people did not feed me and did not give me drink, and naked in prison they did not visit me — and now these same people have sent me away to penal servitude.
> Emphatic «же» + perfective «сослали»: «они же» — 'these very same people' — the insistent «же». «сослали» (perfective of «сослать» 'to exile, send to penal servitude') governs «в каторгу» (в + accusative of destination).

Я сквитался, я ничего им теперь не должен и никому не должен во веки веков.  
I am quits with them; I owe them nothing now, and owe no one anything for ever and ever.
> Negative concord with dative «никому»: «никому… не должен» — 'owe no one' — the negative pronoun «никому» (dative) plus obligatory «не», a textbook double negative. «должен» (be obligated) takes a dative of the creditor.
> «сквитаться» and «во веки веков»: «сквитаться» (colloquial «-ся» perfective) means 'to be quits, square accounts'. «во веки веков» is the Church-Slavonic liturgical 'for ever and ever' (the close of prayers) — its sacred ring jars against the bookkeeping of «сквитался».

Они злы, и я буду зол.  
They are wicked, and I shall be wicked.
> Short adjective «злы» / «зол» as predicate: «злы» (short plural) and «зол» (short masculine) are predicative short forms of «злой» ('wicked, evil'), stating an absolute condition. The compound future «буду зол» pairs «быть» with the adjective for 'I shall be wicked'.

Они жестоки, и я буду жесток“.  
They are cruel, and I shall be cruel.'
> Parallel short adjective + compound future: Mirroring the previous sentence: short forms «жестоки» / «жесток» ('cruel') in absolute predication, then «буду жесток» (imperfective future of being). The deliberate symmetry of s113–114 makes the threat ring like a refrain.

Вот что он скажет, господа присяжные!  
That is what he will say, gentlemen of the jury!
> Correlative «вот что» fronting the comment: «вот что он скажет» ('that is what he will say') uses «что» as a free relative after «вот», fronting the whole reported speech as the topic before the perfective future «скажет». A common spotlighting structure.

И клянусь: обвинением вашим вы только облегчите его, совесть его облегчите, он будет проклинать пролитую им кровь, а не сожалеть о ней.  
And I swear: by your condemnation you will only make it easier for him — you will ease his conscience — and he will curse the blood he spilled rather than grieve over it.
> Instrumental of means, fronted: «обвинением вашим» ('by your condemnation') is an instrumental of means, fronted before the subject «вы» for emphasis. «облегчите» is the perfective future 'you will ease / make easier', repeated with «совесть его облегчите».
> Contrastive «а не» with case shift: «а не» opposes two infinitives: «проклинать… кровь» (accusative object) vs «сожалеть о ней» (о + prepositional, since «сожалеть о» governs the prepositional). «пролитую им» is a past passive participle, 'shed by him', agent in the instrumental.

Вместе с тем вы погубите в нем возможного еще человека, ибо он останется зол и слеп на всю жизнь.  
At the same time you will destroy in him the man who might still have been, for he will remain wicked and blind his whole life long.
> Perfective future + animate accusative: «погубите» ('you will destroy', perfective future) governs the animate accusative «возможного… человека» (= genitive form for an animate masculine). «ещё» here means 'still possible', the man he might yet have become.
> «ибо» — bookish 'for, because': «ибо» is an archaic, elevated causal conjunction ('for, inasmuch as'), at home in Scripture and oratory rather than everyday speech. Its use here lifts the register of the climactic plea.

Но хотите ли вы наказать его страшно, грозно, самым ужасным наказанием, какое только можно вообразить, но с тем чтобы спасти и возродить его душу навеки?  
But do you wish to punish him fearfully, terribly, with the most dreadful punishment imaginable, yet so as to save and to revive his soul forever?
> «ли» question + purpose «чтобы»: «хотите ли вы» is a polite «ли» question. The clause «с тем чтобы спасти и возродить» is a purpose construction ('so as to save and revive'), the «с тем» reinforcing «чтобы» before the perfective infinitives.
> Superlative «самым» + relative «какое»: «самым ужасным» is the periphrastic superlative ('the most dreadful'), here in the instrumental agreeing with «наказанием» (instrument of the action). «какое только можно вообразить» is a relative clause, 'that one can possibly imagine'.

