# The Brothers Karamazov, The Peasants Stand Firm

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

Source: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c14. Data: https://1732studios.com/books/karamazov/b12-c14.json.


Так кончил Фетюкович, и разразившийся на этот раз восторг слушателей был неудержим, как буря.  
So Fetyukovich ended, and the rapture that burst from his hearers this time was as ungovernable as a storm.
> Past active participle as adjective: «Разразившийся» is a past active participle from «разразиться» (to burst out), formed with -вший- and declined to agree with «восторг» (masc. nom.). It packs a whole который-clause — 'the rapture that burst out' — into one bookish modifier set before its noun.
> Short-form predicate adjective: «Неудержим» is the short (predicative) form of «неудержимый» (ungovernable, irrepressible), agreeing in masculine singular with «восторг». The short form is bookish and states a quality as an absolute condition — exactly the rhetorical heightening Dostoevsky wants here.

Было уже и немыслимо сдержать его: женщины плакали, плакали и многие из мужчин, даже два сановника пролили слезы.  
There was no longer any thought of restraining it: women wept, many of the men wept too, and even two high officials let their tears fall.
> Impersonal predicate with infinitive: An impersonal construction with no nominative subject: the neuter «было» plus the invariable predicate «немыслимо» ('unthinkable') governs the infinitive «сдержать». This subjectless 'it was unthinkable to...' frame is one of Russian's commonest ways to state a state of affairs.
> Imperfective for repeated, ongoing action: «Плакали» is imperfective past — weeping viewed as an ongoing, collective process, not a single completed act. Its repetition («плакали, плакали») and fronting before the second subject «многие из мужчин» build the swell of emotion.
> «сановник» — high official: A «сановник» is a dignitary of high civil rank, a man of the upper bureaucracy. That even «два сановника» (two such grandees) shed tears measures how completely Fetyukovich's speech overwhelmed the courtroom.

Председатель покорился и даже помедлил звонить в колокольчик: «Посягать на такой энтузиазм значило бы посягать на святыню» — как кричали потом у нас дамы.  
The presiding judge gave way and even held off ringing his bell: "To trespass on such enthusiasm would be to trespass on something sacred" — as our ladies afterward cried.
> «колокольчик» — the presiding bell: «Колокольчик» is the diminutive of «колокол» (bell): the little handbell the presiding judge rings to call order. «Помедлил» (perfective of «медлить») captures him hesitating, putting off the moment of ringing.
> Conditional «бы» with infinitive subject: The infinitive «посягать» ('to encroach') serves as the subject, and «значило бы» (neuter past + the particle «бы») makes the whole sentence hypothetical: 'would mean'. The «бы» is the irrealis marker that turns the statement into a 'would-be' inference.

Сам оратор был искренно растроган.  
The orator himself was sincerely moved.
> Short passive participle: «Растроган» is the short past passive participle of «растрогать» (to move, touch deeply), joined to «был» to form a periphrastic passive — 'was moved'. The short form names the resulting state of the orator.

И вот в такую-то минуту и поднялся еще раз «обменяться возражениями» наш Ипполит Кириллович.  
And it was at just such a moment that our Ippolit Kirillovich rose once more "to exchange objections."
> Emphatic clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «такую-то» is the emphatic clitic, not the indefinite one: it underlines a known, pointed moment — 'at just such a moment'. It singles out the dramatic timing of Ippolit Kirillovich's rising.
> Reflexive «-ся»: change of state: «Поднялся» (perfective of «подниматься/подняться») carries the intransitive reflexive «-ся»: he rose, lifted himself up. Here «-ся» marks a change of bodily posture rather than a true reflexive 'oneself'.

Его завидели с ненавистью: «Как? Что это? Это он-то смеет еще возражать?» — залепетали дамы.  
They eyed him with loathing: "What? What is this? He actually dares to object again?" — the ladies began to murmur.
> Object fronting and instrumental of manner: The object pronoun «его» is fronted as topic before the verb «завидели» (perfective, 'caught sight of'), and «с ненавистью» uses the instrumental after «с» to state the manner — 'with hatred'. Free word order lets the loathed man stand first.
> Indignant «-то» on the pronoun: «Он-то» again uses the emphatic clitic «-то», dripping with the ladies' indignation: 'He, of all people, dares...'. The clitic spotlights the contrast between his presumption and his disgraced position.
> «залепетать» — to start babbling: «Залепетали» pairs the inceptive prefix «за-» ('begin to') with «лепетать» (to babble, prattle, as a child or flustered adult does). It paints the ladies dissolving into an agitated, half-articulate murmur.

Но если бы даже залепетали дамы целого мира, и в их главе сама прокурорша, супруга Ипполита Кирилловича, то и тогда бы его нельзя было удержать в это мгновение.  
But even had all the ladies of the whole world begun to murmur, and at their head the prosecutor's own wife, the spouse of Ippolit Kirillovich, even then there would have been no holding him back at that instant.
> Counterfactual conditional with «бы»: A full hypothetical: «если бы» + past «залепетали» in the protasis, answered by «то и тогда бы... нельзя было удержать» in the apodosis. The doubled «бы» and past-tense forms build a vivid 'even if X had happened, still Y could not have been done'.
> Impersonal «нельзя» with genitive-style object: The impersonal modal «нельзя» plus «было» and an infinitive states impossibility with no subject — 'it was impossible to restrain him'. The pronoun «его» is the object of «удержать»; the whole frame is a textbook subjectless construction.

Он был бледен, он сотрясался от волнения; первые слова, первые фразы, выговоренные им, были даже и непонятны; он задыхался, плохо выговаривал, сбивался.  
He was pale, he was trembling with agitation; the first words, the first phrases he uttered were scarcely even intelligible; he gasped for breath, spoke the words badly, kept losing his thread.
> Short adjective and reflexive verb: «Бледен» is the short predicative form of «бледный» (pale), stating his condition; «сотрясался» carries «-ся» as a middle/intransitive verb, 'shook, was convulsed', with «от волнения» (genitive after «от») naming the cause.
> Past passive participle with instrumental agent: «Выговоренные» is the past passive participle of «выговорить» (to utter), agreeing with «фразы» and taking its agent «им» in the instrumental — 'phrases uttered by him'. The instrumental of agent is the standard partner of a passive participle.
> «сбиваться» — to lose one's thread: «Сбивался» (imperfective, with «-ся») means to get confused, to stumble off track in speaking. Alongside «задыхался» (gasped) and «плохо выговаривал» (spoke badly), the three imperfectives stack into a portrait of a man unravelling at the lectern.

Впрочем, скоро поправился.  
Soon, however, he recovered himself.
> Perfective of recovery: «Поправился» is perfective ('recovered himself, righted himself'), with «-ся» marking the change of state. Against the imperfective stumbling of the previous sentence, this single perfective marks the turning point — the moment he found his footing.
> «впрочем» — 'however, then again': «Впрочем» is a bookish discourse marker that qualifies or partly retracts what was just said — 'however', 'but then'. It pivots the narration from his floundering to his recovery.

Но из этой второй речи его я приведу лишь несколько фраз.  
But of this second speech of his I shall cite only a few phrases.
> Perfective future of «привести»: «Приведу» is the perfective present-form of «привести» here meaning 'I will cite/adduce' — a completed future act with no auxiliary. «Несколько фраз» takes the genitive plural «фраз» after the quantifier «несколько».

«…Нас упрекают, что мы насоздавали романов.  
"…We are reproached with having invented novels.
> Indefinite-subject «упрекают» + что-clause: «Упрекают» ('they reproach') has an unstated plural subject — the impersonal 'one reproaches us', with «нас» the object. «Что» opens the subordinate clause of content. The verb «насоздавали» (perfective, prefix «на-» of accumulation) governs the genitive «романов», 'piled up a heap of novels'.

А что же у защитника, как не роман на романе?  
But what is the defence's case, if not novel piled upon novel?
> Contrastive «а» and insistent «же»: The sentence opens with contrastive «а» ('but, and on the other hand') and the modal particle «же», which sharpens the rhetorical jab: 'And what, then...?'. «У защитника» is the «у» + genitive possessive frame — 'what does the defence have'.
> «роман на романе» — novel upon novel: The idiom 'X на X-е' stacks a noun on itself to mean 'one X after another, an endless pile of'. Here «роман на романе» mocks the defence for spinning fiction after fiction; «роман» means both 'novel' and, by extension, a far-fetched made-up story.

Не доставало только стихов.  
All that was wanting was verse.
> Genitive of negation with «не доставало»: «Не доставало» ('was lacking') is impersonal and negated, so its logical subject «стихов» stands in the genitive plural — the genitive of an absent subject. Literally 'only verse was wanting'.

Федор Павлович в ожидании любовницы разрывает конверт и бросает его на пол.  
Fyodor Pavlovich, while awaiting his mistress, tears open the envelope and flings it to the floor.
> Historical present in the imperfective: «Разрывает» and «бросает» are imperfective present, used as a vivid 'historical present' to re-enact a past scene before the jury's eyes. The prosecutor mockingly retells the defence's reconstruction as if it were unfolding now.
> Genitive after «в ожидании»: «В ожидании» ('while awaiting') is a set prepositional phrase that governs the genitive «любовницы» — 'in expectation of his mistress'. It compresses a temporal clause into a noun phrase.

Приводится даже, что он говорил при этом удивительном случае.  
We are even told what he said on that remarkable occasion.
> Reflexive passive «приводится»: «Приводится» uses «-ся» to form an imperfective passive — 'it is even cited/adduced' — with no named agent. This impersonal passive lets the prosecutor report the defence's claims while keeping them at arm's length.

Да разве это не поэма?  
Now, is that not a poem?
> «разве» in a rhetorical question: «Да» opens with appeal, and «разве» frames an incredulous rhetorical question expecting agreement — 'surely this is a poem, isn't it?'. With «не», it presses the listener toward 'yes, of course it is'.
> «поэма» — a long narrative poem: «Поэма» is not just any poem but an extended narrative or epic one (like Pushkin's or Byron's). The prosecutor's repeated «поэма» sneers that the defence has composed a flight of Romantic fiction, not a legal argument.

И где доказательство, что он вынул деньги, кто слышал, что он говорил?  
And where is the proof that he took out the money — who heard what he said?
> Perfective «вынул» in reported content: «Вынул» is perfective past of «вынуть» (to take out) — a single completed act, the very point in dispute. The «что»-clause reports the alleged fact whose proof the prosecutor demands.

Слабоумный идиот Смердяков, преображенный в какого-то байроновского героя, мстящего обществу за свою незаконнорожденность, — разве это не поэма в байроновском вкусе?  
The feeble-minded idiot Smerdyakov, transformed into some sort of Byronic hero avenging himself on society for his illegitimate birth — is that not a poem in the Byronic taste?
> Past passive participle with «преобразить»: «Преображенный» is the past passive participle of «преобразить» (to transfigure), agreeing with «Смердяков». «В + accusative» («в героя») names the result of the transformation. Note «преображенный» echoes the religious «Преображение» (Transfiguration), heightening the irony.
> Present active participle governing dative: «Мстящего» is the present active participle of «мстить» (to take revenge), agreeing with «героя» (animate acc.). The verb «мстить» governs the dative «обществу» ('revenge on society'), and «свою» is the reflexive possessive pointing back to the hero himself.

А сын, вломившийся к отцу, убивший его, но в то же время и не убивший, это уж даже и не роман, не поэма, это сфинкс, задающий загадки, которые и сам, уж конечно, не разрешит.  
And the son, who broke in upon his father and killed him, yet at the same time did not kill him — that is no longer even a novel, no longer a poem; it is a sphinx, posing riddles which it most certainly will never solve itself.
> Chain of past active participles: Three past active participles in -вший («вломившийся», «убивший», «не убивший») pile up as modifiers of «сын», a hallmark of dense literary syntax. The paradox 'killed... yet did not kill' is built by simply negating the third with «не».
> Relative «который» in the accusative: «Которые» agrees with «загадки» (riddles, fem. pl.) in gender/number but takes the accusative as object of «не разрешит» — 'riddles which it will not solve'. «Разрешит» is perfective future ('will solve'), and «и сам» = 'itself, of all things'.