Если так, то подавите его вашим милосердием!  
If so, then overwhelm him with your mercy!
> Imperative + instrumental of means: «подавите» is the plural imperative of «подавить» ('overwhelm, crush'), and the means stands in the instrumental: «вашим милосердием» ('with your mercy'). The whole line is the speech's emotional pivot from punishment to grace.

Вы увидите, вы услышите, как вздрогнет и ужаснется душа его: „Мне ли снести эту милость, мне ли столько любви, я ли достоин ее“, — вот что он воскликнет!  
You will see, you will hear, how his soul will shudder and stand aghast: 'Is it for me to bear this mercy, for me to be given so much love — am I worthy of it?' — that is what he will exclaim!
> Perfective futures of sudden reaction: «вздрогнет» ('will shudder') and «ужаснется» (reflexive «ужаснуться», 'will be horror-struck') are perfective futures naming single, instantaneous reactions. «как» here is exclamatory-relative, 'how his soul will shudder'.
> Triple «ли» of self-doubt; dative «мне»: Three «ли» questions in a row: the dative «мне ли снести» ('is it for me to bear…') is a dative-subject construction with an infinitive of fitness, and «я ли достоин» uses the short adjective «достоин» ('worthy') governing the genitive «ее».

О, я знаю, я знаю это сердце, это дикое, но благородное сердце, господа присяжные.  
Oh, I know it, I know this heart — this wild, yet noble heart, gentlemen of the jury.
> Repeated demonstrative «это»: «Это сердце» — «this heart» — uses the near demonstrative «этот» (neuter «это») agreeing with the neuter noun «сердце». Fetyukovich repeats «это сердце» for rhetorical insistence, the demonstrative pinning the abstract idea down as if it stood physically before the jury.
> Adjectives agreeing in the neuter: Both «дикое» (wild) and «благородное» (noble) take the neuter singular ending «-ое» to agree with «сердце». «Но» is the adversative conjunction 'but', staging the paradox at the heart of Dmitri's character.

Оно преклонится пред вашим подвигом, оно жаждет великого акта любви, оно загорится и воскреснет навеки.  
It will bow down before your act of mercy, it thirsts for some great deed of love, it will catch fire and rise again forever.
> Aspect driving the rhetorical surge: The verbs alternate present «жаждет» (it thirsts — ongoing state) with perfective futures «преклонится», «загорится», «воскреснет» (will bow, will catch fire, will rise again). The perfectives are conjugated like a present but mean a single completed future event, building a prophetic crescendo.
> «преклониться» — to bow down: An elevated verb of reverent bowing, with the bookish preposition «пред» (a Slavonicising variant of «перед», 'before'). The register is liturgical — one bows «пред» an icon or an altar — lending the heart's submission a sacral colouring.
> «воскреснуть» — to rise again: The verb of resurrection: «воскреснуть» is what Christ does at Easter («Христос воскресе»). Applied to Dmitri's heart it casts his moral rebirth as a personal resurrection — central to Dostoevsky's theme of redemption through suffering.

Есть души, которые в ограниченности своей обвиняют весь свет.  
There are souls that, in their narrowness, lay the blame upon the whole world.
> Relative «который» as subject: «Которые» agrees with its plural antecedent «души» and stands in the nominative because it is the subject of «обвиняют» within its own clause. The relative clause is set off by a comma, as Russian always requires.
> Reflexive «свой» + inverted order: «Своей» is the reflexive possessive, pointing back to the clause's subject «души» — 'in their own narrowness'. The bookish word order, possessive after the noun («ограниченности своей» rather than «своей ограниченности»), gives the phrase an archaic, elevated weight.

Но подавите эту душу милосердием, окажите ей любовь, и она проклянет свое дело, ибо в ней столько добрых зачатков.  
But overwhelm such a soul with mercy, show it love, and it will curse the very deed it did, for there is so much good seed in it.
> Imperatives in a conditional sequence: «Подавите» (overwhelm) and «окажите» (show) are plural/polite imperatives in «-ите». Linked with «и она проклянет» they form Russia's 'imperative-as-condition' pattern: 'do X, and Y will happen' = 'if you do X, Y will happen'.
> Dative «ей» — the indirect object: «Ей» is the dative of «она» (the soul): 'show love to it'. The set phrase «оказать любовь / помощь / внимание» governs the dative of the person who receives the action.
> «ибо» — for, because (bookish): «Ибо» is the archaic, biblical 'for/because', far more solemn than everyday «потому что». It recurs through this passage, giving Fetyukovich's plea the cadence of Scripture or a sermon.
> «зачатки» — seeds, rudiments: «Зачаток» means a germ, embryo, or first rudiment of something; «столько добрых зачатков» = 'so many good seeds'. The metaphor of latent goodness waiting to sprout in even a hardened soul is quintessential Dostoevsky.

Душа расширится и узрит, как бог милосерд и как люди прекрасны и справедливы.  
The soul will open wide and behold how merciful God is, and how beautiful and just men are.
> Twin perfective futures: «Расширится» (will widen — with reflexive «-ся» marking the intransitive change of state) and «узрит» (will behold) are both perfective futures conjugated like a present. The «-ся» turns 'widen' into something happening to the soul itself, not done to an object.
> «узреть» — to behold (Church-Slavonic): An elevated, Slavonic verb for 'see/behold', much loftier than «увидеть». It belongs to the language of vision and revelation, fitting a soul that 'beholds' God's mercy.
> Short-form predicate adjectives: «Милосерд» (merciful), «прекрасны» (beautiful), «справедливы» (just) are short-form adjectives, used only as predicates. The short form sounds bookish and weighty here, asserting these as essential truths rather than passing attributes.

Его ужаснет, его подавит раскаяние и бесчисленный долг, предстоящий ему отселе.  
He will be horrified, he will be crushed by remorse and by the boundless debt now laid before him.
> Object-first word order: The accusative object «его» (him) is fronted before its verbs «ужаснет» / «подавит», while the grammatical subject «раскаяние и... долг» comes last. Russian's free order lets the felt experience (the man) lead and the cause (remorse, debt) land as the new, weighty information.
> Present active participle «предстоящий»: «Предстоящий» is a present active participle ('that lies ahead, awaiting'), agreeing with «долг» and governing the dative «ему». It compresses a «который»-clause ('the debt which lies before him') into a single bookish modifier.
> «отселе» — henceforth (archaic): An archaic adverb meaning 'from here / from now on', the literary cousin of «отсюда» / «отныне». Its old-fashioned ring elevates the moment into something almost scriptural.

И не скажет он тогда: „Я сквитался“, а скажет: „Я виноват пред всеми людьми и всех людей недостойнее“.  
And then he will not say, 'I have squared my accounts,' but rather, 'I am guilty before all men, and of all men the least worthy.'
> «сквитаться» — to settle the score: A colloquial, bookkeeping verb: 'I'm even, I've squared accounts'. Set against the language of remorse and debt («долг») that surrounds it, the phrase voices the cold, transactional view of justice the speaker wants the jury to reject.
> Comparative governing the genitive: «Недостойнее» is the predicative comparative 'less worthy / least worthy', and «всех людей» is genitive plural — Russian expresses 'than all men' by putting the standard of comparison in the genitive after the comparative form.
> «виноват» + instrumental after «пред»: «Виноват» is a short adjective ('guilty'); «пред всеми людьми» uses the bookish «пред» governing the instrumental ('before/in the face of all people'). The line is the novel's moral keynote — universal mutual responsibility, 'each guilty before all'.