Коль убил, так убил, а как же это, коли убил, так не убил — кто поймет это?  
If he killed, then he killed; but how is this — if he killed, then he did not kill — who is to make sense of that?
> «коль» / «коли» — folksy 'if': «Коль» (and its fuller «коли») is a colloquial, folk-flavoured conjunction for «если» (if). The prosecutor drops into peasant-style speech — 'if he killed, then he killed' — to mock the defence's paradox in the people's own blunt logic.
> Perfective future «поймёт»: «Поймёт» is the perfective future of «понять» (to understand) — 'who will [ever] make sense of this?'. The rhetorical question with «кто» implies the answer 'no one'.

Затем возвещают нам, что наша трибуна есть трибуна истины и здравых понятий, и вот с этой трибуны „здравых понятий“ раздается, с клятвою, аксиома, что называть убийство отца отцеубийством есть только один предрассудок!  
Then it is proclaimed to us that our rostrum is a rostrum of truth and sound principles, and yet from this rostrum of "sound principles" there resounds, under oath, the axiom that to call the murder of a father parricide is nothing but a prejudice!
> Archaic copula «есть»: Modern Russian drops the present-tense 'to be', but here «есть» is retained as an emphatic, bookish copula — 'our rostrum IS a rostrum of truth'. This solemn «есть» belongs to the elevated, oratorical register the prosecutor is parodying.
> Instrumental of the predicate with «называть»: «Называть X Y-ом» ('to call X a Y') puts the naming complement in the instrumental: «отцеубийством» (instrumental of «отцеубийство», parricide). The whole infinitive phrase is then equated, via «есть», with «предрассудок».

Но если отцеубийство есть предрассудок и если каждый ребенок будет допрашивать своего отца: „Отец, зачем я должен любить тебя?“ — то что станется с нами, что станется с основами общества, куда денется семья?  
But if parricide is a prejudice, and if every child is to interrogate his own father — "Father, why must I love you?" — then what is to become of us, what is to become of the foundations of society, where will the family go?
> Real conditional with compound future: A real (not hypothetical) «если»-conditional: no «бы». «Будет допрашивать» is the imperfective compound future (будет + infinitive) — an ongoing, repeated future act, 'will go on interrogating'. The apodosis follows with «то...».
> Perfective future «станется» / «денется»: «Станется» and «денется» are perfective futures of «статься» (to become of) and «деться» (to get to, vanish to), both with «-ся». The trio of anxious questions — 'what will become of us, where will the family go' — drives the rhetorical climax.

Отцеубийство — это, видите ли, только „жупел“ московской купчихи.  
Parricide — it is, you see, merely the "bogy" of a Moscow merchant's wife.
> «видите ли» — ironic 'you see': «Видите ли» ('you see') uses the particle «ли» in a frozen parenthetical that here drips sarcasm — a mock-deferential 'as you can plainly see'. It signals the prosecutor's contempt for the dismissive view he is quoting.

Самые драгоценные, самые священные заветы в назначении и в будущности русского суда представляются извращенно и легкомысленно, чтобы только добиться цели, добиться оправдания того, что нельзя оправдать.  
The most precious, the most sacred tenets concerning the calling and the future of Russian justice are presented in a distorted and frivolous way, all to gain one end — to win the acquittal of what cannot be acquitted.
> Superlative with «самый»: The periphrastic superlative is built with «самый» ('most'), which declines and agrees with its adjective and noun: «самые драгоценные, самые священные заветы» (the most precious, most sacred tenets). The doubling intensifies the rhetorical reverence.
> Reflexive passive «представляются»: «Представляются» uses «-ся» as an impersonal/agentless passive — 'are presented'. The adverbs «извращенно» (distortedly) and «легкомысленно» (frivolously) describe the manner of presentation.
> Purpose clause with «чтобы»: «Чтобы» + the infinitive «добиться» opens a purpose clause — 'merely in order to achieve the goal'. «Добиться» (perfective) governs the genitive «цели» / «оправдания», the genitive its object regularly takes.

„О, подавите его милосердием“, — восклицает защитник, а преступнику только того и надо, и завтра же все увидят, как он будет подавлен!  
"Oh, crush him with mercy," exclaims the defence — but that is the very thing the criminal wants, and tomorrow everyone will see how thoroughly he has been crushed!
> Imperative + instrumental of means: «Подавите» is the polite/plural imperative of «подавить» (to crush, suppress), and «милосердием» is the instrumental — the means by which: 'crush him WITH mercy'. The instrumental of instrument turns mercy into a weapon.
> Dative experiencer with «надо»: «Преступнику... надо» is the dative-subject construction: the criminal (dative) is the one to whom something is needful — 'that's the very thing the criminal needs'. «Только того и надо» is an idiomatic 'that's all he wants'.
> Compound future passive: «Будет подавлен» joins the future of «быть» with the short past passive participle «подавлен» — a future passive, 'he will be crushed'. The biting irony: the 'crushing by mercy' will be all too visible tomorrow.

Да и не слишком ли скромен защитник, требуя лишь оправдания подсудимого?  
And is the defence not too modest, besides, in demanding merely the acquittal of the accused?
> Question particle «ли» with short adjective: «Ли» fronts the focused «не слишком» to form a rhetorical yes/no question — 'is the defence not too modest?'. «Скромен» is the short predicative form of «скромный» (modest), the bookish predicate form.
> Present gerund «требуя»: «Требуя» is the imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») of «требовать» (to demand), expressing an action simultaneous with the main clause — 'in demanding'. «Требовать» governs the genitive «оправдания».

Отчего бы не потребовать учреждения стипендии имени отцеубийцы, для увековечения его подвига в потомстве и в молодом поколении?  
Why not call for the founding of a scholarship in the name of the parricide, to immortalize his exploit among posterity and the younger generation?
> Suggestion with «бы» + infinitive: «Отчего бы не» + infinitive is an idiomatic, sarcastically polite suggestion — 'why not...?'. The particle «бы» softens it into a hypothetical proposal. «Потребовать» governs the genitive «учреждения стипендии».

Исправляются Евангелие и религия: это, дескать, всё мистика, а вот у нас лишь настоящее христианство, уже проверенное анализом рассудка и здравых понятий.  
The Gospel and religion are amended: all that, they say, is mysticism, whereas we alone possess the true Christianity, already verified by the analysis of reason and sound principles.
> Fronted reflexive passive: «Исправляются» (passive «-ся», 'are corrected/amended') is fronted before its subjects «Евангелие и религия» for rhetorical weight — the scandalous predicate hits first. This topic-comment inversion drives the prosecutor's mounting outrage.
> «дескать» — reportative 'they say': «Дескать» is a colloquial reportative particle flagging that the words are someone else's claim, often sceptically — 'so they say, supposedly'. It lets the prosecutor voice the opponents' position while sneering at it.

И вот воздвигают пред нами лжеподобие Христа!  
And so they raise up before us a false likeness of Christ!
> «лжеподобие» — a false likeness: A coinage from «лже-» ('false', as in лжепророк, false prophet) + «подобие» (likeness, image). «Лжеподобие Христа» is a 'false image of Christ' — and «подобие» recalls Genesis's 'image and likeness' of God, so the word implies a blasphemous counterfeit.
> «воздвигать» — to raise up (elevated): «Воздвигают» is a bookish, Church-tinged verb for raising or erecting (a monument, a temple) — far loftier than ordinary «поднимать». Its solemnity sharpens the accusation that the defence sets up an idol — a false Christ — before the people.

''В ню же меру мерите, возмерится и вам,'' восклицает защитник и в тот же миг выводит, что Христос заповедал мерить в ту меру, в которую и вам отмеряют, — и это с трибуны истины и здравых понятий!  
"With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again," exclaims the defence, and in the very same breath deduces that Christ commanded us to measure with the same measure that is meted out to you — and this from the rostrum of truth and sound principles!
> Church Slavonic scripture: This line quotes the Gospel (Matthew 7:2, 'with what measure ye mete') in Old Church Slavonic, not modern Russian: 'в ню же' = 'in which', 'мерите' = 'you measure'. Dostoevsky keeps the archaic liturgical form to give it the weight of holy scripture. Similarly 'Ты бо еси бог наш' (s34) means 'For Thou art our God' in Church Slavonic ('бо' = for, 'еси' = thou art).
> Correlative «ту... в которую»: The correlative pair «в ту меру, в которую» ('with that measure with which') ties the main clause to the relative clause; «которую» is accusative after «в». «Отмеряют» is an indefinite-subject present, 'they measure out [to you]'.
> Vivid present pair: «Восклицает» and «выводит» are imperfective present used vividly to dramatize the defence's reasoning as it happens — 'exclaims... and deduces'. «Выводить» here means 'to deduce, draw a conclusion'.

Мы заглядываем в Евангелие лишь накануне речей наших для того, чтобы блеснуть знакомством все-таки с довольно оригинальным сочинением, которое может пригодиться и послужить для некоторого эффекта, по мере надобности, всё по размеру надобности!  
We glance into the Gospel only on the eve of our speeches, so as to make a show of acquaintance, after all, with a fairly original composition that may come in handy and serve for a certain effect — as far as need requires, all according to the measure of need!
> Purpose «для того, чтобы»: «Для того, чтобы» + infinitive «блеснуть» is the heavy bookish form of a purpose clause — 'precisely in order to show off'. «Блеснуть знакомством» governs the instrumental «знакомством» (acquaintance), the means of the showing-off.
> Relative «которое» as subject: «Которое» agrees with «сочинением» (neut.) but stands as nominative subject of its own clause — 'which may come in handy and serve'. Two perfective infinitives «пригодиться» / «послужить» depend on «может».
> «сочинение» — a literary 'composition': Calling the Gospel «довольно оригинальное сочинение» (a fairly original composition) is bitingly ironic: «сочинение» is the flat word for an authored literary work or even a schoolboy's essay. The prosecutor mimics the cynics who treat Scripture as just another clever book.

А Христос именно велит не так делать, беречься так делать, потому что злобный мир так делает, мы же должны прощать и ланиту свою подставлять, а не в ту же меру отмеривать, в которую мерят нам наши обидчики.  
But Christ bids us precisely not to act so, to beware of acting so, because it is the wicked world that acts so; we, however, must forgive and turn the other cheek, and not mete out with the same measure that our offenders mete out to us.
> Negation «не» before the verb phrase: «Велит не так делать» negates the manner, not the verb of commanding — 'bids us NOT to act so'. «Беречься» ('to beware', reflexive) then governs the infinitive «так делать», layering the warning.
> «ланита» — Church Slavonic 'cheek': «Ланита» is the elevated Church-Slavonic word for «щека» (cheek). «Подставлять ланиту» renders the Gospel's 'turn the other cheek' (Matthew 5:39) in sacred register, lending the moral its full scriptural solemnity.
> «обидчик» — one who wrongs you: An «обидчик» is a person who has offended or wronged you («обидеть» = to offend, hurt). It is the standard word in prayers of forgiveness ('forgive our offenders'), so it carries a churchly, penitential coloring fitting the Gospel argument.

Вот чему учил нас бог наш, а не тому, что запрещать детям убивать отцов есть предрассудок.  
This is what our God taught us, and not that to forbid children to kill their fathers is a prejudice.
> Correlative «чему... тому»: «Учить» governs the dative of the thing taught, so the correlatives appear in the dative: «чему» ('that which') answered by «не тому, что» ('not that which'). The contrastive «а не» pivots between the true teaching and the false.

И не станем мы поправлять с кафедры истины и здравых понятий Евангелие бога нашего, которого защитник удостоивает назвать лишь „распятым человеколюбцем“, в противоположность всей православной России, взывающей к нему: „Ты бо еси бог наш!..“»  
And we shall not set about amending, from the pulpit of truth and sound principles, the Gospel of our God, whom the defence condescends to call merely a "crucified lover of mankind," in opposition to all Orthodox Russia, which cries out to Him: "For Thou art our God!..""
> «стать» as future auxiliary: «Не станем поправлять» uses perfective «стать» as an auxiliary of intention/inception with an imperfective infinitive — 'we shall not set about amending'. It is a vivid alternative to the plain «будем» future, stressing resolve.
> Relative «которого» (animate genitive): «Которого» refers to «бога» (God), taking the animate genitive form as object of «назвать» — 'whom the defence condescends to name'. «Удостоивать назвать» = deign/condescend to call, dripping with sarcasm.

Тут председатель вступился и осадил увлекшегося, попросив его не преувеличивать, оставаться в должных границах, и проч., и проч., как обыкновенно говорят в таких случаях председатели.  
Here the presiding judge intervened and reined in the carried-away speaker, asking him not to exaggerate, to keep within proper bounds, and so on, and so forth, as presiding judges customarily say on such occasions.
> Participle as noun + gerund: «Увлекшегося» is a past active participle used substantively — 'the carried-away one', i.e. the over-excited speaker. «Попросив» is a perfective past gerund ('having asked'), and «попросить» takes the infinitive «не преувеличивать» as its complement.
> «и прочее» — 'and so forth': «И проч.» abbreviates «и прочее» ('and the rest, etcetera'); doubled, it conveys the formulaic, tired phrasing of officialdom. The narrator wryly notes the presiding judge said the usual boilerplate 'such presiding judges customarily say'.

Да и зала была неспокойна.  
Indeed, the courtroom too was uneasy.
> Additive «да и» + short adjective: «Да и» is an additive connector — 'and besides, moreover'. «Неспокойна» is the short feminine predicative form of «неспокойный» (restless, uneasy), agreeing with «зала» (the hall/courtroom).

Публика шевелилась, даже восклицала в негодовании.  
The public stirred, and even cried out in indignation.
> Imperfective of stirring activity: «Шевелилась» («-ся», 'stirred, moved') and «восклицала» are imperfective past, viewing the public's agitation as an ongoing process. «В негодовании» (prepositional after «в») names the state of indignation it was in.

Фетюкович даже и не возражал, он взошел только, чтобы, приложив руку к сердцу, обиженным голосом проговорить несколько слов, полных достоинства.  
Fetyukovich did not even reply; he rose only to say, with his hand laid on his heart, in an injured voice, a few words full of dignity.
> Purpose «чтобы» framing a gerund: «Чтобы» + infinitive «проговорить» states his purpose in rising, and nested inside is the perfective past gerund «приложив» ('having laid [his hand]') describing the attendant gesture. The gerund shares the subject of the main clause.
> Genitive of quality «полных достоинства»: «Полный» ('full of') governs the genitive: «полных достоинства» = 'full of dignity', agreeing with «слов» (genitive plural after «несколько»). The chain «несколько слов, полных...» shows the genitive doing double duty.

Он слегка только и насмешливо опять коснулся «романов» и «психологии» и к слову ввернул в одном месте: «Юпитер, ты сердишься, стало быть, ты не прав», чем вызвал одобрительный и многочисленный смешок в публике, ибо Ипполит Кириллович уже совсем был не похож на Юпитера.  
He merely touched again, lightly and mockingly, on the "novels" and the "psychology," and at one point slipped in, by the way: "Jupiter, you are angry, therefore you are in the wrong" — which drew an approving and copious titter from the public, for Ippolit Kirillovich no longer bore the slightest resemblance to Jupiter.
> «ввернуть» — to slip in (a remark): «Ввернуть» literally 'to screw in', idiomatically 'to slip in / insert' a sly word or apt remark mid-flow. «К слову ... ввернул» = 'slipped in, by the way' — capturing Fetyukovich's deft, casual barb.
> Connective relative «чем»: «Чем» here is the instrumental of «что» used as a connective relative referring to the whole preceding clause — 'by which / whereby he provoked'. «Вызвать» (perfective) governs the accusative «смешок».

Затем на обвинение, что будто он разрешает молодому поколению убивать отцов, Фетюкович с глубоким достоинством заметил, что и возражать не станет.  
Then, to the charge that he supposedly permits the younger generation to kill their fathers, Fetyukovich observed, with profound dignity, that he would not even reply to it.
> Reported claim with «будто»: «Будто» introduces a reported allegation the narrator marks as doubtful — 'as though, supposedly'. «Разрешать» governs the dative of the permitted person «молодому поколению» plus the infinitive «убивать» (imperfective: killing as a general practice).
> «не станет» refusing to act: «Не станет возражать» = 'will not even reply' — «стать» as a future auxiliary of intent with the imperfective infinitive. The word order (object/adverb before «не станет») throws weight onto the refusal itself.

Насчет же «Христова лжеподобия» и того, что он не удостоил назвать Христа богом, а назвал лишь «распятым человеколюбцем», что «противно-де православию и не могло быть высказано с трибуны истины и здравых понятий», — Фетюкович намекнул на «инсинуацию» и на то, что, собираясь сюда, он по крайней мере рассчитывал, что здешняя трибуна обеспечена от обвинений, «опасных для моей личности как гражданина и верноподданного…»  
As for the "false likeness of Christ" and the fact that he had not deigned to call Christ God but had called Him merely a "crucified lover of mankind" — which was "contrary, forsooth, to Orthodoxy and could not have been pronounced from the rostrum of truth and sound principles" — Fetyukovich hinted at an "insinuation" and at the fact that, in coming here, he had at least counted on this rostrum being secure from accusations "dangerous to my person as a citizen and a loyal subject…"
> Reportative particle «-де»: «-де» is a clitic reportative particle (kin to «дескать»), flagging the words as a quoted claim of others — 'contrary, forsooth, to Orthodoxy'. «Противно» governs the dative «православию» ('contrary TO Orthodoxy').
> Present gerund of attendant circumstance: «Собираясь» is the imperfective present gerund of «собираться» ('preparing/intending [to come]'), simultaneous with the main verb «рассчитывал» ('he counted on'). It compresses 'as he was setting out to come here' into one word.

Но при этих словах председатель осадил и его, и Фетюкович, поклонясь, закончил свой ответ, провожаемый всеобщим одобрительным говором залы.  
But at these words the presiding judge reined him in too, and Fetyukovich, with a bow, brought his reply to a close, accompanied by a general murmur of approval throughout the courtroom.
> Perfective gerund «поклонясь»: «Поклонясь» is a perfective past gerund of «поклониться» (to bow), here with the older -сь form; it names the completed accompanying act — 'with a bow / having bowed' — before the main perfective «закончил».
> Present passive participle with instrumental agent: «Провожаемый» is the rare present passive participle (-емый) of «провожать» (to see off, accompany), agreeing with «Фетюкович». Its agent «говором» stands in the instrumental — 'accompanied by a murmur'.

Ипполит же Кириллович, по мнению наших дам, был «раздавлен навеки».  
Ippolit Kirillovich, in the opinion of our ladies, was "crushed forever."
> Short passive participle «раздавлен»: «Раздавлен» is the short past passive participle of «раздавить» (to crush, squash), with «был» forming the past passive — 'was crushed'. «По мнению наших дам» ('in the ladies' opinion') frames the verdict as their melodramatic exaggeration.

Затем предоставлено было слово самому подсудимому.  
Then the floor was given to the accused himself.
> Impersonal passive + dative recipient: «Предоставлено было слово» is a periphrastic passive (neuter short participle «предоставлено» + «было») with the recipient in the dative — «самому подсудимому» ('to the accused himself'). «Слово» here means 'the floor, the right to speak'.

Митя встал, но сказал немного.  
Mitya stood up, but said little.
> Two perfectives moving the narrative: «Встал» and «сказал» are perfective past — two completed events advancing the scene one step at a time. «Митя» is the affectionate diminutive of «Дмитрий», the narrator's familiar, sympathetic name for the defendant.

Он был страшно утомлен и телесно, и духовно.  
He was terribly worn out, both in body and in spirit.
> Short passive participle + paired adverbs: «Утомлён» is the short past passive participle of «утомить» (to exhaust), with «был» giving the state 'was worn out'. The correlative «и... и...» ('both... and...') links the adverbs «телесно» / «духовно» (in body / in spirit).

Вид независимости и силы, с которым он появился утром в залу, почти исчез.  
The air of independence and strength with which he had appeared in the courtroom that morning had all but vanished.
> Relative «с которым» (instrumental): «С которым» refers to «вид» (air, look) and takes the instrumental after «с» — 'the air WITH WHICH he had appeared'. The long relative clause is embedded between subject «вид» and verb «исчез» (perfective, 'vanished').

Он как будто что-то пережил в этот день на всю жизнь, научившее и вразумившее его чему-то очень важному, чего он прежде не понимал.  
It was as though he had lived through something in that single day that would last him all his life, something that had taught him and brought home to him a matter of great importance which he had not understood before.
> Past active participles modifying «что-то»: «Научившее» and «вразумившее» are past active participles (neut., agreeing with «что-то») used substantivally — 'something that had taught and enlightened him'. The indefinite «что-то» («-то» = specific but unnamed) keeps the experience mysterious.
> Genitive of negation with «не понимал»: Under the negated «не понимал», the object shifts to genitive: «чего» (genitive of «что») — 'which he had not understood'. «Чему-то важному» before it is dative, governed by «вразумить» / 'enlighten as to'.

Голос его ослабел, он уже не кричал, как давеча.  
His voice had grown weak; he no longer shouted, as he had earlier.
> Imperfective for prior habit: «Кричал» is imperfective past — the repeated, characteristic shouting of before, now negated: 'he no longer shouted'. «Давеча» is a folksy adverb 'a while ago, earlier (today)', coloring the narrator's intimate voice.

В словах его послышалось что-то новое, смирившееся, побежденное и приникшее.  
In his words there could be heard something new — humbled, vanquished, and bowed down.
> Participles as predicate epithets: Three participles modify «что-то»: «смирившееся» (past active reflexive, 'that had grown humble'), «побеждённое» (past passive, 'vanquished'), and «приникшее» (past active, 'bowed down, drooping'). The pile-up renders the new note in Mitya's voice with lyrical density.
> Fronted locative + reflexive perfective: The locative phrase «в словах его» is fronted as the topic, and «послышалось» («-ся», impersonal perfective, 'there could be heard') follows. This is the spare, evocative word order of literary description.

«Что мне сказать, господа присяжные!  
"What am I to say, gentlemen of the jury!
> Dative subject + infinitive of deliberation: «Что мне сказать?» is the dative-experiencer construction with a deliberative infinitive — literally 'what is there for me to say?'. The dative «мне» marks the one faced with the impossible task; there is no nominative subject.

Суд мой пришел, слышу десницу божию на себе.  
My judgment has come; I feel the right hand of God upon me.
> «десница» — Church Slavonic 'right hand': «Десница» is the elevated Church-Slavonic word for the right hand, used almost only of God's hand of power and judgment. «Десница божия на себе» ('the right hand of God upon me') casts Mitya's reckoning in scriptural, providential terms.
> Perfective «пришёл» of arrival: «Пришёл» is the perfective past of the prefixed motion verb «прийти» (to come, arrive) — a completed event: 'my judgment has come'. «Суд» here is not the court but the divine judgment/reckoning that has now fallen upon him.

Конец беспутному человеку!  
It is the end of a dissolute man!
> «беспутный» — dissolute, wayward: «Беспутный» (from «без» + «путь», 'without a path') means dissolute, profligate, leading a wayward life. Mitya brands himself with this word and repeats its root («беспутен» in s56) — a key term of his self-judgment.

Но как богу исповедуясь, и вам говорю: „В крови отца моего — нет, не виновен!“  
But, as though confessing to God, I say to you as well: "Of my father's blood — no, I am not guilty!"
> Present gerund «исповедуясь»: «Исповедуясь» is the imperfective present gerund of «исповедоваться» ('to confess', a reflexive, churchly verb), simultaneous with «говорю» — 'as if confessing to God, I say to you'. «Богу» is dative, the one confessed to.
> Genitive «отца моего» + short adjective: «Отца моего» is genitive of 'father' with possessive «моего» (note the inverted, weighty word order). «Виновен» is the short predicative form of «виновный» (guilty), the form used for legal guilt — 'I am not guilty'.

В последний раз повторяю: „Не я убил“.  
For the last time I repeat: "It was not I who killed him."
> Negated topic «не я»: «Не я убил» negates the subject, not the verb — 'it was not I who killed'. Russian places «не» directly before the focused word «я», so the whole weight falls on disclaiming himself as the agent.