В слезах раскаяния и жгучего страдальческого умиления он воскликнет: „Люди лучше, чем я, ибо захотели не погубить, а спасти меня!“  
In tears of repentance and burning, anguished tenderness he will cry out: 'Men are better than I, for they chose not to destroy me, but to save me!'
> «умиление» — tender emotion: «Умиление» is a key Dostoevskian and Orthodox word: a melting, reverent tenderness of heart, often the prelude to repentance and grace. There is no single English equivalent; 'tender emotion' or 'rapt tenderness' only approximates its spiritual charge.
> Suppletive comparative «лучше»: «Лучше» ('better') is the irregular, suppletive comparative of «хороший» — not formed by suffix but a separate root. Here it takes the «чем»-construction ('better than I'), the alternative to the genitive of comparison.
> Contrastive «не... а...»: «Не погубить, а спасти» — 'not to destroy, but to save' — uses «не... а...» to replace one option with its opposite (distinct from «но»). The two perfective infinitives «погубить» / «спасти» frame the soul's destiny as a single decisive choice.

О, вам так легко это сделать, этот акт милосердия, ибо при отсутствии всяких чуть-чуть похожих на правду улик вам слишком тяжело будет произнести: „Да, виновен“.  
Oh, it is so easy for you to do this, this act of mercy, for in the absence of any evidence that bears even the faintest resemblance to the truth, it will be too hard for you to pronounce: 'Yes, guilty.'
> Dative-subject impersonal: «Вам... легко сделать» — 'it is easy for you to do' — is an impersonal construction: no nominative subject, the experiencer «вам» in the dative, and a neuter/adverbial predicate «легко». Contrast «вам... тяжело будет произнести» later in the same sentence, the mirror image.
> Genitive after «отсутствие»: «Отсутствие» (absence) governs the genitive of what is absent: «всяких... улик» is genitive plural ('of any evidence whatever'). The preposition «при» + prepositional «отсутствии» means 'in the presence/case of', here ironically 'given the absence of'.
> «чуть-чуть» — the merest bit: «Чуть-чуть» is an intensive reduplication of «чуть» meaning 'ever so slightly, the merest little bit'. Modifying «похожих на правду» ('resembling the truth'), it sharpens the lawyer's claim that not a shred of the evidence even faintly looks true.

Лучше отпустить десять виновных, чем наказать одного невинного — слышите ли, слышите ли вы этот величавый голос из прошлого столетия нашей славной истории?  
Better to acquit ten of the guilty than to punish one innocent man — do you hear it, do you hear that majestic voice out of the past century of our glorious history?
> «лучше... чем» with infinitives: 'Better to release... than to punish...' pairs the comparative «лучше» with «чем» joining two perfective infinitives «отпустить» / «наказать». «Десять виновных» and «одного невинного» are substantivised adjectives (the guilty, the innocent man), in the genitive/accusative their objects require.
> Interrogative particle «ли»: «Слышите ли вы?» is a formal yes/no question: the enclitic «ли» follows the focused verb «слышите». More literary and emphatic than mere question intonation, it suits the orator's rising appeal, doubled for force.

Мне ли, ничтожному, напоминать вам, что русский суд есть не кара только, но и спасение человека погибшего!  
Is it for me, an insignificant man, to remind you that the Russian court is not punishment alone, but also the salvation of a man who is lost!
> Rhetorical «ли» + dative «мне»: «Мне ли напоминать вам?» — 'Is it for me to remind you?' — fronts the dative «мне» with the particle «ли» to form a rhetorical, self-deprecating question. «Ничтожному» is a substantivised adjective in apposition, also dative, agreeing with «мне».
> Bookish copula «есть»: Modern Russian normally drops the present 'to be', but here the explicit «есть» (is) gives a formal, almost legal-definitional weight. «Не... только, но и...» = 'not only... but also'.
> Past active participle «погибший»: «Погибшего» is the past active participle of «погибнуть» ('one who has perished/is lost'), here substantivised and in the genitive after «спасение» — 'the salvation of a man who is lost'. The postposed order «человека погибшего» heightens the solemn register.