Беспутен был, но добро любил.  
Dissolute I was, but I loved what is good.
> Short adjective + dropped pronoun: «Беспутен был» is a short predicative adjective with the pronoun «я» dropped (the verb and sense supply it), and the fronting of «беспутен» gives terse, confessional weight. «Добро любил» = 'I loved the good', with «добро» (the good, goodness) as object.

Каждый миг стремился исправиться, а жил дикому зверю подобен.  
Every moment I strove to mend myself, yet I lived like a wild beast.
> Contrastive «а» + dative of comparison: The contrastive «а» pivots between aspiration and reality. «Подобен» (short adjective, 'like') governs the dative «дикому зверю» — 'like a wild beast'. Both verbs are imperfective past, framing a habitual struggle.

Спасибо прокурору, многое мне обо мне сказал, чего и не знал я, но неправда, что убил отца, ошибся прокурор!  
I thank the prosecutor; he told me much about myself that I had not known, but it is not true that I killed my father — the prosecutor is mistaken!
> Genitive of negation «чего не знал»: Under the negated «не знал», the object is genitive: «чего» (genitive of «что») — 'which I did not know'. Note also «обо мне» (prepositional after «о», 'about me') beside dative «мне», a deliberate echo: he told me about myself.
> Reflexive «ошибиться»: «Ошибся» is the perfective past of «ошибиться» (to be mistaken), a verb existing only in the «-ся» form. The verb-first order «ошибся прокурор» throws the emphasis onto the act of error.

Спасибо и защитнику, плакал, его слушая, но неправда, что я убил отца, и предполагать не надо было!  
I thank the defence too; I wept as I listened to him — but it is not true that I killed my father, and there was no call even to suppose it!
> Present gerund «слушая»: «Слушая» is the imperfective present gerund of «слушать» (to listen to), expressing simultaneity with «плакал» — 'I wept while listening to him'. The object «его» precedes the gerund, a natural Russian order.
> Impersonal «не надо было» + infinitive: «Не надо было» ('there was no need / one ought not') is an impersonal modal with the infinitive «предполагать» — 'there was no call even to suppose it'. The subjectless construction states the absence of any warrant.

А докторам не верьте, я в полном уме, только душе моей тяжело.  
And do not believe the doctors; I am in my full senses, only my soul is heavy.
> Imperative with dative object: «Не верьте» is the negated plural/polite imperative of «верить» (to believe, trust), which governs the dative — «докторам» ('the doctors'). 'Do not believe the doctors' — Mitya rejecting the medical experts who called him deranged.
> Dative subject of feeling: «Душе моей тяжело» is the dative-experiencer pattern: the dative «душе моей» ('to my soul') with the impersonal predicate «тяжело» ('it is heavy/hard') — 'only my soul is heavy'. The construction places the burden on the soul itself.

Коли пощадите, коль отпустите — помолюсь за вас.  
If you spare me, if you let me go — I will pray for you.
> «коли / коль» — folksy 'if': «коли» (and its clipped form «коль») is a colloquial, archaic-flavoured equivalent of «если» ('if'). Mitya's plea slips into this homely, almost peasant register — the same world the chapter title invokes.
> Perfective futures of promise: All three verbs are perfective: «пощадите» (spare) and «отпустите» (release) are perfective presents reading as future after «коль», and «помолюсь» means 'I will pray' — a single completed act. Perfective conjugation carries no auxiliary; the future sits in the ending.
> Reflexive «-ся» in «молиться»: «помолюсь» carries the clitic «-сь» (the post-vowel form of «-ся»): «молиться» (to pray) exists only as a reflexive verb, like «бояться» and «смеяться». The «-ся» here is lexical, not a true reflexive meaning.

Лучшим стану, слово даю, перед богом его даю.  
I will become a better man, I give my word, I give it before God.
> Instrumental after «стать»: «стану» (I will become) takes its predicate in the instrumental: «лучшим» ('a better [man]') is instrumental, not nominative. After «стать» and «быть» the role one assumes is framed in the instrumental — the case of the temporary or assumed predicate.
> «перед» + instrumental: The preposition «перед» ('before, in the presence of') governs the instrumental: «богом». Mitya swears 'before God' — the case is fixed by the preposition, half of its meaning.

А коль осудите — сам сломаю над головой моей шпагу, а сломав, поцелую обломки!  
And if you condemn me — I will break my own sword above my head, and having broken it, I will kiss the fragments!
> Perfective gerund «сломав»: «сломав» is a perfective past «деепричастие» ('having broken'): the suffix «-в» marks a prior completed action sharing the main subject, here followed by «поцелую» (I will kiss). It compresses 'after I have broken it' into one word — a hallmark of literary narration.
> Breaking the sword above one's head: «шпага» is the light dueling/officer's sword. Ceremonially breaking a condemned officer's sword above his head was the ritual of military degradation — Mitya, a former officer, theatrically pledges to perform his own disgrace.
> «обломки» — broken fragments: «обломки» (from «ломать», to break) are the shards or wreckage left after something snaps — the splintered pieces of the broken sword that he vows to kiss.

Но пощадите, не лишите меня бога моего, знаю себя: возропщу!  
But spare me, do not deprive me of my God; I know myself — I shall fall to murmuring against Him!
> Genitive of negation: «бога»: «лишить» ('to deprive of') already governs the genitive, and under the negative imperative «не лишите» the object «бога моего» firmly stays genitive — 'do not deprive me of my God'. The genitive marks the thing withheld or absent.
> Perfective future «возропщу»: «возропщу» is the perfective future of the bookish «возроптать» — 'I will break into murmuring/grumbling'. The «воз-» prefix and perfective aspect mark a single decisive lapse into complaint against God.
> «возроптать» — to murmur against God: A Church-Slavonic-flavoured, biblical verb: «роптать»/«возроптать» is the murmuring of the Israelites against God in the wilderness. Mitya's word reaches for Scripture — to lose his God would be to fall into impious complaint.

Тяжело душе моей, господа… пощадите!»  
My soul is heavy, gentlemen… spare me!"
> Dative-subject construction: There is no nominative subject: «тяжело» is an impersonal predicate and «душе моей» ('to my soul') stands in the dative as the experiencer — 'it is heavy for my soul'. This dative-experiencer frame is the native shape of Dostoevsky's inner anguish.
> «господа» — gentlemen of the court: «господа» is the plural of «господин», the standard formal 'gentlemen'. Addressing the courtroom, Mitya uses the deferential vocative-by-nominative typical of public 19th-century speech.

Он почти упал на свое место, голос его пресекся, последнюю фразу он едва выговорил.  
He all but collapsed onto his seat; his voice broke off, and the last phrase he scarcely got out at all.
> Chain of perfective past events: Three perfectives in the past — «упал» (collapsed), «пресекся» (broke off), «выговорил» (got out) — move the moment forward event by event. Perfective past narrates discrete completed actions, against any imperfective background.
> Middle «-ся» in «пресекся»: «пресекся» (the voice 'broke off, gave out') uses «-ся» for an intransitive change of state: the voice failed of itself, with no external agent. This is the middle/inchoative use of the reflexive clitic, not a true reflexive.

Затем суд приступил к постановке вопросов и начал спрашивать у сторон заключений.  
Then the court proceeded to frame the questions and began asking the parties for their closing submissions.
> «приступить к» + dative; phase verb + infinitive: «приступить к» ('to set about, proceed to') governs the dative «постановке». Then «начал спрашивать» pairs the phase verb «начать» with an imperfective infinitive — phase verbs (begin, continue, finish) require the imperfective.

Но не описываю подробности.  
But I will not describe the details.
> Imperfective present + dropped «я»: «описываю» is imperfective present in the 1st person; the subject pronoun «я» is dropped because the ending already marks it. The narrator — Dostoevsky's chronicler voice — declines to dwell on procedure.

Наконец-то присяжные встали, чтоб удалиться для совещаний.  
At last the jurors rose, to withdraw for their deliberations.
> «чтоб(ы)» + infinitive of purpose: «чтоб» (the clipped «чтобы») introduces a purpose clause; with a same-subject goal it takes the infinitive «удалиться» ('to withdraw') rather than a past-form clause. 'In order to withdraw for deliberations.'
> «-то» of relief: The clitic «-то» on «наконец» ('at last') adds an emphatic, emotionally invested colouring — 'at long last', with a note of impatience finally satisfied. It marks the awaited event as the long-anticipated topic.

Председатель был очень утомлен, а потому и сказал им очень слабое напутственное слово: «Будьте-де беспристрастны, не внушайтесь красноречивыми словами защиты, но, однако же, взвесьте, вспомните, что на вас лежит великая обязанность», и проч., и проч.  
The presiding judge was very tired, and so he gave them only a feeble parting word: "Be impartial, forsooth, do not let yourselves be swayed by the eloquent words of the defence, but weigh it all, nonetheless, and remember that a great responsibility rests upon you," and so on, and so forth.
> The reportative particle «-де»: «-де» is an archaic, colloquial hearsay particle meaning roughly 'so he said / supposedly', flagging the words as quoted at second hand. Our 'forsooth' renders its faintly ironic, distancing tone as the narrator paraphrases the judge.
> String of imperatives: The charge to the jury is a chain of plural/polite imperatives in «-те»: «будьте» (be), «не внушайтесь» (don't be swayed), «взвесьте» (weigh), «вспомните» (remember). Aspect varies — imperfective «не внушайтесь» for an ongoing caution, perfective «взвесьте/вспомните» for the decisive acts demanded.
> Idiom «на ком лежит обязанность»: Literally 'a great duty lies upon you' — «на вас» here is «на» + the prepositional case (the stative 'rest/lie upon someone', лежать на ком-л.), not the accusative; «вас» is the syncretic acc./prep. form of «вы». With «лежит» it renders responsibility as a weight resting on a person. «обязанность» is the nominative subject; word order delays it for rhetorical weight.
> «напутствие» — a parting word: «напутственное слово» is the formal 'send-off' address — the words of guidance given to someone setting out (here, the jury going to deliberate). The root «путь» ('road') makes it literally a 'word for the road'.

Присяжные удалились, и наступил перерыв заседания.  
The jury withdrew, and a recess in the session began.
> Two perfective events: «удалились» (withdrew) and «наступил» (set in, began) are perfective pasts marking two successive completed events. «наступить» of a period or state means it 'comes on' or 'sets in' — here the recess begins.

Можно было встать, пройтись, обменяться накопившимися впечатлениями, закусить в буфете.  
One could get up, walk about, exchange the impressions that had piled up, take a bite to eat at the buffet.
> Impersonal «можно было» + infinitives: «можно было» ('it was possible / one could') is an impersonal modal predicate with no nominative subject, governing a string of perfective infinitives: «встать, пройтись, обменяться, закусить». The impersonal frame leaves the doer indefinite — 'one could…'.
> Past active participle «накопившимися»: «накопившимися» is a past active participle from «накопиться» ('to accumulate'), in the instrumental plural to agree with «впечатлениями». It packs a «который»-clause ('impressions that had piled up') into one modifier — bookish economy.
> «закусить» / «буфет»: «закусить» is to have a quick bite or snack (related to «кусать», to bite); «буфет» is the refreshment counter or sideboard. Even a midnight murder trial has its lobby buffet.

Было очень поздно, уже около часу пополуночи, но никто не разъезжался.  
It was very late, already about one o'clock past midnight, but no one was leaving.
> «пополуночи» and the partitive «часу»: «пополуночи» is a bookish 'past midnight, a.m.' (cf. «пополудни», p.m.). «около часу» uses the old partitive/genitive «часу» after «около» — 'around one o'clock'. The forms are period-elevated.
> Negative concord + imperfective «-ся»: «никто… не» is obligatory negative concord — the «ни»-pronoun still requires «не» on the verb. «разъезжался» is imperfective with «-ся» (everyone 'dispersing, driving off'): the imperfective stresses that the leaving simply was not happening.

Все были так напряжены и настроены, что было не до покоя.  
Everyone was so strung up and on edge that there was no thought of rest.
> Short participles + result clause: «напряжены» and «настроены» are short-form passive participles ('strung up', 'keyed up'), predicative only and agreeing in number. Paired with «так… что», they set up a degree-result clause: 'so tense that…'.
> Idiom «не до» + genitive: «не до покоя» is the set construction «не до» + genitive — 'there was no thought of rest', 'no one was in any state for calm'. It conveys that one cannot spare attention for the named thing.

Все ждали, замирая сердцем, хотя, впрочем, и не все замирали сердцем.  
Everyone waited with sinking heart — though not everyone's heart, it must be said, was sinking.
> Imperfective gerund «замирая»: «замирая» is a present (imperfective) «деепричастие» from «замирать» ('to grow faint, freeze') — 'with sinking heart', a simultaneous attendant circumstance to «ждали». «сердцем» is instrumental of respect ('faint as to the heart').
> Concessive «хотя» with corrective «впрочем»: «хотя» ('although') opens a concession; «впрочем» ('though, then again') softens it into an afterthought. The narrator wryly qualifies his own sweeping 'everyone' — a characteristic turn of the chronicler's voice.

Дамы были лишь в истерическом нетерпении, но сердцами были спокойны: «Оправдание-де неминуемое».  
The ladies were merely in a state of hysterical impatience, but in their hearts they were at ease: "An acquittal, forsooth, is inevitable."
> Short adjective «спокойны» + instrumental: «спокойны» is a short-form adjective, predicate only, plural agreeing with «дамы» — 'were at ease'. «сердцами» is instrumental of respect ('calm in their hearts'). The short form lends a fixed, summary quality.
> «-де» + «неминуемое»: Again the hearsay particle «-де» frames the ladies' confident verdict as a quoted commonplace. «неминуемый» means 'unavoidable, certain to come' (root «миновать», to pass by) — for them an acquittal cannot be escaped.

Все они готовились к эффектной минуте общего энтузиазма.  
They were all preparing themselves for the dramatic moment of general enthusiasm.
> Imperfective «-ся» + «к» + dative: «готовились» is imperfective reflexive ('were preparing themselves'), the «-ся» making the verb intransitive/middle. «к эффектной минуте» shows «к» governing the dative — preparing 'toward' the moment.

Признаюсь, и в мужской половине залы было чрезвычайно много убежденных в неминуемом оправдании.  
I confess that on the men's side of the courtroom, too, there were a great many convinced of the inevitable acquittal.
> Substantivized participle + «в» + prepositional: «убежденных» is a past passive participle used as a noun ('those convinced'), in the genitive plural after «много». «в… оправдании» shows «в» governing the prepositional to express the matter one is convinced 'of'.
> «признаюсь» — the chronicler's aside: «признаюсь» ('I confess, I admit') is the reflexive present of «признаться». This first-person interjection is the signature of Dostoevsky's intrusive narrator, stepping forward to confide in the reader.

Иные радовались, другие же хмурились, а иные так просто повесили носы: не хотелось им оправдания!  
Some rejoiced, others frowned, and some simply hung their heads: they did not want an acquittal!
> «иные… другие… иные» with contrastive «а» and «же»: The sentence balances three groups with «иные» ('some'), «другие» ('others') marked by the emphatic «же», and a third «иные» introduced by mild-contrastive «а». «а» and «же» are the untranslatable hinges that articulate the shifting reactions.
> Dative subject + genitive of negation: «не хотелось им» is an impersonal dative-experiencer construction ('they did not feel like…'), with «им» dative and the verb in neuter «-сь». The negated wished-for object «оправдания» drops to the genitive.
> Idiom «повесить нос»: «повесить нос(ы)» literally 'to hang one's nose' is the set idiom for becoming downcast or crestfallen — to mope. Some in the crowd, perversely, were glum because they wanted a conviction.

Сам Фетюкович был твердо уверен в успехе.  
Fetyukovich himself was firmly assured of success.
> Intensifier «сам»; «уверен в» + prepositional: «сам» ('himself, in person') intensifies the subject. «уверен» is a short-form adjective predicate, and «в успехе» shows «в» + prepositional for the matter one is sure 'of'.

Он был окружен, принимал поздравления, перед ним заискивали.  
He was surrounded, he received congratulations, people fawned upon him.
> Periphrastic passive + impersonal-plural: «был окружен» is «быть» plus a short past passive participle — the periphrastic passive ('was surrounded'). «заискивали» is an agentless 3rd-plural ('people fawned'), Russian's way of saying 'one fawned' without naming a subject.
> «заискивать» — to fawn, ingratiate: «заискивать (перед кем)» is to curry favour, to fawn ingratiatingly before someone. The imperfective stresses the ongoing, repeated toadying of the crowd around the star lawyer.

— Есть, — сказал он в одной группе, как передавали потом, — есть эти невидимые нити, связующие защитника с присяжными.  
"There exist," he said in one group, as was reported afterward, "there exist those invisible threads that bind the defence counsel to the jurors.
> Impersonal-plural «передавали»: «передавали» (3rd-plural, no subject) means 'as was reported / as people related afterward'. This subjectless plural lets the chronicler attribute the quotation to common report without a named source.
> Bookish participle «связующие»: «связующие» is an elevated present active participle ('binding, connecting'), an archaic Church-Slavonic-flavoured variant of «связывающие». It agrees with «нити» and governs «защитника… с присяжными» — the threads binding counsel to jurors.

Они завязываются и предчувствуются еще во время речи.  
They form and are felt in advance, even during the speech itself.
> Two «-ся» verbs: middle and passive: «завязываются» ('form, are tied') is middle-intransitive «-ся»; «предчувствуются» ('are sensed in advance') is an imperfective passive «-ся» — the threads are felt by someone unnamed. Both show the range of the reflexive clitic.

Я ощутил их, они существуют.  
I sensed them; they exist.
> Perfective vs imperfective in two clauses: «ощутил» is perfective past — a single completed act of sensing them. «существуют» is imperfective present — a standing, ongoing fact ('they exist'). The aspect shift moves from event to enduring truth.

Дело наше, будьте спокойны.  
Our case is won — rest easy."
> Zero copula + reassuring imperative: «Дело наше» has no verb — the present 'is' is a zero copula, leaving two nominatives ('our case [is] ours/won'). «будьте спокойны» is a polite imperative with the short adjective «спокойны»: 'rest easy'.

— А вот что-то наши мужички теперь скажут? — проговорил один нахмуренный, толстый и рябой господин, подгородный помещик, подходя к одной группе разговаривавших господ.  
"Well, and what will our peasants say now, I wonder?" said a scowling, stout, pockmarked gentleman, a landowner from just outside town, coming up to one group of gentlemen in conversation.
> Indefinite «что-то» as 'I wonder what': Here «что-то» is the interrogative «что» softened by «-то» into a musing 'what, I wonder' — not the indefinite pronoun 'something'. «скажут» is perfective future: 'what will our peasants say?'
> Imperfective gerund «подходя»: «подходя» is a present «деепричастие» from the prefixed motion verb «подходить» ('to approach') — 'coming up to', a simultaneous action framing «проговорил». «к группе» takes the dative after «к».
> «подгородный помещик» — a suburban landowner: «помещик» is a landed gentry proprietor (an estate-owner); «подгородный» means 'just outside town, suburban'. He belongs to the provincial gentry whose chatter fills the recess.
> «рябой» — pockmarked: «рябой» means pitted or marked, usually pockmarked (from smallpox scars) — a common 19th-century physical descriptor. Dostoevsky stacks «нахмуренный, толстый и рябой» for a vivid, unflattering thumbnail.

— Да ведь не одни мужички.  
"It's not only peasants, though.
> Particles «да» and «ведь»: «да» here is not 'yes' but a softening conversational opener ('well, but'); «ведь» appeals to shared knowledge ('after all, you know'). Together they make a mild, knowing correction — the very texture of spoken Russian.

Там четыре чиновника.  
There are four officials among them.
> Genitive singular after «четыре»: After the numeral «четыре», the counted noun takes the genitive singular: «чиновника». Numerals 2–4 govern the genitive singular, where 5 and up would take the genitive plural («пять чиновников»).

— Да, вот чиновники, — проговорил, подходя, член земской управы.  
"Yes, those officials," said a member of the rural council, coming up.
> Gerund «подходя» again: Once more an imperfective «деепричастие», «подходя» ('coming up'), frames the act of speaking — a small recurring stage-direction as new speakers join each group.

— А вы Назарьева-то, Прохора Ивановича, знаете, вот этот купец-то с медалью, присяжный-то?  
"And do you know that Nazaryev fellow, Prokhor Ivanovich — that merchant there with the medal, the one on the jury?"
> Topic-marking clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» here is the emphatic topic-marker, not the indefinite particle: it flags each noun as the known thing under discussion ('that Nazaryev fellow, you know'). Its threefold repetition gives the speech its insistent, gossipy rhythm.
> Animate accusative = genitive: «Назарьева» and «Прохора Ивановича» are animate masculine objects of «знаете», so their accusative borrows the genitive ending «-а». The name-plus-patronymic «Прохор Иванович» is the respectful mode of address.

— А что?  
"What of him?"
> «А что?» — 'What of it?': The bare «А что?» is an idiomatic conversational prompt — 'What about him? / What of it? / Why do you ask?' — inviting the interlocutor to go on. The opening «а» is the contrastive-shifting particle that hinges so much Russian dialogue.

— Ума палата.  
"A mind like a council chamber."
> Idiom «ума палата»: «Ума палата» literally 'a chamber-full of wit' is the set idiom for a very clever person — 'a wise head, a brilliant mind'. «палата» (chamber, hall) furnishes the image; our rendering 'a mind like a council chamber' keeps that flavour.

— Да он всё молчит.  
"But he never says a word."
> Adverbial «всё» + imperfective: «всё» here is not 'everything' but the adverb 'continually, all the time', intensifying the imperfective «молчит» ('keeps silent'). 'But he's forever silent / never says a word.'

— Молчит-то молчит, да ведь тем и лучше.  
"Says nothing, true enough — but that's all the better for it.
> Concessive verb-doubling «молчит-то молчит»: Repeating the verb with «-то» between, «молчит-то молчит», is a concessive idiom: 'silent he may be, true — but…'. «да ведь» then turns the concession with the appealing particle «ведь», and «тем и лучше» means 'so much the better for it'.

Не то что петербургскому его учить, сам весь Петербург научит.  
It's not for some Petersburg man to teach him; he could teach all Petersburg himself.
> Dative agent of the infinitive «учить»: «петербургскому» (a Petersburg man) stands in the dative as the would-be agent of the infinitive «учить его» — 'it is not for a Petersburg man to teach him'. The dative-plus-infinitive frames who is (not) in a position to act.
> Perfective future «научит» + intensive «сам»: «научит» is the perfective future ('he will/could teach [thoroughly]'); «сам» intensifies the subject ('he himself'). The whole turn sets the silent local sage above the metropolitan experts.

Двенадцать человек детей, подумайте!  
Twelve children — just think of it!"
> Genitive plural after a high numeral; «человек»: After «двенадцать», the count takes the genitive plural; the counting-word «человек» here keeps its special zero-ending genitive plural (not «людей») used after numerals. «детей» is the irregular genitive plural of «дети».
> Imperative «подумайте» as appeal: «подумайте» (perfective plural imperative, 'just think!') is used not as a literal command but as a rhetorical appeal to the listener — 'imagine that!'. The «-те» marks plural/polite address.

— Да помилуйте, неужто не оправдают? — кричал в другой группе один из молодых наших чиновников.  
"But have mercy, surely they won't fail to acquit him?" cried one of our younger officials in another group.
> Doubt particle «неужто» + negated future: «неужто» is a colloquial-archaic variant of «неужели» ('surely not? can it be that?'), expressing incredulous doubt. With the impersonal-plural future «не оправдают» ('they won't acquit') it means 'surely they won't fail to acquit?!'
> «помилуйте» — exclamation of protest: «помилуйте» (lit. 'have mercy', perfective imperative of «помиловать») is bleached into an exclamation of remonstrance — 'come now! for goodness' sake!'. Its old religious force ('show mercy') survives faintly under the everyday protest.

— Оправдают наверно, — послышался решительный голос.  
"They'll acquit him for certain," said a decisive voice.
> Impersonal-plural «оправдают»: «оправдают» is again the subjectless 3rd-plural perfective future — 'they'll acquit him', meaning 'the jury will'. Russian routinely leaves such generalized agents unnamed.
> Inceptive «-ся» + delayed subject: «послышался» ('was heard, came') uses «-ся» for a spontaneous emergence of sound. The subject «голос» follows the verb — a presentative word order that lets the new voice arrive as fresh information.