Пусть у других народов буква и кара, у нас же дух и смысл, спасение и возрождение погибших.  
Let other peoples keep the letter of the law and its penalty; with us there is the spirit and the meaning, the salvation and the regeneration of the lost.
> Hortative «пусть» + contrastive «же»: «Пусть» + a clause means 'let (it be that)...', conceding a point. The verbless halves («буква и кара» / «дух и смысл») rely on zero copula, and «же» in «у нас же» marks the sharp contrast: 'but with US, by contrast'.
> Substantivised participle «погибших»: «Погибших» — genitive plural of the past active participle «погибший» used as a noun, 'of the lost / the perished ones'. Russian freely turns participles into nouns for whole human categories (the fallen, the saved, the dead).

И если так, если действительно такова Россия и суд ее, то — вперед Россия, и не пугайте, о, не пугайте нас вашими бешеными тройками, от которых омерзительно сторонятся все народы!  
And if this is so, if Russia and her courts are indeed such as this, then — forward, Russia, and do not frighten us, oh, do not frighten us with your frenzied troikas, from which all the nations recoil in loathing!
> Conditional «если» + short «такова»: Doubled «если» ('if... if indeed') builds an emphatic real condition. «Такова» is the short feminine form of «таков» ('such'), a predicate agreeing with «Россия» — bookish for 'if Russia is indeed such'.
> Negated imperfective imperative: «Не пугайте» is the imperfective imperative under negation — 'do not frighten', a general prohibition. Negative commands in Russian strongly prefer the imperfective; the doubling with «о» makes it a beseeching cry.

Не бешеная тройка, а величавая русская колесница торжественно и спокойно прибудет к цели.  
Not a frenzied troika, but a majestic Russian chariot will arrive at its goal, solemnly and serenely.
> Corrective «не... а...»: «Не... а...» again replaces a rejected image with the right one — 'not a frenzied troika, but a majestic chariot'. Both nouns stand in the nominative as the subject of «прибудет».
> «колесница» — chariot: «Колесница» is a stately, archaic-poetic word for a chariot (of triumph, of Scripture, of fire). Substituting it for the wild «тройка» recasts Russia's onward motion as solemn and providential rather than reckless.
> Perfective future «прибудет»: «Прибудет» is the perfective future of «прибыть» ('will arrive'), one completed arrival, framed by the adverbs «торжественно и спокойно». The perfective fixes the chariot's triumph as a single, certain destination reached.

В ваших руках судьба моего клиента, в ваших руках и судьба нашей правды русской.  
In your hands lies the fate of my client; in your hands, too, lies the fate of our Russian truth.
> Fronted prepositional + zero copula: «В ваших руках» (prepositional after «в» = location) is fronted for emphasis, with no verb 'to be' — the present copula is simply unspoken. The repeated «в ваших руках» across both clauses is anaphora, hammering the jury's responsibility.
> Postposed adjective «правды русской»: The adjective follows its noun — «правды русской» instead of «русской правды» — a poetic inversion that throws weight onto 'Russian'. «Правда» here is both 'truth' and 'justice/righteousness', the double sense English cannot hold at once.

Вы спасете ее, вы отстоите ее, вы докажете, что есть кому ее соблюсти, что она в хороших руках!»  
You will save it, you will defend it, you will prove that there are those to guard it, that it is in good hands!"
> Triad of perfective futures: «Спасете», «отстоите», «докажете» are three perfective futures ('will save, will defend, will prove'), each conjugated like a present but meaning a completed act. The triple «вы... вы... вы...» drives the closing exhortation as a single resolute future.
> Impersonal «есть кому» + infinitive: «Есть кому соблюсти» is an impersonal idiom: «кому» (dative of «кто») plus an infinitive means 'there is someone to guard it'. The dative names the implied agent in this subjectless 'there is someone who can' construction.
> «соблюсти» — to keep, preserve: A formal, elevated verb for keeping or guarding something inviolate — one «соблюдает» a law, a fast, or a sacred trust. Applied to «нашу правду русскую», it casts the jury as keepers of a holy charge.
---

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.