— Стыдно, позорно было бы не оправдать! — восклицал чиновник.  
"It would be shameful, a disgrace, not to acquit him!" exclaimed the official.
> Conditional «было бы» + impersonal predicate: «было бы» is the past-form-plus-«бы» conditional, here impersonal: 'it would be shameful'. The short predicatives «стыдно, позорно» take no subject, and the negated infinitive «не оправдать» is what would be shameful.

— Пусть он убил, но ведь отец и отец!  
"Grant that he killed him — but a father is a father, after all!
> Concessive «пусть» — 'granted that': «пусть» normally forms a 3rd-person imperative ('let him…'), but here it is concessive — 'granted, suppose he did kill him'. The speaker concedes the deed only to argue past it.
> «ведь» + emphatic repetition «отец и отец»: «ведь» appeals to shared feeling ('after all'), and the bare repetition «отец и отец» ('a father is a father') is an idiom of self-evident identity — no copula needed. The kinship is offered as moral mitigation.

И наконец, он был в таком исступлении…  
And besides, he was in such a frenzy…
> «в» + prepositional for a state: «в таком исступлении» uses «в» + prepositional to express the state someone is in — 'in such a frenzy'. «такой» agrees with «исступлении» and intensifies it.
> «исступление» — frenzy, ecstasy of rage: «исступление» is a key Dostoevskian word: a state of being beside oneself — frenzy, transport, delirium of passion. It is the very plea the defence builds on, that Mitya acted in an unhinged fury.

Он действительно мог только махнуть пестом, и тот повалился.  
He really may have done no more than swing the pestle, and the man dropped.
> «махнуть» + instrumental; demonstrative «тот»: «махнуть» ('to swing, give a wave') takes its object in the instrumental — «пестом», 'with the pestle', the instrument of motion. «тот» ('that one') then names the victim as the contrasting topic: 'and he (the other man) dropped'.
> «пест» — the pestle: «пест» is the brass pestle — the very weapon at the heart of the case, the object Mitya is accused of using to kill his father. Its casual mention here marks how the gossips have absorbed the trial's grim specifics.

Плохо только, что лакея тут притянули.  
The one bad thing is that they dragged the lackey into it.
> Animate accusative «лакея» + impersonal plural: «лакея» is animate masculine accusative (= genitive ending «-я»), object of the subjectless 3rd-plural «притянули» ('they dragged in'). «притянуть» here means to drag someone needlessly into a matter.

Это просто смешной эпизод.  
That is simply a ridiculous episode.
> «это» + zero copula: «Это… эпизод» links a demonstrative subject to a nominative predicate with no verb — the present-tense zero copula. «просто» ('simply, just') is the dismissive adverb flattening the matter to a mere comic interlude.

Я бы на месте защитника так прямо и сказал: убил, но не виновен, вот и черт с вами!  
In the defence counsel's place, I'd have said it straight out: he killed him, but he is not guilty — and the devil take you!"
> Conditional «бы» + emphatic «и»: «Я бы… сказал» is the conditional ('I would have said'), «бы» joined to the past-form verb. «так прямо и» is an emphatic frame ('would have said it straight out, just like that'), the «и» underscoring the directness.
> «на месте» + genitive — 'in someone's place': «на месте защитника» ('in the defence counsel's place') uses «на месте» plus a genitive of the person — the idiom for 'if I were in his shoes'. It pairs naturally with the conditional «бы».
> «черт с вами» — 'the devil take you': «черт с вами» is a dismissive set exclamation — 'to the devil with you / damn you all'. Coming after 'he's not guilty', it gives the imagined plea its reckless, contemptuous flourish.

— Да он так и сделал, только «черт с вами» не сказал.  
"Well, that's just what he did, only he didn't say 'the devil take you.'"
> «так и» — 'just so, exactly that': «так и сделал» means 'did exactly that, did just so' — the «так и» frame confirms the prior speaker's hypothetical was in fact realized. «да» again opens the reply with mild assent ('well, yes').

— Нет, Михаил Семеныч, почти что сказал, — подхватил третий голосок.  
"No, Mikhail Semyonych, he very nearly did say it," put in a third little voice.
> Hedge «почти что»: «почти что» ('all but, very nearly') is a colloquial intensified hedge — stronger and chattier than plain «почти». 'He very nearly did say it.'
> Contracted patronymic «Семеныч»: «Семеныч» is the colloquial contraction of the patronymic «Семёнович». Name-plus-patronymic is the respectful familiar address; clipping it to «Семеныч» adds an easy, conversational warmth among the gentlemen.
> Diminutive «голосок»: «голосок» is the diminutive of «голос» (voice) — a 'little voice', here colouring the third interjector as small, eager, or piping. The suffix «-ок» carries tone, not literal size.

— Помилуйте, господа, ведь оправдали же у нас великим постом актрису, которая законной жене своего любовника горло перерезала.  
"Have mercy, gentlemen — why, in Lent they acquitted that actress of ours who slit the throat of her lover's lawful wife."
> Insistent «же» + impersonal plural: «же» here insists and reminds ('why, after all they did acquit…'). «оправдали» is the subjectless 3rd-plural ('they acquitted'), and «у нас» means 'here among us, in our parts'.
> Relative «которая»: «которая» introduces a relative clause modifying «актрису», agreeing with it in gender/number (feminine singular) but taking nominative as the clause's own subject. «горло перерезала» — 'slit the throat', perfective past.

— Да ведь не дорезала.  
"But she didn't finish cutting it."
> Prefix «до-» of completion: «дорезать» adds the prefix «до-» ('to finish doing') to «резать»: «не дорезала» means 'didn't finish cutting (the throat)'. The «до-» marks the failure to carry the act through to its endpoint.

— Всё равно, всё равно, начала резать!  
"All the same, all the same — she'd begun to cut!"
> Phase verb «начала» + imperfective infinitive: «начала резать» ('began to cut') pairs the perfective «начать» with the imperfective infinitive «резать» — phase verbs of beginning/continuing/finishing always take the imperfective.
> «всё равно» — 'all the same': «всё равно» is the fixed phrase 'it makes no difference, all the same'. Doubled for vehemence, it dismisses the objection: begun is as good as done.

— А про детей-то как он? Великолепно!  
"And the bit about the children — how did he do it? Magnificent!"
> «про» + accusative; topic «-то»: «про» ('about') governs the accusative «детей»; the «-то» marks 'the children' as the salient topic being recalled. The elliptical «как он» ('how [did] he [do it]') leans on context — admiring shorthand for Fetyukovich's set-piece on the children.

— Великолепно.  
"Magnificent."

— Ну, а про мистику-то, про мистику-то, а?  
"And what about the mysticism, the mysticism, eh?"
> Repetition + topic «-то» + tag «а»: «про мистику» again uses «про» + accusative; doubling it with «-то» gives breathless eagerness, and the final «а?» is a tag inviting agreement ('eh?'). The whole line is pure excited gossip-rhythm.

— Да полноте вы о мистике, — вскричал еще кто-то, — вы вникните в Ипполита-то, в судьбу-то его отселева дня!  
"Oh, do leave off about the mysticism," cried someone else, "think rather about Ippolit — about his fate from this day on!
> «полноте» — 'enough! do leave off': «полноте» is a frozen plural imperative (from «полно», 'enough') meaning 'stop it, come now, leave off'. The added «вы» is reproachful emphasis, scolding the others off the topic.
> Imperative «вникните» + «в» + accusative: «вникните» ('go into, ponder deeply') is a perfective imperative; «в Ипполита» shows «в» + accusative (animate, = genitive ending). 'Think hard about Ippolit instead.'
> Archaic «отселева» — 'from here/now on': «отселева» (also «отселе») is an archaic, folksy 'from here / from this point' — here temporal, 'from this day forward'. The old adverb gives the speaker's worry about Ippolit's future a quaint, heightened colour.

Ведь ему завтрашний день его прокурорша за Митеньку глаза выцарапает.  
Why, tomorrow his wife, the prosecutor's lady, will scratch his eyes out over Mitenka.
> Dative possessor «ему» + accusative time: «ему» is dative of the affected possessor — 'will scratch out his eyes' (lit. 'scratch out to him the eyes'). «завтрашний день» is an accusative of time ('tomorrow'), and «выцарапает» is perfective future.
> «прокурорша» — the prosecutor's wife: The suffix «-ша» makes a feminine 'wife of' (or, in other words, a woman in the role): «прокурорша» is the prosecutor's lady. Colloquial and slightly dismissive, it suits the gossipy register.
> Affectionate diminutive «Митенька»: «Митенька» is a tender diminutive of «Дмитрий» (Дмитрий → Митя → Митенька) — that the gossiping lady is imagined to dote on 'little Mitya' is the point of the joke. The «-енька» suffix drips affection.

— А она здесь?  
"Is she here?"
> Zero-copula question: «А она здесь?» has no verb — present 'is' is unexpressed, leaving pronoun plus adverb ('And is she here?'). The opening «а» links it as a quick follow-up question.

— Чего здесь? Была бы здесь, здесь бы и выцарапала.  
"Here? If she were here, she'd have scratched them out here and now.
> Counterfactual «бы» without «если»: Both clauses use «бы» with a past-form verb for a counterfactual — and the 'if' clause «была бы здесь» drops «если» entirely (a common terse pattern): 'were she here, she'd have scratched them out right here'. The mobile «бы» leans on the fronted «здесь».
> Genitive «чего» as scornful 'here?!': «Чего здесь?» uses the genitive of «что» in a dismissive idiom — roughly 'here?! what do you mean here?' — brushing off the previous question with contempt. Colloquial «чего» for «что» is itself a register marker.

Дома сидит, зубы болят. Хе-хе-хе!  
She's sitting at home with a toothache. He-he-he!"
> Two terse subjectless-feeling clauses: «Дома сидит» drops the subject (she) — the ending and context carry it. «зубы болят» ('the teeth ache') states the ailment with the body part as grammatical subject, the idiomatic Russian way to say someone has a toothache.

— Хе-хе-хе!  
"He-he-he!"

В третьей группе.  
In a third group.
> «в» + prepositional, ordinal agreement: «в третьей группе» ('in a third group') is «в» + prepositional for location; the ordinal «третьей» agrees with feminine «группе» in case and gender. This bare scene-heading hands the narration on to the next knot of talkers.

— А ведь Митеньку-то, пожалуй, и оправдают.  
— And after all, our Mitenka may just be acquitted.
> The opening «А ведь»: The clause is launched by two particles: contrastive «а» (a soft 'and yet') plus appealing «ведь» ('after all, you know'), inviting the listener to share an assumption. This little hinge is the texture of Dostoevsky's overheard crowd-talk.
> Topic-marking clitic «-то»: The hyphenated «-то» on «Митеньку» foregrounds him as the known topic ('as for Mitenka…'), not the indefinite «кто-то» sense. It throws the weight of the sentence forward onto «оправдают».
> «Митенька», the tender diminutive of Dmitri: «Митя» is the everyday short form of Дмитрий; the further «-енька» suffix in «Митенька» adds warmth and pity. From a knot of gossiping bystanders it sounds half-affectionate, half-condescending toward the accused.
> Perfective future = a single outcome: «Оправдают» (they will acquit) is a perfective verb conjugated like a present, which in Russian yields the simple future of one completed event. The 3rd-plural with no subject ('they') is the impersonal-passive 'he may be acquitted'.

— Чего доброго, завтра весь «Столичный город» разнесет, десять дней пьянствовать будет.  
— Most likely the whole "Capital City" will be in an uproar tomorrow, and he'll drink for ten days running.
> «Чего доброго» — 'like as not': A fixed colloquial idiom, literally 'of what good', meaning 'quite possibly, I shouldn't wonder if'. It frames the following clause as an apprehensive guess.
> «разнести» — to wreck / paint the town: «Разнесёт» (perfective of «разносить») literally means 'to smash to pieces, scatter'; of a drunken spree it means to turn a place upside down. The «Столичный город» ('Capital City') is the name of a local tavern.
> Compound imperfective future: «Будет … пьянствовать» is the analytic future: conjugated «быть» plus the imperfective infinitive «пьянствовать» (to carouse), naming an ongoing, repeated action — fitting a ten-day binge.

— Эх ведь черт!  
— Eh, the devil take it!
> The interjection «эх»: «Эх» is an expressive sigh of regret, resignation, or reckless feeling — untranslatable, somewhere between 'ah', 'eh', and 'oh well'. With «ведь черт!» it vents helpless exasperation.

— Да черт-то черт, без черта не обошлось, где ж ему и быть, как не тут.  
— Well, the devil's the devil; it didn't happen without the devil, and where else would he be if not here.
> Concessive «X-то X» pattern: The frame «черт-то черт» ('the devil's the devil all right, but…') uses the topic clitic «-то» to concede a point before contradicting it. It is a lively spoken construction: 'granted he's the devil, still…'.
> Reflexive «обойтись» + genitive after «без»: «Не обошлось без черта» = 'it didn't come off without the devil', i.e. the devil had a hand in it. The reflexive «-ся» verb «обойтись» is impersonal here, and the preposition «без» governs the genitive «черта».
> Dative + infinitive rhetorical question: «Где ж ему и быть» frames the question impersonally: the dative «ему» is the subject of the infinitive «быть» ('where is he to be?'). The particle «ж» (shortened «же») sharpens it, and «как не тут» answers it: 'where else but here?'.

— Господа, положим, красноречие. Но ведь нельзя же и отцам ломать головы безменами. Иначе до чего же дойдем?  
— Gentlemen, granted it was eloquence. But you can't go cracking fathers' skulls open with steelyards. Otherwise where will we end up?
> «Положим» — concessive 'let's say': Literally a 1st-plural imperative 'let us suppose', «положим» works as a concessive particle: 'granted, suppose it was eloquence — but…'. It sets up the contrastive «но» that follows.
> Impersonal «нельзя» + dative experiencer: «Нельзя … отцам ломать головы» is a subjectless modal: 'one mustn't crack fathers' skulls'. The dative «отцам» names those it concerns, and «нельзя» plus the imperfective infinitive «ломать» states a general prohibition. The particle «же» adds indignant emphasis.
> Rhetorical perfective future: «До чего дойдём?» ('what will we come to?') uses the perfective future «дойдём» of «дойти» (to reach an end-point) as an alarmed rhetorical question. The particle «же» again charges it with feeling.

— Колесница-то, колесница-то, помните?  
— The chariot, the chariot — remember that?
> Emphatic repetition with «-то»: The doubled «колесница-то, колесница-то» with the topic clitic «-то» is excited spoken emphasis: 'the chariot, now — the chariot, remember?'. Russian foregrounds the known item rather than stressing with intonation alone.
> «Колесница» — a chariot, a lofty word: «Колесница» is an elevated, even biblical word for a ceremonial chariot, opposed to the humble «телега» (peasant cart) in the next lines. The crowd mocks the defence lawyer's rhetoric for grandly turning a cart into a chariot.

— Да, из телеги колесницу сделал.  
— Yes, he turned a cart into a chariot.
> «Телега» — the plain peasant cart: A «телега» is a rough four-wheeled work cart, the everyday vehicle of rural Russia. Set against «колесница», it makes the joke: the lawyer 'made a chariot out of a cart', dressing up squalid fact as grand drama.

— А завтра из колесницы телегу, «по мере надобности, всё по мере надобности».  
— And tomorrow the chariot back into a cart, "as the need requires, all of it as the need requires".
> Ellipsis: «сделает» understood: The verb «сделает» ('will make') is dropped and recovered from the previous line, leaving the bare contrast «из колесницы телегу» (out of a chariot, a cart). Such verb-gapping is natural in rapid spoken exchange.
> «По мере надобности» — 'as need requires': A bureaucratic-bookish phrase, 'in proportion to the need', here quoted mockingly back at the lawyer. The crowd parrots his slippery, on-demand reasoning.

— Ловкий народ пошел. Правда-то есть у нас на Руси, господа, али нет ее вовсе?  
— A crafty lot, this new breed. Is there any truth left among us here in Russia, gentlemen, or none at all?
> «Ловкий народ пошёл» — 'a slick breed nowadays': «Ловкий» means deft, cunning, slippery; «народ пошёл» ('the people that have come along') is a colloquial way of saying 'the sort you get these days'. The whole is a sour generalisation about a craftier modern world.
> «али» — folk variant of «или»: «Али» is a colloquial, dialectal 'or', flavouring the speech as peasant and old-fashioned. «Правда-то есть … али нет ее вовсе?» — 'is there truth, or none at all?'.
> Genitive of negation with «нет»: «Нет её вовсе» ('there is none of it at all') uses «нет» plus the genitive «её»: an absent thing in a negated existential takes the genitive, not the nominative.

Но зазвонил колокольчик.  
But the bell rang.
> Inceptive prefix «за-»: «Зазвонил» (perfective) carries the prefix «за-» marking the start of an action — 'the bell began to ring / rang out'. Russian packs 'started ringing' into one verb, and the verb-first order is dramatic.
> «колокольчик» — the little hand-bell: The diminutive «-чик» on «колокол» (bell) gives «колокольчик», the small bell rung to call the court back to order. The suffix marks size, not affection here.

Присяжные совещались ровно час, ни больше, ни меньше.  
The jury had deliberated for exactly an hour, no more, no less.
> Negative concord with «ни … ни»: «Ни больше, ни мельше» ('neither more nor less') uses the intensifying «ни» twice for emphatic exactness. «ни» reinforces negation; here it underlines 'exactly an hour'.

Глубокое молчание воцарилось, только что уселась снова публика.  
A deep silence settled over the room the moment the spectators had taken their seats again.
> «воцариться» — to reign / settle solemnly: «Воцарилось» (reflexive «-ся», from «царь», tsar) literally means 'began to reign', used grandly of a silence taking hold. The royal metaphor lends the hush weight and ceremony.
> «только что» + perfective past: «Только что уселась» means 'had only just seated themselves'. The perfective past «уселась» (reflexive «усесться», to settle into a seat) marks a completed action, and the verb precedes its subject «публика» for narrative weight.

Помню, как присяжные вступили в залу.  
I remember how the jurors filed into the hall.
> «как» as 'how / the way': Here «как» introduces not a comparison but the content of memory — 'I remember how the jurors filed in'. «вступили в залу» uses «в» + accusative for motion into the hall.
> «зала» — the older feminine 'hall': Dostoevsky uses the 19th-century feminine «зала» (declined «в залу») where modern Russian prefers the masculine «зал». The form dates and elevates the courtroom setting.

Наконец-то!  
At last!
> Emphatic «-то» on «наконец»: «Наконец-то!» — 'at last!' — adds the emphatic clitic «-то» to «наконец» (finally), charging it with relief and impatience. The clitic intensifies an awaited, known outcome.

Не привожу вопросов по пунктам, да я их и забыл.  
I will not set down the questions point by point — I have forgotten them anyway.
> Genitive of negation: «вопросов»: Under the negated verb «не привожу» ('I do not cite'), the object shifts from accusative to the genitive plural «вопросов». Negation regularly pulls a direct object into the genitive.
> Additive «да … и»: «Да я их и забыл» — 'and besides, I've forgotten them anyway'. Sentence-initial «да» here is the loose colloquial connective 'and / besides', and the particle «и» before the verb means 'even, anyway'.

Я помню лишь ответ на первый и главный вопрос председателя, то есть «убил ли с целью грабежа преднамеренно?» (текста не помню).  
I remember only the answer to the presiding judge's first and chief question, that is, "did he kill with the deliberate aim of robbery?" (I do not recall the exact wording).
> The particle «ли» frames the yes/no question: The formal verdict question fronts the focused verb «убил» and follows it with the enclitic «ли» — the bookish way to pose 'did he kill…?'. This is the legal register, not casual question intonation.
> Genitive of purpose: «грабежа»: «С целью грабежа» = 'with the aim of robbery', where «грабежа» stands in the genitive as the thing aimed at ('the goal of robbery'). The phrase is set legal language.

Всё замерло.  
Everything froze.
> Perfective «замереть» — froze in an instant: «Замерло» (perfective, neuter past agreeing with «всё») captures a single completed snap into stillness — 'everything died / froze'. The terse two-word sentence enacts the held breath.

Старшина присяжных, именно тот чиновник, который был всех моложе, громко и ясно, при мертвенной тишине залы, провозгласил:  
The foreman of the jury, the very official who was the youngest of them all, in the deathly stillness of the hall pronounced, loudly and clearly:
> «Старшина присяжных» — jury foreman: The «старшина» is the elected foreman or head; «старшина присяжных» is the foreman of the jury who announces the verdict. The word elsewhere names a village or military elder.
> Comparative + genitive «всех»: the superlative: «Всех моложе» ('younger than all') is the idiomatic Russian superlative built from the comparative «моложе» (from «молодой») plus genitive «всех» — 'the youngest of them all'. The «который» clause relativises «тот чиновник».
> «при» + prepositional: 'amid': «При мертвенной тишине залы» means 'in / amid the deathly stillness of the hall'. The preposition «при» governs the prepositional case and sets a circumstantial backdrop. «мертвенная» (deathly, deathlike) is more literary than plain «мёртвая».
> «провозгласить» — to proclaim solemnly: «Провозгласил» is a weighty, ceremonial 'pronounced / proclaimed', far above plain «сказал». It lends the foreman's single word the gravity of a public declaration.

— Да, виновен!  
— Yes, guilty!
> Short-form adjective «виновен»: «Виновен» ('guilty') is the predicative short form of «виновный», carrying only gender/number, never standing before a noun. The short form states a verdict-like absolute condition — exactly its legal force here.

И потом по всем пунктам пошло всё то же: виновен да виновен, и это без малейшего снисхождения!  
And then on every point it went on just the same: guilty, and guilty again, and that without the slightest leniency!
> «пойти» = 'it went on / off': «Пошло» (perfective neuter past) here means 'it started up / kept going' rather than literal motion — 'on every point it went the same way'. «всё то же» = 'all the same thing'.
> «без» + genitive superlative «малейшего»: «Без малейшего снисхождения» = 'without the slightest leniency'. «без» governs the genitive, and «малейший» is the bookish suffixal superlative ('least, slightest') of «малый», agreeing with «снисхождения».

Этого уж никто не ожидал, в снисхождении-то по крайней мере почти все были уверены.  
This no one had expected; nearly everyone, at least, had felt sure of leniency.
> Genitive object «этого» under negation: «Этого … не ожидал» ('no one expected this') puts the object in the genitive «этого» under the negated verb. The particle «уж» (worn-down «уже») adds resigned emphasis: 'this, now, nobody expected'.
> Topic clitic «-то» on the prepositional: «В снисхождении-то» foregrounds 'leniency' as the known topic ('of leniency, at least, all were sure'). The clitic «-то» rides on the prepositional-case noun governed by «в».

Мертвая тишина залы не прерывалась, буквально как бы все окаменели — и жаждавшие осуждения, и жаждавшие оправдания.  
The deathly hush of the hall held unbroken—literally as if everyone had turned to stone — those who had craved a conviction and those who had craved an acquittal alike.
> Imperfective reflexive «прерываться»: «Не прерывалась» (imperfective, reflexive «-ся») gives the durative sense 'kept not being broken / held unbroken'. The «-ся» here is a middle/passive: the silence 'was not interrupted'.
> «как бы» + past: 'as if': «Как бы … окаменели» ('as if everyone had turned to stone') uses «как бы» with the past to mark a simile/seeming. «окаменели» (perfective, 'turned to stone') makes the petrifaction vivid and complete.
> Substantivised past active participle: «Жаждавшие» is the past active participle of «жаждать» (to thirst, crave), used as a noun: 'those who had craved'. Each governs a genitive object («осуждения», «оправдания»), and the paired participles balance the two factions.

Но это только в первые минуты.  
But that lasted only the first few moments.
> Verbless 'to be' sentence: There is no copula: 'but this [was] only in the first minutes'. Present-tense Russian omits 'to be', and here even the implied past «было» is left out for clipped speed.

Затем поднялся страшный хаос.  
Then a fearful chaos broke loose.
> Verb-subject inversion for narrative onset: «Поднялся … хаос» places the perfective verb (reflexive «подняться», to rise up) before its subject, the new information «страшный хаос». This topic-comment order — adverb, verb, then the news — drives Russian narrative rhythm.

Из мужской публики много оказалось очень довольных.  
Among the men in the audience a great many turned out to be very pleased.
> «много» + genitive plural: «Много … довольных» ('many [of the] satisfied ones') takes the genitive plural after the quantifier «много». «довольных» is a substantivised adjective ('the pleased ones'), and «оказалось» (turned out) is impersonal neuter.

Иные так даже потирали руки, не скрывая своей радости.  
Some even rubbed their hands, not hiding their delight.
> Present gerund «не скрывая»: «Не скрывая» is the imperfective present gerund («деепричастие») of «скрывать» — 'while not hiding', an attendant circumstance sharing the subject of «потирали». «своей радости» uses reflexive «свой» ('their own joy') and the genitive after the negated gerund.
> «потирать руки» — to rub one's hands: The idiom «потирать руки» means to rub the hands together in gleeful satisfaction. The imperfective «потирали» pictures the gesture as ongoing, gloating.

Недовольные были как бы подавлены, пожимали плечами, шептались, но как будто всё еще не сообразившись.  
The dissatisfied seemed crushed; they shrugged their shoulders and whispered, but as though they still had not taken it in.
> Short passive participle «подавлены»: «Подавлены» is the short-form past passive participle of «подавить» (to crush, suppress), forming a periphrastic passive with «были»: 'were as if crushed'. «как бы» softens it to 'seemed crushed'.
> Past gerund «не сообразившись»: «Не сообразившись» is the perfective past gerund of reflexive «сообразиться» — 'not having grasped / taken it in'. «как будто всё ещё не сообразившись» = 'as though still not having quite figured it out'.

Но, боже мой, что сталось с нашими дамами!  
But, my God, what became of our ladies!
> «Боже мой!» — vocative exclamation: «Боже» is the Church-Slavonic vocative of «Бог» (God), surviving in the fixed cry «боже мой!» ('my God!'). It survives only in such exclamations and prayer.
> Reflexive «статься» — 'what became of': «Что сталось с …» ('what became of…') is a fixed reflexive idiom; «с нашими дамами» uses «с» + instrumental. The narrator's amused 'our ladies' is a running affectionate-ironic refrain in the trial chapters.

Я думал, что они сделают бунт.  
I thought they would raise a riot.
> «что»-clause of expectation: «Я думал, что они сделают бунт» — the subordinator «что» reports anticipated fact, with the perfective future «сделают» ('would make / raise'). The comma before «что» is obligatory in Russian.

Сначала они как бы не верили ушам своим.  
At first they seemed not to believe their own ears.
> Dative object of «верить»: «Верить» governs the dative: «не верили ушам своим» = 'did not believe their own ears'. «своим» is reflexive «свой» agreeing with the dative «ушам», and «как бы» frames it as a seeming.

И вдруг, на всю залу, послышались восклицания: «Да что это такое? Это еще что такое?»  
And suddenly, across the whole hall, exclamations rang out: "Why, what is this? What on earth is this now?"
> Reflexive «послышаться» + V-S order: «Послышались восклицания» ('exclamations were heard') puts the reflexive perfective verb before its subject. «-ся» here gives a passive/middle sense ('became audible'), and «на всю залу» means 'across the whole hall'.
> «Да … же» of indignation: «Да что это такое?» and «Это ещё что такое?» are stock exclamations of outraged disbelief — 'why, what is this?!'. Sentence-initial «да» and «ещё» here carry feeling, not their literal 'yes' and 'still'.

Они повскакали с мест своих.  
They leapt up from their seats.
> Distributive prefix «по-» on «вскакать»: «Повскакали» stacks «по-» (distributive, 'one after another / all of them') onto «вскочить» (to leap up): 'they all jumped up'. «с мест своих» uses «с» + genitive ('up from their seats') and reflexive «свой».

Им, верно, казалось, что всё это сейчас же можно опять переменить и переделать.  
It seemed to them, no doubt, that all of it could be changed and redone again on the spot.
> Dative experiencer with «казаться»: «Им … казалось» is an impersonal experiencer construction: the dative «им» names those to whom 'it seemed', with no nominative subject. «верно» here means 'no doubt, surely'.
> Impersonal «можно» + perfective infinitives: «Можно … переменить и переделать» — 'it was possible to change and redo'. The modal «можно» governs the perfective infinitives, framing the ladies' naive belief that the verdict could be undone at a stroke.

В это мгновение вдруг поднялся Митя и каким-то раздирающим воплем прокричал, простирая пред собой руки:  
At that instant Mitya suddenly rose and, stretching his hands out before him, cried out in some heart-rending wail:
> Present gerund «простирая» + archaic «пред»: «Простирая … руки» is the imperfective gerund of «простирать» (to stretch out), a simultaneous action. «пред собой» uses the bookish, shortened «пред» (= «перед», before) plus instrumental of the reflexive «себя» — 'before himself'.
> Instrumental of manner + «-то»: «Каким-то … воплем» is the instrumental of manner ('with some heart-rending wail'). «какой-то» ('some kind of') with the «-то» clitic marks the cry as strange and indefinable, and «раздирающий» is a present active participle ('tearing, rending') used as an adjective.

— Клянусь богом и Страшным судом его, в крови отца моего не виновен!  
— I swear by God and by His dread Judgment, I am not guilty of my father's blood!
> Reflexive «клясться» + instrumental: «Клянусь» (reflexive «клясться», to swear) takes the instrumental of what one swears by: «богом и Страшным судом его» — 'by God and by His dread Judgment'. The verb exists only in the «-ся» form.
> «виновен в» + prepositional: «Не виновен в крови» — 'not guilty of the blood' — uses the short adjective «виновен» with «в» + prepositional to name the charge. «отца моего» (genitive, 'of my father') and the postposed possessive «моего» give the cry a biblical cadence.

Катя, прощаю тебе!  
Katya, I forgive you!
> Dative with «прощать»: «Прощаю тебе» — 'I forgive you' — takes the dative «тебе» (to forgive is done 'to' someone). «Катя» is the tender short form of Екатерина (Katerina Ivanovna).

Братья, други, пощадите другую!  
Brothers, friends, have mercy on the other one!
> «други» — archaic plural of «друг»: «Други» is the elevated, old-fashioned vocative-flavoured plural of «друг» (friend), where modern Russian says «друзья». It heightens Mitya's outcry into solemn, almost biblical address.
> Imperative «пощадите» + accusative: «Пощадите» is the perfective plural/polite imperative of «пощадить» (to spare, have mercy on), with accusative object «другую» ('the other woman' — Grushenka). The «-те» marks address to more than one or politeness.

Он не договорил и зарыдал на всю залу, в голос, страшно, каким-то не своим, а новым, неожиданным каким-то голосом, который бог знает откуда вдруг у него явился.  
He did not finish and broke into sobs that filled the whole hall, aloud, terrible, in some voice not his own, but new, unexpected, that had suddenly risen in him from God knows where.
> Inceptive «за-»: burst into sobs: «Зарыдал» adds the inceptive «за-» to «рыдать» (to sob): 'burst out sobbing'. «на всю залу» ('through the whole hall') stresses how the sound filled the room.
> Contrastive «а» within the instrumental phrase: A long instrumental-of-manner phrase 'in some voice not his own, but new' hangs on «голосом». The contrastive «а» ('but rather') corrects «не своим» to «новым», a hallmark of Russian's not-X-but-Y construction.
> Relative «который» + «бог знает откуда»: The relative «который» refers back to «голос», taking nominative as subject of its own clause «явился» (appeared). «бог знает откуда» ('God knows whence') is a fixed indefinite phrase woven into the relative clause.

На хорах, наверху, в самом заднем углу раздался пронзительный женский вопль: это была Грушенька.  
From the gallery above, in the very farthest corner, a piercing woman's cry rang out: it was Grushenka.
> Verb-first with reflexive «раздаться»: «Раздался … вопль» ('a cry rang out') again fronts the perfective reflexive verb before its subject «вопль», the new information. «раздаться» («-ся» middle) means a sound suddenly resounds.

Она умолила кого-то еще давеча, и ее вновь пропустили в залу еще пред началом судебных прений.  
She had pleaded with someone earlier that day, and she had been let back into the hall again before the closing arguments began.
> «давеча» — 'a little while ago': «Давеча» is a folksy, archaic adverb meaning 'earlier today, just now / a while back'. It dates the narrator's voice and is common in Dostoevsky's reported speech.
> Subjectless 3rd-plural = passive: «Её … пропустили» ('she was let through / admitted') uses an agentless 3rd-person plural — the standard Russian way to express an impersonal passive, 'they let her in' = 'she was let in'.

Митю увели.  
Mitya was led away.
> Agentless passive: «увели»: «Митю увели» — 'Mitya was led away' — is the 3rd-plural impersonal passive: no agent, object first («Митю», accusative). Two stark words enact the finality of his removal.

Произнесение приговора было отложено до завтра.  
The pronouncement of the sentence was put off until the next day.
> Periphrastic passive «было отложено»: «Было отложено» joins «было» to the short past passive participle «отложено» (from «отложить», to postpone): 'was put off'. «до завтра» ('until tomorrow') uses «до» + genitive.

Вся зала поднялась в суматохе, но я уже не ждал и не слушал.  
The whole hall rose in a commotion, but I was no longer waiting and no longer listening.
> Imperfective past of states: «Уже не ждал и не слушал» ('was no longer waiting or listening') uses imperfective pasts for ongoing (or here, ceased-ongoing) states. «уже не» = 'no longer'.
> «суматоха» — a flurry, hubbub: «Суматоха» is a noisy bustle, commotion, or scramble. «в суматохе» ('in a commotion') paints the whole hall rising in disordered tumult.

Запомнил лишь несколько восклицаний, уже на крыльце, при выходе.  
I remembered only a few exclamations, already on the porch, as people were leaving.
> «несколько» + genitive plural: «Несколько восклицаний» ('a few exclamations') governs the genitive plural after the quantifier «несколько». «лишь» ('only') is a bookish synonym of «только».
> «крыльцо» — the entrance porch: «Крыльцо» is the covered front porch or steps of a building. «на крыльце … при выходе» places the overheard remarks at the courthouse door as the crowd streams out.

— Двадцать лет рудничков понюхает.  
— He'll get a whiff of the mines for twenty years.
> «понюхать рудничков» — get a whiff of the mines: «Понюхает рудничков» literally 'will sniff the little mines': a grimly jocular way of saying he'll do hard labour in the Siberian mines. The diminutive «рудничков» (gen. pl. of «рудничок») gives the brutal sentence a cruelly offhand, folksy tone.

— Не меньше.  
— No less.
> Elliptical comparative «не меньше»: «Не меньше» ('no less') is a bare comparative reply, with the rest understood from the previous line: 'twenty years — no less [than that]'. «меньше» is the suppletive comparative of «малый/мало».

— Да-с, мужички наши за себя постояли.  
— Yes indeed, our peasants stood firm.
> «постоять за» + accusative: The idiom «постоять за себя» means 'to stand up for oneself, hold one's ground'. Here «мужички наши за себя постояли» (our peasants stood firm) gives the chapter its title; «за» governs the accusative reflexive «себя».
> «мужички» — the diminutive of «мужик»: «Мужички» (little peasants) softens «мужики» with a diminutive that carries a faintly patronising, ironic warmth toward the jurymen who refused to be swayed by the polished city lawyer.
> The deferential clitic «-с»: «Да-с» tacks the obsequious particle «-с» (a worn-down «сударь», 'sir') onto 'yes'. This «словоерс» marked polite, servile, or self-important speech in the 19th century and instantly colours the speaker's social register.

— И покончили нашего Митеньку!  
— And they've finished off our Mitenka!
> Animate accusative = genitive form: «Нашего Митеньку» is accusative, but because Mitya is animate masculine the object takes genitive-shaped endings («нашего»). «покончили» (perfective, 'finished off / did for') with the affectionate diminutive «Митеньку» lands the chapter on a note of grim pity.
---

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.